Feathers in your cap

**Tobus** · 29th February 12, 01:22 PM

Not from Scottish history, but there is a documented story from the American Revolution of Loyalists under Major Patrick Ferguson's command in the Southern campaign wearing sprigs of evergreen in their hats to identify themselves as "The King's Men". Given Ferguson's Scottish nativity, it is quite possible the idea came from Scotland, although I certainly make no hard & fast claims that is its origin.

Of course, and I have even seen reference to at least one Scottish battle (don't remember which one) where one side wore oat sprigs on their lapels, or something like that, as a similar identifier.

And it makes all the sense in the world if it's only your side wearing them. But when every Highlander is wearing a sprig of some sort of plant in his hat, quick identification isn't quite so easy. From a distance of 20 yards, you can't readily identify it from dozens of others which may be very similar in appearance. But if only your side has plants in their bonnets, it's much easier.

At any rate, it has undoubtedly become a modern tradition; there's no disputing that. But I think there's still plenty of doubt as to whether Highlanders before the Revival period really used plant badges to identify fellow clansmen. Beyond romantic folklore, and looking at it objectively and realistically, the notion seems a tad absurd.

**macwilkin** · 29th February 12, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Tobus

Of course, and I have even seen reference to at least one Scottish battle (don't remember which one) where one side wore oat sprigs on their lapels, or something like that, as a similar identifier.

And it makes all the sense in the world if it's only your side wearing them. But when every Highlander is wearing a sprig of some sort of plant in his hat, quick identification isn't quite so easy. From a distance of 20 yards, you can't readily identify it from dozens of others which may be very similar in appearance. But if only your side has plants in their bonnets, it's much easier.

At any rate, it has undoubtedly become a modern tradition; there's no disputing that. But I think there's still plenty of doubt as to whether Highlanders before the Revival period really used plant badges to identify fellow clansmen. Beyond romantic folklore, and looking at it objectively and realistically, the notion seems a tad absurd.

No more absurd than people today paying to advertise for companies by wearing clothes with commerical logos

Trust me, as a historian, I've seen quite a few things that look absurd to the modern eye.

The story of cockade colours is documented, so why is it not absurd and plant badges are? In other words, the puir Campbell who was about to be run through by redcoat bayonets at Drumossie Moor had the same problem you described -- Thomas Atkins hadn't gotten the word that "our Highlanders" wore red saltires or what not -- military history is filled with such errors, such as "my" battlefield, where uniform colours had not been standardised in early 1861. At one point, half of the Union Army was routed because a Louisiana regiment was reportedly mistaken for an Iowa one -- both units had companies wearing gray.

Remember that the Jacobite Rebellions were an exception to the rule of clan warfare, where neither side was wearing uniforms.

T.

**macwilkin** · 29th February 12, 01:37 PM

Duplicate post. Deleted.

**Tobus** · 29th February 12, 01:39 PM

The story of cockade colours is documented, so why is it not absurd and plant badges are?

The difference there is that a red cockade and a blue cockade are easily differentiated, even from across a battlefield. If they are intended to signify rank or allegiance, bold colours are a good choice for any sort of identifier.

But it's pretty difficult to discern the difference between two green sprigs of leafy plants from that distance. It requires a pretty close inspection, and is not at all realistic to be used as an immediate identifier on a battlefield.

When a man rushes at you with a sword, intending to cleave you in two, a coloured cockade is much easier to identify than a plant badge. I defy anyone in that situation to be able to tell the difference between rosemary and juniper (for example). And I highly doubt our Highland ancestors were dense enough not to realize this was a dilemma when life and death hung in the balance.

**macwilkin** · 29th February 12, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Tobus

The difference there is that a red cockade and a blue cockade are easily differentiated, even from across a battlefield. If they are intended to signify rank or allegiance, bold colours are a good choice for any sort of identifier.

Again, see my story of the mistaken uniforms at Wilson's Creek NB. You're describing a "perfect" situation. Remember that on a battlefield, visibility deteriorates very quickly, especially during the age of black powder. At our battle, we had at least three Missouri State Guard and Arkansas State Troops units wearing blue uniforms, antebellum militia kit to be exact. The bright colour is only one component of it -- if the average squaddie doesn't get the word of who is wearing who, then colour doesn't really matter.

