Were pirate ships really democracies?

In some ways, yes: many pirate crews ran on written articles that gave every member a vote, and could remove a captain by majority vote. But the word democracy needs a pinch of salt, because some men were forced to sign. Pirate articles, or articles of agreement, were a code of conduct governing pirate ships, notably in the 17th and 18th centuries. They were designed to keep order aboard, avoid dissension and mutinies, and ensure the crew's loyalty. Signing made a man a member of the crew, generally entitling him to vote for officers and on affairs of moment, to bear arms and to a share of the plunder. One crew, having no Bible, swore its oath on an axe.

The captain commanded in battle but had limited power otherwise. An elected quartermaster handled plunder and discipline, and a cowardly, abusive or incompetent captain could be deposed by majority vote. The articles of Bartholomew Roberts, preserved in a 1724 book, set out how plunder was shared: two shares each for the captain and quartermaster and one for an ordinary crewman. They also awarded 800 pieces of eight to any man who lost a limb.

That contrasted sharply with legitimate ships, where a captain held absolute authority, crews could not remove him, and wages were fixed regardless of a voyage's success.

Economist Peter Leeson, in The Invisible Hook, argues that pirates developed an early form of constitutional democracy because it maximised their profit. The historian Marcus Rediker reads the same rules differently, as a rejection of harsh shipboard hierarchy. The evidence is thin, too: only nine complete or nearly complete sets of articles survive. And the democracy had limits: valuable craftsmen such as carpenters, surgeons and navigators were especially likely to be forced to sign, and rarely released.