Who was the REAL LIFE Pirate King?

[Dread Pyrate Greyhound]

Pop Culture seems to be obsessesed with the idea of a so called "Pirate King" from One Piece's Gold Roger to Captain Teague and then Elizabeth Swan from Pirates of the Caribbean, and many in between. So my question is this mates....

What real life pirate came closest to achieving the legendary Status that all these fictional Pirate Kings possess, wether through ships plundered, what they accomplished, how many vessels they commanded, or other criteria?

Edited February 21, 2011 by Commodore Greyhound

[Mission]

Foxe is probably the guy to answer this, but it's kind of hard to answer. There were a couple of pirates who had small fleets like Blackbeard and Edward Lowe, but there was never any kind of large, formal pirate organization of which I'm aware. Most pirates were pretty independent. They occasionally formed and broke alliances, but none that had a large scale, POTC-type formality.

If you try to figure out who made the most money, you run into the problem of not knowing who all the pirates were. Many of the pirates we read about were caught, which doesn't really equate with success in the field. For all we know someone with a strategic long-term outlook may have run a bunch of small raids, hit the jackpot somewhere along the way and then left the trade with his wealth intact. (Or not. By definition, we can't know.)

As for measuring by the amount of carnage created or number of ships taken...well, I leave that to someone else to research because I'm too lazy to do it. I know it's been discussed before either here or at piratesinfo.com.

[hurricane]

If you're going back to buccaneer times I think it would slam dunk have to be Admiral Henry Morgan. Against Panama he had an army said to be 1,200 under his command and an armada of ships. Many of his tactics were revolutionary at the time and his successful record of attacking Spanish towns and shipping is mainly what prevented the Spanish from ever successfully attacking Jamaica and helped contribute to the country's eventual insolvency (don't quote me on all this as I'm at work and don't have time to cross check the exactitudes).

As an aside, while looking for some of this information I came across a thesis written for a Masters in Military Science that was written in 2009 about how his tactics and his leadership should still be used as a model in today's army. Can't wait to read it.

Reading it I came across this in the thesis:

Morgan’s move was well over sixty miles, and he did it over a nine day period. Given the time Morgan took, the distance does not appear to be much, but the terrain Morgan faced was the real challenge. An average light infantry unit in the US Army today would have a difficult time covering this distance through the jungle. A company of one hundred infantry soldiers would most likely not all make it.15 The effects of the heat alone would stop several soldiers from making the move.

Interesting, since this comes from an officer's point of view in the current army.

Edited February 21, 2011 by hurricane

[Mission]

I agree with Hurricane based on what I recall of what I've read. Although Morgan would probably need an asterisk next to his name because he was really a privateer with sanctioning from the Crown. (A bit of a loose cannon of a privateer at times, but a privateer nonetheless.)

[hurricane]

I think part of the reason he would be right up there is because when most people talk about pirates, they talk about seizing and sacking towns, sailing in armadas of pirate ships, attacking other ships directly rather than using wile, ship to ship battles, holding hostages captive for ransom, being welcomed back into town as a hero... the popular lore that surrounds pirates today. And yes, he did play loose with his commissions didn't he? I think that's why I like him so.

[Fox]

Yar, if we're going to count Morgan as a pirate (and there are several reasons for or against), then I'd agree that he probably deserves the title of pirate king, for the scale of his success and the size of his force.

If we narrow it down to pirates in the true sense of the word (criminals who robbed at sea) then a few names crop up for different reasons.

Henry Jenning was elected 'commodore' of the New Providence pirates, so in terms of ruling over a large band of pirates who all operated from the same shore base, he probably fits the bill. He was not particularly successful and his career wasn't that long, so he's not the ideal candidate on other counts.

Blackbeard had one of the largest forces under his direct command, with up to five ships and 400 men at times.

Barthomolew Roberts had only a slightly smaller force and probably took more ships than anyone else. He never hit the real jackpot though, and was spectacularly defeated with relative ease by one RN vessel.

John Taylor led the single most successful pirate raid of all time and managed to retire with his health and fortune intact. He got a pardon, lived off his wealth and became a planter for the final 22 years of his life.

However, I'm going to (predictably) stick my vote in for Henry Every:

Every led probably the second most successful pirate raid, and had a force of six ships and 400 men under his command at the height of his career. He managed to slip into quiet obscurity with his wealth (in company with his quartermaster's new wife). The manhunt for Every extended over four continents. Contemporaries called Every 'The King of the Pirates'.

