Blackbeard's dead rumors

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Hi I am new guy here and sorry if my english is not perfect because it is not my mother language...

My first post is rumor that I have often heard:

Does anybody know is the claim true that Blackbeard was killed by Scottish RN Sailor and with highlander sword (like this) http://www.edgeimpor...23133641740.jpg during battle of Ocaroke inlet? Or is that just rumor like “Blackbeard swim around his ship 2, 3 or 7 times after his head had cut off.”

Edited February 9, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Jas. Hook]

Swashbuckler - Welcome aboard! Your English is better than many of the natives.

I've read somewhere that the final blow was by a sailor's broad-sword. Fact or fiction I don't know.

As to the swimming around the ship... too much rum. But it does makes for a great legend.

Jas. Hook

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Thank you!

I would still know is there any period or even bit out of the period mention of that.

[Fox]

The tale of it being a Scottish highlander with a broadsword comes from the report in the Boston News Letter, 23/2/1719.

There is no mention at all in any of the official reports as to who actually gave the final blow to Blackbeard or with what weapon, nor any evidence to say where the Boston News Letter got its information.

Even if it was a highlander who killed Blackbeard it's very unlikely that he was using a sword as pictured. The newspaper report only says it was a "broadsword", which could be one of several things, including a naval issue broadsword. Sailors in the Royal Navy did not provide their own weapons, so it's far more likely to have been a naval issue sword rather than a Scottish claybeg.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Btw Where weapons to ships come from? were they army surplus equipment?

[Brit.Privateer]

Btw Where weapons to ships come from? were they army surplus equipment?

There are two questions you could be asking here. I think I'll go with the one that was intended. The British Royal Navy did have weapons specifically made for use in the Navy. But, in a way, there was a "army surplus" aspect mixed in, at least for muskets anyway. By this time, or at least by the time Blackbeard was killed, the British preferred short muskets for ship use. This trend was being followed more or less by other maritime powers of the time. The French were the big exceptions with a preference for having a notable amount of fusil boucanier guns in their arsenals, though they had many shorter muskets as well (and this eventually overcame the long muskets completely by the middle of the century). While longer guns provided longer range and theoretical accuracy, it made it harder to stay in cover while reloading and is heavier when trying to transport it.

Since a lot of musket firing is individual firing against the enemy and not organized volleys like on land, the short musket had an advantage of being able to reload easier because of a short length, and was even easier to reload while staying behind cover. The lighter weight also made it easier for taking up into the tops or taking out into a boat for other duties. Also, the barrels made for the army that had imperfections at the front end of the barrel were recycled by giving them to the navy. Since the army needed more consistent barrel lengths, the barrels went to the navy and were cut town beyond the imperfection. That is not to say that there were barrels that were meant for the navy, or that there weren't infantry musket length barrels in the navy, but the general trend was short muskets with barrels in the lower 30s-inch range.

Does that start to answer your question, or want something more specific, or in a different direction?

[Swashbuckler 1700]

From Angus Konstam’s “Scourge of the Seas: Buccaneers, Pirates & Privateers”

I am angry as there are neither real references nor sources with this.

Anyway there is the Scottish broad sword mentioned.... at least indirect way. The ammo box mention is also an interesting one but not surprising as we know the Whydah box that was found and also period pictures show them. And common sense says that they were worn.

“An account of the fight between Lieutenant Maynard of the Royal Navy and

Edward Teach (Blackbeard') illustrates the violent nature of a boarding action:'

Maynard and Teach themselves began the fight with their swords, Maynard

making a thrust, the point of his sword went against Teach's cartridge box, and

bended it to the hilt. Teach broke the guard of it, and wounded Maynard's

fingers but did not disable him, whereupon he jumped back and threw away his

sword and cut Teach's face pretty much; in the interim both companies engaged

in Maynard's sloop, one of Maynard's men being a Highlander, engaged Teach

with his broad sword, who gave Teach a cut on the neck, Teach saying well done

lad; the Highlander replied, 'If it be not well done, I'll do better.' With that he

gave him a second stroke, which cut off his head, laying it flat on his shoulder.”

[LookingGlass]

Konstam's source is a secondary one, the Boston News-Letter, published the week of 27 Feb.-02 Mar. 1718/1719, based on the report of John Jackson and Humphrey Johnston who had sailed from NC to Rhode Island shortly after the engagement. The information contained within can be considered fairly reliable but is not consistent with Capt. Johnson's GHP version and popular historical accounts. The account states that all but two of Black Beard's men were killed which supports my theory that the 4 blacks aboard the Adventure (Blake, Gates, White & Stiles) were not considered free men as they survived and were carried to Virginia with the 2 whites for trial. Additionally, James Robbins, Samuel Odell and Caesar (a black slave) were non-combatants and not members of the crew but were also arrested and taken to Virginia. All were released—Robins and Odell probably by late-January 1718/1719 and Caesar after the trial of the black prisoners on March 12. A Caesar appears in the estate inventory of Tobias Knight a year later (valued at £60) and was probably one of two slaves Knight purchased from someone on the crew. RN Capt. Gordon's log reflects that two white pirates were taken from Williamsburg to HMS Pearl on 28 Jan. 1718/1719 to be executed at the mouth of the Hampton River—these would be the two men referenced in the BNL. Based on the foregoing, I would be inclined to believe the story about the Highlander & broad sword.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Even if it was a highlander who killed Blackbeard it's very unlikely that he was using a sword as pictured. The newspaper report only says it was a "broadsword", which could be one of several things, including a naval issue broadsword. Sailors in the Royal Navy did not provide their own weapons, so it's far more likely to have been a naval issue sword rather than a Scottish claybeg.

