CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT AND

ARCHEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY

ASSESSMENT FOR VICTORY WOODS

SARATOGA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK 

VILLAGE OF VICTORY, TOWN OF SARATOGA, NEW YORK

OLMSTED CENTER FOR LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION

www.nps.gov/oclp/

NORTHEAST ARCHEOLOGY GROUP

www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/

SARATOGA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

www.nps.gov/sara/

 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT AND 

ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 

FOR VICTORY WOODS

SARATOGA NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

Saratoga, New York 

INTRODUCTION

____________________________________________________________ 

SITE HISTORY

____________________________________________________________ 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

____________________________________________________________ 

ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY

____________________________________________________________ 

TREATMENT

Prepared by 

Christopher Stevens, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation 

Linda White, Saratoga National Historical Park 

William Griswold, Northeast Region Archeology Program 

Margie Coffin Brown, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation 

National Park Service, Boston, Massachusetts, 2007

"For regimental field 

pieces (3 or 6-

pounder cannon), 

each artillery piece 

required a platform 

16 feet in length, and 

6-8 feet in breadth" - 

from Captain J.G. 

Tielke's 1769 treatise, 

The Field Engineer.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

ii 

The Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation promotes the stewardship of 

significant landscapes through research, planning, and sustainable preservation 

maintenance. The Center accomplishes its mission in collaboration with a 

network of partners including national parks, universities, government agencies, 

and private nonprofit organizations. Techniques and principles of preservation 

practice are made available through training and publications. Founded at the 

Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, the Center perpetuates the 

tradition of the Olmsted firms and Frederick Law Olmsted’s lifelong 

commitment to people, parks, and public spaces. 

www.nps.gov/oclp/ 

The Northeast Region Archeology Program is committed to providing 

archeological resource management expertise in the Northeast Region through 

an integrated program of research, compliance, education, and information 

management authorized under the Organic Act of 1916, the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), the Archeological Resources Protection 

Act of 1979, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 

1990. 

www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/ 

The Saratoga National Historical Park preserves and protects sites associated 

with the 1777 Revolutionary War battles of September 19th, October 7th, the siege 

period, and the surrender of British forces, October 17th. The series of conflicts 

that led to this surrender are known as the Battles of Saratoga. Designated as a 

national historical park in 1938, the park contains approximately 3,400 acres 

within the towns of Stillwater and Saratoga, including the Battlefield, Schuyler 

House, Saratoga Monument, and Victory Woods. Because of the incredible 

impact caused by the American victory in the Battles of Saratoga, they are known 

as the "Turning Point of the American Revolution," and are considered by many 

historians to be among the top fifteen battles in world history. 

Saratoga National Historical Park 

648 Rt. 32 

Stillwater, New York 12170 

www.nps.gov/sara/ 

Publication Credits: Information in this publication may be copied and used 

with the condition that full credit be given to authors and publisher. Appropriate 

citations and bibliographic credits should be made for each use. Graphics may 

not be reproduced without the permission of the owners noted in the captions. 

Cover Photo: "PLAN of the POSITIONS which the ARMY under L.T

 GENL 

BURGOYNE took at SARATOGA, on the 10th of September 1777, and in which it 

remained till THE CONVENTION was signed", William Faden, engraver and 

publisher, 1780. Included in A State of the Expedition from Canada. 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND DRAWINGS IV 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IX 

INTRODUCTION 1 

Management Summary 2 

Historical Summary 4 

Scope of Work and Methodology 5 

Description of Study Boundaries 7 

Summary of Findings 7 

1. SITE HISTORY 13 

Prehistory, Pre 1609 14 

Contact, 1609-1683 18 

Colonial, 1683-1776 26 

Revolutionary War at Saratoga, 1775-1783 40 

Rural Economy, 1783-1846 77 

Victory Mills, 1846-1974 84 

National Park Service, 1974-Present 107 

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 127 

Landscape Characteristics and Features 128 

Existing Conditions Plan 161 

3. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 167 

Victory Woods Analysis of Significance 168 

Victory Woods Evaluation of Integrity 174 

Archeological Potential 192 

Archeological Research Questions 193 

Archeological Evaluation 195 

4. TREATMENT 201 

Policy Standards and Planning Documents 202 

Treatment Approach 205 

Landscape Treatment Recommendations 207 

Treatment Plan 263 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 267 

APPENDICES 275 

A. 1920 Appraisal of the Victory Mills 275 

B. Title and Deed Information 276 

C. Firsthand Accounts of the Events at Saratoga, 1777 286 

D. Trail References 304 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

iv 

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND PLANS 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Introduction 

0.1. Regional diagram of the Upper Hudson River Valley 

0.2. Local vicinity map for Victory Woods, Old Saratoga Unit 

Site History 

1.1. Projectile points, scrapers, and knives from Rensselaer County 

1.2. Map of Mahican confederacy land 

1.3. Detail of 1656 map of New Netherland showing Indian communities 

1.4. Plat map of Saratoga Patent in 1750 

1.5. Map of the Province of New York in 1776 

1.6. Plan of Fort at Saratoga, 1757 

1.7. Plan of Saratoga, c. 1757 

1.8. Map of the Country in which the Army under Lt. General Burgoyne 

acted in the Campaign of 1777 

1.9. “PLAN of the POSITION which the Army under L.T

 GEN.L Burgoyne 

took at SARATOGA, on the 10th of September 1777, and which it 

remained till the CONVENTION was signed.” Unidentified artist, c. 

1779 

1.10. “PLAN of the POSITION which the ARMY under LT

 GEN.L

BURGOINE [sic] took at SARATOGA on the 10th of September 1777, and 

which remained till the CONVENTION was signed.” Map prepared by 

William Faden, 1780. 

1.11. “Plan of the Position which the Army, under Lieutenant G.al Burgoine 

[sic] took at Saratoga on the 10th of September 1777, and which remained 

till the convention was signed.” Unidentified artist, possibly German, c. 

1777. 

1.12. Manuscript Map c. 1777 

1.13. “Plan de la Poisition de l’Armee Sous les Ordres de son Excellence le 

Lieutenant General Burgoyne a Saratoga dan’t sur la Retraite de 

Fremanns Ferme,” 1777. 

1.14. “PLAN OF THE POSITION TAKEN BY GEN.L

 BURGOYNE ON THE 

10TH OF OCT. 1777 IN WHICH THE BRITISH ARMY WAS INVESTED 

BY THE AMERICANS UNDER THE COMMAND OF GEN.L

 GATES 

AND SURRENDERED 1777 TO HIM ON THE 16TH OF OCTOBER 

THE SAME YEAR.” 

1.15. Walworth Map depicting the events of 1777, 1891 

1.16. Walworth map showing the position of the British and American armies 

from October 10-17, 1777, 1891 

1.17. Van Allen Map of 1837 showing the holdings of the Schuyler family 

1.18. Estate of the Saratoga Water Power Company, 1846 

1.19. Map of Prospect Hill Cemetery, 1865 
v

1.20. Beers Atlas map of Victory, 1866 

1.21. Beers Atlas map of Victory, 1866 

1.22. Birdseye view of the Schuylerville and vicinity 

1.23. 1883 Birdseye view of the Village of Victory 

1.24. Birdseye view of the Village of Schuylerville, 1889 

1.25. Map depicting Saratoga and other New York towns and the Fitchburg 

Railroad line, 1895 

1.26. Topographic Map of Saratoga, 1900 

1.27. Early-twentieth-century view of Victory Mill 

1.28. Rear of Victory Mill along Fish Creek, pre-1918 

1.29. Water tower that was torn down 

1.30. Overlay of the British encampment over 1906 existing conditions 

1.31. Key features of John H. Brandow’s 1919 Historical Map of Saratoga 

overlaid atop modern USGS map. 

1.32. Front of Victory Mill, pre-1918 

1.33. Map of the property of Victory Mills, 1931 

1.34. Ice House 

1.35. Map in the 1930 book showing the British encampment 

1.36. Map included in the Department of the Interior Draft Environmental 

Statement, Proposed Amendment to the Act of June 1, 1938 and Land 

Acquisition Program for Saratoga National Historical Park 

1.37. Map attached to December 1973 memo 

1.38. Passing of the deed for Victory Woods from A.L Garber Company to the 

National Park Service, 1974 

1.39. Boundary monuments installed by National Park Service in 1974 

1.40. Water tower in Victory Woods, 1985 

1.41. Victory Woods water tower base following demolition, 1985 

1.42. Victory Woods water tower base following demolition, 1985 

1.43. Victory Woods water tower base following demolition, 1985 

1.44. Disturbed soil indicating recent looting, 1989 

1.45. Artifacts found by looters and confiscated by Law Enforcement Rangers, 

1989 

1.46. GIS mapping by Saratoga NHP resource management staff, 2004 

1.47. Geophysicists completing site work at Victory Woods, winter 2005-06 

1.48. Archeological investigation in progress at Victory Woods, spring 2006 

1.49. National Park Service Northeast Region Exotic Plant Management 

Team cutting and spraying non-native invasive Norway maples in 

Victory Woods, 2006 

Existing Conditions 

2.1. View east from the Saratoga Monument towards Hudson River and 

Green Mountains of Vermont 

2.2. Ravine at southern boundary of Victory Woods 

2.3. Gully that drains the central portion of Victory Woods 

2.4. Victory Woods cannon battery 

2.5. Victory Woods cannon battery 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

vi 

2.6. Victory Woods cannon battery 

2.7. Possible former magazine west of cannon battery 

2.8. Depression in the center of Victory Woods near large trees 

2.9. Depression near south ravine in Victory Woods 

2.10. View of Stark’s Knob two miles north of Victory Woods 

2.11. NYS Route 32 and sidewalk along eastern boundary of Victory Woods 

2.12. Southern boundary of Victory Woods at terminus of Jay Street 

2.13. Southern boundary of Victory Woods at terminus of Herkimer Street 

2.14. Park road in Victory Woods from Herkimer Street 

2.15. Monument Drive at northwest boundary of Victory Woods 

2.16. Monument Drive at northwest boundary of Victory Woods 

2.17. Monument Drive at northwest boundary of Victory Woods 

2.18. Schuyler Heights Drive at northern boundary of Victory Woods 

2.19. Trail leading diagonally down steep slope of Victory Woods 

2.20. Dense forest on steep slope of Victory Woods above NYS Route 32 

2.21. View from top of steep slope in Victory Woods to NYS Route 32 below 

2.22. View of Victory Mills from Bridge Street 

2.23. View east from cannon battery in Victory Woods towards private 

residence 

2.24. View across the pond in the northwest corner of Victory Woods 

2.25. View of private home along Monument Drive from northwest corner of 

Victory Woods 

2.26. View of private home at terminus of Schuyler Heights Drive from 

northern boundary of Victory Woods 

2.27. Private home outside northeastern corner of Victory Woods 

2.28. Private home and former mill houses outside of southeast corner of 

Victory Woods 

2.29. View from western boundary of Victory Woods across former 

agricultural field to distant Cemetery Avenue 

2.30. View of Victory Woods from Cemetery Avenue looking east 

2.31. Dam and falls on Fish Creek to power Victory Mills complex 

2.32. Pond in northwest area of Victory Woods 

2.33. Pond in northwest area of Victory Woods 

2.34. Hole dug by red fox in upland area of Victory Woods 

2.35. Forest of Victory Woods adjacent to NYS Route 32 

2.36. Herbaceous plants covering former water tower site 

2.37. Herbaceous plants covering disturbed area by Monument Drive 

2.38. Trees and understory plants covering cannon battery 

2.39. Decomposing leaf litter and fallen trees in Victory Woods 

2.40. Mayapple in upland area of Victory Woods 

2.41. Wetland vegetation surrounding spring and pond in Victory Woods 

2.42. Concrete weir from former waterworks in Victory Woods 

2.43. Deming extra-capacity water pump near concrete weirs of former 

waterworks in Victory Woods 

2.44. Concrete foundation of former icehouse at the southeast corner of 

Victory Woods 
vii

2.45. Herkimer Street gate with signs 

2.46. Signs within Victory Woods parcel 

2.47. New York State historical marker erected in 1927 

Treatment 

4.1. Alternative parking lot designs for Victory Woods 

4.2. Typical cul-de-sac specifications 

4.3. Typical cul-de-sac specifications 

4.4. Hybrid parking lot example 

4.5. Specifications for two universally accessible parking stalls 

4.6. Proposed trail from parking lot west of seasonal pond 

4.7. Proposed trail from parking lot, southern end of pond 

4.8. Proposed trail from parking lot, southeast corner of pond 

4.9. Proposed trail from parking lot, east of pond 

4.10. Trail width studies 

4.11. Floating boardwalk for proposed trail around pond 

4.12. Floating boardwalk for proposed trail around pond 

4.13. Trail specifications for neighborhood connector 

4.14. Trees to be removed from on or near cannon battery 

4.15. Thick vegetative underbrush obscures the cannon battery 

4.16. Image showing an earthwork without understory brush. 

4.17. View east from cannon battery obscured by vegetation 

4.18. Winter view east from cannon battery with views 

4.19. Diagram of height of vista clearing needed to improve views to the east 

4.20. Diagram of height of vista clearing along the southern end of the park 

road 

4.21. Proposed Tri-Site Trail to link historic sites 

4.22. Points of interest and existing transportation links 

4.23. Proposed transportation links between villages and park 

4.24. Panoramic southeast view of Victory Woods 

4.25. Panoramic northwest view of Victory Woods 

4.26. Panoramic northwest view of proposed Herkimer Street trailhead 

4.27. Proposed Tri-Site Trail along Fish Creek 

4.28. View north of Victory Mills from proposed Tri-Site Trail 

4.29. Dressed stone from Schuyler-era mills reused in historic mill foundation 

4.30. View southwest of bridge over Fish Creek along proposed Tri-Site Trail 

4.31. View west of American earthworks on private property including 

cannon batteries 

4.32. Strategic views northwest from American earthworks 

4.33. View southwest of American earthworks on private property above Fish 

Creek 

4.34. View east of American earthworks on private property east of Victory 

Mills 

4.35. Strategic western panoramic views of Victory Woods as seen from the 

American encampment 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

viii 

4.36. View north of the proposed Tri-Site Trail along the Old Champlain 

Canal towpath 

4.37. View east of the proposed Tri-Site Trail over bridge above Old 

Champlain Canal aqueduct 

4.38. View north of proposed Tri-Site Trail following Old Champlain Canal 

towpath 

4.39. A future Old Saratoga visitor center may be located at the Field of 

Grounded Arms 

LIST OF TABLES 

 

1.0. Summary of the Site History section 

3.1. Recommended areas and periods of significance 

3.2. Summary of cultural landscape integrity 

3.3. Summary of landscape characteristics and features 

LIST OF DRAWINGS 

2.1. Existing Conditions 2006 

2.2. Existing Conditions 2006 

4.1. Treatment Plan 2006 

4.2. Treatment Plan 2006 
ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This report was a collaboration between the staff at Saratoga National Historical 

Park, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, Northeast Region Archeology 

Program, and Philadelpha Regional Office. At the Saratoga National Historical 

Park, Linda White, Resource Technician, authored the site history, Chris Martin, 

Resource Program Manager, served as project coordinator, and Frank Dean, 

Superintendent, and Joe Finan, Site Manager, provided project oversight and 

guidance. At the Olmsted Center, Chris Stevens, Historical Landscape Architect, 

prepared a section on the Revolutionary War period, as well as the existing 

conditions, analysis and treatment chapters. Margie Coffin Brown, Senior 

Project Manager, contributed to the narrative. Michael Commisso prepared the 

final maps and compiled the document and Bob Page, Director, provided project 

oversight. For the Northeast Region Archeology Program, William Griswold, 

Archeologist coordinated archeological field investigations and prepared the 

sections on the archeological findings and Allen Cooper, Manager, provided 

project guidance and review. Mark Spadea, Civil Engineer at the Northeast 

Regional Office in Philadelphia contributed to the site design and prepared 

construction drawings. 

Several individuals were instrumental in initiating and participating in the project. 

Former Congressman John Sweeney from Clifton Park, New York helped secure 

funding for the first phase of the project in an appropriations bill. The project 

has also benefited from the support and input of George Sullivan, Mayor of the 

Village of Victory; Tom Wood, Saratoga Town Supervisor; and John Hamm and 

John Hayes, both with the Prospect Hill Cemetery Association. 

At a treatment workshop held in December of 2005, many of the individuals 

listed above participated and helped define the treatment approach for the 

property. In addition, David Shockley, Chief of Resource Management from 

Petersburg National Battlefield, assisted with earthworks management issues and 

reviewed the draft document. David Miller from the L. A. Group of Saratoga, 

New York provided project oversight for the site documentation and 

archeological investigation. Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. from 

Rensselaer, New York provided recommendations related to preservation of 

archeological resources. Geophysicists Doria Kutrubes, Dr. John F. Kick, Mark 

Kick, Melanie Denham, and Richard Rensky at Radar Solutions International 

contributed to the site work and prepared the Geophysical Report. Creighton 

Manning Engineering LLP completed the survey work and conducted a 

topographic survey of the Victory Woods site. 

Several people contributed to round table discussions related to the project 

including Cynthia Blakemore from the New York State Office of Parks, 

Recreation and Historic Preservation, and staff from Saratoga National Historical
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

x

Park including Jeff Wells, Facility Manager; Gina Johnson, Chief of 

Interpretation; James Gorman, Chief Park Ranger; Christine Robinson, Curator; 

and Park Rangers William Valosin, Eric Schnitzer, and Joe Craig. Douglas R. 

Cubbison, Command Historian of the U.S. Army 10th Mountain Division and Fort 

Drum reviewed the final draft document and provided additional historical 

documentation, references and recommendations. In addition to many of the 

individuals above, review comments on the draft document were provided by Jeff 

Killion and Michael Commisso at the Olmsted Center. 

Past staff member of the Battlefield Protection Program and Saratoga National 

Historical Park employee, Stephen Strach contributed his in-depth knowledge of 

the Battles at Saratoga and detailed information about Victory Woods. A lifelong preservationist, he passed away in October 2005. The authors gratefully 

acknowledge his contributions to this report. 
INTRODUCTION

1 

“View of Genl. Burgoyne’s Encampment at Saratoga at the Time of his Surrender to the Americans.” Victory Woods is visible in the 

background and is the small hill behind the Schuyler (white) House in the extreme left part of the picture, and the river in the 

foreground is the Hudson with Fish Creek emptying out where the middle boat is located. Hay is drying in stacks on the hillside. 

(From John Lambert, “Travels through Lower Canada, and the United States of North America, in the years 1806, 1807, and 1801....,” 

London: Printed for Richard Phillips, 1810, Vol. II. The Collection of the late Stephen G. Strach). 

INTRODUCTION

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 

HISTORICAL SUMMARY 

SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY 

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY BOUNDARIES 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

2 

INTRODUCTION 

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 

Located in the Village of Victory within the Town of Saratoga, in the heights 

above the Hudson River, Victory Woods contains a portion of the British field 

fortification and encampment from the Revolutionary War (Figure 0.1). 

Historical evidence indicates that this site has remained largely undisturbed since 

the war. Except for a potable water supply system which was confined to a small 

area, no building is known to have taken place on the site, and it is unlikely that 

the tract was ever used for agricultural purposes. Thus, these defensive remains 

in Victory Woods may now provide virtually the only surviving coherent and 

visible evidence of the famous American siege of the British army in 1777. While 

the parcel was a strategically important piece of land during the Revolutionary 

War, the site was used by Native American use as far back as the Middle and Late 

Archaic periods. 

Since the NPS acquired Victory Woods in 1974, the site has remained unused by 

visitors due to lack of suitable access to the site and lack of park programs or 

interpretive services that take advantage of the site’s historic resources. The local 

community has been anxious for the National Park Service to make this site 

available to visitors or else to declare the land surplus to the park’s needs and 

return it to the village and the tax rolls. 

The park’s 2004 General Management Plan (GMP) identifies rehabilitation as the 

general treatment approach for park resources including the opening of Victory 

Woods as part of this twenty-year plan. Generally the plan suggests that the 

landscape character at select locations be evocative of landscape conditions of 

October 1777, the views important to the interpretation of the battles be 

reestablished, the character-defining landscape features of Victory Woods be 

identified and rehabilitated, and that the interpretation emphasize the Burgoyne 

Campaign within the broader context of the Revolutionary War relying on visitor 

contact with rehabilitated landscape features and exhibits, in addition to media. 

For Victory Woods specifically, this plan directs the park to: 

• Identify the locations of British earthworks, roads, and other landscape features 

 significant to the siege; 

• Identify and rehabilitate the character-defining landscape features of Victory 

 Woods; 

• Reestablish interpretive and historic views critical to the military use of Victory 

 Woods; 

• Develop an interpretive trail through Victory Woods; 

• Reestablish at key locations, field and woodland to suggest conditions in October 

 1777; 

• Thin certain woodlands to suggest their character in October 1777; 
INTRODUCTION

3 

• Locate and rehabilitate historic road traces associated with the battle period; 

• Undertake extensive archeological research program and mitigation measures 

 necessary to support potential actions; 

• Conduct cultural and natural resource inventories, and Archeological 

 Identification Studies. 

Opening the site for public visitation will require two stages. The first stage will 

focus on site research, condition assessment, preparation of this combined 

Cultural Landscape Report and Archeological Sensitivity Assessment (CLR/ASA) 

and the Archeological Identification Study. The second stage will include 

compliance, the implementation of the proposed visitor access improvements, 

and wayside exhibits and signage. Congressman John Sweeney from Clifton 

Park, New York helped secure funding for the first phase in an appropriations 

bill that funds the project. Although documentation exists, no site work has been 

conducted to substantiate archeological and landscape resource value. 

Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) violations of informed looting 

(pot hunting) have been documented. 

Due to the sensitive nature of the archeological remains in this portion of the park, 

two reports will be produced for the first stage of the project. This first volume is the 

combined CLR/ASA and contains archeological information suitable for public and 

government distribution. A second volume, produced by an archeological 

consulting group, contains the results from the geophysical and archeological field 

investigations and will not be distributed. 

At the same time that efforts are underway to improve access and interpretation 

at the Victory Woods site, local and state officials are working to develop the 

historic and recreational potential in the Town of Saratoga. Old Saratoga on the 

Hudson, an unincorporated civic group, is spearheading the development of a 

three-and-one-half-mile linear park along the Hudson River in and around the 

Villages of Schuylerville and Victory. One of the group’s goals is to work in 

partnership with others to create a seamless experience for visitors who are 

interested in learning not only about the Old Saratoga area’s role in the 

Revolutionary War, but about the history of the region from the French and 

Indian Wars to the development of the Champlain Canal and beyond. The 

Victory Woods tract, the Schuyler House, and the Saratoga Monument as well as 

the sites of Fort Hardy, the Field of Grounded Arms, and the Marshall House are 

some of the publicly and privately-owned parcels involved in these efforts. 

Saratoga NHP is also a partner in the Saratoga County Heritage Trail System and 

the Lakes-to-Locks Passage Scenic Byway initiative. The park is located within 

the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor and the Mohawk Valley Heritage 

Corridor, and is near and thematically related to the Hudson River Valley 

National Heritage Area. In addition, the park is within the study area of the 

Champlain Valley Heritage Corridor Project. Saratoga National Historical Park 

in cooperation with some or all of these groups could develop a trail system that 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

4 

would link the three Old Saratoga Unit sites together as well as the other local 

non-NPS historic sites. A plan is proposed within the Treatment section of this 

report. 

HISTORICAL SUMMARY 

Prior to contact with Europeans, the Upper Hudson River Valley, rich in natural 

resources, was occupied by Native Americans. The confluence of Fish Creek and 

the Hudson Rivers was not only an ideal location for hunting, fishing, and 

harvesting seeds and nuts, but also a junction for two major north-south and 

east-west water transportation corridors. Archeological evidence confirms the 

long-term occupation of the area as early as 8,000 B. P. and suggests that the area 

including Victory Woods was a place of temporary settlement and cultural 

interchange. 

With the arrival of Dutch, English and French settlers, the area was initially 

recognized as Mohican territory. Settlement of the area was difficult because of a 

series of wars, which eventually resulted in the Mohawks claiming ownership. 

However, Native American ownership of much of the Saratoga area ceased in 

1683, when the Mohawks sold their land to a group of Dutch colonists as part of 

the Saratoga Patent. With the exceptionally fertile soils along the river valley and 

the financial opportunities offered by the river as a transportation corridor, land 

disputes would continue up until the Revolutionary War. 

The two battles of Saratoga, and the resulting surrender, are considered an 

important turning point in the Revolutionary War. In the course of the fighting, 

which occurred September 19 and October 7, 1777, the Americans, under the 

command of Major Generals Horatio Gates and Benedict Arnold, managed to 

defeat a powerful British army, led by Lt. General John Burgoyne, consisting of 

over 7,000 Loyalist, Canadian, British, German, and Native American troops. 

During the final days of the campaign before Lt. General Burgoyne surrendered 

to General Gates, the British retreated north and used much of ‘Old’ Saratoga 

(Schuylerville and Victory) encompassing Victory Woods and the Saratoga 

Monument site for their final encampment and defenses. The British 

encampment on Saratoga Heights sat about 25o feet above the Hudson River and 

overlooked the village of Saratoga (now Schuylerville). Lt. General Burgoyne 

tried to retreat northward, but this position was so advantageous and well 

constructed with earthworks that he was reluctant to leave it. The land was 

thinned of trees and sloped toward Fish Creek giving the British a clear shot to 

the land along the Hudson. 

Nearly 17,000 American troops surrounded the fortified camp of the exhausted 

British Army. Faced with such overwhelming numbers, Burgoyne surrendered 

on October 17, 1777. By the terms of the Articles of Convention, Burgoyne’s 

depleted army, some 6,000 men, marched out of its camp “with the Honors of 
INTRODUCTION

5 

War” and grounded and stacked its weapons along the west bank of the Hudson 

River across Fish Creek from the Schuyler House. The American victory 

restored the sagging confidence of the Americans in their own military abilities at 

a time that confidence was most needed. The victory also brought foreign 

recognition and assistance that made the final victory a reality. 

The A.L. Garber Company, owners and operators of the former Victory 

Packaging Corporation, donated the 22.78-acre Victory Woods site to the NPS in 

1974. The park’s 2004 General Management Plan recognizes the historical 

significance of Victory Woods as it does contain remnants of the British fortified 

camp which are still visible along the wooded hillside. 

The Saratoga National Historical Park, Old Saratoga Unit, Victory Woods site 

preserves part of the site of the final defensive positions of the British army at the 

time of their surrender in October of 1777. Saratoga NHP’s other unit, the 

battlefield, along with its visitor center is about eight miles to the south in 

Stillwater also along the western bank of the Hudson River. 

SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY 

This project will provide critical landscape and archeological research to inform 

thoughtful future resource management and treatment decisions. This volume 

includes Site History, Existing Conditions, Analysis and Evaluation, and 

Treatment. The document has been prepared in conformance with guidelines 

established by NPS DO-28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline and The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation. Consultation with the New York Office of Preservation and 

Historic Preservation New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic 

Preservation (NYOPRHP) is being conducted through the park and will continue 

throughout the project. 

VOLUME 1 CLR/ASA 

Site History 

The Site History section describes the contextual history surrounding Victory 

Woods as well as its site specific history as outlined below in Table 1. The 

historical documentary information was assembled from a variety of primary and 

secondary sources including historic maps, photographs, correspondence, and 

first-person narrative accounts. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

6 

Table 1. Summary of the Site History section. 

Title Period Description 

Prehistory Pre-1609 Saratoga area Native American history preEuropean contact. 

Contact 1609-1683 Saratoga area Native American history 

post-European contact. 

Colonial 1683-1776 Saratoga area European colonization 

history. 

Revolutionary 

War at Saratoga 

1775-1783 Revolutionary War history at Saratoga 

emphasizing the autumn 1777 period of 

significance. 

Rural Economy 1783-1846 Saratoga area rural economy history. 

Victory Mills 1846-1974 Victory Mills operations and ownership of 

Victory Woods. 

National Park 

Service 

1974-Present NPS stewardship of Victory Woods. 

Existing Conditions 

The Existing Conditions section includes a narrative description, photographs 

and a site plan, which document and classify the major categories of landscape 

characteristics and features. The existing conditions site plan is based on both 

site visits and the topographic and feature survey prepared for the Victory Woods 

rehabilitation project. The earthen fortification features remaining from 

Burgoyne's Revolutionary War campaign in Victory Woods had not been 

adequately documented until now, and one of the biggest challenges concerning 

their preservation concerned vandalism inflicted by looters. 

Analysis and Evaluation 

The Analysis and Evaluation reiterates the current National Register of Historic 

Places status, and documents the period of significance associated with the events 

and persons of the American Revolution. The physical integrity of the landscape 

characteristics and features is evaluated to understand the site’s condition and 

alterations over time. Through research, archeologically sensitive areas are 

identified. Future archeological investigations will use the information contained 

within the combined CLR/ASA to focus research. The evaluation of characterdefining features is detailed to aid the park with future Section 106 consultation 

responsibilities. By comparing the historic condition with the existing conditions 

of landscape characteristics and features, the report presents a list of 

characteristics and features that contribute or do not contribute to the historic 

character of the site. 

Treatment 

The Treatment section addresses the issues associated with protecting the 

significant cultural and natural resources within the Victory Woods property and 
INTRODUCTION

7 

provides recommendations for the long-term management of the cultural 

landscape. According to National Park Service policy, this report provides the 

supporting documentation to guide the treatment of the landscape and is needed 

before any major intervention. For the Victory Woods property, the treatment 

plan provides guidance on visitor circulation and accessibility, earthworks 

preservation, waysides and interpretation, viewshed and vegetation management, 

and connections to other historic sites. The overall goal of the treatment 

recommendations is to reinforce the National Park Service’s sound stewardship 

of cultural landscapes as outlined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties (1996). 

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY BOUNDARIES 

Victory Woods is located in the Village of Victory within the Town of Saratoga in 

Saratoga County of New York State (Figure 0.2). The 22.78-acre, rectilinear 

Victory Woods tract overlooks Fish Creek to the east, a tributary of the Hudson 

River. The tract is bounded by NYS Route 32 to the east and private residential 

properties to the north, south, east, and west. Jay and Herkimer Streets terminate 

at the southern property line where Herkimer Street continues as a dirt and 

gravel park road that climbs to the center of the site. Monument Drive ends near 

the northwest corner of the site and Schuyler Heights Drive ends at the site's 

northern boundary. Dense forest vegetation covers most of the Victory Woods 

landscape. Steep slope covers the eastern half while the western half is more 

planar with some gradual slopes, mounds, and depressions. 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

Saratoga National Historical Park commemorates a vital phase of the 

Revolutionary War, as the American victory at Saratoga is generally considered a 

turning point in the war. The park's landscape played a decisive role in the 

victory. All four of the park’s landscapes, including the battlefield, Victory 

Woods, the Schuyler Estate and the Saratoga Monument, are thematically 

connected. 

Victory Woods shares the park's primary area of significance under National 

Register Criterion A for its association with the American Revolution in the 

National Register area of military because of the decisive role the area played in 

the battles, siege, and surrender of Saratoga in 1777. The Victory Woods property 

has archeological resources that have the potential to yield data related to the 

war, thereby also giving the property significance under National Register 

Criterion D. The recent Archeological Identification Study at Victory Woods 

(May 2006) found resources that indicate the Victory Woods site was used 

extensively by Native Americans has the potential to yield additional information 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

8 

about occupation during the Middle and Late Archaic Periods (8000-3000 B.P) 

up through the time of contact with Europeans in 1609, thereby also giving the 

property significance under National Register Criterion D. Evidence of early use 

of the site included a roasting platform used to dry and cook foods, two 

diagnostic projectile points, and hundreds of debitage flakes, which indicate that 

the site was a lithic processing station. Victory Woods is potentially eligible for 

listing on the National Register as a discontiguous contributing site within the 

Saratoga NHP district. The site retains sufficient integrity, including location, 

setting, association and feeling, to convey its significance for both the extended 

period of Native American occupation as well as the Revolutionary War period. 

The 22.78-acre cultural landscape of Victory Woods represents a portion 

(perhaps about one fifth) of the original British encampment that covered some 

100 acres and likely includes portions of the American volunteer (Loyalist) and 

9th Regiment campsites. The landscape feels larger, however, due to the 

undeveloped land to the east and west of the parcel. For a property to be eligible 

for the National Register under Criterion A, it should retain the physical features 

that made up its character during the period of its association with the important 

event, i.e., it must retain the identity for which it is significant and be recognizable 

if a person from the historic period were to view it today. The location of the 

encampment, the spatial organization in association with the Victory Woods 

portion of the encampment is still evident because the surrounding landscape has 

been unaltered and remnant earthworks still exist on the brow of the hill 

overlooking Fish Creek and the Hudson River. The site's general strategic 

topography, as well as the form, plan, space, and structure of the southeastern 

portion of the 1777 encampment can still be understood. Some period landscape 

characteristics and above-ground features remain including a cannon battery, a 

related subterranean gunpowder magazine, an angled earthwork south of the 

wetland pond, a road/road trace, strategic eastern views (to NYS Route 32, Fish 

Creek, and the site of the American forces beyond), springs, and the thinned 

forest cover. 

Beyond Victory Woods, the British earthworks have been lost except for possible 

archeological remains. With the absence of historic structures on the site, the 

landscape assumes a greater responsibility in conveying the site's history. Several 

twentieth-century features on the site are not historic including the water tower 

site mound, waterworks remnants, a barbed wire fence, park signs, and a 

concrete ice house foundation. The thinned forest serves to camouflage nonhistoric views to the north, south, and west and to shift the focus of visitors on 

the historic setting that does remain. It is critical that the land along both sides of 

NYS Route 32 and Fish Creek not be developed further along the eastern edge of 

Victory Woods to protect this setting. 

The park’s 2004 General Management Plan identifies rehabilitation as the overall 

treatment approach for park resources, including Victory Woods. This approach 

recognizes the need for alterations or additions to the site while preserving those 

portions or features which convey its historical significance. At Victory Woods, 

features will be added to protect resources while allowing visitors to circulate 
INTRODUCTION

9 

through the site and learn about its history at interpretive waysides and key view 

points. 

A key issue that needs to be addressed as part of the treatment approach is 

limited information and lack of physical remnants for the British encampment. 

The treatment goals are to improve the visitors understanding of the events that 

led up to the British surrender, preserve the extant cultural and natural resources, 

and through interpretation, link the history of the discontiguous park sites so that 

visitors understand the significance of the area. 

The treatment section provides stabilization and rehabilitation guidelines for the 

landscape associated with the construction of a universally accessible parking 

area and trail network to provide access to the interpretive sites, the clearing of 

select vistas to enhance understanding of the siege, and the locating and design 

six to seven wayside exhibits. The treatment section also suggests ways that the 

Victory Woods project may connect with other local historic sites including the 

other two Old Saratoga Unit sites, Saratoga Monument and Schuyler Estate. The 

project contributes to Section 106 cultural compliance documentation. The plans 

are conceptual and schematic only; construction drawings were not produced as 

part of this project. Treatment recommendations are made concerning the 

protection of archeological resources. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

10

Figure 0.1: Regional diagram of the Upper Hudson River Valley (GMP, 2004).
11 

INTRODUCTION

Figure 0.2: Local vicinity map for Victory Woods, Old Saratoga Unit, Saratoga NHP (Mapquest, 2005). 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

12
SITE HISTORY

 13 

“PLAN de la Poisition de l’Armee Sous les Ordres de son Excellence le Lieutenant General Burgoyne a SARATOGA dan’t sur la Retraite 

de Fremanns Ferme”.1777. A portion of the Gerlach Map of Saratoga in October 1777 that includes the three Old Saratoga Unit sites. 

(Drawn by Capt. H.D. Gerlach. Negative Photostat copy, SARA archives (SARA 4947). 

SITE HISTORY

PREHISTORY, PRE-1609 

CONTACT, 1609-1683 

COLONIAL, 1683-1776 

REVOLUTIONARY WAR AT SARATOGA, 1776-1783 

RURAL ECONOMY, 1783-1846 

VICTORY MILLS, 1846-1974 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 1974-PRESENT 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 14 

PREHISTORY, PRE-1609 

This chapter covers an enormous period of time yet comparatively little is known 

about the prehistory of this northern area of New York State. Information 

contained in this chapter has been pieced together from various archeological 

discoveries to develop a chronological narrative for the last 11,000 years, when 

Native Americans likely arrived in the Upper Hudson Valley following the last ice 

age. The area of Saratoga, now Schuylerville, was important in prehistory for its 

geographic position along the Hudson River, midway between present day 

Canada and the Atlantic Ocean. Taking the Battenkill (a major tributary), also 

known as the Dianondehowa, provided easy access to the east, and traversing the 

Fish Creek provided access to the Mohawk Valley and points west. This 

geographically desirable location, rich in natural resources, provided the 

optimum location for settlement and cultural interchange. 

 

PALEOINDIAN PERIOD (CA. 11,000-9,000 B.P.) 

Archaeologists refer to the earliest inhabitants of North America as Paleoindians, 

mobile hunters and gatherers adapted to a far different environment than the 

present one. Dominant tree species included spruce, birch and alder and the 

early immigrants likely hunted large animals possibly including several now 

extinct animals.1

 Whether or not Paleoindian hunters were specialized hunters of 

the big game animals like mammoth and mastodon is a contested issue. 

However, Paleoindian sites are characterized and identified by fluted projectile 

points.2

 Paleoindian sites in the Upper Hudson River Valley include a quarry and 

workshop site near Catskill, New York (West Athens Hill), a site near Coxsackie, 

and one in southern Saratoga County where fluted points have been located.3

 

Archeological discoveries also indicate Native American camps at Saratoga Lake 

and Lake Lonely by 8,500 B.P.4

 

ARCHAIC PERIOD (CA. 9,000-3,000 B.P.) 

The Archaic Period is one characterized by changes in the environment, 

subsistence strategies and life-ways for the Native Americans. The Middle 

Archaic Period (8,000-6,000 B.P.) and Late Archaic Period (6,000-3,000 B.P) are 

characterized by larger base camps and small groups moving seasonally through 

the forest; hunting game, fishing, and harvesting seeds and nuts. The few sites 

known from the early part of the period provide insufficient information to write 

a detailed narrative for the period. Recent excavations at Victory Woods 

revealed two diagnostic project points for the Middle and Late Archaic periods as 

well as hundreds of debitage flakes associated with a lithic processing station, 

indicating that the area was heavily occupied and utilized in the last 7,500 years. 

Elsewhere, excavations done by Snow in 1977 and Starbuck and Bolian in 1980 
SITE HISTORY

 15 

have revealed diagnostic projectile points (points distinguishing or characteristic 

of a particular time) for the period.5

 Large sites at prominent water falls during 

the middle Archaic Period are indicative of the importance of fish in the 

subsistence strategy.6

 Excavations in the vicinity of Saratoga Lake have exposed 

large black midden (refuse) deposits that are associated with anadromous fishing 

sites.7

 The later portion of this period shows trends for population expansion 

and a wider variety of subsistence activities including the use of shellfish and 

nuts, the construction of fish weirs, and the use of controlled burning.8

 Mortuary 

ceremonialism and ritual play an increasingly important part in the treatment of 

the dead during the Archaic Period.9

 

An increase in variation and distribution of artifacts resulted in three traditions 

based upon projectile point styles. The Laurentian (Otter Creek, Brewerton, 

Vosburg), Narrow Point (narrow–stemmed, notched, triangular, often made of 

quartz, Normanskill) and Susquehanna (broad, thin bifaces, Snook Kill, Orient 

Fishtail) traditions have been associated with the later part of this period.10

 

Sizeable Laurentian components have been identified at a number of sites along 

Fish Creek by Funk, the Schuylerville Water Pollution Control Facility site by 

Brumbach, and near the shores or Saratoga Lake by Walch.11 The sites along Fish 

Creek and areas around Saratoga Lake also contain numerous projectile points 

affiliated with the Narrow Point tradition.12 William Ritchie, in 1958, identified a 

new cultural complex, near the Snook Kill in Saratoga County.13 Small numbers 

of these points have been found at most of the sites along Fish Creek. The 

artifacts inferred that hunting was the primary activity, conducted with spears or 

javelins.14 Near the confluence of Fish Creek and the Hudson River, one of the 

sites contained Susquehanna tradition components including Susquehanna 

Broad and Orient Fishtail points, presumably associated with that site’s apparent 

focus on spring anadromous fishing.15 (Figure 1.1) 

WOODLAND PERIOD (CA. 3,000 – 400 B.P.) 

Whereas lithics (stone materials) are used to distinguish the various Archaic and 

Paleoindian Periods, the appearance of ceramics on archeological sites is a 

marker of the Woodland Period. The earliest ceramics known as the Vinette I 

begin to appear on sites in the Northeast around 3,000 B.P.16 These early 

ceramics are derivatives of earlier soapstone bowls characteristic of the Late 

Archaic Period. The earliest ceramics in the area are thin and ovate, and often 

side-notched.17 These Early Woodland sites are most commonly found along the 

main tributaries of the Hudson River drainages, but rarely in upland areas or 

along smaller streams.18 Hunting, fishing, and gathering, without the cultivation 

of maize, were activities employed by small groups of mobile Native Americans.19

 

Three Middle Woodland Period sites have been found along Fish Creek and two 

of these near the Schuyler Estate.20 Artifacts from the Woodland Period have 

been found on top of Archaic Period materials, indicating that the same sites 

continued to be occupied for hundreds of years.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 16 

Another hallmark of the Woodland Period is the domestication of certain crops. 

The most important crop in the Northeast in the Late Woodland period seems to 

be maize, or corn.21 Early cornfields have been documented along Fish Creek.22

 

Pit features have also been found at some of the Late Woodland sites, indicating 

grain storage.23

CONCLUSION 

This section of the chapter presents a very brief summary of the prehistory for 

the northeastern United States and more specifically for the Saratoga area. The 

exact impact of pre-historical events on the cultural landscape of Victory Woods 

was unknown until the recent (May 2006) archeological investigations. The 

excavations revealed a site rich in pre-contact artifacts indicating long term use of 

the area. The artifacts underscore the geographical importance of the setting of 

the Victory Woods parcel. The site is a relatively flat area, set close to, but above 

the confluence of Fish Creek and the Hudson River. With the ease of travel to 

the north, south, east and west, the area has a long history of human use. 

Thousands of years later, General Burgoyne would recognize these same 

attributes. 

Endnotes 

 

1

 Johnson, Eric S. Archeological Overview and Assessment of the Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. Amherst, MA: 

The University of Massachusetts Archaeological Services, 1997, 15. 2

 Johnson, 15. 

3

 Johnson, 15. 

4

 Skidmore College, Archaeological Sites of Saratoga Lake, Fish Creek, and Vicinity, Skidmore Archaeological Survey.

Reprinted courtesy of Saratoga Springs Urban Heritage Area, 1999. 

5

 Johnson, 15. 

6

 Johnson, 16. 

7

 Johnson, 16. 

8

 Johnson, 16. 

9

 Johnson, 16. 

10 Johnson, 16. 

11 Johnson, 16. 

12 Johnson, 17. 

13 Ritchie, William. The Archeology of New York State. Harrison, New York: Harbor Hill Books, 1980, 134. 14 Ritchie, 136. 

15 Johnson, 17. 

16 Johnson, 17. 

17 Johnson, 17. 

18 Johnson, 17. 

19 Johnson, 18. 

20 Johnson, 18. 

21 Johnson, 18. 

22 Skidmore College. 

23 Johnson, 18. 
17 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.1: Projectile points (1-24); stemmed end scrapers (25, 26); strike-a-light (27); chopper (28); and knives (29-33) of the Snook Kill 

phase from the Weir site, Rensselaer Co., NY. Collection of James H. Zell, Albany, NY (The Archeology of New York State, William Ritchie).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 18 

CONTACT, 1609-1683 

The influence of the Native Americans had a profound effect upon the evolution 

of Northeastern New York and in particular the Hudson River corridor. The 

contribution of these peoples remain in the form of trails, place names, 

agricultural practices and products, customs, resource awareness, and wonderful 

oral histories. An understanding of these peoples elucidates the significance of 

the dynamic “Old Saratoga.” 

The name Saratoga was applied to the hunting grounds used by the native 

peoples that extended on both side of the Hudson River. There have been many 

traditions regarding the meaning of the word but “place of herrings” seems most 

fitting due to the large amounts of those fish found in the river and its tributaries.1

 

The tribe of origin that used and or occupied this part of Saratoga County was the 

Algonquian-speaking Mohicans. This tribe is not to be confused with the coastal 

Connecticut Mohegans, who are not related but have been mistaken over the 

years because of differences in translations, and similarity of names. “Mohican, 

Mahican, Mahiecan, Maykan, Muhheakunn, Moheakun” have all been 

appropriate derivations for these eastern Mohawk Valley and upper Hudson area 

Native Americans.2

 Oral history, memorized and passed down through the 

generations preserved the knowledge and history of the Native American tribes 

in North America. Hendrick Aupaumut, a Mohican historian missionary 

schooled in Stockbridge, Massachusetts in the 1740s, wrote the following account 

of his ancestors.3

 It provides insight into how the Mohicans came to inhabit this 

area: 

The etymology of the work Muhheakunnuk, according to 

original signifying, is great waters or sea, which are constantly in 

motion, either flowing or ebbing. Our forefathers asserted, that 

their ancestors were emigrated from west by north of another 

country, they passed over the great water, where this and the 

other country is nearly connected, called Ukhkokpeck; it 

signifies snake, or water where snakes abounded; that lived by 

side of great water or sea, from whence they drive, the name of 

Muhheakunnuk nation. We understand that they were more 

civilized than what Indians are now in the wilderness; as it was 

said that they lived in towns, and were very numerous, until 

there arose a mighty famine which obliged them to disperse 

throughout the regions of the wilderness after sustenance, and 

at length lost their ways of former living, and apostatized. As 

they were coming from the west they found many great waters, 

but none of them flowing and ebbing like Muhheakunnuk until 

they came to Hudson’s river’ then they said to one another, this 

is like Muhheakunnuk our nativity. And when they found grain 

was very plenty in that country they agreed to kindle fire there 
SITE HISTORY

 19 

and hang a kettle, whereof they and their children might dip out 

their daily refreshment.4

Today the official designation for this tribe is the “Stockbridge-Munsee Band of 

the Mohican Indians.”5

 In the 1660s the English colonial authorities referred to 

the Mahican and other Algonquian-speaking Native Americans residing on the 

Hudson River as River Indians.6

 It was the Mahican interactions with the 

Europeans that effected the change in relationship with the neighboring 

Mohawks or Maquas, part of the Iroquois nation, consequently resulting in 

Mohawk use of this territory. 

The year 1609, marked by the simultaneous explorations of Samuel de Champlain 

and Henry Hudson (the English commander of a Dutch ship), was to forever 

change the way of life for the Native Americans. In July, Champlain, who 

founded Québec in the previous year, explored an inland sea with 60 native 

Algonquin warriors, when they encountered a “party of two hundred Iroquois 

painted and plumed for war” in the vicinity of Ticonderoga.7

 A battle ultimately 

ensued, with the Iroquois losing, fostering a hatred for these invaders. Years later, 

the Iroquois would avenge this loss. Henry Hudson, an Englishman and 

commander of a Dutch ship, entered New York Harbor in September hoping to 

find a passage to the East Indies.8

 He explored the river as far north as Troy and 

possibly Cohoes and claimed the country in the name of Holland.9

 Hudson saw a 

land of abundance and came across some friendly Native peoples. He went on to 

describe the Mohican people and their villages, often referred to as “castles, and 

prepared the way for Dutch trade and settlement.”10 Their palisaded villages were 

established near rivers and creeks, usually on hilltops consisting of thirteen to 

sixteen bark covered longhouses.11

 

With an average of 200 individuals per Mohican village, moving was done every 8 

to 12 years due to the loss of fertile soil and shortage of firewood.12 The Mohicans 

were successful cultivators, with maize, beans, pumpkins, squash, and tobacco 

being their subsistence crops.13 Some of that success can be attributed to their 

practice of “brush burning”, where each fall the meadows and forests would be 

burned."14 Mohican associations with this time period have been recovered from 

an area along Fish Creek known as the “Lewandownski-Winney’s Rift site.”15

 

Subsequent traders made their way back to these territories and in 1613, the first 

treaty for a trading post with the Dutch was established.16 A year later Fort Nassau 

was built. With the construction of the fort, it did not take long for the fur trade 

to become profitable, but the implications on the culture and well being of the 

Mohican society was tremendous. A number of Dutch merchants and shipowners were given an exclusive right to trade in America and assumed the name 

The United New Netherlands Company. In 1623 the rights were transferred to 

the West Indian Company and at the same time Fort Orange was built and the 

area it protected became a Dutch settlement. The Dutch and the Mohicans had a 

mutual respect for one another and few conflicts arose. In particular, the Van 

Rensselaers, a prominent early Dutch family, pursued policies of appeasement 

with the Indians and set the stage for future actions. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 20 

The Dutch and the English had different concepts of land ownership. The 

English believed “all titles to colonial land resided in the King, and that natives 

living on the land had no rights to any part that was not actually under 

cultivation, and then only if they had a grant from the King of England.”17 In 

contrast, the Dutch did acknowledge that the Native Americans were the rightful 

proprietors of the land. This policy affected the nature of their transactions but it 

did not alter their desire to occupy the native’s territory.18 The relationships 

among the Dutch, English and Native Americans would later prove a challenge, 

particularly in association with trade routes, land transactions, and future wars. 

Descriptions of Mohican territory relate that it extended from Lake Champlain 

to Dutchess County to Schoharie Creek to Vermont, including the Old Saratoga 

area (Figures 1.2 and 1.3).19 This territory served as somewhat of a buffer between 

the eastern tribes and that of the Mohawk-Iroquois. The Mohawks, known as 

Ga-ne-a-ga-o-no, which means “people possessors of the flint,” came south to 

the area just before the European exploration.20 As the trade industry flourished, 

hostilities between the Mohicans and Mohawks escalated to a period of war from 

1625 to 1628, with the Mohawks having the successful outcome. This resulted in 

the loss of a vast amount of Mohican land vanquished to the Mohawks, which 

predominately was on the west side of the Hudson River, and most likely 

settlements along Fish Creek.21 The Mohawks now had hunting and fishing 

access to these formerly un-permitted lands. This overlap of Mohawk presence 

on Mohican land could pose difficulties for archaeological assessments of 

seventeenth-century village sites and hunting and fishing locations.22

 

During the 1630s there was more loss of Mohican land due to the transfer of 

territory to the Dutch. Kiliaen Van Rensselaer, a wealthy diamond merchant 

from Amsterdam, on 1 October 1630, formed the company which resulted in the 

settlement of the “Colonie of Rensselaerwyck”and became the first patroon, 

benefiting from his transactions with the Mohicans.23 In a short period of time, 

the Mohicans became economically dependent upon the Dutch, lost much of 

their land, and lost many members to disease, mostly smallpox, influenza, 

diphtheria, measles, and yellow-fever.24 Their favorite Dutch products were wool 

cloth, shirts, and knitted stockings, iron hatchets, alcohol, kettles, and guns 

beginning around 1640.25 On the other hand they were able to survive as a nation 

on their territory, because of the cooperation they exhibited with Dutch requests 

for this land.26

 

In 1642, “After having become possessed of fire-arms and practiced in their use,” 

the Mohawks and Oneidas decided it was time for revenge against the French 

and Algonquins for the defeat by Samuel de Champlain years earlier.27 Their raids 

into New France (Canada), which resulted in the capture of Father Isaac Jogues, 

a Jesuit missionary, and two assistants, traversed close to the Old Saratoga area. 

Father Jogues has been credited with being the first European to see Lake George 

and four years later named it Lac du Saint-Sacrement (Lake of the Blessed 

Sacrament).28 This event provides an example of the movement of the various 

groups that passed through this area by way of the network of trails that had long 

been established by the Native Americans. The Mohawks had at least five routes 
SITE HISTORY

 21 

to Montréal, the favorite was by Lakes George and Champlain, crossing the 

Hudson River near Glens Falls. Another route was by the Fulton Chain, 

Raquette and Long Lake and the Raquette River.29 The Saratoga Trail began in 

the Champlain Valley, went through Whitehall and on to Fort Edward and then 

to Schuylerville, traversed Fish Creek to Saratoga Lake, then proceeded up the 

Kayaderosseras tributary to the Mourningkill, over a carry to Ballston Lake, over 

another carry into Eelplace (or Alplaus), and finally to the Mohawk River.30 The 

Kayaderosseras Trail began at Ticonderoga, through to Lake George, went over 

land, passing close to Glens Falls, and then proceeding through the towns of 

Moreau and Wilton then veering west through a “pass south of Mt. McGregor at 

Stile’s Tavern, over near Lake Desolation, southwest through Galway.” 31

The desire for control of the trade routes and acquisition of the land of the 

Native American tribes resulted in numerous conflicts. French, English, and 

Dutch perpetuated the war in an effort to gain control of trade routes and acquire 

additional land. “The French allies of the Algonquins and the English allies of the 

Iroquois took up and continued the long quarrel” for the possession of Northern 

New York.32 In 1664, Charles II granted to the Duke of York the lands between 

the Connecticut River and Delaware Bay. In that same year the English took over 

New Netherland and renamed it New York. The area known as Beverwyck, 

which included the site of Fort Orange, was changed to Albany. The quest for 

more land and the removal of the native residents was continued. 

Another event that brought troops and Native Americans through the Saratoga 

area was the War of 1666, often referred to as the Northern Invasion.33 The 

expedition of the French Governor, Daniel de Remi [sic], Sieur de Courcelle and 

the Marquis de Tracy, Lieutenant General of New France (Canada), had the 

intention of retribution against the Iroquois, who were a constant threat, 

attacking settlers and often taking some into captivity.34 This expeditionary force 

of “six hundred regulars of the regiment Carignan-Salieres, six hundred 

Canadian militia, and a hundred Christian Indians from the missions” came by 

way of the Saratoga Trail.35 This difficult journey during the middle of winter, 

brought them close to the Victory Woods site as they journeyed westward up 

Fish Creek to Saratoga Lake. At one point near Lake Desolation (close to present 

day Saratoga Springs), the French troops almost starved for lack of provisions.36

 

This expedition claimed the country of the Mohawks in the name of France, and 

in so doing was able to avenge the death of an officer named Chazy.37 For more 

than twenty years thereafter a comparative peace prevailed in the region while 

traders and settlers moved north and south using both the Saratoga and 

Kayaderosseras Trails. 

One of the noteworthy friends of the Mohican Indian nation was Jeremias Van 

Rensselaer. In 1671 he tried to attain a lasting peace between the Mohawks and 

Mohicans. His death in 1674 was grieved by the Mohicans and relations were to 

change because he would no longer be there to represent the native nations. 

Without him the Mohicans feared that they would lose their land to the 

Mohawks. At this time, the Mohicans were becoming decimated by war, disease, 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 22 

and other factors, hence they began intermingling with the Wappinger and 

Housatonic Indians.38

 

Yet another war, in a series of wars, known as King Philip’s War from 1675 to 

1676, involved the Mohawks siding with the English against King Philip of 

Pocanokett, a Wampanoag chief. War again brought these groups of people 

through the Saratoga area. The defeat of King Philip resulted in the dislocation of 

some of the Wampanoag and Narragansett refugees to Schaghticoke, at the 

urging of Governor Andros.39 They were later collectively referred to as the 

Schaghticoke Indians, serving as a buffer community, and some remaining in the 

area until after the Revolution. 

During the 1670s and 1680s large tracts of land were sold by these Native tribes, 

bringing dynamic changes to northern New York. The Mohicans had a 

continuing need and dependence for manufactured products during the various 

wars with the Mohawks and other Indian Nations. The sale of lands provided a 

quick way to obtain these products but with the loss of land came a loss to their 

former way of life. The purchase of these lands became known as land grants or 

patents with some of the most important being the Saratoga and Kayaderosseras 

patents.40 

CONCLUSION 

While there is little documentation from the contact period of 1609 to 1683, it is 

clear that the Victory Woods parcel was located by two major transportation 

corridors, the Hudson River to the north and south and the Saratoga Trail to the 

east and west. Settlement in the vicinity of the Victory Woods parcel would have 

been difficult during this period because of the series of wars to claim this 

territory. The Hudson River area was heavily contested during this time, and the 

Mohicans gave up or sold most of their land along the river. Native American 

ownership of much of the Saratoga area ceased in 1683, when the Mohawks sold 

land that they had claimed from the Mohicans to a group of Dutch colonists as 

part of the Saratoga Patent. 

 

Endnotes 

 

1

 Brandow, John Henry, The Story of Old Saratoga and History of Schuyerville. Saratoga Springs, New York, Robson & 

Adee, 1901, 7. 

2

 Dunn, Shirley W. The Mohicans and Their Land 1609-1730. Fleischmanns, New York: Purple Mountain Press, 1994, 8. 3

 Dunn, 36. 

4

 Dunn, 37. 

5

 Dunn, 8. 

6

 Sturtevant, William C., Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 

1978, 204. 

7

 Brandow, 1919, 1. 

8

 Brandow, 1919, 2. 

9

 Brandow, 1919, 2. 

