The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

LAST OF THE MOHICANS

The Last of the Mohicans ...

New Inaccuracy Spotted

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:

UserName:

Password:

Format Mode:

Format:

Videos:

Message Icon:

Message:

Smilies




		$computer woes {CW:_(}$

Upload an Image File From Your PC For Insertion in Your Post

- HTML is OFF | Forum Code is ON

Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.

T O P I C R E V I E W
Hawkeye_Joe	Posted - August 19 2003 : 7:04:59 PM A new, to me anyway, inaccuracy spotted in the LOTM.... Did anyone ever notice or mention the point guards in front of the column on the George Road have their weapons pointed outward? What I mean is they are moving at point as modern military would be. The one on the left flank has his Bess in his right hand with the barrel to the left and the one on the right has his in his left hand pointed outward to the right. There were no left handed soldiers in the King's Army .. L This must be some of the military training that Dale Dye passed on to them. I saw the same thing in "Saving Pvt. Ryan"...
8 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
Hawkeye_Joe	Posted - September 12 2003 : 7:27:50 PM Ok.. I'd say that no they didn't have any left-handed Bess' not in real life .. and they weren't showing left handed Bess' in LOTM. What they showed were them holding right handed Bess's in the left hand facing outward.. What I meant was that carrying and using the musket in the left hand would have been so very foreign to the 18th Century soldier that it just wouldnt' have happened... Also Mark Baker has only found a few left-handed weapons and those were for the very affluent.. ..the only plain weapon he found in lefty was a French Tulle I think..
English Trader	Posted - September 12 2003 : 6:22:16 PM Greetings, I believe there is much logic to your remarks. First, I cannot imagine mass-produced brown bess muskets having the odd left-handed lock made just for lefties. Second, I have read of men being shot simply for leaving the encampment area to pee, lest the Indians grab them while they are watering the shrubs. I am sure they would have been flogged for being forced to use a mass-produced weapon. The only original weapons for lefties I have ever seen are all one-off, specially made flintlocks. That said, I haven't seen all that many historic originals, not like many people on this board. It makes me curious to know just how much Dale Dye might have researched historic military practices. I might be wrong but I believe he has Duncan shouting, "Make ready, aim, fire". Or was that in The Patriot? (Time to go back to LOTM for details I noted years ago and stopped noting years ago...) YHOS, English Trader quote: Originally posted by Hawkeye_Joe I still say that the forward scouts would not have been carrying their muskets in such a manner in the 18th Century. In the 18th Century left handed people were forced, physically forced, not to use the left hand. Using the musket in this manner would never have been taught nor would it have been "picked up" by the soldiers. If they had started doing this the officers would have flogged them and made them do it the "correct" way. [snip] This tactic was taught to the core group of extras by Dale Dye, using modern military thinking. Just as he taught the actors and extras in Saving Private Ryan to do the same thing...I'm not really sure if this practice was in wide spread use even in WWII. I think it came to be after the adoption of "Everyman has an automatic weapon".
Hawkeye_Joe	Posted - September 12 2003 : 11:44:22 AM I still say that the forward scouts would not have been carrying their muskets in such a manner in the 18th Century. In the 18th Century left handed people were forced, physically forced, not to use the left hand. Using the musket in this manner would never have been taught nor would it have been "picked up" by the soldiers. If they had started doing this the officers would have flogged them and made them do it the "correct" way. Example: at Braddock's defeat the British line soldiers tried to emulate the Virginia militia and the F&I attackers by seeking cover from which to fight from. These troops were beaten and threatened and some shot to force them back into the line where the ineffectual tactic failed miserably. This tactic was taught to the core group of extras by Dale Dye, using modern military thinking. Just as he taught the actors and extras in Saving Private Ryan to do the same thing...I'm not really sure if this practice was in wide spread use even in WWII. I think it came to be after the adoption of "Everyman has an automatic weapon".
richfed	Posted - September 12 2003 : 06:44:23 AM quote: Originally posted by mnchiefs502001 ... I don't think he would be in his shirt (underwear)(the scene in his tent) or wearing moc's and given his low regard for natives would not have taken to wearing their clothing or making special concessions by giving them oxen for a feast. Another flaw in the movie is the character of Montcalm ... All indications from accounts in journals etc. lead me to believe that he did not instigate the native uprising. Welcome, mnchiefs502001!!! Hope you post many more! However, I must take issue with 2 points quoted above - can't comment on the clothng stuff. 1 - In fact, offers of oxen, etc. were made to the natives - not necessarily at FWH - that was a "standard" way of winning them over to the cause. Gifts were common all through European interaction with Indians ... from the very earliest contact through the Plains Indian Wars. Somewhere on this site - in the History Section, and I forget where at the moment - is an eyewitness account of oxen being given for a feast during this period. 2 - The subject of whether Montcalm was culpable for the "massacre" is open to much debate. It is merely implied in the film. Lainey & I once where going to put up a Point/Counterpoint thing on this, but never got around to doing so. But, I wouldn't take it as "fact" that the film's implication is incorrect. Quite a debate can be stirred up on this issue ...
