Calico Jack's CoC burst is literally part of history books bozo
Versus Battle Real life Pirate Captains vs Real life Samurai
- Thread starter Erkan12
- Start date
My favourite historically accurate moment in fiction is when Calico Jack proclaimed "I am the Captain now, Charles!" before whipping out his CoC, shouting "It's Jacking time!" and proceeded to Jack all over Vane. Truly one of the historically accurate moments of all time.
Right here.
Are you going to continue lying about this? Are you going to continue moving the goalposts away from your initial, untenable claim?
Debunk what? You claimed that real life pirate captains historically maintained their status through duels, I gave you five historical examples of famous pirate captains that lost their captaincy through a crew vote (i.e. not because of a duel) and now you are attempting to distance yourself from your original egregious claim after I asked you to provide a famous historical example of a captaincy being won through a duel. You haven't debunked anything.
Well how about that. It is almost like a fella just recently on this thread talked about how pirate captains were voted into their position by the crew on the basis of competent leadership and not on the ability to win 1v1 duels...
Hmm, funny that.
You cannot unironically accuse me of being illiterate after coming to this conclusion from that quote.
The quote: "In the latter situations (i.e. the two specific scenarios of escaping the authorities and how to deal with an attack) there was no time for taking a vote and settling conflicting opinions."
You: "This means the captain was the strongest fighter in the crew!!!"
It did not say that whatsoever. In those scenarios, the crew is just going to automatically follow the captain's orders (the captain that they voted for based on his apparent competence) because quarrelling with him mid-battle would break crew cohesion and could result in defeat and death for all aboard.
You guessed wrong.
I do not care whether the work of fiction you are pathetically peddling is a historical drama or a historical fantasy, it is fictitious regardless and cannot be accepted as evidence in regards to real life history.
Besides, it cannot be that realistic if it causes you to push a historically illiterate claim that you have now abandoned.
I will take the fact that you are now distancing yourself from your ridiculous initial claim as you conceding the point, even if you refuse to admit it.
Are you going to continue lying about this? Are you going to continue moving the goalposts away from your initial, untenable claim?
Debunk what? You claimed that real life pirate captains historically maintained their status through duels, I gave you five historical examples of famous pirate captains that lost their captaincy through a crew vote (i.e. not because of a duel) and now you are attempting to distance yourself from your original egregious claim after I asked you to provide a famous historical example of a captaincy being won through a duel. You haven't debunked anything.
Well how about that. It is almost like a fella just recently on this thread talked about how pirate captains were voted into their position by the crew on the basis of competent leadership and not on the ability to win 1v1 duels...
Hmm, funny that.
You cannot unironically accuse me of being illiterate after coming to this conclusion from that quote.
The quote: "In the latter situations (i.e. the two specific scenarios of escaping the authorities and how to deal with an attack) there was no time for taking a vote and settling conflicting opinions."
You: "This means the captain was the strongest fighter in the crew!!!"
It did not say that whatsoever. In those scenarios, the crew is just going to automatically follow the captain's orders (the captain that they voted for based on his apparent competence) because quarrelling with him mid-battle would break crew cohesion and could result in defeat and death for all aboard.
You guessed wrong.
I do not care whether the work of fiction you are pathetically peddling is a historical drama or a historical fantasy, it is fictitious regardless and cannot be accepted as evidence in regards to real life history.
Besides, it cannot be that realistic if it causes you to push a historically illiterate claim that you have now abandoned.
I will take the fact that you are now distancing yourself from your ridiculous initial claim as you conceding the point, even if you refuse to admit it.
Right here.
Are you going to continue lying about this? Are you going to continue moving the goalposts away from your initial, untenable claim?
Debunk what? You claimed that real life pirate captains historically maintained their status through duels, I gave you five historical examples of famous pirate captains that lost their captaincy through a crew vote (i.e. not because of a duel) and now you are attempting to distance yourself from your original egregious claim after I asked you to provide a famous historical example of a captaincy being won through a duel. You haven't debunked anything.
Well how about that. It is almost like a fella just recently on this thread talked about how pirate captains were voted into their position by the crew on the basis of competent leadership and not on the ability to win 1v1 duels...
Hmm, funny that.
You cannot unironically accuse me of being illiterate after coming to this conclusion from that quote.
The quote: "In the latter situations (i.e. the two specific scenarios of escaping the authorities and how to deal with an attack) there was no time for taking a vote and settling conflicting opinions."
You: "This means the captain was the strongest fighter in the crew!!!"
It did not say that whatsoever. In those scenarios, the crew is just going to automatically follow the captain's orders (the captain that they voted for based on his apparent competence) because quarrelling with him mid-battle would break crew cohesion and could result in defeat and death for all aboard.
You guessed wrong.
I do not care whether the work of fiction you are pathetically peddling is a historical drama or a historical fantasy, it is fictitious regardless and cannot be accepted as evidence in regards to real life history.
Besides, it cannot be that realistic if it causes you to push a historically illiterate claim that you have now abandoned.
I will take the fact that you are now distancing yourself from your ridiculous initial claim as you conceding the point, even if you refuse to admit it.
