Battle of Bannockburn 2007

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
RTB
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Wigan

Post by RTB »

I have read the answers, and to be honest don't know where to start. I shall have to think about it.
Winner: Livinghistory.co.uk "Posting Style of the Year" Award, 1978

User avatar
Colin MacDonald
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:43 am
Location: Jockland

Post by Colin MacDonald »

Hobbitstomper wrote:Much easier to tell the police that anyone in tartan and carrying a sword is a nutter, not a re-enactor.


Might be some risk having a firearms unit raining on your parade though. Probably better if it can be handled discreetely; the press will almost certainly make no distinction about whether it was a MoP or a participant who was arrested.

Right, here's who appears to be (and not going). That's just the ones that I've Googled for this afternoon, I'm not saying that this is an exhaustive list! Please shout out if you know of any others.


Booked:
Glasgow Vikings
Traditional Archery Society of Ireland
Company of Dawn Duellists
Medieval Realm (possibly?)

Not booked anywhere yet on the 23rd/24th, or unable to find their events info (which means they might very well be going):
Fire and Sword
The Northmen
Historic Saltire
Lothene

Booked elsewhere:
Clanranald
Swords of Dalriada
Medieval Methil

Not going
Shiltron

Oh, and apropos the problem of distinguishing MoP from participant, it looks like the SNP rally is being kept off site, much to the annoyance of some. I hope that annoyance is kept well off-site on the day.
Last edited by Colin MacDonald on Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

Nigel
Post Knight
Posts: 1677
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:45 am
Location: Pontefract
Contact:

Post by Nigel »

Colin thanks for the laugh
There’s a country in Europe where they treat their ex soldiers with pride no waits for medical treatment after injuries received during service, no amensia from the government. Cant for the life of me recall where it is but I know exactly where it is not.

User avatar
StaffordCleggy
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:25 pm
Location: Rochdale

Post by StaffordCleggy »

Colin, that's quite a scary link....


....at least, it would be if the rather laughable clowns who created that page had even a rudimentary grasp of written English!

What's the betting they have no real knowledge of Gaelic either?

Mythos
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Scotland

Post by Mythos »

Schiltron will not be coming to Bannockburn this year.

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Post by zauberdachs »

I've heard from Alison that there are 100 confirmed re-enactors :) So it shouldn't be too bad.
Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

User avatar
Colin MacDonald
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:43 am
Location: Jockland

Post by Colin MacDonald »

zauberdachs wrote:I've heard from Alison that there are 100 confirmed re-enactors :) So it shouldn't be too bad.


That sounds... incredible. Fantastic.

Lady Wolfshead
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Innerleithen

Post by Lady Wolfshead »

Last I heard Medieval Realm were booked elsewhere and so will not be attending.

I would like to attend but not being connected with a group anymore I haven't got anyone to go with, so might just turn up as a MOP and go to the traders stalls. :)

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Post by zauberdachs »

I'm sure someone could take you under their wing...

where are you based?
Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

guthrie
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: Polmont-Edinburgh

Post by guthrie »

HHmm, it couldn't be somewhere in the borders, could it?
Maybe half an hour from edinburgh city bypass?

Lady Wolfshead
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Innerleithen

Post by Lady Wolfshead »

Weekdays based in Innerleithen, just south of Peebles and about 1/2 hour from Edinburgh City By-pass :wink: . Weekends I'm usually to be found somewhere in Edinburgh (or gallivanting around the countryside for one of my many hobbies).

Lanark are letting me participate as an independent but I've not heard anything from Alison yet.

User avatar
Colin MacDonald
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:43 am
Location: Jockland

Post by Colin MacDonald »

Bannockburn is on Medieval Realm's event's page. Is that spurious?

Lady Wolfshead
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Innerleithen

Post by Lady Wolfshead »

No, not spurious, my information was from a couple of months ago. If they are coming now that's great, the more the merrier! :)

Arkadian
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:54 pm

Post by Arkadian »

NTS wrote:Alan,

As far as the tartan rule goes I am going to make every effort to enforce the no tartan but could I ask you and the reenactors to help me with this?

thanks

Alison

erm.... why? tartan was in existance and this can be proven from archaelogical evidence..
http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/tartan-history.html
Just the same as the NTS claiming that Bannockburn WASN'T a battle between Scotland and England..... indeed they have done so on multiple occasions.
they claim it was the vying for position between two kings.
i have consulted Proffessor Geoffry Barrow on this, and also Proffessor Ted Cowan along with Dr Fiona Watson, ALL world renowned experts on the wars on independence, even the name of that period in history gve you a hint..lol these people all have unquestionable expertise in this period. Prof Barrow wrote the definitive book on the period......
About the tartan and textiles i consulted Jan goulding, an expert in textiles from the history dept of Edinburgh university, again a source which is pretty unquestionable.
now at the time, clan tartans weren't there BUT it was mre due to the particular style and skills of the weaver who people went to locally that developed into the clan tartans. ones like the mcdonalds,campbells and such due have a VERY long history which is very provable and can be backed up by historical fact.
NOW not everyone at Bannockburn would have been wearing tartan, that's a concession to you BUT they would have been wearing plaid of either a red or ochre colur if they weren't in the few tartans in existance at the time.
IF YOU WANT TO RE-ENACT THEN FOR GOD SAKE BE ACCURATE AND DON'T TRY REVISIONISM "ALA NTS" PLEASE!
I announced over a year ago that the Battle of Bannockburn 2007 would be held on the 23rd and 24th of June 2007 so I am somewhat unsure about where the confusion lies.

actually the news was only broken to the public in general maybe two months ago...........FACT
they'll only ever get the scrapings such as the tartans turning up

i refer you to the above reference tartans.. also there WERE kilts in existance at the time, they just differed fro the modern designs..FACT.. my bona fide sources listed above.

I have been approached by a producer from the history channel who are making a programme about the battle and would like to interview re-enactors at this years event. They would propose to film on both days. I would be interested to know for those of you who are planning to attend this years event if there would be anyone who would prefer not to be included in the filming. Please could I ask you to contact me directly if you have any questions.

good god this is even WORSE that the NTS get to represent theis revisionist history by telling the history channel about their "it wasn't a ballte between Scotland and England but vying for position between two kings" NONSENSE
ypou could say that about culloden but certainly not about Bannockburn.
Also from what i gather there will be a commemoration held by various Scottish groups including i believe the Templars, The Wallace Society, Cran Tara,SNP Bannockburn and a few others i can't remember. they had to meet with the NTS and PLEAD their case to be able to lay wereaths. they will be doing so ,i believe around two pm on the saturday, there is also something happening on the sunday too, not sure what that is.
the NTS i also gather tried to STOP these people from laying their wreathes and even turned down a suggestion that someone from the english re-enatctors lay a wreath for the english that fell at Bannockburn. now that is quite sad in my books as i am pretty sure you guys would be happy to do so, you guys spend your spare time, and some as jpbs, honouriong the past and those that fought , so i don't see why you wouldn't want to lay a wreath to honour those that fell. but the NTS were apparently most insistant that not one of you would be interested in doing so... thoughts on that ladies and gents?
I only mentioned the filming as a courtesy so that if people wished to participate they would get credit on the filming and for those who wished not to be involved would get the privacy they wished for.

anyone smell a carrot on a string?????
I think you also have to take account of the "unusual" elements in the Scottish public - the people in tartan with dodgy claymores and C17th shirts could indeed be members of one of the many Clan McHalfords societies, but they're just as likely to be a MOP who believes that he's doing his bit for "the cause", or worse still, someone who dresses like that regularly in their normal life.
showing some "Scottish cringe" there, i sometimes wear a kilt, not willy-nilly but i do wear one now and then.
As a Scot, I think its a bit sad and a damning indictment of the state of history teaching in Scotland (and yet another reason to put Mel Gibson on the Most Wanted list),

indeed and the NTS with their rubbish about Bannockburn are promulgating this nonense. refrence St Mel of Gibson.. i would ask him "where's the river Mel???" abut the battle of Stirling... Ted christopher sings a wee song about how full of it the film is. i can agree with you there.
the only good thing to come from the film was that it did raise awareness of the era and those with the brains went on to look into the realities of history and found out the inconsistancies of the movie.

