"FIW Fort William Henry "Massacre": How Many Indians?" Topic

How many Indian allies attacked the British after the French took Fort William Henry in 1757?

By the way, this is the scene shown in "Last of the Mohicans" (1992):

link

CC
TMP link

IIRC about 1500-1800 indian allies from various tribes accompanied Montcalm

Good little write up on the "massacre"
link

All of them!

"1500-1800"

That should make for a nice "skirmish" ambush game!

Thanks.

CC

Not all of the 1500-1800 were warriors. Nor did all of them stay to the end of the siege.

One little, two little, three little Indians…

Not all of the 1500-1800 were warriors. Nor did all of them stay to the end of the siege.

Quite so. I only offered it as a tid-bit of info. You know, slightly related to the topic but, not really helping much : )

Did the massacre of the garrison actually happen in real life, or was it just in the novel?

If you are worried about how many Indians to buy, use the TSATF "undead Zulus rise again" tactic. As soon as enough dead to make up a new unit accumulate, they come on the board edge.

It happened SM, though some details are still disputed. See Steele Betrayals: Fort William Henry and the Massace for a recent interpretive history:

link

Shush john.

Just buy 30 packs of my Indinas Dan, you should have enough then…

LOL. Don't worry Eric.

As soon as I paint the first 40+ I already have, I will definitely get more!

CC

Nah Indians are like Orcs and Undead , you can never have enough.

There was a massacre, but not as portrayed in the movie. Monroe made it all the way to Fort Edward before he heard there had been trouble at the end of the column.

IIRC (from Betrayal – an excellent work), the Indians skulked about the fort after the surrender, broke into the liquor, which the English stupidly did not dump, then went on a drunken rampage, first attacking those in the hospital and killing them, then digging up some of the small pox infested corpses in the cemetary to mutilate them (and as a result they took small pox back to their villages and the tribes were devasted, some speculate anyway), and then they attacked the rear of the columnm, mostly women and children, etc.

To the French goes the fact that they, unlike the British in later campaigns, could not, or did not, control the Indians. Shame on them, and dishonor, as the English later proved that they could that, and did.

The Indians were largely disillusioned with the campaign and French after this experience and never turned out in like numbers again to support Montcalm. The Indians were from all over, including the Great Lakes and perhaps some further West, according to Parkman – as some spoke languages no one else could understand.

Montcalm seemed to have mixed feelings on these allies that were kind of pushed upon him by the French Canadian governor. They ate a lot of food, and did little real work of value to the French General. It was a seige, and they had only limited value in such operations. Webb was indeed a coward, though in truth he had few good troops to march to the relief (note that Arnold didn't hesitate in a similar role years later in the same situation – kind of), as Loudoun was off with the main army floating frustratingly off of Louisbourg looking for favorable winds to land – which he never got.

The Indians did make one more strong appearance to aid the French in 1758 at Fort Duquesne. It was estimated that there were something like 2,000 (probably over stated) when Major Grant "attacked" the fort and was virtually wiped out with a force of 900 Highlanders, 60th, and Provincial troops. The Indians immediately took their loot and headed home, largely abadoning their French allies there and the fort fell that fall to the English.

CC,

Please do let us know what you do to re-create this battle. It sounds like it will be very interesting.

Craig

It's true that Montcalm thought little of his Indian allies, but he may have underestimated them. During the Fort William Henry campaign the Indians won a significant initial victory at Sabbath Day Point, decimating a large detachment of Provincials from the fort garrison. The Indians helped invest the fort, cut off communications and even captured Webb's dispatches to Monroe. The Indians may have been more effective intimidators than fighters. Their presence and the threat of massacre helped convince Monroe to surrender while he could get terms. The Indians were also a factor in Webb's refusal to march; he feared being ambushed in the forest and cut up as Braddock's troops had been.

Hi

Anderson in "Crucible" refers to Lakota coming from the great plains to join the fun.

I get the feeling that some of you are real indian fans. I agree, lots of fun to do. I think you could do a version of the war with a provision that indians showd up based on a random generator. The more loot and such, the more likely groups will arrive, every set back and matter of excessive boredom or dicipline, and you have indians leaving in the night. Might drive a commander crazy trying to organize a force that changes by the hour!

Rocky

Zippy:

"During the Fort William Henry campaign the Indians won a significant initial victory at Sabbath Day Point, decimating a large detachment of Provincials from the fort garrison."

Shooting up a bunch of guys in boats was hardly dependent on them being Indians. I believe you are talking about the Jersey Blues being whacked, IIRC.

"The Indians helped invest the fort, cut off communications and even captured Webb's dispatches to Monroe."

***As it turned out, there wasn't much to cut off. The message Webb wasn't coming was better, from the French standpoint, getting through.

