'Salem Bob'

Ahoy Robert, History is concerned with occurances that can be documented - not idle speculation based on human nature. By definition, written history has to give weight to documentary evidence, and 'historians' who rely on speculation and their 'theories' become marginalised by their peers who follow the discipline of historical methodology. If human nature is to be the guide, and your assumptions regarding it are correct, then we should see proof of same in the world around us today. In point of fact, the vast majority of Americans are terrible savers, and run up huge debt, keeping little more than a week or twos pay banked (to write checks upon). The idea of piracy being taken up by thoughtful, thrify men is I think a misplaced one. The fact of the matter is most piratical careers lasted a matter of mere months, most ended up on the end of a rope, or dead of wounds, and most pirates weren't particularly successful at ammassing hauls of cash. People look to the few famous examples of successful pirates, and then extrapolate that success incorecctly onto the majority of those who took up the black flag. I do not think Morgan can be defined as a pirate properly - he did not attack all and sundry shipping - while the Spanish considered him a pirate, the English did not. Pirates do not get to be governors of English colonies (at least not people the English classified as pirates).

Ahoy Tar Bucket Bill, Cocking of hats becomes fashionable in the last decade of the 17th century, most pictures I have seen from the 1690's to the first decade of the 18th century might be described as 'informal' tricorns, where the brim is not turned up radically. I think as the cocking becomes more prominent, the various methods you described are used alternately. I can't answer as to the specific decade - I have a friend who is a clothing historian, perhaps she might have some further information. i do know for a fact hook and eye closures are reasonably common discoveries in archaeological digs , dating back to the late 14th century, and the many of the old ones look very like the ones still sold today.

There be three points to that hat Cap'n, so she still be a tricorn.

Ahoy aloft and alow! Wanting a better quality hat than I could make the first time round. I wanted a well cocked hat, on the order of what clearwater calls a "French" style. I contacted Clearwater in February, sent a money order out right away, and in 8 weeks time (less a day), I recieved my hat. Back in December, the turn around time had been 4 weeks, but he had recieved a rush of orders, which increased the turn around. The hat looks precisely like this (save mine is 'coffee' coloured, as I ordered, rather than black) - You get exactly what you see in the photo, a well cocked hat of high quality. They come with a silk binding, and sweatband, and an adjustable cotton lining, exactly as they ought have. The hat can be let down (like an original), as the cocking is held in place with light metal hooks. The blank it is made from is a fur blend, and a heavy blank at that. (much heavier than the average wool hat blank you find at sutlers commonly). The hat fits me supurbly - they have you send a pattern of the circumfrence of your head, in the form of a file folder that you size to your head - the process is described on the site, and it allows for a perfect fit the first time. They can trim a hat as fancy as you would like, with gold galoon, exactly as an original (for a suitable price). If you are in the market for a high-quality cocked hat, Clearwater fills the bill nicely. The only comparable hatter in the business and a similar price range is Dirty Billys Sutlery - I went with Clearwater as I liked the cocking of his hats better. The only step up from this hat in historical accuaacy I am aware of is to get a beaver felt hat from a hatter in Canada, painfully exacting replicas going for $400 (US) apiece - I don't have his name, and he hasn't a web presence, but he is well known in the upper end of the 18th century living history community. Total cost for the hat was $122 delivered. I consider it money well spent, as It would have taken me 3 or 4 trys with a blank going at least $30 - $40 to replicate the hat, and then only the shape - I doubt I would have gotten all the details this one has. I wanted a good replica of a cocked hat, not a semi-close approximation, so it was worth the cost to me. Here is a link to CleaClearwater hatsrwater

Ummmm...... certified? by whom? NPS has a certification program but it's primarily for NPS employees. There are some re-enactors who get an NPS ticket, but it only really counts at NPS sites. There are also some re-enactment societies that have schools of the soldier, but it is often handled on a unit level basis. I've fired at re-enactments and festivals all over the East coast and have no official ticket for pistol or musket. I do have them for cannon, but that is a completely different set of rules and requirements. Mostly, it's handled by the event safety inspector who will give you a run through and make sure you know what you are doing. If you are part of a participating unit, your CO takes responsibilty for you. If you are a solo, you may be brigaded with other solos or you may be assigned to a unit, where you will be checked again by the unit safety inspector. Either way, I have never heard of rules such as you say, and I've been shooting black powder at re-enactment for more than 20 years. Hawkyns Aye, Hawkyns has the right of it. There is no such certification between here and Maryland that I am aware of - I am unfamiliar with State regs elsewhere, but if New Jersey and New York don't have such, it is unlikely any other states have them. I've fired my first blackpowder weapon (with supervision, but I set linstock to touch hole myself) at the tender age of 8, almost 32 years ago ( a nice 4 lb gun, and live fire to boot), and I've shot just about any sort of blackpowder gun, live fire or reenactment you can imagine, from handgonne on up, and I've never heard tell of any official ceritification. The only state issuing cannoneer liscences, and requiring a liscensed canoneer on a guncrew, at the last I heard was Massachusetts - Hawykins has one, as he shoots up thisaway quite a bit.

