Fox

In the "Whips" thread Lady Seahawke posted this: ...which sparked off a revival of another thread... Both of which got me thinking about the fact that I don't recall a decent discussion about women on ships during the GAoP. So, we've got Anne Bonny and Mary Read obviously, and I recall the story of Anne Chamberlayne who was aboard her brother's ship during one of the battles in the English Channel in the 1690s - a story attested to by contemporary monument to her. How many other verifiable examples (ie, supported by evidence) of women working aboard ships (as opposed to passengers, which is a whole different thing) are there between, say, 1600 and 1750. How many were pirates?

There's quite an interesting and unusual view of an 18thC sea-going whip in Hogarth's Idle Prentice turn'd away and sent to sea: The most obvious thing about it is that it's SHORT. Using the argument that pistols would get in the way but we know they used them, therefore the same must hold true of whips is poppycock. When curled up or whatever one does with a whip it might not be much bigger than a pistol, but in use a pistol or blunderbuss remains small, while a whip (at least of the kind you seem to be talking about) is long and relatively uncontrollable. There's a BIG difference. Please don't take offence at this, but to me the attitude of "I've got the evidence I need but I'm not going to share it for these reasons" is like those kids at school: "I do know, I just don't want to tell you"

Oh yeah, my mistake... I didn't bother with the fox tails et al cos I figured everyone KNEW they were authentic - there's no need to find evidence for them...

Come off it Pat, any historian worth his salt knows that in that context "bangles" is referring to those arabic looking metal bracelets that used to be so popular. Any truly authentic faire going female pirate re-enactor should have at least 20 of them so that they jangle when she unties her tankard from her belt... :) Oh, and Corsair, in case you're looking in from time to time... 10 PAGES dude!

When we did the International Festival of the Sea earlier this year the opening ceremony involved a kind of tableau piece of HMS Victory entering the Battle of Trafalgar. Lots of running about the decks and cheering Lord Nelson etc. The finale was the firing of a broadside, using pyro alas, not black powder. When we went to the rehearsal the night before they fired off one of their pyro tubes from a gun so we'd know what to expect, and it was frankly pathetic. The following day we did the tableau and at the end they fired a full 54 gun broadside. The Victory, in dry dock, moved perceptibly beneath our feet and everybody's spine went cold... It'll never happen again I'm sure, and I'm damn glad I was there. :)

Armour Class made the cutlasses on display at HMS Victory. I swear by Armour Class, and their 1805 cutlass is a nice weapon. If you're not in a hurry and you're prepared to pay for the best then go with Armour Class (they're not the most expensive, but they're not cheap either). Armour Class

Off hand I don't recall what charge goes in the swivel gun - it's me old man's - but I know it's incredibly tiny. Because the barrel is so long even a small charge gives a very satisfying crack (note to future purchasers of guns, barrel length is more important than bore when it comes to bang). I'll ask and get back to you - for some reason I keep thinking 1oz... IIRC we used 3 pieces with projectiles, a 3pdr, 6pdr and a swivel gun with grape shot. I really couldn't tell you how accurate they were, the target was too damn big for missing to be a possibility, though I do recall that the gunner in charge hit the "mast" with a bit of chain so they must have been reasonably accurate. The most vivid memory is the dummies decapitated by the first 6lb round which lodged in the wood but sent 2ft splinters flying. Deadly. With the swivel gun we pointed it at half a dozen dummies at a range of about 15-20 yards I guess and let rip. Not one of them would have fought back if they'd been real people.

