Swashbuckler 1700

If we would look age of the most pirates ever active ( per capita at least) it well may be that let's say there were most pirates in antique Roman times.

It seems that skulls, wheels, treasure chests etc. little icons are not working... no need to hurry I can live with that (but only barely... aaa the pain!..... )....

Well-spoken! J.R. Moore oops I mean Foxe At least there were lots of ugly dudes called pirates in early 1700s who had ships, weapons and murderous intentions ....

But we all agree that gaop ended by 1730 but was it 1725 or 1730 there is little matter.....

Well Fly was a pirate and operated in the same time as some of the Low's company. It was all that early 18th C pirate frenzy that Fly was a member of. I think that death of la Buse showed that even inactive pirate can be get caught.

I think that end of gaop there is few milestones so to speak 1. 1718 W.Rogers to the Bahamas, Death of Bonnet and Blackbeard. Pirates have harder times than before that. Other pirate executions 2. 1722 death of Roberts, pirate executions ​3. 1726 William fly's execution. pirate executions 4. 1730 La Buse's death. Final end of Gaop. since whole decades look better than fives I prefer 1730 and not 1725....

It depends also because some think that buccaneers were in Gaop other Don't. I don't like that buccaneer + other pirates gaop and I like more of that gaop that has only actual pirates ( 1690s- 1730)

[split from Period hanging methods.] The Golden age, after all, is just a later invented time period. ( since there were pirates in late 1720s too I think best end of gaop is the year 1730). Of course pirate operation decreased because of RN etc. but I think the main reason why post 1724/ 25 pirates are not so known is that GHOP was made in 1724.

Wasa had also passenger aboard. Also in 1620s boots were fashionable as gentlemen's fashion but not in 18th C.

At least Cordingly was right when he said that "The pirate Execution was a public spectacle". Really interesting and it seems that there were still pirates to be killed in 1725.

I am quite sure that some 16th C wheel locks had grooves inside the barrel (there were some German rifles) and C "Queen Anne pistols" had grooves inside the barrel as well. Still in gaop and even later muskets were much much much more popular.

Oh I dunno, I know that I have uncovered (and mostly shared) a great deal of evidence, both about pirates' clothing specifically and seamen's clothing in general, than was available in 2006. And I'm not the only one, by any means. By and large it confirms our earlier thoughts, there's nothing wildly contradictory except for the solitary source showing a pirate in possession of a pair of riding boots, but the more evidence that can be brought to bear the more reliable our impression of "what pirates wore" becomes. Could you share some of those evidence that you have not shared yet? please? But if it is hard let it be. To me it seems that writer wanted to believe that it is possible to get a lot of information out of solitary source. But is just a opinion so nothing to complain.... To give some constructive criticism ( you can give it to me also ) to people I feel that Gentleman of fortune site exaggerates (but only a little) popularity of slop clothing as well as one new pirate book that I don't care to mention anymore...

I wonder what these hats are. To me they look like much like Voyageurs without tassels. from late 17th century

Interesting since I think they all are. See e.g picture 1 there is that tab that there is in Monmouths. and even that PTG hat of Peter The Great don't look knitted but it is. what are others verdict?

Old game to speak about but if you get some mods to it can be one of the best pirate games made. With some mods I have been able play it for years (of course not every month or so but). Mods have new ports, "real" Caribbean islands (from age of pirates I and II), new ships and storylines well as lots of new guys to play and not just boring Nathaniel Hawk. Bugs are still there but they are quite rare....

Trum caps were used well in the 19th C. picture from 1799.

To open old tread: This is nice mutiny story ( yes it is wiki but......) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batavia_(ship)

Ok Mist is really really likely the man behind the GHoP. In his book "The Republic of Pirates" by Colin Woodard states: Arne Bialuschewski of the University of Kiel in Germany has identified a far more Likely Candidate ( to be writer of Ghop): Nathaniel Mist, a former sailor, journalist, and publisher of the Weekly Journal. The book's first publisher of record, Charles Rivington, had printed many books for Mist, who 'lived just a few yards from his office. More importantly, the General History was registered at Her Majesty's Stationery Office in the Mist's name. As a former seaman who 'had sailed the West Indies, Mist, all of London's writer-publishers, was uniquely qualified Thurs have penned the book ... Also a Mist was a committed Jacobite ... Which Could explain the General History's not Entirely unsympathetic account of the maritime outlaws. All things fit to bill. I think that it was Mist. ( That maker was a former sailor gives some more credibility to book). I think the whole Defoe as the writer of GhoP thing is a widespread lie. This is interesting ( yeas found on Wiki but ....): "Nevertheless, the government did, indeed, worry about Nathaniel Mist, and they worried about him so much That they put Daniel Defoe in his employ To Be his friend and have him spy, write for him, and persuade him away from the most damaging articles. In 1718, Daniel Defoe claimed That they had personally spiked stories That would have published Mist and Mist That was under his control. Although this was almost Certainly an exaggeration, Defoe said later That they had gotten out of jail Mist is at Least Three occasions. When Defoe left off working with Mist Entirely in 1724, they complained in Applebee's Journal That Mist had Fought with him (physically), and insulted him, and in 1730 they complained That Mist had harmed his career (probably by Revealing Defoe's acting as a government agent to Other printers). "

Here seems to be PtG well as nice sloop picture is made in circa 1709 http://jcb.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/JCB~1~1~2734~4480003:Brigatins-des-Isles-de-l-Amerique,-?qvq=w4s:/when/1701-1750;q:sail;lc:JCB~1~1,JCBBOOKS~1~1,JCBMAPS~1~1,JCBMAPS~2~2&mi=1&trs=9

I would be happy if someone could delete those posts there (the ones which say Moderator delete this. content is moved to other post) Please thanks I was wondering is this earring or not. It is likely that it is not but.... ( those are Dutch mariners from 1695) I think it is possible that there is earring (that left fellow?) but it seems it is not but who know. Maker's style is bit shaky, so it may be an error.

I have been wondering why " Charles Johnson" can't be writers real name? I am not saing that I would believe so but I have been wondering. Without much study on the writer of Ghop I would say that Mist is most likely.

Interesting that cigarettes are myth myth so to speak. That they were not used in Gaop is a myth. In some tread here e.g. one person posted picture of gentleman making clear hand-rolled cigarette in 1725.

So it seems to be quite a common practice. I am not saying that all did it. It makes me wonder (I am not claiming that the pirates were often well-dressed) why Snelgrave's coats were auctioned at the mast and not just sold and share the money of it? It seems that pirates were always need for clothing and it was ( at least sometimes if not often) auctioned among the crew ( alongside with other stuff like smoking pipes, playing cards as dead man's property or even loot) but clothing would often be just mariners garment. We have so many hints of pirates selling stuff board and at the mast so we can say it was a practice. And Kidd and Davis had not same articles or etc. and that "as is usual" is quite revealing.

Is it actually impossible that all Ghop editions could have many writers? Or that that writer was just really Charles Johnson and had no code name at all?