Why cant we form 100 man companies?

[DougCooper]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

I would rather be pressed with a hot brand then ever attempt to go to another NSA event after that sorry excuse I went to in 05. I take the idea of leadership within the WIG as being very truthful to the people that follow me, and if I said "Come to -blank- it will be great!" I would be a bold face liar. I bought that line in 04 and 05 and got burned twice.

The only reason I thought about going to Mill Springs was to do fed artillery with Chuck before he hangs up his boots and relegates himself to one or two a year. Why go? So we can get balked at? Hell mainstreamers discovered jean wool and they know it all now anyway, they are in fact- the bee's knees. The old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" and I personally got tired of dragging ole Nelly the glue stead down to the river. I marched at Gettysburg in 98, Chickamauga 99 and Second Raymond which is where I discovered a better hobby, thank God I got drug to Pickett's Mill several weekends after.

Pat - why do you say you got burned, except for the water thing? You guys got to do more things than most folks there. Why not step up next time and try to help make those events better...at the next one? I know it takes patience, but its guys like you the NSA needs to keep improving!

Heck, I will say it right here - I think the WIG could get 500-600 folks at an event at least once a year if we could clear the decks a little to give them room. I wish we would try to do that...even if it means postponing another good event idea a year down the road.

Good response Charles.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Doug,

Let me start by asking one incredibly stupid question. Just how many WIG primary and secondary events has Doug Cooper attended? I ask this in past tense, and not future tense, as the hobby is full of well-meaning "gunnahdoohs."

Pat - why do you say you got burned, except for the water thing?

Any idiot can provide water. It's so easy even a caveman, no, wait...here it comes...wait for it...providing potable water to events is so easy even a Chawls Heef can do it. *

People pay to attend events, and one of the minimum expectations is water, along with firewood, waste management, and parking. One of the great failures of the thankfully defunct eastern for profit megaturbofarbfest model of wallet scouring was the enthusiastic ability to charge for such, and the inability to even remotely comprehend the need to deliver the same.

Why not step up next time and try to help make those events better...at the next one? I know it takes patience, but its guys like you the NSA needs to keep improving!

While I certainly can't speak for Pat, he has certainly paid his dues when it comes to event organizing and then some. As both a consumer and investor (long before that phrase was co-opted by the Back-To-The-Mainstream Movement) in his events, I'll gladly drive right by lesser offerings closer to home to attend better quality events located several states away. Hey, but that's just one man's opinion.

I think the WIG could get 500-600 folks at an event at least once a year if we could clear the decks a little to give them room.

Three thoughts come to mind:

First, approximately 2,200 events each year don't even make it out of the primal ooze above the waterline, and the next 450 or so after that screening process do not pass the gunwales. Consider the decks holystoned, brother.

Second, events get 500-600 quality folks because they are interested enough in something different to register and attend an event with that design capacity. Most high quality events are not that large. The best way to make sure they have 500-600 troops is to register and attend, thus the question at the top of this post.

Third, if messes, companies, battalions and/or brigades want to go to mainstream events, such as the ones the N/SA produces, they'll vote to go. Groups that haven't voted to attend, probably don't want to attend. (Apologies to Captain Obvious.)

In terms of postponing events and juggling the schedules, a good number of people are already deconflicting their events, and cheerfully so. I should not have to mention the epoch when confidence was severely eroded by groups who intentionally (gleefully at that) dropped pop-up events on top of long standing efforts. I'm not the only one who hopes intentional scheduling conflicts, and the tide of frothing fecality that typically comes with it has finally come to a halt.

Full speed reverse is not an option.

*No doubt I'll be hearing from the United Gecko Insurance Spokesperson Antidefamation League any moment now.

[Rob Murray]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Sorry Charles. My mistake.

[Guy Gane III]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

It is our fault. After all, we are the ones doing this, there is no magic involved.

In my opinion, I think we failed ourselves because we let the sutlers/vendors that sell crap make it easy for those who either don't have the money or those who don't have the knowledge to get anything better. If we had boycotted the garbage, we would be past the "such and such looks like crap and it's ruining my event" kind of feeling and focus more on improving the experience.

Reenacting is taking a downward swing because, sadly, there haven't been any motivational (Ken Burns' CW, Blue and the Gray, North and South, Gettysburg, etc...) movies/shows that inspired most of us who are here today. Look at the previous post about that site (F.A.R.B.) and read the post that followed the 1st. I apologize for not remembering who wrote it, but he hit the nail on the head.

