Publication Date
2011
Categories
Related entries
Irrespective of the historical background, the generally accepted definition of piracy states that it consists of acts of naval assault by groups that may present a variable degree of internal organization but that work outside national authorities’ avowal and the State’s strategic guidance. Though such a definition may inevitably lead to a crucial difference separating piracy from privateering, it also allows the detection of similarities between the two activities. Hence it becomes relatively easy to come across several situations, in multiple spaces and times, when privateers crossed their jurisdiction threshold and incurred into illegal acts susceptible of being considered piracy acts, as well as of buccaneers who were forgiven and reinstated in national naval service.
The practice of piracy required the existence of very specific conditions. In the first place, ships were highly equipped and crew members extremely motivated, either because it offered a chance at easy wealth to ambitious men or because it enabled to lead unrestrained lives beyond the reach of law. Of equal relevance, two other geopolitical and economic aspects must be added to these two conditions: pirates sought shelter and acted mainly in ports and regions where law enforcement authorities were either absent or weak, thus taking few risks of getting caught and punished; in addition to this, they operated in areas known for their riches, either locally produced or arrived at via important sea routes.
The History of Portugal did not favour the existence of significant piracy acts from medieval times until early Modern days, i. e. when the expansion process was confined to the North African and Atlantic scenery. After the Portuguese began to settle in maritime Asia, from early the 16th century onward, things changed, mostly because there were insufficient material and human resources to ensure the Crown’s control over a vast and coveted area, filled with the many and appealing products that enlivened commercial maritime traffic in the Indian Ocean.
Though scarcely commented on, there is supporting evidence in the chronicles and other documents of runaway ships that have escaped under the captains’ orders or as a result of mutinies on board, as well as of Portuguese subjects who left the King’s service to live out of commerce raiding. In this respect, it should be mentioned the existence of a specific community called the Feringis (Persian word meaning literally Franks) from Arakan, in Burma. Since mid-sixteenth century until 1666, hundreds of Portuguese subjects and their descendents had settled and were living in the neighbouring towns of the Ganges, namely Chittagong, from which they launched naval raids and pillage acts against the region of Bengal, at the time under the Mogol Empire control. Since such raids were explicitly sponsored by the King of Arakan and motivated by political, military and, naturally, economic purposes, it is hardly appropriate to consider them piracy acts. However, they’re worth mentioning as a striking example of Portuguese flight from national authority and engagement in naval plundering. The Portuguese pirates had several favourite raiding areas. Besides those located east of Cape Comorin, such as the Gulf of Bengal and the Sea of China, where the influence of Portuguese India was hardly noticed, they also operated near Malindi (in the eastern coast of Africa), and off South Arabia, including the immediacy of the mouth of the Red Sea, where Portuguese fleets engaging in privateering were often sighted. These estranged Portuguese kept a very separate agenda from the national authorities’ strategic plans, but there was no uniform punishment policy for the offenders. In case of capture or even of surrender, those who belonged to the lowest social rank were given the death penalty or sentenced with exile and marked with a hot branding iron on the face, whereas noblemen were usually granted official pardon for their misconduct. It should be stressed that the aristocratic wrongdoers were in charge of naval command posts in Portuguese India and that their misconduct brought heavy losses upon national interests whenever they ordered the estrangement of ships for unauthorized raiding acts. The same happened whenever they unlawfully seized cargo without paying the Crown’s due share, imposing further losses upon the nation; they violated sailing licenses (the cartazes, or letters of marque) that were granted to allies, and they subverted the spirit of the missions they had been entrusted to command and that was registered in the ship’s documents.
Bibliography:
PELÚCIA, Alexandra, Corsários e Piratas Portugueses. Aventureiros nos Mares da Ásia, Lisboa, Esfera dos Livros, 2010.
Translated by: Leonor Sampaio da Silva
The practice of piracy required the existence of very specific conditions. In the first place, ships were highly equipped and crew members extremely motivated, either because it offered a chance at easy wealth to ambitious men or because it enabled to lead unrestrained lives beyond the reach of law. Of equal relevance, two other geopolitical and economic aspects must be added to these two conditions: pirates sought shelter and acted mainly in ports and regions where law enforcement authorities were either absent or weak, thus taking few risks of getting caught and punished; in addition to this, they operated in areas known for their riches, either locally produced or arrived at via important sea routes.
The History of Portugal did not favour the existence of significant piracy acts from medieval times until early Modern days, i. e. when the expansion process was confined to the North African and Atlantic scenery. After the Portuguese began to settle in maritime Asia, from early the 16th century onward, things changed, mostly because there were insufficient material and human resources to ensure the Crown’s control over a vast and coveted area, filled with the many and appealing products that enlivened commercial maritime traffic in the Indian Ocean.
Though scarcely commented on, there is supporting evidence in the chronicles and other documents of runaway ships that have escaped under the captains’ orders or as a result of mutinies on board, as well as of Portuguese subjects who left the King’s service to live out of commerce raiding. In this respect, it should be mentioned the existence of a specific community called the Feringis (Persian word meaning literally Franks) from Arakan, in Burma. Since mid-sixteenth century until 1666, hundreds of Portuguese subjects and their descendents had settled and were living in the neighbouring towns of the Ganges, namely Chittagong, from which they launched naval raids and pillage acts against the region of Bengal, at the time under the Mogol Empire control. Since such raids were explicitly sponsored by the King of Arakan and motivated by political, military and, naturally, economic purposes, it is hardly appropriate to consider them piracy acts. However, they’re worth mentioning as a striking example of Portuguese flight from national authority and engagement in naval plundering. The Portuguese pirates had several favourite raiding areas. Besides those located east of Cape Comorin, such as the Gulf of Bengal and the Sea of China, where the influence of Portuguese India was hardly noticed, they also operated near Malindi (in the eastern coast of Africa), and off South Arabia, including the immediacy of the mouth of the Red Sea, where Portuguese fleets engaging in privateering were often sighted. These estranged Portuguese kept a very separate agenda from the national authorities’ strategic plans, but there was no uniform punishment policy for the offenders. In case of capture or even of surrender, those who belonged to the lowest social rank were given the death penalty or sentenced with exile and marked with a hot branding iron on the face, whereas noblemen were usually granted official pardon for their misconduct. It should be stressed that the aristocratic wrongdoers were in charge of naval command posts in Portuguese India and that their misconduct brought heavy losses upon national interests whenever they ordered the estrangement of ships for unauthorized raiding acts. The same happened whenever they unlawfully seized cargo without paying the Crown’s due share, imposing further losses upon the nation; they violated sailing licenses (the cartazes, or letters of marque) that were granted to allies, and they subverted the spirit of the missions they had been entrusted to command and that was registered in the ship’s documents.
Bibliography:
PELÚCIA, Alexandra, Corsários e Piratas Portugueses. Aventureiros nos Mares da Ásia, Lisboa, Esfera dos Livros, 2010.
Translated by: Leonor Sampaio da Silva