A Short History of Pants/Trousers (split from SFWA Controvesy thread)

Buffysquirrel

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,137
Reaction score
694
And IIRC the Romans looked down on those barbarians with their bizarre pant legs when togas were clearly superior in comfort, taste, and discretion. :D

Togas weren't remotely comfortable as far as I can tell. They were only worn on special occasions. For everyday wear, the Romans preferred a simple tunic. Eventually, however, they did adopt trousers, iirc.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,939
Reaction score
5,320
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
Togas weren't remotely comfortable as far as I can tell. They were only worn on special occasions. For everyday wear, the Romans preferred a simple tunic. Eventually, however, they did adopt trousers, iirc.

Um, no, no they didn't.

The Romans sneered at trousers as fundamentally barbaric (which is unfair, since the ancient Persians, Indians, and Chinese wore them, but never mind). They stuck with tunics, and those eventually developed into medieval European dress of tunic and stockings, which were two separate garments leaving the mid region bare.

As fashions for men got alarmingly short, stockings eventually (around the fourteenth century) got the little flaps of cloth which eventually became codpieces and then in the sixteenth century were elaborated into those goofy pumpkin-looking bloomers that most men refuse to wear to Renaissance fairs.

There was a kind of men's underwear called braies that was a little like tight shorts, but it was worn under a tunic and stockings.

Trousers did not really become an item of Western men's wear until the nineteenth century.

An argument can be made for breeches, which became a thing in the seventeenth century. Also sailor's trousers in the eighteenth. It's still a long way from ancient Rome.

Many modern "historical" costumes include trousers, apparently because modern men are squicked out by wearing what are really rather aggressively "not-trousers." But trousers are not authentic for western menswear before the nineteenth century.
 

thothguard51

A Gentleman of a refined age...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
9,316
Reaction score
1,064
Age
72
Location
Out side the beltway...
Didn't pilgrim men were pants?

What about cowboys?

Or, are we only talking about European dress?
 

zanzjan

killin' all teh werds
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
VPXI
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Messages
9,728
Reaction score
3,208
Location
home home homityhomehome
Pilgrims wore breeches and were in the 17th century, as Alessandra says. Cowboys happened quite a bit later than that.

Ooooh, and they're the ones who invented the leather ass-pants, right?

/me contributes meaningfully!
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,130
Reaction score
10,901
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Trousers did not really become an item of Western men's wear until the nineteenth century.

An argument can be made for breeches, which became a thing in the seventeenth century. Also sailor's trousers in the eighteenth. It's still a long way from ancient Rome.

Many modern "historical" costumes include trousers, apparently because modern men are squicked out by wearing what are really rather aggressively "not-trousers." But trousers are not authentic for western menswear before the nineteenth century.

Thought those hideous pantaloon thingies men wore in the renaissance were called "slops," at least in the UK. But maybe that's a modern term.

According to etymology online (which is certainly not always accurate), the word breeches dates back to the 12c from Old English. Thought Anglo Saxon guys wore something resembling trousers for a while.

I thought male peasants, at least, wore tunics (with linen undershirts) and breeches (often leather) even back in the middle ages, at least in some parts of Europe. I've seen pictures of medieval peasants (males) wearing different sorts of outfits. Of course, searching tonight, I'm not finding pictures that actually originated in the middle ages--they all seem to be people dressed in "period" costume.

This is the only one I could find quickly that shows a variety of medieval outfits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crescenzi_calendar.jpg

Hard to tell if the leg coverings are all stockings, really, or some are more along the lines of breeches.

But I could swear I've seen historic pictures of men working out in the fields wearing things that looked more or less like loose fitting pants, instead of tightly woven stockings. I've seen pictures of them wearing just shirts and tunics and going bare legged too, though, like Romans.

Wouldn't it be too cold to go around in just a tunic, with bare legs, in northern Europe at least?

And I thought I read somewhere (may have been one of the museums up along Hadrian's wall when I visited) that the Roman soldiers in Britain reluctantly adopted something that resembled pants, though. Again, it got a bit cold there for them to go bare-legged year round.



