The Buccaneer Project

[michaelsbagley]

I just want to say that I spent the last 2 or 3 lunch hour at work reading this tread that I find amazing!

Great job everyone on searching and digging for clues and idea on this matter and of course especially Patrick. I feel very connected to this subject since well as a French-Canadian... I speak french. Also the Quebecois word for smoke is still "boucane" (as far as I know the word is not use in France) so I'm guessing there was more interaction than one might think between boucanier and the New-France population. I will have to investigate that...

Regarding the boucanier musket, what lock was common at the time on the French side? I'm guessing not English lock, rigth?

By the way, if you guys need any translation from French, don't be shy just ask

looking forward for PiP buccaner photos! :)

Hey Cuisto,

There is a great thread somewhere in Twill from a few years back that focusses just on the Fusil Buccanier (although with the creation of the "Lock, Stock, and Barrel" section it might have been moved there). But the short answer to your question is that the "french lock" (as it was referred to back then) was the earliest "true" flintlock with the internal half cok rather than the english "dog" catch safety. Most of the surviving fusil buccanier that I have seen pictures of in various books seem to be from the 1700 to 1730 era, and have flat faced, banana shaped locks. I'm not sure if there are any easily obtainable published sources for images or pictures of the fusil buccannier of the late 17th century, so I have been going with the hopes that the more easily found early 18th century surviving pieces are similar (or hopefully even the same) as theearlier pieces.

Found it.... Link to the old thread on the topic

And a link to a more recent discussion where the buccanier was discussed.

[Cuisto Mako]

Hi Michael, thanks for that, but when you say the earliest "true" flintlock...how early are we talking, 1670? 1680? 1690?

[michaelsbagley]

Hi Michael, thanks for that, but when you say the earliest "true" flintlock...how early are we talking, 1670? 1680? 1690?

Okay, from what I have read (mostly see Torsten Link's "Flintlocks a History") the "True" flintlock (or French Lock) came into existence in the 1620s (+/- depending on who you ask) although they were uncommon and did not become the dominant weapon until much later in the 17th century (how does one pin a date to a transition?). Several factors, but mostly price and effort of production kept the transition slow and gradual and the (much cheaper to mass produce) matchlock as the cominant weapon throughout most of the 17th century.

I guess my choice of words was poor, as there were earlier "true" flintlocks, it just seems that the fusil bucanier was one of the first more "production" true flintlocks (hopefully being clearer here). I think there are textual references to the "fusil bucanier" going back to at least the 1680s, although I think there are earlier references to "bucanier" muskets out there, if I were to guess going from memory, I think finding references back to the 1660s is possible.

[Quartermaster James]

Okay, so I've suddenly found myself wondering what those buccaneers machetes Dampier or Exquemelin mention actually looked like.

Has anyone found illustrations of those?

[Animal]

I imagine they are much like our modern day ones. Maybe the basket was removed from a cutlass. No real information to back this up but machetes have been around for a while and used extensively in areas of thisck brush which in out time period would be everywhere.

Animal

[Quartermaster James]

Delirious ramblings deleted.

[Quartermaster James]

Seems like a long handled fascine knife or a garden slasher would fit the bill nicely (too bad you can't readily get them stateside).

The yorkshire style billhook is ancient, well predating the period (think medieval halberd) and still in use today. Now, I think it odd nothing like that was around.

[Commodore Swab]

Another thought on a machete is this. When I was in Thailand last they have some very simple blades there that are used for hacking down bushes to breaking open coconuts. They appear to be something that may of transitioned thru the ages without much of a change at all. The end is squared off with a wide (about 3/16") flat section opp the blade that is used to hit on to drive it thru whatever might be needed to. The handle is nothing more than the steel rolled over in a circle. All in all a very simple rugged utility blade.

As for lock I am using a snaphaunce lock on the musket I am starting work on. My thoughts are that it would of been more common to find in the 1660's with evidence they were in wide circulation as late as 1700. I know the doglock, flint lock (french), and english lock were being built at this time but I feel the bucc. would of looked for something they knew and trusted that was cheaper and more available than the newest ones on the market.

