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?
Response due by 12/23
44 comments:
After reading the articles, I would much rather have been a soldier than a member of the navy. There are many reasons for this. While the British did suffer some defeats at the hands of enemies fighting in different styles of war, I feel that I would be much more likely to survive as a soldier than as a sailor.
On ships during the 1700s, conditions were brutal. While it was definitely not easy being a foot soldier, they had to deal with things that are more in the scope of my ability. Being on a ship meant that you were at the mercy of the ocean and storms. I would never be able to deal with this, and would probably become seasick immediately. On land, things were different. Soldiers were formed into regiments. As a relatively tall person, I would probably be place closer to the back of the column in order to make it easier to the people in front to shoot. This order would probably keep me safer than someone located at the front of the column. However, this was not always the case. During the settlement of America, British soldiers faced natives quite often. The British used their own tactics of lining up in columns to face the enemy. The natives, on the other hand, would fight in a guerilla style. This left the British confused and vulnerable, because up until this point, the British were used to the “etiquette of war.”
British sailors had to deal with significantly worse conditions. They were confined to a small ship for months at a time, and those ships were known to be infested with rats and other vermin. Lower rank soldiers had their quarters in the lower decks of the ships, were it was dark, wet, and often horribly hot. The best locations for sleeping were given to officers, and were located on the upper decks. At least soldiers lived in quarters that were a little more comparable to those of their leaders.
To conclude, I would much rather be a soldier than a sailor. The conditions sailors faced were much worse than those of soldiers. While both jobs were dangerous, I feel that sailors had a much higher chance of dying than soldiers.
After comparing and contrasting the articles, I came to the conclusion that I would have preferred to be a soldier rather than a member of the navy. Now a days, this decision would probably be different because there might be more of a chance to live one was in the navy rather than the army. Even though the British were defeated at times because they were not equipped for the enemies’ style of fighting, I think a soldier at that time had more of a chance to live than a member of the navy.
Conditions in the navy in the 1700s were much different then they are now. At any time, fighting from ship to ship is going to be a violent battle for sure. However, during the 1700s the conditions were especially vicious. Neither a soldier nor a member of the navy is an easy position. In my opinion, I would feel more comfortable being on land fighting than at sea. When fighting at sea, if you are not shot there is still a chance that the ship can sink and you may die anyway. The way that the British army was set up was that there were columns of soldiers lined up to shoot the enemy. They were arranged in height so I would most likely not be placed in the first row. When the shooting begins it would be harder for the enemy to shoot me because of my position in the column. Also if you are fighting on land I think there is more of a chance you will get out alive rather than on a boat. The British were used to always being positioned in an orderly manner prepared to fight. But when they would come across natives and they would have to fight them it would not be in the proper fashion they were used to. The natives would fight guerilla style and the British were not prepared for this. That is probably the biggest negative of being a British soldier compared to the many that come along with being a sailor of that time period.
In my opinion, the conditions that a British sailor had to face were much worse than those of a British soldier. The British sailors were cramped into a small ship for long periods of time. These ships were not very well kept either, there were many rats running around along with other types of rodents. Soldiers did not have to deal with these kinds of situations where they would be out at sea; they were on land which is more secure to me. Also, only the officers received the nicer living areas on the ship. Lower rank sailors were forced to sleep on the bottom deck in small, dark and cold rooms. The quarters that British soldiers lived in were much more like those of their officers. In conclusion, I believe that the conditions faced by British sailors are more dangerous and I would be less likely to survive than those of a British soldier. That is why if I had the choice in that time period I would rather be a British soldier than a British sailor.
After reading the articles I would much rather be in the army than in the navy. Although neither option is appealing and both have extreme downsides, being a soldier would provide for an overall better and safer life. Overtime the British faced defeats at both land and sea but the chance of survival during these wars seems much higher for a soldier in the army.
In the navy you have many more aspects working against you than in the army. Soldiers definitely did not live safe healthy lives but the navy conditions seem much worse. As a member of the navy you had to not only worry about the aspects of war but life on a ship. With life on a small ship comes damage from unexpected, uncontrollable storms along with sickness spread throughout the ship, and the infestation of rats and vermin. The most common soldiers, those of lower rank, were forced to have the bunks on the lowest levels of the ship. The area was the most damp and uncomfortable.
Soldiers seemed to live more organized and structured lives being divided into regiments and ranks. Although war is never safe, soldiers have fewer opportunities to be killed. While navy members were weakened by sickness and life at sea then having to face the enemy, soldiers only had to face the enemy. The overall life style of the army seems better than the navy so I would much rather be a soldier on land, than a navy member at sea.
After reading the articles, I would much rather be in the army than the Navy. While if I had a choice I’d pick neither in a heartbeat, it seems as if I would have better living conditions and a better chance of surviving if I was a soldier in the Army.
One reason for my choice is that I would be absolutely terrified of being stationed on a ship. While I don’t get sea sick and actually enjoy cruises, I most definitely would be claustrophobic being cooped up on the ship. In addition, the ships were in horrible conditions and some were even found to be rat infested. If I wasn’t an officer, I would have ended up sleeping on one of the bottoms decks where it’s damp and cramped. Also, there are more risks of not making it out alive when you are in the Navy. I would need to be concerned with getting shot, getting sick from the horrible and cramped living conditions, or most importantly, what if the boat gets damaged? If an enemy manages to damage the ship it is almost inevitable everyone on it would drown, especially because I would be living in the lowest quarters of the ship.
Another reason for my choice is because if I were in the Army, I would know the specific times for battle, would fight in that battle, and then would be able to return to my camp (even though the conditions of the camp may not be ideal). However, if I were in the navy, there would be no escaping the battle scene. At any moment an enemy ship could arrive, so you would always need to be on high alert of an enemy attacking or even an enemy who has sunk your ship.
After reading the articles provided, there is no doubt in my mind that I would rather be in the army fighting on land, than in the navy fighting at sea. It is clear that with both options there will be suffering and horrific conditions, the chance of survival on land seems to be greater.
On the ships of the navy during the 1700's there were a plethora of disgusting conditions we would think insane to endure nowadays. One of these being the extremely cramped and packed living space with many smelly men without showering for a very long time. Although in the army most did not shower, you have much more space and fresh air to relieve you of the scents. In addition to this, disease spread rapidly and rat infestations were common. Lastly, your life was at the hands of the sea and the storms because at any time a storm could arise and wipe out your entire crew.
Being a soldier was not considered easy living by any means. With this being said, the pros of being on your own two feet in open air makes me considerably more interested in the army. Also, it was not continuous bad conditions because you had to go fight certain battles that could last a while, but you were then allowed to go back to base where the living conditions were nowhere near as bad as that of the navy. Lastly, the army is much more organized with it's specific regiments and battalions and so on. The navy seemed to be extremely hectic all the time with little structure during battle. I believe the lifestyle and conditions of a soldier would suit me much better than the navy in almost every way possible.
After gaining some background knowledge on the subject of the British Military, I can say without a doubt that I would much rather be in the British Army than be at sea in the British Navy. The British Army sounds pretty dreadful but the Navy sounds unbearable. The close quarters of a ship can be horrible and even worse when it is swaying constantly. The chance of actually hitting the enemy in some battles was almost impossible. The life on board the ship also seemed like a horrible time. First of all the captain was never to be questioned, there was not much connection to the mainland which meant that the captain had complete control. If there was something he didn’t like, he could give you pretty much any punishment he liked. In The Line Upon a Wind Samuel Leech gives a good description of how whipping was used for punishment. Another bad thing about the navy was the living conditions. Disease quickly spread and there wasn’t much of a medical staff so sickness and injuries were a real big issue. I believe that I would much rather be on land and deal with the natives that love surprise attacks than be at sea.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011British Navy and Army
Although the Navy rose as the dynamic military branch in the evolution of in the western world in the 17th century, the army still held safer conditions and circumstances to fight for. There was no way of knowing what you were in for in the British Navy. Everything from the equipment to weather was unpredictable not in only times of battle but everyday drilling. The army held a safer experience on solid ground. There were numerous flaws to the new naval forces and too many risks involved. The army proposed a more trustworthy and secure setting to fight for.
