Talk:Barbary pirates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Barbary Pirates in the North Atlantic

I added what I know of the subject from my time in School.

Here are the links with the information that can be confirmed: (Some sites in Danish.)

http://www.tiems.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=61&index=1

http://www.tourist.fo/ew/media/Brochures/Faldari%20English.pdf

http://www.greenland-guide.dk/leif2000/news.htm

http://www.randburg.com/fa/torshavn.html

http://www.geocities.com/f18islands/suduroy.html

http://www.encislam.brill.nl/data/EncIslam/C6/COM-0546.html

Note about Mogens Heinesøn: He is well-described in Faroese literature, and by a couple of Danish and Norweigan authors, but there is little information to be found about him on the net. Swedish author Frans Bengtson may have borrowed a story of Mogens Heinesøn as a galley slave in his book "The Long Ships". Anonymous.

Edited for clarification. There were other pirates in the North Atlantic besides the Barbary pirates. Magnus Heinesøn is also spelled different in Faroese, Danish, and Norweigan, which explains some of the difficulties in Googling for references.

Different spelling include: Mogens/Magnus; Heinesøn/Heinesen/Heineson/Heinasen/Heinason.

More sources: (Sites in Danish and Norweigan.)

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/1589

http://www.dokpro.uio.no/wergeland/WIV2/WIV2018.html

http://www.norden.no/foroyar/nyheter.html

http://ffav.dk/tiltok.htm

Anonymous.

What is the basis for this?: "and members of certain families still have a distinct Middle Eastern appearance." Anyone in the Faroe Islands who do not have blue eyes and blond hair are claimed to look "Middle Eastern", there's no logical or genetic basis for this. - Habib--83.72.194.208 13:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC) ---

According to local history, Iceland was at one time nearly depopulated by the depredations of the Barbary Pirates.The last incursion is said to have taken place during the Napoleonic wars.

Basic knowledge of Icelandic history is enough to recognize this as nonsense. Rewrote the paragraph completely, hope it turns out useful. - Oskar Gudlaugsson (*April 15)

Very nice - thanks! - DavidWBrooks 16:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

--- Much of the article seems to have been written from a American perspective. Is a rewrite without the anti-european, pro 'war on terror' perspective possible ? A view of the barbary pirates from a native of North Africa would also be interesting. - 217.43.21.35, 11 June 2006

Feel free to add useful content. Me, I think the date of first tribute in 1784 is a little early; if it's correct, it would have had to have been the Continental Congress, as the U.S. Constitution that created today's Congress didn't take place until 1787. In any case, there should be more background information about the system of tribute and ransom employed by the Barbary pirates. Wesley 16:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it highly unsettling that people are apparantly ready to delete information that that they find inconvenient at the drop of a hat. The Barbary Pirate raid on Iceland is indisputable historical fact, and I have reinstated the information with multiple online sources. I would ask people to please *try* to maintain a NPOV before going bananas with the edit function again. Misereor 23:00, 5 August 2006 (GMT)

Which Tripoli?

I believe the Tripoli which was a port for the Barbary pirates was Tripoli, Lebanon, not Tripoli, Libya. The link at the beginning of this article points to Tripoli, Libya. I will attempt to research this before changing it.

L. Greg 04:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect; the Encyclopedia Britannica is very clear that they operated out of North Africa, based in what is now Libya and Algeria. After all, "Barbary" comes from Barbary states, which extended west (not east) from Egypt, thus ruling out Lebanon. Interesting thought, though: I didn't even know there was a Tripoli, Lebanon! - DavidWBrooks 11:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Historiographical Lexicon

I don't have time to go into detail on this right now because I'm studying for my University Final on the subject but a couple of erratum have come to my attention.

Firstly, the Barbary "Pirates" are more correctly called Corsairs. In addition to it being the traditional name I've always heard them called, it more aptly describes their political situation. For clarification on what I'm talking about:

Pirate: Someone who robs or plunders for personal gain

Corsair: A pirate with a letter of Marque or other form of permission or patronage from a Government Body or Monarch

Privateer: A war-time Corsair

The Barbary Corsairs were not private individuals but more like guerrilla seamen for their nations. Additionally the Barbary states had at most times official support and patronage from the Ottoman Empire, reinforcing the corsair-nature of their activities.

My second big point is that The Ottoman Empire is referred to in this article as Turkey and the Ottomans as Turks. This is not correct. Yes the Ottoman empire began in turkey and the Original Sultans were turkish, but they have been more properly referred to as Ottomans since Osman in the middle ages. Besides this, by the period this article is concerned with, the Ottomans had incorporated so many nations and come to comprise such a vast Diaspora, including Sultans of numerous ethnicities, that you cannot properly refer to any aspect outside of turkey as Turkish.

