Forum:Sumbhajee Angria

Forums: Index > Brethren Forum > Sumbhajee Angria

I was uploading the Pirate Lord's wanted posters from the offical site this morning, and I noticed that Sumbhajee's poster gives his last name as Angria. I know that he was based on Sumbahji Angria, but note, the first name on the poster is spelled Sumbhajee (potc) as opposed to Sumbahji (real world), does this mean we can take his last name as Angria.--\\Captain KAJ// 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Now That's REALLY interesting and important. As about the spelling, I've seen many different versions incluging Sumbhajee', Sumbhaji Sumbha Jee, Sumbhagee and other. However, the pronounciataion is in all cases the same. As it is an Indian name and they use an other alphabet, several transcriptions are possible. However, unlike prototypes for the other pirate lords, Sumbhaji Angria was active in the same time when the movie events took place and commited exactly the crimes which are listed as Sumbhajee's by the EITC in the page. He is further referred to under his real name. It's obvious that Sumbhajee IS Sumbhaji Angra and not only based on him.El Chupacabra 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is do we move the page, as you said there are many diffrent spelling variations of Sumbhajee, as far as I am aware the real man went by Sumbahji wheras the Pirates of the Caribbean character is called Sumbhajee in all canon sources, I know that not many sources call him Angria but we do have one that does, the offical website. So is that enough to move the page?.--\\Captain KAJ// 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Futhermore I have just noticed that the last name also is spelled diffrently, the real man was called Angre and the pirate lord was Angria, he may not actually be THE Sumbahji Angre but this is definative proof that his last name was Angria, so if noboady object im going to move the page.--\\Captain KAJ// 21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Captain KAJ, his today's "official" name is Sambhaji Angre but some historians claim that his real name was Sambhaji Angria. Uskok - Pirate Lord of the Adriatic sea 07:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Uskok - Pirate Lord of the Adriatic sea

The question is not wheather we should move it (this is obvious), but wheather Sumbhajee Angria in PotC is identical with the Real-world Sumbhaji Angra. The spelling "Sumbhajee" gave more results in the web (Even if only the results for the real one are counted). This spelling is possible for the real one, and i think he's called so in PotC because it was used on this wanted poster and in the movie credits. The family name of the real one is often given in as "Angria", and it's not impossible that the real EITC called him so. El Chupacabra 15:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Would anybody disagree if I move the page to Sumbhajee Angria and add some information about his real life? If not, I'll do this in one week. El Chupacabra 09:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Move, yes. Add "real world" info; only in a behind the sceens. - Captain J. Sparrow

I want a definitive source before any move is made.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He is called Sumbhajee Angria on the official website. - Thomas Faye 08:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I need more than that, for some reason, the Disney site isn't working for me.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 10:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the image.

Do you have the Flash player? If not, there's a link to the download, on the bottom of the Disney page. El Chupacabra 12:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the movies do not list his name as Angria, which I think is odd, if his name were really Sumbhajee Angria. So, I think we should keep it as it is.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 14:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

