GAOP ???

[Cascabel]

(Duplicate of my posting in the Crow's Nest)

I have always wondered just exactly WHO made the decision on when the GAOP was, and by what authority did they make that decision ??? Seems kinda odd to me that there are sometimes EXACT cut-off dates that people abide by. And when somebody actually asks, it is always a rather a vague answer. (well, sorta kinda, thereabouts..... etc.)

Foxe ?..... Blackjohn ?.... Any genuine or self-appointed historians care to enlighten us ? ...... Anybody ??

>>>> Cascabel

[silas thatcher]

personally, i blame stynky... he has been the driving force ( farce ?? ) behind an awful lot of stuff...

other than that, from what i gather from some of my reading, it's kind of a simple matter of a host of differing characteristics that somewhat defined a particular era... the men involved, whether or not their activities were wholly state sanctioned ( letters of marque ) , intra ( ?? ) country squabbles, methods employed, reasons... both individual and state sponsored reasons, etc, etc...

as far as timelines, from what i gather, there is a fuzzy area as to when certain eras would evolve in to another... for goap, 1690 to 1720 is usually quoted give or take a few years... as one era was dying out and a new era beginning, there is an overlap for some time, and depending on the historian, he may include certain activities or not...

just my simple understanding of the whole thing...

[Fox]

I don't think it has been defined in any way which is universally accepted. Mostly people use the term to refer to the period around the turn of the 18thC (say, 1690-1730), but I've seen it used to described anything from wide-ranging periods (1560-1820 in one case!) to narrow specific periods of only a few years (1716-1722). As a general rule, when most people think of pirates they think of men from a particular era - essentially that covered by Johnson. Johnson didn't invent the term, but he probably defined its scope.

Personally I would date the GAoP, if we're looking for specific years, as lasting from 1692-1726, for two reasons. Firstly, there were probably more European pirates active over a greater part of the globe during those years than at any other time, and secondly because there were certain things which set the pirates of those years apart from pirates of different periods. For example, while pirate squadrons had certainly operated in the eary 17thC (in the years I like to call the 'other' golden age of piracy - OGAoP), they did not network to the extent that GAoP pirates did. One of the remarkable things about the GAoP is that almost all of the major players and their crews knew one another in some way (there's a very good diagram of the connections in Rediker's Villains of all Nations for those interested).

So why my dates? In 1691 Adam Baldridge set up his trading post on St. Mary's, allowing pirates for the first time to operate for extended periods (theoretically indefinitely) thousands of miles from their 'home' ports, rather than going on shorter cruises. 1726 is my cut-off date because in that year the last pirates which had formed the great gangs of the GAoP were destroyed - thereafter pirates mostly operated singly rather than in squadrons and there was little contact between individual pirate crews until the 19th century.

[Mission]

Yeah, what Foxe said.

I think it mostly has to do with Johnson's book. My (limited) understanding of the GAoP is that it is from 1700-1725 based primarily on what Johnson included, but other people want to include the Buccaneers from the other main account of piracy we have from that period by Esquemeling and so they start their timeline in the 1670s. Realistically, the buccaneers seem like a separate group entirely, but for my book on GAoP medicine I am actually using sources from 1580 - 1735. (For medicine I feel I can go backwards quite a ways since they relied on the writings of Galen and Hippocrates. It didn't change much from the 15th through middle 18th centuries from what I can tell.)

Well that's my layman's perception of it.

[hurricane]

I definitely put the buccaneers in a different category. Their origins were as landsmen, not seafarers. For the most part, they fought one foe, the Spanish, and (at least from a Morgan-era buccaneer perspective) were loyal to king and country, no matter how dubious their commissions may have been. Morgan was definitely no sailor -- he lost three flagships under his command. But as a soldier, he was unparalleled. I don't think of pirates as land strategists, but seafarers, hence, I would agree more with Foxe's analysis on that basis alone.

