Fox

I absolutely see the point of permitting only published sources. I think a lot of it is to do with accountability: if something really needs checking then the internet and the inter-library loan system ought to make any published source accessible, whereas unpublished primary sources are not available in the same way - they are freely available to anyone who wants to travel to the relevant archive to look at them, but I could theoritically read any published source in the world without having to leave my house... Also, I believe Wikipedia takes the stance that and encyclopoedia is not the place to air original research, and in general I agree with that. The slightly ridiculous thing about it is that your ill-informed idiot's website would be an acceptable Wikipedia source, but my first hand testimony about the death of Thomas Cocklyn is not. Oh, and if you think Burg is the worst example of published history you clearly haven't read as much published crap as I have! Burg is silly and contentious, but compared to some stuff on the market it's positively erudite.

In general I think Wikipedia is much maligned. It's not perfect and certainly not to be relied upon but, at least as far as the pirate stuff on there goes, I've read a hell of a lot worse in published books. One of its major failings, in my opinion, is the insistence that anything posted on it must be supported by a published source and that primary source evidence is not acceptable. In the past I have thought about seriously expanding one or two of the pirate bios on there, but haven't because although I have some excellent primary sources, they haven't been published. A good example would be the page on Thomas Cocklyn which pretty much says that after he parted company with WIlliam Snelgrave "nobody knows what happened to him". I know, but I can't post it on Wikipedia...

Lots, but none that refer to him having only one eye.

Captain Kidd's crew once used £15 worth of myrrh to caulk their ship because they'd run out of pitch... And yes, pickaroon goes back at least as far as the 17th century to my knowledge.

I'm going to ignore buccaneers here, because I think they're a totally different kettle of fish to pirates of the golden age, for reasons I've given several times elsewhere. I've highlighted this because I think it's an important point. I don't know of any really decent evidence about what Blackbeard did before turning to piracy, but it's more or less irrelevant - he, and every other pirate of the golden age, must have done something, whether logwood cutting or privateering. A significant porportion were seamen on merchant ships and at least a few that we know of were in the Royal Navy. But they weren't pirates when they did it. What's important is what they did after they became pirates. Most (all?) pirates robbed passing ships of their provisions at some time or another. Not just provisions but clothing and ships' equipment too, and of course, of their cargoes and portable wealth. This is the act of a parasite. But pirates, like everyone else, were unable to live entirely outside the economy of legitimate commerce, and when they traded with passing ships, which they did on a fairly regular basis, they were symbiotes. Colonial merchants in particular often found trading with pirates to be highly profitable because pirates, disbarred from most normal legitimate markets, were usually willing to pay top dollar, and the extra profit was worth the risk for many people. The trade which occurred at sea between pirates and unscrupulous merchants is naturally one of the grey areas of history, because neither side was much interested in keeping detailed records, but there are enough glimpses for us to know that it occurred. In 1718, for example, an unnamed ship set out from New Providence specifically to trade with pirates anchored nearby: we know about it because they were caught. In the same year one North American colonial official wrote to the Council of Trade and Plantations that 'the Pirates themselves have often told me that if they had not been supported by the Traders from thence with Ammunition and Provisions according to their Direction, they could never have become so formidable, nor arrived to that degree that they have.' Earlier, in the 1690s, Adam Baldridge's trading post on St. Mary's conducted a flourishing trade with the pirates based there, but the profits went back to New York, from where Baldridge was supplied by NY merchant Frederick Phillipse. On occasion pirates traded directly with merchants on land, the most spectacular example of which is probably Blackbeard's importation of 50+ slaves into North Carolina in 1718. North Carolina was a plantation colony in desperate need of slaves, but had no slave market of its own nor any established deep-water port through which slaves might be imported, so Blackbeard supplied a very definite niche in the market. Without him, NC planters had to purchase their slaves from South Carolina or Virginia, in both of which places they found the slaves poor quality and expensive. There is also evidence that England, la Buse and Cocklyn gathered several hundred slaves which they intended to sell to the Portuguese at Principe, until Howell Davis's little (and fatal) interlude there shut that market to pirates. Then, of course, pirates who were lucky enough to retire with a pocket full of gold (and there were probably more of them than is generally acknowledged) usually attempted to get ashore somewhere, where their gold eventually found its way into the legitimate economy. When four pirates managed to get ashore in Virginia in 1720, for example: 'their first care was to find out a Tavern, where they might ease themselves of their Golden Luggage. They soon found a place to their mind, where for some time they lived very profusely treating all that came into their Company, and there being in the House English Women Servants, who had the good fortune by some hidden Charms, to appear pleasing to these Picaroons, they set them free, giving their Master 30 Pounds, the price he demanded for their time. Their Extravagant way of living soon discovered they were not Passengers from London, as they pretended, but rather Pyrates, accordingly they were taken up and Commited on suspicion, as such, to the County [Jail].' [American Weekly Mercury, 17/3/1720] Thomas Tew's company were well known for the amount of money they spent in New York, and the companies of Edward Condent, John Taylor, and Henry Every all managed to retire in the colonies or Britain with substantial amounts of money to their credit. So, as Daniel said in the original post (more or less) I think the aim of pirates was to be parasitic, but the reality is that they were symbiotic. (And for the Marxists out there, just as capitalist as anybody else).

Ooh, good question Daniel (as yours usually are). I naturally have some thoughts of my own, but I'm going to wait and see what others chime in with first.

There is. John Francois was captured in the final battle with HMS Swallow and brought to trial at Cape Corso. Witnesses deposed that he 'was the Boatswain of the Pyrate-ship's Boy, and that he employed him chiefly as Yeoman of his Stores, to hand up things as he called for them; that he was never allowed to go on board of Prizes, or had any Share among them, being under Age.' In his own defence, Francois stated that at the time of his trial he was 17 years old and had been with the pirates for 23 months, during 'which time he has been kept in Servitude at the Pleasure of these Pyrates he was with, and not suffer'd to go on Shore'. So Roberts' company were happy to take boys of 15, but even at 17 they were still considered under-age. Swashbuckler, I suspect you may be thinking of John Fletcher, described as a 'boy' in his trial, who was forced into Low's company 'because he could play the violin.' He was eventually captured with Charles Harris's crew, but acquitted at trial. The drummer in that crew was John Bright, who made no mention of being a boy (but whose age is not recorded) and was executed. One of the other people acquitted at that trial was Thomas Jones, 'a Lad of about seventeen Years of Age', who was not permitted to carry arms by the pirates, suggesting that Low's company had similar age restriction to Roberts'.

Does the one follow from the other? The wearing of smocks is good common sense based on the fact that children grow very quickly in their early years and keeping a boy in breeches would be expensive considering the cost of clothing and fabric, whereas a smock can be made one-size-fits-many, and can be easily altered to accomodate growth. But I'm not convinced that means that they were 'treated as' girls.

Flags go on staves, Sails go on gaffes.

Junk.

These are reproductions rather than originals but you get the idea: Some originals from the late 16th - early 17th century:

Wyndham Galley and Ormonde are definitely Jacobite names, named after two of the principal Jacobites of the period. Royal Fortune I'm pretty sure is a Jacobite reference: Davis (Roberts' predecessor) had the Royal Rover, which is a Jacobite name, as well as the King James and others. Roberts seems also to have been a Jacobite, so it's likely that Royal fortune in his case was referring to 'King' James Stuart. Most ship names are obviously Jacobtite and can be used to tell us something about the Jacobitism of their crews, in this case we know something about the Jacobitism of the crew, which tells us something about the ship name...

How are you defining "cutlass sword we know"? Some medieval falchions, and 16th century hunting swords, are a cutlass in all but name.

There are plenty of wills etc online, as well as various inventories. Many of them have been posted on this forum. Blue neckcloths are mention in the 1690s slop contracts: http://www.piratebrethren.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=48

While a number are the original ship name before capture (I find the ship names, in themselves fascinating) Just for the fun of it I've highlighted the Jacobite names in red, and the original names in blue. Speaker, Golden Fleece, and Bonetta may also have been the original names, but I'm not certain. Arne Bialuschewski has also written an article entitled 'Jacobite Pirates?' which takes a somewhat different stance from my own, so is worth reading for the counter-argument (although both our articles were written without having seen the other, so it's not like we're actually arguing, we just disagree).

Probably (almost certainly)

Two words: Thomas Salkeld.

British police cars have different markings depending on what county they are from, but yes, it is a police car.

Not me: my good friend Jonty"]Jonty Depp (Jonty"]http://www.jontydepp.com/), a look alike so convincing that sometimes I see the real Johnny Depp on screen and think "Hang on, that's not Johnny De... oh, yes it is..."

Sold

I'm not sure that either thread would benefit from being joined, since they do have somewhat different criteria - accepting that both are about nationalities. The pirate nationalities thread is far too broad in scope, both geographically and chronologically, to be relevant to the question of purely GAoP pirates, and this thread has too much (interesting) clutter to be an improvement to the other thread. My 2d worth. So looking at Bonnet's crew list: 2 out of 34 men were not Anglophones, that's about 6% - which is more or less what Rediker said... Not all of Bonnet's company were part of his original Barbados crew: at least some of them joined him from Blackbeard's company when BB wrecked the QAR, and some of them, (at least Brierly, Boyd, and Sharp) joined him after the split from Blackbeard.

From the deposition of John Brown, one of the survivors of the Mary Anne: "They made the best of their way for Cape Cod intending to clean their Ship at Green Island (having one Lambeth and an Indian born at Cape Cod for Pilots)..." Re. Hendrick van der Heul: 'black' in period documents almost always means black haired. The usual way of describing a black skinned person in virtually every case was 'negro'. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would suppose this to mean that Kidd's QM was dark haired.

As I said, I think we all recognise the difficulties of the language barrier and I for one applaud your English. I don't imagine any of the English speakers on this forum speak Finnish half so well as you speak English. Misunderstandings can therefore be overlooked. So, here is a genuinely intended tip: In English, to refer to someone as 'that Rickman guy', or something similar (which I notice you have done more than once) comes across as very dismissive, as though you think he's worthless. I'm sure that that was not your intention, but that's how it is likely to be read. To call someone by their full name, or just their surname, is simply polite and respectful.

Being a perfectionist is fine and laudable, but any interpretation of 'what pirates wore', including Rickman's, mine, and (believe it or not) even yours, can only ever be an interpretation, so it's impossible to say what is 'perfect'. Just because you (or I) don't agree with him, doesn't make him wrong. (Please don't take offence, I suspect a big problem here is the language barrier, but the number and tone of your posts relating Rickman's work come across as very disparaging and unnecessarily critical.)