Forum discussions are now taking place on Discord. For all account questions and concerns, please continue to contact Customer Support directly.

Keep updated on Pirate101 on Twitter @Pirate101, Facebook, Discord, and @KI_Alerts!

 Search  Updated Topics  Hottest Topics  Rules

The Problem with "Pirate Myths"

AuthorMessage
Pirate Overlord
Mar 16, 2012
10631
I'm concerned by the recent blog post about the MythBusters "proving" that pirates wore eye patches just for being able to see in darkened situations.
I've seen that episode and several aspects of the so-called "experiment" is disturbing to me. First off, though, I must explain that "plausible" isn't the same as "proven" even by the MythBusters standards. Plausible means only that there is a scientific basis for the theory.
The things that disturbed me in that episode:
1. The experiments were highly exaggerated.
a ) Eye Bleaching - not even the light in the Caribbean is as strong as the light Tori was subjected to as part of the experiment. So, of course, her eyes took that half hour to adjust.
b ) "Pirate Obstacle Course" - at no time was a pirate ship in near pitch dark conditions. ( I'll be covering this later on the section about historic conditions. )
2. A severe lack of historic research! Not even an attempt to see if other sailors or navy used the eye patch for seeing in the dark.
a ) A pirate is just a sailor, many had their beginnings in regular service, some even in the Navies of their country.
Are you going to tell me that only pirates knew this trick? If it was so well known, then there would be ,at least ,rules in navies of that time that sailors should wear eye patches.
b ) Conditions of light below deck - Guys, they used lanterns! In fact it was a common rule in pirate codes that NO bare flames were allowed below deck - candles were to be in a lantern. ( I found out about Pirate Codes by using Wikipedia, why MythBusters didn't check this is beyond me. )
c ) Conditions of light above deck at night - again, they used lanterns!
Piracy was a dangerous business, there are many ways by which a pirate could lose an eye. In fact, one way was covered in that same episode - splinters from a cannon shot!
So, please before you go around saying that MythBusters showed that pirates used eye patches solely to see in the dark, consider that MB might have skipped on the historic accuracy.
Don't get me wrong on my respect for MythBusters, but they are concentrating on science and there I find no fault, they just suck as historians.
Dread Pirate
May 27, 2009
2131
Mythbusters was always "quick and dirty" science...

Admiral
Jul 07, 2013
1124
Buster is a hero....lol......btw saw the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie....so called it.

