The why of this blog

Sunday, May 27, 2018

The Rulers of Europe: Every Year - video link

This is a most interesting insightful map, and I've always wanted to have a time line of all the countries of Europe (or the World) with their leaders.  I've finally spent 20 minutes reviewing many things I knew, and many more that I didn't know.

The Rogers roots go back to Roger I of Sicily and southern Italy, and there he is!

Enjoy seeing how your own roots may have been influenced by these tides of various rulers.

The Rulers of Europe: Every Year

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Sudbury Fight in King Philps War, April 19, 1676

"Sudbury Fight" by the Indians
April 19, 1676
The story of the battle of Sudbury...

“From all the above authorities, the true account in brief seems to be, that the English had no suspicion of the great numbers of the Indians that were gathering about Marlborough and Sudbury, or of the vicinity of any until early in the morning of the 21st, when several deserted houses were burnt with the evident purpose of drawing out the garrisons into an ambuscade. Then Deacon Haines's garrison- house was attacked with fury by large numbers, but was successfully defended from six o'clock in the morning until one o'clock, P.M., when the assault was abandoned. Twelve volunteers coming from Concord upon the alarm, to aid the garrison, were lured into the river meadow, and all slain save one.
Mr. Edward Cowell, with a body of eighteen mounted men, coming from {Brookfield}* by way of Marlborough, and by a different way from that taken by Capt. Wadsworth, became sharply engaged with an outlying party of the enemy, and lost four men killed, one wounded, and had five of his horses disabled.

While the attack upon Cowell's party was still going on, Captain Wadsworth and his company came upon the scene, and seeing a small party of Indians, rushed forward with the usual impetuous haste, and were caught in the usual ambuscade, for when within about a mile of Sudbury they were induced to pursue a body of not more than one hundred, and soon found themselves drawn away about one mile into the woods, where on a sudden they were encompassed by more than five hundred, and forced to a retreating fight towards a hill where they made a brave stand for a while (one authority says four hours), and did heavy execution upon the enemy, until ( Mr. Hubbard says) the night coming on and some of the company beginning to scatter from the rest, their fellows were forced to follow them, and thus being encompassed in the chase by numbers,

It was probably about noon when Capt. Wadsworth became actively engaged with the Indians, and thus withdrew their attention from both Cowell and Haines's garrison. The Watertown company arrived at about the same time, followed the Indians over the river, and made a brave fight to get to the hill where Capt. Wadsworth was engaged in his desperate struggle, but such fearful odds were against them that they were forced to fall back to Goode- now's garrison, " it being near night." After dark they went to the "mill," probably with the troopers and Cowell's men, and brought off the soldiers there. The troopers sent from Charlestown, with the Indian company under Capt. Hunting, must have arrived quite late in the afternoon. These are the main facts, in brief, of the Sudbury fight.

The next day the Watertown company, with Capt. Hunting's Indians, buried the dead. The site of the battlefield where Capt. Wadsworth so long held the Indians at bay is upon what is now called "Green Hill." Here in 1730, fifty-four years after the battle, Rev. Benjamin Wadsworth, fifth son of Capt. Samuel, and at that time president of Harvard College, erected a monument to the memory of his father and those that fell with him. It is to be regretted that President Wadsworth accepted the erroneous date given by Mr. Hubbard, which has been perpetuated upon the new monument erected in 1852.”

Sudbury is about 17 miles west of present day Roxbury/ Boston.
To get to the Green Hill area od Sudbury, where the fight was  - The top of Green Hill was developed in the past sixty years and is now an area of quiet streets and nice homes. Today, the summit of Green Hill can be found at the intersection of Pokonoket Avenue with Hillside Place.

Pokonoket Avenue is north of King Philip Road (both ends of which join the Boston Post Road just east of the Mill Village shopping center). The street name of Pokonoket is also quite appropriate, since it was the name of Metacom's tribal headquarters (also spelled Pokanoket), which is located in the eastern part of the present Town of Bristol, RI, near Mt. Hope Bay. Other appropriate names of streets now on Green Hill include Metacomet Way, Massasoit Avenue, and Indian Ridge Road

The Sudbury fight, April 21, 1676: An address delivered before the Society of Colonial Wars at the Battle Ground, Sudbury, Massachusetts, June 17, 1897, amended.


It is also of interest that two other military leaders are noted below, and Edward Cowell is not mentioned, probably because he was coming from {Brookfield.}  As mentioned in a prior post, there had been a sad battle at Quaboag, a.k.a. Brookfield, in 1675, as detailed HERE.  It was burned to the ground and deserted for several years.  Captain John Ayers was in charge of the militia and died in 1675. Edward Cowell's daughter, Amy, married John Ayers' son Nathaniel...and they became my ancestors.  But they lived in Ipswich.  The use of the town name in the above presentation is how history makes errors, but I do think that Edward Cowell came to the aid of the Sudbury colonials...just not from Brookfield!


More background information: King Philip's War and Sudbury Fight as detailed below

A.  King Philip's War

King Philip's War was one of the MOST SIGNIFICANT wars ever fought in North America.

      • This short war lasted in southern New England from June 1675 to August 1676.
      • This bloody war had a significant impact on American history over the following 300 years.

    1. In this war an alliance of hostile Native American (Indian) tribes attempted to eliminate ALL of the English Colonies in New England by KILLING or driving out ALL of the immigrant Colonial residents so that the Native Americans could:

      • Regain control of their former lands;
      • Practice their culture without outside interference;
      • Put an end to their poor treatment by the English Colonial authorities, and in some cases, settlers.

    2. A major military engagement, the "Sudbury Fight", took place toward the end of the war in the original Town of Sudbury (which also included most of the present Towns of Wayland and Maynard).

      • Almost all real and personal property of Sudbury Colonial residents living west of the Sudbury River (in the area of the present Towns of Sudbury and Maynard) was destroyed or stolen by the attacking hostile Native American warriors.
      • A large number of English Colonials died in the "Sudbury Fight"; most were soldiers from other Towns.

    3. The "Sudbury Fight" was yet another tactical military victory for the hostile Native American side.

      • However, the "Sudbury Fight" may have been a major strategic failure for the hostile Native American side.

    4. The alliance of hostile Native American tribes was well on its way to reaching its war goals until the time of the "Sudbury Fight".

      • The "Sudbury Fight" marked and may have helped cause a major turning point in the war.
      • After the "Sudbury Fight" the English Colonial side started to win most of the battles and won the war in southern New England four months later.
      • The war continued for another year in northern New England before the English Colonial side won there as well.
 [end of first section]

   [start of second section - has one link]
  • B.  Summary

    1. If the alliance of tribes had won the war, then it is unlikely that a country anything like the U. S. A. would exist today.

    2. However, the alliance of tribes LOST the war.

    3. This loss made the situation of the hostile Native Americans in New England very much worse than it had been.

      • Their population was greatly reduced which opened up even more land for new Colonial settlements.
      • It became even more difficult to for them practice their culture.
      • Their attempt to kill or drive out all English Colonial residents created a predictable reaction that led to bad treatment of the surviving hostile Native Americans. 

    4. An even most disastrous result of this war for ALL Native Americans was that it caused a major change in the collective view of Colonial immigrants toward most Native Americans in all of the American Colonies.

      • This change started in New England and over time spread to other Colonies.
      • This change was reinforced by the widespread killing of Colonial civilians and destruction of their property by Native American warriors during the four French and Indian wars in the period 1689 to 1763.
      • This change led to the TERRIBLE TREATMENT of most Native Americans over the next three hundred years.

    5. The deeply religious English Colonial residents of New England discovered that they were capable of cruel behavior toward fellow humans in this war by carrying out acts such as:

      • Burning hundreds of living, defenseless Native American women, children, and elderly men to death at a time;
      • Selling large numbers of Native Americans men, women, and children into slavery in the West Indies;
      • Imprisoning large numbers of non-hostile Native Americans in isolated camps where only about half survived.

    6. This war caused by far the LARGEST per capita loss of life of any war involving Americans (native or immigrant).

      • The total (Native American + English Colonial) per capita death rate in this SHORT war was about TWENTY times HIGHER than that of the U. S. Civil War, the second worst American war by this measure.

    7. The hostile Native Americans killed many English Colonial residents of New England and destroyed large amounts of their property.

      • Over half of the roughly one hundred Towns within New England were damaged or destroyed.
      • The loss of life and property for English Colonial residents was the greatest in frontier Towns.

    8. By late in the war the Towns west of the original Town of Sudbury had been heavily damaged or destroyed, including the original Town of Marlborough, the immediate western neighbor of Sudbury.

      • At this point the original Town of Sudbury became a frontier Town, and the part of the Town west of the river was most exposed to harm.

    9. Shortly after the destruction of Marlborough the original Town of Sudbury was attacked on 21 April 1676 by a very large number of hostile Native American forces.

      • The battles resulting from that attack are called the "Sudbury Fight".
      • This attack caused a large number of deaths on the English Colonial side and an unknown but perhaps significant number on the hostile Native American side.
      • Some Sudbury residents were killed in this attack, but the vast majority of English Colonials killed were among the several groups of soldiers who came from other Towns to try to save Sudbury from destruction.

        • Most deaths of English Colonial soldiers happened west of the river.
        • The largest loss of life was in a major battle on and around what is now called Green Hill north-east of the present Mill Village shopping center.
      • In the area of the original Town of Sudbury west of the river (i. e., the present Towns of Sudbury and Maynard) most homes, barns, farm animals, tools, and other property were destroyed or stolen.
      • However, most of the Sudbury residents living west of the river were able to escape to fortified houses stocked with food, water, weapons, ammunition, and gunpowder.

        • These fortified houses were successfully defended against repeated attacks over many hours.
      • There was much less property damage in the more heavily populated area east of the river (i. e., most of the present Town of Wayland).

        • The Sudbury militia plus soldiers from other Towns were able to fight off the Native American attackers and drive them out of the area east of the river.

    10. Late in the day the hostile Native American forces abruptly stopped their attacks for unknown reasons and withdrew to their base camp north-west of Marlborough.

      • At this point in time the hostile Native American forces completely controlled the battlefield west of the river, and they probably could have killed many more Colonial soldiers and civilians if they had continued their attacks after dark.

    11. In tactical terms the hostile Native American forces won the "Sudbury Fight" just as they had won almost all military encounters during the war up to that date.

      • However, some historians have speculated that the primary mission of the hostile Native American forces in their attack on the original Town of Sudbury was to acquire much needed supplies of food, weapons, ammunition, and gunpowder and to totally destroy the Town so that they could more easily attack coastal Towns where even larger stores of these items could be acquired.
      • The Native American forces failed to acquire meaningful amounts of needed supplies in Sudbury, and they failed to totally destroy the Town.
      • The stiff resistance by Sudbury residents, the Sudbury militia, and the groups of English Colonial soldiers from other Towns may have prevented the hostile Native American forces from using Sudbury as a base to attack the adjoining Town of Watertown and other coastal Towns.
      • Thus, the "Sudbury Fight" may have been a strategic failure for the hostile Native American forces.

    12. Following the "Sudbury Fight" the capability and/or resolve of the Native American forces to continue fighting the war took a dramatic drop for unknown reasons, and the English Colonial side started winning almost all of the military encounters.

      • If the "Sudbury Fight" played a major role in causing this turning point in the war, then the "Sudbury Fight" was very important.

    13. It took over twenty years for Sudbury residents to recover from the physical damage caused by the war.

    14. Unfortunately, King Philip's war is lost in the "Fog of History" for most people today including many residents of the present Town of Sudbury.

      • Since this war is little known to most readers, some aspects of it are described below in more detail in order to put the "Sudbury Fight" in a proper context.
 [end of second section]

   [start of third section - has one link]
  • C.  Hostile Native American Side

    1. King Philip's War acquired its name from Metacom who was called "King Philip" by the English Colonial authorities.

      • Metacom (also spelled Metacomet) was the young (born circa 1639) sachem or hereditary leader of the Pokanoket tribe as well as the grand sachem of the Wampanoag group of tribes in what is now southeast Massachusetts and eastern Rhode Island.

        • He had acquired these roles in 1662 after the sudden death of Wamsutta, who was called Alexander, thought to have been Metacom's older brother.
        • Metacom and Wamsutta have been thought to be the sons of Massasoit, the former Pokanoket sachem and Wampanoag grand sachem who had:

          • Entered into a peace treaty with leaders of the Plymouth Colony in 1621;
          • Maintained peaceful relations with the Colonial immigrants for many years until his death in about 1661 at about age 80.
        • Some recent genealogical research suggests that Metacom was the grandson of Massasoit and the son of Wamsutta.

    2. After acquiring his new leadership roles Metacom quickly reached the conclusion that there was little possibility that Native American people could successfully coexist with the English Colonial immigrants in New England without some major change to the status quo.

      • The leaders of several other major Native American tribes and tribal groups in New England had arrived at similar conclusions.

    3. Metacom felt that the BEST solution to this coexistence problem was to

      • Kill or drive ALL of the English Colonial immigrants out of New England

      and to do so while the numbers of English Colonial immigrants were still relatively small and their ability to defend themselves was poor.

    4. Metacom convinced some (but not all) of the leaders of other major Native American tribes and tribal groups in New England to follow his BEST solution to the coexistence problem.

    5. Metacom was able to create a Native American alliance and to establish himself as the overall leader of the effort to destroy the English Colonies in New England.

      • Metacom was the political leader and left the military leadership of this effort to more experienced leaders.
 [end of third section]

   [start of fourth section - has one link]
  • D.  English Colonial and Friendly Native American Side

    1. The English Colonial soldiers and militia were mostly ordinary men who took up arms to defend their families, farms, and neighbors.

      • There was no standing army of any consequence in any of the New England Colonies at that time.
      • There were no English soldiers stationed in New England at that time.

    2. In general, the military commanders on the English Colonial side did a poor job.


      • Ignored expert advice to go on the offensive and tried to use mainly a defensive military strategy;
      • Did not prepare proper defenses to back up their strategy;
      • Did not properly use all of the resources available to them, especially the friendly Native Americans;
      • Provided minimal training to their soldiers;
      • Used tactical methods that were unsuited to the terrain and the enemy;
      • Engaged more in bickering than cooperation with the other English Colonies.

    3. As a result of the poor job done by the English Colonial military commanders, the hostile Native American forces won most of the military engagements until very late in the war.

    4. The most successful offensive strategy of the English Colonial commanders was to deny the enemy access to food, weapons, ammunition, and gunpowder supplies.

    5. The mother country England supplied NO military assistance (perhaps because it was never asked).

    6. Several friendly tribes (most notably the Mohegan in what is now CT) and groups of Native Americans fought with the English Colonial forces against the alliance of hostile tribes led by Metacom.

