Pirate swords and weapons

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

Jim McDougall · 9th January 2008, 07:39 PM

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 · 9th January 2008, 08:24 PM

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 · 10th January 2008, 01:52 AM

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 · 15th January 2008, 08:32 PM

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 · 15th January 2008, 08:53 PM

SOME EUROPEAN VERSIONS AND ONE THAT LEWIS AND CLARK TOOK ALONG ON THEIR EXPLORATIONS. SOME WERE BREACH LOADERS.

A INTERESTING BIT OF INFO. IN THE 1970'S AN AMERICAN FROM FLORIDA SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR LETTERS OF MARKE. HIS PROPOSITION WAS THAT HE WOULD PREY ON ALL THE DRUG RUNNERS AROUND FLORIDA AND GET TO SELL THE VESSELS AND CONTENTS AND KEEP ANY MONEY AND WOULD TURN OVER ANY DRUGS TO THE GOVERNMENT. DURING THIS TIME A TYPE OF PIRATE WAS PREVELENT THRUOUT THE CARIBEAN THEY WOULD SIGN ON AS CREW HERE AND KILL THE OWNERS ONCE AT SEA AND USE THE BOATS TO RUN DRUGS. MANY BOATS WERE ALSO TAKEN BY SPEED BOATS FULL OF DRUG PIRATES AND ALL ON BOARD KILLED. MANY SAIL BOATS AS WELL AS POWER BOATS AND CREWS DISSAPEARED DURING THOSE YEARS.
A RELATIVE OF MINE LIVED IN FLORIDA DURING THOSE YEARS AND TOLD A STORY OF A FRIEND OF HIS COMING BACK INTO PORT WITH ONE SIDE OF HIS SAILBOAT BLACK. WHEN ASKED WHAT HAD HAPPENED HE SAID A SPEED BOAT HAD CAME UP ON HIM OFFSHORE AND THE MEN HAD GUNS ,SO WHEN THEY GOT CLOSE HE THREW TWO HANDGRENADES HE KEPT FOR SUCH EMERGENCYS IN THEIR BOAT AND DUCKED AND LEFT THEM SINKING AND BURNING. IF THE STORY WAS TRUE THEN AT LEAST ONE BOATLOAD OF PIRATES WENT MISSING IN THE 1970'S.

Rick · 15th January 2008, 09:42 PM

Explore the word 'Buccaneer' for awhile ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buccaneer

15th January 2008, 08:32 PM	#6
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	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. Attached Images

15th January 2008, 08:53 PM	#7
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	SOME EUROPEAN VERSIONS AND ONE THAT LEWIS AND CLARK TOOK ALONG ON THEIR EXPLORATIONS. SOME WERE BREACH LOADERS. A INTERESTING BIT OF INFO. IN THE 1970'S AN AMERICAN FROM FLORIDA SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR LETTERS OF MARKE. HIS PROPOSITION WAS THAT HE WOULD PREY ON ALL THE DRUG RUNNERS AROUND FLORIDA AND GET TO SELL THE VESSELS AND CONTENTS AND KEEP ANY MONEY AND WOULD TURN OVER ANY DRUGS TO THE GOVERNMENT. DURING THIS TIME A TYPE OF PIRATE WAS PREVELENT THRUOUT THE CARIBEAN THEY WOULD SIGN ON AS CREW HERE AND KILL THE OWNERS ONCE AT SEA AND USE THE BOATS TO RUN DRUGS. MANY BOATS WERE ALSO TAKEN BY SPEED BOATS FULL OF DRUG PIRATES AND ALL ON BOARD KILLED. MANY SAIL BOATS AS WELL AS POWER BOATS AND CREWS DISSAPEARED DURING THOSE YEARS. A RELATIVE OF MINE LIVED IN FLORIDA DURING THOSE YEARS AND TOLD A STORY OF A FRIEND OF HIS COMING BACK INTO PORT WITH ONE SIDE OF HIS SAILBOAT BLACK. WHEN ASKED WHAT HAD HAPPENED HE SAID A SPEED BOAT HAD CAME UP ON HIM OFFSHORE AND THE MEN HAD GUNS ,SO WHEN THEY GOT CLOSE HE THREW TWO HANDGRENADES HE KEPT FOR SUCH EMERGENCYS IN THEIR BOAT AND DUCKED AND LEFT THEM SINKING AND BURNING. IF THE STORY WAS TRUE THEN AT LEAST ONE BOATLOAD OF PIRATES WENT MISSING IN THE 1970'S. Attached Images Last edited by VANDOO; 15th January 2008 at 09:07 PM.

15th January 2008, 09:42 PM	#8
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	Shall We Explore the word 'Buccaneer' for awhile ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buccaneer

9th January 2008, 07:39 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,296	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

9th January 2008, 08:24 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	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.

10th January 2008, 01:52 AM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,296	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