Who was the REAL LIFE Pirate King?

[Mission]

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.

I wondered about that. There is sometimes a tendency to assume pirates would kill the whole crew, yet many accounts disagree with this. (Pirates were people and only some of them would have been psychopathic.) It also makes sense that merchants would most likely be acutely aware of the loss of something as large and valuable as a ship and it's cargo, so records must have been kept in some form indicating the suspected cause of the loss of any ship. Your logic about the numbers makes good sense too.

[Tartan Jack]

Another VERY important part of NOT killing a crew (or anyone, if you could) is that crews expecting to be killed are much more likely to fight (nothing to lose). For the crew of a merchant ship, which they work for low pay and don't own, the will to fight for the cargo and knowing they should live if they don't resist would make them tend to say "this stuff just isn't worth dying for" . . .

That makes our work as pirates much easier. To have the capability for great violence and death (a real threat) and the capability for mercy to the poor victim crews (who may even desire to JOIN us) makes the likelyhood of them giving up w/o endangering ourselves more likely.

The overall numbers should be fairly accurate, just depends on which ones you want to believe . . .

(The various given numbers vary widely from generous to just what we can prove (ie-> name the ship). For example, some only give Blackbeard/Ed Teach 16 captures (if I remember the correct number for proven-beyond-doubt captures), while others list as many as 40.

[Tartan Jack]

(Pirates were people and only some of them would have been psychopathic.)

The most psychopathic were the Lowther and Low group/pirate cluster, who attracted fellow psychopaths.

As to our understanding of pirate groupings, the breakdown into 2 main "gangs" of the period looks more and more to me as a fair and accurate way to approach the GAoP and aids in understanding where the popular images of pirates developed from and mutated into the pre-PotC images of pirates.

One side was the "Flying Gang" of New Providence, who tended to me former (screwed-over) privateers and mostly ones who would be honest if given then chance to make a good/decent living that way. This is supported by how many took pardons, pleaded for pardons, and actually expressed remorse for their pirate activities. I think this group fueled pirates as the "anti-hero" of the 18th century writings, while still being dangerous criminals. (This group seems to have often used the skull and crossed bones as their "gang colors" either solely or as one of their banners, also often using British or British-based flags too, as a sign of patriotism and/or "Britishism" they still felt.)

Edit- The "cruelties" of this group were much more in the nature of "sailor's rebellion against oppression" and revenge for offenses and practices done to them, such as giving punishments to captured captains that said captain had done to his crew (based on interviews w/ the crew of a captured ship) or the well-treatment of "good"/caring captains. They didn't tend to be cruel for the sheer fun of it, unlike the cluster below . . .

The other side is the Lowther/Low cluster that tended toward cruel psychopaths, who did most of the REALLY nasty punishments. The people in this group would mostly have been career criminals given ANY situation, attracting those like-minded. This group fueled the "pirates as nasty, mean villains" image. (This group tends to have used the full skeleton w/ a spear piercing a bleeding heart as their "gang colors.")

That is a simplification and incomplete, but helpful if true (like I said, it is a developing "hunch").

(I'd LOVE to read Foxe's oft promised and long delayed book on Jolly Rogers and see if the above statements on the flags holds up to more research.)

Edited February 25, 2011 by Tartan Jack

[Capt Thighbiter]

Me, I'm with Foxe in that Henry Avery always embodied what I think of as a Pirate King.

[Fox]

Me, I'm with Foxe in that Henry Avery always embodied what I think of as a Pirate King.

You, sir, are an erudite man of taste and wisdom.

Jack - spot on with the flags.

[Tartan Jack]

Thanks, Foxe. It was your flag site that got me going on that line of thought and the book you recommended to me ("Republic of Pirates") and who was and was not discussed as a New Providence pirate.

[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.

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

Yes my mistake, someone said that earlier. Also, the only reference I came across of Ward historically was the ballad until now.