Why is a kilt today 8 yards

[opositive]

now that i have had time to go through the amazon version of unicorn publications' version of bob martin's "all about your kilt" (please feel free to stab me in the heart repeatedly for purchasing from a supplier of said name), it has the color illustrations. but, as someone trying to support the forum, i would suggest obtaining your copy from a sponsor, such as the tartans museum.

reading bob martin's book "all about your kilt" reinforces my intent to get a 4 yard box plea as my first custom kilt. i like historic connections.

being cynical, i still think that the brit government promoted its native woolen and textile industry, knowing that civilian fashion followed military standards, by advancing the 8 yard knife pleat heavy wool kilt over the practical, cheaper to produce, box pleat.

[OC Richard]

being cynical, i still think that the brit government promoted its native woolen and textile industry, knowing that civilian fashion followed military standards, by advancing the 8 yard knife pleat heavy wool kilt over the practical, cheaper to produce, box pleat.

Though this theory strikes me as far-fetched (I'm not a conspiracy theory guy), I can't imagine why the Army kept increasing the yardage in their kilts when they were always trying to save money any way they could.

Usually the Army dislikes innovation, yet as the 19th century progressed they kept increasing the sett size and yardage in their kilts. What purpose was served, unless they just happened to like bigger setts?

[creagdhubh]

I like bigger setts.

[warrior]

I still hold that a larger sett is more identifiable at distance. I can only make a guess that this might be the reason for interesting the size of the sett. Now if you increase the size of the sett but retain the pleating to the stripe would it not increase the depth of the pleat, hence a longer yardage?
All this is pure speculation on my part.
Let me throw out another armchair theory. Could it be that in the early days of the regiments, even before full government adoption, the kilts were constructed of locally woven and available cloth and in all likelihood each soldier supplied his own. This would have all been small sett and definitely not standardized by any means. Fast forward to government adoption and standardization of equipment, including the manufacture of kilt cloth, and the larger sett appears. I also could see where a larger simpler setting would ease the weavers burden when manufacturing large runs of cloth. Again large setting equals deeper pleats.
To continue this train of guessing, military double box pleats do require a deeper initial pleat does it not?

[timothyjmcneeley]

Even when you get to the year 1900 you still see regimental kilts made with 6 yards of cloth. Even today, I, personally, don't use any more than 6 yards in any kilt (unless required for a larger man).

That is EXACTLY why! Over time man has gotten bigger and bigger. Back in the 1600's and 1700's obesity was reserved for the rich and wealthy. But, now obesity is as common as the common cold. So man needs more and more cloth to cover oneself.

[warrior]

That is EXACTLY why! Over time man has gotten bigger and bigger. Back in the 1600's and 1700's obesity was reserved for the rich and wealthy. But, now obesity is as common as the common cold. So man needs more and more cloth to cover oneself.

There may be something to that. I do not know of any reference material that compares the size of Scotsmen from differing eras. But if my own line can be used as an example it is true. My g grandfather was one of three males and none made it past five foot four. By all accounts my line of McLeods were noted for their small size both in height and girth. Up to that generation, the fourth born on this aide of the pond, they remained "pure" highland scot having only intermarried into other highland scot families. None of these "cousins" were noted for size. It was the next generation with with english and french blood that the giants showed up. My grandfather and his sons fell in the five ten to six foot range. Again an english/french outcross created myself and brothers at six two, six one and six foot. Sad to say an accompanying increase in girth occurred as well.

[warrior]

BTW, the timespan of the above generation is exactly 100 years. c1870, 1906, 1942 and 1969.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I still hold that a larger sett is more identifiable at distance. I can only make a guess that this might be the reason for interesting the size of the sett. Now if you increase the size of the sett but retain the pleating to the stripe would it not increase the depth of the pleat, hence a longer yardage?
All this is pure speculation on my part.
Let me throw out another armchair theory. Could it be that in the early days of the regiments, even before full government adoption, the kilts were constructed of locally woven and available cloth and in all likelihood each soldier supplied his own. This would have all been small sett and definitely not standardized by any means. Fast forward to government adoption and standardization of equipment, including the manufacture of kilt cloth, and the larger sett appears. I also could see where a larger simpler setting would ease the weavers burden when manufacturing large runs of cloth. Again large setting equals deeper pleats.
To continue this train of guessing, military double box pleats do require a deeper initial pleat does it not?

The standardization of regimental tartans took place in the 18th century, not the 19th century, when the changes in the kilt that we are discussing here took place.

[opositive]

appearance does serve a military purpose, whether for identification or for intimidation. i was reading that the british bearskin cap was adopted in honor of defeating the french grenadiers at waterloo and that the cap had the practical effect of making the soldiers appear taller and more imposing. intimidation seems to me to be a sound enough reason to adopt such a cap for the time period.

as for the kilt in the 19th century, i still have not heard what practical value adding yardage made for the military. sure, 8 yards has a better drape, more pleats look nice... but what purpose was served other than just looking better?

in another thread, mr newsome mentioned that he uses about 5 yards for a 46 inch waist when he makes a "4 yard box pleat"--so even a "soldier of substance" would not require a whole lot more material. 8 yds v 4yds is a much bigger leap to me than 4 yds v 5 yds, when dealing in military quantities and cost. even taking into consideration that people in general have gotten taller and are on average more fat, i do not think that too many active duty soldiers who had to do the actual marching and fighting were of such a girth. i doubt that doubling the amount of material in the 19th century has to do with bigger soldiers.

appearance matters, but cost matters more. having your soldiers have a nicer swish does not seem like a good enough reason for the additional cost.

[chrisupyonder]

A possible reason is that the 18th and the first half of the 19th century was the time of the little ice age. So could the extra yardage provide extra warmth? Just a thought.

Chris.