Possibly. But then when you sail back to the Caribbean or to Madagascar or wherever you've got an African scarf. Most of the primary evidence I've looked at for seamen of the first half of the 17thC suggests that they had quite a lot of their personal belongings with them at sea. Documents such as wills, records of mast-sales, and court inventories which list the stuff that seamen had with them tend to include several sets of clothes, half a dozen shirts, bedding, often more than one pair of shoes, and lots of odd trinkets such as books (commonly bibles), buckles, buttons etc. Since most pirates turned to piracy direct from another service it is reasonable to conclude that they took most, if not all, of their gear with them. Sure, they would have had possessions at home that they could probably never recover, but they'd have had the majority of their clothing and suchlike with them. My argument is that the pirates who did remain in one locality were probably in the minority. Personally though, I'm of the opinion that with so many short careers, and the often blinkered attitude of 17/18thC Europeans, that most pirates probably remained in the same style of clothing and whatnot as they were before turning to piracy, therefore the question of whether or not they were well travelled has only a small bearing on the question of their appearance. Sorry, I'm gonna pick up on this. Please provide evidence of a vast amount of pirate crews without deep-sea navigational skill. I think that you are right about us approaching this with the same conclusion in mind but different ways of getting there. We've had some really good discussions on the clothing of pirates and seamen in the last year or so. If you're interested in the topic I really would suggest checking some of these out: Clothing Stripes Dissecting the pirate #1 Dissecting the pirate #2 Dissecting the pirate #3 1706 Admiralty Slops Contract (ASC) Josh's period art collection The nondescript pirate Good modern renditions of some ASC garments Work your way through the off-topic first few pages... National seamen's clothing Seamen's clothing on pirates

Sorry, I thought we'd agreed that the matter at hand was not the clothing of pirates. As I've said, I agree 100% and always have that the clothing of most pirates was no different to that of common seamen. The matter at hand, as I see it, is the question of whether or not pirates were well travelled. Of the pirates I mentioned: Henry Avery began his piratical career at Corunna, sailed down the African Atlantic coast, operated in the Indian Ocean from Madagascar then sailed to the Americas and back to Europe before retiring. Edward England began his career in the Caribbean, preyed on shipping on the African Atlantic coast and ended his career in the Indian Ocean Howell Davis operated in the Caribbean and on the African Coast Bart Roberts operated off the Carolinas, the African coast and Newfoundland Thomas Anstis operated on the African coast and the Caribbean. William Kidd sailed from England to America, thence to the Indian Ocean before returning to the Caribbean and America. John Gow began his piracy off the coast of Africa, sailed for Spain and Portugal, and ended up in the Orkneys George Lowther began his career as a pirate on the African coast then plagued the American coasts, including the Caribbean. Thomas Howard started in the Caymans, then headed for Virginia, the African Atlantic coast and finally Madagascar John Halsey set out from Boston for Newfoundland, then for the Canaries, followed by the Cape Verde Islands. After a stint at Madagascar he sailed for India. Thomas Tew operated from Madagascar, but returned to Rhode Island at least once during his career. Captain Condent was present in the Caribbean at the time of Rogers' arrival, then sailed for Madagascar. John Bowen operated off the Indian coast then wrecked his ship on Mauritius before heading for Madagascar, then back to India. What Bowen was doing before his first trip to India is unknown, but presumably he was either of European or American origin. Thomas White was captured by pirates in the Caribbean, and at some point was forced to join them. He also pirated off Madagascar and India. OK, so all of those pirates I mentioned saw at least 2 continents and goodness knows how many countires during their piratical careers, not including any travelling they did before or after. Not quite sure which one you thought sailed internationally, or why you thought the others didn't. Of the pirates I didn't mention but you did: Stede Bonnet sailed the East coast of America as far north as New York, as well as the Caribbean. Jack Rackham sailed in those same waters, not only the Caribbean but also well up into North America. I might also add John Phillips who pirated in the Caribbean and off Newfoundland; Ned Low, who sailed off Africa as well as the Americas; Francis Spriggs who left Low off Africa and sailed for the Caribbean (including taking two ships within sight of Port Royal), and North America. I've read and re-read your posts, and I believe (apart from clothing, which nobody is arguing with at all) that your point is this: "...my origonal arguement. Yes there were pirates that sailed internationally, but these were not the norm", and I think that there are two main issues to be addressed. Firstly, I think you're wrong about the number of pirates who were well travelled, pure and simple. I have shown a large number of pirates who were quite definitely well travelled without putting too much effort in, and I've not included any of those pirates whose wide ranging pre-pirate careers are known about or can be guessed at. Neither have I included any pirate who does not have his own chapter in Johnson's General History (like Cocklyn who sailed the Caribbean and East Atlantic, or La Buse who sailed the Caribbean, East Atlantic and Indian Ocean, for example). Secondly, I think that your definition of "local" is probably a bit wide reaching for the period in question. Nowadays we tend to think of all of the African coast as one sort of area, and the same with the American coast, to give but two examples. In the 18thC though, before the age of mass communication, different areas within those stretches of coastline had more differences, and bigger ones, than they do today. The differences between, say, Newfoundland and Virginia, or between the Canaries and the Cape Verdes, were much more marked in 1706 than in 2006. In the Caribbean, the different nationalities of ownership led to huge cultural differences which are much more insignificant today. Even a pirate whose entire life was confined to Caribbean sailing would be much more well travelled culturally speaking than I think you give him credit for. Incidentally, Captain Green and his men who were tried for piracy in 1705 were not actually pirates. :)