Even flags, which are large, bright pieces of colour, can be obscured by the "fog of war" -- witness why the CSA abandoned its first national flag -- because it resembled "Old Glory" on the battlefield when there was no breeze and black powder smoke obscured the view. At our battle, we have at least one documented instance of Missouri forces carrying an American flag as their colours, causing confusion among Federal forces engaged against them.

But it's pretty difficult to discern the difference between two green sprigs of leafy plants from that distance. It requires a pretty close inspection, and is not at all realistic to be used as an immediate identifier on a battlefield.

But again, you're judging all battles in Scotland on the Culloden model; Culloden, being a more traditional 18th century linear tactics battle, was the exception to the rule of clan battles, which generally did not use linear tactics -- in other words, clansmen engaged in close-quarters combat, and with the lack of uniforms, needed some way to ID the OPFOR.

When a man rushes at you with a sword, intending to cleave you in two, a coloured cockade is much easier to identify than a plant badge. I defy anyone in that situation to be able to tell the difference between rosemary and juniper (for example). And I highly doubt our Highland ancestors were dense enough not to realize this was a dilemma when life and death hung in the balance.

So when was the last time a man rushed at you with a sword?

In the end, we're both speculating. The Ferguson story certainly is similar, but not identical, obviously. I'm not so sure I'm as willing to dismiss it so quickly as you are, given my experience studying military history. That doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with you.

T.

**eagle43172** · 29th February 12, 02:09 PM

Anyway, isn't it fairly well documented that at Culloden the Jacobites wore a white cocade for the support of the Stuarts, and the plant badge identified the clan? Clan ID would work better with your own side seeing who was who anyway, especially if the MacDonalds had better chow than the Camerons or vice versa and you didn't want to share.

Anyone with a different cockade was a fair target.

**Tobus** · 29th February 12, 02:58 PM

if the average squaddie doesn't get the word of who is wearing who, then colour doesn't really matter.

Well yeah, I agree there. But that's really irrelevant to the topic of whether plant badges were reasonable (even assuming everyone knew who was supposed to wear what).

But again, you're judging all battles in Scotland on the Culloden model

No, actually, I'm not. I don't recall mentioning Culloden, and in fact I'm thinking of battles even earlier than that. Most Highland fighting (clan warfare, where such clan affiliation would have been important) was hand-to-hand combat.

In the end, we're both speculating.

Yes, and I was pretty clear about that. I actually have no idea whether plant badges were used in the way they've been claimed. All I'm saying is that there really isn't any evidence of it until the Revival period, and it just doesn't make any logical sense to me that such a thing would have been done, given the difficulty in actually identifying plant sprigs on someone's head. I mean, what happens when a fighter loses his bonnet? That seems to happen a lot when fighting hand-to-hand. Does the whole identification system fall apart?

**macwilkin** · 29th February 12, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Tobus

Well yeah, I agree there. But that's really irrelevant to the topic of whether plant badges were reasonable (even assuming everyone knew who was supposed to wear what).

No, actually, I'm not. I don't recall mentioning Culloden, and in fact I'm thinking of battles even earlier than that. Most Highland fighting (clan warfare, where such clan affiliation would have been important) was hand-to-hand combat.

Yes, and I was pretty clear about that. I actually have no idea whether plant badges were used in the way they've been claimed. All I'm saying is that there really isn't any evidence of it until the Revival period, and it just doesn't make any logical sense to me that such a thing would have been done, given the difficulty in actually identifying plant sprigs on someone's head. I mean, what happens when a fighter loses his bonnet? That seems to happen a lot when fighting hand-to-hand. Does the whole identification system fall apart?

Points taken, especially the last one. Again, I'm not necessarily saying your dead wrong; on the contrary. I think you've made some valid points in your arguments. I'm just offering a viewpoint based on other periods in military history, and having a wee bit of fun discussing it. Unfortunately, these sorts of discussions just seem to go better over a pint or a dram, and not necessarily online.

int:

T.