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 ...

Of Pistols and Pockets

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




		$computer woes {CW:_(}$

[quote][i]Originally posted by Wilderness Woman[/i]
[br]Remember the scene where Cora takes a pistol from a soldier who was killed and stuffs it into her pocket for later use?  What am I saying!  [W((^]  Of course you all remember it!  After all, don't we all have every scene in the movie emblazoned on our brains?  [:D]

Well, that scene has bothered me for a while now, ever since I learned the details of women's 18th century clothing.  And now that I own a reproduction flintlock pistol, I am even more bothered by it.  So I would like to offer some observations, reasons, and a conclusion.  Any discussion, questions, counterpoints, or [i][b]opinions[/b][/i] [:D] are most welcome.

Observation:
Have you noticed the ease with which Cora slips that pistol into her pocket?  I submit to you -- that would not have been the case in reality.

Reason:
In the 18th century, ladies' pockets were not sewn into their garments, as they are now.  They were worn as a separate garment, tied around their waists.  Pockets were like medium-sized, flat bags that were hung on a woven tape.  The bags were sort of pear-shaped and had a long vertical slit in the front of them, that allowed entrance into the pocket.

Women wore either one pocket or two.  The pockets were sewn to a woven tape, that was then tied around the waist.  The pockets, contrary to the belief of some re-enactors, were not worn on the outside of the petticoats so that they showed.  They were worn underneath the petticoats.

I wear two pockets tied around my waist, as the extra storage room is nice to have.  Also, it balances the weight, making wearing them more comfortable.  I put my pockets on after my stays are on, then I put two petticoats on over that.  Each petticoat has slits in the side seams, which allows one to put the petticoat on and tie it, and also allows access to the pockets.

When I need to get into my pocket, my hand has to work its way through the side slits of two separate petticoats, then through the slit of the pocket opening.  Let me say that this is not an easy task.  It seems the slits never line up properly, and often the pockets on their tape have shifted a bit, either to the front or to the back.  I learned to make sure that my fingertips touch the bottom of my pocket before I release the object in my fingers.  Several times, I had things (once a $20 bill) fall to the ground because I thought my hand was in my pocket, when it was not!

My conclusion to this observation is this:  Cora was wearing at least two, perhaps three, petticoats with her riding jacket, plus she was wearing a hip roll.  She would have had great difficulty getting that pistol through all of those slits, past all of that fabric, and into her pocket, and I doubt it would have happened on the first try!

Observation:  
I don't think it would have been possible to carry a pistol in the pocket, once it was gotten in there.

Reason:
Those things are bulky and heavy!

Now that I have a pistol, have held it in my hand and felt its bulk and weight, I feel that it would have been pretty nearly impossible to carry one in a pocket, even after the difficulty of getting it in there was overcome.

My pistol is a good 14 inches long, and it is one of the shorter ones.  My pockets are about 15 inches deep, so my pistol just barely goes in it.

According to my scales, my pistol weighs about 3.5 pounds.  If I were to put that into a pocket that was just tied around my waist with lightweight tape, the weight would pull my pockets right down off of my hips.

Observation:
Cora could not have carried that weight in her pocket comfortably.

Reason:
Its bulk, size and weight.
Now, let's give Cora the benefit of the doubt and grant that she did manage to get that pistol through 3 or 4 clothing slits and into her pocket.  Let's grant that her pockets stayed in place on her hips.  Let's imagine what that 3 pound wood and metal object would have felt like as she walked through the wilderness, and climbed rock cliffs.  It would have been extremely uncomfortable and even painful.  Imagine that banging against one's thigh with every step!  Youch!  What a bruise she would have had.

Conclusion:
It is obvious to me that this is yet another inaccuracy in the film.  Cora would not, realistically, have slipped that pistol into her pocket and carried it that way

Is it a big deal?  No, not really.  Just kind of fun to contemplate.
[/quote]

