How Historically Accurate is Cold Mountain?

This historical analysis will be covering the film "Cold Mountain" (2003), a movie taking place during the American Civil War
------------------------------------------------------
Movie: Cold Mountain (2003) directed by Anthony Minghella
End Soundtrack: Wayfaring Stranger by Jack White - • Cold Mountain- Wayfari...
(Other Videos)
Red Baron - • How Historically Accur...
Centurion - • How Historically Accur...

[@oldman5247]

That opening in the movie where the Union troops (despite the fact that the siege of Petersburg's wasn't quite like a WW1 situation) charge in and get trapped by their own destruction; is arguably one of the chilling, atmospheric, and hard to watch battles scenes I've ever seen in a movie. It's good to see someone remembers this movie exists.

[@Estertje93]

I love this movie so much. It is chilling and stays with you. Last year I read the book which delves deeper into Inman's head and travels. It is such a unique insight into the effect of war on the common man/woman. Being from Europe we learn a lot about ww2 but hardly anything about the Americas. Civil war is something we haven't known for a while and it's just gruesome.

[@SStupendous]

What do you mean, "Despite the fact that the siege of Petersburg's wasn't quite like a WW1 situation"? Ironically it really was compared to just about anything before it. It was much more like any WW1 siege of a town or city, with the city not being the focus of besieging like in the past, like the Siege of Vienna or Boston, or Paris in 1870 for that matter. In the sense of what's being fought over and why it was very modern, a detail many ignorant people seem to not quite get. Also, the Rebels made over 153 miles of trenches at Petersburg... to give some perspective, that's 1/4th-1/5th of the size of the Western Front in 1916.

[@oldman5247]

@@SStupendous There were no howitzers, airplanes, barbed wire, and the siege/battles of the siege of Petersburg. Didn't last over 4 years! It was close but not quite WW1 scenario yet.

[@SStupendous]

@@oldman5247 Ah yes, of course! Sorry for beign a little stupid there, lol. I was thinking of different aspects making it similar to WW1. After all, it was one battle vs. a whole front of a massive war, can't compare them too much. No, there WERE "howtizers", and by "howitzers" I assume you mean massive rifled cannon (Howitzers have existed centuries longer than the American Civil War and World Wars.)

[@chuckwest7045]

At the 7:32 mark the narrator asks, "Now that we know they were runaway slaves, why would they have shown themselves to a Confederate soldier?" Maybe if you learned a little history you'd know that 85-90% of the Confederate soldiers didn't own a slave and were hardly fighting to keep them.

[@treebeardtheent2200]

Bingo. Although the movie analysis was pretty good compared to lots of others, there is definitely a hint that the guy buys in to the new revisionist narrative that all the southernors were hateful racists ready to die to defend that racism, in other words progressive hogwash probably acquired from the propaganda machine operating at some college he attended.

[@themanwithallthewrongopini3551]

Even if most Confederate soldiers didn’t have any trouble with slaves, they still probably would’ve tried to stay within the cornfield. It’s probably just a way to show the “Home Guard” killing them anyway so I don’t think too much of it.

[@73beetle19]

I agree with you and I know that Lincoln was only trying to preserve the Union.

[@SStupendous]

Lost Causer, I don't think if you were a slave irl you'd want to make yourself known to a rebel soldier. If you think Home Guard and Confederate troops were never tasked with hunting down slaves and runaways, or things like Fort Pillow never happened then you really don't have a clue about history. NOBODY suggested 99% or whatetever of Southerners owned slaves. You can use your damn brain to figure out why they'd avoid rebel soldiers.

[@silasreade]

The question that needs to be asked is… why did they walk on the road and not cross to the next field? A group of slaves could have easily taken down a wounded rebel soldier with only a revolver - to that point. To the main point of ‘why wasn’t slavery talked more of in the film’? Because the film is set in and focuses on characters from the Western mountains of NC where there were fewer slaves than out East. NC was either the last or next to last to secede - did so from political pressure over ideology - and most Western Tar Heels bought more into the States Rights narrative than the rest of the south. Keep in mind as we live in the area of literacy and social media where actions can span the globe in minutes - poor white farmers were just as illiterate as slaves. They were spun a narrative and had very little reason to disbelieve it. I’m not a ‘Lost Causer’ but failing to acknowledge nuance within history is just as egregious revisionism.

[@TheRatmothy]

Fantastic, this video has been copyright claimed by "Miramax eOne UGC" and cannot be viewed in Canada despite this video being in fair use and lawfully protected

[@TheRatmothy]

Thank you for watching!

