Would you not agree that pirates, generally, probably had a higher rate of murder and rape than a sedentary, conventionally employed, land-bound population?
Of the 1700s? Yes, I'd say that the pirates of the West Indies (as opposed to say, the Corsairs) would have a lower rate of rape than that of merchant or naval sailors.
Those law codes weren't just out of the goodness of their piratical hearts, women on ships, coerced or otherwise were a potential source of conflict that couldn't be solved easily by standard spoils systems.
Pirate ships had substantially more democratic governance than other vessals, operating similarly to an anarchist militia, which meant simple top down control of things didn't work either. So the codes set down what simply was not allowed and if you didnt agree you could find another ship.
A declared code of law is not an indicator of behavior. Able-bodied men of inconsistent employ, variable discipline, rapidly shifting alliances, a lack of women, and existence of a might-makes-right society probably are more prone to rape and murder than, say, a cobbler in London or Baghdad.
If you compared pirates to, say, the general population of Britain or France, sure. But that’s not really the point. These are men used to rough, brutal lives. Of course they’d be different from an artisan in London. I think the better comparison would be to merchant sailors or members of the British/French/Spanish navy, who definitely committed atrocities of their own. And looking at it from a larger scale, pirates never brutally colonized large swathes of Africa and the Caribbean, established slavery, or committed genocide. So you know, I’d say any individual atrocities committed by pirates were less than that of the system their more civilized counterparts contributed to.
Would you not agree that pirates, generally, probably had a higher rate of murder and rape than a sedentary, conventionally employed, land-bound population?
Of the 1700s? Yes, I'd say that the pirates of the West Indies (as opposed to say, the Corsairs) would have a lower rate of rape than that of merchant or naval sailors.
Those law codes weren't just out of the goodness of their piratical hearts, women on ships, coerced or otherwise were a potential source of conflict that couldn't be solved easily by standard spoils systems.
Pirate ships had substantially more democratic governance than other vessals, operating similarly to an anarchist militia, which meant simple top down control of things didn't work either. So the codes set down what simply was not allowed and if you didnt agree you could find another ship.
Have you read any of the other replies in this thread?
I have.
A declared code of law is not an indicator of behavior. Able-bodied men of inconsistent employ, variable discipline, rapidly shifting alliances, a lack of women, and existence of a might-makes-right society probably are more prone to rape and murder than, say, a cobbler in London or Baghdad.
If you compared pirates to, say, the general population of Britain or France, sure. But that’s not really the point. These are men used to rough, brutal lives. Of course they’d be different from an artisan in London. I think the better comparison would be to merchant sailors or members of the British/French/Spanish navy, who definitely committed atrocities of their own. And looking at it from a larger scale, pirates never brutally colonized large swathes of Africa and the Caribbean, established slavery, or committed genocide. So you know, I’d say any individual atrocities committed by pirates were less than that of the system their more civilized counterparts contributed to.
Fair point.
deleted by creator