>Hmmmm. . . .
>At the risk of opening a new line (thread) of thought, it occured to me
that
>either the Scots mentioned were of a different clan than those I have known
>(and not in the biblical sense) in the past, or, perhaps, contemporary
kilts
>are of a shorter cut? Owing to something having to do with the sheep???
Could be something to do with length - of the kilt, I mean. I think a proper
kilt is still the same length, though it does have an inordinate amount of
material in it. Indeed, it is said that more men of the Scottish Regiments
died in the first World War through drowning than through direct enemy
action. A kilt soaked in Flanders mud was heavier than most men could
support. There is a charming story of a Regimental Pipe Major who was at the
head of a column of advancing Scottish infantry, playing the pipes as the
rest advanced on German lines. Seemingly his kilt was so heavy, he paused to
unbuckle it and left it on the ground. The sight was so terrifying (this guy
seemed entirely bullet proof) that the Germans are alleged to have scattered
and their trench was quickly captured. A nice story though what grain of
truth is in it is unknown. As for the sheep - hmmmm.... Scottish sheep can
be an entirely different matter. Like Heinecken beer, these sheep CAN reach
where others don't.
Jonmac
|