When I was planning my kit, I decided the persona I portray would almost certainly use wooden pattens fastened to the soles of his riding boots in wet or muddy conditions.

Then I sat down and thought a bit more....

Assuming it's wet, and I'm going to go riding. I take off my pattens before I mount, no problem. But what happens at the other end?

I can't easily carry my pattens with me, and if I could, what would I do, drop them from the horse and try to step down onto them? Not plausible.

Get a servant to bring them along, then hand them to me or buckle them onto my boots once I'm off the horse? Solves my problem, but only by moving it down the social scale - the servant now has exactly the same problem with HIS pattens.

Try to ride with pattens attached to the bottom of my boots? Haven't seen evidence for this, and some (but not necessarily all) of the surviving pattens have soles that practically come to points and couldn't be ridden in. Possible, but I'd need evidence.

Forget the whole idea, and just assume that my riding boots will get muddy? Most likely idea so far, but since we know people are using pattens with other shoes, aren't they likely to have tried to do SOMETHING to keep their feet clean and dry? After all, fancy ladies are going to be riding, too, and they don't get my nice long riding boots to keep their feet dry (....or maybe they do - you could hide anything under one of those dresses!)

Any thoughts?

[*]If its muddy, are you going to go riding for fun?
[*]If you are going riding when its muddy for fun (say, hunting or suchlike), what's the likelihood that you'd be getting off of your horse and walking about mid-ride?
[*]You're a knight at tournament with a string of horses- isn't carrying and fetching your servant's job, regardless of how convenient it is? (Thinking about the "Tres Heures" of the Duc du Berry, there are plenty of lackeys around)
[*]In a combat situation, if you're off your horse, you're in deep doo-doo anyway, so do you care if its muddy or are you just trying to stay alive, boots be damned?

As a complete aside, Jeff has a pair of those oh-so-sexy thigh high riding boots that everyone wants. I only noticed this past event that he does not wear them with his armour--he has ankle boots that fit under his greaves. He only wears the thigh-highs when he's riding unarmoured, which isn't much of the time. Since they are riding boots you're not going to be wearing them while lounging in camp or hiking about. All of this leads me to wonder if you *need* a pair of the thigh highs, if you're planning to be armoured most of the time.

If my logic is faulty or my thoughts incoherent, blame it on a lack of coffee......

Very true regarding the armour. That said, there is plenty of evidence for fellows on the march being parially armed (in case of attack, but without the inconvienience of being 'buttoned up'in full armour for any great length of time in your own personal oven)- i.e. wearing a brigandine, arm defences, and a light helmet - but no leg armour - hence the riding boots.

Somebody like a coustillier would wear a rig like that all the time, and a mounted archer 'ditto'.

Just reading a first hand account of a participant in the war with Liege (1467), and the fellow mentioned the mounted archers dismounting, and removing their spurs before going into action. Obviously, they didn't have pattens to put on in that case.

Your dead on in my estimation regarding the servant - who cared about a menial servants difficulties with a task? It is what they were paid for. OOP, but does anybody remember the 3 musketeers with Oliver Reed, Sophia Loren, & company, and the figure of the much put upon servant/lackey bustling after those four fellows lugging everything from their musket rests and muskets, to a picnic lunch? I imagine that to be a slightly exaggerated picture of grooms or valets in the 15th century. (with differing clothes & equipment, of course).

The boots are their to both protect your legs while riding, and to protect your nice clothes. You dismount, put up camp (which your servants would have been doing), and then take off your boots - toss them at your valet to clean, and put on some nice piked shoes - and pattens if your going to another tent or billet to socialize.

--------------------

I wasn't especially thinking of a combat situation - if I'm off my horse on the feild, it's because somebody has shot it from under me and I have problems other than the condition of my boots - but of a medieval gentleman riding generally, even from one place to another or just around town.

Would he have tried to keep his riding boots out of the mud bu using pattens - as we know he would have tried with other boots - or would he just have accepted that his riding boots got muddy and his valet cleaned them?

I don't have a problem with either answer, but (since I will be walking around in the mud wearing riding boots) I really should try and work out what the correct answer is, rather than just ignore the question.

It's a minor point, but thinking about it doesn't cost me anything.

BTW - I'm assuming I'm that I'd be wearing the long boots under my harness - they are going to stop my knees and hose getting rubbed, and act as useful padding, just as an arming doublet does for my arms.

All the sources I've seen suggest they should be light, thin leather, so they shouldn't be too bulky to fit, and everybody riding without armour seems to gravitate towards these.

Unless there is a source which suggests that you should be wearing a different kind of boot under armour - and I'm not aware of one, but this could simply mean I'm not well enough informed - I'm assuming that the long boots would be the obvious thing to wear.

Am I incorrect in this assumption?

