Sloops every pirate vessel?

[Brit.Privateer]

As I was reading through this thread, I find myself a little confused. I think that some definitions have to be established.

You all have mentioned sloops and ships primarily categories of vessels so far. But, both those terms are not very specific terms.

Sloops, while many people take it as meaning a vessel with a single mast at roughly amidships (as compared to a ketch that is a little bit aft of that point), during our time period a sloop can also mean a small vessel that has more than one mast. Thomas Riley Blanckley in his nautical dictionary A Naval Expositor in 1732 had the following definition for a sloop:

"Sloops - Are Sail'd & Masted as Mens fancys leads them sometimes with One Mast, with Two, and with Three, with Burmudoes, Shoulder of Mutton, Square Lug & Smack Sails, they are in Fugure either Square or Round Stern'd" So a sloop could be considered a ship, if one goes by the frequently used definition of a proper ship using three masts.

Ships, interchangably used as a term for sailing vessels as a whole and for specifically three-masted square-rigged vessels. While sloops were generally considered to be a smaller vessels, a ship with three masts can vary greatly in size.

So, maybe to clarify this discussion on the size and type of vessels commonly used, it may help to discuss things in terms of ship size (tonnage) and maybe armament and crew size as well.

If we talk in those terms more, things might be a little bit more orderly.

One thing to consider is that the typical merchant vessel transversing the Atlantic in the late 17th and early 18th century that the largest of the merchants ranged in the 150-200 ton range, but many more vessels came in around 50 tons or less (source: The Heyday of Sail: the Merchant Sailing Ship 1650-1830 pg 25). While the British East India Company often built vessels of around 500 tons and larger, their fleet could be numbered in a few dozen or so.

So my question is, what a common tonnage for these vessels and common crew size for these vessels. Those two things are more telling to me than "sloop" or "ship" or even number of guns (for some accounts blur the lines between guns in carriages on the deck and swivel guns).

So, correct me if I am wrong, a very common tonnage size and crew size for the GAOP was between 50 and 100 tons and a crew of between 40 and 100 (around 80 sounding like a good mean in that number set). And the interesting thing about those numbers is that in terms of tonnage per crew, that places pirate crews at about 2 or 3 times higher than merchant vessels at the time.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

As I was reading through this thread, I find myself a little confused. I think that some definitions have to be established.

You all have mentioned sloops and ships primarily categories of vessels so far. But, both those terms are not very specific terms.

Sloops, while many people take it as meaning a vessel with a single mast at roughly amidships (as compared to a ketch that is a little bit aft of that point), during our time period a sloop can also mean a small vessel that has more than one mast. Thomas Riley Blanckley in his nautical dictionary A Naval Expositor in 1732 had the following definition for a sloop:

"Sloops - Are Sail'd & Masted as Mens fancys leads them sometimes with One Mast, with Two, and with Three, with Burmudoes, Shoulder of Mutton, Square Lug & Smack Sails, they are in Fugure either Square or Round Stern'd" So a sloop could be considered a ship, if one goes by the frequently used definition of a proper ship using three masts.

Ships, interchangably used as a term for sailing vessels as a whole and for specifically three-masted square-rigged vessels. While sloops were generally considered to be a smaller vessels, a ship with three masts can vary greatly in size.

So, maybe to clarify this discussion on the size and type of vessels commonly used, it may help to discuss things in terms of ship size (tonnage) and maybe armament and crew size as well.

If we talk in those terms more, things might be a little bit more orderly.

One thing to consider is that the typical merchant vessel transversing the Atlantic in the late 17th and early 18th century that the largest of the merchants ranged in the 150-200 ton range, but many more vessels came in around 50 tons or less (source: The Heyday of Sail: the Merchant Sailing Ship 1650-1830 pg 25). While the British East India Company often built vessels of around 500 tons and larger, their fleet could be numbered in a few dozen or so.

