The Armour Archive

Hi all,

This is something I've been wondering about for a while. I'm attempting a late 14th century impression and basically want to avoid the 'diaper' look one gets with braies peeking from under the tunic. Until now I have mostly achieved this with the use of a longer tunic.



However, I would ideally like to have the more idealised shortened tunic look of the period.



So is this achieved by simply sizing the tunic perfectly? Should I be moving towards split hose instead of chausses? Any commentary is appreciated.

Cheers,



Hans

I would move towards split hose with full coverage - almost even to joined hose. Are you wearing a tunic under the arming doublet?

I think you can avoid that look and get closer to the design pictured above with a few minor changes. A lot of guys seem to only wear white braies--that definitely adds to the problem. Linen is harder to dye and less likely to remain colorfast than wool, which is part of why undergarments were often undyed in period. But that doesn't mean it was bleached--your braies don't have to be pure white. If you want to assume a higher income for yourself, you could use dyed linen--a darker color will help them fade into the background a bit. If you match them to the color of your chauses it will also help.

The other issue is the fit of the braies. They tend to be super loose and relatively short, and once you put on all of your armor and move around a bit, they do that bunching and puffing thing that adds to the diaper vibe--and a cup probably makes it worse. You can go with longer braies and rely on your chausses and armor to help hold them taut and keep them from creeping up your legs, and that will cut down on the extra volume. You can also take them in a bit. A lot of people wear garb that is too big on them, which isn't as flattering and also wouldn't make sense in an age when textiles were so expensive. I'd chose a long pair to use as your fit-pattern and take them in a bit. If that doesn't make them uncomfortable or make them split when you're fighting, you can take them in a bit more. Once you have them just right, cut them apart and use them as your new pattern and make a bunch of clones.

I'm going to stay on the edge of this discussion because I don't like to disturb the big dogs.

If you want the shorter look then you want the tailored look. Move towards split hose. Make sure your hosen are properly constructed (bias cut). Consider stirrup hose rather than footed hose to help minimize the 'downward creep'. Get or make a plaque belt to keep your tunic/cote down in the proper position. Use two attachment points for your hose rather than just one (one on top of your thigh, one on the side of your leg).

jester wrote:I'm going to stay on the edge of this discussion because I don't like to disturb the big dogs.

If you want the shorter look then you want the tailored look. Move towards split hose. Make sure your hosen are properly constructed (bias cut). Consider stirrup hose rather than footed hose to help minimize the 'downward creep'. Get or make a plaque belt to keep your tunic/cote down in the proper position. Use two attachment points for your hose rather than just one (one on top of your thigh, one on the side of your leg).

Good points.

I would extend this a little bit. If you're using full split hose, they can have just as many attachment points as joined hose. On each leg, one at the front of the hip, one at the side, and one near the center back. The center back one is a little tricky when you want to bend over, but I've been playing with bias and such and I think I might have come up with a good pattern. I'll get back to you when I get that far.

I do not know if there is evidence to support this, but I also found that with single-point hose it was very effective if the top of the hose had a channel in it and a belt or cord passes through this, similar to braies. The cord enters and exits from a slit at the front of the leg, and ties to the braies. By doing this, it forms a drawstring that pulls the hose up tight around the top of the leg and in particular keeps it in snug and tight under the butt cheek. This makes it harder for the braies legs to pull out.

Again I have no evidence for this but hose that I've made this way feel great to wear.

Steve

Steve -SoFC- wrote:I do not know if there is evidence to support this, but I also found that with single-point hose it was very effective if the top of the hose had a channel in it and a belt or cord passes through this, similar to braies. The cord enters and exits from a slit at the front of the leg, and ties to the braies. By doing this, it forms a drawstring that pulls the hose up tight around the top of the leg and in particular keeps it in snug and tight under the butt cheek. This makes it harder for the braies legs to pull out.

Again I have no evidence for this but hose that I've made this way feel great to wear.

A slightly more evidence based approach similar to this is to use knots at the front of your hose where you point them. So you put on the hose and get it where you want it, then you tie the knot which pulls the fabric more tight around the back and then you tie the point to the knot. Still not perfect but works much better.

I die my braies black to match my hose.

Steve -SoFC- wrote:I do not know if there is evidence to support this, but I also found that with single-point hose it was very effective if the top of the hose had a channel in it and a belt or cord passes through this, similar to braies. The cord enters and exits from a slit at the front of the leg, and ties to the braies. By doing this, it forms a drawstring that pulls the hose up tight around the top of the leg and in particular keeps it in snug and tight under the butt cheek. This makes it harder for the braies legs to pull out.

Again I have no evidence for this but hose that I've made this way feel great to wear.

