When is it just plain wrong

[Fox]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to suggest that the illustrators of pirates have got it right. Far from it! Almost anyone in Captain Twill will tell you that my opinions are quite the opposite.

Also, I think it would help if we clarified the kinds of "exotic items" we're talking about. We've got records of seamen in London and other places with parrots (which were remarkably common) and other foreign animals, loads of spices being brought back (the problem was so great that the East India Company had massive crackdowns on seamen engaging in private trade, but to no avail).

To get more piratical, Theophilus Turner (a pardoned pirate of no particular note) requested the return of his goods which had been siezed, and included:

333 pieces of Arabian gold and 2 gold earrings

100 pieces of Christian gold 20 Ounces of Gold Dust

3 Silver Rings with Stones in ym.

2 Silver Rings with Diamonds in them

1 Gold Ring with a Red Stone

3 Gold Rings with diamonds in them

100 peeces of Eight

29 Peeces of Eight in Double Bitts

An Agate and a square stone inlaid

A little Leather case with 3 pairs of gold buttons

3 or 4 morris Stones and others, no.13

One little gold box

OK, that's an isolated example, but it's not like he was a famous successful pirate, and he still had Arabian gold and Moorish stones, not to mention all the other interesting stuff. (Ducks out of the way of the approaching earring argument...).

So, what kind of exotic items are we talking about here?

[hurricane]

Not to stir it up[ any more my Good Man FOXE, I would point out, that many of the seamen who had long carreers at sea, were pressed, and even if they were not, were held on ship in foriegn ports for fear of desertion, both merchant and Militarty, it would be hard to vrew a ship in a foriegn port, so liberties were not easily attained, also wages were not given out freely at these ports and sailors were seen as poor and scurvied, not real desirebles.

However I do see that they would have been able to capture booty from prizes, However, how many pirates had a ship large enough to capture large ocean going vessels sailing from europe and beyond. Again the average prize was not a ship laden with spanish gold, but a small merchant ship with cargo. or even fishing canoes. Boty such as rope, pitch and ship works were high on the list as the pirates could not go into ports for a refit. Money and jewels were usually come by at the point of a sword or torture and it did not amount to much, Cargo was the big booty.

And as far as hollywood, lets date Pirates of the carib, Lets see, style, additude of residencents in Port Royal, Military having a no Pirate additude, and size of town. OK earthquake 1692? rebuilt slowly over the years, before earthquake wicked pirate city, after the rebuild pirates not around, No mention of morgan after 1688, Navy has a resolve to end piracy

I would say 1710s to 1720s, I think we could agree to that

Then the Bird, opps captain Sparrow says, I plan to sail to Tortuga and get a crew of buccaneers

opps, the golden age of buccanners were just about over in the 1680s, by the 1690s Tortuga was rid of them, they had become wood cutters or pirates, lets not even go into Buccaneers biggest achievements being marine armies, not pirates. And we see that Hollywood will use any TERM or FLASHY GARB to romance a story for the sheer excitement of it, even though they say they are well researched, they destroy that with FLAIR. Why? The public are not historians and want to see it

I agree with the look realistic vibe, however Ever notice the public when at these events, flock to the not so historical guy with long flowing hair and much flair on his garb to have pictures taken with, then at home show off those pics, not the ones of the historical encamoments?

At the time of Port Royal's heydays as a buccaneer stronghold, it's importance in international trade was unrivaled, the nearest comparison being latter day Boston. The port had trade from all over the world, legitimate and illegitimate in nature. The warehouses and shops were loaded with goods from Africa, South America, Europe and the Far East, particularly China. Buccaneers were equally diverse in their nationalities, and perhaps just as important, trades. They were not sailors as a rule, but tinkers, tailors, tradesmen and regular working folk. And their understanding to the world was somewhat more sophisticated than we would like to imagine.

You're correct that the earthquakes (there were three of them, increasingly stronger, withing two minutes time, total) of 1692, devestated the town. But it hardly destroyed it. The town did rebuild and played host to the like of Calico Jack (the cay where they hung him is just offshore, albeit, under water now), Blackbeard, Anne Bonny and Mary Read. That was the second golden age of Port Royal, which rebuilt more rapidly than history tells us.

Trade continued unabated in Jamaica and Port Royal after the earthquake of 1692, hurricanes in 1712, 1722, 1726, 1744 and 1751. In fact, pieces of eight continued to be the preferred coinage for trade until 1839 on the island, long after the Golden Age pirates and buccaneers had vanished.

Compared to the pirates of the Golden Age, buccaneers were mostly landsmen. They did appreciate the finer things in life and their homes in Jamaica were filled with fine silks, porcelains, pewter (made in Port Royal) and other imports.

Pirates/buccaneers didn't need large ships - ports of trade were conveniently sprinkled about their entire area of influence. Tortuga and Port Royal are just two of hundreds, from the far reaches of South America to the Florida peninsula. And even pirogues, a favorite of buccaneers, were some 30 to 40 feet long and could hold up to 40 men. Some used by the french were massive, carved from a single 40' cedar tree.

The trade of precious gems, silver and gold was huge in the Caribbean, both in the times of the buccaneers and the pirates of the next century. Cargo was only valuable if it could be sold. Profit was the name of the game here, there was no nobility in piracy. No prey, no pay was the watchwords for crews aboard these ships. An otherwise efficient captain could be readily deposed if money didn't come their way while on the the account. As such, the Spanish routes from the emerald, silver and gold mines became the primary reason piracy flourished in the Caribbean. Spanish ships, at least in buccaneer times, were the reason much of the English and French held regions in the Caribbean prospered so. They were built with Spanish goods and blood.

As for clothing... many ship's articles of the time provided crew members the right to a new shift of clothes from the prize, so their clothing (again, I speak of the buccaneer period) would be a bit more varied than the typical sailor togs of the later period, when crews were composed of ordinary sailors instead of landsmen. Landsmen did care more about how they dressed, as the lived in Port Royal and other ports when not aboard a buccaneer ships. Wills of the time demonstrate the fluent lifestyle of many buccaneers during this time. I think the case for sailor clothing aboard ships of the Golden Age has been well demonstrated here by others with more knowledge than I of the GaoP.

