Brit.Privateer

I've seen quite a few recipes for punches and such that involve rum, but I am curious about the rum itself. In the greater selection of rums there are today, which modern gets closest to the kind of rum the common sailor and pirate would have had access to (both at a cheap tavern and on ship)? I understand that this common stuff might choke modern drinkers, but I'm okay with that. I want to get an idea of what these guys had to put up with. Also, if you can, provide evidence for why it's closer to the original.

Ah, you see, that's what I was talking about, it's all about context and circumstances. As for swords in seaman's effects, not sure. I've yet to encounter one, plus I am not sure how it would go over with a merchant captain for the crew to be arming themselves. He did often keep the weapons intended for ship defense locked up, so I don't think he would take to a common crewmember bringing one onboard. As for that History channel clip, they got quite a bit of that right (surprisingly) especially the first half. But, the firearms they had were all models after our time period, with the exception of the pistols that could be from as early as about 1720, but it's hard to say.

Well, a ship boarding combat was not limited to swordplay or those with swords. A boarding action could get real nasty. You used anything you could get your hands on as a weapon. Traditional weapons are used of course, and then you get into boarding axes, boarding pikes, and then tools turned to mayhem. A handspike for instance makes an excellent club. Sometimes it would come down to wrestling your opponnent according to Bennerson Little in Sea Rovers Practice. While not perfect (it is a typical hollywood 'everyone board' situation), the final combat scene in the Master and Commander movie gets pretty close. One point really sticks out to me in there, a Frenchmen is strangling a british sailor with his arm, and yells for a fellow British sailor for help. His friend tosses him a pistol, leaving himself with no weapons, and then gets pistoled by a young Frenchmen hiding somewhere. While over the long term of a boarding a cutlass was the preferred weapon, a firearm (especially a pistol) would be preffered for killing someone, since its just a trigger pull away from doing away with your oppenent. Also, as you say, the pistol becomes a club, and so can the musket. But, as I pointed out before, there are the factors of lack of skill among these guys using swords (uncommon to say the least that these guys would have training with a sword), the availability of swords (like I said in the last email, it's all about the circumstances to say how many swords would be around), and the fact that it's rare that the whole crew would board or need to board. Those typical pirate movie boarding actions where the whole crew swings over are and fights a large enemy crew are very rare. Sending a smaller well armed part of the crew was more common. Trying to send the whole crew could be inconvenient, and sending in part also meant that you could send in more men later if necessary. Like I said before, you're not going to need to send the whole crew when going after seven to a dozen merchant crewmembers. Heck, sometimes even outnumbered pirates can still subdue a merchant crew due to firepower and the element of surprise. Don't forget, pirates didn't like taking too far an unecessary risk, and if battle could be avoided to save time, powder, and potential death or injury in battle - they would. Saying that a lot of pirates or many of the pirates would be armed with swords is too generalizing of a statement. I think a more accurate and inclusive statement would be that pirates would obtain arms whenever and wherever they could so they could be heavily armed and ready for any possible engagement and more easily intimidate their opponents into surrender. This would frequently include swords, but a firearm (in particular the musket) would more likely be a higher priority to have since it had more utility, would be found more frequently, and could kill from a distance.

