Fox

Hi Mourn, I'm pretty certain the pirate brand thing is a POTC invention. possibly branding pirates was done in the middle ages, but by the 17th century pirates were generally either pardoned or hanged - I don't know of any nation that branded pirates. Tattoos are similar. You've gotta remember that pirates were just people and generally did not go against fashion (sure, some did, but they were the exception) and tattooing was just not something people, even sailors, often did in the 18th century, so "commonly worn" tattoos would basically be non-existent. Where pirates (or other seamen) did get tattoos they would probably be mostly the local tribal designs of the area where they got their tattoo done. I can email some pictures of 16thC American Indian tattoo designs if that would be of any help, though they would probably not really be applicable to pirates from the Golden Age, certainly not "common".

Cordingly is indeed an excellent well researched source. With regard to pirates articles he says on p118 of Life among the Pirates (the English edition of UTBF) "The articles differed from ship to ship, but they all followed similar lines" So, there was not ONE code for all pirates, there several, and there is also no evidence that EVERY pirate crew signed articles.

Welcome aboard Mission! (Guys, welcome a buddy from another board, good fella that he is) Yeah, one of the main things that Gaspar's detractors say about his authenticity is that there is no primary source material for him and that his legend is only maintained by the Florida tourist people to keep their festival going. However, if you go to the Tampa Bay official site (I forget the address, but Google should turn it up) state that their annual festival is based on the fictional pirate Jose Gaspar. Or words to that effect.

It's getting closer to the truth that I'm most interested in, which is why I asked if you had a source. It's all very well to suggest that I go on the hunt on the net, but you ought to be prepared to give your own sources for anything you say on this board, that way the rest of us can all sort out what we think is reliable and what isn't without having to spend hours searching the net. That way, we can all get closer to the truth. But please don't be offended by my request. I thought the set of articles you posted looked a bit dodgy so I asked where they came from - that's all. However, I followed your advice, trawled through a lot of stuff related to software piracy etc and finally found the set of of articles you posted. For the benefit of everyone else who might be interested, they are the articles of a fine bunch of people called the Pyrates of the Gulf Coast. The POGC are a Florida based group of philanthropists who regularly don bandannas and eye patches and invade Hooters (and do other things too) to raise money for charity. They seem to work very hard to raise money for some very good causes and if any of them are reading I applaud them. However, historical integrity does not seem to be their top priority.

Ah, now if it's the early 17th century you're interested in may I suggest (if you've not already found it) the excellent "Nathaniel's Nutmeg" by Giles Milton. To quote the blurb from Amazon: Actually the book, although centred on the first quarter of the 17th century begins its tale in 1553 and ends in the 1660s, and is utterly readable. It's available from Amazon here

You won't find any information on the East India Company of the early 16th century, because it wasn't set up until 1601. A good site which deals with various aspects of the EIC, but is still being built is: www.eicships.info Congratulations on joining the right side of law and order. Now, if the two of us just stand here with our backs together and our cutlasses out we might just make it out alive... I set up and have run for the last 5 years a nautical LH group specialising in Navy and privateers 1580-1700, but we also do the odd event as merchants. We're in the UK but if I can be of any help I'll be more than willing. Our website is Bonaventure if you fancy seeing what we do.

That set of rules looks like a combination of things from other sets of articles with a bit of imagination thrown in for good luck. May I ask if there is a source for them? Also, I don't buy the idea that there was a formal brotherhood of pirates in the 17th century (or any other time) with a creed of ethics or widespread contracts. Different sets of articles were signed at different times and by different people and the buccaneers banded together in different groups for different expeditions. I think any feeling of brotherhood was much less rigid and formal. It's all a bit POTC if you know what I mean

Great stuff guys, keep it coming! Can I throw another stick out? Does anyone have any good evidence why Captain Charles Johnson of the General history was not the playwright Charles Johnson (1679-1748), apart from the stylistic difference and the fact that he was a corpulent fellow who never went to sea in his life?

