You are both correct and on all points. :D

I will inquire with Medieval Design since they clearly work with an appropriate pattern.

This is only tangentially related to the thread subject and I apologize if this has been answered elsewhere, but how were these padded garments, especially the 30 layer quilted types, repaired when they were damaged by weapons? Were they patched as you would a pair of worn trousers with a hole in them or were they just discarded or recycled into other garments?

More images with "garments that look like arming, but might not be". Click for larger image.


Boccaccino Boccaccio: Christ Carrying the Cross and the Virgin Mary Swooning, 1501

(link found on Arms and Armour forum, thanks Oleg Naumov)

This Italian painting shows doublet with detachable sleeves. Wide laces are almost certainly decorative.

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]




"Le Jouvencel" by Jean de Bueil, 1475, France
(link found on Companie of St. George mailing list)

Interesting doublets with several sets of points. Some doublets look like they are reinforced (similar to Don Inigo de Mendoza doublet) - with leather or textile ribbons. Since the figures on one of the image are half armoured (plate legs) these could well be arming doublets!


[ Linked Image ]


[ Linked Image ]


Another version of the second image:

Fol.185v Charles VII (1403-61) giving a document to Joan of Arc (1412-31) from 'Le Jouvencel' by Jean de Bueil (1405-78) (vellum)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...of-Arc.jpg

Many modern makers interpret these coloured bands on doublets as leather reinforcement. Also, their "replicas" differ wildly from what is actually depicted - narrow bands.

Could these be just narrow-ware, textile woven ribbons? They would be much easier to sew onto a garment and would also provide needed reinforcement - for increased rigidity where points are added, and for reinforcement of stitches of adjoining doublet pieces.


"Le Jouvencel" by Jean de Bueil, 1475, France

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]


Jorge Ingles: Don Íñigo López de Mendoza y de la Vega (1398-1458) Santillana. Spain, Madrid, Museo del Prado, Duque de Infantado Collection)

[ Linked Image ]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23237388@N06/sets/72157627759295795/

Hi all !

For years I have tried to make a well researched arming doublet and also trying to incorporate experience from fellow experienced armour wearing re-enactor veterans, fencers and jousters. The materials and cut and construction method for this project was meant to be as authentic as possible. So on and off the last five years I have been working on this, totalling two months of fulltime work. I am not a talented pattern constructor at all, I am not even a friend of the way fabrics behave but I do have a very clear picture in my mind, a deep source research and two earlier attempts to lean on. The actual hand sewing an ape could do...a very stubborn ape with a fools patience. The result depends more on the material used and the cut I would say. So at last it was finished. I definately do not consider this as the ultimate re-construction but the subject is really interesting as the doublet was such an integral part of the armour itself and I hope it can help to raise awerness of it´s construction.
I have been very much inspired by the red one depicted on the Ingles painting found earlier in this thread. As there are no black weaved narrow ribbons in proper materials to be found I opted for chestnutbrown leather reinforcing strips, we do not know for certain if those strips were textile or leather. They do have a reinforcing function though and not only a decorative. This becomes clear when all linen layers are sewn through and the garment is worn.

Well, these are my conclusions:

The garment is made of four layers of sturdy handwowen linen, the outhermost colored red, all in all resulting in a thickness of
4-5 millimeters.This is to prevent chafing from the armour itself but must be thin enough to allow the waist to be able to position the cuirass on top of the hips. The weight of the cuirass should be divided between shoulders and hips. The arms are made of two layers only, otherwise bending the arm would be too hard. The fabric in the arms is also cut on the bias to allow for a bit of flexibility. They must be very tight around the wrists. No one was carrying more armour than he needed!!!

Gothic armour for the arms and the gauntlets were very slim. One would think there is need for a padded garment, almost resembling a padded jack or gambeson to be worn under armour to cushion the violence from weapons but the force is actually mostly absorbed by the metal itself, that is to say ordinary clothing was probably not enough in thickness. Also it was made of wool which is not an ideal material because of the heat build up and lack of strength. But it is also true that a lot of foot soldiers probably had to be content to wear their armour on top of the only clothes they owned. German statues of men- at- arms DO sometimes show garment folds underneath the lames of the cuirass.

