Fox

Um, no it isn't. There's lots of evidence about him. For example: John Ward, commonly called Captain Ward, is about 55 years of age. Very short, with very little hair, and that quite white; bald in front; swarthy face and beard. Speaks little and almost always swearing. Drunk from more till night. Most prodigal and plucky. Sleeps a great deal, and often on board when in port. The habits of a thorough "salt". A fool and an idiot out of his trade. Henry Pepwell's report on 'that corsair Ward', prepared for the English ambassador to Venice, (June?) 1608 Blackbeard and Henry Every commanded larger fleets, and Every was more successful in terms of accumulated plunder. One could equally argue that the pirates could have done the same thing back. Regarding 'missing' pirate captures, that's an interesting point. There was something of a tendency, especially in the GAoP to assume that missing vessels were pirate victims if they'd been in piracy 'hotspots', but against that is the fact that very few (any?) pirates are known or suspected to have regularly slaughtered whole crews, so the number of unattributed attacks is probably fairly small. Probably not enough to seriously alter the general understanding of relative success amongst pirates. Even if each pirate active took 2 ships that we don't know about, it wouldn't alter the balance between one who took 20 (or 22) ships, and one who took 200 (or 202) ships - if you see what I mean. Also, outside of court, as Hurricane hints at, pirates frequently bragged to witnesses about the number of ships they'd taken. So, 'missing' ships might well be a percentage, but I'd be surprised if it were a significant one.

Yar, if we're stepping outside the GAoP then Peter Easton deserves honourable mention, he commanded as very powerful fleet at one point, as did William Bishop. John Ward probably also ought to be mentioned. But for the early 17th century then my money's on 'King' Thomas Salkeld. Salkeld captured Lundy Island in the Bristol Channel and set himself up, literally, as King Thomas of Lundy, an independent state. His loyal crew oversaw the slaves he kept to work on the island's fortifications. He was eventually defeated by an unsurrection by his slaves, fled Lundy, and was probably thrown overboard in the Irish sea after an argument with Peter Easton.

She was certainly French when she was captured, but I had it in the back of my mind that she was English built, and captured during the War of the Spanish Succession. Jiggered if I can find that reference now though, so I may have imagined it. The QAR website says that there's no real evidence where she was built.

Won't comment on which depiction is right, but spritsail-topmasts were still being built onto English and Dutch ships at least as late as 1720, so for an English-built ship of 1710, such as the QAR, a spritsail-topmast would be quite possible.

No, Henry Every was born in Devon, committed mutiny in Spain, pirated off the African coast and Indian Ocean, sailed to the West Indies and then to Ireland, and was last seen in England. As far as I know he never went near Louisiana.

The Fancy, four sloops (Portsmouth Adventure, Amity, Susanna, and Dolphin), and a brigantine (Pearl). There was nothing like 200 pirate ships at New Providence, was that a typo for 20? The trouble with Jenning's 'rule' is that it's difficult to establish how much actual command he had over other crews. And yes he did take the Royal Pardon, and he didn't even wait for Woodes Rogers to turn up... Also bear in mind that Morgan's really spectacular successed were on land, and a pirate by definition robs at sea. An increidbly talented amphibious commander, but it's a bit of a stretch to make him a pirate in the true sense of the word. The trouble is that there really wasn't a 'pirate king' in the PotC Captain Teague style; there was no pirate who really ruled over a pirate kingdom. So it's a fruitless search unless you accept that the nearest there really was to a pirate 'king' (probably one of the above) is never going to fulfil all of the criteria.

Yar, if we're going to count Morgan as a pirate (and there are several reasons for or against), then I'd agree that he probably deserves the title of pirate king, for the scale of his success and the size of his force. If we narrow it down to pirates in the true sense of the word (criminals who robbed at sea) then a few names crop up for different reasons. Henry Jenning was elected 'commodore' of the New Providence pirates, so in terms of ruling over a large band of pirates who all operated from the same shore base, he probably fits the bill. He was not particularly successful and his career wasn't that long, so he's not the ideal candidate on other counts. Blackbeard had one of the largest forces under his direct command, with up to five ships and 400 men at times. Barthomolew Roberts had only a slightly smaller force and probably took more ships than anyone else. He never hit the real jackpot though, and was spectacularly defeated with relative ease by one RN vessel. John Taylor led the single most successful pirate raid of all time and managed to retire with his health and fortune intact. He got a pardon, lived off his wealth and became a planter for the final 22 years of his life. However, I'm going to (predictably) stick my vote in for Henry Every: Every led probably the second most successful pirate raid, and had a force of six ships and 400 men under his command at the height of his career. He managed to slip into quiet obscurity with his wealth (in company with his quartermaster's new wife). The manhunt for Every extended over four continents. Contemporaries called Every 'The King of the Pirates'.