An interesting side note - I came across a late 14th century French document listing the trade guilds of Paris, and their members, and out of 101 occupations listed, women were active in 86. Not too bad. :)

The average career of a pirate crew in the Golden Age was on the order of 6 months, with 2 years being the outside average - I don't know that they would have had time enough to develop a 'cant'. Most were sailors prior to their embarking into piracy, and would use normal nautical jargon and terminology.

Ahoy Billie Bonney! Thanks for the interesting lists. A word of caution I would give is that many 'Womens Studies' histories are more concerned with modern political and social thought, than with the hard factual data making up the stuff of History. I find this to be a sad case, considering that the approach used eventually dates and discredits the work, whereas a more scholarly approach would make for a more useful book in the long term. One of the first things you learn in Historical Methodology is considering the bias in any source in analysing documentation - when a bias is transparent, and in the worst cases truth is stretched beyond recognition, such books do more harm than good to the cause they are espousing. In example - there is an oft-linked to site on 'Women Warriors' that sadly gives 'documentation', that when the source is actually looked at, shows the documentation to be entirely fabricated from whole cloth. Lying about what a primary source says can only hurt the position taken by the person trying to 'document' something. When serious research is done, and documentation is carefully sifted through, the researcher finds women involved in almost every activity under the sun. In many cases, in many societies, women have had to pursue such activities disguised as their male counterparts. In some occupations, women were *never* commonplace, and it is a terrible slight to the women who undertook such an arduous or dangerous pursuit for real, and represent it as a commonplace happening - merely to suit a modern conciet regarding the equality of women to make modern women feel better about themselves. Women in the late 19th and 20th centuries undertook a long struggle to gain the equality they currently enjoy - to present it as being the norm detracts from the strugglein the past brave women undertook to obtain it. While 19th century society was indeed repressive to women, and earlier European society was more accepting of women in certain occupations (trade, for example), even these comparitively liberated women never enjoyed the same status in society men enjoyed, nor the same rights before the laws. It is injurious to the truth, and to the women who struggled against the odds and succeeded at occupations or professions they were nominaly barred from to represent these women as being treated as equals in society. They got what they had because they struggled for it - it was not handed to them on a silver platter.

Ahoy Elizabeth! I assure you that your assertation that the only trade women could legally participate in was prostitution is mistaken. My wife having studied Medieval trade guilds in England and Flanders during the 14th-16th centuries has come across women in every trade, legally recognized by the town guilds. Most trades dominated by men having women participating in them the said women ame into the trade through their marriage - helping their husbands with the business, and learning the trade in the process - they were recognised as legitimately carrying on their husbands businesses, and were even allowed apprentices of their own at their husbands demise (often at a fairly young age for the women - some who refused to remarry, carrying on actively in trade until their deaths). We have found through research references to women in strenuous trades, such as blacksmithing , in addition to less harsh physical trades , running the gamut from saddlers to mercers and grocers. In addition, there were trades that were entirely dominated by women, that were wealthy guilds, such as the 'sopers' (silk-spinners). Even in long-distance merchanting, women appear as a significant minority factor, even in businesses dominated by men - as a for instance, the steel trade in Cologne had women running a full 15% of the businesses single-handedly. Womens 'oppression' in Western Society largely began in the 'Early Modern Era', running through the Victorian one - the labour pool of earlier eras was too small, and too fragile to allow even rigidly patriarchal societies the luxury of eliminating women from trade and business once large-scale slavery dissapeared along with Classical civilization with the Fall of Rome. I just thought that you might find the information 'liberating' to know that women were indeed involved in trades prior to the 'Age of Enlightenment'. If you are interested in the subject, I would recommend a book to you entitles "The Legend of Good Women", which you should find in a net search fairly easily, which deals with the subject of women and their position in society and employment, in the 14th - 16th centuries. Also good is "The Fourth Estate", which is a book covering the role of women in Medieval European Society.

