At the start of King Philip's War 1675 in New England, the Puritan forces suffered tremendously at the hands of the hostile Algonquian confederation under Philip's leadership, since the English initially for the most part refused to adopt the Indian way of warfare involving stealthy, speedy and hard-hitting guerilla raids and ambushes by lightly-armed war parties using the difficult terrain as cover, then quickly withdraw, and living off the land. Instead, the English relied on the European battlefield tactics emphasising large heavily-equipped (including with wearing steel breastplates and using pikes) and cumbersome formations which were expected to engage the enemy in open terrain, and were dependent on large wagon trains. Consequently, with the exception of Capt Benjamin Church who did understand and practise Indian warfare, and despite the presence of friendly Indians such as Uncas and the Mohegans of Connecticut and the Christian 'Praying Indians' who were auxiliaries and scouts, due to the Puritans' general initial failure to appreciate the need for a new approach to combat the 'skulking' ways of Indian fighting, English forces suffered tremendous losses due to Indian ambushes, such as at Bloody Brook near Deerfield, Massachusetts in Sept, when Capt Lathrop and his command of 80 men were wiped out, and their severed heads displayed on poles. Eventually, the English came to appreciate the need to change their approaches in order to effectively counter the Indians' irregular warfare, esp with the impact of outfits such as Church's Rangers, and Puritan troops in general learning how to fight in wilderness terrain instead of seeking open battle European-style, resulting in 1676 with the defeat of Philip's cause.
But WI the English had clung to their initial ethnocentric approach to warfare, by continuing to despite Indian war parties as 'skulking' and cowardly and refraining from adopting such wilderness warfare methods themselves as beneath the conduct of 'civilised' white Christians ? Would Philip and his confederation have been able to actually achieve their objective of driving the English from their lands ? Or would these Ranger techniques have been adopted by the English sooner or later anyway ? Would there still have been subsequent Ranger outfits established in later Indian wars such as Rogers' Rangers in the French & Indian War, and would English colonial militias still have at some point inevitably have become adept at adopting the Indian way of warfare in order to effectively defend their homes and families from Indian attacks ?
But WI the English had clung to their initial ethnocentric approach to warfare, by continuing to despite Indian war parties as 'skulking' and cowardly and refraining from adopting such wilderness warfare methods themselves as beneath the conduct of 'civilised' white Christians ? Would Philip and his confederation have been able to actually achieve their objective of driving the English from their lands ? Or would these Ranger techniques have been adopted by the English sooner or later anyway ? Would there still have been subsequent Ranger outfits established in later Indian wars such as Rogers' Rangers in the French & Indian War, and would English colonial militias still have at some point inevitably have become adept at adopting the Indian way of warfare in order to effectively defend their homes and families from Indian attacks ?