Perhaps there is a production company out there that can bring true justice to the history we are so PASSIONATE about? :sarcastic

:wink_smil

[sauguszouave]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

It seems my previous study of Hardees 1855 manual is where I recalled the position of the 3rd Lieutenant. From a the little bit of research I've done though, this appears to have been used almost exclusively by the CS.

The Federals didn't seem to occasion the term 3rd Lieutenant but they did have them or at least they were provided for by army regulation - they were called Brevet 2d Lieutenants.


From Hardee's:

ARTICLE FIRST. - Formation of a Regiment in order of battle, or in line.

POST OF COMPANY OFFICERS, SERGEANTS AND CORPORALS.

12. The company officers and sergeants are nine in number, and will be posted in the following manner:

18. The third lieutenant, opposite the center of the second platoon.

24. The corporals will be posted in the front rank, as prescribed No. 8.

25. Absent officers and sergeants will be replaced - officers by sergeants, and sergeants by corporals. The colonel may detach a first lieutenant from one company to command another, of which both the captain and first lieutenant are absent; but this authority will give no right to a lieutenant to demand to be detached.

From Kautz' Customs of Service for Officers:

11. THERE are three grades of Lieutenants, viz.: First, Second, and Brevet Second. There is no material difference in the duties they are required to perform; they differ only in rank. 12. Brevet Second Lieutenants are supernumerary officers commissioned from the graduates of the Military Academy, or from the non-commissioned officers of the Army found worthy of pro-motion where there are no vacancies. (Acts April 29, 1812, sec. 4, and August 4,1854, sec. 5, Reg. 22.) First and Second Lieutenants belong to the legal organization of companies, whilst Brevet Second Lieutenants are not necessarily attached to the company; in practice they are usually attached to such companies from which one or more of the Lieutenants are absent on permanent staff duty. Only one supernumerary officer to a company can be allowed under the law.

Sources:
Hardee's Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics (1855)

Kautz' Customs of Service for Officers of the Army (1864)

Paul,

A "brevet second lieutenant" is a grade. A "third lieutenant" is an office. This is similar to the office of third sergeant. There is no grade of third sergeant, but there is an office called third sergeant. The grade of the NCO filling the office of third sergeant is sergeant. The grade of the officer filling the office of third lieutenant can be either a second lieutenant or a brevet second lieutenant.

The function of the grade of brevet second lieutenant was due to the restriction on the number of company grade officers imposed by Congressional authorizations for the land forces of the United States. The army didn't know how many USMA cadets would actually graduate each year versus how many second lieutenant's billets would open up. Since promotion in the Regulars was strictly by seniority, cadets had to be commission as second lieutenants in their regiments, departments, or corps; they could not be commissioned at a higher grade. If there happened to be no second lieutenant's billets open at that time, they were commissioned as brevet second lieutenants since that didn't count against the Congressional authorization.

The Employment of Volunteer acts of July 1861 establishing the volunteers forces used by the Federal army did not use this system. There was no office of third lieutenant in a volunteer infantry company, just like there was no office of junior major. There were also no brevet second lieutenants in the volunteers. There was no reason to commission a volunteer officer who didn't already have a billet, and promotion didn't have to be strictly by seniority.

The problem with discussing the table of organization of an infantry company is that you have to distinguish between all the different types of infantry companies. Just in the Federal forces alone, there were regular army old establishment infantry regiments, regular army new establishment infantry regiments, volunteer infantry regiments, and state militia infantry regiments all in service at the same time (not counting the volunteer heavy artillery regiments that were employed as infantry later in the war). The regulation tactics manuals like Scotts, Hardee's and Casey's all use the regular army old establishment infantry regiment TOO. Only Federal volunteer infantry regiments have eight corporals. See Dennis Hart Mahan's 1862 edition of "Out-Post" for an explanation of the different organizations.

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy

[CJDaley]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Any idiot can provide water.

Recon III?

[DougCooper]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Let me start by asking one incredibly stupid question. Just how many WIG primary and secondary events has Doug Cooper attended? I ask this in past tense, and not future tense, as the hobby is full of well-meaning "gunnahdoohs."

What does that have to do with anything Charles? I know a good one when I see one, the WIG events are good - and, they have the work ethic, imagination and leadership to get it done. I have attended some in the past (not enough) and will attend two this year. I will be attending more in the future.