[Zingara Carmella]

Foxe isn't that same Every from "Every Island Louisiana"?

[hurricane]

I'd have to agree, Foxe, though Henry Jennings is a personal favorite since I live a couple miles from the salvage camp he raided after the Plate Fleet sank. And yes, I really can't put Morgan down as a true pirate - he was fiercely loyal to the crown and while the Spanish branded him a pirate, he did have commissions, however dubious they may have been.

[Dread Pyrate Greyhound]

Not Sure if Avery could truly be called a Pirate King. Despite what was claimed by people at the time, that he had an entire Madagascar Kingdom composed of pirates, all he really had was the frigate Fancy and two sloops that sailed in consort with him. But I agree with Foxe, though they called Jennings 'Commodore', he probably came closest since he commanded the 200 odd opirate ships that were supposed to be anchored in New Providence at this time. Though in my opinion, to be considered a Pirate King, you would have had to be a die-hard buccaneer, and I'm pretty sure Jennings took the Royal Pardon offered by Woodes Rogers. Morgan actually came closer, with all the Buccaneers he commanded, and his grand exploits, but the main thing in the way of him having the title is he was a British privateer, and held favor with King Charles II.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Commodore Greyhound

[Fox]

Not Sure if Avery could truly be called a Pirate King. Despite what was claimed by people at the time, that he had an entire Madagascar Kingdom composed of pirates, all he really had was the frigate Fancy and two sloops that sailed in consort with him.

The Fancy, four sloops (Portsmouth Adventure, Amity, Susanna, and Dolphin), and a brigantine (Pearl).

But I agree with Foxe, though they called Jennings 'Commodore', he probably came closest since he commanded the 200 odd opirate ships that were supposed to be anchored in New Providence at this time. Though in my opinion, to be considered a Pirate King, you would have had to be a die-hard buccaneer, and I'm pretty sure Jennings took the Royal Pardon offered by Woodes Rogers.

There was nothing like 200 pirate ships at New Providence, was that a typo for 20? The trouble with Jenning's 'rule' is that it's difficult to establish how much actual command he had over other crews. And yes he did take the Royal Pardon, and he didn't even wait for Woodes Rogers to turn up...

Morgan actually came closer, with all the Buccaneers he commanded, and his grand exploits, but the main thing in the way of him having the title is he was a British privateer, and held favor with King Charles II.

Also bear in mind that Morgan's really spectacular successed were on land, and a pirate by definition robs at sea. An increidbly talented amphibious commander, but it's a bit of a stretch to make him a pirate in the true sense of the word.

The trouble is that there really wasn't a 'pirate king' in the PotC Captain Teague style; there was no pirate who really ruled over a pirate kingdom. So it's a fruitless search unless you accept that the nearest there really was to a pirate 'king' (probably one of the above) is never going to fulfil all of the criteria.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Foxe

[Fox]

Foxe isn't that same Every from "Every Island Louisiana"?

No, Henry Every was born in Devon, committed mutiny in Spain, pirated off the African coast and Indian Ocean, sailed to the West Indies and then to Ireland, and was last seen in England. As far as I know he never went near Louisiana.

[hurricane]

Morgan was a terrible sailor... I believe he wrecked three of his ships during his lifetime, including his flagship. But a brilliant commander on land. Guess we can't be good at everything. :)

[Tartan Jack]

As I recall, the very term "Pirate King" derives from a play (and book?) about Avery/Every that came out not long after he vanished/slipped away. I'd say he is a primary root-source for the concept with Morgan and Jennings (with a healthy dose of Hornigold mixed in to the concept) as key secondary sources for the concept, as they were prominent leaders/heads of a large pirate base/settlement (at least in the later public mind of the idea, rather than reality).

Conclusion: the very concept is a loose mix of real and fantasy. It NEVER happened in reality or anything close to it.

As for Morgan actually BEING a pirate, it is all perspective. I'd doubt Morgan EVER considered himself a pirate, rather always seeing himself a an agent of the interests of England and the crown (the kingdoms weren't united yet, so the Welshman Morgan served the English king). To his victims, and the Spanish government he was certainly seen as one.

As for Jennings (and Hornigold), New Providence was more of loose democratic confederation (and somewhat socialistic-capitalistic hybrid) than a monarchy or oligarchy (to use political terminology). The set up was unlike anything today, so parallels to the popular mind is hard to make). Jennings was kinda the charismatic uniter of the "Flying Gang" in Nassau, while Hornigold was a mentor to many of the better pirates there. I think the two together were key to the New Providence group, serving in separate and necessary roles to provide what unity there was in the Nassau/Flying Gang group. Neither was really a "Pirate King" or "Pirate Lord" in the common, popular sense understood today.