To begin with the British Navy was not exactly the most dependable and easy to predict branch of their military at the time. In the book "The line upon a wind:" the author points out the lack of and weakness of military plans directly related to the weather which the British naval officers had no awnser for and could only pray for the best in battle. One such battle described in this book was the battle at Fort Mahon against the French during the "Seven Years War." As opposed to the British admiral instructions to line up parallel to the French forces their fleet was turned sideways due to the prevailing winds. Ultimately this ended in an extreme tragedy for the British Naval fleet under the command of Matthew. Other instance occured when british ships were not built properly for sea endurance and led to occassional storms that sometimes wiped out British Naval war vessels. Instances and unpredictable disasters like this would turn me away from serving under the British Navy. In addition the Navy still had not developed sufficeint sea technology and equipment making war even more dangerous than before during this time. An example was the lack of a navigational system on water. The army's maps had been more developed and held more depth than any of the Navy's navigation equipment.
Overall the army provides a safer and more experienced version of serving in the British army as opposed to the Navy. In conlcusion equpiment, military strategy, and even the weather are unsteady and potently dangerous reasons for joining the British Navy of the 18th century. Being a soldger was a much better deal than being a british sailor during this time period.
Maggie Kulpa
After reading the article it is clear that I would much rather be a soldier on land than in the navy during the 18th century. While both choices have positives and negatives, being a soldier seems much more pleasing than being in the navy at sea.
First off, being in the navy requires one to be on a ship most of the time. This is a definite negative with the conditions that living was like in the 18th century on these ships. The living conditions were often times unpleasing and the fighting done on the ships was very violent. At any time, ships could go into battle with each other, bombing and setting each other on fire. This means that the chance of death would be much higher than the soldier on land that is being shot at by an undeveloped weapon and 4 men deep in the formation. For the reasons of living conditions on ships and a higher chance of death, being on a ship at almost all times seems to be a very large negative at the time.
Although being a soldier on land has negatives such as facing the different fighting style of the natives or being on a true battle field with people being shot in front of you, I feel that it would be much better to be a soldier on land during the 18th century.
After reading the articles, I would prefer to be a soldier in the army, rather than the navy. Although both positions are not very appealing, the chances of surviving in the army are much greater than that of naval soldiers. This is due to the fact that being on a boat out at sea puts the navy at an extreme disadvantage to the army.
Since the naval soldiers are all living cramped together on the same boat, the conditions are not pleasant and very dirty. For example, rats and other small pests commonly infest ships at sea, which can contribute to the rapid spread of disease. Since the boat is only so big, there is no way to avoid those who are sick. Everyone is in such close quarters that disease among shipmates would spread quickly, and weaken their defenses against enemies. Also, having all the men on one ship allows the enemy to not only attack them individually, but as a group. If the enemy ship is able to damage the opposing ship enough, it could eventually sink. This would lead to the drowning of each naval soldier, completely eliminating the naval forces. The navy had no way of knowing when battles were going to be fought, so they had to be prepared at all time. It would also be difficult to keep the group onboard the ship organized in battle.
However, the army seems like a much better choice when the two are compared. Although the conditions were not much better than the navy, the chance of survival is increased. Since the army is much more organized, they can move quickly into formation and be ready for battle. Since they are arranged by height, I would most likely be towards the middle or the back, rather than the most vulnerable front line. This would significantly increase my chances of survival in an attack, since I would be protected by those surrounding me. Also, the army has the advantage of the land. They can use landforms to take cover or become hidden to their enemies. A navy ship could not do this, since they are simply floating in the middle of the ocean with no kind of protection.
After comparing the two options, it becomes obvious that the navy has much worse conditions than the army, and much lower survival rates. Personally, I would opt to become a foot soldier in the army rather than a naval soldier.
After comparing the artcicles provided, I believe that the lives of both British soldiers and sailors were extremely difficult, but if I were forced to choose one, I believe I would choose to be a soldier.
As a soldier, life certainly was not easy. Most soldiers were unaccustomed to the guerrilla warfare style of the native people. They were trained for the fields of the European battles and were used to drills and massed infantry. In this style of warfare, sharpshooting was not considered important. Thus, the warfare of the natives was a shock. The soldiers were also shocked by the psychological tactics employed by the natives to demoralize military forces. Indian parties might capture stragglers from the army, then pin their scalps to the trees in front of the army. Thus, the soldiers were warned of the brutality of the natives. Overall, the warfare of the natives succeeded in undermining military morale. Soldiers also struggled with shortage of manpower in North America, poor transport, and economic difficulties. Though there were successes on the battlefield, the life of a soldier in the British army was not one of ease or comfort.
Nonetheless, I feel that I would quite prefer to have been a soldier to a member of the British Navy. British sailors had to spend prolonged amounts of time essentially trapped aboard these ships. The hardship and torment that accompanied this occupation was extremely difficult to endure. Sailors accepted a very strict code of obedience. Conditions did vary to some extent, depending on the captain in charge of the ship, and for some, conditions might be better under a heroic captain, who garnered the respect and devotion of his men. Even still, the harshness of the discipline was severe. Some captains readily turned to flogging in order to discipline his men. One horrible punishment available was to be flogged around the fleet. The victim could receive up to five hundred lashes with the crews of all the ships on deck to observe. This was not only painful, but also extremely humiliating. It is easy to see why so many men deserted as soon as they had the opportunity. There were some positive elements of a life in the British navy, such as the bonds between the sailors, but the lifestyle was far too strict for my taste. Additionally, the ships were vehicles of sickness, with poor ventilation, a permanently damp atmosphere, and polluted air. Disease spread rapidly in these conditions. Men often suffered from dysentery, scurvy, and seasickness, and death from yellow fever and malaria was common. In fact, the death rate of the Royal Navy was three times that of typical British people. Men on ships also were forced to endure a diet that was revolting and lacking in nutrition.
Though neither occupation appeals to me, I feel that the negative aspects of life as a member of the Navy would far outweigh those of a position as a soldier. I would much rather remain on land than suffer at sea.
Although it is clear that neither the army nor the navy of eighteenth-century Britain were places anyone would want to find themselves in, if I were forced to pick between the two of them I would most likely choose the Navy.
To be clear, the Navy had its own difficulties. Discipline was strict to the point of tyranny; floggings, often for arbitrary misdemeanors, were horrifying and devastating, and a captain or officer with a mean streak could make life hell for his men. Rations were deplorable, and hygiene even worse. In the eighteenth century, treatments such as lemon juice for scurvy were just being discovered and implemented, and any sailor injured in a battle was subjected to painful amputations in conditions perfect for gangrene and infection. Days were long and demanding, beginning early, ending late, and resting rarely. Overall, voyages on a man-of-war in the eighteenth century were long, lonely, and demanding to the point of collapse.
However, there are still factors which put the navy in a more favourable light. Comparing ship life to the army, for example, shows there is not much improvement in that direction. Years of training and strict discipline were hammered into soldiers in order to instill the will to stand before a foreign army and take each bullet fired into their ranks without moving or giving way. Forced to march miles over days to battles, the life of a soldier was harsh in its own way; supplies varied greatly depending on what could be carried with them, and was often subject to what was available in the areas they passed through. And, when finally facing battle, one’s fate was essentially placed into the hands of luck; praying the flying bullets would miss you out of the hundreds falling around you as you desperately loaded your rifle and fired volley after volley.
