Over the next few days I will be redesigning the website for the Norfolk Militia (Heritage Regiment) Re-Enactment Group (that's them in the photo above) here in Southern, Ontario, Canada. I will pop in on this blog as often as possible, and will be back with more frequent blog posts next week.

When the new website is ready I'll post the link. I look forward to any constructive criticism, and feedback you might have to offer.

Canada Day 2008 - Fort York

Some people make the incorrect assumption that re-enactment of historical battles glorify war.

They don't. Re-enactment offers a living history lesson to the audience.

And hopefully imparts the horrors that some of our ancestors faced. Including the awful smell of gun powder, and sounds of booming canon fire. For me these offer the only means of going back in time, and a tiny glimpse in the life of an Upper Canadian soldier almost 200 years ago.

Please note that this entry is for both the Tuesday, and Wednesday editions of WW.

Happy Wordless Wednesday! And Thank You For Stopping By!

For a list of other Wordless Wednesday participants please click here.

The weapon of choice during much of the eighteenth and nineteenth century was the black-powder musket. A nice and simple weapon with an effective range of about 75 yards. In fact, most safety guidelines have no issues with someone standing about 100 yards away from musket drill pointed right at them.

The musket required twelve steps to be fired...

Recover: The musket is brought up to eye level... well, the "lock" (firing mechanism) is with the barrel in the air and the butt usually near the chest. The weapon is not brought up directly in front of the person firing, but slightly off to the left...

This is done for the person firing to check to see if everything is in good working order... that the flint is in place and good and that there's nothing fouling the touch-hole for the next round.

Load: The musket is brought down to the waist... the butt to the rear, the barrel forward. The musket's hammer (where the flint is,) is brought to half-cock (not quite all the way ready, but not touching the frizzen or the metal where the flint makes it's spark on the pan) and pan is opened.

Handle Cartridge: The person firing reaches about with their right hand, while cradling the musket between their left hand, their right arm, and their waist, and snatches a "cartridge". This is a piece of paper which is wrapped around a musket ball (the bullet) and the black-powder. In military orders, which is how I'm giving them to you here, a soldier would then bring the cartridge to his mouth...

Prime: After biting the end of the cartridge (keeping the ball in his mouth,) the soldier shakes just a tiny bit of powder into the pan of the musket... Once done, the pan is closed and you wait for the next order.

Bout: The butt of the weapon is dropped down and the barrel brought down (pointing up) to allow for the pouring of the rest of the powder from the cartridge down the barrel. Once the powder is in, the ball is dropped into the barrel then the paper is jammed in.

Draw Ramrod: The "ramrod" is a metal bar that is part of the musket, just under the barrel. At this command, it's removed from it's place with two pulls (they are long!) and it is then carefully kept at the opening of the barrel.

Ram Down the Cartridge: The soldier would then use the ramrod to push the paper, ball, and powder down to the bottom of the barrel firmly.

Return Ramrods: Kind of an important... this step is where you withdraw the ramrod from the barrel and put it back in it's place in the musket. If this step is missed, you're going to end up shooting your rod at the enemy with the ball!

Shoulder Arms: Just like it sounds... the butt of the gun is cradled in the left hand, the barrel rests against the left shoulder. This also gives the soldier another chance to ensure his ramrod is indeed back where it belongs... usually they "tap" the barrel to feel the ramrod in it's place while they shoulder their weapons... don't feel the ramrod, best fetch it out of the barrel ASAP!

Make Ready: The musket is brought so that the firing mechanism in front of the face with the barrel pointing up. The soldier then pulls the hammer all the way back into firing position (full cock)... and waits...

Present: The musket is brought down, barrel forward, butt against the shoulder... ready to fire at your target. Don't sweat aiming too much... like I said, you're only likely to hit a large target at about fifty yards or so... with no intricate hitting of a target. The idea was to basically have a big line of soldiers firing in unison to create a hap-hazard wall of flying balls hurtling towards the enemy... kind of like a few hundred guys acting as one, underpowered shotgun.

Fire: Straight forward command... the trigger is pulled, the cock is sprung forward with it's flint, which strikes the frizzen (the metal cover of the pan) which causes a spark that enters the pan igniting the priming charge of powder in the pan, which then goes through the touch-hole and ignites the powder in the bottom of the barrel which propels the ball forward and out.

