So where does the word actually come from? Well there's quite a few possibilities and guesses that float around...personally I'm fond of the idea it came from a saying, "far be it from me to comment on your uniform..." Something which I now see I could have made more clear in the video- something doesn't have to be 21st Century to be farb! Just anything that is not as it would have been back in the day...for example, if my clothing is made out of improper materials, or if my hat is improperly sized, or even if I have the correct uniform but I am wearing it improperly, these would all be cases of 'farbery'!
I've actually had a guy in my unit hospitalized for dysentery. Not sure how he got it but after that I always look at the spiket with suspicion and try to bring bottled water
@CM99501 Thing is "rag-tag" was only typical in last few months of war. Shoes were to be had from the casualties and Confederacy had untapped stores. Logistics was a problem.
We've always had a rule at my old reenacting group: if the public can't see it, it's fair game. No way we were going into battle without modern protections under our gambesons.
One of the guys in my unit was hospitalized for dysentery. The doctor made a joke along the lines of you reenactors take this too seriously. Still not sure how he got it
When I first started doing Civil War reenacting back in 1972 (yep, I'm old) the word "farb" was already in common use among the "authentic" faction of the hobby. Most of us assumed it came from the German word for color, the farbs of that era were nothing if not colorful. Farbs were in the majority back then, by the way, the 1973 Gettysburg 110th was a total farbfest. And I'm talking FARB, Sears blue or gray work clothes, modern army insignia, Dingo boots, you name it. Strange and interesting times they were...
I started Rev War reenacting in 1975. Farb should not be confused with anachronistic. Farb is the willful refusal to accept something as not period. Anachronistic is something that you have to have (eg: eyeglasses) to function.
@@hermanhedning4220 thats easy for someone that isnt completely blind without glasses to say. In fact, it would be impossible to get period accurate glasses of my lenses
@@hermanhedning4220 There are people you can pay to reenact wit you and crowd up the tent on the market. Sleeping in a period accurate tent without multiple people crowding it up is farb period.
In czech, we call ahistoric reenactors "kecky"- sneakers, since in past it was common thing that people wore combat shoes or sneakers instead of proper shoes.
Regarding age 'farb'; war has always been a young person's profession, yet as reenacting is a very expensive hobby, few young people can afford it. Historically (at least since the Napoleonic Wars, when such stats became available), the average age of a combat soldier has been about twenty-two, with a median age of around eighteen to twenty. Even the NCOs and officers trended young. I don't know how old Brandon is, but he looks the right age for a soldier, regardless of time period.
Unless you throw officers in the mix, then you can get to play older. Also, as for ww2, the average age was 26-30 for most combatants. At least from the U.S. For the Germans 14-70.
Hell I've seen some women in reenactments. That's definitely farb material. Not that it's a problem imo. As a woman myself I love seeing women in the hobby
I had one case in my country when they were re-enacting WW1 battle, and all the reenactors were good and period proper but this battle took place near an important landmark, a castle and it so happens that today there's a parking lot nearby... and when you see people in WW1 uniforms fighting over an empty parking lot with 2 parking places marked for disabled people... it kinda takes you out of the period.
A weird thing about the modern glasses. I’m so used to seeing modern glasses that I don’t really notice them. Especially when in full kit because there’s so many other things to focus on. Historically accurate glasses stick out like a sore thumb. I really appreciate it when people use historical glasses but I don’t think I ever notice if they don’t. Simply because I don’t really register that they are wearing glasses at all.
@@staceyfake8254Is the historical inaccuracy worth the possible safety risks for someone who can't see? Being someone who is practically blind without glasses, especially at close distances, I think it's much more important for me to be able to see, especially if I were to wielding a musket or firearm around others, even if the ammunition isn't real. And as Brandon said, don't try to pass it off as your glasses being historically accurate, but instead use it as an opportunity to teach about historical glasses in comparison to your own modern frames. And if you can get historical frames, then cool! But, sometimes lenses are far too big and/or advanced to use without modern lenses.
