How Fenimore Cooper's Heroes Fought

27
How Fenimore Cooper's Heroes Fought
You can't ride horses in the forest...

Unlike the Indians of the Great Plains, the Iroquois, Hurons and other Delawares and Mohicans fought on foot: cavalry could not deploy in the forests. The main achievement of European civilization, which the palefaces shared with the Indians, was firearms. weapon...

The Swedish colony in North America, New Sweden, lasted only 17 years (from 1638 to 1655), after which it was captured by the Dutch. Of the cities founded by the Swedes, the most famous were Bridgeport (New Stockholm) and Wilmington (Fort Christina), and there was a small Swedish settlement on the site of modern Philadelphia. But the main thing that the Swedes did in North America was not their colonies, but the fact that they were the first Europeans to sell firearms to the Indians en masse.



There had been cases of illegal sale of matchlock muskets and arquebuses to local tribes before, but it was the inhabitants of the Scandinavian Peninsula who came up with the idea of ​​paying with weapons for beaver pelts on a regular basis. And then, like a dam burst, the Dutch, who had captured New Sweden, passed a law punishing the sale of firearms to the Indians by death. And they immediately began to vigorously violate it: the price of 20 beaver pelts for a musket and 10-12 guilders for a pound of gunpowder gave such a profit that the greedy Dutch colonists could not resist, and the authorities, who received a percentage from each transaction, turned a blind eye to this business.


It is important not only to sell weapons, but also to teach how to use them!

And then the English began selling guns and gunpowder to the Iroquois for the war with the French, and the French to the Hurons for the war with the English... The details of those wars are not very interesting, and not well documented: the Indians could not write, and the palefaces were more interested in accounting than in war. story. Forts were burning, the Indian camps were getting more scalps and less food - the Europeans brought smallpox. But the technology of warfare was interesting enough for European travelers, so there is enough evidence of how the East Coast Indians fought...

Usually, Indian troops fighting in the forests consisted of 20-40 fighters. This number was not taken out of thin air - it was impossible to feed more in the forest by hunting. If it was necessary to send a larger army on a raid, it was divided into such troops, which went to the gathering place by different roads. The ideal option for combat operations was to approach the enemy camp unnoticed, and then kill or take everyone prisoner with a sudden attack.


Samuel de Champlain demonstrates the superiority of firearms in battle with the Iroquois

It must be said that, despite the fact that stories about Indian torture of prisoners left by Europeans (the same Samuel de Champlain) are capable of spoiling the appetite of even a person with strong nerves, prisoners were often accepted into their tribe: the Indians did not have any extra warriors, so if one of yesterday's enemies agreed to take their side... Why not?

It is worth noting right away: the Indians really did not like to suffer losses. This greatly surprised the European military. The dialogue between Hawkeye and Major Duncan Heyward in "The Last of the Mohicans" is typical:

- ...Well, what would you do here if you had the royal troops under your command?
- Bayonets would have paved the way.
- Yes, you speak reasonably, from the white man's point of view, but here in the desert a leader must ask himself how many lives he can sacrifice.


The Indians did not always kill prisoners. But often!


The fact is that wars between tribes were the prose of life (the Iroquois League prohibited wars between its members, but there were other tribes with which it was possible to fight...) and never ended, "having smoked the pipe of peace" with one tribe, the war with others continued. The Indians were at such a level of social development that military exploits played the role of money, and to prohibit young wars from committing them meant to deprive them of the opportunity for social growth. Therefore, any loss for the tribe was extremely painful, because warriors were constantly dying!


The main thing in war is to think everything through!

James Adair (1714-1796) in his History of the American Indians described Indians on the warpath:

"When a small band of Indians goes to war, they prefer to keep close to dense thickets and bushes, as they suppose that the enemy will not pursue them where it is reasonable to expect the loss of some of their warriors. When they arrive at the enemy's hunting grounds, they act with the greatest caution and cunning. They scatter through the forest and keep from each other at such a distance that the road signal of their neighbors can be heard. This signal consists in imitating the voices of birds and animals inhabiting the given locality, and there is not a single quadruped or feathered animal in the North American forests whose voice they cannot accurately imitate."