      • The friendly Native Americans made excellent scouts who could quickly locate enemy positions.

    7. As the war went on more Colonial English commanders were willing to learn and employ military tactics that were more appropriate to fighting in the swamps and woods of New England from friendly Native Americans.

      • The European military tactics known to these commanders were good for battles fought in large open spaces, but they were very bad for the engagements that their enemy forced them to fight in this war.

    8. The Connecticut Colonies made early and good use of Native American allies, especially the Mohegan and Pequot tribes, and as a result there was much less damage to Connecticut Towns than there was to Towns in what would become the State of Massachusetts.

      • In the Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth Colonies not much use was made of friendly Native Americans until late in the war.

    9. The support of these friendly Native Americans was a crucial factor in the eventual defeat of the alliance of hostile tribes led by Metacom.

    10. A second crucial factor in Metacom's defeat was his lack of success in convincing major Native American tribes in Nations outside of New England (especially the Mohawk in what is now upstate New York) to stop attacking the tribes of Metacom's allies during this war.
      • As a result Metacom's tribal alliance had to fight a two-front war and divert military resources to protect their western flank.
  • E.  The "Sudbury Fight"

    1. Late in the war on 21 April 1676 the original Town of Sudbury was attacked by hostile Native American forces who came from the west through the recently destroyed original Town of Marborough (which then included the present Town of Hudson).

      • Attacks took place on both sides of the Sudbury River, but the major battles in the "Sudbury Fight" took place west of the river.
      • Almost all deaths (English Colonial plus Native American) are thought to have taken place west of the river.
      • The hostile Native Americans destroyed almost everything west of the river (i. e., in the area of the present Towns of Sudbury and Maynard).
      • The destruction on the eastern side of the river (i. e., in the area covering much of the present Town of Wayland) was less severe.

    2. The attacks on both sides of the river involved a very large force (estimates range from 700 to over 1500) of hostile Native American braves probably personally led by Metacom and under the military command of Muttawmp.

      • The probable personal involvement of Metacom, the military command of Muttawmp, and the very large number of braves indicated that the attack on Sudbury might have been part of a larger war plan.

        • Metacom did not usually take part in attacks on English Colonial Towns.
        • Muttawmp was a Nipmuc sachem and was thought to be the finest hostile Native American military commander in this war.
        • If 1000 hostile braves were involved, they would have numbered about one-third of the adult male hostile Native American forces in all of New England.
        • A possible larger war plan would have been to attack and destroy all of Sudbury (on both sides of the river) and then use it as a base from which to attack a number of other Towns to acquire DESPERATELY NEEDED supplies of food, weapons, ammunition, and gunpowder.

    3. As the alarm of the attack spread, most Sudbury English Colonial civilians WEST of the river were able to flee to specially fortified houses which had been stocked with stores of food, water, and weapons.

      • Sudbury English Colonial civilians who were not able to flee to a fortified house were killed.
      • These fortified "Garrison" houses were defended by the people in them plus a few members of the Sudbury militia.

        • These fortified houses remained under their control despite hours of intensive attacks and attempts to burn them down.
      • The most intense attacks were on the Haynes Garrison House on Water Row Road just north of today's Old Sudbury Road (Route 27) near the Sudbury River.

        • The cellar hole and remnants of the foundations of the Haynes Garrison House remain; the house itself was torn down about a century ago.
        • The grounds of the former Haynes Garrison House are now protected as part of the King Philip Woods Conservation Land of the Town of Sudbury.
        • The location of the former House is shown on the  Map  of this Conservation Land on the Town web site. (EDITOR'S NOTE: Link doesn't work any more)
      • The people in the fortified houses were probably saved from certain death by the arrival of several groups of English Colonial soldiers from other Towns.

        • The Native American attackers had to divert their attention from attacking the fortified houses to engaging the groups of soldiers.
        • For example, twelve English Colonial soldiers from Concord attempted to render aid to those in the Haynes Garrison House, but ten of this group of soldiers were killed in an ambush near the House (the other two escaped to the House).
      • However, the homes, barns, etc., of these English Colonial civilians were burned while they were huddled inside the fortified houses.

    4. Many of the English Colonial civilians EAST of the river were able to reach a large protective stockade located near the river some distance south of the present Wayland Town Center where they were relatively safe from attack.

      • The Sudbury River of that era was much more difficult to cross than today's placid river.

        • Today's river has been pacified by dams both upstream and downstream.
        • In 1676 the river had a well defined central channel that carried most of the water flow.
        • In 1676 there were not extensive wetlands surrounding the river such as exist today.

          • In fact, maps of that era show that the best farming and grazing lands were located in the area of today's wetlands.
        • Both the flow rate and the water level in the river at this time of year were high due to spring flooding.
      • In 1676 the only easy way to reach the eastern part of Sudbury from the west was over a single bridge called the "Town Bridge".

        • This bridge was located a short distance north of the present bridge carrying Old Sudbury Road (Route 27) over the Sudbury River.
        • The Native American attackers used this bridge to attack the east side of Sudbury (the present Town of Wayland).
      • The more heavily populated eastern part of Sudbury was defended by the bulk of the eighty-man Sudbury militia.

        • The militia would have been active in protecting the fortified church/meeting house near the bridge since it was the principal Town storehouse for emergency supplies of guns, shot, and gunpowder, and it also served as a place of refuge for civilians at times of attack.
        • The militia was able to protect the east-side civilians and some of their property, but they did not have sufficient manpower to force the Native American attackers back across the bridge.
      • The roughly 200 hostile Native Americans did not go long distances from the bridge during their destructive raids on the eastern side of the river, since they needed to be able to retreat quickly back to the western part of Town if major military assistance from other Towns arrived.

        • However, some structures in the far western part of what is now the Town of Weston were burned by the hostile Native Americans.
      • A group of soldiers from Watertown did arrive in the middle of the day, and the combined force of these soldiers and the Sudbury militia was able to drive the hostile Native Americans back across the bridge into the western part of the Town.

        • This combined force was too small to advance west very far from the western end of the bridge over the river, since they were opposed by many hundreds of Native American warriors in the western part of Town.
      • A number of homes, barns, etc., on the eastern side of the river were plundered and/or burned, but the scope of destruction was much less than on the western side of the river.

    5. The largest battle of the "Sudbury Fight" took place when hundreds of Native American warriors ambushed a combined force of roughly fifty English Colonial soldiers from the Boston area under the command of Captain Samuel Wadsworth plus roughly twenty soldiers from the Marlborough garrison under the command of Captain Samuel Brocklebank in the valley between two hills now called Green Hill and Goodman's Hill.

      • It is surprising that the combined force of Colonial soldiers would be easily ambushed, since both Captains were highly experienced and used to the ambush tactics of their enemy.
      • The Colonial soldiers fought their way to a more defensible position at the top of Green Hill, but they remained completely surrounded by large numbers of Native American warriors.
      • The Native American commanders dislodged the Colonial soldiers from their defensive position at the top of Green Hill by setting fire to a line of dry brush and trees upwind of them on the side of the hill.
      • The wind-driven flames and smoke from this forest fire forced the Colonial soldiers into a hasty and uncoordinated retreat down the hill toward a mill building in what is now the Mill Village shopping center south-west of the top of Green Hill.

