Huzzah! GreyWolf & RedOwl great comments.

quote:

So no it is NOT a Hollywood invention at all - do the research

I couldn't have said it better. Like GreyWolf said it would also depend on the old Who, What, When, Where of your persona as to fringe or not to fringe. I too lived back east in southern New England and was doing the RMT mountaineer and fringe just didn't work in them woods and so didn't much of the other clothing. Now out here in the rockies it all seems to work fine. So ask yourself what are you going to really do in them? Hunt,trap,chop wood, or just be a dandy at a few vouse a year? Another thing you may look into is living in OR. you are in HBC country find out what their company trapper wore.

Yeah the HBC or NW co. might be an interesting thing, the MFT quarterly about a year ago had photos from all the exhibits in the museum and they had Alexander Henry's leggings which had no fringe and look like chaps in the respect they have studs along the seam and button on rather than slipping on. It looks like there are slits for a thong to run up to a sash. There is floral bead work.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every American Company mountain man had long fringe, I'm simply saying long fringe is mentioned, fringe itself frequently mentioned, so... PC.

Research.....Rufus Sage.....

"His dress and appearance are equally singular. His skin, from constant exposure, assumes a hue almost as dark as that of the Aborigine, and his features and physical structure attain a rough and hardy cast. His hair, through inattention, becomes long, coarse, and bushy, and loosely dangles upon his shoulders. His head is surmounted by a low crowned wool-hat, or a rude substitute of his own manufacture. His clothes are of buckskin, gaily fringed at the seams with strings of the same material, cut and made in a fashion peculiar to himself and associates. The deer and buffalo furnish him the required covering for his feet, which he fabricates at the impulse of want. His waist is encircled with a belt of leather, holding encased his butcher-knife and pistols—while from his neck is suspended a bullet-pouch securely fastened to the belt in front, and beneath the right arm hangs a powder-horn transversely from his shoulder, behind which, upon the strap attached to it, are affixed his bullet-mould, ball-screw, wiper, awl, &c. With a gun-stick made of some hard wood, and a good rifle placed in his hands, carrying from thirty to thirty-five balls to the pound, the reader will have before him a correct likeness of a genuine mountaineer, when fully equipped."

But darn he was out west in 1841 guess that don't count fer much?

quote:

—while from his neck is suspended a bullet-pouch securely fastened to the belt in front, and beneath the right arm hangs a powder-horn transversely from his shoulder, behind which, upon the strap attached to it, are affixed his bullet-mould, ball-screw, wiper, awl, &c

I suspect a bit of poetic liscence at work here...this guy would get so tangled up in his stuff he would not likley be able to move.

its always funny to hear someone saying, "do the research", when thats exactly why i dont go to rendevous anymore. ive done the research and all ive seen at rendevous is guys trying to dress like charleton heston in the mountain men movie.
if seeing the word "fringe" mentioned in a book, inspires you to start wearing something with 10 inch long fringe hanging off it, then go for it.
those like me will just continue to be amused by such as you.

I hope it is ok to continue this conversation. People often get quite testy about their fringe. I don't want to fight over an academic argument, but i think this is an excellent topic, in an excellent spot for just such a conversation........so, if by disagreeing with the notion that fringe is not period 'common' (lol...still pc......don't we just love the pc acronym?)....if that notion will anger you, then you probably shouldn't read the rest of this thread. I am fascinated by the discussion though, and value different perspectives.

I do support anyones right to wear any documented thing to a family rendezvous. In that sense, certainly fringe is pc. So are sailors round jackets, broadcloth suits, satin breeches, all manner of military clothing, india rubber, sun goggles, fancy waistcoats, frock coats, and plate mail armour, should we all flock out and wear all of these? Really in small part, short fringe in small quantities are ok in my book even in more researched venues. Especially if you are portraying late 1830 or 1840s persona. But, i think is it a traversity, if some new or young buckskinner comes by here and see's mis-research stating that ALL or MOST, or even MANY, mountain men in the years before 1837 wore LONG fringe on a regular basis.

That being said, I've read Osbourne Russell's journal several times, and don't remember the reference to fringe...looked it up again and still couldn't find it....same with Clyman, would somebody give me a good citation. Redowl says on page four, but its not on my page four, or anywhere near it.

I suppose you mean John K. Townsend's journal of Nuttall's expedition? (not james townsend)All of those reference's are to Indian clothing, except one which is interesting. He mentioned a fringed inexpressible. What is that, possibly a breechclout?

