Why did only pirates have multiple flintlock pistol bandoliers? It didnt seem to catch for normal militaries
Why did only pirates have multiple flintlock pistol bandoliers? It didnt seem to catch for normal militaries
Why did only pirates have multiple flintlock pistol bandoliers? It didnt seem to catch for normal militaries
Bearing in mind that I know relatively frickall about the golden age of pirates and conventional warfare of the era, if the guy pictured is an accurate representation of 'a pirate' I'd posit that it was because quick, close combat aggression for the sole purpose of taking out uppity civilians and sparse security made a brace of pistols useful. Warfare fought on an open field between armies of line infantry did not require the same rapid onslaught that multiple guns shot by one person would afford, firstly because grapshot existed, and secondly because you are already in a mass of 300+ men. Further, i'm going to assume that pistols were expensive so issuing them to an army made less economic sense, whereas pirates could theoretically pick up different guns across multiple months.
After thinking about this a bit more, I'm conscious that some mounted units used multiple flintlocks. Again though the idea was to close with the enemy and deliver a round or two before attacking with swords.
That's exactly black reiters tactics
god, why isnt there a total war:30 years war
Fantasy games sell better. But you could get the same experience from a medieval remake if they just extended the timeline further, and didn't frick the engine for gunpowder and top-tier two handed units.
Too much rape.
This
And lemme add flintlock are extremely sensitive to seawater and humidity..
Your pistol goes CLICK-flizzz in the middle of a boarding?
Better throw it and take another than re-prime it.
Golden age pirates went after military vessels that were plundering gold from the new world.
There are a handful of instances when they actually succeeded, and hundreds more of pirates attacking regular merchant ships for supplies and slaves.
>regular merchant ships
kek, these "merchant ships" were taking stolen goods to be sold in Europe. Pirates were like Omar from The Wire, stealing from criminals.
go back, Black person
Go back to where? /b/? No thanks; it's been unusable since like 2009
I'm currently sitting less than 3 miles away from the American hospital I was in. cope + seethe + post outlet, turd worlder yuropoor
>unable to English
post non-adoptive dad
post gun + outlet pajeet
>Black person can't even align photos right
>Has yet to post his own gun.
Sounds like you're having a rough day
>DeShawn thinks posting gun means he can live down his absent dad
doesn't work that way, senpai
Wrong guy, moron.
see
Also, you can clearly see my white hand in that photo, kek. Why don't you own any guns? Why aren't you American?
>Why don't you own any guns?
Nta but dude's prolly at work or something and can't just wipe out a gun. I know it's a difficult concept to understand but some of us have jobs and shit that make that more risky than it's worth to prove anything to some thread derailing anon
>he doesn't WFH
NGMI
*whip
My bad, just got my coffee
I'd love for you to build a house from home anon, or farm a field from your couch
Personally I have to meet with customers a few times a week, why the hell would I want them to have my house address?
It's 7 in the morning either way. If you've got a job that you can shitpost on PrepHole from, you aren't showing up at 7.
It's 8am EST you absolute moron
Coasties aren't people.
The only reason you're allowed to own guns is because of 'coasties'
I'm allowed to own guns because anti-federalists said they would refuse to ratify the constitution if there wasn't a bill of rights in it. The federalists then proceeded to consolidate power (which is what they wanted from the beginning and what they're good at because they're power-hungry monsters) and squash all populist sentiment for the next 250 years.
>anti-federalists
And where did these people live anon?
They lived in the only part of America that was settled, which is a pretty good excuse for being a coastie. No excuses in 2023, though.
>Thinks blaming minorities will make up for his lack of social skills.
nah, I'm not actually racist, I just figured someone who bought that deeply into the slavery memes would be most easily triggered by racebaiting
anybody can buy a gun; where's your dad?
My dad is probably at home listening to old episodes of Opie and Anthony. It's only 7 AM.
Where's YOUR dad? For that matter, where's your gun?
It's oriented correctly in my file explorer; blame Hiroshimoot for PrepHole not uploading it properly.
Also, where's your gun?
It's "Wesleyan University" gay he's a lying Black person who claimed to be from WU, yet can't answer any questions and runs a mile. I'm closing in on him though.
He's also a massive tankie and from lefty/pol/.
I'll keep digging and get his name soon enough.
I'm an anti-semitic fascist who has been on PrepHole since 2005, moron.
>runs a mile
ESL non-sequitur gibberish lol
nogunz can cope + seethe all they want, but they will never, ever belong here.
>Doesn't know the colloquial phrase to "run a mile" when something happens they don't like, in this case being asked questions about WU and history that any undergrad should be able to answer
There's the real ESL moment, the inability to recognise common idioms.
Yeah buddy, that a colloquial expression in the rural midwest. Maybe they say it in whatever coastal hellhole you come from, but not here. Also, which questions was I unable to answer? Please ask them again.
not* a colloquial expression in the rural midwest
gun tax pic from yesterday to keep this on topic. If you aren't at least posting an old pic of one of your guns, then what are you even doing here?
>unable
"Run a mile" is literally a colloquial expression throughout the English speaking world, including places that don't even commonly use miles
>t. British-Australian dual citizen who has spent significant time in Canada and NZ
Yeah, there's lots of dumbfrick Commonwealth slang that we don't use here. "Rubbish bin" and "brekky" and "telly" and "advert" and "servo" and "fry up" and "blimey chimey what's the timey" and "choccy woccy doo doo"
Grasping and flailing. Where are you actually from? Run a mile isn't just slang, it's been in books for hundreds of years. Even if you google it you find lots of american language sources explaining it.
In his defense I've never really heard people in northern ME say it, but I also would throw out and ESL accusation at anyone who did
>no excuses
>you have to love boring ass plains to be american
I like my pine trees, my differing elevations, and my moose anon, frick off
This is Grand View Drive, which is three minutes from my house. Teddy Roosevelt called it The World's Most Beautiful Drive. That's how we got the name of one of our local radio / TV stations, WMBD.
I prefer this
I will say that rural Maine residents are by far the least coastal of all the coasties. It's not like you're some yuppie financial parasite from New York City. At the end of the day, we're both Americans, and that still means something.
>At the end of the day, we're both Americans, and that still means something
On that we will always agree
God Bless America
take good care of your nature bros. you got it good over there
t. dutch
We're trying, but the insane financial system that was incubated in your nation before being exported to England and later America - and the megacorporations that have sprung from that system - is poisoning the water and the air.
So true. I am a totally different anon but I love America so much it’s unreal. Floridanon and I know lots of people think it’s ugly but I like it.
I also went to school for four years in the Midwest and never heard that phrase but this whole exchange seems like two people from two different parts of the country convinced the other is brown.
I hate industrial development so much it’s unreal.
How convenient that you suddenly found someone to wax lyrical with about all the American sights you can find on google to prove your bonafides.
meds
Okay, here’s the view from my office
Now frick off and take your meds
NTA but why does anyone care about your random pictures of trees and asphalt ...I don't get it.
Because non-American shitposters like to accuse anyone who doesn't deepthroat the circumcised wiener of the international financial empire (to which they have sworn undying fealty) of being non-American themselves, and it feels good to prove them wrong.
>Because non-American shitposters like to accuse anyone who doesn't deepthroat the circumcised wiener of the international financial empir
What are you gibbering on about you lunatic? You do know your brain is broken. Your thoughts on international finance are completely fricking irrelevant. I don't need you to tell me the total number of exams you have passed related to the topic is zero. I can tell.
>shitposting non-American's favorite tactic he uses to try to discredit people who badmouth his overlords gets called out so he attempts to literally gaslight and paint me as insane
kek, everyone can see right through you
I'm not American but I am quite pro American and Pro European. None of that has any thing to do with you being some moronic skitzo blithering on about your youtube conspiritard fart of the week about finance. You're a fricking nut. What you think is irrelevant. You're a lazy bum that never bothered to educate yourself. That's no reflection on America or other Americans which you do not represent, just you. To be quite honest you sound more like some moronic brown vatBlack person for pay shitting out /misc/skitzo nonsense. Rather than argue stop and consider a stranger telling you that in honesty
>I'm not American
opinion discarded
Yes your opion has been discarded because you are a moron. A stupid, dumb cheap little moron with no education that gargles moronic stale conspiracy shit and vomits it up on command. Muh international financial conspiracy. Fricking mouth breather.
