[XXVIII‑13] The account given in Sharp's Voyages, 130, is that the buccaneers, in plying their hand-grenades, set fire to a guard-house that stood on the wall of the castle. This seems improbable, for they were separated from the fort by the crevasse, by the palisades beyond, and by the space between the palisades and the castle walls, which must have been beyond reach of such missiles.
[XXVIII‑14] In Sharp's Voyages, 133, it is stated that Morgan left only 300 men to guard the castle, and started for Panamá with 1,400 buccaneers, 7 small ships, and 36 boats. The intercepted despatch from the president of Panamá, translated in the same work, states (page 153) that Morgan reached Panamá with 2,300 men. In Exquemelin, Hist. Flib., i. 137, the number is given at 1,300.
[XXVIII‑15] Authorities differ materially in their accounts of this skirmish. Exquemelin, Hist. Bucaniers, 141, and Archenholtz, Hist. Pirates, 135, speaks of a flight of 3,000 or 4,000 arrows; but there is no evidence that a body of several thousand Indians was ever assembled at a given point, and if this were so it does not appear how they managed to shoot such a flight of arrows down a narrow ravine. The Hist. Flibustiers, i. 153, says the pass was cut through the rock, in order to shorten and render less difficult the route between Panamá and Chagre; in that case it could not have been of any great length. In Sharp's Voyages, 134, it is stated that none of the buccaneers were killed, and only three slightly wounded.
[XXVIII‑16] See intercepted letter from the president of Panamá translated in Sharp's Voyages, 151-52.
[XXVIII‑17] The old town of Panamá was destroyed by Morgan in January 1671. Exquemelin's Hist. Bucaniers, 148. In Sharp's Voyages, 142, January 1670 is given as the date.
[XXVIII‑18] Translation of the president's letter in Sharp's Voyages, 155. There is considerable discrepancy in the various accounts of the action before Panamá; but there is no evidence that Guzman acquitted himself in the least like a soldier. Exquemelin, Hist. Flib., ii. 160, and Hist. Buccaniers, 140, Sharp, Voyagers, 138 (in the author's own account of the battle), and Archenholtz, Hist. Pirates, 140, all agree that the cavalry bore the brunt of the fight, and not one of these authorities has a word to say in favor of the pusillanimous captain-general.
[XXVIII‑19] Here again authors differ essentially in their narrative. Exquemelin, Hist. Bucaniers, 147, states that the freebooters suffered severely from the Spanish artillery as they approached the city. Archenholtz, Hist. Pirates, 141, makes the same statement; but the Hist. Flib., ii. 164, says that they encountered no opposition; and this version is probably correct, for as remarked in Burney's Buccaneers of America, 67, Panamá had no regular fortifications, and in parts lay open, and was to be won or defended by plain lighting. Sharp, Voyages, 141, indorses the Hist. Flib.
[XXVIII‑20] It is difficult to decide, amidst a conflict of authorities, whether the burning of Panamá was due to the Spaniards or to Morgan's orders. In Exquemelin, Hist. Bucaniers, 148, it is implied that Morgan gave such an order secretly, and for private reasons. In Hist. Flib., ii. 169, it is positively stated that Morgan, fearing the Spaniards might surprise him by night, caused the city to be fired. In Archenholtz' Hist. Pirates, 143, the blame is also laid to Morgan's charge. On the other hand, in the president's despatch, translated in Sharp's Voyages, 156, it is admitted that the city was fired by slaves and by some of the inhabitants. It is acknowledged by all these writers that the freebooters attempted to stay the conflagration. There seems no good reason why Morgan, who had now at his disposal 28 pieces of artillery, should have feared an attack from the Spaniards, or why he should commit an act which destroyed his chance of receiving a ransom. In Robles, Documentos para la Historia de Méjico, série i. tom. ii. 117, it is mentioned that a letter from the president of Panamá, dated April 3, 1671, nearly six weeks after Morgan's departure, was received in Mexico in December of that year. The letter confirms the intercepted despatch in many particulars, and adds that when the city was burned the buccaneers 'found themselves without provisions and supplies, and on that account did not carry out their main intention, which was to pass to Portobello by land, besiege it with vessels by sea, and capture it by blockade, and that they brought with them in anticipation a boy whom they styled the prince, and intended to crown king of Tierra Firme.'
[XXVIII‑21] Exquemelin, Hist. Flib., ii. 171. The ingots of gold and silver were of course in transit for Spain, and had been placed on board the galleon for safe keeping.
[XXVIII‑22] In Hist. Bucaniers, 152, it is stated that he was then hung up by the private parts, and flogged in that position.