RE: Pirate Havens in the GZG-verse

Laserlight/RBW discussion:
>>RBW wrote:I'd go for planetoid or artificial substitute, with generous
>>iberty parties (to places that don't mind "freelance merchants" -
after
>>all,you have to sell the loot somewhere, so their existence is
something 
of
>>a prerequisite for piracy). Keep the ships out of sight...

I think Laserlights comment on the insurance was pretty good -
especially 
given corrupt officials who may want to inflate the "actual" piracy 
figures.... ;-)

>>>Does anyone know why  Spain never took out Port Royal, or other such
>>>buccaneer centers?
>>You can mount a lot more guns and armour on something that doesn't
have
>>to float.

>True but that doesn't explain why Spain never dropped a battalion or
two
>off to deal with the problem.

But given the amount of damage that piracy on this scale actually did,
it 
wasn't worth it given that even if the known center's were destroyed, 
others would pop up elsewhere: the ships didn't need as much as an FT
ship 
(it may seem obvious but it's a point worth making).  Maybe I'm thinking
a 
bit Machiellellian but it seems better to have some control on what you 
know than none on what you don't know (though i think I recall a few 
expeditions to try and suppress some pirate havens).

We should also remember the wars in Europe in which Spain and Portugal
were 
involved at the time: very distracting for European powers as I'm sure
the 
Americans will (happily) tell us! ;-)

Yes, pirates caused some minor havoc at times but it was (IIRC) really
the 
burgeoning Royal Navy which caused the most damage to the pirates in
terms 
of stamping them out - and then not until around 1720-1730.  Wartime, 
government-sponsored piracy, such as the earlier British raids on
Spanish 
shipping, the (ealier and later) French "guerre du course" and the later

American "piracy" did far more damage due to the scale and government 
support it received.

Tim Bancorft