Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Morgan Wick: TIA,CB was actually a mini-series that hopped all over the Hollywood History spectrum over its six-or-eight episodes.

Ununnilium: Huh, I see. I guess I only had that one episode on tape as a kid.

Duckluck: Think the trope where the main characters ineviatbly meet some or all of the founding fathers (execpt John Jay and the other ones no one remembers), is ubiquitous enough to be added to the page proper?

Tanto: Seems like a variation of In the Past, Everyone Will Be Famous.

Rasalas: The following debate was listed under The Determinator. If any conclusion is drawn then it could be noted in the main page, but for now the debate can continue here if you like.

  • The advantages of having the Atlantic Ocean (and during the late 18th century, only 30% of ships survived the crossing) between you and the majority of your enemies' armies.
    • Actually a rate of 70% sinkings would have pretty much eliminated the British Empire.
    • Not really, as the British Empire wasn't that big in those did mean that it was difficult to send reinforcements to colonies in North America though. The Atlantic is historically famous as just about the roughest sea to sail - and the 30% figure is historically accurate.
    • Actually I read it was more like 1 in seven sank which is still a lot. If every year only thirty percent of the ships sent across survived then soon there would be no more ships and no one to spend money building any more. If there were no ships there would be no connection to India in which case there would be no British Empire. Are you sure you don't mean thirty percent DIDN'T survive?
    • No, the 30% figure is surprising but accurate. The British Empire did not include India (or African territories) at the time of the American Revolution - they came later, largely as a result of the revolution in sea transport in the early 1800s - the move towards steam powered, iron strengthened vessels etc, that were far more seaworthy (if sadly inelegant compared to the sailing ships that came before). This Troper in no way wishes to belittle the American colonials in their fight, but the fact remains that it was extremely difficult for the British to supply reinforcements during the Revolution, which contributed to the Colonial victory. (And as the American Revolution influenced the French Revolution, which then in turn encouraged Britain to make significant democratic reforms - as the nobility were terrified of a 'French Revolution'occurring in Britain, the American Revolution had a very beneficial effect on Britain.)
    • Often this is a rather pedantic demand, but this time I really would like to see the source. And get more detail. Do you mean 70% of the ships that sailed every year did not make it? Which would certainly mean they would run out of ships? Or do you mean that 70% of the ships available in 1775 were not available in 1785 which is a rather different thing? And it is not about belittling the colonials but about skepticism about statistics. I really need more information.
    • Ships were big investments and were privately owned. No owner would take such a risk except for far more potential profit then a military contract had. Or could you mean 30% of troops shipped survived? As troop transport could sometimes be in conditions slightly better then that other type of "cargo" that might be more plausible.

The 30% of troops figure is one I've heard before. The 'difficulty of providing reinformcements during the AR' trope is a British trope - Britain has several tropes around the US revolution generally along the lines of excusing poor British military performance. Probably a sub-genre.