I am not aware of Phillip Edwards's book? Could anyone give me a citation for that? I couldn't find it in any of the bibliographies i have here at home.

It does make me laugh to hear Blevins quoted as a source for anything. But, as a point of intrest, the reference to fringe and 'wangs' for repairs, comes from Ruxton, and oddly enough Stewart gives the exact same description of Old Bill Williams as Ruxton does, but Stewart would have seen Williams in 1837 and Ruxton was writing in (hmm..i think, mid 1840s, too lazy to look it up). However Stewart wrote after Ruxton,....interesting. This is a academic problem of the first rate. Be glad to discuss it more if anyone wants. Still mostly this is late or post 1830s.

Several other 1840s writers talk about fringe, Parkman, Sage, Garrard, Ruxton. Certainly by the 1840s, long fringe was THE uniform of a mountain man.

One good reference to fringe on a leather jacket (but, not 'trowsers') that you guys missed is in a midwestern book from 1831 called 'Wau-bun' by Juliette Kinzie.

But, it is simply not true that most, or all accounts say MM wore fringe!

Seems to be the thing to fit in here somewhere....I've been NOT wearing fringe for about 16 years, and i'm not about to start...lol. Also i DO somewhat resent (if it was pointed my direction) the notion that i've not done my research either.

I'm sure i'm rambling, but i think the indian issue is worth addressing, but i will have to do it later.

My only argument, again, fringe existed, even long fringe..but not COMMON until later in era...and VERY few sources mention it until post Miller/Stewart. I have long lists of other clothing references in most known era diaries, and journals. Still i look forward to getting more definite references on the sources greywolf mentioned above.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: aHystorian,

quote:

ive done the research and all ive seen at rendevous is guys trying to dress like charleton heston in the mountain men movie.
if seeing the word "fringe" mentioned in a book, inspires you to start wearing something with 10 inch long fringe hanging off it, then go for it.
those like me will just continue to be amused by such as you.

Actually for me it was Fess Parker doing Davy Crockett that got my attention with the fringe, as, I suppose, many of my generation would have to confess. And if my wearing of said fringe causes you to smile, know this - my smile is bigger than yours.

Pages will of course depend on what edition one reads...
"I think I was something of a fop in those days and sometimes have a good laugh to think how I must of looked in my fringed suit of buckskin with a ruffed shirt to match." "Journal of a Mountain Man" James Clyman pg. 8.

"His dress was the usual hunting-frock of buckskin, with long fringes down the seams, with pantaloons similarly ornamented, and moccasins of indian make." pg. 4 (Journal of a Trapper, Osborne Russell) This is based on one of Mike Moore's research pages on the Xmission site - It's a mistaken citation - this is G. R. Ruxton not Russell...

One not included earlier....
The Shawnees of the party wore buckskin pants and hunting shirt, with fringes of buckskin strings along the seams of the legs and sleeves..... Most of the white trappers wore a dress similar to that of the Shawnees, an account of its great durability, as it would last from three to four years, not with standing the hard use it received." pg. 19 "Wild Life in the Far West" by James Hobbs (Rio Grande Press)

"You will perhaps recollect to have seen in the "far west" of our own United States, the buckskin hunting shirt and leggings gracefully hung with fringes along the arm and sides. But I am sure you have never seen the tasty fashion of the fringes carried to perfection. Here they are six or seven inches long and hung densely on every seam...."
Philip L Edwards, a layman in the Lee Party, cited in "The Rocky Mtn Journals of William Marshall Anderson - The West in 1834"

"His dress consisted of plain leggings of deer skin, fringed at the sides, unembroidered moccasins, and a marro or waist covering of antelope skin dressed without removing the hair."
John K Townsend (yes had a brain fart on that name) and yes he is describing an NDN - this is in reference to your earlier comment regarding lack of fringe even on NDN clothing (that waist covering? a fur covered clout??)

My comment regarding "do the research" was directed at the Hollywood comment - fringe of any length was not invented by Hollywood and I always find that argument a specious one when there is historical evidence to the contrary - if it offends someone so be it.....
johnnyboy76 - I see by your profile you do 18th Century (presumably eastern frontier rather than trans- Mississippi 19the century fur trade?)- so have you really studied in depth the period in discussion? - they are in some/many ways vastly different....

quote:

But, it is simply not true that most, or all accounts say MM wore fringe!

