Fox

The question of them being worn over other garments is one that hasn't really been settled. (Other historians generally believe that it HAS been settled and that slops and petticoat breeches were worn over other breeches - but I'm not convinced). There are a number of descriptions of runaway slaves wearing heavy duty slops over their breeches as a protective garment, and there are also a handful of pictures (not many mind) that show petticoat breeches being being worn over what look like normal breeches by seamen. These two things constitute most of the evidence in favour of slops being like overalls. Against the first point I say runaway slaves were not seamen. Their social background was different and their work was very different - so there's no real reason to suppose that slaves and seamen did things for the same reason. Against the second: there's just no way of telling exactly what is shown as being worn in the pictures. IMHO it is likely that at least some of them show not breeches, but drawers. We know for a fact that seamen wore drawers, and there's no question that if drawers were being worn under slops they would peek out the bottom from time to time, so why invent unsatisfactory reasons for them to be breeches? In addition, I would add that aboard ship you want as few layers of clothing as possible. Apart from the obvious restriction of movement and the sheer weight of wet fabric in poor weather, can you imagine the heat of wearing three layers in the Caribbean? In terms of being a protective layer for seamen: it doesn't make sense. We know they sometimes wore something (breeches/drawers) under their petticoat breeches and slops because we can see them in the pictures right? In that case they don't work. If the garment that you're trying to protect sticks out from underneath the over-layer then it will get dirty, so what's the point. Either make the protective garment bigger, or just wear the working layer without the other stuff underneath. I believe that the garments shown being worn by seamen were a sustitute for breeches, which sometimes (but probably not always) had drawers underneath, and the garments described as being worn by slaves were probably slightly different, longer articles. In short, I really think it's up to you whether to wear your slops over breeches or not. I don't think you should, but I'm in a minority. In the end I don't think the evidence is conclusive enough, so I suggest making your decision on what you'd find comfortable.

Do we all get decapitated the morning after or does it just feel like it?

I'm not quite sure that I can visualise what you're describing Paul, but I see no reason at all that boathooks shouldn't have been around in the 12th century. Realistically I think that boathooks, or some boathook substitute (like what? I hear you ask. I have no idea*) must have been in use as long as wharfs have been used, or as long as large vessels have had attendant boats. I did find a picture of one from the 16th century the other day which I haven't got round to posting yet, and I'm sure I've got a 14th/15th century picture showing one, I just can't find it. However, if Paul's able to post his picture that would make mine redundant in terms of earliest dating. *The relatively well known medieval picture of Eustace the Monk being captured shows a fellow using an anchor as a boathook

There is a certain advantage to hoisting a red flag before battle, since its meaning was probably more "if you fight then we'll kill you all without mercy" rather than "we're going to kill you all whatever you do". If you see a red flag hoisted and surrender straight away you'll be fine, but fire one shot and you're finished. It is also possible that hoisting a red flag in the middle of an engagement meant "cease firing and surrender now or receive no quarter". Incidentally, at least one pirate attack is described in which the pirates first hoisted red flags and then, not receiving a surrender, lowered them and hoisted black flags in their place. Paul's point about Death is certainly backed up by a number of period sources which describe the skeleton in some pirate flags as "Death", "a Death", or on one occasion "a human skeleton such as Death used to be represented by".

The last big flag I made was oil based paint on black cotton and it worked much the same. Outlined the design in chalk, painted it in, then turned the flag over and painted the other side where it had come through. If you're going for historical accuracy with a Bart Roberts flag then this one is authentic But this one is probably a later invention (it's an 18th century invention, but there's no good evidence that Roberts flew it) However, Bart Roberts is also known to have flown these flags if you're looking specifically for one of his. - - As well as an English red ensign, RN pennant, plain black pennant and Dutch pennant. He may also have flown these two. -

The Knights Templar were a religious order of crusading knights from the 12th-14th centuries who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with pirates of the 17th and 18th centuries and who didn't fly a skull and cross-bones from their ships. Master Studley has it just about right in my opinion, except I would say that the use of the skull and cross bones on gravestones was not an exclusively Catholic practice by any means - it was a really common symbol signifying mortality, hence its use in ships' logs and pirate flags. Mike, although there are several records of the materials used to make flags by GAoP era pirates I can only think of one description of the actual method of applying the design specifically described. Since there are no extant pirate flags from that period we are entirely dependent on literary sources for this information. At the trial of Roger Hews and other pirates in Scotland one of the witnesses who had been a member of Cocklyn's crew deposed that cocklyn's flags were painted with their devices. Of course, it's quite likely that they were sometimes sewn, but I don't know of any period source to support that for certain.

