![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Other tidbits from that article
Pirate captains were elected and could be de-elected at any time for abuse of their authority. The captain enjoyed no special privileges: He "or any other Officer is allowed no more [food] than another man, nay, the Captain cannot keep his Cabbin to himself." Captains were deposed for cowardice, cruelty and revealingly, for refusing "to take and plunder English Vessels" - the pirates had turned their backs on the state and its laws and no lingering feelings of patriotism were to be allowed. The captain only had right of command in the heat of battle, otherwise all decisions were made by the whole ship's company.
This makes me question the circumstances of the "mutiny" of the Black Pearl. However, none of the Black Pearl's crew deny Jack's accusation of mutiny, which may mean (a. the movie's not historically accurate, or b.) that Jack was not, in fact, abusing his position as Captain, and the crew had no grounds for removing him from his position--but Barbossa was an ambitious man and convinced them to elect him anyway. And when Jack protested, they marooned him.
This may explain how Jack could be the captain of the Black Pearl when (he must have been) so damn young--his charisma and confidence got him into office.
It begs the question of how Jack called himself Captain all the time--whether he had a ship or no, whether a crew had voted him captain or not, and how he had the right to give orders in non-battle situations. Theoretically, upon gaining a crew at Tortuga, the crew could have voted Anamaria captain and they all went somewhere else with the Interceptor, cursed zombies be damned. Unless the Articles Jack had them sign included something about "and this be your ship after we take the Black Pearl."
The harshness of life at sea made mutual aid into a simple survival tactic. The natural solidarity of fellow tars was carried over into pirate organisation. Pirates often went into 'consortship' with one another, where if one died the other got his property. Pirate articles also commonly included a form of mutual aid where injured shipmates unable to participate in the fighting would receive their share as a pension. Pirates took this sort of solidarity very seriously - at least one pirate crew compensated their wounded only to discover they had nothing left. From the articles of Bartholomew Roberts' crew: "If... any Man should lose a Limb, or become a Cripple in their Service, he was to have 800 Dollars, out of the publick Stock, and for lesser Hurts, proportionably." And from those of George Lowther's crew: "He that shall have the Misfortune to lose a Limb, in Time of Engagement, shall have the Sum of one hundred and fiftyPounds Sterling, and remain with the Company as long as he shall think fit."
The official site for the movie (pirates.movies.com) mentions the prices for cut off arms and legs and eyes and things, if you care to play their game with the finding the medallions on their little flash thing. (Everyone should play WARRRRR! with Bootstrap Bill. The deck of cards (you get to see the face cards for each suit at intervals) is hilarious. Will (King of Hearts) kept taking Jack (Jack of Hearts), which amused me endlessly, and the queen of whichever suit Pearl's crew is? Mr. One-Eye in a dress. *giggle*) I wonder if they knew the rest of this information--that pirates were supportive of each other in general, not just about the loss of limbs. (Mind, they couldn't mention the consortship. That ties straight into the matelotage.) If so, where the heck did they get the "any man that falls behind, gets left behind" rule? It smacks of plot device, to allow Will to whack Jack over the head and leave him without consequences with the crew of the Interceptor, because there doesn't seem to be an rationale for that particular rule in this information.
One particularly important part of what we might call the 'pirate consciousness' was revenge upon the captains and masters who had previously exploited them.
While this section is talking specifically about the crews of merchant or navy vessels becoming pirates and taking revenge on the merchant or navy captains, I shouldn't wonder if the mindset meant every pirate who ever heard about Jack shooting Barbossa thought it was well-deserved.
Merchant Captain Thomas Checkley got it just right when he described the pirates who captured his ship as pretending "to be Robbin Hoods Men." There is further evidence for this in the name of another ship - the Little John belonging to pirate John Ward. Peter Lamborn Wilson says: "[this] offers us a precious insight into his ideas and his image of himself: clearly he considered himself a kind of Robin Hood of the seas. We have some evidence he gave to the poor, and he was clearly determined to steal from the rich."
Somehow, I don't think this applies to Jack. I know it doesn't apply to his mutinous crew; they kept all their swag on the Isla De Muerta, hoarding it 'til when they could spend it on themselves. I wonder how common this attitude was among pirates, and how often it was sincere as opposed to mere rationalization of a life of crime?
Eventually the French Governor of Tortuga imported hundreds of prostitutes, hoping thereby to wean the buccaneers away from this practice [matelotage].
