Hi 4chan! I am new to this thread and have never posted before,

>>12697345
Epic

full rick

>>12697353
So it kinda seems that "full rick" refers to the style of the pants... right? but what did he use to wrap around his calves? it kinda looks like bandages to me but I'm sure its not

>>12697368
I feel like being nice, newfag. The faggot poster above you is actually retarded. Don't listen to them. The photo you posted look likes cosplay shit. Kinda gross, but whatever. Go to /cgl/. They'll help you more than here.

>>12697345
Ask in the larpers thread in /cgl/

>>12697345
brown leather shoes/boots
puttees
yohji balloon pants
modified moschino belt
tunic is either trove, white mountaineering or some other jap shit, either that or 2000s era Dries.

Wow thank you all of you, i really appreciate all the help. 1 last question tho, in what part of the world do people dress like that? where does this style of clothing come from?

>>12698210
Midgard.

Please be bait

>>12698263
This

File: 1502758940567.jpg (516KB, 2048x1189px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 2048x1189px

>>12697345
I know this is bait but that's an autist wearing a poor attempt at reconstructing norse winter clothing (this particular garb seems based on inaccurate influences from 1970's fashion).

Realistically people would have looked more like my pic. LARPers have the benefit of actually field testing their gear meaning they'll have to adjust it to reality (like the real wearers did) instead of the other historic re-enactors that just try to poorly sow together whatever has been dug up and painted in an archaeology booklet from many years ago.

>>12698293
Fuck wrong picture. That's from a movie I think. Didn't even save the intended pic apparently my bad.

>>12697345

I know this is probably bait but here's a serious reply

He's wearing a wool cloak with a pin.

A green tunic with leather belt and accessories.

Those type of pants are called Rus pants.

Braies are also similar but they're typically not as baggy and they usually have drawstrings.

He has leg wrappings on with leather shoes or boots.

I don't have a specific name for the fur cap.

That's the whole outfit

And someone already pointed out you could probably get better help at /cgl/

>>12698293
Specifically, what is wrong with the costume.

Ps really hate those movie fantasy vikings as in your pic

>>12698403
>>12698300
from what I can see there's not that much wrong with that picture, in historically accurate terms.

He's wearing a deerskin tunic, a fur cloak and trousers. It's pretty accurate tbqh

>>12698403
>>12698409
It's influenced wrongly by several factors:
1. Contemporary reference point
2. Replication of artefacts rather than original product
3. Fitting and wear

There's no way in hell anyone could have used these clothes and survived. They're way too baggy and ill fitting. The lower quality of material was made up for with more form fitting and more skilled labour, meaning a real norseman wouldn't look like a goof stumbling over the bed sheets he decided to wear.

The leather is not oiled and not worn in. Again it would be form fitting and filthy after a week. Also it uses modern tanning processes. Same goes for his so-called 'bindings'. Those would fall off after two metres. Look at the russians utilizing bindings in real life. Their bindings would be form fitting, waxed, and filthy as fuck.

The colours are way too washed out. Back in the day that meant you were a filthy peasant. Esp. the norse took great pride in their wealth and appearance, comparable to african tribes they spent a LOT of time ornamenting their beards and hair, and dying their clothing in the most striking colours they could find. They were famed for their good looks which people wrote tempted both muslim and christian women to sin.

So no, a real norseman with a wardrobe adjusted to working outdoors and making ladies moist would not wear an all-shrek colour assortment of ill fitting bedsheets and no beard. He'd probably wear a deep mint green form fitting version with some fancy fur and striking red ornaments over his waxed and worn out utility pieces and his strikingly groomed beard and hair which may be decorated if he's wealthy enough.

The items are accurate yes, but the fit, hue, wear, and wearer are so off you'd be given the impression the norsemen were children with downs syndrome. In that regard even my hollywood picture is better (meant to post a real one that was just a miss click in my viking inspo folder but still).

>>12698703
Got any more accurate pictures/drawings?
This thread could be interesting after all, with your further help.

Op here, thank you everyone for the feed back:) too bad this kind of clothing wouldn't really be appropriate for a shtf situation.. unless someone can prove me wrong..?

>>12698718
Before we prove you wrong, tell us why it wouldn't be appropriate.

>>12698718

Even if you had to make your own clothes in a post apocalyptic situation why wouldn't you stick to more form fitting, utilitarian and better designed modern patterns?

>>12698725
It's just a hunch but the pants are too baggy and can maybe be caught on something and it might rip, the tunic might be too long and same issue ( only issue i can think of) and the belt is to thin can't hold much and everything hanging from the belt in the picture might be too noisy and clumsy. Again, just a hunch.

>>12698745
I would but I just honestly thought the style of the clothes was cool and it made me curious what he was wearing and then I started wondering from what part of the world it was from

>>12698293
What's the function of that piece of leather that he wears on his left arm?

>>12698703
send a pic, i want to see viking wearing a form fitting tunic. also those baggy 'ill' fitting pants are definitely historical. also generally dyes were much less durable and 'washed-out' than industrial dyes

also to your hollywood picure: they definitely didn't wear leather tunics or cloaks

>>12698852
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracer

>>12698934
Thank you anon

File: wealthy woman 800ad.jpg (26KB, 236x469px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 236x469px

>>12698712
Not really did a harddrive reset and only have cinematic stuff now for inspo

>>12698718
No point in wearing it since there's much better materials now. Also, as you can see in your pic, in order to wear and maintain these items properly you need some skills in sowing, waxing, and fitting. Something every norseman had but today it would take a few weeks in the wild for you to get the hang of how to tie the wrappings and fit everything.

>>12698749
The baggy pants were popular with the rus since they allowed inner pants and must have been more comfortable if you had a bunch of STDs and scabies (we see similar designs for giving your nuts a breeze well into the 1700's in groups that fucked around a lot like sailors and noblemen).

>>12698852
Left arm is a bracer. Right arm is a failed hollywood attempt at a tab.

>>12698918
Early tunics were unisex and called särks and were fairly baggy and ugly to allow both under- and over-garments. Rich mans särks were often white with details (to show you didn't need to get stained). Later (700's) it became a womens garment since it didn't work well in war, and shorter form fitting tunics were used by men. Baggy pants see above. Imo they wouldn't have been that baggy judging from LARPers refitting them cause they'd be useless with all that sag. Regarding the dyes, poorer people wore mint green, blue, and red since these colours were easier to dye in a lasting fashion. Light green, baby blue, any other colour that would be easy to use would be frowned upon but common. Bleached and undyed items were signs of poverty and function wear. The wealthier you were the more recently dyed clothes you could have. A rich jarl could fit an army of matching colour fresh dyed troops to intimidate an enemy. A poor jarl would have soldiers in drab and dull colours like the OP. A real luxury kings guard would wear long segments of dyed waxed fur coats in hard to obtain colours like purple or deep red with yellow. They'd look like pimps.