Ghillie Shoes

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
colorado clyde said:
some of them would almost certainly have worn what we call Ghillie Shoes today.

Certainly possible....but for how long after they got off the boat.


That's an important point. People like to dress like everyone around them. And communities in the eighteenth century were shall we say intergrated. Although New York was full of Dutch or Georgia full of scots or the Carolinian with scots Irish and French in general America was very intergrated. A New England gentleman might dress a little more English, while a southern gentleman might have more of a French cutwhile a Quaker dressed like a Quaker most people dressed like everyone else. Living in a community where everyone has gillies one wouldn't feel out of place, while being the only guy with them on might make you feel out of place.
 
I agree what we today call "Ghillie's" are not the same thing as the soft leather footwear worn back in our period. Pardon me for using the term to try to save some typing.

The common soft leather footwear for poor people was made from a piece of leather with holes punched in it. The wearer put each foot on one and just gathered and laced the leather up over the top of his foot and tied the lacing above the ankle to form footwear. There was no special fitting with this form of footwear, other than to ensure the leather did not overlap on top of the foot. Can't seem to find a link to them right now, unfortunately.

One type that is close (but a little more fitted) is also very much like what Spence documented in his post above: http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/shoe/SHOES/SHOE57.HTM

Here is a shoe similar to a more fitted style of simple Scottish footwear of the period. Please note how close it is to center seam moccasins.: http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/shoe/SHOES/SHOE55.HTM

Yes, these were ancient designs; but since they were simple and cheap to make, the designs lasted for centuries, especially amoungst the poor.

As far as how long "after they got off the boat" did they wear them? Thought I had already addressed the fact above that they would usually only have been seen in concentrations of Highland Scottish immigrants. How long did British Immigrant frontier families wear home made moccasins in the colonies and they had NO history of wearing them in the old world in then recent times, before they came? The Highland Scots already had made and worn similar foot wear before coming here.

Gus
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Artificer said:
As far as how long "after they got off the boat" did they wear them? Thought I had already addressed the fact above that they would usually only have been seen in concentrations of Highland Scottish immigrants.
I guess it's safe to say that the use of this style, in reenacting, would be limited to a very specific persona, as far as time and place in North America? :wink:
 
Yes, it is safe to say for a reenactor to wear some of the soft shoes mentioned, it would have to have been with a persona from Immigrant Highlander Scots and from only a fairly few geographic regions.

I don't doubt these soft shoes hung around far longer than some/many other items of Highland Dress, because they would have been as practical for many people on the frontier as low cut moccasins were. Of course a LOT of frontier people from the colonies of Virginia and further south went barefoot for much of the year. It is just that our modern feet can't stand going barefoot as much as they did and modern ground cover such as landscaping rocks/gravel/asphalt/etc. were not around back then.

One does have to be careful to choose which period Scottish Items (especially Highlander Scottish Items) were actually used in the colonies and at what time periods - to do a correct impression.

Gus
 
I think maybe we are overlooking a few factors...


The Scots enjoyed the best relationship with Native Americans, especially the Creeks.
The one group of people that the scots interbred with...and they also wore similar footwear....
But, the point I'm trying to make is that Ghillies didn't survive/continue in the historical record. but moccasins did.
One can document ghilles in Scotland and maybe shortly after Scottish settlement in Georgia......but then they die out as a type of footwear....However, moccasins, brogans, boots etc.... are easily documentable throughout the remainder of the time period.
 
When did they die out in Scotland? One thing to say a new immigrant in 1746 to Georgia or South Carolina might get off the ship with a plaid and ghillies , while asking if they are still to be seen fourty years later?
As for if absence in historic sites, would you be able to tell a fragment of centerseam sole from a ghillie sole. Very few compleat eighteenth cent moccasins around. I 'spect ghillies wore out as quick as moccasins
 
Not arguing....Just saying that as immigrant Scots they were likely engaged in farming or other activities, trading with natives for moccasins or the English for shoes makes a whole lot more sense...
The other caveat is that, ghillies were not the most popular or broadly worn type of footwear in Scotland. They were also not suitable for American farming....and the immigrants landed in an English colony.

All of the old paintings I have seen so far, depict shoes other than ghillies.

And then there are descriptions like this:
The Highland Independent Company of Foot

The Highland Independent Company of Foot, raised in 1740 at New Inverness, was a colonial Georgia militia unit modeled after independent companies in Scotland. They wore Highland dress; feileadh mhor, plaid jacket and waistcoat, blue bonnet, Highland hose and brogs,


Or at least that's the way I understand it... I could be wrong.....Pleas feel free to correct me.
 
I too wasn't arguing, just thinking from some points of view. The more I think about it the less likely I thing they would be seen in America longer then it took a pair to wear out at the most.
However if that is what you knew how to make that may be what you make. :idunno:
In any case I'm thinking you would have to be looking early. People grabed shoes as soon as they could. Even on the frontier. I would lay money that at the end of his life Boone,or Kenton spent more days in thier lifes wearing shoes then moccs
 
One has to be careful when looking at older quotations and using modern definitions. A "Brog" could have far different meanings than more modern ones.

"We know that Highlanders - men and women - frequently went barefooted in summer and winter - see the 1848 R. R. McIan painting of school children - but when they did wear shoes they were what they called in Gaelic - brogan tionndaidh - and they were made mostly from deerskin and pretty rough and ready. Martin Martin in 1703 wrote "The shoes antiently wore, were a piece of the hide of a deer, cow or horse, with the hair on, being tied behind and before with a point of leather."

