Can campaigner numbers ever rise?

[Bill_Cross]

In another thread, my good friend and fellow RP (when he's not mainstreaming), Bill Rodman, wrote:

Remember, I am a Streamer. At the events I attend that allow them, I'm going to have my cot and cooler. I wouldn't have it any other way. If anyone thinks they are going to hold an event with over a thousand participants and have no cots or coolers on site they are kidding themselves. There just aren't that many CPH Reenactors.

No, you're not a Streamer. Not entirely at any rate. Like many on this forum who attend Streamer events, you also campaign. In fact, the only campaigner events that really work well are those that attract cross-overs like you.

There, I've said it. I feel better now.

Now, some of my fellow campaigners will doubtless come forward and insist that their small mess hardcore event is superior to McDowell, "War on the James," the first "Burkittsville," etc., but with a few exceptions ("Pickett's Mill 2001" springs to my mind among those I attended), the events that campaigners themselves rate as "superior" bring in large portions of their attendees from people like you, Bill Rodman: Streamers who campaign. I bet if you did a breakdown of the attendees at "Rich Mountain," you'd find very few who only do campaigner events. And without them, the events become shadow plays of history, sideshows of the real thing.

You can "suggest" a corps of rifles with 20 men (we do this heroically at Gettysburg each year, but only for demonstration purposes), but the limitations quickly become obvious even to those of us willing to suspend our disbelief. Case in point: at the 2001 "Pickett's Mill," the assault on the CS high ground on Saturday worked perfectly because of the restricted frontage and thick undergrowth. The Sunday continuation had to be called off in mid-fight because the CS forces were attempting a flanking maneuver. The only problem? That flank originally had been occupied by another regiment (not present because we didn't have the numbers). The organizers stopped the event, rather than let it disintegrate into a tactical, a decision we all welcomed and applauded.

The notion of attracting a thousand rifles to a non-cooler/cot event isn't so bizarre. McDowell has inched up on that magic threshhold. It's not theoretically impossible if the events continue to stress an alternative experience, not iron man triathlete reenacting. Campaigner organizers who ignore the crossover does so at the peril of overall numbers. And it's no longer about the gear (which we were supposed to get beyond several years ago). In fact, many mainstream impressions are as good or nearly as good as their campaigner rivals. I've seen this over the years at McDowell: in three iterations, the level of the kit has improved markedly. Heck, even Bill Watson's kit is better than when I first met him!

Numerous campaigner events offer cot-less, cooler-less historical experiences without miles of marching or odd-ball uniform requirements. I remember the original "Burkittsville" asked Federal participants to wear "a sack coat." Numerous attendees of subsequent campaigner events started out there. It was a fine experience, one folks look back on now and wonder why there aren't more events like it.

So, I will respectfully disagree: it's possible to pass the 1,000-man mark for a non-Streamer event. It's just going to take a little more creativity and some persuasion. In spite of my years, I remain an optimist at heart.

[dustyswb]

Bill,

I agree with the possibility of having a 1,000 participant event that is historically accurate.

My only problem is your use of the words "campaigner event". To me, this means a moving event and you might not get 1,000 willing to march any distance. I think a more "doable" approach would be to:

1) have a stationary event, camp like the originals did for that battle

2) recreate accurate scenarios given the number of participants i.e. don't do Pickett's Charge with 100 guys.

3) recreate accurate bodies of the army with the men involved i.e. companies had 75 - 100 men. If you have 500, you have 5 companies of ONE regiment, not three battalions.

4) Logistics should be kept "simple". Wood, water, toilets, rations. You shouldn't need any more for three days. And keep rations simple; meat, bread, coffee and sugar. That's what they were issued.

5) Don't hold a reenactment depicting one battle on another battlefield.

6) Don't compromise on event or uniform guidelines

7) Don't advertise it as something than what it is/will be.

Now all we need is about 1500 acres with woods, fields, streams, etc.

[tenfed1861]

"3) recreate accurate bodies of the army with the men involved i.e. companies had 75 - 100 men. If you have 500, you have 5 companies of ONE regiment, not three battalions."
Mike,they could also be a regiment either in the mid-late stages of the war,or just recovering from a disease epidemic.
Cullen Smith

[tompritchett]

the only campaigner events that really work well are those that attract cross-overs like you.

The only problem is that such events are now considered to be mainstream events by the purists. Look at the flack that Chris and Dave received for advertizing Shenadoah 62 as a campaigner event. Personally, I think the terms "campaigner" and "mainstream" have become obsolete for describing events because each calls up different images in different peoples' minds. One suggestion might be to define events based upon the degree of immersion expected of the participants. Full immersion for the hardcore events, semi-immersion for a Shenadoah 62, and battlefield only immersion for a Cedar Creek.

[dustyswb]

Cullen,

My example was just that, an example. Bodies portrayed would be accurate for the scenario, regardless of timeframe in the war.

[frankstevanus]

I don't think size has anything to do with the quality of the event. For instance, Rich Mountain is purpored to be a rather large reenactment, in fact I heard they had fellows they were turning away. But it is also supposed to be one of the most authentic events this year.
What makes the difference is the decision makers of these particular events. If they allow all these inaccurate impressions such as vivandieres and dismounted people for instance, not only does that make the reenactment less appealing (from a historically accurate perspective) but it ialso discourages the more authentically minded impressionists to attend. It is the rules and regulations that make the quality or lack thereof at an event.
The best events I have attended have been small events not because of the numbers but in spite of them. Gentlemen, just like 150 years ago it all falls on the shoulders of the leaders. If they fail, we all fail. It is as simple as that.
Frank Stevanus

[bill watson]

Good events with larger numbers will not be possible until two things change.
First, the uncontested assertions from those who claim "campaigners" are a bunch of dour, demanding Puritan* purists who don't have any fun.
Second, the handful of dour, demanding Puritan purists who heckle, hound, emasculate and tear down good events with larger numbers. They give credence to the myth that we're not having any fun.

