Swashbuckler 1700

I have also read that often people invested to privateers that they would know to become pirates just after they had left the port…

Do you have any period evidence of this? (Not suppositions from a post-period author trying to make a case for his pet belief. There's a lot of that out there.)

well I have not studied much records (since I have no good access to those) but some (good but not flawless) book said so... I am certain of that that happened but I try to find some evidence...

perhaps bit of of topic but when we wonder illustrations here:.... but always when I look that petticoat breeches picture (latter one) I see those fur hats as wigs .... actually if hat is so furry where is the line between wig and hat ..

In the GAoP itself I doubt anyone made the distinction. They were not so concerned with giving things specific labels as we are now, and to be honest I can't recall any reference to "petticoat breeches" in a period source at all.

Good point. I see that a lot in the medical journals. They often call the same surgical tool by several different names...sometimes in the same text. For example, I've seen the amputation knife called that, the capital knife, the crooked knife or blade and the curved knife among other things.

There is always many names for everything....always..... often things get names afterwards like these petticoat-breeches or even pirates like Black Bart (which was nickname for B. Robets but was not used in his life time)... same with golden age of pyracy which is around 20th century invention....

[well in cannons needed fuses still...

Not to take things sideway, but cannon in the period did not use fuses. They were fired by what is called hotshotting- putting fine grained powder firectly into the vent.

On the original topic, the last matchlocks were not withdrawn from service in the British Army until 1711. That said, the matchlock is very much a military weapon, and civilians took to the firelock (flinlock, doglock, English lock, miquelet) long before the military. As early as the Mass Bay colony in the 1620's-1630's, colonists were recommended to acquire a firelock if at all possible,

Hawkyns

Thanks... Well bit of topic... but was it stick with match that was used to ignite powder in the cannon vent.

see there is match on the stick here

Below linstocks had fuse to ignite powder (see the pic above it is period pic and it has similar stick)

There were certainly a great many similarities between pirates and privateers. Both were involved primarily in maritime plunder, and used force or the threat of force to overwhelm merchant vessels for economic gain. Operationally there were common trends between them: both tended to carry large crews compared to merchant ships of similar size; both preferred to use intimidation rather than actual violence to subdue their prey; both were regulated by articles of agreement. For the average merchant captain at sea the difference between being captured by an enemy privateer and being captured by pirates would have been negligible.

It is also true that pirates and privateers were often the same people at different times.Sometimes this was a result of changing circumstances - for example, at the end of the War of the Spanish Succession it was former privateers from English colonies that formed the nucleus of the golden age pirates: men like Blackbeard, Hornigold, Jennings, Ashworth and others slipping from one form of employment to the other. At other times it was caused by privateers exceeding the terms of their commission. Thomas Tew, William Kidd, John Quelch and others all started out as privateers but crossed the line into piracy when they attacked shipping not covered by their commissions. Occasionally, as in the case of Morgan, they inadvertently became pirates when their commissions were revoked without their knowledge. For what it's worth, Drake was never a privateer.

However, there were also many differences between pirates and privateers, operationally, legally, and economically. For example, although both were regulated by articles, the privateers' articles were drawn up by, or with the consent of, the owners and investors in the cruise, while pirate articles were drawn up by the crew themselves. Privateer officers were appointed by the owners and could only be deposed by the crew if the crew was willing to turn pirate, unlike pirate crews in which officers could be replaced at will. (I think that the case for pirates voting their officers in and out of office has been greatly overstated, but that's another story). Crucially, privateers had access to friendly and neutral ports in which to refit and resupply, which pirates did not. As has already been pointed out, privateers were limited in their choice of targets, and while some pirates like Hornigold chose not to attack English shipping, this was unusual and was also their own choice, not a limitation imposed by others.

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made that there were as many differences between pirates and privateers as there were similarities. I'm not sure I'd say they were 'virtually the same'.

what you believe about this: I believe that even some pirates had their investors… let’s say some Carolinian merchant invested some money to pirates that they Gould get to the trip, and make a pact that he would get some loot cheaper… What I mean that: at least both privateering and pirating were both organized business with all those articles and so on…

I have also read that often people invested to privateers that they would know to become pirates just after they had left the port…

I am not saying that there were no difference between pirates and privateers since they were lots of those differences...

These days it is a generally accepted reenactorism that petticoat breeches are more full than slops, but at what point wide slops become narrow petticoat breeches is hard to define.

