Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Authentic_SCA] trousers/pants question - Slightly OT response

Expand Messages
  • EaldredSCA@aol.com
    MODERATOR NOTE: As a courtesy to those members who receive their list mail in digest form, we request that you do not top post. Please trim portions of
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 21, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      MODERATOR NOTE: As a courtesy to those members who receive their list mail in digest form, we request that you do not top post. Please trim portions of previous posts that do not require repetition. Thank you.
      Jehanne de Wodeford, Pacific Time Zone Moderator.

      (REPEATED MESSAGE DELETED)

      A story to illustrate why definitions are so important.

      I heard a Pastor tell the story of the time he was a guest speaker. As he stepped out of his car his nice Yellow pants split in the backside. Some quick thinking soul sewed them up, but only had red thread. So every time he turned people could see the red thread on his butt.

      Funny enough story but he went on to say that when he told the story in England they were almost rolling in the aisles they were laughing so hard. Why? because in England pants is short for under pants. So while he told them what to him was mildly amusing story involving his trousers, they had the mental image of a Pastor giving his sermon wearing yellow underwear.

      Ealdred of Malmesbury

      England and America are two countries separated by a common language.
      --George Bernard Shaw
    • Lorine Horvath
      Anglo-Saxons. The Irish wore little short braes. Lots of the early period types. On 21 February 2010 13:47, Heather Rose Jones ... -- All power corrupts, but
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 21, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Anglo-Saxons. The Irish wore little short braes. Lots of the early period
        types.

        On 21 February 2010 13:47, Heather Rose Jones
        <heather.jones@...>wrote:

        >
        >
        >
        > On Feb 21, 2010, at 11:16 AM, thepyratequeen wrote:
        >
        > > Ahlan,
        > >
        > > Can anyone tell me if any European culture in period wore pants
        > > besides Vikings?
        >
        > Too many to enumerate specifically -- most of them, in fact, depending
        > on definitions. This may sound like an odd question, but can you be a
        > bit more specific about your definition of "pants" to know what you're
        > excluding and what you're including? E.g., do you have a length
        > requirement? A fitted-vs.-unfitted requirement? Outerwear vs.
        > underwear? Is this a question about the historic development of
        > clothing styles or a question about intersecting historic styles with
        > modern comfort levels? (The useful answers may be different depending
        > on your goals.)
        >
        > Tangwystyl
        >
        >
        >



        --
        All power corrupts, but we need the electricity.
        - Unknown


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Lorine Horvath
        I m sorry - forgot. This one is trimmed, and signed. Mea culpa. Fina [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 21, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm sorry - forgot. This one is trimmed, and signed. Mea culpa.

          Fina


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • thepyratequeen
          ... As opposed to hose, stockings, tights, etc. When I say trousers/pants, I mean ankle-length...ah...pants. I m sorry I don t know how to be more
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 21, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            > What do you mean by "pants"
            >
            > As opposed to?????

            As opposed to hose, stockings, tights, etc. When I say "trousers/pants," I mean ankle-length...ah...pants. <g> I'm sorry I don't know how to be more specific at this point, but I'll keep trying if I'm still not being clear. :)

            Azzah
          • thepyratequeen
            ... No, not an odd question, especially since you re not the only one to ask. :) E.g., do you have a length ... Ankle-length and outerwear. I m not sure about
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 21, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              > This may sound like an odd question,

              No, not an odd question, especially since you're not the only one to ask. :)

              E.g., do you have a length
              > requirement? A fitted-vs.-unfitted requirement? Outerwear vs.
              > underwear?

              Ankle-length and outerwear. I'm not sure about fitted or unfitted, and I can't answer your question about historic development vs. modern comfort levels-- I'm asking for someone else who's just starting in the SCA. I imagine comfort will be of some concern, as he is very active in set up and tear down when he goes to events. I suppose that indicates unfitted and modern comfort levels. :)

              Thank you!
              Azzah
            • thepyratequeen
              ... Thank you! Azzah
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 21, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Lorine Horvath <Finabandiuc@...> wrote:
                >
                > Anglo-Saxons. The Irish wore little short braes. Lots of the early period
                > types.

