Pirate swords and weapons

Jim McDougall · 8th January 2008, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jim, as far as actual pirate weaponry goes, I reckon the real pirates used whatever they had to hand. I've even seen a picture of keris somewhere that was supposedly taken from a pirate.

As for expanding the concept of "pirates" and their weapons --- how about corporations, their CEO's, and the teams of accountants, lawyers and other specialists that they call upon?
These blokes make Edward Teach look like a gentleman.

I couldn't agree with you, Rick and Kronckew more!!! Piracy knows no bounds, and the scoundrels prey with the blessings of those who make the laws that give them carte blanche!

The pirates were in many ways big business, and the letter of marque was often accented with syndicated business ventures....much like the one that sent Captain Kidd to his fate, the victim of 'corporate deceit'. There are more ways to rob and kill than with traditional weapons, much more insidious methods that take away someones livelihood for example....but thats really discussion for another forum.

As you have said, the pirates used whatever weapons they could get thier hands on. While they supposedly had a 'code' ("..more of a guideline")

there was no 'dress code' nor regulation weaponry to be sure!
Their manner of dress often became rather flamboyant, and as discussed on a concurrent thread, depended greatly on psychological effect to shock and frighten their victims as they overcame them. It seems this imagery may well have included the brandish of frightening and sometimes exotic weapons when they had them.
To see a motley mass of loud, bizarre and foppishly festooned ruffians armed 'to the teeth' and waving around frightening swords with formidable blades would seem pretty convincing. While we know that the short bladed hanger type swords were preferred for crowded on deck melee's, the use of more exotic weapons might have put on quite a show as the ships drew close. Obviously also included might have been all manner of battle and boarding axes, and heaven knows what other items.

Best regards,
Jim

Rick · 8th January 2008, 11:56 PM

Yes, Kidd was a very interesting character; backed by some prominent Manhattan citizens if I remember correctly .

Killed a man with a bucket 'tis said .

They say there's still treasure unfound on Gardiner's Island .

But it will take another Pirate to find it .

fernando · 9th January 2008, 12:43 AM

Hi Kronckew
That link is certainly a very good sinthesis of piracy definition.
But let me please add some points to it.
It seems as the first traces of piracy registered, are a bit earlier than the phoenitian period, and remount to the Sumerian civilization, some five thousand years ago. They are engraved in clay plaques, in cuneiform script, relating atacks by a Barbarian people, the Guti, against Sumerian navigators.
From then on piracy was practiced by plenty peoples and nations, which makes it very dificult to restrict such exercize to this or that entity, in this or that area.
The most unsuspected guys have, at least in a certain period, given a hand to it. How's about Columbus having participated in corsair actions under instructions of the Portuguese King?
This brings us to the point i would like to emphasize. Although implemented by different social behaviours, privateering ( corso ) can not be separated from piracy, as the practices inflicted are the same.
We can say it is even a worse issue, as pirates were no more than free lance bandits, whereas corsairs were "fine officers" legalized by Kings to practice piracy, say banditism.
So the s ... was the same, only the flies changed.
This brings us to the theme of the thread, which deals with weaponry used by pirates. I think this is in the wide sense, that is, privateers included. My i assume that, Jim ?
By the way and returning to topic, i have read that the Moors from North Africa, when doing piratic acts on the Portuguese coast, used crossbows. How's that ?
Fernando

fernando · 9th January 2008, 01:14 AM

Hi Alan
No doubt the convergent language in the forum is english, but the interpretation of things by the different members envolves rather diverse languages and cultures, which makes it a bot more complex.
Nevertheless i happen to have the 1969 edition of an Oxford Universal Dictionary first published in 1933. It says there that, a pirate is one who robs and plunders on the sea; a sea robber, etc.
In a Portuguese dictionary published in 2004, a pirate is one who atacks and robs ships; a corsair. But here i think the main preocupation of modern atributions to piracy are those that concern informatic and stuff like that.
However it is of common knowledge that piracy ( and privateering ), although implemented on the sea, often contextualy extended its action to land.
I guess that people atacking on an inland business basis, independently from their cause, would have another name

Fernando

Jim McDougall · 9th January 2008, 01:22 AM

Beautifully said Alan! and again, thank you for bringing this most applicable perspective on the definition of the term pirate, and its convenient distortion in legal parlance. This absolutely brings perspective to our discussion not typically seen in the standard references.

Fernando, thank you for bringing in the historical perspective of piracy overall, and indeed privateers were pirates, however 'licensed' with letters of marque. The problem was, the very thin line of observation in exercising those letters of marque, using privately owned ships to prey on enemy shipping, in sort of an 'outsourced' concept. Since the pay of the seamen depended virtually on the materials and loot acquired in these ventures, often when no enemy vessels were available, mutinous conditions arose. This was essentially one of the problems encountered by Kidd, and others likewise turned to any vessel they encountered with good promise of bounty.

Rick, I think the money they discovered on Gardiners Island was probably deliberately planted as backup in just the situation that ensued. I often wonder if there was indeed more found and the proceeds deliberately undeclared and distributed among his unscrupulous 'partners'. Getting rid of Kidd certainly eliminated the key witness !

I think the 'treasure' is in the tale itself, and the adventures that guarantee speculators, tourism and the never ending search for it

All best regards,
Jim

A. G. Maisey · 9th January 2008, 05:30 AM

Yes Fernando, in general terms of course we can consider that piracy has a broader meaning than the one I am prepared to give it.

However, I was not speaking in general terms, but in quite specific terms, in reference to Brookes, the British Government, and the Sea Dyaks or Iban.

Examination of the circumstances of this matter can leave no doubt that the Sea Dyaks were created by Brookes, and dubbed "pirates", even though they were not pirates in a sense that would be understood by a speaker of Standard English at the time they were so created. It was political opportunism.Just that. And it has stuck for going on 200 years.

The reason I made reference to the variation in application of various understandings to words in the English language is that this language has a very large number of variations, Kronckew used an American English dictionary as his reference, but it would be quite illogical to use a modern dictionary of American English to define the way in which an Englishman in 1839 would understand a particular word.

In any case, let's leave our Ibans, but let's leave them without the stigma of being pirates. They were not.

David · 9th January 2008, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In any case, let's leave our Ibans, but let's leave them without the stigma of being pirates. They were not.

Well Alan, i understand your defense here because of the way the term "pirate" was used at the time as an excuse to take action against these people. Still, what ever you choose to call it, making inland raids to gather heads and slaves still isn't a very neighborly act. I am not sure that calling the Ibans pirates makes their actions look any worse. Actually, these days, with all the romantic nonsense that surrounds pirates thanks to the likes of Johnny Depp and crew, i would imagine "pirate" would carry less of a stigma than headhunter and slaver.

Another example of similar types of acts (inland raids from the sea) that we don't tend to call piracy would be the Viking raids.

fernando · 9th January 2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Well Alan, i understand your defense here because of the way the term "pirate" was used at the time as an excuse to take action against these people. Still, what ever you choose to call it, making inland raids to gather heads and slaves still isn't a very neighborly act. I am not sure that calling the Ibans pirates makes their actions look any worse. Actually, these days, with all the romantic nonsense that surrounds pirates thanks to the likes of Johnny Depp and crew, i would imagine "pirate" would carry less of a stigma than headhunter and slaver.

Another example of similar types of acts (inland raids from the sea) that we don't tend to call piracy would be the Viking raids.

