I think my answer is informed by the wording of your question: is there any value in reenactments. I would say yes, with the following explanation.

The quality of reenactments, like any form of historical exploration, will be most determined by the people doing them. I mean, we have crappy history books written all the time, and no one challenges the book as a viable way of presenting the interpretation of history. The same holds true of reenacting: if some overweight Lost Cause asshole wants to throw on some grey clothes and wax poetic about how the Civil War wasn't really about slavery, of course he's going to present a bad interpretation of the past. However, someone that looks the part, is well read, and is intellectually honest enough to portray both the good and bad parts of period being portrayed can cover a surprising amount of complexity in a quick and accessible way.

With that being said, we should focus what reenacting does uniquely well, and what vulnerabilities it might have as a method of portraying an interpretation of history. As I mentioned elsewhere, I have found that the best part of living history is that everything you are wearing and holding is a conversation piece. The better quality one's equipment is, the more true this statement is. I guarantee you NO ONE outside of the field is going to read a journal article about 18th century military buttons, but people will ask about the buttons on a reenactor's coat all the time if they have any kind of design or pattern on them.

This leads us to the next point: Living history is more accessible to the general public than scholarly writing. Going someplace and seeing some manner of show is more likely to be classified as "fun" for the average person than reading the latest edition of The William and Mary Quarterly, so living history museums and reenactments have access to a larger audience than published academia does. Again, if the museum hires people that are up on current research (or willing to learn such), this can be a great teaching opportunity.

People are also visual learners. A demonstration of a period trade or military tactic will be easier to understand than reading a book or article on the same topic. Doing these things correctly is also the best way to combat the (sadly more common) incorrect portrayals usually seen in TV and the movies. If most Rev War historians seem to have an unhealthy obsession with The Patriot, it's because that movie enshrined every dumb myth about the Revolution to a HUGE audience.

Now, for the downsides. The first is that the quality of most reenactors'/living historians' impressions is quite low. There are several reasons for this. The most obvious is that it is VERY expensive to get clothing and equipment correct - the best stuff is made from expensive materials, and is done by hand. Few institutions, public or private, have that kind of time and money to throw towards clothing and gear that is going to be subjected to a fatal amount of wear and tear.

Secondly, both the professional living history field and the reenactor hobby tends to skew older and whiter than the past actually was. Again, being that people tend to believe what they see more than what they believe, this can be dangerous. Examples: 1) We had a reenactment event at living history site where I worked, and all the various units represented decided to put on a "fashion show" for the public - a representative or two from each coming forward to talk about their clothes and their unit. When the site staff's turn came, the leader of the reenactment stopped the show to make special mention of the fact that we were the only guys there that were young enough to represent your average Continental Army soldier. 2) By the end of the American Revolution, the Continental Army may have been as much as 30% African-American. In over a decade of working in and around the field, I have worked with one black person at a living history site. This creates a dangerously white-washed impression of the past.

Additionally, reenacting does attract some strange people. The aforementioned stereotype of the tubby Lost Cause apologist Confederate reenactor is not without foundation in reality. There are few serious academics that have the desire or ability to invest thousands of dollars in a hobby that will have them driving great distances to sweat profusely, answer simple and repetitive questions, and sleep outdoors or crammed into foul-smelling canvas tent. The kind of people who DO sign up for that sort of thing will often end up perpetrating some of the same misconceptions that more serious living historians will seek to avoid.

There are good and bad things about interactive history. When someone is in character and putting on an act, I think we loose a valuable part of the translation. People are restricted in their questions, the actor in their answers. Some of todays historic sites are the perfect example of this. If you talk to a person on the street, in character, they often have to make jokes about the strange place you're from and find excuses to explain everyday tasks that the audience knows nothing about. However, if you go into the trades shops and talk to the people there, they're usually in present. Discussing/showing the trades and can talk about how they changed into what we find familiar today. Connecting and explaining the past rather than presenting it is important.

I've been to and been involved in a few re-enactments. I rarely attend the battle based ones, though shooting guns and loud noises do seem to be popular with the public. When I'm involved I go as a tradesperson actually working as a person would have in camp. In my case, I make (or repair) shoes- something essential to the army. It's hard to teach culture to a modern audience without something to hold in their hands or see happening in front of them. It also allows me to learn far more about 18th century shoemaking then I ever could just by reading about it or even looking at extant items. Why does M. de Garsault write that the insole of a ladies shoe is cut to the shape of the heel rather than the last? I could take it as fact or learn the reasoning behind it by doing it. And then show people so they to, despite not being 18th century shoemakers, now understand.

