The truth about the Perfect Pirate Ship: & what loot's in the Hold

[modernknight1]

You know I think there may be a book here - a very well researched book different from any I've seen on the bargain bin shelf.

I already have nearly a dozen books in the writing at various stages of completion - some I've been writing for years. Some are done but just need polishing and editing. Others are only half done.

This however is an area that I'm so fascinated by and judging by the popularity of the subject in just a couple of days of being posted - I think I could whip up something quickly - in a few months time maybe.

MK

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Would be interesting indeed!

I do believe that there were many pirates with small craft. There must have been, no?
But that doesn't mean that all used small craft. Not even that most used small craft.
And even if most of them did use small craft, that would just be the bottom of the iceberg.
There can still be a top of that iceberg with big ships and impressive fleets.
Which is what Modernknight is referred to, I think.

 

[modernknight1]

The more I think about this, the more interesting questions come to mind. I actually wish I'd been a little more comprehensive in the article now. I didn't want to lose the audience though.

So if all pirate ships were small according to registries from an undefined time, place and nationality LOL, why would Spain send sizable military expeditions against Jamaica in 1671 and against the Bahamas in 1684?

Hmmm, could it be in retribution for the pirates sacking more than a dozen inland settlements and forts in Mexico and Nicaragua from 1663-1665. Those pirates were mostly Englishmen from Jamaica - although David Marteen and his bunch were Dutch. Could it be because of the sack of Maricaibo in 1668-69? They were also mostly Englishmen from Jamaica although Pierre le Picard and his bunch were French from Tortuga.

Most of the attacks were led by Morgan and the expeditions mounted and manned with pirates mostly from Jamaica. It is a matter of historical record that the ships that attacked Maracaibo were not small. Moodyford and the population were in a panic and Morgan was charged to defend Jamaica against Pardal. What possible reason could Pardal have for attacking if pirates were such a minor nuisance and only went after single small merchant ships according to some fabled registries somewhere.

Morgan instead used this panic as an excuse to mount the famous raid against Panama. Hmmm what did he bring back? More piles of Spanish gold and his ranks were swelled even more by that success.

So in 1684 Juan de Alarcon mounted a major military campaign against Charles Town and the Bahamas. Why would the Spaniards launch a campaign like this if pirates were such a minor nuisance to Spanish shipping? Hmmm lets look at what happened. The Spaniards made no attempt to occupy or take the Bahamas. They simply destroyed all of the surrounding settlements and forts around Charles Town and killed most of the inhabitants. They burned poor Governor Clarke at the stake. What was their justification? Because he harbored pirates is what the history books tell us. They captured 700 inhabitants and removed them to Cuba under the care of the Inquisition. No one knows what became of them after that.

Could this possibly be because of DeGraaf's sack of Vera Cruz the year before. Those pirates were largely Dutch and French operating out of Tortuga and the Bahamas - although there were some notable English pirate captains there as well. Tortuga was much too tough of a nut to crack by this time for the Spaniards, but the Bahamas were not that well defended with small fortifications spread all over the place.

At the times of both of these historical Spanish attacks, Spain and England were not at war and in the case of the second incidence, Spain and England were actually allies against France during the War of the Reunions.

One last thing...could all of these attacks and campaigns that carried literally thousands of pirates to their destinations have been mounted by small ships?

They must have had lots and lots of little ships to carry so many pirates LOL.

Hmmmm....could be? I'm just speculating now. I don't know. I guess....

MK

 

[Refund]

I probably should not continue this discussions, in fact, I should probably not have written the comment in the first place. Seeing the tone of your reaction, I can see that it is a subject you feel quite strong about.

However, some points.
- You ask me to show evidence of my claims, yet in your whole write-up, I see not one footnote stating the source to back your claims. I'm not saying you did not read the books. But there is no sources listed here.
- You mention the Dunkirk privateers as pirates. The Dutch would living at the time would certainly agree with you, but usually they are classified as privateers. (which says nothing about the size of ships they used).
- You mention the Sea Beggars and Piet Heyn. I'm confused as what an Admiral of the Dutch Republic has to do in a discussion about pirates and their vessels.