        • Captains Wadsworth and Brocklebank and most of their soldiers who had survived the earlier phase of the battle were killed during this hasty retreat; some of their bodies were later recovered on the western side of Green Hill.
        • A few soldiers were captured, tortured, and then killed by Native American warriors.
        • A few Colonial soldiers made it to the mill building and were rescued that night by other Colonial soldiers most of whom were with the Watertown Company.
        • It is surprising that the Native American forces did not attack the mill building and kill the Colonial soldiers huddled there.

          • The mill building is thought to have had strong walls and probably provided some natural protection, but the Native American forces had complete control of the battlefield and could have easily burned the mill building and forced out and killed the Colonial soldiers who took shelter there.
        • Since the hostile Native American forces had burned or destroyed all other undefended structures in Sudbury west of the river, it is also surprising that they had not bothered to burn down the mill building earlier in the day.
      • Green Hill was later given its present name on account of the dense forest of evergreen trees on it, and a similar forest of trees plus their accompanying undergrowth would have provided ample fuel for a major forest fire in 1676.

    6. As residents of the present Town of Sudbury know (but some experts on this war do not - see  * Note:  below) the uplands of Green Hill are:

      • SOUTH of the present location of Old Lancaster Road,
      • East of today's Concord Road,
      • West of today's Green Hill Road, and
      • North of today's Boston Post Road (U. S. Route 20).

    7. The top of Green Hill was developed in the past sixty years and is now an area of quiet streets and nice homes.

      • Today, the summit of Green Hill can be found at the intersection of Pokonoket Avenue with Hillside Place.

        • Pokonoket Avenue is north of King Philip Road (both ends of which join the Boston Post Road just east of the Mill Village shopping center).
      • The street name of Pokonoket is also quite appropriate, since it was the name of Metacom's tribal headquarters (also spelled Pokanoket), which is located in the eastern part of the present Town of Bristol, RI, near Mt. Hope Bay.

        • Other appropriate names of streets now on Green Hill include Metacomet WayMassasoit Avenue, and Indian Ridge Road.

    8. A large street map of the present Town of Sudbury on the Town web site makes it easy to locate these streets on Green Hill as well as Mill Village and Goodman's Hill.

      • Use the next link below to see the street map which will first show up in compressed form.

        • Enlarge the street map by placing your mouse cursor over the compressed map, wait a bit, and click the square orange button when it appears.
      • The streets on Green Hill are located in the south central part of the street map a short distance east-north-east of the blue circle labeled "Goodnow Library".
      • The present Mill Village shopping center is located immediately south of the southern terminus of Concord Road (at Boston Post Road) and north of Hop Brook (below the blue circle labeled "Goodnow Library" on this street map).
      • The summit of Goodman's Hill lies between Brewster Road and Puritan Lane on this street map.

        • The summit of Goodman's Hill is about three thousand feet north-north-east of the summit of Green Hill.
        • Old Lancaster and Goodman's Hill Roads run along the edges of the valley between the two hills on this street map.
      • Click  Street Map of the Present Town of Sudbury  to see it. (EDITOR'S NOTE: Link doesn't work any more)

    9. The exact death toll of the "Sudbury Fight" is unknown, but it is known to have been very high on the English Colonial side (74 by the accounting of the Native American warriors) and may have been significant on the hostile Native American side.

      • Most of the English Colonial soldiers killed were from other Towns (Watertown, Concord, Marlborough, Milton, Roxbury, Rowley, etc.) in the groups who had come to try to save Sudbury from destruction.

    10. The remains of about thirty of the English Colonial soldiers killed in the battle on Green Hill are under a large white stone monument in the Wadsworth Cemetery on the west side of Green Hill not far from where they were killed.

      • As you might guess, Wadsworth Cemetery was named after Captain Wadsworth.
      • Wadsworth Cemetery is on the EAST side of Concord Road north of the Goodnow Library and south of Codjer Lane.
      • Click  Wadsworth Cemetery  to see a picture of this monument on the Historic Sudbury Trail part of the Town web site.
      • This monument is the image in the Official Seal of the present Town of Sudbury.
      • The date on the monument (18 April 1676) is in error.

    11. The bodies of five of the ten soldiers from the Concord Company killed on the WEST side of the river near the Haynes Garrison House were located the following morning by Watertown soldiers, who then transported the bodies by canoe and buried them in high ground on the east side of the river near the road then leading to the bridge over the river.

      • The high ground on the east side of the river was the most convenient burial site, since the high water level of the river had flooded the marshes on the west side.
      • A large stone marker titled "Old Town Bridge" near the east end of the old, unused, stone, four-arch bridge just north of Old Sudbury Road (Route 27) on the edge of the Wayland Gold Club in the Town of Wayland is thought to be near this burial site, and it also serves as a monument to all ten Concord soldiers killed on 21 April 1676.

    12. Late in the day after the battle on Green Hill was over for unknown reasons the Native American warriors abruptly began a move back to their base of operations near Mount Wachusett, about twenty-five miles west-north-west of Sudbury, near or in the present Town of Princeton.

      • After killing Captains Wadsworth and Brocklebank and most of their of roughly seventy Colonial soldiers on Green Hill, the hostile Native Americans were completely in control of the part of Sudbury west of the river (except for the fortified houses).
      • It is surprising that the hostile Native American forces did not attempt to burn down the fortified houses west of the river and kill the roughly 125 inhabitants under the cover of darkness.

    13. Although most of the members of two groups (the one led by Captains Wadsworth and Brocklebank and the one from Concord) of English Colonial soldiers were killed, there were several other groups of soldiers which had arrived from other Towns by late in the day and which remained largely intact.

      • These other groups of English Colonial soldiers tried to come to the aid of Captains Wadsworth and Brocklebank and their men, but the very large number of hostile Native American forces surrounding the Colonial soldiers on Green Hill prevented the delivery of such aid.
      • It is possible that the presence of these other groups of English Colonial soldiers may have caused the abrupt departure of the hostile Native Americans at the conclusion of the battle on Green Hill and thus prevented the killing of many more Sudbury civilians trapped in the fortified houses and the Colonial soldiers trapped in the mill building.

    14. The hostile Native American forces were unsuccessful in acquiring much in the way of needed supplies from their attack on the original Town of Sudbury.

    15. Even though the "Sudbury Fight" was yet another TACTICAL military victory for the hostile Native American forces, for unknown reasons they did not regroup and attack another frontier Town in the Boston area.

      • If Metacom's forces had continued to attack frontier Towns, and if they had been successful in acquiring fresh supplies, then the course of the war would probably have been different.

    16. One could speculate that after the "Sudbury Fight" the hostile Native American leaders and warriors were discouraged by their lack of STRATEGIC success in:

      • Acquiring needed supplies,
      • Destroying ALL of the original Town of Sudbury and killing or driving off ALL of its residents, and
      • Being able to remain in and use Sudbury (especially the part east of the river) as a base for attacks on other Towns that were potentially richer sources of needed supplies,

      even though they had applied most of their military assets in the area to try to reach these goals.

    17. Such a speculation is reinforced by the report of a female captive, Mrs. Mary Rowlandson, who was in the Native American camp near Mt. Wachusett and was able to observe the braves on their return from the Sudbury Fight.

      • Schultz and Tougias state on page 220 of their book (listed in section  G.  Sources  below) that she reported in her memoir after the war that the braves:
        "Came home without that rejoicing and triumphing over their victory which they were wont to show at other times, but rather like dogs (as they say) which have lost their ears."
      • It is clear that the expectations of the braves involved in the Sudbury Fight had NOT been met.

