Morgan Drawing

[hurricane]

I know the 1650's to 80's is a little out of the realm of many of you who are specialist in GAoP, but I came across this in a book I have on Morgan written in 1947. There are very few impressions of Morgan and I want to see how his clothing stacks up against what would be historically accurate for the time.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

-- Hurricane

[Captain Jim]

If it does prove to be accurate, ye just got yer license to wear bucket boots. (Runs and hides from the impending s*itstorm.)

[Fox]

Bucket boots in the 1670s is a perhaps a different issue from bucket boots in the 1700s anyway. and Henry Morgan is certainly a different issue from GAoP era pirate scum.

The picture looks like it's based on the the etching of Morgan from Esquemeling. I'm not convinced by the size of the sleeves, so I'm guessing this is a modern(ish) rendition of the earlier depiction.

[dasNdanger]

Bucket boots in the 1670s is a perhaps a different issue from bucket boots in the 1700s anyway.

Foxe, please explain this statement. Are you saying that bucket boots WERE worn in the late 17th century, but not 30 years later?? *looks at 1970's retro wardrobe and wonders if it's safe to wear around Mr. Blackwell....* Or are ye just bein' snarky??

das

[JoshuaRed]

It looks a bit streamlined, over-stylized. Also looks like the artist couldn't figure out how to correctly draw his right hand on his hip so he instead blew up the poofy sleeve big enough to hide the whole arm. And those legs are looooong!

But the actual clothing represented doesn't look too far from what the period engravings of Morgan look like. As to the boots, I don't know. I maintain merely as personal opinion that any seafaring man wouldn't wear those clunkers onboard ship....but I suppose Morgan wearing them during his land campaigns is not out of the question as we're talking closer to ECW period here. But they were predominantly designed & worn as calvary boots, right?

[hurricane]

Well, that would probably make sense. Morgan never considered himself a lover of the sea. He preferred the land and thought more of himself as a soldier than a sailor. So the boots would be an obvious choice.

I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to raise the issue of boots on pirates. That's been beaten to death on this site. Morgan was not of that era. So let's try to leave the GAoP arguments out of this discussion.

I am far more interested in the clothing and whether it would fit the time. Morgan came from a time when bucket boots were fashion as well as practical. Plus, as I said, he was a brilliant commander on land, not on sea. After all, he sank many of his own ships during his lifetime.

-- Hurricane

[Pirate Petee]

Bucket boots in the 1670s is a perhaps a different issue from bucket boots in the 1700s anyway.

Foxe, please explain this statement. Are you saying that bucket boots WERE worn in the late 17th century, but not 30 years later?? *looks at 1970's retro wardrobe and wonders if it's safe to wear around Mr. Blackwell....* Or are ye just bein' snarky??

das

They were worn through, and into the GAoP or at least the earlier years to my knowledge. There are also documentation of sailors wearing them altough rare and few and far inbetween. Here in lies the great debate.

[JoshuaRed]

He preferred the land and though more of himself as a soldier than a sailor. So the boots would be an obvious choice.

Absolutely true. His would be a terrific impression for someone to do!

[dasNdanger]

They were worn through, and into the GAoP or at least the earlier years to my knowledge. There are also documentation of sailors wearing them altough rare and few and far inbetween. Here in lies the great debate.

I guess - well...I guess if I were a sailor/pirate in the tropical heat back then, I'd be barefooting it on deck, but in towne it would be a different situation, right? I figger a pirate wanted to be as dandified as possible, if for nothing more than to attract the prettiest (or cheapest!) doxy. Looks like - from that picture - ol' Morgan gussied himself up right fine, eh? LOL - even if there is a wee bit of artistic license there, I think it's a general representation of what was worn at the time...if not slightly over exaggerated.

On an aside, I know a young fella from Jamaica who is the great-great-something of Morgan...well-documented in his family. I should ask if his family has any juicy tidbits about the old man...if I learn anything, I'll certainly share!

das

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Hurricane.

You certainly love a challenge! (i admire that!). Morgan is a tough nut to crack... due to the fact that he had some many distinct phases of his life and he did so many different things.

If we can assume that he was born in 1635, had his major pirate/privateer duties from 1660ish (which would make him about 25-30).

Militia man and Govenor by the 1670s and dies in 1688.

So the tough question is do you portray him as the Buccanneer or the Govenor (or both)?

If you go for the Buccanner, you are looking at a mid 1660s to mid 1670 impression.

Its not a great picture but its one of around 1665

He seems to be wearing petticoat breeches, very full shirt and that "short jacket" bolero style thing like in your picture.

ANother one from the mid 17th Century with similar clothing

For your period of interest.... the Salacious Historian (http://www.kipar.org/baroque-costumes/costumes_male.html)

says:

During these years after the 30s Years War, the fashion for men changed considerably, from the militaristic uniform style to overboarding gaudiness, which, in my humble opinion, bordered at the ridiculous. The coat shrank towards a tiny, open doublet, with sleeves reaching only to the elbows, and extremely short, ending high above the waist, very similar to the modern "Bolero" jacket or the Spanish Matador's jacket. The breeches became that baggy and full, that they looked like wide skirts. These so-called Rhinegraves are said to have been a Dutch or German invention: the trouser legs, extremely baggy and using a large amount of fabric, were gathered below the knees with lace frills, the so-called Canions. This fashion went to the extreme that men wore indeed skirts, full skirts over breeches which led to their name Petticoat breeches. Another characteristic of this fashion was that the petticoat breeches were worn by the fashionable gentlemen of the time hanging loosely low at his hips, so that it almost looked as if he was about to lose his pants.

Yet, the Rhinegraves were extremely popular at the court of the young Louis XIV, and were worn by the young and old, and they went finally completely out of fashion only as late as in the 1680s. Between the extremely short doublet and the low-hanging breeches was the equally full shirt to be seen. Sometimes this long shirt even became the most important fashion item of the entire costume.

Furthermore, the costume was decorated with numerous ribbon bows at doublet, breeches and shoes, namely most prominently at the waistband of the breeches, the shoulders, and the bottom hem of the jacket. In a surviving tailor's list of the 1650s is a note about the amount of ribbon bows which are needed for a fashionable outfit: about 500-600 ribbon bows, which are called galants in French.

Which picture of Morgan is the one that you want to "base" yourself on (if any?)

GoF

[Pirate Petee]

Thats a lot of bow tieing.

[hurricane]

I like the period on the cusp of governorship. In 1674, he returned to Jamaica, as a knight and took up his posts as deputy-governor, senior member of the Council, lieutenant-general of all armed forces and judge-admiral of the Admiralty Court.

At the age of 45 (1680), Sir Henry had risen to the rank of acting governor of Jamaica, Vice-Admiral, Commandant of the Port Royal Regiment, Judge of the Admiralty Court and Justice of the Peace. Plus he had the savvy to become a major landholder.

It was during this time that he rode the fence so to speak. He was a stalwart defender of his own captains from previous raids, spending long periods at the Port Royal rum houses telling stories. There's little doubt that he was heavily involved in their activities. But he also was the one who judged and hung pirates captured near Jamaica. town. It is the ideal complex character... a loyal captain still dabbling in the sweet trade who uses his new found position of authority and reputation as a national hero to protect his friends and persecute their competitors, so to speak.

A buccaneer who became governor. What better story to tell...

-- Hurricane

[dasNdanger]

Here's a nice site for a brief overview of 17th century fashion and how it changed over the years...

http://www.costumes.org/history/100pages/17THMEN.HTM

Only one captain, at the bottom, c. 1700...but I think we can get a pretty fair idea of what a gentleman - sailor, pirate or otherwise - MIGHT wear about town. I say 'might' because, since we were not there, we really don't know for sure...and 'portraits' may be doctored a bit to make them more agreeable to the eye. Interestingly, it seems the boots phased out towards the end of the 17th century in favor of shoes.

Note the LARGE, puffy sleeves in the one plate by Bosse, 1630, very much like Morgan's.

Ah - another fine link of French fashions... http://www.costumes.org/history/100pages/leloirX1.htm

das

[Fox]

Bucket boots in the 1670s is a perhaps a different issue from bucket boots in the 1700s anyway.

