After submitting:
Susanann, you have to imagine WHY all those people came to America. They didn’t get off the boat and head out into the woods to become mountain men. No, they were either tradespeople who wanted to live in a city or village an ply their trade, or they were peasant farmers who wanted a place to farm. Or if they were earlier like at Jamestown they were adventurers who wanted to find a bunch of gold and go back home. In any case, these were people who were struggling merely to survive. None of them were skilled hunters or trackers or backwoodsmen. Even if they had hunted in Europe, that was in a context of a settled country, not raw wilderness. They were trying to support their families, or if unmarried trying to raise enough money so that they could get married. They were undergoing hardship and danger, yes, but for a purpose.
The mountain men, trappers, and scouts only existed after many generations of learning to live in the wilderness. Your average immigrant from Europe was no more capable of living off the land via hunting and trapping than you or me. Of course many were skilled, tough, courageous subsistence farmers who could withstand things that would kill us, but farming requires land and capital goods.
it wasn’t just hostile Indians. Remember also that prior to 1776 there were no “Americans” in Eastern North America. Various level of hostilities and outright war existed between the English and the Spanish and French.
For huge pockets of time, if they caught you wandering around their territory, whistling, hands in pockets, a few miles from a Fort, you could expect arrest and poor incarceration conditions (at the very least ).
As someone else already said, there’s more to it then walking. One needs to find more food and water as they go along, collect fuel for a fire to cook any food they find(which on the plains may be just dried animal dung), fording any rivers you come to and going fast enough to make sure you can keep making progress, yet slow enough that you don’t starve yourself to death. 20 miles a day will likely end up starving the poor guy to death considering he’d likely never be able to find enough food to fullfill said caloric needs or carry enough water to keep himself alive. Again, assuming he could go that fast due to lack of obstacles.
Oh, and I picked 1800 as a nice round number and to make it easier on the walker. In 1650, the luxury of leaving from St. Louis no longer exists, so you’ve just added another 2000(1000 there and 1000 back) miles to the journey, as well as any number of swamps, rivers and at least one mountain range as obstacles. Remember that there’s also that much more of the American Continent that isn’t mapped, so instead of 2000 miles of mostly unknown territory to cover, that’s 3000 miles of mostly unknown territory to cover. Leaving in 1650 also means trading in a flintlock rifle for a matchlock musket, which lessens the chance of successful hunting as well as an increased need to do so, which also means that there’s a larger chance of running out of powder and ammunition long before completing even half the journey. BTW, I hope the walker bought a good supply of matches so his gun will be able to work.
In 1800, I’d give a skilled, prepared walker, who knew what he was doing, leaving from St. Louis a 25% chance of making it back alive assuming he is very lucky. I’d give the same person in 1650 somewhere between a 10%-5% chance of making it back alive.
Of course, in the 1600s you’d be better off taking a bow or crossbow rather than a matchlock. The matchlock might be more effective at scaring away hostile tribes, but the bow would be better for hunting. I don’t think I’d bother with firearms unless I could have at least a flintlock rifle.
I’ve actually walked 20+ miles in a day with a 70 lbs pack on my pack, as part of a two-week long backpacking trip. So I have some experience in this area.
Susanann, you vastly underestimate difficulty here.
First of all, when I did this I had a modern pack with a form-fitting aluminum frame (that much aluminum before 1850 was literally worth its weight in gold, if you could get it at all) and a padded hip-belt (not used extensively until, IIRC, the 1960’s or 70’s) and utizling lightwieght dacron for pack, tents, sleeping bag, etc. My cooking gear was aluminum and plastic. My rain gear was plastic. My knives/hatchet were stainless steel.
Contrast this to the gear of 1700 - no frame in the pack at all and no hip belt, putting considerable strain on shoulders and back. Pack, tent, rain gear, etc. were all either canvas or leather or both, all much heavier than dacron. The cooking gear was cast iron. The knives and blades you had weren’t stainless steel and prone to rust. The equivalent gear to what I carried would easily be 100 lbs. In addition, the explorers would have carried guns and ammo, adding to the weight involved.
Also, when I walked my 20 miles it was on an established trail with relatively flat terrain, and I knew in advance where water and food could be found. But only some of the terrain between the Appalacians and the Pacific is like that. I’ve also hiked terrain so rough and steep that, even without a pack, it took me over two hours to cover a half a mile - and that was in Wisconsin. Things get much rougher in the Rockies, with literally impassible terrain broken only occassionally by passes. Mind you, terrain so rough as to slow an experienced hiker to .25 miles per hour would, in fact, qualify as “passable terrain”. Try that while carrying 100 lbs on your back. And while worried about bears and hostile natives.
