Hawkyns

Goinf to handle these one at a time, since it may take a bit to work through. Tents. well, if we are going to be correct, i don't think we should have tents at all, at least not in the sense most of think of them. I can think of no cargo bill of lading that lists tents, other than military trnasports. I would say that the most correct thing we can do is a piece of canvas (old sailcloth) over a line between two trees or over a line betwenn two poles. Pretty much what patrick is doing. That said, it is difficult to do that, especially if you are overburdened with modesty, or have people shairng your tent who are. I am not overburdened and have no problem living under a piece of canvas where everyone can see what I'm doing, whether it be reading, sleeping, or changing. On the other hand, when camping with Gwen or Scarlett, they prefer not to have the world looking at them while engaging in a number of activities. So a tent becomes somewhat of a neccesity, even though anachronistic. I use a number of different styles, depending on the number of people, lenght of stay, and amount of kit that i need to deal with. Wall tents are a period design, dating back to the Romans, so I have 2 in different sizes. I have a wedge tent also that is quite small (5x7) and can accomodate me if the weather ill be particularly foul, or can be used as a supply tent. I also have a 9x14 marquee that I use when putting on the dog or doing the regimental commander bit. Hawkyns

Since there'll be three of us in the tent, I'm planning on using my 8x12 wall tent. Probably bring the 10x10 fly, also 100 percent period in what the public will see, even inside the tents. All modern gear stowed either in chests or left in the truck. All period cooking kit, cast iron and steel. Basically the same rig that I've had juried in at Fort Frederick and Fort Meigs, but with the one size larger tent. Hawkyns

Ed, can you suggest some research material for 18th century brothels? I've got a lot about 16th c, but little or none for the 18th c. It's a much under appreciated part of period life, one that is cast as evil by the overly PC and puritan minds of the current age. Hawkyns

Battlefield Band Hawkyns

Battlefield Band

Now if we only had documentation on the 17th/18th century bunny costume, i'd be a happy man. Hawkyns

William, would you please put Myself, Scarlet, and Gwen on the list for the fort camping group. We are planning to drive down and will bring period camp and at least one cannon. As you talk to the fort, the only things we need are firewood, water supply, bathroom facility, and straw for bedding. If they need camp photos for jurying, I can get some of the new camp at Smith's Castle in RI, first weekend May. Got a new tent and a few new items, so it's all changed a bit, mostly to accomodate 3 instead of 2. Thank you, Sir Hawkyns

I'll be at PARF for the last weekend. Ah, hell. Just look at Kathryn's schedule. We'll be together. Hawkyns

All the more reason to show pics Hawkyns

I would be very date specific on that. My post, as I said, reflected the early to mid 17th c, say 1620-1670/80. I would think that what you are reading would apply more to the 1750's on, when there was a massive amount of trade. I will be very interested to see if your source gives specific dates. Hawkyns

This is not conjecture, it is fact. The colonies, especially in the early to middle 17th C would see one or two ships a year, if that. Whatever was on those trading or supply ships was what they had to make do with, so if there was a large amount of one type of cloth, a lot of the members of the colony would be wearing similar clothing. When clothing was worn or torn, it would be recut, reused, shortened and passed on, etc. Clothing was frequently mentioned in probate records as being passed down. Even in London and other continental cities, you had the fripperers, used clothing sellers. Fashion would start at fashionable society levels and work it's way down as it passed to the maids and servants, the lower servants, and finally to the labourers. So yes, finding clothing 20 or 30 years behind the fashion would not be such a stretch at all. An excellent book on this is "Great Reclothing of Rural England" by Margaret Spufford, Oxbow Books Hawkyns

Aha! So we have different experiences, based on a similar item, but worn under different conditions. Never done the riding bit with a sword baldric, so my experience is ntirely that of the foot slogger. I've worn my unlined leather baldric over both a leather jerkin (flesh side out) and a wool doublet. So, another *possibility* to consider. The people with the money to have their portraits painted and to have the fancy doublet, were more likely to be riders. CAVEAT- I'm not making any hard points here. I'm kicking around vague possibilities, based on the artwork known to us, and the modern expereinces of re-enactors. DO NOT take any of this as anything but my ramblings. Enough of these odd opinions may steer us in the right direction, but without primary source material telling us the specific purpose of the knots, we are only guessing. Hawkyns

Two points here. I've word a sword baldric in all my re-enactments for 20 plus years, I much prefer it to a belt. I have *never* had the baldric slip off the shoulder, even when pursuing Parliamentarians at a dead run. On the other hand, it frequently slides inwards to catch on the neck. So 'experimental archeology' tells me that either there was something about their baldrics that is different from ours, or this was a theory put forward by someone who never actually wore a baldric. Second, I have read (and I'm looking for the source but have not yet relocated it) that the shoulder knots of white cord in the British Army date from the days of the matchlock, when the corporals and sergeants would carry spare match for the musketeers. Whether this has anything to do with fancy knots for primping fops, I can not say. Hawkyns

Yep, that would be correct. And if you think this is tough, you should see the sniping that goes on among the college professors, museum directors and the like. You know, the folks that get paid to do this and have letters after their name to prove it. They will defend their positions more fiercely than a sow bear and her cubs. Look, people, we can all come up with some facts to support our positions. The question is how many instances are needed to prove something common and what constitutes a unique incident? Everyone of us here has our own criteria. But it doesn't matter. With the exception of a very small number of us, this doesn't put food on our table or affect our mundane reputation. So let's get over this, people. Those of us who want to document what we wear and do it historically will continue to do so. Those who just want a good time in their mental image of a pirate will also continue to do so. Why do we need the approval of the group that is diametrically opposed to our own viewpoint? Hawkyns