Foxe, please explain this statement. Are you saying that bucket boots WERE worn in the late 17th century, but not 30 years later?? *looks at 1970's retro wardrobe and wonders if it's safe to wear around Mr. Blackwell....* Or are ye just bein' snarky??

das

Not being sarky at all

Boots (or any other item of clothing) might be worn for two main reasons - fashion, and practicality.

In the mid-17thC bucket boots were fashionable, but by about 1660 they were pretty much out of fashion. Someone a little behind the times or whatever (like you with your 70s wardrobe) might still be wearing them, but by 1700 nobody who wanted to "cut a dash" would be seen in them for that reason.

In terms of practicality, bucket boots were for riding. Morgan, as a soldier, and indeed someof his buccaneers, many of whom were former soldiers, might have worn bucket boots (though since they were mostly foot-sloggers, and boots are NOT practical for long marches, I say this with a certain amount of caution).

The vast majority of pirates in the GAoP were from a seafaring background so would have been unlikely to wear boots for fashion or practicality, even had they been widely available.

There is one picture of some French seamen wearing what look like boots circa 1700 (and it is to this which I'm guessing Petee is referring ), but they are very soft, and shorter than the classic "bucket top". Not really the same thing.

Hurricane, I look forward to seeing the finished impression

FWIW Das, your Jamaican friend knows that Morgan had no children yes?

[Pirate Petee]

Bucket boots in the 1670s is a perhaps a different issue from bucket boots in the 1700s anyway.

Foxe, please explain this statement. Are you saying that bucket boots WERE worn in the late 17th century, but not 30 years later?? *looks at 1970's retro wardrobe and wonders if it's safe to wear around Mr. Blackwell....* Or are ye just bein' snarky??

das

Something just popped in my head, Vietnam issue jungle boots are still being worn by our GI's today. Thats almost 40 years.

[Fox]

But there's a good sensible and practical reason for that. They're good boots and comfy. Same reason that British squaddies ditched their SA80s in favour of the "outdated" SLR as soon as they got into the Gulf first time round.

The same cannot be said of bucket top boots. Show me a Marine who habitually wears a riding hat and jodhpurs...

[JoshuaRed]

Bucket tops are very similar to the "clammin" boots (when they're turned down) I used to see in Downeast Maine, and those guys never looked particularly comfortable trudging from the truck into the gas station & back out with a case of beer.... :)

[Captain Jim]

Yet they still wear them, don't they? I am a biologist and I wear them in wetlands all of the time. One gets used to the weight of them over time, but they do affect your gait a bit. I wouldn't want to wear them on long marches, but how far do you have to march from one end of a ship to the other? And where are you going to run? Yes for day-to-day work on a boat the boot is impractical. But hours and sometimes days passed before a sighted prey was close enough to even fire upon, much less board, so there was plenty of time for the initial boarding party to change to fighting trim. In close combat they would serve well as lower body armor if made thick enough. So, do you want a cutlass cut on your stocking-clad leg or the one in the bucket boot?

Leather ones would also turn aside thorns and brush when moving overland. If I had a choice to wear buckets or buckle shoes with hose on an overland expedition, there would be no question that I would choose the boots. We have a plant here (Florida) called the saw palmetto that makes short work of jeans and the legs within. I've even had them cut the laces off of a pair of leather boots, but the boot leather turned the thorns aside. And don't get me started on catbriars.

Now here is a question: Hollywood has been blamed, perhaps rightly, for introducing the bucket to pirate attire. Yet in many very early movies the rest of the costuming was quite good and included the boots. Where did the Hollywood costumers get the idea to use buckets? Did they just pull buckets out of thin air or are there archival references as to the process that the costumers used?

Thanks to a cartouche on a map we have placed buckets in the Carribean in 1700, so we know they were there. Now to get them onto a boat...

Just stirring the pot...again.

[dasNdanger]

FWIW Das, your Jamaican friend knows that Morgan had no children yes?

No legitimate ones, yes...

I don't know the relation, actually - just some sort of connection. Perhaps it's not blood - servants/slaves often took on the name of their masters, so it could be something like that. However, he claims that the story has long been told in the family (his family name is Morgan), and so...hey, anything's possible. I'm related to Teddy Roosevelt - yet the family connection cannot be found in any history book because, you see, it was a master/slave thing between (according to an obituary) Teddy's father and me great-great-great-grandma (though, based on family names, I think the man in question may have been an uncle on Teddy's mum's side). So, who knows what Morgan was up to - I'm we don't know the half of it...

