Captain Tightpants

From the pickup-truck-drivin' boy from farm country: Kaylee and MaryAnn. At the same time. Kaylee can fix the truck if/when it quits, MaryAnn can make me some sweet potato pie and darn my socks. Then MaryAnn and I wipe the grease off of Kaylee's nose and get funky.

The heavy brow ridges and guttural cussing kinda give it away, too... Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam! p'At - tlhIngan maH!

Lady Barbarossa, While I think you're right in many ways, having different venues for the same sort of show makes a certain amount of sense. We made the drive from as far east in PA as you can go without falling into the river, halfway across the continent. That journey was not fun, even though the destination was. The Con comparison has some merit, but I think we're talking about apples and oranges - i.e., events with different focuses. The Cons are not primarily vendor-based (to the best of my knowledge), and RF is - while there's some stuff to do during show hours at RF, lectures to attend and the like, it's overwhelmingly a place to go buy stuff - the vendors are the Big Draw. Thus, it's a question of the Mahomet coming to the mountain instead of vice versa. Vendors have stuff to sell , and reenactors - with a few notable exceptions - have a distressing tendency to not travel long distances for events like these. It makes sense, as a vendor, to take your product where buyers can be found. An important thing to remember is that there are exponentially more reenactors within a few hours drive of Gettysburg than Chicago. The "reenactor population density" is far higher. That means more people at the event looking to buy things, which translates into more people paying their entry fees and making money for the organizer. Also, people tend to make pilgrimages to things like Dragon*Con, spending so much on travel and hotel expenses that the only things they can afford to do are sit in on the games, and they'll only go periodically, like every three or four years. This archetype is far more prevalent than the folks who go every year with money to spend, and this archetype is, I'm sure you'll admit, not conducive to vendors making enough money to justify the trip. And without the vendors there's no RF. So it's economics, not a lack of focus, which drives multiple RF sites in the course of a year. As for the dates, they're driven by a variety of factors. First, NOV thru FEB is the off-season for reenactors, which means fewer event impacts. Second, RF is not Mike's full-time job, and it takes a lot of work to pull it together; a three-month break is needed. Third, not only is the "window" between the reenacting campaign season and the Holidays is rather narrow, the hotel availability can restrict options. And I'd by far enjoy meeting friends from near and far at an indoor festival in Gettysburg than drive for three days to a malarial swamp where I'd be nothing more than a rat in a cage surrounded by snotty kids dripping ice-cream on my stuff and telling me I'm not a real pirate because I don't have a parrot or an eyepatch or say, "Yarr." YMMV. P.S. I should point out that, so far as I know, there will still be RFIII in Chi-town in February. The RF referred to here as "RFIII" is really rather "RF-1E". :)

Shucks. :) I was just sharing a book I like. Ain't it cool? -Bob

You really can't go wrong with this book. It is my absolute favorite. You can also click here for a facsimile online, though you'll have to page through it. Gode Cookery has already been mentioned, and is a good place to great receipts. While it admittedly has a medieval slant, it has a nice glossary and a bunch of C17 English receipts. Here is a facsimile of Gervase Markham, ca. 1675. Markham's English Huswife was first published in 1615. English cookery didn't progress much in the 17th century; indeed, there wasn't much change until the 19th century (this was predominantly economic in origin, but that's extremely detailed and extremely boring). Try this PDF for some interesting plain facts about food and eating during the period. (PDF) Someone asked about English Muffins. "English muffins" as Americans know them today are most closely connected with the ancient Welsh tradition of cooking small round yeast cakes known as bara (bread) maen (stone) on bakestones. "English muffins" were later cooked on griddles, as opposed to muffin tins. Crumpets, scones & tea cakes are very closely related to English muffins. See English Bread and Yeast Cookery, pp. 341-361 and Food and Drink in Britain From the Stone Age to the 19th Century, C. pp. 229-274. ---Oxford Companion to Food, Alan Davidson [Oxford University Press:Oxford] 1999 Mrs. Glasse's original recipe was not called English muffins. She also includes instructions for proper opening (warning: do not use a knife). ---The Art of Cookery Made Plain & Easy, Hannah Glasse, facismile first edition 1747 [Prospect Books:Devon] 1995 (p. 151) Thomas' brand English muffins were introduced to New York City in the late 19th century: ---Encyclopedia of American Food and Drink, John F. Mariani [Lebhar-Friedman:New York] 1999 (p. 123) So no, English muffins are a bit late for GAoP. But you can have them for F&I and AWI! I like mine toasted and slathered with butter. Call me when they're done.