Never said they did, but you mentioned only two sources and there are decidedly more...

quote:

Stewart would have seen Williams in 1837

Captain Stewart's first trip west was in 1832 and he wintered over in Taos 1833-1834 so he could have met Bill Williams as early as that and not 1837....

quote:

My only argument, again, fringe existed, even long fringe..but not COMMON until later in era...and VERY few sources mention it until post Miller/Stewart.

Most of the published journals that include clothing descriptions pre-1837 are pretty sparse overall and as my old history profs beat into our heads - abscence of evidence is not eveidence of abscence - no that does not give one license to wear "anything and everything", but rather we should base our studies on what is documented and not make leaps of logic on what isn't. For instance the published trade lists generally show only what was available, not what an individual actually wore/bought (the Fort Hall ledgers are one good exception)

quote:

So are sailors round jackets, broadcloth suits, satin breeches, all manner of military clothing, india rubber, sun goggles, fancy waistcoats, frock coats, and plate mail armour, should we all flock out and wear all of these?

Wouldn't that depend on one's chosen persona and Who, What, Where, and When?.....my favorites are the glasses cases and umbrellas!

and again and with respect - what does "common" have to do with the study of HISTORY?
as I noted before it's a re-enactors concept and one that only appears to have come into play post 1980 or so after I quit doing public venues including rendezvous and even historical site re-enactments. I've always much prefered doing the more personalized everyday living stuff anyway such as trapping, hunting, blacksmithing, leather work, "trekking", etc. including an almost year long stint living as close as possible as the mountaineers did pre-1840 in my younger days - learned things that I'd never have learned doing weekends or even week long doings...such as cloth shirts wear out FAST - I only tool two and they were both in shreds within the first four months. And if you want to help keep wamr - bear grease like the NDNz (and the later Channel swimmers) helps immensely, especially on ones bare behind when wearing a clout.. and no this nor 47 years of research into the western fur trade do NOT make me an expert by any means, just another student....

Again and with respect - common has (may have?) it's place in particular venues, but IMO it has really nothing to do with the study of history in all it's permutations - what a sad thing it would be if the uncommon wasn't included in our studies....
For instance - Shawnees and Delwares figure quite prominently in the western fur trade history, yet in the grand scheme of things their numbers were small - so thus would they not be considered not "common" by the that standard???

Well the sun's up and I've got critters to feed and chores to do - hopefully we can all keep this civilized and I am not here to advise anyone on what they should or should not wear - just discuss what is historically documented, whether common or not....

This message has been edited. Last edited by: GreyWolf,

quote:

Originally posted by tg:

quote:

—while from his neck is suspended a bullet-pouch securely fastened to the belt in front, and beneath the right arm hangs a powder-horn transversely from his shoulder, behind which, upon the strap attached to it, are affixed his bullet-mould, ball-screw, wiper, awl, &c

I suspect a bit of poetic liscence at work here...this guy would get so tangled up in his stuff he would not likley be able to move.

tg - with respect, not necessarily -
1) The original Mariano Medina/Modena shooting bag, which I've inspected, was set up that way

2) Had a friend years ago who followed that quote in making his gear and prefered it by far to a regular shooting bag set-up

18th century is what i favor now, but as most living history enthusiasts have, i went through that mountain man wanna-be phase too. i still have my long fringed war shirt somewhere and recently sold off my fringed caped leather frock. After researching and learning, i got tired of seeing things like bright orange leather with ridiculously long fringe and rabbit fur beer can holders and plastic pony beads.
i did not say fringe was solely invented by hollywood. i was referring to the long fringe that the modern day mountain men wannabes like, originated in glamorizations post 1840.

Thank you for the quotes and citations!

Clyman is one of my favorite mountain men and love his journal, but i missed the reference you've cited. Perhaps because it is in teh introductory material, and is taken out of context. It is worth noting though.

Ok, Ruxton, and not Russell...lol, wheew, i was worried on that one, because Russell, too, is one of my favorite sources for mountain man dress, and i've always said he never mentions fringe. Of course ruxton, like sage, parkman and Garrard, all mention lots of fringe, again all 1840s.

The Hobbs quote is a great quote. Ties in with something in which you, greywolf, said about indians in the furtrade. I think often times many of us associate mountain men with white, or even black pioneer woodsman, but to a large degree Indian and metis' woodsmen were the workhorses of the fur trade. Their dress would reflect thier background, of course tempered by teh western environment. I think that transplanted eastern indian culture in the western setting is a fascinating topic as well. they seem to have grown past the stereotypical, drunken, poor indian; to have not quite become civilized, and to have maintained a distinct but little known culture. anyhow!


