[Nathan Quarantillo]

Hi all. I was wondering weather or not there were any alternatives to hosen and chauses in the 13-15cent. It seems that they are the only types of legwear out there for europe during the period. also, what was worn in the 12th cent? it seems that the "viking/anglo-saxon" type pants were around forever them, but what happened during the transition?

[Sander Marechal]

If I recall correctly, somewhere in the 15th century the hosen were joined, giving you pants as we know them today (although they were still tight like hosen and they did have codpieces). By that time the braies had also shortened and thinned significantly, resembling underwear as we know it today.

[Andreas Auer]

My interpretation of trousers...why did they part the middle part from the leg part of a trousers...very simple in my point of view. the only thing you have to wash often is the part in the middle (of course). It can be washed as often as needed and no color would wash out. and the leg parts stay in their expensive color without fading. early on the Cottes and tunicas where long, and there were simply no need for full trousers, and later when the cottes are getting shorter the Legparts began to close again...

Andreas

[Elling Polden]

It is not quite clear when hose replaced pants, but the Franks used hose in the 8th century.

What preceded the hose where very tight fitting pants, of the kind that where found at Thorsberg;


This kind of trousers need a very complicated crotch design to be tight fitting on the leggs, and not rip when you sit down on the ground.
At some point somebody obviously tought "hey, why are we bothering with these complicated and clamy pants? Our tunics are knee length anyhow, so nobdy will see the difference."

[Chuck Russell]

you have to watch the thorjberg pants. people use those to date pants from celt to 11thc because there's nothing in between as far as finds. i have seen them dated a lot earlier than 8th century. also, these pants are very wide at the top. thus the belt loops. i have made a reconstructed pair and had to make the spread in the backside and waist a lot larger as to not rip them. they do feel great when you have them on though.

[Troy G L Williams]

Another question on the same lines. Did the pants have integrated feet or not? If not, then what was worn in lieu? Socks?

[Sean Flynt]

Bundhose appear in some artwork ca. 1510, and I would guess that they were developing from hose by the late 15th c. As far as I can tell, they got fuller through the thigh over time and then separated at the knee to create what I guess would generically be termed breeches.

[Sean Flynt]

Alternatives from the late 1460s. These clearly are not "tight," as they have wrinkles and are rolled just as we would roll trouser legs today (compare to the more traditional-looking hose on the figure at right). They must have some stretch, however, because the cuffs would not appear to be as wide as a thigh. Note that they are not joined to a foot (as the later Bundhose appear to be,) and are shown worn with calf-height boots. Austrian or Slovakian. There are several depictions of these and it seems that they were associated with lower social classes--peasants, common soldiers/militia.

In the second image below, the figure at right appears to be wearing a pair of Levi's 501 jeans. Perhaps he's just come back to work after a morning down at the fishin' hole. Maybe he has a sack of crawdads waiting for lunch.

[Elling Polden]

The conclusion seems to be that unless you are from a total backwater, western europeans wore hose and breeches from at least 1000. The Franks wore them from the 700's, at the least.

The slavs and other eastern peoples used pants all along. There are some posible indications that loose pants where used in heathen scandinavia during the early viking period (7-800s), but by the 900s they have the same sleek leg garments as everybody else.
It was not before the late 1700s that loose fitting pants where reintroduced into western european fashion.

So, no, there's no getting around them

The hose where suplemented by various accessories, like leg wraps, tall needleboud socks, or aditional outer hose for cold weather use.
Integradet feet seems to have been common. Personally I find that it makes the hose fit a lot better. In dry weather you can even use them without shoes, if they have a hide sole.

[Daniel Staberg]

Pants are worn by all Swedish peasant soldiers in Dolnsteins drawings from 1502, pants also appear in the art of Aertsen & Beuckelaer who were painting in the Netherlands in the mid-16th Century.
Written sources suggest that Swedish peasant dress was distinctly diffrent in cut and appearance from fashionable western clothing. Conscripts were to be dressed in proper soldierly fashion not only to give them a proper appearance but also to make it harder for deserters.
When we once again get detailed drawings by an eyewitness from the later 17th Century the dress of Swedish peasants are basicly unchanged from the time of Paul Dolnstein.

So I'd say that at least in Sweden the use of pants was constant among a large group of the population, church paintings and similar pictorial sources almost certainly tells us more about how the artist wanted to depict people, an ideal rather than a snap shot of the local parishoners. Many, painters were foreigners and would have seen no reason to pain the crude and outlandish clothing of the backwards Swedes but rather prefered to follow the style of clothign and paintign they were comfortable with from their native countries.

[Mikael Ranelius]

Here are the Dolnstein-trousers Daniel was talking about:



Late 15th century Swedish Church painting:

http://www.rafen.net/byxor/P1010207.JPG

Early 17th century portrait of the 16th century peasant leader Nils Dacke:



Trousers like these made from linen and/ or hemp were worn by rural Dalecarlians in central Sweden as late as the 1890s, in fact they're still part of the traditional summer garb.

IIRC I've seen depictions of similar trousers or ankle breeches worn by sailors in late medieval Dutch art.

[Sean Flynt]

It's interesting that some of these artists distinguish hose from these looser trousers by the addition of wrinkles. It's almost as if the bulkier outline alone doesn't make visual sense, so they have to somehow indicate that these are not form-fitting garments.

[Nathan Quarantillo]

well, since I am possibly going for a 15th cent English yeoman archer, (once I get done with the Landsknecht and civil war kits) I would not do well to appear a backwater bumpkin. Hosen it is.....

At least the historical kind arn't as feminine as everyone thinks they are (quite manly if one asks me)......

but on another medieval fashion note, were big hooded cloaks used? theyre everywhere in medievalesque modern garbage, but what about in the period? Based on reality? Seems to me that a big friggin wool cloak would be quite practical, even if by the soldierly and such......

[Mikael Ranelius]

Cloaks were normally hoodless and semicircular throughout the European Middle Ages. Granted, some period art suggest that hooded cloaks might have been worn, but if so they seem to have been comparatively rare. The full-circle, hooded cloak came into fashion for women’s wear during the 18th century, otherwise I’d say its contemporary prevalence owes much to fantasy- and semi-historical LARP. The late 13th century, caftan-like gardecorps sometimes came with an integrated hood, but it’s not a cloak, nor is it appropriate for portraying a 15th century archer.

The mid 14th century Bocksten cloak:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/cloth/bockclok.html

Example from a late 14th century German effigy. Like the Bocksten man he’s wearing a separate hood and cloak:
http://mainzauber.de/blog09/wp-content/upload...hausen.jpg

[Mark T]

While it may not be a 'cloak' as such, Gerry Embleton's Medieval military costume (Ramsbury, The Crowood Press, 2000) on page 63 depicts an:

[Glennan Carnie]

There are two things you see very regularly with people new to medieval clothing:
- Tight hose look girly
- Cloaks look nice and warm

Many people never get past these ideas (Hollywood certainly hasn't!). That's why you see so many people wearing baggy pants and hoods at re-enactment events. As has been mentioned above both cloaks and baggy hose are comparatively rare in contemporary evidence; and certainly not commonplace.

Below is a question from a friend on another forum. Rather than repeat myself I thought I'd just post my response (edited slightly):

[Nathan Quarantillo]

Lol, is the fail green archer wearing clogs?

and I get what you are saying glennan. And I've already got around the hose thing, just confirming suspicions about the cloak. (you have to admit, it sounds quite warm)
hhhmmm... what do you think is cheaper and eisier to do well? a late 14th cent or early-mid 15h cent yeoman archer?

[Mikael Ranelius]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Lafayette C Curtis]