Rabid Cougar said:
AEK said:
Rabid Cougar said:
Everyone does know that the in the Decaprio movie "The Revenant" that Glass sought revenge because John Fitzgerald and Jim Bridger killed his kid.
In real life he sought revenge because stole took his rifle.
And because they left him for dead as I recall. Wasn't the bear attack actually factual in nature?
Nope, Because they took his rifle. He tracked both of them down. He caught Bridger first but let him live because he was young. He then tracked down Fitzgerald who had subsequently joined the Army. He would have killed him but Fitzgerald's officer told Glass that he would kill him if he killed Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald gave him back his Hawkin rifle and paid him $300. . Glass told him he better not ever quit the Army.....
Bear attack was real. As mentioned above, just his surviving his trek back to the Fort is worthy of a movie unto itself.
The bear attack was real. But almost nothing is known about it. Man in the Wilderness has Ashely telling the 2 volunteers, if he isn't dead by morning, "Kill him." Really? Yet at the beginning of the movie, it says, This is a true story.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/19/opinion/la-oe-coleman-frontier-myths-hugh-glass-20120819In the summer of 1823, according to newspaper accounts, a female grizzly bear sprang from the bushes along a tributary of the Yellowstone River and tore into a trapper and fur trader named Hugh Glass. She slashed his face, munched his scalp and removed a fist-sized hunk from his posterior. Members of Glass' expedition ran to his aid and killed the animal, but his prognosis looked grim. Two men were posted to stay behind and bury him when he succumbed to the inevitable. T he duo abandoned him, still comatose and gurgling. They took his gun, knife and ammunition.
But Glass didn't die. When he came to his senses and realized he was alone, he began to crawl and then limp the 150 miles to the nearest trading post to get his revenge on the men who left him.
That, in essence, was the story printed first in a Philadelphia journal in 1825 and then picked up by newspapers across the country. In the century and a half since he was first written about, Glass has appeared in memoirs, poems, novels and even in a 1975 major motion picture, "Man in the Wilderness."
But the story, like Glass, is full of holes. I have now read every scrap of evidence surrounding Hugh Glass and his ordeal and have come to the conclusion that he existed mostly as a figment of American imaginations. There is almost no historical record of his Lazarus-like reappearance after a grizzly attack. Only one of his letters has survived, and it makes no mention of the story. None who witnessed his mauling wrote about the incident.
Instead, the tale that persisted through generations was drawn entirely from second-, third- and fourth-hand reports. Compared to the leading figures of the Western fur trade mountain men like Jedediah Smith and Jim Bridger Glass barely registered. He left so little evidence that separating fact and fiction is virtually impossible.