Kilts.

[sunndog]

Serious question then mary. Are there any genuine practical advantages to a kilt over trousers in this modern age?
Cool in summer (midges permitting) is about the only thing that springs to mind.

 

[Toddy]

Serious question then mary. Are there any genuine practical advantages to a kilt over trousers in this modern age?
Cool in summer (midges permitting) is about the only thing that springs to mind.

Sorry Sunndog, I missed this one.

I don't think so really, though that's both a cultural and a modern textiles/equipment thing.
It was a very practical garment of it's time, and there are many that still wear it for it's sheer comfort. Cloth was hard earned, took a lot of effort to make. Wearing it as a kilt meant no sodden wet hems, on roadless lands it was ideal for hill, moor, across wetlands too. No unhygienic crotch in sweaty trousers in the days before easy laundering, and the kilt outlasted many pairs of trousers (we have the reports from the officers of the regiments at the time of the early Empire to back that up) The linen sark worn underneath got washed as did the body, but the wool didn't need it.
Easy to move in, no binding of the legs or hips, the stitched layers kept the body core warm (and supported) and being wool, it was ideal for our climate.

M

 

[Janne]

Drafty?

 

[sunndog]

Thanks for the reply toddy.
Couple of things i hadn't thought of there. Wet hems is a good one, we've all walked over fields of wet grass and got sodden trousers when everything else was dry.
Wear too. Bit like giving kids short trousers so they don't wear the knees out