Virtuous Dante Ramsey
Bosun
Mar 04, 2012
308
anecorbie on Jun 11, 2017 wrote:
I'm concerned by the recent blog post about the MythBusters "proving" that pirates wore eye patches just for being able to see in darkened situations.
I've seen that episode and several aspects of the so-called "experiment" is disturbing to me. First off, though, I must explain that "plausible" isn't the same as "proven" even by the MythBusters standards. Plausible means only that there is a scientific basis for the theory.
The things that disturbed me in that episode:
1. The experiments were highly exaggerated.
a ) Eye Bleaching - not even the light in the Caribbean is as strong as the light Tori was subjected to as part of the experiment. So, of course, her eyes took that half hour to adjust.
b ) "Pirate Obstacle Course" - at no time was a pirate ship in near pitch dark conditions. ( I'll be covering this later on the section about historic conditions. )
2. A severe lack of historic research! Not even an attempt to see if other sailors or navy used the eye patch for seeing in the dark.
a ) A pirate is just a sailor, many had their beginnings in regular service, some even in the Navies of their country.
Are you going to tell me that only pirates knew this trick? If it was so well known, then there would be ,at least ,rules in navies of that time that sailors should wear eye patches.
b ) Conditions of light below deck - Guys, they used lanterns! In fact it was a common rule in pirate codes that NO bare flames were allowed below deck - candles were to be in a lantern. ( I found out about Pirate Codes by using Wikipedia, why MythBusters didn't check this is beyond me. )
c ) Conditions of light above deck at night - again, they used lanterns!
Piracy was a dangerous business, there are many ways by which a pirate could lose an eye. In fact, one way was covered in that same episode - splinters from a cannon shot!
So, please before you go around saying that MythBusters showed that pirates used eye patches solely to see in the dark, consider that MB might have skipped on the historic accuracy.
Don't get me wrong on my respect for MythBusters, but they are concentrating on science and there I find no fault, they just suck as historians.
Wow nice work anecorbie I don't know what myth that even is but impressive you covered all those facts in a single post proving it is fake myth great work
Captain
Jun 26, 2010
734
anecorbie on Jun 11, 2017 wrote:
I'm concerned by the recent blog post about the MythBusters "proving" that pirates wore eye patches just for being able to see in darkened situations.
I've seen that episode and several aspects of the so-called "experiment" is disturbing to me. First off, though, I must explain that "plausible" isn't the same as "proven" even by the MythBusters standards. Plausible means only that there is a scientific basis for the theory.
The things that disturbed me in that episode:
1. The experiments were highly exaggerated.
a ) Eye Bleaching - not even the light in the Caribbean is as strong as the light Tori was subjected to as part of the experiment. So, of course, her eyes took that half hour to adjust.
b ) "Pirate Obstacle Course" - at no time was a pirate ship in near pitch dark conditions. ( I'll be covering this later on the section about historic conditions. )
2. A severe lack of historic research! Not even an attempt to see if other sailors or navy used the eye patch for seeing in the dark.
a ) A pirate is just a sailor, many had their beginnings in regular service, some even in the Navies of their country.
Are you going to tell me that only pirates knew this trick? If it was so well known, then there would be ,at least ,rules in navies of that time that sailors should wear eye patches.
b ) Conditions of light below deck - Guys, they used lanterns! In fact it was a common rule in pirate codes that NO bare flames were allowed below deck - candles were to be in a lantern. ( I found out about Pirate Codes by using Wikipedia, why MythBusters didn't check this is beyond me. )
c ) Conditions of light above deck at night - again, they used lanterns!
Piracy was a dangerous business, there are many ways by which a pirate could lose an eye. In fact, one way was covered in that same episode - splinters from a cannon shot!
So, please before you go around saying that MythBusters showed that pirates used eye patches solely to see in the dark, consider that MB might have skipped on the historic accuracy.
Don't get me wrong on my respect for MythBusters, but they are concentrating on science and there I find no fault, they just suck as historians.
Interesting theory Fair Lass!

- Deadeye Jack Morgan

- Deadeye Edward Morgan
Pirate Overlord
Mar 16, 2012
10631
Was I the only one to find this proposition ludicrous?
Not only would you have to accept that barely literate pirates had the knowledge of how the human eye works, but that the entire crew were wearing eye patches!? Do you know what this does to your depth perception and peripheral vision?
And that this was a complete secret to all other sailors and Navies around the world? Sure medical science supports the theory, but, for me, all factors need to be taken into account.
Admiral
Nov 01, 2013
1413
anecorbie on Jun 11, 2017 wrote:
I'm concerned by the recent blog post about the MythBusters "proving" that pirates wore eye patches just for being able to see in darkened situations.
I've seen that episode and several aspects of the so-called "experiment" is disturbing to me. First off, though, I must explain that "plausible" isn't the same as "proven" even by the MythBusters standards. Plausible means only that there is a scientific basis for the theory.
The things that disturbed me in that episode:
1. The experiments were highly exaggerated.
a ) Eye Bleaching - not even the light in the Caribbean is as strong as the light Tori was subjected to as part of the experiment. So, of course, her eyes took that half hour to adjust.
b ) "Pirate Obstacle Course" - at no time was a pirate ship in near pitch dark conditions. ( I'll be covering this later on the section about historic conditions. )
2. A severe lack of historic research! Not even an attempt to see if other sailors or navy used the eye patch for seeing in the dark.
a ) A pirate is just a sailor, many had their beginnings in regular service, some even in the Navies of their country.
Are you going to tell me that only pirates knew this trick? If it was so well known, then there would be ,at least ,rules in navies of that time that sailors should wear eye patches.
b ) Conditions of light below deck - Guys, they used lanterns! In fact it was a common rule in pirate codes that NO bare flames were allowed below deck - candles were to be in a lantern. ( I found out about Pirate Codes by using Wikipedia, why MythBusters didn't check this is beyond me. )
c ) Conditions of light above deck at night - again, they used lanterns!
Piracy was a dangerous business, there are many ways by which a pirate could lose an eye. In fact, one way was covered in that same episode - splinters from a cannon shot!
So, please before you go around saying that MythBusters showed that pirates used eye patches solely to see in the dark, consider that MB might have skipped on the historic accuracy.
Don't get me wrong on my respect for MythBusters, but they are concentrating on science and there I find no fault, they just suck as historians.
I have heard of MythBusters several times before, but the way it sounds even when I looked it up on Google was that MythBusters is all about myths and legends, not actual facts. (For actual facts about origins of things: I highly recommend Wow, I Never Knew That.)