I'm also interested in this Phillip Edwards quote, i'm going to have to keep looking, but i still can't find a reference to that book anywhere...long out of print, i suppose? i can't comment on it as a source, but if it's like you say that seems to be a significant resource.

Regarding western Indian fringe. I've really not got the time to look this up, but my thoughts on indian fringe, are similar to mountain man fringe. Certainly existed. Long fringe was mostly ceremonial. Most, not all, earlier sources show full on ceremoinial clothing. (which is irritating, i want Catlin to have painted day to day life, oh well) Many of these are fringed, but it is hair fringe, not leather. Leather seemed to be more common in ...i think, it was in teh snake and/or shosone tribes, but again, in ceremonial clothes. In Edward Warren, Stewart spoke of his facination with long ceremonial fringe on one of these tribes of indians, he described, really long fringe, dragging on the ground behind the indians as they walked, on a pair of leggings. Day to day, i think your average western indian clothes would consist of mocs, bare or lightly fringed side seam leggings, a wool, or possibly leather breechclout, and a wool robe, or buffalo in teh winter. When so many sources say that mountain men adopted indian dress, what does this mean. Does it mean leggings, breechclout, or does it mean eastern Cree, Deleware type transitional clothing. Eastern sources say teh same thing about eastern woodsmen, that they adopted indian clothing, in the east, that meant a hunting frock, leggins and breechclout. Hobbs' indians however where wearing pants. I think probably it meant all of these things. We often use it as a source verifying fringe and beadwork, I don't think it has to mean that, it could be a wide variety of possiblilities. Again,i'm not saying that no indians wore fringe, merely that not ALL indians wore fringe.

And you are correct, stewart could have met bill williams in 1833, at least stewart was in the west in 1833. My sources say stewart left saint louis in that year, 1833, not 1832. Not sure if he met williams or not, williams was off trapping during the winter of 1833-4--i'd have to look it up. Off the subject here, but i still think that Stewart stole his description of Williams from Ruxton though. Read the two side by side. Ruxton published in 1848, Stewart in 1854.

I agree with most everything you say here greywolf. Reserach is key, common is important to be aware of, we must also remember that there is a variety of human experience. I aboslutly support anyones right to wear whatever they want to if it documented. I do however think that we cannot loose sight of what was most common. Common defines the era, the age, and the culture; eccentricities define the individual within that culture. both are important. And i do think that the details of history are irrelevent, unless we, as historians, do 'make leaps of logic' concerning their meaning and value...that is what historians do. Those leaps must be based upon very detailed historical research however, not cursory explorations.

Greywolf, that is quite a list of experiences--i'm impressed. Just personal stuff, since you shared yours; I have a lot less experince. I first started rendezvousing in the early 1990s, in Central colorado. Four or five rendezvous a year. I too went on period correct treks, ala Mark Baker, in all manner of conditions. I spent a week or less in the mountains on all of these. I hunted and trapped mountain man style. I moved back to iowa in teh late 1990s and went solo, much like you. Horses, hunting, trapping, and the fat of the land. Again no year long trips however. In the mean time i've spent the last howevermany years immersed in teh literature. I got my masters degree in history, focused on Early American hisotry in general and the Trans-Mississippi West in particular. I spent over three years of intense research on fur-trade era clothing for my Master's thesis. I've been a college history instructor for the last 6 or 7 years. And like you, the more i learn, the more i realize that i don't know. My opinions continue to evolve.

However, i'm still saying that...if you are just passing though here...not ALL, not MOST sources, not ALL, not MOST mountain men wore fringe!!!
Just SOME did. Again, by 1840, i think the reverse is true.

quote:

I'm also interested in this Phillip Edwards quote, i'm going to have to keep looking, but i still can't find a reference to that book anywhere...long out of print, i suppose?

Just a quick stop while having lunch -
The book was edited by Dale Morgan and Eleanor Harris 1967 Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 1987...
here it is on Amazon for less than a tenner http://www.amazon.com/Mountain-Journals-William-Marshal...derson/dp/0803259107

It's cited by Landry and Chronister in their BOB 7 article on the clothing of the mtn men - IMO this article is still one of the best overviews especially for the beginner....

Back to the grindstone - literally as I've got two knives to get finished up...

Johnnyboy76;

I understand your frustrations. When i'm out with the family pc is not too important to me. I still judge peoples clothes as they walk by, I still roll my eyes at some anachronism. it does irritate me when i've spent hours researching a garment or an outfit, then some beer can toting fringe and bead decked hirevant tells me about how his costume is so much more realistic, and someday i'll be able to be like him. But, each to their own. Like some have said here before, there are different venues for different things today.

