Farmland reclaims a city

[Onasander]

http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&external=2435058.proteus.fma

 

Detroit is tearing up its neighborhoods, and is replacing it with farmland.

 

Detroit was, and to a extent still is, a industrial powerhouse, but lost control when unions and socialism wrestled control of the 'power'. Since then, its been in a state of progressive decline,to the near 3rd world status is now has.

 

I've always wondered how the actual process of converting urban terrain intofarmland worked. Constantinople is a classic example, before its final defeat, much of the city had been converted into farmland.

[caldrail]

That is, in the context of a western superpower, astonishing news. I've always been fascinated by urban abandonment - my home town suffered a small measure of that after the railways ceased to be the major employer - I once flew over Swindon and looking down, I saw huge derelict spaces in between housing estates that weren't so obvious on the maps, but in Swindon's case, seeing as land comes at such a premium in Britain and given our stricter planning legislation, those aras have pretty much been developed since. Of course Swindon is an expanding town  whereas Detroit isn't. I don't think there's a great trick to creating farmland from pre-existing conurbation - there are plenty of places in Britain that returned to farmland after the demise of heavy industry after WW2.

[Onasander]

My town is in the middle of a ongoing process of tearing down what used to be the largest steel mill on the planet.

 

Plants were always assaulting it, trees even growing on the metal roofs.

 

Now, its as if even the flora is fleeing. If you watch the movie Super 8, the fake town of Lillian is actually here.

They have the foolish idea once they 'clean up', it can be reopened as industrial or commercial land. It will become a wilderness.... the coal, sulfur, and iron ore spinkled everywhere will make for a poor return to the old apple orchards once there.

[caldrail]

That depends. There's a former industrial site in Swansea (a copper foundry linked to the slave trade)  which is now a green field site, or at at least in theory. The ground is very poisonous but foliage grows without problem.  On the other hand, I've seen pictures of former welsh collieries that have now had their railway cuttings filled in and look like unspoiled countryside today. But then, there are sites in Britain with ROman metal working that remain very poisonous - these are invariably beneath farmland.

[Onasander]

My town has the LARGEST metal working mill produced in western civilization, at the height of its industrial revolution.....

 

Though parallels can be drawn, I doubt it can much compare. It was declared by Time magazine to be the most polluted city on earth. We produced a children's book called 'No Star Nights' about little kids playing on industrial slang heaps (I used to). 

 

This combined with the power plant I was stationed in Iraq.... 

 

I have my doubts certain kinds of land can be reclaimed. You can terra form, like what the Army did in the Tennessee Basin in Presidio, San Fransisco...... they turned a desert into a Eucalptus forest, then slapped a non-indigenous Bison farm in the middle of the non native forest. It's lasted so long (the forest, as Golden Gate Park and Presidio) people forget it was originally a waste land, and started planting native shrubbery to it along the shore to make it look like it's a ecological lush-land.

 

It's basically what Herbert based the transformation of Arrakis in Dune off of. I was there when they destroyed the last surface Versace of the Tennessee creek..... brought to mind the Idaho River in The God Emperor of Dune.

 

Frank Herbert made Heidi Prime a industrial waste land, with oil saturating it. It took thousands of years of cleanup to recover. Oil naturally occurs here, so I doubt ever. This land has always been damned. 

[caldrail]

Can't compare? Well perhaps not in overall size, though I should point out that the Great Western Railway based it's worshops here in Swindon and had become quite a spawling enterptise by 1950. Largest manufacturing facilty under one roof in Europe, or at least it was in its heyday. I watched the demolition of that roof back in the 80's too - it simply refused to give in, right to the very end.

 

Geidi Prime, not Heidi. Although if you read the novels and in particular the prequels/sequels, you discover that even Frank Herbets evil planet had more to it than a simple industrial wasteland.

 

In any event, the fate of Chernobyl is interesting. nature has begun the process of recapturing the area (experts believe that without human beings all evidence of their existence would vanish within two hundred years. Personally I think that's wrong - graffiti survives from Roman times after all). A radioated landscape in which nature appears to thrive.

[Onasander]

Stupid spellchecker must of changed it to Heidi.

 

Yeah, I read many of the prequels. I was one of the ones pushing for the Dune philosophy book.

 

I should also point out we also had/have the largest trailhead. So big, it swallowed up a neighborhood. It's still claimed to be, but they are tearing big segments of it up. Bigger than anything I've seen hiking out west.... 

