pirates the savers?

[Swashbuckler 1700]

... 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?

From The Republic of Pirates book's bage

"Blackbeard led a favored subset of

his crew to North Carolina’s village capital, Bath, where they took the king’s pardon from Governor

Charles Eden. He married a local girl – a fact confirmed by Admiralty documents found while

researching The Republic of Pirates "

I don't mean the 14 wife stuff but he was really married

[Fox]

Captain Gordon reported a rumour that he'd heard that Blackbeard was married at Bath, the same rumour that Johnson repeated. No evidence that the rumour was true has yet surfaced (to my knowledge), nor is it known how old the wife might have been.

I'm saying that it's not true, it very well may be, but it's still only rumour.

[Fox]

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.

Found while looking for something else:

"V. to keep their Piece, Pistols, and Cutlash clean, and fit for Service: In this they were extravagantly nice, endeavouring to outdo one another, in the Beauty and Richness of their Arms, giving sometimes at an Auction (at the Mast) 30 or 40 l. a Pair, for Pistols..."

(Roberts' articles with note by Charles Johnson).

[Mission]

Yeah, I think I saw another reference to it as well, but now I can't find it for some reason. So I'd say we've proven it in this case. :)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

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...

What do you mean (well i haven't ) if ship could not disappear (like you have discussed somewhere here) why could governor....

Edited March 15, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

No, I've learned that as simple as some historical fact may appear to be, it is rarely so once you start to dig into it. Of course, I've learned the same thing about many things we think are 'facts.' But now we enter the dim realm of perception and consciousness which is so far OT that I'm not going to continue rambling any more.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

No, I've learned that as simple as some historical fact may appear to be, it is rarely so once you start to dig into it. Of course, I've learned the same thing about many things we think are 'facts.' But now we enter the dim realm of perception and consciousness which is so far OT that I'm not going to continue rambling any more.

Well yeah everyting is copmlicated but when we look at it all is damn simple some things are true some aren't or perhaps they are somewhere between but that do we knew what was rigth is not simple...

Edited March 15, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

Here's another interesting quote from Captain Martel's section of the General History.

"...for so many idle People employing themselves in Privateers, for the sake of Plunder and Riches, which they always spend as fast as they get, that when the War is over, and they can have no farther Business in the Way of Life they have been used to, they too readily engage in acts of Pyracy, which being but the same Practice without a Commission, they make very little Distinction betwixt the Lawfulness of one, and the Unlawfulness of the other." (Johnson, p. 65, 3rd ed.)

Swashbuckler 1700, you might also say this proves your assertion that Privateers and Pirates were the same, but 1) Johnson is talking specifically about individuals who see no difference between privateering and piracy and 2) I would argue back that Johnson is over-generalizing with his sweeping statement, "being but the same Practice without a Commission". But feel free to run with it if you like.

[Fox]

Whilst perusing some documents this evening I've come across two points relevant to this thread: a correction and an addition.

Firstly, James Bradshaw was brought to trial, convicted and sentenced to death, but was pardoned.

Secondly, in his cell awaiting execution Walter Kennedy admitted that Bart Roberts had "murdered the French Governor of an American Island". No real progress, might (or might not) still have been a lesser official whom the pirates confused with the governor, and no place is mentioned.

[Mission]

See?

No, I've learned that as simple as some historical fact may appear to be, it is rarely so once you start to dig into it. Of course, I've learned the same thing about many things we think are 'facts.' But now we enter the dim realm of perception and consciousness which is so far OT that I'm not going to continue rambling any more.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Whilst perusing some documents this evening I've come across two points relevant to this thread: a correction and an addition.

Firstly, James Bradshaw was brought to trial, convicted and sentenced to death, but was pardoned.

Secondly, in his cell awaiting execution Walter Kennedy admitted that Bart Roberts had "murdered the French Governor of an American Island". No real progress, might (or might not) still have been a lesser official whom the pirates confused with the governor, and no place is mentioned.

hah haaaaaa!!!!

one point to Johnson!

Edited March 22, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

From the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic. May 1701:

"Proceedings upon the petition to the king of Eliz. Mead, relict and executrix of Hen. Mead, and Gertrude Beck, relict and executrix of Will. Beck; setting forth that their husbands sailed from Plymouth in April, 1696, in the Adventure, gally, Mead being master and Beck quarter-master, under command of capt. Wm. Kidd, bound to the East Indies; and soon after, and before any act of piracy committed by Kidd, their husbands died, leaving on board their clothes, instruments, books, etc., which were sold by Kidd on board and at the mast, as is usual, viz.: the goods of Mead for 900 pieces of eight in gold, and the goods of Beck for 450 pieces, which gold was seized with the gold and effects of Kidd; the truth of which Kidd has, before his attainder, certified. They pray that the said effects may be delivered to them. The certificate dated April 30, 1701, was annexed to the petition."

[Swashbuckler 1700]

From the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic. May 1701:

"Proceedings upon the petition to the king of Eliz. Mead, relict and executrix of Hen. Mead, and Gertrude Beck, relict and executrix of Will. Beck; setting forth that their husbands sailed from Plymouth in April, 1696, in the Adventure, gally, Mead being master and Beck quarter-master, under command of capt. Wm. Kidd, bound to the East Indies; and soon after, and before any act of piracy committed by Kidd, their husbands died, leaving on board their clothes, instruments, books, etc., which were sold by Kidd on board and at the mast, as is usual, viz.: the goods of Mead for 900 pieces of eight in gold, and the goods of Beck for 450 pieces, which gold was seized with the gold and effects of Kidd; the truth of which Kidd has, before his attainder, certified. They pray that the said effects may be delivered to them. The certificate dated April 30, 1701, was annexed to the petition."