I encourage anyone to consult modern historiographical practices on this subject and update the article accordingly, or as I said, I'll return when I have time to do it myself

Charon96 14:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with charon96 and have swapped the entries so that they reflect this. This isssue is a reflection of the colonial discourse that still surrounds former colonies, particularly African ones. This article really needs a thorough going through and its problems have most likely arisen because the article is based on an old Britannica article, written when very few people would have questioned the justification and motivation of taking over these countries or look at it from their point of view. My Honours Thesis was on the Barbary Corsairs, so I do know what I am talking about(Jimjams101).

Spanish Expedition on Algiers in 1775

In 1775 the Spanish under Charles III sent his navy and 22,000 men to Algiers to end the razzias on the Spanish coast, well before the 1781 US expedition.

--81.202.158.49 18:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

raids on North America?

The current revision claims that they raided North America. Which part, precisely? Florida? Newfoundland? New England? Or did they attack ships sailing from North America, but not the continent itself? 71.248.115.187 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A silly question...

The article talks about Barbary corsairs "preying on Christian and other non-Islamic shipping" in the Western Mediterranean. What other religions are we talking about here - buddhism ?Boulet rouge (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That`s a good point. Afaik: Islamic pirates also where a danger to "pagan" Africans, and also in the Read Sea to the nonwestern christians of Ethiopia.

Which brings us to another aspect, There is written in the head of the article that the piracy started during the crusades, when in fact these kind of piracy was part of the expansion of Islam from the beginning. I mean that`s how they get fe to Spain in the first place, it started with short raides - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazw. 62.178.137.216 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

After 1815

I tagged this section as having a POV problem. It reads overwhelmingly like an account copied from a 19th century text, with all the biases and assumptions inherent in that. The fact that, unlike the rest of the article, the text is whole, without any citations (and hardly any wiki links) makes me wonder if this isn't the case after all. Ford MF (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the only change needed is to replace "universally" with "by the Christian powers". I will make that change and remove the tag. If I may say so, I see a lot more bias inherent in your comments (that if Whites were mistreated by non-Whites, they probably deserved it, the wicked racist imperialists) than in the text you are complaining about. Luwilt (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of Barbary corsairs?

The article lead has the Barbary corsairs beginning their activities in the11th century; later on down it suggests them starting even as early as the 9th century, citing the attacks on Sicily, Italy, etc. Should these really be classed as corsair attacks, as opposed to ordinary warfare?

The line between piracy, privateering, and warfare isn't easy to draw, but what I think distinguishes the Barbary corsairs is that they were essentially private individuals operating with the consent of government authorities, but without being either paid or directed by those authorities. They struck where they wanted, lived off the sale of stolen wealth and people, and owed the government only a percentage of the take. Is that really what was going on in Italy and Sicily during the 9th through 11th centuries? Pirate Dan (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Tinniswood, Pirates of Barbary

I've edited and added some info from the recent NY Times review of this book [1] and added it as Further reading. What was new to me was that (per the review) "the most notorious corsairs were European renegades who had learned the trade on privateers", and in peacetime, some "brought previously unknown seafaring expertise to the business of Barbary piracy." Ian W. Toll, the Times reviewer, notes that, rather than a "clash of civilizations" between Christianity & Islam, "Barbary piracy was a commercial enterprise, offering a handsome livelihood" to the pirates.

I haven't read the book, so someone who has might want to elaborate on Tinniswood's observations. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Conditions in the Bagnios compared to conditions in America

The current entry doesn't make much sense, but I don't know how to correct it. It says that by the 18th century the slaves were running their own shops and bars in the bagnios, but that such amenities were as common to those slaves as to their American counterparts.

I don't know much about the conditions in the slave bagnios of North Africa, but I do know enough about American slavery to know that American slaves weren't allowed to own real estate, and so couldn't run their own bars and shops. So either the statement that Barbary states' slaves ran their bars and shops has to be wrong, or the statement that these amenities were equally common to American slaves has to be wrong. Can someone clarify? Pirate Dan (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you, mate. The entry about bagnios being similar to the conditions of American slaves is highly tenuous and unreferenced at that. It appears to be an effort to relate the entry to America or to make some point about moral relativism. Neither is appropriate here, so I'm getting rid of that sentence. The Cap'n (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the sexual aspect

Did I not read somewhere that they wanted young Christian boys to sodimise ? That sounds more plausible than some revenge for crusades tosh especially given that Turkey had once been the seat of the Christian Roman empire, the Hagia Sophia started out as a church etc etc 81.109.247.189 (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, having read something "somewhere" doesn't warrant it being entered as fact. Making the extraordinary claim that an entire civilization engaged in mulitple wars in order to satisfy their rampant pedophilia requires some extraordinary evidence. On the flip side, there's massive amounts of evidence supporting lingering cultural animosity due to the Crusades.

