Author Topic: King Philip's War  (Read 11940 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline skiguy

  • Global Moderator
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3825
  • Student
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2009, 07:57:36 AM »
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.
"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."    - Michelangelo

Offline scout1067

  • Global Moderator
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5154
  • BA-Mlitary History,MA European History,BS IT
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2009, 08:44:36 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2009, 08:46:11 AM by scout1067 »
"History is what happened, not what we wanted to happen."-Me
Follow me on Twitter:  

Western Civ Forum

Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2009, 08:44:36 AM »

Offline skiguy

  • Global Moderator
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3825
  • Student
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2009, 08:58:31 AM »
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 )
"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."    - Michelangelo

Offline scout1067

  • Global Moderator
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5154
  • BA-Mlitary History,MA European History,BS IT
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2009, 10:06:54 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2009, 10:12:35 AM by scout1067 »
"History is what happened, not what we wanted to happen."-Me
Follow me on Twitter:  

Offline skiguy

  • Global Moderator
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3825
  • Student
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2009, 05:10:28 PM »
Interesting little discovery from the Lepore book:  Near the centennial of the end of the <ahem> 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.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2009, 05:13:59 PM by skiguy »
"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."    - Michelangelo

Western Civ Forum

Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2009, 05:10:28 PM »

Offline scout1067

  • Global Moderator
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5154
  • BA-Mlitary History,MA European History,BS IT
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2009, 03:21:28 AM »
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.
"History is what happened, not what we wanted to happen."-Me
Follow me on Twitter:  

Offline skiguy

  • Global Moderator
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3825
  • Student
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2009, 06:43:19 AM »
Probably because they were too busy fighting each other?
"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."    - Michelangelo

Offline Wally

  • Legatus
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
  • "Ride low, shoot straight, leave no tracks."
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2009, 09:11:45 AM »
Good part of it, that.
"All things being equal... aren't!"

Offline scout1067

  • Global Moderator
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5154
  • BA-Mlitary History,MA European History,BS IT
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2009, 10:34:22 AM »
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.
"History is what happened, not what we wanted to happen."-Me
Follow me on Twitter:  

Offline skiguy

  • Global Moderator
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3825
  • Student
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2009, 10:46:36 AM »
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.
"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."    - Michelangelo

Western Civ Forum

Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2009, 10:46:36 AM »

Offline scout1067

  • Global Moderator
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5154
  • BA-Mlitary History,MA European History,BS IT
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2009, 10:57:17 AM »
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.
"History is what happened, not what we wanted to happen."-Me
Follow me on Twitter:  

Offline Phidippides

  • Emperor
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 6553
  • Caesar
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2009, 11:50:24 AM »
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?
"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses" ~Juvenal

Offline skiguy

  • Global Moderator
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3825
  • Student
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2009, 11:56:41 AM »
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 greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."    - Michelangelo

Offline skiguy

  • Global Moderator
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3825
  • Student
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2009, 12:04:05 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2009, 12:14:10 PM by skiguy »
"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."    - Michelangelo

Offline scout1067

  • Global Moderator
  • Tetrarch Emperor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5154
  • BA-Mlitary History,MA European History,BS IT
Re: King Philip's War
« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2009, 03:19:40 PM »
So essentially the Iroquois had it together as a nation?  Didnt the Iroquois also practice agriculture.
"History is what happened, not what we wanted to happen."-Me
Follow me on Twitter: