Swashbuckler 1700

I was looking this old interesting thread so. Edward Condent? That is interesting. I wonder how many different names that man has (I wondered this and his ship's in a thread here http://pyracy.com/index.php/topic/19260-condents-dragons-ships-and-his-identity/ ) Johnson in his probably fictional account it seems doesn't even bother to tell his first name.... probably since he didn't know it. That quote plus other (modern) sources name him in various ways including Billy One Hand (referring likely to William), Edward, Edmund, Edmond, John or William Condent, Congdon, Connor or Condell. I would say that he might be one of the most mysterious pirates of the age who did steal a lot of booty. His ship(s) and the size of it (them) is another mystery. At least they were "Dragon's". By the way: What is the most recent view here about the capture of Cassandra and people present?

This is an old thread but. The boarding with boats seemed to be the standard in Gaop and most of the Age of sail. But, about side by side boarding: Pictures this time, but they are unfortunately later.. Much later than gaop (circa 1800) but these privateer sailors, it seems, are boarding larger Indiaman using their own ship's yards. Artist is Ambroise-Louis Garneray (1783-1857) who has done a few naval action pictures and paintings. Of course he might have been mistaken about sea tactics. Another similar one has a pirate ship but still later Here in this earlier 1750s painting it seems that the crew is trying to get onboard using their own bowsprit and jumping to enemy rigging. Similar tactic is pictured in not so good 19th century book Pirates Own Book. However how common these tactics were in Gaop is hard to know.

I think The channel could have tried to shock the audience with bad and dirty teeth instead of those... other things I think the shape of the joint is rather a minor thing. Though the shape doesn't make sense as it does not even reinforce the structure much...

I think that is just an anachronism caused by later ships For example it seems that HMS victory had those beams (whatever) A modern cross section. That was a bit unclear This is a modern model

To me the first episode was a pleasant surprise. Both in terms of historical accuracy and acting/plot. This may be merely because after one "historical" fiction product called Assasin's Greed 4 Black Flag lowered my demands for accuracy for a fictional story. (That video game has so many historical fails... Blackbeard is killed by 100 gun man of wars, ships are later than gaop or fantasy, officers have Nelson's era bicornes etc.) Britprivateer's writing was most interesting and has some points that I too noticed. I enjoyed the action, story etc. Some scenes weren't necessary though (you know what I mean). But, what about accuracy. I know some things so I can judge a bit. Here is my humble opinions about these things: Some photos are not from the first episode but all from Black Sails. I like the realistic pirate flags seen in the first episode and in trailers The ships (while clearly CGI at times) are more period correct than in many fiction works. So often in pirate fiction there are mix of earlier and too modern ships. They are larger but it is not necessarily inaccurate as pirates did have large ships too. I still hope we will see smaller ones in the future episodes. For the most part I like the costumes. Yes there are the big boots and other stuff like that.... For example coats are more modern or made of leather and belts are odd. Still, compared to what I have used to see in fiction I think these are actually quite accurate. Also I am pretty sure this is one of the few places where you can see even some kind of short jackets (Silver has a blue jacket but of later fashion). Also gentlemen are wearing wigs which are quite accurate, though slightly later. That cannot be taken granted in pirate fiction (for example in the said video Game AC4 Stede Bonnet even as plantation owner didn't posses a wig and does the same as Woodes Rogers and has a haircut of Neoclassicism period...) After all, they wanted the pirates to look cool in the show and so there are e.g leather clothing and middle eastern elements, especially in main characters' clothing to make them seem more exotic. Also, there are Nelson's era Royal Navy sailors in the navy. Captain Hume is wearing 1748 RN uniform but since the style of the clothing didn't change significantly much (between 1715-1740s) I think it is not a really bad thing at all. Mainly since for storytelling reasons it is good to have easily noticeable foes with uniforms and it is close to the period (compare with many other pirate films that have even later uniforms in Gaop). Elements like shirts, striped breeches etc. are quite accurate. For example the merchant captain is dressed quite accuratey (beard aside) and has e.g a coat with mariners cuffs. Also I think a few pirates like Silver have even actual shoes not only inaccurate boots. Though the lack of e.g monmouth caps is striking, most of the action seen in the episode happens in hot Nassau rather than at sea so… But then there are the sins. Flint has a tiny earring (but it is not necessarily inaccurate, but we cannot say it is accurate either) and I think mister Gates has a tattoo in his head which is a clear anachronisms... New Providence has clearly slightly too good infrastructure and the fort is probably too large. Though the "island" seems to be quite accurate with shape and houses are at least near to colonial Caribbean style. Weaponry, what i have seen is nearly accurate, if we accept that the firearms, axes and cutlasses are later later age of sail. But in trailers and clips we can see that e.g grenades will be seen which is a good thing. The series shows what kind of arms were used by pirates and mariners in age of sail rather than the extact styles or patterns of the early 1700s. I too noted the "dollar". The term is period correct at least but it apparently didn't mean Spanish currency. The language is too modern, of course and the f-word is over used, while in most cases it is period accurate. Sailing lingo is missing too. But I like to see cursing pirates who doesn't say just "Shiver my timbers". The material culture is ok while there are inaccuracies. For example the bottles were quite accurate onion bottles, perhaps a decade or two later with style but still. In some pirate movies you can see modern green glass bottles. Vane has cigarettes which isn't really bad since the matter of cigarettes is not simple and they existed in some form around this time. It is still good that you can see more accurate clay pipes used by pirates. Looking preview clips we will have e.g Rackham wearing sunglasses in the future episodes. While the style of the glasses is not accurate it might not be so inaccurate as one could think at first (at least the good conversation about the subject in Twill support the idea that people had something near sunglasses in Gaop already, though rarely). The ladies... Well in historical perspective they fit better to modern beauty taste rather than that of the Gaop people. They also look far too healthy as noted by Britt.privateer There is the modern romantic view of pirates as rebels against all, but is more about how you interpret history rather than right or wrong. Same is with romantic view of tolerant pirates with African people as noted by Britt.privateer. In any case I liked the episode partly since my expectations weren't high. Though I find the sex scenes and the amount of bloodshed unnecessary.

