A Defense of Progressive Reenacting

Dear Readers,


It was a busy weekend in American Revolutionary War reenacting circles. Whether you are a member of the BAR, BB, CL or, NWTA, the fact of the matter is that drama is unfolding in the reenactor world. I am personally aware of two units splitting apart, over some aspect of the division between progressive and mainstream reenactors. Yesterday, this article appeared, criticizing a minority of progressive reenactors for bullying mainstreamers. So, from the perspective of a professional historian, I would like to give a defense of the progressive moment.

First of all, what is a progressive reenactor? You will often face various straw men in the search for the progressive. The first is the stitch counter- a reenactor who sews all their own clothing by hand, and aggressively encourages all around them to do the same. The next is the campaigner, who sleeps out on the ground at every event, and looks down on all of those who fail to follow suit. The third is the misogynist, who actively opposes women in a military role at reenactments.

The purpose of this post is to make the following four contentions. First: reenacting is a hobby, but one with a serious duty to honor the past. Second: a progressive is not any of the straw men presented above, but rather, anyone who makes an effort to improve their historical impression consistently. Third: individuals of any income, gender, or knowledge base can meet with the above definition of progressive. Four: despite the potential to ruffle feathers, progressivism is undoubtedly a GOOD thing.

All hobbies have barriers to entry. In order to kayak you must own a kayak, or borrow from someone who does. In order to paintball you must have a gun, protective equipment, and paintballs. Reenacting is the same way. You must be willing to invest to some degree, or find a generous unit with unlimited loaner equipment.  However, reenacting has another, very important barrier to entry.

As a historical professional, I feel reenacting has an additional barrier to entry: you must be willing to honor the past. In my opinion, talking on a cellphone in front of the public at a reenactment dishonors the past. Being unwilling to break from a first person impression when members of the public are clearly confused also dishonors the past. Wearing white sneakers at an event dishonors the past. In the same way, angrily confronting said sneaker-wearer and driving them out of the hobby as a result also dishonors the past. ALL reenactors have a duty to read and learn, not just the history of their particular unit, but how that history fits within the story of the period as a whole. This is part of honoring the past, and a barrier to entry in reenacting.

A very wise reenactor once indicated to me that there are levels of being progressive. Not everyone is going to be a stitch counter-campaigner. Being progressive is not a set standard of requirements, it is a state of mind- a constant search for further historical accuracy. At a recent event, a unit I am a part of went to battle in full kit, and grounded non-essential kit in front of the public, showing the public an often overlooked aspect of combat in the American Revolutionary War. Many members of the unit were not in hand sewn kit- but it didn't matter- that was a progressive moment for the unit. Another easy way to demonstrate historical accuracy on the battlefield is to represent the breakdown of fire-control. Start a battle firing crisp volleys, and devolve to independent fire as the battle wears on. A willingness to improve, rather than a gold standard, should be the benchmark for progressivism.

A frequent objection to progressives is the cost of high-quality materials associated with progressive kits. Not everyone can afford Kochan and Phillips broadcloth for their uniforms, nor should they. Not everyone has the time to hand sew all of their kit, nor should they. I would rather see a well-fitted coat made of Woolrich cloth with the inside seams machine sewn than a poorly-fitted hand sewn coat made of Kochan and Phillips. If you are on a budget, but want a high quality kit, talk to those around you who sew. Many reenactors are happy to come alongside new members on a budget. In addition, a large portion of the reenactors I spend the most time around are still in school- no excess of money there. However, I often find that those with little excess cash are the most motivated to construct good quality kit. And, at least in my opinion, construction of good quality kit is a way of honoring the past.

Women desiring to portray soldiers often face objection from progressive reenactors. As someone self-identifying as a progressive, I would rather see a female soldier in well-fitted kit than a man swimming in a grossly oversized regimental. However,  I believe that female reenactors portraying soldiers have a duty to attempt to hide their gender. Many women (including my girlfriend) practice the art of hiding their gender while in the ranks. Along with having a well-fitted kit, this is a way of honoring the past.