No excuses from now on and NO FARB,I want plates not go pro footage, I need my reenacting videos to no longer be videos but booklets recounting your actions in reenacting printed from a printing press (make it easy on you) and mailed to me all on authentic paper and materials. Like I said I want the plates too. Now that I know that the video is farb it self I cannot allow it.
Thanks! Yes, enjoyable! I happened to look up the etymology of "farb" and saw Brandon F's rhetorical query 6 days ago. Well, besides his "FAR BE it from me to comment on your uniform," this is what Wikipedia has to say: Etymology Disputed. Various explanations of the origin are given: 1. That it is a contraction of the phrase "far be it from me to criticize anyone, but...", or of "far below" (the expected standard). 2. That it comes from the German word Farbe ("colour") (many fabrics dyed with modern dyes are "too colourful" to be authentic, by comparison with their historical originals). 3. There exists a letter dated 1 April 1863 from an A.R. Crawford in the 76th Illinois Infantry, Co D, that uses the phrase, "fallacious accoutrements & reprehensible baggage," in description of six children posing in phony military gear during a sham reenactment that took place during the actual Civil War. Many point to this phrase as the origin of the word, citing "farb" as an acronym. 4. Many early replica rifles were marked with what looked like "F.A.R.B" among the proofmarks. "FARB" mark on a replica rifle Removing this would make the rifle look more authentic, and "defarb" spread to making other objects more authentic.
Thanks for this, I heard you mention that weird in another video so when I saw this one I had to see what it meant. As for the hole in your hat you had to make for the camera - I hadn't noticed it before you pointed it out, but it could still be authentic if you claimed it was a bullet hole...
Townsends is good for casual costuming, etc. You need everything tailored. Do not buy glasses except from a Dr's office or reputable manufacturer. Even frames.
Interesting, as always. My own experience in the general area of 'living history' (loosely speaking) is at the original Renaissance Faire, which is pretty much all over the map nowadays when it comes to historical accuracy, and which is more theatre than scholarship. But even in the earlier days when authenticity was more important than it is now, and in the group playing Queen Elizabeth's court - where the costume requirements are very stringent, and each performer researches the character they play extensively - I have never heard the term 'farb'. The usual term among those who care about such matters is 'not period'. I suspect that 'farb' is limited to war re-enactors for whatever reason (I have no clue as to how the interpreters at Colonial Williamsburg talk about such things among themselves). I also have not heard it from people in the Society for Creative Anachronism, nor who perform at the Great Charles Dickens Christmas Fair (where they do strive to portray a Victorian - or Dickensian - London, again with concessions to theatricality). So 'farb' is quite new to me. On one hand, I like its brevity compared to 'not period'; on the other hand, it seems to have a snarky or disapproving connotation, whereas 'not period' is, in my experience, a pretty neutral term. The hard-core costumers have other ways of doing sarcasm. "Why," exclaimed one of Elizabeth's ladies to a customer in a very authentic but not-quite-Elizabethan costume, "what a lovely Jacobean dress!"
I am glad you pointed out the importance of public education. I am not a reenactor, but I attend many events in my hometown (live within walking distance of the reconstructed fort in Fort Wayne, IN) and elsewhere. I always enjoy events where the reenactors' goal is to educate the crowd with actually researched info as opposed to showing off or promoting some political view (love learning about the Civil War but it is probably most common among that crowd haha). I also feel like keeping that as the end in mind prevents both farbism and pedantic correctness
This is one reason I like the SCA: Anachronism is in the name. We call it the Dream, and acknowledge that the Dream is a path, not an end. We acknowledge our errors, and learn as we go, and strive for improvement.