Yes I have the latest edition. In that and in Under the Black Flag Cordingly gives a brief resume of Moore's arguments. In those and in other works one can get a pretty good overview of Moore's arguments. I've also read the relevant chapter of Furbank and Owens' Canonisation of Daniel Defoe, so I've got what I think is a pretty good idea of Moore's arguments without actually having read them! In essence I believe his arguments come into two categories; those which show Defoe might have written the General History (he knew a bit about ships, was interested in pirates etc) and those which show he did write it (the similarities in style). The arguments that Defoe might be responsible are compelling but not conclusive, and can mostly be broken down quite easily - yes, Defoe was interested in pirates, but so were a lot of people, and some of Defoe's other accredited works differ in detail from the General History. The arguments of style I am not qualified to speak on myself (except to say that I've read the General History, Moll Flanders and Robinson Crusoe and I didn't notice any similarities particularly), but Furbank and Owens make some interesting points of logic even the layman can appreciate. For example, when comparing styles Moore often made comparisons based on the general style of the time, ie. he didn't differentiate between what is specifically Defoe's style and what was common to most writers of that period. More seriously Moore apparently drew many comparisons with other works which he himself had categorized as Defoe - in effect he said "I believe that A is a work by Defoe because it is similar in style to Moll Flanders. B is similar to A therefore B is also by Defoe, and C bears resemblances to both A and B so that is also by Defoe". That's ok provided you're pretty damn sure he's right about A. If D is the General History and is similar to C you're still a long chain of supposition away from showing that it was written by Defoe. So, yes, I've got the latest edition of the General History. What I'm after is other reason for supposing Defoe to have been Captain Johnson.

What ho piratey people, For reasons best not gone into here I'm looking for any ideas or evidence in favour of Daniel Defoe's having written the General History. Personally I don't think he did, but I would like to make sure I've heard all the arguments. So, apart from the supposed similarities in style does anyone have any other evidence?

Yep, I agree with that more or less. QMs on any ship had a certain amount of command so I'm not disputing that for a second. The extra "civil" duties basically cover what I've been trying to say less eloquently. That surprises me. However, much of the duty of a QM on any vessel was civil - for example 17thC descriptions often mention rummaging in the hold, which is something that seems to be covered by pirate QMs as well. I'm also of the opinion that it's often particularly difficult to prove the norm. For example, I've recently had a long heated debate about the use of bells on pirate vessels with someone on a different board. Their point was that they hadn't seen any evidence to say that pirates used bells, so they didn't believe that they did. My argument then was that apart from the evidence (which is minimal but extant) you've got to answer the question, if bells were commonplace on ships of that period, how often would you expect to find them specifically recorded? I think the QM question is along the same lines, except in a very few circumstances is it that surprising that not many records state "...and the QMs went around doing the usual QM sort of stuff"? Nowadays if we're trying to describe to a contemporary what someone does we just say "he works in an office" or "he's a barman". We assume the person we're talking to understands what we mean, so we don't elaborate much. Well, given the evidence I'm still not in total agreement, but that is merely a matter of my interpretation of the evidence against yours. Since arguing over interpretation could go on forever and still be wrong shall we agree to differ on the fine points since we agree on the main ones? See? Many thanks for all your input, if you've got anything new anytime I'd love to hear it. I'm just off to start a new potentially argumentative thread now...

