Misson

I came across something in Rayner Thrower's book on Piracy which talked about cannon names that I thought was interesting. While this information does appear in different forms on some of the various above linked pages, Thrower gives us a nice little chart that appeals mightily to my info organization side. For those of you who like to indulge in neat categorization, I am sharing it. It may make the mistake of leveling reality by making neat categories where history is a bit more fuzzy. Foxe's comment that source material varied in regard to categories of shot and name is duly noted. Still, if you were at one place at one time, this information was probably correct. If you were at another place at another time, it may not be so. Caveat emptor and all that. (It's still a cool chart. ) "It is remarkable that, apart from making them shorter, there were no material alterations in the design of guns and the methods of use from the time they were introduced into the Western World from China in the 15th century, until they were finally outdated in the 19th century. They were all heavy and cumbersome, and, indeed, field pieces could not exceed 18-pounders, and usually were were much smaller. At sea, then, as now, it was possible to used big guns, some as large as the 48-pounders in ships of the line; but for defending merchantmen and, by implication, in pirate ships, only the small calibres were practicable. Originally even the small calibre guns were 2.5 or 2.8 metres long, and not until some were accidentally cast too short was it discovered that these were equally efficient and much more manageable. Rather after the manner of giving names to various church bells, so different guns were named to distinguish the sizes; eventually all guns came to be designated by the weight of the shot fired. Only one, the culverin, retained its name and became a term often used to signify a slender handy guns fitted on the deck of the merchantmen to help repel boarding parties with grape shot. Since there is little mention of these names in popular books this old list (giving contemporary weights) is of interest in connection with the subject of merchant ship armament. ...Name................................pdr..........cwt. Whole Culverin....................18.............50 Demi Culverin.......................9..............30 Falcon...................................6..............25 Sacker Largest.....................8..............18 .............Ordinary..................6..............15 .............Lowest sort.............5..............13 Dragon.................................6..............12 Serpentine...........................4................8 Aspic....................................2................7 Falconet............................3,2,1.......15,10,5" (Thrower, The Pirate Picture, 1980, p. 103)

Large weather we're having here.

For sheer coolness, you have to see Boo's camp. Boo doesn't post here, he just sort of showed up and set up a camp that he literally threw together for the event. Fortunately, William got some photos of it that I put on my webpage. (They're here on the site somewhere as well, but I can find stuff on my website much easier. ) The photos are right at the top of the page. http://www.markck.com/images/Piracy/PiP_20...al_Ch_Fifth.htm

Greg's website is: http://www.revwarsupplier.com/index.html Buy them from him if for no other reason than he's a nice guy.

If I recall circus peanuts rightly (and I may not) they are those wanly radioactive orange over-sized peanut-shaped things that sort of melt in your mouth when you eat them. The joy of eating them as I remember is the fact that they melt like that. In fact, I'll bet they would melt in coffee...

Yeah, it's kind of like there are the PC pirates in the Mercury and Archangel encampments, the nice balance between PC and non (leaning more towards PC from what I saw) Port Royal pirates in the Fort and then several other popular style pirates in the fort. Come one, come all! There are lots of photos out there if you want to see some of what I saw. The Callahan's site has a goodly selection of who and what is at PiP: http://www.callahandigitalart.com/photocart/ My own little journal of last year has a mix of styles as well: http://www.markck.com/images/Piracy/PiP_20...al_Ch_First.htm My stuff focuses on our encampment, Callahan's more inside the fort. Every group was fairly welcoming last year from my experience...come down figuring to visit in your costume and you'll likely stay and hang the whole weekend. A finer group I have not met in recent memory.

Not to get OT, but I've noticed that dry humour seems to appeal to a much smaller segment of the world than broad, extroverted humour. Not that I can play extrovert humour very well, but it's just something I've noticed. Like my Easter Peeps thing I wrote in the Beyond forum...I'll bet some people would really be concerned that I am a close-minded conspiracy theorist after reading that. (Dave Barry, who must deal with such people professionally, calls these folks "humour impaired" and suggests that they get little electrodes wired to them that are activated when something funny has been said so they know when to laugh.)

