1999, Cassell, London, pages 47-50

I have read Black’s excellent period history three times now, and found myself dipping into it for references while transcribing and annotating Peter Williamson’s Indian Fighting adventurers. Just as Peter notes the importance of the axe and the absence of the bow in colonial warfare, Black makes a fine point in his study of 18th Century warfare that, around the world, most conflicts, and the biggest conflicts, were decided not with missile fire, but in hand to hand combat just as battles had been decided since ancient times.

Readers, having surely noted the absence of bows and arrows among Indians in 18th century America, might wonder as to why, since the bow and arrow had a much better rate of fire, and the highly successful plains Indians would one day slaughter U.S. Infantry and cavalry with arrow fire more than a hundred years later. The answer is in the dense vegetation which can effect an arrow much more regularly and to more effect than the much smaller musket ball or bullet.

There was also the fact that bows and arrows are shorter range weapons in actual combat than is actually supposed. The Cherokees did arm every fifth man with bow and arrow to cover reloading gaps and that space between musket range and hand to hand combat. But, for the most part, the musket enabled more stealth up until the point of contact, than did the bow and arrow, amplifying the native’s stalking ability.

As to their overall effectiveness as combatants, Jeremy Black says of the Native fighters: “…Half-moon tactic. This Native American hunting tactic was also used in warfare and proved effective in advance and retreat. The sophisticated nature of native tactics have been underrated. Native rank and file was disciplined and led by capable officers.”