bob bobato
L'imparfait
When and why did people stop wearing tunics?
Tunics
- Thread starter bob bobato
- Start date
Xanikk999
History junkie
Fashion i guess... Probably for the same reason men stopped wearing tights and stockings and woman wear them now! 
This has got to be one of the more original thread topics I have seen in years.
But what exactly are tunics?
But what exactly are tunics?
Shaihulud
Deity
It looks like shirts or vest, or at least it does in Neverwinternights.
I know roughly what it is. But what was it made up of etc?
Might be 'cause as better, cheaper materials became available, people just switched.
Might be 'cause as better, cheaper materials became available, people just switched.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
When I think of tunics, I think of togas. So in a nutshell I guess we stopped wearing tunics when we stopped wearing togas.
Stolen Rutters
Deity
The tunic was worn under the toga, later with sleeves. People kept wearing them long after the toga stopped being used, mainly in religion and uniforms. This is, of course, according to the wiki, but it also squares with what I recall reading pre-computer.
Willowmound
Wordbug
A tunic is a button-less shirt, either with or without sleeves, that reaches to the thighs or the knees.
The classic Robin Hood outfit is a tunic and tights, i.e.
The classic Robin Hood outfit is a tunic and tights, i.e.
I suppose tunics went out of fashion when breeches came in, and I suppose (again) that this would have been in (roughly) the seventeenth century. But you need to specify what you mean by "tunics" more precisely, because really a modern shirt is just a short tunic. So in some sense we've never stopped wearing them.
However, it's important to bear in mind that people of different professions and status would have worn different clothes, to a greater extent than today. Stockings, for example, were essential fashion for Restoration dandies (together with high heels, wigs, etc) but the average rural working man at that time would surely have worn breeches and boots of some kind.
However, it's important to bear in mind that people of different professions and status would have worn different clothes, to a greater extent than today. Stockings, for example, were essential fashion for Restoration dandies (together with high heels, wigs, etc) but the average rural working man at that time would surely have worn breeches and boots of some kind.
MCdread
Couldn't she get drowned?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2001
- Messages
- 5,348
Besides, tunics are still used nowadays in several places and countries in the Middle East and West Africa, particularly in in the muslim countries I think.
nonconformist
Miserable
Yeah, short military jackets of WWII were commonly known as tunics, and went no further than groin level, being buttoned up to the neck, with pockets.
bob bobato
L'imparfait
When I say tunics, I mean the long shirt that went to your knees, which most people belted off at the waist. Think medieval tunics. I was wondering when people stopped wearing tunics 'cause I almost never see them in Rennaissance paintings, but I see them in paintings from roughly the 1450's( At least in English paintings, and from countries close to England).
Willowmound
Wordbug
I'm wearing a tunic right now.
Well not really. But I wish.
Well not really. But I wish.
We all still wear tunics today. But now we call them "T-shirts" and they're a lot shorter. 
That's all a tunic has ever really been: a t-shirt of varying lengths, varying styles of cut, made of various kinds of fabrics (depending on what was available and appropriate for one's status), and having various kinds of ornamentation.
Working-class people tended to wear plain, serviceable tunics that came to approximately knee-length (for men) and the ankles (for women). Depending on status, other clothing may have been worn over the tunics (ie. Roman patricians wore togas over their tunics when they were in public or indoor formal situations). Some aristocratic men and all women wore ankle-length (or floor-length) tunics.
My own thoughts as to why we (in the collective Western society sense) shifted from tunics to shirts come down to two factors:
1. Technology. Better tools to make and work threads, dyes, and fabrics would lead to more complex types of clothing. It's not hard to make a basic T-shirt (just ask any SCA member who has had to make a T-tunic). But a modern shirt? I for one wouldn't care to try.
2. Wealth. What major event happened around the time that middle and upper European classes shifted from tunics to shirts?
The first documented post-Viking voyages to the New World, in the late 1400s. As the Spanish, English, French, Portuguese, Dutch, and smaller European powers explored and acquired wealth from exploiting the resources of the New World, they wanted/needed new ways to show off their wealth.
