Davis

This governor became particularly famous in historiography of piracy for his (interested) help to Henry Jennings and more in general to the "Flying Gang". When that scandal exploded, mostly thanks to the spanish gripes to the English crown, Hamilton was arrested and forcibly conducted to London, where, in very few time, he re-gained his status of Lord and even differents assignments from the crown. Now i'm very confused because i've found the copy of a letter of "Hamilton governor of Antigue" (without the name "Arcibald") dated 1720, but i can't find anywhere a confirm that he became again governor in the westerns colonies. His biography, that is possible to find in a very short form on differents websites, never mention anything about that..and even the lists of governors of Antigue say that Edward Byam was the Governor of Antigua in that year, and this would also eliminate the possibility of a homonym. Could you please enlight me more about this person? Thank you very much

So are you saying that the Postillon get caught by Richard Holland? I'm confused..

They are primary sources anyway, since they were written in that period (1719) and they report what someone who was directly involved in a historical event said about that particular event (thanks to this anwer i even discovered that the definition of "primary source" is slightly different between italian and english historiography. We can define "primary" every kind of source who was product in temporal porximity of the event that we are studying) I'm sorry if i'm not saying a lot about these deposition, but, hopefully, my thesys will be published and so you will have the chance to fully read them and (i hope not ) to condradict them. If it will be not published i will release the documents anyway. The part that i posted and translated is the only part that talks about the fort of Gambia, since the rest of the documents are the description of how they got captured, what kind of treatement they received and, thing more interesting, what informations pirates gave them (but they are not relevant with this topic). Anyway i can confirm that the first captain arrived in Sierra Leone for a mistake of his pilote, since they thought to be in Guinea at "Cape de Mont" (i couldn't find this place in Guinea, but i've found one in South Africa, even if it can't be that one), but i have still to read Snelgrave's account so i can't really say if it was the same, even if it is highly probable since the periods corresponds. Do you know if Snelgrave report the name of that french captain? The first captain never says anything about getting saved by La Buse or badly treated by Cocklyn alone. It only described the torture he received for many days and then, when the pirates finally started to believe him saying he hadn't hidden gold, he got released with his crew on an english ship robbed few time before by the pirates. The second captain was captured in Cape Lopez. Yes, true that Davis died in June, but anyway the party Davis-La Buse-Cocklyn dissolved around 10 May 1719, so only few days after the first captain of "my" depositions got released. What i didn't know, and what the second deposition seems to prove, is that La Buse and Cocklyn continued the party even after the 10 of May. Anyway, apart for GHoP, what other sources do we have who attribute the attack to the fort of Gambia to Davis alone? Because, even if i love GHoP, it can't really "compete" with these 2 depositions that are a lot temporally closer to the attack (even if, it is also possible that the pirates said to the 2 french captain that they all captured the fort of Gambia when in truth it was only Davis. But, if this hypothesis is correct, thing which we will never know, it doesn't have much sense..)

Yes, this is what i thought too since it's what Johnson wrote on GHoP, but these 2 depositions are in contraddiction with his version. The first one talks about facts happened on April 1719 (only few days before the pirates party collapsed), while the second one is referred to events happened on September 1719 (and so it would also prove that La Buse and Cocklyn continued the party without Davis). Before continue, I have to admit i've done a mistake: in the second deposition Howell Davis is NOT mentioned. The second captain was kidnapped only by Cocklyn and La Buse (but i'm strongly convinced that this doesn't mean, in any way, that Davis wasn't present at the moment of the pillage of the 2 forts. It only confirm that Davis wasn't with Cocklyn and La Buse on September 1719. Anyway it is another primary source who say that the 2 forts were captured also with the help of La Buse and Cocklyn and not only by Davis. Sadly this would also invalidate the romantic and fantastic description of the capture of the fort of Gambia made by Johnson...i'm always a bit sad when i found sources that contradicts GHoP).

What do you mean exactly? I'm sorry but i think i haven't understood

I can confirm you that it was Davis to take the Gambia Castle in 1719, with the help of Thomas Cocklyn and La Buse. At least this is what was wrote in 2 different depositions made by 2 captain captured and kidnapped, in 1719, by Cocklyn while he was in party with Davis and La Buse in Cape Lopez. The 2 documents were made in 2 different moments of 1719 and doesn't have anything in common, except the fact that both captains get captured by Davis, Cocklyn and La Buse. In the first it is said (i'm translating from french to english, and my first language it's italian, so i can't assure it will be a nice translation): "[...] these are the pirates who have already taken Santiago (Green Cape), the fort of Gambia and the fort of Sierra Leone" In the second: "[...] the pirates said to him [to the captain who got captured] that they already pillaged the fort in Gambia and in Sierra Leone" In these documents Taylor is never mentioned.

And it is sure that it was a french ship? Because i've read somewhere on internet (maybe on this forum, but i can't remember) that, in that period, in the Caribbean Sea, existed an english vessel named "Postillion" and a french one called "Postillon" and the latter became La Buse's ship. But these affirmation doesn't have, for what i know, any source that can confirm them and, at least it's what i think, it's probable that they are false and the difference between "Postillon" and "Postillion" it's just a matter of misspelled transcription of names. I'm asking all this because i've found a document of 1715 that talks about the ship "Postillon", whom crew became pirates. If it is know, or anyway if we are pretty sure, that the "Postillon" was La Buse's first ship, so that document is talking of his very first period as pirate.

Hello, i'm new to this forum, this is my first post. I will start asking sorry in advance for my poor english. I'm a researcher from Rome and i'm doing my master 2 thesis on piaracy on the Caribbean from 1713 to 1730 studying french sources, so i'm still pretty new to the subject (above all for what concerns the English sources). I checked the archives of Marseilles, Aix-en-Provence and Paris and i've found a lot of interesting stuff, but i've still a LOT of documents to read, so i still don't know most of the things i've found (since i'm from Italy i had to be fast in working far from home with few money, so i've done a lot of photos and now i'm reading them with calm from my home). I'm very interested in La Buse-Olivier Levasseur since i've found more than 1 document about him and i'd like to ask you, what do you know about the ship "Postillon" (or "Postillion")? Do you know, possibly with some sources, if it was captured by Hornigold or by La Buse in person? And it is sure that it was the first ship on which La Buse started his pirates carreer? This would help me reallly a lot, so Thank you in advance for any kind of help:)