So it seems to be quite a common practice. I am not saying that all did it. It makes me wonder (I am not claiming that the pirates were often well-dressed) why Snelgrave's coats were auctioned at the mast and not just sold and share the money of it? It seems that pirates were always need for clothing and it was ( at least sometimes if not often) auctioned among the crew ( alongside with other stuff like smoking pipes, playing cards as dead man's property or even loot) but clothing would often be just mariners garment. We have so many hints of pirates selling stuff board and at the mast so we can say it was a practice. And Kidd and Davis had not same articles or etc. and that "as is usual" is quite revealing.

[Mission]

"[From the Chapter on Captain Nathaniel North] The first cruise he made, they took a couple of good prizes, which made every man's share very considerable; but North, as he got his money lightly, so he spent it, making the companions of his dangers the companions of his diversions, or rather joining himself with them, and following their example; which all (who are acquainted with the way of life of a successful Jamaica privateer) know is not an example of the greatest sobriety and economy. His money being all spent, he took the same method for a recruit, that is, he went a second time privateering, and met with such success, that he engaged very heartily in this course of life, and made several lucky cruises." (Captain Charles Johnson, The History of the Pirates (aka. Vol II of The General History), 1834 Edition, p. 184-5)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Well found on web site http://pirates.hegewisch.net/articles_new.html but it seems to be pretty much real

Privateer ship's but it seems to be little later than gaop...

" That all the small Plunder, shall be brought to publick Sale, and be delivered to the highest Bidder, for which their Shares shall be accountable, excepting the Captain's Perquisites, which are such as did belong to the Captains of Prizes, and such Clothing as the Captain shall think proper to allow the Prisoners."

[Mission]

And here are some more pirates frittering away money...

“[bartholomew Roberts] Elated with this Booty, they had nothing now to think of but some safe Retreat, where they might give themselves up to all the Pleasures that Luxury and Wantonness could bestow, and for the present pitch'd upon a Place called the Devil’s Island, in the River of Surinam on the Coast of Catana, where they arrived, and found the civilest Reception imaginable, not only from the Governor and Factory, but their Wives, who exchanged Wares and drove a considerable Trade with them.” (Johnson, 3^rd, p. 223)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

There is no neede to find all tales of pirates spending their money there is no dought of that they did it but what about the small group of other pirates who saved stuff.

[Mission]

It's a topic, I'm a reader and collector of info and I like sharing. You may not want to read it, but others might. (Heck, I might want to use it in the future. When writing a surgery article, I sometimes come back here and see what I've written so I can use my own info!)

[Fox]

I think it's more important than that. If the original question is "were pirates savers?" then evidence that they were not is just as important as evidence that they were.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Okay.... Sorry for that

Indeed but (at least me) already has bias of pirates like I have that pirates were not generally savers but what about those who could have been savers. But since all stuff that is here is related to topic it is good that some others can get info here but I am pretty sure that pirates spending money has already dealth with in other treads bettter than pirates saving things.

[Mission]

The other thing it shows is that the balance of evidence weighs quite heavily against their bothering to save for the future. However, to say that none saved would be as big a folly as to say that all did.

History - messy - particularly on the granular level - you know the drill.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

History - messy - particularly on the granular level - you know the drill.

Now I quote myself now but here is a sample of my endles visdom ( ) " really often, in history, things do not happen suddenly but little by little" I was talking things like habits

and indeed you are quite rigth with about pirate savings.....

[Mission]

Here's a bit about some French pirates from The Memoirs of Pére Labat 1693-1705, translated and edited by John Eaden.

“[Feb. 4th, 1705 - I believe] As soon as our men received their share of the money for the caique and her cargo, they promptly went ashore to carouse as long as the money lasted, according to custom.” (Labat, p. 244)

"Most of the crew had spent all their money by the 20th February [1705], so I helped [Filibuster Captain] Daniel to make them return to the ship. In order to do this we spread a rumour in the town that an English merchantman was expected at St. Thomas [where they were], and on hearing this all the crew came aboard in the evening." (Labat, p. 244)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Indeed mission many pirates were not savers

However back to the Davis. It seems that clothes could be saved in order to use them as disguise if needed. I bet that Davis would have a change to sell these if he would have needed. It seems to me that Davis' Robert's company were saving clothes if not money e.g looking their dressing up before capture. So some clothes migth be saved for special occasions.

From 1724 edition of GHoP:

"Having come within Sight of the Place, he ordered all his Men under Deck, except as many as were absolutely necessary for working the Ship, that those from the Fort seeing a Ship with so few Hands, might have no Suspicion of her being any other than a trading Vessel; then he ran close under the Fort, and there cast Anchor; and having ordered out the Boat, he commanded six Men in her, in old ordinary Jackets, while he himself, with the Master and Doctor, dressed themselves like Gentlemen; his Design being, that the Men should look like common Sailors, and they like Merchants. In rowing ashore he gave his Men Instructions what to say in Case any Questions should be asked them."

So it seemed that sometimes outfits couls have been saved in so they could be used as disguise.I hope you got what I mean....

[Mission]

Sure, why not?

Although many pirates seem to have been incredibly short-sighted for the most part. You read over and over again about various pirates doing stupid things like crossing the Atlantic without taking adequate supplies - particularly water.