English Trader	Posted - September 11 2003 : 8:58:09 PM Greetings, again, Persuant to the conversation about muskets facing outward, your comment implies that because we do it now, we did it then -- both in the modern military and in the reenacting world. That clearly is not logical so I hope I mistook your references. I've never been in the modern military but I can say from years of reenacting in the F&I and Rev War, that I have never seen that form, carrying muskets on the outside. Not for Rangers used to fighting in the woods, nor anyone else. I'm curious to know from wence your 60th unit adopted the practice? YMHOS, English Trader quote: Originally posted by mnchiefs502001 In regards to the soldiers pointing their Bess's to the left and right, I don't think this is quite an inaccuracy. The 60th were more apt to woods fighting and unorthodox tactics. In the modern army we do this to protect flanks and not to have accidental discharges at the soldier across from us. I do plenty of reenacting, rangers, 60th, and yes the hated French marines.
English Trader	Posted - September 11 2003 : 8:54:39 PM Greetings, If you read Bougainville's journals, you will find many references to when Montcalm spoke to the Indians directly, either one-on-one or in an assembly. One such was taken from a small scene when the native children were singing the Te Deum, and he addressed the Indians then, much like the scene in his tent. In fact, he goes to considerable length to work with them on their terms. Also, there is reference to his wearing some of their war belts and the like. Unlike The Crucible of War, Bougainville's journals (Adventures in the Wilderness is a first-person account. Those are far more reliable. YMHOS, English Trader quote: Originally posted by mnchiefs502001 Another flaw in the movie is the character of Montcalm. In reality, he would have never spoken directly to natives and would never have such a relationship with Magwa. If you read "The Crucible of War” you can get a feel of who Montcalm really was. Also I have some bones to pick about his clothing. I don't think he would be in his shirt (underwear)(the scene in his tent) or wearing moc's and given his low regard for natives would not have taken to wearing their clothing or making special concessions by giving them oxen for a feast. His uniform at the capitulation scene is also suspect. There are several depictions of his uniform and is quite different then seen in the movie. All indications from accounts in journals etc. lead me to believe that he did not instigate the native uprising. I'm sure you all know that the story is not accurate to what actually happened at Ft. William Henry nor is the movie true to Cooper's text. It is a great movie even with its flaws but one should read up on the realities of the Seven Years War and you will get a greater appreciation of this extraordinary period of history. I am new to the forum. I am up in Minnesota and do some things with things with some rangers from Green Bay. I also do Great Lakes fur trade stuff as well as early French Marine Explorers in the Great Lakes area about 1740-1750’s. Anyway, that’s my two cents.
mnchiefs502001	Posted - September 11 2003 : 8:37:40 PM In regards to the soldiers pointing their Bess's to the left and right, I don't think this is quite an inaccuracy. The 60th were more apt to woods fighting and unorthodox tactics. In the modern army we do this to protect flanks and not to have accidental discharges at the soldier across from us. I do plenty of reenacting, rangers, 60th, and yes the hated French marines. Another flaw in the movie is the character of Montcalm. In reality, he would have never spoken directly to natives and would never have such a relationship with Magwa. If you read "The Crucible of War” you can get a feel of who Montcalm really was. Also I have some bones to pick about his clothing. I don't think he would be in his shirt (underwear)(the scene in his tent) or wearing moc's and given his low regard for natives would not have taken to wearing their clothing or making special concessions by giving them oxen for a feast. His uniform at the capitulation scene is also suspect. There are several depictions of his uniform and is quite different then seen in the movie. All indications from accounts in journals etc. lead me to believe that he did not instigate the native uprising. I'm sure you all know that the story is not accurate to what actually happened at Ft. William Henry nor is the movie true to Cooper's text. It is a great movie even with its flaws but one should read up on the realities of the Seven Years War and you will get a greater appreciation of this extraordinary period of history. I am new to the forum. I am up in Minnesota and do some things with things with some rangers from Green Bay. I also do Great Lakes fur trade stuff as well as early French Marine Explorers in the Great Lakes area about 1740-1750’s. Anyway, that’s my two cents.
Bill R	Posted - August 19 2003 : 7:42:33 PM Good catch. Heck, I was in Nam and I didn't even do it that-away. I can't even wipe my butt or pick my nose with my left hand, let alone hit anything or control a weapon.....whether on full auto OR semi!!! We may have been responsible for "right and high" in that position, but we didnt have our weapon in our left hands.

DISCLAIMER
Tune, 40, used by permission - composed by Ron Clarke

Custom Search

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.1 seconds