I have also had one semi-serious accident in the hills and I didn't even have a pack with me, as I recall. However, as regards this entire thread, the irony is that a hundred years ago, more or less, the only lightweight camping gear, at least that which was advertised as such, was English. So you're all correct in that weight has always been a consideration and it was recognized that every choice had both an advantage and a drawback. Probably most of, no matter what we had, would only carry a certain weight and nothing more and that certain weight might be called our "working maximum load." I say that without meaning to create any new technical language. Of course, it would be a maximum because chance are, you'll come home with less than you started, assuming you eat and drink like other people. And here's another point:
If you read the early outdoor writers, they seem to have never carried water, although Kephart does mention canteens (water bottles). But he never lists one among his gear lists and neither does Sears. But Colin Fletcher and he spoke at length about carrying water. But he also walked in dry places, too.
The early writers (and Colin Fletcher is approaching that point) had no "modern gear," although gas stoves have been around since before my father was born as have been rucksacks with frames and even waistbelts. But they didn't have stainless steel, titanium, plastic, nylon, parachute cord, fleece (except for real fleece) or rubber soles. Aluminum had arrived on the scene by around 1900 but tinned steel or iron, plain steel and enamel ware was still more common. On the other hand, they do not seem to have been much for long distance hiking either. Most of the emphasis was on camping. The first thru-hike of the Applachian Trail wasn't until after WWII but books were still being written about using animal transport for camping. Oddly enough, one book I have published I think by the Sierra Club is entitled, "Going light with pack and burro." There were lots of prospectors wandering around the Western desert (in the U.S., not Egypt) who might be described as long distance hikers but they weren't backpackers and that was still going on after WWII, too. We tend to forget animal packing these days.
There are, however, those who make a fetish over carrying very little, which is fine until they have to rely on other people to get them through difficulties. That's cheating.
If you read the early outdoor writers, they seem to have never carried water, although Kephart does mention canteens (water bottles). But he never lists one among his gear lists and neither does Sears. But Colin Fletcher and he spoke at length about carrying water. But he also walked in dry places, too.
The early writers (and Colin Fletcher is approaching that point) had no "modern gear," although gas stoves have been around since before my father was born as have been rucksacks with frames and even waistbelts. But they didn't have stainless steel, titanium, plastic, nylon, parachute cord, fleece (except for real fleece) or rubber soles. Aluminum had arrived on the scene by around 1900 but tinned steel or iron, plain steel and enamel ware was still more common. On the other hand, they do not seem to have been much for long distance hiking either. Most of the emphasis was on camping. The first thru-hike of the Applachian Trail wasn't until after WWII but books were still being written about using animal transport for camping. Oddly enough, one book I have published I think by the Sierra Club is entitled, "Going light with pack and burro." There were lots of prospectors wandering around the Western desert (in the U.S., not Egypt) who might be described as long distance hikers but they weren't backpackers and that was still going on after WWII, too. We tend to forget animal packing these days.
There are, however, those who make a fetish over carrying very little, which is fine until they have to rely on other people to get them through difficulties. That's cheating.
Last edited:
