Boots

[Fox]

Well that all seems a little antagonistic!

Re-enactment is just that, the re-creation of a slice of the past. Just because re-enactors don't actually sack cities and rape our victims doesn't mean we can't re-enact sacking places.

[Fox]

Well that all seems a little antagonistic!

Re-enactment is just that, the re-creation of a slice of the past. Just because re-enactors don't actually sack cities and rape our victims doesn't mean we can't re-enact sacking places.

Are you also under some kind of impression that pirates were never found on land?

Of all the Pirate re-enactors.,none have ships except The Royaliste and his krewe.

Erm, I got a ship that I re-enact on, 3 actually. Hawkyns is also the resident gunner on a ship. Lorien Stormfeather uses a couple of ships at her events... I can think of several others.

On the land?  not many seamen there aye?  most were on ships yes? 

Not 24/7/52! Plenty of seamen (including pirates) on land all over the place.

Who here is skilled in navigation other than a compass or a Magellan GPS

I can, and have, navigated with period instruments while at sea. What the hell is Map Quest?

Why does every re-enactor who sees some one dressed in a tricorn consider him a wanna be pirate?

Because outside the Revolutionary period and F&I war 90% of them are wannabe pirates?

Why is it everyone must be dressed in period poverty?

Nobody has to dress in any way they don't want. However if, as a group, you want to portray an historically accurate crew then the majority should be in period poverty. Nobody's trying to force anyone who doesn't want to to be historically accurate though.

Lets be honest now?., how many here only re-enact on board a vessel?

About as many as only lived on a vessel in the GAoP

Tell the truth., tell me when was the last time someone re-enacted cutting someones lips off and cookin them and then making them eat them in Silence of the lamb fashion?

Never done that but we have re-enacted chucking bottles at a victim tied to the mast...

When is the last time anyone wore period correct clothing to the GAoP and came riding inta port on their own vessel and re-enacted taking a cruise ship over?

2005

Next pirate re-enactor I see with out a ship I will be consider'in just a 17th 18th century towns folk person and not a pirate . Kapish?

Well that would be a daft thing to do wouldn't it?

There's really no need to be so determined to put people down for making the effort to do it right. Nobody is asking you to do so, but FFS, let us do it without giving us a hard time eh?

Carter, Petee has, alas, not proven people wearing bucket boots up to 1690 and after 1720. He's found one pair of bucket boots which may be from a shipwreck of 1628, but may not, he's got one picture of French seamen wearing non-bucket boots from the period, and then a load of pictures from over a century later wearing boots. It's not quite so conclusive as you suggest!

Nobody has ever said a: that faire pirates shouldn't wear boots - wear what you like, it's your fun! - or b: that nobody in the GAoP ever wore boots - just that they were extremely uncommon, which they were (and even Petee's evidence shows this!).

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT ANYONE HAS TO BE AUTHENTIC IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, BUT FOR 99% OF THOSE THAT DO WANT TO BE BUCKET BOOTS WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE.

Anyone have a problem with that?

[greenighs]

Well that all seems a little antagonistic!

Re-enactment is just that, the re-creation of a slice of the past. Just because re-enactors don't actually sack cities and rape our victims doesn't mean we can't re-enact sacking places.

Okay, that's the way I feel when someone makes fun of my lack of authenticity. I'm trying to get a thicker skin, yes, but at least it's good to know that even someone with your experience and knowledge can have the same reaction.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

........Ok

a faire is about enjoyment. So anyone that isn't enjoying themselves enough to waste my time with explaining how my outfit isn't up to their standards needs to bugger off and enjoy a pint.

I'm just sayin.

So you have never had anyone ask you about what you were wearing or wanting to know more about piracy or what you are doing?

wow.....

It must be an east coast/west coast thing because events (fun or historically based) that I have been to, the "public" ask lots of questions as to your clothing, history of piracy etc.

Now, they are not always the best or most thoughtful questions, but they do ask.

And I have gone thru about 1/2 of the 220 + posts in Petee's discussion on Boots. But I do find it odd that people were on ships with boots until 1690, then on Jan. 1st 1691 everyone decided to make a lasting new years resolution not to wear boots until 1721.

