Drake!?!

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Ebusitanus


Ok...big diference, Pirate and Privateer...A Privateer is basically a privately operated vessel who is allowed to keep the spoils from attaking the enemies of the nation who gave him is letter of marque and no other. Since Spain and England weren't at war that makes Drake a pirate, a lawless individual who once captured is sent to the gallows directly. That the English crown agreed in letting him do his hobby during the oficial peace time wouldn't say much of the moral temper of such a Queen/King, the fact that not only that but that Drake and Hawkins were repeatly provided with weapons and vessels from the Royal Navy plus some monetary help just makes that Queen by all standards little better than them. Its you who say that there was some "higher" goal behind looting colonies and ships as a (lol) efective way to check Spain's growth or equalitze resources...lol..(Oh, man)..sorry but this is just so funny...
Why don't you just call it for what it is/was...they craved Spain's riches and tried to bottom feed upon them by assaulting where she was the weakest, its colonies and un convoyed vessels.
You really believe Elisabeth sat down with her counselors and they agreed this way was the best to defeat Spain?...Oh C'mon
Pirates or privateers are there for their own benefit, being any beneficial side result purely accidental.
On a practical sense the filibusters who assaulted the South American shores were some knid of mixture between the semi legal privateer and the "free for all" pirate...actually kind of the worst from both camps. Pirates they were without doubt since they had no letter of marque provided by any nation at war with Spain. But on the other hand they were never discouraged (to say the least) by certain European powers, oficially at peace, nevertheless opposed to the Spanish monarchy. Those Elisabethian expeditions were little more than organized looting trips set up as shareholding businesses where the biggest nobles including the own Queen had their interest in.

Too bad Spain never fought (discounting some very limited exceptions) back with the same weapons of privateering since Ferdinand "the Catholic" had made them completely illegal at 1489 since he considered such practices as inmoral.
I personally love this instance were during Spain's fourt French war 1542-44 were this French privateer called Jean Alphonse de Saintonge won fame by assaulting and looting the por of La Luz in the Canary Islands. So selfconfident was this guy that when the war was over he kept of assaulting vessels which he took to his home base at La Rochelle. But this time even up there he was followed by the Great Pedro Menendez de Aviles who went straight after him into the harbor and once he got all five of the pirate's preys he assaulted himself the pirate's ensign Le Marie killing Saintonge and most of his crew. To bad the wind was against him and he wasn't able to leave port inmediatly and got thus hailed by the Governor to surrender or face the guns of the fortress. But the Spaniard argued that his victim had been a pirate and not a privateer since both nations were at peace. He could leave finally the port with all his prey back to Spain.
This is the same man who dispached quickly with the French Hugenot base in Florida with so much bloodshed.

It is very simple - if privateers didn't hinder Spain in some way, Elizabeth WOULD have had the arrested. She would not have wanted to aggravate a much more powerful Spain unless there was some serious advantage. This seems pretty obvious.

While war wasn't declared that doesn't mean an under the covers war didn't exist. For example, the USA hasn't declared war on Afghanistan yet, however people in the USA constantly talk about being in "a state of war".

As for Spain not using similar tactics, don't think for a second it is because they wouldn't - it is because England was no where near as vulnerable to it as Spain was. You can hardly claim any moral high ground for a nation that plundered and enslaved the natives of virtually an entire continent. Certainly England was no saint, but neither was Spain.

 

[Ebusitanus]

Originally posted by satan


It is very simple - if privateers didn't hinder Spain in some way, Elizabeth WOULD have had the arrested. She would not have wanted to aggravate a much more powerful Spain unless there was some serious advantage. This seems pretty obvious.

While war wasn't declared that doesn't mean an under the covers war didn't exist. For example, the USA hasn't declared war on Afghanistan yet, however people in the USA constantly talk about being in "a state of war".

As for Spain not using similar tactics, don't think for a second it is because they wouldn't - it is because England was no where near as vulnerable to it as Spain was. You can hardly claim any moral high ground for a nation that plundered and enslaved the natives of virtually an entire continent. Certainly England was no saint, but neither was Spain.

