Because one has been romanticized and associated with freedom and adventure, the other demonized and associated with harming innocents
I guess since ships are so expensive people assume a pirates victims are government officials/wealthy merchants and thus undeserving of sympathy
This. The latter. Pirates are generally wealthy enough to earn a modicum of freedom in choosing targets and not uncommonly got hired as privateers, legalizing.
Bandits are just low level thugs and/or organized crimelords, which are much more vividly pictured.
Nevermind that pirates are still the latter, but the extent can also vary.
Mafia and Yakuza are specific examples of organized crime.
Mafia is specifically about familial crime ties.
Yakuza about clannish ties.
Both also have muh honour going for them.
More general organized crime is less embellished and treated at face value.
"Honour" is bullshit justification pretty much every time it's brought up. Organized crime, soldiery, knightly classes, it's just a tool used to keep people in line.
1 month ago
Anonymous
tell me you are an honourless dog coward fuck without telling us you are an honourless dog coward fuck.
honour is literally the ONLY thing you can give yourself, that NO ONE can ever take from you. everything else CAN be taken from you. your pride, your life. but NO ONE can MAKE you give up your HONOUR. only YOU can give it up. it is the ONE thing YOU and YOU alone possess irrevocably.
The only thing more consistent than gangsters acting ruthlessly is gangsters complaining about their code of warrior ethics or omerta or some shit.
Look at the Sopranos: when they're not fucking each others wives and gossiping they're moaning about doing twenny yeeahs in the can without squealing like it's a big deal.
1 month ago
Anonymous
That isn't honourable, though. Siding with fellow organized criminals against the civilization you're part of is anti-social and dishonourable. A person with honour would renounce their ties to mafia/yakuza/etc and assist the government in providing information to dismantle the organization for the benefit of their country.
1 month ago
Anonymous
The country is just domestic organized crime and always was.
We're talking a stand between monopoly and upstart competitor, victims will always be the peasantry.
Honourable way would be to sort who's got integrity and dependable.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>The country is just domestic organized crime and always was.
Lol no.
1 month ago
Anonymous
That's literally what a country is - the biggest group of thugs starts snowballing and getting everyone under their thumb. Then as they grow they can afford stealing less money from peasants making them the best option farmers and everyone else has. Over time peasants start to identify with their thug gang as it is psychologically easier, economically profitable and is encouraged by propaganda.
There are very few countries that didn't work through this sequence of events.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Literally every single government going back to feudalism was jumped up bandit chiefs who bossed around and beat up everyone who they wanted to rule.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>A person with honour would renounce their ties to mafia/yakuza/etc and assist the government in providing information to dismantle the organization for the benefit of their country.
cringe
1 month ago
Anonymous
>This just in: people define a nebulous concept differently and often in their own favor
Shocker.
1 month ago
Anonymous
you're just as bad as honourless homosexual. Honour is NOT a 'nebulous concept' you fucking loser.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Legalism is not honor, it's just bug ethics. Now eat those civilians and try not to think about what those guys outside the walls would say is legal to do to you if they could get in here.
the reason organised crime WAS glamourised, is because they USED to actually be glamourous. their codes of honoue etc usually meant they never preyed upon the innocent, always the rich and powerful, the government etc. the actual PEOPLE usually got away with nothing. it was only when those organisations started lowering their standards that they lost their rep. when it was booze, gambling and women they usually were, 'vice' victimless crimes. DRUGS is when they fucked themselves. that's when people turned on them and the government used it to kill them. the organised crime outfits no are scruple-less monsters, with pretensions to the originals. look at the cartels etc. utter, irredeemable monsters.
>the reason organised crime WAS glamourised, is because they USED to actually be glamourous. their codes of honoue etc usually meant they never preyed upon the innocent, always the rich and powerful, the government etc. the actual PEOPLE usually got away with nothing.
That is mob propaganda.
>is because they USED to actually be glamourous. their codes of honoue etc usually meant they never preyed upon the innocent, always the rich and powerful, the government etc.
What organization do you work for?
You better start snitching.
The cartels are not descended from honorable thieves, the cartels are descended from "anti-communist" terrorist cells which were trained and funded by the CIA.
Retard.
Only really robinhood was like that, and they specifically went out of their way to say again and again that he only steals from the rich and gives to the poor.
>Should be noted that for both pirates and bandits they're loved when they're opposition to ruling tyranny. If for example there was a major economic depression and ridiculous prohibition on alcohol, then the outlaws become peoples heroes. If a tyrannical king and corrupt sheriff are overtaxing the common folk then anyone who takes from the wealthy is a hero, whether they return it to the common folk or not. But that helps. And technically spending it returns it back into the economy and is better than the wealthy hoarding it.
Neither robin hood nor any of the other famous english outlaws were "opposed to tyranny"
Nor were any of the famous pirates
You fucking spastic
Robin Hood was never a "freedom fighter"
It's clear you've never read the original ballads here robin is described as a bandit who kills random foresters and doesn't give anything to the poor. Fucking spastic >Francis Drake was a pirate
He was a privateer. There's a difference between pirate and privateer but I wouldn't expect you to know that
[...] >spastic gets disproven and copes and seethes about it
You stated that Robin Hood and other outlaws were against the ruling class
I gave proof that they weren't. Even the most surface level retard knows that Richard the lionheart is traditionally shown as good in the robin hood stories, richard the lionheart, a king and member of the aristocracy. I showed that outlaws and pirates had nothing against the aristocracy and ruling class and in the latter case even fought for the return of the divine right of kings and absolute monarchy but you ignored it like the ESL spastic you are
He didn't give to the poor in the original ballads, spastic. He didn't steal from the poor but he didn't give to them >I'm sure all english outlaws knew their place and respected the aristocracy, eh?
They literally did, autist. Being an outlaw didn't mean they were anti-authority anarchists, becoming an outlaw didn't mean they reversed the entire medieval worldview. In the original ballads, which you clearly haven't read, robin hood didn't steal from the peasantry or from knights who were literally the ruling aristocracy. Same with pirates, spastic. Blackbeard was literally of aristocratic lineage and many pirates were jacobites meaning they were ardent monarchists who SUPPORTED the divine right of kings. They weren't poor people with a political agenda fighting against oppression, they were people out to make a quick buck >And name one other english outlaw you goalpost moving dipshit
Adam Bell, Dick Turpin. At the end of the Adam Bell ballad he literally joins the employ of the king. Dick Turpin wanted to make quick money and not much else. >Thinking people who are outlaws aren't opposed to the ruling class. Thinking any ruling class back then was anything but tyrannical. In England no less. Fucking England. There's being a monarchist and then there's whatever you are. Canadian?
I've already explained how they weren't you fucking spastic. A retard like you sees historical outlaws who were out to make money and projects his modernist opinions on them. An outlaw in medieval england wouldn't give two damns about royalty or the king or even knights because they weren't the ones oppressing them. Actual historical outlaws and bandits stole from peasants and merchants because they were oppurtunistic and didn't fight le power like you keep implying they did. And, as i've already said, there were countless outlaws from rob roy to pirates like blackbeard who were jacobites, meaning they supported the divine right of kings and absolutist monarchy. Complete Spastic
You just keep saying spastic like a kid who learned a new word. That's not a word anyone really uses around here. It's kind of a tell.
Just like real pirates where killers, thugs and rapists, except they could do it legally as privatees and then retire to cushy seaside mansions if they lived long enough.
Because pirates robbed the fucking banks and treasuries of big imperial powers and went out of their way to avoid drawing attention to themselves and committing serious crimes when on land and in port (and in fact often spent a fuckton of money at local establishments)
Bandits will fucking rob a peasant bringing grain to market and break into your house to rape your wife. If you stay on fucking land there's very little threat of pirates and the people they're robbing are the rich assholes taxing you. Not to mention many pirates ended up getting a patriotic reputation as they became Privateers and just only robbed people from your nation's enemies. It's not hard to see why the common man ended up romanticizing pirates more than bandits.
>went out of their way to avoid drawing attention to themselves and committing serious crimes when on land and in port
Unless you were on a town they were about to raid.
They were also prolific slavers during the 17th century.
>government officials/wealthy merchants and thus undeserving of sympathy
This. It's also why pic related isn't demonized despite ostensibly being just another bandit.
Because sailing is the pinnacle of adventuring, looking for treasure and sacking merchants ships.
On the other hand, there is nothing fun in robbing an Innocent guy going back from work, and, in fact, many who have been robbed at gunpoint know It sucks.
This. The latter. Pirates are generally wealthy enough to earn a modicum of freedom in choosing targets and not uncommonly got hired as privateers, legalizing.
Bandits are just low level thugs and/or organized crimelords, which are much more vividly pictured.
Nevermind that pirates are still the latter, but the extent can also vary.
Still, everyone hates the government. Fuck em.
Robin Hood.
That said, bandit has very negative connotation. Notice how Robin Hood is refereed to as prince of thieves, not prince of bandits or highwaymen.
Ships being so expensive probably means the captain is leveraged to the hilt, working himself to the bone for razor-thin profits where one crisis (i.e. a pirate attack) means his family are thrown out on the street. It's like pointing at the average farmer and saying he must be wealthy because his land and machinery are worth so much - they don't belong to him, they belong to the bank.
