Fox

I'd be bit cautious about describing boots as "in" for the buccaneering era, but they were certainly less "out" than in the GAoP. I think I must have read about that Nelsonian incident too. What I meant was that the sailor's outfit didn't just consist of slops and shirt. I think you have a mild case of Peteeitis, which you possibly caught from my writing in a confusing manner... I was using "breeches" figuratively to mean anything which covered the top half of the legs - breeches proper, slops, petticoat breeches etc. Jackets were, for the most part, short amongst seamen. It rather depends what sort of person and what specific time frame we're talking about here. Typical landsmen's clothes of the buccaneer period would have been a doublet in the early period, and either a doublet or a long coat/waistcoat in the later part. Soldier's uniforms tended to be short jackets in the early part and long coats in the later part. Seamen generally wore either jackets or short smocks (though sometimes doublets) throughout. The style of breeches which was popular changed dramatically during the period. Many of the buccaneers proper wore a very distinctive outfit consisting of a long shirt (possibly with a normal shirt beneath it), sometimes a short jacket over the top, and bound leggings, with or without breeches. Bear in mind that the larger buccaneer bands were made up of all sorts - soldiers, sailors, pig-hunters etc. Shoes for all the above were what is generally referred to as latchet shoes - quite plain with one lacing hole. Lemme find some pictures... 1630s-50s. Soldiers. Breeches, short jackets etc Statue of a typical 17thC seaman. Doublet, slops etc. (I need to run down the original statue and get a good look at it, but if you look at his left leg he appears to have a row of buttons up it - quite possibly this is a short legged boot. Woohoo! back on topic!) Seamen 1640s. Note a mix of jackets and doublets. One guy has a doublet on its own, another has one under his jacket. 1660s-90s. This guy is actually a sea-gunner, but it gives a good impression of post-Restoration military and civilian dress. Typical "pig-hunter" buccaneers. Long shirts, leggings, short jackets, no breeches. The "buccaneer" period really lasted something like 80 years (though there was a 20 year high point between about 1670 and 90) so fashions changed quite a bit, and different parts of society had their own fashions. Despite the radical differences, all of the above oufits would be suitable for buccaneering.

Nah, it's the crappy quality of the photo. They're tin buttons covered in a short-nap black velvet. The shine on a couple of them is just a trick of the light.

THREE DAYS! I don't know about that... oh, hang on... three days in a bar with such wonderful company...

Kass, if you leave Bob at home I might buy the drinks and treat you to one of the finest English accents there is...

That's one of the big issues, certainly in UK re-enactment. We turn up to the event as individuals, but the public perceive us as a group, so we have to be authentic, not just on an individual basis, but also on a team basis. Ah, the old favourite. Whenever re-enactors want to wear something that isn't reall appropriate they fall back on "I stole it", or "I looted it from a dead body" if they're military types. The correct answer is "stole it from whom?" OK, some of these pirates might have stolen the odd pair of bucket boots, but how many pairs of bucket boots were floating around the Caribbean aboard small merchantmen circa whenever? ... I think the issue here is what constitutes this typical "sailor's" clothing. In the GAoP a typical outfit consisted of hat, shirt, jacket (with or without waistcoat), neck-cloth, breeches or trousers, stockings, and shoes. So, no, they probably didn't go ashore in slops and shirt, but they probably didn't wear that at sea much either. There's a bit in Henry Teonge's diary where his ship is sailing off the North African coast in the middle of summer - one of the hottest and most oppresive atmospheres in the world - and one day he notes that the seamen "put off" their jackets. Even in that climate it was news that the men were in their shirt sleeves. What differentiated them from the landsmen was that they wore wide open slops instead of breeches and short jackets instead of long coats, floppy hats or thrum caps instead of large tricorns etc. Bingo! I knew I could rely on you Kass to make sense of my ramblings...

On firearms and swords, I was quite interested by the following passage and the light it sheds on "everyday" armaments. It is the testimony of one Mr White who was robbed by a highwayman named Goodman, then a few days later came across him again, quite by chance.