"The Indians may have been more effective intimidators than fighters."

****Agreed on that.

"Their presence and the threat of massacre helped convince Monroe to surrender while he could get terms."

***Perhaps debatable. I suspect it was more of Braddock's artillery that Montcalm was pounding the fort to pieces with that helped seal that deal.

"The Indians were also a factor in Webb's refusal to march; he feared being ambushed in the forest and cut up as Braddock's troops had been."

***The excuses of a coward. Of course the troops he had left with him were no prize, and I think Webb was quickly ushered off of the stage after bungling this one. I also seem to recall that the Indians were quite anxious to leave the army too, as they got bored with the seige, and the French tried to repay them by allowing them to loot the fort, and get drunk, which led to the following massacre.

Braddock was not ambushed. He was caught in a novel formation to prevent ambush from the flanks, but he could not undo that formation to fight a head on meeting engagement. Grant split up his forces into companies, and the French and Indians overwhelmed each in turn. My point is that, aside from small engagements, the Indians were not adept at creating large ambushes, though they made a pretty good go of it at Oriskany some years later.

And to the lack of good intelligence provided by the Indians I would point out that they had no idea where Braddock was (they blundered into him), no idea that Prideaux was approaching Fort Niagara, and no idea that Grant was rumaging about with 900 men around Fort Duquesne (even after he burned an outlying barn full of food).

They served a very limited purpose (usually their own), and in the end were largely neutral observers as the continent changed hands, much to their own disadvantage. They were pretty good at butchering women, children, and solitary frontiers folks, good at raiding and creating panic, but in the end, not a very effective military force.

"They served a very limited purpose (usually their own), and in the end were largely neutral observers as the continent changed hands, much to their own disadvantage. They were pretty good at butchering women, children, and solitary frontiers folks, good at raiding and creating panic, but in the end, not a very effective military force."

Funnily enough, this can apply almost equally as well to most provincial forces if you just remove the "dis" in disadvantage.

I would agree completely. :-)

Some of the provincial units were fairly effective, all were kitted out at great expense to the Crown. Some were never tested. Some were tested and failed miserably. The bottom line was (no pun intended) that the provincial forces cost huge amounts to field and were of limited use, and perhaps not worth the cost – though they did garrison a lot of places that freed up the redcoats who did most of the fighting. The cost of providing for these provincial units largely bankrupted England and led directly to the taxation after the war, which in turn, led to the revolution.

The Indians lost either way, and probably would have even if the French had won too.

For a breakdown of Indian forces present at the siege of Fort William Henry:

link

Very, very nice. Thanks!!!

CC

Hi

Not to be argumentative, but this overstates the case:"The cost of providing for these provincial units largely bankrupted England and led directly to the taxation after the war, which in turn, led to the revolution."

the cause of the bankruptcy, the UK was in debt to 8 times its income, was paying a lot of money to defend George's home town in Germany. The brits payed some allied forces enormous amounts of money to stay in the war. The F&I militia was very much a side show in those costs. That LATER, the excuse was made that the "americans" were the beneficiaries of the war and ought to pay was made. But that doesn't expland to the point above.

Rocky

Rocky

You are quite correct. Please forgive my hasty generalization. My heavy handed point was that the Crown (Pitt) paid a lot to constantly equip out provincial troops and pay for them and perhaps received little in return for the expense, at least in the "big" battles anyway.

The militia costs were perhaps different than the actual uniformed and fielded provincial regiments, and probably paid for by the colony directly.

The agruments used to later tax the colonies were perhaps not unreasonable, but the issue of taxation without representation was equally reasonable as well.

The American Indians had a checkered history of combat effectiveness. Many a historian has written that the real threat of keeping the colonies in line were the French, and the colonists felt that they could beat the Indians – which they did mostly, though they lost a few as well.

I agree with an earlier post that the Indians were more of a morale modifier than an actual combat one, and have previously decried rules that give Indians a plus 2 in melee as unrealistic. Others have countered with opinions of their own – though the factual basis for such arguments (hand to hand superiority) have been thin at best. I guess to each his own. :-)

*SIGH*

My entire Last of the Mohican figures collection is being sold now . . .

TMP link

CC

I recently warched the 1972 BBC TV series of 'Last of the Mohicans'on DVD. From that I would have guessed there were about 12-15 Indians involved, about a dozen Frenchmen wearing blue coats faced red and a British Garrison of Royal Americans at Fort William Henry of about 2 dozen men!

……..long on plot (eight episodes), short on extras (made the Sharpe movies look positively crowded).

>…and have previously decried rules that give Indians a plus >2 in melee as unrealistic.

Magua understand melee values very well.