Or do they?
Suddenly a sharp retraction of approval for a certain fall event.
Then, after several weeks, a new type of civilian event is discussed.
How do I feel about the traditional battle array shifting gears?
I feel good, but maybe not for the reason you think.
I am a gun owner, so it's not that.
History as we know it is too impersonal to mean anything to people today. Watching from a distance while men we don't even know pretend to fight a battle does not draw us closer to our ancestors or our country's history.
People do want to be closer to history, as indicated by the popularity of shows set in our past. Many books open our understanding of the military difficulties faced. My book tries to present common family issues and how they affect individuals caught in family disagreements and driven into financial corners. It shows real people.
The latest reenactor "new thing" is not so new after all, since the expression "living history" denotes costumed individuals chatting with their visitors about their daily lives. So I applaud the Brigade of the American Revolution for considering non-military presentations at events that may have been mainly military in the past.
How many times have I seen three or four officers stalking along, chatting to each other and only each other. They might seem more approachable sitting at ease under tree, listening to a fiddler. They might invite a few kids to draw near and sit with them. The mounted soldier could let his young admirers lead his horse a few feet, perhaps hoist one aboard the saddle. Explain a little more about horses. No hurry ....
Sutlers and demonstrators, usually abandoned during battles, would have all day to entertain their own admirers.
Maybe we'd have more music and relaxation instead of see-the-battle-and-run visitors.