Any idiot can provide water. It's so easy even a caveman, no, wait...here it comes...wait for it...providing potable water to events is so easy even a Chawls Heef can do it. *

Exactly, and if we were helping with the bigger events, everything would work better. The problem at Corinth was the brigade water wagon driver bugged out without a word and the wagon sat idle. The other brigades were not going to give up their wagon until we sorted it out and ordered them too. Not a sterling moment, but like most problems in the army, sorted out quickly.

People pay to attend events, and one of the minimum expectations is water, along with firewood, waste management, and parking. One of the great failures of the thankfully defunct eastern for profit megaturbofarbfest model of wallet scouring was the enthusiastic ability to charge for such, and the inability to even remotely comprehend the need to deliver the same.

So fix it! Like anything else, we have the ability, the leadership and the track record - and I imagine if we volunteered to help with stuff like that today, you would we gratefully accepted.

While I certainly can't speak for Pat, he has certainly paid his dues when it comes to event organizing and then some. As both a consumer and investor (long before that phrase was co-opted by the Back-To-The-Mainstream Movement) in his events, I'll gladly drive right by lesser offerings closer to home to attend better quality events located several states away. Hey, but that's just one man's opinion.

Agree - that's why given a choice, I would love to see Pat and comrades run big campaigner only events for the reasons I outlined above. Give them full reign, plenty of room and voila, we have 250 v 250 campaigner events and we get back a real sense of what it was really like.

Three thoughts come to mind:

First, approximately 2,200 events each year don't even make it out of the primal ooze above the waterline, and the next 450 or so after that screening process do not pass the gunwales. Consider the decks holystoned, brother.

Second, events get 500-600 quality folks because they are interested enough in something different to register and attend an event with that design capacity. Most high quality events are not that large. The best way to make sure they have 500-600 troops is to register and attend, thus the question at the top of this post.

Third, if messes, companies, battalions and/or brigades want to go to mainstream events, such as the ones the N/SA produces, they'll vote to go. Groups that haven't voted to attend, probably don't want to attend. (Apologies to Captain Obvious.)

In terms of postponing events and juggling the schedules, a good number of people are already deconflicting their events, and cheerfully so. I should not have to mention the epoch when confidence was severely eroded by groups who intentionally (gleefully at that) dropped pop-up events on top of long standing efforts. I'm not the only one who hopes intentional scheduling conflicts, and the tide of frothing fecality that typically comes with it has finally come to a halt.

Full speed reverse is not an option.

Agree - and the great worth of the list you keep is to help us decide NOT to have an event due to confliction. We must have that organized list. My main concern is that our small numbers mean we must be realistic - and we ought to decided to have 2 max effort events every year that we run so we can get back the skills and the experience we don't get at our small events. To me, the word "quality" in this hobby always goes to impression and company experience - I want to expand that to army experience.

They don't call me Don Quixote for nothing...but most everyone predicted BGR would fail and any number of other events that did very well. We can do, we prove it all the time. I am advocating that we step it up a notch and try it. Maybe Picket's Mill next year or some other event farther out - set 500-600 as the goal and work like hell to make it happen, designing logistics, land and chain of command to make it happen. Who knows, maybe by being successful, we can show we are as good or better than the big event folks we left behind and a joint effort would be beyond that?

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Thanks for those details Paul. That really clears up some muddy-water. It's been awhile since I've gone through Mahan's and it was a borrowed copy at that. I'm gonna pay a visit to Amazon.

Thanks again.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

we ought to decided to have 2 max effort events every year that we run so we can get back the skills and the experience we don't get at our small events.

That's been suggested before, most recently here. Two Max Effort events was exactly what I called for - the question becomes, who decides which 2? Imagine the politics involved in making that decision!

We created the AC focus group (with representation from many of the major groups) for this purpose though (and other issues as well). The tier 1 events schedule that we came up with gets closer to that goal than we've seen in quite some time... closest to that goal I guess since the days when there were only 2-3 decent events on the annual schedule anyway.

One of the 2008 events is very small capacity and takes place early in the winter - so really, we're talking about 6 events. Which ones have the capacity for a max effort event (400 etc)? Which ones are centrally located enough to draw that number? Which groups will support the max effort idea to the detriment of their own events?