Traveling by canoe is fast and convenient

When an Indian detachment encountered an enemy detachment and a battle did occur, the Indians would spread out into a "battle line" - a kind of skirmish chain, but with a very large distance between the shooters. This distance was not regulated, but the shooters had to maintain visual contact with each other, and in the forest this was approximately 20-30 meters. In addition, in battle, the Indians tried to outflank the enemy or from the rear, so it made sense to stretch out the battle formation as much as possible, depriving the enemy of the opportunity to outflank. Fire was conducted from behind trees, rocks and other shelters - exposing yourself to bullets was considered bravery, but... stupidity. But changing positions was more than acceptable: especially since this prevented the enemy from establishing the real number of the detachment.

By the way, Cooper shows this quite well:

“The fight grew more and more intense and stubborn. There were few wounded, as both parties held on under cover of the trees. But the fortunes of Hawkeye and his party gradually began to fail. The sagacious scout soon perceived the danger threatening him, but knew not how to escape it. He saw that retreat was still more dangerous, and therefore decided to remain where he was, although he saw that the enemy were constantly increasing in number on the flank. The Delawares found it difficult to hold on under cover, and almost completely ceased firing. At this difficult moment, when they thought that the enemy’s tribe was about to surround them, the Delawares suddenly heard a war cry and the roar of shots coming from under the canopy of the forest, from where Uncas was.”

The passage above describes a battle between hundreds of men, but the Indians (and Hawkeye) operate as if they were fighting in a small skirmish in the woods of the East Coast of North America: shooting from behind cover, outflanking, and, as a culmination, an attack from the rear by a pre-assigned unit.

At the same time, for obvious reasons, the Indians did not like hand-to-hand combat: the losses were too great, no victory would compensate for the death of a couple dozen warriors. Based on the above, the love of American settlers for "Kentucky rifles", "deer shooters", "long guns" is understandable, which allowed for aimed fire at a fantastic distance of 200-300 meters for army smoothbore muskets. In a rifle fight of the Indian type, the winner was the one who could shoot as accurately and at the greatest possible distance.


Ambush is a favorite technique of the East Coast Indians.

When one of the fighting detachments felt that things were going badly, the Indians did not hesitate to retreat. Firstly, in the conditions of eternal wars, returning without enemy scalps, but not losing a single warrior was better than bringing many scalps, but losing half of the detachment. And secondly... It was always possible to replay the outcome of the battle by setting up a successful ambush on the pursuers. Sometimes such techniques were not improvised, but thought out and prepared in advance: a convenient place for an ambush was chosen, select shooters hid in the bushes. Most of all, ambushes were organized on a section of the road in the shape of the letter "G": bullets flew into the forehead of the pursuing detachment from the "horizontal crossbar" of the letter, and shooters from the "vertical crossbar" hit the flank.

But all the above-described tactics were rare in Indian wars, as were large battles. Much more often, a detachment circled in the forests around an enemy village, killing everyone who came out - usually women going for water or to work in the field (East Coast Indians were familiar with agriculture - they grew corn). If such a "siege" dragged on, the besieged could gather and leave the village together - it was too expensive to attack a migrating tribe, so the chance of leaving was quite high.


A French fur trader. The business was profitable, but dangerous. Very dangerous...

The main battles between Indian tribes with the use of firearms took place during the so-called "Beaver Wars". The fact is that beaver fur was used to make felt for hats, which were worn by everyone in Europe in the 17th-18th centuries. And the God-forsaken places in the north of the American continent became a natural Eldorado. The Indians caught beavers, sold the skins to European settlers, and most willingly exchanged the skins for guns and gunpowder. The French were the first to discover this business, betting on the Algonquin tribes (although not only: the Hurons are a tribe of the Iroquois language family), opposed by a coalition - the Iroquois, five powerful tribes united in the League. The League was patronized by England and Holland.


