As a general question, would people prefer I just ignore these types of arguments from now on?
Wrapped In Flames
- Thread starter EnglishCanuck
- Start date
As a general question, would people prefer I just ignore these types of arguments from now on?
ITTL I plotted out the hypothetical reaction of the Canadian populace to a war scare that did not happen OTL. All this tells me is the number of volunteers/militia in Canada without that war scare.
For discovering the military strengths of the rest of the British army, helpful. For the attitudes of Canadians and the support or lack thereof inside the province of Canada in 1861-62? Useless.
Unless it suddenly delves into the specific attitudes of Canadians in 1861-62 (and it doesn't) it doesn't help me chart out any relevant data on Canadian attitudes to either an American invasion, or militia service.
TFSmith121
Banned
No, it has everything to do with it...
No, it has everything to do with it...
When the British ministry of war, in an official summary of the military resources available to the empire in the summer of 1862, says there are a grand total of 15,000 volunteers and 10,000 militia that can be listed as such in the Province of Canada, it would be evidence that the numbers of such in the event of an actual war would not be 70,000, which is the number you've suggested, based on - as far as anyone can tell -unofficial sources and your plotting "out the hypothetical reaction" etc...
This evidence is bolstered by the realities of the US mobilizations in 1861-62 (as cited above), in terms of volunteers being drawn from populations with similar demographics to BNA but with a much more robust administrative and professional cadre.
It's also bolstered by the realities of the organizational order of battle in the 1867 Canadian Militia List, which - because it lists the formation dates of every unit down to the company, battery, and troop, that year, can be used to construct an order of battle for the Province at any point in 1861-62 up to whatever point of departure one wishes to chose, does not show a force structure in any way close to yours...
The bottom line is that when the states of Ohio and Minnesota alone had an equivalent population to the entirety of BNA (much less the Province of Canada) it makes it clear that any posited "BNA" mobilization that yielded greater results, in less time, with less cadre and experience, then what was achieved in the US in 1861-62, is fairly suspect.
What started this particular latest exchange of views was your recent posting of your estimate for 70,000 mobilized BNAers, or 1 in 36 of the population, based on official Statscan figures for 1860; given the historical percentages in the US at this very same time, either the US "should" have more troops than historically to match that percentage, or the BNAers should get less to match the historical examples ... unless, of course, you are asserting a voluntary mobilization in BNA in the 1860s would somehow produce more men per thousand then a voluntary mobilization in the US in the 1860s... if you are, then simply say so.
However, if you are using - as stated above - "one-third of the registered sedentary militia" as your baseline for the province of Canada, then the US should have gotten 1 million+ in 1860, based on the "names on a list" linked to above ... which of course it did not, which suggests your methodology is a little off.
However, given that in an official British war office publication, published at the time (and linked to above), the total number of volunteers and militia combined listed for the province of Canada is roughly ~25,000. Even doubling that - for no obvious reason, of course - only gets to ~50,000...
And of course, if there are only ~25,000 volunteers and militia in 1862, using them for cadre to mobilize another ~25,000 or ~50,000 has the unfortunate result of not being able to use them in the field at the same time...
Which speaks to GB's point, that there are only so many organized troops in any army to go around, and in 1861-62, the only potential combatant with an organized force worth the name in North America was the one with a population of ~21 million ... in North America.
On edit - Organization, Composition, and Strength of the Army of Great Britain is an actual official British Army source from 1862 that says the most the British counted on in BNA in 1862 would have been 10,000 militia and 15,000 volunteers, period, end of story. If there's an official source - British or colonial - that gives any higher numbers than that, please post a link.
Best,
No, it has everything to do with it...
When the British ministry of war, in an official summary of the military resources available to the empire in the summer of 1862, says there are a grand total of 15,000 volunteers and 10,000 militia that can be listed as such in the Province of Canada, it would be evidence that the numbers of such in the event of an actual war would not be 70,000, which is the number you've suggested, based on - as far as anyone can tell -unofficial sources and your plotting "out the hypothetical reaction" etc...