Much easier to tell the police that anyone in tartan and carrying a sword is a nutter, not a re-enactor. Tartan + sword = nutter with an offensive weapon = easy arrest is something that the most "historically challenged" policeman could do.

that's a bit fascist really. i would be wearing tartan that day, possibly even with a dirk and sgian dubh.. would you have me arrested? the idea to give badges to make it VERY clear who isn' a re-enactor is a wonderful one. a perfect compromise.
Oh, and apropos the problem of distinguishing MoP from participant, it looks like the SNP rally is being kept off site, much to the annoyance of some. I hope that annoyance is kept well off-site on the day.

yes people are annoyed that the tradional commemoration , which ALWAYS tries to be as close to the day as possible has had an attempted block on it. BUT there has been an arrangement i have discussed above. from what i gather it will be a dignified affair. why mock or ban people who care abot the truth of history and also wish to honour the fallen? again isn't that what you guys are doing???
don't put down the guys who wish to lay their wreaths.. ffrom what i gather the templars will lead the procession from the bowling club down the back of the rotunda, folowed by the other groups. The Templars will then hold an ecumenical service for those wh pray and then there will be a few words from author and historian David R Ross, the laying of the wreathes by the various groups and then they will go back to the bowling club then onto the function that ha been planned for OVER A YEAR.
the NTS haven't been straight with anyone, most especially the visitors who go there and get told a complete misrepresentaion of what occurred.
also instead of slagging people off for perhaps not being historically accurate or and berating them for what they are wearing..WHY NOT EDUCATE THEM???
but that Falkirk tartan...hmmm blows a wee hole in the theory of no tartan.
however one last point, or to reiterate a point i brought up, would aNY of the English re-enactors be willing to lay a wreath for the english that fell at Bannockburn??? to me this would make a wonderful statement , wouldn't you say?
thoughts please Ladies and gentlemen
Arkadian

guthrie
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: Polmont-Edinburgh

Post by guthrie »

WElcome to the forum.

Unfortunately you seem to be labouring under some misaprehensions.

For starters, the existence of simple tartan cloth 2,000 years ago does not mean that lowlanders or indeed anyone in Scotland, were wearing cloth startling similar to the 18th and 19th century tartans that people insist on wearing at the Battle of Bannockburn.
Secondly, there is no evidence for the existence of kilts before the 15th century. THe leading theory is that they were born out of economic changes in the Highlands in the late 14th/ early 15th century.

Unfortunately the Scots history online article you reference does not mention how old kilts are. This is a small problem for your assertions.

Unfortunately, merely throwing around names is not enough to back up your arguments. Many people here are just as well connected with historians, and do not make a thing of name dropping.
On the other hand I see we agree on Mel Gibsons film!

Hobbitstomper
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 2:04 pm

Post by Hobbitstomper »

"Much easier to tell the police that anyone in tartan and carrying a sword is a nutter, not a re-enactor. Tartan + sword = nutter with an offensive weapon = easy arrest is something that the most "historically challenged" policeman could do.

that's a bit fascist really. i would be wearing tartan that day, possibly even with a dirk and sgian dubh.. would you have me arrested? the idea to give badges to make it VERY clear who isn' a re-enactor is a wonderful one. a perfect compromise. "

Not facist at all, more realistic. After all, you won't get many people turning up in an English smock and carrying swords at Bannockburn.

I, personally, wouldn't have you arrested for carrying a knife. The police probably wouldn't either if it is an apropriate part of national dress (because that is legal).

Lady Wolfshead
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Innerleithen

Post by Lady Wolfshead »

Arkadian - as Guthrie said, welcome to the forum.

First of all, I would hope that no-one on this forum would stop anyone attending an event in legitimate national dress (eg. kilt, jacket, shirt, brogues, socks, etc.). Unfortunately at previous Bannockburns there have been members of the public who turn up in the Mel Gibson style of "Scottish" dress and as we are not wishing to give any further credence to the Braveheart version of the Wars of Independence we'd prefer to limit access. However, as you stated, a large badge distinguishing visitors from re-enactors would prevent the public from mistaking such visitors as re-enactors and in a more friendly and inclusive way.

