[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Hosen, hose, tights
Poster: Stephen Mumford <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Separate-leg tailored hosen are very comfortable; you can even roll them
> > down over a garter when you need to, going upper-thigh-bare, which is
> > wonderful for hot weather. Of course, to do this you need nice medieval
> > underwear (basically linen boxers, depending upon what period we are
> > talking).
> What about some of those 14th c. sets that look like modern tights in the
> paintings? There is a picture I have in mind from the paper cover of the
> Medaeval Cookbook. It shows a couple of men in white cote d'hardies with
> very tight fitting white tights. The cote d'hardies are very short, above
> the bum, and one can see that the tights are not separate leg, but a whole
> unit. Is this the painter taking artistic license?
>From what I understand (and I am by no means even close to knowing what
the hell I am talking about ;->) there were several differnet styles, and
apparently most all of them saw use at various times during the 1400s at
There were the hosen that were individual legs -- these seemed to be tied
to the doublet or underjacket by lacing called 'points'; similar to how
armor was attached in some cases (I wonder, did the armor attachments
arise from the hose, or vice-versa?).
Later, there was an intermediate form in which the legs were partially
connected (along the backside), but the front still incorporated a
seperate or semi-attached codpiece -- again, thses looked like they were
attached via the points.
Laster still, there were the single-piece pair of hose which are close to
the tight as we have them now.
Again, I'm no authority on this, but this seems to be the progression as
I've seen in numerous paintings, drawing, etc.
Julien de Montfort
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Admin. requests: email@example.com