Why is a kilt the way it is.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Also, the second fellow in the second picture has the plaid bound around his legs from the knee down, turning them into something like pants.

Actually, he is wearing pants, that's not a belted plaid. The other three soldiers there are wearing belted plaids.

I think the basic question here is "why does the fact that this garment is ful-length mean that it is not a kilt?" Which brings us to the perennial question of "what defines a kilt?" And this is a tough nut to crack.

Here is an article I have written on that topic:
http://albanach.org/define_kilt.htm

I think in this case one can point to historical precidence of the kilt always been knee length, plus or minus, for men. This is one constant part of tradition. So making the kilt so obviously outside of the norm in this case is going to cause many to question it being a kilt at all.

The length of the garment seems as essential to its being classified as a "kilt" as the fact that it is pleated. How many of us would call a staight A-line skirt, knee length and even made from tartan, a "kilt" if there were no pleats?

Aye,
Matt