When is it just plain wrong

[hitman]

This may be a bit off for Capt. Twill but I was wandering when does an educated guess become a cop out. Reading through a few threads just now I was struck by just how hard we here at the pub try and make it clear what is a guess what is fact and what is just complete hog wash. This seems almost completely out of place when compared to say tv history programs. The most oft used cop out in my opinion is "We think it was for religious purposes" really why....... You have no evidence to suggest it was or wasn't you just have no clue what it was for! So I ask you when does an educated guess cross the line. In your opinion of course.

[Patrick Hand]

Not exactly what you are asking....

My Buccaneer stuff, it's as close (well still working on it) as I can figure.... but it is so drab..... It dosen't look like a Pyrate, and very few people know what it is..... But my play Pyrate garb..... nice and flashy (in a grubby dirty sort of way) is much more fun to wear.... I get a better reaction as a recognized Pyrate...... I try to do both, but there are times when is is more fun to play the Hollywood version...... The cop out being that the fantacy is more recognizable than history.....

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I only think it is a cop out if you have no basis in historical fact. If you can make the case without direct proof but with good evidence, I don't think that its a cop out, its just really the best information until proven otherwise.

Like ear rings.

We know that ear rings may have been fashionable before the GAoP, evidenced by some pictures and documents stating this. We also know that in the late 18th and 19th centuries they may have been fashionable for sailors to wear.

We also know that during the GAoP, ear rings were not in fashion and there is almost no credible evidence to support ear rings.

The cop out that bugs me the most is the "pirate lore" cop out. This is the one the goes something like "everybody knows that pirates wore earings".

The real basis for the lore is that 19th century sailors wore ear rings, and almost all Hollywood pirates wear ear rings.

But despite the fact that pre 1750 ear ring use is scant, some how it makes it into pirate lore.

Most of the things that are tied to our childhood/hollywood ideal of piracy are the ones that get the most cop outs. I mean, hey, bucket boots are cool, but just because they are cool doesn't mean they are justified for use aboard ship in the GAoP.

This is a really tough subject for Pirates in GAoP. Pirates were the terrorist of their times to be caught, tried and executed. No body in 1718 cared what pirates wore unless it was to identify them at trial. 300 years later we are trying to put the pieces of a puzzle together.

Can you imagine, in the year 2306, our decendents might be trying to get their Al Qaeda kit together and have a discussion forum as to what color the explosives vest should be and weather they were velcro'd or tied shut with laces!

GoF

[hurricane]

Well said, GoF. Unfortunately now you'll have the Velcro Nazis up in arms over whether it was white or black Velcro. :)

Wishing doesn't make it so. As much as we want to conform piracy to our visions, a lot of what we know comes from popular literature and movies. One would assume that pirates didn't look any different than those in society in general. Even when placing a pirate on land, he would blend for the most part with the gentry. Not much different than today. Pirates today don't wear flashy garb - they have baseball caps and New York Yankee tank tops (at least one photo I saw).

Of course, there were those who were flashy. Sir Henry Morgan never dressed down from what I can glean of his history - he dressed the part of an Admiral of the Black, right down to his last days. I know other captains did as well, at least when when in port. But for the most part, pirates were indeed sailors and they wore what worked on a ship. I don't think any revisionism will change that.

That doesn't mean, however, that one historical fact can be applied across the boards. There are always exceptions.

Take pieces of eight for example. When we were at the Money Museum in Jamaica, we found that pieces of eight remained the country's primary currency until 1839, much later than I thought. The locals kept rejecting attempts to replace it with other forms of currency. So if you're a pirate or sailor roaming the streets of Spanish Town or Port Royal, even after the Golden Age (by the way, Port Royal was much different than most of us think during GaoP, but that's another subject), you can carry pieces of eight well into the early 19th century and be accurate.

Like Patrick, I now go both ways. I have my more authentic Sir Henry look and my fantasy play clothes. Both are fine and I understand the differences historically now after learning a lot here. And I'm good with either, depending on the circumstances.

To pyracy in all its forms, huzzah I say!!!!

-- Hurricane

[blackjohn]

Reading through a few threads just now I was struck by just how hard we here at the pub try and make it clear what is a guess what is fact and what is just complete hog wash.

