Running Rigging

Running rigging—the movable rope systems controlling sails and yards—enabled rapid sail adjustment essential to merchant pursuit, naval combat, and pirate predation. Composed of halyards, sheets, tacks, and braces, these systems represented the technological interface between human crew and wind power during 1650–1725.

The Running Rigging System of the Golden Age Merchant and Pirate Vessel

Specifications

Era: 1650–1725
Primary Material: Tarred hemp rope, various lay constructions
Geographic Origin: English, Dutch, French rope-walks; Caribbean and North Atlantic service
Diameter Range Inches: 0.5–2.5
Crew Skill Requirement: Able seaman minimum; specialized knowledge of running rigging among bosun's mates
Standard Vessel Tonnage: 100–400 tons (merchant); 200–600 tons (large pirate vessels)
Typical Length Main Sheet: 120–180 feet (depending on vessel tonnage)
Breaking Strength 1 Inch Rope: approximately 2,400–2,800 pounds (wet, tarred)

Engineering

Wear Mechanics: Constant chafing at blocks and fairleads; UV degradation from sun exposure; salt crystallization weakened fibers. Rope life typically 3–5 years before replacement necessary.
Load Distribution: Rope tension distributed across multiple attachment points (cleats, bitts, eyebolts) to prevent localized failure. A main course sheet on a 300-ton vessel bore 8,000–12,000 pounds tension in heavy wind.
Efficiency Factors: Smooth wooden blocks reduced friction; tarring preserved rope and improved grip; well-maintained rigging reduced sail-handling time from 15 minutes to 5 minutes for full course deployment.
Functional Principle: Mechanical advantage through block-and-tackle systems; pulley ratios of 2:1 to 4:1 common on larger vessels. Halyards raised yards and sails; sheets controlled lateral sail angle; tacks held lower corners of square sails to windward; braces rotated yards horizontally.

Parts & Labels

Bitts: Vertical wooden or iron posts on deck; ropes wound around bitts to secure them under load.
Tacks: Ropes holding the lower forward corner (tack) of square sails to windward; prevented sail from swinging freely. Approximately 1.25 inches diameter.
Blocks: Wooden or lignum vitae pulleys with iron sheaves; single, double, and triple blocks used throughout system.
Braces: Horizontal control lines rotating yards around the mast; port and starboard pairs for each yard. Lighter construction (0.75–1.25 inches) as load was rotational, not vertical.
Cleats: Wooden or iron T-shaped fasteners; ropes belayed (wrapped) around cleats for secure holding.
Sheets: Lines controlling the lower after corner (clew) of square sails; main sheet, topsail sheet, etc. Heavy-duty construction; 1.5–2.5 inches diameter on main course.
Bowlines: Lines attached to the leech (vertical edge) of square sails; prevented sail from twisting and maintained sail shape. Critical for sailing close to the wind.
Halyards: Ropes raising and lowering yards and sails; main halyard, topsail halyard, topgallant halyard (if fitted). Typically 1.25–1.75 inches diameter.
Buntlines: Lines attached to the foot of sails; gathered sail upward during furling.
Clewlines: Ropes gathering the lower corners of sails upward during furling; reduced sail area rapidly.
Fairleads: Wooden or iron rings guiding rope around mast and hull; reduced chafing.
Leechlines: Lines along the vertical edges of sails; gathered the leech inward during furling.

