Tartan Jack

Does anyone here LIKE Woodes Roger? - That pirate hunting exiling ****** . . . (He's the one that took over New Providence and drove off all active pirates, then hunted them down (or had their former coulegues do it for him.)

GREAT! You made it over here. You'll have fun. Just watch out for some of the lasses . . . They tend to try and kilt-check as much as possible. Oh, and I am honored to be the first to welcome you!

I hate those that hate pirates. Woodes Rogers, for one.

If you look at stuff from the 1715 Jacobite Rebellion, info on their headware and pictures are fairly common. The Scots "blue bonnet" was extremely common. That is the same period as the GAoP. So, it is certainly PC. The primary difference is that the original had a drawstring to pull it in or keep it from expanding too much when wet (basically, for precise sizing) and the originals didn't have the structure around the cockade that most better made modern ones do. The ribbon "tails" on modern balmorals and glengarries are tokens to the original drawstring. Oh, and the older ones were much larger around (a bigger circle on top) and the ball on top was actually the end of the knitting threads bundled, so that they didn't unravel. Thus, it matched the color of the body and was rather small. Also, blue seems to have been the normal color, so much so that it was known primarily as the "blue bonnet." Among Scottish Jacobite reenactors, there is some debate as to whether a Scottish bonnet had to be knit, or if cut-and-sewn material was actually done in-period. I have made numerous balmoral caps out of cut-and-sewn wool (as I don't know how to knit). They look pretty good, if made right, soaked, softened to shape, and so forth. I'm of the opinion that both were used in-period, and that cut-and-sewn Scots bonnets were made in period, as some pictures show no ball and a few look to have a seam on the edge of the main top part. The problem is that few survive from the period and the pictures are artistic interpretations. So, we don't know if the lines on the bonnets or lack thereof are the result of construction seams or artists either adding lines for definition or ignoring minor seams to make a better picture. Jacobite reenactors get as much in a tizzy over blue bonnets as we do over slops. So, there are many strong, well-informed opinions that differ. Also, while on it, how different is a monmouth cap from a modern toque or knit domed cap with roll (whatever your name for it)? Of course, it should be wool yarn, rather than machine-made acrylic and embroidered. That goes without saying. -I'm curious about the connection and development of it from then to now.

If it's cold I'll wear slops over a pair of breeches. Sometimes I'll cheat and wear my black US Army issue long john pants that I trimmed & hemmed to wear under breeches Wearing multiple sets of clothing when cold is a perfectly period thing to do. Most of the existent examples of period common-man clothing comes from bog finds, many in Scotland. It isn't uncommon for 2, 3, or even 4 jackets, 2-3 shirt, and several pairs of beeches to be worn at the same time. People didn't need to carry a suitcase, they look like they just wore everything in layers and cycled the layers (at least that's how it looks). I could easily see "slops" over breeches, as well as slops just over drawers, being worn in period. The issue is what was worn commonly/most of the time. Also, how loose is loose . . . To put it in other words: Where is the line between "open kneed breeches," slops, and loose fitting breeches? Did "slops" mean what we mean by it in textual references? Would the "shorts"/"slops" (as we know them) have been called something else than "slops" . . . ? I really need to go back and reread all 6 pages of the thread. I wonder who will be open to changing their stances from several years ago . . .

Mine is (and has for a LONG while been) a reproduction of a surviving example of a flag of the Covenanters (Scottish history stuff). It says: "Covenants For Religion King And Kingdomes"

Oh yea . . . THOSE guys . . . Where is a modern Woodes Rogers when you need one . . . (Can't believe I'm saying that) THOSE are pirate I wouldn't mind seeing . . . (let your mind wander)

Foxe sure has aged . . . (Blackadder is my favorite BBC series I don't own. Yet.)

Right now: A decently high res version of-

What do you hate in a pirate?, That's right mate, what do you HATE? Musket ball . . .

Oh, and I'm impressed that everyone remained civil in this (as far as I can see).

Too many people looking practically exactly the same is just weird, unless it is an organized unit . . . like the military, cruise employees, the hospital, and the like. (Oh, and a corporate suit army also creeps me out a bit. But, I do tend to wear kilts . . . ) Most Hollywood and/or historic impressions are and usually VERY interesting to talk to. It is the Clone Army that imitates an individualistic persona that can get creepy. Flashes of the "Locker" in the third PotC movie . . . A Jack Sparrow in isolation is just fine and usually a lot of fun. Though, I tend to be more interested in discussions on the "real thing" . . .

