| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jumonville |
Posted - October 13 2003 : 10:49:32 PM
It seems that Half-King used young GW's naiveity to lure him into launching the attack against Jumonville's detachments.
Would like to hear the opinions of others. |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 29 2003 : 09:08:37 AM
No problem Lloyd, I just figured that between the two of us we could do our part not to perpetuate that all to common myth of 18th century warfare in the North American Theater. Unfortunately, I remember the same stories being told by my history teachers years ago. Then you had movies like 'Northwest Passage', and 'The Patriot' which also adds to that falsehood. In the American War of Independence, the Contenentals did not start winning major campaigns until their troops mastered linear tactics. Once again, 'La Petite Guerre' had its rightful place in the scheme of things, particularly with the battlefield use of rifled firelocks. But these riflemen still depended 'drilled' light infantrymen armed with musket & bayonet, to protect their position against enemy assault. It does make for interesting study to see how both tactics evolved, as ones' needs would change for the others'.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| mnchiefs502001 |
Posted - October 28 2003 : 6:08:50 PM
Sgt Munro,
As always you are correct in the your most excellent analysis.
Lloyd C. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 28 2003 : 10:28:50 AM
Lloyd wrote:
quote:
Suprisingly the British adapted tactics with the use of rangers and alliances with natives but still clung to using European tactics....Some of the OCOKA principle was applied but not all, such as Cover and Concealment. The thought of the day was it was not very genteel to shoot from behind cover.
Overall, you have some very good points Lloyd, but I would like to add to and clarify them.
The British still retained the use of linear battle tactics, for the same reason the French Regulars (Troupes de Terre, not the Compagine de Marine), because they worked. Given the firearm technology of the 'Age of Horse & Musket', it was the only effective way to win large engagements fought over major strategic goals. Now, there was a place for 'La Petite Guerre' or 'The Skullking Way of War', but the effectiveness was limited to Intel-Ops, harrassment and terrorist type missions. Any of your large, primary goal-type missions were sucessfully carried out by using European Tactics.
Some may reenforce the thought of woodland warfare supremacy, by pointing to such actions as Braddock's Defeat (1755) and Grant's Defeat (1758) here in the Ohio Country. Let us take a look at them in turn:
First, General Braddock made several blunders right before and during the battle which cost him his army and his life. After his force completed the second crossing of the Monongahala, he let his guard down and pulled in his flankers. He was under the impression that the only time his force was in jepordy was from a two-pronged attack during the fording of the river. He did not believe that the enemy would hit him head-on, after the main body of his force was on the north side of the river. During the battle, LTC. Gage advised him to secure the hilltop to the right of the main body, to prevent a flanking attack. He failed to allow this initially, thinking that the attack was only a 'small unit' action to his front. By the time he did agree to take Gage's advice, the Native Forces had already secured the heights and were starting to turn the British Right. The story of General Braddock striking men with the flat of his sword, in order to get them out from behind cover was necessary. The unit cohesiveness of his composite force was starting to deteriorate, company and field grade officers were losing control of their men, and the only way that he could have held and counter-attacked would have been to get the men into formation to meet the charging enemy. Other blunders made, which were not his fault, included the friendly fire incident on the Virginian Forces and the disorderly withdraw of his vangard. All in all, it was a series of mistakes, not the use of European Tactics, which caused his defeat.
Secondly, the defeat of Major Grant can also be attributed to both mistakes of the commander and misbehavior of some of the provincials. Major Grant can shoulder the lion share of the blame for failing to follow his orders. Colonel Bouquet ordered a 'reconosaince in force' of the French Fort Duquesne, in order to collect detailed maps and plans of the fort, its outerworks and the approach. If possible he would lay in ambush, to capture a French Officer for 'interview' purposes. His approach was very skillful (like Braddock), as noted by a Delaware War Captain who related the encounter later to Pouchot. He made his blunder by ordering a raid on the fort's outer buildings, in order to draw the French out, believing that he could take the fort by storm.
