Versus Battle Real life Pirate Captains vs Real life Samurai
- Thread starter Erkan12
- Start date
Lmao you clown got butthurt I proved @Owl Ki 's slanders wrong by showing Teach's battle with the Royal Navy and the source states pirate captains were chosen based on fighting ability? 
Comparing Blackbeard Pirates to Hitler? You are the one being brain damaged clown lmao.
Pirates from Blackbeard's group are not fascist and racist, they had pirates from every race in their crews at that time.
Must be the guy with Larine nickname. 
Comparing Blackbeard Pirates to Hitler? You are the one being brain damaged clown lmao.
Pirates from Blackbeard's group are not fascist and racist, they had pirates from every race in their crews at that time.
Funniest guy around
Lmao you clown got butthurt I proved @Owl Ki 's slanders wrong by showing Teach's battle with the Royal Navy and the source states pirate captains were chosen based on fighting ability?
Comparing Blackbeard Pirates to Hitler? You are the one being brain damaged clown lmao.
Pirates from Blackbeard's group are not fascist and racist, they had pirates from every race in their crews at that time.
Must be the guy with Larine nickname.
Comparing Blackbeard Pirates to Hitler? You are the one being brain damaged clown lmao.
Pirates from Blackbeard's group are not fascist and racist, they had pirates from every race in their crews at that time.
Must be the guy with Larine nickname.
Let me see what I've been tagged about.
You: "The only thing that kept a Pirate Captain in charge of his crew was his martial ability in a 1v1 duel!"
Me: "Pirate Captains were not selected by their crew solely on the basis of their duelling abilities, they were selected on their ability to lead their men into acquiring loot. Here are five examples of Pirate Captains that lost/gained captaincies because of their leadership failures leading to lack of loot and being voted out for it, nothing to do with duels. Can you provide a famous example of a Pirate Captain losing his captaincy because of a duel?"
You: "Look! Look! Blackbeard fought a random Royal Navy lieutenant that ambushed his ship and won before getting killed by random nobodies!"
So still no examples of Captaincies being lost and won through duels then like you initially claimed before abandoning said untenable claim? Lol. Also, I have no idea why you are bragging about Maynard's duelling defeat to Teach because outside of being responsible for Blackbeard's demise, the bloke was an absolute nobody. He was not famous for his duelling ability or as an officer nor as some career pirate hunter.
Even the video you posted by a hobbyist YouTuber as "debunking" me only listed fighting (not necessarily duelling) as one of a multitude of metrics, not the "only thing" like you claimed in this post.
https://worstgen.alwaysdata.net/for...ains-vs-real-life-samurai.55910/#post-5351812
Even worse for you, the video states at the 5:53 mark "I have never heard of any candidates duelling for control over a company. That seems to largely be an invention of Howard Pyle (a mid 19th to early 20th century children's novelist) and his famous painting Who shall be Captain."
Congratulations, you posted a video that completely debunks your own point about pirate duels.
While we are on the subject of this video, let us look at some of the sources it uses because it is clear that you haven't bothered to do so.
At least two of the sources, The Buccaneer's Realm by Benerson Little and The Republic of Pirates by Colin Woodard both make an absolute hard distinction between the "Pirates" at the tail end of the Golden Age of Piracy and the "Buccaneers" at the beginning and middle of the period though they do so for different reasons.
Colin Woodard seems to only consider the period from 1715 to 1725 to be the actual Golden Age of Piracy, so he considers the Buccaneering Age to be completely separate altogether. He also considers pirates to only be pirates if they started out as being regarded as criminals by all nations, so he excludes buccaneers and privateers from being considered pirates at all and considers them to be naval mercenaries. He even excludes William Kidd as he was a privateer that turned pirate "accidentally".
If you think that I've been slanderous towards your favourite boy Teach, Benerson Little is far more dismissive and savage by comparison as he refers to Blackbeard's generation of pirates as the "bastard progeny" of the Buccaneers and lumps together Blackbeard (your only example so far of a "strong" captain) with Calico Jack, a pirate captain that you've been dismissive of in this thread due to his portrayal in a TV series.
All this is to say that you have completely fucked over the claims in your initial post about "ex-military pirates" to attempt prove why 18th century pirate captains should be considered stronger than samurai in a duel by using sources that make absolute hard distinctions. One source claims that Blackbeard's generation were essentially a gaggle of pussies while the other one claims that buccaneers/privateers were too formally recognised to be true pirates.
So congratulations, between the contents of the video and the sources said video uses, you have managed to undermine or flat out debunk every single one of the arguments you made on Post #9 of this thread.
P.S. it is funny to go on about the duelling ability of pirate captains when the measure of success that pirate captains were judged by was how much loot and ships they acquired while the samurai actually had a honorary title given to an exceptional, once in a lifetime swordsman of legendary skill in the Kensei or Sword Saint. These blokes (such as Miyamoto Musashi and Tsukahara Bokuden) were actual dedicated duellists. Below the sword saints were still highly regarded sword masters and duellists such as Ito Ittosai Kagehisa and Kamiizumi Nobutsuna. It is far easier to pin down samurai of great duelling ability than pirate captains of notable duelling ability because the former actually had duelling matches while the success of the latter wasn't judged on duelling ability at all.
@zenox didn't compare the Blackbeard Pirates to Hitler at all and the fact that you think he did just proves why any accusations of illiteracy that you throw at others should only be taken as hilariously ironic.
