A Question of Impression - Follow Up No. 1

Using photographic sources as a source of information for building a living history impression can be double-edged sword. While on the one hand it can provide accurate information in regard details about uniforms, equipment and weapons, it can also be misleading in that is the picture representative of the norm or some sort of exception. When utilizing pictures as a research tool, it's important to supplement with other sources such as first person accounts, the appropriate regulations and other official manuals, and anything else that can possibly corroborate the source.

Some of the basic questions that one should be asking when looking at a period photograph should be:

1. What is the date of the picture? Is it consistent with the period being portrayed?
2. Is the uniform, piece of equipment, and/or weapon in the photo representative of what was generally issued for the army and time period or is it an exception?

For example, one may look at a uniform in a picture and decide that it would be suitable for recreation for a living history impression but be dead wrong. One extreme example of this comes from the American Civil War:

Captain Samuel J, Richardson, Company F, 2nd Texas Cavalry

Now, based on the above picture, would it be all right to base a generic impression, recreating the leopard breeches? Common sense and some basic research would suggest a resounding "NO!". This is an extreme example but it illustrates the potential danger of basing an impression off of only one picture. Now if there were a large sample of officers all wearing leopard breeches, that assessment might change.

So it would stand to reason that one should have some sort of a representative sample- in short a number of pictures that show a similar uniform or piece of equipment. But then there is the problem of exceptions and just how big should the sample be? That's a tough one to answer. Is it 20 pictures? 30, 50, 100, more? I am sure that the museum/history professionals have better answers but in my limited experience I have found that sometimes you just have to make an educated case and realize that it's subject to revision at any time as more information is discovered.

However, I do believe that in many instances the basic questions of uniforming, equipment, and weapons use have been answered sufficiently enough where one can make decisions with a high degree of confidence and this is especially true in the case of infantry. For the cavalry and especially the Chevaulegers, the answers have been less clear although many questions are slowly getting answered or at least more information have become available.

Some of the challenges facing us in researching the Chevaulegers, and the 2 Chevauleger in particular have been:

1. Lack of first person accounts of soldiers who were Chevaulegers or members of the 2 Chevauleger. They may be out there, hidden away in various attics, libraries, or private collections.
2. Lack of facility in the German language- much information is no doubt out there but if it's in German, it's inaccessible. However, this is changing as we gain more contacts over in Germany plus various unit members learn German. But still, it's one of the biggest barriers.

The above are just some basics but you get the idea. We are attempting to solve them but it's not an easy task.

So what does this all ultimately point to? Well, basically that what we do should be regarded as a work in progress. We will never have all the answers but we can make some reasonable attempts based on the available information and this in turn translates into the unit authenticity standards. Ultimately, we can use the standards to determine just what sort of an overall impression or "look" we wish to portray.

(The next installment will cover the overall unit "look" or impression.)

Horrido!