Boots etc.

Making, Pictures, Queries, Resources

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Zachos
Posts: 424
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:34 pm

Boots etc.

Post by Zachos »

I seem to remember reading that 15th century people didn't wear knee high boots. Is this true?

Cheers
Zac
Slowly realizing just how far is still to go.

User avatar
Colin Middleton
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2037
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Post by Colin Middleton »

There are supposed to be riding boots upto your mid thigh. If you're looking for posing kit, I'd limit yourself to calf height boots. Why would any one want anything higher?
Colin

"May 'Blood, blood, blood' be your motto!"

Image

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Post by zauberdachs »

I've seen a couple of images purporting to be knee high boots however all were in fact depicting hose rolled down to just below the knee...
Attachments
200px-38-svaghi_C_lotta_Taccuino_Sanitatis_Casanatense_4182._detail.jpg
Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

User avatar
Tuppence
Post Knight
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: chaos-world, west yorks
Contact:

Post by Tuppence »

now that's an intersting pic - begs the question why are they apparently fighting / training (or whatever they're doing) barefoot?
"What a lovely hat! But may I make one teensy suggestion? If it blows off, don't chase it."
Miss Piggy
RIP Edward the avatar cat.

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Post by zauberdachs »

Tuppence wrote:now that's an intersting pic - begs the question why are they apparently fighting / training (or whatever they're doing) barefoot?
ah, it's not a super quality pic but they are wearing shoes the same colour as their hose. There is a little line under the ankle showing where the shoe ends and the hose begins. You can only just see it in this picture.
Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

User avatar
Phil the Grips
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: Auld Reekie- capital village o' Jockland
Contact:

Post by Phil the Grips »

You also get footed hose with leather soles, seemingly common in Italy, so it looks like they are shoeless when in fact they aren't.

I have always taken it that you have turnshoes up to the ankles and riding boots up to midthigh but nowt, or very little to cover my behind when someone shows a dozen images to the contrary :), in between.

Why would there be? If you want to protect your shins in scrub or long grass then wear a second set of hose/halfhose.

The notion of "arming boots" is a total reenactorism developed from folk wearing poor armour and needing something to protect their upper foot and shins when it scrapes against the joints.

I shall spare you my rant of folk wearing riding boots that can't ride or when no horses are around or being "pirates" etc etc
--Angels also carry weapons--
http://www.blackboarswordsmanship.co.uk/

User avatar
Zachos
Posts: 424
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:34 pm

Post by Zachos »

Ok, I'll have to save up that little bit more for thigh boots.

(Yes phil, I can ride, and am looking for some boots to wear while riding.)
Slowly realizing just how far is still to go.

User avatar
Colin Middleton
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2037
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Post by Colin Middleton »

What an odd picture. Two men fighting in quilted jacks and their underpants!

Phil, I have seen one reference to arming shoes or boots. As far as I can tell, they are normal (ankle height) shoes with points in them to hold the sabbatons in place. The only special adaptions that I know of are tougher leather and possibly improved grip. The are (of course) owned by a knight.
I do agree with your point that if your greaves fit, you can't wear knea boots under them! :shock:
Colin

"May 'Blood, blood, blood' be your motto!"

Image

User avatar
Phil the Grips
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: Auld Reekie- capital village o' Jockland
Contact:

Post by Phil the Grips »

Shoes with points on top and added to the sole to aid grip are fine and provenacable-no argument there :)
--Angels also carry weapons--
http://www.blackboarswordsmanship.co.uk/

Nigel
Post Knight
Posts: 1677
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:45 am
Location: Pontefract
Contact:

Post by Nigel »

I suspect that they are more fencing doublets than Jacks
There’s a country in Europe where they treat their ex soldiers with pride no waits for medical treatment after injuries received during service, no amensia from the government. Cant for the life of me recall where it is but I know exactly where it is not.

