GAOP Encampment

[William Brand]

Some of the items to be discussed here have been previously hashed out in other threads, so let us look at this as a consolidation of ideas for the overall look and feel of a good period encampment.

Because of many upcoming festivals, and Pirates in Paradise later in the year, I have been getting a fair number of questions about period camps that I would like second opinions and advice about.

1 - Tents

I assume that the common variety wedge is a passable tent, but I would like to know for certain if a wedge is appropriate and what tents may be better suited to the period.

2 - Cookware

Cast iron? forged cookware? Copper? Cooking tripods? There are numerous questions to the overall area of cookware, so I will leave this topic open-ended for whatever advice may come our way.

3 - Camp gear

Sea chests, chairs, kegs, etc. What are the simple and most plausible additions to improve the lived-in look of any good camp. Are canvas buckets period? What furnitire if any might by found in a camp?

4 - And of course...the don'ts

Plastic and resin cast skull candle holders, homemade rotting corpses lounging about as caricatures of doom, metal hope-chests and blanket trunks from WalMart, etc.

[Dorian Lasseter]

#1 Tents...

The wedge has been around for a very long time... although, the usual wedge you see around is just OOP.... I used an in period wedge for ECW (1640s), the only difference is that the upright poles are outside the tent instead of inside...

#3 Camp gear...

From doing F&I reenactments, the canvas buckets are Not period...

That's all I remember, on a monday, off the top of my head....

[Red-Handed Jill]

4 - And of course...the don'ts

Plastic and resin cast skull candle holders, homemade rotting corpses lounging about as caricatures of doom, metal hope-chests and blanket trunks from WalMart, etc.

What??? No homemade rotting corpses???

I'm kidding - Twice-Baked Thomas here is strictly for entertainment venues. I'd never think of bringing him to a reinactment.

[Hawkyns]

Goinf to handle these one at a time, since it may take a bit to work through.

Tents. well, if we are going to be correct, i don't think we should have tents at all, at least not in the sense most of think of them. I can think of no cargo bill of lading that lists tents, other than military trnasports. I would say that the most correct thing we can do is a piece of canvas (old sailcloth) over a line between two trees or over a line betwenn two poles. Pretty much what patrick is doing.

That said, it is difficult to do that, especially if you are overburdened with modesty, or have people shairng your tent who are. I am not overburdened and have no problem living under a piece of canvas where everyone can see what I'm doing, whether it be reading, sleeping, or changing. On the other hand, when camping with Gwen or Scarlett, they prefer not to have the world looking at them while engaging in a number of activities. So a tent becomes somewhat of a neccesity, even though anachronistic. I use a number of different styles, depending on the number of people, lenght of stay, and amount of kit that i need to deal with.

Wall tents are a period design, dating back to the Romans, so I have 2 in different sizes. I have a wedge tent also that is quite small (5x7) and can accomodate me if the weather ill be particularly foul, or can be used as a supply tent. I also have a 9x14 marquee that I use when putting on the dog or doing the regimental commander bit.

Hawkyns

[Fox]

1 - Tents

Wedge tents are certainly period, but as Hawkyns says their use by pirates or other seamen would be a bit suspect. However, if you need a tent then better one which is period than one which is not. Here, for example, are some plain wedge tents from 1695 (with the poles on the inside):

This picture of George Lowther is probably a bit fanciful, but it dates from 1734 and shows a kind of shelter which looks like it's rigged up from branches and a sail (or other large lump of canvas)

Dampier mentions that when he was in Campeche his equipment included a "pavilion", which I suspect was probably a simple bell-tent, so that would be another good alternative.

2 - Cookware

As you say, a huge topic. Since any camp will be on land it is probably not essential to look for specifically nautical cooking gear - and indeed that which I have seen recovered from shipwrecks tends to be the same kind of thing as the stuff found on land anyway. One important thing to bear in mind though is that a bunch of pirate camping on land probably took only the minimum - unlike, say, the army, a pirate camp was going to be temporary, so logic suggests that less is best. Go with whatever amount you need and no more.

3 - Camp gear

I find that sea-chests are the ideal camp furniture: they look nautical; they can be sat on; I would take my chest to an event anyway, so I just don't need to take a chair; and most importantly you can store stuf in them - whether it's delicate living history gear you don't want left out all the time or your modern stuff you don't want on show. My advice based on experience though, is bear in mind that the public will open your chest if they get the chance so either lock it or be careful what you put in it. The Lowther picture above gives some idea of pirate camp gear, but I also love this picture of a camp in Flanders in 1707 (yes, I know, boots! They are cavalrymen.)

4 - And of course...the don'ts

Oh there are just too many - I'm not gonna tell anyone what they can't have in their camp. Just exercise some common sense.

[Patrick Hand]

“What would a group of Pyrates use if they were in the process of careening their vessel.”

Might be a good way to go about figuring what would be period and acceptable for a period pyrate camp.

There is going to be some “slippage” in what is used… tents being a good example, for all the reasons that Hawkys posted…. Also.... for PiP, there arn't any trees inside the fort to rig a shade or tent on..... Some things will be “close enough”, but the glaringly wrong, should be avoided…..

[Dorian Lasseter]

Aye, I knew them's that know more than I would put in there tupence...

I learned a little here... I had been told by those who I thought knew, that the wedges with the poles inside were circa 1730-40 ish... I thank ye fer setting that straight... Any idea when the change was made? When did the upright poles gain the right to be inside the canvas?

I also agree that sailors had very little use for tents, and an old sail was the most comon for a bivouac ashore...

Would it be proper for the sweeps from one of the ships boats to be used as pole structures for makeshift tents?

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

On the subject of canvas buckets, I keep two around any time alot of camps are close in on each other for firefighting , and over the years I have aquired two very nice old brass buckets that are also kept full for the same purpose. Most events require at least two gallons minimum if you have a fire in camp.

Capt. Bo

[William Brand]

Thank you. There are some good comments from everyone. The pole in and pole out issue was not one I had considered.

Let's discuss lighting next. Horn paned lanterns? Pierced tin lanterns? Pitch torches are out of the question from a safety point of view, but I would love to have a night battle on the fort. Complete with a wooden pitchfork waving mob.

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

I don't know how period correct the glass panes are for sure, but they will definately put out more light for what you want. I use a variety of different glass paned lanterns with my colonial camp kits, and favor those with metal frames over those with wooden frames. Had a candle fall over against the side of a lantern and caught the woodedn upright on fire. Fortunately I was just outside of the tent and had no damage other than foul smelling smoke all over everything. My two cents.

Capt. Bo

[Captain Jim]

...but I would love to have a night battle on the fort. Complete with a wooden pitchfork waving mob.

Firing BP pistols at night would definately get the locals attention. Cannons too!

[Captain_MacNamara]

I've always wanted to do a nighttime firing... but ther're not allowed at any event I've been to.

[Hawkyns]

I use both glass and horn paned lanterns. Glass gives more light, but horn is more correct and gives a nicer light. I've even converted a couple of glass lanterns to horn, to make things look better.

Night firings are fun. I've done them at Fort Niagara and Fort Mifflin. Even more fun when you wad with 4 ought steel wool to make tracer rounds. Both of those places have water for a down range, so it makes the safety issues much simpler.

Night battles can be fun, but you need a lot of safety people. I've had a lot of fun doing them for different periods but I've also seen some awful accidents, like when the SS officer came around the corner unexpectedly and caught the Browning Hi-Power on the cheek, just as the Brit fired. Nearly lost his eye on that one.

Hawkyns

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

The few battle re-enactments that I attend all follow the same basic "rules"-

Everyone who plans to be on the field attends a safety meeting before each days battle, and must sign a "muster sheet" that proves they attended. This is where the rules are laid down for participants.

No ramrods or lead allowed on the battlefield, knives tied in to their sheaths to prevent them falling out/someone falling on or stepping on the exposed blade. Powder cannot be loaded directly from the horn/flask. Only measures or paper cartridges to be used.

All participants report to the safety officer on the field to have their weapons examined prior to the battle. This is to ensure compliance with the rules and to inspect for loaded weapons so that no accidental,(or intentional), shootings occur.

Capt. Bo

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Lots of interesting things to digest.

One is that barrels of the GAoP period are wooden bound, not iron bound.

What a bitch.

GoF

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

I forgot to mention hand to hand combat must be approved prior to the beginning of the battle. This normally involves native americans and colonials in wrestling and some use of "faux" war-clubs and rubber knives, but could be applied to swordplay as well.

Capt. Bo

[Hawkyns]

That's one of the reasons I prefer 17th C battles. We load from the bandolier, so we don't have to roll cartridges. We can also get into combat with musket butts, blunt swords, and wood pike and halberd heads.

We still check pouches, ring barrels, and don't use scouring sticks, but at least we are allowed to close, something that the 18th and 19th century folk seem to be very scared about.

I've also defended a cannon with the gun tools, rather than having to give up when the opfor gets with 25 feet.

Hawkyns

[Fox]

There was some debate about the use of wooden weapons over here a few years ago (ok, maybe ten). Lots of people felt that wooden heads were safer, but amongst those of us actually using short polearms (halberds and partizans) the consensus was in favour of blunt metal, for the following reasons:

Although wooden heads are lighter and thus theoretically easier to control, anyone with a modicum of training is capable of controlling a metal headed weapon perfectly well.

Most importantly, if an injury did occur (god forbid) the wound left by a metal weapon would be relatively clean, whereas a wooden weapon would be likely to break on impact and fill the wound with lovely splinters which are a nightmare for the paramedics to find and remove, and which will fester in the wound if left untreated.

