Edit schmedit.

[erastes]

It's moving along, but gah! the mistakes one finds !!

I'm describing the Battle of Edgehill and I go and say that the right flank of the King'S cavalry attacked the right flank of the Parliament's.  Idiot!

Only if

1. they galloped diagonally across the flood plain OR

2. They were both facing in the same direction.

*kicks self*

I also mention SHRAPNEL.  Yeah. In 1642.  Riiiiight...... That would have been hard to live down as my fellow historical novelists laughed in my face.

It's a worry!

Comments

[seraphim-grace.livejournal.com]

I get that with corsets
they didn't wear german corsets until 1732 and you have them wearing them in 1731 when they would have been wearing english corsets
the difference between an english corset and a german corset is negligible, literally, it's like an inch longer, that's it
but yet.....
I thoroughly believe you could mess up the battle entirely and go haahaha the templars won at bannockburn as long as their underwear was right

[sleveen.livejournal.com]

I thoroughly believe you could mess up the battle entirely and go haahaha the templars won at bannockburn as long as their underwear was right

ahahhahahahahahah!!
Yes. But (in my case) I have to get the Victorian toilet paper right. ;-)

[seraphim-grace.livejournal.com]

i know they used rabbit fur for sanitary towels
which is a lovely image
but I don't know about toilet paper,
and here's the rub - we know this rubbish
we have at some point looked it up, we have found it out, we have done our research, which obviously is in the wrong category for some, and yet they still tell us we're wrong
but i found myself doing it
I did all this research on the heian period of japan, and Im watching this american animated movie for Hellboy about their mythology and the ghost of the japanese princess is wearing a chinese gown! I actually pointed and said "that's wrong" and then i thought - ohmygod I'm one of them!

[sleveen.livejournal.com]

I actually pointed and said "that's wrong" and then i thought - ohmygod I'm one of them!

Yes! I can't watch From Hell because there are so many little things that annoy me. LOL.

[seraphim-grace.livejournal.com]

never mind the little things with that movie, there's the big ones like her accent
and the fact it has absolutely nothing in common with the graphic novel....
but for saying that when a movie is gloriously and unabashedly wrong and plainly doesn't care - see 300 - it's great fun

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Out of interest, what did they use?

Victorian Toilet Paper

[sleveen.livejournal.com]

Out of interest, what did they use?

I know in the late Victorian era they used to have little pre-moistened squares, in packages - almost like the handy wipes you can buy nowadays. :) And later there was paper on a roll, not unlike what we have, except the sheets weren't perforated...

Re: Victorian Toilet Paper

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Cool! thanks!

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Old underwear drives me mad - there's so few resources - I am almost embarrassed to recall how long I spent researching civil war mens' knickers....

[seraphim-grace.livejournal.com]

i found as a writer i could find nothing
as a seamstress i was overwhelmed

www.costumes.org
is a wonderful resource but it's huge and it can be daunting
the V&A do a series of fashion in detail books that include underwear with construction notes and line drawings, they're not cheap but they're worth their weight in gold

did they wear underwear? the soldiers that is? the cavaliers might have, but my brain informs me that the previous periods men didn't wear underwear because it showed under their hose. (nothing worse than a panty line)
I can think of all manner of prophylactics from the period (silk condoms you laced up- because that'll work)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Yes - they were simply "under breeches" made from a soft material than the breeches on top. Often called "strossers"