▲ 117 points
back
64 comments
It makes sense that pirates like Blackbeard dominate our view of pirates and probably distort it significantly. They were intentionally going for shock value and it obviously worked.
Much like dinosaurs and knights, this brand of pirates is very appealing to kids, so we're kind of stuck with them.
The same could also be said for the Wild West, and even the greater Old West period in general.
The funny thing about the Wild West thing is that it had some basis in reality (i.e. theft, raids, ranching "wars", territorial disputes, extrajudicial punishment, etc), but was romanticized into a genre through contemporary journalism and theater in the Eastern USA around the same time that it was actually happening the Western USA, basically mid 19th century to early 20th century. One pretty good book on this subject is "A Splendid Savage: The Restless Life of Frederick Russell Burnham"
It's interesting how genre fads have come and gone in the Hollywood era. For a while there swashbucklers with Errol Flynn et all were the biggest thing ever. Now that along with westerns are nearly a dead genre.
Isn’t it weird that pirates are a kids thing? I wonder if 3 centuries in the future kids will watch narco cartoons.
Somewhat relevant Perry Bible Fellowship: https://pbfcomics.com/comics/now-showing/
Don't we already have TV shows romanticising narco trade?
I guess we’re heading in that direction.
I very much enjoyed "The Republic Of Pirates: Being the True and Surprising Story of the Caribbean Pirates and the Man Who Brought Them Down" by Colin Woodward. I'm pretty sure I originally came across it in a thread here on HN.
Not that I'm expert enough to know, but it felt well researched. On the assumption that what he said was as true as possible given the circumstances, I thought it was pretty enlightening.
Black Sails was a fun fictionalization of that history, crossed over with the prehistory of Treasure Island. It's opening sequence is unbeatable.
Huge fan of this show. It started off a bit weak but really took off over time.
I love it. I was wondering if anyone would mention it in the comments. I think it's definitely one of the lesser known absolute gems of tv in recent years.
Since we're doing book recommendations :) I thought "The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates" [1] was a fun read as well.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hook-Hidden-Economics-Pirat...
For anyone fiction-inclined, The Silver Oar by Howard Breslin is the first thing that the opening part of this article reminded me of. It focuses on an accused pirate on the run in the New England colonies, and his ongoing relationship with various colonial characters. A fun swashbuckling read if one wants to branch away from prestige literature.
I find it fascinating how almost everything we believe about pirates was created in the book Treasure Island.
Indirectly including the whole "arrr", pirate accent thing, which came from actor Robert Newton's film/TV portrayal.
I wouldn't say I'm very well studied in Pirates, but I've played "Sid Meyer's Pirates" and loved it.
A common theme in the game is that there are 4 great powers of the Caribbean sea: the British, the French, the Dutch, and the Spanish. Different cities have different allegiances (and as the Navies of the respective powers move, those cities could change sides). There's also trade winds to account for, the value of plunder (wheat, guns, and other goods you capture). There's also different statistics for different ships... and those statistics depend on the direction on of the wind (the canoe being the fastest against the wind for example).
----------
Anyway, where I'm going with this is that you're a Pirate in the game. However, your first goal is almost always to obtain a Letter of Marque from one of the great powers. The game even allows you to obtain a letter of marque from all 4 great powers (though unrealistic, its kinda funny to think you're a Privateer authorized to plunder all other powers)
This is a bit of a sarcastic wink that the difference between a "Pirate" and a "Privateer" really isn't much. You go off on your sea vessel, you attack trade ships and plunder them. The Privateer just has a piece of paper (the Letter of Marque) that shows that you're doing it on behalf of a power.
------
John Paul Jones is perhaps the most famous American Privateer. In 1776, when the Revolutionary War started, John Paul Jones and his ship was off in Europe on other business. Hearing that war has been declared, he began to attack the British Isles on behalf of the USA.
John Paul Jones was captured however and charged for Piracy. Fortunately, he had an American Flag flying on his ship, so he was "legitimate".
Alas: the American Flag was described to him through letters. So he really didn't know what it looked like. He just... kinda drew the flag as best he could: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapis_flag (13 stripes of red-white-and blue, with 13 stars on the top left? Gotcha. Totally the American flag, right?). At least, the Dutch thought it was an American flag (probably a political statement on behalf of the Dutch against the British, but hey, politics always existed).