Powhatan Indians of the Algonquian tribe, late 19th century

The Iroquois, who had long monopolized the beaver pelt trade, drove the beavers out of their territory and began expansion to the north and west of the continent, where the Algonquian tribes and the Hurons lived. The French did not like the appearance of a strong Iroquois League on the borders of Canada, and they began to arm their enemies at an accelerated pace. Despite the appearance of their own firearms among the League's rivals, the Iroquois went from victory to victory, pushing the Mohicans westward and defeating the Hurons in 1649. Following the Mohicans, the Shawnee, Miami, Fox, and Sauk were driven from their lands. The Iroquois' fellow tribesmen, the Susquehannock, who lived southeast of the League, resisted the Iroquois the longest.


The successes of the Iroquois forced the French to involve regular troops in the war

But all the successes of the Iroquois only led to the French troops coming to the aid of their opponents. In 1667, the Iroquois were forced to conclude a peace treaty with the French and their allied tribes. The main result of the Beaver Wars was the final consolidation of the Europeans on the continent: firearms and the tactics invented by the Iroquois for their use, described above, significantly thinned out the tribes, whose numbers had already been undermined by smallpox. In 1701, the Great Peace of Montreal was signed: the Iroquois, who had terrified the entire north of the future United States and the south of Canada, were forced to agree to a condition according to which any conflicts between them and the Algonquin tribes could only be resolved through the mediation of the French. The Indians ceased to be an independent force in the east of the continent.
27 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    3 December 2024 05: 50
    then the English began selling the Iroquois weapons and gunpowder for the war with the French, the French to the Hurons for the war with the English... The details of those wars are not very interesting, and not well documented.

    Most wars with the Indians - if not all - were the result of our systematic violation of the obligations given to them.
    From a speech by the President of the United States, Hayes, in Congress in 1877
    1. +7
      3 December 2024 08: 32
      Quote: bubalik
      From a speech by United States President Hayes

      Hayes pursued policies that included working on the Reconstruction of the American South and the assimilation of blacks and Indians into the general culture of the country. He breathed new life into the Department of Indian Affairs and began to provide compensation to Indians for the lands they had lost, something no president had done before. Today, he would be called a leftist or Sleepy Joe or Grandpa the Motorist... wink
  2. -1
    3 December 2024 06: 22
    Thank you, the article went down a treat with a morning coffee and fried eggs! True, when Gerhard mentioned torture, my stomach tensed up a bit, would the Author really start describing them, but "God had mercy"!
    In terms of Indian tactics, it should be understood that most of them were born hunters and had skills in sabotage warfare. An important element of which was a silent ranged weapon. First of all, a bow, and secondly, a tomahawk. Both types evolved with the advent of paleface iron. Arrowheads and axes were made in a manufactory way.
    River (lake) military expeditions were not uncommon; to counteract them, the French and later the English maintained flotillas of small sailing and rowing vessels. Some of them had guns up to 3, and later 6 pounds.
    Thanks again, I liked the article!
    P.s. Reading about the specifics of American expansion, its difference from our "great march to the east" is obvious. Initially, by the way, also for skins, though not beaver, but sable!
    Have a nice day everyone, with respect to Kote!
  3. +2
    3 December 2024 06: 31
    Gerhard! Very good material. "In war the main thing is to think everything through!" - I especially liked this illustration.
  4. +5
    3 December 2024 07: 03
    In the last photo the girl on the left is suspiciously white, and doesn't really look like an Indian. Interesting, but it ended so quickly=(
    1. +6
      3 December 2024 09: 29
      To be continued)))
      1. +1
        3 December 2024 10: 24
        Thank you for the article, we are waiting)!
    2. +2
      3 December 2024 10: 08
      turembo (Mike), respected, I agree with you. And the sitting warrior looks very much like a retired warrant officer with a surname ending in "O", his moustache is magnificent. It looks like this Indian's grandmother sinned with an emigrant from Europe.
      1. +5
        3 December 2024 10: 23
        Nothing strange, Indians actively "cross-pollinated" with palefaces, in some states in slang a prostitute is still called a "squaw"...
  5. +3
    3 December 2024 07: 09
    I'm curious, have they already started producing small arms in the colonies themselves or are they still importing them from the metropolis? And gunpowder too. And metals
    Quote: Gerhard von Zwischen
    there was a small Swedish settlement on the site of modern Philadelphia
    I remember from something I read a long time ago that Philadelphia was founded by English Quakers who were driven out of England by the official church.
    1. +2
      3 December 2024 07: 56
      Vyacheslav Olegovich wrote a very good article about deer-killing pianists (see Northern Indians).
    2. +4
      3 December 2024 08: 15
      The Quakers appeared after the Dutch asked the Swedes to leave, and the English asked the Dutch to leave. Besides, Philadelphia is a big city, the Swedes built on the site of one of the districts, the Quakers, later - on another site, the Swedish settlement had been abandoned for several decades by that time...
  6. +13
    3 December 2024 08: 06
    The Indians really didn't like to suffer losses