10 Johnson, Eric S., Archeological Overview and Assessment of the Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. Amherst, 

MA: The University of Massachusetts Archaeological Services, 1997, 19. 
SITE HISTORY

 23 

 11 Sturtevant, 198. 

12 Sturtevant, 198-199. 

13 Dunn, 225. 

14 Dunn, 225. 

15 Johnson, 19. 

16 Sturtevant, 202. 

17 Dunn, 129. 

18 Dunn, 130. 

19 Sturtevant,198. 

20 Sylvester, Nathaniel Bartlett, History of Saratoga County, New York with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Some of 

Its Men and Pioneers. Philadelphia: Everts & Ensign, 1878 (reprint – Heart of the Lakes Publishing, Interlaken, NY 14847, 

1979, 21. 

21 Johnson, 19. 22 Dunn 112. 

23 Sylvester, 27. 

24 Calloway, Colin G., Western Abenakis of Vermont, 1600-1800, War, Migration, and the Survival of an Indian People.

University of Oklahoma Press, 1990. 

25 Dunn,243. 

26 Dunn, 172. 

27 Brandow, 1919, 3. 

28 Brandow, 1919, 3. 

29 Carson, Russell, M.L., Peaks and People of the Adirondacks. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Page, and Co., 1927. 30 Brandow, 1919,. 8 

31 Brandow, 1919, 8 

32 Sylvester, 26. 

33 Sylvester, 32. 

34 Sylvester, 32 and Brandow, 1919. 

35 Sylvester, 33. 

36 Sylvester, 33. 

37 Sylvester, 33. 

38 Dunn, 232-233. 

39 Dunn, 150. 

40 Sylvester, 73. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

24

Figure 1.2: Map of Mahican confederacy land, which includes the Saratoga area (From William C. Sturtevant, 

Handbook of North American Indians, p. 198). 
25 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.3: Detail of c. 1656 map of New Netherland shows American Indian communities on the Roelof 

Jansen Kill (today at the border of Columbia and Dutchess Counties) as well as a Dutch location titled d’ 

Oude Ree, or “Old Anchorage,” south of Fort Orange (Albany). Henry Hudson advanced up the river to 

about this point (From Shirley Dunn, The Mohicans and Their Land 1960-1730, Source: New York State 

Library, Manuscripts and Special Collections).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 26 

COLONIAL, 1683-1776 

Significant changes occurred during this period marked by the acquisition and 

settlement of lands by the European colonists, the loss of Native American lands 

and their people and the continuation of conflicts and wars. The events, that 

were to change the face of this part of northern New York State, were brought 

about with the sale of former Mohican territory by the Mohawks. One of these 

sales involved land that encompasses much of eastern Saratoga County and parts 

of Washington County, north of Schaghticoke, and is known as the Saratoga 

Patent. This patent consisted of a tract of land 22-miles long and 12 miles wide, 

bisected by the Hudson River, totaling 170,000 acres and begins in the south at 

the Anthony Kill, and extends north to a point opposite Fort Miller, at the mouth 

of the Battenkill.1

 The Victory Woods site is located within this patent, in Lot 5 of 

the original subdivision or “old divided lands” not to be confused with the later 

Great Lotts [sic] laid out in 1750. (Figure 1.4) 

The transaction for the title to the land known as the Saratoga Patent took place 

on 26 July 1683, between the Mohawks and the Dutch (colonists) in the presence 

of a few Mohicans hoping for a portion of the proceeds (Nisis Campe; Knaep, a 

sachem (chief); Keshuckamak; and Soquans, a sachem at Schaghticoke, as a 

witness).2

 A memorandum added to the deed makes it clear that the land 

belonged to the Mohicans before the Mohawks had fought and won it (see 

Appendix B for the title abstract). It was purchased by a group of Dutch 

(colonists) from the Albany area, namely Peter Philip Schuyler, Cornelis van 

Dyke, Jan Janse Bleeker, and Johannes Wendel.3

 

Governor Thomas Dongan, granted a patent for this tract, 4 November 1684, for 

which they were to pay an annual rental to the crown of twenty bushels of wheat.4

 

On 15 April, 1685, there were Articles of Agreement for division of arable land at 

Saratoga between Peter Schuyler, Jan Janse Bleeker, Dirck Wessels, Johannes 

Wendel, Robert Livingston, David Schuyler, and Cornelis van Dyke.5

 On 29 

October, 1708, Lord Cornbury “re-issued” a warrant for the Saratoga Patent to 

Colonel Peter Schuyler, Jan Jans Bleeker Esq., Johannes Schuyler Esq., (in place 

of Johannes Wendel whose son Abraham sold it to him in 1702), Cornelis Van 

Dyke, the grandchild and heir-at-law of Cornelis Van Dyke, deceased, Dirck 

Wessels Esq., and Robert Livingston Esq.6

 In 1750 there was a partition and 

division of the Saratoga lands. The survey was done by John R. Bleecker who 

subdivided it into Great Lotts from the river to the outer lands, not including the 

already divided section of seven lots. Numbers were pulled out of a hat by the 

children of the seven owners and each received an equal share in the patent.7

 

Further changes took place with this patent after the death of Robert Livingston 

and a subdivision of his land was drawn up in 1767. Robert Livingston was the 

owner of Lot 5 of the undivided lands which contained the Victory Woods parcel 

as well as the land on which Schuylerville and Victory Mills were later built. 
SITE HISTORY

 27 

The year 1684 brought about the sale of the land later known as the Hoosick 

Patent. It was sold by the Mohicans to descendants of their old Dutch allies, 

Egbert Teunisse, Hendrick Van Ness, Jacobus Van Cortland, and Maria Van 

Rensselaer, wife of Jeremias Van Rensselaer.8

 Another large patent was granted 

by Governor Fletcher for half of Warren and Washington counties to Dellius 

Smith in 1696. In 1703 the Indian deed for the Kayaderosseras Patent was 

obtained of the Mohawk chief but the patent was not granted until 1708. 

Ownership was disputed for over sixty years as it was not until 1768 that the 

Mohawks acknowledged the title of the Mohicans at Schaghticoke to lands east 

of their bounds.9

 According to historian Nathaniel Sylvester, this patent was 

probably the largest and most important land grant made in colonial times, which 

included the greater part of Saratoga County.10 Many other grants for patents 

were issued during this time period and can be seen on the Sauthier map (Figure 

1.5). 

Once the sales were complete, settlement was encouraged by the land owners. By 

1689, a small fort and seven farms, of mostly French Huguenot refugees, occupied 

Saratoga.11 Threats from the Native Americans created unstable living conditions 

this far north into the wilderness. It was reported by September 1669, that three 

people were killed by Canadian Indians at Bartel Vroman’s.12 In response to these 

fatalities the Albany Council voted to protect this small settlement by means of a 

blockhouse13 or fort and a small garrison of men, which included some 

Schaghticoke Indians.14 This fort was called Fort Vroman [Vrooman], and was 

most likely situated along the Hudson River, south of the present day Schuyler 

House. The heights of Saratoga may have been an advantageous location for 

observation and or safety for some of those early settlers. 

With unsafe conditions, the Saratoga settlement was most likely abandoned 

during the winter of 1689 to 1690 and the farms were later destroyed, as a result of 

the invasion of Montreal and beginning of King William’s War.15 This invasion 

brought through this area an expedition of fifteen hundred Iroquois warriors 

who were assembled to attack the French in New France (Canada).16 On their 

journey from their home territory they came by way of the Saratoga Trail. This 

large invading force, with their numerous canoes, crossed Saratoga Lake and 

then traversed Fish Creek.17 Near the location of the present Village of Victory, 

they had to portage their canoes down to the Hudson River and proceeded 

north.18 Once in New France (Canada) this expedition destroyed villages and 

pillaged settlements over an area of nine miles.19 Recorded as one of the most 

horrendous events in Canadian history, this event brought England and France 

to war.20 Governor Denonville of New France (Canada) was removed from his 

position and Count [Comte] de Frontenac became his successor.21

 

After an incident such as this, retaliation was imminent. It came against the 

Iroquois and the English as Frontenac and his forces, made their way south on 

snowshoes and from what is now Schuylerville, took the Saratoga Trail to 

Schenectady.22 On 8 February 1690, they decimated the settlement at Schenectady 

killing sixty men, women, and children, including Hendrick Meese Vrooman and 

his son Bartel Vrooman.23 The French and Indians then withdrew, laden with 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 28 

spoils and twenty-seven prisoners and began their journey back to New 

France(Canada) by way of the Kayaderosseras Trail.24

 

Plans were made by several of the colonies to avenge the French. On 1 May 1690, 

the first American Congress was held in the fort at New York and it concluded 

that an attack should be made by the army by way of Lake Champlain to 

Montreal.25 The army expedition was led by Major General Fitz John Winthrop 

of Connecticut. They started from Albany and made their way north and on 2 

August Winthrop recorded that they quartered at Saratoga where there was a 

blockhouse and some Dutch soldiers.26 The strategic location of Saratoga was 

also used as a supply depot by Winthrop, and by subsequent expeditions.27 The 

army advanced not much farther than Whitehall where they encountered many 

problems including smallpox and it was decided to return to Albany. Johannes 

Schuyler, twenty-three years old at the time, was not satisfied with this failure and 

appealed to Winthrop to continue with the plan to attack. He was commissioned 

as a captain and proceeded to penetrate New France (Canada) with his volunteer 

army.28 On 13 August they made a surprise attack on the inhabitants south of 

Montreal where they inflicted casualties, damaged property, and took prisoners.29 

This small force returned to Albany by the end of August. 

The success of this expedition prompted another the following year led by Peter 

Schuyler, Johannes’s brother. Peter followed the same path and recorded that 

they camped at Saratoga at the end of June and 1 August, 1691, they won the 

battles, “the most obstinate ever fought in Canada,” the “French admitted in their 

report to the home government.”30 The most significant outcome of the Schuyler 

attacks was maintaining the trust of the Iroquois when good relations were 

critical to “England’s hold on New York.”31 Apparently Peter Schuyler was not 

accordingly acknowledged for his feats by the governing bodies of the colony. 

Conversely the French and Indians held him a place of respect. The vengeance 

among the French was so determined they attacked the Mohawks, burning their 

castles (fortified villages) in 1693. King William’s War finally came to a close with 

the Peace of Ryswick on 10 September 1697.32

 

Johannes Schuyler, and most likely the other patentees, wasted no time in getting 

settlers to come back to the area as there is evidence of settlement in 1703. This is 

supported by Lord Cornbury’s acknowledgement and his suggestion of 

protection by a fort.33 Another war, referred to as Queen Anne’s War began in 

Europe in 1709 and extended to the colonies.34 As war was most likely 

forthcoming to the area, Fort Saratoga was built in 1709 by Peter Schuyler on his 

land, on the heights east of the river and south of the Batten Kill, and a stockade 

fort was built in Schaghticoke.35 There has been some confusion about the name 

Saratoga for a particular fort as the later one on the western side of the Hudson 

was also referred to as Saratoga. Fort Nicholson, later known as Fort Edward, 

and Fort Ann, were also constructed as part of a large plan for taking control of 

New France (Canada).36 Saratoga’s strategic location made it ideal for a supply 

depot for the invading armies. Different campaigns were organized against New 

France (Canada) but none were successful. As a result, Fort Anne and Fort 
SITE HISTORY

 29 

Nicholson, were burned making the fort at Saratoga the most northerly post.37 

Queen Anne’s War was officially terminated by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.38

 

The period after the war was a time of relative peace and the owners of the 

Saratoga Patent, especially the Schuylers, continued to encourage development 

of their lands. They retained ownership and oversight but provided leases to the 

many interested settlers who began clearing land. The Schuylers took advantage 

of the water power and constructed saw mills and grist mills and homes. 

Transportation was a consideration for this part of the colony as evidenced by 

the Legislature’s actions of 1721, which appointed the first road commissioners for 

the district of Saratoga: Robert Livingston Jr., Col. Johannes Schuyler and Major 

Abraham Schuyler.39 This was probably not happenstance as a crisis loomed in 

that same year and it was decided that a fort had to be built at Saratoga, 

presumably on the west side of the Hudson River and close to the settlement 

there. It was Johannes Schuyler that furnished much of the material for its 

construction courtesy of his mills.40 The fort was built or rebuilt again in 1739 and 

1744 or 45, with the life expectancy of such being five to seven years.41

 

Johannes Schuyler erected a brick house pierced with loopholes around 1720 on 

his property located south of Fish Creek. Presently this house site is included 

within the legislative boundary of Saratoga National Historical. Johannes 

Schuyler later deeded the property to his two sons, Philip and John (General 

Schuyler’s father), except for the grist mill which he initially kept for himself.42

 

Philip Schuyler, the son of Johannes, took up residence here and oversaw the 

operation of the farm and mills. 

With a more peaceful existence between the Native Americans and the colonists, 

there were many land sales between 1730 and 1742, including large tracts in 

Washington County and western Vermont. The French and the British were still 

at odds and vying for land. The desire for domination by the French saw the 

construction of Fort St. Frédéric (Crown Point was later built next to the ruins of 

the Fort) in 1734, giving them the command of Lake Champlain. The English in 

their same attempt at domination tried to establish settlements between Lake 

Champlain and Saratoga. Colonel Laughlin Campbell of Scotland, visited present 

day Washington County in 1737, resolving to found a settlement in the area that 

became known as the Argyle Patent.43 There were many problems associated with 

this patent and it is not until the early 1760s that the Scottish immigrants actually 

settle these lands. 

The period of 1744 to 1748 was consumed with fear of the French soldiers and 

their Indian allies from New France (Canada), as war was declared between 

France and England. Those fears were not unfounded as numerous raids took 

place. One of those raids was aimed at the settlement of Saratoga with 

devastating consequences, and afterward referred to as the Saratoga Massacre of 

1745. The settlement consisted of thirty one houses and two forts, presumably 

one on each side of the river.44 The fort on the west side of the river was not 

garrisoned at the time of the attack and consequently Saratoga was destroyed 28 

November.45 Thirty people were killed along with Philip Schuyler, son of 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 30 

Johannes and Uncle to Philip John Schuyler (General), while defending his home. 

Over 100 men, women and children, black and white, were taken prisoners and 

only one family managed to escape.46 The journal (found in the archives of 

Quebec and later given to Col. Philip Schuyler) of M. Beauvais, a member of the 

expedition from New France (Canada) that attacked Saratoga, recorded in his 

journal an account of the proceedings: 

We passed a very rapid river, [Fish Creek] for which we were 

not prepared, and came to a saw-mill, which two men were 

running, and in which there was a large fire... Coming out of the 

mill, we went to the house of a man named Philip Schuyler, a 

brave man, who would not have been seriously incommoded if 

he had only had a dozen men as valiant as himself. M. Beauvais, 

who knew and liked him, entered the house first, and, giving his 

name, asked him to give himself up, saying that no harm would 

be done him. The other replied that he was a dog and that he 

would kill him. In fact, he fired his gun... Beauvais, being 

exposed to his fire shot and killed him. We immediately entered 

and all was pillaged. This house was of brick, pierced with loopholes to the ground floor. The Indians had told us that it was a 

sort of guard-house where there were soldiers. In fact, I found 

there twenty-five pounds or more of powder, but no soldiers. 

We made some servants prisoners, and it was said that some 

people were burned who had taken refuge in the cellar. We 

burned no more houses before reaching the fort as this was the 

last. We had captured everybody, and had no longer any cause 

to fear lest anyone should go and warn the fort of our approach. 

It was at quite a considerable distance from the houses where 

we had been. We admired its construction. It was regularly 

built, and some thought one hundred men would have been able 

to defend it against 500. I asked M. Marin if he wished to place 

a detachment there? He replied that he was going to set fire to 

it, and told me I might go and do my best... We set fire to 

everything good and useful; ...more than 10,000 planks and 

joists, four fine mills, and all the barns and stables, some of 

which were filled with animals. The people who were in the 

field were in great part killed by French and Indians... The 

number of prisoners amounted to 109, and about a dozen were 

killed and burned in the houses. Our achievement would have 

been much more widely known and glorious, if all the 

merchants of Saratoga had not left their country houses, and 

gone to spend the winter at Albany; and, I may add, had we met 

with more resistance.47 

The fort at Saratoga, located south of Fish Creek, was rebuilt, larger than the old 

one, by the British in 1746 and named Fort Clinton after the governor.48 It was 

subjected to numerous attacks and scouting parties led by the French and Indians 
SITE HISTORY

 31 

including one in December 1746 where the historian John Brandow, believes they 

made observations of the fort from high ground near the present day Village of 

Victory.49 The French, along with 200 Indians, under the command of La Corne 

St. Luc [Luc de la Corne], attacked Fort Clinton in June 1747.50 Even with the 

cannon of the fort the British suffered heavy losses and were not able to stop the 

invaders. After this disaster, by order of the Governor, Fort Clinton was 

dismantled and burned by the British on 6 October 1747.51 King George’s War 

officially was over with a peace treaty signed in May 1748 at Aix-la-Chapelle.52

With no fort for protection settlement was probably limited. A picture of what 

Saratoga was like can be ascertained from the records of Peter Kalm, a Swedish 

naturalist, on his journey up the Hudson in 1749. 

The country is flat on both sides of the river near Saratoga, and its 

sod good. The wood round about was generally cut down... 

Further on we met still with inhabitants; but they had no houses, 

and lived in huts of boards, the houses being built burnt during the 

war.53

 

There was a period of rebuilding during this time of relative peace until 1754, 

when war broke out again with the French and Native allies. Once again Saratoga 

saw thousands of soldiers and supply trains that traversed the great war path. 

Fort Lyman, renamed Fort Edward, was built on the ruins of Fort Nicholson. 

Fort Miller was constructed, along with a military road to Lake George on the 

east side of the Hudson River by Colonel Miller. During the summer of 1756, 

Colonel Seth Winslow and six thousand troops built Fort Winslow in Stillwater 

on the site of the former Fort Ingoldsby.54 

At Saratoga construction of Fort Hardy began on 19 August 1757 under the 

direction of Colonel James Montressor, chief of the British Corps of Engineers.55

 

It was not a vulnerable fort because there were hills on either side making it a 

good target for cannon fire; one of those hills being the Victory Woods site 

(Figures 1.6 and 1.7). Prior to its construction there was a much smaller fort or 

blockhouse located in the same angle of Fish Creek and the Hudson River that is 

recorded on Montressor’s Sketch of Fish Creek.56 There was also a sawmill on 

the north side of the creek, closer to Victory Woods, but it had been torn down 

by provincial soldiers, making it difficult to accomplish the construction. Timber 

for the fort was taken from the mainland and islands in the Hudson and stone 

was procured from the nearby hills.57 The fort encompassed about 15 acres with 

two ranges of soldier barracks that measured 220 feet long, three storehouses, 

and officers’ quarters 14 by 16 feet in size.58 Fort Hardy was decommissioned and 

dismantled by the British in 1770 but parts of it must have remained as the site was 

again used in the Revolutionary War. 

Other local actions included Abercrombie’s expedition, with 16,000 men and an 

enormous supply train that passed through Saratoga, and his defeat against 

Montcalm in 1758 at Fort Carillon. Philip John Schuyler, the later General, was 

commissioned a captain in the Provincial Forces in 1755 and had participated in 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 32 

this expedition. Many soldiers later died from their injuries and were buried in 

Fort Edward but also in unmarked graves at Saratoga.59 General Amherst’s 

victory at Carillon, including the building of Crown Point and Wolfe’s conquest 

of Quebec took place in 1759. 

In 1763, the French and Indian War had ended, Great Britain controlled New 

France (Canada), and Philip John Schuyler began developing his Saratoga 

enterprises. No longer threatened by the war, Schuyler led the development of 

the Saratoga area. Settlement that was thwarted until this time now began in 

earnest. Schuyler had inherited his uncle’s land as well as one third of his 

grandfather Johannes’ and his father John’s land in the Saratoga Patent and began 

the construction of his Saratoga estate. Schuyler commenced work on his 

Saratoga house and rebuilt the mills as well as constructed a new grist mill on the 

north side of Fish Creek, which later became the site of the Bullard mills (in 

present day Schuylerville).60 He also constructed the Dutch Reformed Church on 

his land close to the corner of present-day Evans Road and U.S. Route 4, and in 

1765, established a store that sold staples and agricultural supplies.61 In 1767 

Schuyler erected flax mills on his property.62 In 1768, Schuyler purchased roughly 

four thousand acres of land situated north of Fish Creek, from the heirs of Robert 

Livingston. This would include the area later to become the present day Village 

of Victory. At some point a mill was built in the area by Schuyler, known as his 

upper saw mill. This was the mill that escaped being burned by the British after 

the Battles of Saratoga. 

Schuyler enticed others to settle on his lands, as did other patentees. With New 

England running out of land, inducement to settle this part of New York was not 

difficult. Many of those that did come, mostly from the New England colonies, 

had fought in the French and Indian War and had become familiar with the area. 

Religious persecution was also an incentive to find new homes and to start new 

churches. The Society of Friends established a meeting in present day Easton as 

early as 1773, and brought many members with them. 

Philip Schuyler set out to develop an extensive colony or manor with the labor of 

his slaves and many hired men. Barracks were constructed to house laborers and 

artisans of all types. These people were engaged at the mills and fisheries in the 

summer months when the fish swam up the Hudson and into tributaries for 

spawning. “Local tradition says that farmers used to drive into Fish Creek and 

with a dip or scoop-net literally load their wagons with shad and herring.”63 A 

lucrative trade was established with cities like New York and also the West 

Indies. Schuyler had a schooner and three sloops for the transportation of his 

goods. The raising and processing of flax and subsequent linen for weaving was 

also a very successful endeavor. 

As with his predecessors, Philip Schuyler did not sell his land but leased it out. 

Charles Carroll, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, visited 

Schuyler in 1776 and gave this description: 
SITE HISTORY

 33 

I was informed by the General that it is customary for the great 

Proprietaries of land to lease them out for three lives, on fee farm 

rents, reserving by way of rent a fourth or more commonly a tenth 

of all the produce. On every transmutation of property from one 

tenant to another, a quarter part of what the land sells for is 

sometimes paid to the original Proprietary, or Lord of the 

Manor.64

 

There was rapid settlement from 1763 up to the start of the Revolutionary War. 

The 1779 tax lists, one done in March and one in October, for the District of 

Saratoga gives such evidence. Some loyalists left the area after 1779 while most 

departed a short time before the Battles of Saratoga. There were 567 taxpayers 

and 125 loyalist claims to land filed with the British Army. People were not 

moving to this area between the start of the war and 1779. Looking at the local 

regiment that mustered in the Revolutionary War, the list of the 13th Albany 

County Militia also gives a good indication on the number of people that were in 

this locale. By the time that the war broke out this land could no longer by 

characterized as a wilderness. 

CONCLUSION 

During the period from the acquisition of the Saratoga Patent in 1683 to the 

outbreak of the Revolutionary War in 1775, the landscape that includes the 

Victory Woods parcel changed dramatically as the Dutch and British settled in 

the area and established farms within each patent. They cleared the flat areas for 

crops and the hills for grazing and constructed sawmills and gristmills. The 

details, however, of historical events and land use activities from this period on 

the cultural landscape of Victory Woods are vague. With its location by the 

Hudson River and Saratoga Trail, the area continued to be both strategically 

important and difficult to settle due to a series of wars and raids. In an effort to 

prevent French and Indian attacks, a series of forts were built in the area, 

including Fort Vroman [Vrooman] in the 1670s near the site of the present 

Schuyler house and Fort Saratoga in 1709 on the east side of the Hudson River 

and south of the Batten Kill. Indicative of the ongoing land ownership disputes, 

the British built Fort Clinton in 1746 on the site of an earlier fort south of Fish 

Creek, but a year later destroyed the fort. Similarly, the British constructed Fort 

Hardy in 1757 on the north bank of Fish Creek by the Hudson River, but 

decommissioned the fort in 1770. 

Within the first division of the Saratoga Patent, Lot 5, which included Victory 

Woods, apparently contained scattered development prior to 1745. Peter Kalm’s 

1749 account suggests the entire area was devoid of trees. Settlement began in 

earnest in the 1760s at the close of the French and Indian War. It would seem 

probable that any remaining timber from Victory Woods was used in Schuyler’s 

Mills and the site accessed via logging roads. The area was rapidly settled in the 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 34 

decade leading up to the Revolutionary War, though there is no documentation 

of any construction on the Victory Woods parcel. 

Endnotes 

 

1

 Dunn, Shirley W. The Mohicans and Their Land 1609-1730. Fleischmanns, New York: Purple Mountain Press, 1994, 296. 2

 Dunn, 296. 

3

 Dunn, 296. 

4

 Brandow, John Henry. The Story of Old Saratoga and History of Schuylerville. Saratoga Springs, N.Y., 1901, 283. 5

 Hayner, Mrs. Earl. Notes on the Saratoga Patent. Stillwater Historian’s Files. 6

 Sylvester, Nathaniel Bartlett. History of Saratoga County, New York with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Some of 

Its Men and Pioneers, Philadelphia: Everts & Ensign, 1878 (reprint – Heart of the Lakes Publishing, Interlaken, NY 14847, 

1979), 73. 

7

 Schuyler, George, W. Colonial New York Philip Schuyler and his Family. New York, Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1885, 99. 8

 Dunn, 159. 

9

 Sylvester, 74. 

10 Sylvester, 74. 

11 Brandow, 1901, 231. 

12 Brandow, 1901, 232. 

13 Brandow, 1901, 18. 

14 Sylvester, 260. 

15 Brandow, 1901, 23. 

16 Sylvester, 35. 

17 Brandow, 1901, 13. 

18 Brandow, 1901, 13. 19 Sylvester, 35. 

20 Sylvester, 23. 

21 Brandow, 1901, 14. 

22 Brandow, 1901, 15. 

23 Brandow, 1901, 16. 

24 Brandow, 1901, 17. 

25 Sylvester, 36. 

26 Brandow, 1901, 18. 

27 Brandow, 1901, 18. 

28 Brandow, John Henry. The Story of Old Saratoga, The Burgoyne Campaign and New York’s Share in the Revolution. 

Albany, N.Y. Fort Orange Press, The Brandow Printing Company 1919, 18- 19. 29 Brandow, 1919, 19. 

30 Brandow, 1919, 20. 

31 Brandow, 1919, 21. 

32 Fitch, Dr. Asa. The Asa Fitch Papers, Volume 1. Transcribed and Edited by Laura Penny Hulslander. Fort Campbell, 

Kentucky: The Sleeper Co., 1997, 18.

33 Brandow, 1901, 24. 

34 Sylvester, 38. 

35 Fitch, Vol. I, 81. 

36 Fitch, Vol. I, 81. 

37 Brandow, 1919, 26. 

38 Fitch, Vol. I, 82. 

39 Brandow, 1919, 287. 

40 Brandow, 1919, 29. 

41 Brandow, 1901, 29. 

42 Schuyler, 239. 

43 Fitch, Vol. I 82. 

44 Brandow, 1901, 31. 

45 Brandow, 1901, 35. 

46 Brandow, 1919, 41. 

47 Brandow, 36-38. 

48 Sylvester, 39. 
SITE HISTORY

 35 

 49 Brandow, 1919, 47. 

50 Sylvester, 39. 

51 Brandow, 1919, 62. 

52 Brandow, 1919, 64. 

53 Benson, Adolph B. Peter Kalm’s Travels in North America, 2 Vols., New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 1962. 54 Sylvester, 41. 

55 Brandow, 1919, 71. 

56 Brandow, 1919, 72. 

57 Brandow, 1919, 72. 58 Brandow, 1919, 72. 

59 Brandow, 75. 

60 Sylvester, 261. 

61 Strach, Stephen, Interview, Schuylerville, New York, 2005. 

62 Sylvester, 262. 

63 Brandow, 1919, 293. 

64 Schuyler. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

36

Figure 1.4: Plat map of Saratoga Patent by John R. Bleeker in 1750, with annotations by author. The Victory Woods site is within the Old 

Divided Lands near Fish Creek. The Old Divided Lands also include the fi rst Saratoga settlement site, Old Saratoga (Schuylerville), and 

the Schuyler Estate (S). Philip John Schuyler’s Lotts are shaded gray (Albany County Clerks Offi ce).
37 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.5: “A Map of the Province of New York, Reduced from the large Drawing of that Province, compiled from Actual Surveys by 

Order of His Excellency William Tryon Esq. Captain General & Governor of the same, By Claude Joseph Sauthier, to which is added New 

Jersey, from the Topographical Observations of C. J. Sauthier & B. Ratzer.” Engraved by William Faden and published in London in 1776 

(New York State Museum, http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/albany/im/imsauthier.html). 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

38

Figure 1.6: “Plan of Fort at Saratoga, 1757.” Fort Hardy in 1757 built by the British at the mouth of Fish Creek [Fish Kill] where it empties 

into the Hudson River. Twenty years later at this site, the British and German troops stacked and grounded their arms. The Victory 

Woods site is not visible in the map and is to the left or west (Original at New York Historical Society dated 1757 by James Montresor. 

Photostat of map, c. 1927, SARA 5549).
39 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.7: “Plan of Saratoga, 36 Miles N by E from Albany.” Plan shows Fort Hardy at the mouth of Fish 

Creek [Fish Kill] where it empties into the Hudson River. Note the “High Grounds” of Saratoga Heights, 

which includes the Victory Woods site. Also note the saw mill in the vicinity of the Village of Victory, and 

the road from Stillwater to Fort Edward (Manuscript map, c. 1757, unidentifi ed artist, SARA 5549).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 40 

REVOLUTIONARY WAR AT SARATOGA, 1775-1783 

While the citizens of Saratoga were swept up in the turmoil of the Revolutionary 

War from its beginning in 1775, the war did not physically come to Saratoga until 

1777. The Hudson River was a vital transportation corridor and control of it 

could influence the outcome of the war. This chapter describes the British 

campaign that was launched from Canada in June of 1777 and the events leading 

up to the battles in Saratoga in September and October. Information about the 

battles and the subsequent retreat and surrender of the British is pieced together 

from letters and accounts during and shortly after the battle, a collection of maps 

drawn after the battle, and later accounts by historians. These documents 

provide a general understanding of the events and use of the Victory Woods 

parcel by the British. The findings of the recent archeological study focused on a 

small portion of their camp and yielded little information about the encampment. 

Several first-hand accounts are incorporated into the chapter, which relate to 

battle and surrender, with little information specific to the Victory Woods parcel. 

Additional details are included in Appendix C. 

BURGOYNE’S 1777 CAMPAIGN EVENTS LEADING UP TO 

SARATOGA1

In 1776, the first year of America's declared independence, King George III still 

hoped to stifle the rebellion and return the erring colonies to royal control. This 

created an opportunity for John Burgoyne, an ambitious, articulate British 

general who had served in North America since June 1775. Back in England at the 

close of the 1776 campaign, Burgoyne hoped to advance his position and 

composed an essay to on strategy entitled "Thoughts for Conducting the War 

from the Side of Canada." 

The one consistent element in "Thoughts" was that a British army would move 

down the traditional Champlain warpath from Canada to the Hudson and to take 

Albany. Burgoyne's skill at political maneuvering was rewarded, and when he 

returned to Canada in May 1777, it was as commander of the British invasion 

force. He had been selected over a senior officer, General Sir Guy Carleton, who 

remained in command in Canada. 

Burgoyne assembled a “resplendent” army at St. John, Quebec, on June 13th of 

1777. More than 4,000 British and 3,000 German regulars formed its core, with 

Canadians, American Loyalists, and Indian allies bringing the total fighting force 

to well over 9,000. As the troops set off south on Lake Champlain on June 30th

, 

Burgoyne's army made a magnificent, seemingly invincible display (Figure 1.8). 

In order to intimidate and “terrify” those who dared to make resistance to Great 

Britain’s authority, Burgoyne formed an alliance with Le Loup, “chieftain” of the 

Iroquois Native Americans.2

 During the march toward Albany, Burgoyne could 
SITE HISTORY

 41 

not prevent these allies from wandering from the main body of the army, in small 

parties, in all directions, plundering and massacring indiscriminately both friends 

and foes; even a written protection from Burgoyne was generally disregarded. 

On 25 July, the Allen family was scalped and Miss Jane McCrea was killed near 

Fort Edward.3

 News of this atrocity, perhaps somewhat exaggerated by the 

Americans, influenced many people to support the patriots to avenge these 

cruelties and to free themselves from the arbitrary domination of Great Britain.4

After Fort Crown Point in New York was taken and secured by Burgoyne’s 

troops, the first major obstacle in their path was Fort Ticonderoga on the New 

York shore of Lake Champlain, which had been captured by an American force 

led by Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold in 1775. Burgoyne’s forces recaptured the 

fort in July of 1777. British victories continued throughout July. Although 

American troops fought creditably at Hubbardton and Fort Anne, Burgoyne's 

superior forces pushed them back relentlessly. 

Major General Philip Schuyler’s American troops in defensive positions at Fort 

Edward were dispatched to delay the British as best they could by obstructing 

their marching path, but the value of these methods was not fully appreciated at 

the time. Schuyler delayed the British as best he could by obstructing their path, 

but the value of these methods was not fully appreciated at the time. Delaying 

tactics became effective because Burgoyne was dependent on his long supply 

line—the reason he put so much effort into pushing a road through the 

wilderness. Schuyler's unobtrusive, unavoidable strategy of trading time for 

space began to pay off in early August. Burgoyne, having finally reached the 

Hudson, pursued a report that the area around Bennington contained valuable 

supplies, especially horses, and organized a raid. The composition of this 

detachment, consisting largely of dismounted German dragoons, was 

questionable in view of its purpose. In a stunning surprise, militiamen under 

Brigadier General John Stark of New Hampshire crushed the intruders on August 

16 at what is called the Battle of Bennington. From that day forward Burgoyne's 

confidence began to deflate, and as the long days of northern summer ran out, he 

was filled with increased foreboding. 

Schuyler's continued retreat subjected him to mounting criticism in Congress. 

Behind the scenes an intense political struggle took place, and when it ended, 

Schuyler was replaced by an old rival, Major General Horatio Gates. 

Before Schuyler departed, he made another insufficiently recognized 

contribution to the final outcome. As part of Burgoyne's plan, a column 

commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Barry St. Leger was supposed to march down 

the Mohawk Valley and join him in Albany. Although an American garrison 

stood firm at Fort Stanwix, Schuyler knew it could not hold indefinitely. At great 

risk, he detached part of his already inadequate army to relieve the fort. Later he 

placed Major General Benedict Arnold in command of the relief expedition. 

Arnold never had to fight a battle. Instead, he gave St. Leger's Iroquois allies, 

who had become disillusioned with the campaign, an excuse to depart. Without 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 42 

them, St. Leger had to make a hasty flight back to Canada, leaving Burgoyne more 

isolated than before. 

Burgoyne was under the overall command of General Sir William Howe. The 

two were expected to cooperate, but the government in London had never 

established how this was to be done. Howe, sure that Burgoyne would manage 

on his own, determined to attack the American capital of Philadelphia. Unwilling 

to chance a march overland, he put his entire army on ships. For more than a 

month, from late July to late August, Howe's army was at sea, out of touch. 

During this pivotal month, Burgoyne’s campaign began to unravel. When Howe 

advanced on Philadelphia from the south, General Washington was inevitably 

drawn off to oppose him. Washington had sent important units to assist in the 

north; otherwise the two campaigns remained separate. 

In August of 1777, some of Burgoyne’s forces made an initial attempt to cross the 

Hudson River to the west side after constructing a bridge of logs or pontoons, 

located to the north of what is now Schuylerville. On the 14th of August, British 

General Fraser crossed with the advance corps of the army and encamped on the 

heights of Saratoga to await Lieutenant Colonel Baum’s return. Baum, however, 

did not rejoin Fraser after his defeat at Bennington, and on the 16th of August, 

General Fraser led his troops back again to the east side of the Hudson, where the 

whole British army remained encamped till the final advance made in 

September.”5

Burgoyne spent early September on the east side of the Hudson near the mouth 

of the Battenkill, slowly accumulating supplies. By then he had absorbed the two 

defeats on his flanks (Bennington and Fort Stanwix) and knew that Howe would 

offer no immediate help. He could have turned back to Ticonderoga, but his 

orders were to take Albany. To march on Albany, he had to cross the Hudson 

River. Once he did so, he cut his supply line and committed himself to fighting 

through to Albany. 

Finally, on 13 September 1777, with sufficient quantity of provisions, supplies, and 

artillery brought forward and with the cessation of the heavy rains, the Royal 

Army crossed over the Hudson on a bridge of boats. The bridge of boats was 

about five hundred yards north of the mouth of the Battenkill and therefore 

about a hundred yards north of the present Dix Bridge which connects the 

Village of Clark’s Mills with the western bank of the river.6

 Not all of the troops, 

however, crossed the Hudson River on that day. Some of the troops who crossed 

over were deployed on the heights of Saratoga, the plains, some were put into 

Schuyler's barracks in the area of the present Schuylerville Elementary School, 

and others were assigned to protect Burgoyne's headquarters in the Schuyler 

House. 

On 15 September 1777, Burgoyne felt sufficiently ready to finally sever his 

communication with Canada. General Riedesel, with the left wing of the army, 

crossed the Hudson to Saratoga and the bridge of boats was dismantled. 

Burgoyne's order of the day read, “The Tents are to be struck at twelve, and the 
SITE HISTORY

 43 

Baggage loaded immediately. The Army was to march in three Columns after 

having passed Schuyler's house.”7

 Burgoyne marched his army slowly five miles 

to Dovegat, now called Coveville.8

 Burgoyne followed the Albany highroad (part 

of which follows the same route as the current US Route 4) for some seven miles 

from Saratoga to the mouth of the Kroma Kill, at the outlet of the Great Ravine, 

not far from where the American Army was dug in at Bemis Heights.9

Records of Burgoyne’s September advance do not elaborate on the heights where 

the Victory Woods parcel is located, but Burgoyne likely recognized the strategic 

possibilities of the area and, unfortunately, was soon to return. 

THE SIEGE AND SURRENDER AT SARATOGA10

Burgoyne's goal to reach Albany determined American defensive strategy: under 

both Philip Schuyler and Horatio Gates, the need to hold Albany was as strong as 

the British desire to take it.11 When Gates replaced Schuyler in August of 1777 he 

found the American northern army gathered around the mouth, then referred to 

as the "sprouts" of the Mohawk River. In September Gates moved northward to 

a stronger defensive position at Bemis Heights, north of Stillwater on the advice 

of a gifted Polish engineer, Colonel Thaddeus Kosciusko. This set the stage for 

the clashes that became known as the Battles of Saratoga, for Gates's maneuver 

left Burgoyne no choice but to fight if he meant to reach Albany. 

Burgoyne attempted to break through the American barrier in the two battles of 

Saratoga, on 19 September and 7 October. In the first he won a technical, but 

costly, victory that left him no better off. The second, though perhaps not 

intended as a large-scale action, nearly ended in a rout. At the close of the battle, 

Burgoyne's position was so dangerous that he could preserve his army only by 

withdrawing. 

Ten days after the Second Battle of Saratoga, Burgoyne and his army were 

prisoners. This last stage of the campaign divides itself naturally into three 

phases: first, a retreat covering only seven miles in three days—8, 9, and 10 of 

October—and ending at the area now known as the Villages of Schuylerville and 

Victory; second, a pause of two days while Burgoyne, although not yet entirely 

cut off from retreat, nevertheless remained halted; and third, five days—from 13 

to 17 October—during which he found himself surrounded, decided to retreat, 

and finally surrendered.”12

Burgoyne’s retreat began after dark on 8 October from the vicinity of the Great 

Redoubt and became a terrible ordeal, as a beaten army dragged its artillery and 

equipment over a narrow road that became increasingly muddy in a cold, 

drenching rain. General Fraser had died that morning and was buried at sunset.13

 

For the retreat, the remaining Indians and Loyalists (Tories) with Captain 

Fraser’s company of Rangers as usual formed the advance guard followed by 

Riedesel and the German troops. Next came the 9th and 47th regiments, then the 

heavy artillery and army wagons, and finally the rest of the British contingent. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 44 

The British advanced corps, now under Balcarres, acted as rear guard.14 Because 

of the wet conditions, progress was slow, and it took a full day for the troops to 

reach Fish Creek.15

 

Anburey relates that when the British arrived on the heights they chased off 500 

or 600 American troops who were busy "throwing up intrenchments." Possibly 

the British were able to make use of the work the Americans had begun. The 

Americans, too, were in the vicinity of Schuyler's house on September 13 and 

captured three men of the 20th Regiment as reported by General Gates in his 

letter of that date to General Lincoln.16 Other than the presence of American 

troops that were in the process of digging entrenchments, there is little 

description of the Victory Woods area. 

During the retreat, Colonel Sutherland had been dispatched to reconnoiter the 

area to the north before the retreat began. He informed General Burgoyne that 

an American force under General John Fellows now occupied the heights of 

Saratoga. The heights refer to the area from around Fish Creek over to and past 

the present NYS Route 29, with Victory Woods representing a small portion of 

this area. Fellows arrived at the heights on October 8 at eleven o’clock and 

improved the fortifications on the heights prepared by Burgoyne earlier on his 

way south.17 However, as the retreating British army approached, Fellows 

crossed to the east side of the Hudson and moved onto the high grounds there, in 

what is now Greenwich and Easton.18 Early in the morning of October 8, General 

Gates, expecting Burgoyne would retreat, ordered General Bailey, with 900 New 

Hampshire troops, to also cross to the east side of the Hudson and hasten to the 

aid of General Fellows, opposite Saratoga, and Captain Furnival was ordered to 

follow with his battery. 

At Saratoga, Burgoyne made another fateful decision, one that gave Victory 

Woods and the surrounding area its importance in history. He might have 

continued his retreat, though it would have been extremely risky, and sought the 

safety of Ticonderoga and then Canada, but he was not yet ready to concede 

defeat. He remained hopeful that luck would turn in his favor. In particular, he 

was sustained by the hope that other British forces would come to his rescue. Sir 

William Howe had taken the main British army to attack Philadelphia, so there 

was no likelihood of support from that quarter. However, Sir Henry Clinton held 

New York City with a force that was sizable and had received reinforcements 

from England. Burgoyne and Clinton were not able to maintain communication; 

only two of Burgoyne’s messages reached Clinton and only one was received by 

Burgoyne during the campaign. In addition, Burgoyne may have clung to the 

expectation of assistance from the north. Lt. Colonel Barry St. Leger, whose force 

had been repulsed and scattered at Fort Stanwix in August, had reconstituted the 

European portions of his detachment and, in a rather amazing accomplishment, 

had retraced his and Burgoyne's routes and reached Ticonderoga in late 

September. 
SITE HISTORY

 45 

Burgoyne thus established himself in a fortified position north of Fish Creek, 

extending through much of the present village of Schuylerville. Historian 

Hoffman Nickerson in 1928 describes the placement as follows: 

 Most of his British troops and his remaining Tories he posted on the 

 southern part of the heights north of the Fishkill, [Fish Creek] where the 

 monument now stands. Most of his Germans were stationed 

 northeastward from them and north of the present village of 

 Schuylerville. The hundred odd Canadians and the German riflemen 

 were pushed forward to the westward of the other Germans, and the 

 remainder of the diminished German advanced corps formed a 

 connecting link between the German main body and the British on the 

 heights. The artillery park occupied a little rise on the flats east and a 

 little south of the German main body.19

Some historians, notably Nickerson, note that Burgoyne made a fatal error, in 

effect ensnaring himself, when he took up the fortified position at Saratoga: 

"Defensively Burgoyne's ground was strong. Paradoxically enough its very 

strength was to hurt his chances by making him reluctant to leave it."20 There can 

be little doubt that security would have been appealing to Burgoyne by then, but a 

more important factor is that, unready to concede defeat, he still looked eagerly 

for relief from the south. In fact, Clinton launched an expedition up the Hudson, 

which won some striking successes but was unable to travel far enough north to 

aid Burgoyne’s army. 

There is a tendency among writers on the Saratoga campaign to treat the siege 

period as an uneventful interlude waiting for something decisive to happen. This 

attitude is understandable in the sense that no great battle occurred and there 

were few casualties. Yet this often neglected interval was essential in determining 

the eventual outcome. Nor was it truly uneventful. One of the ironic events of 

the entire campaign occurred on 11 October, when Gates, believing that Burgoyne 

had continued his retreat, began a rash assault on the main British position across 

Fish Creek. This poorly planned attack, which could have given Burgoyne the 

lucky break he hoped for, was called back before becoming an American disaster 

by a chance encounter with a deserter. A frustrated Burgoyne described it as 

"one of the most adverse strokes of fortune in the whole campaign.”21

As the siege continued, conditions in the British camp steadily worsened. Food 

and water became scarce, the stench of dead animals pervaded the area, and the 

entire encampment was exposed to constant fire from artillery and small arms by 

the American forces. Burgoyne maintained his headquarters somewhere in the 

main British camp, and it was here that he and his chief officers held several 

conferences to decide a course of action from their dwindling range of 

alternatives. Finally, it was from these positions that the British marched down to 

surrender. 

There are descriptions of the defensive works erected by the British.22 The British 

were possibly too harried to leave extensive accounts of an unpleasant episode; 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 46 

after the surrender the Americans apparently marched to the field of grounded 

arms (site adjacent to the ruins of Fort Hardy) without passing through the 

British camp, or at least commenting on it.23 In what is unfortunately one of the 

fullest descriptions, Thomas Anburey, an officer with Burgoyne, says only that 

"the army was posted as well as the ground would admit of, fortifying our camp, 

and preparing for any attempt that the enemy, from our reduced state, might be 

induced to make."24 Other than the evidence contained on the contemporary 

maps, or that might be revealed by archeology, there is no clear information 

bearing on physical details such as the size and extent of the earthworks or 

whether logs or planks were incorporated in their construction. 

There are two possible scenarios regarding the construction of British 

fortifications. Burgoyne's recollection that his army arrived at Saratoga "in such a 

state of fatigue, that the men for the most part had not strength or inclination to 

cut wood and make fires, but rather sought sleep in their wet cloaths upon the 

wet ground under the continuing rain," suggests that no construction of 

earthworks could have taken place until well into 10 October. 25 Suffering from 

fatigue, hunger and thirst, the men were not in good condition to do heavy work. 

Some of the necessary tools may have been lost or abandoned on the confused 

retreat from the battlefield. 

Probably a stronger case can be made on the opposite side of the issue. The war 

provides numerous examples of soldiers being able to throw up substantial 

earthworks in a short time. According to Lieutenant Digby’s Journal, “The men 

worked without ceasing during the night, and without the least complaining of 

fatigue, our cannon were drawn up to the embrasures and pointed ready to 

receive them at daybreak.”26 In this instance, the British had the advantage of 

occupying works they had constructed to cover their crossing of the Hudson on 

13 September, when Burgoyne made another of his irrevocable choices by 

severing his land connection with Canada and beginning his final drive on 

Albany.27 As noted earlier, Anburey relates that when the British arrived on the 

heights they chased off 500 or 600 American troops who were busy "throwing up 

intrenchments." Possibly the British were able to make use of the work the 

Americans had begun. Finally, earthworks offered the only protection from 

bombardment, and despite their decreased physical abilities, the British troops 

would have had a strong incentive to dig in. Thus, it seems reasonable to 

conclude that the British earthworks were substantial, but possibly less 

impressive than the major redoubts they erected on the battlefield. 

New York State historian William L. Stone’s book Visits to the Saratoga Battlegrounds, 1780-1880 includes accounts by Francois Jean, Marquis de Chastellux 

(1734-1788), a French nobleman who published extensive observations of 

America. He examined the Saratoga British encampment in December 1780, 

barely three years after the surrender. His account confirms the position of 

Burgoyne's forces but regrettably fails to describe the defensive works they 

erected.28
SITE HISTORY

 47 

MILITARY MAPS OF THE VICTORY WOODS AREA 

These and other subsequent descriptions are drawn largely from maps made at 

the time (Figures 1.9 to 1.16). One of the earliest maps, titled “PLAN of the 

Position wch the Army under L.t

 Genl Burgoyne took at Saratoga on the 10th Septr

1777, and in which it remained till the Convention was signed,” from the British 

Museum, is undated and unsigned, although attributed to Lieutenant William 

Cumberland Wilkinson, 62d

 Regiment of Foot and Assistant Engineer based on 

stylistic and artistic grounds. This map must date between 1777 and 1779. From 

this map was drawn “PLAN OF THE POSITION which the ARMY under L.T

GEN.L

 BURGOYNE took at SARATOGA, on the 10.th of September 1777, and in 

which it remained till THE CONVENTION was signed,” now at the Library of 

Congress (Figure 1.9). Also undated and unsigned, this map must have been 

drawn by William Faden (1750-1836), and date to c. 1779, as it was a preparatory 

for his 1780 engraving. 

The map most frequently cited by any secondary source, historic or modern, is 

“PLAN OF THE POSITION which the ARMY under L.T

 GENL BURGOINE 

took at SARATOGA on the 10.th of September 1777, and in which it remained till 

THE CONVENTION was signed.” This map, printed by William Faden in 1780, 

looks almost exactly like its c. 1779 manuscript predecessor (Figure 1.10). This 

published map was printed specifically for Lieutenant-General John Burgoyne’s 

A State of the Expedition from Canada..., and because of its wide distribution and 

subsequent reprints, was widely and commonly accessible. 

An undated and unsigned British map similar in some respects to the WilkinsonFaden series described above, titled “Plan of the Position which the Army, under 

Lieutenant G.al Burgoine took at Saratoga on the 10th of September 1777, and in 

which it remained till the Convention was Signed [(16 Octobre)],” is far more 

difficult to identify (Figure 1.11). Due to artistic and informational continuities, 

this map could have been the first map in the series which led to the eventual 

engraving of the Faden map. This map is written in English and was subsequently 

deposited in a French or Canadian archive (“Archives Des Cartes”). This map is 

also stamped with a Library of Congress stamp. The date “16 Octobre” was later 

written into the title by the same pen which added other French writing. Though 

the symbols differ, the map is essentially the same as the Faden map. Current 

whereabouts of this manuscript is unknown. 

Another manuscript map, more along the lines of a diagram, is also undated and 

unsigned. Acquired by the State of New York in the early 21st century, this map is 

commonly called the “Schuyler map” of Saratoga (Figure 1.12). Because of 

information incorporated in the map, it must be of British origin (or an American 

map using post-campaign British intelligence). It may be anything from an early 

manuscript or perhaps a later tracing or otherwise drawing taken from Faden’s 

common 1780 print. This map shows the location of British and American troops 

in relation to the major roads and water courses, and provides little unique 

information. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 48 

One of the most important maps of Saratoga produced in the eighteenth century 

was researched extensively by Stephen G. Strach, a Park Technician at Saratoga 

NHP, in 1981, titled “PLAN de la Position de l'arme sous les ordres de son Excellence 

le Lieutenant General Burgoyne a SARATOGA etant sur la Retraite de Fremanns 

Ferme” (Figure 1.13). The park’s copy of this map is in the form of a photostatic 

transparency, and is still believed to be the only copy known to exist. The 

original, undated map was either drawn by or printed by “H C Degeling.” 

Original textual reference on the map admits that the map was “copied” by 

Degeling from an original map prepared by “H D (Heinrich Daniel) Gerlach”; 

this map is still extant. The similarly titled “PLAN DE LA POSITION DE l'arme 

sous les ordres de son Excellence le Lieutenant General Burgoyne A SARATOGA 

ETANT SUR LA RETRAITE de Fremanns Ferme” is also undated, and although it 

is also unsigned, the obvious artistic relation between it and Degeling’s map is 

clear. Gerlach’s original manuscript is located in Hessisches Staatsarchiv, 

Marbourg, Germany.29

Gerlach’s original, and subsequently, Degeling’s later copy, covers a much larger 

area, has far more detail, and offers an alternate view of fortifications, roads, 

buildings, and unit positions than any of the British generated maps. Although 

William Wilkinson (the probable artist of the original British manuscript from 

which Faden made his engraving) was an able artist, as seen in his maps of the 

fields where the Battles of Saratoga where fought, he was an “assistant engineer,” 

meaning, he was an infantry officer tasked with supplemental artistic duties of an 

undocumented extent. He was not an officer of the British Corps of engineers, 

the officer corps of which was apparently unproductive in the topic of 

mapmaking (save for Lieutenant Desmaretz Durnford, captured during the Battle 

of Bennington). 

Conversely, Captain Heinrich Daniel Gerlach, General von Riedesel’s chief 

engineer and deputy quartermaster general, was a professional mapmaker, and 

was trained in Braunschweig’s Collegium Carolinum. A very large number of his 

pre- and during-war cartographic sketches and drawings are extant, including his 

famous manuscript depicting the Battle of Hubbardton (engraved for A State of 

the Expedition from Canada by Faden). Therefore, his map of the Saratoga siege 

field is superior in its detail and expanse to all British versions, as would be 

expected from such an experienced professional with a long standing precedent 

for excellent mapmaking. However, because Gerlach’s map was unknown to 

earlier historians (and most today), it did not figure and their research. Some 

notable differences in the Gerlach map include a different road system, different 

field boundaries, multiple small earthworks, some in the form of fleches or 

redans, east of Victory Woods, and a different configuration of earthworks in the 

center of the British camp. 

A detailed map, originally drawn by Isaac A. Chapman after an unknown 

American officer, is titled “PLAN OF THE POSITION TAKEN BY GENL 

BURGOYNE ON THE 10TH OF OCT.R 1777 IN WHICH THE BRITISH ARMY 

WAS INVESTED BY THE AMERICANS UNDER THE COMMAND OF 

GEN.L GATES AND SURRENDERED TO HIM ON THE 16.TH OF OCTOBER 
SITE HISTORY

 49 

THE SAME YEAR” (Figure 1.14). Only the engraved version of the map exists, 

executed by “G[ideon] Fairman” (1774-1827), and published by Moses Thomas 

for the Analectic Magazine, Philadelphia, 1818. This map incorporates most of the 

1780 Faden map information (including specific British unit information and 

general map orientation). However, certain elements of this map are unique, and 

this should not be considered as nothing more than a 1780 Faden map reincarnation. This map shows that the British camp fronted on a road leading to 

the main north-south highway along the river and was set back from the edge of 

the plateau on which the upper portion of Victory Woods is situated.30 The map 

also indicates British artillery emplacements, as well as the positions of the 

various units—generally conforming to the other maps. Two maps by Walworth 

present the same information as earlier maps (Figures 1.15 and 1.16). 

An interpretation of data in earlier maps was prepared by Saratoga historian John 

Henry Brandow. In his The Story of Old Saratoga, first published 1906, Brandow 

plotted the positions shown by Faden on the contemporary street layout of 

Schuylerville (See Figures 1.30 and 1.31). Supported by the physical evidence of 

earthworks, Brandow shows the main British encampment extending from the 

vicinity of the Saratoga Monument through much of the Victory Woods. 

Subsequent analysis, confirms the general accuracy of Brandow's graphic 

depiction, which has remained the basis for the later interest in protecting 

Victory Woods. 

The numerous historic maps, assisted by Brandow's interpretation, are sufficient 

to establish that Victory Woods includes an important part of the main British 

camp. It was the setting for the climactic, but relatively unknown, phase of the 

campaign, an episode of siege radically different from anything that had occurred 

previously. Burgoyne allowed possible opportunities for escape to slip away as 

Gates, with overwhelming numbers, closed a ring around the British army. 

DAILY ACCOUNTS OF THE SIEGE AND SURRENDER AT 

SARATOGA31

This section provides a detailed account of the events and a closer look at the 

characteristics of the landscape using available primary and secondary 

documentation. Further detail is provided in Appendix A. 

 OCTOBER 9TH

On the evening of October 9th at about four o’clock, the British army reached 

Fish Creek, and crossing the ford, took possession of the heights of Saratoga 

abandoned by Fellows' troops earlier that day. Logging roads led up the 

hillsides.32 The British witnessed the rear troops of General Fellows climbing the 

eastern river bank after fording the Hudson.33 The southern end of the Heights 

sloped toward the creek giving the British a clear sweep to the land on both sides 

of the creek.34 Except for the upright piers and sleepers the bridge over Fish 

Creek had been destroyed by Fellows, so that those soldiers were compelled to 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 50 

wade. The creek was fordable at most points at this time before the dams and 

other engineering works connected with the Victory Mills were in existence.35

The artillery and some infantry to protect it, however, were left south of the creek 

until the following morning for it was already dark when the point of crossing 

was reached.36 Burgoyne's boats with the baggage and provisions had to be left at 

the mouth of Fish Creek. Three American batteries erected on East side of the 

river open their fire on the British. When a party of men began to carry the stores 

from the boats to the Heights, they were fired upon by American field pieces and 

compelled to retreat back to their camp. Several of the abandoned bateaux were 

subsequently captured by the Americans. 

Burgoyne’s troops had been twenty-four hours in marching a distance of eight 

miles in a heavy rain-storm, and, scarcely able to stand from cold and exposure, 

bivouacked in the darkness on the sodden ground, without food and without 

campfires, till the morning of the 10th. 37 Burgoyne on the other hand took shelter 

in the Schuyler house just southeast of the destroyed Fish Creek bridge and 

enjoyed the comforts of the great house. Brigadier-General John Hamilton with 

the 20th, 21st, and 62nd remained south of the creek as headquarters guard.38

 

That same night, Schuyler's barracks containing the British sick and wounded 

caught fire and were consumed. This was a calamity for it was raining 

incessantly. Added to this misery were the shots heard every now and then from 

the other side of the river.39

OCTOBER 10TH

On 10 October, Burgoyne dug in on the heights north of Fish Creek in present 

Schuylerville and Victory. Burgoyne had waded across Fish Creek during the 

morning as troops brought the artillery across.40 He ordered carts to be drawn up 

to men and provisions issued immediately with messes cooked as soon as 

possible. Burgoyne’s provisions, however, were running low. Meanwhile British 

boats coming up the river were being fired upon and captured by the Americans.

41

Burgoyne posted most of his British troops and remaining Tories or American 

loyalists on the southern part of the heights north of Fish Creek (within the area 

covered by Victory Woods and the Saratoga Monument). Most of his Germans 

were stationed northeastward from them and north of the present village of 

Schuylerville. The hundred-odd Canadians and the German riflemen were 

pushed forward to the westward of the other Germans, and the remainder of the 

diminished German advanced corps formed a connecting link between the 

German main body and the British on the heights. The artillery park occupied a 

little rise on the flats east and a little south of the German main body. The 

position was covered on the east by the Hudson and on the south by Fish Creek. 

The position had the great advantage of much open ground affording a clear field 

of fire and a favorable terrain for the close-order tactics of regular troops. Not 

only were the river meadows under cultivation, but also a broad strip northward 

from the Fish Kill and a considerable patch westward from the German main 

body. Except for this patch, the ground to the west was wooded, but only thinly 
SITE HISTORY

 51 

so. Moreover, Burgoyne had the advantage of reoccupying the works thrown up 

by his British troops while posted there on September 13 and 14, and may have 

been able also to use the breastworks thrown up by Fellows on the 9th.42

 

Strategically and with reference to the campaign as a whole, it was a poor position 

with the Hudson between Burgoyne and retreat. Moreover, he was now ten 

miles farther removed from any help that might come from the south. His most 

dire problem, however, was the shortage of supplies. The most impregnable 

position is of little use to a starving army.43

The position was stronger for the British than the Germans, who were camped on 

lower ground and exposed to fire from both front and rear. Although some 

British sources indicate that the entire British camp was vulnerable to small arms 

and cannon fire of the American batteries posted on the heights around, and the 

camp was fired upon all day from every side.44 General Fellows and his force 

were posted on the hills on the east side of the Hudson, upon the site of old 

colonial Fort Clinton. Fellows occupied this strong position to cut off the retreat 

of the British in that direction. A strong detachment of American troops had also 

been sent by General Gates to take possession of the roads and bridges above 

Saratoga, in the direction of Ft. Edward, and the British army was already 

hemmed in and surrounded on every side by the Americans.45 Gates did not 

reach the south bank of the Fish Kill with the main body of his army, until four 

o’clock in the afternoon of the 10th. Upon his arrival, he encamped his army 

along the heights bordering Fish Kill (presently Fish Creek on the south opposite 

the British camp.46

Since his position at Saratoga was strong, it seemed both easier and safer to hold 

it with the bulk of his force while some of his troops prepared a crossing farther 

to the north.47 Burgoyne and his council of British generals were resolved to leave 

his artillery and flee to Fort George. Accordingly he sent Sutherland, with the six 

battalion companies of the latter’s 47th regiment, also the 9th, some Canadian 

(Captain Samuel McKay’s Corps) volunteers, and the artificers of the army, to 

march up the west bank of the Hudson toward Fort Edward, about twelve miles 

north. 48 The detachment of artificers, under a strong guard, was sent to repair 

bridges and to open a road. The road on the west side terminated at the crossing 

that Burgoyne used on his advance, but it was now covered by General Fellows’ 

artillery. Sutherland found the Americans at Fort Edward and guarding all of the 

nearby fords. When this news was brought back to Burgoyne, he expected an 

attack because they were well surrounded by the rebels.49

 

About four in the afternoon of 10 October, Gates' army reached Saratoga. As the 

army approached, Burgoyne ordered Schuyler's house and mills burned to 

prevent American lodgment behind them. When the Americans arrived they saw 

the army's bateaux at the mouth of the Fish Kill being unloaded. American 

artillery soon dispersed the unloading party, but the Americans themselves were 

dispersed by the British artillery fire from the heights.50 As Gates approached, 

Hamilton withdrew his three regiments across the Fish Kill.51
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 52 

American Colonel Wilkinson wrote about deficient provisions and incessant rain 

while describing the pursuit: 

 ...our front reached Saratoga about four o'clock, where we discovered 

 the British army encamped on the heights beyond the Fish-kill, General 

 Fellow's corps on the opposite bank of the river, and the batteaux [sic] of 

 the enemy at the mouth of the creek, with a fatigue party busily 

 employed unloading and conveying their contents across the plains to 

 the heights. The commanding officer of artillery, Major Stevens, ...ran a 

 couple of light field pieces down on the plain near the river, and opened 

 a battery upon the batteaux [sic] and working party at the landing, which 

 soon dispersed it; but he drew the fire of the enemy's whole park upon 

 him from the heights, which obliged him to retire after the loss of a 

 tumbril, which was blown up by a shot from the enemy, and caused a 

 shout from the whole British army.52

OCTOBER 11TH

The early morning of 11 October was active for the American forces. A letter from 

Colonel Rufus Putnam to Major General Horatio Gates, dated 26 October 1778 

reviews Captain Nathan Goodale’s service record, in hopes that he (Goodale) 

might be exchanged. “It was he [Goodale] that (when Gen. Nixons Brigade 

crossed the creek at Saratoga) with 40 men took Lieu’ Nailer [William Pendred 

Naylor, 62d Regiment of Foot] with a guard of 35 British soldiers without fireing a 

gun which he Effected by a singular command, boldness & Address.” General 

Gates, supposing that General Burgoyne would continue his retreat northward 

and perhaps take all but his rear guard, ordered an advance on the British 

encampment across the creek at daybreak.53 The British army, having reason to 

expect an assault by the Americans, had drawn up into battle formation while 

covered by early morning fog. 54 Their position was discovered in time but there 

was heavy fighting before the advance American forces could withdraw to the 

wooded area west of Burgoyne’s entrenchments. Lieutenant Digby observed, 

“Their cannon and ours began to play on each other.”55 Again, as reported by an 

anonymous British officer: 

The fog clearing, we observed the Enemy throwing up Batteries, 

which they began to Fire from towards Ev’ning. They were 

answered by ours, but the Fire on either side was not heavy.56

The Specht Journal recorded: 

At about 10 o’clock in the morning, the enemy also organized 

cannon on a height that side of the river [East side of the Hudson 

River]. With them, they in part cannonaded our train and baggage 

stationed on the grounds, and our regts had all these things in our 

rear...but our cannon began aiming against them with such good 

effect that the enemy had to withdraw one gun into the woods.57
SITE HISTORY

 53 

According to the historian Nickerson: 

 At daybreak through the usual fog the army advanced, Colonel Morgan 

 keeping to the edge of the bluffs and the main body moving along the 

 flats according to orders. Morgan was the first to cross the creek, which 

 he did about three quarters of a mile west of the ruins of Schuyler’s 

 house and somewhere near the present site of the Victory Mills. A little 

 less and he would have blundered against the British infantry. 

 Fortunately, however, some instance made him doubt whether 

 Burgoyne had indeed retreated. Accordingly after sustaining some loss 

 in driving in a British picket, he halted. At this point Colonel Wilkinson 

 appeared riding forward through the fog. He found Morgan uneasy as 

 to his position with the creek in his rear, but uncertain what to do 

 because of his ignorance of the ground. Wilkinson, on the other hand, 

 knew the region well through his experience of it during Schuyler’s 

 August retreat. He therefore advised Morgan to incline to the left so that 

 he could not be pinned against Fish Creek in case of an attack by 

 superior numbers. At the same time he promised to support the riflemen 

 with two brigades from the main body. To this end he galloped back to 

 Gates, who gave the necessary order. Wilkinson, returning, found 

 Learned acting in command of his own and Patterson’s brigades, 

 brought both brigades across Fish Creek, and assigned them a direction 

 which had they continued their march would have brought them full 

 upon the British main body (on the Heights including Victory Woods).58

 While this was going on, Nixon’s and Glover’s brigades were preparing 

 to cross Fish Creek lower down near its mouth. Although the men of the 

 captured British picket reported the main body of the invaders still in 

 position, nevertheless, the movement continued. Nixon, being senior to 

 Glover, was first to cross. Glover was about to follow him when he saw a 

 single British soldier fording the creek from north to south. Under 

 examination the man said that he was a deserter, that Burgoyne’s main 

 body had not moved, and that even the detachment sent toward Fort 

 Edward had now returned. Threatening the fellow with instant death if 

 he lied, Glover sent him off at a gallop under escort to Gates, who was as 

 usual well in the rear. At the same time he halted his brigade and sent 

 forward to Nixon, suggesting that the latter should recross the creek. A 

 German deserter appeared who confirmed the story of his British 

 comrade. Nixon halted. At this point the fog suddenly lifted, revealing 

 Burgoyne’s whole army in position and under arms. They promptly 

 opened fire with small arms and artillery upon Nixon’s men, whereat the 

 latter scurried back in disorder to the southern bank of Fish Creek. 

 Meanwhile Wilkinson, who had been buzzing about, was concerned for 

 Learned. A recent standing order prescribed a general advance in case 

 of a hostile attack upon any one point. Accordingly the adjutant-general 

 feared lest Learned, hearing the firing near the river, might involve 

 himself in a disadvantageous action against the British farther to the 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 54 

 west. He therefore galloped back to Learned, who he found resolutely 

 advancing up the steep slope toward the enemy entrenched upon the 

 heights where the monument now stands. Straining, and in fact 

 exceeding his authority as adjutant-general, Wilkinson told the old 

 brigadier that he must retreat. Learned objected that Wilkinson could 

 show no order from Gates and that the standing orders were to attack. 

 ‘Our brethren,’ said he in the Biblical language so familiar to eighteen-

 century New England, are ‘engaged upon the right.” To his credit 

 Wilkinson persisted. Several field officers of Learned’s command 

 chimed in to the same effect and at last Learned gave the order to retreat. 

 The British, who had been watching with shouldered arms, fired upon 

 his men as they began to draw off, but inflicted only slight loss.59

Although the British surprised the Americans and held off their advance, 

conditions in their camp were worsening.60 They were forced to bring oxen and 

horses into camp, as there was no safe forage. Dying animals created an 

unbearable stench. A German picquet quitted their post and went over to the 

Americans. Most of the British bateaux were captured or destroyed.61

 

Cannonading continued by both sides, and every spot of the encampment was 

reached by the American guns. Burgoyne’s council of officers resolve to 

immediately march for Lake George, but all ready, Burgoyne postponed it. 

OCTOBER 12TH

On 12 October there was limited artillery fire. “Several Shot exchanged with 

Artillery.”62 By this date, Gates decided rather than risk another military advance 

that a siege was the best strategy to starve Burgoyne into submission. General 

Gates took measures to pressure Burgoyne more closely on the west. Morgan, 

who had remained north of Fish Creek, was now reinforced by Learned’s 

brigade. On the northwest, however, the invaders were not yet surrounded.63 In 

the small hours of the night the Americans closed the gap. Troops were ferried 

over on rafts from the mouth of the Battenkill to the west bank and stationed 

under the command of General Stark. To this day the steep little hill in that 

vicinity is known as Stark’s Knob.64

With Gates to the south, Morgan to the west, Fellows to the east, and Stark to the 

north, the encirclement was complete. By this time, the Americans outnumbered 

the British three to one. Troops were beginning to leave, including Canadian 

drivers who escaped in the evening and left camp. Realizing his predicament and 

hoping to forestall an American attack while waiting for help from General 

Clinton to the south, General Burgoyne considered a plan to withdraw under 

darkness.65 Neither withdrawing nor surrendering was attractive.66

OCTOBER 13TH

In the morning of 13 October, Burgoyne and his army found themselves as last 

surrounded. Although it was only the fourth day through which they had held 

their present ground, they were nevertheless feeling the hardships of a siege. The 

camp reeked from the bodies of cattle and horses dead for want of forage. Their 
SITE HISTORY

 55 

provisions were nearly consumed and ammunition was running out. There was 

hardly a spot within the lines that was not exposed to the rifles and cannon of the 

rebels. During the previous night, the British had to throw up a traverse, because 

lines were being enfiladed by American fire. Captain Furnival’s battery ordered 

back from Fort Edward, to occupy and repair their former position.67

 

Meanwhile, some other auxiliaries were deserting, and the effective rank and file 

of regular infantry were now reduced to about thirty-five hundred, of whom less 

than two thousand were British.68 Despite their dire circumstances, the 

cannonades on both sides and the shooting of the outposts at each other did not 

stop the whole day and the British artillery continued to demonstrate its 

superiority.69

Around noon, from this battery on the height across the river, the 

enemy cannonaded the houses which lay at the right wing of the 

Hesse-Hanau Regt., where sick and wounded officers were 

quartered. They also tried to fire at our regt. from there. But because 

our 12-pound cannon, located in an entrenchment of the HesseHanau regt. were making a lively counterfire against the enemy 

battery mentioned above, their 6-pounders were soon silenced. In 

fact, the enemy was vastly inferior to us in the use of artillery. During 

all these days, they had inflicted little damage on us while they had 

suffered great losses from our cannon as they later admitted.”70

Burgoyne called in second council of war this day of not only his generals, but 

also his field officers and even the officers commanding corps. Unanimously 

they decided surrender on honorable terms.71

 

OCTOBER 14TH

Burgoyne called another British council of war on 14 October. All the field 

officers and captains of corps decided to parley with Americans. Major Kingston 

carried the flag of truce and there was an armistice until sunset. Burgoyne held 

another council at night. He rejected Gates’ terms of unconditional surrender as 

dishonorable. Kingston went to Gates again, and the armistice was extended 

until ten o’clock in the morning the next day. Burgoyne still had hope that 

General Clinton would arrive or some other unforeseen circumstance might 

extricate him from his many difficulties.72

OCTOBER 15TH

On 15 October, as Burgoyne's hope for rescue faded, American and British 

representatives met at the appointed hour on Schuyler's property "on the first 

bank above General Schuyler's saw mill" to discuss, sign and exchange the 

articles of capitulation. They parted at eight o’clock that evening to report to 

their respective commanders.73 General Gates had stipulated that the capitulation 

must be finished by three o’clock in the afternoon and that the troops should 

leave their entrenchments and lay down their arms at five.74
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 56 

Burgoyne was suspicious of Gates’ demands and insisted on marching out with 

full honors of war before grounding arms, to which Gates agreed. The long 

negotiations of that day concluded Burgoyne accepting the modified terms at 

eleven o’clock that night.75

OCTOBER 16TH

The morning of 16 October was spent on exchange of correspondence regarding 

the alleged detachment of American troops while the surrender terms were being 

arranged.76 Burgoyne sent a message to Gates saying that he was informed that 

the latter had detached a considerable force and by so doing had lessened the 

numerical superiority which had in the first place persuaded Burgoyne to 

negotiate. He therefore ‘required’ that two of his officers be allowed to go and 

see for themselves whether Gates’ superiority still existed.77

 

Burgoyne was trying to delay and change the treaty as he had learned of the 

success of Clinton at Esopus. In reality, however, the majority of Burgoyne’s 

officers were as anxious as the American command to have the convention 

signed. And some felt they could no longer depend upon their men to fight.78

In Burgoyne’s camp a last council was held. In spite of Gates’ pledge that no 

detachment from the American army had been made, Burgoyne was still 

determined not to sign the treaty on the consideration of the point of honor 

alone. The same arguments as before were again gone over. Once more the 

majority of the council insisted that the men were no longer in a mood for 

desperate enterprises. Even a victory, so the officers said, could not save the 

army, as there were not provisions enough to subsist the men either in an advance 

or retreat. Moreover, without the convention the rebels were likely to massacre 

every Tory. It was true that of these last not many were left. They and the 

remaining Indians had been deserting as fast as they could.79

Gates sent Wilkinson to advise Burgoyne that he would break off negotiations if 

Burgoyne did not sign the convention immediately. Again Burgoyne refused, but 

after some swift action by Sutherland, who convinced Burgoyne that Craig’s 

letter had irrevocably committed him, he changes his mind.80 The Articles of 

Convention between Lieutenant General Burgoyne and Major General Gates 

were finally concluded that day as Gates formed his army in the order of battle.81

OCTOBER 17TH

On the morning of 17 October, the day of Burgoyne's surrender, British troops 

were to lay down their arms in a field on the ground of old Fort Hardy north of 

Fish Creek along the Hudson River. With his generals and staff behind him, 

Burgoyne forded Fish Creek and proceeded toward General Gate's camp to the 

south of the Dutch Church.82 Bowing before General Gates who was on 

horseback, Burgoyne said, “The Fate of War has put me into your Hands.” To 

which Gates as courteously replied, “If Enterprize, Courage and Perseverance 

would have given you Success the Victory would have been yours.”83 Phillips, 

Riedesel, and Burgoyne’s other generals having been presented, Gates had them 
SITE HISTORY

 57 

to dinner, together with some of his own officers, in the tent north of the 

American Headquarters, which was prepared for the occasion.84

 

Burgoyne’s army marched to the Field of Grounded Arms around three o'clock 

in the afternoon to lay down their weapons. Gates did not wish to humiliate the 

conquered, so he kept his whole army back out of sight while the British were 

piling arms. Two American officers, delegated as witnesses, may have looked on, 

but even their presence is uncertain.85

Ultimately Burgoyne surrendered between 4000 and 6000 men, of which about 

1600 were German. Killed and wounded totaled more that 1000. Gate’s 

victorious force included about 9000 regulars and 4000 militia. 

After the army of Burgoyne had piled and grounded their arms, they were again 

formed into line. The prisoners forded Fish Creek, and walked past the long 

lines of American soldiers posted along the road to Albany, with their fifers and 

drummers playing Yankee Doodle.

86 The troops came to the point where Gates 

and his staff were waiting by a large tent. As the prisoners marched past, Gates 

and Burgoyne stepped from the tent. Then, by prearrangement, the two generals 

turned and faced one another. Without a word Burgoyne drew his sword and 

handed it to Gates, who received it then later returned it to its owner.87

Disregarding the threats of some of the New England soldiers, who said that they 

would put a bullet through him if he appeared, Schuyler had come to the camp. 

He came to receive the Baroness Riedesel and her children and gave them a meal 

in his tent.88

That night, the British soldiers began their walk to Cambridge, bivouacking for 

the first night of their captivity on their old campground at the outlet of the 

Kroma Kill.89 The American Loyalists (Tories) were escorted to Lake George. 

EARTHWORKS AT VICTORY WOODS 

Many earthworks persisted into nineteenth and twentieth centuries according to 

firsthand accounts. The journal of a British officer describes how the British laid 

out their camps for the entire campaign. Entitled, For Want of a Horse being A 

Journal of the Campaigns against the Americans in 1776 and 1777 conducted from 

Canada, by an officer who served with Lt. General Burgoyne, the description 

follows: 

 Officers of all Ranks Commanding out posts, and Detachments are 

 constantly to fortify in the best Manner the Circumstances of the place 

 and the implements at hand will permit: felling Tress with their points 

 outwards, barricading Churches, and Houses, Breast Works of Earth, 

 and timber are generally to be effected in a short time, and the Science of 

 engineering is not necessary to find and apply such Resources...Upon 

 the same principle it must be a constant Rule in, or near Woods to place 

 advanced Centinels, where they may have a tree, or some other defence 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 58 

 to prevent their being taken off by signal Marksmen. Together with 

 these precautions, officers will ever bear in mind how the publick 

 Honor and their own are concerned in maintaining a Post; and to Justify 

 a Retreat in the present War, the Number of the Enemy must be much 

 Superior to that which would make their Justification, when acting 

 against brave and disciplined forces.90

 The Camp will be always extended as widely as the Ground will admit 

 for the sake of Cleanliness, and Health; but as it just often happen that 

 the extent will be insufficient for the Line to form in Front of the 

 Encampment, according to the present established Rule of Open files, 

 and two Deep, the Quarter Master General will therefore mark at ev’ry 

 new Camp the portion of Ground each Battalion is to clear over and 

 above its own Front, in order to make the work equal. To clear this 

 Ground must be the immediate business after arriving in Camp, and in 

 this Country, it may often be necessary to have an alarm Post cleared in 

 the Rear, as well as in Front. By clearing is meant, the Removal of such 

 Obstructions, as might prevent the ready forming of the Troops to 

 receive, or advance on the Enemy – It is not necessary to cut the large 

 Trees for that Purpose, except where they may afford shelter for the 

 Enemy. Quarter Guards are always to face outwards at the distance of an 

 Hundred Yards from the Bells of Arms, and to have Fleche of Earth 

 [Arrowhead shaped earthwork extending outwards from fortified 

 positions], or Timber thrown up before them. When the Encampment of 

 the Line is with the Front to the Water, and too near to admit of this 

 Regulation, the Quarter Guards are to be posted in the Rear, and those 

 of the Flank Regts. occasionally upon the Flanks. Tho the Ground will 

 seldom admit a strict Regularity in Pitching the officers Tents, they are 

 never to be placed so as to interfere with the Line of Defense.91

Further detailed descriptions of British field fortifications are provided in Lewis 

Lochee’s Elements of Field Fortification, which was published in 1783. In this 

manual, the British Royal Military Academy’s descriptions are as follows: 

 The Redoubt is a work generally enclosed on all sides. It serves to secure 

 a post, a grand guard, or communications; to defend a defile, a bridge, a 

 ford, etc., and is of various dimensions, that is, of different plans and 

 profiles. The extent of it is proportioned to the number of men who are 

 to defend it, and the parapet is generally of sufficient height to cover 

 them. The redoubt has no precise or common form...the form, indeed, 

 is determined by the spot of ground on which it is raised, and the 

 purposes for which it is constructed...By redoubt...is understood a work 

 enclosed on all sides, and formed wholly of salient angles.92

 Although a redoubt could be constructed of masonry, in North America 

 they were almost always constructed of earth. Frequently, the earth 

 would be placed within a framework of wood. The wood could consist 

 of interlocked hewn trees (similar to a log cain), fascines (tightly bound 
SITE HISTORY

 59 

 bundles of sticks about six feet in length staked into position), gabions 

 (essentially small woven baskets typically 3-4 feet in diameter, staked 

 into position and filled with dirt), or hurdles (essentially woven vertical 

 mats). Once the framework of wood was in place, it would be filled with 

 earth from the ditch, and other available rubble, which was pounded 

 firmly into position.93

These two descriptions of British fortifications suggest that a solid rampart would 

have been built along the brow of the hill and would have included fleches. The 

officers tents would have been approximately one hundred yards behind the 

earthworks. However as described in the previous account by Anburey, it is 

unclear whether the Americans first dug the earthworks in Victory Woods. 

American troops also incorporated redoubts with great regularity into their 

defensive positions constructed between 1776 and 1777.94 One of the most 

important aspects of a redoubt is that although the classic configuration was 

square; they were specifically intended to be adapted to the terrain that they were 

defending.95 Redoubts of the eighteenth century were designed with certain 

common features, which are described in Lochee’s Elements of Field 

Fortification:

96

 Parapet - the bank of earth surrounding the post to be defended, 

 serving to cover the troops and artillery employed for its defense. The 

 height of the parapet within should at least be six feet to completely 

 cover the soldiers.97

 Banquette - the banquette design elevates the soldiers so that they may 

 see over the parapet to fire upon the enemy.98

 Embrasures - openings incorporated into a work when it was equipped 

 with artillery pieces. Rarely, artillery pieces were installed to fire directly 

 over the top of the parapet. Most commonly, embrasures were cut 

 through the parapet to enable the artillery to fire from behind the 

 protection of the parapet.99

 Ditch- the trench dug up at the exterior foot of the parapet, serving to 

 furnish the earth necessary for raising the parapet and banquette and 

 increasing the difficulty of the approach. The depth should never be 

 less than six feet if possible. The slope nearest to the parapet is called 

 scarp, that opposite to the parapet, is called counterscarp, and the small 

 level space between the ditch and the parapet, which keeps the parapet 

 from sliding into the ditch, is the berm (normally two feet in breadth).” 

 Palisades -stakes of strong split wood, of about 7 or 8 inches broad, 3 or 4 

 inches thick, and 8 or 9 feet long, of which 3 or 4 feet are sunk into the 

 earth. They are pointed both at the top and bottom, and that they may 

 be of greater strength, they are fastened to a horizontal rail within two 

 feet from the top, and are generally placed so close to each other, as only 

 to admit the muzzle of a piece between them. Their greatest distance 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 60 

 from each other is never so great as to afford room enough to creep 

 through them.”100

 Fraizes-palisades fixed in the parapet. When the stakes are 9 feet long, 4 

 feet lie within the body of the parapet, and the remainder leans over, 

 inclining a little towards the ditch. This inclination was to permit hand 

 grenades thrown from within the redoubt to bounce off them into the 

 ditch, and to make it more difficult to throw hand grenades from the 

 ditch into the redoubt’s interior.101

 Abatis- an obstacle constructed to delay an attacking force, while 

 exposing it to fire from the redoubt. It consists of hewn trees with the 

 points of their branches turned towards the enemy, and to increase the 

 danger and difficulty of forcing it, the trees are not only placed close to 

 each other, but the branches are stripped of their leaves and twigs, 

 sharpened at their extremities, and interwoven one in another.102

Redan- a French word for "projection" and refers to a fortification in a V-shaped 

salient angle toward an expected attack. It can be made from earthworks or other 

material. Flèche, from the French for arrow, is another term for redan.103

 Artillery-firing platform - “The depth of an artillery battery is always 30 

 feet or thereabouts, 15 feet for the gun, 15 feet for recoil.” “The floor or 

 bed of the battery must be made of good oaken planks, nailed across 

 beams, to hinder the wheels of the carriages from sinking into the 

 ground, and that this floor or platform must incline a little, as about one 

 foot...to check the recoiling of the pieces.” 104

Extremely detailed specifications for artillery batteries were provided by Captain 

J.G. Tielke in his 1769 treatise, The Field Engineer. Tielke assigned two different 

sizes to artillery batteries, depending upon the poundage (or caliber) of the 

artillery pieces. 105 For regimental field pieces (3 or 6-pounder cannon), each 

artillery piece required a platform 16 feet in length, and 6-8 feet in breadth. For 

larger cannon (12, 18, or 24-pounders), each artillery piece required a platform 24 

feet in length, and 10 feet in breadth. Tielke further noted, “If the cannon are to 

be occasionally fired in an oblique direction, the platforms must be broader 

behind than in front. In general, a difference of four or six feet is fully sufficient.” 

He provided specific dimensions for the artillery parapet: 

“That part of the parapet between the platform and the embrasure is from 2 1⁄2to 3 

1⁄2 feet in height. The embrasure is 1 1⁄2 or 2 feet in width at the platform, by 5,6, or 

7 feet on the outside...and its bottom is also lowered about a foot toward the 

field, consequently it will be only 1 1⁄2, 2 or 2 1⁄2 feet above the edge of the ditch. 

The merlon must be a least six feet thick, otherwise it will not resist the shot 

which may be fired against it. In all batteries there should be a small banquette on 

each side of the embrasures, that the men who are employed at the guns may be 

able to see the effect of their fire.”106
SITE HISTORY

 61 

Tielke also provided specifics regarding the construction of the floors and 

foundations of artillery batteries.107 He states that a simple firing platform should 

consist of three planks eight or nine feet in length, leveled, upon which the floor 

of the platform would be mounted. Tielke states that the planks may rest upon 

strong wooden pickets, two to four feet in length. “In either case, pickets should 

be driven down on each side, for the purpose of fixing them in their proper 

places.” He again differentiated between smaller and heavier artillery pieces, “If 

the cannon should be very heavy, two strong beams may be buried in the earth.” 

Finally, he provided a third more substantial method when sufficient time and 

materials were available. The gun platform is carefully leveled, “Set three or four 

beams or sleepers into the earth...and then add a covering of boards-fastened 

either with nails or wooden pegs.” 

Another description of an artillery platform is included in a treatise written in 

1793 by Charles Rudyerd entitled, Course of Artillery at the Royal Military 

Academy, As Established by His Grace, The Duke of Richmond, Master General 

of his Majesty’s Ordnance.108

The construction of a parapet is what is properly called the construction 

of a battery . . . .The parapet should be three fathoms (eighteen feet) 

thick, and seven foot and half high. . . .Platforms ought to be about 18 or 

20 feet long, 7 and an half wide near the parapet at their narrowest part, 

and 13 at the widest. When the platforms are finished, the cannon must 

be brought to the batteries, and placed with their carriages on the several 

platforms allotted them. It is usual to make little cells or cavities near to 

the batteries, at a convenient distance, in which to keep the gunpowder. 

These cells are covered with clay, or something of the like kind, to 

preserve them from being fired, are called little magazines of the 

battery.109

The following chart lists the maximum range of the various artillery pieces that 

were used by the British and American forces. These ranges provide an 

understanding of the capabilities of the artillery during the Revolutionary War110

Artillery Piece Maximum Range (yards) Point Blank Range 

6-pounder 3,330 666 

9-pounder 3,580 716 

12-pounder 3,665 733 

24-pounder 3,250 650 

Though outside of the Victory Woods parcel, an important archeological feature 

is the site of the British ovens.111 As described in J.B. VanDerwerker’s Early Days in 

Eastern Saratoga County. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 62 

During Burgoyne’s Campaign, his left wing came down the west bank of 

the Hudson, camping on the Thompson Farm , this being along the river 

shore, it was comparatively level, and made an excellent camping spot. 

At this early period a Mr. Graham was owner of the property, as 

previously mentioned. But as customary during this campaign, all the 

property was destroyed, including the burning of his home and other 

buildings. It appears from research that this place must have been a 

permanent site for this wing of Burgoyne’s army, as it is found that in the 

hillside, westerly from the flats, large holes had been made and 

reinforced with stone and timber for ovens.112

POST BRITISH SURRENDER AT SARATOGA 

After the surrender, shockwaves spread around the globe. The most far-reaching 

consequences took place in Europe, where the spectacle of a British army 

surrendering in the wilderness astonished the courts. Burgoyne's surrender 

convinced France to sign an alliance with the United States. This renewed the 

conflict between France and Britain that had been waged intermittently since 

1689 and vastly widened the scope of America's War for Independence. In 

subsequent years, French financial support, materiel, and manpower sustained 

the American cause on the many occasions when the United States seemed nearly 

exhausted. The seeds sown at Saratoga were harvested almost exactly four years 

later in a similar ceremony at Yorktown.113

The surrender convention had called for the captured army to be returned to 

Europe, but since that would have freed other troops to fight in North America, 

the Continental Congress never carried out this provision, and the soldiers 

remained captive for the duration of the war. Burgoyne himself returned to 

England and, in addition to writing plays, occupied himself defending his 

conduct of the expedition. 

The day after the surrender, October 18, 1777, Gates' army marched to Albany 

where there was illumination and rejoicing. By October 20th, Burgoyne's army 

separated, the British starting for Boston via Stockbridge escorted by General 

Glover, and the Germans passing through Schaghticoke to Lansingburgh. At this 

time Fort Ticonderoga and Mt. Independence were evacuated by their British 

garrisons. 

The German prisoners reached barracks in Charlestown, Massachusetts on 

November 7th via Kinderhook and Springfield. The American Northern Army 

joined General Washington near Philadelphia on November 21. News of 

Burgoyne’s surrender received and published in the London Gazette on 

December 15th, with his dispatches printed in full in Gentleman’s Magazine. 

On March, 16, 1778, large quantities of ammunition were brought to New Perth 

for Albany and Fort Edward for the Americans. Burgoyne went back early to 

England on April 5, 1778, and General Washington used his position to get him his 
SITE HISTORY

 63 

parole. Later that year, 20,000 British troops arrived to reinforce their forces. 

Meanwhile, France sent twelve ships, four frigates and 12,000 men to aid 

America. The German prisoners from Saratoga marched from Massachusetts to 

Charlottesville, Virginia at the close of the year. In May of 1779, a hearing took 

place for Burgoyne before the British Parliament for his failure in America. The 

House of Commons never issued a report. 

In the early part of October 1780 an expedition was sent from Canada, by way of 

Lake Champlain, under command of Major Carleton. The object of this part of 

the expedition was to attack Schenectady, but if that was too hazardous, then to 

make a descent upon the Ballston settlement. The order to Munro was to 

plunder, destroy, property, and take prisoners, but not to kill unless attacked or 

resisted, or to prevent escapes.114 On October 10 and 11, Carleton captured Fort 

Ann and Fort George. 115 Marauding parties ravaged the villages of Sandy Hill, 

Fort Edward, and others lying along the Hudson. These lawless parties 

committed so many depredations on the defenseless inhabitants, and burned so 

many dwellings, that that year is called to this day among their descendants “the 

year of the great burning.”116

After the capture of Fort Ann and Fort George, the whig inhabitants had been 

mostly burnt out and scattered. Saratoga was the most northern point garrisoned 

by the Americans.117 By May of 1781, the locals had great fears of an invasion from 

Canada to destroy Ft. Edward and New Perth. In June of that year, General Stark 

was the commander in chief at the north with headquarters at Saratoga. Oct. 19, 

1781, General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. Lord Stirling reached Albany 

to take command in the northern department from General Stark on October 22. 

Rumor of Cornwallis’s surrender reached Saratoga by October 29 and was 

confirmed by November 2. Lord Stirling retired from Saratoga to Albany on 

November 4. By September of 1782, Lieut. Colonel (afterwards Major General) 

H. Dearborn was in command at Saratoga. Peace was proclaimed in 1783, and the 

British prisoners were sent home from Canada. 

By the end of the Revolutionary War, Native American villages of New England 

suffered a serious gender imbalance due to the number of men lost to military 

casualties and seafaring accidents. Native American women had little choice but 

to consider outsiders as potential spouses.118 The Stockbridge Indians found 

themselves depleted in numbers, enticed to sell their lands, and unwanted in their 

village, where whites had taken over the local government and endeavored to 

oust the Indians. Accepting an invitation from the Oneida, the dispirited 

remnants of the Mahican Nation, 420 in all, removed to a tract on Oneida Creek 

in New York. The removal started in 1783, and the population numbers suggest 

the involvement of other Mahican remnants from the Hudson River area. 

Scattered throughout their old territory, a number of families stayed behind, 

generating several multicultural groups, such as the Van Guilders, Bushwackers, 

and Jukes. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 64 

CONCLUSION 

During the nine-year period of the Revolutionary War, the landscape containing 

the Victory Woods parcel was, once again, contested terrain. The high plateau, 

later referred to as the “Heights of Saratoga,” was selected by General Burgoyne 

as a defensible landscape, overlooking the floodplains and confluence of Fish 

Creek and the Hudson River. Burgoyne had passed this site on his way to seize 

Albany and to gain control of the Hudson River, and when in retreat a month 

later, he chose this area as a defensible site. Physical changes during this period 

included the hastily constructed British fortifications, most likely an earthen 

redoubt along the brow of the hill and around the top of the hill, encompassing 

an area of approximately one hundred acres. The extent of the earthworks 

would have been proportional to the number of men remaining in Burgoyne’s 

troops. Having lost one quarter of his army, some 4,000 to 6,000 men remained 

at the encampment. The earthen parapet would have been, according to British 

manuals, built in a rectangular configuration with salient angles and topped with 

wooden logs, then lined with cannon. 

The extent of tree cover is not well documented, but most historic maps show the 

steep hillsides rising from Fish Creek as wooded, as well as much of the 

surrounding hills. Only the plains by the Hudson River and a few upland fields 

are demarcated as in agricultural use and lined with stone walls. Historic maps 

from this period show the main road along the Hudson River, a road parallel to 

Fish Creek to the northwest, and a spur road leading to the British encampment 

area. 

Endnotes 

 

1

 Excerpted from the “Historical Overview” written by Larry Lowenthal for the 2004 Saratoga National Historical Park 

General Management Plan. 

2

 Reid, Arthur. Reminiscences of the Revolution, or Le Loup’s Bloody Trail from Salem to Fort Edward. Utica: Roberts, Book 

& Job Printer,1859, 5. 

3

 Proceedings of the New York Historical Association, Annual Meeting with Constitution, 1913, 273. 4

 Reid. 

5

 Sylvester, 60. 

6

 Nickerson, 456. 

7

 O'Callaghan, 106-7 and Hadden, 189 in Shimoda, Jerry Y. "Documentary Research Report on Military Use History of the 

Schuyler Property." Department of the Interior, National Park Service, September 1967. 

8

 Sylvester, 60. 

9

 Nickerson, 458. 

10 Excerpted from the preliminary Study of Victory Woods Tract by Larry Lowenthal, draft prepared for GMP preparation 

but not included within the final report. 

11 Albany represented more than symbolic value. It was near the head of navigation on the Hudson and was the last large 

town going north or west. It was therefore the American headquarters and supply center for a large region, and its loss 

would have made it difficult for the patriot forces to defend the parts of New York State they still controlled. 12 Nickerson, 369. 

13 Johnson, Eric S., 1997. 

14 Nickerson, 373. 

15 Also known as Fish Kill, the Dutch form. 

16 Shimoda, 1967. 

17 Johnson. 

18 Shimoda, 1967. 

19 The Turning Point of the Revolution, II, 378. A map on p.379 depicts these dispositions. John Henry Brandow in The Story 

of Old Saratoga (Saratoga Springs: Robson & Adee, 1906), 166 provides a more detailed description, but since it references 

landmarks of his time, it is confusing to the modern reader. More specifically, the position on the heights north of the Fish 
SITE HISTORY

 65 

 

Creek was occupied by "the British Grenadiers, facing eastward; the Loyalists, facing southward; the 9th Regiment, 

supporting the artillery, placed at right angles between the two former units. The 24th Regiment, on the left flank of the 

Loyalists, faced west. The Light Infantry prolonged the main line of defense northward. Next lay Fraser's Rangers; and the 

northern extremity of the line was manned by the 21st Regiment. Artillery was posted between the aforementioned 

regiments. (John F. Luzader, "The Burgoyne Campaign from October 8--October 16, 1777, " unpublished NPS report, 

1960.) 

20 Turning Point, 378. The appearance of strength may have been deceptive. Riedesel, for one, thought the position of the 

army was seriously defective (quoted in John F. Luzader, "The Burgoyne Campaign from October 8--October 16, 1777." 

While the troops encamped on the high ground in and around Victory Woods were reasonably well protected, the same 

was not true of the other portions of the army, particularly the Germans, whose situation was most familiar to Riedesel. 

Furthermore, communication between the different elements of the army was poor, raising the possibility that an 

American attack could isolate the various segments and destroy them in detail. 

21 State of the Expedition, 176. The most reasonable explanation for this sharp departure from Gates's usual caution, as for 

many of Burgoyne's actions, was concern about Henry Clinton. 22 John Luzader, Saratoga NHP, 1960. "The Burgoyne Campaign from October 8--October 16, 1777" helped renew 

interest in this period and uses the term" siege" to describe it but follows historical precedent in concentrating on 

Burgoyne's retreat and the negotiations that led to his capitulation while not saying much about the physical aspects of 

the British fortified camp. 

23 Orders given to Colonel Morgan on October 17 called for "The Regiment of Riflemen, under Colonel Morgan, and the 

Corps of Light Infantry under Major Dearborn to be ready, when ordered, to take Possession of the Enemy's Lines, Posts 

and Redoubts." (Morgan Papers, New York Public Library, cited in F.F. Wilshin, "Narrative Report for April, May, June" 

(1940) Even if the order was carried out as stated, there is no known account of what the victors found in the abandoned 

positions. 

24 With Burgoyne from Quebec. 

25 State of the Expedition, 174. 26 Lietenant Digby’s Journal, 303. 27 Anburey, With Burgoyne; Burgoyne, 174. Both sources refer to "redoubts." 28 Stone, William L. The Campaign of Lieut. Gen. John Burgoyne and the Expedition of Lieut. Col. Barry St. Leger. Albany: 

Joel Munsell, 1877, 77-9. 

29 Whk2963. 

30 This seemingly trivial detail could have larger implications. If the British line was set back from the edge of the 

escarpment, the area in front almost certainly would have been cleared to open a field of fire. This would have produced a 

large quantity of logs, which might have been incorporated into the defensive works. Furthermore, if the trees cut were 

species capable of resprouting from the roots, it would have influenced the composition of the forest for a long time 

afterward (see Emily W.B. Russell, "Saratoga National Historical Park Critical Review of Historical Base Map," 

unpublished report for Saratoga NHP, 1989. 31 Excerpted largely from Shimoda and Nickerson. 

32 Johnson. 

33 Johnson. 

34 Park Historian Mike Phillips, 1974. 

35 Nickerson, 460. 

36 Shimoda, 1967. 

37 Sylvester, 65. 

38 Nickerson, 375. 

39 Shimoda, 1967. 

40 Sylvester, 65. 

41 Johnson. 

42 Nickerson, 378. 

43 Nickerson, 378. 

44 Johnson; Sylvester, 65. 

45 Sylvester, 65. 

46 Sylvester, 65. 

47 Nickerson, 377. 

48 Nickerson, 378. 

49 Johnson. 

50 Shimoda, 1967. 

51 Nickerson, 379. 

52 Wilkinson, I, 284-85 in Shimoda, 1967. 

53 Sylvester, 65. 

54 Johnson. 

55 Lieutenant Digby's Journal, 304.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 66 

 56 Stanley, Lt. Col. George F. G. For Want of a Horse being A Journal of the Campaigns against the Americans in 1776 and 1777 

conducted from Canada, by an officer who served with Lt. Gen. Burgoyne, Edited and with an Introduction by Lt. Col. 

George F. G. Stanley, Sackville, N.B.: Tribune Press Limited, 1961, 165.

57 Doblin, Translator, The Specht Journal, 95. 58 Nickerson, 380. 

59 Nickerson, 380. 

60 Johnson. 

61 Nickerson, 382. 

62 Stanley, For Want of a Horse, 165. 63 Nickerson, 384. 

64 Nickerson, 385. 

65 Shimoda, 1967. 

66 Johnson. 

67 Johnson. 

68 Nickerson, 386. 

69 Doblin, Translator, The Specht Journal, 96. 70 Doblin, Translator, The Specht Journal, 97. 71 Nickerson, 387; Sylvester, 66. 

72 Johnson. 

73 Shimoda, 1967. 

74 Nickerson, 389. 

75 Johnson. 

76 Shimoda, 1967. 

77 Nickerson, 395. 

78 Nickerson, 396. 

79 Nickerson, 397. 

80 Johnson. 

81 Sylvester, 68. 

82 Shimoda, 1967. 

83 Journal entry of Rev. Hezekiah Smith, October 17, 1777 (Nixon’s Brigade Chaplain). Taken from “Life, Ministry, & 

Journals of Hezekiah Smith, 1735-1805.” Warren Association Series (Springfield, Missouri: Particular Baptist Press by John 

David Broome, 2004). 

84 Nickerson, 400. 

85 Nickerson, 400. 

86 Sylvester, 69. 

87 Nickerson, 401. 

88 Nickerson, 400. 

89 Sylvester, 69. 

90 Stanley, 100. 

91 Stanley, 100. 

92 Lochee, Lewis. Elements of Field Fortification. London: T. Cadell and T. Egerton, 1783, 4. 93 Lochee, 8. 

94 Lochee, 12. 

95 Lochee, 9. 

96 Lochee, 5. 

97 Lochee, 5. 

98 Lochee, 5. 

99 Lochee, 7. 

100 Lochee, 7. 101 Lochee, 7. 

102 Lochee, 7. 

103 Wikepedia, redan and Lochee, 11. 

104 Lochee, 12; Cubbison, Douglas R. Historic Structures Report, The Hudson River Defenses at Fortress West Point, 1778-

1783. West Point, New York: Directorate of Housing and Public Works, U.S. Military Academy, January 2005, 25. 105 Tielke, Captain J.G. The Field Engineer, or Introduction Upon Every Branch of Field Fortifications, 2 volumes. 

Translated by Ensign Edwin Hewgill. London: 1769; revised edition J. Walter, 1789, in Cubbison, 2005, 301-11. 106 Tielke in Cubbison, 2005, 301-11. 

107 Tielke in Cubbison, 2005, 301-11. 

108 Rudyerd, Charles W. Course of Artillery at the Royal Military Academy, As Established by His Grace, The Duke of 

Richmond, Master General of his Majesty’s Ordnance. Woolwich: Royal Military Academy, 1793 in Cubbison, 2005. 109 LeBlond, Guillame. A Treatise on Artillery. London: E. Cave, 1746 (reprint edition Ottawa Ontario: Museum 

Restoration Service, 1790), 66-69 in Cubbison, 2005, 27-28. 
SITE HISTORY

 67 

 110 LeBlond, 66-69 in Cubbison, 2005, 35. 

111 For more information on British ovens refer to John U. Rees, “As many fireplaces as you have tents...” Earthen Camp 

Kitchens (www.revwar75.com/library/rees/kitchen.htm). 

112 VanDerwerker, Mrs. J.B. Early Days in Eastern Saratoga County. New introduction and index by Zetterstrom, Alice 

Lowder. Interlaken, New York, Empire State Books, 1994, 50. 

113 Nickerson, 404. 

114 Sylvester, 70. 

115 Fitch, Dr. Asa. The Asa Fitch Papers Volume 2. Transcribed and Edited by Laura Penny Hulslander. Fort Campbell, KY: 

The Sleeper Co., 1997, 90. 

116 Sylvester, 70. 

117 Fitch, Vol. 2, p. 72, Interview with Jacob Bitely concerning the houses. 118 Calloway, Colin G. Western Abenakis of Vermont, 1600-1800, War, Migration, and the Survival of an Indian People.

University of Oklahoma Press, 1990, 278. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

68

Figure 1.8: “A Map of the Country in 

which the Army under LT GENERAL 

BURGOYNE acted in the Campaign 

of 1777, showing the Marches of the 

Army & the Places of the principal 

Actions.” Drawn by M. Medcalfe, 

Engraved by Wm Faden, Published 

1780. (Library of Congress, g3801s 

ar118301 http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/

g3801s.ar118301). Saratoga is in the 

lower left corner of the map. 
69 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.9:“PLAN of the POSITION which the Army under L.T GEN.L Burgoyne took at SARATOGA, on the 10th of September 1777, and which it remained till the CONVENTION was signed.” 

Unidentifi ed artist, c. 1779 (Manuscript Map, Library of Congress Collection, 71-659). Victory Woods is at the top. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

70

Figure 1.10: “PLAN of the POSITIONS which the ARMY under Lt GEN. L BURGOINE took at SARATOGA on the 10th of September 1777, and in which it remained till THE CONVENTION was signed.” 

Map prepared by William Faden, engraver and publisher, 1780. Included in A State of the Expedition from Canada. This printed map was the result of various manuscript maps. (SARA 4228). Victory Woods is at the top. British Forces are depicted in red, German in blue and yellow, and American in gold.
71 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.11: “Plan of the Position which the Army, under Lieutenant G.al Burgoine [sic] took at Saratoga on the 10th of September 1777, and which remained till the convention was signed.” 

Unidentifi ed artist, possibly German, c. 1777. (Manuscript Map, Library of Congress Collection). Although written in English and subsequently deposited in a French archive, this map may have been drawn by a German offi cer. Victory Woods is in the upper left corner.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

72

Figure 1.12: Manuscript Map c. 1777 (Saratoga NHP Archives, Courtesy of New York State Offi ce of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation). Victory Woods is in the upper left corner.
73 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.13: “PLAN de la Poisition de l’Armee Sous les Ordres de son Excellence le Lieutenant General Burgoyne a SARATOGA dan’t sur la 

Retraite de Fremanns Ferme,” 1777. A portion of the Gerlach Map of Saratoga in October 1777 that includes the three Old Saratoga Unit 

sites. (Drawn by Capt. H.D. Gerlach. Negative Photostat copy of original SARA 4947.) Victory Woods is located on the left edge toward 

the center. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

74

Figure 1.14: “PLAN OF THE POSITION TAKEN BY GENL BURGOYNE ON THE 10TH OF OCT.R 1777 IN WHICH THE BRITISH ARMY WAS INVESTED BY THE AMERICANS UNDER THE COMMAND OF GEN.L GATES AND SURRENDERED,” Isaac Chapman, artist, after an unidentifi ed draftsman (American Offi cer), engraved by G[ideaon] Fairman (1774-1827), published by Moses Thomas, Analectic Magazine, Philadelphia, 1813-1821. (Library of Congress Collection, SARA 5549 [0241]) Victory Woods is at top left. Cannon placements are shown. 
75 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.15: Walworth Map depicting the events of 1777, 1891 (From Ellen Hardin Walworth, Battles of Saratoga, Albany, New 

York, Joel Munsell’s Sons, 1891). Victory Woods is near the center.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

76

Figure 1.16: Walworth map showing the position of the British and American armies from October 10-17, 1777. (From Ellen Hardin 

Walworth, Battles of Saratoga, Albany, New York, Joel Munsell’s Sons, 1891). Victory Woods is near the center.
SITE HISTORY

 77 

RURAL ECONOMY, 1783-1846 

The formal declaration of peace in 1783 brought a close to the Revolutionary War 

and the Loyalists had to content with their new political situation. The fear of 

Native American attacks abated for the most part, although there were 

occurrences. With a sense of security, the difficult task of rebuilding continued. 

Families that fled to Albany, Dutchess County, Manchester, Vermont, and other 

locations for protection returned to find burned out homes, loss of livestock, and 

complete devastation. Some of the settlers found this situation too difficult and 

made the decision to move, either to the western parts of the state or to 

Pennsylvania and Ohio. Many decided to move west induced by grants of bounty 

land. Others decided to stay and resumed clearing the land while expanding 

agricultural production. 

Loyalist lands were resold or released creating some opportunities for the poorer 

classes; but in general the wealthy profited as did General Schuyler, a member of 

the Commissioners of Forfeiture. The first forfeiture sales of lands belonging to 

Loyalists who had fled to Canada began in 1780 and were finalized in 1823.1

 The 

Commissioners main goals were to raise revenue and punish the Loyalists, while 

democratization of the land became incidental. The leasing system in the 

Saratoga Patent did not allow for many forfeiture sales, instead new tenants were 

just installed.2

In 1788 the British parliament voted to recompense the American Loyalists.3

 John 

Freeman and his family, who had settled on the present day Battlefield at 

Saratoga, leased his farm from General Schuyler (Lott 16, Farm #3). Like other 

Loyalists in the area, the Freemans paid dearly for their choice of siding with the 

British. John, his wife, and six of their nine children died in Canada. The 

remaining children filed war damage claims for what they lost during the war. 

Thomas Freeman’s claim made in Montreal, 17 March 1788 attests to their loss. 

The claim was for a farm on lease forever from General Schuyler. John Freeman 

and his family had lived on this farm for eleven years and had cleared 60 acres. 

There was a house and a barn, and at the time following the battle, Captain Mead 

leased it as Schuyler’s new tenant. John had left some of his cattle on the farm, 

along with calves, hogs and 13 sheep. His stock had been sold to the British 

Commissary who had given him receipts, which were lost when John died.4

 

Another element for making the decision to move or stay was the fact that many 

of the settlers had no clear title to the land. They built homes, farmed the land, 

and paid rent, but had little prospect of owning the land. This was certainly the 

case for many of those residing on General Schuyler’s land. It was not until after 

the General died in 1804, that his children began conveying clear title to these 

families. 

In what is now Easton, Rufus Hall, a Quaker resident within the Saratoga Patent 

and land owner prior to the battles, penned his account of what it was like after 

the war. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 78 

I was sixty pounds in debt for my land, and by reason of the troublesome 

times, there was no likelihood of paying it soon, and the interest going 

on I fell under discouragement for fear that by not paying my debt so 

soon as it was wanted I should bring a scandal on the blessed Truth – and 

I came to a conclusion to sell my land if I could find a chance to better 

my circumstances.5

After the Revolutionary War there was much dispersion of the Native Americans. 

They suffered from the loss of their land and their numbers dwindled due to 

disease, famine, and war. Some intermarry into the population and others 

remained as the following excerpt from one of Dr. Fitch’s interviews portrays. 

Stockbridge Indians used to come into these parts regularly every autumn to 

hunt, and remain here some weeks till the weather became cool on the close of 

the Indian summer. They had their wigwams or camps in the woods, there were 

several in the vicinity, each company had its own wigwam, to which they 

regularly came. About a dozen occupied this wigwam, coming here every autumn 

to hunt the deer, bears, raccoon, &c. We never used to have any fear of them, but 

were always on friendly terms with them.6

 

General Schuyler had sustained an enormous amount of damage to his estate and 

began rebuilding soon after the surrender. He employed soldiers to assist in 

rebuilding his home in a very short time using lumber from his unburned upper 

saw-mill located not too far from the Victory Woods site. This house was built in 

a less formal style to the one burned by Burgoyne, and it currently remains 

standing under the ownership of the National Park Service. General Schuyler was 

setting the example of starting anew. Getting others to do the same would 

benefit him greatly in commencing his mill, agricultural, and shipping operations. 

There was a large influx of people during this time with most of those coming 

from New England. This population increase can be substantiated by comparing 

the 1779 Tax List for the District of Saratoga and the 1790 Federal Census. By 1790 

there were 514 entries for heads of families for the Town of Saratoga which 

included Schuylerville and the Village of Victory. Based on the census, the 

number of inhabitants recorded for Saratoga County in 1791 was 17,000.7

 The 

land was cleared and cultivated, primarily with corn and wheat. Pastures were 

used for cattle and sheep. The average farm contained between 100 to 200 acres. 

Along with the rebuilding there was a great interest in visiting the historic 

battlefield and surrender sites. General Schuyler and other guides hosted many 

of these visitors. William L. Stone compiled accounts from some of these visitors 

and it is interesting to note the conflict between improving the land (clearing) and 

preserving military features on the landscape. William Strickland, an Englishman 

on a tour or the area in 1795 very aptly describes the setting and the effect of this 

population surge as well as the military works in the Schuylerville area.8

 

From Ballston Springs [sic] to Schuyler’s Mills is a continued pine plain 

here and there broken by new settlements. In a few places original 

woods of small extent remain producing trees of wonderful magnitude 
SITE HISTORY

 79 

. . . except these few tracts of original wood no timber remains in the 

country; fire and neglect prevent the growth of a new forest, and in a few 

years this tract will become a barren, bare, sandy plain. . . In this vast 

tract of country no deer, or useful animal or next to none exist; and 

scarce a living creature is to be seen. Thus has a country, once 

abounding in animated nature, for want of Laws to protect, or sense in 

the people to kill with moderation and in seasonable times, in the short 

space of 20 years become still as death. . . Schuyler’s mills are sawing 

mills, but having consumed most of the timber within reach, they are 

likely soon to cease to work. Improvident waste has destroyed the 

woods that originally existed, and want of care has neglected to raise a 

succession, of which there is no longer a prospect. . . On the heights 

above Mr. Schuyler’s house, [John Bradstreet Schuyler] redoubts and 

other military works remain, though so over grown with brush wood, as 

scarcely to be accessible, in which state also are those on the heights on 

the left bank of Fishkill creek, which were occupied by the British 

previous to the surrender and those also of the Americans by which they 

hemmed them in, and prevented their retreat to Canada. 

Another visitor touring the area makes specific reference to the military works as 

well as other aspects of Saratoga. In 1795 the Duke De La Rochefoucault 

Liancourt described the British camp as being on a height a quarter mile from 

John Bradstreet Schuyler’s house and as part of its defense was surrounded 

entirely with a mound of earth. He was impressed that John Bradstreet Schuyler 

knew every inch of his estate and the history to go with it. Liancourt related that 

the area remained as it was after the war except that the vegetation had grown up 

where it had been cut down by the armies and that the entrenchments still 

existed.9

 He also related that the estate of John Schuyler consisted of about 1500 

acres with 500 being completely clear and that he had three mills, two saw mills 

and one for corn. The chief products were grain. It was mainly Indian corn and 

hay which he sold much of.10 According to Liancourt, there was an abundance of 

laborers in the area but daily chores were performed by slaves, as most 

households had at least one and John Schuyler kept seven.11 It was shortly after 

Liancourt left the area that John Bradstreet Schuyler died in 1795, leaving a widow 

and young son. 

John Bradstreet Schuyler, son of the General, came of age in 1787 and took 

occupancy of the Saratoga estate shortly afterward. His father did not give him 

clear title for this estate but it was intended to be his inheritance. John Bradstreet 

married his cousin Elizabeth Van Rensselaer and they occupied the house year 

round and made changes to the estate. After his death the General resumed 

management and rented the property to Richard Davis for 1250 bushels of wheat, 

and was instructed to take over some of the operations, including collecting rent 

from the tenants, disposal of some of the property, and accounting for everything 

belonging to the estate of John Bradstreet Schuyler.12 General Schuyler willed this 

Saratoga estate to his grandson, Philip II, son of John Bradstreet, who was sixteen 

years old at the time.13 Philip II married Grace Hunter in 1811 and they 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 80 

subsequently took up residence in the house built by the General and oversaw 

the estate. During their occupancy and administration of the estate (this included 

all his land holdings within the Saratoga Patent), numerous changes took place 

that contributed to an increase in population and prosperity to the area. 