[Quartermaster James]

Well shucks! It's been some time, but I reckon it's still modern...

The machetes we had around when I was clearing brush as a kid looked like this:

Well, they were of that pattern, at least. Ours didn't have any fancy blacking on them.

Boy, were they made from crummy steel too!

Anyway, this is just a picture I pulled off the web to illustrate the general style.

Condor actually makes a few different variants of this pattern.

Then there's the Luftwaffe machete that was brought up on The Pirate Brethren board:

Then you've got bolo style:

And golok:

to illustrate just a few of the blades we call machetes besides the U.S. standard pattern.

Personally, I find this one rather appealing, but fear it too modern:

What I'm going for is to have my three utility knives (Long hunter, skinner, and short hunter), and then to have some sort of brush clearing blade. I don't think my fancy hunting sword will fit the bill here; most likely a buccaneer would have sold it if he ever came to have it. The Luftwaffe machete seems to have some potential, going along the modified cutlass theory. But I wonder why, if they were cutlasses, Dampier would have called them machetes? Oh well, I'm really just rambling and thinking in print here...

I suppose one of these would make a fine machete as well: everything that makes it abysmal as a sword works in favor of cutting brush!

[Quartermaster James]

The interwebs is such interesting places!

Look what I found there: Spanish Colonial Machete

[callenish gunner]

That primitive cutlass you pictured QJ is just a hack and bash weapon a cutlass like that was never designed for finesse swordplay. they were usually made by local blacksmiths and not by sword makers or cutlers. It was for the most part just like a machete or cane knife with an enlarged guard on it ....but in shipboard armed combat it would do what was usually required of it to do. there are extant examples of such weapons including in the Neuman collection @ Valley Forge NPS

Edited August 20, 2009 by callenish gunner

[Quartermaster James]

Thanks for the info Callenish!

I confess I actually have one of those hanging on my wall. It was the first weapon I picked up when starting out in this hobby (and before I found this fine forum).

I keep thinking of working it over a bit, but that's more of a project than I can pull off right now. It is a frightfully heavy thing, even without the heavily front weighted balance.

On the brighter side of things, I've found a source for socket mounted billhooks stateside. I've also learned of a Japanese brush hook called a Nobori Kama that is pretty much the same as a long handled billhook. Things are looking up!

[thunderbuster]

I also posted this link in the Fusil thread on Buccaneers and I've cross posted it here since it has good information on period arms, etc..

http://www.vikingswo...word/index.html

Fair Winds,

thunderbuster

[Guest]

A few years ago, when I was looking at machetes.... (Ones that could have been around at the time, not modern stuff, or machetes from other Country s that the Buccaneers couldn't have gotten to (ok... out of period modern stuff from our perspective..)

And the best I can figure out, is that the basic shape was developed a long time ago (hey... it still works....) .... and other that some simple changes to the handle... they all look almost the same....

Yeah... that plastic handled thing you can buy in an Army Surplus store (hey... remember those) is still very close in shape to anything that I could find....

Yeah... I know... that is not good research.... but it was the best that I could find....

A medium length very thin blade with a very simple handle, most of the weight of the blade is forward (the foible) a slashing tool/weapon, not designed for stabbing.

I have one made by that famous bladesmith Taiwan.... that I'm going to grind and change the handle (the back finger sprue is shorter from what I can figgure) and backdate it..... sure.... is won't be as pretty as my cutlass, but to the best I can figure, it will work for my Buccaneer stuff.....

[Quartermaster James]

Here's an interesting little thing: Tarwar

[Quartermaster James]

I have one made by that famous bladesmith Taiwan....

I am leaning towards the work of that other fabulous bladesmith: Philippines!

Picked this Batangas machete up the other day:

This picture is weirdly foreshortened. The blade is 16" long, and not so roach bellied.

This is a better picture, but of a different knife, about two inches longer than the one above:

[Guest]

The second picture looks a lot like what I ground down my machete to look like (well except the handle goes back straight, without as much curve....)