Marc Carlson has a bit of a description on his site, which gives the general idea, and might serve as a good starting point for experimentation.

http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-ca ... khose.html

I've been wearing one of Historic Enterprises' bocksten tunics under my arming coat.

So it seems so far that the general consensus is either "show the braies but make them a colour that won't stand out" or move towards split hose and/or joined hose. I like the idea of the joined hose, to be honest, but is there any evidence at all for them before the early 15th century?

That's the million dollar question, isn't it?

I cannot point at one single image that early and say, yes, those are joined hose. There are an awful lot that *could* be, but usually it's unclear if they're joined or the butt covering split hose. However, by the late 14th c., (what's that image, 1390s?), the cotes are certainly short enough that it would be more appropriate or preferable to start wearing joined hose. The CdB is dated 1360s, and it's pretty short and tight. Even if the joined hose were lagging behind a bit, by the '90s they could have caught up.

Really, though, this is conjecture and my opinion. If you want to be really picky and on the safe side, go with butt covering split hose - exactly the same as joined, just not sewn together and no codpiece.

I don't know why, but I adore the phrase, "butt-covering split hose." It sounds cute.

I tried the split-but-butt-covering hose, pointing them at various points around the leg using a sleeveless vest to point them to.

It worked, but it ripped out the eyelets on some of the points. It generates very high stresses.

Is there any possibility of something like suspenders being worn with hose?

Steve

Steve -SoFC- wrote:I tried the split-but-butt-covering hose, pointing them at various points around the leg using a sleeveless vest to point them to.

It worked, but it ripped out the eyelets on some of the points. It generates very high stresses.

Is there any possibility of something like suspenders being worn with hose?

Steve

I'm working on a pair of joined hose right now, and have some *ideas* about bias. If it works, it would work for BCSH, too. I'll keep you posted.

Charlotte J wrote:That's the million dollar question, isn't it?
Really, though, this is conjecture and my opinion. If you want to be really picky and on the safe side, go with butt covering split hose - exactly the same as joined, just not sewn together and no codpiece.

What is the earliest butt covering hose you can point to split or joined?

MediumAevum wrote:What is the earliest butt covering hose you can point to split or joined?

The Thorsberg trousers?

Karen Larsdatter wrote:

MediumAevum wrote:What is the earliest butt covering hose you can point to split or joined?

The Thorsberg trousers?

Oh how obvious a pair from 1000 years earlier than we were talking is obviously the answer.

Honestly, I couldn't tell you *earliest* right off the top of my head. But I'll try to pull up the discussion I was reading elseweb and see what they were presenting as joined, that also could have been BCSH.

But here are a couple from the 1390s:
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006051.JPG
http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 006052.JPG

I'm pulling this from a discussion on the aotc yahoo group. This was posted by Jens Boerner, I believe. Is he here? It was intended to be proof positive of joined hose, but I'm wary.

Try: http://tethys.imareal.sbg.ac.at/realonline/ and search for
timeframe 1370-1410, material objects, "beinling" as keyword.

Example:

http://tethys.imareal.sbg.ac.at/realonl ... 003935.JPG (the
guys on the left without leg armour)

Southern tirol, 1380-1400.

Same time frame:
http://tethys.imareal.sbg.ac.at/realonl ... 003941.JPG (here
you can see an early doublet, with is quite seldom )

Or here:
http://tethys.imareal.sbg.ac.at/realonl ... 004132.JPG

- of course another discussion is how long the hosen were at which
point of the 14th or early 15th century. In my opinion, reconstructing
a correct doublet and legwear of arround 1380-1430 is about the most
difficult thing you can do in medieval clothing. Since the doublets
tend to be really long, you have a problem to achieve a cut in which
you can walk without problems.

Here is perhaps one of the most famous and obvious examples (1390)
http://tethys.imareal.sbg.ac.at/realonl ... 006051.JPG from the
fescos of castle runkelstein, tirol.

Another:
http://tethys.imareal.sbg.ac.at/realonl ... 006055.JPG

1370-1400:

http://tethys.imareal.sbg.ac.at/realonl ... 008148.JPG

1390, vienna:

http://tethys.imareal.sbg.ac.at/realonl ... 008510.JPG

and so on (there are lots of statues in germany which show the same)

And there is a "panzerhose" in munich, which is unclearly dated to
14th-15th century, which may show some early kind of joined hosen
without gore. It is clearly not mid-late 15th century, though:

http://www.bildindex.de/bilder/mi02351b10a.jpg

Nissan Maxima wrote:I die my braies black to match my hose.

That ain't why...



MVH

Charlotte,

I agree. Few of those show clear evidence of being joined. I tend to think c. Agincourt myself but I would not be so bold as to say I know for sure. Those last ones are joined but not by much. Very interesting.... sort of an in between. I tend to think joined is more inclosing than those but shows development I supposed from split to joined.

RPM

Charlotte J wrote:I'm pulling this from a discussion on the aotc yahoo group. This was posted by Jens Boerner, I believe. Is he here? It was intended to be proof positive of joined hose, but I'm wary.

That is about what I expected to see and would probably question some of those dates if I cared enough. But yea there is no actual proof positive of joined hose there. Only butt covering hose. Because we clearly see those well into the 15th century even on fully armored man at arms in Italy.

I concur. That said, I wish more people would wear the butt covering split hose. I think that most people see the choice as chausses or joined, when really, BCSH gives you pretty much the same coverage and function, just without the codpiece.

I was thinking about this last night as looking through a few manuscripts online (don't have my books). No matter how early, you just don't see braies peeking out. As the cotes get shorter, people should be either figuring out how to tailor their chausses better, or move to BCSH. Frankly, I'd rather see somebody wearing joined hose than chausses, if that's what it takes. I *shouldn't* be able to see if they're joined or not, but I *should* be saved from diaper view. Make sense?

But I'm a farb.

MediumAevum wrote:Oh how obvious a pair from 1000 years earlier than we were talking is obviously the answer.

You asked about the earliest butt-covering hose. What, you wanted something no later than the crack of dawn on January 1, 1300?

Earliest I got at http://larsdatter.com/hose.htm for definitive cheek coverage (though I suspect they're joined hose rather than separate butt-covering hose) seems to be the Runkelstein Castle bathroom frescoes that Charlotte already linked to upthread.



There's certainly evidence for earlier butt-covering attachment for separate hose, like the hardware visible in http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8 ... /f576.item

Another factor is the voluminousness of the undergarments in question.



(It's worth clicking through to the zoomed-in image at http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminated ... llID=28600 for better details, here.)

This peasant is no fashionable trendsetter (he's maybe two decades after the Runkelstein bathroom butts), but even he manages to avoid the diaper look by wearing a tighter pair of underbritches. (It also helps that his cote is long enough to provide some coverage over his backside, too.)

So when would butt covering hose come into being?

RPM

Karen Larsdatter wrote:

MediumAevum wrote:Oh how obvious a pair from 1000 years earlier than we were talking is obviously the answer.

You asked about the earliest butt-covering hose. What, you wanted something no later than the crack of dawn on January 1, 1300?

Well, when discussing late 14th c. hose, it make sense....

WRT the other hose you posted in the thread...

I don't think that unless we can see the front and if there's a cod piece we'll be able to say for certain one way or another. I would expect them to be joined, if the doublet is that short, but well fitted BCSH would look just about the same from the back as joined.

RandallMoffett wrote:So when would butt covering hose come into being?

RPM

I don't know that imagery is going to answer it for us. HOWEVER, the CdB pourpoint, which is supposedly 1364 or earlier if it really belonged to CdB, has hose attachment points at the front of the hips, sides, back, and center back, all of which support (no pun intended) the idea of some sort of butt-covering hose, and not single point chausses.

RandallMoffett wrote:So when would butt covering hose come into being?

RPM

Randall, I just received my copy of the excellent book the Encyclopedia of Medieval Dress and Textiles of the British Isles c. 450 - 1450. In the hose entry, there's a description of the butt covering, or tailed hose, as some call them:

As the 14th century progressed men's hose were often tied to their gipon (-->jupon). This is confirmed by comments made by John of Reading in his Chronica which he was writing at some point between 1366 and 1369. Here he describes the hose as being very long and tied very tightly to the --> doublet so making it very difficult for the wearer to kneel down.

Char, do you have a decent hi-res image of the inside of the CdB? I could not see a center back point on the peplum the last time I went looking, but all I have is a crappy little 72dpi pic.

Not at the moment - I don't have any of my stuff with me here, though it might be online somewhere. I was going off of the Tarrant drawing, though the textual description in the book I mentioned says "six pairs of linen laces and one of leather."

Aha. I found one.

That will do nicely. Where there's smoke, there's butt-covering...

I think between the textual description posted above, and the CdB (if you believe the date), it's pretty decent justification for butt-covering hose for the doublet era. That is, the part of the 14th c. that *most* people do when they say they're doing 14th c.

WRT joining the hose - I'd counsel anybody who is making the doublet shorter than their dangly bits to add a codpiece. But that's just for the sake of the rest of us.

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.

Charlotte,

Not me! I do the true 14th with some decades of clearance to keep me safe, around 5 in fact!

KLaus,

Agreed. I did a search on the MS website and the majority of men that it is clear on seem to be in that boat.

For most of the 14th the outer tunics still are pretty long, groin length or longer so I hope that is not an issue. Even into the early 15th most seem around this length. A quick look on the MS site by Galfrid has some good pictures for this looking.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/search/ ... gs=&page=2

RPM

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