Ok having trouble finding a historical sewing forum so perhaps somebody here who has experience with 15th century arming garments can answer this.

I've been prototyping a 15th century arming doublet based on this image at the bottom of this post from the Thun'sches Skitzenbuch and drawings from the Talhoffer Fechtbuch. My problem is that my hose (wool) and arming doublet (linen) are not very elastic meaning that I'd tear something if I tied up the rear point-tie just as soon as I sat down.

What I'm wondering is that after taking a look at all these drawings and a bunch of paintings depicting men at work is that they don't seem to tie up the point tie in the rear. Some don't even seem to have bothered fitting a tie in the rear in the first place. This seems to correlate with my experience of the rear tie being basically useless, yet in other images the rear point is clearly fitted and actually tied up. Did these guys really walk around with a 'plumber's buttcrack' like that and their undershirt hanging out?

[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]

---

 Attachment: 70.3 KB



 Attachment: 44.91 KB
[ Download ]

 Attachment: 213.58 KB
[ Download ]

 Attachment: 59.79 KB
[ Download ]

The shirt is tucked into the pants on the back, and if it's long enough it won't wander out easily.

Simply put: you can't bend over if your Hosen are pointed to the back of your doublet, even sitting down is an issue if the attachment is relatively short. It has to be loose while standing to even allow you to sit down.

I've so far solved this conundrum by leaving some extra length on the rear points, so that it was taut when I bent over, and flopping around when standing. Leaving it open isn't too big an issue, either.

Plus, it may well be that these guys would normally have walked around with a robe or other outer garment that reaches down beyond the bum, but they've taken it off for some reason or other. (not getting it dirty, having full mobility, things like that)

A pair of joined Hosen may not even need to be tied up to the doublet to stay on, if you tie them together tightly in the front. Granted, if you're only wearing a short doublet, you may end up giving everyone a show, but with longer clothes like a robe or a cotehardie, it's not really an issue.

By the way, I'm extremely thankful for sharing that first image. I had never consciously seen Hosen not being laced up, but attached via belts. Seems way more convenient at a glance, I may have to try that myself.

I find this thread both timely and amusing. Not too long ago, I was tooling around Wiktenauer and looking at some of the links which stem from the I.33 page. This set of unglossed images is speculated to have been derived from the lost pages of I.33, though it's obviously much later than the speculative source document:

https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Anonymous_sword_and_buckler_images

...Looking at the Erlangen Version images from 1500, I initially speculated that the illuminator was having a bit of fun by making the fencer's pants fall down, but that might have been, according to what I have been reading here, something that might have happened due to not tying the aft points and needing to move around with vigor!

...I am merely thankful that I do not wear tights!