We are a group of men, women and children who reenact the daily activities of the military forces that inhabited our colonies over 200 years ago. Where men and women with Civil War-era clothes and weaponry reenact the battle.New to /r/AskHistorians? Please read our subreddit rules and FAQ before posting! Apply for FlairReenacting - Rogers Rangers. Battle of Gettysburg, major engagement in the American Civil War that was. Our shirts, frocks, vests, ponchos, pants, hats, and accessories will have you strutin your. Your Reenactor HQ for Authentic Period Shirts, Pants, Moccasins, Hats, Apparel & Gear Crazy Crow offers a line of historically authentic ready-made early American clothing and accessories that generally spans the overall muzzleloader era (1740 - 1865).
Based on the English system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a. The history of militia in the United States dates from the colonial era. Upvote informative, well sourced answersColonial-Militia Units E ach of the Thirteen Colonies that became the United States when they declared their independence in 1776, had militia units that served on the Patriot side during the American Revolutionary War. Misery - Another great source for Revolutionary War reenactors. Anita Bausk - Hand or machine stitched clothing for both women and men. They require that our uniforms, clothing and equipment be accurate.
Questions should be clear and specific in what they ask, and should be able to get detailed answers from historians whose expertise is likely to be in particular times and places. Nothing Less Than 20 Years Old, and Don't Soapbox. Be Nice: No Racism, Bigotry, or Offensive Behavior. Downvote and Report comments that are unhelpful or grossly off-topicThe Rules, in Brief 1. Old West Clothing Reenactors, Theater Groups and Cowboy and Cowgirls Everywhere.
Please Read and Understand the Rules Before Contributing. Report Comments That Break Reddiquette or the Subreddit Rules. Serious On-Topic Comments Only: No Jokes, Anecdotes, Clutter, or other Digressions. No Tertiary Sources Like Wikipedia. Provide Primary and Secondary Sources If Asked.
I mean, we have crappy history books written all the time, and no one challenges the book as a viable way of presenting the interpretation of history. I would say yes, with the following explanation.The quality of reenactments, like any form of historical exploration, will be most determined by the people doing them. The current rotation is:I think my answer is informed by the wording of your question: is there any value in reenactments. Upcoming EventsPlease Subscribe to our Google Calendar for Upcoming AMAs and EventsPrevious AMAs | Previous Roundtables FeaturesFeature posts are posted weekly. Flair categoriesTo nominate someone else as a Quality Contributor, message the mods.
I guarantee you NO ONE outside of the field is going to read a journal article about 18th century military buttons, but people will ask about the buttons on a reenactor's coat all the time if they have any kind of design or pattern on them.This leads us to the next point: Living history is more accessible to the general public than scholarly writing. The better quality one's equipment is, the more true this statement is. As I mentioned elsewhere, I have found that the best part of living history is that everything you are wearing and holding is a conversation piece. However, someone that looks the part, is well read, and is intellectually honest enough to portray both the good and bad parts of period being portrayed can cover a surprising amount of complexity in a quick and accessible way.With that being said, we should focus what reenacting does uniquely well, and what vulnerabilities it might have as a method of portraying an interpretation of history.
Rev War Reenacting Clothes Movie Enshrined Every
The first is that the quality of most reenactors'/living historians' impressions is quite low. If most Rev War historians seem to have an unhealthy obsession with The Patriot, it's because that movie enshrined every dumb myth about the Revolution to a HUGE audience.Now, for the downsides. Doing these things correctly is also the best way to combat the (sadly more common) incorrect portrayals usually seen in TV and the movies. A demonstration of a period trade or military tactic will be easier to understand than reading a book or article on the same topic. Again, if the museum hires people that are up on current research (or willing to learn such), this can be a great teaching opportunity.People are also visual learners.
Examples: 1) We had a reenactment event at living history site where I worked, and all the various units represented decided to put on a "fashion show" for the public - a representative or two from each coming forward to talk about their clothes and their unit. Again, being that people tend to believe what they see more than what they believe, this can be dangerous. Few institutions, public or private, have that kind of time and money to throw towards clothing and gear that is going to be subjected to a fatal amount of wear and tear.Secondly, both the professional living history field and the reenactor hobby tends to skew older and whiter than the past actually was. The most obvious is that it is VERY expensive to get clothing and equipment correct - the best stuff is made from expensive materials, and is done by hand.
This creates a dangerously white-washed impression of the past.Additionally, reenacting does attract some strange people. In over a decade of working in and around the field, I have worked with one black person at a living history site. 2) By the end of the American Revolution, the Continental Army may have been as much as 30% African-American.
When someone is in character and putting on an act, I think we loose a valuable part of the translation. The less said about WWII Germans, the better (by my experience, few of them -seem- to be Nazis, but the 'Good German' Wehrmacht soldier myth is repeated ad infinitum).There are good and bad things about interactive history. Civil War Confederate reenactors often know a shit ton about uniforms, supplies, food (or lack thereof) etc, but they aren't going to be quoting "The Fall of the House of Dixie" or indeed, acknowledging the centrality of Slavery at all.
Connecting and explaining the past rather than presenting it is important.I've been to and been involved in a few re-enactments. Discussing/showing the trades and can talk about how they changed into what we find familiar today. However, if you go into the trades shops and talk to the people there, they're usually in present. If you talk to a person on the street, in character, they often have to make jokes about the strange place you're from and find excuses to explain everyday tasks that the audience knows nothing about. Some of todays historic sites are the perfect example of this.
It's hard to teach culture to a modern audience without something to hold in their hands or see happening in front of them. In my case, I make (or repair) shoes- something essential to the army. When I'm involved I go as a tradesperson actually working as a person would have in camp.
0 kommentar(er)