Ahoy corsair, It seems pretty thin evidence on the ground for me. Our own society looks oddly on strong male friendships (often based round warfare) that were not sexual in nature in previous eras, and assumes homosexuality, because our society does not have, and does not encourage such friendships. Strong male friendships between peers sharing danger is a commonplace of tribal societies - in most cases without the 'taint' of homosexuality attached (with notable exceptions that are famous, such as the Sacred Band of Thebes). Northern European Societys share this common trait, it's origins in the war band of tribal chieftans. The Boucanier Matelog would clearly seem to be in this tradition. Most moderns would not understand the companionship of Rolanz and Olivier, who were never presented during the era of chansons as both being anything other than heterosexual. Couple that with a functional illiteracy of previous societies, some modern scholars have (especially those pushing political or social agendas), and you end up with such proposterous pronouncements of homosexuality for notable figures such as Richard I (not understanding the Medieval custom of royalty symbolicaly sharing a bed, nor the commonplace of multiple people of the same gender in a bed solely for the purpose of sleeping, beds being a scarcer commodity, and centeral heating being nonexistant - people can sleep in a bed without any sex occuring - just ask some long married couples regarding this... :) ), who never had the remotest hint of such a charge against him by any contemporary, before or after his death. Please note, an enemy - of which he had many - could have used such an accusation as a strong weapon against him. Edward II of England (documentably a homosexual) was politically ruined, lost his throne, and ultimately his life - in part due to his political failures, but in largest part due to his lifestyle. I truely do believe some pirates were homosexual, but I also strongly believe that there is no reason to suspect that any higher rate of homosexuality than is or was ever present in the general population - approximately 2-3%

Ahoy Corsair, Thats a pretty definitive statement about an ephemeral phenomenon ( a person dead Three Centuries sexuality). Could you please enlighten us with some solid documentation or evidence for that? From the last little bit, I believe you are working toward this question by assuming an answer before examining all the evidence.

Ahoy Hawkyns, Errr... The details you describe are the same as the 5 pistols we just ordered 'EDGE 1739" with a crown and cipher below the pan. Wooden rammer, bananna lock plate and all. The detailing in the wood of the examples we recieved are present, they are heavier executed than originals though. Maybe you got a look at a prototype rather than a production model. The butt on the example Deacon Fry posted is the correct shape, whereas the too much wood on the Loyalist examples grip doesn't give it the proper ball shape, until wood is removed. All three examples we have posted are from the same manufacturer in India (including Middlesex Village). The reason we didn't use Pete is he can't get spare parts should something break, and he hasn't been properly hardening his frizzens. Loyalist also offers a discount for group orders.

That is a pretty fluffy article, long on speculation and short on documentation to the point of being nearly entirely absent. I particularly like the arrant nonsense "homosexuality must have been prevelant die to the numbers of rules against it". Sounds good on the surface, but taking a deeper look I believe fewer than a dozen cases of Sodomy are publicly recorded by Admiralty records over the course of the 18th century, with a stunningly high percentage of hangings meted out to the convicted parties (I am unaware of a case where a charge was brought forward without conviction). You stood a greater chance of being hanged for said act than for desertion. The raw data is there to prove the case. For a much better look into sexuality and the sailor, try David Cordingly's "Women Sailors and Sailors Women" (I hope I have that title right - I know I have the author correct). He covers everything from female sailors, to dockside prostitutes, sailors wives, homosexuality, ect. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), the article you linked to is fluff and drivel, a reporters view after a brief skim of a range of material, rather than a well documented study. I think you would get a kick out of the Cordingly book, and he very solidly documents cases of women at sea, functioning as everything from captain of the foretop on an English man of war, to taking over as fully functioning captains when their husbands were rendered incapable.

Ahoy Harbourmaster, I believe Military Heritage recieves it's longarms and pistols mostly from the same source as Loyalist, but has them finished in India (Loyalist is a longtime custom gunsmith, he does the prototypes, and then the Indians make them for him and everyone else - or they get copied by other Indian companies - copyright is fast and loose over there). I didn't consider getting the Military Heritage ones because they are the 1805 short barreled model, which does our crew no good for a 1740's-70's impression. Military Heritage is a shade cheaper, but your dealing with Indian quality controll on the finished goods - they are quite capable of making a decent product however. If they make what your looking for, it is certainly a good option.

Ahoy Cap'n William, Ping them again. As I said, I had a few days of worry like you are having now, and it added up to a weeks delay. The Canadian end of the business is one fellow and one or two helpers working in a barn, with the owners wife answering the e-mail. It is running toward reenactment season, and if they had a flood of orders I wouldn't be surprised for the delay. Thew owner also runs up the prototypes that get shipped off to be prosuced in India. When I hadn't heard from them in a few days, I pinged them again - polite, but persistant, and that is how we got the goods. Seeing other small reenactment oriented businesses, I klnow it's easy for them to get swamped.