| Matthew Amt wrote: |
|
I *believe* that most of the Indian threat in Virginia was gone by the time of the English Civil War, so it's not like the common use of armor went on significantly longer than it did in Europe. But I'm a little hazy on the later 17th century in the Colonies, so I could be wrong about that. Matthew |
Native Americans (Indians live in India) in Virginia were not limited to the Powhatan at all--the Monacans were still west of the Fall Line after the Powhatan were overwhelmed, and the Monacan tribe remains in the Blue Ridge to this day. There were other tribes as well, depending on the time period, like the Tuscarora, and the Shawnee made a brief appearance in the Shenandoah Valley in the 18th century, for example. The third Anglo-Powhatan War had only ended just before the English Civil War, coming to a head around 1646. As you can see from this map in 1652 they only had up to the Fall Line mapped. There were still a large number of tribes in the area, most of whom would know by this time about how the English treated the tribe that fed them during the starving times--I suppose in that sense we could refer to a "[Native American] threat," but otherwise it would be useful to remember which group of people showed up and used violence to deprive others of their homeland.
I think if one is examining the military ascendancy of the English in Virginia, it's less useful to look at weapons and armor technology than it is to look at cultural differences and population sizes. The English wouldn't have survived the first year without Powhatan generosity, nor would they necessarily have won after 4 decades of sporadic violence if the numbers of Native peoples in the area hadn't already by reduced by 90% from European diseases in the decades prior to English arrival. Generally, at least in Virginia, the military victories resulted less from weapons or armor technology on either side than differing cultural views of acceptable moral behavior in war, as well as differences in population size and speed of replacement or reproduction.
By and large the Powhatan waged war in a way completely different from the English. Women and children were not viewed as targets but as potential adoptees into the tribe, and it was general practice that if the men of the enemy tribe were dealt a severe-enough blow, they'd take the hint and leave. "The weroances, women, and children they put not to death, but keep them captives," (from Strachey's writings, a colonist). Contrast that with Percy's account of English warfare: "a council being called, it was agreed upon to put the children to death, which was effected by throwing them overboard and shooting their brains out in the water." And even then, Percy said he had to restrain his soldiers from assaulting the woman on board because their bloodlust was unsated. He only saved her because she was a Powhatan aristocrat and would serve as a hostage, and they later killed her anyways.
In other words, war for the indigenous peoples of Virginia was structured such that maximum loss of life was not the goal but rather the gaining of honor and shaming of the enemy, whereas the English had a very different view of the purpose and moral guidelines of war.
At present, the most useful works on the Powhatan are written by Frederic Gleach. This one in particular is a favorite of mine: "Powhatan's World and Colonial Virginia." Gleach covers in detail the different cultural views of warfare as well as how events in England with weapons technology, politics, and cultural reactions to fears of the Spanish influenced the situation in Virginia.
Edit to add--From the Encyclopedia of Virginia:
Scholars have long wondered why Powhatan did not wipe them out. He could have done so easily, especially in the earlier years when the English were quickly dying from sickness and starvation. (In June 1607, 104 men and boys lived at Jamestown; by the end of the winter, all but 38 were dead.) For at least the first decade, the Indians not only vastly outnumbered the English but also had the advantage in weaponry and woodland-warfare experience. The strangers' initially terrifying muskets, Powhatan's men quickly learned, were more to be feared for their noise than for their effectiveness in killing: slow to load, requiring a lighted "match" or wick that might burn out or be put out by rain, and not very accurate. The Powhatan warriors' method of guerrilla fighting, as well as their accuracy with bows and arrows and their skillful wielding of war clubs and tomahawks in close combat, made them the superior fighting force.
http://encyclopediavirginia.org/Tsenacomoco_P...efdom#its7