hurricane

Harry and the BIBs do a superb job of ensuring everything is done safely there and I haven't seen a problem in the 7 years I've been there. There are people assigned to keeping the crowd behind the line, plus all of us are charged with stopping the entire firing of all weapons if there is a breech in safety. We all take safety very seriously at PiP. No one is talking and demo'ing at the same time. The cannons are fired, then the call to move small arms to the line is made and they move up in a section separate from the cannon. All of us follow exacting procedures that the fort has set up that they use at all of their events. -- Hurricane

I didn't mean to set off a firestorm with the 10' remark. And I wasn't referring to cannon, but small arms. -- Hurricane

I think Jim's saying that if we want to use something else that's more period, we should bring it up and the safety meeting and all use it. This is particularly important at a place like PiP, where the audience is very close to the rounds being fired. Someone has to explain to them what the terms mean before firing commences, otherwise, they won't protect their ears when necessary or be alert that there is about to be gunfire. The general audiences do understand "Fire in the hole" because it is common parlance - that doesn't mean they can't learn another call, but it has to be explained to them first. And this all begins at the safety meeting. Perhaps elsewhere where the audience isn't 10 feet away from the firing it's not as important. But at PiP it's close quarters and the cannon can be deafening if you're not ready for them, as can the small arms which are the closest to the audience on the ramparts. -- Hurricane

Easy enough. Jamie Boy - a far superior swordsman Morgan - a real life success story Leech - rotten to the core on all accounts, Turner would be no match at all - would have been harder choice between Barbossa and Leech - I'd then have to go with Barbossa on that one hands down. Tommy Blue - by a mile - a true pirate's pirate ("I'm a better man drunk than sober, for any kind of work.") -- Hurricane

I'll be typical period guy - breeches, tucked shirt, tricorn, belt and buckled shoes. Perhaps a frock it it be cold that day. Nothing fancy, though. If Diosa's bodiced gown is done, she'll be wearing that. Otherwise, she has mantua-style rig she'll be wearing. -- Hurricane

Have no fear, you won't see me in here in the future. I'd much rather hang around with the chicks. No offense, but too much testosterone in one place creeps me out. -- Hurricane

We'll be there in garb. Willie Wobble demanded we be. -- Hurricane

Geez, Animal. Why didn't you tell me? I didn't know you were single. Does Susi know about this? -- Hurricane

By far the best representation on celluloid or otherwise I've ever seen of Morgan. Spot on from all the research I've done on him and my own role model for my presentation of Sir Henry. Nice someone else noticed his fine performance. -- Hurricane

Diosa and I will be there on Saturday and in a shopping mood. So we'll hopefully see you Saturday attendees on, well, Saturday. Sorry we'll be missing you Capt. Jim. Diosa was just looking fondly at the photos of you two entangled together the other day. :) -- Hurricane

All studies of humans are flawed. I learned this in sociology oh, so many years ago (it was my minor). All studies can be poked apart by the fact that you're dealing with humans who are by their nature, moldable. It's silly to think there's ever been a perfect study. In fact, all of sociology (Social Deviance was my favorite class -- my final term paper was on brothels as deviant behavior) is the study of studies that have been proven false or flawed by another sociologist. Psych can't be much different. After all, a convicted criminal isn't going to be honest about his feelings about killing. His values and ethics are already skewed by whatever initial crime he did that went against society (learned that in Criminal Sociology ). The only thing Milgram's study really shows is that people are generally sheep. Individuals have a herd mentality and will follow whatever shepherd guides them. A lot people respond to authority. It's why I never joined the military. I would have been imprisoned as soon as they ordered me to "drop and give me 20." Not a good rule follower. -- Hurricane

I wrote about that very study for a client's book... here's the overview of the study. There’s an interesting piece of research that was conducted by Stanley Milgram. Back in the 1960s, he did some groundbreaking research surrounding authority figures. It’s a bit technical, but if you follow along, I think you’ll get something out of it. In fact, it was so powerful that the techniques he used have been banned from being taught in most circles. Milgram wanted to understand whether authority figures mattered when something needed to be done. His methods were a bit unorthodox, but telling. Here’s how the experiment worked. He began by telling prospective research subjects that he was conducting an experiment that looked at whether punishing someone for doing something incorrectly would actually improve their performance. It involved three people: a researcher, a test taker and a “punisher”. As the test taker answered each question, the researcher would tell them if it was wrong or right. If it was wrong, the punisher was told to penalize them, the belief being that the negative stimulus would encourage the test taker to do better on the next question. The reason the study was unethical was because that wasn’t the true purpose of the experiment. The actual experiment worked this way. Each time the researcher told the test taker they had answered wrong, the punisher did indeed administer a penalty. He or she would give the test taker a shock. It wasn’t a real shock, but the punisher didn’t know this. Each time the “shock” was administered, the test taker would react to it and yell out in pain. The experiment was meant to see how far the person giving the shock would go, given the fact that he was being asked to do the shocking by a doctor in a lab coat. Would the subject of the study continue to shock someone else, simply because an authority figure told them to? Each time the shock was administered, the level was increased. As the test went on, the test taker increased his response in concert with the apparent shock. Finally, the punisher could hear the test taker scream in the other room. Still he or she continued to administer shocks. Finally, the dial was turned up full to where a sign warned of impending danger. Finally, around the 10th or 12th question, the test taker clutched his heart and the punisher heard a slam as the person supposedly slumped over in their chair. The researcher would continue to tell the punisher to administer more shocks, even as the person supposedly lay unconscious in the next room. The truly shocking part of the study was that 80% of the people in the study continued to shock the person all the way to the point where the person supposedly had a heart problem, all because a person who looked like an authority figure told them to. Obviously, this kind of study created a lot of stress, even when the subject of the study was told what had actually happened afterwards. While this type of study is no longer done, they did end up doing 20 variations of the experiment to validate the results. In the role of the punisher, they put young people, old people, every ethnic group you could think of, educated people, uneducated people, wealth people and the poor. The results were consistent across the board. 80% of the people tested would shock the test taker to the max. These subjects would obey the person of authority and literally cause (at least in their minds) someone to lose consciousness after complaining of a heart problem. The next question that came to mind was what kind of situation would cause a person to listen to an authority and comply so readily. They changed several aspects of the study. They altered the timing and the environment. They changed several parameters of the test. Only one variable changed the 80% compliance rate. When they removed the white lab coat and stopped addressing the researcher as doctor, the rate dropped dramatically to just 20%. Amazing, isn’t it? By removing a coat and changing a reference, the compliance rate dropped by 60 full points just because of the absence of an authority figure. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Milgram’s study showed that authority figures are extremely influential. An authority has a lot of power; power which can be used for good or for bad. And with this great power comes tremendous responsibility. I want to point out the fact that whether Milgram’s researcher was a doctor or not didn’t matter. While people involved in the study addressed him as such, no one in the study ever questioned his credentials. He had the trappings of authority, a lab coat and the title doctor and that was enough for the subject in the role of the punisher. The lesson to learn here is that it’s not the actual authority that counts; it’s the appearance of being an authority. Without going further into the historical uses and abuses of authority or the ethics of Milgram’s work, it’s safe to say from the study that by being an authority figure, your chances of being heard, listened to and acted upon is three times greater than if you say the exact same thing without being a perceived authority.

I came across a book Diosa has from 1942 on costuming. Geez, it's got some good stuff. Anyway, here's the illustration on petticoat breeches. I know, I'm a slave to fashion as I think I will be making a pair of these. It would not be unusual at all for my Henry Morgan impression, since the styles of Europe wouldn't have been too far behind, given the arrival of ships weekly from England. He'd dig a pair of these after sacking Portobello. -- Hurricane

I just called our number for them and got through fine. Their office hours are now 8 to 5:30 ET. Their site was just updated so there's some confusion going on as they debug and update. The number we have is: 800.241.3664 -- Hurricane

No, I didn't. He's working on his new book and we were talking about other stuff. Next time I talk to him I'll mention it. Buena idea! -- Hurricane

Here's the link to the trailer... http://www.reclaimingtheblade.com/RTBtrailer.html The website is: http://www.reclaimingtheblade.com -- Hurricane

That is a really good point, Raphael, sir. I would agree with that 98% (the other 2% of me wants to pretend he doesn't believe you.) - Hurricane

Most of the combat veterans I know fall into the first category. I think it's human nature to. It doesn't mean that you primitive instincts wouldn't kick in no matter what. I have never even hit a person, but if it was me or him, I wouldn't hesitate to kill. Pirates weren't much different. Him or me. Live or die. Eat or be eaten. What's missing in the analysis is the life and times they lived in. Violence was a natural part of their existence. Even in England, which could be argued was fairly civilized, it wasn't uncommon to find a dead baby in the refuse piles or in the gutter. Times were tough. Death was normal, either from natural causes or violence against one another in a dog-eat-dog world. Life was short then too. It was more of a matter of choosing how you were going to die if you could. Better to live as a pirate and takes what comes with it in order to make a better than meager living than to live life as a beggar on the streets of London. And the legends don't necessarily bear out the realities of the famous pirates we hear about. For example, there still is no documentation (and I only got this from the guy who found the QA Revenge) that Blackbeard ever killed anyone, outside of someone in his own crew, perhaps. Yet, we see him as a violent man who was a murderer. We place far more value on life these days than they did back then, I think. Just witness the memorials we raise on the sides of roads to people killed by drunk drivers, the flowers and stuffed animals we leave for murdered children in their yards, and the cars driving around with an "Im Memory of.... so and so". We can't seem to fathom death and its inevitable consequences these days. That's just my thoughts... -- Hurricane

Ahoy all! Re-reading the Buccaneer's Realm again, it suddenly dawned on me that Benerson Little was born in Key West. So, I wrote him yesterday. We had a delightful little chat and I told him that we basically use his Buccaneer's Realm and Sea Rover's Practice as bibles to guide our re-enactment efforts. Well, long story short -- Benerson has tentatively agreed to come down for the Fort Fest. Turns out he always wanted to go back to Key West. He's agreed to do a presentation if we'd like and I invited him out to the encampment to look over all our stuff, drink some of the rum punch I make based on his recipe and share his knowledge with us. If you haven't read his books, yet, I think you'll find them terrific resources and very well documented research-wise. More to come as we get nearer. But he was very honored to be invited. Perhaps we can get him to make us up a batch of fire pots like he did on the History Channel. -- Hurricane

I wish you would have mentioned that sir. We had three pounds sitting there for the crewe's use and, as Master at Arms, you always have a share. When you get your new guns, I have 8 pounds at the house -- just get a can. I think they were $13 each if I recall. -- Hurricane Next time speak up. I almost always carry extra powder for those who fly. I had six pounds of 3F and two of 4F primer for anyone who needed. Sharing out with three other pyrates I barely went through three-quarters of a pound. And I shoot fast and went to almost all of the sunset shoots as well.

Even a dinky hand cam can do fine these days. The only level up from them is a three-chip, which is broadcast quality. And unless you're putting your stuff on network, that's a bit of a waste of funds. As for editing... Adobe Premiere and Final Cut Pro are the pro-level options. Roughly half of all the stuff on cable these days is edited on Final Cut. But you need a Mac to use it. And if you have a Mac, Final Cut Express has almost all the same bells and whistles for a lot less money and it doves perfectly with iMovie and iDVD which come stock on a Mac these days. Good luck on your endeavor! -- Hurricane

The stuff isn't totally scarce. In Benerson Little's book, he covers the look of the logwood cutter boucaniers, the filibusters and the Port Royal buccaneers quite adequately. All of it is referenced to original works, including Dampier and the two priests who wrote books about their time with the buccaneers. For example, the buccaneers of Port Royal would first go to the taverns, then to the tailors for expensive, flamboyant clothing and then to the house of prostitution (this is taken from Exquemelin). Then they left town in this attire, only to return with it in tatters once again from their latest exploits. The fillibusters were men of the sea, so they wore a "shirt and wide sailor's breeches, and among the French and Spanish, at least, an often brightly colored sash. On their heads filibusters wore brimmed hats of felt, straw or palm fibers or perhaps a Monmouth hat or a similar French knit hat, much like a stocking cap. Some filibusters stowed a short pipe in their hatbands. Their hair was usually tied back, plaited or tarred." When they went ashore they often went with "new clothes from a prize or the profits from a cruise may have went ashore in a gentleman's laced coat, feathered hat, and shoes and stockings, or shoes but no stockings or stockings but no shoes." The Tortuga boucaniers "were functional, distinctive and reeked of the abatoir (slaughterhouse). The men wore simple shirts of linen or canvas that came halfway down the thigh, simple breeches and a casaque over all of which was a belt of cowhide or alligator skin. Attached to the belt were a cartouche box holding thirty paper cartridges and ball, a sheath holding three or four Flemish knives used for skinning and butchering, and a bayonet or machete, or perhaps a cutlass. Also tied around the waist was a length of light cloth used as a mosquito net when sleeping; when awake, boucaniers rubbed their faces with pork lard to keep insects away. On their heads boucaniers wore the crown of a hat, the brim having been but off except to a point in front to shield the eyes... (Patrick did one of these.) Again, this is all cross referenced in the book to period works and authors. I highly encourage anyone wanting to do this period to read or re-read his book. Not perfect... but it is better than many other sources out there on the period. -- Hurricane

---

Petticoat breeches are very much in order, I know that. -- Hurricane

I was looking at some of our historical clothing resources. The illustrations of period wear show that the gentlemen's shirts were indeed long, but were tucked in. The fashion of the time (and I'm talking the buccaneer period, not GAoF) was to wear the shirt tucked, but heavily bloused so it hung over and down the waist of the breeches. Every instance I could find showed it that way for the period. As I noted, everything was flounced then... the petticoat breeches were huge... the gentry ornamented them with looped ribbons along the bottom. Also, jack boots (think musketeers) were in style during the age of Searle's, for those researching that era. Buccaneers often imitated the wealthy by painting the heels of their shoes red, as was the fashion. This is the period when the bow tie on the shoes gave way to the buckle. There's lots more. Even though the common buccaneer would have dressed down and not in as resplendent attire, they would have followed the basic conventions of the time. And many buccaneers wanted to emulate those in town since they were as wealthy as the wealthiest merchants after a venture with Morgan or Myngs... it's still unknown whether this was a true desire or an effort to lampoon society. -- Hurricane See... that's the tricky part..... Period shirts are longer than modern shirts, so you (well males or women wearing men's clothing) end up with more shirt tail bunched up.... Once you get everything tucked in, it isn't uncomfortable, but that's with the shirt outside the drawers but tucked under slops.... Not wanting to get into a discussion on period toilet habits, but with the shirt tucked into the drawers, you have two garments getting "soiled" instead of only one..... (ick...) The real "tricky part" is that I don't think I'll find much "documentation" on how Buccaneers wore their underwear......(just that they had it...)