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.
80 comments:
During the 18th century I would have rather been part of the ground troops than a member of the navy. The navy had the worst job ever. They had to stay on ships for months at a time. The living conditions were bad even by their standards which were far below the current day standards. The chance for disease was high and the chance of dying was just a high if engaged in a battle on land or on sea. Also if you did anything wrong the punishments could be severe enough to kill you and would probably leave you extremely injured and cause you to catch a disease. Also you could get lost at sea by a small miscalculation by the navigator or a bad decision by your captain.
The foot soldier on the other hand was on the ground almost his whole service unless being transported. Despite being in a new land he was still on land not the sea and because of that diseases were less likely to spread as fast as they would on the sea. Also you wouldn’t be trapped on a floating pile of wood your entire service. And despite the battles being a deadly business where both sides stood out in the open and let each other fire back and forth until one side could not continue it was still safer than being on a boat and doing the same thing. Also the common soldier had less to worry about than the common sailor during that time. A sailor might have ten tasks to complete for the boat to just keep moving while the soldier only had to march and participate in battles and maybe do some work around the ship.
If I was forced to enlist in the British army I would actually prefer to serve the ground force. The life at sea was dangerous enough with enemy ships attacking, barricading, and robbing. To add the disease malnourishment and harsh conditions of the boats is to make the conditions of service unbearable. Being a land infantry is just as bad. Infantry suffer surprise attacks from gorilla, witness ridiculous brutality, and are forced to fight in lines open for attack from all sides. The lesser of two evils is therefore the ground troops who have plenty of food from the surrounding land and a place to be quartered. They may be opened to brutalities and witness many massacres as well as bloody battles but on the ships you are dying to unknown enemies such as disease as well as pirates and other agents in alliance with the America. When your ship was sunk you would suffer a horrible death in cold waters with no chance of rescue it would be an incredibly painful death as the freezing water would shock you and you would drown unable to swim. Even during the warmer seasons once your ship goes down you have no chance of rescue. Land forces fight an ever changing foe in much the same way Americans later fought the Vietnamese. However plentiful food and a decent living environment is supplied to ground troops though you may die at any time you will die fed and in decent health. If you die on a ship you die a miserable death hungry, thirsty, and miserable. In conclusion I would choose to be a ground troop because if I am going to die any way I might as well die with a smile on my face.
The difference between the military and the navy during the 18th century was great. The conditions in the military were not great by any means but compared to the conditions that the sailors had to deal with in the navy they were perfectly acceptable. When deciding which one I would serve in if I had to I would look at the chance of dying in each service and then decide. In the navy if the enemy didn’t kill you disease, human errors, or even punishments would. The life in the navy was very harsh due to the terrible conditions on the ship mostly due to the lack of space. When being confined to the small cramped ships that the sailors were in the 18th century would be very hard, and allow disease to spread easily. I know from experience when confined to small areas with lots of people if one person gets sick everyone does. If you did anything wrong in the navy the punishments would be very severe and might cause death. Also sailors when in a battle would have a higher chance of dying than on land because if the enemy won than their boat would sink leaving no chance for survival because most of the sailors would drown and others would have no chance of rescue. Although in the military you have a high chance of dying in battle you are in more control of your own life and you also have better conditions and less working against your life than in the navy. The fact that the conditions in the military are less confined and although disease would spread it would not spread as quickly and your chance of catching diseases was less than the navy makes the military more appealing to me.
Although I would prefer having to serve in neither the British Army nor the Navy if worse comes to worse and I had to pick the navy would definitely be my first choice. Yes, the British Navy was highly incompetent and mostly just involve shooting blindly in ranks with guns that backfire while being picked off by Indian sharpshooters at random, and a lot of the time do not have the proper equipment and must resort to building and cutting down trees and whatnot along the way, it is still all in all more appealing than having to serve on the navy. The main reason has to be that I get seasick really easily. And on those rickety wooden “ships” that are often shot at with huge cannons and are basically taken down by the slightest bad weather, life just seems altogether miserable. The ship is damp and the food is horrible and maggoty and you may never see land for long periods of time. You’d be stuck with the same rough crew and not be able to take a proper shower on a ship. And even more horribly is the Cat-o-nine-tails whip that is used as a punishment. If some unfortunate event were to befall on you on a ship they’d just toss you overboard without at second thought. Drowning is also one of my biggest fears. If the ship were to sick in the middle of the ocean, it would be a very miserable swim back to land. At least in the army you’d always have solid land under your feet and you have more control of where you go and fresher food. As a soldier, if you’re lucky, you may be placed in the back rank and therefore have a lower chance of being shot at whereas on a boat that is being under attack, basically everybody goes down. For someone of weak nerve, the army is definitely the way to go. Plus I have good stamina so marching around would be far easier than hanging about on the netting of the ship (where you could possibly fall to your death).
There really is no way of winning this one, so I guess it has to come down to my personal preference. If I am going to be forced into military service, I am not going to be forced onto a boat as well. I would rather serve in the British Army for a variety of reasons, my number one being the unfamiliar surroundings sailors were thrust into upon their enlistment. I know that disease was rampant in both the army’s campsites and on the navy’s ships. Yellow fever, scurvy, smallpox, and dysentery, always loomed in a serviceman’s mind, but the rapid spread of disease on a ship, where supplies could often not be replenished or being stranded was a definite possibility sharply decreased chances of survival. The Army also afforded a rank and file soldier the opportunity to travel with their family, an impossibility on a ship. The life of a traveling soldier could be treacherous, characterized by a hunger, a lack of sleep, and freezing temperatures, but making these journeys over turbulent seas were in my opinion worse. Of course the Army always had to be wary of Native Americans, but id deployed in Europe, warfare was a gentlemanly pursuit, regulated by rules and codes of conduct. The Army’s Native American problems can be equated with the pirate attacks a Navy ship always faced, making neither side the lesser of two evils. Some may say that they would rather serve in the British Navy because of its superb reputation as a well-oiled fighting machine and unquestionably the best navy in the world at the time. I however disagree with the notion that this fact makes a person any better off. The Navy was not invincible, and as a member of the Navy, you were not shielded by a special wall. The ship technology at the time was no better than the weapons used by the army. In fact, the ships were poorly made and incredibly dangerous, making walking a safer alternative. If a ship goes down, there is no way to survive, but if an Army general is hit, there is usually hope for a peaceful armistice if one is fighting in Europe, or at least an escape on foot.
The way in which Great Britain recruited their forces was incredibly unfair. Impressments in the Navy and conscription in the Army favored the upper classes of society and put the lower classes once again at the bottom with no choice in their fate. Great Britain was also well-known for its mercenary soldiers, such as the German Hessians. Using this reasoning, it is logical to believe that as a member of the Army, I might be a paid mercenary who chooses to be there, rather than a poor American sailor who was kidnapped and forced into service on a British Naval ship. Of course this was not the case for all of the embers of the British Army or Navy, but it is one more factor that I am considering in my final decision. This question is truly a question of how would you rather die, in the Army or in the Navy? Being an optimist, I am going to look at it as how can I best survive, and I believe the Army maximizes my chances for survival, or at the very least makes my death a little less unpleasant.
There really is no way of winning this one, so I guess it has to come down to my personal preference. If I am going to be forced into military service, I am not going to be forced onto a boat as well. I would rather serve in the British Army for a variety of reasons, my number one being the unfamiliar surroundings sailors were thrust into upon their enlistment. I know that disease was rampant in both the army’s campsites and on the navy’s ships. Yellow fever, scurvy, smallpox, and dysentery, always loomed in a serviceman’s mind, but the rapid spread of disease on a ship, where supplies could often not be replenished or being stranded was a definite possibility sharply decreased chances of survival. The Army also afforded a rank and file soldier the opportunity to travel with their family, an impossibility on a ship. The life of a traveling soldier could be treacherous, characterized by a hunger, a lack of sleep, and freezing temperatures, but making these journeys over turbulent seas were in my opinion worse. Of course the Army always had to be wary of Native Americans, but id deployed in Europe, warfare was a gentlemanly pursuit, regulated by rules and codes of conduct. The Army’s Native American problems can be equated with the pirate attacks a Navy ship always faced, making neither side the lesser of two evils. Some may say that they would rather serve in the British Navy because of its superb reputation as a well-oiled fighting machine and unquestionably the best navy in the world at the time. I however disagree with the notion that this fact makes a person any better off. The Navy was not invincible, and as a member of the Navy, you were not shielded by a special wall. The ship technology at the time was no better than the weapons used by the army. In fact, the ships were poorly made and incredibly dangerous, making walking a safer alternative. If a ship goes down, there is no way to survive, but if an Army general is hit, there is usually hope for a peaceful armistice if one is fighting in Europe, or at least an escape on foot.
The way in which Great Britain recruited their forces was incredibly unfair. Impressments in the Navy and conscription in the Army favored the upper classes of society and put the lower classes once again at the bottom with no choice in their fate. Great Britain was also well-known for its mercenary soldiers, such as the German Hessians. Using this reasoning, it is logical to believe that as a member of the Army, I might be a paid mercenary who chooses to be there, rather than a poor American sailor who was kidnapped and forced into service on a British Naval ship. Of course this was not the case for all of the embers of the British Army or Navy, but it is one more factor that I am considering in my final decision. This question is truly a question of how would you rather die, in the Army or in the Navy? Being an optimist, I am going to look at it as how can I best survive, and I believe the Army maximizes my chances for survival, or at the very least makes my death a little less unpleasant.
There really is no way of winning this one, so I guess it has to come down to my personal preference. If I am going to be forced into military service, I am not going to be forced onto a boat as well. I would rather serve in the British Army for a variety of reasons, my number one being the unfamiliar surroundings sailors were thrust into upon their enlistment. I know that disease was rampant in both the army’s campsites and on the navy’s ships. Yellow fever, scurvy, smallpox, and dysentery, always loomed in a serviceman’s mind, but the rapid spread of disease on a ship, where supplies could often not be replenished or being stranded was a definite possibility sharply decreased chances of survival. The Army also afforded a rank and file soldier the opportunity to travel with their family, an impossibility on a ship. The life of a traveling soldier could be treacherous, characterized by a hunger, a lack of sleep, and freezing temperatures, but making these journeys over turbulent seas were in my opinion worse. Of course the Army always had to be wary of Native Americans, but id deployed in Europe, warfare was a gentlemanly pursuit, regulated by rules and codes of conduct. The Army’s Native American problems can be equated with the pirate attacks a Navy ship always faced, making neither side the lesser of two evils. Some may say that they would rather serve in the British Navy because of its superb reputation as a well-oiled fighting machine and unquestionably the best navy in the world at the time. I however disagree with the notion that this fact makes a person any better off. The Navy was not invincible, and as a member of the Navy, you were not shielded by a special wall. The ship technology at the time was no better than the weapons used by the army. In fact, the ships were poorly made and incredibly dangerous, making walking a safer alternative. If a ship goes down, there is no way to survive, but if an Army general is hit, there is usually hope for a peaceful armistice if one is fighting in Europe, or at least an escape on foot.
The way in which Great Britain recruited their forces was incredibly unfair. Impressments in the Navy and conscription in the Army favored the upper classes of society and put the lower classes once again at the bottom with no choice in their fate. Great Britain was also well-known for its mercenary soldiers, such as the German Hessians. Using this reasoning, it is logical to believe that as a member of the Army, I might be a paid mercenary who chooses to be there, rather than a poor American sailor who was kidnapped and forced into service on a British Naval ship. Of course this was not the case for all of the embers of the British Army or Navy, but it is one more factor that I am considering in my final decision. This question is truly a question of how would you rather die, in the Army or in the Navy? Being an optimist, I am going to look at it as how can I best survive, and I believe the Army maximizes my chances for survival, or at the very least makes my death a little less unpleasant.
If I had to choose between serving in the 18th century British ground troops or the 18th century British navy, I would choose to serve in the ground troops. I would choose the ground troops for many reasons. First of all the navy had horrible living conditions, they were to live on a ship for sometimes months on end. The living quarters were very tight for a lot of soldiers. The punishments for the navy were also much harsher than the armies. Punishments were sometimes so severe that the end result could be death, whether it was immediate, or prolonged because of infection or disease. Disease could also come from the ship. Rats and rodents would get onto the boat carrying diseases and spreading them to the soldiers.
Being in the ground troops would be my choice. Punishments were a little less harsh. Living conditions were a little bit better, risk of disease was lower, and there was a lesser chance of dying in the ground troops than on the ships. Because of all this ground troops would definitely be my choice.
Despite the obvious horrendous severity of the British Army and the British Navy, if I were to pick which one to be a part of, I would choose the British Army on land. Although I don’t find the army glorified one bit, I would rather die by a gunshot fighting for my country than suffer slowly by disease due to dozens of lashed issued on my back. The life at sea was not one of glory at all. The Lieutenant of the ship was a hardened tyrant who held orders upon everyone living on the ship. Boys from the age of 7 years old could be issued on a ship; and due to the hierarchy of the ships social status, a middle aged man could still be at the bottom of the totem pole if he did not ‘perform his duties up to par’ as he spent his life aboard the ship. Despite whether the man did anything wrong, anyone aboard the ship could be flogged if deemed ‘neglectful of duties.’ It seems as though the term ‘neglectful of duties’ could be given to anything from misplacing one’s garb to working to slowly. A normal session of flogging could at minimum be 3-4 dozen lashes, and it was ‘illegal’ to look displeased during the lashes because it was considered disrespectful! The army seems to be more tolerable because despite the uncomfortable uniforms and the hundreds of miles they had to trek, the soldiers weren’t treated as animals. During war, the commanders of the army forced the troops to learn elaborate drills and formations to prepare for the battlefield. Fighting was very formal, most of the time, and the motions of the soldiers was extremely coordinated and calculated. Even though the red coats provided an ‘easy target’ for the opposing army, the British soldiers used organized attack plans to fight. The soldiers were also allowed to bring along their wives for company. The British Army seems to be a more tolerable lifestyle compared to the British Navy.