Also, it's spelled "schizo" not "skitzo" lmao
>Because non-American shitposters like to accuse anyone who doesn't deepthroat the circumcised wiener of the international financial empire (to which they have sworn undying fealty) of being non-American themselves,
see
Beauty is subjective and all that, it would be better without Rt. 1 I agree but I do think the road adds something to the beauty of it
Bridgewater?
It's common in South Africa too and while I don't have a memory of if I ever used it when I was travelling across the states, I refuse to believe it's unknown in the midwest.
I think the other anon is right and WU is some ESL russian glowie or something.
>let me tell you about the country you've lived in for your entire life
kek, the absolute state of turd worlders
You're such a dumb shit. You realise how hilarious it looks to actual english speakers you disputing the use of a very common idiom? How other it makes you seem when you don't know it.
Kek, you'd have been better off trying to play it like you misunderstood what I was saying rather than trying to claim an idiom that's known throughout the English speaking world isn't used in Iowa.
I bet you think people in the midwest say "Oi guvna, fancy a spot of tea?" kek
>that a colloquial expression in the rural midwest.
it's a colloquial expression across the entire english speaking world. what the frick is going on in this thread.
let me save your time, I'm not whoever that is
anyway I'm bored now
I was just astounded at the stupidity of
>stolen goods to be sold in Europe
this post and decided to reel 'im in
born* in
post gun + outlet
Hmm...seems like /misc/ is riled up today. Did their favorite politician get caught on tape confessing to everything?
You're moronic. So all European and non-European ships were taking "stolen goods"? Do you have a source on that moron? Why do pirates predate European colonization of the new world? Frick me, you're an anti-white moron...
The pirates were white.
Pirate crews were rather multicultural, akchually. Nearly all European nations, many freed African slaves, etc.
Do you mean specifically European pirates in the age of sail? Because some of the biggest slave trades in history were ran by pirates, i.e. the barbary slave trade.
Are you a pirate or some shit? Why are you trying to whitewash pirates? If pirates freed slaves it was to add them to their own crews, so they could get more men. Theyd just as easily sell 'em to slave traders if it was in their best interest. In fact, they actually did so, they kept the slave trade going long after it became illegal. https://timeline.com/galveston-island-texas-pirate-slave-trade-bdb45657f08
Many had themselves worked on slave ships for years, you think they gave a frick about freeing slaves lmao. They even sold their fellow European Christians to the Ottomans to work the rest of their lives away as galley slaves.
>Do you mean specifically European pirates in the age of sail
Yes. During the Golden Age of Piracy, the pirate crews were multicultural. Most of the crews were a mix of European nations, freed slaves, and others. It is usually estimated that around 30% of all pirates during that time period were black. There were also African pirates who hadn't started as slaves.
Regarding Europeans, after the English, a lot of them were Dutch, French. A surprising amount was Scandinavian. There were of course also Spanish, Portuguese, etc. There were even pirates from bizarre, small, landlocked countries like Bohemia. Even Poland had at least one pirate in the Caribbean.
Regarding freeing or selling slaves, I already told you they did both. It varied from crew to crew, but like I said before, they were much more egalitarian than the contemporary norm.
Pirates have existed across the world before most whites ever were faring the oceans. But regardless, I never said they were white or not, I said you are an anti-white gay. First thing you do on a thread that has literally nothing to do with race is turn it into some gay cuck shit.
Golden age pirates were a unique phenomenon, and I never mentioned race until you did.
You were trying to turn pirates into some heckin' based anti-white antiheroes, stealing gold from da evil white colonizers taking gold from da new world and shieeeeet. It's just your own made-up cuckold fiction. Or alternatively, prove that the majority of ships they attacked were pillaging da new world.
