Recon III Feedback

[BillO'Dea]

Re: Recon III Feedback

Frank as i said it was the whole company patrolling the road under orders to see whats in our front, count them and fire at will. When 4 parolled yanks under a yank NCO passed us earlier before the log we thought the jig was up and sent back for more clarification, The orders stood. Our point person saw you were all parked we did what we were told. When the OC explained something was up we left and reported it. In any case if pickets had been posted they could of told us what was up before we got close to the clearing.

it was a great event, I wish we'd met there
Bill O'Dea

[Amos]

Re: Recon III Feedback

Bill O,
Your a bully fellow, but we'd been in an OC safety stand down for over an hour. The ranges were too close and we had some people missing. The US OC and 7th Maine staff were discussing sending in a couple of companies to look for our missing people when you came out of the woods. If someone ordered you to go attack anything you came across, then they didn't get the word or dropped the ball.
As we were told we'd be going back into the woods to attack you guys again, we didn't post any pickets. It was thought it better to rest the men before going back in.

Chuck "Amos" Reynolds

[billwatson]

Re: Recon III Feedback

That stand-down was accomplished by bugle, not whistle, and it is entirely possible not everyone understood it to be anything than a local command for a unit to cease fire.

Hate to take the mystery out of it, but the situation at the particular time under discussion was pretty simple. The Yankee infantry, being in a compact formation, took advantage of that fact during the stand-down to march the entire regiment out to rewater from the lister bags on Brock Road. The Confederates, being spread out and having fortified, sent canteen details to the same point. Not all the Confederates got the word -- some were disconnected from the chain of command by the turmoil, some were so far out they probably didn't hear the cease fire. Fog of war, no big deal, folks need to cut each other some slack and allow for confusion.

Three stand downs:

1. Yankees up against the site boundary, due simply to where first contact was made.
2. A missing lieutenant, with no certainty whether he was missing for 1864 reasons or 2004 reasons. (He was evading capture, and turned up at federal headquarters, but nobody knew that and we stopped 1864 for a bit and began searching for him in case he was hurt.)
3. A cease fire because the Yankee attack on the Confederate fortifications had ended and the Confederate counterattack at one point on the line had disintegrated into little pods of buzzing men who were not only without effective command and control, they were oftentimes beyond the reach of the OCs, all three of whom were on the line swatting down exposed Confederates like the Hand of God gone amok. But it took a few moments to address all the individual situations. When it gets to the point where folks aren't learning about the consequences of what happens when what amounts to an ad hoc Confeerate skirmish line moving through heavy brush and briars hits a concentration of line infantry, it's time to stop and back off, because that's why we were there, to learn what the consequences are.
The federal regiment had tried to slide around the Confederate position and hit them from the northwest; that put them in a reasonable position to exit to the Brock Road lister bags to seriously rewater and rest.

The incidents Bill O'Dea and Frank Lilley are talking about happened during that prolonged watering. The incidents also helped the OCs reach the conclusion that we had to in effect rewind the scenario, put some real distance between the opposing forces, and move on to other things, which we did.

Hope that clears things up.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Recon III Feedback

All,

Congrats on having a successful RECON event. By many accounts, this iteration appears to have been the proverbial "smashing success," and the event which finally provides the CWLHI with greatly needed redemption. To put this in simpler terms, after three "learning experiences," it's nice to see Charlie Brown finally kick that football before Lucy snatches it away from him. He understood persistence. The CWLHI folks have paid their dues, and should become equal partners in the EBUFU process. In order to do that, some things need to happen.

First of all, I'd like to speak to something longer term. These events, when successful are very good things, however, it appears the 24 hour "honeymoon" period has ended, and the carping, backbiting, and mud slinging has begun once again. Instead of making the "camplaigner" stereotype come true, take the time to bring out the positives, and build upon what just happened. Most of all, if you enjoyed this event, as others have in other places for many years, take the time to express delight about those features you most enjoyed, and if there are things you didn't like, make positive suggestions as to future corrective measures whether it's hay, water, or some lights at registration. Those are positive things.

Another positive aspect is the demand for future events of comparable or higher value. Once they have seen Paris, it is hard to keep them down on the farm. Yes, I am speaking of deconfliction in action, rather than just words. The die is cast, and the calendar is set for 2004, for the most part. The events for the 2005 season are just now making themselves known in public places, and it would be good to see the principals for those efforts begin to communicate, coordinate, cooperate, and perhaps reciprocate at some point.
Events are not created equally in size, scope, and geography. I believe people can agree that a local event has a certain market, like a COI; a regional event has a larger market, and if people would work with each other there could be larger events of a similar quality. It's a simple idea. It worked well for several years. It is long past time to revisit the notion.