Ok, so I decided it was about time I read "Pirates and the Lost Templar Fleet" by David Hatcher Childress. I've been slating his theories for long enough based on a few excerpts I've read and other people's summing up of his work, but due to the relative difficulty of finding a copy over on this side of the pond I'd not read it right through until now. I tried so hard to keep and open mind, I really did, honest! It's just so hard when the "facts" being given are so completely self-contradictory. A child of ten could break down his theories based only on what he's written himself - but that's getting off the point. The point is that when one asks people who espouse the Templar-Jolly Roger connection what the evidence is, if they are able to provide any at all it's a recommendation of this "book". About half way through the third chapter Childress tells us that Templars flew the skull and cross bones. No evidence, no reasons, no nice period pictures, just a statement that we are required to believe. Since one of my main purposes in reading this book was to find out the source of that statement I naturally found it a little frustrating. And it got more frustrating every time he repeated the statement without qualifying it. Finally, near the end of the book he tells us what his source for the statement that Templars flew the Jolly Roger is: unequivocally he states that it's "Under the Black Flag" by David Cordingly. Now, I challenge you pirate people to find a mention of Templars flying the jolly roger in "Under the Black Flag". I've checked and can't find it. Didn't even find a mention of the Templars at all in fact. What Childress has done is made up a "fact" from his own imagination and in order to give it more credibility had falsely attributed it to a respected historian of the type he spends half the book railing against. There we go folks. Even the most ardent exponent of the Templar-Pirate connection is reduced to plainly and obviously making stuff up.

Yes, period shoes generally have a seam up the back to give them the correct curved shape to fit the back of your foot. I'd also add that I don't think a high tongue is necessary on a GAoP period shoe - fashionable certainly, but not essential. Depending on how high GoF meant of course. GoF, my father has a solitary latchet shoe. He's a size 9, perhaps you could come to some kind of timeshare agreement.

Just came across this and thought it might be interesting.

I can definitely see why Mike, bits of it are very Durer-esque. When I read that I had one of those *oh yeah...* moments. I think it's the composition that really gives it away as not being period, though there are other things too. Josh, I'd love to know more about the artist - period or not it's a fantastic picture and I'd love to see some more of his.

I got my bollock knife from a guy called Ron Matless who does some seriously excellent cutlery at reasonable prices (more reasonable than £580 anyway!). He does have a website at http://www.interknife.co.uk/main.html but it states that he doesn't sell bolock knives online (presumably because each one is different). Perhaps he might by email. Here's mine that he copied from one of the Mary Rose bollock knives.

If POTC II and III have that f****ng Bloom person in them may I suggest wadding with lead balls. Ha! My missus won't want posters of him up then will she?!

I could be wrong, but that doesn't look to me like a period picture, I'd definitely put a couple of quid on it being modern.

We could write and tell people about it. No doubt that TV was better in 1710.

Dunno if you guys got it but we had a show here 2 or 3 years ago called "The Ship" which was a reality TV show set on the Endeavour replica in the South Seas. The trouble with all these programs is that in order to make what people seem to think is "good" TV, the producers always pick a bunch of lazy incompetent hysterical loser who they know won't get on with one another. So, you get failures, hissy fits, screaming, crying, arguments and f**k all being done. Maybe it's their idea of reality, but if they were trying to recreate the reality of the past they should have picked people who had basic mental and physical competency. But then, people succeeding at difficult tasks and getting on with each other wouldn't be "good" TV would it? If memory serves they had more people scared of heights than history enthusiasts on "The Ship" - like that makes sense! In case you hadn't guessed, I applied and was turned down for one of the places on "The Ship". Apparently (and this really is true) the fact that I worked on a tall ship at the time meant that I wasn't suitable. On the other hand, did anyone see the "Pioneer House"? By comparison with the usual pumpkin-brains I thought the people on that were pretty good.

