Wearing a basket hilt.?.

[davidlpope]

Exactly what would the "tradition" of a small knife tucked away in a sock be, but to jam it in someone if the need arose?

Well, I've never "jammed" someone with my sgian dubh, but I have used mine to cut "zip-ties", string, loosen knots in rope, cut apples, cheese, etc.- basically anything one would use a knife for in everyday situations.

I know some talk about it's use as a skinning/utilitarian knife, but then why carry it to gatherings, dinners, etc, where there was very little skinning of animals?

It's become an accepted part of Traditional Highland Civilian Dress and is an additional item of decoration.

Modern Basket-Hilted Broadswords, though, have a specific meaning- they are part of a uniform and identify those who have achieved a particular rank in a Scottish/Highland Regiment or hold a comparable rank in a pseudo-military context (i.e. Drum Major in a Pipe Band while wearing his band uniform).

[Jock Scot]

SlackerDrummer.

What the Scots military do and wear has very little to do with what Scots civilians wear. Three hundred years ago things were very different in Scotland. These days and for at least the last 100 years or so Scots civilians do not wear swords apart from a minority of a minority, posing for pictures . We here in Scotland whilst mildly interested in re-enactments regard all that history stuff as just a bit of history and just get on with wearing our 100 year old style kilts and argyll jackets. Why? Because frankly, they have stood the test of time and in reality no one yet, has come up with a better design.

If the Americans or Canadians or wherever they may come from, with Scots roots want to do their "Old"country a disservice then carry on with this play acting because the world of swords, targes, great kilts, 1790 history re-enactment societies, Jacobite memorial societies are all very interesting to some and good fun too no doubt. But its theatre and has nothing to do with Scotland of today,yesterday, last week, last decade, last centuary and beyond.

I know you all do not mean any harm but harm you are doing by not representing my country, NOT YOURS, to the uneducated (why should most people know the facts about Scotland?) who think what you do over there is what we do over here AND WE DONT!For example, your Highland Games are nothing like ours and we don't see the need to be festooned ,at any excuse, with blades either. Yes its brigadoonary at its worst I am afraid, unintentional though it is.

[Biathlonman]

I have shortened the straps which hold my sword - used for re-enacting only - because I gather the normal way of wearing a sword was to let it hang fairly low - a terrible nuisance. Marching with a sword one doesn't want it dragging or getting caught between one's legs - and one may remember that all men of a certain class wore these things at one time in Europe. It was the mark of a gentleman.

My sword belt - from The Highland Brigade - thankfully came with hooks to keep everything as high and out of the way as possible. If you are lucky enough to have a dirk, go with that instead and save yourself a lot of bother.

[Ryan Ross]

Maybe. And in most cases, probably. I'll confess that while applauding the carrying of weapons as a general thing, I tend to think poorly of people carrying weapons they have no clue how to actually use properly. I happen to be competent with various types of swords (NOT including rapiers or smallswords among them), and I never carry a weapon I don't know how to use well.

Very well said, Sir!

...and that goes for me as well, 100%.

[Dale Seago]

A Sgian dubh is justifiable on the grounds of utility and tradition, dirks and swords are made and designed for one purpose only - killing people.

Dirks and swords are simply part of an older Scottish tradition than the sgian dubh, and they were quite utilitarian and fit for their intended purpose back in the day. Just be thankful we don't borrow things from TOO far back in Gaelic culture and go head-hunting.

As for dirks and swords being "designed for one purpose only" (insert
Seinfeld quote: "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"). . .Where the sword is concerned, yes. The dirk, however, while certainly a weapon (one on which binding oaths were traditionally sworn, no less), was also a utilitarian tool. There are accounts of clansmen using them in the salmon fisheries, for example. (EDIT: On the fish, not on each other.)

[Harold Cannon]

I really dont see the big deal! I personally wouldn't wear one but thats me. The only case in wich I would wear one is for one of those old time pictures you see of all the highland chiefs. Which I plan on doing at some point. Then it goes right back on the wall.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I'm not trying to start trouble or discord but you say that "dirks and swords are made and designed for one purpose, killing people."

Exactly what would the "tradition" of a small knife tucked away in a sock be, but to jam it in someone if the need arose? I know some talk about it's use as a skinning/utilitarian knife, but then why carry it to gatherings, dinners, etc, where there was very little skinning of animals? I think it splits hairs a little much to claim their purposes were dissimilar.

The flaw in this line of argument is that by 1782 (the year the proscription on Highland attire was repealed), Scotland was "pacified", and had been for about half a century. It is not until about 1800 that the sgian dubh first makes it presence known, and the first datable reference is probably Raeburn's portrait of "The Macnab", painted c.1806, a time when the only "clan feuds" to be found were between the covers of novels penned by Sir Walter Scott.

The bald truth of it-- no hair splitting here-- is that the sgian dubh dates from around 1800, and was a small utility knife, conveniently carried in the top of the stocking by those whose mode of dress lacked pockets. As Highland attire became more elaborate, so, too, did the sgian dubh, but without loosing it's intended utilitarian purpose.

[Andy Proffitt]

Well, I've never "jammed" someone with my sgian dubh, but I have used mine to cut "zip-ties", string, loosen knots in rope, cut apples, cheese, etc.- basically anything one would use a knife for in everyday situations.





It's become an accepted part of Traditional Highland Civilian Dress and is an additional item of decoration.

Modern Basket-Hilted Broadswords, though, have a specific meaning- they are part of a uniform and identify those who have achieved a particular rank in a Scottish/Highland Regiment or hold a comparable rank in a pseudo-military context (i.e. Drum Major in a Pipe Band while wearing his band uniform).

I am aware and not questioning its use in Highland dress, and for that matter I've not jammed anyone with mine...save maybe a sandwich.

What I was questioning was the line of logic (as I read it) that stated the dirk and sword were designed for killing people/defense of ones person, but that the sgian was somehow other. I highly doubt that the sgian came about when someone looked at his hose and decided they needed an extra bit of decoration.

The sgian is a utilitarian design, and I use it as such. But if what is being stated is that one of those utilities was not defense, I'm not sure I can buy that.

Yes, by the 1800's Scotland was pacified, at least there was no organized armed movement, and in America at the same time, the Revolutionary War was over, but does the end of armed national conflict mean that violence ceased in both areas? Did criminals cease their activities in Scotland, did rape robbery and murder disappear? Would someone faced with such not use the sgian they had in their stocking top in the same way as a dirk or sword? That is one of the inherent utilities of any blade, defense.

Sorry to offend, but it piqued the odd logic/quandary/human nature portion of my brain. I probably thought too much about it.

[Geoff Withnell]

I'm not trying to start trouble or discord but you say that "dirks and swords are made and designed for one purpose, killing people."

Exactly what would the "tradition" of a small knife tucked away in a sock be, but to jam it in someone if the need arose? I know some talk about it's use as a skinning/utilitarian knife, but then why carry it to gatherings, dinners, etc, where there was very little skinning of animals? I think it splits hairs a little much to claim their purposes were dissimilar.

That being said, the sword, fun as it may be, is a little too much for general Highland wear, and the dirk is rarely a fit either.

Remember, the farther removed from our barbarian forebears we get, the shorter our daily blades become.

The tradition of a small knife tucked in my sock is to have a working knife at hand equivalent to a pocket knife when I don't have a pocket.

Geoff Withnell

[SlackerDrummer]

Really? Really? Why on earth would somebody wear a sword unless one were in uniform and the regs required it? Ridiculous. I hope this man didn't outfit too many members of the club in Highland dress. Sheesh!

Perhaps you should ask the gentleman whose photo you posted a while back in the vintage photos forum, Sandy. It was a scan, apparently from a book, and the text was too small for me to read completely, but I did glean that it was a clan chief in "full dress," including a broadsword. It was not a military uniform.

Modern Basket-Hilted Broadswords, though, have a specific meaning- they are part of a uniform and identify those who have achieved a particular rank in a Scottish/Highland Regiment or hold a comparable rank in a pseudo-military context (i.e. Drum Major in a Pipe Band while wearing his band uniform).

David,
This argument appears to me to be disingenuous. You are confusing the argument both with your choice of words and your example. I don't believe the "modern" basket-hilt broadsword is different from the historical version which was carried by both civilians and the military, although I may be incorrect in that assumption. I would venture to guess that most people who are wearing basket-hilt broadswords to events like highland games are wearing replicas of historical swords. So even if there is a difference between between historical swords and the modern one, your point about who has earned the right to wear the modern one is moot. More to the point, though, the basket-hilt broadsword is not at all like the modern officer's or NCO's swords, which came into being after it was no longer fashionable for citizens to wear swords (thanks to the mass production of firearms). The basket-hilt broadsword, on the other hand, was carried by civilians for centuries, so transposing military customs onto its use isn't quite fair. It would be completely fair to suggest that no one should wear the sword you earned as an officer in the Marine Corps (did I get that right?), but the two are simply not analogous.

SlackerDrummer.

What the Scots military do and wear has very little to do with what Scots civilians wear. Three hundred years ago things were very different in Scotland. These days and for at least the last 100 years or so Scots civilians do not wear swords apart from a minority of a minority, posing for pictures .

See my response to David above regarding military v. civilian, but let me make sure I've got this next part right. No one in Scotland wears swords except for the few that do?

I think the same can be said for here.

If the Americans or Canadians or wherever they may come from, with Scots roots want to do their "Old"country a disservice then carry on with this play acting because the world of swords, targes, great kilts, 1790 history re-enactment societies, Jacobite memorial societies are all very interesting to some and good fun too no doubt. But its theatre and has nothing to do with Scotland of today,yesterday, last week, last decade, last centuary and beyond.

No disrespect at all, Jock, but it may not have anything to do with Scotland of today, yesterday, last week, last decade, or last century (the 20th), but it has everything to do with Scotland beyond. There is just too much evidence of the sword's use by civilians in general, and the preference of highlanders for the basket-hilt specifically, to prove otherwise. It may be anachronistic, but it is not irrelevant.

I know you all do not mean any harm but harm you are doing by not representing my country, NOT YOURS, to the uneducated (why should most people know the facts about Scotland?) who think what you do over there is what we do over here AND WE DONT!For example, your Highland Games are nothing like ours and we don't see the need to be festooned ,at any excuse, with blades either. Yes its brigadoonary at its worst I am afraid, unintentional though it is.

First of all, let's be clear. I'm not doing anything of the sort. I don't wear a sword. I don't even own a sword. And I'm not advocating the wearing of swords, but I also think there is plenty of historical precedent for it. I stress the word historical. I am very aware of the fact that it isn't in vogue today and that it hasn't been for probably a hundred years or more. But there is nothing more brigadoonish about wearing a sword than there is about wearing one of those ridiculous "highlander" shirts or whatever they're called, but those are popular enough that even the most respected highland-wear retailers stock them. In fact, we know that swords were at some point in history worn by civilians with the kilt. And we know that shirts like that were never worn with the kilt at any point in history. Interestingly, I don't see the same ire regarding them.