 

They tore the line up heading out to Pittsburg Pa here, 30-40 miles to the city..... and turned it into a walking trail...... and in the process blew up a hill the rail line was dug through during the civil war..... big field now, with fat people waddling down it holding Diet Cokes. I was the only one who used to hike it. 

 

They wonder why we can't find the forts from Lord Dunmore's War or the Revolutionary War there...... this area was a crucial battleground area.... but they dropped a billion tones of slag and mined and blew up everything.

[caldrail]

Finding archaeological sites from scratch isn't easy - just recently in Britain the battlefields of Hastings and Bosworth have been effectively relocated from their traditional sites due to research and finds. The site of Mons Badonicus has been a source of debate since the middle ages and still no-one can make an absolute case for finding it.

 

The thing is, even if you know more or less where to find it - and that in itself has spawned a tradition of treasure hunters claiming to know the site of one place or another - actually digging in the right spot can be good fortune as much as science.

[Onasander]

I found the exact location of one, part of Patrick Henry's western billet system guarding the frontier from the Indians and Detroit (Proto Canadians).  Also found a few little roads they built, and a Absurd little vineyard they maintained till the mill was built.

 

For this area, the fort system closely matched the terrain..... Ohio River north to south, valleys of the Appalachian Plateau East to West,with Pittsburg to the east a days march. Each creek was named and fortified.

 

Samuel Brady organized the North South spy network of forts to communicate with the rear. He was a Ranger, it's not alien logic. 

 

Problem arises is, most people today don't understand the frontier infantry moved much, much faster than their modern counterparts. My knee is lame, but I can still move double the speed of your cross country runner downhill, 4 times faster than anyone in my old unit prior to getting messed up. It hasn't dawned on the historians this is the case.... but it explains the absurd, lopsided frontier battles how a few frontiersmen on the run could outpace and outgun their pursuers. 

 

This is important information for me to know for gadging distances for forts, but I'm stuck going off the workings of flatlanders who don't even know how to run downhill.  Corps of Engineers rerouting the flow of once crooked creek systems hasn't helped, nor the department of transportation. Likewise, Virginia and Pennsylvania warring over this territory, holding seperate court records for land ownership, based on non existent oak trees isn't helping either. (My town is the only one to border 3 states in the US, and for shits and giggles decided to run the county line right down the middle of town). Add to this civil war complications, half our old records are in the state of Virginia, other half West Virginia (not to mention PA, OH, not to mention Wisconsin for some weird reason)..... I'm going insane.

 

Even more frustrating is..... Lord Dunmore fled to England. I haven't the slightest Damn clue what is there. He choose this town to start the war..... it was essentially the first shot of what would become the revolutionary war (he did it to thin out the frontier population)....

 

 

It drives me nuts.

 

None the less, I have some success. When I say approximate, I really mean it. Just might be under a road or railtracks. Not a whole lot of options here..... it was a very logical frontier fort system, using strong points in narrow valleys as well as rear forts with organized militias for depth defence whenever the Indians or Empire penetrated. 

 

I even have a little success in tracking the trails used for this penetration.

[caldrail]

 

Problem arises is, most people today don't understand the frontier
infantry moved much, much faster than their modern counterparts. My knee
is lame, but I can still move double the speed of your cross country
runner downhill, 4 times faster than anyone in my old unit prior to
getting messed up. It hasn't dawned on the historians this is the
case.... but it explains the absurd, lopsided frontier battles how a few
frontiersmen on the run could outpace and outgun their pursuers.

You're going to struggle to convince anyone of that. The average marching distances and athletic performances of soldiers has not really changed much over the millenia and tends to encouraged by necessity and limited by load. Modern soldiers carry a great deal of kit and ammo, plus they often have an option for motorised transport.

 

The Romans themselves are often quoted as being subject to harsh demands (they sometimes were) yet we also get suggestions of animals, wagons, and camp followers, which eased their loads and certainly slowed them down. Conditions might make a difference too - we have an account of legionaries wading up their necks in flood water in Germania, making slow and hazardous progress. We know that at times Roman soldiers marched with their weapons carried in wagons, and that some legionaries had developed the art of crossing rivers on shields as flotation devices (there are two instances of that I have come acorss, one in the late empire, the other a tribal speciality)

 

As for American frontiersmen, individually they might have covered ground relatively quickly, but the fastest means of travel was by boat which avoided the impeding forest altogether.

