BEFORE THE GOLDEN AGE

[JoshuaRed]

'course not! But it's got Bill Bones in it, and it "stinks like hell and the neighbors complain"...

[dasNdanger]

Arrr...I be afeared that's wot me mates say 'bout me! *Dons another layer of clothing to smother the stench*

You know...I'm not so shur that this place is edgecatin' me right...it seems I'm rememberin' the myths, and fergettin' the truths...

das

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Oh boy...

In my humble, this sounds like the more interesting period of piracy history in the Caribbean, when piracy flourished, and the relatively short GAoP (30 years?)

Well, your right, that is your opinion Personally, (as in, "in my humble opinion") I don't care much for the clothes, and the ships are that ornate-full of carving style that is a little over the top. I don't know if we can say for certain if you mean piracy flourished before the GAoP... I think it has more to do with how many out-of-work sailors that you have on hand than anything else.

If this is the case, then WHY do people focus on the GAoP instead of the previous era which, it seems, tends to be the era, with all of its trappings, that trickles into film about the GAoP?

Are they focusing on the GAoP? My contention is that very few people do either of the periods right. It all devolves into a bastardization of history that, when not based on historical fact, has a better home at a D&D/star trek convention than attaching itself meaninglessly to a historical time frame.

True, some items/practices from latter times (walking the plank, for instance) also find their way into tales about the GAoP - but it seems to me that more people confuse the styles, etc., of the buccaneer era with the GAoP.

You answered your onw question. People have confused styles, history, facts, etc becuase the bottom line is that people really spend little time researching history to create a perosona/image of ANY historical period.

There are several "pirate" books out there, but they just rehash the generalized pirate history. There are none that deal with clothing, equipment, and documentable evidence of the GAoP (or buccaneering) periods.

Instead, people may read about the life of Blackbeard, and fill in the gaps with "collective pirate mythology" that has its basis in Hollywood (or its Victorian era predesessors) and stand by it like it has been written on stone tablets.

They work backwords....

I want to wear bucket boots and earings, now find me a period where that existed.

And if they can't find one, then it doesn't matter.

Which is why there are far more people that role play fantasy pirates because what they do (or what they really want to do) is put themselves in the pirate fantasy world that they created in their minds.

The fantasy world where ALL pirates were part of egalitarian crews and everyone's main goal was thumbing their noses at totalitarian goverments. Where piracy wasn't a means to an end, but a political statment.

All thats ok... again there is plenty of room for all. But it creates a lot of toe stepping on when both groups discuss (or try to discuss) the minutia of actual piracy.

Now, there are thoes that depend on Pirate Fantasy for a living, and they are in a totally different group all together.

ACE of Harbor Bay can make a living off of a Jack Sparrow interpretation. I am not blind to the fact that more people (i.e. the American public) are more interested in Johnny Depp (and in turn Ace of HB) then they ever will be of Greg and his authentic pirate kit.

But what my secret hope is that Ace gives them the Dog and Pony show and gets them interested in Pirates. They eventually might google Pirates and come up with several groups in their area and just may join. And there might even be a very small percentage that find my website and become interested in pursuing a historical piracy impression.

What i can't help laughing at is that if re-enactors spent HALF the amount of time researching and creating their historical Piracy clothing and equipment as ACE does on his Jack Sparrow kit, we would have a lot less discussion here about authenticity!

When you are re-creating a character like Jack Sparrow, you cant really expect to make a living at it if you don't look like Jack Sparrow!

Have you seen Ace's kit? My goodness! He has the coat, the sash, the doo rag, the jewlrey, he seems spot on to me!

IS anyone going to hire a Jack Sparrow that has a green justaucorps? Or one with a Yellow sash?

Have you ever seen two Jack Sparrows run into each other at an event? My Goodness they are much more critical than I would ever be!

I got to learn to keep my post shorter.... rant over.

GoF

[Caraccioli]

7. In my humble, this sounds like the more interesting period of piracy history in the Caribbean, when piracy flourished, and the relatively short GAoP (30 years?) seems more like the death throes of piracy in the region. If this is the case, then WHY do people focus on the GAoP instead of the previous era...

Could it be a holdover from the focus of the publications on the subject? The commercially successful General History of Pyrates which seems to have brought piracy into the public consciousness in a big way spends a lot of time on the Golden Era.

In the 20th century, John Robert Moore was trying to make a case for Daniel Defoe being the author for the General History by (among other things) stocking the libraries with copies of the book with Defoe attributed as the author. So you had a widely available book with a GAoP focus being used as the genuine source material. Very convenient when piracy become the purview of hollywood. Purists were less in evidence at that point, so the book was used (in conjunction with other things) to determine the future view of piracy. So incidents in popular culture may have accidentally conspired to make the GAoP our piracy focus.

Just a thought.

[Jib]

GoF first let me say I have enjoyed your posts. I come here (Twill) to better my personal knowledge of history and pyracy in general. I respect, you and your group, Foxe, and the other pure history pirates. I like Living History. When I travel I often try to locate places that feature Living History as target locations. I would enjoy seeing a Living History pirate camp. I know you put in time and money and work hard to get the details tight and I respect that.

However my topic was not to "justify" wearing bucket boots and ear rings. It was just a question. A simple question. My goal was to gain a bit of knowledge from those of you who have so much. You may respond with such knowledge or not, your choice. But to turn this post into a PURE vs. FARBY battle again (and again and again) is just nasty.

I'm not looking for a time period to "fit in", I just like history from 1400 to 1720. So much was going on in the world. If you could see my book shelves you understand this. This site offeres so much. It is wonderful to get some the history from a European point of view (thanks Foxe and everyone!).

Dude when you do this Pure vs Fantasy thing it just makes me feel unwelcome. Reminds me of High School.

[Jib]

Back on Topic:

So during the English Civil War was and after was in more common for Round Head or Royalists to be found amid the pirates?

[Fox]

I gotta say that there has been a recent outbreak of Authenti v. Farby (they come round every four months or so), and I suspect that the most recent one is still a little bitter in people's mouths.

However, I do notice GoF (and indeed everyone involved) stressing over and over again the value of both approaches. In this particular case I don't think GoF was deliberately raking up the issues, but he was answering Das's question the way he sees it.

If you read what GoF actually says, instead of the way it perhaps comes across, he's not insulting anyone, or saying one approach is better than another. He's just highlighting the differences and pointing out to what extent the Farby approach has strayed from real history.

**********************************************************

During the civil war the Royalists relied heavily on privateers to provide their naval power, and though the Parliamentarians also used privateers they also had the bulk of the Navy. At the time there was some debate: the Royalist privateers had their authority from the King, or one of his subordinates, so they ought to have been legitimate, but by a quirk of English law the King at that time did not legally have the right to authorize privateers, that was the right of the Lord Admiral, who was a Parliamentarian. As a result the Royalists considered themselves privateers while the Parliamentarians considered them pirates. After the execution of the King foreign power also began to see the Royalists as pirates.

After the civil war both former Royalists and Parliamentarians turned to piracy, and both could be found in the fleet. Really, apart from the Regicides the old politics were largely forgotten or overlooked following the Restoration.

On the whole, the pirates proper either didn't have political convictions, or they didn't let them get in the way. The exceptions would be some of the people who were really out-and-out pirates, but chose to "legitimize" their activities by acquiring a commission from Prince Charles or the Duke of York, and thus work, in theory, for the Royalists. In many cases this was a relationship of expedience, the apolitical pirates got some semblence of legitimacy and the Royalists got another ship to add to their fleet on paper.

[Dorian Lasseter]

Foxe,

Ya just gave me a reason ta break out me old Blackwells coat....

If it still fits.... Wonder how much I c'n stretch th' wool?

[Jib]

While the pirates may not have had strong issue with politics did they have strong religious convictions?

I have heard that often people choose a side in the English Civil War was because of religion. Pro Rome vs. Puritan. Church of England.

I have also heard that Morgan himself hated papists and enjoyed doing horrible things to them (not just those Romans of Spain). Truth?

[Fox]

Religion certainly played a part in the ECW. On the whole though it was probably limited to the extremes. I doubt there were any Catholics on the Parliamentarian side (not that there were many on the Royalist side either), and groups like the Independents and puritans tended to side with Parliament. The majority of people though were of the less extreme persuasions, CofE, Presbyterians etc, and they could be found on both sides.

Following the Civil War there was a great opposition to Catholics getting into positions of power - while different Protestant groups could tolerate one another (just) the Catholics were definitely not good. The feeling was so strong that the Catholic James II was turfed out after 3 years, and he was lucky to ever reach the throne at all.

Catholicism was just one of the reasons to hate the Spanish in the New World. I wonder how much Morgan's hatred of Catholicism was religious fervour and how much was avarice for the rich furniture and fittings of Panama Cathedral.

I suspect that true piracy was anathema to anyone with really strong religious convictions.

[Hawkyns]

I have heard that often people choose a side in the English Civil War was because of religion. Pro Rome vs. Puritan. Church of England.

Foxe, you'd better hold me down on this one.

NO! It was puritan vs Church of England. Protestant against protestant. Queen Henrietta Maria was a French catholic and was frequently used as an excuse by the rebels. Towards the end of the First Civil War, as things got more desperate for the Royalists, there were attempts ( and some successes) to bring Irish troops in on the Royalist side. On the other hand, as the war progressed, there were divisions in the rebel ranks as well, puritans against uber puritans, and enough small sects sprang up that it was hard to keep track of the religious persuaion of the rebel army.

To be sure, religion played a part in the ECW, but it was as much economic as well, the wealthy landowners and the country folk against the tradesmen and apprentices of the cities.

The King and the Cause!

The Church and the Laws!

Charles, King of England!

and Prince Rupert of the Rhine!

GOD SAVE THE KING!!!!!!

(Royalist officer?, nah, not me)

Hawkyns

[Fox]

I believe perfume was also important...

"No Pot Pourri!" was a favourite Parliamentarian battle cry...

(I ought to explain that despite the Ocean between us Hawkyns and I used to be brother officers in the same re-enactment society - the ECWS - and even went to a handful of events together before we "met" here.)

**********************************************************

I was debating whether to mention the Irish Catholics (how in depth does a bulletin board warrant?), but I suppose they are doubly relevant in this context. The shipment of Irish troops to join Royalist garrisons in Wales, and even the Royalist field armies was one of the only major successes of the Royalist privateers during the conflict. Having swept the Irish Sea temporarily clean of Parliamentarian warships once or twice they used the opportunity to ferry Royalist Irish troops across. Without the Irish troops the King would possibly have lost the first Civil War sooner, and more convincingly.

The conflict between the protestant and the uber-protestant is also significant. From the beginning of the war the Presbyterians tended to side with Parliament. This is important because there were huge numbers of Presbyterians in the Scottish army, but also in the Navy. When the radicals alienated the Presbyterians it had the effect (along with other causes it must be admitted) of shifting sympathy in the Scottish army and the fleet towards the Royalists. The Scottish army switched sides and a large number of ships mutinied and joined the Royalists. It was these ships which provided the backbone of Prince Rupert's pirate/privateer squadron.

Believe it or not, the maritime conflicts of the mid-17thC (and particularly the ECW) is the subject I consider my forte, not all that pirate nonsense...

[dasNdanger]

Foxe, can we take a few paces backwards in history, to Drake. As a devoted Protestant, he never tried to conceal his hatred for Catholic Spain, and they, in turn, despised "El Pirata Drake". Just about everything you read from that era was a case of Catholic v. Protestant, as the nations behind the two religious ideologies struggled to gain the upper hand in the world and, more specifically, in the New World. 'Pirates' (I use the word loosely) at that time, like Drake, often had religious motivations/loyalties...but such convictions seem to disappear as privateering waned and pirate crews became more diverse during the mid to late 17th century, until such things just didn't seem to matter, only the loot did.

Or I might be all wet, who knows...

das

[Capn_Enigma]

There are several "pirate" books out there, but they just rehash the generalized pirate history.  There are none that deal with clothing, equipment, and documentable evidence of the GAoP (or buccaneering) periods.

I suggest that you go here.

BTW: The formally correct term for Drake, Hawkins etc would be "privateer", following the definition of Jan Rogozinski "Pirates! An A-Z Encyclopedia", p. 272.

[Fox]

I suggest that you go here.

My lips are sealed

BTW: The formally correct term for Drake, Hawkins etc would be "privateer", following the definition of Jan Rogozinski "Pirates! An A-Z Encyclopedia", p. 272.

Out of interest, how does Rogozinski define a "privateer"?

I would say that the difficulty in describing Drake and co as privateers is that although they're perhaps best remembered as such many of their earlier, and indeed most famous, exploits were distinctly piratical.

[Capn_Enigma]

My lips are sealed

Now that is a first!

Out of interest, how does Rogozinski define a "privateer"?

Basically, he gives the same definition as Wikipedia. I am just too lazy to type off Rogozinski's lengthy article.

[JoshuaRed]

I could be wrong, but I thought Drake didn't actually carry a commission the first time around?

[Fox]

The bulk of Drake's really famous stuff - his raids on the Panama Silver train, the sacking of Nombre de Dios, the circumnavigation etc took place in the 1570s (first fight against the Spanish at San Juan de Ulua, 1569 - return from circumnavigation, 1580).

What is frequently overlooked is that England and Spain were not at war until 1585, so all of Drake's career-making exploits were piratical. Even if he'd had a commission (which he didn't), it would have been worthless.

The same goes for Drake's contemporaries who waged an unofficial war against Spain prior to 1585. Morally speaking there might be some justification for their actions, but legally they were pirates.

[JoshuaRed]

A-Ha! I knew he didn't have a commission for at least part of his exploits...privateer my arse.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

.....Ok

I hear what your saying Jib, but the reality is your questioned was answered by the fourth post, and, it seems by your post addressing me, it should have ended right there.

But unless you are new to forums, you should know that, once you hit that "create post", or "add reply" button, the cat is out of the bag and Pandora's Box is now open.

So we went from

"What was the period before the Golden Age Called" (Jib)

to

"We need to cover more re-enacting periods" (CapnWilliam)

to

"Lets do Modern Pirate" (Coastie)

then, back to Buccaneer (several post later thanks to P Hand and RumbaRue)

and finally, to the magic 13th post from DasNDanger where she asked

3. Did they wear sashes, bucket boots and earrings during the Buccaneer era?

and followed it up with

7. In my humble, this sounds like the more interesting period of piracy history in the Caribbean, when piracy flourished, and the relatively short GAoP (30 years?) seems more like the death throes of piracy in the region. If this is the case, then WHY do people focus on the GAoP instead of the previous era which, it seems, tends to be the era, with all of its trappings, that trickles into film about the GAoP? True, some items/practices from latter times (walking the plank, for instance) also find their way into tales about the GAoP - but it seems to me that more people confuse the styles, etc., of the buccaneer era with the GAoP.

That led to a whole slew of questions and statements about how the Buccaneering period is "so much better" than the GAoP... but the boot question was never really answered.

Then, some character named JIB states...

Did we agree on bucket boots and ear rings?

so, Mr Jib, that seems to be where the thread got back on the boot kick.

Remeber too, that not all of us are on the same time zones, those of us in Europe are 6 hours ahead of EST, and since most of the Americans are on the web during the work day, a lot happens while we are in bed.

So, to you, a discussion may have ended.

But to some of us, we have just read it ,and it has just begun (again).

Ask Mr Foxe stated, currently, there seems to be several boot threads and several authenticity-fantasy discussions going on. I would imagine if you looked back through the archieved post, you will find that the same discussions were being tossed about YEARS ago (on this forum and others).

But to new folks, its.... new. So about every 5 weeks we get the bucket boot question. Every 3 months, the earing question comes up.

I am not sure why I am being singled out here Jib, as your orignal questioned was answered and the topic had been Shanghai'd several times before I got to the buffet table.

And when I finally got to it, I felt the need to respond to several points that had been made since the last time i laid eyes on the thread.

Again, It seems that I must choose my words more carefully as I seem to be being misunderstood AGAIN.

If you have read my posts, you should see that I find that the "pirate" tent is truly big enough for everyone. And I have stated many times that, in a sense, both sides need each other....

I am cool with the fantasy types out there that do their own spandex thing and call themselves pirates, and I am not trying to pee in anyones breakfest cereal of choice.

BUT,

If someone asks about Boots (for the 37th time this year) I will tell them that there is no evidence that bucket boots or riding boots were worn by sailors aboard ship. At best, we have one picture of some french sailors with some natives on land... but that is one out of thousands of sailors.

The thing is, I say a lot of things that people don't want to hear, and it makes me the instant ass hole.

I guess i could just shut the F up or smile and nod when the throngs of "pirate" re-enactor/ festival attendies go on and on about piracy and that everyone "knows" that pirates wore boots and had earrings.

I promise though, I won't post on any more of your threads for fear of bringing them down to high school level.

PS

Engima

Ok, I only have the older book (#67 that is just Pirates but I find it pretty weak.

Osprey has its place, especially if you are in to figure painting. And its usually the first book folks that have decided to become "serious" about any particular topic buy to hold them over till they get other books.

But with descriptions like

Governor Roberts is shown dressed in the finery of a gentlemean of his station, complete with silk cravat, wig and dress smallsword...

it doesn't exactly give us much to chew on.... again, its just rehashed stuff from other books.

[hitman]

I've had an e-list for awhile - confederateprivateers@yahoogroups.com - but this will be "live". We'll probably debut the first weekend of August, at Fort Gaines.

HITMAN, could you be there?