Don't ruin the afterglow of this event by mudslinging. Use the momentum to build something longer term, something positive, and something for the betterment of this end of the hobby. It has been six years almost to the day since I saw a campaign event with 1,200+ participants. That level of participation has not been achieved since 1998. The momentum from that event was quickly crushed in the abomination that was 135th Gettysburg. What a crying shame.

So, what is next? Obviously Pickett's Mill, but that is a scant three weeks away, and registration ends in a little over one week. Most folks are not going to be able to change gears and make the event. The next pearl on the string in this necklace of events is most likely To The Gates of Washington (unless I've overlooked some larger effort out there). Beyond that, there is the usual cycle of quality summer season NPS living histories, and Burkittsville in September. For a reason, I do not mention the carpe eventums or campaigner adjuncts, as the intent is to finally get to a steady stream of stand-alone events. Again, congrats on what sounds like a fine event, and use this time and era of good feeling to take a hard look at 2005, and plan accordingly to keep future conflict at a minimum.

Keep the momentum going, and reach out to open doors where they have been shut in the past.

Yes, I said that.

Charles Heath

[Strawfoot]

Re: Recon III Feedback

Alright, who posted that and signed Charle's name to it??? Seriously, GREAT points, and I am definitely in.

I am also more than a little encouraged to see ITW end on a successful and positive note. I attended the second Recon event at Cedar Creek, and believed there could've been an outstanding outpost/picket scenario after Saturday's action if the rains hadn't washed it all away. A lot of the names I see in these AAR's I remember from that event. Quality names.

The big question about momentum is how it is used. The olive branch is already out there, and it'd be nice to see something happen in 2005 with campaigners both east and west attending in force.

Mike Phineas
Arlington, TX

[Wild Rover]

Re: Recon III Feedback

Mike,
That is something that has been discussed time and again, perhaps in the kentuck/tenn region............

But that is another thread.

Still sore and hoarse....and loving it!

[C.G. Williams]

Re: Recon III Feedback

All I gotta say is, trenchfoot, snakes, ticks, briars, mud and the rain made the weekend a bit of heaven. One of the best events I ever attended. I want to thank the staff and NCO's of company "B" for an outstanding time..We did make history, we made in through a weekend of Recon without withdrawing early despite the rain. Looking forward to 2006.

[billwatson]

Re: Recon III Feedback

"The big question about momentum is how it is used. The olive branch is already out there, and it'd be nice to see something happen in 2005 with campaigners both east and west attending in force."
Mike Phineas



McDowell is not a CWLHI event, but is the same weekend next May. I will be attending a planning meeting soon for McDowell. It, like the Recon series, changes as it goes along -- McDowell six years ago and McDowell last year were utterly different in terms of overall quality of impressions, overall depiction of history, overall attitude of participants. The components of McDowell can and have changed, with the overall focus remaining fundraising for the McDowell battlefield -- one of the great kicks of the event is driving up each year and seeing the fruits of the last event's efforts in the form of battlefield explanatory plaques on what had been private land. And the history depicted is always some slice of the McDowell history.

It probably doesn't belong in a forum right this second, but if anyone has suggestions for McDowell please pass them along to me by email and I will bring them to the attention of the planning committee. The problem in discussiing them in any forum is that possibilities get passed along and somewhere down the line the story gets garbled and gets passed along again as fact. I'd be glad to hear all kinds of possibilities -- by email.

As it now stands, I will be the overall federal commander at McDowell in 2005. I have a deep and abiding interest in expanding the talent/leadership pool. Fellows who have had leadership thrust upon them in the past and would like to once again just shoulder a musket might want to think about the final preparatory touches for understudies who can successfully take over some of the on-the-field roles -- new captains, new sergeants, new field officers and staff.
-------------------------
In terms of CWLHI, Recon III is over but planning for Recon IV is beginning. Additionally there is an officer school partway finished and we will have our first noncommissioned officer school, in two parts on two weekends, this summer, with a limit of 30 attendees. There are 18 signed up right now.

"The Civil War Living History Institute is dedicated to activities promoting excellence in interpretation of Civil War history."

[Dave Grieves]

Re: Recon III Feedback

Chawls Heef, superlative post!

I am so tired from ITW that I believe it will take me a week to recover. :tounge_sm

My thanks to the boys of Co A, 7th Maine, for assisting me in assisting CPT Piering to lead the company. You're a bully set of fellows with a first rate attitude.

[SCTiger]

Re: Recon III Feedback

Hopefully this new momentum will generate a new era for authentic events, maybe the great deconfliction, east vs. west and ego wars are finished? Olive branch, rainbows, hugs and handshakes?

People actually crossed state lines, paid $1.80 a gallon for gas, ignored upcoming mainstream "140" events, ignored the past Recon failures, ignored foul weather reports, ignored the war and showed up for Recon III. So what happened? Recon III didn't enjoy any "great" conditions, yet 450 showed up.