In battle, just repeat the steps above...

Now, it is interesting to note two things...

#1: A good and trained soldier could fire three shots per minute with these steps.

#2: When America's founding fathers wrote the second amendment to the constitution about the "Right to Bear Arms", this is what they figured they'd be dealing with... not the advanced weapons of today.

None-the-less, this is the "Twelve Step Program", as it were, to firing a musket.

In the re-enactment and historical communities, opinion is a little mixed as to the work of the late Canadian author, Pierre Berton, on the War of 1812 between America and Canada/Britain.

I believe the problem was that Berton didn't write a dry historical text citing every troop movement and minor scrimmage of the conflict... but went with diaries and letters and tried to show the conflict from the point of view of those involved directly. Not an easy task, and one that rarely wins praise from true historians and personal views often differ from facts.

None-the-less, I enjoyed his books thoroughly (especially the second book, Flames Across the Border and found them sound and have no issues with them whatsoever... in fact, the back of the book holds some interesting notes for people who might be unaware of the relevance and importance (or lack thereof) of this conflict...

I'm reproducing some quotes here from the book in hopes that Pierre Berton Enterprises Ltd. and Anchor Books won't be too mad... I'm hoping this VERY SMALL sampling will not be treading too heavy on copyright infringement... and I do whole-heartedly recommend ANY history "fan" buy and read these books which are excellent reads... and paint a very interesting portrait of a somewhat forgotten war...

Having won the last battle (New Orleans), the Americans were convinced they won the war of 1812. Having stemmed the tide of invasion and kept the Americans out of their country, Canadians believed that they won the war. Having ceded nothing they considered important, the British were serene in the conviction that they won it. But war is not a cricket match. The three nations that celebrated peace were beggared by the conflict, their people bereaved, their treasure emptied, their graveyards crowded. In North America, the charred houses, the untended farms, the ravaged fields along the border left a legacy of bitterness and distrust.

Events, not individuals, it is said, control the course of history. The War of 1812 suggests the opposite, Canada's destiny, for better of for worse, was in the hands of human beings, subject to human caprices, strengths, and emotions. If the ambitious Winfield Scott had waited for the army at Lundy's Lane, if the haughty Commodore Chauncey had deigned to support Jacob Brown at Fort George, could Upper Canada have held out? Tecumseh was unique. If he had not been born, would another have risen in his place?

The war helped set the two countries on different courses. National characteristics were evolving: American ebullience, Canadian reserve. The Americans went wild over minor triumphs, the Canadians remained phlegmatic over major ones. Brock was knighted for Detroit, but there were no medals struck, no ceremonial swords, banquets, or fireworks to mark Châteauguay, Crysler's Farm, Stoney Creek, or Beaver Dams. By contrast, Croghan's defence of Fort Stephenson was the signal for a paroxysm of rejoicing of rejoicing that made him an overnight hero in the United States.

American hero worship filled the Congress, the Senate, and the state legislatures with dozens of war veterans. Three soldiers, Harrison, Jackson, and Zachary Taylor - became president. But there were no Canadian Jacksons because there was no high political office to which a Canadian could aspire. The major victories were won by men from another land who did their job and went home. Brock and de Salaberry were Canada's only heroes, Laura Secord her sole heroine. And Brock was not a Canadian.

The quality of boundless enthusiasm, which convinces every American school child that the United States won the war, is not a Canadian trait. We do not venerate winners. Who remember Billy Green, John Norton, Robert Dickson, or even William Hamilton Merritt? The quintessential Canadian hero was a clergyman, not a soldier, a transplanted Scot, a supporter of entrenched values, a Tory of Tories. Dour, earnest, implacable, John Strachan acquired a reputation for courage and leadership that made him a power in Upper Canada and helped freeze its political pattern.

The war helped entrench certain words in the national lexicon and certain attitudes in the national consciousness. Three words - loyalty, security, and order - took on a Canadian connotation. Freedom, tossed about like a cricket ball by all sides, had a special meaning too: it meant freedom from the United States. Liberty was exclusively American, never used north of the border, perhaps because it was too close to libertine for the pious Canadians. Radicalism was the opposite of loyalty, democracy the opposite of order.

