Gun crews???

[dasNdanger]

I have a question regarding the arrangement aboard pirate ships when it came to handling the guns. I am more familiar with the naval system in which X amount of men were assigned to a gun depending on its size, each given a designation and duty to perform. When manning the guns on only one side of the ship, the larboard and starboard crews would combine to form a larger crew to handle a single gun, with first and second gun captains, loaders (rammers?), spongers, and then other positions - depending on the system & country & era - such as side tackleman, shellman, train tackleman, handspikeman and probably a few designations I've missed.

Anyway, my question is this - did pirates adhere to a similar system?

Did they have organized 'gun crews' assigned to specific guns (and if so, would they be referred to as 'gun crews')?

Did they hold positions within that crew such as the navy did - and if so, what designations did they use if different from above?

Did they have practice drills? If so, considering that they probably had limited shot and powder, how would they practice?

Any help and information you can give me will be greatly appreciated!!

Thanks in advance! (and NOPE - this is not for 'fan fiction' but for my own personal edification :) )

das

[the Royaliste]

well, first off, one must swallow the the picture of the average pirate vessel being the size of a naval ship, and it all becomes clear....No need for formalities with a small crew. Gun crews would fall in as they were used to; many were ex navy anyway. Most gun drills are designed to increase firepower during line battle, not pirate threats or the more occaisional boarding..Smaller ships, smaller guns, even smaller crews required to handle them....Most encounters at sea by pirates were intended to result in booty from a picture of the inevitable without having to fire...But, back to the beginning...Lose the Hollywood image of pirates in a ship of the line; picture canoes, longboats, sloops, schooners, ketches........an occaisional brig...(yep, there really were other pirates besides Blackbeard and Morgan)

[JoshuaRed]

Yeah - why waste sweat and powder working the guns when a scary black flag and lots of screaming and swearing will often do the job just as well? :)

[the Royaliste]

Aye! Far betteer ransomes for live bodies and floatin' prize ships!... :)

[dasNdanger]

well, first off, one must swallow the the picture of the average pirate vessel being the size of a naval ship, and it all becomes clear....No need for formalities with a small crew...Lose the Hollywood image of pirates in a ship of the line; picture canoes, longboats, sloops, schooners, ketches........an occaisional brig...(yep, there really were other pirates besides Blackbeard and Morgan)

No problem there - always knew the difference between a Hollywood pirate ship and the more practical vessels actually used. Perhaps I should have asked this question in the sense of it being a 'hypothetical situation'. If a ship was large enough to carry a dozen or so guns, would the crews basically follow the same routine as on a naval vessel, or would things be all willy-nilly? The reason I ask is because I want to understand the difference between organization on a pirate ship compared to that of the regulated environment aboard a naval ship, which I am more familiar with. Trying to 'unlearn' bad habits, I suppose...

Gun crews would fall in as they were used to; many were ex navy anyway...Smaller ships, smaller guns, even smaller crews required to handle them....

Okay - that said, let's just say they DID have to fight. So, would they have been organized like a standard gun crew?? Would they stick to designated duties, or switch around? With a smaller ship (say - hypothetically, a brig), fewer and smaller guns - how many to handle them? What postitions? 4 man crew with captain, sponger, loader, handspikeman - more, less (someone else?? Drop the bloody designations??)?? Would they have stuck to specific duties, or would it be first come, first serve and whoever reached the gun first was captain, like a child's game?

Most gun drills are designed to increase firepower during line battle, not pirate threats or the more occaisional boarding.

So you're saying it's unlikely for a pirate crew to bother with any sort of gunning drill? I think it would be a waste too, like JR said, a scary black flag and fearsome reputation often did away with the need to actually fight. But what about for entertainment? Would they have engaged in any sort of gunning practice for a little friendly competition? Or would it be too big (and senseless) a risk to draw unnecessary attention to their ship by firing guns simply for 'sport'??

Gah! I have so many questions!!

das

[corsair2k3]

Greetings,

Insofar as what I've seen in the primary sources for the period 1680-1725:

* No mention of "dry-fire" gun drills.

* No mention of any target practice.

* No direct mention of assigned gun crews.

* No mention of any gun-numbering system.

* No mention of any RoF stats

Maybe this is why pirates beat the RN so seldom...

OTOH:

I HAVE seen:

* reference to "Gunners" Gunner's Mates and (indirectly) Gun Captains/Commanders.

* evidence that their sighting equipment may have been up to RN standards

*some examples of remarkable gunnery feats.

I am of the opinion that these guys liked to work close--relying on swivel guns, grenades, small arms, and edged weapons in boarding actions--and multiprojectile loads in the cannon for softening up the opposition.

A number of cannon recovered from the Whydah were found to be loaded and ready to fire--so the first round would have been sent right quick, and, given they were dealing with merchantmen, there'd likely be no need for a second.

Although some of these guys were known to be ex-RN, I get the sense that a lot more had been former privateers, and that (during the period 1715-1725 anyway) the biggest grouping comprised former merchant seamen.

Regards,

The Corsair

[Hawkyns]

Lots of variables. First, cannon have to be treated with more respect than small arms. Follow a certain procedure or you will be killed or injured and your ship damaged. So, going at it half cocked without a clue does not square with the idea of men who make their living with weapons.

That said, I train all my crews to all positions so that if one person is missing, anyone can take over. I do believe that was military training, also. Also, gunners tend to get very possesive of their guns. since black powder pieces all have their quirks, each gun captain should know his own gun. So my estimation would be that each gun would have a crew, but only the captain would necessarily keep the same position.

This is a hypothesis, based on 17th and 18th c military practice and what little research I have on pirate ship gunnery. Master gunners are definately on the crew lists, and gunners were in demand when other ships were taken.

All that said, most pirate ships would have small pieces, 3s and 4s maybe, with lots of murderers and deck sweepers. Not nearly the same amount of crew needed. I can safely work a 3 with 2 people, and a long 4 with 3. Murderers are a one man operation.

Not sure if this answers the question. to be honest, there are just too many variable to come up with a definitive answer.

Hawkyns

[JoshuaRed]

Based on my knowledge & research, I believe that the successful (actually captured some ships, lasted more than 6 months, had the skills and means to criscross the Atlantic, or round the Horn, etc) pirates were much smarter and more hard working than we tend to give them credit for. And given that many if not most of them came from naval vessels, I think that they DID maintain some sense of regimen. It was crucial for self preservation. Some sort of gunnery organization would go in hand with that. Several first hand accounts I've been reading that are written by merchant captains who were captured and held by pirates mention that they surprisingly were pretty strict about enforcing ship rules, and that they had all the "usual officers found on a man of war".

Bear in mind I'm not saying this goes for ALL pirate vessels. We all know there were countless small time coastal thugs like Calico Jack who preferred to spend their brief careers drunk and gambling. Rather I refer to the men of the pirate round. These men were skilled deepwater mariners, skilled navigators, ex-navy, and brave as all hell. Intricate tunnels and earthworks built into the ground at Isle St. Marie off Madagascar suggest these pirates had advanced knowledge of defensive fortification and engineering. These guys weren't fooling around.

So in short, yes - I think that after making the transition from navy ships to private vessels, they probably carried over the rules and practices they were familar with that applied to the running of the ship.

[corsair2k3]

Greetings,

I would agree that they were definitely smarter and more knowledgeable than they usually get credit for.

But I just haven't seen hard evidence showing that there were significant numbers of ex-RN men among them.

Maybe it would be interesting to start a new thread and put our heads together as to how the backgrounds of the leadership shake out?

Regards,

The Corsair

www.whydah.com

[JoshuaRed]

I'm all for it! I have a good book:

"Honor Among Thieves : Captain Kidd, Henry Every, and the Pirate Democracy in the Indian Ocean" -- by Jan Rogozinski

There are lots of useful data tables in here regarding pirate demographics...I'll dig it out because I am fairly sure it has a table showing the percentage of pirates known to be from the navy vs. from merchant ships in the close of the 17th century.

[corsair2k3]

Good!

And I've started a separate thread for it so that we'll be "all ship-shape and Bristol fashion"

Best,

The Corsair

[who has to go back to real life for a coupla hours]

www.whydah.com

[dasNdanger]

okay - know let me see if I got this right...

It seems that - although working smaller guns on smaller ships with smaller crews, pirates would have basically kept to a discipline and order similiar to the navy when it came to handling guns - right??

I mean, this would make sense. Not that they were 'imitating' naval practices - but that there were only so many ways to handle a very dangerous and sometimes temperamental weapon, so a certain routine would have to be followed if any sort of effectiveness was to be achieved. Of course, the scope of the whole operation would be smaller, but other than that, there would have been a similiar organization, correct?

I assume pirates avoided major battle whenever possible - but there were those times when it became necessary, and I would just like to be able to have some understanding of it so I can participate in discussions on the subject, should they arise.

If you have anything further to add, please do! And thanks so much for all your input, I really appreciate it!!

das

[corsair2k3]

I can think of only a few instances where pirates fired more than three or four broadsides.

While they would have had an organization (of sorts) for "battle stations" and while the process of operating individual guns would have been much the same, I really doubt their drill was anything near RN standards.

The Corsair

www.whydah.com

[dasNdanger]

Thanks everyone, for your input...

Now, I have another silly question. I have read of both 'handspikes' and 'crowbars' being used. I realize that in many instances a handspike might be referred to as a 'crowbar', but in a couple of instances there seems to be a distinction between a wooden handspike and a metal crowbar being used in connection with cannons. Not many references, and most are from the 1800's. My question is this: was an iron crow ever used c. 1700 in the training/maneuvering of a cannon??

das

[JoshuaRed]

Possibly. I do know Dampier mentions iron crows more than a few times in his books, being used for various purposes.