Actually, historical evidence suggests that the comparitively small number of women at sea removed the earrings they habitually wore for practical reasons. One transcript of the Bonny and Read trial, often overlooked by historians, includes the slightly different words during the testimony of Dorothy Thomas "they were dressed in men's trousers and jackets with kerchiefs tied about their heads, and they were not wearing earrings..." <removes tongue from cheek>

Bonaventure gunners working a small gun belonging to Lord Orkney's Regt. Me (striped shirt) with a couple of untrained extras working one of the Golden Hinde's demi-culverins for BBC's Battlefield Britain. My father (sponge) and I (worm) acting as crew during the inaugural firing of the Royal Armouries new Elizabethan saker at Fort Nelson. We also have our own long Tudor era swivel gun (1.5" bore, 5ft barrel) which will be mounted on the bow of my skiff from next year. Generally we blank fire (black powder and wads, but no shot), though I have done live firing. We rigged up some railway sleepers to simulate a ship's side and a telegraph pole and ropes for a mast and rigging, and put some dummies on the "deck", then spent a happy few hours firing different guns at them to see what would happen. I also recall one occasion when my father managed to convince some Germans that he was really firing at a passing Dutch schooner from Mont Orgueil, Jersey. Well, it was the mid 1660s, we were at war with the Dutch and they sailed past. He trained his gun on them, did a big show of gauging distance and checking elevation and then fired. Naturally there was no shot in the gun, but they still went off to tell the castle staff how irresponsible they thought we were.

Well there we go, I'd have lost that bet... From the Isca Morrismen's site: At least I got the period right! The real point though, is that the humble Monmouth cap is bloody old. (Incidentally, for those not familiar, the phrygian cap is more like a "liberty" cap, related to but not the same as a monmouth.) The info on hat legislation is also quite interesting: The Cappers Act of 1488 fixed prices of knitted hats (so knitted monmouths must go back that far), and the "Act for the Continuance of the Making of Caps" (1571) decreed that with only a few exceptions everyone should wear a knitted cap on the sabbath and Holy days. FWIW, I believe Ms Buckland's monmouth is based on a 16th century original in Monmouth museum. Incidentally, the term "monmouth" cap, though generally used today for a simple knitted skull cap, was more universal in its original use. Monmouth caps could be short or tall, with or without brims. Of the hats on Ms Buckland's site the monmouth, peter the great, hakluyt, or kravic could all probably be described as "monmouth" caps.