This evidence is bolstered by the realities of the US mobilizations in 1861-62 (as cited above), in terms of volunteers being drawn from populations with similar demographics to BNA but with a much more robust administrative and professional cadre.
It's also bolstered by the realities of the organizational order of battle in the 1867 Canadian Militia List, which - because it lists the formation dates of every unit down to the company, battery, and troop, that year, can be used to construct an order of battle for the Province at any point in 1861-62 up to whatever point of departure one wishes to chose, does not show a force structure in any way close to yours...
The bottom line is that when the states of Ohio and Minnesota alone had an equivalent population to the entirety of BNA (much less the Province of Canada) it makes it clear that any posited "BNA" mobilization that yielded greater results, in less time, with less cadre and experience, then what was achieved in the US in 1861-62, is fairly suspect.
What started this particular latest exchange of views was your recent posting of your estimate for 70,000 mobilized BNAers, or 1 in 36 of the population, based on official Statscan figures for 1860; given the historical percentages in the US at this very same time, either the US "should" have more troops than historically to match that percentage, or the BNAers should get less to match the historical examples ... unless, of course, you are asserting a voluntary mobilization in BNA in the 1860s would somehow produce more men per thousand then a voluntary mobilization in the US in the 1860s... if you are, then simply say so.
However, if you are using - as stated above - "one-third of the registered sedentary militia" as your baseline for the province of Canada, then the US should have gotten 1 million+ in 1860, based on the "names on a list" linked to above ... which of course it did not, which suggests your methodology is a little off.
However, given that in an official British war office publication, published at the time (and linked to above), the total number of volunteers and militia combined listed for the province of Canada is roughly ~25,000. Even doubling that - for no obvious reason, of course - only gets to ~50,000...
And of course, if there are only ~25,000 volunteers and militia in 1862, using them for cadre to mobilize another ~25,000 or ~50,000 has the unfortunate result of not being able to use them in the field at the same time...
Which speaks to GB's point, that there are only so many organized troops in any army to go around, and in 1861-62, the only potential combatant with an organized force worth the name in North America was the one with a population of ~21 million ... in North America.
On edit - Organization, Composition, and Strength of the Army of Great Britain is an actual official British Army source from 1862 that says the most the British counted on in BNA in 1862 would have been 10,000 militia and 15,000 volunteers, period, end of story. If there's an official source - British or colonial - that gives any higher numbers than that, please post a link.
Best,
Last edited:
I asked the question in response to other readers expressed displeasure. You are of course welcome to continue the debate with me via PM or even through the TL (though evidently my readers would prefer by PM), if you are capable of acting maturely.
I would however, ask that you not feign psychic powers and claim to know what I would prefer.
Absolutely. TFSmith is has proven time and again that he is not to be reasoned with. I've had him on ignore for quite a long while now, so it's kinda annoying to read a thread page where half the posts are obscured.
Absolutely. TFSmith is has proven time and again that he is not to be reasoned with. I've had him on ignore for quite a long while now, so it's kinda annoying to read a thread page where half the posts are obscured.
Fully concur. He has his own timeline to make his points in, and needs to stop trying to turn EC's narrative into his.
Last edited:
I think that there are some very knowledgable individuals who are surprisingly set in their viewpoints. It strikes me as being a waste of time to debate with them, when its clear their sole purpose is to pick holes in the underlying premnise and direction of this TL. As to why these individuals don't just show their contempt by boycotting this TL is beyond me. Don't feed the trolls EC
Unfortunately, instead of a new update, I come today bearing some very bad news. While downloading some ebooks (which may or may not have been pirated) from the web my computer had the bad luck to get a virus which went by my malware protection and completely crashed it.
In the ensuing crash I lost the last 8 months of notes and work on this TTL (not to mention various other documents and projects, and a few $$ getting my dinosaur of a laptop back in working order) including my finished draft of the next chapter and my rough drafts for the next two chapters as well.
