Swashbuckler 1700

About lantern, if looking to ship's lantern rather than the type carried by hand, it seems different nation's vessel had different styles. These are lanterns for ship's stern. (Remove this if this picture was already posted somewhere here. I didn't see it.)

That is a must have book. About the classical pirate symbols: I think it is generally said that the standard pirate flag with skull and crossbones became the only recognized pirate flag by the late 18th Century. Yet, it seems that even as late as 1769 a different flag could be considered as the standard jolly roger. An universal dictionary of the marine: or, A copious explanation of the technical terms and phrases employed in the construction, equipment, furniture, machinery, movements, and military operations of a ship 1780 edition (original should be made in 1769). Writer Falconer, William, (1732-1769). One section below "Pirate" The colours usually displayed by pirates are said to be black field, with a death's head, a battle-axe and hour-glas, The last instrument is generally supposed to determine the time allowed for prisoner, whom they take, to consider whether they will join the pirates in their felonious combination, or be put to death, which is often perpetrated in the most cruel manner. A battle axe?

To Continue This should be a 15th Century woodcut from Germany. Not Spanish or Italian but from Columbus' time. It seems that in those days people thought there were many different mermaids and of both sexes. Some were more human than others. Also twin tails were common in pictures This is from 'Naturalis Historia' (1565) This should be a 1560s map Later during the napoleonic/ Nelson era we see engraved pictures where mermaid are human enough to have sexual intercourse with sailors but whose lover legs are like fins. At least a picture by Thomas Rowlandson of the late 18th/ early 19th Century shows that and certainly sailors wished them to be like that if they even encountered them. All in all it is not hard to find pictorial description of mermaids of the era. So they were certainly part of the period literature and imagination. To me it seems, even while now it sounds funny, clear that we should not actually see mermaids as folklore of the age but rather as a scientific concept of the age. To me it seems clear that for the people of early modern era (1400s- early 1800s) mermaids were very real creatures and were rather "studied" by scientists than told tales about by sailors. Even while people didn't actually see them (or I think so) to them they were a mundane part of the sea life that they just didn't see. Thus they didn't think about them awfully much. Out of sight out of mind.

Indeed. And I was mostly just thinking, not arguing with the article. More with myself in my previous statement. And yes pictures will follow. In general it seems there was no consensus what mermaids were like in those days (which is hardy surprising as they were imaginary). I couldn't find the course for this picture, only thing that it is from the 18th century. I presume this is some mid century encyclopedia image of fish. After GAop for sure, but at least here the mermaid, understood as a real creature as they did back then, is more or less a monster. (number 2) Some relevant old engravings 1 2 3 4

On the other hand: But what is also hard is that from the 1600s and 1700s there is so small amount of sources that can help you actually get into ordinary people's mind. I mean even while most captains were rather similar than they crew (depending on the ship etc.) most writing are from the captains' (like Woodes Roger's) or other observers (like Labat's) writings. Ordinary sailors didn't have much to say in the sources. (some did write texts thought.) People didn't really see need to note common folks traditions and beliefs yet in those days and write about them. It changed in the 1800s with nationalism when the ordinary people were seen as important. People just weren't interested in commoners' things until 1800s when large amount of traditions and stories were collected from the ordinary populace. So while we cannot automatically assume so, some if not many traditions or old stories are notably older than 1800s while some were just invented then. Traditions sometimes pass from one generation to another. Yet, this also means they change a little with time (like a rumor changes if it goes from one person to another). So we cannot just say that a tradition of 1800s was the same things as the the tradition in 1700s. But, there may be notable similarities. And some old pictures have more modern like view of mermaids Theodore de Bry, engraving, “Mermaid in St. John’s Harbour,” dated 1628. http://collections.mun.ca/cdm/singleitem/collection/cns_images/id/0 And see the contemporary ship model of Dutch East Indiaman Zeven Provincien (1723). It isn't awfully clear, but I think that at least is a mermaid without legs. http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66379.html