Now how could a shirt be considered a form of wealth? By the embroidery, for one. Even today, some kinds of embroidery threads are quite expensive, and having a shirt liberally decorated with such embroidery and designs (men did the designing back then, btw) was a way of saying, "See what I can afford!" Add gemstones to the equation (especially for royal ladies and courtiers of both sexes), and you get a really complicated-to-make, expensively-decorated piece of clothing to wear at court and parties and show off your personal and family riches. Putting these ornamentations on a tunic doesn't carry the same sense of "wow!"
Also to do with embroidery and sewing gems onto clothing came lace. Lace on a tunic looks ridiculous. But lace on a shirt can look spiffy, if used in moderation (in a modern sense, at least). But the courtiers and wannabes during the Age of Exploration wanted to impress people, so they went in for ever more extravagant displays of lace, to the point where it was difficult to move their heads (and it must have itched abominably).
So to sum up, people generally sacrificed comfort and practicality in order to show off their wealth and impress people.
And we're still doing it (as I read in the OT thread about business suits). BTW, this is applicable to both men and women. I've had to wear blouses and suits and dresses (all modern descendents of tunics) to impress prospective employers - and hated every second of it.
Personally, I'd like to see the tunic - the original kind of tunic - make a comeback. They're so comfortable...
That's all a tunic has ever really been: a t-shirt of varying lengths, varying styles of cut, made of various kinds of fabrics (depending on what was available and appropriate for one's status), and having various kinds of ornamentation.
Working-class people tended to wear plain, serviceable tunics that came to approximately knee-length (for men) and the ankles (for women). Depending on status, other clothing may have been worn over the tunics (ie. Roman patricians wore togas over their tunics when they were in public or indoor formal situations). Some aristocratic men and all women wore ankle-length (or floor-length) tunics.
My own thoughts as to why we (in the collective Western society sense) shifted from tunics to shirts come down to two factors:
1. Technology. Better tools to make and work threads, dyes, and fabrics would lead to more complex types of clothing. It's not hard to make a basic T-shirt (just ask any SCA member who has had to make a T-tunic). But a modern shirt? I for one wouldn't care to try.
2. Wealth. What major event happened around the time that middle and upper European classes shifted from tunics to shirts?
The first documented post-Viking voyages to the New World, in the late 1400s. As the Spanish, English, French, Portuguese, Dutch, and smaller European powers explored and acquired wealth from exploiting the resources of the New World, they wanted/needed new ways to show off their wealth.
Now how could a shirt be considered a form of wealth? By the embroidery, for one. Even today, some kinds of embroidery threads are quite expensive, and having a shirt liberally decorated with such embroidery and designs (men did the designing back then, btw) was a way of saying, "See what I can afford!" Add gemstones to the equation (especially for royal ladies and courtiers of both sexes), and you get a really complicated-to-make, expensively-decorated piece of clothing to wear at court and parties and show off your personal and family riches. Putting these ornamentations on a tunic doesn't carry the same sense of "wow!"
Also to do with embroidery and sewing gems onto clothing came lace. Lace on a tunic looks ridiculous. But lace on a shirt can look spiffy, if used in moderation (in a modern sense, at least). But the courtiers and wannabes during the Age of Exploration wanted to impress people, so they went in for ever more extravagant displays of lace, to the point where it was difficult to move their heads (and it must have itched abominably).
So to sum up, people generally sacrificed comfort and practicality in order to show off their wealth and impress people.
And we're still doing it (as I read in the OT thread about business suits). BTW, this is applicable to both men and women. I've had to wear blouses and suits and dresses (all modern descendents of tunics) to impress prospective employers - and hated every second of it.
Personally, I'd like to see the tunic - the original kind of tunic - make a comeback. They're so comfortable...
bob bobato
L'imparfait
Okay, I get it now. Thanks.
SharpMango
If in doubt, just axe!
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 375
well, if that is what a tunic is, i know people in south asia..including me
, still wear tunics...we call the shalwar khameez, or am i thinking of something different..
heres an indian *tunic*
and we do wear other stuff over them,
like waistcoats or sherwanis,
here is a sherwani, theres a shalwar always worn underneath since this is formal wear....
Similar threads
