Shoes and slippy decks

[dasNdanger]

Jus' discussin' sailor's shoes wif me pa-in-law, an ol' salt himself. And he said that since shoes were often a status symbol, a sailor/pirate wouldn't likely be wearin' 'em on a slippery deck, but only for going ashore. I mentioned how pictures show the men in shoes, and he said that was an 'artist's representation' because it would be 'disrespectful' to portray the men barefoot. He said shoes were highly valued, and would have been 'saved' for more formal occasions. He used the illustration of how kids in the south would carry their shoes to school, then put them on once there, just to prevent wearing them out.

Now, running around barefoot on the deck does seem more practical, especially in warmer climes, but I want to know if this was the case on ships, especially pirate ships - barefoot on deck, and shod in towne? And what about other footwear on deck - was there anything else that may have been worn while working or at leisure but not worn in town?? Or were shoes worn at all times to prevent any sort of foot injury (slinters, cuts, etc.) that could turn septic and lead to an untimely death or amputation?

Jus' wonderin' what the books say...

das

[Rumba Rue]

Well ye see, when it's really cold and the deck freezes with ice, the sailors go skating. Course that's really bad when they skate right off the deck inta the ocean...oops....

Rumba Rue

**Your favorite 'peanut gallery' person**

[Desert Pyrate]

There are others that can better speak to this than I, but I can say from personal experience that a deck can be awfully dangerous to feet. One particularly harrowing day aboard Royaliste, I had just boarded from the dink, and was barefoot (didn't want to waterlog my shoes beaching the rowboat). Heading below in strong heel, heavy winds and rough seas, I slipped and smashed my foot into the carriage of one of the deck guns. I've still got a scar. So yes, shoes are certainly helpful. Though I too have heard that sailors of old didn't wear them...

[Wartooth]

The problem is more for those going aloft. Its difficult climbing the rigging in shoes ... if not impossible. Then again, nobody's gonna order my substantial bulk up the shroud and onto the yardarm! My barrel chest and stumpy legs are better suited to moving cargo, turning capstans, and eating beef and pease.

Wartooth

[privateer]

aye shoes were rarely if ever worn on deck. the only time they wore anything on their feet was for protection from the cold. even then it was more likely for them to wrap their feet in cloth then wear shoe's. the deck of those ships are so worn and smooth that splinters were not a real concern.

[Patrick Hand]

I'm not sure if its period or not...

but I DO know that leather soles on wet decks DO get slippery...........

[Fox]

In my experience (as curator of the Golden Hind replica in Devon for 3 years as well as a sailor-for-fun since I was a kid) I'd say it depends entirely on the weather and the job.

In wet weather bare feet are very definitely the order of the day, the grip is so much better, but of course it depends on the temperature. In cold wet weather the slight skiddiness of leather soled shoes is more than offset by the comfort of not walking barefoot in freezing water and watching one's toes fall off.

I'm interested in what Wartooth says though, I find it much easier to go aloft in shoes than bare feet - definitely not near-impossible. I guess it's down to preference.

I think the reason that most pictures show seamen wearing shoes is less to do with looking "proper" and more to do with the fact that most artists were ashore and drew seamen as they saw them, which was mostly in their shore rig. The shore rig was probably similar to their working rig, but a bit smarter. Or of course it could be because seamen generally wore shoes

Now here's the $6,000,000 question. Does anyone actually have any evidence of whether seamen in the GAoP wore shoes onboard or not, or is this just more speculation? I ask because Gabriel Bray, who was painting a bit later in the 1770s, but who painted from life, tends to have his subjects in shoes. He was painting men at work and rest aboard a man-of-war, and he's one of the few artists of the 18th century who really understood what he was painting, being a mariner himself. This suggest to me that seamen probably wore shoes more than we like to think. Any evidence to the contrary?

[Wartooth]

I'm interested in what Wartooth says though, I find it much easier to go aloft in shoes than bare feet - definitely not near-impossible. I guess it's down to preference.

I'll bow down to your experience, of course, Foxe. I had always read that shoes in the rigging were a big "no-no". I would have assumed that the bare feet would conform more easily to the lines and ropes. Then again, I've never had to climb up there.

Wartooth

[the Royaliste]

I'm interested in what Wartooth says though, I find it much easier to go aloft in shoes than bare feet - definitely not near-impossible. I guess it's down to preference.

I'll bow down to your experience, of course, Foxe. I had always read that shoes in the rigging were a big "no-no". I would have assumed that the bare feet would conform more easily to the lines and ropes. Then again, I've never had to climb up there.

Wartooth

Without impuning on anyone's reading, I go aloft daily in everything from tennie's to wellington's, depending on work to be performed, but never barefoot, (barring an occaisional swimming jaunt)...I'm not a pauper, and I enjoy the skin on all of my toes!..All forms of rigging is like rawhide knots to your feet.....

[Fox]

I'm glad you've come in on this one Royaliste I've often used my experience as a good reason why seamen probably didn't go aloft in bare feet in times gone, but anyone trying to argue that they did always says "But your feet would harden up and get used to it..." At which point I tend to leave the argument - I figure if after 3 years of going aloft, maybe not daily but 3 or 4 times a week at least, I'm still wearing shoes because it's more comfortable, then GAoP seamen probably did too. Maybe your feet would harden up over time, but the pain you'd have to go through to get them that hard just wouldn't be worth it, you'd just wear shoes instead.

So, to meet a longer term seaman who says the same thing is great

Simple experiment for those without access to rigging: climb a ladder first in bare feet then in shoes and see which is the easiest. Then bear in mind that even the tautest ratlines will bend slightly under one's weight, digging into the side of one's feet, and the realtive smoothness of steel ladder rungs compared with rope ratlines.

[the Royaliste]

Although finite, there is the difference between a seaman who's station is on deck versus that of a topman...Two really different worlds back in the 'day'. It would be far easier to imagine bafefoot deck sailors than barefoot topmen........

[dasNdanger]

Wow, thanks everyone for your input...

Now, back to my original question before it gets all tangled up in the riggin'....

If the men did have shoes, would they have 'saved' them for going ashore? For instance, I'm thinking of JR's red heel thread...if a pirate did have such a pair of shoes, would he have worn them while performing everyday duties, or something else?? Was there any other sort of 'shoe' a sailor would wear to preserve higher quality shoes for fancy dress? I can imagine, as privateer suggests, that a sailor might wrap his feet in cloth. But would there be anything else worn? Barefeet on deck, especially in the tropical heat seems possible. But then we go back to the threat of injury, and the fear of infection - would they risk barefeet? As far as going aloft, I can imagine that some might actually prefer barefeet (esp. any seaman of 'native' origins. A man used to scampering barefoot up a coconut palm would probably do the same in the rigging. But I would think a man of European background might prefer to be shod).

I know working on just a small schooner I'm always stubbing me toe on something. We have to wear shoes (when carrying passengers) - usually sandals with a backstrap. No flipflops allowed. But when no passengers are about, the crew often go barefoot (mind you, with no tops'ls, they don't have to go aloft in the normal fashion, but only by way of a bo'sun's chair when necessary). But this is modern day - with cheap shoes available to all, safety regulations, etc. I'm trying to figger out the mindset of the early sailor/pirate. We live in a throw-away society, they did not. Everything had value, even if it was falling apart. To preserve a 'good' pair of shoes makes sense...but then we need to ask how many shoes DID they have?? One pair? Two? More? Or did they even share shoes when times were lean?? Where did I read - fact or fiction - that one pirate crew ate their leather shoes to avoid starving??

I don't want to put modern man's shoe collection into a pirate's seachest. Sure, stealing shoes from captured vessels, or buying them from pilfered loot, may have increased their availability, but would they risk wearing them out while performing daily tasks?

Don't mind me - I'm just thinking aloud. Many of my above musings have been answered...but I guess I'm looking for more specifics, based on shoe cost and availability 300 years ago. So, anyway, continue discussing, please, and don't mind me...

das

[Wartooth]

Foxe & Royaliste --- Thank you both for clearing up that fount of misinformation I was apparently under. I appreciate it.

Wartooth

[the Royaliste]

As far as going aloft, I can imagine that some might actually prefer barefeet (esp. any seaman of 'native' origins. A man used to scampering barefoot up a coconut palm would probably do the same in the rigging. But I would think a man of European background might prefer to be shod).

I

Spent much time living in the tropics??..I can't buy into this concept; in most island nations, the palms are territorily 'owned' for generations by families. If one studies people 'scurrying' up palm trees, you'll find hereditary 'notches' in all trunks. They are footholds, few people climb palms like primates................Several of my crew are 'natives' as you describe them, and wouldn't even think of doing such a thing. They even threaten me when putting Stockholm tar on rigging; don't want the stuff on their hands, much less their feet!..A sailor's feet are his life; nothing is better protected.........You can climb one-handed, but forget 'one-footed'

[JoshuaRed]

Fascinating info Royaliste, thanks!

How about the possibility of sailors wearing just their stockings around ship, no shoes? Would provide some measure of protection, and probably better grip than smooth soled shoes.

Personally though, I'm of the belief that they wore shoes more often than not. There are SO many things on deck to bang/stub/slice a toe on when trying to hustle about.

[the Royaliste]

It's been noted everywhere thru history that a sailor's life was rugged, unsafe, and plain deadly. FWIW, as far as shoes, this presents us 'fulltime' onboard reenactors a rub; how to stay safe, but not be in 'yellow rubber galoshes'......since actual sailing is work, and safety is utmost with us, I've shifted to a black, pull on pair of low-cut Rossi brand boots from Australia for ondeck as I much as I can work them in. They are good gripping ondeck and aloft, yet pretty much 'go' with any of my sailor garb for pants and slops.......round toed, look O.K. in photos..

[dasNdanger]

Spent much time living in the tropics??..

What does it matter?

They are footholds, few people climb palms like primates................

Primates? I never suggested such a thing. Footholds or no, I only wondered whether or not a person who is used to going about barefoot (climbing barefoot, walking barefoot, doing anything else barefoot) would start wearing shoes once aboard ship. My sister, for instance, (although not a primate or a native) climbed trees and rode horses in her bare footsies all the time. She preferred it that way, it's what she was used to.

Several of my crew are 'natives' as you describe them,

Yo - back down a bit, K? I didn't use the term 'native' in a demeaning way, just as a contrast to 'Europeans'. In fact, let's just forget the whole stupid coconut/barefoot scenario as it seems to be taking this discussion in the wrong direction...

Yes, I agree that feet must be protected. I have also said that it seems logical (by MY standards) for shoes to be worn for such protection, especially considering how deadly even a small scratch could be back before the discovery of antibiotics. But again, we can't put today's standard of living on that of people 300 years ago. Shoes were not mass-produced in factories back then...there wasn't a Payless on every corner...there were no on-line suppliers ...there was a limit to their availability. Men were at sea for months, even years, at a time (though pirates were not as likely to go that long without going ashore). Leather soles wore out, stitching rotted apart, toes broke open. I tend to adopt a favorite pair of shoes ane wear them daily until they fall off my feet, and most (leather, canvas, or man-made material, doesn't matter) last me less than 6 months. So, I'm trying to figure out how a sailor, doing much harder work than I do and with far fewer options when it came to replacing his shoes, made his shoes last. I figger the average shoe would last about 6 months at sea and with continual wear before starting to fall apart. So, although I agree that shoes would have been worn for certain tasks...I would be surprised if they wore them continually, day in, day out (unless they were cobblers by trade). So, IF (and ONLY IF) they didn't wear them continually, what would be the alternative? Barefeet? Stocking feet? Cloth? A sort of slipper or sandal (seems rather unlikely)? Old shoes that were only good to 'beat around' in? Worn-out sneakers tied together with duct tape? BUCKET BOOTS? Or did a man just wear his best shoes until they rotted off his feet, and then went in search of a new pair?

das

[Fox]

On the availability and price of GAoP shoes: Certainly shoes weren't mass produced in industrial factories as we know them today, BUT shoes are and were a "necessary" item of clothing, rather than a fashionable one. Where there is a need you will usually find someone to fill that need. What I'm trying to say I guess is that there's never to my knowledge been a shoe-famine.

With regards to cost it would perhaps be good for us to look at the RN slop regulations pooh-poohed on another thread. In 1706 "double soled shoes, round toes" were available to any seaman in the RN who wanted them at 4 shillings a pair, "brass buckles with iron tongues" at 3 pence a pair. At that time an RN Seaman earned 19s per 28 day month, an Able Seaman earned £1 4s, and a Boatswain earned between £2 and £4 depending on the size of ship. A pair of shoes therefore represented round about 4 1/2 days' wages for an AB and about 2 1/2 days' wages for the boatswain on the smallest vessel.

By comparison in the same regulations an unlined red waistcoat with 18 buttons cost 5s 6d, a shirt of linen cost 3s 6d, and even a pair of linen drawers cost 2s 3d. ie, 2 pairs of underpants cost more than a pair of shoes with brass buckles.

On alternatives for shoes: I think the most likely thing is actually that seamen wore shoes. I've never seen a written or pictoral source for seamen tying cloth round their feet and I don't think that wearing stockings would offer any more protection than bare feet, plus they'd wear through and you'd have to buy new stockings (grey woollen ones, 1s 9d a pair from the purser - nearly half the price of a pair of shoes).

However, I do have two other possibilities to offer: firstly, in wills and similar documents of seamen of the GAoP one often finds shoes and buckles listed seperately. This fact coupled with the practicality of working seriously in buckled shoes (I've not found it practical) leads me to suspect the possibility that seamen wore their shoes at sea, but fastened them with laces through the buckle holes perhaps, or left them unfastened, then put the buckles on to smarten their shoes up for going ashore.

The other possibility is the obvious one that many seamen probably had work shoes and shore shoes. John Hutchinson who died in 1684 for example left "one paire of bootes" to a shipmate, but desired that "one paire new shoes English and one pair modderas[?]...be sold at mast". It's possible that the boots mentioned are bucket-tops but I seriously doubt it, more likely to my mind are short sea-boots, perhaps similar to this one recovered from the Vasa, a shipwreck of 1628.

On a different note: Yes Das, Many of Morgan's men ate their shoes as they crossed the Isthmus of Panama. If memory serves they soaked them in water and pummelled them between stones to make them soft before cutting them up into small pieces.

[dasNdanger]

Wow, thanks Foxe...exactly what I was looking for!! First, about Morgan's men - thanks, I knew I had read that somewhere, but couldn't remember for the life of me who it was about!

Okay - now everything you say seems to make sense. I'm interested in what the 'modderas' may be?? In Spanish a similar word means 'moderate, slacken, or cool'....but we know how languages can change in a few hundred years. But now I'm wondering if these 'modderas' could be some sort of working shoe??

But the other information is excellent - just what I was trying to find out. Thanks so much, gonna go off and research some more...

das

[dasNdanger]

okay - doing some more checking on 'modderas'. I asked a Mexican friend of mine, and he said Moderas sounds like a surname. So could this 'modderas' be like a 'brand name', a style of footwear (if it was, in fact, a shoe) named after whoever made it, or after a region or place, like a 'Panama' hat? Again, a lot can change in 300 years...

also, I found an interesting link, dealing with a period a couple hundred years earlier: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/calderon/clothing.htm

If you look through this link, you'll see reference to 'hemp sandals' that the Spanish made - I wonder if they ever had a specific name?

Also, whalers in more recent times seem to have worn a hemp shoe (c1820-1880).

Since hemp was used prior to and after the GAoP, could it be possible that some sort of hemp slipper or sandal was worn aboard ship to save on wear and tear on good leather shoes?? I am in no way suggesting that such was the case, just wondering.

I find it interesting that in my research on shoes for sailors, there is precious little information. Great detail is given to uniforms and slops, even to hats and the buckles for shoes, but very little description of any footwear - nary a mention of boots, shoes, or anything else.

Also, I have noticed before in several illustrations (not sure of the dates of the illustrations), that many pirates seem to be wearing something that almost looks like a 'slipper', with a pointy toe. Now, I'm guessing that this is just the artist's way of getting around the footwear problem if he hadn't a clue as to what they wore, but could it also be some sort of informal shoe?? (if anyone has a piccie of what I am talking about, I'd appreciate it if you could post it. One such picture is that of the pirates riding the monks, and the other is that of the officer tied to the mast, bottles hurled at him as he's shot) - sorry, no idea where I can get me hands on these pictures at present.

*goes off to do more research*

das

[dasNdanger]

And a final pondering for the night...

In doing research on 'sandals', I came across information that indicates currans (cuaran), revelin, pampooties, etc. were sometimes referred to as 'sandals'. Now, looking at pictures of 'currans' c. 1700, they could almost look like the 'slipper' some sailors seem to be wearing. I wonder if such a simple shoe was used by sailors (since many sailors were of Scottish/Irish ancestory, it IS possible they brought this style of shoe aboard ship). Of course, this is all wild speculation, and I'm still amazed at the lack of information in the books I have, and also online regarding styles of seaman's shoes.

das

[JoshuaRed]

Mmmm! Tastes like feet!!

[dasNdanger]

LOL...nuffin' like toasted shoes wif a little toe jam on da side...

das

[captain.richard.grenville]

I am an Elizabethan reenactor focusing on the reign of Elizabeth I as Captain Sir Richard Grenville son of Captain Grenville who drowned when the Mary Rose floudered under the reign of King Henry VIII. My research spans from approximately the begining of Henry VIII through Elizabeth to the end of the Golden Age of Piracy just prior to the Napoleonic Wars my research has found thus much overall.

First and foremost everyone had some type of footware be it simple shoes through leather shoes and tall boots. For sailors the former would be typical attire while the later for the Captain and/or "gentlemen" and eventually "the officers" aboard.

Onboard however, I would agree that artistic license has been taken over the years depending on what the artist is to portray and/or was commissioned.

From my research until the late 1600s when a more formal "uniform" for the British Navy was becoming more and more standardized weather and comfort ruled the day. There was no specific shoe/no shoe rule aboard with the exception of the "gentlemen" of the boat who typically as onboard or ashore would wear their clothing denoting their station more than anything else. For the general sailor unless it was required for example the Captain's review or Sunday Services I believe it was a matter of personal preference. But ashore unless they did not own shoes they would have some form of footware.

[dasNdanger]

Thanks, cap'n!!

Just one question - when you say 'simple' shoe, are you referring to the heeled leather shoe sans buckle (perhaps laced as Foxe suggests), or something even more simplistic, such as currans/pampooties??

Thanks for the information!!

(Foxe - forgot to mention that I appreciated the expense breakdown of the various items. Guess shoes weren't quite as dear as some other items, eh? )

das