Cost would be the big one, the average pirate in the golden age would make about twice what an admiral would so dropping coin on guns was nothing to him.
Russian Navy issued to each member of boarding crews brace (pair) of pistols and cutlass.
>thinks pirates carried more than one or two pistols
>thinks pirates didn't fight line battles on open fields with hundreds of men involved, including Spanish cavalry
>thinks pirates didn't understand how to maintain and operate their weapons around water or in bad weather
If only a pirate from the Golden Age of Piracy had written a book about what piracy and the Caribbean were like during that era...oh, wait, one did. Picrel.
pirates carried more than one or two pistols
At least Teach did. All his contemporary depictions talk about more than two pistols.
And, like the lit fuses in his beard and hair, it was considered unusual enough to be noteworthy. If Teach's mannerisms had been common, it wouldn't have been necessary for authors to describe them.
>Thinks there's a way to ensure 100% reliability of flintlock arms in a humid environment, even moreso in saltwater conditions and using 1700 era blackpowder and grease/lubricants.
You never shot flintlocks in your life pal.
One single droplet of water in the priming pocket and tour gun is a melee weapon.
Better keep a spare...or two
>Muh Exquemelin boik
Cherry picking and goalposts moving: the post.
Cossacks did it too
I wonder if ukrainians and russians think about cossacks like other countries think about their knights and janissaries.
Well, we even call them knights sometimes. And sometimes they're "Land pirates", lol. But Idk exactly what people in the west think about knights. If that's something like "chivalrous heroes, loyal to the lord", then not exactly. We consider them more like tricksters, kind in nature yet very dangerous to the enemy.
>t.ukie
Sounds a bit like the more romanticized depictions of cowboys in the American West
>But Idk exactly what people in the west think about knights
Somewhere between chivalrous folk heroes in shining armour, and bastard tyrants who kill peasants en masse.
Who cares what people think the average normie or anon here knows so little about history they think youtube is an education and that was the case before brown people found the internet.
YouTube has way more actual educational content on it now than it did when it was reserved for shit like the evolution of dance and Half-Life 2 AMVs
>evolution of dance and Half-Life 2 AMVs
yeah, but shit like HMV Hell had sovl
YOU'RE SO COLD, KEEP YOUR HAND IN MINE
so like how pirates can be portrayed in stories?
Ukraine’s first modern state was a Cossack one.
They fall under the banner of cowboys and samurai in the "related archetype to knights, but not quite the same thing"
>knights
>and janissaries
Janissaries are more perceived like the praetorian guards of their time. Sipahis were the knight equivalent - mostly mounted and composed of landed gentry or their sons. Balkan sipahis also tended to be equipped fairly similarly to stereotypical European knights: both rider and horse well armoured, lances, shields, sabers, pistols. Asian sipahis tended to be lighter raiding forces focused more on ranged weapons, later on often fighting as dragoons.
Ukraine seems to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFet6yCeOPk
Russia repeatedly tried genociding them ,so they probably don't
From the same era, Winged Hussars often carried two wheellock and then flintlock pistols. I find cossack aesthetics dope af, I'm still butthurt for what Creative Assembly has done to Kislev in Total War Warhammer, they look like shit now.
>we have bears n shieeet, blyad, look us squat, Russia power!
True that. Tf are they thinking? Kislevs look like fantasy 10th-12th century Slavs with pelts and sleeveless arms in that cold climate cuz it looks tough and shit plus flanderized bears
When they could be fantasy 16th Century Muscovy mixed with the PLC. Imagine how good it could be.
Dude needs a tan and some some signs of scurvy to look like a proper pirate. At least he has the being sweaty part right.
Black reiters used to have 2 pistols
For infantry it's heavy. Those old flintlocks are heavy as frick, you wouldn't want to be marching 20 miles a day carrying those, a musket and a sword as well as your pack.
