A Rant...

[James B White]

By Family Oriented I mean that there are tents, women and children in camp, especially women in camp who are not camp followers (specifically cooks, washerwoman and General Hookers ladies), iron cooking tripods, iron tent stakes, iron cooking grills, iron flag holders and other ironware that did not exist in the 19th century, non-period furniture, none of the officers especially generals and general staff on horseback, blacksmiths with 20th century technology blower/rivet forges, cannons without limbers or horses/outriders, cannons without caissons (again, without horses and outriders), horseless or events with only a handful of horses, participants that can't make or repair *any* of their own equipment, participants who have little if any clue about period technology, battles that mainly involve two groups standing across a field and simply shooting at each other, cannons moved on and off the field using modern vehicles, etc.

Do all of these fall into your description of "fairly low standards" or are some of these acceptable to you?

That's a very good summary of what I'd call "fairly low standards."

The only thing I'd quibble over is "iron cooking tripods," which I'd consider just fine in appropriate context, such as winter quarters held literally in winter, not in a summer field:

Expired Image Removed

I think those are iron sibley tripods in the picture, and if so, they do make irresistable tripods for army mess kettles, when you can get them. I've only used one once for cooking, and it was just as dandy a set-up as the photo shows. (Edited to add: of course that's a period photo from the Library of Congress, not a reenactor)

 

[unicornforge]

That's a very good summary of what I'd call "fairly low standards." .....

All the events that you go to have the officers on horseback and all the cannons have limbers, horses and outriders?

 

[James B White]

All the events that you go to have the officers on horseback and all the cannons have limbers, horses and outriders?

Honestly, I'm trying to remember the last time I went to an event with a cannon or an officer above a captain. It's been a while, so nothing comes to mind at the moment. Edited to add: just realized I didn't answer the question, duh! No, none of the officers ranked captain or below were on horseback, that I recall, except of course the cavalry ones.

 

[unicornforge]

Honestly, I'm trying to remember the last time I went to an event with a cannon or an officer above a captain. It's been a while, so nothing comes to mind at the moment. Edited to add: just realized I didn't answer the question, duh! No, none of the officers ranked captain or below were on horseback, that I recall, except of course the cavalry ones.

So if I understand correctly, no officers above Captain, and none "of the officers ranked captain or below were on horseback" seems to equate to none of the officers ever on horseback. Hmmm, then when you add your statement that such a situation would be of "low standards". Plus you are attending an event without cannons. Hmmm.

 

[James B White]

So if I understand correctly, no officers above Captain, and none "of the officers ranked captain or below were on horseback" seems to equate to none of the officers ever on horseback. Hmmm, then when you add your statement that such a situation would be of "low standards". Plus you are attending an event without cannons. Hmmm.

This may turn out like the fable of the elephant being described by the blind men, who each were familiar with one part but had trouble comprehending the whole. I've been to events such as you described, and quit going because they didn't meet my needs, but they're obviously perfect for others, and what I like wouldn't meet their needs. But if one has only felt the trunk of the elephant, one may not understand how really different the legs are, and vice versa.

As noted, at various events, I've definitely run across cavalry officers on horseback, plus scouts, passing riders, wagons and buggies, but as a civilian, I don't pay them much attention unless I'm hired to work for them or they cause me trouble.

My main historical interest is civilian life, economics, black-white relations, labor, and to some extent politics and law, especially as they affected the common person. One can see that reflected in both the topics I post about here and also in the living history/reenacting experiences I look for, as noted in this thread: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/favorite-places-to-relive-the-1860s.71502/#post-440812

A mounted officer or horse-drawn cannon inserted out of context in the slice of life being portrayed wouldn't have added anything to those experiences, so I don't think of them as a litmus test for accuracy. There were many improvements that could have been made to increase the accuracy, but cannons certainly weren't it.

What I do look for are events where everyone is expected to cooperate in real time, with no breaks or gaps from start to finish, rather than having separate groups doing their own thing or taking breaks from history and coming together only for certain activities like a scheduled battle. A reasonable degree of accuracy in material culture and functionality naturally follows, since if one can't do a period job minimally well or converse on period topics without too many faux pas, one won't find work or make friends, and reenactors with those interests naturally gravitate toward wanting more accurate clothes and equipment too.