Loyalty meant loyalty to Britain and to British values. Long after Confederation, John A. MacDonald could bring an audience to its feet by crying: "A British subject I was born; a British subject I will die" - meaning that he would never die an American. On this curiously negative principal, uttered by the first prime minister of an emerging nation, did the seeds of nationalism sprout.

British colonial rule meant orderly government, not the democracy of the uneducated mob. The war enshrined national stereotypes: the British redcoats were seen as a regimented force, the Kentucky militia as an unmannerly horde. The pejorative was "Yankee." In the Canadian vernacular, Yankees were everything the York and Montreal elite were not: vulgar, tobacco-chewing upstarts in loud suits, who had no breeding and spoke with an offencive twang. Tiger Dunlop, the British surgeon, captured this attitude when he described how a servant told Red George MacDonald that a Yankee officer was waiting to sell him some smuggled beef. He knew he was a Yankee, he said, "for he wore his hat in the parlour and spit on the carpet." The stereotype persisted into the next century as the political cartoons of the post-war years demonstrate.

The invasion of Canada did not initiate that snobbery: it had been part of the English attitude toward the upstart colony since the days of the Revolution. But the bitterness of war made it acceptable, even desirable, in Canada.

On all this somewhat angry and negative things between two friendly nations from their long past, allow me to quote MYSELF from a post on the One Old Green Bus blog...

This was not a popular war for anyone... it was most often referred to as "Mr. Madison's War"... despite the fact that President Madison wasn't really wanting to go the "armed conflict" route either. Not helping matters were statements from Thomas Jefferson who had said that "...the conquest of Canada would be a mere matter of marching."

(Needless to say, since we're still a sovereign nation and still here, Mr. Jefferson and other's were incorrect... but that's neither here nor there...)

Anyway, to give you an idea of the hatred and seething anger that our countries had for each other...

The Atlantic states and provinces pretty much refused to war with each other.

Sure, there were the odd scrimmages and loads of piracy and whatnot, but not any outright conflict. The New England states, especially Vermont and Massachusetts, refused to send troops to "help" with the unpopular war! The Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia issued a proclamation that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would abstain from "predatory" behaviour with their neighbours and that trade would continue "without molestation"...

In fact, this went much further...

When the town of St. Stephen found out it's American counterpart of Calais did not have fireworks to celebrate the fourth of July, they obliged with a large gift... of barrels of gunpowder.

According to historical sources, trails between America and Canada through which potash, cattle, pork, and other "smuggled" goods were so well worn, it's difficult to assume that either "military" side couldn't acknowledge that the civilian population were really not at war with each other...

So, think about this for a minute...

There "we" were... at war with each other... but giving gun powder away for the opposites celebration?

After the "sacking" of York (present day Toronto,) Gen. Winfield Scott sent over a boat under a flag of truce, after the American departure from the town, with a load of books that had been taken from a library and a note of apology!

When General Brock died at the Battle of Queenston Heights, despite being an American stronghold at that point, Fort Niagara fired a ceremonial cannon to honour the British general... not in anger, but in respect.

Some may say that there are "tensions" now with Canadian/American relations... but historically, at our "toughest hours" when we were supposed to hate and loath each other, those tensions weren't there.

We were friends... comrades on the same land... fighting the same hardships as settlers and newcomers in a strange environment...

...and that war, despite it's issues, did set up the world's largest undefended border... something I think we're both proud of, despite any recent rumblings.

And today, what really separates us? Sure, there's minor issues with trade and some differences of strategic ideals, but we're pretty much the same. In fact, I think it's great that one can literally "step" from one side of a Republic to another where we still have a Monarchy... (Okay, it's a constitutional monarchy and our Prime Minister and Ottawa makes all the decisions, but we still hold the Queen to high esteem!)

Many history buffs, and historical re-enactors like Matthew, and myself love to wear period clothing even when we are not re-enacting! It really is a lot of fun, and I personally believe in having fun with everything I wear. Since these types of clothing pieces are not readily available in stores, often many of us learn to purchase patterns, and sew our own. Would you believe me if I told you that Matthew is far better at sewing than I? It's true!