It is all a bit of a tussle really, and some people take it far too seriously. After all, as was pointed out to me by a visiting guest from the V&A's clothing collection, they doubted a single re-enactor they had ever met was on the nose, even during the 'era of uniformity' (say 1660 onwards on a small scale in England and early 1700s in a broader sense). For every one item - be it clothing or accoutrement of one pattern issued at one time it was possible to find at least three different items which purported to be the same thing. As First Aider and stitch counter both for a number of groups, I'm less concerned with things like spectacles on the field (though I do note that most members who did muster tended to go with contacts or, where that was impractical had period appropriate items made) than with safety. In Living History encampments that is different, but for battlefield affairs 'farb' was/is/always will be necessary to some degree. My own ECW regiment insisted on steel in the toes and soles of shoes: the former mainly for the pikemen (specifically for press) and the latter in case someone stood on one of the (usually well marked) ground charges which simulated artillery rounds skipping (quite a sight in itself). Then again, my medical bag was decidedly farb, but there the law spoke more roundly than the lore (as I was required to carry delicate materials in a more secure way than my 17th Century counterparts). Just because a thing is 'improper' does not make it incorrect. We get as close as we can, or as close as the law will allow, or as close as incomplete knowledge permits. Someone who pours scorn on someone who has done their level best, but needs a little leeway for good reason is a prig of the highest order.
Historical reenactment is a wonderful hobby. But I am very surprised that some participating chose to reenact field sleeping conditions. It is not something I myself look back on with any fondness. Well done on the video Brandon. Very informative as usual.
I had been to a lot of reenactments in the '80's and 90's but, I had never heard the term "farb" or "farby" spoken. What is its history? BTW, I think you do an excellent job explaining and teaching. Keep it going.👍 🎄Merry Christmas to all🎁
I was in the Devonshire & Dorset Regiment, in the Childers Reforms the 54th was amalgamated with the 39th & became the Dorsetshire Regiment in, I think 1881. In 1959 the Devonshire Regiment amalgamated with the Dorsetshires. All 3 units had green facings. The big battle honour for the 54th was Marabout in Egypt. The Devons were the 11th. Since 2007 they have become the 1st Battalion the Rifles. Before 1881 the 54th recruited in Norfolk in Eastern England.
Great vid, we live in the here and now and we’re on vacation. I got to say I never got my breech cloth in a wad over ‘Black Powder Only’ glasses ect. I have historic shoes but for safety I have rubber soles on the bottom. I keep historic foods but eat stuff not common in any sort of camp or some times that time of year. I use a short starter in my rifle used for early nineteenth century events, and rag tinder. I have a candle lantern that’s right time but not something often carried by a man on his own. And have an eighteenth century tent as a civilian, at least unusual.I’m quick to tell someone what’s unusual in my camp and try and keep it to time if not exactly what a middle class or lower class man would carry in the woods.
I define "farby" slightly differently: Necessity sometimes forces us to make compromises to our historical accuracy, especially when safety requires it. In Naval reenacting, it's necessary to wear a PFD, out on the water, because "the uniforms are fake, but the drownings are real". I'd never call the use of a PFD "farby". I'm of a mind that "farb" implies being aware of an unnecessary anachronism, and willfully refusing to either correct the error, or at least explain to the public WHY such an inaccuracy is being employed. Also, this is a challenging andcexpensive hobby to get into, and newcomers have to choose between compromises (off-the-rack canvas breeches) or abandiningbthe hobby. I don't want to maje newcomers feel unwelcome by callingbtheir ongoing, and evolving best efforts "farby". Mind you, I am NOT attempting to scold or dispute: your definition is equally valid, and I fully agree that necessary compromises must often be allowed, and that ensuring we impart accurate information is the greater objective.
I recently jumped into an online community for those who reenact the era of piracy and privateering from about 1690-1730. They DESPISE farb there, because of Hollywood and the pervasive pirate fantasy of the modern age. I will be up front and forward - my kit is farby as all hell. But I will also be up front: I get recognized, photographed, stopped and questioned, and generally engage with the public a lot more than those guys do at the places where I go (renaissance fairs, etc). Because I look like what people EXPECT a pirate to look like. From there, I can start doing that "public education" bit, if anyone cares to listen to me talk. I love the subject matter, and not for an instant would I claim that my elaborate tricorne and my bucket-tops are appropriate attire even for a foppish captain of the day, ESPECIALLY when we're talking about an era 100 years before the era I'm even interested in! If I went with a unit, if I went as part of a larger entourage, then yes, I'd make every effort to blend in and appear as much a "realistic" pirate as any. But on my own? There's an Elf over there with her breasts spilling over a poorly fit corset - I'm hardly the worst offender in this fair, and I'm more accurate than some of the official members of cast!