This is me throwing the Dialectic Flag. One cannot prove a negative; one can only point out a lack of substantiation. In other words, one cannot cite Arnold, J. Thingie Never Written About Clothes. p. -3 to -7. Oh, and in re: Arnold. Which one, dear? There are three books called Patterns of Fashion. The discerning reader of Arnold will note she deals with extant upper-class garments, and her research involves those garments only. So if the Duke of, I dunno, Sporborg adapts the pantaloons of the Count of Hainault in 1580, what the hell does that have to do with simple common sailors in GAoP? Furthermore, in the PoF that does cover GAoP, there isn't a stitch of men's clothing - it's just the women's. Come on. There's a clue hovering just over your event horizon. Grab it.

Ken, Don't be pedantic. We're on a forum about - keep up with me here, 'cos I might be moving rather quickly - pirates. I somehow doubt Rats was talking about post-Pax-Brittanica Britain. The presumption of the site is GAoP. If you want to talk about pirates from any other place/era, you are enjoined to specify that place/era. Rats didn't do that. Read my post. I provided you with the information source(s). Please read them. It's available on the Internet, fer crissakes. All you have to do is click a link. Yes, frame drums existed. Hell, frame drums have probably existed in Ireland since God knows when. But that's not the point. The point - which you insist on missing - is that there is no evidence that the ancient frame drum equals the bodhran, or the frame drum as played in "traditional" Irish music. And yes, it is possible that some people might be better informed than you in certain areas. You don't have to be pissy about it; it happens. [shrug] I don't know how to enbalm someone (yes, I've read your profile; try not to faint), you do. You were trained how to do that, and I respect your expertise. Why do you refuse to respect ours? On second thought, consider that question rhetorical. I'm done with this pissing contest.

Opinions I got, in buckets. You think we get snipy in historical threads here? You ought to read some of the sniping that takes place in the academic musicology journals. If some of that stuff was directed at me, I'd go jump in the Delaware and end it all. I mean, that stuff is vicious! It's written in good academic prose, but when you boil all the verbiage off it, it amounts to, "Dr Snuffy has cottage cheese for brains; he likely cannot discern the tonal difference between a trumpet and a diesel engine." So yeah, musicologists are opinionated SOBs. Ethnomusicologists are even more so, because so much of their field is complete conjecture. Most of the arguments involve logical progression and extrapolation from available information, which - as we Captain Twill readers know - can bite one's arse quite painfully. In re the above argument, however, the evidence presented is along the same lines as the evidential arguments in Captain Twill. We cannot document the bodhran as played in Chieftains-type music further back than the mid-C20, therefore any use by reenactors of period prior is anachronistic. That said, I do love Irish music, and will bleedin' well bring my pennywhistle for a seisun anytime we want to have one.