So my question is, what a common tonnage for these vessels and common crew size for these vessels. Those two things are more telling to me than "sloop" or "ship" or even number of guns (for some accounts blur the lines between guns in carriages on the deck and swivel guns).

So, correct me if I am wrong, a very common tonnage size and crew size for the GAOP was between 50 and 100 tons and a crew of between 40 and 100 (around 80 sounding like a good mean in that number set). And the interesting thing about those numbers is that in terms of tonnage per crew, that places pirate crews at about 2 or 3 times higher than merchant vessels at the time.

I have always know that sloops can have 1, 2 or 3 masts but we are meanig that sloop that is now "cutter" and it has 1 mast. I was wondering that did Condent's sloop had 1, 2 or 3 masts.

To me ship size is about masts, cannons number of hands not tonnage but it tels still the size but no appearance....

Edited March 22, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[William Brand]

This is a great little thesis on Jamaican sloops during the Golden Age. I haven't read it thoroughly, but it has some excellent references.

amevans_thesis.pdf

[Swashbuckler 1700]

This is a great little thesis on Jamaican sloops during the Golden Age. I haven't read it thoroughly, but it has some excellent references.

Oh eyah REALLY LITTLE!

who have energy to do that... well good to us that some have done this...

Edited March 22, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

The difficulty is twofold. Firstly, the idea of a strict definable nomenclature for vessels was barely though about in the early 18th century, and even when people thought they were being precise, they didn't necessarily mean the same thing as somebody else being precise. Vessels were sometimes described by their rig - if a period source talks about a "ship", for example, it's a safe bet that it had three masts, even if the number and arrangement of sails is in doubt - but more often than not the description was based on the use the vessel was being put to.

Secondly, vessels had their rigs altered. HMS Ferret, the first "sloop" in the Royal Navy had, at different times, either one or two masts, and Thomas Tew's "sloop" Amity had two masts on one voyage to Madagascar, and one mast on its other voyage there (I forget which came first).

Thus, since I can't think offhand of any source detailing the number of masts on Condent's ship, we don't know...

Tonnage and number of guns are, IMO, the best guide to understanding what a period vessel was like. Crew size is an inherently unreliable indicator, and really even the number of guns can be misleading. The best approach is "best guessing", based on as much information as can be found about a vessel, including tonnage, armament, geographical location, former and current use, and description as a "sloop", "brigantine" (almost always two masted), "ship", or whatever. This approach leaves a great deal of room for interpretation, but you're unlikely to get a definitive answer anyway.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Quoting B. Lavery's book " Ship"

"(In) The period from 1650 until the advent of steam, around 1830.... there was very little specialization of type in merchant shipping, and vessels like East Indiaman or collier were defined by the size or cargo space rather than by any special features of desing."

Edited March 24, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Dutchman]

i'm a bit confused over the above quote from mr. laverys book. Having not read his book, nor knowing his sources i'd have to question it. if the above is true then why a variety of sloops during the GAoP..

we need to define the design differences (not construction locations) between the following colonial era ships, which all shared common waters at the same time. a bermuda sloop, a jamaican sloop, and a virginia sloop.

then, might we be able to find actual primary source references to their frequency in various ports?

[Swashbuckler 1700]

i'm a bit confused over the above quote from mr. laverys book. Having not read his book, nor knowing his sources i'd have to question it. if the above is true then why a variety of sloops during the GAoP..

we need to define the design differences (not construction locations) between the following colonial era ships, which all shared common waters at the same time. a bermuda sloop, a jamaican sloop, and a virginia sloop.

then, might we be able to find actual primary source references to their frequency in various ports?

Well mr. Lavery is expert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Lavery) and what Brit.Privateer and Foxe said agrees with him.

