The Wars of America--By Robert Leckie
- Thread starter SHARK
- Start date
What did Champlain's Indian allies do after that quick victory? I'm glad you asked!
Exultant, the allies closed on the Iroquois camp. They took the scalps of the fallen -- both living and dead -- and took prisoners on whom they commenced those foul tortures which turned the stomach of their mighty ally.
But Champlain's horror at the spectacle of Indians drinking the blood or eating the hearts of their victims would have been magnified up to the limit of even his considerable endurance had he suspected that his victory in this first pitched battle between French and Indian on American soil would produce in the hearts of the vanquished Iroquois a horrible ache for revenge.
Scalping still-living victims, drinking blood, and eating raw hearts fresh out of the corpse! Who needs the Book of Vile Darkness when we've got history books?
(By the way, I remember being told that scalping was introduced much later to the Indians by American cavalry. Was that revisionist history?)
Exultant, the allies closed on the Iroquois camp. They took the scalps of the fallen -- both living and dead -- and took prisoners on whom they commenced those foul tortures which turned the stomach of their mighty ally.
But Champlain's horror at the spectacle of Indians drinking the blood or eating the hearts of their victims would have been magnified up to the limit of even his considerable endurance had he suspected that his victory in this first pitched battle between French and Indian on American soil would produce in the hearts of the vanquished Iroquois a horrible ache for revenge.
Scalping still-living victims, drinking blood, and eating raw hearts fresh out of the corpse! Who needs the Book of Vile Darkness when we've got history books?
(By the way, I remember being told that scalping was introduced much later to the Indians by American cavalry. Was that revisionist history?)
Last edited:
The Iroquois vowed revenge, and the Dutch traders of Fort Orange (now Albany) supplied them with firearms.
To hunt or fish alone was to risk the war whoop, the sudden shot -- and the scalping knife in the brain. Small parties of French bushrangers who rushed to the scenes of ambuscades rarely found more than a mangeled corpse or heads stuck up on poles, and sometimes, scarwled on trees stripped of their bark, the crude picture writing of the Iroquois vaunting their latest massacre and promising destruction to all who opposed them.
How Orc is that? And we've got Rangers? I'm sure the French coureurs de bois (lit. wood runners) were known for wielding twin hatchets...
To hunt or fish alone was to risk the war whoop, the sudden shot -- and the scalping knife in the brain. Small parties of French bushrangers who rushed to the scenes of ambuscades rarely found more than a mangeled corpse or heads stuck up on poles, and sometimes, scarwled on trees stripped of their bark, the crude picture writing of the Iroquois vaunting their latest massacre and promising destruction to all who opposed them.
How Orc is that? And we've got Rangers? I'm sure the French coureurs de bois (lit. wood runners) were known for wielding twin hatchets...
Furn_Darkside
First Post
mmadsen said:
Salutations,
I suspect so- I got into trouble in high school and especially college by quoting sources that said it was the native americans that introduced the concept of scalping to the western world- and not the other way around.
Besides historical texts about that era- I don't recall reading of the western settlers doing that to other areas of the world.
Respectfully submitted
FD
Storminator
First Post
I'm speculating without a shred of reseach here.
It's quite possible that the indians of the northeast introduced scapling to the americans, who then passed the "custom" on to plains indians in a vengeful manner. Most of the white guilt over the indian wars centers on the "Indian Wars" of post Civil War vintage, which was a very different animal from the pre-Colonial indian wars on the East Coast.
Again, just speculating.
PS
jester47
First Post
First as a historian and second as a cherokee, I would question the eating of hearts. Historically, eating of anyone on the battlefield is usually a fabrication created by one side to make the other side seem even more ferocious. It sounds to me like sensationalism, but I could be wrong. It just does not sound like the most tactical thing to do, especially with guns on the field. Even if the guy did kick a lot of butt, stopping to eat a heart in the middle of a pitched battle might not be the best idea.
The old saying "History is written by the winner." indicates that history may not always be the truth. Where did you find that Shark?
I have a habit of doublechecking canibalism whenever and wherever it is mentioned. It is very rare and even only then ritual or survival based.
Aaron.
The old saying "History is written by the winner." indicates that history may not always be the truth. Where did you find that Shark?
I have a habit of doublechecking canibalism whenever and wherever it is mentioned. It is very rare and even only then ritual or survival based.
Aaron.
Last edited:
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
I read it in a book entirely about the Cherokee culture, as I, being part Cherokee, have always been very interested in.
The book was written by a good scholar, and the book discussed in detail the every aspect of Cherokee culture. It was very interesting. Sadly, I don't remember the name of it, but I do plan on adding it to my collection.