*cracking up* I would love to see Jack explaining that to Will, or possibly Elizabeth.
"You know why there are so many whores in Tortuga?"
"Er, no. Why?"
"Governor had them brought in to try to distract the men from bedding each other."
"Er... did it work?"
"Where the men were inclined to bed women in the first place, anyway."
The pirate captain Robert Culliford, had a "great consort," John Swann, who lived with him.
Culliford sailed as a pirate in the 1690s; was offered pardon and returned to London... pardon ruled invalid... disppeared from record, rumored to have sailed on a naval ship after that.
But, yeah. Elizabeth is descended from a gay pirate! She has to be. Or else he's a great-uncle or something. This would so explain her obsession with pirates.
no subject
no subject
"You know why there are so many whores in Tortuga?"
"Er, no. Why?"
"Governor had them brought in to try to distract the men from bedding each other."
"Er... did it work?"
"Where the men were inclined to bed women in the first place, anyway."
*splorfle*
I adore you...
no subject
But, yeah. Elizabeth is descended from a gay pirate! She has to be. Or else he's a great-uncle or something. This would so explain her obsession with pirates.
Going by the story plus history, though, she couldn't be descended from him. PotC is partly set in Tortuga, and the era of piracy there ended by 1690. So Potc must be before that. Given how wild Tortuga was shown, I'd guess it was the heyday, so 1660's or so.
Oooh!! You know what would be fascinating? If he was her son, born out of wedlock, hence still a Swann.
Oh!! And Jack is a diminuative of John.
So there you go.
no subject
no subject
Does that work though? Judging by the costuming, I thought PotC was taking place sometime in the mid-to-late eighteenth century...granted, my knowledge of historical clothing isn't the greatest, but I'm usually pretty good about spotting general eras. It could just be the movie people taking license, of course...
no subject
My guess? perhaps, it was to prevent pirates from being, in Jack's words, 'stupid'. Being supportive of each other would imply both a responsibility to the individual, as well as the ship as a whole. If loyalty to each other was so integrated into the pirate lifestyle, then there needs to be a rule that prevents engaging in acts of heroism that might endanger the ship to save an individual. A kind of "save yourself" mentality.
::shrugs:: but I could be wrong.
(oh, are you putting that one scene into a fic? ficlet? drabble? I would *love* to see the idea expanded...)
no subject
I've been dating PotC as about a century later than you, based on:
1. Elizabeth mentions Henry Morgan (late 1600s) and Bartholomew Roberts (took the name 1719, died 1722) as historical figures.
2. Will uses the phrase "Davy Jones's locker," which first appeared in print 1751 according to OED (so was probably in usage earlier than that--but not terribly earlier, and in any case, both Elizabeth and Will seem to have gotten most of their knowledge of pirates from pirate *stories*--remember when Elizabeth asks Jack, "Are you the pirate I've read about or not?!")
I don't know much about the history of Tortuga. I know some people have been saying it was represented as a buccaneer island rather than a pirate island in the movie, if this impacts the dating at all. I'm not sure it does, as I can't figure out the difference between pirates and buccaneers--the
I've been dating PotC as about a century later than you, based on:
1. Elizabeth mentions Henry Morgan (late 1600s) and Bartholomew Roberts (took the name 1719, died 1722) as historical figures.
2. Will uses the phrase "Davy Jones's locker," which first appeared in print 1751 according to OED (so was probably in usage earlier than that--but not terribly earlier, and in any case, both Elizabeth and Will seem to have gotten most of their knowledge of pirates from pirate *stories*--remember when Elizabeth asks Jack, "Are you the pirate I've read about or not?!")
I don't know much about the history of Tortuga. I know some people have been saying it was represented as a buccaneer island rather than a pirate island in the movie, if this impacts the dating at all. I'm not sure it does, as I can't figure out the difference between pirates and buccaneers--the <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=buccaneer">definition of buccaneer</a> does, in fact, say that they're pirates, especially 17th cent pirates, which supports your claim on the dating.
<lj site="livejournal.com" user="cortese"> mentioned something on the naval vessels--buckets?--were marked "GR", I believe, implying that one of the Georges was King of England at the time. She said she thought it would be the third one, which would set the movie after 1760, but if it was I or II, it could be anywhere from <a href="http://www.britannia.com/history/h6f.html">1714</a> on up.
More knowledgeable people than I have been commenting on the uniforms and wigs.