[@mountainslapstick6170]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYmbqnmgaKeAiqM

[@treebeardtheent2200]

Considering the characters portrayed in the novel (which I just finished reading for the 3rd time), the take on slavery is completely sensible meaning very much what I would expect of southern folks who just wanted to live their own lives. The point made about being against the war has a little more validity imo, at least in regards to a hatred the southern people largely shared about the yankees by the last year of the war. It is only in recent history where the revisionists have tried to convince everyone that every little thing was about slavery and that is very far from the truth. The actual slave owners were a minority of the population. Defending the South from invasion was the basic issue for most of the confederate fighting men. Their feirceness in battle even with inferior equipment is powerful evidence in the belief they had in their cause. The union soldiers quite often lacked such loyalty and basically had little idea why they were being asked to kill southern troops aside from a loose idea of rebellion. Bear in mind that the fathers of older folks back then actually fought against the British as "rebels" in the Revolutionary war. Charles Frazier wrote his novel with about as clear a distinction as I've seen anywhere between history and the liberties taken by an author, namely a bit of geography and the day to day events in the personal lives of the characters. William Pinkney Inman was a real person who survived the wars battles, but was indeed killed by Home Guard (although not as portrayed in the book/movie). There's even a church named after Inman's oldest brother. Three other brothers died in the war including two taken as prisoners who died in a Chicago prison camp. The daughter of W.P. Inman apparently had several grandchildren and there are people alive today from that line.

[@100idb2]

Both sides used the springfield. Captured weapons. And also i recently read that they did use the rifles like javelins.

[@karinanalbandyan3009]

I love this movie

[@georgiapatriot13097]

This movie is great! I definitely love all the music in it! Especially Allison Krauss' portrayal with her music; she was a beautiful voice!

[@somerandomdude769]

This is how you pull off a chicken's head kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5jCYpebltx6oNE

[@TheRatmothy]

David Blaine is truly a man of talent

[@craftpaint1644]

The Director didn't know the Civil War and so just did whatever his hired Historian said about it, but primarily his focus was the adapted screen play from the novel. 👩‍🔧

[@Spooky1862]

Actually the 1861 Springfield was not at all uncommon in the Army of Northern Virginia by the time of Petersburg. The Springfield uses a .58 caliber minie ball, and the Enfield is in .577, so the ammo is interchangeable.

[@tyrian_baal]

You should’ve also mentioned the lack of Import Uniforms for the Confederacy in the battle scenes

[@georgiapatriot13097]

6:35 - 6:48 That's the ONLY money that Inman had on em. Plus, they didn't take it anyways, much less even took interest in it.

[@meh7713]

Both sides used the Springfield heavily, the confederacy primarily used Enfield but the Virginian troops also had the Richmond rifles that were copies of the 1855 and 1861 Springfields, org sides used the Enfield and Austrian Lorenz extensively. Keep in mind different armies, like the army of TN or northern Virginia typically had varying longarms among their units.

[@treebeardtheent2200]

I was under the impression that smoothbores were predominant throughout the war although the number of rifles (more expensive and highly valued) did increase by the latter stages of the war.

[@meh7713]

@@treebeardtheent2200 smoothbores were dominant in the first few months but were quickly replaced by rifles. The confederates did use smoothbores throughout the war due to their arms shortage but they still fielded mostly rifles, some federal units kept their smoothbore 42 Springfields like the Irish brigade but it was extremely rare for a unit in the field to have them after the first few months.

[@treebeardtheent2200]

@@meh7713 it's not obvious, but the switch to rifles which are more laborious to load (bullet v. ball, etc.) would make the use of bayonet more important in the sense of volleys that could be fired while the intervening distance was closed. I know lots of folks these days think it was stupid not to just shoot the enemy at a distance, but my studies and experience consistently lead me to conclude that such distances often get closed very quickly without the presence of well supplied machine guns occupying improved defenses.

[@georgiapatriot13097]

Historical Accuracy: Back in the olden days, people actually would spin the chicken around with their bare hands by it's neck in order to break it, because that was the end of the chicken's life after it was raised, in order to make their living.

[@treebeardtheent2200]

I was thinking something similar. It would take just a few seconds I think, but not the half second pull like in the movie. There's a trick method for tearing a super strong woven cotten military trouser belt into two pieces with one's bare hands...way stronger than a chicken neck, so I know that could be done.

