PlaymoFriends
General => News => Topic started by: Martin Milner on July 08, 2008, 09:07:55
-
I know that an eyepatch is part of the common image of pirates, but just how likely is it that a man would receive an injury to one eye, and not have half his head blown or sliced off at the same time?
However I just read a theory that pirates (and other sailors) might wear an eyepatch so that they could go from the brightly lit top deck to the gloomy below deck areas without being temporarily blinded, by switching the patch from one eye to the other.
I can see that this might possibly be useful, but I've never read of it in any factual or fictional descriptions of pirates or any naval affairs. I would think the loss of depth perception would offset the benefit of temporary eyesight, so that this would be a practise limited to very specific job areas on board a ship.
Has anybody else read about this practise, or have any further insights or comments?
-
well martin, i agree that the large presence of eye-patches in pirates is very strange. :hmm:
bullets were not as effective as they are nowadays, though - round-shaped and fired from pistols or muskets not that powerful.
from what i read, the main cause of injuries would be the wood splinters that came off from the ship when a cannon bullet "arrived".
i don't think light-blindness is a good explanation.
from my experience, when you are skylarking up and down the rigging of a ship, you want (need) to have "stereo" vision. :yup:
with only one eye opened there's no way you can calculate distances properly and you will end up smashing yourself on the deck or on the water. :'(
you could cook, clean, mend, sew, think, drink, sleep with only one eye - all of them activities you do on deck or below-deck.
i can see no action that puts you up and down from the deck constantly and that benefits from a "shading" eye-patch.
for this to be a valuable accessory on a ship, "regular" sailors would use it and i don´t think they did it... ;)
-
I agree cachalote, if this were such a useful trick, I think it would be well recorded and known about.
In battle, the only people going below decks and back up were the powder monkeys, usually small boys bringing gunpowder from the magazine up to the guns. Other than that, on Royal Navy ships there was a marine stationed at each hatch to prevent cowards and laggards who should be above deck working the guns or the ship from escaping danger down below.
As you say, down below wasn't all that much safer. Flying splinters of wood would rip off an arm or leg as easy as a cannonball would above. You might be free from small arms fire, but the splinter woulds were nasty and more likely to cause complications and infection.
Only below the waterline, in the cockpit where the wounded were carried and the surgeon plied his trade, were you free from the danger of cannonballs, musket and pistol shot, AND flying splinters.
I suspect that the eyepatch became popularised in the same way as the "Jolly Roger", through incomplete accounts and mis-information.
-
Hello, Martin ...
I know that an eyepatch is part of the common image of pirates, but just how likely is it that a man would receive an injury to one eye, and not have half his head blown or sliced off at the same time?
However I just read a theory that pirates (and other sailors) might wear an eyepatch so that they could go from the brightly lit top deck to the gloomy below deck areas without being temporarily blinded, by switching the patch from one eye to the other.
I have two stories to tell you. One is true. And, one is not.
1. Many years ago (in the time of the pirates) a young boy became friends with an old pirate.
One day the curious young boy asked the old pirate how he had come to have a wooden leg.
The old pirate said, "Aaarg ... Well it be a cannon ball what took me leg, lad."
The young boy then asked the old pirate how he had come to have a hook for a hand.
The old pirate said, "Aaarg ... It be a sharp cutlass, in a duel, what took me 'and, lad."
The young boy then asked the old pirate how he had come to wear a patch over one eye.
The old pirate said, "Aaarg ... it be a seagull, lad."
"A seagull?" gasped the young boy.
"Aye, a seagull, lad. That bird be flyin' o're me 'ead. An' I looks up. That seagull lets loose a plop right in me eye. I forgets what I be wearin' this 'ere 'ook. Took me own eye right out, I did."
2. Many years ago, when I was young police officer, an old policeman told me about the "one-eyed" patrol.
"Son,' he said. "Don't ever search inside a darkened building with both eyes wide open. Close one."
Before I could ask why, he gave me this advice, "If there's someone in there who shouldn't be, they might flash a bright light in your face. When they quickly turn off the light, you'll be blinded, but they won't. If you have one eye closed, when they quickly turn off the light, you'll still be able to see."
Which story do you think is true? ... :klickywink:
All the best,
Richard
-
Hi Martin
Playmobil I think just took the image and went to town with it. Pictures I've seen of rugged crews whether in paintings or in movies don't have particularly many patch-eyes. And, if Hollywood doesn't go overboard on it, you know it must not be very common.