[Onasander]

No, fastest means of travel was NOT by boat, given the frontier was the river. The creek systems to this day get massively clogged up by trees, most of which are not submerged, but inconveniently floating inches to a foot above water..... meaning it's a web of branches.

 

Not no mention the beaver dam buildup.

 

It's only a fast way to travel if you maintain the creek. It's much, much faster by foot. I can get to Wisconsin MUCH faster on foot than by Canoe. 

 

The reason for water transport was the ease (lazy factor) and the need to carry heavy loads.

 

Hence, the historians folly of not actually examining the land, and testing it out themselves. I can reach Pittsburg a day's March, by Canoe..... better grab a stickers. It's only worthwhile if I got crops, or skins to trade. Most our early cattle trade avoided the river as a nuisance, finding overland transport much better. 

 

As to convincing historians..... not a Issue..... they will die off in time with their theories. 

 

You have to pay attention to how you maintain your endurance. Starting from the top of a hill, most guys lunge to to reward, and bitterly try to run down, burning oxygen, using their muscles, pushing to reward, halting, throwing their weight to the rear. The dodging back and forth while pushing to reward wears them down.

 

Truth is, your not supposed to run. Your supposed to FALL. You do this by stepping far to reward, not bending your knees much, and AIM for a tree ten-fifteen feet ahead of you. 

 

If your not bending your knees, stepping to foreword like this causes you to bounce and recoil back up, and you gain a lot of speed hurtling towards the tree below. On approaching the tree, if you seek to maintain momentum, you cup your inner handicrafts, bringing your arm in, when you hit the tree you slap it, choosing your new trajectory before landing (you'll twist your knee or tumble if you choose once landing).

 

Cliffs are a freaken nuisance doing this, unless you know the land, you can't spot them. Here they can be twenty to several hundred feet. Usually just twenty..... scares the living daylights out of you when the valley below opens up, but you don't fall all the way. There always is topsoil piled up below, acts like a cushion. Don't like doing that though, scares me. 

 

 

Taking the steepest route avoids thickets, which can't usually be leaped over. They are one hell of a fortification. 

 

You hit the bottom curve, locomotion changes. The flatlanders used up their cardio reserve already. Your just starting yours, overflowing with oxygen from your bouncy bouncy fall down. You are guaranteed to be at the bottom, short of injury, in at least half the time it's taking superstar to run down. 

The valleys here are not wide..... cross the creek..... water will numb your feet a bit, and cool you down..... but you'll also pick up weight. You'll have to run up a diagonal, but not a straight one the deer take. You will zigzag back and forth, looking for trees with roots sticking out. If you see the roots, it means the curvature of the hill is just right to break off your huff and puff pursuers, giving you rock cliffs nearby to shoot down on them from. Secondly, these curvatures usually step brutally up in a spiral to other steps. It's a cardio nightmare, but less for you and much, much more for them. This cardio nightmare is ironically the best shaded and most direct root up. Try not to climb root systems, take a few steps on unstable ground, next tree, take cover if need be, etc.

 

Running downhill isn't a complete exposure to your back. When running down and cupping your hands, bring your elbow about so instead of recoiling off the tree, you are slapping the outside, and sling yourself 180 degrees, dropping down below it. The lower 70 percent of your body is covered, your head can hide behind the trunk, and you can fire back.

 

Like I said, different movement techniques, not used in modern militaries. Russians and NATO specialized in different movement techniques during the cold war.... Russians even were taught to craw differently.

 

If just traveling on foot without pursuit, this method is fastest, but on the uphill climb, I recommend deer trails. If your not overly pressed, going down the crazy zig zag springs/creeks..... each hill having dozens, is good..... just don't use this if your in pursuit.

 

Review the Indian tactics used in the French and Indian wars...... the Indians tended to appear off hillsides into troop formations VERY FAST..... and still had the stamina to fight hand to hand.  The frontiersmen differed in being at least equals in movement techniques, hence why a much, much better kind of soldier, amongst many qualities.

[caldrail]

Review the Indian tactics used in the French and Indian wars...... the Indians tended to appear off hillsides into troop formations VERY FAST..... and still had the stamina to fight hand to hand.  The frontiersmen differed in being at least equals in movement techniques, hence why a much, much better kind of soldier, amongst many qualities.

Contemporary documents reveal considerable variation in appreciation of abilities of both colonists, tories, amnd indians. Accounts of fighting left in depositions for war pensions reveal that Indians were not as single minded about warfare as whites, and that their cultural mindset meant they could be at war one day, peacefully trading the next, which the whites did not clearly understand. I also draw attention to one incident in which a scout discovered two indians camping in the forest by accident. He decided to attack, shooting one straight off, and getting into a very thrilling melee with the other.  Noticeably though there are plenty of somewaht scornful descriptions of indians, emphasising how whites showed courage under fire by standing openly, while the indian skulked behind trees and bushes. Also I note one letter that describes how Indians kidnapped some settlers and made off back to their own camps leaving the pursuers well behind.

 

 

  Onasander, on 09 Dec 2013 - 20:25, said:, fastest means of travel was NOT by boat, given the frontier was the river.

Prevailing opinion says that it was. Since there were very few roads, and trails themselves often over difficult terrain, moving large numbers of men through virgin woodland was difficult and slow. I don't doubt there were problems attached to travel by rivers (I can think of a few), yet I notice that rivers were routinely used by all concerned. Since river travel was of itself not without issue, that can't be described as laziness. It was simply expedience.No, fastest means of travel was NOT by boat, given the frontier was the river.

 

 

Hence, the historians folly of not actually examining the land, and testing it out themselves. I can reach Pittsburg a day's March, by Canoe..... better grab a stickers. It's only worthwhile if I got crops, or skins to trade. Most our early cattle trade avoided the river as a nuisance, finding overland transport much better.

The cattle trade was a feature of expansion into the wide open mid-west spaces that such herds found more to their liking. It was very restricted in scope until after the AWI.

 

 

As to convincing historians..... not a Issue..... they will die off in time with their theories.

 

That's why we write books

As to convincing historians..... not a Issue..... they will die off in time with their theories.

 

Cliffs are a freaken nuisance doing this, unless you know the land, you can't spot them. Here they can be twenty to several hundred feet. Usually just twenty..... scares the living daylights out of you when the valley below opens up, but you don't fall all the way. There always is topsoil piled up below, acts like a cushion. Don't like doing that though, scares me.

 

There is of course the tale of one woodsman who was being chased by

irate native americans. Finding no other way out of his predicament, and

not wishing to receive the usual painful treatment meted out to

colonists, he spurred his horse over the edge, and survived, as the fall

was broken by the trees below.

Edited December 10, 2013 by caldrail

[Onasander]

Yes, that Woodsman was with our unit, I'll remember his name later on tonight, he was trying to reach Fort Henry in Wheeling. We sent the forces from Holiday 's Cove (where I live) down south to another Fort just north of Wheeling.... the rest left by Canoe, and arrived next morning.

 

The Horse survived, because its possible to run off the cliffs, just it's so steep you more fall than run..... the trick is my movement technique. 

 

We have a giant mural in the old post office of the men from here moving south to relieve Fort Henry. I am saving up for a 2000 dollar van, then a 400 dollar 3D printer so I can progress on building this Ultraviolet Camera.... after that, I'll by a printer capable of 0.5 polluters so I can make a mural LARGER in our new museum. 

[Onasander]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McColloch's_Leap

 

It just occured to me I dont know where he is buried. I found Samuel Brady, some British General.....

 

Ill have to hike up Short Creek into Pennslyvania to find out if he is buried out by Meadowcroft. Itll be a few days, my knee is chubby with blood from my last hike.

 

I dont think Im brave enough to take a horse off the cliff. I might do it on my own if my life is on the line, but I never liked jumping off even a small one. I couldnt even bring myself to jumping out the airplanes in the Army, I just sorta walked out and was gone.

 

But sometimes your moving too fast, and the tree ahead snaps or the ground is too shallow, and to keep from slipping you commit. Its no good. But that is how you outmaneuver.... you learn to commit to gravity, and to the hardship of climbing hills that will rapidly break you off. You gain appreciation for natural formations.

[caldrail]

I do remember being on exercise with a bunch of others. We were jogging through woodland to reach a better position when the guy in front of me vanished. Completely. Somewhat stunned, I called out to him, and I heard a woeful groan from a hidden hollow right before me, which the foliage had covered over. Couldn't help laughing though

Edited December 11, 2013 by caldrail