Reenactor Classifications: Then and Now

[Mississippian1861]

It's been interesting watching the hobby evolve (devolve?) of the past couple of decades. I recently refound this old article from the late Charles Heath dated 1998:

"Slotting reenactors into these classifications isn't that hard.

The Farbs purposefully do things wrong. They know better, but could care less. If it is wrong, they'll do it. They rationalize 20th century anachronisms by perpetuating farb myths and attacking authenticity.

Mainstreamers don't know better, and are satisfied with bad camping, bad uniforms, marginal drill, and haphazard safety. For the most part they represent the bulk of civil war reenacting.

In general, Authenticists' uniforms, drill, safety, and equipment are very good, but they still live in incorrect camps out of proportion to an army on campaign. Authenticists' can be classified as good kit/bad camping. In some ways, the Authenticists' and Campaigners are on opposite sides of the same fence.

Campaigners concentrate on the lifestyle of an army on campaign. Their clothing and equipment may or may not be top notch, but the attitude to do it right is in full bloom. Not surprisingly, this is the group with the highest growth rate in reenacting at present. Reenactors tend to re-evaluate many preconceived notions about the civil war soldier and how they lived, drilled, slept, ate, and fought at this level. Campaign reenacting can be broken down
into sleeping, shelter, and subsistence in its simplest form, ceteris parabis.

The Progressive level is where the Campaigners and Authentics intersect. Individuals and units seek to discover their impression weaknesses and improve in rapid fashion. Among other things, P.I.E. is spoken fluently here; knowledge, skills, and information is shared freely. Dual (multiple) impressions replace "galvanizing" and mono-impressionistic viewpoints. This is a growing segment of civil war reenacting only behind that of the Campaigners.

The Hardcores simply have arrived in terms of mastering the subject areas for civil war reenacting. There are very few hardcores in civil war reenacting, and even less who identify themselves as such due to the derision heaped on them by Farbs."




Looking back, it's interesting how times have changed. I'd say there are really only four of those six still in use. "Hardcore" isn't really used anymore because most authentic minded reenactors know how much more there is to learn. Also "Campigners" is less of a category since there is so much more quality gear available these days.

As for the others, well, Farbs will be Farbs, there will always be Farbs. "Mainstream" is really interesting, it seems to be the fastest declining part of the hobby, with many groups either evolving to the "Authenticists" section or devolving into the Farb category. There isn't much of a middle anymore.

 

[Conquerordie]

Being period correct takes work, and that's why it isn't a general practice. That goes for all time periods, not just ACW.

 

[MWood1841]

It's been interesting watching the hobby evolve (devolve?)

article and description of people showing interest in the ACW reads pretty typical for a time period when "internet" consisted of phone line dial-up connection making a strange annoying noise.

The article and applying this type of thought process of labeling definitely doesnt do anything to help grow interest in the hoppy of reenacting. I would argue it does the opposite, especially at a time when general interest in the ACW, battlefields and musuem visits, etc continues to be challenged by newer generations with shifting perspectives.

I participated in an ACW related memorial ceremony recently. Had some older gent's loan me some gear. Got schooled up on some basic drill and opportunity to fire a musket. First time ever doing anything like this. I was not 100% "authentic", but had one of the greatest and memorable times in my adult life. Does that make me a "farb" or a "mainstreamer"…….

I enjoyed spending time with and learning from some senior men and veterans who have spent a long time performing their impressions as authentic as possible. I don't think "stitch counting" or turning up one's nose is helpful at all with supporting and growing reenacting, or overall interest in the ACW. At a time when technology and other socialized settings are rapidly consuming personal time, space and individual interests, I don't think the hobby of reenacting can afford to be in a position of scrutinizing participants at any levels. Just my 2 cent.

Maybe see ya next year while wearing my greg starbuck kepi, my pedersoli and wearing my khaki columbia pants

 

[Conquerordie]

I don't think "stitch counting" or turning up one's nose is helpful at all with supporting and growing reenacting, or overall interest in the ACW. At a time when technology and other socialized settings are rapidly consuming personal time, space and individual interests, I don't think the hobby of reenacting can afford to be in a position of scrutinizing participants at any levels. Just my 2 cent

Here's how I looked at it. When you start reenacting, you will have some knowledge, more than likely get medium quality gear, and you'll give it a shot. That's a beginner, and I dont think anyone really has a problem with that. It's an expensive hobby. But, IMHO, if you really care for the history, want to accurately honor the participants, and educate the public correctly, then your knowledge has to grow, and more historically correct gear has to be acquired. That's the difference between a mainstream participant and say a campaigner type. The vast majority of reenactors start as mainstreamers, and stay there.

The problem is, even if you don't want to personally go and educate the public, the incorrect garments or gear are the first things that visitors see. Now you've put that image in their heads that this IS historically correct, even though it might not be.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Among other things, P.I.E. is spoken fluently here

???

The Hardcores simply have arrived in terms of mastering the subject areas for civil war reenacting. There are very few hardcores in civil war reenacting, and even less who identify themselves as such due to the derision heaped on them by Farbs."

I would use "Hardcore" as synonymous with "Stitch Counter." People who obsessive and purist to the point where it's off-putting to just about everyone except other Hardcore Reenactors. They usually wish they could live in the 1860s.

 

[7thWisconsin]

¨Hardcore¨ is prettymuch out of use now. The description of ¨mainstream¨ offered above is really derogatory and frankly insulting, the kind of thing written by divisive hard-kewls in the late 1990s. ¨Campaigner¨ is more of a style of reenacting than a place on the authenticity continuum. I can ¨campaign¨ with my very mainstream gear and uniform. I just carry everything in with only one trip from the car, eat out of my haversack, live out of my pack, etc. It is, however, a somewhat narrow snapshot of the life of a Civil War soldier. For instance, when I ¨mainstream¨ I can bring my musical instruments with me and add that facet to my impression. When I ¨campaign¨ I´m limited to my voice and maybe my harmonica and spoons (and there´s likely to be some expert lecturing me on the relative rarity of the harmonica.) Even c/p/h types can be farbs if they camp in all the right gear but want to sit around talking about 40k all evening long.
So, really, unless the original article was written a bit tongue-in-cheek, its categories aren´t really useful and are more than a little insulting.

 

[Dan Kohli]

Although I think it's nice idea to go over this terminology, there's some nuance and complexity to fitting people into these categories.
I'm sorry for the lack of vocabulary today.

 

[Stainless Steel Mucket]

"Among other things, P.I.E. is spoken fluently here."

PIE is Dom DalBello's, "Parade, Inspection, and Evolutions of the Battalion."

Surely, Chawls Heath grins that you read and reposted one of his many lectures about the great things in the hobby as well as the unbelievably stupid. Were he not dead for two decades, he'd invite you to read more of his postings in the Authentic Campaigner. Not the fb version, but the discussion forum with the slew of articles and valuable advice. Curmudgeon that he was, he'd tell some of you not to read the A/C because your heads might explode from all the advice contrary to how you normally reenact.

- S.S. Mucket

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Here's how I looked at it. When you start reenacting, you will have some knowledge, more than likely get medium quality gear, and you'll give it a shot. That's a beginner, and I dont think anyone really has a problem with that. It's an expensive hobby. But, IMHO, if you really care for the history, want to accurately honor the participants, and educate the public correctly, then your knowledge has to grow, and more historically correct gear has to be acquired. That's the difference between a mainstream participant and say a campaigner type. The vast majority of reenactors start as mainstreamers, and stay there.

The problem is, even if you don't want to personally go and educate the public, the incorrect garments or gear are the first things that visitors see. Now you've put that image in their heads that this IS historically correct, even though it might not be.

That's where I'm at basically. It's all about whether you have the desire to continually improve your impression, which encompasses everything from your uniform to researching 19th century life - both military and civilian.

If you're making no effort to improve, e.g., you march out in the same dusty, historically incorrect uniform event after event…if you have the knowledge that it is incorrect and the means to correct it, but just refuse to do so for whatever reason, then it's pretty naive IMO not to expect criticism from those who put the time and effort, not to mention money, to be more historically accurate.

Yeah, it's a hobby. But it's a hobby about history involving people who really existed.

 

[jepridgen]

I've come to identify categories as farbs (no definition change); mainstream; progressives; campaigners. Mainstream are the general reenactor population that do the large camps with two battles on a weekend at 2PM daily. Uniform and drill can range from darn near campaigner level to almost embarrassing. Progressive seems to be mainstream groups that are working towards authenticity but aren't quite campaigner level. Maybe keep high standards but still use period incorrect A frames, etc.

Campaigners are the most authentically focused groups who generally put the most effort into research and strive to recreate life as close as possible to ACW for a few days. Impressions aren't generic Reb or Yank but specific for the scenario the event is depicting. Think you eat what they ate, wore what they wore, slept in what they slept in, etc. You could probably argue the sub-categories of the campaigners based on how snobby they are towards others.

For clarity, I have a mainstream group and campaign group and enjoy both types of events (for both different and similar reasons if that makes sense). I just have high quality gear which allows me to enjoy both for one price without having to worry about authenticity.

 

[jepridgen]

article and description of people showing interest in the ACW reads pretty typical for a time period when "internet" consisted of phone line dial-up connection making a strange annoying noise.

The article and applying this type of thought process of labeling definitely doesnt do anything to help grow interest in the hoppy of reenacting. I would argue it does the opposite, especially at a time when general interest in the ACW, battlefields and musuem visits, etc continues to be challenged by newer generations with shifting perspectives.

I participated in an ACW related memorial ceremony recently. Had some older gent's loan me some gear. Got schooled up on some basic drill and opportunity to fire a musket. First time ever doing anything like this. I was not 100% "authentic", but had one of the greatest and memorable times in my adult life. Does that make me a "farb" or a "mainstreamer"…….

I enjoyed spending time with and learning from some senior men and veterans who have spent a long time performing their impressions as authentic as possible. I don't think "stitch counting" or turning up one's nose is helpful at all with supporting and growing reenacting, or overall interest in the ACW. At a time when technology and other socialized settings are rapidly consuming personal time, space and individual interests, I don't think the hobby of reenacting can afford to be in a position of scrutinizing participants at any levels. Just my 2 cent.

Maybe see ya next year while wearing my greg starbuck kepi, my pedersoli and wearing my khaki columbia pants

I don't think you're either just yet, lol. I'd say you could go either way at this point.

 

[7thWisconsin]

"Progressive" really just means that you're open to modifying your impression as new and better research becomes available to you and to the community. Sometimes that means better (and often more expensive) gear, but not always. There's a persistent fallacy in the hobby that spending more money must be a sign of greater commitment and authenticity. Sometimes "progressive" means perfecting your drill by actually paying attention to what the manual says. Sometimes it means researching what soldiers who were there said they were eating at the time you're supposed to be recreating, and taking that with you instead of your old reliable stand-bys. It can mean learning songs, games, discussion topics that were known at the time, and finding ways to incorporate these things into your impression so that you become the whole package of man, material and method.
I firmly believe that "campaign" is a style, not a point on the authenticity scale. Often "campaigners" are progressives, but not always. I've seen reenactors with starter kits from the common vendors camp in the campaign style and be accepted and respected. "Campaign" is the opposite of "Garrison." There are times when the campaign impression is not really appropriate as the garrison would be. If you're at a fixed fortification for the weekend, and you know darn well that the troops there either lived in barracks or in A-tents, and you deliberately pitch your A-tent for the event, you're being "garrison" and "progressive." If you insist on sleeping on your gum blanket in the same fort because it's what you always do... well, that's campaigning, but not progressive.

 

[jepridgen]

"Progressive" really just means that you're open to modifying your impression as new and better research becomes available to you and to the community. Sometimes that means better (and often more expensive) gear, but not always. There's a persistent fallacy in the hobby that spending more money must be a sign of greater commitment and authenticity. Sometimes "progressive" means perfecting your drill by actually paying attention to what the manual says. Sometimes it means researching what soldiers who were there said they were eating at the time you're supposed to be recreating, and taking that with you instead of your old reliable stand-bys. It can mean learning songs, games, discussion topics that were known at the time, and finding ways to incorporate these things into your impression so that you become the whole package of man, material and method.
I firmly believe that "campaign" is a style, not a point on the authenticity scale. Often "campaigners" are progressives, but not always. I've seen reenactors with starter kits from the common vendors camp in the campaign style and be accepted and respected. "Campaign" is the opposite of "Garrison." There are times when the campaign impression is not really appropriate as the garrison would be. If you're at a fixed fortification for the weekend, and you know darn well that the troops there either lived in barracks or in A-tents, and you deliberately pitch your A-tent for the event, you're being "garrison" and "progressive." If you insist on sleeping on your gum blanket in the same fort because it's what you always do... well, that's campaigning, but not progressive.

I see your point, but when you go on the campaigner trade blanket or someone sells a "campaigner quality" item or there's a "campaigner" event (whether garrison, static camp, muster, picket, etc.), it's not referring to the style of activity you're doing. It's referring to a higher level of the hobby. You're expecting to buy a really high quality, well-researched item or attend an event with higher standards and greater efforts toward authenticity.

I suspect the terminology has changed over time. Campaigning can also be a verb like you are using it, but most guys in my neck of the woods don't equate campaigning with something like sleeping on arms or using a haversack. You say campaigner event, and they immediately go straight to impression guidelines, no coolers/tents, etc.

 

[7thWisconsin]

I see your point, but when you go on the campaigner trade blanket or someone sells a "campaigner quality" item or there's a "campaigner" event (whether garrison, static camp, muster, picket, etc.), it's not referring to the style of activity you're doing. It's referring to a higher level of the hobby. You're expecting to buy a really high quality, well-researched item or attend an event with higher standards and greater efforts toward authenticity.

I suspect the terminology has changed over time. Campaigning can also be a verb like you are using it, but most guys in my neck of the woods don't equate campaigning with something like sleeping on arms or using a haversack. You say campaigner event, and they immediately go straight to impression guidelines, no coolers/tents, etc.

<<sigh>> Really we're showing the limits and inadequacy of labels, aren't we?

 

[jepridgen]

<<sigh>> Really we're showing the limits and inadequacy of labels, aren't we?

Lol, that's very true. That's why you always have to be careful when you throw around terminology. You and I would've been talking in circles about campaigning I reckon.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

"Progressive" really just means that you're open to modifying your impression as new and better research becomes available to you and to the community. Sometimes that means better (and often more expensive) gear, but not always. There's a persistent fallacy in the hobby that spending more money must be a sign of greater commitment and authenticity. Sometimes "progressive" means perfecting your drill by actually paying attention to what the manual says. Sometimes it means researching what soldiers who were there said they were eating at the time you're supposed to be recreating, and taking that with you instead of your old reliable stand-bys. It can mean learning songs, games, discussion topics that were known at the time, and finding ways to incorporate these things into your impression so that you become the whole package of man, material and method.
I firmly believe that "campaign" is a style, not a point on the authenticity scale. Often "campaigners" are progressives, but not always. I've seen reenactors with starter kits from the common vendors camp in the campaign style and be accepted and respected. "Campaign" is the opposite of "Garrison." There are times when the campaign impression is not really appropriate as the garrison would be. If you're at a fixed fortification for the weekend, and you know darn well that the troops there either lived in barracks or in A-tents, and you deliberately pitch your A-tent for the event, you're being "garrison" and "progressive." If you insist on sleeping on your gum blanket in the same fort because it's what you always do... well, that's campaigning, but not progressive.

On the note of spending more. Years ago there was an article written that made the rounds along the lines of "ten things to improve your impression without spending a dime." It involved things like you say, as well as really simple improvements like hiking up your traps as if you're actually going to have to march some distance today, as opposed to looking like you just rolled out of bed and grabbed the nearest set.

For the most part, the "mainstream" side of the hobby ignored it. From my own personal experience the reason for ignoring it in the groups I was with was because of perceived inconvenience and changing "the way we've always done it." This sort of solidified my opinion that most mainstream reenactors aren't interested in accuracy, they just want to be on stage. JMO.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Missing from Heath's analysis is any consideration for what the reenactor does with his/her knowledge and platform. Okay, you're hardcore. So f—g what.

 

[waksel]

Started re-enacting in 1965 just out of HS, initially with a US cavalry unit. Was given two possibilities for a shirt pattern, one with a button down front, and the other laced down. Mistakenly I chose the laced front. Then I saw a guy who looked like he stepped out of a Brady photo, and I was hooked. Replaced the shirt with one buttoned down, replaced black denim trou with wool button fly, found an appropriate frock (which may actually be an original pre or post war militia 9 button coat of Charlottsville gray. Took some time to find some good shoes, ending up using some Carter's Old Man's comfort from an amish store, with square toes and lacing, and a solid rubber heel. One of the guys in my unit had a shoe repair man replace the heels with leather (though now with that book on gutta percha & India rubber, the rubber heels would have been just fine). Wish I could get them now for my civilian impression. Poured over Miller's and read Johny Reb and Billy Yank & anything else we could find. drooled against the glass display cases @ the Gettysburg Nat Museum, the Confed White House & any other museums that might have uniforms and artifacts to study. Now I make leather covered document boxes and carpet bags, focusing on civilian stuff. At 77, I'm now too old for that marching around ****... Bum leg doesn't help.

 

[7thWisconsin]

On the note of spending more. Years ago there was an article written that made the rounds along the lines of "ten things to improve your impression without spending a dime." It involved things like you say, as well as really simple improvements like hiking up your traps as if you're actually going to have to march some distance today, as opposed to looking like you just rolled out of bed and grabbed the nearest set.

For the most part, the "mainstream" side of the hobby ignored it. From my own personal experience the reason for ignoring it in the groups I was with was because of perceived inconvenience and changing "the way we've always done it." This sort of solidified my opinion that most mainstream reenactors aren't interested in accuracy, they just want to be on stage. JMO.

I probably read that article! this philosophy had a profound effect on the way I reenact. I mentioned "man, material and method" above. Often, the least costly monetarily to develop are method and man - but the pay-off is huge. You can really elevate your game and help you understand and interpret mid-19th century life.

 

[waksel]

Started ACW reenacting in 1965. Initially joined a Michigan Cav unit, until I saw a guy in a cornfed uniform -- wool coat and trou, and was impressed as he looked like he had stepped out of a Brady photo. Joined with him, and a group out of Philly -- George Gorman's 2nd NC infantry. In those days, no one was weaving Jean material, and we had to mostly make our own uniform and gear. Over the next five years, I continued to try to improve my impression, until I joined the real army. When I mustered out, everyone was doing rev war, so I did that for a while. I've aged out of playing soldier, and now focus on a civilian impression. Been cutting silhouettes since 1975.