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Post by zauberdachs »

Medieval folks seemed to have rolled down their hose when they were engaged in physical activity. This isn't so strange in context.
Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

User avatar
Colin Middleton
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2037
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Post by Colin Middleton »

Nigel, that we my first thought, but they appear to be wearing doublets under the garment, so I'm guessing that it is a jack.
Colin

"May 'Blood, blood, blood' be your motto!"

Image

User avatar
DeviantShrub
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:37 am
Location: Bree

Post by DeviantShrub »

Colin Middleton wrote:There are supposed to be riding boots upto your mid thigh. If you're looking for posing kit, I'd limit yourself to calf height boots. Why would any one want anything higher?
Because they look good. :mrgreen::mrgreen::twisted:

I surely can't be the only woman out there with a fetish about men in Big Boots?

Laffin Jon Terris
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:32 am
Contact:

Post by Laffin Jon Terris »

Now, I understand the argument, to have riding boots on one should, (ideally) be riding.

Instead I'm going to be obtuse:

Just because I'm not currently on a horse should I take my boots off immediately?

Is it not possible I am on my way to (or from my horse) in my boots? (or should I have "slippers" and a little bag to put my riding boots in after I dismount?) :twisted:

No horses around? Maybe some thieving Lancastrian has stolen it (and my little bag with my "walking around" shoes in it!) :twisted:

Maybe I'm just pretending that I have the money and status to pose around in nice big boots after all that's what the sumptuary laws were all about wasn't it?

Or maybe I'm just hoping to impress the DeviantShrubs of the world who like big boots! :twisted:

Seriously now, I don't have a copy of Olaf Goubitz' (sp) "Stepping Through Time" but didn't that have some mid calf and slightly higher boots?

Jon.
Knowing is only half the battle.
Image

User avatar
lucy the tudor
Post Knight
Posts: 1984
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:57 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

men in big boots

Post by lucy the tudor »

She is not alone :wink:
Lucy
lucythetudor@gmail.com

a filthy, *rse-grabbing strumpet, masquerading as a demure two-door lady.

User avatar
Sophia
Post Centurion
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:46 pm
Location: Camberwell, London
Contact:

Post by Sophia »

Plantagenet shoes list several pairs of knee boots in their C15th catalogue. :D
aka Thomasin Chedzoy, Tailor at Kentwell Hall

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Post by zauberdachs »

So i'm ill and bored. Here are some images I've found:

Firstly by Sandro Botticelli late fifteenth century. This is however a classical scene, so take what you will of what they are wearing ;)
Attachments
Botticelli_magi_detail.jpg
Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Post by zauberdachs »

Another, 1495 Italian.
Attachments
405px-Vittore_Carpaccio_038.jpg
405px-Vittore_Carpaccio_038.jpg (9.35 KiB) Viewed 2569 times
Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Post by zauberdachs »

Funny thing is, prior to the late 15th century I haven't seen any knee high boots on people riding. Friossart for example is filled with people wearing "normal" shoes on horse back...
Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

User avatar
Colin Middleton
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2037
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Post by Colin Middleton »

DeviantShrub wrote:Because they look good. :mrgreen::mrgreen::twisted:

I surely can't be the only woman out there with a fetish about men in Big Boots?
Ah, but don't knee boots just look like you can't afford any really high boots. :D
Last edited by Colin Middleton on Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Colin

"May 'Blood, blood, blood' be your motto!"

Image

guthrie
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: Polmont-Edinburgh

Post by guthrie »

I have heard people say that the Italians, when it comes to clothes, determinedly did their own thing in this period, hence generalising from the Italians can be tricky.