If its so simple why can't you read my post? Plunder, money was the aim for those shareholders and not some etheric Grand campaign objective to be acomplished through these individuals. So what on earth is the hidden military value which escapes my grasp in looting small villages, selling stolen French slaves and capturing unescorted merchant vessels. Then again, it seems to me pointless to explain you anything when you obviously haven't read what I said before, otherwise you wouldn't be talking so much non-sense.
It might not make any diference to you in your 21st century mindset but there was a very significant diference between attacking "Godless heathens" like Spain (as I said before) did in south american and England and all the rest of would be colonial powers would do in the future, and doing the same to one of your fellow civilitzed neighbours.

 

[Owl]

Originally posted by Ebusitanus


If its so simple why can't you read my post? Plunder, money was the aim for those shareholders and not some etheric Grand campaign objective to be acomplished through these individuals. So what on earth is the hidden military value which escapes my grasp in looting small villages, selling stolen French slaves and capturing unescorted merchant vessels. Then again, it seems to me pointless to explain you anything when you obviously haven't read what I said before, otherwise you wouldn't be talking so much non-sense.
It might not make any diference to you in your 21st century mindset but there was a very significant diference between attacking "Godless heathens" like Spain (as I said before) did in south american and England and all the rest of would be colonial powers would do in the future, and doing the same to one of your fellow civilitzed neighbours.

Let's not get too heated here. It was all over a long time ago.

I don't think anyone is saying there was a hidden military value etc. There was however an obvious benefit (given that the countries were anticipating open war ) in preventing some of Spain's ill-gotten plunder from reaching the treasury where it would fund more ships, cannon, etc etc.

And what Drake & co did in attacking and robbing Spanish ships and outposts was hardly "doing the same" as subjugating entire continents and systematically removing every valuable that could be lifted.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Ebusitanus


If its so simple why can't you read my post? Plunder, money was the aim for those shareholders and not some etheric Grand campaign objective to be acomplished through these individuals. So what on earth is the hidden military value which escapes my grasp in looting small villages, selling stolen French slaves and capturing unescorted merchant vessels. Then again, it seems to me pointless to explain you anything when you obviously haven't read what I said before, otherwise you wouldn't be talking so much non-sense.
It might not make any diference to you in your 21st century mindset but there was a very significant diference between attacking "Godless heathens" like Spain (as I said before) did in south american and England and all the rest of would be colonial powers would do in the future, and doing the same to one of your fellow civilitzed neighbours.

What I do see is that you seem to be a rabid nationalist.

The benefit of preventing Spain from profting from the New World as much as possible seems to me quite obvious. I'm certainly not saying these were wonderfully honourable tactics, but they were effective obviously.

Since much of the money plundered from Spain went directly to the privateers themselves, why would the English crown condone such action unless it was to hurt Spain? Look, money was (to a large degree) power at the time. If you removed money from your neighbour, by extension you remove power. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Sure it was plunder, but they were plundering what England viewed as an enemy, albeit an undeclared one.

 

[Ebusitanus]

I'm a rabid nationalist?..lol..thats a good one Satan.
I would rather say that the blind nationalist is you who doesn't even want to consider that the history by you so accepted might have a diferent focus, and that your folk heroes might not be so heroic as you were always tought. Now if you have read now my prior posts where I believe explain my point of view based on historic data facts.
Both of you seem to have a problem in that maybe Drake and Hawkins were more focused in getting the money for themselves rather than champions of some rather taken out of the blue mysterious English master plan of denying Spain of their "Ill gotten plunder".
I have said it before and I can repeat it again. Hawkins and Drake began their careers as down to earth proffit seakers without any other high idealism beside seeling their cargos of slaves in a high benefit providing market. Slowly but surely these individuals became more and more reckless in their ways of returning home with bigger and bigger hoards, which were then divided in their apropiate shares among the men who actually went to the Spanish Main and the shareholders back home who provided the financing and ships plus its equipment, this recklesness turned into outright brigandry and criminal thivery in short time. While there is obviously a negative effect upon the Spanish interests in their colonies by continuous ransaking and disturbing of their institutions there, I hardly believe that that was actually the proyected effect expected by the English "high command" in their geo-political aims to further English interests and therefore cripple the Spanish. Such negative effects, which really never were so terrible, were surely seen by the English crown with satisfaction upon but surely never a an aim by itself when these shareholding businesses got together to organize the next looting expedition. Surely the papists were seen as fair game at one point were the coliding course of both nations was beyond any hope of being able to be salvaged.
As I said, this has nothing to do with Drake being a bad Admiral or not, which I don't think was the case.
Drake became the public person he became due to his success in providing huge benefits to his shareholders back home, among which were very big whigs including the Queen. Again, I'm not implying he was in reality a bad admiral. I can acept and have no problem viewing that Drake and possibly Hawkins developed into some individuals who had in their later stages also a furthering of the English cause in mind besides getting themselves richer and richer, certainly being knighted and being surrounded by the glamour of the court might have turned these two animals into something more sophisticated and acostumed to feel the pride that comes along with their won "glory" among the English court.

