We worry about how the reenactment community can build a solid ongoing base of support from repeat customers for events all over the U.S. if spectators feel they have been ripped off, as hundreds did by the end of the day on Friday, July 2, 1999 in Gettysburg. How do we know? We were there.

Our criticisms refer only to the events of Friday, July 2, because that's what we observed. Like a significant number of other spectators--under the circumstances to be discussed shortly--we felt that there was no advantage for us in coming back for the remaining two days, even though we originally had hotel reservations for the whole weekend.

We limit our criticisms to the following problems, although not in this order: extra charges for decent views, layout of the spectator line on the right, placement of the battle on the left, and abuse of the p.a. system.

We could complain about the small number of re-enactors in attendance on Friday, July 2, but we won't because we know that many reenactors can't make it for a Friday event. Saturday is typically the largest infantry attendance day at most reenactments. So, we'd normally expect a much larger turnout on Saturday and Sunday. Did it happen that way?

We know that one of the scariest aspects of sponsoring reenactments, especially what is hoped to be a large event, is never knowing for sure what the reenactor turnout will be. We understand that problem. So when no more than several hundred reenactors took the field on July 2, we were disappointed, but not totally surprised.

Sponsors cannot control that. But they can--and should--control certain factors that are necessary to re-enactor comfort and that influence re-enactor turn-out. What event co-ordinators actually do with the reenactors and spectators they have each day is the key issue.

The battlefield is deep enough that the demonstrations and battle could have--and should have-- been set up further out on the field where they could be easily seen by everyone along the line.

When you have a field that's both wide and deep, it makes sense to put that depth to good use, for at least two basic reasons. First, from the reenactors' perspective, the further out onto the field they get, the less they are distracted by that wall of bright colors called spectators.

From a spectator's perspective, having the battle in your lap can be exciting, but it guarantees that you will only see the part that's in your lap. And spectators further down the line won't see much at all. That's especially true if there's a small number of reenactors on the field.

On July 2, the afternoon's battle action was not kept far away from the spectator line. People on the right end of the spectator line saw little or nothing of the battle after waiting in the sun between three and six hours.

The mortar and other demonstrations leading up to the battle appeared to be placed to satisfy only those in the grandstands. They could not be seen at all from the right end of the spectator line except by those who stood up, leaned out past the line and blocked everyone else's 'view.'

We can't help but suspect that playing large weapon demonstrations and the battle itself that close in to the bleachers could only be 'necessary' if its purposes were to justify that extra seating charge and to 'encourage' everyone else who had not already forked over the cash for a bleacher seat to do so immediately. The goal appears to be financial, not educational.

The first rule of setting up spectator lines is that any outward bulge of any size will cause some spectators to block the view of other spectators, as shown below. That should not happen.

On Friday July 2, the spectator line on the right was poorly (intentionally?) set up. Spectators could only look through other spectators as they tried to see what was going on down the line to the left. The problem was not only caused by the battle being to close to the spectator line way down the line to the left. It was also due to the way the line had been set up.

A large triangular bulge-out in the line had been created, to accomodate photographers and others. The spectator line should have been out beyond that bulge and in line with the bleachers--or slightly ahead of them. Instead was angled the wrong way. It had been pulled back at an angle away from the battlefield. The first angled pull-back was followed by an even steeper pull-back of the line. This blocked views to the left, where almost all the battle action was, as pictured below.

That line placement guaranteed that many hundreds of spectators would be unhappy.

If you're keeping the satisfaction of all spectators in mind, it doesn't make sense to have reenactors battle close in to any part the line. Normally this shouldn't be a problem because reenactors don't want to battle close to that bright wall of spectators.

It's good to have a knowledgeable person help the crowd understand what is going to happen and why, in detail. But that should happen before the battle begins when there's plenty of time for explanation. Once the shooting starts, the announcer should fall silent.

The problem with very knowledgeable announcers is that they want to parade everything they know, non-stop, right through the battle, regardless of its relevance to what's happening on the field. Spectators around us on the right end of the line wondered aloud where the announcer was because his comments so often seemed totally uncoordinated with and irrelevant to what little they could see happening on the field. Perhaps he felt the small reenactor turnout needed to be papered over with more talk.