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
Wilderness Woman	Posted - July 26 2008 : 12:53:55 PM Remember the scene where Cora takes a pistol from a soldier who was killed and stuffs it into her pocket for later use? What am I saying! Of course you all remember it! After all, don't we all have every scene in the movie emblazoned on our brains? Well, that scene has bothered me for a while now, ever since I learned the details of women's 18th century clothing. And now that I own a reproduction flintlock pistol, I am even more bothered by it. So I would like to offer some observations, reasons, and a conclusion. Any discussion, questions, counterpoints, or opinions are most welcome. Observation: Have you noticed the ease with which Cora slips that pistol into her pocket? I submit to you -- that would not have been the case in reality. Reason: In the 18th century, ladies' pockets were not sewn into their garments, as they are now. They were worn as a separate garment, tied around their waists. Pockets were like medium-sized, flat bags that were hung on a woven tape. The bags were sort of pear-shaped and had a long vertical slit in the front of them, that allowed entrance into the pocket. Women wore either one pocket or two. The pockets were sewn to a woven tape, that was then tied around the waist. The pockets, contrary to the belief of some re-enactors, were not worn on the outside of the petticoats so that they showed. They were worn underneath the petticoats. I wear two pockets tied around my waist, as the extra storage room is nice to have. Also, it balances the weight, making wearing them more comfortable. I put my pockets on after my stays are on, then I put two petticoats on over that. Each petticoat has slits in the side seams, which allows one to put the petticoat on and tie it, and also allows access to the pockets. When I need to get into my pocket, my hand has to work its way through the side slits of two separate petticoats, then through the slit of the pocket opening. Let me say that this is not an easy task. It seems the slits never line up properly, and often the pockets on their tape have shifted a bit, either to the front or to the back. I learned to make sure that my fingertips touch the bottom of my pocket before I release the object in my fingers. Several times, I had things (once a $20 bill) fall to the ground because I thought my hand was in my pocket, when it was not! My conclusion to this observation is this: Cora was wearing at least two, perhaps three, petticoats with her riding jacket, plus she was wearing a hip roll. She would have had great difficulty getting that pistol through all of those slits, past all of that fabric, and into her pocket, and I doubt it would have happened on the first try! Observation: I don't think it would have been possible to carry a pistol in the pocket, once it was gotten in there. Reason: Those things are bulky and heavy! Now that I have a pistol, have held it in my hand and felt its bulk and weight, I feel that it would have been pretty nearly impossible to carry one in a pocket, even after the difficulty of getting it in there was overcome. My pistol is a good 14 inches long, and it is one of the shorter ones. My pockets are about 15 inches deep, so my pistol just barely goes in it. According to my scales, my pistol weighs about 3.5 pounds. If I were to put that into a pocket that was just tied around my waist with lightweight tape, the weight would pull my pockets right down off of my hips. Observation: Cora could not have carried that weight in her pocket comfortably. Reason: Its bulk, size and weight. Now, let's give Cora the benefit of the doubt and grant that she did manage to get that pistol through 3 or 4 clothing slits and into her pocket. Let's grant that her pockets stayed in place on her hips. Let's imagine what that 3 pound wood and metal object would have felt like as she walked through the wilderness, and climbed rock cliffs. It would have been extremely uncomfortable and even painful. Imagine that banging against one's thigh with every step! Youch! What a bruise she would have had. Conclusion: It is obvious to me that this is yet another inaccuracy in the film. Cora would not, realistically, have slipped that pistol into her pocket and carried it that way Is it a big deal? No, not really. Just kind of fun to contemplate.
25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
Wilderness Woman	Posted - August 05 2008 : 09:03:58 AM Hi Wade, No, I don't know a great deal about the clothing of that era, other than pictures I have seen in books, sort of in passing. You may be able to find some information online, though. Let me see if I can recall some good websites that might help you.
Dillon1836	Posted - August 04 2008 : 11:56:07 PM Joyce, Know anything of the clothing worn by women during the 1820's and 1830's? I am going to work on a Crockett graphic novel soon and no doubt, such information would help in achieving accuracy! Thank you. ~Wade
Diane B.	Posted - August 03 2008 : 12:51:07 PM Perfect, WW!!! That line works much better!