For a second, it wasn't necessary for line infantry tactics. Being able to reload a single musket fast was better over the long term than carrying 6 weapons that you could fire quickly but would take ages to reload.
For a third it was expensive. When you're equipping 30-40 sailors you can maybe give them a bunch of weapons. When you need to equip 20,000 infantrymen it gets a lot more expensive.
I think also the nature of boarding actions meant that the combat was fast and brutal, you were aiming to overwhelm the enemy as quickly as you could so you could take control of the main deck.
As other anons have said, some cavalry units carried multiple pistols, probably so they could gallop up, discharge all their weapons quickly then either charge home with a sword or gallop away to reload safely.
>CQB: put as many bullets into the enemy in the short time
>Field battle: You and you 999 other dudes are firing volley after volley at hundreds of meters of distance
I assume you mean normal navies.
Pirates wanted to create maximum mayhem to scare the enemy crews into quick surrender and, vitally, to keep them from noticing that there aren't that many pirates. Pirate ships, by necessity, weren't that large and the more people you cram in the less each one gets loot and the easier disease happens. If pirates have a brace of pistols, the first 60 seconds of combat are real loud and scary and the amount of smoke creates confusion too, perfect for getting merchant sailors to surrender.
Real navies meanwhile, have many more men on board and their targets, be they pirate or military, won't surrender that easily because pirates get hanged and soldiers shot if they don't put up enough resistance.
>Real navies meanwhile, have many more men on board
mainly this
Because, as Oryx pointed out long before he became famous, many poorly-trained and poorly-motivated militia tend to hoard weapons and ammo, more weapons and ammo than they can actually effectively use, in order to boost their own morale. What happens in combat is that they either use a fraction of it, win, and the rest is not used; or they frick up, lose, and vast quantities of unused weapons and ammo is captured by their enemies.
e.g. picrel.
Trade companies (which made the majority of pirate victims) were commonly running ships with as small crew as possible, often doing basically skeleton crew trips. Saving money on employees is not a new concept, anon.
Pirates, on the other hand, deployed often two, three times more people than the ship needed, simply to overwhelm the opposition by sheer numbers. Remember, for your typical pirate the peaceful exchange is the ideal outcome. And one that was pretty common, too, since you and your twenty lads will sure as frick surrender to 80 armed motherfrickers.
Generally speaking, there wasn't as much combat in piracy as people think.
t. pirate historian
Exceedingly rarely. And going after the European military navies was even more rare.
Pic somewhat related, one of the two actual surviving pirate flags (yes, their design wasn't that simplistic).
>you and your twenty lads will sure as frick surrender to 80 armed motherfrickers
depends
how much rape and torture are we talking afterwards?
Rape and torture was also very, very rare. Done by only very few actual Oskar-tier individuals, who were usually disposed of fairly soon by own crew (like Low).
It was. Golden Age pirate crews voted about lot of things, had fairly basic hierarchy, and had a lot of strangely modern stuff going on - like the elementary health insurance, for example.
>prisoners
This is patently wrong.
They had/traded slaves commonly, but also as often freed them to be part of their crews. Look up the demographics of Teach's or Roberts' crews.
They weren't some liberators, but they were still a lot more egalitarian than contemporary average.
based and educationpilled. thanks for the info, brother.
>also as often freed them to be part of their crews
that's just saying they were 50/50 freed and enslaved, which is true to statistics as far as I know
>they were still a lot more egalitarian than contemporary average
depends if one considers Barbary states as actual states
otherwise, actual European navies of the period didn't man their ships with slaves, so no, they were below par
>Barbary pirates
>golden age pirates
not the same thing kek
That is the point, they were egalitarian enough to take Black folks as part of their crews, whilst the same was unimaginable for the regular navies. Otherwise, it wasn't really a complex relationship. From pirate perspective, it was staunchly pragmatic - if the man was able enough, they offered him a place in the crew. And again, considering how common it was, I don't think there was much more to it.
Happy to, anon.