Now to take it even a step farther, many including ourselves love to continue this practice within our own homes, using fabric to recreate historical styles, and eras through drapery, bed coverings, and upholstery that will co-ordinate with our antique or reproduction pieces.

I would now like to take this opportunity to introduce to you gentle readers Design Diva Fabrics, which is an online shop where you can purchase a wide variety of gorgeous interior fabrics, including discount designer upholstery fabric at terrific discount prices.

These beautiful fabrics from brocades, to velvet, to silks, to faux fur, and much more are sold at less than what interior design companies normally pay from them, and I was truly impressed with the selection they are offering.

Our thanks to our sponsor!

From the desk of Matthew Double-Decker-Bus-Guy Didier...

History, for Sue and myself... and our whole family... is more than just a subject, it literally is a part of our lives in what we do aside from those things that earn our daily bread.

As some of you may (or may not) be aware, we are also "living historians"... re-enactors... people who put on funny clothes and pretend to be in a time which they ain't.

Our era of "choice" is the early nineteenth-century in Upper Canada... the War of 1812 to be precise. Both Sue and I are "kitted out" and although we haven't been able to be as big a part of things over the last four years as we'd like to be, we do keep our fingers in the pie, so to speak, with an eye to returning at some point in the not-so-distant future.

Through this hobby, one gets to dress, drill, camp, and even eat like it's the period which they portray at historic sites relevant to the era... of course within limits of modern hygene, safety, and whatnot... but to the "outward appearance", it's about as true to 1812 - 1815 as one can get.

It's a great family friendly hobby... until one bumps into The Stitch Counters.

That tunic! It's not made of the RIGHT type of wool! The red is at least two shades off, the stitching was done by a machine and...

Those shoes... are those RUBBER soles on those shoes????

...and my favourite...

You! You have a moustache and beard! That's NOT PROPER!

Yes, The Stitch Counters... they not only ask for but DEMAND authenticity.

Now, I'm all for this... to a degree... but they have a problem sorting out "hobby" from "way of life". (Side Note: I often qualify certain sci-fi fans this way... those that understand 'X' movie or TV show was an entertaining production and those that get confused and think they are a way of life...)

...meanwhile, back from digressing...

I can understand avoiding nylon as an 1812 re-enactor... we deal with a lot of things involving fire... camp fires, flash-pan sparks, etc., and nylon would be highly dangerous... so nylon tunics and pants would be bad... and we all should SOMEWHAT match... despite, historically, this not being the case. In 1812, they TRIED to keep everyone "uniform", but due to equipment troubles, wear-and-tear, it never really worked out that way... some soldiers being described as "nearly naked" for lack of provisions...

Still, this doesn't deter The Stitch Counters.

They dictate the amount of stitches on the tunic and pants (BY HAND) and colour (as someone who in youth worked at a paint store, WE didn't demand as exact matching) and whatnot.

Then there's the anachronistic free encampments... this I totally understand. When the public visits an encampment, there should be NO modern things visible. They should feel as if they've stepped back in time when they wander through... which is fine... but The Stitch Counters WINCE when they see someone using an inflatable bed in their tent (despite it being well hidden by wool blankets) or if they catch a small peek of a food-cooler's corner from inside a tent... this sends them into spasms of anger.

Then there's my beard and moustache (and I'm not alone!)

There's FACIAL HAIR in MY line! My life is RUINED!

Bollocks.

Now, it's true... facial hair was frowned upon (but not unknown) in the armies way back then... problem is, for me and others, the beard and 'stache are more than a fashion statement. I have a "young face". Last time I shaved, I was asked for I.D. to prove I was over eighteen to purchase cigarettes! (I'm forty right now...) So, without the beard and moustache, I look like a VERY young man. This is a good thing really... except in business where I need to be accepted as a professional... and sadly, too many won't accept a "very young man" as a professional... hence my facial hair.

However, I have actually heard (and read) where indeed, The Stitch Counters moan and complain that people like me have RUINED their experience!

(...this despite me finding a historical fellow in one of my regiments who did indeed sport a beard...)

Here's my take on all this...

