67th Tigers
Banned
850 men? That's a brigade of the time. Average Whig "Regiment" strength was about 250 rank and file.
The 67th.
Yet historically they didn't. They even stripped out the 18's from Duc de Duras (later Bonnehomme Richard)
Ameriwank: Continental Navy
- Thread starter danwild6
- Start date
850 men? That's a brigade of the time. Average Whig "Regiment" strength was about 250 rank and file.
The 67th.
Yet historically they didn't. They even stripped out the 18's from Duc de Duras (later Bonnehomme Richard)
While those are all interesting (thanks!) I was asking about information as to how rich America was at the time. We have some people inferring that the colonies were booming surpluses of resources, whereas we have other people saying that they couldn't afford to feed their own troops. Someone has got to be wrong.
Valley Forge springs to mind.
Part of the problem was that Congress had very little (bordering on none) power to compel the states to provide funding. Congress quite literally couldn't afford to pay anyone in the Continental Army, often for years at a time. This would have gone triple for a fleet, since you would need to pay for the ships (in advance) pay for the sails, powder, shot, cordage, provisions (again, in advance), and then the wages of the sailors.
As has been noted, the crews needed to man these ships would exceed the MAXIMUM size of the Continental Army (which never made it to 17,000 men, or the size of a modern division). Just the 13 1st rates would need over 11,000 crewmen (850 per ship) incuding a high percentage of experts (gunners, marines, etc.) with the frigates soaking up at least another 3-4,000 (200-300 men per ship, depending on size, # of guns, and the like). These figures do not include the support structure needed to keep the fleet afloat.
Standard of living is a very tricky thing to judge in the 1700's. Some colonists, especially Virginian Planters and Boston Ship owners, were quite well off, but you had many hard scrabble farmers, especially along the frontier. These people were better off than many in Europe since they were able to get enough to eat, if only barely, but calling them well off is more than a bit of a stretch.
Politics of the time
I love ships, and would love to see an earlier and more powerful American navy.
But I'm afraid that the discussion about material capabilities is not all that important, until the political dimention is resolved.
This was not a case of preparing for a war, then fighting it. In the early days of the revolution, it was merely an attempt to force Britian to change the way the colonies were governed, whereas building a fleet is clearly not intended for that, but to engage in open, offensive battle on the high seas. (Or at least, it would certainly seem that way to both the people paying for it, and the British.)
This fleet would haveno puropse for legitmate defence...the Royal Navy takes care of that, and quite well.
In short, IMVHO, laying down a war fleet is tantamount to a declaration of war...years before the fleet is usable, or the political will is there for such an extravagance.
In comparison, a militia IS a necessary part of the colonial scene, with a recognized role--and can also be assembled much faster.
If you want a significant force of revolutionary ships of the line, here's one way to go, perhaps.
1769: At a Royal Navy dockyard, a lieutenant inspecting a vessel laid up in ordinary stumbles, dropping his lantern. Within minutes, the ship is ablaze, and the fire spreads to other reserve ships. by the time the fires have burned themselves out, most of the reserve fleet is gone.
More ships are needed, badly, and Parliament chooses to build some in the new world simply because the timber is there, as are yards that can do the job.
As the 1770's march on, the Yankee build ships make progress--three in Portsmouth, 6 in Boston, and so forth down the coast. In fact, they make progress faster than the ones built in England. And the yards are making sure to build fast and well...if they prove that they are the place to build, more government contracts will be in the offing.
Now, you have ships available for an American revolutionary navy. Make sure the ordnance is over here when things explode, and you have something to play with. It's still an uphill fight to make it work, but there's some raw material to play with.
I love ships, and would love to see an earlier and more powerful American navy.
But I'm afraid that the discussion about material capabilities is not all that important, until the political dimention is resolved.
This was not a case of preparing for a war, then fighting it. In the early days of the revolution, it was merely an attempt to force Britian to change the way the colonies were governed, whereas building a fleet is clearly not intended for that, but to engage in open, offensive battle on the high seas. (Or at least, it would certainly seem that way to both the people paying for it, and the British.)
This fleet would haveno puropse for legitmate defence...the Royal Navy takes care of that, and quite well.
In short, IMVHO, laying down a war fleet is tantamount to a declaration of war...years before the fleet is usable, or the political will is there for such an extravagance.
In comparison, a militia IS a necessary part of the colonial scene, with a recognized role--and can also be assembled much faster.
If you want a significant force of revolutionary ships of the line, here's one way to go, perhaps.
1769: At a Royal Navy dockyard, a lieutenant inspecting a vessel laid up in ordinary stumbles, dropping his lantern. Within minutes, the ship is ablaze, and the fire spreads to other reserve ships. by the time the fires have burned themselves out, most of the reserve fleet is gone.
