Privateer or Pirate? What's the Difference?

[Lucas Corso]

Interesting example you referenced. However, it seems to be referring to Spanish practice in the 16th century, well over a hundred years before the setting of Naval Action. This was a time when the Spanish were attempting to retain and enforce their monopoly in the New World, a monopoly which had effectively ceased by the mid 17th century.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Mr. Delmonte beat me to it.  That covers the early to mid-1500's, was the same true in the mid-18th and early 19th centuries?

[Devante del Nero]

Technically all naval activity by the US was piratical until the Declaration of Independence. The game takes place is a few years after that correct? I've never seen the exact date.

 

Here are a few abbreviated examples from various sources of piracy occurring within, after, or closer to NA's time frame (and an example or two of how earlier piracy influenced the NA era as well) including privateers charged with piracy. Mostly wikipedia:

 

-- "Piracy against American merchant shipping had not been a problem when under the protection of the British Empire prior to the Revolution, but after the Revolutionary War the "Barbary States" of Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis felt they could harass American merchant ships without penalty."

 

-- Luke Ryan (fascinating story, I recommend looking into him): "The Irish revenue defined both Ryan and his first cousin Wilde of Rush as piratical smugglers." - "Later, Wilde and some other members of the Friendship crew broke out of Black Dog Prison at Ringsend and boarded armed wherries which had arrived from Skerries. They took the Friendship, the revenue guard cut the anchor line, and they sailed back to Rush. Here, they collected Ryan and more men and sailed south-easterly..." - "Later Benjamin Franklin through Torris had commissioned the Black Prince as an American privateer" - "In September, the Black Prince sailed along the west coast of Britain as far as the Hebrides and returned to France with thirty-four prizes. Marchant resigned and returned to the United States after this voyage." - "Ryan had seized thirteen prizes and had considered himself safe from British prosecution as he had acquired French citizenship, and held both an American commission and an American letter of marque. Little did he know that the commission had been withdrawn by Franklin." - "On the 31 October 1781 they appeared before the infamous Admiralty justice Sir James Marriott at the High Court of the Admiralty in the Old Bailey and were formally charged by a Grand Jury for piracy and treason."

 

-- "Historically, the distinction between a privateer and a pirate has been subjective, often depending on the source as to which label was correct in a particular circumstance." - "Unlike traditional Western societies of the time, many Caribbean pirate crews of European descent operated as limited democracies. Pirate communities were some of the first to instate a system of checks and balances similar to the one used by the present-day United States and many other countries."

 

-- Jean Lafitte: "...a French-American pirate and privateer in the Gulf of Mexico in the early 19th century." "...brought two letters in his packet for Lafitte: one, under the seal of King George III, offered Lafitte and his forces British citizenship and land grants in the British colonies in the Americas if they promised to assist in the naval fight against the United States." "In mid-December, Jackson met with Lafitte, who offered to serve if the US would pardon those of his men who agreed to defend the city. Jackson agreed to do so." "In the early 19th century, piracy along the East and Gulf Coasts of North America as well as in the Caribbean increased again. Jean Lafitte was just one of hundreds of pirates operating in American and Caribbean waters between the years of 1820 and 1835."

 

-- "Beginning, in the late 1790s, the island became associated with river pirates and counterfeiting. Outlaws associated with Stack Island include; Samuel Mason, Little Harpe, and father and son counterfeiters, Philip and Peter Alston.^[1]

 

-- "...during the American Civil War, the Union charged officers and crew of the Confederate privateer Savannah with piracy, calling their letter of marque invalid since the Union refused to acknowledge the breakaway Confederacy as a sovereign nation."

 

-- "Great Lakes piracy occurred, from 1900–1930, on Lake Michigan, through the exploits of "Roaring" Dan Seavey." (Way after I know but for some reason I thought it was funny xP)

[Crankey]

My understanding is thus,

 

Pirates preyed on any ship they thought profitable from any Nation whilst not flying a National flag themselves, in effect being an individual ship not declaring allegiance to any specific Nation or alliance of Nations.

 

Privateers flew the National flag corresponding to the nation it held the letter of marque from, it had to abide by the rules set out in the letter. Any ship from a declared enemy nation was fair game and the correct National flag would fly when action occurred. They were in effect a privately owned warship operating on behald of the government that 'hired' it.

 

More aligned to profit than naval victories, they would more likely be commerce raiders and run from warships if opportunity presented itself (After all no rich cargo generally stored on a warship and a lot more cannon and crew to deal with.)

 

btw the privateersman was more likely to be funded by a group of businessmen, placing a successful/renowned captain in charge, who could invest his own money in the venture or merely take a smaller proportion of any gains. One of the Jack Aubrey novels dealt with this subject its title simply "The letter of Marque" a good read.

[William the Drake]

Apologies for the previous source being a little out of date, however it goes to show, at least during the birth of piracy in the new world, that privateers and pirates walked a very thinned and blurred line.

 

However, this source may tickle your timely fancy a bit more. It is a bit less explicit, but it shows that privateers were hardly seen as patriotic as their Navy counterparts:

 

"Though letters of marque made things legal, by 1812 plundering defenseless merchantmen for private gain still seemed little better than theft to the many civilians caught up in the waves of reform and religious revivalism then sweeping the Protestant world...Oddly enough, both the Royal Navy and the U.S. Navy despised their own privateers. Usually, complaints had a patriotic ring—'we serve for duty; they serve for profit!' "

 

The account depicts privateers during the war of 1812.

[Lucas Corso]

A little bit of selective quoting there I think! The article goes on to say:

 

"In truth, the real thorn of competition was prize money. Both public and private navies shared this bonus plan, but duty (escorting merchantmen, blockading and such) meant the public navies could not pursue enemy merchantmen with the directness of the privateer. And every ship taken by a privateer meant one less prize for the deserving officers and crews of the public navy"

 

So it appears that the main criticism by the Navies was over profit not patriotism.

[William the Drake]

So it appears that the main criticism by the Navies was over profit not patriotism.

 

As I stated myself:

...but it shows that privateers were hardly seen as patriotic as their Navy counterparts:

 

And the article is meant to show that privateers were still viewed with a different sentiment altogether, mostly by those they attacked, but even sometimes the parties they worked for (sometimes for differing reasons)

[Lucas Corso]

My point is that a major reason for the criticism of privateers by the Navies was simply jealousy over the matter of prize money. Patriotism had little to do with it.

 

"In truth, the real thorn of competition was prize money"

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

As I stated myself:

 

And the article is meant to show that privateers were still viewed with a different sentiment altogether, mostly by those they attacked, but even sometimes the parties they worked for (sometimes for differing reasons)

 

They were viewed with a different sentiment, but that hardly supports your assertion that Privateers were nearly the same as Pirates.

[William the Drake]

The distinction referenced here is that privateers were not (always) looked upon in a as good a light as their Naval counterparts, even by those of the same nation they serve, as someone previously asserted.

 

Again, I say that even to day, these things are debated. Legally, and within the binds of a Letter of Marque, a captured privateer was supposed to be considered a PoW. However this would be in the confines of perfect situations: British and French sailors would be more likely to treat each other with greater respect due to their common Protestant faith, while comparatively the treatment Spanish would provide for English captives (or vice versa) would be less than cordial, due to the conflicting nature of the catholic and Protestant faiths. These were not the only reasons for tense relations, but one of many.

For example, Henry Morgan to this day has his title as a privateer or pirate still heavily debated, because at the time he sacked Panama, England and Spain were at peace, thus making Morgan's actions technically piratical. However, Morgan claimed he knew nothing of the peace (which is plausible) meaning in that realm he was still acting within the bounds of his Letter of Marque. Spain wanted the English to try Morgan as a Pirate and have him hanged. Of course, because Morgan supplied not only the plunder from the sacking of Panama to the English crown, but also, while England and Spain were at peace, their relationship was still very shaky. Thus, Henry Morgan, was knighted. To one crown, he was a pirate. To another, he was a Privateer. The best part is, arguments can be made for both sides ("Well he didn't know! So otherwise he was acting patriotically" "But this is still an act of piracy regardless because we are 'supposedly' at peace! Hang him!") 

 

We almost must remember that there are few contemporary sources of pirate and Privateer accounts from a strictly pirate source. Most, if not all accounts are derived from that of the major National powers, folks who in no way would have wanted to paint piracy in any sort of favorable light, but would in fact want to promote the practice of privateering in the name of the crown.

