Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan
Another bit of a head scratcher for me, to go along with my earlier Baltimore question, I wonder why New Haven was founded at the mouth of the relatively minor Quinnipiac River, instead of 30 miles east at the mouth of the FAR more substantial Connecticut River, which stretches deep in New England.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007
I think in the case of both Baltimore and New Haven, the harbors of the existing locations might have been better for the sea-faring ships of the 16th and 17th centuries than the harbors at the mouth of the bigger rivers. At least looking at the locations on Google maps, it looks to be that way.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xzmattzx
New Haven would make more sense than your Baltimore suggestion. Essex is located around where you would want New Haven, and Essex was a big shipbuilding town back in the 1700s.
If we go back to reality, I think New Haven grew big and a place like Essex didn't because New Haven was a separate colony from Connecticut back in the 1600s, so it was a political center. It also was co-capital of Connecticut for a while.
Both New Haven and New London have good harbors that are more bay than river, which are still used to this day.
|
Time for a brief geology course. The Central Valley of Connecticut and Massachusetts is a former rift valley, and was not formed by the river. The river runs through it because it is mainly filled with soft brownstone(makes for easy, if not durable architectural carvings). The brownstone also erodes into some really rich farm soil. Originally, the Connecticut River ran all the way through this fertile valley, exiting in New Haven, creating the current harbor. Then the ice ages happened, and the ice cap diverted the river at Middletown through the eastern hills of Connecticut, leading to the current mouth in Old Saybrook. Since the river runs through all that easily eroded brownstone, it carries a high silt load, which is dumped at the mouth of the river as a bunch of
poorly navigable sand bars.
Back to New Haven vs
Old Saybrook in the colonial era. Saybrook(1624) was founded before New Haven(1638), but suffered from raids by the Pequot Indians, culminating in the Pequot War in 1636-38. That combined with the tricky sandbar navigation contributed to Saybrooks failure to thrive. New Haven also gained from being in the flat fertile central valley, where easy overland transportation overcame the lack of a major river.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xzmattzx
I wonder what Boston would be like if the original town has not been founded on that peninsula, but down the Charles River a little bit, like where Brookline is today. It would've spread outward in four directions a little more evenly. Was the Charles River navigable for large ships that far inland?
|
No, the Charles River was a collection of mudflats. Charles basin is only navigable(ish) because of a dam by North Station, and a couple more upstream. Boston Harbor is a bit like New Haven Harbor, in that it wasn't made by the relatively small rivers that currently drain into it. Boston Harbor was made by the Merrimack River before the glaciers diverted it to the current outlet in Portsmouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbermingham123
Why didnt rhode island develop more? I went to high school in RI and now that ive lived in the SF bay area its always occured to me that Narragansett bay couldve been a great spot for a large urban area.. why isnt it?
|
Narragansett Bay is indeed a fabulous harbor, but since it's formed from an old but short rift valley that got later got gouged out by glaciers, it has no big rivers leading to a fertile hinterland. Add in being overshadowed by Boston...
Prev
Linear Mode