If your conclusion is that not *all* pirate vessel where small, you are certainly correct (but I never contradicted that). But just as the majority of vessels where small vessels, the majority of pirate vessels where small vessels.

Anyhow, do with the information what you want.

 

[modernknight1]

The line between pirate and privateer has ALWAYS been very blurry - especially in the early years of the Golden Age. In the 1620s when Heyn was operating against the Dunkirkers and in 1628 when he seized the entire Spanish treasure fleet (the only time in history that ever happened BTW) do you suppose that the Spanish Empire considered him a privateer?

Did they consider Drake and Hawkins privateers? Did the warrants issued by both sides during the 80 Years War to hunt known persons call them privateers? No. They clearly call for hunting, capturing or killing the Pirate Captain "enter name here". Only late into the 17th century and into the 18th did the lines begin to harden a little more with respect to pirate and privateer.

The most popular ship types of the Dunkirkers are well documented. I don't consider those ships small, however I guess some people might. I guess if we really want to split hairs and say that anything below 50 tons is small then the argument could be taken a little deeper. Tonnages were much smaller on average in the early 17the century. In fact the average Galleon was probably only 500 to 800 tons during the Golden Age. (Edit: consider in most historical texts the Dunkirkers are referred to as "pirates" and they were)

Most well armed pirate ships from my own research I think would have been from 70 to 150 tons during the Golden Age. During the last decades of the Age of Piracy that could be considered small I guess when you consider that East and West Indiamen were being built that were over 2000 tons. I still don't consider a pirate ship of 70 to 250 tons small even then. Nor do most people I think when the archetypal pirate ship in the popular modern media seems to be the Bermuda sloop.

I guess then I MUST write the book then so that I can cite my sources. I was mainly insulted at your tone and accusing me of fictionalizing the accounts. I have a tendency to react when attacked.

MK

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Would it not be logical that there would have been a lot of small pirate ships? More small ones than larger ones, in fact?
Even if we say that 25% of all pirate ships were medium to large size, if the total number of pirates was 1000000, that is still 250000 medium to large pirate ships.
I'm just making up numbers here, but the point remains: Even if just a "small" percentage of pirates used medium to large ships, that is STILL a lot.

 

[modernknight1]

Good observation Pieter. I feel like I achieved the aim I was after with the article.

Reason: I made the point debatable and debunked cliche and overgeneralized stereotyping of the subject. I gave the audience something else to consider and that's really all I wanted to do.

MK

 

[HundertzehnGustav]

So in 1684 Juan de Alarcon mounted a major military campaign against Charles Town and the Bahamas. Why would the Spaniards launch a campaign like this if pirates were such a minor nuisance to Spanish shipping?

careful, MK.
you are maybe overshooting the target here.
Only small Vessels?
Which pirates were more Famous the small timers or the Big timers?
Which ones were more of a nuisance the small timers or the big timers?
Who Pissed off the Governments at the highest level, the small timers or the big timers?
You are starting to kind of broaden the Subject, go into undefined areas without stating a new Goal.

Your old goal of showing that not 98.7758 percent of the Pirates used Rowing Boats, but also hat some serious Deck under their feet... goes undisputed.

But now you are opening your eyes to a whole lot of questions, and are talking about things you have not put your Mind and Time onto...
Not with the same depth and organisation, detail and research n stuff...

And it seems, with all due Respect - that you are trying to get into position at the rear of "HMS REFUND". You know, to pour death and destruction from the rear to the front of its decks... nokking over sailors, soldiers and Cannons.

At least a very tiny little bit.

However... HMS REFUND has already Hit "enter"-"go to map" and vanished from the discussion.