Petee, fishermen are different still. You said yourself (or quoted anyway) about fishermen standing up to their thighs in water for hours at a time - seamen don't often do that. Now, if fishermen are of interest I've got a list of the costs of stuff taken out of fishermen's pay in 1641, which includes "boots" at 7 shillings. At the same time a pair of velvet lined shoes could be had for 2 shillings and tuppence. I can't quite work out the details of the Vasa boot (300 years on the bed of Stockholm harbour have taken their toll), but I don't believe there's a buckle involved. OK, Das's questions... 1. From about the 1620 boots enjoyed a short time of fashion, BUT they were expensive (see above). Even a pair of really fine shoes might cost a third of the price of a pair of plain working boots. Thus, their use was limited to those who either wore them for working or could afford them for fashion. They were far from common. 2. You got it. No, not really. 3. Pass. Personally I think the history of the early 17thC pirates is far more interesting as well (check out Thomas Salkeld!). I guess what it boils down to is that Blackbeard (or alternative "popular" pirate) wasn't around in the bucket-boot era. Nor were "pirate" coats or tricorns. 4. For the sake of fun there's nothing wrong with every pirate wearing bucket boots and a jolly roger thong. It's just not history. Depends how you mean really. Yes, the bucket boot was a riding boot, but were those horses ridden by the seamen? Actually, one of the most interesting things is the number of times one comes across references to people ashore disguising themselves as seamen for one reason or another. Seamen had a very distinctive dress, and they seem to have worn it more or less all the time, even ashore. Most seamen's probates tend to show somewhere between 2 and 6 sets of clothes, but they are usually all or mostly typical seamen's clothes, not different sets of stuff for different occasions. As a side-note, barefoot in the rigging? OW! Personally, I think even one or two would be going a bit far (depending on the size of group), but that's essentially the attitude which I think is sensible - not that you need my approval for a minute Petee.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Actually, we know that the Batavia (from whence those boots came) was sailing to set up trading posts int he East, and had merchants and passengers aboard as well as seamen and supplies. I suspect the massive pre-fabricated stone arches and other architectural gems also recovered from the Batavia had little to do with seamen's camps ashore. Personally I'm a little wary of any site which suggests kung-fu shoes are authentic 16thC sailor wear! The trouble with the Mary Rose is that we know a huge proportion of the crew were not seamen, so we have to be a little careful about what conclusions we draw from it. I'm sad to say this of people I know, but unless they've got hitherto unseen evidence to the contrary I suspect that DK books helped them out a bit...

