In response to the threads on "Mainstream Reenactorisms" and "C/P/H Reenactorisms" I thought of listing a few of my own pet peeves.  But they don't clearly fit under either category because people throughout the spectrum do them.  So after setting out these, I'd like to ask if you all have any of your own candidates that aren't limited to the M/S/C/P/H dichotomization of the continuum of reenacting.

(None of these, by the way, imply any moral, ethical, or even particularly historical sins; they're just some things I'd prefer to see less of.)

1.  Tarnished brass.  I know I've mentioned this before, but I keep seeing.  Nobody, even in late war scenarios, should show up with brass that hasn't been polished in several years.  That's barely even theoretically possible.  For US soldiers the time since last polishing should never be more than a few weeks.

2.  Cup on the closure strap of the haversack.  I know this was done in the war but I doubt all the time and, really, it's not like we need the cup handy to go dipping water from the nearest stream, or can't stow it because we're laboring along with three days rations in the bag.  Sometimes I have had a couple days rations in the bag and not had room for the cup.  In that case it's a lot more secure tied to the rear strap with an extra shoe lace or secured to the middle knapsack strap.  The worst part about it is being in formation next to someone who's doing this and getting your musket banged up by their cup.  Especially a shiny new cup.  Especially (I have seen this) a stainless steel cup.

3.  Not enough pens and ink.  OK, enough said...

4.  Sergeants bellowing "Fall in for roll call" like this was Paris Island.  Or bellowing anything for that matter.  It seems to me that there was a real difference between the volunteer army of the 1860s and anything we've seen since.  In the beginning all these guys knew each other from home, officers were elected, NCOs were appointed by the elected officers, and everyone was learning their jobs together.  Sergeant majors and first sergeants seem to have been as likely to be chosen for their clerical skills as any other reason.  These are not the kinds of relationships that lend themselves to abusive tones.  After the first battle or two, the survivors would be even less likely to routinely raise their voices.  So it would be nice to see more neighbors in the ranks than Sergeant Rock wannabes.

OK, I'm done.  Your turn.

Principle players and prime movers come to prominence.  A sad few of these high profile individuals make their way upon the stage the hobby provides, trailing an entourage of “hey, look at me” type minions, raucous defenders, and a gaggle of flattering sycophants.  These high octane personalities hold sway for an unspecified period of time and then, for any number of reasons, are displaced by another of their ilk.  This dislodgement will be followed by an acrimonious time of accusations between the loyal followers of the recently ousted and newly arrived.  

Quote :

Michael Schaffner wrote :3.  Not enough pens and ink.  OK, enough said...

Depending upon historic circumstances.    I was getting ready to write a letter for my pocket for Oct. 62 and found just what I was looking for at
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/civwarlett-browse?id=A6515  The surprise to me was his sixth paragraph from the end when he wrote:

Quote :

Please excuse my writing with a lead pencil and putting you to so much trouble to read it but pens and ink have gone out of fashion in camp and are " [unclear: vavae ares] ," here.

So I wrote the letter in pencil.  I'm agreeing with what you said about not enough pens and ink, but the above just shocked me and as I said, since it was the same time and place as what I was looking for, I did mine in pencil.

Go figure,

Linda.

I've been to events where these problems were solved, so I'm not implying everyone does this. These just seem to be things that occur repeatedly.

Trying to portray too large of a historic situation with too few people, rather than choosing a historic situation that matches the number of participants predicted.

Complaining about no one taking hits, when the number is actually within the range of what happened historically. The problem is the lines are too close. If the battles were fought at historic ranges, with historic maneuvering, the smaller number of hits would look logical.

Thinking that spectators care more about history than other reenactors, so trying to be accurate for spectators while not bothering around reenactors.

Using "safety" to justify any anachronism, because it's such a potent debating tool. No one wants a reputation for being unsafe. So ice is necessary for safety, as are sleeping bags, cell phones, coolers, nylon halters, modern food, or any number of things that hundreds of other reenactors do without.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Quote :

Linda Trent wrote :  but pens and ink have gone out of fashion in camp and are " [unclear: vavae ares] ," here.

From context, the unclear part has to be "rarae aves," the plural of rara avis. Whew! The guy knew his Latin. Though I've used the singular, I could never have figured out the plural without looking it up just now.

Okay, that just reminded me of another reenactorism: assuming people back then were more stupid than we are, because they weren't smart enough to have all our modern inventions and scientific developments.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

I agree with all Hank's comments, except the nylon halters -- that's one uniform item I hope I never see in the ranks

Linda, I guess I'd be happy if we could just get rid of Sharpies, but your point is well-taken.  There's a brief discussion of pens vs. pencils in "School of the Clerk" -- it's yet another one of those "it depends."  

One of my favorite examples of writing technology is Theodore Ayrault Dodge asks his mother in a letter for new leads for his mechanical pencil.  Five days later (!) he writes " As you see, my letter acknowledges the receipt of the pencil you sent out (a blue everpointed pencil), just the thing..."

Blue pencils are definitely under-represented in the hobby.

Hank,

His Latin matched his English with "are rare birds." You beat me to it, but like you, I'd have used the singular rather than the plural. If it had been Greek, I'd have been completely lost.

I agree with the tinware on the outside of the haversack peeve. It is one of mine, as well, and rarely do we issue enough rations to prevent the good ol' dipper from being stowed in the bag. While hanging the cup on the strap is a period practice, and documented in text and images, I find a good number of folks do it because they fail to realize a number of items can be stuffed into a cup inside the haversack.  Hey, maybe that's the origin of a certain phrase.  

Not sayin' it....

My mucket goes in the haversack, with items filling the space to near its top.  A small cup goes over that, with its interior filled with items.  If there's space, and something to fill that space is available, it gets used.

Mucket on the outside is my sore spot too. If nothing else tying it to the strap on your haversack or to your bedroll will be sufficient

1stSgt P., please sign your full name to your posts.  It's nice for all of us to know who it is we are talking to.

Thanks

Sorry Ken.  

I just now figured it all out. As you can see,it is remedied