"Which Indian tribes fought in the War of 1812 ?" Topic

Hello everyone,

Please, who knows which Indian tribes fought in the War of 1812 and in which camps?

And please which manufactures offer 28mm figures specifically for these Indian tribes?

Stay safe and take care,

Paskal

In general, the Shawnee, Huron, Miami, Sauk, Fox, and some Iroquois (mostly in Canada) and some Creeks fought against the United States. Many smaller tribes or confederations in what is now Ohio and Indiana joined this confederation.

The Cherokee, some Creeks, and some Iroquois (mostly Seneca in the US) fought with the United States.

The dress of the tribes was very similar. There may have been differences in decoration or color of clothing.

I have not found figures specific to 1812. Old Glory 25s, RAFM, and Warlord Games sell a variety in their French and Indian War line. These could be used for all of the tribes.
War Lord has the best photos:
link

Choctaws fought on behalf of the U.S. during the War of 1812 and soon were "allowed" to walk the Trail of Tears for their efforts.

Don't forget Knuckleduster, probably the most complete line for War of 1812

link

and Brigade games, War of 1812, FIW, King Philip's War for First peoples miniatures:

link

For a list of tribes which fought in the War of 1812

link

link

Osprey has a few books on Native tribes….mind you, not necessarily in the War of 1812. Example:

link

This is a good book:

link

LOL…I'll shut up now…..

The Knuckleduster and Brigade Games figures are nice and I regret not including them in my earlier post.

Didnt the Creek fight against the USA?

Choctaws fought on behalf of the U.S. during the War of 1812 and soon were "allowed" to walk the Trail of Tears for their efforts.

Is it that the USA was such a lately developing nation that its history seems so starkly bent on the accumulation of riches for the few?

I'm sure it was the same for all growing nations – with Kings at the top. Possibly because it's so comparatively recent that those leading policy in the USA seem so cruel – Kings in all but name?

I don't wish to seem overly provocative, but sometimes we need to look at ourselves – I know, as a Brit, I do, and sometimes the Brits don't look pretty.

Sometimes, when I see the mindless singing / chanting "two World Wars and one World Cup" or "USA, USA, USA". I want to get in amongst them and give them a slap.

Only a slap, mind. Just to wake them up.

How can you be late for a World Cup?

If you're serious, olicana, the US was not "bent on the accumulation of riches for the few" but on acquiring land for the many--and rarely taking the land claims of anyone else seriously. The history of the 18th and 19th Centuries in North America is chock full of subsistence farmers crowding onto land with dubious or no legal claim, often to the great annoyance of the political elites in London and Washington who already had their pile. Take a good look at the distribution of landed property anywhere in Europe at that time, and get back to me about "the few"--or contemplate the pre-1775 British habit of granting whole counties in North America to court favorites, who then tried to rent out rather than sell. We never wound up with a peasant class, but it wasn't for lack of trying on Britain's part.

And gisbygeo, if Europe had kept it's own affairs in order, we wouldn't have been "late" to the World Wars, but uninvolved.

Now could we get back to the War of 1812?

No such thing in reality as Creeks as a nation.
The early migration were the Hitachee who were called Creeks because they lived on Creeks. Stupid Englishmen. These moved to Florida when most of the Original Florida tribes left with the Spanish when that turned Florida over to the British.
The second wave were the Muskogee who spoke the Muskohegan language which was different than Hitachee.
These broke into two branches. The Lower tribes lived mainly in Georgia and East Alabama. It also included a vast collection of orphans tribes such as Yazoo and Tunica from Mississippi and Shawnee from Ohio. These tribes were settled in the border areas so they would be first to feel the brunt of Choctaw raids. Upper tribes were mainly in Central Alabama. The Lower tribes formed a country recognized by the British. It had a flag and a two ship navy. They were abandoned by the British in 1808 when the Spanish became British allies. They then became close allies with Americans.
The Upper tribes did most of their trading out of Pensacola, so were British-Spanish allies.
The Choctaw and Chickasaw had signed a peace treaty to fight no more. Choctaw traded with New Orleans so pro American. Both. Choctaw and Chickasaw warriors fought as their heart lead them Most were pro American. A few die hands or on the Lower tribes wanted list, judicial war party justice, for raiding their towns.

