"small battles for huge stakes" Topic

Does this seem a valid generalization? San Jacinto is an obvious further example. Can anyone suggest other examples?

Contrary examples would of course include the Plains of Abraham!

An enormous and sparsely settled land naturally attracted foreign adventurers, called "filibusters," who from time to time tried to seize parts of it for themselves. It is worth pointing out that throughout the first several centuries of European activity in North America, vast (but mostly empty) territories might change hands as a result of battles involving mere hundreds of men. Pontiac's very dangerous uprising was finally defeated at Bushy Run (August 1763), and the siege of Detroit raised, by 500 highlanders of the Black Watch. During the Revolution George Rogers Clark's Illinois Regiment secured the Ohio valley, which became five states, with no more than 400 men. William Henry Harrison's decisive victory at Tippecanoe in 1811 was won with barely a thousand men, against an Indian force of about 700. Battles between such small forces, especially when one or both sides were not professional soldiers, were unpredictable enough that ambitious men might risk a deadly defeat to gain land of unimaginable worth.

I should add that the context of the above is a discussion of filibusters invading Texas with simi-regularity. The Spanish (and then Mexican) army was often effective (and ruthless) against them, but there were some close calls. And the filibusters are one reason why the Spanish could not deal effectively with the Comanche and other nomadic raiders. (Plus not being able to catch them, which was a much bigger factor.)

"North America, vast (but mostly empty) "

Really?

See William Denevan's seminal work, 'The Native Population of the Americas in 1492.'

If you can't find a library copy, well worth purchasing:
link

The Plains of Abraham would barely merit a paragraph in a history of the SYW in Europe.

But in going with the general theme, Cowpens and Kings Mountain.

Glorieta Pass?

Bonhomme Richard v HMS Serapis.

Bunker Hill, Tripoli, and Rorke's Drift all come to mind.

Trenton. Washington's back is to the wall, the army is about to dissolve and he needs a victory to keep the revolution alive.

Ochoin, Deneven's estimate for North America north of Mexico is under 4 million. I'd say that is a vast and pretty sparsely inhabited land. The Spanish southwest, Texas to California, had a population density of about 1 person per three square miles.

I dunno, John. The Plains of Abraham did transfer a vast area from France to Britain. I excluded it because the armies were both professional and a bit larger, though of course minuscule in European terms, as you note.

Low population density does not equal empty land. That argument is basically terra nullius—the idea that land ‘unused' by European standards didn't count as owned. Modern law rejects that outright.

Many Indigenous societies were:
Seasonally mobile, not permanently settled in dense towns.
Managing land through fire, hunting, and cultivation.
Using territory in ways that don't show up as "density" on a European-style map.

So arguments like "1 person per 3 square miles" confuse low population density with absence of ownership or use—they're not the same thing.

I am surprised you did not know this.

The Jumonville Affair (1754). Washington sparked the F&IW which led to the AWI. I think he commanded about 100 men.

I also wonder if The Doolittle Raid (1942) qualifies? 16 bombers causing little damage but compelling the Japanese to react, including starting the Midway Campaign which, essentially, finished them.

Let's not forget about the Cowpens.

Ochoin, yes, we know all that, but a square mile is not being "used" if an Indian walks through it once a year hunting a deer.

In my state and some others, people donate large tracts of land to, e.g., a church, which is tax exempt. Businesses too, I knew of a Baptist church in Texas that owned a restaurant and a dry cleaners. Tax accessors then want to know if the church is actually, you know, USING the land for its ministries. Back when I had a scout troop, we did some trail clearing so there would be a trail and a campsite etc. in the deep woods so the church camp could claim it was being used.

So basically I reject what you suggest about land use and ownership.

The problem with your narrow argument is that it confuses European-style land use with any legitimate form of land tenure.

Indigenous peoples didn't need to farm, fence or build on every square kilometre for it to be "used." Seasonal movement, hunting grounds, sacred sites and custodianship over territory are all recognised forms of land use. That's not opinion—that's been affirmed repeatedly in modern law, including cases like Mabo v Queensland (No 2), which explicitly rejected terra nullius as a legal fiction.

Comparing that to a tax dodge by a modern church isn't just a weak analogy. It ignores millenia of established Indigenous systems of ownership and stewardship.

You're not really "rejecting" the concept. You're applying a narrow definition that the law, and history, have already moved beyond. Your position says much about you.

Vincennes always struck me as having a disproportionate effect for the effort. Fewer than 200 American volunteers & allies take a janky fort in the wilderness from a handful of British regulars, militia and natives. The immediate effect is the weakening of Britain's ability to supply their native allies, as well as some loss of prestige. The greater effect comes when the Americans can claim control of the region during the peace negotiations and thus the Northwest Territory becomes part of the US rather than British North America.

I am rejecting the woke concept. Monroe has it right: (First Annual Message to Congress, 1817):

"In this progress (American growth and settlement), which the rights of nature demand and nothing can prevent, marking a growth rapid and gigantic, it is our duty to make new efforts for the preservation, improvement, and civilization of the native inhabitants. The hunter state can exist only in the vast uncultivated desert. It yields to the more dense and compact form and greater force of civilized population; and of right it ought to yield, for the earth was given to mankind to support the greatest number of which it is capable, and no tribe or people have a right to withhold from the wants of others more than is necessary for their own support and comfort."

