Any way you look at it, military service for the rank and file soldier was a nasty business in the 18th century, where the lifestyle was as likely to kill you as the cannonballs, bullets and bayonets. Having completing your reading, and drawing specific examples from those readings or other sources, would you rather serve in the British Army on land or the navy at sea?
I will check responses when we return Monday morning from break.
47 comments:
The two pieces that I read were "'The European Method of Warring is Not Practiced Here': The Failure of British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley" and "The Line Upon A Wind: The Great War At Sea." Both were very different yet very interesting to read. The first was about the war being fought in the Americas and regarded issues such as pay, class, and Native Americans. The second was about living aboard a ship and the things that sailors had to go through. Upon finishing them, I came to the conclusion that I would rather be serving in the British Navy at sea instead of the British Army on land.
The Navy was described as one of the "most conservative" and strictly governed at the time. I think that belonging to a well-organized group is very important. The military was described as
"an endurance of mind and body, of will and patience, and a required faith in mission and self, beyond anything that any other form of dutiful service demanded." I got the impression that there was a lot of strength and willpower necessary to survive the difficulties, which would help me to grow morally and emotionally. However, one thing that I particularly did not like was the punishment. Noel Mostert wrote that all members of the crew would have to watch the criminal receive lash after lash after lash. I know that this method is to keep other people from committing the same crimes, but it's humiliating for the person and uncomfortable for all people watching. Another thing that would be scary is the prospect of drowning due to a leak. The author talked about the fact that wood rot was very dangerous and could eventually result in a sinking ship.
Although the Navy clearly suffered hardships and physical and emotional tear, I think that the pros are more important and outweigh the cons.
While serving in the military was harsh for both people on land and sea, I would prefer to serve in the army. In the British Navy, ships and sailors usually went without relief for months at a time and were confined to one ship for months. At least in the army there was a larger space to live in. Also, in the Navy mutiny was more likely to occur. With mutiny comes chaos and the inability to run a successful ship efficiently. A less successful ship is more likely to get blown up than an organized one. On top of that, the ships in the British navy had to worry about leaks since they were mad out of wood and didn't get repaired very often. The only time they would get repaired was if they got back to port. The British Navy also had a poor way of paying their sailors. "Pay was measured by the Lunar month" which meant they go paid basically by the month. Since they were usually at sea, they couldn't receive their pay checks until they got into a port. With this said, sometimes they didn't get their paychecks until months later. Also, each sailor had to collect his commission personally from the purser. If the sailor forgot, the purser would usually pocket the money that was not collected, essentially ripping off the sailor.
The navy to me seems like the worse of the two choices based on the information presented. In my opinion, the positive aspects of the navy do not out weigh the negative factors. Plus personally, I have a fear of drowning and most people who were drafted into the navy had no idea how to swim.
The first reading I chose to read was "'The European Method of Warring is Not Practiced Here': The Failure of British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley". It was about the British soldiers in the Americas fighting the French and Indians in the Seven Years War. It also talked about the problems faced by the British soldiers in the Americas. The second reading I chose to read was “Class and the common solider in the Seven Years War”. It depicted the lives of the soldier’s during this time period. Also, it discussed possible punishments such as lashing for rebellious soldiers and how the soldiers earned wages for their services.
After reading about the daily lives of soldiers during the 18th century both in the navy and army I would rather prefer to be apart of the navy. The army seemed to be very harsh especially since they had to deal with the Native Americans. The natives used psychological warfare in order to demoralize the military forces and the frontier settlers along with the British soldiers. They mutilated the bodies of their victims and unfortunate they showed no mercy to the women and children, as well when it came to this harsh practice to warn the soldiers. The war fought in the Americas was also more favorable to the French and their Native American counterparts because the natives took advantage of their experiences with the natural terrain and topography compared to the British. Therefore, I would rather be in the navy even though rotting wood in the ships was difficult to fix and could only be repaired after the ship reached a port. Also the punishments used in the army seemed to be quite humiliating and inhumane even for the smallest of crimes and misdemeanors.
After reading “ The European Method of Warring Is Not Practiced Here': The Failure of British Military Policy” and "The Line Upon A Wind: The Great War At Sea". if had to pick between serving on land or at sea I would pick land. Neither one consists of more pros but the cons on he side of the navy out way those of the land. On land Indians used a guerilla style of warfare that was far different from the way wars were fought in Europe in the 18th century. Soldiers trained for months learning how to not break ranks and work as a unit, in the situation presented neither the soldiers or commanders could not effectively fight. It was not a pleasant environment the navy seemed even worse.
In "The Line Upon A Wind: The Great War At Sea" talked about how the navy was well structured which is extremely important in military. The overall structure of the navy seems very appealing but there are two major turn offs in joining the navy in the 18th century: the conditions of the ships and the punishments that could be given. The wood of the ship rotted very quickly and the prospect of the ship not making it till tomorrow was very real. The punishments that could insure were not pleasant at all, lashings and watching others receiving punishments were only the tip of the ice beg when it came to punishments in the navy. It’s one thing having the enemy trying to kill you but when your “allies” are trying to kill you, that’s not something I would want. Each side is not appealing at all but if I was but in a situation to choose it would be on land.
After reading the articles, I noted there were pros and several cons for both the British Army and the Royal Navy. However, in comparison I believe there are more pros to working on land with the army and more cons to working over sea with the navy. These concepts discussed throughout the articles include topics such as payment, punishments, living conditions, strategies, and so on. For example, in terms of space it is very limited when on a ship. Not only is the area small, but the amount of people makes for extremely crowded living space. On the other hand, while on land the open space is far greater. Not only does this mean there’s more room to move and there’s a less densely populated area, but it also provides places to hide if under attack. On the other hand, if your ship is targeted there is no where to escape to. Furthermore, being on land offers a greater supply of food and resources while a boats supply is limited.
If you were serving in the navy at sea you would be surrounded by unsanitary conditions. Thus, disease was more likely to be produced and even more likely to spread. In addition, the navy has been noted to have an inadequate payment method to its crew members. Lastly, if something were to go wrong with the ship you would have to wait it out until you were stationed at a port. Unfortunately, the amount of time it took to reach a port was often too long. Because the ships were made out of wood, it was very common for a leak to occur which more times than not led to drowning. Overall, I believe serving for the British army on land would be a wiser and safer choice.
Although military life would be extremely difficult no matter where it was served, I would prefer to serve in the army than the navy. Throughout my readings I felt that navy life was more severe than the army. In the navy you must be confined to one ship for long periods of time and may never be near land. This would most likely lead me to insanity if I was off in the middle of the ocean and had no way of leaving. If another ship attacked you there would be no way for you to retreat or flee the enemy since you are stuck in one ship. In the army you are stationed on vast amounts of land that you can travel throughout giving you more freedom than the navy. Also the ships were not well built causing the wood to quickly rot and weaken. Since the navy is way out at sea it could be a long time before the ship could be repaired making already dangerous situations worse. A ship could be rotting in the middle of the ocean and begin to sink with no way of fixing it, or a storm could come and easily destroy it leading to the drowning of its sailors. In the army you are on sturdy land that may be affected by storms but it would not rot out from under you. This creates a more stable environment for the army forces. Lastly the navy tended to have more mutinies and torture than the army. If the sailors became unhappy they could easily attack the captain and take over which could lead to massive chaos. Also if someone disobeyed orders they could be dragged under the water or lashed in front of the rest of the crew. I feel that the negatives of the navy highly out weight the positives and therefore I would rather serve duty in the army.