In addition, as I recall, the Cherokee warriors didn't stop to do this while in the midst of battle, but they usually did so in victory celebrations at night afterwards. In reading numerous books on Cherokee culture, as well as that of the Iroquois, it seems to be consistent with the culture of the Eastern Tribes in my opinion. The Indian tribes of the east needed no such instruction in cruelty or ferocity by the white man, and were peerless warriors and highly skilled in all manner of irregular warfare, including deploying all manner of ruses and deceptions, as well as terror and other forms of psychological warfare.
In my other readings, it has come to my attention that unlike most people's exposure to the Indian Wars, where it takes place post-Civil War, there was in fact a long process of ferocious warfare between the Indians and the white invaders virtually from the beginning--in the mid-1600's, all the way to the closing chapters of native resistance in the 1890's. Some four-hundred years of desperate warfare, fought through dozens, hundreds of tribes, through the length and breadth of the continental United States, through all seasons and all climates.
Interestingly, in the first two centuries of warfare, the eastern tribes, usually being larger, more organized, and culturally somewhat more developed and sophisticated, regularly fielded fighting formations numbering in the thousands, whereas in the later struggles in the west, a few hundred at a time seemed to be the norm. There are numerous accounts of formations of one, two, three thousand or more of Indian warriors gathering to fight white armies in the east, with horrific pitched battles through the dark forests. In some of these battles, the Indians actually won, with hundreds and even thousands of white casualties. It stands in stark contrast to the rather small battles, and considerably smaller casualties sustained in battles throughout the west.
Still, despite some impressive achievements through the forest battlefields in the East, the same overall lack of political unity allowed the white colonies to increasingly gain the upper hand, both in raw numbers, and in the leveraging of superior technology.
I hope this is interesting!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I read it in a book entirely about the Cherokee culture, as I, being part Cherokee, have always been very interested in.
The book was written by a good scholar, and the book discussed in detail the every aspect of Cherokee culture. It was very interesting. Sadly, I don't remember the name of it, but I do plan on adding it to my collection.In addition, as I recall, the Cherokee warriors didn't stop to do this while in the midst of battle, but they usually did so in victory celebrations at night afterwards. In reading numerous books on Cherokee culture, as well as that of the Iroquois, it seems to be consistent with the culture of the Eastern Tribes in my opinion. The Indian tribes of the east needed no such instruction in cruelty or ferocity by the white man, and were peerless warriors and highly skilled in all manner of irregular warfare, including deploying all manner of ruses and deceptions, as well as terror and other forms of psychological warfare.
In my other readings, it has come to my attention that unlike most people's exposure to the Indian Wars, where it takes place post-Civil War, there was in fact a long process of ferocious warfare between the Indians and the white invaders virtually from the beginning--in the mid-1600's, all the way to the closing chapters of native resistance in the 1890's. Some four-hundred years of desperate warfare, fought through dozens, hundreds of tribes, through the length and breadth of the continental United States, through all seasons and all climates.
Interestingly, in the first two centuries of warfare, the eastern tribes, usually being larger, more organized, and culturally somewhat more developed and sophisticated, regularly fielded fighting formations numbering in the thousands, whereas in the later struggles in the west, a few hundred at a time seemed to be the norm. There are numerous accounts of formations of one, two, three thousand or more of Indian warriors gathering to fight white armies in the east, with horrific pitched battles through the dark forests. In some of these battles, the Indians actually won, with hundreds and even thousands of white casualties. It stands in stark contrast to the rather small battles, and considerably smaller casualties sustained in battles throughout the west.
Still, despite some impressive achievements through the forest battlefields in the East, the same overall lack of political unity allowed the white colonies to increasingly gain the upper hand, both in raw numbers, and in the leveraging of superior technology.
I hope this is interesting!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Storm Raven
First Post
mmadsen said:
I believe that it was originally introduced to the new world by the Spanish, who used it as a method of verifying kill claims made by their Indian allies. They also used it as a sort of incentive system, paying their allied troops bounties for the scalps.
It was used quite a bit by the British as a method of accounting for the successes of their native troops (and establishing the native's right to payment), witnessed by their paying bounties for scalps and other body parts in both North America and the Indian subcontinent.
When King Leopold of Belgium took control of what is now Zaire, he used mercenaries extensively (to keep the Belgian parliament from establishing political claim to the colony), he paid his troops, both Zaireois and Belgian, bounties for ears.
The practice of taking scalps and other body parts as a method of providing bounties to the local allies of European colonial powers is so widespread among the annals of European conquest that it is difficult not to believe that it was introduced to the new world by Europeans.
Storm Raven
First Post
SHARK said:
Well, that, and the fact that smallpox and other diseases new to the Americas were ravaging the native population.
Some historians estimate that 90% of the native population was wiped out by European diseases, almost emptying the New World, and leading to the societal instability that made it so easy for the European colonists to move in.
I don't know what those numbers are based on though. "Only" one third of Europe died from the Black Death in Europe, and that was the Black Death!
