WI King Phillip's War Was More Succesful?

[Roberto]

From what I understand, King Phillip's war against the New England colonies was maybe the most succesful undertaking of an Indian force against encroaching settlers. The tide was turned in 1676, when the Indians lost almost a thousand of their soldiers and then later lost their charismatic leader.

The following winter a thousand of the best men of New England marched against the savage foe; they surprised the Narragansett fort and put to death probably seven hundred people in a night. By the spring of 1676 the Indians were on the defensive. Philip became a fugitive and escaped his pursuers from place to place. At length he was overtaken in a swamp in <A href="http://www.usahistory.info/New-England/Rhode-Island.html">Rhode Island by Captain Ben Church of Plymouth and was shot dead by one of his own race.

Had this not happened, it seems that Metacom's war may have lasted significantly longer. There's no way his 3500 or so warriors could have possibly won in the long-term against the English, but what if the war had dragged out another year, or maybe even two or three? The Indians would still take terrible losses, but the damage to property and loss of life among the colonists would be monumental, maybe even enough to discourage settlement in New England for several generations?

 

[Japhy]

By the time he was killed, the tide was irreversibly decided. Metacom was in Rhode Island hiding with the last real band of warriors he had any control of when he was killed. In the event he survives all you're really doing is making him a hunted bandit, or at least thats what he would be precived as.

If you want to make the war more destructive on the side of the New Englander's I'd suggest having Metacom's attempts to ally with the Mohawk (And thus the entire Iroquois League) or the Northern Algonquin actually succeed.

Mind you the Iroquois and the New England Algonquin were traditional enemies but if an alliance is doable Metacom has gained a powerful ally with both access to Dutch firearms. The Iroquois being farmers can dispatch their warriors to New England for a long campaign season, and are far enough away from New England that they, unlike Metacoms Local tribes, can't be hit back. With the Northern Algonquin, there will be a similar situation, substituting French Arms for the Dutch ones, but without the farming, meaning a shorter campaign season. Either way though, neither alliance is too likely due to the traditional animosity between the native nations.

 

[Cash]

By 1676 there were too many English settlers and too few Native Americans for a general uprising to be successful. The best chance for the Indians to drive the colonists out was actually 30 years earlier, when Miantonomo of the Narragansetts organized an Indian coalition to fight the colonists. Unfortunately, Uncas, chief of the Mohegans, turned down Miantonomo's appeal to join him -- he was suspicious of Miantonomo's ambitions -- and instead sided with the English. (He did in 1676, too.)

If Uncas, has joined in the 1643 war, their combined forces would have had an excellent chance of driving the English out of New England entirely. Their success could have led the Mohawks of New York to rise up against the Dutch, who were already roundly hated by most Indians.

Theoretically, the war could have wiped out every European colony between Virginia and French Canada.

 

[Japhy]

By 1676 there were too many English settlers and too few Native Americans for a general uprising to be successful. The best chance for the Indians to drive the colonists out was actually 30 years earlier, when Miantonomo of the Narragansetts organized an Indian coalition to fight the colonists. Unfortunately, Uncas, chief of the Mohegans, turned down Miantonomo's appeal to join him -- he was suspicious of Miantonomo's ambitions -- and instead sided with the English. (He did in 1676, too.)

If Uncas, has joined in the 1643 war, their combined forces would have had an excellent chance of driving the English out of New England entirely. Their success could have led the Mohawks of New York to rise up against the Dutch, who were already roundly hated by most Indians.

Theoretically, the war could have wiped out every European colony between Virginia and French Canada.

While I agree that brining Uncas in on the side of Miantonomo's Alliance could bring about the destruction of the Puritan colonies in New England, I disagree that it would have wiped out the Dutch Colonies or the Swedes.

For one thing the Mohawk and the Iroquois will not be the ones fighting the Dutch. That will be the Algonquin tribes of the Hudson River Valley and New Jersey. The Iroquois were on good terms with the Dutch who gave them the rifles needed to fight the French-armed Huron, gave them a conduit for European Trade, and allowed them with both of those, to dominate the Ohio Country.