Actually, there is a source - "How a Man Schayle be armed to fight at his ease on foot" (I know, your thinking about the "on foot" part, but it is a description of how a fully armed man was armed - it's the same a-horse or on foot), that mentions specific arming boots. They cary points to carry sabatons, and they are fretted with whipcord on the sole to add traction. By the description, it sounds like a specialized pair of ankle boots.

Cased greaves and well fitted cuisse would scar the hell out of the leather of your boots , and I don't think they will be confortable to wear (and maybe not even physically possible to) under a set, when you consider the trim look is gotten by folding over a section of the boot, and fastening with buckles or hooks and eyes - you would end up with an uncomfortable lump around your ankle bone and lower calf on the outside ankle.

--------------------

Roger source of "How a man shayle...", but as you guessed, was taking that as specifically on foot.

Whether it's possible to wear them under armour - I've seen versions with two buckles essentially upper and lower outside calf. Given flattish buckles and the thin leather, it doesn't sound as if it'd be too bad.

Whether it'll scar the leather...um, quite possibly, but that's probably less of a concern for my persona, who is probably quite happy to regard them as expendible anyway, especially since I really doubt the thin leather would survive heavy abraison for that long anyway.

Nice point regarding the whipcord soles - I'd read that (two weeks ago, ******* it, in the medieval knight osprey!) but it obviously went in through one ear and out the other.

Possible alternative if you insist on wearing the boots with armor may be to turn down and garter the boots at the calf and forego the greaves. Or, wear the greaves under the boot. Haven't tried this configuration, meself, as my greaves aren't done yet.

I really don't recommend any of this for full armor, though. You may want to show off your boots, but Hell, if you have the armor, show it.

My opinion is that when you're going to be wearing the such boots, you'd wear them with lighter armor, such as a jack or brig and a light sallet. If you're of a nationality prone to heavy calvary charges, you'd wear ankle-high shoes just like the foot-slogging tanks.

--------------------

We could always go back to the "show us a picture or 3 of a guy wearing riding boots under his armour before we think it's OK" approach....

actually, we have TONS of pictures of nattily dressed boys running about on horsies for fun...think King Renee et al.

those nattily dressed boys are wearing those coveted sexy thigh boots, and not a patten in sight, not even when they get off the horsie to have an adventure or two (again, see King Renee)

conclusion? boots be damned. If you're in armor, you dont need the boots to protect your legs from brambles and such. If you're in your swanky doublet trying to impress a damsel in distress, you wear your boots to protect your hose (and further impress said damsel, no doubt ). You ride about as needed and when you dismount, you dont worry much about your boots.

My own experience with modern riding boots suggests they can take a fair amount of mud and abuse. Just let them dry thoroughly and attack them with a stiff brush to remove the muck (or have your valet do it ).

if you have any distance to go, you should be riding anyway .

just my observations....

--AM

--------------------

quote:

---

They cary points to carry sabatons, and they are fretted with whipcord on the sole to add traction.

---

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Being an old guitar player, fretted means something very specific to me. Can you explain a little more? Do you mean wrapped in equal distances? How does it stay on, and are you talking steel sollettes or maille sabatons?

--------------------

Sounds like I may have to reconsider plan to use long boots under armour, and go for a shorter pair. Though I have to confess, I'm tempted to give it a try anyway to see how well it does work.

If I do, I'll let you all know....though just 'cos it works, doesn't mean it's hstorically correct!

Concerning riding boots and "Frettid" shoes:

The "Medieval Housebook" shows riders in half-armor wearing riding boots, but not with leg armor. Interestingly, the boots are typically turned down at the knee, so that the tops almost touch the foot. This configuration seems more stylish than practical, but there are plenty of examples of it in the book: on fols 21v-22r, showing a tilt of light scharfrennen type, both the jousters and three mounted crossbowmen are wearing this style, as is the mounted trumpeter. On fols 51v-52r, the Army on the March, the same style is apparent on a number of riders. Again all are wearing sallets and surcoats, some have visible body armor, but none have leg armor. In fact leg armor is conspicuously absent in the whole picture, suggesting that these are men "half-armed" as Bob Reed discussed.

On Frettid Shoes, the quote from the Hastings Ms is: "Also a payre of shone of thikke Cordwene and they muste be frette with smal whipcorde thre knottis up on a corde and thre cordis must be faste swoid on to the hele of the shoo and fyne cordis in the mydill of the soole of the same shoo and that the be betwene the frettis of the hele and the frettis of the mydill of the shoo the space of three fvngris" (ffoulkes, Armouer and his Craft, p. 107)(ffoulkes also has another description of arming, dated 1434, which is his appendix C. It also mentions fretted shoes. That description is very worthy of study, but the language is more difficult than the Hastings Ms. . I’d love to sit down and wrangle through it with someone).

--------------------