And sorry--I feel guilty now for derailing this thread by bringing up the idea of men needing to wear dresses to protect their willies from getting pinched. I just had a really hideous image in my mind of Ted Beale in a Roman tunic with rabbit ears.

Eeeeewwww!
 
Last edited:

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,939
Reaction score
5,320
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
Thought those hideous pantaloon thingies men wore in the renaissance were called "slops," at least in the UK. But maybe that's a modern term.

I believe "slops" was a casual and slightly vulgar name. In English they were generally called "trunk hose."

This is the only one I could find quickly that shows a variety of medieval outfits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crescenzi_calendar.jpg

Hard to tell if the leg coverings are all stockings, really, or some are more along the lines of breeches.

They are stockings, not pants. You can see in the seventh picture that the man is bending over and the tops of his bare legs show over the stockings.

Stockings are much easier to make than pants, and ... How to put this ... less cumbersome when one needs to relieve oneself in the fields.

The idea of covering one's nether regions with close-fitting garments (instead of just draping a loose tunic over them) was weird.

But I could swear I've seen historic pictures of men working out in the fields wearing things that looked more or less like loose fitting pants, instead of tightly woven stockings. I've seen pictures of them wearing just shirts and tunics and going bare legged too, though, like Romans.

Stockings were sometimes made loose, occasionally even footless. If you can't see the tops under the tunic, they could look like pants.

But Europeans seem to have considered pants weird and possibly a little gross. They all wanted to be Romans, remember, and the Romans were really squicked out by pants.

Wouldn't it be too cold to go around in just a tunic, with bare legs, in northern Europe at least?

They didn't have bare legs in winter. Mostly they didn't have bare legs at all. Those illuminations are supposed to show how ridiculously hot summer was that men would actually go bare-legged. Also note that the illuminations were of peasants in the fields. You will never see a European person of rank higher than peasant with bare legs in a normal nonsalacious social situation.

Somewhere, I think in one of the Hours of the Duke of Berry, is an illumination of winter including some peasants warming themselves before a fire. Close examination shows a man with his tunic up to expose his completely unclad bits to the fire between his stockings.

A tunic keeps you warmer than you'd think.

And I thought I read somewhere (may have been one of the museums up along Hadrian's wall when I visited) that the Roman soldiers in Britain reluctantly adopted something that resembled pants, though. Again, it got a bit cold there for them to go bare-legged year round.

That is possible, although I bet they hated it.

But notice that in post-Roman times, even in Italy which was proud of its Roman heritage, people didn't go bare-legged normally.

I'm sorry. This has been a digression.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
I'm sorry. This has been a digression.
An interesting one.

Hmm, I could have sworn I'd seen artwork showing men wearing trousers pretty early on. I'm fairly certain for instance the vikings wore trousers of a sort.*

I mean, it's really going to chafe riding a horse otherwise...


*ETA: checking a few education sites (that my daughter had bookmarked) they mention that vikings wore trousers, as did the saxons of the time. I shall go check a few other places...EETA: Viking answer lady suggests looking here. Evidence is patchy because wool tends to rot, but:

Several finds of trousers dating to the Migration Era (between the fall of Rome and the official Viking Age) serve to demonstrate that Scandinavian use of trousers in at least the narrow form goes back a fairly long way. The trousers found more or less intact at Thorsbjerg Mose in Denmark (Hald 1980, 329), with their sophisticated Migration Era cut requiring three separate pieces for the crotch gusset alone, by themselves can serve to disprove any claims that early period garments are simple and untailored. At the ends of the legs, the Thorsbjerg trousers extended into foot coverings, just like children's pajamas.
Unless there's a terminology shift here? What I call trousers you call...
 
Last edited:

Buffysquirrel

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,137
Reaction score
694
Um, no, no they didn't.

There I go conflating history and alternate history again. Damn!