                Thank you!
                Azzah
              • Michael Hurley
                ... Honestly, if he s wanting something fairly accurate, then not even the vikings wore anything like that. From what I ve read and seen (and I freely admit
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 21, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Feb 21, 2010, at 9:00 PM, thepyratequeen wrote:
                  > Ankle-length and outerwear. I'm not sure about fitted or unfitted,
                  > and I can't answer your question about historic development vs.
                  > modern comfort levels-- I'm asking for someone else who's just
                  > starting in the SCA. I imagine comfort will be of some concern, as
                  > he is very active in set up and tear down when he goes to events. I
                  > suppose that indicates unfitted and modern comfort levels. :)

                  Honestly, if he's wanting something fairly accurate, then not even the
                  vikings wore anything like that. From what I've read and seen (and I
                  freely admit that viking is not my period or culture) what most people
                  think of as viking "pants" were just somewhat loose, joined hose. They
                  seem to have often had a foot and a reasonably slim-fit leg, at any
                  rate. They don't seem to have been the baggy, tube-legged pants so
                  often worn in the SCA by "viking" personas.

                  If he's really that interested in wearing loose trousers, he might
                  want to look into something like Safavid Persian or Mongol. Those are
                  probably going to be his best bets for wearing modernish pants.
                  --
                  Auf wiedersehen!
                  Michael
                  ______________________________________________________
                  "..Um..Something strange happened to me this morning."

                  "Was it a dream where you see yourself standing in sort
                  of Sun God robes on a pyramid with a thousand naked
                  women screaming and throwing little pickles at you?"

                  "..No."

                  "Why am I the only person that has that dream?"

                  -Real Genius
                • NickD611@aol.com
                  I imagine comfort will be of some concern, as he is very active in set up and tear down when he goes to events. I suppose that indicates unfitted and modern
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 21, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I imagine comfort will be of some concern, as he is very active in set up and tear down when he goes to events. I suppose that indicates unfitted and modern comfort levels. :)




                    Thank you!
                    Azzah



                    Being active doesn't necessarily rule out fitted pants. Most people in the middle ages lived pretty active lives (especially compared to us), but fitted pants were favored by numerous medieval cultures. They just knew how to construct them so they were fitted in the right places and had room in the right places. The Thorsberg trousers are a prime example. The legs probably would have fit like slim-fit jeans (you know, "cowboy jeans"), but they have brilliantly designed gussets in the crotch that would allow the wearer all the room he needed to run, sit cross-legged, bend over, do lunges (are calisthenics period? :) ), etc, etc.

                    I know a lot of modern guys just don't like the idea of tight pants, but if they want to be authentic (depending on the culture they portray) there are period ways to construct fitted pants that still give you room to be active. Our ancestors knew what they were doing. Remember, they lived in those clothes, we just vacation in them ;)

                    Sláinte,
                    Dubdarach macLongaidh







                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Despair Bear
                    If you can barrow a copy from a friend or a library, I would recommend: Dress in Anglo-Saxon England . Decent over view of some pants from the post-migration
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 21, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      If you can barrow a copy from a friend or a library, I would recommend: "Dress in Anglo-Saxon England". Decent over view of some pants from the post-migration period.


                      Godric






                      ________________________________
                      From: thepyratequeen <ThePyrateQueen@...>
                      To: Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 6:48:04 PM
                      Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Re: trousers/pants question


                      > What do you mean by "pants"
                      >
                      > As opposed to?????

                      As opposed to hose, stockings, tights, etc. When I say "trousers/pants, " I mean ankle-length. ..ah...pants. <g> I'm sorry I don't know how to be more specific at this point, but I'll keep trying if I'm still not being clear. :)

                      Azzah







                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Quokkaqueen
                      ... Well, Norse (even when they went a-Viking) need to be active and wear trousers, too. The Thorsberg style of trousers, which are
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 21, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        <<snip>>
                        > > he is very active in set up and tear down when he goes to events. I
                        > > suppose that indicates unfitted and modern comfort levels. :)
                        >
                        > Honestly, if he's wanting something fairly accurate, then not even the
                        > vikings wore anything like that.
                        <<snip>>

