But I stole 'em from a...

[kass]

Hello folks!

A discussion in another thread made me think of something on the car drive home today. Often we justify what we have in our kit with the words "I'm a pirate. I stole it."

It occured to me that I hear this a lot in another group of people I hang around with: The Landsknechts. For those of you who don't know, the Landsknechts were mercenaries of the Holy Roman Emperor in the early 16th century (that's Germany, not Italy, for those of you not up on your 16th century place names).

Anyway, these guys were fearsome mercenaries and they were allowed to keep whatever they plundered. So in Landsknecht reenactment groups, we often hear the justification: "I took this as plunder."

Well, it doesn't hold water. Even though the Landsknechten held Milan and Pavia in their thrall for years until the local nobility got up enough money to PAY them to go away, "I took it as plunder" still isn't enough justification for a common soldier to wear velvet and brocade.

Wanna know why? Because we have many, many woodcuts depicting these men. People were fascinated by them and their strange mode of dressing. But in not a single one of these woodcuts do we see common soldiers wearing brocade and velvet. The Captains, sure. But not the guys without the horses.

Why do you think that was? Well, my fellow Americans, although they were mercenaries, there was still a social heirarchy. And no matter what the low-man on the totem pole took as plunder, he wouldn't be able to keep it. I'm sure he had much nicer things than other men of his station in life because of his profession. But he sure as hell didn't have a gold brocade Waffenrok.

All this is to illustrate that just because you can imagine it happening doesn't mean it did. Do you know any thieves? Do they dress richly? Probably not. Neither did they in the 16th and 17th centuries.

And honestly, people, if you want to wear crushed velvet or bucket boots or anything else that isn't historically justifiable, why not just say:

I wear these cuz I like 'em!

There's really no need to make up an elaborate story if you're not trying to portray a historical figure anyway...

So chill out and do what you do and don't try to make up some crazy story about it. It's the story that will get you every time.

Cheers!

[The Doctor]

But, Kass....! OK, I'll quit whining. For now.

[JoshuaRed]

Yeah! Here is my take:

Look, if I have a dirty, tough, manual labor job, and moonlight as a crook robbing the occasional liquor store or 7-11, the odds that some guy who even OWNS a tuxedo & Rolex, let alone wears it to a place like 7-11 will stroll across the parking lot on the very night I am staking it out to rob are SLIM TO NONE. AND...if said richie actually walked across the parking lot towards the store for a late night Slurpie, and I jumped him, knocked him on the head, ripped off his tux and Rolex for myself.....WHY in the heck would I wear that ensemble the next day back at my ditch-digging job along the interstate? Furthermore, if I am a sundry low-life type like a pirate, why would I parade around my fellow peers consisting of thieves and robbers while wearing something that they just might decide to relieve ME of?

[Daniel]

Furthermore, if I am a sundry low-life type like a pirate, why would I parade around my fellow peers consisting of thieves and robbers while wearing something that they just might decide to relieve ME of?

Because, if any of them did such a thing, they would be mutilated and probably die?

Article 2 of Bartholomew Roberts' crew: "If any man rob another he shall have his nose and ears slit, and be put ashore where he shall be sure to encounter hardships."

[Monterey Jack]

We figures those are more like guidelines rather than actual rules....

[kass]

Good analogy, Josh. I like that...

Were you aware that gentlemen often had special outfits made for frequenting nafarious places like Covent Garden. Part of the reasoning was to disguise themselves so they would not be recognized and therefore not ruin their reputations.

[Hawkyns]

Furthermore, if I am a sundry low-life type like a pirate, why would I parade around my fellow peers consisting of thieves and robbers while wearing something that they just might decide to relieve ME of?

Because, if any of them did such a thing, they would be mutilated and probably die?

Article 2 of Bartholomew Roberts' crew: "If any man rob another he shall have his nose and ears slit, and be put ashore where he shall be sure to encounter hardships."

That's fine, if it's among your own crew. In an open port like Port Royal. or even Charleston, there are plenty of people about who are not of your crew or are not even pirates.

Sorry, I've got to agree with Kass on this. Rather than keep something I've plundered for an occasional wearing ashore or take the chance of it making me a target for the King's men or other thieves, rogues and vagabonds, I think it far more likely that it would be sold for cash that I could use for rum and women.

Another factor to be considered here. Where are you going to keep this? The average seaman does not have a closet below decks for all his plundered finery. A small seachest and maybe a seabag is about it. Coin and jewelry makes more sense and is easier stored than a bloody great velvet coat.

Hawkyns

[JoshuaRed]

there are plenty of people about who are not of your crew or are not even pirates.

