Fox

Piracy is defined as robbery at sea by just about every dictionary written since the eighteenth century, by international law, and by 17-18th century law (certainly English law of the period, I confess I'm not familiar enough with the wording of the historical law of other nations). Modern academics just follow a well-established definition. It's not a made-up classification, it's just what the word means. The point about nationalism among buccaneers is good, but misplaced, if I may say so. The point is not that buccaneers sought letters of marque or commissions so they could support a state in the nationalistic sense, largely they sought them to improve their own position, to assure themselves that they weren't pirates. It was a sham, of course, but it was one of the things that made them different from the pirates that went before and after. Conflating buccaneers like, say, Morgan with pirates like, say, Blackbeard, is like conflating chalk and cheese. I mention these points not to try and discourage you or dampen your spirits, but because they are important points that really need to be considered in any serious study of the phenomenon. I'm no stranger to new approaches to pirate history, my whole PhD thesis was an attempt to revise our view of the social history of piracy, and I welcome new approaches to the subject.

Sorry. I don't consider Morgan to be a pirate. Do you know what term Labat used in the original French to describe Daniel? There's no real straight translation of 'privateer' in French: they usually use the word corsaire, but that can also mean 'pirate'

Peace or not, attacking a Spanish settlement doesn't technically make him a pirate anyway. There are two big issues with buccaneers: Firstly, many of them predominantly (and some of them only) attacked land targets. Attacking land targets isn't piracy. Secondly, and here's the kicker, one of the things that differentiates the buccaneers from later pirates was their determination to get legal sanction for their actions. They were obsessed by the idea of having a letter of marque or a commission, and went to great lengths to procure one. Sometimes they were valid, sometimes they weren't. The question of their legality therefore rests on the legitimacy of their commissions, and that's a huge political and legal minefield!

I am away from home at present, but I can think of at least three piracy trials in 1728, 29, and 32(?). The first two both held at Williamsburg on small-time short lived pirate crews, the last held at Bombay on a larger crew. All can be found in HCA 1/99 at the National Archives in Kew. Out of interest, how are you defining piracy in the 1670s-80s? And how are you quantifying activity?

Yes, I meant victories that were actually worth anything, "tactical" victories if you will. My point really was that we shouldn't think of the Dutch navy as being inherently superior to the English navy at that time. In some respects it certainly was, in other respects less so. There were not the kind of decisive victories that one could reasonably expect if there was any great disparity in the navies involved - if you see what I mean.

I am pleased to be able to announce that the University of Exeter's distance-learning course, 'The Real and Imagined World of Pirates' will be running again beginning April 25th 2016. http://education.exeter.ac.uk/dll/details.php?code=DLH20

The BBC Musketeers is barely at all historical. Henry Every became a pirate in 1694. The Restoration Navy was an interesting period of transition. Samuel Pepys probably did more for naval reform than anyone else before or since, and certainly more than anyone else in the seventeenth century. It also saw the introduction of professionalism in the Navy, largely due to the requirement (instituted by Pepys) for all captains to first serve as lieutenants, and for all prospective lieutenants to pass an exam before they could be commissioned. The Restoration's shipbuilding programme was extremely proactive, and Charles II's navy enjoyed some very fine admirals and other officers. The Dutch Navy was very good, and in some respects ahead of the English Navy, but don't underestimate the English Navy. In the third Anglo-Dutch War neither side managed to inflict a defeat on their opponents at sea, despite tactical mismanagement by just about all the admirals involved. Earlier, although the Dutch ultimately won the second Anglo-Dutch War, the Royal Navy did inflict several defeats on the Dutch Navy

I wouldn't use the BBC Musketeers series for any kind of historical background. It's not, and was never intended to be, historical. The transition from matchlock to flintlock was a gradual one. In the mid 17th century most muskets were matchlocks, by the end of the century most were flintlock.

Essentially what you're describing is what academics call 'chain forging'. I don't like the phrase because it implies deliberate dishonesty which I don't think is usually the case (though in fact I believe it refers rather to the kind of forging that smiths do, rather than the kind that counterfeiters do), but essentially it works like this. If A is correct then that implies B is correct, which leads us to suppose C, and if C is correct therefore D. D lends credence to the accuracy of A. Taken together they prove E. But if A or C aren't correct then it all comes tumbling down, and with every new step in the chain the chances of the final outcome being the correct one are actually reduced. The system only works when A, B, C, and D all independently tend towards E. Then if either A or C aren't correct, E is still supported by B and D and remains viable.

