The Boots We Wear (On Bucket Boots)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Wasa had also passenger aboard. Also in 1620s boots were fashionable as gentlemen's fashion but not in 18th C.

[Ivan Henry aka Moose]

Dudes I am not getting into a bucket boot debate or even a boot debate. I get it, I don't wear boats for GAOP impressions... My question is stemming from a desire to recreate the items in the 1725 drawing from a Spanish sailor of his equipment. Sea boots are mentioned. I also have 18th century references (they are on the pub somewhere) of French sailors wearing a similar boot. They obviously are not buckets. But very similar to the samples from the Wreck of the Vasa. So... I started this thread to see if anyone has seen a source for this style of boot.

[Ivan Henry aka Moose]

Just a thought, but the presence of boots on a ship doesn't necessarily mean they were worn there.

I do recall an account of pirates riding horses back and forth on the deck of a captured ship (which I believe may be from Alexander Hamilton's A new account of the East Indies, 17th-18th century but I didn't record it in my notes because it is not germane to my subject.) Although they eventually got mad at the ship's crew for not having proper riding gear for them to practice their new sport so they punished them in some form or another.

I believe in that account they wished they had riding boots because they all kept falling off the horses. :-)

[Mission]

I believe in that account they wished they had riding boots because they all kept falling off the horses. :-)

Perzactly.

I wish I had written it down in my thread on Hamilton (If it was indeed from Hamilton.) I was being scolded for including pirate info that didn't seem to square with other historic sources, so I got all gun shy when I came across info on the pirates.

[Fox]

I don't think it was from Hamilton, I'm pretty sure it was Spriggs' crew involved in the incident, and they never went near the East Indies where Hamilton was.

[Edit] It was Spriggs, and it's from Johnson:

"Within two or three days they took a ship coming from Rhode Island to St. Christophers, loaden with provisions and some horses and rid them about the deck backwards and forwards a full gallop, like madmen at Newmarket, cursing, swearing, and hallowing each other at such a rate, that made the creatures wild. At length two or three of them throwing their riders, they fell upon the ship's crew, and whipp'd, cut, and beat them in a barbarous manner, telling them, it was for bringing horses without boots and spurs, for want of which they were not able to ride like gentlemen."

I'm pretty sure Johnson got the story from a newspaper, but it's late so I'm not going to look now [/edit]

[Mission]

Yep, that's the one. I had it in my head that it was from Hamilton, but I think I may have confused it with the story of the pirates capturing a ship full of horses in the East Indies and then burning it with the horses still on it. I've read so many pirate history books and articles in the past two or three months that I can't keep 'em straight. This is why I always take notes on the surgery-related stuff.

[jendobyns]

Those kind of look like some boots my husband is considering. He thinks they're made by Robert Land. I'll have him check for vendors if you're interested. I know I've seen boots like that around somewhere.

Jen

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Again Russian sailor but...

see there is navy officer boots mentioned there http://www.starsoft....a/skampaen.html

"The (Russian) navy had its own uniform by this time. In 1701, part of the navy, the Moscow Navigation School, was fitted out with its own uniform; in 1707, the oarsmen of the aristocracy's galleys were similarly dressed, and in 1710 the seamen. The uniforms were intended to be changed every two years. The style of the uniform followed the Dutch model, and the color was cornflower blue. The boots and shoes found also belong to the navy uniform: non-commissioned officers received a new pair of boots every two years (Belik 1990:11). Information to be revealed by the bones preserved in the surviving parts of the uniforms, e.g. boots, is pending the result of osteological examination; the decision on how to treat the remains is also still to come. The most probable solution is to declare the Truthällan and Ryssberget areas a military cemetery. "

While Russians, the conditions aboard ships were quite similar (even in galleys and other ships) than in other european maniners. And Russians followed Dutch and English examples. But boots were not popular that is clear....

Edited July 30, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

Whenever someone brings up boots, I think of this story. Having come across it again, I thought I'd include it in the discussion here for future reference. It's from The Pirates of the New England Coast 1630-1730 by George Francis Dow and John Henry Edmonds.

"A week later, a Rhode Island ship bound for St. Christopher's was taken [by Francis Spriggs]. She was loaded with provisions and some horses, which the pirate crew soon mounted and rode about the deck, backwards

__

and forwards, at full gallop, cursing and howling like demons, which soon made the animals so wild that they threw their riders and spoiled the sport. They then turned to the ship's crew and whipped and cut them in a wicked manner, saying, that it was because boots and spurs had not been brought with the horses that they were not able to ride like gentlemen." (Dow and Edmonds, p. 282 -3)

This suggests that they didn't have boots on and that they wouldn't think of needing them except when they were riding horses.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I have never been one to justify boots as I don't think that they are even very cool but.