[Tartan Jack]

Fine, to be going on with:

Fancy, Henry Every,

Adventure Galley, Kidd,

Speaker, John Bowen

Mocha, Robert Culliford

Golden Fleece, Joseph Bannister

Rising Sun, Thomas Cocklyn

Bird/Wyndham Galley, Thomas Cocklyn

Whydah, Sam Bellamy

Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard

King James, Howell Davis

Ormonde, Howell Davis

New King James, Howell Davis

Royal Fortune (several of), Bart Roberts

Fancy, Edward England

King James, Edward England

Flying King, Edward England

Victory, John Taylor

Cassandra, John Taylor

Nuestra Senora del Cabo, Oliver la Buse

Eagle Galley, Richard Worley

Merry Christmas, Ned Low

Bonetta, Major Penner

I think the question of preponderance is related to the pirates' location. Pirates in the Caribbean and on the American seaboard sometimes chose sloops because of their sailing qualities and shallow draft which was useful in the various keys and inlets. However, I think it was more to do with the fact that sloops were pretty common in that area anyway. If you cross the Atlantic to the African coast, or go further and into the Indian Ocean, there were fewer sloops operating in general and more large ships such as slavers and Indiamen. The pirates in these regions followed the general trend and chose ships over sloops.

I think there are two reasons for this. Firstly, it's a simple matter of what was available: in the Americas there were some ships and loads of sloops, elsewhere there were more ships than sloops. Secondly, if the merchant ships you (as a pirate) are hunting are likely to be small sloops with a couple of guns then using a large sloop with eight guns puts you at an advantage, but once you cross the Atlantic and start trying to capture large square riggers with 20 guns, your sloop starts to look a bit small and vulnerable...

I believe that many of those bahama pirates in 1715-1718 used often sloops since they were good in shallow waters (and were easily available and easy to get) that there in the bahamas were but in longer voyage I would chose brigantine or frigate or slaver.

In sloops cannon ports are low and in real Atlantic storm they are not in good....sloops were small so i would not dare cross oceans whith so puny vessel

But . . .

Sloops DID sail back and forth across the Atlantic, sometimes several times- one right after the next.

The problem is that we think of "pirate ship" as all huge warships, not a mix of small vessels up to big ones. What we have gone through is a pendulum of ideas. In novels and, later, films from the latter 1700s through the 20th century, pirate vessels are shown almost universally as "big ships." So, historians began to point out that about half (or "most," "majority," etc) were actually smaller vessels of 6-12 guns- often described as "sloops." Then that got OVERstated into "almost all were actually sloops" . . . Foxe and others are now trying to balance that statement.

"Ships" was a wide-range of sizes of vessels, but larger than a "sloop." The line between a sloop and ship even got fuzzy . . .

Many were likely smaller 100-footer-ish merchantmen, rather than "flagship" sized vessels like the QAR (approx. 200 feet, if I recall properly- which was big at the time).

Sloops were oft 40-100 feet long and ships were 100-ish to 250-ish (I'm sure the experts could put better parameters on that).

In analogy, I'd say sloops were like "pick-up trucks" and ships were like "rigs/lorries" in function and size. Even then, there is a gray area between them in the middle-weight range. (Would that be a fair and reasonably accurate analogy?)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

From "The Pirate Ship 1660-1730"

" That said, it is clear That vessel for vessel, the sloop was the most important

type of pirate ship of the period, as almost all pirates Began Their careers in this

type of vessel. To Modern sailors, the term "sloop" refers to a sailing vessel with a

fore ... and ... Carried aft rig is a single mast. Usually this takes the form of a mainsail

and a single jib foresail. During the golden age, the term was less Clearly Defined,

and it was used to love the Refer to a variety of Vessels with a selection of Different rigs.

Sloops appeared in the naval service from the mid-'' I7th century, one of the first being

a prize captured from the privateering port of Dunkirk by the Commonwealth

Navy. With a keel length of 40ft (2m-I) and a beam ofjust over 12ft

(3.7 m), she

was one of the Smallest independent Warships in service. This vessel and Other

naval sloops of the late 17th century observation carried a minimal Armament of four guns.