But that's from my own ethnocentrism, since I don't jibe well when pirates get credit for what the buccaneers did. :)

-- Hurricane

[Mission]

I definitely put the buccaneers in a different category. Their origins were as landsmen, not seafarers. For the most part, they fought one foe, the Spanish, and (at least from a Morgan-era buccaneer perspective) were loyal to king and country, no matter how dubious their commissions may have been. Morgan was definitely no sailor -- he lost three flagships under his command. But as a soldier, he was unparalleled. I don't think of pirates as land strategists, but seafarers, hence, I would agree more with Foxe's analysis on that basis alone.

But that's from my own ethnocentrism, since I don't jibe well when pirates get credit for what the buccaneers did. :)

-- Hurricane

I agree with you in principle. I'm just giving my suggestion for why I think some people say the GAoP starts in the late 17th century and other say it started at the beginning of the 18th century.

[michaelsbagley]

I include both the Buccaneers and Pirate era into GAoP, but that is mostly because I re-enact both eras and I know the public tends to (albeit slightly erroneaously) draw paralels between the two.

In that same breath, when talking about the era, I will try to educate whoever is patient enough to listen to me on the differences between the Buccaneers and Pirates.

[hurricane]

Like Michael, I play both sides. Whenever I can, I distinguish between the two for the public. I think Patrick got into the problem that when he did exact buccaneer, no one understood what he was doing, so it was an uphill battle to educate. So I just use the opportunity when someone calls me a pirate when I'm buccaneering to lightly take umbrage and draw the distinction politely that calling me a pirate is heresy and that it will be the king's militia down upon me.

-- Hurricane

[CrazyCholeBlack]

Well, the ECW ends in the 1650's while the SYW doesn't start until the 1750's. In absence of a significant war we have to find some way to classify those years. So we split it into Buccaneer and GAoP. We give them nice round numbers so that the dates are easy to remember and tadah, what was previously just a gap in history between the wars is now worthy of note

Chole

[Silkie McDonough]

ECW? SYW? For those of who are acronym and historically challenged, could you please define these?

Wait! W stands for War. lol

Edited March 30, 2009 by Silkie McDonough

[michaelsbagley]

ECW? SYW? For those of who are acronym and historically challenged, could you please define these?

Wait! W stands for War. lol

ECW = English Civil War

SYW = Seven Years War (also known as the "French & Indian War" in the colonies which is often abreviated to F&IW)

And since the question was raised, I will take it a step further and cover a few other common ones...

AWI = American War of Independence also known as Rev-War = American Revolution

CW or ACW = Civil War or American Civil War

Queen Anne's War is known as the "War of Spanish Succession" in Great Britain and Europe

War of the Grand Alliance is also referred to as "King William's War" (mostly on this continent though).

I think that covers the most common ones I see used.

[Fox]

I too would point out the differences between buccaneers and pirates, but I'd still start my GAoP from the 1690s, otherwise you miss out people like Henry Every, Thomas Tew, and of course, William Kidd - all quite definitely pirates.

[theM.A.dDogge]

Well, the ECW ends in the 1650's while the SYW doesn't start until the 1750's. In absence of a significant war we have to find some way to classify those years. So we split it into Buccaneer and GAoP. We give them nice round numbers so that the dates are easy to remember and tadah, what was previously just a gap in history between the wars is now worthy of note

Chole

i beleive Chole has the gist of it....this transition period...without a significant war....is what lead to the Buccaneers and Pyrate era.....now we could furthur split hairs...and say...pre-GAoP...post Buccaneers....Silver Age of Pyracy...the Bronze Age of Buccaneers...but that would just be nit-pickin

there were so many inovations and overlaps durring this transition period.....it would become muddier even more than it allready is if they were to be pinned down furthur!?!?

[Guest]

OK, I'm kinda the one that started this in another thread.....