Lmao you clown got butthurt I proved @Owl Ki 's slanders wrong by showing Teach's battle with the Royal Navy and the source states pirate captains were chosen based on fighting ability?
Me: "Pirate Captains were not selected by their crew solely on the basis of their duelling abilities, they were selected on their ability to lead their men into acquiring loot. Here are five examples of Pirate Captains that lost/gained captaincies because of their leadership failures leading to lack of loot and being voted out for it, nothing to do with duels. Can you provide a famous example of a Pirate Captain losing his captaincy because of a duel?"
You: "Look! Look! Blackbeard fought a random Royal Navy lieutenant that ambushed his ship and won before getting killed by random nobodies!"
So still no examples of Captaincies being lost and won through duels then like you initially claimed before abandoning said untenable claim? Lol. Also, I have no idea why you are bragging about Maynard's duelling defeat to Teach because outside of being responsible for Blackbeard's demise, the bloke was an absolute nobody. He was not famous for his duelling ability or as an officer nor as some career pirate hunter.
Even the video you posted by a hobbyist YouTuber as "debunking" me only listed fighting (not necessarily duelling) as one of a multitude of metrics, not the "only thing" like you claimed in this post.
https://worstgen.alwaysdata.net/for...ains-vs-real-life-samurai.55910/#post-5351812
Even worse for you, the video states at the 5:53 mark "I have never heard of any candidates duelling for control over a company. That seems to largely be an invention of Howard Pyle (a mid 19th to early 20th century children's novelist) and his famous painting Who shall be Captain."
Congratulations, you posted a video that completely debunks your own point about pirate duels.
While we are on the subject of this video, let us look at some of the sources it uses because it is clear that you haven't bothered to do so.
At least two of the sources, The Buccaneer's Realm by Benerson Little and The Republic of Pirates by Colin Woodard both make an absolute hard distinction between the "Pirates" at the tail end of the Golden Age of Piracy and the "Buccaneers" at the beginning and middle of the period though they do so for different reasons.
Colin Woodard seems to only consider the period from 1715 to 1725 to be the actual Golden Age of Piracy, so he considers the Buccaneering Age to be completely separate altogether. He also considers pirates to only be pirates if they started out as being regarded as criminals by all nations, so he excludes buccaneers and privateers from being considered pirates at all and considers them to be naval mercenaries. He even excludes William Kidd as he was a privateer that turned pirate "accidentally".
So congratulations, between the contents of the video and the sources said video uses, you have managed to undermine or flat out debunk every single one of the arguments you made on Post #9 of this thread.
P.S. it is funny to go on about the duelling ability of pirate captains when the measure of success that pirate captains were judged by was how much loot and ships they acquired while the samurai actually had a honorary title given to an exceptional, once in a lifetime swordsman of legendary skill in the Kensei or Sword Saint. These blokes (such as Miyamoto Musashi and Tsukahara Bokuden) were actual dedicated duellists. Below the sword saints were still highly regarded sword masters and duellists such as Ito Ittosai Kagehisa and Kamiizumi Nobutsuna. It is far easier to pin down samurai of great duelling ability than pirate captains of notable duelling ability because the former actually had duelling matches while the success of the latter wasn't judged on duelling ability at all.
@zenox didn't compare the Blackbeard Pirates to Hitler at all and the fact that you think he did just proves why any accusations of illiteracy that you throw at others should only be taken as hilariously ironic.
Let me see what I've been tagged about.
You: "The only thing that kept a Pirate Captain in charge of his crew was his martial ability in a 1v1 duel!"
Me: "Pirate Captains were not selected by their crew solely on the basis of their duelling abilities, they were selected on their ability to lead their men into acquiring loot. Here are five examples of Pirate Captains that lost/gained captaincies because of their leadership failures leading to lack of loot and being voted out for it, nothing to do with duels. Can you provide a famous example of a Pirate Captain losing his captaincy because of a duel?"
You: "Look! Look! Blackbeard fought a random Royal Navy lieutenant that ambushed his ship and won before getting killed by random nobodies!"
So still no examples of Captaincies being lost and won through duels then like you initially claimed before abandoning said untenable claim? Lol. Also, I have no idea why you are bragging about Maynard's duelling defeat to Teach because outside of being responsible for Blackbeard's demise, the bloke was an absolute nobody. He was not famous for his duelling ability or as an officer nor as some career pirate hunter.
Even the video you posted by a hobbyist YouTuber as "debunking" me only listed fighting (not necessarily duelling) as one of a multitude of metrics, not the "only thing" like you claimed in this post.
https://worstgen.alwaysdata.net/for...ains-vs-real-life-samurai.55910/#post-5351812
Even worse for you, the video states at the 5:53 mark "I have never heard of any candidates duelling for control over a company. That seems to largely be an invention of Howard Pyle (a mid 19th to early 20th century children's novelist) and his famous painting Who shall be Captain."
Congratulations, you posted a video that completely debunks your own point about pirate duels.
While we are on the subject of this video, let us look at some of the sources it uses because it is clear that you haven't bothered to do so.
At least two of the sources, The Buccaneer's Realm by Benerson Little and The Republic of Pirates by Colin Woodard both make an absolute hard distinction between the "Pirates" at the tail end of the Golden Age of Piracy and the "Buccaneers" at the beginning and middle of the period though they do so for different reasons.