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree. In my opinion, most of the people here don't give a squat about authenticity or accuracy. This is not to say they are bad people, but they certainly are not re-enactors and not living historians. If you want proof, just look at the number of posts in each part of this forum. Where do you find the most? the least? Or look at the type of posts in Plunder. How much of what is peddled there is actually useful to a pirate re-enactor?

[Pirate Petee]

Funny you should mention that GoF, I was just thinking, what if in the future people try to re-enact our modern day pirates. People walkin around with AK's and RPG's. THats not a period correct 40mm grenade launcher.

[Caraccioli]

No body in 1718 cared what pirates wore unless it was to identify them at trial.

I don't know about that. The success and multiple printings of General History and other pamphlets on the same topic from the time might suggest that there was some popular interest in the pirates. Even today, we sometimes make heroes (or at least anti-heroes) out of criminals.

[Captain Midnight]

These are good points. Although I do consider myself a true historical reenactor, I think the vast majority of people on this forum are not. Now that is not to say that I think my garb and equipment are perfect: certainly there is always something to improve, and I am still learning, and there are many things in history that we just don't know and have to make an "educated guess" about. Take for instance my previous threads concerning hat cockades and pistol holsters. According to contemporary art, the hat cockades of the GAoP were different from the ones during the Revolutionary War, but because we don't have an actual artifact, we are forced to replicate the cockade from the pictorial sources. The same goes with the pistol holsters: we know they were used, because they're pictured in countless drawings and engravings, but without an actual historical piece to hold in my hands and examine, I have to make guesses as to their actual construction and methods of attachment. The only holster I am aware of from this period (that was definitely used by pirates) is the one from the wreck of the Whydah, which Blackjohn was kind enough to provide me a photo of. The holster is so corroded, however, plus the clarity of the photo masks any details that might be seen, so I have to use what details I can make out from that photo, coupled with details from period engravings and written sources to craft my best "replica", which is an "educated guess". This in my opinion, however, does not depart from history enough to be considered "hogwash", as my efforts and intentions are at the very least to craft something that is as close to the truth as I can humanly get it without studying the real thing. Now I would consider a pirate's flintlock pistol being carried in an American Civil War flap-style holster utter hogwash.

While I too, like the Hollywood/Disney versions of pirates' images that we have grown up with, I would have to say that most of that is utter hogwash (and I seriously don't mean any disrespect to those of us who recreate that image, but it must be realized that it is complete fantasy---which is just fine in the proper places and contexts). As for real pirates from history? I would have to agree that they most likely looked for the most part like any other people or sailors from their day, aside from the fact that they might appear at times more tattered or poor, due to their clothing and equipment wearing out at sea. I don't think they would have been dressed in anything outlandish enough to make them stand apart from any other people, (other than the few who dressed as elegant gentlemen) otherwise, it would have been recorded in history.

[Fox]

Just steering this away from a surprisingly civilised farb/reenactor conversation...

I think the essential differences between history, educated guessing and balderdash are a matter of evidence.

History: Where there is good evidence on a specific point it is reasonable to say that we know what the truth is, at least in that particular case.

Educated guessing: With so much of the history of piracy, and indeed almost all history, we are confined by the evidence available to us. Alas, until the invention of a time machine we have a finite amount of information. It is true that not every piece of relevant evidence has been brought to light, or to the attention of historians and the general public, but though we might occasionaly find new bits of evidence we cannot create it. Where we are lacking evidence we have to either accept that we jut don't know, or we can piece together what little evidence there is (often using evidence from similar areas, rather than directly associated evidence) and use it to draw sensible conclusions. The use of information about merchant and naval seamen which is available to get an idea of the kind of clothing that pirates might have worn is a case in point.

Balderdash: "historical knowledge" based on stuff that is either not relevant evidence, or is not historical evidence at all: traditions which developed after the period in question, popular fiction, Hollywood, and other such "sources".

[oderlesseye]

when does an educated guess cross the line

1. EVOLUTION

And EYES has an opinion on the reanactment stuff.. I thinks it is important to the re-anactor to be acurate fer him/herself yet to whom you re-enact, a group of kids will have not thought of; less care about

"how your holster is held together" The experience of the event of re-enacting seems to be what children or even EYE ( fake pyrate ) would take awaye anyways...