Even before you get to desert or the Rockies, though, you have to cross the Great Plains. It’s very hard for one man (or even a couple of them) to take down a wild bison on foot - which is why Indians hunted them in large groups. So probably you’d hunt mostly things like rabbit and prarie dog. When you could find them. You can’t eat grass, which will make finding other food very difficult - the Plains Indians usually spent part of the year on the edges of the prarie gathering wild, edible plants - on the great grasslands there weren’t a lot of plants edible to humans. And that’s assuming you can identify them - which, if you haven’t been there before and have no guide, you won’t be able to. In addition, early explorers considered the Great Plains to be a dessert - one reason they’re grasslands is that they get about 1/3 the rainfall of the Eastern woodlands. Once you cross the Ohio river drinking water will become a problem. You will have to carry a couple days supply with you, at about 1-2 gallons a day, 8 lbs per gallon… this stuff is heavy. In summer, temperatures soar over 100 degrees. In winter, they drop as low as -30 or -40. This is harsh climate. And you’re only halfway across the continent.
The Rockies, being mountains, have the problem of steep, rugged terrain, cold weather, heavy snows, and altitude problems. Better not get mountain sickness. If you stumble across a place like Yellowstone you might like a dip in a hot pool - but don’t drink it! The pre-European natives visited Yellowstone, but did not live there, finding it too strange and hostile. The desert - well, it’s beastly hot in the daytime, freezing cold at night (I’ve seen it snow overnight in Phoenix, and that’s pretty far south) and there’s even less water than on the Great Plains. And a lot of the springs, ponds, etc. are either intermittant and so not always there, or poisoned by various chemicals. And, oh yes, there’s not a lot to eat. Especially for someone unable to recognize the spike-studded vegetation like prickly-pear catus as edible. And poisonous snakes, scorpions, and even a venomous lizard. Charming place, really.
By the time you reach California and natives who live off acorns and grasshoppers you’ll think they’re eating like kings.
And, gee whiz, that’s just the problems I can think of off the top of my head.
See above reference to water problems. Horses require even more water than humans… “dry camps” will be a problem. In fact, during the days of Connestoga wagons oxen were used more often to pull the wagon than horses because they survived the rigors of the trip better. Ditto for food - horses eat enormous amounts. Once you hit the Rockies the terrain gets tough even for bipeds descended from climbing primates. It gets impassible for horses long before the rising land stops humans. In the desert track you’ve got the water AND food problems because there isn’t enough graze for horses to make it.
Maybe they were afraid they’d disappear, too.
The east coast was NOT a “total wilderness” when the Europeans arrived. It was heavily settled by people already who lived in numerous villages throughout the region. Without those natives, the losses among the European colonies would have been even higher than they were.
Except, of course, for the indentured servants who came in chains and the African slaves, who didn’t have any choice in the matter. Not everyone wanted to be here.
Even if you got to the Rockies, you have no way of knowing how to go over/under/around/through it, you’d probably spend days/months trying to find a pass.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Susanann * I dont buy that walking is too much, or too difficult, I think most people can walk accross the country if they wanted to. If you can walk an average of 20 miles a day, you can cover 200 miles in 10 days, 2 thousand in 100 days. I dont see a problem with bringing pack horses either, as long as you can find grass and water, they will be fine.
[/QUOTE
Have you been reading the responses in this thread??
First of all, 20 miles every day is ludicrous; it’s absolutely impossible. You just are not comprehending the fact that the United States at the time was complete wildnerness. There were no roads. There were no trails. It was forest, desert, and mountain. A few people and their pack animals could not cross a wide river at all. They could not get through the Rocky Mountains without knowing a pass.
I challenge you to go out into a complete wildnerness in northern Ontario and get from Point A to a Point B 20 miles away in one day, without the benefit of a map. I do not believe you could do it, and I’ll wager hardly anyone could do it. And there are no deserts or gigantic mountain ranges or hostile Indian tribes there. To do it every day for months on end? Not possible.
The fact of the matter is that without a very great effort and a large expedition, it was impossible. That’s your answer; it simply cannot be done. 2000 miles of wilderness without any idea where you’re going and hostile Indian tribes to kill you?
But that really isn’t true, either. The people fleeing Europe for the New World weren’t in it for adventure, for the most part, they were in it to avoid religious persecution or crushing poverty. And the FIRST thing they did was set up towns and permanent settlements to give themselves as many of the comforts of Europe as they possibly could.
I am no expert on this topic, but I’ll go out on a limb to say that most posters are ignoring (or discounting) a key segment of the population that lived exactly the type of lifestyle that is being branded as virtual suicide: the fur trappers. (Granted, these guys were not in it to “stroll across the continent to see what Friar Juan was up to or how the Pacific ocean looked.”)
In the late 1700s and early to mid-1800s they survived fairly well by living off the land and co-existing with the Indians (who, I suspect, cherished the white men as valuable pelt-trading partners). You have to remember how utterly HUGE the demand for beaver fur – and beaver oil – was in those days, in the US, yes, but in Europe primarily. I mean HUGE. So there was a solid purpose to them being there and an incentive to learn how to survive the elements for the long term. I don’t believe they traveled in large numbers – maybe one or two or three guys – so I don’t buy the theory that you needed an expedition or wagontrain.