Are you going to continue lying about this? Are you going to continue moving the goalposts away from your initial, untenable claim?
Debunk what? You claimed that real life pirate captains historically maintained their status through duels, I gave you five historical examples of famous pirate captains that lost their captaincy through a crew vote (i.e. not because of a duel) and now you are attempting to distance yourself from your original egregious claim after I asked you to provide a famous historical example of a captaincy being won through a duel. You haven't debunked anything.
Well how about that. It is almost like a fella just recently on this thread talked about how pirate captains were voted into their position by the crew on the basis of competent leadership and not on the ability to win 1v1 duels...
Hmm, funny that.
You cannot unironically accuse me of being illiterate after coming to this conclusion from that quote.
The quote: "In the latter situations (i.e. the two specific scenarios of escaping the authorities and how to deal with an attack) there was no time for taking a vote and settling conflicting opinions."
You: "This means the captain was the strongest fighter in the crew!!!"
It did not say that whatsoever. In those scenarios, the crew is just going to automatically follow the captain's orders (the captain that they voted for based on his apparent competence) because quarrelling with him mid-battle would break crew cohesion and could result in defeat and death for all aboard.
You guessed wrong.
I do not care whether the work of fiction you are pathetically peddling is a historical drama or a historical fantasy, it is fictitious regardless and cannot be accepted as evidence in regards to real life history.
Besides, it cannot be that realistic if it causes you to push a historically illiterate claim that you have now abandoned.
I will take the fact that you are now distancing yourself from your ridiculous initial claim as you conceding the point, even if you refuse to admit it.
Post automatically merged:
All I know is that Captain Jack Sparrow wins against any RL samurai.
Post automatically merged:
Lol, of course they do if they are ambushed or outnumbered, they are not stupid. But most of the trade ships also have armed security officers and they need to fight all the time.
However, the strongest ones, if they have the enough resources can fight or attack the Royal Navy like Blackbeard did.
He fought the royal Navy ship Scarborough to a draw and blockaded Charlestown harbor for 7 days.
After Lee's butthurt bitchass crying now this ZKK clown seeing nightmares from Moe? Looks like more PTSD for ZKKclowns in irrelevant threads.
However, the strongest ones, if they have the enough resources can fight or attack the Royal Navy like Blackbeard did.
He fought the royal Navy ship Scarborough to a draw and blockaded Charlestown harbor for 7 days.
After Lee's butthurt bitchass crying now this ZKK clown seeing nightmares from Moe? Looks like more PTSD for ZKKclowns in irrelevant threads.
Last edited:
Right here.
Are you going to continue lying about this? Are you going to continue moving the goalposts away from your initial, untenable claim?
Debunk what? You claimed that real life pirate captains historically maintained their status through duels, I gave you five historical examples of famous pirate captains that lost their captaincy through a crew vote (i.e. not because of a duel) and now you are attempting to distance yourself from your original egregious claim after I asked you to provide a famous historical example of a captaincy being won through a duel. You haven't debunked anything.
Well how about that. It is almost like a fella just recently on this thread talked about how pirate captains were voted into their position by the crew on the basis of competent leadership and not on the ability to win 1v1 duels...
Hmm, funny that.
You cannot unironically accuse me of being illiterate after coming to this conclusion from that quote.
The quote: "In the latter situations (i.e. the two specific scenarios of escaping the authorities and how to deal with an attack) there was no time for taking a vote and settling conflicting opinions."
You: "This means the captain was the strongest fighter in the crew!!!"
It did not say that whatsoever. In those scenarios, the crew is just going to automatically follow the captain's orders (the captain that they voted for based on his apparent competence) because quarrelling with him mid-battle would break crew cohesion and could result in defeat and death for all aboard.
You guessed wrong.
I do not care whether the work of fiction you are pathetically peddling is a historical drama or a historical fantasy, it is fictitious regardless and cannot be accepted as evidence in regards to real life history.
Besides, it cannot be that realistic if it causes you to push a historically illiterate claim that you have now abandoned.
I will take the fact that you are now distancing yourself from your ridiculous initial claim as you conceding the point, even if you refuse to admit it.
Are you going to continue lying about this? Are you going to continue moving the goalposts away from your initial, untenable claim?
Debunk what? You claimed that real life pirate captains historically maintained their status through duels, I gave you five historical examples of famous pirate captains that lost their captaincy through a crew vote (i.e. not because of a duel) and now you are attempting to distance yourself from your original egregious claim after I asked you to provide a famous historical example of a captaincy being won through a duel. You haven't debunked anything.
Well how about that. It is almost like a fella just recently on this thread talked about how pirate captains were voted into their position by the crew on the basis of competent leadership and not on the ability to win 1v1 duels...
Hmm, funny that.
You cannot unironically accuse me of being illiterate after coming to this conclusion from that quote.
The quote: "In the latter situations (i.e. the two specific scenarios of escaping the authorities and how to deal with an attack) there was no time for taking a vote and settling conflicting opinions."
You: "This means the captain was the strongest fighter in the crew!!!"