You both also seem to have a tendency to bite back with the Spanish missdoings on South America as this would justify at all England's own actions of depradation. I'm sure as hell that it never went through Elisabeth's mind that the looting done by her pawns was fair due to the grevious conduct of the Spaniards with their indians. If anything she might have felt jelous of not having a piece of the cake, and future English expeditions proved so when trying to carve their own colonies in the new world, sometimes in North America sometimes among the caribbean islands. Get over it, the mistreatment of indians, as despicable we might see it today, was never an issue and England would prove it without problems in their own colonies a little later. The fact of the matter is that by XVI century standards treatment among European Christian powers (Protestant or Catholic) would never be the same as treatment of some indian nation and some rules of civilitzed warfare were clear and aimed to be taken in consideration. Once England and France had their own colonies in the Indies you can see how fast the began to fight against any form of organized seafaring crime even when it hurt not them but some neighbor. Such practices were just plainly wrong among "civilitzed" nations and ultimately looked with contempt upon by everybody.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Ebusitanus
I'm a rabid nationalist?..lol..thats a good one Satan.
I would rather say that the blind nationalist is you who doesn't even want to consider that the history by you so accepted might have a diferent focus, and that your folk heroes might not be so heroic as you were always tought. Now if you have read now my prior posts where I believe explain my point of view based on historic data facts.
Both of you seem to have a problem in that maybe Drake and Hawkins were more focused in getting the money for themselves rather than champions of some rather taken out of the blue mysterious English master plan of denying Spain of their "Ill gotten plunder".
I have said it before and I can repeat it again. Hawkins and Drake began their careers as down to earth proffit seakers without any other high idealism beside seeling their cargos of slaves in a high benefit providing market. Slowly but surely these individuals became more and more reckless in their ways of returning home with bigger and bigger hoards, which were then divided in their apropiate shares among the men who actually went to the Spanish Main and the shareholders back home who provided the financing and ships plus its equipment, this recklesness turned into outright brigandry and criminal thivery in short time. While there is obviously a negative effect upon the Spanish interests in their colonies by continuous ransaking and disturbing of their institutions there, I hardly believe that that was actually the proyected effect expected by the English "high command" in their geo-political aims to further English interests and therefore cripple the Spanish. Such negative effects, which really never were so terrible, were surely seen by the English crown with satisfaction upon but surely never a an aim by itself when these shareholding businesses got together to organize the next looting expedition. Surely the papists were seen as fair game at one point were the coliding course of both nations was beyond any hope of being able to be salvaged.
As I said, this has nothing to do with Drake being a bad Admiral or not, which I don't think was the case.
Drake became the public person he became due to his success in providing huge benefits to his shareholders back home, among which were very big whigs including the Queen. Again, I'm not implying he was in reality a bad admiral. I can acept and have no problem viewing that Drake and possibly Hawkins developed into some individuals who had in their later stages also a furthering of the English cause in mind besides getting themselves richer and richer, certainly being knighted and being surrounded by the glamour of the court might have turned these two animals into something more sophisticated and acostumed to feel the pride that comes along with their won "glory" among the English court.

You both also seem to have a tendency to bite back with the Spanish missdoings on South America as this would justify at all England's own actions of depradation. I'm sure as hell that it never went through Elisabeth's mind that the looting done by her pawns was fair due to the grevious conduct of the Spaniards with their indians. If anything she might have felt jelous of not having a piece of the cake, and future English expeditions proved so when trying to carve their own colonies in the new world, sometimes in North America sometimes among the caribbean islands. Get over it, the mistreatment of indians, as despicable we might see it today, was never an issue and England would prove it without problems in their own colonies a little later. The fact of the matter is that by XVI century standards treatment among European Christian powers (Protestant or Catholic) would never be the same as treatment of some indian nation and some rules of civilitzed warfare were clear and aimed to be taken in consideration. Once England and France had their own colonies in the Indies you can see how fast the began to fight against any form of organized seafaring crime even when it hurt not them but some neighbor. Such practices were just plainly wrong among "civilitzed" nations and ultimately looked with contempt upon by everybody.

