Pirate swords and weapons

[Jim McDougall]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Jim McDougall]

I'm really glad to have the application of the term pirate resolved and most interestingly analyzed, as well as the explanation for how the term was misapplied to the Iban. It is always good to have the actual perspective on often misunderstood historical events and situations.

I am hoping we can return to looking into the weaponry of the pirates, perhaps considering the weapon forms they might have gained access to in thier capturing of vessels. For example, the "Quedah Merchant" captured by Kidd would likely have had a variety of Indian weapons that would have appealed to the seamen, and kept for the brandishing previously mentioned. It seems we have discussed Indian weapons with heavy and shorter blades that might have served on Indian vessels, possibly those might resurface here.

Most importantly, I have not yet seen any examples of the most prevalent weapon likely seen aboard pirate vessels..the cutlass. Naturally this term, as terminology seems key in this discussion, is rather loosely applied to heavy, short bladed weapons, many with large guards for the hand. The heavy 'Sinclair sabre' (another well known misnomer) of N.Europe and other heavy short sabres of the 17th century were likely candidates, but the hunting hangers of English and European gentry of mid 17th century found even more established favor.
Hopefully we might see examples of these that would represent the 'Golden Age' (1670's-1720's) as well as the later regulation naval patterns that would see use as piracy prevailed in varying degree wherever trade vessels went.

All best regards,
Jim

[A. G. Maisey]

I agree that in a loose, general sense, the application of the term "pirate" can be extended far beyond the strict dictionary definition that I am prepared to accept in the case of the Iban and Brooke, however, as I have already stated, I am not writing in general terms. My remarks apply specifically to the case of the Iban, Brooke, and the British government.

In casual conversation we can use language in a very flexible manner. We can do the Humpty Dumpty thing and make our words mean what we want them to mean.We can even be as Mrs. Malaprop, and people will still understand us, and not take us to task for it.

However, in any exchange of ideas there comes a point where we need to determine exactly what we mean when we use a word.

The word "pirate" has a very distinct and very quantifiable value when we apply the test of correct usage. That value can change from place to place, and from time to time. In those countries which use American English, and most particularly in the second half of the 20th. century, it is clearly quite legitimate to extend the boundaries of the value of the word "pirate". For example, in colloquial usage, we can pirate another man's woman, and by the pirating thereof, we become a pirate. But this is 20th century, colloquial usage. It is not the usage that would apply in the 1840's, at a government level, in England.

In England, in the first half of the 19th century, the memory of pirates, and their continuing existence, was still very real. At that time, and in that place the term "pirate" was on a par with the term "terrorist" , today. When Brooke approached the British government for assistance he was well aware that his requests would receive better consideration if he used the emotive term "pirate", rather than to describe the rice farmers of the inland hill country as marauding tribesmen, or something similar. So, all these small groups of rice farmers were overnight turned into "Sea Dyaks" and "pirates".

Pirates attack ships at sea, and interfere with international trade. In 1839 England was at the height of its glorious days of Empire. How could a request to eliminate the wolves of the sea be denied? So Brooke with the help of a friend of long standing, a Captain Keppel,got his assistance, and set about establishing his minor kingdom. But it took until the early years of the 20th century before the Brookes were able bring all the "Sea Dyaks" to heel.

The major reason for the Iban taking of heads is that it formed an integral part of the culture's system of sexual selection, just as the weaving of the Iban women established the hierarchy for Iban females. As such, the taking of heads was essential for the continued viability of any tribal group, within the culture. The Iban were behaving in accordance with long established cultural traditions of the place where they lived.

When James Brooke arrived on the River Sarawak he brought with him the values of a foriegn culture, and he set about applying those values to the cultures which he intended to dominate. Brooke had no problem at all with the Iban taking heads and slaves, provided those Iban gave their allegiance to Brooke, and paid their taxes.

So now tell me:- who exactly was the pirate here?

Was it the Iban, living in their own country and in accordance with the traditions of that country, or was it James Brooke, who with the assistance of the British Government effectively invaded the country of the Iban and imposed taxation upon them?

The name of this forum implies that the participants have some knowledge and understanding of the ethnic values applicable to those weapons and cultures which are discussed here. I would most humbly suggest that before applying the label of "pirate" to the Iban, it may be a very good idea to learn a little about this culture, and the way in which the Brookes and Britain destroyed it.

We all know that victors write the history books.

The Iban were not pirates in any sense of the word.

[Jim McDougall]

Beautifully and profoundly written Alan. I think you have well established the ethnographic perspective concerning the Iban tribe and that the placing of them among the unsavory category of pirates is categorically incorrect.
As I mentioned, I'm really very glad that you posted here on this topic and that you have so well clarified the importance of understanding the much deeper traditions and cultures of these tribal groups.

I think that with that established, there remains the possibility that the sea going marauders that were indeed pirates, and obtained these deadly and formidable appearing parangs might have wielded them effectively for the purposes previously described. While the Sea Dyaks, or Iban, were absolutely not pirates, thier weapons might have found pirate use.

All very best regards, and thank you again for the outstanding perspective.
Jim

[VANDOO]

A WEAPON THAT WAS USED TO GOOD EFFECT WERE THE SWIVEL GUNS, THE ORIGIN IS SUPPOSED TO BE EUROPE AND THEY FOUND THEIR WAY TO CHINA AND KOREA LATER AND WERE VERY POPULAR THERE. IN INDONESIA,MALAYSIA,BORNEO AND PHILIPPINES THEY WERE OFTEN CALLED LANTKA. THEY WERE EASILY MOVED FROM PLACE TO PLACE AND WERE EASILY LOADED AND COULD BE HIDDEN UNTIL THE ENEMY WAS CLOSE THEN MOUNTED AND FIRED QUICKLY. THEY WERE AN ANTI PERSONEL WEAPON DESIGNED MOSTLY TO FIRE AT CLOSE RANGE AND CLEAR THE DECKS. THEY WERE USUALLY LOADED WITH MULTIPLE PROJECTILES AND MOST ANYTHING COULD BE USED AS LONG AS IT FIT DOWN THE BARREL. A STICK WAS PLACED IN THE SOCKET AT THE BACK TO GIVE THE GUNNER SOME DISTANCE FROM IT AND ALSO TO GIVE LEVERAGE WHEN SWIVELING IT. THESE EXAMPLES ARE ALL FROM BORNEO AND THE 2 ARE INDONESIAN.

[VANDOO]

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.