A good point Though I would guess (feel free to correct) that percentually more people volunteered to join pirates than the navy (less forced men onboard a pirate ship) Though in many cases pirates' forced men policy was quite similar than in the navy. Deserters were punished e.g one Swede who was forced by Bellamy was whipped since he tried to escape. But it is good to notice that in the navy had legal right to impress people. In that case they were just as bad as the pirates who were criminals if not more so. Think what would some sailors think? Also, there was some direct desertion off the navy to pirate ships. A few sailors escaped from a naval frigate to join the pirates led by Vane in New Providence. That is, at least one incident and can be found in "Republic of Pirates". It seems that pirate vessels were rather similar than any other vessels of the era. There were hard rules and some people were forced to serve. and In addition to the myths here: I would also say that the pirates extraordinary racial tolerance is a myth. It would be nice if we could give merit for that to the pirates and think that they were really ahead their time but... It seems that more slaves were sold/left behind than recruited by the Gaop pirates. They were sailors of African descent on board pirate ships of course, but so there were in other places. The lack of men might make the ratio higher sometimes on board pirate ships, but many slaves would be mere servants on pirate ships as well. Also many pirates like Bart Roberts had served on slave ships. They were used to that slaves were cargo and treated them accordingly. Martel's crew seemed to have black sailors, but they also burned their ship with slaves inside (thought not deliberately). Roberts did same to one other ship. Though there are records of pirates freeing slaves from irons (At least the mystical captain Kennedy did that in 1716). Also does Snelgrave (a slaver captain) make any notion of pirates' extraordinary good treatment of slaves? I would guess not since it would have been quoted widely in literature. (I have never been able to read the whole text from Snelgrave unfortunately). I would think that if there was something really special about that Snelgrave would have noticed it.

I found it Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) was a naval administrator and MP and he wrote his experiences about his work in his diary. One of his job was to inspect that the impressed sailors and other men were transferred to the ships from Tower. The diary can be found e.g here July 1st 1666 (Sunday) .... After dinner to the office again, where busy, and then down to Deptford to the yard, thinking to have seen Bagwell's wife, whose husband is gone yesterday back to the fleete, but I did not see her, so missed what I went for, and so back to the Tower several times, about the business of the pressed men, and late at it till twelve at night, shipping of them. But, Lord! how some poor women did cry; and in my life I never did see such natural expression of passion as I did here in some women's bewailing themselves, and running to every parcel of men that were brought, one after another, to look for their husbands, and wept over every vessel that went off, thinking they might be there, and looking after the ship as far as ever they could by moone-light, that it grieved me to the heart to hear them. Besides, to see poor patient labouring men and housekeepers, leaving poor wives and families, taking up on a sudden by strangers, was very hard, and that without press-money, but forced against all law to be gone. It is a great tyranny. Having done this I to the Lieutenant of the Tower and bade him good night, and so away home and to bed. The navy was still rather tyrannical not only because it had sailors who were not volunteered to join. However, much has been made about the inhuman punishments of the navy while it seems that in the period they were similar or perhaps even milder than those used on land. Of course in modern perspective they are extremely cruel but in those days perhaps the other issues like the impressment gave the navy a worse stigma.

