1) Economic decline with the decline of the Western Roman Empire. A lot of material culture changed (eg from shingles towards thatch rooves, African red slip towards wooden plates and bowls, etc). 2) They were part of a clothing set. Braies were predominantly worn under hose/hosen tethered by nestle cords to gussets in the braies or to a gusseted belt (and much later, the doublet). Long braies largely transitioned out with the transition from split hose to joined hose and subsequent hip/thigh garments like trunk hose and breeches, when they became comparable to modern boxers and briefs. As I understand it, the length of the earlier braies helps to keep them underneath the hose, and it creates a pleat-like effect that preserves mobility as hosen were popularly quite form-fitting. Much of the intent was to show off the musculature of the legs. Such tightness is both stuffy and somewhat restrictive in movement, though, which is likely why we tend to see braies exposed in period artwork in either hygienic/medical/casual contexts or when performing manual labor.
Braies would have been the item of clothing a medieval European man would have washed and changed most often, and as a result they'd probably wear out the fastest. Cloth was relatively expensive because of the amount of labour it took to produce. Keeping the design simple would have simplified the process of hand-washing them, repairing them if they got holes in and replacing them when they wore out. So I can definitely see that a basic breechcloth design would be most practical, at least for most people. Wealthy people could probably have afforded to have had better-fitted braies made if they wanted. I've actually read and seen some stuff about why different people did and didn't wear trousers. They're quite a lot more complicated to make than a breechcloth and leggings or a skirt/kilt, as they need to have a flexible crotch in order not to tear. Because of this, many of the first cultures that tended to wear them were those that rode horses a lot, in order to prevent chafing whilst on horseback. The earliest trousers ever found are from a bronze-age mummy from Turpan in China, who is thought to have belonged to a nomadic, horse-riding people. The Ancient Greeks and Romans tended to associate them with nomadic people like the Scythians, and so therefore saw them as associated with 'barbarism'. Despite this, some Romans did actually wear them expressly for riding- e.g. cavalrymen are sometimes depicted wearing breeches, and this continued into the medieval era, with people who rode a lot continuing to wear them. E.g. the Bayeux Tapestry knights seem to be wearing loose trousers over their hose, with or without their armour. The peasants in the depictions in this video probably didn't ride horses a lot, but are obviously working very hard in their fields. So it'd be more economical for them to wear braies, with hose worn too when they're not toiling in the sun to bring in the harvest.
Maybe the Gauls really wore these too under the trousers. Perhaps the change was just medieval peasants not being able to afford the trousers over them (at least not for everyday workwear) or it not being practical to wear them during sweaty labor.
Thanks for the quick demo. You have a point there. Why use an impractical rectangle instead of something shaped to your body? Cost/ease of replacement and drying time would be my guess. The same phenomenon can be observed with foot wraps.
The industrial production of socks and its relationship to the fact that the Russian federal army only switched over from wraps to socks in the mid 2000s.
It has always amazed me how expensive clothing was in that time period; a shirt, for example, was a pricey investment, even if it wasn't made of expensive fabric (and your best shirt was often claimed by a manorial lord upon your death). Production costs of fabric and labor costs for tailoring really made the choice to wear a simple garment like braies an economical one. You might have had your "walking around clothes," and then whatever you wore just to do grubby labor. And, as you point out, far easier to wash a simple, hardy piece of cloth covered in mud and dung, rather than getting more complex and perhaps less robust clothing cleaned. =^[.]^=
This is a genius idea and I really cant see those braies being anything else. since you made this video I got some linen and have 'made"a pair myself. for earlier period, the Germanic "winingas/leg wraps actually solve the problem of the annoying flaps, as the ends of the wraps hold the bottom of the braies in place
I wonder if its truly about the corners hitting his shins, or if its more about keeping the material clean so it needs to be laundered less. Reminds me in a way of a how a greatkilt, or earasaid is tied (also being untailored rectangles held on by a belt.)
He's doing manual labour, its tied up so it doesn't dirt on the floor and its easier to wash. Laundering by hand is rough work. And i think the breechloth is as this rather than sewn pants because its easier to wash, not much more thought to give it tbh, its not that noone had the idea to make proper trousers, its more that its a hard wash. Please do get some sweaty and dirty trousers, then just a sheet of cut cloth and see the HUGE difference in washing those, specially with all the stuff that may get stuck inside the legs of your trousers after trashing a field, and you have to manually fish them out, or doing anything near prickly plants really.
