corsair2k3

Greetings, Don't know about Rackham, but Banister hung out in Samana Bay as did Edward England--and possibly Roberts. The Corsair

Not too mention the fact that the geo-ecology of the place is simply horrifc--even if there were something there, it'd be the devil's own time to find it. Especially since there have been some very large-scale changes in topography. The Corsair

Greetings, Jump off a cliff and save yourself a lot of time and trouble. At least two of the treasures supposed to be at Cocos are completely bogus--and the third, if it was true, isn't there anymore. 1. The Edward Davis Cache.: It's well documented that he brought his back with him and that it was confiscated by the English government after he took the Pardon (while he got some of it back through legal action, a lot of it ended up as an endowment to William & Mary. While some of his men might have left odd bits here and there, there's no huge hoard 2. "Bloody Bonita's Booty"--this one is a total goof. Bennett Graham never operated in the Pacific, no vessel named HMS Devonshire was ever taken by him (or anyone else), and there is no record of any pirate vessel named Relampago ever operating in the Pacific. 3. The Thompson Treasure: Maybe. But, if you have a look at Theon Wright's book VOYAGE OF THE HERMAN it's pretty clear that the hoard was lifted and reburied IF it existed in the first place Regards, The Corsair

Greetings, Taking this a step further: It wasn't just Massachusetts. There were seldom more than 4 pirates hanged out of any captured crew till 1718 when the British government got serious about suppressing piracy. Prior to that, captured pirates would simply be sent to the nearest warship what needed crew. Regards, The Corsair

Keep them happy these season by paying a visit to: http://whydah.com/store/ Regards, The Corsair

Here's an example of the kind of advertisements that were placed in the colonial newspapers regarding runaway servants and sailors: This one appeared in the American Weekly Mercury of March 17, 1720 and was with regard to Samuel Benbrook... ""a North Country Man aged about 21 Years, Short Brownish Hair, Round-Faced. He has on one hand blue S.F. in blue letters and on the other hand blue Spots, and upon one arm our Saviour upon the Cross and on the other Adam and Eve, all supposed to be done in Gunpowder. He is a Saylor " Regards, The Corsair

Greetings, EIC factories west coast of India c.1670's-1680's. As to colonial newspapers for perusal in Great Britain: Originals might be held at the British Library and/or the PRO. There are microfilms of early colonial newspapers which might be available at very good university libraries. Not sure of anything on-line. Regards, The Corsair

Greetings, For a very short period of time in the mid 1600's, the East India Company conducted piracy trials and other criminal proceedings in its assigned jurisdiction. I don't THINK they were allowed to inflict capital punishment, however. Charles Gray in PIRATES OF THE EASTERN SEAS discusses this, and mentions several cases where convicted pirates were branded with a "P" As to tattoos: I can't think of any pirates specifically mentioned as having them. But the colonial newspapers of the time (1715-1725) would advertise runaway servants and sailors with descriptions (this would be a good source of info for re-enactors) I've run across mention of tatoos in these descriptions. The ones that stick out in my mind were the Jerusalem Cross, Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden with the Serpent, and the Crucifixion. My focus of research was elsewhere, so I didn't pay a whole lot of attention--I'm sure mention of more designs might be found. Also worthwhile for the description of clothing worn. Regards, The Corsair

...while I'm thinking of it: It's also not a book to be leaving around where the kids can find it. Regards, The Corsair

Greetings, The Requiem Shark is a novel about Bart Roberts' crew--from the point of view of a crew-member. Some big words. Although it only came out a few years ago, it's not an easy volume to find--probably because its a complete opposite to romantic swashbucklers. Best, The Corsair

Greetings, Having some time ago attained the dubious honor of sufficient years to assume assorted duties and responsibilities, it has been a fair amount of time since I have read any pirate-themed fiction for "fun" [an alien concept to yours truly fer sure!] Anyhow, circumstances recently prompted me to read The Requiem Shark. ["And it took him long enough!" says you] That, in turn, prompted me to wonder what fictional pirate books might come closest to historical accuracy in the view of my fellow denizens of "Ye Olde Pyracy Pubbe" Many Thanx in Advance, The [super-Annuated] Corsair.

Greetings, I'll have to look to see for sure, but it's either FBC Bradlee or Gardner Allen who offhandedly cites a news story in Niles' Register attesting to the historical existence of a pirate named "Gasparilla" I will be the first to proclaim, however, that the stories told by Panther Key John Gomez and assorted community boosters from Tampa to Naples are pure tripe. Regards, The Corsair

Well said, Foxe! The Corsair

...poster and print prices through december http://whydah.com/store/index.php?cPath=8&...478bfd0bcabee8e Regards, The Corsair

...is back on the market. The crew at the WM got their hands on some of these long-lost gems and are selling them fast... http://whydah.com/store/product_info.php?c...products_id=244 The Corsair

Greetings, The name is very similar to that of the doctoral student which was given to me. I suspect that the article you cite is a revision of the same doctoral thesis I was told about. Thanks so much! The Corsair

Greetings, Several reasons: A. No one in their right mind would have put their real name to that book. B. The playwright's work bears about as much resemblance to GHP as my work resembles that of Thomas Wolfe (the talented one). I don't think that GHP was written by a professional sea captain--there isn't enough personal observations of various locales. And, what there description of such is there, can be attributed to cribbing from other sources--eg Atkins etc. Regards, The Corsair

Greetings, Some "at-random-and-unorganized comments" [A 1000 pardons if I accidentally repeat any of Moore's arguments] I USED to think that another reason for thinking it was Defoe was that the glimmerings of the unknown author's political attitudes relflected those of Defoe. That was before I really understood how good Defoe was at talking out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously. Another point in his favor is that the GHP was clearly not the first work of "Johnson". Whoever did the deed was an accomplished wordsmith --someone who used words for a living--and was very good at it. Also that the unknown author--while very knowledgeable about maritime matters--was far more interested in details of maritime commerce than he was in other aspects of maritime life. That again fits Defoe. Some of the "stories" he covers --as well as some he omits--seem to fit extremely well with known facts re. Defoe's travels and interests. Have since learned, however, that many of these "factoids" have alternate explanations that do not involve the "Defoe was Johnson" thesis. And, in point of fact, Johnson's treatment of Kidd is a not-so-bad argument for the proposition that "Defoe was not Johnson" "And the beat goes on..." Nowadays, I'm not sure that he can be completely ruled out--unless one gets busy and uses the sort of literary forensic techniques employed by Don Foster (AUTHOR UNKNOWN). But the argument of "Defoe against the World" certainly cannot be sustained given the available evidence. Is there a better candidate? I was told a number of years ago that there is a doctoral thesis by a German claiming that Nathaniel Mist was "Johnson" This makes some sense to me in a number of respects. But, again, I doubt that the matter can be proven UNLESS some sort of external evidence is recovered--such as a publisher's receipt or other such smoking gun. Regards, The Corsair

I'll join you there! I think that having a look at Snelgrave and Roberts will provide additional insights on QMS. Anyhow, onto "De-Whoops-Johnson" Regards, The Corsair

Greetings, In the interests of facilitating the study of historical piracy, we are in the process of creating online bibs of pirate-related research materials, as well as to improve access to such materials. The first draft of the first category--"Scholarly Works" has been completed, and can be viewed at: http://www.whydah.com/page.php?id=ph02122 [you might have to cut and paste this URL into your browser] Future bibiliographical pages will include "General Works" "Contemporary Printed Sources" and a Manuscript bibliography. There will also be bibs for fact and fiction for all ages. All comments will be welcome, but, some (particularly fawning adulation) might be better directed privately to corsair2k3@yahoo.com rather than to the Pub as a whole. The advent of new bibliographic pages will be announced as replies to this thread. Best Regards, The Corsair

