Talk:Breeches

design of joints

What about the special joint design around the butt, rather horizontal rather than vertical? When did that come and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:5E1:1A01:3AB1:6E7F:7461:9391 (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge requested

Oppose. Breeches and trousers are different types of clothing, and there is plenty of room to differentiate the two garments. - PKM 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree they are different types of clothing each with its own place in fashion history. Azalea pomp 09:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. As per above arguments. --Oreo Priest 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Removed merge to pants suggestion as all opposed. Waerloeg 03:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation issue?

"while the German Hosen, also a plural, ousted Bruch" - German has a singular form "Hose" (of which "Hosen" is the plural form), not sure if that part is meant to mean that it has only a plural form, or not.. 78.34.225.7 (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, German "Hose" (sing.) means one garment (covering both legs), no matter if short or long, so "Hosen" (pl.) is more than one garment. --JFritsche (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Definition - how are they different from trousers?

"Breeches (/ˈbrɪtʃɨz/breeches or britches) are an item of clothing covering the body from the waist down, with separate coverings for each leg" - at first I read that as being made up of separate sections, which are put on separately but fit together on the body. But maybe it's just saying that there are separate parts for covering each leg... in which case, how is this definition different from trousers?

After the quoted text, is a description of what they're usually like, so I don't think that's really part of the definition. --Chriswaterguy talk 01:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Missing text

fta: differ from breeches in ways discussed in this article.

The ways in question aren't discussed anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

a notice

and the ancient Persians and ancient Parthians wore similar as trousers

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breeches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723111645/http://www.medicinenet.com:80/c-section_cesarean_birth/glossary.htm to http://www.medicinenet.com/c-section_cesarean_birth/glossary.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"latter" 16th century

I'm reading a portion of this page that says "in the latter 16th century". Is that a spelling error by any chance? Wouldn't that be "later", or is "latter" actually used in English writing?

No - presumably should "later". Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Lacks a clear definition, and conflicts with dictionaries

The article is still confusing, written as though breeches are different from trousers rather than a type of trousers, but not specifying how. (I took away the false impression that there was something different in how they are put together and worn, for example each leg being attached separately...)

As an anon stated above in 2013,

"fta: differ from breeches in ways discussed in this article.

The ways in question aren't discussed anywhere.

Let's look at dictionaries:

Oxford: Short trousers fastened just below the knee, now chiefly worn for riding or as part of ceremonial dress.

Cambridge dictionary: Trousers that do not cover the whole of the leg

Wiktionary: A garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs; smallclothes.

Merriam-Webster: short pants covering the hips and thighs and fitting snugly at the lower edges at or just below the knee.

If there is a sense in which breeches are not a type of style of trousers, this should be sourced and explained. Otherwise, it should be made consistent with standard dictionary definitions.

You know the case cover what are the physical characteristics of breeches?Is it about which parts of the leg are covered? Or how they fit? --Chriswaterguy talk 04:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The first recorded people carrying such pants were the Slavs, as described by Greek, Roman and Arab writers.

Procopius described the Slavs as "exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or very blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are slightly ruddy in color... they are neither dishonorable nor spiteful, but simple in their ways, like the Huns... some of them do not have either a tunic or cloak, but only wear a kind of breeches pulled up to the groin". Barford, Paul M (2001). The Early Slavs: Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-3977-3. p. 59: citing Procopius — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.7.124.164 (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)