Furs and "Northern wear": the Historical Precedent

[Hupp n at em]

While I realize I am asking this question for a fantasy (GOT) project, I ask it here because I am feeling conflicted when it comes to representing the Starks and other northern Westerosi Houses as having tons and tons of fur cloaks and boot cuffs etc.  This seems to be a pretty common fantasy trope, but it also gets slagged on pretty widely when historical shows do it (Vikings and The Last Kingdom come to mind).  I'm after a bit more of a history-influenced look for my figures, is it simply a question of scaling it back to a reasonable level? Or did forces in say, Scandinavia or Scotland who might be fighting in colder weather wear clothing and accouterments that, while not being the fantasy-style furs, would still give them a unique/climate-informing look?

[SotF]

Furs were common enough, they are very good at keeping you warm. They probably were reserved for colder times of year rather than all the time, and less of just strapping it on and more of it made into workable clothing.

[Iain R]

Hmmmm. You've certainly got the precedent of Vikings wearing cloaks and hose of fur, or at least decked out to give the appearance of such.

As for Scotland; not so much. Lowland Scotland was much the same as the rest of Northwest Europe and heavy woollen cloaks would have been the order of the day, possibly fur trimmed or lined for the better sort (remember that for peasants caught taking "the King's beasts", the penalty could be severe...). As for Highlanders, no one really knows a great deal about their appearance at this point, due to the lack of written sources. it would be fair to say that those with the means would have had cloaks similar to those described above. One reference does make mention of poorer highlanders wearing deerskins with the hairy side out, daubed with pitch as a form of weatherproofing, over the more common woollen plaid (which at this stage would not be tartan as we understand it today). However, Christopher Lambert in Highlander it was not..!

[jon_1066]

I have wondered about this as well.  It strikes me that a fur cloak over a suit of full metal armour is not going to keep you very warm since the metal will wick warmth away from the body very rapidly.  My total guess is that furs would be worn under the armour.

[sukhe_bator]

Armour, leather, mail or plate requires a foundation garment, usually padded, to absorb blows otherwise likely to cause blunt trauma. Furs and hides could not have been worn underneath. a) they would have been too bulky and b) you'd quickly overheat.

the metal will wick warmth away from the body very rapidly.  My total guess is that furs would be worn under the armour.

This would not happen as the secondary armour (aketon/doublet/whatever) would keep you warm enough. If reenactors are anything to go by heat exhaustion even in cold climates, would have been quite common.

Cloaks were commonplace in N Europe and England in particular renowned for weaving fine woollen ones which the Vikings, Normans et al all widely exported. The Saxons and Vikings would have worn the equivalent of 'boat cloaks' for travelling. They may have shed them for battle since they would be an impediment.

The main debate is whether fur overgarments were worn 'fur in' or 'fur out'... waterproof or cold-proof. If you look at the Wildling costumes in the GOT series they are almost always wearing working costumes like parkas and anoraks with the fur 'In', whereas the Night's Watch are invariably wearing additional cloaks as 'Outers'.

[Charlie_]

Interesting topic.

How much do you think wearing the fur 'out' on cloaks and such would be a fashion thing?

[sukhe_bator]

Fur out would show the coloration better. Thus status furs like bear or wolf, and exotic and expensive furs like mink, ermine, tiger, leopard, zebra as well as zorse and 'shadowcat' would all be 'fur out'...
Anyone who has paid a visit to the vet and had their pet's fur shaved will know that the colour is often repeated as a pattern on the skin. Hides treated for use in garments will have had this obscured by the tanning/preservation treatment... It would be a shame to waste the aesthetic look of an exotic fur thus.
Sheep hide, deer, and seal skins will have the fur/wool innermost for warmth. Untreated or raw hides would retain their waterproof qualities however by virtue of the natural oils like lanolin that repel moisture and stop sheep getting waterlogged.
There's definitely a fashion element, but practical considerations also factor...