    And this is understandable - every man is first and foremost a breadwinner for the family, and only then a warrior. Despite all his ferocity... If he is killed, who will support his family?

    They say that when the Indian warriors who took part in WWI returned home, they claimed the rights to their exploits. And in most tribes, after consulting and listening to reports, the leaders decided to refuse. They justified this by saying that what was happening in Europe was anything but an exploit. But rather some kind of senseless bloody meat grinder, in which there was no honor.

    The famous Black Hawk was once shown a mounted attack on a battery standing on a hill during training. Well, to impress. He was really very impressed, commenting as follows: Firstly, I absolutely did not understand how this battery bothered you at all - well, it stands there, go around it and go on about your business. Secondly - if I had needed it for some reason - I would have sent soldiers at night, and they would have rolled it up to me by morning...

    But like that, head-on into grapeshot - what a way, he says, not to love your people like that! If I had given such an order, I wouldn't have a single fighter left in a day - who would follow such a stupid leader?
    1. +4
      3 December 2024 08: 41
      Quote: paul3390
      But like that, head-on into grapeshot - what a way, he says, not to love your people like that! If I had given such an order, I wouldn't have a single fighter left in a day - who would follow such a stupid leader?

      When mankind was huddled in separate families and small clans and when it lived in caves and hunted wild animals with clubs and sharpened stones, the loss of one or two members of a family or clan was significant. But when these families and clans turned into entire nations, the loss of several hundred or even thousands of people was no longer worth anything to the entire nation. Women will give birth again...
      1. +3
        3 December 2024 08: 46
        Not exactly. The whole question is in the economic formation. What's the point of a hundred thousand people if your main economic unit is still one family? And the surplus product is extremely small? If they kill a man, who will feed his wife and children? Neighbors? How? The neighbor's man will hardly be able to hunt two bison a week on a regular basis instead of one... And if he can't do it, everyone will simply die of hunger.
        1. +2
          3 December 2024 10: 23
          Chinese men will be brought in...
        2. +2
          3 December 2024 10: 33
          paul3390 (Pavel), respected, I do not agree with you in everything. Either Karl Genrikhovich Marx, based on the works of Lewis Henry Morgan, or Friedrich Friedrich Engels himself, the brochure "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" was published under his name, he wrote a whole chapter "The Iroquois Clan". According to their theory, the maternal line still dominated in the Iroquois clan, and all why - they began to engage in agriculture, but did not yet begin cattle breeding. They lived - from hand to mouth, there was no surplus, but members of the clan were obliged to help each other. The property of a killed warrior passed to the clan. The clan could adopt a stranger. And marriage between members of the clan was prohibited. But whether a widow could marry a second time - the classics of Marxism did not write.
          1. +2
            3 December 2024 11: 20
            That's all true. But - again, all these relatives can't replace the deceased breadwinner. Simply because they are not able to regularly hunt extra bison. Yes - of course they will feed him as long as they themselves have food.. But nothing more. And in times of famine - everyone will think first of all about their children, and not, say, about their nephews..
          2. +3
            3 December 2024 19: 49
            According to Cooper, she could: in "Deerslayer" there is such a moment - Natty Bumppo kills an Iroquois, and his widow demands that he take her as his wife. Before taking up the novel, Cooper studied the sources well (and "Deerslayer" is the last one written, that is, the most mature), he read this moment from one of the sea brothers...
