Busting some myths

[Fox]

Following on from some posts in the Jacobite Politics thread, I thought a thread about busting some pirate myths might be quite interesting. I'm not talking about the superficial myths like whether pirates wore eyepatches so they could see better below decks, or reenactor myths like whether they wore bucket boots, but deeper myths about who pirates were, and what they did. Some of these have been discussed elsewhere, so this will be more of a consolidation, but some are (I think) new. Feel free to add others.

Pirates' pay scales were extremely egalitarian compared with other maritime trades and 18th century society.

On the face of it the division of loot specified in pirate articles was fairly egalitarian, with captains receiving between 1 (Anstis) and 2.5 (Clough) shares, while their men received 1 share. By contrast, a captain of a Royal Navy 6th rate ship (roughly equivalent in size to a 'typical' pirate ship) received 7 times the pay of an ordinary seaman and some privateer captains received 10 times the pay of the their crewmen. However, in other maritime trades the disparity was less marked: masters of New England fishing vessels typically received between 1 and 2 shares; captains of London merchant ships in war time received, on average, only 2.2 times the pay of the crew; and 2 shares was not untypical for many privateer captains. Moreover, not all pirates received a full share, and forced men often received nothing at all.

Pirates routinely voted on various matters, and pirate society was more democratic than legitimate society.

Pirates sometimes voted on important decisions, but by no means always. Even when a vote was taken there was no guarantee that it would be adhered to. For example, when Samuel Burgess voted on whether the ship he was quarter-master of should sail West to the Pacific or East to Madagascar the result was overwhelmingly in favour of the Pacific, however the officers had all voted for Madagascar and being the only ones who could actually navigate sailed for Madagascar. Bartholomew Roberts' articles specify that every man shall have a vote in affairs of the moment, but in fact, by the time forced men, boys, slaves, soldiers in the company are taken into account, none of whom were allowed to vote, suffrage in Roberts' company was only extended to around 46% of the company. Roberts' articles are the only set surviving to mention the right to vote, others specify that officers are to be obeyed: John Gow's articles say that the crew should obey Gow as if he were the captain of a merchant ship and they 'under monthly pay'. Neither was voting and democratic practice unique to pirates at the time, by any means. Voting was extremely common in legitimate society on local issues (and everything that occurred on a pirate ship must be considered a 'local' issue), and in many cases, such as the New England town meeting, suffrage was much wider in legitimate society than in pirate society. In Pennsylvania it was written into the charter that everyone who paid tax had the right to vote in elections.

Pirates always voted for their officers.

Analysis of the career paths of 82 pirate captains between 1660 and 1730 shows only 23.2% elected by the crew (though in fact the actual number may be slightly higher).

Pirates created a welfare system that was far in advance of its time.

Several sets of articles specify lump-sum payouts from the communal fund for members of the company injured in action. Only one or two records exist of pirates actually receiving this 'smart money', but it's quite likely that other cases went unrecorded. However, pirates got the idea for the system from legitimate seafaring. At least as early as the beginning of the 16th century the Trinity House Guild for sailors had collected a portion of its members wages to pay for the upkeep of almshouses and a hospital for the use of injured seamen, and in 1588 English Admirals Drake and Hawkins instituted the 'Chatham Chest' into which all Royal Navy sailors paid a monthly sum of 6d from their wages and which provided pensions for injured seamen. By the end of the 17th century ALL English sailors, regardless of their service, paid into the Greenwich fund, which maintained the Greenwich Hospital for seamen and paid pensions to injured sailors.

Many pirates went 'on the account' to escape the brutality inherent in the Royal Navy and merchant ships.

Some pirates said that that was their motivation. In the Royal Navy and East India Company vessels the most lashes that a captain could order on his own authority was 12. On other merchant ships floggings were rare, though most seamen accepted that a certain amount of disciplinary violence, such as a couple of blows with fist or cane was concomitant with the maintenance of discipline. By contrast the lowest number of lashes specified in any pirate articles was 39, and some records speak of pirate 'criminals' receiving hundreds of lashes from the rest of the company.

Pirates revelled in unparalleled freedom.