Because sailing is the pinnacle of adventuring, looking for treasure and sacking merchants ships.
On the other hand, there is nothing fun in robbing an Innocent guy going back from work, and, in fact, many who have been robbed at gunpoint know It sucks.
Privateers being a thing meant that pirates got the fuck romanticized out of them even back in the 17th and 18th centuries. Today's bloodthirsty sea bandit could be tomorrow's beloved war hero.
Because most of the pirates in the age of piracy were actually not bandits, but more like mercenaries. The naval routes became hell after the collapse of the Spanish Empire. The naval powers couldn't afford massive fleets necessary to dominate these routes, nor were these unwieldy fleets very effective, so they turned to small subcontractors instead. These subcontractors were pirates.
Pirates attack you out on the open seas, in an environment that was unambiguously dangerous from the start. You have to opt-in to that scenario, knowing that piracy is one of the many risks you face.
Bandits rob your grandmother on her way back home from church on sunday. They attack where you live, without warning. And they are often outlaws and army deserters in the first place, hence why they have resorted to banditry, which makes them extra distasteful from the start.
Treasure Island.
Of course there's more to it than that, but it's been popular for nearly 150 years now with lots of adaptations and whose legacy includes the standard "pirate accent" from Robert Newton's Long John Silver.
Should be noted that for both pirates and bandits they're loved when they're opposition to ruling tyranny. If for example there was a major economic depression and ridiculous prohibition on alcohol, then the outlaws become peoples heroes. If a tyrannical king and corrupt sheriff are overtaxing the common folk then anyone who takes from the wealthy is a hero, whether they return it to the common folk or not. But that helps. And technically spending it returns it back into the economy and is better than the wealthy hoarding it.
Pirates are mythologized either because they opposed symbols of power and tyranny, or because they were more like mercenaries who went after an enemy nation's ships. There's literally a song about how this is just a matter of perspective on opposing borders.
But if it's a perspective of the much larger lower classes vs the perspective of the aristocracy or the powerful, then majority opinion rules and the person is a hero. And later on their heroics will be watered down by future generations of the wealthy who like the aesthetics of the folk character but don't like the whole "rob from the rich" thing because it gives people ideas.
>Should be noted that for both pirates and bandits they're loved when they're opposition to ruling tyranny. If for example there was a major economic depression and ridiculous prohibition on alcohol, then the outlaws become peoples heroes. If a tyrannical king and corrupt sheriff are overtaxing the common folk then anyone who takes from the wealthy is a hero, whether they return it to the common folk or not. But that helps. And technically spending it returns it back into the economy and is better than the wealthy hoarding it.
Neither robin hood nor any of the other famous english outlaws were "opposed to tyranny"
Nor were any of the famous pirates
You fucking spastic
>Who is the Sheriff of Nottingham >What was the Spanish Crown
Francis Drake was a pirate and became a national British hero and got a vidya game series made based on people claiming to be descended from him. Robin Hood is synonymous with robbing from rich people.
In fairness off of the top of my head I can't name any other British outlaws that became heroes after their colonial ventures succeeded, and the Britbongs themselves became the tyranny.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Robin Hood was never a "freedom fighter"
It's clear you've never read the original ballads here robin is described as a bandit who kills random foresters and doesn't give anything to the poor. Fucking spastic >Francis Drake was a pirate
He was a privateer. There's a difference between pirate and privateer but I wouldn't expect you to know that
1 month ago
Anonymous
>There's a difference between pirate and privateer but I wouldn't expect you to know that
A privateer generally doesn't own their ships or booty, unless they've been independantly rich from the start, yes.
1 month ago
Anonymous
The OG ballads outright say he is stealing unfair tarifs and killing the men fighting off poachers.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>He was a privateer. There's a difference between pirate and privateer but I wouldn't expect you to know that
One is out for their own, one is basically a mercenary. Both would be sentenced to death after a perfunctory trial if caught by their usual victims, so practically speaking the main difference is a privateer can run for a friendly port and hide under their paymaster's skirts.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>>What was the Spanish Crown
They were not tyrants, just disorganized. Besides, they were foreigners.
>Neither robin hood nor any of the other famous english outlaws were "opposed to tyranny"
He literally robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. What kind of retard are you. And name one other english outlaw you goalpost moving dipshit. That whole blurb about the prohibition was clearly a reference to US outlaws. I'm sure all english outlaws knew their place and respected the aristocracy, eh?
Fucking spastic yourself. Thinking people who are outlaws aren't opposed to the ruling class. Thinking any ruling class back then was anything but tyrannical. In England no less. Fucking England. There's being a monarchist and then there's whatever you are. Canadian?
1 month ago
Anonymous
It is much more complex that you think. Stories of these types were never purely "outlaws vs the ruling class." They never painted all members of the same social class with the exact same brush. Outlaw stories focused heavily on "Righteous Outlaws vs Corrupt Members of the Establishment." For all the ostentatious merchants, dominating nobles and worldly clergy there were often a number of fair merchants, honorable nobles and pious monks to contrast with them. While there were corrupt nobles to make outlaws of them there were often higher ranking nobles to later pardon them for their heroic opposition to corruption.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>It is much more complex that you think
No. You dunces are extrapolating a very very straightforward post into something more complicated than it is. In your own post you're saying "it's really complicated" then you repeat the same shit I said just as simply.
You're overcomplicating a folk hero who was designed to be understood by retarded illiterate peasants. You're being retarded just so you can sound smart to yourself.
This thread is about the perceptions of these kinds of characters not about the people of the time themselves. People like outlaws when they're perceived as being on their side, or at least as sharing a common enemy. When the prohibition was big in America everyone hated the cops, and anyone who gave the cops trouble was a hero. Simple shit. Robin Hood was a folk hero because he stole from the rich. Full stop. That's all that was actually said in this thread and all that is relevant to this thread.
He didn't give to the poor in the original ballads, spastic. He didn't steal from the poor but he didn't give to them >I'm sure all english outlaws knew their place and respected the aristocracy, eh?
They literally did, autist. Being an outlaw didn't mean they were anti-authority anarchists, becoming an outlaw didn't mean they reversed the entire medieval worldview. In the original ballads, which you clearly haven't read, robin hood didn't steal from the peasantry or from knights who were literally the ruling aristocracy. Same with pirates, spastic. Blackbeard was literally of aristocratic lineage and many pirates were jacobites meaning they were ardent monarchists who SUPPORTED the divine right of kings. They weren't poor people with a political agenda fighting against oppression, they were people out to make a quick buck >And name one other english outlaw you goalpost moving dipshit
Adam Bell, Dick Turpin. At the end of the Adam Bell ballad he literally joins the employ of the king. Dick Turpin wanted to make quick money and not much else. >Thinking people who are outlaws aren't opposed to the ruling class. Thinking any ruling class back then was anything but tyrannical. In England no less. Fucking England. There's being a monarchist and then there's whatever you are. Canadian?
I've already explained how they weren't you fucking spastic. A retard like you sees historical outlaws who were out to make money and projects his modernist opinions on them. An outlaw in medieval england wouldn't give two damns about royalty or the king or even knights because they weren't the ones oppressing them. Actual historical outlaws and bandits stole from peasants and merchants because they were oppurtunistic and didn't fight le power like you keep implying they did. And, as i've already said, there were countless outlaws from rob roy to pirates like blackbeard who were jacobites, meaning they supported the divine right of kings and absolutist monarchy. Complete Spastic
>He didn't give to the poor in the original ballads, spastic.
weird how you've read these old English ballads but you didn't read my post before replying. The post where I literally said that. Spastic would be someone who angrily replies without reading.
Like how I'm not gonna read your wall of autism past the first few lines because I'm assuming it's as irrelevant as everything else you've tried to argue about. Yeesh.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>No. You dunces are extrapolating a very very straightforward post into something more complicated than it is. In your own post you're saying "it's really complicated" then you repeat the same shit I said just as simply.
No, I did not and you are oversimplifying things. You are claiming "outlaws good when all ruling class bad" like Robin Hood and the Merry Men were Anarchist folkheroes when they were not. Historically pretty much all classes understood that all classes had good apples and bad apples. In the medieval ballads, Robin Hood opposes corruption in all it's forms. He hunted down poachers, opposed despotic sheriffs and constables, aided those troubled by a greedy bishop and robbed merchants that did not do fair business. He might be an outlaw but he was always on the side of righteousness.
The heroes of the Water Margin were a similar group of righteous bandits, rebelling against the unjust while being proud to serve the just.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>The heroes of the Water Margin were a similar group of righteous bandits, rebelling against the unjust while being proud to serve the just.
The heroes of the water margin were a fucked up gang of cannibal rapist psychos, and the only thing making them heroes is the stubborn insistence of the author
1 month ago
Anonymous
>you are oversimplifying things.
Things which are simple can be said simply. It's your autism that makes you have this need to overexplain all the details and nuances that are entirely irrelevant to the point.
For the 5th fucking time: we're talking about public perception. Not actual morality. Piracy and banditry are bad. Public perception of them though can make them the villains of the day or the heroes of the hour. Robin hood in reality doesn't matter as the folklore grew beyond whatever created it.
Robin Hood is just a folk hero. Folk heroes are simple. You going "well akshewally, historically..." doesn't mean jack diddly. You're trying to fill this need to autistically info dumb under the pretense that you're correcting an error. But you're not addressing my actual point.
Here's what we're actually talking about that you're ignoring: People romanticize bandits, outlaws, and pirates and turn them into folk heroes. And they have a greater tendency to do this when the victims of the banditry are a perceived enemy. A privateer attacking the french is a hero to the british. A bandit stealing from the rich is a hero to the poor. A petty robber outsmarting the cops when the cops are unpopular for enforcing a prohibition, that's a celebrity.
That's what this fucking thread is about. Not about the accurate and true history of robin hood in the original canon, ignoring how nonsensical that is with a character who changed so much over time.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>spending this many words trying to explain things to a redditor newfag
He doesn't understand, all he knows is that writing overly verbose deboonks gets him upvotes, and that upvotes feel good.
Just walk away.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>you are oversimplifying things.
Things which are simple can be said simply. It's your autism that makes you have this need to overexplain all the details and nuances that are entirely irrelevant to the point.
For the 5th fucking time: we're talking about public perception. Not actual morality. Piracy and banditry are bad. Public perception of them though can make them the villains of the day or the heroes of the hour. Robin hood in reality doesn't matter as the folklore grew beyond whatever created it.
Robin Hood is just a folk hero. Folk heroes are simple. You going "well akshewally, historically..." doesn't mean jack diddly. You're trying to fill this need to autistically info dumb under the pretense that you're correcting an error. But you're not addressing my actual point.
Here's what we're actually talking about that you're ignoring: People romanticize bandits, outlaws, and pirates and turn them into folk heroes. And they have a greater tendency to do this when the victims of the banditry are a perceived enemy. A privateer attacking the french is a hero to the british. A bandit stealing from the rich is a hero to the poor. A petty robber outsmarting the cops when the cops are unpopular for enforcing a prohibition, that's a celebrity.
That's what this fucking thread is about. Not about the accurate and true history of robin hood in the original canon, ignoring how nonsensical that is with a character who changed so much over time.
>spastic gets disproven and copes and seethes about it
You stated that Robin Hood and other outlaws were against the ruling class
I gave proof that they weren't. Even the most surface level retard knows that Richard the lionheart is traditionally shown as good in the robin hood stories, richard the lionheart, a king and member of the aristocracy. I showed that outlaws and pirates had nothing against the aristocracy and ruling class and in the latter case even fought for the return of the divine right of kings and absolute monarchy but you ignored it like the ESL spastic you are
1 month ago
Anonymous
>I showed that outlaws and pirates had nothing against the aristocracy and ruling class
I think ESL would be the guy who missed all the times I explained ad nauseum how I don't care because the intent of the bandits and pirates is irrelevant to the perception of the public and the mythologizing. That's not only common sense, but it's also something I told you explicitly several times.
Another thing I told you several times: you should read posts before replying to them.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>aaaaaaaaaa everyone in the past was retarded because they didn't have gender studies classes like me
This narrative needs to die. In raw IQ measures the average person was smarter in Victorian era England than today, they simply had less education to use it with.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah they were definitely testing for IQ in Victorian England, so we can definitely know that. Fucking idiot.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>raw IQ >literally what narrative? >rent free gender studies boogeyman >robin hood is from victorian times >victorians of all people were smarter despite ingesting so much lead and seeing ghosts from breathing fumes from their gas lamps
this post is like those pictures where the long you look the more stupid shit you notice.
1 month ago
Anonymous
He didn't give to the poor in the original ballads, spastic. He didn't steal from the poor but he didn't give to them >I'm sure all english outlaws knew their place and respected the aristocracy, eh?
They literally did, autist. Being an outlaw didn't mean they were anti-authority anarchists, becoming an outlaw didn't mean they reversed the entire medieval worldview. In the original ballads, which you clearly haven't read, robin hood didn't steal from the peasantry or from knights who were literally the ruling aristocracy. Same with pirates, spastic. Blackbeard was literally of aristocratic lineage and many pirates were jacobites meaning they were ardent monarchists who SUPPORTED the divine right of kings. They weren't poor people with a political agenda fighting against oppression, they were people out to make a quick buck >And name one other english outlaw you goalpost moving dipshit
Adam Bell, Dick Turpin. At the end of the Adam Bell ballad he literally joins the employ of the king. Dick Turpin wanted to make quick money and not much else. >Thinking people who are outlaws aren't opposed to the ruling class. Thinking any ruling class back then was anything but tyrannical. In England no less. Fucking England. There's being a monarchist and then there's whatever you are. Canadian?
I've already explained how they weren't you fucking spastic. A retard like you sees historical outlaws who were out to make money and projects his modernist opinions on them. An outlaw in medieval england wouldn't give two damns about royalty or the king or even knights because they weren't the ones oppressing them. Actual historical outlaws and bandits stole from peasants and merchants because they were oppurtunistic and didn't fight le power like you keep implying they did. And, as i've already said, there were countless outlaws from rob roy to pirates like blackbeard who were jacobites, meaning they supported the divine right of kings and absolutist monarchy. Complete Spastic
1 month ago
Anonymous
It is much more complex that you think. Stories of these types were never purely "outlaws vs the ruling class." They never painted all members of the same social class with the exact same brush. Outlaw stories focused heavily on "Righteous Outlaws vs Corrupt Members of the Establishment." For all the ostentatious merchants, dominating nobles and worldly clergy there were often a number of fair merchants, honorable nobles and pious monks to contrast with them. While there were corrupt nobles to make outlaws of them there were often higher ranking nobles to later pardon them for their heroic opposition to corruption.
The Chinese and Serbian tales paint a more realistic picture of a people who, on a personal level, wildly swung between honourable outlaws and cannibal serial killers.
people dont encounter pirates that often anymore. But its rather easy to make a connection between bandits and your local gang of blacks/ slavs/ hispanis, bikers, arabs or gypsies.
>I dare you to name ONE non-slavic country that has gangs of slavs.
the United States of America. After New York and other states went after the Italian mob hard in the 90's it was replaced by the Russians in many parts of the country
People love a certain sorts of bandit.
The highwayman for instance.
Its about the romantic flavor, a bandit with a sense of civility, a highwayman is romanticised, a pirate, a bandit with a sense of freedom is romanticised.
"Dennis Moore, Dennie Moore riding through the night, Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore galloping through the night, he steals from the rich and gives to the poor, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore extra whore, whatabitch."
Mostly just in England, but even there there was counter-fiction. Continental highwaymen from the same era (English Civil War era, 17th century) were mostly demobbed mercenaries from the 30 Years' War and famous for their cruelty. They were despised by all and if taken alive would be lucky to get a simple beheading or hanging rather than being gibbeted, broken on a wheel, or burned alive.
They can all vary, but broadly - pirates were people who escaped an unfair system and robbed and murdered soldiers of the wealthy upper classes. Particularly, from soldiers of colonial powers, so people at the absolute height of power.
Bandits are generally ex-soldiers who can't readjust to normal life and turn to violence to get what they want. They hurt innocents, rape and steal from normal people. They take from the already needed.
As noted in this threat, there are exceptions, Robin Hood types, or Highwaymen who rob from rich middle class industrialists and nobles.
General banditry in Europe was pretty fucking gross and everyone understood it anyways.
One practice was home invasions of older folks at night, picking them up and holding their feet over their heart's fire until they told you where they stashed their money.
Majority of the targets of pirates were foreign navies and wealthy merchants. Normal people don't generally own sailing ships and casually cross oceans.
Majority of targets for bandits were anyone who happened to be walking down the road the bandits were on, which could include farmers, peasants, and other low-class citizens with too little to their name and too much to lose because some dickbag merc with nothing better to do pointed a sword at them.
Historically the majority of pirate raids against ships didn't require bloodshed or use of force, just show of force - like the song goes, "I was told we'd cruise the seas for American gold, we'd fire no gun". They were also disciplined compared to regular bandits, even if a ship wasn't privateering its crew was held to a code of conduct as strict or moreso than contemporary naval ships.
Combine that with long periods of isolation at sea and you have a force that's more quirky than dangerous to the average person they come across.
One robs people rich enough to fill galleons with treasure, the other robs people. Doesn't take a genius to realize why one's more popular at the local tavern.
Because a bloke with a knife can strike you any fucking minute while simply walking around and thus has absolutely ZERO romanticised associations to himself, whereas pirates-as-portrayed-in-media are gone for 300+ years
It's like asking why people masturbate to the Roman Republic or the Ming dynasty, despite both being objectively shit.
There's the general sense that anyone on the sea had to go out of their way to be there. Whether is sailor, merchant, pirate, or even fisherman, you generally have to make a willful choice to be on the ocean, and the risks that come with it.
Bandits on the other hand pillage the land, and often attack villages, which there is no romance or unspoken consent to that.
>There's the general sense that anyone on the sea had to go out of their way to be there. Whether is sailor, merchant, pirate, or even fisherman, you generally have to make a willful choice to be on the ocean, and the risks that come with it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment
Crime seems cool when it's happening to somebody else, far far away.
The more exotic the locale and the greater distance from me, the viewer, the cooler the crime seems.
Methodology helps too. Buncha junkies robbing people at needlepoint or joggers stealing shoes during a riot in the city isn't as cool as a bank heist in the same city, particularly if there are zero casualties and the crooks get away clean.
Pirates get more romantic the further from my shore they are, until they are finding Spanish gold in the Carribbean or somewhere the food is Hispanicy
False premise, there are major exceptions to both throughout literary Canon. Despite its popularity, Treasure Island is not a flattering depiction of pirates or piracy. Almost all depictions of the Barbary pirates paints them as evil degenerates (which they were). While the bandit is usually a despised, there are major exceptions- not just Robin Hood, but the literary tradition of the romantic highwayman that carried through to the 19th and 20th centuries with figures like Zorro or outlaw cowboys.
I think the prevalence of the pirate as a romantic anarchist antihero has a lot to do with the intended audience of pirate fiction, which were usually landsmen. The genre really started finding its feet in the 17th and 18th century. Don't forget what an awful period this was for Europe, especially the first half of the 17th; it was almost endless war unless you were Swiss. A bandit to a European in these periods was not an abstract figure, he was a real thing - a rapist, murderer, and thief even when he was a soldier and mercenary, worse when he became a full outlaw.
While you’re right about most of Treasure Island’s pirates being a bunch of degenerates who would kill each other for a klondike bar, Long John Silver is portrayed somewhat positively. He’s charismatic, he clearly cares for Jim on some level, he has a sense of honor, he’s a legitimate threat (able to murder a man despite missing a leg and walking around on crutches), and he makes a clean getaway.
He's a fairly mixed character, which is a
I think what makes him so enduring. A bad dude - an oathbreaker, a thief, a murderer - but not without some virtues to temper his wickedness. He's certainly the most human of the pirates.
Pirates are larger scale due to being on ships. So while bandits might be a threat to any poor traveler on the road, pirates are a threat to governments and corporations.
This allows them to be romanticized for their opposition to symbols of power and freedom from tyranny.
Running a ship and boarding other ships requires a large and well disciplined group with specific skills, hiding in the woods and robbing the occasional passer-by is much simpler.
TL DR piracy is hardcore and banditry is for casuals.
Pirates can appear anywhere, they can raid a tropical island, a wintry town, any part of asia, middle east, ottoman port town, France, or pillage old temples if they hear about it. Including wacky shit like some off magic island full of witches or elves, or sail off to the land of the dead etc.
Bandits are pretty much down to where their horses can take them.
This, pirates and people on boats in general allow for a much wider variety in storytelling. Since it can relocate to other nations and climate zones quickly and easily. Plus the grouping of specialists on a giant vehicle is a lot more interesting. While bandits are more traveling thieves and there is not a whole lot to them, they rarely go outside their own nation and there is a lack of far reaching travel or interesting locales unless the whole story is within an interesting locale from the start.
Overall bandits are lower tier, lower tech, travel less distances, and do not consist of large gun loaded vehicle vs large gun loaded vehicle.
Pirates? No no they're Privateers, delivering justice to those Spanish dogs who have the audacity to try to sail on Great Britain's waters (ie all of them, everywhere)
Yes, heaven forbid people use the last remnant of North European Paganism as a setting and through that glorify the roaming bands of trading pillagers who took part in it.
You sound like some sallow skinned muttoid who gets angry people don't think about the Romans because of your perchance to suck off authority.
It's more likely he's just tired of them being portrayed as badasses when they (like any other pirate or bandit) turned tail and ran the second they were in danger of fighting anything but unprepared peasants desperately defending their homes.
Y'all on some shrooms bro.
Taxation, when transparent and funds public facilities and services, is okay - just look at Scandinavian countries. Sure the tax is high, but that tax pays for free education, good healthcare, and even unemployment welfare. If these taxes pay for every citizen's basic human necessities, is that a bad thing?
To think all taxes are theft means you are less free than you think.
Victarion "Volcano-Arm" Greyjoy is better. That said, Euron and Victarion and the Greyjoys in general my favorite House in Ice and Fire. Shame they were shoddily used in the show.
What gets me is that the UN has backtracked on declaring pirates enemies of humanity the moment the Somalis began banking hard on muh cultural heritage during their scuffle with Somaliland.
>Humanity has an inherent need to belong to a group and to serve a lord. It is literally hardwired into our souls
Then why do we rile against the chains of the state as much as we can? Why do we naturally divide into smaller tribal groups and wage conflict on each other even when one side is seen as stronger?
The theory of Dunbar's number holds that we can only really maintain about 100–250 connections at once. This is the level at which one person can maintain 150 stable personal relationships, which correspond to a tribe-sized group. It's the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar.
Past that number, relationships become fuzzier. You begin having problems with remember anything about anyone but then name. Then, relationships become increasingly detached, ritualized and formal.
Never agreed with those numbers myself. True friendships -- and I mean TRUE -- are something not everyone has. Not even the majority of people have them.
>Some years ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people’s hats off—then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can.
Pirates steal from the rich and the government after being forcefully press-ganged to serve on a ship against their will.
A bandit just rapes, murders and steals from average folk because they think that nobody can stop them.
>Pirates steal from the rich and the government after being forcefully press-ganged to serve on a ship against their will.
That's the romanized idea. But many pirates were complete scum that assaulted coast villages and it's people on a daily basis. Hell, the whole Spanish region of Almeria was depopulated because of Red Beard slaughters
bandits are associated with fucks who pick on the weak. whilst pirates, by dint of having ships and crew etc to support, that all cost lots of money, by necessity, prey upon rich merchants, navies etc. in an era where a well to do man might not see a thousand pounds a year, pirates are taking Prizes and Cargoes in the thousands of pounds. they were one of THE archetypical 'steal from the rich and give to the poor, because the pirate could never hide amongst the wealthy etc, so usually all their wealth ended up back amongst the poor, the dockers, etc, because that's who could hide them, smuggle the wealth out and get supplies for it.
bandits tend to have been rob everyone who exists because fuck you.
hell, the most successful pirate, a WOMAN, became a pirate admiral and the government basically had to surrender to her and she became their navy. some retarded amount like 10 thousand + junks.
that's literally the story of one of THE most powerless annopressed peoples of a society, a fucking WOMAN, a POOR woman, becoming literally the most powerful person in the nation, fighting the government and WINNING. seriously a heroic story.
you need to have enough money to buy a boat to be afraid of pirates, whereas bandits can harass or raze the common man. a complex operation set on taking rich people's cargo is much more romantic than the thought of disorganized thugs sack random people opportunistically
Historically, they have better stories than most bandits. One story I remember reading about was some random pirate paid a whore the modern day equivalent of $20k just to flash him. Then there's Blackbeard, who threw wild parties and is said to have put a bounty on the Governor of Virginia's head that was double to price the governor put on his own.
Just real funny stories about having too much money. The ocean is also more adventurous than land, and thus Pirates gain a huge reputation of adventure that follows them. For example, you wouldn't call them "Sky bandits" or "Space Bandits" unless you wanted a player to know these enemies were worthless.
I think it's a question of community. There were bandit families and bandit communities who stuck together (we usually call them 'outlaws' at that point because outlaw is cooler than bandit), but most bandits were just an extension of the homeless rabble, the rabble was fluid and it was constantly eating itself.
A pirate crew is an outlaw/bandit community that happens to be stable enough to run a ship and that makes them special. They take losses, some of them to infighting, but if you revisit the same pirate ship a month later and it hasn't been sunk yet then you'll mostly see the same pirates.
Also, yea, the word 'pirate' evokes the pirates of the 1700s, ex-marines who ripped off treasure ships, it really was some next-level banditry.
One point I haven't seen anyone bring up is proximity. Even when pirates were a real and active threat they were only a threat to those who were at sea and occasionally people who lived on smaller, less guarded islands. Bandits, on the other hand, were committing most of their crimes much closer to towns, villages and cities and are were much more likely to attack those directly than most pirates were (though that's hardly unheard of either). As a result there's a much larger sense of detachment from the concept of pirates for the average farmer or city dweller
Because plebs love storytellers regardless if they say the truth or not, and what good storytellers meme into reality goes. Pirates can be either black-hearted reavers or lovable freedom-loving rogues: in both cases, however, they travel by ship from a swashbuckling adventure to the next and answer to no authority. Brigands, however, can either be evil robbers or heroic freedom fighters: these two possible archetypes differ so much in principle they may as well be opposed to each other. There can be no such thing as a lovable freedom-loving brigand, exactly as there can be no evil, black-hearted rebels fighting against foreign occupation. You either are a brigand or a freedom fighter, and it all depends on the whims of storytellers. Picrelated was a soldier turned freedom fighter that wanted the armies of revolutionary France out of his country, and his rebels fought side by side with the british and the austrian conventional militaries. Whatever brigand he met, he recruited into his resistence army, like a player character from fucking Mount & Blade does. But then Laurel and Hardy made a movie set a full century before he was even born, in which a brigand leader shared his nickname, and from that moment onwards Fra Diavolo was synonimous with brigandry, even in southern Italy, the lands he freed from the foreign yoke. Conversely, figures like Robin Hood, Braveheart or Garibaldi are always depicted as freedom fighters because that's how stories describe them.
Outcasts, miserables, natives, runaway slaves and bandits from the northeastern desertic regions of Brazil, they would band together, wear flamboyant pirate-like attire and rob rich landowners
Some bands were violent outlaws that wanted nothing more than rape, steal and plunder the edges of the "sertão" desert... Others were Robin Hood-esque groups that avenged injustices, pillaged rich bastards and distributed money and resources to poor people
Some, like the famous"Lampião's" ("Lantern", nickname of their leader, Virgulino da Silva) band, were almost a DnD group, with skilled hunter/scouts, brute force brawlers, traditional afro-brazilian sorcerers and Catholic priests/living saints joining forces against the oppressive Empire of Brazil
They often had the pirate "feeling of freedom", roaming some hostile environment, burying treasures and uniting very different individuals from very different backgrounds into a lawless adventure
Because one has been romanticized and associated with freedom and adventure, the other demonized and associated with harming innocents
I guess since ships are so expensive people assume a pirates victims are government officials/wealthy merchants and thus undeserving of sympathy
This. The latter. Pirates are generally wealthy enough to earn a modicum of freedom in choosing targets and not uncommonly got hired as privateers, legalizing.
Bandits are just low level thugs and/or organized crimelords, which are much more vividly pictured.
Nevermind that pirates are still the latter, but the extent can also vary.
Still, everyone hates the government. Fuck em.
Yeah, it's not like organized crime gets romanticized or anything. No media about mafia, yakuza and all that shit. Only honest goofy pirates.
Mafia and Yakuza are specific examples of organized crime.
Mafia is specifically about familial crime ties.
Yakuza about clannish ties.
Both also have muh honour going for them.
More general organized crime is less embellished and treated at face value.
Note: neither group actually had honour. Organized crime is inherently dishonourable.
"Honour" is bullshit justification pretty much every time it's brought up. Organized crime, soldiery, knightly classes, it's just a tool used to keep people in line.
tell me you are an honourless dog coward fuck without telling us you are an honourless dog coward fuck.
honour is literally the ONLY thing you can give yourself, that NO ONE can ever take from you. everything else CAN be taken from you. your pride, your life. but NO ONE can MAKE you give up your HONOUR. only YOU can give it up. it is the ONE thing YOU and YOU alone possess irrevocably.
The word "honour" gets used to mean a dozen different unrelated things. Here's a vid of a guy ranting about it
>Both also have muh honour
Have you seen a single mafia movie?
The only thing more consistent than gangsters acting ruthlessly is gangsters complaining about their code of warrior ethics or omerta or some shit.
Look at the Sopranos: when they're not fucking each others wives and gossiping they're moaning about doing twenny yeeahs in the can without squealing like it's a big deal.
That isn't honourable, though. Siding with fellow organized criminals against the civilization you're part of is anti-social and dishonourable. A person with honour would renounce their ties to mafia/yakuza/etc and assist the government in providing information to dismantle the organization for the benefit of their country.
The country is just domestic organized crime and always was.
We're talking a stand between monopoly and upstart competitor, victims will always be the peasantry.
Honourable way would be to sort who's got integrity and dependable.
>The country is just domestic organized crime and always was.
Lol no.
That's literally what a country is - the biggest group of thugs starts snowballing and getting everyone under their thumb. Then as they grow they can afford stealing less money from peasants making them the best option farmers and everyone else has. Over time peasants start to identify with their thug gang as it is psychologically easier, economically profitable and is encouraged by propaganda.
There are very few countries that didn't work through this sequence of events.
Literally every single government going back to feudalism was jumped up bandit chiefs who bossed around and beat up everyone who they wanted to rule.
>A person with honour would renounce their ties to mafia/yakuza/etc and assist the government in providing information to dismantle the organization for the benefit of their country.
cringe
>This just in: people define a nebulous concept differently and often in their own favor
Shocker.
you're just as bad as honourless homosexual. Honour is NOT a 'nebulous concept' you fucking loser.
Legalism is not honor, it's just bug ethics. Now eat those civilians and try not to think about what those guys outside the walls would say is legal to do to you if they could get in here.
Yes
You're right, it's not like there have been multiple lauded TV shows that romanticize organized crime in the past 20 years.
the reason organised crime WAS glamourised, is because they USED to actually be glamourous. their codes of honoue etc usually meant they never preyed upon the innocent, always the rich and powerful, the government etc. the actual PEOPLE usually got away with nothing. it was only when those organisations started lowering their standards that they lost their rep. when it was booze, gambling and women they usually were, 'vice' victimless crimes. DRUGS is when they fucked themselves. that's when people turned on them and the government used it to kill them. the organised crime outfits no are scruple-less monsters, with pretensions to the originals. look at the cartels etc. utter, irredeemable monsters.
>the reason organised crime WAS glamourised, is because they USED to actually be glamourous. their codes of honoue etc usually meant they never preyed upon the innocent, always the rich and powerful, the government etc. the actual PEOPLE usually got away with nothing.
That is mob propaganda.
>is because they USED to actually be glamourous. their codes of honoue etc usually meant they never preyed upon the innocent, always the rich and powerful, the government etc.
What organization do you work for?
You better start snitching.
The cartels are not descended from honorable thieves, the cartels are descended from "anti-communist" terrorist cells which were trained and funded by the CIA.
Retard.
>the other demonized and associated with harming innocents
Unless you're a highwayman in which case you're hella romantic.
Only really robinhood was like that, and they specifically went out of their way to say again and again that he only steals from the rich and gives to the poor.
There are countless examples of romanticised bandits and that's excluding the rest of europe
Fucking spastic
Bandits are folk heroes in all of europe
You just keep saying spastic like a kid who learned a new word. That's not a word anyone really uses around here. It's kind of a tell.
That's because they had flair
That's really the key; you have to be fashionable while committing your crimes
real highwaymen would cut peoples fingers off to get rings, they were violent murderous brutes
Just like real pirates where killers, thugs and rapists, except they could do it legally as privatees and then retire to cushy seaside mansions if they lived long enough.
Because pirates robbed the fucking banks and treasuries of big imperial powers and went out of their way to avoid drawing attention to themselves and committing serious crimes when on land and in port (and in fact often spent a fuckton of money at local establishments)
Bandits will fucking rob a peasant bringing grain to market and break into your house to rape your wife. If you stay on fucking land there's very little threat of pirates and the people they're robbing are the rich assholes taxing you. Not to mention many pirates ended up getting a patriotic reputation as they became Privateers and just only robbed people from your nation's enemies. It's not hard to see why the common man ended up romanticizing pirates more than bandits.
>went out of their way to avoid drawing attention to themselves and committing serious crimes when on land and in port
Unless you were on a town they were about to raid.
They were also prolific slavers during the 17th century.
This be why Aye be never play'n bandits.
Aye be a 'land pirate'.
>government officials/wealthy merchants and thus undeserving of sympathy
This. It's also why pic related isn't demonized despite ostensibly being just another bandit.
They also helped the winning side in the American Revolution.
Pirates were well known to be slavers and raid cities and villages.
https://www.twitch.tv/giantbomb/clip/RelatedDarlingTarsierSoonerLater
Robin Hood.
That said, bandit has very negative connotation. Notice how Robin Hood is refereed to as prince of thieves, not prince of bandits or highwaymen.
Ships being so expensive probably means the captain is leveraged to the hilt, working himself to the bone for razor-thin profits where one crisis (i.e. a pirate attack) means his family are thrown out on the street. It's like pointing at the average farmer and saying he must be wealthy because his land and machinery are worth so much - they don't belong to him, they belong to the bank.
Because sailing is the pinnacle of adventuring, looking for treasure and sacking merchants ships.
On the other hand, there is nothing fun in robbing an Innocent guy going back from work, and, in fact, many who have been robbed at gunpoint know It sucks.
Pirates were vicious too
Privateers being a thing meant that pirates got the fuck romanticized out of them even back in the 17th and 18th centuries. Today's bloodthirsty sea bandit could be tomorrow's beloved war hero.
Because most of the pirates in the age of piracy were actually not bandits, but more like mercenaries. The naval routes became hell after the collapse of the Spanish Empire. The naval powers couldn't afford massive fleets necessary to dominate these routes, nor were these unwieldy fleets very effective, so they turned to small subcontractors instead. These subcontractors were pirates.
Fucking retard.
Golden age of piracy: 1650s - 1730s
Loss of Spain’s American territory: 1810 - 1833
Pirates are memorable characters. Bandits are aggressive wildlife.
Pirates attack you out on the open seas, in an environment that was unambiguously dangerous from the start. You have to opt-in to that scenario, knowing that piracy is one of the many risks you face.
Bandits rob your grandmother on her way back home from church on sunday. They attack where you live, without warning. And they are often outlaws and army deserters in the first place, hence why they have resorted to banditry, which makes them extra distasteful from the start.
Treasure Island.
Of course there's more to it than that, but it's been popular for nearly 150 years now with lots of adaptations and whose legacy includes the standard "pirate accent" from Robert Newton's Long John Silver.
Of course there's more to that, to say the least. Stevenson wouldn't have written it if pirates weren't already wildly popular.
Ever hear of Robin Hood and his merry men?
Pirates>highwaymen>footpads
Because most people don't own ships and will never sail you fucking Mong.
>Why do people love pirates but hate bandits?
>Why do people love pirates but hate bandits?
>Why do people love pirates but hate bandits?
Should be noted that for both pirates and bandits they're loved when they're opposition to ruling tyranny. If for example there was a major economic depression and ridiculous prohibition on alcohol, then the outlaws become peoples heroes. If a tyrannical king and corrupt sheriff are overtaxing the common folk then anyone who takes from the wealthy is a hero, whether they return it to the common folk or not. But that helps. And technically spending it returns it back into the economy and is better than the wealthy hoarding it.
Pirates are mythologized either because they opposed symbols of power and tyranny, or because they were more like mercenaries who went after an enemy nation's ships. There's literally a song about how this is just a matter of perspective on opposing borders.
But if it's a perspective of the much larger lower classes vs the perspective of the aristocracy or the powerful, then majority opinion rules and the person is a hero. And later on their heroics will be watered down by future generations of the wealthy who like the aesthetics of the folk character but don't like the whole "rob from the rich" thing because it gives people ideas.
>Should be noted that for both pirates and bandits they're loved when they're opposition to ruling tyranny. If for example there was a major economic depression and ridiculous prohibition on alcohol, then the outlaws become peoples heroes. If a tyrannical king and corrupt sheriff are overtaxing the common folk then anyone who takes from the wealthy is a hero, whether they return it to the common folk or not. But that helps. And technically spending it returns it back into the economy and is better than the wealthy hoarding it.
Neither robin hood nor any of the other famous english outlaws were "opposed to tyranny"
Nor were any of the famous pirates
You fucking spastic
>Who is the Sheriff of Nottingham
>What was the Spanish Crown
Francis Drake was a pirate and became a national British hero and got a vidya game series made based on people claiming to be descended from him. Robin Hood is synonymous with robbing from rich people.
In fairness off of the top of my head I can't name any other British outlaws that became heroes after their colonial ventures succeeded, and the Britbongs themselves became the tyranny.
Robin Hood was never a "freedom fighter"
It's clear you've never read the original ballads here robin is described as a bandit who kills random foresters and doesn't give anything to the poor. Fucking spastic
>Francis Drake was a pirate
He was a privateer. There's a difference between pirate and privateer but I wouldn't expect you to know that
>There's a difference between pirate and privateer but I wouldn't expect you to know that
A privateer generally doesn't own their ships or booty, unless they've been independantly rich from the start, yes.
The OG ballads outright say he is stealing unfair tarifs and killing the men fighting off poachers.
>He was a privateer. There's a difference between pirate and privateer but I wouldn't expect you to know that
One is out for their own, one is basically a mercenary. Both would be sentenced to death after a perfunctory trial if caught by their usual victims, so practically speaking the main difference is a privateer can run for a friendly port and hide under their paymaster's skirts.
>>What was the Spanish Crown
They were not tyrants, just disorganized. Besides, they were foreigners.
>Neither robin hood nor any of the other famous english outlaws were "opposed to tyranny"
He literally robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. What kind of retard are you. And name one other english outlaw you goalpost moving dipshit. That whole blurb about the prohibition was clearly a reference to US outlaws. I'm sure all english outlaws knew their place and respected the aristocracy, eh?
Fucking spastic yourself. Thinking people who are outlaws aren't opposed to the ruling class. Thinking any ruling class back then was anything but tyrannical. In England no less. Fucking England. There's being a monarchist and then there's whatever you are. Canadian?
It is much more complex that you think. Stories of these types were never purely "outlaws vs the ruling class." They never painted all members of the same social class with the exact same brush. Outlaw stories focused heavily on "Righteous Outlaws vs Corrupt Members of the Establishment." For all the ostentatious merchants, dominating nobles and worldly clergy there were often a number of fair merchants, honorable nobles and pious monks to contrast with them. While there were corrupt nobles to make outlaws of them there were often higher ranking nobles to later pardon them for their heroic opposition to corruption.
>It is much more complex that you think
No. You dunces are extrapolating a very very straightforward post into something more complicated than it is. In your own post you're saying "it's really complicated" then you repeat the same shit I said just as simply.
You're overcomplicating a folk hero who was designed to be understood by retarded illiterate peasants. You're being retarded just so you can sound smart to yourself.
This thread is about the perceptions of these kinds of characters not about the people of the time themselves. People like outlaws when they're perceived as being on their side, or at least as sharing a common enemy. When the prohibition was big in America everyone hated the cops, and anyone who gave the cops trouble was a hero. Simple shit. Robin Hood was a folk hero because he stole from the rich. Full stop. That's all that was actually said in this thread and all that is relevant to this thread.
>He didn't give to the poor in the original ballads, spastic.
weird how you've read these old English ballads but you didn't read my post before replying. The post where I literally said that. Spastic would be someone who angrily replies without reading.
Like how I'm not gonna read your wall of autism past the first few lines because I'm assuming it's as irrelevant as everything else you've tried to argue about. Yeesh.
>No. You dunces are extrapolating a very very straightforward post into something more complicated than it is. In your own post you're saying "it's really complicated" then you repeat the same shit I said just as simply.
No, I did not and you are oversimplifying things. You are claiming "outlaws good when all ruling class bad" like Robin Hood and the Merry Men were Anarchist folkheroes when they were not. Historically pretty much all classes understood that all classes had good apples and bad apples. In the medieval ballads, Robin Hood opposes corruption in all it's forms. He hunted down poachers, opposed despotic sheriffs and constables, aided those troubled by a greedy bishop and robbed merchants that did not do fair business. He might be an outlaw but he was always on the side of righteousness.
The heroes of the Water Margin were a similar group of righteous bandits, rebelling against the unjust while being proud to serve the just.
>The heroes of the Water Margin were a similar group of righteous bandits, rebelling against the unjust while being proud to serve the just.
The heroes of the water margin were a fucked up gang of cannibal rapist psychos, and the only thing making them heroes is the stubborn insistence of the author
>you are oversimplifying things.
Things which are simple can be said simply. It's your autism that makes you have this need to overexplain all the details and nuances that are entirely irrelevant to the point.
For the 5th fucking time: we're talking about public perception. Not actual morality. Piracy and banditry are bad. Public perception of them though can make them the villains of the day or the heroes of the hour. Robin hood in reality doesn't matter as the folklore grew beyond whatever created it.
Robin Hood is just a folk hero. Folk heroes are simple. You going "well akshewally, historically..." doesn't mean jack diddly. You're trying to fill this need to autistically info dumb under the pretense that you're correcting an error. But you're not addressing my actual point.
Here's what we're actually talking about that you're ignoring: People romanticize bandits, outlaws, and pirates and turn them into folk heroes. And they have a greater tendency to do this when the victims of the banditry are a perceived enemy. A privateer attacking the french is a hero to the british. A bandit stealing from the rich is a hero to the poor. A petty robber outsmarting the cops when the cops are unpopular for enforcing a prohibition, that's a celebrity.
That's what this fucking thread is about. Not about the accurate and true history of robin hood in the original canon, ignoring how nonsensical that is with a character who changed so much over time.
>spending this many words trying to explain things to a redditor newfag
He doesn't understand, all he knows is that writing overly verbose deboonks gets him upvotes, and that upvotes feel good.
Just walk away.
>spastic gets disproven and copes and seethes about it
You stated that Robin Hood and other outlaws were against the ruling class
I gave proof that they weren't. Even the most surface level retard knows that Richard the lionheart is traditionally shown as good in the robin hood stories, richard the lionheart, a king and member of the aristocracy. I showed that outlaws and pirates had nothing against the aristocracy and ruling class and in the latter case even fought for the return of the divine right of kings and absolute monarchy but you ignored it like the ESL spastic you are
>I showed that outlaws and pirates had nothing against the aristocracy and ruling class
I think ESL would be the guy who missed all the times I explained ad nauseum how I don't care because the intent of the bandits and pirates is irrelevant to the perception of the public and the mythologizing. That's not only common sense, but it's also something I told you explicitly several times.
Another thing I told you several times: you should read posts before replying to them.
>aaaaaaaaaa everyone in the past was retarded because they didn't have gender studies classes like me
This narrative needs to die. In raw IQ measures the average person was smarter in Victorian era England than today, they simply had less education to use it with.
Yeah they were definitely testing for IQ in Victorian England, so we can definitely know that. Fucking idiot.
>raw IQ
>literally what narrative?
>rent free gender studies boogeyman
>robin hood is from victorian times
>victorians of all people were smarter despite ingesting so much lead and seeing ghosts from breathing fumes from their gas lamps
this post is like those pictures where the long you look the more stupid shit you notice.
He didn't give to the poor in the original ballads, spastic. He didn't steal from the poor but he didn't give to them
>I'm sure all english outlaws knew their place and respected the aristocracy, eh?
They literally did, autist. Being an outlaw didn't mean they were anti-authority anarchists, becoming an outlaw didn't mean they reversed the entire medieval worldview. In the original ballads, which you clearly haven't read, robin hood didn't steal from the peasantry or from knights who were literally the ruling aristocracy. Same with pirates, spastic. Blackbeard was literally of aristocratic lineage and many pirates were jacobites meaning they were ardent monarchists who SUPPORTED the divine right of kings. They weren't poor people with a political agenda fighting against oppression, they were people out to make a quick buck
>And name one other english outlaw you goalpost moving dipshit
Adam Bell, Dick Turpin. At the end of the Adam Bell ballad he literally joins the employ of the king. Dick Turpin wanted to make quick money and not much else.
>Thinking people who are outlaws aren't opposed to the ruling class. Thinking any ruling class back then was anything but tyrannical. In England no less. Fucking England. There's being a monarchist and then there's whatever you are. Canadian?
I've already explained how they weren't you fucking spastic. A retard like you sees historical outlaws who were out to make money and projects his modernist opinions on them. An outlaw in medieval england wouldn't give two damns about royalty or the king or even knights because they weren't the ones oppressing them. Actual historical outlaws and bandits stole from peasants and merchants because they were oppurtunistic and didn't fight le power like you keep implying they did. And, as i've already said, there were countless outlaws from rob roy to pirates like blackbeard who were jacobites, meaning they supported the divine right of kings and absolutist monarchy. Complete Spastic
The Chinese and Serbian tales paint a more realistic picture of a people who, on a personal level, wildly swung between honourable outlaws and cannibal serial killers.
people dont encounter pirates that often anymore. But its rather easy to make a connection between bandits and your local gang of blacks/ slavs/ hispanis, bikers, arabs or gypsies.
I dare you to name ONE non-slavic country that has gangs of slavs.
Most slav countries don't even have bands of slavs lmao.
England (exclave of Pakistan)
Nah
>I dare you to name ONE non-slavic country that has gangs of slavs.
the United States of America. After New York and other states went after the Italian mob hard in the 90's it was replaced by the Russians in many parts of the country
Nothing but a media myth. Italians are 6% of the population. Russians are half of a percent, and they don't live compactly like Italians do.
No they weren't. The red mob was all over miami and south florida
People love a certain sorts of bandit.
The highwayman for instance.
Its about the romantic flavor, a bandit with a sense of civility, a highwayman is romanticised, a pirate, a bandit with a sense of freedom is romanticised.
"Dennis Moore, Dennie Moore riding through the night, Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore galloping through the night, he steals from the rich and gives to the poor, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore extra whore, whatabitch."
I don’t think highwaymen are widely regarded this way at all to be honest
>I'M THE HIGHWAY MAN
Mostly just in England, but even there there was counter-fiction. Continental highwaymen from the same era (English Civil War era, 17th century) were mostly demobbed mercenaries from the 30 Years' War and famous for their cruelty. They were despised by all and if taken alive would be lucky to get a simple beheading or hanging rather than being gibbeted, broken on a wheel, or burned alive.
They can all vary, but broadly - pirates were people who escaped an unfair system and robbed and murdered soldiers of the wealthy upper classes. Particularly, from soldiers of colonial powers, so people at the absolute height of power.
Bandits are generally ex-soldiers who can't readjust to normal life and turn to violence to get what they want. They hurt innocents, rape and steal from normal people. They take from the already needed.
As noted in this threat, there are exceptions, Robin Hood types, or Highwaymen who rob from rich middle class industrialists and nobles.
Romanticized just like vikings vs other raiders.
Are bandits fuckable?
They can fuck right off. So yes
>hate bandits
robin hood is a bandit with good propaganda
Robin Hood was a rebel with bad propaganda
The fact they are stealing from ships means they are stealing from the wealthy, because the owner of a ship is inherently wealthy.
In contrast bandits can steal from the destitute.
Contrary to the stereotype, Pirates robbed coastal settlements just as happily as ships.
>muh freedom
General banditry in Europe was pretty fucking gross and everyone understood it anyways.
One practice was home invasions of older folks at night, picking them up and holding their feet over their heart's fire until they told you where they stashed their money.
You mean the method to steal ornate shotguns? As in guns that fire shots?
What?
>Give me your gun or I'll burn your feet
>gives up gun
>gets shot
I got the reference
Majority of the targets of pirates were foreign navies and wealthy merchants. Normal people don't generally own sailing ships and casually cross oceans.
Majority of targets for bandits were anyone who happened to be walking down the road the bandits were on, which could include farmers, peasants, and other low-class citizens with too little to their name and too much to lose because some dickbag merc with nothing better to do pointed a sword at them.
Historically the majority of pirate raids against ships didn't require bloodshed or use of force, just show of force - like the song goes, "I was told we'd cruise the seas for American gold, we'd fire no gun". They were also disciplined compared to regular bandits, even if a ship wasn't privateering its crew was held to a code of conduct as strict or moreso than contemporary naval ships.
Combine that with long periods of isolation at sea and you have a force that's more quirky than dangerous to the average person they come across.
One robs people rich enough to fill galleons with treasure, the other robs people. Doesn't take a genius to realize why one's more popular at the local tavern.
Because a bloke with a knife can strike you any fucking minute while simply walking around and thus has absolutely ZERO romanticised associations to himself, whereas pirates-as-portrayed-in-media are gone for 300+ years
It's like asking why people masturbate to the Roman Republic or the Ming dynasty, despite both being objectively shit.
Just call yourself a "Highwayman", people will love you just like a pirate.
People hate bandits?
There's the general sense that anyone on the sea had to go out of their way to be there. Whether is sailor, merchant, pirate, or even fisherman, you generally have to make a willful choice to be on the ocean, and the risks that come with it.
Bandits on the other hand pillage the land, and often attack villages, which there is no romance or unspoken consent to that.
Press gangs were a thing.
>There's the general sense that anyone on the sea had to go out of their way to be there. Whether is sailor, merchant, pirate, or even fisherman, you generally have to make a willful choice to be on the ocean, and the risks that come with it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment
Crime seems cool when it's happening to somebody else, far far away.
The more exotic the locale and the greater distance from me, the viewer, the cooler the crime seems.
Methodology helps too. Buncha junkies robbing people at needlepoint or joggers stealing shoes during a riot in the city isn't as cool as a bank heist in the same city, particularly if there are zero casualties and the crooks get away clean.
Pirates get more romantic the further from my shore they are, until they are finding Spanish gold in the Carribbean or somewhere the food is Hispanicy
False premise, there are major exceptions to both throughout literary Canon. Despite its popularity, Treasure Island is not a flattering depiction of pirates or piracy. Almost all depictions of the Barbary pirates paints them as evil degenerates (which they were). While the bandit is usually a despised, there are major exceptions- not just Robin Hood, but the literary tradition of the romantic highwayman that carried through to the 19th and 20th centuries with figures like Zorro or outlaw cowboys.
I think the prevalence of the pirate as a romantic anarchist antihero has a lot to do with the intended audience of pirate fiction, which were usually landsmen. The genre really started finding its feet in the 17th and 18th century. Don't forget what an awful period this was for Europe, especially the first half of the 17th; it was almost endless war unless you were Swiss. A bandit to a European in these periods was not an abstract figure, he was a real thing - a rapist, murderer, and thief even when he was a soldier and mercenary, worse when he became a full outlaw.
While you’re right about most of Treasure Island’s pirates being a bunch of degenerates who would kill each other for a klondike bar, Long John Silver is portrayed somewhat positively. He’s charismatic, he clearly cares for Jim on some level, he has a sense of honor, he’s a legitimate threat (able to murder a man despite missing a leg and walking around on crutches), and he makes a clean getaway.
He's a fairly mixed character, which is a
I think what makes him so enduring. A bad dude - an oathbreaker, a thief, a murderer - but not without some virtues to temper his wickedness. He's certainly the most human of the pirates.
Pirates are larger scale due to being on ships. So while bandits might be a threat to any poor traveler on the road, pirates are a threat to governments and corporations.
This allows them to be romanticized for their opposition to symbols of power and freedom from tyranny.
This is the most retarded thing I have ever seen on this website.
Running a ship and boarding other ships requires a large and well disciplined group with specific skills, hiding in the woods and robbing the occasional passer-by is much simpler.
TL DR piracy is hardcore and banditry is for casuals.
Fun parallel
>people
That heavily depends on the country, Anon
Pirates can appear anywhere, they can raid a tropical island, a wintry town, any part of asia, middle east, ottoman port town, France, or pillage old temples if they hear about it. Including wacky shit like some off magic island full of witches or elves, or sail off to the land of the dead etc.
Bandits are pretty much down to where their horses can take them.
This, pirates and people on boats in general allow for a much wider variety in storytelling. Since it can relocate to other nations and climate zones quickly and easily. Plus the grouping of specialists on a giant vehicle is a lot more interesting. While bandits are more traveling thieves and there is not a whole lot to them, they rarely go outside their own nation and there is a lack of far reaching travel or interesting locales unless the whole story is within an interesting locale from the start.
Overall bandits are lower tier, lower tech, travel less distances, and do not consist of large gun loaded vehicle vs large gun loaded vehicle.
Pirates? No no they're Privateers, delivering justice to those Spanish dogs who have the audacity to try to sail on Great Britain's waters (ie all of them, everywhere)
Boat.
That's also why people like Vikings.
Because pirates are bandits with drip.
Pirates go after the rich
Bandits go after the poor
it's not that deep
regular people only hear about pirates, but they have to deal with the idea of bandits in their daily life even today
Pirates had big ships and fucking cannons man, bandits had maybe a horse and definitely syphilis.
boats bro
chicks dig boats
Could be worse, could be vikings. They are the most over glorified group of scum. I am sick of seeing n*rse mythology and aesthetic.
Yes, heaven forbid people use the last remnant of North European Paganism as a setting and through that glorify the roaming bands of trading pillagers who took part in it.
You sound like some sallow skinned muttoid who gets angry people don't think about the Romans because of your perchance to suck off authority.
It's more likely he's just tired of them being portrayed as badasses when they (like any other pirate or bandit) turned tail and ran the second they were in danger of fighting anything but unprepared peasants desperately defending their homes.
Seethe more neopag cuck.
>Last
Kek, this dumbass doesn't know about the Prussians, Wends, and Misc. Balts.
Neopag losers are too dim-witted to know history, they get their info from ubishit games and hollywood slop.
The sea
Y'all on some shrooms bro.
Taxation, when transparent and funds public facilities and services, is okay - just look at Scandinavian countries. Sure the tax is high, but that tax pays for free education, good healthcare, and even unemployment welfare. If these taxes pay for every citizen's basic human necessities, is that a bad thing?
To think all taxes are theft means you are less free than you think.
How do you feel about pirates toying with dark magic?
Victarion "Volcano-Arm" Greyjoy is better. That said, Euron and Victarion and the Greyjoys in general my favorite House in Ice and Fire. Shame they were shoddily used in the show.
CRAZY! Not stupid.
What gets me is that the UN has backtracked on declaring pirates enemies of humanity the moment the Somalis began banking hard on muh cultural heritage during their scuffle with Somaliland.
Pirates are just more charismatic.
>Humanity has an inherent need to belong to a group and to serve a lord. It is literally hardwired into our souls
Then why do we rile against the chains of the state as much as we can? Why do we naturally divide into smaller tribal groups and wage conflict on each other even when one side is seen as stronger?
The theory of Dunbar's number holds that we can only really maintain about 100–250 connections at once. This is the level at which one person can maintain 150 stable personal relationships, which correspond to a tribe-sized group. It's the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar.
Past that number, relationships become fuzzier. You begin having problems with remember anything about anyone but then name. Then, relationships become increasingly detached, ritualized and formal.
Never agreed with those numbers myself. True friendships -- and I mean TRUE -- are something not everyone has. Not even the majority of people have them.
Pirates of the Caribbean movies are more recent and successful than Robinhood or cowboy movies.
>Some years ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people’s hats off—then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can.
>Why do people love pirates but hate bandits?
Pirates steal from the rich and the government after being forcefully press-ganged to serve on a ship against their will.
A bandit just rapes, murders and steals from average folk because they think that nobody can stop them.
>Pirates steal from the rich and the government after being forcefully press-ganged to serve on a ship against their will.
That's the romanized idea. But many pirates were complete scum that assaulted coast villages and it's people on a daily basis. Hell, the whole Spanish region of Almeria was depopulated because of Red Beard slaughters
Boats
the sea is just more able to hold romanticism than the land
bandits are associated with fucks who pick on the weak. whilst pirates, by dint of having ships and crew etc to support, that all cost lots of money, by necessity, prey upon rich merchants, navies etc. in an era where a well to do man might not see a thousand pounds a year, pirates are taking Prizes and Cargoes in the thousands of pounds. they were one of THE archetypical 'steal from the rich and give to the poor, because the pirate could never hide amongst the wealthy etc, so usually all their wealth ended up back amongst the poor, the dockers, etc, because that's who could hide them, smuggle the wealth out and get supplies for it.
bandits tend to have been rob everyone who exists because fuck you.
hell, the most successful pirate, a WOMAN, became a pirate admiral and the government basically had to surrender to her and she became their navy. some retarded amount like 10 thousand + junks.
that's literally the story of one of THE most powerless annopressed peoples of a society, a fucking WOMAN, a POOR woman, becoming literally the most powerful person in the nation, fighting the government and WINNING. seriously a heroic story.
Bandits are the scum of the earth.
have a nice day cuckee
You first homosexual
This bandit cannot afford that sword.
So he stole it
Consider the following: People fucking love highwaymen.
Yep https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFkcAH-m9W0
I think bandit denotes a lower class of criminal to be honest and thats why they aren't romanticized like pirates or highwaymen
you need to have enough money to buy a boat to be afraid of pirates, whereas bandits can harass or raze the common man. a complex operation set on taking rich people's cargo is much more romantic than the thought of disorganized thugs sack random people opportunistically
Presentation.
Historically, they have better stories than most bandits. One story I remember reading about was some random pirate paid a whore the modern day equivalent of $20k just to flash him. Then there's Blackbeard, who threw wild parties and is said to have put a bounty on the Governor of Virginia's head that was double to price the governor put on his own.
Just real funny stories about having too much money. The ocean is also more adventurous than land, and thus Pirates gain a huge reputation of adventure that follows them. For example, you wouldn't call them "Sky bandits" or "Space Bandits" unless you wanted a player to know these enemies were worthless.
I think it's a question of community. There were bandit families and bandit communities who stuck together (we usually call them 'outlaws' at that point because outlaw is cooler than bandit), but most bandits were just an extension of the homeless rabble, the rabble was fluid and it was constantly eating itself.
A pirate crew is an outlaw/bandit community that happens to be stable enough to run a ship and that makes them special. They take losses, some of them to infighting, but if you revisit the same pirate ship a month later and it hasn't been sunk yet then you'll mostly see the same pirates.
Also, yea, the word 'pirate' evokes the pirates of the 1700s, ex-marines who ripped off treasure ships, it really was some next-level banditry.
"Outlaws" also envoke similar stories back to Bonnie and Clyde and Billy the Kid.
When bandits get a flag and a logo, they can be cool as pirates
Because….. sh-SHUT UP
One point I haven't seen anyone bring up is proximity. Even when pirates were a real and active threat they were only a threat to those who were at sea and occasionally people who lived on smaller, less guarded islands. Bandits, on the other hand, were committing most of their crimes much closer to towns, villages and cities and are were much more likely to attack those directly than most pirates were (though that's hardly unheard of either). As a result there's a much larger sense of detachment from the concept of pirates for the average farmer or city dweller
Because plebs love storytellers regardless if they say the truth or not, and what good storytellers meme into reality goes. Pirates can be either black-hearted reavers or lovable freedom-loving rogues: in both cases, however, they travel by ship from a swashbuckling adventure to the next and answer to no authority. Brigands, however, can either be evil robbers or heroic freedom fighters: these two possible archetypes differ so much in principle they may as well be opposed to each other. There can be no such thing as a lovable freedom-loving brigand, exactly as there can be no evil, black-hearted rebels fighting against foreign occupation. You either are a brigand or a freedom fighter, and it all depends on the whims of storytellers. Picrelated was a soldier turned freedom fighter that wanted the armies of revolutionary France out of his country, and his rebels fought side by side with the british and the austrian conventional militaries. Whatever brigand he met, he recruited into his resistence army, like a player character from fucking Mount & Blade does. But then Laurel and Hardy made a movie set a full century before he was even born, in which a brigand leader shared his nickname, and from that moment onwards Fra Diavolo was synonimous with brigandry, even in southern Italy, the lands he freed from the foreign yoke. Conversely, figures like Robin Hood, Braveheart or Garibaldi are always depicted as freedom fighters because that's how stories describe them.
Also "Cangaceiros", Brazilian northeastern desert pirates...
Outcasts, miserables, natives, runaway slaves and bandits from the northeastern desertic regions of Brazil, they would band together, wear flamboyant pirate-like attire and rob rich landowners
Some bands were violent outlaws that wanted nothing more than rape, steal and plunder the edges of the "sertão" desert... Others were Robin Hood-esque groups that avenged injustices, pillaged rich bastards and distributed money and resources to poor people
Some, like the famous"Lampião's" ("Lantern", nickname of their leader, Virgulino da Silva) band, were almost a DnD group, with skilled hunter/scouts, brute force brawlers, traditional afro-brazilian sorcerers and Catholic priests/living saints joining forces against the oppressive Empire of Brazil
They often had the pirate "feeling of freedom", roaming some hostile environment, burying treasures and uniting very different individuals from very different backgrounds into a lawless adventure