Box pleats

[Dollander]

The tartan is lovely so why don’t you just go for it. And the alternating lines is very appealing.

I agree. Not only is it more interesting than all-identical pleats, but I like how it appears to maintain a similar red-green balance as the apron rather than emphasizing one color over the other.

[Rod Roy]

Heil Hunting tartan
Kilt apron





Heil Hunting tartan
Box pleats alternating lines





Apron and pleats chosen.
My thanks to all the friendly lads who replied to my thread.

Yours Aye Rod

[Allan Thomson]

In an historical contact I meant neither , i.e. they did not exist. Therefore, if one chose to wear either it would be a personal choice but neither would be correct for the mid-18th century style of feileadh beag which, as far as we know, was an unsewn garment.

I've said this before and I'll say it again.....

Do you honestly believe in an army where tailors had the skills to reverse coats and cut them down to make alternative facing waistcoats, plus other items like breeches watch caps etc there was not the skills to stitch old plaids into a neater garnments as per the Phillabeg?

I don't buy this line of thinking that the early military phillabegs were unstitched. Think about how scruffy & prone to falling apart an unsecured phillabeg would be. I think this idea they were unstitched (at least in military use) is a fallacybased on the fact that no early examples have survived. But the skills to do it were definitely there and far more complex tasks were achieved by regimental tailors.

[figheadair]

I've said this before and I'll say it again.....

Do you honestly believe in an army where tailors had the skills to reverse coats and cut them down to make alternative facing waistcoats, plus other items like breeches watch caps etc there was not the skills to stitch old plaids into a neater garnments as per the Phillabeg?

I don't buy this line of thinking that the early military phillabegs were unstitched. Think about how scruffy & prone to falling apart an unsecured phillabeg would be. I think this idea they were unstitched (at least in military use) is a fallacybased on the fact that no early examples have survived. But the skills to do it were definitely there and far more complex tasks were achieved by regimental tailors.

I don't disagree with the logic of this arguement. My comment was in the context of the civilian feileadh beag. In the context of the Army you're right although how common the feileadh beag was for soldiers pre-1750 is questionable. The oldest surviving military kilt i.e. a sewn garment, is the mid-1790s but which time there had been a considerable amount of standardisation, for example; in cloth production.

[Allan Thomson]

I don't disagree with the logic of this arguement. My comment was in the context of the civilian feileadh beag. In the context of the Army you're right although how common the feileadh beag was for soldiers pre-1750 is questionable. The oldest surviving military kilt i.e. a sewn garment, is the mid-1790s but which time there had been a considerable amount of standardisation, for example; in cloth production.

The problem is the lack of surviving examples is not in itself evidence for there not being such a garnment. My hunch is that those cut down and stitched plaids were then further recycled into other users. Likewise we could question what evidence is there for unstitched phillabegs as how could you differentiate between a bolt of tartan cloth which was just that & a bolt of cloth which was used as an unstitched phillabeg?

When you talk about pre 1750's then we are talking only slightly more than a decade period in the watch's history as a line regiment. (1739) & only 25 years after the formation of the Watch in its Highland Policing role by General Wade (ok let's put aside that it does have claims for descent from older independent companies for a minute,in the same way the 1st of Foot can claim a link to the men who fought for Adolphus). So if we consider that this means that actually the phillabeg has been used by the Black watch for most of its history as the evidence is there in the form of written records. Before that it's harder to ascertain - ok the mess of the plaid depicted in the mutineer portraits suggests they were wearing an unsecured belted plaid, but that is very early on in the regiment's history and it is also possibly as a result of someone who was not that good in depicting the plaid itself.

Another issue to consider is the vast majority of our ideas about the highland regiments uniforms comes from pictures. I think it's entirely possible that some later 18th C depictions of a wearer in what appears to be a neatly arranged belted plaid could just as equally be someone in a tailored and stitched phillabeg with a plaid of the appropriate dimensions worn with the phillabeg belted in a way to give the appearance of a belted plaid (I've done this myself in the past at a 'fancy dress' event where I wore a modern slashed doublet & dreaded pirate shirt with a phillabeg & similar plaid which I pleated in the reverse (ie belt at the top inch of the plaid which I then belted over the phillabeg & arranged folded up & pinned to the shoulder opposite to that on which my sword belt sat).


Anyway my main thoughts are that for military service a garnment needs a degree of neatness & this is only achievable with a degree of prior measurement and preparation which a regimental tailor would have the opportunity to do, but a soldier in the field would struggle to get bang on every time in a hurry.

Also for tactical reasons it is far easier & quicker to quickly put on a phillabeg than to arrange a llose plaid & then go through the additional hassle of securing the top part of the great plaid.

As I've pounted out the skills were there to do the job and I've given my justifications for why I think in a military context phillabegs were used early on & were stitched. Indeed my hunch is that even in the belted plaid as alround dress the plaids probably quickly got to be sown and pleated by tailors for the sake of neatness as we know other additions were made to the plaids such as edging to prevent fraying.

[Allan Thomson]

I don't disagree with the logic of this arguement. My comment was in the context of the civilian feileadh beag. In the context of the Army you're right although how common the feileadh beag was for soldiers pre-1750 is questionable. The oldest surviving military kilt i.e. a sewn garment, is the mid-1790s but which time there had been a considerable amount of standardisation, for example; in cloth production.

Just another thought but you make reference to the civilian phillabeg? Well although I think it probably had a much longer history too the civilian phillabeg is accredited to Rawlinson whose phillabeg was stitched - this is 1720. This gives only some 20 years until the kilt was proscribed as civilian dress. So for the vast majority of the 18thC & the early 19thC essentially the only and key guardian was the military (as kilt wearing didn't really become that popular until the royal visit to Scotland in civilian life).

Also there's references to kilts being dyed a drab colour and cut up the middle to form breeches post proscription - so again the skills were there to do that which is no less challenging than stitching some pleats into a length of cloths.

I just don't buy this idea that the phillabeg without stitching was the primary form of the garnment. I think it's actually quiet patronising to the Highlanders to suugest they were incapable of working out that a stitched form of the phillabeg is far superior to unstitched or that they didn't have the skilks to do it. (& again in civilian as well as military life the evidence contradicts that too)...

[figheadair]

as we know other additions were made to the plaids such as edging to prevent fraying.

Here I have to take issue. The long edges of traditional cloth had a selvedge and therefore did not fray. If you are referring to the side edges (as opposed to the top and bottom selvedges) of a plaid then, based on all the specimens, I've examined these were finished by the rough ends being turned twice (effectively rolled) and sewn down.

[Tobus]

Anyway my main thoughts are that for military service a garnment needs a degree of neatness & this is only achievable with a degree of prior measurement and preparation which a regimental tailor would have the opportunity to do, but a soldier in the field would struggle to get bang on every time in a hurry.

Also for tactical reasons it is far easier & quicker to quickly put on a phillabeg than to arrange a llose plaid & then go through the additional hassle of securing the top part of the great plaid.

I'll preface my reply by admitting I am no historian, and I posit these comments more as questions than retorts:

Is it really accurate to think of these early military kilts as "uniforms" by today's standards where neatness would be important? The notion of crisp uniforms that are neatly tailored and properly arranged is a modern concept. The British Army was one of the pioneers of uniform standards, I'll admit, but in the pre-1750 timeframe we're talking about, would that line of thinking really apply to the early Highland militia-types like the Black Watch? From the little I know of it, there wasn't exactly a strong standard of military discipline, nor was there any sort of bureaucratic regulation of their dress. They were raised by local nobles, and were not "regulars" of any army. I've read that these guys were pretty rough, unruly, undisciplined, and often little better than hired thugs (in terms of the tactics they used and the authority they claimed). In other words, I haven't seen much evidence that the pre-Culloden Black Watch was any sort of organised military unit to which we could apply the logic of modern or even contemporary British uniform standards. And again, I ask it as a question.

Secondly, wasn't it true that in this time period Highlanders generally spread their great kilts and rolled up in them like sleeping bags when in the field? If so, it would make more sense that they did not permanently stitch pleats into their kilts since it would defeat the multi-use purpose of them. We see later evidence (in the 1800s) of kilted regiments carrying separate bedrolls, but I was under the impression that pre-Culloden units like the Black Watch were still using their kilts like other Highlanders, in terms of doing double-duty as cloaks, blankets, and bedrolls. If this is true, I could see why having loops stitched in for easy pleating in the field would make sense, but not permanent stitching of pleats. Am I way off base?

[Allan Thomson]

Here I have to take issue. The long edges of traditional cloth had a selvedge and therefore did not fray. If you are referring to the side edges (as opposed to the top and bottom selvedges) of a plaid then, based on all the specimens, I've examined these were finished by the rough ends being turned twice (effectively rolled) and sewn down.

