• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Alternate Terminology: Naval Gazing, Part 1

Another good article, though I'll admit I can't get over my annoyance every time the Lundy myth is repeated even in a throw away context.
 
Ultimately the "battle crescent" was an innovation for naught, sadly. The Dutch had to develop the line of battle doctrine, but considering how poorly cannon faired against a heavily built galleon or schooner it's rather understandable. At that point, guns didn't have the speed of fire and penetration to reliably kill a peer ship, thus forcing a general melee as ships closed to board.
 
I'm confused by this sentence;

'Yet this, the apotheosis of galley warfare, was marred by the fact that a big part of the Catholics’ triumph came from the use of six new ‘galleass’ warships, an attempt to combine the speed and manoeuvrability of a galleon with the firepower and blue-water capabilities of a galleon.'
 
I'm confused by this sentence;

'Yet this, the apotheosis of galley warfare, was marred by the fact that a big part of the Catholics’ triumph came from the use of six new ‘galleass’ warships, an attempt to combine the speed and manoeuvrability of a galleon with the firepower and blue-water capabilities of a galleon.'

An apotheosis of galley warfare can be considered to be the highest point where it all reached its grandest and most perfectly formed style and strength.

Lepanto in many ways represents this, except that victory ultimately came from one side being able to deploy a completely different ship type.
 
The use of the word Frigate is going to be awkward especially since between 1950-1975 the US used the term to describe high-end AAW focused Fast Carrier Task Force escorts that were large enough to be distinguished from slightly smaller destroyers, whilst most other countries used the term to describe smaller ASW focused ships.
 
Another good article, though I'll admit I can't get over my annoyance every time the Lundy myth is repeated even in a throw away context.
Ah, I wasn't aware of this, details?

I knew going into this one was a minefield because there are many people with greater expertise than me on naval matters, but I must admit I didn't expect this to be the part that tripped me up.
 
Ah, I wasn't aware of this, details?

I knew going into this one was a minefield because there are many people with greater expertise than me on naval matters, but I must admit I didn't expect this to be the part that tripped me up.

It's a tiny detail that doesn't remotely impact your article but the idea of a Moroccan pirate base on the island of Lundy was largely popularised by Angus Konstam in Piracy: The Complete History and seems like complete bollocks to me.

I've dug into this more than I should and it doesn't seem to add up.

Konstam claimed that Jan Janszoon held the island of lundy for five years from around 1628-1633. This is meant to be where he launched the 1631 attack on Ireland from. Konstam says he does this for the Republic of Sale but he'd left them in 1627 so if it was Janszoon he'd be working for the Dey of Algiers. More to the point, we have access to English papers on Lundy and Bevil Grenville was building a dock there in 1631, and received an offer to buy the island in 1630. If it was under Corsair control, the people there don't seem to have noticed.

Konstam claims that Janszoon's attack on Baltimore, Ireland came from Lundy but the only first hand witness report specifically mentions the ships coming directly from Africa.

The calendar of state papers has a record of pirate activly around lundy at that time. In 1628 four french pirates are reported to have rifled the shore, in 1632 John Nutt's vice admiral was almost captured there, in 1633 another frenchman named Meggor killed a lundy resident called Mark Pollard and late that year a Captain Brundiville is noted to have robbed various ships around Lundy, but there's no mention of a five year occupation. Mark Pollard's death in particular indicated that the British residents of the island were still there in what should be the end of the five year occupation. And these Pirates are all European.

The only two mentions of barbary pirates at all the calendar of state papers, in reference to Lundy, are from 1625 and 1635. In 1625 there is a report that Lundy has been siezed by the turks which is denied by Thomas Harris of the Hms Phoenix and a government inquiry digs up only a Mr. Nicholas Cullen who says that 'the turks continued at Lundy a fortnight. I saw the turkish ship lying off the road off Lundy'.

So we've gone from five years in 1628, to two weeks in 1625.

And in 1635 there's a report that algerians are using Lundy as a Harbour and Shelter but that can't be Janszoon because he was captured on Malta that year and within a year there's another offer to buy the island so it can't be long term.

And while other sources do seem to agree with Konstam that it happened they don't agree on the time period. Ian Hernon, in Fortress Britain and the devon tourist website fairyjo both give us 1645, which is four years about Janszoon's death and more to the point during the Civil War and we know what happened to Lundy in the civil war because it was held by the royalists.

We have letters from 1645 from citizens to North Devon thanking for royalists for preventing pirates landing at Lundy. And yet Ian Hernon claims that Cromwell destroyed the corsair base on it that had been used for multiple attacks that year.

Essentially corsairs sources repeatedly mention the occupation of Lundy but they give completely different dates as to when it happened. And English sources don't mention it at all but do mention other things that are happening on Lundy during those time periods. I don't buy it.
 
It's a tiny detail that doesn't remotely impact your article but the idea of a Moroccan pirate base on the island of Lundy was largely popularised by Angus Konstam in Piracy: The Complete History and seems like complete bollocks to me.

I've dug into this more than I should and it doesn't seem to add up.

Konstam claimed that Jan Janszoon held the island of lundy for five years from around 1628-1633. This is meant to be where he launched the 1631 attack on Ireland from. Konstam says he does this for the Republic of Sale but he'd left them in 1627 so if it was Janszoon he'd be working for the Dey of Algiers. More to the point, we have access to English papers on Lundy and Bevil Grenville was building a dock there in 1631, and received an offer to buy the island in 1630. If it was under Corsair control, the people there don't seem to have noticed.