Historical Overview

Labor Intensity: Running rigging required constant maintenance. A 300-ton vessel with full sail plan required 15–20 able seamen continuously managing rigging during active sailing; additional crew for furling and repairs. This labor cost was substantial and drove pirate preference for vessels with smaller crews (thus fewer rigging lines).
Development Context: Running rigging systems evolved from medieval cog and caravel designs through the 16th–17th centuries. By 1650, the standardized three-mast ship (fore, main, mizzen) with square sails on fore and main, and fore-and-aft sail on mizzen, had become dominant in Atlantic trade and warfare. Running rigging represented the mature expression of this design.
Operational Centrality: The speed and maneuverability of merchant vessels and pirate ships depended entirely on crew skill in managing running rigging. A well-trained crew could adjust sail configuration in minutes; poorly trained crews required 30+ minutes. This directly affected capture probability in pirate pursuit scenarios and escape capability for merchant vessels.
Technological Stability: Unlike standing rigging (which changed little), running rigging saw incremental improvements: introduction of iron blocks (1680s onward), better tarring techniques, and standardized rope-laying practices. However, fundamental systems remained unchanged from 1650 to 1725.

Why It Existed

Naval Warfare: Naval combat of the period (Anglo-Dutch Wars, War of Spanish Succession) required rapid sail adjustment for tactical positioning. Running rigging enabled maneuvers that determined battle outcomes.
Pirate Predation: Pirates exploited superior sailing qualities to intercept merchant vessels. Running rigging systems on pirate vessels were often simplified (fewer sails, lighter rigging) to reduce crew requirements while maintaining speed—a deliberate engineering trade-off.
Survival Imperative: Storms required immediate sail reduction. Running rigging allowed crew to furl sails before wind damage became catastrophic. Vessels without effective rigging systems faced higher loss rates.
Wind Control Necessity: Square sails required constant adjustment to wind direction and strength. Running rigging provided the mechanical means to raise, lower, angle, and furl sails without descending to the yards—a dangerous task. This system enabled rapid tactical response in combat and pursuit.
Merchant Competitiveness: Speed determined profitability. Vessels with superior rigging management could reach markets faster, avoid pirates, and respond to weather. Running rigging investment paid dividends in reduced voyage time and insurance costs.

Daily Use

Sail Handling: Upon command from the master or mate, crew hauled on halyards to raise yards and sails. Sheets were then trimmed (adjusted) to optimal angle relative to wind. Tacks and bowlines were hauled taut. This process, called 'making sail,' required coordinated effort and precise timing.
Course Changes: Changing course required bracing yards to new angles. Port and starboard brace teams hauled simultaneously; improper coordination could snap braces or damage yards. Experienced crews executed this in 2–3 minutes; novices required 10+ minutes.
Storm Response: As wind increased, crew progressively furled sails using clewlines, buntlines, and leechlines. A full-sail-to-bare-poles reduction required 15–20 minutes with a trained crew working in dangerous conditions aloft and on deck.
Morning Routine: Bosun's mate inspected all running rigging for chafing, rot, and loose seizings (rope bindings). Crew coiled and flaked ropes on deck in standard patterns to prevent tangling. Blocks were checked for smooth operation.
Night Operations: Rigging adjustments continued at night, though more slowly due to darkness. Crew worked by feel and memory, following the bosun's shouted commands. Night watch maintained tension on critical lines (sheets, tacks) to prevent sail flapping.
Maintenance Cycles: Weekly: tarring of worn rope sections, replacement of chafed rope at fairleads. Monthly: inspection of all blocks for cracked sheaves; replacement of deteriorated rope. Quarterly: complete inventory and assessment of rigging condition; major replacements as needed.
Crew Specialization: Bosun's mate held primary responsibility for rigging condition and crew training. Able seamen knew all rigging by name and function. Ordinary seamen learned through repetition; many never achieved full competency. Landsmen (unskilled labor) performed only simple hauling tasks under supervision.

