The Theatre

[Davy]

I was at a play a few weeks ago, set in the 13'th century. Every character in the play wore a dress! It was nearly the end of the 1st act before I had noticed, but after that I took note. I certainly expected a few of the minor characters, maybe servants, pages or slaves to be in pants, but, no, not one. The women were all wearing more or less normal floor length dresses, but the men were all in much shorter and more revealing dresses, way above the knees. Of course the King and some of the high nobility also had long flowing robes, but there were still dresses underneath.

Maybe those guys knew something modern men don't?

[Kirbstone]

Davy, You didn't say where you are, or where this theatre is or what the name of the play/performance was, so we're still in the dark. I expect all the men wore short tunics, which in Northern climes were combined with leggings/tights of some sort. This differentiated them from the religious lot who wore (& still do) habits or robes, which are floor length. The short tunics were almost invariably worn with a belt of some sort from which accoutrements, e.g. weapons could be hung. Titled men would further adorn themselves with coloured cloaks &c hung from the shoulder, which usually denoted their rank.

Not far removed from the dress universal in Roman times.

T.

[Sarongman]

Let's not forget the people wearing a red tunic, topped with plate armour and a helmet. The belt hung a short sword, and their shield wall was impressive to say the least. Your average Roman soldier was right up there with the macho men. As for the Roman upper class and the aspiring upper middle, they wore that most useless and impractical Toga over their tunic to show how idiotic um impressive----sorry Senator, I didn't mean it

[skirtyscot]

I was at a play a few weeks ago, set in the 13'th century. Every character in the play wore a dress! ... the men were all in much shorter and more revealing dresses, way above the knees. Of course the King and some of the high nobility also had long flowing robes, but there were still dresses underneath.

Maybe those guys knew something modern men don't?

Trousers - they're just a passing fad, don't you know?

[r.m.anderson]

Then there is the simple costume change between sets/acts !
Changing out of a dress or skirt is much easier and faster than
changing out of pants unless they are the breakaway (snaps
on either inner or outer seam) type - think fast changing outfits
between walks on the runway !

"Skirt-Kilt-ON"
rma

[skirtyscot]

As for the Roman upper class and the aspiring upper middle, they wore that most useless and impractical Toga over their tunic to show how idiotic um impressive----

I expect they wore impractial garments to show that they were rich enough not to have to work. But a toga would keep the hot Italian sun off your legs and arms nicely, whereas a tunic would not. So not all bad!

[Davy]

Davy, You didn't day where you are, or where this theatre is or what the name of the play/performance was, so we're still in the dark. I expect all the men wore short tunics, which in Northern climes were combined with leggings/tights of some sort. This differentiated them from the religious lot who wore (& still do) habits or robes, which are floor length. The short tunics were almost invariably worn with a belt of some sort from which accoutrements, e.g. weapons could be hung. Titled men would further adorn themselves with coloured cloaks &c hung from the shoulder, which usually denoted their rank.

Yes, your description is pretty accurate. The men did all have on tights and the nobility had cloaks as I indicated. Don't remember belts, but there might have been. The play was Shakespeare's Richard II; no religious types in the play. Perhaps this is pretty common for middle ages stuff; I had not noticed before, but will keep a more vigilant eye the next time.