There is evidence from portraits painted at the time that the belted plaid was amogst those with the means to do so edged with a seperated strip of cloth to prevent the edges fraying.

Again I'm not saying every plaid was like that and you have seen alternative ways of achieving the same effect.. But it was done in quiet a few cases.

Have a look at the Men at arms series on 18th C Highland Regiments and on the Jacobite rebellion, a series aimed at military model makers where portraits and uniform samples are examined to provide a reliable resource for military historians concerning the uniforms and clothing of that period.

It also documents the reuse of old plaids to make other garnments.

[Allan Thomson]

I'll preface my reply by admitting I am no historian, and I posit these comments more as questions than retorts:

Is it really accurate to think of these early military kilts as "uniforms" by today's standards where neatness would be important? The notion of crisp uniforms that are neatly tailored and properly arranged is a modern concept. The British Army was one of the pioneers of uniform standards, I'll admit, but in the pre-1750 timeframe we're talking about, would that line of thinking really apply to the early Highland militia-types like the Black Watch? From the little I know of it, there wasn't exactly a strong standard of military discipline, nor was there any sort of bureaucratic regulation of their dress. They were raised by local nobles, and were not "regulars" of any army. I've read that these guys were pretty rough, unruly, undisciplined, and often little better than hired thugs (in terms of the tactics they used and the authority they claimed). In other words, I haven't seen much evidence that the pre-Culloden Black Watch was any sort of organised military unit to which we could apply the logic of modern or even contemporary British uniform standards. And again, I ask it as a question.

Secondly, wasn't it true that in this time period Highlanders generally spread their great kilts and rolled up in them like sleeping bags when in the field? If so, it would make more sense that they did not permanently stitch pleats into their kilts since it would defeat the multi-use purpose of them. We see later evidence (in the 1800s) of kilted regiments carrying separate bedrolls, but I was under the impression that pre-Culloden units like the Black Watch were still using their kilts like other Highlanders, in terms of doing double-duty as cloaks, blankets, and bedrolls. If this is true, I could see why having loops stitched in for easy pleating in the field would make sense, but not permanent stitching of pleats. Am I way off base?

From 1739 at least the Watch was a line regiment and therefore subject to the same sense of discipline as any other line regiment - consider the execution of the mutineers who thought they were entitled to return to the Highlands after the Royal inspection. There was also some disgust at the flogging of Highlanders who felt themselves to be entitled to a more gentlemanly discipline than your average line infantry of the period.

As for thugs no I don't agree, except in so much to the outsider looking in at Highlanders in general might class them all as cattle thieving caterans. Many of the Private soldiers in the watch accounted themselves as gentlemen, had servants and joined as it allowed then the privilege of continuing to bear arms after the restrictions of (I think) 1715 disarming act and then after the later proscription of Highland dress. Those men tipped by the king during the inspection threw their coins to the footman as they felt being tipped was demeaning them as servants rather than treating them as gentlemen.

Crisp uniforms are not a modern concept though depending on the circumstance and source of supply might impact on that crispness. We all know about the American adaptations and the cascading of plaids from the black watch to equip colonial highland regiments during the American War with the 42nd definitely being in Phillabegs then.

I take on board what you're saying about the use of the plaid as a blanket, but it is disputable as to what extent this was as a true blanket & to what extent this was a case of the upper part being used as a cloak & rest of the garnment being left pleated for quick reactuon. I guess it would be a case of what the wearer was used to.

Your point about not seeing bedrolls may have some grounding but we don't really see bedrolls carried by the line infantry in Lowland/English Dress then either. The only example of an otherwise conventionally equipped regiment having any evidence of carrying a blanket (in this case a true highland plaid worn unbelted as a sort of fly plaid) ipI can think of was the Earl of Argyll's around the 1680's or 90's who were dressed identically to all other line regiments except for the plaid and bonnet mentioned before and that was 17th C not 18th C.

My point about a stitched plaid was more that some individuals may have done this if they had the means to have a seperate blanket or did not wish for leg protection but wanted a better standard of pleating - sonething a gentleman with a private servant could well do.

Indeed if we go down the carry your blanket as a plaid then the phillabeg and a flyplaid made to look like the normal belted plaid makes even more sense.

Another thought as well - we see plenty of 'undress' contemporary illustrations of Highlanders allowing their plaid to hang loose unpinned from the shoulder so what's to say that your highland soldier couldn't have left it kilted but unpinned it to wrap around his legs whilst allowing his jacket and waistcoat to keep his top half warm?