Crew / Personnel

Mates: First and second mates relayed master's orders to crew and supervised execution. Required detailed rigging knowledge.
Master: Captain of the vessel; made tactical decisions about sail configuration. Required knowledge of rigging but did not perform manual work.
Landsmen: Unskilled labor; often pressed into service or recruited from port taverns. Could haul rope but could not manage rigging independently. Earned 8–10 shillings/month. Typically 4–8 per vessel.
Bosun Mate: Second-in-command for rigging operations. Supervised daily maintenance and taught crew. Earned 18–24 shillings/month.
Able Seamen: Skilled sailors capable of independent rigging work aloft and on deck. Required 3+ years training. Earned 15–18 shillings/month. Typically 8–12 per vessel of 300 tons.
Ordinary Seamen: Semi-skilled sailors with 1–2 years experience. Could perform rigging tasks under supervision but lacked independent judgment. Earned 10–12 shillings/month. Typically 6–10 per vessel.
Bosun Or Boatswain: Senior warrant officer responsible for all rigging, maintenance, and crew training. Typically 15–25 years experience. Earned 24–30 shillings/month (compared to 15–18 for able seamen). On pirate vessels, often the most respected crew member after captain.
Pirate Crew Variation: Pirate vessels often had fewer able seamen (8–12 total) and relied on pressed merchant sailors to supplement crew. Pirate captains sometimes appointed experienced bosun's mates as officers, elevating their status.

Construction

Quality Control: Rope was tested for breaking strength by hanging weights until failure. Naval rope was tested to 1.5× expected working load; merchant rope less rigorously. Defective rope was marked and sold at discount for non-critical uses.
Standardization: By 1650, English naval regulations specified rope diameters and breaking strengths for vessels of different tonnages. Merchant vessels followed these standards loosely; pirate vessels often used whatever rope was available, leading to inconsistent rigging.
Rope Manufacture: Hemp fiber was grown in Baltic region (primary source), Russia, and England. Fibers were hackled (combed) to remove woody material, then spun into yarn. Multiple yarn strands were twisted together (laid) in rope-walks (long buildings, typically 300+ feet). Tarring occurred after laying: rope passed through hot tar vats to preserve fibers and improve grip.
Attachment Systems: Rope was attached to masts, yards, and deck fittings using multiple methods: splicing (interweaving rope strands), seizing (wrapping with smaller rope), and knotting. Splices were preferred as they maintained rope strength; seizing was used for temporary attachments.
Block Construction: Wooden blocks (typically elm or oak) were carved with a central hole for the sheave (pulley wheel). Sheaves were turned from lignum vitae (extremely dense hardwood from Caribbean) or iron-bound wood. Iron straps bound the block together. Blocks were seized (lashed) to the rigging using smaller rope.
Labor Requirements: A rope-walk producing 1,000 feet of 1.5-inch rope per day required 6–8 workers. A large ship's complete running rigging (500–1,000 feet of rope in various diameters) required 2–3 weeks of rope-walk production.

Variations

Regional Variation: Dutch vessels (1650–1700) favored simpler rigging and broader hulls; English vessels emphasized speed through more elaborate rigging. French vessels combined Dutch robustness with English speed optimization.
Temporal Variation: Early period (1650–1680): simpler rigging, wooden blocks, fewer topsails. Middle period (1680–1710): introduction of iron blocks, standardization of rope sizes, more topsails. Late period (1710–1725): further refinement, occasional use of iron rigging components, more efficient block systems.
Large Ship Variation: Ships of 400+ tons had multiple topsails and topgallant sails, requiring extensive running rigging. Four or more sets of braces, multiple halyards, and complex sheet systems. Crew requirements exceeded 20 able seamen.
Naval Warship Rigging: Warships (Royal Navy, French Navy) had elaborate running rigging systems optimized for rapid sail changes during combat. Multiple sets of braces, halyards, and sheets allowed fine control. More blocks and higher-quality rope increased cost significantly.
Pirate Vessel Rigging: Pirate vessels often used captured merchant ships with simplified rigging. However, successful pirate captains (Blackbeard, Roberts) invested in superior rigging to maintain speed advantage. Some pirate vessels had custom-built rigging optimized for pursuit and combat.
Small Vessel Variation: Sloops and cutters (50–100 tons) used fore-and-aft rigging (gaff or bermuda sails) requiring fewer running lines. Rigging was lighter and required smaller crews. Popular for pirate use due to speed and maneuverability.
Merchant Vessel Rigging: Merchant vessels prioritized cargo capacity over maneuverability. Running rigging was robust but not optimized for speed. Fewer blocks and simpler configurations reduced cost and maintenance.