Admiral
Oct 27, 2009
1439
I always thought the eye patches were from the hazardous work aboard ship. There is a reason ships sought "able bodied" seamen, not all of them were. On the other hand, on a bright day just going inside a house with windows, lit by electric electric lights, can be blinding. From a bright Caribbean day into lower levels of a ship lit by dim flickering lamps? I don't think we can say there might not have been some individuals who may have had a trick to preserve their night vision.
Pirate Overlord
Mar 16, 2012
10631
Calamity Finch on Jun 13, 2017 wrote:
I always thought the eye patches were from the hazardous work aboard ship. There is a reason ships sought "able bodied" seamen, not all of them were. On the other hand, on a bright day just going inside a house with windows, lit by electric electric lights, can be blinding. From a bright Caribbean day into lower levels of a ship lit by dim flickering lamps? I don't think we can say there might not have been some individuals who may have had a trick to preserve their night vision.
Closing your eyes to allow them to adjust quicker is one trick which I have used during historical recreation events. When I left a well lit Hall and walked to my camp at night with only the aid of a lamp ( or moon/starlight. )
It doesn't take a half hour for your eyes to adjust even then. 60 seconds at the most and you're good to go.
Ensign
Nov 22, 2009
35
anecorbie on Jun 13, 2017 wrote:
Closing your eyes to allow them to adjust quicker is one trick which I have used during historical recreation events. When I left a well lit Hall and walked to my camp at night with only the aid of a lamp ( or moon/starlight. )
It doesn't take a half hour for your eyes to adjust even then. 60 seconds at the most and you're good to go.
To fully adjust can take half an hour or longer; to adjust enough to navigate an environment significantly less.
Another reason for preserving low light vision is astronomy, specifically the need to navigate by the stars. From astronomy books as well as my own experience, it can take at least fifteen minutes before the eyes adjust enough to make out fainter stars.
Admiral
Oct 27, 2009
1439
anecorbie on Jun 13, 2017 wrote:
Closing your eyes to allow them to adjust quicker is one trick which I have used during historical recreation events. When I left a well lit Hall and walked to my camp at night with only the aid of a lamp ( or moon/starlight. )
It doesn't take a half hour for your eyes to adjust even then. 60 seconds at the most and you're good to go.
Ah, but what if you are rather old? I understand that adjusting to dark lighting conditions, fully, can take much longer than a minute for some people. Having looked it up, it takes 5 minutes for human eyes to mostly adjust to darkness. Yes, you get a lot in the first minute. I say "mostly" because the night vision adjustment continues for several hours at a lesser rate, but still improving. If I were trying to spot dark enemy sails against a moonless sky, with only starlight, or watching for rocks or an iceberg, I might want that extra edge. I've used the one eye shut trick at home in the night, but I wouldn't want to do that for more than 5 minutes. A half hour or hour? No way. I also wouldn't want to rely on that if I was working at the time. It would be easy to slip up and open the eye. If seeing something tough to see in the dark were critical, better not to take the chance of slipping up and damaging that slowly gained night vision.
I can't speak to the nautical history and any eye patch use for this purpose, but there is military precedent on putting pickets out away from the campfires and facing away from the light (watchmen/guards/early warning duty). Keeping watch with a light in your line of sight is not considered a good idea.
Now about that age thing, a 50 year old needs about twice the light to see well in the dark as a 30 year old. It also takes longer to adjust to both darkness and bright light at that age. There are physical changes that cause this, in the muscles of the iris, in the rod cells, and in lens transparency. I'm not saying the eye patch thing is proven, but people do tend to try stuff to give them an edge, or to keep up with the next generation. Tough to prove it never happened.
Also, bet the events you were at were a lot brighter (less than hundred miles from lit up cities or towns?) I've been in the mountains on a moonless night, Huge difference in what night looks like. Pre-electric? Imagine.
Pirate Overlord
Mar 16, 2012
10631
Calamity Finch on Jun 13, 2017 wrote:
