Fox

I can't think of any good medical references in Bucquoy I'm afraid... I'm not sure that du Bucquoy was suffering from Stockholm syndrome, I think Taylor had some genuinely good traits along with his somewhat loony side. The fact that he managed to keep a multinational crew of criminals numbering in the hundreds in order for a couple of years or more suggests that he had a very strong personality. Other people who met Taylor were similarly impressed by him: William Snelgrave, who knew Taylor when he was Davis' sailing master, described him as "as brisk and couragious a Man as I ever saw".

Sadly there isn't. I've got a chunk of it in English, translated from a French translation of the Dutch...

This is a lot better than some handwriting I've seen from the period, but normally there's a lot more context to give clues to the tricky words. First off, Thomas Bolles of 1696 appears to have acquired the book from someone else, because his date is written over the name beneath, which isn't Bolles. I think the first "John" is crossed out because he made a mistake writing the surname, and the second "John" is actually the second attempt to write "John Br??ford [bradford? Brentford?] his book". the next line begins "God give him grase [grace]" but I can't figure out the rest. The top bit is no easier. The first word is "That" without a doubt, and I'm 90% sure the last word is "be". The second word could looks like "som[e]", and "of" is obvious in the middle. And yes please, let's hear the story

It is almost certainly the same incident, and an interesting example of piratical bragadoccio, and of two independent sources telling the same story. du Bucquoy is generally a very fair and impartial observer and, usually, I would be inclined to take his word over Johnson's. In this case, however, it appears he may have been hoodwinked by Taylor himself. On this occasion and one or two others, du Bucquoy reports Taylor telling stories of his exploits on the coast of Guinea, but a number of other testimonies (particularly that of Richard Moor) make it pretty clear that, apart from one or two days (after Davis captured the fort) Taylor was not in command until he reached the Indian Ocean. At the time of the capture of Fort James Taylor was sailing under Davis' command. However, according to Johnson, the other people apart from Davis involved in the subterfuge at the fort were Davis' sailing master, the doctor, and the coxswain - and Taylor was the sailing master. Therefore, Taylor himself was actually in the room when the gun was pulled, but not in command. Exactly who pulled the gun on the Governor is open to speculation, it could have been either Davis or Taylor, they were both there. For what it's worth, the capture of the fort was also mentioned in The Original Weekly Journal, 13 June 1719, quoting a letter dated 17 April, and naming the fort "St. Siagua"; and also in The Weekly Packet, 12 December 1719, noting the capture of "Gambo Fort". If you'd care to speculate further... if we accept from the similarities between the two version that Johnson was relating a more or less true account, then it begs the question of who told him about it in such detail. It is possible the Walter Kennedy was interviewed by Johnson while he was imprisoned in London - if you want to take it further, Johnson candidate Nathaniel Mist was actually in prison with Kennedy - and would thus make a good candidate, since he was certainly in Davis' crew at the time of the incident. Moreover, Kennedy was described as one of the most important men in Davis' crew (and was subsequently Roberts' lieutenant), so it's quite possible that he was the coxswain described by Johnson. Davis was certainly in the habit of taking Kennedy with him when trying to capture shore locations by stratagem, as Kennedy was one of the two survivors of the raid on Principe in which Davis was killed.

Ken was an absolute legend in his own world, but sadly never really got the widespread recognition he deserved. He was always equally willing to share information and to listen to the opinions of others. Older Pub members will doubtless remember him as Corsair2k3.

I don't know of any better reviews of Rogozinski's book, and as I say, the one you posted was pretty much on the button. The narrative is certainly erratic: you'll find several-page sections on the same pirate a hundred pages apart. And the analytical side of the book is both minimal and simplistic. BUT, it does add quite a bit of new information from otherwise unused sources (especially French language sources), and is properly footnoted. I still think Grey's book is better (despite the lack of references), but Rogozinski's is the only modern book that really examines the Indian Ocean pirates. It's far from perfect, but probably the best available - and I say that as a definite non-fan of Rogozinski in general.

I don't know of any flag connected with L'Ollonais I'm afraid. Both the French flag and a plain red flag are possibilities, and he may have flown something completely different either in addition to or instead of either of the above. The 'joli rouge' theory is quaint but let down by the fact that nowhere in any contemporary document is the red flag referred to as 'joli rouge'. However, the red flag was indeed a universal sign of 'no quarter' flown by just about everybody, including pirates, buccaneers, privateers, the navy... I've not come across any reference to the blue flag representing the sea, but there were certainly one or two blue pirate flags in later years.

Some of us have I would say that if you want to do proper research on pirates (or indeed any other subject) the first thing you should do is figure out what exactly your question is. Then, read everything you can get your hands on that deals with your subject, even if only peripherally. Then look through the bibliography of those books and see what else there is that you might have missed and read as much of that as you can. Then, if your question is still unanswered, look at the books you've just read and see what primary sources they are based on. You'll find them in the footnotes/endnotes and sometimes the bibliography. Then use those primary sources, most of which are likely to be found in archives (and in the case of piracy, mostly the National Archives and British Library in London - though there is some worthwhile stuff in the US too). In many cases you'll find stuff in the primary sources that hasn't previously been used by other authors, and sometimes you'll find some pointer to some other source that you hadn't previously considered. The biggest problem, IMO, with the US archives is that they're not centralised. In the UK we have local record offices, which do contain some useful material in small quantities, but the bulk of the really good stuff is housed in one of the two London archives I mention above. In the US however there are several repositories for the National Archives, so you have to know which one to go to, and theoretically at least, anything relating to the colonial era (including pirates) ought to be housed in individual State archives, so the information you seek might be scattered over half a dozen different places. It's quite frustrating! BP. I think that review of Rogozinski's book is pretty much on-the-nose. What the reviewer failed to take into account though is that Honor Among Thieves is primarily a narrative history (albeit a sometimes erratic one). If you want academic analysis then you need to go to the likes of Rediker, Earle, Bialuschewski or one or two other people.

Did someone mention my name? First off, welcome aboard Mr Bandlesworth. I'm afraid I can't add anything material to either of the previous answers. None of the usual sources really offer any more information on White or his career, though Jan Rogozinski's Honor Among Thieves adds a couple of details from some French sources relating the island of Reunion. If you're interested in the Indian Ocean pirates, Rogozinski's book is worth a read, but I still prefer Charles Grey's Pirates of the Eastern Seas. If you can get a copy of Grey's book, it's worth its weight in gold, but Rogozinski's book is easier to find (as a side note, don't buy anything else by Rogozinski unless you need to prop up a wobbly table). One of the problems with pirates like White is that they come too late to get included in the official investigation into the St. Mary's pirates of the 1690s, and since they mostly died in the Indian Ocean they don't get mentioned much in the judicial records created in England and the colonies. The best starting point would probably be the East India Company records in the British Library, which is a massively neglected body of evidence as far as piracy is concerned. As BP says, if someone undertook to research the early 18th century Madagascar pirates it would potentially be something very exciting (though, in fairness, both Rogozinski and Grey have done some work on the subject). Great first post, I look forward to hearing more from you :)

I think there's a long thread about this somewhere here... Short answer: all "British" privateers, including colonial, were entitled to fly a red ensign with a Union Jack in the upper-staff corner (or, prior to 1707, a St. George's cross in the corner). They could also fly a variety of other flags of their own choosing, but were prohibited from flying the Union flag itself, which was reserved for ships of the Royal Navy.

Sadly, yes it's true. Recently I got involved in a debate with a woman who was absolutely convinced that working women couldn't have worn stays because they are too restrictive. When we finally got to the point that she explained how, in her stays, she had got badly out of breath walking up a hill, the penny dropped. "Ah, you mean yours don't fit..."

By coincidence, I had my attention drawn to this book today, which has a whole chapter on fireballs: http://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/a-glorious-empire.html

In response to a debate about the practicality of stays for the working woman in English Civil War circles Mrs F. shot this video. It might be relevant to many here, so I'm reposting it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8wwhlnprmE&feature=youtu.be

Somewhere there was a thread about pochettes, or dancing masters' fiddles, in the golden age, but I can't find it now, so I'm going to post this photo of a pochette I just made here instead...

Nathaniel Butler is certainly pre-GAoP, 1620s or so. I'll have to see if I can find a hat link for you Mission...

My favourite, Nathaniel Butler, said his preferred armour at sea was a good buff jerkin. There's no reason that a buff coat would have been any less hardy in salt water than any other item of leather clothing, including shoes, which have survived in numerous shipwrecks for hundreds of years. Bear in mid though that a buff coat is not just leather, it's LEATHER. Really thick. Really really thick. Some proper reconstructions I've seen stand up by themselves, though some period artistic representations suggest a more supple (but no thinner) leather in use. http://www.royalarmouries.org/learning/online-learning/littlecote-house-module/explore-littlecote-house-without-flash/great-hall-in-littlecote-house/buff-coats-and-baldricks

Which is hardly surprising.

In that picture the besom may be symbolic. Legend has it that following the battle of Dungeoness the Dutch admiral, Tromp, hoisted a broom to the top of his flagship's mast to signify that he had swept the English from the seas. In this case the Dutch appear to be sweeping the French from the seas.

There are also plenty of letters from captains urgently requesting footwear for their men because their shoes had worn out. On a working vessel shoes are a definite advantage. This is not to suggest that no sailor ever went bare foot, but the idea that it was routinely preferable is a fallacy.

Swashbuckler, any evidence for your statement that sailors preferred going barefoot? BP. I don't know what scouring stick meant in the 19th century, but if you look at 17th century drill manuals, 'scouring stick' is synonymous with ramrod. Of course, the name suggests a cleaning function as well. Not relevant, just an interesting aside.

Interesting - presumably that translation was not done by a musicologist, as in that context "fife and tambourine" would translate better as "pipe and tabor".

Y'know, you're the first person to pick up on that! The simplest assumption that can be made is that they heard a rumour of George's death, and accepted it as fact.

It didn't even have to be choke points that pirates prowled. Merchant shipping was, by and large, very predictable, and mostly followed prevailing trade winds which, of course, meant prevailing trade routes. There were also easily predictable ports of call, such as Sierra Leone in Africa, where many European slavers stopped off. When Davis, Cocklyn and La Buse met in the mouth of the Sierra Leone river it was neither chance nor design, and the coincidence was not that they stopped at the same place, only that they were there at the same time. They only narrowly missed meeting Edward England there as well. In some cases, even the schedule of merchant ships could be predicted. Treasure convoys from the New World to Spain had a regular pattern, and the 'Pilgrim Fleet' carrying Muslims returning from the Hajj to India usually sailed at the end of the summer. Of all the choke points on Earth, the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb was probably the richest every August. My favourite bit of serendipitous intelligence gathering gave John Taylor priceless information about a Royal Navy squadron sent to capture him. The commodore of the squadron left a note with some Malagasy natives for the captains of some other English ships, outlining the forces he had available and their projected rendezvouses, as well as his plans on how to find Taylor and other European pirates. When Taylor anchored nearby the Malagasy saw his European ship, assumed he was Royal Navy, and dutifully delivered the letter...

Who exactly do I have to kill to get my airfare to this event paid? Ocracoke - possibly my favourite place on the planet.

Kidd and co captured a whole heap of myhrr, then used it to caulk the Adventure Galley because they'd run out of pitch...