Are we better off without pants?

[The Persian Cataphract]

I'll be blunt.

Trousers are useful because they are, de facto, more versatile and practical than togas (Taking several hours to properly arrange), kilts or dishdasha-robes; first of all, they protect the legs better from cold and surfaces which could cause chafing while at the same time retaining most if not all of the mobility with little hindrance, in difference to a long tunic-robe like the dishdasha.

Another useful property with direct military consequence was heat loss; only idiots wear leg armour of any kind without a cloth-backing or spolas. Same gor any limb or part of the body, really. Fact is, this philosophy was applied to wearing loose clothing on top of the armour as well for the exact same reasons providing double isolation. Eventually Graeco-Roman fashions would adopt several aspects from Partho-Sassanian styles, which can be seen in early Byzantine art and onwards.

The adoption of trousers is actually quite a rational process; Herodotus makes an admission for the Persian entrepreneurship to have discovered most of the world, either by sea (Sataspes) or by horse-back (Likely the medium of transportation used by Scylax of Caryanda). Because there was no faster means of transportation than by horse, it also comes as no surprise to read about laudatory passages of the Greeks in regards to the Achaemenid royal couriers. The royal road itself was obviously built for swift horseback transportation between Lydia, Cappadocia, Babylon, Elam and into Persis.

Trousers are worn today, because we'd look like tools in elaborate blankets which take several hours to arrange just for shits and kicks. The Kandys/Kantûsh also prevailed against the Chlamys, as our jackets and sweaters resemble the former model the most. Practical clothing catches on everywhere.