I’m guessing that even if Little Bill could find some combat vets, most of them were draftees who did what they were told in battle, and had no real interest in actually risking their lives for whatever Bill was selling.
It’s easy to be a part of posse/mob to go chasing after men you think are cowards and running away. Another thing entirely to actual face a dangerous man. And as is a cliche in many “one vs many” faceoffs, the bad man is going to get someone (Little Bill in this case, until the misfire). You don’t want to draw his attention and be the second one he shoots.
The Dalton Gang found out the hard way what townsfolk could do if you try to rob their banks. In 1892, when the good citizens of Coffeyville, Kansas heard that the Dalton Gang was robbing two banks at once they leapt into action. The local hardware stores started handing out firearms and 4 of the 5 gang members were killed and the last one wounded and captured.
They had a personal stake in the outcome there - it was their money that was going to be stolen, and there wasn’t any form of insurance that would make them whole.
Little Bill was trying to gin up a posse to capture someone that most of the townsfolk had no particular stake in.
I think this claim tends to be overstated. Sharpshooting is a skill like any other skill, and will vary a lot by individual, based on natural talent and practice.
You take a couple of random guys and give them guns and the guy who aims more carefully might be better off, and I think this is what claims by old time Wild West people are about. But that doesn’t imply that there weren’t also highly talented and practiced gunfighters who could be both fast and accurate. And if you were in a fight with such a guy, you might not have time to carefully aim.
Friend, there’s nobody up there shooting back at you. It isn’t always being fast or even accurate that counts. It’s being willing . I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren’t willing.
Agreed. But if you narrowed it down to the most celebrated and notorious Wild West gunfighters - the people about whom movies tend to be made - I suspect that ratio would be much much smaller.
So it’s really a question as to the meaning of “realistic” in movies. Movies tend to be made about outsized characters, who don’t represent the typical person. Do they lack realism on that basis? If you made a movie about Michael Jordan, does it lack realism because no one else can perform his feats on the court?
If you’re depicting something as being typical, then it’s not realistic if that’s not actually the case. But if you’re making a movie which presents things as “here’s a dramatic story about a unique but compelling individual”, then I don’t think it’s lacking in realism even if doesn’t at all reflect the typical individual. That’s the whole point.
That guy is going to get a job with Buffalo Bill or some other circus; he isn’t wasting his time or risking his hide staring down hombres in some shithole western town.
IMHO I’m not sure we require accuracy above all else from Westerns, but rather relevance to current culture.
The silent era Westerns looked back at the closing of the frontier and how we were all now soft and un-self-reliant (1910s soft: you didn’t tend a horse and chop wood, but you did crank start your car and go to the basement to shovel coal).
Post-WWII, a lot of guys came back from war in various states of alienation, and so on the screen Gregory Peck or Glenn Ford played psychologically conflicted gunfighters.
If Shane were made today, bad-guy rancher Ryker wouldn’t be scruffy and violently defending outdated values as he was in 1953: he’d be well-dressed and spouting libertarian bunkum as if it was the philosophy of man’s best hope.
I think Unforgiven reflects both situations. I can’t vouch for it’s accuracy as a depiction of the wild west but certainly it paints the vast majority of people as being either unable or unwilling to be killers and only a very small group of flawed people who are. Even they are far from the mythical people that the media (at the time, or since) choose to paint them as.
That is certainly a central point to the movie and no doubt it is a fairly accurate portrait of any society.
I read in some books that gun belts were actually quite rare in the West and that even people who had them didn’t wear them as part of their typical getup. People who wanted to go armed would usually keep a pistol in a coat pocket, and some canvas dusters were actually advertised as having pockets specially cut to allow a pistol to be drawn smoothly, without catching. If this was so, you certainly don’t see it reflected in movies or tv very often.
What isn’t true is that people considered water dangerous and drank alcohol instead (usually, this is said of small beer). A common myth about the past, and one that just isn’t true. I only quoted the part about water being dangerous (which it generally wasn’t, especially away from cities) but I was responding to the whole post.