I still have to rivet the scales on, and make a new scabbard.

And unfortunately, my digital camera died, so posting photos is kinda a hustle right now......

It ain't as pretty as my cutlass.... but for a working /fighting tool, it could do the job......

[Animal]

Bump, because it's getting close to PIP.

Animal

[John Maddox Roberts]

I recently read a gruesome but very likely true study concluding that the weapon that has been used in the greatest number of homicides worldwide in the last couple of decades is not the AK47 or the M16 or any other firearm - it is the machete. Think Rwanda. Since the slaughter happens in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Latin America and other places that, let's face it, don't have oil, it has dropped under the radar of the international media. To put it another way, we're actually living in the golden age of the cutlass.

[blackjohn]

I can believe it. It's not a finesse weapon requiring training. Nor is it a dangerous weapon that serves no other purpose and is therefor worth passing legislation on that limits who can own one. It's a handy tool that I imagine can be found in any a shed the world over. I know when I was a kid we had one in the garage on one of the shelves. Talk about a great weed whacker!

[hurricane]

You should Diosa's father wield a machete - he's from Belize - it's like an extra appendage to him. Can use it for everything and he's extremely adept at getting a lot of power out of it in terms of chopping and hacking. I would hate to have come upon him aboard ship with that thing in his hand.

I do have to disagree about a cutlass being a finesse weapon. It was meant to chop and hack and create gaping wounds. It wasn't a sticker. It was a hacker aboard ship. And the buccaneers used the cutlass like a machete when in the jungles on campaign. It was a utilitarian piece that could chop vegetation and people.

-- Hurricane

[Badger]

Yuurrhh, its time ta stick me neck out. (ulp! ) I been readin' all o' the forums an' old stuff I can find here on th' flintlock vs. doglock vs. matchlock, etc. in the time o' Morgan (1660-70's). I know its probably in there somewhere, but there be a couple o' points I havent been able ta' find, and I am gonna speak to 'em.

Many (I name no names, an' mean ta gore no oxen) seem ta think that the buccaneers were of a conservative mindset, and would have long retained their matchlocks by choice instead of eagerly taking new 'flinter' types. I submit that this is but speculation, and seems contradicted in the writings of the day. Exquemelin and Dampier both comment repeatedly on the "superior French fuzils" of the buccaneers, and the advantage this gave their firepower over the Spanish. It is clear that "fuzil" (fusil) refers in the French to a flintlock exclusively, while "mousquet" refers to a matchlock. I do not think this is a mistake in terms these authors would have made, given the heavy French cotribution to the efforts of the buccaneers.

Those of ye who hold out for doglocks, well, O.K., but all my research indicates that the doglock was nearly exclusively an English lock. (There were other flintlocks in use by the English too, as all o' ye know)! It doubtless was used by the buccaneers, probably extensively, and many were found in Port Royal, but I'll point out that Port Royal was destroyed after a decade of less and less French influence, and increasing hostility towards them. Thus it is no wonder more English designs would have been in use there by 1692. Exquemelin and Dampier say "French fuzils", not "English doglocks". Just saying.

Another point; The "buccaneer musket" of 1700-1730 (perhaps earlier) was a very long-barreled gun. I have seen a few references to them being used as 'sniper' guns by French naval sailors, and others, from the mast fighting-tops, to 'mark down' enemy officers etc. on the decks of the foe. What I have NOT seen, is many examples of period buccaneer art that show them leaning on a musket that goes above their heads....(maybe one?). On the contrary, many such show buccaneers leaning on or holding muskets which come to the shoulder area....about the length of a standard flintlock musket of the day. Say 4'-1/2' to 5'....if the men are normal height. They may well be shorter....men were, then! These pictures are easily available on Captain Twill.... check them out! The extremely long 'buccaneer gun' may have been a later (1680-90) invention, or it may have been rare.

Ye can argue 'availability" till we is all blue in th' face, an' I agree that a vast array o' cheap an' captured musket an' matchlock types would have been in use amongst th' buccaneers of all eras, BUT I are speakin' of the weapons used by th' more successful buccaneers, here.