The thing is that I don't see anything in any of my posts that supported Drake.

I in no way consider Drake a hero, nor am I supporting the actions of the English crown as acceptable. The only thing I really see that we disagree on is the whether it was the intent of the English crown to cause damage to the Spanish or not.

I accuse you of being a rabid nationalist because of your seemingly blind belief expressed in several of your posts that Spain did no wrong or could do no wrong that could possibly justify any such reprehensible actions.

I repeat (again): I don't consider Drake a hero, I consider him capable. I don't consider the actions of the English crown in supporting privateers to be honorable or good, but I do consider them effective. I don't in any way consider the Spanish rape of the Americas as being moral justification for privateering, just strategic justification. I'm sure the English could care less at the time about the fate of the natives in the Americas.

What, in any of my posts, has been any recognition of Drake as a hero?

You seem to have a point to make, that Drake was a scoundrel. I've said the same myself. Perhaps you are a little disapointed that it is no surprise to most people on this forum? Sheesh... I (for one) am very self-critical, and realize that history is always written by the victors, and everyone has an agenda. You would do well to realize the same.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Ebusitanus - I agree that Drake, Hawkins, & Co. were initially motivated by plain old greed, and didn't see their actions fitting into any larger scheme. It was just that Spain had the wealth, and they were vulnerable. It just so happened that the actions of Drake, Hawkins, & Co. happened to coincide with the national interest of England, hence the later national support of them by England and their elevation to "national hero" and official status in the Navy (Hawkins worked in the Admiralty & was a M.P. for a while in the 1570s).

As for putting oneself in Spain's shoes, I would think they would be totally justified in being very ticked off by England's actions, and that the Armada was an understandable attempt to rid themselves of a troublesome enemy. At the same time, England's actions are also justifiable in response to Spain's attempts to undermine Elizabeth, the desire to enrich the nation and expand her trade, and the dictates of power politics.

Of course, Spain committed some horrid atrocities in the New World prior to the time of Drake, Hawkins, & Co., but that is hardly relevant. No one in Europe would have criticized the Spanish for their actions, and the other major colonial powers didn't seem to hesitate to do the same once they had the chance. One can hardly argue that the Spanish "deserved" to be plundered and suffer from pirates & privateers because of what they did to the Aztecs, the Mayas, et al. Then again, one doesn't need to refer to Spanish atrocities to justify the animosity of England against them.

Finally, Ebusitanus, I don't think your a rabid nationalist. You defend the position of Spain, just as I & others here defend England. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Ebusitanus]

Originally posted by satan


The thing is that I don't see anything in any of my posts that supported Drake.

I in no way consider Drake a hero, nor am I supporting the actions of the English crown as acceptable. The only thing I really see that we disagree on is the whether it was the intent of the English crown to cause damage to the Spanish or not.

I accuse you of being a rabid nationalist because of your seemingly blind belief expressed in several of your posts that Spain did no wrong or could do no wrong that could possibly justify any such reprehensible actions.

I repeat (again): I don't consider Drake a hero, I consider him capable. I don't consider the actions of the English crown in supporting privateers to be honorable or good, but I do consider them effective. I don't in any way consider the Spanish rape of the Americas as being moral justification for privateering, just strategic justification. I'm sure the English could care less at the time about the fate of the natives in the Americas.

What, in any of my posts, has been any recognition of Drake as a hero?

You seem to have a point to make, that Drake was a scoundrel. I've said the same myself. Perhaps you are a little disapointed that it is no surprise to most people on this forum? Sheesh... I (for one) am very self-critical, and realize that history is always written by the victors, and everyone has an agenda. You would do well to realize the same.

Hey Satan then we seem to agree after all provided you scratch in above lines the word "privateering" and change it to "pirating". While privateering took place when Spain and England finally got to blows, anything before was plain pirate work.
On wether Spain did something wrong...That is a pretty tricky question since this whole thread and posting was more focused on Drake's and his pal Hawkins' exploits in the Caribbean. I'm sure Spain did their fair share of machivellian politic manouvers in order to further their interests and surely had quite alot of mischief on their account like every other self respecting nation in Europe. I would say that such tarnishing came with the job description
Now, and where I focused my writting more, if Spain did something to "deserve" such pirating...Well, I think that as much as a bank deserves to be robbed by a disgrundled individual.
Satan, keep in mind that I critizise the pirating fase of the Elithabethian looting expeditions and not a "normal " privateering fase attached to a open England-Spain warfare. To that point yes, I don't consider Spain deserved such treatment as there was no way to defend itself from such actions short of capturing the offending parties since without being at war, Spain would have a hard time in getting to aprehend or bring to justice those who broke all rules of engagement since Hawkins and Co. weren't "officialy" doing their sackings in behalf of Queen Elisabeth who kept on denying any relation to the Amabassador, promising him not to let those fleets depart while on the same tokken, knighting them and sharing the spoils. There we have the big embarrassment of loosing the Jesus of Lubeck at Veracruz...Now you would wonder why would Elisabeth try to cover her actions in front of the Spaniards while disasociating herself from them or when caught, defend them as "Honest merchants"?
I believe it is just fair to go or one way or the other, but to keep cashing in the benefits of a practical privateer while denying their enemy the chance of fighting back to the very origin of such expeditions without declaring war is rather very dishonest.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Ebusitanus



Hey Satan then we seem to agree after all provided you scratch in above lines the word "privateering" and change it to "pirating". While privateering took place when Spain and England finally got to blows, anything before was plain pirate work.
On wether Spain did something wrong...That is a pretty tricky question since this whole thread and posting was more focused on Drake's and his pal Hawkins' exploits in the Caribbean. I'm sure Spain did their fair share of machivellian politic manouvers in order to further their interests and surely had quite alot of mischief on their account like every other self respecting nation in Europe. I would say that such tarnishing came with the job description
Now, and where I focused my writting more, if Spain did something to "deserve" such pirating...Well, I think that as much as a bank deserves to be robbed by a disgrundled individual.
Satan, keep in mind that I critizise the pirating fase of the Elithabethian looting expeditions and not a "normal " privateering fase attached to a open England-Spain warfare. To that point yes, I don't consider Spain deserved such treatment as there was no way to defend itself from such actions short of capturing the offending parties since without being at war, Spain would have a hard time in getting to aprehend or bring to justice those who broke all rules of engagement since Hawkins and Co. weren't "officialy" doing their sackings in behalf of Queen Elisabeth who kept on denying any relation to the Amabassador, promising him not to let those fleets depart while on the same tokken, knighting them and sharing the spoils. There we have the big embarrassment of loosing the Jesus of Lubeck at Veracruz...Now you would wonder why would Elisabeth try to cover her actions in front of the Spaniards while disasociating herself from them or when caught, defend them as "Honest merchants"?
I believe it is just fair to go or one way or the other, but to keep cashing in the benefits of a practical privateer while denying their enemy the chance of fighting back to the very origin of such expeditions without declaring war is rather very dishonest.

Well, I essentially agree with you. Perhaps it is just a subtle difference in how we define "privateer". While your literal definition may be correct (I could debate that), my definition is more or less "state sponsored piracy". In the case of outright war, I would be more likely to call it "interdiction" than privateering.

What made Elizabeth's strategy brilliant was the very facts you condemn it for - really Spain had very little it could do other than declare war. This makes it dishonorable sure, but effective nonetheless. Certainly it wasn't fair.

On the other hand you could say that Spanish guerillas weren't very honourable in how they fought Napoleon - it wasn't fair of them not to stand up and get shot!

I feel that the English privateers were an effective form of unconventional war, since in a fair war it was very likely that the English would have gotten their butts kicked (the fact that they didn't in the eventual war had as much to do with luck as anything else). Other than that you are totally right, they were little more than brigands, just state sponsored ones.

 

[Ebusitanus]

Originally posted by satan


Well, I essentially agree with you. Perhaps it is just a subtle difference in how we define "privateer". While your literal definition may be correct (I could debate that), my definition is more or less "state sponsored piracy". In the case of outright war, I would be more likely to call it "interdiction" than privateering.

What made Elizabeth's strategy brilliant was the very facts you condemn it for - really Spain had very little it could do other than declare war. This makes it dishonorable sure, but effective nonetheless. Certainly it wasn't fair.