ETA: Dickens uses 'slops' to refer to cheap clothing in general, I think. It comes up in David Copperfield when the boy's walking to Dover.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
841
Location
Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
Website
atsiko.wordpress.com
Actually, taking a further look, it seems that the Romans had terms for two different types of trousers (Feminalia and Braccae) and that they did sometimes wear them in the later periods (ie during the Empire rather than the Republic).


The article mentions "breeches", which we've previously distinguished from trousers. But that might not mean anything.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
Did we? I missed that. Breeches are a form of trousers though, aren't they*? Certainly not stockings or hose. They come up to the waist and have a fastening there.


*My dictionary says so anyway. Breeches - a form of knee length trousers.

Like I say, this could be a terminology thing.

ETA: I love how a discussion of misogyny on SFF has turned into a discussion on the evolution of legwear :D
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,939
Reaction score
5,320
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
Did we? I missed that. Breeches are a form of trousers though, aren't they*? Certainly not stockings or hose. They come up to the waist and have a fastening there.


*My dictionary says so anyway. Breeches - a form of knee length trousers.

Like I say, this could be a terminology thing.

ETA: I love how a discussion of misogyny on SFF has turned into a discussion on the evolution of legwear :D

I think it is a terminology thing. Breeches is cognate to braies and Dutch words like breeks and the old Roman braccae.

Trousers came well after breeches. To call breeches a form of trousers is like calling a Roman tunic a form of frock. It may be accurate as far as crude form is concerned, but it does not convey anything of the history or actual relationship of the garments.

BTW, things like feminalia (hah! could be translated as "thigh-highs"!) and braccae show the complexity of garment history. Yes, the Romans had them, but they were used only in extreme necessity.

The Romans thought of trousers a little like we think of balaclavas: a normally unnecessary covering associated with the military and barbarians/terrorists which we might use out in the hinterlands when it's really cold but certainly not in normal daily life.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
To call breeches a form of trousers is like calling a Roman tunic a form of frock.
They're a little more alike than that!

It could well just be cultural diffs here -- I know people who call their trousers braes. And if culottes/capri pants/shorts are forms of trousers, well so are breeches to my mind. They operate on the same basic principle, details may differ (and if it's good enough for archeologists/dictionaries, it's good enough for me tbh, because I suspect they know more than I do!) As for what followed what, trousers were in evidence a long time ago. They may have been used in different circs/cultures at different times, but they were there. Depending on your definition obviously, but some of them look very similar indeed to some modern trousers.

Anyway, this lovely bit of procrastinating, er, research, that's it, :D turned up an ice age man with trews! (The museum calls them trousers, but it's hard to see if they are more leg bindings when you click through. I shall defer to their definition)
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,939
Reaction score
5,320
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
The Germans and the Celts were exactly the people the Romans considered barbaric and associated with trousers. So were the later Vikings and highland Scots.

But the pants / trews/ whatevers worn by the Germans/Angles/Jutes/Celts/Vikings/Scots/Geats did not survive fashion history. All of their descendants were wearing Roman-derived tunics and hose by 1000 CE.

There is darned little hard evidence of trousers even in highland Scottish costume (whose history is largely fictional and based on the romances of Sir Walter Scott from the early 19th century) before the 18th century.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
T

But the pants / trews/ whatevers worn by the Germans/Angles/Jutes/Celts/Vikings/Scots/Geats did not survive fashion history. All of their descendants were wearing Roman-derived tunics and hose by 1000 CE.

See, there's the thing -- when I've read research about c11th century Saxons etc, what you call hose here, what I've read calls trousers, and often looked very much like the earlier counterparts. (Hose was later. 15th century? Not sure - not my time period!) Hence, I call them trousers.

There is darned little hard evidence of trousers even in highland Scottish costume
They've always liked to hang free :D The Irish though (who had very close links with Scotland) wore more trews
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,939
Reaction score
5,320
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
There are odd side effects to having a lot of knowledge about garment history.