Colin Woodard seems to only consider the period from 1715 to 1725 to be the actual Golden Age of Piracy, so he considers the Buccaneering Age to be completely separate altogether. He also considers pirates to only be pirates if they started out as being regarded as criminals by all nations, so he excludes buccaneers and privateers from being considered pirates at all and considers them to be naval mercenaries. He even excludes William Kidd as he was a privateer that turned pirate "accidentally".
If you think that I've been slanderous towards your favourite boy Teach, Benerson Little is far more dismissive and savage by comparison as he refers to Blackbeard's generation of pirates as the "bastard progeny" of the Buccaneers and lumps together Blackbeard (your only example so far of a "strong" captain) with Calico Jack, a pirate captain that you've been dismissive of in this thread due to his portrayal in a TV series.
All this is to say that you have completely fucked over the claims in your initial post about "ex-military pirates" to attempt prove why 18th century pirate captains should be considered stronger than samurai in a duel by using sources that make absolute hard distinctions. One source claims that Blackbeard's generation were essentially a gaggle of pussies while the other one claims that buccaneers/privateers were too formally recognised to be true pirates.
So congratulations, between the contents of the video and the sources said video uses, you have managed to undermine or flat out debunk every single one of the arguments you made on Post #9 of this thread.
P.S. it is funny to go on about the duelling ability of pirate captains when the measure of success that pirate captains were judged by was how much loot and ships they acquired while the samurai actually had a honorary title given to an exceptional, once in a lifetime swordsman of legendary skill in the Kensei or Sword Saint. These blokes (such as Miyamoto Musashi and Tsukahara Bokuden) were actual dedicated duellists. Below the sword saints were still highly regarded sword masters and duellists such as Ito Ittosai Kagehisa and Kamiizumi Nobutsuna. It is far easier to pin down samurai of great duelling ability than pirate captains of notable duelling ability because the former actually had duelling matches while the success of the latter wasn't judged on duelling ability at all.
.
You: "The only thing that kept a Pirate Captain in charge of his crew was his martial ability in a 1v1 duel!"
Me: "Pirate Captains were not selected by their crew solely on the basis of their duelling abilities, they were selected on their ability to lead their men into acquiring loot. Here are five examples of Pirate Captains that lost/gained captaincies because of their leadership failures leading to lack of loot and being voted out for it, nothing to do with duels. Can you provide a famous example of a Pirate Captain losing his captaincy because of a duel?"
You: "Look! Look! Blackbeard fought a random Royal Navy lieutenant that ambushed his ship and won before getting killed by random nobodies!"
So still no examples of Captaincies being lost and won through duels then like you initially claimed before abandoning said untenable claim? Lol. Also, I have no idea why you are bragging about Maynard's duelling defeat to Teach because outside of being responsible for Blackbeard's demise, the bloke was an absolute nobody. He was not famous for his duelling ability or as an officer nor as some career pirate hunter.
Even the video you posted by a hobbyist YouTuber as "debunking" me only listed fighting (not necessarily duelling) as one of a multitude of metrics, not the "only thing" like you claimed in this post.
https://worstgen.alwaysdata.net/for...ains-vs-real-life-samurai.55910/#post-5351812
Even worse for you, the video states at the 5:53 mark "I have never heard of any candidates duelling for control over a company. That seems to largely be an invention of Howard Pyle (a mid 19th to early 20th century children's novelist) and his famous painting Who shall be Captain."
Congratulations, you posted a video that completely debunks your own point about pirate duels.
While we are on the subject of this video, let us look at some of the sources it uses because it is clear that you haven't bothered to do so.
At least two of the sources, The Buccaneer's Realm by Benerson Little and The Republic of Pirates by Colin Woodard both make an absolute hard distinction between the "Pirates" at the tail end of the Golden Age of Piracy and the "Buccaneers" at the beginning and middle of the period though they do so for different reasons.
Colin Woodard seems to only consider the period from 1715 to 1725 to be the actual Golden Age of Piracy, so he considers the Buccaneering Age to be completely separate altogether. He also considers pirates to only be pirates if they started out as being regarded as criminals by all nations, so he excludes buccaneers and privateers from being considered pirates at all and considers them to be naval mercenaries. He even excludes William Kidd as he was a privateer that turned pirate "accidentally".
So congratulations, between the contents of the video and the sources said video uses, you have managed to undermine or flat out debunk every single one of the arguments you made on Post #9 of this thread.
P.S. it is funny to go on about the duelling ability of pirate captains when the measure of success that pirate captains were judged by was how much loot and ships they acquired while the samurai actually had a honorary title given to an exceptional, once in a lifetime swordsman of legendary skill in the Kensei or Sword Saint. These blokes (such as Miyamoto Musashi and Tsukahara Bokuden) were actual dedicated duellists. Below the sword saints were still highly regarded sword masters and duellists such as Ito Ittosai Kagehisa and Kamiizumi Nobutsuna. It is far easier to pin down samurai of great duelling ability than pirate captains of notable duelling ability because the former actually had duelling matches while the success of the latter wasn't judged on duelling ability at all.
.
Why you keep lying about what I said?
This is what I said earlier, which you keep lying about this;
''The only thing that keeps Pirate Captains as the captain of those wild criminals is their fighting power, its not military where they need to listen orders based on rank and respect.''
I said 'Fighting power' not 1 v 1 duel.
''Fighting power'' is open to interpretation.
Fighting power doesn't just mean 1 v 1 combat, it also means leading their men in fights with any other method you can imagine, through being a good commander or sailor, good tactician, so they would beat the armed merchant ships or defend themselves vs Navy soldiers when they are attacked, or when even they attack the Navy.
