Saints & Strangers Mini-series

[Spikebuck]

I see that National Geographic Channel is going to be showing a new original mini-series "Saints & Strangers" starting Sunday at 8 Central. It is about the story of the Pilgrims in 1620. The ads for it say it is historically accurate...so those of you who understand early 1600's period correctness beware! :wink: :grin:

 

[tenngun]

I hope it's good and plan to watch it. I am afraid it will be happy go lucky environmentally conscious Indians living in peace with the world till nasty white people came along and spoiled everything.

 

[Zonie]

I saw a ad for this show and in the quick blink of an eye I seem to recall seeing them shooting Matchlocks.

Although the Wheellock and Snaphaunce was being used by this time, I think the Matchlock would be period correct for some of the pilgrims in 1620.

In the book "THE MAY-FLOWER & HER LOG",by Azel Ames, M.D.,©1901, Azel Ames on page 227, the author writes,

"...The arms and accoutrements [sic] (besides ordnance) of the May-Flower Pilgrims, known on the authority of Bradford and Winslow to have been brought by them, include muskets ("matchlocks"), "snaphances" (flintlocks), armor ("corslets," "cuirasses," "helmets," "bandoliers," etc.), swords, "curtlaxes" (cutlasses)," "daggers," powder, "mould-shot," "match" (slow-match for guns), "flints," belts, "knapsacks," "drum," "trumpet," "manacles," "leg-irons", etc., etc. "Pistols" (brass) appear in early inventories, but their absence in the early hand-to-hand encounter at Wessagussett indicates that none were then available, or that they were not trusted...."

 

[tenngun]

I'm thinking match locks were used by the Brits well through the 17th cent. Most of the English civil war was fought with them, 30 years or so in the pilgrims future.

 

[necchi]

Yeah,, and Muskets flint and conversion where used well into our own civil war, that doesn't belay the fact Springfield's where available.

I just hope they get the story right.

 

[tenngun]

Has any one else thought it was slower then cold molasses ? I found it s little dark but can't complain about it as I thought it was attempting to be fair. Historicity it was better then most Hollywood options... However it stuck me as a good 2 hour story told over 4 hours

 

[Spikebuck]

With the commercials it probably was a two hour story told in two hours over four hours of TV time! :wink: :grin:

I had to tape it since my wife's shows take precedence, but that was OK because I could skip the commercials. Just finished watching it.

Some parts were a little slow, but overall I thought it was a pretty good show. I'm not educated in the early 1600's, so wouldn't notice any historical correctness issues. I kind of wondered if some of the "outspokeness" of some of the women would have really occurred back then. I was also a bit confused sometimes with Squanto's real motives or what he was up to at times. Probably watch it again and catch a few things I missed the first time.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Didn't quite finish the second half, I will have to catch the encore presentation. I was pretty impressed that it showed them blowing on the match cord before they fired. Little details that provide a glimmer of hope for historical accuracy.

 

[Black Jack]

I was also a bit confused sometimes with Squanto's real motives or what he was up to at times. Probably watch it again and catch a few things I missed the first time.

Actually, from what I have read, Squanto's actual motives were unclear and have been the subject of controversy. The historical record is cloudy as to what he was really trying to accomplish. I think the film makers did a very good job in trying to portray this aspect.

 

[nightwolf1974]

it was ok. after seeing the glitzy PLYMOUTH ADVENTURE with Spencer Tracy, this strips away the typical Hollywood glamour that a lot of stories had.