Swashbuckler 1700

Odd perspective that the there book has .... This reminds me of rumors of Black bart as gay...... What are propably just rumor...

Why is that book worthless?

The red flag can really be fake there is many details that don't seem right..

Real or not? is there any reason to believe that it would be inaccurate? Why there are so many Kennedys and Evanss whyyyy and they confuse people....(not expecting answer to that )

Real or not? is there any reason to believe that it would be inaccurate?

Hi I have found this on the web and from books like in "If a pirate I must be: the true story of Bartholomew Roberts, king of the Caribbean" from google books this Gaop Quote is here and it shows us how pirates would like to swagger with gentleman's clothes or in this case wig and powder... at least in drunk. one victim described what happened when pirates found his wig."I could not refrain laughing when I saw the fellows, for they had, in rummaging my cabin, met with a leather powder bag and puff, with which they had powdered themselves from head to foot, walked the decks with their hats under their arms, minced their oaths, and affected all the airs of a beau with an awkwardness that would have forced a smile from a cynic."

http://www.bonaventure.org.uk/ed/flags.htm there is some quite good information... I have often come accors a black flag with "dead's head" meaning skull About the red flag it is not propably real at all Foxe can explain why...

Yeah. he has been mentioned here earlier. Interesting privateer...

So If wounted soldier would used those (practically in same time period) why not wounted sailor or pirate alike but certainly they were rare... and Foxe has your stance toward wooden legs changed after you wrote this: http://www.piratesin...legends_944.asp ? I doubt he's changed his views since he's basically saying the same thing I already told you. (Nor do I see how his quote you cited disagrees with any of his comments in that article from 2009.) While I had never read Ed's comment at Piracy.com (I left that site in 2004), I found the same material via my own research, so I'd say it stands on its own. Point being, a prosthetic was far more common at this time period than people seem to think, particularly for anyone involved in battles. Speaking period naval persons with missing limbs I have long time ago came across Blas de Lezo (to let you know or if you did know this to refresh your menory read the wiki) http://en.wikipedia....ki/Blas_de_Lezo

Ah, you see, that's what I was talking about, it's all about context and circumstances. As for swords in seaman's effects, not sure. I've yet to encounter one, plus I am not sure how it would go over with a merchant captain for the crew to be arming themselves. He did often keep the weapons intended for ship defense locked up, so I don't think he would take to a common crewmember bringing one onboard. As for that History channel clip, they got quite a bit of that right (surprisingly) especially the first half. But, the firearms they had were all models after our time period, with the exception of the pistols that could be from as early as about 1720, but it's hard to say. If I would be merchant captain I would keep the weapons locked up.... since if you pay tiny salary (and that is what captains often did) there is always chance of mutiny and I would be nervous if crew would pad around with swords and pistols

well to be honest I don't believe that voodoo stuff is real....

To be precise I also believe that there is some truth there but the voodoo stufff can be truth . And Well I have obsession to use smileys even if there is no need .. so you did not said anything dumb but I just meant with that smiley that... well I don't know...

I have to say that we must remenber that there is differense between those pirates who plundered fishing vessels in boston and those like B. Robets or E. England who were more succesful, so weaponry like clothing or ship's size would tell how succesful pirates were...

Well it is still good source, but not perfect

pirates (if desperate) would use fists and kicks or bites to figth... yes seriosly