User avatar
Phil the Grips
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: Auld Reekie- capital village o' Jockland
Contact:

Post by Phil the Grips »

zauberdachs wrote:Funny thing is, prior to the late 15th century I haven't seen any knee high boots on people riding. Friossart for example is filled with people wearing "normal" shoes on horse back...
Must have been done- there are no Roman or early medieval riding boots known of or hinted at, for example, and riding in shoes is entirely possible and done throught the ages- just have to get used to chafing :)

Personally I would tie wearing long boots into status, as derived from practicality- the equivalent of having a Porsche jacket and luggage to match the car.
--Angels also carry weapons--
http://www.blackboarswordsmanship.co.uk/

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Post by zauberdachs »

Phil the Grips wrote:
zauberdachs wrote:Funny thing is, prior to the late 15th century I haven't seen any knee high boots on people riding. Friossart for example is filled with people wearing "normal" shoes on horse back...
Must have been done- there are no Roman or early medieval riding boots known of or hinted at, for example, and riding in shoes is entirely possible and done throught the ages- just have to get used to chafing :)

Personally I would tie wearing long boots into status, as derived from practicality- the equivalent of having a Porsche jacket and luggage to match the car.
why is it not pictured?
Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

User avatar
Phil the Grips
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: Auld Reekie- capital village o' Jockland
Contact:

Post by Phil the Grips »

"Must have been done" in the sense that the majority would be wearing shoes to ride as it would be far more common and practical to do so- hope that makes more sense :)
--Angels also carry weapons--
http://www.blackboarswordsmanship.co.uk/

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Post by zauberdachs »

Phil the Grips wrote:"Must have been done" in the sense that the majority would be wearing shoes to ride as it would be far more common and practical to do so- hope that makes more sense :)
ah, fair enough. Still, without any evidence how do we know it happened?
Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

User avatar
Phil the Grips
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 2:01 pm
Location: Auld Reekie- capital village o' Jockland
Contact:

Post by Phil the Grips »

..or didn't? Tis the eternal question when examining history and accuracy.
--Angels also carry weapons--
http://www.blackboarswordsmanship.co.uk/

BrendanGrif
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:53 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Post by BrendanGrif »

The "stepping though time" book does list boots from C13 on; including a one off set with 10 buckles(!) which was probably considered vulgar by everyone except the person who owned them.
There are some distinctive features that evolved based on timeline and might date the boots.

If I remember correct the ratio of boots:shoes in finds was 1:3000 but the author reckoned that was not representative of standard usage i.e. they were a bit more common

Brendan

User avatar
Colin Middleton
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2037
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Post by Colin Middleton »

That;s interesting. The impression that I got from the MoL book is that ankle/calf height boots were nearly as common as shoes. Or do you mean knea and higher when your say 'boots'?

Many thanks
Colin

"May 'Blood, blood, blood' be your motto!"

Image

BrendanGrif
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:53 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Post by BrendanGrif »

the stepping through time book defines "boots" (or type 95s as they like to call them) as an item of footware "an item of high footwear without a closure" i.e. no laces, buckles etc as a means of fastening, though they are ok for tightening (except for the specific exception already mentioned).
As a notable counterpoint to riding boots notion it suggests that "fishermen, sailors, dredgers..." would have used well greased boots.

Of course while it does have some other stuff most of the finds referred to in the book from in the Netherlands.

Brendan

User avatar
zauberdachs
Post Centurion
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Post by zauberdachs »

The 1:3000 sounds right after trawling through all my books on costume. I have found one image that dates to the late thirteenth century which has two Shepard's in boots that rise to the mid thigh. You can see them in: "Medieval costume in England and France 13th, 14th and 15th centuries" Mary G Houston 0486190603 page 51

The vast majority of images on horse back or not, rich or poor show shoes that end just below the ankle, however the earlier you go there are more shoes that rise to just above the ankle.

Interestingly all those on horse back wear normal shoes. Those not on horse back can be identified from the spurs on their normal shoes.

I think the idea that the super rich wore large boots cannot be borne out by the evidence from contemporary images. The super rich predominate in their very best finery and none wear anything other than ankle boots...
Do not be loath, diligent reader, to winnow my chaff, and lay up the wheat in the storehouse of your memory. For truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true - Nennius, 8th century

Post Reply