Mission

Which proves they put alcohol in the gunpowder, but not necessarily the other way 'round.

Curiously, Blackbeard seemed almost resigned to his fate when he heard it was coming. “The Night before he was kill’d, he sat up and drank till the Morning, with some of his own Men, and the Master of a Merchant-Man; notwithstanding his having had Intelligence of the two Sloops coming to attack him, as has been before observ’d.” (MacKlecan, p. 18) It does not seem like the behavior of someone who cared if they found his Journal, agreeing with what Foxe said. One thought I had was that if a pirate Captain were to keep such, it may have been out of habit. Based on the entry as it is recorded, this does not sound like the Journaling of someone who was concerned how the spoils should be divided. (Remember that according to the General History, Blackbeard was planning to take the bulk of the treasure himself and he grounded one of the ships and marooned several of the men rather than give them their share.) In fact, it doesn't really sound like the comments that would be made by a Captain who wanted his men to read them. (He worries in print about them men plotting against him. He probably wouldn't want them to know that he knew of their designs if if he felt his fears were real.)

When I first read this article, I wondered at its purpose. It may be as is stated, but I was thinking it may also have to do with a drunken man setting fire to the ship (as is the implied purpose of Philip's article 5 and Low's article 10.) Counter to it (in a way - a rather thin way...) is Article 1, which states that each man has "equal title to the fresh provisions, or strong liquors, at any time seized, and may use them at pleasure..." It could also have to do with men being unfit for service in the morning which is related to the point being made in this comment to the article.

Gee you've become jaded. Not everything in those books is wrong. If you don't trust the General History at all, you can't really build much of an image of what it must have been like to be a pirate, which you have stated in another post is your intention in asking all your questions. There are multiple errors in other period books and documents, as the Alexander Hamilton discussion proved. If you can't accept anything that isn't completely, provably accurate no reference is going to be good enough for you. (Even Foxe makes mistakes...)

In the version of the General History that I am reading, I find this: “…besides, the Victory had then four Pumps at Work, and must inevitably have been lost before, had it not been for some Hand Pumps, and several Pair of Standards brought out of the Cassandra to receive and strengthen her.” (MacKlecan, p. 29) What are "Pair of Standards"?

Since Blackbeard's sloop Adventure was taken largely intact, with even his letter from the deputy governor of North Carolina recovered, Johnson's statement that Blackbeard's journal was captured is plausible. But except for that one excerpt, the journal is apparently lost to history. Nowhere have I seen any portion of it reproduced except the one Johnson reports. According to an article on About.com, the Journal never existed and Johnson made that up. Where does that come from? The author lists Cordingly's Under the Black Flag and Konstam's The World Atlas of Pirates as references. Is it in one of those? (I don't own Komstam's book. I'll try to remember to check Cordingly if I can find it.) It does sort of make sense, though. I can't believe if Blackbeard left a journal with such interesting comments in it that more of it wouldn't be published somewhere. Unless it's in a private collection or something. (That would make a helluva McGuffin for a crime novel, you know...or a book about treasure hunting. The movie could star Nicholas Cage.)

Ah, a most enjoyable critique by Foxe. I have a question about the above point, though. I've just been reading through one of the General History accounts and I didn't find anything about Blackbeard's "forcible conscription of surgeons." So where would that fact be found? I am reading (by a rather bizarre set of circumstances) a 1748 version of the book. Is it in another edition?

Say, do you know the artist on this one? I wonder what that thing that she's holding over his head is supposed to be? A little bag of money?

"entre les bras de la mort" Cool. Imagine wearing ribbon tied shoes into battle. I wonder if that isn't a bit fanciful a drawing, made to make a point. (Death being a clear motif.) Then again, he appears to be French...

With regard to medicine there probably wasn't much difference, but I like to make the distinction. I also explain the difference between pirates and privateers to help explain why pirates would capture surgeons where privateers simply hired them on.

During my historical pirate surgeon presentation, I spend the first few minutes explaining the GAoP and the differences between the buccaneers and the pirates of the Caribbean. I even use photos to distinguish between the two.

It's like listening to an opinionated reporter. Even though you know the reporter is opinionated, some of their ideas resonate and start to alter your perception of the truth. Thus I consider it worthless and possibly damaging to whatever hopes I have of finding the truth. (Which I'll be the first to admit is impossible without a time machine, and even then would be colored by my perceptions.) So it sits on my shelves, not having been read past the statement he makes which basically says he didn't really find much evidence to support his premise, but was imagining what it must have been like. Meh.

Read it and find out. (The reason is stated by the author in the preface or one of the introductions.)

I read something like that in Pere Labat's book, the one I suggested to you before. (Not sure if it was that exact quote, though.) Edit: A Google search turned something up: a reference to this quote from the (IMO) otherwise worthless book Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition by Richard Burg. Burg attributes the quote to a narrative written by a Captain John Evans (not the pirate, another captain John Evans apparently) in a 1728 account of his capture by pirates. A cursory search of my usual resources has failed to turn up any books by that person. Huh. Now I am curious to find it.

It may be real, but it's 70 years or so past the GAoP. If you're seeking info on authentic flags, Swashbuckler 1700 has what is probably the most concise resource - Foxe's website. If you want to go digging, you can find several topics around here on the subject including: The Jolly Roger Flags and the Death's Head "Memento Mori" The Jolly Roger in popular literature - Examining modern pirate flags History of the Jolly Roger - Discussion of a web-based version of the history featuring lots of Templar nonsense Flags: Black vs. RED - Discussion of red and black flags and the 'jolie rouge' theory Rare Crimson Jolly Roger Restored - this very thread about an alleged red pirate flag Pyrate Mythory - Discussion of Foxe's pirate flags page. BLACK!! - Some bits of "How to" for those interested in making a PC flag Captain Kidd's Flag - Or not Flags for POTC - Striving to make an historical-like flag for the Disney movies Union Jack (OK, this has nothing to do with pirate flags, but it's interesting anyhow.)

It looks interesting (and well researched based on my skim through the Bib), but $58 is a crazy price for such a thing.

Neat. I remember on my first trip to the Caribbean (St. Kitts) they had a drink called Ting with a Sting which was a local Sprite-like beverage with rum mixed into it. This, of course, does not date back, but it's fun to say. Like Mama Juana. (Somehow I doubt the native Tanio called it that, though.)

I'm not trying to find it; Brit Privateer is. I think Jim brings up good points, though. Since there was a great deal less control of the distilling process (and probably little, if any, regulation of distilling at this time) and multiple different sources for alcohol, especially for sailors who went from place to place...you could probably pick any rum made from light or dark molasses and call it accurate. (You may or may not be right.) Keep in mind that our taste expectations are likely much different today and even rums made with an original recipe likely have to account for that and regulations, both of which probably affect their ability to make period accurate-tasting rum. Someone once told me the same thing Brit Privateer hints at in his first post: period rum was very harsh which was why they usually mixed it in punches. (You'll find TONS of references to punch in period accounts of sailors in the Caribbean. Of course, not all punches contained rum either... I was just reading an account that talked about a punch made with "palm wine." But I digress... ) I wish I could remember who made the comment about the harshness of period rum so I could invite them in to comment on this post. Of the ones that have been posted, if I were going to seek any of them, I would be seeking out the Smoke & Oakum. It's the only one that professes to try and capture the original taste. (And there is some evidence that gunpowder was mixed in with rums for various reasons. See wiki.) The others are all mass-produced rums "based" on old recipes. But you can't make a mass-produced rum that tastes so bad it has to be mixed to be palatable. (Er, Sailor Jerry's notwithstanding...)

If the W.R. explanation is true, Woodes Rogers was the source of the name because his activities in removing the pirates from the Bahamas made them name it thus out of spite. It doesn't actually suggest he had a hand in it at all. Although that also sounds like the same sort of nonsense made fact by a reporter when he hears any interesting stray opinion or statistic. (You'd be amazed at how many statistics become 'fact' because a reporter asks an activist for an estimate - which the activist summarily pulls out of his arse in order to sound knowledgeable. This 'fact' gets re-reported (sourced to the first reporter) and re-re-reported and so on until it becomes a 'fact' - one with little basis in truth.)

There is a book coming out about the history of rum this year. As of this writing, you can pre-order it on Amazon. However, that isn't what Brit Privateer seems to be looking for. He wants a bottle of equivalent to sample, I think. Where are all the alcohol experts that used to infest the forum?

Geez. No point in seeing Titus now. (Did the spoon have fava beans on it?)

You're way off. Have either of you clicked on the link?

All I've seen is those glasses from Bennion's book which reference the British Optical Association Library. I've only seen passing references in period sources to glasses and spectacles; nothing that describes the glasses themselves.

You could find out. There's believed to be some of it lying on the bottom of the ocean somewhere. According to wiki, "Plantation slaves first discovered that molasses, a by-product of the sugar refining process, can be fermented into alcohol. Later, distillation of these alcoholic by-products concentrated the alcohol and removed impurities, producing the first true rums. Tradition suggests that rum first originated on the island of Barbados. However in the decade of 1620 rum production was recorded in Brazil." So that's all very interesting, but not really very helpful. There's a company down in Kiwiland called Smoke and Oakum who go to great lengths to present themselves as arbiters of stuff like the original. You can read their sales-pitch, which contains all sorts of interesting tidbits on what would make for a real 17th/18th c. rum on this page (If it doesn't take you there direct, click on the 'Rum crafting...' tab at the top of the page once you gain admittance.) Getting ahold of their libation is an exercise left to the reader. (I noticed they listed Artesian Bar - Experimental Cocktail Club in London on their peddlers list, so if you're near there...) Their S&O recipe appears to feature gunpowder, the accuracy of which seems like it would make for a whole 'nother discussion around here.

Perhaps, but... SPOOOONNN!