Learning certainly isn't rocket science! If you can handle chopsticks, you can handle a tipper. Best bet is to seek out lessons from an experienced player in your local area. This, on the other hand, is not a good idea at all. In the first place, Kevin Conneff is one of the best bodhrán drummers on the face of the planet, and plays things that amaze the educated listener. Second, unless you have the proper technique in your head and hands already, just slapping on a CD and picking up the drum is the single best way to build and reinforce bad habits and technique. You need the basics before you can play well; in other words, crawl before you walk. To extend the metaphor, Kevin Conneff is Carl Lewis, where I - a classically trained percussionist who is more than accomplished on a variety of percussion instruments, including bodhrán - am a toddling babe. Again, bad advice. Buy instead some lessons with a variety of teachers until you find one whose style and demeanor fits your personality and goals. If you're going to take playing seriously - and why wouldn't you? - you'll be spending quite a bit of time with this person, and you learn more readily from someone you like and respect. Excuse me? [looks around] I'm saying they're not. The difference is I can back up what I say with evidence. Click here and read. As you'll find, the bodhrán became associated with traditional Irish music in the 1950s, recorded by bands like The Clancy Brothers, Ceoltóirí Chualann and the aforementioned Chieftains. This view is commonly held among professional ethnomusicologists. For that matter, "traditional" Irish music isn't actually accurate to GAoP, as the songs as we know them can be traced only as far back as the Irish Revival of the late 19th century. Moreover, though it is a point of contention amongst ethnomusicologists, it is agreed that the transition from solo performance - i.e., sean nós - to band or group playing can be traced no further back than the 1850s. Neither the bodhrán nor the Irish music we listen to on CD can be documented to GAoP. Wishing it were doesn't make it so.

Long story short, it's as "traditional" as mid-20th-century Irish apologetica can make it. See, the Irish know so little about their ancient folkways. It's disturbing that there must be so much apologetica wrapped up in things like kilts and bodhrans, but there you are. But hey, if you want to play one, knock yourself out! As others have pointed out, it's not that hard. If you want to read more, Google "bodhran history" - it'll give you enough information to thoroughly confuse anyone. Bob P.S. A guy walks into a pub in Belfast with a large rucksack on his back. The barman, with a worried look, asks, "What's that you have there?" The man replies, "Ten kilos of Semtex and some detonators." The barman lets out his breath and says, "Oh, thank Jesus; I thought you had a bodhran."

That's not what you said when you were testing that special Cat o' Nine Tails on me! Have you got any idea how hard it is to say, "Mister" around a ball gag? Sounds like, "Miffah Foawa, yeff Miffah Foawa." I'll never forget that as long as I live.

Interestingly, this link shows what is obviously a blunderbuss (third item) listed as a musketoon. This link purports to show the difference between them. I didn't know there were such niggling differences. Ed, can you shed some more light as to the differences?

Interesting list, Mr Foxe! Thanks for posting it! That a 6th-rate ship of the line carried four musketoons is really rather cool. Talk about "deck-sweepers." It's like having four portable swivel guns. That the snaphaunce was still issued surprises the hell out of me. Practically speaking, the snaphaunce was out of English weapons stores - except, perhaps, the county Trained Bands - by 1642. It was discarded in favor of what we commonly call the dog-lock. (Well, really, the matchlock, but that's a different path down the Orange school of infantry tactics and logistics.) There were a few snaphaunce carbines issued to New Model Army dragoons in 1645, but I cannot imagine them being retained to equip the Royal Navy in 1702. Moreover, it is impossible that there would be enough still in serviceable condition for issue. I think your analysis correct that this is one of those infuriating interchangeable terms. That's the only thing that makes sense. I suppose it could be argued that the other firearms are not referred to by lock type, while the snaphaunce is, but that is not compelling enough to overcome the above arguments (at least, not in my opinion, which, as you know, is meekly held! ).

Caraccioli, Yes. I know it's a cop-out. But I cannot imagine anything more boring than picking one thing and doing it the rest of my life. If you're going to push me into the corner, though, and force a choice, I'd say "being Kass's partner." We're already partners in life; it's a gas helping to build Reconstructing History into the international multicorporate megalith it deserves to be. Sweetie, does that make me Steve Jobs?

As the Bard of Avon wrote in Much Ado About Nothing: I am an ass. No, wait; that's not entirely accurate. I am a dilettante. I've been a soldier. I've been an on-air radio personality (read: "DJ"). I've done live sound for bands. I've been in bands. I've been a music student. I've preened golf courses. I've taught music. I've studied historiography and history. I've paved roads. I've sold calligraphy. Hell, I've chased geese for pens. I'm a master brewer. I've been a brewmaster - yes, they are two different things. I've sold cars. I've run my own BBS - yes, I'm that old. I've sold car parts. I've sold computers. I've built and maintained websites. I've written in Turbo Pascal. Don't say it... I've helped Kass start her business. I've helped Kass run her business. I've cleaned Kass's house, and made her dinner. What does that make me? Kass's wife!

Your Birthdate: December 25 You excel at anything difficult or high tech. I'm with you so far. In other words, you're a total (brilliant) geek. Still with you. Carry on. It's difficult for you to find people worth spending time with. Anyone who reads my snarky posts can figure that out. Which is probably why you'll take over the world with your evil robots! Oi! You were looking over my shoulder at my super-high-speed-holographic laptop! No Evil Sidekick status for you, naughty web-robot! Your strength: Your unfailing logic Fascinating, captain. Your weakness: Loving machines more than people I'm a love machine! Your power color: Tan Now you've lost me. Your power symbol: Pi Apple, cherry, or pumpkin? Your power month: July Er. Now I'm totally lost. What is this supposed to mean, anyway?

Keep in mind the following are my opinions only. First, a good sturdy sharp knife is required. In a pinch, it can be used as a fork. Spoons for the not-ship's-officer are more than probably horn, wood, or unadorned pewter. By 1700, forks were often found with three tines, so worry not. Look for trifid or "Dog Nose" patterns on the handles if you're looking for actual silverware; otherwise, riveted handles of bone or wood will do you fine. Bowls and the like should be wheel-thrown pottery; Delftware and Staffordshire salt-glazed stoneware are most appropriate. For plates, go metal, like brass, tin, or pewter. Wooden (or "treen") ware had been going out of fashion in England since the 1640s. By the end of the century, even the poorest households in rural areas were replacing treen ware with stoneware, brass, and pewter. Good luck, and let us know how your search progresses!

I'm going to have to try it, too. I keep threatening all around me with an experiment in ship's biscuit and salt cod. I agree strongly that the stuff we've seen - in the thread above, and on Bent's website - is far, far too white. According to my cookery books, the white bread we're used to - called manchet - would have only been seen by ordinary people on special occasions, if ever at all. The refined flour required to make manchet was, comparably speaking, considerably more expensive than "bran flour," making white bread the stuff of the wealthy man's table. Therefore I find it impossible that the notoriously parsimonious Royal Navy would contract for biscuits comprised solely of white wheaten flour. Somebody got an original contract/receipt? P.S. - Robert May's The Accomplisht Cook (my copy is a fascimile of the 1685 edition) lists several recipes for manchet, and more for brown bread. All in all, it's a fascinating source for experimenting with C17 English cookery.

I cannot be the only person who saw something completely different when he read "Trifid."

Thanks for pointing that out. I knew you had modified the original, but I must have misread something somewhere, as I could have sworn you said you hadn't played with the proportions. My bust! As for my preference, I'll take the weaker of the two at events. More historical experience before total inebriation = a longer time having fun. At home or down pub, the stronger, of course. Captain Straw's Grog, if you please, shaken not stirred...

