On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, otsisto wrote: > I have learned to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. On one of the > lists someone mentioned that he had found flaws with it as anyone can > leave info on a subject. Be it w/scholarly research or not.
Oh, of course, it's not a reliable source for formal research, as it is constantly mutable and relies on the collective wisdom of its users. But very good for quick overviews of things like historical events, scientific principles, natural history, lots of other stuff. In this case, it answered the question "what did the Teutonic Knights and the Lithuanians have to do with each other in 1410?" sufficiently for my purposes, which was "They had a battle." Whether it was the greatest battle of the middle ages -- well, that's where the opinion creeps in, and I don't put much stock into that assessment. > Since she then describes the "undertunic" as being undyed linen, it > sounds like she's using that term for the underwear (which would be a > white linen shirt/tunic), and "outer tunic" for the main body garment. > > De: I was thinking more in the line of groin cover type of underwear. > :) >From what I know of SCA-level re-enactment, costume guidelines like this are generally going to leave unseen underwear as a personal choice, and 90% of the guys are going to wear modern boxers or briefs anyway, depending on their preference. (Um, no, I haven't actually done research to support that 90%...) Now, for strict re-enactment, the costume guidelines are more likely to want to specify the nature of the braies or other underthings worn at the particular time at issue, and the participants are going to want to have it right even if no one ever knows. > Were the leg hosen sewn together by this time? No idea what was happening in Eastern Europe; I don't even know exactly when they started getting sewn together in the West. There are others on this list who have made a study of these details. But my impression is that there's no need to sew together your leg hosen unless you're wearing a tunic short enough to show your crotch, and in 1410 that's dependent on class, age, and region. Fashionable young men in Paris are not representative of Teutonic knights or Lithuanian anythings. > > <The under garments should be made of linen that hasn't been dyed. The > > outer garments would have been made of wool and have been of sober hues. > Many period dyes make strong/deep colors, and these would have been > preferred. Perhaps there was something specific to the Teutonic knights > that required sober hues? The black cross on white surcote seems to have > been their "uniform." > > De: I mostly was wondering about the regular male folk and not the > knights. And I'm wondering what "sober" means. ;-) > <Essentially every woman in Western Europe at this time would have > been expected to wear a headcovering as a norm (exceptions being > queens, young girls, brides, and even those not all the time). I > wouldn't be at all surprised if headcoverings were the default for > Eastern European women, and they certainly will make the overall look > more "period." > > De: "Paganism" was still around in Lithuania and Samogitia so I do not > think that covering the head was for religious reasons but I could see > it as a scalp protector from the sun. I wouldn't think religious reasons are the prime mover in any case. Headcoverings have been the norm for both men and women in Europe for most of the Middle Ages and a good chunk beyond. There are many reasons for it, and sun protection is just one. Bear in mind that women might have visible hair in 1410, but it is generally *dressed* -- e.g. braided and/or put up, with or without veil or ornament -- not hanging loose. If you are outside, you want a covering against sun and also dirt. > De: I had thought that it was 3 layers. Chemise and a support under > dress and then the form fitting dress. Is this not the standard? Number of layers and degree of fitting varies by class, climate, and circumstances (e.g. formal or informal). The basic standard is chemise (undyed linen) plus main body garment (usually of wool) -- call it an underdress or a day-dress or cote or cotte or kirtle or whatever your preferred expert likes (but don't call it a "cotehardie" if you're around me, please). This dress, in 1410, is typically fitted for middle-class and upper-class women, probably not very fitted for the lowest classes (unless you're modeling for the Limbourg Brothers). By this period, it seems it is probably lined more often than not, even for those of modest means. Higher class and/or cooler weather and/or more formal circumstances, add a layer or more. The overgown may be fitted (as in the "cotehardie" or fitted overdress) or loose (as in the houppelande) or any of several variations/combinations on these. Next over that might be a mantle or cloak, again with variations depending on class etc. All of this is generally true for most of Europe in 1410, and very likely for Lithuania, or possibly there are regional variations I don't know about. --Robin _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
