Fox

WHAT?!?! Say that again!? I'll swap you a set for my first born child. (Before I hand over the as-yet-unconceived little mite let me just check you're talking about pre 1748 ASC specification patterns copied from originals?) EDIT<Stop Press> Email from Adam received (thanks very much for the promptness). His patterns are not copied from originals, but are based on the 1730 specifications and on evidence gleaned from period depictions. Much like we're trying to do here - let the discussion continue! The email is on its way. I'm doing it to prove a point really, I doubt I'll ever wear a complete slop outfit at an event - I love my petticoat breeches and silly hats too much. GoF, the only bit I was talking about when I mentioned that the pictures were not of working gear was the open cuffs. All the other pictures were of working gear and all the stuff about unbuttoned pockets and buttoned cuffs and what not I agree completely on.

What ho, Over the last however long we've had some really good discussions on pirates'/seamen's clothing, particularly their working clothing and what they might have worn when living it up ashore. What I don't believe we've specifically discussed is what they might have worn in battle. Quite by chance I came across two references to "battle wear" (would "dressed to kill" be too bad a pun?) today. Both are from Johnson, and both may relate to the same men. One comes from the Howell Davis chapter, and one from the Bart Roberts chapter. Since Roberts took over Davis' crew it's not surprising to find similarities. From "The Life of Captain Davis" From "The Life of Captain Roberts" I'm guessing that the purpose of the white shirts was to make the men stand out from a distance, to show the enemy that there were plenty of them, and the first quotation seems to support that hypothesis. Does anyone have any other examples of outfits worn specifically for battle?

Haha, I was trying to avoid making any assumptions at all! I believe in my original post I highlighted the possibility that the ASC jackets didn't have buttons on the pockets, and that they may not have had mariners' cuffs at all. I hadn't considered the possibility that they had mariners' cuffs which weren't buttoned closed, but I find that a little had to fathom to be honest. Neither of the examples posted are of working gear, ad I find it hard to believe that clohtes specifically in existence to preserve the health of mariners would have a large opening at the cuff that couldn't be closed on what was, theoretically at least, the seaman's top layer. I grant that it's possible, but it seems unlikely to me. Or am I wrong? I'm actually seriously wondering about the possibility of the jackets having slit pockets let into the side seams. a: a lot of the coats in the period pictures (I'd even go so far as to say "most") that I've got don't appear to show any pockets, it may be that they don't have any pockets, but it may be that the pockets are not immediately obvious. b: The "British Hercules" figure really looks to me like he's sticking a hand into a slit pocket in the seam of his waistcoat. If he is, then why not jackets too? c: slit pockets let into the side seam would be much easier and cheaper to mass produce (and let's not forget that we're talking about mass production) than flapped pockets on the front panel would be.

I think this is the third beard poll isn't it? And Scarlet and Bonnie (two redheads, is this a dream come true?), did I ever tell you my nickname is Ed "What a great beard" Foxe? I'll leave you to figure out why...

One thing I've noticed with this thread (and other previous threads) is that in general the folks who have come straight into playing pirate tend to go down the fantasy/Hollywood route, while those that have come from living history of other periods tend to direct out efforts more towards authenticity. Is there anyone here who's come directly into authentic pirate re-enactment, or anyone who started out in an authentic group and now does fantasy piracy?

I seriously doubt the possibility of the pockets being seperate. Given the nature of the lists if they were talking about seperate pockets then they'd have been listed seperately. The pockets listed are integral, no doubt. The laced front is an interesting thought, but again, I think it's unlikely. given the level of detail which the specs go into (particularly the 1730 set) it's hard to believe that the coats could be lace without it being mentioned. These things list the colour of thread to be used in the button hole stitches - if the coats were laced they would say so. Having completely argued with you, you were one of the people I was really hoping would respond to this thread. Hang your patterns, come back and give me answers!

I think the things is Monsignor that a reproduction without the evidence to support it might be wrong in any number of ways. On the other hand, if a reproduction has the evidence to support it then it's better to look at the evidence than the repro, and draw one's own conclusion.