ahhh now why did you have to go and say that? You know better than that.... Right? If we follow that logic, than we might as well buy a Simplicity pattern and make no attempt at authenticity at all. That is the same argument that the fantasy crowd uses.... The "your DNA ain't 18th century, so why bother with any authenticity as you can never be "right" anyway". That it is the same agument fails to lessen its truth or its impact. It is a matter of expertise on the part of the beholder and, for lack of a better term, scale on the part of the error. I see beer in a glass that is clear, not cloudy, and I see inauthenticity, but very very few other people see any fault with that. Kass can spot a waistcoat with machine-sewn seams at ten paces, but very very few people have a problem with that, much less the expertise to spot it. I call your stance on this argument "letting the best be the enemy of the good." You won't have a "close to authentic but not quite there" object in your camp, so you make sacrifices like not having a convenient water source in your camp. But you go further than that: That's letting the best be the enemy of the good. No one ever suggested such an action. Yet you clearly see no problem in painting the same person who would use an iron-bound wood cask with the same brush as someone with a painted Igloo cooler! I can understand your desire for perfection; I share it. It's just that our perception of "acceptable" differ. Moreover, I'm not willing to make the sort of sacrifices you are in your quest towards perfection. Even something as simple as walking to a storage or parking area for stuff instead of having it near to hand is a sacrifice I'm unwilling to make if there's an inconspicuous alternative. It's akin to my absence at events which threaten foul weather - this is my hobby. I'm not going to freeze or get drenched or suck up mud on my weekend off; I spent enough time wearing camouflage face-paint getting paid to suck up mud and rain to want to do it, years later, on my unpaid time off. I also have Dr Scholl's foot-comfort products in my machine-made Fugawee straight-last shoes. Makes 'em much more comfy and fairly weather-resistant. If my not-obvious use of modern amenities makes me less of a living historian, I'll bear that cross. I'm not saying, "If they'd've had 'em, they'd've used 'em." Any fool can plainly see that. And that's your choice, just like it's mine to turn a blind eye to things that are pretty damned close, but not quite there, if those items are used in an inconspicuous or invisible way. To clarify that statement: Dr Scoll's insoles = invisible. Why? Because noone can see inside my shoes, less'n I take 'em off (look out, nose!). Iron-bound casks = inconspicuous. Why? Because most professional historians wouldn't notice, much less the public we attempt to edu-tain. I need to get some appropriate bottles myself. I've got some pewterware, but insufficient to hold enough liquid for satisfaction. Speaking of appropriate stuff, can someone point me to some pics of seachests? I know they existed, but I haven't a clue what they looked like. (And I'm having no luck with Google. ) I intend to use some sawn-in-half, tired old barrels for seating/storage, and a coupla seachests would also be ideal.

This is a yummy drink! I don't normally enjoy rum, but I could have a couple of these, that's for sure. That said, I have a bit of a problem. Your proportions are screwy. First you write: Then, in the same paragraph, you quote Vernon's Order 349: Maybe my English measurements are off, but a 2:1 ratio of water:rum would be 1pint:0.5pint. Have you forgotten that there are two pints to the quart? Your recipe should specify a 4:1 ratio of water:rum, if you wish to accurately replicate Vernon's recipe, the proportions of lime juice and sugar notwithstanding. Try it that way and let us know how it turns out. I bet we could drink a LOT more of it and have more fun!