MR. Fox- back to gettin on topic... To answer your question from my narrow slice of the pie.. Me thinks that If an educated guess is taught as fact, then it is over the line. Seems obvious enough to me ... An exclaimer ought be clairified to present the truth as itis known rather than as we (subjectively) want it known..

[hitman]

Well Black jhon as you might imagine I'm going to stick by my comments but I will clarify to this extent I was reffering to Capt. Twill not the entire Pub. Yes I know ther are others but until recently this is where the bulk of my posts were and is where my intrest still lies. Quite frankly debates over how to sew an authentic button hole, Patrick Hand's excellent Buccaneer rig, Foxe's incrediably in depth posts, and topics like this one to me stand as shinning examples of my point. In addition Foxe's post was most in line with my original meaning althought the fantasy Vs. Historic reenactment debate (for the humtenth dozen time) isn't very far off either. As an answer to my own question an educated guess crosses the line when they are passed off as fact and or given with no education to make a guess with.

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

maybe the origonal question should have been when do we cop out to holiwods version of a pirate than to a historical

well hollywood seems to be stuck in the golden age of Priates and uses a lot of catch words, such as Corsairs and Buccaneers in places that do not fit. Simply because the paying Audience wants to hear them. They have no respect for anything that does not help increase the bottom line.

As a historical reinactor, you would want to research and present yourself as accurately as you could to educate the public.

However, the public is brainwashed by Hollywood and gets their education from it. THey thik it is easier to observe than to read so whatever flashy bangy stuff is on the screen, thay take asa truth.

Look at it like this, historically a lot of men cropped their hair short, it was a way to keep lice and fleas down, but how many of the publicsa women want to fantasize about a short haired man, nope they want a rouge with shoulder length hair to ravish them.

Plus if you were to dress pirates on a ship in drab clothes that were worn day to day onboard, the public would soon get board, they want flashy colorful garb to flow around trailing behind in banner like fashion, they expect it.

So to sell your historical reinactment to the public, how much of it do you have to flair up for them.

Well judging from the amounts of Jack Sparrows running around a pirate and Ren Faires these days, BUNCHES

Sad but True

[Zorg]

This whole thing is complicated because, as we come into the 18th century, we are coming out of a period--read:all of human history--in which most of style and technology was local, not general. Couple that with the pirate characters that ranged the world, sampling, buying, and stealing their equipment, and you've got a formula for some really dubious "accuracy" debates.

Nam Singh once sent me (ali if you read this, send us the source) a listing of criteria for accuracy used by a group he worked with. It makes sense:

The goods involved:

1) Definitely existed: We have examples or multiple or very detailed illustrations of the goods from the period and location we're portraying.

2) Probably existed: We have drawings and/or descriptions of the goods from the period and location, the technology existed at the time, and similar goods may/did exist in neighboring civilizations at the same time.

3) Possibly existed: The technology existed at the time, similar goods may/did exist in neighboring civilizations, and the goods are a logical extension of usage or style for the culture we portray.

4) Probably did not exist: No pictures or descriptions exist for the time and locale, materials were unlikely to have been available, goods are culturally counterindicated for the group we portray.

5) Definitely did not exist: Technology did not exist at the time, materials used did not exist at the time or were unavailable to the culture, goods are too far out of period.

Anyway, as a test for reenactment accuracy, it works fairly well. :)

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

now seeing how most pirates carrers were in months, not years, and most turned pirate after being poor sailors, I would venture to say the average pirate did go along the lines of slightly over a local area of influence. Some of the more famous crews and captains may have sailed internationally, but most were known to have stayed in a localized area of water. A huge factor in this was the education it took to navigate large areas. Navaigators were hard to come by. at least ones that could do the math required to sail internationally, or even read the logs and charts.

[Fox]

Well pointed out Fitzwell. On the other hand, although their piratical careers were usualy short many pirates had long careers as merchant or naval seamen going back years or even decades, so many of them might have been well familiar with al sorts of foreign lands.

Just to stick an oar into the "public need us to be flashy Hollywoody pirates" argument: I very rarely do pirate portrayals, mostly my group portrays Royal Navy or privateers. We tend to wear typical seamen's garb; petticoat breeches or slops, short jackets, neckcloths, monmouth, thrumm or small tricorn hats etc. We don't wear bucket boots, sashes or huge feathered hats. We even have a friendly group of red-coats who join us as marines sometimes. And we STILL get called pirates more often than not. Dress authentically and the public will still recognise you easily. There are many reasons for dressing in a Hollywood fashion, but "the public won't get that we're pirate otherwise" is just twaddle IMHO. :)

Incidentally, when we do play pirates we wear the same stuff and have no difficulties being recognised.

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

Not to stir it up[ any more my Good Man FOXE, I would point out, that many of the seamen who had long carreers at sea, were pressed, and even if they were not, were held on ship in foriegn ports for fear of desertion, both merchant and Militarty, it would be hard to vrew a ship in a foriegn port, so liberties were not easily attained, also wages were not given out freely at these ports and sailors were seen as poor and scurvied, not real desirebles.

However I do see that they would have been able to capture booty from prizes, However, how many pirates had a ship large enough to capture large ocean going vessels sailing from europe and beyond. Again the average prize was not a ship laden with spanish gold, but a small merchant ship with cargo. or even fishing canoes. Boty such as rope, pitch and ship works were high on the list as the pirates could not go into ports for a refit. Money and jewels were usually come by at the point of a sword or torture and it did not amount to much, Cargo was the big booty.

And as far as hollywood, lets date Pirates of the carib, Lets see, style, additude of residencents in Port Royal, Military having a no Pirate additude, and size of town. OK earthquake 1692? rebuilt slowly over the years, before earthquake wicked pirate city, after the rebuild pirates not around, No mention of morgan after 1688, Navy has a resolve to end piracy

I would say 1710s to 1720s, I think we could agree to that

Then the Bird, opps captain Sparrow says, I plan to sail to Tortuga and get a crew of buccaneers

opps, the golden age of buccanners were just about over in the 1680s, by the 1690s Tortuga was rid of them, they had become wood cutters or pirates, lets not even go into Buccaneers biggest achievements being marine armies, not pirates. And we see that Hollywood will use any TERM or FLASHY GARB to romance a story for the sheer excitement of it, even though they say they are well researched, they destroy that with FLAIR. Why? The public are not historians and want to see it

I agree with the look realistic vibe, however Ever notice the public when at these events, flock to the not so historical guy with long flowing hair and much flair on his garb to have pictures taken with, then at home show off those pics, not the ones of the historical encamoments?

[Fox]

Yup, many of the seamen who had long careers were pressed at one point or another, but must have also bee volunteers if they had anything like a long career. Merchant seamen were often allowed to go ashore at the various ports they called at, the many examples of exotic items to be found in the itineraries of seamen made at Limehouse and Deptford attest to the fact that seamen were able to get ashore and purchase such things. For a large part naval seamen were indeed kept aboard, but it would be folly to imagine that trusted volunteers were never allowed ashore. My real point, though, was that we shouldn't forget that every pirate had a life before piracy. FWIW, personally, I suspect that booty captured during a piratical career probably only made up a small part of each pirate's personal possessions.

This will no doubt be a bone of contention, and may well have something to do with being on different sides of the pond, but: no, I have not noticed particularly that the public automatically flock to the flashy looking pirate more than the authentic ones. What I have noticed is that the flashy ones entertain the public who flock to them for about 2 minutes tops, the authentic ones can keep their public for half an hour or more. One other thing, which I think is perhaps more pertinent, is the reaction of the public to flashy/authentic pirates. When the public look at the flashy guys they go "Look, a man dressed as a pirate", when they look at us they go "Look, a pirate".

Whatever the case, my specific point about recognition still stands. If you wanna play dress-up farby pirates then far be it from me to condemn your fun. It's not my thing at all but I genuinely have no problem with others doing it - I organise the UK's largest gathering of authentic and farby pirates every year. However, people should be honest about what they do and why they do it. Hollywood pirates who pretend to be authentic really pee me off, they're not only having their own fun, but also undermining the work of others. Hollywood pirates who say "I'd like to be more authentic but the public just wouldn't recognise me if I were", also pee me off. I'm sure there are many many good reasons for playing Hollywood, but that really isn't one of the good ones - it's a cop-out excuse. :)

[Patrick Hand]

"I'd like to be more authentic but the public just wouldn't recognise me if I were", also pee me off. I'm sure there are many many good reasons for playing Hollywood, but that really isn't one of the good ones - it's a cop-out excuse.