Fair points. The distribution of privisions and plunder though is still more of a civil duty, rather than evidence of a command. And yes, QMs were often given command of prizes, but more often than not that was a matter of election, indicating a high level of respect certainly, and probably a higher level of popularity, as one would expect from someone in the QM's position. I've not yet found any evidence of pirate second mates - three captains (Roberts, Lowther and Harris) who were second mates on merchantmen at the time the turned pirate - but not so far of second mates. Benjamin Jeffrey's served as boatswain's mate under Roberts, which rather surprised me to find. Do you actually have evidence that there was no second mate aboard Roberts' vessel, or is it an inference drawn from lack of evidence. The only thing I could find on Roberts' officers was the ambiguous mention of "other officers" in his articles and the surprising position of boatswain's mate mentioned. However. The question of second mates doesn't have a huge bearing on the subject of QMs (see below) Precisely, so given the small size of most pirate vessels the lack of a second mate is not really surprising. Therefore that example can't really be used to illustrate how pirate officers differed from others. We could spend all year tossing inferences about - the real case here is that there is evidence of something, and the only argument anyone could put forward is how to interpet that evidence. I still think that it indicates the essentially civil nature of the QM's power, but I quite appreciate that's only my interpretation of the evidence. True, I quite agree. However, I think it would be equally wrong to dismiss Johnson out of hand as well, for two reasons. 1: because a fair bit of what he wrote is the only source for what it describes, so to dismiss Johnson is (in some cases only) to dismiss the only evidence, and 2: because whether or not Johnson is reliable on the details, he is still pretty reliable on the background. He knew (or was told) more about pirates than probably anyone else of his day, so if he doesn't ascribe any extra importance to QMs it probably means they didn't have it. Again, I find it hard to agree with this point, but both of us are working on supposition and opinion. Personally I think the fact that the QM was responsible for the loot is an indication that he was a man whom everyone felt they could trust, he was an officer and yet a "man of the people", everybody's friend. But trust and prestige are NOT the same thing From A Proclamation for the Suppressing of Pyrates, September 1717 "... for every Commander of any private Ship or Vessel, the Sum of 100 l. for every Lieutenant, Master, Boatswain, Carpenter, and Gunner, the Sum of 40 l; for every inferior Officer, the Sum of 30 l. and for every private Man, the Sum of 20 l. " From the so-called Virginia Proclamation, November 1718 "...for Edward Teach, commonly call'd Captain Teach, or Black-Beard, one hundred Pounds, for every other Commander of a Pyrate Ship, Sloop, or Vessel, forty Pounds; for every Lieutenant, Master, or Quarter-Master, Boatswain, or Carpenter, twenty Pounds; for every other inferior Officer, fifteen Pounds, and for every private Man taken on Board such Ship, Sloop, or Vessel, ten Pounds;" Once more, that's supposition (or implication if you prefer) and opinion. I see that (equally validly) as an indication that the QM was the man who made negotiations on behalf of the crew, as he did with his own captain, and in the same way that he was responsible for the loot (I hate that word, but can't think of a better one) You got me there :) but I would like to make a couple of points. The people who would immediately be considered capable of sailing a ship out of the officers you've listed ( and I'm talking about ships generally here, not specifically pirate ships) are the Master (responsible for navigation and general sailing etc) the boatswain (responsible for the actual business of handling the sails etc) and the QM (amongst other things responsible for keeping an eye on the quarterdeck activities, steering, recording speed and heading etc). Of those three officers the master and boatswain were generally considered to be standing officers, ie attached to the ship rather than the crew. Therefore, given the absence of lieutenants in many cases (though, for example Kennedy was a pirate lieutenant before being made captain) it's not too shocking to find QMs being made skippers of prizes. A fairer litmus test would be the question you asked, but relating only to those cases in which officers were deposed or killed, and not to those when the captain of a prize was being chosen. I still think you have a very good point, but I do think the difference is important. On the whole though, I think we are in agreement in terms of my original problem - the many books and websites (articles, TV programs, films...) which claim one way or another that the QM was second in command, or indeed "in charge of all things except when in battle or pursuit", are basically putting forward an incorrect idea. The question of prestige is a different one, but I think we have shown between us that the QMs powers were more civil than anything else (dividing loot, dealing with offenders etc) and that he did not have any actual command which would be unexpected of any other QM. Is it my imagination or are we agreed on that?

Precisely. The way I put it to someone else recently was to draw a parallel between the QM on a pirate ship, and a trade union rep in a factory. The TU rep is usually someone of minor impotance to the work of the factory, say a foreman or line manager. He does not really have any say in the running of the factory, he does not decide for example what the factory produces, where they buy their materials from or who they sell to, but he does have a certain sway over how the factory is run. He can for example take issue with the working hours, overtime payments, holiday allowance that sort of thing: but in this it is not his personal power, he is only acting as the representative of the workers at the factory. In the most serious of cases he has the power to bring work to a stop by calling a strike. The way I see it a pirate QM was similarly placed. That could be as much to do with the size of vessel as with anything else. Had any pirates got hold of any really large merchantmen for any length of time it might have been different - however, that is and can only be speculation on both our parts. The real question is how many mates a merchant vessel of similar size might have carried. I can't answer that off hand but I can tell you the officers aboard a RN sloop in 1686: Captain/Master Boatswain Carpenter Cook Mate (one) They didn't even have a QM! True, which is why we must take what evidence there is and analyse it ourselves. One of my principal reason for disbelieving the importance of QM's put about by so many modern authors is the relative lack of evidence which I have seen, BUT there is quite a bit of evidence against it. There are little snippets in a few sources which suggest that the QM was not as important as otherwise believed. For example, even in Roberts' crew - where the QM is in a higher position than in any other pirate crew I've seen the evidence for - the QM is said to relinquish all authority in time of battle, which suggests that what authority he had was of a civil nature. However, I think the most telling thing against QM's being of great importance is the evidence of the other surviving articles. As I understand it there are three reliable sets of pirate articles which we can examine (there may be more, but I've never heard of them - evidence to the contrary would be most welcome), Roberts', Lowther's and Phillips'. I have seen one other set, but I think they are a modern invention put out on one website or another. So, let us have a look at the three sets mentioned. In Roberts' articles the QM was to oversee the settlement of quarrels on land (article VIII). The QM is given 2 shares of any plunder, equal to the Captain (article X). The first point obviosly indicates that the QM had extra civil duties - a supposition which is born out in full by Johnson's subsequent statements. It does NOT suggest that he has any more importance than anyone else except for in the pursuit of his civil duties. his extra share is, I think, a reflection of his extra duties. I personally believe that it is these articles and Johnson's description of the QM in Roberts' crew which have coloured our opinions of QMs since. For example, the QM is often described as leading boarding parties, which I think comes from Johnson's "...is the first on board any prize...". However a more detailed reading reveals that the QM is the first aboard after the prize has been captured to sort out the loot. To look at Lowther's articles: "1. The Captain is to have two full Shares; the Master is to have one Share and one Half; The Doctor, Mate, Gunner and Boatswain, one Share and one Quarter." Subsequent writers have often inserted the word "quarter" in before Master to give the QM 1 1/2 shares, but this is a modern addition, put in I think because of our belief in the importance of a QM. In the 18thC the master and the QM were totally different things and they would not, in my opinion, have written "master" if they meant "QM" "4. If any Gold, Jewels, Silver, &c. be found on Board of any Prize or Prizes to the value of a Piece of Eight, & the finder do not deliver it to the Quarter Master in the space of 24 hours he shall...". Again, evidence of extra civil duties, but no evidence of elevated importance, in fact evidence of NO elevated importance. And finally Phillips': "...the Captain to have one full share and a half in all prizes; the Master, Carpenter, Boatswain, and Gunner shall have one share and a quarter." In fact, no mention is made of a QM in Phillips' crew - probably because they didn't have one. Hardly the most important officer then... Certainly that evidence is against the QM being given more respect that the boatswain or other officers on the whole. That doesn't surprise me. The QM was the civil officer with responsibility for assets and plunder. The captain of a captured vessel would surely be considered the responsibility of the QM for that reason. ************************************************************ One thing I would like to make clear: I am, on this thread and others, talking generally. It is easy I'm sure to find one example to discredit any theory or statement, so I am not trying to suggest that my arguments go for every pirate ship and crew, only for most. .

I'd like to add: "The Wooden World: An anatomy of the Georgian Navy", by NAM Rodger. Fontana Press, ISBN 0 00 686152 0 (Here at Amazon) and "Sailors, English Merchant Seamen 1650-1775" by Peter Earle. Methuen, ISBN 0 413 68840-2 (Here at Amazon) Both the above are superb books, and even if they're not quite what you're looking for they provide incredible background detail. Frankly I think anyone interested in the nautical history of the 18thC (particularly as it relates to English seamen) should have copies of both those books.

You see, that's the bit I can't get my head round. Yes, I can agree that the QM had extra duties, I can even see that one one occasion at least he was entitled to shares beyond his dues as a result, and I can see that given his "shop steward" status he was more important to pirate vessels than RN or merchant ships. BUT I fail to see the evidence that he was of greater importance than the other officers to the ship as a whole. Any sailing vessel must, to a certain extent, have a chain of command, but I agree that pirate vessels probably had a much looser one than others. One important consideration for merchantmen was to keep the cost down, which included not paying unneccessary officers. I think it's fair to say that by looking at the ranks of merchantmen we get a much better idea of the importance of officers to the actual mechanics of sailing a ship during that period. If you have officers it stands to reason that you have - to a certain extent at least - a chain of command. If officers have no command then they are not officers. However, like I said, I do agree that they would tend to be somewhat looser, principally due I think to the fact that their power rested in the cooperation of those below them. That's the kind of thing I am beginning to query. Apart from noting the relative importance of quartermasters in Robert's crew is there any evidence to show that this was generally the case, rather than occasionally so? I've got quite a bit of evidence gathered which suggests otherwise. Thanks, I've heard of it before and thought I really ought to get a copy. I might even come to you first since you've been so helpful and friendly

Thankyou Corsair, I'd be very interested to see the relevant parts of the Snelgrave and Roberts documents, but only once you are feeling better. I think we are thinking along the same kind of lines, that the quartermaster of a pirate vessels was not necessarily someone of any more importance (in fact there's plenty of evidence that he wasn't), and probably shouldn't be described as the 2IC (which he often is by modern books, articles and experts on bulletin boards), but that he did have duties, of a more civil nature, which stood him apart - a kind of non-commanding adjutant figure. The extra duties ascribed by Johnson to Bart Roberts' QMs corrsepond very closely with the duties of a master at arms on Royal Navy vessels, so in that case at least it seems that he was basically doing 2 jobs, hence the double share. What I'm trying to show really is whether or not the QMs of pirate vessels really had the elevated status which modern writers have ascribed them, and for me the evidence suggests that they didn't (the evidence I've seen so far anyway). What I'd really like to know about is how quartermasters placed in the trial document you referred to, whether they are described as being of more importance than say, the boatswain (which modern sources tend to do), or whether they are described as having administrative duties in addition to their roles as junior petty officers.

Whenever the question of ranks on a pirate ship is raised the stock answer is always that the Quartermaster was second in command to the Captain. It has always puzzled me (and I've mentioned this on other threads) why that should be. On every other type of ship from the age of sail which I've seen any evidence of the Quartermasters (plural) are lowish ranking petty officers, well below the master, boatswain, pilot etc. So I began to wonder why we think that QMs were second in command? Because the books tell us they were. Why do the books tell us they were? If I knew that one then I wouldn't be posting this thread. In Captain Roberts' articles the QM gets two shares while the other officers only get 1 1/2 shares, but this could be as much because of the QM's extra duties as because of his seniority. Apart from those articles I've not managed to find a single period source which suggests that the QM was second in command, but I haven't examined every available source of course. So, the point of this thread is: does anybody have or know of any decent period source which shows that the QM of pirate ships occupied anything other than their normal seagoing status, ie, low ranking petty officers, but senior to the crewmen? I'm not yet suggesting that QMs were NOT generally second in command, but without the evidence it's difficult to suggest that they were either. So please, help me out here, if there is evidence then share it, if there isn't then perhaps we should rethink our stock answers regarding pirate ranks. Thankyou,

That's what I mean. I reckon it would have to be a bloody big earring to cover the cost of a coffin, even a canvas shroud, and the minister's fee. Longarm, that's a a good point, although if one's grandfather wore an earring because it was generally fashionable rather than because he was a sailor then there's no reason why the grandson should do likewise if earrings were out of fashion by then.