Ah, but what if you are rather old? I understand that adjusting to dark lighting conditions, fully, can take much longer than a minute for some people. Having looked it up, it takes 5 minutes for human eyes to mostly adjust to darkness. Yes, you get a lot in the first minute. I say "mostly" because the night vision adjustment continues for several hours at a lesser rate, but still improving. If I were trying to spot dark enemy sails against a moonless sky, with only starlight, or watching for rocks or an iceberg, I might want that extra edge. I've used the one eye shut trick at home in the night, but I wouldn't want to do that for more than 5 minutes. A half hour or hour? No way. I also wouldn't want to rely on that if I was working at the time. It would be easy to slip up and open the eye. If seeing something tough to see in the dark were critical, better not to take the chance of slipping up and damaging that slowly gained night vision.
I can't speak to the nautical history and any eye patch use for this purpose, but there is military precedent on putting pickets out away from the campfires and facing away from the light (watchmen/guards/early warning duty). Keeping watch with a light in your line of sight is not considered a good idea.
Now about that age thing, a 50 year old needs about twice the light to see well in the dark as a 30 year old. It also takes longer to adjust to both darkness and bright light at that age. There are physical changes that cause this, in the muscles of the iris, in the rod cells, and in lens transparency. I'm not saying the eye patch thing is proven, but people do tend to try stuff to give them an edge, or to keep up with the next generation. Tough to prove it never happened.
Also, bet the events you were at were a lot brighter (less than hundred miles from lit up cities or towns?) I've been in the mountains on a moonless night, Huge difference in what night looks like. Pre-electric? Imagine.
Quite, some of those events were in the deep country - it's amazing to see the beauty of the entire Milky Way without it being washed out by "light pollution".
And yes, I know about not watching fires while walking about at night.
The only problem I have with this "eye patch" business is that there is no historic documentation for it & the fact that the pirates would have to know about how the human eye works ( highly unlikely given the education and medical knowledge of the time ).
In fact, the only time an eye is mentioned in those Pirate Codes ( also known as Accords. ) is for compensation for a loss of the eye.
If someone went around with an eye patch without the necessity of needing one, it could be looked upon as an opportunity to defraud the ship's crew. And even though they had no problems about stealing other people's gold - thievery among themselves was dealt with harshly.
Pirate Overlord
Mar 16, 2012
10631
Donna Finch on Jun 13, 2017 wrote:
To fully adjust can take half an hour or longer; to adjust enough to navigate an environment significantly less.
Another reason for preserving low light vision is astronomy, specifically the need to navigate by the stars. From astronomy books as well as my own experience, it can take at least fifteen minutes before the eyes adjust enough to make out fainter stars.
But the fainter stars weren't used for navigation - it was the brighter stars that were used.
Lieutenant
Dec 30, 2012
157
anecorbie on Jun 11, 2017 wrote:
I'm concerned by the recent blog post about the MythBusters "proving" that pirates wore eye patches just for being able to see in darkened situations.
I've seen that episode and several aspects of the so-called "experiment" is disturbing to me. First off, though, I must explain that "plausible" isn't the same as "proven" even by the MythBusters standards. Plausible means only that there is a scientific basis for the theory.
The things that disturbed me in that episode:
1. The experiments were highly exaggerated.
a ) Eye Bleaching - not even the light in the Caribbean is as strong as the light Tori was subjected to as part of the experiment. So, of course, her eyes took that half hour to adjust.
b ) "Pirate Obstacle Course" - at no time was a pirate ship in near pitch dark conditions. ( I'll be covering this later on the section about historic conditions. )
2. A severe lack of historic research! Not even an attempt to see if other sailors or navy used the eye patch for seeing in the dark.
a ) A pirate is just a sailor, many had their beginnings in regular service, some even in the Navies of their country.
Are you going to tell me that only pirates knew this trick? If it was so well known, then there would be ,at least ,rules in navies of that time that sailors should wear eye patches.
b ) Conditions of light below deck - Guys, they used lanterns! In fact it was a common rule in pirate codes that NO bare flames were allowed below deck - candles were to be in a lantern. ( I found out about Pirate Codes by using Wikipedia, why MythBusters didn't check this is beyond me. )
c ) Conditions of light above deck at night - again, they used lanterns!
Piracy was a dangerous business, there are many ways by which a pirate could lose an eye. In fact, one way was covered in that same episode - splinters from a cannon shot!
So, please before you go around saying that MythBusters showed that pirates used eye patches solely to see in the dark, consider that MB might have skipped on the historic accuracy.
Don't get me wrong on my respect for MythBusters, but they are concentrating on science and there I find no fault, they just suck as historians.
And since when is Wikipedia 100% accurate?
Admiral
Oct 27, 2009
1439
anecorbie on Jun 14, 2017 wrote:
Quite, some of those events were in the deep country - it's amazing to see the beauty of the entire Milky Way without it being washed out by "light pollution".
And yes, I know about not watching fires while walking about at night.
The only problem I have with this "eye patch" business is that there is no historic documentation for it & the fact that the pirates would have to know about how the human eye works ( highly unlikely given the education and medical knowledge of the time ).
In fact, the only time an eye is mentioned in those Pirate Codes ( also known as Accords. ) is for compensation for a loss of the eye.
If someone went around with an eye patch without the necessity of needing one, it could be looked upon as an opportunity to defraud the ship's crew. And even though they had no problems about stealing other people's gold - thievery among themselves was dealt with harshly.
That is why the myth was only marked plausible. If the Mythbusters had tried it and found the science of it didn't work, it would be busted. They didn't mark it proven because it was not just about whether it would work, but also, had it happened. I understand why this bugs you, but lack of evidence is not the same as disproving something. It can suggest likelihoods, but not shut the door on the possible. So many things were known and considered solid facts, until later evidence arose to contradict it. Dinosaurs had leathery, reptilian skin in bland colors, there was no evidence to contradict that at all,until they discovered Archaeopteryx. Then, it was most dinosaurs were leathery, except for this one early bird like thing. Then they found that other fossil with feathers, and developed the tech needed to detect traces of truly ancient pigments, causing them to reexamine their collections with new eyes. Yes, you are right, there is no historic documentation for the eye patch theory, but that only works until some diary is discovered in a dusty archive, unearthed on an Island, translated from some historical account, or someone bothers to read through an amazingly boring box of naval minutia that has been sitting in a museum closet for a few hundred years, in China perhaps. Okay, can you PROVE that will never happen? Vikings discovering America? Was a wild theory, but now, there are excavations in Canada unearthing Viking style artifacts and buildings.
People tend to make assumptions about people in the past not being able to do things and be really smart. (Not saying you are, just generally some do) Stonehenge. Pyramids. "Had to be aliens." "That grade school kid from the country could never have had the smarts to write like that, must have been a nobleman, not Shakespeare."
If some illiterate guy noticed that covering an eye helped him, we might never know that he discovered it. Maybe there was a shipload doing that trick, but sank. Not proven or disproved.
Pirate Overlord
Mar 16, 2012
10631
Marleybone073 on Jun 15, 2017 wrote:
And since when is Wikipedia 100% accurate?
That's a good point, but I have also read the same pirate accords in more serious publications. I was just showing that a single search can turn up a fact that needs further investigation.
Commodore
Sep 20, 2009
989
anecorbie on Jun 13, 2017 wrote:
Closing your eyes to allow them to adjust quicker is one trick which I have used during historical recreation events. When I left a well lit Hall and walked to my camp at night with only the aid of a lamp ( or moon/starlight. )
It doesn't take a half hour for your eyes to adjust even then. 60 seconds at the most and you're good to go.
Adding my two cents.
The idea of wearing an eyepatch, losing your depth perception voluntarily while still having climb stuff, etc doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