As this is a thread about shoe usage on board sailing ships: Later than Gaop (early 1800s) but still notable as the ship-life conditions etc. wouldn't have changed significantly. (I must say the picture itself is ugly). The weather is not necessarily really hot as one sailor (right side) has probably a fur cap. 'Deck scene in an Indiaman' http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/12572.html

I am not really an official specialist, but I have some ideas. I have read these two examples quite recently so they came to my mind easily. Colin Woodard's Republic of Pirates is good for Gaop. Though the back cover and advertising text seems a bit romantic with pirate democracy the book itself is actually more critical in my opinion. The research clearly good too. (Though the maps and ship diagrams are partly inaccurate. Still, the text is really good and fun to read. Just small issues) http://www.amazon.com/The-Republic-Pirates-Surprising-Caribbean/dp/015603462X/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_4 Also, if you note the author has not done much other research about pirates The Pirate Hunter: The True Story of Captain Kidd by Richard Zacks is good. Thought it contains quite many assumptions it is factual, I would say. It has info of other pirates than just Kidd, mainly of Robert Culliford. http://www.amazon.com/The-Pirate-Hunter-Story-Captain/dp/B000FVHJ6C/ref=pd_sim_b_6

indeed :) I think the captain's leadership skills were more important than the other. However, I would say pirates had fewer petty officers, the quartermaster being almost a chief captain. Unlike the navy for example there were no actual lieutenants (though I think many pirate officers were called with that term) or midshipmen. So I would think that captain's sailing abilities would be more important on board a pirate vessel than others. Though I am pretty sure there were captains whose mariner career was not impressive. Furthermore About pirates' freedoms. They often had a change to go wild especially when a ship was captured and then there was really little order (though it was probably rather similar with privateers). They played with gentlemen's wig, rode captured horses and rode monks (The latter one might a myth brought by the Pirates Own Book. It says that Condent's men did that) Also while it was often not so simple pirates had the freedom to attack vessels of any nation. About brutality of another vessels' captains. I am not actually disagreeing but here are some points: Like Foxe already said many pirates said revenge to brutal captains was their motivation. I am pretty sure that Howel Davis for example said he was having a revenge for sailors' behalf. Also for example John Archer, who sailed e.g with Blackbeard, said in his execution in 1724 ”I could wish that Masters of Vessels would not use their Men with so much severity, as many of them do, which exposes us to great Temptations” (Yes that was in Rederiker's book, but doesn't mean anything as it appears to be an original quote.) Philip Lyne too seemed to have something against ship's captains and masters as he killed 37 ship masters during his career. (Again mentioned by Rederiker, but he quoted another source meaning it is not his own assumption (not that it would be actually bad in any case)) Also, We have "Robin Hood" Bellamy. And then there were the salary issues between the sailors and captains. England's crew did this (at least if we trust GHP) to one captain. Captain England sail'd to the Coast of Africa, after the Island of Providence was settled by the English Government, and the Pyrates surrendered to his Majesty's Proclamation; and took several Ships and Vessels, particularly the Cadogan Snow belonging to Bristol, at Sierraleone, one Skinner Master, who was inhumanly murthered by some of the Crew, that had lately been his own Men, and served in the said Vessel. It seems some Quarrel had happened between them, so that Skinner thought fit to remove these Fellows on Board of a Man of War, and at the same Time refused them their Wages; not long after they found Means to desert that Service, and shipping themselves aboard a Sloop in the West-Indies, was taken by a Pyrate, and brought to Providence, and sailed upon the same Account along with Captain England. Assoon as Skinner had struck to the Pyrate, he was ordered to come on Board in his Boat, which he did, and the Person that he first cast his Eye upon, proved to be his old Boatswain, who star'd him in the Face like his evil Genius, and accosted him in this Manner. — Ah, Captain Skinner! Is it you? The only Man I wished to see; I am much in your Debt, and now I shall pay you all in your own Coin. The poor Man trembled every Joint, when he found into what Company he had fallen, and dreaded the Event, as he had Reason enough so to do; for the Boatswain immediately called to his Consorts, laid hold of the Captain, and made him fast to the Windless, and there pelted him with Glass Bottles, which cut him in a sad Manner; after which they whipp'd him about the Deck, till they were weary, being deaf to all his Prayers and Intreaties, and at last, because he had been a good Master to his Men, they said, he should have an easy Death, and so shot him thro’ the Head. They took some few Things out of the Snow, but gave the Vessel and all her Cargo to Howel Davis the Mate; and the rest of the Crew, as will be hereafter mentioned in the Chapter of Captain Davis. As a note not related to this thread: The ship's name name "Cadogan" is clearly anti-Jacobite (referring propably to William Cadogan, 1st Earl Cadogan)and if Skinner was anti-Jacobite as his ship name might suggest it might explain some of the cruelty of pro-Jacobite England's crew too... perhaps). Navy was still a brutal place not less because of the Pressgangs. Actually even some naval officials alike though that the system was unfair. For example Samuel Pebys wrote in his diary, in 1660s something like it was "barbarous". (I have to dig up the quote.) As another things while the dozen flashes were the maximum there were the court martial during war time. Certainly many pirate ships had sometimes even worse punishments, but they were ordered by the often elected captain or "the majority of the company". So the Legitimacy of power was at least slightly different than in the navy for example. Also, for the even more sadistic pirate punishments... It might be that it has more to do with the sociopath nature of some pirates... Also how was the naval life seen by Hogarth in 1740?