Either of those things might be true, or any one of a number of possibilities. But is any of them likely enough to build theories upon as you have done? If you want your theory to hold water you're going to have to do better than 'he went mad', if you want to make the case that he was lying (and Pell, who agreed with him) then you need to come up with a reason that him lying it more likely than him telling the truth. Again, we both know that's not the case. Herriot deposed 40 white and 60 black men. Pell agreed with him. You could argue that they were lying, but again if you want that to hold water you'd have to come up with a plausible reason why it's more likely that they were lying than telling the truth. [EDIT] I've just realised I misinterpreted what you meant. You meant that the evidence only suggests 20 crew and a handful of slaves were stranded? Even so, if BB wanted to continue as a powerful pirate, he needn't have deliberately stranded even 20 of his men. Show me which archaeologists (plural) do that please. I believe that all sources of evidence require their own analysis. For the record, I wouldn't as a rule put numerical values on these things, I only did because you asked. If there's one thing I've learned from my study of history it's that such simplistic mathematical formulae have little or no place in the study of history.

1. Herriot and Pell were already immune from prosecution, as long as their testimony was enough to convict their fellows then on trial they had no need to invent stuff. Blackbeard's motives for the loss of the QAR had no bearing either on their own fate or the fate of their fellows. 2. Testimony indicates that BB deliberately stranded men at Beaufort. The game was far from 'up', as both BB's and Bonnet's continued piracy shows. If BB had wanted to continue his piracy with a powerful fleet, the remaining sloops and the available hands to man them would have rendered him still one of the most powerful pirates in the region even without the QAR. The fact that BB took only one sloop with 40 hands and 60 slaves, most of whom were most likely subsequently sold, suggests that BB himself wanted to downsize his operation. Whether that decision came before or after the loss of the QAR is, of course, open to speculation, but his actions do not speak of a man who regretted the loss of his flagship. 3. The article you cite does not say (at least from p. 15 onwards) that the archaeology shows the wreck was accidental. What it does say is that the QAR may have drawn as much as 12 feet, the nearest available chart shows 17 feet of water in the channel. and there is no evidence of malfunction or other extenuating circumstances which would make an accident likely.

So, direct questions: what could Herriot have plausibly gained by making up the story that BB deliberately wrecked the QAR if he had not, or by denying that it was an accident if that was the case? And why, if the loss of the QAR was a genuine accident, did BB leave the majority of his company behind? And what about the archaeology of the QAR convinces you that it was lost accidentally?

I am, and I've read several of the other archaeologists too, but the very existence of dissent means that nothing is proven. FWIW, I have personally spoken to other archaeologists working there who share his opinion, so he's not alone. In fact, I think it would be impossible to prove either way from the archaeology alone. Mission, I couldn't agree more. It's impossible to be an expert on all of history, it's just too vast a subject, and that often leads to poor contextualisation. When I was writing my PhD thesis I think I probably spent more time researching topics outside of piracy that were tangentially important to my understanding of pirates than I did researching the pirates themselves.

Thanks for posting those articles Swashbuckler, particularly the latter one. When I wrote my article I was aware of the Swedish connection, particularly with the unfortunate John Norcross, and I would have liked to have included something about it, but prohibition of space, and more especially the fact that at that time there was nothing written in English about it, prevented it. I'm really glad to see that it's been addressed in the English language now. Incidentally, I think the second article is better than the first.

I also meant to add earlier, for the edification of anyone else reading this thread, that the archaeology of the QAR does not in any way prove that she was wrecked by accident. The Curator of Maritime Archaeology at the North Carolina Maritime Museum, who regularly dives on the QAR and has done more or less since her discovery, is on record with his opinion that Herriot was telling the truth about BB's treachery, and he is both better qualified and better placed to say what the archaeology does or does not prove than I.

Random observation: Maria Fusaro was my doctoral supervisor and the one who gave me the advice I mentioned earlier in this thread.

I would settle for anything that mentions Edward Thache being a pirate. A birth certificate, even if such things had existed then, which they didn't, would be unlikely to mention his piracy.

Exactly! Without Leslie all you have is a single independent fact, to be anything more your theory relies on Leslie being accurate. What you have is a scenario that fits the available evidence, but it is not by any means the only scenario that fits the available evidence. That, by the way, is true of almost all historical writing, and it's why serious historians are generally prepared to acknowledge freely the possibility that their ideas may be wrong. You've compared your theory to the theory of gravity several times and I've not mentioned it until now, but that was for your benefit. Are you seriously suggesting that your theory can be compared to the theory of gravity which was put forth by one of the greatest minds in history, is universally accepted not only by the entire population of the world but also by the entire scientific community without significant dissent? Really? It doesn't do you credit I'm afraid. And that is really the only thing that matters. I wish you luck, honestly. If you find better evidence that Edward Thache of Jamaica was Blackbeard I will be delighted.

