the battle mentioned in this essay happened in the east, so they were bantu-speakers, but i did include the battle won by the khoe-san in 1510, near modern cape town. That particular engamenet was even more disastrous.
I just finished reading an account of "King Philip's War" in New England circa 1675-76 in which the Native American tribes held an initial advantage in weaponry. They were allowed to buy firearms in part to support the trade with the colonists in furs, hides, and meat. They were offered both matchlocks and flintlocks and quickly adopted the latter because when hunting deer and other game, the lit match required to use the matchlock muskets was a nuisance - hard to keep lit and a giveway to the wildlife. The flintlock, on the other hand, was far more reliable and easier to use while hunting. By contrast, the Colonial militia were armed generally with the matchlocks because they still thought they would fight as Cromwell's army did - in lines of muskets supported by pikemen facing similarly armed opponents. They quickly realized that this wasn't how they would be fighting Native Americans.
I came across an intresting observation by Thornton comparing African and Native American response to European invasion, where he noted that smaller and less sendetary pre-colomibian societies fared much better against the settlers than the larger empires and kingdoms like the Aztecs and Incas, explaining why colonial expansion in North American occured much later than in the central americas (among other reasons).
Its always fascinates me to read about such nuances that challenge popular, simplified narratives of historical processes, like the differences you've pointed out between matchlocks and flintlocks. Because in our rush to explain how the modern world came about, we tend to gloss over important details that dont fit neatly into our hindsight bias. Eg, i think most of our obsession with the role of technology and global connections in history is influenced more by their significance in the present day combined with our philosophies of cummulative cultural learning and development. (ie: If guns are important today, they must have been equally important in the 1600s in the exact same role, etc)
The Native Americans rarely confronted European (i.e. English) settlers in such numbers after these pre-Revoutionary clashes. By the time Americans were moving into the old Northwest Territories won during the Revolution (between the Ohio, Mississippi, and the Great Lakes) it became a different conflict in scale with the numbers advantage permanently tilted toward the advancing settlers.
Wonderful article, the early Portuguese confrontation with some Africans in Southern Africa, was this the Khoi Khoi engagement.
the battle mentioned in this essay happened in the east, so they were bantu-speakers, but i did include the battle won by the khoe-san in 1510, near modern cape town. That particular engamenet was even more disastrous.
I just finished reading an account of "King Philip's War" in New England circa 1675-76 in which the Native American tribes held an initial advantage in weaponry. They were allowed to buy firearms in part to support the trade with the colonists in furs, hides, and meat. They were offered both matchlocks and flintlocks and quickly adopted the latter because when hunting deer and other game, the lit match required to use the matchlock muskets was a nuisance - hard to keep lit and a giveway to the wildlife. The flintlock, on the other hand, was far more reliable and easier to use while hunting. By contrast, the Colonial militia were armed generally with the matchlocks because they still thought they would fight as Cromwell's army did - in lines of muskets supported by pikemen facing similarly armed opponents. They quickly realized that this wasn't how they would be fighting Native Americans.
I came across an intresting observation by Thornton comparing African and Native American response to European invasion, where he noted that smaller and less sendetary pre-colomibian societies fared much better against the settlers than the larger empires and kingdoms like the Aztecs and Incas, explaining why colonial expansion in North American occured much later than in the central americas (among other reasons).
Its always fascinates me to read about such nuances that challenge popular, simplified narratives of historical processes, like the differences you've pointed out between matchlocks and flintlocks. Because in our rush to explain how the modern world came about, we tend to gloss over important details that dont fit neatly into our hindsight bias. Eg, i think most of our obsession with the role of technology and global connections in history is influenced more by their significance in the present day combined with our philosophies of cummulative cultural learning and development. (ie: If guns are important today, they must have been equally important in the 1600s in the exact same role, etc)
The Native Americans rarely confronted European (i.e. English) settlers in such numbers after these pre-Revoutionary clashes. By the time Americans were moving into the old Northwest Territories won during the Revolution (between the Ohio, Mississippi, and the Great Lakes) it became a different conflict in scale with the numbers advantage permanently tilted toward the advancing settlers.