The construction of the Champlain Canal and the Whitehall Turnpike were 

directly responsible for this success. The Whitehall Turnpike was chartered in 

1806 and extended in 1810. Inland navigation had been a keen interest of General 

Schuyler’s, and later that of Philip II. General Schuyler made plans to develop a 

system in this country after studying their construction in Europe. He was 

instrumental in the formation of the Northern Inland Lock and Navigation 

Company for which he was director. A preliminary survey was conducted by 

bateau in 1792 of the Hudson River from Albany to Wood Creek, located in 

present day Whitehall.14 The primary need for such a canal system was to have 

access to the significant amount of timber in the Upper Hudson Region.15 It is not 

until 1817 that construction began on the Champlain Canal with completion in 

1823. The dam at Saratoga Falls and the aqueduct across Fish Creek were 

completed in 1821.16 As part of the arrangement for the canal to cross the Schuyler 

Estate, Philip II acquired rights to run a sawmill off the canal slip outlet; this being 

the only instance the canal system in New York State allowed for a private 

enterprise to use canal water flow for power.17

 

Once the canal was opened, the community prospered in large measure due to 

the influence of the Schuyler family. As a tribute and honor this community of 

Saratoga was renamed Schuylerville in 1820. The canal complex at Schuylerville 

included a back slip that powered the mills, a dry dock, and a canal basin at 

Schuylerville, which provided amenities for those working on the canals.18 The 

canal provided a surge in economic prosperity and new opportunities for the area 

and the other communities along the canal. Lumber, iron ore, coal, potatoes, and 

other agricultural products, were the main items being transported. Being a 

center of marketing for the area’s agricultural products, the basin of the canal was 

lined with storehouses. Schuylerville became a canal town and its economy 

became dependent upon that canal. Soon after the canal was completed, the 

Whitehall Turnpike was built linking Whitehall, New York with Waterford, New 

York and revolutionized transportation during the early half of the nineteenth 

century. An increase in population was attributed to the presence of the canal 

and turnpike. Saratoga County in 1820 had a population of 32,052 and grew to 

40,553 by 1840.19

 

Philip Schuyler, II was to follow in his grandfather’s footsteps. In 1828 he built 

the Horicon Mill (located on Fish Creek in the Village of Victory) for the 

manufacture of cotton goods. It was reported as being the second cotton mill 

built in New York, with the first supposedly built in Greenwich in 1817 (The 1779 

tax list for the Saratoga District includes a cotton mill).20 The community in 

Schuylerville developed with the building of new churches. Philip II and his wife 

Grace donated the land for the United Methodist Church built in 1827, and for 

the second Reformed Protestant Dutch Church built in 1822. The first Reformed 

Protestant Dutch Church was built circa 1770 south of the present Schuyler 
SITE HISTORY

 81 

House on land the General had donated. In 1822 this first church was torn down 

and some of the material salvaged to build the second church.21

 

To commemorate the Battles of Saratoga a semi-centennial was held in 

Schuylerville in 1827. The celebration was quite elaborate and an excerpt from an 

interview by Dr. Fitch offers a brief description of the area. 

The extensive tables were set on the grounds of old Fort Hardy, with a 

canopy of evergreens to protect the guests from the sun although the 

oration was delivered in a shady grove on the eastern slope of the 

heights, near where the Dutch Reformed Church now stands. . . I recall 

the fact also that the breastworks surrounding the fort were then nearly 

perfect, as General De Ridder, at the head of the military, marched 

around on the top of the entrenchments.22 

The eastern slope mentioned is situated in close proximity to the Victory Woods 

and the description of a shady grove indicates that there were trees on the 

heights. If the breastworks near the fort were in great shape then it would seem 

reasonable that the earthworks in and around the British Camp were also in great 

shape. 

The financial panic of 1837, likened to the great depression of the 1930s, proved 

disastrous for Philip Schuyler, II. In 1837 Philip was forced to sell his real estate to 

pay for his debts. This resulted in the departure of the Schuylers from this 

community. On 28 April of that year he conveyed his holdings to Jacob T.B. Van 

Vechten as trustee of his estate.23 This most likely prompted the map drawn by 

surveyor Harmon Van Alen. The map defined those holdings which included the 

Victory Woods site and is indicated by lot 5 (Figure 1.17). The property was then 

purchased by Teunis Van Vechten, trustee for Stephen Van Rensselaer, Jr., 

Schuyler’s maternal uncle, who was responsible for the payment of large amounts 

of money for Philip.24 George Strover, whose father was a coachman for General 

Schuyler, bought a portion of the original estate that included the main house in 

1839, and lived there until his death in 1886.25

While the effects of the financial panic of 1837 lingered for some five years, 

industrial progress including railroads and steam-powered boats gradually 

changed the transportation systems of the country. The economy of the Saratoga 

area surged dramatically after the establishment of the Saratoga Victory 

Manufacturing Company in 1846. 

CONCLUSION 

From the close of the Revolutionary War through the first half of the nineteenth 

century, the reallocation of farmland, the success of the Champlain Canal and 

Whitehall Turnpike, and the influence of the Schuylers made Schuylerville a 

flourishing community. As control of the land passed from one generation of 

Schuylers to the next, tenants bought farms averaging 100 to 200 acres, while the 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 82 

landscape along the river evolved into a transportation and shipping hub, with 

storehouses lining the canal on the river plains below the Victory Woods parcel. 

In 1795, William L. Stone refers to a few remaining stands of “trees of wonderful 

magnitude,” but also the “barren, bare” landscape, forecasting the eventual 

abandonment of the overworked landscape by many farmers in the next century. 

Stone refers to the British redoubts in Victory Woods as “so overgrown with 

brush wood, as scarcely to be accessible.” Despite their apparent abandonment, 

the British camp and many of the American earthworks remained evident in the 

landscape and ownership of the Victory Woods land was retained by the 

Schuyler family until the financial panic of 1837. 

While development grew up around the canal, the Victory Woods parcel 

remained undeveloped, perhaps due in part to a sense of pride and as an 

attraction for the occasional tourists. A semi-centennial celebration in 1827 “in a 

shady grove on the eastern slope of the heights” coalesced commemorative 

interests, which would continue and eventually lead to the construction of the 

Saratoga Monument, not far from Victory Woods, at the centennial in 1877. 

Endnotes 

 

1

 Crary, Catherine Snell, Forfeited Loyalist Lands In The Western District of New York – Albany And Tryon Counties. New 

York History, Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association, Vol. xxxv, July, 1954, 243. 2

 Crary, 240. 

3

 Fitch. The Asa Fitch Papers, Volumes 1and 2. Edited by Penny Hulslander. Fort Campbell, KY, The Sleeper Co., 1997, 85. 4

 Hall, Rufus. Journal of the Life, Religious Exercise and Travels in the Work of the Ministry of Rufus Hall. Philadelphia, John 

and Isaac Comly, 1840, 19. 

5

 Hall, 19. 

6

 Fitch, Vol. 1, 69. 

7

 Sylvester, Nathaniel Bartlett, History of Saratoga County, New York with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Some of 

Its Men and Pioneers. Philadelphia: Everts & Ensign, 1878 (reprint – Heart of the Lakes Publishing, Interlaken, NY 14847, 

1979), 77. 

8

 Strach, Stephen G. The Saratoga Estate of Philip Schuyler, 1745-1839: An Interpretive and Historic Grounds Report. Draft. 

1983, 83-84. 

9

 Strach, 91. 

10 Strach, 93. 

11 Strach, 93. 

12 Strach, 96. 

13 Luzader, John F. Historic Building Report, Philip Schuyler House, Schuylerville, New York. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, 1957, 9. 

14 New York State Museum, The Inland Navigation Surveys of the Western and Northern Inland Lock Navigation Companies,

1772. The State Education Department, Albany, NY, 1992. 15 Whitford, Noble E., The Champlain Canal, 1906, Chapter 6. 16 New York State Archives Internet Document, Champlain Canal, 2000. nysed.gov/holding/aids/canal 17 Brandow, John Henry, The Story of Old Saratoga, the Burgoyne Campaign to which is added New York’s Share in the 

Revolution. Fort Orange Press, The Brandow Printing Company, Albany, NY, 1919, 344. 

18 Brandow, 344. 

19 Sylvester, 131. 

20 Sylvester, 279. 

21 Sylvester. 272. 

22 Sylvester, 120. 

23 Luzader, 42. 

24 Luzader, 42. 

25 Strach, 122. 
83 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.17: Van Alen Map of 1837 showing the holdings of the Schuyler family (SARA). 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 84 

VICTORY MILLS, 1846-1974 

After the financial panic of the late 1830s, manufacturing and commerce 

flourished in the Saratoga area. Business investors looked at the water of Fish 

Creek as a power source for additional mills. Benjamin Losee and Pickham 

Green, a surveyor, were sent to investigate the potential of Fish Creek by three 

Boston entrepreneurs, Enoch Mudge, David Nevins, and Jarred Coffin.1

 Finding 

the site advantageous, they purchased land along Fish Creek from the estate of 

Philip Schuyler II in 1846 for the Saratoga Water Power Company. The name was 

soon changed to the Saratoga Victory Manufacturing Company. Victory was 

inserted into the name in deference to the surrender of the British troops near 

that site in 1777. A three-story mill was constructed for the manufacture of cotton 

cloth. Additionally the company operated a very productive sawmill and gristmill 

at Grangerville (a hamlet on Fish Creek west of Victory), giving them full control 

of this valuable water power on Fish Creek.2

 The company flourished and 

brought with it more employees and services resulting in the incorporation of the 

Village of Victory in 1849.3

 By 1850 this thriving company employed 369 people 

and had 309 operational looms.4

 As a result the village expanded with the 

addition of company-built homes, hotels, stores, a post office, markets and a 

four-room brick school house.5

 In a short time the population of the little village 

grew to 638 residents according to the 1860 census.6

 

The entrepreneurs conveyed to the Saratoga Victory Manufacturing Company a 

sizable amount of land which included the Victory Woods parcel. The 1846 map 

for the estate of the Saratoga Water Power Company, clearly indicates that the 

slope and some of the high ground was forested (Figure 1.18). It may have been 

used as a woodlot but there is not indication of agricultural use. The company 

grew and prospered and occasionally donated parcels of land for the benefit of 

the community. One of those donations, deeded to the Trustees of the Village of 

Victory, included a ten-acre parcel for use as a public cemetery in 1853.7

 The 

company also donated land for the Union Methodist Church, the only church in 

the village, built near the mills in 1854.8

 The 22.78-acre Victory Woods parcel was 

retained by the company and protected from development. 

In 1863, the highly productive Saratoga Victory Manufacturing Company looked 

for ways to expand and improve operations. The company bought the Horicon 

Mill, known as the cotton factory, which was built in 1828 by Philip Schuyler II. 

They also purchased a small plot of land south of the Schuyler House, located 

between the Champlain Canal and the Whitehall Turnpike (presently Route 4), 

from George Strover, giving them canal access. The success of the canal in the 

second part of the nineteenth century prompted the need for further expansion. 

The Prospect Hill Cemetery Association was organized in 1865 and incorporated 

in 1867 (Figure 1.19).9

 The cemetery ground was a twenty-acre site on the 

“Heights of Saratoga" in the Village of Victory, and formerly part of the British 

fortified camp. Construction began on the cemetery and Albert Clements, a long 

time resident of Victory, helped plow down the entrenchments on that parcel 
SITE HISTORY

 85 

while preparing for the cemetery. In 1877, at the age of 95, he related the 

following in an affidavit made for the Senate Committee considering the Saratoga 

Monument the following: 

I remember, when I was a boy, of seeing breastworks extending as much 

as a quarter mile in length along the hill where Prospect Hill Cemetery 

now is located, in the direction of the road just west of the cemetery. I 

assisted in tearing them down. They were made of pine logs and earth. I 

ploughed up a cartridge box containing about sixty musket balls. It was 

on the west slope of the hill, about parallel with the present road to 

Victory, on the west of the cemetery. 10

 

Another description of the Prospect Hill Cemetery and surrounding area was 

given by John Jeffords: 

I am acquainted with sites where I have seen breastworks said to have 

been thrown up by or under the direction of Burgoyne for shelter to his 

army from the enemy, General Gates. The greatest piece of breastwork 

that I have seen was on the hill where the new cemetery now is, which 

were from five to seven feet high... I have seen breastworks and rifle-pits 

said to have been thrown up and used by General Gates’ army, in the 

village of Victory Mills, between Michael Welch and Henry Marshall’s 

lands, and on James Whaley’s farm... Also, that General Burgoyne’s 

headquarters were a little southwest of the place where now is Prospect 

Hill Cemetery.11

The 1866 Beers Atlas maps of Victory and Schuylerville show the local roads and 

buildings of the time as well as business owners and proposed roads (Figures 1.20 

and 1.21). Together with the 1883 birdseye views of Schuylerville and Victory, 

these sources indicate there was no development and most of the area of Victory 

Woods remained covered in forest (Figures 1.22 and 1.23). 

As the development of the area increased, landmarks associated with the Battles 

of Saratoga were quickly disappearing, while the popularity of visiting such sites 

was increasing. The Saratoga Monument Association, formally incorporated in 

1856, was established to recognize the important sites and memorialize the events 

of 1777 with some type of monument. In the late 1870s the Association was finally 

successful in securing land and funding. The site chosen for a monument was on 

the “Heights of Saratoga” within the British camp, commanding an impressive 

view of the region. The Peter Bannon house that was on that site was moved a 

short distance down the hill and attached to the next residence where it still 

remains. In celebration of the 100th anniversary of Burgoyne’s surrender the 

cornerstone of the Saratoga Monument was laid on 17 October 1877. 

Construction continued on the monument until it was completed in 1882 (Figure 

1.24). 

Transportation of incoming supplies and finished products was critical for the 

mill and the introduction of the first railroad in 1882 supported this need. The 

line was first called the Fitchburg Railroad, which was replaced by the Boston 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 86 

and Maine Railroad and eventually became the Saratoga and Schuylerville 

Railroad (Figures 1.25 and 1.26).12 The railroads served to reinforce the favorable 

impacts the canal had on the population and economy of the local area as well as 

the state and national levels. Improvements continued on the Champlain Canal 

until cost and accommodations for larger vessels resulted in the construction the 

New York State Barge Canal. This barge canal followed the river channel and 

once it was completed by 1918, the original Champlain Canal was abandoned. 

Schuylerville did not elect to have a docking station for the new canal and this 

decision later proved detrimental to the community. 

For the Saratoga Victory Manufacturing Company, business was booming and 

continued to flourish with additions and enlargements to the mill. With such an 

enormous operation fire was always a concern. The company built a water tower 

and water suppression system on site and maintained its own fire fighting 

department.13 Figure 1.27 depicts the elevated water tower next to the Victory 

Mill complex. Also anxious about fire, the town of Schuylerville established the 

David Nevins Fire company in 1896.14 The mill was also noted for having its own 

hydroelectric generating station (Figure 1.28).15 After the water tower went out of 

use, it became a hazard and had to be torn down (Figure 1.29).16 According to 

Dick Varney, long time mill worker and current park employee, it was taken 

down in the early 1990s. 

Historian John Henry Brandow spent a great deal of time going over the ground 

in the area where Revolutionary War events took place. He created a map with a 

number key, for his 1906 edition of the history of Old Saratoga (Figure 1.30). His 

extensive descriptions of earthworks and mapping give credibility to their 

existence. 

The Battle Monument [#1 on map] The monument stands within the 

lines of Burgoyne’s fortified camp. This camp took in the buildings just 

north of the monument, extended diagonally southeast down the hill 

across the road to near Chestnut street, thence south along the crest of 

the terrace into the Victory woods; thence west just over the brow of the 

hill to a point south of the cemetery; thence north along the western 

slope of the cemetery ridge to the place of beginning.17

British Earthworks [#3 on map] In the Victory woods, south of the 

monument, there are hundreds of feet of the British breastworks in an 

excellent state of preservation. The ground never having been 

permanently cleared nor plowed, these earthworks remain as the British 

left them, except that the logs, which may have entered into their 

construction, are rotted away. To find them, look for two pine trees near 

the northern end of the woods; between these trees you will find an 

angle in the woods running south and west. At the upper end of the 

northern leg of this angle are some rifle pits, plainly discernible; there are 

also some in front and south of it. Next, about 125 feet to the southwest, 

you will find another angle running west and then south; walk on the 

crest of these works till you come to an obtuse angle which veers to the 
SITE HISTORY

 87 

southwest; near this some breastworks run directly south on the edge of 

a clearing. You can follow these easily for several hundred feet. Near 

the southern end of these turn to the left down into the woods and you 

will find a line of breastworks running from the swampy place through 

the woods to the crest of the ridge on the east. These two latter works 

were doubtless intended to cover their outposts, or advanced pickets.18

 

The swampy place and the line of breastworks are potentially the same features 

seen in Victory Woods today. 

Historian John Henry Brandow had asked Mr. J.J. Perkins, then custodian of the 

monument, who was in the artillery service several years during the Civil War, to 

go over the ground with him. Perkins declared that there is no doubt of the 

genuineness of the only relics of Burgoyne’s defensive works remaining on the 

west side of the Hudson River, at Schuylerville. In his book, Brandow advocated 

for the protection of the remaining earthworks. Though he observed that the 

earthworks would doubtless remain undisturbed so long as they remained in the 

hands of the Victory Manufacturing Company, but he advocated for the longterm protection through ownership by the village or state.19

Saratoga Victory Manufacturing Company was purchased by the American 

Manufacturing Company in 1910. Figure 1.31 shows the mill early in the twentieth 

century.20 The company opened the Victory Mills Community House and Casino 

for its employees, which had public baths, a restaurant, library, bowling alley, 

barber shop, and a large room for community activities.21 Some of those activities 

provided by the company included dances, operas, and free parties. Health 

services were also offered there and during the early twentieth century it was 

used as a hospital during the 1918 flu epidemic.22 The building that was formally 

the Community House still stands today, located along Gates Avenue across from 

the mill. The wooded heights, that held the British entrenchments above the 

factory were of little use to the company and remained vacant through out the 

years, except to be used by employees for recreational pursuits. 

An ice house for storing ice through much of the year was built on mill property 

sometime before 1931. Prior to refrigeration, ice was cut from rivers and ponds in 

the winter, stored in ice houses, and then delivered to customers as needed.23

 

Currently located on the Victory Woods site the foundation for this ice house 

remains at the southeast corner of the parcel. A map printed in 1931 shows the lay 

out of the Victory Manufacturing facility (Figure 1.32). Longtime resident Vern 

LaBarge related that Bill Ruff, known as the “ice man” ran the ice business in the 

Village of Victory and would deliver ice with his team of horses.24 He lived on the 

corner of Herkimer and Pine Streets. 

A photograph shows blocks of ice neatly loaded on a horse-drawn sled in the 

Village of Victory with the mill in the background and appears to be on Herkimer 

Street (Figure 1.33). It is most likely Bill Ruff, coming from the ice house in 

Victory Woods as there is no evidence of another ice house in the vicinity. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 88 

A large concrete addition was built at the Victory Mill site in 1918 which 

immensely increased the mill capacity.25 In addition to the water tower built on 

site, the company erected a large water tank in the Victory Woods at this time.26

 

The tank built on the high ground was connected to a ditch or penstock which 

ran down the hill toward Gates Avenue. While unsure of the exact date of 

construction, there was an appraisal done of the Victory Mills in 1920 by the 

Keystone Appraisal Company of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for this 100,000 

gallon tank. The appraisal mentions the water works and a pipe that connected 

the tank and pump station with an extension to Schuylerville. This brick pump 

house stood south of the water tank and was enclosed with a fence as recollected 

by Alexander Adamson in 1987, former Victory Mills postmaster.27 Also included 

in this appraisal was an assessment of land valued at $4,200 which included the 

Horicon and Victory Woods properties, and vacant land northwest of Horicon 

and Gates Ave.28

 

To further add to this information, Martin Hulka, a former Victory Mills road 

commissioner recollected the following information about the water tank. 

During the Cotton Mill’s operation a large water tank was built c. 1919 or 

during World War I by the Victory Manufacturing Co. It provided water 

for the horses doing yard work at the mill. The horses were housed in a 

big barn downstream from the mill – a water line led down Jay Street. 

[There was a reservoir located on Jay Street and this can be seen on the 

1846 and 1931 maps.] In the 1920s the Victory Woods water tank was 

taken out of service and the pipes sold to Saratoga Springs.29 

The Village of Victory had reached its most prosperous era and by 1925 had a 

population of 1,065.30 Unfortunately those times were about to change with the 

closure of the mill. The Victory Mills Branch of the American Manufacturing 

Company moved to the south where the labor was cheaper and the raw materials 

were readily available. The year 1928 saw the end of the cotton plant, and because 

it was the primary employer, the communities of the Village of Victory and 

Schuylerville were hit hard financially.31 Much of the machinery from the mill 

was sold and in 1929 the last of it was shipped to Alabama.32 This explains the 

comment about the pipes being sold in the quote above. 

In 1930, a map and guide of the Battlefield was published by the Rev. Delos 

Sprague (Figure 1.33). This guide provides yet another description of the 

existence of features in the Victory Woods. 

#49 - Unmarked. Burgoyne’s entrenchments may be found in Victory 

Woods, lying between Nos. 48 and 50 and to the east. (They are 

indicated on the state highway running through Victory Mills by a 

marker but they are some distance to the west of this marker). These 

entrenchments which include rifle pits, may be found by searching 

carefully. They extend some distance through the woods running north 

and south.33

 
SITE HISTORY

 89 

The mill sat idle for nine years until 1937 when the United Board and Carton 

Corporation purchased it to begin the manufacturing of folding cartons. 34 On 20 

August 1940, the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulfite, and Paper Mill 

Workers Union took ownership of the mill and its property.35 This company 

must have worked on some type of partnership with the village for the use and 

development of the old water works in the Victory Woods. The only 

documentation found so far that gives a date and use of the water works by the 

village, is the 1948 Village of Victory annual report. “The Village board is to be 

commended for its fine efforts in bringing a municipal water system to the 

village.”36 Further insight into this situation has been attained from a local 

resident who worked for the Village of Victory Water Department in the 1950s.37

 

According to Vern LaBarge, the water works consisted of a series of ten natural 

springs located on the south western portion of the property. Nine were 

developed with pumps that supplied the water needs of for the Village of Victory. 

There was also an underground reservoir on the site. It was the job of Mr. 

LaBarge to check the springs and keep them clear of debris and small animals, 

because he often found frogs within them. In referring to the water tank, Mr. 

LaBarge said there was never any water in it. The water system continued to be 

used by the village until the early 1970s when a new water tower was built on land 

adjacent to the Victory Woods property. This property was part of that ten-acre 

parcel donated for use as a cemetery in 1853. 

In related events the Saratoga Battlefield was authorized by the United States 

Congress in 1938 to become part of the National Park System. It was not until 

1948 that it was officially designated as the Saratoga National Historical Park. 

The park also acquired a 26-acre parcel of the General Philip Schuyler Estate in 

1950. It had been maintained as a residence, with little being changed from the 

time that Philip and Grace Schuyler had occupied the house. The Strover and 

subsequently the Lowber family owned the property from 1837 until 1946. 

The United Board and Carton Corporation prospered for many years until its 

sale in 1972 to Wheelabrator-Frye Incorporated. The Victory plant became one 

of four folding carton plants to come under Wheelabrator-Frye’s Graphic 

Communications Group called the A.L. Garber Company. With the installation 

of specialized equipment this company opened up new job opportunities in 

Victory Mills.38

CONCLUSION 

Post war, nineteenth-century accounts provide a clearer, but not necessarily 

more accurate depiction of the appearance of the Revolutionary War landscape. 

Accounts by Albert Clements, John Jeffords, and John Henry Brandow describe 

respectively the embankments of earth topped by logs, breastworks, and the 

extent of the British earthworks—all true to the construction methods outlined in 

British military manuals. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 90 

Commemorative efforts coalesced during the nineteenth century, highlighted by 

the completion of the Saratoga Monument in 1882. Ironically, memorialization 

efforts, including the construction of the monument and cemetery, resulted in 

the loss of much of the historic fabric of the British encampment. Only the 

Victory Woods parcel, owned by a series of industrial corporations, remained 

protected from development, and the historic road that passed through the site 

remained unpaved. Features evident in the Victory Woods parcel during this 

time included the remnant earthworks, the ice house at the southeast corner of 

the site, which predates 1931, and the maturing stand of predominantly oak and 

maple trees. 

There is some confusion as to the dates of installation and operation of the 

waterworks and use of the water tower by the Village of Victory. The parcel 

known as Victory Woods was retained by the various companies that owned the 

mill and they may have worked out an agreement about the use of their site. 

There is no evidence of this in the title abstract for the various owners of the mill. 

The Village of Victory has been unable to locate records for this time period 

pertaining to use of this site. There was a fence around the water works enclosing 

about one acre, until the National Park Service removed most of it during the 

1980s. Some of those fence posts remain and are stamped with “Property of the 

Village of Victory.” 

Endnotes 

 

1

 Victory Specialty Packaging Inc., 10th Anniversary Pamphlet, 1993. 2

 Nathaniel Bartlett Sylvester, History of Saratoga County, New York with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Some of 

Its Men and Pioneers, (Philadelphia: Everts & Ensign, 1878) (reprint – Interlaken: Heart of the Lakes Publishing, 1979), 279. 3

 John Henry Brandow, The Story of Old Saratoga, (Albany: Fort Orange Press, The Brandow Printing Company, 1919), 372. 4

 Victory Specialty Packaging Inc. 

5

 Brandow, 372. 

6

 Thomas N. Wood III, Images of America Around the Town of Saratoga, (Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 1999)112. 7

 Saratoga Victory Manufacturing Company and the Trustees of the Village of Victory, 1853, Saratoga County Clerks 

Office, Deed Book 68, page 74. 

8

 Victory Specialty Packaging. 

9

 Prospect Hill Cemetery Pamphlet, 2005. 

10 Ellen Harding Walworth, Battles of Saratoga, (Albany: Joe Munsell’s Sons, 1891), 75. 11 Sylvester, 268. 

12 Wood, 106. 

13 Wood, 121. 

14 Wood, 121. 

15 Wood, 111. 

16 Wood, 125. 

17 John Henry Brandow, The Story of Old Saratoga and History of Schuylerville, (Saratoga Springs: Robson and Adee, 1906), 

367. 

18 Brandow, 1906, 368. 

19 Brandow, 1906, 368-369. 

20 Wood, 116. 

21 Victory Specialty Packaging. 

22 Victory Specialty Packaging. 

23 Wood, 127. 

24 Vern LaBarge, interviews by Linda White, 2005 and 2006. 
SITE HISTORY

 91 

 25 Wood, 120. 

26 Martin Hulka, telephone interview by Paul Okey, 29 September, 1987. 

27 Alexander Adamson, interview by Paul Okey, 29 September 1987. 

28 Keystone Appraisal Co., Phildelphia, PA, “Appraisal of the Victory Mills—Branch of American Manufacturing 

Company—1920”, transcribed by L. White, 2002. 

29 Alexander Adamson. 

30 Wood. 

31 Victory Specialty Packaging. 

32 Wood, 121. 

33 Rev. Delos E. Sprague, The Descriptive Guide of the Battlefield of Saratoga, (Ballston Spa: Battlefield Publishing Co., Inc., 

1930), 43. 

34 Victory Specialty Packaging. 

35 Victory Specialty Packaging. 

36 Village of Victory Mills Annual Report, 1948. 

37 Vern LaBarge, interview. 

38 Victory Specialty Packaging. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

92

Figure 1.18: Map of the Estate of the Saratoga Water Power Company, 1846. ( Saratoga County Clerk’s Offi ce, Map fi les).
93 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.19: Map of Prospect Hill Cemetery, 1865. The cemetery is located on the northwest corner of what was the main British 

encampment. The cemetery is adjacent to the Saratoga Monument (Saratoga County Clerk’s Offi ce, Map fi les).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

94

Figure 1.20: Beers Atlas map of Victory, 1866, with locations of Victory Woods, Saratoga Monument, and Schuyler Estate added by 

author. Saratoga NHP Old Saratoga Unit boundaries are shown. Many of the dashed streets, including Morie Street, the last portion of 

Prat, and many of the unnamed streets were planned but never built (From S.N. & D. G. Beers and Associates, New Topographical Atlas of 

Saratoga Co., New York, Philadelphia: Stone and Stewart Publishers, 1866).
95 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.21: Beers Atlas map of Schuylerville, 1866, with locations of Victory Woods, Saratoga Monument, and Schuyler Estate added 

by author. Saratoga NHP Old Saratoga Unit boundaries are shown (From S.N. & D. G. Beers and Associates, New Topographical Atlas of 

Saratoga Co., New York, Philadelphia: Stone and Stewart Publishers, 1866).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

96

Figure 1.22: Birdseye view of the Schuylerville and vicinity. M = Saratoga Monument; S= Schuyler Estate (From Nathaniel Bartlett 

Sylvester, History of Saratoga County, New York, Interlaken, New York: Heart of the Lakes Publishers, 1979).

Figure 1.23: 1883 Birdseye view of the Village of Victory. V = Victory Woods (L.R. Burleigh, Troy, New York, 1889).
97 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.24: Birdseye view of the Village of Schuylerville, 1889. Saratoga Monument is to the left. Victory Woods

is not visible here but is located southeast of the Saratoga Monument (L.R. Burleigh, Troy, New York, 1889). 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

98

Figure 1.25: Map depicting Saratoga and other New York towns and the Fitchburg Railroad line, 1895. Old Saratoga Patent lines and 

original lot owners are shown (Joseph Rudolph Bien, Atlas of Warren, Saratoga and Washington Counties, 1895). 
99 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.26: Topographic Map of Saratoga, 1900, with location of Victory Woods, Saratoga Monument, and Schuyler Estate delineated by

authors. Saratoga NHP Old Saratoga Unit boundaries are shown (USGS, 1900).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

100

Figure 1.27: Early-twentieth-century view of Victory Mill taken from Smithville across Fish Creek from Victory (From Thomas N. Wood III, 

Images of America, Around the Town of Saratoga, Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 1999, 124)

Figure 1.28: Rear of Victory Mill along Fish Creek, pre-1918. Note the structure built directly on the creek. Parts of its foundation remain 

today (From Thomas N. Wood III, Images of America, Around the Town of Saratoga, Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 1999, 111).
101 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.29: Water tower that was torn down (From Thomas N. Wood III, Images of America, Around the Town of Saratoga,

Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 1999, 125).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

102

Figure 1.30: Overlay of the British encampment over 1906 existing conditions (From John Henry Brandow, The Story of Old Saratoga, 

1901).
103 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.31: Key features of John H. Brandow’s 1919 Historical Map of Saratoga overlaid atop modern USGS map. 

Brandow had referenced a 1900 USGS map and “Burgoyne’s Military Map,” but troop placement and fortifi cation 

lines are not exact. Saratoga National Historical Park’s Old Saratoga Unit legislative boundaries are shown. 

Small cross or plus-shaped symbols depict cannon placements (Brandow, 1919; Saratoga NHP Archives & OCLP, 2005). 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

104

Figure 1.32: Front of Victory Mill, pre-1918 (From Thomas N. Wood III, Images of America, Around the Town of Saratoga, Charleston, SC: 

Arcadia Publishing, 1999, 114-115).
105 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.33: Map of the property of Victory Mills, 1931, depicting the ice house and water tower on the Victory Woods parcel.

Figure 1.34: Ice House (From Thomas N. Wood III, Images of America, Around the Town of Saratoga, Charleston, SC: 

Arcadia Publishing, 1999, 127)
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

106

Figure 1.35: Map in the 1930 book showing the British encampment (From Rev. Delos E. Sprague, The Descriptive Guide of the Battlefi eld 

of Saratoga).
SITE HISTORY

107 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 1974-PRESENT 

Prior to the acquisition of the Victory Woods, formerly called the Garber Tract, 

by the National Park Service in 1974, a Draft Environmental Statement was 

prepared. This Proposed Amendment to the Act of 1 June 1938 and Land 

Acquisition program for Saratoga National Historical Park, prepared by the 

North Atlantic Region of the National Park Service provided guidance for future 

development of the sites in the Village of Victory.1

 Area 8 on Figure 1.36 shows 

both the site of the Saratoga [Battle] Monument, which was still under the 

jurisdiction of the State of New York, and the Garber Tract site. The proposal 

called for fee acquisition of both sites, and made note that original British 

earthworks still remained on the Garber Tract. Included in the proposal was an 

item for archaeological research and stabilization of these earthworks.2

 Also 

included was a plan to accommodate visitor access to view these earthworks by 

way of a trail with wayside exhibits and a temporary five-car parking lot. There 

was a concern expressed in the plan that interpretive exhibits would disrupt the 

recreational use of the site by motorbikes, bicycles, and hikers. With a focus on 

the earthworks, an increase in vandalism was mentioned as being problematic. 

Former Saratoga National Historical Park Historian Michael M. Phillips, a longtime local resident, was knowledgeable about the earthworks and initiated the 

process of addressing the acquisition or donation of the Victory Woods site in 

the early 1970s. The approach of the Bicentennial of the Battle of Saratoga most 

likely served as an impetus for inclusion of this site along with the Saratoga 

Monument by the National Park Service. In November of 1973 Superintendent 

Hugh D. Gurney consulted the New York District Director of the National Park 

Service about a possible donation of the Victory Woods from the A.L. Garber 

Company.3

 Justification for this acquisition was based on the remains of a 

semicircular earthwork, which measured approximately fifteen feet in length and 

three feet in height and was likely the best example of extant Revolutionary War 

earthworks in the area. The decision to accept the Saratoga Monument as a 

donation from New York State had recently had been made and while the Garber 

tract was not contiguous to the Monument tract, it was thought that permission 

could be obtained from the Prospect Hill Cemetery Association for a trail across 

their undeveloped land, linking the two sites. 

This action prompted a letter to Mr. James Hallinan, General Manager of the A.L. 

Garber Company from George A. Palmer, Acting Regional Director, Northeast 

Region, about donating the parcel to the National Park Service, for inclusion in 

the Saratoga National Historical Park.4

 Aside from asking for this donation, there 

was concern about the integrity of the site and it was mentioned that many 

amateur archaeologists had removed numerous artifacts and had left the site 

riddled with small [probe] holes. Despite this situation it was felt that the 

earthworks were still significant and that efforts to stabilize the existing features 

and provide for their preservation and interpretation would be made. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 108 

Word of this potential donation was made formally to the community in a press 

article on 18 December 1973, entitled, "Burgoyne army fortification area may go to 

National Park."5

 George A. Palmer confirmed that there had been action to 

support this donation. This transfer involved changes in land development and 

operations by the National Park Service making it necessary to submit a support 

data package, which had been completed except for final graphics. If the 

proposed donation was not feasible, provisions were made for legislative land 

acquisition. 

In preparation for this alternative the Chief Appraiser for the Northeast Regional 

Office, Leonard P. Engler, estimated the land cost for the Garber tract in the 

amount of $72,500; $15,000 allocated for three acres of potential commercial land 

and $57,500 for 23 acres of potential residential land.6

 This appraisal included a 

100,000 gallon standpipe (water tank) which was being used by the Village of 

Victory Mills as a water reservoir through an agreement with the A.L. Garber 

Company. The old water works or natural springs and a pump house had long 

been abandoned by the village and were considered to have no value. The village 

was in the process of developing a new water supply system and the old one in 

Victory Woods would revert back to the A.L. Garber Company by 18 April 1974. 

The tank and the water works became the property of the National Park Service 

upon the transfer of this tract relinquishing any claim to the site and the tank by 

the Village of Victory (Figure 1.37). 

A.L. Garber Company President James F. Hallinan responded positively to the 

National Park Service request for the donation of the Garber Tract. Michael M. 

Phillips, with assistance from Elliott Morgan, a preservation specialist with 

General Electric, were instrumental in securing this agreement.7

 Hallinan said the 

company would prefer the transfer to happen quickly, “to delay, may encourage 

further amateur archaeologists in their misguided efforts,” and presumed the 

National Park Service would initiate the deed preparation as the next step in the 

process.8

 

The process moved quickly and although the formal transfer was not signed until 

26 November 1974, a public ceremony transferring ownership of 26.78 acres from 

Wheelabrator-Frye Inc. (subsidiary – A.L. Garber Company), to the National 

Park Service was held on 7 October 1974; the date commemorating the 

anniversary of the second battle of Saratoga. The ceremony took place at the end 

of Monument Drive close to the earthworks, followed by a reception at the 

General Philip Schuyler House, provided by the Old Saratoga Historical 

Association. 9 Those present at the ceremony included James Hallinan from the 

A.L. Garber Co. who had administered the land for the company prior to the 

transfer, Superintendent Hugh Gurney, David A. Richie Deputy Director of the 

National Park Service, Historian Michael M. Phillips, Sara Batty of 

Wheelabrator-Frye Inc., and many local historians (Figure 1.38).10

Excerpts from a newspaper article covering this event provide pertinent details 

that have yet to be found elsewhere. 
SITE HISTORY

109 

Donated as a Bicentennial gift to the United States by WheelabratorFrye, Inc. of New York, the land is located here at Victory Mills in a 

mostly forested tract. According to Jerry D. Wagers, director of the 

North [sic] Park Service’s North Atlantic Region, the tract contains one 

of the best examples of untouched Revolutionary War earthworks in the 

United States. . . . Gurney told the gathering that historians have termed 

Burgoyne's surrender at Schuylerville the most significant factor that 

resulted in the defeat of the British in 1777. The reason was this position 

was so advantageous and so well constructed, he was really afraid to 

leave it. . . . In 1846 the Victory Knitting Co. was established as a cotton 

factory along Fish Creek just below the British entrenchments. Because 

of the wooded heights, above the factory, the land was of little use to the 

company and remained idle throughout the years. Now, on the eve of 

the American Revolution Bicentennial, the earthworks have been 

rediscovered and identified as part of the actual structures thrown up by 

the British in 1777, and are the only portions which have survived 200 

years. . . . Some of the British regiments entrenched on the spot were the 

9th and the 24th. Historian Phillips stated that some breastplates, buckles 

and buttons of the 24th have been found on the spot. Two councils of 

war were held by the British on the spot; the first when they decided to 

retreat to Canada and then changed their minds, and the second when 

they made the decision to talk surrender. . . . Pointing out the gun 

emplacement in Victory Woods, he said the position was a very strong 

defensive one built by the British on Sept. 13 before the Army moved 

onto Bemis Heights. He said that Burgoyne, on his way down, used the 

heights at Victory Woods for a while, and on his retreat, used the same 

fortifications. . . . We believe that what survives here are the very remains 

of a defensive artillery works planned at this point. . . . Phillips pointed 

out the positions of the British regiments and the American volunteers 

attached to Burgoyne some distance back in the woods. He said that 

initially the area was sloping toward Fish Creek and was unwooded, 

giving the British a clear sweep to the land along the river with Fish 

Creek between. Gen. Gates had planned to attack the spot, but on the 

advice of aides decided against it. . . . The Park Service plans to 

eventually develop visitors’ trails into the area of the earthworks 

accompanied by wayside trail exhibits. Immediate plans call for ongoing archeological studies to determine if other Revolutionary artifacts 

and foundations still remain.11

While formal archeological studies were never done on the site there 

were some recommendations made by new superintendent, W. Glen 

Gray, in 1975. It was suggested special studies be conducted to 

determine the best approach to preserve the extant earthworks. A 

proposed development schedule with intentions for Victory Woods was 

done in February 1974. The items included $15,000 for a 1.25 mile hiking 

trail from the Saratoga Monument to the site, $15,000 for an interim 

parking lot for five cars, and $65,000 for stabilization and interpretive 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 110 

development of existing fortifications at the Garber Tract.12 Apparently 

funding for these studies and proposed development did not happen. 

The site and the earthworks were left unchanged but the problem with 

looting continued. Superintendent Glen Gray noted that an amateur 

archeologist using a metal detector had dug the Victory Woods site 

before it was transferred to the park and allegedly found shoe buckles, 

buttons, a 29th regiment belt plate, a 24th regiment cartridge box plate, a 

royal artillery cartridge box insignia, musket belt plates, and numerous 

other artifacts.13

 

Funding was secured for a boundary survey and the work proceeded in 1974 by a 

surveyor who had just come from Yellowstone National Park. Saratoga National 

Historical Park Maintenance staff person Clark Dalzell assisted the surveyor and 

in placing the 20 brass boundary monuments that are numbered and set in 

concrete (Figure 1.39). Around the same time a gate for access to the site from 

Herkimer Drive was made and installed. This gate is still currently in use. 

Little else was done with the site except for the consideration of a right-of-way to 

the water tank by the Village of Victory in 1976 and a request for information on 

the history of the water system.14 There is no evidence that this right-of-way was 

issued, nor information exchanged pertaining to the water system. In 1980 the 

Village of Victory again requested a right-of-way across a strip of park land at the 

end of Jay Street for the purpose of installing and maintaining a water line that 

would permit the abandonment of the water line and water tank on park 

property.15 While considering this request it was determined that an adjacent 

land owner, was using this strip for access to his property. According to the 

North Atlantic Regional Office there was no right-of-way reserved in the deed. 

This landowner felt that he had access rights because of long term use.16 As a 

solution to the problem the National Park Service suggested that the Village of 

Victory request a right-of-way and easement to serve as both a water-line 

corridor and access for adjacent landowners and that Jay Street could be 

extended for such use “without violating Federal law as they are now.”17 The 

right-of-way request by the Village of Victory was terminated 26 March 1981 but 

it did not solve the problem of the landowners being landlocked by the National 

Park Service Property.18 This issue of legal access remains unresolved. 

During the 1980s the Victory Woods site continued to be available to the public 

without any amenities but saw few visitors. Interpretive Park Rangers led a few 

walks from the Saratoga Monument through the site. This was possible as the 

National Park Service acquired ownership of the Saratoga Monument in 1980. 

Law Enforcement Park Rangers patrolled on a regular basis and the boundaries 

marked annually. There were some problems with the local neighborhood youth 

building bonfires in different locations on the site as well as in the water tank 

itself (Figures 1.40 to 1.43). This prompted the welding of metal bars across the 

openings in the tower by Clark Dalzell. Dalzell recalls that he was tasked to 

remove wires and fencing, shore-up the road to the water tower, remove trees to 

have access to the tower, fill in holes made by the 4-wheelers, and remove fence 

posts (these were installed with concrete so he had to burn off the posts, leaving 
SITE HISTORY

111 

the concrete in the ground).19 In preparation for the water tank removal in 1992, 

the maintenance staff filled in the large underground concrete reservoir with 

stone and covered it with gravel. The water tank was subsequently removed that 

same year. Litter from parties in the woods was also a continuing problem as was 

“archeological” looting. It was during one of the routine patrols in 1989 that an 

extensive looting operation was discovered (Figures 1.44 and 1.45). Over 200 

holes small trowel holes had been dug along with over two meters of trenching. 

A sifter was also found on the site, concealed near the open trenches. This 

resulted in a case of violation of the Archeological Resources Protection Act.20

The instances of looting leveled off after this incident. 

By 1989 funding had yet to be appropriated for work in the Victory Woods and a 

staff meeting was called 13 June 1989 to discuss options for the Garber Tract. The 

outcome of the meeting resulted in the following suggestions.21

 

An archeological investigation should be made as soon as possible. Then 

declare the area a preserve of some kind and perhaps enlist the 

cooperation of local government in caring for it, with certain privileges 

as a reward. 

Build a trail through the cemetery and water tower lot into the Garber 

Tract and return. Use as a nature/historical trail. We would have to 

remove some hazards, but could interpret the area with a map and 

carsonite posts. 

Establish an archeological base before doing anything; if it is found that 

the property has no historic value or integrity, we could then develop 

alternate uses; establish an interpretive trail that would, it is hoped, cut 

down on the negative use of the area. 

See if the local schools would be interested in using the area as an 

environmental study area; area might be exchanged to another agency 

for a national cemetery or other facility seeking to locate in this area in 

return for concessions to NPS. 

The issue could be tabled indefinitely ending more politically timely 

action. There is no real pressure to do anything now. 

Arrange for an archeological study of the area; delay any real discussion 

of alternatives until after the historical significance is determined. 

Donate it to one of the adjacent landowners or see if each landowner 

would be interested in buying a portion of it. 

None of the suggestions made at the 1989 meeting were implemented. With no 

action being taken in the Victory Woods the Village of Victory suggested that the 

site be transferred, placed on the tax rolls, and opened for development. A 

petition by the Village of Victory for acquiring the land was made to the local 

congressman.22

 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 112 

In 1987 Section 106 clearance support data for removal of the tank was completed. 

It recommended that the water tank be removed and the area regraded, "since 

the water tank is not in keeping with the historic scene and it has become a target 

for local vandalism and graffiti, and it is located near the center of the tract where 

dirt bikers travel well cut trails to get to it."23

In 1993 plans were outlined to re-grade the existing road that serviced the water 

tank and the former Village of Victory water system.24 Work included the 

removal of downed trees blocking the road, use of an agricultural York rake for 

re-grading, and the placement of #3 stone as fill where needed on the road and 

around the water tank area. In 1994 concrete vaults were removed with difficulty 

due to eight-inch reinforced concrete lids. New York State provided assistance 

with this project at no cost to the National Park Service.25 After this work was 

completed in the Victory Woods, nothing more was done to the site or 

incorporated into the parks’ operations but routine patrols and boundary 

posting. 

Preparation for the General Management Plan by Saratoga National Historical 

Park in 2000 prompted discussions again about the treatment of the Victory 

Woods site. It was also at this time that the name “Garber Tract” was replaced 

with “Victory Woods.” To begin this project, a scope of work was drafted for 

Garber Tract identification, evaluation and documentation. As part of the scope 

it was recommended that the park conduct archeological background research 

and testing to complete a determination of eligibility for the National Register of 

Historic Places. The park contacted the New York State Office of Parks, 

Recreation and Historic Preservation for assistance with this project.26 Special 

consideration for the project was the need to balance public understanding of the 

job with the need to protect resources from looting and vandalism. To 

accomplish this project team members were identified and included Saratoga 

National Historical Park Archeologist Dr. David Starbuck, Regional Cultural 

Landscape Inventory Coordinator David Uschold, Saratoga National Historical 

Park Archeological Advisor Craig Davis, and former National Park Service 

Historian Larry Lowenthal. Lowenthal did the background historical research 

and drafted the Preliminary Study of Victory Woods Tract, on file at Saratoga 

National Historical Park. Other preparatory work entailed mapping all the site 

features using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) by Saratoga National Park 

Service staff (Figure 1.46). 

At the onset in the development of this plan, the “significance of Victory Woods 

was unclear and the future of the property was in question.”27 After extensive 

analysis combined with public involvement, the alternative chosen by Saratoga 

National Historical Park in 2004 for the General Management Plan called for 

opening the Victory Woods to the public and supported rehabilitation of the 

character-defining features and interpreting the site to portray the siege of 

Burgoyne’s troops.28 This would be done by linking the Victory Woods with the 

Saratoga Monument via the Prospect Hill Cemetery and key features would be 

identified and rehabilitated. 
SITE HISTORY

113 

The new General Management Plan was completed and released to the public in 

January of 2004. An article by the Daily Gazette newspaper announced the there 

may be a new park: 

Featuring replicas of British encampments during the Revolutionary 

War located just a short walk away from the Saratoga Monument. . . . 

The entrenchments used by British General John Burgoyne and his men 

in October 1777 can still be seen in the woods and would be preserved, 

according to the plan. . . . Trees would be cleared in the new facility to 

create the view British soldiers had during the war. A short walking path 

would connect the new park with the Saratoga Monument.29

 

In June of 2004, $295,000 funding was received by Saratoga National Historical 

Park with assistance from Congressman John E. Sweeney, for an archeological 

survey and an assessment of the property.30 The following year Congressman 

John E. Sweeney announced that he had secured $310,000 for the second phase 

of the Victory Woods project. This phase would include the construction of 

universal access trails and interpretive exhibits, along with restoration of historic 

vistas to Fish Creek.31

In the fall of 2005 the geophysical surveys in support of the archeological 

identification study began in the Victory Woods. Radar Solutions International 

was contracted to do ground penetrating radar, magnetometry, and electrical 

resistivity surveys at twenty two sites. The three complimentary methodologies 

were used to characterize the sites and locate activity associated with the British 

occupation during the Revolutionary War. Senior Geophysicists Doria Kutrubes, 

Dr. John F. Kick, and Mark Kick, along with Geophysicist Melanie Denham and 

Technician Richard Rensky, performed the work in often very harsh conditions. 

The site work required the clearing of small trees and brush in the study areas. 

Field work was completed by January of 2006 and the survey results and 

interpretations were finalized in their Geophysical Report of March 2006 (Figure 

1.47). 

The archeological investigations, with archival information from the draft 

Cultural Landscape Report and Archeological Sensitivity Assessment and the 

Geophysical Report as a guide, were conducted by the Hartgen Archaeological 

Associates Inc. in April and May of 2006. Their work confirmed the existence of 

earthworks, including an angled fortification and nearby cannon battery. While 

no Revolutionary War artifacts were uncovered numerous Native American 

artifacts, including a roasting platform, diagnostic projectile points, numerous 

chert flakes, and fire cracked rocks were found (Figure 1.48).

The proposed plans to date and some of the preliminary findings from the recent 

investigations for the Victory Woods were presented to the public at the Village 

of Victory Town Hall on 4 May 2006. The program titled “Victory Woods 

Unveiled” was presented by Landscape Architect Christopher Stevens. The small 

local crowd that attended the presentation embraced the design concept. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 114 

The most recent work done in the Victory Woods was the removal of Norway 

maple (Acer platanoides) trees by the Northeast Region’s Exotic Plant 

Management Team. Exotic, or non-native species tend to dominate an area and 

prevent native species like the sugar maple (Acer saccharum) from maturing. 

Therefore it was recommended that non-native species be eliminated where 

possible. It is unlikely that Norway maples were planted in the Victory Woods, 

but seed dispersal from neighboring properties resulted in the abundance and 

dominance of these exotics. From 15 August to 17 August 2006, team members 

Steve Hatton, Jeff Jerman, Kelly Garrison, and Brian McDonnell cut 345 Norway 

maples, most of which were less than an inch in diameter. There were some trees 

that had diameters of more than 12 inches. The cut stumps were treated with a 25 

percent Garlon 4 solution to prevent re-sprouting. Removal of most of the 

remaining Norway maples is planned for the spring of 2007. Monitoring and 

removal of new seedlings will be an ongoing effort (Figure 1.49) 

To learn more about the Victory Woods and in preparation for this report, oral 

history interviews were done with local residents. Vladimir (recently deceased 

October 2006) and Margaret Pratt, life long residents of the Village of Victory, 

had both worked most of their adult lives for the mills at Victory.32 The Pratts 

related that when they were young they used to go skating on the pond in the 

woods with many other children. Margaret Pratt recalled playing with her 

brothers and friends upon the old earthworks; they played war trying to replicate 

what had happened there. Gathering wood from the site was another activity 

that they and some of their neighbors engaged in. Margaret Pratt said that her 

brothers, Martin and Lawrence Casey, were very interested in the local history 

and had done research on it. She related the local legend about gold from 

Burgoyne’s campaign being up there in the woods. Her brothers would go out 

and dig to see it they could find it. They never found the gold but according to 

Mrs. Pratt they did find numerous military artifacts. 

Dick Varney, another lifelong resident of the area, mentioned that the local 

community used the Victory Woods for recreation pursuits, including hunting 

squirrels in the late 1960s.33 He recalled that there were numerous squirrels up in 

the woods and that other teenagers did the same. They would access the site by 

walking straight up the hill from Gates Avenue. 

In September of 1977 the Clevepak Corporation purchased the Victory Mills 

plant and it operated as such until it was purchased by Gene Holcombe and 

others and incorporated under the name of Victory Specialty Packaging, Inc in 

1983.34 It continued to be a major employer in the area until 2000 when it closed 

its doors for good. Knowing that the mill was going out of business and Saratoga 

National Historical Park did not have a copy of the deed for the Garber Tract, (it 

was filed in the Washington office of the National Park Service) a search was 

made of the records at the mill. The deed was located and a copy made for the 

Saratoga National Historical Park. Inquiry was made about the old records of the 

company and access was given to an old back room where all the original records 

and books were kept since 1846. The Ledger books were very detailed and the 

records were complete. After determining that these records were not in the 
SITE HISTORY

115 

Park’s Scope of Collections, the Ledger books from the mill were donated to the 

Saratoga County Historical Society (Brookside Museum) in Ballston Spa, New 

York.35

CONCLUSION 

As early as 1780, written accounts by visitors such as the Marquis De Chastellux, 

and later in 1895 by historians such as William L. Stone note the significance of 

the British fortifications. In 1906, John Henry Brandow advocated for the 

protection of the encampment by local or state ownership. In the 1970s, in 

anticipation of the bicentennial of the Revolutionary War, preservation advocates 

successfully established federal protection of the site. For the past two centuries, 

the spatial organization, topography and circulation characteristics of the Victory 

Woods site remained relatively unchanged due to a lack of development. The site 

has been, however, extensively dug by relic hunters, thereby leaving an 

incomplete archeological record. 

Over thirty years lapsed before funding could be secured to provide for the park 

interpretive plans first suggested in the mid 1970s. The recent research, 

documentation, and archeology confirm the historical importance of the Victory 

Woods and support the steps necessary for preserving and interpreting this site. 

In 2007 the public will formally be able to view some of the best and last 

remaining British earthworks from the Burgoyne campaign and experience a site 

that was used by Native Americans for over 7,500 years. 

Endnotes 

 

1

 Department of the Interior, Draft Environmental Statement Proposed Amendment to the Act of 1 June, 1938 for Saratoga 

National Historical Park, 1971. 

2

 Draft Environmental Statement, 1971. 

3

 General Superintendent Hugh D. Gurney to Director, New York District, 6 November 1973. 4

 George A. Palmer, Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, to James Hallinan, General Manager A.L. Garber 

Company, 10 December 1973. 

5

 “Burgoyne army fortification area may go to National Park,” Saratogian-Tri County News, 18 December 1973. 6

 Leonard P. Engler, Chief Appraiser, NERO to Chief of Land Acquisition, NERO, 20 December, 1973. 7

 Michael Phillips to Edward Hoyt, Montpelier VT, 1974. 8

 James F. Hallinan, General Manager for the A.L. Garber Company to George A. Palmer, acting Regional Director, 12 

March 1974. 

9

 Hugh D. Gurney, General Superintendent , to Mrs. Violet Dunn, Invitation and Map, 23 September 1974. 10 “Park acquires historic property, Includes Burgoyne’s Defenses,” Unidentified newspaper clipping, 13 October 1974. 11 Unidentified newspaper article, 13 October 1974. 

12 Saratoga National Historical Park, Proposed Development Schedule, February 1974. 13 W. Glen Gray, notes, February 20, 1986. 

14 W. Glen Gray to Mayor John T. Wilson, 9 November 1976. 

15 W. Glen Gray to Regional Director, 29 September 1980. 

16 W. Glen Gray, 29 September 1980. 

17 W. Glen Gray to Robert Krom, 28 October 1980. 

18 W. Glen Gray to Regional Director, 26 March 1981. 

19 Clark Dalzell, interview by Linda White, 1 August 2005. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 116 

 20 James Gorman, Case Incident # SARA 89-225, 1989. 

21 Staff ideas on the Garber Tract, 13 June 1989. 22 Village of Victory to Hon. Gerald B. Solomon, August 12, 1991. 23 Paul Okey, Section 106 Clearance Support Data, 9 September 1987. 24 Joseph Finan, Chief of Maintenance, to SNHP Historian, 16 November 1992. 25 Joseph Finan, 1992. 

26 Doug Lindsay, to Robert Kuhn, 17 April, 2000. 

27 Saratoga National Historical Park General Management Plan, 2004, 34. 

28 Saratoga National Historical Park General Management Plan, 2004, 51 

29 Eli Fanning, “20-year plan would upgrade Saratoga site,” The Daily Gazette, 5 January 2004. 30 Eli Fanning, “Historic site receiving grant-scene of Burgoyne surrender to get needed improvements,” The Daily Gazette, 

19 June 2004. 

31 Lee Coleman, “Sweeny Announces $310,000 for Saratoga National Historic Park,” The Daily Gazette, 20 May 2005. 32 Vladimir and Margaret Pratt, interview by Linda White, October 2005. 33 Dick Varney, interview by Linda White, October 2006. 

34 Victory Specialty Packaging Inc., 10th Anniversary Pamphlet, 1993.. 35 Linda White, research at Victory Specialty Packaging Inc., 2000. 
117 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.36: Department of the Interior Draft Environmental Statement, Proposed Amendment to the Act of June 1, 1938 and Land 

Acquisition Program for Saratoga National Historical Park, NY (Mid-Atlantic Region, NPS, DOI, c. 1970s).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

118

Figure 1.37: Map attached to December 1973 memo (SARA).
119 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.38: Passing of the deed for Victory Woods from A.L. Garber 

Company to the National Park Service, 1974 (SARA).

Figure 1.39: Boundary monuments installed by National Park Service in 1974 (SARA).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

120

Figure 1.40: Water tower in Victory Woods, 1985 (SARA).

Figure 1.41: Victory Woods water tower base following demolition, 1985 (SARA).
121 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.43: Victory Woods water tower base following demolition, 1985 (SARA).

Figure 1.42: Victory Woods water tower base following demolition, 1985 (SARA).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

122

Figure 1.45: Artifacts found by looters and confiscated by Law Enforcement Rangers, 1989 (SARA).

Figure 1.44: Disturbed soil indicating recent looting, 1989 (SARA).
123 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.46: GIS mapping by Saratoga NHP resource management staff, July 2004 (SARA).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

124

Figure 1.48: Archeological investigation by Kevin Moody of Hartgen Archeologial Association Inc. (SARA).

Figure 1.47: Geophysicists Mark Kick and Doria Kutrubes completing site work at Victory Woods, winter 2005-06 (SARA).
125 

SITE HISTORY

Figure 1.49: National Park Service Northeast Region Exotic Plant Management Team member Steve Hatten 

cutting and spraying non-native invasive Norway maples in Victory Woods, 2006 (SARA).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

126
EXISTING CONDITIONS

 127 

The dense forest of Victory Woods covers the slope that protected the British encampment west (right) of NYS Route 32 (OCLP, 2005). 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS AND FEATURES 

EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 128 

EXISTING CONDITIONS 

INTRODUCTION 

This section of the report describes the existing conditions of Victory Woods, 

one of the Old Saratoga Unit sites of Saratoga National Historical Park. The 

existing conditions are recorded with text, photographs, and two plans reflecting 

the appearance of the site in 2005 to 2006. The second plan shows the main 

cultural resource area in greater detail. The section is organized according to 

landscape characteristics as defined by the National Park Service’s A Guide to 

Cultural Landscape Reports, which divides characteristics into thirteen categories 

under which individual associated features can be grouped. For example, the 

landscape characteristic, small-scale features, may include such features as a 

fencing, signs, and boundary markers. 

LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS AND FEATURES 

SPATIAL ORGANIZATION 

Saratoga National Historical Park is located in the upper Hudson River Valley in 

eastern New York State (see Figure 0.1). The two park units, the Battlefield and 

Old Saratoga, are located eight miles apart in Saratoga County and are 

approximately thirty miles from the state capitol at Albany. The Old Saratoga 

Unit is in the Town of Saratoga and includes the Schuyler Estate in the Village of 

Schuylerville and the Saratoga Monument and Victory Woods sites in the 

neighboring Village of Victory (see Figure 0.2). The Old Saratoga Unit is about 

twenty-four miles north of the junction between the Hudson and Mohawk 

Rivers, and the Vermont boundary lies only about seventeen miles to the east. 

The 22.78-acre, polygonal Victory Woods tract overlooks Fish Creek, a tributary 

of the Hudson River. The tract is bounded by NYS Route 32 to the east and 

private residential properties to the north, south, east, and west. The properties 

to the north, south, and east are more urban and mill-related than the more rural 

or historically agricultural properties to the west. 

Dense forest vegetation covers most of the Victory Woods landscape. Steep 

slope covers the eastern half while the western half is more planar with some 

gradual slopes, mounds, and depressions. The northwest portion of the 

landscape is occupied by a pond. This pond is the most open part of the 

property, since the standing water inhibits tree growth. A few minor paths pass 

through the site and form a loop near the center of the property. 
EXISTING CONDITIONS

 129 

LAND USE 

Saratoga County is part of the Capital District of New York. The county is 

growing rapidly in population, facilitated by Interstate 87 (the Northway). The 

population growth, along with a decline in agriculture, is fueling the conversion 

of once-productive farmland to residential use. For the most part, lands in the 

vicinity of the park remain privately owned and of rural/agricultural character. 

As population increases, however, the open space surrounding the park may 

become increasingly threatened. 

The Victory Woods site is surrounded by privately-owned residential properties. 

The properties to the north, south, and east are more urban and mill-related than 

the more rural or historically agricultural properties to the west. The topography 

and hydrology of the site as well as its historic land use has protected it from 

residential development. Historically Victory Woods had supported waterworks 

for various milling operations on Fish Creek as well as for the Village of Victory. 

Since 1974, Saratoga NHP has owned and protected the property, and following 

completion of this study, the park will develop the site for public access and 

interpretation. Victory Woods will then join the park's other historic attractions. 

TOPOGRAPHY/EARTHWORKS 

The Upper Hudson River Valley is located between the Adirondack Mountains 

of New York and the Green Mountains of Vermont and has a varied landscape of 

gorges, bluffs, floodplain, and ridges. The Heights of Saratoga in the Villages of 

Schuylerville and Victory have shaped history, and topography is a major topic in 

park interpretation (Figure 2.1). Victory Woods is small sample of the typical 

Hudson River bluff landscape. Its topography contributes to a diversity of 

landscape types: uplands (both wet and dry), ravines, and steep slopes extending 

down to the floodplain. 

The upland portion of Victory Woods rises gently from the southern boundary 

(255 feet above sea level) to the pond at the northwest corner of the property (275 

feet above sea level) with approximately a 1.9 percent slope (rises 20 feet over 

1,050 feet). A 10 to 25 percent slope bank runs near the center of the western 

property line and leads to a terrace of neighboring agricultural lands. The pond 

depression is about 300 feet from north to south and about 100 feet from east to 

west. Two large ravines drain this wetland and other springs located in the 

upland to the floodplain and Fish Creek. The larger of the two ravines flows just 

beyond the property's southern boundary, while the other flows along the 

northern property line (Figure 2.2). A gully drains the center of the property and 

flows due east down the slope to the creek (Figure 2.3). The steep bank that 

separates the upland from NYS Route 32 and the Fish Creek floodplain has 

approximately a 23 percent slope (drops 70 feet over 300 feet). 

There are some unique topographic features within the upland portion of Victory 

Woods. A mound stands atop the central gully where the water tower once 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 130 

stood. Three additional mounds are located in the upland south of the former 

water tower mound. The origin of these mounds is unknown. Some other more 

discrete features are likely remnants of the 1777 British fortifications. An angled 

earthwork is located south of the pond with a trench running behind. A 

semicircular earthwork, believed to be a cannon battery, sits east of the pond 

atop the steep slope (Figures 2.4-2.6). It is about thirty-feet in diameter with a 

fifteen-foot radius. It sits about three feet high at its peak and is about ten feet 

wide at its base. An eight-foot wide pit, possibly a subterranean, gunpowder 

magazine associated with the cannon battery, sits between this earthwork and the 

pond (Figure 2.7). It is about two-feet deep at its center. A circular, rock-lined 

depression with a ten-foot diameter sits midway down the steep slope near the 

center of the eastern property line (Figure 2.8). This depression is about threefeet deep at its center. The origin of a linear earthwork atop the trail from this 

depression is unknown, although it may be waterworks related. A ten-footdiameter circular depression stands outside of the park just south of the property 

line (Figure 2.9). It is believed to be a hut or oven site perhaps from the American 

volunteers under Burgoyne's command. 

Stark's Knob is a unique topographic and geologic feature of the Heights of 

Saratoga outside the park (Figure 2.10). It is historically associated with Victory 

Woods and is located about two miles to the north. The American forces under 

the command of General Stark used this strategic location to block the British 

retreat north along or on the Hudson River. This 460-million-year-old cliff of 

volcanic rock erupted under deep sea water during mountain building in eastern 

New York. This pillow basalt (lava) formation was probably transported by the 

Taconic thrust and is identical to that found in the Gulf of California. The rock 

all around the basalt is limestone, so a deep, warm sea probably covered the area 

when the lava oozed from the interior of the earth. Much of the knob was mined 

for road gravel during the twentieth century. It is now owned by the New York 

State Museum. 

As a note of interest, much of the land across Fish Creek from Victory Woods, 

where the main body of American forces commanded by General Gates were 

located, remains relatively undeveloped and covered with forest. A number of 

earthworks likely associated with the Gates' encampment, including cannon 

batteries, remain remarkably intact directly across the creek from the Victory 

Mills complex in the back yards of a few private, residential properties. There are 

ongoing efforts by Saratoga PLAN to protect these sites and for future trail 

development. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES 

Archeological resources, the physical evidence of past human activity, form a key 

element of the park's resource base. Documentary sources suggest that the 

Victory Woods tract contains archeological resources relating to the "siege 
EXISTING CONDITIONS

 131 

period" before the British capitulation, but before the concurrent investigation, 

the area was never investigated by professional archeologists. 

An important piece of archeological legislation, the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act, or ARPA, was enacted in 1979. ARPA strengthened the 

permitting procedures required for conducting archeological fieldwork on 

federal lands, originally mandated by the Antiquities Act. It also established more 

rigorous fines and penalties for unauthorized excavation on federal land. The 

federal government, specifically the NPS at Victory Woods, owns any objects 

excavated from federal lands. Potholers or looters have been digging illegally at 

Victory Woods for years finding shoe buckles, buttons, belt plates, cartridge box 

plates, etc. Through arrests or other legal means, Saratoga NHP has been able to 

confiscate some of these relics, catalog them, and then store them in the park's 

museum collections. It is a great challenge for the park to protect the 

archeological resources of Victory Woods. 

Over the years, extremely wet seasons have caused the springs and the pond to 

overflow. Runoff from heavy rains has flowed into gullies, scouring sections of 

the steep slope toward Fish Creek, potentially eroding earthworks and damaging 

archeological features. 

CIRCULATION 

Most visitors reach Saratoga NHP from Interstate 87, eastern New York's main 

north-south highway. The majority of visitors approach the park from the south 

with the intersection of I-87 and I-90 (the New York State Thruway) just south of 

Albany, while over one third of Saratoga NHP's visitors approach the park from 

the north. 

Exits 13N, 14, and 15 provide clear signage directing visitors to the park. The main 

entrance to the Saratoga Battlefield Unit is off Route 4 at the northeast edge of 

the park. The battlefield's secondary entrance is located off Route 32 at the 

northwest corner of the unit. To reach the three park sites within the Old 

Saratoga Unit, visitors may then drive US Route 4 or NYS Route 32 to their 

intersection in Schuylerville. Victory Woods parallels NYS Route 32 which is 

locally named Gates Avenue (Figure 2.11). A sidewalk runs along the east side of 

this route from Victory Mills toward Schuylerville. The Schuyler Estate fronts 

US Route 4, and the Saratoga Monument may be accessed via local roads leading 

from both routes. Visitors approaching from the north on I-87 usually take NYS 

Route 29 toward the Old Saratoga Units and then may choose to take either US 

Route 4 or NYS Route 32 on to the battlefield. The other local, non-federallyowned, historically-related sites can be accessed via these same local routes. 

The topography, hydrology, and land use of the site, though, have prevented 

urban development here, resulting in an 'island' of dense forest vegetation. The 

village's Jay and Herkimer Streets terminate at the southern property line 

(Figures 2.12-2.13). Herkimer Street then continues into the property as a dirt and 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 132 

gravel road that climbs to the center of the site (Figure 2.14). It is the only road 

within the property. Monument Drive ends near the northwest corner of the site 

and Schuyler Heights Drive ends at the site's northern boundary (Figures 2.15-

2.20). Currently park staff or contractors park their vehicles along Monument 

Drive's informal, gravel cul-de-sac. 

Two minor footpaths, which are also renegade all-terrain-vehicle (ATV) paths, 

penetrate the landscape's vegetation from the west and northwest and form a 

loop near the center of the property. This loop also links with the park road. An 

additional path leads from this road, diagonally down the steep slope, toward an 

earthwork depression and NYS Route 32 (Figure 2.19). 

VIEWS AND VISTAS 

The existing dense vegetation of Victory Woods limits its views and vistas, but 

NYS Route 32 is visible through the trees and much of the ridgeline along the 

steep slope especially during the autumn, winter, and spring (Figures 2.20-2.21). 

The rising, forested land east of Fish Creek is also visible in the distance. The 

land just east of NYS Route 32 and west of Fish Creek is privately held and is 

heavily treed or built up with houses and the Victory Mills complex thereby 

blocking views of Fish Creek (Figure 2.22). Unfortunately, even if the thick 

vegetation was cleared, the rolling topography and a home block views from the 

cannon battery to Fish Creek and beyond (Figure 2.23). 

The gently rolling topography, mature trees, and thick understory vegetation 

combine to block most views within upland portion of Victory Woods. The open 

area of the pond allows for some views across the northwest portion (Figure 

2.24). The summer leaf cover and dense underbrush screens views of 

surrounding private homes (Figure 2.25-2.28); rural vernacular homes to the west, 

suburban homes along Monument Drive, mobile homes along Schuyler Heights 

Drive, and former mill worker homes along Jay and Herkimer Streets and NYS 

Route 32. From the western boundary line nearest the southwestern corner of 

the property, views peek from the forest across the agricultural and suburban 

properties along Cemetery Avenue (Figure 2.29-2.30). 

Much of the land on the opposite (east) side of Fish Creek, where the main body 

of American forces commanded by General Gates were located, remains 

relatively undeveloped and covered with forest. Views between the British and 

American positions are critical to interpreting the siege and surrender. The 

privately-owed, main Victory Mills building is located in between the opposing 

sides and provides excellent birdseye views from the roof. 

NATURAL SYSTEMS AND FEATURES 

The Hudson River in the vicinity of the park forms part of a historic 

transportation corridor extending to the St. Lawrence Valley. For centuries this 
EXISTING CONDITIONS

 133 

corridor provided a route for trade and invasion. Saratoga became a battlefield 

because of its strategic location on this waterway system. Lake Champlain, less 

than thirty-five miles from Victory Woods, forms the core of the traditional 

transportation route. Fish Creek, a small tributary of the Hudson River, receives 

the runoff from Victory Woods and the surrounding uplands. The creek 

provides a steady year-round flow of water, and the alternatively widening and 

narrowing topography of the creek’s banks is ideal for water powered operations 

(Figure 2.31). 

The Victory Woods property consists predominately of deciduous forest with a 

pond and natural springs (Figures 2.32-2.33). Many springs are located in the 

uplands of Victory Woods and drain south to a large ravine that extends beyond 

the NPS property line. The springs feed a wetland at the southwest corner of the 

property. These springs were tapped for the waterworks that once operated 

here. Springs also feed a pond at the northwest corner of the property. An 

additional wetland is located at the northeast corner of the property and is fed by 

runoff from the northern ravine. 

Nineteen bird species, eight species of mammals, ten amphibian species, and two 

reptile species have been observed within the property (Table 2.1). None of these 

animal species are listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as being of special 

concern, rare, threatened, or endangered. Red foxes have dug many holes in the 

upland portion of the woods (Figure 2.34). Victory Woods supports a diversity of 

plant life that is described later in the vegetation section. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 134 

Table 2.1. Animal species observed in the Victory Woods Landscape.* 

Common Name Species Name Common Name Species Name 

Reptiles / Amphibians Birds

American bullfrog Rana catesbiena American common crow Corvus brachyrynchos 

American toad Bufo americanus American robin Turdus migratorius 

eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 

eastern red-backed 

salamander 

Plethodon cinereus blue jay Cyanocitta cristata 

gray tree frog Hyla versicolor broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus 

green frog Rana clamitans brown creeper Certhia americana 

Jefferson/blue-spotted 

salamander complex 

Ambystoma 

jeffersonianum/A. laterale 

cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 

pickerel frog Rana palustris catbird Orpheus carolinensis 

snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina downy woodpecker Picus pubescens 

spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe 

spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens 

wood frog Ranan sylvatica great-crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 

Mammals hairy woodpecker Picus villosus 

chipmunk Tamias striatus junco Junco hyemalis 

cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus species mallard duck Anas platyrhynchos 

eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 

red fox Vulpes fulva owl species Family Stigidae 

mouse Peromyscus species pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 

muskrat Ondatra zibethicus ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus 

whitetail deer Odocoileus virginianus red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

woodchuck/groundhog Marmota monax song sparrow Melospiza melodia 

tufted titmouse Parus bicolor 

white-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 

wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo 

wood duck Aix sponsa 

wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina 

woodcock Microptera americana 

* Table is based on 2005 inventory by Saratoga NHP's Linda White and the Saratoga NHP Amphibian and Reptile 

Inventory of March-September 2001.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 136 

Table 2.2. Herbaceous and woody plants of Victory Woods.* 

Common Name Species Name Common Name Species Name 

Herbaceous Plants wild geranium Geranium maculatum 

bedstraw Galium species wild ginger Asarum canadense 

beech drops Epifagus virginiana wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana 

bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum wintergreen Gaultheria procumbens 

broadleaf dock Rumex obtusifolius yellow wood sorrel Oxalis europaea 

Christmas fern Polystichum acrosticholides Woody Plants

cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamonea American beech Fagus grandifolia 

cinquefoil Potentilla recta barberry** Berberis thunbergii 

coltsfoot Tussilago farfara azalea Rhododendron species

cowslip (marsh marigold) Caltha palustris black cherry Prunus serotina 

curly dock Rumex crispus black locust Robinia pseudoacacia 

dandelion Taraxacum oficinale black raspberry Rubus occidentalis 

duckweed Spirodela species black walnut Juglans nigra 

garlic mustard** Alliaria petiiolata cucumber magnolia Magnolia acuminate 

goldenrod Salidago species elm Ulmus americana 

great burdock Arctium lappa green ash Fraxnus pennsylvanica 

groundnut Apios americana highbush viburnum Viburnum trilobum 

Indian-pipe Monotropa uniflora honeysuckle Lonicera species

interrupted fern Osmunda claytonia hop hornbeam Ostrya virginiana 

Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum horsechestnut Aesculus hippocastanum 

Jerusalem artichoke Helianthus tuberosus lowbush blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium 

jewel weed Impatiens capensis multiflora rose** Rosa multiflora 

Mayapple Podophyllum peltatum muscle wood Carpinus caroliniana 

narrow-flowered ticktrefoil 

Desmodium nudiflorum Norway maple** Acer plantanoides 

partridgeberry Mitchella repens poison ivy Toxicodendron (Rhus) 

radicans 

phlox Phlox paniculata prickly ash Xanthozylum americanum 

ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia quaking aspen Populus tremuloides 

red baneberry Actaea rubra red maple Acer Rubrum 

red trillium Trillium erectum red oak Quercus rubra 

royal fern Osmunda regalis red raspberry Rubus idaeus 

rushes Juncus species red spruce Picea rubens 

sedges Carex species shagbark hickory Carya ovata 

sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis speckled alder Alnus incana 

skunk cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus sugar maple Acer saccharum 

Solomon’s seal Polygonatum 

canaliculatum 

Virginia creeper Parthenociussus 

quinquefolia 

stinging nettle Urtica dioica white ash Fraxinus americana 

tick-trefoil Desmodium glutimosum white oak Quercus alba 

white pine Pinus strobus 

wild grape Vitus species

* Table is based on 2005 inventory by Saratoga NHP's Linda White. 

** Plants on park's invasive plant list to be eliminated from landscape. 
EXISTING CONDITIONS

 135 

VEGETATION 

Victory Woods is situated within the transition zone between the Appalachian 

oak region and the hemlock-white pine-northern hardwoods region of the 

Eastern deciduous forest. Deciduous trees comprise most of the mature forests 

of the region. 

Thirty-three species of woody plants and forty species of herbaceous plants have 

been observed at Victory Woods (Table 2.2). None of these plant species are 

listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as being of special concern, rare, 

threatened, or endangered. Most of Victory Woods is covered with a forest that 

is greater than fifty years old (Figure 2.35). A mixture of hardwood species 

dominates the upland and slopes. There are upwards of 112 trees with a DBH 

(diameter breast height) greater than twenty-four inches. Some of these trees are 

over 150 years old, indicative of an area that has not been cut for some time. 

Areas without these large trees have been disturbed in the more recent past by the 

construction of a water tower, natural springs developed as pumping stations, a 

large underground reservoir, and piping for the Village of Victory water supply 

(Figures 2.36-2.37). A diverse community of woody shrubs and herbaceous plants 

grows beneath the tree canopy with some wetland plants clustered around the 

springs and pond (Figure 2.38-2.41). 
EXISTING CONDITIONS

 137 

BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES / CONSTRUCTED WATER FEATURES / SMALL 

SCALE FEATURES 

No buildings stand in Victory Woods on what was the southeast corner of the 

British encampment. With the absence of historic structures on the site, the 

landscape assumes a greater burden in conveying the site's history. The Saratoga 

Monument, by far the most significant and conspicuous structure within 

Saratoga NHP, sits northwest of Victory Woods on what was the northwest 

corner of the British encampment. The 155-foot obelisk was erected to 

memorialize the campaign that culminated in British capitulation. 

Victory Woods contains some waterworks-related structures. A concrete 

foundation from the former brick pump house sits just south of the former water 

tower foundation. An additional concrete foundation from a former reservoir is 

located within a small mound about 500 feet to the south. All of these 

foundations have been filled with sand and are now covered with vegetation. 

Three square concrete weirs and one round concrete weir are located about 600 

feet southwest of the former water tower site (Figure 2.42). An iron pump still 

stands next to one of these weirs (Figure 2.43). This extra-capacity pump was 

manufactured in Salem, Ohio sometime between 1866 and 1961, before the 

Deming Pump brand was acquired by the Crane Company of Stamford, 

Connecticut. The twenty-five-foot square concrete foundation of an icehouse 

sits just east of the Herkimer Street gate near the southeast corner of the site 

(Figure 2.44). 

Portions of a barbed wire fence still surround parts of Victory Woods, although 

most of the fence has fallen down or has been engulfed by trees. Simple 

galvanized metal vehicular gates are located at the ends of Herkimer and Jay 

Streets (Figure 2.45). Metal park signs displayed along trails or at trailheads 

denote No Metal Detectors and No Dump (Figure 2.46). The only historic sign 

denoting the historical importance of the Victory Woods property is a 1927 NYS 

cast iron sign that announces the position of Fraser's Corps during the 

encampment (Figure 2.47). This dark blue sign with yellow lettering is located at 

the edge of the woods along NYS Route 32. 

Twenty brass monuments marked Property of National Park Service delineate the 

property line. Orange metal stakes labeled US Boundary NPS are located along 

the property line at key public access points. In 2005, ten aluminum monuments 

marked National Park Service Survey Marker with their universal transverse 

mercator (UTM) position were installed within Victory Woods as georeference 

control points for an archeological survey of the property. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

138

Figure 2.2: Ravine at the southern boundary of Victory Woods (OCLP, 2005). 

Figure 2.1: View east from the Saratoga Monument atop the Heights of Saratoga toward the Hudson River and the 

Green Mountains of Vermont (OCLP, 2005). 
139 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.3: A gully drains the central portion of Victory Woods (OLCP, 2005).

Figure 2.4: The Victory Woods cannon battery with subjects standing on the center of its arcing earthwork (OCLP, 2005).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

140

Figure 2.5: People standing within Victory Woods cannon battery (OCLP, 2005). Same view as in Figure 2.8. Note the dense 

summer vegetation.

Figure 2.6: People standing within the Victory Woods cannon battery (OCLP, 2005). Same view as in Figure 2.7. 
141 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.7: This pit may be the remnants of a former magazine located west of the cannon battery (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 2.8: Depression of unknown origin located at the end of a diagonal trail down the center of the Victory Woods 

steep slope (OCLP, 2005). Note the nearby large oak trees. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

142

Figure 2.9: Circular-shaped depression near the south ravine that may be a hut or camp oven site just south of the Victory 

Woods property (OCLP, 2005). This is located in the American volunteer (Loyalist) area of the encampment.

Figure 2.10: View of Stark’s Knob showing the facade mined away for gravel (OCLP, 2005). Note the American flag on top.

Stark’s Knob is located about 2 miles north of Victory Woods along NYS Route 32. 
143 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.11: NYS Route 32 with sidewalk running along the eastern boundary of Victory Woods (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 2.12: The southern boundary of Victory Woods at the terminus of Jay Street (OCLP, 2005). 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

144

Figure 2.13: The southern boundary of Victory Woods at the terminus of Herkimer Street (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 2.14: Park road continuing from Herkimer Street gate up to site of former water tower (OCLP, 2005).
145 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.15: Monument Drive as seen from its terminus northwest of Victory Woods (OCLP, 2005). 

Figure 2.16: Terminus of Monument Drive near the northwestern corner of the Victory Woods property (OCLP, 2005).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

146

Figure 2.17: Terminus of Monument Drive (note automobile at center of photograph) as seen from the northwest 

corner of the Victory Woods property (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 2.18: Northern boundary of Victory Woods as seen from the terminus of Schuyler Heights Drive (OCLP, 2005). 
147 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.19: Trail leading diagonally down center of the steep slope of Victory Woods (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 2.20: Dense forest covers the steep slope of Victory Woods as seen from NYS Route 32 (OCLP, 2005).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

148

Figure 2.21: View from top of steep slope toward NYS Route 32 below (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 2.22: The Victory Mills as seen from Bridge Street (OCLP, 2005). 
149 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.23: View east from the cannon battery in Victory Woods (OCLP, 2005). The topography here and the private home 

below may prevent direct views to NYS Route 32 and Fish Creek. 

Figure 2.24: Open views across the pond in the northwest corner of Victory Woods (OCLP, 2005).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

150

Figure 2.25: View of private home along Monument Drive from northwest corner of Victory Woods (SARA, 2005). 

Figure 2.26: View of mobile home at the terminus of Schuyler Heights Drive from the northern boundary of Victory Woods

(SARA, 2005).
151 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.27: Private home located just outside the northeastern corner of Victory Woods along NYS Route 32 (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 2.28: Private home outside the southeast corner of Victory Woods and private former mill houses along NYS Route 

32 (OCLP, 2005).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

152

Figure 2.29: View from western boundary of Victory Woods across former agricultural field to Cemetery Avenue (OCLP, 

2005).

Figure 2.30: View of Victory Woods from Cemetery Avenue looking east acoss former agricultural field (OCLP, 2005). 
153 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.31: Dammed falls along Fish Creek provided power to the Victory Mills complex (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 2.32: Pond in northwest area of Victory Woods 

upland (SARA, 2005).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

154

Figure 2.33: Pond in northwest area of Victory Woods upland (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 2.34: One of many foxholes in the upland area of Victory Woods (OCLP, 2005). 
155 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.35: The thick forest of Victory Woods west (right) of NYS Route 32 (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 2.36: Sun-loving, herbaceous vegetation covers the former water tower site (OCLP, 2005). 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

156

Figure 2.37: Sun-loving vegetation near the disturbed area by 

the terminous of Monument Drive (OCLP, 2005). 

Figure 2.38: Trees and thick understory vegetation cover the cannon battery (OCLP, 2005). 
157 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.39: Decomposing leaf litter and fallen trees and branches cover the forest floor within Victory Woods (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 2.40: Mayapple covers much of the forest floor within the upland area of Victory Woods (OCLP, 2005).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

158

Figure 2.41: Wetland vegetation surrounds the springs and pond of Victory Woods (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 2.42: One of the concrete weirs from the former waterworks at Victory Woods (SARA, 2005). 
159 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.43: A Deming brand, extra-capacity water pump stands next to one of the concrete weirs (SARA, 2005).

Figure 2.44: Concrete foundation of the former icehouse at the southeast corner of Victory Woods (OCLP, 2005).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

160

Figure 2.45: Herkimer Street gate with no metal detector and no dump signs (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 2.46: No metal detecting signs are placed strategically within the park to warn looters (OCLP, 2005).
161 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2.47: New York State historical marker erected in 1927 to mark the position of Fraser’s Corps (OCLP, 2005). 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

162




ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 167 

Saratoga NHP Old Saratoga Unit boundaries and parts of 1780 Faden Map overlaid on 2000 orthophotograph (OCLP, 2006). 

ANALYSIS AND 

EVALUATION

PARK-WIDE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFCANCE 

VICTORY WOODS ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE 

VICTORY WOODS EVALUATION OF INTEGRITY 

ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL EVALUATION 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 168 

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 

This Analysis and Evaluation section provides an overview of the historical 

significance of the Victory Woods landscape, describes the characteristics and 

features that contribute to the significance of the landscape, and evaluates the 

integrity of the historic landscape. For the purposes of this combined cultural 

landscape report and archeological sensitivity assessment, this analysis and 

evaluation is based on criteria developed by the National Register of Historic 

Places Program, which lists properties that are significant to our nation’s history 

and prehistory. According to the National Register, historic significance may be 

present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity 

of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association which meet 

at least one of the following criteria: 

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to 

the broad patterns of history; or 

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic 

values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose 

components may lack individual distinction; or 

D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield information in prehistory or 

history. 

VICTORY WOODS ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE 

According to the 2004 Saratoga NHP General Management Plan, Victory Woods 

embraces a 22.78-acre portion of the fortified camp occupied by the British 

during the final phase of the campaign. Many aspects of this landscape have not 

changed since 1777, and it potentially contains archeological resources of value. 

This section will document the contribution of the Victory Woods landscape to 

the park’s areas of significance. 

CURRENT PARK-WIDE NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS 

As a historic area within the national park system, Saratoga National Historical 

Park (NHP) was administratively added to the National Register of Historic 

Places on October 15, 1966, with the passage of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA). Official documentation for the historic property listing, however, is 

not yet complete though the property is subject to federal regulations pertaining 

to National Register-listed properties. The property was added to the national 

park system for its association with the American Revolution in the National 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 169 

Register areas of military and politics/government. In addition, the Old 

Champlain Canal, a portion of which passes through the Battlefield Unit and the 

Schuyler Estate, was independently listed on the National Register as a district in 

1976. The National Register areas of significance identified for the canal relate to 

agriculture, commerce, engineering, industry, and transportation. The following 

statement of significance outlines the aspects of the cultural landscape and 

archeological resources that contribute to the park’s historical significance. The 

following discussion does not serve the purposes of a formally completed 

National Register documentation. 

AMERICAN REVOLUTION AS PRIMARY AREA OF SIGNIFICANCE (1777) 

Saratoga NHP is primarily significant for its association with the Revolutionary 

War. The park encompasses the site of the two battles of Saratoga that were 

fought during the autumn of 1777 and their associated British and American Army 

encampments and defenses. Saratoga NHP commemorates a vital phase of the 

Revolutionary War, as the American victory at Saratoga is generally considered a 

turning point in the War for Independence. The park's landscape played a 

decisive role in the victory. All four of the park’s landscapes, including the 

battlefield, Victory Woods, the Schuyler Estate and the Saratoga Monument, are 

thematically connected and are nationally significant under National Register 

Criterion A for their extant resources associated with the American Revolution. 

This relates to the National Register military and politics/government areas of 

significance. In addition, the archeological remains laying within the soil profile 

at Victory Woods have in the past and may in the future yield further information 

important to an understanding of the 1777 history and thus the property is 

nationally significant under National Register Criterion D. 

Victory Woods contributes to the park's primary area of significance under 

National Register Criterion A for its association with the American Revolution in 

the National Register area of military because of the decisive role the area played 

in the battles, siege, and surrender of Saratoga in 1777. During the final days of 

the campaign before Lt. General Burgoyne surrendered to General Gates, the 

British retreated north and used much of ‘old’ Saratoga (Schuylerville and 

Victory) encompassing Victory Woods and the Saratoga Monument site for their 

final encampment and defenses. Before taking refuge in the fortified camp, 

Burgoyne himself stayed in the Schuyler House and took advantage of the 

comforts it offered. On October 10, 1777, Burgoyne ordered the house and all 

outbuildings to be burned. Burgoyne desired to give his artillery a better line of 

sight and to prevent the advancing American forces from taking cover. The 

British encampment on Saratoga Heights sat about 25o feet above the Hudson 

River and overlooked the village of Saratoga (now Schuylerville). Lt. General 

Burgoyne tried to retreat northward, but this position was so advantageous and 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 170 

well constructed with earthworks that he was reluctant to leave it. The land was 

cleared of trees and sloped toward Fish Creek giving the British a clear shot to the 

land along the Hudson. 

Nearly 17,000 American troops surrounded the fortified camp of the exhausted 

British Army. Faced with such overwhelming numbers, Burgoyne surrendered 

on October 17, 1777. By the terms of the Articles of Convention, Burgoyne’s 

depleted army, some 6,000 men, marched out of its camp “with the Honors of 

War” and stacked its weapons along the west bank of the Hudson River across 

Fish Creek from the Schuyler House. The American victory restored the sagging 

confidence of the Americans in their own military abilities at a time that 

confidence was most needed. The victory also brought foreign recognition and 

assistance that made the final victory a reality. Without victory in this battle, this 

nation might never have existed. 

The Victory Woods property has archeological resources that may contribute to 

the property's significance or may give the property additional significance under 

National Register Criterion D. There are some obvious resources that will likely 

be found to contribute to the park’s significance in various areas. They include 

(but are not limited to) remains of the British fortifications, ammunition, and 

personal objects from the 1777 encampment. Further description of the 

archeological resources in Victory Woods is included in the latter half of the 

chapter under, “Archeological Evaluation.” 

OCCUPATION DURING MIDDLE AND LATE ARCHAIC PERIODS AS 

SECONDARY AREA OF SIGNIFICANCE (8000 B.P. - 1609) 

Saratoga NHP also has additional significant themes that are specific to certain 

landscape(s) or that require further investigation by qualified professionals. 

Portions of Saratoga NHP have the potential to yield prehistoric information. 

Archeological investigations conducted in May 2006 at Victory Woods found 

resources that indicate the site was used extensively by Native Americans over 

the last 7500 years until the area was colonized by Europeans. Physical evidence, 

including projectile points and debitage flakes, indicates occupation during the 

Middle and Late Archaic periods (8000 – 3000 B.P.). The extent of prehistoric 

resources at Victory Woods qualifies the site as National Register eligible under 

Criterion D. Other sites exist in the vicinity. For example, there is “evidence for 

a very sizeable prehistoric occupation from the Late Archaic and Middle 

Woodland periods” on the Schuyler House grounds.1
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 171 

CANAL TRANSPORTATION AS A SECONDARY AREA OF SIGNIFICANCE (1823-

C.1917) 

The Old Champlain Canal is currently listed on the National Register as a district, 

citing National Register areas of significance relating to engineering and 

transportation at the state level. Other areas of significance identified for the 

canal relate to agriculture, commerce, and industry. These areas of significance, 

most typically related to design and construction of infrastructure, fit most 

readily under National Register Criterion C, yet the canal’s significance may also 

relate to Criterion A for association with broad trends in our history. The 

portions of the canal that pass through the Battlefield Unit and the Schuyler 

Estate were active from 1823 to c.1917, which is the documented period of 

significance. The portion within the Schuyler Estate boundaries is state owned. 

The development of the canal along the Hudson River is an integral part of the 

general trends that shaped the land use and settlement of the Saratoga area. The 

canal was a technological advancement of the Hudson River transportation 

corridor, and once built, increased the expansion and development of agriculture 

and other industries, such as sand mining. 

The Old Champlain Canal does not pass through or adjacent to Victory Woods, 

and therefore, the Victory Woods landscape does not contribute to the National 

Register listing for the Old Champlain Canal within Saratoga NHP. A portion of 

the canal runs through the Battlefield Unit and another section runs through the 

Schuyler Estate. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND MEMORIALIZATION AS A SECONDARY AREA 

OF SIGNIFICANCE (1877-1938) 

Beyond its obvious association with the American Revolutionary War, Saratoga 

NHP has a secondary area of significance as an early and important example of 

historic preservation in America. The rise of the historic preservation movement, 

the founding of patriotic societies such as the Daughters of the American 

Revolution (DAR), and the battlefield commemoration movement were borne 

out of nineteenth-century nationalism. Although planning for the Saratoga 

Monument began before the American Civil War, commemoration and 

memorialization of Saratoga's Revolutionary War sites actually came to fruition 

during the 1877 battle centennial, when construction of the Saratoga Monument 

began. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, additional 

organizations including local rotary groups and the Sons of the American 

Revolution, as well as local politicians and philanthropists united to mark and 

preserve the Revolutionary War battlefield. The effort culminated with federal 

legislation authorizing the establishment of Saratoga NHP in 1938. Falling under 

the heading of National Register Criteria A, for an association with broad 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 172 

patterns in United States history, these commemoration and memorialization 

efforts serve as subcategories under an area of significance pertaining to 

conservation, an area of significance relating to the preservation, maintenance, 

and management of natural and cultural resources. Further contextual study is 

needed to fully evaluate this significance. Nationally, the new movement saw the 

construction of diverse memorials such as the memorial tour road at Gettysburg, 

Pennsylvania and the Minuteman statue at Concord, Massachusetts. 

The Victory Woods landscape does not contribute to the park’s historic 

preservation and memorialization significance. The Victory Woods property was 

privately owned during this period and did not play a role in the events that 

instilled this significance. It was not acquired by the NPS until 1974, after the 

close of this period, and has yet to be opened to and interpreted for the public. 

SCHUYLER ESTATE, GENERAL PHILIP JOHN SCHUYLER (1733-1804) 

The Schuyler Estate has significance under Criterion A for the events that took 

place during the Revolutionary War as well as the industrial development of the 

area after the war, with areas of significance including military, 

politics/government, and industry. The estate has additional significance under 

Criterion B because of its association with General Philip John Schuyler (b.1733-

d.1804). The National Register areas of significance that pertain to this theme are 

Schuyler was an important national military, political, and economic leader 

before, during and after the American Revolutionary War, and he was central to 

developing New York and Saratoga (present-day Schuylerville) in the eighteenth 

and early-nineteenth centuries. The Schuyler House, constructed in 1777 during 

the aftermath of the battles, may be significant for its architectural merits under 

Criterion C. As noted above, there is “evidence for a very sizeable prehistoric 

occupation from the Late Archaic and Middle Woodland Periods” on the 

Schuyler House grounds. 

Table 3.1 summarizes the historic areas and periods of significance that relate to 

Victory Woods. Evaluation of these potential contexts briefly discussed below 

will require further investigation by qualified subject matter experts assisting with 

the National Register documentation. 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 173 

Table 3.1: Recommended Areas and Periods of Significance 

THEME VICTORY 

WOODS 

SARATOGA 

MONUMENT 

SCHUYLER 

ESTATE 

BATTLEFIELD 

American Revolution - Primary 

Autumn 1777 

NR Criteria A and D 

X X X X 

Prehistoric Resources - Secondary 

8000 B.P.-1609 

NR Criteria D

X X 

Canal Transportation - Secondary 

1823-c.1917 

NR Criteria A, C, and D 

 X X 

Historic Preservation and Memorialization - 

Secondary 

1877-1938 

NR Criteria A 

 X X 

Schuyler Estate, General Philip John 

Schuyler- Secondary 

1733-1804 

NR Criteria A, B, C, and D

 X 

Note: This chart is not intended to be exhaustive. For a preliminary discussion of other potential themes and periods of 

significance, please refer back to the narrative. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 174 

VICTORY WOODS EVALUATION OF INTEGRITY 

Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its historic identity or the extent to 

which a property evokes its appearance during a particular historic period, 

usually the period of significance. While evaluation of integrity is often a 

subjective judgment, it must be grounded in an understanding of a property’s 

physical features and how they relate to its significance. The National Register 

identifies seven aspects of integrity.2

 Retention of these qualities is essential for a 

property to convey its significance, though all seven qualities need not be present 

to convey a sense of past time and place. 

The historic integrity of a landscape is documented through evaluation of 

landscape characteristics. These characteristics, including processes and physical 

forms, are the tangible and intangible evidence of the activities of natural and 

cultural forces shaping the landscape. The evaluation includes a brief description 

of the characteristic’s historic and existing condition as well as a determination 

regarding the contribution of each characteristic or specific feature to the 

significance and integrity of the landscape as a whole. Extant characteristics and 

features defined as “contributing” are those that were present during the period 

of significance and retain their historic character. Some features are described as 

“non-contributing,” because they were altered or added since 1777. These noncontributing features may or may not detract or alter the historical significance 

and integrity of the landscape. 

OVERALL SUMMARY OF INTEGRITY 

The park’s 2004 General Management Plan states, Victory Woods "symbolizes 

the decisive turn in the American struggle for independence and serves as an 

eternal reminder of the human cost of both the American victory and the British 

defeat."3 Victory Woods is historically significant as part of the greater British 

encampment site. It is a contributing resource and therefore eligible for listing on 

the National Register. It should be considered a site within the Saratoga NHP 

district. Victory Woods also contains important and extensive prehistoric 

resources that date to the Middle and Late Archaic periods. The cultural 

landscape at the Saratoga NHP Victory Woods retains sufficient integrity, 

including location, setting, association and feeling, to convey its significance to 

Native American occupation and the park’s 1777 Revolutionary War period 

(Table 3.2). 

The 22.78-acre cultural landscape of Victory Woods represents a portion 

(perhaps about one fifth) of the original British encampment that covered some 

100 acres and likely includes portions of the American volunteer (Loyalist) and 

9th Regiment campsites. The landscape feels larger, however, due to the 

undeveloped land to the east and west of the parcel. For a property to be eligible 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 175 

for the National Register under Criterion A, it should retain the physical features 

that made up its character during the period of its association with the important 

event, i.e., it must retain the identity for which it is significant and be recognizable 

if a person from the historic period were to view it today. The location of the 

encampment, the spatial organization in association with the Victory Woods 

portion of the encampment is still evident because the surrounding landscape has 

been unaltered and remnant earthworks still exist on the brow of the hill 

overlooking Fish Creek and the Hudson River. The site's general strategic 

topography, as well as the form, plan, space, and structure of the southeastern 

portion of the 1777 encampment can still be understood. Some period landscape 

characteristics and above-ground features remain including a cannon battery, a 

related subterranean gunpowder magazine, an angled earthwork south of the 

wetland pond, a road/road trace, strategic eastern views (to NYS Route 32, Fish 

Creek, and the site of the American forces beyond), springs, and the thinned 

forest cover. 

Beyond Victory Woods, the British earthworks have been lost except for possible 

archeological remains. With the absence of historic structures on the site, the 

landscape assumes a greater responsibility in conveying the site's history. Several 

twentieth-century features on the site are not historic including the water tower 

site mound, waterworks remnants, a barbed wire fence, park signs, and a 

concrete ice house foundation. The thinned forest serves to camouflage nonhistoric views to the north, south, and west and to shift the focus of visitors on 

the historic setting that does remain. It is critical that the land along both sides of 

NYS Route 32 and Fish Creek not be developed further along the eastern edge of 

Victory Woods to protect this setting. 

The recent Archeological Identification Study at Victory Woods (May 2006) 

found resources that indicate the Victory Woods site was used extensively by 

Native Americans has the potential to yield additional information about 

occupation during the Middle and Late Archaic Periods (8000-3000 B.P) up 

through the time of contact with Europeans in 1609, thereby also giving the 

property significance under National Register Criterion D. Evidence of early use 

of the site included a roasting platform used to dry and cook foods, two 

diagnostic projectile points, and hundreds of debitage flakes, which indicate that 

the site was a lithic processing station. The site retains sufficient integrity to 

convey its significance for this extended pre-contact period. 

The contributing landscape characteristics and features that remain should be 

preserved as they contribute to the property's historic character (Table 3.3). 

Prehistoric resources should be preserved. Surviving remnants of the 

encampment (contributing features) within the property boundaries include the 

site's general strategic topography, one cannon battery, a related possible 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 176 

subterranean gunpowder magazine, a possible angled earthwork south of the 

pond, a road/road trace, strategic eastern views (to the road along Fish Creek, the 

creek itself, and the site of the American forces beyond), springs, and the thinned 

canopy tree cover.4

 Many earthworks, all other fortifications, and all huts or 

other buildings from the period have been lost except for possible archeological 

remains. With the absence of historic structures on the site, the landscape 

assumes a greater burden in conveying the site's history. All the constructed 

water features and small-scale features located within Victory Woods date to the 

twentieth century and are not historically significant. 

General Burgoyne chose the Heights of Saratoga as an encampment site during 

his retreat. Once again, the topography was the single most critical feature 

weighing upon siting, strategy, and outcome of Saratoga events, and is still of 

primary importance in understanding and interpreting the battles, siege, and 

surrender. 

While the Victory Woods landscape only represents a small portion of the 

original British encampment, views from the southwest portion of Victory 

Woods west across the agricultural fields to Cemetery Avenue evoke a sense of 

space of the entire encampment. The Victory Woods tract likely includes 

portions of the American volunteer (Loyalist) and 9th Regiment campsites. 

Cannon batteries were located around the perimeter of the camp with an 

emphasis on the eastern edge along the steep slope. NYS Route 32 and Herkimer 

Street and the Park Road along the top of the steep slope follow the routes of 

roads present in 1777. 

The thinned condition of the forest served the needs of the British camp, the 

nineteenth and twentieth-century-waterworks operations, and modern NPS 

stewardship. The forest trees and associated leaf litter have preserved the 

earthworks and setting within. 

Surrounding residential development detracts from the setting of Victory Woods. 

However, few modern features exist within Victory Woods, because the 

topography and hydrology of the property as well as its historic land use has 

protected it from development. Within Victory Woods, it is still possible to 

visualize how the landscape shaped both strategy and outcome and to transport 

one's imagination back to the period of Native American use and the historic 

events of 1777. This is as much attributable to the absence of modern 

development as to the survival of a few key historic characteristics and features. 

As noted earlier, according to the National Register guidelines, the property must 

retain the identity for which it is significant. 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 177 

The Victory Woods cultural landscape maintains integrity of location, setting, 

association, and feeling. The property occupies the southeastern corner of the 

actual location of the 1777 British encampment, and it still possesses the strategic 

topographic setting and a few select earthworks and key eastern views that 

provide a direct link between the important siege and surrender of 1777 and the 

existing landscape. The thinned mature trees serve to camouflage non-historic 

views to the north, south, and west and to shift the focus of visitors on the 

historic setting that does remain. Along the eastern edge of Victory Woods, it is 

critical that the land along both sides of NYS Route 32 and Fish Creek not be 

developed further to protect this setting. The cultural landscape's expression of 

the historic sense of the 1777 encampment can be interpreted in a few key 

locations, evoking the feeling of the earlier time periods. Interpretive waysides 

can be used to explain the design, workmanship and materials that were likely on 

the site during the period of significance. 

Table 3.2: Summary of cultural landscape integrity for Victory Woods of Saratoga NHP (OCLP, 2006). 

PERIOD OF 

SIGNIFICANCE 

OVERALL LOCATION DESIGN SETTING MATERIALS WORKMANSHIP FEELING ASSOCIATION

Autumn 1777 Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes 

8000 B.P.-1609 Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 178 

Table 3.3. Summary of Landscape Characteristics and Features for Victory Woods of Saratoga NHP (OCLP, 2006).

CHARACTERISTIC / FEATURE STATUS FOR PRECONTACT 

AND 1777 PERIOD OF 

SIGNIFICANCE 

COMMENTS 

SPATIAL ORGANIZATION Contributing A portion of the original encampment remains. 

TOPOGRAPHY Contributing Strategic factor in location of encampment and the likely 

British earthworks are the only built features that remain from 

1777. 

Cannon emplacement Undetermined Likely from 1777, archeology not definitive. 

Gunpowder magazine Undetermined Likely from 1777, archeology not definitive. 

Angled earthwork south of pond Undetermined Likely from 1777, archeology not definitive. 

Hut or oven site Undetermined Not on federally owned land, but within view and part of 

British Encampment. 

Pit at bottom of slope trail Undetermined Likely waterworks related. 

Steep slope toward Fish Creek Contributing Provided protection and views. 

Northern and southern ravines Contributing Drained the encampment. 

Central gully Non-Contributing Likely a twentieth-century waterworks feature. 

Gently sloping plane of 

encampment area 

Contributing Allowed for encampment. 

Terraces - neighboring land to the 

west 

Undetermined Unclear if this is a natural feature or the result of a later road or 

agricultural plowing. 

Pond Undetermined Likely a natural feature present in 1777, but may have been 

formed from 1777 excavations and earthwork damming or by 

later waterworks operations. 

Water tower site mound Non-Contributing Twentieth-century waterworks structure. 

Mounds - three south of water 

tower site 

Undetermined Archeology not definitive. 

Linear earthwork Undetermined May be waterworks related. 

ARCHEOLOGY Contributing Documented Precontact and 1777 archeological resources 

Cannon emplacement Undetermined Archeology not definitive. 

Gunpowder magazine Undetermined Archeology not definitive. 

Angled earthwork south of pond Undetermined Archeology not definitive. 

Hut or oven site Undetermined Not on federally-owned land. 

Other fortifications Undetermined Archeology not definitive. 

Pit at bottom of "Woods Trail" Undetermined Archeology not definitive. 

Mounds – 3 south of water Undetermined 3 south of water tower site. 

Relics Contributing Many 1777 relics found by illicit relic hunters or by staff in 

eroded areas. 

Roasting Platform Contributing Native American evidence identified during archeological 

investigation, May 2006. 

Projectile Points Contributing Middle and Late Archaic periods evidence identified during 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 179 

archeological investigation, May 2006. 

Large Anvil Stones and lithic 

debitage (Lithic Processing Station) 

Contributing Native American evidence identified during archeological 

investigation, May 2006. 

CIRCULATION Non-Contributing Most of the 1777 circulation features within Victory Woods are 

gone. 

NYS Route 32 Contributing General route of existing road along Fish Creek in 1777. 

Herkimer Street/Park Road Contributing General route of encampment road along top of steep slope. 

Jay Street Non-Contributing Nineteenth century road. 

Monument Drive Non-Contributing Twentieth century road. 

Schuyler Heights Drive Undetermined The road ran along the top of the steep slope within the 

encampment (Park Road) may have continued onto the route 

of Schuyler Heights Drive and into Saratoga in 1777. 

Footpaths Non-Contributing Late-twentieth century. 

US Route 4 Contributing Non-contiguous to property, but similar route to 1777 Road to 

Albany 

VIEWS AND VISTAS Contributing Demonstrate strategic reasons for encampment site eastern 

views toward American forces. 

Views To NYS Route 32, Fish 

Creek, and beyond to American 

encampment site 

Contributing Similar to 1777 with the exception of modern vehicles, houses, 

Victory Mills, and underbrush. 

Views blocked by dense 

underbrush 

Non-Contributing Underbrush cleared in 1777. 

Views to surrounding homes Non-Contributing Surrounding homes to the north, south, and west obscure the 

sense of the greater British encampment. 

Views southeast to Victory Mills 

Complex 

Non-Contributing Probable American earthworks sit directly across Fish Creek 

from the mill, and this view was unobstructed in 1777. 

Views across fields to Cemetery 

Avenue 

Contributing While across residential/agricultural lands today, this view 

shows the extent of the 1777 encampment. 

NATURAL SYSTEMS Contributing The springs, ravines, and Fish Creek remain. 

Springs/Ravines Contributing Likely provided drinking water to the British. 

Pond Contributing Likely impacted the placement of the 9th Regiment within the 

encampment. 

Fish Creek Contributing Drained the encampment and separated the British forces from 

the Americans. 

VEGETATION Contributing Probably covered with thinned forest since 1777.

Thinned canopy trees Contributing Troops most likely left large trees after thinning smaller ones as 

well as underbrush. 

Dense underbrush Non-Contributing Troops likely removed the underbrush in 1777. 

LAND USE Non-Contributing Few physical remains that show this was an encampment site. 

Encampment remnants Contributing Earthwork remnants are the only built remnants of the 

encampment. 

Waterworks remnants Non-Contributing Twentieth century. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 180 

BUILDING AND STRUCTURES/ 

CONSTRUCTED WATER AND 

SMALL-SCALE FEATURES 

Non-Contributing Twentieth century. 

Barbed wire fence Non-Contributing Twentieth century. 

Boundary markers Non-Contributing Twentieth century. 

Concrete foundation of water 

tower 

Non-Contributing Twentieth century. 

Concrete icehouse foundation Non-Contributing Twentieth century. 

Concrete water weirs Non-Contributing Twentieth century. 

Fraser sign Non-Contributing Twentieth century. 

Iron pump Non-Contributing Twentieth century. 

Park signs Non-Contributing Twentieth century. 

Park gates Non-Contributing Twentieth century. 

Survey monuments Non-Contributing Twentieth century. 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 181 

EVALUATION OF LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS AND FEATURES 

Spatial Organization 

Historic Condition: In 1777, Victory Woods was part of a larger wooded area 

that covered much of the Heights of Saratoga, while the fertile area along the 

Hudson River to the east had been cleared for agriculture. Burgoyne's troops 

camped on the heights here before the battles of Saratoga, and upon his retreat, 

he chose this partially fortified place as an encampment site once more. The 

slopes surrounding the heights protected the encampment from the surrounding 

American forces, and the gently sloping uplands provided adequate ground for 

the encampment and fortifications. Many of the trees here would have been 

cleared for line of sight, for construction, and for fire wood. The British camp 

alone covered approximately one hundred acres, and different divisions or 

regiments circled the British camp. Heading counterclockwise around the camp, 

the British Grenadiers and the 21st Regiment were located at the northeast 

corner, Fraser's Rangers at the northwest corner, the Light Infantry and the 24th 

Regiment along the western edge, the American volunteers at the southern end, 

and the 9th Regiment along the eastern edge on an angle heading northwest 

toward the center of the site. Cannon batteries were located around the 

perimeter of the camp with an emphasis on the eastern edge along the steep 

slope. The current Victory Woods tract likely encompasses parts of the 

American volunteer and 9th Regiment sites. A few roads served the 

encampment. One passed between the encampment's steep eastern slope and 

Fish Creek, and another branched from this road and ran along the top of the 

slope within the encampment. 

Existing Condition: The 22.78-acre, polygonal Victory Woods tract sits atop 

Fish Creek, a tributary of the Hudson River, and is bounded along the creek by 

NYS Route 32 to the east and private residential properties to the north, south, 

east, and west. Dense forest vegetation covers most of the Victory Woods 

landscape. A steep slope covers the eastern half while the western half, or 

upland, is more planar with some gradual slopes, mounds, and depressions. The 

northwest portion of the landscape contains a broad depression that fills 

seasonally with spring water and runoff. This pond is the most open part of the 

property, since the standing water inhibits tree growth. Herkimer Street 

terminates at the southern property line and continues as a dirt and gravel park 

road that climbs to the center of the site. A few minor trails cross the site and 

form a loop near the center of the property. 

Evaluation: Many of historic spatial elements of Victory Woods remain today. 

The Victory Woods tract only encompasses the southeastern portion of the 

entire British encampment site and likely includes portions of the American 

volunteer and 9th Regiment campsites. Much of the American volunteer site is 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 182 

likely located on adjacent private property directly to the south. The 9th 

Regiment camp stretched from the top of the steep slope northwest diagonally 

toward the center of the camp. Its angular position on historic maps may be 

attributable to the presence of the pond in the northwest corner of Victory 

Woods. Cannon batteries were located around the perimeter of the camp, 

possibly with a concentration on the eastern edge along the steep slope. The 

overall topography that attracted Burgoyne and influenced his organization of 

the encampment remains the same. Some of the camp's earthen fortifications 

also likely remain within Victory Woods including one possible cannon 

emplacement along the top of the slope. Most of the built features that would 

conveyed the design, workmanship, and materials associated with the spatial 

organization of the site have been lost to erosion or subsequent development or 

use of the site. The property is covered with forest vegetation much as it would 

have been when Burgoyne's troops began to construct fortifications here in 

September of 1777. The road within the park may be a remnant of the road that 

branched from the road along Fish Creek (the current NYS Route 32) and 

traversed the encampment along the top of the steep slope. 

Topography/Earthworks 

Historic Condition: Burgoyne's troops camped on the heights here before the 

battles of Saratoga, and upon his retreat, he chose this partially fortified place as 

an encampment site once more. The slopes surrounding the heights protected 

the British encampment from the surrounding American forces, and the gently 

sloping uplands provided adequate ground for the encampment and 

fortifications. Cannon batteries were located around the perimeter of the camp 

with an emphasis on the eastern edge along the steep slope. Other protective 

earthworks were built throughout the encampment. 

In 1777, British artillery batteries were assigned two different sizes, depending 

upon the poundage (or caliber) of the artillery pieces.5

 For larger cannon (12, 18, 

or 24-pounders), each artillery piece required a platform of at least 24 feet in 

length, and 10 feet in breadth. “The depth of a battery is always 30 feet or 

thereabouts, 15 feet for the gun, 15 feet for recoil.” It was usual to make little cells 

or cavities near to the batteries, at a convenient distance, in which to keep the 

gunpowder. These little magazines of the battery were covered with clay or 

something similar, to protect them from enemy fire.6

Existing Condition: The Heights of Saratoga have shaped history, and 

topography is a major topic in park interpretation. Victory Woods is a sample of 

the typical Hudson River bluff landscape. Its topography contributes to a 

diversity of landscape types: uplands (both wet and dry), ravines, and steep slopes 

extending down to the floodplain. The upland portion of Victory Woods rises 

gently from the southern boundary to the pond at the northwest corner of the 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 183 

property and at an average height of about 265 feet above sea level. Two large 

ravines drain the upland to the floodplain and Fish Creek, and a gully drains the 

center of the property flowing due east down the slope to the creek. The steep 

bank that separates the upland from NYS Route 32 and the Fish Creek floodplain 

has approximately a 23 percent slope.

Unique topographic features exist within the upland portion of Victory Woods. 

An angled earthwork is located south of the pond with a trench running behind. 

A slight swale leads from this earthwork to another mound atop the central gully 

where the water tower once stood. Four additional mounds are located in the 

upland south of the former water tower mound. The origin of these mounds is 

unknown. A circular, rock-lined depression of unknown origin with a ten-foot 

diameter sits midway down the steep slope near the center of the eastern 

property line. This depression is about three-feet deep at its center. Some other 

more discrete features may be remnants of the 1777 British fortifications. A 

semicircular earthwork, possibly a cannon emplacement, sits east of the pond 

atop the steep slope. It is about thirty-feet in diameter with a fifteen-foot radius. 

It sits about three feet high at its peak and is about ten feet wide at its base. An 

eight-foot wide pit, possibly a subterranean, gunpowder magazine associated 

with the cannon emplacememt, sits between this earthwork and the pond. It is 

about two-feet deep at its center. The origin of a linear earthwork, located about 

800 feet south of the cannon battery also atop the steep slope, is unknown, 

although it may be waterworks-related. A circular depression, ten feet in 

diameter, stands outside of the park just south of the property line. It may 

possibly be a hut or oven site from the American volunteers under Burgoyne's 

command. 

Evaluation: The varied landscape of gorges, bluffs, floodplain, and ridges in this 

portion of the Upper Hudson River Valley directly influenced the battles that 

occurred here. Topography was the single most critical feature weighing upon 

siting, strategy, and outcome of the individual battle events, and is still of primary 

importance in understanding and interpreting the battles, siege, and surrender. 

This naturally formed topography has changed little since 1777. The manmade 

topography or earthworks have eroded over time losing some detail. An 

archeological field study in May 2006 was unable to verify the origin of the 

earthworks due to a lack of artifacts. 