Creek Indians fought on both sides.

Every hands a winner and every hands a loser.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Thanks everyone.

So if I understood correctly the Indians of the War of 1812 are indistinguishable from the Indians of the Seven Years' War?

It's weird I wouldn't have believed that.

Very much a difference in appearance in the south. The 1812-14 Creek War saw the French small turban in wide use by both sides in the Creek nation. Even a lot of Choctaws wore it. The daily life Choctaw and Chickasaw had also adopted a wide brim straw hat for wear. Though on a war party, it was rare.
A lot of the Creek micros on both sides were half-breeds mostly of Scottish ancestry. Creek status through the mother and Scottish trading wealth through the father. They wore European woven goods with calico common. The Upper Creek fanatics were ‘spirit ghost' followers and did not wear or use anything containing European material. So they used bows not rifles, traditional wood war clubs rather than tomahawks. Both sides common warriors also were shirtless and even some did not wear trousers. This was partial rather than spiritual. The musket balls of the era were known to tear and drag pieces of shirt cloth into a wound which was more likely to remain after the ball was removed. Thus the fabric was a major cause of infection among the wounded. Hence no clothing, no infection was a train of thought among them.

In regards to the difference among eras. Those exited as well. The 18th Century warriors were distinguishable because of painting patterns nd weapons.
The Choctaw still had flat head practice characteristics and had traded extensively with the French. One of the favorite trade items was the French ‘butcher knife' which was almost universal for the warriors.
The Chickasaw was the primary British trading partner. So they used a lot of British red cloth and tomahawks.
Cherokee warriors wore a lot of black Ed and red war colors. With patterns similar to the modern Eagle dancers. Since they were an Iroquois tribe they would share many similar war dress patterns.

The creek of the earlier era, did not wear turbans. They used black-death and red-war paint. However a lot would use the Thunderbird blue as death color. The Creeks main combat weapon was the war club which could be a one or two hand variety. These were often hereditary. Another feature was the way to distinguish leaders high war chiefs worn swan feather mantles. Lower leader wore round shell discs. Later these would become metal gorgets because of British trade.

Thank you Rudy,

The hairstyles of the Indian warriors of the War of 1812 had to be different as well as the clothes worn by those of the Seven Years War, right?

What books should you buy to find many illustrations of warriors from all Indian tribes specific to the War of 1812?

Research may be hard or easy depending on your style and time. The speedster no time to spare guy will never find anything. Sources are different for both wars. Most tribes now have tribal museums and gift shops. Many have artwork on line. I have been to the Cherokee one in NC. They also have a magazine. Issues may have only one article or drawing in them.
I have also been to a Creek museum in Muskogee OK. Artwork of 1812 action. One was a Lower Creek farm being raided by Upper Creek in 1812.
The people at the OK Chickasaw museum were very easy to deal with.
Choctaw were ok as well.
For the Creek in the 1700s, several drawings can be found

Found in trader notebooks. Similar artwork were made by the French in their area. Wearing of trade goods varies by town or village. Those near trading posts wore more cloth than those far away.
Another item was weapons. For example the French would arm tribes near them, but those tribes would trade older musket models to tribes further west. The Dakota ended up with muskets handed down several items. Muskets were more of a symbol than a war weapon. The image of the tribal marksmen was an illusion. For tribes the balance of rare powder, iron balls and working guns means target practice with them did not happen. Hunting was still done with bows. Hand me down weapons were often broke. So we're symbols.

Thank Rudy,

Even Osprey has not yet edited a book on Indians specific to this war, but it may happen someday, maybe it has already been done by other publishing houses ..?

I will also have to find myself the best book on this war, for me it will be the book with many orders of battles – ultra precise – (or all orders of battles ..?) of this war …

Southern front guy myself. I can send you the file on Creek War if you want. Send request to scottnelson@bellsouth.net

I will send the file which may have artwork notations.

Thanks Rudy, What I want is a real book, nothing digital.

Also please what's the best book on this war?

For me it will be the book with many battle orders – ultra precise – (or all battle orders ..?) of this war … Where to buy it?

You could tried this one…

link

Armand

Thank you Armand,

And who do we find?