There is one preserved doublet( arms lost ) with a lot of sewn eyelets making it into an immensely strong garment,most probably of the type called "doublet cutte fulle of holes" as the 15th cent english text " How a man shall be armed" mention.
I have looked at the original and is made of four layers of linen, the smoothest side probably was the insid,e worn against the skin. Two ( crazy ) friends of mine have reconstructed it and they say that it swells from the sweat and becomes even stronger also the sweat cools the bodykeeping the body temperature down. Obviously the holes allow for a lot of ventilation aswell. .There are also 16th cent sources which mention fencing garments made of four layers of linen. So four seems to be the magic number when it comes to arming doublets !

Inside my doublet here is a lining of red silk, comfortable for the skin of the body , it makes the garment easy to slip in and out of and also does it breathe and keep you slightly cooler. An additional linen shirt worn would just be sweaty and wrinkle and even climb up on the torso. I do not say shirts were not worn at all but I personally do not recommend it from experience.

I have made an arming doublet earlier in tightly wowen wool fabric padded with raw cotton. It was a severe mistake as it kept the body heat very much. The only material the very few sources speak about is fustian, a cotton linen mix, which is cooler.
In the new one there is no padding of sheepswool, cottonwaste or blanket except a few pieces of woolblanket on the shoulders going down and covering the collar bones where the armour chafes.

The doublet has ( in my and many others opinion ) to be a very sturdy, strong but actually corset like garment which must be very tight around the abdomen, yes in fact it could very well be pulled in a bit. This is to support the weight of the cuirass and armour for the arms and most of all the pull of the leg armour. It is also important that tight fitting hosen are worn with the doublet as the two garments interact and pull and support each other.

The cut of the arms is very much of a mystery as there is only one seam. Several seams would make it easier to construct but no pictorial sources support this.Not even with vedges put in. It has to be quite tight, even up at the armpit but it must not pull up the fabric on the body at the hips. The material around the hips should be static. Also there should be material left on the shoulders at the back to allow for the movements of the arms, therefore the armholes must be cut in a semicicle in the back.

The points are made of deer chamois leather which is very strong yet still flexible enough to make knots on. An alternative is plaited flax dipped in molten beeswax, which is immensely strong and used by several jousters today. Other sources actually mention silk as a strong material suited for this.

Regrettably I do not possess a fine gothic body with a narrow waist and broad shoulders. I am more of a trunk. Therefore I fastened the leathers strips in a v-shape to give an optical illusion that I do have a waist after all. The arms on my doublet became a bit too tight as they unfortunately pulled out the tight fitting high collar from the neck and also do not allow me to raise my arms properly. The solution could be to insert an eye shaped oval under the armpit. Also the arms felt comfortable when hanging down,but when bent the muscle on the underarm expands and the fabric tube is slightly to narrow. A bit more blanket padding could have been used on top of the shoulders as pauldrons tend to chafe a bit.

I am not entirely satisfied with the result but it is as good as my ability to work in fabrics allow me and it seems to function quite well and has an authentic look. It also feels nice to make something entirely by hand.

My suggestion if you are about to construct an arming doublet is to experiment a lot on the patterns of the arms. Make a toile in cheaper materials and adjust until it does function well, then cut your expensive material.
Making a garment by hand certainly makes it much stronger than a machine made one, especially since the waxed linen thread is much stronger than the cotton thread in the machine but it is VERY much work. But then again , it is the only way to get the answers how a late medieval arming doublet could have worked together with the metal parts of the armour. I am of the opinion that the quilting ( with or without strips ) is essential aswell as it strenghtens the whole garment.

Anyway, I DO hope all the work I made and the research and conclusions will help others embarking on the crazy arming doublet reconstruction journey !

Bye from a bitter cold Stockholm

Stefan

Too long, did not read...

Just kidding, amazing post Stefan, and amazing reconstruction! I'll link a picture directly here so people don't miss it!

[ Linked Image ]


I'm still without mine. :\ And I'm not good with the needle. Correction: I'm not good at making patterns - I screwed up making a simple linen shirt!

