Why, from a Historical Perspective, this isn't Good Art

Dear Reader,

I'm glad the clickbait title has drawn you in. Today, we are going to examine two pieces of historical art. Ambush!, by Dan Nance, shows a Native American warrior about to attack a senior British officer during the American War of Independence. The other, below, shows a specific incident from the Battle of Savannah during the American War of Independence. At the outset, I should say that both images are artistically appealing. Mr. Nance is a fine painter, who has painted many other historical pieces which I like.

So, why isn't the painting of the Native American warrior attacking a British officer, below, a helpful image from a historical perspective? First, this image trades on common stereotypes regarding both Native Americans and the British Army during the War of Independence. The Native Warrior is shown jumping (presumably from a tree?) with club raised and screaming. The British officer, presumably from the 7th (Royal Fuziliers) or 8th (King's) Regiment of Foot, given his uniform. His sword is drawn, and is he looking rather obliviously in the opposite direction. Even his horse has noticed the oncoming warrior.





















































Both of these ideas (that the Native Americans were masters of the ambush, and that the British were remarkably ill-suited for wilderness warfare) are stock images from American mythology, and give little information regarding the actual reality of the past. Native American warriors were impressive soldiers in certain conditions, but certainly fell prey to ambush by Euro-American warriors. A famous example of this is during the Siege of Fort Sackville by George Rogers Clark, when Clark's forces took a Native war party by surprise.[1] Likewise, British forces had learned much regarding wilderness warfare since the early days of the French and Indian War, and were capable of fighting in wilderness conditions.


Second, the above image deliberately obscures historical reality. Much more often than not, the specific regiment which is depicted above fought alongside native warriors. The King's Regiment fought alongside native Americans at engagements such as the Cedars, Fort Stanwix, Fort Laurens, Hannastown, Bird's Invasion of Kentucky, and perhaps most famously, at the Battle of Newtown in 1779.[2] By and large, for good or ill, the King's Regiment fought alongside Native Americans throughout the War of Independence, not against them. If the 7th Regiment was depicted, the image is also somewhat less egregious, but the 7th Regiment of Foot spent much of the war fighting in larger coastal armies, and to my knowledge, was never ambushed by the Catawba or any other Native group.

Third, there are liberties taken with the material culture of the image. The enlisted men and drummer wear gaitered trousers, which is possible for the 8th Regiment, but not confirmed by documentary evidence. Finally, it is perhaps unlikely that a drummer would have accompanied raids deep into the upper country, and certainly would not have been beating a march step during this type of movement. The British officer appears to be wearing a hat purchased from GG Godwin, Sutler. His uniform is immaculate, if a bit large for him. Speaking frankly, I am not qualified to evaluate the accuracy of the dress of the Native Warrior (it is possible that it is of a very high standard).

Fourth, and finally, the image does not depict a specific historical event. No senior officers of the Royal Fuziliers or King's Regiment were killed in ambush by Native American warriors during the years of the American War of Independence. Many of them died, often from illness or being drowned while on transport ships on the Great Lakes. A shipwreck on the Lakes, would be an incredibly interesting artistic project for the various excellent artists currently exploring the revolution.

So, in short, whatever the artistic value of the above image, it possesses a questionable historical value.

Artist Graham Turner's image of the Battle of Savannah, painted for Osprey

The above image, depicting Archibald Campbell at the capture of Savannah by artist Graham Turner, may not be equal artistic appeal, but possesses much more historical value than the ambush of the Native Warrior above. 

First of all, the image depicts a specific historical event, described by a primary source.[3] When preparing to attack the rebel held city of Savannah, Lt. Colonel Archibald Campbell climbed a tree in order to better observe the rebel defensive positions. He also spoke with an enslaved man regarding a flanking route for his army's march, which is perhaps a missed opportunity in the painting.

Second, in choosing a specific historical event, the image destroys mythology regarding the British Army in the War of Independence. The popular view of British officers in the United States is that they were hide-bound traditionalist fops with little real experience in the arena of war. By showing a British officer who was willing to think outside the box and get is hands dirty a bit, Graham Turner displays a class of generally competent senior officers such as Howe, Cornwallis, and Campbell who were not afraid to innovate in order to gain victory in America.