Love the video as always, one note, there are examples of trousers in the Viking period, thorsberg and Hedeby specifically, which whole perhaps a little strange looking today, are a type of medieval trouser. The question does still stand though why braies are so common? Maybe some people just couldn’t be assed ahaha
part of it's because braies don't really compare to trousers, rather hose would. So the real distinction is sewn together pants on one hand, and split hose on the other (which used braies under neath them)
As far as medieval European peasants not wearing trousers goes, they probably had practical or cultural reasons not to. You mention that the Gauls wore trousers, which is true, but the (early) romans and greeks didn't In fact wearing trousers was seen as barbarian and aggressive in the roman republic. It's not that they didn't have the technology for trousers, instead they decided against them for cultural reasons. In the same way, mediaval peasants were aware of trousers, after all, trousers did exists at that time and place, it's just that they chose not to for their own reasons. My guess is that it was mostly because it was easier to clean, and was therefore convenient as work clothing. It's probably not a coincidence that both the illustrations you showed, are of people working in a field.
It never clicked before, but you're absolutely right braies are just a variation on the breechcloth; I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of braies were around long before the medieval period, just not by that name and not with the excellent illustrations and descriptions we get form the post-roman world. I do wonder if braies as we know them originated as a deconstructed trouser or as a loincloth (like the romans wore under tunics) that got longer as the Roman Warm Period ended and folx wanted something to cover more of themselves with. I also don't think braies really went away till the mid-19th century and the end of the age of sail--depending on the style, sloops are basically braies. Trousers are more complex garments to make (and the more comfortable type with gussets or curved crotches require cuts that waste more fabric). If we assume a lack of money or loss of commonly-held knowledge in crafting trousers, braies would be a reasonable lower-tech, lower-cost approximation. Them there's the whole fashion element--the medieval europeans liked their suuuuuper tight, form-fitting, hey-look-I-did-leg-day hose. Trousers dont' show off them leg muscles like braies & hose do. It would also be easy to make braies explicitly for doing dirty work in out of old sheets or sewn-together pieces of a faded/stained tunic--if it must be washed frequently, the less seams at stress points the better, and better to use older (less scratchy) fabrics next to areas of more sensitive skin vs new fabric.
Well I _was_ sitting here in a sarong in the New Zealand summer, but now I'm wearing braies. :) They have excellent mobility and good air movement. With a wide piece of fabric I'm sure you could forego the belt and rely on rolling the fabric at the waist as is typically done with sarongs, but the belt makes donning the garment super easy; also you now have a belt to tuck your tools into. Also, you could hang a pouch inside and access it through the side, making it more difficult for a ne'erdowell to steal your thruppence. As to why braies rather than trousers? Given how difficult and time consuming it was to weave fabric, it would be much cheaper to use a single piece for more tasks; underwear, workwear, kilt, shawl, cloak, belt, towel, bedsheet, bag, rain shelter, headcovering, baby sling, hammock... see shemaghs, furoshiki, sarongs, pareo for an infinity of uses for a rectangle of fabric. Thanks for teaching me a new trick - I've been interested in untailored clothing since I heard we have no evidence for neanderthals using needles, despite living in ice age Europe.
I think that both options could have been used simultaneously. There are fragments of garments from the viking age hedeby interpreted as fragments of trousers similar in form to trousers from thorsber Moor. There are also depictions in iconography of people clearly wearing trousers, for example, in the Stottgart Psalter, though still most people wear hose. Nevertheless, I'm going to find a piece of linen and try your method for my low status impression, and see how it handles.
With the regression of pants. The romans kind of hated pants because it made a person look like a European to the point where it was kind of a thing the romans oppressed people over. It's possible the decline of quality of pants had something to do with the Roman oppression and the new adoption of pants was due to people no longer being forced not to wear pants but not really having anything to go off of. They also look liked they'd be pretty cheap so it could be a type of pants you could do more stuff in without worrying about them being dirty cuz you can just wash them or throw them away. You wouldn't want your nice pants which you labored to make to get soaked in mud you'd save that for a festival or something.