Amen

VANDOO · 9th January 2008, 06:06 AM

LETTERS OF MARKE MADE YOU A LEGAL PIRATE TO YOUR BOSS BUT JUST A PIRATE TO YOUR ENEMYS . A LIFE OF PIRACY WAS OFTEN MORE A RESULT OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAN OF WORDS. IF A CREW MUTINIED OR A CAPTIAN FAILED IN A VITAL MISSION FOR HIS KING IT COULD CAUSE THEM TO BECOME PEOPLE WITHOUT A COUNTRY SO PIRACY WOULD THEN BECOME A COURSE FOR SURVIVAL. THE DEFINITIONS OF PIRACY WERE ALL MADE UP BY LAWMAKERS AGAINST VARIOUS GROUPS FOR DIFFERENT REASONS AND LIKE WITCHCRAFT PROOF WAS OFTEN NOT NEEDED AS AN ACCUSATION WOULD LEAD TO EXECUTION. SOME LARGE PIRATE FLEETS WERE ORGANIZED BY WARLORDS ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF CHINA AND THEY CONSIDERED ANYTHING IN THEIR AREA FAIR GAME ON SEA OR LAND NEAR THE SEA OR RIVERS.

THE MAJORITY OF TRIBAL PEOPLE WOULD FOLLOW THE USUAL CUSTOMS OF THE TRIBE AS ALAN POINTED OUT WITH THE DAYAKS. IT IS EASY TO SEE WHY IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO CHANGE THE FACTS A BIT TO GET THE BACKING TO CHANGE THESE TRIBES OLD CUSTOMS AND BRING THEM IN LINE WITH HIS GOALS AND LAWS. SOME DAYAKS PROBABLY FOUND THEIR WAY TO PIRACY FOR THE ADVENTURE AND LOOT, OR IF THEY WERE OUTCAST FROM THEIR TRIBE OR IF ENSLAVED. A LOCAL TRIBESMAN HANGING AROUND A TRADEING PORT MIGHT FIND HIMSELF FULL OF RUM AND SIGNED ON A SHIP BEFORE HE WOKE UP.
AS MENTIONED ABOVE THE PIRATES ARE A GROUP WHO USED PSYCOLOGICAL WARFARE, BLACKBEARD TRIED TO LOOK LIKE A DEAMON AND TO BUILD HIMSELF A FIERCE REPUTATION THIS WORKED IN HIS FAVOR AND MADE HIM MORE FAMOUS WHICH WAS IMPORTANT TO HIM. SOME OF THE OTHERS MENTIONED ABOVE USED BRUTALITY AND EXTREME CRUELTY TO BUILD THEIR REPUTATION SO ALL WOULD FEAR THEM OR BECAUSE THEY WERE HOMOCIDEL MAINACS. SOME PIRATES WOULD RUN UP THIER BLACK FLAG AND IF IT WAS A KNOWN FLAG IT SIGNALED SURRENDER NOW OR NO QUARTER WILL BE GIVEN. OFTEN THAT WOULD YEILD A EASY VICTORY WHICH MOST PIRATES PREFERED AND THE SPARED CREW WOULD SPREAD THE STORY AND DESCRIBE THE FLAG ADDING TO THEIR REPUTATION. THEY MAY HAVE SPARED SOMEONE ON A SHIP THAT DID NOT SURRENDER FOR THE SAME REASON SO HE COULD TELL OF THE HORRIBLE FATE OF HIS CREWMATES AT THE HANDS OF THE PIRATE WITH THE BLACK FLAG WITH THE RED SKULL.
WITH ALL THE DEFINITIONS OF PIRATES WERE THE VIKINGS PIRATES? THEY CAME FROM THE SEA TO ATTACK TOWNS AND WOULD ALSO ATTACK A FORIGN SHIP AT SEA. IF SO VIKING SWORDS,SPEARS,SHIELDS AND AX CAN BE ADDED TO PIRATE WEAPONS. SOME OF THEIR HORNED HELMETS AS WELL AS THEIR FIERCE WAR CRYS COULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS PSYCOLOGICAL WEAPONS.

IT WOULD SEEM THE ONE THING THAT ALL PIRATES MUST HAVE IN COMMON IS THEIR PRIMARY MEANS OF TRANSPORT, RESIDENCE AND BASE OF OPERATIONS IS A SHIP OR A FLEET OF THEM. IF YOU DO THE SAME THINGS AS PIRATES ONLY ON LAND AND TRAVEL BY HORSE YOU ARE CALLED A HORDE.

A. G. Maisey · 9th January 2008, 12:21 AM

I really do not want to start something here that could see this thread degenerate into a debate on the meanings of words. However, I must point out that the English language is not used in exactly the same way in all those countries that use a form of this language.

I am located in Australia, and I have found that in legal applications two dictionaries are accepted as sufficient evidence to establish the generally accepted meaning of a word. These dictionaries are the Macquarie Dictionary, which is an Australian compilation, and the Oxford Dictionary.

I prefer the Oxford Dictionary because that has a greater possibility of acceptance outside Australia.

The Oxford dictionary that I use as my everyday tool is the Shorter Oxford on Historical Principles.
In this dictionary the word "pirate" is provided with a number of meanings. In the context of this discussion no meaning is given that covers the act of piracy from the sea, but only on the sea.

The Sea Dyaks did not as a general rule attack ships on the sea. They used watercraft to transport warriors along river systems and to attack settlements on land.

In Britain in 1839, or in Britain today, I believe it would be very difficult to get a conviction against the Dyaks for piracy. Yes, you could get them for something else, but not piracy. Not in Britain.

They were unjustly accused because the pirates of two hundred years ago had a similar aura to the terrorists of today. It was political expediancy.

Brookes and the British Government branded the Sea Dyaks as pirates, and the language used for this defamation was the English language.

I submit that this was an incorrect use of language which resulted in the defamation of a tribal group for political purposes.

Pirates with fountain pens?

Yep.

And computers too.

9th January 2008, 06:06 AM	#9
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	LETTERS OF MARKE MADE YOU A LEGAL PIRATE TO YOUR BOSS BUT JUST A PIRATE TO YOUR ENEMYS . A LIFE OF PIRACY WAS OFTEN MORE A RESULT OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAN OF WORDS. IF A CREW MUTINIED OR A CAPTIAN FAILED IN A VITAL MISSION FOR HIS KING IT COULD CAUSE THEM TO BECOME PEOPLE WITHOUT A COUNTRY SO PIRACY WOULD THEN BECOME A COURSE FOR SURVIVAL. THE DEFINITIONS OF PIRACY WERE ALL MADE UP BY LAWMAKERS AGAINST VARIOUS GROUPS FOR DIFFERENT REASONS AND LIKE WITCHCRAFT PROOF WAS OFTEN NOT NEEDED AS AN ACCUSATION WOULD LEAD TO EXECUTION. SOME LARGE PIRATE FLEETS WERE ORGANIZED BY WARLORDS ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF CHINA AND THEY CONSIDERED ANYTHING IN THEIR AREA FAIR GAME ON SEA OR LAND NEAR THE SEA OR RIVERS. THE MAJORITY OF TRIBAL PEOPLE WOULD FOLLOW THE USUAL CUSTOMS OF THE TRIBE AS ALAN POINTED OUT WITH THE DAYAKS. IT IS EASY TO SEE WHY IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO CHANGE THE FACTS A BIT TO GET THE BACKING TO CHANGE THESE TRIBES OLD CUSTOMS AND BRING THEM IN LINE WITH HIS GOALS AND LAWS. SOME DAYAKS PROBABLY FOUND THEIR WAY TO PIRACY FOR THE ADVENTURE AND LOOT, OR IF THEY WERE OUTCAST FROM THEIR TRIBE OR IF ENSLAVED. A LOCAL TRIBESMAN HANGING AROUND A TRADEING PORT MIGHT FIND HIMSELF FULL OF RUM AND SIGNED ON A SHIP BEFORE HE WOKE UP. AS MENTIONED ABOVE THE PIRATES ARE A GROUP WHO USED PSYCOLOGICAL WARFARE, BLACKBEARD TRIED TO LOOK LIKE A DEAMON AND TO BUILD HIMSELF A FIERCE REPUTATION THIS WORKED IN HIS FAVOR AND MADE HIM MORE FAMOUS WHICH WAS IMPORTANT TO HIM. SOME OF THE OTHERS MENTIONED ABOVE USED BRUTALITY AND EXTREME CRUELTY TO BUILD THEIR REPUTATION SO ALL WOULD FEAR THEM OR BECAUSE THEY WERE HOMOCIDEL MAINACS. SOME PIRATES WOULD RUN UP THIER BLACK FLAG AND IF IT WAS A KNOWN FLAG IT SIGNALED SURRENDER NOW OR NO QUARTER WILL BE GIVEN. OFTEN THAT WOULD YEILD A EASY VICTORY WHICH MOST PIRATES PREFERED AND THE SPARED CREW WOULD SPREAD THE STORY AND DESCRIBE THE FLAG ADDING TO THEIR REPUTATION. THEY MAY HAVE SPARED SOMEONE ON A SHIP THAT DID NOT SURRENDER FOR THE SAME REASON SO HE COULD TELL OF THE HORRIBLE FATE OF HIS CREWMATES AT THE HANDS OF THE PIRATE WITH THE BLACK FLAG WITH THE RED SKULL. WITH ALL THE DEFINITIONS OF PIRATES WERE THE VIKINGS PIRATES? THEY CAME FROM THE SEA TO ATTACK TOWNS AND WOULD ALSO ATTACK A FORIGN SHIP AT SEA. IF SO VIKING SWORDS,SPEARS,SHIELDS AND AX CAN BE ADDED TO PIRATE WEAPONS. SOME OF THEIR HORNED HELMETS AS WELL AS THEIR FIERCE WAR CRYS COULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS PSYCOLOGICAL WEAPONS. IT WOULD SEEM THE ONE THING THAT ALL PIRATES MUST HAVE IN COMMON IS THEIR PRIMARY MEANS OF TRANSPORT, RESIDENCE AND BASE OF OPERATIONS IS A SHIP OR A FLEET OF THEM. IF YOU DO THE SAME THINGS AS PIRATES ONLY ON LAND AND TRAVEL BY HORSE YOU ARE CALLED A HORDE. Last edited by VANDOO; 9th January 2008 at 06:24 AM.

8th January 2008, 11:56 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,347	Yes, Kidd was a very interesting character; backed by some prominent Manhattan citizens if I remember correctly . Killed a man with a bucket 'tis said . They say there's still treasure unfound on Gardiner's Island . But it will take another Pirate to find it .

9th January 2008, 12:43 AM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Kronckew That link is certainly a very good sinthesis of piracy definition. But let me please add some points to it. It seems as the first traces of piracy registered, are a bit earlier than the phoenitian period, and remount to the Sumerian civilization, some five thousand years ago. They are engraved in clay plaques, in cuneiform script, relating atacks by a Barbarian people, the Guti, against Sumerian navigators. From then on piracy was practiced by plenty peoples and nations, which makes it very dificult to restrict such exercize to this or that entity, in this or that area. The most unsuspected guys have, at least in a certain period, given a hand to it. How's about Columbus having participated in corsair actions under instructions of the Portuguese King? This brings us to the point i would like to emphasize. Although implemented by different social behaviours, privateering ( corso ) can not be separated from piracy, as the practices inflicted are the same. We can say it is even a worse issue, as pirates were no more than free lance bandits, whereas corsairs were "fine officers" legalized by Kings to practice piracy, say banditism. So the s ... was the same, only the flies changed. This brings us to the theme of the thread, which deals with weaponry used by pirates. I think this is in the wide sense, that is, privateers included. My i assume that, Jim ? By the way and returning to topic, i have read that the Moors from North Africa, when doing piratic acts on the Portuguese coast, used crossbows. How's that ? Fernando