Also, as a side note, 'Tulle' is only one of a NUMBER o' French 'fusil" manufacturers...an' not by far th' earliest one. It is only th' one best documented.

Given these hints, and based on observin' what little evidence there is, I think that the "Superior buccaneer fuzils" were 'standard' early-model french-lock 'fusil' muskets. I dare ye ta prove me wrong!

Now I is ducking an' covering.....got me fusil an' me pistols....will sell me measelly life dearly....

P.S., I totally agree wi' Hurricane about th' cutlass.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Badger

[Animal]

I'm bumping this thread to keep it alive. Whoever was at PIP this year, please post andy photos you might have of the Buccaneer camp, please. I would like to see what it looked like and hear ways to improve it. We are less than a year away from PIP 2010. Now is the time to fine tune it.

Animal

[Guest]

OK.. it took me a while to think about alla this...

This year at PiP I participated as a Buccaneer,..

So what worked, and what didn't work...

Startin' from the top down...(for clothing, my camp stuff worked great....))

I brought two hats.... the cut down hat, and the manouth cap.... Both worked, but I tended to wear the manmouth cap more often... it just happened that way....

The Shirt is interesting... GoF gave me some linen about 5 years ago that was over 150 years old... In the PiP photos from about 5 years age you can see me sewing it (hey.. you gotta hand sew 150 year old linen...) anyway... I finally finished it.... Well it's heavy... almost like a canvas... so it was hot.... but it wont wear out. So I figure that it is what a Buccaneer would have used as opposed to the lighter weight linen worn by most reenactors for comfort. I'm kinda torn on the shirt... I know that the 150 year old linen is period.... so I don't think I will wimp out for comfort.... So the heavier shirt will stay....

The jacket... It was made outta a light weight grey wool lined with linen... a very boxy cut, and it looked so dang plain... One of the problems with my entire outfit is that it looked so dang ugly and plain... so I must have gotten it right....I will be re-doing the jacket for next year... make it offa the Scottish 1700 bog body (yeah... it's a little outte my period, but the Scottish weren't know for keeping up with fashion anyway...so I figure it's the closest to period that I can find)and outta a light baby blue blanket that i found.... Anyway.. the light grey one worked... but it was kinda ugly... Oh yeah.. and I added an inside pocket.... turned back the side seam, and then sewed a patch on the inside... I can't remember where I saw that... maybe an Arabic bit of clothing... but it's easy enough, and worked....Period... hey I don't know... but like I said.. it worked...

Ergh.... the biggest problem was the breaches....(there are post about me loosing my breaches... well they were too hot, so I took them off and just wore my drawers.... I'm kinda thinking that those pictures of the Buccaneers ... Hey... they were just wearing their drawers, because it is so much more comfortable... Archeology by Experiment) I made veneations... modified from a Janet Arnold pattern...Unfortunately, the originals were "trussed" up with hooks and eyes to the inside of a doublet...and...well I didn't add enough "ease" in the seat (baggy butt)... so they rode up in my crotch when I sat down or bent over.... since then I found an English Civil War pattern for breaches that should work better.... (just the drawers were still more comfortable )

My socks were always ratted out... and the cut-down brogans worked, other than I get a weird rash between the balls of my feet and my toes every time I go to PiP, but I don't think it's the shoes... just a change in climate....

All in all it was an interesting experience.... yeah sure no one outside of the Fort knew what I was dressed as... but Hey... how else do you show how people dressed from an uncommon/unknown period?

[Animal]

Good on ya, Patrick!!! Did you get any photos of the camp? I agree that the weight of the shirt was probably more towards period. Functionality over comfort. I still think (from the available images) that long hunting shirts with drawers or none were probably what was worn. A couple of images show wraps around the legs for protection. Could be leather or maybe sail cloth or canvas, not sure. I'm thinking leather for protection against the brush and thorns on the islands. When I get my kit closer to what I want, I'll post some photos. Anyone else got something to add???

Animal