Personally, I've always inclined against the idea that it was to pay for a funeral (despite SS's assertions about Dutch Law), principally because of the relative difference in cost between an earring and a funeral. To pay for even a basic funeral with an earring you'd have to have a bloomin big one or a lot of them.

Royaliste, well that's ok then Actually, the RN seaman of that period can be taken as a typical seaman, for the simple reason that men were only attached to a ship for the duration of the voyage (with the exception of standing officers, bosun etc) so when a particular voyage finished the crew would often go back to their other trades as coasters or merchantmen, even fishermen and watermen, it's an interesting fact and often overlokoed. Anyway, I'm not trying to grind an axe so fair winds to you, and if you fancy coming and pirating this side of the pond drop me a line. Hawkyns, that's very interesting. My personaly opinion of JT is not a good one (is anyone's these days?), for reasons too long to go into here I feel that he badly let me and my friends and comrades down a few years ago and I have very little time for him. And yes, there's very little ECW re-enactment going on over here these days - that's not quite true but it has taken a serious downturn. I think in part it's to do with the end of the 350th anniversary, but it's also a lot to do with the politics of the situation as well.

Oh, and Hawkyns, would that be Blackwell's Regt of the ECWSA? I used to be pretty friendly with quite a few people from Blackwell's in the ECWS in England.

Well, all I can say is that I'm quite happy to believe that the odd pirate (and other seaman) wore an earring or two during the Golden Age, but if you want me to believe that it was the fashion Pyle et al would have us believe you're going to have to do find some actual evidence. Royaliste, just because you and your salty mates do something now it doesn't mean that pirates of the Golden Age did it. All traditions have to start sometime, I just believe (based on reasonable evidence) that the tradition of seamen wearing earrings (for whatever reason) post dates the Golden Age of piracy. And incidentally, I'm not such an infernal lubber as you take me for - I've got my sea-legs...

Maria, my point is that NOTHING pre 1880s relating to pirates is real - the whole lot was faked! The pirate shipwrecks are not really pirate ships at all, Stevenson and Pyle found out about them and wrote the backgrounds... After all, the evidence of them being <i>pirate</i> wrecks is documentary... As SS said, evidence of Tudor pirates, or other Tudor seamen wearing earrings is there, but it is not relevant to fashions a century later. Wrote the Royaliste: By the late 18th century a RN captain was sufficiently surprised by one of his crew wearing an earring that he asked him if he was a woman. Therefore, by that time we can conclude that in general seamen HAD stopped wearing them, and they had not been fashionable for seamen in that Captain's lifetime (or at least his memory). At some point then between Drake and that Captain (I'm not at home, but I'll post his name if you want it later) seamen stoped wearing earrings, but the question is <i>when</i>? Well lets look at the evidence: Around the second quarter of the 17th century earrings went out of fashion generally, by say 1650 they were rare. At about the same time the evidence for seamen of any sort wearing earrings also dries up. Coincidence? For the late 17th/early 18th centuries you might find the odd bit of evidence relating to one odd seaman (or indeed pirate) wearing an earring, but it will probably be in the nature of an oddity. It IS fair to conclude, whatever the romanticists amongst you would like to believe that by the Golden Age of piracy the wearing of earrings by seamen had generally died out as a fashion. Now, I'm sure someone is going to argue with all that I've just said, but the bottom line is that there is no evidence yet come to light for any kind of earring fashion amongst pirates during the Golden Age. If you want to prove that pirates were different from everyone else of the time then you have the burden of proof.

Faking a grave is easy! I mean, look what a good job they did of Elvis's.

Copied from a different board, my opinion of where Pyle got his ideas from.