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


I have to correct the mistake on the first post of the thread. Unfortunately I can no longer edit it (one is only able to do so for 14 days). It's about this image:

[ Linked Image ]


And this is the correct information, submitted by Andrea Carloni on Arms and Armour Forum. Apparently he was the one that first dug out that picture and spread the word in Re-enactment circles:

Quote:

The author IS NOT Pisanello but Giovanni di ser Niccolò de Castadis from Fano (a lively town in Italy, Marche region); he is actually believed to be both the copyist and the artist who made all illuminations. The reference work is a transcription of the Epitoma historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi by Marco Giuniano Giustino; it's dated 1460, June 17th (one can find this date at folio 101v) and part of Ottobonian Manuscripts, currently held at Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in Rome (Ottob. lat. 1417) The scene depicts a wounded Agesilao, carried to his tent by two squires (folio 22)

It is an amazing drawing. I think what we see here is more than just the blue arming doublet which is mostly covered by mail voiders. The small blonde person on the left is wearing pauldrons, and has farsetto (doublet with pleated upper part of sleeve) underneath the giornea or similar pleated sleeveless jacket. The squires that are carrying the wounded Agesilao are also wearing farsettos, and the person on the right has a similar headband that the wounded guy - was he wearing an armet, is his doublet also an arming one? Also, I think the drawing shows buttons on the sleeves of blue doublet - same as on the doublets of squires.

[ Linked Image ]

Thanks again to Andrea Carloni for his detailed information and Oleg Naumov for bigger scan of the drawing.

Being somewhat of a trunk actually helps a lot when going for that almost bizarre Gothic shape, as body fat is much easier to shape and compress than pure muscle. When making/designing doublets for my friends (free of charge except a few meters of wool, so I hope my post doesn't violate the rules about advertising) I couldn't compress more than 8cm on the waist of thin and muscular guys without causing discomfort, while I could easily compress more than 20cm on mine. The only "drawback" is that this method forces you to drop the modern crunched postures - but the poses illustrated by most period paintings become much more natural and comfortable. These happen to be also advantageous to the back/spine and technique, so the short period of getting used to somewhat different body mechanics is well worth it in my opinion. Recently I started some modifications on my doublet to get a bit closer to the ideal inhuman silhouette of the end of the century, I'll happily share the results when I'm done if anyone's interested. (though it's only cotton to keep the cost manageable for something I experimentally alter time after time)

Almost forgot to add, very nice job on your doublet!

Hello everyone,

I've got one question about arming doublet, if there any iconography, patterns etc. which shows that warrior is carrying sleeveless gambeson (only few layers) over the arming doublet and under the body armour? (brigandine, chain mail or only breastplate) Personally I think that it's idea from XXth century but I want to know truth before I'll order my own arming doublet.

Cheers
Mike from Poland

Battaglia tra ginesini e fermani, XV century, Italy.

The men in arming doublets are defenders caught by surprise by a stealth attack in the early morning, so they are just lightly armoured.

http://www.battagliaginesini.sanginesio.sinp.net/cap11/c11.htm

Hm again, I wonder where you see any arming doublets there. All I see are doublets worn with laces attached. You can sew such laces within 2 minutes to any doublet- does that make it an arming doublet? Additionally, there a loads of paintings from italy of the 15th century showing such laces being attached to doublets without any hint for military usage. The overall question is, if this simply was a civil fashion basing on the usage of such laces at that areas of the arms in case of wearing armour? Were these doublets also worn underneath armour?
And finally: what does that prove? I think we should especially make a difference between italy, france and germany. I know for instance of no depiction of such laces for german speaking regions, or of wearers of german late gothic armour. However, there are doublets which seem to be suitable to be worn underneath armour who needs attachment points in italy and france- which also mainly wore italien style suits, which always demand the existance of an attaching point at the upper arm.

Addtionally I would like tzo draw your attention to the fact the men on this painting wearing no armour are depicted with seperate hosen being attached to the doublet. I highly doubt this was common practise, even though there are one or two other italien paintings showing that,m because that would be considered highly inappropriate by other people of that time. I wonder of this is a symbolic sign for those men having equipped themselfes hastily, or for them being inferior in case of political means.

Hi Bruno,
it's pointless to sew arming laces onto civillian clothes, but nevertheless people may have done it and do such things even today. Just have a look at camouflage-pants. They are pointless in modern civil society.

Regards, Thomas

Hi Bruno,

I think excatly here is the point we should discuss.
What evidences do you have for the existance for pure military doublets in the same time frame and regions? I know of some rare mentionings of "doublet s d' armée" from france and england in the 15th century. I know of none in germany and italy. And it is even not clear if a "doublet d'armée" is more than a doublet suitable to be used with armour.
I know of no sources for people of the 15th century having made a clear difference between something worn underneath armour and something worn everdy with civilian clothing. I personally doubt that there really was any big difference. Why? Simply because there is no need for such a difference. You don't need any padding underneath late gothic armour. You don't need any leather enforcements on a doublet worn underneath armour. All you need is something which is underneath your armour, has perhaps laces to tie armour parts to where you need such (and I also don't think you really need that with italien plate armour, since quite often there was a very fine maille shirt worn underneath it, you can tie those things to that, quite simply). And it has to be sturdy. So perhaps you normally would not have used thin silk or such for that.