Ah, now I believe we're reaching the crux of the debate. I don't think anyone else is talking about clothing (I may be mistaken), I'm certainly not. I agree 100% that the vast majority of pirates' clothing was practical shipboard seaman's clothing. If you have a browse through some of the older threads (which contain a lot of good information btw) this has always been my stance. Which brings me back to my original argument. I believe that you are mistaken. I believe that many many pirates sailed internationally during their pirate careers - not just the famous ones or odd examples, but many. I also firmly believe that many many pirates sailed internationally before they were pirates. I'm not suggesting that ALL pirates had knowledge of far-off lands, but I don't agree for a minute that they were the exception. Also, how do we define far off lands? Any seaman, for example, that sailed from England to the Americas* was automatically familiar with two seperate continents, and it's hardly asking much to believe that massive numbers of them had sailed in the Mediterranean or to the East Indies, or both. Even the commonplace voyaging to the Med might have brought them into contact with so many different sights and sounds, a third continent, maybe three or four different religions in addition to their own. Just how do you define well travelled? Even if we confine ourselves to the pirates who sailed abroad during their piratical careers I think you're probably mistaken about the numbers. Just to give some examples, and working solely from the list of pirate captains who have their own chapters in Johnson's General History: Henry Avery, Edward England, Howell Davis, Bart Roberts, Thomas Anstis, William Kidd, John Gow, George Lowther, Thomas Howard, John Halsey, Thomas Tew, Captain Condent, John Bowen, and Thomas White all saw more than one continent during their pirate careers. Others, such as Low for example sailed the American continent from the Caribbean to Newfoundland - hardly "local". That's about half the pirates mentioned. If you take any list of pirates of the GAoP, whether it's the contents of a famous pirate book, a website, or whatever, I have no doubt that you'll find most of them ranging far and wide, and the properly "local" pirates (ie. those who remain in one sea or on one specific stretch of coast) are far from being the "rule". Neither let us forget the very cosmopolitan nature of pirate crews when it comes to the knowledge, even second hand, of foreign places. Since you don't like Johnson lets take a crew not listed in Johnson: Of the 25 men in Quelch's crew at the time of their trial 13 were English, 3 were American, 4 were Irish, 2 were Scottish, 1 was a Channel Islander, 1 was Dutch and 1 was Swiss. Other crews had large numbers of West Indians or Africans, not to mention other Europeans. Treasure Island is, of course, not an historical source, but Johnson's General History should not be so simply dismissed. Any historian that describes Johnson as "way innaccurate" is not worth much IMHO. Research over the last few years has shown that Johnson's facts are often a lot better than they were once thought. However, the real point about Johnson in terms of accuracy is the different areas in which his reliability might be good or bad. In terms of stark facts like dates and suchlike he is often misleading and incorrect; if you want to research the life of, say, Blackbeard, then Johnson will give you a good idea of the basic outline, but you would be wise to check up on the details elsewhere. On the other hand, in terms of background Johnson's General History is probably one of the most useful documents available to the public today. In terms of "how we view pirates" there is no reason at all to doubt Johnson's accuracy. The kind of background details that Johnson provides tie in with other sources and there's nothing in either volume which suggests to me that he was being too fanciful (pirate politics aside perhaps)+. Nowhere does Johnson suggest that all pirates had parrots or wore bucket topped boots. His descriptions of pirates and their way of life are believable, and more to the point they were believable to a contemporary audience. Sea captains wrote to Johnson after publication of the first edition and offered corrections for future editions, but none of those corrctions are "don't be daft, pirates didn't behave like that". It would not be a wise man who too quickly dismissed Johnson out of hand as inaccurate. :) *A study by David Cordingly of the known pirates active in the Caribbean between 1715 and 1725: 20% were from the West Indian colonies themselves, and 25% were from North American colonies. Of the remaining 55%, 53% were from the British Isles (35% of the total were English). The remaining 2% were from other European nations. Thus, the majority of those pirates were well travelled, NOT local. +This is not counting the probably fictional added chapters of Tew and Misson. Though, of course, there is really no reason to doubt the reliability of much of the background information of those chapters. Fiction they may be, but they are incredibly well researched fiction

Do you mean time-frames as in how long it will take to get to you once you order a hat? No, I'd recommend emailing Ms Buckland. Or do you mean time-frames as in what period those hats would be authentic for? Monmouth cap. I don't know exactly how early the monmouth was used, but I'd put money on the Romans having something similar. They were certainly used well into the 20th century - my grandfather gave me two of his when I started re-enacting. "Hakluyt" cap. Just a long monmouth really. They seem to have become more popular towards the end of the 16th century and were certainly being worn into the early 20th. Thrumm cap. Possibly as old as time, but definitely very popular amongst English seamen from the second half of the 16th century. They were worn well into the 19th century. If you're thinking about your 1815 impression then any of the three would be fine. Likewise for GAoP