After having read the online reading i came to the conclusion that i would rather serve in the British Navy than in the British Army. the two articles i read that helped me decide were, "Class and Common Soldier in the Seven Years War" and "the Line Upon a Wind: Great Wat at Sea"
Class and Common Soldier states that "much of the fighting in North America involved guerilla tactics of hit and run". Hit and run tactics does not sound very organized but instead seems like a very chaotic way to fight. Another thing that makes me not like being soldier on land is when it states, "sites had to be cleared for camps, trenches and Latrines dug, roads laid, wood cut for palisades, forts erected and barracks and grounds cleaned". Being a soldier on land requires a lot more work than just fighting and although that goes the same on board the ship for a navy, you don't have to worry about not having a place to sleep or not being sheltered etc.
in the article the line upon a wind: the great war at sea, it states, " sea time became endurance of mind and obdy, of will and patience, and a required faith in mission and self, beyond anything that any other form of dutiful service demanded". those are qualities i know i have or i know i could eventually train myself to have. the description of the navy fits me better and is more apt to who i am as a person.
Deciding whether to join the British Army or Navy in the eighteenth century is indeed like “picking your poison”. The reason being, both choices could very likely be the death of you. However, I would probably be better suited to fight on land with the army. If the army decided to retreat we could simply run away. If a ship engaged in a battle, it is more difficult to retreat successfully. In addition the lifestyle of navy personnel seems more difficult than that of a soldier in the army. For example, life on a ship includes an unsanitary boat that is overcrowded. I would have trouble being limited to a small space for such a long period of time. Another problem the navy had to face was the wood of their ships would rot and if not properly repaired the ship would sink. Also, I believe that drowning would be one of the worst ways to die and the fear of drowning would always be at the back of my mind, regardless of how much danger my ship was in. Although being a soldier in the army wouldn’t be a walk in the park either I feel I would be better suited for the lifestyle. If I was serving in North America this would be especially tough considering I would be in an unfamiliar land surrounded by hostile Native Americans and French soldiers. It is true that members of the army were often punished, sometimes with extreme cruelty, however, this was just meant to keep everyone in order and similar punishments were also used on members of the navy. I would prefer joining the army because, overall, it doesn’t seem as bad as the navy.
I would much rather serve in the British Army on land than on sea. The army, though it often met with military failures against the Indians they fought, had inadequate equipment such as rifles that refused to work in the rain, and had to order new uniforms ‘for excessive heat’ in April, would be in my mind a far better choice than the navy.
Both certainly had undesirable qualities to them, but in my mind the cons of the navy were greater than those of the army. While the army had to deal with storms, food shortages, heavy losses, and being taken prisoner, in the navy all of these problems were amplified. Unlike in the navy, soldiers in the army could take refuge from bad weather in nearby geological formations like caves, or at least in the homes of colonists. In the navy, if there was a storm, you were likely stuck on deck facing it as best you could. If rationing occurred in the army, soldiers could hunt wild game, usually birds such as pheasants for their meals. In the navy, if you were out of food, you were simply out of food. There were no nearby animals to hunt and kill, and even excess stores of food could easily go bad or rot. In the army, once a battle was lost, you could retreat. In the navy, once a battle was lost, you could pray your ship might survive and run away. However, this was unlikely as most ships were too badly damaged to be in any condition to escape. If that were the case, you would likely be press-ganged into service on the other ship making already cramped conditions (which I forgot to mention at the beginning) even worse.
While if Indians captured you in the army, you had the possibility of being scalped and/or tortured; in the navy you could be brutally punished by your own commander for things such as dirty shirts or unpolished shoes. Punishments were often flogging, of being tied to the mast for hours regardless of the weather. While none of these punishments are good or particularly fun, only in the navy would they be carried out by your commanding officer. Adding this to the fact that boats were perpetually rotting and in danger of sinking even when not attacked, and that most sailors purposely refused to learn how to swim to hasten drowning should their ships sink, I feel that serving in the army would be a much wiser, safer choice.
The two pieces I chose to read were "Class and the Common Soldier in the Seven Year's War" and "The Line Upon A Wind: A Great War At Sea". Both painted a very clear picture of what life was like in both the army and navy, and while both pictures are certainly gruesome, I would choose to go into the army.
Firstly, the navy was known to be extremely conservative and strictly governed. The army on the other hand, while obviously still disciplined, was not as extreme as the navy. The social structure of the navy was intense and floggings were common.
The manner that the two forces fought was also different. Although the army was sometimes required to use guerrilla warfare tactics against the Indians, naval battles were often more like melees, they took place in close distances and were often brutal.
In addition, members of the navy were forced to spend months on a dark, dank ship stuck in one place. The conditions of these ships were also terrible. The ships were often very uncleanly and disease was common. Naval sailors often were sea sick or developed scurvy as a result of lack of nutrition.
In addition, while soldiers were often required to perform manual labor in addition to fighting, they were sometimes paid for these actions, unlike members of the navy that were paid once every lunar moon.
To conclude, although both conditions are less than ideal, between the two evils I would choose the army.
Either circumstance would note be pleasant to serve in. Unfortunately though, men often had no choice and were forced to serve in the British army or navy. If I were forced to choose, I would choose to serve in the British army on land. After reading, "The Line Upon A Wind" and "The European Method of Warring Is Not Practiced Here," the army seemed better of the two. In "The Line Upon A Wind," the western or European navies were described, "the incipiently aggressive nature of Western sea venture that showed itself from the start." The European navies were not portrayed in a positive light in this book, especially when compared to navies or people of the east and Indian ocean. The sailors also did not have good conditions on the ships. "There was no money. The sailors were hungry, rations were short. Pay was years in arrears. Maintenance aboard ship and on shore had been low." Apart from the poor conditions and pay, it was also a lot different and harder to fight wars on the seas. "The prevailing wind had created a difficult situation." The ships during the 18th century were obviously not powered by a motor, so the navy relied on wind power. If a ship wanted to get away from the enemy ship, they needed enough wind to escape. If there was not enough wind power, then you were stuck. It would be easier to flee from the enemy on land, fighting in an army because you were able to run away, either by foot or on horseback. Another con to serving in the navy would be the abuse the men received. "The lieutenant and midshipman, who are subject to the vilest abuse from their superiors, suffer a mental degradation..." The class system of Europe was also seen on board the ships. The lower men on the ship were often flogged or whipped for the smallest things, such as getting in the way of "an ill- tempered captain." While reading about the punishments, I had to stop myself because they were so horrible. How could men on the same side treat one another like that? I also have a big fear of the ocean, so fighting a war on the ocean would be a lot worse than fighting on land for me.