To make them, the Highlander would lay his bit of deerskin on the ground - furry side down - place his foot on top and draw the material up around his foot, cut off the excess and then punch holes along the top of the instep through which he would thread deerskin thonging. He would then cut holes in each shoe to let the water out . If he didn't do that, water would lie in the shoes and cause what is known as foot rot or 'trench foot' - a serious condition, which if unattended, could result in gangrene and amputation.

Captain Burt, an English engineering officer, was sent to Inverness in 1730 as a contractor and we owe much to his blunt and often ascerbic descriptions of life at that time. Here he has something to say of the Highlander's shoes: "They are often barefoot, but some I have seen shod with a kind of pumps made out of a raw cow hide with the hair turned outward. They are not only offensive to the sight, but intolerable to the smell of those who are near them. By the way, they cut holes in their brogues though new made, to let out the water when they have far to go, and rivers to pass; this they do to prevent their feet from galling." (becoming sore). Highlanders also wore a higher foot covering - a leather boot of untanned skin, which was laced up to just below the knee. These were called cuaran."

I don't understand why we would expect poor Highland immigrants to want to trade something valuable with the Native Americans, when they were used to going barefoot so often and so easily making their own simple/working shoes that worked as well as moccasins. We take it for granted that poor folk grew their own flax, turned that into linen and made their own clothes out of it. That's far more difficult to do than making their own traditional Highland foot wear.

Furthermore, many/most of the images we have of Highlander Scots come from the 1770's and later and even then they often show everyone barefoot for poor folk. Also, one has to be careful that an early image is truly of a Highland Scot/s and not mixed up with Lowlanders (as is too often done) who as already mentioned were wearing mostly English attire from the beginning of the 18th century.

Now I am sure that just like poor English/British immigrants on the frontier, that some of them had period shoes to wear to church or special occasions, but they took them off when they got home to save them, especially in the warmer months. Of course when Highland Immigrants became wealthy enough to buy shoes, they did so, just like poor English/British Immigrants eventually did.

Gus
 
Gus,
Some of your references seem to be of, for, about,and by Scots in Scotland. Not America.


Describing a Highlander in Scotland is not representative of a Highlander who lived in America.

Things change....
 
Of course some of my references were from Scotland during the time period mentioned. This proves Highland Scots were making the types of foot wear mentioned right before they came over here.

Thus it also shows they had no need to trade for Native American moccasins once they got here. Saying "things change" does not change that fact.

One of the references proves that "Brog" has an entirely different period meaning than a modern shoe. That doesn't change when the Highlanders are in Scotland or when they came to the Colonies.

Now the Highland Regiments who fought here in the FIW (and some of them settled here afterward), were issued shoes after they joined their Regiments, just like any other British Soldier. For many of the Enlisted Soldiers, those were the first period buckle shoes they ever owned. When the families of the poor enlisted soldiers joined them, many would have still been wearing the foot wear described in the Highlands before they came over. Once they got here, they no doubt would have continued to wear them until their economic situation improved considerably, as I mentioned in my recent post.

The point of the discussion is whether or not the normal Highland Footwear was worn here in the colonies. They made and wore such footwear before they left. When they were in concentrated groups of Highland immigrants as mentioned, there was no reason to change when they got here. They were used to making that footwear, so there is no reason to believe they stopped making that footwear when they got here, until such time as their economic situation improved to buy English type shoes.

Gus
 
We always want to represent the avarage Joe of whatever population we are playing at. The avarage long hunter or trapper or farmer or townsmen. There was no average Joe. New immigrants who came seeking a better life,those that were sent here,those that fled here,those that were born here,and born to parents that were born here. Those who were runaways and those that were run toes. A farmer who tried a year or two as a sailor or spent a season as a wagoners transporting goods to a frontier fort,even poor mans grand tour being a nomadic traveler and odd jobs worker moving from colony to colony. Many were stay at homes many lived a life that sounded like a novel. Joe or in this case Hamus of 1749 could be a whole lot different man then of 1759 or 69.
 
Fashions of clothing and footwear changed over time, though older styles stuck around longer in immigrant communities of the same cultural background.

10 and especially 20 years after Hamas got off the boat, his economic situation could have improved to the point he could have afforded "English" type shoes or boots; but that does not mean he all of a sudden forgot how to make traditional footwear when he landed, did not wear them when he got here and for some time after - especially on the frontier.

Gus
 
I do not dispute that a "fresh off the boat"..."green as grass" Highlander probably wore gillies or something similar...

I am however, curious when they stopped wearing them?

And has been said, they would be confined to a very specific persona...

I think they are a very interesting type of footwear...Moreover....they were designed for wet environment.....The Dutch had a different solution for the same problem....very interesting.... :hmm:
 
Ok, can I cut to the chase here?
Those things you made for your feet shown in the OP,,
ain't gonna cut it at any rendezvous, judged or not.
Sorry,, European,, not American.
We're not re-enacting Europe here.
If ya ain't got shoes or moc's go bare foot.
Scotsmen be damned,, they got shot or run off,,
,,showed up every once in awhile to make a historical comment then;
They got shot or run off.
Bottom line, them leather things ain't gonna cut it without getting grief at any event you attend.
 
Well that's compleatly true. This would be a judgment thing. I don't think they would fit on my outfit. After researching ones time and persona with a reasonable bio they may fit in.
 
Back
Top