Mythbusters busting pirate myths?

[Cap'n Pete Straw]

So there are now three separate threads on this topic.

Over the weekend I saw a commercial for this Wednesday's (tomorrow's) pirate episode of Mythbusters, but I was out of town.

Francois posted the following about the episode over in "Rabble Rousing", so I will quote it here (along with the link he added):

Episode 71: Pirate Special

Arggghhh, me hearties! Jamie and Adam plundered the seven seas in search of pirate parables and maritime myths. The result? This 2-hour spectacular episode! And, with four stories of hijinks on the high seas the action is thick and fast. Playing with more firearms, the guys try to figure out how deadly cannonballs really are versus the splinters sprayed from a mighty broadside blast. Kari, Grant and Tory on the port side decode the mysteries of the ol' pirate eye patch: why would a pirate wear a patch over a perfectly good eye? And if that isn't enough, the gang tops of the show with rum, knives and sails ... whaat? This one's for the books!  Premiere: Jan. 17, 2006

MythBusters

Francois

[CaptainSatan]

[..] they also tested whether eyepatches were actually worn to keep one eye night-sensitive for heightened vision in total darkness.

That's a load of bull.

I am required to wear an eyepatch by advice of my doctor, and let me assure you, it is nothing you'd ever want to go to battle with voluntatrily. After a few days, you lose every sense of depth perception and this sense is vital for any hand- to hand or artillery action.

Give it a try yourself. Wear an eyepatch for a few days and try to perform even the simplest tasks like eating in a restaurant (i.e. at a table with whose dimensions you are not accustomed to). But you'd better not be driving with that eyepatch, or things would get real nasty.

Bowie Vision

I had to wear an eyepatch for a while. When I took it off at night sometimes I'd have double vision for a while until my eyes got use to working together again.

I have been in combat situations where I had to enter a dark building from bright sunlight.In those cases I would just tightly close my right eye for a bit so that I would have at least one pupil dilated.

-CS

[Silver Steele]

Okay, time to play Devil's Advocate. [Gee Foxe doesn't this sound strangely familiar to another site? ] Lets look at this issue from a different perspective. First, one needs to look at purpose of one wearing an eye patch in the 1600s - 1700s. Then lets look at the situations where wearing one of those eye patches would be beneficial. Then finally look at the logic of it.

First I think everyone should look at the most common purpose of a patch AND the era of the 1600s - 1700s. What would anyone wear an eye patch for during those times. I think the most general purpose is that someone is blind in one eye, yes? Now, today we know the "secret" of wearing an eye patch for night or dark areas, but did they at the time? Additionally, IF wearing an eye patch was beneficial for night battles at sea with pirates, wouldn't they also be beneficial for night battles on land with infantry? Seems logical to me however, I don't think I've ever seen or heard of any infantry in that era, during a night battle wearing eye patches? Would it not be logical to wear them if attacking a camp?

Additionally, I can not think of any night situation where a pirates ship's decks would be as light as day while attacking another ship at night. Doesn't seem to make much sense to me. How would you light a ship's deck to the point where it would be so bright that going from one ship to another would cause issues with sight? Also, does it make sense to light your ship up so brightly at night, thus making yourself a target? Just doesn't look like any kind of tactical advantage there.

Secondly would it be a wise decision to attack a ship at night.... only if you are being fired upon. Remember pirates didn't always stand, they ran quite a bit if the odds were down. And what logic is it to simply fire in the dark at a ship in a rather LARGE open sea when you cant see what you are firing at? Unless it was a full moon, you are not going to really see anything unless you are right on top of it or a ship running with lights. Cannon and powder was a wee bit expensive at the time and I don't think would be wasted in such a fashion. Sounds a wee bit too risky for me, but I could be wrong.

Thirdly, if it were logical to use eye patches to go from light to dark, then wouldn't they be useful to use during daylight also? I mean going from a lighted deck during the daytime down to the "depths" of the hold would be a major difference in light. Yet, I can find no statement of such an act being done. If it were greatly beneficial, I do believe the Royal Navy of the time would have issued them.

Once you step away from the romanticism of pirates wearing things such as earrings, eye patches and peg legs and look at the facts and lack of facts on matters things become a bit clearer. Then look at the logic of why or why not an item would be used, it becomes pretty obvious of whether items were really used, especially if there is evidence lacking.

As I have said in the past on the topic of pirates wearing earrings and tattoos: I believe eye patches, along with earrings and tattoos, are not the rule however there are a few rare occasions when they have popped up.

[Okay, don't hurt me too much now. ]

[capnwilliam]

Agree on the "splinters" issue: they'd be spraying mayhem all over the place; the cannonball itself is harmless unless you get hit directly by it.

The "night vision" theory makes no sense. Pirates avoided fighting when they could, attacked by day if they couldn't.

One theory I'd heard about eyepatches (besides the obvious hiding of an empty eye socket) was that they protected the other eye when taking sextant readings. I'm not sure this is MUCH more plausible than the "night vision" theory.

Capt. William

[Sjöröveren]

I think the splinter test failed because the small section of hull they used moved too much, so most of the energy of the cannonball was dissipated. The amount of mass in a real ship far overshadows the amount of energy in a cannonball, so the energy is much more focused at the site of impact, thus throwing out splinters at a much greater velocity. That's my theory anyway. Any physics types out there?

[Mr_Scabbs]

The only myth I want them to resolve is if you can hold a row-boat upside down over your head while walking under water while keeping air trapped in it. Seems the damned thing would rise to the top...

...and don't say that it's just movie magic. Pirates did this all the time. It's true. I read it somewhere on the Internet.

[Matusalem]

mr Scabbs wrote:

The only myth I want them to resolve is if you can hold a row-boat upside down over your head while walking under water while keeping air trapped in it. Seems the damned thing would rise to the top...

Methinks Longboats, and dhows, prams (whateverthey were called) were pretty heavy back then. However I think Jamie Hyneman would be afraid to ruin his mustache.