"Conquering the American Wilderness: The Triumph of..." Topic

… European Warfare in the Colonial Northeast (Native Americans of the Northeast)

"A study of military tactics and strategy before the War of Independence, this book reexamines the conquest of the North American wilderness and its native peoples by colonial settlers. Historians have long believed that the peculiar conditions of the New World, coupled with the success of Indians tactics, forced the colonists to abandon traditional European methods of warfare and to develop a new "American" style of combat. By combining firearms with guerrilla-like native tactics, colonial commanders were able not only to subdue their Indian adversaries but eventually to prevail against more conventionally trained British forces during the American Revolution. Yet upon closer scrutiny, this common understanding of early American warfare turns out to be more myth than reality. As Guy Chet reveals, clashes between colonial and Indian forces during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries did not lead to a reevaluation and transformation of conventional military doctrine. On the contrary, the poor performance of the settlers during King Philip's War (1675–76) and King William's War (1689–1697) prompted colonial magistrates to address the shortcomings of their military forces through a greater reliance on British troops and imperial administrators. Thus, as the eighteenth century wore on, growing military success in the New England colonies reflected an increasing degree of British planning, administration, participation, and command. The colonies' military and political leadership, Chet argues, never rejected the time-tested principles of European warfare, and even during the American War of Independence, the republic's military leadership looked to Europe for guidance in the art of combat"

Main page
link

Recomended?…

Amicalement
Armand

Probably not recommended. The evidence for alteration of European style tactics is too convincing for this thesis to fly. Read Preston's "Braddock's Defeat" for further explanation.

Actually this work is respected and contributes to the discussion. They are several other works that also contribute. John Ferling's Struggle for a continent is worth reviewing. Armstrong Starkey Native American Warfare 1675 to 1815, also deserves attention. There are many, more books contributing to the historiography of American colonial warfare. The arguments over whether the colonials adopted Indian techniques to develop a uniquely American form of irregular warfare is deep and rich. Be careful of what insights you draw from Braddock's defeat. It was regular linear warfare on the plains of Abraham that captured Quebec, not a bunch of irregular warriors hiding behind trees. Braddock's defeat is not simply of case of the superiority of irregular warfare over regular linear warfare. There a few more factors. The incompetence and ineffectiveness of the colonial warriors in King Philip's and King Williams War, as well as Queen Anne's and King George's War, is well documented. Some historians contend it was the frustration of British authorities that compelled them to send regulars to America to resolve the Colonial wars. There were a lot of regulars (30+ regiments) in the french and Indian war. Complex subject and worth further inquiry and discussion.

I'd need to read the book, but the reviews on amazon
suggest the book deals more with europeans v. natives more than european v. european in the very few stand-up engagements of the FIW.
If linear tactics of the 7 years war variety worked in the FIW, why did the English develop ranger companies, and light infantry? How did the French and their native allies hold off the English for so long despite being massively outnumbered?
The very nature of the terrain prevented much of what would have been used in Europe.

Looks like this book has been around a while (2003).

Pan,
The French held off the English until the FIW because of the ineptness, lack of focus, and lack of unity of the English colonies. The irregular companies developed during the FIW were successors of the ranging companies first started by Benjamin Church during King Philip's War, and King William's War. Keep in mind King William's War was the beginning of the colonial wars involving the french and English empires. Previous to that it was the English against the Indians in Northern America. As these forces developed they contained less and less Indians and more whites, or blacks. In Queen Anne's War and in King George's war the Gorham's, who served under Church, Father and later son, further developed the capabilities to set the stage for the successes in the FIW and the American Revolution. These early efforts set the stage for the irregular successes enjoyed in the FIW and AR under Roger's Rangers and others. There is a place for irregular warfare but alone it was not decisive in the FIW or the American Revolution. The early colonies did not unite to take advantage of their population against the French. They also used the militia primarily for defense. The offensive expeditions during the four wars prior to the FIW against Quebec and Montreal, relied mostly on volunteer expeditionary forces, and small support from British naval capabilities, which might have proved decisive if supported by large regular troops. The early colonial engagements were just not important enough to the global effort by the British until the FIW/Seven Years War. Once the crown committed resources the decisive result was achieved. Of course those resources and the cost led to many of the problems associated with the large debt which contributed to the discontent leading to the AR. Once again as I stated early a very complex interconnected situation. Irregular forces and unconventional warfare have their places in warfare but they alone were not decisive. You are right the French held off the colonies, but they also could not defeat the English. Their Indian allies did make Maine and parts of the Massachusetts area untenable for settlers.

Good thread briscoesays…!

Amicalement
Armand

DELETED