Fox

The trouble is, how do you define buccaneer? The hunters and pig-smokers of 1620s Haiti were the true buccaneers, or boucaniers, but the men who attacked thingy-wotsit with Myngs in the 1660s might also be described as buccaneers. Most people, when thinking of buccaneers would probably think of Morgan and his band of multi-national cutthroats, others might think of the intrepid seafarers like Dampier, Cowley and Sharpe. All of those groups of people might be legitimately described as buccaneers, but each might have had their own fashions in clothing and equipment. The early boucaniers probably had clothing and gear which was particularly suited to their hunting, long shirts, bare legs (very Red-Indian), long muskets, machetes and axes. Myng's men were largely of European origin, and their clothing and arms would probably have reflected this; for example I believe they used pikes which the boucanier hunters certainly did not. Morgan's men would have been different still, being such a mix of nationalities and origins. Finally the likes of Dampier and co probably looked more like seamen than any of the aforementioned. So, what kind of buccaneers are we talking about?

Very nice I haven't the foggiest what it might be for, my best guess would be perhaps a badge of mourning? Have you emailed the NMM to ask if they know? I agree that it's probably not a free gift for joining the Official Blackbeard Fan Club of 1718. I don't see why it should be pirate related, but nonetheless it does give us a good example of an authentic 18th century design for skull and crossed bones.

Now THEY'RE definitely wearing linen, polyester would melt that close to such a large inferno. They must be authentics in disguise.

I think the issue with Macnamara's black flag is that SCA are supposed to be pre1600 (or am I wrong?). Now, a plain black pirate flag would be absolutely fine for that period, Drake flew a plain black flag at Cartagena in 1585. A black flag with some sort of Tudor period device might not be absolutely correct, but it would be believable. Alas though a black flag with a skull and bones, or "anatomy" or other typically "pirate" flag would not really be correct by a century or so. It is believed that there are no surviving pirate flags from the GAoP. There are a small number of 19th century pirate flags of different origins, and Kheir-el-din Barbarossa's flag is in the Naval museum of Istanbul (though it dates from after he gave up piracy). I'm on the track of two flags which may have survived the GAoP, but I'm not convinced either has survived to the present time, or that I can find them if they have.

I don't have a copy of the Time-Life book with the painting in, but if it's the one I think it is (how many paintings of Bristol docks in the 18th century to the City Museum have?), which appears in many illustrated books then it's by Peter Monomy. I don't know the exact date but Monomy was painting in the first part of the 18th century so the painting of the docks is probably exactly as Woodes Rogers and all those other Bristol pirates would have known them.

...a desperate and bloody sea-fight between Lieutenant Maynard and that notes pirate Captain Teach, commonly call'd by the name of Black-beard; Maynard had fifty men, thirty-five of which were kill'd and wounded in the action; Teach had twenty-one, most of which was kill'd and the rest carried to Virginia in order to take their Tryal. Will you hear of a bloody battle, lately fought upon the seas? It will make your ears to rattle and your admiration cease: Have you heard of Teach the rover, and his knavery on the main; How of gold he was a love, how he loved ill-got gain? When the act of grace appeared Captain Teach and all his men Unto Carolina steered, where they us'd him kindly then; There he marry'd to a lady, and gave her five hundred pound, But to her he prov'd unsteady, for he soon marched off the ground And returned, as I tell you, to his robberies as before: Burning, sinking ships of value, filling them with purple gore. When he was at Carolina, there the Governor did send To the Governor of Virgina, that he might assistance lend. Then the man-of-war's commander, two small sloops he fitted out; Fifty men he put on board sir, who resolved to stand it out. The lieutnant he commanded both the sloops and you shall hear How before he landed he suppress'd them without fear Valiant Maynard as he sailed soon the pirate did espy; With his trumpet he then hailed, and to him they did reply: "Captain Teach is our commander", Maynard said "He is the man Whom I am resolved to hang sir, let him do the best he can." Teach replied unto Maynard, "You no quarter here shall see But be hanged on the main-yard, you and all your company." Maynard said "I none desire of such knaves as thee and thine." "None I'll give," Teach then replied; "my boys, give me a glass of wine." He took the glass and drank damnation unto Maynard and his crew, To himself and generation, then the glass away he threw. Brave Maynard was resolv'd to have him, tho' he'd cannons nine or ten; Teach a broadside quickly gave him, killing sixteen valiant men. Maynard boarded him and to it they fell with sword and pistol too; They had courage, and did show it, killing of the pirate's crew. Teach and Maynard on the quarter fought it out most manfully; Maynard;s sword did cut him shorter, losing his head he there did die. Every sailor fought while he, sir, power had to wield his sword, Not a coward could you see, sir, fear was driven from aboard; Wounded men on both sides fell, sir, 'twas a doleful sight to see, Nothing could their courage quell, sir; O they fought couragiously. When the bloody fight was over we're informed by a letter writ, Teach's head was made a cover to the jack-staff of the ship; Thus they sailed to Virginia and when they the story told How they killed the pirates many, they'd applause from young and old. Broadside ballad, 1719, possibly by Benjamin Franklin.