I beleive the year is 1740 by my count... tis good to see so many scottish brothers about Exiting character: Most of the Capt. Twill folks operate in 1715-1725 (give or take) for Golden Age of Pirate and in the 1680-ish for Buccaneer (from what I remember-> Hand please correct me on the Buccy dating). The period began with the end of Queen Anne's War/War of Spanish Succession and the events around the 1715 Jacobite Rebellion (tied into the exile of the privateer/protection fleet from Jamaica and the Gov.'s covering his butt over his Jacobite intentions for Jennings and Hornigold's ships and men). The move from Jamaica to New Providence, Nassau is often used as the "beginning" of the 17-teens GAoP wave of piracy, the one that most modern reenactors and general pop-pirate stuff emulates. Most of the famous pirates were around 1715 to the early 1720s. Blackbeard operated primarily in 1717 to November 1718 (when he did in Ocracoke, NC). Calico Jack Rackham, Anne Bonny, and Mary Reed were captured in October 1720. Black Bart Roberts died on February 1722, after 3 years of probably the most successful pirating. By 1725, most of the major figures were dead and pirate suppression in full swing. Oh, the term GAoP is a flexible term term too. Sometimes the GAoP is extended to include the buccaneering of Henry Morgan. Some back it up to include Drake and the Elizabethan Sea Dogs. The buccaneers were in a different situation than the later pirates. Buccaneers were (primarily) legal privateers and operated as extensions of British government policy. Filibusters were their French equivalents. The issue comes as to what Henry Avery/Every, Kidd Edward England, Thomas Tew, and the crews of the turn of the century 1600/1700 were. They predated the Queen Anne's War, but post dates the Buccaneers. So, the GAoP dates are open to interpretation. It didn't start suddenly nor end suddenly either. It was more a case of waves with pirate crews operating even in the troughs of the wave. 1740 is a bit late for most of the GAoP. As someone very interested in Scottish history (probably more so than GAoP and knows more about it too), may I kindly suggest that YOU are a Jacobite who fled after your father died in the '15 . . . The good part of the two is that actually period correct kit overlaps wonderfully. The common seaman and common Jacobite would have worn basically the same stuff if in breeches (as many Jacobites actually wore). Belted plaids vs. slops are the main difference, if wearing location/role specific kit. The 2 mesh very well. Returning to character: My brother fought under the prince's banner in the '15, while I was at school. He hated the Hanovarians. I didn't trust James, as he backstabbed his former Covenanter supporters. My brother and I disagreed. He fought, I went to school looking to avoid the coming conflict. I liked neither Jorge the German nor the king that brought the Killing Times . . . When he was killed, I was sought and confused with him. I had to leave school and was forced to flee. I found myself in the Carolinas, but desperate, so I went to sea. I now find myself on a sloop . . . unable to call myself British, unwilling to be under English rule . . . I am a man without a country, considered too Jacobite for the Government and too Covenanter for the Jacobites . . . So, under a black or red banner I shall be found. All the while, longing for the bonny blue with the white cross!

Welcome to port! What year is it? (Oh, and I'm a bit of a Scottish refugee . . . a Covenanter suspected of being a Jacobite and exiled . . . )

Thanks. So, I am not entirely crazy in regards to vodka. It USED to be made primarily from potatoes, just not as much anymore. Anyways, that skull looks pretty cool. I wonder where I can get it down here in the Carolinas . . .

Ok. I was thinking of the classic differentiations . . . Vodka now is made from grain (usually rye or wheat), potatoes or sugar beet molasses (wording from Wiki, but confirmed elsewhere). As for Everclear . . . I was working on an assumption that what someone told me was accurate. Now, I am not as sure. One source lists cereals. It looks like it is made from grains and is what was once called "firsts" . . . Practically straight alcohol. I stand corrected. Usually, I just drink Scotch or Rum. That is what I know better.

Wrong thread . . . Doh!