In general, being a member of the 18th century English war machine was a grueling, terrible exerpience that required serious discipline and dedication. However, the experiences of a soldier in the British army are generously mericful in comparison to those of a sailor in the navy. Therefore, I would personally prefer to serve as a soldier. Even though both factions require the services of an individual for long periods of time, sailors face harsher and more desperate living conditions. Ground troops, as their name implies, spend their time executing ground based operations while sailors spend months at a time on board a warship, which in itself provides an atmosphere much worse than a battlefield. In a ground battle, opposing sides basically faced each other and shot at one another until one side was completely obliterated or broken in formation. Ironically however, the chances of perishing as a result of disease on board a warship is much greater than the chances of dying by being shot point blank by your enemies. On a warship, a batte doesn't even need to occur for to be at risk for death. Disease was rampant on warships, due to the poor ventilation, dampness of the ship,lack of proper food and water, and the climate of the region they opperated and was easily transfered due to their close quarters. If a sailor were to get injured in battle, they would not have the commodity of adequate space as the army would. The injured would be crowded into the bottom of the ship, drenched in the blood of others as surgeons hastily amputated limbs without anesthetics or anteseptics. Aside from adequate space, adequate resources were another of the burdens placed upon the British navy. It was much easier for the ground troops to replenish themselves if needed from local areas or supply lines. On board a ship in the middle of a vast ocean makes the aquisation of supplies much more difficult. On long journeys, a dearth of supplies was common. In addition the food, which was often maggot infested biscuits and old salted meat, was oftenly disgusting and possibly detrimental to one's health. Treatment of the members is yet another glaring difference between these two factions. In the army, a soldier may be cut down by his commanding officer for breaking formation and running from the enemy, a sailor would be flogged, whipped,deserted, mastheaded, or hanged for even the most trivial errors. Boatswains and their mates would even beat sailors in order to make them work faster. The degree to which the punishments were issued was determined by the temperment and ethics of the superiors of the ship, which in essence left the crew at the mercy of the feelings of a handful of individuals. With the utmost simplicity, being a casulaty of a ground battle is a merciful fate in comparison to the tribulations of the sailors of the British navy.
Agreeing with what is probably the general consensus on the matter, I think I would prefer to be a general infantryman then a sailor during the eighteen-hundreds. The sailors had to endure a lot of harsh treatment from the other crewmembers. They were flogged by other crewmates, sometimes regardless of how hard they worked or how much they got accomplished. Pursers could cheat you out of your money, and when you were out on the sea, there would really be nobody else you could possibly appeal to. If you were on the land, there could be other officers you could possibly go to with a complaint, but if you were on the ocean, you would be stuck with the same group of people for an unspecified stretch of time. You would have to deal with the unpredictability of storms, especially during winter, which could cause severe and irreplaceable damage to your ship. Fighting was also particularly difficult on boats, not only because of the moving surface and the risks of cannonfire, but you could fall of the boat, or it could sink, which would make you drown, something I view as extremely unpleasant. You were isolated from everyone else while on the ocean, away from other troops and allies, with no way to obtain news from home. Overall, being at sea just sounds like a nightmare, and I would much prefer being almost anywhere else, including on land.
If I had to choose between serving in the British Army on land or the Navy at sea I would have definitely chosen to serve in the Army on land. The Army was a much safer militia force to be in because the Navy was on a boat for many months out of the year where disease can spread very easily and famine was likely to occur. People in the Navy also had to worry about being attacked by other ships in the middle of nowhere where you cannot call for backup troops to save you. The Navy also experienced robberies by pirates and if their boat was attacked they would have to jump off and defend for themselves in the rough waters of the sea. The people in the navy would die from starvation, disease, or drowning most often and would have been forced to live a terrible life on the ships. The people in the Army however did not have an easy life either. They had to worry about being attacked in guerilla warfare style by the enemy, they often did not have a stable place to get supplies or be safe from the enemy, but at least the Army troops were on land where it was much easier to get food, supplies, and call for backup when under an attack than if you were in the Navy on a boat off at sea.
For all of these reasons I would have chosen the Army. Though neither choice would have been ideal for me, the safer choice would have been the British Army in the 18th Century.
The conditions in the British Army and Royal Navy during the eighteenth century were deplorable however I would prefer to serve in the army because it is the lesser of two evils.
While at sea in the Royal Navy you would be at sea for almost your entire life. You would rarely see any family if you could still find them after being at sea for years at time. The conditions aboard the ships were also horrible. Most of the people on the ship would become sick. Shipboard life was damp, dark and, dirty. Many sailors expressed how many people would relieve themselves almost anywhere they pleased. This would leave sewage on the deck right above where you slept. Also the risk of disease was massive aboard the ships. It was so bad that nearly everyone on a ship would expect to get sick from fever to dysentery sickness was common aboard ships. The sanitation methods on the ships were also bad. It was recommended that everything was washed with vinegar but that is not even a great disinfectant. The conditions were also cramped. You had only fourteen inches of room to put your bunk on which you shared the same spot with someone else.
While the Royal Navy was bad the conditions onshore in the British Army were slightly improved. First of all you would be on the land which would garentee that you had supplies. Also by being in the army you could bring your wife with you while you were deployed. The army was also closer to civilian life because you could stay in houses of the civilian towns that you passed through. Unlike the navy you would not be cramped and confined to one section of the world but would have a little more freedom.
Overall I would rather be in the army over the navy because there are slightly better conditions.
If I were given the choice to pick between serving in the British Navy, or the British Army, I would choose the British Army considering the conditions present in both forces during the 18th century. The British Navy and its ships were places of confinement and torture. The ships had little ventilation and regardless of the efforts made to better hygiene, the ships became disease ridden. Sailors would grow sea sick or catch tropical fevers such as the yellow fever or malaria, and wounded soldiers, who were not treated quickly enough, bled to death. All these factors and bodily problems lead to an environment which was inescapable due to the fact that the men were out at sea. Moreover, the food on board would grow stale and spoiled as the ship was at sea for a longer period of time. Breads would grow stale and infested with maggots while meats would rot. The torture was immense on board, and duties performed “negligibly” were given severe punishments. These negligible duties included an article of clothing which may have been a bit dirty or something which was not shined to the liking of the ill tempered captains. Punishments included three to four dozen lashings which were not considered unusual in the least. Someone who may have stolen another’s clothes was given hundreds of lashes, sailors who watched the pain said they would have preferred death. These floggings were not the only form of torture, there was also mast heading, where a sailor would go to the topmost level of the ship to bear a day’s worth of weather. In the British Army, soldiers were paid, and because they were on the ground, the food from multiple areas provided soldiers a decent diet and considerably better health. The punishments were less harsh than the British Navy. Even though soldiers had to fight in battle where one was trapped within ranks, it would probably be more tolerable to die of a bullet, then being beat to death from hundreds of lashes. If you were in the army, a soldier might even be lucky to be in the ranks at the back, and have a higher chance of survival, than being in a boat in the middle of the ocean, where if the sailors suffered defeat, everyone was doomed.
Given a choice between the British army and the British navy, I would probably choose the navy. It’s true that life was not hard and dangerous in both the army and the navy, but I personally feel that I would have had an easier time with the navy. Both the army and the navy suffered from disease, the navy usually from diseases related to lack of nutrients such as scurvy, and in the army infections from wounds probably lead to amputations. Both were subject to severe punishments for disobedience. When choosing where I would go, I factor both of these out, as I can avoid punishments with obedience, and disease is just a matter of luck. I do not think that being in either the navy or army significantly reduces your chances of being killed in combat. However, after reading the article by Matthew C. Ward, there are a few things that made me want to be with the navy rather than the army. He expressed how the army was led by unsuccessful and inflexible commanders in the Americas, and the army met several defeats because they could not adjust to the type of war that was fought. Knowing that my commander is only used to fighting in open field wars and has no clue how to defend against the enemy isn’t reassuring. Ward also describes the slow progress that the armies made through the woods. It seems like hard work making progress in the woods, and the whole time the army would be subject to ambushes by Native Americans. He also described how the weather had an impact. The uniforms of the soldiers did not protect against heat or cold, and their weapons would not fire in rain. I could end up outside of a French fort unable to fire my weapon. Finally he described the scare tactics that Native Americans used, such as scalping soldiers, women, and children, and leaving their bodies in places that the soldiers would pass through. Marching in these armies would be like living in constant fear. The bottom line is that the British army suffered several defeats in the Americas, and I would not want to be on the losing side of battle.
If I were to pick between serving in the British Army or Navy in the 18th century I would definitely pick the Army. While still a difficult life the Army was a far better environment to be in than the British Navy. In the 18th century the officers in the British Armed Forces were usually aristocracy. This means that many saw themselves as being superior to their men not only in Military rank but also in human worth. This could turn particularly nasty in the Navy because as it says in The Line Upon a Wind “He could be a monster without equal to those who served below him…”(Mostert 78). This shows the possible cruelty that a Captain could inflict on his men. In addition to this there was a greater chance of diseases like scurvy because they are at sea for so long. The Army has a restricted food supply, but if they come across a friendly village they could get fresh meat and vegetables. However the Navy is almost constantly at sea and thus they will never get fresh food unless they make port. It is for these reasons that I would rather be in the British Army in the 18th century than the British Navy.
Fighting in the Army or the Navy would be a traumatizing experience for anyone, especially weak and timid me. Not only did one have to be very hardy just to survive the war, but the actual conditions the military provided were abysmal as well. Some joined the military for the adventure, but in addition to this they found disease, rotten food, and grueling work. On a ship in the Navy, one had to adhere to a strict set of rules, and if they were broken and sometimes even if they were not they would be whipped. There were maggots and weevils in their food, which was often scarce. Being drunk was a better alternative at all times to facing the reality. Tropical diseases and infectious diseases such as scurvy and dysentery broke out all the time and the danger of dying was never only from combat. The Army was no better. The soldiers traveled in extremely disorganized flotillas led by incompetent commanders through conditions such as extreme heat and cold, forests, mountains, and rivers. They also suffered from disease and ate horrible food just like the Navy. Many times their weapons did not work from the weather and they faced many technical difficulties in their travels with carriages and such. The conditions in the military during the 18th century sounds like a hell on earth (or at sea).
I am probably the very last person anyone could picture in the military. Not only am I a girl, but I’m also a picky eater, I can’t stand to be too hot or too cold, and what’s more I complain about it. My superiors would probably just kill me from their own annoyance, or in the case of the Navy whip me. I don’t think that I can lift 15 pounds, so hoisting sails or carrying my uniform and a heavy gun would be out of the question. But this aside, if I had to pick I would pick the Navy. Even thought the conditions were terrible and I would get sick just looking at the ship, anything beats out walking miles and fighting on the ground. I can’t run one mile and I would much rather suffer on the sea than march for weeks on the dirty ground. I think I would rather sleep in a cramped hammock below deck than on the hard, cold ground. I would rather be drunk all the time then eat rotten meat and bread like the Army did. I would rather have a harsh commander who might whip me in the Navy than an incompetent one in the Army who would just get me shot by the native inhabitants of the land on which we were marching. I don’t think that I would be able to just stand and shoot while I saw my comrades fall beside me in the ranks, which is the way the Army fought. I would rather just have a cannonball hit my boat and sink to meet the fish that way. If the military were crazy enough to want me in the eighteenth century, I would definitely pick the Navy over the Army.
Fighting in the Army or the Navy would be a traumatizing experience for anyone, especially weak and timid me. Not only did one have to be very hardy just to survive the war, but the actual conditions the military provided were abysmal as well. Some joined the military for the adventure, but in addition to this they found disease, rotten food, and grueling work. On a ship in the Navy, one had to adhere to a strict set of rules, and if they were broken and sometimes even if they were not they would be whipped. There were maggots and weevils in their food, which was often scarce. Being drunk was a better alternative at all times to facing the reality. Tropical diseases and infectious diseases such as scurvy and dysentery broke out all the time and the danger of dying was never only from combat. The Army was no better. The soldiers traveled in extremely disorganized flotillas led by incompetent commanders through conditions such as extreme heat and cold, forests, mountains, and rivers. They also suffered from disease and ate horrible food just like the Navy. Many times their weapons did not work from the weather and they faced many technical difficulties in their travels with carriages and such. The conditions in the military during the 18th century sounds like a hell on earth (or at sea).
I am probably the very last person anyone could picture in the military. Not only am I a girl, but I’m also a picky eater, I can’t stand to be too hot or too cold, and what’s more I complain about it. My superiors would probably just kill me from their own annoyance, or in the case of the Navy whip me. I don’t think that I can lift 15 pounds, so hoisting sails or carrying my uniform and a heavy gun would be out of the question. But this aside, if I had to pick I would pick the Navy. Even thought the conditions were terrible and I would get sick just looking at the ship, anything beats out walking miles and fighting on the ground. I can’t run one mile and I would much rather suffer on the sea than march for weeks on the dirty ground. I think I would rather sleep in a cramped hammock below deck than on the hard, cold ground. I would rather be drunk all the time then eat rotten meat and bread like the Army did. I would rather have a harsh commander who might whip me in the Navy than an incompetent one in the Army who would just get me shot by the native inhabitants of the land on which we were marching. I don’t think that I would be able to just stand and shoot while I saw my comrades fall beside me in the ranks, which is the way the Army fought. I would rather just have a cannonball hit my boat and sink to meet the fish that way. If the military were crazy enough to want me in the eighteenth century, I would definitely pick the Navy over the Army.