Konstam claims that Janszoon's attack on Baltimore, Ireland came from Lundy but the only first hand witness report specifically mentions the ships coming directly from Africa.

The calendar of state papers has a record of pirate activly around lundy at that time. In 1628 four french pirates are reported to have rifled the shore, in 1632 John Nutt's vice admiral was almost captured there, in 1633 another frenchman named Meggor killed a lundy resident called Mark Pollard and late that year a Captain Brundiville is noted to have robbed various ships around Lundy, but there's no mention of a five year occupation. Mark Pollard's death in particular indicated that the British residents of the island were still there in what should be the end of the five year occupation. And these Pirates are all European.

The only two mentions of barbary pirates at all the calendar of state papers, in reference to Lundy, are from 1625 and 1635. In 1625 there is a report that Lundy has been siezed by the turks which is denied by Thomas Harris of the Hms Phoenix and a government inquiry digs up only a Mr. Nicholas Cullen who says that 'the turks continued at Lundy a fortnight. I saw the turkish ship lying off the road off Lundy'.

So we've gone from five years in 1628, to two weeks in 1625.

And in 1635 there's a report that algerians are using Lundy as a Harbour and Shelter but that can't be Janszoon because he was captured on Malta that year and within a year there's another offer to buy the island so it can't be long term.

And while other sources do seem to agree with Konstam that it happened they don't agree on the time period. Ian Hernon, in Fortress Britain and the devon tourist website fairyjo both give us 1645, which is four years about Janszoon's death and more to the point during the Civil War and we know what happened to Lundy in the civil war because it was held by the royalists.

We have letters from 1645 from citizens to North Devon thanking for royalists for preventing pirates landing at Lundy. And yet Ian Hernon claims that Cromwell destroyed the corsair base on it that had been used for multiple attacks that year.

Essentially corsairs sources repeatedly mention the occupation of Lundy but they give completely different dates as to when it happened. And English sources don't mention it at all but do mention other things that are happening on Lundy during those time periods. I don't buy it.

Mate, this is first-rate research, insanely impressive work!
 
It's a tiny detail that doesn't remotely impact your article but the idea of a Moroccan pirate base on the island of Lundy was largely popularised by Angus Konstam in Piracy: The Complete History and seems like complete bollocks to me.

I've dug into this more than I should and it doesn't seem to add up.

Konstam claimed that Jan Janszoon held the island of lundy for five years from around 1628-1633. This is meant to be where he launched the 1631 attack on Ireland from. Konstam says he does this for the Republic of Sale but he'd left them in 1627 so if it was Janszoon he'd be working for the Dey of Algiers. More to the point, we have access to English papers on Lundy and Bevil Grenville was building a dock there in 1631, and received an offer to buy the island in 1630. If it was under Corsair control, the people there don't seem to have noticed.

Konstam claims that Janszoon's attack on Baltimore, Ireland came from Lundy but the only first hand witness report specifically mentions the ships coming directly from Africa.

The calendar of state papers has a record of pirate activly around lundy at that time. In 1628 four french pirates are reported to have rifled the shore, in 1632 John Nutt's vice admiral was almost captured there, in 1633 another frenchman named Meggor killed a lundy resident called Mark Pollard and late that year a Captain Brundiville is noted to have robbed various ships around Lundy, but there's no mention of a five year occupation. Mark Pollard's death in particular indicated that the British residents of the island were still there in what should be the end of the five year occupation. And these Pirates are all European.

The only two mentions of barbary pirates at all the calendar of state papers, in reference to Lundy, are from 1625 and 1635. In 1625 there is a report that Lundy has been siezed by the turks which is denied by Thomas Harris of the Hms Phoenix and a government inquiry digs up only a Mr. Nicholas Cullen who says that 'the turks continued at Lundy a fortnight. I saw the turkish ship lying off the road off Lundy'.

So we've gone from five years in 1628, to two weeks in 1625.

And in 1635 there's a report that algerians are using Lundy as a Harbour and Shelter but that can't be Janszoon because he was captured on Malta that year and within a year there's another offer to buy the island so it can't be long term.

And while other sources do seem to agree with Konstam that it happened they don't agree on the time period. Ian Hernon, in Fortress Britain and the devon tourist website fairyjo both give us 1645, which is four years about Janszoon's death and more to the point during the Civil War and we know what happened to Lundy in the civil war because it was held by the royalists.

We have letters from 1645 from citizens to North Devon thanking for royalists for preventing pirates landing at Lundy. And yet Ian Hernon claims that Cromwell destroyed the corsair base on it that had been used for multiple attacks that year.

Essentially corsairs sources repeatedly mention the occupation of Lundy but they give completely different dates as to when it happened. And English sources don't mention it at all but do mention other things that are happening on Lundy during those time periods. I don't buy it.
Ah, thanks for the detailed information. (Oddly enough my mum was at college with someone from Lundy). The 'two weeks in 1625' thing almost reminds me of the inflation of Argentine claims to the Falklands! At the very least there seems to be some ambiguity, but you make a case for it being perhaps nothing more than an exaggerated rumour. As said above, that's probably publishable research.
 
Last edited:
You should write a monograph on that- if you've still got access to the sources it could probably be published academically.

The real meat of the research would involve tracking down the source that people are using that claims this happened and working out why it contradicts the English sources. I haven't done that simply because all of the books about the corsairs I've seen don't source that and if I did find it, I suspect I'll run into the problem that I can't read Arabic. So anything I write would be very incomplete.

Anyway this is all very offtopic.
 
Back
Top