Alternatively, fighting on a navy ship was a matter of the whole crew fighting together, manning their positions and maneuvering their ship to the optimum position to either destroy the enemy vessel by cannon or boarding. Everyone worked together towards the sailor’s prime directive: to survive. The incredibly demanding conditions of a sailor’s life only served to compound this desire in the men, reflected in their overall attitudes. The men on a ship lived together in what became their own private world over the weeks or months they spent at sea; all they had to rely on was each other. The sense of comradeship on a vessel was thus so much stronger than that of any army.
Comradeship is certainly not enough to make life in the navy bearable. But other factors, such as the reliable routine of a sailor’s life, the clear division of labour among the crew, and the ability to travel from port to port on missions political and ambassadorial as well as military help to make the navy seem, if not my natural career choice, still one better than the alternative.
The position of a soldier has much greater appeal to me than the position of a member of the navy during the eighteen century. Both positions came with hardships and little appeal to the average person, but the role of a navy member seems to take on far more than I would be capable of. Personally struggling with a fear of water and the ocean, being a member of the navy would have me distracted from focusing on the task at hand. Ships during this century were often crowded with several other members. Lack of showers, disease, claustrophobia, constant movement of the boat, and crammed sleeping areas would have me struggling to even find motivation to fight. Furthermore, when out in the open sea, the destiny of the boat is in the water’s hands. A large storm or monstrous wave could have the ship damaged or destroyed, with a panicked crew struggling to escape. The isolation is the aspect of the navy which I would dislike the most. The members are closely packed together and have no where to escape to if the boat begins to sink. In this way, survival of a soldier seems slightly higher than the survival of a navy member. If the boat has already begun sinking, the chances that all of the people of the boat will drown is highly likely. Although the conditions of a soldier are not exactly ideal, at most times, the soldiers will have the opportunity to at least get away from a dangerous situation if they are able to do so. Another attraction of the army is the separation between battle area and living area. Because the battles and warfare take place out at sea, there is no “escaping” the war scene. Living on the boat would put you at high risk of attack at all times, making for paranoid and unhappy members. Therefore, the lifestyle of a soldier would suit me much better than that of a member of the navy.
After reading the various articles about the life of both army soldiers and sailors in the navy, I concluded that it would be much better to serve in the army opposed to the navy. Although I have enormous respect for anyone who is willing to protect and serve our country it is not a choice that I would personally make for myself. Because of this I found it very hard to make a decision on where I would rather position myself. After much evalution, I concluded that being a soldier in the army is somewhat more pleasant due to the fact that you have a greater chance of coming out of battle alive and that you wouldn’t have to endure all of the unpleasantries that sailors in the navy experience on a daily basis.
Life for a sailor in the navy is extremely grueling and the conditions are terrible. On a recent trip to an old naval submarine with my grandparents, my grandfather remarked “I’d rather be in jail than have to live for 6 months in these cramped quarters.” This is a statement I took into great consideration when writing this blog considering my grandfather was stationed in the military for a large portion of his life. In addition to the claustrophobia previously mentioned by my grandfather, seasickness was also a huge issue for sailors during this time and it was possible to become very dehydrated even while floating in an enormous body of water. Also, although naval ships do not have to constantly fear battle as soldiers did, when on a boat in the middle of the ocean you are really quite vulnerable. If anything were to go wrong with the ship and it sank, the chances of you surviving were pretty slim and it is possible that you could die without ever even going until attack. Rats were also a huge problem for sailors living in these tight quarters and seeing as I have a huge fear of rodents this would also not be an ideal situation for myself under any means. Overall, if I could choose between a solider and a sailor, I would much prefer life as a soldier however bloodier it would have been.
After reading the articles, I would rather be a member of the army on land than the Navy on the sea. Although if I had the choice I would choose neither, the army seems to be slightly less dreadful to be in than the Navy. Both branches of the military were very dangerous and had high death tolls. The Navy however, seems to be much more harsh. Beatings and lashings were common, even when the person being beaten was doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing. The food was terrible, usually salted meat and extremely stale biscuits. Not to mention, the Navy ships were crawling with disease. Many of the sailors on the Navy ships died when they were not in combat because of scurvy, yellow fever, and malaria, just to name a few. During battle, many injured sailors had their hurt limbs amputated in unhygienic conditions, which bred infection, therefore making their death even more painful. The Navy ships were also subject to terrible storm conditions and would often begin serving on ships from the age of seven. I would not like to live my entire life serving in such wretched conditions.
In conclusion, I would rather serve in the British army than Navy during this time because it is the lesser of two evils. In the army, as long as you obeyed you commander, you would be safe, except from gunfire. Aboard Naval ships, you could be beaten by higher ranking sailors because they wanted to, and you were extremely likely to die from gunfire as well. The army seems like a slightly safer place to be.
After reading the articles, I have come to the conclusion that during this time period, I would rather have served in the Army as opposed to the Navy. The living conditions that sailors had to deal with were seemingly unfathomable and ridden with unsanitary conditions.
British seamen were usually confined to a very small living space and surrounded by vermin constantly.
One point that was made in 'Class and the common soldier in the seven years war' was the pay and how it was substantially high for such a job. This also plays a factor into why i choose that the Army seemed to be better of the two of the time period. In addition, even when i was not fighing, on land i could at least have a sense of security where as on a wooden, moldy, hot and congested boat, I would always feel as though an external or internal matter could harm me as well as others. Assuming i wouldn't be a member of the landed class and therefore not be an officer, I would have horrible living conditions.
The disciplinary efforts that were made by officers and the branch of the Army as a whole, although extremely grueling, shouldn't effect one if that person is not making mistakes. The drill and constant formation is the only way to instill discipline and ensure that troops will follow command on the battlefield no matter what the scenario is. The military's emphasis on obedience and patriotism and more work, having two labour categories, does not alter my decision because not only were living conditions horrendous on ships, storms as well as other factors that play into disrupting navigation could mean increased time spend on the water and perhaps ration shortages.
After comparing the two's conditions, i believe that the conditions faced by sailors in the Navy are much worse than those faced by soldiers in the Army.
After reading the articles, I have come to the conclusion that I would much rather be a member of the British army, rather than their Navy. Both divisions of the British Military lived dangerous and unhealthy lives, but for the Navy, it seemed to have been much worse.
Being on a ship in the middle of the ocean has its draw backs. Tight quarters made it almost impossible to be sanitary. Men were packed together in living spaces that were the perfect breeding houses for infectious diseases and terrible illnesses that ended up killing many men. They worked very hard and got very little rest. All of these factors made the conditions on the boats horrendous. I could never be a part of anything that was that unhealthy.
Many people see the “rank and file” style of fighting as a certain death situation, as do I. Very few men, it seemed, survived the military encounters, especially when the French and Indians starting using new tactics such as guerilla warfare. However, this high risk of death would have been much more inviting than the horrible conditions of the Navy ships. I would much rather die with a bullet through the heart than a slow death from a disease I caught on a boat.
Men in both branches of the military did not live good lives, and many of them died, but if I had to choose the between dying by bullet or by scurvy, I would choose a bullet. I would much rather fight on land rather than the treacherous seas.
Both articles regarding the British armed forces were interesting and eye-opening to say the least. Unlike the proper and poised perception one may gain from studying European battles and discipline, these articles paint a significantly grimmer, and depressing picture for the average man enrolled in the 18th century military. If I were to choose however between serving in the Navy, or the British Army, I would have to side with joining the Army for many reasons. One primary reason for this choice is by merely observing the cramped and claustrophobic conditions that plagued the men unfortunate enough to be called to serve England in the Navy. Being over six feet tall, I absolutely shutter at the thought of being shoved into cramped quarters which in some areas may be all but a few feet high. Not only will the quarters be small, but I would be forced to share this miniscule space with dozens of other men. This would cause an immense sense of physical pain, as well as emotional trauma as being on board a ship for months on end would eventually get the best of me.
