White Hose

[Nighthawk]

But neither of the gents pictured above is wearing anything close to historical highland attire...

Red wool garters, great kilt, hand knitted socks... Other than Kurt's modern kilt, I don't see the problems (and in Kurt's defense, it was hot the weekend this picture was taken, and only Doc was still in his great kilt!) I know Doc's boots aren't strictly Highland, but they are accurate to the period, and were readily available on the British isles, so there's no reason a Highlander couldn't have owned a pair. One thing that people, especially reenactors and living historians, get caught up in is strict cultural segregation. That didn't happen! Cultures then, like today, mingled with each other. There would be a distinct cultural identity, but except in extreme cases, not an exclusive cultural identity, if you get my meaning. There are, for example, a lot of Nordic influences in Scotland. And that is really the philosophy we go by- distinctly Scottish, but obviously a part of the period overall... if that makes any sense at all!!

And an interesting thing I've noticed- some people take issue with the doublets. They're just sleeveless versions of this:

http://jas-townsend.com/product_info...roducts_id=417

They were pretty common throughout Europe. Yes, they're a little later than our actual period of 1690-1745, but they're really practical, so we have to factor that in.

[davidlpope]

Red wool garters, great kilt, hand knitted socks... Other than Kurt's modern kilt, I don't see the problems...

I know Doc's boots aren't strictly Highland, but they are accurate to the period, and were readily available on the British isles, so there's no reason a Highlander couldn't have owned a pair.

My knowledge is admittingly limited, but my understanding is that hose were cadagh cut on the bias, not knit (if hose were in fact worn), shoes would be hair-on deer hide (see article here: http://www.tartansauthority.com/high...ent/redshankes), and the breacan felidh would be the only form of the kilt.

No modern shoes, kilts, sporrans, or knit kilt hose. No drum-died garment-leather ren-faire boots with rubber soles.

The "there's no reason that" argument just isn't convincing to me. It's the same line of thought that leads to bogus Civil War reenactmenting ("see, my persona is a recent immigrant from Scotland to Kentucky who is used to wearing the kilt and didn't have time to find uniform trousers to put on..."). Better instead, if one is attempting to portray a specific period, portray only what is documented.

[Zardoz]

There goes this thread!

[Dall_Piobaire]

There goes this thread!

Nah, I don't think so, but I have to agree with what David is saying. It's perfectly fine to define your own style, wear what you want, how you want. However, if one is portraying a historical period or figure, or even a traditional wear, paying attention to the details really pays off for everyone.

So many who really have no idea of what's what seem to rely on here say or Hollywood for historicity, and that does no one a bit of good.

This isn't directed at anyone in this thread or this forum, the very fact that those who are here, are here, belies a desire to understand. JMHO

Scott

[tripleblessed]

Yes, period accuracy is important for reenactors, HOWEVER, Nighthawk is on more than firm ground. By the early 17th century Scots were already leaving
to serve in the military in far-flung places, sailors traveled far and wide and brought home all sorts of things to wear and share. And let us not forget Viking runes of a style not used after the 5th century were found on a stele in
Missouri. Not to mention Roman coins in the wampum belts of the Choctaw,
and the very interesting fact that copper mined in the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan was found sealed up in the pyramids. While not widespread, cultural
interaction did occur, and with it trade and souvenirs.

[Nighthawk]

My knowledge is admittingly limited, but my understanding is that hose were cadagh cut on the bias, not knit (if hose were in fact worn), shoes would be hair-on deer hide (see article here: http://www.tartansauthority.com/high...ent/redshankes), and the breacan felidh would be the only form of the kilt.

No modern shoes, kilts, sporrans, or knit kilt hose. No drum-died garment-leather ren-faire boots with rubber soles.

The "there's no reason that" argument just isn't convincing to me. It's the same line of thought that leads to bogus Civil War reenactmenting ("see, my persona is a recent immigrant from Scotland to Kentucky who is used to wearing the kilt and didn't have time to find uniform trousers to put on..."). Better instead, if one is attempting to portray a specific period, portray only what is documented.

First, on the subject of the great kilt... From the Scottish Tartans Museum website, as written by our own Matt Newsome, http://www.scottishtartans.org/kilt.html:

"There does not appear to have been a standard length as this woodcut of Scottish soldiers from 1641 clearly shows.
"

We portray from around 1690-1745. The great kilt is shown to have been a more or less standardized garment since before 1641. The hose... I've already addressed that... Heavy tartan cadagh are just too hot here in Colorado! We know that knitted hose aren't right, and we tell people that.

Second, your argument about Civil War reenactors and their persona's don't really apply to us. Civil War soldiers would have been issued uniforms, in some manner or other, even on the Confederate side (although that was less common than with the Union.) Also, Scots immigrating here during the Civil War were most likely commoners, and the kilt was more a garment worn by the aristocracy at the time, owing to the tartan and Highland wear ban after the last Jacobite rising was put down, so any immigrant Scot would most likely have had trousers already, anyway. Regardless, we're a civilian group, and those boots Doc is wearing... they're nothing even resembling "drum-died garment-leather ren-faire boots with rubber soles." I know because I watched the man make them from pictures of museum pieces! Well, OK, he did use rubber soles... But that's a safety issue. Shoes made from drum died leather were certainly available! Drum dying has been around since the Roman Empire. Latigo leather and oil dyed leather have been around almost as long as vegetable tanned leather. This picture of a 1708 gentleman clearly shows drum dyed leather brogues:



So while we're not completely accurate, we can tell you where we're off and why. We don't hide it. I admit freely that I wear a kilt made from PV, and not wool. You know why? 'Cause heatstroke ain't fun!! Ask me how I know... And let's not even get started on my Fur Trapper era Southwestern merchant's tent. It's not the right period- it's not even the right part of the world! But you know what? It's what I have to work with. I know it's not right, and I will be taking steps this summer to correct that- mainly by offering product in exchange for donations to my Shetland tent! Which, by the way, my buddy Robert Hay (a Shetland native) and myself are in the process of building. So are we perfect? No! Are we good? Well, we're the single biggest draw for the majority of the small games and festivals, so we must be doing something right!

