Not all pirates are the same... Are they?

[Elena]

As usual, when I have a divergence of opinion on my site, I come here to impartial judges.

I am talking both about the historical pirates that you have seen described in chronicles and about the somehow fictional, but not fantastic ones in Daniel Defoe's, Walter Scott's, Raphael Sabbattini's novels, etc. (In my mind, there is a difference between historical fiction, which goes beyond chronicles but relates about people and facts which might have been possible even if they hadn't exactly happened or we can't know if they happened, and historical fantasy, which twists historical facts, physics laws and the time's way of seeing, such as "Pyratica" or other stories with pretty lady captains...)

We know about Blackbeard, Vane and some others that they were very cruel. We know what they had done to their crewmates, and how they tortured their victims to tell where they had hidden the valuables. But... were necessarily all the captains and crews this way? Evil and bloodthirsty just because they were pirates?

I think some were really bloodthirsty and cruel, while others were simply rebels who found themselves at odds with law and had no other solution to survive than turning pirates. The Jacobites, for example, as it was a discussion here about Jacobite pirates a while ago. Or somebody who got wanted for a reason or another, and couldn't prove his innocence (we can remember, about some quick trials when it was about commoners, "Black Velvet band", for example, how the lad who looked after the beautiful girl got tried as accomplice to stealing and got "seven years penal transportation/ Far away to Van Diemen's land" - ie Tasmania). Or privateers who had first a commission, then it happened to take the wrong ship... and it was no way of return.

I think that turning pirate didn't mean for ALL of them turning really cruel. Some avoided a fight when they could, some didn't kill everybody aboard, but if they didn't need the ship which had surrendered, they set them free, albeit with an empty ship. Fighting the opposers is one, and killing unnecessarily is something else.

Maybe, if I am rambling enough not to make any sense, my point is that there weren't only pirates like Levasseur/ La Buse, there were some like Captain Blood too And birds of a feather flew together - their crew had to obey their laws. A cruel captain was surrounded by cutthroats, while others, a little more gentlemanly, were surrounded by rebels and outlaws like them, but the too evil ones wouldn't have resisted with them. What do you think?

[Fox]

I think pirates were people. Just like society at large they had different personalities. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to suggest that any of them were much like Captain Blood, and I don't personally subscribe to the "rebels at odds with the law" model much, but certainly there were marked differences in their behaviour. Perhaps more importantly, being people, they didn't always behave consistently. John Taylor, for example, was well loved by his company and highly respected by his captives, but was not averse to settling arguments with his fists or beating a man on a whim.

[RoyalJames]

I think the consort of Davis, Taylor, Cocklyn, La Buse and England is a good example of different personalities. Apparently Taylor and Cocklyn fancied a more violent leadership, which I assume attracted a certain part of the crews, while Davis, La Buse and England were more humane leaders perhaps motivated with ideological ideas like the Jacobite leanings. They seem to have had different ideas of how to treat captives and prizes, either by fear or generosity, which led to several conflicts among them but still they more or less remained partners with common interests. Common enemies can unite the most different kind of persons.

Taylor’s personality is interesting. Even if Snelgrave spoke well of him, he certainly had a cruel or mentally unstable mind. On the Guinea coast he punished some local fishermen by hanging them in the mast and practicing shooting on them. In Delagoa he shot a black man for no other reason than “entertainment” while drinking. He struck his captives with canes and squeezed their joints and at Mauritius a black man got his ears cut off. He also punished La Buse by the mast for trying to sneak off, which raises the question of why La Buse secretly wanted to part; was he afraid of Taylor?

[Elena]

Thank you both, Royal James and Fox! It is interesting and it proves my point, that the leaders' personalities make remain around them people with more or less similar principles.

Being partners due to common interests, but each of them having his own ship to command how he thought appropriate, is the most understandable thing.

[RoyalJames]

I wonder what possibilities the pirates had to change crews or ships. I understand that deserters were not thought well of, but on the other hand there are some examples of pirates leaving their crews like the men from Davis crew who fell in love with some Portuguese girls on Cap Verde and settled down there, presumable with the crew's understanding.

It is not clear to me how they considered the boundaries of the different crews while sailing together. It seems like often a commodore was the leader of the gang, but did the pirates then consider themselves to be part of one big crew or several smaller units with their own articles?

[Elena]

Not deserters, but they were free to jump ship or to retire after having served a while and paying their share to the common coffers - if I remember well from the Articles of Agreement I have seen published, it was to have contributed 1,000 pieces of eight.

I think each ship had their own articles. They were more or less similar, but up to a point.

[Fox]

It's helpful to draw a distinction between a pirate 'crew',the collection of pirates on one ship, and a pirate 'company',the collection of pirates under one command. Often,they are interchangeable, when one captain commanded one ship, but when one captain commanded more than one ship - as in the case of Blackbeard and his fleet of five vessels, then you have a 'company' spread over several vessels.

In the case of Davis,Cocklyn and La Buse,they seem to have been three independent companies sailing together, rather than three crews under one command. Moving around within a single company was quite common, but changing company was very much frowned upon,so probably less common in groups like the Cocklyn,Davis, La Buse group,though Taylor managed it and moved from Davis' company to Cocklyn's.

[RoyalJames]

It’s perhaps difficult to know the exact agreement between the crews in a ‘company’. But certainly there must have been some. Snelgrave for instance describes how his ship was captured by Cocklyn and plundered by his crew, but later La Buse’s crew was let aboard to do a second round. I guess this also shows that they were different crews in a bigger ‘company’ rather than a big ‘crew’.

Interesting also with the ‘retirement’. I think there are several occasions in history where pirates settled down, especially around Madagascar. Perhaps the thought of changing crews wasn’t impossible even if uncommon. In the end the ‘personality’ of the crew choses their leader. But on the other hand, people tend to stick with their group and getting formed by it.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Generally speaking I find the pirate's cruelty as a universal trait misleading in some points.

For what I have read many captured captains were treated rather well for example. Many pirates like Samuel Bellamy were not know to be cruel at least for what I have read. Naturally I may be mistaken though.

Though even captains who were treated well had almost been abused at start. For example Snelgrave was almost shot and if captain George Roberts was an existing person he was about to be get shot as well. Captain Lawrence Prince was much respected by the pirates who took his ship.

On the other hand we have pirates like lesser know Captain Philip Lyne who boasted how he had killed captured 37 "masters of vessels" (captains) during his pirate career.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700

[RoyalJames]

We also have Condent. If we can trust Ellms (The Pirates Own Book), he says:

“..he used all the Portuguese who fell into his hands, who were many, very barbarously, cutting off their ears and noses; and as his master was a papist, when they took a priest, they made him say mass at the mainmast, and would afterwards get on his back and ride him about the decks, or else load and drive him like a beast.”

[Mission]

I've been told not to trust Ellms, although I also have read that his book is basically a rehash of Charles Johnson's. That being said, Johnson's account does say, "when they took a priest, they made him say mass at the mainmast, and would afterwards get on his back and ride him about the decks, or else load and drive him like a beast." (Charles Johnson, History of the Pirates, 1834 Edition, p. 125) Based on a failed attempt to take a Portuguese ship, the same account explains that "he used all the Portuguese, who fell into his hands, who were many, very barbarously, cutting off their ears and noses".

Johnson's account also says than when Condent's crew were faced with an Indian who who threatened to blow up the ship. Condent jumped into the hold where the Indian was and "ran up and shot the Indian. When he was dead, the crew hacked him to pieces, and the gunner, ripping up his belly, tore out his heart, broiled and ate it." (Charles Johnson, History of the Pirates, 1834 Edition, p. 123) While not intrinsically cruel (since the Indian was dead), it does suggest the crew had a rather violent and bizarre nature. Condent also had some of the officers of a ship they had taken whipped and pickled for poor treatment of the sailors on their ship. So there's plenty of evidence that his was a cruel crew.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Furthermore I would actually note that Blackbeard was not among the really cruel ones at all. Surely he liked to threaten people, but is there any actual records of him torturing or killing captives? I think not. For example the captain of Protestant Caesar, a ship that he captured, was left unharmed and his ship was burn only because it was from Boston and Blackbeard, who had promised to burn all Bostonian ships as pirates were hanged there, wanted to be man of a man of his word. (Accordingly to Woodard at least)

Like it has been said previously by Royal James e.g La Buse was not really cruel. At least I think Snelgrave noted that he saved one captive, who was French**, from torture.

If the account of George Robert's is accurate (Yeah it has impressed me as I often refer to it knowing it might be partly or largely fictional) even cutthroats pirates Like Ned Low had "some morals" so to speak. Or at least some limits/ logic of violence. Roberts wrote when his ship was captured and he was taken aboard Low's ship

Captain Loe, with the usual Compliments, welcomed me on board, and told me, He was very sorry for my Loss, and that it was not his Desire to meet with any of his Country-men, but rather with Foreigners, excepting some few that he wanted to chastise for their Rogueishness, as he call'd it.

Most of Low's atrocities were committed against Spaniards and or Portuguese while only some against Englishmen so the quote rings true **. It doesn't ofcourse make the deeds any less cruel but just good to note.

I also think that Philip Ashton, a mariner who was captured by Low, reported* how Low often cried for his poor orphan daughter so he had a visible weak side.

Obviously they were humans. Even the most cruelest ones were not always cruel. I think it was often more about alcohol usage that made it go brutal. I think many pirates even blamed alcohol for their most cruel misdeeds during their last speeches before executions. So not all were what people could call "pure evil".

**(This leads me to think that many pirates felt some clear sympathy for their own nation even while they sailed under the black flag. This, however, is another story.)

*(Ashton's original text was widely quoted in book The ships and sailors of old Salem; the record of a brilliant era of American achievement where I read it.)

Edited December 15, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Furthermore I would actually note that Blackbeard was not among the really cruel ones at all. Surely he liked to threaten people, but is there any actual records of him torturing or killing captives? I think not. For example the captain of Protestant Caesar, a ship that he captured, was left unharmed and his ship was burn only because it was from Boston and Blackbeard, who had promised to burn all Bostonian ships as pirates were hanged there, wanted to be man of a man of his word. (Accordingly to Woodard at least)

Like it has been said previously by Royal James e.g La Buse was not really cruel. At least I think Snelgrave noted that he saved one captive, who was French**, from torture.

If the account of George Robert's is accurate (Yeah it has impressed me as I often refer to it knowing it might be partly or largely fictional) even cutthroats pirates Like Ned Low had "some morals" so to speak. Or at least some limits/ logic of violence. Roberts wrote when his ship was captured and he was taken aboard Low's ship

Captain Loe, with the usual Compliments, welcomed me on board, and told me, He was very sorry for my Loss, and that it was not his Desire to meet with any of his Country-men, but rather with Foreigners, excepting some few that he wanted to chastise for their Rogueishness, as he call'd it.

Most of Low's atrocities were committed against Spaniards and or Portuguese while only some against Englishmen so the quote rings true **. It doesn't ofcourse make the deeds any less cruel but just good to note.

I also think that Philip Ashton, a mariner who was captured by Low, reported* how Low often cried for his poor orphan daughter so he had a visible weak side.

Obviously they were humans. Even the most cruelest ones were not always cruel. I think it was often more about alcohol usage that made it go brutal. I think many pirates even blamed alcohol for their most cruel misdeeds during their last speeches before executions. So not all were what people could call "pure evil".

**(This leads me to think that many pirates felt some clear sympathy for their own nation even while they sailed under the black flag. This, however, is another story.)

*(Ashton's original text was widely quoted in book The ships and sailors of old Salem; the record of a brilliant era of American achievement where I read it.)

Well, after reconsidering that: Blackbeard did beat up captives. One he beat with the flat end of his cutlass because the man hadn't surrendered immediately. He perhaps shot Israel Hand's leg, or doesn't Johnson say so at least? Still the point remains.

I think that the general idea of pirates constantly torturing victims is partly (certainly not only though) because the buccaneers of the 17th century, masters of torture, are often grouped with 1700s pirates when speaking of pirates. Though, all pirates generations committed notable cruelties, but not every crew or company.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700