What pirates REALLY wore.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

For Golden Age (1690-1720ish), I would say that shoes on board would be the norm.

Hawkyns and Foxe would know more about the earlier periods and whether boots were in fashion for ship use then.

They may look "cool" in a ren-fair-esque way, but I would not think they are practical for ship board use.

The other thing is that the boots available today are not made the way period boots should be.

Check out Sarah Juniper's site for authentic footwear.

GoF

[Patrick Hand]

GoF..... but those arn't a good example of common shoes.... Hawkins or Foxe had a better post................

(and I'm still mad that pegged soles ain't period..... rats..............)

[Cut-throat]

GoF, thats not the first time that I heard that boots weren't practical on deck o a ship. Whats the deal with that ? Why would the bottom o a boot be any different than the bottom o a shoe ? I have no experience with it personally an I be wonderin if'n ye could enlighten me ? Just tryin to educate me'self.

[King's Pyrate]

GoF, thats not the first time that I heard that boots weren't practical on deck o a ship. Whats the deal with that ? Why would the bottom o a boot be any different than the bottom o a shoe ? I have no experience with it personally an I be wonderin if'n ye could enlighten me ? Just tryin to educate me'self.

I don't think the deck had anything to do with wearing or not wearing boots or shoes for it was surely a hot blistering deck in the tropics and an icy one on the northern seas in winter. Going barefoot gave the sailor more feel of how he moved around in the rigging.

KP

[Fox]

Well, just about every picture I can think of showing common seamen from say 1500-1800 (OK, actually every picture that I can think of) shows seamen either in shoes or very occasionally (maybe 1-2% at a guess) with bare feet. I've never seen a single picture that I can recall, nor seen any documentary evidence, in favour of common seamen wearing long boots from the Tudor period to Nelson's time.

I suspect that the issue is about 20% practicality (boots restrict movement, fill with water, flap about etc) and about 80% cost. Think about the difference in the amount of materials and work between a pair of shoes and a pair of thigh-length boots... OK, as pirates you might say "I didn't buy these boots, I stole them" but then you really must ask yourself how many pairs of long boots would have been available to steal on the high seas at any given time in the period?

Also, we have to bear in mind the simple idea that long boots just weren't that fashionable during the GAoP. If you look at high class portraits most of them (not all by any means, but most) are wearing shoes. This idea of "I'll wear long boots to make myself look flash" is a very modern one, it is not necessarily an 18th century attitude. Plus, sailors had their own fashions, distinct from what was fashionable ashore, and shoes seem to have been almost exclusively the vogue for seamen rather than boots.

None of this is to say that no pirate ever wore boots instead of shoes, but he would have been in a decided minority if he did, and I can't think of one good reason why he should have done.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Pat... the link i posted has a couple of pairs of 17th century boots that are made the right way. Granted, the shoes that she has pictures of on her site are REALLY nice and would probably be for mid-upper classes, she can/does make a spanking lower class shoe as well.

Cut-Throat

its not the bottom of the shoe that makes it a problem, its the rest of the "boot" that is impractical for use aboard ship... kind of like snow shoes.

GoF

[capnwilliam]

I've also heard that boots made treatment of lower leg wounds more difficult: harder to get them off quickly in an emergency.

Capt. William

[Cut-throat]

Wow, grammercy to ye all for the input King's Pyrate, Foxe, GoF, an Cap'n William. I found it incredibly helpful. I was off on the entirely wrong track. I was under the impression that a boot, for some odd reason, would be much more slippery on the deck o a ship. I had no idea that it was the upper portion o the boot that made it less practical.....Aaahh well. Here begins me hunt for a great pair o shoes. I know that it'll be a tough, and expensive, road ahead, but I don't care. I want to get as period as I can !

[Gentleman of Fortune]

C&D Jarnigan makes early 18th Century shoes that are straight lasted. Since they are custom made, I recommend asking them to make a 1" or smaller latch (where the buckle attaches) to meet the needs of early 18th Century. They run about $139 + C&D Jarnigan FI110 shoe

Good luck

GoF

[Pirate Petee]

http://podiatry.curtin.edu.au/boot.html

These are some images and links that I have, it proves that sailors did wear boots. My personal opinoin, I would think that they would provide more protection when in battle. And on a ship in general, with ropes and splinters and such. True most etchings show pirates in stockings and buckle shoes, but since that was fancy and high fashion at the time, they would have worn them while posing for the etching, just like dressing up to take a picture. At the time boots were working class. Since none of us were actually there and since pirates were outlaws on the run from the law, traveling to different exotic ports around the world its safe to say that they wore a variety of different clothes especialy since they were pore and would have taken what they could get, we really can't say what they wore, we can just guesstamate.

[Izzy the Silver Tongued]

Ah, I be sayin' er that thou be wore anythin' the scurvy dogs could fackin' get their 'ands inter.

[John_Young]

Historical - re: footwear.

Well, I would say barefoot but with tarred soles is a perfectly historical option. If not a wee bit sticky.

Historical - re: bodices, cleavage, et al.

Considering historically women were often not allowed at sea. Famous personalities like Bonnie and all aside. I would say that of 90% of the female outfits I've seen at this forum, at faires, and at pyrate events... those women dressing as such would be treated as whores.

Note that I did not use "wench", the cutesy ren word. I call No Quarter when calling such things such. I stand by my above statement when I say such women would be whores. Pirates would keep them as such or else repeatedly rape them.

There are the "lady" type of women who would be captured on a prize. She would be raped and then killed or else sold into slavery. If her family were rich enough she would be ransomed. In the mean time she would be repeatedly raped.

Sorry if it offends any of you. Just offering my historical viewpoint. I'm not saying women pirates and wenches and the like aren't fun at faires and such. Just that showing cleavage around a bunch of murders and whatnot isn't the wisest choice of action.

[capnwilliam]

My personal opinoin, I would think that they would provide more protection when in battle.

Boot leather won't stop bullets, or other explosion-borne metal or wooden projectiles.

Capt. William

[Hawkyns]

Don't know about the first picture, but there is such a collection of clothing styles, I don't know what to believe. Also, the sailor on the right appears to be in early 19th C kit, or very late 18th, so well past the GAoP.

I'm not sure that the 2nd and 3rd pics show boots. Without more provenance and documentation on the images, they would appear to be more like heavy hose, rolled down to just below the knee, as was done for cooling. Certainly I see no significant heel or buckle that would definitely identify them as boots.

As far as the protection from projectiles is concerned, they would be more likely to cause harm than to help. As Cap'n William says, they won't stop most projectiles. Indeed, parts of the boot will be pushed into the wound and cause further infection, especially if not all the remains are removed. This was proved during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries by cavalrymen who had to wear the boots for protection from the horse's hide.

And again, boots will fill with water, weigh you down, most cav boots (which is what they were really for) had stacked heels, which would make you even more unstable on deck. I'm not saying it was never done, but I'd be very VERY surprised to find out it was common practice among the rank and file.

Hawkyns

[Fox]

It's true that we can only guess at exactly what pirates wore, the trick is to examine the evidence and make educated guesses.

Take those pictures for example: The first one comes from the notoriously unreliable "Pirates Own Book" by Charles Ellms - published in the 1830s it has no reliability whatsoever in terms of the GAoP seafarers it claims to represent. In that picture alone we have what looks like a pair of late 16th/early 17th century boots worn with breeches of the same period and a doublet which seems to stem from someone's imagination opposite an early 19th century naval uniform.

The middle picture is interesting but again looks like a mid-19th century (or later) illustration, and so is of little significance regarding the GAoP - even if its reliability were not in question. Out of interest, what is the origin of that picture?

The final picture again looks 19th century, but is different in that I'm pretty sure those are fishermen (judging by their garments) rather than deep-sea sailors. Fishermen we know wore boots, but they were principally to protect their clothes from the stink of fish being gutted. I think it's really stretching it to use pictures of fishermen as evidence of the clothing of seamen since the two trades were considered quite seperate at the time.

Just to prove I'm not a drum-banger, here is a genuine picture of a GAoP period seaman in boots. It is a French seaman and dates from around 1700 - FWIW this is the only pictoral source I have showing seamen in long boots out of the hundreds in my collection

[Pirate Petee]

Out of interest, what is the origin of that picture?

I wish I could say that I knew the reliability of the second picture, but I can't. It said it was an 18th century illustration of a sailor. I don't recall where I found it I'll have to look. The last illustration are of whalers of the 18th century. As we all know the boot was actually designed to provide protection while riding a horse and was folded up and then while on foot it was folded down. Whalers and fishermen who were also sailors adopted these boots for the same purpose ,with the whalers they used it to provide protection from cutting blubber and the mess. The reason I posted that pic was because, they were sea faring men who could have very well turned or forced to go on the account. As for the protection, I will still have to disagree with Hawkyns and Capn Will, bullets, no they could not have stopped them at all, but damage from splintering I think they would have provided some amount, better than stockings or bare skin. Now I’m not saying they used the boots as armor. As for part of the leather entering the wound when shot and festering , not likely, it will go through it but it won’t take a piece with it.. Thin fabric will go with the round. How do I know this you ask? Well when I was in the service we had extra time on our hands and liked to shoot stuff especially manikins wearing clothes, one wore an old leather biker jacket. The rounds would just split the jacket, not pop a hole out of it. Now we were using modern rounds and not round musket shot, so I could be flawed there. All I’m really saying is that there is always a little bit of truth to something, we know they existed and were there, chances are that more than one sailor wore them. Hell for all we know, the few period illustrations and etchings that we have where we see the majority wearing buckle shoes, could in fact be the minority, it is just that those pictures are the only ones that happened to survive. Unlikely, yes, but it could happen.

[capnwilliam]

As far as the protection from projectiles is concerned, they would be more likely to cause harm than to help. As Cap'n William says, they won't stop most projectiles. Indeed, parts of the boot will be pushed into the wound and cause further infection, especially if not all the remains are removed. This was proved during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries by cavalrymen who had to wear the boots for protection from the horse's hide.

Hawkyns

From DECISION AT TRAFALGAR, by Dudley Pope, at Page 192:

"After dressing with particular care Collingwood went up on deck. He saw Lt. John Clavell wearing high leather boots. 'You had better put on silk stockings as I have done,' the Admiral observed, 'for if one should get shot in the leg, they are so much more manageable for the surgeon."

Capt. William

[Pirate Petee]

Correct, with the tight fitting cavalry boot wearing stocking would able him to pull off the boots easier. But the bucket boots in question aren't as tight and form fitting. And true if they were to fill up with water they would send you straight to see davy.

[Fox]

I wish I could say  that I knew the reliability of the second picture, but I can't. It said it was an 18th century illustration of a sailor. I don't recall where I found it I'll have to look. 

Judging by the gear the other people are wearing I'd say it's very late 18th century at the earliest. The style of the drawing suggests to me that it's more likely 19th century but I would be glad to be proven wrong.

The last illustration are of whalers of the 18th century. As we all know the boot was actually designed to provide protection  while riding a horse and was folded up and then while on foot it was folded down. Whalers and fishermen who were also sailors adopted these boots for the same purpose ,with the whalers they used it to provide protection from cutting blubber and the mess. The reason I posted that pic was because, they were sea faring men who could have  very well turned or forced to go on the account.

OK, lets apply a little common sense here. You're a whalerman (or a fisherman), you've got a good pair of long boots which you wear for protectionwhen slicing up whales, but they're not very practical for general sailing in. What do you do? Personally I'd take 'em off and replace them with more practical shoes for general day to day wear, wouldn't you? Next, you join a pirate crew and don't have to cut up whales any more. What do you wear?

Yes, whalermen and fishermen wore long boots for practical protective purposes. Yes, if we dig deep enough I'm sure we can find plenty of examples of whalermen and fishermen turing pirate. BUT, it doesn't really follow that they would all have worn their stinking boots when they no longer had to. Some might have done certainly, but why would they?

I'm not, and never have been trying to prove that nobody ever wore boots at sea, but we've really got to accept that they would have been impractical and the evidence does show them to have been rare and exceptional.

Hell for all we know, the few period illustrations and etchings that we have where we see the majority wearing buckle shoes, could in fact be the minority, it is just that those pictures are the only ones that happened to survive. Unlikely, yes, but it could happen.

Too unlikely to be worth contemplating. If we only have a tiny number of pictures then it would be unwise to draw too many conclusions, but we don't, we have a large number. On my website alone there are depicted at least 99 seamen from the GAoP, and that is only half the pictures in my collection. For only 2 people to be wearing boots (and both of them French officers - possibly the same French officer) out of that number is pretty conclusive in my book

[Izzy the Silver Tongued]

Wot ever 'appened to makin' yer own clothes...?

Seems nowaday folk like ter be purchasin' their garbs off o' thy internet than actually grab a pair o' scissors an' some clothe to cut at. By 'eck, I love makin' me own, but I be admittin', me coat was bought at a price nought thy cheapest. Aye. Yiss.

An' as fer boots. Thine 'uge big ol' floppy 'uns that Corsairs strut round in... I only wear 'em when I be at sea or if'n I'm walkin' salt. They be 'eavy, cumberin' when ye wear 'em too much, an' they tend to make yer feet sore. But yiss, that be wid' only thy floppy 'uns. Thy big floppies.

[Cut-throat]

Thank ye one an all. Ye've shed some very interestin light on the subject for me. Though differences in opinion stand, the methods o inferrence are incredibly interestin. It be a pleasure to read all o yer comments.

Foxe, I have to ask, in the picture ye posted o the French sailor, would ye happen to know what the letters A, B, C pictured in the background signify ? They caught me eye at first glance an I can't stop wonderin.

[Fox]

No idea I'm afraid Cut-throat

[Lady Seahawke]

IMHO, while at sea what was worn was the most comfortable and practical. When going to port for R&R, the fancy duds came out to impress. Strutting around and 'bout in their finest. Especially that they had just ...ummm found floating to their ship..

[Dorian Lasseter]

Foxe, I have to ask, in the picture ye posted o the French sailor, would ye happen to know what the letters A, B, C pictured in the background signify ? They caught me eye at first glance an I can't stop wonderin.

I'll answer this.... sort of...

The A, B, C.... most likely they refer to a notation that went with the drawing.... I have many bokks with maps, etc. that have numbers and letters next to points of interest...

As for the topic....

You have to ask yourself if YOU would want to be swing about in the rigging while encumbered with boots, cutlass, pistols, cartouche box, etc...

Me? No... I'd want to be as lightly encumbered as possible...

Now, if yer gonna be attacking a ship... Yes, I'll be happy to be carrying all that truck....

On shore? Mocking the gentry, showing how fierce ye be? Yes, I'll be carrying the extra weight...

[Fox]

I'd figured that much! I just don't know offhand exactly what the letters are noting.

With regards to dressing up to go ashore, yes fine. Except for riding in, how many of the gentry preferred boots over shoes in day-to-day fashion?