I would probably never be able to pull off "ham." But Mary-Donna has given me some lovely ideas about channeling the ever-interesting Peter O'Toole in ways that could fit my personality without having to resort to a Nicholson "over-the-top" style. (Although wouldn't you just love to see Jack playing a pirate? Contrast that image with the odd, often introspective Depp style.)

There's something I find appealing about a website named geekbabe.com. The "main page" is sort of droll. If only it had been, "There's nothing to see here. Move along" the circle would be complete.

Note to all the would be Blacksmiths. I am reading an account of Physician Thomas Dover's life and the rather notorious privateering journey of the Duke and Duchess in 1708 - of which there are no less than three accounts - one by Captain Woodes Rogers [A Cruising Voyage Around the World: First to the South-Seas, Thence to the East-Indies, and Homewards by the Cape of Good Hope. Begun in 1708 and Finish'd in 1711], one by Edward Cooke [A Voyage to the South Sea] and one focusing mostly on Dover which is told in retrospect by the man himself [The Ancient Physician's Legacy]. To the point, "smiths" are mentioned by Rogers several times. Keep in mind that this was to be a journey around the world that would require most of the talent to be accompanying the journey, especially when they reached "uncharted" parts of the world. But still, there it is. So I may be all wet and there would well have been smiths on a ship who were there, in part, because of their skills. Note that this same journey had a Physician (Dover) and an Apothecary [samuel Hopkins], which was very unusual for any ship. Most ships just had a surgeon and/or surgeon's mates.

Mission! Is that ALL you think about? Cutting stuff off!??! Sheesh.... This actually brings up an interesting point. In the GAoP, amputation is frequently suggested to be the best recourse available to most surgeons for damaged limbs. If a damaged limb was not amputated, gangrene would often set in and that would be the end of that. The Caribbean was particularly hospitable to wound infection. I've glanced through intense (period) discussions about the advisability of amputation around the time of the (American) Civil War. More solutions to wounded limbs were known and thus available at that point and many people felt field amputation was just the lazy way out. It required less time and attention than more heroic surgical methods. I've also got a couple of accounts of patients during GAoP and before refusing amputation and therefore requiring bones to be set, albeit normally these patients had to wait until after battle when the surgeon had more time to attend to them. The accounts I've read (there are two or three) eventually healed. However, one can only guess at the number of accounts that weren't recorded where a patient refused amputation and gangrene set in - the uncountable "silent majority" factor that biases people's perception of statistical research. (People point to a few positive examples of something and insist that this would have been the norm because the stack of cases that disprove the theory weren't recorded for various reasons - who wants to explain their failures?) Still, you may still have a point there... In fact, I'm still debating how to play my character at PiP. My nature is to play it serious and studious. Mary Diamond (not to mention William and Captain Jim) have given me several ideas about playing a less serious character which would have more public (if not necessarily educational) appeal. I may mix the two, leaning towards education. That's what re-enactment is all about after all.

Hmm. Link 'em back here instead so the source is somewhat clear. It took time to write that mess and I want everything I deserve from it - like a lawsuit from the Just Born company.

So the local coffee emporium on the main street corner of town to which I stroll on random mornings during my daily sojourn had this special for Easter (yes, I know, that was a few weeks ago). For some exorbitant rate normally associated with an entire meal at a fast-food restaurant, you could get a flavoured cappuccino with a peep duck or swan or whatever that bird-like blob is called floating in it. Odd. "Bethany," I began, using my favorite dyed-shock-of-blue-haired barista's full name due to the gravity of the question, "do peeps melt in coffee?" "I don't know, I've never tried one. The kids order them at night when I'm not here." Beth is 26, so I guess she's talking about high school students. Unless sixth-graders are taking to coffee, which, come to think of it, wouldn't surprise me one damned bit. This rankled. I must know and I didn't want to buy any peeps as I don't understand what makes them desirable. So, I finally gave in a few lazy Sundays ago and went down to the coffee emporium on the main street corner of town to which I normally stroll on random mornings during my daily sojourn. There was some alien boy barista who I had never met before to whom I presented a "Buy 10 get any coffee free" cards (of which I have a vast collection since I never use them for reasons that are not entirely clear to me or Beth) and demanded, "I want a peep in my coffee." "You get a flavor with that. Do you want (insert some sweet-sounding flavor here - I've forgotten which one he recommended). "Sure. Might as well have the whole experience." "I'll bring it out to you." Which he did. It was monstrous large and had a yellow peep wading around in it, the icingy black eyes staring coolly at me over the oddly bent, pointed beak. I glared at it for several minutes...no sign of melting. I tentatively took a sip - SWEEEEEET! GAH! If I weren't a diabetic already, I would have become one at that instant. Like a religious conversion, baptized in the sickeningly sweet (insert some sweet-sounding flavor here) syrup combined with steamed milk and whatever droppings a marshmallow peep might choose to leave while luxuriating in a bowl of coffee. So I waited some more. Worked on my laptop, copying notes about pirate surgery. Still didn't melt. After about fifteen minutes of this, I could stand it no longer and, despite knowing better, took a bite off the bottom of the peep and set him carefully back into the significantly cooled tub of coffee. Then it began to melt, but only where the marshmallow guts were revealed. The yellow stuff didn't melt. Ever. Suspicious. What is this stuff? In any investigation, you must start from the beginning. Facts, Hercule, facts! Nothing matters but the facts. Without them the science of criminal investigation is nothing more than a guessing game. So I went to the scene of the crime: the officious Marshmellow Peeps (turn your speakers down) website. Here, in addition to discovering that they are actually called Peeps® - so the singular would also be Peeps® and I had been using the term wrongly above, but am too lazy at this point to fix it - I learned several other purportedly "fun" facts. 1. There are over 200 unofficial Peeps®© websites. Obviously the company that makes PeepsӨ knows this and their lawyers are tracking them. Be careful, carefree little Peeps™ website-making fans! One day they'll be all over you like poisonous yellow crystalline substance on a marshmallow flightless bird-like thing! 2. Over 70 million Peeps♫ chicks lined up beak-to-tail are needed to reach from New York City to Los Angeles. Huh. Why are they going from New York City to Lost Angeles? Is that where the mothership is going to meet them? Or are they stampeding? "Run for it! Peeps⅔ have escaped from New York City!" Aieeeee! 3. Loyal Peeps² Fans (whatever that means) LOVE their Peeps£...fresh, stale, frozen and even on Pizza! And apparently, if one is either sixth-grader or a teenager, in cappuccino with gooey sweet (insert some sweet-sounding flavor here) syrup. 4. The machines at the "Just Born Factory" can add 3800 Peeps¤ eyes per minute. Honest, that's what they call their factory on the website. Is this a cult or what? I've seen that steely glance in those 3800 per minute imperious Peeps¶ eyes...it makes me shudder to think about it. 5. In the 1950s, it took 27 hours to make one Peeps∞ chick. Aha! Now I was getting somewhere! Why did it take 27 hours? Surely not for the marshmallows? Why, the United States has been harvesting marshmallows from the great plains of Mallow Marsh Flats in Oberst, Idaho for thousands of years! So it has something to do with that yellow coating. The part that doesn't melt. Suspicious. Curiously, Twinkies, another alleged foodstuff that probably doesn't melt in coffee (although I've personally done no experiments to either prove or disprove this theory - and I don't care if I'm wrong anyhow), were invented on April 6, 1930. A full twenty-two years before a Russian immigrant foisted PeepsЭ on an unknowing populace. Plenty of time for the Cossacks to refine and modify the design of Twinkie composition into a indestructible toxic yellow coating. The COSI museum in Columbus offers a display of decomposition rates of various foods. As I'm certain you can imagine, the Twinkie is virtually untouched by the decomposition process. Unfortunately, they don't have any Peepsδ in there, with or without coffee, so we can't know for certain. So just what is that yellow coating? I didn't find out. I'm certain I could do so with a large federal grant which would probably lead to elaborate experiments that would take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we'd have to go all out to answer that and it's just not in the cards. Wiki claims it's a sugar coating. They also note that "the sugar coating tends to burn and become unpalatable." Hah. It was unpalatable to begin with. It's indigestible. Don't believe me? Try putting one in your coffee...you can't tell me that your stomach acid is less toxic than that coffee. Well, you can, but I probably won't listen. The Peeps♣'ll just sit there, glaring out you out of its pair of the 3800 per minute black eyes, smug in the knowledge that it, like the cockroach, will be here, even following a nuclear exchange. Think about that. Suspicious. This idiocy is ©Mission@MarkCK.com, 2008.

