What is the name for this Elizabethan-era men's outfit?

[Argent Towers]

What do you call this outfit that Sir George Clifford, an Elizabethan gentleman and "favorite" of the Queen, is wearing over his tournament armor? Clifford owned what may have been the best suit of armor of all time - which still, miraculously, survives. But it seems as though he is wearing a different suit of armor in Hilliard's portrait of him. Over it is a very dashing outfit that looks surprisingly like...a dress. But surely that's not what they called it back then?

What DID they call it back then?

[MarcinCiez]

Uninisex Dress

But seriously ... tunic ?? OR in italian (??) Tunicella / Dalmatica (http://medieval.webcon.net.au/extant...tunicella.html)

[TWDuke]

The National Portrait Gallery seems to think it's a jacket.

[APB]

What looks like a skirt is an extra-large peplum.

[BMalion]

Surcoat.

from wikipedia:

A surcoat was an outer garment commonly worn in the Middle Ages by both men and women. It can either refer to a coat worn over other garments or the outer garment of a person. The name derives from French meaning "over the cotta", a long, wide coat reaching down to the feet without sleeves.

From about the 12th century, knights wore long and flowing surcoats over their armour, which were frequently emblazoned with the arms of the wearer. They usually extended to about mid-calf, had slits in the bottom front and back, and were sleeved or sleeveless. Historians believe that surcoats were worn to protect mail from direct sun, which heated the mail and the soldier inside. The surcoat also serves in areas of poor weather to keep the rain and muck of battle away from the easily corroded maille-links. The surcoat displayed the "arms" of a knight (origin of "coat of arms") which identified him, which, with the rise of the great helm in the late 12th century and early 13th century, became more and more crucial. Some historians even cite this as a reason behind the spread of heraldry across medieval Europe. During the 13th century, knights also began to add plates of armour to the surcoat, the armored surcoat later became the medieval coat of plates.

In the 15th century, once suits of plate armour became common, the surcoat was phased out of use. The period in the history of armour development in which surcoats first generally become rare is referred to as the "surcoatless period" (1410-1430).

[Elendil's Heir]

Yes, I'd say a particularly elaborate and poofy surcoat.

[BMalion]

and by the way, I own one.

[Elendil's Heir]

Why am I not surprised?

[Alessan]

Isn't that a doublet? I thought surcoats were earlier.

[BMalion]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Isn't that a doublet? I thought surcoats were earlier.

Surcoats were earlier, however, this gentleman apparently was indulging in a fashion trend of the time of wearing an "ancient" garment in order to pose for a portrait. This was quite common through the years. People would dress as romans, greeks, Hercules, or some hero-type they admired and have their portraits painted.

He has had the surcoat made with a liberal view of historic authenticity. No doubt the seamstress wanted to make sure it was pretty in the veiwpoint of the patron.

[kittenblue]

Sort of like people dressing up for vintage photos today?

[Argent Towers]

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[sandra_nz]

Where is the armour on display?

[Savannah]

The armour of George Clifford is beautiful.

[Argent Towers]

The armour is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Originally Posted by Savannah

The armour of George Clifford is beautiful.

Yeah, I'd wear it.

[MrDibble]

Not a surcoat, nor a jacket, nor simply a doublet or jerkin, as such.

They are called bases.

[Johanna]

The design on the armor shown in the painting is completely different from the armor in the photograph. The painting shows a design of 8-pointed stars, while in the photograph there's a more complex pattern fleurs-de-lis and roses alternating with bands of an interlaced design. Maybe for comfort's sake, George didn't pose with the armor on-- and the artist filled in the armor design later, and not seeing the armor in from of them, just had to make up something?

A dress is, topologically, basically, no different from a long shirt. In the Uyghur language, the same word is used for both 'dress' and 'shirt' (köynäk). How come nobody says the hip-hop guys with oversized tee shirts down to their knees are wearing dresses? (Probably because they'd kill anyone who said that). The only real difference between a dress and a long shirt is the styling and detailing. The styling on George's garment is so feminine to modern eyes that we see a dress where Elizabethans would have seen male garb. For one thing, knee-length skirts were exclusively male in premodern times, as women's hemlines were always ankle-length or floor-length. It was only after skirted garments for men had completely disappeared that women's hemlines rose higher.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Not a surcoat, nor a jacket, nor simply a doublet or jerkin, as such.

They are called bases.

Agreed. When with military garb, like armor, it's bases. Were it worn over hose or breeches, I'd call it a doublet. If it had no sleeves and was over another layer of cloth, it'd be a jerkin. Surcoats were way earlier, so much so that I know very little about them. This isn't an ancient garment for the times, but a very fashionable and modern one.

WhyNot,
ex-RenFaire costumer

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by Johanna

The design on the armor shown in the painting is completely different from the armor in the photograph. The painting shows a design of 8-pointed stars, while in the photograph there's a more complex pattern fleurs-de-lis and roses alternating with bands of an interlaced design. Maybe for comfort's sake, George didn't pose with the armor on-- and the artist filled in the armor design later, and not seeing the armor in from of them, just had to make up something?

From what I've read, the Hilliard portrait of Cumberland (Clifford) shows him dressed up for the Ascession Day Tilt; there was some kind of theme to his costume, from what I read on a different site (can't remember where) and the star motif on the armor went with the design on his shield.

It's highly likely that Clifford had multiple suits of armor made for him. The man was Queen Elizabeth's "favorite" and her official jousting champion, so I suspect he probably could have had whatever he wanted. I can't even imagine what it would have been like to be that guy - he was probably like the ultimate ideal of a man for the time period, not only handsome and rich, but an accomplished buccaneer on the high seas, and a jousting champion besides. There isn't a modern-day celebrity who even remotely compares to the kind of prestige that Clifford would have had.

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by Superfluous Parentheses

Yeah, I'd wear it.

Wait are you saying the armor is not beautiful? If so, what does armor need to look like to be beautiful by your standards?

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

Wait are you saying the armor is not beautiful? If so, what does armor need to look like to be beautiful by your standards?

I was being serious. Your sarcasm meter is too sensitive

ETA: the editing message in that post is related to something I deleted. Sorry for the confusion.

[Argent Towers]

I'm just touchy about people knocking Sir George Clifford. The guy's one of my heroes.