But that kind of experience isn't what everyone wants, and I see no reason to try to discourage others from doing what they enjoy with like-minded people, any more than I'd want them to try to discourage me.

 

[James B White]

Is reenacting perfect,far from it, but for the most part it is at least passable. If you do some of them festivals, craft demonstrations, ect, in period attire I am sure you will get much more attention than the rest and I would suspect others would notice and try to improve.

That's probably true. I've done it occasionally and still do, but the problem is that life is short, and it's hard to sacrifice too many weekends being the person who's not like the rest, with all the good and bad that entails, rather than going where one can already find fairly like-minded people and do pretty much what one enjoys most.

That would be my advice to jpflynn. Sometimes life is too short to go where you don't fit in, and a lot of problems melt away when you find a better fit.

 

[unicornforge]

The only thing I'd quibble over is "iron cooking tripods," which I'd consider just fine in appropriate context, such as winter quarters held literally in winter, not in a summer field:

I didn't know anyone was reenacting winter quarters.

This may turn out like the fable of the elephant being described by the blind men…….."

That's a very good summary of what I'd call "fairly low standards."

Either you include each point as "low standard" or you don't.

As noted, at various events, I've definitely run across cavalry officers on horseback, plus scouts, passing riders, wagons and buggies, but as a civilian, I don't pay them much attention unless I'm hired to work for them or they cause me trouble. ."

Sorry but, I was referring to generals, general staff, and infantry officers, not cavalry.

My main historical interest is civilian life, economics, black-white relations, labor, and to some extent politics and law, especially as they affected the common person. One can see that reflected in both the topics I post about here and also in the living history/reenacting experiences I look for, as noted in this thread: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/favorite-places-to-relive-the-1860s.71502/#post-440812

So if I understand correctly, your total investment of funds is in the clothing you wear, and your investment in time is reading a wee bit about each of the characters you portray.

A mounted officer or horse-drawn cannon inserted out of context in the slice of life being portrayed wouldn't have added anything to those experiences, so I don't think of them as a litmus test for accuracy. There were many improvements that could have been made to increase the accuracy, but cannons certainly weren't it. ."

I am sorry to hear that you feel that way; horses were a common part of life in the mid-1800s and a big part of the life and visual reality of infantry life. Cannons were also a common element of the infantry experience and battles of that time. It is like saying that a reenactment of a common day in the 1990s of a New York City street scene without any cars, with the presence or absence of cars not being a "litmus test for accuracy".

Tolerance is a good thing, as none of us are perfect.

 

[Bonny Blue Flag]

Take a snapshot of one unit in one event. Newbies and experienced reenactors participating. You will see a mix of authentic/partial/make-do/farb in regards to uniforms, accoutrement, etc.

6 months to 1 yr later, take another snapshot of said unit at one event. More than likely, the newbies will have added to their uniforms, acoutrements, etc. They will certainly look much better with their characterization and portrayal than they did a year before.

You cannot judge a unit by the participants at a single event.

Give them time to grow in knowledge of the craft and improve themselves under the guidance of good leadership.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
You were new to the craft at one time.

You didnt start out with every single item needed, never purchasing anything else during your reenacting career.

Some folks out there gave you a break and a chance to get the stuff you needed as you could get it.

Some folks out there jeered and laughed at you because you were new and your characterization was incomplete.
```````````````````````````````
Which attitude will prevail in you?

The one you nurture.
`````````````````````````

--BBF

 

[Bonny Blue Flag]

Finding a good reenatment group is like finding a good barber or a good mechanic.

Takes a while to weed out the riff-raff. But once you find a good one, you will truly enjoy yourself!

--BBF

 

[James B White]

I didn't know anyone was reenacting winter quarters.

That's what I mean by the blind men and the elephant. If you didn't know that, there's probably a lot more things that people reenact, which you're not aware of. If you're happy with the events you attend, it's not a big deal of course, unless you just happen to be looking for something different.

Did you click over to the other thread, where I mentioned other things?

Either you include each point as "low standard" or you don't.