You may of course reject Monroe, as I reject your argument, but I'd be glad to see you try to refute it. Saying we've "moved on" will not do.

And fwiw, demographers define "wilderness" as under 10 per square mile. The Spanish sw in 1830 had something like .3/square mile.

Plus, of course, Monroe is right: the dense population will push aside the scattered one. You have no doubt read the Melian dialogue: "that's not right!" is what the weaker party says, and they would act the same were they the stronger.

So 'might makes right' is your mantra? Interesting. I'm a Christian so I rather reject the bully-boy approach to relations between peoples, if that's what you mean by "woke"?

You actually refer to the Melian episode as proof of your claims?
Have you read Thucydides? It was meant to critique Athenian imperialism.

Although he was an Athenian, Thucydides presented Athens here as ruthless and morally compromised. The episode foreshadows the darker turn of Athenian policy later in the war (e.g., Sicily). It's not praise—it's a warning about what empire does to a state.
A pity Monroe hadn't read it, either.

As we say of the Clearances – Air fògradh, ach chan ann air dhìochuimhne.

I too am a Christian, and I think the just war doctrine a good place to start. The question of the morality of real politik is complicated. Was nuclear deterrence moral?

Yes, I have in fact TAUGHT Thucydides, so have read it several times. And I am sure that Monroe also had read it; it was part of the standard curriculum then. You haven't addressed Monroe's point, though. The tide is neither good nor bad, but it washes away sand castles regardless. The native cultures were doomed from the start.

Ochoin, another essential analysis is Toqueville's. He actually watched part of the Trail of Tears, and was deeply sympatric to the natives, as who could not be. But he saw very clearly the elements of their doom, and explains them each in turn in great detail.

It is a tribute to the basic Christian humanity of most Americans and most of their leaders that the native tribes survive at all. Genocide would have been easy, especially with the effect of diseases. But native populations survived, and at least pieces of their culture, and though the reservations were mostly on unwanted land, they DID exist. The imbalance of power between natives and whites was so great that it took great forbearance on the part of the powerful for the weak to survive at all.

Be fair to the computer, Ochoin. It says "mostly" empty, and "vast but sparsely settled." And thin as the population was in 1492, it was vastly less by Bushy Run. Nor was this a discussion of the morality or legality of conquest, but of small high-stakes battles.

Surely we can have a discussion of the Campaigns of Ulm and Austerlitz without necessarily arguing the morality of Bonaparte declaring himself Emperor of France and King of Italy.

"Low population density does not equal empty land. That argument is basically terra nullius—the idea that land ‘unused' by European standards didn't count as owned. Modern law rejects that outright."

🤔

Well Ochoin, you could lead by example. Show us your liberal enlightened superiority in action. Shine the light for all to emulate. WWJD?

Give your home and those of your children still in Australia back to the Turrbal or Jagera indigenous aborigines, native to your area. Turn over all your worldly goods as well, as reparations for past wrongs to the tribes.

Prove it's not just words!

"Europeans took Australia from the Indigenous peoples. Starting in 1788, British colonists claimed the land, displacing Aboriginal communities through violence and disease. They treated the continent as terra nullius(land belonging to no one), ignoring existing land stewardship to establish colonies. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key Aspects of the Takeover:
* Terra Nullius (No Man's Land): European settlers and authorities operated on the false belief that because there were no fences or permanent buildings, the land was not owned. This allowed them to annex the land without treaty or compensation.
* Violence and Conflict: Known as the "Frontier Wars," Indigenous Australians fought back against the invasion of their traditional lands, resulting in over 20,000 Indigenous deaths compared to roughly 2,500 settlers/police.
* Forced Removal and Displacement: As British settlement spread for pastoral, mining, and urban use, Aboriginal groups were forced off their traditional lands, breaking their access to food and water.
* Disease and Population Decline: The introduction of diseases like smallpox, influenza, and measles significantly decimated the indigenous population. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
The occupation of Australia was a gradual process of dispossession,, with significant violence and land loss lasting well into the 19th and early 20th centuries. [1, 2]"

Oh, 35th, not you too? When I want to argue the legality and ethics of European expansion, I'll do Real Clear History, aldaily--or maybe old Analogs. John Campbell had some nice editorials on the subject. The Miniatures Page is for miniatures.

Small battles and high stakes. Don't forget Blaauwberg (1806) which transferred Cape Colony, and so ultimately South Africa, to British hands. But let's also not forget Medillin, Texas (1813 Spanish victory) Kekionga (1790 Miami victory) and the "Battle of a Thousand Slain" (1791 Miami victory.) The armies are not larger nor the stakes smaller because the victor is unable to turn his battlefield success into something more lasting.

No, just countering the continued "holier than thou" condemnation of the treatment of our "indigenous" people's diatribe . Not just this one, but from many past TMP threads, by one individual.