Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Revlist] RE:haversack placement

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Kirk
    to whom it may concern; The haversacks of 1751 are signifigantly larger than extant havresacks of the 1770s time frame. My guess is the reason the havresacks
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      to whom it may concern;
      The haversacks of 1751 are signifigantly larger than
      extant havresacks of the 1770s time frame. My guess is
      the reason the havresacks in Morier's pictures are on
      the right hip is that a) havresack is a marching item,
      worn on the march (cuthebertson writes ad nauseum
      about the filth of the havresack) and b) any fighting
      that may occur on the amrch, the soldiers would just
      ditch the field equipage, or in the grenadier's case
      of 1751, use the belly box.
      It is incredibly important to note that on an
      original british havresack that i have personally
      examined (and copied)[in a private collection] the
      strap, which was not adjustable did not exceed 30-32
      inches. Original Civil War Havresacks are just about
      the same. A correct reproduction will make the
      havresack sit nearly on the back/ nearly under the
      armpit. This makes the havresack remarkably
      convienient, not only in terms of manufacture (these
      things were designed to use every bit of material with
      no waste, mass reproduction has illustratedd this more
      than reasonable conclusion to me.), but the havresack
      sits out of the way and wont flop around while in
      action, or bending over. Granted, most reenactors are
      signifigantly larger (in waist size) than the soldier
      of the AWI,(thus requireing a slightly longer strap)
      but the farbs with the havresacks dangling down by
      their butts and thighs, are just that: farbs.
      Andrew Kirk
      fifer, 43d. Foot

      --- jdixoncoolkid <jdixoncoolkid@...> wrote:

      > Hi
      > Thanks for the response. The prints I failed to
      > mention are the Dave
      > Morier prints from 1751. They show the haversack
      > being worn on the
      > right hip at least in campaign kit. Specifically the
      > 46th, 47th and
      > 48th Foot prints.
      > Interested
      > John Dixon.
      > IX Regt
      >
      >
      >
      >





      __________________________________
      Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.