On the point of tartan, whilst it is known that there were chequered materials in existence before the 12th/13th century, an example of which is the Falkirk piece evidenced in the article you cited dating to the 3rd century AD, the use of word tartan (in any form tartain, tertane) did not appear until much later. Moreover, the participants who have worn tartan at past events have chosen to wear the Victorian versions so even had they wished to portray that some soldiers might have worn chequered material, they have undermined their own arguments by choosing the wrong kind. Furthermore, there have been far too many people wearing tartan at this event in previous years and, as Guthrie stated, lowland soldiers would not have worn either tartan or chequered cloth and so few, if any, soldiers at Bannockburn would have even considered wearing it.

In terms of educating these participants, those who have had a genuine interest in Scottish History have gone away and researched the period and costume. Unfortunately there remain a hard core dedicated to the Mel Gibson version of the Wars of Independence who regard any alternative as anti-Scottish. Few enough Scots get a good grounding in Scottish History in schools these days so I would be sorry to see their knowledge further hindered by avoidable inaccuracies at re-enactments.

Lastly, we are always happy to consider new evidence (substantiated by 3 credible sources) so if you have some referenced historical research you would like to share, please do.

Arkadian
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:54 pm

Post by Arkadian »

For starters, the existence of simple tartan cloth 2,000 years ago does not mean that lowlanders or indeed anyone in Scotland, were wearing cloth startling similar to the 18th and 19th century tartans that people insist on wearing at the Battle of Bannockburn

wasn't waying that, was just saying that theer were indeed the clothes in existance at the time. i do agree that the appropriate clothing shood indeed be worn by the re-enactors, that is a GOOD thing and i for one am ALL for the truth of history. to have a prosperous future we must keep one eye on the past and learn from it :D
Unfortunately the Scots history online article you reference does not mention how old kilts are. This is a small problem for your assertions.

i posted that Jan goulding of the history dept of edinburgh uni had said that kilts did indeed exist pre-1500-1600 but not in the form they are now.
i can only go by the info these experts tell me.
i am not trying to flame or anything like that but stimulate debate :D
if i am under any misaprehension then i must have been misinformed by world renowned expets such as Prof Barrow,Pro Cowan, Dr Waston(Fiona not sherlocks buddy..lol) and Dr Goudling.
As soon as i get the leters from these people that result from the phone calls i will happily scan them and post them. the only thing to be omitted will be my personal details.. id that ok? i do know what you mean and perfectly understand.
To see Dr Watsons views have a look at her book, "under the hammer: Edward 1st and scotland"
Kingship and Unity; Scotland 1000-1306; Geoffrey Barrow
The Kingdom of the Scots
Government, Church and Society from the Eleventh to the Fourteenth Century - Geoffrey Barrow
those are the world renowned books that are pretty much taken as gospel by historians everywhere.
Not facist at all, more realistic. After all, you won't get many people turning up in an English smock and carrying swords at Bannockburn.

i think that may well be a matter of geography and the occassion. i bet you do get some turn up at re-enactments in England.. would i be wrong?
pweople in many cases as members of the public turn up in what they have, what they usually fress in on those occassions or simply what they can afford, to mock them is a bit low i think. and to try and dictate a dress code i think isn't really fir.
tartan was banned under force before, people won't like that again in any way. but that's digressing really.
however can i please get an answer to that really important question.... would one of your re-enactors be interested in laying a wreatyh to the fallen Englishmen at Bannockburn on sat the 23rd???
i think it'd be a great thing indeed and i know the guy who met with the NTS were told in no uncertain terms that you were not interested in this at all.
Arkadian

Arkadian
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:54 pm

Post by Arkadian »

NTS claiming that Bannockburn WASN'T a battle between Scotland and England..... indeed they have done so on multiple occasions.