Old reply but:

Just for fun I would like to know.

What kind of Naval issue swords? Am I wrong if I am thinking shell guard hangers?

[Fox]

If you could answer the question of what Royal Navy issue swords looked like (or indeed, if there was a single pattern at all) with any kind of certainty, then you'd be a very popular fellow.

[Fox]

Based on the foregoing, I would be inclined to believe the story about the Highlander & broad sword.

I have no real reason to dispute that the man was a highlander - though it could just be journalistic license. However, I have my doubts about it being a 'highland' broadsword in the sense we usually think of them. Assuming that he was actually a highlander, there's no reason to suppose that he brought his own sword - nobody else did, unless they were an officer.

[Red John]

Well said for most cases, but if this man were actually a Highlander - and wasn't forcefully disarmed by the authorities at home - could his attachment to his sword mean he brought it with him out of the dear affection of "that wyld race" for their own broadswords? They were using them well as late as '46 of course, on land anyway, and they generally all had their own, unless too poor to afford one or one wasn't passed down. My reading of the historical accounts, they usually make a point of mentioning the sword to explain how 'just' such a blow could actually take down a 6' plus tall battle-crazed killer like Teach. Only a broadsword would unquestionably have the heft to cleave him like they say was done - most of the usual swords of the day would likely be too light to cause such a dire wound to such a man with so little action behind it.

Of course, just speculating on how it could be that a man on a boat in Virginia, sailing to Ocracoke, NC, could reasonably have had a broadsword with him. Me, if I was headed to take down the most fearsome "enemy of all mankind" of the day, in a wee sloop boat with NO GUNS (cannon, etc.) well I know I'd be grabbing me the biggest meanest blade I could to take on that trip at least! And every pistol I could beg borrow or 'appropriate' too. Even if my 'big sword' normally stayed home because it just didn't make sense to have it on a boat every day, I'd feel a need that day for sure.

And it might make a difference that this was not an actual Royal Navy mission - it was a private undertaking put forward by Govenor Spotswood. As I recall the senior RN Officer in Virginia refused to do it, as conducting an 'arrest' of a pardoned citizen of another colony, on that colony's turf, and not anywhere near your own jurisdiction, would be of very questionable legality. So as this was a private matter, strict RN rules and standards might not apply as much as they might other times, and someone bringing a big sword from home for just that trip would be both reasonable and possible.

But then again, a writer doing wee bit of romantic embellishment to the story makes a lot of sense too . . . broadswords generally being an odd choice for nautical use, looking at the dearth of them being mentioned other than in the Blackbeard accounts.

And also as stated above, 'broadsword' refers to the blade, and there were all sorts of 'broadswords' which is why the Scots' swords are usually referred to as either "Baskethilts" or "Baskethilt Broadswords", so it very well could have been a broadsword blade with a very common hilt not so much a baskethilt as thought.

Me, I like the first theory best. Just saying . . .

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Of course, just speculating on how it could be that a man on a boat in Virginia, sailing to Ocracoke, NC, could reasonably have had a broadsword with him. Me, if I was headed to take down the most fearsome "enemy of all mankind" of the day, in a wee sloop boat with NO GUNS (cannon, etc.)

I think the reason why there were no guns (cannons) was that those ships were not Rn ship but other vessels hired by the governor. And I think Spotwood was a little stingy man as he promised only 100 pounds for bb's head while South Carolina gover promised 600 puonds from Bonnet.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

All of the sailors on both sloops were drawn from the crews of the Royal Navy vessels HMS Pearl and HMS Lyme, so whoever dispatched Blackbeard was unquestionably a Royal Navy sailor. I have never seen any evidence to suggest that RN seamen of any nationality took their own swords with them, and weapons were generally restricted on board ship in any case. So I'm not convinced that the big sword from home idea is reasonable.

Neither is there any reason to believe that BB's head was cleaved straight off - in fact, the usual story (of uncertain origin) is that it took two blows on the neck to kill him.

The senior RN officer in Virginia took joint responsibility for the venture with Spotswood, and as an RN officer had a jurisdiction that extended as far as the high-tide mark.

[Red John]

Foxe, thank you for your great work on this site and for your thoughtful comments.

[Mission]

I have doubts anyone with any hand weapon cut a head off in one blow with a normal weapon. It would be much tougher than movies make it look. The mere fact that the neck would move away from the blade unless it was set against a stationary object would make it extraordinarily challenging. (You could do it if you had Nemesis' Onyx Sword - but that's as fantastic as the idea that you could cut off someone's head in a single blow.)

Of course, we are talking about the same event that spawned the story that the headless body swam around the ship several times.

[Red John]

Aye, please note that I never said "one blow" . . . all the accounts I've read say two blows, and usually have Teach's pithy quote(s) thrown in as well . . . and as far as swimming around the boat three times . . . I know at least that part is absolutely true . . .

. . . the last time I lost my head, I did exactly the same thing . . . well, granted it might have had something to do with finding that bottle of rum just before losing my head . . .

(yours, aye, and thanks mates!)