Do endless things have conclusions? Nope, my answers are all blue and white, and red andwhite. However, I humbly apologise for my preference for using real historical sources. No you don't, you think it's laughable that anyone should think pirates wore colours other than black. Ok, I really think you've missed the point of what I was trying to say. The fact is that I don't give a monkey's how authentic your kit is, or whether you think like a pirate or not (which I seriously doubt, but...). My point was I find your manner very offensive. So, and I'm asking nicely here, would it be possible please for you to put a leash on your insults and try to post in a polite and not unneccesarily provocative manner? Many thanks.

Hehe, I was just trying to make him feel as silly as he looked when he took the mick out of me for suggesting that pirates wore colours other than black. Hurricane being an entertainer doesn't bother me. Hurricane being disinterested in authenticity and discussions thereon doesn't bother me. Hurricane feeling that he can't possibly post to anything remotely scholarly without doing his best to insult people just makes me feel very sorry for him. I'm contemplating moving to New England now to join the Snowshoemen, looks fun.

Anyone mind if I throw a few a few statistics in here? I've done quite a bit of research on flags and have identified 50 pirate flags from the GAoP. That is: pirate flags genuinely described or depicted in period documents, not flags with just a web or modern book source. I've also not included the flags of Caribbean buccaneers of the 17th century, although the skull and cross-bones first appeared on a pirate flag in the 1680s. Neither have I included Barbary pirate flags of the GAoP period, even though at least one features a skull and cross-bones. Finally, I have not included mentions of the bloody flag, or false colours flown by pirates of the GAoP. 5 of the flags I have included are only pictoral variations on those described in written sources. So: 50 flags identified, of which: 27 are definitely described or depicted as black 10 are definitely described or depicted as colours other than black 13 have only the devices described, not the colours Or, if you prefer to discount the 5 variations (which I think would be slightly more accurate) 45 flags identified, of which: 22 are definitely black 10 defintely are not black 13 are not specified either way. So, given either set of figures only about half of the known pirate flags were definitely black, and between a fifth and a quarter (about 22% actually) were definitely not black. Some examples: A ballad of the time describes Henry Avery's flag like this: Thomas Anstis is known to have flown this flag amongst others: Roberts' consort James Skyrm may have flown this flag: This flag was reported in 1717, and the source give some suggestion that French pirates often flew white flags (well they would, wouldn't they? ) Perhaps most interestingly in 1719 George Shelvocke sweepingly wrote that the flag "of the pirates [is] a yellow field and a black human skeleton". Could it be that many pirate flags were in fact yellow?

Hurricane, if are reading this message may I ask why, if the thread bores you so, have you bothered to come back knowing full well what its contents are?

