Sons of Liberty question

[innocent bystander]

Okay, first off, I realize that Sons of Liberty is from an alternate universe. Virtually nothing is historically right in it. But I like the costuming in it.

The question I have is, in the series, the British regulars are always pulling up a mask to cover their faces during advances. Is this something that the filmmakers created to make them look more sinister, or is it something that the Brit troops really did?

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Has the same question. Some believe that British were known to do that ... but maybe 80-years later in time.

Here's one treatise on the subject:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistor...the_british_army_ever_use_face_coverings_like/

 

[Loyalist Dave]

But I like the costuming in it.

:rotf:

The costuming is one of the worst areas, if not THE worst in the production.

The fact that the producers cashed their paychecks was criminal fraud, but what do you expect from a European director doing a production in Romania? :haha: I'm sure American productions of foreign subjects are often botched..., The 47 Ronin staring Keanu Reeves comes to mind....

Yeah they wore neck stocks, not black neckerchiefs and did not cover their faces with them when shooting...but of course they would also have used a musket that existed in the British army prior to the 1800's so....,

Further, full length gaiters were gone from the army, the British army didn't carry blue, wooden canteens, and every infantryman would have carried a bayonet. Civilian men wore hats/caps when out doors, women wore caps all the time except perhaps at a formal ball or their bedrooms, women wore shifts beneath their outer clothes..., at the most a man might have a 3-4 day old beard as average civilian in a village, town or city (assuming they wanted to do any business and avoid questions from The Watch about being a vagrant), a British solder (except on ranging duty) would not have had a beard older than 4 days (no matter how sexy the director thinks it looks - GAD) :barf:

LD

 

[innocent bystander]

Well, as I said, an alternate universe

I did notice the trapdoor Springfields during the last battle scene. And I'm aware of all you mention (aside from the canteens.) My wife and I both mentioned that the lack of bayonets was disconcerting. And of course the hats, or lack of...

To me, the worse thing about it was the casting of vastly younger actors for the historical characters. Yee Gads! Sam Adams flying over rooftops! He was over 43 when the show starts and by the end, he was pushing 55. And of course the total lack of firearms owned by the civilians.

But, overall, I thought the production was entertaining, if only to pique me into looking further into that era. I just have to shut my eyes and ears (calling someone batsh*t crazy????) to the errors and looking at it as an entirely fictional piece.