I am probably the very last person anyone could picture in the military. Not only am I a girl, but I’m also a picky eater, I can’t stand to be too hot or too cold, and what’s more I complain about it. My superiors would probably just kill me from their own annoyance, or in the case of the Navy whip me. I don’t think that I can lift 15 pounds, so hoisting sails or carrying my uniform and a heavy gun would be out of the question. Both the Army and the Navy were harsh institutions that only provided disease, rotten food, and grueling work to their members. In the Navy scurvy and dysentery killed many (as well as other diseases) and in the Army heat and cold (and natives) and terrible conditions picked off their fighters. Food was never in good condition for either. The conditions in the military during the 18th century sounds like a hell on earth (or at sea).
Both were so horrible that it looks pretty difficult to pick any poison at all. But this aside, if I had to pick I would pick the Navy. Even thought the conditions were terrible and I would get sick just looking at the ship, anything beats out walking miles and fighting on the ground. I can’t run one mile and I would much rather suffer on the sea than march for weeks on the dirty ground. I think I would rather sleep in a cramped hammock below deck than on the hard, cold ground where I would never sleep and have frostbite and back cramps. I would rather be drunk all the time then eat rotten meat and bread like the Army did since I can’t stand bad food. I would rather have a harsh commander who might whip me in the Navy than an incompetent one in the Army who would just get me shot by the native inhabitants of the land on which we were marching. I don’t think that I would be able to just stand and shoot while I saw my comrades fall beside me in the ranks, which is the way the Army fought. I would rather just have a cannonball hit my boat and sink to meet the fish that way. If the military were crazy enough to want me in the eighteenth century, I would definitely pick the Navy over the Army.
In the 18th century British military, the navy sounded more appealing than the army for a number of reasons. In the army, the troops were forced to travel to many remote places that they had never been to before. One of these areas included America during the French and Indian War when the British troops had to face the rough terrain of the Ohio River Valley. In addition, the army had to face terrible face-to-face combat with foes. Since they had no knowledge of the area where they were venturing through, they were easily attacked. There were many unexpected attacks from Native Americans who caused a great deal of damage. These natives brutally beat the British until their death and then scalped them. The guerilla warfare was a major problem that the British Army had to face. The army had extremely weak weapons that they had to use, so when it came time to fight, there was a lot of trouble. Contrary to the navy, the army had to fight more battles because they could be attacked at any time (they did not know who was near them because of the new terrain). At least with the navy, they could see incoming ships and could therefore prepare for battle. On the other hand, the navy did have some disadvantages. The ships could rarely escape from battle if they were losing badly as well as sailors being trapped on the ship if it was sinking. There were also the scares of mutiny and storms that the members of the navy had to deal with. But in the end, it was better to serve in the navy than the army even though both had their own misfortunes.
Pick my poison indeed...Obviously I would prefer not to join either the British Army or Navy, but I would have to say I would rather be in the British Navy.
While both choices are intimidating, the British Army required skillful war tactics and intense training on the troops' part. It became increasingly reliable on skilled laborers to build forts, construct hospitals, make roads, etc. Since I possess none of the talents needed to do this kind of labor, I would rather not partake in it. Also, the thought of guerrilla warfare used on the British troops by the Natives scares me. I would never be able to handle going into battle knowing that someone could jump out and scalp me, and then be forced to forage on into thickly wooded terrain I was not familiar with. Add to that the "wages" that the soldiers were provided with. According to "Class and the Common Soldier in the Seven Years' War", a soldier’s daily earnings roughly equaled the earnings of a common laborer. This doesn't sound fair to me and it sounds like the military was promising more than it could give to the soldiers and skimping on payments.
I think I would be better off in the Navy because I don't mind being in small spaces for long periods of time, I can swim well and I do not have the unfortunate luck to get seasick. Aside from that, I would at least be able to see oncoming enemies and would not be caught off guard like I would if I were serving in the Army. I would rather die by going down with a ship than by a bullet wound, which while fatal, might take a lot of time to kill me; drowning seems to me like it would be less painful.
Both the British Army and Navy had harsh repercussions for joining either of them, but overall I would rather be a sailor, not a soldier.
The British army and navy both had extremely unappealing conditions. If one was in the navy they would be at sea on dark, damp, and cramped ship and away from their families for god knows how long. The army would be allowed to see there family more often and even travel with them. The nave was always at risk of being attacked by other ships in the unfamiliar sea. Also, living conditions were horrible on the ships. Disease would spread quickly and easily; food often spoiled quickly and men would have to eat the stale, moldy, and maggot-infested food. On the contrary, the army didn’t have amazing living conditions either. They did get to stay on land, which was a plus, but they would have to participate in brutal combat. The guns that they had were not extremely accurate and they would be shooting away at the enemy while their fellow soldiers were dieing beside them. Also, the army was always at risk of being attacked by Indians, but at least on land they could make some sort of getaway. On the ships, retreating would take much, much longer.
Given this information, if I were forced to join the army on land or the navy at sea I would much rather spend the time with my feet on solid ground with the army. The army seems to have better conditions living on land and more opportunities to regain supplies if they start to run low. Also, the navy sounded more horrid because of the awful living conditions that allowed disease to spread quickly, and the food to become spoiled. I would much rather serve with the army that with the navy.
Although naval and ground troop service were degrading and life threatening careers, I would prefer to be a ground troop. I would rather not be contained on a disgusting ship for months at a time. The conditions on an 18th century British ship were absolutely deplorable. Since naval combat was in its infancy, not much money was put into it and it was highly risky. In addition, food rations were quite skimpy as were wages. Sanitary conditions were horrible; if the fighting didn’t kill you then the scurvy or disease would.
Also, being lost at sea would be worse than being lost on land. At least on land there are resources and people who could be of aid. There is nothing on the open sea, and things only get worse if a storm hits. Additionally, punishments for minor dis-obeying was severe and could result in death. Ground troops were not treated as animals confined in small smelly spaces. You were able to see your family and bring them with you as a ground troop. At sea, you may not see your family for years. Also, if the ship goes down, you go down. Whereas on the ground troops, there is a way out, and there is always somewhere you could go for refuge.
In contrast to this, ground troops had it better. They had the opportunity to work the land and continue their trades while fighting on the ground. Though they were required to do physical labor completely unrelated to soldiering, this was looked favorably upon and when completed was rewarded. Also, military ground tactics had evolved and become more effective. Guerrilla warfare had significantly lower death rates, as soldiers weren’t simply lining up and shooting each other. Also, ground soldiers developed a sense of camaraderie by bonding over their menial tasks and opposition to officers. But above all, ground troops were not isolated on a smelly ship where conflicts between naval members were rampant and fatal, and there was no access to food or clean water.
If I were given the option of neither, that would be my first choice, but seeing as how that is not a choice here, nor was it ever in real life back then especially if I was a commoner, I would definitely choose the British army over the navy. Even though both regiments were brutal and had little expectations of survival, the duties of the army resembled more the responsibilities of actual life. The navy required advanced knoweledge and skill of the open sea and unless you grew up on a ship, you were more than likely dead as soon as the pressure hit. In "Class and the common soldier in the seven years war" it split the labor of a soldier into two categories: martial and civil labor. Of course you need the training and skills of soldiering, but there was also the tasks of "cutting wood, making fascines, hunting for food, harvesting crops, etc." (466). So, I think I would be more accustomed to the rough life and I think I would be able to adapt more easily to army life than the navy life (that is, of course, if I were a peasant back then entering a service position). Also, even though both regimes had to face starvation, injuries and casualties, and harsh weather conditions, the navy seemed to fare much worse. They had no where to go, they were stuck on board their ship in the middle of the vast sea and if the maintenance of the ship was poor then you just had to deal. The army could at least move around and try to seek better conditions. Depression seemed more prevelant in the navy mostly due to the solidarity and same scenes and conditions that were months on end. "The Line Upon a Wind" described the sailor as a "man apart from the rest." (23). Being a part of the navy meant you had to be able to deal with loneliness and I would have probably gone crazy.
Although both regimes were very strict and used severe punishment, it seemed worse in the navy. "The Line Upon a Wind" described punishment where, "A dozen lashes was supposedly the minimum that a captain might inflict..."(82). Captains seemed more ruthless, shaped by the hard rough seas. The Royal Navy was also inferior to the French and Spanish and its ships were in poor condition. (The Line Upon a Wind 51). If the countries economy was poor than the ships were poorly maintained and it affected the sailors more than the soldiers. The British battle tactics on the sea was also inferior and ilogical, "the British line exposed itself to the full fire of the French...British ships were thus severely disabled." (37). The navy also had to wait out the winter because the conditions were too rough and if the weapon holes on the ship were opened then there was a great chance of a flood. Therefore, the navy comes across as tedious and more precautionary.
The army also seemed to have more economical advantages. In "Class and the Common Soldier" it says that a soldiers existence is "no worse and in some respects somewhat better than that for the great majority of the urban lower classes." (468). The sailor often wouldn't see his pay until well beyond the payment period. Therefore, the army offered a better advantage for the common citizen. Finally, on a personal note, I would rather die on land, closer to home rather than out on the cold unforgiving sea, with no where to go but down in the water with no one but nessy. That's just in my opinion.
If I was to serve in the 18th century British military, I would much prefer to serve in the army rather than the navy. Both lives seem unbearable and brutish. However I feel the army is the lesser of two evils. The life upon the ship appears to be awful. First of all, I enjoy the sea and like being on boats. However, with the unsophisticated vessels being battered by the waves and out to sea for such a long period of time, I feel sea sickness would be inevitable. After the fun factor is over I would much prefer solid land beneath my feet. Besides this, the navy seems wholly unappealing to me. In all likely-hood you’d probably end up with a captain who has little tolerance for any mistakes. In addition, the only threat to such a captain is the rare mutiny, therefore effectively letting him rule as a tyrant with few checks and balances. I have a feeling that in the navy, I would end up being flogged at least once seeing as it was a frequent punishment. Samuel Leech describes flogging as “merciless” and the result is a man who “hangs, a pitied, self-despising, groaning, bleeding wretch,” (Mostert 84). I would go into the army to help avoid this alone. Another deterrent from joining the navy is disease. Although the army has its fair share of dysentery and sickness, the life at sea is much worse. There is always a threat of scurvy seeing as vitamin C was usually lacking in the shipboard diet. Noel Mostert describes the man-of-war in his book as a “natural vehicle for sickness and disease. Its living spaces were badly ventilated… The atmosphere of permanent damp became steadily more rancid from the spray and rain that entered… In that atmosphere disease nevertheless spread rapidly” (89). I couldn’t stand living in these cramped quarters especially with the elevated risk of disease.
The army meanwhile wasn’t much better. The army during the seven years war had to suffer long marches, bitter winters, and Indian ambushes. However I still find it preferable to the navy. In the army one did not have the constant duty of keeping the man-of-war sailing. Many just had to march, train, and fight. Meanwhile disease was not as bad because the conditions weren’t as cramped. In addition, the navy was an all man affair, and the sailors would only see women in port. At least with the army, the wives of the soldiers frequently came along to tend to camp and wounded, such as in the march to French fort in the movie. Overall it seems that the army suffered many of the same woes as the navy. Except that the navy suffered worse, being at sea with terrible living conditions. I would like to serve in neither, but if I had to pick my poison, it would definitely be the army.
If I was to serve in the 18th century British military, I would much prefer to serve in the army rather than the navy. Both lives seem unbearable and brutish. However I feel the army is the lesser of two evils. The life upon the ship appears to be awful. First of all, I enjoy the sea and like being on boats. However, with the unsophisticated vessels being battered by the waves and out to sea for such a long period of time, I feel sea sickness would be inevitable. After the fun factor is over I would much prefer solid land beneath my feet. Besides this, the navy seems wholly unappealing to me. In all likely-hood you’d probably end up with a captain who has little tolerance for any mistakes. In addition, the only threat to such a captain is the rare mutiny, therefore effectively letting him rule as a tyrant with few checks and balances. I have a feeling that in the navy, I would end up being flogged at least once seeing as it was a frequent punishment. Samuel Leech describes flogging as “merciless” and the result is a man who “hangs, a pitied, self-despising, groaning, bleeding wretch,” (Mostert 84). I would go into the army to help avoid this alone. Another deterrent from joining the navy is disease. Although the army has its fair share of dysentery and sickness, the life at sea is much worse. There is always a threat of scurvy seeing as vitamin C was usually lacking in the shipboard diet. Noel Mostert describes the man-of-war in his book as a “natural vehicle for sickness and disease. Its living spaces were badly ventilated… The atmosphere of permanent damp became steadily more rancid from the spray and rain that entered… In that atmosphere disease nevertheless spread rapidly” (89). I couldn’t stand living in these cramped quarters especially with the elevated risk of disease.
The army meanwhile wasn’t much better. The army during the seven years war had to suffer long marches, bitter winters, and Indian ambushes. However I still find it preferable to the navy. In the army one did not have the constant duty of keeping the man-of-war sailing. Many just had to march, train, and fight. Meanwhile disease was not as bad because the conditions weren’t as cramped. In addition, the navy was an all man affair, and the sailors would only see women in port. At least with the army, the wives of the soldiers frequently came along to tend to camp and wounded, such as in the march to French fort in the movie. Overall it seems that the army suffered many of the same woes as the navy. Except that the navy suffered worse, being at sea with terrible living conditions. I would like to serve in neither, but if I had to pick my poison, it would definitely be the army.
