© 2009 Richard Pallaziol, Weapons of Choice ™- all rights reserved
Politics/Economics
– Speaking of course in generalizations and outrageous simplification, societal structure was chieftain tribal, meaning that the leadership of the group was by a respected elder with the tacit approval of the majority of tribal members. These chieftains were not necessarily warriors, for the primary decisions of leadership were in coordinating hunting and communal activities as well as mediating in intra-tribal disputes. Chiefs did not hold an office in the political sense; instead they were valued for the practical knowledge and advice that they could dispense which could keep the tribe prosperous and safe. Achieving chieftain status was neither by election, power struggle, nor heredity. One simply and slowly “became” chief as tribal members developed trust in that man’s ability to show wisdom in making decisions. Religious duties were often guided by other specialists (“medicine men”, “shamans”), but these would rarely have any more or less say in tribal decisions than any other member.
There was no separation of the religious and the profane, and there was no concept of private ownership of land, whether by an individual nor by a tribe nor country. These values were so diametrically the opposite of those of the European settlers that it would lead again and again to misunderstandings and mistreatment.
Although each tribe would understand that its own members came from a common set of ancestors, there did also exist larger confederations of similar linguistically bound tribes. These “nations” rarely had any real cohesion besides limited alliances for a specific purpose, such as the defense against other non-affiliated tribes or nations, or in settling intertribal conflicts. Trade between all groups was common, and led to widely understood sign languages covering huge areas.
Warfare –
The technological sophistication in pre-colonial America was similar to that of pre-colonial African nations, and as expected weapons development was roughly the same. But there were two key differences. The bow and arrow were nearly nonexistent in sub-Saharan Africa, while in the Americas its use was widespread. The bow was relatively weak, but after the introduction of the Spanish horse, the plains tribes’ warriors learned to accurately shoot while in full gallop. This delivery system meant that the effective range of the arrow could be greatly extended.
The more important difference was the lack of domestic metal production. The few cultures that produced copper in any quantity did not (with two minor exceptions) fabricate effective weapons with them, and so remained essentially in the Stone Age. By the early nineteenth century most tribes had embraced the weaponry and tools of the white settlers, incorporating steel and rifles to their traditional stone implements. But as they did not have access to the means of production for these machines, trade with the encroaching settlers was always necessary to repair and reload their firearms.
The spear was found in all areas, and after the introduction of the horse by Europeans it became the lance, the difference being that a spear is thrown but a lance is held during a charge from horseback. By far the most common weapon was the small ax and club, at first in stone and later in iron. The method of battle for the most part was based on the techniques of raiding, and in some areas this was mixed with elements of ritualized warfare. This would lead to the destruction of the Native American civilizations in less than 200 years of contact with the Europeans.
In North America, the pattern of colonial European advance, native response, and European follow-up was repeated over and over again in the rapid progression from east to west. As settlers encroached on favored lands, Indian tribes would respond the way they always had – a raid. An isolated group of the enemy would be attacked by a raiding party, some members would be taken captive, a house might be burned down, and on occasion a male enemy might be killed. To the natives, this was the civilized way to handle the dispute. It would normally have been enough to have the enemy either move on or, worst case, a reprisal raid could be expected. They never imagined that the retaliation would be a wave of soldiers intent on obliterating every individual in the offending tribe.
By the time the expansion reached the Great Plains, the settlers came across warriors who were mounted and well armed with rifles, but the pattern remained the same. Finally, by the late 1800’s, many of these tribes attempted direct confrontation with the army bent on their destruction. The US soldiers, trained in Western warfare, used the same tactics developed in European wars, while for the most part the native warriors continued with their traditional methods. Although many native chiefs would develop elaborate battlefield strategies, on the day of battle nothing could prevent the individual warriors from ignoring the plan and breaking ranks in order to “count coup”.
Counting coup was how a warrior would prove his bravery in battle. It was the act of running or riding up to an opponent and striking him, and then returning back to your comrades. Killing or even hurting the opponent was not necessary to count coup (in fact, killing was of much less value than striking in terms of building a warrior’s reputation within the tribe) and this corresponds to an ancient style of ritual warfare which provided honor to the combatants without devastating the population. Unfortunately, it proved to be an inadequate tactic when dealing with a modern army.
The US Army mounted cavalry quickly learned that the tribal warrior’s skill in fighting one-on-one was at par with his excellent horsemanship. Plains Indians in particular learned how to ride as soon as they could walk, and a warrior could fire rifle or arrow from full gallop with accuracy. Some tribes, most notably the Apache, discarded counting coup completely and attacked to kill, becoming superb guerrilla fighters. But even then the warrior’s fighting style was always intrinsically individualistic. And even when they were able to achieve victories, they were ultimately doomed to lose to an enemy that had unlimited resources and could attack their food supply and noncombatants with impunity.
Weapons available –
Certainly the bow and arrow, which before the introduction of the horse was truly a longbow. The spear also made the transition to lance for the same reason. A small axe (tomahawk) and large knife. The tribes of the Eastern coast used a war club, as most of their fighting was in heavily wooded areas and on foot. Flintlock muskets were available to them from the earliest contact with Europeans, whereas out West and in the plains areas, the tribes went from bow and arrow to lever-action repeating rifle in one step.
© 2009 Richard Pallaziol, Weapons of Choice ™- all rights reserved