What Rank Are You?

[Artillery 1861]

I have been approached at several events and asked "Who is the officer on this gun" I then have to explain there are no officers on artillery pieces, that the lowly Sgt. is in command. I believe my gun is the only one I've seen with no officers. I was told at a recent meeting that there had to be an officer on each gun it's in the SOP's and Bylaws. Sorry but historically there were no officers serving on an artillery piece. They should be battery commanders. Just a quick funny story, at Cedar Creek one year a General rode between our piece and limber. A 70 Sgt Maj. (who serveed in two wars and actually held that rank) began to explain to General that what he did was unsafe, the General said "Do you see my rank" The Sgt Maj. responed "Give me 5 minutes to get to sutler row and I'll be a general too."


Sgt M Gregory
Commander Essex Artillery

Mr. Gregory our unit is the same as yours. We have 1 Cpl. and one Sgt. for command. Sgt is over all and Cpl. is our gunner. This I believe was the actual practice in the war with officers serving the battery as a whole.

[Bill_Cross]

The problem with most CW clubs is they don't muster enough rifles to justify more than a lieutenant or perhaps a captain. 100 rifles for a "battalion"? Maybe 1864. That's two companies, so two captains (and Late War, maybe even 1 Louie and 1 Sgt.).

I like the suggestion about dividing club leadership and field rank. You graybeards are driving the talented youngsters to the Dark Side.

We're happy to have them.

[Colonel Dave]

Don't ride much, do you!

[LibertyHallVols]

The biggest test of leadership isn't how long you can stay on the job, but how effectively you replace yourself.

That is not only a test of individual leadership. It is a test of the organization, as well. If the organization has a good structure and is made up of people dedicated to common goals, it will see success after a leadership change. If it is a cult of personality, it will fragment and fall apart.

[Rob Weaver]

I'm not sure a lot of reenacting units need to be called "organizations" having "leaders." They're clubs of like-minded individuals. They enter into a voluntary social contract to follow someone in a limited fashion. When units break up or fade away, it may not be a failure of leadership; it just may be its time. People change. Kids grow up and go to college. People move. Those of us of a certain age start to experience health problems. The people that they enjoyed participating with had life changes and no longer participate. Others simply discover that their level of interest wasn't great enough to motivate anymore. I think a unit should adopt a rank ratio system so that in some way the average numbers its producing on the field are translated into something like authentic looking command structure. I learned a while back to start packing a private's 4-button in my gear. That way when people bailed on thursday before an event, I could stand in the ranks. I found being willing to be in the ranks gave units the freedom to say "We really need a 2nd SGT." which is what I love to do.

[LibertyHallVols]

Rob,

For mess and company level clubs, I agree with you. In fact, I have long refered to them as "clubs"... and get funny looks from fellow reenators when I do! However, for battalion level groups and higher, I think "organization" probably does fit. The Colonel/Commander/Executive/BMFIC/Whatever is a "leader of leaders" in that he is directing a number of company-level (or smaller) groups by coordinating/communicating with the leadership of each group, moreso than the individual members directly.

While I chafe at the "anti-authenticist" tone of Todd Huston's post, I will concede a point to him:
People who successfully organize events and/or battalions at events don't get that stuff done by dumb luck, but by hard work, diplomatic and organizational skill, and (if they're smart) a hands-free device for their phone. As such, they deserve a measure of respect. Without such people, efforts like the 15th Iowa at Shiloh don't happen... period!

[Choatecav]

Rob,

For mess and company level clubs, I agree with you. In fact, I have long refered to them as "clubs"... and get funny looks from fellow reenators when I do! However, for battalion level groups and higher, I think "organization" probably does fit. The Colonel/Commander/Executive/BMFIC/Whatever is a "leader of leaders" in that he is directing a number of company-level (or smaller) groups by coordinating/communicating with the leadership of each group, moreso than the individual members directly.

While I chafe at the "anti-authenticist" tone of Todd Huston's post, I will concede a point to him:
People who successfully organize events and/or battalions at events don't get that stuff done by dumb luck, but by hard work, diplomatic and organizational skill, and (if they're smart) a hands-free device for their phone. As such , they deserve a measure of respect. Without such people, efforts like the 15th Iowa at Shiloh don't happen... period!

Here, here!!! Could not agree more with this statement.

Mark

[David Einhorn]

Don't ride much, do you!

My wife's family has owned horses and taught riding for over 350 years. They tell me what opinions to have about horses and riding.

Personally, my feeling is that there are few joys greater than having a horse that is one's friend that wishes to spend time with the rider and ride together as a partnership. I greatly miss a horse that used to get between me and any horse that showed aggression, and protected me from harm. I feel that it would have been a betrayal of our relationship to ever hit her.

["Doc" Nelson]

OK gentlemen ... let's play nice. There is absolutely NO reason to turn this into an "us vs. them" fight. Let's keep it "civil".

OK, moderator hat off.

[reddcorp]

I'm not a real Captain, but I play one at reenactments. Oh, and I did stay at a Holiday Inn last week.
It is a passion and a past time but I exert only the authority that the men allow me to exert.

Andy Redd