10 surviving sets of pirate articles contain 72 clauses between them (many of them duplicated in several sets of articles: division of shares, for example, is covered by 6 surviving clauses). Only two explicitly guarantee some kind of freedom (Roberts' right to vote and Anstis' right to seek a pardon), while 25 actively restrict various freedoms such as drinking, gambling, womanising, freedom of speech or leaving the company. In addition, pirates are known to have had rules not covered by surviving articles, such as the rule on Bellamy's ship that nobody was allowed to right anything down unless it was pinned to the mast so that everyone could read it. In Taylor's company it was forbidden to discuss religion. More than one company had rules about bed-time!

[Swashbuckler 1700]

b]Pirates routinely voted on various matters, and pirate society was more democratic than legitimate society[/b].

Pirates sometimes voted on important decisions, but by no means always. Even when a vote was taken there was no guarantee that it would be adhered to. For example, when Samuel Burgess voted on whether the ship he was quarter-master of should sail West to the Pacific or East to Madagascar the result was overwhelmingly in favour of the Pacific, however the officers had all voted for Madagascar and being the only ones who could actually navigate sailed for Madagascar. Bartholomew Roberts' articles specify that every man shall have a vote in affairs of the moment, but in fact, by the time forced men, boys, slaves, soldiers in the company are taken into account, none of whom were allowed to vote, suffrage in Roberts' company was only extended to around 46% of the company. Roberts' articles are the only set surviving to mention the right to vote, others specify that officers are to be obeyed: John Gow's articles say that the crew should obey Gow as if he were the captain of a merchant ship and they 'under monthly pay'. Neither was voting and democratic practice unique to pirates at the time, by any means. Voting was extremely common in legitimate society on local issues (and everything that occurred on a pirate ship must be considered a 'local' issue), and in many cases, such as the New England town meeting, suffrage was much wider in legitimate society than in pirate society. In Pennsylvania it was written into the charter that everyone who paid tax had the right to vote in elections.

I have been wondering that when it has been said (e.g in tv documentaries) something like "in 18th Century Britain thought about voting didn't exist". There was even a parliaments (albeit really few could vote or be there).

But in the contrast: how much there was voting aboard Naval or Merchant ship? I am pretty sure that there was none. Also, how many Pennsylvanians could pay the taxes? Though it must be noted that in the colonies there was not really much actual poverty. Also I have read that the colonies were indeed rather egalitarian even before the 1775 revolution (but the slave thing...).

Edited January 11, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

Why would they vote on a merchant or naval ship? The standing of the men on those ships was entirely different - the men were being paid to be there. (Even the pressed men.) Do you get to vote on work affairs at your job?

I'm more interested in the 10 sets of articles. I know of four. What are the other six, Ed?

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Indeed Mission. 10 articles? That many?

A few comments about the rules.

Certainly there was no average pirate articles but wasn't Gow rather unusual pirate? Also he wasn't part of the big gangs which dominated the piracy of the early 18th Century like the Flying Gang.

Freedoms were, of course, limited for practical reasons, to keep the crew in some kind of order (That is obviously the usual meaning of rules: to keep people in order).

However, there was a sort of freedom nevertheless. Unlike for example in The Royal Navy's articles of war (here is the 1661 one) there was very few rules about obscene behavior or drinking (well at night it was not allowed below decks in Roberts' crew, but there were only few real rules about drinking).You could e.g curse rather freely (something that was not officially allowed in the navy (and was punished in various ways)) as we have witnessed in different threads and pirates had long drinking parties, e.g Snelgrave witnessed a few. I am pretty sure that a normal naval of even merchant captain wouldn't let his crew carouse days without doing any work. Also I think Snelgrave and other also witnessed some clear anarchy among pirates. (?)

Also Liberty was at least to some extent thought to be one attraction to piracy. for example we have the classic quote from Johnson's book of Bart Roberts' "liberty and power". (also, I think one of Thomas Tew's ship was named "Liberty", but it certainly doesn't necessarily mean anything).

Also, many pirates mutinied because the shipmaster didn't pay salaries. So they were mistreated by them (also I think RN had regularly problems to pay salaries to its seamen too). I think Every did just that and William Fly said before his execution "all Masters of Vessels might take Warning of the Fate of the Captain that he had murder'd, and to pay Sailors their Wages when due." William Snelgrave hadn't survived if his men would have claimed that he was a bad captain who mistreated his sailors.

Anyway. Certainly those things Foxe mentioned are "myths" (I would rather say "misunderstanding" but is is a matter of taste) to some extent. Many of those things are often said as exact facts, which they aren't. All of these are more a matter point of view.

