Mission

Chrispy is a great guy, but I think he'd be the first to admit he isn't really going for historical accuracy. (That hat... ) The great thing about pirate reenacting is that If you don't want to be historically accurate, you don't have to be. There's a huge body of film and pop-culture pirate images and you can draw upon to find ideas for your persona. (Like Chrispy's hat.) However, if you say you're being historical 'within reason'... welcome to the den of vipers. OK, we're not that bad, but if your intent is to work towards a Period Correct impression, most of your reasoning isn't going to fly with those folks who spend a lot of time and effort working to create and refine their PC impression. (See the thread But I stole 'em from a... for an obnoxious amount of detail as to why.) If you want to wear beads, wear beads. But if you also want to say you're doing a period accurate impression, you have to show proof for it and if you are really serious, you have to show enough proof of it to suggest it was common. (I don't get the impression you do want to say that at all, I'm just pointing out how the PC thing works.) The nice thing about pirate reenactors is that most of them don't care that much. Oh, some of them may think you look 'farby' (just as you may think they look like 'stitch nazis') but as long as you're happy and you're not violating the rules of the event as you mentioned, what difference does it make? Everyone you meet has an opinion of you and you have almost no control over it. So my thought is that it's best not to worry about what other people think and design garb and a persona that makes you happy.

That sounds like a neat idea, although I've never seen any evidence for reusing old flags. Of course, I've never seen any evidence against it either. When GOF mentioned it, I think his primary goal was to get a more accurate materials, not to recreate anything we have evidence of pirates doing. Usually when flag creation is mentioned, period accounts just note that the pirates "made a flag" and don't give a whole lot of detail about about the process. (Other than Howell Davis using a dirty tarpaulin in lieu of an actual flag, of course.) OTOH, keep in mind that pirates would want to carry flags of multiple nations so that they could trick their prey into thinking they were friendly and get close enough to attack. So it might have been more beneficial to keep a nation's flag as it was rather than paint over it. (Sorry, I am just mulling over the concept of pirates reusing an existing flag...)

Ohh! Ohh! I have some evidence of shoes shipboard, and particularly while working up in the sails from Barlow’s Journal of his Life at Sea in King’s Ships, East and West Indiamen & Other Merchantman From 1659 to 1703. (It's just an out-of-hand mention in a much longer diatribe, but I am going to quote the whole thing because it's such a richly cynical view of the mens' job on a ship.) “[1661]And having much cross winds and our water growing short, and being at short allowance of victuals all the while, we were now forced to go to one quart of ‘befraiage’ to one man a day, which ‘befraiage’ was made of sour wine and stinking water, which was very hard with us and the weather being hot and always eating salt victuals, I could not get my belly full, which made me often repent of my going to sea, remembering what pleasures those had in England who had their belly full of good victuals and drink, though they worked never so hard for it. And I was always thinking that beggars had a far better life of it and lived better than I did for they seldom missed of their bellies full of better victuals than we could get: and also at night to lie quiet and out of danger in a good barn full of straw, nobody disturbing them, and might lie as long as they pleased; but it was quite contrary with us, for we seldom in a month got our bellyful of victuals, and that of such salt as many beggars would think scorn to eat; and at night when we went to take our rest, we were not to lie still above four hours; and many times when it blew hard were not sure to lie one hour, yea, often (we) were called up before we had slept half an hour and forced to go up into the maintop or foretop to take in our topsails, half awake and half asleep, with one shoe on and the other off, not having time to put it on; always sleeping in our clothes for readiness; and in stormy weather, when the ship rolled and tumbled as though some great millstone were rolling up one hill and down another, we had much ado to hold ourselves fast by the small ropes from falling by the board; and being gotten up into the tops, there we must haul and pull to make fast the sail, seeing nothing but air above us and water beneath us, and that so raging as though every wave would make a grave for us; and many times so dark that we could not see one another, and blowing so hard that we could not hear one another speak, being close to one another; and thundering and lightening as though Heaven and earth would come together, it being usual in those countries, with showers of rain so hard that it will wet a man ‘dunge wet’ before he can go the length of the ship.” (Barlow, p. 59-60)

It's an old thread because was looking for a place for this quote and wanted to resurrect the master topic. (I have been combining old threads into master topics so that they are easier to find. This makes the forum is more search friendly and gathers all the info in one place for non-forum members who are interested. I discussed doing this with the site owner before starting and he agreed that it would be a good idea since even regular posters rarely look beyond the first page of the forum.) I looked through this thread before posting that quote, but I didn't see it. (Did I miss it?) I like it because it indirectly suggests that pirates would not normally be wearing riding boots while on a ship.

SB1700, you need to go back and read this whole topic, not just my comment. It was firmly established that riding boots were worn on land at this time, although a lot of the image links are now broken. Somewhere there is even an image of French corsairs wearing boots while on land. In fact, it was the only image that was produced of pirates wearing such boots.

I occasionally get people who think the medicines of the golden age of piracy were better than modern medicines. I just smile and let them talk themselves out. I see no sense in encouraging/antagonizing them, although I could... "Ooh. Tell me how you think surgery is better without anesthesia!" Or "What do you think about those recipes that recommend pigeon's blood and water made from boiling "new welpt puppies."

Cool! I didn't think you could make it due to vacation issues - hopefully you can make it. (Then we can enjoy daily brunch at the Rum Barrel. This we we should try and make sure it doesn't take so long to decide what to have like it did last year; that Stynky can never make up his mind when we go to the Rum Barrel.)

Whenever someone brings up boots, I think of this story. Having come across it again, I thought I'd include it in the discussion here for future reference. It's from The Pirates of the New England Coast 1630-1730 by George Francis Dow and John Henry Edmonds. "A week later, a Rhode Island ship bound for St. Christopher's was taken [by Francis Spriggs]. She was loaded with provisions and some horses, which the pirate crew soon mounted and rode about the deck, backwards __ and forwards, at full gallop, cursing and howling like demons, which soon made the animals so wild that they threw their riders and spoiled the sport. They then turned to the ship's crew and whipped and cut them in a wicked manner, saying, that it was because boots and spurs had not been brought with the horses that they were not able to ride like gentlemen." (Dow and Edmonds, p. 282 -3) This suggests that they didn't have boots on and that they wouldn't think of needing them except when they were riding horses.

FTPI Surgeon's Journal for 2011 (Way more info than you probably need - certainly not as succinct as William's list.) What? The triumphant return of the Mercury's non-captain Captain? Could it be...? (Huzzah!)

I'm going to move this to the Thieves Market Forum which is where things for sale and trade go. (No harm, no foul, just keeping the forum tidy.)

Actually, if you're looking for rare books, bookfinder is the best way I've found to do it. You have to be persistent, though. I was looking a copy of both editions of Barlow's Journal using bookfinder and wound up getting it for less than half the lowest price I found by checking for it there regularly.

"Slobbering all over a good knife!" Oh gosh, that made me laugh. Actually, people have brought up a really interesting point: it is challenging and somewhat uncomfortable to hold flat metal objects in your mouth. (Keep in mind that dental hygiene wasn't anywhere near what it is today and most people had pretty bad teeth. Imagine gripping a hard, flat, steel object with bad teeth - if you can. Our dental hygiene is such that it's hard to imagine having anything more than one bad tooth - and that tooth gets fixed as soon as it starts twinging.) If you were going to do it, chomping on the handle would make far more sense because as Duchess pointed out it would be easier to hold onto. However it wouldn't make the images quite so dramatic which again points to this being a decorative rather than a practical matter.

I thought some of you might like this. Unfortunately the website where I found it doesn't know the date of the card.

I just happened to be looking for something else in the images from Charles Ellms' The Pirates Own Book (most, if not all, of which appear to have been modernized to the time of the book's initial printing in 1837.) While looking, I happened to come across the image below. It basically fits in with Foxe's original comments about a couple examples being found in the 1820s. It is the frontispiece to the book. (Curiously, the act is never mentioned in the book's text that I can find. Also curiously, I never heard about anyone's head exploding when they performed this act. Or maybe that's supposed to be a cloud.)

I find a lot of the popular pirate memes originated in Treasure Island - the books, the illustrations and the movies. From the book (as I understand it, for I haven't read it) we have things like buried treasure, treasure maps, the block spot, some of the sing-songy pirate dialect, parrots on shoulders and one-legged pirates. These appear to have been strongly emphasized there. (Although these elements may be present in contemporary sources, they are not put together in the way TI does. You can find parrots referred to as something sailors captured to resell in England where they were rare, but you find no pirates walking around with parrots on their shoulders in contemporary sources. The one-legged pirate appears sparingly in contemporary pirate documentation (I can think of three minor individuals losing a leg, in fact. Curiously, no where is there a record of a pirate with a peg-leg that I've yet found.) but not on a major character like a captain and not as an important facet of the character. Rather they occur almost as footnotes of interest to the narrative.) From the illustrations we have reiteration of the above items as well as bucket boots and earrings. (Earrings may be in the books, but I don't know.) Of course the movies incorporate them again and may have added peg-legs and eye-patches. (Hooks I am convinced are a Peter Pan-based phenomenon.) Peg-legs and eye-patches are also found in many early pirate movies other than TI, but I think the other movies built upon the idea of the one-legged pirate and the blind pirate as well as borrowing from the wounded sailor persona that seems to have been around since the 1780s or so. The movies (specifically the 1950 version) also appear to have associated the word "Arr" with the pirate persona and sharpened the sing-songy pirate dialect as well. Reiteration in various media is an important part of this. The more often you are exposed to a particular meme, the more firmly the anchor is set. From my training experience the more different ways you can present a concept (visually, aurally, repetition and through various different mediums) the better entrenched that concept becomes for your training audience. So it stands to reason that the same would be true in this case.