Oh for heaven's sake. The things you mentioned, in general, characterize a particular type of event that's sometimes called "mainstream," "family friendly," etc., and I thought you were trying to get across the idea of those kinds of events as a broad, general type of experience.

But I'm not going to go through with a checklist at any event and worry if it violated one single item on the list--especially when the item isn't even relevant. It's the overall effect of all the things combined that make a difference. And honestly, if you think adding a general on horseback or a horsedrawn artillery piece would actually make a civilian courtroom or a boarding house more accurate, I don't really know what to say.

The way I see it, "low standards" aren't good or bad: it's neutral. The benefits are that the event is accessible to people who don't have a lot of money to spend or time to invest, or who enjoy the atmosphere there, or who want a blend of more modern conveniences and period items, or, if it's a well-publicized anniversary event and not a little hometown one, there will be a lot more total participants for those who like big gatherings. There are people who love those kinds of events and don't want them any other way, and I see no reason why they shouldn't enjoy themselves.

So if I understand correctly, your total investment of funds is in the clothing you wear, and your investment in time is reading a wee bit about each of the characters you portray.

I don't think you have a clue what I've invested, in either dollars or time. If you want to turn this into a measuring contest, you will lose. Personally, though, I don't see the point. It's supposed to be a fun hobby where like-minded people cooperate and help each other, not a challenge to see whose is bigger.

I am sorry to hear that you feel that way; horses were a common part of life in the mid-1800s and a big part of the life and visual reality of infantry life.

Exactly. People didn't stare at them and act as if they were a big deal, unless there was a reason to, just like people today don't get all excited about every car that drives down the road, unless it's a friend come to visit or whatever. I'm not sure what you're picturing. There are no cars, tractors, or other modern transportation on site at the kinds of events I'm talking about, so it's not like people are zipping around on golf carts or hauling things with trucks. Once the event begins, if something needs moved, it's done by people, horses, oxen or mules, or not done at all.

If a stranger rides up and hails me, I notice them. If it's just someone passing by on his way to somewhere else, I don't pay much attention. Why is that not accurate?

When I've portrayed someone who was "hired" in the 1860s to deal with animals--as a volunteer in real life of course--I do my job, and then of course I'm focussed on the animals. I've portrayed everything from a contract worker with an army wagon train, to a groom preparing expensive saddle horses for sale at auction.

Cannons were also a common element of the infantry experience and battles of that time. It is like saying that a reenactment of a common day in the 1990s of a New York City street scene without any cars, with the presence or absence of cars not being a "litmus test for accuracy".

I still don't think you're getting it. The 1860s were a big place, with a lot more going on than just infantry life, cannons and battles. Many of the events I'm talking about aren't even about military life. I'd rather see an event pick a slice and try to recreate it well, than go for a big smorgasbord while glossing over the details. Other people feel just the opposite. Neither is better or worse, but they're different, almost to the point of being mutually exclusive.

Tolerance is a good thing, as none of us are perfect.

Uh, yeah. Which is why I'm one of the people on this thread who has posted in favor of events with tennis shoes, semi-modern clothes, etc., if that's what most people at an event are happy with, and I don't try to put down people based on how much I think they've spent in time or money.

 

[1st OVHA]

I am sorry to hear that you feel that way; horses were a common part of life in the mid-1800s and a big part of the life and visual reality of infantry life.

What about dismounted cavalry, right or wrong? Well... it depends... I put on an event several years ago where the cavalry was just coming out of winter quarters and according to the ORs their horses were in pasture in a neighboring state. When they raided a nearby town they did so without horses, though historically some of them stole horses during the raid. We had horses running loose on the secured site that represented the local farmer's horses, and if the men could catch them, they could ride them.

Sure the Battle of Gettysburg without cannons would be just plain silly. Of course not all events need to be big battles either, some can be small foraging parties that run into each other, or small scouting parties, in the latter two cannon's would have made it less rather than more historically accurate. Of course there were many soldiers who never even saw combat. I have four gg grandfathers and only one saw any action (well, actually he got sick on the boat before arriving at Shiloh and sat out the battle in the church). My great grandfather's infantry regiment was changed into a heavy artillery unit and they never saw any major action either. Mostly guarded already won stuff, and went out in small scouting parties. Not all military events need to be grandiose to be accurate.