Len Travers

Edward Low is one of the most notorious and infamous pirates in history, accused of several grotesque acts of violence. But how much of it is true and how much is rumor and hyperbole? Travers covers Low's falling into piracy after participating in a mutiny, but much of what he learned came from pirate captain George Lowther. Not one to stick to the Caribbean, he and his crew attacked fishermen along New England to Roatan and then to the West Coast of Africa and back. While not after Low show more specifically, Capt. Solgard was finally dispatched on the HMS Greyhound to clear the way for safe passage. In a fine demonstration on why to avoid the Royal Navy, Solgard defeats Low in a one sided battle and takes his cohort ship the Ranger. Low disappears into history with his tail between his legs.

This one would've gotten a higher score if it didn't fall into the "Appeal to Ignorance" trap, meaning "a conclusion must be true because there is no evidence against it." In this case, Travers argues that the more violent acts that Low is accused of didn't occur because one particular former captive didn't mention them. Low is presented as no worse or better than most pirates, shifting the blame to his crew. If that's the case, then I'm unconvinced that Low was an effective captain. Capt Welland, who lost an ear, testified to the brutality of Low's crew, but the worst accusations against Low come from the confessions of a former crewman. Travers dismisses this as vindictiveness, but why lie before being hanged? Low's "reign of terror" after the infamous battle with Peter Solgard's "Greyhound" is labeled "contradictory hearsay" without any further details. Travers accuses "popular historians" for Low's current reputation, but Travers lacks objective scrutiny. This is the only biography of Edward Low I've seen, so if you are interested, it's a fine read, only keep these thoughts in mind! show less