|
Post by Treasuredude on Oct 26, 2005 20:35:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Oct 28, 2005 7:09:58 GMT -6
''BATTLE REENACTORS'' will be on the Discovery Channel tonight [ friday Oct. 28] at 10PM EDT and tommorrow [Oct. 29] at 1AM [For you night owls] and again at 6AM. Should be fun.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 28, 2005 11:37:32 GMT -6
I have been corresponding with a very nice lady named Bonnie at the Discovery network because "Battle Reenactors" was not listed on my local TV channel guide. The program tonight is only available on the DISCOVERY TIMES channel, not the Discovery channel. Here is her most recent note: Apparently there have been site-wide technical problems with the TV schedules over the past few weeks. The staff is aware of them and working to fix them, but apparently it was a pretty big "crash" of some sort. At any rate, some of the schedules are being cross-posted to other networks that don't apply. As far as I can tell, the "Only in America: Battle Reenactors" series is only seen on the Discovery Times network and not the Discovery Channel. The broadcast dates and times listed on their schedules page:
times.discovery.com/tvlistings/episode.jsp?episode=5&cpi=112468&gid=0&channel=DTC
appear to be the correct ones, checking with other TV guide sources. Of course, the Discovery Times network is usually only available in the digital spectrum via cable or satellite.
Sorry about all the confusion, and hopefully the tech folks will be able to get things squared away with the TV schedules problems soon. Steve Alexander portrays Custer in this program.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 28, 2005 23:15:12 GMT -6
It was a good show. Some of it was filmed at the Cavalry School in Washington, and the rest was around Hardin and the Battlefield. The host was a bit full of himself, but that's to be expected. I think it showed reenactors in a good light.
|
|
|
Post by privategump on Jun 5, 2011 4:29:08 GMT -6
Diane:
On the "portraying reenactors in a positive light" business:
If you are talking about the Discovery Channel show specifically on LBH, I must respectfully disagree.
I was personally there (I am the fellow speaking about the Pattern 1874 haversack and the imperfections of my spectacles) and I really felt this guy had a chip on his shoulder and wanted to do a hatchet job on us, which he did. Another fellow in our mess, Cliff Beckley, who was in a straw hat and I believe gingham shirt, also bespectacled, was suspicious of this "journalist" from the start and very early on expressed misgivings about us interacting with him. I rather wish I had taken my friend's cue.
Paul Milligan
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 5, 2011 8:24:14 GMT -6
Paul,
Personally, I have a tremendous amount of respect for re-enactors, especially those who go out of their way to do things correctly. (And I can make allowances for Port-a-Potties!)
I have no respect for those who like to "play" soldier-- in any theater, i. e., WWII, the American Revolution, the American Civil War, etc.-- and then turn that into a lesson on tactics, strategy, etc., as some people like to do.
True re-enactors-- in my opinion-- can tell me what it is like to live in a period-tent for a couple of days, wear woolen trousers in 100-degree heat, and ride 30 miles a day in a Sheridan saddle, and I will believe every word they say. As I just mentioned, however, that does not mean they can tell me what the sound of a bullet is like when it "cracks" above one's head or what the tactical ramifications are in occupying Finley - Finckle Ridge, or what was in the mind of a pissed-off Sioux warrior. I suspect my opinion here is very similar to Dark Cloud's.
As a former officer in the army and as a combat veteran, I have heard all the "cracking" I want to hear and I needn't be preached to by re-enactors whose experience is limited to just that. This does not mean you by any stretch and it does not pertain to your friends who are like you. It pertains certainly to some you may or may not know.
One other thing in my Sunday morning sermon... I think you guys-- for the most part-- do an extraordinarily good job and I admire greatly people like you.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by privategump on Jun 5, 2011 12:41:50 GMT -6
Thanks Fred.
BTW/FWIW I am NOT a combat vet, I never claimed to be one or to know what combat is/was like. I have no particular wish to find out. I did once sustain an accidental, non-fatal gunshot wound and that was plenty for me. (It did NOT make me any less pro-2nd Amendment, though. People survive car accidents and keep driving, right?)
I have had three Indian War manuals reprinted, each with some sort of modern introduction/commentary/notes of my own. These books are:
Upton's 1874 Cavalry Tactics - with notes on research on use of link straps for linking horses for dismounted fighting - Available from S&S Firearms
A Course of Instruction in Rifle Firing First (1879) Edition with modern notes and commentary and select pages from revised (1880) edition - Available from Cornell Publications - my royalties on this one go to autism research in my son's name
1884 Soldier's Handbook with modern introduction - also available from Cornell Publications.
In all three the very last page is a brief bio on me. Included in it are the facts that:
I have a Bachelors of Science Degree
I have taught middle school science for 26 years and was inducted into Who's Who of America's Teachers
I have been married 23 years and my wife and I are raising three kids
I also own and manage several residential rental properties and have done so for 23 years
The purpose of this info is not to boast but to inform the reader that, unlike the negative re-enactor stereotype, I'm not some 40+ year old guy living in his mom's basement. I really believe this Discovery Channel reporter wished (among other things) to perpetuate this stereotype and skewed his video information to do so.
Again, Fred, thanks for NOT lumping me in with the abovementioned type.
Paul Milligan
|
|
|
Post by privategump on Jun 5, 2011 12:42:25 GMT -6
Thanks Fred.
BTW/FWIW I am NOT a combat vet, I never claimed to be one or to know what combat is/was like. I have no particular wish to find out. I did once sustain an accidental, non-fatal gunshot wound and that was plenty for me. (It did NOT make me any less pro-2nd Amendment, though. People survive car accidents and keep driving, right?)
I have had three Indian War manuals reprinted, each with some sort of modern introduction/commentary/notes of my own. These books are:
Upton's 1874 Cavalry Tactics - with notes on research on use of link straps for linking horses for dismounted fighting - Available from S&S Firearms
A Course of Instruction in Rifle Firing First (1879) Edition with modern notes and commentary and select pages from revised (1880) edition - Available from Cornell Publications - my royalties on this one go to autism research in my son's name
1884 Soldier's Handbook with modern introduction - also available from Cornell Publications.
In all three the very last page is a brief bio on me. Included in it are the facts that:
I have a Bachelors of Science Degree
I have taught middle school science for 26 years and was inducted into Who's Who of America's Teachers
I have been married 23 years and my wife and I are raising three kids
I also own and manage several residential rental properties and have done so for 23 years
The purpose of this info is not to boast but to inform the reader that, unlike the negative re-enactor stereotype, I'm not some 40+ year old guy living in his mom's basement. I really believe this Discovery Channel reporter wished (among other things) to perpetuate this stereotype and skewed his video information to do so.
Again, Fred, thanks for NOT lumping me in with the abovementioned type.
Paul Milligan
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 5, 2011 15:58:58 GMT -6
Paul,
Like I said, I admire fellows like you. You do the rest of us a marvelous service and you make history live, something I appreciate greatly.
I know as well what you mean about TV/the Discovery Channel, etc. If I am not mistaken, Discovery owns the History Channel and while my dearest friend's (now deceased) nephew works for those guys, I only wish its owners/directors/producers had as much integrity as some of the people they want to participate in their programs. The recent Frank Finkle business comes to mind and now you have added another rather less than marvelous chapter. Anything for a buck, no matter how history gets distorted. The Edward Curtis version of the LBH is another joke they aired.
Your "resume" sounds great and it is something you need to be very proud of. Combat is not not a requirement for being proud and many people serve this country without having to don a uniform. We all have certain boundaries, however. Life dictates that... and it is when some people stray from those borders, professing expertise that is undeserved and unmerited that I become a bit incensed. For my part, I am not about to tell a rocket scientist how to build a spaceship.
By the way, how would I obtain a copy of your 1874 Upton manual? You may certainly feel free to e-mail me with details if available.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by privategump on Jun 6, 2011 2:02:52 GMT -6
Fred: Thanks for the kind words. Here is S&S Firearms website www.ssfirearms.com/They at least did carry Upton's 1874 Cavalry Tactics. I did NOT see it in their 2011 online catalog but that may be an error on their part or I may have missed it. I DID see Uptons Infantry Tactics there though. If they DO have it but it does not have a little one page front-and-back detatched insert on linking horses with link straps for dismounted fighting, let me know and I'll either send you the scanned page or I'll send you one snail mail. Thanks again. Paul
|
|
|
Post by Walkaheap on Jun 6, 2011 13:46:24 GMT -6
I've been burned by too many "journalists" in the past so I refuse to deal with them. I've also participated in my share of History-Channel stuff, probably nowhere as much as Paul (although we travel in some of the same circles). For me, reenactment/living history is more for my personal education/desire to get a glimpse at what things were like "back then". As for combat experiences, that's something I'd never presume to put on anyone- that's a personal thing and everyone's reaction/perception is different. From my time in the Army, I saw enough and it was not pleasant. These days, my interest is more about the interaction between man and horse and the use of the horse in war (unfortunately, it doesn't always end well for the horse). If you're going to use the linkstrap, be sure the horses are used to each other and have trained together- I've witnessed the results of linkstrapping gone wrong. Kind of looks like WWW Wrestling on steroids with a large vet bill.
|
|
|
Post by privategump on Jun 6, 2011 17:57:56 GMT -6
Fred:
The order # in LAST YEAR'S (2010's) S&S Firearms Catalog for United States Army Cavalry Tactics Reprint of the 1874 Manual for Cavalry (This is the exact wording in the catalog) is BKC063. It is on page 194 of the 2010 catalog near the bottom of page. It is actual size hardback, 530 pages at $30.00 plus freight.
It seemed to be skipped in the 2011 catalog.
Adam:
The ONLY KNOWN PERIOD INSTRUCTIONS for link strap usage that I am aware of is out of Maury's 1859 manual Skirmish Drill for Mounted Troops. Link straps are NOT repeat NOT mentioned in Patten's/Pointsett's, Cook's or Upton's. They all say to link by tying reins to bridles.
Some Confederate manuals such as Davis's and Boggy Depot pirated Maury's verbatim, but I'm not aware of any DIFFERENT set of instructions that was made up during the period.
To begin with DUMP the line drawing from Vol II of The Horse Soldier by Steffen that shows the link strap buckled into the near side bit ring and the snap fastened into the top near side halter ring when not in use. Taint so. (Mind you, Steffen wrote a GREAT series, but he was not perfect - then again, it's easy to disc where someone else plowed)
Maury's states that the link will be buckled to the bottom halter ring (hitching strap ring) and the snap fastened to THE SAME RING WHEN NOT IN USE.
When linking if you are a #1 or #2, you dismount then FACE THE REAR and grab the snap of the link of the horse that is NOW ON YOUR RIGHT (when facing forward he would be on your left) YOU LEAVE YOUR OWN HORSES LINK ALONE.
You then fasten the link of the horse that is NOW on you right to YOUR OWN horses near side bit ring. By doing this horses #3 and #2 are using their strong necks to pull horses #2 and #1 respectively, by their (hopefully) responsive mouths. See Remington's 1890 watercolor, Dismounted - The Fourth Trooper Leading The Led Horses. It is done exactly as I detailed.
Sometimes in re-enacting, people had this reversed i.e. horses pulling WITH their mouths AGAINST another horses neck. That's where the problems came in.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jun 7, 2011 8:27:18 GMT -6
Paul. Now you have me wondering. Just what method of linkage was used by the troops during the civil war and later during the Indian wars? Was the link strap a standard issue item? If they used their reins, then what type of knot did they use to tie them? Just seems to me they would use a quick release knot. Also does the horseholder hold the other reins and/or does he tie them off to his saddle? What are your thoughts on when one horse gets hit and goes down that they take the other horses with him? Having dealt with wild bucking horses myself, it just seems like if one horse gets hit or otherwise goes berserk, that the other horses will follow suit and then the horseholder can't hold them anymore. What are your thoughts on that.
Thanks.
The only movie example of the use of the link strap is The Horse Soldiers with John Wayne. About ten minutes in they are having an officers meeting under a tree and they show someone riding through with 3 horses linked together.
bc
|
|
|
Post by privategump on Jun 8, 2011 18:18:49 GMT -6
The movie Young Guns did a real lame dismounting scene in Lincoln City, but at least they did use Buffalo Soldiers, as was the case in the real life Lincoln City fight.
On the tying reins business, at least one manual I believe simply says to use a slip knot. (I don't have the books in front of me).
No manual that I am aware of instructs the horse holder to fasten the # 3 horse's reins to the saddle.
One manual actually instructs one horse holder to have three horses on his right and if he is on the extreme end of the company line, to take an officer's horse on his left.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Walkaheap on Jun 9, 2011 14:34:21 GMT -6
Interesting, I've never delved too far into linking since most situations don't have horses that have worked together on a consistent basis to be able to put them together with any confidence that a fight or panic wouldn't break out. Clearly some method was used to deal with horse-holding but what? :-)
|
|