It seems that there is a new romantic layer beneath the Hollywood style fiction and it has been created by some authors and researchers etc.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Coastie04]

I've got a question to pose here that I feel directly relates to some of these myths (bear with me). I've read a lot about the 'Articles of War' onboard naval vessels and the strict rules/punishments that were outlined there. However, were the Articles of War applicable during times of peace? If not, what was discipline like on a Naval vessel during peace time? As many ships would have been paid off, I would assume (I know, dangerous!) that they could cherry pick the best and most professional Naval sailors for the remaining ships, and thus would have less problems with people who didn't want to be there, and troublemakers could be paid off at the next port and replaced without as much effort. It's my understanding that piracy usually rose during times of peace when privateer and naval sailors were suddenly out of a job and had to find some way of making a living and resorted to piracy out of desperation. Of course, that might just be another myth!

[Swashbuckler 1700]

And as I cannot edit my last post:

I think that while the articles of war where for war time only rather similar rules were in order in peacetime (Though RN was quite often in war anyway (in 1688-97, 1701-13, 1718-1720 or so)(correct if needed)

I think the main reason for piracy was especially after 1713 peace the joblessness of sailors and since there was so many sailors available merchant captain started cutting salaries (Though I think that doesn't apply for the Indian Ocean pirates of 1690s as there was a war then and many pirates were originally privateers (Tew, Culliford and many others). I think then it was more or less because of the end of Buccaneer era) (?)

Also I find the often mentioned "harsh naval discipline" misleading. Not many sailors ever got flogged... Also, I think often e.g theft was punished with flogging aboard a ship while in the 18th Century Britain, at least technically if not always in practice, one could get easily a death sentence for similar crime. Though navy was hated by some since it was dangerous because of the battles and pressgangs were sometimes brutal.

And captains varied. There were also a few sadistic ship captains, in merchant and naval sevice, whose would e.g kick their servant boys to death (I will dig a source the case if needed). Though there were also sadistic pirate captains and probably more of those....

Edited January 11, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

Excellent! Exactly the kind of conversation I was hoping to stimulate

I have been wondering that when it has been said (e.g in tv documentaries) something like "in 18th Century Britain thought about voting didn't exist". There was even a parliaments (albeit really few could vote or be there).

Actually, a lot more people could vote than is generally assumed. It varied from region to region, and in some areas the vote was heavily restricted, but in the early 17th century (1621 I think, but don't quote me) a Parliamentary commission determined that unless there was a local by-law to the contrary every adult male had the right to elect their Parliamentary representative.

But in the contrast: how much there was voting aboard Naval or Merchant ship? I am pretty sure that there was none. Also, how many Pennsylvanians could pay the taxes? Though it must be noted that in the colonies there was not really much actual poverty. Also I have read that the colonies were indeed rather egalitarian even before the 1775 revolution (but the slave thing...)

Almost no voting on board Naval ships, and only occasional voting on merchant ships. Voting was not uncommon on privateers. However, the important point to consider here is that no pirate had spent his entire life at sea, every pirate had experience of both land-based and maritime society, so in order to properly contextualise pirate practices it is important to look at both.

Why would they vote on a merchant or naval ship? The standing of the men on those ships was entirely different - the men were being paid to be there.

That's a very important point. Pirate fulfilled two roles on their ship. In the first place they were the crew and as such followed the orders of their superior officers (in theory at least). However, they were also the owners of their ship, and in legitimate society ship owners had some say in the running of the vessel, either directly or by means of an elected group of managers - pirates used both methods at different times, sometimes the whole crew had a say in the running of the ship, sometimes they chose a group of 'managing owners'. Sometimes pirate ships were run by the officers in just the same manner as in the Navy.

I'm more interested in the 10 sets of articles. I know of four. What are the other six, Ed?

Roberts', Lowther's and Phillips' articles are all in the GHP, Low's articles are in the Boston News Letter and the trial of Harris' crew. These, I presume are the four you (and everyone else) are familiar with. In addition, the articles of John Taylor (which I have posted before somewhere), John Gow, Thomas Anstis, Nicholas Clough, and George Cusack have survived in full, and Davis' articles have survived in part in various sources. These are the ten I was referring to. Kidd's privateering articles have been preserved and appear to have remained in force after he turned to piracy, as may have Tew's.