Finally, trade with undesirables was as it is now. If you have something I need and I have the money to pay for it, I don't care who you are or what you do. Just look at the Black Market in existence today. Governments and its peoples are always ready to turn the other cheek when it can benefit their economical or political needs. Pirates were an accepted part of society for the goods and bounty they provided and the plunder they readily spent in the taverns and whorehouses when in port.

Just random thoughts...

-- Hurricane

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

good points, and in a few counter points I might add

Port Royal was devastated, and sections were destroyed, such as NewOrleans was this year, Yes the city is still there, and major parts are unlivable

but in Port royals case, the northern part of the city was submerged, this was the major dock area, over 2000 dead, cemetaries submerged and corpses floated in the harbor, Many on land died of desiese this caused, Merechants dependent on the docks went accross the bay to kingston. Yea it put a crimp in Port Royals side, and at this time the mood was changing against the Pirate affairs, the English no longer needed the Buccanners for protection and started arresting and harrassing them. they went to other areas and ports.

And the peices of eight being a main currency, you can read some of Henri Peirnes (I hope I spelled that right) books on economics, it would make it clear why the silver coin of the Dons was a main currency, the same reason today some currencies are worth more than others. Port Royal was, as was the English additudes changing as it rebuilt.

I think we are also wondering about articles of clothing, on board ship, clothing was mainly functionable, Flair was not much as it got in the way of function, and living in one set of clothes you would want a change, land clothes would be of a better type, getting a change of clothes from a prize, ok so you take anothers sailors clothes. I think we are reading to much into that, if you wanted finery buying it in port with riches gained through pirate activities would be a better way to get nice clothes, Which brings me back to my origonal arguement.

Yes there were pirates that sailed internationally, But these were not the norm, way to often you read of pirates in certain area of waters, Historically certain areas of ocean were haunted by them, a thing a good pirate fleet needs is a safe harbor with friendly politics and a profitable trade route to plunder, and Knowledge of local waters to hide. Now are there exceptions, oh yea, and some of the most well know pirates sailed several oceans, but again, they are the exception not the rule.

Pirates also had a major flaw, they partied till they were broke, THe buccanners were so famous for this they were known to party out the plunder from huge raids and want to go on another, seems it is said that the only ones getting rich were tavern and whore house owners. Retaining finery was not one of there top talents

Again we can mention Morgan who bought property and others but you do not read about many doing that.

I base my opinion , and yes it is just an opinion, on such as what I read in history books and papers, I gather from them that the romance of pirates has been around for centuries, and that the public, a never changing mass, wants to hear about swahbuckling and feathered hats, but as is true today, the commoness of everyday life lives on.

It may be fine to look at a Hollywood star dressed to the nines for a event, but they sit around in the same skivvies we do at home.

So, do I think a pirate may have owned a Epie, yes if he like swords, but a cutlass was Supreme for shipboard fighting

Do I think they had collected much from foriegn ports, A few may have

Do I think they had clothes with a lot of flair, not everyday clothes,

And I beleive that, like ourselves today, we are more influenced by our local enviroment that far off distant places.

I beleive that most peoples ideas of pritaes are based on Treasure island and Captains Johnsons book about Notorious pirates, they make good reading, but, historically, well the first is a novel with no basis for fact and the second is touted to be way inaccurate by historians.

[Fox]

I think we are also wondering about articles of clothing, on board ship, clothing was mainly functionable, Flair was not much as it got in the way of function, and living in one set of clothes you would want a change, land clothes would be of a better type, getting a change of clothes from a prize, ok so you take anothers sailors clothes.

Ah, now I believe we're reaching the crux of the debate. I don't think anyone else is talking about clothing (I may be mistaken), I'm certainly not. I agree 100% that the vast majority of pirates' clothing was practical shipboard seaman's clothing. If you have a browse through some of the older threads (which contain a lot of good information btw) this has always been my stance.

Which brings me back to my origonal arguement.

Yes there were pirates that sailed internationally, But these were not the norm, way to often you read of pirates in certain area of waters, Historically certain areas of ocean were haunted by them, a thing a good pirate fleet needs is a safe harbor with friendly politics and a profitable trade route to plunder, and Knowledge of local waters to hide. Now are there exceptions, oh yea, and some of the most well know pirates sailed several oceans, but again, they are the exception not the rule.

Which brings me back to my original argument. I believe that you are mistaken. I believe that many many pirates sailed internationally during their pirate careers - not just the famous ones or odd examples, but many. I also firmly believe that many many pirates sailed internationally before they were pirates. I'm not suggesting that ALL pirates had knowledge of far-off lands, but I don't agree for a minute that they were the exception. Also, how do we define far off lands? Any seaman, for example, that sailed from England to the Americas* was automatically familiar with two seperate continents, and it's hardly asking much to believe that massive numbers of them had sailed in the Mediterranean or to the East Indies, or both. Even the commonplace voyaging to the Med might have brought them into contact with so many different sights and sounds, a third continent, maybe three or four different religions in addition to their own. Just how do you define well travelled?

Even if we confine ourselves to the pirates who sailed abroad during their piratical careers I think you're probably mistaken about the numbers. Just to give some examples, and working solely from the list of pirate captains who have their own chapters in Johnson's General History: Henry Avery, Edward England, Howell Davis, Bart Roberts, Thomas Anstis, William Kidd, John Gow, George Lowther, Thomas Howard, John Halsey, Thomas Tew, Captain Condent, John Bowen, and Thomas White all saw more than one continent during their pirate careers. Others, such as Low for example sailed the American continent from the Caribbean to Newfoundland - hardly "local". That's about half the pirates mentioned. If you take any list of pirates of the GAoP, whether it's the contents of a famous pirate book, a website, or whatever, I have no doubt that you'll find most of them ranging far and wide, and the properly "local" pirates (ie. those who remain in one sea or on one specific stretch of coast) are far from being the "rule".

