F-a-r-b-y I don't think so :)

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
Hi list,
I thought a fun thread would be to examine evidence on whether some things we do as reenactors are inaccurae or f-ar-b-y.. I just need some ideas of what we could search for to show that some of these things were actually done or used...One that jumps into my mind are the canvas chairs that people say are wrong for the period.. We have run across several pictures of that very item. That way when your NCO of CO calls you out on an item you can whip out your laptop and show them this thread... Ummmmm wait dont do that :smile:
 
Well then I can wear these chaps cause I found a pic of it....................

capt_samuel_j_richardson_csa_via_mc.jpg
 
There are re-enactorisms; one example is the top button only on a Sack Coat for fatigue duty. While period it wasn't the only way.

Brass... & excessive brass again site & unit specific. Some units wore every bit of brass they could. Whereas others took it as a bit o pride that there was no brass or frills of any kind.

Every man w/ a cravat in civilian clothes... another re-enactorism but fine for city folk & the upper class.

Rusty ill kempt weapons F A R B to the sxtreme and a horrific re-enactorism. The soldier depended upon his weapon for his life. Only the most undisciplined incompetent soldier would fail to care for his weapon.

The ragged rebel... extremely site/campaign specific and rather rare in reality.

WAY too much canvas at most events... unless it's a winter or garrison camp.

Too little activity in the average camp; you can only lay about so long before getting bored. Men whittled, wrote, read, played games, sang songs etc.

Not enough religion in camp; ESPECIALLY in CS camps. The largest revival in US history was in the winter of 63/64, moreso on the CS side of the line but both sides had a chaplain in every regiment for a reason.

Dead Animal Parts... The Bucktails and FEW other units other than those site & unit specific it's seriously F A R B.

There are many others, some more extreme than others.

Not quite F A R B I don't think so but it does give an idea where some come from.
 
I wouldn't say one picture of anything was proof, but if you see some things that appear in many images then you at least you have some support of its authenticity..


You are absolutely right. However many people will use one or 2 photos or drawings to justify anything that works for what they want without thinking about the context.
 
Too little activity in the average camp; you can only lay about so long before getting bored. Men whittled, wrote, read, played games, sang songs etc.

Not enough religion in camp; ESPECIALLY in CS camps. The largest revival in US history was in the winter of 63/64, moreso on the CS side of the line but both sides had a chaplain in every regiment for a reason.


These two elements, for sure. A lot of the military reenactors at events I've gone to are way too idle too often. When not drilling, they are mostly sitting around chewing the fat. In reality there were usually plenty of chores needing to be done to keep idle hands busy in between drills.

When there is idle time, I don't see hardly any recreation going on. Makes the camp seem sort of dead. That's the chief reason why I am learning to play the harmonica, penny whistle and fife. I figure if no one else will bring lively music into the camp, then it will be up to me. Better than staring at the ground and watching the grass grow.


Religion is pretty sparse at the events I've attended; except for Sunday services. Thankfully, I have the full support and enthusiasm of my brigade commander to carry out my regimental chaplain duties to their fullest. This includes brief impromptu prayers with the men prior to brigade meetings or engagements; short informal services with the unit; and inspiring and aiding the men on the battlefield. I'm fortunate to have the flexibility that I have from my brigade commander. God willing, I can help provide a more authentic spiritual atmosphere in camp...and perhaps make a real difference in someone's life along the way. :smile:
 
After reading on this forum for a while, I don't think I've ever been to a reenactment that wasn't *****. I quit going to them because they seemed lame. I like to close my eyes and listen to the cannon and rifles during the battle but watching is tough. I've been to small reenactments and large reenactments. I've participated in a few when I was younger and "farbier" and I've yet to see one that didn't have a lot of **** in it. Are there ones that are not? I agree with Johan about the "ragged rebel" impression. Why is it so hard to research, especially in this day and age, the regiment you are protraying and pattern yourself after that? I understand cost being a factor but is that an excuse? I have a friend about to get into reenacting and I am determined not to let him be *****, but he is already headed in that direction with a generic canteen and gray greatcoat.
 
I understand cost being a factor but is that an excuse?