Third, the uniforms are generally accurate. Turner's artwork shows the 71st Regiment of Foot in short coats and linen gaiter trousers with highland bonnets, all fairly responsible choices for this era of war. Woolen donation-cloth trousers might have been a better choice for this time of year (although I am not familiar with the primary source documentation for this particular regiment, so I cannot say) but this is a relatively minor quibble. Likewise, the tree may not have been defoliated at this time of year in Savannah. It is difficult to tell whether Campbell is wearing his own hair or a wig, which pleased me greatly.

So, in closing, both images are very enjoyable and artistically sound. With that said, images which depict specific events from primary sources, coupled with a theme which explores the reality, rather than the mythology of historical eras, are an asset to historians, and to the public. Accurate, well-presented uniforms are icing on the cake.

If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook, or following us on twitter. Consider checking out our exclusive content on Patreon. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always:

Thanks for Reading, 

Alex Burns

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Journal of Joseph Bowman, February 24th, 1779 https://www.in.gov/history/2964.htm
[2] Journal of Thomas Blake, 1st NH Regiment, August 29th, 1779, http://www.usgwarchives.net/pa/1pa/1picts/sullivan/nhjournals.html#norris
[3] See Matthew H. Spring, With Zeal and With Bayonets Only, 66 and Archibald Campbell, Journal of an Expedition, 25-26.

Native American Warfare in the Kabinettskriege period

Native American Tribes in North America at the end of the American Revolution

 Dear Reader,

While historians usually associate the Kabinettskriege period with fighting in Europe, many conflicts also occurred in North America during this period.  Films like Last of the Mohicans, attempt to portray the fighting in North America during this period. Native American warriors fought Europeans and each other, and adapted European fighting equipment to their particular methods of fighting. In this post, we will look at these warriors, and see how the Kabinettskriege period affected their lives. The Native Americans approached warfare very differently from the Europeans of the period. For a post on how the Europeans fought, click here.

Woodland Native American Warriors, from the Italeri Toy Soldiers box set art

Native American Tactics

Growing up in America, watching movies like Last of the Mohicans, I was very familiar with scenes like the above, where Native American warriors rush out of the trees to attack columns of brightly attired European soldiers. During King Philip's War, (for a timeline of conflicts in this period,click here), English Captain Benjamin Church asked Native American prisoners why the Native American tactics were so effective:

"They told him... two things, {First} the Indians always took care... not to come to thick together. The English always kept in a heap together... it was as easy to hit them as to hit a house. {Second} If at any time {the Native Americans} discovered a company of English soldiers in the woods, they knew that that was all {of the English in the area} for the English never scattered; but the Indians always divided and scattered."

Thus, we can see that the Native American fighting style offered advantages in the dense wooded terrain of North America. With the introduction of muskets after European colonization, Native American's absorbed these weapons into their style of warfare. Ignoring the mass fire tactics of the Europeans, the Native Americans focused on individual accuracy and firing from covered positions. For most modern observers, Native American firing tactics more sense then the linear firing patterns of Europeans. Native Americans focused on killing the enemy while attempting to ensure that they were safe from enemy fire. If this is the case, historians must ask:


Why did they lose? 

If Native American firing techniques were so much more effective than Europeans, surely they should have won the wars during this period, right? Unfortunately, there is much more to warfare than who shoots the best. By the time of King Philip's War, the Europeans had many more warriors than the Native Americans. In this war, the Native American's had a population of roughly 10,000 people, while the European settlers had almost 80,000. By the time of the Seven Years' War, the English settlers numbered almost 1.5 million. Even at the point of European contact in say, 1500, the number of Native American warriors (military age males) did not exceed 500,000.

The Trail of Tears-The landmark event of Indian removal

In addition, newer scholarship suggests that European brought the horrors of war to Native American communities.. The Europeans destroyed villages, and massacred civilians. While the Native Americans would often kill enemy wounded, massacres of civilians were less frequent than have previously supposed. The Native Americans were skillful diplomats, but often allied with the Europeans against one another, as opposed to allying with each other against Europeans.

While the Indians failed to embrace European firing tactics, they did so for explainable reasons. The Native peoples didn't have the population to risk men indecisive field battles, and the terrain of North America was much less suited to linear formations. In the end, the European demographic advantages outweighed Native American tactical advantages. The diseases which the Europeans brought to America greatly assisted with destroying Native American populations. The Europeans conquered America through migration, and warfare was only a part of this dialogue.

Thanks for reading,


Alex Burns



If you enjoyed this post, or like the blog, please become a follower! Let me know what you think in the comments below.

British Diary Part 2: Life in North America

Ensign Downing's Escape, Don Troiani

Dear Reader,

When we last left our hero, (confused? I'm talking about William Digby) the 53rd Regiment had finally gotten off their ships near Quebec, and William and the other men of the regiment headed inland to face the American rebels. Much like modern amphibious landings, Digby expresses concern about being part of the initial landing party, and said that he would be comforted when the rest of the army landed.

While pursuing the American rebels fleeing from Quebec, Digby described his first experience with American Indians:

"July 5: We were joined by a nation of savages, many more were shortly expected at our camp, and I must say their appearance came fully up or even surpassed the idea I had conceived of them. They were much encouraged by General Carlton, as useful to our army in many particulars, but their cruel and barbarous custom of scalping,  must be shocking to an European; though practiced on our enemies.  They walked freely  through our camp, and came into our tents without the least ceremony, wanting brandy or rum {....} their manner of dance and war dancing is curious and shocking, being naked and painted in a most frightful manner. When they give a war whoop or yell, (which is a signal for engaging) they appear more like infernals than the human kind..."

From the above, its clear that many of the practices of Native Americans still shocked European observers, even though they might have previously known what to expect. The Native Americans were far from the only troops in the War of Independence wanting brandy or rum. In many panicked situations, such as the fighting around Ticonderoga in 1777, the American soldiers broke into the alcohol stores and got so drunk that they could not offer any effective resistance.

An 18th Century Military Camp

A little further on, Digby describes the Canadian summer:

"The weather was then intensely hot, scarce bearable in a camp, where the tents rather increased than diminished it, and the great number of men in so small a space made it very disagreeable, though we all went as thinly clothed as possible, wearing large loose trousers to prevent the bite of the moscheto, a small fly which was then very troublesome. Our men in general were healthy, and not much troubled with fevers and fluxes, so common when encamped in a warm climate, and lying nights on the ground under heavy dew. The tree spruce, which grows there in great plenty, as indeed in most parts of America, is an excellent antiscorbutic, and when made into beer is far from a disagreeable flavour. The Canadians in general are a very happy set of people. They possess all the vivacity of their ancestors, the French, and in the country appear on an equal footing ; their noblesse choosing mostly to reside in Montreal or Quebec, both good towns and many English settled there."


While I think that Digby's assumption that flavorful beer makes for a  happy people a bit far reaching, his insights into Canadian life give us an excellent depiction of what life was like for the British army on campaign in North America. 

The majority of 18th century military life was not the glamorous battles that so often get discussed by historians. Most of the life experiences in the 18th century do not involve great battles, but, much like today, endless patrols, boredom, and occasional sickness. Digby himself experienced a bout of illness:

"In the evening I was seized with a violent shivering and lightness in my head, which was attributed to cold, I must have got the pre-ceeding night on guard. About 10 o clock I was quite delirious and out of my senses, after which I cannot  tell what happened. I was blistered on my back, and all the next day continued in the same distracted situation. Indeed, I believe my friends thought it was all over with me, but it pleased God to spare me, and on the 30th I returned to my senses..."

Fortunately for Digby, he made a swift recovery, and rejoined his regiment. In the third and final post on this journal, we will discuss the actual fighting which occurred in Digby's experience, and what he though of the battles with the American rebels. 


Thanks for reading,

Alexander Burns