Privateers

[Fox]

There were certainly a great many similarities between pirates and privateers. Both were involved primarily in maritime plunder, and used force or the threat of force to overwhelm merchant vessels for economic gain. Operationally there were common trends between them: both tended to carry large crews compared to merchant ships of similar size; both preferred to use intimidation rather than actual violence to subdue their prey; both were regulated by articles of agreement. For the average merchant captain at sea the difference between being captured by an enemy privateer and being captured by pirates would have been negligible.

It is also true that pirates and privateers were often the same people at different times.Sometimes this was a result of changing circumstances - for example, at the end of the War of the Spanish Succession it was former privateers from English colonies that formed the nucleus of the golden age pirates: men like Blackbeard, Hornigold, Jennings, Ashworth and others slipping from one form of employment to the other. At other times it was caused by privateers exceeding the terms of their commission. Thomas Tew, William Kidd, John Quelch and others all started out as privateers but crossed the line into piracy when they attacked shipping not covered by their commissions. Occasionally, as in the case of Morgan, they inadvertently became pirates when their commissions were revoked without their knowledge. For what it's worth, Drake was never a privateer.

However, there were also many differences between pirates and privateers, operationally, legally, and economically. For example, although both were regulated by articles, the privateers' articles were drawn up by, or with the consent of, the owners and investors in the cruise, while pirate articles were drawn up by the crew themselves. Privateer officers were appointed by the owners and could only be deposed by the crew if the crew was willing to turn pirate, unlike pirate crews in which officers could be replaced at will. (I think that the case for pirates voting their officers in and out of office has been greatly overstated, but that's another story). Crucially, privateers had access to friendly and neutral ports in which to refit and resupply, which pirates did not. As has already been pointed out, privateers were limited in their choice of targets, and while some pirates like Hornigold chose not to attack English shipping, this was unusual and was also their own choice, not a limitation imposed by others.

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made that there were as many differences between pirates and privateers as there were similarities. I'm not sure I'd say they were 'virtually the same'.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

There were certainly a great many similarities between pirates and privateers. Both were involved primarily in maritime plunder, and used force or the threat of force to overwhelm merchant vessels for economic gain. Operationally there were common trends between them: both tended to carry large crews compared to merchant ships of similar size; both preferred to use intimidation rather than actual violence to subdue their prey; both were regulated by articles of agreement. For the average merchant captain at sea the difference between being captured by an enemy privateer and being captured by pirates would have been negligible.

It is also true that pirates and privateers were often the same people at different times.Sometimes this was a result of changing circumstances - for example, at the end of the War of the Spanish Succession it was former privateers from English colonies that formed the nucleus of the golden age pirates: men like Blackbeard, Hornigold, Jennings, Ashworth and others slipping from one form of employment to the other. At other times it was caused by privateers exceeding the terms of their commission. Thomas Tew, William Kidd, John Quelch and others all started out as privateers but crossed the line into piracy when they attacked shipping not covered by their commissions. Occasionally, as in the case of Morgan, they inadvertently became pirates when their commissions were revoked without their knowledge. For what it's worth, Drake was never a privateer.

However, there were also many differences between pirates and privateers, operationally, legally, and economically. For example, although both were regulated by articles, the privateers' articles were drawn up by, or with the consent of, the owners and investors in the cruise, while pirate articles were drawn up by the crew themselves. Privateer officers were appointed by the owners and could only be deposed by the crew if the crew was willing to turn pirate, unlike pirate crews in which officers could be replaced at will. (I think that the case for pirates voting their officers in and out of office has been greatly overstated, but that's another story). Crucially, privateers had access to friendly and neutral ports in which to refit and resupply, which pirates did not. As has already been pointed out, privateers were limited in their choice of targets, and while some pirates like Hornigold chose not to attack English shipping, this was unusual and was also their own choice, not a limitation imposed by others.

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made that there were as many differences between pirates and privateers as there were similarities. I'm not sure I'd say they were 'virtually the same'.

Good points there...

[Fox]

They usually are

[Swashbuckler 1700]

There were certainly a great many similarities between pirates and privateers. Both were involved primarily in maritime plunder, and used force or the threat of force to overwhelm merchant vessels for economic gain. Operationally there were common trends between them: both tended to carry large crews compared to merchant ships of similar size; both preferred to use intimidation rather than actual violence to subdue their prey; both were regulated by articles of agreement. For the average merchant captain at sea the difference between being captured by an enemy privateer and being captured by pirates would have been negligible.

It is also true that pirates and privateers were often the same people at different times.Sometimes this was a result of changing circumstances - for example, at the end of the War of the Spanish Succession it was former privateers from English colonies that formed the nucleus of the golden age pirates: men like Blackbeard, Hornigold, Jennings, Ashworth and others slipping from one form of employment to the other. At other times it was caused by privateers exceeding the terms of their commission. Thomas Tew, William Kidd, John Quelch and others all started out as privateers but crossed the line into piracy when they attacked shipping not covered by their commissions. Occasionally, as in the case of Morgan, they inadvertently became pirates when their commissions were revoked without their knowledge. For what it's worth, Drake was never a privateer.

However, there were also many differences between pirates and privateers, operationally, legally, and economically. For example, although both were regulated by articles, the privateers' articles were drawn up by, or with the consent of, the owners and investors in the cruise, while pirate articles were drawn up by the crew themselves. Privateer officers were appointed by the owners and could only be deposed by the crew if the crew was willing to turn pirate, unlike pirate crews in which officers could be replaced at will. (I think that the case for pirates voting their officers in and out of office has been greatly overstated, but that's another story). Crucially, privateers had access to friendly and neutral ports in which to refit and resupply, which pirates did not. As has already been pointed out, privateers were limited in their choice of targets, and while some pirates like Hornigold chose not to attack English shipping, this was unusual and was also their own choice, not a limitation imposed by others.

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made that there were as many differences between pirates and privateers as there were similarities. I'm not sure I'd say they were 'virtually the same'.

what you believe about this: I believe that even some pirates had their investors… let’s say some Carolinian merchant invested some money to pirates that they Gould get to the trip, and make a pact that he would get some loot cheaper… What I mean that: at least both privateering and pirating were both organized business with all those articles and so on…

I have also read that often people invested to privateers that they would know to become pirates just after they had left the port…

I am not saying that there were no difference between pirates and privateers since they were lots of those differences...

Edited February 18, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

I have also read that often people invested to privateers that they would know to become pirates just after they had left the port…

Do you have any period evidence of this? (Not suppositions from a post-period author trying to make a case for his pet belief. There's a lot of that out there.)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I have also read that often people invested to privateers that they would know to become pirates just after they had left the port…

Do you have any period evidence of this? (Not suppositions from a post-period author trying to make a case for his pet belief. There's a lot of that out there.)

well I have not studied much records (since I have no good access to those) but some (good but not flawless) book said so... I am certain of that that happened but I try to find some evidence...

Edited February 18, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

A general observation: I've noticed, Swashbuckler, a few times in various threads you have mentioned "some book" or other. It would be much better to tell us which book and who wrote it, allowing us to make up our own minds whether it's good, flawless, or rubbish.

[Capt. Sterling]

And well between privateer and pirate there is only difference that privateers give some loot to goverment and don't use Pirate Flag...

No, they only takes ships with whom the country issuing the letter of the marque is at war with. They are technically a private extension of the issuing country's forces. Pirates take ships from any nation.

Not entirely true... IF a neutral was shipping items from a country that one was at war with, one could also take that ship...for example if the privateer hails from England and is at war with France, and not at war with Spain, but the English privateer catches a Spanish ship with French cargo items, the English privateer could take the Spanish ship... again a lot harder to tackle in the Admiralty courts but it was done. IF ye screwed up, ye would have to pay damages.

** up to his ears at the University of Virginia Law School with privateering laws... and vice admirality court papers...

Edited February 18, 2012 by Capt. Sterling

[Mission]

Excellent point. I actually did know that at one time because one or other of the Journals I was reading talked about taking a ship and letting it go when no offending goods were found. (Was it Rogers?) It was still based on the original proposition, though: a true privateer only took those ships with whom they were at war. In this case, the presumption being that Spanish ship was trading with, and thus indirectly abetting, the French.

[Capt. Sterling]

Excellent point. I actually did know that at one time because one or other of the Journals I was reading talked about taking a ship and letting it go when no offending goods were found. (Was it Rogers?) It was still based on the original proposition, though: a true privateer only took those ships with whom they were at war. In this case, the presumption being that Spanish ship was trading with, and thus indirectly abetting, the French.

That seems to be the arguement in the courts... they (in this case the Spanish) are no longer truly neutral...it becomes quiet the mess...

[Capt. Sterling]

I guess Willoughby's nickname Lawyer Sterling is coming to pass....thank God for UVA, finally struck it rich and only a mile away.... and I don't have to keep pestering Foxe all the time

Edited February 18, 2012 by Capt. Sterling

[Swashbuckler 1700]

A general observation: I've noticed, Swashbuckler, a few times in various threads you have mentioned "some book" or other. It would be much better to tell us which book and who wrote it, allowing us to make up our own minds whether it's good, flawless, or rubbish.

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...

Edited February 18, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700