Canteen and Haversack

[Wolfman Zack]

Does anybody here use a cross slung haversack and canteen combo like you see in pictures of 19th century soldiers and explorers???

I have tried this out on a few walks, and it seems to work well, and it provides enough room for day hike needs, while not feeling like you are carrying a lot.
It could also be worn with a pack over the top of it for more capacity.

Here are pics of my haversack and canteen, I made both the haversack and the canteen carrier, the canteen itself came from canteenshop.com and features a stove and pot/cup that nest with it.

[Humakt]

There's probably a good reason why that combination and set up doesn't get used so much anymore - there are more efficient (in the sense of weight saving, space saving, and comfort) solutions nowadays. 'Twas ever us - nineteenth century soldiers carried their equipment differently from Roman legionaries, who carried their equipment differently to cavemen, etc. Although bushcrafters like to convince themselves that our forebears knew best, the truth is that every generation tries to improve over the previous. Where do you draw the line in retro-kit and ancient one-upmanship? The cold, hard, truth is that the previous generation didn't always know best.

That said, this kind of set up does have that fun spirit of playing dress-up and re-enactor about it (which, as we all jolly well know, is part and parcel of playing bushcraft), and it does have that romantic spirit. Which is all entirely valid, and perfectly understandable. But I'm sure that after a while you'll get fed up with it all clanking about, rolling around, getting tied up. Just like our forebears did, and it's why they (we) came up with better solutions for carrying equipment. But enjoy it whilst the novelty lasts!

Oh yeah, whilst I get distracted by my curmudgeonly-ness, I forgot to say - well done you for making some great kit! I Like the haversack especially. The canteen holder looks like what it is - a cut up bit of upholstery leather. I'm sure it works well, but I'd be looking at that as 'mark 1' and using it as a template for when I get my hands on some decent leather - chromium tanned leather just doesn't look right for making retro kit. Good design and well made though.

[Silkhi]

I love retro looking gear - hope you enjoyed making those and have some fun with them

I do agree with Humakt though in that you always seem to suffer for that retro feel in one way or another. In my case it's weight - I love canvass but I soon start to change my mind after hauling it around for a while!

[Wolfman Zack]

There's probably a good reason why that combination and set up doesn't get used so much anymore - there are more efficient (in the sense of weight saving, space saving, and comfort) solutions nowadays. 'Twas ever us - nineteenth century soldiers carried their equipment differently from Roman legionaries, who carried their equipment differently to cavemen, etc. Although bushcrafters like to convince themselves that our forebears knew best, the truth is that every generation tries to improve over the previous. Where do you draw the line in retro-kit and ancient one-upmanship? The cold, hard, truth is that the previous generation didn't always know best.

That said, this kind of set up does have that fun spirit of playing dress-up and re-enactor about it (which, as we all jolly well know, is part and parcel of playing bushcraft), and it does have that romantic spirit. Which is all entirely valid, and perfectly understandable. But I'm sure that after a while you'll get fed up with it all clanking about, rolling around, getting tied up. Just like our forebears did, and it's why they (we) came up with better solutions for carrying equipment. But enjoy it whilst the novelty lasts!

Oh yeah, whilst I get distracted by my curmudgeonly-ness, I forgot to say - well done you for making some great kit! I Like the haversack especially. The canteen holder looks like what it is - a cut up bit of upholstery leather. I'm sure it works well, but I'd be looking at that as 'mark 1' and using it as a template for when I get my hands on some decent leather - chromium tanned leather just doesn't look right for making retro kit. Good design and well made though.

We'll said, I must agree that this set up probably weighs more than something like a modern Camelbak or similar, but it has some advantages in regards to being able to boil water and such.
It also is enjoyable to use as you said.

Thanks for the comments regarding my leatherwork, the haversack is more of my favorite as well.
The canteen carrier is made from chrome tan because I wanted it to be more water resistant, although it doesn't look as nice as hand stained veg tan or oiled latigo.
If I can manage to wear this one out I will likely make the next one out of latigo.

