@@ostrowulfi had a comic where was a pirate that on even days had an eyepatch on left eye and on uneven days on right eye He was always forgetting on which eye he had it today
A lot of myths have very weird kinda innocent origins. The vast majority of myths concerning Anne Bonny actually come from a 1964 romance novel. History be like that sometimes, kinda insane.
The fact that people tell you to "do your research better!!!1!" is absolutely wild to me. Your videos are some of the most completely sourced history content on this entire platform. Keep on keepin' on, GG. We love ya!
It’s so nice to have a little island of real history told by someone who is genuinely passionate about the topic among the sea of “we’re giants real?” mind poison cash grab videos. Godspeed Gold and Gunpowder.
Your point about coal miners (or miners of any sort) and milkmaids not using eye patches to help with night-vision acclimatisation really hammers the final nail in the coffin for that myth of pirates wearing eye patches to speed up their eyes' acclimatisation to low-light conditions. Coal mines often have sections filled with dangerous, inflammable gases like carbon monoxide, but the coal miners of that period used *open flames* for illumination. Surely, if the whole eyepatch trick were common knowledge during that area, those men would have preferred to do that instead of bringing open flames into environments filled with combustible gases! As for the milkmaids, many houses in that era were made of wood and were quite flammable as well. Surely, a milkmaid would rather opt for not carrying an open flame down the rickety cellar steps (and risk setting the house on fire if she tripped) if she had a safer option?
Unlit mines are totally pitch black no amount of night vision (neither natural or say night vision goggles) will help you see not even your hand in front of your face as unlike on the surface where even in the darkest moonless nights there will be some ambient light from sources like the stars therefore it is necessary to bring your own source of light and before electricity the only option was a flame and before the safety lamp was invented this was an open flame and explosions resulting from “fire damp”(mostly methane sometimes with other nastier gasses like hydrogen sulphide) igniting were common. There were 2 main methods of preventing explosions/fires firstly the best method was maintaining good ventilation so that flammable gases like fire damp and toxic gases like black damp (carbon monoxide) did not build up this was done by using ventilation shafts and strategically located doors that could be opened and closed and later air pumps, however if the gases managed to build up despite the ventilation in the case of fire damp the area would be evacuated then a man would be covered in wet rags and leather and given a long stick with a burning oil soaked rag at one end he would then ignite the gases using the flame at the end of the stick hopefully being far enough away from the resulting fire/explosion that combined with the protection from the wet rags he would not be killed and work could continue. Anyway back to the point on a ship it would pretty much never be completely pitch black as some light would be coming in through stair ways gun ports tiny gaps in the planking and so on bright enough that good night vision would be just about enough to see
Just to be clear I’m on no way suggesting that pirates would use eye patches for night vision tho I mean they might have done but as gold and gunpowder says it’s most unlikely
Actually no, eyepatches were used to aim better when pirates or privateers were engaging enemy vessels. Source: the talking blue crab I found in South Padre Island
I think anyone who has sailed knows this The time between seeing something and reaching it ks generally ... a lot. So 20-25 minutes is really ample time to get used to darkness. And, yea to think of it - you re a pirate - you dont want discomfort 97% of the day to have a good moment transitioning to 3% of the day. Not to mention that losing your perspective is pretty shit on a ship. I am with GG here.
Well said. It also isn't worth the risks of eye infection or irritation from keeping a damp, salty patch over one of your eyes whilst working on board the decks of a ship if you have no reason to cover that perfectly good eye. Ironically, if a pirate were to wear an eyepatch simply to help his eyes adjust to the darkness below decks, the resulting infection he could contract may result in him losing that eye and having a _genuine need_ for an eyepatch! Saltwater isn't sterile, and the sea spray is rich in salt. Salt is generally something most people prefer to keep _out_ of their eyes whenever possible.
Thank you for making this video. I have a history page I write, and I definitely understand how irritating it is to have to waste time and energy putting out the ignorant fires of mythology instead of being able to use that time to produce content I actually want to spend time on. Stay strong.