You might have "gone through" 220+ post, but it doesn't seem like you have read them.

You are getting something out of those discussions that isn't there. We HAVE NOT seen pictures of any sailors (despite Pete's best efforts) wearing cavalry bucket boots (or any other boots for that matter) for anything closer than maybe 1670ish.

If we have proof of sailors/fisherman/pirates wearing boots until 1691, and we have proof that the same types of people were wearing said feetware after 1720, wouldn't it stand to reason that there is a good chance that they were worn during that period.

Again, we DON’T have that proof! Did I miss a picture of the 1689 New Years Eve party aboard ship????

So don't pretend that you have gotten close to the GAoP, as its disingenuous.

Look, again, nobody is saying you can’t wear what you want to wear. But you have to remember that there is a small element that is involved with Pirate re-enacting that is trying to get as close as possible to capturing the history of Piracy and representing it via creating/wearing clothing that is as close to the original clothing worn during the GAoP as they can.

Those people use documentation, whether it’s a will, engraving, description or artifact to support what they wear. If you can’t document it, than it is in the realm of speculation until it can be proven otherwise. And if it IS proven, then they look at how common place it was. If it wasn’t common, than even if it existed, it is usually on the no go list for an authentic re-enactor (usually). Boots are not even in that category. At best they would be extremely rare for use at sea during the GAoP.

So unless you are re-creating a gentlemen in his riding kit, its off the board.

But, for those of you that are portraying the “spirit” of piracy and not any particular era, and for who its really all about going out in costume for a good time and a laugh…. Do what you like!

For me though, I would find it hard to go into a school classroom, or give a public demonstration and IMPLY that I was a pirate from the GAoP if I was wearing a collard shirt, CA Boots, 1797 pattern naval cutlass, Fez, and who knows what else….

I’m just sayin’

GoF

[Shipwreck John]

I haven't read any of this post up till now, so I am out of the loop. but this is question inviolving the previous post. What then exactly , have you found to be the proper footwearor shiters? The Shirt is a new one to me so I am being inquisitive only, The boot theory makes sense, but I was under the impression that on board( unless it is really cole) that most sailors of the were barefoot, Point taken from while visiting the USS Constitution, ther were ropes on the deck eypads(I hope that is the right teminology) It was said that the sailors were barefoot and the ropes were around the pads so when the watches on the spar deck were doing their checks when they they stepped on the rope they new to move their feet one way or the other so they wouldn't stub their toe on the pad. That leads me to believe there wasn't any footwear worn by sailors unless they were dressed up to visit another vessel, ie a boarding party,not the raiding kind but the visiting kind, or when tey were ashore. That would mean the PoTC1 depiction of the Pirates boarding the Britsh Naval vessel is historically acurate. What say you to that, GoF?

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I will go back and look at POTC tonight (if the Warden lets me) and check that scene out. I think that the common theory is that sailors went shoeless.

But "common theory" proves more often than not wrong when looking at GAoP and Piracy...

To be honest, I would rather defer that question to Foxe, Royaliste, Hawkyns and maybe even Francois...

Those folks that have spent more time on ships undersail than the scant few times that I have (as more of an "observer" than sailor i might add).

We know that shoes were available to sailors, and it would make sense to me that they were worn while performing duties of a sailor. I would think that, except for the summer months in the Caribbean it would get pretty freakin cold with all that water and low temperatures to go around barefoot.

The other interesting note is that the only type of footwear that has ever been recovered from a known pirate ship wreck was a shoe, from the Whydah 1717.

Not a cavalry boot, not the mysterious deep sea fisherman soft boot.

A shoe.

hmmmm......

GOF

[HarborMaster]

Foxe I know you attend Maritime events. I have seen pictures of it., as well as differant times for it., Nelsonian times as well. I think its awesome and I respect it alot.

However most do not get to go as often for what other reasons there may be., including myself. Most probably would like to.,but do not. I get to go on Lady Washington too just like a few you mentioned here., But we never got to practise those other things. There were just battle sails with half the people on board or better wearing SeaHawks sweatshirts and alotta bulging double knit stretch pants.

Just as most people were land lubbers and not seamen in the 17th and 18th century. There fore my point being why does the public percieve anyone in a 3 cornered hat as a pirate? The reason is being a cobbler isnt real exciting?

On the other side of the coin. I dont live in a town like Seattle or Portland with 2 million per city., so we have a pirate group. I am in an area of 30,000 There is nothing so we go to events outside of our area. and that generally means alone. There fore we are part of no group...,Therefore we cant look rich or poor with a rich or poor group. So., We go as our selves. We try to do the best we can ., and we try to have fun. We dont try to offend people but we dont seem t fit in.

Not trying to rumple skin just a question. actually a bunch of them. All of those service vendors I mention could have easily been pictured in their clothing as a pirate by todays people. A pirate did not have a certain mark that made him a pirate . Piracy was just a crime plain and simple. Just like a murderer or a thief. But many of those go un caught for years because they blend into society.

[Fox]

Sorry HM, I misunderstood your point about people in tricorns.

John, my own personal experience is that barefoot is fine for decks, perhaps even more comfortable and practical than wearing shoes, except on cold days where shoes are a must. In the rigging shoes are essential - I think that's one of the biggest misconceptions - anyone who sails regularly will probably agree (I know Royaliste does) that in the rigging you wear shoes, any shoes, barefoot just kills.

[Patrick Hand]

I was wondering about this over my morning cup of coffee…… (not trying to stir anything up……Well other than the sugar in my coffee.... )

Before Gentleman of Fortune posted that bucket boot were undocumented for use by Sailors and Pyrates during the GAoP…

How many people knew that?

Its just information...

You can use it or not. Its not a personal attack against anyone……If bucket boots work for your portrayal of a Pyrate, no one will stop you from wearing them. If you want to make your stuff more period, then the information is useful to you.

[kass]

I sure as hell didn't know, Patrick! My knowledge of period clothing kinda starts at the ankles and goes up.

You know what I don't understand? When people who aren't interested in historical accuracy see the words "historically accurate", why do they get so inflamed with anger?

Guys, if you aren't interested if something's historically accurate or not, fair enough! Just ignore what we who are interested have to say. No one is trying to force anything down your throats! Just move to the next post, fer God's sake...

When I see the word "fantasy pirate", I know that post isn't for me. I might read it for fun or to see what other people do. But I don't take it to pertain to my enjoyment of what I do. And I sure as hell don't take it as an attack.

Like Petee said in another post, we ALL dig pirates. I'm okay, you're okay, get it? So bloody relax already...

[Zephaniah W Nash]

I'm not trying to stir anything up either, but this did occur to me while reading through some of the posts here'n'there...

Only one bit of remains of a shoe have been found, if I've gotten that right.

Is it possible that this could be because any boots that were worn were worn completely out, and therefore left less evidence that they were used?

It seems that I've read somewhere - sorry, can't remember where - that the reason very few falchions survive in collections is because they were used up, rather than preserved, or that very few whole pots survive from even further back is because they were broken and discarded, often not where one might expect them to be found.

I realize this doesn't touch on the question of boots not being in pictures from the time, but it was more of a sideline question anyway...

[Patrick Hand]

Just outta curiosity, I did a quick web search to compare prices between “Pyrate Boots” to Shoes.

(I’m not making any claims to authenticity or not… this was just a quick check…)

BOOTS…………

http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/Renai...rate_Boots.html

#R-017 Captain Jack Boots

Price: $300.00 (Excluding: FL Sales Tax at 6%)

http://caboots.zoovy.com/product/SWASH

SWASHBUCKLER BOOTS

Price: $250.00

http://www.renboots.com/PirateBoots.html

BARBOSSA

Brown distressed leather $350.00 Now available in Black Leather for $300.00!