    18. In any case, after the "Sudbury Fight" there was a period of several weeks with no further organized attacks on English Colonial Towns.

      • Schultz and Tougias state on page 220 of their book (listed in section  G.  Sources  below) that:

        "Shortly after the Sudbury Fight the native alliances would splinter, with Philip returning to his homeland and native warriors concentrating their efforts not so much on war, but on feeding their people."
      • After the Sudbury Fight there were only four more Native American attacks on Colonial Towns in southern New England, the last of which was on the 12th of June 1676.

    19. It is clear that SOMETHING happened about the time of the "Sudbury Fight" that reduced the resolve and/or capability of the hostile Native American forces in this war.

      • The "Sudbury Fight" may have been a very important turning point in King Philip's War.
      • Its importance will probably remain a mystery, since the main hostile Native American leaders were killed in the last weeks of the war, and no oral histories of this event by leaders who survived the war are known (Native Americans in this era did not tend to write histories or memoirs).
 [end of fifth section]

   [start of sixth section - has one link]
  • F.  Concluding Phase of the War

    1. In June of 1676 the English Colonial forces and their Native American allies finally began to be effective in defeating hostile Native American forces in southern New England.

    2. Metacom was killed on 12 August 1676 and soon afterwards the high intensity part of this war in southern New England ended.

    3. However, a high intensity war continued well into 1677 in what would become the State of Maine.
 [end of sixth section]

   [start of seventh section - has one link]
  • G.  Short Term Impact of the War

    1. The hostile Native American forces destroyed a great amount of property and killed and/or abducted many English Colonial men, women, and children, but they were unsuccessful in eliminating the English Colonies in New England.

    2. The original Town of Sudbury (which at that time included most of the present Towns of Wayland and Maynard) suffered a number of deaths and major property losses in this terrible war.

      • It took the residents of the original Town of Sudbury over twenty years to recover from the effects of King Philip's War.

    3. The destruction was especially severe for Sudbury residents living west of the Sudbury River (i. e., in the area of the present Towns of Sudbury and Maynard) who lost:

      • In a number of cases, their lives;
      • Most of their homes, barns, and other structures;
      • Most of their livestock, farm implements, tools, furniture, household items, etc.

    4. The original Town of Marlborough (also spelled Marlboro) just to the west of Sudbury was totally destroyed (except for a military garrison) by hostile Native American attacks in March and April 1676, and its roughly 225 English Colonial residents were forced to abandon the Town until after the war was over.

      • Marlborough had been founded in 1660 entirely by people from the original Town of Sudbury.
      • The total destruction of Marlborough was keenly felt by the relatives of its residents who still lived in Sudbury.

    5. At least eleven other Towns in what would become the State of MA suffered the same fate as Marlborough.

    6. This war caused by far the LARGEST per capita loss of life of any war involving Americans (native or immigrant) including World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War.

      • The total (Native American + English Colonial) per capita death rate in this SHORT war was about TWENTY times HIGHER than that of the U. S. Civil War, the second worst American war by this measure.
      • The per capita death rate of Native Americans was TEN times HIGHER than that of the English Colonial immigrants.

        • It is estimated that about 15% of the Native Americans in New England at the beginning of the war (of all ages and both genders) died during the fourteen months of war.
        • This estimate does not include the large numbers of Native Americans sold into slavery (and probable early death) in the West Indies by the English Colonial authorities during the war.

    7. The high death rate of Native Americans in this war combined with the large-scale movement of tribes to other regions (chiefly French Canada) after the war caused a large drop in the numbers of Native Americans in New England.

      • The population drop in members of hostile tribes was especially severe.
      • Many tribal and sub-tribal groups had to flee from their ancestral lands in New England to avoid confinement, persecution, and bad treatment from English Colonial authorities and settlers intent on revenge.

    8. Even neutral and friendly Native Americans were forced by pressure from the Colonial majority to do such things as:

      • Become low-wage household servants for Colonial families;
      • Pass for Anglo and, in some cases, marry Anglos;
      • Pass for African American and, in some cases, marry African Americans;
      • Sell their remaining land for minimal prices or to repay bogus debts;
      • Adopt Colonial culture and hide all aspects of their former culture.

    9. Native Americans from hostile tribes who remained in New England after the war were often forced to live under the supervision of the English Colonial authorities.

      • The lower numbers and the supervision of Native Americans from hostile tribes led to a reduced risk of attacks on Colonial settlements.

    10. This reduced risk encouraged the founding of new inland English Colonial settlements and accelerated the growth of existing ones on lands formerly used by Native Americans.

      • This outcome was exactly the OPPOSITE of one of the principal goals that led Metacom and his Native American allies to start the war.
      • In addition, the ability of Native Americans to practice their culture without outside interference and the treatment of Native Americans were both far WORSE after the war than before the war.
      • Thus, in the short term Metacom's BEST solution to the coexistence problem was a TOTAL failure.
 [end of seventh section]

   [start of eighth section - has one link]
  • H.  Long Term Impact of the War

    1. Experts indicate that the most important outcome of King Philip's War was that it caused many long-lasting changes to New England English Colonial immigrants' (and several generations of their descendants') collective views of:

      • Themselves in the light of their demonstrated capacity for cruel behavior in spite of their religious values;
      • Their relationship to and independence from their mother country England;
      • The need for a strong political structure that encompassed many Colonies and which could be utilized to organize resources for the common defense of one or more of the Colonies.

    2. These new collective religious, political, etc., views had a major impact on the creation of an independent country a century later, the Constitution of that new country, and many other important events in American history.

    3. King Philip's War also caused many long-lasting changes to New England English Colonial immigrants' (and several generations of their descendants') collective views of most Native Americans and any need to treat them as fellow human beings with equal rights to life and land.

    4. Over time these new collective views of Native Americans were exported to immigrant English, Dutch, German, etc., residents of Colonies outside of New England.

    5. Meanwhile, low intensity conflicts between immigrant settlers and hostile Native Americans continued for many decades in several North American Colonies.

      • These conflicts shifted back to high intensity status during the four French and Indian Wars:

        • King William's War (1689-1698),
        • Queen Anne's War (1702-1713),
        • King George's War (1744-1745), and the
        • Main French and Indian War (1754-1763)

        when the authorities in French Canada often enlisted Native American warriors as their principal agents of death and destruction against the civilian residents of English Colonies.
      • The Native Americans who had been forced to flee to French Canada from their ancestral lands in New England after King Philip's War were eager to volunteer for such duty, and they (and their sons and grandsons) made very effective agents of death and destruction.

    6. The bloody and traumatic experiences of civilian immigrant residents in several English Colonies at the hands of Native American warriors during the four French and Indian Wars reinforced the new collective view toward Native Americans.

    7. In summary, Metacom's choice of the BEST solution to the coexistence problem in 1675 created extremely fearful and negative collective views of Native Americans among many non-Native Americans, and these new views were amplified in intensity by events over the next century.

      • These new collective views were deeply held, long-lasting, and widely shared.

    8. These new collective views were a major factor in the TERRIBLE TREATMENT of Native Americans over the following three centuries in the area that became the U. S. A.

      • Thus, over the long term Metacom's BEST solution to the coexistence problem was a TERRIBLE failure.

 [end of eighth section]

   [start of ninth section - has one link]
  • I.  Sources of Information on King Philip's War

    • The historical information on this page is mainly based on information from the following books, listed in order of initial date of publication:

      • The History of Sudbury, Massachusetts 1638-1889, Alfred Sereno Hudson, 660 pages, The Town of Sudbury, 1889 (republished by the Sudbury Press in 1968), has no index;
      • The Annals of Sudbury, Wayland and Maynard, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, Alfred Sereno Hudson, 210 pages, privately published, 1891 (reprinted by Higginson in paperback in 1994), has incomplete index;

        • Indexes: A. S. Hudson's History of Sudbury, Massachusetts 1638-1889 & The Annals of Sudbury, Wayland and Maynard, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, 119 pages, edited by George D. Max, Chief Indexer: Forrest D. Bradshaw, Sudbury Historical Society, 1983;
      • A Brief History of King Philip's War 1675-1677, George M. Bodge, 18 pages, (privately printed), 1891;
      • A Brief History of the Towne of Sudbury in Massachusetts: 1639-1939, Andrew D. Fuller, Jr. et al., 69 pages, Federal Writers Project of the Works Progress Administration in Massachusetts, 1939 (revised and reprinted by the Sudbury Historical Society in 1968);
      • (Untitled) Scrapbook of Descriptions and Pictures of Historic Monuments and Houses in Sudbury, MA, Janet H. Smith, 99 pages, unpublished (available from the Reference Librarian at the Sudbury Public Library), 1975;
      • The Puritan Village Evolves: a history of the Town of Wayland, Massachusetts, Helen Fitch Emery, 361 pages, Wayland Historical Commission (Phoenix Publishing), 1981;
      • Sudbury: A Pictorial History, Laura Scott, 208 pages, The Donning Co., 1989;
      • The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity, Jill Lepore, 384 pages, Vintage Books, 1998 (reprinted in paperback in 1999);
      • King Philip's War: The History and Legacy of America's Forgotten ConflictEric B. Schultz and Michael J. Tougias, 432 pages, Countryman Press, 1999 (reprinted in paperback in 2000).

Friday, May 25, 2018

Nathaniel Ayers, blacksmith, and wife Amy Cowell Ferber Ayers

There have been several of my ancestors who were blacksmiths.  As a person who also works with my hands as a craftsman, I think this is the best of our perhaps inherited well as having children to pass them along.

Nathaniel's wife was Amy Cowell Ferber Ayers...she had first married Jethro Ferber and had one son.  But after the death of Jethro, she married Nathaniel.  He was part of her inventory and administration of the probate for her first husband in 1686.

Nathaniel and Amy had 2 children, Capt. Edward Ayers and Amy Ayers Swasey.  Amy Swasey became my great times six grandmother.

Amy Cowell Ayers had been born in New Hampshire...the daughter of Agnes Harvey and Edward Cowell, Sr.  He has an interesting story attached to his life, also in battle with Indians.  But I think it is also likely that his son, Edward Jr. was the one told about in the story.  I'll share it with you and you can figure it out...tomorrow.

Back to the life of Nathaniel Ayers and Amy his wife.  Living in Portsmouth NH in early settlement days, they were active in establishing this port town.  This was Amy's home town, while Nathaniel had been born in Ipswich, moved to the ill-fated town of Quaboag, then lived in Ipswich with his mother's family probably...until he married at age 22 to the widow Amy Cowell Ferber who had a 4 year old son...and property from her father.

When Amy's father died, in 1677,  the probate court of New Hampshire (May 1682) gave her and her first husband, Jethro Ferber guardianship of her little brother, Samuel, who was just 9 in 1677. They were to educate him and clothe him until he was 14 years old.  Remember all the troubles with the Massachusetts courts which Nathaniel's mother, widow of Nathaniel's father, encountered after he died in Quaboag in 1675 (see posts of last 2 days here.)

Jethro Ferber died in 1682, and Amy had married Nathaniel Ayers by 1686 the year of the probate of Ferber's estate.   Nathaniel and Amy's first child was born in 1684, so I wonder if there was also a marriage that took place before the record that is posted at Ancestry.  He was definitely her husband when the courts in 1686 had Ferber's probate settled, as he is listed as such in the record.

I am not sure how he ended up being buried in Boston, in 1731, near his 2 brothers' graves.  His wife Amy died 5 years later in Portsmouth, NH.

Birth: Jun., 1664 Death: Dec. 4, 1731 Inscription: Here lyes buried ye body of Mr Nathanie Ayres aged 67 years & 6 mo dec'd December ye 4th 1731 Burial: Copps Hill Burying Ground, Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts

Nathaniel Ayers - Birth: Jun., 1664 Death: Dec. 4, 1731   Parents: John Ayres (____ - 1675) Susanna Symonds Ayres (____ - 1683)  Siblings: John Ayres (1648 - 1711) Samuel Ayres (1657 - 1713) wife: Amy Cowell Ayers (1657-1736)

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Sisters Symonds

Susanna Symonds Ayers (who was mentioned extensively yesterday in her husband's post) had three sisters.

One of them I've long thought of as being the ancestress of my good friend.  But I've never bothered to figure it out.  It was "tabled" along with many other threads of ancestors.

Synods family crest

Mark Symonds married Joanna, and maybe she was also Susan Edgar, or Joanna Susan Edgar, or maybe there were 2 different women, Joanna and Susan.  She or they were mothers of four daughters who lived to adulthood: Susanna and Priscilla, and Abigail and Mary Symonds.

I've found documents which show the married names of each of the sisters. (See yesterday's post for many of those resources.)

Susanna married John Ayers.
Priscilla married John Warner
Abigail married Robert Pearce
and Mary married Edgar Chapman

My ancestor was Nathaniel Ayers, a blacksmith, the youngest son of John Ayers. Nathaniel married Amy (Anne) Cowell Furber Ayers of Ipswich, MA.

My friend's ancestor was Priscilla Symonds Warner's daughter, Rachel Warner Potter, who married Able Potter of Rhode Island.

I just added most of her descendants to my tree, since her tree is available to me to see as a guest.  Actually most trees can be seen by anyone, but not changed.  Now my tree has the direct line of her ancestors as far down as my friend's parents.  All the members of trees who are still living are hidden from other viewers at Ancestry.

So now I know (pretty sure) that she's my 10th cousin, one time removed.  Since her nine times great grandmother was the sister of my nine greats grandmother, I guess we look at our shared ten greats grandparents, Mark and Joanna Susan Symonds.

Does this change my feelings towards my friend? Not really.  She has been a dear friend for over 40 years, one who I can just give a hug and can start talking with her as if we lived next door, though it is months and sometimes years between our visits together.

My friend is interested in her English roots, which include some royals.  So she and her sister will be visiting England to see some of the places where her ancestors made history.

I am happy just looking up people/ancestors on line, then looking for historical societies for the areas in which they lived.  That makes their lives more real for me.  I have finally the time and energy to do this, for which I'm so grateful.

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

John Ayers and Quaboag MA

(Note: this is a long post, but it didn't seem to have a dividing place, so I've left all the information together.)

Following the death of John and other inhabitants of Quaboag MA, in 1675, in the battle with the Indians as part of King Phillips War, everyone left Quaboag, Massachusetts  (See below for more details of the battle)

Quaboag or Brookfield battle in 1675
Captain John Ayres, immigrant ancestor, was born in England, and settled as early as 1648 at Ipswich, Massachusetts. He was accompanied by two brothers-in-law, William Lamson and William Fellows, who married his sisters. Ayres married Susanna, daughter of Mark Symonds, of Ipswich. Mark Symonds was born in 1584 in England and died April 28, 1659, leaving wife Joanna and daughters, Susanna Ayres, Abigail, wife of Robert Pierce; Priscilla, wife of John Warner and had Mary, wife of Edward Chapman, who died before her father
Yet another sentence reminds us that Mark Symonds was his father-in-law.
John Ayres removed to Brookfield, Mass, when the settlement of that place was commenced, and in Nov. 1672, sold all his rights at Ipswich, including those "belonging to my father-in-law Mark Symonds,"
He was also listed as an inhabitant of Ipswich in 1648, and married Susanna, daughter of Mark Symonds of who’s (Mark Symonds) estate he was appointed administrator. In such capacity, on November 24, 1659, he sold a house and a three acre lot to another son-in-law of the deceased, Edward Chapman (Ipswich Deed 3:351) 

Quaboag Plantation

During the 10 years it existed, 14 families settled at Quaboag Plantation. They were a hardy group of pioneers, willing to settle a new land, in what was then a wilderness, 25 miles from the nearest town.  Source:
When the survivors of the battle who had fled Quaboag, and their descendants wanted to come back, the ownership of the property seemed to be in question.

A petition was sent to the Governing House of Representatives of Massachusetts...
"A petition of Thomas Ayres, Joseph Ayres, Mark Ayres, Natt'll Ayres and Edward Ayres, Sons & Heirs heretofore of Quaboag alias Brookfield, Dec'd Intestate, Shewing that in or about the Year 1660, the Petitioners Father with others bought & purchased of the Indian Natives a Tract of Land of about Eight Miles square then known & called by the name of Quaboag, After which, Viz. in the year 1673, the General Court erected the said Land into a Township by the Name of Brookfield, That in the Year 1675, A War broke out with the Indians, who kill'd Petitioners Father & several other Inhabitants, And the Rest being drawn off by Order of the Government, the whole Town was left desolate, and all the Houses burnt Down by the Enemy, After Which, about, 1690, the said Town of Brookfield was in a likely Way to be settled.

There's a lot more to the petition, which tells how one court set up a committee, which then didn't act at all to settle the issue.

The result of this petition...
Read in the House of Representatives October 26, 1717 and ordered that the Committee of Brookfield be served with a copy of this and the petitioners former petition, and that they appear before this Court on the second Thursday of the next May session, to show reason why they declared the petitioners land to be forfeited.
Sent up for concurrence.  Read and concurred.
Consented to: Samuel Shute
Source: 33. Whitmore (A Record of Descendants...), pp. 10-12. 

At the time of the petition in 1717, Susanna Ayers, wife of John, had already died in 1683.  Since the Ayers family had come from Ipswich to Quaboag, that is probably where they had fled to.  The original petition from Susanna had stated she had 7 sons and one daughter.

  1. John;
  2. Samuel, 
  3. Thomas;
  4. Joseph;
  5. Edward, born February 12, 1658, at Ipswich;
  6. Mark, December 14, 1661;
  7. Nathaniel, July 6, 1664;
  8. Susanna.

It is also interesting to me that Susanna is noted as having received a small compensation from a fund from Rebecca Symonds, an unknown relation of Mark Symonds.
In 1682, a former resident of Massachusetts Bay Colony, named Samuel Hall, left a bequest of 100 Li to be distributed among the victims of the great fire in Boston and of the Indian wars in the Colony. Suzannah received 33s of this, but died soon after on February 2, 1682-3  Source: Felt, Joseph B.  History of Ipswich, Essex, and Hamilton. Cambridge, Mass, 1834, p. 62. and Ipswich Vital Records, Vol. II., p. 485.
John had built a tavern in Quaboag, and it was the most secure building from which to fight the Indians, until it was burned down, with the rest of the town.

John Ayres was owner of much land within the Plantation.  The amount which he paid John Pynchon for his original grant was 5 Li 12s 6p, or four and a half times the value of a single house lot with its usual allowance of meadow and planting ground (9).  In addition to this, he leased a large meadow (Matchuk-19 acres) from John Pynchon from June 28, 1671, until the time of his death.  Record of this appears in his account on: June 28, 1671; November 28, 1672; October 23, 1673; and, August 18, 1674 (10).  This large acquisition and usage of land indicates that he had grown sons, that he was relatively wealthy, and that he was capable of maintaining such an amount of this most preciouscommodity.  He can certainly be classified as a substantial husbandman.
Although his first actual license for maintaining a tavern was not granted until the Fall of 1671, the following entry leads us to believe that he offered food and shelter prior to that time. On June 28, 1671, the following: “By my expense at his house last summer and once this Spring 00 12 00”. That Ayres was a respected planter is confirmed by the following found in the Record of Hampshire County Court for September 26, 1671: “Goodman Ayres of Quabaug licensed to sell wine, etc.”. This permit was renewed on September 24, 1672: “Goodman Ely of Springfield hath his license continued for the year ensuing to keep ordinary and to sell wines and strong liquors, providing he keep good rule in his house. Also Goodman Ayres of Quaboag hath his license continued on the same terms”. And for the last time on September 29, 1674: “John Ayres of Brookfield hath his license renewed for the year ensuing”. As we know, this tavern was still in operation at the time of the Indian assault on August 2, 1675, and being the strongest building at the Plantation, was converted into a fortified house to provide protection during the siege which followed.
In addition to his other activities, Sergeant Ayres was commander of the small detachment of militia. Although he held the rank of captain during his residence at Ipswich, he had had to accept the lower rank at Quaboag because of the small size of the military contingent. He was assisted in his duties by Second Sergeant William Prichard and Corporal Richard Coy. 
John Ayres, as commander of the local detachment of militia, and his subordinate non-commissioned officers Sgt. Prichard and Corp. Coy, were the ones to accompany Captain Wheeler and Captain Hutchinson in the mission of peace to the Indians on that fateful August 2, 1675. All three of these valiant men were to die with others of the military troops sent from Marlboro to treat with the Indians. Even the death of John was not to end the contribution of this man to the welfare of the community, since it was to be his house which was to provide a haven of relative safety and to be occupied and defended by the surviving inhabitants and soldiers through those three gruesome days in August 1675. After the Indian siege of Brookfield had been relieved by the arrival of Major Willard and his troop, the inhabitants left for scattered areas, looking for security and peace. Suzannah Ayres and her children returned to the familiar surroundings of Ipswich where still remained some of her kinship. She presented to the Court at Salem an inventory of the estate of her deceased husband amounting to 195 Li 13s and 6p. In 1678, she is found as the owner of a house in Ipswich. Among those of the family listed as residents of Ipswich in 1678, in addition to Suzannah, we find John Jr., Joseph, Samuel Sr., Samuel Jr., and Thomas Ayres.
In 1703, Samuel, John and Thomas were appointed executors of the estate of John Sr. On January 14, 1716, as recorded in Worcester in 1741, the land formerly possessed at Brookfield by John Ayres Sr., was conveyed to Joseph Ayres of Ipswich by Thomas, Mark, Edward, and Nathaniel, sons of Sgt. John; and by Samuel, son of Samuel and grandson of Sgt. John; and by Robert Day, son of Suzannah (Ayres) (Day) Waite and grandson of Sgt. John.
Source:West Brookfield Historical Commission: Meet the Planters - AYRES 