More ships are needed, badly, and Parliament chooses to build some in the new world simply because the timber is there, as are yards that can do the job.
As the 1770's march on, the Yankee build ships make progress--three in Portsmouth, 6 in Boston, and so forth down the coast. In fact, they make progress faster than the ones built in England. And the yards are making sure to build fast and well...if they prove that they are the place to build, more government contracts will be in the offing.
Now, you have ships available for an American revolutionary navy. Make sure the ordnance is over here when things explode, and you have something to play with. It's still an uphill fight to make it work, but there's some raw material to play with.
Faeelin
Banned
Real, of course.
To quote Carlton
Hard currency is a problem, and one in the colonial era; but is this necessary a bad thing? Rather, it indicates a nation with a booming economy that needs to increase its money supply more than the situation provides, and a dynamic society.
The lack of surplus industrial labor... well, this was a problem for a long time in America; there were so many other occupations more productive than being a factory worker; no peasants kicked out by the enclosure movement in Massaschussetts...
Certainly, this was an unindustrialized nation; but that doesn't necessarily equate with poor.
Never said it was 'poor'--I was merely questioning our Ameriwank friend here about calling the standard of living in 1776 America 'the highest standard of living in the world'. It may indeed have been pretty good for the time but it was based on some shaky support and it certainly wasn't the 'highest'.
Brushing the entire 13 colonies as 'the highest' when there were everything on the spectrum from rich merchants to farmers barely eking out a living would be inaccurate use of the term. Hell--just using the term 'standard of living' would be an inaccurate use of the term as what it means in 21st century doesn't mean the same thing in the 19th or 17th.
I could just as easily say that Western Europe had one of the highest standards of living in the world as well as that's where all the gold and silver flowed to. Some one could then just as easily come back to me and tell me that there were farmers starving there and I would counter that there were also lots and lots of rich merchants as well plus an infrastructure centuries old to handle damn well anything you can think of. Which is wrong? Which is correct? Neither are--cause we can't even agree on the meaning of the term now let alone what it meant 200 years ago. Land? Sure--lots of that in the Americas. Not much good it is to you if you don't have the infrastructure to do something with it. Food? Good for you--lots of people will be envious of your situation but what else you've got? Trade? Ships? Infrastructure? What's your definition of 'standard of living'?
And if you have a good economy but can't even afford to pay your own troops for years on end when you really need them...then can you justify using the term 'highest in the world'?
Faeelin
Banned
By this logic, though, this term is meaningless today as well.
What is clear is that Americans were among the best fed people in th e world with, stastically, a large number of material possessions.
Which they were not all that willing to abandon to a central authority who could then exchange it for useful capital to buy supplies for the war effort.
Consider Britain and France in the 18th century. The British government was far more capable of tapping the wealth in the nation and employing it for purposes of the State. Did the British have a higher standard of living? Almost certainly not. France had far more wealth in terms of material possessions.
67th Tigers
Banned
They were well fed and sheltered, and produced enough trade for an excess to trade back to England, but produced very little in the way of durable goods. What they had was purchased from England.
In the immediate aftermath of independence Americans were actually poorer. The cheap English imports were now heavily taxed, and this new government was very harsh on the smugglers that created it.
An interesting read is the history of the America; http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/line/sotl.htm
She was finally Commissioned into the French Navy, and evidently they didn't think much of her....
It would be easy to butterfly the discovery of the Maine, Virginia, or Georgia Gold Fields, to pre ARW.
of course this would butterfly the whole, ban on Paper Money, and the lack of money to pay for industrulization of the Americas.
True-- Most of the East Indiaman being used in the 1770's were being built in the Americas,
Of course building slow bulkly Merchant ships is different than Fast Sleek Warships, Much different Designs and Techniques.
America didn't have the Naval Architects, or the learned knowledge base for Building Warships.
True-- And in the 1750's the Americas had one of the largest Iron Foundries in the British Empire.
Then the British banned American Iron and closed down the Foundry, and Arrested anyone they caught making Iron, instead of Importing it.
There were a few small bootleg foundries, but not enuff to supply the Needs of the ARW.
Now you could POD any of these,
Finding the Daloney, or great falls, or [maine] gold field in 176X,
Britian needing ships, and sending Naval Architects, and Shipyard workers from Pymouth Naval Yard in England, to Boston.
England not banning the Foundries, and other american industries.
Except each of these were steps towards the ARW.
The changes in England's attitude toward America, Nessacary For, or Caused By, these PODs, probally butterflies away the ARW.
Maybe have the gold discovery be reported just after the ARW really starts? Like some guy is out in the boonies and discovers gold and when he comes back to tell everyone what he found the war has started?
Then have some country, France or the Netherlands perhaps, agree to send over some Naval Architects for gold or the future promise of gold?