March Camp Chase

[SparksBird]

Re: March Camp Chase

I read the article on hair styles and facial hair too and questioned his results. I don't think that looking at 200 pictures is really going to give you a fair representation. Years ago I did the exact same thing, but looked at 4000 images. Even then, that is still not enough. Of those 4000, I looked at posed military, military in the field and civilian(both at home and foreign). Actually, what I was finding was the percentage of men with facial hair had actually gone up. Overall, the number worked out to be about 65% had some sort of facial hair. It seems that this number starts to go up from the 1850s and especially increases in the 70s-80s. One thing that he pointed out that jived with my research was that full beards were still the most prevalent style, especially among older officers. I did also find smaller percentages of mustaches in three categories: average(to the upper lip), bushy(over the lip), and thin(above the lip). But, I will agree that bushy to average were still more prevalent than the Clark Gable look. Lastly, when looking at sideburns I also found that average sideburns were pretty much the norm. The Lorne Green look just wasn't common. The length of sideburn had slowly shortened up into the 60s. So, keep looking at pictures and coming up with your judgements on the matter.

Rick Musselman
Buckeye Mess
GHTI

[acwillen]

Re: Cover Photo

Incorrect. Please try again! :D

I think his answer was right, just for the wrong reason...

Of the two possible methods for taking the position of Rest on Arms, neither specifies moving the right foot (or either foot for that matter) from the position of Shoulder Arms, yet all five men whose foot position is visible on the cover appears to have his feet in a tee, as in Parade Rest.

Disregarding that, the two accounts call for either the barrel to the front or the rammer to the front. As every man with musket position visible but the corporal has the lock to the front (barrel and rammer sideways), the corporal is the closest. However, the method specifying barrel to the front, that of Colonel S., also specifies the right hand over the left - I can't see any part of the corporal's right hand, so I'm guessing it is below the left.

Sorry - you pushed my "picky" button

[Richmond Depot]

Cover Photo

I especially enjoyed the cover photo. It was the dreadlocks on the Union Corporal that I liked best :D All kidding aside, the CCG has always been hurting for good articles. I talked to Bill Keitz for over an hour back in 1980 about it. Maybe it is the lack of financial incentive for the writers. I only subscribe for the event listing ( which are unfortunately mostly mainstream anyway) and the ads myself. The better quality articles would definitly go along way to both improve their circulation and help get much needed information out to the mainstreamers and hopefully help them to improve their impressions.

[SCTiger]

Re: Flexible History

With all of the dismounted cavalry impressions, zouaves, Spencer, Sharps and Henry Riflemen out there. I think we should find an original battle where all of these elements came together. A battle were Zouaves, the rapid fire types and the "armed-to-the-teeth" dismounts can have a "battle royale" with lots of rapid firing and flamboyant uniforms. Wait, did I just describe the NSSA?

Maybe we should quit trying to make the reenactor conform to history and instead find a battle that fits the wants of the reenactor. The battle must include 100 (a company) or more of each. It must contain:

1. Yankee Zouaves (any weapon)
2. Yankee Sharpshooters
3. Henry Riflemen

versus

1. Confederate Dismounted Cavalry (heavily armed)
2. Confederates with captured Henry's /Sharps or issued Spencers, or Colt Rifles.
3. Confederate Sharpshooters

Extra credit if partisan rangers and marines are included.

Anyhow I don't believe such a battle exists were large numbers of these elements fought each other one on one, while excluding the much over-represented, basic infantryman armed with Springfields/Enfields. If such a battle did exist, then a c/p/h event could be organized around it, so that all these folks could justify the expense of these specialty impressions/weapons and finally make the grade and represent history. It could also set a Guiness World record for the most blank rounds ever expended at a reenactment. I
would love to see the painting of that one!

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Cover Photo

Mr. Willenbring,

I am a bit confused. You stated that a prior answer was technically correct (e.g. "Should have removed hats"), but discussed placement of feet and muskets in your reply.

Are you saying they should have removed their hats, or ... ???

Thanks,

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: March Camp Chase

"1. Yankee Zouaves (any weapon)
2. Yankee Sharpshooters
3. Henry Riflemen

versus

1. Confederate Dismounted Cavalry (heavily armed)
2. Confederates with captured Henry's /Sharps or issued Spencers, or Colt Rifles.
3. Confederate Sharpshooters "

You know what, I think this may have been been possible on Shermans march to the sea or through the Carolinas. As long as the Sharpshooters are not the 1st or 2nd USSS of course. :tounge_sm

[acwillen]

Re: Cover Photo

Mr. Willenbring,

I am a bit confused. You stated that a prior answer was technically correct (e.g. "Should have removed hats"), but discussed placement of feet and muskets in your reply.

Are you saying they should have removed their hats, or ... ???

Thanks,

Sorry, should've been more explicit. The answer, as I read it, was "None of the
m are [in the correct position for Rest on Arms]", which answer I support. The reason given for the answer, "Should have removed hats", was not the correct reason.