Now you can keep lying about this duel stuff because thats the only thing to save your butt, I specifically said ''if'' there was a duel, not there should be.
And you just try to undermine the sources of the video that states ''pirate captains chosen based on fighting ability''
That literally destroyed you......
' "Look! Look! Blackbeard fought a random Royal Navy lieutenant that ambushed his ship and won before getting killed by random nobodies!''
Now you know you got debunked, you try to undermine the feat.
Maynard not only ambushed Teach, he was lucky to shoot him with a pistol during the initial clash.
However, despite getting shot, Teach still beating Maynard in 1 v 1 shows his high level fighting capabilities.
They literally found Blackbeard with 5 pistol wounds, 20 sword cuts.
The guy was beating Navy liuetenant in 1 v 1, other Navy soldiers saves him, unless you believe most of the shots he took was after he dead (which would be pointless) Edward Teach had a monstrous endurance to win a fight vs a trained Navy soldier who ambushed him.
Thats an exceptional fighter who is a pirate captain.
Yes he did, there are levels to being a criminal. And naming Hitler here is just being retarded and also being a little snake as I know most ZKKclowns are snake like zenox.
Comparing former privateers who were literally told by governments to attack merchant ships of other countries, and then they simply tell them don't do that now, and they still continued to do what 'they were told do' before. Thats their crime according to government politics.
They were even granted those Pirates official pardons from different governments from time to time, and this little clown here names Hitler, to exaggerate the crimes those pirates committed according to some government lmao.
Now you know I am right you got butthurt to defend this clown who talking about Hitler lmao.
This little liar alt clown still here and licking boots?
I bet you ZKKbitch didn't even read any of the posts lmao.
Didn't I debunk your ass like millions of times in episode thread you little clown? Your butthurt so big you come here to lick boots I guess.
This kind of ALT clowns backs this guy up.
Let me see what I've been tagged about.
You: "The only thing that kept a Pirate Captain in charge of his crew was his martial ability in a 1v1 duel!"
Me: "Pirate Captains were not selected by their crew solely on the basis of their duelling abilities, they were selected on their ability to lead their men into acquiring loot. Here are five examples of Pirate Captains that lost/gained captaincies because of their leadership failures leading to lack of loot and being voted out for it, nothing to do with duels. Can you provide a famous example of a Pirate Captain losing his captaincy because of a duel?"
You: "Look! Look! Blackbeard fought a random Royal Navy lieutenant that ambushed his ship and won before getting killed by random nobodies!"
So still no examples of Captaincies being lost and won through duels then like you initially claimed before abandoning said untenable claim? Lol. Also, I have no idea why you are bragging about Maynard's duelling defeat to Teach because outside of being responsible for Blackbeard's demise, the bloke was an absolute nobody. He was not famous for his duelling ability or as an officer nor as some career pirate hunter.
Even the video you posted by a hobbyist YouTuber as "debunking" me only listed fighting (not necessarily duelling) as one of a multitude of metrics, not the "only thing" like you claimed in this post.
https://worstgen.alwaysdata.net/for...ains-vs-real-life-samurai.55910/#post-5351812
Even worse for you, the video states at the 5:53 mark "I have never heard of any candidates duelling for control over a company. That seems to largely be an invention of Howard Pyle (a mid 19th to early 20th century children's novelist) and his famous painting Who shall be Captain."
Congratulations, you posted a video that completely debunks your own point about pirate duels.
While we are on the subject of this video, let us look at some of the sources it uses because it is clear that you haven't bothered to do so.
At least two of the sources, The Buccaneer's Realm by Benerson Little and The Republic of Pirates by Colin Woodard both make an absolute hard distinction between the "Pirates" at the tail end of the Golden Age of Piracy and the "Buccaneers" at the beginning and middle of the period though they do so for different reasons.
Colin Woodard seems to only consider the period from 1715 to 1725 to be the actual Golden Age of Piracy, so he considers the Buccaneering Age to be completely separate altogether. He also considers pirates to only be pirates if they started out as being regarded as criminals by all nations, so he excludes buccaneers and privateers from being considered pirates at all and considers them to be naval mercenaries. He even excludes William Kidd as he was a privateer that turned pirate "accidentally".
If you think that I've been slanderous towards your favourite boy Teach, Benerson Little is far more dismissive and savage by comparison as he refers to Blackbeard's generation of pirates as the "bastard progeny" of the Buccaneers and lumps together Blackbeard (your only example so far of a "strong" captain) with Calico Jack, a pirate captain that you've been dismissive of in this thread due to his portrayal in a TV series.
All this is to say that you have completely fucked over the claims in your initial post about "ex-military pirates" to attempt prove why 18th century pirate captains should be considered stronger than samurai in a duel by using sources that make absolute hard distinctions. One source claims that Blackbeard's generation were essentially a gaggle of pussies while the other one claims that buccaneers/privateers were too formally recognised to be true pirates.
So congratulations, between the contents of the video and the sources said video uses, you have managed to undermine or flat out debunk every single one of the arguments you made on Post #9 of this thread.
P.S. it is funny to go on about the duelling ability of pirate captains when the measure of success that pirate captains were judged by was how much loot and ships they acquired while the samurai actually had a honorary title given to an exceptional, once in a lifetime swordsman of legendary skill in the Kensei or Sword Saint. These blokes (such as Miyamoto Musashi and Tsukahara Bokuden) were actual dedicated duellists. Below the sword saints were still highly regarded sword masters and duellists such as Ito Ittosai Kagehisa and Kamiizumi Nobutsuna. It is far easier to pin down samurai of great duelling ability than pirate captains of notable duelling ability because the former actually had duelling matches while the success of the latter wasn't judged on duelling ability at all.
@zenox didn't compare the Blackbeard Pirates to Hitler at all and the fact that you think he did just proves why any accusations of illiteracy that you throw at others should only be taken as hilariously ironic.
You: "The only thing that kept a Pirate Captain in charge of his crew was his martial ability in a 1v1 duel!"
Me: "Pirate Captains were not selected by their crew solely on the basis of their duelling abilities, they were selected on their ability to lead their men into acquiring loot. Here are five examples of Pirate Captains that lost/gained captaincies because of their leadership failures leading to lack of loot and being voted out for it, nothing to do with duels. Can you provide a famous example of a Pirate Captain losing his captaincy because of a duel?"
You: "Look! Look! Blackbeard fought a random Royal Navy lieutenant that ambushed his ship and won before getting killed by random nobodies!"
So still no examples of Captaincies being lost and won through duels then like you initially claimed before abandoning said untenable claim? Lol. Also, I have no idea why you are bragging about Maynard's duelling defeat to Teach because outside of being responsible for Blackbeard's demise, the bloke was an absolute nobody. He was not famous for his duelling ability or as an officer nor as some career pirate hunter.
Even the video you posted by a hobbyist YouTuber as "debunking" me only listed fighting (not necessarily duelling) as one of a multitude of metrics, not the "only thing" like you claimed in this post.
https://worstgen.alwaysdata.net/for...ains-vs-real-life-samurai.55910/#post-5351812
Even worse for you, the video states at the 5:53 mark "I have never heard of any candidates duelling for control over a company. That seems to largely be an invention of Howard Pyle (a mid 19th to early 20th century children's novelist) and his famous painting Who shall be Captain."
Congratulations, you posted a video that completely debunks your own point about pirate duels.
While we are on the subject of this video, let us look at some of the sources it uses because it is clear that you haven't bothered to do so.
At least two of the sources, The Buccaneer's Realm by Benerson Little and The Republic of Pirates by Colin Woodard both make an absolute hard distinction between the "Pirates" at the tail end of the Golden Age of Piracy and the "Buccaneers" at the beginning and middle of the period though they do so for different reasons.
Colin Woodard seems to only consider the period from 1715 to 1725 to be the actual Golden Age of Piracy, so he considers the Buccaneering Age to be completely separate altogether. He also considers pirates to only be pirates if they started out as being regarded as criminals by all nations, so he excludes buccaneers and privateers from being considered pirates at all and considers them to be naval mercenaries. He even excludes William Kidd as he was a privateer that turned pirate "accidentally".
So congratulations, between the contents of the video and the sources said video uses, you have managed to undermine or flat out debunk every single one of the arguments you made on Post #9 of this thread.
P.S. it is funny to go on about the duelling ability of pirate captains when the measure of success that pirate captains were judged by was how much loot and ships they acquired while the samurai actually had a honorary title given to an exceptional, once in a lifetime swordsman of legendary skill in the Kensei or Sword Saint. These blokes (such as Miyamoto Musashi and Tsukahara Bokuden) were actual dedicated duellists. Below the sword saints were still highly regarded sword masters and duellists such as Ito Ittosai Kagehisa and Kamiizumi Nobutsuna. It is far easier to pin down samurai of great duelling ability than pirate captains of notable duelling ability because the former actually had duelling matches while the success of the latter wasn't judged on duelling ability at all.
@zenox didn't compare the Blackbeard Pirates to Hitler at all and the fact that you think he did just proves why any accusations of illiteracy that you throw at others should only be taken as hilariously ironic.
You debunked nothing lmao
Time for you to lick boots as well huh dumbass?
Maybe you clowns shouldn't lie whenever I debunk your asses because ''fighting power'' doesn't mean 1 v 1 duel. Learn to read. Cry harder next time dumb bitch, your dumb posts were deleted by someone before, don't ruin the thread with your bitch ass again.
Look at all this wall of text just because I debunked this clown bad and got butthurt
Why you keep lying about what I said?
This is what I said earlier, which you keep lying about this;
''The only thing that keeps Pirate Captains as the captain of those wild criminals is their fighting power, its not military where they need to listen orders based on rank and respect.''
I said 'Fighting power' not 1 v 1 duel.
''Fighting power'' is open to interpretation.
Fighting power doesn't just mean 1 v 1 combat, it also means leading their men in fights with any other method you can imagine, through being a good commander or sailor, good tactician, so they would beat the armed merchant ships or defend themselves vs Navy soldiers when they are attacked, or when even they attack the Navy.
Now you can keep lying about this duel stuff because thats the only thing to save your butt, I specifically said ''if'' there was a duel, not there should be.
And you just try to undermine the sources of the video that states ''pirate captains chosen based on fighting ability''That literally destroyed you.
.....
' "Look! Look! Blackbeard fought a random Royal Navy lieutenant that ambushed his ship and won before getting killed by random nobodies!''
Now you know you got debunked, you try to undermine the feat.
Maynard not only ambushed Teach, he was lucky to shoot him with a pistol during the initial clash.
However, despite getting shot, Teach still beating Maynard in 1 v 1 shows his high level fighting capabilities.
They literally found Blackbeard with 5 pistol wounds, 20 sword cuts.