Neither let us forget the very cosmopolitan nature of pirate crews when it comes to the knowledge, even second hand, of foreign places. Since you don't like Johnson lets take a crew not listed in Johnson: Of the 25 men in Quelch's crew at the time of their trial 13 were English, 3 were American, 4 were Irish, 2 were Scottish, 1 was a Channel Islander, 1 was Dutch and 1 was Swiss. Other crews had large numbers of West Indians or Africans, not to mention other Europeans.

I beleive that most peoples ideas of pritaes are based on Treasure island and Captains Johnsons book about Notorious pirates, they make good reading, but, historically, well the first is a novel with no basis for fact and the second is touted to be way inaccurate by historians.

Treasure Island is, of course, not an historical source, but Johnson's General History should not be so simply dismissed. Any historian that describes Johnson as "way innaccurate" is not worth much IMHO. Research over the last few years has shown that Johnson's facts are often a lot better than they were once thought. However, the real point about Johnson in terms of accuracy is the different areas in which his reliability might be good or bad. In terms of stark facts like dates and suchlike he is often misleading and incorrect; if you want to research the life of, say, Blackbeard, then Johnson will give you a good idea of the basic outline, but you would be wise to check up on the details elsewhere.

On the other hand, in terms of background Johnson's General History is probably one of the most useful documents available to the public today. In terms of "how we view pirates" there is no reason at all to doubt Johnson's accuracy. The kind of background details that Johnson provides tie in with other sources and there's nothing in either volume which suggests to me that he was being too fanciful (pirate politics aside perhaps)+. Nowhere does Johnson suggest that all pirates had parrots or wore bucket topped boots. His descriptions of pirates and their way of life are believable, and more to the point they were believable to a contemporary audience. Sea captains wrote to Johnson after publication of the first edition and offered corrections for future editions, but none of those corrctions are "don't be daft, pirates didn't behave like that".

It would not be a wise man who too quickly dismissed Johnson out of hand as inaccurate. :)

*A study by David Cordingly of the known pirates active in the Caribbean between 1715 and 1725: 20% were from the West Indian colonies themselves, and 25% were from North American colonies. Of the remaining 55%, 53% were from the British Isles (35% of the total were English). The remaining 2% were from other European nations. Thus, the majority of those pirates were well travelled, NOT local.

+This is not counting the probably fictional added chapters of Tew and Misson. Though, of course, there is really no reason to doubt the reliability of much of the background information of those chapters. Fiction they may be, but they are incredibly well researched fiction

[hurricane]

Port Royal was devastated, and sections were destroyed, such as NewOrleans  was this year, Yes the city is still there, and major parts are unlivable

but in Port royals case, the northern part of the city was submerged, this was the major dock area, over 2000 dead, cemetaries submerged and corpses floated in the harbor, Many on land died of desiese this caused, Merechants dependent on the docks went accross the bay to kingston. Yea it put a crimp in Port Royals side, and at this time the mood was changing against the Pirate affairs, the English no longer needed the Buccanners for protection and started arresting and harrassing them. they went to other areas and ports.

And the peices of eight being a main currency, you can read some of Henri Peirnes (I hope I spelled that right) books on economics, it would make it clear why the silver coin of the Dons was a main currency, the same reason today some currencies are worth more than others. Port Royal was, as was the English additudes changing as it rebuilt.

I think a visit to Port Royal would change your mind some. I have been there on several occasions and the belief that the earthquake destroyed Port Royal in 1692 is based on some myth.

Yes, 13 acres of the town sank in about two minutes. Most of the other homes were destroyed. Fort Charles still stood. Residents took refuge on one of the ships still afloat, in homes still standing and the fort itself. The town then began to rebuild almost immediately, as it has several times since. It was a strategic point of defense for the island. The fort and other fortifications were quickly rebuilt to repell the French Invasion of 1694. The town followed. In Januray 1704 the town burned to the ground, but by May fifty new houses had appeared, four or five taverns and a butcher. By August some 300 families lived in Port Royal.

The town continued to rebuild and expand into the GAoP. As a trading port, and I quote here, "Kingston was difficult to access, and could not be defended [due to the world's 7th largest harbor]: besides, it was unhealthy 'situated between a great swamp of morass and the Rising Sun and the Trade Winds, which blew noisesome smells from the ships, swamps and mangroves." Many of Kingston's original settlers feld back to Port Royal to escape the epidemics which were ravaging Kingston.

Finally, if piracy was so distasteful there during the GAoP, then why were pirates still in town? Why did the likes of Blackbeard, Rackham, Bonny Read and a host of other famous names visit and live in the town during that time, if the city was indeed a stronghold of the navy? There was definitely strong commerce, trade and economic base there.

Port Royal never regained its infamousy as the wickedest city on earth, but it was still a very important trading port, and more important, a very important strategic stronghold for Jamaica itself.

I know this is off topic, but I think many of the statements on Port Royal are not really accurate, at least compared to the history that's actually there in Port Royal, Spanish Town and Jamaica as a whole.

-- Hurricane

Back on topic for a moment... :) Port Royal itself was a center of international trade and its residents were of wide international birthright. It was not all English or Europeans. Far from it. The crews of buccaneer days were from a wide range of nationalities, and they settled there and brought their ethno-centric tastes with them to town as well. You could infer that they brought their local tastes (from where they came) and either turned it into marketable wares or purchased complementary wares from the vast warehouses containing goods from all over the world. Obviously, goods from China, the Far East, Africa, India and South America got there somehow, either by contact with foreign ships or through direct import by legitimate traders.