My morale would be utterly crushed just by living on the squalid ships, but the men in the Navy also had battles to fight, and complete chores on the ship that made life on these ships unbearable for nearly everybody. The battles at sea, unlike the chivalrous battles on land, were unpredictable and barbaric. It consisted of sighting a ship, chasing it down, firing cannons and other artillery at the opposing ship, and either looting the ship, or letting the ship sink with others still on board. Now in addition to this horrendous thought, men in the brigs had to fight these battles with little knowledge of the position of the opposing ships. They merely manned the cannons, and prayed that a cannonball from the other ship wouldn’t sail in and take off their head. In between these battles, the stress didn’t stop. Decks had to be mopped, food had to be maintained, and order had to be upheld. If one was unfortunate enough to not comply to these established rules, punishments were merciless and brutal. Whips instilled a strict discipline with each painful and bloody crack in front of the whole ship.
The Army on the other hand had a much more dignified approach to combat. They fought in large open areas, as well as in a much more orderly European style of warfare. If things got bad in the middle of a battle, our commanding officer could order a retreat; a privilege the navy unfortunately lacks. Fighting on land also adds a strategy to the battle that is not possible on the seas: geography. Upper ground can be used as an advantage, the woods could be used for camouflage, and mountains can be used as a natural barrier of defense. Overall, although I would much rather prefer not to serve in the 18th century British military, the Army is the better choice.
After reading through and comparing the articles provided, I believe that I would rather be serving in the army than the navy. Although neither of the positions are interesting or motivating to me, serving in the army would be much safer and cleaner than being on a small, crowed ship. As shown in the articles both the jobs of one serving in the army and the navy are extremely difficult due to the fact that in both positions you can get awfully sick or hurt, which can lead to death.
While in both situations war is dangerous and anybody can get killed, both on land and at sea; but, the likelihood of getting hurt on land is less brutal than on a ship, where everybody is crowded around you. A soldier usually has more protection, due to the fact that they can hide and camouflage with their uniforms around certain rocks and hills. Also soldiers have the advantage of protecting each other by fighting as a group and running faster to different places on land. Finally, life as a soldier is certainly not easy, but soldiers do tend to survive more than naval soldiers.
On the other hand, naval soldiers live a more challenging and hard life than anybody fighting in war. People in the navy suffer from being unsanitary, which is why they get sick more often. I believe that fighting on a ship is harder than fighting on land because many people can not balance correctly on a ship while standing up, which is why naval soldiers have to maintain the ability of having balance. While trying to balance and fight at the same time, they also have to deal with so many people running around, trying to protect themselves from getting hurt. Furthermore, people that have to sleep at the bottom of the ship have no air and suffer from wet floors and unpleasant conditions of going to sleep. This all leads to the fact that death on a ship is more likely than on land. Their enemy could bomb the ship and all of the naval soldiers would have no where to go besides jumping off the ship.
All in all, I would much rather fight on land than on a ship because the conditions on a ship are more brutal than on land. Also, the death of soldiers at sea is more likely because you have no where to go to protect yourself.
Having read the articles, I can undoubtedly say that I would much rather serve in the British army instead of the degenerate British navy. I have made this decision based off the fact that the survival rate of the typical solider in the army, while far from optimal, was far greater than the outright miserable one in the navy. This is not even taking the outright horrific living conditions the average sailor must endure aboard their designated ship. The sailors were crammed aboard a hastily constructed ship with a design that prioritizes battle efficiency over the well-being of their crew members. The poor and hastily design of the ships meant that the crewmembers were tightly crammed aboard the ship. Because of the ship’s lack of showers, unsanitary environment, infestation of rats, and disgustingly unhealthy rations, the ship is bound to be a deadly cesspool of disease. If the sailors were to protest or even give a hint of dissatisfaction of their vicious conditions to their commandeering captain or superiors, they would be given a deadly flogging to serve as an example for their fellow crewmembers. Given this vicious environment, it is apparent that countless members of the crew are going to be depleted of morale or even die from disease before the fighting actually began.
When the fighting actually began, it would become readily apparent to the sailors that fighting against other naval war vessels was not going to be the chivalrous and honorable experience they expected it to be. Naval battles were instead barbaric and completely undermined the value of human lives as both sides would fire cannons and artillery at the opposing ship. The victor of the battle would not be as lenient or honorable as the victor of a land battle as the commander of a land battle would often allow his defeated foes to retreat so they can fight a chivalrous battle another day, which is what happened to George Washington at the Battle of Necessity during the prelude of the 7 years war. The victor of a naval engagement didn’t offer such honorable terms to his defeated foes as he would either loot the opposing ship, or mercilessly sink it with the crew still on-board. Retreat unlike in the ground army, was simply not an option in a naval engagement.
While the Army didn’t offer the best of living conditions, the average solider would be able fight honorably and chivalrously against a powerful opponent and prove their worth to the motherland. When it became clear that the battle was lost, the commanding officer could stage a retreat which was simply not a viable option in the navy. Given this opportunity of being able to fight an honorable battle against a powerful opponent in somewhat tolerable living conditions, I would much rather prefer to serve in the army over the grotesque navy in a heartbeat.
No matter what military branch one served in, a soldier in the army or in the navy were all fighting for their countries and their lives. The fight was far from simple for either side, given the conditions they were forced to fight in. A naval soldier had to battle in confined quarters with the grime on their bodies and living off of rations, and land soldiers would have to face the four seasons, oftentimes with uniforms unfit for the conditions. The live of a soldier at sea nearly reaches the level of torture, but I would still prefer to be a member of the British Navy at sea.
During the Seven Years' War, the British armies and colonies (Virginia and Pennsylvania) fell victim to Indian skirmishes so many times that the British forces had to "evacuate citizens to defensible villages," (Ward, 247). Matthew C. Ward points out that although the British had technological superiority over the native peoples of the United States, their weaponry did not always guarantee victory. The Native Americans did not fight the way the British were taught to - the British forces were not trained to use guerilla tactics and other forms of skirmish warfare. After repeated humiliating defeats by the Indians, the British had to change their warfare tactics - and it took years. I would not want to be a member of the army on land because I would not have any idea as to what was headed my way - after all, the Indians would hide in trees and lurk around the travelling military, waiting to make their surprise attack. My wife and children could be kidnapped and have their heads pinned to trees, and I would be forced to march hundreds of miles at a snail's pace, sometimes only five-six miles a day.
Life at sea may not have been ideal by any means, but at least the instructions and goals of battle were clear. The horrifying idea of punishment was surely looming over sailors' heads, especially if they had already witnessed a flogging or two. The consequences for poor performance or behavior would have strengthened the men's' will to work hard and make life as simple as possible while aboard such a dreary vessel. The thought of "confinement" on a ship does not frighten me as much as being a soldier exposed to unplanned massacres and attacks on land, and I could fight knowing that my family was safe at home and not vulnerable at an encampment.
After completing the assigned articles being a part of either the Army or Navy would not be a pleasant life. Both of these sides of military, fighting on land and fighting in the sea had horrible living conditions and presented the unlikely outcome of death. However, if I was forced to choose to be a part of one rather than the other, I would definitely rather be a soldier fighting in the Army.