Also, I'm unclear on your point about the Hagia Sophia, et al. 1) What does turning a church into a mosque have to do with anally raping children? and 2) Doesn't that further support the position that the Turks were motivated by territorial and monetary gains, not perversion? The Cap'n (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

There is a reference in David Hebb's Piracy and the English Government to the corsairs having raped the male sailors of one of their captive ships, although I've given the book back to the library and don't have a page number or details to hand.

However, I've seen no evidence that sex was anything like the major reason for the corsairs' raids. The Turks, like anybody else, were well over 90% heterosexual, and if they wanted sex slaves they bought female slaves from the Circassians, just as the Europeans did. Geoffrey Parker, The World: An Illustrated History, p. 176. The Barbary states took slaves mainly for domestic service, to man their galleys, and extort a huge profit in ransoms; economic motives covered by religious excuses, as we see in many other cases in world history. The corsairs might rape from time to time when they felt like it, but that wasn't the main idea. Pirate Dan (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

India?

These raids were often in retaliation against the killing and forced conversions that Muslims living in Spain were facing, also in retaliation against raids carried out by the Portuguese on Muslim ruled India, where many were killed or taken as slaves.

I find the connection to India a little far-fetched. Fair enough about the Moriscos, as Salé was essentially founded by refugees from Spain, but India is a little too far and this is not the modern world, etc --Phagopsych (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And the retaliation issue's not touched on by the single link that works; that's the first in the series of three. The second's defunct. The third (neither linked nor a full citation, so I'm only guessing here) might refer to the 16th century Tuhfat Al Mujahidin, which deals with Muslim resistance to the Portuguese takeover at Malabar, amongst other things; the author (a Malabar Muslim) might well have interpreted or justified the Barbary corsair raids as retaliation or jihad - if this review is anything to go by. But I'm just guessing wildly here, and besides, one author does not a general viewpoint make. Haploidavey (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the last two cites, as per comments above. The first was defunct, and could not be linked despite a search. I presume the other was offered to support the raids as "often retaliatory". I'm sure they might well have been justified as that by some contemporaries (see Tuhfat Al Mujahidin above) but we need a proper source, and I've tagged accordingly. Haploidavey (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Retaliation for the mistreatment of the Moriscos and Marranos might have motivated some of the attacks against Spain, and Phagopsych is right about New Sale being founded by exiles, but since the corsairs happily ravaged Italy, France, England, Ireland, and even Iceland, their depredations as a whole cannot be explained away as mere retaliation against their former oppressors. Pirate Dan (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Pirates

I've been reading The Pirate Wars by Peter Earle, and had a look at this article. As far as I've understood from Earle, the Barbary corsairs always sailed with some type of permission from the rulers of the Barbary States. So that would make them corsairs or privateers, but not pirates. So why are they consistently referred to as pirates in the article?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

David Hebb's [i]Piracy and the English Government[/i] disagrees. It says that Algiers and Tripoli were formally subject to the Sultan of Morocco, who most often did not authorize them to attack Christian shipping, but they did it illegally anyway. TO be sure, there were many occasions also when the Sultan of Morocco or the Ottoman Sultan did grant letters of marque, but much like the buccaneers of Jamaica and Tortuga, the Barbary sailors didn't care too much about whether they had legal permission to attack their enemies or about respecting the limits of those permissions.

I do think the word "corsair" would be better, because (again like "buccaneer") it covers both licensed privateers and illegal pirates. Pirate Dan (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a workable compromise.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking Better

when I first moved this page from Barbary Pirates to here, the original version of this page was terrible and very dated in its outlook. Now it is looking much better, so congratulations to those that have been working through it. It has certainly had much of the colonial rhetoric removed and is much less biased than what it was. Although there is still work to be done. Jimjams101 (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Impact on the development of the USA

I am merging in the content from the Barbary Wars article and I have found an interesting paragraph that does not have any references, but I find the content familiar with my readings on the subject. I want to document it here on the talk page instead of losing it in the merger versus integrating the content that has not direct sources. I am looking for community feedback on its integration:

When the United States military efforts of the early 19th century were successful against the pirates, partisans of the Democratic-Republicans contrasted their presidents' refusals to buy off the pirates by paying tribute with the failure of the preceding Federalist administration to suppress the piracy. The Federalist Party had adopted the slogan, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute," but had failed to end the attacks on merchant ships. The phrase was attributed to Charles C. Pinckney in the course of the XYZ Affair; however, historians have determined that the sentence originated with Sen. Robert Goodloe Harper.

Alan.ca (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose we merge the content from the Barbary wars article here. Both cover the same subject matter. Alan.ca (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if a simple merger is preferable. There are many articles addressing various aspects of these event. What is needed is a structure; possibly an umbrella article (your 'merged' article) with more detail in lower-level articles; along with some boundaries on such articles. - Lugnad (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I completed the merger today by ensuring the few references were distributed to this article or the sub articles the Barbary Wars article was referencing. Where content did not seem to overlap I roughed it into this article. Hopefully having it all in one place will make it easier for us to consolidate the content and branch it appropriately as need arises. I think the next steps are to improve the content in this article and review the slicing of the article at a later date. Alan.ca (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Barbary corsairs → Barbary Corsairs – It would make more sense to have the page name capitalised considering the term "Barbary Corsair" is capitalised throughout the article and that titles should be capitalised anyway. Lithium (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wiki doesn't capitalized article titles, per WP:CAPS. This phrase shouldn't be capitalized in running text, and you see here. The current setup is screwy. This article should be primary for "corsair". Corsair is now an article on French privateers, which is a misunderstanding. If a word is of French origin, it does not follow that the primary English-language meaning relates to France. Kauffner (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per evidence in book n-grams that lowercase is more normal, and per MOS:CAPS that says we prefer to lowercase when it's not consistently caps in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And it was mostly lowercase in the article already; I fixed the few places that were not. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The arguments in support are far more persuasive, and in line with WP:AT, than those in oppose. Jenks24 (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Barbary corsairs → Barbary pirates – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Compare Google hits (phrase in quotes and -wikipedia): 306,000 for pirates, 90,000 for corsairs. In Scholar, pirates win 3,960 to 1,560; in JSTOR, 714 to 291. This move also aligns the article with Category:Barbary pirates. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Support, per Britannica, The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea, Turner's "Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary pirates", and London's Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation (2005). Everyone knows what a "pirate" is, but the word "corsair" has to be explained. Corsaire is French for "pirate". To call a group of North Africans by a French name is counterintuitive, a fossil of the days when French was the international language. Kauffner (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not really counterintuitive at all, since the majority of North African nations are former French colonies and speak French as a second language, and France was one of the dominant powers in the Mediterranean. In any case, a) Wikipedia is not revisionist; we use the terms that were used, not terms that may be more "understandable" today, and b) "corsair" is not a French word; it's an English word with French origins (as have many English words). Big, big difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You don't believe in updating language to make it understandable to modern readers? Perhaps the Julius Caesar article can be rewritten in Latin. Kauffner (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't be ridiculous. That's not what I said and you know it perfectly well. "Corsair" is as much modern English as "pirate". I've known what it means from a very young age; those who don't are obviously somewhat lacking in their historical and language education (and haven't read The Lord of the Rings, which should be made an offence in itself!). But if you haven't heard it, then an encyclopaedia like this will happily explain what it means. That's what encyclopaedias are for. If you're being picky, according to the Oxford English Dictionary the former is first recorded in English in 1549 and the latter in 1439, so "pirate" is the older word (and also comes from the French). Incidentally, the OED's definition of corsair is: "The name in the languages of the Mediterranean for a privateer; chiefly applied to the cruisers of Barbary, to whose attacks the ships and coasts of the Christian countries were incessantly exposed. In English often treated as identical with pirate, though the Saracen and Turkish corsairs were authorized and recognized by their own government as part of its settled policy towards Christendom." -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per evidence above. --Tachfin (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose A Corsair is defined as a privateer, esp. one operating along the southern coast ofthe Mediterranean in the 17th century. So the term is very specific to this period and this region of the world. It cannot be changed. -Dzlinker (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, can you explain where you're getting that definition? Wiktionary says it's a Francophone synonym, and the only geographic place mentioned there is a port on the English Channel. Also note Turkish corsair on Wiktionary, and the end of the lede of French corsairs. These sources use "Barbary pirates" as the more familiar term, suggesting the use of "corsair" in this context requires explanation. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually this dictionnary gives the definition above. There is a specificity in the term corsair. - Dzlinker (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Byron's The Corsair (1814) is a about a pirate who lived on an island near Athens, nothing to do with privateers or North Africa. The article title should be the way the subject is most commonly referred to in modern times. So the etymology of "corsair" is not really relevant. That the word is listed in a "dictionary of difficult words" sounds like a pretty good reason not to use it. Kauffner (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Greece is part of the Mediterranean. There were no Corsairs operating in the Caribbean, this is for sure. - Dzlinker (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Frankly, as an historian I've never seen the term "Barbary pirates", but I've seen "Barbary corsairs" many times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose : Dzlinker explained the point. Barbary corsairs weren't 'pirates' since they used to get Letters of marque from their governments (Deys, Beys and Diwans), then they are more closely privateers than pirates. --Omar-Toons (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Whether pirate is or is not correct or a good or accurate descriptor or whether corsair by its stand-alone meaning is more accurate is irrelevant. The Google search in the nomination is also not strong evidence as a web search does not concentrate reliable sources (note the language at article titles to default to book and news archive searches). We title topics by the title the English speaking world uses for topics predominantly. Here, Barbary pirates is, by a weighty margin, what English language sources use to denote this topic. A news archive search finds 4,180 results verses 354 results – about a 1:11 margin, and if you limit the results to the last ten years, the disparity is more extreme: 277 results verses 17 results – about a 1:16 margin. A book search finds 8,340 results verses 3,530 results. Highbeam research shows 669 results verses 68, the Times of London has 24 verses 10; the Sydney Morning Herald has 7 results verses 0 for the past ten years; Australia's Trove returns 184 verses 100. Britannica names its article "Barbary pirate". Barbary Pirates is the common name in English.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Change it back to Barbary Corsairs - Barbary Pirates is not the correct term!

This page should not have reverted to Barbary Pirates; it is simply the incorrect term, both currently and historically and I will lobby for it to be corrected. It is similar to tsunami. for a long time everyone called them tidal waves, but it was incorrect and it has take a concerted effort and some terrible examples for that to change. As a senior High school teacher, I know how many students see Wikipedia as the go to source for information and it should be using the correct term. I wrote my honours thesis on this topic and used over 70 primary and secondary sources in its construction; I can with reasonable justification call myself an expert on the Barbary corsairs and feel that this is a complete travesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjams101 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Bias

"Piratical activity by Muslim populations had been known in Mediterranean since at least the 9th century and the short-lived Emirate of Crete. Despite the animosity generated by the Crusades, the level of Muslim pirate activity was relatively low. In the 13th and 14th century it was rather Christian pirates, particularly out of Catalonia, that had been the constant threat to merchants."

There is so much innate bias in these three sentences it is hard to know where to begin. This is another reason I forbid my children from even thinking about using Wikipedia as a reliable, honest scholastic resource.

The Christian "crusades," as any high-schooler knows, was in response to the violent conquests of Islam at the tip of a sword. These conquests began almost before Muhammad's body was even cold, c. 629 AD. See subsequent conquests of Egypt, Syria, Jerusalem, the Levant, Byzantium, etc. etc. all the way to the gates of Vienna in 1529...900 years of almost-constant, violent expansion.

The Christian "crusades" were in response to these attacks on the Holy Lands and in response to attacks on "kuffir" -- infidels, i.e. Christian pilgrims from Europe on the road to Jerusalem.

"Despite the animosity generated by the Crusades..." Indeed.

It is astonishing that such propaganda can still be perpetuated so brazenly. Propaganda perpetuated is ignorance perpetuated. It is dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.55.11.69 (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

How exactly is what was stated biased? Would you have the article spell out the entire history of Christian-Muslim conflict? That simply can't be done here.

I'm also bothered by the disturbing logic that one violent war justifies another? Wrad (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Piracy is piracy whether committed by "Christians" in the Caribbean Sea or "Muslims" in the Med or around the coasts of western Europe. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say without passing judgement or censoring the data to suit anyone's sensibilities.--Charles (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Etimology

The name apparently derives from Barbarossa, which means red beard

I doubt it, I think that the original word is Berber, that may come from Latin barbarus. -- Error 05:24, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article states that the "pirates" are better described as "privateer". Under what nation or state were they commissioned?