It must be different over there...... in the States, I've noticed that people want thier picture taken with the more Hollywood Pyrate than with the Buccaneer.... most people don't even know what the Buccaneer clothing is.....(I've been called Robin Hood ! ) but they instantly recognize the play pyrate garb.... I'm as much of a ham as the next person... so it gets frustrating at times......

I still do both... in parades or intertaining the public, I wear my play pyrate garb (It's not that farby... and I know what parts are not correct....OK... the tarpline hat with a skull and crossed bones painted on it is farby... but fun...) I wear the Buccaneer clothing where it will (maybe) be recognized for what it is.....

I know it's a cop out..... but it is a pain putting the effort to do something as correct as possible, and have everyone flocking to the play pyrates......

[Slopmaker Cripps]

Mr. Hand,

My crew and I are all about authenticity, and we have a hell of a time while doing it (always laughing and having a good time when we're all together). We tend to piss off the hollywood pirate types because all the spectators flock to us and ignore them. They've even been so rude as to barge into our presentations. It is not like we're trying to fight them or anything, it's just that we set up off to the side and do our own thing, and the public comes to us. Trust me, the public can tell what's realistic versus what looks like POTC, and many of them comment to me as such. They do notice the extra effort.

Cheers,

Adam C.

Fish-Broth Society

[Fox]

In fairness, if I were dressed in your buccaneer garb over here then people wouldn't recognise me - I'm talking about "normal" pirate gear. Anyone who doesn't believe me, try it: go to an event dressed in petticoat breeches or slops, a checkered shirt, short woollen seaman's coat, neck-cloth and a long "jelly bag" type hat, and count up how many people ask what you're meant to be.

I'm really not trying to have a farby vs. authentic debate here, I just take issue with people who think that the public are too stupid to recognise an authentic looking pirate for what he is. :)

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

Maybe My view is a bit Jaded from living 60 miles from Hollywoood, at events we get a Flock of Sparrows every time since the Pirates of the Caribbean movie was first released.

Now I am not saying sailors did not have anything exotic, or were not allowed of ship in foriegn ports, they were not givin liberty as much as now days, and were not exactly rich or well thought of.

Two of the biggest places in history that pirates came from was the ranks of Privateers who wre put out by wars ending and Merchant sailors, But not all sailors sailed international waters by any means. A study of the buccanners, one of the biggest pirate groups in history will show that many were not even very naughtical by nature and they tended to stay withing the Carib. I think the point I was trying to make is that most pirates probably never sailed international waters. I know we have famous ones that did, but they are the exception not the rule.

now, our group plays 16th century Privateers based out of South England in the late 1580s, most of us wear Elizabethian attire with a nautical flair, I wear several Middle Eastern scarfs off my belt and do not see them as not being period, Faires of the time in England would have eastern Traders. I also have a few other world style trinkets to add flair, of course I am a captain, I would be a little richer than the average sailors. Abourd my ship we have a few who dress from foriegn countries such a middle africa and the middle east, keeps thing interesting.

The biggest intrest we keep the public for is informing them about the entire history surrounding the Seadogs and dispelling Hollywood rumors, after 15 to 20 minutes talking to one of our group you have had a history lesson indeed, including the use of common everyday items. I have to admit Hammin it up in skits to entertain is fun, a blast infact, but discussing living history is the reason I got started.

[Slopmaker Cripps]

15-20 minutes? Dang, I wish the talks were that short! I've had people who wouldn't go away after an hour or two....And that's just history, not gear and so forth....

And I'm with Foxe....when our group goes in our Royal navy stuff or our merchant seaman kit (same thing, we just put the Slop contract garments in the trunk) we still get called pirates.

Cheers,

Adam C.

Fish-Broth Society

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

maybe we are just simple minded on this side of the pond

but at a event we have many duties, a 2 hour conversation with a patron, well that would be a luxury, especially if he wasin buying the ale.