"Authentic misery" When I do an event (1890's), I'll take a "ration pack" to eat (a tin of corned beef and chocolate paste). Eating cold cheep corned beef out of a tin is an authentic misery, yet the others will eat things like potato chips - something modern that your average gunner would never have eaten, (last event the guy next to me pulled out a cold roast with veggies). I'm all up for authentic misery, I plan to have 1890's underwear by the end of the year. That said, my friend who is a die-hard in getting things period claims I'm going too far as no one cares what I eat and no one will ever see or know about my jocks, always saying "wouldn't you rather be comfortable?" Reenacting/living history isn't too big here in Australia with lot of farb in it. Am I doing too much? I'd like to know from y'all: Do you go as far as to wear period underclothes/travel in period traveling clothes? would you if you could? What percentage of reenactors/living historians only do what the public can see? How many people wear farb shoes? (I do, as I'm still looking for the right ones) What percentage of reenactors/living historians camp in period tents, modern tents, rooms, etc? Do people eat period food/put it in period packages? Thanks
Brandon, have you ever ran into people who unwittingly have their re-enacting persona actually take over their modern life? I know that sounds like a strange question but I have seen it many times from Black Powder Rendezvouers who started back in the seventies and never recovered. I think the draw to pre 1840 lifestyles was, like me, an escape from this timeline we live in. Most of the original rendezvous guys had high pressure jobs from Monday to Friday then escaped back a hundred and eighty years, at least for the weekend. Eventually after quite a few years the divide between now and then slipped.
@ 3:15 Admittedly it's not that bad; a bad one is if you would say it IS appropriate--like all the jag-offs who say you spit a bullet into the barrel...
Farbery is unavoidable because re-enactments can never fully replicate a historical event. It's like an inverse logarithmic graph where you can put as much effort as you want into it, but it will never reach its final goal, the asymptote. For example, prior to a battle, do re-enactors have to eat the same rations and food as the people they are re-enacting once did? How do you ensure safety in a re-enactment when there were no such concerns in actual, real war. Obviously historical battles weren't firing round after round of blanks at each other. Even if one does follow all of these rules, that doesn't change the fact that modern humans are playing these re-enactors. While Napoleon may be short by our standards, he was average height for his time, which technically invalidates a good chunk of Napoleonic re-enactors, since most of them would be too tall to play the part. Two of the biggest criticisms I've seen with historical re-enactments are that they never fully capture the reality and grittiness of war, glorifying it instead, and that historical re-enactors often tend to be older than their real-life counterparts, who were often in their teens and early adulthood when sent to war (life expectancy was shorter than it is today). At this rate, nothing short of going back in time can fully eliminate farb.
I work at midieval faires, and there's quite a bit of FARB about, modern toilets, everywhere that has a fire needs apropriate extinguishers, modern tills and card options for payments. But i'd reckon all that's quite okay.
Farbalier is a word we used during the Buycentenial for those who carried cvs kentucky rifles and wore fringed naugahyde coats. Large part of the Rebel troops dressed this way. I was in the 4th foot during the 1970s
Same thing with late medieval reenactors. Two biggest farbs are when they wear boots with beveled heels and cavalry have modern stirrups. These two details are pretty obscure and are hard to grasp without historical research, as it's pretty much accepted that boots and stirrups in the modern day are just the way they are out of necessity. We don't realize that it took hundreds of years for people to figure this shit out. A beveled heel, while not as energy efficient as a flat sole, on a boot provides far better traction on rough terrain. Especially on an incline. Modern stirrups are complemented by this as beveled heels also provide a "grip" to hold the feet in place as well as them being just overall better for rider control.