I DO agree about your hollywood point..I think we need to substitue the word american people for hollywood, however. The American people, have romanticized and glamourized the mountain men and his costume, since the time that the first paintings and the first stories of the wild and fearsome rocky mountain west reached thier ears. That means the first travel stories, like parkeman. The first painters, like miller. The first dime novels. And the first movies. Later the first buckskinners. All have romanticized, all live in the west of fantasy rather than pragmatic realism.

Life was hard, brutal and often short in the mountains. Why would you spend half a winters wages on a fancy fringed jacket and matching pants with beads, bells, and bangles, just to wear to rendzevous? Two weeks later do you through it out and wear something more practical or carry it around till next year? I'm sure some did do just that. Reminds me of the story in Larpentuer's diary, of a fellow named Bourbonnais, i think. He had a good hunt and came into the fort and immediatly bought a broadcloth suit, cause he was movin' up in the world. Most mountain men went west hoping to capitalize on the riches to be made in the beaver trade, most stayed a few years then left, most were saving money not blowing it. Again NOT ALL. Some blew money, some went indian, someone somewhere had about any experince we can imagine.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: aHystorian,

Grey Wolf is right, I got that off Mike Moore because I wanted to post a quick answer. Proves a point, that was second hand information, not direct from an original book, etc.
When ever I read one of the original journals I try to jot down a couple of notes so... let's review a bit.
1. Jacob Fowler, nothing one way or the other
2. Samuel Parker, ditto.
3. Jedediah Smith, ditto.
4. James O. Pattie, leather leggings (47), deer skin leggings (88)- says nothing one way or the other.
5. Meek, buck skin breeches (136),nothing about fringe.
6. Beckwourth, threw leggings off before plunging into the river (58), nothing about fringe.
7. Josiah Gregg, botas (142).
8. Nicolett(this was 1839 from Ft. Pierre to the Red River but Provost and other mountaineers went along), grey list leggings (240).
9. Kit Carson- autobiography, nothing.
10, Bonneville (Irving) a few free trappers decorated garments with hawk bells (376)nothing on fringe.
11.Lewis Garrard, pantaloons wore out got squaw made bucksins(115), gray cassinet pantaloons (121), Mexican pantaloons have pockets (176).
12. Zenas Leonard. nothing on fringe one way or the other.
13. George Ruxton, long fringe (my edition)(27).
14. Osborne Russell, leather britches with either smoke tanned leather leggings or blanket leggings (82).
15. James Clyman,fringed suit of buck skin (8), buck skin hunting shirt (13), buck skin pants (50).
16. Larpenteur, cow skin pants (cow skin coat, buck skin shirt (44).
17. Townsend, leather pantaloons (1).
18. Sage, buck skin clothes (38) ragged pantaloons (341).
19. Stewart, leather leggings reaching half way up the thigh and tied to an inner sash.(51).

NOW, don't hang me out to dry, these are some notes from my reading, maybe I missed some descriptions but in any event the above is a lot of descriptions of those that were there and wrote about it. SEEMS like I sort of put a lot of emphasis on Philip Edwards description of the fringe being 6-7". (per the Mike Moore info).
Conclusion, it seems you would have to figure there was some fringe and it or at least some was 6-7". Maybe most fringe was 6-7". On most garments too little is said, we don't know if there was or wasn't fringe. I can't recalled reading anything about a leather garment without fringe but Stewart's thigh length leggings likely didn't have fringe and the same type of leggings at the MFT that were Alexander Henry's did not have fringe.
So, I guess a case could be made either way as far as how common fringe was. Miller shows it a lot but then again he shows fringe hanging from wool capotes, highly unlikely.

O.k. now here was Spitfires question………


“I need some old timer advice here, what length of fringe on a buckskin coat and pants is best for practicallity sake in the wilderness? I'm about to make a coat and pants to trek and hunt in but I don't want to get tangled up in my own decorations.”

So first I will give him my answer as to what works for me. I portray to the best of my knowledge so far a company trapper of the 1830’s in the far west. I sport brain tan leggings with cloth drop front breeches. The fringe is about 4” or 5” long. What I do is sew in as a welt the rough natural shape edge of a hide so some will be longer that others when cut. I go from the top down to about 5” above the bottom. That way I am not stepping on them. My coat I just have fringe around where the arm meets the shoulder done in the same manner. I don’t have any on the sleeve. For me it some times got in my way of some things, that just me. I have hunted, trapped, walked; sleep in, a little riding, snow, mud, hot dry sand & rock. They work for me. Jumping cactus love em.