Curiously, there are depictions of 'trouser' like garments and loose hose, primarily seen in depictions of sailors in the Late Medieval period. Another notable distinction is that the 'trousers' or the upper garments depicted are usually striped. These are some of the Earliest depictions of what I'm practically mentioning. Arrival of Louis IX at Damietta, Passages faiz oultre mer par les François contre les Turcqs et autres Sarrazins et Mores oultre marins (BNF Fr. 5594, fol. 232v) Mark and Tristan's sailors, Tristan de Léonois (BNF Fr. 102, fol. 168)
Wasnt the Medieval period noticeably warmer, with grapes being grown on a large scale even in northern Britain and other parts of Northern Europe? They remind me of a lot of folded cloth ancient mediterranean clothes, maybe it was specific to need something cheap (1 cloth rectangle) for working outdoors in the heat?
Yeah, but I could take a rectangle of cloth, and without any sewing, put it on to go thresh grain or what have you. You gotta have know how and needles and such to make trousers. I'm team breech cloth all the way!
You're right that breechclothes are easier bc no further sewing is required. But the lady of the house who wove the cloth certainly also knew how to sew. Just why do more work if you don't have to?
They are underwear for peasants. Trousers were around but if you were wearing them you had a shirt that went all the down to your knees and wrapped under and up to become you under pants. In the summer peasant workers didn't wear hose, the two separate legs of trousers (Hence a pair of trousers). Also northern people wore pants, see vikings, the southern people like leggings with the split and a cod piece. It was all about fashion and flaunting your junk.
Being as educated on craftsmanship and materials as you are, what do you think is the absolute highest quality a stone tool, designed for function and not for display, could be made to be? A lot of stone tool-making on RUclips seems to end at "good enough" but what would you get if you didn't stop at good enough and strive to make, say, the best possible stone axe?
I'm assuming you mean quality as in performance. As in all things there is a spectrum of compromise. A good stone axe can be made either as durable as decent steel or as efficient as decent steel, but moving it towards one pole moves it away from the other. A sharp stone axe will be easy to break, a durable stone axe won't be very sharp.
![Natanael Cano x Oscar Maydon - Giza [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eXCS6-MSQ_Y/mqdefault.jpg)
1) Economic decline with the decline of the Western Roman Empire. A lot of material culture changed (eg from shingles towards thatch rooves, African red slip towards wooden plates and bowls, etc).
2) They were part of a clothing set. Braies were predominantly worn under hose/hosen tethered by nestle cords to gussets in the braies or to a gusseted belt (and much later, the doublet). Long braies largely transitioned out with the transition from split hose to joined hose and subsequent hip/thigh garments like trunk hose and breeches, when they became comparable to modern boxers and briefs.
As I understand it, the length of the earlier braies helps to keep them underneath the hose, and it creates a pleat-like effect that preserves mobility as hosen were popularly quite form-fitting. Much of the intent was to show off the musculature of the legs. Such tightness is both stuffy and somewhat restrictive in movement, though, which is likely why we tend to see braies exposed in period artwork in either hygienic/medical/casual contexts or when performing manual labor.
Braies would have been the item of clothing a medieval European man would have washed and changed most often, and as a result they'd probably wear out the fastest. Cloth was relatively expensive because of the amount of labour it took to produce. Keeping the design simple would have simplified the process of hand-washing them, repairing them if they got holes in and replacing them when they wore out. So I can definitely see that a basic breechcloth design would be most practical, at least for most people. Wealthy people could probably have afforded to have had better-fitted braies made if they wanted.
I've actually read and seen some stuff about why different people did and didn't wear trousers. They're quite a lot more complicated to make than a breechcloth and leggings or a skirt/kilt, as they need to have a flexible crotch in order not to tear. Because of this, many of the first cultures that tended to wear them were those that rode horses a lot, in order to prevent chafing whilst on horseback. The earliest trousers ever found are from a bronze-age mummy from Turpan in China, who is thought to have belonged to a nomadic, horse-riding people.
The Ancient Greeks and Romans tended to associate them with nomadic people like the Scythians, and so therefore saw them as associated with 'barbarism'. Despite this, some Romans did actually wear them expressly for riding- e.g. cavalrymen are sometimes depicted wearing breeches, and this continued into the medieval era, with people who rode a lot continuing to wear them. E.g. the Bayeux Tapestry knights seem to be wearing loose trousers over their hose, with or without their armour.
The peasants in the depictions in this video probably didn't ride horses a lot, but are obviously working very hard in their fields. So it'd be more economical for them to wear braies, with hose worn too when they're not toiling in the sun to bring in the harvest.
