Cutlass or knife in the teeth?

[Swashbuckler 1700]

It is a quite different to do something as simple as what we are talking about than take ear piercings that needed lots of work, or get tattoos that were unknown in western culture.

I don't think it's at all different. In either case we ask three questions:

1. Is it possible they did it?

2. Is there any evidence they did it?

3. Is there any logical reason that they might or might not do it?

Whether earrings, tattoos, bucket boots, or daggers in the teeth, the answer to all three questions is the same:

1. Yes.

2. No.( well in most cases no or only not 100% valid evidence (like Dutch sailors' earrings but they were not pirates so not clear evidence of pirate earrings. Pirate owning riding boots was a solitary happening and so was L. Wafer having tribal paintings/ tattoos of indians)

3. Logic suggests not. With my logic I would say that daggers in teeth would be logical but some may disagree

Nose-picking is different of course:

1. Yes

2. No

3. Logic suggests probably.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

Ah, Howard Pyle. Creator of several of the much cherished pirate myths that the movies hold dear.

Actually, NC Wyeth seems even more responsible for this "iconic" image than Pyle. (He and Pyle are the two artists who appear to be the most responsible for creating the body of wrong-headed "iconography" associated with the pirates of the Caribbean. And each of them appear to have been inspired by Treasure Island, the ultimate source for most such incorrect imagery.)

Pirates Attack the Stockade, N.C. Wyeth, 1911, From Treasure Island

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Well I have read that Wyeth took a lots of inspiration from pyle's work. He invented e.g that gaop pirates used really large brass hilt cutlasses what are not anything close to pc.e.g http://www.flickr.co...N04/4664563143/ that was pc this is wyeth http://image0-rubyla...ate/BC75.1L.jpg

This is offtopic but I dare to say that he is more or less responsible of "the pirate tattoo thing" see the previous artwork. Nowdays ralely there is place were the tattoos aren't haunting with the pirates

btw

What is good to remeber that teasure island, at least originally, "happens" in mid 18th century. So a bit later than gaop and in its illustrations things like sailors hair queue are not bad errors at least as bad as they would be in gaop.

I still not however say that knife in theet is completely a myth. While it was not really common behaviour it makes sense, at least to me as a theet user.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

It may have happened but the original question was if there was any period proof of it. So far, there isn't. I think it came from artwork of Pyle and Wyeth since that's the first place we really seem to find it. The movies picked it up and since there were dozens of them that repeated it, it became iconic in that way.

However, as for it being something GAoP pirates commonly did (which is how the movies represent it), that at best an unprovable possibility (and unlikely given the commonness of sheaths and the inherent foolishness of climbing ropes or fighting in that way.) It is certainly not a provably typical feature of a pirate attack during that time period. So it's representation as a common pirate tactic appears to be a Hollywood myth drawn from late 19th and early 20th century artwork.

[Matty Bottles]

I can't remember - Swashbuckler, did you say you had tried it?

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Well I have kept sharp thing in tooth and did not have hurted myself and I have moved also with some so.... I say it is to me practical enough but not really confortable.....

anyway.... I think we aren't getting anywhere with this.... but indeed why it would have been a common?

I think it was more unkommon.....

Edited August 6, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[William Brand]

I remember someone at an event saying that a knife in the teeth would be very practical, as you could keep your hands free during a boarding action.

I just smiled and said 'sheath'.

[William Brand]

I mean you could carry it in your teeth, providing yourself with discomfort and the disadvantage of trying to keep your breathing low while clenching down on a piece of steel with just enough pressure not to drop it and not so much as to hurt your jaw. To say nothing of slobbering all over a good knife and blocking your ability to call out if plans should change on the fly...orrrrr...

...you could keep the knife comfortable, safely, conveniently in a sheath, thereby keeping your hands and your mouth free.

[Duchess]

On one occasion out a voyage, a line got tangled around our prop. Though I don't quite recall why, I ended up having to free dive under the boat to cut it clear. I held the knife in my teeth, though not by the blade, but by the handle. It would take someone with remarkably even teeth to securely hold a flat piece of metal. Handles are generally slightly larger, rounder and made of something with a bit of give. All of which, in my case, were much more conducive to holding it securely, even when tired.

[Matty Bottles]

I asked because part of step 3 should include trying what we can and using that info to inform our logic. In this case, I have tried to hold a knife in my mouth by the blade, on more than one occasion. It absolutely sucks.

[Mission]

"Slobbering all over a good knife!" Oh gosh, that made me laugh.

Actually, people have brought up a really interesting point: it is challenging and somewhat uncomfortable to hold flat metal objects in your mouth. (Keep in mind that dental hygiene wasn't anywhere near what it is today and most people had pretty bad teeth. Imagine gripping a hard, flat, steel object with bad teeth - if you can. Our dental hygiene is such that it's hard to imagine having anything more than one bad tooth - and that tooth gets fixed as soon as it starts twinging.)

If you were going to do it, chomping on the handle would make far more sense because as Duchess pointed out it would be easier to hold onto. However it wouldn't make the images quite so dramatic which again points to this being a decorative rather than a practical matter.

[Cascabel]

From a practical standpoint, one's mouth can sometimes serve as a convenient "third hand" when both hands are needed to work on something. I worked as an aircraft mechanic for over 35 years, and sometimes held a flashlight in my mouth in order to provide light while both hands were occupied. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with carrying a knife in the teeth while attacking a ship. I think a cutlass in the mouth is out of the question because of the weight and awkward length, but a medium sized knife might be plausible for a short time.

[Red John]

Aye, watched "the Sea Hawk" last night . . . and while I don't normally reference Hollywood movies as a source for much of anything . . . I did notice that . . .

. . . in the first boarding scene in the Sea Hawk, the mate that was boarding with the short cutlass in his teeth . . . well, just as he made it to the Spanish gunwale . . . his blade flipped right out of his mouth as it caught on a line, or maybe he just dropped it . . . a case in point on 'still' art as opposed to 'motion' pictures (and real life) . . . it looked real cool until it didn't . . .

. . . and all in agreement on the third-hand flashlight holder, done the same and still do at times . . . and as for actually 'going in' on an objective, I have to think they would only hold a knife for a minute or so while they needed both hands for something else . . . and a short minute at that!

[Bright]

http://youtu.be/TP6329xsL8o