Even though I would never want to fight in a war, I would much rather fight on land. I also saw the movie and read the book Master and Commander by Patrick O'Brian, so I saw first hand the struggles the men faced while in the navy. Boys as young as 7 were on those ships for months and months, away from land and their families. It was also quite possible to die while fighting on land, but I don't like the idea of captains hurting their men by whipping them. There are alternatives to whipping someone for getting in your way while you are in a bad mood. I just don't think it is logical to attack one another, while a war is going on, what's the point?
During the 18th century serving in either the British Navy or Army would be something that very few people would want to do. The life expectancies of men serving in either branch were short and during the time you were alive, life was horrible. Though if I had to choose I would pick the British Army. I acknowledge though that life would still be very difficult. I would have to march and drill for hours on end in any condition. Also as a common soldier I would be responsible for building fortifications and setting up camps which requires a great deal of physical labor. Though the worst of all would be that I would be forced to stand in front of a line of hundreds of men who have guns pointed at me and just take it 4,5, maybe 6 times before the battle turned to vicious hand to hand combat. With all these shortcomings fighting on land is still better thatn on the sea. I could not be stuck on ship for months at time with a few hundred smelly soldiers and sailors. Not to mention the food will spoil in a few weeks and then the diet will consist of moldy bread and foul tasting water. The water would go bad beacause the wood from the barrels will rot thus spilling bacteria and minerals into the water making it incredibley unhealthy. The repairs on the ship would be extremely taxing as they would have to be constant especially if they were after a battle. The punishment is much worse because the officers must be stricter because they are separated from others and mutiny is a real threat. The battle is by far the worst though. If two ships got into a fight the fight would not end until one ship is destroyed or captured unlike on land where it is easier to retreat. But if one managed to retreat from a sea battle the medical care would almost certainly kill you because the doctors are usually carpenters. A common soldier would live a short desperate life in either branch but he would fair better on land than at sea. But not much.
After reading the two articles The Line Upon a Wind: The Great War at Sea, and The European Method of Warring Is Not Practiced Here': The Failure of British Military Policy, I have come to the conclusion that living on land would be much more suitable to me then to live out at sea in the navy. While living out at sea there are definitely more cons then pros. Although either the army or navy are perfect, the navy definitely had the short end of the stick. First off, being on a ship, space was very limited. There were more people then space therefore leading to very over crowded ships, and very uncomfortable living spaces (disease would was also known to spread quickly). Also, if you were being attacked, you would have no where to go to seek cover, whereas on land, space is not limited and if you were under attack there would be many places to deal with. The next con of living at sea would be the way the ships were poorly built. Because they were built out of wood, crack and holes in the ship were very likely to happen, and there for the sinking of a ship and drowning of a crew were not unheard of. The only time to fix the ship was when it got to port, which could not be for months at a time. Food was another reason that in my opinion makes land better than sea. If at sea you run out of food, that is the end of it and you would have to wait to get to port to restock. On land, hunting was well practiced and when you ran out of food it was not that much of a hassle to restock. Overall, I would much rather be at land then sea.
Since being declared a conscientious objector is out of the question I would have to chose to join the British Army over the Navy. The conditions in both were brutal and the possibility of death was always present, whether it be from Native ambushes, sinking, or any of the countless other fatal factors involved in the Seven Years War. I found that although there are many comparable risks in the army any loss suffered by the navy would be much more difficult to survive. If a ship sank, which was not unlikely, or the ship was attacked, the probability of survival was much lower than simply participating in battle. The horribly cramped conditions the Navy had to deal with were like a prison when compared to the open ground the Army would cover. As long as I had my feet on solid ground I would face the long marches and harsh weather before I fought for Britain at sea. I would rather face the harsh discipline and demoralizing ambushes that plagued the army than risk losing everything at the hands of a single leak or shot.
I also noticed that many of the problems the army had to deal with were problems with command. The people in charge were the ones who were the most hurt by the large amounts of noncombatents that tagged along with the soldiers. Long marches and ineffective tactics were difficulties that the high-ranking dealt with. For the soldiers, inefficiency just meant that it would take longer to get to battles.
After having completed the readings, I came to conclusion that I would much rather serve in the British army on land than the navy at sea. The reason being is that I feel the navy at sea has greater disadvantages than advantages. It is vastly known to be that the conditions and life on ships are more severe than the army. For example, on land, you were allowed more space and freedom than at sea. If your army was attacked, you would be in an open area so you could take a run for it or in one way or the other avoid being killed. Whereas, in the navy, the ship was crowded with more people than that of the space allowed and full of quickly spreading diseases. Plus, since you were far out at sea for an extended period, you would not be able to be in contact or see any of your family and friends. Moreover, it is notorious that payment was not the bit great and you had to worry about food. If there was a shortage in food supply then you had to go for weeks or months with starving and eventually you could die of starvation. Also, if you ship came under attack, you would have no choice of place to go but to only try to duck and hopefully wish that you would not be hit by one of the cannonballs. On the other hand, the ships in the eighteenth century were made out of wood and were not well built like those of modern day. The sailors had to worry about storms or attacks from a neighboring ship since the navy was far out at sea for periods of time and the ship could be quickly and easily destroyed. They also would have to worry about leaks and rapid rotting of the ship. Or else the ship would begin to weaken and sooner or later sink unless repaired or reaching a port. Hence, if I had the preference of serving in the British army or the navy, which is kind of like the phrase “pick your poison”, I would greatly prefer to serve in the British army on land.
After reading “The European Method of Warring Is Not Practiced Here’: The Failure of British Military Policy” and The Line Upon a Wind: The Great War at Sea, 1793-1815” I would rather be in the army if I had to choose between army and navy
It would be difficult decided whether I wanted to be a soldier on land or someone in the Navy. Both groups had hardships and poor conditions, but I feel that I would choose to be on land. For one, I am not the best swimmer. If there were to be a leak in the ship that led to the ship sinking, I would fail at having to swim for a long time if needed. I also am not very good in crowded areas which would be unavoidable on a ship in the middle of nowhere. In addition, when my family had a sail boat we would keep it in the docks where I felt comfortable in the shallow waters. The middle of the ocean is entirely different, I have a fear of the ocean and being out in it for months would be a terrifying experience.
In "The Line Upon a Wind: The Great War at Sea" it explains that the ships' wood suffered from rotting which could lead to detrimental damage to the ship. This would touch upon my fears of swimming and being in trouble in the middle of the ocean. At least on land if a problem were to occur there were several options while in the navy you are restricted to the area of the ship.
Although I find some of the strategies ineffective for the army, their overall conditions would be better for my personal outlooks. I find that the army was at disadvantage during ambushes and guerilla warfare. The choice between the two military forces is a difficult decision because of the high chance of death on both ends as well as the discipline needed. If I had to choose I would have to go with the army. I would chose army so I would not be restricted to a boat in the ocean with the constant fear of drowning. I feel the army is the "lesser of two evils" even though I find both very frightening.
