Pirate duels

[Daniel]

Bartholomew Roberts' article VIII provides for pirates to duel, but only on shore.

No striking one another on Board, but every Man’s Quarrels to be ended on Shore, at Sword and Pistol, Thus; The Quarter-Master of the Ship, when the Parties will not come to any Reconciliation, accompanies them on Shore with what Assistance he thinks proper, and turns the Disputants Back to Back, at so many Paces Distance: At the Word of Command, they turn and fire immediately, (or else the Piece is knocked out of their Hands:) If both miss, they come to their Cutlashes, and then he is declared Victor who draws the first Blood.

These rules are quite a bit less bloodlthirsty than the later "Irish"¹ code duello of 1777.

The requirement that both the pirates fire immediately is presumably meant to keep them from aiming carefully. The Irish code, on the other hand, says that the parties may fire "at their leisure," so they could aim, so long as they didn't rest their pistols on anything. The Irish code also forbade "second presents," which I think means that if you raised your pistol and then lowered it without shooting, you couldn't raise it again.

The pirates' code provides for only one shot each, and then using swords. The Irish code contemplated two or even three shots per man; usually, the only way to end the duel after just one shot was if somebody apologized. When he dueled with Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton was expecting to have to shoot at least twice, although as it happened he was mortally wounded after the first shot.

The pirates' code duello apparently always ends the duel at first blood, certainly with the swords, and presumably with the pistols also. Since the pirate duelers only draw cutlasses "if both miss," presumably any hit by either side ends the duel. From my own experience in saber fencing, I can say that first wounds from a fight with slashing weapons will very often be on the hand or arm. In contrast, the Irish code almost always requires "a severe hit" to conclude the duel, although any wound "sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake" stops the duel, all it does is "end the business for that day," so the duel is apparently expected to continue on a later day.

But this is mostly speculation, because I have never heard of Roberts' Article VIII ever actually being used. And on at least two occasions the rule against striking another on board was violated by Roberts himself: aboard ship, he killed one crewman who insulted him, and stabbed another who objected. The guy he stabbed didn't use the dueling procedure either; he just threw Roberts over a cannon and beat the tar out of him. Roberts did threaten to duel some of his crewmen on occasion, but nobody ever took him up on it.

The only real pirate duel I have ever heard of was between the buccaneers Laurens de Graaf and Nichola van Hoorn in 1683. This was a land duel, near Vera Cruz, Mexico, over a dispute about division of treasure. De Graaf cut van Hoorn's hand or arm, which became gangrenous and killed van Hoorn.

Does anyone know of any other case of a real pirate duel?

¹I'm putting "Irish" in quotation marks because the lords who put the code together were probably Anglo-Irish and Scots-Irish absentee landlords, who would likely have bristled at being called Irishmen.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I am pretty sure that Johnson mentioned that Mary Read challenged another pirate to a duel because the pirate had insulted her loved one. The duel was a land duel too.

However, I wonder that is there any more real evidence of that duel than Johnson?

Also another Johnson thing: just an interesting quote related to this thread. Almost a duel.

1724 book page 394 of Captain Evans

"The Boatswain of the Pyrate being a noisy surly Fellow, the Captain had at several TimesWords with him, relating to his Behaviour, who thinking himself ill treated, not only returned ill Language, but also challenged the Captain to fight him on the next Shore they came to, with Pistols and Sword, as is the Custom among these Outlaws. When the Sloop arrived, as abovementioned, the Captain proposed the duel; but the cowardly Boatswain refused to fight, or go ashore, tho’ it was his own Challenge. When Captain Evans saw there was nothing to be done with him, he took his Cane, and gave him a hearty drubbing; but the Boatswain not being able to bear such an Indignity, drew out a Pistol and shot Evans thro’ the Head, so that he fell down dead; and the Boatswain immediately jumped over-board, and swam towards the Shore; but the Boat was quickly mann'd and sent after him, which took him up and brought him aboard.

The Death of the Captain in that Manner, provoked all the Crew, and they resolved the Criminal should die by the most exquisite Tortures; but while they were considering of the Punishment, the Gunner, transported with Passion, discharged a Pistol, and shot him thro’ the Body; but not killing him outright, the Delinquent in very moving Words, desired a Week for Repentance only; but another stepping up to him, told him, that he should repent and be damned to him, and without more ado shot him dead."

Edited June 19, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

John Taylor's company also had rules about fighting:

'When… quarrels arise on board, and the offence requires settling by force of arms, the quartermaster and the captain preside over the duel, which ends only with the death of one of the antagonists. A flag is then waved over the head of the victor' (Du Buquoy)

The only specific pirate reference I can think of to duelling on shore comes from 1684, when John Gursford and John Bell ‘went on shore to fight with their guns’, and Bell was killed. (HCA 1/52, f.28)

However, the practice was not limited to pirates: for example, two merchant ship masters

'Isaac Parker and Samuel Parsons, who having some Words and Difference, in their anger and rage challenged one the other to Fight with firelocks, and accordingly they went on shore, and at some Distance presented their Pieces, and Parsons shot Parker in his shoulder or breast, that he died of his wounds in five Days after' (Boston News Letter, 7 May 1722)