It did not say that whatsoever. In those scenarios, the crew is just going to automatically follow the captain's orders (the captain that they voted for based on his apparent competence) because quarrelling with him mid-battle would break crew cohesion and could result in defeat and death for all aboard.
You guessed wrong.
I do not care whether the work of fiction you are pathetically peddling is a historical drama or a historical fantasy, it is fictitious regardless and cannot be accepted as evidence in regards to real life history.
Besides, it cannot be that realistic if it causes you to push a historically illiterate claim that you have now abandoned.
I will take the fact that you are now distancing yourself from your ridiculous initial claim as you conceding the point, even if you refuse to admit it.
''You claimed that real life pirate captains historically maintained their status through duels,''
I didn't lie, so you lie about this.
I said: ''if'' they are challenged to a duel, thats not what I said that its only the duels keep pirates as the captain, I said only captains skills keep them as the leader not duels.
The crew chose the strongest by seeing battles and fights, duels won't be necessary always, as I said ''if'' duel is needed, not always. I said pirates only respect in their captains fighting skills and their talent in leadership as seaman so that keep them as the captain.
Evident from this quote as well:
''The captain was elected by all the men in the crew and could be replaced by a majority vote by the same. Cowardly or brutal captains were quickly voted out of their position.[1] Captains were expected to be skilled and dependable seamen. They were also expected to be bold and decisive leaders[2] since they made the most important decisions including how to engage a target, how to pursue prey, how to escape the authorities and how to deal with an attack. In the latter situations, there was no time for taking a vote and settling conflicting opinions.[3]''
These skills obviously includes combat skills so its necessary for pirate captain to be strongest in their crew.
Anyways, you bring nothing to do table about why we should ignore Black Sails depiction about real pirates, (which is one of the best out there, you can't find anything better) so until then you got debunked.
Lol, of course they do if they are ambushed or outnumbered, they are not stupid. But most of the trade ships also have armed security officers and they need to fight all the time.
However, the strongest ones, if they have the enough resources can fight or attack the Royal Navy like Blackbeard did.
He fought the royal Navy ship Scarborough to a draw and blockaded Charlestown harbor for 7 days.
Lets see what kind of ''fIctiOn'' states that I was right:
-Time in the video: 4:38-
''Captain was chosen based on his abilities as a fighter, sailor and leader.''
What the clowns will do now, they should delete this from their memory.
-Time in the video: 4:38-
''Captain was chosen based on his abilities as a fighter, sailor and leader.''
What the clowns will do now, they should delete this from their memory.
Moerkek trying to prove his delusions based on one random Youtube video.
If you weren't an ignorent clown like the rest, you could actually do a search on the video if it provides any sources for its statements or not, here is the sources that the video used:
Modern sources
Piratical Schemes and Contracts - E.T Fox
The Buccaneer's Realm - Benerson Little
The Republic of Pirates - Colin Woodard
Dictionary of Pirate Biography - Baylus C. Brooks
Pirates in their Own Words - E.T Fox
And your L
While you clowns trying to prove your delusions based on literally nothing.
If you weren't an ignorent clown like the rest, you could actually do a search on the video if it provides any sources for its statements or not, here is the sources that the video used:
Modern sources
Piratical Schemes and Contracts - E.T Fox
The Buccaneer's Realm - Benerson Little
The Republic of Pirates - Colin Woodard
Dictionary of Pirate Biography - Baylus C. Brooks
Pirates in their Own Words - E.T Fox
And your L
If you weren't an ignorent clown like the rest, you could actually do a search on the video if it provides any sources for its statements or not, here is the sources that the video used:
Modern sources
Piratical Schemes and Contracts - E.T Fox
The Buccaneer's Realm - Benerson Little
The Republic of Pirates - Colin Woodard
Dictionary of Pirate Biography - Baylus C. Brooks
Pirates in their Own Words - E.T Fox
And your L
Lets see what kind of ''fIctiOn'' states that I was right:
-Time in the video: 4:38-
''Captain was chosen based on his abilities as a fighter, sailor and leader.''
What the clowns will do now, they should delete this from their memory.
-Time in the video: 4:38-
''Captain was chosen based on his abilities as a fighter, sailor and leader.''
What the clowns will do now, they should delete this from their memory.
Real life pirate captain Edward Teach vs Royal Navy Lieutenant:
''Maynard and Teach fired their flintlocks at each other. Maynard managed to hit Teach, while Teach missed. Both then threw their flintlocks away and drew their cutlasses. Teach broke Maynard's cutlass at the hilt. Against superior training and a slight advantage in numbers, the pirates were pushed back toward the bow, allowing the Jane's crew to surround Maynard and Teach, who was by then completely isolated.[90]
Teach pressed onward and was about to deliver a killing blow, but was slashed across the neck by one of Maynard's men. This redirected Teach's cutlass to strike Maynard's knuckles instead of killing him. Badly wounded, Teach was then attacked and killed by several more of Maynard's crew.''
Despite the Navy Lieutenant shooting Edward Teach at the beginning, the pirate captain was still beating the Navy Liuetenant in 1 v 1 combat, Navy Lieutenant was saved by his men help in 3 v 1.