Fox

You know what really saddens me about those two...ahem... "pirates" that GoF posted? They've obviously put a huge amount of effort into their clothing, and probably a good few quid, and yet LOOK AT THEM! If they'd put half the effort into going authentic they'd look great. If they'd put half the effort into actually looking like Hollywood pirates they'd be competing with Ace. As it is, WTF do they think they look like! They don't look like pirates, authentic OR fantasy, they look like living illustrations from the worst children's book ever written. They scare me, but not in the right way. I think, ladies and gentlemen, that the "Pirate of Men's Pants" award 2006 has just been awarded. That woman in blue looks scarily like my ex mother-in-law. PS. If those guys are anyone from the pub, I'm sorry for offending but you need to hear this. YOU LOOK LAUGHABLE!

I've never seen a sword-cane pre-victorian, probably because the need for them wasn't there. Right up until the early 19thC if you were wealthy enough to own a sword then you wore it. It's only when the wearing of swords becomes unfashionable and unrespectable that you need to start concealing them.

Few years ago a couple of us half heartedly started a Burma Road re-enactment group so that when we went to those REALLY hot events we could dress in sarongs, cotton shirts, and coolie hats. Funny thing is, nobody ever wanted to book us... See, this is why I have to laugh. In one sentence Ace claims that he's never arrogant and rude, and in the next he describes the hard work of others as "historical crap". You'd have to pay for comedy this good on cable...

Gotcha both. Peteeitis cured. Fair points.

Nah, you'd never catch me in boots and a Hollywood special 4" wide belt!

Wow! so much to answer! DL, at the very least you should be wearing a hat. On seamen being unique: it's a little post GAoP but I've always loved this quotation of Sir Henry Fielding There's plenty of other evidence, but I think that's the most succint. Not in the 18thC you don't, that's just our modern perception, as Kass already said.

Bit of a scholarly read? OK, I'm just going to make some points here and let you folks draw what you will from them. A certain proportion of any given group of people is likely to be gay, but only the minutest of insignificant proportions of people will "turn" gay just to avoid celibacy. Therefore, if there were acts of homosexuality aboard ships it was because the participants were gay, not because they'd been at sea for a long time. At the end of the day you either like a bit of backdoor action or you don't, if you do then going to sea won't change anything, if you don't then... going to sea won't change anything. Given that the punishments for sodomy were extreme - death was usual unless the "culprit" could offer a damn good excuse, and given the cramped conditions aboard most ships, to what extent do you think people really risked it, even if they wanted to? Are we losing sight of the fact that many pirate cruises (and indeed other voyages) lasted only a few weeks anyway? ********************************************************* Did pirates sometimes engage in a bit of same-sex sex? Probably. Were they driven to it because of being at sea for a long time? Nope. Let me just throw a figure at you for the fun of it. In his research for his excellent book "Sailors", the historian Peter Earle looked at the lives of thousands and thousands of English merchant seamen of the 1650-1775 era. He found ONE case of homosexuality.

Bad case of Peteeitis. I think that 99.9% of the coats worn by the working seamen were short sailors' jackets. BUT I think that 99.9% of them wore them 99.9% of the time. Shirtsleeves were a rarity. Some of the pictures of pirates ashore from the period do show long coats, but there are two things to take into consideration: a, most of those pictures show captains rather than grunts, and b, even some of the pictures of captains ashore show them in short coats! Right, I'm off to play my grandmother at Scrabble.

Das, nice Vasa picture! Petee, do we know what kind of ship they're on in your painting? It wouldn't be a fishing boat would it? Well said! I have no issue with people choosing the myth over the reality. I happen to believe very strongly that once you actually look into it the history is far more interesting than the fiction could ever be, but that's just my opinion. I don't even have an issue with those who choose the myth deluding themselves that it's history. I DO have a problem with them deluding others that it's history. Popping the cork on my worme canne. What evidence do we have of pirates "dressing up" to go ashore, and to what extent does that evidence show their attmepts succeeded? At the risk of sounding dogmatic (and I know Das really doesn't want to hear this) I think stripping to the shirt would have been very very rare indeed. We have to get into the 18thC mind-set that a shirt is underwear, and even nowadays folks don't generally go to work in their skivvies. See my earlier comments about stripping to the shirt in Henry Teonge's diary. It did happen, but only under the most extreme of circumstances. Bear in mind also that the mid-17th century saw the end of what has been described as a "mini ice age", so even during the GAoP the average temperatures were lower than they are now. Furthermore, if you habitualy wear a coat all you life then your body compensates for it. Yes, it happened, but so rarely as to make it noteworthy. Stripping to the skin - even more unlikely. This is a classic problem which is almost always approached with a 21stC mindset, not an 18thC one. I have often gone stocking-less on a hot day, but since reading about seamen keeping their stockings on when they went swimming, I'm having doubts about that too. Are you gonna tell Petee or am I?

You could just ask...

Yeah, we've got information of "cold-water" pirates and seamen - in many cases they were the same people that worked the Caribbean. The same arguments stand for those in the colder climes. They're not practical, they're not fashionable, and there's no evidence in support of them.

I'm not convinced all this attention is good for my ego... but we won't know unless you carry on :)

It must have been someone very wise and profound who told you that, I wonder who it can have been... It would depend greatly on what kind of ship. If it were a naval ship then it should be fairly easy. If it were a merchant ship belonging to a major line then it would be not too difficult. If he were the master of a Mersey tubgoat then it would be considerably more tricky. Without any promises of when or even "if", what's the name, and do you have any idea on date?

I believe perfume was also important... "No Pot Pourri!" was a favourite Parliamentarian battle cry... (I ought to explain that despite the Ocean between us Hawkyns and I used to be brother officers in the same re-enactment society - the ECWS - and even went to a handful of events together before we "met" here.) ********************************************************** I was debating whether to mention the Irish Catholics (how in depth does a bulletin board warrant?), but I suppose they are doubly relevant in this context. The shipment of Irish troops to join Royalist garrisons in Wales, and even the Royalist field armies was one of the only major successes of the Royalist privateers during the conflict. Having swept the Irish Sea temporarily clean of Parliamentarian warships once or twice they used the opportunity to ferry Royalist Irish troops across. Without the Irish troops the King would possibly have lost the first Civil War sooner, and more convincingly. The conflict between the protestant and the uber-protestant is also significant. From the beginning of the war the Presbyterians tended to side with Parliament. This is important because there were huge numbers of Presbyterians in the Scottish army, but also in the Navy. When the radicals alienated the Presbyterians it had the effect (along with other causes it must be admitted) of shifting sympathy in the Scottish army and the fleet towards the Royalists. The Scottish army switched sides and a large number of ships mutinied and joined the Royalists. It was these ships which provided the backbone of Prince Rupert's pirate/privateer squadron. Believe it or not, the maritime conflicts of the mid-17thC (and particularly the ECW) is the subject I consider my forte, not all that pirate nonsense...

Religion certainly played a part in the ECW. On the whole though it was probably limited to the extremes. I doubt there were any Catholics on the Parliamentarian side (not that there were many on the Royalist side either), and groups like the Independents and puritans tended to side with Parliament. The majority of people though were of the less extreme persuasions, CofE, Presbyterians etc, and they could be found on both sides. Following the Civil War there was a great opposition to Catholics getting into positions of power - while different Protestant groups could tolerate one another (just) the Catholics were definitely not good. The feeling was so strong that the Catholic James II was turfed out after 3 years, and he was lucky to ever reach the throne at all. Catholicism was just one of the reasons to hate the Spanish in the New World. I wonder how much Morgan's hatred of Catholicism was religious fervour and how much was avarice for the rich furniture and fittings of Panama Cathedral. I suspect that true piracy was anathema to anyone with really strong religious convictions.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. If we're talking about, say, the illustrations from Ellms' Pirates Own Book then that's nearly 120 years after the events it describes (more in some cases). You're artistic minded Petee, so you make an excellent case study. How many people do you know who could tell you first hand what people wore in the 1880s?

I gotta say that there has been a recent outbreak of Authenti v. Farby (they come round every four months or so), and I suspect that the most recent one is still a little bitter in people's mouths. However, I do notice GoF (and indeed everyone involved) stressing over and over again the value of both approaches. In this particular case I don't think GoF was deliberately raking up the issues, but he was answering Das's question the way he sees it. If you read what GoF actually says, instead of the way it perhaps comes across, he's not insulting anyone, or saying one approach is better than another. He's just highlighting the differences and pointing out to what extent the Farby approach has strayed from real history. ********************************************************** During the civil war the Royalists relied heavily on privateers to provide their naval power, and though the Parliamentarians also used privateers they also had the bulk of the Navy. At the time there was some debate: the Royalist privateers had their authority from the King, or one of his subordinates, so they ought to have been legitimate, but by a quirk of English law the King at that time did not legally have the right to authorize privateers, that was the right of the Lord Admiral, who was a Parliamentarian. As a result the Royalists considered themselves privateers while the Parliamentarians considered them pirates. After the execution of the King foreign power also began to see the Royalists as pirates. After the civil war both former Royalists and Parliamentarians turned to piracy, and both could be found in the fleet. Really, apart from the Regicides the old politics were largely forgotten or overlooked following the Restoration. On the whole, the pirates proper either didn't have political convictions, or they didn't let them get in the way. The exceptions would be some of the people who were really out-and-out pirates, but chose to "legitimize" their activities by acquiring a commission from Prince Charles or the Duke of York, and thus work, in theory, for the Royalists. In many cases this was a relationship of expedience, the apolitical pirates got some semblence of legitimacy and the Royalists got another ship to add to their fleet on paper.

That would certainly alleviate some of the problem threads. If something was specifically defined as "fantasy" from the start then the only debate necessary would be over the quality/value of the item, and those who care about historical accuracy wouldn't waste their time or money. If something was defined as "historical" then it would be subject to debate about accuracy as well as quality, but there would be no grounds for objection. Call me a nay-sayer or pessimist if you will, but I suspect that many people will post stuff for sale without defining it (who ever reads the rules eh?!). In those cases I think it's only fair that the item or vendor should still be subject to debate, because at the end of the day it IS important to some people - those who don't care can skip over the authenticity debate, those who do can read it and contribute. If the didn't want to be subject to such analysis then they should have read the guidelines... Go for it Capt.

Hope you had a good vacation! I think there is a slight issue with which is the correct forum sometimes. Granted: discussions about historical accuracy belong in Captain Twill, and discussion about items for sale belong in Plunder. BUT, what about discussion on the historical accuracy of items offered for sale?

The thing with the sword is it's essentially a luxury item. If you want a cheap weapon then a spear is going to cost about a tenth the price of the cheapest sword. If you want an effective weapon then a spear has twice the reach of a sword. If you want a dual purpose weapon then an axe or a bill can be used to trim your hedge with. I wonder if the rise in popularity of swords around 1600ish was due to their becoming more affordable or to the rise in popular fashion (I'd say the "fashion" for wearing swords about town probably began no earlier than 1570ish, and took a while to really take hold and spread). The first truly cheap sword was probably the Bohemian peasants' "dusack" which developed in the mid 16th century, but it was a military item, not a fashion trend. I suspect that the common ownership of firearms is of the same sort of era, when they began to be mass produced and became more obtainable, but I could be wrong.

It's a deposition made in court, quoted in Gerald Howson's "Thief-taker General: The Rise and Fall of Jonathan Wild." I believe that Mr White and his servant were on the road, so the gun comes as little surprise. What I was really hoping to illustrate with it was a: the fact that they had a gun as a matter of course, and b: nobody seemed too surprised by the outbreak of a gun-fight, the second Mr White even went so far as to join in! Also, that Mr White#2 was carrying a practical hangar rather than a dress sword, and that he was prepared to use it.

From the "Pirate's Glossary" I'm impressed. What kind of articles do you plan to run, and are you paying contributors?

Original 1650s latchet shoe with a stacked heel. Different style of latchet shoe, modern repro.

Aha! Herein lies the danger of relying on pictures without explanation of what they are... The picture is an illustration of the murder of English seamen by a savage tribe in the East Indies (IIRC, though I suppose it might have been North Africa). The funny looking fellow is a nondescript East Indian savage, drawn in such a way that would appeal to the English readership. Neither he nor his weapons are really meant to be taken as accurate representations. So, civilised people use straight swords and dress normally, savages and heathens use wiggly swords and wear funny clothes.

I don't know which the boots come from - I suspect the Australian museum, but I might be wrong. The Batavia in Holland is a modern replica of the Batavia whose wrecked remains are now on display in Western Australia.