That is exactly what I meant, Hawkyns, thanks. Birds of a feather, ya know? If I am a pirate, I probably frequent rather unsavory places like Port Royal or Tortuga. Places rife with other criminals who wouldn't think twice about knocking me in the ditch and taking that crushed velvet brocade justacorps and lambskin bucketboots down to the fencer for some quick cash.

[kass]

Hello preacher! This is the choir speakin'...

[greenighs]

David Cordingly, Under the Black Flag:

... Above all, [pirates] were distinguished by their clothes. In the early years of the eighteenth century most landsmen wore long coats and long waistcoats over knee breeches and stockings. Seamen on the other hand wore short blue jackets, over a checked shirt, and either long canvas trousers or baggy "petticoat breeches," which somewhat resembled culottes. In addition, they frequently wore red waistcoats, and tied a scarf or handkerchief loosely around the neck.(20)

Most pirates wore variations of this traditional costume, which was hard-wearing and practical, though some wore more exotic clothes stolen from captured ships or made from the silks and velvets which they plundered. Kit Oloard dressed "in black velvet trousers and jacket, crimson silk socks, black felt hat, brown beard and shirt collar embroidered in black silk." (21) John Stow noted that two pirates facing execution in 1615 gave away their fancy clothes, inluding breeches of crimson taffeta, velvet doublets with gold buttons, and velvet shirts with gold lace. Pirate captains seem to have adopted the clothes of navel officers or merchant captains, which at this period followed the style of English gentlemen. When he fought his last sea battle in 1722, the pirate captain Bartholomew Roberts was, according to Captain Johnson, "dressed in a rich crimson damask waistcoat, and breeches, a red feather in his hat, a gold chian round his neck, with a diamond cross hanging to it." (22)

20. For further details of seamen's clothes, see Rodger, [N. A. M. The Wooden World: An Anatomy of the Georgian Navy (London, 1986)] pp. 64-65; Rediker, [Marcus. Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Merchant Seamen, Pirates, and the Anglo-American Maritime World (Cambridge and New York, 1987)], p. 11; Ritchie, [Robert C. Captain Kidd and the War Againsts the Pirates (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1986], p. 114; Dudley Jarret, British Naval Dress (London, 1960); Commander W. E. May, The Dress of Naval Officers (London, 1966).

21. Senior, [Clive. A Nation of Pirates: English Piracy in Its Heyday (Newton Abbot, London, and New York, 1976)] p. 37

22. Johnson [Captain Charles. A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pyrates, (London, 1724). There are many editions of this book. [Cordingly has] used the comprehensive edition edited by Manuel Schonhorn. This is entitled A General History of the Pyrates, and its author is given as Daniel Defoe. It was published in London in 1972 and has extensive notes on the text.], p. 243

[kass]

Oh well. Then I must be completely wrong.

Back to the bucket boots and velvet coats, kids. I obviously don't know what I'm talking about. Three pirates in 100 years wore velvet according to someone...

And hear that? Throw away your jackets and plain shirts. You must wear BLUE jacket and CHECKED shirts and RED waistcoats or you're not a pirate!

Do you really believe this drivel, Greenighs? I have heard you argue better than this before...

[greenighs]

Wellll, I wasn't really using one quote to deny your intellect, education, experience and abilities. I sure hope you're not doing to same to mine.

In my attempt to make up for whatever historical ignorance Americans like myself are guilty of, I've been doing some reading (imagine, an American reading a book!), and came across that "drivel." Now, I didn't know a the time it was drivel, thinking instead it was somewhere between the Divine Word of God and an Archies comic book, but since it seemed to be reasonably researched and reviews of it didn't call it total crap, I thought I'd give it a go.

I supose I should have posted a quick, "This is an interesting quote, will post more questions and observations when my hands recouperate from typing the whole thing out," but I didn't. So, there it is, aparently, a quote from a piece of shite book taken as an attack on Kass, and casting doubt on my own intellectual abilities. When will I ever learn?

[JoshuaRed]

Do you honestly think that pirates sat around in a circle on the deck having a "stitch n' bitch" with their shipmates, seeing who could make the prettiest waistcoat out of the Sultan's finest bolt of silk?

[Monterey Jack]

Wow. looks like somebody got up on the wrong side of the guns today, Kass.

Cordingly is generalizing, and most of his subjects appear to be captains, and likely had at least one good suit of clothes they like to be seen in. Cordingly also mentions variations based off what he lists as seeming standard clothing for seamen. Note he says seamen, not pirates, referring to working class sailors who were sometimes issued their clothes. So in a sense, yes,to be a seamen of the period these basic items would likely be a part of your everyday wear.

I disagree with his phrases that begin with "most", as there is no way to document what the majority of over 1000 seamen had on at any given time......in a 100 year span.

