Avoiding the 'Diaper' Look

[Charlotte J]

Contrariwise, I think there's plenty of evidence for the continued use of single-leg hose (and "boxer brief" braies) well into the 15th century. It depends on the class and the fashion. If the tunic is long and loose enough to cover the upper legs, there's no need to have tight joined hose and a codpiece. I seem to recall reading that at Agincourt, many English archers kept their hose rolled down (which only works with single-leg chausses) regardless of the weather because they were suffering from dysentery, and had to take a crap on seconds' notice without fumbling with points.

Oh, absolutely. I doubt there was a cut over, rather concurrent style options. As you say, class and fashion. Completely agree.

[Klaus the Red]

Steve- the Charles de Blois doublet is definitely civilian. Even so, leg harness would scarcely require a center back point.

[Charlotte J]

This has probably been covered before, but how do you know that those points shown are for hose and not armour?

Is this a martial cote?

Steve

I think the the consensus is that the CdB pourpoint is not a martial garment.

[Charlotte J]

Heh. Klaus and I simul-posted, and it brilliantly highlights my tendency to equivocate.

[Steve S.]

But there are similar martial garments, correct?

If so, how do you reconcile pointing both the hose and the armour to the same garment? Would there be a lower row of points for the hose, and then a higher row of points for the armour, so that you would put on your hose first and then your armour?

Steve

[Charlotte J]

But there are similar martial garments, correct?

If so, how do you reconcile pointing both the hose and the armour to the same garment? Would there be a lower row of points for the hose, and then a higher row of points for the armour, so that you would put on your hose first and then your armour?

Steve

The arming doublet I just made for Jeff, which was 1450s in design, had eyelets instead of points sewn into the garment. I added a set of eyelets for the hose, and then another set for the armor. This was the doublet he wore for the "How and English Knight Shall Be Armed" presentation at Kalamazoo this spring.



There's an Italian farsetto that shows this arrangement:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater

[Steve S.]

Thanks for the picture!

The thing I like about having a sleevless vest under my cote to tie my hose to is that after fighting I can take the cote off without my pants falling off.

Steve

[Sean M]

The BNF Fiore has some interesting details which look like either extended chauses, or butt-covering split hosen. Many of the figures have large flaps hanging from the back of their hosen:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8514426f/f17.item
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8514426f/f19.item
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8514426f/f40.item
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8514426f/f48.item
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8514426f/f53.item

But it is not unusual to see a bit of braes at the crotch:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8514426f/f44.item
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8514426f/f55.item

So I think we see split hosen cut long to avoid a gap between the doublet and the hosen. This guy clearly has hosen which cover his bottom. "Early 15th century" isn't as exciting as 1387 or the Chaucer quote though!

[Ernst]

Using the same manuscript, one could argue that you shouldn't avoid the diaper look, but embrace it.
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8514426f/f24.item

Even when the hose are cut to cover the butt, they seem to be left unfastened during strenuous activity.

[Mac]

I would like to compare the "SCA 14thC Diaper Effect" to the period image that Ernst linked to, but I am having trouble finding any egregious examples on the web. Can anyone supply an image (or three) of some modern guys who are sporting this look so we can all be on the same page?

Mac

[Charlotte J]

I've seen some egregious ones in pics of friends from Pennsic, but I don't want to embarrass anybody.

Here's the thing... Context is everything. Who are you? What's your class? What's your nationality? What's your context? What are you playing?

Now... try to find who you are and what you are doing in the images. If you are fighting, you have the Fiore images to look at. What are they wearing and what are you wearing? The Fiore guys are training, and they're wearing what look to be Butt Covering Split Hose left loose in the back. Are you wearing BCSH, or single point chausses? Are your tighty whities form fitting to your rear? Or do they hang down loosely like you have a full diaper?

Most "diaper look" guys I see are wearing chausses, and pretty pouffy braies that are pretty loose fitting. I can't think of any images off the top of my head that leave this particular look showing, even when guys are fighting, and especially not while wearing civilian gear.

[Mac]

I've seen some egregious ones in pics of friends from Pennsic, but I don't want to embarrass anybody.

See, now that's were we differ. I want to embarrass them.....if that's what it takes to get them to deal.

We need to define the problems and point out exactly where the reconstructions fall short of the period images. The only way to do this is to have something to point to.

C'mon! Some of you guys out there know that there are issues with your clothing, but the fact that all your friends dress like that too is keeping you from saying "Hey wait! Our asses are showing and we don't look like the guys in the manuscripts!". Let's just post some pics so we can start correcting the problems. No one is going to laugh at you who is not already laughing; and the sooner we begin fixing the problems, the sooner we will stop laughing.

Mac

[Charlotte J]

It's his wife I don't want to embarrass.

[Charlotte J]

Ok, the pic stream I'm looking through it all with armour. But it gives the idea, and could be helped out with proper hose. Maybe they're just meant to be white poofy pants, but I think they're braies.

http://kyleandrewsphotography.com/SCA/2 ... s&lb=1&s=A
http://kyleandrewsphotography.com/SCA/2 ... v&lb=1&s=A
The guy on the left here isn't pooching out so bad, but you can see how low his hose are compared to his upper garments:
http://kyleandrewsphotography.com/SCA/2 ... z&lb=1&s=A

I can't find a shot of this guy on the left from behind, but it would look a lot better with split full hose:
http://kyleandrewsphotography.com/SCA/2 ... M&lb=1&s=A

This guy in the tan! Luckily, his upper body garment almost covers it, but not enough. It's really loose and dumpy.
http://kyleandrewsphotography.com/SCA/2 ... c&lb=1&s=A

There's a gambeson hanging up in all of this too, but his undies are definitely hanging out
http://kyleandrewsphotography.com/SCA/2 ... K&lb=1&s=A

The guy in purple on the right. At least they're not big and baggy loose like some.
http://kyleandrewsphotography.com/SCA/2 ... S&lb=1&s=A

I hate to call out this handsome and proud lot, but there are a couple in here:
http://kyleandrewsphotography.com/SCA/2 ... z&lb=1&s=A

[Klaus the Red]

Period-obsessive though I am, I would rather wear white spandex compression shorts under split hose and give the proper appearance that have white linen braies that aren't tailored correctly.

[MJBlazek]

Period-obsessive though I am, I would rather wear white spandex compression shorts under split hose and give the proper appearance that have white linen braies that aren't tailored correctly.

I tend to agre with this. If only for the point that I have a pair of tailored braies that give the correct look, but fighting in them they rip out every time. Adding the appropraite "gap" to them would give them the diaper look.

[Mac]

Thank you, Charlotte! This gives us a place to start.

It seems to me that the there are two fundamental (yes, the pun was intended) sources of error here.

The first error is to mix and match across decades and social strata for the sake of convenience....

---If you want to wear the baggy breas and short hosen of the early 14th Century, you should not top it off with the short coat or doublet of the late 14th Century. (When I say "early 14th C", I am giving some of you the benefit of the doubt. Some of what I see smacks of the late 13th C...... The Maciejowski Bible is too early, guys.) By the time the nicer sorts of folks are wearing short skirts, the only people wearing underclothes like that are farmers. Farmers don't wear plate armor and compete in tournaments.

The second error is to ignore the basic precepts of clothing and decency......

---To be decent, a man's outer clothes must cover his buttocks and his organs of gendering. If his skirts do not cover these parts completely, his hosen must cover them. Conversly, if his hosen do not cover them, his skirts must. The exception to this is men engaged in physical labor or sports. But even here, there is no excuse for the gentleman to be wearing the farmer's hosen. The gentleman's hosen must be of a sort that will conceal his butt when the exercise is over.

---Clothing should look good. If your braes bunch up and make unsightly "panty lines" in you hosen, you need to make smaller braes.

Start from the skin, and dress your self according to your time, place, station. If your choice of armor dictates the time, it must also dictate your underwear and hosen. Keep asking yourself "Do I really look like the guys in the period illustrations?" Be honest with yourself.

Mac

[Mac]

I tend to agre with this. If only for the point that I have a pair of tailored braies that give the correct look, but fighting in them they rip out every time. Adding the appropraite "gap" to them would give them the diaper look.

MJB,

If the braies are ripping out, they are not tailored correctly. We hold this truth to be self evident.

I do not follow what you mean by "appropriate gap". Can you say that another way?

Mac

[Charlotte J]

I tend to agre with this. If only for the point that I have a pair of tailored braies that give the correct look, but fighting in them they rip out every time. Adding the appropraite "gap" to them would give them the diaper look.

MJB,

If the braies are ripping out, they are not tailored correctly. We hold this truth to be self evident.

I do not follow what you mean by "appropriate gap". Can you say that another way?

Mac

I'll take a guess here...

I'm assuming that he means by adding ease, they'll move better and be less likely to rip out. This is an extremely common perception in clothing tailoring - that if you can't move right, it must be too tight. In modern clothes, this is somewhat true. But in medieval clothing, the more you need to move, usually the closer fitting it needs to be.

In truth, when you need to have great range of movement, you want the fabric to fit as closely to the skin as possible. This isn't necessarily simple, and I can understand with braies that it might not be the instinctual thing to do - to go tighter. But it's not so much tighter, as tailored.

Mac, I'm thinking of that pair of braies that you had a picture of posted at one point on the archive. They were closely fitted through the leg and butt, but had a straight across section in the front, I think, that acted as a sort of pouch. I think those would give great movement, and yet not be diaper-y. Did you have a line drawing for the pattern?

[Klaus the Red]

Based on how skin-tight the "boxer brief" braies are depicted in most MS images, I suspect they may be partly cut on the bias. Anyone ever experiment with this? It's on my long and cluttered garb to-do list.

[Gregoire de Lyon]

I remain fascinated by this topic!

So, for the BCSH style of leg wear, the butt is covered by the extended hosen material pointed at the center back, but what is covering the dangly bits in the front?

