pirates the savers?

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Hi I was wondering some stuff

This is quote from GHoP

" The rest appeared gay and brisk, most of them with white Shirts, Watches, and a deal of Silk Vests" this describes Bart Roberts' pirates when they dressed up just before capture

While it is perhaps stuff that writer had made up (it is I think unlikely and if my memory serves me rigth that was what the surgeon of HMS Swallow wrote)

And when I came accors that that In 1720 pirates under the leadership of Howell Davis, Thomas Cocklyn, and Oliver la Bouche captured the Bird, an English vessel captained by William Snelgrave. When the men confiscated the booty, it included bolts of satin, silk, and taffeta; coats; watches; and waistcoats( not to metion those captains's coats and that one coat affair between pirates) some could verify this captured gargo to be real to make sure that I am not lying here.

All know that Roberts was the successor of the Davis and the crew was pretty much same. So it seems to me that loot (like told by Snelgrave's coat affair) was sold before the mast like slop clothing to pirates and some of the Davis's men had those stolen clothes still when they were captured and dressed in them...

if true I am surprised I have heard strories like that that some of the W. Rogrer's men gambled their clothes but were there really savers among the prodigal sons.....

Edited March 12, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

All know that Roberts was the successor of the Davis and the crew was pretty much same. So it seems to me that loot (like told by Snelgrave's coat affair) was sold before the mast like slop clothing to pirates and some of the Davis's men had those clothes when they were captured and dressed in them...

if true I am surprised I have heard strories like that that some of the W. Rogrer's men gambled their clothes but were there really savers among the prodigal sons.....

According to some of the pirate articles we have from the General History, plunder was divided along very specific rules. I suppose a much-desired item could be sold (I don't recall the sale of Snelgrave's coat, but feel free to quote it here), but then to whom would the money it was sold for go?

And if I recall the Rogers account, the men traded their clothing for food and souvenir type stuff at one of the ports they stopped at shortly after leaving England.

No doubt some people saved and others didn't. However, the very nature of turning pirate seemed to favor the philosophy of "a short life and a merry one." Keep in mind that watches and vests could provide evidence if the pirates were caught, so someone with the foresight to save probably also would have the foresight to sell such things if they intended to live a life post-piracy. (I am conjecturing here that the reason for a pirate to save money would be for their retirement from the trade. At least I'm guessing that's what you're getting at.)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

All know that Roberts was the successor of the Davis and the crew was pretty much same. So it seems to me that loot (like told by Snelgrave's coat affair) was sold before the mast like slop clothing to pirates and some of the Davis's men had those clothes when they were captured and dressed in them...

if true I am surprised I have heard strories like that that some of the W. Rogrer's men gambled their clothes but were there really savers among the prodigal sons.....

According to some of the pirate articles we have from the General History, plunder was divided along very specific rules. I suppose a much-desired item could be sold (I don't recall the sale of Snelgrave's coat, but feel free to quote it here), but then to whom would the money it was sold for go?

And if I recall the Rogers account, the men traded their clothing for fodd and souvenir type stuff at one of the ports they stopped at shortly after leaving England.

No doubt some people saved and others didn't. However, the very nature of turning pirate seemed to favor the philosophy of "a short life and a merry one." Keep in mind that watches and vests could provide evidence if the pirates were caught, so someone with the foresight to save probably also would have the foresight to sell such things if they intended to live a life post-piracy. (I am conjecturing here that the reason for a pirate to save money would be for their retirement from the trade. At least I'm guessing that's what you're getting at.)

Coat affair

"Amongst my Adventure of Goods, I had in a Box three second-hand embroidered Coats. One day the three Pirate Captains…enquired for them, saying, “They understood by my Book such Clothes were in my Ship.” I told them, “They were in a Box under the bed place in the State-room. So they ordered them to be taken out, and immediately put them on.” But the longest Coat falling to Cocklyn’s share, who was a very short Man, it almost reached as low as his Ancles. This very much displeased him, and he would fain have changed with Le Boofe, or Davis: But they refused, telling him, “As they were going on Shore amongst the Negroe-Ladies, who did not know the white Mens fashions, it was no matter. Moreover, as his Coat was Scarlet embroidered with Silver, they believed he would have the preference of them, (whose Coats were not so showy) in the opinion of their Mistresses.

The Pirate Captains having taken these Cloaths without leave from the Quarter-master, it gave great offence to all the Crew; who alledg’d, “If they suffered such things, the Captains would for the future assume a Power, to take whatever they liked for themselves.” So upon their returning on board next Morning, the Coats were taken from them, and put into the common Chest, to be sold at the Mast."

[Mission]

So from this, I'd guess that the money would go into some universal pot which would be divided among the pirates when the accounting occurred. Kind of like when I said, "a much-desired item could be sold." This is provided they followed the precepts laid down in those articles we have that specify such things. Keep in mind that the crew was upset that things weren't being divided properly, so they must have had some sort of system in place. Blackbeard schemed to keep all the accumulated plunder for himself by marooning some men, so it seems reasonable to say that for some pirate crews the bulk of the money may not have divided until some future time. (They would almost have to divvy out some of it when they made landfall, though.)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

So from this, I'd guess that the money would go into some universal pot which would be divided among the pirates when the accounting occurred. Kind of like when I said, "a much-desired item could be sold." This is provided they followed the precepts laid down in those articles we have that specify such things. Keep in mind that the crew was upset that things weren't being divided properly, so they must have had some sort of system in place. Blackbeard schemed to keep all the accumulated plunder for himself by marooning some men, so it seems reasonable to say that for some pirate crews the bulk of the money may not have divided until some future time. (They would almost have to divvy out some of it when they made landfall, though.)

Yes and those rules confirms that captains could sometimes dress a little better because they got biggest share of loot (with money you can buy more clothes from the purser or the most expensive clothes or get greater share of looted clothing) I believe that captured sailor clothing was also sold before the mast and not only finery...

[Mission]

Yes and those rules confirms that captains could sometimes dress a little better because they got biggest share of loot (with money you can buy more clothes from the purser or the most expensive clothes or get greater share of looted clothing) I believe that captured sailor clothing was also sold before the mast and not only finery...

Prove it. You have presented one instance, the highlighting of which sort of suggests that this procedure might be out of the ordinary.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Yes and those rules confirms that captains could sometimes dress a little better because they got biggest share of loot (with money you can buy more clothes from the purser or the most expensive clothes or get greater share of looted clothing) I believe that captured sailor clothing was also sold before the mast and not only finery...

Prove it. You have presented one instance, the highlighting of which sort of suggests that this procedure might be out of the ordinary.

Well pirates were used to slop chests aboard merchant or navy ships and why not use same working system if you meant that I should say why captured sailor clothing would also been sold before the mast and not only finery...

If you mean captain stuff I said "sometimes a little better"

I believe that reason why the captains took those coats is just because they did not like so buy them since in those ships selling looted clothing was normal and these captains wanted get some finery free and not to give the crew a change to get them...

Edited March 12, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Dread Pyrate Greyhound]

Black Bart's Articles dictated that everyone was allowed a 'shift of clothes' when a ship was taken, Black Bart himself, was reputedly, a VERRY dapper dresser, having died in a crimson damask waistcoat, large hat with red feathers, and a gold cross studded with diamonds. But in all honesty, I have read they would have had rougher clothes worn when at sea, and much finer clothes for Shore Leave, plundered from wealthy indiviuals.

Although, I suspect that a pirate could have had the inclination to dress in a simple silk vest or waistcoat, but would most likely save their finest clothes for shore leave. I myself play the 'Gentleman Pyrate' archtype, so I dress in more elaborate outfits, beacause my character was raised an aristocrat in Charles II court. That being said, I am still considering an elegant, yet VERY toned down outfit for while at sea.

[Mission]

I tend to agree with you that pirate captains may have dressed a little better than the normal sailor based on what I perceive as their psychology, but I don't really have any proof of that. Period drawings of pirates suggest this, however, as we have discussed before on the forum, these drawings were not made of the actual pirates but were based on the artist's interpretation, probably using his knowledge of non-pirates to illustrate from.

But I was talking about the comment that captured clothing was sold before the mast. I'm guessing that comes from this comment, "So upon their returning on board next Morning, the Coats were taken from them, and put into the common Chest, to be sold at the Mast." This could be interpreted as meaning everything in the common chest (which was probably stuff that could not easily be given out in shares) was sold at the mast. Or it could be interpreted that the coats were of such value and interest that they would be sold before the mast because several people wanted them. You need independent, corroborating proof for you assertion.

One a normal ship, clothing sold before the mast was supposed to be a way for the men to buy clothing if they needed it or as a way to raise money for the family of a deceased seaman. (The deceased clothes and effects would be sold to raise the money which would go to the sailor's widow and children. I believe this is from Henry Teonge.)

However, its purpose was bastardized so that the men on our normal (non-pirate) ship would buy clothing at the mast at more than it was worth who borrowed against their wages to do so before making landfall. They would then go into town and sell it for less than they had paid as a way of borrowing against their future wages. This allowed them to buy drinks, food and whatever else they might want. (If I am remembering this rightly, it is according to Edward Barlow's account. Barlow has a tendency towards cynicism at times from my reading, but it would be a neat sort of scam if you think about it.)

The question being... why would the pirates do this? Just to get fancy clothes? That hardly supports your idea that they would be saving money. (I think that's your original idea, isn't it?)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Black Bart's Articles dictated that everyone was allowed a 'shift of clothes' when a ship was taken, Black Bart himself, was reputedly, a VERRY dapper dresser, having died in a crimson damask waistcoat, large hat with red feathers, and a gold cross studded with diamonds. But in all honesty, I have read they would have had rougher clothes worn when at sea, and much finer clothes for Shore Leave, plundered from wealthy indiviuals.

Although, I suspect that a pirate could have had the inclination to dress in a simple silk vest or waistcoat, but would most likely save their finest clothes for shore leave. I myself play the 'Gentleman Pyrate' archtype, so I dress in more elaborate outfits, beacause my character was raised an aristocrat in Charles II court. That being said, I am still considering an elegant, yet VERY toned down outfit for while at sea.

Source of Robert's outfit is the not always the best book "general history of pyrates" but in this matter to me it seems to be corect...Roberts I believe looted his clothes from the governor of Martinigue who Roberts so brutally executed. So I believe what Johnsons said about Black barts's look since if man loots 400 ships he could get his hands on sime nice gear. So I firmly believe of what was said about Roberts and because his pirate crew (not all were hang) and activities Involved many people not to mention his former crew mwmbers who were I believe interviewed by the mystical Capt Johnson to his book.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I tend to agree with you that pirate captains may have dressed a little better than the normal sailor based on what I perceive as their psychology, but I don't really have any proof of that. Period drawings of pirates suggest this, however, as we have discussed before on the forum, these drawings were not made of the actual pirates but were based on the artist's interpretation, probably using his knowledge of non-pirates to illustrate from.

But I was talking about the comment that captured clothing was sold before the mast. I'm guessing that comes from this comment, "So upon their returning on board next Morning, the Coats were taken from them, and put into the common Chest, to be sold at the Mast." This could be interpreted as meaning everything in the common chest (which was probably stuff that could not easily be given out in shares) was sold at the mast. Or it could be interpreted that the coats were of such value and interest that they would be sold before the mast because several people wanted them. You need independent, corroborating proof for you assertion.

One a normal ship, clothing sold before the mast was supposed to be a way for the men to buy clothing if they needed it or as a way to raise money for the family of a deceased seaman. (The deceased clothes and effects would be sold to raise the money which would go to the sailor's widow and children. I believe this is from Henry Teonge.)

However, its purpose was bastardized so that the men on our normal (non-pirate) ship would buy clothing at the mast at more than it was worth who borrowed against their wages to do so before making landfall. They would then go into town and sell it for less than they had paid as a way of borrowing against their future wages. This allowed them to buy drinks, food and whatever else they might want. (If I am remembering this rightly, it is according to Edward Barlow's account. Barlow has a tendency towards cynicism at times from my reading, but it would be a neat sort of scam if you think about it.)

The question being... why would the pirates do this? Just to get fancy clothes? That hardly supports your idea that they would be saving money. (I think that's your original idea, isn't it?)

I think it is safe to say that captains sometimes had a little better outfit...

Where John Rackhams nicname Calico Jack come from (I know his calico clothes)but is the "Calico Jack" mentioned in any period sources?

Edited March 12, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

About captain clothing.... here is good Foxe's article http://www.piratesin...Captain_947.asp

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I started this topic and I don't mind that it has gone offtopic... so let us continue...

[Fox]

Hmm, some interesting points...

First off, the only actual account I can recall offhand of pirates holding a mast sale is that posted above, but it included more than just the coats - at least Snelgrave's watch was also sold. However, I suspect that it was more common than the one source suggests, simply because it makes a lot of sense. Given that many items taken by pirates would be impossible to divide equally, the mast-sale would be a good way of realising the value of the items and levelling the shares received by each pirate at the same time.