Interesting (The England Seegar thing) You know I have been wondering this thing for some time and now finally I have energy and time to put it here. And when that happens there is going to be a long post. Hopefully this has something new at least to someone. It is interesting that Bart Robert’s flag that is often said to be a like this But, as it happens it is one of the modern inventions as some know. However, Johnson mentions a rather similar flag which would look quite similar, but the meaning of it is completely different. “The Flag could not be got easily from under the fallen Mast, and was therefore recover'd by the Swallow; it had the Figure of a Skeleton in it, and a Man pourtray'd with a flaming Sword in his Hand, intimating a Defyance of Death it self.” Thought accordingly to Berenson little Ogle doesn’t mention that flag. In any case the flag described by Johnson had a man defying the death rather than toasting with “him” like in the modern version. Then there are the illustrations of Johnson’s books Actually I am pretty sure that all 1720s illustrations describe that flag and not the modern one. Illustration A Here you can see that the figure of death has a spear and an hourglass, but he is not toasting with Robert’s figure. The figure of a man has a (flaming) sword and he is defying the death. illustration B Here the sword is hardly visible, but I am pretty sure it is still there. (The skeleton has, again a spear and an hourglass but the print appears to be worn) This appear to be just a colored (perhaps modern) of illustration A Illustration C This doesn’t show that flag, but the other flags Robert’s used accordingly to Johnson Illustration D This is same as illustration C but with colours illustration E This can be found on the web and it has perhaps edited with computer (see the distance between Roberts and his ships) but there is still a probable sword held by the figure of a man. It is greatly similar as A. Illustration F This shows nothing more than similar figure of “death” but now the figure of a man is not visible at all. I think this is just mean to be the same flag but we cannot see the man with the sword. The existence of spear is nothing new as it can be seen in other earlier prints as well. Illustration G This is in the Dutch book and shows only totally different and probably fictional flag http://jcb.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/JCB~1~1~1846~2850006:Bartholomew-Roberts-doodgebleeven- I may be wrong but it seems that the modern version was created by someone who didn’t read the text of Johnson and who just looked at the picture and missed the sword which can be hard to see in worn old prints. Also, is this an early 20 the Century book illustration about flags? At least here we can see the modern version of many flags but not persons now linked with them. There are only odd dates. (The 1719 flag is clearly the one described by privateer George Shelvocke)

As the pirates were rather practical I think they just didn't care if someone would do any of those things and that rules about it would be unnecessary. Though I personally think that many would not do the latter of those (However, why would navy have completely useless rules about such things in their rules if sailors never did it?) So I believe that pirates generally weren't sodomites... Though during a drunken party anything could happen (and there were not only men present but also animals like goats (!)). It probably happened occasionally as it did in the period, but it certainly wasn't "a pirate tradition". Anyway. I wonder one thing about gambling. It seems that it was sometimes allowed aboard privateer ship. I don't have a source handy but I think Woodes Roger's men gambled quite a lot. (Free to correct that if needed)

On both his piratical cruises Tew sailed the Amity. He may well have had another ship called Liberty at some other time in his non-pirate career, but I've not heard of it. Well I read it here (not a good source, I know) http://www.2020site.org/pirates/famous-pirate-ships.html WARNING! DEEP POINT APPROACHING! Disobeying the law does not grant you more freedom. The law guarantees as many freedoms as it restricts. It may not seem like that at times, but without the law nobody is truly 'free'. Outlaws are unable to own anything and even their lives are in the hands of others. For that I quote Edmund Burke, while I don't completely agree with his sayings this has some merit Liberty must be limited in order to be possessed. (now, I appear smart. lets go on ) I would say Rederiker's works contains some political colour as well. (well nothing new among researchers) Nothing actually bad about it, but I am pretty sure his views about the pirates are more or less colored by his ideology. (I don't own any of his works, but I have succeeded to read many sections of them and one doesn't need to read much of "Between Devil and The Deep Blue Sea" to figure out what he is after). Certainly he has some good points and clever notes but... It is just a matter of opinion but I find his research rather subjective. (But as another personal opinion I think he has some good thoughts as an activist). Nevertheless (I know his main ideas) he is not, in my humble opinion, completely wrong at all, but I think his point of view is somewhat limited. For example he has not noted Jacobitism (practically) while Woodard and Konstam have (but that is not the point of this thread). But enough of that I think. Captains certainly had some authority. If he hadn't had why would the pirates even choose a captain (only for ceremonial purpose?)? Why would not the crew just say who is the boss during battles and in other times they could just vote for all things. It seems that the pirates themselves wanted to have even a some kind of leader figure. Also, as Konstam noted in his book (the one mentioned before) since the captain often had to be somewhat literate and good mariner the captains were chosen from a really small pool of men. Not anyone could be a captain so it reduced their democracy (which nevertheless existed). About freedoms (thinking Barry.R. Burg's theories) unlike in those naval rules (of 1661) there is no prohibition of Sodomy in pirate articles ( )