Sorry about the switch in usernames; I had no idea that a few weeks of inactivity would make my old username go away. I'm back now. And no offense is taken at all! Rigourous debate is, after all, at the heart of any good scholarship. So long as we omit referring to each other as "great big poopiehead," I think we'll be all right. You missed the salient point, sir. Modern academics will use the terms "barrel" and "cask" interchangeably, not a 1680s cooper. The same terms for liquid measure have been in use since at least the 1560s, when England was inundated with hopped beer by the Dutch (i.e., firkin, kilderkin, pin). As for the dates on my quotes, they were the first references I could find quickly. I knew they were out-of-date, but, lacking any other handy reference, I extrapolated therefrom. Taking Articles VII and IX in context together trumps your analysis that only water was stored in iron-bound casks. Note the use of the word "aforesaid". You did point that out a few sentences later, but I wanted to rub your face in it. That certain types of voyages specified a certain type of cask is not surprising. The beers stored therein were still actively fermenting at racking (putting the fluid into the cask). As you know, fermenting booze produces prodigious amounts of carbon dioxide, which can put a great deal of pressure on the cask's structure. Since introducing air into the cask will spoil the beer lickety-split, you keep it sealed, which means more and more carbon dioxide is being produced, which means more pressure on the cask the longer you travel - never mind the rocking motion of the vessel keeping the yeast in suspension longer, making it work more, making even more carbon dioxide! (Whew!) Which is, I think, where we're suffering from this disconnect. You come from the nautical side of research, where I come from brewing. Your information, while valid, can be dashed to pieces on the rocky shore of practical brewing knowledge and detailed research into historical brewing. Not to put too fine a point on it, but only an idiot apprentice would put fresh beer in a wood-bound cask. The bleedin' thing would burst the first week out from Southampton, because the wood simply cannot handle the pressure. That's science, me-ladd-o. I think the spare wood for hoops is there to maintain the casks, after the beer has been drained and replaced with pressure-less water. I could dig up a reference from somewhere in my expansive historical brewing library, but I'm at work, so THPPT! Well, yeah. There is no easy and inexpensive source of wood-bound casks. Fact. I can support from many different sources the use of iron-bound casks for storage and dispense of beer, maybe not at sea, but definitely on land (and when we're reenacting, we're almost always on land, not at sea). Also fact. I'm not going to schlep a hogshead to events, because it is not only freakin' huge, it's freakin' expensive. Also fact. I'm not going to schlep the extremely long distance from my camp to my vehicle every time I want to top off my tankard, whether with water or beer. Also fact. If that makes me a farb, so be it. I think it makes me smarter than the average bear. You think it an unnecessary item; I think such an opinion can only be based on opium dreams, given the heat present at most if not all of our events. You have to drink water! Therefore, a place to hold that water within easy reach is necessary, necessary as hell. And since the public will always be ducking into our tents, there's no easy way to hide the Igloo cooler, either. If I knew how to replace the iron hoops on a firkin (most people hereabouts use pins, by the by), I'd do it. I don't know how - best I could do is cover them up. Based on my research, I'd still use an iron-bound cask for barley-pop. That's what I meant by not letting the best be the enemy of the good. I'd rather have a well-stocked larder near at hand. This next bit is going to sting a little. Brace yourself. I mean, seriously. If you want to take your stance to a ludicrous extreme, put away all of your firelocks and weaponry. After all, they use modern metallurgical techniques to make the pieces, right? And the alloys are different. They're not perfect, so keep 'em in the car. But me, I don't know the difference. Plus, neither you nor I would put out the kind of cash necessary to purchasing a "perfect" piece like that. See how stupid that kind of thinking can get? Think about that before you get up on your high horse and talk about "you reenact your way and I'll do mine." If you're going to care enough about one thing, care about everything - and then do it, brook no excuses. Then and only then are you far enough away from your glass house to throw stones. Sorry that got vituperative, but I wanted to be clear. I hold you in high regard, dude, and don't want to see you going down that road. Call it "tough love". And I never once called you a poopiehead.

I'll shift the discussion thereto. See ya there!

Good question! It's one thing to say - as I have - that casks were often bound with wood instead of iron; it's another to leave it at that, and offer no alternative information. It's really simple - English casks were most often bound with hazel withes, woven just like hazel fences or wattle-and-daub medieval building construction. Well, slightly different, but the principle remains. I'm not sure if I was involved in the original discussion(s) or not, but I have a few observations to make. First, it's not exactly true that iron-bound casks weren't found in the period of study. In fact, they were common, especially in larger casks. Roman writers, describing the Germanic peoples, wrote of iron-bound casks. In Roman times, iron-bound casks were uncommon, but they became more common as time went on. Also, hazel bindings are of necessity nailed to the staves. It is my considered opinion that wood-bound casks were used for dry storage, not wet. Second, I sincerely doubt that a ship's carpenter would have the knowledge necessary to maintain and repair cooperage. After all, that's what cooper is for. If a ship's carpenter was involved with cooperage maintenance, iron-bound casks are far simpler to tighten than hazel-bound. In order to tighten the staves, you use a simple tool on the hoops, tapping it down with a mallet to force the hoop more firmly in place, thus tightening the staves. It is plausible that a ship's carpenter could have figured this out on his own. Tightening hazel withes is a much more complicated process, requiring the Mistery and Arte of the Cooper. Anyway, that's my tuppence. Cheers, Bob