Fox

What I really meant was that if one finds a German name in a crew list, but with no other information it would be difficult to say whether that person was Prussian or not. You might start with the voyage of George Shelvocke. In order to legitimise his letters of marque from the Holy Roman Emporer he signed on 90 Flemings, but there's a good chance of a few Germans amongst them. Klaus Stortebaker is too early if you want post Golden Age people. the following names are gathered from a post by Jan Maat on the Pirate Origins thread of Piratesinfo.com I have removed all non German names

Some interesting points Patrick, I see what you mean about not meaning people dessing above their station. Either way actually I think a long coat would be fine for a sailor on shore. Not necessarily what many would have chosen to wear, as NAM Rodger says seamen liked to dress like seamen, but certainly I think one or two would have done. I certainly take your point about the jeans, and my only comment really is that I think people tended to repair things much more than we do now. If you were a pirates or other seaman in the 17th century you'd probably sacrifice one pair of jeans to make patches for the other 5. BUT as you say, if you're clothes are wearing through and you have the opportunity to steal someone else's, why not? I'd like to see some primary source information really though I think. The quote comes originally from a court case in which Thomas Powell is trying to recover his property, and is reprinted in "Sailors; English merchant seamen 1650-1775" by Peter Earle, an absolute must for anyone wanting to take pirate portrayal seriously. I picked that quote because I like it, but others show similar things, for example the list of effects belonging to the late gunner James Bearcroft and sold at the mast in 1750 The other interesting thing about that source is that we can get a rough idea of the value of second hand clothes from it. For example, Richard Dobbs, an able seaman, paid 18 shillings for "one chequered shirt, a cloth waistcoat and breeches, wig, pair of stockings and handkerchief". An able seaman in the RN in 1750 was paid £1 4s per month (28 days) so those purchases cost Dobbs three weeks pay. I have no idea when the idea that men didn't wear underwear in times gone past comes from but the evidence makes it pretty clear that they did. There is an incident in the Memoirs of D'Artagnan written in 1700 in which Aramis soils himself before a duel and is forced to go and buy a new pair of draws, and there are of course other examples such as the two lists of clothing I've quoted here.

Are you looking for any particular period? Specifically golden age or pirates in general? Also, do they have to be definitely Prussian or will German names suffice?

I've got 2 or 3 of tarred hats, all of which were done in a slightly cheating way. Black bitumen paint. It's tar based but spreads easily, can be applied with a paint brush, thins down easily if necessary, and dries pretty well. Once dry it looks like tar, feels like tar, smells like tar and is waterproof. It will take two or three coats at least, but I reckon must be the easiest way. I've seen tarred hats done with blackboard paint and varnish, but I don't think that's so effective. It is waterproof and looks ok, but it doesn't have the smell. I've also done tarred clothing the same way. For clothing you need to thin the bitumen out, I use turpentine, then paint it on in the same way. The cloth is naturally somewhat stiffer, but not unwearable and is completely waterproof. For those so inclined one of those spray bottles you use for the ironing filled with linseed oil does a fair job of making oilskin clothes - again they're stiffer, but they're also waterproof.

People's clothes getting worn through and their having to steal finery from other ships is something that has come up a couple of times recently on various boards I visit, and it's prompted me to some thinking and some research. First off, in the question of finery we have to ask how many sets of posh togs there were afloat in any one area at any one time, compared with the number of pirates who might steal it. With that in mind I think it's a fairly poor reason for pirate re-enactors to dress above their station. Secondly I got to thinking about what men actually took to sea with them, ie how likely they were to need new clothes. I looked at quite a number of wills and the like from the late 17th and early 18th century and they mostly showed similar stuff in similar quantity. One of my favourites was this list of gear left on board the Pearl Galley by Thomas Powell, a foremastman in 1736: I've not included the possession which weren't clothes - which included a parrot btw - but I don't think Thomas Powell would have needed to go stealing clothes until he was put ashore in Africa with only a shirt, waiscoat, cap, hat, pair of trousers and his shoes.

There are a couple of important errors on the thread mentioned which I'll comment on here; Not everybody was liable to be pressed. In theory only seamen could be forced to join the Navy, though what constituted a seaman could be vague at times and include inshore fishermen, river boatmen, ferrymen etc. That it was possible to bring claims against press gangs who picked on men other than seamen is shown by the case mentioned on the other thread of agricultural workers being pressed and their wives successfully lobbying to have them released. Secondly, it is important to get out of the idea that the quality of life at sea was the principal reason for the need to impress men. Life on a Royal Navy vessel was no worse necessarily than life on a merchantman or privateer. The food was no worse, the work was easier and the officers were more strictly controlled in terms of what punishments they could mete out. Certainly some RN ships were worse than others and some merchantmen were better than others, but the idea that all RN ships were terrible places to work compared to merchantmen is balderdash. In time of war the fleets grew, sometimes literally overnight, and many thousands of men were needed in a hurry to man the ships brought out of the yards. Because of the extra demand seamen could command higher wages and the wages offered by merchantmen could be as much as 3 or 4 times those offered in RN ships so it's no wonder that merchantmen had no trouble manning while the RN had to resort to the press. Finally, the method of the press described on the other thread is somewhat stereotyped. Certainly there was an element of knocking people on the head in pubs, but it became more prevalent after the Golden Age of piracy - in the later 18th century. In the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries it was just as common for men to be impressed by receiving a note telling them they were now in the navy, and offering them a small sum to cover their expenses as they made their own way way to the port they were required. Local officials would be told how many men were needed from them and they would arrange for the right number of local seamen to go to the ships. Ignoring a press summons was a serious offence so only a few ignored it. It didn't always work well of course, men who were unfit, unsuitable or couldn't find other employment were often picked on by the local officials so standards were often low, and officials often complained that they could not find enough men.

Well, I've been a re-enactor for 14 years and have studied the maritime history of England in the 16th-18th centuries almost full time for 6 or 7 years, and amaterurishly all my life. I have no problems answering questions, I love to help and we've all gotta start sometime. Next time I have a question about early Byzantium (about which I know more or less nothing) I'll come to you.

I've only just had the date confirmed myself (in the last 3 or 4 days) so I wouldn't be surprised if there were no publicity about it yet. In theory it will be the 2nd and 3rd of September, but I must warn you that last time I was due to take part in an event at Lelystad (on the Zeven Provincien) it was cancelled a couple of months beforehand. This one does seem more definite, but if there is any change I'll post it here.

Hi Charity, I'm not in Holland, and not particularly piratical, but I am meant to be coming to Holland in early September to do a 1620s living history event on the Batavia at Lelystadt.

I think the social standing of pursers could vary greatly from ship to ship, and not all ships had pursers. What all pursers had in common though as far as I can tell was financial standing. They didn't have to be of any particular class but they did have to be able to get credit. As I understand it the purser supplied the vittels and slop clothes for the voyage, then drew a percentage of the men's wages in recompense. There was no uniform for pursers until well after our period, I forget exactly when they got a uniform but I think it was early 19th century, possibly the very late 18th. In any case no naval officer had a uniform until 1747. As for whether they had particular items of dress to distinguish them (like a boatswain's whistle for example), none that I know of unless you count a fat paunch, tally stick and a set of dodgy weights

The thing with being a boatswain is that if you're going to do it properly the lawkeeper aspect of it is only a very minor part of what the boatswain does. He's also responsible for maintaining the rigging, boats, overseeing the running of the ship, looking after the anchors and all other ropes, flags, changing of watches and he was in charge of the team of men who did the actual sailing during battle while everyone else fought. In smaller ships he might also act as master gunner. Am I still curator of the Bonaventure? That depends what you mean. I still run the living history group Bonaventure, but I am no longer the curator of the Golden Hind replica, if that's what you meant. I had to move up country so now I do freelance work with other museums. Patrick, a case might be argued for marines prior to 1703 being just infantry, although they were called marines and filled the same jobs that marines have done ever since, ie. being the soldiers aboard ships and forming the backbone of any landing parties. However in 1703 the establishment is fairly clear, 6 regiments of marines for service specifically aboard ships, and 6 regiments for sea-service whose job will be to form landing parties etc. I think though it's fair to say that if you want to portray a marine in 1669 you can. Yellow coat with red facings, red breeches, red stockings, black hat with yellow trim.

I think if you're looking to portray a lawkeeper aboard a ship of 1588-1630 then definitely Boatswain is the title for you. Of course, boatswains had MANY more duties besides the lawkeeping - in fact Monson says: The role of quartermasters on pirate ships is one I have taken an especial interest in recently, see this page of my website.

Patrick, I meant to ask; what sort of information are you looking for re. 1669 infantry? And Wooden World is the best book available on the mid 18th century navy IMHO.

I can't think of any books off the top of my head dealing particularly with pursers and corporals of that period, but NAM Rodger's "Safeguard of the Seas" would be an excellent starting point. Although the book cover an enormous period of 660-1649 around half of it is actually about the 16th century and the social history chapters are second to none. It's available on this page of Amazon On the topic of Corporals Butler says: Butler was writing in the 1630s and 40s, but had probably been at sea since the beginning of the century. Although he says that Corporals were a late addition to ships they had been included in pay lists as early as 1588 (as I noted earlier). On Pursers Butler says: That the pursers often did "purse up roundly for himself" is evident from the ballad I posted above, which is more or less contemporary with Butler. For his description of the purser's duties Butler seems to have cribbed a great deal from the writings of Sir William Monson. Monson was an Admiral in the 17th century, but had served as a captain in Elizabeth's reign and had been in the fleet in 1588. I've written out Butler's version because it's shorter than Monson's, but says the same things (more or less). Monson describes the duties of a Corporal thus: Both Monson and Butler assign the duties of lawkeeper to the boatswain: Hope it helps,

A Potted History of the Royal Marines to 1755: 1664 - The Duke of York and Albany's (Lord Admiral's) Maritime Regiment of Foot is formed, consisting of 1,200 men and officers, "to be distributed into His Majesty's Fleets". 1665 - Marines served at Battle of Lowestoft 1666 - Marines served at Four Days' Battle and Holmes' Bonfire 1672-4 - Marines serve in Battles of Schooneveldt and Texel in Third Dutch War. 1676 - Marines serve in Virginia against the Bacon Rebellion 1680 Marines serve at Tangier 1685 - Duke of York becomes James II, regiment renamed Prince George of Denmark's Maritime Regiment of Foot 1688 - Marines stationed around the South East coast to resist expected Dutch invasion. 1689 - Marines disbanded 1690 - 1st and 2nd Marine Regiments formed under the command of the Earls of Torrington (1st) and Pembroke (2nd). Marines serve at Battle of Beachy Head 1692 - Marines serve at Barfleur and La Hogue 1698 - 1st and 2nd Marines amaglmated into single regiment with the title 1st regiment of Marines. Colt's, Seymour's and Mordaunt's Regiments of foot redesignated 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Marines. 1699 - All four Marine regiments disbanded 1702 - 6 regiments of Marines and 6 "Regiments for Sea-service" formed 1703 - 4th Marine regiment redesignated as foot regiment, Seymour's Regiment of foot redesignated as Marines. Seymour considered Brigadier of Marines. 1704 - Marines and RN take Gibraltar, giving the Marines their famous cap badge slogan and making Gibraltar a British dependency (which it still is). 1713 - Marines disbanded, Treaty of Utrecht 1739 - 6 regiments of Marines re-formed. Governor Spottiswoode, former governor of Virginia raises 4 Battalions of Marines from New York. 1741 - 4 more regiments of Marines formed 1748 - Marine regiments disbanded 1755 - 50 companies of Marines formed and split into 3 "grand divisions". From this time on there have always been Marines in the British Navy. So, if you'd read that the Marines didn't have an unbroken history before 1755 that would be right, but they certainly did exist prior to that date. They didn't become "Royal" Marines until 1802, though the Duke of York and Prince George of Denmark were both members of the Royal family, and Seymour's regiment had previously been the Queen Dowager's.

The Corporal was a Navy officer in the terms we're discussing. The Royal Marines didn't exist until 1664 and had a very turbulent history for their first half century or so. It is entirely possible that the fixed establishment of Marines on ships was one of the reasons the Corporal was dropped as a naval officer. As far as my research goes I believe pursers enjoyed varying status from ship to ship. In the cases where they were unpaid it was because they were expected to make a profit, and this chasing of filthy lucre led to purser being despised wherever they went. "The Sailor's Complaint: or the true character of a purser of a ship" ballad from the first half ot he 17th century. Now tell me THAT wasn't written by a seaman!

What ho, the earliest reference I've found to a Master-at-Arms in the Royal Navy was 1700 when the title appears on the pay lists for the first time. However, at the same time the "Corporal" disappears from the pay lists and since they did much the same job I'm inclined to think that the Master at Arms replaced the Corporal. The Corporal was first added to navy pay lists in 1588. I've not come across any reference to merchant or pirate ships carrying Masters-at-Arms or Corporals.

In general I think rivers were probably the preferred method of haulage, along with coastal boats - a vessel with a crew of 3 or 4 could transport the same amount of stuff as a dozen or more wagons. However, that depends on where the goods are being transported to and from. The canal system which rivalled the railways in the 19th century was hardly conceived of in the 18th century, let alone the 16th, but many inland towns and villages still have quays, or the evidence of quays from the medieval period and later. The road system didn't really become the main infrastructure until the 19th century at the earliest, probably not until the early 20th.

I think you'll probably find that a lot of the supply ships were in fact Royal warships. Anything coming from England would certainly have been well protected by the Navy and the shore batteries. As for goods coming from foreign parts, it's difficult to say. A fair amount might well have come overland (depending on where it came from of course), but you're right, there would have been a number of ships coming in from the Baltic and the Med. Drake was certainly a pirate who robbed from a king, but I was thinking more specifically of pirates robbing Henry VIII personally. Also, there is a world of difference between what Drake did and the idea of plundering naval vessels within sight of the guns of Dover castle. When Drake raided the Spanish mainland, and indeed Panama, it was more in the nature of a military attack than an act of piracy, and there were certainly no Drake-style military attacks on the Cloth of Gold supplies to my knowledge. The thing to do of course would be to find out exactly where the supplies taken to the Field of the Cloth of Gold all came from, and how they were transported there.

Thanks! The lack of pirate profiles is basically down to the fact that I'm trying to confine the site to people who either did not exist, or whose stories are often largely fictional. More importantly, I'm confining it to pirates about whom I can prove that (or come close to proving it). If you can think of more fictional pirates who turn up on one or more factual website or book I'd be glad to add them.

I can't see it myself. I don't know of any pirate attacks and it seems to me to be pretty unlikely for a couple of reasons: 1. the ships carrying things from England to France were probably Royal warships (I haven't checked that, it's just a probability) 2. Calais is visible from England, essentially we're talking about waters very close to the shore, and a coastline very heavily defended. I can't think of any Tudor pirate daft enough to steal from the King, in the first place, let alone to do it from heavily armed warships within sight of the guns of one of the most powerful castles (if not THE most powerful at the time) in England Pilfering on the other hand I'm sure went on - seamen with their hands in the chests of pearls and gold lace, but pirate attacks seem very unlikely to me.

The flags page is the one I'm most pleased with. I spent days trawling the internet and came to the conclusion that there were 20 different pirate flags on the net claiming to be real. I've proven some are real, proven some are false, but more importantly I think I've doubled the number (or more) to 42. Aye, Carolyn McTaggart. You may notice that your name is top of the list of people to whom thanks are due Mission! Even if it is in a totally random order.

What ho piratey people, just to let you know that my very own website "Pirate Mythtory" is now online Feel free to visit and tell me it's all wrong at your leisure. Then get your friends to as well. Many people on this board (and others) have helped with information and ideas. Thanks guys.

If we're going back as far as the 17th century there's a brilliant bit on one of Monson's tracts referring to an expedition of his in the early 17thC against some pirates in the Irish Sea. I forget his exact words but he more or less says "I picked out the members of my crew who had been pirates and asked them..." I'm not at home at the moment, I'll post the details in a day or two.

Nice one Corsair (again!) Just out of interest, what period and part of the world is Charles Gray discussing when he mentions branding? Also, being on the wrong side of the pond for looking at Colonial newspapers would anyone be kind enough to a: point me in the direction of published versions of them obtainable over here, b: point me at a weblink for transcripts of some, c: share some of their own research with me, or d: all of the above? I'll be your best friend