Do reenactors have a responsibilty for historical accuracy and why?

Waterloo50

Major
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Location
England
(Ooops, I may well have posted this in the wrong thread, if anyone could shift it to the correct place I would appreciate it)

I have just finished listening to an interview/debate with authors Steven Saylor and Steven Pressfield, both of these men are accomplished historic fiction authors. The title of their debate was ' The art of writing historical fiction set in antiquity and the challenges of interpreting the classical past for modern audiences.' At the end of the debate the audience were able to ask questions and one of the questions asked was 'what responsibilities do authors have to the readers of their books in maintaining historical accuracy. The response from the authors was that it was important for a number of reasons, Steven Pressfield argued that there was a time (1950s and early 1960s) where movies like Ben Hur and Cleopatra were considered popular entertainment but he added that audiances are less likely to want to sit through a historic movie like the ones he had mentioned because the plots are packed with history and politics. He went on to argue that audiances just wouldn't sit through them today. Mr Pressfield also pointed out that HBOs 'Rome' was incredibly dumbed and as a result some very interesting Machiavellian plots were lost. It was also argued that movies like '300' are successful because audiences today want instant gratification, they want the plot to move quickly unlike those earlier 1950s movies. The point that Mr Pressfield was making was that historic fiction writers need to be accurate in their writing because for some readers it is the only time that they will be exposed to history and for obvious reasons it needs to be correct, occasionally fiction readers will feel inspired to research real history as a result of a good historic fictional work.

The interesting thing that I took away from listening to the debate was the general opinion from authors and the audience alike that history is not being taught as well as it used to be, It occurred to me that historians, historical fiction, historic movies and plays all have a place and a responsibility in educating people and in particular,the younger generation about history, each one of these methods of teaching are for the most part clearly defined, today, we know what to expect from each of these genres.

Here is my question(s), where does re-enacting fit into the scheme of things? When it comes to historic education, what niche does it fill and do those that re-enact feel that they are making a difference in bringing history into the lives of people especially those of school age. One further question if you don't mind, what does re-enacting teach, what do people take away from a re-enacting event?

before I sign off and bore you with anymore of my questions I would hasten to add that I think reenactors do a great job and I admire all of them.:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
The people I know who enjoyed Rome enjoyed it because of the Machiavellian plots which were left in. I don't know anyone who watched it for instant gratification. I must have sat through half a dozen dinner parties with people arguing about historical characters who were left out. It's weird to contrast it to Cleopatra, which audiences watched for Liz Taylor's eye makeup, and then claim Cleopatra was an example of something historically accurate that no one would watch today.

There's a difference in context and expectation between reenactors and writers. The only obligation a fiction writer has is to tell a good story. Hercules and Xena were not historically accurate and would not have been improved by accuracy.

Reenactors, on the other hand, by their name create the expectation that they are there to reenact actual history. If they go a step further and call themselves "living historians" they create the expectation that they can be held to the standard imposed on historians. This doesn't necessarily mean that they can't drink Coke, it just means that they need not to mislead spectators into thinking the people they portray drank Coke.
 
Reenacting, in itself, is not a "position of responsibility" to anything except the standards and rules of the organization, unit, or institution to which the individual may belong. Each reenactment unit is a club of dress-up role-players that can choose its own degree of authenticity. If those standards allow an impi of "Zulu Confederates," that's just fine. If those standards allow an impi of "Zulu Confederates," that's just fine. There is no mystical "responsibility to history" for accurate.
 
The people I know who enjoyed Rome enjoyed it because of the Machiavellian plots which were left in. I don't know anyone who watched it for instant gratification.

I watched the Rome series and I thought that it was excellent, I am of course aware that the goings on in the Senate could have been explored deeper, what we really got was an overview of some of the underhand political manoeuvres. The point that was made by Mr Pressfield was the very one that you have picked up on, namely 'enjoyed it because of the Machiavellian plots which were left in.' would they have taken more interest if these Machiavellian plots had been explored a little deeper, compared between the two I would have to go with 'I Claudius' as being nearer historical accuracy, I wonder how many people are aware that many of the characters in HBO's Rome didn't exists in reality. I completely get what you are saying about movies like Cleopatra but it is fair to say for the most part it was pretty accurate, admittedly, the movie used a few characters and portrayed them out of historical context, people like Cicero, he was not involved in Caesar's assassination attempt and never even visited the Senate during that time period but it made for a good story.

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with you that 'The only obligation a fiction writer has is to tell a good story', I think perhaps historical fiction writers have an obligation to get the history correct, a good historical fiction writer can almost convince the reader that what they are reading has 'happened', I've lost count of the times that I have seen quotes from 'The Killer Angels' being cited as fact. Perhaps its just the way I am but when I read historical fiction, I will instinctively know if the author has done his research, nothing detracts from a good story more than glaring inaccuracies.

As for those that re-enact, they all seem to take great pride in getting their clothing and equipment as accurate as possible, I have even discovered recently that most of them insist on a period diet, my point is that when we pick up a historical fiction book or we attend a re-enactment, we understand that what we are experiencing is fiction, yet most of us will insist that the reenactors get it right because beyond the entertainment value of such things we as spectators want to get as close as we can to the reality of that period, I would contend that reenactors do have a responsibility to accuracy.
 
When the tubby reenacter was on my side i rarely noticed him. what was before me was the enemy and his fat friend.
I dont know if this is any worse than a few dozen of us hard cores calling the reenactment the battle of something beyond an outpost.
 
(Ooops, I may well have posted this in the wrong thread, if anyone could shift it to the correct place I would appreciate it)

I have just finished listening to an interview/debate with authors Steven Saylor and Steven Pressfield, both of these men are accomplished historic fiction authors. The title of their debate was ' The art of writing historical fiction set in antiquity and the challenges of interpreting the classical past for modern audiences.' At the end of the debate the audience were able to ask questions and one of the questions asked was 'what responsibilities do authors have to the readers of their books in maintaining historical accuracy. The response from the authors was that it was important for a number of reasons, Steven Pressfield argued that there was a time (1950s and early 1960s) where movies like Ben Hur and Cleopatra were considered popular entertainment but he added that audiances are less likely to want to sit through a historic movie like the ones he had mentioned because the plots are packed with history and politics. He went on to argue that audiances just wouldn't sit through them today. Mr Pressfield also pointed out that HBOs 'Rome' was incredibly dumbed and as a result some very interesting Machiavellian plots were lost. It was also argued that movies like '300' are successful because audiences today want instant gratification, they want the plot to move quickly unlike those earlier 1950s movies. The point that Mr Pressfield was making was that historic fiction writers need to be accurate in their writing because for some readers it is the only time that they will be exposed to history and for obvious reasons it needs to be correct, occasionally fiction readers will feel inspired to research real history as a result of a good historic fictional work.

The interesting thing that I took away from listening to the debate was the general opinion from authors and the audience alike that history is not being taught as well as it used to be, It occurred to me that historians, historical fiction, historic movies and plays all have a place and a responsibility in educating people and in particular,the younger generation about history, each one of these methods of teaching are for the most part clearly defined, today, we know what to expect from each of these genres.

Here is my question(s), where does re-enacting fit into the scheme of things? When it comes to historic education, what niche does it fill and do those that re-enact feel that they are making a difference in bringing history into the lives of people especially those of school age. One further question if you don't mind, what does re-enacting teach, what do people take away from a re-enacting event?

before I sign off and bore you with anymore of my questions I would hasten to add that I think reenactors do a great job and I admire all of them.:thumbsup:

This part stood out to me: "the general opinion from authors and the audience alike that history is not being taught as well as it used to be."

What did they mean by that?

At what point in the past was history taught better than it is today?
 
There is a lot of detail also. things like a "house wife". a means to sew.
Pins needles etc.
donnad housewif.jpg
 
Reenacting, in itself, is not a "position of responsibility" to anything except the standards and rules of the organization, unit, or institution to which the individual may belong. Each reenactment unit is a club of dress-up role-players that can choose its own degree of authenticity. If those standards allow an impi of "Zulu Confederates," that's just fine. If those standards allow an impi of "Zulu Confederates," that's just fine. There is no mystical "responsibility to history" for accurate.

Fair comment and that is really why I was asking the question, it would be slightly obvious if an impi of Zulu Confederates started to charge across the battlefield and as much fun as that would be to watch, everyone would know not to take it seriously, but what about those events which claim to accurately portray history, surely they have some obligation to the public in getting it right. I occasionally dip in and out of the reenactors forum and from what I have read they all work hard to portray themselves as accurately as possible.
 
This part stood out to me: "the general opinion from authors and the audience alike that history is not being taught as well as it used to be."

What did they mean by that?

At what point in the past was history taught better than it is today?

That's my grammar I'm afraid, but I suspect that you understand what I meant but just in case you need clarification, history isn't as high on the education agenda today as it was twenty years ago. My history teacher for example was far better at informing me about the Battle of Hastings than many teachers would be capable of today.:wink:
 
I think that reenactors should maintain a degree of authenticity, they are representing a specific unit and a specific place in time.
While I realize that 100% accuracy isn't realistic in many cases for many reasons, quite honestly, I am entirely too well fed to portray a soldier from either side of the ACW. But if somebody of large build was reenacting, I wouldn't have a particular problem with it, so long as he had proper gear.
I wouldn't expect to see a reenactor using an IPhone or using equipment that it completely wrong for the period (for example if a unit had Springfields, and a few guys had Enfields, no biggie...but if somebody carried a Garand because he had one...that's a problem).
That's my two cents for what it's worth.
I don't reenact (too much work, I joined the Navy because I liked sleeping inside), if it matters.
 