If I was to serve in the 18th century British military, I would much prefer to serve in the army rather than the navy. Both lives seem unbearable and brutish. However I feel the army is the lesser of two evils. The life upon the ship appears to be awful. First of all, I enjoy the sea and like being on boats. However, with the unsophisticated vessels being battered by the waves and out to sea for such a long period of time, I feel sea sickness would be inevitable. After the fun factor is over I would much prefer solid land beneath my feet. Besides this, the navy seems wholly unappealing to me. In all likely-hood you’d probably end up with a captain who has little tolerance for any mistakes. In addition, the only threat to such a captain is the rare mutiny, therefore effectively letting him rule as a tyrant with few checks and balances. I have a feeling that in the navy, I would end up being flogged at least once seeing as it was a frequent punishment. Samuel Leech describes flogging as “merciless” and the result is a man who “hangs, a pitied, self-despising, groaning, bleeding wretch,” (Mostert 84). I would go into the army to help avoid this alone.
Another deterrent from joining the navy is disease. Although the army has its fair share of dysentery and sickness, the life at sea is much worse. There is always a threat of scurvy seeing as vitamin C was usually lacking in the shipboard diet. Noel Mostert describes the man-of-war in his book as a “natural vehicle for sickness and disease. Its living spaces were badly ventilated… The atmosphere of permanent damp became steadily more rancid from the spray and rain that entered… In that atmosphere disease nevertheless spread rapidly” (89). I couldn’t stand living in these cramped quarters especially with the elevated risk of disease.
The army meanwhile wasn’t much better. The army during the seven years war had to suffer long marches, bitter winters, and Indian ambushes. However I still find it preferable to the navy. In the army one did not have the constant duty of keeping the man-of-war sailing. Many just had to march, train, and fight. Meanwhile disease was not as bad because the conditions weren’t as cramped. In addition, the navy was an all man affair, and the sailors would only see women in port. At least with the army, the wives of the soldiers frequently came along to tend to camp and wounded, such as in the march to French fort in the movie. Overall it seems that the army suffered many of the same woes as the navy. Except that the navy suffered worse, being at sea with terrible living conditions. I would like to serve in neither, but if I had to pick my poison, it would definitely be the army.
I would much rather serve in the land forces then the navy. For starters I'm not a fan of the ocean. Secondly the deaths of a sailor were worse. You could be hit by a cannonball, grapeshot, the ball and chain if you are superbly unlucky, keel hauling, drowning, falling from the rigging, accidentally hanging yourself from the rigging, etc. The living quarters were terrible as well. All you get is a tiny cot. Infections on a ship were also extremely dangerous because the could spread. Land troops had there own issues as well. A shot to the torso was pretty much a death sentence. You would bleed out, die on impact, or get infections that killed you. Living quarters were better. Tents beat hanging cots any day. The food would also be fresher and therefore better as well. Overall the risks of the army are better then the risks of the navy.
Personally I would much rather be part of the ground troops then be in the navy. The navy was bound to ships for months at a time, with little room to move or breathe; floating in the middle of the ocean, fighting battles with a 50/50 chance of either floating another day or sinking to your death. Battles on water seem to be a tad more dangerous then those on ground. Because again, if your ship gets hit then you are now floating on boards in the water hoping that someone comes to rescue you. Disease was also a huge scare and a common factor in the death of many. If one person fell ill, you were more then likely to catch it too, because everyone was so close together for such long period at a time. Also, in that century medicine clearly wasn’t as promising, nor developed as it was today, so it was a true battle of your own immune system. Battle on ground was dangerous as well, but you weren’t tied to as small of a space. Your chances of living were still affected but personally, I feel much safer on ground then I do on a ship in the middle of the ocean. Also in the navy there was the factor of getting lost at sea. A simple miscalculation on the navigator’s part could land you miles and miles off course. Then you are basically in trouble from there, maps weren’t as promising either. And it was for these reasons that I would absolutely rather be part of the ground troops then part of the navy.
The choice between serving in the British army or the navy is a choice between bad and worse. Each was riddled with harsh punishments, poor living conditions, life threatening infections, and the fear of death. However, I would choose to serve on the ground troops rather than in the navy. The navy meant living in tight quarters at sea. Living at sea is not ideal for me personally due to sea sickness. The navy was also infested with fast spreading disease such as yellow fever. The tight quarters caused disease to be devastating. The choice for me all boiled down to which service I would have a greater chance of surviving in. Although the army included extremely harsh punishment from commanders, its living conditions were better than those of the navy. The troops were either marching or holding down camp. They did face freezing temperatures and the fear of indian attacks, but they had more space and less chance of contracting disease. Supplies could be obtained in this branch of the service, unlike the navy ships at sea. Also, the ground troops were more disciplined than the navy, which carried over to battle. The soldiers were prepared for battle. In the end, I would much rather serve in the army because my chance of survival is greater than that serving in the navy.
Choosing between joining the British army and navy is like choosing the method of your demise. Would you rather be whipped to death or burned to death? This is a no-win situation. However, if I had to choose, I suppose I would have to choose the British Army over their navy. Mainly, because in the navy, you are a single crewman on a ship. When the cannon balls start flying, ultimately you have no control over your life. The same also applies to a ship in the storm, where you could easily be sunk not by an enemy, but by Mother Nature. Whether you live or die depends not on any skill you have, but on the integrity of your ship. In addition, on ships, diseases were easily spread. Such things as yellow fever and dysentery could spread through a ship like wildfire. Since it was such a confined space, it was practically a breeding ground for disease. In addition, malnutrition was always an issue, especially in Vitamin C. Since people did not understand the nutritional needs of the human body at the time, scurvy, a disease caused by Vitamin C deficiency was rampant. In addition, on ships, food could not be restocked, often resulting in stale and unpleasant food. Perhaps most unpleasant was the cat-o-nine-tails used to whip sailors who had committed wrongdoings.
The army however, is not without its shortcomings. Conditions were not pleasant, knowing that you had to stand there and be shot at while your commander patrols behind you waiting to cut down any deserters. There was cold and sleep deprivation, fatigue and countless other problems. However, another soldier got sick did not mean the end of half the crew like it could in the navy. In addition, people in the army were afforded the possibility of traveling with their family, a total impossibility in the navy due to obvious space and supply restrictions. Perhaps the most appealing thought though, is that in the army, you're afforded a much better chance of a quick death. In the navy, you could die through A, disease, B, starvation, or C, drowning. None of these are very pleasant or quick ways to die. In the army, you could die through A, disease, B, starvation, yes, but it was much more likely for a man in the army to die through C, being shot. Therefore, being one who does not desire a slow, painful and protracted death, I would choose to be in the British Army over their navy.
Given the choice of serving either in the British army or navy, I would choose to join the navy. The trouble encountered in the British navy stems more form life aboard the ship, whereas danger within the British army comes more from the environment. Granted, in both areas, similar problems are faced: hunger, strict discipline, poor medical servcice, and enormous fanger to name a few. However, it seems as if efforts were made within the navy to reduce some of these issues. For example, doctors worked at finding some treatments for nastive diseases, increasing the life of the sailors. Within the army, it seems as if less attention was paid to the soldiers' health, and were thus more prone to die of infections. There are also some personal advantages to joining the navy. When one served in the army, they were often accompanied by their wife and children, while in the navy, they were alone. For the sake of the family, it seems better to join the navy, so that loved ones are not put at risk of being killed during a battle. There seemed to be more discipline within then navy as well. There was a very clear order of rank, and sailors were kept in line. Also, sionce there was grerat prestige attached to being in the navy, soldiers tended to fight until the end, and stood by their commanding officers. Within the army, it seemed as if mutiny and desertion was far more common, which is less attractive than the fierceness of the navy. The army also sems to be encopuntering very various circumstances, especially in the seven years's war, where they had to navigate through entirely unfamiliar terrain. While at sea, though conditions could get difficult during storms, there was better navigational technology and more overall stability. It is for these reasons, therfore, I would rather join the british navy in a war.
Preferably I would never want to have to serve in the British army or navy but if I HAD to chose one I would most definitely chose to serve in the British army. As stupid as a reason this may seem, I would rather be on land then on water for such a long period of time. At least on land, you don’t get sea sick, there is a change of scenery, and you aren’t in such tight quarters. The navy had an awful job. They had to stay on the ship for months at time, the living conditions were dreadful, the chance of disease was high as well was the chance of death, and the punishments were cruel that could cause death. Even worse, you could get lost at sea and die just because of a small miscalculation. The ships were often shot at by huge cannons and are easily taken down by bad weather. I am a picky eater so I don’t know how I would survive on a ship that serves awful food with maggots. Worst of all, you could easily be tossed overboard with out someone giving you a second thought. What if your ship sinks? You could drown or if you are lucky have hours of draining swimming back to land. As a soldier, you at lest always have land underneath your feet. Although a constant supply of food is just as much as a challenge on land then on sea, at least you have fresher food to choose from such as wild berries and fish. For me, I would rather be active and march rather than wait on a boat for my doom to come; I think I would go insane. And maybe if I was lucky, I would be placed at the back of the marching line and have less of a chance to be shot. The army also offered the opportunity for a solider to travel with their family and disease spread less quickly in the army then on a tight ship. Overall, to me the army is the lesser of the two evils. If you are in the navy or the army, you are faced with disease and dangers. But personally I would rather take the risk in the army then the dreadful navy, no matter how great the British navy was said to be at the time.
I would rather serve in the British army than the British navy. The question is difficult to answer, because of the implications of both. Both services kept order through fear of punishment, but I think that punishment onboard a ship back in those days would be more costly. Punishments such as whipping, etc. would leave the soldier all the more susceptible to the various and numerous diseases that lurked on these vessels. Any punishment that left a soldier in less-than-perfect condition (which was certainly more common than anything else) would jeopardize their health further. Additionally, there would be little to no help for a dying individual. A soldier in the navy would also have their fate tied to that of their ship; if the ship went down, everybody on it would either be captured or killed. In the army, even a lost battle would not mean the complete loss of every soldier in the platoon. Even though soldiers in the army would be killed for desertion, soldiers in the navy would not even be able to attempt fleeing away. In the army, it is definitely possible to end up frontline in a battle in which your general knows that you will be shot. While this is not an inviting concept, in the navy you don’t even need to be shot to go down; if your ship is hit enough, that’s it. It seems that chances of survival would be slightly better in the army. Also, having the benefit of historical perspective, I would guess that the navy was the less desirable of the two to most individuals, even back then. The British did not capture Americans to serve in their army, but rather captured them to serve in their navy. This would suggest that there weren’t enough British soldiers in the navy. If the navy was more desirable to the enlistees than the army, Britain would have been capturing soldiers for their army. Because they weren’t, I would guess that the army was the more desirable of the two.
Were I to encounter a situation in which I were forced to conscript in a branch of the 18th century British military but sportingly offered a choice in exactly which branch it was, I would, after several awkward moments of wondering what just happened, select the British Army over the British Navy. Members in neither branch led enviable lives, but they were worse off, as I see it, in the British Navy. On a personal level, the sea and I are not on speaking terms and food designed to last in dank, fetid places for months supplied by the lowest bidder is, I find, rather unappealing. More generally and seriously, though, seamen endured hardships either singular or specialized on account of their position. As such inconveniences as danger in battle and time dedicated existed for both branches, I will focus on the two I would find most distasteful; to wit, punishment and disease. Punishment in the Navy, although it existed in the Army, was brutal. It was almost necessarily so by the nature of the Navy, as Mostert tells us in The Line Upon the Wind: “As the principal instrument of the island nation’s survival the Royal Navy evolved into the most rigorous form of military discipline in the world, the severity of which increased rather than diminished as the war progressed” (77). Discipline was vital in such an important organization, and what better way to instill it than unnecessarily punitive measures? Captains of the 18th century British Navy, much like Wilhuff Tarkin of the Imperial Navy (sporting less admirable goals but no less admirable an accent) opted to rule through the fear of force. This fear was achieved, prior to the sufficient technology to build a Death Star, through very public and rather gruesome floggings. Those were numerous as well as painful, as “a dozen lashes was supposedly the minimum that a captain might inflict . . . there were others who decided lashes in number that suited their disposition at the moment, with three to four dozen lashes by no means unusual” (Mostert 82). Humiliating and painful, these lashes could, and often did, result in death, perhaps simply because the captain’s or boatswain’s temper was ill . . . which is my cheesy segue into my second point. Disease was as rampant as proper treatment was rare, and this was a particular problem in an unsanitary and qualified physician-lacking ship that visited several different shores and encountered so many potential illnesses over the course of a journey. The British Navy’s disease-mortality death rate was three times that of contemporary Britain (Mostert 91). Disease was a bigger killer in war than, well, war. In the American Revolution, of the British Navy, 1,243 were killed in combat while 18,541 died of disease. In the Seven Years’ War, 1,512 died in battle while disease or desertion claimed 133,708 lives (Mostert 89). Looking at all the Navy has to offer, one would almost look forward to mandatory service in the Army.
As much as I would prefer to not being in the military at all, I think if I had to pick my poison I would choose the Navy. Despite the navy being a very cruel institution, plagued by disease and danger, I think that I would have to choose it because despite the diseases and the punishments, it was the job that required the most courage and had the bravest individuals because they couldn't just run away in the heat of battle. The Navy, in my mind seems more prestigious than the army because of the it was, “an endurance of mind and body, of will and patience, and a required faith in mission and self, beyond anything any other form of dutiful service demanded” as Mostert states. The British were known for their navy, and for good reason, they were a formidable force that made the United Kingdom a world power, so despite the harsh punishments, hard work, and cruelty that if I were a member of the empire I would feel like I was doing the most I could for my country which is why I would grin and bear cruelties like keelhauling, when I was disobedient, and lack of food. Also, if I were not born into the upper class, this would be the only opportunity to make a name for myself with the prestige of holding any sort of rank in the navy. I also feel like this would interest me more as a person because I feel like being on a ship and knowing how to run it would be amazing, where the army would just be regimented repetitive life, the navy would be visiting new places and expanding my horizons, also there would be a variety of different jobs for ships to do such as small land missions and assaults so it wouldn't be monotonous. As far as the sickness goes, in the navy they were more often related to lack of nutrients because of the weevil infested biscuits and limited preserved foods there was available, water that wasn't salty or scummy was hard to come by, a lot of these diseases like scurvy could have been solved by eating a piece of fruit or being sanitary. On land, during battles people's limbs got blown off, crushed, and amputated, soldiers were also introduced to new diseases as a result of new territories or poor medical coverage. Army tactics, especially in the Americas, were not suited to the guerrilla warfare style in which the Natives fought as also the army had to deal with more changes in terrain and had to adapt quickly to survive, and thus more died. Also, what we discussed in class about battle formations made the army more maneuverable and efficient but also made the individual easier to kill. This might be a little biased because one of my favorite book series is the Bloody Jack series which is based during the 1800's where a woman disguises herself as a boy and joins the Royal British Navy, but overall the Navy seems a better trade off than the land based army as far as staying alive, comfort, disease, and burden.
If I had to choose between being an 18th century British ground troop or a a member of the British Navy, I would much rather choose to be a ground soldier. The navy was probably the worst possible job you could enlist for. If you chose to serve on the navy you would be stuck on a British Naval ship for months at a time with horrible living conditions. The conditions were even considered horrible for the time, which means in our 21st century lives, it would be unthinkable. The food supply was less than sufficient, and spoiled rather quickly. And with low or rotten food supplies, one has to expect the moral of the shipmen to very, very low. Also, if any of the men were to be sea sick, the conditions of the ship would worsen ten fold. Also, the chances of contracting a disease on the ship was way more likely than your chances of catching one with the ground troops. Also, punishment in the British Navy was very extreme. The slightest mistake on the ship could warrant death. Even though the punishment of the ground troops were severe, nothing could compare to the punishments that were practiced by the navy. With sick people possibly throughout the ship, low food, harsh punishment, and diseases prominent in the naval services, it seems wise to choose the British ground troops.
First I must insist that the title of this topic does not truly represent the question. Although people were very likely to get killed in either the army or the navy, people were also given many opportunities through war. Of these two choices the army stands out as the organization for more social movement. Many detainees in London were released out of prison into the army. From that point they had some ability to rise in the ranks. Others had the opportunity to desert the army and set up a new life in the Americas or possibly elsewhere in Europe and India. People in the army were less likely to die of disease than the soldiers in the navy. A majority of the seamen suffered from scurvy, lack of vitamin C, in the British navy. This shows the weakness of the technological advancements made by the British navy. Approximately 300 years earlier, China had already solved the problem scurvy on many of its diplomatic fleets by setting “fresh” fruits into the diet of its sailors. Captains of ships also had to be despotic in order to control their crew and prevent them from committing mutiny. They enforced this despotism by flogging; I’ve had enough punishments form my parents to know that punishments are not fun. Also when one serves in the navy they spend variable time at sea without returning to land. There is no deserting the navy, unless you can swim 100 miles or you kill yourself. The world record time for the mile is 14:34.56. That’s approximately 1 day of swimming at world record pace for a mile (not 100 and in rough waters) without food or drinkable water. Just for the negatives of the navy I would most definitely choose the army over the navy.
War, despite the universal knowledge that war is costly and detrimental to global society, it is a recurring theme in human history. To chose which position on the battlefield to be in is a difficult choice, navy or army. Both lead to a poor lifestyle and a certainty of death. Though by choosing correctly one may better his/her odds. If one joins the navy you risk getting scurvy, harsh punishments for mistakes, which may lead to death, drowning, getting lost at sea, being hit by cannon balls, bleeding to death from a bullet wound, and quick spread of disease on the ship. With all of these risks at hand the navy seems a unattractive option. Though a crew could take a mutiny against the captain and then sail/escape to a place they wouldn’t be known and avoid war. Though the chances of that happening is slim. In the army one has to endure strict and harsh training. Some requirements describe by Matthew C. Ward in his The Failure of British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley, 1755-1759 is for a soldier to be able to have a large amount of stamina to be able to maneuver quickly through dense woods and across rivers, be trained in carpentry to build fortresses, canoes, carts, etc. as a soldier one would have to tolerate small rations of food. On the battlefield soldiers would line up in groups as a tactic developed in Europe. But when fighting against the Native Americans who fought with no rules, the English suffered many casualties. Also as a soldier one was expected to fight to the death and if anyone tried to flee from the battlefield the general killed them. So if one chooses to be in the army there is no way out. Though you don’t have to risk drowning, getting lost, running out of food, or scurvy. From the two options and looking at the risks I would choose being in the army because you aren’t cramped in with many people, you always have sure ground beneath you, and if you’re smart you can move up in rank, if you’re lucky.
If I were ever forced to enlist in either the British Army or Navy during the 18th century, I would have to choose the army. Honestly, I would rather choose neither, but sadly that is not an option. One reason that I would choose the ground forces is that I really wouldn't want to be on a boat for such a long period of time. And with the abhorrent conditions on those ships, who would? The rules were extremely strict and the punishments were harsh. If you were whipped, then your wounds would likel become infected. The food was terrible and could be filled with maggots. If supplies ran low during a voyage, where were you going to restock? And due to the cramped quarters aboard the ship disease spread quickly. There was a very high risk of death aboard these ships.
That's not to say the army was any good, either. Disease was still a major factor, but it did not spread nearly as fast as it did on ships. In both the army and the navy it was likely that you would die, but in the army you at least worked in slightly better conditions. Emphasis on slightly. The army of course was involved in many battles on land and the army suffered high casualties. As bad as the British army was, the Navy was worse. I would never willingly serve in the British Navy. If given a choice, who would? After all, when the British captured people, they were forced into the Navy, not the army.
The British army and navy were both awful in the 18th century, but seeing as how I have to choose, I’m going with the army. I don’t care at all for the army, especially since many of the soldiers in the colonies were not trained for battle. They did not know how to defend themselves well, and during the French and Indian War, the Indians took many British soldiers hostage and scalped them. Though, these conditions seem pretty minimal when compared to that of the navy. In the navy, punishments were issued for the simplest things. There were no such things as accidents, so the captain (or the masters) would issue floggings because they supposed someone was surely neglecting their job. In the navy, everything depended on the decency of a captain. Most captains were brutal and merciless, believing in harsh discipline for the shipmates. They would give out dozens of whippings onto one man, forever changing his spirit. They did this to set an example for the rest of the crew; it was a warning. A minority of captains actually opposed outward flogging, and only resorted to the harsh measure of flogging under the direst of circumstances. An example of this type is Captain Cuthbert Collingwood. He did not believe in harsh punishments, and issued discipline through extra work. Collingwood resorted to violence only when he saw it was absolutely necessary. I like the sea, so if I had to pick between captain in the navy and a commander in the army, it would definitely be with Captain Collingwood with the navy (many British colonial commanders were awful at their job, officiating pathetic attempts at suppressing Indians who had home court advantage). Though these officers in the navy were awful, mortality rate in the army was higher, another reason why the navy is such a dismal choice. The deaths of many shipmates were high. A lot of the crew died from diseases that presented themselves in the disgusting filth attained in a ship. It seems to me that most of the crew did not know what the word hygiene meant. Or rather, many of them just didn’t know how important it was. In fact, it was not until the end of the 18th century that captains truly started worrying about hygiene. There were physicians present on the ship to combat the diseases that arose from the lack of hygiene, but it is evident that most did not know what they were doing. Their methods of combating diseases were ineffective. Only a few physicians among the ships really made a difference in the navy, one such physician was Gilbert Blane. He realized how important maintaining a clean environment was. He came up with such effective methods that only one person died on a voyage of his ship. A huge concern that truly makes the navy a horrible choice (aside from the punishments of course), the food was truly horrendous. The only way of maintaining ‘fresh’ food was through salt. Meat would be preserved for months, if not years. Breakfast came with oatmeal that was made from disgusting water stored by the ship. Dinner had meat and soup that again came from this water that was probably kept from the start of the voyage. This quality of food could also have been a contributing factor to the deaths, and it was probably a definite factor to the huge majority of people who deserted the navy between 1803 and 1805.
If the choice was to either serve in the British Army on land or the navy at sea, I would choose to serve on the land army; even though both were described as being horrendous. In the navy, one would be confined to an almost nonexistent living quarter since there were so many sailors and officers onboard the ships. A British sailors’ staple food would not be considered edible in today’s society, let alone in the 18th century. The meat on the ships were described as “darkened and hardened by age, these lumps bore little resemblance to meat” (Mostert 92). I would say that the biscuits onboard sounded even less appetizing since the biscuits were known to have contained maggots; a positive outcome of having insects in a sailor’s biscuit is that it would be their source of protein given that the salted meat contained small amounts. As a soldier in the land army, one can learn to recognize roots and plants that are suitable for eating or try to catch animals for nutrition. The punishments of the navy are a major reason as to why one would not wish to join. Depending on the ship’s boatswain or captain, the punishment would be “a dozen lashes (or)… three to four dozen lashes” (Mostert 82). The lashings were not only incredibly painful, but humiliating as well. Samuel Leech’s account explains that only two personalities can form from a flogging. Either the victim can emerge as a broken man or an angry and vengeful man. Flogging and lashing appear to be a familiar action to most sailors expect for the luckier ones who have kinder captains. A person new to the sea and to the navy would be in the most vulnerable position for punishments since they have no experience or knowledge of life at sea. For the smallest mistake, captains would issue lashings. Mostert also mentions that disease was a common way to die. The morality rate of dying from disease in the navy was three times that of normal Britons. That is not surprising considering the close quarters of the sailors and the unhygienic conditions of the ship. Yellow Fever was the most common amongst sailors; just breathing in the air of a diseased person can cause the illness to spread. It is choosing between the devil or the deep blue sea, but if the choice was to join the British land army or the navy, I would choose to serve in the land army.
If I had a choice in whether to serve in the British Navy or Army during the 18th Century, I would most definitely want to be in the British Army on land. I would never want to be in the Navy as they faced the worst conditions possible all the time. Sailors had to stay on a cramped, dirty ship for months at a time, living in awful squalor, eating rotten foods exposed to many diseases. Also, in the Navy, the danger from your Captain could be just as bad as that from the enemy. The punishments such as whippings could be so severe that many died from them. Also on sea, at the end of a battle, you were either alive or you would die. If your boat sank, you would eventually drown if you weren’t killed initially. By being a ground troop, you have much greater living conditions. While diseases were still spread, you would have access to fresh food and water and could get better medical care. Also, the way battles were fought allowed for more safety than on the sea. By standing in ranks, depending on where you were you could have a better chance of surviving than if you were on a boat. Even if you lost, if prisoner exchanges and formalities of surrender, you could still go home safely.
If I absolutely had to pick between serving in the British Army on land or the navy at sea, I would definitely choose to serve on land. The reason being plain and simple, being on a ship, especially one for the British Army, is horrible compared to withstanding battle on land. For one, when you’re on a boat, there is no guessing how bad the weather could get and how dangerous the conditions could get. Ships could sink, people could be thrown overboard, and of course people would be getting sea sick. Basically, being on that ship is putting your life at a great risk the entire time you are on it, even greater than the war on land. Also, disease was rampant among the British Army ships and because the ships were so small and confined, it was much easier for diseases to spread. If you happened to be the unlucky naval soldier to catch a disease, you would without a doubt be thrown overboard in order to prevent it from spreading to the rest of the crew. You could also be thrown overboard, or even more brutally tortured, as a punishment in the navy. Finally, because the navigation was not too advanced during this time, it would be easy for a ship to get lost at sea or end up in the wrong place. On the other hand, on land there would be no chance of being thrown overboard, lost at sea, and chances of getting a disease would be much less because it is not as crowded. Also, on land there is a more plentiful supply of food and other necessary items that typically can’t be found on ships or may run out. Although battles are highly dangerous, if you happened to be in the back lines of the troops, it would be less likely to get shot and die. Also, there would be the off chance of escaping and running away, which is not possible on a ship. Finally, it is easier to deal with harsh weather conditions and other environmental issues on land than somewhere in the middle of the ocean.
Both poisons would kill me, no doubt about it. If I had the option to choose between the two poisons, I guess I would choose the poison that would allow me to survive the longest, and therefore I would choose to be part of the British Army. I would rather serve in the British Army because the conditions the people serving in the Navy were horrific. Diseases, such as yellow fever, scurvy, smallpox, and much more, proved to run rampant in both the Army and the Navy. However, disease on a ship was, in my opinion, more deadly, for supplies were not always available, and the chances of being stranded were high. In the Army, the soldiers were allowed to travel with their families, a commodity that was not available to the men in the Navy. The Navy also had to face the threat of pirate attacks, which can be comparable to Native American attacks on land, except on an unstable ship. The battles out in sea were just as dangerous as battles on land. However, out at sea, there is a possibility that they shit you are on will sink. And if the ship really did go down during a battle, the people on it would be screwed unless they could either get on another ship and hope that the ship is a friend, or swim to shore. The foot soldiers, however, would have a greater chance in surviving if taken over by an enemy, because they would not be floating in a vast ocean, and therefore escape would be possible. Punishment in the Navy was probably worse than in the Army, for there was a chance that the wounds acquired from the "disciplinary action" would be fatal due to infection. All in all, the conditions in the Navy were harsh and gruesome, and I would not enjoy being in the Navy. Also, I get seasick, so the Navy is out of the question.