*Puritan. A Puritan is someone who is against, say, the sport of ratting. He is against it not because of the damage to rats, but because you enjoy it. It is the enjoyment that is under attack.

[Bill_Cross]

My only problem is your use of the words "campaigner event". To me, this means a moving event and you might not get 1,000 willing to march any distance.

The term "campaigner" has become attached to the potential audience of attendees more than as a description of the event. For example, the "Berkeley Hundred" LH hosted by the RPs some years ago was absolutely static, to reflect the circumstances of the Fifth Corps after being "fought out" in the Peninsula Campaign. Kevin O'Beirne's Antietam March had quite a bit of ground covered, but also bivouaced in a Boy Scout Camp (complete with many rowdy youngsters). Again, a "campaigner" event because of the crowd it was pitched to. McDowell 2001 had marching up into Possum Holler, followed by a running battle back to town, yet many in the "campaigner" community call it a "mainstream" event.

As to your other suggestions, they sound like what Chris Anders has been trying to do with his "campaigner lite" events like "Gates of Washington."

You correctly identify, too, the crucial problem: land. I have several interesting scenarios I could put into play if I had someone on the ground to get the land permissions.

6) Don't compromise on event or uniform guidelines

I have not been to any "campaigner" events that did this, so it seems to be a non-issue to me.

7) Don't advertise it as something than what it is/will be.

I work in the world of marketing, and one man's hype is another man's truth. I have found some events that others liked over-hyped, while others that didn't meet expectations for the "in" crowd were winners for me. Alternately, "Into the Wilderness" was a HUGE disappointment for the Federal staff (of which I was one) because of the ahistorical actions by the CS command (including going on-site before the event to lay telegraph wire, something that simply didn't happen during the Wilderness campaign!). We literally had a screaming confrontation with some of the yahoos in gray who were firing at us from unsafe distances. Never saw a group of straps more depressed and disspirited as that Saturday night. Yet the rank and file for the most part said it was a splendid event and went home with big grins on their faces. Go figure.

Now all we need is about 1500 acres with woods, fields, streams, etc.

Somebody say "amen."

Good events with larger numbers will not be possible until two things change.
First, the uncontested assertions from those who claim "campaigners" are a bunch of dour, demanding Puritan* purists who don't have any fun.
Second, the handful of dour, demanding Puritan purists who heckle, hound, emasculate and tear down good events with larger numbers. They give credence to the myth that we're not having any fun.

Everybody say "amen."

*Puritan. A Puritan is someone who is against, say, the sport of ratting. He is against it not because of the damage to rats, but because you enjoy it. It is the enjoyment that is under attack.

My favorite definition of a Puritan is someone who lies awake at night festering because he knows that someone out there is having fun.

Campaigner events are terrific fun, often because you come home totally exhausted from living the life of the Civil War soldier and having no time to think modern thoughts. Interesting how few mainstream events I hear extolled in retrospect, other than the "big numbers" anniversary ones 10-20 years ago. Yet I spoke with someone just the other day who became incredibly nostalgic about the first "Burkittsville." There's a kernel of insight in that difference. Think about it.

[TeamsterPhil]

Here is a proposal for an interesting experiment. Take the attendance lists for Payne's Farm, the last McDowell, Shen62, Gates of Washington, the last Recon, and the upcoming Rich Mountain (they are all events in the eastern theater that attract "campaigners") and compile them into one list.

This would tell you how many "campaigners" you MIGHT get to one event if:

a) Leaders could set aside personalities and the wish to command and COOPERATE.
b) The event could be scheduled with no other large eastern theater events (or other things like Mother's Day, Easter, or the Suoper Bowl) within 4 to 6 weeks of it.
c) There are TWO sets of clearly stated expectations -- one for the rank & file, another for the command/organizational staff.

If scheduled correctly, this event might even attract fifty or a hundred guys from the other side of the High Scaries.

Phil Campbell

[Bill_Cross]

If scheduled correctly, this event might even attract fifty or a hundred guys from the other side of the High Scaries.

As many as that?

No offense, Phil, but if I were organizing an event, I wouldn't build it around western participation, nor would I expect a western event organizer to build it around my coming across the Big Scaries. Given gas prices and the difficulty many find in getting away just for the weekend-- much less building in a 15-30 hour round trip drive....

I've had fellers bail on events in the past because they couldn't get away until after work Friday night and didn't want to drive 9 hours and arrive exhausted (or fall asleep at the wheel). Yes, there are heroes who do, but remember, this is a hobby.

I know you personally travel a long way to events (when you can get away at all), and that a few others do as well. And I treasure the westerners who've supported my companies or events in the past (had some fine western boys at Recon 2). And I'd love to get out West once Biscuit's in college and I'm semi-retired (or if Scotty would beam me to Red River). But the notion that deconflicting eastern and western events is going to substantially raise numbers ranks up there with cold fusion and ending world hunger for probability.

Not to mention all the ill will that was generated over this bogus notion. We won't go there, it's not going to change any minds or increase amity if we do.

c) There are TWO sets of clearly stated expectations -- one for the rank & file, another for the command/organizational staff.

Please explain how this works? At the events I have worked on there has always been a set of expectations for the attendees and another one for the staff (field and "Kabuki").