Mission

Those are neat, and I was excited to find a pictures of the preparation of sea turtles, but while searching for the book they're from I realized that they're actually drawn to represent voyages that occurred in the 1500s. So they're not really GAoP, even if they were drawn during that time. Then again, I don't recall seeing any other images of turtle preparation thus far, so they're better than nothing. The sea turtle image appears (as best I can tell) to be in preparation of a voyage taken by Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas. I think.

That might be. Woodall was in charge of the surgeons for the East India Company so it could very well be the Anglicization of food local to India, the Orient or other East Indies routes.

Thank you! I must say, that sounds pretty elaborate for ship's food. Having spinach on board for more than a few weeks would seem unlikely. (Woodall was writing to young ship's surgeons.)

All right, this one has me stumped. From John Woodall's book the surgions mate, we have this quote, a prescription for what to feed a patient following an operation: "...a comfortable Caudle [caudle is a syrupy gruel containing spices and wine or ale] for the first [day], if you see him weak; and afterwards Broths and Pannadons..." (Woodall, p. 175) Anyone have any idea what 'Pannadons' are? You should be aware that Woodall's book contains some of the most horrific spelling I have yet seen in a GAoP-era book, so the spelling of the actual word could be quite different.

Sure if they're both about the same thing, but you have to point me to the thread you're talking about. There is one case where I don't think this is a good idea. Sometimes a topic about something generic (like glassware or period containers or some such thing) will contain a discussion about a specific item that fits into the broader topic (like 17th century bottles). In such cases, it doesn't make sense to combine them if the specific topic is focused and will stand alone. In this case, if you want to point someone to your post in the generic thread without having to recopy everything, you can link directly to your post. You can do this by: 1. Clicking on the blue number in the upper-right corner of the your post (for example, for this post it appears as #13.) 2. A pop-up window will appear with a link to that post. 3. Copy the post link by pressing the CTRL+INS keys or right-click on your mouse and select 'copy.' 4. Respond to the topic you want to place the link into, typing appropriate text for the link, (such as "Here is a post that will explain all about how to link to post-specific text.") 5. Select the text you want to link and click the link button at the top of the edit window (it looks like a chain.) 6. Press SHIFT+INS or right-click -> 'paste' to paste the post location into the box. Now when people click on that link, your post will appear to the top of the window.

After looking at them and the lack of recent postings, I decided to combine these four threads due to the similarity in topic. The comments below are here for posterity or something. ________________ There were several threads on the topic. The two most actively discussed were: frog lanterns and Things that go *Thud* Arrr! Dammit!" in the Night The second thread seems to contain a little bit more information than the first, but both will be of interest to your question, Silas. After looking into these, I am really considering combining all these with some of the lesser-discussed threads on the topic with a better title like this thread has. It is an interesting question as to whether such a thread belongs here or in Twill. I was charged with moving all the old Twill threads the fit better in this forum and at the time it seemed like a detail to me, so not really a topic for this forum. Lanterns have wider use than just being on the ship, after all. Some of the other threads (which are not nearly as helpful as those other two threads) are: rush candles/lanterns lanterns

To be a human is to be a hypocrite.

I have come across dozens of references to pirates taking things like provisions, ship's gear, food and water out of ships in the General History. In fact, I'd venture to say that according to that source it was the main thing they stole. It may not have been what they were really after, but several of the pirates appear to have either been very poor planners or have had pretty bad luck in maintaining sufficient general stores to keep their ship going along comfortably.

Père Labat gives an account of French pirates attending mass and even bringing a priest on board their ship to perform it. (During the ceremony, the captain shot one of the pirates for blasphemy.) There are some other threads on religion that would be worth looking into if the topic interests you. Religion on Pirate Ships Papist Pyrates Religion During the GAoP Christianity in the Caribbean Puritans

That's been done over and over and over. The pirates as the first socialists (Johnson really started that), the pirates as freedom fighters (of a sort), the pirates as rampant homosexuals, the pirates being opposed to slavery, the pirate connection with the Templar myth, etc. Give people a group of colorful characters and they'll try and use them to justify whatever pet belief they hold. (What you don't often read about is the pirates as dangerous homicidal thieves. )

Holding so rigidly to a belief in spite of contrary evidence doesn't make someone sound like a very reasonable historian to me. I can't tell you how many times I've held with some historical point to find upon re-reading my own notes that I was wrong. (This is partially because I have been entering notes for almost 6 years and have forgotten more than I remember.) Pride goeth before the fall. Those pictures look odd to me. Fashions aside, they look staged - as if someone had magazine clippings of various people's faces with different expressions and poses and used them to create their picture. (I think he used Hugh Jackman as Wolverine as a model for Blackbeard. Seriously, look at him!)

Bertie Wooster uses 'forsooth' a lot in the Jeeves books. Of course, P.G. Wodehouse uses a lot of neat words and phrases that have long since fallen out of the standard lexicon. (Yet another reason I love to read his stuff.)

You guys are going? Just out of curiosity, would this really be a surgeon set-up type event or not? I have the impression that it's more of party-style than living history.

That is almost too cool to be real if they were red I don't know if it's what SB1700 is referring, but I like that color combo. Michael made me an vented sleeve waistcoat in those colors. (Not exactly faced with blue, but all the stitching was done in blue.) You can get an idea of it below. Not to get too far OT, but that's a Chad aka. Commodore Swab hand-made French-style bone saw with a Patrick Hand Original™ planter's hat. (Please note that this pirate surgeon was assembled by professionals and you should not try this at home without proper safety equipment.) BTW, I am all for raising up interesting old topics. No topic is dead unless it gets deleted.

Done and done. I still left the Valentine's Day thread separate. It's a fun thing to bring up in February.

Hey, while rooting around in the archives, I found this: How did Pyrates spend X-Mass I was thinking of combining that post, with this one and the other post I mentioned above: King's Cake, 12 Days of Christmas and Napkins into a topic called "Pirates, Christmas and Other Holidays" We also have this amusing thread, but my tendency is to leave that one as a standalone topic (unless others think differently): Happy Valentine's Day

Great! It just wasn't the same without you last year, Patrick. Now we need to get Captain Jim to put his X on the line.

So do you have to be the one and the other nine the frock coat removers? I only wear my coat when it's cold. I don't think it's a frock coat, though, it's something Michael made that a period surgeon would likely have worn. (I think.) The way Michael explained my character's outfit, I understand he would often only wear the waistcoat over a shirt. (Again, I think.) My blue coat:

Of course! Nah, I always feel a bit out of place at an event that focuses mostly on fantasy garb. As my journals rather jokingly reference, when I do get noticed while amongst the non-PC I get called things like "colonial boy," "Quaker Oats Man" and "revolutionary war guy." It makes me self-conscious. I can do self-conscious without any added assistance (or knee pants.)

Yeah, but Labat's and John Evan's (the "powder puff") accounts appear to be pirates making fun of people or putting on airs, not dressing normally. It sort of sound like you're using exceptions to try and define a rule. As for the items the pirates stole which the victim advertised for, you can't say what became of them. Were they worn? Were they sold or traded? Were they thrown over the side? We don't know. The most logical conclusion to me would be that they would be sold, which seems to agree with another comment (which I believe is earlier in this thread) about pirates stealing finery to sell and wearing practical clothing shipboard. Snelgrave's coat thing was also discussed at length in this thread (as well as in one of the threads you started) as being improper enough (and thus out-of-the-ordinary) that the men demanded that the pirate captains return them. As for my re-posting of the pirate captain illustratrations, my point was actually in agreement with your own that I quoted, where you said "I personally think that mainly pirates looked like sailors but there could have been and was exceptions..." I was trying to show that it follows that most pirates looked more like sailors than captains, although some new reenactors could find such images and design their apparel around them thinking it was accurate. Which it might be, depending on their portrayal. That's why this is always a timely thread in its way - if everyone follows this example, we end up with an event filled with many captains and few sailors. This is not a very good representation of the period. It kind of reminds me of Kass's comment in a related thread that "...if you're a reenactor, you're not one person -- you're a group of people. If that group consists of ten guys in frock coats and no one in common man's dress, then nine of the ten guys in frock coats have to take them off and change into lower class gear because no ship had all officers and no common seamen." (Although I don't think anyone doing this has to do anything. We are all just playing, after all. It would probably be stated that they should take off their frock coats because it would make a whole lot more sense if they did that.)

You talk like it's a foregone conclusion that a new reenactor would start with basic sailor garb. Having watched many new pirate reenactors appear at events, I can tell you that that's not what many of them start off thinking. Even 'serious' reenactors sometimes start with long jackets with brass buttons and piping, tricorns with feathers, ornate trim and so forth. Why shouldn't they? Even period drawings from the general history show this sort of thing. Like the ones below (many of which have been recently posted on this forum): Bart Roberts (hand colored in gaudy tones) Edward Teach/Blackbeard: Henry Every/Avery Stede Bonnet Jack Rackham I just found it interesting that in this thread the idea of dressing like a common sailor seemed almost a bit novel when it first came up. (Although it had been mentioned on this forum before that, just never debated on this scale from what I can tell.) It was neat insight into how the conversation has developed over time and it raises points we discuss even still.

This is actually the first time I have sat down and read the whole thing. It was a good, spirited discussion. And I thought your moderation was spot on, sir. There when needed, but not so heavy it killed the discussion. But has anyone anything new to say? since there is pretty much same evidence as always and it is all matter how you/ we interpret it. "Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size." -John of Salisbury, 1159

This is actually the first time I have sat down and read the whole thing. It was a good, spirited discussion. And I thought your moderation was spot on, sir. There when needed, but not so heavy it killed the discussion.

Exactly. No, I just think it summarizes the whole debate well without a lot of "In order to play pirate properly you must..." type statements. Plus it emphasizes the seaman aspect which makes logical sense. And it says, if you want to present yourself as being correct, consider these things.

These posts are from the thread "But I stole 'em from a...", starting with this post. I was going to comment on them there, but I think it makes more sense to answer it here. I have never seen proof for any such thing for GAoP thus far. (If I do, I will be sure to post it.) I did find something about a commanders and knights wearing green tints for sun glasses in Malta (and no where else yet); the original quote for that can be found here. Of course, I am reading medical texts and this may well be an individual response. Still, you would think with all the various texts on syphilis/lues venerea that someone would have mentioned this if it were common. Keep in mind that we haven't conclusively proven there were glasses with arms around during period at this point. The only thing suggesting there were any glasses with arms was that bit I pulled from Elisabeth Bennion's book and I can't back it up.