The concern you have is one that is becoming a major topic in the area of re-enactors and living historians. How do we present this information to the public in a way that is accurate, but is also understandable? I spent a good portion of the previous year working on and teaching the public about military tents from the American Revolution. I did so in period dress, but in modern conversation. I could not only discuss what "they" did, but show them first hand and up close. Something they couldn't do in a traditional museum. They could handle the fabric, walk inside of the tents, and even see how people used their workspace. History is no longer a static story about how "they" did things "back then". For many people the past is not important because they don't feel connected to it. A good living historian can not only talk with other historians about their subject, but manage to teach the public who doesn't get history and help them understand it's importance.

Sure, I could build and study 18th century shoes privately. Perhaps give some talks on the subject at conferences, write a book, at most mount an exhibit- all things I think are important but limited in who they reach. I could also sit in front of people literally showing them how it was done. Making it real and present to non-historians. Yes, I will discuss how the modern foot is different, why and how construction has changed, or even why they get blisters on the back of their foot now. But all in comparison to what I'm trying to teach. As a key to what is essentially a different language to so many.

First off, I'm a reenactor. I very rarely do battlefield reenacting (which I agree isn't very illuminating); generally we do demonstration campsites at various reenactment events. I portray an American sailor from the war of 1812, a US Navy Agent (government contractor in charge of supplies) in the war of 1812, and an English Archer in the Wars of the Roses.

I think there is. First of all, different people engage with history in different ways, and talking to someone, seeing how they dressed, and what they eat, can be really educational for someone who is not going to pick up a book about standards of living in Late Medieval England. For military reenactments, seeing how soldiers reloaded and fired their weapons can make sense of a seemingly insane way of fighting (standing in lines and shooting).

I mentioned aspects of daily life rather deliberately -- accurate clothes can show a lot about what a time 'looked like' (no, not everyone in Medieval England wore brown), and foods can really hilight the differences between life in the past and the present (heavily spiced medieval foods vs. subtler modern flavors). I think this is the biggest strength -- the little things. But keep in mind that a lot of people going to reenactments are tourists who have little inclination to pick up a work of academic history, and may never have read a word about the War of 1812 since high school. What I say about the American Navy in 1812 to a passerby might be the only thing they ever hear about it.

Hello, Second World War reenactor here. The value of reenacting can be boiled down to two parts:

Firstly, it concentrates a lot of people with a lot of historical knowledge in one place, so everyone learns a lot about what they are portraying. Massive amounts of detailed history exchanges take place at these events, and you will quickly find yourself nit picking military history documentaries.

Secondly, feeling the experience of running around in a wool uniform carrying an 8 pound rifle or a 30 pound machine gun gives you a MUCH better understanding of the difficulties the average soldier faced. Though we cannot replicate the mortal fear of real combat, we can replicate the exhaustion of having to run for your life, the misery of being in the rain without proper rain gear, the advantages and disadvantages of really small scale stuff like boots and helmets. Not to mention how loud small scale combat can get.

WWII reenacting has both public and "tactical" events. Public battles are scripted and serve as a live action diorama so people observing can see what people in authentic uniforms, using authentic weapons, and more or less authentic tactics (range of engagement is MUCH shorter at reenactments than in real life, especially at public battles). "Tactical" events are where things get interesting as they are not scripted at all. There are scenarios, but they only serve to determine the units involved and the types of uniforms and weapons are allowed to be used (can't use an MG-42 for an invasion of France event). The outcome of these events are completely up in the air, and "victory" has to be fought for. We fire blank ammunition at each other, so hit taking is completely done on the honors system. We use blanks because it looks and sounds much more real than using airsoft weapons, and because nobody REALLY cares who wins, only that your guys do as well as they can, the honors system works reasonably well as long as the event is well moderated.

It's also very fun. At the end of a day's battle, food is prepared, drinks distributed, and stories are exchanged around the campfire late into the night. I have many good friends today that I met through reenacting.