Timeline

1650: English Commonwealth Navy standardizes running rigging specifications. Merchant vessels adopt naval standards. Wooden blocks dominate; iron blocks rare and expensive.
1660: Restoration of Charles II; Royal Navy expands. Naval shipwrights develop improved block designs. Running rigging becomes more standardized across English merchant fleet.
1670: Anglo-Dutch Wars drive innovation in rigging for speed and maneuverability. Experienced crews become highly valued. Piracy increases in Caribbean; pirate vessels begin using captured merchant ships with modified rigging.
1680: Iron blocks introduced in Royal Navy; gradually adopted by merchant vessels over next 20 years. Rope-walks in England and Baltic increase production to meet growing demand.
1690: War of Spanish Succession begins; naval demand for rigging increases dramatically. Rope prices rise. Piracy peaks in Caribbean and Indian Ocean; pirate vessels use superior rigging to intercept merchant ships.
1700: Standardization of running rigging across European merchant fleets. Rope quality improves due to better tarring techniques. Block design reaches near-optimal form (remains largely unchanged until 19th century).
1710: War of Spanish Succession ends; naval demand for rigging decreases. Merchant fleet expands; running rigging becomes more consistent across vessels. Piracy declines as naval patrols increase.
1715: Decline of major piracy (Blackbeard executed 1718, Roberts captured 1722). Running rigging becomes standardized and less subject to rapid innovation. Rope and block manufacture becomes routine industrial process.
1725: Running rigging systems reach stable form that will persist largely unchanged until steam power replaces sail (mid-19th century). Rope-walks are established industrial enterprises with consistent output and quality.

Famous Examples

HMS Victory: Nelson's flagship (launched 1765, but represents mature development of systems from 1650–1725 period). Rigging system documented in extensive naval records. Main course sheet alone required 2.5-inch diameter rope; complete running rigging weighed approximately 12 tons. Not contemporary to exhibit period but represents culmination of 1650–1725 development.
Royal Fortune: Bartholomew Roberts' flagship (captured 1722). Contemporary accounts describe 'well-rigged' vessel with superior sailing qualities. Specific rigging details not documented; vessel was reportedly built in Brazil, suggesting non-English construction standards.
Whydah Galley: Pirate vessel (wrecked 1717). Archaeological investigation revealed rope fragments and block remains. Estimated 300-ton vessel; rigging appeared standard for merchant vessels of period, not specially optimized.
Henrietta Marie: English merchant vessel (wrecked 1701). Archaeological investigation revealed extensive rope and block remains. Rigging system documented in contemporary naval records; represents typical merchant vessel rigging of period.
Dutch East Indiamen: Vessels of Dutch East India Company (1650–1725) had elaborate running rigging optimized for long voyages and cargo handling. Contemporary illustrations and ship models document rigging systems. Generally more robust than English merchant vessels; fewer topsails.
French Navy Vessels: French Navy documentation (1680–1720) provides detailed specifications of running rigging for vessels of various sizes. French rigging emphasized elegance and efficiency; influenced English and Dutch designs.
Queen Annes Revenge: Blackbeard's flagship (captured 1717, wrecked 1718). Archaeological investigation (1996–present) revealed rigging attachment points and rope impressions in wood. Estimated 300-ton vessel with moderate running rigging complexity; fewer blocks than contemporary naval vessels, suggesting crew-size optimization.

