- This topic has 40 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
the small scale of the combat
Compared to WWI or II yes, but since it covered all of the southern New England colonies it wasn't small scale, IMO.
I concede the point, King Philip's War was a war. I am too tired and disinterested to argue about what is or is not a war. Regardless of what it was, it was still a significant event in the early history of the colonization of North America, I will definitely agree with you there.
Hey, I'm not trying to argue or win an argument, most historians have labelled it a war, so a war it is. (it's that consensus thing ;D )
Previous post stands. You want it to be a war and so does every other historian of American History so it is. I will refrain from poking holes in any logic on this thread regarding scale or scope of said war. That being said, if I can help with your research I am happy to do so.
Interesting little discovery from the Lepore book: Near the centennial of the end of the war (a year or two prior to the Revolutionary War), the late 1600 accounts were reprinted and preachers like the Rev. Nathan Fiske used it as propaganda against the British. They would say the British were detroying land and acting just like savages as the Indians did. Mary Rowlandson's captivity account reprint had a new picture on the cover showing her as an armed Patriot and showing her Indian captives dressed like redcoats.
I have always been a little surprised that the natives did not organize sooner and stop the colonization process before it really gained momentum. I dont think they fully realized the scope of what was coming until it was too late. It seems the west has no monopoly on short-sighted thinking.
How intense was intertribal warfare in early colonial times? I have always thought that the tribes of the northeast were more settled and did not engage in anything except sporadic raiding before the arrival of Europeans. Apparently they were nice enough to help the colonists enough that we have the Thanksgiving tradition.
Not really. In the northeast anyway there was much fighting between the Iroquois nations and Algonquians and Pequots. If there was a drought or a harsh winter the Iroquois would often raid other Indian nations' food supplies. The fur trade in Canada and upper New York area incited many a conflict as each Indian nation was vying for trade with the French. They were pirating and raiding each other more than they were the Europeans. The Iroquois acquired many guns by ambushing the Indian transports. The Iroquois were quite brutal and nasty.
But what about the little we know of them before colonization? There were many influences from the colonists that would incite conflict, the fur trade being one of them.
The Iroquois acquired many guns by ambushing the Indian transports. The Iroquois were quite brutal and nasty.
Seems like I often hear references to how bad the Iroquois were. Why is this?
No doubt the colonists provoked conflict, but the colonists also had to know who was who and who aligned with who in order to effectively use the Indians to their advantage. Europeans used many native primary sources and accounts to gather intelligence.
The Iroquois acquired many guns by ambushing the Indian transports. The Iroquois were quite brutal and nasty.
Seems like I often hear references to how bad the Iroquois were. Why is this?
Because they were more advanced, were capable of large scale warfare, and had fewer but strongly fortified villages in strategic locations than the other natives. They even had a constitution. There rituals of torturing captives pre-dated the other tribes (who adopted those practices later). I think they were considered more brutal because their practice of raiding other Indian's food supplies seemed like it was common practice. Iroquois were offensive rather than defensive.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