[MJBlazek]

I have had mine taken apart and rebuilt each time. Some by professional seamtresses, When just wearing them they look great, and fit the profile of the artwork.
As soon as I fight: riiiip.
Now this is not to say that this wasn't the case in history too?
I just can't afford to buy new braies every time

[Tom Knighton]

I have had mine taken apart and rebuilt each time. Some by professional easmtresses, When just wearing them they look great, and fit the profile of the artwork.
As soon as I fight: riiiip.
Now this is not to say that this wasn't the case in history too?
I just can't afford to buy new braies every time

I'd seriously doubt this would be the case in period. I have seen remarkably little evidence that those we portray were wasteful souls, and constructing something in such a way that it will rip out seems pretty wasteful.

While I'm no tailor, and I defer to those with greater knowledge, it sounds like a construction or design issue.

[Mac]

Mac, I'm thinking of that pair of braies that you had a picture of posted at one point on the archive. They were closely fitted through the leg and butt, but had a straight across section in the front, I think, that acted as a sort of pouch. I think those would give great movement, and yet not be diaper-y. Did you have a line drawing for the pattern?

I posted some pics of the patterns for my most recent ones as well as their predecessors in this thread. viewtopic.php?f=16&t=135302&p=2009073 I think the pics are on page 2... or 3.

I am thinking about revisiting the project before next Pennsic. I have found that although they fit comfortably when I first put them on, they stretch a bit over the course of the day, and the pouch becomes a bit unstable. I think I need to lower the waist a bit (shorten the "fall") so I can get them back up to the freshly laundered position later in the day.

Mac

[Mac]

I have had mine taken apart and rebuilt each time. Some by professional easmtresses, When just wearing them they look great, and fit the profile of the artwork.
As soon as I fight: riiiip.
Now this is not to say that this wasn't the case in history too?
I just can't afford to buy new braies every time

MJB,

I think we can assume that our ancestor's underwear did not fail every time they did anything strenuous. There must surely be another problem.

Substitute "helmet" for "braies", and "splits my eyebrow" for "rips out". See what I mean? And, just because it "looks great" and was rebuilt by a "professional armorer" doesn't mean it is working like it should. If it does not pass the basic test of wearability under reasonable conditions, something is wrong.

If you post a pic, I will make my best guess about what is wrong.

Mac

[Effingham]

Mac, I love you, man. I absolutely love you.

[Klaus the Red]

Since our ancestors did not know the answer to the Riddle of Spandex, "action" braies had to have been made using precise tailoring and/or bias-cut material. The same principle applies to the grand assiette doublet- the sleeve is constructed to go all the way up into the armpit and out again with almost no hanging slack, such that the arm can rotate without having to strain the fabric at any point during the motion. Substitute "crotch" for "armpit" and "leg" for "arm" in the case of shorts.

[Mac]

I remain fascinated by this topic!

So, for the BCSH style of leg wear, the butt is covered by the extended hosen material pointed at the center back, but what is covering the dangly bits in the front?

The length of your skirts should cover that. Some doublets and cote hardi's dip down in the front, apparently for just that reason. If the doublet does not cover the groin, your outer garment must do so.

It's also important to consider that the brays (I know, I never spell this the same way twice) are a support garment. If they are doing their job, they will help to bring "the boys" up a couple of inches and keep them under the skirts and out of sight.

Mac

[MJBlazek]

Hey guys, sheesh.. all i am saying is that repairing them may have been more prevelent.
I am not a clothing expert, all I am posting about is my own experiences.

But using your own example Mac we have lots of evidence of repaired armor.

[Charlotte J]

Since our ancestors did not know the answer to the Riddle of Spandex, "action" braies had to have been made using precise tailoring and/or bias-cut material. The same principle applies to the grand assiette doublet- the sleeve is constructed to go all the way up into the armpit and out again with almost no hanging slack, such that the arm can rotate without having to strain the fabric at any point during the motion. Substitute "crotch" for "armpit" and "leg" for "arm" in the case of shorts.

Yep, sleeves are one of the best examples of this. If your sleeves don't fit right, general rule is to fit them closer, not looser.

[Charlotte J]

Hey guys, sheesh.. all i am saying is that repairing them may have been more prevelent.
I am not a clothing expert, all I am posting about is my own experiences.

But using your own example Mac we have lots of evidence of repaired armor.

Repairing them sometimes? Probably. Every time they're worn? Doubtful.

Your experiences are a good data point, but are probably indicative of a problem in tailoring which we have yet to find a solution to.

[Mac]

MJB,

I am not trying to pick on you.

My gift is to see things with a critical eye. It is also my curse.

Peace,
Mac

[MJBlazek]

I did. I wear joined hose now. With compression shorts and a cup.

Cause I got tired of repairing my braies!

See, I just explained the evolution of joined hose in one fell swoop.

Make sure you cite me in your papers.

[Steve S.]

I have found over the years that if a reconstruction doesn't work right it probably isn't done right.

Steve

[Gregoire de Lyon]

If am understanding everything correctly, by the time we are talking about the butt covering or joined hose we should be pointing to a doublet and not the braies or a belt, correct?