Benn talking to Ladyrose04 and she suggested this might be of some volue to the group. This is an edited version of an article I wrote for a Scottish newsletter on Scottish fact & Fiction. Much of it centers around Highland dress and accoutrements. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to ask:

Scottish Fact & Fiction

The goal of this essay is to dispel some of the more popular myths and inaccuracies about Scottish history, clothing and historical figures. This means that there will probably be something here that you hold dear to your heart that you will find is completely inaccurate. Though some of this isn’t directly related to Historic Clothing it is quite close. I bring up William Wallace and weapons because some of the most common forms of “Scottish” clothing I see at faires and such is imitated from the film Bravehart, and people should know the real historicity of this hero. The purpose is to educate and inform.

William Wallace: Before the film “Braveheart” most people had never heard of William Wallace. While the film was a fantastic piece of artwork, it had many, many historical inaccuracies.
1. William Wallace wore a kilt. WRONG! This is inaccurate on two counts. First of all, there is no solid, documented proof of the kilt existing before 1600. William Wallace was doing his thing late 13th early 14th century. Only about 300 years off. Not only that, the kilt was a form of dress local to those in the Scottish Highlands, Wallace was a lowlander. So even if the kilt was in existence, he would not have been a wearer. He would have worn what ever the rest of Europe was wearing at the time. Battle clothing would have consisted of mail, and probably a great helm and heater shield. More on these issues of weaponry, to follow.
2. William Wallace was a “commoner”. WRONG! He was no peasant. His father was a landowner and his mother was the daughter of a knight. That’s not nobility, but he wouldn’t have lived in a rock and mud hut.
3. William Wallace wore woad (blue face paint). WRONG! This painting of a blue dye on the face and bodies of warriors was a practice done by the Picts nearly a thousand years earlier. There is no proof that it was used anywhere near Wallace’s time period. The early Christian missionaries declared such body art as forbidden and the practice was soon eliminated as the majority of the island converted.
4. William Wallace used a great big two handed sword or ‘claymore’. WRONG! There is little evidence that swords of this type existed during this time. We do know for sure that the classic ‘claymore’ with the down-sloping quillions ending in the 4 quatrefoils is a creation of the 16th century and not earlier. There is the argument of the “Wallace Sword” on display at the Wallace Monument in Stirling. There are mountains of debate on the authenticity of this sword. If it truly was used by Wallace, there is no other known sword of that time period that looks like that. Most of the swords used during this time were single-handers. There are a few hand and a half swords that start to make their appearance at the beginning of the 14th century but they are certainly no bigger than 4 feet in total length. The sword displayed at the Wallace Monument bears a strong semblance to types made in the 16th century.
Kilts & Tartans