My work requires me to be inside, working at a computer entering data and so forth, and still having to go outside to observe and record hourly weather. I do this even at night. When you're used to light conditions changing drastically, your eyes adjust to the light differences faster. I'm sure this would have happened for sailors and miners, and everybody else who works or worked in changing light conditions. You adapt quicker, because you're use to the conditions you work and live in. Mythbusters never acknowledged that.

Besides, wearing darkened glassess, to reduce light intensity would work even better than keeping one eye closed, because both eyes would adapt faster.

Also, to call mythbusters science, is wrong. None of their "experiments" are scientifically valid, and they only ever rely on a single data point.
Commodore
Sep 20, 2009
989
Calamity Finch on Jun 13, 2017 wrote:
Ah, but what if you are rather old? I understand that adjusting to dark lighting conditions, fully, can take much longer than a minute for some people. Having looked it up, it takes 5 minutes for human eyes to mostly adjust to darkness. Yes, you get a lot in the first minute. I say "mostly" because the night vision adjustment continues for several hours at a lesser rate, but still improving. If I were trying to spot dark enemy sails against a moonless sky, with only starlight, or watching for rocks or an iceberg, I might want that extra edge. I've used the one eye shut trick at home in the night, but I wouldn't want to do that for more than 5 minutes. A half hour or hour? No way. I also wouldn't want to rely on that if I was working at the time. It would be easy to slip up and open the eye. If seeing something tough to see in the dark were critical, better not to take the chance of slipping up and damaging that slowly gained night vision.
I can't speak to the nautical history and any eye patch use for this purpose, but there is military precedent on putting pickets out away from the campfires and facing away from the light (watchmen/guards/early warning duty). Keeping watch with a light in your line of sight is not considered a good idea.
Now about that age thing, a 50 year old needs about twice the light to see well in the dark as a 30 year old. It also takes longer to adjust to both darkness and bright light at that age. There are physical changes that cause this, in the muscles of the iris, in the rod cells, and in lens transparency. I'm not saying the eye patch thing is proven, but people do tend to try stuff to give them an edge, or to keep up with the next generation. Tough to prove it never happened.
Also, bet the events you were at were a lot brighter (less than hundred miles from lit up cities or towns?) I've been in the mountains on a moonless night, Huge difference in what night looks like. Pre-electric? Imagine.
A large reason pickets are placed away from light sources, like campfires is to avoid silhouettes. When you're in a bivouac and are given picket duty, you don't want to be seen from a distance. You don't want anybody knowing you're there until they are right on top of you.