There is a lot of evidence in psychology that your starting point colors your future understanding. (It's called 'anchoring'.) (Of course, having said that, my starting point was the Disney MPC Pirates of the Caribbean skeleton models, so where does that leave me?) It actually took me a long time to overcome a lot of the things I had learned about golden age era pirates when I was younger and get to the truth of them. After I got over the skeleton pirates, I was most fascinated by Captain Misson and his philosophical priest. I was shocked to learn that he was most likely fictional. So then I had to get to the core of that through research and slowly alter my biased understanding. (And there is still much to relearn. This is part of the reason why I try to stick to one small area of research about which I had no previous knowledge.) As for Holmes, after reading the books several times and watching Britt in the role, I was appalled by Ritchie's treatment. It's worked quite well for him, but when you talk to the younger generation, they think that's Sherlock Holmes. I was explaining the AC Doyle character to a twenty year old who showed interest, so I loaned them one of my Britt DVDs. They who found that version of the character dull compared to the the Ritchie movies and didn't like him. But that is the character, Ritchie just put a spin on him and stuck him in unlikely action sequences. (And butchered Watson.) Which brings us full circle to the concept of anchoring.

Excellent recap, thanks! I have been actually avoiding the story because it is the source of so many misconceptions and I wanted my view of piracy to be first rooted in fact before I looked at the story that (rather unintentionally IMO) muddied things so badly. However, I read on a website that this film was the genesis of the eye patch myth and I wanted to see if that was true. Thanks also for the info on the theatrical connection to the eye patch. I don't want to drag this OT, but I have found at least four images from around the 1780s that show eye patches and missing limbs (and peg legs) being standard features on Greenwich pensioners. This connection continued weakly in the early 19th century and then seems to have faded. I was pleased to note that a doctor was highly featured in Treasure Island. I may have to check out the 1990 version now that I have gone ahead and watched one of them. If Guy Ritchies' awful interpretation of Holmes' and, worse, Watson's character are any indication, I'll probably avoid any film from him 'reinterpreting' old stories. He should have the wherewithal to make up his own characters if he wants to reinterpret history - even fictional history.

I was watching the 1950 version of this movie looking for eye patches and... none to be found! So I'm guessing that puts the pirate-eyepatch link past the middle of the last century. It was quite an enjoyable movie however. It's my first exposure to the actual story. (Yep. I avoided it this long. And I still haven't read the book.) I now see where an most of the modern lingo that masquerades as "pirate speak" came from. (You know, it should actually be called "Talk Like An Exaggerrated Version of Robert Newton Day." Ar-men.)

It may have happened but the original question was if there was any period proof of it. So far, there isn't. I think it came from artwork of Pyle and Wyeth since that's the first place we really seem to find it. The movies picked it up and since there were dozens of them that repeated it, it became iconic in that way. However, as for it being something GAoP pirates commonly did (which is how the movies represent it), that at best an unprovable possibility (and unlikely given the commonness of sheaths and the inherent foolishness of climbing ropes or fighting in that way.) It is certainly not a provably typical feature of a pirate attack during that time period. So it's representation as a common pirate tactic appears to be a Hollywood myth drawn from late 19th and early 20th century artwork.

I was watching this, mainly looking for pirates with eyepatches and I noticed that it had several of the cherished pirate movie conventions; bucket boots, parrots on shoulders, fancy frock coats, the Pyle image 'Marooned', a peg legged pirate, waist-scarves and large buckle belts, buried treasure, a compass, a pirate with no arm (but no hook on it either), a ship's wheel, earrings, a barrel-topped chest, setting fire to the powder magazine and walking the plank. But no eye patches. From this I suspect that eye patches were a later addition to the pirate myths. (Also no hooks and no pirates climbing with knives in their teeth.)

Patrick, your hat has been on more heads than you would probably believe. It all started because people wanted to see what they looked like with it on.

“Capt. Thomas Cromwell of Boston, master of the ship ‘Separation,’ obtained a commission in 1645 from the Earl of Warwick, the Lord Admiral of the Long Parliament, and after capturing several rich prizes in the West Indies, came into Massachusetts Bay and was forced by a strong northwest wind to take refuge in Plymouth Harbor where he remained for two weeks. There were about eighty men in his crew and they ‘did so distemper themselves with drink as they became like madd-men; … they spente and scattered a great deale of money among the people, and yet more sine than money.’ [bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation, p. 441]” (Dow and Edmonds, The Pirates of the New England Coast 1630-1730, p. 23)

Actually, NC Wyeth seems even more responsible for this "iconic" image than Pyle. (He and Pyle are the two artists who appear to be the most responsible for creating the body of wrong-headed "iconography" associated with the pirates of the Caribbean. And each of them appear to have been inspired by Treasure Island, the ultimate source for most such incorrect imagery.) Pirates Attack the Stockade, N.C. Wyeth, 1911, From Treasure Island

I always thought he was older than that. I'd say Happy Birthday to him, but he won't ever read this.

I don't see how such a weapon would be a problem - in fact it seems perfect for such a use. The original complaint here wasn't that people were pointing guns at tourist, it's that they were pointing firing guns at tourists. One mistake and... Although I think a sharpened blade would be even more dangerous than a blackpowder gun. It's much more susceptible to an accident. Neither is a good idea, but all someone has to do is shove you accidentally from behind while holding a blade to someone and you have a tragedy. I am very guarded about my sharpened surgical items, especially because so many little kids seem to have to *touch*.