[jon_1066]

Armour, leather, mail or plate requires a foundation garment, usually padded, to absorb blows otherwise likely to cause blunt trauma. Furs and hides could not have been worn underneath. a) they would have been too bulky and b) you'd quickly overheat. This would not happen as the secondary armour (aketon/doublet/whatever) would keep you warm enough. If reenactors are anything to go by heat exhaustion even in cold climates, would have been quite common.

Cloaks were commonplace in N Europe and England in particular renowned for weaving fine woollen ones which the Vikings, Normans et al all widely exported. The Saxons and Vikings would have worn the equivalent of 'boat cloaks' for travelling. They may have shed them for battle since they would be an impediment.

The main debate is whether fur overgarments were worn 'fur in' or 'fur out'... waterproof or cold-proof. If you look at the Wildling costumes in the GOT series they are almost always wearing working costumes like parkas and anoraks with the fur 'In', whereas the Night's Watch are invariably wearing additional cloaks as 'Outers'.

Doesn't that mean then that the furred up characters are not going into battle.  I presume people didn't just wander around in their armour all the time.  So the fur is a travelling or fashion thing as opposed to something you could actually wear in battle?

[sukhe_bator]

I presume people didn't just wander around in their armour all the time.

if you are to believe Hollywood and TV then they did just that!
If you had the option you'd ditch your travelling kit with the baggage before going into battle. It's the old wargaming argument about having models depicting troops in full dress uniform and packs. It just wouldn't happen in real life... People tend to forget that combat is tiring and the less unnecessary weight you're carrying, the more stamina you'll have for combat. You're also hardly going to risk ruining your best waterproof cloak or fur in battle...
That's why attacks on the baggage train were often battle winners, for both material and morale reasons. It is one of the reasons I liked DBA historical games since it was a battle-winning objective. 

[Hupp n at em]

Hmmm thinking I might go minimal on the furs then.  I know GRRM's vision of Westeros involves everyone wearing big cloaks all the time, but I think I'll reserve that for command figures and named characters mostly.

[sukhe_bator]

Hmmm thinking I might go minimal on the furs then.  I know GRRM's vision of Westeros involves everyone wearing big cloaks all the time, but I think I'll reserve that for command figures and named characters mostly.

That seems most sensible... I've seen plenty of refs to named characters and Lords wearing cloaks in ASOIAF, but less so for 'small folk', unless they are travelling.

[Patrice]

Heavy wool cloth was often the best, it was not too heavy, it kept you warm, and protected from rain. Rich people could wear some fur linings etc, but probably more for status and over their normal clothing.

Also, it seems that in medieval stories poor people wearing fur were despised: forest beggars, too poor to buy good wool cloth, and wearing (badly treated and stinking) rabbit furs.

[Vermis]

The main debate is whether fur overgarments were worn 'fur in' or 'fur out'... waterproof or cold-proof. If you look at the Wildling costumes in the GOT series they are almost always wearing working costumes like parkas and anoraks with the fur 'In', whereas the Night's Watch are invariably wearing additional cloaks as 'Outers'.

Seems to be the opposite on the Dark Realm minis.

But this topic's been an education. Ta!

[Dr. Zombie]

Both a fur or wollen coat also acts as armour. A sheeps fleece is surprisingly difficult to cut through. I have not tried cutting through a bear or wolf fur but can only immagine that it is even harder.
Even two-three layers of flax linnen will stop most cuts.

I am convinced that there used to be a lot more cloth/leather/hide "armour" around i ye olden days. It has just not survived as long as the metal.

[sukhe_bator]

Dr Zombie is correct... soft armour is surprisingly effective but does not survive well archaeologically.  After all, the Han Chinese created a paper laminate 'kevlar' sufficient to stop crossbow bolts...
There's a reason the aketon or 'al qutun' quilted cotton jack became the armour of choice for most troops and a foundation garment under mail... and its not just because it was cheaper...