Are we going to be focussing our portrayal of individuals on one specific regiment of the brigade, or on a mixture?

Coby

Brian has it right, a "portable" first person that could be used in a variety of situations. We will concentrate on the history of the Brigade as a whole, but it's too easy to get bogged down in the individual histories, there is a 23rd SC and 26th SC reenactment group, I met a guy last weekend that wants to start and register the "22nd SC" as mainstream unit. We are the only ones looking to research and represent the Tramp Brigade accurately, for the other organizations it's just a number and a name. The regimental histories for those units rarely extend beyond the unit roster and the battle history.

We are flexible and will adopt a common, simple, "high likely" appearance based on existing relics, pictures, descriptions and surviving records. It's going to take a lot of begging from private collectors, museums and archives for information. "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best", quoting Occam's razor if I may. The more complex an explanation needs, the less likely it happened, e.g. the TB using Whitworth's at Fort Sumter. Maybe but, it's more likely they used their issued weapon unless indicators prove otherwise. Would the soldiers wear a very hard to manufacture uniform or a simple and cheap one? Again we will err on the simple, unless we find evidence contrary to current theories.

Reenactors want to look special and everyone loves the extraordinary. The bland, commonplace and usual isn't as attractive as the unique and special items, compare a plain uniform to a glamorous outfit. The glamorous stuff is always the subject of paintings, plates, magazine articles, collectibles and reproductions. A reenactor will see the highly publicized stuff and will want to represent that; disregarding the fact that it's a rare impression, (Wheat's Zouave Tigers for example). Rarely will the historical interpreter look in the other direction or stay objective.