#1: I'd love to be 100% authentic... but safety and real life must come first. Nylons and plastics are unsafe... wool is the order of the day... amongst other things... and my facial hair... if I'm dressed in my "red coat", is it not possible that a soldier in line forgot to shave one day and had a bad "face-hair" day?

#2: If safety is met and the veneer is good that the other re-enactors and the public "can't tell", what's the harm? Can a Stitch Counter truly say that he or she can tell my tunic was sewn by a machine while in line of battle?

I admire The Stitch Counters... and sure, it would be interesting if we could experience the period "perfectly"... but all things within measure and reason.

The 1812-ers are head and shoulders above The Society for Creative Anachronism who dress in late-Medieval/early-Renaissance garb for their outtings... but deftly avoid the issues of lack of personal hygiene of the period, illnesses (most notably, the plague), whacky-diet, caste-system, et al of the REAL period... in fact, the line from Monty Python's The Holy Grail springs to mind with these folks...

Dead-Gatherer: Who's that then?
Peasant: I don't know.
Dead-Gatherer: Must be a king.
Peasant: Why?
Dead-Gatherer: He hasn't got sh*t all over him.

...anyway, back in 1812... as most of you, I would assume, are simply "The Viewing Public" to events like this... would YOU care if one of the fellows in that scarlet line isn't wearing wool socks?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Oh, and did you believe that I only have run into The Stitch Counters in my travels and hobbies?

Nope.

Enter The Rivet Counters.

You folks know that our whole family are trying to "rescue" an old double-decker bus, right?

If not, please click here.

Anyway, did you know there is a contingent who are ACTIVELY working against us?

There are!

The Rivet Counters are those in the "bus enthusiast" realm who believe that all antique buses must be perfectly preserved to their original form and must be in their country of origin... England.

Yup, we are not worthy or capable of the ownership of our bus as we will most likely not replace every broken or non-working item with an exact duplicate of the original... right down to the seat-fabric.

In their eyes, and they'll rarely publicly admit this, a bus is better scrapped then in the hands of someone who'd make an effort to restore it in some fashion... especially those of us outside their birth country of England! We're the worst! Just ask 'em!

Now, again, I understand their point of view... they truly don't want to see these buses scrapped (which is often the fate of the buses in North America due to the rarity of parts and expense involved in maintaining them) and they don't wish to see the "original versions" more-or-less destroyed in the quest for convenience and functionality for the new owner(s).

The trouble is, in our case, for example, there ARE historically preserved examples of model of bus in England... several of them actually... so it's not like our's is truly "one of a kind" except to us.

Secondly, if we don't do something, it's not like the current owner in California is going to suddenly ship the bus home to waiting hands of loving new owners who will look after and perfectly historically preserve her... she's far more likely to end up as a four-by-four cube of semi-recyclable materials in a wrecking yard.

...but, again, to some this is "preferable" to us possibly putting a rivet in the wrong place or fixing the seats with a "different colour" of fabric. (I kid you not.)

I got into these whackos faces and said their attitude reminds me of the Bedouins suddenly demanding the return of ALL Arabian horses because the rest of us don't know how to look after and maintain them.

The logic of "better running and in shape and being looked after than scrapped" is alien to these folks....

Rivet Counters, meet The Stitch Counters.

I will be totally honest... I LOVE real history... I LOVE "authentic" vs. "reproduction"... I don't want a historic site to become a Disney village...

...but I'm also a realist.

I'd rather see a Disney village on a historic site then it bulldozed for a strip mall... at least it would be SOMEWHAT preserved...

...and to be honest, since "hand stitching" my tunic would cost me more than a used compact car and since our bus will be most likely scrapped before it's shipped to England to act as a museum piece, I think I'll take my middle-ground views.

Before leaving you to ponder these historic purists, allow me to impart ONE last thing...

In the War of 1812 mailgroup, I got into it with a muckee-muck about the re-enacting community about my beard... and he stuck to his DEMANDING historical perfection.

I responded thusly...

Sir, since you're so stuck on historical accuracy at events, pray that I do not find you using the "modern conveniences" like the toilets at the next event we're at together or I shall call you out!

It amused many of the other more realistic folks in our hobby!