I suspect most one-legged pirates would be en route for the retirement home unless they were an officer. Prosthetic legs back then weren't actually designed for roughhousing in.
-Tim
-
Eyepatches are all right. Skulls on hats??! C'mon! :hmm:
But, all right ... It's toy (again).
And I'll see to bring the "Barkeeper's friend" through Amazon.com!
G.
:blackhair:
-
Hi Richard,
Considering I was the "young boy" who asked you these questions, I'll place my money on A.
But I'd hardly call last December "many years ago"...
-Tim
I have two stories to tell you. One is true. And, one is not.
1. Many years ago (in the time of the pirates) a young boy became friends with an old pirate.
One day the curious young boy asked the old pirate how he had come to have a wooden leg.
The old pirate said, "Aaarg ... Well it be a cannon ball what took me leg, lad."
The young boy then asked the old pirate how he had come to have a hook for a hand.
The old pirate said, "Aaarg ... It be a sharp cutlass, in a duel, what took me 'and, lad."
The young boy then asked the old pirate how he had come to wear a patch over one eye.
The old pirate said, "Aaarg ... it be a seagull, lad."
"A seagull?" gasped the young boy.
"Aye, a seagull, lad. That bird be flyin' o're me 'ead. An' I looks up. That seagull lets loose a plop right in me eye. I forgets what I be wearin' this 'ere 'ook. Took me own eye right out, I did."
-
I suspect most one-legged pirates would be en route for the retirement home unless they were an officer. Prosthetic legs back then weren't actually designed for roughhousing in.
-Tim
Sailors, not just pirates, who were disabled would often continue at sea acting as ship's cook.
-
Sailors, not just pirates, who were disabled would often continue at sea acting as ship's cook.
Indeed, the "ultimate pirate" Long John Silver was hired as just such a cook despite his disability.
There were a number of specialist jobs on board (such as Ship's Carpenter) where a wooden leg might not be too much of a hinderance compared to skills worth retaining, but of course running up the rigging to work the sails would not be so easy.
Wooden-legged and other disabled pirates might be found ashore, wherever ex-pirates gather. Ships still have to come to land somewhere, and Pirates sometimes had safe havens with shore facilities.
Richard - interesting story, but is this just an perosnal anecdote, or is it standard police procedure? If the latter, wouldn't it be part of training, not passed on from one man to another?
-
Richard - interesting story, but is this just an personal anecdote, or is it standard police procedure? If the latter, wouldn't it be part of training, not passed on from one man to another?
You might agree with this statement, Martin ...
"Regardless of the intensity of an individual's formal training, there is often even more to be learned from one's occupational environment."
All the best,
Richard
-
Yes, but someone telling you isn't your occupational environment, is it? It's more informal training.
One would hope that if there's a genuine advantage in doing something, it would be added to the training system. Particuarly as we're talking about methods to preserve the trainee's life in this case.
-
Hello, Martin ...
Yes, but someone telling you isn't your occupational environment, is it? It's more informal training.
In the States we call it OJT. And, it's often a lot more valuable than any formal training.
You are absolutely correct about the importance of knowing those things that can save your life, Martin.
For some reason, the "tricks of the trade" seem to become much more meaningful, and make a far greater impression, in the real world, than they ever would in a classroom.
As an educator, I almost always looked at "formal" education as only a preparation to learning. And, OJT as the real education. Some reputable universities in the States now recognize the importance of "life experiences" and now give degree credits for it.
So, eye patches, hooks and wooden legs were "life experiences" that offered accreditation for the degree of "Master Pirate" ... and were no doubt just as impressive as that college diploma hanging on the wall.
All the best,
Richard
-
If the pirate was missing a leg or eye i think that would be a lesson on what not to do . If the pupil was not paying attention then he surely would fall into the same crippling fate .
My point being that if the student was truly learning then over time there would be fewer and fewer mistakes ( less patches or stick legs ) . So in playmobil there is either really bad students or teachers .
It reminds me of the old joke - What was the last thing the one hill billie said to the other hill billie ?
-
In the States we call it OJT. And, it's often a lot more valuable than any formal training.
You are absolutely correct about the importance of knowing those things that can save your life, Martin.
For some reason, the "tricks of the trade" seem to become much more meaningful, and make a far greater impression, in the real world, than they ever would in a classroom.
