Quote from: Bill;658684Didn't the Spartans discard their shields at Thermopylae and arm themselves with chairs? For a serious battle like that, you need the very best protection.

To paraphrase an old Jiddish joke:

Not Spartans, but Scots, not at Thermopyale but at Culloden, not shields but guns, and not chairs but claymores.

Quote from: Rincewind1;658687To paraphrase an old Jiddish joke:

Not Spartans, but Scots, not at Thermopyale but at Culloden, not shields but guns, and not chairs but claymores.

Funny thing is that the scots had some success with axe and shield fighting british that had muskets and bayonets.

Don't mess with the guys with skirts. They will mess you up.

Quote from: Bill;658928Funny thing is that the scots had some success with axe and shield fighting british that had muskets and bayonets.

Don't mess with the guys with skirts. They will mess you up.

Of course. Sadly, not enough success . Though then again, hard to say for me how history'd change if Jacobites'd succeed. Probably by a large degree, seeing how Charles had French support - perhaps, and quite likely, Seven Years War (since GB mostly joined it because it was ruled by some Duke of Hannover at the time) would not happen, or feature English on France's side. Given how French funding and soldiers were instrumental during American Revolution, an English ally of France on the throne of Great Britain can also put that piece into much jeopardy - while it'd probably happen, it'd be much, much later, changing the history drastically.

Although it'd be hard to say that they were fighting English, really - during the entire Jacobite raising, more Scots saw fight on Hanover's side than Englishman, due to system of grudges kicking in. It was a bloody and ultimately rather sad affair, where you had Scots and French leading by a French - Italian prince of Polish and English parents, who were fighting other Scots, English and Irish led by a former German.

Quote from: Bill;658928Funny thing is that the scots had some success with axe and shield fighting british that had muskets and bayonets.

Don't mess with the guys with skirts. They will mess you up.

Amusingly, "the guys with skirts" are the ones who invented pants.

I guess once everyone else started wearing pants they were just like "screw that, pants are too popular now".
Celts: the hipsters of the ancient world.

Quote from: TristramEvans;659183Amusingly, "the guys with skirts" are the ones who invented pants.

I guess once everyone else started wearing pants they were just like "screw that, pants are too popular now".
Celts: the hipsters of the ancient world.

It is also debatable whether at the time of Jacobite Raising Scots were yet wearing kilts. From what I heard, it was originally an Irish invention, and it was some English merchant in late XVIII century, who basically took the idea to Scotland, with kilts in clan colour, and since after the purges the new young aristocrats of Scotland needed some fashion to show their pride in history, without English trying to lob their heads off, the kilt took off as a sign of a gentleman in Scotland.

What do our resident Brits/Irish have to say on the matter?

Eh no, I don't think so. The kilt was and is used as a symbol of Gaelic solidarity but the whole question has become so politicised that it's difficult to discern the facts of the matter, particularly with the growing strength of the Scottish Independence movement. Wikipedia is not to be trusted at all on such matters.

It does appear very unlikely that the English had anything to do with their introduction since they outlawed kilts in 1746, but kilt-like great cloaks girded at the waist, common to both Ireland and Scotland, stretch back to at least the 6th century when Fergus Mór is said to have invaded and colonised Scotland (although there's evidence suggesting Gaels were there previous to this event).

There wasn't an equivalent to the Scots tartan in Ireland at any point, so on the balance it seems probable that the Scots came up with it themselves.

Quote from: Rincewind1;658953Of course. Sadly, not enough success . Though then again, hard to say for me how history'd change if Jacobites'd succeed. Probably by a large degree, seeing how Charles had French support - perhaps, and quite likely, Seven Years War (since GB mostly joined it because it was ruled by some Duke of Hannover at the time) would not happen, or feature English on France's side. Given how French funding and soldiers were instrumental during American Revolution, an English ally of France on the throne of Great Britain can also put that piece into much jeopardy - while it'd probably happen, it'd be much, much later, changing the history drastically.

Although it'd be hard to say that they were fighting English, really - during the entire Jacobite raising, more Scots saw fight on Hanover's side than Englishman, due to system of grudges kicking in. It was a bloody and ultimately rather sad affair, where you had Scots and French leading by a French - Italian prince of Polish and English parents, who were fighting other Scots, English and Irish led by a former German.

Quite a cluster f...

Quote from: Bill;659548Quite a cluster f...

Nah, that's just XVIII century for you. Not that things were much different before, since before nationalist ideas took root for good in XIX century, those messes were commonplaces, for a variety of reasons - feudal obligations, de jure laws, blood ties and alliances and importance of professional officer cadre as well as professional soldiers, who were too expensive to keep on a permanent basis).

But to put things into perspective regarding XVIII century, which really featured the last and greatest (as results of past several centuries of marriages and cross alliances in Europe that was still divided, by vast parts, into barely pacified fiefs, most of which remembered having semi - independence) of such bizarre conflicts of nationalities:

The primary commander of HRE/Austrian side in War of Spanish succession, perhaps the only man* capable of challenging de Villars and fundamental in victories of coalition against Spanish - French war machine , was a certain Frenchman of Italian origins, called Eugene of Savoy. The best kicker is, however, that he got his income from his estates in France (I don't remember exactly, but I think he inherited a bishopric or some sort of a diecese - it was the reason why he never married, as he was a deacon or some other "secular priesthood" rank - the one that is not yet fully ordained, so he could leave the service and marry without loosing face), all during one of the bloodiest wars of succession up to that moment - using that very money to fund some of his regiments. And all about being disallowed service in French Military because of his mothers' sins.


*well, there was also the founder of Churchill political dynasty, of course. But I'd say that ultimately he played second fiddle to the both, though an important one to Savoy.