 

[Roberto]

By 1676 there were too many English settlers and too few Native Americans for a general uprising to be successful. The best chance for the Indians to drive the colonists out was actually 30 years earlier, when Miantonomo of the Narragansetts organized an Indian coalition to fight the colonists. Unfortunately, Uncas, chief of the Mohegans, turned down Miantonomo's appeal to join him -- he was suspicious of Miantonomo's ambitions -- and instead sided with the English. (He did in 1676, too.)

If Uncas, has joined in the 1643 war, their combined forces would have had an excellent chance of driving the English out of New England entirely. Their success could have led the Mohawks of New York to rise up against the Dutch, who were already roundly hated by most Indians.

Theoretically, the war could have wiped out every European colony between Virginia and French Canada.

Hm, I haven't heard of that one before, very intriguing.

Not sure I buy every European colony getting destroyed, but this one certainly looks like New England can be no more. This is especially interesting as this is the time in which the Swedes and Dutch are both trying their hand at colonizing the New World. If the English are knocked down a knotch, other nations (including the Swedes and Dutch already there) would have the chance to expand and start there own little ventures.

Could we see TTL's Darien scheme happening somewhere in no-longer-New England?

 

[Cash]

True, but Miantonomo had initiated contacts with the Mohawks hoping for their cooperation in a regional uprising. The Mohawks put him off, preferring to see how the war progressed in New England before making a move. The Iroquois dealt with the Dutch for the weapons and trade goods they could get, but the Dutch treated the Indians much worse than the English did. It would not have taken much to push the New York tribes to attack IMO, if Miantonomo and Uncas had been successful.

 

[Cash]

Hm, I haven't heard of that one before, very intriguing.

Not sure I buy every European colony getting destroyed, but this one certainly looks like New England can be no more. This is especially interesting as this is the time in which the Swedes and Dutch are both trying their hand at colonizing the New World. If the English are knocked down a knotch, other nations (including the Swedes and Dutch already there) would have the chance to expand and start there own little ventures.

Could we see TTL's Darien scheme happening somewhere in no-longer-New England?

Wiping out every colony would be success on a par with the Japanese in the western Pacific after Dec. 7. Everything would have to go right, and likely it wouldn't. That's why I said "theoretically."

Even if only the English get pushed out, it raises interesting possibilities not just for the Dutch and the Swedes but also the French, although at that time they weren't as interested in bringing in lots of colonists and settlers as the other countries were. And who knows -- a successful Indian revolt could even lead to some sort of Native government, organized under Miantonomo or someone else out of necessity to defend the Indians and keep colonists out of New England.

 

[Japhy]

True, but Miantonomo had initiated contacts with the Mohawks hoping for their cooperation in a regional uprising. The Mohawks put him off, preferring to see how the war progressed in New England before making a move. The Iroquois dealt with the Dutch for the weapons and trade goods they could get, but the Dutch treated the Indians much worse than the English did. It would not have taken much to push the New York tribes to attack IMO, if Miantonomo and Uncas had been successful.

The Iroquois and Algonquin have next to nothing in common and had been violent enemies since well before the Dutch arrived. The Iroquois got a generally good deal from the Dutch, and gain nothing with their departure. In fact they will suffer because it strengthens the Algonquin tribes of what would become New York. The Hudson Valley Algonquin can probably gain the support of Miantonomo and Uncas' confederation but the Iroquois will then most likely support the Dutch. If they sit out and wait or for some reason actively side against the Dutch they're allowing a new power to rise that can actually stand up to their Confederation, and they're losing the only conduit for weapons they can use against the Algonquin and the Franco-Huron alliance. Abandoning the Dutch would doom the confederation, even if the Dutch are giving them less then decent trade.

 

[Roberto]

Wiping out every colony would be success on a par with the Japanese in the western Pacific after Dec. 7. Everything would have to go right, and likely it wouldn't. That's why I said "theoretically."

Even if only the English get pushed out, it raises interesting possibilities not just for the Dutch and the Swedes but also the French, although at that time they weren't as interested in bringing in lots of colonists and settlers as the other countries were. And who knows -- a successful Indian revolt could even lead to some sort of Native government, organized under Miantonomo or someone else out of necessity to defend the Indians and keep colonists out of New England.

