User:The ed17/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List[edit]

Ships[edit]

Milwaukee[edit]

Upper Peninsula[edit]


The Marquette and Huron Mountain Railroad was a tourist railroad in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Incorporated in 1962, it ran north from Marquette, Michigan to the small community of Big Bay.[1]

Central Wisconsin Railroad: https://www.milwaukeeroadarchives.com/MilwaukeeRoadMagazine/MediaMonitor/1982-06-18.pdf https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/26848/experienceofloca896duej.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

United States National Archives, RG 45, Subject File, US Navy, 1775-1910, VI - International Relations and Politics, Box 663, "Naval Intelligence Reports Concerning affairs in Brazil; General Correspondence on Affairs in Brazil." Folder 1.

Major Brazilian warships, 1880–1906
Year
(keel laying)
Ships (type)
1881

Riachuelo (BB)

1883

Aquidabã (BB)

1890

Almirante Tamandaré (PC)

1892

Benjamin Constant (PC)
República (PC)

1896 Almirante Barroso (PC)
1898

Deodoro (BB)
Floriano (BB)

Information compiled from: Scheina, "Brazil," in Gardiner and Gray, Conway's 1906–21, 403–04.


Main article: South American dreadnought race

Historiography[edit]

Minas Geraes seen from the bow; the wing turrets are on either side of the superstructure.

The historiography, or works published on a specific historial topic, behind the South American dreadnought race is relatively small in number and coverage, especially in English. General histories of Latin America rarely cover it, while general maritime histories on the period (c. 1904–14) avoid the topic and focus on the large industrialized nations, especially the Anglo-German naval arms race.[A] More specific English-language works in these areas tend to summarize the region's dreadnought race, focus on the ships themselves rather than their impact on the region, or look at the closely related Revolt of the Lash. The few who examined the issue in-depth believed that the race had little overall international strategic purpose, particularly after dreadnoughts were constructed in higher numbers, and simply served to destabilize the region, but others have remarked on the race's regional implications. Seward Livermore, writing from Brown University, looked at the race about thirty years after its conclusion from an American perspective, meaning he gave emphasis to the Argentine order, the role of the American government in obtaining it, and the attempts to obtain the Chilean order. Livermore was mildly critical of the arms race for its destabilizing effects:

As a means of promoting closer cooperation or understanding between the two hemispheres the international armament business was of very dubious worth. The peddling of war material to small but quarrelsome nations was fraught with too many unpleasant and unpredictable consequences. Battleship diplomacy had been a novel departure in American statecraft; some material success had been achieved, but the net result, from the standpoint of the imponderable factors, was most unsatisfactorily disappointing.[3]

British maritime historian Richard Hough, writing in 1966, remarked on the huge cost of the warships and expressed disbelief that the countries thought they could afford the ships in the first place, let alone maintain them as the years went by. He also wondered as to the original purpose of Brazil's ships, as in his view the relations between Brazil and its naval rivals, Argentina and Chile, were quite good given prior context. As Hough saw the situation, the only ones to gain from the arms race were the armament companies involved in the ships' construction.[4]

Robert Scheina, a Latin American naval historian, devoted a chapter of his 1987 book, Latin America: A Naval History, 1810–1987, to the dreadnought race. Although this was one of the first comprehensive works on the topic of Latin American maritime history, it was criticized by some reviewers for trying to fit too much information into too short a space.[5] This shows in the dreadnought race's coverage, which was dwarfed by more recent events, especially the Falklands War (seven pages versus fifty-five).[6] Still, Scheina included a small conclusion to the chapter, where he outlined 'lessons' learned by the three countries in the dreadnought race. Like Hough, he highlighted the exorbitant maintenance costs of the dreadnoughts. In addition, they were meant to be used against other dreadnoughts, but as soon as the traditional powers built dreadnoughts in large numbers, the ones owned by Argentina, Brazil, and Chile were much less of a threat. Last, Scheina pointed out the benefits of international attention, in the form of military alliances, brought by the dreadnoughts, but also noted that this resulted in the same outcome as lesson two—as the years went on, the ships dwindled in importance.[7]

Jonathan A. Grant examined many of the arms sales from imperial and great powers to lesser-developed countries in the 1800s and early 1900s; he devoted one chapter to the South American and Greco–Ottoman dreadnought races. He believed that the two showed democratization does not necessarily lead to peaceful coexistence, as it was the elected legislatures fueling and funding the arms race—absolute leaders were not the only ones to fall prey to the seductive goal of obtaining regional dominance. Overall, he tried to show that the South American race was just another cog in a worldwide tale of the influences of nationalism and imperialism causing states to order armament in attempts to gain prestige, though this cog was driven by the aggressive salesmen of various armament companies.[8]

Brazilian historian João Roberto Martins Filho utilized British and Brazilian archival material to focus on the Brazilian dreadnoughts in his Portuguese-language book, A marinha brasileira na era dos encouraçados, 1895–1910, or The Brazilian Navy in the Era of Dreadnoughts. Martins looked at the race from an entirely different approach and demonstrated that the Brazilian Navy was not ready for the disruptive influence of modern vessels. By focusing on acquiring the new dreadnoughts, rather than adequately training the huge amounts of manpower needed to crew the ships—a third of the entire navy—or the maintenance necessary to keep the dreadnoughts operational, the navy was without the ability to conduct serious operations soon after their delivery.[9] He proposed that the dreadnoughts' modern conditions were not compatible with the liberal use of corporal punishment, providing a crucial spark to the Revolt of the Lash.[10]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ There are similarities shared by these two arms races—as Richard Hough stated, "The middle period of the Dreadnought was enlivened by a naval competition in South America that was a satirical reflection in miniature of the hysteria-ridden Anglo–German race."[2]

Endnotes[edit]

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ Hough, Dreadnought, 71.
  3. ^ Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 48.
  4. ^ Hough, Big Battleship, 16–17.
  5. ^ Waddell, Review of Naval History, 509; Sater, Review of Naval History, 592.
  6. ^ Scheina, Naval History, 80–87, 234–89.
  7. ^ Scheina, Naval History, 86–87.
  8. ^ Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 187–88; 237–42.
  9. ^ Martins, A marinha brasileira, 201; de Almeida, "A marinha brasileira," 164; Haag, "O Almirante Negro," 87.
  10. ^ Haag, "O Almirante Negro," 85.

References[edit]

de Almeida, Francisco Eduardo Alves. "Resenha: A marinha brasileira na era dos encouraçados, 1895–1910 [Review: The Brazilian Navy in the Era of Dreadnoughts, 1895–1910]." Revista da Escola de Guerra Naval, no. 15 (2010): 163–64. OCLC 110862459. Open access icon
Haag, Carlos. "O Almirante Negro e seu Encouraçado Prateado [The Black Admiral and his Silver Battleship]." Pesquisa FAPESP 166, no. 12 (2009): 84–89. OCLC 644494445. Open access icon
Sater, William F. Review of Latin America: A Naval History, 1810–1987, by Robert L. Scheina. Hispanic American Historical Review 68, no. 3 (1988): 592. OCLC 421498310. Open access icon
Waddell, D.A.G. Review of Latin America: A Naval History, 1810–1987, by Robert L. Scheina. Journal of Latin American Studies 20, no. 2 (1988): 509. OCLC 1800137. Open access icon


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox&oldid=1085918934"