[@amywaltermyer4242]

My great grandmother could take a chickens head off in a second with her bare hands…a quick twist and swing.

[@tyrian_baal]

1:56 Couldnt confederates have stolen guns from the Union? 2:25 There were accounts during the battle of the crater of Confederate soldiers using their guns as spears due to low ammo

[@reminder9146]

I'm going to say your knowledge in the second comment proves you know the answer to the first. Of course they did. Southern Units used whatever they had.

[@SStupendous]

It's a little dumb, can't lie. First of all, he pauses on an ENFIELD rifle, and second, just because the rebels used Enfields didn't mean they didn't also user Springfields...

[@charlietheanteater3918]

1:32 Very nice video, but I think the scene here toke place way after the explosion, I don’t think it was supposed to be seconds afterwards......

[@daveywaveysiminary8144]

My great grandmother and me uses an small Axe or hatchet but me great grandmother use to break it neck like in the movie there but she need an Axe to get the head off.

[@aaroncarley8962]

I enjoyed you review but you overlooked Inman’s use of a LeMat revolver. While it is possible that he could have found one laying on the battlefield, in all likelihood, he would have probably found a colt navy or something else a bit more common. The LeMat was a very large, expensive weapon, and uncommon as it was confederate made in South Louisina. An area that was quickly captured during the Anaconda strategy. Also, toward the end of the war, many Southern survivors; civilians and soldiers alike were quite disgruntled and realized the disillusionment in which they were a part. Many Southern clergy, like Reverend Monroe, and poor working class folks, like Inman held slavery in little regard and often times, were against it. The Cajun Frenchmen in Louisiana, the Cherokee and other various Indian tribes were not in favor of slavery either. I enjoyed your review. This film seldom gets the attention it deserves.

[@phoenixreavis9503]

1:26 actually it was more like 10 or 15 minutes

[@betweentwomillennium5057]

No I can"t send you of a chicken getting its head ripped off but my mother who was a child during the great depression could. I saw her do it many times as a child. You put your foot on the chickens neck and pull with both hands on its back legs and off comes the head. Make sure you throw the chicken away from you because it is going to flop around and spatter blood everywhere.

[@silvergirl7810]

My grandmother did it too. She always told me that the chickens ‘of today’ well, somethings wrong with them. They don’t lot ok the same inside their bones etc. I always thought of that now we know they inject them with crap etc.

[@georgiapatriot13097]

Lol I Love this movie! And that one guy thew his musket because he's actually a Cherokee Native American Indian.

[@tallman2210]

Teague had a smaller and less sadistic role in the novel.

[@treebeardtheent2200]

Not much less sadistic, and some could argue that the book offers more occasions of his thugery.

[@tallman2210]

@@treebeardtheent2200 true. But he did bring in one deserter Alice for trial and execution. The movie made him a prominent villain. Teauge only appeared about five times in the book.

[@treebeardtheent2200]

@@tallman2210 It could be that Frazier's descriptive word pictures made much more impression on me than the movie visuals. I haven't seen the movie in some time. I do recall a few of the lesser characters from the movie which stood out such as Veasy and Sara (played by Natalie Portman). Also Monroe and Stobrod, but the movie version of Teague just doesn't stand out in my recollection. I suppose it's possible that the movie used Teague to embody the deeds of other antagonists - common method employed in movies - but I don't recollect that either

[@yangyang6140]

And they were singing Sitting on Top of the World despite that the song was first released in 1925.

[@wsong5086]

Its a movie ! Not a history documentary .

[@Jonno2summit]

It wasn't that big of a crater. What's depicted is so outrageous and Hollywoody it destroys the credibility of this movie from the get go. Really pathetic.

[@alanscott4846]

I remember several Hollywood moments that bothered me. The movie takes itself seriously then a man does a backflip off a fence and shoots someone... why do they do stuff like that? I like the film all the same but some moments make me cringe. I never looked into how accurate the movie is but after that scene I didnt take it seriously.

[@Gravelgratious]

@@alanscott4846 Because people didn't have to worry about social image the way people do now. Back then you were more than a front and if you were "touched" then so be it. They musket javelins was the only thing that got me chuckling.

[@codylucas2155]

Um I can do it. Lmfao it's very easy to accidentally RIP their heads off

[@treebeardtheent2200]

Haha the words you chose reminded me of the old goldfish cracker commercial jingle, "The healthy snack that smiles back until you bite their heads off" 😋

[@nicolelabram5575]

A ridiculous movie about the South that never existed and only the British could make.