If you come across anything on merchant surgeons of the period or before (other than John Woodall, about whom I have plenty of material), let me know...I don't have much and my searches have not been entirely satisfactory.

There you go, Count, though I should warn your wife that it is hard to keep a straight face around Mission when he gets going. His matter of fact method for explaining horrible period cures always makes me crack up. Depending on who's book of surgery we use, we need between 1 and 7 people to do a proper amputation, so mates are always needed. (One person does the amputation and the rest to hold the vict- patient down.) Shall I describe the mercury cure for syphalis? It's enough to put some people off their food for a day. Amputation is better, but only if you can get them to realllllly empathize. Good quality descriptions are what's needed... Imagine the first bite of the slightly salt-water rusted steel blade into your newly exposed femur (upper leg bone) as you chew on a tooth-marked wooden stick. It only hurts for a few minutes and then we can cauterize the remaining skin. It should probably be noted that assuming a role of one character doesn't necessarily preclude assuming the role of another or none at all. I went from being a pirate surgeon to being a militia cannoneer. Half the time, I wasn't potraying anything, I was just walking around marveling at the skills of my fellow re-enactors.

?? Not enough info to get Jill's quote. It reminds me of Star Wars (which it's not): "That's no moon. It's a space station." (I'm so out of practice. I kept trying to remember the quote as "That's not a planet...it's a space station.")

A fascinating (and scary) example of this was the Stanford Prison Study, a psychology experiment done in the 70s. It'd take too much space here to give it its due. Basically it showed that normal people can become very sadistic simply by play-acting as prison guards and very subservient by play-acting as prisoners. You can read about the details at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_pris...ison_experiment Closely related (and mentioned on that Wiki page) is the Milgram experiment. In that one, volunteers were told by an authority figure to administer shocks to an unseen victim in another room, increasing the shocks all the way up oto 450 volts, which was administered three times in succession. If the volunteer protested, the authority figure was to tell them to keep going. This was to happen four times before the experiment was stopped. Despite sounds from the victim in the other room indicating that the shocks were hurting them and eventually (from one text I read discussing the experiment), complete silence from the victim, 65% of the volunteers reached 450 volts. In reality, the victim was an actor and no shocks were delivered, but the volunteers didn't know that. Rather ominous what we may be capable of, isn't it?

Note that a blacksmith would be in town, not on a ship. A carpenter on the other hand...they were responsible for everything below the deck on the ship. There is also always a need for sailmakers (who also repaired sails). I understand that was an pretty much an on-going requirement when not in battle. The boatswain oversaw everything to do above the deck including the ship's cables, anchors, sails, colours and the stationing of the watch. (Another good role for someone with mechanical skills and interests.) (Say, are we getting a bell? I'll front $25 toward its purchase...) A ship also needs a gunner to oversee the gun crews (and powder monkeys), who is also in charge of the cannon. If you know nothing about cannon, don't worry - the guns crews at PiP will be more than happy to answer questions and teach you how to fire cannon. (Even your ship's surgeon learned last year.) Pretty much everyone would be responsible for taking part in manning the cannon or fighting during battle except the captain, who would be overseeing the fight and the surgeon, who would be dealing with the wounded - plus anyone who might be assigned to help the surgeon by bringing the wounded below decks to the cockpit. If you want a complete description of various officers, check out Ed Foxe's excellent write-up that I linked to before. (For convenience: http://www.piratesinfo.com/mysql/phorum/re...987#msg-147987) Of course duties on a pirate ship might be somewhat more lax than on a naval ship, but records indicated that all of these officers existed on various pirate ships that we know about. Keep in mind that many pirates came from naval ships and merchant ships. And many merchant ships hired naval personnel. (In fact, naval personnel were usually itching to get out of the navy, which had crowded ships, awful food, strict discipline and poor pay. Plus the pay was often long overdue in the navy due to financial problems of the crown and struggles associated with the development of the commonwealth during this period.) Many British pirates came from the navy and would probably be comfortable with following naval custom. In fact, they seemed to prefer custom to progress. By way of example: "Nathaniel Boteler a century [1600s] earlier: he himself strongly approved of a diet of ‘husked de-hominie or loblolly as they term it, the which they make of the West Indian corn called maize’; Boteler knew that this loblolly of ground maize boiled in milk and water maintained the population of the West Indies and Bermuda in good health. But he was too familiar the ways of seamen to advise its use in the navy; he recognized that ‘seamen are so besotted in their beef and pork that they had rather adventure on all the calentures and scurvies in the world than to be weaned of their customary diet." (John Keevil, Medicine and the Navy 1200-1900: Volume II – 1640-1714, p. 277) So they were a pretty hidebound lot, who probably (by extension) stuck to naval custom, even when the 'freedom' of piracy was embraced.

