Fox

^^Some that I posted to Piratesinfo which didn't get added. The source for those is the as yet unpublished "The King's Pirates", by Ed Foxe. Primary sources available on request.

It's been said before, but has it been shown to have any basis in fact before?

Further to my earlier post outlining Noodlewhacker's suggestion regarding pirate earrings, seed rings and parrots he has recently communicated to me a second plausible theory. Possibly pirate captains wore earrings so they'd have something handy with which to propose to the girl they've been fighting with at the end of the movie. He didn't quote any primary source evidence for this so it may just mean he watched The Crimson Pirate again yesterday.

There's not really any reason to suppose a Spanish origin, although I grant the word does look Spanish to our modern eyes. The other thing is that there is no reason to suppose that "modderas" is anything more than a place of origin - possibly Madieras, or (since he was aboard an East Indiaman) Madras. If you look at the whole quote he's saying "one pair of new English shoes and one pair modderas"; this could very easily be "one pair of shoes made in England and one pair made in the Madieras/Madras", it needn't be some distinct style at all. In fact, since nobody seems to know of any particular style of period shoe with a similar name it seems likely to me that it was just where the shoes came from, not what they looked like.

I think drawers for the GAoP period basically look like breeches with tied waist and knees, in a similar sort of fabric to shirts. I noticed they were all wearing shoes too, most pertinently the guy third from the right who appears to be dressed more in his "working" rig than his "shore" rig. Still, since they're all on shore that doesn't necessarily mean too much.

Smooth soled or not, shoes in the rigging is definitely better than no shoes, no question. On deck is a different matter of course, but not aloft! See the first page of this thread. I'd be interested in any source evidence for non-leather shoes being worn as cheap alternatives. I've come across fabirc shoes being used for dainty court wear, and while I can't think of any reason why seamen shouldn't have used cheaper fabric shoes I can't think of any reason why they should have either. As we have seen based on primary evidence leather shoes were not all that expensive, and I've not seen any evidence otherwise. I must admit that "modderas" has stumped me. I have not a clue. The context makes it fairly clear that it is something to do with footwear, and I doubt it's a "trademark", but beyond that I can only speculate. I think the slipper type shoes with the short toe you're talking about (looking at the monk riding picture) are actually fairly accurate representations of shoes from the early 19th century when those pictures were drawn, not an artist's impression of earlier shoes.

On the availability and price of GAoP shoes: Certainly shoes weren't mass produced in industrial factories as we know them today, BUT shoes are and were a "necessary" item of clothing, rather than a fashionable one. Where there is a need you will usually find someone to fill that need. What I'm trying to say I guess is that there's never to my knowledge been a shoe-famine. With regards to cost it would perhaps be good for us to look at the RN slop regulations pooh-poohed on another thread. In 1706 "double soled shoes, round toes" were available to any seaman in the RN who wanted them at 4 shillings a pair, "brass buckles with iron tongues" at 3 pence a pair. At that time an RN Seaman earned 19s per 28 day month, an Able Seaman earned £1 4s, and a Boatswain earned between £2 and £4 depending on the size of ship. A pair of shoes therefore represented round about 4 1/2 days' wages for an AB and about 2 1/2 days' wages for the boatswain on the smallest vessel. By comparison in the same regulations an unlined red waistcoat with 18 buttons cost 5s 6d, a shirt of linen cost 3s 6d, and even a pair of linen drawers cost 2s 3d. ie, 2 pairs of underpants cost more than a pair of shoes with brass buckles. On alternatives for shoes: I think the most likely thing is actually that seamen wore shoes. I've never seen a written or pictoral source for seamen tying cloth round their feet and I don't think that wearing stockings would offer any more protection than bare feet, plus they'd wear through and you'd have to buy new stockings (grey woollen ones, 1s 9d a pair from the purser - nearly half the price of a pair of shoes). However, I do have two other possibilities to offer: firstly, in wills and similar documents of seamen of the GAoP one often finds shoes and buckles listed seperately. This fact coupled with the practicality of working seriously in buckled shoes (I've not found it practical) leads me to suspect the possibility that seamen wore their shoes at sea, but fastened them with laces through the buckle holes perhaps, or left them unfastened, then put the buckles on to smarten their shoes up for going ashore. The other possibility is the obvious one that many seamen probably had work shoes and shore shoes. John Hutchinson who died in 1684 for example left "one paire of bootes" to a shipmate, but desired that "one paire new shoes English and one pair modderas[?]...be sold at mast". It's possible that the boots mentioned are bucket-tops but I seriously doubt it, more likely to my mind are short sea-boots, perhaps similar to this one recovered from the Vasa, a shipwreck of 1628. On a different note: Yes Das, Many of Morgan's men ate their shoes as they crossed the Isthmus of Panama. If memory serves they soaked them in water and pummelled them between stones to make them soft before cutting them up into small pieces.

I'm glad you've come in on this one Royaliste I've often used my experience as a good reason why seamen probably didn't go aloft in bare feet in times gone, but anyone trying to argue that they did always says "But your feet would harden up and get used to it..." At which point I tend to leave the argument - I figure if after 3 years of going aloft, maybe not daily but 3 or 4 times a week at least, I'm still wearing shoes because it's more comfortable, then GAoP seamen probably did too. Maybe your feet would harden up over time, but the pain you'd have to go through to get them that hard just wouldn't be worth it, you'd just wear shoes instead. So, to meet a longer term seaman who says the same thing is great Simple experiment for those without access to rigging: climb a ladder first in bare feet then in shoes and see which is the easiest. Then bear in mind that even the tautest ratlines will bend slightly under one's weight, digging into the side of one's feet, and the realtive smoothness of steel ladder rungs compared with rope ratlines.

In my experience (as curator of the Golden Hind replica in Devon for 3 years as well as a sailor-for-fun since I was a kid) I'd say it depends entirely on the weather and the job. In wet weather bare feet are very definitely the order of the day, the grip is so much better, but of course it depends on the temperature. In cold wet weather the slight skiddiness of leather soled shoes is more than offset by the comfort of not walking barefoot in freezing water and watching one's toes fall off. I'm interested in what Wartooth says though, I find it much easier to go aloft in shoes than bare feet - definitely not near-impossible. I guess it's down to preference. I think the reason that most pictures show seamen wearing shoes is less to do with looking "proper" and more to do with the fact that most artists were ashore and drew seamen as they saw them, which was mostly in their shore rig. The shore rig was probably similar to their working rig, but a bit smarter. Or of course it could be because seamen generally wore shoes Now here's the $6,000,000 question. Does anyone actually have any evidence of whether seamen in the GAoP wore shoes onboard or not, or is this just more speculation? I ask because Gabriel Bray, who was painting a bit later in the 1770s, but who painted from life, tends to have his subjects in shoes. He was painting men at work and rest aboard a man-of-war, and he's one of the few artists of the 18th century who really understood what he was painting, being a mariner himself. This suggest to me that seamen probably wore shoes more than we like to think. Any evidence to the contrary?

No problem Hurricane, that's what this forum's for . I can't actually think of any pirate historically speaking who was particularly associated with black - unless you count Teach's beard. The privateer George Shelvocke (who was a bit of a pirate really) had a black suit at the start of his voyage to the south seas, but it's not like people say "oh yeah, Shelvocke, he's the guy in black..." When Davis wanted to hoist a black flag the best he had available to him was a dirty tarry tarpaulin. Anyway, back to stripes

Firstly, would you be kind enough to point out where I suggested that black wouldn't be worn by pirates? Secondly, why should pirates wear black? Do bank robbers have a uniform (apart from the obvious mask, stripey shirt and bag marked "swag")? At the end of the day pirates were just seamen on the wrong side of the law. Many of them had careers lasting a matter of months, sometimes even just weeks, you think they thought "OK, so I'm a pirate now, I'll throw out all my clothes and get some nice new black ones so I look the part"? You mean apart from, for example, the slop specifications posted above which list both red and blue but not black? Or the relative expense of black compared to other colours, or the numerous other examples? Seriously, no. Black was not a common dye colour, particularly when compared to reds and blues and other such colours. Even the fabric that is described as black was probably just a very dark grey rather than jet black in many cases because of the enormous expense of getting a true black dye. Any costume experts wanna come in on this one? I am quite definitely humoured that someone genuinely thinks pirates had their very own fashion code Yeah, like the guy in Edward England's crew with the wooden leg. What Josh was saying was that while these things may have some basis in truth they have been wildly exaggerated. I'm sure any re-enactor who had genuinely lost his leg and wore a wooden leg would be welcomed with open arms by any group. However, this is not a thread about wooden legs so I'm not going to go any further. There's quite a good thread elsewhere about calico in the GAoP, it was probably coloured but not necessarily stripey. Course, Hurricane will probably tell us it must have been coloured black because pirates didn't wear red or blue...

Just to throw a few more sources for striped trousers on GAoP period seafarers (and thus by extrapolation pirates) at you all: The armorial arms granted to Admiral Herbert, Earl of Torrington in 1689 include "two sailors...with white trousers striped gules (red)", or according to a different source "wide breeches argent (white) double striped crosswise crimson" The second description being a fairly good one of the petticoat breeches in the picture I posted above. The 1706 slop specifications for the RN includes "Striped shag breeches" and "Shirts of blew and white chequer'd linen". A second contract of the same year also specifies "Strip'd ticken wast coats" and "Strip'd ticken breeches." These specifications remained more or less the same for some years, at least until the end of the GAoP. In 1725 the slop contractor to the Navy, William Franklin, wrote complaining that the captain of HM Sloop Happy had taken aboard his own slops instead of Franklin's regulation clothing. The letter gives us a good idea of the prevalence of striped breeches for he lists the clothes he tried to send to the Happy, which included 6 pairs of kersey breeches (in plain red), 8 chequered shirts, 36 pairs of trousers (canvas), 60 ticking waistcoats and 60 pairs of ticking breeches. Slop regulations and Franklin letter are quoted in Mariner's Mirror volume 10, pp 31-39

Getting closer... This is "Mr John Beard in the character of the Captain of a Man-of-War" 1736. Taken from "The British Tar in Fact and Fiction" by Commander C.N. Robinson RN. 1909. The figure 2nd from the left appears to be a black seaman. It's not the best copy so you'll have to take my word for it that in the original it was much more obvious. Alas this picture is my scan of a photocopy, the book was in the reference section. OK, so he's an RN seaman not a pirate, and dates from 1736 so is a little late but it's getting there

Load up the primary-source-cannon then! I'll be sharpening the dogmatic-argument-cutlasses and passing round the hypothesis-pistols! Let battle, erm... continue! (Actually on another board I contribute to we got an earrings thread going to 192 posts, so this is peanuts. And you know what? those 192 posts could easily have been condensed into 12, what is it about earrings?)

Then I think we have reached an accord from opposite starting corners. I'm not interested in arguing that no seaman (be he pirate, RN, merchantman...) wore an earring before Howard Pyle, only that it was not the major pirate fashion statement so commonly believed. No indeed, there are several impressions of seamen with earring prior to that date, from the Tudor period at least and onwards. However, I believe until someone shows other wise that earlier wearing of earrings was a personal choice rather than a "tradition of the sea". My major point is to skewer the jackasses who claim that pirates must have worn earrings because it was traditional for all seamen to. Is this another accord I see looming? :angry:

The painting is very interesting (I find all old paintings and pictures interesting for one reason or another), but if you'll forgive my saying so and sounding like a dogmatist, one painting does not a tradition make. Now, while such documentation would not prove a pirate fashion for earrings there are one or two points which I think worthy of consideration. Firstly if it can be shown that a significant proportion of pirates owned earrings, it might be reasonable to conclude that a perhaps smaller, but nonetheless significant proportion of pirates wore them; the question then is how many examples are there? Secondly, much would depend on interpretation of the source (as I know I don't need to tell you), so it would depend on how the earrings were listed. In the Theophilus Turner list* quoted elsewhere for example earrings are recorded amongst a list of other valuables which were confiscated when he was captured, so the reasonable inference is that they were part of his hoard rather than part of his attire. On the other hand if earrings were listed amongst the more personal possessions or garments of a pirate, if they were listed between his tobacco box and watch for example, that would perhaps indicate a less detached ownership (if that makes any sense). The trouble there is that even to show conclusively (let alone by inference and interpretation) that a dozen pirates actually wore earrings would not prove that the majority did. If they were found then they would be subject to the same interpretation as I suggest above, though perhaps less conclusively. If there were a hundred then it would be very indicative, on the other hand if one or two were found alongside a large pile of coins then it would suggest that they were part of a hoard rather than adornment. However, I think instead the complete absence of them is far more indicative and is, in my humble opinion, much less open to interpretation. Which to me suggests that the evidence of personal adornments is there. If that evidence does not include earrings then that too is very indicative of a widespread absence. A Personal Statement: I've said it before, but I'm never one to back away from repeating myself over and over until someone believes me. I'm not and never have been of the opinion that no pirate anywhere during the Golden Age wore an earring or two, that would be a ridiculous generalisation, but I do not believe that it was any kind of "pirate fashion" during that period, nor do I believe that it was any kind of "seaman's tradition" during that period either. We can all come up with theories and hypotheses as to why pirates might have worn earrings, I can come up with theories as to why pirates might have enjoyed regular meals of hot-dogs (they certainly had sausages, rolls, onions, and mustard), but in neither case is there any decent evidence to suggest that they did. If Howard Pyle and NC Wyeth had painted half a dozen hot-dogs being eaten by pirates would this thread have reached 7 pages debating whether 12" hot-dogs were widely eaten? However, as with anything I ever say here (or on any other boards, websites, emails, articles, or books) I'm quite happy to be shown my errors by anyone with decent evidence to prove it. In this particular argument I have to say that I wear two earrings generally, and I find it a real bind taking them out when I do GAoP re-enactments, so I would LOVE it if someone could prove that lots of seamen wore them in the GAoP, but so far it just ain't happening. *wasn't it you who gave me that list years ago in the first place? Credit where it's due and all that.

I look forward to it As I said in my post, my research into the origin of the tradition is limited, so I would be interested in evidence that it began earlier. The big question is: did it begin prior to the GAoP? Out of interest, approximately how many different artefacts have been recovered from the Whydah, and how many of those are earrings?

My hypothesis above was based on the idea of crowbars being the short nail-bars we know today, however the source in Das's first link makes it clear that it was actually a long bar, the same length as a handspike. That source dates from 1822, and the method of loading, laying and firing a gun at sea had not changed appreciably then since the GAoP. Based on that the only use I can think of for a long crow bar would be lifting the breech of the barrel to adjust quoins. The thinner crowbar could get purchase under the cascabel where the handspike could not. It could also be placed under the cascabel so that one man could stand either side and directly lift the breech. However, I've still not come across them in the GAoP. Possibly this is because the vast majority of guns at that time did not need a crow bar to adjust the elevation; there were, I believe, proportionally much fewer of the really big guns in use at that time than there were in 1822. I'd be interested to know what "Marshall's Practical Marine Gunnery" has to say about the use of crowbars, anyone got a copy?

You might conceivably use an iron crow bar for lifting the barrel while you slotted in the quoins to depress it or removed them to elevate it, but I can't imagine that one would use iron crow bars to shift guns. In order to get the necessary leverage an iron bar would be ridiculously heavy, and more importantly it would bend. A wooden handspike on the other hand could be light enough and long enough and wouldn't bend (which is why they used 'em). The more I think about it the more daft using iron bars at all seems to me. For lighter guns the easiest and quickest way to lift the breech up to change quoins is to lean on the muzzel. At the point where guns become too large to do that I think a short iron crow would be too short and bendy. I'm not saying they didn't use iron crow-bars for guns, but I can't find any reference to them in any of the period works I have available to me. What exactly do your references say about them?

Aaw Corsair, I love you

February 14th 1684 "We were choosing valentines and discoursing on the intrigues of women when there arose a prodigious storm so that we concluded the discoursing of women at sea was very unlucky and occasioned the storm" From the journal of buccaneer Ambrose Cowley.

The thing is GoF, given the number of groups with an interest in proving the equality of black pirates - pirate historians generally, black promotional groups, race-relations groups etc - and given the combined public "clout" that they have, I think it's very unlikely that if there were a genuine picture from the GAoP which showed a black pirate in equal standing with his white brethren that we wouldn't already know about it. It would probably be the most commonly printed picture from the 18th century on any topic! It's possible one may exist which hasn't yet been discovered, or its importance realised (though I think the latter is unlikely), but in that case I think it's unlikely any of us will find it. I can't find any pictures of black seamen earlier than the 19th century, and nice as it would be to have an earlier one, I think it's really unlikely that a GAoP period one will surface.