Always great that you write these things I think they may look less glamorous because the picture makers weren't very good at their work. The carvings made for printer were hard to make and in general people are not depicted very well there. Not to mention beauty standards of the era which were different (but not that different). Actually the quote relating Columbus gives impression that some thought mermaids were supposed to be beautiful. "On the previous day, when the Admiral [Columbus] went to the Rio del Oro, he saw three mermaids, which rose well out of the sea; but they are not so beautiful as they are painted, though to some extent they have the form of a human face. the admiral says that he had seen some, at other times, in Guinea [the western African Coast], and on the coast of Manequeta. What to me seems clear is that in the late 1600s and early 1700s mermaids were not the most common thought in mariners' or pirate's minds. It seems you had hard time finding references.

Considering that EIC was an organisation hundreds of years ago it is unusually funny coincident that they weren't actually what one could call "evil". At least in its era's standards. Probably one of the most human trading companies of the age in that time's standards. Royal African company for example trades slaves. The East India Company... spices, silks and the like. I think they really didn't even use "gunboat diplomacy" in the extent it was used later in 1800s in Asia by European nations and US when the term was born. The EIC had armies and warships but they could have used them even more. Sure they conquered regions and probably forced some Indians to work for them in poor conditions, but most organisations or countries did something like that back then. I don't know how much of India's troubles are caused by the colonialism but those problems which were created where probably born mostly during the later actual British Rule, not the Company's.

Indeed. Thanks for the corrections. Yes they spoke blacks and whites as men which would indicate that they were crewmen where "slaves" would rather refered them as cargo. Cargo of slaves wouldn't have been counted in to ship's total strength. Free men would make more sense. The ship seems to be fairly large [again massive pirate ship. 36 guns, even if a little exaggerated, is much and it is called as "ship" not as "brigantine" or "sloop" or the like which would mean three masted vessel.] and it needed men. 130 doesn't sound large for a ship of that size so it would make sense that all of the 130 mentioned men were actual crewmen as that large ship needed that many men. And on the second thought there might have been also some mainly black crews as for example, One exaggerated Jamaican newspaper article of 1725 reported bands of African and African-American pirates marauding the Caribbean and eating the hearts of the white men they captured. At least that has been reported in a few secondary sources (I wonder what the paper originally said. That quote was indirect one and it is from Scourge of the Seas: Buccaneers, Pirates & Privateers by A. Konstam). Of course if we don't count things like the few most wealthier captains's possible servant slaves [you know like this] it doesn't seem now that ships generally had very often slaves on them in the crew (not cargo) but rather free or partially free black men.

Well this may have nothting new but: Well slave ships sailing near Africa must have had some free/ cooperative Africans like translators that knew local languages. They couldn't have have done business with the locals about slave and other trade in other case? Some cooperative Africans in the crew could also keep some contact between the crew and slaves if they knew both's languages. If I haven't mistaken this might have been the role of Black Ceasar (at least something like this was implied by this historian.) But let's someone who knows better confirm this translator idea. And often "blacks" could serve as local temporary pilots even for merchantmen. At least he dubious/ possibly partly or largely fictional but possibly also largely factual account of merchant captain George Roberts mentions that he had "two Blacks on board the sloop [his vessel] both natives and fishermen of that island ; and one of them was my pilot..." (but the other it seems wasn't). Pirate Russell, who was certainly one of the most prejudiced pirates was offended when, after capture of Roberts, he asked for help from the merchant captain and Roberts suggested that the black pilot could guide him. Russel said accordingly the book, "What! do you think I will let a negro pilot me?" I think John Julian of the "Whydah" had similar role as a pilot. To me it seems that in general these two roles, translators and pilots, were the major reasons why there were free Africans and Afro-Americans on board the ships, both merchant and pirate. So not so much them in crews. But again my humble opinion.

