Pirates With Cutlass And Main Gauche

[Uath]

I was watching a documentary on pirates the other day. It told me something new about their actual fighting styles.

It seems that a favorite combination of weapons was the cutlass in one hand, and the main gauche in the other.
The documentary stated that the rapier, and/or small sword proved too unweldy and long for close quarter fighting. These swords were also fragile, easily pinned against something and broken.
The short, thick cutlass proved the answer.
For the inexperienced fighter, the caveman swing comes easily with the cutlass. The more experienced swashbuckler however, soon learned that the weapon was more effective used as a stabbing short sword. The cutlass is only slightly curved, ideal for stabbing. The experienced fighter would only use a slash to clear a space around himself, then go back to stabbing.

There's a problem, to use a stabbing short sword well in crowded conditions, one needs a shield.
There's evidence of bucklers (small, round, usually metal, shields) being somewhat popular among the seafaring-rat set, But the most popular shield wasn't really a shield at all. It was a main gauche, a long dagger, usually single-edged, with a protective cup to encircle the hand, and a long cross guard.

Thus the experienced cutlass fighter is quite the opposite from the slashing, sword-banging duelist of film lore. Instead he becomes a Roman soldier, with shield and short sword. Wading in to the dense melee, catching his barbarian opponent's wild swing with his shield and then wading in and stabbing, stabbing, stabbing.

AAARG!

This is an antique French Cutlass.

Despite its remarkable condition, this is an actual US Cutlass from the Civil War era.

 

[Uath]

Main Gauches, of the period.

 

[Uath]

I'm trying to find actual period paintings showing shipboard fighting. The problem is that these paintings were fairly romantic and not very realistic.
Here's a book about the style of fighting I'm talking about.

 

[Uath]

Cutlass from the 1600's

Spanish Cutlass, 17th Century

English Officer's Cutlass, 17th Century

 

[Uath]

Fighting with rapier and main gauche, 1590.

 

[Alberta Ed]

It was likely more like a melee, when it came to that. Pirates didn't like fighting and few were trained swordsmen -- they preferred their prey to give up. Much of the battle was conducted at long range, with muskets (the buccaneers were generally good marksmen).

 

[Uath]

I would certainly rather stand back and shoot. Who wouldn't. It's just a wonder, with the damp conditions, and the moisture-unfriendly designs of flintlocks, wheellocks, or whatever, that they would shoot at all.

"Aye, matie, Ye failed to keep yer powder dry." (STAB, STAB, STAB)

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Boarding was only done in highly rare cases, even in the golden age of sail. It was a risky endeavor! Cutlasses (militaristically) were mostly issued to landing parties who were storming beach or fort locations or gathering fresh water in enemy territory. Likewise once a ship had been captured and taken as a prize of war, the prize crew would be armed with cutlasses in order to help prevent the prisoners (who almost always outnumbered the prize crew) from regaining control of the ship.

I think that documentary was full of it. Pirates were far from trained swordsmen--though many were trained gunners.

 

[AusieGav]

Interesting - thanks for that. :thumbup:

Re the above comments, the OP isn't claiming they didn't do most of their fighting with firearms, he doesn't mention 'boarding' or 'trained swordsman', he is talking about times when steel on steel was used which, rare or not, did happen.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Common boarding weapons included cutlasses, small axes, belaying pins, and dirks (midshipmen wore these and were often assigned to commandeer prize crews.) I think the concept of cutlass and dagger to be plausible, but not as a matter of course.

 

[horseclover]

Despite its remarkable condition, this is an actual US Cutlass from the Civil War era.

No, it is not. It is a pretty poor example of a reproduction at that.

http://www.antiquesextant.com/images/cutlass1860-1.jpg

You are hotlinking from a retailer's site and apparently not even reading their ad copy.

The Antique Sextant carries a complete line of antique reproduction brass sextants, new calibrated sextants, brass compasses, brass telescopes, nautical clocks, swords, modern antique reproductions, boatswain's pipes, nautical gifts, and engraved giftware. Most items can be custom engraved, and engraving usually does not delay your order.

http://www.antiquesextant.com/swordcutlass1860.htm

We are pleased to offer our revised version of this beautiful reproduction of a United States 1860 Naval Cutlass.

Of course, you must also have that site's approval for hotlinking their images. Are all the images offered being linked to someone else's bandwidth and without any credit to the sources?

Take a for instance here as to why that is bad. Someone like Rich Stein that hosts his Japanese Sword Index sees his site disabled once his bandwidth allotment is reached. This is more often because of others hotlinking the images than actually visiting the site to learn.

Now, a retailer may have unlimited bandwidth and not really miss that their photos are being grafted to blogs and forums but even in the site with the cutlass, they note on their page.

Copyright © 1998 - 2010 The Antique Sextant * All rights reserved
All Information deemed reliable but not guaranteed

Just because someone left their car window open does not make it ok to use their radio.