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

I think Mr Foxe we are agreeing but not looking closely at each others words so diagreeing

of the pirates you mention , 1 sailed internationally, the others sailed Africa, Local to one area, That is what I am saying, they raid a specific area and that would be their influence, weather that is East coast of the Americas,Bonnet: caribean, Calico Jack: east coast of africa, Tew: both southern coast of Africa, Every: or internationally, Edward England, the area of their raiding was their biggest influence, dress, trinkets and Booty, and ports they stopped in the area were influenced just the same. Would a ship raiding the red sea be carrying Rum for Grog? Or a more locallized drink, would a scarf worn by a pirate on the south coast of the gulf of mexico be from India? not for long, after getting used and abused it would be replaced, only so many mouth wipes at dinner before that scarf gets foul. Now that is my arguement. I feel we should not preceive what is exotic to us is exotic to those where it is from.

So we probably are agreeing yet diaagreeing on points because we are having a discussion over the net were we type out a 1/4 page of answers a day or two, and if we were in the same room in about 5 minutes we would be laughing at our mistake.

Hurricane, Yes I have been to Jamaica twice, Port royal is a interesting place, still, by the 1710s thru the 1720s , not the entire 20 years but inclusive, New Providence was the Pirate Island of choice, Calico Jack hung in Jamaica in 1720, the mood was against Pirates in Port Royal.In 1718 the English had the ships: Ludlow Castle 40 guns,Swift 6 guns, Diamond 40 guns, stationed in Jamaica,Scarboro, 30 guns in Barbados, Seaford 20 guns stationed in the Leewards, and 3 other ships composing of 80 more guns in the Americas, with 86 guns stationed in Jamaica I find it strange that a pirate would base himself in a bay with the capital in it.

In 1700 the "act for the more effectual surpression of piracey" passed by Parliment made it easier to hang pirates, they were no longer required to be brought back to the admirality in England, this ment that the long waiting periods and trails without local witnesses were no longer needed and the local authorities could, and did, execute pirates. In 1715, govenor Hamiliton of Jamaica commisoned a 10 ship fleet to seak out pirates and bring them back to Port Royal for trial and execution, Hardly a pleasant place to be a pirate at. So again I will SURMISE, that with the changeing additudes toward pirates, the easier justice system, a new pirate freindly Island, and the rebuilding of Port Royal after a earthquake 192 years ago, that the mood in Port Royal had changed to a non tolerant one by the time I try to date the Ficticous Move, Pirates of the Carrib

[hurricane]

Hurricane, Yes I have been to Jamaica twice, Port royal is a interesting place, still, by the 1710s thru the 1720s , not the entire 20 years but inclusive, New Providence was the Pirate Island of choice, Calico Jack hung in Jamaica in 1720, the mood was against Pirates in Port Royal.In 1718 the English had the ships: Ludlow Castle 40 guns,Swift 6 guns, Diamond 40 guns, stationed in Jamaica,Scarboro, 30 guns in Barbados, Seaford 20 guns stationed in the Leewards, and 3 other ships composing of 80 more guns in the Americas, with 86 guns stationed in Jamaica I find it strange that a pirate would base himself in a bay with the capital in it.

In 1700 the "act for the more effectual surpression of piracey" passed by Parliment made it easier to hang pirates, they were no longer required to be brought back to the admirality in England, this ment that the long waiting periods and trails without local witnesses were no longer needed and the local authorities could, and did, execute pirates. In 1715, govenor Hamiliton of Jamaica commisoned a 10 ship fleet to seak out pirates and bring them back to Port Royal for trial and execution, Hardly a pleasant place to be a pirate at. So again I will SURMISE, that with the changeing additudes toward pirates, the easier justice system, a new pirate freindly Island, and the rebuilding of Port Royal after a earthquake 192 years ago, that the mood in Port Royal had changed to a non tolerant one by the time I try to date the Ficticous Move, Pirates of the Carrib

Those ships were ineffectual in stopping the plundering of ships in the area by pirates. Coastal vessels and plantations continued to be plundered by the likes of Brown, Vane and Winter.

Said Governor Sir Nicholas Lawes, sarcastically in 1719, "I am sorry I have it to say, that His Majesty's ships of war attending the island have either been stationed at not to have been in the way of the pirates and Spanairds, or else had the misfortune not to meet with them."

Only the brashest, rashest and most miscalculating pirates were caught. Far more pirates went free than ever went to trial. The smart ones simply blended in with the surroundings, carried on with their business and eventually disappeared, either into legitimate trade or a naturally short life span.

The same could be said about any criminal activity today. Even though murder, drug dealing and rape is illegal, the perpetrators of these crimes could be sitting next to you in a bar and you'd never know it. Only the most notorious have their faces out in the public on wanted posters. A good criminal then, as now, blends in. They don't advertise their trade except to those who can be trusted, most often fellow criminals. An average pirate could easily move among the populace, not looking much different than a normal sailor.

-- Hurricane

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

there we go then, the average pirate could easily move amoung the populous,not looking much different than the average sailor.

that is what we have been talking about.

Now if those fleets were so inefectual, why did the help end the Golden age of piracy and capture so many pirates?

But not wanting to digress to long from the subgect at hand, the clothing of pirates, we can ave that for another thread. Like I mentioned before, IF I were to want to be a non brash rash or miscalulating pirate. I would not pull into a harbor where 2 40 gun ships were stationed at.

now lets look at a list of these miscalculating pirates that gotr caught

1701 24 french pirates from ship LaPaix, London

1701 Capt kidd and 9 men london

1704 capt quelch and 25 men Boston

1705 capt, Green and 17 men Edinburgh

1715 captain Dolzen and 2 men London

1717, DeMont, De Cossey, Rossoe, Erandos, S. Carolina

1717 8 mrn from Bellamies ship, Boston

1718 10 pirates from Bahammas

1718 15 pirates from blackbeards ship, Willaiamburg

1718 Bonnett and 34 men charleston harbor

1719, Laws, Caddiz and Tyril London

1719, Capt, Woorley and 1 man Charleston

1720, Rackam and 10 men Jamaica

1721 Capt Vain and 1 man Jamaica

1722 Luntly Edinburgh

1722 10 pirates from Blancos crew Bahamas

1722 captluke and 22 men Jamaica

1722 52 men from Barthomew Roberts ship Caoe Coast castle

1723 Capt Massey London

1723 Harris and 26 menm Rhode Island

1723 Capt Finn and 4 men Antigua

1723 Philip Rouche London

1724 11 men hanged from Lowthers crew St Kitts Wes Indies

1724 Arcer white and 24 men tried in Boston

1725, 8 men includeing Capt. Gow London

1726, Capt Lyne and 19 men, Curacao

1726, Fly and 15 men, Boston

and the list goes on, plus that is not a inclusive list mainly british influence

So from that list we can say the fleets were ineffectual

or very effectual, those kind of fleets swept the piracy from the waters

We can second guess history all we want, but they stopped the golden age by tracking down and killing or captureing most pirates