Wilderness Woman	Posted - August 03 2008 : 12:40:21 PM I knew it! I just knew someone would beat me to it! I was just coming back on to write that. Only my scenario would have had Cora saying it to Nathaniel, thusly: "Is that my pistol in my pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"
Diane B.	Posted - August 03 2008 : 12:25:20 PM quote: But that raises another question. Where was the pistol during "The Kiss" scene? Seems like it would have been in the way. Nathaniel to Cora: "Is that a pistol in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"
Wilderness Woman	Posted - August 03 2008 : 11:22:34 AM Oh Good Grief!!! You are right!!! I can see the images in my mind now. After all the times I have seen that movie, how could I possibly forget that??? Unbelievable. Thanks, all, for reminding me. I stand most humbly corrected. Well, Fitz... perhaps she had left said pistol in her room, since she was working in the hospital?
Fitzhugh Williams	Posted - August 03 2008 : 11:13:51 AM Yep, she was packin' heat all the way from the ambush to Massacre Valley. But that raises another question. Where was the pistol during "The Kiss" scene? Seems like it would have been in the way.
Gadget Girl	Posted - August 03 2008 : 10:45:18 AM Yep, she used it at the massacre.
richfed	Posted - August 03 2008 : 10:16:52 AM No, she did have it at the massacre ... and used it, too. Didn't she????!!!???
Wilderness Woman	Posted - August 03 2008 : 09:26:31 AM quote: Originally posted by James N. It's a little late to comment on the ORIGINAL idea in this topic, but don't you think it's a little STUPID for Cora to even bother with the pistol in the first place? No, James, it is never too late to comment. And I think you have reinforced, and added to, my point quite nicely. One correction, though, if I may... she acquired the pistol when the party of travelers was attacked on the trip from Albany to Fort William Henry. Then she pulled it out of her pocket when they stopped for the night in the Indian burial ground and she and Nathaniel were talking, not later on during the massacre as they were leaving the Fort. To answer one of your questions, I think one reason she didn't slip the pistol to Nathaniel when he was in the cell could be that she probably didn't have it in her possession any more. My thinking is that once they made it to the fort, she probably gave it to her father or someone else there. She may have felt there was no longer a need for it. Remember that she didn't take it out of her pocket and try to use it during the massacre. So, she definitely didn't have it then.
Seamus	Posted - August 02 2008 : 6:49:40 PM "Is it history, or is it Hollywood?"..........James, you should know the answer, given your bio!! What do Directors know about 'correct'....eh? But, 'A gun' is better than 'no gun', so perhaps you have a point...."Maybe she intended it for herself or ( more likely ) Alice!" If she had to go, she could, perhaps, take an enemy with her, at least.....she definitely would not allow herself to be lead like a lamb to slaughter...or whatever.
James N.	Posted - August 02 2008 : 4:03:52 PM It's a little late to comment on the ORIGINAL idea in this topic, but don't you think it's a little STUPID for Cora to even bother with the pistol in the first place? It HAS to be included only so she can courageously pull it out during the "massacre", rather than merely cringing like Alice. ( Wonder why she didn't slip it to Hawkeye while he was in the cell?? ) WW should be able to attest that not only are the pistols of the era surprisingly heavy - they're notoriously unreliable as weapons! They have a ridiculously short range; are prone to misfire; and unless you're target shooting ( or dueling! ), impractically slow to reload. ( Wonder where she was going to get the powder and right size ball to reload it with anyway? ) Even in the cavalry they were considered weapons of "last resort", the sword or sabre being the primary arm. Since they're therefore essentially literally one-shot affairs, one might assume this was simply an attempt to avoid the ever-popular Victorian ( remembering Cooper was writing in the Victorian era ) notion of "a fate worse than death". Maybe she intended it for herself or ( more likely ) Alice!
richfed	Posted - August 02 2008 : 09:27:01 AM Thanks for the education, WW! Nice stuff!
Wilderness Woman	Posted - August 02 2008 : 07:50:53 AM Got another batch "cookin'" now. 'Twill be ready this fall.
Seamus	Posted - August 02 2008 : 04:33:47 AM (Ol' Seamus, leanin' against a big tree, catching some shade, thinks to himself,) "............of course, might need some Cherry Bounce to wash those FINE cookies down..........."
Wilderness Woman	Posted - August 01 2008 : 8:29:31 PM Oh, goodness! It could have been a lot worse, MG! A-w-w-w-w..... gawrsh. Thanks, Seamus! You are very kind in your praise of my humble offering to the World of 18th Century Public Education. Much appreciated.
Monadnock Guide	Posted - August 01 2008 : 8:21:53 PM You strike a hard bargain Seamus.
Seamus	Posted - August 01 2008 : 7:12:17 PM You all out there need to see the 18th Century Ladies' Clothing display WW puts up at some of our educational events. Believe me, it is fantastic...you have seen only a small portion of it here in her last few Posts. THIS gal KNOWS what she is talking about, trust me. (Gonna cost you a plate of homemade cookies, ol' buddy....heheheheh!)