The interest in swordsmanship and the objects themselves is admirable and worthy of pursuit. A closer look at both the sites you are filching bandwidth from and the objects themselves might also be worthwhile.

Downloading images to your own drive and then hosting them yourselves or attaching them to boards (with proper credits when applicable) is really a better way to go. Fair use of images for educational purposes need not bleed bandwidth from the sources. I understand many have no idea but then again, they probably also overlooked any copyright notices when doing so.

Cheers and sorry for a rant but it needs to be mentioned along with overlooking a reproduction as an authentic antique.

GC

 

[betzner]

text deleted

 

[betzner]

text deleted

 

[Uath]

Every image I use came from Google images. I've decided to keep on stealing them. I'm wild like that.
Hey, the post was about pirates. Who cares anyway. let the poor picture-takers suffer. If they want, they can hold their precious images to their tender breasts and cry like little girls. Screw them, I'M happy.

Let them do all the work and then I'll just steal it without giving the slightest crap. They deserve it. They're probably suck-heads anyway.

I knew that sword looked to good to be true. I didn't read far enough into it. The others were all genuine however.

 

[betzner]

text deleted

 

[tedwca]

Every image I use came from Google images. I've decided to keep on stealing them. I'm wild like that.
Hey, the post was about pirates. Who cares anyway. let the poor picture-takers suffer. If they want, they can hold their precious images to their tender breasts and cry like little girls. Screw them, I'M happy.

Let them do all the work and then I'll just steal it without giving the slightest crap. They deserve it. They're probably suck-heads anyway.

That's the same attitude the guy stealing your tv while you're out at work has.

 

[Toxie]

Of course, you must also have that site's approval for hotlinking their images. Are all the images offered being linked to someone else's bandwidth and without any credit to the sources?

Actually, you don't. Once you publish it to the web, it's no longer a private document. Copyright would only apply if you were then "publishing" said documents as your own, or using it for profit. The whole reason it was published is to be used by private individuals, and using pictures in the fashon the op is, cannot be copyright infringement. It's public domain, and if the person cares they should watermark or disable hotlinks. Bottom line is that once you put it on the Internet, it's public information.
If you don't like it, either protect your information or don't put it on the Internet. It's EXACTLY like standing outside your car listening to your car radio. If you choose to leave it on, then once it's outside of the car you lose control of who uses it or does not. If you dont like it then turn the radio off.

That doesn't mean that his attitude doesn't suck, but it's a hell of a huge difference using a photo that someone freely posted on the Internet vs someone stealing your TV. Both of you guys need to step back and chill.

 

[horseclover]

Take a for instance here as to why that is bad. Someone like Rich Stein that hosts his Japanese Sword Index sees his site disabled once his bandwidth allotment is reached. This is more often because of others hotlinking the images than actually visiting the site to learn.

Right, who cares? Even when a site asks others not to do so. Yes, any can protect others from doing exactly what costs everyone more for internet service. Bandwidth is cost (hence Stein hosting as cheaply as he can). Piss it away for all I care but the moral and ethics statement needs to be understood.

Anyway, I responded initially for the enthusiats to actually learn reproduction from antique, as well as cheer the YArrrr interest (but not the morals)

GC

btw

Of course, you must also have that site's approval for hotlinking their images. Are all the images offered being linked to someone else's bandwidth and without any credit to the sources?

that was a rhetorical question

 

[tedwca]

Actually, you don't. Once you publish it to the web, it's no longer a private document. Copyright would only apply if you were then "publishing" said documents as your own, or using it for profit. The whole reason it was published is to be used by private individuals, and using pictures in the fashon the op is, cannot be copyright infringement. It's public domain, and if the person cares they should watermark or disable hotlinks. Bottom line is that once you put it on the Internet, it's public information.
If you don't like it, either protect your information or don't put it on the Internet. It's EXACTLY like standing outside your car listening to your car radio. If you choose to leave it on, then once it's outside of the car you lose control of who uses it or does not. If you dont like it then turn the radio off.

That doesn't mean that his attitude doesn't suck, but it's a hell of a huge difference using a photo that someone freely posted on the Internet vs someone stealing your TV. Both of you guys need to step back and chill.

OK, first of all you are completely incorrect in your assumption of copyright. You may want to read this to get a clearer idea of the issue. Copyrights on the web

Since I am a photographer and make my living from photography, it is EXACTLY like stealing my tv while I'm out working and it is the exact same mindset a thief would have while they are taking all your stuff. They think they deserve it more than you do and it's your fault for not locking it up in a safe.

The image the OP linked to could possibly fall under fair use, but it is in no way public domain, but I was referring to his attitude more than the actual images.

Using your example, a more accurate scenario would be recording the music and then rebroadcasting it later from your car. If you just look at the image, that's fine, copying it to another location without permission is not. Radio stations don't get to play music for free, they pay licensing fees and the music industry doesn't mess around when it comes to that. The same rules apply to photos.

