First off the you have to realize the film takes place in both New Mexico Territory, Texas, the Kansas border with Missouri and Arkansas, so I'll take a stab at your problems
1. There was no reason for that bridge when the water is only waist deep - or more to the point, no reason for fighting over or keeping that bridge.
Along the Arkansas River there were obstructions put in place to obstruct river commerce/traffic, the Arkansas was also defended with naval siege guns.
2. The bridge is in the wrong location anyway; just 50 feet up the river, the crossing is half as wide.
Usually where a river is narrower it is also deeper and faster so it makes sense to cross where a uniform shallow bottom is available
3. Dynamite wasn't invented until 1867.
Wasn't Dynamite they were black powder sticks (used in mining commercially available) the boxes were just labeled explosives
4. There were no trains anywhere near that far west.
Blondie & Tuco were marched into Batterville Camp, from Ft. Craig, 1,020 miles ( at a pace of about 20 + or - miles a day, over the Santa Fe trail. It would have taken them about 50 days) to this fictitious camp at possibly Ft. Leavenworth, (closest real Union POW camp was in Illinois). This site also is located near the longest railroad existing at the time (St. Joseph & Hanibal RR) west of the Mississippi. The whole film from Blondie & Tuco capture is all historical what if fiction
5. There were no Gatling Guns in use in 1862, and certainly none that far west.
again fiction
6. Trench warfare techniques were not in use in the Civil War in 1862.
This happened during the war just much later
7. There were no multishot rifles for Blondie to use that far out west in 1862.
Yes he's got a Henry available since 1860
8. Not all of the Confederates would be in gray uniforms in 1862 out west in 1862.
True but it's artistic licence, and Grant & Lee would not have been the major opposing generals but for an international audience the joke would make sense to them
9. A captain would not be in charge of all of those men, or of that attack.
It happened
10. There were no prison camps at that time; and no Andersonville, which didn't even open until 1864. Before 1863, prisoners were paroled and/or exchanged almost immediately.
artistic licence
11. That graveyard was ridiculously large for New Mexico at the time - and with no town anywhere in sight. While cemeteries are located outside of towns, they're not located in the wilderness, miles from anywhere. And thousands of graves out in the middle of nowhere? Come on. Outside of a big town or city, maaaaaybe. And if you're thinking those were all graves of dead soldiers, think again. Only about 100 soldiers total from BOTH SIDES died in the largest battles in the New Mexico territory.
That's why it's near the Arkansas/Missouri/Indian Territory border Blondie & Tuco blunder upon a battle for Langston or Langstone bridge over the Arkansas River. The small cemetery nearby at Sad Hill has swollen with the dead from the various skirmishes & battles in the border area of Northwest Arkansas ( Pea Ridge (Elkhorn Tavern) was on March 6-8th 1862, US Casualties 1,349, CS Casualties 4,600).
And it makes sense if you think about the gold which is way too much, for The New Mexico Campaign theater anyway.
Jackson, Baker, and Stevens are detailed as a part of a 25 man Paymasters detachment for I Corp of the Trans-Mississippi District. Around the first of February, near Ft. Smith, they blunder into a Union Cavalry recognizance party. In the heat of battle the Paymaster’s wagon and $200,000 in gold coins disappears.
reply
share
jgroub
10 years ago
Thank you for taking the time to answer, but I find the whole scenario preposterous.
They marched from New Mexico to Arkansas? Come on. That's ridiculous. First off, 20 miles a day? That's about as fast as Stonewall Jackson's troops marched, and they were fully supplied. They were called "foot cavalry" for being able to cover that much ground in a day. It would be half that, tops, and probably less with poorly supplied unmotivated prisoners. So you're talking about more like 4 months. And if you're going to march prisoners for four months, that would be a march of death, like the Bataan Death March.
More importantly, they DID NOT IMPRISON SOLDIERS IN 1862. They were exchanged or paroled. That meant that the two sides met and exchanged the prisoners they had captured after the battle - they gave them back. If one side had more than the other side, then they paroled them - meaning that the soldiers had to return home and promise not to fight again. Which was BS, and both sides knew it.
They only started imprisoning soldiers in camps permanently after the south refused to exchange black soldiers who were captured as prisoners starting in mid-1863. The south preferred to enslave them. This was actually one of the major factors that won the war. Because the south could not afford to lose its soldiers permanently to imprisonment because of their limited manpower. The north's vastly greater population - about 4 to 1 - let them continue to provide troops even after their soldiers were captured and held.
Second, none of the scenery looked anything like Arkansas, let alone Oklahoma or Missouri.
So, I'm not buying any of your explanations. Sorry.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
reply
share
mgtbltp
10 years ago
They marched from New Mexico to Arkansas? Come on. That's ridiculous. First off, 20 miles a day? That's about as fast as Stonewall Jackson's troops marched, and they were fully supplied. They were called "foot cavalry" for being able to cover that much ground in a day. It would be half that, tops, and probably less with poorly supplied unmotivated prisoners. So you're talking about more like 4 months. And if you're going to march prisoners for four months, that would be a march of death, like the Bataan Death March.
Ridiculous? Wagon trains with pioneers averaged 12-15 miles a day with women & children, besides the whole story takes pace over an 8 month period, it could be 10 miles a day or more if they were transported by wagon it's really irrelevant, and I said specifically that everything after their capture was fiction as regards to the internment camp
More importantly, they DID NOT IMPRISON SOLDIERS IN 1862. They were exchanged or paroled. That meant that the two sides met and exchanged the prisoners they had captured after the battle - they gave them back. If one side had more than the other side, then they paroled them - meaning that the soldiers had to return home and promise not to fight again. Which was BS, and both sides knew it.
yea yea yea we all know that, but we aren't telling history its a "campfire story". And they did imprison afterwards as the war wore on, so its a question of cinematic licence
They only started imprisoning soldiers in camps permanently after the south refused to exchange black soldiers who were captured as prisoners starting in mid-1863. The south preferred to enslave them. This was actually one of the major factors that won the war. Because the south could not afford to lose its soldiers permanently to imprisonment because of their limited manpower. The north's vastly greater population - about 4 to 1 - let them continue to provide troops even after their soldiers were captured and held.
Again, yea yea yea we all know that, but we aren't telling history its a "campfire story", and they did imprison afterwards as the war wore on, so again its a question of cinematic licence
Second, none of the scenery looked anything like Arkansas, let alone Oklahoma or Missouri.
Neither do many Civil War set films look like they are in the East, more like California. I think Sad Hill is supposed to be along the Indian Territory/Arkansas border it's close enough see below.
The Arkansas images below:
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-1mkyCFv2xY_8WC s1xyazcrKWwiNB_9yAZrmOd-y_suadBmf-
http://www.arktimes.com/binary/515b/1345562159-emerald_park_quarry.jpg
So, I'm not buying any of your explanations. Sorry.
Guess what pard... I not selling to you, I'm just not letting you off without defending artistic licence, it's a film not a documentary, the images above of the Arkansas River somewhat look enough like the river in the film.
reply
share