Just to keep this going a bit: By the time Rogers left Cork at the beginning of his voyage the combined crews of the Duke and Dutchess numbered 333 (including officers I believe). Among the stores taken on at Cork were 12 dozen stockings, 150 "capps" and 50 red coats.

I think it does show equality actually. On the one hand Avery has got all the clothes, the sword the gun etc. On the other hand, if it starts to rain, who's got the umbrella eh? I expect the guy in the loincloth is taunting Avery... "Haha! One of the hottest and wettest climates on Earth and you went and picked the woolen clothes! SUCKEEEEER!" And yes, he may be a pirate. It's impossible to tell since they're both on shore.

The Artist: I've been slightly misquoted here. I agree that it's unlikely the person who did this engraving had been to the Caribbean (or indeed Pacific in this case). BUT, I believe the book was published in Bristol, or possibly London; either way Bristol and London were the two largest sea-ports in the country in the early 18th century so it's probable that the artist was very familiar with the clothing of seamen. So, whether Rogers was involved himself or not I think this is probably still a fairly reliable picture of English seamen of the early 18th century. Hats: The first thing that strikes me is the complete difference between the mariners' hats and the officer's. The mariners' are smaller for a start, more battered and less trimmed. Personally I don't see a knitted hat. the guy putting a string of pearls into his hat looks like he's holding a cocked hat like all the others to me Other garments: I'm inclined to agree that they seem, to be wearing trousers (little surprise there), waistcoats, shirts and coats. However, in fairness I think one would be hard pressed to use this picture of evidence of waistcoats if there were any argument. Waistcoats are suggested by the bulk and the fall of the garment under the coat, rather than anything definitely shown. I don't think the figure on the left has two lines of button holes; partly because it's not something I've ever seen from this period before, but also because the two lines are two close together to make it a double breasted coat (such as we see in later prints), and there doesn't seem much point in a double row of buttons otherwise. The coats shown in this engraving go some way to backing up what I was saying on another thread about seamen's coats being more like smocks that have been opened at the front than like civilian coats made shorter. The lack of pockets, the general shapelessness, the lack of turned-back cuffs etc. all go to support that. It's worth comparing the seamen's coats in this picture with the civilian coat the officer is wearing - the artist is clearly capable of drawing coats properly fitted, so we must assume that his depiction of the baggy shapeless seamen's coats is deliberate. It's worth comparing the seamen's coats in this picture with those Bonny and Read are wearing in the engravings on the other thread. Except for a small opening at the side which is absent in any of the Guayacil coats they are more or less the same. I don't think there's a whole lot to say about the trousers except to note that the ragged bottoms show that the trousers are made that length, they're not longer trousers rolled up. Neckcloths: given that the engraving is in greyscale, and the only thing we can say with any certainty is that the hats are the darkest things being worn by the seamen, and that everything else they're wearing could be the same colour - I'm not prepared to give any opinion on the colour of neckcloths. They're not black, they might be white or off-white, but going solely on this picture they might equally be red, blue, turquoise, pink or a range of different colours. We just can't tell. Shoes: In wills and suchlike you quite often find shoes and buckles listed seperately, and often left to different people. It would be reasonable to infer (backed up by this picture) that buckles and shoes were not inseperable, and for many seamen the buckles were simply decoration to be worn when swanning around Port Royal in their best togs. When working, whether on board ship or raiding Guayacil it would make more sense to lace one's shoes up and not risk losing or damaging the expensive buckles. Other stuff: I first saw this engraving years ago, and I love it. It's one of those pictures that you spot something new in (almost) every time you look at it. What I've just noticed is what looks like a cane lying between the two privateers in the second picture. Presumably if it is a cane one of the privateers has put it down while he frisks the ladies. We quite often see canes being carried by seamen ashore in later 18thC engravings, and I always carry a stick at living histories - basically because it makes me feel tough and I find it useful for all sorts of things. Nice to have a period depiction though!