The French did come out, as planned, but accompanied by a rather large Native Army who started moving rapidly toward the Allegheny and north by north east looking for a flank. Major Grant deployed his force piecemeal at first, there by causing the loss of critical maneuver tim |
| mnchiefs502001 |
Posted - October 26 2003 : 12:28:56 PM
On Scalping -
There is no doubt that Europeans did encourage the taking of scalps and did pay for scalps of enemies but that does no mean that the practice of doing so was not around prior to Europeans establishing colonies in the Americas. I found this from the College of William and Mary:
Scalps and Scalping
Before the 1960s most Americans believed that scalping was a distinctive military custom of the American Indians. History books and the popular media all attributed scalping to Indians, who collected the scalplocks of enemies as war trophies and proof of their valor in battle.
But with the advent of the Red Power and other countercultural movements in the 1960s, many people, Indians and non-Indians alike, began to argue that Native Americans had never scalped until they were taught and encouraged to do so by European colonists, who offered them monetary bounties for the scalps of the settlers' enemies. Since this new version of Indian history sounded plausible and suited the anti-Establishment tenor of the times, it was quickly adopted by many as conventional wisdom.
To be accurate, however, we must acknowledge the following. First, the only non-Indians known to have scalped their enemies were the Scythians, nomadic Eurasian peoples who flourished from the eighth to the fourth century b.c. The ancient Greeks regarded them as "barbarians" for their practice of making napkins from head scalps and for decorating their persons and their horses' bridles with them. When Europeans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries wished to terrorize their enemies, rather than scalping the dead they decapitated them and mounted the heads in prominent places, a practice they continued in America.
Second, there is no evidence that colonial officials ever taught their Indian allies to take scalps. In the seventeenth century, European traders did introduce to native markets so-called scalping knives. But these were ordinary, all-purpose butcher knives, which the natives used more for cutting meat, wood, and skins than for lifting scalps. They were bought by Indian women as well as men because they were more durable and held an edge longer than knives of flint, reed, or shell.
Finally, while there is no evidence for European knowledge of scalping before the arrival of Europeans in the New World, we have abundant evidence that scalping took place in native America well before Europeans arrived. There are four different kinds of evidence, the best of which is archaeological. Two kinds of skulls from precontact sites east and west of the Mississippi, from as early as 2500 to 500 b.c. right up to contact, provide evidence of scalping. The majority of these skulls exhibit circular or successive cuts or scratches just where scalps were traditionally lifted. Some tribes took only a small patch of skin attached to a male victim's specially braided and decorated scalplock at the hair's whorl or vertex, which left little mark on the skull. But many tribes took larger scalps, sometimes from the middle of the forehead or hairline all the way back to the neck, with or without the ears. To extract such a scalp, the warrior probably put one foot on the prone victim's back, pulled back his or her head by the hair, made an incision with a knife across the forehead and around the sides to the back, and then cut or tore the whole skin away from the skull. A nonmetal knife used forcefully to cut away the skin often scratched the bone, leaving telltale marks.
Even better evidence is provided by lesions on the skulls of victims who survived scalping long enough to allow the bone tissue to partially regenerate, leaving a distinctive dark ring where the skull had been cut and infected. Contrary to popular belief, scalping was not necessarily fatal. The historical record is full of survivors, so many that in 1805-6 a physician published "Remarks on the Management of the Scalped-Head" in a Philadelphia medical journal.
The most familiar |
| susquesus |
Posted - October 26 2003 : 11:57:25 AM
I'm probably way off base here, so apologies if I'm flappin' my gums unneccesarily, I thought I remembered reading somewhere that "scalping" started as a result of bounties offered by the British. Anyone got the official heads-up on this? Was it a NA custom or something brought in from Europe? NA's definitely had the scalping market cornered after awhile, just wondering about it's origin. Thanks for any info. |
| mnchiefs502001 |
Posted - October 26 2003 : 10:50:16 AM
It probably wasn't GW's intention to kill & scalp some of the French wounded.More than likely,he had no idea what the Half-King had in mind and couldn't control him.
[/quote]
I agree that Washington had no intention of scalping and killing of French wounded. However, this was part of the native culture to take scalps to prove prowess in battle and to take lives to replace those native lifes that were lost in previous battles or actions. This is an example of two cultures European and native American clashing and it was hard for each to understand one another. Just another disconnect between cultures.
The French Canadien's had a closer understanding of the native culture because they were living among these people for a longer period of time then newly arrived French or English Colonists. Montcalm himself had somewhat of a distain for the French Canadian Marines and preferred the Regulars over them.
Suprisingly the British adapted tactics with the use of rangers and alliances with natives but still clung to using European tactics. In the present day US Infantry we use terms called METT and OCCOKA to help us plan what tactics will suit the particular situation. There seems to be more of this as the war progress and then reverted back to the European tactics at the start of the Rev. War.
METT - Misson, Enemy, Troops, and Time.
OCOKA - Oberservations and Fields of Fire, Cover and Concealment, Obstacles, Key Terrain, and Avenues of Approach.
Some of the OCOKA principle was applied but not all, such as Cover and Concealment. The thought of the day was it was not very genteel to shoot from behind cover.
Anyway some of my observations.
Regards,
Lloyd |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 14 2003 : 11:50:21 PM
I tend to agree with you, Jumonville. It does appear that the engagement started in an remote part of Fayette County, was the result of land-speculating mercenary types. The French claimed it, due to an obscure reference to 'all tributaries of La Belle Rivere'. The British claims go back to the original colonial charter of Virginia, granted under Queen Elizabeth I, being that its western border extended to the western ocean (where they could not even accuately locate at that time). One group, that neither antagonist failed to ask, were the folks that already lived and commuted through the region.
The statement concerning French/British animosity is an interesting one. By the 1750's, both parties had been at each other throats, through a series of wars, for the preceeding 300 years. Of course, some Saxonphiles, claim the original French insult was the Norman Invasion of 1066, but that is the subject for another board/era. It is rather interesting to study the love/hate relationship between two peoples separated by only 24 miles of water. When confronted by a common enemy, like the Muslims of the crusades, the Russians during the Crimean War or the Germans of the world wars, they have a tendency to put differences behind them and fight together. Otherwise, they would excercise long periods of 'friendly' antagonism between them, interspersed with periods of very bloody conflict. The periods of conflict could be relatively short, like the War of Austrian Sucession, or they could become generational like the 100 Years War or the Napoleonic Wars. Oh well, forgive me for the detour...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Jumonville |
Posted - October 14 2003 : 9:21:35 PM
It probably wasn't GW's intention to kill & scalp some of the French wounded.More than likely,he had no idea what the Half-King had in mind and couldn't control him.
[/quote]
I have a hard time of calling GW a murderer at Jumonville Glen - though it seems to be fashionable. Both Washington and Jumonville seemed to be on similar missions - to tell the other side to get out of the territory. The Langlade Raid had occurred two years earlier and the FR had just overrun the small British outpost at the forks of the OH by force. No historian can expect the FR and BR to greet each other as Friends. We cannot forget that Dinwiddie told GW to capture or kill the French if he refused to leave. Were Dinwiddie and GW launching a war for the Ohio Co? |
| Highlander |
Posted - October 14 2003 : 04:20:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jumonville
It seems that Half-King used young GW's naiveity to lure him into launching the attack against Jumonville's detachments.
Would like to hear the opinions of others.
It probably wasn't GW's intention to kill & scalp some of the French wounded.More than likely,he had no idea what the Half-King had in mind and couldn't control him. |
| Hawkeye_Joe |
Posted - October 14 2003 : 02:02:13 AM
Gov. Dinwiddie didn't even follow through on the terms of the capitulation and never released the French prisoners.. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 13 2003 : 11:05:22 PM
Unfortunately, The Half-King was only one of a number of people who 'used' the young and impressionable George Washington. I would have to say one of the biggest manipulators was Govenor Dinwidie of Viginia, for it was he who 'got the ball rolling' with dispatching Washington on the Diplomatic Mission of 1753 (a job which nobody else wanted). To be fair, GW also 'played the game' to a certain degree, as an 'agent' for the Ohio Company, but I'll go into detail over that in another post.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