The two articles that I chose were “The European Method of Warring Is Not Practiced Here': The Failure of British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley, 1755-1759” by M. C. Ward and “Class and the Common Soldier in the Seven Years' War” by Peter Way. I was especially engrossed by the first article; I learned that the Native Americans actually had superior war tactics than that of the British redcoats. The Native Americans may had less-advanced artillery and training, they were still able to humiliate the British frequently. They waged fierce psychological warfare against the intruders. Some of their practices were gruesome, for instances, they beheaded the unfortunate victims and lacerated the corpses. Such brutal acts greatly demolished the morale of the British army. Aside from the horrifying skirmishes, the British soldiers also faced other death-threatening conditions. The soldiers experienced severe cold weather in the winter and scorching hot climate in the summer. They wore the same uniforms throughout the year; the soldiers were more prone to diseases. Even if the soldiers were able to survive under these harsh conditions, they also had to follow a series of strict regulations. To ensure discipline, the officers employed punishments such as flogging, feathering and tarring, and hanging. The life expectancy hence was extremely short for a British soldier. Therefore, I would rather to serve in the navy than in the army.
After reading the two articles “‘The European Method of Warring is Not Practiced Here’: The Failure of British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley” and “The Line Upon A Wind: The Great War At Sea,” I have come to the conclusion that though both calls of duty are emotionally draining and terrifying I would rather serve in the army than in the navy. In “The Line Upon A Wind” it talked about the many repairs that were required because of the frequently rotting wood or attacks made on the ship. “Nymphe’s mainmast had been badly damaged…” Here is an instance in which a sailor would have to repair the damages of the boat and hope that it would still stay afloat and if they failed they would wait sinking slowly to their death. In contrast to someone who was in a standing army who may have a better chance of survival. For example if one was in a standing army and was forced to surrender they would have a larger amount of men that would survive than in the navy where your ship would most likely already be underwater if one was on the loosing side. To conclude though both of these situations suffer many of the same hardships such as diseases and food shortages I believe that one would be wise to choose to be in the army where one may have a better chance of survival.
If I was given the choice of joining either the British navy or army during the 18th century, I would definitely chose to serve in the navy. Both Mathew C. Ward’s and Peter Way’s articles picture life in the army negatively. For example, one of the major disadvantages that the army faced was being unprepared for guerilla warfare. With the assistance of many Indians, the French were able to gain advantage during the war through use of guerilla warfare. As the Indians were familiar with the terrain, they were able to stalk out the enemies and initiate surprise attacks. British troops were only trained to fight in European style warfare and thus could not save themselves efficiently when attacked. As“ the British had failed to develop any effective military policy for countering their determined assaults”, these repeated attacks significantly weaken the British and resulted in heavy casualties (Ward 262). Therefore, these attacks kept the army fearful throughout the whole war.
Another disadvantage that many troops faced was lack of supplies. Although supplies were constantly coming to port, the distribution of the supplies was another story. For example, In 1755, Braddock’s expedition was supplied with beef so rotten that the troops had to bury it” (Ward 255). As a result, when troops were supplied with sufficient supplies, they needed to stock up. The extra baggage caused the expeditions to advance very slowly averaging “only five or six miles a day” (Ward 257). This again caused the troops to be premier targets of guerilla warfare.
A third major flaw of the British army was the improper treatment of soldiers. If there was any point of frailty, excuse, or people not cooperating, the soldiers would be severely punished through numerous whippings. The use of terror and punishment was steadily enforce. “As well as whipping men into good soldiers, discipline was meant to beat the men to work” (Way 480). Also, it is evident that if anything, whipping was mostly used to enforce social ranks and the power higher officials had over foot soldiers. As a result of constant “bullying”, many soldiers attempted self mutilation to escape the horrors of army life.
Serving in the navy also has its disadvantages as well. The combination of unpredictable Atlantic weather, compactness of people, and fast spread of sickness and disease can make sea life almost horrible. However, I would rather face these obstacles than constant guerilla attacks, lack of weapons, and poor treatment. Also, if people committed self mutilation to escape army life, it must have been unbearable. It is for these reasons why I would rather serve in the British navy than in the army during the 18th century.
I would rather have served in the Army than the Navy. Although conditions in both branches were dismal, characterized by strict discipline and meager supplies, the conditions in the Navy were much harsher.
There were very different threats faced by the Army and Navy, as well. In addition to having to worry about getting shot at, sailors also had to worry about wood rot, a common problem with the ships of the time due to limited knowledge of construction techniques. Officers were often "unnecessarily cruel", and more often than not, pleas to the Lords of the Admiralty for the transfer/removal of vicious officers were ignored. These conditions were made worse by the fact that while in service, a sailor was confined to their ship, and essentially could not even attempt desertion.
Likewise, basic living conditions in the Navy were pitiable. Sailors were often underpaid or left unpaid at all, if they did not harass the purser enough for their just wages. "There was no money. The sailors were hungry, rations were short. Pay was years in arrears. Maintenance aboard ship and on shore had been low," noted Noel Mostert in "The Line Upon the Wind". This led to such desperation amongst British sailors that some three tosand English and Scottish sailors left for the Dutch fleet. Many other sailors, however, were not so lucky - mutinies were rarely successful, and sometimes, resulted in death sentences, as occurred with that of the Culloden.
In contrast, the army's strict discipline was much less severe compared to the navy's floggings and tying-to-the-mast. Also, although there was a lot of work to be done, soldiers were able to demand extra pay, which was promptly received, as opposed to the neverending work of maintaining the navy ships with meager or nonexistent pay. Medical care, too, was better with the army than the navy, which often utilized on-board carpenters as doctors and lacked proper sanitation.
Overall, I would rather have been in the British army than the navy. While conditions in both branches were terrible, the army seemed much more lax in terms of discipline, better in terms of pay offered in an increasingly capitalistic economy, and, in the end, much more survivable.
AnnMarie Augusto
AP European History
Mr. Kirby
30 November 2009
After reading “The European Method of Warring Is Not Practiced Here: The Failure of British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley, 1755-1759” and “The Line Upon a Wind: The Great War at Sea, 1793-1815,” it was very difficult to decide between participating in the British Army on land or the navy at sea. Both required experience and obedience along with talent and skill if you wanted to have a chance to survive. Death was inevitable for many in both the navy and army. In my opinion, I would want to be a member in the British Army instead of the navy at sea because if you are at sea there is no where to run to or hide. You are on the ship for some time before you can retreat, and there is no turning back. If the ship sinks or is brutally attacked by an enemy, it is inevitable that you will suffer greatly or die. Although the British Army also has high risks for death, it is on land where you can get help if available and can communicate with the rest of the world easily.
In “The Line Upon a Wind: The Great War at Sea, 1793-1815,” it states, “They padlocked the navel mind. Without that, without the melee that invited it, there was no decisive victory in naval battle.” From this, on can detect that you need a certain mindset to survive at sea, and need to always be anticipating what to do next while in naval battle. This would be very hard, in my opinion, to think in the mind of the enemy and always be a step ahead of the game to survive. It also states that the ships’ wood often experienced rotting, putting the navy in danger. This could mean that the ship was slowly going to sink, leading to death. The best option here would be to jump and try to swim to the nearest shore. Although it might seem like one can swim to shore, when you are in the middle of the ocean with no land in sight for miles and miles and miles, I don’t think anyone would end up having the endurance and determination to swim that far. “Naval actions ruled by line had proved indecisive, with enemy ships neither captured nor sunk.” This proves that the navy experienced many issues dealing with battle. If you are on land, you do have cannons, bullets, and many other detrimental weapons that could take your life away, but there is a higher chance that you could get help or flee if you were on land rather than at sea where the ship is your only option.
All in all, both positions in the military would be terrifying to me, but the navy cons outweigh the negative aspects of the British Army. The British Army would be a safer position to take rather than the navy at sea.
If I had to choose between joining the British Army and the British Navy I would choose the British Army. If you were in the Navy you were stranded on a ship for months at a time. Ships at that time were unsanitary and cramped, and you were stuck with whatever people were on the ship with you. It was easy to contract diseases, and unless you had someone on board who could heal you and give you the proper things required to heal you, you were almost certainly going to die. The worst thing is that you were stuck in such a small space for so long. When ships fought, they fought until one was captured or destroyed, instead of in the army on land, where retreating is a possibility. Ships also were prone to rotting at this time, so if maintenance wasn't done exactly right, the ship could sink or at least be greatly impaired. Another problem for me would be the strict discipline that was the norm in the navy. I personally am not the most organized person, or the best person for military service. Therefore, the floggings and other severe punishments that were that I would receive for my likely slip ups would be horrible. In short, I don't think that I could be able to serve in either the British Army or Navy, I would prefer the Army over the Navy.
Perhaps the fact that I am terrified of the open ocean holds an influence over my decision; but I would much prefer to serve in a land army than in the navy. After reading and evaluating the selections, I have come to the realization that conditions on board a cramped sailing vessel for months and months were far worse than serving in an army on land.
It seems that the promise of fighting was inevitable both on land and at sea, and almost equally unavoidable. It wasn’t as if floating around in the middle of the ocean would isolate you from the fighting. So in the spirit of “pick your poison”, you might have a better chance of survival if you lost a battle with an abundance of land surrounding the place of fighting than an abundance of water. The army also was slightly more lenient in regards to punishment, while it was common for a punished sailor to be flogged and occasionally dragged around under the ship. Men in the navy were usually underpaid or unpaid, and officers were remarkably and unreasonably cruel to those beneath them. On board, it appears that everything was rotting; food, clothing, and the ship itself. Imagine the germs… I suppose that the psychological effect of being isolated for miles around, yet surrounded by decay would be enough to make a sailor want to throw themselves overboard.
The army on land wasn’t so great either. Supplies were often in demand, officers were still harsh, and the fighting method (shooting at close range in tightly packed lines) made the difference between life and death purely a matter of chance. However, the land army had more opportunities both fighting and not. Surrender didn’t mean that your boat was at the bottom of the ocean, and you along with it. A soldier could also maintain their physical health much better because of the availability of animals for hunting and vegetables for picking; things not available in the middle of the ocean.
Of the two types of military service in the eighteenth century I would rather serve in the navy. Some aspects of naval service, that most would look upon as negatives, are actually some of the reasons I believe I would be better suited for naval service.
Aboard ship, discipline was much stricter than on land. Some may see that as a downside, but the way I see it, the higher levels of discipline give more structure to life on the sea. Again some may see this as a negative, but I think that structure is important in any military operation, especially in the eighteenth century. During this period, conditions were bad for everyone but the officers, and people tend to run away from, or try to get out of bad situations. If one is to keep people in the military, one must have structure and discipline, and that lesson is learned so much more thoroughly at sea than on land. I personally would need a higher level of structure to overcome my natural instincts to just get out of there and desert.
Also, in the navy the whole crew is virtually trapped on a tiny ship. You spend every waking moment with your fellow sailors. On land, while the soldiers did spend a lot of time with their unit, they still had space to get away on their own. On a ship, sailors did not have that option. In order to work effectively, sailors would have had to put aside their differences and learn to live with each other constantly. This would have led sailors to form much closer bonds with each other than soldiers on land did. I see this as a plus since in either type of military service you would have to spend a great deal of your time away from home. It would be better to be as close as possible with the men you were serving with, because they become in essence your second family.
While Mostert does tell us in his book The Line Upon a Wind: The Great War at Sea that many looked back with hatred on their navy days, I don’t believe I would be one of those people. I am more comfortable in a more structured environment, and if I am forced to spend all of my time with a group of people, I believe it is best to get as close to them as possible.
The readings I read were “ The European Method of Warring Is Not Practiced Here': The Failure of British Military Policy” and "The Line Upon A Wind: The Great War At Sea". Based on those readings, I came to the conclusion that fighting on land with the British would be better than fighting out at sea with the British.
First, the navy had horrible conditions to it. The ships stunk and were rotting. And if you got in trouble, the punishments were horrible, being stuck down in the bottom of the ship getting whipped and what not. You now have to worry about your enemies and your allies. Also there were a limited supply of resources like amo and food.
On land, it was more organized and easier to move around and listen to your commands. You were trained for months to get everything perfect. The enviroment was not as bad as the navy's so it was tolerable.
Of course the ideal would be to choose neither, but if I had to choose to be in either the army or the navy during the 18th century, I would choose to be in the army. Both certainly had many cons, but those of the navy were more often than not worse than those of the army. The navy was described as being much more strict and conservative an institution than the army, which could easily be considered a good thing in a military institution. However, too much of an extreme can also be a bad thing. The navy was notorious for inflicting degrading and painful punishments. It can also be argued that risk of death was greater. On a ship, there is nowhere to escape to. If the ship literally fell apart, either naturally or in battle, or if your ship was captured in battle, there was no chance of escape. Granted, if you where in the army, escape into the wilderness might not be successful, but at least there was a chance. Also, on board ship, there is only so much room to store supplies, such as food. Even if there was room for excess food, there was a good chance it would spoil long before you reached shore. On land in the army once the food ran out, there was always the possibility of killing wild animals to help with food shortages. Although the army had most of the same problems as the navy, the army most often had a way of combating or at least lessening the problem whereas the navy did not.
While serving in the British military at all was inviting death, I think that serving in the British army would be better then the navy. In the navy, you were on a boat that might appear to be majestic and imposing at first, but the sailors would be on the same ship for months at a time. The unsanity conditions coming from whatever livestock was on board, along with the waste piling up and the rotting of the ship itself, would have been enough reason to shy away from life aboard a ship. Also, I personally cannot swim very well, so that alone would keep me off the water. Being a soldier, on the other hand, both feet are always firmly planted on the ground. The chance of dying is also somewhat reduced, because the conditions improve, however slightly. The soldiers in the army would also have been in a tight formation so, in addition to the inaccuracy of the muskets, the musket balls would more then likely hit someone else or miss completely. Based on the not-dying factor, I would much rather serve in the British army, as opposed to the navy.