There's a lot of issues to tackle here, but if you can get the right people on board, it could happen.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Doug,

I was just curious if you'd ever attended any, and responding with a pair of "gunnahdoohs" was specifically what I said not to do. Withe you unable to name any, I take it your answer through the blue smoke and mirrors is an unqualified negatory. Why is this important? Well, gosh, so many times over the years we have seen other folks beg for higher quality groups to come to their mainstream (or worse) events in the hopes some magic fairy dust will be sprinkled around and the invited missionaries will somehow make a massive conversion from Wal-Mart to authenticity by the light of the silvery moon. If only a drop of crystal clear water in a mudhole would cure all that murkiness in one fell swoop.

Let's stay the course, and not fret so much about what the mainstream (or worse) is doing.

So fix it! Like anything else, we have the ability, the leadership and the track record - and I imagine if we volunteered to help with stuff like that today, you would we gratefully accepted.

We did, and yet as hard as we tried to drive a stake through the heart of greed that was mid-Atlantic megafests, the truth is the organizers themselves killed, dressed, cooked, and ate the goose that laid the golden egg. Volunteeering for for-profit events? No, I don't think so. Nice try. If you want some history, talk with Joe Smotherman sometime about how and why the volunteer model worked so well for the 1864 Tennessee Campaign folks back during the glory days of the N/SA, or look up his essays on the OTB Forum.

Agree - that's why given a choice, I would love to see Pat and comrades run big campaigner only events for the reasons I outlined above. Give them full reign, plenty of room and voila, we have 250 v 250 campaigner events and we get back a real sense of what it was really like.

Now we are moving down to where "we have 250 v 250." Another few posts from you, and the numbers may start to get realistic. I don't know about larger campaigner events, because that smacks of the mainstream mindset where campaigning either means clumps of common tents scattered willy nilly in the woods, or simply sleeping without a tent of any kind at the umpteenth battle of something local in between root beer and funnel cake runs, and the inevitable mad dash back to "the special place" on wheels in the parking lot when it rains. What I do know is the largest campaign event in recent memory had roughly 1,200 highly mobile participants, and was planned and executed soup to nuts by mainstreamers. That number of people willing to take a stroll for more than two days no longer exists.

To me, the word "quality" in this hobby always goes to impression and company experience - I want to expand that to army experience.

Army? Join the ranks of those who wanted to jump right in at the brigade and division level without mastering the foundations of company and battalion level operations. I'm not saying a 44- or 65-man brigade isn't a wonderous thing, but seeing how this is the 100-man thread (one of two), let's spend some time letting the company level officers and NCOs get a grip on their jobs at the section, platoon, company, and, yes, battalion level before assuming the role of a corps or army. That's a big leap; however, the good news is plenty of people who have been participating on a regular basis have developed considerable skills.

To examine one of your questions, which two events in 2008 may have the capacity for 200 or more participants?

1. Kevin says Winter 1864 has a capacity of 70, so that's not going to be it. I wouldn't be surprised if people aren't hand carrying forms and payments the day registration opens, even if the application rules state to mail it.

2. Pea Ridge NPS Living History is designed for one 4th Arkansas Infantry company, and one MSG company. Might want to ask Art if that can be expanded, but considering the geography, it could be a stretch. This is probably not going to be in the running for a large event.

3. Glendale-Malvern Hill will probably be lucky to have the stated 2 to 4 companies of infantry (and some cavalry and artillery) next April. Much of the Seven Days falls into a crack in terms of reenactor interest. This event is probably going to be a bit more low key than previous efforts.

4. Although Pickett's Mill has the potential for two small battalions, it is in an off peak cycle, and several people have mentioned the desire for less troops rather than more for the next rendition. The hint on the radar screen is major groups have already endorsed other events. If desired, the organizers can provide some answers here.

5. Geography may work against Marmaduke's Raid, but Frank can answer that better than most. Missouri in late September could and should be attractive, but many individuals will hold their kitchen passes for Camp Morton approximately two weeks later. IMHO, this event will be worth the round trip from Maryland to Missouri, but a number of potential participants will realize it is October and once again engage their "cobblers abed" impression, and exclaim "can't wait until next year!" when all is said and done. Meanwhile, we few, we happy few....

6. The site of the Camp Morton Prison Camp event has the potential for up to 400 participants. Just because the site can handle that many reenactors, doesn't mean the event will grow to fill those numbers. Being in the midwest where number of CPH folks are rather high in terms of the general population, this event could be a real surprise.

7. The postponed After the Battle: Fredericksburg aka "Slaugher Pen" event could field several hundred reenactors. As with Marmaduke's Raid and Camp Morton, just because the potential is there....you can fill in the rest.

