|
Post by craighudson on Jan 13, 2015 22:45:11 GMT
Nope, I'm thinking as someone who's noted where cities and large settlements were built throughout Europe. And indeed throughout the world until very recently; Near navigable rivers or lakes. I can't think of any major city in Europe that isn't on a major river - or at least none that predate railways. Madrid?
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 14, 2015 1:41:24 GMT
Nope, I'm thinking as someone who's noted where cities and large settlements were built throughout Europe. And indeed throughout the world until very recently; Near navigable rivers or lakes. I can't think of any major city in Europe that isn't on a major river - or at least none that predate railways. Madrid? Nope, that city sits on the river Manzanares - I did have to look that up btw. For any settlement to grow it needs transportation/trade links so it can bring in goods and items that can't be produced locally. This doesn't automatically mean that all settlements need to actually be on a river, the transport links can be to other larger settlements. But until very recently in human history those links had to be no more than a day or two's travel time away - especially if transporting foods that couldn't be preserved or transported in a form that doesn't spoil quickly. (One of the reasons that even today we transport grain rather than bread over long distances). This is why cities like London and even New York used to consist of a larger central settlement surrounded by smaller villages - which were eventually absorbed into the larger settlement. For older cities long distance trade routes meant water, it is only very recently that road and rail have allowed those transport links to be land rather than water based - such as Las Vegas. Of course 'old' cities would include every major city in the USA circa 1830 as the transportation systems available were just as limited as those in Europe centuries earlier. So unless you are talking about very specific locations that could produce very rare items, such as gold or silver, it wasn't practical to build too far away from larger settlements. In the context of sailing this is important to keep in mind. Populations usually migrate from areas of high population to areas of low population (excluding disasters and wars), and in the US that would translate as movement from the coastal ports or settlements located on or near bodies of water. This in term means that the probability of a group of settlers containing at least one or two people who had some knowledge of sails and sailing, even if they hadn't actually done any sailing themselves. This in turn would make it rather surprising if some settlers didn't make some type of sail for their wagons. The skills would have been there, and its not like there was a lot else to do when travelling but think up ways to pass the time. I don't think the early wagons came with an in-cart entertainment center. Unless the mother in law continually telling you how they used to travel faster than this back in the old days, and how you should really be passing the time...can't you see that Bison up ahead? Counts as entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 14, 2015 6:34:27 GMT
Nope, that city sits on the river Manzanares - I did have to look that up btw. For any settlement to grow it needs transportation/trade links so it can bring in goods and items that can't be produced locally. This doesn't automatically mean that all settlements need to actually be on a river, the transport links can be to other larger settlements. But until very recently in human history those links had to be no more than a day or two's travel time away - especially if transporting foods that couldn't be preserved or transported in a form that doesn't spoil quickly. (One of the reasons that even today we transport grain rather than bread over long distances). This is why cities like London and even New York used to consist of a larger central settlement surrounded by smaller villages - which were eventually absorbed into the larger settlement. For older cities long distance trade routes meant water, it is only very recently that road and rail have allowed those transport links to be land rather than water based - such as Las Vegas. Of course 'old' cities would include every major city in the USA circa 1830 as the transportation systems available were just as limited as those in Europe centuries earlier. So unless you are talking about very specific locations that could produce very rare items, such as gold or silver, it wasn't practical to build too far away from larger settlements. In the context of sailing this is important to keep in mind. Populations usually migrate from areas of high population to areas of low population (excluding disasters and wars), and in the US that would translate as movement from the coastal ports or settlements located on or near bodies of water. This in term means that the probability of a group of settlers containing at least one or two people who had some knowledge of sails and sailing, even if they hadn't actually done any sailing themselves. This in turn would make it rather surprising if some settlers didn't make some type of sail for their wagons. The skills would have been there, and its not like there was a lot else to do when travelling but think up ways to pass the time. I don't think the early wagons came with an in-cart entertainment center. Unless the mother in law continually telling you how they used to travel faster than this back in the old days, and how you should really be passing the time...can't you see that Bison up ahead? Counts as entertainment. for most of our later population, water was more important than haulage, so while they did tend to settle near water, they used it for drinking and irrigation. yes, in the very early settlements, the only markets available were overseas. however, as our population grew and dispersed, the general population did more and more domestic trade. the more elite classes still did european stuff, but the general population got cotton from the south, and pretty much everything else nearby. in the inner settlements, pretty much everything came in by... Conestoga wagon. so was it possible to have a retired sailor move inland? yes. was it likely a major portion of the frontier population 150 years after we became a nation were sailors? not so much. It is documented that some people played with wind power. however the fact that this was notable indicates that "prairie schooner" referred to the look and possibly the cargo application, not to the motive force.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 14, 2015 7:48:07 GMT
Nope, I'm thinking as someone who's noted where cities and large settlements were built throughout Europe. And indeed throughout the world until very recently; Near navigable rivers or lakes. I can't think of any major city in Europe that isn't on a major river - or at least none that predate railways. If you hadn't said pre-dates railways I would have reminded you of Milton Keynes....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 14, 2015 15:23:01 GMT
Nope, I'm thinking as someone who's noted where cities and large settlements were built throughout Europe. And indeed throughout the world until very recently; Near navigable rivers or lakes. I can't think of any major city in Europe that isn't on a major river - or at least none that predate railways. If you hadn't said pre-dates railways I would have reminded you of Milton Keynes.... we have a few that were not established near waterways - but as I pointed out earlier, that is because people get thirsty.
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jan 14, 2015 16:43:27 GMT
It may be too elaborate a build, but can we compromise with the agreement that a sail rig like what a ship of the time would have carried would be the absolute best-case scenario for this myth? If the loaded wagon doesn't move with a smaller sail (or the sail doesn't provide enough assistance to make any real difference), and if J&A have time/budget left over, let them go nuts on a more elaborate sail rig under the classification of "so what would it take?".
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 14, 2015 16:54:16 GMT
It may be too elaborate a build, but can we compromise with the agreement that a sail rig like what a ship of the time would have carried would be the absolute best-case scenario for this myth? If the loaded wagon doesn't move with a smaller sail (or the sail doesn't provide enough assistance to make any real difference), and if J&A have time/budget left over, let them go nuts on a more elaborate sail rig under the classification of "so what would it take?". my thought would be to first take what we already know - which is the hoop design used on the conestoga and smaller wagons - and the gaff rig used on the wind wagon we have documentation on. then if they really wanted to, they could explore the limits.
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jan 14, 2015 21:48:47 GMT
Agreed (and my earlier post may not have been as clear as it should have been -- headache plus overtime isn't a good combo for me). Start with what we can document.
|
|