Gaop pirate nationalities.....

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I know that there were crews that had British, French, Belgians, Swedes, colonial people, Indians (native Americans), Dutch, Spanish, Germans and lots of Africans etc. But the most of the gaop pirates appeared to be British, Africans, French or Colonial Americans and the other nationalities were much rarer. Or am I wrong?

[Mission]

Didn't I just link to the Pirate Nationalities (Origins) thread a few days ago? You'll find more collected data on pirate nationalities there than I've ever seen anywhere else. Go study it and you can report back your findings. If you want an MS Excel version of the list, you'll find it on my website.

[Fox]

Lookg back I'm sure we'd have done it differently if we'd thought, but the trouble (or one of them) with the pirate nationalities thread is that it was never classified by time period. Not all of the names listed in it are from the GAoP.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Indeed Foxe .... Good list but periods are missing. Whydah was one good multicultural pirate ship it had e.g Dutch, Swedes, native Americans (only really few) and Africans.

[Fox]

For what it's worth, Marcus Rediker's analysis of pirate nationalities is probably the best you're going to get. He admits it's not perfect, but it is based on a range of sources from 1715-1725 which list pirates' nationalities. He reckoned, during that period:

English - 47.4%

Irish - 9.8%

Scottish - 6.3%

Welsh - 4%

"American" (including West Indies) - approx 25%

Other (Dutch, French, Portuguese, Danish, Belgian, Swedish, African) - 6.9%

[Mission]

Lookg back I'm sure we'd have done it differently if we'd thought, but the trouble (or one of them) with the pirate nationalities thread is that it was never classified by time period. Not all of the names listed in it are from the GAoP.

We actually did talk about that, but the list was so huge at that point that no one wanted to do it. Still, if you know of another place where that data can be found in such a form, fess up. (If Swashbuckler wants to answer his own question, that would be the place to start. He really needs to do some of his own research to become truly knowledgeable and research savvy anyhow.)

One nice thing about the list is that I footnoted a lot of the pirates indicating who contributed the names and what the source was. That would be tremendously helpful in trying to find their dates of operation. Many of the pirates without footnotes came either from Rogozinski's Encyclopedic opus or Gosse's Who's Who where more info is in the offing.

Or we could just buckle down and start adding dates. ("Asps! Very dangerous. You go first." )

[Swashbuckler 1700]

For what it's worth, Marcus Rediker's analysis of pirate nationalities is probably the best you're going to get. He admits it's not perfect, but it is based on a range of sources from 1715-1725 which list pirates' nationalities. He reckoned, during that period:

English - 47.4%

Irish - 9.8%

Scottish - 6.3%

Welsh - 4%

"American" (including West Indies) - approx 25%

Other (Dutch, French, Portuguese, Danish, Belgian, Swedish, African) - 6.9%

The small number of Africans is odd. It seems that some crews had not Africans at all but others had sometimes almost 50%. Like La Buse's Robert's or Bellamy's crews. Roberts (if my memory serves me right) had Greeks aboard and there is hints of the Spanish too

.

You may disagree but I think that in this case it is silly to put as accurate percents as 6.9% why not put just 7% since they are only for illustrative purposes.

That list seems to be good and there is still almost 10% non British men (or cononial Americans), BTW "Americans" does those mean only English colonies or Dutch, Spanish and French too?

Sorry is spelling was bad but I made this in hurry.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

This is from book the pirate ship 1660- 1730 ( Osprey but...)

A Danish (hmm. interesting) victim of Bart R recalled:

" The said Roberts' ship manned with about 180 white men and about 48 French Creole negroes...

Edited May 12, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

The thing with African or other black 'pirates' is that in many cases it's impossible to tell whether they were actually pirates or were kept as slaves on board a pirate ship - if you appreciate the difference.

For example, much has been made of the fact that when Blackbeard left Topsail inlet on the Revenge he had a 'crew' consisting of 40 white men and 60 black men. In fact, though, a variety of sources make it clear that the black men were slaves in every sense of the word.

I don't recall any definite evidence one way or another regarding the status of the black men in Roberts crew, except that many of them did not speak English, so it's unlikely that they were fully integrated into the predominantly Anglophone company.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

The thing with African or other black 'pirates' is that in many cases it's impossible to tell whether they were actually pirates or were kept as slaves on board a pirate ship - if you appreciate the difference.