Maybe the Gauls really wore these too under the trousers. Perhaps the change was just medieval peasants not being able to afford the trousers over them (at least not for everyday workwear) or it not being practical to wear them during sweaty labor.
Thanks for the quick demo. You have a point there. Why use an impractical rectangle instead of something shaped to your body? Cost/ease of replacement and drying time would be my guess. The same phenomenon can be observed with foot wraps.
The industrial production of socks and its relationship to the fact that the Russian federal army only switched over from wraps to socks in the mid 2000s.
It has always amazed me how expensive clothing was in that time period; a shirt, for example, was a pricey investment, even if it wasn't made of expensive fabric (and your best shirt was often claimed by a manorial lord upon your death). Production costs of fabric and labor costs for tailoring really made the choice to wear a simple garment like braies an economical one. You might have had your "walking around clothes," and then whatever you wore just to do grubby labor. And, as you point out, far easier to wash a simple, hardy piece of cloth covered in mud and dung, rather than getting more complex and perhaps less robust clothing cleaned. =^[.]^=
Socks are still disproportionately expensive.
This is a genius idea and I really cant see those braies being anything else. since you made this video I got some linen and have 'made"a pair myself. for earlier period, the Germanic "winingas/leg wraps actually solve the problem of the annoying flaps, as the ends of the wraps hold the bottom of the braies in place
I wonder if its truly about the corners hitting his shins, or if its more about keeping the material clean so it needs to be laundered less.
Reminds me in a way of a how a greatkilt, or earasaid is tied (also being untailored rectangles held on by a belt.)
He's doing manual labour, its tied up so it doesn't dirt on the floor and its easier to wash. Laundering by hand is rough work.
And i think the breechloth is as this rather than sewn pants because its easier to wash, not much more thought to give it tbh, its not that noone had the idea to make proper trousers, its more that its a hard wash. Please do get some sweaty and dirty trousers, then just a sheet of cut cloth and see the HUGE difference in washing those, specially with all the stuff that may get stuck inside the legs of your trousers after trashing a field, and you have to manually fish them out, or doing anything near prickly plants really.
Love the video as always, one note, there are examples of trousers in the Viking period, thorsberg and Hedeby specifically, which whole perhaps a little strange looking today, are a type of medieval trouser. The question does still stand though why braies are so common? Maybe some people just couldn’t be assed ahaha
part of it's because braies don't really compare to trousers, rather hose would. So the real distinction is sewn together pants on one hand, and split hose on the other (which used braies under neath them)
As far as medieval European peasants not wearing trousers goes, they probably had practical or cultural reasons not to.
You mention that the Gauls wore trousers, which is true, but the (early) romans and greeks didn't
In fact wearing trousers was seen as barbarian and aggressive in the roman republic.
It's not that they didn't have the technology for trousers, instead they decided against them for cultural reasons.
In the same way, mediaval peasants were aware of trousers, after all, trousers did exists at that time and place, it's just that they chose not to for their own reasons.
My guess is that it was mostly because it was easier to clean, and was therefore convenient as work clothing.
It's probably not a coincidence that both the illustrations you showed, are of people working in a field.
It never clicked before, but you're absolutely right braies are just a variation on the breechcloth; I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of braies were around long before the medieval period, just not by that name and not with the excellent illustrations and descriptions we get form the post-roman world.
I do wonder if braies as we know them originated as a deconstructed trouser or as a loincloth (like the romans wore under tunics) that got longer as the Roman Warm Period ended and folx wanted something to cover more of themselves with. I also don't think braies really went away till the mid-19th century and the end of the age of sail--depending on the style, sloops are basically braies.
Trousers are more complex garments to make (and the more comfortable type with gussets or curved crotches require cuts that waste more fabric). If we assume a lack of money or loss of commonly-held knowledge in crafting trousers, braies would be a reasonable lower-tech, lower-cost approximation. Them there's the whole fashion element--the medieval europeans liked their suuuuuper tight, form-fitting, hey-look-I-did-leg-day hose. Trousers dont' show off them leg muscles like braies & hose do.
It would also be easy to make braies explicitly for doing dirty work in out of old sheets or sewn-together pieces of a faded/stained tunic--if it must be washed frequently, the less seams at stress points the better, and better to use older (less scratchy) fabrics next to areas of more sensitive skin vs new fabric.
In Scotland and Ireland they used a big linen shirt (basically an oversized Roman tunic) dyed yellow with heather and horse urine.