[Tartan Jack]

Morgan was a terrible sailor... I believe he wrecked three of his ships during his lifetime, including his flagship. But a brilliant commander on land.

STRONGLY agreed!

My favorite is the one that blew up while everyone was drinking, at anchor in a bay, and he was lucky to survive . . .

The Oxford, killing 250, while Morgan dined w/ captains of his flotilla on its aft-deck.

Guess we can't be good at everything. :)

HAHAHAHAHA

Edited February 23, 2011 by Tartan Jack

[MarkG]

I agree with Hurricane based on what I recall of what I've read. Although Morgan would probably need an asterisk next to his name because he was really a privateer with sanctioning from the Crown. (A bit of a loose cannon of a privateer at times, but a privateer nonetheless.)

The Spanish considered him a pirate and would have hung him as such. That has to count for something.

[Gunpowder Gertie]

Well, as a Canadian , I have to throw my lot in with Peter Easton! Though not well known, he was likely THE most successful pirate. He is a folk hero in Newfoundland, and very famous in the Maritimes, though interestingly, not so much in the rest of Canada.

to whit:

from Wikipedia, because I am too lazy to write a whole biography, though I likelyy will later:

Peter Easton (c. 1570 – 1620 or after) was a pirate in the early 17th century who operated along the Newfoundland coastline between Harbour Grace and Ferryland from 1611 to 1614. Perhaps one of the most successful of all pirates he controlled such seapower that no sovereign or state could afford to ignore him and he was never overtaken or captured by any fleet commissioned to hunt him down.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Gunpowder Gertie

[Fox]

Yar, if we're stepping outside the GAoP then Peter Easton deserves honourable mention, he commanded as very powerful fleet at one point, as did William Bishop. John Ward probably also ought to be mentioned. But for the early 17th century then my money's on 'King' Thomas Salkeld.

Salkeld captured Lundy Island in the Bristol Channel and set himself up, literally, as King Thomas of Lundy, an independent state. His loyal crew oversaw the slaves he kept to work on the island's fortifications.

He was eventually defeated by an unsurrection by his slaves, fled Lundy, and was probably thrown overboard in the Irish sea after an argument with Peter Easton.

[Mission]

Morgan was a sneaky beggar who was quite self-serving at times. I don't think that he always saw himself a an agent of the interests of England, although I'm sure he would have said that if asked. (He seems to have been an astute politician.)

[hurricane]

Morgan was a sneaky beggar who was quite self-serving at times. I don't think that he always saw himself a an agent of the interests of England, although I'm sure he would have said that if asked. (He seems to have been an astute politician.)

I would totally disagree. Having read everything I could get my hands on regarding his life, I think he was very loyal to his country in addition to his self interests. He was probably the most brilliant military mind of his time as well. Every person on earth is self-serving in some regard. Even those who sacrifice in the name of helping others can be seen as serving their own interests.

Morgan's efforts to keep the Spanish from invading and retaking Jamaica is well established, from his efforts to build up the fortifications in the harbor to his attacks on their towns to disrupt commerce and military endeavors. Because of these exploits, Spain was forever caught off guard, which is a basic military tactic.

I think a lot of Alexandre Exquemelin's version of his exploits are tainted by sour grapes. A medical man not be allowed on the front lines, but left back in the action to tend to the wounded. No commander in his right mind would let him in be up in the action. So I take some (not all) of his remarks about Morgan in that light, second hand stories vs. first hand observation. Other works I have come across, including those in the archives of Jamaica, tell a far different story about his time in the Caribbean.

[Tartan Jack]

If taking other times (extra GAoP in the widest 1650-1725 dating) into this discussion too . . .

I'd throw in a whole slew of generations of the MacNeil of Barra Scottish clan chiefs. They were one of the more powerful clans, yet were on the REMOTE and tiny rock of Barra- the rock in the North Atlantic that is the FURTHEST west pebble in the Western Isles. Basically, they were a powerful naval force and completely independent from the much larger MacDonald, Lord of the Isles, clan. Sometimes siding with them and sometimes against.

I've argued in Scottish-history circles, that the MacNeils operated as essentially independent, Scottish pirate lords- through MOST of Scottish history.

