Corey May

History 320
Essay #1

Europeans and Native Americans had differing ideas concerning war tactics
from the first time they ever encountered each other in Jamestown. While history
and entertainment taught and shown in America today may lead you to believe the
age old stereotype that the Native Americans were savage beasts with no honor
and the Europeans were noble people who were forced to slaughter the savage
Indians out of defense, the facts known today seem to heavily lean in the opposite
direction, with the Europeans being ruthless, blood hungry murderers with little to
no morals while the Indians fought as ritual, with no real desire to kill and especially
no desire to eradicate their enemies like the Europeans did. The guerilla tactics that
the Indians are now commonly linked to were more than likely only put into place
after the Indians discovered how ruthless the Europeans really were in an attempt
to preserve themselves.
In the early 17th century, European soldiers used religion as a way to justify
the killing of anyone who they considered to be inferior to them. In America, the
Europeans considered the Indians as far inferior to themselves and immediately
started finding ways to justify eradicating them from the earth. This is not the idea
of European settlers that people might get from a middle-school history class or a
big budget Hollywood movie, but in reality the only savages in America when it
came to war, were the Europeans. The Indians living in America at the time of the
settlement in Jamestown did fight plenty of wars, but these wars were most often
fought for ritualistic purposes. Roger Williams, in his 1643 essay wrote that the
Natives seemed to fight with no intent on mass murder. Instead they seemed to

dance around, hide behind trees and rarely fire arrows that were actually intended
to kill instead of merely injure. The Natives would rather make their enemy retreat
from injuries than kill them. If the member of an enemy tribe was killed in battle,
they were treated with honor and valor. The Indians would often claim the heads of
any enemy they killed, but this was not seen as disrespectful or savage. Instead it
showed the enemy great respect. The act of scalping an enemy as a sign of
disrespect or for a trophy was actually something introduced by European soldiers
who would scalp an enemy in order to make more money. More scalps equaled more
pay.
As soon as the Europeans set up camp in Jamestown, they were confused by
the culture of the Native Americans, and because they saw themselves as better
than the Natives, they immediately attempted to help the Indians by showing
them how to live like Europeans. They used the bible as a form of justification for
the attempted destruction of the Native culture, saying that the Indians, by not
making the best use of all of their land, were committing a sin. The Europeans, in
their minds, were saving the Indians from the wrath of God by destroying their
culture. Other things about the Natives also worried the Europeans including the
fear that indentured servants may run off to join a tribe. These fears played a heavy
role in the decision to fight the Indians, and when Europeans fought in the 17 th
century, they fought to on the grounds that every member of the enemy force
needs to die.
While European soldiers in the 17th century are often seen as nobleman when
it came to war, there are many examples of them being the opposite. In Major
Problems in American Military History, John Whiteclay Chambers II and G. Kurt
Piehler give us multiple documents and essays that point out the savagery and

ruthlessness used by the Europeans in this time. The war is defended in the book by
multiple documents written at the time of the war that were written by important
European citizens of the time including Governor John Winthrop, Captain John
Underhill, and Captain John Mason. All of these men tell a story that have the
Indians come across as treaty breaking savages that murdered two innocent
European traders named John Stone and John Oldham. After the murders and
breaking of the treaty by the Pequot, the Europeans reacted as they saw fit the
situation. By leading 90 militiamen, 19 volunteers and several hundred members of
an enemy tribe to attack the village of the Pequot. This attack ended with the
Europeans burning the entire village to the ground killing over 700 Pequot tribe
members, capture seven and allowing only six or seven to escape. (Chambers and
Piehler 38)
The only problem with the story is that many people, including William Apess,
a member of the Pequot tribe who wrote on the subject, later claimed it to be a lie.
John Stone, one of the men killed by the Pequot turned out to be a convicted
criminal who had been banished from Massachusetts after attempting to hijack a
vessel. Later he had taken two Pequot tribe members hostage and held them for
ransom. It was only after this that the Pequot caught Stone and had him killed. It is
also believed that the treat that the Pequot had been accused of breaking was
either never shown to the tribe, or never existed in the first place. This information
would have never been known by reading any of the writing by Winthrop, Mason or
Underhill (Chambers and Piehler 38). This follows a common trend among European
war of creating a fictitious reason to attack an enemy who is in the way of
something they want. This is an important part of how Europeans thought of war.

They showed no mercy, and had very little morals when it came to finding ways to
win a fight, both things that the Indians made a large part of how they fought.
The burning down of the Pequot village by the Europeans is also very telling
concerning how noble they really were. Captain John Mason in A Brief History of the
Pequot War gives his recollection of the events that took place that day. In his
writing he not only defends the act of burning down a village and causing some 700
deaths, but he goes as far as to blame the Indians for it happening. He recalls a
soldier searching the village before the burning took place and not seeing anybody.
This caused the man to look inside one of the wigwams located in the village. After
he entered he says members of the Pequot were inside waiting all opportunities to
lay hands on him (Chambers and Piehler 43). This caused Indians throughout the
village to exit their wigwams and attempt to retreat. All throughout his telling of the
story, he recalls members of the Pequot tribe running and retreating in fear. This
shows that the Pequot were shocked at deceptive and vicious acts of the Europeans.
This was something that the Indians would have never even considered if it didnt
occur, but something that the Europeans relied heavily on to win. The eventual
burning down of the village in order to keep the Pequot from getting away is told
seemingly in glee by Mason as he describes it being the will of God, and stating that
the Pequot were getting what they deserved.
The Pequot War is only a microcosm of atrocities that occurred at the hands
of the Europeans against the Natives all over the colonies. Acculturation can be
contributed heavily to the evolution of Indian war tactics throughout the 17th
century. It was only after years of going through events like this that the Natives
changed their war tactics in order to combat the Europeans and preserve
themselves. The use of Guerilla warfare was only begun as a way to lessen the

death toll against the high tech weaponry being used against them by the
Europeans. Scalping along with the fighting strictly to kill were both ideas only used
by the Natives after being used against them by the Europeans.
Don Higginbotham, a Columbia professor wrote in an essay that Even before
King Philips war, in 1675-77, the Indians of New England demonstrated that they
had become increasingly dangerous opponents because they had learned to cope
with the technological superiority of the colonists (Chambers and Piehler 62). The
Indians started using firearms and this, along with their superior knowledge of the
land made the Indians formidable adversaries in King Philips War (Chambers and
Piehler 62). This evolution of warfare tactics used by the Indians in King Philips war
forced the Europeans to do some evolving of their own. The Indian use of firearms
and frequent ambushes caused heavy damage to the Europeans, and they only
ended up winning the war due to the size of their armies and their vast resources.
After King Philips war, the Europeans were forced to make some changes of
their own when it came to warfare. It marked the end of the pike as a viable military
weapon, as Natives were now using guns and the pikemen were sitting ducks.
Although the Natives put up a good fight using their newly learned war tactics, it
wasnt enough and after the war they were never able to truly launch a worthy
attack against the British unless being aided by one of their enemies.
In closing, the identity that is commonly thrusted upon the 17 th century
Native Americans as blood hungry savages is a false one, and would be more
accurately attributed to the European forces they were fighting against. It was only
after years of ruthless, deceptive and greed fueled attacks by the Europeans
against the Indians that they began adopting these ideas of war to help better

preserve themselves against the European soldiers. The Europeans went into
Jamestown with the idea that there can only be one outcome of war, the total
destruction and eradication of the lesser side. It would be a while before this way of
thinking changed when it came to war in America, especially against the Natives.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chambers, John Whiteclay, and G. Kurt Piehler. Major Problems In American Military
History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999. Print.