Over this side of the pond the vast majority of events are small living history events rather than skirmishes and battles (though many LH events include skirmishes and battles too). The result is that the viewing public are a damn site closer than 10 feet, they are encouraged to look at the kit and artfacts, handle them and examine them. For the big battles and skirmishes with no living history attached the 10 feet rule is fairly standard, but amongst the groups who do LH, which is most, the rules are far stricter. Anything which is obviously inauthentic (modern boots etc) is absolutely forbidden, things which are less obviously inauthentic are basically in the hands of the event organisers/sponsors/group commanders, but generally the aim is to be as authentic as possible within the confines of modern legal and safety requirements. Many of our events take place at sites owned by English Heritage (an enormous body, check their website: English Heritage ) and if a group doesn't come up to scratch they will neither book them again nor recommend them to anyone else, so apart from any other reason that's an incentive to strive for the best. Speaking personally, in Bonaventure we take the attitude that it's not worth doing something unless you're prepared to do it the best you can. If we are aware that something is inauthentic and it can be changed then we change it or do without. What's the point otherwise? Where it is unavoidable that modern things creep in it is made clear to the public why. A good example would be fires at istoric buildings. In the UK the majority of historic buildings are owned or managed by either English Heritage (or their Scottish and Welsh counerparts), or the National Trust. Both those bodies have the very strict rule that any fires lit on their sites MUST have a fire-extinguisher nearby and in full view. SO, if we want to do cooking or musket-ball making displays at events then we must contaminate our site with a bright red fire-extinguisher - they're usually put somewhere unobtrusive in the hope fewer people will notice them, but they have to be on full view. If any of the public notice the fire-extinguisher then we explain to them that the risk of burning down a 600 year old house just isn't worth running for the sake of authenticity and they are usually satisfied with that.

The tongues don't have to be as long as those on Josh's shoes, and would it be possible to move the buckle? Any chance of a picture of your new shoes Das?

Just thought I'd throw in this contemporary picture of John Paul Jones. Bit late I know, but the principal is the same: Check out the pair of feet on the foot-rope in the background

An interesting tidbit, and I'm gonna look more dogmatic than ever, but I think you may be reading too much into that. For example, the following statement seems quite natural to me: "in a word, everything portable was to be carried off, and be divided equally among the men, the one very honourable exception being "woman's brassieres." Now, that could mean that men also wore brassieres, but that pirates shouldn't steal women's, or it could mean (and in fact does mean) that brassieres are only worn by women. There's just no way of telling. Personally, I read that statement to mean that generally only women wore earrings - based I must admit on a combination of other evidence (or lack of) and my own prejudices.

These pictures are from a French map cartouche of 1705 showing buccaneers. Although it's a little late they're not bad pictures and they offer a good comparison to the print GoF mentioned with the buccaneer and his gun. The picture below is a detail from a cartouche of a different map, this time of 1700. The first full figure from the left appears to be wearing the same sort of long smock as the buccaneers above. Personally, I think these long smocks are buccaneer hunting shirts, and seem to have been worn at times with bare legs and puttees. Apart from the last picture small caps seem to be more commonly associated with the smocks than large hats. Basically, I think those are good depictions of buccaneers as hunters. If we believe the pictures then buccaneers as seamen looked just like other seamen of the time: The first two pictures show buccaneers from sea atlases of the 1680s, the third picture is one of the supporters of the arms of Lord Torrington, granted in 1689 and you can see how similar the pictures all are. In addition, the general shape of the garments is very similar to the figures in sketches by the two Van de Veldes of the second half of the 17th century. Hope that helps a bit

I think you could probably justify making a sailor's coat in whichever style you had a preference for. Take this picture for example: The seaman on the far right has a fairly well fitting short jacket, closer to the waistcoat type design you mention, while the man he's talking to (3rd from right) has a coat which is clearly much baggier, closer to the smock-cut-up-the-front which I have mentioned in previous posts. It should be pointed out though that event the close fitting coat on the right is clearly slightly larger and longer than the waistcoat he is wearing underneath. That picture dates from 1736, at which time the RN slop contracts specified that the grey kersey coats should be between 3 and 6 inches longer and the ticking waistcoats, and between 2.5 and 4 inches broader. That being the case it seems likely that the jacket and waistcoat being worn by the right hand figure are probably fairly similar to those specified in the contract. However, since not all seamen wore official slops, and since there is evidence of both fitted and baggy jackets it really is down to your own personal preference I think.