For basic sake, there are a few different period of robbery on the High seas (or sacking towns... whatever)

I define the periods as such....

1600- Elizabeathean SeaDogs

1650 -1700 (ish) Buccaneers

1700- 1720 (ish) The Golden Age of Pyracy

(and I also posted that we all quibble about the dates.....)

Hey.... it's 1692.... I'm happy as a buccaneer, but for some dumb reason tomorrow... I have to change.... I must become a Pyrate...... or the PC police will get me.......

The original post was a buncha generalizations.....

Buccaneers were interested in loot, but they were more Nationalistic.... ("Can't attack that ship. it's English...")

Pyrates (the Golden Age ) attacked anyone smaller than themselves..... The heck with Nationality.....

(once again these are gross generalizations.... there are some that didn't follow that.....)

Me... I'm trying to educate the Public about the Buccaneers (I'm working on 1650's to 1670's... there were other later Buccaneers) .... no one knows the time period... they all think Pyrates sacked Spanish towns....... (thanks to Disneyland)

Short answer.... There is no answer....

When did buccaneers decide to attack any ship as opposed to only Spanish ships?

When did the Golden Age of Pyracy Start......

On March 13th 1672......

Too many variables.... we are stuck with the generalizations.....

So if we post documented examples of someone (English) that attacked another English ship for monetary gain.... way befor 1640 (OK... don't quote me on that ... I'm just making a point...) does that mean the GAop Pyracy starts in 1640?.....

And what about Captain whatshis name (not Lowe.... but I know there is a famous Pyrate Captain after 1720's...) does that mean the GAoP ends when he did.....

Well Pyracy still exist.... (fun joke about what I wanted to wear to Ojai last year...)

But back on topic....

The Golden Age of Pyracy is a vague date.... it didn't start on September the 13th 1669 and end on March 13th 1720.... It's not like a specific battle or something like that.... we are stuck with kinda "it's around then" kinda dates......Gross Generalizations.....

[Mission]

The Golden Age of Pyracy is a vague date.... it didn't start on September the 13th 1669 and end on March 13th 1720.... It's not like a specific battle or something like that.... we are stuck with kinda "it's around then" kinda dates......Gross Generalizations.....

The nice thing about wars is that you can pinpoint dates because they involve acts and declarations and similarly documented things. The very nature of piracy is vague. What exactly it means to be a pirate during this period is vague. From the Spanish POV, the buccaneers were pirates. So if you're writing in Spain, couldn't you say the GAoP started with the Buccaneers? (Except you might not refer to it as being 'Golden'...)

Part of the reason that I read that the pirates sprung up was because there were a bunch of out of work seamen beginning after the 3rd Dutch-Franco-Anglo war which ended in 1678. The British hired (or impressed) seamen as they needed them for wars, but when the wars were over they let them go and it was up to the seamen to find their own work. (I wish I could remember which book that was in.)

Still, that would suggest we should have a surfeit of pirates beginning in the late 1670s and either that isn't the case, or we don't have record of them. (It is very possible that there were a lot more pirates than we know about. The ones we have record of come mainly from Johnson and his info seems to come primarily from court records according to footnotes in the version of the General History that I am currently reading. A successful pirate or group of pirates could easily not have been recorded in this scenario unless they attacked a ship for which we have documented info on their travels.)

[Matty Bottles]

This might be totally wrong, but I always thought that ~1690-~1725 was the GAoP due to the number of pirates active in during the period (which has been covered), the notority they enjoyed, and the place in cultural memory they've enjoyed since then. Also, King Williams War and Queen Anne's War, which have already been mentioned, generated thousands of fighting sailors who had nothing to do after the wars ended. I heard somewhere (probably this very forum) that these out-of-work sailors formed a vast pool of potential pirates.

As has been covered, Buccaneers have their own distinct definition, and it fits them well. I think the same can be said for the 'Sea Dogs.' I am interested to hear if anyone has an alternate idea of what should be considered the GAoP. Shoot, as time goes on, our great-great-grandchildren might refer to this time as the GAoP, but I doubt it.