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to suggest that the illustrators of pirates have got it right. Far from it! Almost anyone in Captain Twill will tell you that my opinions are quite the opposite. Also, I think it would help if we clarified the kinds of "exotic items" we're talking about. We've got records of seamen in London and other places with parrots (which were remarkably common) and other foreign animals, loads of spices being brought back (the problem was so great that the East India Company had massive crackdowns on seamen engaging in private trade, but to no avail). To get more piratical, Theophilus Turner (a pardoned pirate of no particular note) requested the return of his goods which had been siezed, and included: OK, that's an isolated example, but it's not like he was a famous successful pirate, and he still had Arabian gold and Moorish stones, not to mention all the other interesting stuff. (Ducks out of the way of the approaching earring argument...). So, what kind of exotic items are we talking about here?

Yeah, we get them too. Just a bit sad that they show such lack of imagination IMHO. I suspect that a much larger number of pirates had sailed international waters before they turned to piracy than you think (I wouldn't even like to start counting up the sheer number of seamen who sailed with the East India Company, Levant Company, and the Royal Africa Company between say 1680 and 1730). I think also that a much larger number of pirates are known to have sailed the world during their piratical careers than we tend to give credit for. Take for example the large number of pirates who sailed on the African coasts as well as the American, forget not the staggering number of European or American pirates who sailed the Indian Ocean and made their bases at Madagascar, not to mention the large number of privateers and adventurers who sailed the Far East. Splendid, do you guys have a website? I run Bonaventure, the only Elizabethan maritime living history group in the UK. We operate along the South Coast and specialize in privateers for that period. OK, so where's the problem with pirates having internationally exotic items then? Lol, just jesting with you. Do you actually play a Roman Catholic clergyman? I'd have thought that was the biggest barrier to authenticity... So why not do that with GAoP era pirates as well? :)

Not too detailed, but it is a genuine cross section of a man of war from about 1690. Since there were vast differences in layout depending on size, type and nationality of vessel (there were also vast similarities of course), what is it that you're after?

In fairness, if I were dressed in your buccaneer garb over here then people wouldn't recognise me - I'm talking about "normal" pirate gear. Anyone who doesn't believe me, try it: go to an event dressed in petticoat breeches or slops, a checkered shirt, short woollen seaman's coat, neck-cloth and a long "jelly bag" type hat, and count up how many people ask what you're meant to be. I'm really not trying to have a farby vs. authentic debate here, I just take issue with people who think that the public are too stupid to recognise an authentic looking pirate for what he is. :)

Yup, many of the seamen who had long careers were pressed at one point or another, but must have also bee volunteers if they had anything like a long career. Merchant seamen were often allowed to go ashore at the various ports they called at, the many examples of exotic items to be found in the itineraries of seamen made at Limehouse and Deptford attest to the fact that seamen were able to get ashore and purchase such things. For a large part naval seamen were indeed kept aboard, but it would be folly to imagine that trusted volunteers were never allowed ashore. My real point, though, was that we shouldn't forget that every pirate had a life before piracy. FWIW, personally, I suspect that booty captured during a piratical career probably only made up a small part of each pirate's personal possessions. This will no doubt be a bone of contention, and may well have something to do with being on different sides of the pond, but: no, I have not noticed particularly that the public automatically flock to the flashy looking pirate more than the authentic ones. What I have noticed is that the flashy ones entertain the public who flock to them for about 2 minutes tops, the authentic ones can keep their public for half an hour or more. One other thing, which I think is perhaps more pertinent, is the reaction of the public to flashy/authentic pirates. When the public look at the flashy guys they go "Look, a man dressed as a pirate", when they look at us they go "Look, a pirate". Whatever the case, my specific point about recognition still stands. If you wanna play dress-up farby pirates then far be it from me to condemn your fun. It's not my thing at all but I genuinely have no problem with others doing it - I organise the UK's largest gathering of authentic and farby pirates every year. However, people should be honest about what they do and why they do it. Hollywood pirates who pretend to be authentic really pee me off, they're not only having their own fun, but also undermining the work of others. Hollywood pirates who say "I'd like to be more authentic but the public just wouldn't recognise me if I were", also pee me off. I'm sure there are many many good reasons for playing Hollywood, but that really isn't one of the good ones - it's a cop-out excuse. :)