Interestingly, the English also Life used the term "sloop" in reference to small, two mast ...

Vessels, with a square mainsail and ... Rigged Topsail. Some naval sloops were

three masted."

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Fine, to be going on with:

Fancy, Henry Every,

Adventure Galley, Kidd,

Speaker, John Bowen

Mocha, Robert Culliford

Golden Fleece, Joseph Bannister

Rising Sun, Thomas Cocklyn

Bird/Wyndham Galley, Thomas Cocklyn

Whydah, Sam Bellamy

Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard

King James, Howell Davis

Ormonde, Howell Davis

New King James, Howell Davis

Royal Fortune (several of), Bart Roberts

Fancy, Edward England

King James, Edward England

Flying King, Edward England

Victory, John Taylor

Cassandra, John Taylor

Nuestra Senora del Cabo, Oliver la Buse

Eagle Galley, Richard Worley

Merry Christmas, Ned Low

Bonetta, Major Penner

I think the question of preponderance is related to the pirates' location. Pirates in the Caribbean and on the American seaboard sometimes chose sloops because of their sailing qualities and shallow draft which was useful in the various keys and inlets. However, I think it was more to do with the fact that sloops were pretty common in that area anyway. If you cross the Atlantic to the African coast, or go further and into the Indian Ocean, there were fewer sloops operating in general and more large ships such as slavers and Indiamen. The pirates in these regions followed the general trend and chose ships over sloops.

I think there are two reasons for this. Firstly, it's a simple matter of what was available: in the Americas there were some ships and loads of sloops, elsewhere there were more ships than sloops. Secondly, if the merchant ships you (as a pirate) are hunting are likely to be small sloops with a couple of guns then using a large sloop with eight guns puts you at an advantage, but once you cross the Atlantic and start trying to capture large square riggers with 20 guns, your sloop starts to look a bit small and vulnerable...

Were those 3 masted vessels?

[Fox]

Probably (almost certainly)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Indeed e.g. England had 34 gun ship it must have been 3 masted....

[Tartan Jack]

Just a note . . . these names have HUGE Jacobite significance for the particular period immediately following the failed Jacobite Rebellion of 1715.

'

Fine, to be going on with:

Fancy, Henry Every,

Adventure Galley, Kidd,

Speaker, John Bowen

Mocha, Robert Culliford

Golden Fleece, Joseph Bannister

Rising Sun, Thomas Cocklyn

Bird/Wyndham Galley, Thomas Cocklyn

Whydah, Sam Bellamy

Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard

King James, Howell Davis

Ormonde, Howell Davis

New King James, Howell Davis

Royal Fortune (several of), Bart Roberts

Fancy, Edward England

King James, Edward England

Flying King, Edward England

Victory, John Taylor

Cassandra, John Taylor

Nuestra Senora del Cabo, Oliver la Buse

Eagle Galley, Richard Worley

Merry Christmas, Ned Low

Bonetta, Major Penner

While a number are the original ship name before capture

(I find the ship names, in themselves fascinating)

Edited May 22, 2012 by Tartan Jack

[Swashbuckler 1700]

While I know little about Jacobitism (I have read wiki and "kiddnapped" ) I know that pirates and jacobites are related. Mist the man (propably) behind GHOP was a jacobite...I think that there is a study of jacobite pirates made by some historian...

[Tartan Jack]

While I know little about Jacobitism (I have read wiki and "kiddnapped" ) I know that pirates and jacobites are related. Mist the man (propably) behind GHOP was a jacobite...I think that there is a study of jacobite pirates made by some historian...

(Foxe wrote a FINE article about it and Colin Woodward's "Republic of Pirates" make a significant deal of it)

[Fox]

Just a note . . . these names have HUGE Jacobite significance for the particular period immediately following the failed Jacobite Rebellion of 1715.

'

Fine, to be going on with:

Fancy, Henry Every,

Adventure Galley, Kidd,

Speaker, John Bowen

Mocha, Robert Culliford

Golden Fleece, Joseph Bannister

Rising Sun, Thomas Cocklyn

Bird/Wyndham Galley, Thomas Cocklyn

Whydah, Sam Bellamy

Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard

King James, Howell Davis

Ormonde, Howell Davis

New King James, Howell Davis

Royal Fortune (several of), Bart Roberts

Fancy, Edward England

King James, Edward England

Flying King, Edward England

Victory, John Taylor

Cassandra, John Taylor

Nuestra Senora del Cabo, Oliver la Buse

Eagle Galley, Richard Worley

Merry Christmas, Ned Low

Bonetta, Major Penner

While a number are the original ship name before capture

(I find the ship names, in themselves fascinating)

Just for the fun of it I've highlighted the Jacobite names in red, and the original names in blue. Speaker, Golden Fleece, and Bonetta may also have been the original names, but I'm not certain.

Arne Bialuschewski has also written an article entitled 'Jacobite Pirates?' which takes a somewhat different stance from my own, so is worth reading for the counter-argument (although both our articles were written without having seen the other, so it's not like we're actually arguing, we just disagree).

[Tartan Jack]

Thanks. I was wondering about Wyndham Gallery and Ormonde. Royal Fortune, I wasn't sure if it was a Jacobite reference or THEMSELVES as a new royalty of the sea.

[Fox]

Wyndham Galley and Ormonde are definitely Jacobite names, named after two of the principal Jacobites of the period. Royal Fortune I'm pretty sure is a Jacobite reference: Davis (Roberts' predecessor) had the Royal Rover, which is a Jacobite name, as well as the King James and others. Roberts seems also to have been a Jacobite, so it's likely that Royal fortune in his case was referring to 'King' James Stuart. Most ship names are obviously Jacobtite and can be used to tell us something about the Jacobitism of their crews, in this case we know something about the Jacobitism of the crew, which tells us something about the ship name...

[Tartan Jack]

Thanks.

I've read mostly on the Scottish politics of the time, mainly Campbell of Argyle and Graham or Montrose. That's my weakness here.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Tartan Jack

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I wonder how many captains were actually jacobites since it was perhaps the crews that were more jacobitical.

Why would Royal Fortune be jacobite name?

[Fox]

(See my last post)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Sorry ,my sillynes

[Mission]

This is a great little thesis on Jamaican sloops during the Golden Age. I haven't read it thoroughly, but it has some excellent references.

I think references are all most people are going to find in that paper. (And a lot of them appear to be to other recent academic papers written in the same style that this has been.) I read the first couple chapters and it's the kind of stuff that is written by one academic to other academics. (If you boiled this down to its essential point, taking out all the $20 words, repetitive concepts, interrupting phrases, calls out to other academic papers and theoretical nonsense, it'd be about a third or quarter as long as it is.)

In its defense, it is an anthropology paper and not a history paper. However, I still think this sort of writing is what university-style indoctrination produces. (You can't write in the common language or your doctorate might not appear so strange and mystical. I can see needing specialized language for many of the hard sciences where the concepts are highly specialized, but for history and anthropology? C'mon...)

Personally, I found what I wanted buried in the first chapter. "Plans or lines for either seventeenth- or eighteenth-century Jamaica sloops do not exist, and most [so modern] descriptions of their form [them are based on] are derived from a later ship type, the Bermuda sloop,)

Forgive for being so tart, but this is the kind of product that ticks me off about large universities. (If you haven't noticed... ) I was so hoping to find some useful info on the hold and cockpit of the Jamaica Sloops and instead I found things like:

"If seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English sloop data is used to create a normative equivalent for sloop construction, then this baseline may be compared with the stimuli necessitating Jamaica sloops to identify areas of potential variability."

Oh, do go on...

[William Brand]

This is why I haven't read it 'thoroughly'. The paper did provide some glossary terms and description I hadn't found anywhere else and confirmed some that I had found.