During the 18th century, warfare was crude and the conditions that both the Army and Navy encountered were both were could be seen by today's standards as a cruel punishment as opposed to the daily life of warfare. For example, if enlisted in the Navy, during times of warfare one would spend nearly all their time on a confined ship with vast numbers of fellow shipmates. The conditions were cramped and very unsanitary due to the inability to properly bathe oneself and with the enclosed spaces diseases spread rapidly. During warfare, there is also no where to go once your ship is attacked. Unlike on land, there is no real respite if you are targeted. You would basically have to beat the opponent before being able to get away, and even if this was done the ship could be damaged severely. There was also a code of conduct that was supposed to be held by all Naval members and if this was broken the accused could be subject to floggings. Getting whipped up to hundreds of times for all other the other crew to see is not only physically painful but takes an emotional tole due to the embarrassment felt by the person getting flogged. With almost three times as many men dying in the Navy compared to the Army, it's an obvious choice that I would rather be a soldier. Although there is no guarentee that you will survive in either situation, it appeared that if I was a soldier there would be a better chance of survival.
In the end, I would not like to be a part of either of these choices, but in my opinion the lesser of two evils would be a soldier fighting on land. The conditions, while not favorable by any means were not as horrendous as those encountered while being a part of the Navy.
Being in the army or navy for Britain in the 18th century was certainly not easy. Hardships and tough times were inevitable as a member of either force. While both sides had benefits and negative aspects, I would certainly choose one over the other.
I would have much rather been in the army than the navy. The army had much more structured warfare than the navy. For example, while the navy could be attacked at any time of the day, the army knew when and where their battles would take place, unless they were ambushed. There would be plenty more sudden ambushes that hurt the navy than the army.
Another reason why I would choose the army over the navy is to have better conditions. Often, members of the navy would be stuck in the navy for 7 years or more. Even their kids could get sucked in by the Navy. In addition, avoiding any punishments while being a member of the navy was impossible. One example of a punishment the navy used to discipline their members was flogging, which was when the person’s back would be whipped. Another bad condition of the navy was diseases and viruses that spread rapidly. Since the ships were small, isolated, and densely populated, diseases and sicknesses spread among navy sailors like wildfire. I would not be able to stay on a small ship for years or months at a time with these horrible conditions.
In conclusion, I would much rather be in the army than the navy.
Army or navy you ask? Now I would probably answer navy… but 18th century, army any day. You might be lining up to be shot at, but at least you weren’t trapped like rats on a disease infested ship crawling with who-knows-what. In the army you were put into ranks with the other foot soldiers, taught how to shoot and how to stand in a line facing the other side doing essentially the same thing. While this does sound terrible, it doesn’t sound as bad as doing practically the same thing, but on a ship.
On the ships in the 18th century European navy living conditions were very poor. Sailors on their war ships were just as likely to die from disease as being killed in battle. The captains had better living conditions, but the ‘foot soldiers’ were packed together in tight lodgings. However, this is just the living conditions, battles at sea were a whole other matter. You could be hit during close range battle, or, your ship could be hit. If your ship got hit, you were basically screwed, and ended up in the locker.
Conditions weren’t great on land, either, but they were better than being tossed around on the high seas by unpredictable weather. As we saw in class, you were in tight formation facing the enemy both shooting at each other. This worked ok if you were facing a side that was at least doing the same thing… however, when fighting moved to the Americas, things didn’t work out so well for the line up and shoot technique. When in Native Americans taught the French guerilla warfare, the British didn’t stand a chance.
Being held in formation facing an army that was fighting with a sensible technique sounds pretty horrible to be, but add a boat to the equation, and I’m gone. Things were horrible whether on land or sea, but personally, I would take land.
As I read the sources about the events involving the army and the navy, I was shocked by the awfulness of the battles these men had to face. If I had lived back then, and had to chose between the army and the navy to enlist in, it would be a very difficult choice. There would be no safe, easy, or not frightening choice.
As horrible as both branches of the military were, I believe that I would chose to enter the British Army. I do not think I would last in the navy, stuck on a dirty, disgusting boat for months, with horrible food to eat at sea. On the other hand, the army would be on land, where I would be able to sleep in a tent, and usually eat better food. In fighting, I believe that I would have a better chance surviving in the army as well. If I was competent enough, I would be place to the side or back of a platoon, where there would be less chance of me getting shot. On a boat, my ship could sink at any time, or I could get shot before I was able to retaliate.
At sea, I could die very easily from the many diseases that were on boats, from the rats, or the food, or the germs. There would be no escaping the disease, either. On land, there still would be many diseases, but some treatments were more readily available, and there would be less spread of the disease, because the army is spread out on a field, while the navy is cramped below decks. Therefore, the best choice of military for me would have been the British Army.
Personally, I would not be inclined to sign up for the military nowadays, never mind back in the eighteenth century. However, if I was forced to make a choice between the British navy and army, after reading these articles, I would have to choose the army. I believe survival would have been a much more likely feat to accomplish as a soldier rather than a sailor in the British navy.
In the navy, if the enemy did not hurt you, it was a distinct possibility that pain could be inflicted on you by your own side. The punishments in the Navy were brutal. Flogging inflicted excruciating pain on its victims. In addition to the severe punishments, sailors of the British navy lived in horrific conditions. It was nearly impossible to stop the spread of disease on the ships with their extremely close quarters and lack of sanitation, especially with unadvanced 18th century medicine. Living on these terrible ships would most likely obliterate any morale I had, even if I was not killed by the rampant disease. On a ship you were also subject to the wrath of mother nature as storms were always a threat. If these storms did not get you, the enemy could attack at any time. In the army, this was a much less likely occurrence as battles were generally more planned out. In the more organized life of a soldier with regiments and ranks, there were less opportunities to be in danger of death. One essentially merely had to worry about an opposing army. In the navy, on the other hand, the enemies were still the primary threat but there were still other very strong threats that cannot be taken lightly.
While I do not see either lifestyle as an ideal choice, I would definitely much rather be in the British army over their navy. There are downsides to both, but the navy's are more numerous.
From reading the articles, I would much rather join the British Army than Navy. There are multiple reasons for this decision. While neither the foot soldier nor seaman lived healthy and good lives, the foot soldiers' lives seemed to me to be just a little bit better.
By joining the army I would escape the atrocities of the Navy life. Even though I'd have to face bullets and cannons head on, as well as the cold of winter, I would still be facing better conditions than those on a ship.
On a ship there's much more to worry about than just the brutality of war. Along with the dangers of fighting, you face the wrath of the weather and storms of the open sea. On top of this, Navy men faced quick spreading disease due to the horrible living conditions, and the spreading of disease was added to by the infestation of numerous vermin.
While life in the army was no walk in the park, I feel there were a few less dangerous working against you. On the land you did not have to worry about the roughness of the sea, and while there was still rampid disease, living conditions were just a little bit better.
So, all in all I believe that I have a greater chance at survival in the army than in the navy.
The armed forces of the 18th century represented an era of new technology that lead to more effective warfare. To select a branch to serve for between the British Army and their Navy is not an easy task. Though the technology created a more effective military, it was only more effective relative to the horrors of previous warfare. Both the Army and the Navy represented horrifically flawed and dangerous institutions, whose objectives were to break down their men into fearless, disciplined machines. Though either choice brings about near certain death, I personally would have to choose the Army.
To justify the selection of enlisting into the British Army, one must look at the hardships faced by the men of the British Navy. Confined to a ship for extended periods of time, men were subjected to horrible living conditions and abuse by officers. The isolation of the Naval vessels while out on the open sea was enough of an issue, but coupled with the drills and abuse by officers created a truly wretched situation. It was mentioned in The Line Upon the Wind that punishment for any criminal actions or simple mistakes was the brutal flogging. Men were beaten with leather straps by the officers and their mates. Skin was beaten until it fell off, black and burned. Injuries were permanent and possibly fatal. The beatings were common and genuinely humiliating. The novel talks of being hanged as a pleasant option when compared to being flogged. Officers used floggings as both entertainment and a way to show off authority.