In the GAoP itself I doubt anyone made the distinction. They were not so concerned with giving things specific labels as we are now, and to be honest I can't recall any reference to "petticoat breeches" in a period source at all. The most common description is 'wide kneed breeches' which is ambiguous enough that it could mean either

Ok interesting....

Mission - there is quote somewhere referencing Spanish sailors who knew for a fact that they were attacked by Englishmen because "they were wearing trousers"

I have a pair in my kit - you would have seen them at PIP in 2009.

Since this topic has gone to trousers I think some more pants question would not hurt much ...

What is difference between petticoat-breeches and slop-breeches is there any ?

(above sailor in 1690s.)

Is there any difference?

Ah, well that's an easier question to answer. Any label like "navy seaman" or "merchant seaman" was only temporary. Men moved from one branch of sea-service to another on a regular basis, so really it's best just to think of them as "seamen". Admiralty slop clothing was only sold to sailors in the Navy, but it wasn't compulsory for them to buy it, so in the navy men would be dressed in a mix of Admiralty slop clothing and civilian seaman's clothing. When a man left the navy he might end up on a merchantman or privateer, but any clothing that he had bought while in the RN was his to keep, so the crews of merchant ships would be dressed in a mix of civilian seamen's clothing with elements of Admiralty slop clothing.

well I actually knew that but really good that you explained it clearly since I was bit unsure....

Not naval slops, those were just for the navy.

Presumably, and without any evidence to hand, they were usually typical seamen's clothes, perhaps similar to RN slops or the contents of Haycock's shop. But you could probably have figured that out without my help.

You mean stuff like: jackets, breeches, hats, monmouth caps. other caps etc.

I could have figured that myself... but thanks I just wanted to know were there difference between navy and merchant sailors clothing...

Woodes Rogers' voyage was 1708-1711, and Cooke's account was published in, I think, 1712. There were also four pairs of trousers in Joseph Haycock's slop shop at his death in 1699.

It seems to me that there is no image from earlier time than 1725 even that trousers had been around some time… too bad that there is so few pictures from gaop ( but fortunately there is plenty of documents ) ….

Here are illustrations from Dutch version of GHoP from 1725… and all know those Bonny and Read pictures ….

That there is trousers in Dutch illustrations of English pirates leads me once again to point that illustrators had some kind of understanding what they were descripting… like in here in this period only Englishmen used long trousers and Dutch illustrator knew that (although he exaggerated popularity of trousers) …

I am NOT saying that there was no artistic liberties/interpretation in illustrations. I am just meaning that with bit of criticism you can use period art as source … but I believe that we are done with that...

Woodes Rogers' voyage was 1708-1711, and Cooke's account was published in, I think, 1712. There were also four pairs of trousers in Joseph Haycock's slop shop at his death in 1699.

So they were so normal in that age (but breeches were more common).. were those canvas trousers or someting else?

... sorry that I ask but could you answer me in "merchant slops" topic because you are one of those clothing experts here...

MB is dead on - One other reason I've heard for sailors moving toward flinters is it is one less source of fire on a wooden ship.

well in cannons needed fuses still...

^{It's from one of the accounts of Woodes Rogers' circumnavigation - Cooke's I think.}

What is the date of that?

when the long trousers started to be common among sailor... to my knowledge one of first evidence of their use was in Bonny's and Reads's court statement when eyewitness Dorothy Thomas said that they “wore Mens Jackets, and long Trouzers, and Handkerchiefs tied about their Heads; and that each of them had a Machet and Pistol in their Hands.”

but is there earlier mentions of trousers?

Still the question: what kind clothing merchant ship's stores would have included? remains....

I dunno. I don't keep notes on that sort of thing. Get hold of those books and see if they say. (They're both very enjoyable reads.)

What books do you mean?

Both Henry Teonge and Edward Barlow mention this practice in their journals from this period. I don't keep notes on such things, however. I suggest you dig up their books and look into it further. There was also the episode of the crews of the Duke and Dutchess trading all their clothes for fruits and such during Woodes Roger's pirvateering voyage. The men weren't mindful of the cold temperatures they would be encountering later in the voyage, so Rogers had the sail-makers fashion clothes for the men out of sailcloth if I remember rightly.

Yeah... but I was wondering: what kind clothing merchant ship's stores would have included?