You know, I was thinking about this today and it occurred to me that I should retract that statement about facts. There are facts that we can perceive fairly accurately, although the more specifically we try to account for them, the less accurate we are. So, if you were to say, "PiP occurred in Key West in 2007" I'd have to agree that that was a fact. If you were to try and pin down a more specific fact, however, and say, "PiP started on November 30th." we could quibble. For some people it started then. For me it really started on the 27th. For others, it started that day PiP ended in 2006 and they started planning 2007. So maybe I have a point still. Perhaps I should argue with myself about this some more and report back on any decisions, accords or agreements reached. Sjöröveren's post reminded me of something I read in Gilbert's book that I sort of referenced above and found mildly amusing when I read it because has a certain ring to it about predicting the future. (Which is startlingly similar to understanding and representing the past when we are talking about present bias.) "Most reasonably sized libraries have a shelf of futurist tomes from the 1950s with titles such as Into the Atomic Age and The World of Tomorrow. If you leaf through a few of them, you quickly notice that each of these books says more about the times in which it was written than about the times it was meant to foretell. [Note: this is also true about books written in the present about the past, although it is not as obvious. I have noticed it in the medicine books I am reading. ]...You will...notice that some things are missing. Then men don't carry babies, the women don't carry briefcases, the children don't have pierced eyebrows or nipples, and the mice go squeak instead of click. There are no skateboarders or panhandlers, no smartphones or smartdrinks, no spandex, latex, Gore-Tex, Amex, Fed-Ex, or Wal~Mart. What's more, all the people of African, Asian and Hispanic origin seem to have missed the future entirely. Indeed, what makes these drawings so charming is that they are utterly, fabulously, and ridiculously wrong." (Gilbert, Stumbling on Happiness, p. 123-4) And so, like the future drawings of the 50's, it can also be what is not in re-enactments like Sjöröveren mentioned that can be misleading. That was the astounding thing about Terry Gilliam movies about the medieval period. Not that they are accurate either, but they added a new element to Britain's past that you intuitively believe was present in real life that hadn't been present in the movies: absolute filth. Rotten teeth, grimy hair, grungy clothes and so forth. Just as when George Lucas told the model designers that the spaceships needed to look "used." None of this Star Trek perfect spacecraft for him. He wanted grimy ships. Note: this does not mean I won't be taking a shower every day during events. (I'm sure you're all relieved.)

And need to learn not to say such things. I have learned never to point out the flaws in my creations. Well, not completely, as I was only recently telling Donna about the quality of my staining job on something things in my house... William! Send me a total for the cost of the shirt AND the draughts with shipping and a check will wing its way in your direction!

I can't remember which of the books I read it in, but one or the other of them was making the point that the Captain really wasn't all that powerful, except during times of battle when he had complete control of the ship and its crew. He could be voted out as quickly as he could be voted in. When not in battle, I believe it was the Quartermaster who was in charge according to that account. This may be wrong, however. On the other pirate forum where I used to post, Ed Foxe had this to say, which all and sundry may find interesting: Still, we could be like Robert's ship...just a thot. If not, Ed also says, in the same post that: (Ed knows more about this than me, so I'm quoting him. It's from this post: http://www.piratesinfo.com/mysql/phorum/re...987#msg-147987)

Really?! I hadn't noticed that... Well, they are subject to the agreement of the crew. Say...I don't recall that vote. Besides which, the crew is shown as voting a Lieutenant Captain in one or another of those Johnson bios and then someone else was made the new Lieutenant...

Ah, but compare the box office of most European films to American films. In addition to everything else, European films are often made with a smaller budget and can thus make less and still be successful. I think your George Washington story could well be made, but probably on the History Channel or possibly as an Indie production. Although we have certain expectations tied to Indie productions as well, and this probably wouldn't meet them. Not that's right...but it's the public perception. (Alas, public perception = consensus = "truth." As opposed to truth.) Such a production would, for better or worse, likely have smaller battle scenes and more genuine acting and character study. Actually, that would probably be better for quality of the film. I enjoy watching movies like that myself, although I confess most History Channel biopics I have seen are subject to similar inaccuracies based on what I've read about their subjects. (I await the John Paul Jones release to DVD so I can get it on Netflix and compare the product to what I have read about the man.) I really enjoy well-made foreign films, too. (I just saw an Iranian film that was almost entirely character driven called Children of Heaven about a poor Iranian boy who loses his sister's shoes and then has to share his shoes with her on the sly to avoid his father's wrath. Actually, re-reading that, it doesn't sound like much, but it was absolutely charming and recommended to those who don't mind subtitles. As an aside to this aside, I was talking to the librarian locally and she noted that people frequently brought such films back and complained about them only because they had subtitles. So the library started putting large pink stickers on foreign films with subtitles to warn such people. ) But in a big B.O. movie, likely to reach the most people, I think you would have a hard row to hoe in today's movie environment with your Father of the Country flick. Movies usually need to have some differentiating factor (like mammoth special effects or some controversial stand) to make them worth the expense of mounting a large scale production. And even then, most of them don't break even. Look at how pirates floundered for decades until Johnny Depp added "rock star" to the notion of pirate. We can't know for sure, but I'll bet without Captain Jack, POTC:CotBP would have been just another Cutthroat Island as far as the numbers go.

You guys are thinking about this too much. I said there was no more info forthcoming, so you're imagining it for yourselves. I give. There is a second question, which is "If you had two fifties in your pocket on the way to the theatre and you lost one on the way, would you then purchase a ticket? The vast majority of the people who responded to the first question about losing the ticket in the actual study (and me included when I went with my first reaction) said no, they wouldn't. Most people responding to the second about losing the money said yes, they would. (Me as well.) What was interesting about all this was that, in actual terms, there was no difference between the two. The only real difference was that the response to the first case included a history with the ticket and most people used this as a starting point and decided not to "add good money to lost money." The response to the second question had no such history and so most people were happy to go ahead and buy the first ticket. Curiously, this all reminds me of Chaos Theory which says that initial states have dramatic impact on the progress of systems over time. There are dozens of experiments whose results I have read about (and probably hundreds or even thousands that I haven't) on this and the results almost always lean the same way. I think that's sort of fascinating.

Actually, my vote is for Captain Jim. Mr. Wake should be the captain as he designed the ship, made the T-Shirts, organized and scouted the Mercury camp, woke everyone up in the morning (or, actually, didn't wake everyone up in the morning when he could have), arranged all Mercury activities and washed our socks in the bonny, sunny, surf, but what of that? Captain Jim has an Oar House! (Honest, you can see it in my memoirs of the event here. In fact, William seems more content to be the power behind the throne. We tried to make him captain several times last year. Hmm....both are likely to resist the honor... Hmm...I suspect Captain Jim will squirm more, so I maintain my vote. This is all irrelevant, however. I really have no vote in the affairs of the ship. I didn't have to sign the articles.