In the military, life was truly miserable, but there was still a tangible connection to life on land. Naval combat was isolated in the endless sea, with nowhere to hide. Regardless of the situation, either one or both ships was going to sink, and the lives of nearly all men would be lost. The land warfare was both disciplined and personal. Men stayed in formation and confronted adversaries head on. Fire was directed in a general direction, with the musket being far too crude for precise fire. Formations were held until one side surrendered, or all had fallen. Those who broke free of formation were killed by their own officers, or forced to rejoin the ranks. Warfare in the colonies represented a far different situation. Gone were the beautifully executed drills and volleys of fire. Guerilla warfare represented the primary threat to the untrained British. Life was spent in camps with limited supplies. Yet, with all of this hardship taken in to consideration, I would still join the Army.
Selecting to serve in the British Army is the course of action that I would take. The hardships of life as a land soldier were to be expected, while the Naval conditions were both unjustified and unexpected. The connection to the land, with its familiar qualities and avenues of escape represents a much favorable alternative to the solitude of life at sea. The abuse and neglect face by the sailors in the Navy was truly humiliating and horrifying. To choose serving in the British Army during the 18th century seems like a rather logical and obvious choice.
It seems that there is general agreement that being a soldier would be more tolerable than a sailor in the British military, and I have to agree. My reasoning for this goes beyond just a general abhorrence to feeling nauseous, though that does contribute. I understand the horror that the native Americans provided when the Britons fought with the colonists in North America; they mutilated soldiers and civilians, pinning the scalps of the former to trees and leaving the dead bodies of the latter for the former to see. And the uniforms were insufficient in protecting from hot or cold, the food provided often inedible. Furthermore, moving through the dense and labyrinthine woods of the continent usually led to men starving and exhausted, abandoning the endeavor to attempt a return to the city. Terrible, yes. But, the navy seemed even worse. You enter into this service at a young age, usually 7 but quite possibly earlier, even at 3. Alone in the middle of the ocean, a sailor's superiors were capable of severe cruelty, considering there was nowhere to which one could mutiny. Perhaps the most odious of all aboard were the boatswains, who beat seamen to work faster. And everyone, no matter age or condition, was beaten at some point, by which I mean often. Sometimes a sailor could get the particularly bad punishment of feeling a whipping from the "cat." Yes, the soldiers got cold, but the sailors got cold and wet. The soldiers burned under the sun, but sailors cooked in the lower decks of the ship without having at least fresh air. There's no hope at sea, either. You're days from land and civilization, only blue above and blue below. I would certainly miss the green.
Asking to choose between serving the country of Britain through the navy or the army is basically an issue of choosing the lesser of two evils. After completing the assigned reading, it is clear that neither the army nor navy were ideal places to be. If forced to choose, however, I would make the decision to join the army and serve over land, than join the navy.
This is not to say that serving England through the army was a pleasant experience. In fact, it was most of the time a brutal and horrifying experience for Englishmen who were trained to deal with organized warfare against French and Spanish. These men were often not prepared to deal with the guerilla warfare that was utilized by the Native American tribes that attacked the British on a countless number of occasions. British troops were also forced to walk many miles in strict formation, carrying pounds of equipment and uniform, while their superiors enjoyed the luxury of riding on horseback. Even when fighting “civilized” men like the French; if they were taken captive, the men who used longbows would especially be subjected to excruciating pain by having their first and middle fingers cut off, so that they could not use them against the French. This kind of torture was common among the men taken captive. The same kind of brutality was demonstrated by the Indians, who would scalp their victims and hang them on trees as prized possessions.
In spite of these unappealing aspects of joining the army, I believe that they are not as severe or as unappealing as many aspects of joining the British navy. At least men who were in the army had the small pleasure of being able to travel and have a change of scenery. Whereas the members of the royal navy were subjected to being away from home in the middle of the ocean for long periods of time. The Royal Navy turned into “the most rigorous form of military discipline in the world” and rather than decreasing their amount of strictness, they actually increased their discipline when the war progressed. Lieutenants and midshipmen were often subjected to violent abuse from their superiors, that was not also physical like whippings but also mental. There was also much more information that had to be learned and retained as a member of the navy. They men were expected to know the names, use and direction of every single rope on the ship. Men who were engaged in battles at sea were also at a disadvantage when it came to the issue of amputations and injuries. Since they were out in the middle of the sea, miles and miles and miles from the nearest land, their resources were limited. Therefore, amputations were extremely painful and often prone to nasty infections.
Clearly, both of these options would be a horrifying experience. However I believe that the lesser of the two evils would be joining the army. Although the warfare was cruel and often the formation of the British was their weakness when compared with guerilla warfare, it could also be considered a strength because they were well prepared to flee and change positions when needed. And in the middle of a battle, that kind of precision and speed is vital to survival.
Asking to choose between serving the country of Britain through the navy or the army is basically an issue of choosing the lesser of two evils. After completing the assigned reading, it is clear that neither the army nor navy were ideal places to be. If forced to choose, however, I would make the decision to join the army and serve over land, than join the navy.
This is not to say that serving England through the army was a pleasant experience. In fact, it was most of the time a brutal and horrifying experience for Englishmen who were trained to deal with organized warfare against French and Spanish. These men were often not prepared to deal with the guerilla warfare that was utilized by the Native American tribes that attacked the British on a countless number of occasions. British troops were also forced to walk many miles in strict formation, carrying pounds of equipment and uniform, while their superiors enjoyed the luxury of riding on horseback. Even when fighting “civilized” men like the French; if they were taken captive, the men who used longbows would especially be subjected to excruciating pain by having their first and middle fingers cut off, so that they could not use them against the French. This kind of torture was common among the men taken captive. The same kind of brutality was demonstrated by the Indians, who would scalp their victims and hang them on trees as prized possessions.
In spite of these unappealing aspects of joining the army, I believe that they are not as severe or as unappealing as many aspects of joining the British navy. At least men who were in the army had the small pleasure of being able to travel and have a change of scenery. Whereas the members of the royal navy were subjected to being away from home in the middle of the ocean for long periods of time. The Royal Navy turned into “the most rigorous form of military discipline in the world” and rather than decreasing their amount of strictness, they actually increased their discipline when the war progressed. Lieutenants and midshipmen were often subjected to violent abuse from their superiors, that was not also physical like whippings but also mental. There was also much more information that had to be learned and retained as a member of the navy. They men were expected to know the names, use and direction of every single rope on the ship. Men who were engaged in battles at sea were also at a disadvantage when it came to the issue of amputations and injuries. Since they were out in the middle of the sea, miles and miles and miles from the nearest land, their resources were limited. Therefore, amputations were extremely painful and often prone to nasty infections.
Clearly, both of these options would be a horrifying experience. However I believe that the lesser of the two evils would be joining the army. Although the warfare was cruel and often the formation of the British was their weakness when compared with guerilla warfare, it could also be considered a strength because they were well prepared to flee and change positions when needed. And in the middle of a battle, that kind of precision and speed is vital to survival.
After reading the articles and comparing them, I concluded that I would prefer to be a soldier in the British Army.
I would prefer to be part of the British army in the 18th century rather than part of the Navy for a few reasons. One being that in the 1700’s they were unable to track weather patterns like they are able to now. With random weather patterns there could be massive storms while at sea making life on a ship much less comfortable than on land. Additionally the quarters on a ship were hot, damp, and small. Being a soldier I would have had a much more comfortable living space. Moreover, the hot, damp living spaces in ships would be a breeding grounds for diseases and with rats on board the ship the diseases could be transferred very easily throughout the ship. Another major deciding factor for me in choosing the Army over the Navy is that not only does the Navy have to worry about the enemy, but they also have to worry about the diseases that were spread, the weather, and maintaining the ship. It would be much easier to be a soldier. As a soldier there is a high chance of being shot, but in the Navy, many people during the 18th century didn’t know how to swim and I would much rather be shot than drown if my ship was to be sunk.
If I had to choose between Army and Navy, I would choose Army in an instant, because despite the dangers of war, it would be much better than being in a hot, damp, cramped living space on a ship in the 18th century.
After reviewing both sources, I've come to the conclusion I would much rather be a member of the 18th century British Navy. In Matthew C. Wards "The European Method of Warring is Not Practiced Here: The Failure of the British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley, 1755-1759"he discusses the warfare tactics during the French and Indian War. Prior to this war the British were used to traditional European warfare, where both sides were lined up across from eachother and on cue began to shoot, However, once they reached the Americas they were forced into guerrilla warfare. The Indians began attacking the British by hiding and bushes and attacking from behind. This lead to mass casualties on the British side. Additionally, since the Indians were much more familiar with the land they held another advantage against the British. During this time period being a British soldier fighting in America was a daunting and relentless task. Ultimately there was no way to win, the Indians had every advantage over the land.
However being part of the British navy was not the ideal situation either. There was always the fear of being lost or ship wrecked and ultimately left at the mercy of the sea. They faced extreme conditions on the ships such as close quarters, no showers, rats, and scarce amounts of food. Despite all of this i feel that it would be a safer experience than a British soldier fighting in the Americas. Since you are on a ship in the open sea guerilla warfare is practically impossible. It would be extremely easy to see a ship of the opposing side approach, therefore the element of surprise was eliminated. Also when a battle was fought everyone had to fight and work together. It was a matter of manning the ship and working together to destroy the enemy instead of shooting a gun and being left alone in the woods. Being a member on the ship consisted mostly of long never ending days on the boat. Very little of the time was actually fighting since the ocean is so large it was rare that your enemy would sail along side you. Overall, being a British soldier, land or sea is not the ideal situation. Many soldiers were criminals or held low end jobs. There were down sides to both situations. However, If i were forced to chose i definitely become a member of the navy.
The decision to choose between being a soldier in the army of Great Britain or being a sailor at sea with their powerful navy, is simply an unfair one. Both of these military occupations derive horrendous living conditions and an overall harsh job at hand. Given the circumstances, I would choose to be a member of the British troops who reside and perform their duties on land.
Despite all the difficulties of being in the military at all, the cons of being in the navy are simply too much compared to the cons of being in the army. If an infantryman were in battle, they would usually be a small unit in a much larger battalion. This provides both protection for those involved and stability on the battlefield. Sailors on a ship also worked as a team, but were not so deftly trained as their counterparts on land. Men in the navy also had many more options of getting either severly injured or killed. Army soldiers were only threatened by bullets, cannonballs, and bayonets if the battle became close quarters. Sailors in the navy, however, could be killed by either three of those actions and the possibility of either a disease due to poor health conditions or the sinking of the ship. So all around, men in the navy had a much smaller chance of survival and had harsher conditions than that of a man who was a land soldier.
I can say with confidence that I would much rather be in the army than the navy during the 18th century. I myself do not enjoy boating or the sea. All it succeeds in doing is making me bored and sea sick. If I were to be a part of the navy I have to spend long periods of time at sea. Besides from that, the Navy's sanitation is far worse than the Army's. The ships are riddled with diseases and rodents, both of which are things I plan to avoid. The ships were also prone to storms. The Army's living conditions are undoubtedly better than the Navy's. One great thing that the Navy is lacking in is shelter from battle, at least on land one can hide within the landscape. It would be quite hard to hide in the landscape of the sea considering I would have to resurface for air.
Summit Singhaviranon
Though it is clear from the articles that both the British Army and Navy of the 18th century underwent horrendous conditions in comparison to today’s standards, I would have to say I would much rather join the Army than the Navy. While neither were appealing, even to a tiny degree, the latter had it worse.
To begin with, you’re stuck on a boat in the middle of the ocean with a group of hardened seamen many of whom would much rather be home than on that ship with you. You’re stuck with them with no way out until your deployment is over. Not to mention the horrid conditions of shiplife at the time as well. The first of which is the code of obedience the captains set. Anything that may displease the captain can result in getting punished through whippings and etc.
Next in line is the environment one is thrown into when joining the Navy. Lack of space, ventilation, and the damp air leads to diseases and bacterial infections. When one man gets sick there is little doubt that many other will follow. Rodents and other pests that managed to get aboard the ship are vehicles for spreading the diseases and in a confined environment like that of a boat, there is no way to escape sickness. Yellow fever, dysentery, and other diseases were all too common aboard the vessels. The nutrition lacking diet wasn’t much of a help either. With no way to obtain food, one could really only eat what they brought with them and for the most part it was all salted meals since that’s was the only way to keep them fresh.
Last but certainly not least is the vulnerability to nature’s wrath. On the sea, it is almost impossible to escape or hide from what nature throws at you. You are at the mercy of every wave, every current, and every drop of rain with no one to help you but yourself and the other men on the vessel. On land at least you can find shelter to get away from dangerous weather.
In conclusion I would much rather be in the Army during the 18th century than the Navy but if joining neither would still be without a doubt my top choice.
I read both of the articles and I would personally prefer to be a soldier in the army compared to being in the navy. While both positions do not appeal to me very much, I think that the chances of surviving in the army would be greater than if I were to be in the navy. I believe this because if I was on a boat with the navy, I would have a severe disadvantage compared to if I were in the army.
The army seems to be a better choice of the two. While the conditions do not seem to be ideal in any way, I feel that the survival rate or the change of survival is greater than that of the navy. The army is efficient and orderly making them have the ability to move quickly and battle with a strong power. In using the surrounding landscape to take cover from the enemy, the army has an advantage being on land.
Compared to the navy, which does not have protection while they are sailing in the wide open ocean, the army is a better choice. Sailing on a ship with many others would be difficult to stay controlled. There would be little structure in a battle as they may happen at any time. Being in a small living space with so many others would be very cramped. The living conditions would not be clean because the ship would likely be infested with rats. Diseases would be easily spread around with so many people in such a small space further weakening them.
In comparing the army and the navy, it is clear that the army’s conditions while not ideal, are still noticeably better than the navy. If I was made to pick between the army and the navy, I would decide to be on land in the army.
After reading the articles I would probably prefer to be a British Army soldier on land rather than a soldier at sea. Being a distance runner, I believe the repetitive marching and constant training would be easier for me to complete, rather than the brutal physical labor necessary when being shipboard that mostly relies on brute strength; things like hoisting the sails, rowing, or readying the heavy cannon’s rely on strength rather than endurance.
Secondly, the psychological effects of being on a battlefield or in the middle of the ocean are much different. On the battlefield you would have to line up and stay in formation while being shot at and if you broke formation an officer could cut you down. You have no choice but to pray and hope you don’t get shot. Also many around you would be killed during each volley, you’d have to step on or over the corpses of your comrades so land battles would have serious psychological effects. Even at sea, you have to go through all of these things during battle as well, but you don’t even have to be fighting to be affected. Being in the middle of the ocean with little to no food at times would be both physically and mentally draining. And being stuffed in tight, hot, stinky and moldy quarters with no land in sight for months on end would drive me insane.
Lastly, the chance of death on land and at sea are pretty close to each other. But I would much rather rely on my luck as a ground soldier than almost definitely develop some sort of horrible disease like a bad case of scurvy or an infection that would likely end in death. Also if you are wounded on a battlefield, it is possible to be carried off, but if on a boat you’ve really got nowhere to go. If wounded, there is less access to medical equipment on a ship than on land. I’d feel much safer as a soldier.