His name is only ever spoke twice in the film and both times it was by his servents so natuarlly they used his title of Sri Sumbhajee rather than his name. - Thomas Faye 14:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Watherby Swann's first name was also never spoken it the movies, and Hector Barbossa's and James Norrington's first names were first spoken in AWE, but we already called them so before. The poster from the offical site is already canon.El Chupacabra 12:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Weatherby was spoken in Dead Mans Chest as was Norrington. - Thomas Faye 14:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It still seems a little suspicious, but I'll make the change.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 20:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This particular Sumbhajee can't be the Sumbhajee. I examined some of the dates in his history, and they are two early for the movies. He died in 1743, yet Jack Sparrow had already helped Ben Franklin with his experiments in 1752. Due to the discrepancy, I'm removing the content pertaining to Sambhaji's life.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think Jack helped Franklin? this was stated in the PotC timeline at wikipedia (and we all know what kind of source wikipedia is ^_^), and clearly contradickt to the writer's comments that CBP is set somewhen in a "floating thirty-year environment" set in the 18th century, around 1720 to 1750. Our timeline says that they met around 1716, which is backed up by the fact that Jack talked about "little Benny" whom he "teached the trick with the kite and the key", and it's unlikely that a teenager would call an elder man "little". In fact we don't even know for sure if "Little Benny" really is Benjamin Franklin; Benjamin is a quite common name. El Chupacabra 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This information came from Pirates of the Caribbean: Jack Sparrow: The Coming Storm. I read the book myself, and it's in there. Jack wouldn't have been calling an elderly man "Little". Franklin was born in 1706, which would make him 10 in 1716. The trick with the kite and the key is a reference to Franklin's famous experiment to prove that lightning was electricity, as immortalized by this famous painting.--Wanderingshadow 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, a three year span for the movies is cutting it a little close don't you think? (Rule Britannia came out in 1740) So, that, coupled with the name discrepancy makes me rethink the whole thing. So, until we get more definitive information on whether or not the two Sumbhajees/Sumbhajis are one and the same, I say we keep things as they are.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem with the 3 year span? DMC is set one year after CBP and is immediately followed by AWE. If CBP took place in 1741, the other two were in 1742, one year before Sumbhajee's death. I've also read the book, and it only says he teaced Little Benny the trick with the kite and the key (not that he participated in any expiriments, this is what the wikipedia editors made up). Franklin used this "trick" in 1752 for his expiriments, but it was only his tool, his main target was the research about the nature of electricity and lightnings. From the In-universe poin of view he most likely learned about the trick from Jack Sparrow and used it decades lated for his expiriments. El Chupacabra 12:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's say the CotBP occured around 1741, it lasted a month or so. A year later (1742) DMC occurs, it lasts a few months or so I should say (journey from Turkey to Isla de Pelegostos, trip to unknown shoal, Tortuga, and Isla Cruces). 8 months later, the Black Pearl set out from Singapore, it is now approximately 1743. By the time the crew reaches World's End, it is around the end of summer (assuming the crew is still in the Arctic, there is no light, thusly it would be winter). By the time the Pearl reaches Shipwreck Cove, it has been a few weeks. After the battle of Calypso's maelstrom, Sumbhajee would leave for India, and by the time he has done so, it would hypothetically be a few weeks, if not months, into 1744. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the whole movie trilogy happened in those two years.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an alternative: Let's say CBP is set during February 1741. (The film was shot from October to March, and the story lasted not more then some weeks.) One year later, DMC occurs in March 1742 (it also lasted a few weeks (the Pearl is fast and these locations are not far from each other), the Turkish prison scene was approximately 2 months before the main plot, originally it should have been the opening sequence). The voyage from the Caribbean to Singapore took let's say 3 months (it's realistic for an 18th century sailing ship). So by the end of June-beginning of July the rescue crew is in Singapore. If Sao Feng sailed to the Caribbean immediately after the meeting, he reached it after another 3 months, by October. In this time the rescue crew reached World's end and rescued Jack from the locker (If World's end is located in the Antarctica, in the southern hemisphere, then the polar winter occurs during our summer.) The main part of AWE including the Brethren and the Climatic Battle is then in October. If Sumbhajee left back to India immediately after the battle, he could easily reach it by the end of December (The western coast of India where his main base was is nearer to the Caribbean then Singapore, 2 and a half months are plausible). So in 1743 he's back home and dies there.(Unfortunately I don't know when in 1743 he died, I'll try to find it out. however, he could have been at the meeting and return home by 1743.) And remember that CBP could have occured even earlier, for example in October or November 1740, leaving him even mort time. El Chupacabra 08:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Until an incontrovertible canon source is found we should leave the info out. - Lord KAJ ^{– Company Office} 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, The writers stated that all pirate lords are based on real pirates. The differnce between Sumbhajee and the others is that the real Sumbhaji lived in the very same time when PotC is set (other prototpes lived much earlier or later) and he commited exactly the same crimes for which the EITC hunted him, So we have the right name, the right time, the reight deeds, what do you want more? That are sure evidences, and we acnowlege that "Little Benny" is Benjamin Franclin and the "pirate morgan" Henry Morgan although we have much less evidences in these cases. El Chupacabra 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we know when Sambhaji died, specifically?--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He died in 1746. - Lord KAJ ^{– Company Office} 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I meant months and days. Besides, on his infobox it said 1743.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry do you mean real world or Potc Sumbhajee. - Lord KAJ ^{– Company Office} 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sambhaji.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont'know any source giving month and day, but i'll try to find one. In Jan Rogozinski's book Pirates! Brigands, Buccaneers, and Privateers in Fact, Fiction, and Legend (at least in the edition I have) is staded that he died in 1743, and that his brother Tulajee who suceeded him came to power in the same year, but annother sentence says that he died in 1746. Since 1743 was given two times and 1746 only once, I asume that it's just a printing mistake. However most webpages about pirates state that he died in 1743. and in the PotC francise his dead wasn't mentioned (that's why i didn't categorize him as deceased. I assumed that the last scene of AWE, when Jack sails away in his dingy is still in 1742, so Sumbhajee is not decesed by then. (But of course he's dead 10 years later when Will comes to visit Elizabeth in the Easter Egg scene) El Chupacabra 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He died "Very shortly afterwards" he captured the Salamander in May 1743. [1] El Chupacabra 12:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the British uniforms possibly date to the 1760's and the 3-deck ships do definitely date to at least 1760, however the yellow hull stripes and plainer stern galleries date later than that (Victory and ships like it had more ornate stern galleries, red & black hull to start with from 1759-1775, appearences changed at that point to modernize)Also ships got bigger in 1750's onward, 3-deckers had been around but none like the Dauntless or Endeavour. The BP seems much older, say around 1710-30, but it's hard to say given that Disney didn't make historical accuracy a major priority. They mixed 18th century items into a kind of visual stew and said here you go.—Unsigned comment by Maximus de 34 (talk • contribs).

Actually, Disney cared about historical accuracy, (at least they calmed this in different special features). On this Image [2]showing the Battle of Toulon in 1744 you can see that the paint and the design of the British battleship’s stern galleries are similar to those of the Dauntless. The original Royal Navy warship classification system by Samuel Pepys from 1677 considered ships with 90 to 100 guns as first-rates, so such ships existed. The Dauntless (and therefore also the Endeavour) are 170 feet long and 34 feet wide,[3] making them shorter and slimmer then the HMS Victory which was the prototype for Dauntless, so the size argument in fact proofs that they must have been commissioned some-when prior 1765. El Chupacabra 11:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. IMHO This part is on the wrong place in this forum, since it has nothing to do directly with Sumbhajee Angria. It would make sense to move it to Forum:Potc dates. El Chupacabra 11:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've explaned my arguments about the time spawn and the sources above, and (by now) nobody disagreed. May I now change Lord KAJ's edits back to my version? El Chupacabra 11:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let see, hmm...no. This has been a problem in the past: just because you say something and no one says anything about it, that doesn't mean that they agree with you; it could be that they are ignoring you or, as is most likely the case here, they haven't gotten around to making comments, and then there's always the possibility of people getting tired of notting reaching a decision.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually this discussion has reached a decision as all arguments against the fact that our Sumbhajee Angria is the real one were enfeebled and no new were presented. So I ask everibody who still doubt this fact to post new arguments supporting their point of view, otherwise the discussion must be considered closed and I will revert the edits to my last revision. El Chupacabra 12:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok here is my point of view. There is NO canon source whatsoever that says they were the same person, how's that. - Lord KAJ ^{– Company Office} 16:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Disney would make the mistake of leaving a thread that could pin the timeframe down. So, although I'd like to accept it, it goes against my better judgement. Until a canon source says that the two Sumbhajee's are one in the same, anyone who adds that they are, will be blocked.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 17:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There IS a source, the wanted poster from the OFFICIAL page calling him BY NAME and listening HIS CRIMES. Yes, non of the writers said that they are the same person, but it's the same with all other real-world individuals and locations; nobody ever pointed out specificly that Cortés in PotC is the same person as the real Cortés or that Port Royal, Jamaica in PotC is the same location as the real Port Royal, Jamaica. It's just obvious, because if he's not the same person then it means that in the PotC world two pirates named Sumbhajee Angria were active in the same time at the same location and commited the same crimes, and this is absurd isn't it?

And as to the timeframe, I explaned that there is no threat. Since he died in May 1743, there is a timeframe from October 1740 to July 1741 for CBP and correspondingly an appropriate time for the other movies (see above). El Chupacabra 12:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still undecided as to whether or not the historical Sumbhajee and the fictional are the same or not. However, I'm going to officially say not to add any more about the historical Sumbhajee in the article. I think the philosophy with using real-world information about a character in the movies, books, ect. is just enough to provide a background for the character. I think we currently have enough information about Sumbhajee's early life in universe that it's not necessary to supplement it with unofficial sources.--Wanderingshadow 15:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)