I hadda look on E-Bay......

http://cgi.ebay.com/MENS-RENAISSANCE-PIRAT...1QQcmdZViewItem

MENS RENAISSANCE PIRATE BOOTS BLACK SZ 11

Starting bid:US $44.95 Shipping costs: US $10.95 -- US Postal Service Priority Mail

SHOES………

http://jas-townsend.com/product_info.php?c...4ea80148e8fbba3

Men's Shoes CS-925

[CS-925] $90.00

http://www.fugawee.com/Men's%20Colonial.htm

Concord

$89 plus $6 Shipping.

http://www.civilwarboots.com/shop_new/ente...get=dept_1.html

The 1740 Commoner Shoe

$ 95.00

[Gentleman of Fortune]

ZWN...

Interesting but not likely. They seem to be totally absent for the written/pictorial record. If they were even "fairly common", I don't think that Pirate Pete would be having such a hard time finding a picture.

Our ability to think "historically" gets clouded with common lore and what we want to believe happened. As Americans, we really pride ourselves on our individuality.

We try to translate our own sense of "individuality" (that has taken 300 years to develop) to what people back in 1700 would have thought and and the way they would have acted.

From what we can tell, it seems that boots were worn with regards to horses and riding. Most of the time we see them, they have spurs attached.

Now we have to include that in the pro boot argument as well. But I am suspecting that the pro-boot crowd would say that a sailor is just copying landsmen fashion.

GoF

[Zephaniah W Nash]

GoF-

You missed my point a bit, but I'm not terribly surprised. I posted a horribly written post...

I actually agree with your stance regarding boots - but I think the lack of written or pictoral evidence is more telling than the fact that the remains of a single shoe have been found, while no boots have.

Clearly, if only the remains of a single shoe have been discovered, then it could as easily be that footwear doesn't survive well as it could be that boots were never worn.

It was more a question regarding how well some things survive the years than it was specifically regarding boots. And yeah, I know I'm getting a bit off-topic, but it seemed a reasonable place to put the general question.

Is it, in your opinion (or anyone else who chooses to venture an opinion) more important to rely on actual physical remains, or on historical accounts? Or both, when each is available (I tend toward the latter, but the boot issue, for the point I made earlier, seems to be more strongly answered by one more than the other). Or, if only one or the other is available, which makes the stronger case?

Please pardon my rambling questions, and the possibility that this is the wrong topic to post 'em in, but I'm interested and curious and all that...

[kass]

Zephaniah,

This is how I approach the problem of documenting an item to the GAoP.

Number one: don't document backwards. In other words, don't find an item you *want* to be from the period and try to find it. That way lies madness, as I'm sure Petee is finding out. Start with the question "What did they wear on their feet?" rather than "I wonder if they wore boots."

Number two: the best source in the world is an extant source. It tell you for certain that this type of item existed in the time period. What it does *not* tell you, however, is how common that item was. Or who wore it. Some items are passed down in families, but many are found in bogs, shipwrecks, etc. and do not have records attached.

Number three: in order to understand the breadth of how the item was used, in what context it was used, how common it was, etc., look to the historical record: pictures, wills, inventories, written accounts, etc. This is where the knowledge gained from extant items gets "filled out". We learn the frequency with which the item was used and how common an item it was.

For example, if you found a coat that you could positively date to 1697 and it had three sleeves, you would know if all coats were made like that, or if it was a fashion of a certain bunch of people, or if it was a mistake that got dug out of the midden heap centuries later.

So it's best to use multiple sources to document items from an historic period. And never back document.

See what I mean?

[HarborMaster]

I believe the header for this thread is

( Boots (Pages 1 2 3 ...6 )

Where to find good ones.)

I copied and pasted it in this reply.., just to make sure I got it right.

Skull Pirate Carters thread wasnt "are they GAoP Accurate"., or are they something historical or?

This particular thread was again called........,

"Boots (Pages 1 2 3 ...6 ) .

Where to find good ones."

Perhaps we should stay on topic ?

Personally If I have offended anyone., I am sorry and I do mean that. I take the Pub as a place for a learning center myself. You have to understand me a bit perhaps to get it. I finished school and left home at 14. I do not have the education many here in fact do. Nor am I as well travelled. Believe it or not many here do have my admiration. I am learning ., stubborn., and have investment be some correct and some incorrect., which I will use till its worn out. I hope thisis o.k. and I am just doing what I enjoy ., "The Pirate in my own way as best I can"

To FOXE., GoF., Black John., Kass.., and others participating in this at times heated discussion.........,an over due Thank You.

