Privateer or Pirate? What's the Difference?

[William the Drake]

One of the ever nagging questions in nautical history is how to discern a Pirate from a privateer. History and popular culture have portrayed a picture that shows Pirates as ravenous cutthroats and Privateers as more civilized men of the sail. The truth is that, at a glance, the two would have been indiscernible from each other. They would have sailed very similar ships, and participated in the same types of combat and actions as each other. many times they would have even dressed and acted like each other. Again, Naval Action promises that Pirates will be present in the game, so it would be fair to say at some point privateers would be introduced as well. So what is the difference between the two?

 

Privateer: A privateer can describe either the captain ad sailors that take part in privateering or the actual ship that they sail upon. With the latter, privateers are privately owned ships that take part in wartime activities and combat with the sanction of a sovereign world power (e.g. England or France) that is at war. The privateers are allowed only to attack the ships of the Nation with which their patron is at war with. Any any action with other nation ships would be considered "Illegitimate".

 

Pirate: Any ship and/or crews that participate in the illegal act of piracy, acting against any and all sovereign nations.

 

Now, since privateers were privately owned ships, they were (usually) paid for by their own captains. The respective Nation would not commission and pay for the ship like it would with Navy vessels. This said, privateers tended to be smaller (and therefore cheaper) vessels, not unlike the types of ships that Pirates favored. And because they were usually much smaller, seldom did Privateers take part in large naval engagements, especially with larger frigates and ships-of-the-line. Therefore privateers could only engage smaller vessels, usually trade vessels of the opposing nation, seize their cargo, and thus cripple the supply line of the enemy (One wagon of my enemies resources is worth ten of my own -Sun Tzu) So again, we see that privateers are not unlike pirates in many ways. So what makes Privateers legitimate?

 

Letter of Marque: On paper (literally), what separated privateers from pirates was the possession of a Letter of Marque. A LoM was a legally binding commission from a sovereign nation allowing a private individual (i.e. non-military) to take part in the harassing of enemy merchant vessels on behalf of said nation.

 

So a privateer was a private citizen with a Letter of Marque who went out to seize the supplies of enemy ships. this sound very similar to pirates does it not? Long has the line between Pirate and Privateer been debated (some even debate that no such line even exists). the best way to determine the truth is to look at the definition of piracy.

 

According to Merriam-Webster, Piracy is "the act of attacking and stealing from a ship at sea"

 

So in effect, because of the actions that Privateers take part in, it could be said that Privateers are Pirates, but pirates are not Privateers. (Not unlike "Cubes are Rectangles, but rectangles are not cubes")

 

That would be the defintion difference, but there is one aspect not found in the definition that is crucial to separating the two. Privateers were sanction by a Sovereign power, meaning they could be protected and effectively had a safe haven to retreat to unlike pirates. If captured by an enemy vessel, privateers could have been tried as pirates or considered PoWs. For pirates, there was no such distinction, the hangman's noose was the only destination if captured.

 

Lastly it was more likely that a privateer could have a more secure and prosperous retirement compared to Pirates, seeing as they had a nation in which they could be protected. The best example of this is Henry Morgan, an incredibly successful English privateer (although some argue he was a true blue pirate) was able to retire and even become Lieutenant Governor of Jamaica. Others of the like Include Laurens de Graaf and Benjamin Hornigold.
 

The issue of the legality between Pirates and Privateers has been clouded by the actions of pirates and privateers themselves, as well as reactions by their respected Sponsoring nations.

• First take for example Henry Morgan: by the legal standard of the day, he should be considered a pirate, as his sacking of the port of Maracaibo took place while Spain and England where at peace, and Morgan's Letter of Marque officially revoked. The issue was that news traveled slowly in the New World, and Morgan did not learn of the peace until later. Spain was livid about the sacking of Maracaibo and called on England to try Morgan as a Pirate and hanged. England, not exactly on the best of terms with England, knighted Morgan instead, as a sort of snub. 
• Next we can look at the rather sad account of William Kidd, who sailed to the southeastern coats of Africa to act as an English Privateer. Unfortunately for Kidd, the pickings in the area were not great, and the idea of piracy began to grow in the minds of his crew. Then he engaged what he thought was a French ship, which would be a legitimate prize. Unfortunately, the ship was actually an Armenian envoy ship. Much to the lament of his rather desperate crew, Kidd ordered that the ship be released as it was not officially French. The crew defied him, and faced with mutiny, Kidd relented and took the ship as a prize. While this act was not explicitly Piracy, the English government saw it as an opportunity to make an example of piracy. Kidd was ordered home, given a less than legitimate trial, and subsequently hanged as a pirate, though he technically never committed an act of true piracy
• Finally, we can look at the case of the Baratarian pirate Jean Lafitte: Acting initially as a pirate and smuggler out of the port of New Orleans, Lafitte and his crew were offered official pardons should they help the Americans under Andrew Jackson defend the city against an English Invasion. Lafitte agreed, was given a pardon and after the battle acted as a privateer for America...only to return to piracy a short time later plundering the Spanish coast of what is today Texas.

