Capn_Enigma

I do not see much of a problem there. Sure, you burn the bridges behind yourself, but you are far from being "alone and on your own" afterwards. You swap one social surroundings with another, but, after all, that is the life of every sailor, be it then or now: When I mustered on aboard my various ships, I knew that I would not see friends or relatives for at least half a year. But you can make new friends aboard the ships you are on, or even in the harbors you visit. In the 17th century, sea voyages were even longer and could last a year or two, so leaving your home behind was part of normal sailor life.

Bad example. When she set sail from New York, "Adventure Galley" was a commissioned privateer, not a pirate ship. A privateer is a vessel with a paramilitary hierarchy and crew management. As with every man- o- war, it was perfectly natural that weapons were kept under lock and key, inaccessible to sailors.

Which is, of course, the "official" explanation. However, the question was explicitly about the symbolism.

In semiotics, the number three stands first of all for the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Spirit. So this may be regarded as kind of a "baptism in reverse": One for each entity of Christian belief. Also, a saying goes:" Bad luck always comes in threes". Whether or not these apply here is subject to discussion. The three floods may even be referred to by the "dead, dead, dead" in the judge's sentence: "Ye and each of ye are adjudged and sentenced to be carried back to the place from whence you came, thence to the place of execution, and there within the flood marks to be hanged by the neck till you are dead, dead, dead, and the Lord, in His infinite wisdom have mercy upon your souls...After this ye, and each of ye shall be taken down and your bodies hung in chains...."

Define authentic. Define diary. Else: Hawkins, Drake (nephew), Exquemelin, Ringrose, Dampier, just for starters.

Or would it.

Then I suggest that you take a good look at these pictures of the Beurtschip "B71" at the Bataviawerf: There are several decks. You wrote: "One thing that I believe qualifies..." Well, belief certainly doesn't qualify for fact. We've had so many beliefs and opinions here that it'd take a cutlass to hack through them and get to the bottom of things. This is so silly that I will not even respond to it. You believe what you want, leave the knowledge to others.

"A boat can fit on a ship, but a ship can't fit on a boat" From Wikipedia, Sailor: A sailor is also specifically an enlisted member of a naval force. @ Capt co.: We are talking 17th, 18th century here. Sailors like welders were exceedingly hard to find back then. Coming to think of it, so are masts, today. BTW: I was a member of the merchant navy.

Those are in ascending rank order servants, NCOs, warrant officers and officers. They are emphatically not sailors.

It is easy. Big thing: Ship. Tiny things in front: Boats. You did not seriously consider that those kind of boots were worn by a sailor (the guys working in the rigging) for one second, right?

Here's the engraving I was thinking of and of which Foxe already mentioned the source: Alain Mallet, "Les Travaux Des Mars", 1672.

I dunno if this applies to the so- called Golden Age as well, but buccaneer grenadiers usually carried a dozen of them in a utility bag on the left side, along with the sword. As the grenades were cast iron, breaking them was not really a problem. And FYI: Every buccaneer chucking a grenade into an enemy fortress received a bonus of 5 Pieces Of Eight above his normal share.

Now that is a first! Basically, he gives the same definition as Wikipedia. I am just too lazy to type off Rogozinski's lengthy article.

I suggest that you go here. BTW: The formally correct term for Drake, Hawkins etc would be "privateer", following the definition of Jan Rogozinski "Pirates! An A-Z Encyclopedia", p. 272.

I own a collection of authentic 17th century button holes. For a modest fee (say 1 Piece of Eight ea.), I am willing to sell you a few (just the holes, fabric not included). Please let me know if you're interested.

Well, I ... guessed.

Nice work there, matey! I was worried, too, that the stain would chemically corrode the paper. I also use only coffee (instant coffee, that is). What's a "guess bathroom"? Is it the head for an imaginary friend?

That was John Harrison (1693 - 1776). Probably "Longitude" by Dava Sobel. Even the H1, Harrison's first model, exceeded the necessary requirements in accuracy, but Harrison was not satisfied with the size and believed that the clock could be made even smaller and more accurate, hence he started to work on the H2, H3 and H4 subsequently. The board under Nevil Maskelyne favored the Method of Lunar Distances. The H1 was finished in 1735, the H4 in 1761. That would be the "Follow the Latitude" or the "Sail the Rhumb Line" practice, sometimes with the known disastrous results. The Caribbean is generally too small a sea to get really lost. Coasts are too close to each other that steering in a general direction would not get you at least near your point of destination after a few days. What makes the Caribbean really dangerous are the treacherous shoals everywhere.

It's the history, oderlesseye.

It was a matter of proper navigation, or rather, lack thereof.

The "sail to the correct latitude, then east or west" trick sometimes yielded quite disastrous results: On March 7, 1741, Admiral Anson navigated an already scurvy- ridden Man- O- War, the "Centurion" through the Le- Maire Straits. Upon reaching Cape Horn, he was met by a westerly storm, which lasted for 58 days. Anson tacked on a westerly course, generally following the 60th parallel. He relied on Dead Reckoning to chart his course, as the storm didn't allow to shoot the sun. After the storm, Anson laid a North course for the island of Juan Fernandez, where he hoped he would find fresh water and supplies for his dying crew. But then land ahead was sighted, which turned out to be Cape Noir, on the western coast of Tierra del Fuego. It dawned upon Anson that although he sailed West for almost two months, he had hardly made any way over ground due to adverse currents. He had no choice but to lay a westerly tack again before sailing north in order to reach the island. On May 24, 1741, the ship's log book noted 35 degrees southern latitude. All Anson had to do now was sailing east or west to reach the island. But which way was the right one? Anson opted for the westerly course. Four desperate days later, he became insecure and reversed the direction, now following the 35th parallel in easterly direction. 48 hours later, land was sighted, but it was not Juan Fernandez, but the inaccessible western coast of Chile. Anson was forced to concede that he had been merely hours away of the island, when he had chosen to sail the easterly course. So, they again sailed in westerly direction, and dropped anchor at Juan Fernandez on June 9, 1741, after having lost more than half of the 500 soul complement to scurvy.

Deal!

@ kaizoku: Your post about sums up my stance, thank you for it. I am currently in the process of building a backstaff, so I come here rather irregularly. Oh, BTW and while we're at it: Foxe, what is your opinon on Cocos Island?

The long awaited Pirates Battlefield Version 1.0 is out now and uploading to FilePlanet! Battlefield Pirates is a mod for Battlefield 1942. It enables 40+ people to engage in hand to hand combat with the enemy for strategic targets like ships, islands or fortresses. It will be pre- released on Nov 17th for FilePlanet users and from Nov 20th for everyone. More see here.

I wasn't aware that this was a pi$$ing contest. While it is generally accepted that there is something down the Money Pit, Foxe has the opinion that there is not, and that's that. Can't argue against opinions.