Also a response to this please folks... apparently it was recorded as an answer at a meeting with the NTS and openly recorded but the chap whp recorded is reluctant to release it as it wasn't recorded for public use but for note taking purposes.
i have no doubt if you ask the NTS Bannockburn they will relate the same tale tho of their version of the story of Bannockburn.
thoughts.....


also folks
http://members.aol.com/skyelander/bruce1.html
this shows a large body of highlander present and not just lowlanders.
you'll find the reference source for muc of the stuff quoted here is Professor Barrow.
The Highland Connection

The Highland clans, some of which had hitherto held aloof of the Scottish Wars of Independence under Wallace, had now come down from their mountains and joined Bruce in strength under at least twenty-one Chiefs. This was an unprecedented number of Highland clans gathered together, some hateful of each other, to cooperate with the English speaking Lowlander and a Celtic-Norman King. But Bruce did have a Celtic mother and was a Gaelic speaker himself, and had enjoyed the help and support of most of the Highlanders from his days on the run from the Comyns, their allies and the English armies.

Three chiefs, with their clans -- MacDougal, Cumming (Comyn), and MacNab -- were in the ranks of the English and would later lose land to other clans (such as the MacDonald's and Campbells).

In this, the most decisive battle of its history, Scotland's army was strongly Celtic. There were Lothian men and borderers with Edward Bruce and the Steward, but there were also Gallgaels from Galloway, Scoto-Picts from Fife, and Randolph's spearmen were from Moray and Ross. With his own Carrick levies, Robert's division included Islesmen, who'd been with Bruce from the beginning, mountain men from Argyll, Gaels brought by Angus Og of Clan Donald, honouring an old promise and expecting rich rewards. "My hope," Bruce told him, "is constant in thee", and that hope was reciprocated. The lands of the chief of Clan Donald had been forfeited since his support for Balliol, and the Chief's younger brother Angus Og might this day win them for himself, as well as those of the MacDougalls.

Robert's army was less than a quarter, closer to one-fifth, of the numbers of Edward II's. His warriors came from all over Scotland. His 5,000 schilton spearmen consisted of both Lowlander and Highlander, with a strong contingent coming from the Western Isles. Bruce himself commanded a phalanx of Gaelic clans. According historians C. Rothero and Tim Newark, the following clans are considered represented at Bannockburn and lead there by their chiefs. Cameron, Campbell, Chisholm, Fraser, Gordon, Grant, Gunn, MacKay, MacIntosh, MacPherson, Macquarrie, Maclean, MacLeod, MacDonald, MacFarlane, MacGregor, MacKenzie, Menzies, Munro, Robertson, Ross, Sinclair and Sutherland. Some in Clan Gunn of NA don't agree, but one has to remember that this battle was coming for over 6 months, probably a year. Everyone in Scotland knew the English were coming to reclaim Stirling Castle, and that Bruce would have to face Edward's powerful English armies. It is completely in character for the Highlanders, in such a situation, to voluntarliy come down to Falkirk or Stirling to participate in the upcoming battle. In fact it is known that some Highlanders were turned away because Bruce didn't have enough provisions to feed them all. Since Mr. Newark, a respected historian and writer of many books, includes all these clans, I do so as well with honest conviction. Clan Gunn was represented, if not by chiefly order, than certainly by individual members of the clan. Now keep in mind this list of clans represents only the confirmable Highland clans and there were undoubtedly more. Other Lowland families were also long time Bruce supporters such as Keith, Douglas, Boyd, Burnett and others. In no way is this a complete and final list of clans that took part in the actual battle of Bannockburn, but these are the I will confirm.

Some notable clan exclusions are Cumming (Comyn), MacDougall, MacDowell, and MacNab who all fought for the English, and would suffer for it later.

Nigel
Post Knight
Posts: 1677
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:45 am
Location: Pontefract
Contact:

Post by Nigel »

Arkadain please identify yourdlrf

are youa memeber of some body ? society or something

re the highland connection nobody would doubt that they were present BUT given the highland units at Flodden were described in detail as wearing shirts and achetons no mention of tartan I would sugest that their predecessors were simialrly attired
There’s a country in Europe where they treat their ex soldiers with pride no waits for medical treatment after injuries received during service, no amensia from the government. Cant for the life of me recall where it is but I know exactly where it is not.

guthrie
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: Polmont-Edinburgh

Post by guthrie »

Arkadian wrote: i do agree that the appropriate clothing shood indeed be worn by the re-enactors, that is a GOOD thing and i for one am ALL for the truth of history. to have a prosperous future we must keep one eye on the past and learn from it :D

Indeed, but I do not know of any evidence for tartan like clothing, or indeed any form of kilt like garment for the period of Banockburn.