Greetings, Apologies for the delay in response. Aside from being ill, the holiday weekend intervened in a major way. This thread has gotten pretty cluttered and so I'd just like to make a few points. From the contemporary source evidence I've seen, QMs exercised command functions of various sorts (prize command, boarding parties etc) but that their most important functions were "civil" (distribution of plunter & provisions, watch- and quarter-bills, settling disputes, assorted adjudications and negotiations, etc) [What I can NOT find evidence of is that the pirate QMs actually exercised the traditonal functions entailed by this office/title in either the merchant or the naval services--it's my opinion that, however the office might have started life among the privateers/pirates, it rapidly evolved into a unique position.] Be that as it may, it's my opinion that the QM can be considered the most important officer within a pirate crew in terms of both assigned duties as well as considerations of status/prestige--and that the relative importance of the QM to a pirate crew was considerably greater than that of the importance of a merchant or naval QM to a merchant or naval crew. Where we ARE in agreement, however, is that the pirate QMs should not be described as a "second-in-command". It is also a generalization to describe them as being "in charge of all things except when in battle or pursuit" Regards, The Corsair

Greetings, A pirate movie makes a great holiday gift! We've put together a list of great pirate films here at: http://www.whydah.com/page.php?id=ph011 [you might have to cut and paste this into your browser] In many instances we are even able to obtain out of print titles. Best Regards, The Corsair Who hopes everyone had a nice weekend!

Corsair: QM was not very important to the actual operation of the pirate ship. He was more analogous to a political commissars of the early Red Army. Foxe: Precisely. The way I put it to someone else recently was to draw a parallel between the QM on a pirate ship, and a trade union rep in a factory. The TU rep is usually someone of minor impotance to the work of the factory, say a foreman or line manager. He does not really have any say in the running of the factory, he does not decide for example what the factory produces, where they buy their materials from or who they sell to, but he does have a certain sway over how the factory is run. He can for example take issue with the working hours, overtime payments, holiday allowance that sort of thing: but in this it is not his personal power, he is only acting as the representative of the workers at the factory. In the most serious of cases he has the power to bring work to a stop by calling a strike. Corsair: This is also a pretty good analogy--but for a few exceptions. It's pretty clear that the QMs of most crews were responsible for certain vital aspects of how the "factory" was run. For example, allocation of provisions, and distribution of plunder. Not to mention frequently being nominated as "plant manager" of new "factories" Corsair: Foxe: That could be as much to do with the size of vessel as with anything else. Had any pirates got hold of any really large merchantmen for any length of time it might have been different - Corsair: >No, no difference--even among gangs like Roberts' which were comparable in size to the crew of a fifth-rate or more Foxe: however, that is and can only be speculation on both our parts. The real question is how many mates a merchant vessel of similar size might have carried. I can't answer that off hand Corsair: From what I've seen, a rough rule of thumb might be one mate if under a hundred tons, two if 100-300, more if it were an Indiaman. Foxe: but I can tell you the officers aboard a RN sloop in 1686: Captain/Master Boatswain Carpenter Cook Mate (one) They didn't even have a QM! Foxe: That doesn't surprise me. The QM was the civil officer with responsibility for assets and plunder. The captain of a captured vessel would surely be considered the responsibility of the QM for that reason. Corsair: >But there's a matter of relative status involved here --as well as the fact that looting a prize (and all the associated interactions) were the raison d'etre of a pirate crew. Have a look at the Snelgrave and George Roberts accounts and I think you will see what I mean: the handling of a prize was not simply a matter of "Pirate talk, prisoners listen" Captured merchants were able to bargain with pirate gangs re. some issues (and did so successfully in some instances) and the person that they generally negotiated with was the QM. This in turn implies that the pirates considered their QMs as being on a par with the merchant captain. The 18th-century was a time when relative status was of great importance in any social interaction--whether friendly or hostile. Albeit the pirates were less bound by this than others, I don't see them sending someone little more than a glorified accountant to take charge of a prize. Here's another possible litmus test: look at the typical piratical "career track". Which of the following tracks was most common? Master to Captain? QM to Captain? Bosun to Captain? Gunner to Captain? Surgeon to Captain? Carpenter to Captain? [etc] ************************************************************ Foxe: One thing I would like to make clear: I am, on this thread and others, talking generally. It is easy I'm sure to find one example to discredit any theory or statement, so I am not trying to suggest that my arguments go for every pirate ship and crew, only for most. . ditto that, The Corsair

It's the fever, mate! Curse yellow jack, anyhow! [And many apologies!] The Corsair