Worse - hate me for it...
he DOES have a point. Look, Christmas time is coming up, and Refund was looking for quotes, sources, "proof" and all that, if possible in the form of a Bunch of links.

not for the Purpose of the discussion, for the PROs or the Contras
could you name me two books on Famous Pirates and their Life story that you have red, that you have gathered info out of for the Purpose of this article, and can pass on to the Pirate Noob like me?

To end - You are asking yourself a Series of Questions. Some are vague, others are potshots at your duelist that has left the duel.
Nonetheless many are interesting questions, and i would like to encourage you to shed light on them, and share what you find.

Respectfully and sin cera mente...

 

[modernknight1]

Thanks for the insight Gustav,

Actually my statement you quoted above was a bad attempt at sarcasm. They weren't a minor nuisance that only preyed upon single ships that only offered the least resistance as my critic would have you believe. They were a MAJOR nuisance that were going after whole Spanish convoys, towns, forts and cities. That's why I asked the obvious question about why the Spaniards would mount a major military campaign and be so completely relentless. Add to this that they were attacking an English colony in time of peace and that England was even an ally of Spain at the time and the observation becomes even more poignant.

Also I was a little miffed at his use of the historical resource of registries because I've heard this one before and so often when you look into that avenue, it ends up being British registries from post 1714 that we are talking about. So at the end of the age after all the fireworks had already happened and for a nation who's ships at the time were preyed upon the least. By this time the VAST majority of pirates were English sailors out of work and preying mostly on other nations ships. Refund's comments are absolutely correct when looking at piracy at this time and place - but part of my annoyance is - that part of the purpose of my article was to get people to look at the other times and places instead of the ones that have become the focus - the tired stereo-typical norm concerning pirates and piracy.

If one is going to REALLY look at historical evidence they need to look first at logbooks and insurance records and they need to look at the records of the nation that was preyed upon the most by Pirates - Spain.

English and American historians always seem to grab the low hanging fruit first - easily obtainable sources in their own language. One of the first rules of historical research is to obtain as many sources as possible. One of the other primary rules is to stay away from biases, stereotypes, and assumptions. One should not build a thesis around pre-assumed opinions that have no facts to back them up. One should look at what the data has to say and THEN form the historical thesis.

I would be happy to do as you ask but do not currently have access to my VAST library. As you know in many of my posts I do reference books and authors and give page numbers and ISBN information. Anyone that's been around here a while has seen that.

When I do have access to my library again in a couple of months I will go one even better than you suggest. If you've seen the link in my signature of the FLICKR photo account of historical sailing ship images that are classified by nation and type - (this one in the Storm Modeling Thread: http://www.piratesahoy.net/threads/professor-mks-old-sailing-ship-images-repository.19975/ ) - I will make a similar post with a comprehensive bibliography of ALL my sources so that everyone can obtain them if they wish.

I will recommend the works of my favorite author and researcher though... he is not actually a professor or degreed historian. He is a diver and treasure hunter and I consider him an absolute expert. Every one of his books is an absolute joy to read and I believe they are better researched than what most professional scholars would produce. He is Robert F. Marx. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Marx I

I would mention that the bib listed in the wiki article has only a fraction of his works listed.

I also very much enjoy the Spanish author and historian Cruz Apestegui. One of the main reasons is that he uses so many NON-English (therefore more accurate) sources.

MK

 

[HundertzehnGustav]

Good!

From my small point of View, one needs both - a passionate background on a subject as well as theoretical studies - to analyze something as vast as Pirates.
I Finished "battle of Britain" in Spanish about a year ago. Even with my parallel knowledge of the subject(names, terms, numbers) in English, it was indeed "less than fun" to read, because i have no schooling in Spanish whatsoever.

I gather i will have to take a look at "Following Columbus; the voyage of the Nina II" not knowing what it is about, but blindly dive into the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Voyage-Nina-Robert-Marx/dp/B0007DZFRI

lets see where that leads me!
Thanks for the pointer!