Battles between native Americans - Page 2 - Historum

dahermit · January 5th, 2012, 11:24 AM

Mastacott (not exactly sure of the name), Indians crossed Lake Michigan and landed at Ludington Michigan. Tribe traveled up river in canoes, were set upon by Chippewas at the town of Custer. Running battle (massacre, men, women, children killed), ensured as the Mastacotts attempted to flee down river. Except for about a dozen who escaped, tribe ceased to exist. Indians referred to the Ludington area as "Heads on Sticks".

Also, Lakota (Souix), were native to Minnesota/Wisconsin area. They moved West, defeated the Crow Indians and took their hunting land. Crows hated the Souix, were scouts for Custer for that reason.

Indian on Indian battles were frequent, brutal, and losers were killed, tortured, and/or made into slaves. That is the reason that male, physically fit, were refered to as "Warriors"

**Salah** · January 5th, 2012, 12:17 PM

The settled peoples of Mesoamerica viewed the tribes of the northern Mexican deserts (the Chichimecas - 'Dog People') as barbarians. These tribes were regarded both as a mild threat from their raiding, as well as a potential source of mercenaries.

Warfare was common in the Pacific northwest though it was highly ritualized and low-intensity. The heads of those who were killed were taken as trophies, while lowing-ranking captives were used as slaves. Weapons before the advent of whites in the region predominately included various kinds of maces and axes.

**Salah** · May 26th, 2012, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salah

Tradition has it that Gettysburg was the site of a huge melee between two rival Indian tribes

I recently learned that a similar story is told of another Civil War battlefield, Chickamauga.

**Panthera tigris altaica** · May 26th, 2012, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salah

Weren't the Comanches responsible for the destruction of the Tonkawas, a tribe loathed for practicing cannibalism?

I don't recall ever coming across this information, though i certainly wouldn't discount the possibility. Without a doubt, the Comanches were indeed a very aggressively expansionist tribe.

Larrey · May 27th, 2012, 12:04 AM

The so-called "Beaver Wars" (ca 1640-1701) would seem to qualify:

Beaver_Wars

d'artanian · May 27th, 2012, 01:43 AM

It stirkes me that behind most known Indian wars stood the Europeans. As early as the 1500's Europeans were stirring it up with their desire for furs by pitting one tribe against the other. Do we know anything about Indian on Indian war prior to the Europeans?

Pellethie · May 27th, 2012, 03:08 AM

There were tribal conflicts all over North America, but these were not the same as the wars of old Europe. The tribes I'm familiar with mostly raided each other. In most cases the goal was not to completely wipe out an enemy tribe as there were be no one to raid next season. War was looked at as a past time involving much pre and post battle ceremony.

It wasn't until England contested land and resources with France did tribal wars become more devastating as mentioned earlier with the Beaver Wars between the Dutch and later English backed confederated five nation Haudenosaunee and the French backed Wendat and their Algonquian allies. Some of the Haudenosaunee raids took them as far as the Cherokee and other southeastern tribes, or as far west to the Illini and Potawatomi lands.

Pellethie · May 27th, 2012, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panthera tigris altaica

I don't recall ever coming across this information, though i certainly wouldn't discount the possibility. Without a doubt, the Comanches were indeed a very aggressively expansionist tribe.

The Comanche also more or less wiped out the Buffalo hunting Lipan Apache as well.

Hresvelgr · May 27th, 2012, 04:27 AM

We know quite a bit about battles in Mesoamerica before the Europeans came. Aztec histories were recorded by Spanish writers and include details about some Aztec battles, one of the biggest being the Siege of Coixtlahuaca. Aztecs had a decently high level of organization in their armies and didn't just fight wars with ritual or formal combat like the stereotype goes, usually they were far more practical than that. In one instance they dug several holes in a field where their most elite warriors would sit, covered the holes, and when they fought the enemy near that field, they faked a retreat past the wholes and the enemy followed, only to have those elite soldiers pop up and attack from behind. We also know of specific Maya battles from hundreds of years before the Aztecs, but not any details of those battles. Usually the inscriptions just have a date and name people involved, though sometimes a place name is also found. One of the most important battles was fought in 695 somewhere near a certain 'Yellow Rabbit Place' between the two largest Maya kingdoms.

**Rongo** · May 27th, 2012, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d'artanian

It stirkes me that behind most known Indian wars stood the Europeans. As early as the 1500's Europeans were stirring it up with their desire for furs by pitting one tribe against the other. Do we know anything about Indian on Indian war prior to the Europeans?

Knowing exactly what happened before the arrival of the Europeans is problematic of course, but there are well-known instances of Indian wars after the arrival of the Europeans in which the Europeans were merely "reporters". One example is the conquests of Wahunsonacock ("Chief Powhatan"):

Quote:

In 1608, Powhatan ambushed the Piankatank Indians for reasons unknown to the English, who found it unnerving. They learned of the attack when visiting Powhatan at Werowocomoco, where they saw the hanging scalps of Piankatank men. The English also were told and reported that Powhatan's men had previously destroyed the Chesapeake at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay and replaced the Kecoughtan Indians with loyalists on the north side of the James. Because of Powhatan's violence, some anthropologists have argued that the Powhatan paramount chiefdom is better understood as an empire. It is clear, however, that Powhatan did not possess the absolute power of an emperor, and he controlled no standing army. Instead, he looked for other ways to maintain control. Historians have noted that Powhatan moved populations—placing the remnants of the Kecoughtan Indians in Piankatank territory, for instance—and installed sympathetic chiefs.

Source: Encyclopedia Virginia: Powhatan (d. 1618)

Another example is the destruction of the Erie Nation by the Iroquois:

Quote:

Although Iroquois hostility prevented the French from visiting this area themselves, the Relation of 1653/54 stated: "They [the Iroquois] tell us . . . that the Eries have taken arms against them (we call the Eries the Cat Nation, because there is in their country a prodigious number of wildcats, two or three times as large as our tame cats, but having a beautiful and precious fur). They tell us that an Iroquois town has already been set on fire and destroyed at the first attack . . . they [Iroquois] are inflamed and are arming to repulse the enemy, and are, therefore, obliged to seek peace with us. This Cat Nation is very populous. Some Wyandot, . . . have scattered everywhere since the destruction of their country (1649/50). . . . It is said that they have 2,000 men."

In 1654 the Iroquois lashed out to the west, somewhere toward the south shore of Lake Erie. The Jesuit Relation of 1656 gives a vivid account of this short war, during which the Seneca inflicted severe losses on the Erie. Along with a few subsequent references to Erie refugees or captives among the Iroquois, that constitutes all of the existing documentation.

Source: Encyclopedia of Cleveland History:ERIE INDIANS