EDIT: Oh, wow, I need to work on reading comprehension. everything I said has already been said, and better. Oh, well. Story of my life.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Bloody Jack Madd

[Silkie McDonough]

ECW? SYW? ...

ECW = English Civil War

SYW = Seven Years War (also known as the "French & Indian War" in the colonies which is often abreviated to F&IW)

...Thanks Michael, I knew some of these but forget them more often than not ...F&I I am more familiar with than SYW, thanks again, I will likely ask a few mor times over the years. Edited March 31, 2009 by Silkie McDonough

[Fox]

There's no reason of course that ages can't overlap, particularly if we accept that buccaneering and piracy are different animals.

Pat, are you thinking of William Fly?

[MarkG]

I don't think it has been defined in any way which is universally accepted. Mostly people use the term to refer to the period around the turn of the 18thC (say, 1690-1730), but I've seen it used to described anything from wide-ranging periods (1560-1820 in one case!) to narrow specific periods of only a few years (1716-1722). As a general rule, when most people think of pirates they think of men from a particular era - essentially that covered by Johnson. Johnson didn't invent the term, but he probably defined its scope.

Personally I would date the GAoP, if we're looking for specific years, as lasting from 1692-1726, for two reasons. Firstly, there were probably more European pirates active over a greater part of the globe during those years than at any other time, and secondly because there were certain things which set the pirates of those years apart from pirates of different periods. For example, while pirate squadrons had certainly operated in the eary 17thC (in the years I like to call the 'other' golden age of piracy - OGAoP), they did not network to the extent that GAoP pirates did. One of the remarkable things about the GAoP is that almost all of the major players and their crews knew one another in some way (there's a very good diagram of the connections in Rediker's Villains of all Nations for those interested).

So why my dates? In 1691 Adam Baldridge set up his trading post on St. Mary's, allowing pirates for the first time to operate for extended periods (theoretically indefinitely) thousands of miles from their 'home' ports, rather than going on shorter cruises. 1726 is my cut-off date because in that year the last pirates which had formed the great gangs of the GAoP were destroyed - thereafter pirates mostly operated singly rather than in squadrons and there was little contact between individual pirate crews until the 19th century.

Captain Morgan died in 1688. I'd use that for the end of the privateer period and the start of the GAoP. That's around the time that England and Spain reached an understanding and England stopped allowing huge raids with thousands of men. After that pirates were operating illegally and stopped being so picky about only attacking Spain. During this period they were piracy was mainly ship-to-ship instead of raids on major cities.

There were still places that tolerated pirates in order to attract an armed defense force. By the mid-1720s these colonies were well enough established that they no longer needed to depend on pirates for defense. That is when the British started getting serious about ending piracy. They also started allowing local trials instead of having pirates shipped to London for trial. By 1730 most pirates had been put out of business (many at the end of a rope).

Note, I'm getting this from reading Under the Black Flag a couple of years ago.

[Mission]

Captain Morgan died in 1688. I'd use that for the end of the privateer period and the start of the GAoP.

Interesting point. However, I believe you mean buccaneer period. Privateers continued to operate on and off all during the GAoP.

[Fox]

If we define the GAoP as the time at the turn of the 18thC when pirates were able to operate for prolonged periods away from home bases, and formed a network (or networks) rather than operating individually, then we probably can put dates on it. 7 January 1691 Adam Baldridge decided to leave the ship Fortune and settle on St. Mary's (though he didn't build his house there until May). December 1725 Phillip Lyne and his crew - the last real remnants of the gang that had begun with the Lowther-Low meeting - were captured and several of them executed.

Of course, if you choose to define the GAoP in a different way then those dates are futile.