Great video! I found it very informative. Too bad you had to make it because people believed silly ideas. I guess common sense is more of a relative concept. If you lack the requisite knowledge or experience your level of common sense will be limited accordingly.
I'm a Mythbusters fan ^^ Loved the Show and it's many different experiments. Honestly i never took it for 'absolut serious' and just enjoyed the show itself. Your explanation of the many Pirat topics and how they really where living, fighting, suffering wounds and enjoying there gold and plunder really is a GREAT addition for me :)
It’s a shame you’re forced to do these debunking videos, your regular content is very interesting, and I appreciate the time and effort you put into the research
I actually really enjoy your debunking videos. Although i understand your dislike for it. Great job and actually appreciate the attitude. Never felt insulted personally from any of your videos.
Anybody who has ever worn an eyepatch even for short duration, whether for costume, surgery recovery, or pupil dilation should know why that patch theory is ridiculous.
Thank you so much for making this video! I feel your frustration and have fought similar arguments in support of using scholarly historical method for drawing conclusions, not made up "epic" history (as I like to call it). Please keep up the great work!
>The Flesh smells very strong of Musk; especially four Kernels or Cods that are always found about them, two of which grow in the Groin, near each Thigh; the other two at the Breast, one under each Fore-leg, and about the bigness of a Pullets Egg; therefore when we kill an Alligator, we take out these, and having dried them wear them in our Hats for a perfume. The Flesh is seldom eaten but in case of Necessity, because of it strong scent. from: quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ecco/004888554.0001.000/1:6.2?rgn=div2;view=fulltext not a widespread practice but it happened
Hey man, I found your channels a few months ago and I just want to say I really like your work. You clearly put a lot of time and effort into your videos and I very much admire your use of primary sources. You also aren’t afraid to add humor and make the videos funny which I really enjoy. You’re like 1 of 4 history RU-vidrs that I actually like. What I admire the most is that you really take your time to explain the subject. That alone is probably your greatest strength. Keep up the good work.
You have my sympathy. Engaging with the world via this new medium means having to engage with anyone who has internet access, a device and an opinion...and as we know, opinions are like assholes...everybody's got one. But on to eyes: I suspect the one-eyed villain (or hero) is a purely literary invention. Having only one eye makes accurate depth perception impossible, and this is a huge handicap with either sword or firearms. (Yes, it's true that when aiming a gun many people close their non-dominant eye, but we won't go into the technicalities of accurately aiming a firearm now). I can tell you from experience that it's impossible to fight with a sword without excellent depth perception, although perhaps an experienced swordsman could still manage to defeat a lesser-skilled opponent. Again, what you saw on TeeVee or the Moobies doesn't count. Go ahead, pick up a rapier and fight someone with a patch over one eye and if you're not dead, let me know how it went for you. Sailors would have proportionately had more eye injuries than most other occupations, hell, they had more injuries of all kinds, (sailors were always identified as such in the period by the number of scars. particularly on their hands, arms and faces) but even without naval combat, the ends of flying lines, the rapid movement of large wooden objects and being exposed to high wind conditions would all contribute to a high incidence of eye injuries, thus it was no doubt common to see a retired sailor with only one eye. And most would be retired, because it would be nearly impossible to carry out any tasks aboard ship with a limited field of vision and poor depth perception. Again, go ahead and climb a sixty foot pole in a gale, in the dark, then climb twenty feet out on a beam and wrestle with heavy canvas and tying knots...with one eye covered. Again, if you're not dead, let me know it was for you. You might be a cook, or some other menial task, you could even be the navigator or quartermaster, although the latter was expected to be one of the combat leaders. But for 'young men's adventure tales' books, and exciting films of impossibly good-looking people pretending to do stuff, all sorts of ridiculous lies are told in the pursuit of telling a great whopper of a story. (People not wearing helmets in combat is another of my favorite bitches, too.)
Also, to further your point. Any bright light whatsoever would immediately restart your eye from acclimating. So any flame or light source below deck would literally immediately stop your eye from being fully acclimated and you'd still have to wait. It would ONLY be useful with literally no light source at all. The sun shining through the deck would fuck up your acclimation as well. It would have to be completely sealed off with no light, which obviously doesn't happen.