Capt. William

I wish Capt. Coxetter but I'll probaplly be bounce'n around somewhere between the Pacific North West and Miami in the freight shaker. I am glad to see someone from the group is gonna do a RW version of their persona (I presume you would be the Capt. Capt.) For my part I have been doing some prelim stuff on Mr. Smith as a late war harbor pilot recounting his tales of privateering and prison but.......

As to a few other items thus far mentioned,

Boots and earrings, really can we have this disscusian just once without a shouting match. Lets face it it will come up agian why don't we resolve to be better about it next time.

pure/farby/high school, UGHHHHHHHHHH annuresium (if that is misspelled just rember I am a product of the worst public school system in the nation.)

other eras, I wouldn't mind as to be honest I find the GAOP less intresting than say Asian or Roman pirates but that is just a personal prefrence and I am way outnumbered. Besides this is fun

Jib/GOF calm down every one (expet the two of you apparently) can see no harm was ment.

Capt. Enigma ........did Foxe just say touche?????????????????

[Fox]

The reason I was keeping my lips sealed was because I didn't want to have to be the first to put down the Osprey books. Generally speaking Osprey books are excellent, particularly when it comes to the details of uniformed troops from history. However, when there isn't a handy set of supply dockets to quote they tend to fall down a little. To carry on from GoF's quotation, for example, "... Behind him a young naval lieutenant wears a dress uniform jacket..." err, hang on... naval dress uniform in 1718??

The rest of the colour plates make an excellent catalogue of the "sacred cows" of pirate myths; we've got earrings, sashes, even a "jolly roger" tattoo on one guy! No bucket boots though - Angus must've been reading (selectively) this board...

Johnson's General History is heavily slated, yet it appears to be the source for most of the biographical information in the book. Other sources quoted included Rogozinski's A-Z of pirates (the one that claims Eric and Maria Cobham to be historical and Grace O'Malley to be fictional), and B.R. Burg's Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition.

Overall I think that Osprey's pirate book is not bad, but as GoF says most of the information is little more than a re-hash of all the other bread-and-butter pirate books out there. The few paragraphs on the clothing etc of pirates are not bad (he points out almost straight away that pirates looked like other seamen), but unlike other Osprey books the information is basic in the extreme.

For the record, the earlier books in the series, "Buccaneers" and "Elizabethan Sea Dogs" suffer from similar problems. On the general information I think they are probably better than "Pirates", but on the clothing and appearance they suffer from very much the same issues. The later book, "Pirates and Privateers, 1730-1830" seems to be the best of the series, but I'm not really qualified to discuss its merits or otherwise.

I'm sure there was another point I was going to answer, but I'm jiggered if I can remember what it was

[kass]

If you think the GAoP Osprey books are bad, try the Irish Wars one... Arrrrrrgh!!!!! My brain! My braaaaaaain!

Hitman, I'm having one of those aneurysms of yours...

[JoshuaRed]

The few paragraphs on the clothing etc of pirates are not bad (he points out almost straight away that pirates looked like other seamen)

And yet the ILLUSTRATIONS are rife with the very cliches the TEXT seeks to deny. I've seen this countless times in my collection of "current mainstream" pirate books. Which I guess would be the fault of the editor for not taking the time to find a good pairing of writer and artist.

It's the same problem with this upcoming National Geographic special on Blackbeard. Overall it looks WICKED good and I'm royally psyched for it, but in the behind-the-scenes video on the site they stress how no effort was spared in the quest for diligently and ACCURATELY recreating the world of Blackbeard. I mean they go on and on trying to sell us on how "right" they got it, yet straight away we see Blackbeard step out of his cabin in shiny bucket boots, and his various men are festooned with earrings, headscarves, etc. It's clear they spent SO much time and hard work on building incredible replicas of the sloop & other ships, and the sets in Nassau and Bath...but when it comes to the costuming it's as if they deferred to

Don Maitz as the authority. (Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan).

[Fox]

Osprey books used to all carry a note on the inside cover that while the artist was responsible for the artisitic contents of the colour plates the historical accuracy of them was down to the advice of the writer. I notice that Pirates doesn't have that.

A second glance reveals that TWO pirates in two different plates have "jolly roger" tattoos!

I too love Don Maitz, and for that matter I'm a fan of Pyle and Wyeth.

I think that anyone claiming their work is the pinnacle of historical accuracy is setting themselves up for a fall if they fail to put the same amount of effort into all aspects of it. That goes for film-makers, documentary makers, re-enactors, museums, and writers.

Are you guys familiar with the film "Sweet Liberty"? That's how I feel!

<EDIT> There are THREE jolly roger tattoos...