The British army and navy were both awful in the 18th century, but seeing as how I have to choose, I’m going with the army. I don’t care at all for the army, especially since many of the soldiers in the colonies were not trained for battle. They did not know how to defend themselves well, and during the French and Indian War, the Indians took many British soldiers hostage and scalped them. Though, these conditions seem pretty minimal when compared to that of the navy. In the navy, punishments were issued for the simplest things. There were no such things as accidents, so the captain (or the masters) would issue floggings because they supposed someone was surely neglecting their job. In the navy, everything depended on the decency of a captain. Most captains were brutal and merciless, believing in harsh discipline for the shipmates. They would give out dozens of whippings onto one man, forever changing his spirit. They did this to set an example for the rest of the crew; it was a warning. A minority of captains actually opposed outward flogging, and only resorted to the harsh measure of flogging under the direst of circumstances. An example of this type is Captain Cuthbert Collingwood. He did not believe in harsh punishments, and issued discipline through extra work. Collingwood resorted to violence only when he saw it was absolutely necessary. I like the sea, so if I had to pick between captain in the navy and a commander in the army, it would definitely be with Captain Collingwood with the navy (many British colonial commanders were awful at their job, officiating pathetic attempts at suppressing Indians who had home court advantage). Though these officers in the navy were awful, mortality rate in the army was higher, another reason why the navy is such a dismal choice. The deaths of many shipmates were high. A lot of the crew died from diseases that presented themselves in the disgusting filth attained in a ship. It seems to me that most of the crew did not know what the word hygiene meant. Or rather, many of them just didn’t know how important it was. In fact, it was not until the end of the 18th century that captains truly started worrying about hygiene. There were physicians present on the ship to combat the diseases that arose from the lack of hygiene, but it is evident that most did not know what they were doing. Their methods of combating diseases were ineffective. Only a few physicians among the ships really made a difference in the navy, one such physician was Gilbert Blane. He realized how important maintaining a clean environment was. He came up with such effective methods that only one person died on a voyage of his ship. A huge concern that truly makes the navy a horrible choice (aside from the punishments of course), the food was truly horrendous. The only way of maintaining ‘fresh’ food was through salt. Meat would be preserved for months, if not years. Breakfast came with oatmeal that was made from disgusting water stored by the ship. Dinner had meat and soup that again came from this water that was probably kept from the start of the voyage. This quality of food could also have been a contributing factor to the deaths, and it was probably a definite factor to the huge majority of people who deserted the navy between 1803 and 1805.
The British army and navy were both awful in the 18th century, but seeing as how I have to choose, I’m going with the army. I don’t care at all for the army, especially since many of the soldiers in the colonies were not trained for battle. They did not know how to defend themselves well, and during the French and Indian War, the Indians took many British soldiers hostage and scalped them. Though, these conditions seem pretty minimal when compared to that of the navy. In the navy, punishments were issued for the simplest things. There were no such things as accidents, so the captain (or the masters) would issue floggings because they supposed someone was surely neglecting their job. In the navy, everything depended on the decency of a captain. Most captains were brutal and merciless, believing in harsh discipline for the shipmates. They would give out dozens of whippings onto one man, forever changing his spirit. They did this to set an example for the rest of the crew; it was a warning. A minority of captains actually opposed outward flogging, and only resorted to the harsh measure of flogging under the direst of circumstances. An example of this type is Captain Cuthbert Collingwood. He did not believe in harsh punishments, and issued discipline through extra work. Collingwood resorted to violence only when he saw it was absolutely necessary. I like the sea, so if I had to pick between captain in the navy and a commander in the army, it would definitely be with Captain Collingwood with the navy (many British colonial commanders were awful at their job, officiating pathetic attempts at suppressing Indians who had home court advantage). Though these officers in the navy were awful, mortality rate in the army was higher, another reason why the navy is such a dismal choice. The deaths of many shipmates were high. A lot of the crew died from diseases that presented themselves in the disgusting filth attained in a ship. It seems to me that most of the crew did not know what the word hygiene meant. Or rather, many of them just didn’t know how important it was. In fact, it was not until the end of the 18th century that captains truly started worrying about hygiene.
There were physicians present on the ship to combat the diseases that arose from the lack of hygiene, but it is evident that most did not know what they were doing. Their methods of combating diseases were ineffective. Only a few physicians among the ships really made a difference in the navy, one such physician was Gilbert Blane. He realized how important maintaining a clean environment was. He came up with such effective methods that only one person died on a voyage of his ship. A huge concern that truly makes the navy a horrible choice (aside from the punishments of course), the food was truly horrendous. The only way of maintaining ‘fresh’ food was through salt. Meat would be preserved for months, if not years. Breakfast came with oatmeal that was made from disgusting water stored by the ship. Dinner had meat and soup that again came from this water that was probably kept from the start of the voyage. This quality of food could also have been a contributing factor to the deaths, and it was probably a definite factor to the huge majority of people who deserted the navy between 1803 and 1805.
Both the British army and navy in that time period sound pretty gruesome and brutal. However, if I had to choose I would go with the army. Both entities basically had impossible tasks and the likeliness of surviving either was very slim, but I think I would much rather like to die on land than be thrown or fall overboard. Plus, there is the whole claustrophobia issue. I could not handle being confined in such a small dirty place and not really have any person space or boundaries. The stingy air, horrible living conditions and lack of room would definitely not be tolerable for me. The punishment aspect as well scares me. One mistake and your taking you life into your hands. The sailors also need an impeccable work ethic and some luck just to avoid a beating. In such a small crude ship as well disease could take out an entire vessel, because there is simply no place to escape to. You are just stuck there around those same people with no options. Granted, the army is not much better. They still face some of the same challenges, but with slightly better working conditions, one being fresh air. Just the ability to breath can make things a whole lot better. You also can move around much more freely working on land and aren’t confined by any major barriers. And if worse comes to worse in the army there is also the possibility of running away. The conditions would probably be worse then, and you would be in a lot of trouble if they ever found you, but it is still an option that is not available on a boat. Personally I would much rather have to deal with guerilla warfare on land then risk being a sitting duck on an unlivable navy ship.
If I was forced to make a choice between joining the British military or the navy in the 18th century the my choice would be easily the military. First of all I would never trust the navigation tactics of the captains or the quality of the boats themselves. I would never want to be put in the position where I couldn’t help myself survive. Say a storm hits the ship I was on in the middle of the ocean. Even if you did survive the storm you would still be lost at sea with a piece of drift wood and the odds of survival would be pretty slim. Not everyone is saved like Swiss family Robinson and Tom Hanks in cast away. Just this would be enough to convince me to enlist in the military if forced to choose. However, this doesn’t even take into account the ever present risk of disease or actually dying in a battle on the seas. If that wasn’t enough, there were limited amounts of drinking water on board the ship and the only food on board was salty and stale. On a brighter side were the perils of a foot soldier. Life must have seemed great compared to the life of a navy man because you are guaranteed not to drown on dry land. Plus you have fresh water and better food. Sure disease and the risk of dying in battle were still prevalent, but at least you wouldn’t be trapped on a boat while diseased or getting shot at. And if worst came to worst, you could always run away while on land and live in the forest. But if you want to get away on a ship, you’d better be the next Michael Phelps.
If I had to choose between the British Army and the British Navy during the 18th century I would choose to do my service in the British Army. Both require large amounts of discipline and had very bad conditions to function in. However, I believe the Army would be the lesser of the two evils. While on see your fate relies on that of the sip. If the ship were to be attacked or if disease were to run rampant on the ship, you would have no control over your fate. The likelihood for disease on a ship would be much larger than that for the ground force. Food would be scarcer and the living conditions could be awful. In addition, it would be very hard to resupply once out of the port so if a ship were to run out of supplies, it would be very unlikely for the ship to get resupplied. Also, I would rather not get lashed and have salty sea water fly into the wounds.
The Army would also have very bad conditions but most not as bad as the Navy. You have a fairly good chance at surviving an attack while being surrounded by fellow soldiers getting shot at blindly by your enemy. The living conditions would also be improved because you are living on the land rather than on a ship. The Army could resupply easier and get needed supplies to soldiers faster. Neither option is favorable but if I had to choose I would choose the British Army.
I wouldn’t be able to, and simply would not serve in the war for various reasons. However, if I had to choose between serving in the British Army or the British Navy, I would choose the British Navy. Either way, I would pretty much be dead meat, but I chose the navy just for personal preference. Serving in the army meant lack of food, lack of sleep, marching in the freezing cold, and living in fear of constant Indian attacks. Serving in both the British Army and the Navy would be hard, and subject to harsh conditions, deathly diseases and cruel punishments. I would not have to worry about the punishments from disobedience, but I probably wouldn’t survive long if I was forced to serve in the army. I simply just cannot work and march like a machine and fight in any condition. I would certainly not be able to stand there and still fire at the enemy seeing my fellow soldiers going down next to me. Living under the fear of sudden Indian attacks will not do for me, at least with the navy I will be able to see the enemy ships or pirate ships coming. Although the navy also suffers from pirate attacks somewhat similar to those Indian attacks, I would rather not be scalped and tied to a tree by angry Natives. There is a possibility for the army to bring their family along with them, but for my personal preference, I wouldn’t think of putting my family in danger of war and Indian attacks. I would rather suffer and die miserably alone on a ship. There really is no winning in this; both serving in the Army and the Navy would be absolutely horrible. For my personal preference, I think I would rather serve in the Navy and die at sea than rot on a battlefield.
During the 18th century the British navy and army were both horrible but if i had to choose my "poison" i would choose the army. The army has conditions that are extremely better than the navy. In the Navy the sailors were cramped on ships where there were many diseases such as scurvy and yellow fever. Also if a ship was in a battle there was very poor maneuvering so if the enemy was about to shoot at you and you were turning away chances were that you were going to get shot and sink. As for the Army, the soldiers have a way better chance to survive because if a soldier was in the back of the formation, most likely the person in front was going to get shot before you. Also the army doesn't get as many diseases and can run away a lot more easily. In the Army however if you tried to runaway your commanding officer would come and kill you with his sword but if you tried to run away in the navy you would probably drown due to the fact that an ocean surrounds you. Lastly in the army if you did something wrong or cowered in fear chances were you would die from the hand of your officer, but in the navy if you did something wrong you would get whipped and have everyone see, so you can be the example. All in all both the army and the navy were horrible and if i had to choose between the two of them i would choose the Army.
During the 18th century the British navy and army were both horrible but if i had to choose my "poison" i would choose the army. The army has conditions that are extremely better than the navy. In the Navy the sailors were cramped on ships where there were many diseases such as scurvy and yellow fever. Also if a ship was in a battle there was very poor maneuvering so if the enemy was about to shoot at you and you were turning away chances were that you were going to get shot and sink. As for the Army, the soldiers have a way better chance to survive because if a soldier was in the back of the formation, most likely the person in front was going to get shot before you. Also the army doesn't get as many diseases and can run away a lot more easily. In the Army however if you tried to runaway your commanding officer would come and kill you with his sword but if you tried to run away in the navy you would probably drown due to the fact that an ocean surrounds you. Lastly in the army if you did something wrong or cowered in fear chances were you would die from the hand of your officer, but in the navy if you did something wrong you would get whipped and have everyone see, so you can be the example. All in all both the army and the navy were horrible and if i had to choose between the two of them i would choose the Army.
Based on the wretched conditions one would face either way, my choice would have to be the ground troops. The navy contained extremely more destructive conditions than the ground troops, as they were subjected to harsh weather conditions on the water, extensive trips across vast oceans, and close quarters at all times. Diseases including scurvy spread fast on board the large vessels, and malnourishment was more than common with the limited food supplies allotted per ship. It would have been terrible to try and survive based on only this, but these ships also had to face pirating and vicious attacks with no place to escape to. They could be driven off-course by a small screw up of the navigator, which could in turn doom the whole ship. It was often freezing in the northern waters, and drowning was more than likely a possible cause of death - one of my greatest fears. The ground troops at least had quarters to retreat to at night, and food was available on land that one couldn't access as easily on the water. The family was also often allowed to travel with the ground troops, an impossibility for the navy ships. Their punishments were not as severe as the navy's could be, where a man could face lashings for simple infractions a lieutenant viewed improper. I would much rather die from a bullet to the chest, my family nearby to mourn the loss, than on a dirty ship floating someplace far from home due to diseases and starvation.
Some interesting responses as well as some regurgitation of earlier responses. Please PROOFREAD. No British soldiers were EVER ATTACKED BY GORILLAS in the French and Indian War.