• Algeria, Tunisia, Tripoli, and Morocco. - Mustafaa 00:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All those states were totally or partially connected to the Ottoman Empire during the era. Most of the pirates (privateers) were serving as the navy man of the empire. That is why they are know as the "Turks". barfly 23:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "Barbary" Corsair, sounds strange especially the term "Barbary" is dehumanizing, exaggerated, absolutely weird. I strongly believe the term *Corsair* should be used, because after all they were highly innovative Sailors who influenced the development of sailing. They built ships such as the Xebec, Polocca, Felucca, Dhows and previously galleys, in fact they influenced the Design of the modern day Yacht...so lets think again they should be called: Corsairs from here on forth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindbad mughal (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. The article specifically denotes them as "Muslim pirates" again and again. The designation is weird. It has the typical tone of an article written by white Christian supremacist neck beards. 73.49.78.247 14:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barbary pirates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141110054744/http://complit.ku.dk/islamineuropeanliterature/workingpapers/dokument4/ to http://complit.ku.dk/islamineuropeanliterature/workingpapers/dokument4/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Palma?

The sentence "The sacking of Palma on the island of Sardinia by a Tunisian squadron, which carried off 158 inhabitants, roused widespread indignation" is from the Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition, out of copyright)", and is problematical because, as far as I can tell, there is no such town in Sardinia - see, for example, Palma (a disambiguation page), and List of cities in Sardinia. I also used Google Maps, without success. Some (minimal, admittedly) searching in Google Scholar didn't turn up anything for a pirate sacking [of 1815, apparently] in Palma or elsewhere.

(In the article, "Palma" is a redlink to Palma, Sardinia.)

Perhaps the town has been renamed, or was merged into another municipality? Or this "fact", in EB (widely cited elsewhere, of course) is incorrect - perhaps the town/city that was sacked was not on Sardinia? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Palma is referred to the Gulf of Palmas, body of water between Sardinia mainland and the Island of Sant'Antioco, south western Sardinia. The town of Sant'Antioco was attacked and sacked by a Tunisian fleet in October 1815. It was last such episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.178.67 (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Palma appears to refer to the La Palma neighbourhood of Cagliari, per the currently existing redirect of Palma, Sardinia to Cagliari. Alcherin (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbary pirates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207215521/http://www.holidays2menorca.com/history.php to http://www.holidays2menorca.com/history.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbary pirates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007115647/http://worldnavies.glt.pl/ to http://worldnavies.glt.pl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Recommend deletion of images of Mulai Ahmed er Raisuni(s)

Recommend deletion of images of Mulai Ahmed er Raisuni(s). Per Mulai Ahmed er Raisuni article, he could not have been a pirate, despite his nickname, because he lived too late. Rather, he was a local on-land bandit and tribal leader. Acwilson9 (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Jefferson report to Sec. State John Jay and Continental Congress

Unfortunately, the citation of the previously posted quote, like that of Michael Oren's comments (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/11/michaelOren.html) and more modern usages of the quote, contain no sources/footnotes to the original report from Jefferson.

In searching Jefferson's letters (at least those online), the only letter in 1786 regarding the Barbary Pirates is to John Adams, and is contained at the following two links: 1. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=46&division=div1; 2. http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl46.htm

I have found another "second hand" citing of the Ambassador's response to Jefferson, but in a much earlier text; The Atlantic Monthly from October 1872 (http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?ammem/coll=moa&root=/moa/atla/atla0030/&tif=00419.TIF&view=50&frames=1).

Although I have updated the quote in the article to reflect the earliest source, I am still looking for the original document from Jefferson to Sec. State Jay. Studentofthe193 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See The American Commissioners to John Jay, 28 March 1786, (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-18-02-0115). I do not know who drafted the report, but it is signed by both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Mikedelsol (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Synthesis and non-English sources

This cite is not about the Barbary pirates, impling "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" is WP:SYNTH. This sources are in Spanish, better sources are needed per WP:RSUE. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Libyan Barbary pirates and Berbers, and Not a Single mention of them within this article

I am a Libyan, and a berber, and ive read some history regarding the barbary corsairs. Ive visited the Red Fort museum in Tripoli. The port of Tripoli ( Libya ) was a major Hub, for Barbary (* berber ) corsairs, the Etymology comes from Berber because the people identified as "Berber". Call it ( Barbarian ) as for Roman derogatory terms, "Men who were not civilized". Why is there attempts by the world to obscure or completely dismiss Libyan history? This article does not even mention the word "Libya", its always "North Africa". Tripoli ( IN LIBYA ) was a Major port for the ottomans, especially Hayredin Barbarossa whom used Local Libyan populace as pirates to raid the meditteranean. The issue indeed became so bad that the US sent ships to Tripoli to fight the pirate threat, facing a Ottoman fort, and eventually sunk off the coast. The Mast of the USS Philadelphia (1799) still stands at the red fort Museum. And for your information, this is where the marine hymn comes from "From the Halls of Montezuma To the shores of Tripoli;" and where the Mameluke ceremonial sword originates from.