Interesting - although we aren't supposed to be talking about the bloody boots, I've learned quite a bit here. I'm starting to come to an unsupported conclusion here - we may not need to see bucket boots worn aboard a ship if they were for land action or visits only. It doesn't mean that a GAoP pirate never wore them, just that he never wore them while working the ship - which would make sense.

Now - I'm going to jump forward 100 years - give or take. In Nelson's Navy, c 1800, midshipmen wore 'Hessian' boots - so wearing boots aboard ship was not unheard of.

I also found this comment: "Thigh high boots were originally worn by pirates and smugglers, who tucked contraband or "booty" into them. The practice gave rise to the term, "bootlegging'. " - can someone confirm this, or correct it?

It was from this site: http://podiatry.curtin.edu.au/boot.html#chop

Hmmm....looks like a pair of Morgan's boots there at the bottom of the 17th century....

das

[callenish gunner]

perhaps that article might alay some of the grief the boot contingient gets around here ....city fashion and the PAINTINGS OF THE DAY were done primarily by city dwellers and they used the dress of their surroundings to incorporate into the scenes they depicted ...just like i'm sure that none of the paintings of the dandies riding into battle were really wearing all the fancy brocades and fyne embroidery even the high ranking officer of today wouldn't go into a combat situation in their fancy dress uniforms like they would wear to a formal reception .....

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Akk... boots.

I sent a PM to P. Pete about the Bucket Boots from the Batavia. I went to the Batavia museum site and poured over the archives of wreckage finds and, while there are listed several fragments of shoes.... there is nothing that states a "pair of boots" were found.

So are those boots that you have pictured from "Batavia Musuem" from the wreck of the ship in Australian waters whose museum is in Australia, or from a musuem in Sweeden?

And

The ship was wrecked in 1629 and people lived in and around it for 6 months or so until they were rescued, so its impossible to tell how they were obtained... as part of the wreckage recovery or boots that were near the site, but not part of the actual Batavia's inventory.

I think that we are all agreed that bucket boots could have been worn prior to 1680 aboard ship, the trick will be finding good proof of their use on board by seamen in the GAoP.

But to do that, we have to rush by blindly all the documented proof of sailors, pirates and captains wearing shoes.

I would not put too much faith in the Cartouche picture of "boots" though. I would find it highly unlikely that someone in the sailor profession would be wearing boots WITH SPURS onboard ship....

Unless they road seahorses?

GoF

[Gentleman of Fortune]

But wait... there is more!

Somethings a little too fishy about the bootlegging story. I wonder what kind of things that you could put in your boots to smuggle that wouldn't making running a ship (or even walking) near impossible. Can you imagine trying to run from authorities with bottles of rum tucked into your thigh high boots???

Anywhoo...

The other thing that gets my Y-fronts all knotted up is that fact that some people are trying to use the existance of this boot in the 1630-1670 context:

To justify this boot in the 1690-1720 context:

Am I the only one who sees a difference in the style and construction of these two boots????

And besides, we are not talking about folks whose kit is spot on in all other regards...

For every bit of kit they have, they have stretched the boundries of historical accuracy so it doesn't matter anyway.

I think we can come to agreement that for Historical Interpretation of a 1690-1720 sailor, English Civil War style Cavalry boots are at best extremely rare and certainly undocumented.

So if you are dead set on wearing them, all you have to do is say:

"My Pirate Costume is not really based on historical fact, but more on my interpretation of the modern ideas of the "spirit" of piracy. Thus, I represent the fantasy aspects of what the Golden Age of Piracy should have been, not what it truly was."

And that would nip any of my authenticity pontifications in the bud. Unless I was asked to make constructive critisism about their kit, I would keep my Friggin mouth shut. Because, there is plenty of room for everybody under the umbrella of "Pirate Festival" participants.

GoF

To me way, ay, ay, ay, ay, ah!

We'll pay Paddy Doyle for his boots....

To me way, ay, ay, ay, ay, ah!