I think to an extent it is a valid excuse. We are part of a very very expensive hobby.

Do I think everyone should do the best they can to adhere to PEC/NUG and avoid Fa-rbisms? Yes. Does it bother me when someone is Fa-rby? I think personally I give people the benefit of the doubt unless it's obvious the item in question cost them as much/more than a PEC/NUG item would have. Or they just don't care [tough to call with folks you don't know].

Wearing mid to late war gear to an early war event? Wrong uniform specifics [Jacket type, etc]? It doesn't bother me when others do this. I give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they are just falling in with that group for this one event. Maybe it's their first year and they are just able to scrape together enough money for a mid/late war PEC.

Kilt? Pipes? 'Ragged Reb'? Irish 'R Us? 4 revolvers sans horse and more yellow than big bird? Yes these bother me. I think at that point it's obvious you're more interested in portraying some random idea you have rather than history.

I suppose to sum up. I try to give as much benefit of the doubt as possible until it's obvious money isn't the reason for the fa-rb.

EDIT TO GET ON TOPIC: Wilber, have to say I like the idea. It just might be tough to get enough photographic evidence to move something from the Fa-rb pile to the PEC.
 
Every man w/ a cravat in civilian clothes... another re-enactorism but fine for city folk & the upper class.

How common were cravats? You see them in pictures of soldiers and in my research on the 58th I've come across a few requests for cravats from letters home, mainly from line officers though. Just curious.
 
Actually comp;ared to Golf, Bass Fishing etc Re-enacting isn't that expensive. A few years ago you could get started as an Infantryman for $1500 w/ decent gear. Now w/ the prices of long arms the price tag has gone up to closer to $2000 but even then if you're willing to go for the used gear the price can be kept down somewhat.

The things that drive me to distraction are bad/obvious galtroops, KMart hats, ball cap kepis, multiple pistols, kilts, Zouve or Hawken rifles.

There are re-enactorisms out there and some are annoying as all get out.
 
Most men wore them, helped make their outfits look a little better and they were an inexpensive fashion accesory. How common they were I think depended upon the social status of the person. A dirt poor farmer may not wear one while working but he almost certainly would w/ his Sunday go to meeting clothes. A factory worker or miner wasn't likely to wear one at work... but while courting or church...

They were readily available and a common item, but by no means a universal everyday item.
How common were cravats? You see them in pictures of soldiers and in my research on the 58th I've come across a few requests for cravats from letters home, mainly from line officers though. Just curious.
 
I think to an extent it is a valid excuse. We are part of a very very expensive hobby.

Do I think everyone should do the best they can to adhere to PEC/NUG and avoid Fa-rbisms? Yes. Does it bother me when someone is Fa-rby? I think personally I give people the benefit of the doubt unless it's obvious the item in question cost them as much/more than a PEC/NUG item would have. Or they just don't care [tough to call with folks you don't know].

Wearing mid to late war gear to an early war event? Wrong uniform specifics [Jacket type, etc]? It doesn't bother me when others do this. I give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they are just falling in with that group for this one event. Maybe it's their first year and they are just able to scrape together enough money for a mid/late war PEC.

Kilt? Pipes? 'Ragged Reb'? Irish 'R Us? 4 revolvers sans horse and more yellow than big bird? Yes these bother me. I think at that point it's obvious you're more interested in portraying some random idea you have rather than history.

I suppose to sum up. I try to give as much benefit of the doubt as possible until it's obvious money isn't the reason for the fa-rb.

EDIT TO GET ON TOPIC: Wilber, have to say I like the idea. It just might be tough to get enough photographic evidence to move something from the Fa-rb pile to the PEC.

Someone wearing a early war war uniform in a late war reenactment or vice versa, doesnt really bother me that much if the rest of your impression is well done..Most people dont have the money to buy a new style of uniform for each year of the war.. But, there are small things you can do that can make your impression better...The obvious things likes like dressing as Yosemity Sam or Daniel Boone are what most public people see as ***** and should be corrected and wouldnt be done if the reenactor cares even a little for his impression...
 
What's a ball cap Kepi? One thing for sure I'll be on the band wagon about camp chairs, I have 3 of what we used to call director chairs and I was told they are not correct but I have seen so many here, and I am armed and ready with photos not only from here but I found some on my own. One more thing I learned here about the 1920 or 30's boy scout chairs haw we'll see who knows.
 
Actually comp;ared to Golf, Bass Fishing etc Re-enacting isn't that expensive.

I would agree with this. A decent set of golf clubs, shoes, the appropriate attire, and memberships and/or green fees will run costs into the thousands of dollars. Fishing, too, in many cases: rod, reel, tackle, boat, waders, floaters, pontoons, digital fish finders, bait and fishing licenses. At the very least, the costs are comparable.

Even a hobby as simple as motorcycle riding is expensive: The cost of the bike, the leathers, helmet, gasoline and vehicle maintenance.

Heck, even many collections can get pretty expensive.

If you want a cheap hobby, then try meditation...or maybe skipping stones. :wink:
 
Many of the posts to this thread illustrate precisely why I DO NOT PARTICIPATE in re enacting. It would be no fun for me to have some knucklehead pointing out that my buttons are not correct or that my chair did not belong. Granted, I believe things should be portrayed as closely as possible to authentic but to stress about it is silly. The general public that observes the encampment/ battle are less interested in your buttons than they are about answers to their questions. Some would feel less intimidated if they wanted to join if they did not have to worry about the authenticity thing. And after the battle is joined they care even less about buttons; the rattle of musketry and beller of cannon is what they came for and who is gonna notice anything else?! I do want to add that re enacting is a valuable asset to the study of the Late Unpleasentness, and I appreciate the efforts y'all put out, but lighten up on youselves!
 
For me I don't play war anymore on the re-enactment field exactly because of all the "cowboyism" that seems more prevelant than when I started. I'm too aware of the reality of the fighting and I really have come to believe that most don't do any justice or honor to the men doing the fighting and dieing. Volleys at 50 yards or less and no hits, no casualties or poorly portrayed casualties... the horror & absolute terror of combat is NOT portrayed. I've watched too many youtube videos of idiots hooping and hollering it up, grown men playing cowbays & Indians is all it is.

I do living history, I don't play war. I do get aggravated by F A R B behavior, but I've never kicked anyone off the field or sat their and called them ***** from an armchair on the field. I have been involved in making certain weapons were properly cleaned PRIOR to a powder burner for safety reasons and I have had input on a whether or not to allow a unit on the field after they refused a safety inspection because the bastards were too hung over to drag their ***** out of bed by 0900.

IMO there are a variety of levels of authenticity; I've held to the range to touch rule. I try to abide by the touch rule because I want to better understand the men of the period. I have no truck w/ those who adhere to the 15 yard rule; those who look the part but upon closer inspection may not pass the touch rule. I have problems w/ those who wouldn't pass the 100 yard test, people who don't look like soldiers even at 100 yards. I have a real issue w/ those who don't even try. Over the years I've put several thousand dollars into trying to get my impression right and I get irritated at those who don't even try to get things right... or even close to right. I understand the limitations of a budget, I will not likely ever turn a 16/17 year old away because he's wearing thinly disguised work boots or salvation army dress shoes instead of $100 brogans. I will however get growly about cowboy boots, blue jeans, sneakers, a half dozen revolvers and Hawken plains rifles... those are usually the people that couldn't tell the Iron Brigade from the 4th Alabama.

All that said my own visable impression is superb BUT when it comes to drill, I physically cannot do it anymore and don't try to. I've been able to make my own niche in a Regt Staff style position where I don't have to take the field.

I'm also well aware of some "re-enactorisms." But if you're going to participate or do any hobby try and do the best you can. I suppose it's like an amatuer golfer playing 9 holes w/ just a putter. There are those who take it seriously and there are those who just want to play. The more authentic try and take it to the professional level while others are the Collegiate level, high school and finally the park amatuers who talk a big game...
 
Many of the posts to this thread illustrate precisely why I DO NOT PARTICIPATE in re enacting. It would be no fun for me to have some knucklehead pointing out that my buttons are not correct or that my chair did not belong. Granted, I believe things should be portrayed as closely as possible to authentic but to stress about it is silly. The general public that observes the encampment/ battle are less interested in your buttons than they are about answers to their questions. Some would feel less intimidated if they wanted to join if they did not have to worry about the authenticity thing. And after the battle is joined they care even less about buttons; the rattle of musketry and beller of cannon is what they came for and who is gonna notice anything else?! I do want to add that re enacting is a valuable asset to the study of the Late Unpleasentness, and I appreciate the efforts y'all put out, but lighten up on youselves!

Unless its a HIstory heavy event on the C/P/H side of the hobby, I dont think anyone has ever been berated and turned away for the wrong buttons. Shoot, I dont think thats ever happened on the C/P/H side. I for one have never berated anyone for thier impression. Common courtesy would keep me from browbeating somone in public, whom I don't know, as this can often lead to a punch in the snot locker. This doesnt stop me from shaking my head at some of the things I have seen, or from laughing with my pards, at events or online, at some of the more outlandish **** out there... for example, in one of my pards FB photo albums are Confederates armed with Henry rifles and a Gatling gun. Is this correct NO WAY. Shoot, it wouldnt even be tolerated at some of the MS events I go to. (note I said some).

But, in the name of historical accuracy, where do we draw the line? can we just holler out hey, we's having a cibil Wah reenactorment, Ya'll come. or do we man up and do what we say we are doing, bringing the history alive for folks, and honoring our ancestors? What kind of education are you providing when you have weapons the Confederates on average did not have (Henry's) or weapons there was NO way on this earth or in heaven they could have had (Gatling guns). I can probably speak for a few here who would say I have no problem, with a fresh fish at the local Ham n' Yam Festival who has never done an event before, and is supplied with loaner kit, or has gone out and bought his kit so he can "fit in" being *****, shoot, its expected in a way. But there needs to be progression. IF you (a generic you) spout off about honoring our ancestors, and bringing history to life, or educating the taters about soldier life in the Civil War, then you need to step up and get it right. Some of the get ups I have seen would leave our honored ancestors scratching thier heads as to what in the name of heaven are these people wearing.

I have for you one example. This past weekend at the battle of Resaca, I was left speechless and shaking my head at the Rebel cavalryman with two Japanese Arisaka ammo pouches slung across his chest, in which he carried extra Remington cylinders. REALLY? Let's see, Cavalrymen were not issued extra cylinders, and in the Confederate Cavalry, especially those in the West, revolvers where catch as catch can, and most of them were colts or colt clones, or imported revolvers. VERY few Remingtons.

IF an event or a unit has published standards, these standards need to met. THe events standards are often published on event websites. and should be read by prospective attendees. History Heavy events will often dictate specific standards for the units being portrayed, and these standards are based on historical research into the unit. Attendees will meet the standards.

Another example I will give you is my own unit. We have guidelines that we want met, and will urge recruits toward the clothing, gear, and weapons that best emulate the units we have chosen to portray. We urge three band muskets, but also encourage two band enfields for Confederate use, since that is what the original unit carried. We encourage 1841 Rifles for early war as this is what our Federal impression carry. We encourage (but not insist on due to cost) Henry rifles for the Atlanta Campaign to the end of the war because that is what the troops of the original unit either private purchased or had supplied by Gov. RIchard Yates. We encourage guys to talk with members of the unit with lots of experience before they purchase anything. BUt we wont tell em they cant play if they get the wrong stuff, we just let em learn from thier mistakes. No one has EVER been turned away because of substandard gear. Arms are another matter. We wont allow Hawkens, Zouaves, or Whitworths. None of these saw service with the units we portray and so are not allowed.

OK, so joe the specatator dont know the difference? you would be surprised. While there are the ones that ask the stupid questions that drive us all nuts ( is that a real fire, are you hot in that uniform, why did they fight the battle in a national park yada yada yada ad naseum) there are some who are very knowledgeable, and can catch ya flat footed and are quick to point out inaccuracies. What honor do we do the originals if we dont strive to look as close as possible?
 
Back
Top