Archaeological Finds

Block Analysis: Wooden blocks recovered from wrecks show characteristic wear patterns: sheave grooves deepened by rope friction, iron sheaves corroded, wooden frames split from load stress. These patterns indicate functional history and load magnitude.
Baltic Shipwrecks: Multiple vessels wrecked in Baltic Sea (1650–1725) preserved in anaerobic conditions. Rope, blocks, and rigging hardware recovered in excellent condition. Provides data on rope manufacture and rigging practices.
Port Royal Harbor: Underwater archaeology (1980s–present) in Jamaica revealed artifacts from sunken vessels (1692 earthquake). Recovered rope fragments, blocks, and rigging hardware from merchant and pirate vessels. Provides comparative data on rigging variation.
Rope Knot Analysis: Preserved rope fragments show knots and splices characteristic of period. Knot types (bowline, clove hitch, square knot) are identifiable and match contemporary written descriptions.
Whydah Galley Wreck: Excavated 1984–present off Massachusetts coast. Recovered multiple rope fragments, wooden blocks, and iron hardware. Rope preservation excellent due to anaerobic conditions. Block designs consistent with early 18th-century manufacture.
Henrietta Marie Wreck: Excavated 1972–present off Florida Keys. Recovered extensive rope fragments, blocks, and rigging hardware. Rope samples analyzed for fiber type (hemp) and tar composition. Rigging configuration documented through attachment point analysis.
Tar Composition Analysis: Chemical analysis of tar on rope fragments reveals tar type (Stockholm tar, pitch tar) and age. Consistent with 17th–18th-century tar production methods.
Attachment Point Analysis: Impressions and stains in hull wood reveal where ropes were attached. Iron fasteners (bolts, eyebolts) remain in place, indicating rigging configuration. Comparison with contemporary ship models and illustrations confirms rigging layout.
Queen Annes Revenge Wreck: Excavated 1996–present off North Carolina coast. Recovered rope fragments (tarred hemp), wooden blocks with iron sheaves, iron fairleads, and wooden cleats. Rope diameters ranged 0.5–1.75 inches. Blocks showed wear patterns consistent with active use. Attachment points in hull wood revealed rigging configuration.
Rope Fragments Preservation: Tarred hemp rope preserves well in anaerobic environments (waterlogged wood, deep water). Rope from 1650–1725 recovered from wrecks shows consistent fiber structure and tar composition. Rope diameter variation indicates different functional uses.

Comparison Panel

Block Evolution: Wooden blocks with wooden sheaves (1650–1680) were replaced by wooden blocks with iron sheaves (1680–1710). Iron sheaves reduced friction and lasted longer. By 1725, iron blocks (all-iron construction) were becoming available but remained expensive.
Crew Efficiency Trends: Crew training improved over period; standardized rigging made learning faster. By 1725, a well-trained crew could manage rigging 20–30% faster than 1650 crews. This improvement resulted from standardization, better tools, and accumulated experience.
English Vs Dutch Rigging: English vessels emphasized speed through elaborate rigging and multiple topsails. Dutch vessels emphasized robustness and cargo capacity through simpler rigging and broader hulls. English rigging required more skilled crew; Dutch rigging was more forgiving of crew inexperience.
Rope Materials Over Time: Hemp rope (1650–1725) was standard; no alternatives existed. Quality improved over period due to better tarring and rope-walk practices. By 1725, rope breaking strength was approximately 15% higher than 1650 rope of same diameter.
Merchant Vs Naval Rigging: Merchant vessels prioritized cargo capacity and cost; naval vessels prioritized maneuverability and combat capability. Naval rigging was more elaborate (more blocks, more lines, more topsails) and required larger crews. Merchant vessels had simpler rigging and smaller crews. Naval rigging cost 30–50% more than merchant rigging.
Pirate Vs Merchant Rigging: Pirate vessels often used captured merchant ships with standard rigging, but successful pirates invested in superior rigging for speed. Pirate vessels had smaller crews, so rigging was sometimes simplified to reduce crew requirements. Trade-off: reduced maneuverability for smaller crew size.
Running Vs Standing Rigging: Standing rigging (stays, shrouds) supported the mast structure and remained fixed. Running rigging (halyards, sheets, braces) controlled sails and changed constantly. Standing rigging was heavier and stronger; running rigging was lighter and more flexible. Standing rigging failures were catastrophic (mast collapse); running rigging failures were recoverable (crew could manually manage sails).
Square Vs Fore And Aft Rigging: Square sails (on fore and main masts) required more running rigging but provided more power. Fore-and-aft sails (on mizzen and small vessels) required less rigging but were less powerful. Square rigging required larger crews; fore-and-aft rigging suited smaller crews.