To be sure, the treatment of Privateers as pirates was not 100% the case, just as the treatment of Privateers as PoWs was not 100% the case

 

Again, I offer you a few sources, two stating that privateers were seen as pirates (one book describes the time period from the end of the 1500s to 1810), while the other states privateers are to be treated as PoWs

 

"Some freebooters were regarded as privateers by their own party but treated as pirates by the enemy." - pg. 6

 

"Frequently, it was impossible to restrain the activities of privateers within the legitimate bounds laid down in their commissions. Thus, it often became difficult to distinguish between privateers,pirates, corsairs, or buccaneers, many of whom sailed without genuine commissions." -Encyclopedia Brittanica

 

And again here, the case for PoW treatment:

 

"What may seem surprising to many is the fact that if such privateers were caught by enemy countries, they were treated as prisoners of wars and not as plain robbers or criminals." -Here

[max_86]

Ehm, French are catholic

[Kaos]

Juridically correct legalized thieves and the generic thieves. Former limited and guided by the articles and legal notions while the latter by their own sense of morality or the lack of it.
First one was expected to play by the rules of their letters and not harm their prisoners while nothing was expected from pirates, hence they were hanged without a bigger discussion.

Depends on perspective. For some, thief is a thief - no matter how many legal papers he throws at you to justify his actions.

[Devante del Nero]

Exactly. There is a legal difference between a pirate and a privateer. But privateers were never terribly far from being called up for piracy.

 

A benefactor could withdraw their commission while the privateer is still at sea without them ever knowing -- as in the case of Luke Ryan. An entity could choose not to recognize the privateer's benefactor as having the authority to issue privateer commissions -- as in the case of the United States navy before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, or the ship Savannah during the American Civil War.

 

There were very few pirates who meant to be pirates. And most sailors that hanged for piracy or smuggling had some kind of papers that didn't hold up for one reason or another. Maybe they became invalid without their knowing. Maybe they knew but kept plundering anyway thinking they wouldn't get caught. Maybe they had to steal a ship before they could become bonded as Privateers.

 

There was a distinction... but it was technical. Privateers could easily flirt with that line. Even Naval Officers weren't always shining examples of loyalty and conduct. Look at the career of Thomas Cochrane -- he committed investment and voter fraud, and served in several navies.

 

It shouldn't be like... you start the game in a faction/career and that's what you're stuck with forever. Maybe you're a knighted officer in the British Navy, but are disgraced and join the Chilean Navy! Maybe you start off by stealing a ship and use that to advertise your skills to become bonded as a privateer. Perhaps you're an infamous pirate hunted by all countries, but offer your services to a nation in exchange for clemency. All of these thing happened -- around our time frame.

[maturin]

 

There were very few pirates who meant to be pirates. And most sailors that hanged for piracy or smuggling had some kind of papers that didn't hold up for one reason or another. Maybe they became invalid without their knowing. Maybe they knew but kept plundering anyway thinking they wouldn't get caught. Maybe they had to steal a ship before they could become bonded as Privateers.

Without a whole boatloat of sources, that's a pretty outlandish statement.

 

 

By these standards even a naval officer was never far from brigandage, if he went after a ship that turned out to be legally neutral. The courts would have his head, just not his neck.

[Devante del Nero]

Without a whole boatloat of sources, that's a pretty outlandish statement.

 

 

By these standards even a naval officer was never far from brigandage, if he went after a ship that turned out to be legally neutral. The courts would have his head, just not his neck.

 

Well, there are at least two books full of examples I know of: "Pirates of the Americas" Vol. 1 and 2. Though they don't come up to NA time frame for the most part. But those examples exist as well, a few in my two last posts -- including the one you just quoted... :/

 

As for your second point... yeah, exactly.

[maturin]

Having some examples doesn't constitute evidence for a statement like that.

 

You can sure bet that Europe noticed when all Britain's privateers in the Caribbean suddenly started capturing English-flagged vessels in peacetime. It was a whole new ballgame.

 

 

As for your second point... yeah, exactly.

Don't think that I am agreeing with you. The standards are the whole problem. You are looking at things from a modern perspective that ignores the social and legal mores of the day. It doesn't matter if there was sometimes a blurry line between privateers and pirates, when overall society's attitude toward them was so far apart.

 

One man's terrorist may be another man's freedom fighter, but there is still a world of difference between Paul Revere and Osama Bin Laden. When trying to examine the distinction between pirate and privateer, you shouldn't impose your modern-day impressions of the merits and accuracy of the legal and moral distinction that society drew. Even if the dividing line seems blurry to you, one has to pay attention instead to what contemporary people actually thought. Because ultimately the opinion of a modern person is irrelevant. We weren't alive back then.

[Devante del Nero]

Since none of us were alive in 1790, this applies to all of our thoughts

 

As for my statement that a majority of pirates were privateers... I suppose I formed that idea by reading Pirates of the Americas, Vol. 2. It's really just an exhaustive list of accounts and seemed like over 80% of its examples were privateers who entered legal grey areas. Of course it is a century back from our frame, and for the sake of discussing this game I've tried to keep my examples on the forum time relevant but if piracy was so rare by the late 18th century then there being less examples doesn't invalidate my claim... I'm not saying most privateers were pirates, I'm saying most pirates were at some point privateers -- it didn't come with the territory necessarily, but was a much shorter jump.

 

I see you're named for Stephen Maturin. A lot of my ideas about the period come from those novels though I haven't finished the series yet. And while fictional I believe Patrick O'Brien fervently used historical accounts for his books. I guess I'm not sure where the modernist view thing came from o_o but I do like to read historical accounts from the times, and am particularly interested in how people talked so like to pay attention to private journals and the like. I suppose it's close as we can get.

[William the Drake]

We have provided for you both accounts and citations as evidence. Albeit perhaps not a "boatload" but a rather descent amount still. I understand the need to be critical of any information put here as it is meant to be accurate, but for every point that has been called out I have defended with information and references. You say that we need evidence to back up our claims, yet you have yet to do so yourself in your accusation. I see that you have the title "Naval Scientist" and I have respectfully observed it. However, if you are going to argue that something is false on the basis that there is no evidence and then ask for evidence (which is then supplied) then it would only be fair that you provide evidence of your own as the accuser. To keep things civil and fair

 

I understand the need to be critical of information presented here. However, seeing as points have been argued and I defending them provided references and source, I feel at this point we are beating a dead horse. I am currently a student of history, with a great interest in Piracy of the Age of sail, I assure you that the information I present to you is as factual as possible to my knowledge at that I have gone to lengths to ensure that it does not fall within the spectrum of "Hollywood" history. 

[Daneiel]

The definition of piracy according the law :

 

1.Any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship . Action on the high seas, against another ship , or against persons or property on board such ship  .Action  against a ship , persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State.

 

The law continue i will not  write all of it here , if someone wants it can be found on many sites , its never changed much for 200 years , there is small adjustments  like adding aircrafts in the list , but the base of the international law remain the same .

 

On other hand the privaters are contractors - they are bound to the international law , they can stop and check the ship registration documents , their contracts and If they are registered , owned or under contract with enemy state they can seize control the ship and escort it the closest friendly port where the cargo will be sold (on some cases even the ship ) and they will receive percentage of the cargo value and ship (if the ship is sold too ). The crew of the sized ship must not be harmed if they don't resist at the verification of their documents and cargo .

 

P.S. Please excuse my bad english .

 

P.S.S. The Piracy is something that the sailors don't take so lightly (if you are not a sailor you probably can not understand it , but the sailors are society were you consider anyone with your profession as a brother no matter of his nationality and harming your brothers for personal avail is not accepted very well )  . The ages didn't changed the way of thinking  of the sailors even a bit about that subject .

[maturin]

 

As for my statement that a majority of pirates were privateers... I suppose I formed that idea by reading Pirates of the Americas, Vol. 2.

Well I misinterpreted your statement there, then. The Golden Age of Piracy was indeed precipitated by a bunch of privateers suddenly becoming left with no legal prizes. So in that sense, yes, perhaps even a majority of European pirates got their start as privateers. But they knew full well what they were doing, and wouldn't have tried to maintain the legitimacy of their Letter of Marque after going beyond the rather clear limits of behavior. The 'papers,' as you put it, got lost real quick.