>they were egalitarian enough to take Black folks as part of their crews, whilst the same was unimaginable for the regular navies
there were PUHLENTY of coloureds in the Royal Navy, anon, and far fewer slaves
by that metric, the RN is actually more egalitarian than pirates were
>there were PUHLENTY of coloureds in the Royal Navy, anon, and far fewer slaves
There is a key difference between slaves they took as literal cargo, emancipated them, and made a fully equal part of the crew (which was already a relatively egalitarian position) and a colored in regular service (which was, on the other hand, anything but egalitarian). And again, that is not talking about the numbers. Take Roberts, for example. He is an excellent example because he was probably the most successful European pirate ever, and there is also a detailed account of his crew. He had 270 people under him at the time of his death, out of which 65 were slaves freed by him personally.
I am sure that there was some regular Navy crew that also freed some slaves, but compared to how common that was with pirates, I think it is rather obvious.
Nice!
also if you ever pass by do check the museum ship they have.
Can you go into detail about how shitty life was for regular crewmen vs the officers on Navy ships, and compare that to pirate ships?
That is a difficult question without delving into specific aspects of their lives. But, generally speaking, regular navies were harsh for your average sailor. Military professionals were often somewhat better off, but often not that big of a margin. Trade company sailors had the shittiest stick. There are many reasons why the Golden Age of Piracy happened, but one of the major reasons is exactly the terrible living conditions for sailors. But to pick some examples, I think the best is to start with the wages. Converted to modern money, regular Royal Navy sailors would earn roughly 6k/year. There were a lot of buts to it, but this is generally accepted. The pirates obviously had no regular wages; their earnings depended on their raids. But it is said that more successful crews could clear millions per year. Obviously, there was the share system, but you can see how this was an astronomical difference even for the lowest sailor. There is this great quote from Roberts:
>"In an honest service there is thin commons, low wages, and hard labour. In this, plenty and satiety, pleasure and ease, liberty and power; and who would not balance creditor on this side, when all the hazard that is run for it, at worst is only a sour look or two at choking? No, a merry life and a short one shall be my motto."
But beyond the money, I think it was the freedom. And not just from corporate punishments, pressganging, and often unbearably long voyages (trade navies went for months on sea, while pirates were commonly doing weeks at most), but the actual freedom in its original sense. There is another good quote from a great book (Life under the Jolly Roger by Kuhn), cont. 1/2.
>"Nassau reflected both the values and the style of the brigands who made it their headquarters: impermanent, licentious, and chaotic. A shanty-town, a zany collection of stores, shacks, prostitutehouses, and saloons, cobbled together from driftwood and canvas with palm thatch for roofs—stretched in a half circle along the sandy shore of the harbor. The wreckage of captured prizes lay rotting on the beach, their ribs exposed like long-dead carcasses. Dozens of vessels - pirate sloops and captured merchants crowded the harbor, their masts looked like a leafless forest from the shore. In this place, their own crazy metropolis, the pirates of the western world drank, argued among themselves, gambled away fortunes, paid in stolen coin for the bodies of the prostitutes who flocked to the town, and lived in an uproarious present until their coin was gone and they had to go to sea once more."
>"New Providence and its wild harbor town were in many ways a pirate heaven as well as a pirate haven. Free from all laws other than the laws of piracy, it made available all the rough joys that the outlaw brotherhood held dear."
>"It was said that every pirate’s wish was to find himself not in heaven after death but back on that island paradise where the resting rovers could laze in their hammocks beneath the palms, swinging gently in the fanning breezes. There were prostitutes aplenty, continuous gambling, the camaraderie of fellow rovers, and unlimited drink."
You can see how this thing would be attractive. 2/2.
Short list of good books on pirate history / Nassau?
"Under the Black Flag" by Cordingly is generally seen as a go-to book to learn about their life. It is a bit dry, though. There is also Woodard's "The Republic of Pirates," which is pretty good. Or Sherry's "Raiders and Rebels," which is quite fun and fairly easy read with a lot of really good details.
The one I already posted is probably one of the best if you want to learn more about their day-to-day life. The author writes it from an anarchist-leaning standpoint, which can be a massive red flag when it comes to history, but he is very factual. And most definitely extremely autistic because he provides some really good research about stuff that is inherently very difficult to study.