An important addition about the pirate tropes. I find it sad that so much stupidity exists where people believe in nonsense without actual evidence and then act smart. Nice content once more, Cheers!🏴☠
I think drachinifel discussed boarding actions once. He talked about the eye patch meme. He pointed out that it didn't make sense to disadvantage yourself when most boarding actions were over when one side had control of the upper deck. Once you had control of this, you had control of the sails and anyone belowdecks was at a disadvantage in a fight. If they continued to resist. The boarders could drop down grenades (though I'm not sure if these were available in the golden age of piracy)
since the last couple of days my opinion about eye patches changed fundamentaly The only acceptable way to wear an eyepatch is as chancellor of germany lol
Oh that was nice. Did you ever had a chance to visit a rebuild ship of that era like the batavia? it is actualy not very dark on the gundeck when the gunports are open... and I dont think they would simply have no time to handle the change of the eye during engagement. I took part at noumerous reenactment batles and fights and there is no time for things like this unless you like to be stabed. 🤣and for sure in a mine it wont work for sure because you need a minimum source of light . One mile under ground there is no light at all , just pitch black .... A engagement at night seems not to be a good idea dbecause you can simply not mke out who is friend and foe. It would make sense only in case of a suprise atack at night like taking over a ship on anckor like in the 50s Hornblower movie and in the CS Forester books..... but that is way too late in napolionic war......
When they had a forum we made a HUGE and very civil interestingly, critique of their debunking the splinters myth. They must have never read it because they never returned. But, we mentioned a good chunk of these.
As someone who lost his right eye at the age of 35 I can confirm that wearing an eyepatch is done solely for reasons of appearance and of course a prosthetic made from glass is the best solution. Mine is made so well that most people don't even notice my disability. The main problem with having only one working eye is not the loss of stereoscopic sight, it is the severe reduction of your field of vision.
i do believe that it would not be uncommon for an man missing an eye to not want to show the world his horrid injury even in every day life on a ship back then. it could be for insecurity reasons too or the fact no one wants to look at it and pirates could be the rude sort. people with missing limbs tend to cover thier wounds in everyday life today and I would not be surprised back then. humans are humans after all.
Pirates with eye patches do up the intimidation part, or at least make some people think twice about tangling with that person. But I guess he would still have to deal with loss of depth perception. I would use two eye patches just to cover my eyes so I can at least sleep without being bothered by unwanted lights. Also that thumbnail definitely deserves an oscar.
in the period eyepatches were mostly associated with invalid, pensioned sailors who lost their eyes to splinters from broadsides(chance rather than a personal engagement)
I think if I was going to jump on to the deck of a ship and fight a bunch of people in close quarters I would want both eyes open. I wouldn't want to disable my depth perception to see in the dark. If I even lived long enough to go below deck.
Lovely video. I remember a historian in a show for kids who explained that pirates had eyepatches because it is so dark under the deck. When my son asked me if that could be true. I answered that I never could read about it in numerous books by real historians about pirates and that the sailors and officers of the French, Spanish or English navy obviously would have had the same problem with life on a ship. I prefer real navy history. (The French musée de la marine is to be reopened in November!) Cheers!
I swear this song that you’re using or the piece that you’re using with your videos it’s somewhere in World of Warcraft. I’ve heard it before. I just don’t know what area it’s from.
Absolutely no offence taken. I never liked Myth Busters, for a few reasons. They are far more about entertainment than information, and their shows are full of boring banter.
Find your channel very interesting. I can’t wait to hear what you have to say. It is an inception or the actual fax is always something left for history..
Amazing video, once again, and very funny! I was wondering recently about weather conditions during sailing. Will you do (or have you done) something about that topic? For example, i always think storms would be absolutely horrofying, especially bc it already is on modern day ships footage, about how they would deal with heat, sun and cold, visibility on sea fog and wind problems.