 

[Toxie]

OK bud, I might have a bit better grasp on copyright law since I was part of an Internet crimes task force for several years . Time for some ed-u-ma-cat-ion:

http://w2.eff.org/IP/Linking/Kelly_v_Arriba_Soft/20020227_eff_amicus_brief.html


You may not LIKE the way they are USING it, but the owner put it on the internet, and hotlinking links directly to the picture (IE, third party transmission)- he's not posting it as his OWN image. Anyone can easily find the original picture by using the properties tab, it's not hidden information. IT'S NOT ILLEGAL, not actionable, as held by a federal appeals court. So, in essence - you are entirely mistaken. I can HOTLINK whatever I wish, at any time. If you dont want it linked to, use the technology available to you to stop it from happening (there are several programs available for use that will prevent linking). I'm sorry man, but you have NO legal rights to stop someone linking to your PUBLICLY posted material, if they don't download it, or use it for gain.



If he were downloading the pictures, or presenting them as his own ETC, I'd be right there with you. However, in the particular case presented here you are wrong. I bolded a few words for particular enjoyment. Yeah, I had a legalise fart when I used public domain, I meant IN the public domain - ie in publicly avaialbe spaces that are not passworded or pay membership/entry.

Revelant text:

The great strength of the Web as a communications medium stems from its pervasive use of "hyperlinking"--the ability to embed in one document pointers to others:


Links are what unify the [World Wide] Web into a single body of knowledge, and what makes the Web unique. ... They often are used in ways that do a great deal to promote the free exchange of ideas and information that is a central value of our nation. Anything that would impose strict liability on a Web site operator for the entire contents of any Web site to which the operator linked therefore would raise grave constitutional concerns, as Web site operators would be inhibited from linking for fear of exposure to liability.
The Panel, however, has announced an unprecedented rule that would impose just this sort of strict liability for linking. According to the Panel's opinion, the transmission by a Web site operator of a simple URL,[1] which in turn results in the display of a copyrighted work transmitted by a third party Web site, directly infringes the public display right of the linked-to Web site. If this rule is permitted to stand, then every link on the Web will give rise to a prima facie case of direct copyright infringement, imposing strict liability on the link provider absent an affirmative defense or statutory exception.
The Panel's error arises from the combination of a mistake of fact and mistake of law. The Panel correctly recognizes that direct infringement of the public display right requires "a transmission of a display of a work to the public." See Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 2002 WL 181351 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2002), at *7 (hereafter, "Opinion"). The only thing "transmitted" by Ditto in this case, however, was a URL, a bit of text that instructs a viewer's Web browser software to fetch an image directly from appellant Kelly's Web server.[2] If the mere transmission of a URL constitutes direct copyright infringement, as the Panel opinion holds, then there is no principled basis in copyright law that would distinguish Ditto's activity from any link on the Web.
For example, Kelly makes an image of his photograph "40 Mile Desert" available as part of a Web page that can be found at the following URL: <http://www.goldrush1849.com/thumbnails/carsonsink.html>. The image itself, however, has its own URL: <http://www.goldrush1849.com/images/carsonsink.jpg>. Anyone can provide a link that would cause a browser to request either file. In Ditto's case, had a user clicked on the Source link after locating "40 Mile Desert" through the search engine, the Ditto server would have provided both URLs, each of which would have been opened by the user's browser in a new window.

The Panel opinion holds that Ditto's conduct infringed Kelly's public display rights by causing the "importation" of Kelly's images into different contexts. As the prior discussion makes clear, however, the activity that the Panel has condemned is technically indistinguishable from linking generally, at least with respect to the transmission aspect of the public display right.
Case law also provides no support for the Panel's radical expansion of the public display right. No court has ever held a defendant directly liable for infringement under the "transmit...to the public" aspect of the public display right where he did not transmit the work, but rather caused a transmission by a third party. While such conduct might give rise to contributory or vicarious liability in appropriate circumstances,[3] the Panel instead took the erroneous and unprecedented step of imposing the strict liability regime of direct copyright infringement.
In each of the cases cited by the Panel to support its unprecedented holding, the defendant had himself transmitted the infringing display. For example, in Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Webbworld, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 543 (N.D. Tex. 1997), the defendant operated a Web site that downloaded copyrighted images from newsgroups, stored them, then transmitted them on to those who visited the Web site. See id. at 550-51. Similarly, in Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Russ Hardenburgh, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 503 (N.D. Ohio 1997), the defendant operated an electronic bulletin board. Users of the bulletin board would upload copyrighted works to the defendant's computers, which would then re-transmit the works to other users. See id. at 505.

Both Webbworld and Hardenburgh stand for the well-established proposition that a retransmitter can be held directly liable for violating a copyright owner's public display or performance right. See generally National Football League v. Primetime 24 Joint Venture, 211 F.3d 10, 12-13 (2d Cir. 2000). Neither of these cases, nor any others cited by the parties, support the proposition that those who cause a third party to transmit a display can be held directly liable for the resulting transmission.[4]

Sorry man, but game over. He's right - and you're wrong, even if his attitude sucks .