The extent of the total dismissal of Libyan history, in this article ( Even though regarding piracy ) is insulting. Why should "Morocco" be mentioned but not "Libya". Why should Algiers, or Britain, or Egypt, or any other location be mentioned and not simply dismissed as "North Africa, or North Europe". Imagine writing an article saying: Napoleon was a general from West Europe. or Hannibal was a Carthaginian General from North Africa, or stating things such as King Lionheart was from Northern Europe. Biomax20 (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

No one is against Libyan part of history being included in the article. You can add it if you have notable mainstream sources that showcase the Libyan contribution. Barbary pirates were not limited to one Ethnic group and the usage is from the Greco-Roman reference to Barbarian which was in use again by the emerging European powers, because of the constant piracy and privateering by Muslims, which were according to their dictum far from civilization. Cheers --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Barbary

I have reverted part of the recent change that replaced easily attributable content with a fringe claim by a non specialist.

1. The term "Barbary pirates" initially referred to English, rather than Muslim, adventurers in North Africa.

2. As for the term "Barbary", the majority of RS agree that it derives from the word Berber, in reference to the oldest known inhabitants of the region. M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Muslim pirates

Well, the article should be clarified more, writing Muslim pirates is suspicious The word "Turks" or "Ottoman" should be clarified, and the word Muslims deleted. So that the reader understands that the people of North Africa have nothing to do with slavery Sarazxs123 (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Dead reference

I removed from "18th-19th centuries" a dead reference for the claim that "ransom and tribute to the Barbary states amounted to 20% of United States federal government's annual expenditure". The source was Michael Oren, "The Middle East and the Making of the United States, 1776 to 1815", http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/11/michaelOren.html. That title can be found at https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/18376, but it points right back to the original location, which is an ever-changing news site. Can a copy be found somewhere else? Mdmi (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added a supporting source and adjusted the content accordingly. M.Bitton (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Bias

The smell of European hypocrisy in this article is like the smell of a rotten pig, first of all their name where berberians and not barbarians. Or anyone who challenges the supremacy of white christian people is a barbarian (like Alexander the great Macedonian and Genghis Khan the barbarian)arabs and islamic world must He produces films, books... about those heroes who were able to resist white Christian racism and an attack on the pig in his barn. Djd890 (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Erm, Alexander the Great was around long before Christianity.:: 86.128.27.21 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Issues with recent reversions

I've just had two edits reverted.

1. The first ostensibly for "editorializing" by saying an academic "declined to offer his own estimate", which was corrected to a quote from him that he "wouldn't hazard a a guess about their [sic] total". Unfortunately, the way it is makes no sense now, since it was set off in a separate sentence, making the antecedent of "their" unclear. Worse, he's misquoted.
2. The second was the removal of information from a peer-reviewed journal based on the reverting editor's opinion that it was an "unreliable primary source". It's not—I didn't report the estimate in Wikivoice, I cited an academic journal which referenced the estimate—there's no substantive question the estimate was made, and no claim that it is accurate.

I would undo based on the above, but prefer to discuss here first—and wish the reverting editor had shown the same courtesy. If he/she has a reply, please include it here—else I'll undo the reversions. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 23:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The first is a reference to an unreliable primary source (to which you added your own WP:OR to boot. This is quite concerning.).

The second is a clear case of editorializing (referring to the "but" that you keep adding). M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

What is an "unreliable primary source"—John Callow's article in The Seventeenth Century? That's a bizarre way to describe a work of scholarship—in this case, a review of another scholarly work. In no way is it a "primary source", let alone "unreliable". What's your evidence for such an accusation? ElleTheBelle 22:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Legacy?

I'm a little troubled by the overreliance on Davis throughout this article and the legacy section which seems to equate slavery in North Africa with racial chattel slavery ("white Europeans" were not enslaved in North Africa -it had nothing to do with color or race). In case anyone is unaware, the Barbary slave trade has become a favorite meme of the far-right and is frequently used in their attempts to negate the history of the transatlantic slave trade.[2] And there seems to have been some edits on here to that effect.