Yah know, the highwayman impression is probably a lot closer to what a lot of folks are trying for. Boots, fancy weskit and coat, shiny rapier, cocked hat, and that cool double caped riding coat. Maybe we need a highwayman re-enactment group. Hawkyns

Attention to Orders!! Moderator On Deck!! Play nice, guys. Lets tone it down a bit and stick to facts and references, K? Hawkyns

Because, if any of them did such a thing, they would be mutilated and probably die? Article 2 of Bartholomew Roberts' crew: "If any man rob another he shall have his nose and ears slit, and be put ashore where he shall be sure to encounter hardships." That's fine, if it's among your own crew. In an open port like Port Royal. or even Charleston, there are plenty of people about who are not of your crew or are not even pirates. Sorry, I've got to agree with Kass on this. Rather than keep something I've plundered for an occasional wearing ashore or take the chance of it making me a target for the King's men or other thieves, rogues and vagabonds, I think it far more likely that it would be sold for cash that I could use for rum and women. Another factor to be considered here. Where are you going to keep this? The average seaman does not have a closet below decks for all his plundered finery. A small seachest and maybe a seabag is about it. Coin and jewelry makes more sense and is easier stored than a bloody great velvet coat. Hawkyns

Right, that's it, you're out of here. You can discuss bucket tops, elf boots, waders, or ballet slippers and their relationship to pyracy all day long, you can even wear them and I won't care. But Liverpool? LIVERPOOL??? Get the hell out of my forum , NOW!!!!!!!! Man U!! Man U!! Man U!! Hawkyns

'Oh for a Muse of Foire'? I have a copy, somewhere. Luke used to swear by it, but I'm not so sure. Plimoth makes everyone sound like they're from the West Country, even those from Nottingham, and I know a lot of their research comes from there. I just think it's a bit too much of one dialect and does not show the variations. Hawkyns

Thanks, Kass. I have a copy, but only single sided. Now I can make up a facsimile edition. Hawkyns

Bloody well said, Sir!! Kass, when Mom was a teenager, in Yorkshire, her Father and Grandfather, both of whom were from Warwickshire, used to refer to her as a sightly wench. Even as late as the middle of last century, it seems that wench was still in common use and meant no more than an unmarried girl. I add the counties, because English, until the advent of televison and radio, was extremely regional in it's dialects. Still is, in parts of the backcountry. I, being brought up in the Dales, spoke very nearly a different language when I came to this country. If you've ever seen any of the episodes of "All Creatures Great and Small", think of the old farmers. That was my dialect. I find it interesting that at Faire, everyone is either a false Cockney, or from the West Country. Slipping back into my home dialect has been very useful and there is at least some documentation that it has not changed much in a couple of hundred years. It's not just accent, either. Vocabulary, syntax, everthing is changed. So if I'm going first person, I'll go back to the Dales. The other thing that I've found very useful is just reading Shakespeare. that will give you a good sense of vocab and syntax. Hawkyns

Duncan. there is a Pattern 1718 sea service pistol, specs as follows: .56 cal 12 1/8 inch barrel Flat lock plate, faceted pan, no bridle Walnut stock No nosecap, tailpipe or thumbpiece Smooth buttcap with 2 short ears Flat brass sideplate Iron belt hook In fact, it looks a lot like the 1756, but just not as fancy. Unless someone had the pattern book in front of them, I doubt most people could tell the difference. reference- Pattern Dates for British Ordnance Small Arms 1718-1783 De Witt Bailey, Thomas Publications, Gettysburg, 1997 Hawkyns

I could probably go at considerable length about these two, but one thing just SCREAMS at me. Why does the chap on the right need a pair of what appear to be fur lined manacles and 2 matched floggers on his belt? This may be deserving of it's own thread, but why is do people find a need to combine BDSM kit with pirate kit? Maybe that's what we're missing here- the boots, the manacles, the floggers, the massive amounts of black shiny leather- are these guys frustrated doms trolling for a sub? Are we really going for some sort of bodice buster cover image? Come to think of it, most of those guys are wearing tall boots.... Now, I've bought a number of floggers myself (though never seen the need to wear them with kit) and I know that the two matched pieces he's sporting have probably set him back $200 plus. Fur lined manacles (de rigeur on all the best pirate ships) are going to hit for at least 30 bucks or more a pair. So the nearly 300 dollars spent on a couple of fashion accessories could easily have been otherwise out into correct kit. the concept escapes me...... Hawkyns

Foxe, you'd better hold me down on this one. NO! It was puritan vs Church of England. Protestant against protestant. Queen Henrietta Maria was a French catholic and was frequently used as an excuse by the rebels. Towards the end of the First Civil War, as things got more desperate for the Royalists, there were attempts ( and some successes) to bring Irish troops in on the Royalist side. On the other hand, as the war progressed, there were divisions in the rebel ranks as well, puritans against uber puritans, and enough small sects sprang up that it was hard to keep track of the religious persuaion of the rebel army. To be sure, religion played a part in the ECW, but it was as much economic as well, the wealthy landowners and the country folk against the tradesmen and apprentices of the cities. The King and the Cause! The Church and the Laws! Charles, King of England! and Prince Rupert of the Rhine! GOD SAVE THE KING!!!!!! (Royalist officer?, nah, not me) Hawkyns

You, Sir, are a rotten bugger. 'Found' it indeed. HA! Hawkyns