Pirate swords and weapons

A. G. Maisey · 8th January 2008, 08:27 PM

This morning is the first time I have read this thread, which I have found to be of some interest, however, there are a couple of things I would like to comment on.

Firstly, there is the question of exactly what a pirate is:- how do we define a "pirate"?

In the sense implied by this discussion, Oxford tells us that a pirate is one who attacks and robs ships at sea.

This raises the question of whether we can refer to the Iban as "pirates".

The Iban raided coastal and inland settlements, principally of Land Dyaks. They raided for two reasons:- heads and slaves; the heads were an integral part of their culture and tied into tribal continuity, the slaves were necessary labour to assist with rice farming--- the Iban were rice farmers, not forest dwellers.

Because the primary targets of the Iban were more often than not the Land Dyak, this put the Iban on a collision course with James Brooke.

The Iban would raid in fleets of hundreds of war canoes, Brookes had no army, and unless he could gain the backing of the British government his attempts to carve a minor kingdom for himself would fail. Suddenly the rice farmers of several different river systems became "Sea Dyaks", and "pirates". Up to this point they had been known as Skrang, Undup Dyak, Saribas, Balau---but because Brooke needed British government backing these people suddenly became "pirates", and "Sea Dyaks". The British government latched on to this terminology and the Royal Navy jumped in to give Brookes a hand at subduing these evil 19th century terrorists.

By any reasonable measure the Iban were not pirates. They were rice farmers whose culture demanded heads, and whose economic survival demanded slaves. Their targets were not ships at sea, but settlements where they could obtain these necessities.

Yes, there were pirates in maritime South East Asia. They were for the main part coastal Malays , usually fishermen, who had struck trouble in making a living from fishing. When the fish started to run again, they would leave the pirating and go back to fishing. This is, I understand, still the case today

Tim Simmons · 8th January 2008, 08:48 PM

I think there are still villains not fishermen today in the South China Seas, South America , the Caribbean and there abouts. I believe they use what is known as a "rib" and a machine gun. They sound like rich opportunist fishermen to me even in the past

.
http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,103960,00.html

Jim McDougall · 8th January 2008, 09:31 PM

Hello Alan,
What a pleasure to have you post on this thread, which I am glad you have found interesting, and the subject of the 'sea Dyaks' is one that I had in mind when I first started the topic. The objective here has been to add dimension to the now cliche' term 'pirate' and examine the broader scope of piracy worldwide as well as the equally broad scope of weaponry used.

I have seen the Dyak 'mandau' or parang ihlang, which I think is the proper term for these interesting swords, among groupings of 'pirate' weapons in some of the rather cursory books on pirates. I thought it was interesting that what seemed at first a 'coffee table' book, actually stepped outside the bounds of the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' image. That and several other notes that indicated the very widespread and still extant social phenomenon known as piracy was indeed quite much more complex than its romanticized treatment in literature.

Thank you very much for your concise and intriguing description of the Dyaks, which perfectly adds the perspective needed in expanding our understanding of piracy and its true dimension.

With all very best regards,
Jim

A. G. Maisey · 8th January 2008, 09:49 PM

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.

kronckew · 8th January 2008, 10:59 PM

the definition of pirates also includes those who raid the land from the sea, the iban would fit this definition i'd say. another site with a legal definition of pirate under international law also implies the inclusion of land raids from the sea and taking slaves. Pirate definition

Rick · 8th January 2008, 11:10 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.

Woody Guthrie said that best Alan ,

" Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen. "

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

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.

8th January 2008, 10:59 PM	#5
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,238	the definition of pirates also includes those who raid the land from the sea, the iban would fit this definition i'd say. another site with a legal definition of pirate under international law also implies the inclusion of land raids from the sea and taking slaves. Pirate definition Attached Images Last edited by kronckew; 8th January 2008 at 11:11 PM.

8th January 2008, 08:27 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	This morning is the first time I have read this thread, which I have found to be of some interest, however, there are a couple of things I would like to comment on. Firstly, there is the question of exactly what a pirate is:- how do we define a "pirate"? In the sense implied by this discussion, Oxford tells us that a pirate is one who attacks and robs ships at sea. This raises the question of whether we can refer to the Iban as "pirates". The Iban raided coastal and inland settlements, principally of Land Dyaks. They raided for two reasons:- heads and slaves; the heads were an integral part of their culture and tied into tribal continuity, the slaves were necessary labour to assist with rice farming--- the Iban were rice farmers, not forest dwellers. Because the primary targets of the Iban were more often than not the Land Dyak, this put the Iban on a collision course with James Brooke. The Iban would raid in fleets of hundreds of war canoes, Brookes had no army, and unless he could gain the backing of the British government his attempts to carve a minor kingdom for himself would fail. Suddenly the rice farmers of several different river systems became "Sea Dyaks", and "pirates". Up to this point they had been known as Skrang, Undup Dyak, Saribas, Balau---but because Brooke needed British government backing these people suddenly became "pirates", and "Sea Dyaks". The British government latched on to this terminology and the Royal Navy jumped in to give Brookes a hand at subduing these evil 19th century terrorists. By any reasonable measure the Iban were not pirates. They were rice farmers whose culture demanded heads, and whose economic survival demanded slaves. Their targets were not ships at sea, but settlements where they could obtain these necessities. Yes, there were pirates in maritime South East Asia. They were for the main part coastal Malays , usually fishermen, who had struck trouble in making a living from fishing. When the fish started to run again, they would leave the pirating and go back to fishing. This is, I understand, still the case today

8th January 2008, 08:48 PM	#2
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,875	I think there are still villains not fishermen today in the South China Seas, South America , the Caribbean and there abouts. I believe they use what is known as a "rib" and a machine gun. They sound like rich opportunist fishermen to me even in the past . http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,103960,00.html

8th January 2008, 09:31 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,454	Hello Alan, What a pleasure to have you post on this thread, which I am glad you have found interesting, and the subject of the 'sea Dyaks' is one that I had in mind when I first started the topic. The objective here has been to add dimension to the now cliche' term 'pirate' and examine the broader scope of piracy worldwide as well as the equally broad scope of weaponry used. I have seen the Dyak 'mandau' or parang ihlang, which I think is the proper term for these interesting swords, among groupings of 'pirate' weapons in some of the rather cursory books on pirates. I thought it was interesting that what seemed at first a 'coffee table' book, actually stepped outside the bounds of the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' image. That and several other notes that indicated the very widespread and still extant social phenomenon known as piracy was indeed quite much more complex than its romanticized treatment in literature. Thank you very much for your concise and intriguing description of the Dyaks, which perfectly adds the perspective needed in expanding our understanding of piracy and its true dimension. With all very best regards, Jim

8th January 2008, 09:49 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	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.

8th January 2008, 11:56 PM	#8
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	#9
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, 12:21 AM	#10
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	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.