I think turns of phrase in dialogue are the least reliable means of dating--the scriptwriters would gladly take liberties to ensure the understanding of the presentday audience--followed by sets and costumes, which must look cool more than be exactly accurate. Elizabeth's line about Morgan and Roberts (and the mention of Cortez, but nobody's claiming this is earlier than that) is the only bit that does anything to date the movie.
You say the era of piracy in Tortuga ended in 1690--you also say you think the film was set in piracy's heyday, which I don't believe is true. Jack says to Norrington that the Black Pearl is the last real pirate ship in the Caribbean (and the only reason it hasn't been taken yet? Undead, unkillable crew. Uh-huh). I'm not even sure Jack is "native" to the Caribbean himself--I seem to recall implication that he came specifically to get the gold from the Isla de Muerta, and Norrington says of his P brand, "Run afoul of the East India Company?" (which Jack does not deny) which Jack would not have met in the West Indies.
Given all of this, I believe it's more reasonable to consider the movie to take place after the heyday of Caribbean piracy, in the (probably late) 1700s, rather than in the 1600s.
And that's why I think John Swann was more likely Elizabeth's (great) uncle than son.
But I would also say: my friend BN whom I went to see the movie with, said he'd read it was historically accurate, to which I went, "Buh?" I'm still going, "Buh?" because there seems to be a lot of contradictory information about when the movie is set, which pretty much fucks claim to historical accuracy.
Also, it's a movie with undead zombie pirates. Liberties have been taken with reality. *G*
no subject
http://www.4photo.co.uk/main-port/albums/Jamiebyscott/jamie.gun1.jpg
Copy the URL and paste it into a new window to get the full picture.
no subject
That's what I arrived at by one linguistic reference and one historical figure reference. See below.
It's also entirely possible they were taking license. Looking cool counts way more than accuracy.
no subject
I suspect it was more the other way around--the mentality was "every man for himself" and the loyalty was codified into X amt of gold for loss of limb, etc, because if it hadn't been codified, it would have been less likely to have been granted.
I dunno. The entire "Pirate's Code" is an invention as far as I can tell, anyway. Morgan and Roberts weren't contemporaries, so didn't write it together as Elizabeth implied--although theoretically Morgan could have started it and Roberts amended it to its final form, or something. I found a copy of the articles for Roberts's ship, which do not seem to resemble this code of Elizabeth's either. No Parley, and no "falls behind, left behind." (That site is pretty damn cool. Morgan's Letter of Marque and various other items of interest are available.)
(oh, are you putting that one scene into a fic? ficlet? drabble? I would *love* to see the idea expanded...)
I'm not sure. I haven't got anything set on Tortuga, mostly just on Jack's island. I'll keep it in mind, though.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I don't know much about the history of Tortuga. I know some people have been saying it was represented as a buccaneer island rather than a pirate island in the movie, if this impacts the dating at all. I'm not sure it does, as I can't figure out the difference between pirates and buccaneers--the definition of buccaneer does, in fact, say that they're pirates, and of the 17th cent, which supports your claim.
Does that make more sense?
no subject
By the way, thanks for doing all this research. I'm printing it all out for slow, leisurely perusal. Mmm, pirates.
no subject
This makes me question the circumstances of the "mutiny" of the Black Pearl. However, none of the Black Pearl's crew deny Jack's accusation of mutiny, which may mean (a. the movie's not historically accurate, or b.) that Jack was not, in fact, abusing his position as Captain, and the crew had no grounds for removing him from his position--but Barbossa was an ambitious man and convinced them to elect him anyway. And when Jack protested, they marooned him.
Ha, this was SO one of my major questions about the movie.
This may explain how Jack could be the captain of the Black Pearl when (he must have been) so damn young--his charisma and confidence got him into office.
I don't think it was all that unusual for pirate captains to be young, since they were elected and a lot of pirates had rather short life expectancies.
The problem with trying to pinpoint the movie in time is that it's got pieces from several different time periods, blatant anachronisms, and things (like Port Royal's cliffs) which just didn't exist (leaving the dead pirates aside for the moment). Even the scriptwriter's stated date, although it makes sense plot-wise, doesn't fit historically with the rest of the movie.
It's very frustrating, because I really wanted to use the earthquake to kill off Will.no subject
Hahah, "there are ZOMBIE PIRATES" is going to be my answer to all continuity/dating problems from now on.
It's very frustrating, because I really wanted to use the earthquake to kill off Will.I understand the inclination. Somehow he keeps not showing up at all in my ficbits.