Wilderness Woman	Posted - August 01 2008 : 6:27:53 PM Another thing to mention... While they would not go out in public this way, a working woman could remove her bedgown and work in her petticoat and stays in the privacy of her own home, or "below stairs" in a wealthy home. If you look closely at the painting by Chardin in my previous post, you will see a woman who is hanging up laundry in an adjoining room. You can see the white sleeves of her shift all the way up her arms, and the straps of her stays. Clearly, she has removed her upper outer garment for comfort while working, whereas the laundress chooses to keep hers on. And btw, in the winter more layers could be added for warmth, and wool was used. Believe me when I say that a thick wool flannel petticoat underneath my linen one in October and November is very welcome!
Monadnock Guide	Posted - August 01 2008 : 6:20:05 PM Heh, heh, - I'll bet it does!! ;)
Wilderness Woman	Posted - August 01 2008 : 1:17:46 PM Well, bear in mind that the garments posted above were worn by upper class women who probably had the money to have servants. So, they did not need to do any physical labor, and when it was unbearably hot, they could just sit around, sip cold drinks and fan themselves. Women of the middlin' and lower classes wore linen, which is a much cooler fabric to wear because it breathes and wicks the sweat away from the body. A working woman, servant, farm wife, frontier woman, etc. still wore the shift and stays, but did not wear the bum roll (and certainly not the paniers or pocket hoops). She may wear only 1 petticoat, rather than 2 to 4. And her upper body garment was usually a so-called bedgown. This was not worn to bed. It was a very loose, comfortable garment to wear to work in. Image Insert: 41.54 KB The final point is that because they did not have air conditioning to run in and out of, they were more accustomed to it than we are. Our bodies have to adjust to more rapid changes than theirs did. Do I get hot when wearing several layers of linen? Sure I do. But, I make sure I am well hydrated at all times, and stay out of the sun as much as possible. A linen hankie that has been wet down in nice cold water, then stuffed down my front helps a lot, too.
RedFraggle	Posted - August 01 2008 : 10:27:48 AM Modern wide vs. 18th century wide . . . ha ha! But, yes, sad at the same time. Now my only question is how did women not die of heat exhaustion with all those layers on? I'm trying to picture myself in 96 degree NC heat, carrying about 30 lbs. of clothes that cover me from head to toe. Ack! Oh, and I imagine it would have been a bit embarrassing if one's "bum roll" happenend to come untied.
Wilderness Woman	Posted - August 01 2008 : 09:14:15 AM Unfortunately, you are right, MG. It is sad and frightening. But, it is not the same at all. Modern wide -- Image Insert: 2.55 KB 18th century wide -- Image Insert: 78.13 KB The above lady is wearing a hip roll under that absolutely gorgeous quilted petticoat and jacket. (For those of you women who do quilting, this is an original 18th century outfit that was hand quilted.) And, since we have gotten onto the subject of hip enhancements, here is a photo of original 18th century undergarments. Image Insert: 69.08 KB She is wearing her white linen shift, her stays, and her panniers. Over that foundation would come at least 2 linen or silk underpetticoats, a heavy embroidered silk top petticoat, and a matching open robe gown. Add a neckkerchief, an apron, a cap and hat, and she would look a lot like this... Image Insert: 68.41 KB Absolutely beautiful!
Monadnock Guide	Posted - August 01 2008 : 06:44:02 AM Lookin' around I'd say we're goin' back to wide & big, .... ;)
Wilderness Woman	Posted - July 31 2008 : 10:23:14 PM No problem, Red. I'm glad you asked. Well, unless Madeleine Stowe is naturally quite well padded on her hips (which I highly doubt), I feel she was wearing something like this underneath the petticoats of her riding habit. You can tell there is additional padding there in the scene where she is climbing the rocks next to the waterfall. Image Insert: 55.88 KB The blue and white one is called a hip roll. You will notice that the padding is a bit thicker on the sides than it is on the back portion. This would give the wearer the slightly wider sides (but not as wide as the enormous paniers or even the pocket hoops, and would also provide a little bit of lift in the rear. The brown one is called a rump or bum roll. As you see, the padding is thicker in the back area, to create the appearance of a bigger bum. When tying both of these around the waist, they do not fit snugly up around at the waistline. They are tied a bit loosely so they will rest a few inches below the waistline. That way, you don't get a "shelf" appearance, but the fullness lifts the petticoats out away from the body around the hip area. Hey! In the 18th century, wide was good and big hips were in!

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

Custom Search

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.14 seconds