If I had the choice of enlisting in either the British army or Navy during the 18th century, I would most definently pick enlisting the navy; I just don’t think I would be able to stand the conditions that the army faced or the strategies that they used.
What would scare me most about being in the British army during the 18th century would be fighting the Native Americans. After reading “The Failure of British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley” and “Class and the common soldier”, I am sure that I would be absolutely terrified of going against the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Before reading these articles, I had always assumed that they were merely pests that were swatted away with an adequate number of British soldiers; now, I realize that this wasn’t even close to the case, and that the Native Americans actually posed a serious military threat.
What impacted me most from these readings, especially “The Failure of British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley”, was that the Native Americans were extremely effective at guerilla warfare. I don’t think I would be able to bear standing still, in ranks, only to get shot at from various angles and at unexpected times. All of the training and conditioning I had endured in preparation for European-style battles would be useless. If I was lucky, I would be allowed to retreat to a “fortress”, which was oftentimes no better than a slightly fortified house. In between running away from enemies I couldn’t see and getting shot at, I would be busy doing work that really wasn’t supposed to be done by soldiers at all, such as carpentry or other trades. Refusing these duties that were not supposed to be done by a soldier wasn’t an option, unless I wanted to get whipped a few hundred or, in a few cases, over a thousand times. What’s worse, the mere logistics of receiving supplies or reinforcements were immensely complicated, so I would probably have to wait weeks (again, if I was lucky) to receive any sort of help.
At least with the navy, you would be able to see where your opponent is coming from. It’s hard to be ambushed on the open sea. On land, you would never know when or where your enemy was coming from.
After reading these two articles, I found it very difficult to choose between serving the British army or the British navy. Whichever one a person decides to fight in, they are going to have to give a lot of dedication, hard work and tolerance. I came to the conclusion that although both the army and the navy have their fair share of severity, the navy would be better to serve in. But, overall both display foul living conditions, limited resources and a low quality living condition.
The army seemed to be illustrated in the articles as having a harder job and having worse conditions than the navy. The upside to being in a ship is having all your resources there with you without having to move it and travel with it attached to you. The army however had to travel long distances carrying all their food, shelter and ammunition with them. This became quite difficult when they traveled nearly everyday. Since they were on the move often, the food on them was the only food they were going to be able to eat unless they went hunting or fishing. Whereas, the navy could bring large amounts of food with them and not have to carry it everywhere. Connected to this last point, they army had a lot of traveling to do. Soldiers walked of the time and the terrain was not always the best. One article described the locations as “vast inhospitable deserts”. Furthermore, it was also stated that the army was constantly being raided and attacked. This meant that the soldiers had to dig trenches wherever they stopped just so they could be prepared for whatever attack they would face. They also needed to set up tents and shelter. This was not needed on the navy. They had their ships and so there wasn’t need for that extra labor. In addition to trenches, soldier had to build roads to travel on. Not only was this, but lots of labor needed for marching, guarding, fighting, and building. So overall, I believe the navy would be a better choice than the army for the aforementioned reasons.
After completing this weeks reading, I have to say that I’d rather serve as a foot soldier during the 18th century rather then serving on a ship. Being in the army would be rough, and dangerous I have to say it still seems better then service in the navy. Ships were harsh, the officers were brutal and there was strict discipline. I can’t see any way to enjoy being tied to cannon and flogged a punishment that was often used on ships during those days. At least in the army punishment was usually some kind of manual labor. Also spending months at sea on a ship, confined to an area no bigger then a classroom or two would drive me crazy. Diseases such as scurvy caused by malnutrition from the awful food onboard these vessels would also sway me to serve in the army. Finally the ways you could be killed onboard ship are horrible even compared to the army. Wood splinters flying around and ships lighting on fire, and the high chance of drowning doesn’t seem like a fun way to go. Even though in the army I’d be standing directly in front of oncoming fire at least I would where the bullets were coming from, unlike on a ship where if you’re below deck you can’t tell where enemy fire is approaching from. Although both service in the army and navy during the 18th century provided sure fire ways to get killed, I would much rather serve in the army.
If forced to join either the British Navy or Army during the 18th century, my decision would depend on where I was to be deployed. If I was going to fight in America I would surely choose the British Navy, however, if I were to fight in Europe I would join the British Army. Although the conditions were horrendous for both situations, it is the training that influences my decision.
In both situations the soldier would be required to perform hours of training to prepare for combat. However, as it says in the European Method of Warring… “British troops were trained for a European battlefield.” The European battlefield however cannot be found in America during the Seven Years War. Countless hours of marches and training prepared the men for face to face combat with their enemy where volley fire would be used before a rush of hand to hand combat. Britain’s enemy, the Native Americans accompanied by the French, were notorious for their ambushes and raids of unsuspecting villages.
Britain’s Navy was trained for the standard Methods of Warring. Guerilla warfare, and unconventional systems of warring aren’t performed on the open seas. At the battles in the St. Lawrence and Hudson waterways the British fought the way they were trained to fight, and were far more successful than in the southern Appalachian and parts of the Ohio river valley. I would be willing to live with the lack of good food, and water, and constant need for ship repairs due to rotting if it meant that I would be given to fight in the style I was trained for.
As I said though, I would choose the British Army if I were to be fighting on European soil. The conditions were much better than the Navy’s, food ammunition, and the comforts of home were available. Retreats were always an option, and I would be fighting in the style that I was trained for. As long as I did as I was taught I would have a good chance of making it out alive.
While deciding which branch of the British Military to serve for this time period, it’s really just choosing the lesser of two evils. Both branches of the military endured grueling and nearly unthinkable conditions. Limited resources, including food, weapons, and enough men were major issues for both branches. Unsanitary living conditions and insufficient assets, which we would consider today as “necessities,” were also serious problems that both branches the British Military had to deal with.
After reading “The European Method of Warring Is Not Practiced Here: The Failure of British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley, 1755-1759” and “The Line Upon a Wind: The Great War at Sea, 1793-1815,” along with my own inclinations, it was clear to me which branch I would choose to serve under. The Army, to me, seemed to be the obvious choice. When serving in the Army, although having to deal with guerrilla like attacks from American Indians, and the undeniably suicidal methods of old-style warfare, it seemed more “survivable.” If there was ever an ambush or military engagement with the enemy, you could: A) Fight and win B) Die C) Become wounded D) Escape or E) Surrender . However, if you were on ship in the middle of nowhere, that list of options is much shorter. Also, when serving under the army, you were more likely to find vital resources when needed. Whereas if you’re at sea, you really have nothing accepts whatever is left aboard, unless you were an expert fisherman. The living conditions aboard a ship were gruesome, and nearly intolerable, and not to say living on solid ground would have been much better, but it’s clearly the lesser of two evils. To me, serving in the British Army is undoubtedly a better option, and although I can’t say it would be a much better way of living, I can say I am much more comfortable on solid ground than miles out a sea.
If given the choice, I would rather serve in the British Army.
Though the army was portrayed as a harsh experience, compared to the conditions on board a ship, the army seems preferable to me.
The British Navy was not known for great ships. The cannons were located lower down on the ship's side and if the seas were rough, those particular cannons could not be used. Less weapons means that the enemy has greater chance of taking you down in a battle. These ships were also prone to flooding. The "lids" to the cannon holes in the side of the ship would often come loose and water could leak into the ship, causing flooding.
Food and sanitary conditions on a ship were also not pleasant. Men often did not see land for weeks at a time and it was not uncommon for quarrels among men to rise up. Life on deck was also not pleasant because of the strict rules and regulation in place. Whippings and lashings as punishment were often dealt to misbehaved men. This was a degrading and painful experience that I would not want to be subject to.
Finally, the army was some advantages that the Navy does not. Food was not as big of a problem, at least when it wasn't winter. Sanitation as also not as big of a concern because trees were pretty handy. The only major down side to the army is the fright of a surprise attack from enemy forces, the native american's guerrilla warfare tactics.
After reading `The European Method of Warring Is Not Practiced Here': The Failure of British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley, 1755-1759’ and ‘The Line Upon a Wind: The Great War at Sea, 1793-1815’ I have come to the conclusion that warfare on land would be a lot easier than warfare on sea. If one was fighting at sea, one would be stranded in the oceans for months at a time. Another thing about ocean warfare is that the ship would always need to be repaired, and if it was done incorrectly in any way it was only a matter of time before you would be at the bottom of the ocean. It was also easy for disease to spread on a ship, due to the confined quarters and the cramped spaces that you would be forced to share. In land warfare you can adapt to your enemy’s tactics and then counter act in a later battle, but on the sea you only had one chance to win, because if you didn’t win a particular battle, you would definitely lose your ship and you would either be dead or captured. Also during land warfare one has the option of retreating but not during warfare at sea. I also cannot swim, so joining the navy would be suicidal for me. So if given the option, I would join the army in the blink of an eye.
After reading The Line Upon a Wind: The Great War at Sea, 1793-1815 By Noël Mostert and `The European Method of Warring Is Not Practiced Here': The Failure of British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley, I have come to the conclusion that I would have rather served in the British Army on land rather than with the navy at sea. Although serving in either was not particularly preferable, I would choose serving on land over serving at sea. First and foremost in my decision is the fact that while at sea there is no "escape" so to speak. Should you be attacked, should your boat sink, etc, there is no where to run. Being able to swim well would not prove to be very helpful hundreds of miles at sea. Although the Navy was considered to be more organized, there are many issues that you encounter at sea that are not faced while on land. One such issue is malnutrition related illness as a result of food going bad aboard ship. On land fresh food is always available. Another issue is the problem of rotting wood. Ships were typically made from wood, and as time passes by they become more vulnerable to leaks that could easily sink a ship all together. If you drown, you are dead. On land, if you are wounded in battle there is still the possibility of survival.
Serving on both land and sea comes with great emotional and physical strain. Serving on land, however, would seem to be less mentally painful as you are still in "civilization" and not disconnected from the world as it would seem at sea. Another con to being at sea was the method of payment. Payment was determined by the month but sailors would not receive their money until reaching port. Imagine spending months and months at sea only to die before reaching port? Without any chance of the money even being sent to your family?
In conclusion I would have much rather served on land for the British Army than at sea for the Navy
The 18th century was one of the worst periods in history for soldiers but if I lived during the period and had to choose between life as a sailor as an infantryman, I would certainly select deployment on land. While both divisions of the military lived in squalid conditions, the army was not as badly off as the navy. Sailors had to deal with the cramped conditions of ships, which fostered disease and unrest. Also, while one could survive the destruction of one’s unit on land, the destruction of a ship at sea usually meant certain death for the sailors, who often chose not to learn to swim in order to not prolong their suffering in case of a shipwreck. Food and water was also more of a problem on naval vessels. If a ship ran short on supplies then it would need to return to port to get more or starve. On land soldiers can always hunt for food if it runs short and fresh water is rarely a problem. While some may argue that the navy did not have to put up with the horrifying psychological warfare of the Native Americans, the cramped quarters and bleak outlook of navy life were just as, if not more capable of playing hell with one’s mind. This is displayed in the high number of mutinies aboard ships compared to the number of rebellions among land units. Overall the best choice for any man of the time period would be to avoid military service like the plague but if forced into it, one had better hope for land deployment and not imprisonment on the “floating hells” of the navy.
If I were to choose between the navy and army, I would have to choose to fight on land. While serving for the army certainly had many cons, I believe they are in comparison a little better. In the navy, although it was considered a strictly governed institution I believe they were too harsh with their punishment. Men would often receive public and thus humiliating lashings. Also, in the articles in mentions how mutiny was common, which shows in a sense how the “strict” rule imposed really seems ineffective. In addition to this, men would have to endure months on a confined and unclean ship, which are optimal conditions for disease to run rampant. One major problem the navy also faced was rotting wood, so there was always the risk of a leak that could potentially lead to a sinking ship, and many men could not swim. These ships could not be repaired until they reached the port, which could take days. Moreover, the demolition of a ship in most circumstances ascertained death; there was essentially no chance of survival. Furthermore, the payment of men of the navy was horrible and inconvenient. Paychecks were not received until after their time on the ship, and it was the men’s responsibility to pick the paycheck up. If not picked up, they would lose their money. That is not to say, however, that the army was perfect. They faced the Indian’s guerilla warfare tactics with their essentially useless strategies, suffering great casualties. Indians also used psychological warfare by mutilating bodies of not only men but women and children, placing them in spots so that they would be found. Punishment also existed but not as harsh as the navy. Therefore, although they both are very dangerous and difficult to undergo, if I had to choose the lesser of the two evils, it would be the army.
After reading these two articles it was very hard to choose between serving in on land or at sea in the British military in the 18th century. Both were hard, treacherous, and dirty work that was extremely dangerous. Both branches were extremely disciplined where any sort of disobedience was not tolerated and was met with cruel punishment. This was especially true in the navy where frequent lashings and beating were common for even little infractions. Life on a ship was also described as horrible where living conditions were as dangerous as the fighting itself. Disease was easily spread, the work was dangerous, the water was rough, not to mention the ships themselves were like giant rotting pieces of wood always in need of repair. In addition if the ship was sunk there was usually no chance of survival unlike on land where one had a chance of walking away from a battle. Despite these horrors I would choose the navy over serving the military in the army.
There were many advantages to being in the army rather than the navy. On land supplies were easier to acquire and at least one’s home wouldn’t be rotting. Overall health was better too. In addition as previously mentioned there was a chance of surviving an attack or at least being able to get medical treatment. Even in an ambush one had a chance of running. I think it would be these ambushes though that would make me not want to serve in the army. I just think it would be awful the constant threat of a Native American attack, which was always brutal and bloody. At see there was always a chance of an attack, but it seems as if it wouldn’t be so sudden, as if at any moment you could be killed or captured. This looming threat I think would really mess with ones mind after reading about the horrors that occurred. Also in the army I think the actual fighting in the battles would be difficult. When fighting a planned battle on land one would shoot directly at ones opponent straight on and they would shoot back at you. It just seems so difficult actually seeing the soldiers opposite you die knowing very well that it may have been you who killed them. At least in the navy, while death is still a part of the life you are firing at a ship not at a direct person. The true purpose of ones job, just seems so much more real in the army, to inflict as many casualties as possible in order to make the other side retreat. Thus, the physiological effect of the fighting in the army would make me choose the dangers of the navy over the army.
After reading the articles, I see serving in the military is deadly for both land and sea. Althought gun t my head I would have to choose the army. I choose the army for many reasons one of the most urgent is space. Just like today the navy has very tight quarters this leaves no place to hide while under attack, the ship also cannot escape to anywhere. Samll spaces can also help the spread of diseases and sickness. The limited space also make for limited resource these include food and water.
Another reason I didn’t choose the Navy was because of its punishments these include keelhauling which sounds like the most unpleasant way to die or be reprimanded that i have ever hard of.
Time is also another important concern. Problems with the ship like leaks that lead to drowning could only really be fixed at port. This is major flaw that I couldn’t live with. and useually the time it took to get to port was too long. All this chaos can also result in mutiny. The navy also had some issues with payment of its crews. so in conculsion The army is a much better choice and fit for many then the British Navy as I see it.
The lesser of two evils in the 18th century warring times seems to be the British Army on land. At sea aboard a naval vessel, not only was one subject to being killed by another warring vessel, but the environment itself was a disgusting one.
The lack of pressure treatment for woods caused all the wood on a ship to rot, which would create a reservoir of water at the bottom of the boat, called the bilge; filled with rats and their excrement, wood rot, and human excrement as well from those whose punishment it was to stay down there.
The threat of death aboard a naval vessel was ubiquitous, in that it was present in the environment, and also those on board the ship. Insubordination was not taken lightly, and such punishments could include being dragged underneath the boat from one side to the other, which often resulted in drowning. As stated before, the bilge was also a common place for some sentencing to take place.
Versus of course, the other naval ships aboard the seas were always there to fire holes through the ship that may hit crew members, or may just put many large enough holes to sink the ship and leave the entire crew to drown, starve, or dehydrate, because the chances of a rescue at sea was close to impossible, because of the lack of information spread.
And pirates.
On land, all of this is present, except saving someone/medically aiding them is more likely, as well as an environment that isn’t as fatal, because the Natives didn’t ALWAYS run out of the woods attacking mostly unarmed and unprepared people.
If given the option between fighting in the British Army or the British Navy during the 18th century, it is clear to me that being in the Army is the far superior option. While neither option is a life someone would want, the Army seems to be more tolerable. Although fighting in the colonies during that time period was basically a suicide mission as the traditional European fighting methods were made nearly useless by the Native American guerilla fighting style, fighting in Europe was perhaps, no less dangerous than fighting in any other time period. Also it would be preferential to be able to live on land, as this gives less opportunities for death. There is more food available and there was not such a great threat of mutiny as there was in the British Navy. The idea of being stuck on a ship in the middle of the ocean for months in intolerable conditions seems unacceptable as well for at least the Army's conditions did not quite lend itself to madness like the Navy. Overall, it just seemed obvious that it would be better- however slightly- to be in the British Army over the British Navy during the 18th century.
Late after this.
Salman Rahman
AP Euro
Mr. Kirby
After reading the sources if I had to serve in the British Army or the Royal Navy, I would like to serve in the British Army. The life of a field soldier was certainly tough and they did get severe punishment for any misconduct, but comparatively the life of the British Army is much more suitable for me. The field soldier got plenty of room wherever stationed and had greater opportunities of receiving aid and rescue. They had the opportunity to live on land which is certainly a great factor to me than living on a ship. The Royal Navy had poor system of getting paid for their work and had very compact space to live, especially if stationed in a ship. The ships were made of wood and did not get repairs unless they went back to the port. Hence, they often sunk and sailors drowned with them. The ships also contained rats, and the whole place seemed to be too much crowded and disgusting. The army did get attacked by the Native Americans but that did not happened always. A sailor could on the other hand drown while asleep. The possibility of death on both cases seemed to be high; however, the death of field soldier seems to me easier. Therefore, I would choose to be in the British Army than being in the Royal Navy.
Moreover, I am not that great of a swimmer.
Out of all the readings, I found “The European Method of Warring is Not Practiced Here': The Failure of British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley" and "The Line upon a Wind: The Great War At Sea," to be the most helpful in understanding the life of a British soldier on land and at sea. Both selections contained a comparable amount of pros and cons.
The most obvious con that I found was that fighting on land was extremely merciless and many considered the role of a soldier to be both physically and mentally exhausting. Soldiers had to endure the brutality of guerrilla warfare which required a great deal of mental discipline and self-sacrifice. One line that stood out to me while reading this selection was “and simple death is the least misfortune which can happen.” I feel this quote accurately represents a soldier’s mindset during battle.
In "The Line upon a Wind: The Great War At Sea," I was surprised to discover that life in the navy was just as harsh as life on the battlefield. Men were frequently punished and publicly humiliated in front of their fellow crew mates if the slightest slip-up was made. Clearing up some of my misconceptions about the navy, I came to find that the naval battles were also equally as brutal when compared with those on land. My main concern in the navy would be damage of the ship due to rotting (which was very common), or battle. In the article it mentioned how the slightest bit of damage to either a ship’s rigging or sails could cause it to sink.
After a great deal of thought, I came to the conclusion that I would much rather serve in the navy at sea. My main reason for this is that the conditions mentioned in the readings seemed slightly less brutal than those of the British Army on land. I don’t think I would have the mental strength and discipline to serve in the army.
After reading the articles assigned, I believe that it would be much more dreadful to experience naval combat than ground combat. On a navy ship, you have limited resources and no supply lines. The idea of strict rationing concerns me greatly. Furthermore, there is no relief for naval soldiers. You are on the sea for months at a time. If you are sick or wounded, there is no escape. You are forced to live on the ship until it docks, and if the ship comes under attack, you must simply pray that you make it out alive. There is also no retreat in naval combat. You fight until one ship is swallowed by the sea, and the other sails off victorious. Perhaps worst of all, however, is that your ship can sink without ever seeing combat, purely due to a leak or rotting wood. There is no way to repair you ship on the seas. You must hope you can make it to port in time. Overall, I believe that a military term on the seas would be incredibly frightening, far more so than a term on land.
Post a Comment