Arkadian wrote:
i posted that Jan goulding of the history dept of edinburgh uni had said that kilts did indeed exist pre-1500-1600 but not in the form they are now.
i can only go by the info these experts tell me.


That fit's in precisely with what I said earlier, about them arising in the late 14th early 15th centuries. i.e. around 1400.

You see, what you said was:


BUT they would have been wearing plaid of either a red or ochre colur


Is definitely not supported by any evidence.
Whilst nobody disagrees with there being highlanders present, eg I'm sure Colin Macdonald used to turn up as the Lord of the Isles, the fact is that there is no evidence to suggest they wore anything other than hose and tunics, the same as everyone else. Or maybe they wore similar clothes to what Norwegians were wearing at the time, although that is out of my area of knowledge.

Arkadian wrote:
Not facist at all, more realistic. After all, you won't get many people turning up in an English smock and carrying swords at Bannockburn.

i think that may well be a matter of geography and the occassion. i bet you do get some turn up at re-enactments in England.. would i be wrong?
pweople in many cases as members of the public turn up in what they have, what they usually fress in on those occassions or simply what they can afford, to mock them is a bit low i think. and to try and dictate a dress code i think isn't really fir.

People occaisonally turn up to re-enactments in England wearing something that looks like kit from 300 yards away, but is generally made of polyester. They do not usually turn up carrying offensive weapons and making a show of emotion such as to worry people nearby. In this situation I think some sort of dress code is a good idea.

User avatar
Tuppence
Post Knight
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: chaos-world, west yorks
Contact:

Post by Tuppence »

erm.... why? tartan was in existance and this can be proven from archaelogical evidence..


many fabrics have been in existence for a very long time.

That they existed does not mean we should assume that they were used for clothing.

i posted that Jan goulding of the history dept of edinburgh uni had said that kilts did indeed exist pre-1500-1600 but not in the form they are now.
i can only go by the info these experts tell me.


and on which primary source evidence is she basing this?

although I have no reason to doubt her, to say that something is so because somebody else says so is a bit of a cop out.

and no, you can't only go on what these experts tell you. You can go out and do your own research, and look at the evidence and make your own interpretation of it.

i would be wearing tartan that day, possibly even with a dirk and sgian dubh.. would you have me arrested?


No.

If a policy to the contrary of that were in force, I'd have you removed from the site - by force if you made it necessary.

Although that said, the police would doubtless want to be involved if you were carrying weapons without good reason. (National dress unfortunately can no longer count in these days of regular stabbings.)

Speaking as somebody who was at an event at which members of the public in dodgy highland dress with equally dodgy weapons tried to get onto the battlefield, I think that the safety of all concerned is paramount. Anything else and the organisers could be accused of negligence.

Personally I'd prefer it if it said no mops in "historical" dress. That way those who choose to wear the modern kilt et al (or part of the outfit) are not caused a problem.

Besides, most of those I saw in "historical" plaids at the bannockburn I was at wouldn't have been right for the 17th century, when plaids were undoubtedly common. In fact they looked fairly laughable.
"What a lovely hat! But may I make one teensy suggestion? If it blows off, don't chase it."
Miss Piggy
RIP Edward the avatar cat.

Hobbitstomper
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 2:04 pm

Post by Hobbitstomper »

[quote="Arkadian"][quote][quote]Not facist at all, more realistic. After all, you won't get many people turning up in an English smock and carrying swords at Bannockburn. [/quote]
i think that may well be a matter of geography and the occassion. i bet you do get some turn up at re-enactments in England.. would i be wrong?
pweople in many cases as members of the public turn up in what they have, what they usually fress in on those occassions or simply what they can afford, to mock them is a bit low i think. and to try and dictate a dress code i think isn't really fir.
tartan was banned under force before, people won't like that again in any way. but that's digressing really.
Arkadian[/quote]

Actually mostly we don't get people turning up in fancy dress and armed. Only ever seen one. Some MOPs do fancy dress for some of the bigger festivals (such as Tewkesbury) but they don't carry dodgy claymores.

