Tartan Jack

In each forum section, there are great threads that have gotten buried and asked again. I'm thinking that there should be one thread w/ internal links to the main, most interesting, and best reference threads in that section. This way, there won't be too many sticky/pinned threads at the top of a section (keeping it clean), while still having a way for someone to find a relevant w/o having to dig through piles of replies. Ex: In Captain Twill, there are great threads on flags, cannons/guns, various historical elements (like the period company logos one I just re-asked). A way to format a one thread "To good to be buried" would be: Flags- -Construction- Thread thread Thread -Did each pirate have their own? thread thread thread Period companies (who pirates attacked thread tread Repeat for different topic. Think of it as a section index.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bump. Put a sticky on this one!

Watch now much you challenge me to drink . . . While not really a "heavy drinker" (only drink rarely, really) and only one real hangover, ever, . . . At Paynestown, I unknowingly drank 2 men till they passed out (they secretly were trying to match me and "plugging" me w/ drink), being told about it only in the wee hours of the night/morning before going to bed. I was still almost sober, shooting Mickey Souris' musket the next day. I think "first person" and "third person" could both work depending on specific context, how done, and audience. I've done a bit of both, even flipping from one to the other when that better gets the history and idea across.

I'm looking more for period-correct logos, I've already got some canvas and access to plenty more (gotta pay for it, of course . . . )

I mean what would be emblazoned on shipping boxes, wrapped goods, and company emblazoned covers for stuff. Something like this (Dutch East India Company):

For some projects I am going to do for this coming season, I'm going to need the logos for shipping companies from the 17-teens. These can be ANY nation. Some of my projects will include "re-used" canvas formerly used on shipping cargo and hatch covers. As such, logos (or parts of them) would add a little visual interest to them . . . Edit: Also, this could be useful to others to use and reference at events too. Thanks.

Mission's right. Cut and paste the list from my above post, which IS your list, just spaced different to allow space for ship type, guns, and other relevant info. The main list should be in post 1 (and a sticky). As that's your list (and a GREAT start, by the way!), add to it. I'd be glad to be list capt & update it, but . . . Unless we start a new thread and lock this one, there is no way my post can be the main one. I have no mod powers.

Nope, we're sure that they're the same person - debate surrounds the forename, might also have been Edmund. Thanks. I'd not heard the end of that debate. I knew they maybe were, but not if they were for sure. Also, if anyone wants to update the list, please feel free! Add the ship type, cannon and other pertinent info.

Here is a reformated version, w/ a new name and ship types: William Kidd- Adventure Galley, Galley-Frigate New York Revenge John Bowen- Speaking Trumpet, Speedy Return Blackbeard- Queen Anne's Revenge, flute 40 guns Adventure, sloop Bartholomew Roberts Little Ranger, Good Fortune, Royal Rover, Royal Fortune (several ships, same name) Thomas Anstis- ran off with the Good Fortune John Evans- Scowerer Thomas Cocklyn- Wyndham Galley Speakwell Samuel Bellamy- Whydah Charles Vane Ranger (several ships, same name), sloop, brig, Christopher Condent- Flying Dragon (later renamed Fiery Dragon) sloop Louis Guittar- La Paix, pink Joseph Bannister- Golden Fleece Jean Hamlin- Trompeuse La Nouvelle Trompeuse Philip Lyne- Sea Nymph James Skyrme- Ranger William Moody- Rising Sun Olivier La Buse- Postillion Palgrave Williams- Mary Anne, sloop Richard Worley- Eagle John Cole- New York's Revenge Revenge Benjamin Hornigold- Ranger, Benjamin Joseph Cooper The Night Rambler William Fly- Fame's Revenge John Halsey- Charles Henry Avery- Fancy John Phillips- Revenge Robert Sample- Flying King Matthew Luke- Vengence or Venganza John Taylor- Cassandra Francis Spriggs- Delight(formerly Squirrel) George Lowther- Happy Delivery Thomas Tew- Amity Liberty Robert Culliford- Mocha Edward England- Royal James, Pearl Stede Bonnet- Revenge (later renamed Royal James), sloop John Gow- Revenge John Quelch- Charles?? John Rackham- Ranger (replaced Vane as captain), brig The William, sloop Samuel Burgess- Jacob, Margaret William Condon- Fiery Dragon (formerly Condent's Flying Dragon) Thomas Howard- Prosperous Edward Low- Fancy, Rose Pink, Squirrel, Ranger, Merry Christmas William Dampier- Roebuck George Booth- Speaker John Yeates- Katherine Nathaniel North- Defiant

In period, pirates were (based on what I've read) a mix of "good men" -former unemployed privateers- gone desperate (the basis of our "classic" image of the hero-pirate) and ones that would have been criminals regardless. So, there are many that were have gone-good if they could have. These are the ones that jumped at the pardon offers in 1718. Looking at who and who were compatriots and seemed to work more-or-less together and whose crew would swap back and forth between captains, I'm moving to the idea that there were 2 main "camps" in the 17-teens. 1) The privateer-gone-illegal included many of those in New Providence, Nassau and were only nasty when needed and didn't do too much vicious (by the standards of the day) unless pushed to no other expedient options. These are the basis of the "classic" image from fiction of decent men in desperate situation, who operated with some sense of morality and right/wrong, even if skewed by the much looser standards of the day (in contrast to the more gentile standards of today). 2) The captains and crews that had no compunctions and even a joy in cruelty. This would be the Low, Lowther, and a number that they seemed to have amicably cross paths with. They were the "classic" image of the nasty, cruel, and vicious cutthroats seen by those who were anti-pirate. Those were at sea at the same time and both "camps" had a range and even some overlap of attitudes. The question is what we want to portray . . . This Pub is a real blend of pirate images from history and fiction, from the GAoP itself through modern films and fiction. As far as a I remember, all members reference the GAoP. None go to the Roman, real medieval pirates, Barbary, or Eastern Japanese (wako) and/or Chinese pirates. I would agree that over-the-top captains outnumber crew in a highly disproportional manner. My aim is to portray either an ordinary sailor from a middle-class background (repeatedly screwed over) and, eventually, what a typical captain of a small merchant ship like a sloop would have looks like. That is probably not that different than an ordinary seaman, just a bit nicer.

Well . . . Rereading sections of books on ships of the period . . . I noticed something . . . Several boats are referenced such as: "Ship rigged sloop" "Brig rigged sloop" "Snow rigged sloop" So . . . Obviously the term sloop has LESS to do w/ the rigging than the hull shape design. Therefore, my post above is incorrect. It is a term used for a specific shape concept for the hull, much like fluytes were 3 masted, shallow draft, flat bottom, rounded bow, "fat" beam and high stern. A sloop hull was sharp and designed for speed. As such, it could have been a "class" of large boat that included multiple rigs.

The locals Mark G Jennie G michaelsbagley Kate_Souris ProfessorDeath Ben Fidley From further out Rats Callenish Gunner Salty Pots Diosa (pending the circumstances we spoke about at Searles Raid). Silas Thatcher Connie Thatcher An as yet unknown amount of Thatcherlings, and perhaps an otter as well Mission DaveyDogCrusher M.A.d'Dogge Cheeky Sterling Gentleman Scotty (and his Kate) Tartan Jack I'm planning on coming . . . Gotta request off and figure out lodging/food. Can I "join-up" w/ a group's food plan? I'll have "real" shoes by then, too. It should only be a 500 miles and 9 hours or so drive up I-77 or I-23. That's doable in a day.

One more thing to add . . . We oft think of a "sloop" as a Burmuda or Jamaican Sloop. As the term would soon (1750s) be used for much larger 2 and 3 masted boats, the term itself is probably in a transition from meaning a small single masted, fast closed deck boat to more "fast boat, but not a full ship" and used for one smaller than a "real" ship and smaller than a frigate. That would include brigs, snows, and most 3-masted rigs. To add a touch more . . . I am starting to think that the main indicator of a sloop was in regards to primary vs. secondary sails. All larger boats and ships used fore-aft and square rigging in the Western world. Most "ships" were primarily square and would "add-in" fore-aft where they would fit. Smaller "cutter"-types were fore-aft w/o significant square rigging. "Sloops" were a rigging hybrid w/ primarily fore-aft (jib/gaff-rigged) but still with a large square main-sail and top sail, originally single-masted. In the 17-teens the term looks to have been expanded to include single, double, and even triple masted larger ocean-going closed boats, that were fore-aft rigged (primarily?) AND square-rigged. But, they were still too small to be full-fledged "ships." Sloops, unlike bulk-merchant boats, were built for speed and maneuverability, rather than cargo capacity. -At this time, "ship" was a specific term for large 3-masted, square-rigged sea-vessels, NOT a general term for all large sea-going vessels.