Like my favorite highway sign ever, from a gorgeous area in upstate New York:

"Now Entering Central Leatherstocking Region"
 

Maggie Maxwell

Making Einstein cry since 1994
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
11,741
Reaction score
10,570
Location
In my head
Website
thewanderingquille.blogspot.com
This has been a very interesting derail. I have enjoyed, and learned something...

No kidding. I feel like I should save screencaps of this conversation, or a big text file or something. Some way to hold onto this so I'm not going "I remember there was a thread with people talking about ye olde pantaloons, but I don't remember what thread it was!"
 

shakeysix

blue eyed floozy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,426
Location
St. John, Kansas
Website
shakey6wordsmith.webs.com
Well, just a bit more derail. When I taught college comp i made the research paper requirement a family paper. It was always a lot of fun and it is hard to plagiarize your own family. One of the most fascinating papers was by a kid named Litton--a small town Kansas lad, son of a successful exterminator and raring to take over the family business. He came better prepared than most--he had a family tree and Edward Bulwer Lytton was hanging off one of the branches. I was amazed. His dad had told him that they had a famous writer in the family. More interesting was the Lytton family fortune which was founded on a stocking factory! Instead of the famous author the kid began to focus on stockings and their history and finally wrote the paper on the factory. I remember that the factory went back to the 13oos when stockings began to catch on. The striped stocking was what made them financially and propelled them into the "better" class.

All of this was in the mid nineties--mainly book research. I graded hundreds of papers and cannot remember the particulars. I am up to the eyebrows in galley proofs that are due today. I believe the factory was in a small town outside of Derby. Cannot believe I am taking time out to google stockings. My editor would be even more incredulous. Anyway--if you have the time the history of stockings in England is also fascinating. --s6

ps--To get back on the rail--think of all the folks in AW with differing views. The only time a member gets booted out (in the majority opinion) is when he/she begins attacking --not just harassing, but defaming, ridiculing, enlisting (getting others in on the crusade) launching an onslaught against--in other words attacking--another member.

There is a lot of disagreement here because we are a community and discussion is the job of a community. Sometimes discussion can border on attack--we can all be guilty of that if we are convinced we are in the right--but once the authorities step in and warn, any more said will usually get the poster booted, regardless of which side he/she is on.

Most people realize that they are not always right. They heed warnings. When warnings are heeded discussion can continue. When warnings are ignored discussion turns to bullying. When there is a bully on board the folks in charge (I am a high school teacher and we hear this every year.) are responsible to maintain an atmosphere that allows a comfortable airing of opinions. Classroom, workplace, forum, church group, organization, all should provide their members with the expectation not of agreement but of respect. --s6
 
Last edited:

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
I graded hundreds of papers and cannot remember the particulars. I am up to the eyebrows in galley proofs that are due today. I believe the factory was in a small town outside of Derby. .

Litton in the Peak District? Has a history of hosiery manufacture. That might be just a bit too coincidental...
 

shakeysix

blue eyed floozy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,426
Location
St. John, Kansas
Website
shakey6wordsmith.webs.com
wow--the derail continues. I remember that the kid even found his family gravestones in a small churchyard. We printed pictures of the church off the internet, quite an accomplishment back in those days. A hosiery factory in England to an exterminator in western Kansas--quite a story! Thanks Mr. Flibble--s6
 

Rachel77

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
575
Reaction score
114
Location
a galaxy far, far away
There are odd side effects to having a lot of knowledge about garment history.

Like my favorite highway sign ever, from a gorgeous area in upstate New York:

"Now Entering Central Leatherstocking Region"

Do they mean it as a Fenimore Cooper reference -- The Leatherstocking Tales? Don't those take place in Upstate NY?

(This is as much as I can contribute to the digression; I'm not very knowledgeable about historical men's clothing.)
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
(This is as much as I can contribute to the digression; I'm not very knowledgeable about historical men's clothing.)

I really lucky to live close to this museum of historical preserved buildings, which also makes historical clothes as close as they can to how they were actually made (same dyes, same fabrics and designs etc), and the staff often wear them too.

Is awesome.