Some progressives have the potential to be abrasive. I would encourage them to tone it down. However despite the possibility of hurting feelings, I contend that progressivism is definitely a good thing, and that it should continue to forge ahead. As reenactors, we have a duty to honor the past. While we should also attempt to have a good time, honoring the past should be ever present. And, at least in my mind, honoring the past and having fun seems to be a largely overlapping Venn diagram.

Thanks for Reading,


Alex Burns

Tradition and Revisionism in Historical Hobbies and Professions

The 40th of Foot Light Company at Cliveden- Photo by Suzanne Shaw

History is always changing. In many ways, the past is a moving target- and historians always write with the lens of their own time. In the last fifty years, this has led to a pushback against so-called, "revisionist" historians. The general public often fears that historians try to, "change the past," in order to fit a modern political agenda. However, on the whole, this fear grows out of a misunderstanding of the job of the historian. The task of the historian is not the simple recitation of facts about history, but advancing our knowledge of the past. Thus, to call a historian a "revisionist" is not an insult, but a great compliment. If a historian has managed to revise how the general population looks at the past, they are fulfilling their purpose. However, that revisionism often meets with pushback, and many individuals resist thinking about the past in new ways. "Established wisdom," or "tradition," often views revisionist thinking with extreme skepticism. This occurs within the debates of historians at a professional level, but is also present in historical hobbies.

The picture above depicts the 40th regiment of Foot light company, a "progressive" reenacting unit depicting British soldiers in the American War of Independence. It is rather humorous to me that the term "progressives," used so pejoratively in historiographical debates, is used to describe a particular type of, "hardcore," or "serious" reenactor. The picture shows them doing controversial things in reenacting circles: giving fire while lying down, not arrayed in closed ranks, etc.  While many individuals have known that the British army did not fight in the way it was depicted so often in Hollywood films, this knowledge has become more widespread with the publication of Matthew H. Spring's book, With Zeal and With Bayonets Only. The guys in the 40th Regiment have obviously done their reading.

This text, in every sense of the word, is a work of revisionist history. Spring, "with the deftness and surety of a bayonet stroke," in the words of a particularly effusive reviewer, has killed the notion that the British army fought in rigid lines during the American Revolution. Despite this fact, few wargamers, reenactors, or historians have updated their information to reflect this incredible work of scholarship.

Part of this failure is ignorance- not everyone has read, or been convinced, by this book. However, part of this failure is "tradition," the sort of tradition which got the Catholic Church into trouble in the 1500s. Many reenactors, wargamers and historians have simply not updated their way of thinking about the British army because they been thinking the same way for 30 years. This sort of behavior reflects a lack of respect for history, and in my opinion, is inexcusable. A third part of this failure to update comes from lack of finances- not everyone can afford to make the changes required when new research is done on uniforms in reenacting, or purchase a new rulebook in wargaming. However, those who cannot afford change, but are aware of new ideas, are in a much better position to serve history well.

To return to the beginning- ideas about the past are constantly changing. Dr. Christopher Duffy rewrote his groundbreaking work on the Prussian army in the 1990s, because new evidence had come to light, evidence which led him to different conclusions. That is one of the great things about history- it is in a constant state of motion, and it requires thorough, ongoing research and reading to have an adequate understanding of the past.

So- whether you are a reenactor or a wargamer, a historian or an undergraduate student, a "progressive" or a "mainstreamer": my admonition is the same. I echo Augustine in saying: take up and read.

And in the interest of helping you with that goal, I am going to list the books which have been most instructive for me in becoming a journeyman student of Kabinettskriege era warfare.

Military Experience in the Age of Reason by Christopher Duffy

Redcoats by Richard Holmes

With Zeal and With Bayonets Only by Matthew H. Spring

Russia's Military Way to the West by Christopher Duffy

The Battle that Shook Europe by Peter Englund

A Revolutionary People at War by Charles Royster

Fire and Stone by Christopher Duffy

War under Heaven by Gregory Evans Dowd

The Capture of Louisbourg, 1758 by Hugh Boscawen

I highly recommend them to you.

Thanks for Reading!

