What's the deal with the wagon? I mean, couldn't they have moved much faster just on horseback? Sold all there belongings wherever, took some money and guns and then just bought **** along the way louis and clark style?

I guess it wouldn't have worked for the first people, (and admittadly everything I know about the ot is from the game,) but still. It's better than dying from dysentary or whatever. Even if they bring the wagon to haul food, I would imagine the extra slowness caused by the wagon would negate any benefit extra food brought cause you'll eat it all in the extra time it takes you... ?

Just four questions:

How far can a four year old ride a horse?

How many days' food can you carry on the horse you are riding when you are also carrying spare clothes, cooking utensils, bedrolls, weapons, family heirlooms?

How were the goods they were going to buy when they arrived going to get there?

How much more would those goods cost out there where they were scarce compared to what they could sell them for used, before they started their trek?

I get the feeling you don't know what you're talking bout, but I'll respond anyway cause I'm hungover and ****ty.

Having a wagon gives you a place to sleep at night and more protection against the elements and stuff

When you have recovered, you will realize that you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Horseback travel is unsuitable for a significant portion of the people who travelled the Oregon trail, e,g, young children, babes in arms, and most women, especially the pregnant ones. The kid in your photo would probably last 2-3 hours, at most.

You seem to be worried that wagon travel would be significantly slower than travel on horseback, and you cite Lewis & Clark' expedition as a group who moved faster. Perhaps you were unaware that it took Lews & Clark more than a year to reach the continental divide from Illinois. The things the expedition bought along the way were not really bought, but traded for - mostly food and canoes, which were items the local native inhabitants had in quantity. The things settlers would need - farm implements, machinery, tools, furniture, seeds for crops, were not available at all west of the Missouri.

The pioneers didn't have strong, lightweight, rigid-framed waterproof backpacks. Nor did they have packaged freeze-dried foods, ziplock bags, plastic dishes or lightweight cookware to put in those backpacks.

Homesteaders who traveled the Oregon trail brought everything they needed to establish a homestead along with them because at first there was nobody from whom to buy the things they needed once they arrived at their destination. Until the railroads arrived a generation later, it was much cheaper to buy your supplies in the central states and take them on your own wagon to your new homestead than it was to buy when you arrived. Prices might differ by a factor of ten. Later on, people who could afford to buy all their homestead's outfitting in the territories were rich enough not to need a homestead in the first place.

I don't know why you think taking a wagon along the Oregon trail of the 1840's would take three times as long as taking your family on horseback. The fundamental reason they took wagons was to carry all the things they would need once they arrived, not just to carry food for the journey.

Anyway, it's good to see you think you are so much smarter than the tens of thousands of folk who actually took the trail.

,

Hard to imagine children, women, even healthy young adult men surviving on horseback through rainstorms, hailstorms, blizzards, etc. Which means you're frequently stopping to pitch camp in any inclement weather, often in inadequate places. Having mobile shelter with you means you can keep moving and save considerable time every day on setting up and taking down camp.

Additionally, you can carry (literally!) tons more stuff. Having food with you is obviously critical. In a saddle bag you're carrying days worth of food. And you're not able to travel more than a day's travel from drinking water. So that's pretty much a deal breaker.

You'll get much colder sleeping on the ground instead of in straw elevated off the ground so you're gonna need a fire unless you want to freeze to death. Since you can't carry any firewood, plan to spend time daily foraging for wood. In addition, snakes, creepy crawlies, mud, and water will make sleeping unpleasant.

Having money instead of supplies has the interesting effect of being less effective for trade while making you a bigger target for bandits.

Also, wagon laagers are great for defense and security. A bunch of people in a tent camp are easy pickings.

Of all the many reasons why it's obvious that wagons were better for settlers this really alludes to the best reasoning. The conceit to imagine that one could casually come up with a better solution, without expertise or experiment, than something that was done by hundreds of thousands of people is baffling. I don't mean it's foolish to think about such things, but it is to be uncritically confident in your correctness.

A big problem is that this kind of over-confidence is extremely common and allows people to dismiss experts and consensus on many important issues.

It's not like there were outlet malls out west for them to buy stuff at once they got there.

http://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/researchOTpg4.htm

Pretty amazing that the wagons held up. There are some wagon train reenactments that would be pretty fun for families, if the kids are the right age.

I don't find it the least bit surprising that OP hasn't responded itt in 9 days now after his assertions have been shown to be completely lolridiculous.

OP has to be a huge troll

when i was much younger and on one of my first trips to yellowstone park to go fishing i met an old guy named jerry that i fished with and ate dinner with many times.
he told me about how he came to the west on a wagon with his family when he was very little in the late 1800's. he didnt remember a lot about it but knew some of the things.
by the time the wagons were coming the trails were cut out pretty well and it wasnt bushwacking the wagons but driving them over bumpy wide trails.

Here is a link to an excellent book: The Oregon Trail, by Francis Parkman. First-hand account of this subject. I read it years ago and highly recommend it. You would really like it Ray (if you haven't already read it!). The entire book can be read through this link:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/oregon/oregon.html

ill look at it. but ive got so many books on the old west my head is spinning from them.
zeno ive been fishing alot near your old home. and think of that picture of you so proud and holding up that big king.

Thanks for the thoughts Ray! I hope to retire near my old stomping grounds, if possible. My brothers and I are planning a Fall trip so we can fish the Rouge, Sixes, Elk and maybe a few other rivers. My older bother lives near Great Falls, Mt on a small 10-acre hobby farm, and when I can swing up through there perhaps I can finally drop by and say hell-o. I'll have a few guns and we can play Cowboys and Indians.

I have a small but good collection of books on the old west. Always a good read.

I probably should not even bother but i feel compelled to say,

wow... i mean is the OP for real? lol like someone said its fine to think about these things but come on man lol just wow. I may save the link to this thread for the next time someone asks me what a troll is.

How are you supposed to circle the wagons when Indians attack if you don't have wagons?

circling the wagons is great on tv.but in real life without tons of firepower it only prolonged the inevitable.

The Boers came up with the wagon circling trick whilst fighting the Zulus.

In regard, to Ray's other post, it shocks me pleasantly to know that we have a real living link to the past in that Ray knew someone who took the trail.

Also, I love the idea that an educational game should have become such a favorite of the young.

I thought this was a physics issue. A horse can pull 5 times it's own weight but only carry 20%

is that why you are beating this dead horse? cause it could only carry 20% of its weight? lol just teasing.

Also, are you sure about that number? Granted I know nothing about horses so you are probably right I really have no educated idea, its just seems like 20% is very low. It seems to me like horses are very muscular animals and thus should be able to comfortable carry more than a fifth of their body weight. Are you saying that 20% is all they should safely/comfortably carry? or that 20% simply the maximum than can carry period?

Sorry to contribute to the beating, just got curious.

20% of bodyweight is the load a horse can comfortably carry, any more than that and the stresses on the horse's muscles build up causing fatigue and strain. After a few days of this the horse becomes unfit to ride

See this reference
http://http://www.horsesciencenews.c...orse-carry.php

The pulling power of a horse obviously varies with breed and size, the type of load (sled or wheeled) and the terrain to be covered.
But as an example, a single draft horse can pull a load up to 8,000 pounds. Two draft horses pulling together can actually pull three times as much. The two draft horses that can each pull 8,000 pounds alone can pull 24,000 pounds working together.