This is like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. I would rather not enlist at all, but if I had to choose, it would definitely be the army. Though really you cant truly rank one over the other, being in the navy definitely seems worse. Had I joined the navy instead of the army I would be forced to endure much of the same treatment except on a ship. In both the army and navy, conditions were brutal, treatment was harsh, and pay was extremely low. But in the navy you are on a boat 24/7 for months at a time. Diseases spread much faster in the close quarters of the ship I would be trapped on. While obviously I would not be able to avoid diseases either way, “treatment” would be much better on land. Also I think battles would be ‘better’ on ground. While more exposed on land because of the more modern lines of fire, I’d rather fight with my feet on the ground than on a boat that can sink easily and give me no chance for escape. Of course the guerilla warfare on land is nothing to sneeze at but a surprise attack at sea, I think, would be a lot more difficult to deal with and chances of getting through it were less. As for punishments, one was not exactly worse than the other but the aftermath was. Both on land and at sea infections were evident but because of the close quarters and lack of fresh air in the living quarters on ships, the probability is more. Also from what I read in the article by Peter Way, if I enlisted in the ground force there would be more than just fighting. The fact that I would possibly be able to continue my trade is slightly more desirable. Also the effect of weather becomes an issue. When given the choice of experiencing a crazy storm on land or at sea, I would without question chose land. The waves at sea would be so much more overwhelming than the just the rain on land. Overall both options are dreary. But if forced to choose, I would most definitely enlist in the army.
I would rather serve in the British Army than the Navy because of the terrible conditions on the ships and the fact that basically all of the odds are stacked against survival while on the ships. Ground troops may seem to have the worse deal offhand, because they are out in an open battlefield, but I would much rather die by gunshot than slowly and painstakingly because of disease on a ship. The conditions on the ships were very cramped, allowing diseases such as scurvy, yellow fever, and small pox to spread rapidly. Whereas on land disease still spread, but not nearly as fast because living spaces were nowhere near as confined. Plus I need to shower, and on the ships there were no proper showers. Also I don’t think I could live with that same crew of people in such close quarters for so long (months at a time), I tend to get annoyed with people easily so that would be a situation for disaster in itself. Also the food was moldy and infested with maggots and rats scurried around carrying diseases. I love good food- I absolutely need good hot meals, and rats are far too gross to be in my presence. Punishments such as floggings were also more severe than they were for the army, and no one likes lashings. I also get seasick easily, so the navy is an obvious no. But ships were easy targets for cannons which can easily take down the entire ship and then basically all aboard are doomed. Furthermore, whenever there was bad weather ships were tossed around like little toys that got lost among the rough waves. I prefer the army because you always have solid land beneath you and you don’t have to deal with seasickness on top of the pressure to shoot the other guy and the obvious fear of death. Also if you were placed in the back rank you’d have a lesser risk of being shot, but even if you weren’t in the back rank at least you have more of a chance of coming out alive as opposed to the navy in which everyone goes down with the ship. I’d rather endure the strict drills and formations, stuffy uniforms, and long marches in the army to avoid the intolerable lifestyle of the navy.
Choosing between serving in the 18th century British Army or Navy is difficult because life in both establishments was brutal. For those who were forced into serving in the military, it was like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. At that time, those who served in the military, especially the lower class rank and file soldiers, were very likely to die from either combat or the harsh lifestyle. If I was forced to choose between the army or the navy, I would definitely choose the army because it was the lesser of two evils.
Life in the army was harsh, but there were far fewer abusive officers than the navy. In the navy, a captain had absolute authority over the people on his ship. Although there were a few kind captains, most captains were cruel and abused their power. They ordered their crew to do a lot of hard work and treated them very poorly. They were also influenced by favoritism and often promoted incompetent people to the position of lieutenant. These lieutenants also abused their power. They gave sailors harsh punishments for petty things such as not working fast enough. Whipping and being tied on the mast for several hours were common forms of punishment. Unfortunately, most of these abusive officers were never brought to justice. I would rather endure hardships from marching to the enemy than suffer from abusive superiors.
Marching for many hours a day takes its toll on the body, but suffering from disease and malnutrition is much worse. The lower deck of most ships was very damp, which had a very negative effect on sailors' health. Dampness was one of the causes of the rampant spread of diseases among sailors. There were also tropical diseases such as tropical fever, which claimed the lives of many sailors. The lack of nutrition was another factor in the high mortality rate of sailors, which was three times that of people living in Britain at that time. Many sailors had scurvy due to the lack of fresh fruits and vegetables. Breakfast consisted of a type of oatmeal and dinner consisted of meat, which almost always had maggots in them. If I was going to die in the military, I would rather die by a bullet and suffer for a few seconds than suffer for months onboard a navy ship and die by tropical fever. For these reasons, I would rather serve in the British Army than the British Navy.
If I was forced into service in the 18th century and I had to choose between the British army and navy, I would have to side with the army. Being on a ship at sea; for an undetermined amount of time and having no escape; would seem like a prison to me. The army seems much bigger when everyone is crowded together and you can see all of the masses that are fighting with you. In the navy, though it may be the same size as the army, the navy is broken into each ship, and so each ship would seem to be too cramped and tiny. Being on a ship for a couple of months may seem better than constantly marching or always be prepared for battle, but these couple of months would drag on. Supplies would soon run out and the crew would have to resort to drastic measures in order to survive. At least the ground troops are able to use the environment around them and to eat off of the land. Being in such cramped conditions is also bad for disease and for living conditions, as disease and viruses could spread like wildfire. A simple cold could soon turn into something much more deadly if it spread to everyone, and the infected food was not helping their situations. The landscape would also remain the same at sea, and this was known to cause some sailors to grow crazy and seek the land. The chances of getting lost at sea were also much higher, and all of your faith rested with the captain of your vessel. Punishments also were a little harsher at sea. Though any bad behavior in the British services was strictly punished, the flogging and embarrassment the sailors experienced at sea could cripple them. The well-being of the crew and the daily tasks required to keep the ship sailing were also much more important, and required more attention than the land soldiers. The experience needed for the navy were much more advanced and draining than the army, and broke many of the young commoners that yearned for war. The navy would go many days without seeing conflict, and when an enemy ship was spotted, all hell would break loose. Casualties were almost always high, as one ship would always sink and the other would be declared the victor. The land soldier can see his enemy and can feel the satisfaction when he actually gets a kill, while a navy man is just shooting at an opposing vessel. In "Class and the Common Soldier in the Seven Years War" the land soldier was required to perform certain duties, and these were split up into two distinct categories: martial and civil labor. Besides engaging the enemy and preparing for the actual battle, soldiers were expected to "…cutting wood, making fascines, hunting for food, harvesting crops, etc." (466). These tasks seem mundane and relatively simple, and I believe that I could easily adapt to this lifestyle. Disease, while still prevalent and a deadly force in their lives, was also more bearable in the army, since it was harder to spread and was easily contained. The food was still portioned in the army, but it was not maggot-infested or hard. As I mentioned before, the ground forces had much more freedom and were less likely to get mercilessly flogged or beaten for their mistakes. Also, the sea sickness that the sailors endured does not help the navy’s case. Both are unbearable, but the army seems to be a tad bit easier and safer.
To choose my poison, I would prefer service as a soldier to that of a sailor in the navy. This is taking into consideration my enlightened position now, and the likely mindset of a farmer at the time.
Men entering the armed services in 18th century did so for three reasons: adventure, fame, and money. Warfare has been traditionally glorified as the epic conquest of heroes long past. Tales of bullet-torn battlefields and the wide open ocean drew men away from their dreary and constant lives in farming villages. The glory and regard associated with successful military commandment drew the bored rich aristocracy out of their manors and into service. With the chance, of course, the chance to earn a living while literally living ones dream, how could any day in the field compare to the opportunity a soldier embraced every day?
After all, the failures and the wounds are never sung in epic. The tales of those who die in battle, nameless and alone, cannot be told by the bards in the taverns. The whippings and the lashings, the labor and disease, are left out. No sane man would seek those freely.
As for the fear of death, patriotism conveniently beats that out of a man. What of death, if a man dies for his country? His sacrifice is worth a thousand times over that of an old farmer in his bed! Unless one is lazy and incompetent (which, of course, nobody ever is) death is a choice. It is the embrace of one’s fate as they bravely drive back an entire enemy company while their fellow soldiers can escape. It is the man who stays behind at the wheel and rams the enemy ship, while the crew escapes to win the war.
All these removed, I, a simple farmer in Britain, know only that I prefer work of the land to that of men at sea. No matter where a man is lost on land, he can survive by the fruits of his labor. But to be stranded upon the vast ocean, doomed to starvation or dehydration, is truly a terrible fate. Plus, it is always better to fight with sturdy ground under ones feet. If I am to face a bullet, I would rather do it on an honest field of battle, than to trust the waves and wind to be kind to my position. Disease, if I have ever heard of it, is either just as likely or unlikely at sea as on land.
Now, my personal thoughts. The written accounts of the Navy sound horrible. My happiness and physical wellbeing would be left, essentially, to the mood swings of my captain. Were he kind, being in the navy would be the preferable position. However, this was revealed to be unlikely. Cruel, on the other hand, and I could be subjected to continuous whipping without meaning or end. This discipline was considered necessary for the Navy to perform effectively. Men who were put under the whip were effectively broken for the rest of their lives. Within the miserably close quarters of a ship, disease was also likely to spread rampantly.
A soldier, on the other hand, was tired from more honest work. For them, digging a trench or chopping down a section of forest was the day-to-day work that drove them to fatigue. Just as much as fighting was their work, so was the construction of forts and defensive measures. The drilling was likely just as intense as in the navy, but necessary to fight effectively. During the winter soldiers were likely encamped in some sort of fort, which would be considerably more comfortable than a winter at sea. I would also be likely to travel with my family, which would provide a measure of comfort unavailable to those at sea. Regardless of how tiring work as a soldier could be, the overall soundness of mind and body would make one far more content than a whipped sailor alone at sea.
If put in the position of choosing between the Royal Navy and the British army, I would probably ask if the gallows were an option, as hanging is undoubtedly less painful than either of the choices. However, if not, I would have to choose the navy. In the army, it seems to me like suicide to line up across from your enemy and volley shots at each other until you lose the nerve to stand there any longer. Even then, you may end up being cut down by enemy bayonets, or even your own commanding officer. I doubt I’d require the sheer nerve to do this. When fighting, I'd rather be running around a ship, loading cannons or otherwise, than lining up and staying rooted in place, waiting for a musket ball to send me to the field hospital for amputation. Furthermore, time in the army would consist of marching through unknown, hostile, diseased, or otherwise dangerous countries; other than your fellow soldiers, you are all alone, surrounded by your enemies. Although the navy similarly faces isolation, I feel the isolation is different in being surrounded by the sea, not unfamiliar land filled with people who probably want to kill you. This is not to say I would enjoy the navy in any way. I’m sure the stress of service was intense, and as Mostert says, “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” (77). Life in the Navy entailed tours, far from home, lasting extended periods of time, long enough to make anyone miss home. Captains and other warrant officers could become absolute tyrants, dealing out floggings for frivolous misdemeanors, with no recourse; sure, you might be able to get them court-martialed, but you’d have to endure your tour for weeks on end before you could think of getting to that. Floggings could easily leave you maimed for life, and with a bitter hatred of your superiors. This is definitely NOT a recipe for an efficient ship. Furthermore, disease and unsanitary conditions were virtually ensured in the cramped spaces and living quarters below deck. I highly doubt the ship surgeon’s blade is any less painful than the field surgeon’s. Knowing full well of the unsanitary conditions and vicious punishments the Royal Navy experienced, I would still choose service on the sea over time in the British army. I think the navy, with good behavior, might give a slight chance at survival; battles in the army ensured a swift and very painful death.
If I lived in 18th century Great Britain and I had to choose between serving in either the British military or the British navy… I would probably choose the military. Although neither choice is necessarily appealing, in my opinion, the military would be the “lesser of two evils”. This opinion is mostly based on the fact that the military serves on land, and there are more places to run/hide from danger on land. If you are being shot at on land, you could potentially dodge behind a tree or in a ditch or the like; whereas if you were being shot at on a ship out at sea, there is nowhere you can run that is not on that same ship! If the ship is going down, you’re going down. So, you wouldn’t even have a chance of saving yourself, as opposed to your chances on land, which are still slim, but nevertheless, higher than at sea. Although I am aware that British military code during this time period ruled that all soldiers stand in a specific formation based on rank, that low rank soldiers were on the front line, and that technically, you would not be allowed to run away if you were being shot at; that denomination still plays a role as one of my deciding factors in this question because I feel as though that rule would not stop me from trying to run away from balls of lead flying through the air, heading my way! If some of the soldiers in your group are going down, that does not necessarily mean that you are too. If you wanted to get real technical about it, I would not even have to choose between the army and the navy, because women were not even allowed to serve in either one. Anyway, continuing with the above reasoning, if you were to die in combat on land, at least you would die on land and your body could be later recovered and given a proper burial. If you were to die at sea however, your body would soon become fish food, and the thought of my malnourished, and probably diseased body being ripped apart by sharks and what not does not exactly appeal to me! This is not to say that I like to think about my body being buried in the ground either, but I have to say that that is a more peaceful thought than being defiled by sea animals. At least in the military, you would be well fed during your service and there is a lower likelihood of illness because you are not stuck in a small, crowded, damp area; a.k.a, prime real estate for disease-causing bacteria. Think about it logically, if there are 100 people in a small, wet room that is either too hot or too cold, and 5 of those people are deathly ill, whether they have a viral infection or a bacterial infection does not matter; if it is viral, it can and will easily spread from person to person due to the close contact; and if it is bacterial, it can and will easily spread because all of the people are equally exposed to the bacteria. If the same situation occurred in a wide open field, viruses are less likely to spread rapidly because people are not as smushed together, and bacteria is less likely to infect a large amount of people, it is logical to assume that less people will die as a result of disease. Also, the punishments for mistakes (accidental or otherwise) were much more severe in the navy than the military. The naval captains might whip you, or even tie a rope to your ankles, throw you overboard, and pull you under the ship and back onto the other side. These punishments seem very intimidating to me, I think that if the punishment itself didn’t kill me, the fear would. Although the military was not exactly a walk in the park either, it is still more appealing than the navy. It is the sort of situation where the decision is “six of one, half a dozen of the other”, but not quite, I would have to say that the military is just ever so slightly, the “lesser of two evils”.