My crew have been using short lengths of rope with a back-splice at one end coated in tar as a weapon for ages. The difficulty is that they can't be made "battlefield safe", they flippin' well hurt if you get hit by one. They are essentially related to the boatswain's starter, used to beat lazy sailors across the shoulders. Sometimes we use an eye splice in the other end as a wrist loop. With two splices and some whipping required they make excellent aprentice pieces for new members learning rope-work, and cheap weapons for those who have not yet found the funds to purchase a sword/axe/pike etc. OOI, Photo taken at the Blake Museum in Bridgwater, birthplace of the aforementioned General Blake

Well pointed out Fitzwell. On the other hand, although their piratical careers were usualy short many pirates had long careers as merchant or naval seamen going back years or even decades, so many of them might have been well familiar with al sorts of foreign lands. Just to stick an oar into the "public need us to be flashy Hollywoody pirates" argument: I very rarely do pirate portrayals, mostly my group portrays Royal Navy or privateers. We tend to wear typical seamen's garb; petticoat breeches or slops, short jackets, neckcloths, monmouth, thrumm or small tricorn hats etc. We don't wear bucket boots, sashes or huge feathered hats. We even have a friendly group of red-coats who join us as marines sometimes. And we STILL get called pirates more often than not. Dress authentically and the public will still recognise you easily. There are many reasons for dressing in a Hollywood fashion, but "the public won't get that we're pirate otherwise" is just twaddle IMHO. :) Incidentally, when we do play pirates we wear the same stuff and have no difficulties being recognised.

Just steering this away from a surprisingly civilised farb/reenactor conversation... I think the essential differences between history, educated guessing and balderdash are a matter of evidence. History: Where there is good evidence on a specific point it is reasonable to say that we know what the truth is, at least in that particular case. Educated guessing: With so much of the history of piracy, and indeed almost all history, we are confined by the evidence available to us. Alas, until the invention of a time machine we have a finite amount of information. It is true that not every piece of relevant evidence has been brought to light, or to the attention of historians and the general public, but though we might occasionaly find new bits of evidence we cannot create it. Where we are lacking evidence we have to either accept that we jut don't know, or we can piece together what little evidence there is (often using evidence from similar areas, rather than directly associated evidence) and use it to draw sensible conclusions. The use of information about merchant and naval seamen which is available to get an idea of the kind of clothing that pirates might have worn is a case in point. Balderdash: "historical knowledge" based on stuff that is either not relevant evidence, or is not historical evidence at all: traditions which developed after the period in question, popular fiction, Hollywood, and other such "sources".

It's quite possible that Hornigold flew an English flag, either on its own or in addition to a pirate flag. Of the Providence pirates several are known to have flown English or British flags in addition to pirate flags, even Blackbeard may have flown English colours in addition to his "death's head" flag. BUT, like the skull and cross bones it's a case of "best guess", not evidence.

Happy midwinter folks! (now there's a festival that means something...) Longarm, I don't know of any churches closing for Christmas (sorry, should that be "Xmas"?) over here, but it does remind me of a similar incident which hit the headlines here a years or two ago. A local council ordered the head librarian of a small town library to remove small posters for a Christmas carol service as it was thought that overtly Christian celebrations advertised in a council run public amenity would upset the multi-cultural community. OK, it's a bit daft, but it's not too unreasonable. What really made it news though was that a few months later the same council ordered the same librarian to put up posters in the same library for local Divali celebrations. I'm neither Christian nor Hindu, but I know religio-political hypocrisy when I see it! I'm spending Christmas this year with two female chefs, so I'd like to publicly recant the things I said about food in my original post...

Doesn't Dampier mention a buccaneer Christmas in his journal, or is it Cowley? (Away from home for a few days, so can't check). As I recall it was a pretty simple time with a few prayers and a fair bit of booze. Incidentally during the GAoP New Year was celebrated on Lady Day, March 25th, not January 1st.