![The Miniatures Page logo](tmpshead.jpg)
"In North America from 1622 to 1890, colonial wars or not?" Topic
17 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the TMP Poll Suggestions Message Board Back to the American Indian Wars Message Board
Action Log
04 Sep 2023 7:17 a.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Changed title from "In North America from 1622 to 1890, colonial wars or not ?" to "In North America from 1622 to 1890, colonial wars or not?"Removed from 19th Century Discussion boardCrossposted to TMP Poll Suggestions board
Areas of InterestGeneral Renaissance 18th Century 19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article![Acolyte Vampires](showcase/fanshowcase/2015/836567a.JPG) The Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
hi EEE ya ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 04 Sep 2023 3:00 a.m. PST |
Hello everyone, The Indian Wars are the set of wars opposing European settlers and then the governments of the United States and Canada to the "Indian" peoples, from 1622 to 1890. Were they colonial wars or not? Yours aye Paskal |
robert piepenbrink ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 04 Sep 2023 3:27 a.m. PST |
Is this a trick question? Yes, mostly, by the usual wargame understanding of "opposing forces of different cultures, at different tech levels, and sometimes with different concepts of winning a battle." I'm sure we could all name exceptions. |
advocate ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 04 Sep 2023 4:55 a.m. PST |
Yes. The Europeans were intent on colonising what for them was a 'new world'. |
CAPTAIN BEEFHEART | 04 Sep 2023 6:50 a.m. PST |
Pay dirt Guy with Dice, this is some muddy trolling activity. Much more suited for AM radio than a hobby forum. |
Grattan54 ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 04 Sep 2023 10:14 a.m. PST |
Yes, they would be a form of colonial wars. One difference would be the Americans were not trying to make colonies, but a larger nation. |
Grelber ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 04 Sep 2023 11:24 a.m. PST |
Yes, by and large. You do get the odd bit of contemporary warfare type analysis. The cavalry board determined that US cavalry should carry the Springfield carbine because it outranged the most common weapon used by the potential foes (Indian tribes apparently liked Winchesters). One thing they had in common was that things could go very, very, very wrong very quickly as they did at the Little Big Horn, Isandlwana (for the British), and El Herri (French). In all three cases, the loser was able to continue the war until they won. Grelber |
pikeman666 | 04 Sep 2023 5:48 p.m. PST |
I'm in agreement that this is a troll. Colonial or not, it was devastating to the indigenous people. It's a miracle any of them survived and a terrible legacy for the immigrant population to carry. Let's move back to our hobby interests, ok? It doesn't serve any interest to dig into this matter within our community. |
hi EEE ya ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 04 Sep 2023 11:05 p.m. PST |
"the Americans were not trying to make colonies, but a larger nation." so it is not a colonial war because it was successful. On the other hand, the Europeans failed in Africa and Asia for example, because the colonized peoples were able to regain their "independence" in one way or another, what the Native Americans could never have done. |
gavandjosh02 | 05 Sep 2023 3:13 p.m. PST |
I'm not sure where that quotation comes from, but fail to see the distinction. |
hi EEE ya ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 05 Sep 2023 11:49 p.m. PST |
The distinction between what and what ? |
TimePortal | 23 Feb 2024 11:01 p.m. PST |
The Spanish and Mexicans are prominent in the southwest. The Spanish and French fielded rival forces with local Allie's in Florida. The French had a decades long war against the Chickasaw and their Allie's in the Mississippi area. Covered in my booklet Mississippi in Flames: the Franco-Chickasaw Wars of the 1700s. |
Old Contemptible ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 24 Feb 2024 8:39 a.m. PST |
Between 1622 and 1776, certain conflicts fell under the classification of Colonial Wars, aimed at territorial expansion. Yet, others were defensive measures against encroachment by Native American tribes. Conversely, some Native American-initiated conflicts were responses to Colonial (and British) territorial claims. Post-1776, especially after the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican-American War, the United States asserted sovereignty over Native American-inhabited lands. Does this assertion constitute colonial warfare? Could it be likened to the Philippine Insurrection? Similarly, did the British conflicts over Scottish and Welsh sovereignty qualify as colonial wars? I'd group the post-1776 clashes with various tribes into this category. Unlike venturing into distant lands and usurping indigenous territories, these were disputes over domestic sovereignty. |
35thOVI ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 02 Mar 2024 6:26 a.m. PST |
Can you leave out all the Spanish conquests in south and Central America? The English in Australia? Does any group overrun and conquered by another nation qualify? Romans vs Celts? Romans and Carthage? How about Troy? Go back through history. As in North America, many of the conquered survived, but only as part of the new nation or captives, never to appear again as independent. What of the conquests perpetuated by the Aztec, Mayan, Inca? The destruction of the Erie Nation by the Iroquois Confederation? "colonialism" is a world wide and historical thing, not just North American . There are some many examples all over the world. So are not we all guilty? "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" " Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." When people list great victories of natives over the powers, why is "the battle of the Wabash" always ignored?
|
Old Contemptible ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 02 Mar 2024 7:25 p.m. PST |
I was under the impression we were speaking mainly of North America. |
35thOVI ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 02 Mar 2024 8:09 p.m. PST |
Some other countries were brought up in the thread. But my point is, there is no difference in what took place in North America and what has taken place throughout all of history and in all cultures. When a technologically superior, militarily superior or both, dominants and either subjugates or exterminates a culture that is weaker, thus taking their land. I don't call that colonialism, it's just war. |
Old Contemptible ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 08 Mar 2024 9:55 p.m. PST |
Unlike venturing into distant lands and usurping indigenous territories, these were disputes over domestic sovereignty. |
hi EEE ya ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 26 May 2024 3:07 a.m. PST |
@TimePortal "the Americans were not trying to make colonies, but a larger nation.". So it is not a colonial war because it was successful? On the other hand, the Europeans failed in Africa and Asia for example, because the colonized peoples were able to regain their "independence" in one way or another, what the Native Americans could never have done. So these are colonial wars which ended well… @Old Contemptible We speak of colonial wars when a more industrialized or more powerful people attacks another to take everything from them. This is what happened to the American Indians. @35thOVI So, aren't we all guilty ? The subject is "The Indian Wars are the set of wars opposing European settlers and then the governments of the United States and Canada to the "Indian" peoples, from 1622 to 1890.". We are talking about the U.S.A. not other nations. You write "there is no difference between what happened in North America and what has happened throughout history and in all cultures. When someone who is technologically superior, militarily superior, or both, dominates and subjugates or exterminates a weaker culture, thereby taking their land, I don't call it colonialism, that's just war.". This is precisely colonialism! |
|