I'm all for friendly debate, it's the only way to move forward. Petee, have you seen this picture? It's of a boot recovered from the Vasa. The trouble is that neither the Vasa boot nor the Batavia boots are really relevant to the GAoP. The other thing that we really have to consider is the proportion of boots being worn. I've got contemporary pictures of, at an estimate, 250-300 seamen of the GAoP era. 2 of them are wearing boots. I've looked at a good couple of hundred wills of seamen of that time, and I've never, to my recollection, come across a mention of boots in them. OK, I can accept that there is some evidence for seamen in boots, but it must also be accepted that that evidence constitutes something like a fifth of one% of the evidence about seamen's appearance. So if one in every 500 maritime re-enactors wore a pair of knee length soft boots I'd have no argument. Like you, I'm not saying that no pirate ever wore a bucket boot, just that during the GAoP they would have been in a completely insignificant minority. I think that Pyle and co are probably more to blame than Hollywood, Hollywood just popularised the Pylesque image. Personally, I haven't seen many early 19th century depictions of pirates in boots, but even if they exist that doesn't mean they were in any way inspired by genuine pirate practice. If you look at pictures of that period a massive range of influences is clear. My favourite is that picture of Kidd burying the family bible dressed in Tudor clothing! Erm, I'm an historian and former maritime museum curator. Does that count? Actually, I'm of the opinion that the word of "experts" is of little or no value when compared to actual evidence. Maybe during the buccaneer era, especially in the early part when they were fashionable. Probably not much during the Elizabethan period - they weren't so fashionable then. That would have been me. It's not only feasable, it's proven, we've got pictures of it. No pictures of boots though... I agree absolutely. When boots were "the thing" they were probably not uncommon (which is not the same as saying common, but...). So let's look at when boots were actually de rigeur. We being to see boots during the later medieval period, but they appear at that time to be associated with riding, though they do make excellent under-armour wear. In the sixteenth century they remain practical riding boots, and not particularly fashionable - though they were perhaps slightly more popular than they had earlier been. In the Jacobean period they seem to have lost that slight popularity and been reduced once more completely to the status of riding wear, only to come into high fashion during Charles I's reign (1625-49). On the Continent they never seem to have been as fashionable as they were in England, so on Charles II's return to England from a long exile boots instantly went out of fashion and became, once more, specifically for riding in. Shoes remained the fashionable footwear right through the 17th and 18th centuries then until, in the very late 18th century short Hessian boots (which are nothing at all like bucket boots) became fashionable for young men. Yes it would! the trouble is, if anyone ever manages to come up with the elusive evidence of a pirate in a bucket boot then everyone will instantly jump up and shout in a deafening clamour "Pirates wore bucket boots, look, we can prove it!", which would sadly be ignoring totally the HUGE amount of evidence of them not wearing bucket boots. It comes down to keeping things in perspective. That argument is very much a two-edged sword. In Dampier's books (to which JoshuaRed was specifically referring when he said it) Dampier was interested in the unusual things that he saw, not the commonplace. However, the truth is that we DO know a huge amount about the commonplace stuff from other sources, we have huge numbers of pictures (not the "few etchings" that nay-sayers like to think), we have written descriptions of what people were wearing, we have supply documents for all sorts of ships, including pirate and privateer. We have a massive amount of evidence of the commonplace, so we can say with some certainty what was common and what wasn't. If something isn't mentioned at all then we can say with reasonable confidence of accuracy that it was extremely rare at best. ********************************************************** It strikes me that in any discussion of this nature there are certain things which must be considered. ERA: Did pirates wear bucket boots? Probably some did in the 1620s-50s. Did pirates wear togas? Probably some did in the 70s-40s BC. Are either of those questions or answers relevant to the GAoP? No. LOCATION: Did pirates wear turbans? Yep, thousands of Barbary pirates in the 15th-19th centuries wore turbans. EVIDENCE: If there's evidence of something being worn then that's good, but we've got to consider how extensive that evidence is. If we have a record of one man during the GAoP who wore pink nail varnish then we can say that yes, one man did wear pink nail varnish, but it would be folly to take it further. If we have two dozen different sources for multiple people in different parts of the world wearing short coats then we can say that the practice was very widespread, if not universal. Logic: Logic is all very well, but it has to be based on sound information. Take the argument "pirates might have worn boots if they wanted to look dashing ashore". It's not a bad argument as far as it goes, but it is based on the assumption that what we find dashing is the same as what people in the GAoP found dashing, and we know for a fact that that is not always the case. To their contemporaries pirates ashore in bucket boots in the GAoP would have looked like farmers or post-boys, not swaggering gents! Thus the logic comes to pieces. For wearing anything there are three major possible reasons: Fashion: I don't mean fashion in the sense of what was in fashion, I mean it in th sense of the fashion, what was actually worn by the multitudes. If we know something was the fashion then there's no problem with it. We must bear in mind though that different sections of society had/have their own fashions - in the 17th and 18th centuries this was particularly true of sailors. If something was not fashionable then we have to look at: Expedience: If we know something existed (like bucket boots), but also know that it doesn't seem to have been the fashion amongst our particular group or general society (like bucket boots) then it might serve us to look for a reason of practicality. However, even if we can find a reason of practicality we must then be sure that there is no other known alternative which was used instead. For example, one might argue that buccaneers going through the bush might have worn boots to protect their legs, but against that we know of an alternative, which did the job just as well and was cheaper and more readily available (the bandages we can see in buccaneer pictures), so out goes that excuse for wearing boots. Personal Quirk: Yes, people sometimes wear things for their own unexplained personal reasons, but we must consider that a: people who actively go against the fashion are few and far between in our own time, probably more so 3 or 4 centuries ago, and b: the operative word is "personal", one pirate wearing make-up out of personal preference is weird but not impossible. 2 pirates wearing make-up is a trend, and we know there was no trend for it, so it's wrong. I need a cup of tea.

It's mine all MINE!! Mwahahaha!

In purely chronological terms the English Civil War lasted from 1642-1660, so assuming that the buccaneer period started before and ended after the overlap was the full 18 years. The Thirty Years War is a little more difficult to define (different cultures put different dates on it, depending on what is pertinent to them - the Dutch, for example, refer to it as the Hundred Years War, or sometimes the Eighty Years War). Geoffrey Parker, in his definitive "The Thirty Years War" dates the conflict between 1618 and 1648. In that case there's almost complete overlap. In strategic terms the West Indies played little part in the English Civil War, except for some short inconclusive actions after the execution of Charles I. A Parliamentarian fleet under Ayscue turned up at Barbados in the early 1650s to put down the Royalist support there led by Lord Willoughby of Parham, and a few months later a Royalist squadron led by Prince Rupert turned up and captured a few ships before returning to England. Similarly, the buccaneering that went on during the TYW was related to the conflict in Europe, but didn't do much to influence, except perhaps in a financial way - viz. Piet Heyn's capture of the Spanish Silver Fleet for example. The English-Spanish war of the 1650s was probably more important to the Caribbean buccaneers. In 1655 Generals Penn and Venables captured Jamaica from Spain, providing the classic base for English buccaneer fleets to operate from. Sir Christopher Myngs' voyages in the late 1650s and early 1660s set a bit of a pattern for Morgan's later expeditions. I don't know if we agreed on bucket-boots and earrings, but there ain't a lot of point in continuing the debate until someone can bring some pro-boot or earring evidence to the table. Yup, some buccaneers might have worn boots, but there's no reason why they should have. Yup some buccaneers might have worn earrings, but there's no reason why they should have. Define "big cavalier styled hats".

Hey guys, I just found this in my "kit-room"! 'Snot for sale

...and that just ain't true!

A lot of the Flogging Molly sounds remind me forcibly of the Pogues, and if you like FM then I heartily recommend trying out the Oyster Band, Four Men and a Dog, and if you can find any then a band called Tricks Upon Travellers. Happy hunting.

Erm, boots were certainly worn by some officers circa 1805 because they were fashionable. In a sea-battle if a flying splinter hits your leg a boot ain't gonna protect you, it'll just make it harder for the sawbones to take it out. Not come across anything similar from the GAoP. As for the cavalry officer - makes perfect sense. Boots were worn for riding, but were not otherwise fashionable - bloke who's about to get on a horse is wearing boots, nobody else is. Perfect sense. Funnily enough, I've just been flicking through Henry Teonge's diary looking for something else, and in the index I noticed he mentioned boots. "Ok," thinks I, "I'd better have a look at this". So I had a look... He rode from Warwick to London, then sold his horse, saddle, bridle, and boots all together, before joining his ship.

There have been a few buccaneery type threads, have a hunt for Patrick Hand's "The Buccaneer Project" Laurens de Graaf is generally considered to be a buccaneer. I wouldn't describe Drake as a buccaneer, not because I think he was more of an explorer (his exploring activities, such as they were, were definitely a sideline of his plundering activities), but because a: he died decades before the term "buccaneer" came into use, and b: his activities don't really match the classic "buccaneer" pattern of using largish land forces or small numbers of men in small boats. Drake's style was quite different. Plus, as I say, he didn't use bases in the Caribbean in the long term, he made voyages to attack the Spanish rather than trips. I don't think there is a piratey term specifically for the Elizabethan age.

Unless I've read it wrong, the mention of 1634 is only referring to the first use of the word "bootleg", probably meaning the upper part of a boot (def. 1), not necessarily smuggled goods. Without a better citation it's impossible to prove, but it's probable that the alternative meaning is much later, hence the discrepancy between the dates of the noun and the verb. If we're talking about the early part of the 17th century then it's a completely different matter. Boots were fashionable then, which they were not a century later. Not a particularly significant point, but the navy had no uniform (even for officers) until much later. The French navy led the way with the first uniforms being issued (only for specific personel) in 1667. The Royal Navy's first uniforms didn't come in until 1747. I agree wholeheartedly. The evidence supports that in some cases, and in the cases where the captains were dressed the same as the men it often transpires that the captains were dressed like grunts. See the oft-cited Cocklyn/Davis/La Bouse incident. Nice link Hector! You'll notice that despite the apparent cross section of society represented (courtiers, peasants, tradesmen etc) the only pair of bots is being worn by a... wait for it... cavalry officer.