Charles could actually see a 1600 person event, if this is a new trend. Maybe this forum had something to do with it? Maybe "saving" the other hobby has grown tiresome and boring and the market for authentic events has came back with avengence.

Recon III may not have been "perfect", but it was 100 percent better than any standard reenactment and judging from alot of the comments on this thread, the pendulum is swinging toward the c/p/h and there was alot of "new" reenactors who wanted to avoid the circus events. Just my flaming 2 cents.

[Rother]

Re: Recon III Feedback

Mr. Watson,
I think we all understand now all of the issues it that particular stand-down and can live with it. What I think that Mr. O'Dea, and so do I because I was also on that patrol, takes the most offense to is being referred to as a YAHOO in another post. We were following orders from our superiors not a bunch of half drunk red necks out having a good time as the term yahoo would suggest. I still think that it would have been a great senerio to see all of the union troops scattering around trying to unstack arms and return fire. But then safety issues would have come into play with 60 plus soldiers with fixed bayonets charging at a company of 10 skirmishers and the senerio would have been stopped.
Overall I had a great time and can't wait to do it again.

Ron Roth

[FWL]

Re: Recon III Feedback

All,


Don't ruin the afterglow of this event by mudslinging. Use the momentum to build something longer term, something positive, and something for the betterment of this end of the hobby. It has been six years almost to the day since I saw a campaign event with 1,200+ participants. That level of participation has not been achieved since 1998. The momentum from that event was quickly crushed in the abomination that was 135th Gettysburg. What a crying shame.


Keep the momentum going, and reach out to open doors where they have been shut in the past.

Yes, I said that.

Charles Heath

Charles, I responded to Bill O'Dea in a positive way not to mud sling or question the CWLHI Staff on the "time out". I think this forum can be a constructive way to get issues out in the open after the fact as a running AAR. As privates we have tunnel vision out there. Most of the time we're really not sure what's happening except for that confederate group directly infront of us. The stand down incident Bill O'Dea and I referred to was actually pretty amusing from the Blue point of view and I really enjoyed reading about Bill and pards marching backing grumbling to report the strange occurance to their command staff.

Would the rank and file preferred not to have stood down? Sure. But that's not a bash at all on the OCs, whatever they think, if they want us to stand down, fine. Its no big deal. Its great to see a positive discussion on this forum after an event.

Frank Lilley
"Low Private"
Weeks Mill Mess, Co. B
7th Maine

[Bill Cross]

Re: Recon III Feedback

The CWLHI folks have paid their dues, and should become equal partners in the EBUFU process.

To those who know, this is quite a statement. Though not in any way connected to the CWLHI, I'd still like to applaud Mr. Heath for the gesture.

... the carping, backbiting, and mud slinging has begun once again. Instead of making the "camplaigner" stereotype come true, take the time to bring out the positives, and build upon what just happened... take the time to express delight about those features you most enjoyed, and if there are things you didn't like, make positive suggestions as to future corrective measures whether it's hay, water, or some lights at registration. Those are positive things..

The problems of the event are not insurmountable, and it's a testament to Tim O'Neill and his staff that they are encouraging a "no holds barred" AAR process. With many events and groups, even a mild rebuke results in frayed feelings and animosities that outlive the original problem. And to a certain extent, the problems of the event are the problems the hobby at all levels. Realistic engagement distances are just hard to maintain when almost none of us has real combat experience, and absolutely none of us has real CW combat experience. I can disagree with my good friend, Chris Anders, about the boys jumping forward on the attack rather than staying and dying: this event was 1864, and both sides had learned by then to run away from certain death. But our disagreement is constructive criticism, not the usual carping. Though using blanks, at 10 feet or less, even blanks can do serious harm. The staff of the 7th Maine was upset Saturday because of the safety issue. The event staff may need to have more OCs if future events have terrain like that; there were none of these problems on Sunday morning when the CS forces attacked the Federals in open country in a mini version of Cowpens. And when Bill Watson points out some some command and control issues on the gray side that were non-historical and dangerous to the participants, then we should all listen, as he had no vested interest in the outcome and no unit loyalties to the participants.

That doesn't take away from the wonder of the event, including the chills I felt when Saturday morning we heard the Rebel bugles intimating that hot work lay ahead of us, or the personal satisfaction when my son said "that was a REALLY cool event."

Another positive aspect is the demand for future events of comparable or higher value.... Yes, I am speaking of deconfliction in action, rather than just words..

For deconfliction to work, we need at least three things:

1.) an end to the personal vilification that opens wounds and then keeps them open; if you (and I mean not just Charles Heath, but all of us) want cooperation, then it means reaching out. I'm willing to do it, which is why I have answered your post.

2.) an admission that we cannot coordinate the schedule to please everyone all over the country. When a thousand miles separates two events, we need to accept that rescheduling them will not SIGNIFICANTLY alter numbers, and get on with it. The dream of a "hardcore national" is alive, and I wish those who want it success. But maybe McDowell will be a hardcore almost national simply because it's a solid event that folks can reasonably be expected to drive to from a large portion of the country. It's very hard to say we need something closer to those in the West when McDowell is only a few hours beyond Tennessee and fellers are driving down from Vermont and even Canada.

3.) the acceptance that we'll only succeed if we grow the pie, not piss on someone else's slice. Curt Schmidt has pointed out many times the arc of involvement in this hobby from fresh fish to jaded, burned out veteran, and I'm seeing evidence of this all the time as good friends tell me "I'm burned out." The only way to expand our numbers is to bring in people who have the right attitude, and some of the wonder and awe of my son. Kits are up in quality overall, and even the first-time campaigner is likely to have a better kit than some veterans of 5 years ago. There were a number of first-time campaigners in the 7th this past weekend who were wet and cold, including two teenagers. Their lieutenant tried to find them a barn to sleep in, but they didn't leave, and by morning were veterans.

Maybe "seeing the elephant" these days means lasting out Recon weather?
:wink_smil

Let's drop this bull about "bridge events" and "fence sitters" and accept those who are willing to play by our rules. I inspected a large chunk of the Federals at ITW, and only had to make a few minor changes. Why? Not because we compromised standards, but because everyone knew up-front what was expected and complied. There wasn't a single knapsack with any unit designation on it other than 7th Maine. There wasn't a single camera in the ranks, not a single flash around the campfires, because we told'em the disposable cameras would be confiscated and destroyed. The boys who came played by the rules. Bully for them!

Keep the momentum going, and reach out to open doors where they have been shut in the past.

Yes, I said that.

Sounds good to me. However talk will only get us so far. The real threat to our hobby isn't the OTB, Charles Heath, Bill Cross, or farbs. The real threat is the growing obstacles to putting on good events. It's not deconfliction that caused a senior bureaucrat to squelch a very promising USCT event I was working on, it was fear of controversy. It's not deconfliction that killed Reams Station. As the hobby's doers get burned out and leave, as the land gets harder to secure, as the backbiting makes people want to quit or actually leave, the prospect of large (by campaigner standards) events shrinks. Instead of sweating deconfliction or demanding that folks attend THEIR event as some tit for tat, we should instead be encouraging as many events as we can. There aren't that many right now; we should BE so lucky as to have too many good events.

I agree with John Cleaveland: let's have LOTS of them, and while we're at it, get more folks into the campaigner wing of the hobby, more folks going to good events, and have NUMEROUS hardcore SEMI-nationals. I'll throw out another possiblity for mid- to late-May 2006 in the Richmond area. The details are intensely complex, and planning is no further right now than the "yeah, let's talk about working together" stage (though the scenario is framed and it will be very different than most of what's going on). Richmond's pretty centrally-located if you live in VT, Ohio, Alabama or the Carolinas. And it just turns out that was where a lot of the history we celebrated took place.

[Wild Rover]

Re: Recon III Feedback

Hey Bill,
Will dig around and get out the article John Pagano wrote on the "swarming" CS attack style in the latter part of the War.

Both times we rushed you guys we had a perceived distinct advantage-

1- First fight- I had a battalion on line with a company in reserve and we came up on a Federal line in open order, with a platoon in closed order to our left front. Upon spotting them at less than 30 yards, we fired and rushed the 40 or so to our front with the 100 plus in our ranks....seemed reasonable in that situation.

2- the Breastworks fight- perhaps a mistake was made there, but we had turned your right with our reserve, and the left with a battalion, and when the middle started to fall back we rushed out attempting to bag the "bunch" . The terrain was thick and we could not see the line to our front, only Feds to our front we saw were falling back so we jumped on them. With the firing of the flanking groups on your flanks, when we saw the middle start to quiver, we advanced, figuring one last attack would seal the deal.

My personal goal for the weekend was to show the boys a good time, while using the evolved CS tactics.

We were that aggressive at Recon II, but the numbers on the federal side kept it more even.

If anything I believe the CS forces at that point had evolved thier tactics far above the Federal forces (with Sharpshooter battalions/brigades/corps), and it was only the wieght of Federal numbers that kept the advantage on the Federal side, IMHO.

I think the difference this weekend was that the numbers favored the CS side, and we were "playing to win" and win big.

When I find that article again, I will email it to you....unless I get John's permission to post it.

Thanks, and you guys did a great job!

[BillO'Dea]

Re: Recon III Feedback

Amos, if I had known Brain Emerson was potentially lost , hurt or in trouble, my personal mission would have changed, to a sweep the field to find him with you guys and I'm sure Robby our officer would have concurred.
I just marched 9 miles with Brian the weekend brfore.
regards, Bill O'Dea