Some were pardoned, others died in battle, but in the end, without those inefectual fleets of ships, noting would have been done

[hurricane]

I stand by my statement. Though I am no expert on GOaF - I leave that to others, I am well versed in Jamaican history as far as buccaneers and pirates were concerned. And I stand by my statement as far as Jamaica. I have been through the actual documents there in the national archives in Spanish Town and have spoken extensively with the directors of the heritage trust there, so I am confident in my sources and the references I quoted. The naval forces there were quite ineffectual up until about the mid 1720s. I would think the Jamaicans would know their own history. In fact, they know world history far better than we do.

I don't want to get in an uproar about a Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown subject. I was simply sharing my areas of knowledge and expertise. I'm sorry that they don't jibe with your interpretations. I didn't mean to offend or try to assail your suppositions.

-- Hurricane

[Patrick Hand]

The list is kind of interesting ... I was looking at the numbers that were hanged.... smaller than I would have thought (Ok so some of them got pardons...etc....) I just thought there would be more........

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

actually the number hanged is smaller than those tried

usually a few were pardoned

and also, I have to admit, one of those groups was shipwrecked, not chased down and captured

other authous list names or ships captured by other countries, such as German Arcineigas, A spanish author who wrote a few history books about the Carribbian, One that has been Translated to english does not mention pirates to much, but one of his I found in Seville, published in spanish listed quite a few names and boats the spaniards captured and tried as pirates. and I am sure the french can make quite a list also.

I do not doubt anyones sources, however I do wonder how you apply it.

I have a freind who can name the ships and everyone on them down to the bilge rats, however he cannot apply this knowledge to make a good historical arguement.

Now in giant earthquake hits a city, wipes out its docks, that it depends on for commerce, Merchants move across a harbor to a place they can do business, because of a strong fort a big rebuliding plan is taken on and we rebuild the city with new docks. However our citizens are now less tolerant of the lawlessness, as is the government, we now have a policy growing not to invite Pirates. The crown is sending ships to protect us fromthe spanish, and they now see that the pirates are no longer just preying on the spanish but english ships as well. Plus peace has broken out with spain and we need not to have english ships pirateing on them. so we start to send ships to hunt pirates. pirates move to other haunts

fill in dates and names as you see fit. THe golden age of piracy was during these times. I agree,

Now calling a squadren of ships ineffectual, that is an opinion expressed. The ships proved their effectiveness, but what kept them from a speedy job was the geography of the area in both the number of islands and bays to hide in , the pirates local knowledge and english captains lack of it,and the Political geography of how many of these isle belonged to other countries.

Are we disagreeeing on the point I make that before the earthquake, traditioanlly Port Royal was pirate freindly and after they were not?

Or that I say Port Royal was destroyed and rebuilt?

Or I see the the ships a effective?

I am enjoying this as it makes me look to sources I have not read for a few years, and In reading my Vlumnes by pierenne I get to spiffy up my french

[Fox]

But not wanting to digress to long from the subgect at hand, the clothing of pirates, we can ave that for another thread.

Sorry, I thought we'd agreed that the matter at hand was not the clothing of pirates. As I've said, I agree 100% and always have that the clothing of most pirates was no different to that of common seamen. The matter at hand, as I see it, is the question of whether or not pirates were well travelled.

of the pirates you mention , 1 sailed internationally, the others sailed Africa, Local to one area, That is what I am saying, they raid a specific area and that would be their influence, weather that is East coast of the Americas,Bonnet: caribean, Calico Jack: east coast of africa, Tew: both southern coast of Africa, Every: or internationally, Edward England

Of the pirates I mentioned:

Henry Avery began his piratical career at Corunna, sailed down the African Atlantic coast, operated in the Indian Ocean from Madagascar then sailed to the Americas and back to Europe before retiring.

Edward England began his career in the Caribbean, preyed on shipping on the African Atlantic coast and ended his career in the Indian Ocean

Howell Davis operated in the Caribbean and on the African Coast

Bart Roberts operated off the Carolinas, the African coast and Newfoundland

Thomas Anstis operated on the African coast and the Caribbean.

William Kidd sailed from England to America, thence to the Indian Ocean before returning to the Caribbean and America.

John Gow began his piracy off the coast of Africa, sailed for Spain and Portugal, and ended up in the Orkneys

George Lowther began his career as a pirate on the African coast then plagued the American coasts, including the Caribbean.

Thomas Howard started in the Caymans, then headed for Virginia, the African Atlantic coast and finally Madagascar

John Halsey set out from Boston for Newfoundland, then for the Canaries, followed by the Cape Verde Islands. After a stint at Madagascar he sailed for India.

Thomas Tew operated from Madagascar, but returned to Rhode Island at least once during his career.

Captain Condent was present in the Caribbean at the time of Rogers' arrival, then sailed for Madagascar.

John Bowen operated off the Indian coast then wrecked his ship on Mauritius before heading for Madagascar, then back to India. What Bowen was doing before his first trip to India is unknown, but presumably he was either of European or American origin.

Thomas White was captured by pirates in the Caribbean, and at some point was forced to join them. He also pirated off Madagascar and India.

OK, so all of those pirates I mentioned saw at least 2 continents and goodness knows how many countires during their piratical careers, not including any travelling they did before or after. Not quite sure which one you thought sailed internationally, or why you thought the others didn't.

Of the pirates I didn't mention but you did:

Stede Bonnet sailed the East coast of America as far north as New York, as well as the Caribbean.

Jack Rackham sailed in those same waters, not only the Caribbean but also well up into North America.

I might also add John Phillips who pirated in the Caribbean and off Newfoundland; Ned Low, who sailed off Africa as well as the Americas; Francis Spriggs who left Low off Africa and sailed for the Caribbean (including taking two ships within sight of Port Royal), and North America.

I've read and re-read your posts, and I believe (apart from clothing, which nobody is arguing with at all) that your point is this: "...my origonal arguement. Yes there were pirates that sailed internationally, but these were not the norm", and I think that there are two main issues to be addressed.

Firstly, I think you're wrong about the number of pirates who were well travelled, pure and simple. I have shown a large number of pirates who were quite definitely well travelled without putting too much effort in, and I've not included any of those pirates whose wide ranging pre-pirate careers are known about or can be guessed at. Neither have I included any pirate who does not have his own chapter in Johnson's General History (like Cocklyn who sailed the Caribbean and East Atlantic, or La Buse who sailed the Caribbean, East Atlantic and Indian Ocean, for example).

Secondly, I think that your definition of "local" is probably a bit wide reaching for the period in question. Nowadays we tend to think of all of the African coast as one sort of area, and the same with the American coast, to give but two examples. In the 18thC though, before the age of mass communication, different areas within those stretches of coastline had more differences, and bigger ones, than they do today. The differences between, say, Newfoundland and Virginia, or between the Canaries and the Cape Verdes, were much more marked in 1706 than in 2006. In the Caribbean, the different nationalities of ownership led to huge cultural differences which are much more insignificant today. Even a pirate whose entire life was confined to Caribbean sailing would be much more well travelled culturally speaking than I think you give him credit for.

Incidentally, Captain Green and his men who were tried for piracy in 1705 were not actually pirates. :)

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

Ok. lets defined well travelled, or localized

What I am saying is that they usually raided a localized area, and based in that area, The area that they were raidng, and selling the pluder was the area of the influence of their apperance.

such as, you need a new scarf, yours is filthy from 6 months of use, you are raiding the waest african coast, would not the material you choose be from that area?

your shoes go bad, you are raiding around madagascar, would not the shoes you aquire be localized in nature?

I see what you are saying, that many pirates, especially famous pirates sailed long distances to get to a area where they have, freindly harbor, profitable shipping lanes, weather in season benefiting them, and more. I concede to what you are saying.

What I am saying, for every ship that made it from the atlantic to the indian ocean, many did not make it more than 500 miles from a staging area, and that if they did, it may have been in several seasons.

I agree that many pirates came from sailors that had travelled with the tea trade, others the spice trade, etc. A seamans chest is not large and the seaman carried most of what he owned in it, before going rouge the seamans belongings interfere with cargo space, so if I pick up enough goods for myself and my captain" lets" me take hem back to England, will my next captain let me carry extra baggage on the next trip out? or do I leave it with family untill I return? I think I leave it.

Now I go out with this captain and he is a tyrant, several of the crew with myself mutiny and we turn pirate. (sound familar), I cannot go back to port to collect my gains from my last few trips, the authorities would hang me for mutiny when the captain and officers did not come back with me. So I have,humm, whats in my seamans chest.

Now remember many a pirate never got to sail internationally after turning rouge, they sailed to a certain area and stayed there, using this LOCALITY as thier influence.

That is my arguement, I say what is local around them the pick up

what is exotic in england may not be exotic in Madasgascar, what is exotic in madisgascar would not be exotic in the Carribbean if it derived from the carribean. To add to this, clothing was functional, so it was just a matter of time till it was replaced with something from the area, if you are raiding for 6 months, you would aquire from that locality more than if you sailed past it going from China to England. If you are raiding east africa, you are far more likely to port in Madasgascar than London, A local area.

So I think the influence is more local

Now about exotic Booty, that would be kept untill spending time came around, in these days a jewel, or trinket, or statue could be used as money, So we are lucky enough to have caprured a ship with "treasure" and we are nearing a port so the captain devides it amoung the crew, you take 2 opal carvings and stick them in your trunk, hang that ruby on a gold chain and wear it, put 12 gold coins in your purse and go out on a binge in Port Royal, after satisfying urges at the local cat house, buying a barrell of wine, partying in 7 taverns you get back to ship and inventory, 1 gold coin, no ruby, but wilma was fine and 2 opal statues and a safire ring you traded for. Captain is still busy selling the 31 barrells of spanish wine and other booty you salvaged on the last raid so you take one of the carvings to trade for more good times.

when returning to the ship to sail, you are given 3 gold coins for the cargo and you are off. 1 opal carving, i saphire ring 4 gold coins a bolt of silk purchased. That would be exotic for any sailor, no matter if he was in England, China, Florida or Boston.

Let me end with this, Yes Many Pirates sailed internationally, I see what you are saying, I was refering to localized Raiding.

I will point out that many pirates, After turning Pirate, raided and accepted pardons

many never survived their first raiding season, a vast amount

never had anyone on the crew that had the skills to sail internationally

I take your point and accept it.

I also accept the point, And a good point I moght add, that I may be refering to local as a vast area in its day.

after all, as I may consider the east coast of africa easily travelled today, you point out in the day it was quite a chore.

One of the things about history is we need to throw out modern thought and see it thru the eyes of the day, I stand corrected.

[Fox]

What I am saying is that they usually raided a localized area, and based in that area, The area that they were raidng, and selling the pluder was the area of the influence of their apperance.

such as, you need a new scarf, yours is filthy from 6 months of use, you are raiding the waest african coast, would not the material you choose be from that area?

Possibly. But then when you sail back to the Caribbean or to Madagascar or wherever you've got an African scarf.

