The Armour Archive

Someone asked me about hose from the 1420's and I am not sure if they had the codpiece for them then or not. The patterns I have seen for the 14th century the hose are not open in the front, but in the late 15th century we know they are. When did the change happen?

Thanks
Flonzy

------------------
Cheap garb is as bad as plastic armor.
http://home.armourarchive.org/members/flonzy

Correct me if I am wron but I think they started to come in style about that time (1420) and got bigger and more elaborate with time. Kinda like the pointy shoes in that respect.

Hi All,

Certainly when hosen are joined, there is a cod flap (when you say codpiece, most people think of 16th century monstrosities). They come in precisely when the doublet hem rises above the groin.

------------------
Bob R.

Follow one question. Did they still wear braes under the now-joined hosen?

I bet Gwen can give a better answer to this one.

You guys always wait until I'm up to my eyeballs in work to ask the interesting questions!

Chef is right- hosen joined and aquired a codpiece around 1420-30 in most countries. That doesn't mean that you still don't see separate legged hosen in active use right up through the end of the 16th C. for the lower classes.

We see guys wearing all sorts of underwear/braies like objects all the way up to the point at which it became "indecent" to depict them in art sometime in the early-mid 1500's. I believe they were still worn, they just don't really appear in such blatant abundance in paintings.

Hope that helps!

Gwen

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gwen:
<B>You guys always wait until I'm up to my eyeballs in work to ask the interesting questions!

Chef is right- hosen joined and aquired a codpiece around 1420-30 in most countries. That doesn't mean that you still don't see separate legged hosen in active use right up through the end of the 16th C. for the lower classes.

We see guys wearing all sorts of underwear/braies like objects all the way up to the point at which it became "indecent" to depict them in art sometime in the early-mid 1500's. I believe they were still worn, they just don't really appear in such blatant abundance in paintings.

Hope that helps!

Gwen</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, ahem, a more delicate question. Does the flap on the braes line up with the codflap on the hosen? Gotta say from a "drunken lout" perspective the flap on the codpeice is really darn convenient when out drinking... also, wont wearing braes under your hosen give major VPL?

Ok, here's to fessing up with real life experience...

In our group, we have some 15thC hosen (joined with cod flap) some made by Gwen, mine happens to be made by Angela in the UK.

Pending each example, I have found that the shape (edge angle) of the cod flap is important to stay snug to the hosen seam so it does not sag and gap. Of the examples we have, only 2 points (one in each corner) hold the cod flap taught. I am thinking of adding an additional set on the sides as security as my hosen are XXL size and simply have more fabric in the front to secure. Although it's been awefully close, I haven't really had a problem (that anyone's fessed up to telling me anyway) with gapping to the point that the white braies have easily shown through. Perhaps it adds to the mystery of wearing historical/historically based clothing...

From a practicality point (and to the question of convinience), wearing linen braies with the hosen is very comfortable and ultra convinient! From a demonstration perspective, we sometimes have only a minute or two between different speaking presentations. So time is critical. I have found at least on my hosen that undoing a point is actually unnecessary. Hence the convinience. However, I have genuinely wondered if I should really be able to (this easily) and if another set of points is appropriate. And is there any evidence to support this variation (multiple points)?

Now the other thing about the cod flap (or a cod piece if you feel you need to stuff it!) is that it could be single colour or parti colour. Either matching your hosen such as in my case where one leg is red, the other black and the cod flap compliments the pattern by being the same colour on the same side. Or be truly noticeable and reverse them. (Can you say jester!)

I will say this (and Chef can attest to this as I got a comment at the last Higgins L.H. presentation!), that wearing such parti colours does get you noticed...

I also will admit to wearing it this spring when I received my AoA and received encouraging compliments from our E.K. Highness (especially after he pointed out that red/black was his armorial colours). Now I have to work on making an appropriate court gown combination to go with it.

Anyhow, that's my 2 pfennig.

Gwen, what do you think about multiple points (more than 1 pair of points) for a large cod flap???

FvH


[This message has been edited by Friedrich (edited 10-22-2002).]

Most likely to no surprise, I have a song about codpieces too.

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

Chef and Gwen I thank you for the replies. Most of the books I have skip from the Black Prince to the War of the Roses, or skips the 15th century, so I had no idea when the codflap came about. Now I know which pattern to go with.

Flonzy



------------------
Cheap garb is as bad as plastic armor.
http://home.armourarchive.org/members/flonzy

Before this gets out of hand and becomes law, I have absolutely no evidence to support the word "CODFLAP" in place of "CODPIECE". Codflap is not a word recognized in any historical clothing circle or context that I am aware of --in fact, this is the first time I've ever heard it used.

Chef, if you can enlighten me further on the use of the word "codflap" I'll happily reevaluate my opinion, but until such time let's not invent a new word when the historically correct one will do. [img]http://www.armourarchive.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img] I don't feel we need to reinvent the wheel, and naming inconsistency causes nothing but problems.

Frederich, to answer your question, I've never seen more than 2 points securing the codpiece to the foundation garment, even in the huge mid 16th C. German ones. The proper 15th C codpiece should be small, and stitched to the hosen half way up the sides to "cradle" the genitalia, with the top open for access when using the privy - if your codpiece requires additional points to hold it closed, it's too big. If that case the answer is either to reposition it lower on your hosen, stitch the sides up more or cut the top edge down to make the whole thing shorter.