On another note Spitfire never did say what time frame or type of person he had styled his clothes after. So with that we gave him some facts in the form of direct quotes from the time period of the rocky mountain fur trade that fringe was worn by the mountaineers and indn’s of the day. Now its up to him as to how he’s going to do it and what will work for him. I hope he didn’t get gun shy now. All in all I think that’s the way a persons question should be answered, not well I don’t like it so it’s not right. if we are going to state a fact look it up and then quote it as it were written not well at least that’s what I think they said. With those types of answers a lot can be read into them and the person starts heading down the wrong trail.

Now if you don’t like seeing all the wrong things people do at events lets try to help them with constructive criticism and teach facts from fiction and the modern rendezvous lore. There are folks out there that want to learn about the rocky mountain fur trade. Let’s talk with these folks, answer their questions the best we can and if you don’t know say so and then find out yourself. Show them your gear if you have researched it and use it and say why you use what you do. Do demo’s at events.

Or I guess for many it’s easier to jump on the band wagon buy a book written by someone who writes in a magazine that tells me how to do it and buy from the traders they tell me to that way I can be like the rest. For some reason the rocky mountain fur trade did not get that type of a following? So a person will have to do his own research so let’s help them without putting our own twist on things. Experience is good though I know many of us started off on the wrong trail so we need to tell them that as well.


So even if we think those artist and travelers of the day romanticized things or what have you we must remember they were there and we never will be!

Why do we see so much “cheeto- tan” buckskin it’s cheap and there is a ton of it in the traders tent.

Just the way my stick floats!

Hey Spitfire 1- everything you ever wanted to know about fringe but were afraid to ask.... Hope you're still with us.
We have the 6-7" fringe and the Miller fringe looks around 4-5" and let's face it, that's a lot more do-able in most instances. On a buck skin coat most images seam to show fringe on the top of the shoulder/sleeve seam and on the length of the sleeve. Some times it's around the hem or bottom. The yoke you see on some jackets, that's post 1840 to my knowledge so I would avoid yokes and fringe off of the yoke.
We haven't gotten into the width of the fringe, some is pretty narrow and it takes forever and a day to cut it and it's difficult to keep the lines straight in cutting narrow fringe. I sort of cheat. I put rows of scotch tape in the back of the fringe and use a pen over the tape to draw parallel lines about 1/8" or 3/32" apart and then heavy shears to cut the fringe. When you are done you have to pull all the bits of tape off the back of the fringe but at least the lines are straight. You can twist the fringe a bit as well.
Bufflerub. My weight bounces around and I have two cloth pantaloons, a broad fall and narrow fall. One option I've considered is fringed leggings over cloth pantaloons. The leggings will fill regardless of where my weight goes. How to you hold up the leggings? Knee strap? Thongs up to a sash? Thongs to suspenders? Combination? How is the comfort, some folks say they don't like leggings. Thanks.

I know that fringe is sacred to many of you folks, so i will ease up. I have more to say about the academic debate, on some of these sources, and practical matters on the topic, as well as some of the rational here. If anyone is curious you can email me at; jeffery.blake@swcciowa.edu I feel like someone is bound to have a stoke or something if i keep on. Just one final note on history--don't take everything we read at face value. We must try to understand the age, the people, or whatever we are studying. Using historical documentation to prove preconsisting ideas about an era or a people will give you a skewed view of the era. For example it just wouldn't be right (imo) if we all dressed up in spanish armour and went to rendezvous...it seems like we would be missing some vein of reality. (if there is any reality in historical re-creation anyway) That said again i hope everyone does whatever makes them happy. I feel i have a right to my analysis of history. I have no right to any analysis of how anyone should kick back and have fun--and i never intended to give that impression. Of course, spitfire or anyone else here can do what he likes about fringe and its great that there are lots of opinions on historicity and practicality to help him along. I appreciate a forum where a wide variety of ideas can be discussed without a head in the sand approach to ideas different from ones own.

quote:

How to you hold up the leggings? Knee strap? Thongs up to a sash? Thongs to suspenders? Combination? How is the comfort, some folks say they don't like leggings. Thanks.

Just wanted to answer RedOwl here. I hold them up with a single thong around a 1" wide belt. No supenders. I am thinking maybe going a bit wider on that belt. They hold up pretty good but I always have to pull up and resnug them during the coarse of the day. I've been using leggins for about 6 years now. I like them