After reading both articles, neither the British Navy nor Army sounds appealing to me. However, if I had to choose between the two I would much rather enroll in the British Army. In the British Navy there is so little room on the ship and such a higher probability to die. The conditions of the Navy were brutal; close proximity to people, overcrowding on ships, harsh conditions of weather and sea. Life apart of the British Army seems much more appealing because of the ability to work with the land and use it your advantage, hide, ambush opponent, and the ease of retreat.
Both the Navy and the Army were dangerous to serve in, however, your likelihood of surviving was much greater on land. The seas often had different rules than the rules of war on land; they were more harsh and savage. A ship at sea could never return for multiple reason, some having nothing to do with war. Piracy was a huge problem during this era, weather conditions could destroy a boat, a lone ship is vulnerable and easily spotted as well as attacked. In addition, as a solider on a boat your ability to fight is significantly less because of the rocking motion of the boat. Think about it, even today with much more advanced boats and ships people have trouble keeping their balance. Well not imagine that instability along with the chaos of a war. Once engaged in a battle the Navy’s ability to retreat is improbable, you fight til the death or a clear winner is established. Also, as a solider in the Navy if you get extremely ill and you are at sea there is little that anyone can do to help you. If you don’t die in battle you will probably die from that illness because the whole ship isn’t going to turn around for just one person.
With this said the Army was no cup tea either, however, the conditions are much less violent. Tactics are easier to plan out in the Army and easier to execute. A soldier’s ability to receive medical treatment is significantly less. Also, once in the midst of a battle if it is clear that one side is dominating over the over and comeback is not a seeable future a commander can easily withdraw his troops from battle and retreat and regroup. Overall, the Army seems less savage and a more likely place to survive than the Navy.
After reading the articles on life in the army vs navy, I must say that I still want to be at sea rather than land, despite the horrid conditions at sea, I'm sure that my days will still be far more interesting, despite my hi chances of death at sea. To put it into perspective: I am a shorter person, chances are I'll end up at the from of any army squad and therefore also die first. On a ship, I would be employed as some o,f the sharpshooters on the diggings of the ship as I am once against shorter and can navigate the riggings and as sails more efficiently. And in response to the horrible condition, I'm sure the I would rather spend my time on a large viechle at sea, learning how to control it, rather than marching hundreds of miles to get shot at once and then die.
The navy life during this time period was absolutely dreadful, however I believe it will, be worth it as long as there is a little more adventure and freedom in being a sailor. Another reason why. Wild do poorly in the army would be the fact that I am of slight of build and would most likely pass out before I've finished even 10 miles of walking or marching.
On a ship there is limited room and many of the work that needs to be done do no require a lot of marching. Along with that a ship is like a small floating town, complete with the local doctor, mayor (captain), and chef. There are a greater variety of jobs aboard a ship, while being in the army would just be given a gun and then learning to march in time. The conditions at sea are worth putting up with, due to the fact being at sea is simply more interesting to be. If I had to choose a way to die, since in this scenario I would be dead o matter what I chose, I would rather do something that is interesting to me.
Serving in either the Navy on board a ship bound for hell or on ground with ruthless Native Americans is obviously not a fun experience, but of the two I would much rather serve as a foot soldier, not because of the lack of discipline compared to that of the Navy but because of the lack of purpose upon those ships of doom. If you were not of a high ranking you have just entered the gates of hell. You had better prepare yourself for endless amounts of flogging and punishment for the enjoyment of the upper ranking officers. Discipline was tight only because of fear however and not out of honor. Its safe to say most people on these ships did not want to be fighting this war. "No obedience but what was forced, no respect but what was constrained." Thomas Hodgskins.
Being a round soldier was most likely more hazardess as a career than being in the Navy. With Indians lurking in the forest of North America ready to pounce at any time it wasn't for the heartfelt. Especially because it was not uncommon for a regimen of soldiers to be marching through the woods and come across the bodies of mutilated women and children set up solely to scare the soldiers. This is definitely a tough life, but I'd much rather live a tough life doing something that had purpose than a tough life without any. Many people enlisted themselves into the army as foot soldiers from the colonies. Although oftentimes it was miserable, they at least probably had a sense of pride. Without a sense of pride why would
I ever join the Navy?
18th century British army, or 18th century British navy? Why won't one ask would you rather jump off a cliff or into a vat of boiling oil? The concept is pretty much the same.
The cliff is very high. One jumps off. This action has very similar consequences to joining the old British army as a standard infantryman. The job description of an infantryman was something along the lines of; stand still, kneel, point an explosive stick at the guys over there, and pull the trigger. The men were also not to lose their nerve when the other guys with explosive sticks were shooting at them too. Sure, they might die, but they'll get the job done...unless the people shooting back at you are not in a tight formation and rather spread out around you, hiding behind trees and taking potshots. Then you're done. So the army was definitely comparable to jumping off a cliff, as it involved a quick and terrifying death. That is, if you are not just seriously maimed.
The vat of oil is very hot. And there is no way out. It is a very painful and slow death. And that is why the British navy is the less favorable option. After signing his life away, a sailor is taught how to swim (just kidding), and is stuck on a traveling quarantine. Laden with disease, sailors were stuffed into anchovy tins and shipped off to battle, where they would all die, or the ship would sink, in which case they would all die. And if they didn't die in battle, they most certainly would die of disease. A big boat with one hundred sailors on it, stuck together for months, is bound to have some sort of disease on it. And with their lack of medical knowledge, a disease is sort of like an automatic death sentence.
In the army, one was told to stand in a line and shoot at people standing in a line and shooting back. In the navy, sailors were stuffed into tight spaces and died of disease or drowning or of shrapnel ad bullets from battles. I'd rather wear the fancy red uniforms.
After reading the articles I’ve concluded that I would much rather be a solider then a member of the navy. I don’t think I can share my living quarters with 30 other people and disgusting animals. Also I wouldn’t want to die and men in the army survived more then men in the navy. At the time the men in the navy had a higher risk of dying then the soldiers. Even though the soldiers weren’t always prepared for their enemies combat, their survival rates were often higher.
Members of the navy not only had the burden of war on their shoulders, but also life on a condensed ship. With a bunch of men in one ship there is bound to be illnesses spreading to each. The men shared living space with rats and other rodents that caused sicknesses. Also sea storms can be dangerous and cause damage to their boats or even ruin them causing some men to drown from either weight of the boat or tiredness of swimming.
Soldiers weren’t much more safe then the members of the navy but the at least lived more structured lives. Although soldiers had to come face to face with the enemy their death numbers were still lower then the navy’s. Men in the navy would get sick and die from lack of medicine. Some men would even fall off the boat at times.
While reading the articles, many differences were construed between the navy officers and those soldiers. However, the chances of survival were probably much greater being a soldier compared to a sailor in the navy.
The battlefield and being in the navy are two totally different scenarios, with ships however being more harsh. On the sea, everyone is confined to a ship, and being constantly subjected to sickness, diseases, and storms in general. Common cruel conditions would also include extremely crammed living quarters including being stuck together with hundreds of other men, in the small damp barracks. The sailors work just seemed to be more tedious, with a bigger chance of something going wrong.
As for life of the soldiers, it seemed to be much more ordered and meticulous. Also in my opinion, it would come with fewer opportunities to be killed in battle. A common occurrence on land, was the surrendering of the soldiers which also allowed for a higher volume of soldiers to be saved in battle. When weighing all the options and comparing the two lifestyles, a sailor's life seems to be much more arduous. I would prefer the life to the soldiers because of the lower possibility of dying in battle
Post a Comment