The Brookfield Massacre, August 2, 1675
Gordon Harris / August 2, 2014
This is the story of William Prichard, John Ayres, John Warner and Daniel Hovey and their families, who left Ipswich to establish the doomed plantation at Brookfield, Massachusetts.
In May 1660, a group of colonists moved from Ipswich to the Indian town Quaboag in Western Massachusetts, which they renamed Brookfield. Indian attacks known as “King Phillips War” resulted in the destruction of Brookfield and the deaths of a dozen settlers on August 2, 1675. English soldiers accompanied by Mohegan allies were eventually able to break the siege at Brookfield, with casualties on both sides. Hatfield, Deerfield and Northfield were attacked in September, and Springfield was burned on October 5th.
The protagonist of the Indian attacks was Metacomet (aka Metacom) leader of the Pokanoket tribe, known by the English as King Phillip.  Major Samuel Appleton of Ipswich led a two-hour attack against Metacom’s fighters in Springfield which resulted in the first setback by the Indians. Appleton is credited also with capturing the Narraganset fort during the Great Swamp Fight in 1675. After returning to public life in Ipswich, he was imprisoned in Boston for his role in defying taxes imposed by the crown-appointed Governor Andros.
William Prichard arrived in the colony in 1630 and settled in Ipswich in 1649.  In the summer of 1660. By 1675 he was a selectman of Brookfield and serving as Sergeant in the military. On August 2, 1675,  Sergeant Prichard, Corporal Coy, and Sergeant Ayres, were slain in an ambush at Braintree.  William Pritchard’s son was outside the garrison at Brookfield when the attack began and was slain by the Indians. They cut off his head, tossed it about like a ball in sight of the settlers, and then set on a pole against his dead father’s house.
John Ayres Sr. was a prominent Ipswich resident who promoted the settlement in Quaboag. He also was killed in the ambush by the Indians in New Braintree the same day as the Brookfield massacre. His wife Susannah Ayres survived the attack at Brookfield and  moved back to Ipswich with her six sons and one daughter.
Daniel Hovey and his wife Abigail joined the new town in 1668 accompanied by their five younger children, Thomas aged 20, James 18, Joseph 15, Abigail 13, and Nathaniel 11. Their older children, Daniel Jr. and John remained in Ipswich. Daniel Hovey moved again to Hadley and returned to Ipswich after the massacre.
In the early moments of that siege, Daniel’s son James was overtaken and killed by the Indians somewhere near his house. His wife Priscilla and their children took refuge in a tavern surrounded by hundreds of hostile Nipmucs, who tried unsuccessfully to  burn it. After three days Major Simon Willard arrived with 46 troops, and they chased off the attackers.  James Hovey was buried with the eleven other victims, and the traumatized survivors returned to Ipswich or dispersed to other better-protected communities along the Massachusetts frontier.
After the attack on Brookfield, Priscilla took her three children to join James’ brother Daniel Hovey in Hadley. She left her eldest son also named Daniel in Hadley to be raised and educated by James’ other brother Thomas. The widow returned to Ipswich with her daughter Priscilla and the infant, James Jr. She filed an inventory of the estate in March 16,  1676 and received a small stipend as a war widow from the General Court of Ipswich. James’ death was officially listed as a military casualty. (Source: The Hovey Book, page 30.)
John Warner and his father William Warner were among the first settlers in the Ipswich Colony, arriving in 1635. The father died in Ipswich in 1648.  John Warner married Priscilla, daughter of Mark Symonds of Ipswich where they continued to live  for about twenty years. In 1670, he sold to John Woodam his property in Ipswich, consisting of his dwelling house, barn, orchard, and 7 acres of upland “which formerly was part of my father Warner’s meadow in Ipswich.” and he and Priscilla moved to Brookfield. He was one of three men there who arranged the transfer of land with the Indians, built the first house in the new town and is referred to as the “Father of Brookfield”. John and Priscilla survived the attack and retreated with their younger children to Hadley, Massachusetts to join their oldest son Mark Warner. Priscilla died in 1688 and John died in 1692.
 Included source:
Following the death of John Ayers, Susanna married a man named Mr. Day, and had another son,  "Robert Day, (who) resided in 1716, New Roxbury," who also became part of the petition for the land belonging to John Ayers in Brookfield, MA in 1717.

Copied footnotes (The numbers that they refer to may be found throughout the text as I've quoted above.)
 1. Whitmore, William Henry. A Record of the Descendants of Captain John Ayres of Brookfield, Mass. Boston: T. R. Marvin & Son, 1870, p 9.
A xerox copy of this book is in the possession of Gloria ODOM (55 pages total).  
A copy of this book is in the Pennsylvania State Library, Harrisburg, PA and in  1984, the book was litteraly crumbling; in 1997 the book would be 127 years old.

2. Whitmore, William Henry. Article “The Ayres and Ayer Families” from New England Historical & Genealogical Register, Vol. XVII (17), Oct. 1863, pp. 307-309.  A xerox copy of this article is in the possession of Gloria ODOM (pp. 307-310).

3. Waters, Thomas Franklin.  Ipswich in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.   Two volumes, published by Ipswich Historical Society, 1905, p. 490.

 4. Hammatt, Abraham.  The Early Inhabitants of Ipswich, Mass., 1633-1700.  Printed Ipswich, MA, 1880, p. 13.

 5. Waite, Henry E., Esq.  Article “Early History of Brookfield, Mass.” from New England Historical & Genealogical Register, Vol. XXXV (35), Boston, p. 337.  A xerox copy of this article is in the possession of Gloria ODOM (pp. 333-339).

 6. Waters, p. 365. 
 7. Hammatt, p. 14.
 8. Pynchon, John.  Account Books of 1651-1705, six volumes. Vol. III, p. 118.
 9. Ibid., Vol. V, p. 324.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., Vo. V, p. 325.
12. Pynchon, John.  Hampshire County Court Records (Wastebook).  Apr. 1663 - Jan. 1672.  Connecticut Valley Historical Society Library, Springfield, Mass., p. 89.
13. Ibid., p. 103.
14. Ibid., p. 120.
15. Account Books, Vol. III, p. 26.
16. Ibid., p. 27.
17. Ibid., Vol. V, p. 325.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid., Vol. V, p. 324.
21. Pynchon, John, Magistrate Book, 1639 - 1702.  Photostats courtesy
Connecticut Valley Historical Society, Springfield, Mass., p. 255.
22. Wastebook, p. 114.
23. Ibid.
24. Magistrate Book, p. 255.
25. Whitmore, p. 9.
26. Account Books, Vol. V, p. 324.
27. Magistrate Book, p. 149.
28. Ibid., p. 159.
29. Hammatt, p. 13.
30. Waters, p. 94.
31. Felt, Joseph B.  History of Ipswich, Essex, and Hamilton. 
Cambridge, Mass, 1834, p. 62.
32. Ipswich Vital Records, Vol. II., p. 485.
33. Whitmore (A Record of Descendants...), pp. 10-12.
This data transcribed by Gloria ODOM 1/98. NOTICE: This information is provided freely on the Internet for personal use only. The data may be used by non-commercial entities, as long as this message remains on all copied material. These electronic pages cannot be reproduced in any format for profit.


I appreciate the research that those who have worked on this before me have left for me to share with you...and I hope it is accurate. It seems to be well documented.

A main source of this information is an extensive quotation from:
[... Vol. III, pp. 1317-1319 of Hudson-Mohawk Genealogical and Family Memoirs, edited by Cuyler Reynolds (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1911). It is in the Reference collection of the Schenectady County Public Library at R 929.1 R45.