As an educator, I almost always looked at "formal" education as only a preparation to learning. And, OJT as the real education. Some reputable universities in the States now recognize the importance of "life experiences" and now give degree credits for it.
I see we were talking at cross purposes. You took my use of the word "training" to mean formal classroom training, but excluding on the job training, while in my mind it to encompassed all forms of training, practical or classroom.
Your anecdote led me to think that this was something passed on to you in a one-on-one situation with an older officer, after you has been working the streets for some time.
So we know from Richard's evidence that Police officers use the "darkened eye" technique - do we have any contemporary accounts of pirates or sailors using an eyepatch for the same purpose?
-
I see we were talking at cross purposes. You took my use of the word "training" to mean formal classroom training, but excluding on the job training, while in my mind it to encompassed all forms of training, practical or classroom.
Sorry, Martin. And, thanks for the clarification.
So we know from Richard's evidence that Police officers use the "darkened eye" technique ...
BTW ... It's not just police officers, as illustrated in the attached photos.
Can you imagine getting hit with a bright light wearing binocular night vision goggles?
... do we have any contemporary accounts of pirates or sailors using an eyepatch for the same purpose?
On board modern ships red lights are used to illuminate light sensitive areas. At night it is very important that the eyes of the sailors on the bridge become accustomed to the dark so that they are able to see outside. Even though almost all ships now have radar, there are smaller objects that might be missed if someone were not looking.
A sailor on bridge duty, would probably close one eye if it were necessary to enter a fully lighted compartment. He might also use a patch or glasses with one opaque lens, so that when he returned to a darkened area, he would be able to see.
Pirates and sailors of long ago would no doubt have also used this technique for night vision.
-
i have a different view on this subject, richard. 8}
i think pirates and sailors of long ago just did what sailors (i don't know about pirates) do nowadays - you have very weak lights below-deck, or none at all, and very small and concentrated ones in working areas (navigation and controls).
when you need to come out, you just close your eyes before for a few seconds while you climb the last steps and then open both of them outside.
if you need to see something floating at night, you need to instantly calculate its distance (something impossible to do with one eye closed or one eye accustomed to darkness and the other one still with an semi-closed pupil).
maybe i will go sailing this week-end and try it anyway to see if it works but in 35 years of going out to sea i never felt the need to use this trick.
contrary to common beliefs there is plenty of light at night at sea - you have the stars and the planets, the moon and the sea fosforence and if you use very little below-deck lighting, the adptation is fairly quick.
time also tends to pass slower on board and even when you have an emergency adrenaline will make your pupils dilate quite quickly. ;)
-
Hi Martin
Richard is bull-sh---ing you about the pirate eye patches.
The playmobil patches are for the sake of making the pirates look like tough, scrappy guys.
C'mon. Don't tell me these guys come darting out of their cabin, swap patches, and save the day.
Aside:
In my day, NVG (night vision goggles) were actual goggles, covering both eyes, and we were advised to die quietly if somebody blasted us in the face.
-Tim
-
i have a different view on this subject, richard. 8}
i think pirates and sailors of long ago just did what sailors (i don't know about pirates) do nowadays - you have very weak lights below-deck, or none at all, and very small and concentrated ones in working areas (navigation and controls).
when you need to come out, you just close your eyes before for a few seconds while you climb the last steps and then open both of them outside.
if you need to see something floating at night, you need to instantly calculate its distance (something impossible to do with one eye closed or one eye accustomed to darkness and the other one still with an semi-closed pupil).
maybe i will go sailing this week-end and try it anyway to see if it works but in 35 years of going out to sea i never felt the need to use this trick.
contrary to common beliefs there is plenty of light at night at sea - you have the stars and the planets, the moon and the sea fosforence and if you use very little below-deck lighting, the adptation is fairly quick.
time also tends to pass slower on board and even when you have an emergency adrenaline will make your pupils dilate quite quickly. ;)
The pirate-patch idea was not for use at night but in the daytime, when going down into the very dark area belowdecks (always dark and dingy even in the middle of the day) after being in the bright sun.
We've all experienced the temporary blindness of going into a dark room after being out in the bright sun - unless we're using sunglasses.
The loss of stereoscopic vision still seems a high price to pay - not real advantage seeing something below decks if you still bump into it because you couldn't judge the distance.
-
The pirate-patch idea was not for use at night but in the daytime, when going down into the very dark area belowdecks (always dark and dingy even in the middle of the day) after being in the bright sun.
