Why is a kilt today 8 yards

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Quite right. The "double box pleat" style was invented by Lady Chrystel in France just a few years ago.

[macwilkin]

Well whole I am opining let me toss out another thought. The military of the british empire was and is steeped in traditions that are quite odd by today's standards. Remember this was the very same military that thought it good form to stand in the wide open in neat ranks while being sniped at by riflemen binding behind every rock and tree. They even obliged their adversaries by continuing to cover their center mass with scarlet tunics. It surprises me not that the military kilt grew from a purely utilitarian garment to a mass of excess cloth if for no other reason than the british empire's long standing preference of military tradition over today's utilitarian practicality. What was that line about mad dogs and englishmen? I imagine that if the kilt were still a combat uniform today we would see something like a utilikilt on the front lines.

...except the story of the British Redcoats being sniped at by colonials taking cover is largely a myth. Washington knew that the only way to defeat the British was to field a force that was trained in European tactics. Washington distrusted the militia in combat and used the experience of European officers like Von Stueben to instill training & discipline in the newly organized Continental Line. See Don Higginbotham's excellent book George Washington and the American Military Tradition for a good debunking of this myth.

Not to mention the fact that linear tactics was designed for the smoothbore musket as a way to increase firepower -- rifles, while more accurate, were slow to load and frequently fouled due to the tight-fitting grooves, making their use by line infantry as worthless. Think of a line of soldiers as like a giant shotgun; the purpose is to send enough lead down range to inflict damage on your enemy, and in order to do so, soldiers have to be trained in the drill until it became second nature. The effective range of a flintlock musket is 100 yards, so close quarters combat was the only way to produce victory.

While there were some instances of colonials hiding behind the rocks & trees, the last major battle of the Revolution was a traditional European siege. (Yorktown) Washington's strategy was not guerilla warfare, but a war of attrition -- as long as the Continental Line survived, so did the Revolution. Washington outlasted the British, losing more engagements than winning them.

Brightly coloured uniforms were also part of the idea, as it created a psychological factor. While rifle and light infantry units adopted the traditional "jager green" of hunters, line infantry of all nations wore brightly coloured uniforms throughout the 18th & 19th century, including the US Army, which wore "Army Blue" all the way to the eve of the First World War. And don't forget that it was the British Empire that gave the world Khaki, which the US Army adopted in 1898-1899; the British adopted variants of it in the 1860s for the forces of the Raj.

Also, before being too hard on the British, remember that a lot of Americans died as a result of linear tactics from the Revolution to the Civil War; tactics that had their origins in Prussia, Napoleonic France and Great Britain.

There's an excellent book on this source called Hinterland Soldiers and Military Dress: European Uniforms and Exotic Dress by Thomas Abler; one chapter discusses the uniform of the Highlander soldier in some detail.

T.

[macwilkin]

One item of historical note. This increase in yardage occurred during the height of the British empire. Military budgets would have been at their highest and by the end of the victorian era excess was the norm.

If this were the case, then why did the British government propose doing away with individual regimental tartans in favour of one universal one?

http://www.tartansauthority.com/rese...light/childers

T.

[macwilkin]

i was hoping someone would make both of these points.

making high quality uniforms and having the best equipment would project to the world that you have considerable resources-so, it would not be a good idea to pick a fight. it is better to win a conflict without having to fire a shot.

a well designed and constructed uniform helps to instill pride in the soldier, which in turn helps him feel confident and project a powerful presence. recruiting would also be enhanced at a time when the empire needed soldiers all over the world

us marine recruitment ads show both how tough they are and how terrific they look in dress blues. think of the effect of seeing a marine in dress blues and all the symbolism associated therewith. the uniform effects the marine and the observer. all of the armed services deserve our respect, but i use the marines as my example since i think that the marines have been extremely effective with promoting their image.

appearance has multiple practical military purposes. perhaps in the 19th century, the brits wanted to enhance their image of being rich and powerful, which was reflected both in military uniforms and in civilian attire.

There's an excellent book on this source called Hinterland Soldiers and Military Dress: European Uniforms and Exotic Dress by Thomas Abler.

T.

[opositive]

thank you for pointing me in the direction of the book, cajunscot. amazon had a used copy for only $13.50. the description of the book sounds interesting since i like to know both what and why things happened. this will be the third book i have bought on the advice of xmarks.