It's vodka, how good can it be? Vodka is basically watered down Everclear. Some Vodkas are much better than others. All distilled alcohol spirits are made from different roots, all turned into beer and then distilled. Uisge/Whiskey/Whisky/Scotch is made from bread grains, the same as most Western beers Rum is made from Cane, molasses Tequila is made from Agave Moonshine (and the legal corn bourbon version) is made from corn Cheap grain alcohol is made from white, refined sugar Brandy is made from fruit Cognac is made from grapes/wine Vodka is made potatoes One of the things that fascinates me about distilled drinks is how the base affects the final product and how the flavors survive the evaporation and condensing of the distilling process. Vodka is made from a different base than Everclear. One is sugar, one is potato. Yet, as potato doesn't have much taste/flavor, neither does vodka. So, I could see why they taste alike . . .

But by cocking the hat... they don't blow off of your head as easily. (they do stay on yer noggin so much better than a flat brimmed hat... or Cavalier/Musketeer style... ask Mission... ) ......OK... knit caps do work better.... but it's still so much more fun calling them "Cocked Hats" because it's a period term... and it sounds kinda dirty....... For a landlubber comparison . . . Where a broadbrimmed hat on a really brisk day, esp. the kind on a beach . . . it flops into your face and tries to turn into a frisbee . . . Now, put on a cocked hat . . . it stays in NICELY! People just look at you kinda weird for wearing a hat that looks really odd in a modern context. Let's bring back the cocked hat! Knit caps blend in . . . People still use them for the very same reason they did centuries ago. A practical piece that hasn't gone away. - Most people have no idea that they are old at all.

True. I meant to add egos too. Thanks for fixing the oversight. Egos are another major reason for inaccuracies in movies. Someone, i doing their job, wants to do it a certain way and the heck wit h whether it was done historically or not is irrelevant (even if trying to make a documentary, much less a film or TV). That can be director, actor, set or prop designer, or any of the hundred hundred-ish people who affect the production. There are a HUGE number of people involved in any production and a gigantic number in a film, just look at the credits. The industry is packed with egos . . . (Present company on the P-Pub, by and large, excluded!)

From a film perspective . . . Pirate movies are usually (always?) down the ladder in regards to accuracy priority. Also, in the studio days, movies were planned to recycle costumes/clothing and all the props for 2-4 movies in sequence and kept on hand for future use. Basically, they were properly researched for the first, then used on the rest. One example is "The Sea Hawks," which was the second costume run after "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex." The sets, costumes, and as much as possible was reused from "Elizabeth and Essex" in making "Sea Hawks." The good part is that for costume and set colors, all one need to do is to compare the 2 films. Now, the costumes for "Elizabeth and Essex" were intended to be fairly historically accurate. (What do you think about that Foxe?) As "Sea Hawks" was the same period, they should be decently accurate as well, though land costumes were used at sea for less accuracy. The costumes were stocked/warehoused, as well as the ships, were then reused for other later films. For lower budget "crank-em-out"-type studio films, even expensive effects and scenes were lifted directly out of other previous films in the studio vaults. The ones filmed for Sea Hawks and Black Swan appear repeatedly in later movies as "stock" footage of sea battles and is re-edited to fit. How is that related to Captain Twill, you may ask . . . Intended accuracy and accordingly general historical accuracy for ANY pirate-film (and other genre films) are largely and directly tied to how far down the ranking they are in priority for the studio. Some has studio historians making very accurate costumes, at least to the vision of the director/producer. Others manage to get a pretty decent set from studio warehouses (and later, costume warehouses-> after the studios sold off their in-house stocks), and a director makes a semi-decent attempt to use them accurately. Other times (and MOST of the time for pirate films), the accuracy isn't as important as enough to get the "period feel" and keeping under a budget. Sometimes, the director knows little of accuracy and just does whatever "feels right" . . . (Those who WORK for the present system, please feel free to correct the above. I am working from the 1920s studio system birth, through the "golden age" of studios. their downfall. and replacement by the latter form of studios that birthed whatever you want to call the studios today. Please forgive any over-generalizations.) Result: The accuracy varies widely and probably should be looked at as: - Fairly accurate, though still a movie - Highly historically compromised, but kinda tried - Built more on myth than reality, but tried to be consistent (kinda where PotC would/should be) - Used whatever was on hand and cheap - What the heck was THAT? Or put it this way (for Capt. Twill): Which movies are pretty accurate? What did they mess up on? Which ones are intended to be kinda accurate, but are highly compromised? How so?

What I meant . . . I could empty one myself for less than $75 . . .

The smell is that bad . . . Huh . . .

Nigel Cawthorne would approve . . . (The author)

Right now . . . ? Pooping on the poop deck!