As it is a hat with 3 sides, my thought is that you could turn it so the hole is on one of the rear facing sides. A bit less Farby maybe. (and maybe not possible as I know little about this particular type of headgear.) 🤔 And thank you for the definition I'm going to use it on somebody at the appropriate time. (As I've done with pedantic. 😜)
Can't get any more "Farb" than me. Since I have been recording multiple eras of reenactment with a digital camcorder and now a 360 degree camera, it is hard to explain what they are doing amidst Roman Legions or WWII Sherman tanks. Furthermore, I have chosen my nickname as " Leonardo de Video". 📹
You should come to St.Louis last weekend In April for WWII weekend at Jefferson Barracks. You should see our Fallschirmjeager display. The parks management has let us dig foxholes at our site. Next year we are doing a Italian front scenario.
Honestly, not wearing Glasses would not be something i could do. Because 1: i might as well be blind without them, and 2. i can not walk over difficult terrain without them. because my Glasses slightly optically bend the world towards me. My Brain has learned to compensate for this, however, when i dont wear my glasses my brain attempts to compensate for an effect that is no longer there, and i constantly stumble, because my muscle memory expects the ground to be further away than it is., its annoying, and negotiating anything other than flat ground a genuine challange. I would be a bad reenactor.
The problem with trying to educate Reenactors, is that you can have done thousands of hours of research, handled original uniforms, gone through archival paper work, read all the regulations and then get it all spat back in your face because someone has seen a picture in a book (often not contemporary) or 'don't believe it' or simply chose to ignore it 'because we've always done it this way' .........
In doughboy reenacting, the worst offense goes by many names. The S Word, That Weapon. That Which Shall Not Be Named. The dreaded Shotgun. For those uninitiated, there is a certain mythos surrounding the use of "Trench Guns" by the U.S. in WWI. I'm sure images have already appeared in your head of a grizzled sergeant, lit cigar hanging from his mouth, jumping into Jerry's trench and slam firing 00 buck as the Kaiser's finest throw up their hands in terror. In reality, the very, very few shotguns that may or may not have seen use (there is exactly one documented photo of a shotgun near the front) would have been hated. The only ammunition available would have come in paper/cardboard cartridges. Which isn't a problem as long as you're not fighting in a rainy mudpit like, for instance, the Muse-Argonne. You're also going to be pretty vulnerable, making that 150 yard trip across no-mans-land with your chokeless, straight tube pump action. Make no mistake the idea of a shotgun with a bayonet lug is unbelievably cool (I'm guilty of owning one of the repros) but you've got to keep the proper context in mind.
actually, the rounds used were brass, not paper. Seeing as how American troops didn't spend months or years living in trenches but two weeks, tops, there would not be deterioration of the rounds due to dampness.
In the US you guys are 60 and 70 years old that are reenactors that are Civil War reenactors. You can't expect a 70 year-old man even if needs a civil war re-enactor to sleep in a tent the way he did when he was 25. Many of these men have medical conditions are lucky to be able to do the re-enactment at 70 year old.
Sadly there aren't many really good reproduction companies for watches, as I understand it, so a lot of times people will use modern day battery-powered pocketwatches on the ends of historical chains. After all, the watch is rarely seen, but for a gentleman the chain is a very important accessory!
Perhaps the most obvious, and totally unavoidable, FARB is probably language, especially for re-enactments from before about the C17th. Much as I would love to learn early- and medieval English (or Norman French, I suppose) no-one would understand me!
Hey I am a historical war gamer and will soon be a Texas confederate reeninactor when I am 16 and I get pissed off when people try to pass on historical in accuracys I will litterly step in and correct them.
Is there a historical accuracy reasoning for you calling it a ‘cocked hat’ instead of a ‘tricorne hat’? Edit: never mind. a video explaining exactly this popped up in my recommended below the video :D
