Shirt Help

[Olaf]

What would be a good short or sleeveless shirt for warmer weather. Any examples are appreciated.

[debuenzo]

make a vest out of light, thin material

[Danzig]

Go to Walmart or a Fabric store and buy 2 yards of 45" muslin. Cut a hole in the middle for your head and tie with rope or with a belt at the waist. Cheap, simple, and if you don't wear a shirt under it, you'll stay nice and cool.

If you want to look a litttle nicer, simple tunics with the sides split are also nice in the summer because you can still get a decent breeze:



Keep the sleeves short, and you're good to go.

[Grey]

the polo shirt tunic should serve your purposes well

http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/alcon/garbtips.html

[Vak]

I didn't really want to make a new topic for this So I anm piggy backing

How are Hoods ruled? If I sewed a hood onto my Tunic or what not? Is that a danger or would be be allowed?

[Big King Jimmy]

It's allowed, there are no problems with it.

Historically, I can't think of anywhere they put hoods on tunics, to have the same effect as a modern hoody. They were all on cloaks or robes that I've seen.

[Vak]

Alrighty, Thanks much. I really was vexed by this last night while talking to a few friends.

[Argyll]

i would make a "leine". Medieval irish-men wear them and i started wearing one recently. It's kind of like a bath-roab, made of a thinner lighter material. It's got two holes near the top for you arms to go through and wraps around your waste and gets belted. It falls about knee lenght, and can be tucked into your kilt.

Also i just made a t-tunic. Ancient celts often wore huge plaid ones. instructions for making one are on the dagorhir site. It took me less than an hour and left me shockingly impressed and quite proud of my new found garb making skills. The problem with that one is clashing plaids. It would look outrageuously harajuku to wear it with your bright yellow kilt but it'd go awesome with some earthtone pj pants.

what i'm talking about is what the dude in the blue shirt with the long blonde braids is wearing in the pic below.

[graavish]

you know in that picture you posted there are a few historical inacurracies right? the celts never faught the romans, the pics did. and no they weren't the same people even remotely.ah you raging scottish warrior there is you a sword of viking style.

oh and the kilt didn't exist in ancient times. it was a contived ivention by two brothers who were con artist who successfully pass themselves off as the * sons of some scottish monarch.

[maximilian]

Con artists? True Scotsmen for sure! Kilts rock, no matter the source! Hang out with yo' "thang" out!

[Goreth]

[Goreth]

deleted

[Goreth]

deleted

[Argyll]

you know in that picture you posted there are a few historical inacurracies right? the celts never faught the romans, the pics did. and no they weren't the same people even remotely.ah you raging scottish warrior there is you a sword of viking style.

oh and the kilt didn't exist in ancient times. it was a contived ivention by two brothers who were con artist who successfully pass themselves off as the * sons of some scottish monarch.

psh. ur the inaccurate one my friend. celts were a primary enemy of the romans for pretty much their whole run. the gauls,hibernians, caledonians, celtiberians, galatians, and cisalpine gauls [who were originally from italy] were major roman enemies.

boo-ya kasha.

that 'viking' sword is indeed celtic. swords of that era were pretty similar in appearance and the painting does not allow you to identify the smallr details that set these swords apart.

we are aware that kilts were products of the 15th century, but we split our garb tween early celts and fantasy scotsmen

[Oisin]

~Grumbles about people posting while I'm in the middle of writing practically a * essay about something~

you know in that picture you posted there are a few historical inacurracies right? the celts never faught the romans, the pics did. and no they weren't the same people even remotely.a

h you raging scottish warrior there is you a sword of viking style.

oh and the kilt didn't exist in ancient times. it was a contived ivention by two brothers who were con artist who successfully pass themselves off as the * sons of some scottish monarch.

Hey graavish . . . few comments . . . yeah.

1. The Celts did fight the Romans. A lot. All the time. For hundreds of years. The Gauls that sacked Rome in 387 BC? Yup, those were Celts. The Iberians that the Romans fought during the conquest of what is today Spain? Also Celts. The Gauls that the Romans fought for the next few hundred years after Allia until Caesar so famously conquered Gaul? Also Celts. How about the Bretons he fought during his brief invasion of the island in 54 bc? Or the same ones the Romans fought when Emperor Claudius invaded Britain in 43 ad and in the campaigns that led from that? Celts. Not only did the Romans fight the Celts, but in fact, the Celts were the archetypical Roman enemy for hundreds of years. Also, a surprisingly large amount of Roman tactics and equipment were learned from the Celts, ESPECIALLY in the period after Allia and the Gallic sack of Rome.

2. The Picts were Celts (probably). It's kinda like how in elementary school they teach you that a square is a subtype of rectangle. "Celt" is a very, very broad term used to refer to the members of any ethnic group that spoke a language descended from the Celtic branch of the Indo-European linguistic tree. The Picts were (probably) Celts, albeit relatively distantly related to the Continental Celts (Gauls, Iberians) or the other Insular Celts (Bretons, Gaels). You notice I keep saying probably, and this is because we aren't actually absolutely sure. From archaeological evidence and what little bits and pieces of the Pictish language are still existant, though, the powers that be have concluded that they probably were. It's a bit more complicated than that, but whatever. That being said, there were only very distantly related to the people that are commonly referred to as "Celts", which is really a misnomer anyway.

3. The swords in the picture are actually Celtic style swords. The Celts were the first people to make the now archetypal "long sword", mostly because they were among the first people with an advanced enough understanding of metallurgy to make iron steely enough to allow a sword of such length. Viking swords were actually copies of the later Roman spatha (which was in turn copied from the Celtic longsword and used initially for cavalry but also later for infantry). Not too relevant, but on a semi-tangent, the Celts also probably invented chainmail. Which the Romans copied off the Celts. Along with many of their shield and helmet designs. Yeah. And to the guy right above me: context aside, you actually can distinguish these swords from similar ones of viking design. The vikings preferred a blocky, rectangular handle, while the hilts of Celtic swords tended to be shaped in a more organic, stylized, sometimes anthropomorphic manner.

4. Kilts. Ah, kilts. In all honesty, the formal kilt as we think of it today really is a rather modern invention. Like, 19th century. If you're serious about that brothers making it up thing, I'd like to see a citation for that, as it's a story I've never heard before. Anyway . . . the earliest kilt-like garments were just wool cloth wrapped like a skirt, sometimes pleated for warmth maybe, worn by various peoples since god knows when. The word kilt is descended from a Norse word that basically means man-skirt, and was a fairly common garment for the Norse, and probably by the Irish as well. Probably related to and/or worn over the leine, which was like a long shirt/tunic/dress much like a classical greek knee-length tunic, and which was very common dress for men in Ireland. Anyway, the great kilt had evolved with ceremony and tradition devoted to it by the 1700s, and the modern-style kilt by the 1800s. Tartans were originally just neat patterns that weavers made based entirely on personal preference, and of course what colors happened to be readily available. They were not formalized like they are today until also very recently.

5. For everyone's sake, please wear something under your kilt at Belegarth stuff. My personal preference is underarmour compression shorts, but whatever suits your fancy is cool. Boxers, briefs, take your pick.

[Argyll]

*high fives oison*

reading books on stuff owns u

[Kensman Bam]

The sword in question is a long sword of type and was used by both Celts and Vikings alike. Most swords of that nature are called Anthropomorphic Swords, and were usually related to short swords and long daggers, but some long swords were made this way too.

[Oisin]

double post.

[Oisin]

The term anthropomorphic refers to the handle design. The very word means, approximately, "man shaped." Most anthropomorphic swords in the archaeological record were short swords or long daggers (this is really a very fuzzy distinction. Unlike in Belegarth, there is no inch rule saying what's what.), but this is mainly because during the period in which they were most popular (Hallstatt D I believe was the height of this style of sword design?) the metallurgy techniques to forge longer swords were not as of yet known. Also, many are in bronze not iron, which cannot be made into nearly as long of a weapon. High carbon content steely iron would not be discovered until hundreds of years after the height of the anthropomorphic sword.

That being said, it did remain a somewhat common (to various degrees) hilt design well into the first millenium AD. The quality of the picture there isn't too great, but it looks like the swords that those celts are using are not anthropo. and are just some sort of curvy celtic design. The cross-pieces are also round enough that they could be a phallic design of some sort, as well. That's not unknown either. What would be unknown is that all of their swords exactly the same. Unlike Roman weapons which were basically mass produced, every Celtic sword would have been individually made, and hence none would be identical. Having that many together that are even extremely similar would probably not be likely.