As a family of "Pirate Lords," one would HAVE to look into the MacNeil of Barra lineage.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Tartan Jack

[Capn Bob]

First and seriously...during the Golden Age and in the Caribbean theater of action...I can't really think of anyone that would qualify as a pirate "king"...especially since most pirates had too much experience of being under kings and other autocrats in the first place...

Now, not so seriously...one very good way to p**s Sir Henry off was to call him a pirate. He might say something like, "How dare you impugn my honour, boy!". Aye, he'd to far worse that fire a broadside into you, or make with the woolding (sp? I'm at work)...he'd set his (gasp!) lawyers after you! (The horror!)

[Dread Pyrate Greyhound]

You guys make a lot of excelent points, but someone must have come close. The primary reason i wouldn't cast my vote for Captain Ward, even with the ballad written about him, is the the fact that the ballad is all we have as evidence of his existance. Personally, in the sense of exploits, Black Bart came closest with the 400 odd ships he took and the small fleet he commanded. He was the last great pirate of the golden age, even if he eventually was killed rather quickly. But the HMS Swallow did fire a broadside of antipersonel shot. It was bound to hit someone.

As far as a pirate king in the sense of comanding a mass fleet, Morgan came closest. He was elected 'Admiral' of the Brethren of the Coast. Essentally, every pirate/buccaneer active at this time would have been under his command. How do you think he took all those Treasure Cities? Although, him primarily having exploits on land, is a dampener for that arguement.

A few times I have heard Blackbeard refered to as the Pirate King, but this was most likely due to his infamy, and the legend that surrounds him. Not anything he actually accomplished.

[Mission]

I wonder how likely it was that all the pirate victories were reported? How many ships were lost without explanation? (It seems to me that this could be a statistically significant percentage, given the communication and ship tracking limitations of the age.) If a merchant ship disappeared, how likely was it's actual fate to be known? Again, we are limited to what records we have and it would behoove a captured pirate not to report their activities if the courts didn't discover them.

If this were a significant factor, any ideas about who took how much money and how many ships would be open to a awful lot of conjecture making large parts of this discussion sort of irrelevant in the broader scheme.

[hurricane]

That is a good point, Mission. I would imagine most pirates lied about how successful they were, after all, men tend to do that. I can see in the bar, two pirates, one bragging he had taken 10 ships and the other coming back with, well, I took 20. Before you know it the numbers are total lies and it becomes legend. I certainly wouldn't keep a written record, or it would lead me directly to the hangman's noose. Yet if I was in port, I would take the credit for the loss of any ship at sea mentioned, even if it had been lost to a storm or bad navigation.

[Fox]

You guys make a lot of excelent points, but someone must have come close. The primary reason i wouldn't cast my vote for Captain Ward, even with the ballad written about him, is the the fact that the ballad is all we have as evidence of his existance.

Um, no it isn't. There's lots of evidence about him. For example:

John Ward, commonly called Captain Ward, is about 55 years of age. Very short, with very little hair, and that quite white; bald in front; swarthy face and beard. Speaks little and almost always swearing. Drunk from more till night. Most prodigal and plucky. Sleeps a great deal, and often on board when in port. The habits of a thorough "salt". A fool and an idiot out of his trade.

Henry Pepwell's report on 'that corsair Ward', prepared for the English ambassador to Venice, (June?) 1608

Personally, in the sense of exploits, Black Bart came closest with the 400 odd ships he took and the small fleet he commanded.

Blackbeard and Henry Every commanded larger fleets, and Every was more successful in terms of accumulated plunder.

He was the last great pirate of the golden age, even if he eventually was killed rather quickly. But the HMS Swallow did fire a broadside of antipersonel shot. It was bound to hit someone.

One could equally argue that the pirates could have done the same thing back.

Regarding 'missing' pirate captures, that's an interesting point. There was something of a tendency, especially in the GAoP to assume that missing vessels were pirate victims if they'd been in piracy 'hotspots', but against that is the fact that very few (any?) pirates are known or suspected to have regularly slaughtered whole crews, so the number of unattributed attacks is probably fairly small. Probably not enough to seriously alter the general understanding of relative success amongst pirates. Even if each pirate active took 2 ships that we don't know about, it wouldn't alter the balance between one who took 20 (or 22) ships, and one who took 200 (or 202) ships - if you see what I mean. Also, outside of court, as Hurricane hints at, pirates frequently bragged to witnesses about the number of ships they'd taken. So, 'missing' ships might well be a percentage, but I'd be surprised if it were a significant one.