To address your question JPdS, see these pictures which I think address the closure/access/exposure/modesty issue pretty graphically:

[img]http://www.historicenterprises.com/bsd/imgs/legwear/bsd-h4.jpg[/img]

Gwen

Gwen I have a question now that you posted that picture, are the hose pointed to the braies?

Also I used the medieval tailors assistant to make a pair of 15th century hose, I was wondering how close it is to your pattern (if you don't mind saying). Gwen I have a question now that you posted that picture, are the hose pointed to the braies?

Also I used the medieval tailors assistant to make a pair of 15th century hose, I was wondering how close it is to your pattern (if you don't mind saying).

Thanks
Flonzy

------------------
Cheap garb is as bad as plastic armor.
http://home.armourarchive.org/members/flonzy

Hi Gwen,

Not trying to invent a new term, rather make a distinction between what in essence is a flap, with the puffed, padded, and slashed monstrousities that most of the general public thinks of when the term is used.

Hows about Early codpiece, vs. Mr puffy?

------------------
Bob R.

Hi Flonzy-

These are joined hose and as such are pointed to the doublet, not the braies. As Tim F. has pointed out, I make these hosen about 3" taller than is usually seen in period art so that they can be worn independent of the doublet. The ones shown in period art are so low that they would fall down if they weren't held up by the doublet. My decision to make them taller is one of convenience, not of historical accuracy, since most of the guys I know want to be able to wear a shirt and hosen (like my model) without a doublet without their hosen falling down around their ankles. Imagine that!

My hose have a few significant differences from the hose pattern in MTA. I haven't used the MTA pattern, but I think it might work OK. Something that Gerry E. pointed out to me years ago is that it is easy to forget that a human body has width in the crotch between the legs, and if you don't allow for it that area will rip out the first time you sit down. I believe the MTA pattern tells you to put a finger shaped gusset at the end of the codpiece to allow for this width. If using the MTA pattern, I wouldn't underestimate the importance of including that gusset.

Gwen

Thanks Gwen.

I did add the gusset to mine. They indeed would have been too tight without it.

I found the pattern worked vary well, the only change I made was tapering in the pattern at the waste. My first attempt at the pattern went straight up from the hips, so when I tried it on the waste was too big, then I tapered about 2 inches off the top of the pattern on the left side and it fit fine.


Flonzy

------------------
Cheap garb is as bad as plastic armor.
http://home.armourarchive.org/members/flonzy

Will the cod piece go with a chain Mail haurberk (sp) split in the front and back?
I know this is a silly question but the hosen look funny bunched up in front.
Also their is their a way to take a pee without pulling down your pants.

Hal.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chef de chambre:
Not trying to invent a new term, rather make a distinction between what in essence is a flap, with the puffed, padded, and slashed monstrousities that most of the general public thinks of when the term is used.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Gwen and readers,

My apologies. This was my intention as well as it is a codpiece, just unstuffed or unembellished.

And to the stitching idea, that's a great suggestion and I think the best solution to this pair. Cutting it down will cause more problems than is worth getting into.

[This message has been edited by Friedrich (edited 10-24-2002).]

My time is 1428. I wear separated hose pointed to my braies. My doublet hem is above my groin. Is this bad?

Also, would joined hose and a codpiece be more appropriate?

I don't think it's as much a matter of "right" and "wrong" as social class and shape of the hosen.

Like I said, you can find separate legged hosen of the "chausses" variety (long stockings that come up to a point over the hipbone and expose most of the braies) in use in the lower classes all the way through the 16th C. However, for any class that would own a suit of armour (which I have to assume applies to most, if not all of you guys reading this thread) the proper hosen for your social class would look more like the hosen shown above or like the ones above minus the codpiece and with the legs separate. They cover the same area, they're just 2 separate legs.

Here's a photo of an outfit I did for the head of the Higgins Armoury Museum Interpretive Department- Joan of Arc in civilian clothing circa 1429. It is based on information from her trial transcripts and the book by Adrian Harmond:

[img]http://www.historicenterprises.com/bsd/imgs/gallery/medieval/jeandarc.jpg[/img]

The legs are separate but very little of the braies show, unlike earlier periods.

And because I know someone will ask, yes, I'm working on adding this outfit to my line, and hope to have it available by spring.

Gwen

A few more comments:

Joan rejected all "colors" from her wardrobe, asking specifically for black and grey. She did this as a mark of her piety and devotion to God, eschewing all things fashionable and worldly. Keep that in mind when you choose the colors for your next outfit, especially in this period!

The jupon was made in this pattern ("in 4 quarters") because the tailors in Valcolour could not accomplish the more complex/fashionable cut i.e. the Charles of Blois. "La complication des grandes assiettes pouvait de'passer les talents d'un courturier de petite ville" (Harmand, pg. 120) This is a good style for your average soldier guy all the way up to poor gentry.

I hate to keep posting pictures of my stuff and I wish I knew how to put up period art. I'd recommend looking at the works of the following artists to see how this style is depicted in contemporary art:

Andrea Mantegna - The Martyrdom of St. Christopher (Ovetari Chapel, Padua)

Piero della Francesca - The Battle of Heracleus and Cosroe (fresco)
The Legend of the True Cross (fresco cycle)

The Book of the Hunt of Gaston Phoebus

The Decameron (1415 edition)

Gwen

Gwen, hope your model wont take it badly, but Hubba-Hubba! Love a girl in uniform

And I'd say worry not about always posting primary sources. Although I like to be as period as possible, having to consult primary sources for my armour, clothes, weapons, shoes, and hats leaves me zero time to do anything with them.