|
Post by ArtilleryMan on Feb 26, 2005 8:34:23 GMT
Having seen the teaser trailer I noticed that all the soldiers are wearing khaki uniforms. But in the novel they wore traditional red and white dress. I can only suppose this is down to budgeting. Still, fair play to Pendragon for keeping to the novel.
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 26, 2005 10:04:57 GMT
When Wells wrote WOTW he originally based it in the future, tutn of the century. I think the Boer war convinced the BA to abandon the colourful regimental colours for Khaki.
Its possible that Hines chose to go with the factual dress rather than the fictional setting. He would have had to make his own decision to the actual timeline because the book is not precise.
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Feb 27, 2005 5:04:19 GMT
We have been through this in the books thread. but Hines is right in having Khaki as the color for British uniforms. Khaki was the stadard combat uniform for the British Army from 1885 on. Red had been relegated to Dress Uniform status. " I think the Boer war convinced the BA to abandon the colourful regimental colours for Khaki. " You are thinking of the First Boer War in 1881. That indeed caused the British Army to change from Red to Khaki. In the Second, or Great Boer war -1899 to 1902..the British Army used Khaki thoughtout. In the Sudan Campaign in 1898..the year WOTW was published ..the British Army wore Khaki. Hines is correct in his Unifroms for the 1890's. Wells, frankly, was careless with his details about the military of the period. Just check any standard book on the Arms and Equpiment of the British Army in the Boer War or the 1898 Sudan campaign to bear me out.
|
|
spelky
Junior Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by spelky on Feb 27, 2005 11:45:25 GMT
You are correct in what you say dudalb, one point worth adding though is that as the Sudan and South Africa were hot climates lighter weight Khaki was more practical as well. For Home Service use red tunics were still in use around the 1890's though rapidly becoming redundant as you say. It's possible that with UK based troops rushed into action, some could have been wearing Red and Blue tunics, ie Infantry and Artillery.
There was an action in the Boxer uprising in China where Royal Marines insisted on wearing their red tunics even though Khaki was the issued uniform and that was in 1900
I think HG used a bit of licence rather than being careless, perhaps he wanted to stress how unprepared the Army were for any invasion, I would have thought he would have been pretty clued up as the military featured a lot in daily victorian life, much more so than now.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 27, 2005 15:27:40 GMT
H G Wells was a military critic, so to the best of his knowledge what he wrote would have been the facts as he knew them.
Whatever reason Hines decided to deviate from the book im sure they will look quite authentic and quite acceptable, im sure Wells wouldnt have a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Feb 27, 2005 19:26:23 GMT
Replace the word “buff” with “critic” and you’ll be much closer to the truth. Some mistakenly label Wells a “military man” – when in reality he was pretty much the opposite. Not only did he never serve, he was rarely able to see eye to eye with the military complex itself! He often criticized its stolid conventions (and people), and even quarreled publicly with senior officers. Like some today, sometimes the quarrels resulted from his incomplete understanding of the matter at hand.
Wells’ descriptions of the military in “Worlds” is based more upon the standard image most people had of that era then - and even persists to this day. Their colourful dress uniforms are what we like to think of more than the various less romantic undress uniforms they would have worn on maneuvers or in combat.
I do agree with motile though that Wells would probably approve of how Pendragon has uniformed its soldiers for their film.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 27, 2005 19:50:40 GMT
Replace the word “buff” with “critic” and you’ll be much closer to the truth. Some mistakenly label Wells a “military man” – when in reality he was pretty much the opposite. Not only did he never serve, he was rarely able to see eye to eye with the military complex itself! He often criticized its stolid conventions (and people), and even quarreled publicly with senior officers. Like some today, sometimes the quarrels resulted from his incomplete understanding of the matter at hand. Wells’ descriptions of the military in “Worlds” is based more upon the standard image most people had of that era then - and even persists to this day. Their colourful dress uniforms are what we like to think of more than the various less romantic undress uniforms they would have worn on maneuvers or in combat. I do agree with motile though that Wells would probably approve of how Pendragon has uniformed its soldiers for their film. Done
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Feb 27, 2005 20:02:31 GMT
Replace the word “buff” with “critic” and you’ll be much closer to the truth. Some mistakenly label Wells a “military man” – when in reality he was pretty much the opposite. Not only did he never serve, he was rarely able to see eye to eye with the military complex itself! He often criticized its stolid conventions (and people), and even quarreled publicly with senior officers. Like some today, sometimes the quarrels resulted from his incomplete understanding of the matter at hand. Odd, considering he wrote a book on wargaming, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 27, 2005 20:18:34 GMT
Odd, considering he wrote a book on wargaming, perhaps? An interest in strategy and an interest in the military may be construde as two different things. But you do have a good point.
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Feb 27, 2005 20:39:54 GMT
I wonder if Hines was not using one of the reenactor groups in the US, many of who do British Imperial Impressions, and are total fanatics about historical accuracy in uniforms. Since I am a Civil War reenactor myself, I know a few people who do the 1879 Zulu War,and I have met a couple who do the 1898 Sudan campaign as well..and they wear Khaki. The nice thing about hiring reenactors is that they come already equipped and uniformed, so you save money that way and they are a lot more fanatics about accuracy then most production desginers are... BTW it goes both ways. There are a Lot of US Civil War reenactors in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Feb 27, 2005 20:44:41 GMT
That's an interesting point you raise, Dudalb. They would also portray the soldiers more realistic, instead of extra's who have not played soldiers before.
-Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Feb 27, 2005 21:34:34 GMT
Odd, considering he wrote a book on wargaming, perhaps? Two, actually; Little Wars and Floor Games. But since we don’t necessarily expect the people who write war game manuals for Battleship, Stratego, Risk or games like that today to know anything about current uniforms or the proper order of battle, we can forgive Wells. I don’t pay much attention to video games (understatement of the year), but the ones my mate’s pre-teens play have at least gotten the WWII field uniforms correct. But its like video crack for kids. Interestingly, even in Wells’ two books on kriegspiel, his toy soldiers were decked out in parade dress uniforms for battle…because that’s what you found in toy shops those days. The drab uniforms didn’t have the same romantic draw, apparently. Floor Games has just been reprinted by Temenos Press under the title Floor Games: A Father’s Account of Play and its Legacy of Healing, edited by Barbara A. Turner, PhD., ISBN 0-9728-5172-0, www.temenospress.com. Its worth picking up.
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Feb 27, 2005 22:33:21 GMT
You should check out the new Broadview edn of _The War_ , which I've plugged before (no really, I'm not a sales representative). They have a lengthy appendix on military technology and dress (including numerous photographs) that neatly illustrates the military appearance of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Feb 27, 2005 23:15:21 GMT
|
|