Second most importantly, metal makes a much more satisfying noise when you get a hit on someone's breast-plate.

However, since the decisions lay with the Higher-Ups, most of whom had long since given up such vulgar things as fighting, wooden weapons continued to be the order of the day, though metal ones were tolerated. In fact this was the worst thing because it meant that there was more or less no regulation of polearms.

So, I just started concentrating more on 15thC where everyone was armed with either a metal headed polearm or a longbow. Two short stories which make me chuckle: my first 15thC training event the captain says to me "Always try to hit people on the armour. If they're not wearing armour then they should've bought some." On another occasion I was in full plate and marching towards a line of archer who were shooting straight. Now, the arrows they use have rubber blunt heads so they are safe, but a direct hit till hurts like hell, more so when they are shooting straight instead of up in an arc. I got all the way across this field with arrows bouncing off my armour, and I felt impregnable! About 20 yards from the archers I lifted by sword arm and instantly took an arrow straight in my arm-pit, the only part of my body apart from the soles of my feet that wasn't armoured! Bugger me that hurt for weeks...

I've used gun tools for defence too, funny how nobody want to take you on if you've got the wet-swab, dripping with black smelly water...

I must say that I've been disappointed too with the lack of contact in 18thC. Pirates seem to be the exception. I get frustrated when those damned infantry refuse to get the bayonets off their belts. Came up against some Norwegians a couple of years back who quite happily piled in with their sharp bayonets though - that was quite scary... I reached for the wet-swab.

[Patrick Hand]

I was no longer doing American Civil War at the time, But I heard that they were going to get some rubber bayonets so they could do charges..

I had a cook come at me with a frying pan once. I told the damn fool to put that down and get over there with the other prisoners. Lets see... loaded .58 musket vs. A frying pan...

We charged artillery once.... one of the gunners grabbed his rammer, I fired high over his head (for safety) and the jerk didn't take the hit. I shoulda just aimed right at the ... (I wouldn't do that. Too dangerous. But awh... heck....)

We did tangle with our sister unit, the 14th Indiana, dang that was a good brawl. but the 'higher upsnn' wouldnn't let us do it again. They thought someone might get hurt... we practiced it before the battle, both units got along really well, and it looked great...

Unfortunately, I've also been in some really 'Hokey ' battles...

[William Brand]

I wasn't expecting Shea's live steel at PIP.

[blackjohn]

Lots of interesting things to digest.

One is that barrels of the GAoP period are wooden bound, not iron bound.

What a bitch.

GoF

Not true. Just so happens I've been doing teeny bits of research on this lately. In those pics we see withy bound barrels, but we know from previous discussions iron banded barrels existed a few hundred years prior to our period. And just the other day I found this:

Eighty-five barrels were recovered, made mostly of white oak staves, though some were of beech and willow.  Split willow and chestnut branches formed the hoops of all but the largest casks, which had iron hoops.

Fwiw, I think even I could take a firkin and place withies over the iron bands.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

ok.... let me be a little more specific.

Its kind of relative or maybe even a semantics issue...

By that I mean:

Eighty-five barrels were recovered, made mostly of white oak staves, though some were of beech and willow.  Split willow and chestnut branches formed the hoops of all but the largest casks, which had iron hoops.

The word barrel itself, was a measurement unit which was equal to 31.5 gallons and was half of a hogshead (63 gal).

The size of the hogshead is about the size of a 55 gallon drum to give folks perspective. I am guessing that its the barrel pictured by Lothar (earlier in the post) and a hogshead in the other camp posting.

If your quote is using barrel in the "measurement" sense... then indeed as far as we know all Barrels were wooden bound during (and around) the GAoP.

Split willow and chestnut branches formed the hoops of all but the largest casks, which had iron hoops

The "largest casks" are indeed huge, and probably not found or made by a cooper on a ship ...

Chaldrons, Weys and Lasts (288, 320, and 640 gallons respectively) are the largest of the standard containers. I can see that a "last" would be e so big that wooden hoops are impractical due to the size of the wooden hoop needed to contain the contents. Iron probably wasn't cost efficient to produce for smaller containers.

Of course, depending on the contents (beer, wine, or dry goods) some containers were varying in sizes... check out the cool chart here:

http://www.footrule.com/1/conversn/oldengu...r=homepage&ac=0

So, its my bet that ANY "wooden staved container" that we would be using for GAoP re-enactment purposes should have wooden hoops.

Unless...

Pete uncovers period pictures of iron bound 70 gallon and below containers (pre-1730s).

GoF

[blackjohn]

Unless...

Pete uncovers period drawingspictures of iron bound 70 gallon and below containers (pre-1730s).

I'll take archaeology over period drawings any day of the week! The diagram shows them as being about 1m tall. Thus... probably in the 55 gallon range.

[Fairfax]

Greg -

You've moved, I think, beyond semantics into pedantics. Most people - PhD-level archaeologists included - wouldn't make the distinction as to the size of the cask. The terms "cask" and "barrel" are, to them, fundamentally interchangeable (just like "keg" and "cask").

Second, I found the following support for iron-bound casks, some of which make no real reference to size:

9. One Tun of Iron Bound Cask for Water, and a Bundle of Wooden Hoops, is allowed for every hundred Men per Month, in Home Voyages; but in Foreign Voyages, such farther Quantity as shall be thought necessary.

10. In Home Voyages, half the Proportion of Beer is to be contained in Iron-bound Cask, but in Foreign Voyages three-fourths; and every Cask is to have the Contents marked on the Head in Gallons, Winchester Measure. (1)

Emphasis mine.

If "cask" were a measure (not to say you're claiming that; it is to illustrate the level of pedantry we can sink to), or if every cask aboard ship were of similar size, there would be no need to mark the head of the cask.

In 1699, Parliament issued victualling instructions for the Lord High Admiral as follows:

Jovis, 12 die Januarii; 10 Gulielmi Tertii.

II. To receive into their Charge, and Possession, all such Provision of Victuals, Cask, Iron Hoops, Biscuit-Bags, and other Materials and Utensils for Victualling, as are remaining at any of the Victualling Ports, or in any Victualling Ships, or otherwise, for the Use of the Navy; the same having been first duly surveyed, and appraised; which they are to make use of in the Service of the Victualling, and to charge themselves therewith upon their Accounts.

VII. They are also to allow each Ship they shall be ordered to victual for the Sea, Four Hogsheads, with Eight Iron Hoops on each; the said Hoops to be hammered Hoops, of good Substance, and well wrought; or milled Hoops, where they shall think them sufficient for his Majesty's Service, for Water-Cask; with One Bundle of wooden Hoops, and another of Flags; for every One hundred Men, a Month; and so proportionably for a greater or lesser Number of Men; and such further Quantity of Water-Cask for foreign Voyages, as the Ships can conveniently stow, or shall be thought necessary.

IX. They are also to cause to be delivered, in Iron-bound Cask, hooped with Iron Hoops of good Substance, hammered, and well-wrought Iron, as aforesaid, One complete Moiety of the Proportion of Beer, ordered to each Ship designed for the Chanel, or any other Voyage than for Guinea, or the East or West-Indies; and for any Ship designed for Guinea, or the East or West-Indies, Threefourths of their Proportion of Beer is to be put in Ironbound Cask, hooped with Iron Hoops of good Substance, and well-wrought Iron, as above.(2)

Again, emphasis mine.

Note that exact measure is unmentioned in the case of beer, and specified in the case of water. This is puzzling, and no substantiated reason for this exists. One might make the argument that beer, being much more important to the physical and mental health of the crew than water, was in such a constant state of flux that specification of amount was considered unneccesary by the authorities, but no supporting documentation for this can be found.

To branch out into pure conjecture, the etymology of the term "scuttlebutt" gives support(!) to the standard cask size being the butt, not the barrel or tun.

At the end of the day, it is unwise to take one extreme or the other. There is support for both forms of cask-binding, depending on the intended purpose of the cask.

From a practical, reenacting standpoint, we must refuse to let the best be the enemy of the good. I'd much rather have an iron-bound firkin in camp - even though there should be a wythe-bound hogshead - because it's better than an Igloo cooler. :)

Also, until you stand next to one, you don't really know how big the larger casks are. The biggest cask anyone not employed in the beverage alcohol industry has ever seen is the half-bbl (US measure) keg. A full bbl is twice the size of that, and is in reality even larger, because it's made of oak staves and not welded stainless steel sheets. I don't know about you, but I ain't gonna try and 1.) find a blinkin' hogshead; or 2.) try to fit it in my vehicle to take it to an event.

(1) William Mountaine: The Seaman's Vade-Mecum, and Defensive War by Sea: containing the Proportions of Rigging, Masts and Yards Weight of Anchors, Sizes and Weight of Cables and Cordage, List of the Navy. The Exercise of the Small Arms, Bayonet, Granadoes and Great-Guns, Duty of Officers, &c. also Shewing how to prepare a Merchant-Ship for a close Fight. W. and J. Mount & T. and T. Page, London, 1756

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Provisio...(1756)_p71.html

(2) House of Commons Journal Volume 12 - 12 January 1699

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.as...sp?compid=39699

[William Brand]

Well...that topic took an unexpected turn from a period camp to containers and measurements. I do appreciate the additional reference materials provided in the debate. There was some very interesting stuff.

It's too bad that cost and convenience are often a factor in camps and reenactments, because the possibilities of a good camp are endless.