...Lyne's flag is described in a newspaper of March 1726 as a "Black Silk Flagg with a Representation of a Man with a Cutlass in one Hand and a Pistol in the other Extended".

I'm not suggsting pirates bought their flags from ebay If you look at the surviving ships' flags from the days of sail you'll find they're made of MUCH lighter material than tarred sailcloth, usually one of the other materials already mentioned, silk, bunting etc. Whichever way you look at it, even considering the marginal difference in wind at the top of a mast tarred sailcloth would be too heavy, too stiff and too close weaved to fly properly. If you don't believe me, try it.

I dunno, I find it very hard to swallow tarred sailcloth as the norm. I think it would just be too heavy and the tar would close up the weave too much for it to fly properly. It might, as in Davis's case, be used in an emergency, but I can't see anyone serious putting up with it for long. It just wouldn't fly properly, and what's the point of having a flag at all if it doesn't fly and can't be seen? John, I used to be ensign of my English civil war regiment. We had two flags (officially we had two companies, but we fielded as one...), we used one for living history and battles, the other for parades and ceremonial. The ceremonial flag was kept pristine, but the LH flag we took to a firing range, spread it out and fired a 3pdr loaded with grape shot at it just to get that "battle" look authentic.

I think either sewn or painted would be authentic for a pirate flag. There are no surviving pirate flags from the GAoP (probably), but other surviving flags from the GAoP, as well as before and after, include both sewn and painted examples. Out of interest, and I meant to post this in the last post. Dulaien's flag description also gives us a good idea of the size of flags. His was 22'9" X 14'9".

I have been researching flags quite a bit recently, and I've only come across two detailed references to the fabrics used. Johnson's General History states that Davis's crew "hoisted a dirty Tarpawlin, by Way of black Flag, they having no other". Clearly this is not an ideal flag, and was not typical. In 1729 the flag of Captain Dulaien is described in a letter as being made of "etoffe noire (ie black fabric) sur laquelle se detachaient des marques blanches..." - A flag of black fabric on which are depicted in white... The same flag is described elsewhere as being made of "Ras de St. Maur", a fairly fine French cloth. I agree entirely with Josh that canvas would not be a particularly suitable fabric for flags, it's too heavy. It would serve in an emergency (like Davis's) but generally speaking anything lighter would be better. Silk is ideal, but even cotton or linen could be used. Modern flags tend to be made of a kind of linen/cotton fabric with a fairly open weave, and I see no reason to suppose that flags were not often made the same way in the GAoP. Also, I agree that painting the whole flag black would probably be impractical on the whole as it would weigh the flag down too much and make it too stiff, though designs and devices were certainly painted on many flags of the period.

Sheesh Josh, when you're humble you're HUMBLE! Sorry I misunderstood you. The picture of Roberts' men does indeed come from the Pirates' Own Book, along with a load of others in a very similar style. They're a sort of mix between being good accurate pictures of mid-19th century seamen and what they thought early 18th century seamen looked like.

Precisely Josh, so if Hogarth generally shows people clean shaven in all his honesty and grit it can be fairly assumed that clean shaven was the order of the day and it's not just artisitic license on the part of other illustrators (which I don't believe anyway...).

How many Hogarth men have beards?

Then I am delighted to have created a new word! I came up with the pun myself and as far as I know was the first to use it. Whaddya know, I'm a lexicolog... lexicogral... lexicophonis... word-smith!