15th cent italian arming doublet sleeve construction questio

[lorenzo2]

I have been interpreting the typical Italian arming doublet sleeve as being a thin shouder to wrist sleave with a puffy outer sleeve on top from the shouder to a bit above the elbow. In the link below this sleeve is interpreted as an upper sleeve half sewn onto a lower sleeve half. What I am wondering is if there is any clear evidence of who is correct.

http://home.earthlink.net/~lizjones429/ ... background

edited to correct typos!

[lorenzo2]

No responses eh? Is it that no one is interested in 15th cent Italy or that people are just guessing at the sleeve construction as I am? Perhaps someone who has constructed an arming doublet with the Italian type of sleeve could comment on the construction they used and how well it worked?

[James B.]

Why use a civilian style sleeve instead of a well fitted set in sleeve?

[lorenzo2]

James, that is a good question. I am making the assumption that the puffy sleeves were worn under armor because of the arming point fashion shown on many effigies and there are also some battle paintings were unarmored soldiers are wearing puffy sleeves. Since I have not found a pic of an italian soldier in the process of arming up with plate I can't really be sure that the puffy sleeves were worn under armor at all. However, there are Flemish pics that show half armored squires at tournaments (one in the Barber and Barker book on tournaments springs to mind) that appear to show the smaller ball sleeve cap being used by persons that have not yet fully armed for the contest. My reasoning then is that if ball sleeves were used under armor, why not puffy Italian sleeves? Again, another assumption on my part for which I have only weak support.

[James B.]

Well there is a van der Weyden tapestry from the 1460s showing civilians with ball shoulders and a man out of armor with an armoring cotte over a set in sleeve doublet.

Also full ball shoulders may not fit under armour bat small ones may add a nice bit of padding.

Really it is all a guess with so few images and not extent example. I just suggest that maybe an arming doublet may not fallow civilian sleeve styles. I see that type of sleeve being a problem under armor.

[Tailoress]

This appears to be the evolution of a martial fashion which arose in the 14thc and lasted well into the 15thc. The upper sleeve is cut generously and shaped/gathered into a tight-fitting forearm section. The difference in this later Italian style is that the puff ends above the elbow, as opposed to below, which is how the earlier fashion worked. In Toby Capwell's article on 15thc English arming doublets he uses as one of his studies an illustration from the 1430s of a king (? can't remember exactly who) who was captured and had his armour removed but was still wearing his arming cotte/doublet. He had this sleeve style, along with detailed points on his shoulders and at his hips. Again though, the generous upper arm cloth was gathered into the forearm piece below the elbow. It appears that these Italian representations do take their inspiration from this wide-spread style of martial sleeve design (generally seen in earlier Italian, German, English, and French art), only the voluminous section has moved up the arm a bit.

I think it's plausible to use this sleeve style as seen in the article you posted for martial purposes.

-Tasha

[lorenzo2]

Thanks Tasha, upper and lower sleeve seems a reasonable interpretation then, as opposed to full sleeve and decorative puff over it. It also appears that the Capwell article will have to move to my must have list!