As a note of interest, much of the land across Fish Creek from Victory Woods, 

where the main body of American forces commanded by General Gates were 

located, remains relatively undeveloped and covered with forest. A number of 

earthworks likely associated with the Gates' encampment, possibly including 

cannon batteries, remain remarkably intact directly across the creek from the 

Victory Mills complex in the back yards of a few private, residential properties. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 184 

Archeological Sites 

Existing Condition: Archeological resources form an important element of the 

park's resource base. Documentary sources make it appear likely that the Victory 

Woods tract contains archeological resources relating to the "siege period" 

before the British capitulation, but before this current ongoing investigation, the 

area was never investigated by professional archeologists. Relic hunters have 

been digging in the Victory Woods area, prior to and after the property was 

owned by the National Park Service, finding shoe buckles, buttons, belt plates, 

cartridge box plates, etc. Some artifacts collected in the Victory Woods were 

donated to the Park. During the many years since the siege and surrender, runoff 

from heavy rains has scoured areas in the steep slope leading down to Fish Creek, 

eroding archeological features. 

Evaluation: An archeological identification study in May 2006 yielded no 

artifacts that could be identified as coming from the Revolutionary War period. 

It was hoped that the possibly historic earthworks, would yield archeological 

resources due to the intensity of physical activity that transpired around them. 

As will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter under “Archeological 

Evaluation,” the May 2006 study found extensive evidence of Native American 

occupation and use dating back to the Middle and Late Archaic periods (8000 B. 

P.-1609). 

Circulation 

Historic Condition: A few roads served the British encampment. The road from 

Albany southeast of Fish Creek served as Burgoyne's evacuation route from the 

Saratoga Battlefield, but American forces had destroyed the bridge across Fish 

Creek to hinder Burgoyne's forces. Across Fish Creek, this road continued 

through the town of Old Saratoga (now Schuylerville). Another major road 

paralleled Fish Creek to the northwest. A spur from this road leads directly up 

the eastern slope and into the encampment. An additional road led from Old 

Saratoga up to the northern side of the encampment. 

Existing Condition: Visitors may reach the three park sites within the Old 

Saratoga Unit via US Route 4 or NYS Route 32, which intersect in Schuylerville. 

Victory Woods parallels NYS Route 32 which is locally named Gates Avenue. A 

sidewalk runs along the east side of this route from Victory Mills toward 

Schuylerville. The Victory Woods property is nestled within a developed area of 

the Village of Victory. The topography, hydrology, and land use of the site, 

though, have prevented urban development here resulting in an 'island' of dense 

forest vegetation. The village's Jay and Herkimer Streets terminate at the 

southern property line. Herkimer Street then continues into the property as a 

dirt and gravel road that climbs to the center of the site. It is the only road within 

the property. Monument Drive ends near the northwest corner of the site and 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 185 

Schuyler Heights Drive ends at the site's northern boundary. Two minor 

footpaths cross the site from the west and northwest and form a loop near the 

center of the property. This loop also links with the park road. An additional 

path leads from this road, diagonally down the steep slope, toward an earthwork 

depression and NYS Route 32.

Evaluation: A few modern roads follow the general routes of roads that served 

the encampment. The road from Albany southeast of Fish Creek served as 

Burgoyne's evacuation route from the Saratoga Battlefield and was the precursor 

for today's US Route 4, although the location has been shifted to the west. Across 

Fish Creek, this road continued through the town of Old Saratoga (now 

Schuylerville). Another road paralleled Fish Creek to the northwest and 

followed the general route of today's NYS Route 32. The spur from this road that 

lead directly into the encampment may be today's Herkimer Street and park road 

and may have continued onto today's Schuyler Heights Drive and then leading 

into Schuylerville. The path down the center of Victory Woods' steep slope is of 

unknown origin. The other roads and paths that surround Victory Woods are 

most likely non-historic. 

Views and Vistas 

Historic Condition: The elevated location of the British encampment on the 

Heights of Saratoga would have allowed broad views and vistas of the 

surrounding heights, the Town of Saratoga, the Hudson River and Fish Creek. 

The portion of the encampment contained within Victory Woods had more 

limited views. From the top of the steep slope, the British had eastern views to 

the road along Fish Creek, the creek itself, and to the American forces 

entrenched on the hills of the opposite side. From the southern and northern 

ends of Victory Woods, the British had views across the ravines to the surrounds 

to the south and more of the encampment to the north. From the western side of 

Victory Woods, the British had views across the western side of the encampment 

to the fortifications along today's Cemetery Avenue. 

By 1777, much of the surrounding land had been clear-cut for milling or 

agricultural operations. Period maps depict the steep slope and more level 

upland portions of Victory Woods covered with forest. The British troops would 

have likely been ordered to thin the forest for building or fire supplies and to 

increase views and usable space. The larger trees would have likely been left 

untouched, since they were too difficult to remove and provided some shelter 

from enemy view and protection from enemy fire. The resulting views across and 

from the encampment would then have included many large trees. 

Existing Condition: The vegetation of Victory Woods limits most views and 

vistas during the summer months. NYS Route 32 and Fish Creek are visible 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 186 

through the trees from much of the ridgeline along the steep slope during the late 

autumn, winter, and early spring. The rising, forested land east of Fish Creek is 

also visible in the distance. The land just east of NYS Route 32 and west of Fish 

Creek is privately held and is heavily treed or built up with houses and the 

Victory Mills complex thereby blocking some views of Fish Creek. The Victory 

Mills Complex is especially visible from the southeast portion of Victory Woods. 

The gently rolling topography and trees block most views within upland portion 

of Victory Woods. The open area of the pond allows for some views across the 

northwest portion of Victory Woods. The summer leaf cover and dense 

underbrush screens views of surrounding private homes. From the western 

boundary line nearest the southwestern corner of the property, views peek from 

the forest across the agricultural and suburban properties along Cemetery 

Avenue. Much of the land across Fish Creek from Victory Woods, where the 

main body of American forces commanded by General Gates were located, 

remains relatively undeveloped and covered with forest. 

Views have been dramatically reopened in the areas where the dense underbrush 

was cleared for archeological studies in the autumn of 2005. 

Evaluation: Significant views from the top of Victory Wood's steep slope to NYS 

Route 32, Fish Creek, and the site of the American force encampment beyond 

retain integrity. The current thick vegetative undergrowth, modernization of the 

road, and the presence of Victory Mills and the related mill housing, negatively 

impacts the historic scene, but the general location, setting, association and 

feeling remain. The views are significantly more open during the fall, winter, and 

spring when the underbrush and canopy is not leafed out. One key view from the 

likely cannon battery east across Fish Creek has been impacted by the 

construction of a home along NYS Route 32, but selective vegetative pruning may 

open the view and still screen the structure from view. Views south and north 

from Victory Woods do not contribute to the historic landscape because of the 

installation of private homes. Views to the west also do not contribute to the 

landscape setting for the same reason, but some views from the southwest 

portion of Victory Woods across the agricultural fields to Cemetery Avenue do 

evoke a sense of the area that the entire encampment occupied. 

Natural Systems and Features 

Historic Condition: The upper Hudson River Valley is located between the 

Adirondack Mountains of New York and the Green Mountains of Vermont and 

has a varied landscape of gorges, bluffs, floodplain, and ridges.

During the time of the encampment, springs and heavy rains drained into ravines 

at the northern and southern ends of the site that emptied into Fish Creek which 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 187 

in turn flowed into the Hudson River. The Hudson River was abundant with fish 

that spawned in its tributaries. Fish Creek was particularly rich with this resource 

that had encouraged Native American and then European settlement. The 

Hudson River in the vicinity of the park forms part of a historic transportation 

corridor extending to the St. Lawrence Valley. For centuries this corridor 

provided a route for trade and invasion. Saratoga became a battlefield because of 

its strategic location on this waterway system. General Burgoyne followed the 

River Road to Saratoga during his campaign to take Albany. Lake Champlain, 

less than thirty-five miles from Victory Woods, forms the core of the traditional 

transportation route. 

Fish Creek provides a steady year-round flow of water, and the alternatively 

widening and narrowing topography of its banks is ideal for water-powered 

operations. The abundant hardwood forests of the area supplied area lumber 

mills, and timbering and agricultural operations had thinned the surrounding 

forests drastically. Forest still covered the area of the encampment in the Heights 

of Saratoga in the autumn of 1777. The area had bountiful wildlife at this time 

including such species as the gray wolf. 

Existing Condition: Many natural springs are located in the upland portion of 

Victory Woods and drain north and south to two large ravines beyond just 

outside of the NPS boundary. Springs also feed a pond at the northwest corner 

of the property. The standing water level fluctuates seasonally based on 

precipitation, but this area is swampy even in August. The Victory Woods 

property consists predominately of deciduous forest. Nineteen bird species, 

eight species of mammals, ten amphibian species, and two reptile species have 

been observed within the property. 

Evaluation: Fish Creek and the Hudson River were determining factors in the 

location of settlement by Native Americans and European colonists. The two 

waterways did not change much during the next two centuries. The banks along 

the creek and river have been altered by natural and manmade processes and are 

covered with more trees today than during the industrial past. The springs within 

Victory Woods are historic as they provided water to British soldiers within the 

encampment and later to Victory Mills and the Village of Victory.

The origin of the pond within the northwest portion of Victory Woods is 

unknown. It remains unclear as to whether the pond existed at the time of the 

encampment, was formed by excavation and earthwork construction by British 

Troops in 1777, or was created during later periods when the Victory Mills and 

the village tapped Victory Woods for waterworks operations. An angular 

earthwork of unknown origin makes up the southeastern edge of the pond. The 

British 9th Regiment is depicted on maps as having formed its camp at an odd 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 188 

angle within Victory Woods, paralleling the western edge of today’s wetland. 

Surely this unusual placement may have been determined by the presence of the 

wetland in 1777. 

The Victory Woods property remains covered predominately with deciduous 

forest as during 1777 with the exception of the introduction of a few nonnative, 

invasive plant species. A diversity of native wildlife still inhabits or traverses the 

area with the exception of the gray wolf which has become extinct on the east 

coast. 

Vegetation 

Historic Condition: In 1777, Victory Woods was part of a larger wooded area 

that covered much of the Heights of Saratoga, while the fertile area along the 

Hudson River to the east had been cleared for agriculture. The British troops 

would have likely been ordered to thin this deciduous, hardwood forest for line 

of sight, firewood, and building supplies and to increase open space. The larger 

trees would have likely been left, since they were too difficult to remove and 

provided shelter from enemy view and protection from enemy ammunition.

Existing Condition: Victory Woods is situated within the transition zone 

between the Appalachian oak region and the hemlock-white pine-northern 

hardwoods region of the Eastern deciduous forest. Deciduous trees comprise 

most of the mature forests of the region. Thirty-three species of woody plants 

and forty species of herbaceous plants have been observed at Victory Woods (see 

Table 2.2). None of these plant species are listed by the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service as being of special concern, rare, threatened, or endangered. Three 

nonnative, invasive plant species, barberry, multiflora rose, and Norway maple, 

inhabit the property. Most of Victory Woods is covered with a forest that is 

greater than fifty years old. A mixture of hardwood species dominates the upland 

and slopes. There are upwards of 112 trees with a DBH (diameter breast height) 

greater than twenty-four inches. Some of these trees are over 150 years old, 

indicative of an area that has not been cut for some time. Areas without these 

large trees have been disturbed in the more recent past by the construction of a 

water tower, natural springs developed as pumping stations, an underground 

reservoir, and piping for the Village of Victory water supply. A diverse and dense 

community of woody shrubs and herbaceous plants grows beneath the tree 

canopy with some wetland plants clustered around the springs and pond. 

Evaluation: With the exception of the three introduced non-native, invasive 

plant species, the character of the existing vegetation community resembles the 

plant community of the 1777 British encampment. The existing forest is at least 

fifty years old, and historic images such as the 1883 Birdseye drawing of the 

Village of Victory suggest that it is much older. It is likely that Victory Woods has 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 189 

never been completely timbered. The thinned condition of the canopy trees 

served the needs of the British camp, the nineteenth and twentieth-centurywaterworks operations, and the NPS stewardship. The forest trees and 

associated leaf litter has preserved the earthworks within. The dense 

underbrush, however, had likely been removed in 1777, and today it hinders views 

and movement within Victory Woods. 

Land Use 

Historic Condition: The lands surrounding the Hudson River and Fish Creek 

sustained Native American occupation and hunting and fishing camps. Later, the 

floodplains of the Hudson River provided rich agricultural lands to European 

colonists. The land of Victory Woods was owned by Philip Schuyler in 1777 and 

was part of the original 1684 Saratoga Patent. Schuyler operated a few mills in 

Saratoga, and much of the surrounding forests had been timbered. However, 

many of the military maps that depict the sloped areas within the Heights of 

Saratoga as being covered in forest in 1777. The topography may have prevented 

agricultural use and timbering here. 

During his retreat from the Battles of Saratoga, General Burgoyne chose Saratoga 

Heights as an encampment site. Here the British were outnumbered by the 

American forces that surrounded them and surrendered. The portion of the 

British encampment that Victory Woods encompasses included part of the 

British 9th Regiment and American Volunteer (loyalist) camps as well as 

numerous fortifications and cannon batteries. The high ground provided 

protection and the springs provided water. The site was probably not farmed 

after the surrender. If the British cut trees for fortifications, the area slowly 

reverted to forest. 

Existing Condition: Privately owned residential properties surround Victory 

Woods. The properties to the south and east are urban and mill-related, the 

properties to the north are suburban in character, and the properties to the west 

are more rural and historically agricultural. Some private undeveloped open land 

lies to the north, but is slated for a residential subdivision. Reliant Energy, now 

CenterPoint Energy, owns land across Fish Creek that is undeveloped and 

covered with thick forest. The Victory Woods property came to be owned by 

Victory Mills and supported waterworks for both milling operations as well as for 

the Village of Victory. Since 1974, Saratoga NHP has owned and protected the 

property, and following completion of this study, the park will develop the site 

for public access and interpretation. Victory Woods will then join the park's 

other historic attractions. 

Evaluation: The topography and hydrology of the Victory Woods property as 

well as its historic land use has protected it from residential development. The 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 190 

park’s 2004 General Management Plan states, “The site symbolizes the decisive 

turn in the American struggle for independence and serves as an eternal reminder 

of the human cost of both the American victory and the British defeat."7

 Victory 

Woods is historically significant as part of the greater British encampment site. 

Buildings and Structures / Constructed Water Features / Small-scale Features 

Historic Condition: Historic military maps depict no buildings or structures 

within Victory Woods prior to the British encampment. As part of establishing 

the encampment, the British troops possibly would have hastily constructed huts, 

tents, ovens, privies, powder magazines, cannon batteries and numerous 

fortifications. Often earthworks contained timber structures. None of these 

structures were intended to be permanent. 

Existing Condition: No buildings stand in Victory Woods on what was the 

southeast corner of the British encampment. Victory Woods does, however, 

contain some mid-twentieth-century waterworks-related structures. A concrete 

foundation from the former brick pump house sits just south of the former water 

tower concrete foundation. An additional concrete foundation from a former 

reservoir is located within a small mound about 500 feet to the south. All of these 

foundations have been filled with sand and are now covered with vegetation. 

Three square concrete weirs and one round concrete weir are located about 600 

feet southwest of the former water tower site. An iron pump still stands next to 

one of these weirs. This extra-capacity pump was manufactured in Salem, Ohio 

sometime between 1866 and 1961, before the Deming Pump brand was acquired 

by the Crane Company of Stamford, Connecticut. The c. twenty-five-foot square 

concrete foundation of an icehouse sits just east of the Herkimer Street gate near 

the southeast corner of the site. Portions of a barbed wire fence still surround 

parts of Victory Woods, although most of the fence has fallen down or has been 

engulfed by trees. Simple galvanized metal vehicular gates are located at the ends 

of Herkimer and Jay Streets. Metal park signs displayed along trails or at 

trailheads denote No Metal Detectors and No Dump. The only marker on the 

property is a 1927 NYS cast iron sign that announces the position of Fraser's 

Corps during the encampment. This dark blue sign with yellow lettering is 

located at the edge of the woods along NYS Route 32. Twenty brass monuments 

marked Property of National Park Service delineate the property line. Orange 

metal stakes labeled US Boundary NPS are located along the property line at key 

public access points. In 2005, ten aluminum monuments marked National Park 

Service Survey Marker with their universal transverse mercator (UTM) position 

were installed within Victory Woods as georeference control points in 

preparation for the archeological survey of the property in May 2006. 

Evaluation: With the absence of historic structures on the site, the landscape 

assumes a greater burden in conveying the site's history. Any timber structures 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 191 

associated with the surviving earthworks have rotted away, and all of the sites 

earthworks are now categorized as topographic features. Ongoing archeological 

studies may determine the location of other structures. The constructed water 

features and small-scale features located within Victory Woods all date to the 

twentieth century and are not historic. 

 

 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 192 

ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 

The archeological potential of the Victory Woods parcel is readily apparent with 

even a brief walk-over of the site. Even before beginning the extensive research 

on the site, which has come to fruition in this volume, park personnel were able 

to point out a potential cannon emplacement, a possible magazine, and several 

low earthen embankments, likely leftovers from Burgoyne’s 1777 encampment. 

These earthworks, while obscured during times of high vegetation, stand out 

especially well when the vegetation has died back. 

While the earthworks are apparent from a site visit, the artifacts that were 

expected to be found at the parcel were less so. The historical sources that 

document the movement of Burgoyne and the remainder of his army to their 

fallback position on Victory Woods, note that they camped here for just about a 

week. A week-long encampment at a site usually produces a considerable 

amount of trash which eventually makes its way into the archeological record. A 

considerable amount of artifacts were therefore expected at the site. 

The prominent position of the Victory Woods parcel on the landscape also 

significantly contributed to its archeological potential. The plateau and eastern 

ravine overlooking the Fish Creek and adjacent lower floodplain was strategically 

chosen by the British for its military advantages. While ultimately the British 

surrendered to the Americans, their surrender had more to do with degradation 

from earlier military encounters with the Americans than it did with the selection 

of the site for the encampment. Victory Woods was a very defensible military 

site. 

The geographical location of Victory Woods, and the natural resources available 

within the larger catchment area of the Fish Creek (water, flora, and fauna), also 

made it attractive to the Native Americans. Its proximity to the Hudson River, 

one of the major north-south transportation corridors in prehistory, moreover 

made it a desirable location for settlement. From an archeological perspective, 

the area had much to offer the Native American inhabitants for thousands of 

years. 

Some areas of the site had been previously disturbed and its archeological 

resources had been impacted. The construction of the water tower and the vaults 

containing the springs had impacted the site. While the area may not have been 

clear cut, trees had likely been harvested from the site since the Revolutionary 

War, although it was unclear as to how much disturbance had been made by the 

logging or thinning. Likewise, several ARPA (Archeological Resources 

Protection Act 1979 as Amended) violations were known to have occurred at the 

site. While a few individuals had been caught relic hunting, many more had likely 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 193 

escaped prosecution, but there was no way to gauge the impact without further 

study. 

At the same time, the parcel’s extreme topographic relief and lack of 

development have led to its current preservation. The rich farmlands adjacent to 

the Hudson have limited exploitation of parcels considered more difficult to 

farm, like the tract in Victory Woods. The parcel has also avoided the boom of 

residential construction. Aside from the minor industrial water works, 

construction has been absent on the site and bolstered its current state of 

preservation. Lack of farming and development, together with an ideal position 

on the landscape, have served to preserve much of the archeological potential of 

the tract. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

A parcel like Victory Woods with extant earthworks and suspected military 

occupation remains can provide a plethora of information to archeologists about 

past military life and practices. The information gathered from research at a site 

like this benefits not only military archeologists and military historians, but 

archeologists in general, and resource managers within the National Park Service 

in particular. Treated as an outdoor laboratory, archeologists can assess 

preservation questions, military construction issues, food procurement and 

distribution strategies, taphonomic changes in the soils, usefulness of geophysical 

techniques and many others. While in no particular order, the explicit goals for 

archeological research questions at Victory Woods were: 

• Assessing the value of remote sensing geophysical instruments (Ground 

Penetrating Radar, Resistance, and Magnetometers) to locate 

Revolutionary War-related features, not observable on the surface. 

• Assessing the integrity and abundance of the remains from Burgoyne’s 

encampment, or from earlier military encampments. 

• Assessing the accuracy of the historical maps from the archeological 

discoveries. 

• Assessing the damage to the archeological deposits from past 

constructions and ARPA violations. 

• Assessing the integrity of the Revolutionary War deposits to better 

understand British military life in the late eighteenth century. 

• Assessing the integrity and abundance of prehistoric occupation at the 

site. 

Another avenue of archeological research involves comparative studies. The 

results obtained from archeological investigations at Victory Woods can be 

compared to results obtained from archeological investigations in other areas of 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 194 

the park and beyond. Comparative assessments could also be made between 

Victory Woods and military fortifications and encampments in general, not 

specifically connected to the Revolutionary War. In other words, archeological 

research at Victory Woods could serve to provide comparative information used 

to assess issues like: 

• Variations in British Revolutionary War fortifications and encampments 

throughout the Northeast American theater. 

• Variations in British fortifications and encampments between the French 

and Indian Wars and the Revolutionary War. 

• Variations in British fortifications and encampments between the North 

American and European theaters during the eighteenth centuries. 

As noted earlier in this document, significant American encampments and 

fortifications are apparent just on the other side of the Fish Creek, some of them 

in a similar state of preservation to Victory Woods. If these sites could be 

acquired by the park, in sum or in part, then comparative information could be 

developed to compare and contrast British fortifications and American 

Fortifications. Some comparisons of British and American fortifications and 

encampments have already been done both at Saratoga and at other NPS sites, 

but collection of information for comparative purposes allows archeologists to 

constantly refine research methodologies. 

The Victory Woods parcel, with its extensive prehistoric features and deposits, 

contains enormous potential for analyzing questions about Native American use 

of the area. Few sites within the region contain the types of sites discovered 

during the initial testing and even fewer have the archeological integrity that 

these features and deposits contain. These archeological resources may 

potentially provide answers to questions like: 

• What were the faunal and floral resources chosen for exploitation by 

Native Americans at the site? 

• Did Native Americans exploit different resources during different 

periods of occupation? 

• How do these resources fit in with the larger prehistoric development of 

the area? 

• What was the environment like during different periods of prehistory? 

• What were the trade patterns among the Native Americans? Were only 

native raw materials used or were raw materials from distant areas being 

traded? 

• What is the relationship of the ethnographically documented 

population of Native Americans to that of the earlier Native American 

groups within this area? 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 195 

The rich prehistoric resources of the site have the potential to answer these 

questions and many others. Like the historic earthworks, the materials recovered 

from the prehistoric features and deposits can provide a great deal of 

comparative information. Numerous prehistoric sites, both within the park and 

throughout the area, can be compared with the archeological material recovered 

during the present and future excavations. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL EVALUATION 

From the very beginning of the project, the documentation for the archeological 

work was envisioned to contain both public and private elements. This 

document (combination Cultural Landscape Report and Archeological 

Sensitivity Assessment CLR/ASA) was developed for a general audience with 

broad dissemination envisioned. The Archeological Identification Study (AIS) 

was intended to be restricted because of the sensitive nature of the archeological 

information contained within it. Some archeological information about Victory 

Woods must be kept confidential so relic hunters will not use the information to 

further damage an already compromised site. The goal of the National Park 

Service is to steward these archeological resources for current and future 

generations. 

This section of the combined CLR/ASA was written after the information for the 

AIS had already been gathered, analyzed, and the information from the study 

packaged in draft form. It is therefore possible to not only expound upon the 

methodology for research on the site, but to give general information to the 

public on what was found without communicating the specific information 

needed by the relic hunters to locate sensitive parts of the site. To preclude relic 

hunting at the site, the specific information concerning the location of 

archeological resources is not contained in the following text. 

THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH 

While the National Park Service provides money to parks for undertaking 

Section 110 research, rarely do groups of professionals from various disciplines 

get to cooperate on projects with the suspected landscape and archeological 

integrity of Victory Woods. It is the symbiotic interplay and cooperation 

between the various disciplines and the combined research efforts that really 

make for a thorough assessment of the resources. The archeological portion of 

the project was greatly enhanced by the information gathered and developed by 

the landscape architects, surveyors, historians, and natural resource specialists 

involved in the project. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 196 

Following the background investigation for the project, conducted mainly by 

individuals at the park, a detailed topographic map of the project area was 

created. The topographic maps, illustrated throughout this volume, are the result 

of the combined needs of the archeologists and the landscape architects. The 

survey of the project area was conducted to record very small topographic 

variation. When done on former earthworks and militarily related sites, small 

six-inch changes in contours are often all that remain of once large structures that 

have either weathered or been covered up by manmade or geo-morphological 

changes. Even if earthworks have not weathered or degraded significantly, six 

inch survey contours allow archeologists to pick out subtle features on the 

landscape that may be former military features but that are not readily apparent 

even during a walk-over of the site. 

The survey was conducted and maps were made with both English and Metric 

measurements. While the English measurements are still favored by the 

architects and engineers, most archeologists favor metric values. All of the 

subsequent archeologically-related work done at the site (locating the various 

units, placement of permanent benchmarks for future archeological 

investigations, geophysical and archeological investigations, and GPS coordinate 

recording) was conducted using metric measurements. 

Emphasis was placed on accurately recording all the information derived from 

the various facets of the project. The work done for this phase of research on the 

site is intended to establish a baseline for which future studies and assessments 

can be conducted. It is a constant aggravation to try to locate earlier excavation 

units when the excavators triangulate the locations of the units from points that 

are no longer extant. The development of the Global Positioning System has 

largely rendered ambiguities for locational information inexcusable. When 

future archeological excavations or geophysical assessments are conducted on 

the property these can be added to the information recovered from the present 

research. The emphasis on recording with this project also means that future 

research may be accurately done using data developed from this project. The 

data gathered from the geophysical survey should provide areas for investigation 

for the next few decades. 

Following the completion of a detailed contour map, a geophysical survey of 

twenty-two grids was conducted using Ground Penetrating Radar, Resistivity, 

and Magnetometry to look for subsurface features. Each grid measured twenty 

by twenty meters in size and was examined using all three geophysical 

techniques. The measurement interval and the transect interval for collection of 

the data were 1 meter or less for all of the equipment. Detailed color-coded maps 

were constructed using each of the three techniques. By using several 

instruments, which collected different types of information, comparisons could 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 197 

be made between various anomalies. In many cases anomalies identified by at 

least two instruments were chosen for investigation. 

Past experience, and an increasing volume of scholarly research, has 

demonstrated that geophysical assessments must be followed by archeological 

investigations to determine the veracity of the geophysical study. In some cases, 

the archeological ground-truthing investigations do not support the data derived 

from the geophysical investigations. However, geophysical assessments do 

provide archeologically verifiable information in many cases. It is very difficult to 

figure out where the disconnect lies. At times the improper geophysical 

technique is chosen. In other cases the underlying soil conditions can be held 

responsible. To identify anomalies, all three techniques (Ground Penetrating 

Radar, Resistance, and Magnetic Studies) rely on the ability of the instrument to 

distinguish a contrast between the surrounding soil and the feature or artifact. 

Sometimes the contrast between the surrounding soil and the feature are simply 

not there or are not great enough to be detected by the instrument. The report 

developed from the geophysical data detailed the location of numerous 

anomalies. 

To select the location for the test trenches, a variety of information was used 

including the results from the geophysical assessment and the topographic 

survey. Hand-excavated trenches were selected as the primary method of 

archeological investigation, largely because of the success obtained using 

trenches at both Bunker Hill and Dorchester Heights. These trenches ranged in 

size from 0.5 x 5 meters to 0.75 x 10 meters. A total of eight trenches were 

eventually excavated across several visible fortification features and in areas 

where geophysical anomalies were identified. Most of the units were placed in 

accordance with the GPS grid lines derived from Universal Transverse Mercator 

(UTM) North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83) coordinates. However, in some 

cases where the fortifications were shaped differently from the UTM NAD 83 

grid lines, excavation trenches were placed perpendicularly across the feature. 

Ideally, archeologists want to bisect features perpendicularly to accurately record 

construction details rather that bisecting features at acute or obtuse angles. 

RESULTS 

The results from the archeological investigations were mixed for the British 

fortifications and encampment but bountiful for the prehistoric materials. While 

constructions for the various visible earthen fortification features were recorded 

(cannon emplacement, possible magazine, and low earthen embankments) no 

artifacts that could be identified as coming from the Revolutionary War period 

were found from excavating slightly less than 35 square meters of soils. The 

excavators speculated several possibilities to explain the absence of 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 198 

Revolutionary War artifacts: 1) relic hunting; 2) artifacts not on portion of original 

encampment now owned by NPS; or 3) that the British left very few artifacts. 8

While relic hunting has occurred at Victory Woods, the instruments available to 

the relic hunters are primarily for locating metal objects. Ceramics, glass, wood, 

and leather artifacts are not readily detectable by geophysical instruments, 

especially not by the metal detectors commonly used by relic hunters. One 

would therefore expect to have identified a good number of non-metallic 

artifacts in the nearly 35 square meters of excavation done at Victory Woods. 

Additionally, the park has documented several instances of looting on the parcel 

throughout the last several decades, sometimes recovering the looted material. 

Artifacts have thus been found on site, weakening the argument for the second 

possible explanation, but not eliminating it entirely from consideration. 

Realistically, the absence of artifacts is likely due to a combination of 

explanations 2 and 3 and possibly by an archeological sampling error. While 

Revolutionary War period artifacts have been found in this area of the park, it 

may not have been an area of the encampment that would have been laden with 

artifacts. Remember, the British retreated to this location that they had used 

earlier, but made their retreat under less than ideal conditions. Hartgen 

Archeological Associates, Inc. summarizes the situation in their report by noting, 

“Stated succinctly, No food, no supplies: no garbage. With the exception of the 

earthen features, the archeological footprint left behind by the troops was very 

light.” 9

At the same time, while no Revolutionary War artifacts were recovered from the 

Victory Woods excavations, an enormous number of prehistoric artifacts were 

recovered. A roasting platform, used to dry and cook foods, was discovered in 

one trench near one of the Revolutionary War earthen fortifications. Two 

diagnostic projectile points (Middle and Late Archaic) and hundreds of debitage 

flakes were recovered from various locations within the Victory Woods parcel. 

One trench contained enough lithic debitage in discrete deposits, surrounding 

large anvil stones, that it can be considered a lithic processing station paralleling a 

site found and documented by Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. near 

Kingston, New York. 10 These discoveries provide a small window to view what 

must have been a heavily occupied and utilized area for the last 7500 years. 

Springs along the plateau would have provided fresh water, the nearby Fish 

Creek an abundant supply of fish, and the Hudson River likely served as a 

transportation corridor. The native flora and fauna of the area would additionally 

have supplied abundant resources for Native American occupation within the 

greater Upper Hudson River Valley area. 
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

 199 

EVALUATION 

As mentioned earlier in this volume, the yardstick by which preservationists in 

general measure the importance of the resources is the National Register. The 

National Register also serves to measure the archeological importance of sites. 

The four criteria A-D (association with events, association with persons, 

distinctive characteristics, yielded or likely to yield additional information on 

prehistory or history) serve to gauge the importance of the discoveries at Victory 

Woods. By using these criteria to evaluate archeological features and deposits, 

archeologists can separate the significant discoveries. The last criterion is most 

often used when evaluating archeological resources. 

While the lack of historic Revolutionary War artifacts make it difficult to 

conclusively date the remaining earthworks to the time of Burgoyne and his 

retreat to the site, the overwhelming historical evidence indicates that this is the 

site of the encampment just before Burgoyne and what was left of his army 

surrendered to the American forces in October of 1777. The lack of 

Revolutionary War period artifacts is, however, troubling. The remaining 

earthworks, when viewed as an archeological resource, qualify as National 

Register eligible under criterion D. The earthworks may also qualify as National 

Register eligible under Criteria A and B. 

The geophysical and archeological excavations at Victory Woods have illustrated 

the importance of the historic earthworks for adding additional historical 

information. For example, while the historic maps of the Victory Woods parcel 

illustrate that earthen fortifications surrounded the entire area of the British 

encampment, geophysical and archeological investigations indicate that only 

selected locations were actually equipped with earthen fortifications. Historic 

maps of the area also indicate that forces loyal to the crown were camped in the 

southern portion of the Victory Woods parcel. The geophysical assessment 

could not verify the existence of any Revolutionary War encampment in this area. 

Likewise, the prehistoric resources uncovered at Victory Woods would qualify as 

National Register eligible under Criterion D. The extensive prehistoric 

assemblage uncovered from the relatively limited excavations, speak to the 

volume of materials which may still be buried. The site seems to have been used 

extensively over the last 7500 years until the area was colonized by the 

Europeans. The preservation of a roasting pit and a lithic production station 

testify to the integrity of the prehistoric resources. These resources are as 

important for prehistory as the earthworks are for history. 

In addition to the Section 110 research which has been documented above, the 

development of the Victory Woods parcel will likely require some Section 106 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 200 

investigations. While Section 110 is intended to gather baseline information about 

a parcel, Section 106 is intended to assess the effect of particular undertakings, 

which in this case are landscaping changes necessary for the development of the 

parcel. Both of the Sections are part of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 (as amended) which provides direction for historic property management. 

The Section 106 phase of research upon the parcel is expected to be minimal in 

nature, largely due to the importance of the historic and prehistoric resources, 

and the park’s willingness to develop the parcel in an “archeologically-friendly” 

fashion, limiting the ground disturbance necessary to open the site. Boardwalks 

and trails are expected to be constructed on-grade or above grade with little 

ground disturbance necessary. Archeological excavations necessary to evaluate 

the impacts will likely take place in the Spring of 2007. 

Endnotes 

 

1

 David R. Starbuck, The Great Warpath, Military Sites from Albany to Crown Point (Hanover, NH: University Press of 

New England, 1990) p.49.

2

 Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the historic event occurred. Design is the 

combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure and style of a property. Setting is the physical 

environment of a historic property. Materials are the physical elements of a particular period, which include plant 

materials, paving and other landscape features. Workmanship includes the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular 

period. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period. Association is the direct 

link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. 3

 Saratoga General Management Plan, 2004; 43. 

4

 Full determination of provenance pending futher archeological studies. 5

 Tielke, 301-311 in Cubbison, Historic Structures Report, The Hudson River Defenses. 6

 LeBlond, 66-69 in Cubbison, 27-28, Historic Structures Report, The Hudson River Defenses. 7

 Saratoga General Management Plan, 2004; 43. 

8

 Hartgen Archeological Associates, Revised Draft Archeological Identification Study (Volume 2) Victory Woods Village 

of Victory, Saratoga County, New York, August 2006, p. 43. 

9

 Ibid. p. 43. 

10 Ibid, p. 42. 
TREATMENT

 201 

The proposed trail entering Victory Woods west of the pond from the proposed parking lot (OCLP, 2006). 

TREATMENT

INTERPRETATIONS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

TREATMENT GUIDELINES 

LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

TREATMENT PLAN 

ARCHEOLOGICAL FEATURE AND SITE STABILIZATION PLAN 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 202 

TREATMENT 

As a federally owned property potentially eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places, decisions regarding the treatment of the Victory 

Woods landscape must be consistent with the 1992 Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The application of these 

treatment standards to historic landscapes is further defined in the Secretary’s 

1996 Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. This chapter is 

organized into two sections. The first section, “Policy Standards and Planning 

Documents,” reviews the philosophical foundations behind National Park 

Service policy regarding the treatment of cultural resources and summarizes 

existing planning documents. The second section, "Treatment Approach," 

explores the treatment issues at Victory Woods, reviews the implications of 

rehabilitation as a treatment to be applied at the site, identifies management 

objectives, and concludes with treatment recommendations. A Treatment Plan is 

presented at the end of this section. 

POLICY STANDARDS AND PLANNING DOCUMENTS 

The cultural landscape report is the primary document to guide the treatment of 

cultural landscapes, as described in "Director's Order 28: Cultural Resource 

Management." This and other NPS policy guidelines, including the Secretary of 

the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, are intended to 

shape treatment actions and ensure compliance with national historic 

preservation standards. The Secretary's Standards outline four basic approaches 

to treatment. The four alternatives—preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and 

reconstruction—describe different levels of intervention. 

• Preservation: the act or process of applying measures necessary to 

sustain the existing form, integrity, and material of a historic property. 

Preservation includes initial stabilization work, where necessary, as well 

as ongoing preservation maintenance and repair of historic materials and 

features. 

• Rehabilitation: the act or process of making possible a compatible use 

for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving 

those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or 

architectural values. 

• Restoration: the act or process of accurately depicting the form, 

features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period 

of time by removing features from other periods in its history and 

reconstructing missing features from the restoration period. 
TREATMENT

 203 

• Reconstruction: the act or process of depicting by means of new 

construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, 

landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its 

appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.1

This treatment section draws on the information presented in the site history, 

existing conditions, and analysis and evaluation sections and an understanding of 

historic preservation standards to develop recommendations for future action. 

The treatment recommendations support the park's interpretive and public 

education programs and are consistent with visitor use, maintenance needs, and 

overall direction established by planning efforts, most notably, the park's 2004 

General Management Plan. 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS 

The treatment of the landscape at Victory Woods is done in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act to ensure interdisciplinary involvement and systematic 

consideration of the human environment. Compliance involves completing an 

environmental screening/project review form and determining the potential 

effects on cultural resources that are either listed in or eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. Management alternatives may need to be developed 

in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act to consider the impacts of 

major federal actions on the affected environment. Compliance ensures 

meaningful participation by the public and other stakeholders, development and 

evaluation of alternative courses of action, rigorous application of scientific and 

technical information in the decision making process, consultation with expertise 

through multidisciplinary teams, and attention to mitigation measures, pollution 

prevention measures, and sustainable management principles.2

 

Both the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 apply to the implementation of 

recommendations found within this report. As the Victory Woods cultural 

landscape is comprised of both natural and cultural resources protected by 

federal law, the landscape recommendations are subject to formal processes 

established for compliance prior to implementation. For trail construction, 

actions that require National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 

compliance include opening a trail through a significant cultural site, extensive 

vista clearing, management of trails in fragile environments or rare habitats, and 

construction of associated features such as parking areas and facilities.3

 As part of 

this process the park has received input from the New York State Historic 

Preservation Office. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 204 

ROLE OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN IN LANDSCAPE 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The park’s 2004 General Management Plan identifies rehabilitation as the 

general treatment approach for park resources including the opening of Victory 

Woods as part of this twenty-year plan. Working within the National Park 

Service's mission to preserve and protect cultural resources, the General 

Management Plan identifies the need for supplemental cultural resource research 

and planning projects. It calls for engaging in the appropriate historical and 

archeological studies to inform and shape a cultural landscape treatment plan. 

Using the general framework outlined in the General Management Plan, this 

report outlines more focused actions relating to cultural landscape management 

to meet the park's mission. 

The General Management Plan recommends rehabilitation as the general 

treatment approach for all park resources including the opening of Victory 

Woods. In order to open Victory Woods to the public, much development is 

needed, which can be addressed according to the policy standards and guidelines 

for rehabilitation. 

Generally the General Management Plan suggests that the landscape character at 

select locations be evocative of landscape conditions of October 1777, the views 

important to the interpretation of the battles be reestablished, the characterdefining landscape features of Victory Woods be identified and rehabilitated, and 

that the interpretation emphasize the Burgoyne Campaign within the broader 

context of the Revolutionary War relying on visitor contact with rehabilitated 

landscape features and exhibits, in addition to media. The park's GMP has four 

management goals and ten objectives for the rehabilitation of Victory Woods:4

Goals 

• Improve the visitor's understanding of the events that led to the 1777 

British surrender by providing a more complete and logical depiction of 

these events. 

• Protect, preserve, and maintain the landscapes, buildings, structures, 

archeological sites, artifacts, and archives that are significant to the 1777 

Saratoga campaign in good condition. 

• Manage the park's natural resources in the context of a cultural park to 

foster healthy ecosystems. 

• Integrate interpretively and link physically the park's four 

noncontiguous sites so that the park functions as a cohesive entity. 
TREATMENT

 205 

Objectives 

• Reestablish at key locations, field and woodland to suggest conditions in 

October 1777; 

• Thin certain woodlands to suggest their character in October 1777; 

• Locate and rehabilitate historic road traces associated with the battle 

period; 

• Undertake extensive archeological research program and mitigation 

measures necessary to support potential actions; 

• Reestablish interpretive and historic views critical to the military use of 

Victory Woods; 

• Identify and rehabilitate the character-defining landscape features of 

Victory Woods; 

• Conduct cultural and natural resource inventories, and Archeological 

Identification Studies; 

• Identify the locations of British earthworks, roads, and other key 

landscape features significant to the siege at Victory Woods; 

• Indicate the locations of British earthworks, roads, and other key 

landscape features significant to the siege at Victory Woods; 

• Develop an interpretive trail through Victory Woods.5

TREATMENT APPROACH 

LANDSCAPE TREATMENT ISSUES 

It is essential to understand the unique challenges facing Victory Woods before 

defining a site-specific approach to landscape treatment. Currently, numerous 

issues challenge the park's interpretation and management of the cultural 

landscape including significant gaps in information, preserving its historic 

integrity, its lack of accessibility and interpretation, and how best to address 

development and planning needs. 

1. Significant Gaps in Information 

While the history of the events that occurred in and around Victory Woods is 

well documented for 1777, the actual physical history is not as well recorded. 

Numerous historic maps depict the general fortification and regiment placement 

within the British encampment, but they are symbolic and do not represent actual 

building or tree locations for example. The surviving topographic features 

including earthworks, as well as archeology, will be key in deciphering further 

physical details. The physical history of Victory Woods before and after 1777 is 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 206 

less documented and more contextual with the exception of the National Park 

Service period of 1974 to present. 

2. Integrity to the Primary Period of Significance 

Many changes have occurred within and surrounding Victory Woods since 1777. 

Surrounding industrial and residential development has occurred around the 

perimeter of the site. Construction and operation of the twentieth-century 

waterworks within Victory Woods have disturbed the site, potentially eliminating 

historic features. The property only represents a portion of the original 

encampment and is better preserved than the remainder of the encampment. 

Preserving the aspects of integrity, including the location, setting, association and 

feeling, is critical to preserving the significance of the property. 

3. Lack of Public Access / Interpretation 

Since Saratoga NHP acquired Victory Woods in 1974, the property has not been 

readily accessible to the public. The park is interested in providing access with 

trails and parking infrastructure, reestablishing key views, and installing 

interpretive waysides. The park also is interested in providing security for the 

area in order to preserve the historic features within the property. 

LANDSCAPE TREATMENT APPROACH - REHABILITATION 

A rehabilitation treatment will preserve significant characteristics and features of 

Victory Woods while allowing for the improvement of the function and use of 

the property as a whole. It acknowledges the importance of the evolution of a 

site through time, as suggested by the park's General Management Plan and 

accomplishes the park’s objective to reestablish interpretive and historic views 

critical to the military use of Victory Woods. By allowing for compatible use of 

the site, the park can modernize facilities for further growth and changing 

priorities, leave room to update interpretive features within the historic core, and 

change vegetation patterns to reflect new findings. In addition, missing historic 

features that were essential to the understanding and feeling of place could be 

replaced when supported by sufficient documentary evidence. This aspect of 

rehabilitation accommodates the General Management Plan goal of continuing a 

program of archeological investigation. 
TREATMENT

 207 

LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

This section will provide rehabilitation guidelines for the landscape associated 

with the construction of a universally accessible parking area, a universally 

accessible trail network to provide access to interpretive sites, the clearing of 

select vistas to enhance understanding of the siege, and the locating and design of 

three to six wayside exhibits. This section will also define ways that the Victory 

Woods project may connect with other historic areas of the community including 

the other two Old Saratoga Unit sites, Saratoga Monument, and Schuyler Estate. 

The treatment plans included at the end of this chapter is conceptual and 

schematic only and will be used to guide the development of construction 

drawings for the project. Appendix C contains additional references on trail 

construction and design. 

PARKING LOT: 

The park is working with the Village of Victory as a partner to establish a parking 

lot on their adjacent land at the end of Monument Drive, obtaining any 

easements necessary. A small lot already exists at the terminus of Monument 

Drive, so simply improving and or expanding this lot is a cost-effective solution. 

The western end of the village's property along Cemetery Avenue contains the 

village's water supply tower, and a future water tower may eventually be built 

elsewhere on the property. The waterworks require a buffer, so the northeastern 

corner of the property is the best location for the public parking. The village 

property also covers land that was part of the original British encampment, so 

limiting the parking to the area already developed will avoid impacting resources. 

Improvements to and/or expansion of the existing terminus of Monument Drive 

will require the placement of fill with no excavation to further protect the 

archeological resources. 

The park is interested in keeping the parking lot small, perhaps only facilitating 

two or three vehicles at a time, primarily for Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) accessibility. The 2005 Alternative Transportation Study prepared for the 

park identifies the need for shuttle service to link the noncontiguous park units 

and sites. These shuttles, either large vans or small buses, will more likely use the 

larger parking lot that was recently constructed at the Saratoga Monument, with 

a trail proposed to connect the monument to Victory Woods. This lot will serve 

as the primary parking for the two sites. 

Cul-de-Sacs, Turnarounds, and Hybrid Parking Lots6

Figures 4.1 to 4.5 demonstrate various specifications for designing cul-de-sacs, 

turnarounds, and parking lots. Cul-de-sac streets are dead-end streets that 

require turnaround areas large enough to accommodate large trucks and 

emergency access vehicles. This turning area may be an “L,” “T,” or circular 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 208 

shape cul-de-sac with dimensions as appropriate for the type of vehicle expected. 

The commonly used circular form should have a minimum outside radius 50-60 

feet if large buses and emergency vehicles will be using it for U-turns with no 

backing up required. The length of the outside radius may be reduced if the 

center of the cul-de-sac is paved. The smaller area should have an outer radius of 

40 feet, and the result is a cul-de-sac where passenger vehicles can make the 

customary U-turn and larger emergency vehicles can turn by backing only once. 

Mountable curbs also assist maneuvering of an oversized emergency vehicle. 

Hybrid parking lots use conventional impervious paving for the road and aisles 

between stalls but use permeable paving for the stalls, i.e., under the vehicle. 

Aisles (the cul-de-sac) must be designed for speeds between 10 and 20 mph, and 

durable enough to support the concentrated traffic of all vehicles using the lot. 

The stalls (2 ADA compliant parking spaces), on the other hand, need only be 

designed for the 2 or 3 mph speed of vehicles maneuvering into place. Most of 

the time the stalls are in use, vehicles are stationary. Hybrid lots reduce 

impervious surface coverage in parking areas by differentiating the paving 

between aisles and stalls, combining impervious aisles with permeable stalls. If 

the aisles are constructed of a more conventional, impermeable material suitable 

for heavier vehicle use, such as asphalt, the stalls can be constructed of a 

permeable pavement. This can reduce the overall impervious surface coverage of 

a typical double-loaded parking lot by 6 percent, and avoid the need for an 

underground drainage system. Permeable stalls can be constructed of a number 

of materials, including crushed aggregate, open-celled unit pavers, porous 

asphalt, or pervious concrete. A hybrid lot of crushed aggregate stalls and 

conventional asphalt aisles is a low-cost, practical design that is easily constructed 

from standard materials. In most cases, stall markings are not required, as the 

geometry of the edges promotes orderly parking. 

Design Alternatives 

Figure 4.1 shows four cul-de-sac, turnaround and parking lot alternatives. All 

alternatives include two ADA-compliant parking stalls, and Alternatives 1-3 

facilitate drop-off and turning with one-time backing of vehicles up to thirty feet 

in length. 

Alternative 1, the offset circular cul-de-sac, is asymmetrical and a more attractive 

design in suburban or rural settings than a conventional round cul-de-sac. An allpaved cul-de-sac requires a smaller outer radius than does one with an island 

configuration. The result is a cul-de-sac where passenger vehicles can make the 

customary U-turn and larger vehicles up to thirty feet in length can turn by 

backing only once. Alternative 2, the square cul-de-sac, works the same as the 

center paved offset cul-de-sac where passenger vehicles can make the customary 

U-turn and larger vehicles up to thirty feet in length can turn by backing only 

once. This results in a slightly narrower area of pavement. Alternative 3, the 

branch cul-de-sac, also allows larger vehicles up to thirty feet in length to turn by 

backing only once. This alternative, however, does not allow passenger vehicles 

to make the customary U-turn; they must also back once to turn. The advantage 
TREATMENT

 209 

for this alternative is that with its smaller area, it impacts the historic scene and 

archeological resources much less than the first two alternatives. Alternative 4, 

the L-type cul-de-sac, is basically what exists at the end of Monument Drive 

already with a few improvements. It is intended for passenger cars only. 

VICTORY WOODS TRAILS/BOARDWALK: 

To open Victory Woods to the public, trails need to be established to bring 

visitors to the cultural resources within the site. The trail leading to the most 

critical points of interpretation should be ADA compliant. Other trails within 

Victory Woods may be more challenging because of the varied terrain. All trails 

will be for pedestrians only with no ATVs or bicycles allowed. The trails should 

impact the land lightly thereby protecting archeological resources, while allowing 

surface water to flow across the site. The trails should be designed to require a 

low maintenance regime. 

Accessibility, Topography, and Signs7

The United States Access Board has developed Accessibility Guidelines for trails 

as described in the Report of the Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Accessibility 

Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas.8

 These guidelines describe the ideal 

provisions for tread, width, openings, protruding objects, obstacles, passing 

space, running slope, cross slope, rest intervals, edge protection, and signs. For 

trails, exceptions are allowed where compliance would cause substantial harm to 

cultural, historic, religious, or significant natural features or characteristics. 

Exceptions are also allowed where the provisions are not feasible due to terrain 

or prevailing construction practices. Despite these allowable exceptions, many 

trails are accessible to people with disabilities. In some cases, measures taken to 

improve accessibility may also enhance historic character and sustainability. In 

many places, the accessible trails with gentler grades may be the most sustainable 

as they are less susceptible to surface erosion. In addition, trails built with a 

substantial subgrade may drain better and retain a hard compacted surface that 

benefits all users and reduces long-term maintenance requirements. Materials 

may be added to increase the smoothness and durability of the tread.9

A key component to accessibility is providing information to the public on trail 

characteristics. People tend to select trails based on their personal interests and 

abilities. Trail signs and maps can be improved to provide specific information 

about the trail conditions and difficulty levels with information about the cross 

slope, duration of steep grades, average and minimum trail width, surface 

hardness, and the presence of obstacles, hazards, and facilities. Such signs can 

also include drawing of the trail profile to show changes in grade and length. 

Interpretive materials should promote the consistent use of names for trails with 

clearly identified endpoints to minimize confusion.10 An overabundance of signs, 

however, can detract from the scenic purpose of a trail. Trails to archeological 

sites may be left unmarked and a non-historic route constructed to direct trail 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 210 

users around these historic sites. Similar actions can help preserve natural areas 

that have been deemed too fragile to accommodate contemporary use. 

Interpretive waysides may be used to explain the significance and sensitivity of 

the area. 

Strategies for minimizing vandalism include: bolting rather than nailing signs to 

posts and using specialized bolts that are impossible to remove without specific 

tools, such as Tufnut, TM Vandlgard Nut TM and Teenut. TM11 Other strategies 

include inscribing information on posts that are sunk into the ground, installing 

posts with underground anchor bolts or crossbars, and piling large stones at the 

base of each post. 

Design 

The Treatment Plan proposes about 1/3 mile of trails to be located within Victory 

Woods. The trail will be divided into two parts: 

1. An ADA-compliant boardwalk that will curve from the proposed parking lot, 

around the wetland pond area, and lead down a spur to the main cultural 

resources within the site, the earthworks. It will gently follow the upland's 

topography and its slope will remain less than 6 percent for its entire length. The 

“floating” boardwalk design will not disturb archeological resources and allow 

surface water to flow across the site (Figures 4.6 to 4.9). 

2. A steeper trail that will bring pedestrians across the site from the northwest 

corner to the southeast corner, linking two village neighborhoods. Labeled as the 

“Park Access Road” on the treatment plan, the trail follows the existing park 

access road which follows a historic road that existed in the 1777 encampment. 

Although Victory Woods has not officially been open to the public since its 

acquisition in 1974, local residents have inevitably taken shortcuts through the 

site. The Park Access Road, which could be named “Victory Woods Trail" is 

intended to not only support park visitors but local foot traffic as well from one 

village neighborhood to the other (Monument Drive to Herkimer Street). The 

boardwalk on the other hand, will serve as a dead-end route leading to the most 

fragile and archeologically sensitive areas. The area will be closed to the public at 

night and signs should indicate, “Day use area only.” 

All trail building materials should be transported sensitively to the site to protect 

archeological and topographical resources, using the safest, most efficient, and 

most resource-sensitive methods available, which may include wheelbarrows, 

trucks, all-terrain vehicles, or small tractors. 

Trails within Victory Woods consist of floating boardwalk structures or gravel 

trails surfaced with a gravel aggregate/clay/sand mix applied to the surface with 

no excavation. Excavation would negatively impact archeological resources. 

The clay serves as a binder to stabilize the aggregate, and the sand helps interlock 

the aggregates creating a tight water-resistant surface. The addition of a clay 

stabilizer can aid in forming a compacted tread with a crown, much like a road. 
TREATMENT

 211 

Commercially available soil stabilizers may also be added to the trail surfacing 

mix, such as EMC2TM or Road OylTM (a pine resin binder, 

www.sspco.org/roadoyl.html), NaturalPAVE XL (also a resin pavement product, 

www.sspco.org/naturalpave.html), both by Soil Stabilization Products. These 

products are designed for primarily for pedestrian/wheelchair durability, not 

vehicular traffic. Another alternative is asphalt with a chip seal. Asphalt is 

installed, an emulsion or tack coat is applied, and then aesthetic aggregate chips 

(typically of uniform size) are rolled on (usually in two passes). The aggregate 

would provide a brownish, warm, naturalistic hue. 

The ADA-compliant section of the trail from the parking lot to the boardwalk 

will be six feet wide with the aggregate placed to a height of four to six inches 

(Figures 4.10 & 4.13). The location of the trail should not alter current stormwater 

sheet flow patterns. The trail will be slightly wider where it follows the route of 

the existing park road, but will also be four to six inches in depth here. If the 

tread is elevated, as a causeway, or if the surrounding ground is flat, the gravel 

should be crowned and sloped at one inch cross-slope per foot of trail width. For 

example, a trail that is six feet wide and is crowned in the middle will have three 

feet on either side of the crown and thus be three inches higher at the crown than 

at the edges. If the tread is to drain on only one side, such as in a bench or where 

there is an inside drain only, the tread should be sloped toward the drainage side 

of the trail (out-sloped for a bench, or in-sloped for an inside drain) at 0.75 inch 

per foot of trail width. A trail that is six feet wide will be in-sloped or out-sloped 

4.5 inches. 

The gravel surface should be smooth, with no dips or lumps. The tread surface 

and sides should be packed with a vibrating tamper or roller, which should be 

passed over every part of the trail surface at least once, or until the surface 

becomes hard. 

A series of test sections is recommended in order to develop a surface mix that 

can withstand local environmental conditions and trail use, as well as provide a 

compatible color and texture with native materials, since ultimately some of the 

material will wash from the trail surface. When choosing the gravel, note that the 

color will change over time; it always becomes lighter once applied to a trail. The 

material should also be checked for non-native plant material, especially invasive 

species, and be screened to prevent the introduction of outside archeological 

items. 

Petersburg National Battlefield, another park with substantial historic 

earthworks, uses a locally mined river gravel mix with clay and sand added. It 

holds up well to pedestrian and horse traffic, remains stable on slopes, and is 

applied to the ground surface with a depth of four to six inches (without 

excavation to preserve battlefield archeological resources). The clay is needed to 

bind the mix. Park staff rolls the surface immediately after applying the mix in 

order to stabilize it. To prevent footprints, the park only applies small portions of 

the trail, then rolls it, then applies more, and then rolls that, and so on. The staff 

pulls the roller manually unless going up a hill in which case they attach it to a 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 212 

gator and not only rolls the surface but also rolls the four to six inch sides. The 

park is satisfied with the final product. 

Acadia National Park has an extensive system of trails and more elaborate 

specifications for gravel tread. The specifications developed for the carriage road 

system are included in the endnotes.12

Drainage and Stabilization of Trail Tread13 

The portion of the trail system that will follow the park access road is steeper 

than the ADA compliant trail from the parking lot to the cultural resources and is 

thus subject to water flow damage. This trail along the park access road will 

probably require some of the following drainage or retaining structures especially 

near the steeper portions near the southeaster corner of the property. 

Without adequate maintenance, a smooth, graded trail can become a treacherous 

collection of gullies, exposed roots, protruding stones, and puddles. Trails 

require proper drainage systems, the stabilization of tread, and the development 

of effective maintenance routines. To support a higher level of use, tread 

composition may be strengthened by adding subsurface rubble, checks, and/or 

surface material additives such as clay or a soil stabilizer. Subsurface rubble can 

greatly improve drainage, but should be used in combination with other drainage 

features such as culverts, side ditches, and water dips. Checks may be used to 

stabilize trail sections that have gullied or have the potential to gully. When 

installed and maintained correctly, checks are not visible, acting as "hidden 

steps" underneath the evenly graded tread surface, holding back or "checking" 

the uphill infill material - a more subtle and durable solution than log cribbing.14

 

Culverts15

Parts of the park access road are steep and may experience heavy water flow 

across the tread surface with gullies and loss of material. Heavy water flow 

requires more constructed drainage features than those meant for percolating 

water. For trail sections where less water is crossing the trail, stone paving may 

be used. For the trail crossing, where flow is heavy, water should be directed 

from one side of the trail to the other by a culvert that handles heavy, 

concentrated water flow. 