        3. 0
          4 December 2024 21: 11
          Quote: paul3390
          The whole question is in the economic formation.. Well, what's the point of a hundred thousand people if your main economic unit is still one family? And the surplus product is extremely small? If they kill a man, who will feed his wife and children? Neighbors? How? The neighbor's man will hardly be able to hunt two bison a week on a regular basis instead of one... And if he doesn't succeed, everyone will simply die of hunger..
          Just like the Mongols under Genghis Khan - all men are taken into the army from 14 to 70 years, and go on a raiding expedition... It seems that they take the wife and children of the deceased warrior to themselves relatives of the wife and husband - the whole question is only in the number of losses from the total number of troops (maybe almost all died in the campaign...) and the fortress family ties, this is for modern Europeans (including us...) - each "cell of society" exists on its own - the "barbarians" have a broader concept family, clan, teip... - these are the "distant relatives" who support the family of the deceased.
          This debate is long and will go into the discussion of the degree of "self-awareness" of each person in relation to the rest. tribe, people, state - as during WWII the fighters lay down on the embrasure so that there would be common Victory - one for all, and the State will have to take care of the wife and children of the deceased = "big family".
          hi
          1. 0
            4 December 2024 22: 25
            Once again - there is a big difference in the economic structure.. Cattle breeders can afford it, because they have a more or less reliable source of food. But hunter-gatherers - hardly. Because they are much more dependent on external circumstances...

            According to the memoirs of the Crow shaman Beautiful Shield - in her youth, before active contacts with the whites, a war in which 10-15 warriors died was considered very bloody and fierce, almost at the level of genocide. And just 50 years later - the count sometimes went as far as hundreds. All that was needed was - a sufficient number of horses appeared, which sharply increased the possibilities for hunting bison, and - the ability to buy food from the whites. Well - or take it away.
            1. 0
              5 December 2024 02: 09
              Quote: paul3390
              Once again, there is a big difference in the economic structure.
              ..
              Before the arrival of the "whites", the Maori were engaged in subsistence farming - hunting and gathering.
              The wars between the tribes were of one certain force (intensity...), the "whites" came - taught the Maori grow potatoes... - the Maori had a guaranteed and constant source of food... and a lot of free time ("the Maori sleeps - the potatoes grow"). The number of wars between neighboring tribes increased many times - the Maori began to spend all their free time and energy on war.
              The more human society develops, the stronger the wars between human communities...
              hi
    2. +4
      3 December 2024 09: 31
      Yes, the Indians would send a couple of fighters at night and kill everyone...
      1. +6
        3 December 2024 10: 47
        But the Europeans didn’t think of such tactics, sneaking up on the enemy at night and starting battles; in fact, Remarque’s hero in the novel “All Quiet on the Western Front” did just that.
  7. UAT
    +2
    3 December 2024 16: 34
    An interesting and informative article. Thanks to the author. If it were possible to avoid mistakes like "passing by the station..." ("having smoked a pipe of peace" with one tribe, the war with others continued"), it would be really great.
  8. 0
    5 December 2024 14: 21
    Then the English began to sell the Iroquois weapons and gunpowder for the war with the French, and the French began to sell them to the Hurons for the war with the English...
    Hurons are also Iroquois. Will it be Iroquois against Iroquois?
  9. 0
    13 January 2025 07: 59
    The Iroquois and the Hurons are practically the same. The Hurons were an Iroquois tribe that lived on the banks of Lake Huron.