Uniform colors?

[Fox]

Piracy was not enough of a threat to warrant the issuance of soldiers (which were in shortage of supply), so it was left to militias and navy/admirality. It sucks that it plays out this way, as red coats versus pirates is a very iconic image, but it is just starting to look like it is an iconic image fed by pop culture.

That I have thought for a long time and that is why I was skeptical of that "Woodes's company" would be redcoats at all.

What about the "wiki fact" (not too good ) that there were soldiers in ship that captured Rackham. And I think it is likely that uniformed soldiers of some sorts were present in executions of pirates (at least in London or ?). And what about navy marines and War of the Quadruple Alliance there might be marines in the navy there since war was on in America s well.....

The logic is good, but Woodes Rogers' company is described in every source as an 'Independent company', which means regular uniformed soldiers. There were also Indpendent Companies in most of the other Caribbean and north American colonies. There were no 'marines' still on the establishment for most of the GAoP, the marine regiments and 'soldiers for sea service' were disbanded circa. 1714, but regular army soldiers were used aboard ship from time to time after then.

One day I'll get aorund to researching the uniforms of the Royal African Company soldiers, but in the absence of other information, they were most likely clothed in red and blue.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Well there were redcoats in caribbean colonies and actually in lesser antilles pirates were real treath. Blackbeard e.g

from Repiblic of pirates web site

" Blackbeard’s gang brought a wave of terror to the eastern Caribbean in

late November and early December 1717, burning Guadeloupe town and most of the vessels at St.

Kitts, and leaving the Governor of the British Leeward Islands terrified for his safety"

and what ever Bart R did he (French governor hnged or not) he was a serious treat. Don't say that there were not indepentend companies in British Leevard islands (like Barbados what was huge colony with forts and all)?

Edited June 23, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

What was gaop era and EIC soldiers were there those hen ?

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Oh and I said " I was skeptical " about Woodes' soldiers but now I ain't.

I an well satisfied to that that there were red coated soldiers around colonies....

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Sorry for multiple posts

anyway I found this modern picture picture with the title Soldier of the British independent companies in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, between 1698 and 1717

I think in early 1700s those bajonets were changed to better ones but it seems to me that soldiers in many colonies were pretty similar if they were independent companies and this modern image has red waistcoat and I guess that that is the tricorn with that white piping so I finally understand what it means

but here is said that there were green cuffs what ??????

http://www.cmhg.gc.c...asp?page_id=215

Edited June 24, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

About those green cuffs I see that also in elsewere in the web they has been wondered and I think that those green cuffs migth well be an error.

Here: British uniforms employed in America during Queen's Anne War I think not much was changed after 1715 I Found on web and source is modern btw gunner has a blue weistcoat!

Edited June 25, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Matty Bottles]

BTW, Swashbuckler1700, those drawings were done by your nemesis Rickman.

[Fox]

Here: British uniforms employed in America during Queen's Anne War I think not much was changed after 1715 I Found on web and source is modern btw gunner has a blue weistcoat!

Gunners were not part of the Independent Companies, and had different uniform regulations.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Matty -i know. they are good pictures so warm thanks to him for that .

Foxe I know gunner is not part of IC but it shows that there were atleast blue weistcoats in English army. (but later gunner wore entirely blue coats so they were propably "more blue" in earlier time as well so not evidence for IC unifrom

[Fox]

Oh I see what you were getting at.

There's nothing groundbreaking about it. It was the custom in the English army from the later seventeenth century onwards to issue waistcoats that matched the facing colour of the coat - though there are exceptions, the Independent Companies being one of them. Often, when new coats were issued, the waistcoats were made from the linings of the previous issue of coats.

One of the common complaints from the Independent Companies though is that they got sent overseas then forgotten about, and never had any new kit kit issued, so it's unlikely that many of them benefitted from recycled waistcoats.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

.

One of the common complaints from the Independent Companies though is that they got sent overseas then forgotten about, and never had any new kit kit issued, so it's unlikely that many of them benefitted from recycled waistcoats.

Out of sight, out of mind.... What do you mean by "recycled waistcoats"?

[Fox]

I mean waistcoats made from the linings of coats.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Oh now I see what yo mean.

Ahh how hard it is to "us", Members of the consumer society, to understand the times when all cloth was needed.

[Fox]

Not to mention when clothing was expensive. Slop contract prices compared to RN pay scales show that a working shirt cost around half a week's wages and a jacket cost half a month's wages for an ordinary seaman.

Makes it easier to understand the mentality of re-using old linings...

[Swashbuckler 1700]

And that makes me think that rarely slops would be really popular I mean like uniform (but of course they were used and sold).... old canvas would do for some clothing and old jacket or breeches could be patched...

Edited June 27, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Grymm]

Think I've mentioned it before but 'turning' a garment, especially coats, was a habit that afaik goes from muddyevil to napoleonic at least.

You take your faded/worn coat(Other garments are available) pull it apart at the seams and flip the pieces so that the unfaded/unworn nap inside face is now outside then sew it back together, wallop a new looking coat.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Grymm

[Rats]

Sorry for multiple posts

anyway I found this modern picture picture with the title Soldier of the British independent companies in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, between 1698 and 1717

I think in early 1700s those bajonets were changed to better ones but it seems to me that soldiers in many colonies were pretty similar if they were independent companies and this modern image has red waistcoat and I guess that that is the tricorn with that white piping so I finally understand what it means

but here is said that there were green cuffs what ??????

http://www.cmhg.gc.c...asp?page_id=215

I love to see where this post has gone in the last year or so.

In all actuality and though I cannot prove one or the other, this is exactly what I personally would expect from a milita.

I say this because I doubt that even though militas would like to emulate the regulars, I would think that in many cases they worked with what they had. Even similar jackets and hats or even just leather gear would be considered uniformity and well looked upon.

I'm also wondering if perhaps a wealthy individual would finance the venture and thereby pay for the uniforms and leather gear for personal status??

Oh and just for the record... This is what I based my original impression on... I figured that the brown coat (with removeable black coffs that I never got to use) and black hat with white trim is so basic that along with my waist belt and my ammunition pouch..(Thanks again my dear Mr. Bagsley!) I could use the jacket for multiple impressions or loan the equipment out as needed.

BTW: As many will agree, this guy even stands like me... Yeah I'm a slacker!

Edited July 1, 2012 by Rats

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I have for a long time wondered was there any unifomity among militamen....

[michaelsbagley]

I don't have the citation handy... but I think I posted it here in this topic some ways back.

The citation was a report that some island militia (I think Bermuda? Maybe Bahamas?) were dressing in all red to emulate proper soldiers. The tone of the report made me believe it was an u common thing, so going from that one peice of evidence militias were likely nit very uniform.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Someting nice found on the web

[Swashbuckler 1700]

here I found this

"The mission of the Independent Companies was colonial defense as well as to augment and support offensive operations. The Independent Companies manned garrisons and forts, served as leadership cadre as well as trainers for militia forces, and served as marines for Royal Navy and Privateer vessels that needed them. Soldiering in the Independent Companies no doubt became a part time job, situation and location dependent, allowing for casual labor and taking up outside trades. Unlike soldiers in mobile regiments, these soldiers became permanent members of the community where they were stationed. "

Found on good and I think reliable modern source here http://historyrecons...in_America.html and there lots of other good info as well....

Too bad that the list there ends in 1720 and so no info about 1720-1725/1730 soldiers. But I take that nothing in 1720 changed things too dramatically and indepentend companies were there too in 1720.1725/30s. Anyway looking those it seems indeed that redcoats were pretty common in all colonies with militiamen ofcourse and looking period clothing colors red was a common and cheap color even for ununiformed militiamen.

and about militia (same web source)

" There is no evidence I have found of militia uniforms with the exception of an effort on the part of the Port Royal Council in the 1680’s to provide black hats and red coats to the militia and an eyewitness account of the Port Royal militia wearing red coats with blue facings in 1688 . Militia rotated through forts and were involved in patrolling frontiers areas. In the case of islands and coastal regions militia patrolled areas subject to amphibious assault and piracy. Militia were also involved in expeditionary operations and subject to serve as marines on Royal Navy vessels requiring a complement of marines. "

And looking that list it has only

"Chronology of Military Operations in North America

and identifiable British units involved, 1664-1720 " but what about the unidetfiable units so the list does not tell the whole truth....

I will let this soldier thing to rest ánd happily accepting that there were indeed redcoats around colonies and occasionally in ships as well.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Sorry for multiple posts....

Here from same page and that Martel is indeed pirate John Martel. See what soldiers were involved

"1717 Cpt. Hume of the Scarborough sinks Martel’s ship at St Croix

Jones/Alexander’s Sea Service Foot (38th)"

Hmm that is really interesting...

Anyway looking Ic:s in caribbean I am surprised of that I don't find any Barbadosian IC:s in 1700-1720 while Barbados was a grant colony.... But Jamaica had not only one but two IC:s at the same time.....

Edited July 8, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Off the top of my head I'd say that that picture is set in Scotland (judging by the blue bonnets in the foreground) which probably makes it the execution of Thomas Green and co in Edinburgh in 1705. At that date Scotland was not part of Britain and so the uniforms were not regular English army establishment.

Now looking this tread again I feel ashamed by my earlier behavior. But now I have something to say actually.

To correct what I said about that hanging picture: It is pirate execution near Edinburgh in 1721 were pirates including John Steward were hanged.*

And actually thinking about read coats and pirates: think a Rn sailor wearing a red waistcoat with sleeves, red breeches and a leather cap with white tread . With a musket his appearance would be pretty much same as the look of some English 18th century light infantrymen. Just a play with ideas nothing more.

* actually I bought That book and I am completely sure what the pictures are. while now I have read the whole book and I really appreciate the work that the authors have done by bringing us the first (quite) accurate pirate book I am not taking back the criticism about that book. The pirates in than book are so "copy paste" pirates wearing really uniformed clothing and weaponry with only a few different variations (like there is only red and tan Monmouth caps and only one style of tan PTG hats and all of the petticoat-breeches are checked, only one style of sailor knife appears in pictures.(the book, after all, claims that this pirates were really like) I think there might have been a more versatile vision of pirates with a little more variability and it could have helped (at least me) to make a vision of pirates as a group individual men and not just a copy paste bulk. We know that more variability was among sailors and pirates (in their appearance) that the author wants to think, or at least I firmly believe so but again this is just my humble opinion)

Edited January 15, 2013 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

As for marines I wonder what did Shelvocke meant in his book A voyage round the world, by the way of the great South Sea (between 1719-1722) (at least in 1757 there is this) when he mentioned mister Betagh captain of his marines. I dare to claim that me meant a form of actual soldiers of some sorts. At least in other sections he is very specific about titles and always separates seamen from the officers and captain and different ranks.

Here is the page see quite early http://ia700308.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/28/items/avoyageroundwor00schegoog/avoyageroundwor00schegoog_tif.zip&file=avoyageroundwor00schegoog_tif/avoyageroundwor00schegoog_0110.tif&scale=4&rotate=0 in the text. He mentions the marines many times over the book.

A digital version of that book but unfortunately not fully complete one as it lack a few pages here and there.... http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6935017M/A_voyage_round_the_world_by_the_way_of_the_great_South_Sea

Edited January 18, 2013 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Some pictures that belong here

While the official uniforms were not used until 1748 at least I can see great similarities in British RN officers' appearance in early 1700s

For example while the navy blue was not yet the clear sing of the navy, dark blue with gold and white or sometimes with red was seen around quite a lot

Perhaps the Britons mimic the French navy which that had had adopted blue outfits to their officer already (at least accordingly this http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=French_Navy_Officers)

All in all it seems that British naval officers from captain to admirals at least favored official army style clothing.

Vice-Admiral Fitzroy Henry Lee, 1699-1750 circa 1725

Portrait of a naval officer, circa 1700

Captain Robert Harland, circa 1680-1751 picture circa circa 1707-1711

Vice-Admiral Sir Stafford Fairborne, c. 1666-1742 circa 1703-1708

Admiral Sir Chaloner Ogle (1680/1-1750) Picture should be around 1718 but at least before 1748

Vice-Admiral Sir John Leake (1656-1720) circa 1705-12

Admiral The Honourable Charles Stewart, 1681-1741 circa 1740

But well it is good to remember that many favored other colors

like here

Commodore the Honourable William Kerr, active 1688–1719 circa 1706

Edited April 23, 2013 by Swashbuckler 1700