Sloops every pirate vessel?

[Mission]

Don't get me wrong - I'm actually very glad you posted it because I'm fairly certain the writer researched her topic well enough that she could authoritatively state that there are no extant plans or images, saving me from pursuing that particular line of inquiry.

It just annoys me when a topic that could be written about clearly and concisely is intentionally buried in verbose academic crap because professors reward such pretentious writing. Then what should be interesting reading becomes tiresome wading. You can figure it out, but it requires far more mental hoop-jumping than necessary.

[Coastie04]

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,

It would be much easier to read without all those lines through it...

However, I do agree. While there is a time and place to be verbose, I've generally used it in school when the teacher requires a 10 page paper on a subject that I just didn't care about, etc. Some of the best papers I ever wrote had the requirement of "make them as long or as short as you need in order to argue your thesis." The teacher didn't care if it was a 2 page paper or a 10 pager. He was harsher on a 10 pager that could have been a 2 pager, though.

Personally, I'd agree with Mission that more academic research should be written in common language to make it more accessible for us mere mortals with an interest, but not a career in wading through the fluff. I can understand getting very technical in a paper that warrants it, but at least the abstract with the major findings should be easily readable. Unfortunately, I find that often the abstracts have the opposite problem. They're trying to be so condensed that it's difficult to follow. Maybe more academics should write a summary: longer than an abstract, but generalizing the major points of the article in an easy to read format. It would also probably make for a good publication article.

OK, someone else can have the soap box now...

Arrrgh!

[Daniel]

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...)

As a product of that university indoctrination, I quite agree. We soft science folks have long had a bad case of envy for the hard sciences, so we think if we develop our own technobabble and stick to it rigidly, our work will be as valuable as the hard scientists'. In reality, we just make more our work more impenetrable, not more valuable.

[Captain Jim]

One of the best papers I ever read (on a study of population dynamics of Geomys pinetis in southern pine flatwoods) was filled with humor. Small, insider jokes about statistics, fieldwork and metodology, puns, plays on words all in just plain English except where needed. It was a genuine pleasure to read. I have long since lost my copy and miss it whenever I am called upon to write something "sciencey" for I used it as my model throughout College. Only once did a prof. knock me on the style, but restored the deducted points when I showed him my published source for style.

[Coastie04]

After mentioning this topic to my wife, she fully agreed. In college, she was taught to write in the long, verbose kind of way. When she wrote her master's thesis in botany, they edited her 60 page thesis down to 20 pages for publication. That makes it much easier to read AND understand, thus much more valuable. Hopefully that kind of trend can catch on so that current research can be accessible to all.

Arrrgh!

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I truly wonder that so many different ships were called sloops in the era.

For example these are both sloops at least in old period naval standards

http://collections.r...ects/66372.html

http://collections.r...ects/66296.html

The latter one Was used as a sloop example in Richard Platt's Book "Pirate". Though later than the context where it was presented (mid 18th century sloop presented with early 18th C pirates) I wonder does it actually differ much from the pirate sloops of early 1700s. At least many characteristic are similar....

Idea that is often presented or can be noted between the lines was that the sloops that pirates generally had were one (or two) masted. Why we should think so? Really many sloops are mentioned in sources like in "General History" but not all with fire power or other size indicator(of am I wrong). After all it is a different thing to have a 20 gun sloop with three masts than a six gun sloop with a one mast.

So in short I wonder this: we know that many pirates had sloop but do we now how much of their actual size since the term "Sloop" is so devious?

Edited December 27, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I truly wonder that so many different ships were called sloops in the era.

For example these are both sloops at least in old period naval standards

http://collections.r...ects/66372.html

http://collections.r...ects/66296.html

The latter one Was used as a sloop example in Richard Platt's Book "Pirate". Though later than the context where it was presented (mid 18th century sloop presented with early 18th C pirates) I wonder does it actually differ much from the pirate sloops of early 1700s. At least many characteristic are similar....

Idea that is often presented or can be noted between the lines was that the sloops that pirates generally had were one (or two) masted. Why we should think so? Really many sloops are mentioned in sources like in "General History" but not all with fire power or other size indicator(of am I wrong). After all it is a different thing to have a 20 gun sloop with three masts than a six gun sloop with a one mast.

So in short I wonder this: we know that many pirates had sloop but do we now how much of their actual size since the term "Sloop" is so devious?

I cannot edit this anymore so

And I also wonder why is that three masted vessel a 'sloop' while it has oars. Shouldn't it be a galley then?

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Not an actual old contemporary 18th century model but this is based certainly in reality.

http://amhistory.si..../TR_318281.html

And there we have another sloop with oars. I truly wonder how popular it was for a sloop to have oars...

Edited January 2, 2013 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Dutchman]

pretty common for boats in the 50ish and less foot range to have them. Think about it this way. boats of this size don't have a whole lot of deck room to lash down small boats. Without small boats, larger boats cannot navigate tight harbors while sailing against the wind or current. Its easier to row this size boat than carry small boats to maneuver around. I can manage my 40 foot sloop with 12 foot oars pretty easily in flat water.