Please, I have a test coming up, and I don't know what the unit was about!?
I'm having trouble on this.
We're supposed to study:
Site + Situation Factors
reasons for settlement being created
b) Ease of Defense
This was on the outline of the test, and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to study...:S
am i supposed to give reasons?? But aren't those reasons? am i supposed to back up, each of those. This is soo frustrating help please! and maybe give me some reasons? If that is what i'm supposed to do.
- bimeateaterLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
No, those aren't reasons. They're just general topics for particular reasons.
For instance, consider Pittsburgh, PA. It was built at the joining of two rivers, the result of which is the biggest river system in North America (to a geographer, the Ohio River is the river that runs down to the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi feeds it, not the other way around.). Now, the French built it and cared really about two things, though of course, they considered the other benefits bonuses.
It was a forward position in English America. Meant to protect the Ohio region and all points west the same way we protect the USA by fighting in Europe or Iraq rather than fighting in Maryland. One of the rivers reaches most the way to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River so they could fairly easily supply and reinforce the fort as well as easily move troops OUT of it to other places if other places were attacked. Secondly, it was far enough from any well-served area of English America that it could only be reached for attack after a LONG, HARD trek through thick wilderness. The river systems in PA run south and east, or down and over toward the sea. So instead of being able to follow a river to get there and using water transport to move men and supplies, any English attacking force had to build a long road there, protect it from wasting attacks, and cart everything. (River transport is much better: easy movement, boats hold so much more, and boats don't eat like horses do. That last means carting things requires twice as many carts and horses just to carry the horse supplies.)
So the French could easily support the fort. The English would have a very hard time (and DID have, oh did they ever) attacking it. Without removing it, the English could never get the Ohio Indians to stop helping the French. Those Indians were busy slaughtering, and I mean that literally, the population of PA outside Philadelphia and nearby. They killed or chased out 20% of PA's white and friendly Indian population leaving no one white very far west of Philadelphia.
So it was rather worthwhile from a transport point of view. And greatly defensible, for the reasons above, so long as they added to them by cleverly sighting the defenses and building them strongly enough. That's a tricky subject, by the way. Make them too strong, but be unable to afford proper troop support, and your enemy might take the weakened site, then man it properly and you might have simply built an expensive fortress for the enemy.
If it had stayed in French control, and peace had "broken out" then it could have become an economic machine for them. It would have been a safe place for traders to amass trade goods to then take, boat by boat, or caravan by caravan, down the Ohio River, then into Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana and Illinois, or directly into Ohio and Kentucky over land. People would have settled as the farmland around is worthwhile. If French control had lasted even 30 years, it's likely industries supplying the Indian trade would have arisen. By that I mean instead of carrying in full-built plows, etc., you'd bring in manufactured pieces, then build the wooden parts there and assemble the plows or whatever. You would also see more of the trade items received (like furs) being processed there before shipping onward toward Europe. So the defensibility and transport available could have led to the best resource of all being available: population. Farming and the trade routes available would have been the natural resources. Lumber, of course. Eventually, the massive coal and salt resources in the general area could have been important.
It was built solely for defense and was very suited to that so long as its requirements were met. All the rest would have been gravy, so to speak.
Of course, once in English control the prospects were very different.
THIS is how I think you are supposed to look at the questions and give answers. They want each of the three areas touched upon and a convincing argument, based on facts you've learned, made for why the settlement was built. Not why it succeeded, necessarily, by why it was built. They are not always the same! Like with Pittsburgh.