9th January 2008, 01:14 AM	#4
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Alan No doubt the convergent language in the forum is english, but the interpretation of things by the different members envolves rather diverse languages and cultures, which makes it a bot more complex. Nevertheless i happen to have the 1969 edition of an Oxford Universal Dictionary first published in 1933. It says there that, a pirate is one who robs and plunders on the sea; a sea robber, etc. In a Portuguese dictionary published in 2004, a pirate is one who atacks and robs ships; a corsair. But here i think the main preocupation of modern atributions to piracy are those that concern informatic and stuff like that. However it is of common knowledge that piracy ( and privateering ), although implemented on the sea, often contextualy extended its action to land. I guess that people atacking on an inland business basis, independently from their cause, would have another name Fernando

9th January 2008, 01:22 AM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Beautifully said Alan! and again, thank you for bringing this most applicable perspective on the definition of the term pirate, and its convenient distortion in legal parlance. This absolutely brings perspective to our discussion not typically seen in the standard references. Fernando, thank you for bringing in the historical perspective of piracy overall, and indeed privateers were pirates, however 'licensed' with letters of marque. The problem was, the very thin line of observation in exercising those letters of marque, using privately owned ships to prey on enemy shipping, in sort of an 'outsourced' concept. Since the pay of the seamen depended virtually on the materials and loot acquired in these ventures, often when no enemy vessels were available, mutinous conditions arose. This was essentially one of the problems encountered by Kidd, and others likewise turned to any vessel they encountered with good promise of bounty. Rick, I think the money they discovered on Gardiners Island was probably deliberately planted as backup in just the situation that ensued. I often wonder if there was indeed more found and the proceeds deliberately undeclared and distributed among his unscrupulous 'partners'. Getting rid of Kidd certainly eliminated the key witness ! I think the 'treasure' is in the tale itself, and the adventures that guarantee speculators, tourism and the never ending search for it All best regards, Jim

9th January 2008, 05:30 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Yes Fernando, in general terms of course we can consider that piracy has a broader meaning than the one I am prepared to give it. However, I was not speaking in general terms, but in quite specific terms, in reference to Brookes, the British Government, and the Sea Dyaks or Iban. Examination of the circumstances of this matter can leave no doubt that the Sea Dyaks were created by Brookes, and dubbed "pirates", even though they were not pirates in a sense that would be understood by a speaker of Standard English at the time they were so created. It was political opportunism.Just that. And it has stuck for going on 200 years. The reason I made reference to the variation in application of various understandings to words in the English language is that this language has a very large number of variations, Kronckew used an American English dictionary as his reference, but it would be quite illogical to use a modern dictionary of American English to define the way in which an Englishman in 1839 would understand a particular word. In any case, let's leave our Ibans, but let's leave them without the stigma of being pirates. They were not.

9th January 2008, 12:21 AM	#10
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	I really do not want to start something here that could see this thread degenerate into a debate on the meanings of words. However, I must point out that the English language is not used in exactly the same way in all those countries that use a form of this language. I am located in Australia, and I have found that in legal applications two dictionaries are accepted as sufficient evidence to establish the generally accepted meaning of a word. These dictionaries are the Macquarie Dictionary, which is an Australian compilation, and the Oxford Dictionary. I prefer the Oxford Dictionary because that has a greater possibility of acceptance outside Australia. The Oxford dictionary that I use as my everyday tool is the Shorter Oxford on Historical Principles. In this dictionary the word "pirate" is provided with a number of meanings. In the context of this discussion no meaning is given that covers the act of piracy from the sea, but only on the sea. The Sea Dyaks did not as a general rule attack ships on the sea. They used watercraft to transport warriors along river systems and to attack settlements on land. In Britain in 1839, or in Britain today, I believe it would be very difficult to get a conviction against the Dyaks for piracy. Yes, you could get them for something else, but not piracy. Not in Britain. They were unjustly accused because the pirates of two hundred years ago had a similar aura to the terrorists of today. It was political expediancy. Brookes and the British Government branded the Sea Dyaks as pirates, and the language used for this defamation was the English language. I submit that this was an incorrect use of language which resulted in the defamation of a tribal group for political purposes. Pirates with fountain pens? Yep. And computers too.