Talk:American Civil War reenactment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] how long has this been going on?
It would be interesting if the article said when the first recorded reenactment(s) took place, and when it got popular, etc. — Coelacan | talk 01:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- There were sham battles actually being played out DURING the Civil War by actual troops, although this would not count as battle reenactments per se. Photographers poased several soldiers in mock battle action (including pretend dead bodies). The postbellum reenactment craze took off during the Centennial in the early 1960s. Scott Mingus 12:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was told by a few old timer reenactors that the first known 'reenactment' (as in, of the type we know it today) was staged during the 100th anniversary of one of the battle in 1962. I cannot recall the battle, or where it was (I beleive it was in the south, Georgia perhaps) but I reenact WW2 so CV is not my specialty. I do recall reading that it was done with 1903 Springfields though :P user:Pzg Ratzinger
[edit] Overhaul Needed
As a reenactor, I find this article somewhat lacking and (while not generally wrong persay) somewhat misleading to an average reader. I'll do my best to make the article appear better for individuals who don't know about the hobby. A lot of this information is "common sense" or "second nature" to any old salt reenactor, and that's what makes this article so hard to figure out what to write without doing an insane amount of research. For example, there's a portion of the article that claims the Confederates are almost always "outnumbered", yet I know from personal experience that the Union is almost invariably outnumbered by Confederate troops - yet I doubt I will find citation for this knowledge. I'll be adding to the article when I can and when sources come to light.Thelettuceman 03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Verb problem in opening sentence
The opening sentence said that reenactment "recreates" battles. I am confident that that is not true, otherwise lots of people would get hurt. I changed it to "reenact." I know that some people will not be happy with saying "reenactment reenacts", but I think it is better than "recreates." If anyone can think of a better word please use that. Thanks, Redddogg (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is now "attempt to recreate the appearance." I think that is by far the best of the three. BTW although the article is a little rough it contains a lot of good information and I learned some stuff from it. Redddogg (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Very silly unsourced claims
Admittedly I don't know of any "hardcore" reenactors from the Civil War, but it sounds perfectly idiotic to declare that there are people who are so obsessed with the idea of the Civil War that they refuse to take part in a battle re-enactment because they perceive a lack of accuracy in no live fire and no real casualties. This presumes that these individuals WOULD participate in them if there was live ammunition being used- which implies that they have the moral abandon to participate in a battle reenactment where people are killed just for the sake of indulging nostalgia, and a mind so insanely fixated on history that they can actually hold the cause of the Union or Confederate Army near enough in their hearts to restart the Civil War in the year 2008. I'm frankly shocked that such a statement is present here, and I would like someone who knows more about Civil War reenactment than myself, to address and find citations for this claim, or to replace it with something accurate. Chaparral2J (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mein Gott!
Is it okay if I remove the image of the exeptionally overweight confederate reenactor? I would like to replace it with a more accurate image, as many of us are quite a bit fatter than the real soldiers would have been, but this is just overboard. User:mmuroya —Preceding comment was added at 08:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