A seamans chest is not large and the seaman carried most of what he owned in it, before going rouge the seamans belongings interfere with cargo space, so if I pick up enough goods for myself and my captain" lets" me take hem back to England, will my next captain let me carry extra baggage on the next trip out? or do I leave it with family untill I return? I think I leave it.

Now I go out with this captain and he is a tyrant, several of the crew with myself mutiny and we turn pirate. (sound familar), I cannot go back to port to collect my gains from my last few trips, the authorities would hang me for mutiny when the captain and officers did not come back with me. So I have,humm, whats in my seamans chest.

Most of the primary evidence I've looked at for seamen of the first half of the 17thC suggests that they had quite a lot of their personal belongings with them at sea. Documents such as wills, records of mast-sales, and court inventories which list the stuff that seamen had with them tend to include several sets of clothes, half a dozen shirts, bedding, often more than one pair of shoes, and lots of odd trinkets such as books (commonly bibles), buckles, buttons etc. Since most pirates turned to piracy direct from another service it is reasonable to conclude that they took most, if not all, of their gear with them. Sure, they would have had possessions at home that they could probably never recover, but they'd have had the majority of their clothing and suchlike with them.

Now remember many a pirate never got to sail internationally after turning rouge, they sailed to a certain area and stayed there, using this LOCALITY as thier influence.

That is my arguement, I say what is local around them the pick up

My argument is that the pirates who did remain in one locality were probably in the minority. Personally though, I'm of the opinion that with so many short careers, and the often blinkered attitude of 17/18thC Europeans, that most pirates probably remained in the same style of clothing and whatnot as they were before turning to piracy, therefore the question of whether or not they were well travelled has only a small bearing on the question of their appearance.

a vast amount

never had anyone on the crew that had the skills to sail internationally

Sorry, I'm gonna pick up on this. Please provide evidence of a vast amount of pirate crews without deep-sea navigational skill.

I think that you are right about us approaching this with the same conclusion in mind but different ways of getting there. We've had some really good discussions on the clothing of pirates and seamen in the last year or so. If you're interested in the topic I really would suggest checking some of these out:

Clothing

Stripes

Dissecting the pirate #1

Dissecting the pirate #2

Dissecting the pirate #3

1706 Admiralty Slops Contract (ASC)

Josh's period art collection

The nondescript pirate

Good modern renditions of some ASC garments

Work your way through the off-topic first few pages...

National seamen's clothing

Seamen's clothing on pirates

[Gentleman of Fortune]

This is quite interesting folks... And since I am smack dab in the middle of the holidays, I don't have much time to write.... only read your posts.

(of course, its killing me not to chime in on every post!

Seems that we have two distinct threads going.

1) where did pirates/sailors of the GAoP sail and what were their influences

and

2) Port Royals part in pirate history, Pre-Earthquake and Post-Earthquake.

Since the clothing issue is only lightly touched on... I will sit most of this out and cheer from the sidelines.

And By the way

Fitzwell... your doing a good job for a newbie... I think you will like it here!

Hurricane.... Thanks for all the info on the Islands... I really never looked into the PLACES as much as the clothing and equipment. Really good stuff Thanks!

Pat.... Getting much sewing done? You are the Buccaneer man, you know.

Foxe.... what can I say besides Happy New year and when do the Ed Foxe Action figures hit the stores so I can start collecting all 20!

Happy new year to all of my Twill and Plunder Brethren!

GoF

[Patrick Hand]

Since the clothing issue is only lightly touched on...

I've got an interesting question about "when is it period" or a "cop out/justification"

My wool "play Pyrate" coat is starting to wear out at the cuffs and elbows. The cut is almost correct, but the way I faced it, and interlinning it with polar fleece is not (I wanted it to be warm) . I have a grey wool blanket that I am thinking of using to make a new coat. I know what I did wrong on the first coat, so I will correct those errors, and make a very warm coat....

(this is where this question gets interesting) I figure that Sailors did a lot of thier own sewing, repairing and making thier own garmets. I also figure that wool blankets would be avalible to make a new coat out of. (Some guessing here....)

So would a coat made from a blanket be period, OR am I just justifing using a blanket just because I have it ?

I don't think it would be a cop out.... but I think that I have "convinced" myself that it would/could be period.... I wonder how often I or "we" do that....You know... the old "If they had it... they would have used it..."

This example is about a coat.... but it could just as well been on any other gear used for Pyrate reenactments.....

[kass]

Hi Patrick,

I cannot prove that people made coats out of blankets in the Golden Age of Piracy (or in any historical period). But what I can prove is that wool blankets were typically a simple twill weave and they still are today. And guess what: the wool coats that survive from the Golden Age of Piracy are also a wool twill. So in this case, we can justify this by saying you are making a coat out of the same kind of wool used for coats back then. The fact that your material was once a blanket really has nothing to do with it.

However, the same thing doesn't work for making shirts out of sails, for example. The linen used to make shirts (even very coarse, poor man's shirts) was infinitely finer than the linen used for sailcloth. So I wouldn't make a shirt out of a sail (or make up a story that I did).

For me, if I can't prove it was done, I don't do it. But sometimes "proving" it can be rather liberal. For example, I once made a gown out of silk brocade that had a repeating pattern of chrysanthemums on it. I knew that gowns had been made out of silk brocade with repeating flower patterns on them. And I knew that the flowers we about the same size and spacing as this fabric. But I have no idea if they ever used chrysanthemums specifically. I suppose I could find out that they were thought to be a very unfeminine flower and not suitable for a ball gown. But probably not...

Kass

[Patrick Hand]

I read an article in a Buckskinning magazine about a guy who made a small hand forged knife, and a beaded necklass sheath to hold it in.... he figured that the materials were period, but could not prove that it had ever been done..... untill he found a painting showing one that was very close to what he had made.

I don't want to say that everything that we do by guesswork is period.... but at the same time, sometimes if we can think of something... so could the people in the past. Unfortunatly... I can also see where this could get outta hand.....

I was using the wool blanket coat as an example, but there is so much missing information from the time period, that sometimes we just have to guess..... But when is the guess/justification acceptable, and when is it a cop-out......?