So, even a cursory examination of 2008 events yields only a few that can have a battalion or more. Funny thing is that is about the way it is every year. Given that not everyone travels to every event, one of the things I really like about 2008 is the dispersion. The northeast gets one early event. The Tran-Miss gets two (show your love, boys!) when the weather should be good, the Midwest one after the kids are in school, the Southeast one before it gets way too hot, and the Mid-Atlantic garners two spots. Not bad.

Who knows, maybe by being successful, we can show we are as good or better than the big event folks we left behind and a joint effort would be beyond that?

We are better. That is why we left them behind in a cloud of dust. From where I'm standing, the trail of success has been pretty darned strong for over a decade, and is slowly but surely building, even in the face of adversity and uncertainty. The view may be different from Idaho.

No U-Turns.

[JimConley]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Doug,
I do not intend to say anything that would provoke dispute; however I wish to briefly interject with some ideas that may add constructive thought.

Why, and this is not the first instance, do you stand so firmly on the big events, be they NSA or the like? I understand that in more recent years the organization of these larger events have attempted to take on a more productive or progressive theme, yet they still fall short in every way. IMO, the numbers do very little to enhance such experiences because with large numbers is the increased margin for not only mismanagement, but a large digression in participant quality on a very general level alone. As Charles said above, this part of the hobby left that arena long ago, so why turn back?

Why not step up next time and try to help make those events better...at the next one? I know it takes patience, but its guys like you the NSA needs to keep improving!

Why continue to take the time, effort, and stress to make those events better when more can be done to improve OUR events?

I think baseball can be used as a simple analogy here. For example, why would a MLB club jump down into AAA to play a series with a mediocre ball club when they're already playing at the highest level? And what do major league organizations use AAA for? Recruiting. You don't see an entire MLB club playing a AAA team to pick the guys that are ready to move up, they have scouts for that. So, yes, it is beneficiary for us to attend big events and spread the good word about our level of play, but there's little reason for 500 or more of us to show up in order to pick out who's ready for the big leagues next season.

The trouble with numbers is a compromise in quality. That's probably the reason why (other than NPS restrictions in some cases) most of the better events are limited to one or two companies. And by keeping smaller numbers, at least some minimal level of quality is assured regarding kits, drill, overall impressions, and attitudes. Tripp pointed out earlier that in specific instances, history shows that having 100-man companies (or even 60-man companies) is simply not a true representation, which is something that we should all pay attention to.

The best events that I've been to in many cases were those that had less than 100 participants. It would be amazing to see a few thousand in the field that are well-drilled, good attitudes, and killer kits, but let's be realistic.

I, for one, and perfectly content going to small events that deliver a quality and somewhat realistic experience rather than standing in the middle of a parody.

Why go join thousands at the circus when all you need is twenty or thirty of your pards?

[HOG.EYE.MAN]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Doug,
I do not intend to say anything that would provoke dispute; however I wish to briefly interject with some ideas that may add constructive thought.

Why, and this is not the first instance, do you stand so firmly on the big events, be they NSA or the like?

Because in the past, they were productive, successful, and great to be a part of. People would come out of the woodwork for these things, and authenticity levels were still very high.

[DougCooper]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Doug,
I do not intend to say anything that would provoke dispute; however I wish to briefly interject with some ideas that may add constructive thought.

Why, and this is not the first instance, do you stand so firmly on the big events, be they NSA or the like? I understand that in more recent years the organization of these larger events have attempted to take on a more productive or progressive theme, yet they still fall short in every way. IMO, the numbers do very little to enhance such experiences because with large numbers is the increased margin for not only mismanagement, but a large digression in participant quality on a very general level alone. As Charles said above, this part of the hobby left that arena long ago, so why turn back?


Why continue to take the time, effort, and stress to make those events better when more can be done to improve OUR events?

I think baseball can be used as a simple analogy here. For example, why would a MLB club jump down into AAA to play a series with a mediocre ball club when they're already playing at the highest level? And what do major league organizations use AAA for? Recruiting. You don't see an entire MLB club playing a AAA team to pick the guys that are ready to move up, they have scouts for that. So, yes, it is beneficiary for us to attend big events and spread the good word about our level of play, but there's little reason for 500 or more of us to show up in order to pick out who's ready for the big leagues next season.

