Units: speculation, rumor, slander and silliness

[Oleander Ardens]

It is nice to discuss this weighty issue with you, Fisherking, even when in danger to be flanked by a Pyrofant.

In 1700 the tribes were not broken anywhere outside New England. Only one war of consequence had been fought and that did break the two or three tribes involved. King Philip's War (1675-76). But it killed off close to half the white population of New England in the process, and they were still nervous about what could happen. New England of the time were only the three colonies of Rode island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Those tribes were not eliminated but broken. There were other tribes that didn’t join in or were allied with the colonists so it is not like there were no tribes left there.

The tribes that were eliminated were those of the French Iroquois War and were eliminated by the Iroquois, but that didn’t mean France was without allied tribes.

Personally I think we should move this discussion to the Monastery, a more proper place to exchange historical arguments.

The number of casualities in the King Philip war seems to be heavily disputed, at least in the Wikipedia. Still it is sure that the Native Americans came off far worse in relation to the settlers, suffering up to disputed 7 out 8 dead compared to disputed 6 out of 13 dead for the settlers. Anyway this happened outside the timeframe of the game (1675) and in 1700 the position of the settlers was far stronger and the one of the Native Americans far weaker in the territory in question, with an ever growing number of new settlements for the former.

You point rightly out that the British and especially the French made great use of alliances, but try to make the case that this shows the weakness of the settlers. However it is quite obvious that diplomacy and trade enabled both to fight each other and other tribes with far fewer men and ressources than required otherwise and helped to enable the free flow of trade so important to both sides, especially in Canada. While not part of a grand strategy, this was partly "divide and conquer", used so often also by the mightiest empires like Rome, and surely not a dimostration of weakness.

At the start of the game in 1700 there are powerful tribes and all the Europeans were courting them for trade and diplomatic alliance. Most Indian Wars ended in settlement not eradication until after the American Revolution, when the power of the Iroquois was broken, but again and again disease even more than war was the prime factor. Even in the 1750s as you say, they were a potent force. Pontiacs Rebellion ended in settlement in 1763 with the issuance of The Proclamation of 1763 giving lands west of the Appalachians to the Tribes.

If they were so weak, then why would an ever hungry and expanding Briton do that?
The power of the tribes was broken by the end of The War of 1812 but up to that point they still were a potent threat, if not to the existence at least the expansion of the U.S.

The "Pontiacs Rebellion" was the most successfull fight the Native Americans put up in the timeframe of the game. It proved to be a costly affair for the settlers and especially the British crown, and ended with a settlement both beneficial to the Native Americans and the British. The British were not hungry to expand and even tried to stop the influx of settlers in territories in question. When the fight was picked up again by men with more vested interest in the region, the outcome was a harsh one for the Native Americans.

The fledgling United States faced serious threats from the tribes and fought intermittent wars with various tribes up until the 1890s.

Now this is only my opinion but I don’t think they should be destructible in this game. Their settlements are moveable and what ever is left can pick up and relocate. Sort of like the Pope, or the Mongols in MIITW. At some point they may be impotent but not destructible.

I strongly disagree with this statements. The existence of the USA was never seriously questioned by the various Indian wars which were ended when part of the vast superiority in ressources was directed against the resisting Indians. There were some great Indian victories, sometimes against greater number and testimony to their skill as warriors, but more terrible defeats.

The Indian settlements should be partly movable but certainly destroyable, as history shows us. The European settler destroyed many with brutal raids, killing often everybody in them, just like the Native Americans did.

A good discussion nevertheless.