[Joe Pyrat]

I have ask several historians this very question and I've gotten a different answer from each of them. Someone here mentioned the various periods could overlap. IMHO they did not overlap but were inter spaced with periods of a decline in piracy or wars which allowed potential pirates to get letters of marque and become privateers. My personal definition looks like this

Elizabethan Sea Dog Period 1560 - 1605 The time of Francis Drake, Walter Raleigh, John Hawkins and Martin Frobisher

Buccaneer Period 1655 - 1688 The capture of Jamacia by the English to the death of Henry Morgan

Golden Age of Piracy 1714 - 1722 The end of the War of Spanish Succession (Queen Ann's War) to the Death of Bartholomew Roberts

Some like to refer to this entire period, 1655 - 1730 as the GAoP, but I think there were significant differences in how these men were viewed in these various periods. While one can argue logically that all were pirates, the ESD period and the Buccaneer period saw defacto sacntioning by the Crown while the latter period represents a change of attitude where they were seen as the "enemies of all nations".

[Fox]

If there's a gap between 1688 and 1714 where do Henry Every, Thomas Tew, William Kidd et al fit in?

If Henry Morgan is the benchmark of the buccaneering period then it should end before 1688 since he didn't do much buccaneering in his later years. In fact, although Morgan is far and away the best known buccaneer, there were plenty of others still active well after his retirement. Although he consorted with 'privateers' after his appointment as lieutenant governor in 1675 Morgan can't really be called a buccaneer after that date. The Coxon/Sharp expedition to the Pacific began in 1680, and Dampier did not return to England until 1691. de Graaf did not retire until 1699. French buccaneers under Ducasse were present at Cartagena in 1697.

One thing that has struck me about this thread is that nobody seems to be paying much attention to the pirates of James I's reign - Peter Easton, Henry Mainwaring, Thomas Salkeld etc. There were more pirates operating between, say, 1605 and 1625 than during Elizabeth's reign.

[Joe Pyrat]

There have always been pirates, from prehistory until the present day, including the periods between the more romanticized times of Drake, Morgan and the time following the War of Spanish Succession. I think the broadest definition I've seen for the GAoP is something like 1560 - 1730 which fairly well covers everything. Well of course unless you want to count those pirates who came before and after.

Kidd is mostly remembered because he had a catchy name and he wound up being a political pawn. Tew is not someone most in the general public have ever heard of. I read of a study where people were, at random, ask to name a pirate. Something like 95% of them named someone active between 1714 and 1722 and my guess is most of the other 5% named Morgan.

Avery is an interesting character though. Avery's career spans that period just prior to the beginning of the War of Spanish Succession (1701) making him the stuff of legend while such GAoP pirates as Teach, Vane, etc were young. You could make a case that he was the father of the GAoP, but the big explosion in piracy still occurs following Queen Ann's War and fairly well dies out, on a grand scale, following the death of Bartholomew Roberts.

When I look at these periods I look for a preponderance of activity which is why I have gravitated toward the definition I proposed. Of course there are many who have other definitions so it would appear that there is really no generally agreed upon definition of what constitutes the Golden Age of Piracy leaving it to the student of the period to decide on his or her own definition based on what their studies indicate is relevant.

[Fox]

When I look at these periods I look for a preponderance of activity which is why I have gravitated toward the definition I proposed.

Rediker estimates 1,800-2,400 active pirates at the peak of the 1719-22 era. In 1609 William Bishop was reported off Ireland with a pirate fleet of 11 ships and 1,000 men, with another 10 ships expected. In 1611 another pirate fleet was reported off Ireland consisting of 9 ships and 500 men.

[EDIT] Might also add that in 1695 Henry Every's squadron alone consisted of about 400 men [/EDIT]

Of course there are many who have other definitions so it would appear that there is really no generally agreed upon definition of what constitutes the Golden Age of Piracy leaving it to the student of the period to decide on his or her own definition based on what their studies indicate is relevant.

I concur absolutely.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Foxe