This is what make the pub for me ., Its what drives me a bit each day to see something more. The photos., the discussion points of view. Dates times., Shoes.,yea., but the coffer., the paintings ., all of it..,This is a neat group of people.

[Zephaniah W Nash]

kass-

I do see what you mean, and almost completely agree with you...

Regarding documenting backwards, I only have one small, niggling difference. I see nothing wrong with asking and investigating the question "I wonder if they wore boots." I only see a problem if it gets to the point of, "They almost all wore boots, and that is the only evidence I will accept!"

Exagerating to make the point there, I don't think anyone has taken that extreme of a stance - at least not in any part of the thread I've seen.

Of course, that goes both ways. If anyone were to say something like "No pirate ever wore boots on board ship, ever!" they are very likely wrong. That's just what tends to happen when one says "never" when it comes to the behavior of human beings.

Additionally, I think you may be leaving out the idea of reasonable inference. There probably aren't many pictures that clearly show some sailor or other was left-handed, and probably not that many written accounts specifically dealing with south-paws, but it is a reasonable inference that there were some, probably in largely the same proportions as there are now.

But, other than those minor points, we find ourselves at an accord.

And just for the record, I'm one of those scurrilous boot-wearers. I just think they're more comfy...

[greenighs]

If the flux capacitor isn't online by next week, me and Joshua are just going to have dig up the graves of some pirates and check for the footware. If they're not wearing boots OR shoes, then we'll know that Pirates Were Barefoot.

When dead and buried, at least.

Or rather, when buried, because they might have been buried alive.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

ZWN...

No, I think I understood what you were saying... maybe my reply was weak.

I think you are trying to say, if boots were really common and they were given to often and hard use, that could account for the fact that none survived to be examples of GAoP foot wear.

Is that right?

My reply was meant to say, if the above scenario was true, then even if none survived, they would still "survive" in the written/pictoral record. If boots were worn by 10 percent of sailors, then we should find 10 percent of the pictures of sailors wearing them.

And, if something was known exclusively to sailors, then we would think that an artist depicting a sailor would use those "keys" to frame his subject.

The common mythology overtakes this at times, especially with regards to

boots. But when we take that "mythology" and then look at the evidence, we get a different picture.

Some have speculated that Pirate Captains would have pick of the lot and get the best of everything.

So, it would stand to reason that the Most Famous Pirate Captains, when depicted in period art, would have boots. No?

But when we look at period art, what we see Captains dressed like common sailors or like Gentlemen...

Captain Avery (from an early Johnson?)

Teach

or

Teach

Roberts

Bonney

I'll conclude with Bonney as it is documented that she was trying to disguise herself as a man. Thus, was probably wearing clothes that were common enought NOT to make her stand out.

As Foxe says, we have lots of pictures of period seamen. Only one shows boots (not being used aboard ship).

I will add that we Cannot be for certain whether the Frenchmen with the boots were sailors or not, but they seem to be part of the personel on the voyage.

I would hate to do the actual math to get the right numbers, but it would have to be a fraction of 1%.

GOF

[Gentleman of Fortune]

HM....

Well I don't know about it being off topic.

Lets see where it all went to hell....

at the 5th Post in this thread, I said:

1)It depends on what kind of boots you want

2) The historical record doesn't support boots on ships

3) If you were going to wear boots, then period appropriate boots would be what I got (and then a link to the boots)

What the hell happened in Post #6?

GoF

[Zephaniah W Nash]

GoF-

Much closer to what I was asking...

What I was actually doing was getting even further off-topic, and taking it away from boots specifically to historical evidence in general, by using boots as an example.

The thread just made me wonder what the more historically-minded folks here think of an argument that says some item was popular, and we know it was popular because there are few surviving specimens - they were all worn out and destroyed, so very few examples survive.

And then, from there, I went even more off on a tangent when talking to Kass...

With boots specifically, I think you are most likely quite correct, and have made a strong case for your stance - bacause of the other historical evidence.

And if I'm getting too off-topic and annoying folks with these thoughts/questions on this specific thread, I'm more than happy to drop it here and move over to a more appropriate thread, it's just that this one was still going and I decided to jump in...

[Capt. Lazarus Gage]

It would seem to me that the wood cut pictures we have of pyrates is hardly a basis for deciding wether or not sailors in the GAoP actually wore boots or not. Woodcuts are not photos and were not made by anyone actually at an event, so whoever made these woodcuts would have been drawing on thier mental image of what this person looked like or personal accounts from others. I would also imagine that these woodcuts were made and used in books written for the general public and a certain amount of embelishment would have probably taken place on the artist's part. As an example, the picture of Anne Bonney, she surely wouldn't have had her breast's exposed. At any rate I would think if a pyrate of that time came across a pair of boots, common or not, they would have picked said footwear over shoes out of practicality. We must also take into account the fact that a far greater number of written records did not survive as compared to did survive for us to study. The point is we'll never know, and given the nature of pyrates in general, if one had the chance to have a pair of boots they would probably have worn them. I personally have a pair of boots from CA Boots and wouldn't trade them for the world, BUT I do not do any historical re-enactment. I f I were to start (which would require me to move since I live in Ohio) I would buy a nice pair of straight lasted shoes and stockings, but since I only get the chance to attend pyrate "events" I like my bucket boots just fine. -Lazarus

[Fox]

I believe the header for this thread is

( Boots (Pages 1 2 3 ...6 )

Where to find good ones.)

"Good" means different things to different people. To a history geek like me it means authentic, to most of us it means well made and long lasting, to some it means identical to Jack Sparrow's. Discussing the history of boots (which is relevant to what may or may not be authentic and thus "good") isn't straying too far, if at all, from the defined topic.

HM, if I've helped you in any way then I'm pleased. Thanks for the thanks, it's appreciated.

It would seem to me that the wood cut pictures we have of pyrates is hardly a basis for deciding wether or not sailors in the GAoP actually wore boots or not. Woodcuts are not photos and were not made by anyone actually at an event, so whoever made these woodcuts would have been drawing on thier mental image of what this person looked like or personal accounts from others.

Actually one of the surprising things about many of the pictures is that they were drawn or painted by people who knew what sailors looked like. Quite a number of them were drawn from life, and a vast number of them were made by London-based artists - London of course contained more seamen wandering the streets than probably any other place in the world. We know from the references to seamen's costume in plays and suchlike, and from references of people disguising themselves as seamen that most people in these port towns (which included most of the larger cities in Europe and the Americas - London, Bristol, Boston, New York, Port Royal etc) did know what seamen looked like. This, coupled with the similar elements which can be found in most of them suggest a reasonable accuracy of representation.

At any rate I would think if a pyrate of that time came across a pair of boots, common or not, they would have picked said footwear over shoes out of practicality.

I'm intrigued - not arguing, intrigued - what makes you think that bucket boots would be more practical to a seaman than shoes? To my mind they are a bugger in the rigging, take ten times as long to dry, fill with water, and are known to be impractical in battle (19thC young officers being advised to remove their boots which offered no protection for the ease of the surgeon).

We must also take into account the fact that a far greater number of written records did not survive as compared to did survive for us to study.

I would have to disagree with that, an enormous number of records have survived to us today. The trouble is we rarely take the time to study them.

I f I were to start (which would require me to move since I live in Ohio) I would buy a nice pair of straight lasted shoes and stockings, but since I only get the chance to attend pyrate "events" I like my bucket boots just fine.

Good call

[Pirate Petee]

Ok, the 19th Century officer boots, were very tight and form fitting. Different from the boots in question, or at least on the captain twill post. About boots, captain twill topic i mean. Foxe, ya forgot LIVERPOOL, when you walk through a storm hold your head up high, sorry I just got to represent me peeps, and I've been hitting the Boodingtons a bit much. Also a I just got done watching green street hooligans. I'm pissed. You should have seen this post with out all my corrections.

[Pirate Petee]

Ok, fishermen pirates, I'll be takin that tuna ARRRRRRR! Come on people move it to twill. Thats what I started it for. GO REDS!