This proves that at least those partucular pirates had no riding suitable boots. But even those pirates migth have some bad weather short boots or someting that we can see e.g with spanish sailors of the era.

Moreover we have evindence of one solitary pirate having pair of boots and even spurs (notable is that he had other riding stuff also with him).

Often is said that boot during gaop were not fashionable well they were not but: Like this quote tells gentlemen, mainly when riding, would have a pair of boots.

This is so that there is some solitary evindence for boots and more better evindence against them so I would say "typically pirates did not used boots. Especially not riding style "bucket boots"."

And I wonder what is a shoe here is it a shoe with some sort of covering or is it in fact a boot (the navigator with loose cap and neckcloth) These are dutch sailors somewhere aroind 1690s. The facial hair gives also some food for thougth.

http://www.jpmaps.co.uk/mapimages/originals/31651cartouche.jpg

Why I found that if there is a small piece of truth in pirate clothing myths l(ike sashes or earrings) they have someting to do with Dutch sailors. (type example is this picture http://www.britishmuseum.org/collectionimages/AN00914/AN00914614_001_l.jpg)

Edited August 14, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

And I wonder what is a shoe here is it a shoe with some sort of covering or is it in fact a boot (the navigator with loose cap and neckcloth) These are dutch sailors somewhere aroind 1690s. The facial hair gives also some food for thougth.

http://www.jpmaps.co...1cartouche.jpg

To me that looks like a completely unambiguous stocking worn under mules.

[Mission]

SB1700, you need to go back and read this whole topic, not just my comment. It was firmly established that riding boots were worn on land at this time, although a lot of the image links are now broken.

Somewhere there is even an image of French corsairs wearing boots while on land. In fact, it was the only image that was produced of pirates wearing such boots.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Mission: I have read few pages but i not goind to read all 22 pages (as this is not so interesting). And said I that the things that I said were new? no

And your quote is an old one as well as my info so what is the deal.....

Foxe: see how the cloth goes with the shoe. It looks, to me a some sort of shoe cover, but well not a boot.(Cover Like what was used in armies like here(http://warandgame.fi...11_ss01_01.jpeg). It can be just a poorly drawn shoe still....

Edited August 14, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Brit.Privateer]

I just went through and skimmed this entire thread agan to see what was discussed. I remember seeing this thread a long time ago, and I'm surpised to see it dredged up again. It's kind of interesting to see that the evidence concerning boots for sailors of the GAOP goes back to 2006! In fact, about 90% of this thread is from 2006. Some observations from that:

-There is evidence for fishermen wearing a kind of boot for the 17th to 19th centuries. But, they are fishermen and the boots are work-specific tools that were several times the price of normal shoes.

-There were riding boots during the GAOP but evidence for boots being a fashion statement for this period is lacking.

-There is no written evidence that pirates who had boots wore them. There is very little evidence that pirates stole boots (there is just the one example listed above from 2011 as far as I know, and then that other story above that seems to have pirates mocking and torturing captives for not having them for riding horses...well that's really illustrative for this topic isn't it?)

-There is only a couple pieces of pictoral evidence for boots during the GAOP at sea with sailors (specifically, some officer-looking man in two watercolors included with Duplessis' work "Périple de Beauchesne à la Terre de Feu, 1698-1701" - I am pretty sure that its an officer if I read the French captions I have to go with them; and the 1725 Spanish sailor kit illustration as seen here: http://www.piratebrethren.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=260 ). Compare that to the hundreds of pictures of sailors during the period of sailors wearing shoes.

-There is no real written evidence of sailors wearing boots while at sea. There is no written evidence that they owned a pair, compared to a lot of evidence for shoes.

Conclusion: A sailor during the GAOP period wearing boots during this period cannot be called anything close to normal. A sailor with boots would be better described as an anomoly based on the evidence. As for pirates, the same thing. So, if you are looking to have an accurate portrayal of a pirate during the GAOP that represents what was common for pirates, stick with shoes. If you don't want to do an accurate and common pirate portrayal, then don't and do boots if you want to. To borrow what someone else said on this thread: Non is forcing you to be accurate and represent the norm for the period.

There, I think I summarized the findings of the 420some posts in this thread thus far. I would say at least two thirds of those posts were just going around the same circle again, and again, and again, and again.

Also, Foxe deserves a damn metal for sticking in there on those discussions. I know I wouldn't have been as nice or as patient.

[Mission]

It's an old thread because was looking for a place for this quote and wanted to resurrect the master topic. (I have been combining old threads into master topics so that they are easier to find. This makes the forum is more search friendly and gathers all the info in one place for non-forum members who are interested. I discussed doing this with the site owner before starting and he agreed that it would be a good idea since even regular posters rarely look beyond the first page of the forum.)

I looked through this thread before posting that quote, but I didn't see it. (Did I miss it?) I like it because it indirectly suggests that pirates would not normally be wearing riding boots while on a ship.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Great summary!

Mission the quote was already in pub but perhaps not in this tread.. But thanks for posting it.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Commodore Swab]

Just a thought, how much evidence is there for sailors wearing shoes while on board ship. It seems illogical to wear shoes on board ship while doing normal work. I will stick to my beliefs as follows . . .

While working on board ship sailors/pirates would have been barefoot, exceptions would be officers, or sailors soldiers who might have had footwear as part of their uniform.

While ashore/in town Sailors/Pirates would have done their best to protect their feet wearing whatever they could. If they had shoes they were most definatly worn over boots.

While having any paintings done they did their best to look as good as they could and shoes looked good

While on shore planning a raid travelling thru undergrowth and brush if they could have gotten boots boots would have been worn.

So if you are portraying a sailor on board ship, ditch the weapons and shoes and make yourself ready to work.

Now if you are portraying a successful pirate on and evening out definatly wear shoes and keep maybe a single pistol and knife.

However if you plan on raiding on shore pack your weaponry, pack your gear, and wear your boots. Don't forget to leave your fine clothes at home . . .

[Fox]

Foxe: see how the cloth goes with the shoe. It looks, to me a some sort of shoe cover, but well not a boot.(Cover Like what was used in armies like here(http://warandgame.fi...11_ss01_01.jpeg). It can be just a poorly drawn shoe still....

Or it could be a mule. In fact, I think it is quite clearly and unambiguously a mule. If you look at the area where the leg covering meets the toe covering it's quite clear that the leg covering (the stocking) is going inside the toe covering (the mule). Same where the heel of the stocking meets the sole of the mule.

Just a thought, how much evidence is there for sailors wearing shoes while on board ship. It seems illogical to wear shoes on board ship while doing normal work. I will stick to my beliefs as follows . . .

While working on board ship sailors/pirates would have been barefoot, exceptions would be officers, or sailors soldiers who might have had footwear as part of their uniform.

Why is it illogical to wear shoes on ship?

I worked on a square-rigger for ten years and virtually always wore shoes. Too many things to stub your toes on to risk going barefoot when working, and trying to climb ratlines in bare feet is a fairly refined form of torture. Based on that experience I'd say it was far more logical to wear shoes if you had 'em. FWIW, I know Royaliste shares that opinion.

Further, there is evidence in support of it. One of the reasons the Admiralty introduced the slop system in the early 17th century was because of complaints from captains that their men didn't have enough clothing, and one of the things mentioned is shoes. So, there were men going barefoot, but it was necessity, not choice.

Or, for example, the watercolours by Gabriel Bray, 2nd lieutenant of HMS Pallas, show sailors painted from life while working aboard a ship in 1774/5:

[michaelsbagley]

To add to Foxe's comments.... I have been volunteering on the Santa Maria for 5 years now, and regularly climb (low) in the rigging. I've done it in shoes many times, and barefoot... ONCE... Never again.

While on shore planning a raid travelling thru undergrowth and brush if they could have gotten boots boots would have been worn.

I disagree with this... Strongly. Canvas is more readily available and cheaper than leather even in period, specially for sailors. Gaiters are starting to become commonplace by the 1690s, and likely earlier than that. Why wear expensive boots when even Dragoons (light cavalry) wear shoes and gaiters in the period? If you do any research on the military of the period (which I have done a lot of), you will find that pretty much only TRUE cavalry (as in heavy cavalry) wear boots. I know the 1699 Rene Desportes (sp?) painting show gaiters for the guy on a hunting trip. He's a gentleman who could likely afford boots and CHOSE shoes and gaiters over boots.

Historical evidence, critical analysis, and common logic all dictate (at this point) boots are an affectation of ego/pride in pirate re-creationists and have no real basis in history.

[Commodore Swab]

In defense I would simply say that our feet are more tender, how many who are uncomfortable in the rigging are also uncomfortable on coral rock or gravel?

[Fox]

But I'm not talking about walking on coral or gravel (not much coral round here, but I have no problem walking on gravel).

When you climb ratlines in bare feet all of your body's weight is transfered to a 1/2" wide strip on the bottom of your foot. Then, as your weight comes onto the line it bends under your foot, cutting into the sides of your foot and doing its best to fold your foot in half from underneath.

You can kind of see what I mean if you take a coarse skipping rope, put your bare foot in the middle of it, and pull with all your might on both ends at once.

It's not unbearable life-threatening pain, but it's not at all painful when wearing shoes, so where's the logic in doing it bare foot?

