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

[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"