There are still plenty of pirates around to this very day; a "significant issue" according to your own link. Despite that, the aforementioned statement doesn't make me think it has anything to do with today. What, specifically, makes you think it has something to do with the time leading up to 1900 CE rather than 1900 BCE?

▲

codetrotter 3 days ago | parent [-]

> What, specifically, makes you think it has something to do with the time leading up to 1900 CE rather than 1900 BCE

Normally when someone says "1900" they are referring to 1900 AD. Unless BCE had already been mentioned, which here it had not. And if they were referring to 1900 BCE they normally would specifically say 1900 BCE. That's why.

And furthermore, the parent comment above the one talking about "pre-1900" was talking about modern passports. Why would anyone immediately jump from modern passports to 1900 BCE? That don't make no sense at all. Jumping to 1900 AD however, that does make sense. You see?

	▲	9rx 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Absent of any other context one might reasonably assume "1990" Refers to 1900 CE. But we have additional context, such as: "Cities had guards.", "you were mostly at the whims of thieves and pirates." What in that speaks to 1900 CE over 1900 BCE? There is evidence of pirates in both time periods, so that feature alone isn't telling. But the context doesn't end with that feature in a vacuum, does it?