There were certainly a great many similarities between pirates and privateers. Both were involved primarily in maritime plunder, and used force or the threat of force to overwhelm merchant vessels for economic gain. Operationally there were common trends between them: both tended to carry large crews compared to merchant ships of similar size; both preferred to use intimidation rather than actual violence to subdue their prey; both were regulated by articles of agreement. For the average merchant captain at sea the difference between being captured by an enemy privateer and being captured by pirates would have been negligible.

It is also true that pirates and privateers were often the same people at different times.Sometimes this was a result of changing circumstances - for example, at the end of the War of the Spanish Succession it was former privateers from English colonies that formed the nucleus of the golden age pirates: men like Blackbeard, Hornigold, Jennings, Ashworth and others slipping from one form of employment to the other. At other times it was caused by privateers exceeding the terms of their commission. Thomas Tew, William Kidd, John Quelch and others all started out as privateers but crossed the line into piracy when they attacked shipping not covered by their commissions. Occasionally, as in the case of Morgan, they inadvertently became pirates when their commissions were revoked without their knowledge. For what it's worth, Drake was never a privateer.

However, there were also many differences between pirates and privateers, operationally, legally, and economically. For example, although both were regulated by articles, the privateers' articles were drawn up by, or with the consent of, the owners and investors in the cruise, while pirate articles were drawn up by the crew themselves. Privateer officers were appointed by the owners and could only be deposed by the crew if the crew was willing to turn pirate, unlike pirate crews in which officers could be replaced at will. (I think that the case for pirates voting their officers in and out of office has been greatly overstated, but that's another story). Crucially, privateers had access to friendly and neutral ports in which to refit and resupply, which pirates did not. As has already been pointed out, privateers were limited in their choice of targets, and while some pirates like Hornigold chose not to attack English shipping, this was unusual and was also their own choice, not a limitation imposed by others.

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made that there were as many differences between pirates and privateers as there were similarities. I'm not sure I'd say they were 'virtually the same'.

Good points there...

Drake and Morgan may have taken Spanish vessels during peace without knowing of said peace. News traveled very slowly at this time. In the book on Hamilton I am reading, the editors noted how it took over a year for news to travel from England to India regarding just such an occurance. (I am not saying Drake and Morgan did or didn't know, just noting something that we sometimes forget in this day and age.)

yes yes... but in privateering money was often greater incentive for the fatherland, or religion...(but for example Drake hated the Pope and catolics and was real patriot)

Merchant captains did offer clothing for sale to their sailors. It was another debt to add against them over the course of a voyage. A quote from Peter Earle's Sailors: English Merchant Seamen 1650-1775, pg 91-92:

"Foodstuffs, especially cheese and bacon, were also sold to sailors and debited against their wages by captains and pursers, as were many other things such as bedding, clothes, tobacco and drink...Some sailors were almost completely outfitted from the ship's stores, such as William Cotter of the snow Lawson who in six months bought a quilt, a wig and twenty items of clothing for a total of £7."

Also, you're not too active at all, in fact I enjoy seeing questions asked and information spread. :)

I am just curios.... what kind of clothing? was that were the stuff from slop shops (like that 1699) went? or was there someting to do with navy slops?

Many privateer Like Drake or Morgan were part-time pirates when they operated agains Spaniards even during the peace and so they violated the terms of letters of marque...W. Kidd that is nowdays know as legendary pirate was perhaps only privateer since "the Quedah Merchant" was sailing under Frech passports and it was his only real price (and his Letter of marque was agains pirates or Frech) ... often pirate turned privateers or privateers to pirates.. For example Woodes Roger was about to put John Rackhan as privateer captain agains spaniards and S. Bonnet wanted to get letters of marque from Danish island of St. Thomas .... there is just small gap between privateer or pirate....

This is fun; it's from The Memoirs of Pére Labat 1693-1705, translated and edited by John Eaden. Nice description of the clothing the crew stole, too. This is the same Daniel that was identified by Labat as a pirate previously. He now has a commission or some such that changes his classification from pirate to filibuster (aka. privateer in the English lexicon):

"[Filibuster] Daniel kept the most valuable portions of the cargo [of an shipwrecked English vessel], such as silver, gold fringes, brocades, ribbons, Indian silks, etc., etc., for his own ship, not counting loot that the crew had taken for themselves. The men dressed themselves up in all kinds of fine clothes, and were a comical sight as they strutted about the island [Avis Island, to the leeward of Dominica according to the ms.] in feathered hats, wigs, silk

__

stockings, ribbons, and other garments. They discovered [learned] from the slaves that some cases of valuables and silver had been buried [by the English crew of the wrecked ship], so an inventory of all the cargo that had been found was shown to the supercargo [the person hired by the ship's owner to manage, buy, trade and sell the merchandise on the ship] of the wreck and compared with his bills of lading. The two lists showed that many valuable articles were missing, and our quartermaster told him that if the lost goods were not found at once that filibusters knew the way to make him open his mouth. Fear made him disclose everything." (Labat, p. 239-40)

I know that quote... it is good reference for stolen clothing...