Even Tolkien considered himself an anarchist. It gets a bad rap because it's a mindset that threatens the most powerful people on the planet.
I think the biggest issue with it is that even the self-proclaimed anarchists seem to misunderstand it. To me, there is a difference between just seeing it as yet another ideology (which is precisely what happens to most people who call themselves anarchists and those who are against it, especially with abortions like "anarcho-communism") and more of a political "element" or force, if you wish. I think that if we are talking about anarchism related to the Golden Age of Piracy, it is undoubtedly not any ideology but more of an antithesis to the very basics of the established political orders. There is no "anarchism," but there is a clearly defined stand for the *state* of anarchy. And I think that is a rather attractive and interesting idea.
After all, there is a reason why the contemporary nation-state empires who were constantly warring with each other pretty much immediately agreed on calling the pirates "the enemies of mankind." Like suddenly, there is a threat so great that even in the 18th century, you throw most of your metapolitical ideas under the bus just to get rid of it.
idk, I just think the idea of power being decentralized as much as possible is one worth pursuing
Which book do you recommend for reading about the peculiar freedom they had? And politics if any.
Life Under the Jolly Roger by Kuhn. It's basically a Golden Age of Piracy sociology.
>a colored in regular service (which was, on the other hand, anything but egalitarian)
says who
>He had 270 people under him at the time of his death, out of which 65 were slaves freed by him personally
and about a third of whom were enslaved
Are you under the impression that the Royal Navy has ever been an egalitarian institution and not one based on rigid hierarchy?
Is it true that there wasn't nearly as much raping and murdering, and that pirate life was often more egalitarian than Navy life?
>pirate life was often more egalitarian than Navy life
not him but hell no
remember the whole point of piracy is to enjoy ill-gotten gains and not have to work
pirates usually had slaves and prisoners work the ship for them and do whatever shit they didn't feel like doing
all that "but they freed slaves!" bullshit is peddled and repeddled by idiots
>not him
stopped reading there; you are not a pirate historian
ah shit lad i recognize that flag. i was there 5 years ago on a trip. good museum.
>each pistol weights about 2-3lbs and is usually a smoothbore with effective range of about 20yards.
Might have something to do with the fact that pirates, unlike tthe ordinary soldiers, werent marching up and down the continent and also only shot people across the ship`s deck, not 100 yards away. They were literally doorkickers, depending on overwhelming amount of short range firepower and their armament was only viable in their specific environment.
We actually did see cavalry wearing "a brace of pistols" now and then. Multiple pistols wasn't common simply because they were expensive and a musket gave you better range anyway.
For Pirates, each crewman got paid more than the average sailor and the close confines of a boarding action was perfect for pistol-work.
>pistol
used at war only for officers to disciple soldiers
>It didnt seem to catch for normal militaries
Pistols were a cavalry weapon primarily and they were carried in holsters on the saddle. They were expensive and only effective aginst breastplates at close range. The carousel was a formation drill where a rank rode up fired and wheeled away to the rear followed by the next rank etc. Pirates are not some vast entity like the the armies of the 7 year war or great northern war, they are a variety of criminals that had no uniform and if you have a source that says that pirates all war that moronic get up post it.
it was probably incredibly cumbersome
Far more popular with actual buccaneers was a smoothbore flintlock with a long barrel and distinctive stock, basically long barrelled early flintlocks with distinctive stocks, they had a reputation for being quite good shots and also used them for hunting goats.
Cheek weld stock?
1700's Matielock SOPMOD
Pirates did Las Vegas?
Most weren't israeli enough to afford it.
>literally built to be a cossack larper
>dress up as a pirate instead
Pirates wore eye patches because they would fight in the daytime but when they went aboard the other ship their pupils were pinpoints so they wore a patch on one eye then lifted the patch when they went below deck to fight so they could see.
>I'm trying to make all one sentance posts to confuse IA.
>IA
Why is internal affairs be interested in this?