Read on Twitter
Where do I even start with what& #39;s wrong with this costume design. https://twitter.com/IamFaramon/status/1286634115597565953">https://twitter.com/IamFaramo...
Every time I look I see something new, I should stop looking.
OKAY JUST TO GET THIS OUT OF MY SYSTEM
1: There& #39;s literally only a single piece of evidence across history that scandanvians of any stripe worse tattoos.
2: The belts.
Just.
The belts.
100% wrong
Just.
The belts.
100% wrong
3: "Ripped clothing being fashionable" is very post-90s jeans, not norse pants. In fact, if you had pants in the dark or middle ages, you were very wealthy. This is why the average scot, gael, or pict, used the old tartan dress - it was cheaper than tailored pants.
4: Leather shoulderpads would achieve nothing of value armour-wise and are pointless to have. The were not part of the fashion of the day, whatever modern fantasy tells you.
5: A boiled leather chestplate could offer some moderate protection but any warrior worth anything would be wearing ringmail at worst, chainmail probably, maybe early breastplates if they were wealthy.
6: The patterns on scandanvian clothing would be accomplished with tablet weaving and not cheapass whatever that is, fabric paint I guess?
7: Where& #39;s her scabbard?
8: Licking blood in that kind of age would be a good way to get a lethal infection.
9: Face paint was the ancient picts.
Some evidence the gaels did it too, but no evidence the norse or other scandanavians did.
10: A painted shield in those times would likely not have a boss. We can get away with that, but the type of cladding on the edges is not something you& #39;d have in that period.
Metal was expensive. Wood was usually sufficient.
Metal was expensive. Wood was usually sufficient.
11: Can almost gaurantee you we didnt have eyeshadow being used by warriors in those days.
There& #39;s a bunch of other stuff I could pick on endlessly here, but consider that a little sampler.