For example, much has been made of the fact that when Blackbeard left Topsail inlet on the Revenge he had a 'crew' consisting of 40 white men and 60 black men. In fact, though, a variety of sources make it clear that the black men were slaves in every sense of the word.

I don't recall any definite evidence one way or another regarding the status of the black men in Roberts crew, except that many of them did not speak English, so it's unlikely that they were fully integrated into the predominantly Anglophone company.

Indeed

some Africans were even officers like John Julian or Black Ceasar but it seems that often Africans were slaves

Truth is far more complicated that some "whydah people" want us to believe u know the " blacks were equals aboard pirate ship" junk...

[Fox]

Before I get accused of racism, let me say that I have no axe to grind regarding black pirates. Undoubtedly there were some free black pirates who were valued members of the company, bore arms, and shared in the plunder. But now we've got that out of the way, I'm going to question the 'officer' status of both John Julian and Caesar.

The sum of evidence that Caesar was an officer is that he was apparently the one entrusted to blow up the Revenge in the event of Blackbeard's defeat. There's no evidence that I recall that he was an officer - that is, had command over other pirates in the company - or even that he wasn't a slave like the rest of the black men on Blackbeard's ship. The fact that he and a handful of other black men were still aboard at the time of the final battle suggests that they may have been more highly respected than the ones Blackbeard and his company sold, but it might just mean that they were the ones owned by other members of the company also still aboard.

John Julian's 'officer' status is also far from clear. He is described somewhere as the Whydah's pilot, but the word 'pilot' had two distinct meanings in the GAoP. It could refer to the officer in charge of navigation, and this is the sense in which it is usually applied to John Julian, but it is important to note that Ken Kinkor is John Julian's greatest champion, and coincidentally the author most strongly connected with the idea of pirate racial tolerance. On the other hand, 'pilot' could also mean a local expert who had the task of navigating a ship in a particular locale, like a modern port pilot does, rather than an officer with any actual authority. Now, in the trial of the Whydah survivors it was specifically testified that John Julian was pilot because he was born at Cape Cod and knew those waters, which suggests that he was a pilot in the local temporary sense rather than a permanent ship's officer.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Before I get accused of racism, let me say that I have no axe to grind regarding black pirates. Undoubtedly there were some free black pirates who were valued members of the company, bore arms, and shared in the plunder. But now we've got that out of the way, I'm going to question the 'officer' status of both John Julian and Caesar.

The sum of evidence that Caesar was an officer is that he was apparently the one entrusted to blow up the Revenge in the event of Blackbeard's defeat. There's no evidence that I recall that he was an officer - that is, had command over other pirates in the company - or even that he wasn't a slave like the rest of the black men on Blackbeard's ship. The fact that he and a handful of other black men were still aboard at the time of the final battle suggests that they may have been more highly respected than the ones Blackbeard and his company sold, but it might just mean that they were the ones owned by other members of the company also still aboard.

John Julian's 'officer' status is also far from clear. He is described somewhere as the Whydah's pilot, but the word 'pilot' had two distinct meanings in the GAoP. It could refer to the officer in charge of navigation, and this is the sense in which it is usually applied to John Julian, but it is important to note that Ken Kinkor is John Julian's greatest champion, and coincidentally the author most strongly connected with the idea of pirate racial tolerance. On the other hand, 'pilot' could also mean a local expert who had the task of navigating a ship in a particular locale, like a modern port pilot does, rather than an officer with any actual authority. Now, in the trial of the Whydah survivors it was specifically testified that John Julian was pilot because he was born at Cape Cod and knew those waters, which suggests that he was a pilot in the local temporary sense rather than a permanent ship's officer.

Indeed. I had interesting conversation about this with Brit.Privateer and he had quite similar thoughts.

While I was doing my thesis about african slave trade to high-school I noted it is bad that in western countries the subbejct is so shamed that sources are still liitle hard to get ( especially neutral ones). It too bad that in neutral conversation in web accusing other nazis, racist etc. without reason is far too common while conversation has been neutral.

[Mission]

On the other hand, 'pilot' could also mean a local expert who had the task of navigating a ship in a particular locale, like a modern port pilot does, rather than an officer with any actual authority. Now, in the trial of the Whydah survivors it was specifically testified that John Julian was pilot because he was born at Cape Cod and knew those waters, which suggests that he was a pilot in the local temporary sense rather than a permanent ship's officer.

In the period accounts I've read, that meaning of the term seems to be used more often than the other. In fact, before you delineated the difference, I had thought this was the meaning based on the frequency that I had seen it used in that way. It does explain one account I read that confused me.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

^{Sorry I have some problems with text editing tool}

^{The historian David Cordingly published a study indicating that of the}

^{known pirates active in the Caribbean between 1715 and 1725, 35 per cent were English, 25 per cent colonial Americans, 20 per cent from the West Indian}

^{colonies (mainlyJamaica and Barbados), ten per cent were Scottish and eight per}

^{cent were Welsh. The remaining two per cent were from other seafaring}

^{countries, such as Sweden, Holland, France or Spain.}

In his book "Scourge of the Seas - Buccaneers, Pirates and Privateers" Konstam says

" A large percentage of pirate crews were also black men of African descent. An

account of the crew of Bartholomew Roberts in 1721 reported that they were

composed of 180 white men and 48 'French Creole' black men. When his crew

were captured by the Royal Navy off West Africa, the prisoners comprised 187

white and 75 black men. Many of these black men were escaped slaves from the

West Indies plantations, although a number were volunteers from captured slave

ships. As the racial composition contradicts that encountered in merchant or naval

ships of the early 18th century, it has to be assumed that the majority of

these black men were 'landsmen'. This begs the question of what exactly their role

was on board a ship crewed by professional seamen. While a number of historians

argue that they served on an equal footing with white men, there is a large body

of evidence to suggest that they were regarded as servants, used to carry out heavy

or menial tasks on board the pirate vessel. As familiarity and experience grew,

these black men may have enjoyed a more integrated relationship with the crew.

According to trial transcripts, a number of integrated crews existed, where

Africans were considered full crew members. These men had the most to lose by

capture, knowing that if they were not hanged they would be enslaved. A number

of Africans, including escaped plantation slaves as well as new arrivals, did succeed

in becoming pirates in their own right. One exaggerated Jamaican newspaper

article of 1725 reported bands of African and African--American pirates marauding

the Caribbean and eating the hearts of the white men they captured."

Edited May 17, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Daniel]

Interesting! I didn't know there was evidence that Julian might have been only a local pilot.

There is also John Gardiner's tantalizing passing reference to Captain Kidd's quartermaster, Hendrick van der Heul as "a little black man," in Jameson, Privateering and Piracy in the Colonial Period: Illustrative Documents, p. 222. But did that mean black-haired, or black-skinned?

Are there any known examples of black officers on colonial-era European or American vessels other than amongst pirates? Certainly many of them were crewmen (Crispus Attucks comes to mind).

[Fox]

From the deposition of John Brown, one of the survivors of the Mary Anne:

"They made the best of their way for Cape Cod intending to clean their Ship at Green Island (having one Lambeth and an Indian born at Cape Cod for Pilots)..."

Re. Hendrick van der Heul: 'black' in period documents almost always means black haired. The usual way of describing a black skinned person in virtually every case was 'negro'. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would suppose this to mean that Kidd's QM was dark haired.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

List from GHoP of stede Bonnet's captured crew . Note Bonnet's crew was hired (indeed hired) from Barbados so there is only few nonAmericans or nonBritish.

2Stede Bonnet, alias Edwards, alias Thomas, late of Barbadoes, Mariner.

Robert Tucker, late of the Island of Jamaica, Mariner

Edward Robinson, late of New-Castle upon Tine, Mariner.

Neal Paterson, late of Aberdeen, Mariner.

William Scot, late of Aberdeen, Mariner.

William Eddy, alias Neddy, late of Aberdeen, Mariner.

Alexander Annand, late of Jamaica, Mariner.

George Rose, late of Glascow, Mariner.

George Dunkin, late of Glascow, Mariner.

*Thomas Nicholas, late of London, Mariner.

John Ridge, late of London, Mariner.

Matthew King, late of Jamaica, Mariner.

Daniel Perry, late of Guernsey, Mariner.

Henry Virgin, late of Bristol, Mariner.

James Robbins, alias Rattle, late of London, Mariner.

James Mullet, alias Millet, late of London, Mariner.

Thomas Price, late of Bristol, Mariner.