A closed culvert has built sides, a base, and top and directs water under the trail, 

allowing for an uninterrupted treadway. A catch basin on the uphill side of the 

culvert catches debris carried by fast flowing water, preventing debris from 

flowing into and clogging the culvert. Drainage ditches must be cleared of debris 

as part of the regular trail maintenance routine. The outlets of culverts should be 

stabilized with rocks, retainer devices, and hardened to halt erosion. Trail 

culverts and retaining devices should be constructed by professional trail crews. 

Additional rocks and retaining devices are needed below the trail to prevent 

erosion near archeological sites. 
TREATMENT

 213 

For closed culverts with pipes, dimensions are dictated by width of trail and 

amount of water flow. Pipe diameter should be at least eight inches to facilitate 

cleaning. The ends of the pipe should be set back two to four inches from the 

outside edges of the header walls. Stone rubble is laid in the drainage channel 

beneath the pipe. One pipe should be laid across the trail following the angle at 

which the water crosses the trail. Rubble is packed around the pipe to secure it 

and at least six inches of subsurface material is laid over the top to reduce frost 

heave. 

The pipe should be obscured and protected at each end with a stone headwall. 

Headwalls should consist of two retaining walls, often each consisting of a single 

stone, one on each side of the pipe, with a single stone lintel across the top. The 

lintel should slope in toward the trail to hold gravel, and should be supported by 

the stone walls, not the pipe. Side retaining walls should be anchored well below 

the stone rubble base. Stone sizes will vary depending on the trail, but care 

should be taken that headwall and lintel stones are compatible in size and texture 

with existing work on the trail. 

An engineer or trail professional can determine the appropriate size and 

construction methods for the trail culvert and catch basin, and set the grades for 

the culvert, catch basin, and headwall. Park staff or volunteers can annually clean 

all types of culverts, catch basins, and associated inflow and outflow drains by 

removing silt and gravel build-ups. Outflow drains should be cleaned and re-dug 

as far as necessary to ensure that water flows unimpeded from the culvert. Dams 

in outflow drains can cause water to back up onto the trail, or ice to freeze inside 

the culvert and destroy it. For pipe culverts, reset pipes that have been lifted by 

ice and resurface the treadway. 

Retaining Structures 

Retaining structures such as checks are features that maintain trail quality and 

safety in areas of gully damage, steep slopes, or heavy user traffic. Checks are 

built into the tread and are buried at tread height. They hold back the tread 

material, preventing erosion and/or gullying of the trail surface. Checks are logs 

or rows of stones used in the trail to retain the treadway on slopes with a grade 

less than twenty percent. They are often used to rehabilitate an eroded area 

where the original trail surface has washed away and a gully has formed. Check 

logs or rows of stones are set perpendicular to the trail. The checks are backfilled 

with rubble and then covered with a top coat of tread material. To prevent 

failure of the checks due to continued erosion or a lack of maintenance, the 

bottom of each check is placed at an elevation below the top elevation of the 

preceding downhill check. The checks act as “hidden steps” underneath the 

tread surface, holding back, or “checking” the uphill fill material. In worst-case 

scenarios where tread material wears away and is not replaced, checks hold the 

remaining treadway in a series of flat terraces. Trail professionals should 

determine the location and type of checks to be installed. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 214 

WAYSIDES/INTERPRETATION: 

The 2004 General Management Plan for Saratoga NHP includes 

recommendations for interpretation for the park and specifically for Victory 

Woods. For a comprehensive understanding of the military events, visitors will 

follow a tour sequence that unfolds in a logical fashion and that follows the 

progression of the battles, siege, and surrender from Bemis Heights to Old 

Saratoga. Park managers will explore the feasibility of offering special 

interpretive tours using specifically designed alternative-fueled vehicles that 

could transport a group of visitors for a ranger-led tour from Bemis Heights to 

Old Saratoga. Such vehicles may also be designed to transport bicycles.16

The General Management Plan identified the lack of interpretation of the siege 

and surrender as a weakness. To overcome this weakness, the park should 

develop an interpretive trail through Victory Woods.17 The General Management 

Plan recommends that interpretation of the military events should rely on visitor 

contact with rehabilitated landscape features and landscape exhibits, in addition 

to media.18 The locations of British earthworks, roads, buildings, and other key 

landscape features significant to the siege at should be indicated at select 

interpretive locations within Victory Woods.19

 

The General Management Plan recommends that the park experience also offer 

opportunities for quiet contemplation. Reflective messages that are evocative of 

battle experiences from varying perspectives will be found along the park's 

trails.20 The public is helped to understand and appreciated the sacred and 

commemorative nature of the park's landscape and the significance of the 

military events that took place here on the outcome of the American Revolution 

and the consequent impact on world political developments.21

 

The General Management Plan identified three interpretative themes that 

encompass the history of Victory Woods. 

1. The site of the British camp, where the decision to surrender was made in 

October 1777, symbolizes the decisive turn in the American struggle for 

independence and serves as an eternal reminder of the human cost of both the 

American victory and the British defeat. 

2. The American's determined resistance at Saratoga, coupled with British 

strategic blunders, resulted in a stunning defeat and surrender of a British army. 

This timely victory reversed American military fortunes, boosted patriot morale, 

and gained them international recognition and support, including vital military 

assistance. 

3. Since pre-Colonial times, the waterways of the Hudson and Mohawk rivers 

and Lakes Champlain and George had been prized natural routes of 

communication, trade, and warfare - coveted by those seeking control of this vast 

area's rich natural resources and arable land. 

The period of significance for Victory Woods includes the Native American use 

of the site during the Middle and Late Archaic period to the time of European 
TREATMENT

 215 

contact (8,000 B.P. – 1609) and the Revolutionary War in the Autumn of 1777. 

The waterworks layer of history will not be outwardly interpreted. The park 

desires this project to include six to ten interpretive waysides with one located at 

the Saratoga Monument Trailhead. The waysides should be fully ADAcompliant with Braille and audio features. 

Design 

The ten proposed interpretive wayside locations are indicated on the Treatment 

Plan: 

1. Saratoga Monument Trailhead Wayside 

• Link Saratoga Monument and Victory Woods physically and 

interpretively. 

• Guides visitors to Victory Woods along proposed trail. 

• "You are here" on a map displaying the entire British encampment. 

• Best place to interpret surrender and victory and the ripples of this 

revolution around the globe. 

2. In the Cemetery, along the trail to Victory Woods 

• "You are here" on a map displaying the entire British encampment. 

• Prospect Hill Cemetery in the 19th

 or 20th century. 

• Impact of cemetery construction on the British fortifications. 

3. Monument Drive Trailhead Wayside 

• "You are here" on a map displaying the entire British encampment. 

• Interpret what regiments were where in 1777. 

• Link Saratoga Monument and Victory Woods physically and 

interpretively. 

• Explain sensitivity of cultural resources and ask for respect for those that 

died here, etc. 

• Explain park rules. 

• "Keep off earthworks." 

4. Angled Earthwork 

• Dig in or last ditch 

• “Keep off earthworks.” 

5. Pond Wayside 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 216 

• Interpret Native American occupation. 

• Interpret wetland pond, natural resources, and hydrology of Victory 

Woods. 

• Interpret how the troops may have used the springs. 

• "Stay on path." 

6. Wayside at curve before spur to Cannon Platform 

• Interpret how the troops were surrounded by American troops. 

• "Stay on path." 

7. Cannon Platform 

• Interpret incessant bombardment and the spoils of war 

• Interpret the earthwork. 

• Interpret the 9th Regiment. 

• Interpret the artillery used there and how the battery and magazine 

worked in consort. 

• Interpret heavy gun and artillery fire that wreaked havoc within the 

camp. 

• Interpret failed American advance of October 11, 1777. 

• Interpret site context, topography, and protective strategy of high 

ground and Fish Creek. 

• "Keep off earthworks." 

8. Halfway down path to Vista 

• Interpret siege and failure. 

• Interpret the cold rainy October of 1777. 

• Interpret camp conditions. 

9. At Vista, Strategic View Wayside 

• Brother, my Brother, soldier seeing his brother on the enemy site 

• Interpret site context, topography, and protective strategy of high 

ground and Fish Creek. 

• Interpret the park road - an early logging road / Schuyler family milling 

there since 1720s. 

• "Keep off earthworks." 
TREATMENT

 217 

10. At end of trail before it descends to Herkimer Street 

• "You are here" on a map displaying the entire British encampment. 

• Interpret American Loyalists (Tories) that volunteered and served with 

Burgoyne. 

• Interpret account of John Peters an American loyalist that was in the 

Burgoyne encampment in 1777. 

• He lived with fear within Victory Woods fearing capture by the 

American patriots, until he escaped. 

• Explain sensitivity of cultural resources and ask for respect for those that 

died here, etc. 

• Explain park rules. 

• "Keep off earthworks." 

EARTHWORK AND PRECONTACT SITE PRESERVATION: 

The earthworks within Victory Woods have survived since October of 1777, and 

will survive much longer with proper preservation. Opening the site to the public 

will assist the park's efforts with the interpretation of the siege and surrender, but 

people are one of the biggest threats to these delicate structures. Erosion and 

tree fall are also serious threats. 

Similarly the significant pre-contact resources should be protected. While many 

of these resources are not readily apparent to visitors, resources could be lost due 

to erosion, tree growth and fall, and foot traffic from visitors and maintenance 

staff. 

The NPS maintains a thorough website called Sustainable Military Earthworks 

Management (http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/hli/currents/earthworks/index.htm) 

that provides useful information for preserving military earthworks. 

Evaluation: Assessing Cover Condition22

To develop a holistic preservation strategy, the condition of an individual 

earthwork or an entire system should be evaluated. Three principles lie at the 

heart of earthworks preservation treatment and management, and each principle 

applies to earthworks managed either in grass/herbaceous cover or in forest 

cover: 

1. Establish and/or perpetuate continuous vegetative cover to stabilize and 

protect the soil from weather and human contact that may cause erosion. This 

vegetative cover includes leaf litter, thus any fallen leaves should not be raked or 

removed. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 218 

2. Eliminate recreational or maintenance-related interventions that may disrupt 

the vegetative cover or forest floor. 

3. Minimize destructive natural disturbances, such as tree windthrow, burrowing 

animals, or invasive exotic species. 

The most common management strategy for interpreted earthworks is a grass or 

herbaceous cover that is free of woody species. Well-protected earthworks found 

with this cover exhibit a healthy, continuous carpet of grasses and herbaceous 

plants. Bare spots, gouges from careless maintenance practices, animal burrows, 

and invasive exotic vegetation, which potentially threaten earthworks, should be 

avoided. Seed should be carefully selected for a non-invasive species or blend 

with good root growth under the local conditions. Turf on the earthworks may 

be allowed to grow tall. Tall grass often discourages people from walking on 

them. 

In many, if not most cases, earthworks have survived because of the protection 

provided by forest cover. Released to natural succession, earthworks 

disappeared from view under an evolving canopy of trees, shrubs, ground covers, 

and most importantly the duff (naturally mulching leaf litter) created by the 

annual deposit of fallen leaves. While it is not suggested that a forest be planted 

to protect earthworks, where healthy forests survive, they can provide an 

effective, sustainable, low maintenance cover. 

Earthworks that have a continuous layer of leaf litter covering the soil surface, a 

mixed age canopy of healthy, litter-producing forest, and a minimum of large 

trees (exceeding 12-inch dbh) growing directly on the earthwork are likely stable 

and well-protected. If this condition does not exist in the forest cover being 

evaluated, first take measures to reach that stable forest condition, then develop 

and follow an annual maintenance regime. 

Where earthworks are under forest cover, thinning areas of woodland to provide 

heightened views has been a highly successful alternative to full clearing. 

Defining interpretive pathways and viewing platforms allows visitors to see over 

tall earthworks as well as understand the physical context of the larger battlefield 

landscape, which may be more important to the interpretation of the battle than 

the individual earthworks themselves. 

Design 

To prevent visitors from damaging the earthworks, there must be clear signage 

and strong wayside wording to discourage all physical contact. Visitors must not 

walk or climb on the earthworks. A boardwalk with a viewing platform with 

railing near the earthworks will help protect the site from compaction and 

trampling of the earthworks, contain visitors behind the railing, and afford 

visitors a better viewing angle. The design should also consider a layout which 

discourages use of mountain bikes on or near the earthworks. A railing in 

combination with laying a random ring of fallen tree trunks around the periphery 

of the earthworks may deter bikers from entering the area. 
TREATMENT

 219 

Stabilized turf is good for earthworks, but the tree coverage within Victory 

Woods creates too much shade to support grass growth. The woods' leaf litter, 

though, provides an excellent stabilizer for the earthworks, and is probably the 

main reason they remain today. The leaf litter should be left in place as it protects 

the earthworks from wind and water erosion and helps prevent invasive plants 

from growing. Using naturally fallen leaf litter from the forest canopy requires 

less maintenance than turf. 

Another potential threat to the stability of the earthworks is the possibility of tree 

growth and fall. This issue was discussed at a treatment workshop in December 

of 2005 and by the archeology team.23 Variables to consider include the tree's 

location, weight, position of canopy, and condition. Trees in the vicinity of the 

cannon battery and angled earthwork within Victory Woods need to be 

evaluated and potentially removed. To prevent an abundance of understory 

growth, the trees may be removed over several years to allow the canopies of 

surrounding trees to fill in and shade the area. Surrounding trees should be 

preserved to ensure an adequate supply of leaf litter to cover the soil. The 

earthworks should be kept free of woody shrubs and brush with routine 

maintenance. 

Once a tree has been removed, root rot will eventually lead to soil slumping 

which in turn will lead to erosion unless precautions are taken. When removing 

trees from earthworks, the trees should be flush cut, even with the earthwork 

surface, being careful to not disturb the soil. The area should be periodically 

monitored for root decay and soil slumping. As slumping occurs, the void should 

be packed with screened topsoil. Screening the topsoil will prevent the 

introduction of archeological resources from outside the area. 

Only five trees grow on the cannon battery, and all five should be removed with 

the above method (Figure 4.14). A large oak tree grows between the cannon 

battery and the gunpowder magazine. This tree may also be removed as it leans 

toward the battery and will hinder interpretation of the relationship of these two 

earthworks. Prior to the removal of the trees, the actions should be reviewed by 

the park’s Natural Resource Specialist to insure the actions will not damage 

wetland resources. 

VEGETATION: 

Victory Woods was covered with a thinned forest during the 1777 encampment. 

The British troops hastily prepared the encampment and fortifications cutting 

smaller trees for fortifications leaving larger trees standing for protection. Thick 

vegetative undergrowth has become pervasive within Victory Woods during the 

last thirty years due to lack of use and maintenance. This vegetation obscures the 

cultural landscape characteristics and features such as the strategic topography, 

the significant views and vistas, and the historic earthworks (Figure 4.15). In 

November of 2005, contractors cleared much of the underbrush in Victory 

Woods to facilitate archeological studies. This clearing dramatically opened up 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 220 

views and exposed earthworks (Figure 4.16). In August of 2006 Norway maples 

were removed by the Northeast Region Exotic Plant Management Team. Stumps 

were treated with Garlon 4 to prevent resprouting. 

Design 

The Treatment Plan indicates two areas where the forest shall be maintained as 

thinned, free of underbrush. These two areas are the most critical for visitor 

interpretation. There is also one vista that shall be maintained. This is described 

in the Views and Vistas section below. The angled earthwork and cannon battery 

shall also be maintained free of vegetation as described in the Earthwork section 

above. A consistent cover of leaf litter is needed to protect them. 

Victory Woods supported many invasive exotic plants including Norway maples 

(Acer platanoides), which were removed in 2006 and 2007. Thinning the forest in 

the two select areas and clearing the earthworks will open them to more sun and 

encourage invasive plant growth. Therefore, routine maintenance will be 

required to protect the open appearance. 

VIEWS AND VISTAS: 

Since views and vistas were one of the most strategic factors in Burgoyne’s 

selection of the Heights of Saratoga, it is appropriate that some be rehabilitated 

and maintained for the public’s interpretation. Visitors must be able to 

experience the views to truly understand the siege and surrender. One area has 

been identified for maintained vista-clearing on the Treatment Plan. Maintaining 

a cleared vista will require annual work, but limiting the vista clearing to only one 

area will help limit the maintenance regime. Limiting the clearing will also 

protect natural resources. The vista should be located at the Strategic View 

Wayside (Figures 4.17-18). This site offers an important view from the top of the 

steep slope, to NYS Route 32, Fish Creek, and across to the position of the 

American forces under Gates. This is precisely where the British cannons were 

directed. 

A vista from the cannon battery will be partially cleared because of the private 

home below along NYS Route 32 (Figure 4.19). The strategic view wayside 

clearing along the park road can be maintained lower to the slope, since there are 

no non-historic obstructions and since the topography here allows a better view 

of Fish Creek and the American positions (Figure 4.20). Here both the trees and 

understory may be thinned more liberally than at the cannon battery, since there 

are no non-historic obstructions between the heights and Fish Creek. To really 

open up vistas of the creek, it may be necessary to obtain permission from the 

New York State Department of Transportation to continue the vista clearing 

along the NYS Route 32 right-of-way. To further accentuate the views and add to 

interpretation, flags may be used with a British battle flag marking the vista 

clearings in Victory Woods and an American battle flag marking a corresponding 

spot of the American position across the creek. 
TREATMENT

 221 

In addition to maintaining the strategic vista, there will be two thinned areas 

within the Victory Woods forest as described previously in the Vegetation 

section. Here the thick vegetative underbrush should be removed periodically, 

perhaps every two years, to keep views open. The natural thick vegetative 

underbrush elsewhere will help screen non-historic views of the neighboring 

homes in the village as well as the Victory Mills complex. Further screening 

measures may be taken as necessary with select mix-species plantings specifically 

along the northern perimeter and southeast corner of the property. 

The adjacent privately-owned parcel directly south of Victory Woods is currently 

for sale. Although this land is non-buildable, the park may wish to acquire this 

property to protect the historic setting. It represents the southeastern corner of 

the encampment where the American loyalist volunteers were camped along the 

southern ravine. 

SECURITY: 

The earthworks and archeological resources of Victory Woods require security 

to prevent damage or theft. Rules and penalties should be signed at the 

Monument Drive and Herkimer Street Trailheads. Also waysides may call for 

sensitivity and respect for those that served or died here. Visibility is important 

to deter unwanted activities. The thinned areas of the forest will deter illegal 

activities by removing cover. The role of neighbors is crucial to protecting 

Victory Woods in many more ways. Neighborhood involvement should be 

encouraged with outreach and educational programs. Security measures will be 

explored in further detail with the Volume 2 Archeological Identification Study.

TRI-SITE TRAIL: 

The 2004 Saratoga NHP General Management Plan found that for the park to 

function as a cohesive entity, its four noncontiguous sites need to be integrated or 

linked. It calls for development of a pedestrian route to link the Old Saratoga 

Unit sites with one another and with thematically related sites outside the 

boundary working with partners to develop media to interpret all sites on the 

new routes. 

The proposed “Tri-Site Trail” within this document will link the three NPS Old 

Saratoga Unit sites in Schuylerville and Victory with pedestrian trails (Figure 4.21 

to 4.38). This connection will provide additional recreational and 

interpretational opportunities to visitors. The park's 2005 Alternative 

Transportation Study explores an alternative transportation system (ATS) to 

enhance the visitor experience and understanding of the historic context of 

Saratoga NHP while protecting the Park’s natural and cultural resources. This 

report refines some of the recommendations of the study to link Victory Woods, 

the Saratoga Monument, the Schuyler Estate, and the Field of Grounded Arms (a 

non-NPS site that is critical to the interpretation of the surrender). Other trails in 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 222 

Old Saratoga should be pursued with local partners as part of a long-term goal of 

creating a local trail network. Although costs will be less for soft surface trails 

than for multi-use paths, the soft surface trails will still require earthwork and 

stabilization that will result in substantial costs. As with the multi-use path, 

agreements with private landowners would need to be established in order to 

build and maintain trails. 

Visitor Orientation Center24

The park’s GMP calls for a visitor orientation center at an appropriate location in 

Old Saratoga. This new facility should include exhibits highlighting other sites in 

the region.25 The Alternative Transportation Study identified Fort Hardy Park as 

an ideal visitor orientation center location. The Field of Grounded Arms is 

currently part of Fort Hardy Park, a local municipal park owned by the Village of 

Schuylerville and used for recreational purposes. The Town of Saratoga and 

Village of Schuylerville town offices are located there and currently do not meet 

local code for archival storage (Figure 4.39). If the structure is rebuilt in its 

current location, it may be able to house the center. The LA Group of Saratoga 

has prepared a plan to rehabilitate the Field of Ground Arms. This redesign is 

predicated on the Village finding an alternate location for the athletic fields that 

are currently there. The Village may purchase land for new athletic fields or 

enter into an agreement with the school district to allow public use of the 

school’s facilities. 

Tri-Site Trail Segments 

Total Length of Tri-Site Trail (including 1/3 mile trail within Victory Woods) – 

2.75 miles. 

1. Saratoga Monument to Victory Woods – 1/3 mile (see Figures 4.21 & 4.24). 

Saratoga NHP's GMP calls for the park to work with partners to connect Victory 

Woods and the Saratoga Monument with a trail through Prospect Hill 

Cemetery.26 This trail segment would lead from the Saratoga Monument and its 

new parking area in Prospect Hill Cemetery to the proposed Monument Drive 

Trailhead. It would allow the majority of parking to be concentrated at the 

Monument encouraging many visitors to access Victory Woods on foot. An 

interpretive wayside at its beginning may interpret the American victory and its 

major impact on the world as well as that portion of the British encampment. 

The trail will pass through the beautiful c. 1865 Prospect Hill Cemetery. The ridge 

topography of the cemetery indicates why it was the western edge of the 

encampment. Once leaving the cemetery property, the trail would cross over 

Village of Victory property staying close to its northern property line as the 

southern and western sides are occupied by sensitive waterworks. Negotiations 

will be required with the village and the cemetery board to obtain permission to 

establish this trail. 

2. Schuyler Estate to Victory Woods – 1 mile (Figures 4.21 & 4.25 to 4.35). 
TREATMENT

 223 

Saratoga NHP's GMP calls for the park to work with partners to connect Victory 

Woods and the Schuyler Estate with a trail along Fish Creek.27

There is a path on the property owned by Brascan Power Inc., which is located 

on the south side of Fish creek across from Victory Woods. The path provides a 

connection from Route 4, just across the road from the Schuyler Estate, to Evans 

Street (a local road on the south side of Fish Creek that intersects Route 4 south 

of the Schuyler Estate) and the proposed Mill Park pocket park (see Other Local 

Historic Sites later in this chapter). Brascan Power has expressed willingness to 

allow public use of the trail if an outside group will invest in improving the trail. 

The trail on the Brascan property could link the Schuyler Estate to the Village of 

Victory and the Mill Park pocket park. Some brush would need to be cleared 

from this trail and the trail should be clearly marked. Sidewalk construction will 

be needed on parts of Evans Street and Pine Street to provide a connection to the 

Fish Creek and NYS Route 32. 

This route is not only naturally beautiful, but it also provides amazing views of the 

Victory Woods, Fish Creek, Victory Mill, and the sites of Schuyler's old mills. 

This trail also passes through what was historically the heavily armed 

fortifications of General Gates’ American Army. Visitors can gain a valuable 

understanding of the strategic reasons Burgoyne selected the Heights of Saratoga 

for his encampment sites from here. Victory Woods rises imposingly above Fish 

Creek. Some of the American earthworks survive in remarkable condition on 

private property directly across Fish Creek from Victory Mill where the 

Americans had guarded a bridge or ford below as well as the rear flank of the 

British encampment. 

Visitors would then cross Fish Creek at Bridge Street, turn left along NY Route 32 

through the village center, and then cross over NYS Route 32 onto Pratt Street 

beside the historic Victory Mill community center across from Victory Mill. A 

safe pedestrian crossing on Route 32 should be pursued here. From Pratt Street 

visitors would turn right on Herkimer Street and enter Victory Woods via the 

Herkimer Street Trailhead and follow the existing park access road (possibly 

historic logging and encampment road) into Victory Woods. There are some 

challenges with keeping visitors in the 1777 mindset at the Herkimer Street 

threshold given that it was a milling neighborhood. Interpretive techniques will 

be critical. 

3. Schuyler Estate to Field of Grounded Arms – 1/3 mile (Figures 4.36 to 4.39). 

This trail segment is already in existence and follows an old road trace from the 

north side of the Schuyler House to the Old Champlain Canal towpath. It follows 

the towpath across Fish Creek over the ruins of the historic aqueduct into 

Schuyler's Canal Park (see Other Local Historic Sites later in this chapter) behind 

downtown Schuylerville. The bridge over Fish Creek provides excellent views of 

this important creek and its mouth into the Hudson River. From Schuyler's 

Canal Park, the towpath leads to Fort Hardy Park (the potential site of a new 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 224 

visitor orientation center and a rehabilitated Field of Grounded Arms). 

According to the Alternative Transportation Study, improved pedestrian crossing 

is needed on Route 29 (Ferry Street) at Fort Hardy Park. Ideally, this pedestrian 

crossing should be accommodated with an underpass. One option may be to 

incorporate a pedestrian walkway through the new culvert planned for this 

location as part of the NYSDOT reconstruction project; however, the feasibility 

of this option has not been fully investigated. 

4. Field of Grounded Arms –Saratoga Monument - 3⁄4 mile 

This trail segment would follow existing Village of Schuylerville and Victory 

streets to the Saratoga Monument. Visitors would follow Route 29 west, turn left 

on Route 32/4 (Broad Street), turn right on Burgoyne Avenue, and follow it to the 

Saratoga Monument. This trail segment would be challenging as Burgoyne 

Avenue heads up the steep face of the Heights of Saratoga. It passes along village 

terraces that were once home to Canadian and German encampments. 

For this trail segment, a sidewalk should be constructed on the north side of 

Route 29 (Ferry Street) from Fort Hardy Park to Route 32/4. In addition, 

portions of the sidewalk along Burgoyne Avenue should be extended to the 

Saratoga Monument. The existing sidewalk on the north side of Burgoyne 

Avenue nearly reaches the Monument but would require a short extension and a 

crosswalk in order for visitors to walk to the Monument. A longer extension 

would be necessary on the south side of Burgoyne Avenue. 

According to the Alternative Transportation Study, reconstruction of Route 32 

and Route 29 within the Village of Schuylerville is planned as part of a New York 

State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) project (PIN 1089.58.121). The 

project includes Broad Street from Fish Creek on the south to the village 

boundary on the north, Ferry Street between Broad Street and the Hudson River, 

and Spring Street between Broad Street and the western village boundary. 

Preliminary plans include: sidewalks, street trees, and ornamental lighting on 

both sides of Broad Street; a sidewalk on the south side of Spring Street; and 

sidewalks on both sides of Ferry Street. Construction of the project is currently 

scheduled for 2008. Opportunities for sidewalk improvements outside the 

boundaries of the NYSDOT have also been identified. 

Other Local Historic Sites28

The park’s GMP recommends that familiarity with the thematically related sites 

within vicinity of the park would enable visitors to gain a deeper understanding 

of the events at Saratoga. The pocket parks—a series of proposed small parks to 

interpret historical areas in Schuylerville and Victory—are a project of the Lakes 

to Locks Passage. Each of the pocket parks provides limited parking and 

interpretive signs. Some provide additional amenities such as picnic tables and 
TREATMENT

 225 

seating. The proposed Tri-Site Trail will connect with a few of these and could 

be expanded in the future to link with more. Each of the proposed pocket parks 

is described here. 

Colonel Morgan Park 

Located on County Road 338 between Route 29 and the Saratoga Monument, this 

site offers views of the Old Saratoga area along with a New York State Museum 

marker and a cemetery. “Drive-by” interpretation was deemed appropriate for 

this site, which could be included in a brochure or audio tour. 

American Lines 

This site is located at the intersection of Route 29 and County Road 338, offering 

a gateway to visitors arriving in Schuylerville from the west. There is a sign here 

listing attractions in the Old Saratoga area. Suggestions for improvements to the 

site include silhouettes of soldiers and a walking path. 

German and Canadian Encampments 

This site is located on Route 29 in Schuylerville, west of NYS Route 32/4. The site 

can be used to interpret the encampment of British forces and the nearby railroad 

station. 

Early French & Indian War Forts and Burgoyne Sword Surrender Site 

These sites are located on Route 4, south of the Schuyler Estate, and may serve as 

a southern gateway to the area with a community kiosk. 

Mill Park 

Located along Fish Creek in the Village of Victory, this site offers views of Fish 

Creek and the opportunity to interpret the mills and the development of the 

village. Victory Mill, located in the Village of Victory on land that juts into Fish 

Creek, is not open to the public but is an important historic site to view from 

outside. There are also mill remnants along the banks of Fish Creek, which 

provide a glimpse of the area’s industrial history. The banks of the creek are 

wooded and existing trails leading to the water have become overgrown. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 226 

Route 32 Village Gateway 

This site, located just south of the Village of Victory, would provide a gateway to 

the area for visitors traveling from the Battlefield Unit to Schuylerville on Route 

32. 

Fort Hardy Park 

Fort Hardy Park is currently owned by the Village of Schuylerville and is located 

on the historic site of Fort Hardy. This park is much larger than the other pocket 

parks. Schuyler’s Canal Park Visitors Center is located in Fort Hardy Park. The 

park also currently contains a gazebo and short boardwalk, a sandy area for 

launching small watercraft on the river, and multiple baseball fields. Schuyler’s 

Canal Park Towpath Trail passes along the western edge of the park. The Town 

of Saratoga offices are located adjacent to the park. Parking is provided at Fort 

Hardy Park and restrooms are available in the Visitors Center. 

Stark’s Knob 

Stark’s Knob, located north of the Village of Schuylerville, is a unique geologic 

formation of volcanic origins. The area also has historical significance in the 

Battles of Saratoga. The Stark’s Knob Scientific Reservation is under the 

management of the New York State Museum. Limited parking is available along 

Route 32/4 at the Stark’s Knob/Knox Trail Pocket Park, from which visitors can 

then walk to the knob itself. 

Old Champlain Canal 

The Old Champlain Canal runs from Lock 5 to the Schuyler Estate, although it is 

not navigable over the entire course due to siltation and embankments that now 

carry roads over the old canal. The Village of Schuylerville has developed a 

walking trail along the old canal towpath, known as Schuyler’s Canal Park 

Towpath Trail. The towpath trail links the Schuyler Estate and Lock 5, and 

passes by a series of historical sites that are outlined in a brochure available at the 

Visitor’s Center. Information signs are also posted along the trail. The old canal 

turning basin is located just south of Route 29. 

Potential Tri-Site Trail Partners 

Numerous federal, state, and local government entities and nonprofits are 

working on heritage preservation initiatives in the Champlain-Hudson and 

Mohawk Valleys. Many of these initiatives converge in Saratoga County, 

specifically in Old Saratoga, and offer opportunities for National Park Service 

participation. Representatives of several of these initiatives have identified a need 

for a multipurpose orientation facility in Old Saratoga that provides information 

about the various initiatives and clarifies the many offerings available to visitors.29
TREATMENT

 227 

American Battlefield Protection Program: Revolutionary War and War of 1812 

Study 

Congress authorized this National Park Service study because many relevant sites 

are at risk from rapid urban or suburban development. The goals of the study are 

(1) to gather current information about the significance, current condition, and 

threats to the sites, and (2) to present preservation and interpretation alternatives 

for them. Through research and public comment, the National Park Service has 

identified 2,742 sites of battle actions and historic places associated with both 

wars. The list includes Saratoga NHP and several nearby sites. Field surveys will 

help the National Park Service evaluate the level of preservation at these sites and 

make recommendations for further protection and interpretation. 

American Heritage River 

In 1998, the Hudson River was named an American Heritage River, one of only 

fourteen rivers nationwide to be so honored. The Hudson's place in American 

history and culture, its role in the birth of the modern environmental movement, 

and the marked improvements in its ecological health over recent decades all 

contributed to this designation. As an American Heritage River, the Hudson 

benefits from the services of a River Navigator, a person specially chosen to 

facilitate the application of existing federal programs and resources. 

Champlain Valley Heritage Corridor Project 

In 1999, the National Park Service published a report of a Special Resource Study 

that evaluated the suitability and feasibility of establishing a national heritage 

corridor in the Champlain Valley. The study found that the resources of the 

Champlain Valley merit designation as a national (or even international) heritage 

corridor. The study identified three main interpretive themes and presented 

several options for the advancement of heritage preservation and interpretation 

in the region. Saratoga NHP is located within the study area evaluated by the 

NPS team and is a primary resource related to the "Making of Nations" theme. 

Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor 

In December 2000, Congress established the Erie Canalway National Heritage 

Corridor as the nation's 23rd national heritage corridor. It encompasses 524 

miles of the New York State Canal System, which includes the Erie, Cayuga and 

Seneca, Oswego and Champlain canals, the historic alignments of the canals, plus 

the cities of Albany and Buffalo. Saratoga NHP is located within the boundary of 

the Erie Canalway and contains two segments of the Champlain Canal within the 

park boundary. A preservation and management plan for the Erie Canalway 

commenced in 2003. 

Heritage New York Program 

Governor Pataki recently established the Heritage New York Program, with a 

primary purpose to organize a series of thematic heritage trails. One of these 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 228 

trails, the American Revolutionary War Heritage Trail, will help to preserve, 

protect, interpret, link, and promote significant historic sites associated with New 

York's role in the American Revolution. The Heritage New York Program will 

also administer a $1 million matching capital grant program to help municipalities 

and nonprofit organizations preserve and interpret important Revolutionary War 

sites. 

Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area 

Congress designated the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area in 1996 to 

recognize the national importance of the valley's history and resources. The 

cities, towns, and rural landscapes of the region display exceptional surviving 

physical resources spanning four centuries. Although Saratoga National 

Historical Park is not within its boundary, it is thematically related to the national 

heritage area. The heritage area is managed by the Greenway Conservancy for 

the Hudson River Valley and the Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities 

Council. 

Lakes to Locks Passage 

(Formerly the Champlain Canal and Champlain Trail Byways) 

New York State's Scenic Byways Program is a 2,000-mile statewide network of 

scenic byways that draws upon the resources of state agencies and the Federal 

Highway Administration, as well as the private sector. The State Byway Program 

has been in existence since 1992. Saratoga NHP is located on the Lakes to Locks 

Passage, formerly known as the Champlain Canal Byway corridor that runs along 

NYS Route 32 from Whitehall to Waterford. 

In May 2000, Corridor Management Plans for the Champlain Canal Byway and 

the Champlain Trail Byway (NYS Routes 22 and 9 from Whitehall to Rouses 

Point) were adopted by the New York State Scenic Byways Advisory Board. 

Because the Byways share many natural, historical, and cultural themes, the 

Byway Steering Committees merged to form a management organization for a 

single Byway entitled "Lakes to Locks Passage, the Great Northeast Journey." 

In June 2002, the Federal Highway Administration designated the 234-mile byway 

as an "All American Road"—one of only twenty in the nation that meet criteria of 

national significance and consideration as a "destination unto itself." 

Additionally, cooperation with Canada has led to the byway's extension to 

Quebec, making it an international scenic byway. Saratoga NHP is an active 

partner, working with local communities and byway staff in developing 

interpretive initiatives and bi-national marketing plans. 

Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor 

This corridor was established by the State of New York in 1994 to protect the 

region's natural, historic, and recreational resources and promote its economic 

revitalization. Saratoga is one of the countries included within the corridor. The 
TREATMENT

 229 

Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor Commission is a public-benefit corporation 

and is part of a statewide network of heritage areas. 

New York Independence Trail 

The New York Independence Trail is a nonprofit organization that is funded in 

part by New York State. The organization provides a self-guided tour of 

important sites of the French and Indian and Revolutionary Wars found along 

the Champlain Hudson Corridor from New York City to Montreal. 

New York State Canal Recreationway Plan 

In 1991, the people of New York State ratified an amendment to the state 

constitution allowing long-term leasing of the New York State Barge Canal 

System lands. In 1992, legislation known as "Thruway 2000" was enacted 

transferring responsibility for the New York Canal System from the New York 

State Department of Transportation to the New York State Thruway Authority. 

The legislation established the New York State Canal Corporation as a subsidiary 

of the Authority, and created the Canal Recreationway Commission, a twentyfour-member body to advise the Authority on its canal-related activities. The 

Canal Corporation Board adopted a comprehensive plan for the development of 

the canal system in September 1995. A thirty-two-million dollar, five-year Canal 

Revitalization Program was developed in 1996 to guide canal system 

development. The overall goals of the revitalization program are to preserve and 

rehabilitate canal infrastructure so that it is safe, accessible, and available for 

future use; to enhance recreational opportunities for water-based and landside 

users; and to promote and foster economic development throughout the canal 

corridor. 

Old Saratoga on the Hudson 

Old Saratoga on the Hudson, an unincorporated civic group, is spearheading the 

development of a three-and-one-half-mile linear park along the Hudson River in 

and around the Villages of Schuylerville and Victory. One of the group's goals is 

to work in partnership with others to create a seamless experience for visitors 

who are interested in learning not only about the Old Saratoga area's role in the 

Revolutionary War, but about the history of the region from the French and 

Indian Wars to the development of the Champlain Canal and beyond. 

Saratoga P.L.A.N. (Preserving Land and Nature) 

Saratoga P.L.A.N. is a private, nonprofit organization committed to the 

protection and conservation of lands with natural, scenic, agricultural, 

recreational, historic, and open-space value. The land trust has identified critical 

areas in need of protection within Saratoga County and is working in cooperation 

with developers, property owners, municipalities, farmers, outdoor recreation 

enthusiasts, and others to preserve and protect these critical areas. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 230 

PRESERVATION OF REGIONAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER: 

Collectively, the access and protection of the many culturally significant sites in 

the vicinity of Victory Woods will enhance the distinctive landscape character of 

the Upper Hudson River Valley region. In this context, Victory Woods and the 

entire Saratoga National Historical Park are vital pieces of the broader historic 

preservation efforts underway in the region. 

Endnotes 

 1

 Robert R. Page, Cathy A. Gilbert, and Susan A. Dolan, A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and 

Techniques, US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships. Park 

Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program. Washington, DC, 1998, 82. 

2

 NPS, "Director's Order 12: Conservation Planning Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision Making," (USDOI, 

NPS, Jan 2001). 

3

 NPS Intermountain Region. "Technical Assistance Manual, Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act." Release No. 5, (USDOI, NPS, Feb 2003). 30 Barter et al., 2004, 12. 

4

 Saratoga NHP GMP, 2004, 44-49. 

5

 Saratoga NHP General Management Plan, 2004. 

6

 Illinois Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.state.il.us/blr/manuals/Chapterpercent2041.pdf and Start at the 

Source. Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection. 1999 Edition, Bay Area Stormwater Management 

Agencies Association. 

7

 Excerpted from Landscape Lines 15, "Historic Trails," 22-24. 8

 Recreation Access Advisory Committee. "Recommendations for Accessibility Guidelines: Recreational Facilities and 

Outdoor Developed Areas (US Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, July 1994). www.Accessboard.gov 

9

 Bergmann, Roger. Soil Stabilizers on Universally Accessible Trails (US Forest Service 0023-1202-SDTDC, 2000). 10 Changing the name of a trail to reflect an earlier historic name requires coordination with the US Geological Survey and 

all other map vendors. 

11 Birchard and Proudman, 155-173. 

12 The Acadia National Park carriage road system mix contains 8 percent clay, which binds the mix for a durable walking 

surface. The specifications state that aggregate shall consist of hard, durable particles or fragments of crushed stone or 

gravel conforming to the following requirements and gradations: 

Los Angeles abrasion, ASTM C131 and C535 50 percent max.* 

Fractured faces (one face) 95 percent max.* 

Fractured faces (two faces) 75 percent max.* 

Soundness loss, five cycles, ASTM C 88 (magnesium) 18 percent max.* 

Flat/elongated (length to width >5 ASTM D4791 15 percent max.* 

* Based on the portion retained on the 3/8-inch sieve. 

Materials shall be free from organic material and lumps or balls of clay. 

Material passing the No. 4 sieve shall consist of natural or crushed sand and fine mineral particles. The material, including 

any blended filler, shall have a plasticity index of not more than 6 and a liquid limit of not more than 25 when tested in 

accordance with ASTM D4318. 

Aggregate shall contain a minimum of 5 percent clay particles but no more than 50 percent of that portion of material 

passing the No. 200 sieve size shall be clay. Inorganic clay to be used as binder shall conform to the following: 

Passing No. 200 75 percent 

Liquid Limit 30 min. 

Plastic Index 8 min. 

The fraction of material passing the No. 200 sieve shall be determined by washing as indicated in ASTM D1140, “Amount 

of Material in Soils Finer Than the No. 200 Sieve.” The fractured faces for the coarse aggregate portion (retained on the 

No. 4 sieve) shall have an area of each face equal to at least 75 percent of the smallest midsectional area of the piece. When

two fractured faces are contiguous, the angle between the planes of fractures shall be at least 30 degrees to count as two 

fractured faces. Fractured faces shall be obtained by mechanical crushing. Gradation shall be obtained by crushing, 
TREATMENT

 231 

 

screening, and blending processes as may be necessary. Material shall meet the following screen analysis requirements by 

weight. 

Sieve Designation Percent Passing 

3⁄4 inch 100 percent 

1⁄2 inch 90–100 percent 

No. 4 55–70 percent 

No. 40 20–30 percent 

No. 200 12–16 percent 13 Excerpted from Landscape Lines 15, "Historic Trails," 34-35. 14 Griswold, Stephen. A Handbook on Trail Building and Maintenance, CA: Sequoia Natural History Association, Fifth 

Edition, 1996. Retainer bars, 79-83, 109-110. 15 Developed for Valley Forge NHP Trail Assessment by NPS Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 2003. 16 Saratoga NHP GMP, 50. 

17 Saratoga NHP GMP, 56. 

18 Saratoga NHP GMP, 53. 

19 Saratoga NHP GMP, 56. 

20 Saratoga NHP GMP, p. 49-50. 

21 Saratoga NHP GMP, p. 44. 

22 NPS website Sustainable Military Earthworks Management

(http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/hli/currents/earthworks/index.htm). 23 Dave Shockley of Petersburg National Battlefield participated in a treatment workshop for Victory Woods on December 

7th and 8th, 2005 and consulted on earthworks management issues. Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc discussed 

protection and surveillance of resources in their 2007 report. 24 This section excerpted from the Saratoga National Historical Park Alternative Transportation Study Phase II. Prepared by 

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP, ConsultEcon, Inc., and the LA Group. October 2005. 25 Saratoga NHP GMP, 57. 

26 Saratoga NHP GMP, 60. 

27 Saratoga NHP GMP, 60. 

28 This section excerpted from the Saratoga National Historical Park Alternative Transportation Study Phase II. Prepared by 

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP, ConsultEcon, Inc., and the LA Group. October 2005. 29 Saratoga NHP GMP, 48. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

232

Figure 4.1: Alternative parking lot designs for Victory Woods (OCLP, 2006). Alt. 1-4 include 2 disabled parking stalls, and Alt. 1-3 faciltiate 

drop-off and turning/backing up of a small bus up to 30’ in length. With Alt. 1, the area can be reduced if the center is paved. 
233 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.2: Typical cul-de-sac specifi cations. Mountable curbing facilitates turning, backing up, and parking of larger vehicles.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

234

Figure 4.4: Hybrid parking lot example. Parking surface may be crushed aggregate or turf block instead of an 

impervious surface like asphalt.

Figure 4.3: Typical cul-de-sac specifi cations. Asymmetrical cul-de-sacs are often used for suburban or rural settings.
235 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.5: Specifi cations for two disabled parking stalls.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

236

Figure 4.6: Proposed boardwalk from parking lot shown west of wetland pond (OCLP, 2006). Angled earthwork is shown in the 

foreground.
237 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.7: Proposed boardwalk from parking lot to cannon platform shown wrapping around the southern end of the pond (OCLP, 2006).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

238

Figure 4.8: Proposed boardwalk from parking lot to cannon platform shown wrapping around southeast corner of pond (OCLP, 2006).
239 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.9: Proposed boardwalk from parking lot shown east of pond heading toward the cannon battery (OCLP, 2006).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

240

Figure 4.10: Trail width studies prepared for Battle Road of Minute Man NHP by

Carol R. Johnson Associates. 
241 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.11: Specifi cations for fl oating boardwalk for trail around pond. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

242

Figure 4.12: Specifi cations for fl oating boardwalk for trail around pond. 
243 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.13: Specifi cations for new trail from parking lot to beginning of boardwalk within Victory Woods. No excavation is necessary. 

An eight-foot wide aggregate trail surface should be used for the park access road (OCLP, 2006).

Figure 4.14: Trees to be removed (removed in 2007) from on or near Cannon Battery (OCLP, 2006). Tree 6, a large oak, is stable but leans 

over the earthwork and would cause serious damage if it fell. The leaf litter or duff that covers the earthwork protects it from erosion.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

244

Figure 4.15: Thick understory brush obscured the cannon battery in July (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 4.16: When the thick understory vegetation is cleared, the cannon battery earthwork is visible in the

landscape (OCLP, 2005).
245 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.17: View east from the cannon battery toward the location of the American Forces under Gates obscured by

dense summer vegetation (OCLP, 2005).

Figure 4.18: View east from the cannon battery toward the location of the American Forces under Gates is more open

during the fall and winter (OCLP, 2005).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

246

Figure 4.19: Limited vista clearing can be done at the cannon battery wayside for views to NYS Route 32, Fish Creek, 

and the site of the American Forces beyond because of the private home below (OCLP, 2005). 

Figure 4.20: Vista clearing at the strategic view wayside along the park road may be maintained low to the ground,

allowing views to the distant ridge as well as Fish Creek below (OCLP, 2005).
247 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.21: Proposed Tri-Site Trail to link the National Park Service’s three Old Saratoga Unit sites, Victory Woods, The Saratoga

Monument, and the Schuyler Estate as well as the Field of Grounded Arms, part of Schuylerville’s Schuyler’s Canal Park (OCLP, 2006). 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

248

Figure 4.22: Points of interest and existing transportation links Village of Victory, Village of Schylerville, and Old Saratoga Unit (Alternative Transportation Study, NPS, 2005).
249 

TREATMENT Figure 4.23: Proposed transportation links Village of Victory, Village of Schuylerville, and Old Saratoga Unit (Alternative Transportation Study, NPS 2005).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

250

Figure 4.24: Panoramic southeast view of Victory Woods from the top of the Saratoga Monument (OCLP, 2005). Keyed to Viewpoint 1 on Figure 4.21.
251 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.25: Panoramic northwest view of Victory Woods, Fish Creek, and the site of the American forces under Gates from the top of the Victory Mills building (OCLP, 2005). Keyed to Viewpoint 2 on Figure 4.21.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

252

Figure 4.26: Panoramic northwest view of the proposed Herkimer Street Trailhead for Victory Woods as seen from the top of Victory Mills building (OCLP, 2005). Keyed to Viewpoint 2 on Figure 4.21.
253 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.27. Proposed Tri-Site Trail with Fish Creek separating the American and British sides as seen from the top of the Victory Mills building looking south (OCLP, 2005). Keyed to Viewpoint 2 on Figure 4.21.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

254

Figure 4.28: View north of Victory Mills from proposed Tri-Site Trail near Fish Creek crossing (OCLP, 2005). Keyed to 

Viewpoint 3 on Figure 4.21.

Figure 4.29: Dressed stone from Schuyler-era mills reused in historic mill foundation along Fish Creek (OCLP, 2005). Keyed

to Viewpoint 3 on Figure 4.21.
255 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.30: View southwest of bridge over Fish Creek along proposed Tri-Site Trail (OCLP, 2005). There was a bridge or 

ford in this area in 1777. Keyed to Viewpoint 3 on Figure 4.21.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

256

Figure 4.31: View west of American earthworks on private property including cannon batteries along the banks above Fish 

Creek due east of Victory Mills (OCLP, 2005). Keyed to Viewpoint 4 on Figure 4.21.

Figure 4.32: Strategic views northwest from American earthworks above bend and narrow point of Fish Creek (OCLP, 2005). 

Victory Woods is in the distance. Keyed to Viewpoint 4 on Figure 4.21.
257 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.33: View southwest of American earthworks on private property above Fish Creek due east of Victory Mills (OCLP, 2005). Keyed to Viewpoint 4 on Figure 4.21.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

258

Figure 4.34: View east of American earthworks on private property due east of Victory Mills (OCLP, 2005). Home is in the background. Keyed to Viewpoint 4 on Figure 4.21.
259 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.35: Strategic western panoramic views of Victory Woods as seen from the American side of Fish Creek along the proposed Tri-Site Trail (OCLP, 2005). Keyed to Viewpoint 5 on Figure 4.21.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

260

Figure 4.36: View north of the proposed Tri-Site Trail along the Old Champlain Canal towpath at the Schuyler Estate 

(OCLP, 2005). Keyed to Viewpoint 6 on Figure 4.21.

Figure 4.37: View east of the proposed Tri-Site Trail over bridge above Old Champlain Canal Aqueduct ruins (OCLP, 2005). 

Keyed to Viewpoint 6 on Figure 4.21.
261 

TREATMENT

Figure 4.38: View north of the proposed Tri-Site Trail following Old Champlain Canal towpath behind Schuylerville toward 

the Field of Grounded Arms in Schuyler’s Canal Park (OCLP, 2005). 

Figure 4.39: A future Old Saratoga visitor center may be located at the Field of Grounded Arms if a replacement Saratoga 

Town Hall is constructed at the same location as the current one above vs. another location within the Town (OCLP, 2005).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

262




BIBLIOGRAPHY

 267 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

 

Anburey, Thomas. With Burgoyne from Quebec: An Account of the life at Quebec 

and the Famous Battle at Saratoga. Edited by Sydney Jackman. Toronto: 

Macmillan of Canada, 1963. 

Beers, S.N. & D.G. and Associates. New Topographical Atlas of Saratoga Co., New 

York. Philadelphia: Stone and Stewart Publishers, 1866. 

Behler, John L. and Brotherton, David K. “Saratoga National Historical Park 

Amphibian and Reptile Inventory March – September 2001.” Bronx, NY: 

National Park Service and Wildlife Conservation Society, Cooperative 

Agreement, Department of Herpetology, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx 

Zoo, 2003. 

Benson, Adolph B. Peter Kalm’s Travels in North America, 2 Vols., New York: 

Dover Publications, Inc. 1962. 

Bien, Joseph Rudolph. Atlas of Warren, Saratoga and Washington Counties. New 

York: Julius Bien & Company, 1895. 

Billing, Alfred. The Indian Pass – Source of the Hudson. Harrison, NY: Street 

Harbor Hill books, 1868. 

Black Drake Consulting, Fort Hardy Park Archaeology, Champlain, NY, 2004 

brochure. 

Bleeker, John R. A Draught of Saratoga. 1750. 

Bloodgood, Simeon Dewitt. The Sexagenary; or Reminiscences of the American 

Revolution. Albany: Joel Munsell, 1866. 

Brandow, John Henry, The Story of Old Saratoga. Fort Orange Press, The 

Brandow Printing Company, Albany, New York, 1919. 

Brandow, John Henry. The Story of Old Saratoga and History of Schuylerville. 

Saratoga Springs, New York: Robson and Adee, 1901. 

Brasser, T.J. “Mohicans,” in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15.

General Editor W.C. Sturtevant and Volume Editor Bruce G. Trigger. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1978. 

Burleigh, L. R. Birdseye View of the Village of Victory. Troy, New York, 1889. 

Calloway, Colin G. and Neal Salisbury, editors. Reinterpreting New England 

Indians and the Colonial Experience. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 

2003. 

Calloway, Colin G. Western Abenakis of Vermont, 1600-1800, War, Migration, and 

the Survival of an Indian People. University of Oklahoma Press, 1990. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 268 

Carson, Russell, M.L. Peaks and People of the Adirondacks. Garden City, NY: 

Doubleday, Page, and Co., 1927. 

Chapman, Isaac. Plan of the Position taken by Genl Burgoyne on the 10th of Octr.

Engraved by G. Fairman, Published by Moses Thomas in Analectic Magazine,

Philadelphia, 1818. 

Child, Hamilton. 1871 Gazetteer and Business Directory of Saratoga County, New 

York and Queensbury, Warren County. Syracuse, NY: Hamilton Child, 1871. 

Coleman, Lee. “Sweeny Announces $310,000 for Saratoga National Historic 

Park,” The Daily Gazette, 20 May 2005. 

Crary, Catherine Snell. Forfeited Loyalist Lands in the Western District of New 

York—Albany and Tryon Counties. New York History, Quarterly Journal of New 

York State Historical Association, Vol. XXXV, July, 1954. 

Cubbison, Douglas R. “Historic Structures Report, The Hudson River Defenses 

at Fortress West Point, 1778-1783.” West Point, New York: Directorate of 

Housing and Public Works, U.S. Military Academy, January 2005. 

Cubbison, Douglas R. “Historic Structures Report, The Redoubts of West Point.” 

West Point, New York: Directorate of Housing and Public Works, U.S. Military 

Academy, January 2004. 

Curtin, Edward V. “The Skidmore Archaeological Survey. Stage 1B 

Archaeological Survey for Manor Hill at Victory, Burgoyne Street and Gate 

Avenue Extension, Village of Victory, Saratoga County, New York.” Prepared for 

Livingston Trevor Coulter, Esq. and Smithe-Roberts Construction Co., Inc. May 

1994. 

Curtin, Edward V. “The Skidmore Archaeological Survey. Stage 2 Archaeological 

Survey for Manor Hill at Victory, Burgoyne Street and Gates Avenue Extension, 

Village of Victory, Saratoga County, New York.” Prepared for Mr. Livingston 

Trevor Coulter, Esq. and Smithe-Roberts Construction Co., Inc. September 1994. 

Dunn, Shirley W. The Mohicans and Their Land 1609-1730. Fleischmanns, New 

York: Purple Mountain Press, 1994. 

Faden, William. Plan of the positions which the army under Lt Gen.l Burgoine took 

at Saratoga on the 10th of September 1777. London, 1780. 

Fanning, Eli. “20-year plan would upgrade Saratoga site,” The Daily Gazette, 5 

January 2004. 

Fanning, Eli. “Historic site receiving grant-scene of Burgoyne surrender to get 

needed improvements,” The Daily Gazette, 19 June 2004. 

Finan, Joseph H. “Saratoga National Historical Park, Demolition Project, 13 

Structures: Price Farm, Burdyl Farm Complex, and Garber Tract: Completion 

Report.” Department of the Interior, National Park Service, February 1995. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 269 

Fitch, Dr. Asa. The Asa Fitch Papers Volumes 1 and 2. Transcribed and Edited by 

Laura Penny Hulslander. Fort Campbell, Kentucky: The Sleeper Co., 1997. 

Flick, Alexander C. History of the State of New York, Vol. I, Wigwam and 

Bouwerie. New York: Columbia University Press, 1933-37. 

Gerlach, Captain H. D. “Plan de la Poisition de l’Armee Sous les ordres de son 

Excellence le Lieutenant General Burgoyne a Saratoga dan’t sur la Retraite de 

Fremanns Ferme,” 1777. 

Gimigliano, Michael N., R. Liana Hoods, David Church. Finch’s Dry Dock 

Schuylerville, NY, A Cultural Resources Mitigation Report. Prepared for Village of 

Schuylerville, NY by Cultural Resource Management Service, Inc., P.O. Box 159, 

Newton, NJ 07860, December 1983. 

Hall, Rufus. Journal of the Life, Religious Exercise and Travels in the Work of 

Ministry of Rufus Hall. Philadelphia, John and Isaac Comly, 1840. 

Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. A Research Design For The Phase 1A/1B 

Archeological Investigation of Fort Hardy and The Field of Grounded Arms Village 

of Schuylerville Saratoga County, New York. Albany, New York, March 2005. 

Hayner, Mrs. Earl. Notes on the Saratoga Patent. Stillwater Historian’s files. 

Johnson, Eric S. Archeological Overview and Assessment of The Saratoga National 

Historical Park, New York. Amherst, MA: The University of Massachusetts 

Archaeological Services, 1997. 

Keystone Appraisal Company. Appraisal of the Victory Mills—Branch of 

American Manufacturing Company—1920. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 

transcribed by Linda White, 2002. 

Lambert, John. Travels through Lower Canada, and the United States of North 

America in the Years 1806, 1807, & 1808: To Which Are Added, Biographical Notices 

and Anecdotes of Some of the Leading Characters in the United States. London: 

Printed for Richard Phillips, 1810. 

LeBlond, Guillame. A Treatise on Artillery. London: E. Cave, 1746 (reprint edition 

Ottawa Ontario: Museum Restoration Service, 1790). 

Lochee, Lewis. Elements of Field Fortification. London: T. Cadell and T. Egerton, 

1783). 

Lowenthal, Larry. "Draft Preliminary Study of Victory Woods." in preparation 

for the Saratoga National Historical Park General Management Plan. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2004. 

Lowenthal, Larry. "Historical Overview." Saratoga National Historical Park 

General Management Plan. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

2004. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 270 

Luzader, John F. Historic Building Report, Philip Schuyler House, Schuylerville, 

New York. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1957. 

Luzader, John F., I.J. Ellisworth, Henry A. Judd, and Ed Larrabee. Historic 

Structures Report, Part II, Schuyler House, Saratoga National Historical Park. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1960. 