Again after a while (and as a late reply: You're welcome, Mission) Dutch whalers near Svalbard, 1690 (in the Arctic ocean.) A Gentleman Taking Leave of His Family Peter Monamy (1681- 1749) I wonder who is the gentleman in question. He seems to be connected to seafaring and may be officer or he might be just a passenger leaving on ship.

For some reason if we forget some things like laughably large fort I think, based on the little i know about Nassau, that in the Assassin's Greed 4 game the port was depicted rather well considering it's overall accuracy or accuracy of any such fictional product. However I always thought it was far too large town in the game and the article reinforced the image. Yet there are some other comments too below: In the game it is a shanty town while probably bigger than the real town was. Also, it somehow reminds me of classical old western shanty towns so I don't really feel the building details themselves are that accurate. Also when I was looking at West Indies nature when thinking about the Pirates's live conditions I found out that the nature and climate of New providence and Bahamas in General is interesting too. And it seems that the game has many things wrong. I remember rain forest like surroundings and swamps in New Providence map of the game and it seems that it wasn't the case exactly in reality. It is rather dry and even harsh place for wildlife. Of course it isn't the same everywhere but the image one gets from the game doesn't seem accurate. Also instead giant Coconut palms we see in Assassin Greed 4 Black flag it seems that the Bahamas had mostly pines and then some own native palm species (like these). (As a funny note the coconut trees are actually not native in eastern side of to the Americas at all. They only entered the Caribbean after Spanish brought them from Africa and Asia starting from 1500s. In 1700s they wouldn't be universally everywhere yet. However nowadays large coconut trees are synonyms for tropical paradise islands.) The game also has giant rocks all around (as it makes it more interesting). I have an impression that the Bahama isles are really flat with only a few rocks. Well I have never been there (oops) or anything but I have seen many photos etc. These are just my humble remarks about the accuracy of one depiction of the town and the islands Pines and palmettos, I think this photo is fro the New Providence island. (found from here ) To me it seems that this is often the Bahamian landscape. Not much rocks or mountains.

This is very interesting Yet there seems to be even more variation during the era. That is if we go also with jacks and pendants. About EIC flags for example I found this. Here shown a few different flags in Two Views of an East Indiaman of the Time of King William III about 1685. We see the pre 1707 flag with plain striped jacks and dress flags along with English flag.

I think the maker never saw the places he depicts, but here are some Dutch pictures of colonial ports of 1600s by Johannes Vingboons Now understanding "pirate town" more generally than actual pirate port. Towns of the period and regions where pirates operated. Port Royal can be compared with these, though Nassau and Tortuga barely. New Amsterdam (New York) Havana in 1639 Paraíba a region in Brazil

This is very interesting to know.

I don't know if this is out of the box thinking or any way clever but: Isn't it uncommon for a criminal to have many alliances? Of course pirates acted rather openly and against modern common sense of some people they left many eyewitnesses for example. So even while modern criminals use false identities it doesn't mean that many pirates (Except Bonnet who Sailed under the moniker "Captain Edwards") with rather different logic used them but it is still indicative right? And isn't John the most common name available in English? I think Henry Morgan was John Morgan and Bartholomew Roberts was originally John Roberts who adopted a new more fancy name after privateer Bartholomew Sharp. However, I don't know if this is actual fact as I don't remember the source. Perhaps name John was used by the writers who knew only the surname and it was very likely that the man was John. You know just fill the gap with what is likely. Same with Johann or Johan or other European variants of the name John. So someone who didn't know La Buse's real name Olivier put him as John (Johann) Instead. Is this even plausible? Also, didn't people in this era started to have two or three first names sometimes? So why one cannot be both John and Richard? I mean at least in the upper classes they started to use more names. At least among blue bloods we have for example the old pretender of the English crown James Francis Edward Stuart.