[Grim DeGrim]

While somewhat lengthy, I found the second portion of this very interesting, especially the part of what flag the British privateers could fly, and what they were allowed (not allowed) to do with the captured crew:

"... Such a license is known as letters of marque, or, more fully, letters of marque and reprisal. A letter of marque would likely issue if the governor was petitioned. The petition would set out the name, tonnage and armament of the vessel, together with the names of her commander and owners.

Licensed privateers were required to report to the authorities any enemy movements observed. They had to submit logbooks showing their daily activities. They were not to fly any British flag except the Red Ensign (the Red Jack), the White Ensign being strictly reserved for commissioned British war ships. A captain of a privateer did not have the authority that a captain of a British warship had. For example, a British warship might take prisoners after an engagement, a privateer had to see that the men on the prize were put ashore as directly as might be achieved, often through the use of the smaller boats off the captured prize. Violation of any of the terms imposed on the granting of a letters of marque would mean the forfeiture of bail money which the owners were to put up at the time the license was given to assure good behaviour."

Sourcehttp://www.blupete.com/Hist/NovaScotiaBk2/Part5/Ch02.htm

[William the Drake]

Ah, even Captain DeGrim's source shortly defines privateers as such: "A Privateer acts as a pirate against the shipping of a warring country."

 

Again, we must account that privateers, though often employed by the Navy, were not considered as the same rank as captains in the navy .The best comparison I can think of is the unique warrior class of the Yeoman in Medieval England. Yeoman were not considered peasants nor considered nobility (such as knights). Normally, if captured by opposing knights, a knight was to be cared for and (eventually) returned to his host nation according to the rules of chivalry (again, this did not occur 100% of the time). Yeoman on the other hand, were not allowed such luxury, as they were still considered a lower class.

 

In this sense, while privateers were expected to abide by the same rules of war as naval captains, it is not unlikely that privateers, perhaps out of desperation (having not come across legitimate prizes, thus meaning no pay) would have resorted to attacking vessels they weren't supposed to. In fact this happened, and we hear about them because they were the ones who got caught doing so and then re-deigned as out-and-out pirates.

[Daneiel]

Again you misinterpreted it , the privaters are very restricted from the law and their orders in the letter of marque - they don't receive direct profit from the cargo and the ship - they receive percentage from the later sale of the cargo and the ship (if the ship is sold ) - the percentage is again on record in the letter of marque. The privater acts more like warship on assignment for blockade and interrupting enemy trade routes , that was necessary for reducing the number of war ship put for that task and move them to more important tasks.

In modern days the privaters are forbidden by any law - the reason for that is that no civilian vessel can carry weapons - far too many privaters in the history made that step down - were by mistake , were intentionally - the risk is to high .

[PiR]

Hello,

As I understand it, the main difference between Privateers and Pirates is their status. Privateers had a para-military status which allow them to act under the laws of war. They do basically the same actions as Pirates (and the Navy), such as robbing at sea, taking/pillaging settlements and killing peoples, but in war time and against enemy factions. For the Navy and the Privateers this is warfare, for civilians that are not under military status this is Piracy, Pillaging and Murder. Crimes currently allow to Pirates. I wanted to add that all pirates were not always being heavily hunted down, in some periods and areas they were at least tolerated if not encouraged, which add to the confusion. Sorry for my English.

 

Cheers

[Daneiel]

Hello,

As I understand it, the main difference between Privateers and Pirates is their status. Privateers had a para-military status which allow them to act under the laws of war. They do basically the same actions as Pirates (and the Navy), such as robbing at sea, taking/pillaging settlements and killing peoples, but in war time and against enemy factions. For the Navy and the Privateers this is warfare, for civilians that are not under military status this is Piracy, Pillaging and Murder. Crimes currently allow to Pirates. I wanted to add that all pirates were not always being heavily hunted down, in some periods and areas they were at least tolerated if not encouraged, which add to the confusion. Sorry for my English.

 

Cheers

 

That is the reason the privaters to disappear from the modern times , these actions are very close to piracy and very dangerous - many privaters didn't even understand when they crossed the border , they was put on trial and even then they didn't understand it . To understand me - in most of the cases the letter of marque specifically note that not the ship under enemy flag must be hunted but ships owned or under contract to companies of the enemy states ( if my memory still serve me well such case was with William Kidd - he was put on charges for seizing a ship owned by East India Company flying under French colors ) .