                        Well, Norse (even when they went a-Viking) need to be active and wear trousers, too. The Thorsberg style of trousers, which are close-fitting in the leg, but have a rather baggy, unfitted bottom when you're standing up, have already been mentioned. (When you sit down though, everything fits much nicer...)
                        eg. http://www.historiclife.com/Essays/ThorsbergTrousers.htm
                        The Damendorf trousers are another example, with a different way of sewing the trousers, but have the same baggy-bum effect.
                        eg. http://www.tjurslakter.nl/vikingbroeken.pdf (p. 2)

                        The tricky thing though, is that as far as I know these pants predate the Viking age, and in turn, the middle ages. But people use them as pants patterns anyway, just because evidence is so scarce.

                        The evidence for the very baggy, 'knickerbocker' style Viking pants comes from pictures on stones from Gotland, and some fragments from Hedeby have been interpreted as being part of a pair, with a crotch probably similar to the pre-Viking age trousers. Ahmad ibn Rustah also described 10th century Rus traders as wearing pants that required much fabric that was fastened under the knees. (There is a translatiobn in the tjutslakter.nl PDF, although I admit it isn't something I've researched myself.)

                        Medieval trousers once again need to allow a lot of movement, but don't rely on having a baggy behind. Examples I can think of, have large gussets inserted in between the legs.
                        eg.14th century pants of a Nubian bishop: http://www.feoragdubh.eastkingdom.org/Nutshell_2004-05/nab_bishop_pants_tunic.htm

                        and simple pants from the Northern Caucasus. The example from the Hermitage museum is of 'doll' clothes: http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/08/hm88_0_0_20_1.html

                        As for the loose pants, you probably could wear the very rectangular trousers above about as loosely as one would wear pajama pants. But that is only a guess.

                        My interest is the Viking-Age though, so I can't say much about other cultures that may have worn trousers.

                        ~Asfridhr
                      • JL Badgley
                        On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:48 AM, thepyratequeen ... What about late period breeches? They reach below the knee, and combine well with a pair of high socks.
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 22, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:48 AM, thepyratequeen
                          <ThePyrateQueen@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > What do you mean by "pants"
                          > >
                          > > As opposed to?????
                          >
                          > As opposed to hose, stockings, tights, etc. When I say "trousers/pants," I mean ankle-length...ah...pants. <g> I'm sorry I don't know how to be more specific at this point, but I'll keep trying if I'm still not being clear. :)
                          >

                          What about late period breeches? They reach below the knee, and
                          combine well with a pair of high socks. They are more modest than
                          cod-piece bedecked hosen, and can range from simple to quite
                          ostentatious.

                          Have you looked at chausses and brais? They are easy to put on, and
                          modest enough with a good upper garment. A pair of garters keeps them
                          well-shaped, and they are quite comfortable to be active in.

                          I've seen trousers similar to modern trousers like we think of them
                          (two tubes with a join in the crotch) in Eurasia, but I don't know how
                          far west those actually went (e.g. were they found in Eastern Europe),
                          and how late they were there.

                          -Ii
                        • Zhara
                          MODERATOR NOTE: As a courtesy to those members who receive their list mail in digest form, we request that you do not top post. Please trim portions of
                          Message 12 of 16 , Feb 22, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            MODERATOR NOTE: As a courtesy to those members who receive their list mail in digest form, we request that you do not top post. Please trim portions of previous posts that do not require repetition. Thank you.
                            Jehanne de Wodeford, Pacific Time Zone Moderator.

                            REPEATED MESSAGE DELETED

                            If by "European" you mean SPAIN, then yes, documented evidence of serwal (shirwel, salwar etc). Most specifically, the fitted type with extensive use of fabric in the lower legs that resembled the churridurs of India. however - I've only researched for women - can't say if men wore any.

                            Cheers,
                            Z.
                          • thepyratequeen
                            Thank you, everyone, for the wealth of information! This will give us a lot to pore over and learn. I look forward to it. :) Shukran! Azzah Shattered
                            Message 13 of 16 , Feb 22, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thank you, everyone, for the wealth of information! This will give us a lot to pore over and learn. I look forward to it. :)

                              Shukran!
                              Azzah
                              Shattered Crystal, Midrealm
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.