It's hard being the voice of reason among the shouting of the ignorant masses..... I've referred your channel to people to set them straight. Keep up your excellent work 👍
Reached an old, old age. Got perfected. One eye ball has a super microscope focus and the other perfect for long distance. Need an eye patch. Has remarkable empathetic romantic appeal. Best of all, it's a stylish affection in old age. Who doesn't like even a fake a pirate if the spirit is there ? . . . and more importantly, the need to be a 'Pirate' some of the time ?
Don't know who you are friend but it is exactly the same for men. Don't yet know if it'sa body fault or a perfection. Can see anything with one eye and an old experienced brain even if not yet young enough to know everything .d
I’m glad I’ve stumbled upon your channel a few years ago. If I hadn’t, I probably would’ve fallen for those other YT channels that still post those clichè pirate myths that people still believe to be true.
Also missing an eye with no mention of a patch: Tee Weatherly (or Wetherly), one of Joseph Bradish's men aboard Adventure. "Tee Wetherly, short, very small, blind in one eye, about 18" according to VA Governor Francis Nicholson.
I think there is more reasoning behind the whole 'night vision eyepatch' theory. During a sea battle, a pirate's ship would tremble and jolt from the volleys of cannon and musket fire, from both sides of the battle. Under these circumstances, it may be dangerous to venture into the ship's magazine while holding a lantern; if dropped, it could set the ship aflame. Therefore the pirates could have worn an eyepatch during battle to run errands to and from the magazine, and still be able to adjust their eyes to the darkness in a hurry. However, these are very specific circumstances. The use of the 'night vision eyepatch' - if ever occurred - would ONLY be required in the midst of battle, when adjusting one's eyesight to the darkness very quickly would be necessary. It should also be noted that this would also ONLY be necessary in the magazine, where flammable gunpowder would be stored, unless the ship had no dedicated magazine and the powder was stored in the main hold. Furthermore, ONLY a small number of men or powder boys would be assigned to run to and from the magazine during battle - not the entire crew. Also, pirates rarely attacked other ships first. Most of the time, like you often mention, pirates used intimidation to force their victims into surrender, which usually worked. Sea battles were rare, and spread apart. And even for the few crewmembers who took to the magazine during battle, it would not be at all necessarily to wear an eyepatch all day, or regularly, as if in case of a surprise attack. Even when a surprise attack occurred at sea, the crew would have had ample minutes to prepare, as ships moved very slowly back in the day, and the catching-up of one ship to another would take a long time. This is plenty of time for a few pirates' eyes to adjust to an eyepatch, so this is when pirates would have applied their eyepatches. Anyways, I think the information further above makes the whole 'night vision eyepatch' idea much more plausible. However, even if this strategy was known at the time, it would have been seen by people outside of a pirate crew very rarely, (and was still rarely seen by the crew itself), thanks to the very specific circumstances under which only a few pirates would chose to wear an eyepatch. Therefore, it's unrealistic that many sources depict pirates regularly wearing eyepatches for this reason, and the stereotype has very poor merit.
Say the voices inside your head... There's no actual evidence, none, simple like that. You're not smart, you just got time to think about crap like this and write with fancy words.
any info on this man...Peter Easton was a Scottish privateer and later pirate in the early 17th century. Conflicting accounts exist regarding his early life. By 1602, Easton had become a highly successful privateer, commissioned to protect English interests in Newfoundland
Good use of Pirates Own Book. Its not the most reliable book and in fact it actually plagerised several previously written pirate books. But, when it comes to discussing a pirate from 11 years prior, I'm willing to accept Elm is being honest here.
I know it was a thing in the navy back then but what do know of beer rations? I think the history of being aloud to drink on the job is pretty funny and interesting
Also with Mythbusters: Even the episode that people are taking at face value has enough nuance to say that there's genuinely no written record of pirates doing this, hence why it's rated as just "Plausible" and not "Confirmed". But so many seemed to just miss that part and act like it's 100% the truth.
