I agree with you. What's the point of reenacting if they aren't going to be authentic?
ColMac
The 79th pretty much wore standard Federal uniform in the field and on campaign. Some officers may have had tartan trews, but the enlisted ranks did not. As reenactments groups largely portray enlisted men, they ARE being authentic....
Brian
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
The 79th pretty much wore standard Federal uniform in the field and on campaign. Some officers may have had tartan trews, but the enlisted ranks did not. As reenactments groups largely portray enlisted men, they ARE being authentic....
Exactly. NPS living history standards teach that it's best to potray the impression that was the most common and particular to a particular year/battle/campaign, rather than misleading the public into thinking that there were numerous Zouaves and Highlanders running around every battle.
I've served in several reenactment/living history units that had a primary impression, and then some secondary speciality ones; for example, a "generic" Federal infantry impression, and then one for the 3rd Missouri Infantry, which was primarly made up of German immigrants from the St. Louis area. Their uniform was only worn from April to September 1861; it would simply not be accurate to portray the 3rd MO at an 1862 or 1863 unit in a uniform worn at only one battle.
T.
Last edited by macwilkin; 12th June 09 at 07:19 PM.
I agree with you. What's the point of reenacting if they aren't going to be authentic?
ColMac
Because the Highland uniform of the 79th was only worn before and that the beginning of the War, and there is still considerable debate as to how much. Wearing an 1861 impression while reenacting a battle that was fought in 1864 is hardly authentic.
Originally Posted by Colonel MacNeal
Bookmarks