Well, if we started at the pre-Roman tribal societies and worked through the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms this could be a very long answer indeed, so let's start at the end of the medieval period. By 1500 England and Ireland were separate countries, but ruled from England by the same monarch. Wales, though it had once been a separate country was now absorbed into England (just to confuse the issue, small parts of France were also 'part of' England). Scotland was a separate country ruled by its own monarch. In 1603 Queen Elizabeth died childless and the next heir to the throne was James VI of Scotland, so at that point England, Ireland, and Scotland were separate countries, but now ruled by the same monarch (in the same way a Britain, Australia, and Canada all share the Queen now). James favoured the term 'Great Britain' for his territories. In 1707 the Act of Union was passed, and England and Scotland were united into one country under one government, Now officially called 'Great Britain'. In 1801 Ireland joined Great Britain, and the country officially became 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland', or simply the United Kingdom. Following the 1916 rebellion, Ireland was granted independence in 1922 and reverted to being a separate country, but the largely Protestant population in the Northern part of Ireland opposed independence and elected to remain in the UK, forming the country of Northern Ireland. From that point on the United Kingdom included England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, each culturally distinct but politically united as one country under one government. In recent years a certain amount of devolution has occurred. There is still a central government in London which rules the United Kingdom, but for purely local matters Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have their own legislative assemblies which I suppose are roughly akin to State governments in the US. The exception is England, which does not have its own legislative body. From my limited understanding of American politics, I think the UK is moving in the opposite direction to the US, with more local power gradually devolving to the provincial assemblies. A year or so ago Scotland held a referendum to decide whether they wanted to become and independent country again, but voted in favour of staying in the UK. How that will affect future devolution of power is difficult to say. There, clear as Thames mud.

At Springer's Point, Ocracoke, within 100 feet of one another on 22 November 1718 there were at least two men named Joseph Brooks, both mariners. The chances of either of them being the one that got killed that day are 50/50. On 25 March, 1723, within 100 feet of each other off the American coast, there were two men called John Phillips, both ship's captains. The chances of either of them being a pirate are 50/50 Two men who may have shared a name, who cannot be placed closer than ten years and a few hundred miles, you think the chances of them being the same person are much better than 50/50, even if they were both mariners? As I've said all along, you've got a reasonable theory and you've made a good argument. You might well be right, but in all seriousness, I've looked at your evidence, I've read your article, I've read your arguments here, and your case is good, but nothing like as good as you think it is.

If Blackbeard wasn't from Jamaica, then the records are suggestive that in 1706 there was a man called Edward Thache. Neither Edward nor Thatch/Teach/Titch are particularly uncommon names. Blackbeard is known by at least three names in period documents (Thatch, Drummond, Kentish); we assume that Thatch was his real name, but there are other possibilities. Without Leslie, what you have is a man who may have had the same name as a pirate, a decade earlier than that pirate was active, in the same hemisphere. So yes, your theory does rest on Leslie being accurate when looked at objectively.

No, no I don't know it. I have never written specifically on Blackbeard, I said in my first post on this thread that I don't give a flying wotsit where Blackbeard was from, I have absolutely no vested interest in his birthplace. That gives me the luxury of being able to look at this completely objectively, something which neither Kevin Duffus nor you is able to do. You've staked a lot on his being from Jamaica, you need this to be right. I don't. Your whole theory hinges on Leslie being accurate, but we can't say whether he is or isn't accurate, and you yourself do a fair job of proving that in many respects he isn't. Looking at the evidence that you've presented in your article and on here, and considering it in the context of other evidence, I'd say the chances are about 50/50. I'll give you 55/45 if it will make you feel better. Sorry if that's not the answer you're looking for, but there it is.

But the point that I'm trying to make is that you asked me why I don't think Leslie can be relied on, and there it is. In one short paragraph you're asking us to believe that he's totally wrong on one thing but totally reliable on another - you can't have it both ways. Yes, I've found conflicting sources, of course I have, every historian has, we treat them with scepticism and don't build whole theses on them. It's quite possible that Leslie is right about Blackbeard's parents, but it can't be relied on.

So you think that Leslie knew the Thache family but had to rely on what he'd read in a book to form an opinion of one of their scions? Doesn't add up. And on what evidence do you pronounce the Thaches a 'nice family'?

I believe I have agreed that Edward Thache was in the right place at the right time, on more than one occasion. Honestly, the only point I'm trying to make here is that you have a theory, a possibility, but not by any stretch a certainty. And that info on Leslie tells you exactly how much about his reliability on this matter? One other point I forgot to mention before about Leslie but which your reference to Johnson just reminded me of. You spend half your article arguing that Blackbeard was not bloody and cruel and murderous, but Leslie says exactly those things about him. So in one paragraph of Leslie's writing you want to believe that he's totally wrong in some respects and yet reliable in others? Same with Johnson?