That's what I research for Josh

I deliberately steered close, he thought I was going to ram him. As it turned out I just got a lucky shot... We've done boat-to-ship cutting out in battles and we've even done a ship to ship boarding (MAN! That was fun!). In both those cases the vessels were 19th century sailing vessels and we weren't re-enacting any particular battle, just a generic GAoP period sea fight. Does that count? We actually have a strict rule at events that I organise, that nobody drinks alcohol during the day. Apart from the obvious safety issues I also think there's the issue of families coming to watch see us, talk to us and watch what we do. They don't come to have some fat beardy guy breathe beer fumes all over their kids. Other event organisers have different rules and thats fine by me, but at my events you can do what you like in the evenings - if you want to jack up heroin that's none of my business, but everyone is sober and clean when the public are around. Someone invited a couple of special effects student along to a medieval event I did a couple of years back. After the battle when the losing side were routed one of them got "caught" and the other guy came and sliced his ear off. Blood everywhere! The ear was a reshaped pig's ear, but they wouldn't tell me how they did the rest of it. Mmm, maybe stinking of beer would have been less offensive to the public... I'm not even gonna ask how you heard or who you've been talking to about me... Yes, I'm much better thanks. Had a migraine for four days, didn't sleep for two nights, but a combination of drugs killed the pain and the doctor says I've got a good chance of survival...

Actually Patrick, patches on the butt are probably dead right. In the Musuem of London there is a surviving seaman's outfit from the mid 17th century. One of the buttocks of the breeches is almost entirely worn through, but the other side is fine. The current theory is that he may have been a helmsman (he was a fat bugger so he certainly wasn't a topman!) and the wearing was produced by his leaning on the tiller on one side. So, patch one side of the butt.

Ok, the flag saga. At some point after about 1930 a manuscript surfaced with a number of pictures of pirate flags, each attributed to a particular pirate. The manuscript is in the library of the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich and though I must confess to not having seen it myself I am assured that it bears all the hallmarks of having been made in the late 19th or early 20th century. It is completely anonymous and gives no clue as to the origins of either the flags depicted or the attirbutions that it gives. At some point the flags on the manuscript made it into a book and they have been copied and recopied ever since. I've not managed to track down which book first included them, but I've given it a rough earliest date of about 1930 because there are a hanful of books from the 1920s and earlier which illustrate pirate flags without including the highly dubious ones from the spurious manscript. In addition, the Mariner's Mirror ran an article and a Q&A session lasting several years on the topic of pirate flags in the early 20thC and no mention is made of any of the dodgy ones. Certainly I have not been able to find any book or other work pre-1930 which includes depictions or descriptions of any of the flags in question. This sudden appearance of a handful of flags (most of the flags still being reprinted in books and websites), coupled with the highly suspect manuscript scream out "FORGERY!" Or quite possible they murmur "work of imagination followed by honest mistakes and lazy research." Either way, in many of the cases there is genuine documentary evidence of the pirates in question flying totally different flags. It's quite possible that some of them flew more than one flag, but there's just no documentary evidence that they did, and it's unlikely that so many pirates flew two flags, one which made it into the period sources and one which remained lost until the mid-20thC. If you'll allow me to elaborate on the flags usually found: Henry Avery. The flag usually attributed to HA is one of the best pointers to the modernity of the manuscript. Not only does no evidence show that HA flew such a flag, but there is no evidence to show that he flew a skull and bones at all, and in any case he considerably pre-dates the great age of the jolly roger. The jolly roger attirbuted to him exhibits 1 unusual characteristic, the profile skull, and 2 downright implausible one, the bandanna and the earring, neither of which became particularly associated with pirate until the late 19th century. Stede Bonnet. No period source describes or shows the supposed SB flag, but two period descriptions describe his flag simply as a "death's head". Christopher Condent. A number of pre 1930s sources show the supposed Condent flag, but none of them attribute it to CC. Christopher Moody. Moody's supposed flag dates to at least 1716, but there is no suggestion that it was him who flew it until the mid-20thC Jack Rackham. This flag appears to be completely fictitious. There is no evidence from the period JR flew it or that anything like it ever existed. No mention of it is made until the mid-20thC (pity, it's a nice flag...). Edward Teach. ET is recorded in at least 2 period sources to have flown a "death's head". The horned skeleton is completely unlike early other 18thC imagery, which suggests (together with the Avery flag) that the author of the manuscript didn't do his research very well. Thomas Tew. 3 or 4 pirates are known to have flown flags bearing either an arm and sword or an arm and dagger. Tew is not one of them and until (you've guessed it) the mid-20thC there was no suggestion that he did. Richard Worley. Contemporary sources describe Worley's flag as a "death's head", which might be a description of his skull and cross bones...maybe. FWIW the flags usually depicted for Roberts, England, and Low all have contemporary, or near-contemporary sources to support them.