As for laces on italien garments, I'm a bit too lazy to search them now- but it should be no problem to find paintings of persons cleary wearing normal cilivilan clothing with such laces attached. Now the question is: fashion? Or did the person simply also wear the doublet underneath his suit of armour? There is nothing what prohibits that.
In this thread we also have examples of pictural sources from french speaking regions- where also italien style armour was worn.

And for germany- nothing. Absolutly nothing. Even though also until the 70s mainly italien export armour was worn. And altough there are several surviving suits having an arm harness who has to be laces to something underneath.
However, it is not problem to find depictions of doublets. Even of people being stripped of their armour. However still no laces (and no depiction of a specialiced doublet either).
We even have several images and effigies showing that something like a "leibchen" (jacket without sleeves) was worn underneath the armour, on top of the doublet. More mysteriosly those effigies also show maille between the plates, which means they either wore a maille sleeve (of which we have lots of originals), or a maille shirt (very doubtable) or maille being sewed to the doublet.
Now -that_ would be a reason for a specialized doublet, because you would hardly wear such in public- only if it was fashion (similar to those doublets with laces in italy). But unlike in italy, there is no single depection of a doublet with sewn-on maille or with attached maille sleeve being worn in civil life.

I personally think all that "arming doublet" searching is somehow a bit of a modern myth, something being caused of modern feelings and reenactors life.
Normally people did not have do switch clothes between armour and civilian within hours several times. Normally people did not have to get into their armour very quickly. They knew when the enemy was coming (with exceptions of course), because an enemy army of several thousand people does not appear all of a sudden. People wearing full armour did not make up their mind on how to wash their clothes after they took of their armour. People did not bash with blunt iron bars onto each other, causing them to make up their minds how to make a specialized padded garment. And apart from padding, what makes an arming doublet an arming doublet (see above)? In those cases they did hit each other with blunt iron bars (tournaments!) we actually do have text sources for specialized, padded doublets- but the writer points out that it is for tournament purposes.

So, in my opinion, the question should not be "how did arming doublets look" or "how can I prove an arming doublet" or even "what did specialized doublet being worn underneath armour look like" but instead "what did they wore underneath armour?" and "how did they put on armour, and in which situations/how quickly/under what cirumstances".

The whole discussion in my opinionm simply also suffers from information about armour pre-late-15th century. Of course, there are sources for aketons. But those garments were not simply military variants of civilian clothes. They were integral part of the armour, which consisted of maille, lateon with the addion of some plates, all with advantages and disadvantages, with the aketon adding its specialized ones. For instance being very effective against arrows.

My personal solution for that all was a doublet, I also named "arming doublet" (being not happy with that name), which is nothing more than a sturdy doublet with a cur and details as shown on some depictions, and which I think works well underneath armour. But I can also wear any other doublet I have. For my because of modern reasons it is simpler to choose one of my doublets as to be the one I constantly wear underneath armour, so the others don't become dirty
And, as soon as I add maille sleeves or maille patches to it, being the one I can let them being sewn on until I want to wash it.

I also doublt I would change that If I found evidences as for the doublet "full of holes" mentioned in england (I don't really see any big advantage from my experience, and from that of a person how tried to reconstructed such a garment).
The only think I thought would not be a bad idea was the lining with silk. Of course I don't have the problem that I might get stabbed and linnen may enter the wound and I may have an infection. But by some reason it is nice to think that I have antisepctic silk next to my body, just in case ;)

The "doublet full of holes" could easily refer to just having numerous holes for you points, lots of text from this period is very vague in its wording, and you have to know a bit of middle English to be able to understand them.

I can see your point Jens about lack of evidence for any specific arming clothes, and surely they would just use civilian doublets. They may well have done. The big problem is that wool doublets under plate armour don't not stand up very well to the rigours of combat, they wear away at the joints, they fray and rip very easily. they would have to be linen of silk, and made up of more than one or two layers, or they would pull out of shape.

And to confuse people even more, don't forget that civilian high fashion has always aped military fashion. So are all these tight fitting civilian doublets that we see just mearly copies of what the men at arms wore under their armour?

Why do civilian clothes have epaulettes (shoulder tags) on them?