One of the biggest symbols of Scotland and its history is the kilt and tartan. Unfortunately there are many errors about its history, origins and uses.
1. Kilts are an ancient form of dress. WRONG! Well, I suppose it depends on your definition of what year something becomes ancient. As mentioned before, the first textual reference we have to kilts being worn is around 1600 and the first illustrated depiction not until about 15 years later.
2. Great Kilts and Little Kilts. Most people are aware of the Great Kilt (proper name is feileadh mor) as the 4 to 5 yard rectangle of tartan that was pleated and then gathered in various ways above or around the belt. This was the way kilts were worn up until around 1780-90. Around this time we see the emergence of the little kilt (proper name is feileadh beag) in which the upper portion was removed and we get the beginnings of the kilt commonly seen today. So that being said, someone depicting a Highlander from the 1745 campaign would be inaccurate if he wore a modern kilt.
3. Clan Tartans. One of the most exciting portions of discovering one’s Scottish roots is the day you lay eyes on your very own clan tartan. This individual sett will distinguish your affiliation and is a mark of pride for many. However, many will tell you this system of clans having “official” tartans is much older than what it historically correct. The truth is that assigning clans specific tartans was an invention of the Victorian age. It wasn’t until years after the ’45 and the ban on tartan was lifted that tartan became fashionable at both Scottish and English courts. Entrepreneurs in Scotland caught on to the hype and began to develop specific colors and designs for their clans and claim them as “official”. Many of these tartans are based off of historical patterns but those are rare. There would be certain colors or patterns that may be common in a certain area in the 17th and 18th centuries. This would be the case depending on what dyes the weavers had available to them. Also the weaver wouldn’t just make a single 5 yard piece, but many, many yards of the same pattern. Thus, several people in the same clan or community would have the same tartan. In the upper classes during the mid 18th century, it was a sign of wealth for a man to be clad in several different types and colors of tartan. He might have a kilt of one color, a waistcoat of a different one, and a jacket of a third. The point was that he was wealthy enough to buy several different patterns and colors. Similarly, the brighter tartans (the reds mainly) were reserved for the richer classes. Most tartans were of muted and drab vegetable dyes. Many modern tartan weavers offer an “ancient” or “weathered” version of the clan’s sett to reflect this.
4. All Scots wore kilts. WRONG! Even during the time where kilts were worn, it was a form of Highland dress—not all Scots are Highlanders. The Scots closer to the border would have worn what ever was being worn in England and the rest of Europe within the last 20 -50 years. Just a side note: An extremely unknown and underappreciated portion of Scottish history lies in the times and peoples of the Border Reivers. The stories and legends of these hardy folk are just as exciting and interesting as any of the stories of William Wallace or Robert Roy MacGregor. They just seemed to get pushed aside with all the fuss being about Braveheart and all things tartan. Don’t miss out!
The word “Claymore”. This innocent sounding word has spawned much debate over the years. There seems to be evidence of both the two handed sword and the basket hilt being referred to as “claymore”. For this matter I paraphrase the research of renowned sword historian, Claude Blair. Many know that the word ‘claymore’ is an anglicized version of the Gaelic word claidheamh-mor which translates to ‘great sword’. The first instance we see a written usage of this word is after the beginning of the 1715 rising—and coming into much wider use during the ’45. During this time, two handed swords were not used so it had to be referring to the basket-hilt sword. The aforementioned document states that men were armed with rifles, pistols, dirk, targe (shield) and “a sturdy claymore by his side”. Anyone who has seen a correctly proportioned Scottish two handed sword knows that it would be very awkward to carry that large of a sword at your side. (These swords generally are between 4 ½ to 5 ½ feet long.) There is a later document (July 11th, 1747) describing the Prince’s escape through the Highlands following Culloden that uses the term ‘broadsword’ and ‘claymore’ synonymously. Again, it is obvious that the swords in use at this time are the basket hit variety. The correct Gaelic word for the large, two handed weapon is “claidheamh da laimh”. This word is only seen in reference to the two handed weapon. A document from 1772 tells of a man seeing a “Cly-more (sic.) or great-two handed sword”. This man was a stranger to the Highlands and is possible he reported the name inaccurately. There is another journal from 1773 that definitely describes a two handed sword as a “Glaymore (sic.)”. It is interesting to note that earlier documents (pre-1750) make a distinction between swords and two-handed (or twa’ handit) swords. It wasn’t until later documents (and often times written by Englishmen) that we see ‘claymore’ being used to describe a two-handed weapon. Even then, during the end of the 18th century and into the dawn of the 19th when we have the incorporation of Scottish regiments into the British military we see them using the same word ‘claymore’ to describe basket hilt broadswords issued to officers. So it seems that somewhere through the years and translation from Gaelic to English that the term was blurred into use for both weapons. So where does that leave us? In my opinion the most correct terms would be using the Gaelic word ‘claidheamh da laimh’ for the two handed variety and the anglicized word ‘claymore’ for the basket hilt variety. However, using those terms will probably confuse more people than it’s worth so you would eventually have to describe the weapons as either a ‘two-handed claymore’ or a ‘basket hilt claymore’.

History can be a hard thing when your heart is close to the subject matter. It is difficult to take something you thought was fact and then throw it out. I have encountered many during discussion on these topics who respond with “Well, you can’t prove that William Wallace didn’t wear woad—you weren’t there!” and various other similar comments. By that same rationale I could argue that the dinosaurs cooked with microwave ovens—you can’t prove they didn’t—you weren’t there! They are right—I can’t prove something didn’t happen that far back in history. I can only base information on what evidence we have—and Hollywood is hardly a reliable source for evidence. The point of all this is not to cause confrontation, but to bring to light what may be misinterpreted through media or popular hype. I don’t mean to say we can’t enjoy shows like Braveheart or we can’t wallow in our love of ‘tartanalia’ but it’s always a good idea to be able to know the facts from the fiction.

Your at 700 pageviews now

I know. Cool isn't it!

--
The Historic Costume Club--we make clothes just a few centuries too late.

[link]

Oops, that should have said 600. But you are getting very close to 700. This club is thriving