And from what I’ve seen, these trappers and mountain men made maps too. How many, how good they were, and how widely available they were I can not say.
BTW, isn’t it supposed to be a confirmed fact that such a mm/trapper made it from the east to the Pacific and back before Lewis & Clark did it? Yes?
Except the trappers spent at least some time at forts and base camps where they could re-supply with things like matches, salt, knives, guns and ammo, and they didn’t go tramping across 2000 miles of unknown territory. They tended to keep to a certain geographical range and only expanded slowly from there. Their association with the natives (who also were clearly capable of surviving the wilderness) also taught them what plants to eat, local hazards to avoid, and so forth. So it was a different lifestyle than attempting to walk a straight line from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
And the attrition rate among new trappers was pretty high.
Pre-European influence, there were entensive trade routes used by the natives extending over vast swaths of territory, but while the goods traveled the whole length of the route a person seldom did. I have no doubt the occassional adventurer did make the journey, or at least part of it, but with natives we’re talking about people who knew how to make stone tools (metals ones being unavailable), fire without flint and steel, and were familliar with wild foods of this hemisphere.
Stuyguy, Yes, I was thinking of the mountain men , hundreds of whom did just what I am talking about, roaming the western frontier.
That was in the 1820’s. They had a motive for doing it in the 1802’s, beaver pelts. I guess what I am saying , is that when there was a reason to do it, i.e. profit motive, i.e. beaver pelts, then plenty of men did just that, plenty of men had the ability and capability to do it, they walked and wondered all over the west in the 1820’s.
Also, the Spanish DID seem to wonder quite a bit in the west, the Spanish DID reach all the way north to Utah and Colorado, and covered a lot of New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, California. When I see the maps and see how far the Spanish were going/roaming, and then look at the french and english holding on dear to the east coast, not wanting to venture more than a few miles, there is quite a contrast.
Everyone made some very good points, thank you. I guess the general answer from most of you is why do it? (people did not walk, or run, for fun back then)
I’m reading about these Spaniards presently, and may I point out, that they died by the hundreds with sometimes thousands of native slaves perishing along with them. No joke. 500 Spanish soldiers would set out with 1000 slaves in tow. Only 250 soldiers would return – no one else was left alive.
On their first ventures up to New Mexico they were slaughtered.
Yes, their wandering was extensive but the casualty rate was astronomically high. They set out again and again with armies that perished.
I’ve been an outdoorsy type for a long time and I can guarantee that even with modern equipment if I was dropped off somewhere in the middle of Yellowstone Park and had to wander my way out, I’d perish within two to three weeks. We’re talking extreme survival skills required.
One very important point which hasn’t come out so far is that it was a key part of British policy for most of the Colonial period to prevent westward expansion by the Colonies.
This was both because Britain had made treaties with Indian nations (particularly the powerful Iroquois Confederacy) which occupied the land immediately to the west of the colonies, and because control of colonists was easier in a smaller area.
This policy, indeed, was one of the major grievances of the American colonists in the years leading up to independence - and after independence was achieved, westward expansion accelerated very rapidly.
Of course, this policy related to wholesale colonization as opposed to penetration by traders and missionaries, which happened increasingly throughout the colonial period, affecting both Europeans and natives on the frontier.
(For an excellent and readable study of the colonial frontier, I highly recommend New Worlds for All by Colin Calloway.)
(Forgive me I really didn’t read each and every post, I may be repeating myself.)
Without modern canned goods and other supplies, you would spend a large amount of your time getting food and water. To cross the continent in a year or two you gotta really make tracks and that is hard to do when you spend (pick a number) five hours a day shooting at grub and cutting wood.
Further, without maps you would have to be darn lucky to cover the distance in any logical manner. Most likely you would end up in a dozen deadends. You would be forced to backtrack.
If you made it, good for you! Now go back and tell everyone. See if they believe you.
This is baloney-the Far West had been explored since the time of Father Escalante and Cabeza de Vaca (late 1500’s). A french trapper/trader (Pierre Laramie) made it as far as new mexico ca 1800. And, Fr. Junipero Serra was in communication with the new nation of the United States
True, a cross-continental journey was difficult…but the old Santa Fe trail (which lead from Independence, MO, to Santa Fe) was a regular trade route by the 1820’s. In fact, there was so much in the way of goods flowing into new mexico, that the Mexican Governemnt closed the trail for a time.
Just to get a greater appreciation for how difficult travel on the Oregon trail really was, I’d really recommend visiting the Oregon Trail Interpretive Center if you’re ever in this part of the country. It’s about a two-hour drive from where I live. I’ve gone through this facility several times myself and it’s really worth the visit. The pioneers on the Oregon Trail dealt with everything from heat to cold, rain, drought, sickness, hunger, lack of supplies, spoiled food, etc. Mosquitoes were the least of their worries. They had to make several tough decisions and sacrifices along the way. If you lost one of your family members you buried him/her and kept going. The whole facility really puts all of this into perspective.
