Taking it Like a Man: by Paul Calloway

[Jayhawk102]

I may be a growing hit taker, because I want to save as much cartridges for the weekend so I always look for the best point to die, or get hit. However some days I just fill like dying.

[JWolf]

I think it is an interesting aspect of reenacting to occassionally study or ponder. From what I've seen there is usually a direct correlation for a powder burner to what kind of weapon(s) and how many he (or she) carries.

i.e. The bigger the bowie knife, and the more pistols and are carried, a rifle that is civilian instead of a military rifle/carbine, or a dismounted cav instead of infantry unit (no offense meant to the guys that know how to properly protray dismounted cav) the more likely to be a powder burner. For artillery it seems that that some of the guys with the miniture guns always have to use more powder per round that the full size guns.

I and my battery mates can never decide which is our personal "favorite", a "permanently" dismounted cav. unit with a preponderance of Hawkins rifles and approximately 1.5 pistols per trooper, or an artillery crew where everyone has a sidearm (instead of just the non-coms/officers) and whose powder charge for their mini-homemade cannon exceeds ours for the 3" ordinance...

Jim Wolf
Scott's Tennessee Battery

[13thnhv]

As a veteran Hit-Taker, I am invariably Killed Instantly.

[Milliron]

This is an interesting topic. However, no matter how one classifies themselves as a "hit taker," it can't really come remotely close to simulating the effect of casualties.

I realize that it is de rigueur among the c/p/h set to disdain battles/tacticals/farboramas. This is probably for very good reason. The best "battle" pales in comparison the the worst living history moment, IMHO. It is probably also true to say that many c/p/h's like to burn some powder at an event (I do, for one). I disagree with those who state that battles or simulated confrontations are irrelevant and that accurate living history portrayals are all that should be attempted. It's a little hard to recreate a war without actually. . . warring, at some point.

However advanced our material culture becomes and evolved our impressions get, this aspect of living history never evolves--why not? This is particularly unusual given the relative popularity of battles/tacticals. I was particularly struck by this at TAG this fall when there were so many great period moments leading up to the engagement, which was, shall we say, less great. (the morning fight was pretty cool, with the fog and all, admittedly). Those who were there remember a chorus of complaints about "non-hit-taking" and the like, and a lot of ruffled feathers among the commanders to boot. It didn't fit with the otherwise excellent living history that was being done there, and the contrast was glaring (to me, at least).

At Pickett's Mill in 2001 there was some attempt made by John Cleveland to duplicate at least the inconvenience of having your pards killed/wounded by use of the "dead company." Everyone's reaction to this idea was very favorable--it may have been the first "battle" I ever took part in that I actually experienced the pang of loss. All my pards were killed except for me and I didn't see them for the rest of the event. Way cool.

Could not there be a system of recreating certain chaotic elements within a "battle" reenactment? I always found it to be way too convenient that commanders never go down. Sure Craddock will "kick their ass," but what if he goes down? Who does command devolve onto? What will they do? Will they be as effective? Would not this make it incumbent on subordinates to know what's going on going into the thing?--would not this be an exciting and accurate experience for all involved? If you are extremely aggressive toward an enemy, should you not have to deal with higher casualties and therefore reduced strength the next day?

I think John Cleveland was on to something with the dead company idea, and I personally would like to see an effort made to recreate these elements in the tactical setting. Then we could save some of the theatrics and actually get the feeling of being there, if only in a small way--it would be better than what goes on now. I don't propose to have an answer to all these questions, but there are a lot of sharp heads in this hobby and I'd like to see more thought given to this aspect of an event. I'm always having a great period moment right up to the time the shooting starts--then I'm magically transported to "The 135 Anniversary of the Battle of Something Local," to quote a phrase. Bleah. We can do better than that.

Sorry for the coffee driven ramble, but this has been on my mind for some time.

[Hank Trent]

However advanced our material culture becomes and evolved our impressions get, this aspect of living history never evolves--why not? This is particularly unusual given the relative popularity of battles/tacticals.

Here's my viewpoint on why it doesn't, and what needs to change to make it easy to evolve.

There seems to be an emphasis on reenacting how battles happened in the tactical sense, rather than reenacting the lives of those who happened to be fighting in a battle on that particular day.

An example of the mindset is a phrase someone used in an email discussion we were having about casualties, and whether the wounded should remain wounded more than a brief time. The person wrote hypothetically about: "participants who drove 14 hours only to be 'shot' five minutes after dawn, only then to sit out the rest of the event."

It shows the mindset that a battle is like a hockey game, and the object is to be out there playing, rather than sitting in the penalty box.

I replied:

Ah, the different hobbies we all participate in. :-) Ironically, I'll be driving eight hours just to be shot and "sit out" the entire event. But in my hobby, as long as I'm portraying a live person from the 1860s, whether healthy or injured, I'm doing what I came for. But I understand the focus of this event, and of most military reenactors, is on tactics and warfare specifically, and not on the total experience of being a person in the 1860s.

Obviously, it requires some sort of organizational support for wounded men to remain wounded, so their experience continues to be accurate for the time and place.

But as long as there's a mindset that you're sitting out an event if you're not burning powder anymore, there's going to be a reluctance to take hits, and when hits are taken, there will be those necessary moments when the wounded get up during the event and pretend nothing ever happened, so they aren't forced to "sit out" any longer.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Secede1863]

Ok,

I believe humbley I am a modest hit-taker. What I dont get is why in real battle someone would die in the first few seconds (Rifleman have SOME training) but REENACTORS who portray the battles either (For the most part, I dont mean you guys) die right at the end? To me that could be considered Farb.

I usually die within the first 10 minutes. I dont give any signal I am either. Which is correct, no one was positive when they were going to die. When "catching one" I dont neccesarily do a dance, As I dont plan on what kills me (Different ways of killing different "dance" but I put some movement into it, not just a fall down like fresh cut timber.

I have been known to "Beg for Mercy" on the field.

Andrew Z. Stebbins

[RelicRoomGuy]

Hey, "The Bloody Crucible of Courage" by Brent Nosworthy, is a WONDERFUL book. (Recommended to me on this forum recently - and within days also recommended by an instructor from the Army's "Command and Staff College".)

And on this topic, a vital section: pp.222-227, "Being Hit" and "The Wounded". My confidence in my histrionic ability is bolstered by a passage from a Gaines Mill soldier:

"Here a man would suddenly start, drop his gun, and limp away - the blood flowing from a wound in his leg; another would suddenly spring in the air, uttering a piercing shriek, then fall back - quivering - lifeless - his eyes staring vacantly - his teeth set - his hands clenched till the fingernails cut into the palms. Another would sink to the ground without a groan - without a gasp for the suddenly departing breath. Another would convulsively clasp his hand to his breast - perhaps brow - a moment stand, then stagger, reel, and fall to the earth gasping for breath - the hot blood gushing from his wound."

Samuel Wing of the Third Maine contended that "during his whole battlefield experience, he never even heard a shriek.....'the first effect of a wound is numbness, and the wounded seldom speak above a whisper, which is hard to hear in time of battle'." (Nosworthy p.224)

So "springing with a shriek", not to mention writhing in visible agony, are perhaps less plain, everyday, common portrayals than going to the ground in quiet desperation would be. More apparent (to others) horror, screaming and so forth seem to come in a few pages later as the wounded get to the hospital. Makes me think I can easily become a hit-taker, but not necessarily a "patient"!

[JimConley]

I think Paul has made an observation that many of us have no doubt experienced. Great article Paul. I especially like the humorous comparisons, though they are true. The powder burning fests at mainstream events is just one of the reasons I, and many, have shyed away into the authentic world. Again, good topic Paul!

[AzTrooper]

sorry I hit the wrong button and posted by mistake, my apologies
John Rogers

[AzTrooper]

Howdy everyone,
I have to say that in the events that I have been to, I have noticed that very few folks take hits from artillery,I dont mean from guns a thousand yards off, Im talking about at closer range where one would expect canister to be in use.I unfortuneately only get to do one or two events a year, and they are local ones for the most part. I keep an eye on whats going on around us, if I notice that a field piece is loaded and aimed in our direction,I try to get between 6 and 8 of us to drop when the piece fires. I have been told more than once by artillery guys that they noticed us taking the hit when their gun was fired.Even if the hit goes unnoticed,the important thing to me is that if that piece HAD been loaded for real, would we have been left standing? I dont know how many accounts I have read that mention the devastating effect that canister had on troops, such as huge gaps opening in lines from a single shot , yet I rarely ever see anyone fall when a field piece goes off... much less 6 to 8 people.
As I said earlier, I have not been to a whole lot of events, so all I can comment on is the ones that I have been to.In the not too distant future I plan on moving from Arizona to either Virginia or Pennsylvania.I am honestly looking forward joining a group that portrays mounted cavalry and being able to attend events like the ones I hear everyone on this forum talk about,I have never been to a immersion event, or any like what I have heard called a history heavy event,I am really looking forward to one day being able to join you all at events such as this.
Respectfully and sincerely,
John Rogers