I haven't a problem with people turning up in any form of dress. I have got a problem with people turning up to re-enactments with a sharp sword without a really good reason. It only takes one beer fuelled fool (in any form of dress) who wants to join in to the battle and you could end up with a fatality.

User avatar
Dave B
Post Knight
Posts: 1737
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Cheshire
Contact:

Post by Dave B »

If it were down to me I'd run a 'no sharp swords' rule at all re-enactment.

Not for Mops, not on trade stalls, not even with the re-enactors for show and tell, unless they were controled and locked up when not in use like the firearms. Too much loonie risk
Find time in every day to look at your life and say; 'Well, it could be worse'

Kurt's uncle Bob.

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Post by zauberdachs »

FACT The Falkirk "tartan" is a fragment of cloth which could be from any item of clothing.

Therefore it is not evidence of a plaid.

FACT the Falkirk "tartan" is not a tartan. It's a chequered pattern. Which we know exists all over the world. It exists in ancient times, Japan, middle east etc.

FACT there is more evidence for people wearing "tartan" material in England, Germany and even Spain than in Scotland for the medieval period.

Therefore "tartan" is not a "Scottish thing" yet.

Quick Point: Professors of Political History making throw away comments on something they are largely uninterested in is not evidence for the existence of something. I have read a great deal of the literature of the above authors and do not think they discuss ideas of national dress during this period.

Quick point: There has been an extensive discussion about this already with several people playing devils advocate which could be very informative.
Last edited by zauberdachs on Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

guthrie
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: Polmont-Edinburgh

Post by guthrie »

I forgot to ask- how did you find the forum, Arkadian? You don't seem to be a re-enactor or potential re-enactor.

(Most of us found it etiher through friends or else searching the internet for information on historical stuff like clothing, weapons etc.)

Lady Wolfshead
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Innerleithen

Post by Lady Wolfshead »

Arkadian wrote:i see you made no comment at all about an attempt to EDUCATE instead of blanket ban or clear preconcieved notions of what you think may happen.
i am quite saddened by this.


Actually if you re-read my earlier thread you will notice that this was commented on. To repeat, those who have wished to be educated have been but there remain a hard core who will not accept anything that contradicts their Mel Gibson ideas of being Scottish.

some muppets you encountered 12 years ago


Sadly it is not just 12 years ago that we have encountered problems. The last Bannockburn was affected by a large number of Braveheart followers and three years ago two unauthorised television presenters were allowed on the battlefield with weapons and without any training. Reputable re-enactors all respect that safety is paramount and if that means that there needs to be a strict dress code and regulations then we would prefer that than risk an accident. Such dress codes are not intended to stop a member of the public from wearing standard national dress (eg. kilt, jacket, shirt, brogues, etc).

To help convey your points on this forum consider carefully what words you use to describe what you mean (we can be quite a pedantic bunch sometimes :roll: :) ) For instance, the words kilt, tartan, plaid, garment all have quite specific meanings and it's very easy to run into trouble if you accidentally use the wrong one in a particular context.

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Post by zauberdachs »

found it! the previous "tartan" discussion:

http://www.livinghistory.co.uk/forums/v ... c&start=60

enjoy :)
Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

User avatar
Simon_Diment
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:48 pm
Location: Nottingham
Contact:

Post by Simon_Diment »

Templar Order disolved in 1312 btw, just to add my small piece to this. :lol:

Most of us take this very seriously as a HOBBY, we don't have to do anything we would prefer not to - it's down to personal choices.

A lot of people involved with this hobby spend a great deal of time in personal research and/or further education study. The number of people with history based degrees, doctorates is impressive and that doesn't include the professional archaeologists. :roll:
Last edited by Simon_Diment on Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bitter and Twisted IS a lifestyle option!
www.angevin.org

guthrie
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: Polmont-Edinburgh

Post by guthrie »

Colin- Macdonald photo on the right- taken at St Andrews castle? Looks a bit like it, early in the day.

Post Reply