Customer Reviews

Musket & Tomahawk: a Military History of the French & Indian War, 1753-1760

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is a tremendous read for those interested in the reality of warfare faced by everyone touched by the conflict known as the French and Indian War. As an amateur historian on the subject, I found the descriptions of battles to be more lively and in depth than most other accounts I have read on the conflict to this point. Far from being racist, Parkman is skilled at describing the attitudes and perspectives of the inhabitants at the time, and does an excellent job of "painting the picture" of the horror of colonial warfare faced by soldiers and local frontiersmen alike. This was a "savage" war, and Parkman doesn't hide that fact behind modern historical political correctness. I especially appreciated the attention given to the French side of the conflict. You can't help but to feel for those individuals who were abandoned by their mother country, and yet were asked to win a war in which they had almost no chance of success. You can even make comparisons of the French situation in Canada to that of the Americans facing the Japanese in the Philippines during WWII. Both armys waiting for ships that would never come. This book is ideal for those individuals with a better than basic understanding of the war, in that it dives right into the conflict from a military perspective.

A less weighty version of "Montcalm and Wolfe" with focus on the military campaigns, this
is one of my favorite books on the subject. A true reader of the French and Indian
Wars must have some Parkman in the library!

Parkman was a great American historical writer and researcher. This classic work should be read and appreciated in context with the date and time that it was written.

One reviewer complains about Parkman's lack of insight into the Native American side of the story and his alleged poor knowledge about the tribal terminology and culture. Keep in mind, this is a 19th century MILITARY HISTORY, not a 21st century politically correct study of ethnicity, colonialism, etc. Allowing for Parkman's limited ability to investigate the Indian side of the story during the period in which he wrote, I believe that he has put together a valuable resource for students of American military history. The fighting and its context are comprehensively and concisely detailed, giving a good review of the leaders and forces on all sides and their strategy and tactics. If I want to learn more about
how the native Americans viewed the conflict, I can access modern academic studies on their culture and history. Meanwhile, Parkman offers a good read and
a handy summary of the combat side of the story.

I'm only about halfway through this book but I've gotten enough of a gist of Parkman's style to understand what he's about. First I'll say that I bought the book as a student of Native American history, hoping to get an informed perspective on the Native American culture of warfare and their tactics, especially amongst the Ohio Indians, who are my primary focus. What I got was the 19th century version Tonto and the Lone Ranger. For example, in the opening chapters of the book Parkman keeps referring to an Indian ally of Washington known as "Half-King," who plays a somewhat pivotal role in Washington's first campaign against Fort Duquesne and the Battle of Fort Necessity. However, anyone who knows jack about the Covenant Chain or Indian Affairs of this period knows that "Half-King" isn't a name it's a title, and it's a title bestowed on more than one individual. During this time period the Ohio Valley Indians were beginning to assert themselves within the Covenant Chain and the Iroquois, in order to stave off a revolt, anointed some important Ohio Valley Indians as "Half-Kings" to represent them in the Council at Onondaga (Though still without a vote). Therefor "Half-King" could just have been another village leader with an erroneous English name now lost in the annals of history, or could have been a serious military/political player in the region. Not only does Parkman not explore Indian culture or politics appropriately, but he doesn't seem to be aware of them, hence his non-recognition of the significance of Half-King.

In his narrative Indians play the Tonto to the Europeans Lone Ranger. Their perspective is not allowed to intrude on the narrative even though, on the French side, they were responsible for the larger portion of French victories. The book has some interesting nuggets about white colonial figures at the time, however this book is more useful as historiography than as history. Parkman was writing at a time when the prevailing opinion about American Indians was that in order for their race to be preserved, they'd have to be rid of their "Indianness" or to be completed acculturated into European society. Parkman, writing at this time, largely removes from the Indians in history any characteristics they had that didn't fit with perspectives of the time period; the "noble savage" or the "Drunken Indian."

Pros: Not boring even if its bad history. Interesting biographies on many American founders such as Washington and Franklin. Good example of 19th century perspectives on Indians.

Cons: One sided White ethnocentric history, whose popularity and staying power as literature has pretty much wrecked the public education systems study of American Indian history.