[dasNdanger]

Possibly. I do know Dampier mentions iron crows more than a few times in his books, being used for various purposes.

K - So, perhaps they were used when necessary and/or available, but certainly not exclusively for positioning the gun...

thanks, much!

das

[Fox]

You might conceivably use an iron crow bar for lifting the barrel while you slotted in the quoins to depress it or removed them to elevate it, but I can't imagine that one would use iron crow bars to shift guns. In order to get the necessary leverage an iron bar would be ridiculously heavy, and more importantly it would bend. A wooden handspike on the other hand could be light enough and long enough and wouldn't bend (which is why they used 'em).

The more I think about it the more daft using iron bars at all seems to me. For lighter guns the easiest and quickest way to lift the breech up to change quoins is to lean on the muzzel. At the point where guns become too large to do that I think a short iron crow would be too short and bendy. I'm not saying they didn't use iron crow-bars for guns, but I can't find any reference to them in any of the period works I have available to me. What exactly do your references say about them?

[JoshuaRed]

True Foxe, but what if they had short stout crows, much like the nail-pullers of today? Sigh...so much we'll never know....

[dasNdanger]

okie dokie - thanks. I was finding it all a bit confusing when doing the dreaded 'on-line' research because sometimes there would be a mention of a 'crowbar', but no pictures, no explanation, no nuttin'! Here is one place I read it, but keep in mind the dates are much later: http://www.polkcounty.org/timonier/luckey%...%20bag/bag.html (scroll down to gunner's tools)

Another source - there is a mention of it in one of the 'diagrams', but in scanning the text, I can't find where or how it would be used. http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1800gundrill.htm

Neither of these sources, as far as I can tell, say that the 'crowbar' is iron, but it seems to be distinguished from the handspike, and not the 'same as'; and in other references to crowbars or crows used aboard ship they are often referred to as 'metal' or 'iron'. One reference about land artillery reads: 'The rider on the limber pulls the retaining pin, uses a crowbar-like spike to pop the cannon trail off the limber, and leaps off'. Okay - none of that would have a bearing on a ship's cannon, I don't think...but could a 'crowbar-like spike' be called a 'crowbar' and used for something similar - perhaps not during battle, but in general maintenance, adjustments to carriage, etc. , knocking the powder monkey over the head for funsies...??

das

[Fox]

My hypothesis above was based on the idea of crowbars being the short nail-bars we know today, however the source in Das's first link makes it clear that it was actually a long bar, the same length as a handspike. That source dates from 1822, and the method of loading, laying and firing a gun at sea had not changed appreciably then since the GAoP.

Based on that the only use I can think of for a long crow bar would be lifting the breech of the barrel to adjust quoins. The thinner crowbar could get purchase under the cascabel where the handspike could not. It could also be placed under the cascabel so that one man could stand either side and directly lift the breech.

However, I've still not come across them in the GAoP. Possibly this is because the vast majority of guns at that time did not need a crow bar to adjust the elevation; there were, I believe, proportionally much fewer of the really big guns in use at that time than there were in 1822.

I'd be interested to know what "Marshall's Practical Marine Gunnery" has to say about the use of crowbars, anyone got a copy?

[JoshuaRed]

That's a VERY good point, Foxe. We are talking about the era of 4 or 6 pounders and swivel guns, etc., after all.

[Hawkyns]

"The Sea Gunner", John Seller, 1691 states that both crows and handspikes are neccesary to the operation of the guns, but gives no specifics.

"A Treatise of Artillery", Le Blond, 1746 mentions neither.

"The Artillerist's Companion", T. Fortune, 1778 mentions traversing handspikes, but not crows.

These are the 3 manuals I have to hand, I'll check the others later.

Hawkyns

[Hawkyns]

More

In "A Treatise of Artillery", John Muller, 1780, the author quotes the list of stores for the army in 1747. He lists 15 iron crows and 148 handspikes.

In "The Gunner's Glasse", William Eldred, 1646 the author says "...let your two assistants one on the right side, the other at the left, be redy with their levers to presse up the Peece to discharge the Coyne..." In his list of stores, he refers only to 'levers'.

I checked 3 other early manuals-Bournes "The Art of Shooting in Great Ordnaunce", Smith's "The Art of Gunnery", and Norton's "The Gunner's Dialogue", but none of them make mention of either.

Hawkyns

[corsair2k3]

Greetings,

I looked at the inventories of two captured pirate ships that I could get at handy for mention of crows or handspikes.

The inventory of one sloop mentioned neither--the other had two crows, but no handspikes, listed.

In my considered opinion, neither vessel would have carried anything larger than a three-pounder (and not one of those mahulkin-big three-pound chase guns either!)

I will see if I can find anything in my other inventory-type stuff.

The Corsair

www.whydah.com

[corsair2k3]

Now this manual (from 1691) mentions both

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Weaponry...1691)_p157.html

[you might have to cut and paste this into your browser]

The Corsair

www.whydah.com