We'll all drink whiskey and gin!

To me way, ay, ay, ay, ay, ah!

We'll all, shave under, the chin!

To me way, ay, ay, ay, ay, ah!

Who, stole Paddy Doyle's boots?...

[Fox]

Oh so much to argue about, so little time...

Yet they still wear them, don't they? I am a biologist and I wear them in wetlands all of the time. One gets used to the weight of them over time, but they do affect your gait a bit.

They are suitable for your job, but a: I'll bet you don't often wear them out on the town, and b: I'll bet your mate who never goes near the wetlands doesn't have a pair.

Hollywood has been blamed, perhaps rightly, for introducing the bucket to pirate attire. Yet in many very early movies the rest of the costuming was quite good and included the boots

EHHH??

Yes for day-to-day work on a boat the boot is impractical. But hours and sometimes days passed before a sighted prey was close enough to even fire upon, much less board, so there was plenty of time for the initial boarding party to change to fighting trim.

But that's missing the point somewhat. WhyTF would they have been wearing bucket boots and whereTF would they have got them from?

Thanks to a cartouche on a map we have placed buckets in the Carribean in 1700, so we know they were there. Now to get them onto a boat...

Just stirring the pot...again.

Yup, but a: the people wearing those boots are clearly not seamen and b: as GoF points out the boots shown are nothing like those popular amongst re-enactors. But keep stirring, one day some more evidence might come up.

No legitimate ones, yes...

No known ones. He made proviso in his will that any of his legatees who wished to claim their inheritance had to change their name to Morgan, leading to a lot of confusion about genealogy.

I also found this comment: "Thigh high boots were originally worn by pirates and smugglers, who tucked contraband or "booty" into them. The practice gave rise to the term, "bootlegging'. " - can someone confirm this, or correct it?

I can correct it. The terms dates from the 20thC at earliest.

Now - I'm going to jump forward 100 years - give or take. In Nelson's Navy, c 1800, midshipmen wore 'Hessian' boots - so wearing boots aboard ship was not unheard of.

Yes, but in 1800 Hessian boots (which are a damn site less silly than bucket tops anyway) were FASHIONABLE for young men to wear.

But to do that, we have to rush by blindly all the documented proof of sailors, pirates and captains wearing shoes.

Here's the crux of the matter for me. I've never seen one single shred of evidence for seamen or pirates wearing bucket boots, but I have no trouble accepting that one or two may have done for some unknown reason. Let's just imagine though that we were able to find maybe 2 or 3 properly documented examples. Everyone would go "woooo" and start wearing bucket boots, ignoring the fact that those 2 or 3 examples made up something like 1/2 a percent of all the other documented examples of people not wearing frigging bucket boots. In re-enactment terms, if one out of every 200 pirates wore bucket boots that would not be unreasonable - it would, in fact, be a pretty good representation of known averages.

Here's the real bottom line I think. If you want to wear bucket boots them go right ahead, nobody is trying to stop you. If you want to be historically accurate and wear bucket boots then join the cavalry. BUT if you want to prove, for whatever reason, that pirates of the GAoP habitually wore bucket tops then you're kidding yourself, but good luck anyway. :)

[JoshuaRed]

We have a plant here (Florida) called the saw palmetto that makes short work of jeans and the legs within

Oh yeah I know all about that firsthand! Hell, half the fauna here in Florida makes short work of any exposed skin! :)

[dasNdanger]

Poor hurricane...he so wanted this NOT to be a boot discussion...

bootleg

1889 (adj.), 1903 (v.), Amer.Eng. slang, from the trick of concealing something down the leg of a high boot (originally a flask of liquor).

Okay - just to bring it back to the original topic. I think the picture of Morgan may be a fair representation of what a gentleman would wear during the period in question, but I also think it's an exaggeration, based on the pictures in the links in my other post. Amongst those pictures are a few comical ones, exaggerating the 'excesses' of the British gentleman. I also believe that shore attire would be much different from ship attire - and that would also depend on how long a man stayed ashore.

I have a question - it relates to the other thread discussing the 'buccaneer' period. During that period, with the land raids, etc, would boots have been more common? And where would Morgan and his fancy dress have fallen - in that era, or the GAoP?

das