Talk:Hose (clothing)

Hose (pl. Hosen) is the german word for trousers, maybe that's an interesting information for the article. MatthiasKabel 17:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So "Hose" is NOT a plurale tantum. Please deleate or edit this sentence.

Deleted per above unsigned comment ('plurale tantum' only describes, uh, plurals, not singulars). Classicalclarinet 02:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Question: knitted or woven? The article should address how they were made. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.165.199.57 (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge 13 May 2017
It has been proposed in this section that Hosiery be merged into Hose (clothing).

Hosiery→Hose (clothing) They are synonyms, despite their use on Wikipedia to differentiate between articles on old and contemporary hose. Both articles are still in poor shape. The merge would likely improve them. Putting the history and modern use together gives useful context for the reader. — A L T E R C A R I ✍ 09:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Firm oppose - While I see what you're saying, I also feel that both articles are distinct, and there is an appropriate hatnote on Hose (clothing). People looking for hosiery will be looking for stockings, not medieval men's leggings, whilst people looking for hose are probably more likely looking for historic clothing, and if not, the hatnote is there to redirect them. Also, in the Hosiery template, hosiery is clearly defined as the main article, while hose is clearly indicated as a historical style. I think the distinction has been made very clear, and I'm not a fan of merging articles on old and new versions of a term if they are so firmly distinguished. So in my opinion, a merge would just cause a lot of confusion and trouble to be sorted out, and a lot of articles would need their links amending. More trouble than it's worth, IMO. Mabalu (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. The 16th century paned hosen look nothing like modern tights. - Ossie


 * Oppose. Both articles could use expansion, but combining them won't solve the problems. - PKM (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

article needs rewrite
This entire article needs a rewrite. Not knowing the book used as a source I have decided not to do this at this time. I expect the used source is a low quality general history book as it contradicts almost all generally accepted facts about medieval hosen. I will have to look for my books on medieval fashion. One reliable source could be Ulrich Lehnart's books, but a number of others exist as well. Graphic sources are also quite clear on this topic, though their sole use would probably be considered original research. --Caranorn (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) We know hosen existed by at the latest the 12th century.
 * 2) They were usually dyed and not only as of the 14th century hosen. In the 15th century black clothing becoming fashionable among nobility and richer burghers, the by that time joined were likewise often black.
 * 3) In the 14th century some fashionable youth and artists would wear mi-parti hosen.
 * 4) Garters were often used to tighten the fit of hosen just bellow the knee.
 * 5) Split hosen were originally attached to the breeches. As upper clothing became shorter in the 14th century they would eventually evolve to be by the end of that century attached to a new garment, the doublet. In the 15th century hosen became fully joined by the introduction of the codpiece.
 * 6) Most hosen covered not only the legs but also the feet though at least some cases existed with simple stirup like extensions. Later some hosen intended for interior use would receive leather soles and were no longer worn in conjunction with shoes.

How were they made?
If our project is supposed to be encyclopedic, how could the authors of this article have possibly failed to include how the cloth used to make hose was made? Was it knitted, woven, or made in some other way? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)