I would prefer to serve in neither the British Army on land nor Navy at sea, but if I had no choice, I would go with the Army.
Both occupations were miserable. Men in the army not only had to fight, but also were responsible for mundane jobs such as digging latrines, cutting wood, and cleaning barracks. As the Seven Years War displayed, they also had to fight in foreign lands against enemies with unfamiliar tactics, but were required to stay in lethal formations that made them perfect targets. The traditions of the British Army put the nation’s pride before soldiers’ lives.
On the other hand, sailors could start as young as three years old. My brother is that old, and he can barely clean up after himself when he plays with his toy trucks; how could he be expected to do manual labor? Moreover, the possibility of being flogged by the “cat” seems incredibly painful and humiliating, especially if a dozen lashes was considered the minimum. The salty sea air must have even sharpened the pain for the unfortunate victims. Even worse, being “flogged around the fleet,” to the point where a hanging is considered merciful, does not sound like something I would like to chance.
Being a sailor meant potential internal pain as well as external. Illnesses were rampant on board, ranging from ordinary seasickness to scurvy, dysentery, or even tropical fevers. Having any of those would be miserable, but the effects and treatments are just as terrifying. I would not want to be trapped in an environment filled with men vomiting or leaving “dirt” everywhere. Furthermore, although some doctors did treat malaria and yellow fever with actual medicine such as cinchona bark, there were still doctors in that time who believed in bleeding patients to relieve them of the pestilence in their bloodstreams. I would rather to be in the army and not contract tropical fevers, because losing blood when I’m already sick does not sound pleasant.
Sailors also had to depend on pursers for the quality of supplies, including the food, wine, clothing, bedding, and firewood, and the quantity of wages. If the purser was even a bit gluttonous or selfish, the sailors would have to consume food of even worse quality than normal, which was not desirable in the least. In the Navy, the staple foods were salted meat that was at least a few months old, hard biscuits filled with writhing maggots, dirty drinking water, and wine. The alcoholic drinks lasted the best, so sailors were almost always drunk. It would be just as nauseating to be constantly surrounded by drunken men as to gnaw on a maggot-biscuit. It makes sense that the death rate of sailors is 3 times that of normal British citizens.
Although being a sailor had potential benefits, such as the possibility of raising in rank, regardless of background, if there was a “sympathetic captain” and I was “of outstanding character and ability” (Mostert 79) or having a good captain like Nelson or Collingwood, both of whom rarely flogged their sailors, I would still pick being on dry land and marching in formation with the British Army over the British Navy.
After reading both sources on the issue, neither the British Army nor Navy appeared to a desirable choice, to say the least. However, the lesser of the two evils would be the Army, for several reasons. Firstly, the inherent dangers of simply being on a boat during the time, given the cleanliness, overcrowding, and constantly festering disease, were horrendous. Smallpox, various fevers, and scurvy were possible to contract at any moment, and without anywhere near adequate medical supplies, disease was able to spread without restraint. Members of the Navy were forced to scrub decks, hoist sails, and conduct warfare, all in an environment where the slightest cut could lead to a fatal infection. To add insult to injury, in a literal sense, if a small injury deterred a sailor from his work, he could be flogged mercilessly or thrown into a sea of freezing water as a method of motivation.Also, given a second-rate captain could result in the ship being misdirected, and the entire crew could be stranded, left to die without food or clean water. During battle, sailors were given a variety of jobs, but regardless of which station they manned, everyone was at risk of being hit by either a cannonball itself or the deadly shrapnel that would ensue. In the Army, the living conditions, quality of food, and general atmosphere was better than those in the Navy. Sleeping in tents, and being able to eat fresh food ransacked from a village were both steps up from the cramped life of a sailor. Also, at certain opportune times, it was possible for a foot soldier to run away and escape, an option not available on a ship. While both option are duly horrendous, I would ultimately choose the British Army over the Navy.
If you haven't posted you are late.
Asahi
I am wondering if I can just claim that I am a pacifist, because both of these “poisons” sound dreadful. But if maybe Mr. Kirby is making me pick with my grade on the line I would much rather be on ground in the British Army. At first the Navy sounds much better due to its reputation of being the best in the world, the invincibility, and the discipline. However as we could deduce from the reading this was obviously not true. It was written that there was no valor and discipline from the sailors, but rather it was forced upon them with hatred and disdain. It was normal to receive between two to four dozen whiplashes as punishment for something small or big depending upon the mood of the Captain. I feel personally that a sailor’s life is much too restricted for me. The life style is also completely is also something that sounds miserable. I don’t know if I would ever get sea legs or not upchuck on something that can be sunk, tips back and forth depending on the weather, where maggots roam the food, cleanliness is just a word as people are vomiting and excreting and peeing when they cannot make it to the bathroom on time. The latter part of this also means diseases like yellow fever, scurvy, and smallpox, things that could potentially be fatal. I would detest never being completely dry, being unable to get fresh food, or not being able to see land (note that this inherently means not being able to see anyone of the opposite). It is more likely that I will be happier in the army because I could be a nurse, I would be on solid ground and enjoy all the benefits of that, and I could possibly travel with my family. I would also definintely have a higher chance of survival because I have my own mind if I need to protect myself it is in my own capabilities, whereas on a boat if it sinks, well I am going to sink too. Its also much less stressful then being on a boat because supplies can be restocked, less likely to be stranded in the middle of nowhere without any help. So obviously in comparison the army is significantly better than the navy, but I think I will change my name and escape before being forced in to armed services, or maybe jump off the side of the ship, hopefully I will not have to actually ever think about this.
Asahi
I am wondering if I can just claim that I am a pacifist, because both of these “poisons” sound dreadful. But if maybe Mr. Kirby is making me pick with my grade on the line I would much rather be on ground in the British Army. At first the Navy sounds much better due to its reputation of being the best in the world, the invincibility, and the discipline. However as we could deduce from the reading this was obviously not true. It was written that there was no valor and discipline from the sailors, but rather it was forced upon them with hatred and disdain. It was normal to receive between two to four dozen whiplashes as punishment for something small or big depending upon the mood of the Captain. I feel personally that a sailor’s life is much too restricted for me. The life style is also completely is also something that sounds miserable. I don’t know if I would ever get sea legs or not upchuck on something that can be sunk, tips back and forth depending on the weather, where maggots roam the food, cleanliness is just a word as people are vomiting and excreting and peeing when they cannot make it to the bathroom on time.
Asahi #2
The latter part of this also means diseases like yellow fever, scurvy, and smallpox, things that could potentially be fatal. I would detest never being completely dry, being unable to get fresh food, or not being able to see land (note that this inherently means not being able to see anyone of the opposite). It is more likely that I will be happier in the army because I could be a nurse, I would be on solid ground and enjoy all the benefits of that, and I could possibly travel with my family. I would also definintely have a higher chance of survival because I have my own mind if I need to protect myself it is in my own capabilities, whereas on a boat if it sinks, well I am going to sink too. Its also much less stressful then being on a boat because supplies can be restocked, less likely to be stranded in the middle of nowhere without any help. So obviously in comparison the army is significantly better than the navy, but I think I will change my name and escape before being forced in to armed services, or maybe jump off the side of the ship, hopefully I will not have to actually ever think about this.
During the 18th century, the life of a British army man would have been much easier than the life of a British Navy sailor.
The boats in the British Navy were vile and disgusting places. Diseases ran rampant and death from spoiled food was a real danger for sailors. An injury at sea would almost be certain death for those afflicted. The lack of a sanitary place to treat wounds would kill as many, if not more than the actual fighting itself. Not to mention that the fighting was just as dangerous as that on land. Giant cannon balls and could sink the boat in one shot, fire was a real risk, and these combined made life dangerous and tough. Also the treatment of soldiers by the commanding officer was worse, and pirates did not follow the same rules as the navies of Europe.
The life of the soldier was also dangerous, but it was not nearly as dangerous as that of a sailor. Wounds were much easier to treat, food was fresher, and death from gunfire was a much less risk. Fire was also not a threat when on land. Also, when a boat sank, everyone on board was killed, if your army got attacked, there was a chance that you would live. There are also standards for warfare, and prisoners were often exchanged, meaning that your life would be saved, while you would die at sea.
Basically, life in the British military services sucked, but being a land troop suck a lot less than being in the Navy.
It is really hard to choose between the British Army on land or the navy at the sea. Both had their own advantages and disadvantages but if I had to choose one, I would choose the British Army. Life at sea was terrible. Your enemies were diseases, punishments like the cat-o-nine-tails, and even human errors. If you made a mistake you could be severely punished or a small mistake because of the navigator could lead to your death. You could be robbed, barricaded, or attacked. There was no way to escape but die on the ship. If you ran out of food, there was nothing that could be done about it and you would die because of starvation. If you were attacked and drowned, who knows if your family would be informed about your death. The living conditions were horrible too. The living quarters were small and it would be really tough to live with other soldiers. The weather would also be a problem. You never know when winter, especially storms, would come and if resources were available for it. It also depends upon the condition of the ship. There was also no back-up help if you needed extra help.
The British Army was slightly better. Personally, I can’t just sit or stay in one place for a long time. I need to move around which is one reason why I would prefer the British Army over the navy. Being in the army meant that you would have resources available. You could call in for extra help if needed. Although the help would arrive late, it would arrive. If you were sick, you could get proper treatment. Punishments were not that harsh, at least it would not be the cause of your death. You could replenish your sources if you won a fight against your enemy. The food was better than the navy. The navy provided you with infested biscuits and old salted meat that would cause diseases and sickness. Army was more civilized because you could stay in the houses of the civilians in the towns you passed by. You could also have your family with you. The army had weak weapons but that meant that the other side also had weak weapons. The army could go from one place to another if they were in danger.
Both the army and navy had their pros and cons but if I had to choose one it would have been the army because your chances of survival are higher than the navy.
If I was living in the 18th century and had to choose between being a regular in the british army of the navy, i would choose the army. The life of a soldier in the army would have been much better than that of one in the army.
People serving in the navy would have been subject to violent storms that would rock the small boat violently, and personally, i dont do well with the pitch and roll of boats. Furthermore, men in the navy were subject to staying in the same, small, unsanitary boat for long periods at a time, leading to horrible life conditions and rampant sickness. Also, men in the navy would not be able to see there family for extended periods of time, while those in the army could choose to bring their family along.
Lastly, if i were to die in service, i would want it to be a quick and clean death from a bullet, as opposed to sickness on a boat or drowning on a sinking ship.
In conclusion, the army would be more appealing to me because of the better living and working conditions, proximity to family, and the quick and clean death
Both the navy and army seem to be bad choices, but I would choose the army. This is because in the navy, I would be paranoid of the dangers that would be presented. If one person on a ship has a disease like Yellow Fever, it would be likely that it would quickly spread across the ship due to the tight living conditions. The lack of medicine and knowledge on sicknesses such as scurvy made ships dangerous places. Being on water for a long time also isn't suitible, and I would rather march to places and face the chance of guerrilla attacks. I could not stay on a ship for extended amounts of time, especially if it was in enemy territory. I also think it's easier to die on a ship; mutany, storms, and attacks proved to be fatal. A lost battle on a ship would cause the ship to sink, killing the entire crew. At least on land, there is higher possibility of living than swimming to shore if I was on a ship. The punishments on land seem to be better than the navy. I'd rather not get severly whipped or undertake a keel-hauling, which not only cuts open your skin, but being submerged in salt water could cause you to pass out. When you are injuired on a ship, it is harder to get medical attention further than the doctor on board. However, on land, it is easier to move somewhere else, because the rest of your mates are not bound together, like on a ship.
I would prefer to be part of the British army rather than the navy for several reasons. In the Navy sailors were stuck on a ship the entirety of their time, doing job after job all day long just to maintain the ship. Additionally the ships were a hotbed for diseases, and sickness which could cause death just as likely as a gunshot. Added to that the probability of dying in battle on land or on sea was the same, so with the danger of disease, life in the Navy was more dangerous. In the Army you have a shot, although a small one of surviving an injury by amputation, on the ship however, if the ship goes down no one will be surviving. Ships also have limited supplies so if the food goes rotten then the crew is stuck unless another ship can resupply them, where the army is on land and have supplies brought to them as long as they have a port to use. Granted the Army was using stupid line fire tactics against a guerilla army but at least you know what is trying to kill you and the active danger was less than being on a ship.
I would definitely not serve in either the Army or the Navy, even in light of punishment or death (considering you would probably be punished or killed while in the military anyway). But for the sake of the discussion, I will choose a side.
Keeping all living conditions aside, I would enlist in the Army without even considering the Navy. The comfort of remaining on solid land is much better than being stuck on a man-made ship in the middle of the sea. Furthermore, even if you compare the living conditions, the Army is much better. Yes, it is true that there was exposure to deadly diseases such as dysentry, sub-par medical care and almost no hygiene. But the same exact problems were at sea plus the complication of being confined to a few dozens of meters of space with many other people.
Also, your survival at sea is dependent on the action of others. For example, if your captain doesn't know how to control a ship, you'll capsize without anywhere to run away to. On the other hand, if your commander in the Army was incompetent, you could at least take your chances at desertion. In the Army, the possibility of running out of food and potable water was low, whereas in the Navy it was another problem that had to be dealt with.
In summary, it's hard to find any great advantages to being in either the Army or the Navy. Either way, the chance of serious injury or death are relatively high. But where you can find any differences between the conditions, the Army seems to be the easiest to deal with.
Post a Comment