Also, I think you were originally talking about the down n dirty pirates, and in that I believe you to be right on the mark, but if Cordingly has done the research I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it for at least the captains.

Damn, can't finish the thread; got customers in the shop!

Carry on!

[greenighs]

My next post, heavily preceded by disclaimers and apologies to anyone who might take offense at my having read information from a non-sancitoned source, was to be a reference to sumptuary laws and pirates, from a Web site called Elizabethan Era:

Pirate Clothing - Flouting the Elizabethan Sumptuary Laws!

Elizabethan Sumptuary Laws dictated what color of clothing and the materials and fabrics which could be  used for each social level. The Elizabethan Sumptuary Laws therefore enforced what clothing individuals were allowed to own and wear, an easy and immediate way to identify rank and privilege. Pirate clothing, especially that of the successful and wealthy pirates took great delight in flouting the Elizabethan Sumptuary Laws! Anything went - fine velvets and silks and such fabrics which had been previously banned to anyone other than those in the Upper Classes.

Pirate Clothing - The Motley Crew

The fabrics used in pirate clothing depended on how wealthy they were and what clothing had been stolen! Pirate clothing for the ordinary seamen was therefore often ill-fitting! Motley was a multi-colored woollen fabric woven of mixed threads in 14th to 17th century England. The clothes of pirate seamen were mismatched with multi-colors - hence the expression 'Motley Crew'.Many of the tasks performed by the pirates were extremely arduous - clothing could be easily ripped, tattered and torn. The pirate clothing for ordinary seamen, by necessity was tight fitting. Loose fighting clothes would be dangerous when performing tasks like climbing the rigging. The clothing of the captain or pirate clothing worn on land did not need to follow such requirements.   

Pirate Clothing - the Fabrics and Materials

The fabrics used in pirate clothing depended on how wealthy they were and what clothing had been stolen! But basically there were no rules! The practical fabrics used for ordinary pirate clothing included canvass, leather, wool, linen, cotton and sheepskin. The fabrics and materials used in pirate clothing when on shore, or by the Pirate Captain, were far more flamboyant and expensive. Velvet, silk, damask, sarcanet, camlet and taffeta were included in the fabrics and materials used for this type of pirate clothing - exotic feathers were also favored! 

Pirate Clothing - Colors

The colors of pirate clothing included the colors which had previously banned by the Elizabethan Sumptuary Laws. Crimson, violet, purple and  deep blue were typical of the colors which had previously banned for anyone other than the Upper Classes!

... which actually corroborates the information given already by Kass, Foxe, GoF and others, about the Captain's clothing versus the ordinary seaman's, but I hadn't gotten that far.

[Monterey Jack]

Pirate Clothing - Flouting the Elizabethan Laws

Interesting stuff!

Curious as to whether there were still Sumtuary Laws in effect in the 1700s and whether or not they could be enforced outside of England?

[Daniel]

Oh well. Then I must be completely wrong.

Back to the bucket boots and velvet coats, kids. I obviously don't know what I'm talking about. Three pirates in 100 years wore velvet according to someone...

And hear that? Throw away your jackets and plain shirts. You must wear BLUE jacket and CHECKED shirts and RED waistcoats or you're not a pirate!

Do you really believe this drivel, Greenighs? I have heard you argue better than this before...

Yup, you're completely wrong, Kass.

The sum total of your evidence was woodcuts of landsknechts. Greenighs threw one of the top sources on pirates back at you. Strawman arguments like "back to bucket boots" suggest that you don't have any real evidence to refute Greenighs with. If you've got evidence instead of strawmen, show it.

[Daniel]

That's fine, if it's among your own crew. In an open port like Port Royal. or even Charleston, there are plenty of people about who are not of your crew or are not even pirates.

Sorry, I've got to agree with Kass on this. Rather than keep something I've plundered for an occasional wearing ashore or take the chance of it making me a target for the King's men or other thieves, rogues and vagabonds, I think it far more likely that it would be sold for cash that I could use for rum and women.

Another factor to be considered here. Where are you going to keep this? The average seaman does not have a closet below decks for all his plundered finery. A small seachest and maybe a seabag is about it. Coin and jewelry makes more sense and is easier stored than a bloody great velvet coat.

Hawkyns

I see the point. I don't doubt that in some cases finery would have been sold for coin. However, as the sources indicate, sailors did reserve their best clothes (doubtless only one suit, for the space reasons you mentioned) for going ashore, and sailors in Charleston or Port Royal would have been just as vulnerable as pirates. So apparently the risk, though no doubt real, was not a complete deterrent.

Possibly pirates and other sailors dressing up for shore leave may have stuck together to guard against cutthroats from rival crews?

[JoshuaRed]

Oh my, now you've done it..... Never thought I'd see Kass being called out!

I don't know that I'd call Cordingly's book "one of the top sources on pirates". It's a decent entry-level primer, and Cordingly is a good aggregator of the standard period accounts. But even just a little digging beyond his work will make his generalizations obvious to the researcher. The best thing to do with books like that is dive straight into the bibliography and collect THOSE sources.

[JoshuaRed]

Just another note on shore-leave. If you look at the many period engravings and paintings of late 18th C and even Napoleonic-era privateers going ashore in their "finery"...you'll find that it consists of their short jacket, some clean trousers, standard shoes, maybe a nice hat and a cane. Sailors loved their canes. I doubt the level of "finery" was much better a century earlier. In other words, based on what I've seen, my theory is that a sailor's finest was just a clean and well-kept version of his working duds.

[greenighs]

Oh well.  Then I must be completely wrong.

Back to the bucket boots and velvet coats, kids.  I obviously don't know what I'm talking about.  Three pirates in 100 years wore velvet according to someone...

And hear that?  Throw away your jackets and plain shirts.  You must wear BLUE jacket and CHECKED shirts and RED waistcoats or you're not a pirate!

Do you really believe this drivel, Greenighs?  I have heard you argue better than this before...

Yup, you're completely wrong, Kass.

The sum total of your evidence was woodcuts of landsknechts. Greenighs threw one of the top sources on pirates back at you. Strawman arguments like "back to bucket boots" suggest that you don't have any real evidence to refute Greenighs with. If you've got evidence instead of strawmen, show it.

Daniel, don't use me for ammunition (please). I can understand where you're coming from, certainly, but my posts were not about refuting Kass, only to show how even well-meaning (beginner) "pirates" who do research can come up with conflicting information! If I'd never been on this site and had only read Cordingly and/or the books he cites in those endnotes, I'd be building a different pirate persona entirely, from what I'd be putting together from information gained from the Pyracy.com forums. That WAS where I was going with my posts.

When I was reading Under the Black Flag and came upon those paragraphs, I was kind of excited to post, just to show that it's not my imagination, or Hollywood, but even real books paint that kind of picture of the fancy Pirate! That was what was in my mind when I was posting, not, "Aha! Now I've got ya!"

If that's how it goes around here, fine. I'm not gonna call foul. But I won't hold myself to playing nice-nice and tiptoeing around the "more period than thous" (to borrow a phrase I read somewhere), either, if they get to dump on me.

[JoshuaRed]

but even real books paint that kind of picture of the fancy Pirate!

Very true, Greenighs. That's where the money is. Look at Master & Commander vs. POTC. For all we know, Cordingly may have bowed to outside pressure from his editors to spin his book more towards the fancy pirates. Just as Bruckheimer probably had to pull in the reins a bit to please Disney. (Not that Bruckheimer cared about authenticity in the least. But I do know that he was planning to make a hardcore, gritty pirate film before POTC came along and swallowed that whole plan)

I think a big part of the issue is that we tend to think pirates had a lot more fun doing their thing than they actually did.

[Patrick Hand]

OK... outta Period.... but from "The Wooden World"

"Except for disguise; seamen scorned to wear landmen's clothes, and their best clothes were more elaborate and fancy versions of their working rig, with white duck instead of canvas trousers, silver buckles to their shoes, brass buttons on their jackets, coloured tape along the seams, and ribbons in their hats."

I've always liked the idea of sewing "coloured tape along the seams" of my jacket.......

But this brings something up..... on the "I stole 'em"....

After taking a merchant ship, There's all that nice clothing.... (still seaman's clothing) wouldn't it make sence for a Pyrate to help themselves to a fancier jacket? a new shirt, and some silver buckels..... sell everything else, (and thier old clothing ) but dress nicer.......now that they have it.......

[Hawkyns]

Attention to Orders!!

Moderator On Deck!!

Play nice, guys. Lets tone it down a bit and stick to facts and references, K?

Hawkyns

[Daniel]

I don't know that I'd call Cordingly's book "one of the top sources on pirates". It's a decent entry-level primer, and Cordingly is a good aggregator of the standard period accounts. But even just a little digging beyond his work will make his generalizations obvious to the researcher. The best thing to do with books like that is dive straight into the bibliography and collect THOSE sources.

Fair enough. I wouldn't claim infallibility for Cordingly; I've caught him in errors myself. If there's something in Rediker, Ritchie, Johnson, Exquemelin, et al that contradicts his claim that pirates wore their very best ashore, OK. I just want to see it. (I have read each of those, except for Rediker, but I certainly could have overlooked something against that quote from Cordingly).

Greenighs, sorry if I dragged you into something I shouldn't have.