I have wondered . . . How many pirates "killed in action" were, in fact, hung or otherwise executed on site.

Warships had as open a gundeck as possible. Ones that started as such had what was called a "flush" gun deck. In theory, a merchantman could have a permanent bulkhead that was structurally integral. On the ones that pirates captured then "converted," one of the main changes was to make the "gun deck" as flush as possible by the removal of non-integral (structural) bulkheads. I do know that merchantmen made use of temporary bulkheads to better secure cargo and prevent shifting of bulk cargo while at sea. As a frigate was designed as flush deck, it wouldn't have one.

Too bad. I'd have loved to have seen it. I'm more than a bit interested in ships and boats of that period. If anyone saved a copy, I'd love one.

Foxe, What is the link to that list? I'd like to see it.

To emphasize the truth of this: the Acts of Union that dissolved the Scottish Parlliament and formally fused Scotland to England were 1707! So from the perspective of, say, one of the Scots in Stede Bonnet's crew in 1718, it was only 11 years ago. Another thing that intensified Scottish bitterness against the "usurpers" was the Darien project, where Scotland had tried around 1700 to found a colony on the isthmus of Panama. The collapse of Darien and the death of most of the colonists ate up more than half of Scotland's capital and was large part of what had made the Act of Union necessary. The Scots blamed King William for Darien's failure, which wasn't fair; Darien was so horribly mismanaged from the start that no amount of royal support would have saved it. But William did order the other Caribbean colonies to withhold support from the Scottish colonists, and thus greatly magnified the suffering of the survivors. You can gauge the Scots' bitterness by an episode in Johnson where some English sailors were lynched by Scots for piracy, the crowd shouting, "Now we'll Darien 'em!" If I were writing a novel with a Scottish character or constructing a Scottish persona, I would certainly include the Darien experience in it. I was thinking of the merging of the crowns under James. In my tiredness I forgot that the political merger wasn't until 1707. In between was a mess for Scotland . . . Up until the early 1600s, Scotland was a completely separate entity from England. After 1707, they were officially merged completely into the United Kingdom, after about a hundred years of a weird hybrid existence. Thanks for the correction!