Well, to start getting at this question, lets gets some context from the period (note, that I am mostly dealy with 1680-1740 here, especially the 1690-1728 part of it) 1677, the English Ordnance Departmant decrees issuing one sword or hanger for every five to six men. Compare that to the number of firearms issued to ships in the English Navy in 1684. First rates (100 guns) received 150 muskets and sixth rates of 24 guns or so received 30 muskets (this all roughly works out to a little above one musket per gun). Mind you, this musket count does not include the muskets issued to marines onboard. Pistols were issued 40 to a first rate and 6 for a sixth rate. These were guidelines generally held to through the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. While what was issued and what was actually onboard a ship could be different, these allowances do give us a point of reference as to amount of guns seen onboard a Navy ship. A sixth rate ship may have only been allowed six pistols according to regulations, but I could see a captain obtaining more than that, especially if the captain comissioned the arms from a gunsmith themselves instead of the ordnance department armoury. (sources for all this is Gilkerson's Boarders Away I and II) But how many more pistols would they have had? If the navy thought that for this sixth rate that 6 pistols were okay, they had to have a reason for it. Maybe it was the fact that since large scale purchasing of military grade flintlock firearms by a central government had only begun in the 17th century (the big beginnings for this appear to be James II reign when he was assembling a new standing army, though there are other small instances of it occuring before that). Adapting and eager use of new military technologies didn't move as fast as it does today. Plus, we must also take into consideration that not every man was going to board, so you don't have to have close combat weapons for every single man (which the sword and pistol were). Also, I've seen it argued that the British preferred a strategy of hitting enemies from a distance rather than boarding, but I want to see that mindset verified for this time period through some kind of documentation before agreeing with that (it kind of goes off on that whole "Spanish Armada" thing). So, to answer the question of how many more pistols, I think a captain could double that number so could have 12. But still, 12 pistols on a small navy vessel. Same could go with swords onboard, maybe a captain would option to have more, closer to the one for every five men. But back to how this applies to pirates. Where did pirates get their weaponry? From the merchants they robbed, from the ship they started on, and sometimes from the merchants that traded with them at places like New Providence, the mouth of the Sierra Leone river off of Africa, and St. Mary's on Madagascar. I can't account for the merchants because...it's illegal activity, they won't have many records in the first place. But, the merchants they were robbing, I don't think they would have many swords. Muskets are going to be common enough, because they can keep an enemy at a distance and can be used for hunting. If you're a French merchant, there was even requirements from the government that you carry a few for the purpose of depositing them in French colonies so they could be properly armed. I'm not sure that they would invest too much in close combat weapons. I could see them investing in a few. So, lets say the crew was about seven to a dozen men onboard ship (a common sight during this era). I wouldn't see it unreasonable to for a captain to invest in between four and eight swords. Now, for the pirates themselves. Now, on quite a few occasions, pirates preffered to board by boats. The key thing here is that not the whole crew would be going on the ship. You only needed enough to combat the merchant crew. It's a concept that goes back to the Navy, not everyone is going to need a close-combat weapon. But also, having a good amount of weaponry was good for intimidating your opponent and good if one of your weapons breaks down in the middle of combat. If I had to give percentages of the pirate crews with swords, since there are so many variables at play here, I would have to give a generic between 33% and 66% (and mind you, I don't even like those number, because, some crows might have less than 33%, such as the Worley story where it was 8 pirates all with muskets only, if that can be relied on). It all depends on how the crew got started, in what state it got started, how long the crew had been together, how successful they had been, how many men would they trust to bear arms (if there are slaves aboard being used only for manual labor for instance), and the personal preferences of the pirates themselves. Basically, the number of swords would be notably higher than merchants, and even navy ships possibly, but I don't think every pirate would have one.

The matchlock is quite a interesting weapon in terms of it's place in firearms history. As MarkG points out, more dangerous than the flintlocks and pretty hard to use for hunting. But even with that consideration, what throws me are the European powers were throwing these to their colonies into the early parts of the 18th century. For instance, in 1705, the Governor of Virginia requested more firearms for their state armory since most of them went up in a fire. And what does the Ordnance department send them? Old matchlocks (which ticks of the colonists since by that point they were pretty used to flintlocks). (Ref: American Military Shoulder Arms, Vol 1) The worst offender was Spain by far. St. Augustine dealt with matchlocks for the longest times in their armory. It took forever for the number of firelocks of some sort to outnumber the matchlocks. In the 1680s, the wives of deceased soldiers in St. Augustine had to be stopped from continuing the tradition of taking the weapons of their passed on husbands and selling them to those on ships coming into port at St. Augustine, all because of how short weapons they were (and operational weapons). Even in 1698 when arms were sent to Pensacola, Florida, they sent 300 matchlocks to 100 flintlocks (and since the garisson of that town was too small for that many weapons at the time, there is the question of what purpose those guns were all for and if they actually got that many). (Ref: Firearms in Colonial America) It's no wonder the illegal trade of firearms from the Dutch and English to the Spanish was strong.

There are two questions you could be asking here. I think I'll go with the one that was intended. The British Royal Navy did have weapons specifically made for use in the Navy. But, in a way, there was a "army surplus" aspect mixed in, at least for muskets anyway. By this time, or at least by the time Blackbeard was killed, the British preferred short muskets for ship use. This trend was being followed more or less by other maritime powers of the time. The French were the big exceptions with a preference for having a notable amount of fusil boucanier guns in their arsenals, though they had many shorter muskets as well (and this eventually overcame the long muskets completely by the middle of the century). While longer guns provided longer range and theoretical accuracy, it made it harder to stay in cover while reloading and is heavier when trying to transport it. Since a lot of musket firing is individual firing against the enemy and not organized volleys like on land, the short musket had an advantage of being able to reload easier because of a short length, and was even easier to reload while staying behind cover. The lighter weight also made it easier for taking up into the tops or taking out into a boat for other duties. Also, the barrels made for the army that had imperfections at the front end of the barrel were recycled by giving them to the navy. Since the army needed more consistent barrel lengths, the barrels went to the navy and were cut town beyond the imperfection. That is not to say that there were barrels that were meant for the navy, or that there weren't infantry musket length barrels in the navy, but the general trend was short muskets with barrels in the lower 30s-inch range. Does that start to answer your question, or want something more specific, or in a different direction?

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.picturetrail.com/VOL762/3253847/6655055/86051167.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.piratebrethren.com/spanishsailornotes.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.

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. :)

Matchlocks were used during the GAOP. It was this time period that the flintlock finally overtook the matchlock, though you would still find them. For instance, in 1707, the British made a large purchase of matchlocks from the Dutch. But, that was due to arms shortages from the War of Spanish Succession. While matchlocks were used in this war, this war was by far the war that put a end to the use of matchlocks in major wars. The Spanish colonials had plenty of matchlocks. St. Augustine's Castillo de San Marcos struggled to keep what few flintlocks they could get, but for the longest time they had more matchlocks than flintlocks (the Spanish colonists were the farthest behind in the 'arms race' so to speak in the New World). During the 1680s and 1690s, the Dutch even sold a transition piece between the Matchlock and flintlock. The gun had both the ability to fire as a flintlock and had a matchlock arm as well, on the same lockplate. Strange thing is, while the Dutch army never had these guns made for themselves, the Dutch did sell them to other countries like the Danish. For sea service, the GAOP would have witnessed its share of matchlocks, but based on surviving evidence and surviving originals, it seems the maritimers had a pretty big preference for flintlocks, even more than land (at least that is what William Gilkerson concluded in Boarders Away II).

Do we know where this drawing came from? If it is attached to a particular book or story, maybe the artist drew this in 1700 but was trying to portray someone from a earlier time period. I've found that situation in several books from the early eighteenth century - the illustration may be from the period I was looking at, but it's not portraying people of the period I want. One very common one I've seen are books depicted the first encounters and conquests of the New World, they seemed to be pretty popular around the GAOP era for some reason. Unfortunately, when you are trying to do sailor clothing research for the GAOP era, that doesn't help you really.

Oh, for buckles, go to Loyalist Arms, if you ask them they will sell you buckles (I want to say it was $15 a pair, but don't quote me). As I see it, they are the best available on the market right now.

Saw this on Cracked.com today. Really Interesting. Enjoy: http://www.cracked.c...-to-movies.html

i'll throw my name in

I just got this on Friday, and I have to say I am very happy with it. I had some kind of cheap version on DVD before with quality equal to youtube before this. Now this DVD actually allows me to see much more detail than before. New things I hadn't notice before came up, like Billy bones having a knuckle guard in place of the trigger guard and that Heston had gone all out and stained his teeth to look more accurate. It was cool to listen to the commentary and find out a little more about the film, such as the costume aims. The director says that they tried to be historically accurate as possible. At the same time, he also says he allowed for the occasional flare in costuming for the sake of adding to a character, like the hats for example. The other thing is that he admits to heavily borrowing from the N.C. Wyeth illustrations of Treasure Island for costume and various shots in the film. Also, he sets the film in the 1740s-1750s, because you can argue that the book was set to that time period. With all those factors combined, Treasure Island costuming still manages to be decent half the time, or at least as decent in historical accuracy as something from Hollywood can be. There is always much room for improvement, but it has made it farther than many of the films before it. In the commentary, the director makes a interesting comment on shooting at sea. This movie uses the HMS Bounty reproduction for their vessel. In talking about that, he mentions how many directors advise that going to sea for shooting is a bad idea. Heston on the other hand says that with enough effort and organizing (and listening to the expert sailors on board) that it can be done well enough. Based on the film, I would have to say he figured out how to do it right. This film also has some of my favorite fight scenes for pirate films. The fight in the Benbow Inn is great because not only do you see a fight where there isn't fancy swordplay (but actual trying to hack the bejesus out of your opponent), but there is a mid-battle misfire of a pistol, which are not seen enough in films. It is amazing how this was a TV-film, for I've seen released in theater movies not as good as this. This is also the best version of Treasure Island that I know of for both entertainment and being close to the novel. But, the 1950 Disney version for me will always be a close second.

FYI the newspaper has been re-posted: http://www.ebay.com/itm/260863772894?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

Where did you find this image, and from what part of the seventeenth century is that from?

For those who are wondering what exactly is in this newspaper, here is a quick summary of the content: -International news, in particular events in Europe -local news in Jamaica -common prices for trade goods in Jamaica -advertisements of all kinds, from runaways to watch sales to renting property and more. If you have any more questions, please feel free to PM me.

This product is only four pages total, one front, two inside, and one back. Most papers produced during this time were only 2 or 4 pages (there were some that had more, but they were produced back in England).

This is a reproduction of the newspaper the Jamaican Weekly Courant, a newspaper available in Jamaica during the Golden Age of Piracy. It was only one of two English newspapers in production in the western hemisphere at the time. It comes from August 5, 1718 It's $10 for this paper, plus shipping. There are 20 of this newspaper available. Get them while supplies last! The link: http://www.ebay.com/itm/260863772894?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

Well, it's good to hear that someone found a place and public that allows for education. What I said about small events being the best for teaching, it's not always the case. It's just a matter of setting up the right circumstances, and sometimes it can be pulled off at a larger event. Course, a large event for me means something where there a thousand or more reenactors involved (something rarely seen in the pirate reenacting community), and I don't know how large the St. Louis pirate festival event is. Sometimes finding that right combination of event and receptive crowd is stumbled upon by accident, I've found that once or twice. The best thing though to improve the odds of getting a receptive audience though is knowing how to talk to people and a crowd. An audience will respond to good public speakers more often than not.

I'm not sure about those corers being fids, but that site is a really good link. He at least makes a few items that I may be interested in.

thanks Captain Bo for that. That will probably work for the grease horn, but now I need a horn that isn't hollow for the fid.

I have been looking and looking, and cannot find a good reliable supplier of horn for a couple of projects. The one project is making a tallow/grease horn for my sailmaking needles The other is making a fid out of horn (check out Des Pawson's monograph on the subject for more info, in particular look at the 1691 illustration within that work). So, does anyone have possible suppliers for this?

They look real interesting. Do you have any front shots or side shots of the shoe? How wide are the latchets? I have been interested in the Reconstructing History shoes myself, but haven't seen any close up pics of them yet. Also, would be interested in seeing where you can get period correct buckles. Seems that its hard to find them these days.

I was wondering, what would you all recommend for a GAOP period correct sharpening stone or whetstone? Does anyone supply such a thing?