Cap'n William, I completely respect your opinions on drunk people, and if it's not your idea of fun then that's fine, but it doesn't alter the fact that for a great many people having a few drinks and getting a bit silly in the evenings is a part of re-enactment. Referring back to my original post, I didn't say you had to be drunk, I just said that dancing was one of the fun bits about a re-enactment event. For the record, in one of those photos I was completely sober, hadn't touched a drop, had just arrived after a long journey and it was just what I needed to unwind and get in the mood. In the other photo I was very very very drunk indeed. On neither occasion was I trying to impress anybody. And, as John says, I was only trying add a bit of our own humour to what was a well written, but ultimately pretty funny webpage. John, define re-enacted piracy. I've never actually taken a ship and used force of arms to subdue the crew of another vessel while I stole their cargo...but that would be actual piracy, not re-enactment wouldn't it? I did once use a pea-shooter to get an opposing skipper in the eye during a boat race...

I think you're close with number 3. But I think it's a little more interesting than that... Harris was a consort of Low's. We know it's not the same actualy flag because Low is reported as flying it long after Harris was captured, therefore, it's two pirates sailing together in consort and flying the same flag (of which there are numerous examples). Some time later Spriggs, another of Low's consorts went off on his own account and made himself a new flag with the same design as Low's (if we believe Johnson). Phillips of course was not part of the Low gang, but he was by descent part of Roberts' (Phillips sailed with Anstis, who sailed with Roberts), and we also have a description of one of Roberts' flags: "The Flag had a Death in it, with an Hour-Glass in one Hand, and cross Bones in the other, a Dart by it, and underneath a Heart dropping three Drops of Blood." Not the same, but similar. I can also think of at least one other flag with a spear and bleeding heart and several with skeletons or hour glasses, so they weren't uncommon symbols. You have highlighted a very important point though Josh, one I'd certainly overlooked before. All the pirates which I mentioned in my post had some connection with that part of the New England coast. So too did Quelch. I wonder if the similarity was perhaps something to do with geography?

Yeah, I'd forgotten about Gosse, that makes 4 secondary sources that describe Quelch's flag from what appears to be a period quote. The others are Paine's Book of Buried Treasure (1911), Mitchell's Pirates (1976) and Cordingly's Under the Black Flag (1995). It could be that they're all copying from one another, but small differences lead me to suspect that they're not. OTOH, I don't trust Gosse much, I have little faith in a book about buried treasure, Mitchell's work is basic in the extreme and Cordingly quotes a clearly incorrect source... FWIW Harris's flag was described as "a Black Flag, with the Pourtrature of Death having an Hour-Glass in One Hand, and a Dart in the Other at the end of which was the Form of a Heart with three drops of Blood falling from it" in the New England Chronicle, July 22 1723 Low's and Spriggs are described in Johnson's General History as "a white skeleton in the middle of it, with a dart in one hand striking a bleeding heart and in the other an hour glass" Spriggs was also described by Captain Richard Hawkins as a "black ensign, in the middle of which is a large white skeleton with a dart in one hand, striking a bleeding heart, and in the other an hourglass". John Phillips' flag was described as a "Black flag in the middle of which was an Anatomy and at one side of it a Dart in the Heart with drops of Blood proceeding from it and on the other side an Hour-glass" in the Boston News Letter, June 4th 1724. The fact that the Quelch description is slightly different to all of these, and that Paine and Cordingly given slighty different parts of it leads me to think that there is a seperate description of it, attributing it to Quelch, but I REALLY want to know for sure. Badger, although it's often (nay, always) labelled as Blackbeard's flag in books and websites there's no evidence whatsoever that Blackbeard flew this flag, and even if he did it's almost certain that his skeleton didn't have the horns it's usually depicted with. There are at least two different records of Blackbeard's genuine flag, both describing it simply as a "death's head". The erroneous attribution of the horned-skeleton flag to Blackbeard, along with the supposed flags of Avery, Rackham, Moody, Bonnet, Condent, and others, dates to sometime after about 1930 and can be attributed to the imagination of an unknown artist.

I'm not convinced that the Slop Contracts include "slop" breeches as we would imagine them, I posted the info on breeches and trouser in the hope that some of it might be useful for extrapolation. With regards the two buttons mentioned in the ASC as opposed to the one button depicted in most of the drawings, it is possible that the second button was at the back, since we know the waistband of the breeches and trousers was in two halves.