So maybe a French-propped Indian confederation consisting of the Wompanoags, Narrangasetts, and perhaps the Algonquins? In such a case I don't see the Iroqouis getting involved, in fact they'd likely remain fierce rivals. I'm with Japhy on this one, the Iroquois had more to lose than to win by fighting the Dutch.

And if the French have too much influence in the New England area, the Dutch will surely counter, probably by arming the Iroquois and instigating proxy wars. Would this be enough to start a precedent for European powers propping up Indian governments as allies and trade partners rather than simply subsuming them?

 

[archaeogeek]

So maybe a French-propped Indian confederation consisting of the Wompanoags, Narrangasetts, and perhaps the Algonquins? In such a case I don't see the Iroqouis getting involved, in fact they'd likely remain fierce rivals. I'm with Japhy on this one, the Iroquois had more to lose than to win by fighting the Dutch.

And if the French have too much influence in the New England area, the Dutch will surely counter, probably by arming the Iroquois and instigating proxy wars. Would this be enough to start a precedent for European powers propping up Indian governments as allies and trade partners rather than simply subsuming them?

I know innovation through war is a rather overdone trope, but at the same time, it could potentially lead to native american republics with more staying power than OTL; even with only low intensity conflict of OTL, by the 18th century we're starting to find traces of stuff like brickmaking (as in fired brick, not adobe) and elementary metallurgy in Iroquois village digs; ITTL they may well be at the point where they're building foundries with the help of "military advisors". If they don't concentrate to the great lakes and east of the mississippi, the plains tribes could well develop into something like the mongols and huns were to eurasia (the tribes of the great basin held that position of "annoying pastoralist invader" for Mesoamerica even before they had horses).

This would probably also either butterfly away the treaty of Montreal or at the very least it would have a different flavor considering its initiator was a huron chief: you would at the very least be unlikely to find the signature of the Iroquois chiefs on it (IOTL the five nations did sign it). ITTL maybe a formal military alliance between the Huron, the French, and the various Algonquian tribes?

How were Virginian and Dutch relationships with the Lenape at the time btw?

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Far too late. A more or less cohesive Indian coalition in the 1630s and 1640s would have more than enough strength to drive out the initial English wave of colonists from encroaching on their lands.

 

[Roberto]

I know innovation through war is a rather overdone trope, but at the same time, it could potentially lead to native american republics with more staying power than OTL; even with only low intensity conflict of OTL, by the 18th century we're starting to find traces of stuff like brickmaking (as in fired brick, not adobe) and elementary metallurgy in Iroquois village digs; ITTL they may well be at the point where they're building foundries with the help of "military advisors". If they don't concentrate to the great lakes and east of the mississippi, the plains tribes could well develop into something like the mongols and huns were to eurasia (the tribes of the great basin held that position of "annoying pastoralist invader" for Mesoamerica even before they had horses).

This would probably also either butterfly away the treaty of Montreal or at the very least it would have a different flavor considering its initiator was a huron chief: you would at the very least be unlikely to find the signature of the Iroquois chiefs on it (IOTL the five nations did sign it). ITTL maybe a formal military alliance between the Huron, the French, and the various Algonquian tribes?

How were Virginian and Dutch relationships with the Lenape at the time btw?

Well, the Dutch frequently conflicted with the northern Lenape, notably the Esopus. Maybe the British in Virginia (which will include refugees from the Massachusetts colonies, interestingly enough) will prop up the Lenape againt the Dutch?

The POD in the first place, by the way, could be Uncas never meeting John_Mason, and thus neither allying with the British against the Pequot or betraying Miantonomoh. If Miantonomoh still forms his alliance, he may not only be including Uncas' Mohegans but also the Pequots who ITTL weren't wiped out.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The Iroquois were on good terms with the Dutch who gave them the rifles needed to fight the French-armed Huron, gave them a conduit for European Trade, and allowed them with both of those, to dominate the Ohio Country.