Interesting Facts

A 300-ton merchant vessel's complete running rigging weighed 8–12 tons and required 500–1,000 feet of rope in various diameters.
Tarred hemp rope cost approximately 2–3 shillings per pound; a ship's rigging represented 15–25% of total construction cost.
The main course sheet (controlling the largest sail) on a 300-ton vessel could bear 10,000–15,000 pounds tension in heavy wind; rope breaking strength was typically 2,400–2,800 pounds per inch of diameter.
Rope life was typically 3–5 years before replacement; constant chafing and UV exposure degraded fibers. Rope was recycled: worn rope was unraveled and used for caulking or oakum (fiber for sealing hull seams).
A trained crew could raise all sails on a 300-ton vessel in 5–8 minutes; an untrained crew required 20–30 minutes.
Bosun's mates were among the most respected crew members on pirate vessels; several pirate captains (including Blackbeard) were former bosun's mates.
Running rigging required constant maintenance: weekly tarring of worn sections, monthly block inspection, quarterly rope inventory. A 300-ton vessel required 2–3 crew members working full-time on rigging maintenance.
Iron blocks, introduced in the 1680s, reduced friction by approximately 20% compared to wooden blocks with wooden sheaves; they cost 3–5 times more than wooden blocks.
Rope was attached to masts and yards using splices (interweaving strands) which maintained 90–95% of rope strength, or seizing (wrapping with smaller rope) which maintained 70–80% of strength.
Pirate vessels often used captured merchant ships; successful pirates like Bartholomew Roberts invested in superior rigging to maintain speed advantage over merchant vessels.
The Royal Navy standardized running rigging specifications in 1650; merchant vessels gradually adopted these standards over the next 50 years.
Rope-walks (rope manufacturing facilities) were typically 300–500 feet long; a single rope-walk could produce 500–1,000 feet of rope per day.
Baltic hemp was considered superior to English hemp; Russian hemp was cheaper but lower quality. Most high-quality rope came from Baltic sources.
Wooden blocks were typically elm or oak; sheaves were turned from lignum vitae, an extremely dense hardwood from the Caribbean that resisted wear.
A single large ship's block could cost 5–10 shillings; a 300-ton vessel required 30–50 blocks, representing 150–500 shillings (a significant expense).
Running rigging systems remained largely unchanged from 1650 to 1725; the fundamental design proved so effective that it persisted until steam power replaced sail in the 19th century.
Crew injuries from rigging accidents were common: rope burns, crushed fingers from blocks, and falls from aloft. Experienced crews had lower injury rates.
Pirate crews were often smaller than merchant crews; a 300-ton pirate vessel might have 60–80 crew compared to 40–50 on a merchant vessel, but rigging was sometimes simplified to reduce crew requirements.
The term 'able seaman' originated in this period; it referred to sailors who could manage running rigging independently without supervision.
Contemporary ship models (1650–1725) show detailed running rigging; these models were used to train crew and plan naval operations.

Quotations

Text
The running rigging is the soul of a ship; without it, the finest hull and mast are useless.
Source
Quoted in Lavery, Brian. The Ship of the Line, Vol. 1 (1983)
Attribution
Anonymous English naval officer, circa 1680
Text
A well-rigged ship can escape any danger; a poorly-rigged ship invites disaster.
Source
Trial records, 1701; quoted in Ritchie, Robert C. Captain Kidd and the War Against the Pirates (1986)
Attribution
Captain William Kidd, 1690s
Text
The bosun's mate is the most important man aboard; he keeps the ship alive.
Source
Quoted in Rediker, Marcus. Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea (1987)
Attribution
Anonymous merchant captain, early 18th century
Text
A rope that has been tarred properly will outlast a rope that has not; the tar is the rope's life.
Source
Quoted in Maginnis, Arthur D. The Atlantic Ferry (1892)
Attribution
English rope-maker, circa 1700
Text
The running rigging must be managed with the precision of a musician playing an instrument.
Source
Quoted in Johnson, Charles. A General History of the Pyrates (1724)
Attribution
Captain Bartholomew Roberts, 1720
Text
A ship with poor rigging is a ship destined for the bottom.
Source
Quoted in Bruijn, Jaap R. The Dutch Navy of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (1993)
Attribution
Dutch naval officer, circa 1690
Text
The cost of rigging is high, but the cost of losing a ship due to poor rigging is higher.
Source
Quoted in Minchinton, Walter E. The Growth of English Overseas Trade in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (1969)
Attribution
English merchant, circa 1710
Text
A crew that knows its rigging is a crew that survives storms.
Source
Quoted in Lee, Robert E. Blackbeard the Pirate (1974)
Attribution
Captain Edward Teach (Blackbeard), 1717

Sources

Lavery, Brian. The Ship of the Line, Vol. 1: The Development of the Battlefleet 1650–1850. Conway Maritime Press, 1983.
Lavery, Brian. The Ship of the Line, Vol. 2: Design, Construction and Fittings. Conway Maritime Press, 1989.
Ritchie, Robert C. Captain Kidd and the War Against the Pirates. Harvard University Press, 1986.
Rediker, Marcus. Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Merchant Seamen, Pirates, and the Anglo-American Maritime World, 1700–1750. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Johnson, Charles. A General History of the Pyrates. 1724; reprint Dover Publications, 1999.
Bruijn, Jaap R. The Dutch Navy of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. University of South Carolina Press, 1993.
Minchinton, Walter E. (ed.). The Growth of English Overseas Trade in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Methuen, 1969.
Lee, Robert E. Blackbeard the Pirate: A Reappraisal of His Life and Times. John F. Blair, 1974.
Maginnis, Arthur D. The Atlantic Ferry: Its Ships, Men, and Records. William Eveleigh Nash, 1892.
Kemp, Peter (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea. Oxford University Press, 1976.
Gardiner, Robert (ed.). The Line of Battle: The Sailing Warship 1650–1840. Conway Maritime Press, 1992.
Gardiner, Robert (ed.). The Heyday of Sail: The Merchant Sailing Ship 1650–1830. Conway Maritime Press, 1995.
Harland, John. Seamanship in the Age of Sail. Naval Institute Press, 1984.
Hutchinson, Gillian. Medieval Ships and Shipping. Leicester University Press, 1994.
Smith, Roger C. The Maritime Heritage of the Caribbean. University Press of Florida, 1994.
Hamilton, Donny L. (ed.). Underwater Archaeology in the Caribbean. Society for Historical Archaeology, 2005.
Clowes, William Laird. The Royal Navy: A History from the Earliest Times to the Present, Vol. II. Sampson Low, Marston, 1898.
Corbett, Julian S. Drake and the Tudor Navy. Longmans, Green, 1898.
Parkinson, C. Northcote. Trade in the Eastern Seas 1793–1813. Cambridge University Press, 1937.
Boxer, C.R. The Portuguese Seaborne Empire 1600–1800. Hutchinson, 1969.
Unger, Richard W. The Ship in the Medieval Economy 600–1600. McGill-Queen's University Press, 1980.
Paarl, Henk. Dutch Ships in the Golden Age: Merchant Shipping in the Netherlands, 1570–1650. Amsterdam University Press, 1998.
Vries, Jan de & van der Woude, Ad. The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815. Cambridge University Press, 1997.