Certainly there was no average pirate articles but wasn't Gow rather unusual pirate?

Yes, and his articles are also very unusual.

Freedoms were, of course, limited for practical reasons, to keep the crew in some kind of order (That is obviously the usual meaning of rules: to keep people in order).

My point exactly!

there was very few rules about obscene behavior or drinking (well at night it was not allowed below decks in Roberts' crew, but there were only few real rules about drinking).You could e.g curse rather freely (something that was not officially allowed in the navy (and was punished in various ways)) as we have witnessed in different threads and pirates had long drinking parties,

Quite. Pirates had a great deal of freedom to drink and swear which sailors in other services did not (while on ship at least, on shore was a different matter). Apart from those two things I can't think of any 'freedoms' that pirates had that other sailors did not, and in some cases they had greater restrictions. Hardly the romantic 'freedom of the seas'.

(also, I think one of Thomas Tew's ship was named "Liberty", but it certainly doesn't necessarily mean anything)

Amity.

Also, many pirates mutinied because the shipmaster didn't pay salaries. So they were mistreated by them (also I think RN had regularly problems to pay salaries to its seamen too).

Non-payment of wages (or under-payment) was a much more common complaint of seamen than physical brutality, and was a much bigger problem in the Navy than it was for merchant ships. Merchant shipmasters were much better at paying wages for the simple reason that they relied on wages to attract the best seamen. There are, of course, exceptions such as the ones you mentioned, but they were exceptions. In the case of Every's crew, the mutinous sailors believed they were entitled to wages half-way through the voyage, while their contracts show that in fact they were mistaken.

were the Articles of War applicable during times of peace?

Articles of War is a much later term. In the GAoP the Navy was regulated by Printed Instructions, which were same in peacetime as wartime.

I would assume (I know, dangerous!) that they could cherry pick the best and most professional Naval sailors for the remaining ships, and thus would have less problems with people who didn't want to be there, and troublemakers could be paid off at the next port and replaced without as much effort.

Generally (though by no means always) ships on home service were paid off at the end of each year and the whole or majority of the ship's company were discharged together. In peace time the RN relied on volunteers to man the few ships kept in service and one would assume (reasonable!) that volunteers were less likely to be troublesome. This is possibly one of the reasons that there were so few desertions to pirate ships from naval vessels: pirates generally flourished in peacetime when the calibre of RN crews was generally much higher. (The big reason of course is that there was simply less interaction between pirates and the Navy than between pirates and merchant ships, and when there was interaction it tended to involve the Navy blowing holes in the pirates' ship, which I guess would discourage desertion).

[Swashbuckler 1700]

(also, I think one of Thomas Tew's ship was named "Liberty", but it certainly doesn't necessarily mean anything)

Amity.

Didn't he have both a ship named Amity and another named Liberty? (I am probably wrong though)

there was very few rules about obscene behavior or drinking (well at night it was not allowed below decks in Roberts' crew, but there were only few real rules about drinking).You could e.g curse rather freely (something that was not officially allowed in the navy (and was punished in various ways)) as we have witnessed in different threads and pirates had long drinking parties,

Quite. Pirates had a great deal of freedom to drink and swear which sailors in other services did not (while on ship at least, on shore was a different matter). Apart from those two things I can't think of any 'freedoms' that pirates had that other sailors did not, and in some cases they had greater restrictions. Hardly the romantic 'freedom of the seas'.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwn5K89dE5c )

And a serious note: The money was probably the thing that usually encouraged the seamen to turn pirate rather than the freedom. Also there was the Avery myth.

But as another note criminals have more freedom since they don't obey the law. But as in this case there was rules nevertheless.

The food supply was freely available at least aboard Roberts' ship and that was a freedom that perhaps other sailor had not. Also (personal(?)) weaponry was not locked up in pirate ships like it was on other vessels. That is, at least, what was said in Pirate: The Golden Age by Konstam)

It is interesting how different views there can be about pirates life and organisation. Angust Konstam (in the book I mentioned previously) gave a picture that pirates crews were lazy and that they were defending their democracy so much that the captains and officer had really loose authority. Also, he believes e.g ban of gambling was a rule that was often broken (I seems plausible (actually was playing without bets forbidden onboard any ship?).

This illustration is in the book (I happened to found it on the web) and it says more than a thousand words about pirates life, freedoms and organisation as seen by Konstam.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

Didn't he have both a ship named Amity and another named Liberty? (I am probably wrong though)

On both his piratical cruises Tew sailed the Amity. He may well have had another ship called Liberty at some other time in his non-pirate career, but I've not heard of it.

But as another note criminals have more freedom since they don't obey the law. But as in this case there was rules nevertheless.

WARNING! DEEP POINT APPROACHING! Disobeying the law does not grant you more freedom. The law guarantees as many freedoms as it restricts. It may not seem like that at times, but without the law nobody is truly 'free'. Outlaws are unable to own anything and even their lives are in the hands of others.

It is interesting how different views there can be about pirates life and organisation. Angust Konstam (in the book I mentioned previously) gave a picture that pirates crews were lazy and that they were defending their democracy so much that the captains and officer had really loose authority.

Absolutely, history is all about interpretation, so it's natural there will be different views. Konstam is following the line espoused by Rediker and others, that the power of pirate officers was limited, and there is some evidence which suggests that that was the case - principally though it's based on a couple of lines from the GHP which, as discussed elsewhere, contains some political rhetoric. There is (in my opinion) a much larger body of evidence that pirate officers had a greater authority than that. More than one set of articles, for example, says something along the lines of 'lawful commands to be obeyed'. True, the authority of most pirate captains (if not all) rested on the voluntary acceptance of the crew, but while they wielded that authority it was to be obeyed. There'd be no point in having officers at all if nobody had to do what they said.

This illustration is in the book (I happened to found it on the web) and it says more than a thousand words about pirates life, freedoms and organisation as seen by Konstam.

True, pirates did have the freedom to wear surf shorts if they wanted

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Didn't he have both a ship named Amity and another named Liberty? (I am probably wrong though)

On both his piratical cruises Tew sailed the Amity. He may well have had another ship called Liberty at some other time in his non-pirate career, but I've not heard of it.

Well I read it here (not a good source, I know) http://www.2020site.org/pirates/famous-pirate-ships.html

But as another note criminals have more freedom since they don't obey the law. But as in this case there was rules nevertheless.

WARNING! DEEP POINT APPROACHING! Disobeying the law does not grant you more freedom. The law guarantees as many freedoms as it restricts. It may not seem like that at times, but without the law nobody is truly 'free'. Outlaws are unable to own anything and even their lives are in the hands of others.

For that I quote Edmund Burke, while I don't completely agree with his sayings this has some merit Liberty must be limited in order to be possessed.

(now, I appear smart. lets go on )

Absolutely, history is all about interpretation, so it's natural there will be different views. Konstam is following the line espoused by Rediker and others, that the power of pirate officers was limited, and there is some evidence which suggests that that was the case - principally though it's based on a couple of lines from the GHP which, as discussed elsewhere, contains some political rhetoric.

I would say Rederiker's works contains some political colour as well. (well nothing new among researchers) Nothing actually bad about it, but I am pretty sure his views about the pirates are more or less colored by his ideology. (I don't own any of his works, but I have succeeded to read many sections of them and one doesn't need to read much of "Between Devil and The Deep Blue Sea" to figure out what he is after). Certainly he has some good points and clever notes but... It is just a matter of opinion but I find his research rather subjective. (But as another personal opinion I think he has some good thoughts as an activist).

Nevertheless (I know his main ideas) he is not, in my humble opinion, completely wrong at all, but I think his point of view is somewhat limited. For example he has not noted Jacobitism (practically) while Woodard and Konstam have (but that is not the point of this thread).

But enough of that I think.

Captains certainly had some authority. If he hadn't had why would the pirates even choose a captain (only for ceremonial purpose?)? Why would not the crew just say who is the boss during battles and in other times they could just vote for all things. It seems that the pirates themselves wanted to have even a some kind of leader figure.

Also, as Konstam noted in his book (the one mentioned before) since the captain often had to be somewhat literate and good mariner the captains were chosen from a really small pool of men. Not anyone could be a captain so it reduced their democracy (which nevertheless existed).

About freedoms (thinking Barry.R. Burg's theories) unlike in those naval rules (of 1661) there is no prohibition of Sodomy in pirate articles ( )

Edited January 12, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

Ah, pirate sodomy, there's a myth I should have included in the original list Sodomy may not have been banned by pirates (unless you choose to interpret Roberts' rules about "boys and women" in that way - which I don't personally), but at least with the freedoms of drinking and swearing there's some evidence that pirates actually did it. Still, if you want to argue that pirates were free to drink, swear, and bugger each other then I won't argue.

(And I'm not even going to start trying to list the errors and misconceptions of that 2020 site...)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Ah, pirate sodomy, there's a myth I should have included in the original list Sodomy may not have been banned by pirates (unless you choose to interpret Roberts' rules about "boys and women" in that way - which I don't personally), but at least with the freedoms of drinking and swearing there's some evidence that pirates actually did it. Still, if you want to argue that pirates were free to drink, swear, and bugger each other then I won't argue.

As the pirates were rather practical I think they just didn't care if someone would do any of those things and that rules about it would be unnecessary. Though I personally think that many would not do the latter of those (However, why would navy have completely useless rules about such things in their rules if sailors never did it?) So I believe that pirates generally weren't sodomites... Though during a drunken party anything could happen (and there were not only men present but also animals like goats (!)). It probably happened occasionally as it did in the period, but it certainly wasn't "a pirate tradition".

Anyway.

I wonder one thing about gambling. It seems that it was sometimes allowed aboard privateer ship. I don't have a source handy but I think Woodes Roger's men gambled quite a lot. (Free to correct that if needed)

Edited January 12, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Coastie04]

Captains certainly had some authority. If he hadn't had why would the pirates even choose a captain (only for ceremonial purpose?)? Why would not the crew just say who is the boss during battles and in other times they could just vote for all things. It seems that the pirates themselves wanted to have even a some kind of leader figure.

I can think of a great reason to choose a captain. The way boats are organized, there has to be one person in charge to prevent contradictory orders. Ships rely on crew working together, and if people aren't following one set of orders/commands, then very bad things can happen. The crew could easily vote on overarching plans, such as where to sail, but the Captain (or mate on watch, sailing master, other archaic title, etc.) is the one who gives the orders of how to get there. Look even at merchant or Naval captains of the day (and even today). They are told by owners/superiors where to go and what to do. However, they are still the Captain, even though they don't have absolute control. They can also be held accountable if a goal is not achieved.

Also, as Konstam noted in his book (the one mentioned before) since the captain often had to be somewhat literate and good mariner the captains were chosen from a really small pool of men. Not anyone could be a captain so it reduced their democracy (which nevertheless existed).

I'm not so sure how good of a mariner or navigator a Captain had to be. Of course, Foxe might prove me wrong here, but there is not much necessity for a Captain to be a good sailor. I believe that neither Nelson or Columbus were regarded as great mariners, but they are some of the names that come up first when talking about nautical history. A Captain does not actually need to involve himself with the sailing or navigating of the ship too much, if he has competent officers working under him. A good Captain is much more concerned with managing the crew, logistics, and supervising those officers beneath him than on the actual sailing of the ship. Of course, this is from my experience on somewhat larger vessels, both merchant and military. I do realize that as the boats and crews get smaller, the Captain does become more of a hands-on crew member than when it's a 120 gun ship of the line.

Ah, pirate sodomy, there's a myth I should have included in the original list Sodomy may not have been banned by pirates (unless you choose to interpret Roberts' rules about "boys and women" in that way - which I don't personally), but at least with the freedoms of drinking and swearing there's some evidence that pirates actually did it. Still, if you want to argue that pirates were free to drink, swear, and bugger each other then I won't argue.

I think I'd argue that in general, buggery was frowned upon. One thing that I noticed in the UCMJ (U.S. military rules, equivalent to what we're talking about here) is that they had some pretty outrageous articles and precedence for things that happened once upon a time, but were far from commonplace. On a pirate ship, I could easily see some of those things being overlooked as nearly impossible. So, if sodomy was rare (and here my argument might break down), then they might just assume that noone was going to do it, therefore why have a rule about it? They might as well make a rule saying that it's prohibited for someone to fly, make a pact with the Devil or masturbate on an officer's shoes. Of course, the other possibility is that they just didn't care.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

indeed :)

I think the captain's leadership skills were more important than the other. However, I would say pirates had fewer petty officers, the quartermaster being almost a chief captain. Unlike the navy for example there were no actual lieutenants (though I think many pirate officers were called with that term) or midshipmen. So I would think that captain's sailing abilities would be more important on board a pirate vessel than others. Though I am pretty sure there were captains whose mariner career was not impressive.

Furthermore About pirates' freedoms. They often had a change to go wild especially when a ship was captured and then there was really little order (though it was probably rather similar with privateers). They played with gentlemen's wig, rode captured horses and rode monks (The latter one might a myth brought by the Pirates Own Book. It says that Condent's men did that)

Also while it was often not so simple pirates had the freedom to attack vessels of any nation.

About brutality of another vessels' captains. I am not actually disagreeing but here are some points:

Like Foxe already said many pirates said revenge to brutal captains was their motivation. I am pretty sure that Howel Davis for example said he was having a revenge for sailors' behalf.

Also for example John Archer, who sailed e.g with Blackbeard, said in his execution in 1724 ”I could wish that Masters of Vessels would not use their Men with so much severity, as many of them do, which exposes us to great Temptations”

(Yes that was in Rederiker's book, but doesn't mean anything as it appears to be an original quote.)

Philip Lyne too seemed to have something against ship's captains and masters as he killed 37 ship masters during his career. (Again mentioned by Rederiker, but he quoted another source meaning it is not his own assumption (not that it would be actually bad in any case))

Also, We have "Robin Hood" Bellamy.

And then there were the salary issues between the sailors and captains. England's crew did this (at least if we trust GHP) to one captain.

Captain England sail'd to the Coast of Africa, after the Island of Providence was settled by the English Government, and the Pyrates surrendered to his Majesty's Proclamation; and took several Ships and Vessels, particularly the Cadogan Snow belonging to Bristol, at Sierraleone, one Skinner Master, who was inhumanly murthered by some of the Crew, that had lately been his own Men, and served in the said Vessel. It seems some Quarrel had happened between them, so that Skinner thought fit to remove these Fellows on Board of a Man of War, and at the same Time refused them their Wages; not long after they found Means to desert that Service, and shipping themselves aboard a Sloop in the West-Indies, was taken by a Pyrate, and brought to Providence, and sailed upon the same Account along with Captain England.

Assoon as Skinner had struck to the Pyrate, he was ordered to come on Board in his Boat, which he did, and the Person that he first cast his Eye upon, proved to be his old Boatswain, who star'd him in the Face like his evil Genius, and accosted him in this Manner. — Ah, Captain Skinner! Is it you? The only Man I wished to see; I am much in your Debt, and now I shall pay you all in your own Coin.

The poor Man trembled every Joint, when he found into what Company he had fallen, and dreaded the Event, as he had Reason enough so to do; for the Boatswain immediately called to his Consorts, laid hold of the Captain, and made him fast to the Windless, and there pelted him with Glass Bottles, which cut him in a sad Manner; after which they whipp'd him about the Deck, till they were weary, being deaf to all his Prayers and Intreaties, and at last, because he had been a good Master to his Men, they said, he should have an easy Death, and so shot him thro’ the Head. They took some few Things out of the Snow, but gave the Vessel and all her Cargo to Howel Davis the Mate; and the rest of the Crew, as will be hereafter mentioned in the Chapter of Captain Davis.

As a note not related to this thread: The ship's name name "Cadogan" is clearly anti-Jacobite (referring propably to William Cadogan, 1st Earl Cadogan)and if Skinner was anti-Jacobite as his ship name might suggest it might explain some of the cruelty of pro-Jacobite England's crew too... perhaps).

Navy was still a brutal place not less because of the Pressgangs.

Actually even some naval officials alike though that the system was unfair. For example Samuel Pebys wrote in his diary, in 1660s something like it was "barbarous". (I have to dig up the quote.)

As another things while the dozen flashes were the maximum there were the court martial during war time.

Certainly many pirate ships had sometimes even worse punishments, but they were ordered by the often elected captain or "the majority of the company". So the Legitimacy of power was at least slightly different than in the navy for example.

Also, for the even more sadistic pirate punishments... It might be that it has more to do with the sociopath nature of some pirates...

Also how was the naval life seen by Hogarth in 1740?

Edited January 15, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Brit.Privateer]

I thought I would chime in on the origins of one myth - the pirate sodomy thing.

Blame the 80s.

I'll expand on that, from the late 70s to the early 90s, a few people interested in gender studies (part of a wave of new approaches to history that the baby boom generation helped push in as they came of age) decided to write some books and other things that tried to demonstrate that pirates were these libertine sodomites. Barry Burg and Hans Turley are probably the biggest names in all this. Readings of this stuff and looking at the arguments, the arguments fall apart real quick. It sometimes appear that these writers, instead of surveying what the history presented and reporting findings, instead cherry picked the history to support their arguments period (and often took the evidence out of context too). Two examples that come to mind immediately of questionable evidence is using period fictional literature as solid evidence for the real pirates and using modern prison inmates studies as solid evidence for how pirates would act 300 years ago in a completely different context. It's now part of pirate historiography, though the use of such work by current pirate historians seems minimal since many have recognized the issues with these approaching 30-year old arguments. It seems that only people who don't know any better, like Stephen Fry, refer to this book as a good.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Navy was still a brutal place not less because of the Pressgangs.

Actually even some naval officials alike though that the system was unfair. For example Samuel Pebys wrote in his diary, in 1660s something like it was "barbarous". (I have to dig up the quote.)

I found it

Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) was a naval administrator and MP and he wrote his experiences about his work in his diary. One of his job was to inspect that the impressed sailors and other men were transferred to the ships from Tower. The diary can be found e.g here

July 1st 1666 (Sunday)

.... After dinner to the office again, where busy, and then down to Deptford to the yard, thinking to have seen Bagwell's wife, whose husband is gone yesterday back to the fleete, but I did not see her, so missed what I went for, and so back to the Tower several times, about the business of the pressed men, and late at it till twelve at night, shipping of them. But, Lord! how some poor women did cry; and in my life I never did see such natural expression of passion as I did here in some women's bewailing themselves, and running to every parcel of men that were brought, one after another, to look for their husbands, and wept over every vessel that went off, thinking they might be there, and looking after the ship as far as ever they could by moone-light, that it grieved me to the heart to hear them. Besides, to see poor patient labouring men and housekeepers, leaving poor wives and families, taking up on a sudden by strangers, was very hard, and that without press-money, but forced against all law to be gone. It is a great tyranny. Having done this I to the Lieutenant of the Tower and bade him good night, and so away home and to bed.

The navy was still rather tyrannical not only because it had sailors who were not volunteered to join. However, much has been made about the inhuman punishments of the navy while it seems that in the period they were similar or perhaps even milder than those used on land. Of course in modern perspective they are extremely cruel but in those days perhaps the other issues like the impressment gave the navy a worse stigma.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

I wonder if wives cried when they heard their husbands had been forced into piracy.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

A good point

Though I would guess (feel free to correct) that percentually more people volunteered to join pirates than the navy (less forced men onboard a pirate ship)

Though in many cases pirates' forced men policy was quite similar than in the navy. Deserters were punished e.g one Swede who was forced by Bellamy was whipped since he tried to escape.

But it is good to notice that in the navy had legal right to impress people. In that case they were just as bad as the pirates who were criminals if not more so. Think what would some sailors think?

Also, there was some direct desertion off the navy to pirate ships. A few sailors escaped from a naval frigate to join the pirates led by Vane in New Providence. That is, at least one incident and can be found in "Republic of Pirates".

It seems that pirate vessels were rather similar than any other vessels of the era. There were hard rules and some people were forced to serve.

and

In addition to the myths here: I would also say that the pirates extraordinary racial tolerance is a myth. It would be nice if we could give merit for that to the pirates and think that they were really ahead their time but...

It seems that more slaves were sold/left behind than recruited by the Gaop pirates. They were sailors of African descent on board pirate ships of course, but so there were in other places. The lack of men might make the ratio higher sometimes on board pirate ships, but many slaves would be mere servants on pirate ships as well.

Also many pirates like Bart Roberts had served on slave ships. They were used to that slaves were cargo and treated them accordingly. Martel's crew seemed to have black sailors, but they also burned their ship with slaves inside (thought not deliberately). Roberts did same to one other ship. Though there are records of pirates freeing slaves from irons (At least the mystical captain Kennedy did that in 1716).

Also does Snelgrave (a slaver captain) make any notion of pirates' extraordinary good treatment of slaves? I would guess not since it would have been quoted widely in literature. (I have never been able to read the whole text from Snelgrave unfortunately). I would think that if there was something really special about that Snelgrave would have noticed it.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700