We've all experienced the temporary blindness of going into a dark room after being out in the bright sun - unless we're using sunglasses.
The loss of stereoscopic vision still seems a high price to pay - not real advantage seeing something below decks if you still bump into it because you couldn't judge the distance.
Hey, Martin, pirates didn't wear those crazy eyepatches for technical reasons. As Cachalote says, if you're accustomed to the environment, you train yourself to close an eye as needed before opening the door.
Can you cite a reference source about the patches, if you stand by your guns?
I just can't imagine an entire crew, patched, especially considering it's so easy to get around this by closing an eye before opening the door. I've done this (not on a ship).
As for the Night Vision Goggles, I've looked into bright light sources--it's a shock, you shut your eyes, and take off the goggles.
-Tim
-
Can you cite a reference source about the patches, if you stand by your guns?
-Tim
Tim, did you read the whole thread? In the opening post I made it clear that this isn't my theory, nor do I adhere to it.
I read the theory on Wiki, I personally don't find it compelling or convincing, and like you, I'd like to see a contemporary source that mentions it. In all my reading about pirates I've never heard such a suggestion before.
Richard has given some good examples of the one-eye technique in use, but we still lack the evidence that this was actually used by pirates.
-
We should read -- some of us, read again ... -- Treasure Island ;D
R L Stevenson did make his trips around the world, so, his novel must be quite efficient, even being a fictional writing.
I'm still about to order it in English. I have a version in Portuguese, but I hate to read translations from English to Portuguese.
CONCERNING EYEPATCHES
It could still be some sort of protection against unexpected powder accidents 8} , but I doubt it : we would have account on this, as a naval warfare tecnique. Therefore, it isn't to prevent injury, but to cover injury.
I also don't believe that it has anything to do with light "tricks" on sea: if it was so, it would be more ancient than this, back from Renaissance, Romans, Greeks & Phoenicians. Therefore, it's to do with powder, & with powder accidents ...
And there's Cachalote's eyewitness of light at sea, during the night, too.
Concerning a trick to go below deck, I don't know, Martin, but it doesn't sound like a procedure for same reason : we would have account on this.
I am very inclined to the hypothesis of the powder accidents, BUT every hypothesis is a hypothesis until proved or refuted, once taught me a Law student, to whom I used to teach some Latin (...).
Gus
:blackhair:
-
lol
this is fun reading
my opinion , think the pirate is missing a lot
an eye , a hand , a leg 8} 8} 8}
;)
I had few times an eye-injury because of work
I can tell you , wearing an eyecab is not so funny
you loose debtside , is funny (mostly for others ) when you grab for something and you miss :-\
and driving a car is not that easy too ;D
wonder how pirates managed to shoot straight ;)
on other hand , most people close one eye when schooting a gun
8} 8} 8} 8}
I need holidays ;)
-
.... on other hand , most people close one eye when schooting a gun ...
bugger! That's what I've been doing wrong. I always closed both eyes and then managed to shoot the referee :-[ I haven't been allowed the shoot anymore ;D ...
Bogro
-
just to let you all know, and after trying it in a sailing boat off-shore, THERE IS NO NEED TO WEAR AN EYE-PATCH. :yup:
none of the possibilities that everyone has come-up with is true.
an eye-patch serves no purpose aboard, day or night. :(
o.k., people can find it to be a cool look (and that can be useful aboard, depending on your company and your intentions) but that's all.
i guess it's a bit like having a duelling scar if you are a studebt in heidelberg - it gives you "status".
-
Besides, if it was so helpfull (one way or the other) then why didn't everyone wore one.
And, as far as I know, Nelson only wore one to cover the place where once his eye used to be ;D
Bogro
-
Besides, if it was so helpfull (one way or the other) then why didn't everyone wore one.
And, as far as I know, Nelson only wore one to cover the place where once his eye used to be ;D
Bogro
Nelson never wore an eye patch, that's a myth or misunderstanding. He had lost the sight of one eye, but the eye itself was still intact.
http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/mythbusters/356/lord_nelsons_eyepatch.html
-
just to let you all know, and after trying it in a sailing boat off-shore, THERE IS NO NEED TO WEAR AN EYE-PATCH. :yup:
none of the possibilities that everyone has come-up with is true.
an eye-patch serves no purpose aboard, day or night. :(
o.k., people can find it to be a cool look (and that can be useful aboard, depending on your company and your intentions) but that's all.
i guess it's a bit like having a duelling scar if you are a studebt in heidelberg - it gives you "status".
:lol: :lol:
Giro, pá!*, or, as we say in Rio: manêro!!* Ye actually did it! :lol:
*Cool!!!Besides, if it was so helpfull (one way or the other) then why didn't everyone wore one.
And, as far as I know, Nelson only wore one to cover the place where once his eye used to be ;D
Bogro
The question, Bogro, would be more like "why do (most) everyklicky wears one?" ...
The deeper question would be "why every Hollywood pirate movie had at least one man who wears it?"
It is expected that a few men of the sea would wear an eyepatch, because, specially in war vessels, there's lots of wood cracking all around, when powder exploded.
What hasn't been mentioned by Hollywood is that most of these guys would end up in the ship's kitchen ;) ...
About (most) every klicky wearing an eyepatch, it's the old "problem": it's "toy for children", and children will like pirates better if they look weird & odd ... We have to deal with it, and change heads.
(That's my two pennies ;D )
Gus
:blackhair:
-
I guess that's the same question as "why do (nearly) all the vikings wear horns on their helmets even though there's no evidence of them ever having worn them?". And I guess the answer is the same.
It's public view that they have them and therefore to create a perfect recognisable stereotype of the figures they get them. If they had them or not is irreleveant. They get them nonetheless ...
-
& The "educational toy" concept goes to ... somewhere bad to say.
It's their reputation at stake, not ours!
Let them do whatever they want! We're only collectors ::)
It's a good stand to me. I'm right, they're wrong. I have nothing to do with the fact that they're wrong. &C. (...)
Gus
:blackhair:
-
& The "educational toy" concept goes to ... somewhere bad to say. . . .
Many people seem to be bothered when Playmobil toys are not historically accurate, but I don't think that Playmobil is meant to be educational in the sense of teaching about history. It is meant to stimulate the imagination and involve children in creative play that encourages them to create stories and adventures. This type of activity promotes development of motor skills, language skills, creativity, etc.
The lack of historical accuracy can be a teaching tool in itself. When a child plays with a Playmobil pirate, the adult play partner can say, "You know, not all pirates wore eye patches and hats with the skull and crossbones . . . " Or, when playing with an American Indian klicky, the adult can say, "There were many different native peoples in North America before Europeans arrived . . . " Or, if playing with Romans, "Look how I have customized 1000 klickys into a perfectly accurate Roman Century . . . " (at which point the child runs screaming from the room!) :lol: (No offense intended, Martin!)
- Anne
-
For children who play with an adult nearby, Anne, that may be so.
However, not all children play with an adult nearby. I did not. So, in a way, Playmobil educated me ... Thank-my-god I'm not a child right now, or I'd be lost!!!
(& I agree with you that it isn't only the historical aspect that Playmobil will develop in children, but : why not? Or, at least, why not both? (history + fantasy (besides imagination, creativity, motor skills &c..)))
(Maybe it's the generation shock phenomenon going on, here ... I don't know. I keep myself wandering "who has been doing/designing/promoting these new ways of Playmobil?? ?? ?? ??" ... I wasn't the first one to ask himself this, in this forum. It comes to my mind.)
Although I sound a bit ... Rebel against all this, I still think it's the best plaything ever, and I've been having a lot of fun!!!* :P :) 8}
;D
Gus
:blackhair:
*Part of which will hopefully be shown next weekend, in the following part of Elmo & Fletcher's stories!
-
"Look how I have customized 1000 klickys into a perfectly accurate Roman Century . . . " (at which point the child runs screaming from the room!) :lol: (No offense intended, Martin!)
- Anne
;) well it isn't going to be 1,000 like those guys did in Germany, it'll be about 230 figures all told, if and when I can get my hands on those Roman Blisters. Good thing too if they run screaming, I don't want any child messing with my Romans! ;D
I think all of us who like theRomans owe those guys a small debt of gratitude. If they hadn't bought up so many Specials to build their legions there might never have been a Roman theme.
I've also got a plan to name every figure - I'll do it the lazy way and use this:
http://www.ahtg.net/namegen.html
to generate most of the names, but I might get more inventive for the officers, and steal them from the Asterix books, or Monty Python, or (gasp) make up some myself.
I'll print the names on slips of paper and store them in their heads, like that guy in Germany who has a passport for each of his Klickys.
-
Martin - you're hopeless. ;D
Perhaps that's why I like you so much :-[
Bogro