Stubbing the little toe of your cold wet bare foot on a gun carriage is unbearable life-threatening pain, and can be avoided by the simple expedient of wearing a shoe.

[Mission]

Ohh! Ohh! I have some evidence of shoes shipboard, and particularly while working up in the sails from Barlow’s Journal of his Life at Sea in King’s Ships, East and West Indiamen & Other Merchantman From 1659 to 1703. (It's just an out-of-hand mention in a much longer diatribe, but I am going to quote the whole thing because it's such a richly cynical view of the mens' job on a ship.)

“[1661]And having much cross winds and our water growing short, and being at short allowance of victuals all the while, we were now forced to go to one quart of ‘befraiage’ to one man a day, which ‘befraiage’ was made of sour wine and stinking water, which was very hard with us and the weather being hot and always eating salt victuals, I could not get my belly full, which made me often repent of my going to sea, remembering what pleasures those had in England who had their belly full of good victuals and drink, though they worked never so hard for it. And I was always thinking that beggars had a far better life of it and lived better than I did for they seldom missed of their bellies full of better victuals than we could get: and also at night to lie quiet and out of danger in a good barn full of straw, nobody disturbing them, and might lie as long as they pleased; but it was quite contrary with us, for we seldom in a month got our bellyful of victuals, and that of such salt as many beggars would think scorn to eat; and at night when we went to take our rest, we were not to lie still above four hours; and many times when it blew hard were not sure to lie one hour, yea, often (we) were called up before we had slept half an hour and forced to go up into the maintop or foretop to take in our topsails, half awake and half asleep, with one shoe on and the other off, not having time to put it on; always sleeping in our clothes for readiness; and in stormy weather, when the ship rolled and tumbled as though some great millstone were rolling up one hill and down another, we had much ado to hold ourselves fast by the small ropes from falling by the board; and being gotten up into the tops, there we must haul and pull to make fast the sail, seeing nothing but air above us and water beneath us, and that so raging as though every wave would make a grave for us; and many times so dark that we could not see one another, and blowing so hard that we could not hear one another speak, being close to one another; and thundering and lightening as though Heaven and earth would come together, it being usual in those countries, with showers of rain so hard that it will wet a man ‘dunge wet’ before he can go the length of the ship.” (Barlow, p. 59-60)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Still about boots. In have watched Potc 2 bonus materials and there is said interesting thing.That Depp hap problems with his boots as the boots let water inside the boots. This was a big problem in shore schenes were there was water. At the end holes were made to the boots to let the water out. One good example of that sailors and bucket boots don't belong together.

I think the bare foot thing is more a weather question than a matter about practicality. I have found some, well Nelson era (but many things changed only a little) quote of sailors working withouth shirts in warmer weather. Why not take the shoes off as well. A (land) quote about pirates in Madagascar told that men where on shore "withouth shoes or stockings". Ask the quote from me or somebody else if you don't know the quote I mean.

The thing did men use much shoes is a interesting question. I would like to find someting era or near era quotes (age of sail spectrum) about one fact. Many pirate books, well to be honest it was R. Platt's "Pirate" there was claimed that there were used small metal pieces, in battles, to cause damage to barefoot enemy sailors. It would tell someting if it is truth.

But aren't shoes even a bit slippery on wet deck?

not good for evidence as it is too new but see the man aboard sailing ship and on wooden deck http://depts.washing...arefoot-360.jpg

But this is a period one (or well decade later than gaop but we must accept as near period sources...) Yes there are hints of Hercules but he is a sailor allright.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Commodore Swab]

In POTC had they employed more PC boots rather the hollywood option of bucket boots (they are called bucket boots for a reason) I doubt he would have had as many problems. Of course those would be more of a riding boot that could have been pulled up like a pair of waders, doesn't look that good on screen. If we take out the part about climbing ratlines in shoes, is there still a general belief that shoes would have been worn on board ship at all times?

Personal experience of mine has shown that proper PC boots do keep my feet nice and dry in the rain, puddles etc. Also while an authentic sole in a boot is very slippery on modern surfaces I have been afforded good traction on worn wet wood. Soles do wear down and would need to be replaced often. Regarding my experience with period shoes they are comfortable enough once broken in but I would rather go barefoot than wear them in the rain aboard ship. Good ventilation is a must when keeping shoes aboard ship as if they are put away wet or damp they will start to mold in hours. This is based on the fact that I live aboard a boat in South Florida.

[Fox]

If we take out the part about climbing ratlines in shoes, is there still a general belief that shoes would have been worn on board ship at all times?

Nope, I don't think there has ever been a general belief that shoes would have been worn at all times, I just don't see the logic of going barefoot under working conditions when shoes were available.