[Fox]

Some period fabrics look remarkably like denim, blue dye was well known, yellow thread was used and so were rivets. We know that long trousers were a mark of English seamen. That doesn't mean you can wear your Levis.

************************************************************

The way I see it there are two ways to go:

If you want to do it right then there is really very little room for speculation. If you really strive to be accurate then Kass's mantra is the best one: "if I can't prove it was done, I don't do it. But sometimes "proving" it can be rather liberal". There are gaps in our knowledge and there we have scope for educated speculation, "liberally proving" things to fill the gaps. Where there is good evidence then it behoves us to follow it. If we deliberately disregard the evidence then we're not going for authenticity.

On the other hand you can play dress up without striving for authenticity, in which case you can wear/do/carry whatever the hell you like.

Some argue that you could go down the middle, go for semi-authentic, but what's the point? Why spend the time and money getting half your kit right and then throwing it away by knowingly wearing a load of crap with it. Horses for courses, but that seems like a dead-end course to me...

[Patrick Hand]

Hummm.... but that slightly like our discussion about tankards....

OK wearing a tankard on your belt is NOT period..... but if I'm at a Faire, and want to stop at "Ye olde Ale Stand" to wet my whistle...... do I walk around drinking out of the platic cup they give me? or should I pour it into the pewter tankard that ...... Yah and I know better.... I've been carrying on my belt. I know it's a cop out.... but I feel that it's a "lesser" cop out ...... (dang.... now there are levels to copping out..... )

[Fox]

you could put you tankard in an authentic snapsack to carry around with you... no cop out at all then...

[Patrick Hand]

I've thought about carrying it in a haversack... it would also give me a place to carry the totaly authentic digital camera .....

But carrying a tankard on my belt is a simpler "fix" than wearing a questionable haversack..... OK haversacks are period..... but did Sailors and Pyrates wear them.... ?

See the problem.... I know a tankard on the belt is wrong.... but I'm not sure if a haversack is more right...... If I was portraying Infantry... Hey... NO PROBLEM..... but I wonder about Sailors and Pyrates.... I think a haversack may be just as wrong.......

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

well this discussion we have been having has gotten me to delve into a study I have not done before, as mentioned two direct lines have been going on, local or international influence and Port Royals history, as stated I beleive Foxe has out argued me and shows a better arguement about influence, My har is off to him, and now I have some intersting findings about Port Royal,

Not tt get off subject about weather the mood was pro or anti pirate it seems that since 1692 and the earthquakes that sunk over 50 percent of the city, a few other ntable disasters hit the port before the end of the GAoP.

1703 the town was devasteded by a huge fire

1712 it was smashed and crippled by a huge hurricane

and in 1722 2 earthquakes and a hurricane hit it, leaving its economic future to become the fishing village it is today.

I am currently looking for a good volumne of Jamaican history that features the cities political enviroment of the era as a background for future study of the area.

[capnwilliam]

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree. In my opinion, most of the people here don't give a squat about authenticity or accuracy. This is not to say they are bad people, but they certainly are not re-enactors and not living historians. If you want proof, just look at the number of posts in each part of this forum. Where do you find the most? the least? Or look at the type of posts in Plunder. How much of what is peddled there is actually useful to a pirate re-enactor?

Yer right, Blackjohn. Most on this list are not serious reenactors - or so I'd surmise, from reading the posts, as you say.

This is not necessarily a bad thing.

I liken it to my days with the SCA. The Society had a minority of members who really made an effort to, in some ways at least, develop a persona of someone who might have lived in the Middle Ages, or Renaissance.

Then, there were the others: polyester blouses; stainless steel armor, aluminum armor, plastic armor; running shoes; wearing reflecting sunglasses, smoking filter tip cigarettes, talking on cell phones; radios playing in camp; drinking beer out of cans; no real attempt to be period at all and in many cases, proud of it.

Were they wrong? No. They just weren't historically accurate. But they were having fun.

A couple of years back Mate Jan and I attended Contraband Days in Lake Charles, LA. The idea was that pirates, lead by Jean Laffite, invaded the town by sea. This was supposed to be c. 1820. The pirates used motor boats. They fired percussion pistols. The town militia, dressed in Revolutionary War garb, tried valiantly but unsuccessfully (naturally!) to hold back the invasion. The pirates made the Mayor walk the plank; he was dressed in contemporary (2003) garb.

History? No. Fun? Sure!

I have no objection to fantasy fun: UNLESS you're going to try to tell me that you ARE being seriously historic, when the slightest bit of research would convince anyone otherwise.

DO get dressed up like Capt. Jack Sparrow, and have a blast! Only, please DON'T tell me that you're using POTC, or Howard Pyle drawings, or the famous "portrait" of Jean Lafitte with a mustache and dressed kind of like a cowboy (it dates from 1879, by the way) as "documentation".

You might as well use a 15th century painting of Christ's crucifixion as "documentation" of that event.

Capt. William

[Fox]

See the problem.... I know a tankard on the belt is wrong.... but I'm not sure if a haversack is more right...... If I was portraying Infantry... Hey... NO PROBLEM..... but I wonder about Sailors and Pyrates.... I think a haversack may be just as wrong.......

See, there's where we get into the realms of "liberally proving" something. I can show you pictures of people from the GAoP wearing different styles of bag to carry stuff in. I can show you late18th/early19thC sailors' ditty bags, which look just like GAoP period soldiers' snapsacks.

So, while I can't immediately lay my hands on a picture of a GAoP period seaman with a sack I'm a darn site more comfortable about sticking my tankard, plate, knives, food, cards, compass, spare string, bits of hard cheese, needle and thread, seperate bag containing camera, modern money and keys etc, fids, serving mallet, and bits of assorted fluff into a period snapsack than I am about dangling a tankard off my belt which I know is wrong, as well as impractical.

Dammit Pat, now I'm going to have to find a picture of a seaman carrying some possessions and see what they're in...