Now while I still possess the notes I took about 8 months ago (when I last backed up my computer) I have lost a considerable amount of work and knowledge that is outside the written notes I have (not on my computer). This does put me in a bit of a quandary. I could attempt to piece together a good functioning narrative from what I had assembled then and attempt to move forward, or I could hit the books again, rebuild my sources and do a full reboot of the TL so I'm not playing archaeologist with my own incredibly disorganized mess of a note system.
While I sort out what I want to do I'm afraid that this TL too will be on hiatus.
I apologize sincerely to those of you who were enjoying TTL and say that I will do my best to get it back up and running in one form or another.
In the ensuing crash I lost the last 8 months of notes and work on this TTL (not to mention various other documents and projects, and a few $$ getting my dinosaur of a laptop back in working order) including my finished draft of the next chapter and my rough drafts for the next two chapters as well.
Now while I still possess the notes I took about 8 months ago (when I last backed up my computer) I have lost a considerable amount of work and knowledge that is outside the written notes I have (not on my computer). This does put me in a bit of a quandary. I could attempt to piece together a good functioning narrative from what I had assembled then and attempt to move forward, or I could hit the books again, rebuild my sources and do a full reboot of the TL so I'm not playing archaeologist with my own incredibly disorganized mess of a note system.
While I sort out what I want to do I'm afraid that this TL too will be on hiatus.
I apologize sincerely to those of you who were enjoying TTL and say that I will do my best to get it back up and running in one form or another.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Thanks for the concern. I'll get something figured out
You will overcome. It does sound like you have had a bit of a ghastly blow but the research skills you have already displayed in the creation of this thread are still there and while having to climb that mountain of work all over again may seem daunting I have confidence in your fortitude. Wishing you all the best meanwhile
Don't worry EnglishCanuck, your readers can wait while you sort things out. A nicely done timeline such as this doesn't get abandoned of readership very easily. I'm still following some timelines which haven't been updated for more than a year because I like them so much.
Sad to hear, but we're behind you 100%. It takes as long as it takes after all.
Last edited:
You will overcome. It does sound like you have had a bit of a ghastly blow but the research skills you have already displayed in the creation of this thread are still there and while having to climb that mountain of work all over again may seem daunting I have confidence in your fortitude. Wishing you all the best meanwhile
Thank you very much all
I fortunately have suddenly come into an influx of time to deal with the particular Gordian Knot of my own creation so I will hopefully be able to sort things out.It may take a few months but this time line will be back...in one form or another
Oh dear,I hope you get it all sorted.
I enjoyed this timeline to.
Thanks for the concern. I'll get something figured out
That's the spirit. And don't worry at all about hiatus and all of that. If I can put my timelines on hiatus at the drop of a hat and still somehow have readers at the end of it, then you overcoming a virus shall see the timeline return, better, stronger and faster.
Best of luck and if you need help or advice then feel free to send me a message.
Saphroneth
Banned
This may be useful - the formula the RN used in the 1870s to calculate combat effectiveness.
(weight of armour x weight of guns and ammo x height of guns above the waterline x (trial speed)^3)/(100 x displacement x length)
I assume that the armour weight is the weight of the iron, absent wood backing.
A vague sense of equivalence can be calculated by taking the weight of iron of equal protectiveness to the wooden side of the ship, for a wooden ship... I hope...
It should also be quite workable for comparing wooden ships to wooden ships. And it shows the things that the RN considered important, notably freeboard - ten guns 20 feet above the water are just as good as 20 guns 10 feet up!
(weight of armour x weight of guns and ammo x height of guns above the waterline x (trial speed)^3)/(100 x displacement x length)
I assume that the armour weight is the weight of the iron, absent wood backing.
A vague sense of equivalence can be calculated by taking the weight of iron of equal protectiveness to the wooden side of the ship, for a wooden ship... I hope...
It should also be quite workable for comparing wooden ships to wooden ships. And it shows the things that the RN considered important, notably freeboard - ten guns 20 feet above the water are just as good as 20 guns 10 feet up!
Last edited: