|
A brief historical
overview of the action
From
the History of New
Braintree,
Jeffrey H. Fiske
Wheeler’s Surprise was the ambush of an expedition sent out by the colony of
Massachusetts to gain the neutrality of the Nipmuck Indians during King Philip’s
War. The ambush took place August 2, 1675, apparently in the swamp land that is
found along Winimusset Brook in New Braintree.
The
English were under the command of Captain Edward Hutchinson who had an escort of
about twenty horsemen led by Captain Thomas Wheeler. Ephraim Curtis and three
Indians friendly to the English accompanied Hutchinson as guides and
interpreters. Three men from Quaboag Plantation or Brookfield were also with the
expedition.
The
name Wheeler’s Surprise has been attached to the ambush because Captain Thomas
Wheeler wrote a detailed account of the attack and the subsequent assault on the
town of Brookfield.
With
the start of King Philip’s War it was hoped that the conflict could be limited
to Philip and his tribe, the Wampanoags. To this end Ephraim Curtis was sent
into Nipmuck Country in July to determine the intentions and temper of the
Indians. Curtis found that the Nipmucks had deserted their traditional village
sites and had settled on an island in a swamp within two or three miles of the
lead mines in Sturbridge, Massachusetts. Although initially hostile toward him,
the Indians appeared "well appeased" when he left.
After making his report in Boston, Curtis was sent back a second time and found
the Indians on the same island. The Nipmucks seemed much more inclined toward
peace and promised to send emissaries to Boston. Becoming impatient, the
Governor and Council of Massachusetts sent Hutchinson and Wheeler back with
Curtis to secure a firm pledge of neutrality from the Nipmucks.
The
expedition returned to the island near the lead mines in Sturbridge, but the
Indians were gone. Turning south they searched for the Nipmucks as far as
Norwich, Connecticut before turning north to Brookfield. Upon arriving at
Brookfield, now West Brookfield, they were told that the Indians were ten miles
to the northwest.
Ephraim Curtis and three other men were sent to find the Indians and arrange a
parley. Curtis reports that he found the Nipmucks in a swamp eight miles north
of Brookfield, probably at the village site on the plateau that extends
northeast from the Perez Cobb, or North Cemetery, in New Braintree. A meeting
was arranged for the following morning at eight o’clock on a plain three miles
north of West Brookfield.
The
next morning, August 2, Hutchinson and his party waited in vain for the Indians
to arrive. At the urging of the three Brookfield men with them, and against the
advice of the friendly Indians with the expedition, the party moved north toward
the swamp where the Indians were located. Upon approaching the swamp, the
English were forced to move in single file due to swamp land on their left and a
steep hill on their right. After proceeding in this way for 300 to 400 yards the
expedition was suddenly raked with musket fire from a well-laid ambush.
Unable
to move forward, the English turned to retrace their steps only to find the way
they had come blocked by the Indians. With swamp to their left, their only
escape was up the steep hill to their right. Spurring their mounts up the
hillside, the troopers managed to escape the deadly fire of the Nipmucks.
Behind
lay eight dead or dying Englishmen, including the three Brookfield men who had
urged the expedition forward. Of those still in the saddle, several were badly
wounded, including Thomas Wheeler and the leader of the expedition, Captain
Edward Hutchinson.
The
survivors made a frantic retreat back to Brookfield, guided by their Indian
interpreters. Upon arriving at Brookfield, they warned the inhabitants who
gathered together in the Ayres Tavern. The Nipmucks followed and attacked the
garrison. The siege lasted until August 4, when the arrival of Major Simon
Willard and his mounted troops caused the Nipmucks to withdraw
 
Author Michael Tougias will give a slide presentation at New Braintree
Town Hall on the 1675-76 war between the Colonists and Native Americans.
Mr.Tougias is the author of the acclaimed Until I Have No Country (A novel
of King Philip's War), and co-author with Eric Schultz of King Philip's
War: The History and Legacy of America's Forgotten Conflict.
|
General Guidelines for
English Reenactors:
For the
sake of reality at this point, we understand that this late 17th
century, early 18th period is new to reenactors and it might take
some time to come up to speed, especially events focusing on King Philip’s War.
This is especially true for weapons and shoes. The following are
recommendations. However, we want a late 17th century look, and
while we will compromise on weapons and shoes, we do not want people wearing
clothing that is obviously from the mid-eighteenth century. If you are unsure
about your look, please send along a photograph.
Weapon
Firearms
Preferred weapons would be snaphaunces, English
locks (a lateral sear that pushes through the side of the lock plate and engages
the cock), and doglocks (has a hook, or “dog” that served as a safety). We will
accept flintlocks that date before the American Revolution, preferably without
the pan bridle as this did not come in until after the 1720s, but we understand
that many people have later flintlocks with the pan bridle.
Essentially, take out the
extremes on both ends and find the middle ground. No 2nd model
(Short Land) Brown Besses or Rev War Charlevilles and no matchlocks (they were
not used by the 1670s ). [Note, matchlocks may be allowed for demonstrations,
but not battle]
Any kind of doglock would be
acceptable and fit the period perfectly. This would be a lock with the external
catch, or dog that hooks on to the cock, whether it has a lateral or vertical
sear. Club butt fowlers and early French weapons work great. Again, if
you are unsure let us know what you have and we will tell you if it acceptable.
Edged
Weapons
Swords should not have the brass hilt,
British or French issue look. Those cheap hangers so many have only date
back to the early 1740’s. Stick to a hunting sword or cutlass with a more
homemade hilt of sheet iron, wrought iron or antler. Obviously, hatchets
work as well.
Equipment
Hunting bags, powder horns, belly boxes, snapsacks, haversacks all have a place.
If you have anything directly tied to the mid-18th century, you may
want to avoid that. Other possibilities that are specific to the 17th
century would be a bandolier and apostles, or a powder charger and bullet bag
hanging off your waist belt. The problem with those will be firing.
Apostles carried the main charge and the priming came from horn or charger, a
technique that is generally frowned on in reenacting. However, we are
doing a period no one else is doing, so we will have to work these bugs out.
Overall, you are probably better off with a hunting pouch and/or belly box so
you can use cartridges. The best canteens would be leather, wood, gourd …
avoid tin kidney shaped as they are mid 18th century military.
Clothing -
Hats
Hat styles were
going though a transition in Europe at the end of the 17th century.
The broad brims were starting to be turned up to form a “tricorn”. It is
doubtful that America was on the cutting edge of fashion, although travel
between the colonies and England, especially for those connected to the sea, was
fairly common. Most depictions of hats show wide brimmed hats with fairly
low crowns. The prevalent style in the 17th century was to have
a flat top to the crown, but, again, the turn of the century began to see a
change to a rounded top. The brims were left flat or bent up in a variety
of ways. Another style of hat was a knitted workman’s hat, like the linen
ones many now wear.
Shirts
Benjamin Church made a statement about having his men take off their coats so
potential rescuers could see they were English by their white shirts
(1675). I am not sure how far to take this, but it would probably be a
good idea to get a white or natural linen shirt. A long linen neckcloth
was also used.
Coats
The
King Philip’s War can have a mixture of earlier and slightly later styles.
It was a period of transition from the doublet era to the coat era. What
common people wore on a daily basis is hard to get a grasp on. As for
coats, first, at the end of the 17th century had fairly straight
lines, although fashion was beginning to introduce the full skirts of the 18th
century. But for an everyday coat, the straighter lines and lesser skirts
would make sense for every day wear. Second, buttons and buttonholes
tended to go all the way down the coat, in the front, in the back and even on
the side pleats, although only the buttonholes on the front down to the waist
are functional. Third, the coat is made so that it can be worn closed,
unlike 18th century coats that tended to be left open to show the
waistcoat. Fourth, buttons are generally shown as cloth covered, although
that needs more research. Fifth, the sleeves were on the shorter side, not
reaching the wrist, so that the sleeves of the waistcoat showed when worn.
Sixth, the bottom lining of the sleeve was of the same material as the coat, so
that the cuffs were formed by folding back the sleeve (exposing the lining,
which is why it was the same material). Seventh, the pockets are lower on
the coat than in the eighteenth century.
In addition to this basic style coat (which can be seen on both pictures
provided), there are two others that can be considered. Shorter, workman’s
coats were common throughout the 17th and 18th century.
The only difference might be the position of the pockets and the sleeve
arrangements. There would be also be short, so-called “soldier’s coats”
(winged shoulders, sometimes with the sleeve tied on), from the English Civil
War period …1640s-1650s. I imagine common use still had them kicking
around. The other jacket that may be considered, especially for King
Philip’s War events, is the buff coat. This was a poor man’s armor, a
leather jacket that offered some protection against arrows. According to
Peterson, buff coats were on their way out but the last decades of the 17th
century, but I’m sure they were still in evidence. They were distinguished
by a number of features: 1. fitted to the waist then wider skirts that went to
mid thigh; 2. some had sleeves, some did not, some had shoulder wings, some did
not; 3. they were generally lined with linen; 4. they were tied down the front.
The leather was apparently on the heavy side, although they used elk in
Virginia. A pattern has been provided (Diagram IX).
Waistcoats
There
seemed to be a definite aversion to showing the breeches, which is why they
tended to be so shapeless. In the 18th century, as coats
remained more open and waistcoats shortened, the look of the breeches changed
rapidly. So waistcoats, when worn, were long and full in the front, often
the waistcoat was only an inch or two shorter than the coat. The sleeves
of the waistcoat could also appear below the shorter coat sleeve. So
waistcoats were very full, and often (although not always) sleeved. They also
had buttons that went all the way down in the front. However, they often
had no tails in the back, or very short ones. This is speculation, but
sense the coats were often worn closed, in hotter weather the waistcoat was
probably dispensed with (only later when coats were worn open did the waistcoat
become more mandatory).
Breeches
As mentioned above,
breeches were not meant to be seen, and tended to be baggy with not a lot of
shape. Beyond the bagginess, there are a couple of generalizations:
1. they apparently often had slit pockets on the sides; 2. the bottoms were
simply finished by folding up the hem to make a casing for a tie, and no buttons
to close the slit; 3. The fly often had numerous small buttons, not the three or
four seen in the 18th century.
Shoes
The
17th century was a long time, a whole 100 years, and styles for shoes
changed considerably. In the first half of the century shoes tended to be
low-cut with the sides cut open to reveal the socks (and idiotic fashion).
By the end of the 17th century shoes had higher heels, square toes,
and high tongues. The shoes brought up from the 1690 Phip’s Ship represent
this style. The vast majority of reenactors in the 17th are
doing the English Civil War period or earlier, and to date sutlers have been
catering to that crowd, therefore the side-cut shoes are more readily available.
Loyalist Arms has just brought out shoes resembling the late century shoes.
Several people have told me that farmers wore high shoes just like Civil War
brogans in the 17th century. But I have not seen a shred of
evidence, not one original example, to back this up. Some English Civil
reenactors wear the low boots or “Hi-Los” but I’m not sure of the evidence.
Shoes are expensive, and until we have more sources for this time period a
simple low cut, tie shoe with squareish toes will be the best bet.
Leggings
Here
the evidence does not exist. In all my research for my dissertation
nowhere did I come across a reference to leggings or gaiters. Does that
mean they didn’t wear them? No. I just can’t prove it one way or the
other. I think common sense comes into play here. For living history
events I probably won’t wear them. If we do a tactical in the woods, I
will. It sure beats tearing the hell out of your socks.
General Encampment
Guidelines
It is expected that
most reenactors who will participate in late 17th century events have
also participated in other time periods. We make the assumption that most
understand what is permissible for tentage and camping gear. Most of the
campaigns during King Philips war were conducted from established bases of
operations and fortified homes or garrisons. Soldiers would have carried only
the most basic of necessities. Any type of encampment during this period is an
anachronism in and of it self. But as there are not many 17th century garrison
houses opening their doors for us, we must set-up encampments for these events.
If you have any specific questions about camp please contact
Paul Irish, the
event coordinator.
|