There are a couple of examples of the forced men taking the ship into port, sometimes with prisoners from the pirate crew if they weren't all killed. When John Fillmore and James Cheeseman led the revolt against Phillips somebody actually pointed out that if they killed all of the priates then there'd be nobody to testify to their innocence. Frequently, such forced men had to stand trial, to prove their innocence, even if everyone accepted it anyway.

Sorry ol' buddy, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to flag this up, but only because I happen to have been working on this very issue for the last couple of days. Bart Roberts' articles are the only ones that mention voting at all, on 'affairs of the moment', which certainly included the election and deposition of other officers. It was never put to the test as to whether it covered them for deposing Roberts himself. By contrast, the articles of Cusack, Kidd, Anstis, Phillips and Gow all demand obedience to the captain and/or officers in some form or other. Certainly, captains sometimes were deposed by popular vote, including Edward England, Ned Low, Charles Vane, Howell Davis, John Taylor, and others. It just wasn't enshrined in the articles. Thomas Anstis was possibly killed in his sleep by his own men. The most common form of 'mutiny' on pirate vessels was probably in the form of uprisings by forced men. James Fife and John Phillips were both killed by rebellious conscripts, for example. FWIW, Selkirk voluntarily marooned himself on Juan Fernandez because he thought the ship wouldn't make it across the Pacific (he was right, it didn't), but the captain was Thomas Stradling. Dampier was away at sea at the time in command of a consort vessel. However, when he was rescued, he nearly volunteered to remain behind again when he heard Dampier was aboard Rogers' ship. He only agreed to leave the island on the assurance that Dampier wasn't in command.

Hey Greg, Yeah, I'm still on the ship, but I cut my hours down quite significantly to concentrate on a couple of other things, like parenting two new younkers, a bit of teaching, and writing a PhD thesis - if all goes to plan I will, in a couple of years, genuinely be a Dr of piratology (I don't think that's what they write on the certificate though...) I theoretically still go to TORM, but I don't think I've actually been since that time we met up. Keep your site going mate, it's still the first port of call I always recommend newbies who ask.

What ho old chap, Good to see you're still on this mortal coil mate. While you're here, let me remind you that piracy is about fun and living the lifestyle, and nobody has the right to criticise you for not coming up to their so-called 'perfect' standards. Hell, you can be a play pirate if you want to and you shouldn't be made to feel inferior because of it. Also, bear in mind that since you don't have boils and scurvy you can't possibly give an accurate representation. We haven't been reminded of all that for at least two weeks. On the other hand, I have posted some pretty cool stuff (like John Taylor's articles and a statistical breakdown of several hundred sailors' garments by colour and fabric) that have been pretty much ignored. You still in the land of sausages and silly hair cuts?

Gotta love a guy who drinks White Russians by the tankard...

Short answer or long? Short answer: there's some truth in the formality observed on ships, but it probably wasn't quite as rigid as the Victorians would have us believe. Respecting officers was probably much greater than we give credit for today, for the simple reason that most officers did deserve it. After 1677 naval lieutenants were required to pass an exam and spend a minimum of three years at sea before they could get their commissions, thus however genteel an officer may have been all lieutenants and captains must have been basically competent at least. Petty officers and officers on merchantmen were, on the whole, appointed because of their skill and experience. In practice it varied from ship to ship, and the situation on a naval first rate with nearly 100 officers of various degrees was probably considerably different to a small merchantman with two officers and half a dozen hands. Experience does not preclude an officer from being an ass of course. Off the top of my head you might find some useful stuff in the privateering accounts of Woodes Rogers, Edward Cooke, George Shelvocke, and William Betagh, or in the naval account of Henry Teonge. For merchantmen it might be worth looking at Jack Cremer, Edward Barlow, and Edward Coxere (the first is impossible to find, the second is hideously expensive, and the third is a bit too early). There's probably some good stuff in the High Court of Admiralty papers, but they haven't been published... The long answer will take much longer.