After a while here are some old pictures. (click to get them larger) The Eendracht and a Dutch Fleet of Men-of-War before the Wind by Ludolph Backhuysen (Ludolf Backhuizen), ca. 1670-75 Now more period/ nearly related stuff than seafaring The Apothecary by Frans Van Mieris(II) 1714 Here William Hogarth's ( 1697- 1764) A Midnight Modern Conversation Shows gentlemen and (priests I think) carousing. (I think those little things on a table with a clock are peels of lemons used for the drink). circa 1732

I have seen the new episodes and while this thread was mostly for the pilot episode this was the most generic thread I could find for Black Sails. I must say that I love the series more and more as it progresses. Season one was great but I really like the season too even more. Because many have not probably seen the episodes yet I don't spoil them. But if you really hate any clues about the new episodes don't read further. Firstly the acting is getting better, it was never bad but it has improved. The show is entertaining and well written. I really like what has been revealed about Captain Flint, including the newest details. They make sense and deepens the character greatly. Historical accuracy varies, but nothing is at least to me completely inaccurate. Also the setting is pretty nicely done and while e.g weapons and costumes are not only accurate there are many accurate details too. For example the way sailors, who are not pirates, are clothed is quite decent if thinking history. The pirates are costumed with perhaps too wild touch though. For naval dress and gentlemen's appearance the makers have mixed later decades of the eighteen century with period correct things. Ships, for the most part, are nice while too large. OK with certain ship (the Spanish man of war) the makers have mixed periods incorporating elements from early 1600s and 1700s for a ship hat is meant to sail in 1700s (Though for their defense I would note that old ship's remained in use surprisingly long periods of time. Also Spanish were clearly a little more old fashioned while not that much) . Also the use of real historical characters is often pretty liberal (the role of Ned Low for example of which I don't reveal more). Major plot-lines are clearly inspired by real history. The political game in the season two's flashbacks reminds that of Woodes Rogers', the Spanish man of war reminds me of the giant Portuguese ship some pirates took in 1720s in the Indian Ocean, and the revelations related to captain Flint reminds a real 1700s scandal. I also like how the makers have linked pirate theme to larger historical events. For example age the enlightenment and political things (in the first season Jacobitism was mentioned and later other political things).

Certainly Rackham was not an average person and I was not interested if he even wore calico, but it was just so fitting with the idea that men in West-India wore only drawers. Also, at least to me, a head scarf is still a head scar even if it would be generally used only under a hat. Yes, we have many pictures of them used by white men (vendors alike) under a hat and many pictures with slaves using them without a hat. I am just meaning that when thinking about the pirate appearance we cannot only say they were always similar than the appearance of seamen who sailed in the English channel for example. That quote about tropical colonial dress opened one view and without any ulterior motive I would think that pirates might have had some similar elements in their wardrobe as colonial commoners and not just European mariners. Head scarfs, under a hat at least, might well have been seen, not because Howard Pyle added them to the typical piratical image but because people used them in general during this period.

Indeed. Without going much deeper into this as I personally don't (anymore) feel that this small things are too interesting. I would note that at least description about John Rackham and his lady pirates fits with the above description. in 1728 Captain Johnson wrote John Rackham, alias Callico Jack, (so called, because his Jackets and drawers were always made of Callico) Why would someone be known for their underwear? Rackham probably used only drawers as the Jamaican men did accordingly to that description. Also we know that Anne Bonny and Mary Read used Handkerchief tied around their Heads with men's clothing, when they dressed practically for action, and as the quote above shows they were not thought to be feminine as men used them. So fits well with that Jamaican dress idea. I would think that head rags would work good to absorb sweat and that was clearly their main use rather than any fashion.