In British Captives from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, 1563-1760’, Nabil Matar disputes Davis's extrapolation and this seems to be the majority view among specialists,

"Davis did not consult the 1682 broadside to which Morgan referred and took him, even though he wrote it half a century later, at his word. The broadside mentions 91 ships seized to Algiers between August 1677 and October 1679. And it shows the following numbers: fifty of the ships had ten or less seamen on board; eight ships had more than twenty seaman on board; and the total number of all the seamen was 918, with a few ships where 'some' seamen were 'wanting'. The average was ten seamen per ship. To reach the '7,000 to 9,000 able-bodied British men and women,' the Algerians would have had to capture around a 1,000 ships. The list further shows that there was not a single 'able-bodied' woman on board any of those ships."

The problems with Davis's figure are well beyond what the article states. It was a guesstimate, an invention of Davis and isn't historical.

James McDougall, a historian of North Africa, also cautions against making (or implying) any equivalency between black chattel slaves and Europeans enslaved in North Africa:

"Forced labour by European captives was not the norm: after the 16th Century, when fortification projects were complete and galleys lost prominence, there was little demand for it. Instead, European men captured by Corsairs were more usually ransomed than enslaved for life. Those who remained usually worked in urban occupations: they were hairdressers, shopkeepers, kept bars (yes) and worked for European consuls (who couldn’t get servants from home)."

Manushag N. Powell also articulated this view in her lecture series on the History of Piracy (although I am hesitant about citing her -she isn't a historian or specialist, but has published some work in this area that was favorably reviewed):

"Barbary captivity, while terrifying, and often brutal, was not analogous to African race chattel slavery for white captives. Barbary captives included non-Muslims, that is Christians, but also non-Christian Eastern Europeans, West Africans, and some others. Corsairs held these captives as hostage for ransom, often selling them and forcing them to labor until the ransom was paid, or until they converted to Islam."[3]

This was especially true for captured Europeans who already had a high status (eg naval officers) -rather than sold as slaves, they were held as hostages and immediately ransomed. This, too, is another flaw in Davis's approach -he assumed all these Europeans were sold on slave markets, and had no method to account for hostages. After the 16th Century, it was hostages, not slaves, that were the norm.

And that infamous Corsair raid on Baltimore, Cork, in Ireland that resulted in over 100 people kidnapped? Might be worth mentioning that the captain that led this raid was a Dutchman, a convert to Islam. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Sale corsairs

The article does not mention the term "Sale corsairs" which seems to be commonly applied to these pirates. Back in England in those days the town was often spelled "Sally". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.120.218 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2005 (UTC)

RickK

Please tell me what your problem is with my comment, rather than just deleting everything I write. You are Stupid!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.125.76 (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Rick, but I removed it because it's an irrelevant political remark. It doesn't have anything to do with the subject of the article. Rhobite 06:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is very noteworthy. It proves that the Barbary pirates were seen as so much of a threat, that the USA established a fleet in a sea where they had no territories, as opposed to the Atlantic or Pacific where they did, and were able to convince the government of their country to fork out for it. - ~~R Bell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.176.60.36 (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. You keep adding it as an attack on the United States. RickK 06:52, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

That's how you see it, but not how I see it. If I put it in as such, I would have phrased it differently, probably referring to expansionism etc. Can you explain how it was an inaccurate statement?

- Raymond Bell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.176.60.36 (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2005 (UTC)

This article is pure PC nonsense. These pirates enslaved christians and justified it by reference to the koran and the crusades. Indeed, Jefferson when he attempted to negotiate with representatives of the barbary states employed the argument that (a)the US was in no-sense a "christian nation" and (b) that the United States did not nor could it have participated in the crusades. These are pertinent facts for anyone who wants to understand this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.224.145 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary Reversions

There are clear issues with unnecessary reversions and willingness to expand historical information on this article. If you want this article to be proper and accurate, M.Bitton needs to be more open to accepting historical information that does not fit his bias ideals. 31.54.133.24 (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't see how adding Mulai Ahmed er Raisuni is reasonable or relevant. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  “He was considered by many as "The last of the Barbary Pirates"… “Raisuni embarked on a second career: kidnapping prominent officials and holding them for ransoms.” The shoe fits and his story was featured in this article for years before it mysteriously vanished. For this article to be more accurate, it’s needs to be less whitewashed. 2A00:23EE:1990:3350:BD12:7A9:49B6:42B3 (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Since you seem interested in expanding the article with historical information, I will help you by starting to provide some names that you may not familiar with. Ali Bitchin, Zymen Danseker, Jan Janszoon should do for now (I will add more once you're done). M.Bitton (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)