In regards to traditional vs modern kit, I can certainly can appreciate the modern advances in gear and might even prefer it for longer term use or over distance.
I reserve my old fashioned kit for dayhikes or simple woods wandering, the durability and simplicity are nice in this role, and any weight or lack of suspension is a non-issue due to the light loads.

[OakAshandThorn]

I've tried a similar approach with my brother's godfather's old 2 quart canteen and a canvas satchel. Maybe I had too much weight, but it quickly became uncomfortable for my shoulders and I developed some severe tender spots and redness on both shoulders. I suppose if the satchel straps were padded (they were wide enough), it may not have been so bad, but then lugging two full quarts of water on the other shoulder isn't the best thing either, especially when its strap is maybe half an inch wide.

I don't use this method anymore, and I don't often carry that satchel. I prefer the humble day pack - the weight is distributed evenly on my shoulders, and the straps are wide and padded thick. Plus, mine has a sternum strap and a padded waist strap for heavy loads or long treks. I'll take that comfort over "sucking it up" and ending up with sore muscles. I think our forefathers who used the canteen-haversack system, especially in the military during the Seven Years War, Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, right up until WW I, had to "suck it up" and put up with the discomfort, else there was no way to carry their loads (except by horse when moving camps). This, combined with other miseries, would have made them tough people, though doubtless some became suffering wretches.

Through my own experimentation with "traditional"/historic kit, I have come to the conclusion that it is certainly not for me...I will take modern ingenuity any day. I think Humakt put is best:

Although bushcrafters like to convince themselves that our forebears knew best, the truth is that every generation tries to improve over the previous. Where do you draw the line in retro-kit and ancient one-upmanship? The cold, hard, truth is that the previous generation didn't always know best.

And to add, the previous generations didn't have the wonderful materials that we do today, and they had to make do with what the limited materials that were available. Now this doesn't at all mean that historic kit doesn't have a place today. It does - with historic reenactors, and I have great respect for them. I just cannot see the reason why Bushcraft has to be clouded with the bygone days of early colonial America, neglecting how far we've come and how much our knowledge and materials have evolved. But that's just me, I don't see anything wrong per-se with folks trying out historic kit, but it does bother me that there still remains an argument that "the old ways were better", and those promoting this defunct ideology discourage modern developments, convincing a majority of newcomers to the outdoors that they need that boy's axe in their kit, a queen sized wool blanket, and so forth. And before you know it, they've invested hundreds if not thousands of dollars in something because they are told it looks cool, and that "proper woodsmen" need to be equipped only with "proper" kit.

All that aside, I really like quality leatherwork...your efforts look outstanding .

[Silkhi]

Modern isn't automatically better though. Surely older designs were tried and tested way more than a lot of modern gear almost by default? New isn't automatically better there's a lot of fads and silly ideas to sift through. I have bought a few of them! Old = heavy sometimes uncomfortable but generally durable. Modern = light comfy but generally flimsy. That generally sums it up for me.

Can't deny the importance of the style factor for me either! I really don't want to walk round in gay-glo gear without soul...unless I feel lazy...or have to walk an awful long way...

Everything has a place I guess

[Humakt]

Modern isn't automatically better though. Surely older designs were tried and tested way more than a lot of modern gear almost by default? New isn't automatically better there's a lot of fads and silly ideas to sift through. I have bought a few of them! Old = heavy sometimes uncomfortable but generally durable. Modern = light comfy but generally flimsy. That generally sums it up for me.

Yes, but essentially, no.

The thing is, despite advertisers and marketeers using phrases as 'a revolution in design' etc, just about all human endeavours are actually evolutions of something that has come first (whilst acknowledging there certainly are truly revolutionary concepts - micro chip, for example). As you highlight, some faddy and gadgety kit are purely gimmicks. But they nearly always fall by the wayside.

But most of the things we use have evolved from previous designs. New materials, new concepts have improved them. Ancient man went around on horse or cart not because they preferred them but because they didn't have the technological base or concept to build the internal combustion engine (and let's not get dewy-eyed about some societies eschewing such technology since they are more 'in touch' with the earth - those peace-loving native Americans were quite happy to use European firearms when given them to go and kill the neighbouring tribe!). Scott of the Antarctic didn't use animal skins and natural fabrics because they had been used for centuries by the inuits, he used them because they didn't have any better fabrics at the time. And that's the whole point of how designs evolve - when those man-made fabrics were designed they looked at how natural textiles worked and tried to echo that but also improve (i.e. weight).

This also comes back to my point about where do you draw the line in claiming that old technology is the best? Nineteenth century explorers used tech and equipment that wasn't available to the Vikings. So whose equipment is best? You see that bit of authentic 18th century voyageur equipment you're using, well I say it's a bit of new-fangled nonsense, since the bronze-age people of the Iberian peninsula never had that and they managed successfully for centuries without it! Get's silly, doesn't it?
So, yes, gimmicks aside, new technology and equipment is generally better than old, not so much because it is new, or even because it moves away from the old, but because it is built upon and improved upon and embraces the ideas, of that old bit of kit.

You are seeing things in isolation when you should be seeing them as part of a continuing narrative.

There is nothing wrong with retro-kit (I have some myself) but don't kid yourself it's better because it's old ('it was good enough for centuries so it must still be good!' Yeah, right - if it was that bloody good then why did they replace it when new technology meant they could come up with something else?). There is a time and a place for retro-kit and it has a value of it's own, but it's most when playing make-believe and you want to indulge in a bit of escapism (and nothing wring with that - I like to do that as well).

One last thing - it is probably going to come as a shock to you, but not all new kit is only available in day-glo colours - you can buy it in earth tones as well (just look at my avatar picture). You must be kicking yourself now.

[FishyFolk]

Does anybody here use a cross slung haversack and canteen combo like you see in pictures of 19th century soldiers and explorers???

I have tried this out on a few walks, and it seems to work well, and it provides enough room for day hike needs, while not feeling like you are carrying a lot.
It could also be worn with a pack over the top of it for more capacity.

Here are pics of my haversack and canteen, I made both the haversack and the canteen carrier, the canteen itself came from canteenshop.com and features a stove and pot/cup that nest with it.

Yes I do. Just using a more modern molle bag and a molle pouch with a sling that holds a 32oz Nalgene bottle nested in a steel cup.
I find that combo quite comfy to use as I got everything I need for a few ours out in it. And it is always packed and ready to just grab and go.
And since it is quite light weight it is also comfy to use, and with my stuff in a bag, i do not have to take it off my shoulders just to grab something from the bag, or add something I find on my way to it. I much prefer it over a backpack system. However if I need to bring more gear, I just add a small daysack, and I can still carry the bag, and not have to worry about remmebering to pack any of its content. And if I use a larger Bergen, I just drop the whole thing inside it. That way I never forget to bring a brew kit, or my knife as thats where it lives if it's not oon my belt :-)

In other words, I find a bag...or haversack/ bottle and steel cup combo to be super practical for bushcrafters. Not necessarily i light weith option, but on it's own, you cant relly stuff that much into one that weight really becomes an issue. And should you need to save weight, carrying lots of other gear, just dump the contents you need into the larger pack....but it's always nice to have a smaller carry option for exploring out of a camp. So I always bring mine.

[FishyFolk]

I've tried a similar approach with my brother's godfather's old 2 quart canteen and a canvas satchel. Maybe I had too much weight, but it quickly became uncomfortable for my shoulders and I developed some severe tender spots and redness on both shoulders. I suppose if the satchel straps were padded (they were wide enough), it may not have been so bad, but then lugging two full quarts of water on the other shoulder isn't the best thing either, especially when its strap is maybe half an inch wide.

I don't use this method anymore, and I don't often carry that satchel. I prefer the humble day pack - the weight is distributed evenly on my shoulders, and the straps are wide and padded thick. Plus, mine has a sternum strap and a padded waist strap for heavy loads or long treks. I'll take that comfort over "sucking it up" and ending up with sore muscles. I think our forefathers who used the canteen-haversack system, especially in the military during the Seven Years War, Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, right up until WW I, had to "suck it up" and put up with the discomfort, else there was no way to carry their loads (except by horse when moving camps). This, combined with other miseries, would have made them tough people, though doubtless some became suffering wretches.

Through my own experimentation with "traditional"/historic kit, I have come to the conclusion that it is certainly not for me...I will take modern ingenuity any day. I think Humakt put is best:

And to add, the previous generations didn't have the wonderful materials that we do today, and they had to make do with what the limited materials that were available. Now this doesn't at all mean that historic kit doesn't have a place today. It does - with historic reenactors, and I have great respect for them. I just cannot see the reason why Bushcraft has to be clouded with the bygone days of early colonial America, neglecting how far we've come and how much our knowledge and materials have evolved. But that's just me, I don't see anything wrong per-se with folks trying out historic kit, but it does bother me that there still remains an argument that "the old ways were better", and those promoting this defunct ideology discourage modern developments, convincing a majority of newcomers to the outdoors that they need that boy's axe in their kit, a queen sized wool blanket, and so forth. And before you know it, they've invested hundreds if not thousands of dollars in something because they are told it looks cool, and that "proper woodsmen" need to be equipped only with "proper" kit.

All that aside, I really like quality leatherwork...your efforts look outstanding .

Hmmm....you could never make me choose a wool blanket over a modern sleeping bag to sleep in, so in that regard I agree with you. However, if doing so is what rocks your world, then I am all for it :-)

It all depends on where the inspiration for being out there comes from. If it comes from 17th century mountain men, by all means kit yourself out like one if that is what gets you out there.

If it takes a certain comfort level, poshcrafting to your hearts content. And if you get your kicks, or you simmply need to lighten the load to either be able to, or willing to get out there, go the UL route.

Or simply do what your friends do, and then find your own style.

Whatever you end up with....17th century mountain man or Ultra light mountain hiker, it's up to you. Let everyone hike their own hike, and don't worry so much about kit.
Me am am somewhat in the middle. I'm using whatever I have for the situation. It is by no means the most effective. But it works, and it gets me out there.
So when I do, I light my fire with flint and steel, If I use a stove I use one that was designed at least 40 years ago, and I sleep in a modern sleeping bag. I wear old fashioned wool as base and middle layer....and a modern gore tex jacket on top.

After all, it is knowing how to best use whatever you have kitted yourself out with, that is bushcraft :-)

[Silkhi]

I haven't said retro gear is better, it just captures the spirit of some fantasy idea of the outdoors a little better for me. I mix and match and work with what I am happiest with taking into account what I expect to encounter. I hate heavy loads and if I am honest my dream shelter would be something you keep in your pocket and press a button et voila! Instant self inflated shelter lovely and comfy and of course it deflates just as well. Mini bar would be good. Not seen many of those in the 19th century...

I still don't think technology gets better automatically though. Better for whom? Does it improve your life? Isn't most stuff designed with profit margins more than anything? There's a range of reasons why things develop as they do rather than the item itself getting better at what is does, or should do. I wouldn't want to live in the wilds (not that it's at all likely!) with something designed with planned obsolescence. Do we actually want some technology? Tablets and phones seem great (and they are) but then you looks at crowds of kids sat in silence tap tap tapping away having nearly everything they do being monitored and tracked then sold?

And yeah I know - every other age had it's problems, most likely equal or worse than those I refer to here.

Too serious for a Sunday morning anyway - I am off to try and get my other laptop working after installing Windows 10 on it. Big mistake. And then there's my NVidia Shield that I now can't use - I have to wait a month for a replacement. It's been recalled as it might set on fire.

Maybe those are the reasons why I am so anti modern technology this weekend