Well I _was_ sitting here in a sarong in the New Zealand summer, but now I'm wearing braies. :) They have excellent mobility and good air movement. With a wide piece of fabric I'm sure you could forego the belt and rely on rolling the fabric at the waist as is typically done with sarongs, but the belt makes donning the garment super easy; also you now have a belt to tuck your tools into. Also, you could hang a pouch inside and access it through the side, making it more difficult for a ne'erdowell to steal your thruppence.
As to why braies rather than trousers? Given how difficult and time consuming it was to weave fabric, it would be much cheaper to use a single piece for more tasks; underwear, workwear, kilt, shawl, cloak, belt, towel, bedsheet, bag, rain shelter, headcovering, baby sling, hammock... see shemaghs, furoshiki, sarongs, pareo for an infinity of uses for a rectangle of fabric.
Thanks for teaching me a new trick - I've been interested in untailored clothing since I heard we have no evidence for neanderthals using needles, despite living in ice age Europe.
I think that both options could have been used simultaneously. There are fragments of garments from the viking age hedeby interpreted as fragments of trousers similar in form to trousers from thorsber Moor. There are also depictions in iconography of people clearly wearing trousers, for example, in the Stottgart Psalter, though still most people wear hose. Nevertheless, I'm going to find a piece of linen and try your method for my low status impression, and see how it handles.
With the regression of pants.
The romans kind of hated pants because it made a person look like a European to the point where it was kind of a thing the romans oppressed people over. It's possible the decline of quality of pants had something to do with the Roman oppression and the new adoption of pants was due to people no longer being forced not to wear pants but not really having anything to go off of.
They also look liked they'd be pretty cheap so it could be a type of pants you could do more stuff in without worrying about them being dirty cuz you can just wash them or throw them away. You wouldn't want your nice pants which you labored to make to get soaked in mud you'd save that for a festival or something.
Curiously, there are depictions of 'trouser' like garments and loose hose, primarily seen in depictions of sailors in the Late Medieval period. Another notable distinction is that the 'trousers' or the upper garments depicted are usually striped.
These are some of the Earliest depictions of what I'm practically mentioning.
Arrival of Louis IX at Damietta, Passages faiz oultre mer par les François contre les Turcqs et autres Sarrazins et Mores oultre marins (BNF Fr. 5594, fol. 232v)
Mark and Tristan's sailors, Tristan de Léonois (BNF Fr. 102, fol. 168)
Where are these “trousers” you keep mentioning?
Donald.
Scotland
lololol i love that song
Wasnt the Medieval period noticeably warmer, with grapes being grown on a large scale even in northern Britain and other parts of Northern Europe? They remind me of a lot of folded cloth ancient mediterranean clothes, maybe it was specific to need something cheap (1 cloth rectangle) for working outdoors in the heat?
What's with the short videos recently. We need more of your content Malcolm!!
Longer videos require exponentially more time and effort to produce.
it propably depends on the work you would do
Have you considered reviewing the smithies of Kingdom Come Deliverance?
Yeah, but I could take a rectangle of cloth, and without any sewing, put it on to go thresh grain or what have you. You gotta have know how and needles and such to make trousers. I'm team breech cloth all the way!
You're right that breechclothes are easier bc no further sewing is required. But the lady of the house who wove the cloth certainly also knew how to sew. Just why do more work if you don't have to?
@@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920 why indeed. If I have several sections of cloth, why not wear those working and keep my trews for Sunday or whatever.
They are underwear for peasants. Trousers were around but if you were wearing them you had a shirt that went all the down to your knees and wrapped under and up to become you under pants.
In the summer peasant workers didn't wear hose, the two separate legs of trousers (Hence a pair of trousers).
Also northern people wore pants, see vikings, the southern people like leggings with the split and a cod piece. It was all about fashion and flaunting your junk.
Being as educated on craftsmanship and materials as you are, what do you think is the absolute highest quality a stone tool, designed for function and not for display, could be made to be? A lot of stone tool-making on RUclips seems to end at "good enough" but what would you get if you didn't stop at good enough and strive to make, say, the best possible stone axe?
I'm assuming you mean quality as in performance.
As in all things there is a spectrum of compromise. A good stone axe can be made either as durable as decent steel or as efficient as decent steel, but moving it towards one pole moves it away from the other. A sharp stone axe will be easy to break, a durable stone axe won't be very sharp.
You forgot to what to some people is the most important thing and to others, stupid. Fashion. Just a thought.