I have nothing but respect for the reenactors they give up their weekends and spent time to keep history alive and for that I thank everyone of them. They may not always get it right but they try their best and that's all that counts.
 
At most reenactments the participants are a few decades to old and 20% to 50% overweight, yet if they get the audience interested then they have preformed a great service. On this forum a lot of people like to ***** about the movie "The Patriot". I saw it, thought it was great and studied about the revolution in South Carolina for several months. I don't really care that in the movie Tarlton died and in reality he went home to a hero's welcome. I was happy to be entertained by the movie and have my interest excited about a period of history I really knew nothing about. When it is a good movie I can overlook that the reenactors are too old (so am I) but I do get annoyed if they are carrying leaver action Winchesters and 73 Colt's.
 
I see this whole question as part of historiography, even though it's not about written history ("graphy"). It's certainly about how history is presented to the public and why, what's considered acceptable in a certain modern era, and so forth.

Small hometown museums are often a parallel to reenacting. How accurate should a hometown museum be? Does it matter? if old Mrs. So-and-so donated that widget with the caveat that it would be displayed with the story of her great great grandfather leading the charge even though he didn't, and her donations are vital to the museum, what then?

Similarly, if old Colonel So-and-so, who is the founding force and ongoing power behind a reenacting unit, declares all men must have handsewn buttonholes but must join the dinner the women serve after the battle and no one may eat accurate food out of their haversack (nor may any women attempt a more accurate portrayal), because that's how we do it in the 99th Pennsyltucky Rifles modern unit, what then?

Of course volunteers/reenactors may leave and put their time and money elsewhere, but the original museum/unit can't be stopped, at least not easily. Each venue will be presenting history with an accuracy level that they want, and that fits the historiography of their era until they're so shunned that they change.
 
Accuracy? Here is a period photo of an actual single cannon battery. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of horses and equipment that one would have to field to accurately reenact a major battle. ..... My personal opinion, is that the importance is for the reenactors, their families, and the public enjoy themselves, and that the reenactors simply do the best that they can. Hopefully everyone has a good time, and maybe even learn something about history.

Photo of Civil War mounted battery.jpg
 
That's my grammar I'm afraid, but I suspect that you understand what I meant but just in case you need clarification, history isn't as high on the education agenda today as it was twenty years ago. My history teacher for example was far better at informing me about the Battle of Hastings than many teachers would be capable of today.:wink:

I think it is hard to make such a sweeping statement about teaching. Quality of teaching often depends upon the individual strengths and personalities of the teachers. At my high school twenty years ago, the history/social studies teachers were primarily interested in coaching. They weren't terrible teachers, but I don't believe that today's history teachers are, on average, any worse. Nor were my teachers particularly bad compared to the history teachers before them.

I wonder if some of what you saw in the discussion by the authors and audience was a matter of nostalgia. History enthusiasts tend to be rather cynical of the public's knowledge of history. While it is true that most people are woefully ignorant of the past, history enthusiasts--by their own nature--pay more attention to the topic and thus wish to educate others. Similarly, mathematicians lament the public's ignorance in that subject.

History teachers have more information, and in more formats, than ever before. The breadth of historical material today dwarfs what was available 25, 50, or 100 years ago. I have no doubt that your teacher years ago was better at informing you about the Battle of Hastings than most teachers today. But does that mean that every teacher 25 years ago was better at every historical subject than today's teachers?

Let us not forget that teachers cannot cover everything; they just choose which topics to cover. A teacher who may be particularly ignorant of the Battle of Hastings may be an expert in the Battle of the Bulge.
 
As reenactor, I strive to be as authentic as possible (my age and weight being the exception).
When talking with the "Public", I assume a "First Person" role. My gear, clothing and bedding are period-correct. I know about my gear, weapons, history, food, etc.

When I am at an event, I am a teacher for the Public and a Student for myself......I am constantly learning
So, YES, for me as a reenactor, I have a responsibility to authenticity.

To include "real bullets and amputation" is an absurd twist that some place on the definition of "authentic".
 
Reenacting, in itself, is not a "position of responsibility" to anything except the standards and rules of the organization, unit, or institution to which the individual may belong. Each reenactment unit is a club of dress-up role-players that can choose its own degree of authenticity. If those standards allow an impi of "Zulu Confederates," that's just fine. If those standards allow an impi of "Zulu Confederates," that's just fine. There is no mystical "responsibility to history" for accurate.
Unless, of course, they claim to be living historians or interpreters of history.
 
Unless, of course, they claim to be living historians or interpreters of history.
Very true. I was deeply involved in Living History (non-ACW) for some years, always focusing on bringing an accurate, meaningful interpretation to the public. But I stopped going to reenactments, especially "battles," in the early '90s, because so few were making a serious attempt at education. Most seemed to be in it just for 'fun' and tended to look on spectators as an annoyance. There are, of course, many exceptions.
 
Back
Top