Welcome History Spirituality Sachem Photo Gallery's Calendar of Events One People Again Dutch
   
      Glory, Death, And Transfiguration: 
The Susquehannock Indians In The Seventeenth Century
       

 

   

Iroquois Defeads

 
   
   

Chief Piercing Eyes
Introduction
Prehistory
Neighboring Peoples
Lenape Tributaries
Map 1
Susquehannock Ascendancy
Map 2
Map 3
Dutch Power
English-Dutch-Conflict
Iroquois Defeads
English Conquest
Temporary Peace
The Whorekill Raids
Maryland's New Indian Policy
Susquehannock Removal Into Maryland
Attack On The Susquehannock Fort
Andros' Indian Policies
Andros' Protection
Andros' Ultimatums
Explanation Of The Intrigues
The Treaty Of Shackamaxon
The Treaty Of Albany
Results of The Albany Treaty
Forging Of The Covenant Chain
Susquehannock Revenge
Beginnings Of Pennsylvania
Significance Of Penn's Indians Deeds
Map 4
Jacob Young's Predicament
Origin Of The Iroquois Conquest Myth
Re: Emergence Of Susquehannock Polity
Appendix: Lenape Ownership Of Delaware
   
   
optimized for Opera and Microsoft Internet Explorer 8
 

The raids are on the record. The first of the Iroquois campaigns of 1663 was that of 800 Senecas, Cayugas, and Onondagas against the Susquehannock's. The Iroquois besieged the home fort of the Susquehannock's toward the end of May. All but 80 of the Susquehannock's fighting men were at home awaiting the attack. Since their total after the battle was 700, and they were joined in their fort by 100 Lenape, we may infer that the attackers and defenders were fairly even in number. As sieges go, this one was of remarkably short duration. It lasted less than a week before the beaten Iroquois headed home."

Three months later Jesuit Father Lalemant was reporting "sad havoc" from smallpox in nearly deserted Iroquois villages with only halftilled fields. Never again was an expedition as mighty as that of 1663 launched against the Susquehannock's. Not only did the Iroquois lose against their southern enemies, but they were also defeated in their second major expedition of 1663, in the east. In the fall of the year, a party of Mohawks, Onondagas, and Oneidas attacked the Sokoki Indians of Maine. After an initial repulse the Mohawks wanted to call quits, but the others overruled them and the party returned to be calamtously beaten. Far from being the savage rulers of a wilderness empire, the Iroquois now came "within two fingerbreadths of total destruction" from the accumulated effects of famine, disease, and war."

Yet the fighting continued. Indians of New England attacked both the Mohawks and the Dutch. If English instigation was not behind the raids as the Dutch believed, English armament certainly was required to launch them.51   In the south the Iroquois maintained some momentum. The Oneidas conducted a new raid into the Chesapeake Bay region, and their depredations enraged the always choleric aristocrats of Maryland. The Susquehannock's were battleweary. "Wee know," wrote Jacob, My Friend, that the Susquehannock's "would willingly Imbrace a peace if Obteyned, but are unwilling (through height of Spirit) to sue for itt." Jacob besought Governor Charles Calvert to authorize the negotiation of a general peace "which by every one, wee thinke, is much required and most earnestly desired." Calvert's answer was a redundant declaration of war specifically against the Oneidas who, as Iroquois ("Cynegoes") were already among Maryland's formally declared enemies."

English-Dutch-Conflict

English Conquest

   
  Notes:
49

49—Two distinct and different versions of this battle exist in the sources. The Iroquois version, as told to Jesuit missionaries, blames defeat on the Europeantype fortification of the Susquehannocks and the failure of a stratagem to lure them out of their walls. The Susquehannock version (less frequently used in the histories) sounds less melodramatic and more probable in its details. It matches approximately equal forces of Iroquois and Susquehannock warriors, and it has the Iroquois abandon their enterprise after a few sallies from the fort had convinced them of probable failure. Jerome Lalemant, Quebec, 4 Sept., 1663, Jesuit Relations 48: pp. 77-79; Andries Hudde to Dir. Stuyvesant, Altena, 29 May, 1663, N. Y. Cot. Doc.ç. 12: p. 430; Beeckman' to Stuyvesant, Altena, 6 June, 1663, ibid. 12: p. 431; Susquehannock Chief Wastahandow, 27 Sept., 1663, Md. Arch. (Upper House) 1: pp. 471-472.

   
50

Jerome Lalemant, 30 Aug., 1664, Jesuit Relations, 49: pp. 147-149.

   
51

New Netherlands Council minutes [23 March, 1664] N. Y. Cot. Does. 13: pp. 363364; court minutes, Fort Orange, 12 July, 1664, ibid. 13: p. 389; Stuyvesant to Holland Directors, 4 Aug., 1644, ibid. 13: p. 390; J. Van Rensselaer to 0. S. Van Cortlandt, 17 July, 1664, Correspondence of Jeretnias Van Rensselaer, 1651-1674, ed. and trans., A. J. F. Van Laer (Albany, 1932), p. 356.

   
52

Thomas Matthews to Gov. Charles Calvert, 9 June, 1664, Md. Arc/s. (Council) 3: p. 501; Stockett, Gouldsmith, and Wright to Gov. Calvert, 7 June, 1664, ibid. 3: pp. 498-499; minutes, 27 June, 1664, ibid. 3: p. 502.

   

Updates Links Disclaimer Contact
 

©2010 Webmaster | Design: Shining BlueJay