The guy was beating Navy liuetenant in 1 v 1, other Navy soldiers saves him, unless you believe most of the shots he took was after he dead (which would be pointless) Edward Teach had a monstrous endurance to win a fight vs a trained Navy soldier who ambushed him.
Thats an exceptional fighter who is a pirate captain.
Yes he did, there are levels to being a criminal. And naming Hitler here is just being retarded and also being a little snake as I know most ZKKclowns are snake like zenox.
Comparing former privateers who were literally told by governments to attack merchant ships of other countries, and then they simply tell them don't do that now, and they still continued to do what 'they were told do' before. Thats their crime according to government politics.
They were even granted those Pirates official pardons from different governments from time to time, and this little clown here names Hitler, to exaggerate the crimes those pirates committed according to some government lmao.
Now you know I am right you got butthurt to defend this clown who talking about Hitler lmao.
This little liar alt clown still here and licking boots?
I bet you ZKKbitch didn't even read any of the posts lmao.
Didn't I debunk your ass like millions of times in episode thread you little clown? Your butthurt so big you come here to lick boots I guess.
This kind of ALT clowns backs this guy up.
Why you keep lying about what I said?
This is what I said earlier, which you keep lying about this;
''The only thing that keeps Pirate Captains as the captain of those wild criminals is their fighting power, its not military where they need to listen orders based on rank and respect.''
I said 'Fighting power' not 1 v 1 duel.
''Fighting power'' is open to interpretation.
Fighting power doesn't just mean 1 v 1 combat, it also means leading their men in fights with any other method you can imagine, through being a good commander or sailor, good tactician, so they would beat the armed merchant ships or defend themselves vs Navy soldiers when they are attacked, or when even they attack the Navy.
Now you can keep lying about this duel stuff because thats the only thing to save your butt, I specifically said ''if'' there was a duel, not there should be.
And you just try to undermine the sources of the video that states ''pirate captains chosen based on fighting ability''
That literally destroyed you......
' "Look! Look! Blackbeard fought a random Royal Navy lieutenant that ambushed his ship and won before getting killed by random nobodies!''
Now you know you got debunked, you try to undermine the feat.
Maynard not only ambushed Teach, he was lucky to shoot him with a pistol during the initial clash.
However, despite getting shot, Teach still beating Maynard in 1 v 1 shows his high level fighting capabilities.
They literally found Blackbeard with 5 pistol wounds, 20 sword cuts.
The guy was beating Navy liuetenant in 1 v 1, other Navy soldiers saves him, unless you believe most of the shots he took was after he dead (which would be pointless) Edward Teach had a monstrous endurance to win a fight vs a trained Navy soldier who ambushed him.
Thats an exceptional fighter who is a pirate captain.
Yes he did, there are levels to being a criminal. And naming Hitler here is just being retarded and also being a little snake as I know most ZKKclowns are snake like zenox.
Comparing former privateers who were literally told by governments to attack merchant ships of other countries, and then they simply tell them don't do that now, and they still continued to do what 'they were told do' before. Thats their crime according to government politics.
They were even granted those Pirates official pardons from different governments from time to time, and this little clown here names Hitler, to exaggerate the crimes those pirates committed according to some government lmao.
Now you know I am right you got butthurt to defend this clown who talking about Hitler lmao.
This little liar alt clown still here and licking boots?
I bet you ZKKbitch didn't even read any of the posts lmao.
Didn't I debunk your ass like millions of times in episode thread you little clown? Your butthurt so big you come here to lick boots I guess.
This kind of ALT clowns backs this guy up.
The Captain
The captain of a pirate ship was very often the arch-criminal brains of the pirate operations. He might also have been the one who had put up the capital to buy the ship or been its legitimate captain or a high-ranking officer on a privateering vessel before the crew had decided to take to a life of piracy.
Having a nice long coat & plenty of pricey pistols showed that one was a successful leader of pirates.
Perhaps surprisingly for a gang of cut-throats, a pirate captain was frequently elected to his position, but then again, it was difficult to lead through coercion a group of individuals who valued their liberty above all else. Many mariners had turned to piracy precisely because of the strict discipline and harsh punishments of life on a merchant or naval ship and so they were hardly likely to put up with a leader who ruled by the rod alone. Nevertheless, the most successful captains, those who captured large prizes, could instil some rules and discipline on their men, such as Bartholomew Roberts (1682-1722) who insisted his crew refrain from gambling in the ship’s articles which all his crew swore to abide by. The position of captain might not be permanent either, since sailors who had mutinied once before were not shy to do so again. Charles Vane (d. 1721) was relieved of his command for failing to attack a ship as his crew had wished and was replaced by 'Calico Jack' (aka John Rackham, d. 1720).
Pirate captains often dressed the part in the Golden Age. Blackbeard (aka Edward Teach, d. 1718) went for terror with a ribboned beard and lit fuses under his hat while Roberts sported scarlet silks, a feathered hat, and a diamond necklace. Having a nice long coat and plenty of pricey pistols were other ways of showing one was a successful leader of pirates.
With his skills at leadership, navigation, and sheer charisma, a pirate captain earned his double share of the loot captured compared to other crew members. On the other hand, if the pirates were caught, the captain could expect the worst judgement of the authorities. While many pirates faced a real risk of being hanged, the pirate captains were almost guaranteed such a fate, and the most notorious ones might also have their corpses hung in chains to rot for years like Captain Kidd in 1701.