I don't think it would have been that hard for someone to discover the eyepatch trick back then, most people figure out that their eyes need time to adjust to low light conditions without intimate knowledge of how the eye works after all. It just wasn't practical because it limits your vision so much, which is also why people today generally don't bother. Most of us when going somewhere dark will just wait to let our eyes adjust because waiting 10-20 minutes is rarely a big deal, and having the use of both eyes is worth the wait. Using an eyepatch only makes sense if you for some reason need to go between low light and bright areas quickly, but also don't need good depth perception and you can't bring any kind of light, and that's just not a very common situation. The only situation I can think of is getting up to use the toilet at night and keeping one eye closed while on the toilet so you don't need to turn on the light in the bedroom and potentially wake up your partner.
Y'all trying to counter a point is always welcome but do your research, g&g does his research thoroughly and thats why we watch him because we know he is right, if you are going to try to counter him provide evidence backing up your claim.
I think its much more likely some scumbag Sailor was asleep on deck with a hat over his eyes, and the sun moved, covering only one eye, where upon light was extra bright in the covered eye as they were sent below to change to be flogged or whatever the fuck, IDK. I'd personally give it "unlikely"
I'm sorry you don't like videos like this one. I am a fan of all your work, and this one -- your Stupid Guy Saying Something Stupid voice: HILARIOUS. Don't let stupid people discourage you. Please vent your frustration with sarcasm as often as is necessary. Hilarious. I came up with a way to run faster than anyone ever: I cut off one of my feet. You don't even have to see how it works. Once you're told, the logic of it is obvious. Glory to Glorzo!
The only reason I could see it being used is. If (big entasif on IF) it would have been effective in being a other scarring tool. during the chase. With the idea that the pirate would only wear it during the chase periode. when they would really have to battle they would just discard the patch. It alone would not be enough but as a addition to all the other scare tactics. Like some Dutch merchant/privateer have documented. Have used clothing to make them look taller. or have (fake) nasty looking scars. it was more to add on to the theater of fear.
I think it's likely that one or two pirates/ships may have figured out covering one eye for adjusting to the dark quicker. However I highly doubt this was ever a universally known thing or was even used if you figured it out.
I gotta wonder how many eye surgery’s people had back in the day. I heard they were pretty old, I remember this one procedure talking about removing the iris.
I can hardly imagine how horrible it would have been being in maritime combat and not just getting splinters in your eye, but breathing them in as well. Myself I would probably seek out some form of eye cover to save myself like a cloth or a pair of glasses with fake lenses, and be damned if I were to run around without long sleeves.
And how exactly would you afford such a thing if you were just a common sailor, eh? If you put a cloth over your eyes, well, guess what--you've now blindfolded yourself! Any cloth thin enough for you to see through somewhat (e.g. like a cheesecloth) wouldn't do anything to protect you from splinters. As for a pair of glasses, this is the late 17th to 18th century. Polycarbonate hasn't yet been invented. So your only options for the lenses would be glass of some sort, or maybe transparent minerals like mica. Glass tends to shatter into sharp fragments when hit sharply... so your "eye protection" might be even worse than wearing nothing at all if you suddenly found yourself faceplanting against the mast or a cannon breech--which could happen in rough seas, or if you were drunk. Finally, wearing long sleeves all the time in the Caribbean = death by heatstroke. Many sailors (including pirates) in the region went around in short sleeves or bare-chested because whilst death and maiming from wooden splinters in combat wasn't a given--you might never get into a cannonade duel with an opposing vessel--the problems of heatstroke and dehydration under the hot tropical sun *were* constant threats. People back then weren't stupid. They were just as capable of evaluating risk as we are today, given the knowledge and technology available. To give you a modern example, why don't you see all soldiers running around in head-to-toe PPE like EOD suits even though fragments that hit you in the legs or groin can potentially kill you if they sever your femoral artery--and fragments from HE weapons are the primary casualty-causing agent on the modern battlefield? It's because they are smart enough to know that the risk of a mortar shell landing near you and spraying you with jagged chunks of red-hot metal is an issue, but being so gassed from the weight of your kit that you can't quickly run to cover when the shooting starts IS a bigger threat. Hence why only the EOD chaps wear that kit which they need for their specialised role, and even then, they don't wear it all the time unless it is absolutely necessary.