Aye, be careful how you bring money into New England... Displaying flags at executions doesn't seem to have been uncommon - Harris's flag (which was the same as Quelch's - possibly) was displayed at his, and Lyne's men marched to their trial behind their flag - so it's quite possible that Quelch's was. Here's the thing though with Quelch's flag. We've got quite a good description of it - skeleton holding an hourglass in one hand and a spear in the other, heart stuck on the end of the spear dripping blood - and this description has all the appearance of coming from a contemporary document. Paine in 1911 seems to be the earliest published source for it, but he simply describes it as from and "old manuscript" or something equally unhelpful. The first person who seems to specify what the "old manuscript" is seems to be Cordingly who claims that the description comes from Quelch's trial account. Alas, searching through either the full trial records or the published version will not turn up a description of his flag - Cordingly is mistaken, it's not there. Since the flag is the same as two or three others, each with a genuine period description, and since all the descriptions are so similar (they would be wouldn't they?) I wondered if perhaps Paine had made a mistake and the flag wasn't in fact Quelch's at all. Then Corsair2K3 suggested that the description might have come from the Mather speech I'm so keen to get hold of, but I'm unable to get my hands on a copy, and so it seems is everyone else. I'm beginning to think that Quelch's flag is described in a period document, I have three seperate modern sources which each give a different part of the description so I know they're not copying from each other, I just don't know what they are copying from since only Cordingly gives a source (and that incorrect!) So, if you do have information which confirms which, if any, period document actually contains a description of Quelch's flag PLEASE let me know - I'll buy you a packet of Smarties.

I don't know that there is a "right" way to do slops. As GoF says there are no surviving examples from the GAoP (certainly none that I know of - corrections VERY welcome), so everything we do must be a mix of extrapolation from other similar garments or garments of similar periods, sensible speculation based on the pictures (we know roughly what they should look like when finished) and reasonable guess work based on trial and error (we get an idea, try it out. It doesn't work, it's probably wrong - it works well, it's probably right, or close to right.) Personally when I'm making slops I tend to use the natural bagginess of the garment to provide the bagginess round the backside. They don't have to be very baggy (they certainly don't look baggy, they look like the slops in the Lowry print), just baggy enough that you can bend over easily in them, stretch your legs etc. OTOH, when I'm making trousers or tighter breeches I either curve the back and side seams a little to add in a bit more material in the back or I put in the raised waist in the back as I explained earlier. I've seen both methods used on different original garments of various periods. I think the answer is to look at a period picture, and try make a garment that is as close to the picture as possible in terms of the size and shape of the original, the way it hangs on the body, that kind of thing. Where possible it helps to take into acocunt what is known about the construction of period garments in general, as this often helps with the correct fit and hang etc. Do all those things and you've probably got as close to a period correct piece as you're likely to get. If you look at all the pictures in my collection there are so many differences, some major, some minor, in the different slops and trousers being worn between 1650 and 1750 that it is impossible to imagine a single standard method of manufacture. The Admiralty Slop Contracts do give us a little bit of information which, while neither definitive nor particularly illuminating, might be of interest. The best detail comes from the specifications of 1730, they're a little late perhaps but since the garments described are more or less the same as those in the 1706 specs it's not unreasonable to suppose that the details were similar throughout. Breeches of Kersey, lined with linen, with 3 canvas pockets, and 2 waistband buttons, and 14 other buttons of the colour of the kersey, the button holes stitched with thread of the same colour. (NOTE: the 1706 ASC specified 13 tin buttons and three pockets of leather. Of interest is also the fact that no colour is specified in 1730, previously they had been specified as red) The lengths of leg are specified as being either 24 1/2 or 23 inches, waistbands of either 15 1/2 or 14 1/2 inches. Clearly it is intended that the waistbands should be doubled in length, perhaps because they were laced or buttoned at the back. Trousers of Brown Osnaburgh Canvas, to be cut out of whole cloth breeches fashion, 2 buttons at the waistband and 2 others. Waist 15", leg 34" (NOTE: the legs of trousers were only between 9 1/2 and 11 inches longer than those of breeches, so probably well above the ankle.) I agree with both you guys about fabric. Having decent fabric can make all the difference to a piece of kit, particularly one which you've lovingly crafted after much research. BUT it's a bugger to waste that lovely heavy linen you've just found and have a limited supply of on experiments, save it for when you know you've got the pattern right. You can always use the naff gear for when you walk the plank or wade through swamps or whatever...