You rang? Actually and seriously, this is a question I asked Foxe many moons ago on the Ye Pirate Brethren forum (may have been through PMs). He suggested I read Colin Woodward's "Republic of Pirates" book, as it was the one that most discussed Jacobitism and pirates. If I recall correctly, Foxe hadn't thought too much about it before. If that was correct then, it certainly isn't now. He sent me a wonderful article on the subject, written by him (should I have said that?). Based on it and what I've seen in looking at period stuff, it was certainly "in the air." Things we don't even thing twice about now were "in your face" to them. For example, take the infamous "Queen Anne's Revenge." The 17-teens pirates had largely been privateers in "Queen Anne's War" and were basically "dumped" in Jamaica and made unemployed and shipless at the time of the treaty. Queen Anne herself died, with a HUGE swirl of debate on the succession around. There was fear of a "British" (a loaded term, them even more than now) war of succession (Queen Anne's War is AKA The War of Spanish Succession). They managed to avoid all-out warfare by the coming of Jorge the German to be "King George," while having MUCH bitterness in the process. How much? Think the 2000 election and amplify it more. Now, if someone had become a pirate, deliberately humiliating ships from certain ports and named his ship either "Clinton's Revenge" or "Al Gore's Revenge" . . . wouldn't that seem a bit politically pointed and making a statement? Now, the Jacobite Rebellions have been greatly colored and romanticized through time. In Scotland, the Romantic writers of the early 1800s added the nationalistic element to the 1715 and esp. the 1745. Now, the question would be WOULD the Highlanders have thought they were fighting for a Scottish king who would "make things right again" in the land? Based on contemporary evidence (18th C), I'd say certainly. A number of clan leaders and military leaders abandoned both the old and young pretenders camps (figuratively in most cases, literally in the '45) after actually hearing the men themselves. They (those specific Scots) realized they had put the wrong ideas out there upon the wrong men, who wouldn't do what many Scottish supporters expected. Like the 2008 election, many people thought WIDELY different things and had vastly differing expectations going in and didn't seem to realize the mutual exclusivity of these ideas and that the central political leader had one real stance that may or may not agree w/ the ardent supports (modern politics is intended as a bridge to understanding only, let's not get side tracked on Bush, Obama, and modern politics. Let's stick to late 16th C and early 17th C.) I'd day that the above posters were right that a number of Scots at the time DID think of it as a Nationalistic movement wherein Scotland would become more independent again or entirely so. Remember, it wasn't but a hundred years since they were merged and Scotland effectively (and illegally, in the minds of Scottish Nationalists) ceased to be a separate kingdom and it's parliament closed until the 1990s. Independence wasn't some distant memory or some pipe-dream. Only when realizing just how much "Bonny Prince Charlie" really wanted the English throne more than the Scot one (and not really that interesting in being a "Scottish" king as much as a Frankified "English" one) did that get all sorts of holes in it. A number simply walked away and were left not really supporting either side. The big thing to remember is that "Jacobite" meant many different things to different people in the period. Some were mainly upset that a non-"British" monarch was on the throne, esp. one whose English was pretty awful. I'd bet many would be shocked and surprised that that royal house is still there- The House of Hanover changed its name to the House of Windsor, to sound more British and less German. Jorge's heart was really still in Germany. It took a generation or 2 for the Hanovarian monarchs to become "British" monarchs in heart, as well as reality. Add to that the fact of a perfectly legit successor who was of the senior royal line dating back to King James I of England and VI of Scotland, and one can see the political "divine right of monarchy" ideas at play. Remember, the Stewart line dated back to the steward of Robert the Bruce, whose ????-daughter (forgot the generation) married and fused the line. So, the Stewarts were the Scottish royal line going back DIRECTLY to Robert the Bruce! Traditions like that are hard for "royalist conservatives" to walk away from. There were even period-comparisons of the Stewarts to the line of David in Jerusalem, where The House of David was to reign for ever (I forgot the precise reference, it was a LONG time ago I read it- put it was from the '15 Rebellion period). So, I'd be VERY careful about trying to put all "Jacobites" into the same box as to their political ideology and even what they honestly expected the Stewart/Stuart would look like and do when they were on the throne. In the absence of real substance, folks filled the void with their own hopes, aspirations, and dreams . . . "When the True King returns from over the water he will . . . " and stuff like that. There were HUGE numbers of Jacobites in England, plus many in Scotland that did not "fall in" with the battles but had Jacobite sympathies. I'm convinced that IF they had actually won one of the Rebellions, the result would have likely ended up in a civil war as the new Jacobite king would fail to meet the grandiose expectations his supporters had created and convinced themselves was the truth. Back to point . . . Where Jacobites among the pirates in the 17-teens . . . absolutely. There is lots of evidence, just look at the ship names, plus more that Foxe knows. Where they Hanovarian pirates too? Yes. Something I've wondered . . . There seems to have been 2 main "camps" or "gangs" of pirates in the 17-teens. There was the group that were originally lead by Jennings and Hornigold in Nassau/New Providence, who were mostly former privateers, many of whom took pardons and retired to honest living the the late 17-teens. And there was the Low/Lowther/???? group that were FAR more vicious violent and more like a modern criminal gang. By the 1720s, the former had mostly dissipated into dead and pardoned, while the latter cut and murdered their way into infamy and such downright cruelty that the admiralty and society wouldn't any longer tolerate (so they were massacred, to end the GAoP). What role did the Hanovarian/Jacobite politics play in the bonding and break-up of those groups? Was the latter basically "anarchists" in that they liked neither to any extent? (Sorry I couldn't footnote this, I'm typing off-the-top-of-my-head at midnight, tired, and have to be at work early tomorrow.)

Rather good article! I enjoyed it and it's something to be proud of . . . It also "catures" you well, so to speak (pun intended). After meeting you in Paynetown, I appreciate it and you better. You came off REALLY well. Congrats on being featured!

Happy B-Day, Bud!!!!

I've been buying linsey woolsey and cotton ones from 96 District Storehouse for years. They are long enough to roll down and make comfortable kilt-hose when I'm wearing my kilts (non-pirate, casual clothing for me). Plus, I've found them comfortable too. I wear the woolsey ones A LOT both in pirate kit and as kilt hose (socks), in fact that are some of my FAVORITE kilt hose and worn as that more often than the ones BOUGHT as kilt hose esp. in the summer heat. Their number is: 864-366-9600 I am close enough for it to be a morning or afternoon trip (about 45-60 minutes, depending on route, traffic, and deer) to their storefront . . .

Different spelling . . .

I've got the material to make a couple, just getting the pattern down before I start so I don't screw it up . . . Anyone who say my bedding in Paynestown saw the material for one of them (the blue, gray, and green/purple stuff).