Amity. Didn't he have both a ship named Amity and another named Liberty? (I am probably wrong though) Quite. Pirates had a great deal of freedom to drink and swear which sailors in other services did not (while on ship at least, on shore was a different matter). Apart from those two things I can't think of any 'freedoms' that pirates had that other sailors did not, and in some cases they had greater restrictions. Hardly the romantic 'freedom of the seas'. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwn5K89dE5c ) And a serious note: The money was probably the thing that usually encouraged the seamen to turn pirate rather than the freedom. Also there was the Avery myth. But as another note criminals have more freedom since they don't obey the law. But as in this case there was rules nevertheless. The food supply was freely available at least aboard Roberts' ship and that was a freedom that perhaps other sailor had not. Also (personal(?)) weaponry was not locked up in pirate ships like it was on other vessels. That is, at least, what was said in Pirate: The Golden Age by Konstam) It is interesting how different views there can be about pirates life and organisation. Angust Konstam (in the book I mentioned previously) gave a picture that pirates crews were lazy and that they were defending their democracy so much that the captains and officer had really loose authority. Also, he believes e.g ban of gambling was a rule that was often broken (I seems plausible (actually was playing without bets forbidden onboard any ship?). This illustration is in the book (I happened to found it on the web) and it says more than a thousand words about pirates life, freedoms and organisation as seen by Konstam.

And as I cannot edit my last post: I think that while the articles of war where for war time only rather similar rules were in order in peacetime (Though RN was quite often in war anyway (in 1688-97, 1701-13, 1718-1720 or so)(correct if needed) I think the main reason for piracy was especially after 1713 peace the joblessness of sailors and since there was so many sailors available merchant captain started cutting salaries (Though I think that doesn't apply for the Indian Ocean pirates of 1690s as there was a war then and many pirates were originally privateers (Tew, Culliford and many others). I think then it was more or less because of the end of Buccaneer era) (?) Also I find the often mentioned "harsh naval discipline" misleading. Not many sailors ever got flogged... Also, I think often e.g theft was punished with flogging aboard a ship while in the 18th Century Britain, at least technically if not always in practice, one could get easily a death sentence for similar crime. Though navy was hated by some since it was dangerous because of the battles and pressgangs were sometimes brutal. And captains varied. There were also a few sadistic ship captains, in merchant and naval sevice, whose would e.g kick their servant boys to death (I will dig a source the case if needed). Though there were also sadistic pirate captains and probably more of those....

Indeed Mission. 10 articles? That many? A few comments about the rules. Certainly there was no average pirate articles but wasn't Gow rather unusual pirate? Also he wasn't part of the big gangs which dominated the piracy of the early 18th Century like the Flying Gang. Freedoms were, of course, limited for practical reasons, to keep the crew in some kind of order (That is obviously the usual meaning of rules: to keep people in order). However, there was a sort of freedom nevertheless. Unlike for example in The Royal Navy's articles of war (here is the 1661 one) there was very few rules about obscene behavior or drinking (well at night it was not allowed below decks in Roberts' crew, but there were only few real rules about drinking).You could e.g curse rather freely (something that was not officially allowed in the navy (and was punished in various ways)) as we have witnessed in different threads and pirates had long drinking parties, e.g Snelgrave witnessed a few. I am pretty sure that a normal naval of even merchant captain wouldn't let his crew carouse days without doing any work. Also I think Snelgrave and other also witnessed some clear anarchy among pirates. (?) Also Liberty was at least to some extent thought to be one attraction to piracy. for example we have the classic quote from Johnson's book of Bart Roberts' "liberty and power". (also, I think one of Thomas Tew's ship was named "Liberty", but it certainly doesn't necessarily mean anything). Also, many pirates mutinied because the shipmaster didn't pay salaries. So they were mistreated by them (also I think RN had regularly problems to pay salaries to its seamen too). I think Every did just that and William Fly said before his execution "all Masters of Vessels might take Warning of the Fate of the Captain that he had murder'd, and to pay Sailors their Wages when due." William Snelgrave hadn't survived if his men would have claimed that he was a bad captain who mistreated his sailors. Anyway. Certainly those things Foxe mentioned are "myths" (I would rather say "misunderstanding" but is is a matter of taste) to some extent. Many of those things are often said as exact facts, which they aren't. All of these are more a matter point of view. It seems that there is a new romantic layer beneath the Hollywood style fiction and it has been created by some authors and researchers etc.

I have been wondering that when it has been said (e.g in tv documentaries) something like "in 18th Century Britain thought about voting didn't exist". There was even a parliaments (albeit really few could vote or be there). But in the contrast: how much there was voting aboard Naval or Merchant ship? I am pretty sure that there was none. Also, how many Pennsylvanians could pay the taxes? Though it must be noted that in the colonies there was not really much actual poverty. Also I have read that the colonies were indeed rather egalitarian even before the 1775 revolution (but the slave thing...).

Interesting The merchant vessels, I presume, cannot be placed in the same box as their cargo, size, captains all varied greatly.... But really many pirates had been in the Navy and among privateers, so they much have felt that it was more egalitarian. And there is the whole thing about voting. Many privateers had rather similar system is seems, but it was certainly different than than in the Navy or in common merchant service. (or not?) There are also free food and drink in the common store in many ships etc. Also, the pirate treasure was so much bigger compared to income from fishing or small scale trading and since the fishers income was, I would presume, so low everyone needed to get something that they could live. But indeed. Even the wages mentioned in Woodard's Republic of Pirates show similar distribution. E.g merchant captain's annual income was about £65 and able seaman aboard same ship got £33. Well.... It is just that there is the image about highlanders and Rob Roy in your head even when you know it is not that simple at all. Actually I have read some parts of that book (including but not limited to the section of Jacobite underworld) Though I don't have really good image about the whole thing yet (I must admit).

Yes, I was not trying to make those pirates seem not Jacobites. Also, I have a mental picture (which doesn't mean much) that Vane was perhaps the leading die-hard Jacobite of the Bahamian flying gang. As for the subculture of pirates... It seems to be pretty similar than those of English seamen in general but perhaps with some additional profanity. Also, while sometimes exaggerated pirate crews at least a number of them, in 1700s were clearly more egalitarian than naval of Merchant crews (privateers were in between naval and pirate ships it seems). While it can be understood in various ways (like it has been done...) this was clearly something rather special for the pirates (or their subculture (but the word doesn't seem to be good in this purpose)) of 1600s and 1700s. At least to some extent. Another interesting thing: There are several instances when Bellamy's crew said that they were "Ro(b)bin Hood's men". I think that was actually what one witness told. There is clearly some ideological thing in the background, while the seriousness of it is questionable.... oops. I am soon going off the topic, but that was related to pirates' ideology. Well indeed... The union was not really often resisted by Jacobites (I found here something about the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/union/features_union_jacobites.shtml ) Another interesting notion about one pirate: While it was not merely a Scottish thing Jacobitism was certainly more common among them than other Britons (?) Stede Bonnet's pirates drank Jacobite toasts and he had "Royal James". His clearly Jacobite crew had almost unusually number of Scotchmen compared to some other crews. Several were from Aberdeen (A notable Jacobite region I think) and Glasgow. Majority were elsewhere, but the ratio is still rather interesting compared to that most seamen were usually from London.

An example where there was soldiers aboard naval ship in pirate hunt: http://historyreconsidered.net/Brittish_Military_Presence_in_America.html (I have noticed this before but now I have more to say) Military Operations in the Caribbean and identifiable British units involved, 1660-1720 "1717 Cpt. Hume of the Scarborough sinks Martel’s ship at St Croix Jones/Alexander’s Sea Service Foot (38th)" General History of Pirates says: In the Month of November, 1716, General Hamilton, Commander in chief of all the Leeward Carribee Islands, sent a Sloop Express to Captain Hume, at Barbadoes, Commander of his Majesty's Ship, Scarborough, of 30 Guns, and 140 Men, to acquaint him, that two Pyrate Sloops of 12 Guns each, molested the Colonies, having plun ered several Vessels. The Scarborough had bury'd twenty Men, and had near forty Sick, and therefore was but in ill State to go to Sea: However, Captain Hume left his sick Men behind, and sailed to the other Islands, for a supply of Men, taking 20 Soldiers from Antegoa; at Nevis, he took 10, and 10 at St. Christophers, and then sailed to the Island of Anguilla, where he learned, that some Time before, 2 such Sloops had been at Spanish-Town, otherwise called, one of the Virgin Islands: Accordingly, the next Day, the Scarborough came to Spanish-Town, but could hear no News of the Sloops, only, that they had been there about Christmas, (it being then the 15th of January.) Later Hume attacked Martel's ship (Though accordingly to later edition than 1724 GHP it might have been some pirate named Kennedy (pirates anyway) Interesting... What was Jones/Alexander’s Sea Service Foot (38th) in 1717?

Interesting. I think is should be said that the pirates created their own subculture in the existing society rather than “own society”. Though there are still some sings of rather comprehensive defiance Here some: Johnson in GHP (yes, yes it is Johnson....) in page 176 in the section of Howel Davis ”After this, a Counsel of War was called over a large Bowl of Punch, at which it was proposed to chuse a Commander; the Election was soon over, for it fell upon Davis by a great Majority of legal Pollers, there was no Scrutiny demanded, for all acquiesced in the Choice: As soon as he was possess'd of his Command, he drew up Articles, which were signed and sworn to by himself and the rest, then he made a short Speech, the sum of which, was, a Declaration of War against the whole World.” Also there is this, probably tough mainly rhetorical quote from (I think) Johnson (again...) Low and his crew turned pirate, determined "to go in her, make a black Flag and declare War against all the World." Also using a quote from Republic of Pirates (originally in an account of Edward North who was captured by Vane) Charles Vane’s pirates toasted “damnation to King George”, the government and “all the higher powers” The term “all the higher powers” is unclear but…. Vane and his crew had certainly Jacobite sympathies, but they seemed to have also more generic resentment. Also, then there are almost antireligious (perhaps not the most correct word... ) signs which show some more defiance. Certainly it might be just drunken talk and just one case. At least accordingly to "The Pirate Hunter: The True Story of Captain Kidd" (book by Richard Zacks) one pirate captain (who might be found here to be John Taylor, the follower of Ed England) said "If we swing our grappling hooks onto the clouds and attack Heaven itself, I'd aim my first shot at God." Not necessarily anti-Jacobite at all but....

Thanks that is an interesting quote But, were not Edward England the same man as captain Seegar?

Another note is that especially the later pirates of 1720s were partly left outside the society just because they were pirates. They couldn't visit any port or towns and their news about the surrounding world were limited to those news told by captured sailors. Also, there was rather pathetic pirate groups that spend even decades in Madagascar outside the western society. It is no wonder that a group of them was willing to return to England with Woodes Rogers in 1710s. Also, while many governors and other officials had rather good intelligence of the pirates they considered pirates as pirates and not anything like Jacobite rebels (and they were more pirates than anything else that is clear). It seems that the officials considered pirates as Hostis humani generis. But these kind of ideas were mostly their anti-pirate propaganda. Or I am wrong? Also notable is that pirate crews were multicultural (to some extent) and while the majority were Ango-Americans there must have been many non English who were sure that they would never see their home country again. They could have integrated to the English culture left outside. I also edited my latest post quite late. I added a question about GHOP that I have been wondering. I also wonder why some Bellamy's men called their forced man as "a Presbyterian dog…[who] should fight for King James.” Do they mean that he is a dog because he is a Presbyterian but not a Jacobite? At first I would get an impression that those pirates were Jacobites and they despised the man because he was a Presbyterian, but it would not make much sense. Weren't Presbyterians among the most common Jacobite supporters? So I think they despised him because he was a Presbyterian but not a Jacobite and thus a traitor. Though weren't Presbyterians hated among various groups of people anyway. Also, how many pirates were actually Catholics? Certainly Catholics were more inclined to Jacobitism than Protestants (but indeed most Jacobite supporters were not Catholics and many Anglicans were Jacobites as well). For example Edward England who sailed Royal James was probably, despite his name, an Irishman.(He also showed sympathy toward Scottish Captain Macrae, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything). Also, I think John Rackham was born in Cuba, but his parents were English. Perhaps his family members were English Catholics since it seems odd that there was an English family (perhaps even living) in Spanish owned island.This is though mere speculation. In any case most pirates were certainly Anglicans or other Protestants. By the way, do have any records of pirates having Jacobite symbolism in pirate flags? I think there is none. But: what if Bart Robert's habit to use old naval ensign rather than the post 1707 one was a Jacobite sentiment. Didn't many Jacobites, especially the Scottish ones, protested the 1707 Union between England and Scotland of 1707? Roberts was not Scottish but his crew had some... It seems that Bart Roberts and his crew used this flag among his pirate colours rather than the 1707 version

Agreed. But, there are signs of rather radical defiance too. I am not debating or I am but I am not disagreeing. Earlier 1690s pirate named Dirk Shivers, who sailed with e.g Robert Culliford, has said to have threatened a governor in India (feel free to correct as this is info found on many pirate websites and thus secondary sources and might be inaccurate) "We acknowledge no country, having sold our own, and as we are sure to be hanged if taken, we shall have no scruple in murdering and destroying if our demands are not granted in full" Also, while this was written in General History of Pirates in his book Republic of Pirates Colin Woodard thinks it was originally written by Captain Beer, an eye witness, himself (certainly Woodard may be wrong...) Bellamy said to Captain Beer in this rather popularly cited speech: "D—n my Bl—d, says he, I am sorry they won't let you have your Sloop again, for I scorn to do any one a Mischief, when it is not for my Advantage; damn the Sloop, we must sink her, and she might be of Use to you. Tho’, damn ye, you are a sneaking Puppy, and so are all those who will submit to be governed by Laws which rich Men have made for their own Security, for the cowardly Whelps have not the Courage otherwise to defend what they get by their Knavery; but damn ye altogether: Damn them for a Pack of crafty Rascals, and you, who serve them, for a Parcel of hen-hearted Numskuls. They villify us, the Scoundrels do, when there is only this Difference, they rob the Poor under the Cover of Law, forsooth, and we plunder the Rich under the Protection of our own Courage; had you not better make One of us, than sneak after the A—s of these Villains for Employment? Capt. Beer told him, that his Conscience would not allow him to break thro’ the Laws of God and Man. You are a devilish Conscience Rascal, d—n ye, replied Bellamy, I am a free Prince, and I have as much Authority to make War on the whole World, as he who has a hundred Sail of Ships at Sea, and an Army of 100,000 Men in the Field; and this my Conscience tells me; but there is no arguing with such sniveling Puppies, who allow Superiors to kick them about Deck at Pleasure; and pin their Faith upon a Pimp of a Parson; a Squab, who neither practices nor believes what he puts upon the chuckle-headed Fools he preaches to." And Again there is this that George Roberts wrote. mentioned here earlier by me.... One pirate said that "...Our Business here, is to chuse a King for our Commonwealth; to make such Laws as we think most conducive to the Ends we design; and to keep ourselves from being overcome and subjected to the Penalty of those Laws which are made against us." It is also clear that in many cases the pirates' team spirit was great and and that they for the most part cared only for their own company. Blackbeard's revenge on Boston ships for Bellamy's hanged men was just a one case example of that. Also it seems that pirates for the most part though practically. Stede Bonnet was Eager to get a privateer commission from the Danish of St. Thomas but it doesn't mean he was a Danish patriot. Certainly pirates' Jacobite leanings were rather serious at least in some cases and more than just mere practicality or facade. However, didn't admiral Camocke write that they and pirates had a "common enemy" who was George... (that was what, I think, he wrote in his letters later (again quited in Woodard's book) Certainly there is holes in e.g Rederiker's theories about Villains of all nations, but it is clear that there are some arguments to support such views. Another thing. Arne Bialuschewski had though that General History of Pirates was written by Nathaniel Mist, who was a committed Jacobite. Bialuschewski has good arguments so it well may be true. If indeed so are there sings of hidden Jacobite messages in the book meaning propaganda?

Indeed.... I think this might not be news but. I don't own any Benerson Little's book but I saw a good preview in Google Books. Fortunately it happens that there is also something about pirate flags. Page 11 of "How History's Greatest Pirates Pillaged, Plundered, and Got Away With It: The Stories, Techniques, and Tactics of the Most Feared Sea Rovers from 1500-1800" says about popular Moody's flag: "The flag... commonly attributed without evidence to Christopher Moody, is actually a Barbary corsair design from the late 17th century." I also wonder why there is two versions of "Moody's" pirate flag. One with a wreath on the skull and one without I would guess that the design with a wreath is older as I am pretty sure I have seen old engraving image of it (possibly in Cordingly's "Pirates: Fact and Fiction" and if I am not mistaken he said it was a Barbary pirate flag). It fits as a wreath might symbolize Western people in Barbary states (since Ancient Rome perhaps) and in that case it might be an European's skull depicted in the flag. Thus the skull in the flag would be a threat to Western mariners. (Similarly I have thought that Avery's fake flag with skull would rather mean dead Indian/Muslim sailor with earring and bandanna (near turban). I have never though it was pirate's skull depicted in that flag (so I think that even if Avery's flag would have been real it still didn't suggest that pirates had much earrings...) Another interesting thing about bloody flags: It seems that in the 17th century Dutch navy used a red ensign (that looks a lot like Thomas Tew's fake flag. I think the one who invented the Tew's fake Jolly Roger got the idea from here). For example in this Peter van de Velde's painting (circa 1670-1679) we see such a flag Same here: Dutch ships bomb Tripoli in a punitive expedition against the Barbary pirates. circa 1670 (note it is not Barbary pirates using it but it is used by the Dutch man of war)