James Wilson, late of Dublin, Mariner.

John Lopez, late of Oporto, Mariner.

Zachariah Long, late of the Province of Holland, Mariner.

Job Bayly, late of London, Mariner.

John-William Smith, late of Charles-Town, Carolina, Mariner.

Thomas Carman, late of Maidstone in Kent, Mariner.

John Thomas, late of Jamaica, Mariner.

William Morrison, late of Jamaica, Mariner.

Samuel Booth, late of Charles-Town, Mariner.

William Hewet, late of Jamaica, Mariner.

John Levit, late of North-Carolina, Mariner.

William Livers, alias Evis.

John Brierly, alias Timberhead, late of Bath-Town in North Carolina, Mariner.

Robert Boyd, late of Bath-Town aforesaid, Mariner

Rowland Sharp, of Bath-Town, Mariner.

*Jonathan Clarke, late of Charles-Town, South Carolina, Mariner.

*Thomas Gerrard, late of Antegoa, Mariner.

And all, except the three last, and Thomas Nicholas, were found "

Edited May 18, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

Yeah, we've really covered all this ground (x1000) in the Pirate Nationalities (Origins) thread which I mentioned in the second post. What does everyone think of attaching this to that thread. Or I could take the slavery aside out and attach that to one of the threads on that topic and just attach the stuff in here that is directly related to the pirate nationality makeup.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Yeah, we've really covered all this ground (x1000) in the Pirate Nationalities (Origins) thread which I mentioned in the second post. What does everyone think of attaching this to that thread. Or I could take the slavery aside out and attach that to one of the threads on that topic and just attach the stuff in here that is directly related to the pirate nationality makeup.

But that tread focus on nationalities in general not gaop one.

[Fox]

I'm not sure that either thread would benefit from being joined, since they do have somewhat different criteria - accepting that both are about nationalities. The pirate nationalities thread is far too broad in scope, both geographically and chronologically, to be relevant to the question of purely GAoP pirates, and this thread has too much (interesting) clutter to be an improvement to the other thread. My 2d worth.

So looking at Bonnet's crew list: 2 out of 34 men were not Anglophones, that's about 6% - which is more or less what Rediker said...

Not all of Bonnet's company were part of his original Barbados crew: at least some of them joined him from Blackbeard's company when BB wrecked the QAR, and some of them, (at least Brierly, Boyd, and Sharp) joined him after the split from Blackbeard.

[Fox]

Possibly of interest, from Richard Hawkins account of being captured by Spriggs' company:

"When they first took me, they had twelve Guns, and thirty seven Men. I observ'd two Irish, one Sweed, and one French Man; the rest, I believe, are English."

(Italics in original)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I do wonder how so multicultural crews communicated... There is a tread about it in here pub.......

Edited June 3, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

Here's another bit that you might find interesting, from Jacob du Bucquoy's account of his time as a captive of John Taylor:

"he divided his men into squads [messes] of seven men, consisting, for example, of a Frenchman, a Swede, a Portuguese and three or four Englishmen, so that the English, on whom he could depend, were always in the majority, and could warn him of all that was done or said on board."

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Realy interesting!

Quite multicultural it seems....

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I find the relative "big" number of Swedes odd.... Portuquese I undertand since there was many Portuquese ships captured and they also had links to RN (there were constanty British ships in Lisbon)....

Dutch are rarer than we or at least I could think but there were Dutch indeed but not too many. E.G Bonnet had one and so was in the Whydah and etc....

Johnson has theory why there were only some Dutch (Foxe hinted me about this in other tread ).

" I have not so much as heard of a Dutch Pyrate: It is not that I take them to be honester than their Neighbours; but when we account for it, it will, perhaps, be a Reproach to our selves for our want of Industry: The Reason I take to be, that after a War, when the Dutch Ships are laid up, they have a Fishery, where their Seamen find immediate Business, and as comfortable Bread as they had before. Had ours the same Recourse in their Necessities, I'm certain we should find the same Effect from it; for a Fishery is a Trade that cannot be overstock'd; the Sea is wide enough for us all, we need not quarrel for Elbow-room: Its Stores are infinite, and will ever reward the Labourer. Besides, our own Coast, for the most Part, supply the Dutch, who employ several hundred Sail constantly in the Trade, and so sell to us our own Fish."

Edited June 4, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700