What the above cases show is that not only was the line between Privateer and Pirate very thinly drawn, but in the eyes of all parties, including National Sponsors, these lines were also very flexible. In short, one man's pirate is another man's Privateer. If it suits him. 

 

Sources: Henry Morgan, Letter of Marque, Laurens de Graaf

Edited July 27, 2015 by William the Drake

[nornica]

Exellent post.

[Jean-Gaspard de Vence]

Bon post et vive les corsaires

[Prater]

 

According to Merriam-Webster, Piracy is "the act of attacking and stealing from a ship at sea"

 

So in effect, because of the actions that Privateers take part in, it could be said that Privateers are Pirates, but pirates are not Privateers. (Not unlike "Cubes are Rectangles, but rectangles are not cubes")

 

By the same definition any national naval captain and crew could be considered pirates as well just by taking an enemy non commissioned ship. 

It's the same difference between gangs/murders/thieves and Military Contractors (except privateers aren't typically paid by the nation issuing the letter of marque).  Military private enterprise.

[Illusive Tabby]

By the same definition any national naval captain and crew could be considered pirates as well just by taking an enemy non commissioned ship. 

It's the same difference between gangs/murders/thieves and Military Contractors (except privateers aren't typically paid by the nation issuing the letter of marque).  Military private enterprise.

I was just starting to think "other than one is in the Navy and one is a private individual, what is the diference in a time of war between a Naval Officer of England and an English Privateer?" Not much, other than perhaps how they will be treated if captured.

[Destraex]

And the fact that navy captains are court marshalled for not taking on even or better odds. Navy captains do not attack the weak. Navy captains are for fighting strong enemy warships. Navy captains are more about honour while others are about profiting from war. At least officially. Navy captains are punished for not following the articles of war and admiralty orders.

[Prater]

If an enemy merchant ship or privateer is in view the captain is not going to have a court martial for capturing it if he doesn't have a more pressing matter to attend to, even if the ship is a lot weaker.

[Illusive Tabby]

Orders are orders. WWII, Submarine skippers on all sides (though I best know German tactics, thank you SH3)..Well, one of the best areas to ideally patol would be to the north or south of the Irish Sea. Merchant ships apelanty, but also ASW vessels apleanty. You, in NA and SH, are a skipper. You are also safe behind your monitor. You do not have the pressure of death of yourself and your crew to deal with.

 

  In real life, you have orders. You have to keep your crew alive due to being tasked wit hthe responsibility of their lives and your nations ship. If I know a warship, lets just say, for simplicities sake, a Xebec Frigate is hunting allied merchantmen, but I happen to see a fat merchant just on the horizon....and the Xebec-Frigate is also in the area...I would rather disengage the merchant and hunt the Xebec-Frigate. He is my task. Sure, one cask of cargo of the enemies is worth ten of mine, Sun Zhu or somesuch, if I take that potential prize, I may be severely crippled in battle. Imight even somehow sink. But if I survive and am then taken by the Xebec...Well, that merchantman was not worth it then, was it?

[Prater]

If an enemy merchant ship or privateer is in view the captain is not going to have a court martial for capturing it if he doesn't have a more pressing matter to attend to, even if the ship is a lot weaker.

[Illusive Tabby]

 

If an enemy merchant ship or privateer is in view the captain is not going to have a court martial for capturing it if he doesn't have a more pressing matter to attend to, even if the ship is a lot weaker.

 

I was just expanding on that matter.

[Prater]

My bad

[Illusive Tabby]

  No appology needed as no offence was taken. I just like giving examples and typing is helping me stay awake right now.

[William the Drake]

Like I said, it is indeed a debated topic, even today!

 

However, the distinction that I like to make is that, in the case of the Navy, their first priority is to engage enemy naval vessels, anything else second. The Privateer's main objective is to seize enemy supplies. At the open of the American Revolution, the U.S.'s only option was to rely on privateers as they had no commissioned ships (they couldn't exactly build a warship without being conspicuous.) These privateers avoided Naval vessels because they could not match up to heavier ships, their only real option was to attack smaller, non-combat/non-navy shipping vessels.

 

Lastly, there also tends to be a sense of "honor" between Navy Captains: when a Naval Vessel is captured by a navy captain, the opposing officer usually "presents" the ship to his captor (usually done by giving the opposing officer a sword). There should also be a distinction between the seizure of private, individual property (Merchants and shipping vessels), and property of a crown or government (Commissioned Naval Vessels)

 

There also tends to be a lot of bias depending on who's talking: if we have an English privateer, the English will definitely defend themselves saying that it is legitimate privateering, while the Spanish would say it is piracy, since they were on the receiving end.

[Illusive Tabby]

Indeed there was. And there seems to be a desire for there to be in game as well, which I support. Some people on occation will even do a little RP before, durring and at the end of a battle. And I wish this was the norm across all video games. I mean, compare the playerbase we have now compared to...CoD, Battlefield or eve nHalo.  The maturity level is lightyears beyond because, thankfully, most 12 year olds don't have the attention span for the length of a battle.

 

  Back to Pirates and Privateers and whatnot. I wonder how the game will start us all off. Obviously with a small ship, but will it be like PotBS and have us pick a career off the bat? Or will be be a young captain of a vessel, an independant for, as we will must start off as a national, right? But as a, say, young British Captain, can one sail to America in search of better fortunes and receive a letter of marque? Be a British "independtant" and yet still be an American Privateer?

 

  I don't know but I think that might be how it will start. Bunch of skippers with no real "job" to start off. But, then one has to say "Well, the National Navies are not just going to accept a random man with a ship into our Officer Corps,...right?". Perhaps we'll be the "Independant" and then be hired as a privateer and earn a way into a low Officer rank? Just spitting out ideas.

[Destraex]

If an enemy merchant ship or privateer is in view the captain is not going to have a court martial for capturing it if he doesn't have a more pressing matter to attend to, even if the ship is a lot weaker.

Think of it the other way aeound.

A pirate captain will not hang around if odds are even where a naval captain will ALWAYS be required to.

[Destraex]

i should also mention that most pirate ships are tiny and the longest career for a pirate was 2.5yrs but that was a very long career for a pirate.

[William the Drake]

I will have a post soon on the uniqueness of pirate ships compared to more traditional ships.

[Destraex]

They are unique because they are really trumped up merchantmen. No pirate ship was ever purpose built in a dockyard. Pirates did not have access to dockyards or carreening facilities. A few pirates lost ships while carreening which takes a week or even more for a large ship.

MOST pirate ships were NOT frigates bit sloop and below of converted merchantman types.

Any merchant prize would have guns added and be rigged for speed.

Loss of any naval vessel of frigate would cause an immediate hunt I assume.

Please do not use Queen Annes Revenge or Royal Fortune which were exceptions in size still merchantmen converted. Most pirate ships displaced less than 100 tonnes and usually no more than large merchantmen at 200 tonnes. Large merchant crews were usually around 20 men. Pirate crew much larger even on smaller vessels. Not much of a challenge or fight. Commonly frigates could be over 800 tonnes.

Privateers on the other hand had purpose build vessels. But them turning pirate was extremely rare.

[maturin]

I suspect that it's an entirely modern notion that privateers and pirates are indistinguishable.

 

Basically, a populist historian's ruse in order to get kids to pay attention to the much more widespread phenomenon of privateering.

 

Sure, there were heavily blurred lines back in Francis Drake's day, but by 1740 no one would dream of mistaking a privateer for a pirate. Not unless they were contemplating an excuse for a war crime.

 

Captured pirates are hanged. Captured privateersmen are fed and clothed as prisoners of war pending exchange. You could walk out of a church in Connecticut and the tell priest, "Keep an eye on my kids while I'm away privateering, father." Can you imagine a would-be pirate saying that?

 

Ignoring all social context and moral and legal mores makes for pretty bad history.

[Baggywrinkle]

Is it a nagging question? If it's commerce raiding for profit authorised by a higher power than the captain it's privateering. Next!

I honestly don't understand the fascination with adding extra layers to the boxing and labelling of such things, particularly not the bollocks the fascination seems to generate.

What vessels did they sail? Any they could, pirate, and any a group of investors thought would make them money (privateer). Drawing from the same pool of vessel types, what a surprise that they should be similar. A privateer, man or vessel, might have been a merchantman and become a whaler. A pirate, man or vessel, might have been a merchantman and become...well...dead. Doesn't matter for definitions - the letter of marque does.

Nor does it really matter that there's a fundamental difference between pirates - who have removed themselves from any organisational framework and sail and fight for personal liberties and survival - and privateers - who typically opperated within an amazingly tight framework to make their backers a healthy a return on the investment of fitting out a vessel for a cruise. I say backers because, like commercial shipping, captains did not 'usually' own the vessel they commanded, nor the goods it carried, nor pay for its fitting or maintaining. What matters is the letter.

/rant.

Baggy

[William the Drake]

Captured pirates are hanged. Captured privateersmen are fed and clothed as prisoners of war pending exchange. You could walk out of a church in Connecticut and the tell priest, "Keep an eye on my kids while I'm away privateering, father." Can you imagine a would-be pirate saying that?

 

Of course the home Nation would see privateering as a legitimate cause, because they were gaining success from it (especially a young nation such as the U.S. who, at the outset of the Revolution has no commissioned warships at their disposal, thus pretty much forced to turn to privately owned vessels to harrass English Shipping)

 

While "The Rules of War" would dictate that privateers compared to pirates were to be treated as PoWs, after hearing that these same people attacked lightly armed and unarmed shipping vessels, such rules might be overlooked (just as it almost always is during wars. The Germans, nor us for that matter, did not follow the Geneva Conventions 100%)

[Lucas Corso]

after hearing that these same people attacked lightly armed and unarmed shipping vessels, such rules might be overlooked (just as it almost always is during wars.

 

 

 

Attacking lightly armed and unarmed ships was the whole point of privateering.

[maturin]

While "The Rules of War" would dictate that privateers compared to pirates were to be treated as PoWs, after hearing that these same people attacked lightly armed and unarmed shipping vessels, such rules might be overlooked (just as it almost always is during wars. The Germans, nor us for that matter, did not follow the Geneva Conventions 100%)

What relevance is Germany and WWII here? Germany didn't exist in the era of privateers. The Napoleonic combatants pretty much universally respected the legitimacy of privateering.

[Brigand]

While "The Rules of War" would dictate that privateers compared to pirates were to be treated as PoWs, after hearing that these same people attacked lightly armed and unarmed shipping vessels, such rules might be overlooked (just as it almost always is during wars. The Germans, nor us for that matter, did not follow the Geneva Conventions 100%)

 

Sorry, to put it bluntly, but you are wrong. Privateers operating within the (very strict) confines of their letter of marque, where jailed (and could return home after either paying a sum of money or when exchanged for prisoners held by their home country). Pirates where hanged. (for a more detailed explaination, read the post by @Baggywrinkle)

 

Also, I don't really see how the Convention of Geneva (1864) or the behaviour of Germans in WOII is relevant to the discussion of privateers?

 

~Brigand

[William the Drake]

What relevance is Germany and WWII here? Germany didn't exist in the era of privateers.

Also, I don't really see how the Convention of Geneva (1864) or the behaviour of Germans in WOII is relevant to the discussion of privateers?

~Brigand

 

Be at ease; the example of the Geneva Conventions was simply that: an example of when "Rules of War" are established, yet there are parties on almost all sides that do not follow these rules to the T. Simply an example.

 

Lastly, I have never argued that pirates, when captured, were not immediately bound for the hangman's noose. However, for the argument that the fate of Privateers in comparison was sometimes akin to the pirates, I leave you with this:

 

"By the Spaniard, since it mattered little by what rope he were hanged, privateers were regarded as pirates... captured privateers were treated no more leniently than robbers who could show no papers."