I was born and grew up in Portsmouth (UK), and you can't move in this city without falling over something historical and naval: apart from the obvious stuff like the historic ships and dockyard the whole place is littered with plaques to famous captains and admirals, monuments, relics, graves of said admirals and captains, streets named after ships, officers and battles - Portsmouth is known as "The Flagship of Maritime Britain", and there's no argument about the truth of that. When I was a kid I spent a lot of time with my grandfather who was an amazing amateur historian. Instead of fairy stories he'd tell me ripping yarns of real events and people. In junior school I knew stuff the teacher didn't, and by senior school I was arguing with my history teacher (some things don't change - and he WAS wrong). It was always impossible that I wouldn't have a deep love for maritime history. When I was about 12 I got into re-enacting (English Civil War era like Kass). At that time there was just no maritime living history of any kind going on in the UK, except for a couple of viking long boats. When I finally got fed up with the politics of ECW re-enacting I got together with a bunch of mates and we formed the second maritime group in the UK, originally specialising in Elizabethan, but gradually expanding into other periods, so that we now do up 'til about 1815. Currently we specialise in Elizabethan, GAoP era navy (about 1670-1730) and Nelsonian, but we do other stuff in between. My real interest lies in maritime history in general, which includes not only the Navy, but also merchantmen and pirates. When I first got online and discovered email groups and bulletin boards the only ones I could find dealing with maritime history of the era I am particularly interested in (mid16th-mid18th centuries) were pirate boards. Since then pirate history has become a bit of an obsession. Nowadays, although my interest remains maritime in general (and indeed non-maritime history too) I find that at least half my work is pirate related.

Since GoF has "bumped" this one... I've been working (very slowly) on producing a set of kit based entirely on on the ASC specs (my shoes are square toed and I'm not going to buy another pair, I obviously didn't "buy" them from the purser - otherwise I'm going for the whole caboodle), and while the level of detail they provide is probably unparallelled in other sources of the time there are a few points which are unclear, making the whole attempt difficult. My principal problem is the placing of buttons: If we combine this written description with the pictoral evidence it seems, at first glance, to be not unreasonable to assume that the pockets were buttoned closed. Take, for example, this picture of a French seaman circa 1700: and on coats of the period (including the one pictured) three seems to be a pretty common number. That would leave 9 buttons to go down the front. Fair enough. BUT, if we assume that the slop coats also had mariners' cuffs which buttoned closed that would only leave 3 buttons for the front (mariners' cuffs are usually depicted with 3 buttons also), and 3 is clearly not enough to fasten the coat closed. So, do we assume that a: the coats had buttons on the pockets, but no mariners' cuffs (since they are not mentioned), b: the coats had mariners' cuffs and the pockets were not buttoned closed, or c: that the specs only take into account the buttons down the front anyway, in which case the coats may or may not have had mariners' cuffs? Personally I suspect (B:), based solely on pictures of other, non-regulation coats. The issue is clouded further by the fact that the waistcoats had 18 buttons, and probably no mariners' cuffs (though it would not be surprising to find a small cuff opening with perhaps 2-3 buttons). However, several pictures of the period show a large difference in the number and size of coat and waistcoat buttons anyway. Take this picture for example: The British Hercules, 1737*: (Privately, I wonder if that is actually a depiction of an ASC spec strip'd ticken waistcoat. It's about the right length, of the right pattern and he IS a Royal Navy seaman of the right period. Does anyone fancy counting the buttons? IF it is an ASC spec garment does anyone else think that it looks remarkably like he's got his hand in a slit pocket on the side, rather than a flapped pocket in the front as one would suspect? Either that or it's got a VERY high slit up the side.) Then we come to the breeches! I wondered at first whether the large number of buttons was perhaps due to the pockets being buttoned closed (which would be practical, but I have no evidence off hand to support such an assumption), but the ticking breeches have less pockets and more buttons than the woollen breeches so there must be another answer. Are we talking about breeches with 3-4 buttons at each knee and 8-10 buttons at waist and fly? 5 buttons at each knee and 6 at the fly? The 1730 regulations do offer a snippet of extra information: The trousers, included for the first time in the slops contract in 1730, but available from at least as early as 1725 (letter from Franklin the slop seller to the Navy Board, Sept 10, 1725) call for them to be of Naturally one would expect trousers to have fewer buttons than breeches since they have no fastenings except at the waist and fly, but does this mean that the breeches had only 4 buttons at the waist and fly? That would mean 6 buttons on each knee of the ticken breeches - or does it mean that there were buttons on the pockets after all, since there is no mention of pockets in the trousers? (note also the 2 fly buttons on the trousers in the "British Hercules" picture) I know that GoF has attempted to fathom the "Leather Capps faced with Red Cotton, and lined with Black Linnen" previously. I wonder if they might be similar to early grenadier caps? From 1703 all the marine regiments seem to have worn grenadier style caps, presumably because they were more practical at sea than the infantry tricorns. What's to stop the seamen having worn similar hats? Thoughts on any of that from anyone who hasn't developed a headache yet? Frankly, I'm going to start work on my 1690s set of slop clothes first. There are less details in the specs, but that means more room for using other evidence which is less confusing... *Purists may balk at my use of such a late picture, but since the slop contracts for the period up to 1748 are almost identical to those from 1706 there seems little reason to assume that their appearance changed much.

Purely out of interest, what's the point of the question?

I don't have any specific info on weight of carriages, but I might be able to help a little. "The solemn, universal, and unalterable adjustment of the gunning and manning of the whole fleet", which was introduced in 1677 includes a table listing the number, type, and combined weights of guns in the different rates of ships in the RN. What it sadly doesn't include is a breakdown of barrel and carriage weights. For example the lower deck battery of small fifth rate (HMS Rose for example) consisted of 16 demi-culverin (9pdr), which weighed a total of 20 tons. 20 16 = 1.25 tons per gun. Ward's Animadversions of Warre gives the weight of a demi-culverin barrel as 2,300lb, just over one ton. This suggests that in 1677 the carriage of a 9pdr weighed about a quarter of a ton. However, we must take into account that gun sizes were far from standardized in the 17thC, and between Ward's work in the 1630s and the weights listed in 1677 gun barrels were beginning to get shorter. SO, the 9pdr barrel of 1677 probably weighed less than Ward suggests, perhaps just under a ton, giving a carriage weight of somewhere between, say, 1/4 and 1/2 a ton. At the smallest end of the scale a small sixth rate ship such as HMS Young Spragge had a total armament of 10 sakers (5-6 pdr) weighing a total of 4 tons. 4 10 = 0.4 tons per gun. Ward gives a saker's weight as 1,900lb, clearly heavier than in 1677. Just to confuse the issue further, even the 1677 document gives different weights for guns. Other sixth rates might also have had ten sakers, theirs weighing 5 1/4 tons. Twenty demi-culverins on a fourth rate should have weighed 25 3/4 tons, while on a second rate the same number of guns weighed 30 tons. It could be that the different weights were to do with different style of carriage, or different lengths of barrel, or both. I suspect that the reason information on the weight of carriages is so hard to come by is that it is affected by so many variables - what style of carriage it is, the wood it is made from, how much iron work is used to hold it together etc. whereas with a barrel you can be reaonable confident that if you have a lump of metal x wide and x long with a hole x big down it then it will weight x amount. However, I think it's fair to say that the weight of carriage was not negligable. If we assume that the size (and thus weight) of a carriage is roughly proportional to the size of the barrel, and take the example of the demi-culverin as a control then I think the carriage weight should be somewhere around two thirds of the weight of the barrel. Of course, someone (Hawkyns?) giving us specific details of carriage weights might alter that, but given the information available that seems a sensible estimate. From my own experience with guns that seems to be reasonable.

Bump

Thanks Kass! I have a couple of shirts copied from a late 17thC example which a friend kindly made me a pattern for, but I also have about 5 shirts "based" on the 16thC shirt in Bath. At long events where I need a good number of shirts (especially at really hot or really wet events, I HATE putting a damp shirt on!) I have been known to use my 16thC shirts for 18thC events - now you tell me I'm authentic! woohoo! Actually, they're really not that different anyway, which is why I've nver been too worried about it, but it's good to know it's ok after all.

OK, there was a very specific reason why I suggested a cut-off point of 1750, and wanted to avoid getting into the Napoleonic and 19thC women at sea, and this quote illustrates it to a certain extent: From the closing years of the 18th century onwards the records show a huge explosion in the number of women apparently at sea. There must be a reason for this massive increase. It might be that simply more were discovered, but that is a completely unsatisfactory answer: why should the women of 1800 be less adept at concealing themselves than the women of a century earlier? It might be that the records are more complete, but we know that in most respects the naval records of 1700 are just as complete as those of 1800, so why should the records of women at sea be particularly different? No, the answer must be that there are more records of women at sea in that later period simply because there were more women at sea than previously. We cannot, therefore, say "since it happened in the early 19th century then it probably happened in the GAoP", it just doesn't hold true. One might ask why there should be more women at sea in the later periods, and I believe the answer is twofold. The second half of the 18th century, and the opening part of the 19th was a period of ENORMOUS change, particularly in a social context. The revolutionary fervour which gripped Europe and America led to changes in the way that women were viewed and the way they viewed themselves. Olympe de Gouges' 1791 "Declaration of the Rights of Women" was a seminal document, probably the first true feminist manifesto, and its readership was so wide that the words of a butcher's daughter led her to political stardom, controversy and the guillotine. The place of women in the world was changing so it is not surprising to find more of them at sea - it was just an insignificant symptom of the new world. The other reason is simply that the Revolutionary period, and the Napoleonic period which followed it saw a massive increase in the number of ships and seamen at sea. During the Napoleonic wars, for example, the Royal Navy had as many as 147,087 men in service at one time, whereas during Queen Anne's war that number never rose above 47,647. Even if the proportion of women at sea had remained constant, one should expect a significant increase in the sheer number. For those reasons I think it is folly of the highest sort to apply 19th century information to the early 18th century. However, even if we remove any references post-1750, and remove those where it seems unlikely the person was actually at sea herself, or was at sea only as a passenger you have still provided some wonderful examples, particularly the fleet instructions. Thanks. Some more examples In 1678 a seaman of HMS Bristol "had twenty-nine lashes with a cat-o'-nine tails, and was then washed with salt water, for stealing our carpenter's mate's wife's ring." (Henry Teonge's diary) Since the ship was at Spithead at the time there is a high chance that the incident of the theft actually took place ashore, but I thought you'd all like the flogging info anyway. In 1666 Sir John Mennes (Controller of the Navy) complained that there were too many women onboard ships "...as many petticoats as breeches" (Medicine and the Navy, vol. II: Keevil, Lloyd and Coulter; p.91) In 1693 a RN squadron reached Newfoundland where a settler bought "one of the officers' misses" for the sum of £100 (Sergison Papers <Bangs head on table>There were 6 regiments of Marines raised in 1702, and 6 regiments of "soldiers for sea-service". Each regiment consisted of 10 companies and they remained in service until 1713. 3 men in every company were allowed to take their wives to sea (Byng Papers). Since there were 120 companies that suggests that at least 360 women were at sea in Royal Navy ships during Queen Anne's war. (The negative stuff - feel free to ignore) Incidentally, whoever wrote the Nursing in the Royal Navy page hadn't done their stuff. We've already seen examples of women openly at sea long before the mid-18th century, and in a nursing capacity from at least the beginning of the century. If we believed that site we'd have to conclude that there were no women openly at sea during the GAoP. Also, while I have the utmost respect for many of the scholars previously mentioned - David Cordingly, Richard Pennell, Joan Druett, Ken Kinkor, Tony Malesic et al - I would beware of trusting Andreas Schultze or Linda Grant de Pauw too much. Schultze is responsible for the propogation of the ridiculous Elizabeth Shirland story, and de Pauw has claimed truth in Charlotte de Berry's story. Neither are prepared to share sources when requested.

HMS Victory has a very similar arrangement (though only on the foremast IIRC). Very simple pikes in a kind of cradle going round the mast. Butler (1630s) suggests that pikes should be lashed to the ship's sides (presumably inboard), along with muskets.

A handful of those are still fictional I'm afraid Lady Seahawke: Lady Killigrew really existed (there were several of them in fact), but she did not actually engage in piracy herself. Many books list her and tell her story, but they seem to be based on an early misinterpretation. She was certainly involved with piracy, but there is no evidence that she actually went to sea. The court records dealing with the raid on a ship in Falmouth Harbour with which she is most usually credited make it clear that she did not take an active part in the raid itself, only the hiding and distributing of the loot. (Incidentally, the court records also prove that the Killigrews were involved in one of the comparitively few genuine cases of buried loot - half a dozen chairs.) Mrs. Peter Lambert of Aldeburgh, Suffolk, was also involved in piracy, but only as a fence for her husband. She also helped to spring him from prison when his bragging landed him in trouble with the new authorities. Maria Lindsey (fictional?) — early 1700s... and... Maria Cobham (fictional?) — Atlantic... are the same person. Although it is impossible to prove beyond doubt that she is fictional the likelihood is that she was, and it is certainly impossible to prove that she was a pirate, or that she even existed. Not one single part of her story checks out against the historical record. The fullest account of her life (and her husband's) comes from Gosse's "Pirates who's who", and subsequent versions are just rehashing the Gosse version. Gosse, as ever, offers no source for his information beyond a "memoir" of Eric Cobham's which has conveniently disappeared since. Several points in the Cobham story can be completely disproven, throwing massive doubt on the story as a whole. There is not one shred of evidence in support of the story. Gertrude Imogene Stubbs — alias "Gunpowder Gertie" is quite definitely fictional. She was invented by Canadian storyteller Carolyn McTaggart for a children's treasure hunt around Kootenay Lake. Quite a few of the others appear on several lists of female pirates, but without any more information offered or sources to look at, so we just can't tell whether or not they were real. Whether they were real or not, without further information there's not a lot to be learned from them sadly. Glad to see you didn't include Charlotte de Berry or Elizabeth Shirland in the list :)

The reason I didn't include Granuille originally is twofold: firstly I arbitrarily set a time limit on the quest of 1600-1750 so she was a little early; and secondly, for the reason you touched on, that it's not certain to what extent her piratical activities took her to sea - she was certainly head of the O' Malley clan's pirate business, but exactly what role she played is unclear. Of course, the parameters I set are arbitrary so there's no need to stick to them. I plumped on those dates for a couple of reasons: relevance to the GAoP; and to avoid having to wade through the staggeringly large number of women who seem to have gone to sea in the 19th century. I think you're absolutely right about the clothing issue too. In that photo you look gorgeous but I don't fancy the girl on the right much... Word of warning: The Newgate calendar has the appearance of being a primary source document, or at least a digest of primary sources. However, it was not compiled until the middle of the 18thC, making it well out of date for the earlier stuff it records, and its facts are often way out. Best to treat it a bit like Johnson - good for background stories, but don't trust the details too far. In fact, it's probably less reliable than Johnson IMHO.

Some more bits for you (if my computer doesn't crash for a fourth time...) Some dubious ones (without checked sources): Catherine Lincken (1721)? A ballad written in 1690 by seaman John Curtin describes a woman who was discovered disguised as a man in the crew of the 72 gun vessel "Edgar". A gentlewoman petitioned the Queen for payment for serving on the ship St Andrew dressed in men's clothing and taking part in a battle against the French in the summer of 1691. Ann Mills served in a dragoon regiment aboard HMS Maidstone in 1740 Some genuine bits: Hannah Snell served as a Marine for several years until 1750 "...on Thursday morning last they began to play very hot on the Duncannon frigate riding in the midst of that harbour. One shot whereof happened to fall into her powder room, where a woman was with a candle, whose head being struck off, the candle is supposed to have fallen into the powder; but whether by that accident or no is uncertain, the vessel was blown up." Earl of Inchiquin to the House of Lords, July 19, 1645 "And whereas the women now entertained on board as nurses take up a great deal of room and, in the opinion of the captain and surgeon, are rather an inconvenience than otherwise, we conceive they may be discharged, and men employed in their stead." Admiral Byng to Daniel Furzer (Surveyor of the Navy), January 24, 1704 (Byng had already written on January 10th "...they have done little or no service in the last year, but are continually drunk as often as opportunity would permit - and then very mutinous". Two days after the letter first quoted however the number of women on the Hospital Ship in question was increased by five "helpers" and three launderesses as the ship was ordered to the Mediterranean station.) ************************************************************ One interesting point about all of this is the difference between the women who went to see openly as women, and those who disguised themselves as men in order to do so.

All the way up? That's where the problem lies. Now I certainly never said that, BUT, I can't for the life of me think when, where or why a pirate would have learned to use a long whip (the short ones don't really take a lot of skill do they?). I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. How would a pirate have learned to use a whip and why? Bottom line for all discussions like this one: Do yoiu have one solitary piece of evidence for any pirate of the GAoP using a whip as a weapon? (As opposed to using a short cat or whatever for punishment) Quite right, I have no idea how large your personal library is. For all I know it might have 10,000 books on the history of whips in it. On the other hand they might all be Ladybird books. In either case, I certainly wouldn't wish you to injure yourself just to prove a point Maybe it's me, but I wouldn't trust AJP Taylor without sources to support his contentions I look forward to when you can get to your library and bring some evidence to bear. Incidentally, I too have an enormous private library at my fingertips, and one of the finest naval libraries in existence just round the corner. If you can recall any details about the book(s) in which this information might be found I'd be happy to look it up on your behalf. By the way, have you noticed the new "Women on Ships" thread?

Do you ever get one of those evenings when it all comes together good? The guy on the floor here is definitely wearing some kind of bag diagonally, looks to me like a "sausage" style snapsack like soldiers wore. (Detail from a sketch of Plymouth harbour, 1735) Can't quite tell what the guy in the background has, but again it looks like a soldiers' style "sausage" snapsack, slung on his cudgel ("The Sailor's Return, circa 1740) You remember that series of French buccaneers I posted from a map cartouche of about 1700? Quite a few of them look like they've got large square bags on their left side, worn under their short jackets but over their long smocks. The detail isn't good enough to tell for sure, but at least three or four look like they have.

See, there's where we get into the realms of "liberally proving" something. I can show you pictures of people from the GAoP wearing different styles of bag to carry stuff in. I can show you late18th/early19thC sailors' ditty bags, which look just like GAoP period soldiers' snapsacks. So, while I can't immediately lay my hands on a picture of a GAoP period seaman with a sack I'm a darn site more comfortable about sticking my tankard, plate, knives, food, cards, compass, spare string, bits of hard cheese, needle and thread, seperate bag containing camera, modern money and keys etc, fids, serving mallet, and bits of assorted fluff into a period snapsack than I am about dangling a tankard off my belt which I know is wrong, as well as impractical. Dammit Pat, now I'm going to have to find a picture of a seaman carrying some possessions and see what they're in...

you could put you tankard in an authentic snapsack to carry around with you... no cop out at all then...

Some period fabrics look remarkably like denim, blue dye was well known, yellow thread was used and so were rivets. We know that long trousers were a mark of English seamen. That doesn't mean you can wear your Levis. ************************************************************ The way I see it there are two ways to go: If you want to do it right then there is really very little room for speculation. If you really strive to be accurate then Kass's mantra is the best one: "if I can't prove it was done, I don't do it. But sometimes "proving" it can be rather liberal". There are gaps in our knowledge and there we have scope for educated speculation, "liberally proving" things to fill the gaps. Where there is good evidence then it behoves us to follow it. If we deliberately disregard the evidence then we're not going for authenticity. On the other hand you can play dress up without striving for authenticity, in which case you can wear/do/carry whatever the hell you like. Some argue that you could go down the middle, go for semi-authentic, but what's the point? Why spend the time and money getting half your kit right and then throwing it away by knowingly wearing a load of crap with it. Horses for courses, but that seems like a dead-end course to me...

She's the good looking one on the left

I don't believe they are on the website. Bear in mind that medieval and ECW are the two most popular periods of re-enactment in the UK and you can understand why Armour Class devote so much time to them. They do massive amounts of bespoke stuff (I believe the HMS Victory cutlass order was something like 300 swords +/- 50). Send 'em a picture and they'll make you a sword.