A Captain is elected, what about the other men?

[kaizoku]

The pirate captain was elected, but I never read and have been searching for this answer. The other men, such as the quartermaster, boatswain, cook etc. Where they put into "office" by the captain or were they elected by the crew as well?

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Not to beat a dead horse on this... but again, I think that SOME Captains may have been elected. The majority of the others seem to have been

1) The Main conspirator that naturally assumed the roll of Captain.

2) Someone "made" a Captain. Like when BlackBlack beard captures another ship that he wants to add to his fleet, He appoints someone to assume the captaincy of that new ship.

3) Someone who makes themselves "Captain" after buying a ship and fitting it out for piracy (ala Major Bonnet)

Now there is record of, when a Pirate ship was not doing to well, that the old Captain was removed and a new one selected from the crew but I think that in no way represents an entire movement of Democracy aboard ship (or even as a means of Captain selection).

Foxe... where are you buddy?

GoF

[kaizoku]

Not to beat a dead horse on this... but again, I think that SOME Captains may have been elected. The majority of the others seem to have been

1) The Main conspirator that naturally assumed the roll of Captain.

2) Someone "made" a Captain. Like when BlackBlack beard captures another ship that he wants to add to his fleet, He appoints someone to assume the captaincy of that new ship.

3) Someone who makes themselves "Captain" after buying a ship and fitting it out for piracy (ala Major Bonnet)

Now there is record of, when a Pirate ship was not doing to well, that the old Captain was removed and a new one selected from the crew but I think that in no way represents an entire movement of Democracy aboard ship (or even as a means of Captain selection).

Foxe... where are you buddy?

GoF

I understand where your coming from but when your proving a point on a research paper you don't use the information against yourself....

LoL

[Gentleman of Fortune]

So.... you intend to write a thesis that makes the claim (and reinforces the widely held belief) that Pirate communities were democratic, despite the convincing amount of evidence that at least suggests that the were not?

I understand where your coming from but when your proving a point on a research paper you don't use the information against yourself....

Which means that if a point is easily "defeated" its not a good basis for a research paper.

I am curious as to what evidence you have gathered so far that would make a good argument that Pirate Captains were elected?

This is not an attempt to pick a fight or anything, I am just curious. How about this, I will go through my resources and find instances where there is no appearance of democracy and post it here.

You find the Pro-democracy information and post it as well (which you are going to have to do anyway for your paper).

GoF

****EDIT*****

I should say that if anyone else wants to play (pro or con), you are certainly welcome to come abaord!

[Phillip Black]

According to Captain Johnson's General History, Bartholomew Roberts was elected by his crew. Also, Edward England was voted out by his own crew for being too soft and kind to captured prizes. That's just what I could come up with on the top of my head. It doesn't necessarily indicate democracy, but it disproves that all pirates were ruled by a dictator captain.

Also, Stede Bonnet was rather unique in my opinion. I seriously doubt many pirates purchased their own ships and hired crews. Unless you consider privateers as pirates. Certainly many privateers probably turned pirate when peace broke out. I still believe Stede Bonnet was having a mid-life crisis.

[hurricane]

I'm with GoF on this. The bulk of facts run counter to what the research paper is about. So I'm not sure how we can be of help, particularly when many on this board, GoF being one of them, work so hard to dispel the mythology with well researched opinions supported by facts, not fiction. Sure, there are always an exception to a rule - some captains were elected - but a pirate ship was more of a benevolent dictatorship than a democracy in most cases I believe. It's the old my bat, my ball rule. I can't imagine the likes of Blackbeard taking a vote on anything aboard his ship.

-- Hurricane

[Phillip Black]

Being new to the genre, I am not as knowledgeable as some here. However, if you are looking for support of your argument, Marcus Rediker and Frank Sherry would be good places to start, and of course there is Captain Johnson's General History.

As far as "source" sources (which everyone is so crazy about here) I have no idea. It would probably be pretty rare to find source documentation on democracy aboard pirate ships.

You have to agree with Hurricane, Blackbeard answered to no one. Hell, he shot his own crewmen on occasion just to remind them who was in charge...

[Bilgemunky]

Getting back to the original question, I believe I've read in several places that the Quartermaster was also elected. This would particularly make sense, since it was his job to liason between the crew and the captain, settle disputes, divy the booty, etc. It would certainly serve well to fill this position with someone the majority of the crew trusts.

No, I don't have any original documents to back this claim - just remember picking it up along the way

[Fox]

I understand where your coming from but when your proving a point on a research paper you don't use the information against yourself....

LoL

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't the whole point of research to look at the facts and the evidence and then draw conclusions from that. It's some years since I was in an English class at school but I'm sure I remember Mr Faludy telling me that conclusions come at the end, not the beginning.

Seriously, if you're studying history then you're not going to impress anyone marking your essay if you dismiss evidence which doesn't fit in with your theory.

However, in answer to your question, I suspect that the way officers were elected depended on a number of factors. For example, in an autocratic dictatorship (like Blackbeard's for example) it is unsurprising to find that the captain dished out rank and privilege to those friends of his whom he thought most deserving. In other, more democratic situations officers might be elected by the men - without checking I could be wrong but I'm sure there are one or two examples of officers being elected by the crews in Johnson.

The main point about ship's officers, however they were appointed, is that they were probably chosen because of their ability. Whether elected by crew or by captain there's no sense in having a boatswain who can't tie a sheet-bend, or a pilot who can't write.

FWIW, be careful how much importance you attach to the Quarter-Master. May I suggest a visit to this page.

[hurricane]

I would add that a captain probably selected his officers by how much he could trust them and trust in them. I certainly know this was the case in Morgan's day from my recent readings, albeit that's pre GAoP. But even if a crewman had a lot of ability, a captain may be be loathe to appoint him if he could not trust him for he wouldn't want to be having to watch his backside all the time. His officers onboard would be most likely to be the most loyal to him.

-- Hurricane

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Phillip

Your comments are most welcome!

As far as "source" sources (which everyone is so crazy about here) dry.gif I have no idea. It would probably be pretty rare to find source documentation on democracy aboard pirate ships.

The point that I was making though is that its "common knowledge" that Pirates created Democratic Societies on board their ships, period refrences don't support that in the majority of cases.

I aknowledge that their are instances (like the two you pointed out from Johnson) but there are a LOT of others that dont.

By the way, Edward England seemed kind of vague. I couldn't pin down a democratic rise for him as a Captain.... what did you get?

GoF

[Phillip Black]

The point that I was making though is that its "common knowledge" that Pirates created Democratic Societies on board their ships, period refrences don't support that in the majority of cases.

No problem! I'm not trying to be snide! I just don't have the experience with "source" documents that some here seem to have, and while I respect that knowledge, I hate being trumped by it! I would agree with you though, that the majority of period references probably give little reference to democratic societies.

I could be wrong, but it would seem that most period document writers wouldn't be all that familiar with a democratic system in the first place, seeing as most governments were still monarchies...Also, (mind you this is with little to no experience with period sources, and hence only a guess) I would doubt that the writers would spend much time on analyzing the social nuances of pirate organization and would focus more on cataloging the damning actions of the crew and captain.

As for Edward England, I'm not around my books and can't check...poor memory! I need to read more books and drink less rum.

On a side note, Bilgemunky and Gentlemen of Fortune, your sites are wonderful! Thank you!

[Sir Eric]

Conclusions do come at the end of a research project, but the thesis comes at the begining.

Thesis: Pirate crews elected captains and other officers.

Research: Sometimes, but not exclusively, and less frequently than at first thought. Arguments in favor of the thesis include examples A, B and C, arguments to the contrary of the thesis include examples D, E and F. And G. Oh, and H as well.

Conclusion: While not all pirate crews elected captains and officers, there were those that followed a democratic selection process, making them even MORE unique and significant than if it were a general practice.

kaizoku, you still have a valid research topic IMHO, as long as your thesis isn't "all" pirate captains were elected by their crews. However, history very rarely deals in absolutes.

Have fun!

[kaizoku]

My thesis is actually most likely going to be about how how hollywood portrays almost all ships as non democratic where in many occasions they were. basically saying that the hollywood vision of a pirate ship is very incorrect.

[Phillip Black]

My thesis is actually most likely going to be about how how hollywood portrays almost all ships as non democratic where in many occasions they were. basically saying that the hollywood vision of a pirate ship is very incorrect.

I like the idea! i wonder if you might post it for us when you're done? However, I'm sure there are a lot of other inconsistencies also, as others on this board will no doubt inform you of.

Of course when we see "Pirates of the Caribbean" we expect a certain amount of fiction and fantasy, but I wonder how a film like "Master and Commander" would stack up in the realism department.

I mean, if Star Wars portrayed combat in space realistically, it never would have been a hit.

And Sir Eric is right, there is nothing wrong with proving your own thesis wrong, as long as you can justify your conclusion!

[kaizoku]

What do you think would be best phillip? for the topic that is

Revised intro:

“Fifteen men on a dead man’s chest, Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum. Drink and the devil had done for the rest, Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum.” This excerpt from a popular sea shanty puts the image that Hollywood produces of pirates into our mind. Unfortunately, the view of pirates that we are given through Hollywood and the media contains a large array of untruths. The view of pirates created by the media generally consists of unruly group of white men who are killing people and raping women for the pure pleasure of it. This, surprisingly enough, is a very careless assumption that is made about pirates who lived and sailed in the Golden Age of Piracy.

Lately pirates have been showing up in Hollywood more and more, from Disney’s fantasy entertainment movie “The Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl” to the more realistic “Master in Commander.” These movies are great for entertainment value but also contain a lot of fraudulent information about the life of a pirate.

This is the beginning of the revised essay. Do you feel that this is a better approach?

[Phillip Black]

What do you think would be best phillip?

ehhhh, thank you for putting so much stock in my opinion! However, either topic is good, but why not just choose the broader topic of Hollywood mis-portrayals of pirates? Your original idea was the most intriguing to me, how social structures onboard pirate ships are portrayed in Hollywood and how they were in reality...

Foxe would probably tell you that trying to portray pirates as anything more than "bad guys" would be a fool's quest!...but I could be wrong, I am still new here!

[Fox]

There's no question that pirates were bad guys. By the very definition of the word if they don't commit robbery with violence then they're not pirates. The question of whether they were just bad guys is perhaps more interesting.

A minor point, but I would drop references to "Master and Commander". a; it's not set during the golden age of piracy, but nearly a century later, and b; there are no pirates in it.

If you're going to pursue the question of how accurate or not Hollywood's portrayal of pirates is then I would recommend taking a look at my site Pirate Mythtory. It's not so much about the obvious errors in popular media (undead pirates and all that OTT stuff), but about the kinds of misconceptions which we think we know all about, but perhaps don't. Don't want to blow my own trumpet, but you might find it useful.

Whether writers in the 17/18th centuries would have had much political savvy is an interesting point, and I think the answer is a great big YES. Religious upheavals of the 16th century had tought people to question what they were told, to make up their own minds. Between 1642 and 1653 England was ravaged with civil war, precisely because of the differences between the will of the people and the will of the crown. Out of the civil war rose a number of short-lived, but politically important movements such as the Levellers and the Diggers. The Levellers were strongest in the army, and their influence spread wherever the army went. In 1649 they were so disillusioned by Cromwell's Republic (itself a radical idea) that they staged a mutiny. The mutiny was suppressed but the movement was not. Following the civil war England was the central state in a "Commonwealth" of countries, which would go on to become the British Empire, but were at that time ruled as republics. At the time of the Restoration in 1660 many Levellers left England and began new lives in the colonies.

Perhaps less significant and certainly less successful was the civil war in France that was known as the Fronde, 1648-53. Members of the French Parlement opposed unfair new taxes and the excessive power of Cardinal Mazarin. However, the revolutionaries were defeated and in fact the French crown was able to strengthen itself and award itself extra power as a result.

In the second half of the 17th century revolutionary ideas continued to ferment. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was successful, not because the Lords wanted to exchange a Catholic James II for a Protestant William III, but because the people supported such a move. Neither let us overlook the importance of writers such as Hobbes and Locke in arousing public interest in radical politics during the 17thC. In America Nathaniel Bacon's manifesto and "Declaration of the People" of 1676 contain very strong overtones of issues and complaints that would resurface a century later and spark the American Revolution. One of the biggest issues of the day in the Royal Navy was the question of whether "Gentlemen Officers" (who were born into good and ancient families) were more suited to command ships and fleets than "Tarpaulin Officers" (who had the advantage of skill and experience but not birth), or vice-versa.

By the time of the golden age of piracy most people, and particularly writers, were fairly politically astute. Perhaps one of the best, and indeed most pertinent examples of this is the second volume of Johnson's General History of the Pirates which suffers (IMHO) from extensive and overt political commentary, much to the detriment of the history it purports to record.

...sorry, what was the original question?

[Phillip Black]

Wow! You never cease to amaze Foxe! Great and informative site by the way. You finally cleared up some of the Captain Johnson/Defoe controversy for me. I especially liked your section on Pirate Ranks too!

[Sir Eric]

At the risk of sounding like a suck-up, great post Foxe!

Okay, for what it's worth, I'm going to cut/paste the review I wrote of Cordingly's Under the Black Flag because it seems to have some bearing on the thesis kaizoku is suggesting... because it's more or less Cordingly's statement of purpose for the book.

Warning... it's 800 words plus, and the footnotes cut/pasted as # symbols... titles of books and references did not transfer in italics etc... and it's late so I'm not into transcribing all of the foots and bracketing what should be italisized tonight. I'll be happy to do it tomorrow if anyone is really worried about it.

The object of the review was to analyze the book, determine the authors' intent, and to either support his position or disprove it, and only this one book was under consideration... in other words, what sources did this author use and how did he use them. This is what I came up with. Enjoy or ignore... your option

Oh, and just so you know, I scored 37 out of a possible 40 points on this project.

Book Review:

Under The Black Flag by David Cordingly

For partial credit, History 112

Sir Eric (name changed to protect the guilty)

The stated intention of David Cordingly's Under The Black Flag is to "...examine the popular image of pirates today, to find out where this image came from, and to compare it with the real world of pirates." # Cordingly draws his arguments from both historical and fictional sources, comparing and contrasting the romanticized view of pirates from literature with the factual accounts of their brutal and often short lives in an attempt to prove that pirates have attained an aura of romance that they do not deserve.

Two of the earliest known historical accounts of sixteenth and seventeenth century pirates serve both as prime sources for Cordingly's book, and inspiration for the earliest writers of pirate fiction: Alexander Exquemelin's The Buccaneers of America (1678) and Captain Charles Johnson's A General History of the Most Notorious Pirates. (1724) Both books contain vivid details of famous pirates and provide the basis for characters in popular works of fiction such as Treasure Island and Peter Pan. Cordingly sites personal letters of both Robert Louis Stevenson and J.M. Barrie crediting Exquemelin and Johnson as major influences on their work.

By the middle of the eighteenth century, the London stage was popularizing the image of pirates as "brave outlaws."# However, Cordingly uses the research of J.R. Parish and Jeffrey Richards to suggest it was Hollywood that fully established the current image of pirates. Epic adventures starring handsome men such as Errol Flynn and Douglass Fairbanks Sr. rescuing beautiful women in exotic locations have been cemented in public perception.#

While many works of fiction have some basis in historical fact, Cordingly uses numerous sources to examine the truth behind common misconceptions. His research turns up no evidence of treasure maps.# Sparse evidence exists of wooden legs in Johnson's General History and a series of watercolors by caricature artist Thomas Rowlandson.# Of walking the plank Cordingly only sites one example from The Times of July 23, 1829, long after the Golden Age of Piracy had ended.# Charles Hill’s Notes on Piracy in Eastern Waters establishes that Captain Kidd was most likely the sole source of the concept of buried treasure.# Marooning, made famous by Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, was often practiced by pirates, however Cordingly proves that the custom is grossly misrepresented. Defoe’s novel was most likely based on the plight of Andrew Selkirk, chronicled in the journals of Buccaneer Captain Woodes Rogers.# Selkirk was not marooned, but accidentally left behind while searching for water. Islands that were used for marooning purposes tended to be a barren spit of sand devoid of any means of shelter or survival.#

Utilizing Royal Navy records, Admiralty Court documents, newspaper articles and personal journals, Cordingly provides a picture of life among pirates that is far from the romantic images presented in fiction. There are some surprises; pirates were uniquely democratic in an age of monarchies. Pirate captains and officers were sometimes elected and deposed by majority vote. The course of the vessels and division of loot were decided by councils who drew up “articles” that also determined disciplinary measures, payment for loss of limb or eye in combat, and how any captured loot would be shared out. Cordingly draws on Exquemelin’s Buccaneers of America for a detailed examples of this teamwork,# and the application of such codes is sited in the journals of the pirate Basil Ringrose.#

This apparent display of civility seems to have applied only to their own. The most gruesome details of life among pirates, Cordingly shows, are what romantic works of literature intentionally avoid. Accounts of murder, rape and torture are plentiful. The Calendar of State Papers: Colonial, America and West Indies provide Cordingly with tales of entire crews murdered, prisoners used as target practice and one especially horrid account detailing how Edward Low “...cut off the said Master’s lips and broiled them before his face.”# When monetary loot was not to be had, pirates would take anything of value, as The Deposition of George Barrow quoted by Cordingly from the Public Records Office demonstrates: “fourteen boxes of candles, and two boxes of soap... anchor and cable and several carpenters tools” were plundered from the sloop Content when she had nothing else to offer.# It is hard to imagine characters such as Lord Byron’s The Corsair settling for such a meager payoff.

Movie directors and fictional authors never intended to show the reality of life among pirates, but to simply entertain. Cordingly’s claim that such works have contorted our perception of a social phenomena is clearly borne out by documents ranging from journals of those who traveled with pirates, the records of those who tried and hung them, and the efforts of historians who looked beyond myth and popular legend. Under The Black Flag easily meets the burden of proof in its intention of looking at those concepts, finding their sources and presenting the underlying truths.

P.S... after cutting and pasting this item, I've noticed that a lot of the punctuation and formatting are not as originally written... so forgive me if it seems discordant.... I don't want to portray my history professor as a lenient fob who let's bad writting pass easily... cause he's actually a major hard-a**

Cheers!

[Gentleman of Fortune]

WoW!

Great post Eric.

I should say that my personal view is that without Hollywood, pirates would be little more than a footnote of history. When I say "Hollywood" though, I lump in all the Novelist (Stevenson), Playwrights (who have always romanticized Piracy), and Artist (Pyle) throughout history that have turned the historical aspects of Piracy into an Entertainment vehicle.

I have no problem with this... really. Would we really be doing what we are now if there had never been a Treasure Island, Peter Pan, Pirates of Penzance, Howard Pyle or Captain Blood?

Its easy to sit back now and point the finger at them collectively and say, "boy did they get it wrong", but in fact, they planted the seed of interest that has been watered and given sunlight to grow into the interest that we have today.

Along similar lines, how many fewer members would this forum and others have had Johnny Depp and PoTC not been made?

That being said, there are a number of us who look past the celluloid film to determine for ourselves how things really were.

Which brings us back to questions like the ones that Kaizoku originally asked. The field is soooo open for a really cool Thesis that it Naturally attracts the members here like a moth to flame.

Soooooooo

I will throw out the question:

If you got to choose a "pirate" inspired thesis, what would it be?

GoF

[Fox]

Thanks Sir Eric, and may I return the honour by saying what an excellent appraisal of UTBF that was.

Hmmm, pirate thesis...

[Sir Eric]

Thanks for the props :)

Would we really be doing what we are now if there had never been a Treasure Island, Peter Pan, Pirates of Penzance, Howard Pyle or Captain Blood?

Probably not... most likely I'd be rolling in mud and trying to sell chicken bones at faire.

Pirate mythology may be innacurate, but it's enabled me to not have to get a "real" job in the summer, so my deepest thanks to Misters Flynn, Fairbanks JR. and Depp for turning those depraved, murderous rapists into smooth talking, devil-may-care Cassanovas. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

I'll have to think on the pirate thesis... so many options it's hard to choose!

[hitman]

Pirate inspired thesis hmmmmmmm.....

I'd have to make a broader leap than just the GAoP. I have a recently found oppsesion with Roman era pirates and Navys. Given I can't find much to my likeing on the subject I can't back this up however my thesis is that quite frankly the Roman navy was more than just a few boats and the odd group of soildiers but an actual fighting force. ( A generalization yes but I am really tired.) Lets face it Hannabil couldn't reinforce his army by sea and so was forced to march over the alps. Now we also know that piracy was rampant in the Med at the time ( as it was for centuries before and after) yet the Roman navy semed almost incable of stopping it. The same Roman navy who stoped Carthage and it's greatest generals from counquering Rome itself. My question is what did these men do to avoid capture? How did they operate and to a lesser extent where? Alas everything written about Rome seems to be land based even the eventual reduction of Piracy by the Romans was due to a land battle but still the question of the Roman sailors and pirates linger. Well at least to me.