Could tour on the Friday or the Monday, it'll probably make little difference to me. I've never been to the Wellcome Collection so I can't really comment. The one museum that everybody misses when they go to London, but which is one of the most fascinating, is the Museum of London. I believe that the Docklands Museum is hosting a pirate exhibition this year, but I'm not sure of the dates.

I'll be at the event on the Isle of Wight (or Pile of Shite, as we from the opposite mainland call it). Having grown up in Portsmouth I'd be very happy to conduct a tour of historic Portsmouth one day either side of the event if that's of any interest. Highlights might include the house where the Duke of Buckingham (he of Three Musketeers fame) was murdered; the oldest school in the City, founded for the sons of seamen in 1731; the church in which Charles II got married; the old sailors' quarter; we could even follow the path of Nelson's last ever walk on English soil; the spot where Jack the Painter's gibbeted corpse was hung; and more besides...

Committing robbery at sea.

Mark, if you ever make it to the UK and don't look me up one way or another I shall take it as a personal insult. For the record, I'm not claiming that my adulthood hasn't been misspent too, just that the earrings have been in since I was 17 or so.

That's precisely it! Yes, there are pictures of people with earrings (though I will note that several of those posted by PoD are from the late 16th to mid-17thC, when we know earrings were generally fashionable), but that doesn't make them widespread. Yes, there are pictures of Dutch sailors wearing them, but how many of us play Dutch pirates? I know of no evidence for Anglo-American sailors, 1690-1730, or indeed pirates of the same period, wearing earrings. End of. So no, we can't say that no pirate of the period sported an earring, but we can say for absolute and definite that they weren't common in any way, and we can definitely say that all the convoluted reasoning, such as prevention of seasickness, has absolutely no basis in historical fact. That such a respected journal as the National Geographic can blithely state not only that pirates wore earrings, but also why, is an illustration of just how far the rot has spread. I've long cherished a plan, for when I'm doing 16th century events, to mock up some dodo feathers and leave them in a mess around the fire, over which I'll have a turkey spit-roasting...

Two (in the same ear). And yes.

The real issue I have with earrings is not so much when people wear them - hell, if you look hard enough you'll find plenty of pictures of me wearing earrings in kit if I've forgotten to take them out or just couldn't be bothered that day. The issue is when people start trying to rationalize it: "Oh yeah, pirates wore earrings to improve their eyesight", or "...to pay for their funeral if they were washed overboards" etc etc etc. Chrispy, I hope you don't think I was picking on you (I wasn't, honestly), I just think this whole thing about pirates being somehow different from other people is somewhat overblown. I'm not saying they weren't different, they must have had some aberrant streak to become pirates, but I don't see any evidence to say that they had some radically different lifestyle. The vast majority of pirates never came into life-changing riches, and many had incredibly short careers, measured in weeks rather than months or years. I am, however, flattered at being called "professor", and while my English modesty makes me shun such a title, I do secretly hope that others will pick it up and I'll be saddled with a new nickname... Sutlerjon, is the fact that we can't completely recreate the past any reason not to try to do our best with the aspects we can manage (if that is our chosen course of piracy)?