<rant>guns, not rifles</rant>

 

[archaeogeek]

<rant>guns, not rifles</rant>

Even a lot of period documentation confuses the lot, hence fusiliers armed with muskets

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Even a lot of period documentation confuses the lot, hence fusiliers armed with muskets

Ah. But a 'fusil' was a musket, specifically, I believe a flintlock....

 

[latinist]

Maybe people are implicitly already considering this (and you all seem to know a lot more about the period than I do), but it's interesting to consider the lasting effects of this on European attitudes towards Indians. For the remaining English colonists, this probably just strengthens the hostility, leading to much more of a "those savages can't be trusted" attitude. But the Dutch and French, as well as seizing the opportunity to gain an advantage over the English, might well take the lesson, "it's important to stay on good terms with your Indian neighbors." In the long term, this could turn into a big cultural divide in the Americas: the French and Dutch colonies, relatively comfortably living side by side with Native Americans (or even, eventually, mixing with them) vs. the embattled, militant, anti-Indian English in Virginia.

 

[DaleCoz]

Back to King Phillip's War. The Indians did wait too late to have any real chance to drive the colonists out, but they could have done significantly better than they did. The key turning point wasn't the battle at the Great Swamp fort, though that did hurt the Indians somewhat. The key was the decision of the Mohawks to side actively with the New England colonists. That drove the Indians back toward the settled areas of the colonies where they were easier for the colonists to catch and where the colonists could disrupt Indian attempts to catch or grow food. It also cut the Indians off from supplies of gunpowder up in New France.

 

[Roberto]

Maybe people are implicitly already considering this (and you all seem to know a lot more about the period than I do), but it's interesting to consider the lasting effects of this on European attitudes towards Indians. For the remaining English colonists, this probably just strengthens the hostility, leading to much more of a "those savages can't be trusted" attitude. But the Dutch and French, as well as seizing the opportunity to gain an advantage over the English, might well take the lesson, "it's important to stay on good terms with your Indian neighbors." In the long term, this could turn into a big cultural divide in the Americas: the French and Dutch colonies, relatively comfortably living side by side with Native Americans (or even, eventually, mixing with them) vs. the embattled, militant, anti-Indian English in Virginia.

A very astute and interesting observation!

In the long term one might see a sort of ethnic line between (former?) Dutch and French colonies with sizeable Indian minorities, and principally white (former?) British colonies.

In the short term, this would mean that the Powhatan and other Virginia Indians would be having a miserable time, what with refugees form the New England colonies settling in the Chesapeake, with giant chips on their shoulders.

 

[DaleCoz]

Some background on King Phillip's War. At the start of the war (June 1675), there were over 40,000 settlers in the four New England colonies (Massachusetts, Plymouth Bay-later incorporated into Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island). The population of the hostile Indian tribes was probably around 11,000. The Indians were dependent on the continued existence of some white settlement for gunpowder and a variety of other trade goods.

New York was also in British hands, though it still had a large Dutch population, and the royal governor was hostile to the New England colonies, partly because the New England colonies had been major supporters of the recently deposed Cromwell regime over in England and were still passively resisting re imposition of effective royal control, and partly because the New England colonies, especially Connecticut, claimed and occupied areas that the king had allocated to New York.

The Mohawks were traditional enemies of many of the New England tribes, and somewhat hostile to the New England colonists. New England had actually organized a failed expedition of several New England tribes against the Mohawks while New York was New Amsterdam.

Muddy enough political situation for you so far?

It gets worse. At it's heart, King Phillip's war had more to do with inter-colonial politics than with the Indians, at least at first. The colonies acted in many ways more like independent small countries than parts of England (a preview of what was to come) The issues were: First, would Plymouth Bay colony remain a separate colony or would it become part of Massachusetts? Unlike Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, Plymouth Bay didn't have a charter, a kind of legal recognition of its existence. It based its continued legal existence on a theory that it was operating a kind of protectorate over the Wampanoags--King Phillip's people. The problem with that was that the king had recently set the boundary of Rhode Island in such a way that a goodly number of Wampanoags, including King Phillip, were in Rhode Island, not Plymouth Bay. That seemed to eliminate Plymouth Bay's legal reason for existence, so they reacted by reasserting much more strongly their protectorate and limiting Wampanoag autonomy, while petitioning the king for boundary changes.

Second, who would control Narragansett country? New England doesn't have much good farmland, and the Narragansett Indians controlled the biggest single stretch of good farmland. The Narragansett were officially in Rhode Island also, but all three of the other colonies were itching to claim that good farmland by right of conquest. Rhode Island was militarily weak, with a population of only 4,000, many of whom were from various pacifist religious groups. The other colonies could seize the land, but only if they had an excuse that wouldn't bring the power of the home country down on them. Attacking a sister colony militarily would give the king an excuse to assert royal control. Attacking Indians inside a sister colony and then going home and letting the Indian get vengeance on the nearest settlers, now that was another story, and the other three colonies did exactly that to Rhode Island, attacking the Narragansetts and then leaving Rhode Island to either ask for help or deal with the Indians themselves.

Is this too much information or is it helpful? I'm going to shut up for a while and await feedback.
(1) W

 

[Roberto]

Some background on King Phillip's War. At the start of the war (June 1675), there were over 40,000 settlers in the four New England colonies (Massachusetts, Plymouth Bay-later incorporated into Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island). The population of the hostile Indian tribes was probably around 11,000. The Indians were dependent on the continued existence of some white settlement for gunpowder and a variety of other trade goods.

New York was also in British hands, though it still had a large Dutch population, and the royal governor was hostile to the New England colonies, partly because the New England colonies had been major supporters of the recently deposed Cromwell regime over in England and were still passively resisting re imposition of effective royal control, and partly because the New England colonies, especially Connecticut, claimed and occupied areas that the king had allocated to New York.

The Mohawks were traditional enemies of many of the New England tribes, and somewhat hostile to the New England colonists. New England had actually organized a failed expedition of several New England tribes against the Mohawks while New York was New Amsterdam.

EDIT: I'd love to hear what kind of situation you think could fit what I'm looking to do, as you seem very knowledgeable about this time and region.

Muddy enough political situation for you so far?

It gets worse. At it's heart, King Phillip's war had more to do with inter-colonial politics than with the Indians, at least at first. The colonies acted in many ways more like independent small countries than parts of England (a preview of what was to come) The issues were: First, would Plymouth Bay colony remain a separate colony or would it become part of Massachusetts? Unlike Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, Plymouth Bay didn't have a charter, a kind of legal recognition of its existence. It based its continued legal existence on a theory that it was operating a kind of protectorate over the Wampanoags--King Phillip's people. The problem with that was that the king had recently set the boundary of Rhode Island in such a way that a goodly number of Wampanoags, including King Phillip, were in Rhode Island, not Plymouth Bay. That seemed to eliminate Plymouth Bay's legal reason for existence, so they reacted by reasserting much more strongly their protectorate and limiting Wampanoag autonomy, while petitioning the king for boundary changes.

Second, who would control Narragansett country? New England doesn't have much good farmland, and the Narragansett Indians controlled the biggest single stretch of good farmland. The Narragansett were officially in Rhode Island also, but all three of the other colonies were itching to claim that good farmland by right of conquest. Rhode Island was militarily weak, with a population of only 4,000, many of whom were from various pacifist religious groups. The other colonies could seize the land, but only if they had an excuse that wouldn't bring the power of the home country down on them. Attacking a sister colony militarily would give the king an excuse to assert royal control. Attacking Indians inside a sister colony and then going home and letting the Indian get vengeance on the nearest settlers, now that was another story, and the other three colonies did exactly that to Rhode Island, attacking the Narragansetts and then leaving Rhode Island to either ask for help or deal with the Indians themselves.

Is this too much information or is it helpful? I'm going to shut up for a while and await feedback.
(1) W

Very interesting! Although from what you and other posters have said, King Phillip's War sounds unsuitable for my purposes. I'm looking for a war that will effectively destroy the New England colonies, or rough them up enough that a significant number of settlers move out and nobody's particularly interested in going back for a while.