[Fox]

Maybe My view is a bit Jaded from living 60 miles from Hollywoood, at events we get a Flock of Sparrows every time since the Pirates of the Caribbean movie was first released.

Yeah, we get them too. Just a bit sad that they show such lack of imagination IMHO.

I think the point I was trying to make is that most pirates probably never sailed international waters. I know we have famous ones that did, but they are the exception not the rule.

I suspect that a much larger number of pirates had sailed international waters before they turned to piracy than you think (I wouldn't even like to start counting up the sheer number of seamen who sailed with the East India Company, Levant Company, and the Royal Africa Company between say 1680 and 1730). I think also that a much larger number of pirates are known to have sailed the world during their piratical careers than we tend to give credit for. Take for example the large number of pirates who sailed on the African coasts as well as the American, forget not the staggering number of European or American pirates who sailed the Indian Ocean and made their bases at Madagascar, not to mention the large number of privateers and adventurers who sailed the Far East.

now, our group plays 16th century Privateers based out of South England in the late 1580s,

Splendid, do you guys have a website? I run Bonaventure, the only Elizabethan maritime living history group in the UK. We operate along the South Coast and specialize in privateers for that period.

most of us wear Elizabethian attire with a nautical flair, I wear several Middle Eastern scarfs off my belt and do not see them as not being period, Faires of the time in England would have eastern Traders.

OK, so where's the problem with pirates having internationally exotic items then? Lol, just jesting with you.

I also have a few other world style trinkets to add flair, of course I am a captain, I would be a little richer than the average sailors. Abourd my ship we have a few who dress from foriegn countries such a middle africa and the middle east, keeps thing interesting.

Do you actually play a Roman Catholic clergyman? I'd have thought that was the biggest barrier to authenticity...

The biggest intrest we keep the public for is informing them about the entire history surrounding the Seadogs and dispelling Hollywood rumors, after 15 to 20 minutes talking to one of our group you have had a history lesson indeed, including the use of common everyday items. I have to admit Hammin it up in skits to entertain is fun, a blast infact, but discussing living history is the reason I got started.

So why not do that with GAoP era pirates as well? :)

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

where to start Foxe

those types from Holloywood do think theire shite smelleth not

As I have to agree that a large number of sailors did sail internationally, I do not think they would have aquired much that they could have kept into a seamans trunk, those things were not so large, and clothing they wore was pretty much functional, you basicly lived in it, once going rouge, you then were on ships that usually had many memebers so your duties were lighter, but then the area you traversed was less. Also it could be pointed out that pirates usually partied hardy once hitting a port and soon exhausted their funds, in that day exotic items were treated like funds. So while I have to agree that the influence was there, but probly not like we would like to beleive. You would think a guy goes to a Faire in London in the 16th century would be exposed to a lot of foriegn goods, but the basic london household did not trflect this. Once again we are in a age where our extreme wealth a commoner has today, was not known, in fact uppreclass was known to wear their fortunes IE. Jewlery and sometimes had little else but land to back it up.

We have a website, but it is really tounge in cheek, VoyageofReprizal.com

you cannot take much there seriously, It is more of a role play thinggy. it kinda keeps us together between events, we do about 4 main events a year. Once we did much more but our numbers have disperesed over the years so we started the website to keep track. America is a large place and our group lives throughout the western section.

I think the thing I say about pirates is it would not be as common as the garb illustrators put them in. most illustrators seem to be drawing from discription centuries later or thousands of miles away. and as far as acurrate, do you think Captain Johnsons book on pirates is accurate?

The more they flaired up that book the more it sold. Even in the day of Piracy Zenith the public wanted romantic figures.

The Monsignor thing stated out as a joke, I showed up at a event in the Vestments and they would not let me change, they were having to much fun

next we put together a long story of how a Cardinal got into a privateer fleet and literaly rolled on the floor laughing, We went before the queen for our letters of reprisal and even though I was in Privateer dress, I was intorduced as Monsignor Peter Fitzwell, She went with it. I thought I was going get skewered, Then they introduced my mother (don't ask a lady had decided to play that) who went on this long story of how as a child I had gone to Rome and came back a priest. I found out later it was all set up. Now I actually have done a bit of study of the eras clergy and pull it off quite well. The Queen wants nothing better than for me to convert to Anglecan.