----
Lerkek-chan... pls explain me why there's no mention of dualing for the captain rank, pls tell me I didn't spent my life believing a lie... 😖
Erkan is simply the funniest guy around, no one come close
He is always triggered.
Look at all this wall of text just because I debunked this clown bad and got butthurt
Why you keep lying about what I said?
This is what I said earlier, which you keep lying about this;
''The only thing that keeps Pirate Captains as the captain of those wild criminals is their fighting power, its not military where they need to listen orders based on rank and respect.''
I said 'Fighting power' not 1 v 1 duel.
''Fighting power'' is open to interpretation.
Fighting power doesn't just mean 1 v 1 combat, it also means leading their men in fights with any other method you can imagine, through being a good commander or sailor, good tactician, so they would beat the armed merchant ships or defend themselves vs Navy soldiers when they are attacked, or when even they attack the Navy.
Why you keep lying about what I said?
This is what I said earlier, which you keep lying about this;
''The only thing that keeps Pirate Captains as the captain of those wild criminals is their fighting power, its not military where they need to listen orders based on rank and respect.''
I said 'Fighting power' not 1 v 1 duel.
''Fighting power'' is open to interpretation.
Fighting power doesn't just mean 1 v 1 combat, it also means leading their men in fights with any other method you can imagine, through being a good commander or sailor, good tactician, so they would beat the armed merchant ships or defend themselves vs Navy soldiers when they are attacked, or when even they attack the Navy.
All that stuff about leadership, being a tactician, etc. is in fact all useless if the pirate captain was arbitrarily put into a 1v1 duel scenario?
Like you did in the initial opening post of this thread?
If only a portion of a pirate captain's fighting prowess was about duelling then putting him up against dedicated duellists like a Kensei is a huge disadvantage for the pirate captain and a significant advantage for the samurai.
The problem with moving the goalposts is that it can quickly lead to an own goal.
There is no "if there was a duel". The very video you posted stated that duels for the captaincy were an invention of a 19th century children's novelist.
The duels for captaincy never happened. Are you going to disagree with your own sources on that too?
And you just try to undermine the sources of the video that states ''pirate captains chosen based on fighting ability''That literally destroyed you.
That literally destroyed you.
So at best, from a 5 second snippet in a 28 and a 1/2 minute or a 1700+ second YouTube video, your best argument for a pirate captain winning a duel against a dedicated duellist is that his fighting ability, which by your own admission doesn't fully translate to duelling ability, was only one of three metrics that he was chosen for meaning that it wasn't the main metric and that he could get the captaincy position if he was very good at just the other two metrics?
This isn't a compelling argument at all.
' "Look! Look! Blackbeard fought a random Royal Navy lieutenant that ambushed his ship and won before getting killed by random nobodies!''
Now you know you got debunked, you try to undermine the feat.
Maynard not only ambushed Teach, he was lucky to shoot him with a pistol during the initial clash.
However, despite getting shot, Teach still beating Maynard in 1 v 1 shows his high level fighting capabilities.
Now you know you got debunked, you try to undermine the feat.
Maynard not only ambushed Teach, he was lucky to shoot him with a pistol during the initial clash.
However, despite getting shot, Teach still beating Maynard in 1 v 1 shows his high level fighting capabilities.
Except Maynard is a literal nobody outside of hunting Teach. Miyamoto was beating famous swordsmen like Sasaki Kojiro.
Fantastic. Let us take this at face value and assume that you do indeed have a truly great pirate captain duellist for his amazing feat of beating Lieutenant Maynard Nobody.
Where are the rest?
The thread title is "Real life Pirate Captains vs Real life Samurai" and you specified in your initial posts that it was supposed to be taking the strongest duellists from each group.
So where are the rest? The thread title is plural mate.
For strongest samurai duellists, we can take the Kensei such as Miyamoto Musashi and Tsukahara Bokuden along with one of the last Kensei in Chiba Shūsaku. To round this off we can add their notable Kengo competitors such as Ito Ittosai Kagehisa, Kamiizumi Nobutsuna and Sasaki Kojiro.
For pirates we have.... Blackbeard. That is it. You only mentioned Calico Jack to shit on him. According to the book sources, any buccaneers and privateers don't count. So what other supposedly amazing pirate duellists do we have from the year of our lord 1715-1725 A.D. when your Black Sails TV show is set?
If the examples of samurai duellists are overall superior to the examples of pirate captain duellists then they win the matchup regardless of how individually strong Blackbeard is, don't they?
What he said was that using the real life Edward Teach to hype up a fictitious Blackbeard was stupid and it was as stupid as using Hitler to hype up Yhwach. So the only person that got compared to old Adolf was Yhwach.
The fact that you have difficulty understanding this can only be politely described as genuinely concerning.
?
What he said was that using the real life Edward Teach to hype up a fictitious Blackbeard was stupid and it was as stupid as using Hitler to hype up Yhwach. So the only person that got compared to old Adolf was Yhwach.
The fact that you have difficulty understanding this can only be politely described as genuinely concerning.
What he said was that using the real life Edward Teach to hype up a fictitious Blackbeard was stupid and it was as stupid as using Hitler to hype up Yhwach. So the only person that got compared to old Adolf was Yhwach.
The fact that you have difficulty understanding this can only be politely described as genuinely concerning.
The fact that you are being this dishonest is 'concerning'.The clown's intent for using Hitler as an example here is clear.
Even if I charitably chalk this up to a misunderstanding instead of a blatant attempt to change the goalposts, what you are now saying is that the entirety of a pirate captain's fighting prowess does not translate to winning a 1v1 duel?
All that stuff about leadership, being a tactician, etc. is in fact all useless if the pirate captain was arbitrarily put into a 1v1 duel scenario?
Like you did in the initial opening post of this thread?
If only a portion of a pirate captain's fighting prowess was about duelling then putting him up against dedicated duellists like a Kensei is a huge disadvantage for the pirate captain and a significant advantage for the samurai.
The problem with moving the goalposts is that it can quickly lead to an own goal.
There is no "if there was a duel". The very video you posted stated that duels for the captaincy were an invention of a 19th century children's novelist.
The duels for captaincy never happened. Are you going to disagree with your own sources on that too?
"fighter, sailor and leader". Let us not disingenuously cut sentences short because they are inconvenient, aye Erkan?
So at best, from a 5 second snippet in a 28 and a 1/2 minute or a 1700+ second YouTube video, your best argument for a pirate captain winning a duel against a dedicated duellist is that his fighting ability, which by your own admission doesn't fully translate to duelling ability, was only one of three metrics that he was chosen for meaning that it wasn't the main metric and that he could get the captaincy position if he was very good at just the other two metrics?
This isn't a compelling argument at all.
"Beating a nobody proves Teach is a great duellist!!".
For strongest samurai duellists, we can take the Kensei such as Miyamoto Musashi and Tsukahara Bokuden along with one of the last Kensei in Chiba Shūsaku. To round this off we can add their notable Kengo competitors such as Ito Ittosai Kagehisa, Kamiizumi Nobutsuna and Sasaki Kojiro.
For pirates we have.... Blackbeard. That is it. You only mentioned Calico Jack to shit on him. According to the book sources, any buccaneers and privateers don't count. So what other supposedly amazing pirate duellists do we have from the year of our lord 1715-1725 A.D. when your Black Sails TV show is set?
If the examples of samurai duellists are overall superior to the examples of pirate captain duellists then they win the matchup regardless of how individually strong Blackbeard is, don't they?
All that stuff about leadership, being a tactician, etc. is in fact all useless if the pirate captain was arbitrarily put into a 1v1 duel scenario?
Like you did in the initial opening post of this thread?
If only a portion of a pirate captain's fighting prowess was about duelling then putting him up against dedicated duellists like a Kensei is a huge disadvantage for the pirate captain and a significant advantage for the samurai.
The problem with moving the goalposts is that it can quickly lead to an own goal.
There is no "if there was a duel". The very video you posted stated that duels for the captaincy were an invention of a 19th century children's novelist.
The duels for captaincy never happened. Are you going to disagree with your own sources on that too?
"fighter, sailor and leader". Let us not disingenuously cut sentences short because they are inconvenient, aye Erkan?
So at best, from a 5 second snippet in a 28 and a 1/2 minute or a 1700+ second YouTube video, your best argument for a pirate captain winning a duel against a dedicated duellist is that his fighting ability, which by your own admission doesn't fully translate to duelling ability, was only one of three metrics that he was chosen for meaning that it wasn't the main metric and that he could get the captaincy position if he was very good at just the other two metrics?
This isn't a compelling argument at all.
"Beating a nobody proves Teach is a great duellist!!".
For strongest samurai duellists, we can take the Kensei such as Miyamoto Musashi and Tsukahara Bokuden along with one of the last Kensei in Chiba Shūsaku. To round this off we can add their notable Kengo competitors such as Ito Ittosai Kagehisa, Kamiizumi Nobutsuna and Sasaki Kojiro.
For pirates we have.... Blackbeard. That is it. You only mentioned Calico Jack to shit on him. According to the book sources, any buccaneers and privateers don't count. So what other supposedly amazing pirate duellists do we have from the year of our lord 1715-1725 A.D. when your Black Sails TV show is set?
If the examples of samurai duellists are overall superior to the examples of pirate captain duellists then they win the matchup regardless of how individually strong Blackbeard is, don't they?
True it also mentions being sailor and leader, which I also added in the quote. Still, first thing it mentions ''fighter'' then says sailor and leader.
Where did I cut the sentences? You are lying again lmao.
This is the quote:
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.
You are also forgetting that the Pirates I mention aren't just doing sword duels like the Samurai, they constantly need to defend themselves from rifles or pistols shots during the battles as well.
Thats why I pointed the initial pistols shooting exchange between Pirate Captain Edward Teach and the Navy Lieutenant before the sword battle.
So against the Samurai, the Pirate captains will have their pistol during the initial exchange.
Samurai need to take the initial pistol shot, dodge the shot if he could, then continue to fight in this match-up.
Lmao, the duels aren't the only thing that determines the fighting ability of a fighter.
Barbarossa ''Redbeard'':
Constantly fighting against the best Spanish soldiers, against the best Spanish and Hospitaller Knights, and conquering the Spanish territories in the Mediterranean.
He and his brother with much less soldiers (half the number of Spanish) under their command captured a Spanish Warship which had 380 Spanish soldiers and 60 Spanish knights.
Before you claim Redbeard wasn't on the front lines of the battle, he definitely was, later he even lost his arm 7 years later during another battle vs the Spaniards while fighting in front lines.
It doesn't sound like ''naval thugs that are much more interested in intimidating submissive merchants into parting with their cargo than in actually fighting. '' right? Like you initially claimed in your first post in this thread.
Last edited: