A General History of the Pyrates
|
| List Price: | $19.95 |
| Price: | $13.57 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details |
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com
46 new or used available from $8.58
Average customer review:Product Description
Product Details
- Amazon Sales Rank: #102521 in Books
- Published on: 1999-01-26
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Binding: Paperback
- 800 pages
Editorial Reviews
From Library Journal
Despite varying titles, these are essentially the same book. Published in 1724, Defoe's chronicle of the scourges of the sea was a smashing success, finding a wide audience eager for tales of those cutthroat sailors who flew the skull and crossbones. The Dover edition is more scholarly, including several essays on Defoe, indexes (ships, names, and places), photos, and a postscript. If you don't need any of that, save a couple of bucks and go with the Carroll & Graf edition.
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Customer Reviews
A General History of the Pyrates
A General History of the Pyrates is good reading! Great history on famous pirates!
Fun
This book is written in a different kind of English than we what are used to. As such, this book is amazing. Filled to the brim with pirate information, boat information, etc, this is a good book for anyone who really is interested in pirates.
For those who are interested in pirates purely at a humorous level, this isn't the book you should go with. This is packed with real information in older English, and is really intended for those who wish to know more about pirates and how they lived.
This book helped my understanding of pirates greatly! I recommend to anyone who is interested in trying to know more about those scalawags of the sea.
Daniel Defoe vs Captain Charles Johnson
I compared this book with the pirate history published by Captain Charles Johnson. Daniel Defoe is definitely Captain Johnson. The one dissimilarity in the History of the pirate Gow is Johnson says he is John Smith alias Gow, while Daniel Defoe calls him the pirate Gow aka Smith. Gow is derived from the Erse name Gobha which translates to Blacksmith or Smith. So both version are in fact correct. But why the difference? Maybe editorial?