In the briefest of answers: 1: The buccaneer period didn't really begin until the 1620 or so, and didn't really take off until a decade or two after. Drake and co were not buccaneers in the truest sense, and I think the major difference between them and the buccaneers is that they didn't base themselves in the Caribbean the same way the buccaneers did. Buccaneering seems to have been inextricably linked to colonization. 2: AFAIK (and I might be wrong) the term "Spanish Main" was in use from the 16th to 19th centuries. 3: not room enough for the full answer that excellent question deserves. 4: Depends how you mean really. "State-sponsored" piracy (or privateering) was more prevalent during that period, but piracy proper was still considered a serious crime. Joseph Banister, for example, was brought into Port Royal at the end of a yard arm with several of his crew during this period for piracy. 5: William Jackson, Prince Rupert, Christopher Myngs, "L'Ollonois", Michel de Grammont, Bartholomew Sharp, Richard Sawkins, John Coxon. Other notable figures who weren't commanders at this time include Basil Ringrose, Lionel Wafer, Esquemenlin, and William Dampier (all of whom are well known for their writings on the buccaneers) 6: Yup, more or less. 7: I defer to my honourable friend Mr Red. 8: The flintlock was the weapon of choice by Morgan's time, but doubtless matchlocks and the odd snaphaunce were still being used. The wheel-lock pistol was probably still quite common, though they were no longer made much.

My mistake! Does that dictionary give citations for the early use? Either way, 1889 is nothing to do with pirates of the GAoP. Because many buccaneers came from a military rather than maritime background, and were generally earlier in period anyway, boots may have been more common, but there's no reason why they should have been. If we look at the contemporary pictures of the buccaneer grunts they're all either wearing shoes or have bare feet. To protect their legs they have thick bindings round the lower part. Morgan was the ultimate buccaneeer. Not holding out. I don't recall ever having come across a pair of bucket boots in a will or probate inventory of a common seaman circa 1600-1750. Even in the early period when they were fashionable, seamen seem not to have worn boots! Even Sir Henry Morgan's probate contained 39 pairs of shoes, and NO BOOTS.

Oh so much to argue about, so little time... They are suitable for your job, but a: I'll bet you don't often wear them out on the town, and b: I'll bet your mate who never goes near the wetlands doesn't have a pair. EHHH?? But that's missing the point somewhat. WhyTF would they have been wearing bucket boots and whereTF would they have got them from? Yup, but a: the people wearing those boots are clearly not seamen and b: as GoF points out the boots shown are nothing like those popular amongst re-enactors. But keep stirring, one day some more evidence might come up. No known ones. He made proviso in his will that any of his legatees who wished to claim their inheritance had to change their name to Morgan, leading to a lot of confusion about genealogy. I can correct it. The terms dates from the 20thC at earliest. Yes, but in 1800 Hessian boots (which are a damn site less silly than bucket tops anyway) were FASHIONABLE for young men to wear. Here's the crux of the matter for me. I've never seen one single shred of evidence for seamen or pirates wearing bucket boots, but I have no trouble accepting that one or two may have done for some unknown reason. Let's just imagine though that we were able to find maybe 2 or 3 properly documented examples. Everyone would go "woooo" and start wearing bucket boots, ignoring the fact that those 2 or 3 examples made up something like 1/2 a percent of all the other documented examples of people not wearing frigging bucket boots. In re-enactment terms, if one out of every 200 pirates wore bucket boots that would not be unreasonable - it would, in fact, be a pretty good representation of known averages. Here's the real bottom line I think. If you want to wear bucket boots them go right ahead, nobody is trying to stop you. If you want to be historically accurate and wear bucket boots then join the cavalry. BUT if you want to prove, for whatever reason, that pirates of the GAoP habitually wore bucket tops then you're kidding yourself, but good luck anyway. :)

Assuming the GAoP starts about 1690ish then personally I'd probably refer to the previous 30 years (from 1660) as the Restoration Period - unless I was specifically talking about the Caribbean buccaneers. Even Foxe and co don't really do buccaneering - we do 1670s-80s navy, but we're only just thinking of moving into the pig-hunter type Caribbean buccaneer. So far as I know Pat is unique! Not for long though...

But there's a good sensible and practical reason for that. They're good boots and comfy. Same reason that British squaddies ditched their SA80s in favour of the "outdated" SLR as soon as they got into the Gulf first time round. The same cannot be said of bucket top boots. Show me a Marine who habitually wears a riding hat and jodhpurs...

And it's not so far for cheap immigrant East European camera crews to travel... :)

Mission, it's a good manners thing. Wearing a hat indoors is simply bad manners - it gives your guests or hosts the impression you want to leave. I too used to wear a fedora a lot (and don't it look sharp with a suit?!). Either that or a bush hat. People took the micky until it rained. These days it tends to me a straw panama in hot weather and a bush hat in bad.

Hey Paul, looks like the IFOS pub purchase is finally working!