Methods of distributing loot varied from ship to ship, as one would imagine. John Taylor's company apparently kept a common chest and divvied up the loot whenever they made landfall. Kidd's men had a more formal division wherein each man was called in turn and swept his share up into his hat. Anstis' crew appear to have divided loot after each ship they captured. The keeping of a common fund, even by companies divided over more than one ship, was fairly commonplace. When Charles Harris' ship was captured the authorities found no money on board because all the loot was kept on Low's flagship. Bellamy's company also kept a chest, but did not formally divide the loot. Instead, each man could have money whenever he wanted it by applying to the quartermaster, who kept an account book of everything given out.

Were pirates savers? Well, why not... many of them certainly experienced a "short life and a merry one", but that doesn't mean that they were hoping for it. Roberts' articles, for example, state that no man was to talk of breaking up the company until each had received £1,000. Retirement from piracy was certainly the eventual aim of many (perhaps most) pirates, and they naturally hoped to have accumulated enough to do so in style. (Cue the argument about pirates' motives...)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Hmm, some interesting points...

First off, the only actual account I can recall offhand of pirates holding a mast sale is that posted above, but it included more than just the coats - at least Snelgrave's watch was also sold. However, I suspect that it was more common than the one source suggests, simply because it makes a lot of sense. Given that many items taken by pirates would be impossible to divide equally, the mast-sale would be a good way of realising the value of the items and levelling the shares received by each pirate at the same time.

Methods of distributing loot varied from ship to ship, as one would imagine. John Taylor's company apparently kept a common chest and divvied up the loot whenever they made landfall. Kidd's men had a more formal division wherein each man was called in turn and swept his share up into his hat. Anstis' crew appear to have divided loot after each ship they captured. The keeping of a common fund, even by companies divided over more than one ship, was fairly commonplace. When Charles Harris' ship was captured the authorities found no money on board because all the loot was kept on Low's flagship. Bellamy's company also kept a chest, but did not formally divide the loot. Instead, each man could have money whenever he wanted it by applying to the quartermaster, who kept an account book of everything given out.

Were pirates savers? Well, why not... many of them certainly experienced a "short life and a merry one", but that doesn't mean that they were hoping for it. Roberts' articles, for example, state that no man was to talk of breaking up the company until each had received £1,000. Retirement from piracy was certainly the eventual aim of many (perhaps most) pirates, and they naturally hoped to have accumulated enough to do so in style. (Cue the argument about pirates' motives...)

So what you say about that Black Bart's crew having so stuff looted in Davis's time...

[Fox]

It's quite possible, I don't see any reason why not, but bear two things in mind:

Firstly, although a nucleus of Roberts' men had been together since Davis led the mutiny on the Buck, many of Davis' men had left the company by the time of the final battle: John Taylor had joined Cocklyn's crew, and it's possible some of his friends and supporters went with him; Kennedy had sailed for home with a sizeable number of men; and Thomas Anstis and a good number of the company deserted and went on their own account. By the time of the last battle, probably the majority of the company had not been with Davis.

Secondly, Roberts' company took a lot of ships between Snelgrave's vessel and their last battle, so the watches and waistcoats could easily have come from somewhere else.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

It's quite possible, I don't see any reason why not, but bear two things in mind:

Firstly, although a nucleus of Roberts' men had been together since Davis led the mutiny on the Buck, many of Davis' men had left the company by the time of the final battle: John Taylor had joined Cocklyn's crew, and it's possible some of his friends and supporters went with him; Kennedy had sailed for home with a sizeable number of men; and Thomas Anstis and a good number of the company deserted and went on their own account. By the time of the last battle, probably the majority of the company had not been with Davis.

Secondly, Roberts' company took a lot of ships between Snelgrave's vessel and their last battle, so the watches and waistcoats could easily have come from somewhere else.

Indeed good points there. Was that part on GHoP actual record written by HMS Swasllow's surgeon? ( oh if I could remember were I have read that that it was from surgeons journal) if so it is the one of the most realistic parts of GHoP... Do we have any reason not to believe that what Johnson said about Capt. Roberts's look since even his crew and other period pirates in the same are had nice stuff like fine waistcoats too... I also Believe that B. Roberts section (in the Johnson's book) is one of the best parts since (like I said earlier) that Roberts I believe looted his clothes from the governor of Martinigue who Roberts so brutally executed. So I believe what Johnsons said about Black barts's look since if man loots about 400 ships he could get his hands on some nicer gear. So I firmly believe of what was said about Roberts and because his pirate crew (not all were hang) and activities Involved many people not to mention his former crew mwmbers who were I believe interviewed by the mystical Capt Johnson to his book. But certainly GHoP is not perfect in any part.....

BTW Is the Rackhams Calico nickname mentioned in period sources?

[Mission]

"[Walter] Kennedy and another left them [the pirates who deserted Bart. Roberts] here [in Scotland], and travelling to one of the Sea-Ports, shipp'd themselves for Ireland, and arrived there in Safety. Six or seven wisely withdrew from the rest, travelled at their Leisure, and got to their much desired Port of London, without being disturbed or suspected; but the main Gang [19 men] alarm'd the Country where-ever they came, drinking and roaring at such a Rate, that the People shut themselves up in their Houses, in some Places, not daring to venture out among so many mad Fellows: In other Villages, the treated the whole Town, squandering their Money away, as if, like Æsop, they wanted to lighten their Burthens: This expensive Manner of Living procured two of their drunken Stragglers to be knocked on the Head, they being found murdered in the road... Kennedy, having spent all his Money, came over from Ireland and kept a common Bawdy-House on Deptford Road..." (Shornhorn's version of the General History, p. 209)

So seven or eight men may have been inclined not to waste their money from a group of 27 or 28 men in this example. (Although it's hard to say because the narrative doesn't tell what happened to those six or seven men who went to the Port of London and the man who accompanied Kennedy.)

[Fox]

Indeed good points there. Was that part on GHoP actual record written by HMS Swasllow's surgeon? ( oh if I could remember were I have read that that it was from surgeons journal) if so it is the one of the most realistic parts of GHoP...

Part of the description of Sierra Leone inserted in the chapter on Davis was later used by John Atkins, surgeon of the Swallow, in his own book. Since Atkins had actually been there and Johnson (as far as we know) had not, the obvious conclusion is that Atkins wrote the description and gave it to Johnson, then reused it in his own book years later.

The account of the trial of Roberts' men in the GHP is also taken from the record of the trial kept by Atkins in his capacity as register (a kind of clerk) of the court. Johnson may have got it direct from Atkins, or he may have copied from the printed version, which in turn came from Atkins' record.

Do we have any reason not to believe that what Johnson said about Capt. Roberts's look since even his crew and other period pirates in the same are had nice stuff like fine waistcoats too... I also Believe that B. Roberts section (in the Johnson's book) is one of the best parts since (like I said earlier) that Roberts I believe looted his clothes from the governor of Martinigue who Roberts so brutally executed.

Although Roberts was reputed to have executed the governor of Martinique, and the rumour was repeated by Johnson, there is no evidence that he actually did so.

So I believe what Johnsons said about Black barts's look since if man loots about 400 ships he could get his hands on some nicer gear. So I firmly believe of what was said about Roberts and because his pirate crew (not all were hang) and activities Involved many people not to mention his former crew mwmbers who were I believe interviewed by the mystical Capt Johnson to his book. But certainly GHoP is not perfect in any part.....

There's nothing mystical about Johnson

So seven or eight men may have been inclined not to waste their money from a group of 27 or 28 men in this example. (Although it's hard to say because the narrative doesn't tell what happened to those six or seven men who went to the Port of London and the man who accompanied Kennedy.)

Those six or seven men may have actually been:

"Thomas Lamburn, whose father and mother live in Robin Hood's Alley in Suffolk Street in the Mint

James Bradshaw, living at the Cork, a public house in Cork Lane in Spittlefields and keeps the said house

John Cherry, lodging at the White Lion, a public house in Wheeler Street, Spittlefields

Thomas Jenkins (whose real name is Francis Channock) to be heard of at the Sign of the Golden Bull or Yorkshire Gray a little about the wet dock in Rotherhithe.

Charles Radford, a lodger at Mr Hitchcock's, a musician, near the Watch house in Brook Street in Ratcliffe

Thomas Haydon, gone to sea but when at home lodges at Mrs Price's in Elephant Lane Rotherhithe"

Of these men, only James Bradshaw appears to have actually been taken up for questioning and committed to the Marshalsea prison, but he claimed to have been forced by Howell Davis and was not brought to trial. The man who accompanied Kennedy was probably "William Callifax, at Dublin near Cable Street". There is some evidence to suggest that at some point Callifax was actually in command of the company.

[Mission]

Thanks, Foxe. Although we know who they were, but we don't know what did they did with their share. (Hearkening back to the original question about pirates as savers.)

Some of them must have saved their Moidores against the future, but the inclination from that passage seems to lean towards short l. and m. one.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Indeed good points there. Was that part on GHoP actual record written by HMS Swasllow's surgeon? ( oh if I could remember were I have read that that it was from surgeons journal) if so it is the one of the most realistic parts of GHoP...

Part of the description of Sierra Leone inserted in the chapter on Davis was later used by John Atkins, surgeon of the Swallow, in his own book. Since Atkins had actually been there and Johnson (as far as we know) had not, the obvious conclusion is that Atkins wrote the description and gave it to Johnson, then reused it in his own book years later.

The account of the trial of Roberts' men in the GHP is also taken from the record of the trial kept by Atkins in his capacity as register (a kind of clerk) of the court. Johnson may have got it direct from Atkins, or he may have copied from the printed version, which in turn came from Atkins' record.

Do we have any reason not to believe that what Johnson said about Capt. Roberts's look since even his crew and other period pirates in the same are had nice stuff like fine waistcoats too... I also Believe that B. Roberts section (in the Johnson's book) is one of the best parts since (like I said earlier) that Roberts I believe looted his clothes from the governor of Martinigue who Roberts so brutally executed.

Although Roberts was reputed to have executed the governor of Martinique, and the rumour was repeated by Johnson, there is no evidence that he actually did so.

So I believe what Johnsons said about Black barts's look since if man loots about 400 ships he could get his hands on some nicer gear. So I firmly believe of what was said about Roberts and because his pirate crew (not all were hang) and activities Involved many people not to mention his former crew mwmbers who were I believe interviewed by the mystical Capt Johnson to his book. But certainly GHoP is not perfect in any part.....

There's nothing mystical about Johnson

So seven or eight men may have been inclined not to waste their money from a group of 27 or 28 men in this example. (Although it's hard to say because the narrative doesn't tell what happened to those six or seven men who went to the Port of London and the man who accompanied Kennedy.)

Those six or seven men may have actually been:

"Thomas Lamburn, whose father and mother live in Robin Hood's Alley in Suffolk Street in the Mint

James Bradshaw, living at the Cork, a public house in Cork Lane in Spittlefields and keeps the said house

John Cherry, lodging at the White Lion, a public house in Wheeler Street, Spittlefields

Thomas Jenkins (whose real name is Francis Channock) to be heard of at the Sign of the Golden Bull or Yorkshire Gray a little about the wet dock in Rotherhithe.

Charles Radford, a lodger at Mr Hitchcock's, a musician, near the Watch house in Brook Street in Ratcliffe

Thomas Haydon, gone to sea but when at home lodges at Mrs Price's in Elephant Lane Rotherhithe"

Of these men, only James Bradshaw appears to have actually been taken up for questioning and committed to the Marshalsea prison, but he claimed to have been forced by Howell Davis and was not brought to trial. The man who accompanied Kennedy was probably "William Callifax, at Dublin near Cable Street". There is some evidence to suggest that at some point Callifax was actually in command of the company.

So that part of GHoP is better than the most other parts of it or ?

Odd that we cannot know did Bart really killed governor that sort of stuff should be easy to check...

[Fox]

I reckon the chapter on Roberts is one of the most reliable parts of the book, partly because of Atkins, partly because of the availability of material (the printed account of the trial of Roberts' men is one of the fullest, and Roberts made regular appearances in newspapers), and possibly partly because of Johnson's use of several other witnesses.

No governor of Martinique is reported as having been killed during the time of Roberts' career, so we can be fairly certain that he didn't really do it. It is possible though that the rumour got mangled and that actually it was some other government official belonging to Martinique or a different foreign colony who might be harder to track.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I reckon the chapter on Roberts is one of the most reliable parts of the book, partly because of Atkins, partly because of the availability of material (the printed account of the trial of Roberts' men is one of the fullest, and Roberts made regular appearances in newspapers), and possibly partly because of Johnson's use of several other witnesses.

No governor of Martinique is reported as having been killed during the time of Roberts' career, so we can be fairly certain that he didn't really do it. It is possible though that the rumour got mangled and that actually it was some other government official belonging to Martinique or a different foreign colony who might be harder to track.

I believe also that the chapter on Roberts is one of the most reliable parts ... and I think bonny, Read and some of the Bb stories are the most improvised and bit less true than Bart's but many odd details like Bb 16 yeard old wife has proven to be true.....

And it is really well possible that it was just one government official....

[Mission]

Odd that we cannot know did Bart really killed governor that sort of stuff should be easy to check...

You clearly haven't been doing this for very long...

[Fox]

... and I think bonny, Read and some of the Bb stories are the most improvised and bit less true than Bart's but many odd details like Bb 16 yeard old wife has proven to be true.....

Has it?