The trouble with numbers is a compromise in quality. That's probably the reason why (other than NPS restrictions in some cases) most of the better events are limited to one or two companies. And by keeping smaller numbers, at least some minimal level of quality is assured regarding kits, drill, overall impressions, and attitudes. Tripp pointed out earlier that in specific instances, history shows that having 100-man companies (or even 60-man companies) is simply not a true representation, which is something that we should all pay attention to.

The best events that I've been to in many cases were those that had less than 100 participants. It would be amazing to see a few thousand in the field that are well-drilled, good attitudes, and killer kits, but let's be realistic.

I, for one, and perfectly content going to small events that deliver a quality and somewhat realistic experience rather than standing in the middle of a parody.

Why go join thousands at the circus when all you need is twenty or thirty of your pards?

Jim - because the only place you can see the elephant is at the circus!

Sorry, could not resiste. Jim yours are excellent comments, as usual, and probably echoed the same thing I said everyday 2-3 years ago.

Depends on your definition of quality. Quality to me is a 250 man battalion that can do any maneuver in the book, in the racket of a large reenactment, by the bugle. You and I agree 100% on why individual quality is important, and we agree on what that is. My point here entirely is that we have the leadership, quality and numbers (I think) to do two things:

1. Create a 500-600 participant BGR or Outpost event every year, or even twice a year if we can get two groups like the WIG and maybe ONV or Mess #1 or whatever to start the ball rolling.

2. Take 1-2 large battalions to a large NSA type event and create a great experience for those battalions....and make those events much better than the norm.

I do not want to get away from our excellent NPS events, or things like I600 from time to time, but I really do think we are missing something by not working in the midst of the same thousands or hundreds of troops that the original soldiers did. My greatest moments in the hobby are not seeing 20 guys in perfect kit in perfect first person, although that is a good thing. Been there, done that, many times. My greatest moments are looking to my right and left and seeing 2000 men in perfect formation moving across a field against a line of breastworks manned by 2000 troops who built the thing the night before. When we go over the works, I know that half of us will need to wheel to the right and other wheel to the left and somehow stay in formation, firing and loading and making the scenario work, just like it did in the real deal.

At the end of what I describe above, the 125th Mule Shoe engagment in 1989, we knew we had done something special but we did not assume it would not happen again, ever.

At Gettysburg in 1992 my unit was awakened before dawn on top a recreated Culp's Hill - there were 100's of us peering through the dark, piling more stones and logs as we waited for what was about to happen. Several batteries of guns behind us were about to fire so we laid flat, opened our mouths and put our fingers in our ears. The noise was deafening...and then in the half light of dawn, we began to hear the rebs coming up the hill, long before we could see them. I was impressed.

That was the norm back then - though many of you guys were too young to have been there. Well the same type leaders we have today on our side were commanding the big show back then.

It isn't about burning powder, its about being soldiers in units. Its the challenge of recreating all parts of the army and of making that army do what you command it (at every level) to do in recreation of what really happened. That is infinitely more difficult than getting 30 guys together for a weekend of living history. Its hard as can be...and we as the campaigner end of this hobby tend to shy away from that, as we have been disappointed so many times, including me.

But I think we have reached a level in numbers, leadership and event organization skills where we can do a 500-600 man event of our own if we pull together, and also attend the big events and make a real difference. By doing so, instead of the 150th being just another anniversary, maybe we really can get back to a place we used to be at...only now the rank and file will be smarter, look better and worthy of recreating the army on a bigger scale.

Leadership, quality scenario design and good logistics trump farbs in the ranks - again, the Lazy Jacks, perhaps the finest unit in this hobby, say it best - "Its all Civil War wallpaper."

So I don't fear doing another Rich Mountain, with twice the troops - even if that means the company a couple of doors down is less than perfect. What matters is your company and battalion and the leaders of the event, both in uniform and out. We have the talent, the energy and the numbers.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Doug,

I say this with no malice. You need a reality check.

[CJDaley]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

I, for one, and perfectly content going to small events that deliver a quality and somewhat realistic experience rather than standing in the middle of a parody.

We are better. That is why we left them behind in a cloud of dust.

I must have been absent the day you guys pulled the sword from the stone. A little humility among the chosen few would go along way. Geez fellas, this is only a hobby and you guys act as if those who don't share your thoughts have the plague.

Sorry, but if we're going to continue with attitudes like this, I say let's strike the tents before the 150th series or else our heads might explode.

Sincerely,
Cee Jay Dailey
Windmill Stormer Mess