Analysis Of Making War More Lethal: Iroquois Vs. Huron In The Great Lakes Region

In 1609, navigator and “Father of New France” Samuel de Champlain approached a group of Mohawk warriors and shot his arquebus at the three chiefs, killing two instantly and fatally wounding the third, the sounds of the gunfire and seeing their commanders dead send the Mohawks running. Ordinarily, this event is seen as the start of New France’s long-term conflict with the Iroquois Confederacy, but Roger Carpenter, currently a professor of history at University of Louisiana at Monroe and author of, Making War More Lethal: Iroquois vs. Huron in the Great Lakes Region, believes that this skirmish altered the way that the Iroquois saw war and led them to seek technological advancement. Carpenter supports his claims by giving the reader evidence

Carpenter explains to the reader that the first skirmish between Champlain and the Mohawks was more important than just being the start of French and Native hostilities, as it heralded the technological advancement of the Iroquois peoples, evidenced by, “perhaps more significant [than the start of hostilities] …was the vast shift in Iroquoian thought precipitated…by this small clash…War, one the most important aspects of Iroquois life…would be…transformed” (Carpenter, 2001, p. 34). Carpenter proves his argument by providing mainly primary sources to solidify his claims. In the article, the sources that he provides come from the journals of various missionaries, soldiers, and even Champlain himself, as evidenced by, “Joseph Lafitau, writing in 1724…One Jesuit recorded…Champlain wrote” (Carpenter, 2001, p. 35, 36). Carpenter uses these primary sources to show how battlefield encounters with the Natives were and how they evolved over time, solidifying his claims. When Carpenter uses the evidence, he explains it, and then gives what conclusions can be drawn from it and then what conclusions he has come to. Carpenter states his evidence from his primary sources and then tells the reader why he believes what he believes on the topic, making the methodology on this article

Carpenter’s use of primary sources proves itself useful to historians wishing to read first-hand accounts of the events that happened during Iroquois battles, and readers can find those sources and use them to find deeper meaning in the events as well as further educate themselves on the matter. Moreover, Carpenter assures the reader of the source’s credibility, by letting them know where they came from, such as, “One Jesuit recorded…Champlain wrote…Champlain described” (Carpenter, 2001, p. 35, 36). The readers get to know that they are getting reliable information as it is coming from the people that were at the event going through it themselves. Carpenter’s article is clear on getting his point across that Native warfare was revolutionized by the introduction of European technology. Carpenter provides examples throughout the article of how the Natives were impacted, such as, “[The way] Iroquoian peoples regarded war underwent a radical change…War changed from open… largely nonlethal skirmishes between warriors seeking honor… to large-scale campaigns that had strategic, economic, and military objectives” (Carpenter, 2001, p. 51). One historian that agrees with Carpenter’s claims is Michael Johnson, author of Men-at-Arms 395: Tribes of the Iroquois Confederation. In Johnson’s book, he agrees with Carpenter’s claims of European technology changing tribal warfare. Carpenter’s article is thorough and