With Michael's excellent summary of the conventions of Twill in mind, I'd like to address the question of hair beads and the like. Non-shooting guns have their place - especially here in the UK where gun laws can be silly at times. I have a mix of live and inert guns, and I use them both in roughly equal measure. Non-firing good replicas are not the same as Denix die-cast toys of course. Non-period pieces of equipment and clothing ought, in an authentic setting, to be eliminated as a matter of priority, but I wonder how many can truly say they've succeeded. Have you 775pirate4? I've certainly tried my best, and you'd have to look very hard indeed to find the few small anachronisms in what I wear/do, but I'm not so foolish as to claim 100% complete authenticity. Can you show that to be an historically accurate representation of pirates, or is that just another part of the Hollywood pirate myth? Or something in between? But what people in the early 18thC considered 'flashy clothes' was not necessarily the same as what we would consider as 'flashy clothes'. Our concept of 'flash pirate gear' has been massively shaped by what Hollywood considers to be 'cool'. The same can be said of the excessive jewellery, tattoos, and body modifications: we think they look cool, but did your average early 18th century pirate? Don't mistake our own conventions with those of the past. Which ports? Pirates of the GAoP habitually frequented the ports of colonial America and the Caribbean, which were full of white settlers who didn't have bones through their noses; the slaving ports of West Africa, where they dealt largely with the white inhabitants, also without nasal ossiary; European (especially French) colonies in the Indian Ocean where I don't think there were any bones through noses, but you never know with the French; and St. Mary's Island, Madagascar, where the pirates were the principal white settlers, and were certainly involved with the natives (but it was the pirates who were cool and intimidating), and I'm not aware of earrings, tattoos, or nasal bones being fashionable amongst the Malagasy, but I could well be wrong. We know (see the other thread mentioned) that some sailors sported tattoos in our time-frame, but we also know that it was extremely rare. As for the other things, I'll fall back on my usual argument: show us some evidence. We've got descriptions of sailors and pirates, and not one of them to my recollection mentions dreads or bones, and I can guarantee that I've never seen any evidence whatsoever of any pirate of 1690-1730 wearing an earring. That's a very good point, but it doesn't show that they were worn in the hair or as a decoration anywhere else. How long do you imagine the average pirate career to have been, and how long do you imagine such a transformation as you suggest to have taken? As you say, do the pirate thing your way, and all blessings to you whatever your way may be, but please don't pretend that it's historical if it isn't. That's one of the most sensible things said on this forum, and it's a pleasure that somebody else has said it.

Sounds interesting. Which articles does she mention from the 1650-1730 time-frame?

First of all, thankyou Kevin for taking my review in the spirit in which it was intended. You needn't thank me for taking the time to read your book: whether one subscribes to some, all, or none of the theories presented it is a very readable book. I think it's important here to distinguish between 'convincing' and 'believable'. I actually think you did a good job of presenting your case. As I said in my review, I think your argument contains enough good pointers, well presented, to make a good theory, and one which ought to be treated with an open mind. How do we know that? Absolutely they are! And you have to admit they're right: there could have been Speaking neither as a supporter or skeptic of your theory, but purely as an historian, I felt when I was reading the book that you may be placing too much emphasis on this delightful clue. In historical records, people are often described as 'inhabitant' of somewhere they only stayed for a few days or weeks. It would be lovely to think that Pollock was implying the priates were settled, long-term residents of Bath County, but he could equally have been referring to the fact that they had received their pardons in the county, or simply that they were resident within the county at the time of their arrest. Any of those three explanations would be sufficient to explain Pollock's syntax. I'm not a statistician either, but the figures you quote in your post are interesting. In the absence of figures for Bath County in 1718, let's make the possibly dangerous assumption that it was somewhere between 2,000 and 4,460 you quote for later in the century. An arbitrary assumption but, in the absence of more relaible figures, not an unreasonable one. If you were able to find a correlation of 10 names with the 2,000 names you checked from Virginia, and only 13 names within the similarly sized Bath County population, that suggests in fact that the correlation is not statistically surprising. FWIW, none of the names are particularly distinctive, and I can boast a correlation between four of the surnames and the surnames of my ex-girlfriends - which is a list of considerably less than 2,000 I can assure you! Not an argument, but another possibility to consider for you regarding Caesar. Caesar, as a slave, may have been returned to slavery rather than executed, as black pirates from both Bellamy's (or am I thinking of Harris'? Too lazy to look it up) and Roberts' crew were after their trials. It may be that Knight took Caesar on as a slave after the trial. Alternatively, since Caesar was a common slave name, Knight's slave and Blackbeard's crewmate may have been different people, and somebody else bought the Caesar after his trial. FWIW, I have no interest in supporting or overturning the theses of Lee, Konstam, or Woodard. Johnson on the other hand I am very interested in: my particular interest is not about proving Johnson right or wrong, but investigating which parts of his book are right or wrong, and more specifically, seeking out his probable sources of information. I've been working on this project on and off for several years, but I haven't really tackled the Blackbeard chapter yet, so any critique of Johnson's account is especially welcome to me.

If it's any consolation, I too cried in a huddled mass when I went through the whole play looking for the original words only to find it wasn't there.

Maid of Amsterdam is often thought to date from about 1609 because, according to shanty authority W.B. Whall, it appeared in Thomas Heywood's play of that year, The Rape of Lucrece. Unfortunately, Whall was mistaken, and no such song appears in the play. Whether or not there's another source which dates it to before the GAoP, I don't know. Captain Kidd appears in print, as you say, right after his death.