Anyway, my point is that a Letter of Marque was a big deal, making these "piracy" events legitimate. If you're just randomly attacking the British and stealing stuff, you're a Pirate. But if you're doing that because of the 1776 Revolutionary war (and you have a "flag", albeit a poorly drawn incorrect one + the piece of paper / signature from the US Congress stating the Letter of Marque), you're a lawful combatant and treated as such.
Piracy probably never really died off. It just became legalized in the weirdest way possible.
------
Age of Sail, in English-speaking countries, is romanticized with Spanish enemies (see Capt. Hook, who is clearly wearing Spanish Garb + a Spanish Galleon). Because the Spanish ruled the seas in the 1400s, while the British were the upstarts. Fighting "dirty" by using Pirates (and later privateers) is just the natural result of the politics of that age. We can reverse-engineer the age of sail somewhat through our legends and stories that we've passed down over the centuries.
From an American perspective: we romanticize the British/Dutch trading company as the enemy somewhat. (See Pirates of the Caribbean), because "our" privateers/pirates attacked British ships.
-------
Given that the difference between a "Pirate" and a "Privateer" was simply political pieces of paper, I would not be surprised that Pirates were all over the US Colonies from the 1600s. The 13 colonies issued over 1700 letters of Marque during the Revolutionary War IIRC, suggesting a significant number of "skilled sea plunderers" in the colonies, so to speak, of varying sizes. No, the USA never had a good enough Navy to really fight the British on equal terms during the Revolutionary war, but these Privateers were pivotal in harassing / annoying those trade routes / supply routes.
Those skills didn't just magically appear in 1776 during the war. Those people "were already" pirates, and just chose to support the Revolutionary War and begin to organize into the USA's nascent Navy. There's no documentation of this beforehand because those people were likely illegal pirates, so its a "purposeful" forgetting of those old crimes in order to bootstrap the early Navy. IMO anyway.
But yeah, not much may be known about "Pirates". But the legal "Privateer" is extremely well documented and well studied. And you can definitely see and feel the "wink-wink and nod" towards Piracy if you go through the historical records.
English wikipedia:
> Sir Francis Drake (c. 1540 – 28 January 1596)[3] was an English explorer, sea captain, privateer, slave trader,[4][5][6] naval officer, and politician.
Spanish wikipedia:
> Francis Drake (Tavistock, Inglaterra, 1540-Portobelo, Panamá, 28 de enero de 1596) fue un corsario, explorador, comerciante de esclavos, político y vicealmirante inglés.
The two languages understandably place different relative emphasis on Drake's various occupations.
> corsario
Good grief. The word "Corsair" in English means Pirate (or at least: Pirate Ship), but the word "corsario" in Spanish apparently means privateer.
Apparently this "Pirate vs Privateer" issue turns into a fundamental linguistic issue depending on what side you were on in the 1500s age of sail.
------
> vicealmirante
I'm amused that Captain translates into Vice Admiral.
"Now take Sir Francis Drake / The Spanish all despise him. / But to the British, he's a hero / And they idolize him."
> John Paul Jones is perhaps the most famous American Privateer. In 1776, when the Revolutionary War started, John Paul Jones and his ship was off in Europe on other business. Hearing that war has been declared, he began to attack the British Isles on behalf of the USA.
John Paul Jones had been living in the american colonies for a few years before the war broke out. He was a member of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia in 1774, and personally knew Richard Henry Lee. When the war broke out in 1775 he joined the American navy and was a lieutenant serving on the USS Alfred, the first ship to be commissioned by the Continental Navy. While many of the missions he commanded involved commerce raiding, he was never a privateer and never carried Letters of Marque.
> Alas: the American Flag was described to him through letters. So he really didn't know what it looked like.
John Paul Jones was actually the very first person to hoist America's official naval ensign, one of his duties on the maiden voyage of the Alfred. It was actually Ben Franklin who didn't know what an American flag looked like, and told the dutch it had blue stripes.
> John Paul Jones was captured however and charged for Piracy. Fortunately, he had an American Flag flying on his ship, so he was "legitimate".
He was not captured and charged with Piracy, he was in a Dutch port and the Brtish asked he be handed over as a pirate, instead of as a commander of an American vessel. He knew perfectly well what an American naval ensign looked like, and had been flying one, but it was shot away in battle. In fact the whole ship had been sunk and he transferred over to a British ship captured in the same battle. Further, this event occurred in 1779, more than 3 years after Jones had joined the American Navy, and was actually the last American ship that he would command.
Side note (about privateers and Benjamin Franklin):
There was (is?) a strong suspicion on the part of the British that the whole 1776 kerfuffle was likely caused by the colony being infested with pirates and smugglers, and not liking being cracked down upon.
I mean, that’s kinda the opinion on the American side as well, no? The Sons of Liberty were a loose association of smugglers, undoubtably with some pirate connections. The Boston tea party was about lowering the tax on tea, not raising it, which impacted the black market these guys were selling in.
I'm going to channel my inner thoughts right now:
wut-literal taxation without representation
I do not have a lot of expertise into the above nor Sid Meyers, but man, I just want to say that I appreciate the insight/opinion. Thank you for the well written response.
Did the Spanish rule the sea in the 1400s? They didn't have full control of the peninsula until 1492.
The US frigates had a good record against British frigates in the War of 1812, but they couldn't have fought a major engagement with the Royal Navy. The privateers were tremendously effective then.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend_(Spain)
Related to your comment on Captain Hook.
Thanks for the very informative post!
> This is a bit of a sarcastic wink that the difference between a "Pirate" and a "Privateer" really isn't much. You go off on your sea vessel, you attack trade ships and plunder them. The Privateer just has a piece of paper (the Letter of Marque) that shows that you're doing it on behalf of a power.
Amusingly, the US Congress still has the enumerated authority to issue letters of marque. If I ever become filthy rich I'm totally going to bribe^H^H^H^H^Hcontribute to a congressional representative's campaign to get one.
That was the second original computer game I got in my life. Or perhaps the first, because I got two on at the same time: Pirates!, and Sub battle simulator.
I loved both, but I have very fond memories of Pirates! I must have played it for an unhealthy number of hours. I even remember going to a neighborhood photocopier to make copies of the map, because I wanted to make different notes on it depending on which historical period I chose to start the game in.
Not much to add to what you said, but thanks for bringing back those memories!
I thought this article would be about the fact that most piracy was not restricted to the 17th/18th century Caribbean, but that does seem to be the time period this article primarily focuses on. But piracy still exists. Somalian piracy was big in the news a couple of years ago, and there's plenty of piracy elsewhere in the world. The most successful pirate in history was not any of the famous Caribbean pirates, but Chinese Zheng Yi Sao, who commanded a fleet of hundreds or pirate ships in the South China Sea in the 19th century, and even had the British and Chinese navies ask her for peace.
Of course it makes sense that pirates need a community to support them, because where else will they live, retire, sell their loot, etc? I imagine especially economic inequality, with communities left out of the profits of profitable trade, can make piracy an attractive way to even the score. But I also think there's a lot that can be said about the many different drivers of piracy, from desperation (a crew driven to mutiny against a tyrannical captain), to opportunity, war, or even a profitable business model or nation building.
I remember reading an history book about pirates when I was very young, from ancient history to modern days. How I loved it..
I will try to remember the name of the German author.
Discussed at the time:
A lot we know about pirates is not true, and a lot of what is true is not known - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14287212 - May 2017 (90 comments)
Surely the title of this item "A lot of what is known about pirates is not true" is an oxy-moron?
A lot of what is [thought to be] known about pirates is not true? A lot of what is [not] known about pirates is not true?
And also "A lot we know about pirates is not true..." also seems 'wrong'
But I can't work out what exactly seems incorrect. I've tried substituting 'pirates' for something else, but nothing works. Help! Any linguists around...?
I can't find anything that says that "known" things must be true. They're more "generally understood". So I don't think there's any issue with the original title.
That was my reaction too; you can't "know" something that is false. Despite my innate pedantry, I didn't comment, because it's pretty clear what the title means.
I don't know how accurate it is but the lost pirate kingdom on netflix was pretty entertaining, and included quite a bit of information I was not aware of.
A lot of what is known about anything is not true.
And they said there was nothing left to explore!
there’s some very poor logic in this article. e.g. the first reason given for why pirates were supported was to protect their harbourers from the repercussions of hiding them in the first place.
This article keeps describing anarchists and then following up with 'but they're not anarchists'.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Expected the article to be about BitTorrent users.
But you have heard of them...
EDIT: I know, I'm sorry. I couldn't help it.
You mean they don't laugh and jump off of things?
Some undoubtedly did, but I don't think it was very central to their business model.