Just how detached the announcer was came clear when he apparently couldn't hear--or ignored--the bugle playing taps, which traditionally signifies the end of the fighting--allowing the dead to arise. This announcer babbled non-stop right through that most solemn moment. and only showed some awareness of what was happening when the Confederate troops marched off the field. All that made the audience unsure when to applaud, and so that was mighty scattered and weak. I hate to think what that small group of reenactors were feeling. None of that should ever happen. Repeat: never! This factor is totally within the control of the sponsors.

I've never spoken with a reenactor in ten years who has anything good to say about announcers talking throughout the battle itself, as happened on July 2. If the battle is anywhere near the speakers, as happened on Friday, the reenacting experience is ruined or severely diminished by that amplified voice cutting through the gunshots and blanking out officer commands. Under such conditions, reenactors stand little chance of having a magic moment, that instant when it all feels real and they are back in time.

While the spectators' magic moment is different, it's next to impossible to have one when an amplified voice is babbling on--unless you try to block it out. And that itself is an unnecessary distraction.

Every ticket buyer has the reasonable expectation of being able to see what's going on during the reenactment instead of seeing being a special privilege that they must pay extra for. What is presented as optional should not--in reality--be mandatory because there are few or no good views of the action to be had otherwise.

This is also important because the sponsors have already announced the use of bleachers at the September event, 1999, at the Yingling farm. We've attended four very large events at that site and have a hard time figuring out why bleachers would be necessary on ground that provides lots of natural slope seating. It's possible that the idea is to accomodate an abnormally gigantic crowd by place bleachers along the crest of the slope, with ground seating in front of them. But, on that ground, the view from either position should be essentially the same. But considering the limited views at July's event, we must at least suspect that the use of grandstands is to increase cash flow.

We have no quarrel with grandstands as long as spectators who elect not to pay the grandstand surcharge do not, until it's too late, discover that they have been seriously handicapped by what appeared to be the reasonable choice of not paying extra for a bleacher seat.

Spectators can't be faulted too much for suspecting that this new trend in seating seems too much like a variation on bait and switch. We'll charge you to park, then we'll charge you to come into the event area, then we'll charge you again if you actually want to see the event. That costs one adult over $25 per day. That surcharge could really mount up for a family.

Readily available promotional materials did not adequately highlight this issue as they should have. Why not just be open about it and tell everyone they're not going to see much if they don't buy a bleacher seat? Why have and advertise the lower (deceptive) admission price at all?

We could pretend that spectators are free to choose or not choose grandstand seating. That way they only have themselves to blame for any problems they have viewing the action later. We hate to say all this, but we're expressing what many spectators said at Gettysburg.

Perhaps if the sponsors expected many thousands of re-enactors, they could reasonably expect there to be enough action all over that large field that everyone would be satisfied. But once a low re-enactor turnout is a fact (and it's always a possibility) some adjustment should be made.

There at the Bushy farm, whether in July 1998 or 1999, the bleachers appeared to be a reasonable option because of droops in the flat ground at those points along the battlefield. In fact, we had bleacher seats for two of the three days of last year's 135th.

But even last year's bleacher seating was mostly necessary only because thousands troops piled onto the field very close to the spectator line and then marched or stood in formation there, blocking the view of anyone whose head wasn't elevated at least seven feet above ground level. Even people seated on the lower rows of the grandstands might as well have been sitting flat on the ground during those periods of time.

Another option. On the Bushy farm, to the left of that bleacher line is a large hillside that can serve as a natural grandstand for seating very large numbers of spectators. We would expect all of it to be used for seating--at no extra charge--when the action is going to be on the lower parts of that large field.

NOTE: We don't want to end without mentioning a horrible problem from July 1998. The food vendors' tents had been placed right up against the backs of the grandstands, with their gasoline powered generators directly behind and under us, roaring all day into our ears. Common sense tells you that this never should have been a problem in the first place if event organizers were thinking more about spectators.Yet it was a problem all weekend.

This year, as far as we can tell, that problem did not exist. Although we had criticized that problem on this website, we're not here to take credit for the improvement. Credit belongs to the organizers. However, we do hope criticisms and advice accumulated here will ultimately help eliminate problems like these from all battle events everywhere.