On the other hand you could say that Spanish guerillas weren't very honourable in how they fought Napoleon - it wasn't fair of them not to stand up and get shot!

I feel that the English privateers were an effective form of unconventional war, since in a fair war it was very likely that the English would have gotten their butts kicked (the fact that they didn't in the eventual war had as much to do with luck as anything else). Other than that you are totally right, they were little more than brigands, just state sponsored ones.

Well, a privateer has still to provide his own means to bring war to the enemy. The state gives the private citizen the permision to wage uncoventional warfare in name of such State upon a certain nation which happens to be at war against your side (that is, the enemy and nobody else), therby taking a inch away from being a criminal. The privateer also gets a kick back from the state for providing his own means in that they can keep part or all of the spoils captured from the defeated enemy.
A pirate, doesn't give a heck who he damages and obeys no rule at all. He directs his attacks against anybody who happens to cross under his guns, making him a real enemy of humankind. A criminal without law nor homeland with only plunder as motivation.
The pre-war assaulter of the Spanish main (although as we had seen Hawkins and Drake had no problems in looting also Portuguese and French ships) had a mixture of both conditions, the worse of every one actually. Pirates without doubt as they had no letter of marque of any nation at war with Spain but on the other side had the backing of certain European nations, officially at peace although not in good standing with Spain. They offered them help and cover and a marquet for their loot in exchange of restricting their depredation only upon Spanish interests.

Oh, I certainly loathe any Spanish admiration for Guerrillas who were in fact little better if not worse than the English pirates. Most of them, although tried to be romantizised by the victors, were with very very few exceptions pure backstabbing plundering scum. Any kind of warfare without a uniform on is detestable as it makes war even more salvage than it should be.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Ebusitanus


Well, a privateer has still to provide his own means to bring war to the enemy. The state gives the private citizen the permision to wage uncoventional warfare in name of such State upon a certain nation which happens to be at war against your side (that is, the enemy and nobody else), therby taking a inch away from being a criminal. The privateer also gets a kick back from the state for providing his own means in that they can keep part or all of the spoils captured from the defeated enemy.
A pirate, doesn't give a heck who he damages and obeys no rule at all. He directs his attacks against anybody who happens to cross under his guns, making him a real enemy of humankind. A criminal without law nor homeland with only plunder as motivation.
The pre-war assaulter of the Spanish main (although as we had seen Hawkins and Drake had no problems in looting also Portuguese and French ships) had a mixture of both conditions, the worse of every one actually. Pirates without doubt as they had no letter of marque of any nation at war with Spain but on the other side had the backing of certain European nations, officially at peace although not in good standing with Spain. They offered them help and cover and a marquet for their loot in exchange of restricting their depredation only upon Spanish interests.

Oh, I certainly loathe any Spanish admiration for Guerrillas who were in fact little better if not worse than the English pirates. Most of them, although tried to be romantizised by the victors, were with very very few exceptions pure backstabbing plundering scum. Any kind of warfare without a uniform on is detestable as it makes war even more salvage than it should be.

Ok, <insert drum roll here>, I think we have argued our way into agreement

I really do think you were looking for more of an argument than you got - you seemed to be putting a lot of words into my mouth based on what you expected me (and many of the other posters) to say. That is what I kept being stuck on.

Still, the bottom line is that Drake should be in the game as a commander, even if his character is somewhat (well, probably more than somewhat) suspect.

 

[Ebusitanus]

<Gives a broadside as salute>
You see, thats what pirating does...I saw your shield (avatar) and had to run out the 24 pounders.

Now...who wants more Spanish versions of some infamous pirate lives?..C'mon this is a cheap bargain...I badmouth them all for the price of one

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Ebusitanus
<Gives a broadside as salute>
You see, thats what pirating does...I saw your shield (avatar) and had to run out the 24 pounders.

Now...who wants more Spanish versions of some infamous pirate lives?..C'mon this is a cheap bargain...I badmouth them all for the price of one

I had to pick that avatar since the jolly roger isn't available. I just meant support for Drake being in the game

 

[Owl]

I do love a happy ending ....

 

[Ebusitanus]

Next installment, Sir Thomas Cavendish and this circumnavigating of the globe (third one, just after Drake). Please read on the piracy thread on this same forum.