Mahlstedt, Thomas F. “Archeological Impact Assessment, Saratoga Monument, 

Saratoga National Historical Park.” Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, 1980. 

McGuirk, Abigail. Presentation for the Adirondack Chapter of the NYS 

Archaeological Association. March 18, 2005. 

Medcalfe, M. A Map of the Country in which the Army under Lt General Burgoyne 

acted in the Campaign of 1777. London: Wm Faden, 1780. 

Montresor, James. Plan of Fort at Saratoga. 1757. 

New York State Archives Internet Document. Champlain Canal, 2000. 

nysed.gov/holding/aids/canal 

New York State. The Inland Navigational Surveys of the Western and Northern 

Inland Lock Navigation Companies, 1772. New York State Education 

Department, Albany, 1992. 

Nickerson, Hoffman. The Turning Point of the Revolution, Volume II. Port 

Washington, N.Y. Kennikat Press, Inc., 1928. 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. Schuyler Estate Cultural Landscape 

Inventory. Boston, MA, 2002. 

Ozanam, Jacques. A Treatise of Fortifications Containing the Ancient and Modern 

Method of the Construction and Defense of Places and the Manner of Carrying 

Sieges, Translated by. J.T. DeSauguliens. London: J. Jackson & J. Worrall, 1712. 

Page, Robert R., Cathy Gilbert, and Susan Dolan. A Guide to Cultural Landscape 

Reports: Contents, Process and Techniques. Washington, DC: USDI, NPS, Park 

Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program. 1998. 

Papers and Proceedings of the Connecticut Valley Historical Society 1904-1907, 

Volume IV, Springfield, Mass. Published by the Society, 1912. 

Prospect Hill Cemetery pamphlet, 2005. 

Reid, Arthur. Reminiscences of the Revolution, or Le Loup’s Bloody Trail from 

Salem to Fort Edward. Utica: Roberts, Book & Job Printer,1859. 

Ritchie, William. The Archeology of New York State. Harrison, New York: Harbor 

Hill Books, 1980. 

Roger Earl of Orrery. A Treatise on the Art of War. Savoy: Henry Herringman, 

1677. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 271 

Rudyerd, Charles W. Course of Artillery at the Royal Military Academy, As 

Established by His Grace, The Duke of Richmond, Master General of his Majesty’s 

Ordnance. Woolwich: Royal Military Academy, 1793. 

Saratogian-Tri County News. Burgoyne army fortification area may go to 

National Park, 18 December 1973. 

Saratoga Victory Manufacturing Company and the Trustees of the Village of 

Victory. Saratoga County Clerks Office, Deed Book 68, 1853. 

Sauthier, Claude Joseph and B. Ratzer. A Map of the Province of New York.

London: Wm Faden, 1776. 

Schuyler, George W. Colonial New York Philip Schuyler and his Family. New 

York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1885. 

Shimoda, Jerry Y. Documentary Research Report on Military Use History of the 

Schuyler Property. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, September 

1967. 

Skidmore College. Archaeological Sites of Saratoga Lake, Fish Creek, and 

Vicinity, Skidmore Archaeological Survey. Brochure reprinted courtesy of 

Saratoga Springs Urban Heritage Area. 1999. 

Sprague, Rev. Delos E. Descriptive Guide of the Battlefield of Saratoga. Ballston 

Spa, New York: Battlefield Publishing Co., Inc., 1930. 

Stanley, Lt. Col. George F. G. For Want of a Horse being A Journal of the 

Campaigns against the Americans in 1776 and 1777 conducted from Canada, by an 

officer who served with Lt. Gen. Burgoyne, Edited and with an Introduction by Lt. 

Col. George F. G. Stanley, Sackville, N.B.: Tribune Press Limited, 1961. 

Starbuck, David R. The Great Warpath, British Military Sites from Albany to 

Crown Point. Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1999. 

Starbuck, David R. Saratoga National Historic Park, Archeology Progress Report1985. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1986. 

Starbuck, David R. Saratoga National Historic Park, Archeology Progress Report1985. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1986. 

Stone, William L. The Campaign of Lieut. Gen. John Burgoyne and the Expedition 

of Lieut. Col. Barry St. Leger. Albany: Joel Munsell, 1877. 

Stone, William L. Visits to the Saratoga Battle-Grounds 1780-1880. With an 

Introduction and Notes. Albany: Joel Munsell, 1895. 

Strach, Stephen G. The Saratoga Estate of Philip Schuyler, 1745-1839: An 

Interpretive and Historic Grounds Report. Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service, Draft, 1983. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 272 

Sturtevant, William C. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15. Washington, 

DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1978. 

Sylvester, Nathaniel Bartlett. History of Saratoga County, New York with 

Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Some of Its Men and Pioneers. 

Philadelphia: Everts & Ensign, 1878; reprint: Heart of the Lakes Publishing, 

Interlaken, NY 14847, 1979. 

Tielke, Captain J.G. The Field Engineer, or Introduction Upon Every Branch of 

Field Fortifications, 2 volumes. Translated by Ensign Edwin Hewgill. London: 

1769; revised edition J. Walter, 1789. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. “Draft Environmental Statement, Proposed 

Amendment to the Act of 1 June 1938 for Saratoga National Historical Park, 1971. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Saratoga National Historical Park General 

Management Plan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, National 

Park Service, 2004. 

U.S. Geological Survey. Topographic Map of Saratoga. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, U.S. Geological Survey, 1900. 

VanDerwerker, Mrs. J.B. Early Days in Eastern Saratoga County. New 

introduction and index by Zetterstrom, Alice Lowder. Interlaken, New York: 

Empire State Books, 1994. 

Van Allen. Map of Holdings of Schuyler Family in Saratoga, 1837. 

Victory Specialty Packaging Inc. 10th Anniversary Pamphlet, 1993. 

Village of Victory Mills Annual Report, 1948. 

Walworth, Ellen Harding. Battles of Saratoga. Albany: Joe Munsell’s Sons, 1891. 

Whitford, Noble E. The Champlain Canal, 1906. 

Wood, Thomas N. III. Images of America, Around the Town of Saratoga. 

Charlston: Arcadia Publishing Company, 1999. 

INTERVIEWS 

Adamson, Alexander, telephone interview by Paul Okey, 29 September 1987. 

Dalzell, Clark, interview by Linda White, 1 August 2005. 

Hulka, Martin, telephone interview by Paul Okey, 29 September 1987. 

LaBarge, Vern, interviews by Linda White, 2005 and 2006. 

Pratt, Vladimir and Margaret, interview by Linda White, October 2005. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 273 

Sherman, Mary Elizabeth and Ella Webster, interviewed March 20, 1979. 

Schuylerville Library files. 

Strach, Stephen, interview by Linda White, Schuylerville, New York, 2005. 

Varney, Dick, interview by Linda White, October 2006. 

PARK ARCHIVES 

Biellkiewicz, Mike. Letter, Oct. 1, 1999 “Loss of Burgoyne’s Camp." 

Engler, Leonard P., Chief Appraiser, NERO to Chief of Land Acquisition, NERO, 

20 December, 1973. 

Finan, Joseph, Chief of Maintenance, to SNHP Historian, 16 November 1992. 

Finan, Joseph, 1992. 

Gurney, Hugh D., General Superintendent to Director, New York District, 6 

November 1973. 

Gurney, Hugh D., General Superintendent, to Mrs. Violet Dunn, Invitation and 

Map, 23 September 1974. 

Gray, W. Glen, Notes from former Saratoga NHP Superintendent 20 February 

1986. 

Gray, W. Glen, notes, February 20, 1986. 

Gray, W. Glen, to Mayor John T. Wilson, 9 November 1976. 

Gray, W. Glen, to Regional Director, 29 September 1980. 

Gray, W. Glen, 29 September 1980. 

Gray, W. Glen, to Robert Krom, 28 October 1980. 

Gray, W. Glen, to Regional Director, 26 March 1981. 

Gorman, James, Case Incident # SARA 89-225, 1989. 

Hallinan, James, General Manager for the A.L. Garber Company to George A. 

Palmer, acting Regional Director, 12 March 1974. 

Lindsay, Doug, to Robert Kuhn, 17 April, 2000. 

Palmer, George A., Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, to James 

Hallinan, General Manager A.L. Garber Company, 10 December 1973. 

Phillips, Mike, Saratoga NHP Historian, 1974. 

Phillips, Michael to Edward Hoyt, Montpelier VT, 1974. 

Okey, Paul. Section 106 Clearance Support Data, 9 September 1987. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 274 

Park acquires historic property, Includes Burgoyne’s Defenses, Unidentified 

newspaper clipping, 13 October 1974. 

Saratoga National Historical Park, Proposed Development Schedule, February 

1974. 

Saratoga NHP Staff ideas on the Garber Tract, 13 June 1989. 

Unidentified newspaper article, 13 October 1974. 

Village of Victory to Hon. Gerald B. Solomon, August 12, 1991. 
APPENDIX

 275 

APPENDIX A – 1920 APPRAISAL OF THE VICTORY MILLS 

 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 276 

APPENDIX B – TITLE AND DEED INFORMATION 
APPENDIX

 277 

 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 278 
APPENDIX

 279 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 280 
APPENDIX

 281 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 282 
APPENDIX

 283 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 284 
APPENDIX

 285 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 286 

APPENDIX C - FIRSTHAND ACCOUNT CHRONOLOGY OF 

THE EVENTS AT SARATOGA 

This appendix contains first-hand accounts that relate to the Battles of Saratoga 

and the surrender. Unfortunately there is little information about the specific 

physical layout and construction of the British fortifications. However, the 

information provides helpful contextual information on the events surrounding 

the battles and the surrender. 

SEPTEMBER 13TH, 14TH, AND 15TH (ADVANCE) 

Lt. William Digby of the 53rd Regiment of Foot wrote in his Journal: 

...but all that day [Sept. 11] was a continued fall of heavy rain, which 

continued till the 13th, when the morning being very fine, the army 

passed over the Bridge of boats and encamped on the heights of 

Saratoga. We encamped in three columns in order of Battle. The duty 

here turned very severe, such numbers being constantly on either guards 

or piquets; during that day and the next we had many small alarms, as 

parties of theirs came near our camp; but a few companies soon sent 

them off.1

 We moved 3 miles and encamped at a post called Batten Kill, a 

strong situation bordering on the river Hudson, intended for the army 

to cross over. Our corps crossed the river with a good deal of trouble, 

and encamped about 2 miles west of it. The troops crossed in battows 

[sic] which was very tedious, as we had but few. About a mile below, the 

horses and baggage forded it with some difficulty, the water being from a 

great fall of rain, which came during the preceding night, in consequence 

of which their troops were put into baracs [sic] built there for 1000 men 

by General Schyler [sic]. His house was a small way in our front, and 

much superior to many gentleman's [sic] houses in Canada. It was 

intended we should move the next day to an eminence a little distance, 

which was reckoned a good post, and where there was plenty of forage 

for the army.2

Lt. James Hadden of the Royal Artillery recorded in his Journal: 

Saturday Sept. 13th: The Advanced Corps and Right Wing of the Army, 

with all the Artillery cross'd the Hudsons [sic] River on a Bridge of 

Batteaus [sic] near Batten Kill, and encamped at Saratoga: we began our 

march at 2 in ye afternoon. The left wing remained on opposite 

side of the River, occupying Gen'l Frazer's [sic] old post near Batten 

Kill.3

 

1

 Baxter, James Phinney (Ed.), The British Invasion from the North, The Campaigns of Generals Carleton and Burgoyne from 

Canada, 1776-1777, with the Journal of Lt. William Digby, of the 53rd, or Shropshire Regiment of Foot, Joel Munsell's Sons 

(Albany, 1887), p. 267 in Shimoda, 1967. 

2

 Baxter, 249 in Shimoda, 1967. 

3

 Hadden, James M. Lt., Roy. Art., Hadden's Journal and Orderly Books, A Journal Kept in Canada and Upon Burgoyne's 

Campaign in 1776 and 1777, Joel Munsell's Sons (Albany, 1884), p. 144. Also see Baxter, 28 in Shimoda, 1967. 
APPENDIX

 287 

Lt. Anburey gave the following account of the Schuyler property area in a letter 

to a friend dated, Camp at Freeman's Farm, Sept. 24, 1777: 

The bridge of boats was soon constructed, and thirty days provision 

brought up for the whole army. On the 13th instant, we passed Hudson's 

river, and encamped in the plains of Saratoga, at which place there is a 

handsome and commodious dwelling-house, with outhouses, and 

exceeding fine saw and grist-mill, and at a small distance a very neat 

church, with several houses round it, all of which are the property of 

General Schuyler. This beautiful spot was quite deserted, not a living 

creature on it. On the grounds were great quantities of fine wheat, as 

also Indian corn; the former was instantly cut down, threshed, and 

carried to the mill to be ground, and delivered to the men to save our 

provisions; the latter was cut for forage for the horses. Thus a 

plantation, with large crops of several sorts of grain, thriving and 

beautiful in the morning, was before night reduced to a scene of distress 

and poverty! What havoc and devastation is attendant on war!4

Burgoyne himself, in a letter to Lord George Germain dated at Albany, 20th 

October, 1777, said of the crossing: 

Provisions for thirty days having been brought forward, the other 

necessary stores prepared, and the bridge of boats completed, the army 

passed the Hudson's River on the 13th and 14th of September, and 

encamped on the heights, and in the plain of Saratoga, the enemy being 

then in the neighborhood of Stillwater.5

A private letter written in New England dated Nov. 15, 1777, reported thusly on 

the crossing, and of the food: 

On the 13th, 14th, and 15th we crossed the Hudson on a bridge of boats - 

the enemy meanwhile falling back upon Stillwater. And now we had 

again a repetition of salt meat and flour for out diet. My dear friends, 

do not despise these royal victuals, the cost of the transportation of 

which from England must have been a right royal sum. Pork at noon, 

pork at evening, pork cold, and pork warm! Friends, you who at home 

are able to dine upon green peas and shell-fish, might have looked down 

upon our pork with disdain; for us, however, pork was a kingly viand, 

without which we would have starved. In fact, if we had had pork 

enough we would not now be here in Boston...All communications with 

Lake George and Carrilon [Fort Ticonderoga] now ceased.6

 

4

 Anburey, Thomas, Travels Through the Interior Parts of America, Houghton Mifflin Co., The Riverside Press (Cambridge, 

1923, I, 239) in Shimoda, 1967. 

5

A State of the Expedition from Canada, as laid before the House of Commons, by Lietenant-General Burgoyne, and verified 

by Evidence; with a collection of Authentic Documents, Printed for J. Almond (London, 1780), 97 in Shimoda, 1967. 6

 Stone, William L. (Trans.). Letters or Brunswick and Hessian Officers during the American Revolution, Joel Munsell's Sons 

(Albany, 1891), p. 112 in Shimoda, 1967. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 288 

After crossing the Hudson, the British troops deployed in accordance with 

Burgoyne's General Orders of September 13: 

The present prost of the Six Companies of the 47th Reg't being destin'd 

to cover the Depot of Provisions, those Companies are not to take any 

duties in the Line, but will augment their own Picquet to 40 Men, which 

during the Night will occupy a Post upon the Island, and upon the point 

of Land on the South side of the Fish Kill where it falls into the main 

River. The 20th Reg't will advance four Companies to cover Head 

Quarters (in Schuyler House), they will bring their Tents and take their 

orders from Lt. Francis Clark. The Picquets and Quarter Guards of the 

Line are to be posted upon the Right Flank of the encampment so as to 

form a Front in the same line of the direction with the British Light 

Infantry.7

Lord Francis Napier of the British 31st Regiment gives the following account of 

the September 13 deployment in his Journal: 

The Advanced Corps left Batton Kiln [sic] and encamped upon the 

Heights above Fish Kiln [sic] (or Saratoga Creek). The Right Wing of the 

Army and Grand Park of Artillery likewise encamped between Saratoga 

Barracks and Fish Kiln [sic].8

That day, General Burgoyne issued this order restricting the movement of his 

troops: 

The Army may be required to take Arms at the shortest notice: Officers 

therefore are not to quit the camp. No soldier nor follower of the Army 

is to pass the Fishkill under pain of the severest punishment.9

This order was apparently adhered to by British troops, at least on that day. The 

only prisoners noted as having been taken by the Americans were of the 20th 

Regiment who had been detailed to cover the headquarters in Schuyler's house 

located south of Fish Creek. Of the captured British troops, General Gates wrote 

to General Benjamin Lincoln on September 13: 

This morning Colonel Wilkinson brought me in three prisoners, soldiers 

of the 20th regiment; he took them within a small distance of General 

Schuyler's house: they declare General Burgoyne was to march this 

morning towards Stillwater. This intelligence is further confirmed by 

two men lately come from the enemy's camp: they are also all in one 

story with regard to General Burgoyne's having collected his whole force 

at and near Saratoga.10

 

7

 Hadden, 144-46 in Shimoda, 1967. 

8

 S. Sidney Bradford (ed.), Lord Francis Napier's Journal of the Burgoyne Campaign, reprinted from Maryland Historical 

Magazine, V. 57, No. 4 (December 1963, p. 318) in Shimoda, 1967. 9

 O'Callaghan, B.B. (Ed.), Orderly Books of Liet. General John Burgoyne from his Entry into the State of New York until his 

Surrender at Saratoga, 10th [sic] Sept., 1777. J. Munsell (Albany, 1860), p. 101 in Shimoda, 1967. 10 Wilkinson, General James, Memoirs of My Own Times, Abraham Beall (Philadelphia, 1816), p. 234 in Shimoda, 1967. 
APPENDIX

 289 

The above incident led to a tightening of security on the part of the British. 

Burgoyne issued an order on September 14 which read: 

It is to be a standing order for the rest of the Campaign, that all Picquets, 

and Guards are under Arms an hour before daylight every morning and 

remain so 'till it is compleatly [sic] light. All our Posts and Picquets are to 

send out patroles [sic] at this time. The Army will be in readiness to 

march tomorrow.11

This order was followed by another on the same day which said: 

During the next marches of the Army, the Corps are to move in such a 

state as to be fit for instant Action...12

OCTOBER 8TH(RETREAT) 

General Fellows at Saratoga Barrack (Schuylerville) wrote to General Lincoln on 

October 8: 

 “...arrived at this post at eleven o’clock in the morning with the whole of 

the men under my command amounting to about thirteen hundred... 

The men here very busy in throwing up works... Still I think that it is 

necessary there should be not less than four thousand men to support is 

post.” 

During the late evening or night of the same day Fellows received orders: 

 “...that you recross the river, and use every possible exertion to hinder 

them from crossing... The General, nevertheless, leaves you at full liberty 

to determine what is best to be done.” 

General Gates' adjutant, Colonel Wilkinson, wrote of this after the British 

surrender that: 

...I was afterwards informed by the Lieutenant-colonel Southerland [sic], 

of the 47th regiment, who had been sent forward by General Burgoyne 

to reconnoitre, that he crossed the Fishkill, and directed by General 

Fellows's fires, who occupied a height beyond, found his camp so 

entirely unguarded, that he marched round it without being hailed; 

returned and reported to Burgoyne, and entreated permission to attack 

Fellows with his regiment alone, but was refused.13

The existence of American troops at Saratoga is confirmed in a letter written by 

Baron von Riedesel (who served under Burgoyne) to the Duke of Brunswick 

dated Albany, October 21, 1777. Riedesel says: 

 

11 Hadden, 140 in Shimoda, 1967. 

12 O'Callaghan, 105 in Shimoda, 1967. 

13 Wilkinson, I, 281-82 in Shimoda, 1967. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 290 

On the night of the 8th to the 9th we actually started. I was supposed to 

make the advance guard with 4 battalions, the baggage following me, 

then the army and rear guard. Thus as I came to Overgotta [Dovegat] 

House, I saw that the enemy had occupied the heights at Saratoga, 

which, however, he left, and placed himself across the Hudson behind 

the Batten-Kill. Here there was still time to get through, if we had 

continued our march leaving behind the heavy artillery, batteaux [sic], 

and baggage; but we stopped at Overgotta House and remained despite 

my pleas.14

The militia under Brigadier-General John Fellows had arrived at Saratoga on 

October 8. In a letter dated Saratoga Baracks, October 8, 1777, Fellows had 

written General Benjamin Lincoln thusly: 

I arrived at this post about eleven o'clock in the morning with the whole 

of the men under my command accounting to about thirteen hundred, 

and have ordered on the provision, that was collected, at my last post. 

The men here are very busy in throwing up works to secure themselves 

in case of an attack. Still I think that it is necessary there should be not 

less than four thousand me to support this post.15

General Fellows' letter was turned over to General Gates and the latter's Adjutant 

General, Colonel James Wilkinson sent the following response to Fellows in a 

letter dated Head Quarters, Behmus's [sic] Heights, 8th October 1777: 

Yours from Saratoga barracks of this day just now came to hand. As 

every motion of the enemy gives us reason to believe they will make a 

rapid retreat, and the late fatigue our troops have undergone would 

make it improper to pursue them before morning, the General is of the 

opinion (as there is possibility of your being empowered by numbers) 

that you should recross the river, and use every possible exertion to 

hinder them from crossing, which if you can effect will give us 

undoubted opportunity of coming up with, and attacking them to very 

great advantage. The General, nevertheless, leaves you at full liberty to 

determine what is best to be done.16

Burgoyne, on the other hand, in a letter to Lord Georfe Germain dated Albany, 

20th October, 1777 says: 

This retreat, though within musquet-shot of the enemy, and encumbered 

with all the baggage of the army, was made without loss, but a heavy rain 

and the difficulties of guarding the bateux which contained all the 

provisions, occasioned delays which prevented the army reaching 

Saratoga till the night of the 9th, and the artillery could not pass the fords 

of the Fishkill till the morning of the 10th. At our arrival near Saratoga, a 

 

14 New York Public Library, Bancroft Collection, pp. 446-467. Translated transcript in Riedesel Papers, Saratoga NHP in 

Shimoda, 1967. 

15 Wilkinson, I, 280 in Shimoda, 1967. 

16 Wilkinson, 281 in Shimoda, 1967. 
APPENDIX

 291 

corps of the enemy, between five and six hundred, were discovered 

throwing up intrenchments on the heights, but retired over a ford of the 

Hudson's River at our approach, and joined a body posted to oppose our 

passage there.17

In his testimony during an inquiry on the Burgoyne Campaign in the House of 

Commons, Lieutenant-Colonel Kingston gave the following account of the 

American troops at Saratoga during the British retreat: 

Q. Do you remember on the march to Saratoga seeing a corps of the 

enemy at work on the plain of Saratoga? 

A. I do very well; a working party, and what appeared to be a battalion or 

more drawn up as a covering party. 

Q. Was that the corps that afterwards took post on the opposite side of 

the river? 

A. I believe it was the same corps I saw afterwards passing the ford.18

OCTOBER 9 (RETREAT) 

During that same Parliamentary inquiry, Lord Balcarres gave the following 

testimony on the arrival of the British troops at Saratoga on October 9: 

Q. Does your Lordship remember the weather, the state of the roads, the 

state of the cattle, and the difficulty of passing the Fish Kiln [sic] in the 

retreat to Saratoga, in the day and night of the 9th? 

A. It rained incessantly, consequently the roads were bad; the cattle were 

nearly starved for want of forage, and the bridge over the Fish Kill had 

been destroyed by the enemy; the troops were obliged to ford the river. 

Q. Had there been no enemy to oppose us, or no bridges or roads to 

repair, would it have been possible, from the state of the fatigue of the 

troops, to have continued the march farther immediately after the arrival 

to Saratoga? 

A. The troops were greatly fatigued, and the artillery had been left on the 

other side [south] of the Fish Kill. 

Q. Why were they left on the other side of the Fish Kill? 

A. The Bridge had been destroyed by the enemy; it was exceeding dark, 

and I do not know whether the ford was passable for the artillery 

without being first examined.19

 

17 Burgoyne, 11&31; Anburey, I, 270-71 in Shimoda, 1967. 

18 Burgoyne, 82 in Shimoda, 1967. 

19 Burgoyne, 31 in Shimoda, 1967. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 292 

Burgoyne's own statement on the arrival of his army is as follows: 

I now return to the army, which arrived in the night [October 9] at 

Saratoga, in such a state of fatigue, that the men for the most part had not 

strength nor inclination to cut wood and make fires, but rather sought 

sleep in their wet cloaths [sic] upon the wet ground under continuing 

rain, and it was not till after day-light that the artillery and the last of the 

troops past [sic] the Fish-Kill, and took a position upon the heights and 

in the redoubts formerly constructed.20

Of the weather Anburey complained: 

...after the action on the 7th [Oct.], never had a tent to shelter them 

[British troops] from the heavy and almost incessant rains that fell from 

that time till the convention...21

Lieutenant Digby had this to say about the arrival of the British Army at Saratoga: 

[October 9] We came up with the general and the line about 9 in the 

morning at Dovogat [Dovegat], seven miles from the enemy. It then 

began to rain hard and continued all day. We waded the Fish Kiln [sic] 

near Schuyler's [ sic] house, about 8 o'clock that night - the enemy 

having destroyed the Bridge some days before -- and took post soon 

after on the heights of Saratoga, where we remained all nigh under 

constant heavy rain, without fires or any kind of shelter to guard is from 

the inclemency of the weather. It was impossible to sleep, even had we 

an inclination to do so, from the cold and rain, and our only 

entertainment was the report of some popping shots heard now and then 

from the other side of the great river [Hudson] at our Battows [sic].22

OCTOBER 10TH (SIEGE) 

A private letter from New England dated Nov. 15, 1777, says: 

On the afternoon of the 10th [Oct.], General Gates appeared with his 

army, and stationed himself on the heights near the church at Saratoga. 

The FishKill which could very comfortably be waded, alone separated 

the two armies from each other.23

Burgoyne wrote: 

The 47th regiment, Captain Fraser's marksmen, and Mackay's 

Provincials, were ordered for the service, but the enemy appearing on 

the heights of the Fish-kill in great force and making disposition to pass 

and give us battle: the 47th regiment etc. We burned Schyler's [sic] 

 

20 Burgoyne, 129 in Shimoda, 1967. 

21 Anburey, II, 5 in Shimoda, 1967. 

22 Baxter, 297-300 in Shimoda, 1967. 

23 Stone, William L. (Trans.). Letters or Brunswick and Hessian Officers during the American Revolution, 124-25 in Shimoda, 

1967. 
APPENDIX

 293 

house to prevent a lodgment being formed behind it, and almost all our 

remaining baggage, rather than it should fall into their hands.24

Mrs. Riedesel laments in her Memoirs that: 

General Burgoyne, in order to cover our retreat, caused the beautiful 

houses and mills at Saratoga, belonging to General Schuyler, to be 

burned...the greatest misery and the utmost disorder prevailed in 

the army. The commissories had forgotten to distribute provisions 

among the troops. There were cattle enough, but not one had been 

killed.25

Burgoyne later defended himself over the burning of the barracks and Schuyler's 

dwelling in a speech in a motion of inquiry made by Mr. Vyner in Parliament on 

May 26, 1778, thusly: 

I do not recollect more than one accident by fire. I positively assert there 

was no fire by order or countenance of myself, or any other officer 

except at Saratoga. That district is the property of Major General 

Schuyler of the American troops, these were large barracks built by him, 

which took fire the day after the army arrived upon the ground in their 

retreat, and I believe I need not state any other proof of the matter being 

merely accident, that that the barracks were then made use of as my 

hospital, and full of sick and wounded soldiers. General Schuyler had 

likewise a very good dwelling house, exceeding large storehouses, great 

saw mills and other out buildings, to the value altogether of perhaps ten 

thousand pounds; a few days before the negotiation with General Gates, 

the enemy had formed a plan to attack me; a large column of troops were 

approaching to pass the small river [Fish Kill], preparatory to a general 

action, and were entirely covered from the fire of my artillery by these 

buildings. Sir, I know that I gave the order to set them on fire; and in a 

very short time that whole property I have described, was consumed. 

But to shew [sic] that the person most deeply concerned in that calamity, 

did not put the construction upon it which it has pleased the honourable 

gentlemen to do, I must inform the house that one of the first persons I 

saw after the convention was signed was General Schuyler. I expressed 

to him my regret at the event which had happened, and the reasons 

which had occasioned it; said that the occasion justified it, according to 

the principles and rules of war, and he should have done the same upon 

the same occasion, or words to that effect.26

 

24 Baxter, 301-02 in Shimoda, 1967. 

25 Stone, William L., Letters and Journals Relating to the War of the American Revolution, and the capture of the German 

Troops at Saratoga by Mrs. General Riedesel, Joel Munsell (Albany, 1867), p. 126 in Shimoda, 1967. 26 Luzader, Historic Building Survey Report on the General Philip Schuyler House, Saratoga NHP (April 25, 1957) p. 9 in 

Shimoda, 1967. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 294 

OCTOBER 11TH (SIEGE) 

After being misinformed that Burgoyne was retreating on the evening of October 

10, Gates issued orders that the entire American force would cross Fish Kill in the 

morning and assault the British under the cover of fog. However, fortunately for 

the Americans, it was discovered, when the fog suddenly lifted, that the British 

were still very much in position. Of this, Wilkinson says: 

As I led off the colours, Major Stevens offered to accompany me, and we 

proceeded towards the ford, between the mills and the site of old Fort 

Lawrence, near the mouth of the creek, followed by an advanced guard 

of fifty men, under the command of, I think, Captain Goodale of 

Putnam's regiment, the fog still exceeding thick; we were directed by a 

path to the ford, and entered the creek some distance ahead of the guard; 

our horses had halted to drink, and in leaning down on the neck of my 

own, I cast my eyes up to the opposite bank, and through the fog 

discovered a party of men in motion...Goodale had just approached the 

bank of the creek: I directed him to the enemy, and ordered him to 

charge, which he did with resolution, and rushing upon them before they 

discovered him, he took a reconnoitering party of a subaltern and thirtyfive men, without a shot, from whom I learnt the army of the enemy were 

on post. The front of the column had by this time crossed the creek, the 

General was a mile off, and I had no authority to check the movement; 

twelve or fifteen hundred men had passed, when the fog was suddenly 

dispersed, and we beheld the British army under arms; their park in our 

front, and our left exposed to their centre; a heavy fire of artillery and 

small arms was immediately opened on us, and our troops unexpectedly 

attacked in flank and front, broke and retreated over the creek in great 

disorder...I instantly clapped spurs to my horse, crossed the creek at the 

ford below the mill dam, and reached the front of the two brigades...I 

found General Learned near the centre, and begged him to halt, which 

was immediately done, by passing the word to the right and left...The 

enemy were watching our motions with shouldered arms, and the 

moment the troops came about, they opened upon us with their artillery 

and small arms, and killed an officer and several men, before we were 

masked by the wood...The two brigades fell back about a half mile to a 

field, where they took a strong position, which they fortified and held 

until the surrender of the British army; Morgan's corps being on their 

left, and extended in rear of the enemy's right: the brigades of Glover 

and Nixon after their repulse resumed their positions or the heights west 

of the great road; and the remainder of the 11th and the whole of the 12th 

and 13th passed without any notable occurrence, except affairs of pickets 

and several brisk cannonades, unless the augmentation of our militia 

force from all quarters,...27

 

27 Wilkinson, I, 298 in Shimoda, 1967. 
APPENDIX

 295 

OCTOBER 13TH (SIEGE) 

Commenting on his situation at Saratoga after being surrounded, Burgoyne wrote 

in his letter to Lord Germain dated Albany, 20th October 1777: 

The bulk of the enemy's army was hourly joined by new corps of militia 

and volunteers, and their numbers together accounted to upwards of 

16,000 men. Their position, which extended three parts in four of a 

circle around us, was from the nature of the ground unattackable in all 

parts. In this situation the army took the best position possible and 

fortified, waiting till the 13th night, in the anxious hope of succours from 

our friends, or the next desirable expectation, an attack from our enemy. 

During this time the men lay continually upon their arms, and were 

cannonaded in every part, even rifle-shot and grape-shot came into all 

parts of the line without any considerable effect. At this period an exact 

account of provisions was taken, and the circumstances stated in the 

opening of this letter became compleat [sic].28

Realizing that his situation was daily worsening, Burgoyne called a council of war 

on October 12 and 13. On the 13th, the council decided that peace overtures 

would be made to General Gates. That day Burgoyne sent a message to Gates: 

Lieutenant-general Burgoyne is desirous of sending a field officer to 

Major-general Gates, upon a matter of high moment to both armies. The 

Lieutenant-general requests to be informed at what time General Gates 

will receive his tomorrow morning.29

Gates replied to Burgoyne in a letter dated Compat Saratoga, 9' o'clock P.M., 

October 13th, 1777: 

Major-general Gates will receive a field officer from Lieutenant-general 

Burgoyne, at the advanced post of the army of the United States, at 10 

o'clock tomorrow morning, from whence he will be conducted to head 

quarters.30

OCTOBER 14TH (SIEGE) 

Wilkinson says that at the hour appointed on October 14: 

I repaired to the advanced post, accompanied by Mr. Henry Livingston, 

of the Upper Manor on the Hudson's river. The bridge across the FishKill had been destroyed, but the sleepers remained. We did not wait 

many minutes before the chamade was beat at the advanced guard of the 

enemy, and an officer descending from the hill, stepped across the creek 

on one of the sleepers of the late bridge; it was Major Kingston, with a 

message from Lieutenant-general Burgoyne to Major-general Gates.31

 

28 Burgoyne in Shimoda, 1967. 

29 Wilkinson, I, 298 in Shimoda, 1967. 

30 Wilkinson, I, 298 in Shimoda, 1967. 

31 Wilkinson, I, 299 in Shimoda, 1967. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 296 

Kingston was escorted to Gates' headquarters where he read a memorandum of a 

message from Burgoyne to Gates. The message said, in part: 

In regard to your reproaches made upon this army burning the country, 

they are unjust; General Schuyler's house and adjacent buildings 

remained protected till General Gates' troops approached the Ford, 

General Burgoyne avows the order for setting fire at that time to 

everything that covered the movement. The barracks particularly took 

fire by mere accident, and measure were taken, though ineffectual, to 

save them. If there has been any vindictive spirit in turning the buildings 

on the march, has probably employed by some secret well--wishers to 

the American cause, as General Burgoyne has been informed some of the 

buildings belonged to supposed friends of the king.32

After reading the above, Kingston added that General Gates perceives that it was 

an answer to his letter of October 12 to General Burgoyne. Then the Major 

offered the following propositions: 

I am directed to represent to you from General Burgoyne, that after 

having fought you twice, he has waited some days in his present position 

determined to try a third conflict against any force you could bring to 

attack him. He is apprised of the superiority of your numbers, and the 

disposition of your troops to impede his supplies and render his retreat a 

scene of carnage on both sides. In this situation his is impelled by 

humanity, and thinks himself justified by established principles and 

precedents of state and of war, to spare the lives of brave men upon 

honourable terms; should Major-general Gates be inclined to treat upon 

that idea, General Burgoyne would propose a cessation of Arms, during 

the time necessary to communicate the preliminary terms, by which in 

any extremity he and army mean to abide.33

This gave Gates the opening to execute a coup that he had privately prepared. 

Wilkinson reported it thusly: 

So soon as he [Kingston] had finished, to my utter astonishment, 

General Gates put his hands to his side pocket, pulled out a paper, and 

presented it to Kingston, observing "These, Sir, are the terms on which 

General Burgoyne must surrender." The Major appeared 

thunderstruck, but read the paper, whilst the old chief surveyed him 

attentively through his spectacles.34

Major Kingston took the message and about sunset the same day returned with 

another from Burgoyne to Gates. Wilkinson met Kingston at the advanced 

guard: 

 

32 Wilkinson, I, 300-01 in Shimoda, 1967. 

33 Wilkinson, I, 301 in Shimoda, 1967. 

34 Wilkinson, I, 302 in Shimoda, 1967. 
APPENDIX

 297 

...who presented another message from Lieutenant-general Burgoyne to 

Major-general Gates, accompanied by the propositions of the latter, 

which had been transmitted by Major Kingston, and the answer of the 

former annexed, together with the preliminary articles, proposed by 

General Burgoyne, which were substantially assented to by General 

Gates, and thus my apprehensions were verified.35

Account of John Peters, American loyalist encamped at Victory Woods: 

.. .here we remained till October 8th hoping every Day, the Royal Army 

wou'd attempt to force their way to Fort George. Cessation of Hostilities 

took place, and Treaties went on between theRoyal and Rebel 

Commanders. On the 14th October in the Morning when it was expected 

that the Capitulation was nearly concluded, I was in great anxiety and 

distress of mind knowing how impossible it was that any Capitulation 

cou'd provide for my Security. I met general Philips, who asked me why I 

remain'd there, as I had told him before, that no articles wou'd protect 

me. I answered that whatever might be the Event, I would not go without 

orders in writing, for that no one shou'd be able to say, that I had 

deserted them in the hour of distress, he said he wou'd get me orders - In 

the afternoon he met me again, and seem'd surpriz'd at my being still 

there, I reminded him of what he had said, on which he carried me with 

him to the Generals Tent, and he brought me out a written permission, 

to take as many of my officers and men, as I thought cou'd not be 

protected and were willing to go. I accordingly got together as many as I 

could meet with, in that condition who chose to make the attempt: While 

I was preparing for our departure, a Person who had left the Rebel 

Colonies for Counterfeiting their paper Money, came to me and begg'd 

to be of the Party, I did not much like his company, but I saw the poor 

creature in such a humbling situation from the certainty of being hanged, 

if he were taken, that I cou'd not but consent: As soon as ever it was dark 

enough we set out being 35 in Number, and each carrying only Two days 

provisions; I ordered Lieut Holyburt of my Regiment to lead as he knew 

those woods in the Dark better than I did, I followed next, and ordered 

all the rest to follow in Single File, and in perfect silence, my Son, & 

Major Wright of my Regiment in the Rear: We steer'd at first Southwestward, we had not got far when the Moneymaker began to be very 

troublesome with his fears, I ordered him to be placed between Major 

Wright and my Son, and I order'd the Major if he made any Noise, to put 

his Bayonet into him, and leave him Dead, Notwithstanding this he was 

very troublesome to us. When we had travelled Two or Three Miles 

from the Royal Camp, we were challenged by a party of Rebels, I replied, 

"from General Gates, and were in pursuit of some Tories, who had fled 

from Burgoynes Camp" The Rebels demanded the Countersign, and 

who commanded, the answer was Colonel Peters, and with Eighteen 

 

35 Wilkinson, I, 303 in Shimoda, 1967. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 298 

Hundred Men, and they might fire as soon as they pleased was the 

countersign". The darkness and the surprize caused the rebels to take 

prudent care of themselves for that Night: But, next day they pursued us 

with about an Thousand Men, whom we saw at a distance from an Hill, 

but, whether they saw us or not I cannot say: when we thought we cou'd 

do it safely, we turn'd more Northwesterly, and then Northerly.36

OCTOBER 15 (SIEGE) 

Major Kingston delivered the following message from Burgoyne to Gates: 

The eight first preliminary articles of Lieutenant-general Burgoyne's 

proposals, and the 2d, 3d, and 4th of those of Major-General Gates of 

yesterday, being agreed to, the foundation of the proposed treaty is cut 

of dispute, but the several subordinate articles and regulations 

necessarily springing from these preliminaries, and requiring 

explanation and precision, between the parties, before a definitive treaty 

can be safely executed, a longer time than that mentioned by General 

Gates in his answer to the 9th article becomes indispensably necessary. 

Lieutenant-general Burgoyne is willing to appoint two officers 

immediately to meet two others from Major-general Gates, to propound, 

discuss, and settle those subordinate articles, in order that a treaty in due 

form may be executed as soon as possible. 

(Signed) J. Burgoyne 

On receiving Burgoyne's message Gates appointed Wilkinson and, at his request, 

appointed Brigadier-General Whipple: 

...and by concert with Major Kingston, a tent was pitched between the 

advance guards of the two armies, on the first bank above General 

Schuyler's saw mill, where we met Lieutenant-colonel Nicholas 

Sutherland and Captain James H. Craig of the 47th regiment, on the 

afternoon of the 16th [15th], having for our secretary Major Pierce, an 

aid-de-camp of General Gates. Having produced and exchanged 

credentials, we proceeded to discuss the objects of our appointment, and 

at 8 o'clock, P.M. we signed and exchanged articles of capitulation, and 

separated to report to our respective generals.37

About 11 o'clock that night, a message was received by Wilkinson stating in part: 

Upon reporting the proceeding of this evening to Lieutenant-general 

Burgoyne I was happy to receive his approbation of and ready 

concurrence in every article that has been agreed on between is; t 

however appears upon a retrospect of the treaty, that our zeal to 

complete it expeditiously has led us unto the admission of a term in the 

title very different from his meaning, and that of the principal officers of 

 

36 Excerpt of the memorial by John Peters, undated (likely 1786). New York Historical Society & Albany Public Library. 37 Wilkinson, I, 309-10 in Shimoda, 1967. 
APPENDIX

 299 

this army, who have been consulted on this important occasion. We 

have, Sir, unquardedly called that a treaty of capitulation, which the 

army means only as a treaty of convention. With the single alteration of 

this word, Lieutenant-colonel Sutherland and myself will meet you at the 

stipulated time tomorrow morning with the fair copy signed by General 

Burgoyne.38

To this Wilkinson sent an immediate reply: 

Colonel Wilkinson's compliments to Captain Craig, Major-general Gates 

will admit the alteration required.39

OCTOBER 16TH (SIEGE) 

However, on the morning of the 16th Gates received another message from 

Burgoyne which caused some consternation in the American camp. Burgoyne's 

message read: 

In the course of the night Lieutenant-General Burgoyne has received 

intelligence that a considerable force has been detached from the Army 

under the Command of Major General Gates during the course of the 

Negociations [sic] of the Treaty depending between them. LieutenantGeneral Burgoyne conceives this, if true, to be not only a violation of the 

Cessation of Arms, but subvertive of the principles on which the Treaty 

originated, vis, a great superiority of numbers in General Gate's Army. 

Lieutenant General Burgoyne therefore requires that tow officers on his 

part be permitted to see that the strength of the forces now opposed to 

him is such as will convince him that no such Detachments have been 

made, and that the same principle of Superiority on which the Treaty 

first began still exists.40

Wilkinson later commented thusly on Burgoyne's charge: 

We had made no detachment, but it was a fact that several hundred of 

the New York militia, whose term of service had expired, marched off 

the preceding evening without leave;...41

Wilkinson also said of the British general's attempted delaying tactics: 

The fact is that a spy had got into General Burgoyne's camp the night 

before, who had met the retiring militia in his route, and brought 

information that General Clinton had taken Fort Montgomery; he 

therefore sough an occasion to break off the Treaty, with an intention to 

leave his camp and artillery standing, with his sick and followers, and 

 

38 Wilkinson, I, 310 in Shimoda, 1967. 

39 Wilkinson, I, 311 in Shimoda, 1967. 

40 Wilkinson, I, 142-43 in Shimoda, 1967. 

41 Wilkinson, I, 142-43 in Shimoda, 1967. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 300 

with his musketry to make a night attack, force our right, and by a rapid 

march gain Albany, there to wait events.42

In response to Burgoyne's charge, Gates sent Wilkinson, with a message that "no 

violations of the treaty had taken place."43 After leaving the American advanced 

guard, Wilkinson says: 

I was permitted to pass between two log redoubts, in the rear of which I 

was introduced to Lieutenant-general Burgoyne, attended by Majorgenerals Phillips and Reidesel [sic] and Brigadier-generals Hamilton, 

Gall and Specht.44

Wilkinson's meeting with Burgoyne and his generals extended to such lengths 

that he reports: 

General Gates became uneasy, and I found a messenger waiting at out 

picket, to know what I had done. I reported in brief, what had passed, 

and what was depending; and I took a station near the ruins of General 

Schuyler's house, where I walked, and expected with much anxiety, the 

result of General Burgoyne's consultation...45

While waiting there, Wilkinson observed Lieutenant-Colonel Sutherland on the 

opposite bank of the Fish Kill. He called the Colonel to him and read Sutherland 

the letter he had received from Captain Craig the night before. The Colonel 

disclaimed any knowledge of the letter and asked Wilkinson whether he could 

borrow it for a few minutes. Wilkinson refused saying: "I should hold it as a 

testimony of the good faith of a British commander."46 However, after 

Sutherland promised to return it in fifteen minutes, Wilkinson permitted him to 

take the letter back to the British camp. While waiting for Sutherland's return 

Wilkinson received: 

...a peremptory message from the General [Gates], to break off the 

treaty, if the convention was not immediately ratified. I informed him by 

the messenger, that I was doing the best I could for him, and would see 

him in half an hour.47

Colonel Sutherland returned, in the time promised, with Captain Craig who 

handed Wilkinson the Convention signed by Burgoyne "with an additional 

article specifically to include himself."48 This, Wilkinson took to Gates at head 

quarters, after an absence of eight hours. 

 

42 Wilkinson, I, 313-14 in Shimoda, 1967. 

43 Wilkinson, I, 313 in Shimoda, 1967. 

44 Wilkinson, I, 312 in Shimoda, 1967. 

45 Wilkinson, I, 316 in Shimoda, 1967. 

46 Wilkinson, I, 316-17 in Shimoda, 1967. 

47 Wilkinson, I, 317 in Shimoda, 1967. 

48 Wilkinson, I, 317 in Shimoda, 1967. 
APPENDIX

 301 

OCTOBER 17TH (SURRENDER): 

Wilkinson records the events of October 17: 

Early on the morning of the 17th, I visited General Burgoyne in his camp, 

and accompanied him to the ground where his army was to lay down 

their arms, from whence we rode to the bank of the Hudson's river, 

which he surveyed with attention, and asked me whether it was not 

fordable, Certainly Sit, but do you observe the people on the opposite 

shore? Yes, he replied he, "I have seen them too long." He then 

proposed to be introduced to General Gates, and we crossed the Fishkill 

and proceeded towards his head quarters, General Burgoyne in front 

with his adjutant-general, Kingston, and his aides-de-camp Captain Lord 

Petersham and Lieutenant Wilford behind him, then followed Majorgeneral Phillips, the Baron Reidesel [sic] and other general officers and 

their suites according to rank. General Gates advised of Burgoyne's 

approach met him at the head of his camp, Burgoyne in a rich royal 

uniform, and Gates in a plain blue frock, when they had approached 

nearly within sword's length the reined up and halted, I then named the 

gentlemen and General Burgoyne raising his hat most gracefully said, 

"The fortune of war, General Gates, has made me your prisoner," to 

which the conqueror, returning a courtly salute, promptly replied, "I 

shall always be ready to bear testimony that it has not been through any 

fault of your excellency."49

Ebenezer Mattoon who served in the American artillery company during the 

Battle of Saratoga recorded the surrender: 

We remained at Fort Edward till the morning of the 13th [October}. 

Being then informed of the armistice which had been agreed upon, we 

were ordered to return to our position upon the Battenkill and repair 

our works. Here we remained till the morning of the 17th, when we 

received orders to repair to General Gate's headquarters on the west 

side of the river. As we passed along we saw the British army piling (not 

stacking) their arms: the piles of arms extending from Schuyler's creek 

northward nearly to the house on the hill before mentioned. The range 

of piles ran along the ground west of the road then traveled, and east of 

the canal as it now runs. Just below the island we passed the river, and 

came to General Gate's marquee, situated on a level piece of ground, 

from 130 to 150 rods south of Schuyler's [Fish] creek. A little south and 

west of this there is a rising ground, on which our army was posted, in 

order to appear to the best advantage. A part of it was also 

advantageously drawn up upon the east side of the river. About noon, 

on the 17th, General Burgoyne, with a number of his officers, rode up 

 

49 Wilkinson, I, 321 in Shimoda, 1967. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 302 

near to the marquee, in front of which General Gates was sitting, 

attended with many of his officers. The sides of the marquee were rolled 

up, so that all that was transacted might be seen. General Burgoyne 

dismounted and approached General Gates, who rose and stepped 

forward to meet him. General Burgoyne then delivered up his sword to 

General Hates, who received it in his left hand, at the same time 

extending his right hand to take the right hand of General Burgoyne.50

J.M. Hughes, aide-de-camp to General Gates during the Burgoyne Campaign had 

left the following account: 

...On the eighteenth [sic] the enemy piled their arms on the low grounds 

of General Schuyler's farm, about ten o'clock A.M., of that day, when 

General Burgoyne sent and officer to inform General Gates the he was 

approaching. General Gates at that time was mounted on horseback, 

with his family, reviewing the general situation, when General Burgoyne 

with General Philips [sic], Lord Petersham, General Reidesel [sic], and a 

number of others composing his suite; with General Gates, Colonel 

Wilkinson, Colonel Troup, Major Hughes, Major Armstrong, Major 

Pierce, Colonel Lewis D.Q.M. General and a number of other officer, if I 

recollect right, were at their posts. The salutations were familiar and 

polite; and the two suites, etc., retired to a large marquee that had been 

prepared for their reception. I do not recollect the circumstances about 

General Burgoyne presenting his sword in token of surrender, this can 

be procured from General Gates. The army was, on that day drawn up 

in two lines, colors flying, the head of the lines beginning at Fish Creek, 

and so extending towards headquarters, under the command of General 

Glover; and about eleven o'clock, the British began their march through 

them, with colors caned, which was not completed till late in the 

afternoon. On the entrance of the British front, the music beat "Yankee 

Doodle," and so continued till the march was completed. The 

Americans behaved with admirable order, with shouldered arms, and 

not a single insult was given.51

Ebenezer Wild, who served in the First Massachusetts Regiment of the 

Continental Line at Saratoga, wrote of the surrender in these words: 

17th October. This morning very dark and foggy. About 10 o'clock we 

marched from our encampment in the woods in order to receive General 

Burgoyne and his army. We marched round the meetinghouse and came 

to a halt. General Burgoyne and his Chief Officer rode by us there, and 

then we marched further down the road and grounded our arms and 

 

50 Stone, Visits to the Saratoga Battle-Grounds, 1780-1880, p. 250-51 in Shimoda, 1967. 51 J.M. Hughes. "Notes Relative to the Campaign against Burgoyne," Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, V. 3 (Feb. 

1858), p. 278-80. Saratoga NHP Microfilm Roll No. 4 in Shimoda, 1967. 
APPENDIX

 303 

rested there. At half after 3 o'clock General Burgoyne's Army began to 

pass us, and they continued passing till sunset, when we marched down 

the road a little and into the woods, where we encamped for the night.52

 

52 Ebenezer Wild, "Journal of Ebenezer Wild (1776-1781)," Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, second series, VI 

(1890), p. 9. Saratoga NHP Microfilm Roll No. 8. For further information on the surrender phase of the Burgoyne 

campaign see: Snell, Charles W., The Site of the Sword Surrender Ceremony at Schuylerville (Old Saratoga) NY, Saratoga 

NHP, October 5, 1949, and Koke, Richard J., The Field of Grounded Arms at Schuylerville (Old Saratoga), NY, Saratoga 

NHP, May 2, 1947 in Shimoda, 1967. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 304 

APPENDIX D - TRAIL REFERENCES53

GOVERNMENT TRAIL PROGRAMS 

US Bureau of Land Management National Landscape Conservation System 

1849 C Street, NW, MIB 3123 

Washington, DC 20240 

US National Park Service National Trails System Program 

I 849 C Street, NW (2235) 

Washington, DC 20240 

wvvw.ncrc.nps.gov/rtca 

US Forest Service 

Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources Division 

P.O. Box 96090 

Washington, DC 20090-6090 

US Fish & Wildlife Service 

National Trails Program 

440 I North Fairfax Drive, Room 634 

Arlington, VA 22203 

NON-PROFIT TRAIL ORGANIZATIONS 

American Hiking Society 

1422 Fenwick Lane 

Silver Spring, M D 209 I 0 

American Trails 

P.O. Box 491797 

Redding, CA 96049-1797 

wvvw.AmericanTrails.org 

Appalachian Trail Conference 

799 Washington Street 

Harpers Ferry, WV 25425 

wvvw.atconf.org 

Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics 

P.O. Box 997 

Boulder, CO 80306 

wvvw.lnt.org 

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 

1100 17th Street, NVV, 

10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 

wvvw.railtrails.org 

Tread Lightly!, Inc. 

298 24th Street, Suite 325 

Ogden, UT 8440 1 

wvvw.treadlightly.org 

 

53 Excerpted from Landscape Lines 15, "Historic Trails," 37-38. 
APPENDIX

 305 

USEFUL WEBSITES 

US Federal Highway Administration, 

Forest Service Publications List 

wvvw.fhwa.dotgov/environmentfiSpubs/index.htm 

Herold, Philip, Jean Albreacht, and Laura Morales. 

Trail Planning, Construction, & Maintenance. 

University of Minnesota. 

http:/tforestry.lib.umn.edulbib/trls.phtml 

South Carolina State Trails Program. 

"Trails Bibliography." and Jim Schmid, 200 I. 

"Trail Quotes: From Advocacy to Wilderness." 

http://www.sctrails. net/trails/LIBRARY /Quotes.pdf

TRAIL MANUALS 

Birchard, William Jr. and Robert Proudman. 2000. Appalachian Trail Design, 

Construction and Maintenance. Second Edition. Harpers Ferry, WV: Appalachian 

Trail Conference. 

Birkby, Robert C. 1996. Lightly on the Land: The SCA Trail-Building and Maintenance 

Manual. Seattle: The Mountaineers. 

Demrow, Carl and David Salisbury. 1998. The Complete Guide to Trail Building and 

Maintenance. Third Edition. Boston: Appalachian Mountain Club Books. 

Flink, Charles, Robert Seams and Kristine Olka. 200 1. Trails for the Twenty-first 

Century: Planning Design, and Management Manual for Multi-use Trails. Washington, 

DC: Island Press. 

Griswold, Stephen. 1996. A Handbook on Trail Building and Maintenance. Three 

Rivers, CA: Sequoia Natural History Association. 

Hesselbarth, Woody. 1997. Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook Missoula, 

MT: US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service. 

wvvw.fhwa.dotgov/environmenttfspubs/lndex.htm 

Kenway, Lester. December 1997. "Steel Tripods for Skyline Systems," The Register: A 

Stewardship Newsletter for the Appalachian Trail. Harpers Ferry, WV: Appalachian 

Trail Conference. 

TRAIL MANAGEMENT ISSUES 

Barter, Christian, Margaret Coffin Brown, Tracy Stakely, and Gary Stellpflug, with 

illustrations by Sarah Baldyga. 2006. Acadia Trails Treatment Plan: Cultural Landscape 

Report for the Historic Hiking Trail System of Acadia National Park. Boston, MA: 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. 

Bergmann, Roger. September 2000. Soil Stabilizers on Universally Accessible Trails.

Washington, DC: US Forest Service, 0023 

1202-SDTDC 

www.ihwa.dot.gov/environment;1Spubs/index.htm 

Elkinton, Steven. 1997. "CRM and the National Trails System." CRM (Cultural 

Resource Management), 20: I . Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, Cultural Resources. 

Griswold, Stephen. March 2000. "High Elevation Trailwork in United States National 

Parks, and Peru and Nepal," Fort Collins, CO: High Altitude Revegetation Workshop 

Proceedings. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR VICTORY WOODS

 306 

Hooper, Lennon. May 1973. "Special Report: National Park Trails." Denver, CO: US 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center 

Montana Archeology Society. 1981. "Trails, Trails, and More Trails: Another Historic 

Preservation Challenge." Archeology in Montana, 21:3 (special issue #2). Bozeman, 

MT: Montana Archeology Society. 

National Park Service. Draft January 2001. "GIS for the National Trails System: An 

Action Plan." Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, National Trails 

System Program. 

National Park Service, October 2000. "Preserving Historic Trails, Conference 

Proceedings, October 17-19, 2000, Acadia National Park." Brookline, MA: National 

Park Service, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. 

TRAIL HISTORY 

Arthur, Guy B. 1937. Construction of Trails. Civilian Conservation Corps, Project 

Training Series no. 7, Washington, DC: National Park Service. 

Beveridge, Charles E. and Paul Rocheleau, 1995. Frederick Law Olmsted: Designing the 

American Landscape. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. 

Carr, Ethan. 1998. Wilderness by Design: Landscape Architecture and the National Park 

Service. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 

Cordes, Kathleen. 2000. America's National Historic Trails. Norman, OK: University 

of Oklahoma Press. 

Cordes, Kathleen and Jane Lammers. 2000. America's Millennium Trails: Pathways for 

the 2 1stCentury. Champaign, IL: Bannon Multimedia Group. 

Downing, Andrew Jackson. 1991 reprint of 1865, seventh edition. Landscape Gardening 

and Rural Architecture. New York: Dover Publications. 

Good, Albert. 1990 reprint of 1938 edition. Park and Recreation Structures. Boulder, 

CO: Graybooks. 

King, Brian B. et al. July/August2000. "Trail Years: A History of the Appalachian Trail 

Conference." A1ppalachian Trailway News, 61: 3. Harpers Ferry, WV: Appalachian 

Trail Conference. 

Kittredge, Frank. October 1934. "Standards of Trail Construction," San Francisco, CA: 

Office of the Chief Engineer, National Park Service. 

McClelland, Linda Flint. 1998. Building the National Parks: Historic Landscape Design 

and Construction. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Sears, John, F. 1989. Sacred Places: American Tourism Attractions in the Nineteenth 

Century New York: Oxford University Press. 

Waterman, Laura and Guy Waterman. 1989. Forest and Crag A History of Hiking. Trail 

Blazing. and Adventure in the Northeast Mountains. Boston: Appalachian Mountain 

Club.