Well, a ship boarding combat was not limited to swordplay or those with swords. A boarding action could get real nasty. You used anything you could get your hands on as a weapon. Traditional weapons are used of course, and then you get into boarding axes, boarding pikes, and then tools turned to mayhem. A handspike for instance makes an excellent club. Sometimes it would come down to wrestling your opponnent according to Bennerson Little in Sea Rovers Practice. While not perfect (it is a typical hollywood 'everyone board' situation), the final combat scene in the Master and Commander movie gets pretty close. One point really sticks out to me in there, a Frenchmen is strangling a british sailor with his arm, and yells for a fellow British sailor for help. His friend tosses him a pistol, leaving himself with no weapons, and then gets pistoled by a young Frenchmen hiding somewhere. While over the long term of a boarding a cutlass was the preferred weapon, a firearm (especially a pistol) would be preffered for killing someone, since its just a trigger pull away from doing away with your oppenent. Also, as you say, the pistol becomes a club, and so can the musket. But, as I pointed out before, there are the factors of lack of skill among these guys using swords (uncommon to say the least that these guys would have training with a sword), the availability of swords (like I said in the last email, it's all about the circumstances to say how many swords would be around), and the fact that it's rare that the whole crew would board or need to board. Those typical pirate movie boarding actions where the whole crew swings over are and fights a large enemy crew are very rare. Sending a smaller well armed part of the crew was more common. Trying to send the whole crew could be inconvenient, and sending in part also meant that you could send in more men later if necessary. Like I said before, you're not going to need to send the whole crew when going after seven to a dozen merchant crewmembers. Heck, sometimes even outnumbered pirates can still subdue a merchant crew due to firepower and the element of surprise. Don't forget, pirates didn't like taking too far an unecessary risk, and if battle could be avoided to save time, powder, and potential death or injury in battle - they would. Saying that a lot of pirates or many of the pirates would be armed with swords is too generalizing of a statement. I think a more accurate and inclusive statement would be that pirates would obtain arms whenever and wherever they could so they could be heavily armed and ready for any possible engagement and more easily intimidate their opponents into surrender. This would frequently include swords, but a firearm (in particular the musket) would more likely be a higher priority to have since it had more utility, would be found more frequently, and could kill from a distance. I know that documentaries are often quite bad but this clip says much http://www.history.c...pirate-firearms **** those American ads there

I add that even that modern idea of pirates as Swashbucklers is not very accurate and they indeed favored firearms rather than close quarters combat, they were some bloody close combats...like the classic final battle of Bbeard... or one Worley's figts.... Foxe should give some period papers/other stuff that would show how much The crews made ​​the resistance against pirates in reality.. I bet that there is not many of raports and usually they would just surender... but since I have underestimated other stuff like pirate ships I may be wrong..

I quote Gordingly (I know he has some not so good theories but he knows still lots of things) he has said/written someting like this:"... pirates would yell and wag their swords to terrorise the ship that they were capturing, trying to frighten enemy's crew to surender" so that was why the swords were needed...

While that is likely just a story.. It can also be very true while I don't believe that it was...

I may be showing my ignorance here, but I wonder where that story is from? (I confess I haven't read the General History in over 20 years. I really need to set down and read it again, looking for medical references.) Here is 1724 edition and you can search with term inside the book... so easier to just search that read whole book http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/historyfiction/viewer.aspx?id=joh

The matchlock is quite a interesting weapon in terms of it's place in firearms history. As MarkG points out, more dangerous than the flintlocks and pretty hard to use for hunting. But even with that consideration, what throws me are the European powers were throwing these to their colonies into the early parts of the 18th century. For instance, in 1705, the Governor of Virginia requested more firearms for their state armory since most of them went up in a fire. And what does the Ordnance department send them? Old matchlocks (which ticks of the colonists since by that point they were pretty used to flintlocks). (Ref: American Military Shoulder Arms, Vol 1) The worst offender was Spain by far. St. Augustine dealt with matchlocks for the longest times in their armory. It took forever for the number of firelocks of some sort to outnumber the matchlocks. In the 1680s, the wives of deceased soldiers in St. Augustine had to be stopped from continuing the tradition of taking the weapons of their passed on husbands and selling them to those on ships coming into port at St. Augustine, all because of how short weapons they were (and operational weapons). Even in 1698 when arms were sent to Pensacola, Florida, they sent 300 matchlocks to 100 flintlocks (and since the garisson of that town was too small for that many weapons at the time, there is the question of what purpose those guns were all for and if they actually got that many). (Ref: Firearms in Colonial America) It's no wonder the illegal trade of firearms from the Dutch and English to the Spanish was strong. So to summary: Flintlocks were more popular but there were lots of old matchlocks, especially in colonies. Sailors and pirates would probaply favor flintlocks since they were more reliable in wet conditions aboard ship...

Well reason to that is mainly that often I don't remember what book it was... but now I am pretty sure that this privateer information was from: Cochran Hamilton's "Pirates of the Spanish main" from 1973 (at least it's Finnish version). Note that I dont own this book so I can not be certain...

Oh I forgot that match is different thing that fuse...

yep and if there were need for fuses why don't use one of them to musket... but I am certain of that that on ship flintlock was the best...