^{Unless someone knows better, that's a Chelsea Pensioner uniform, so the guy is a soldier whose wounds entitled him to a place in the state hospital. Later pictures of Greenwich pensioners (the naval equivalent of a Chelsea Pensioner) tend to show them with wooden legs and hooks too. It's a kind of 18th century artists' convention on how to portray wounded servicemen.}

^{I will respond on privateers and pirates when I've given it some more thought...}

So If wounted soldier would used those (practically in same time period) why not wounted sailor or pirate alike but certainly they were rare... and Foxe has your stance toward wooden legs changed after you wrote this: http://www.piratesin...legends_944.asp ?

One thing to be wary of with Hogarth is that he was a satirist and often exaggerated things. In addition, that man could have been either a seaman or a soldier. (If I have the uniform wrong, someone feel free to correct me. I don't claim to know the clothing styles.)

Although, Swashbuckler, this is about hooks and pirates and that man doesn't strike me as being a pirate!

Having said that... I would love to hear Foxe's take on Privateers vis-a-vis this discussion. As he will no doubt tell you from our decade-long acquaintance, I am strongly opposed to staying on topic in a forum, even when that is part of my job description. :) (Forums are like conversations, not lectures.)

Yes Yes I know but still... My point to that privateer debate is that as privateer captain has law on his side and he can rob only enemy ships but as

virtually it is almost same...

Normally I don't respond to a summons unless it is accompanied by naked dancing round a fire and the sacrifice of a black cockerell or a goat, but...

I haven't so far added to this thread because I have nothing to add. I've never come across a reference to a pirate with a hook, but there are a lot of pirates whose hands don't get mentioned either.

Or did you want me to comment on the question of pirates/privateers? But this thread is about hooks...

Sorry that I forgot the relevant rituals...

I was able to find some thing related hooks of 17th or 18th protestic

Odd coincidence happened when I was reading some illustrated history book...there was mid 18th century W. Hogart's illustration and it had guy with both Hook and wooden leg He was dressed in wig and coat so he was probaply officer or perhaps some navy person.... here it is (with not so good quality)

http://www.history.o...ges/polling.jpg Here with colors http://upload.wikime...Hogarth_031.jpg

Note man's (in the left in pic 1 and pic 2 is mirror image and he is on the right ) hand on the book...

I can't find the image right now, but I wil post it later when I do finally come across it. But there are images of some French voyageurs from the 1690s(?) with them wearing what is called a Tapaboard (sp?) hat (which to me looks exactly like a Montero). With luck, searching under the French name may find you some more additional references.

I do believe that is a reference to the Duplessis watercolors from a French expedition to the Pacific Ocean from 1698-1701. Fox has an image of it on his site: http://pic100.pictur...55/86051167.jpg

Also, there is a hat on the illustration of the Spanish sailor equipment from 1725 that kind of has this look as well, but is only referred to as a bonete: http://www.piratebre...sailornotes.gif

Also, in the Will of John Hutchinson from 1684, it mentions a mounteer cap, which is a variant name on the montero cap according the Oxford English Dictionary. Fo rthe will, see pg 58 of Peter Earle's Sailors: English Merchant Seamen 1650-1775.

So, maybe the 1698 Joseph Haycock slop shop inventory is referring to the mounteer cap. But, there are only 2 of them in that shop with so many others. There is no doubt that these caps were worn in the Atlantic World by at least some sailors, but to say it was common is hard to say.

That there was only 2 caps can mean that they were bought out...still I don't believe that they were very popular in early 1700s...

Oh and one article by Foxe says:

"Montero caps would also have been ideal for inclement weather. They are mentioned in the inventory of Haycock’s shop, but seem to have been steadily declining in popularity so would not have been particularly common during the Golden Age of Piracy."