Thanks for that clarification. The book is apparently in Google books too. And here is the rest of the quote that belongs after the description of common dress and before slave dress and education section. Wigs are never used but on Sundays or in Court time; and then Gentlemen appear very gay in silk Coats and Vests trimmed with Silver. The Servants wear a coarse Ostmbrug Frock which buttons at the Neck and Hands long Trowsers of the same a speckled Shirt and no Stockings. Also here is a massive map about Kingston. Though is made circa 1745. The town seems to be pretty large and prosperous. Though, it was of course larger town in 1740s than in 1710/20s. http://www.bigmapblog.com/2012/hays-city-plan-map-of-kingston-jamaica-1745/

I didn't know where to put this so... By an accident I happened to look at a book about history of British West Indies and I found an interesting description about life in Jamaican colony from about 1730s (published originally in 1740) and pretty near if we think about pirate era too. An Interesting description about housing, clothes and social lconditions. I found the description here on the web, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to post it at all The Gentlemens Houses are generally built low, of one Story, consisting of five or six handsome Apartments, beautifully lined and floored with mahogany, which looks exceeding gay; they have agenerally a Piazza to which you ascend by several Steps, and serves for a Screen against the Heat. ... The Negroes have nothing but a Parcel of poor miserable Huts built of Reeds, any of which can scarce contain upwards of two or three. The common Dress here is none of the most becoming, the Heat makes many clothes intolerable, and therefore the Men generally wear only Thread Stockings, Linen Drawers, and Vest, a Handkerchief tied around their Head, and a hat above. ... The negroes go mostly naked, except those who attend Gentlemen. ... The Laidies are as gay as any in Europe, dress as richly, and appear with as good a Grace. ... Learning is here at the lowest Ebb; there is no public School in the whole Island, neither do they seem fond of the Thing. ... The Office of a Teacher is looked upon as contemptible, and no Gentlemen keeps Company with one of that Character; to read, write, and cast up Accounts is all the Education they desire, and even these are but scurvily taught. ... The Gentlemen, whose Fortunes can allow, send their children to Great Britain. ... The Laidies read some, dance a great deal, coquet much, dress for Admirers, and at last, for the most Part, run away with the most insignificant of their humble Servants. Their Education consists entirely in acquiring these little Arts. The quote in the book was longer and mentioned that Gentlemen's wigs were used only on Sundays or at court meetings.

Keelhauling appears often as a mention in fiction pirate tales. And keelhauling (Dutch kielhalen; "to drag along the keel"; German Kielholen; Swedish kölhalning; Danish kølhaling; Norwegian kjølhaling) was a real punishment used during most of the age of sail. Traditionally at least in Northern Europe, Britain, Holland and France it was a used practise from Tudor era up to the 18th Century. Even Navies sometimes practised as a form of punishment. It seems that in Netherlands the practise wasn't formally abolished until 1853, while it had been abandoned earlier. So in the pirate era (let’s say about 1630-1730 in this case. But we can also include Tudor era privateers.) The practise was known if not fashionable during the latter part of it. Yet, I have never encountered mentions of pirates, buccaneer or privateers actually using this form of torture/execution anywhere. I have probably missed something so that is why I raised the question. It is certainly more authentic than walking the plank, but how much we can relate it to pirates and not just to the period. And here a picture too The keelhauling of the ship's surgeon of admiral Jan van Nes, Lieve Pietersz. Verschuier. Made between 1660-1686

Study of an Early 18th C. Warship J.B. Homann, Nuremberg: c. 1730 Johann Baptist Homann (1664-1724) More about this here http://www.georgeglazer.com/prints/sporting/maritime/homannship.html

Well, after reconsidering that: Blackbeard did beat up captives. One he beat with the flat end of his cutlass because the man hadn't surrendered immediately. He perhaps shot Israel Hand's leg, or doesn't Johnson say so at least? Still the point remains. I think that the general idea of pirates constantly torturing victims is partly (certainly not only though) because the buccaneers of the 17th century, masters of torture, are often grouped with 1700s pirates when speaking of pirates. Though, all pirates generations committed notable cruelties, but not every crew or company.

Here a print. Engraving of William Dampier's encounter with the storm off Aceh, by Caspar Luyken. Wiki commons say that the original picture was made in 1690s, but is scanned from an 1815 reproduction