Alex Burns

"Popular" History: The reenactor, the wargamer, and the professional historian

A picture of the Regiment von Reidesel, taken shamelessly from their Facebook page

Dear Reader,


I have been thinking a lot about the role of the historian lately. It is my heart's desire to be a traditional professional historian/college professor. Specifically, my field of interest, (as you might have guessed, reading this blog) is military history of the Kabinettskriege period. (Unsure of what Kabiettskriege means? click here for an explanation.)

In the first post of this blog, I claimed that the warfare of the Kabinettskriege era should not be the exclusive domain of hobbyists and enthusiasts. This is my opinion, not because there is anything wrong with the hobbies associated with warfare, but because the past is a different country, and it requires research from professional historians to understand the past, and make that understanding available to the public.

The more I read, and the more I travel to historical events, the more apparent it is that there is a rift between professional historians, and historical impressionists, such as reenactors and wargamers. (For an interesting post about this, see the blog of historian Paul Lockhart.)

I mean, come on, who doesn't want to play with these guys?

Historians' complaints about Reenactors/Wargamers:

There are three common complaints I hear from historians about those in the historical hobby community.

The first complaint is that they are doing more harm then good by repeating historical myths to the public. This complaint is a legitimate concern. Despite an excellent monograph stating to the contrary, people still claim that "Baron" von Steuben was not a member of the nobility. While he wasn't a "baron" in the tradition sense (the German word is Freiherr), he was a member of the Prussian aristocracy, a sort of noble middle manager. History is incredibly complex, and the subtleties are often lost in wargaming and reenacting.

The second complaint is that reenactors (and wargamers) often claim to be historians, when they don't have the training or the intelligence to actually be historians. One definition of an historian, from the Princeton online dictionary is: "A person who is an authority about history, and studies and writes about it." In my experience, reenactors and wargamers usually meet two of the requirements: they study the past and are regarded by the general population as authorities on history.

Finally, and most worryingly in my opinion, reenactors and wargamers seemingly glorify war and violence. This is especially concerning when examining more modern reenactors, such as World War 2 reenactors. However, with that being said, the reenactors and wargamers I know realize that the past was awful. Dying on an eighteenth century battlefield would have been one of the most horrific things imaginable. With this in mind, what is the right response? Ban reenactments? wargames? non-accurate historical films?

Dr. Christopher Duffy lecturing at a wargame convention

A change in tactics is the answer:

I view myself as a professional historian: someone who makes the acquiring and distribution of historical knowledge into a career. Most reenactors or wargamers might say that they are historians, but they would never claim to be making a career out of being an historian. (Unless of course, they were also professional historians.)

I think that professional historians are looking at reenactors and wargamers entirely the wrong way. As opposed to viewing them as an annoyance, or as the perverters of the past, we should attempt to come alongside reenactors and other historical hobbyists. They are an incredible opportunity-they are fun, interesting, and their activities are exciting-everything we lack as historians.

The reenactment and wargaming community has a wide base: much wider than the readership of historical monographs. Reenactors and wargamers give professional historians a chance to reach the general public. If they are telling the public about non-factual events, it is our responsibility to get the right information into the hands of these historical enthusiasts.

Historical hobbyists are NOT our enemies-and they have the potential to become our allies. Dr. Christopher Duffy has been taking this approach for a long time, by coming to the Seven Years' War convention in South Bend, Indiana. If more historians followed his example, perhaps there would not be such a disconnect between professional historians and historical hobbyists.

The fact of the matter is, history is not interesting to most people. Declining numbers in history departments around the country tell us this. We can only appeal to the mind through writing. Reenactors are historians of the senses, the give us the sight, smell sound and touch of history. When combined with historical writing, this can help the general public to better understand the past. It also allows us to sell more books- never a bad thing.

Sorry, this one got a bit long. More on the actual Kabinettskriege period to come.

Thanks for reading,

Alex Burns

If you liked this post, let me know in the comments below! Feel free to follow the blog. Its free, and lets me know that you enjoy what I'm doing-basically the only reason I write this thing.