You see, that's the bit I can't get my head round. Yes, I can agree that the QM had extra duties, I can even see that one one occasion at least he was entitled to shares beyond his dues as a result, and I can see that given his "shop steward" status he was more important to pirate vessels than RN or merchant ships. BUT I fail to see the evidence that he was of greater importance than the other officers to the ship as a whole. Ok--I see what you're saying now. Yes, the QM was not very important to the actual operation of the pirate ship. He was more analogous to a political commissars of the early Red Army. Any sailing vessel must, to a certain extent, have a chain of command, but I agree that pirate vessels probably had a much looser one than others. One important consideration for merchantmen was to keep the cost down, which included not paying unneccessary officers. I think it's fair to say that by looking at the ranks of merchantmen we get a much better idea of the importance of officers to the actual mechanics of sailing a ship during that period. If you have officers it stands to reason that you have - to a certain extent at least - a chain of command. If officers have no command then they are not officers. However, like I said, I do agree that they would tend to be somewhat looser, principally due I think to the fact that their power rested in the cooperation of those below them. The other thing to consider is the officers that pirate ships did NOT have. For example, very seldom was there a First Mate and never a Second Mate. That's the kind of thing I am beginning to query. Apart from noting the relative importance of quartermasters in Robert's crew is there any evidence to show that this was generally the case, rather than occasionally so? I've got quite a bit of evidence gathered which suggests otherwise. I am slowly recovering from the plague to the extent that I'm interested in hearing more--one problem in understanding pirate crews of this period is that the witnesses weren't sociologiists, anthropologists or organizational analysts. They were seamen--those who had been captured by pirates. One tip-off though is that in many--if not the majority--of accounts of captured merchant captains, they are intereacting with the pirate QM as much, or more, than the pirate captain. Thanks, I've heard of it before and thought I really ought to get a copy. I might even come to you first since you've been so helpful and friendly I'll set aside a copy! :-) While I'm thinking of it: www.whydah.com is setting up a book/film finder section to the site. Watch the Plunder Pages for more details. I'm also going to be uploading my manuscript bibs there. Best Regards, The Corsair You see, that's the bit I can't get my head round. Yes, I can agree that the QM had extra duties, I can even see that one one occasion at least he was entitled to shares beyond his dues as a result, and I can see that given his "shop steward" status he was more important to pirate vessels than RN or merchant ships. BUT I fail to see the evidence that he was of greater importance than the other officers to the ship as a whole. Ok--I see what you're saying now. Yes, the QM was not very important to the actual operation of the pirate ship. He was more analogous to a political commissars of the early Red Army. Any sailing vessel must, to a certain extent, have a chain of command, but I agree that pirate vessels probably had a much looser one than others. One important consideration for merchantmen was to keep the cost down, which included not paying unneccessary officers. I think it's fair to say that by looking at the ranks of merchantmen we get a much better idea of the importance of officers to the actual mechanics of sailing a ship during that period. If you have officers it stands to reason that you have - to a certain extent at least - a chain of command. If officers have no command then they are not officers. However, like I said, I do agree that they would tend to be somewhat looser, principally due I think to the fact that their power rested in the cooperation of those below them. The other thing to consider is the officers that pirate ships did NOT have. For example, very seldom was there a First Mate and never a Second Mate. That's the kind of thing I am beginning to query. Apart from noting the relative importance of quartermasters in Robert's crew is there any evidence to show that this was generally the case, rather than occasionally so? I've got quite a bit of evidence gathered which suggests otherwise. I am slowly recovering from the plague to the extent that I'm interested in hearing more--one problem in understanding pirate crews of this period is that the witnesses weren't sociologiists, anthropologists or organizational analysts. They were seamen--those who had been captured by pirates. One tip-off though is that in many--if not the majority--of accounts of captured merchant captains, they are intereacting with the pirate QM as much, or more, than the pirate captain. Thanks, I've heard of it before and thought I really ought to get a copy. I might even come to you first since you've been so helpful and friendly I'll set aside a copy! :-) While I'm thinking of it: www.whydah.com is setting up a book/film finder section to the site. Watch the Plunder Pages for more details. I'm also going to be uploading my manuscript bibs there. Best Regards, The Corsair