If I've managed to peak your interest, please pay us a visit at www.renscots.org

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Yes, period accuracy is important for reenactors, HOWEVER, Nighthawk is on more than firm ground. By the early 17th century Scots were already leaving
to serve in the military in far-flung places, sailors traveled far and wide and brought home all sorts of things to wear and share. And let us not forget Viking runes of a style not used after the 5th century were found on a stele in
Missouri. Not to mention Roman coins in the wampum belts of the Choctaw,
and the very interesting fact that copper mined in the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan was found sealed up in the pyramids. While not widespread, cultural
interaction did occur, and with it trade and souvenirs.

There is a difference between the "quasi-crypto-history" as seen on Discovery TV, and which is often conjured up out of a producer's hat, and "living history" or "reenacted history" which carries with it the underlying responsibility of having to be 100% historically accurate, not merely interpreted to suit the whim of the reenactor.

Yes, cultural interaction did occur. But simply because there were winged lancers in Poland in the 17th century doesn't mean that someone portraying a mounted Scottish soldier of the same period should show up with wings and a lance, even though cultural interaction may have made a 17th century Scot aware of Polish lancers. The purpose of "living history" is to portray the norm, not the aberration, and certainly not the imagined aberration of the reenactor.

That said, it is "anything goes" at renn-faires and SCA events, where the emphasis is on the participants having a good time, rather than providing the general public with an accurate representation of the renaissance or the historic middle ages.

[macwilkin]

Yes, period accuracy is important for reenactors, HOWEVER, Nighthawk is on more than firm ground. By the early 17th century Scots were already leaving
to serve in the military in far-flung places, sailors traveled far and wide and brought home all sorts of things to wear and share. And let us not forget Viking runes of a style not used after the 5th century were found on a stele in
Missouri. Not to mention Roman coins in the wampum belts of the Choctaw,
and the very interesting fact that copper mined in the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan was found sealed up in the pyramids. While not widespread, cultural
interaction did occur, and with it trade and souvenirs.

The key phrase being, "While not widespread...". In NPS we were taught as a living history interpreters to avoid the extraordinary things of a particular period, and instead portray the common person of the period. I agree with David.

T.

[macwilkin]

Second, your argument about Civil War reenactors and their persona's don't really apply to us. Civil War soldiers would have been issued uniforms, in some manner or other, even on the Confederate side (although that was less common than with the Union.) Also, Scots immigrating here during the Civil War were most likely commoners, and the kilt was more a garment worn by the aristocracy at the time, owing to the tartan and Highland wear ban after the last Jacobite rising was put down, so any immigrant Scot would most likely have had trousers already, anyway.

Just a point of clarification, but not necessarily. Here in Missouri, the pro-Southern Missouri State Guard was not issued uniforms per se (save a few volunteer militia units such as the Washington Blues of St. Louis), but wore their ordinary mufti as their "uniforms", along with civilian squirrel rifles, shotguns, etc. Even members of the Confederate Army frequently found themselves wearing civilian kit (begged, borrowed or stolen), as Richmond and the Southern states simply did not have the industrial infrastructure to produce mass quanities of uniforms. Even Northern soldiers, who dealt with shoddy kit (we're talking lowest bidder here), frequently replaced issue gear with civilian items (the practical Western slouch hat comes to mind), and at the beginning of the war, some states simply did not have the money to outfit their volunteer regiments. Private Eugene Ware of the 1st Iowa Infantry, for example, documents his "borrowing" a pair of trousers hanging on the line outside a cabin in Southwest Missouri, and how other soldiers patched their "holy trousers" with flour sacks to preserve their modesty.

Such fine distinctions, while not well-known to the general public, did exist.

T.

[tripleblessed]

I am not talking "quasi-crypto-history" from Discovery TV, any more than I am referring to Hollywood movies, which assertion has been made before by the same poster. I really don't like to get personal unless it's a positive comment,
but I see that some don't seem to be able to discuss as gentlemanly adults.
I might suggest getting out more, and talking to researchers if one has any
interest in knowledge as opposed to what's thought by the armchair observer
to be likely to have happened then because this expert said so without going to
look.

I have no wish to be put back on ignore by everyone, but I do my best to be positive and supportive of the knowledge and accomplishments of all on the forum. It gets old being slammed in return just because I have sought out interesting and unusual areas of study. The people who know me best find me to be reasonably well informed and accurate. If you don't like
something I post, don't agree, but NEVER assume I don't have a solid basis for my statement.

And I agree that accuracy is important, and that in formal reenacting, standard is better, but real life has rarely been standard.