I've always liked the, 'amphibious boat'

One of the most unique aspects of MAN IN THE WILDERNESS was its most important prop, Captain Henry's boat, lashed to a stout, wagon frame, and pulled by a large number of mules. Good choice using mules. Mules are stronger than horses, have greater endurance, can eat a wider variation of plants, less prone to diseases and injuries.

Captain Henry showed us his early 19th century version of a "amphibious boat", a concept that would resurface in the mid-twentieth century around World War II. This was such a neat, terrific, imaginative image to see a large wooden vessel traveling hundreds of miles inland on huge wheels, pulled by mules in lieu of the not-yet-invented combustion engine. The boat was even armed by sizeable cannon (not puny ones), one at the bow and one at the stern. Perhaps those cannon were too large as it greatly increased the boat's weight and made it top heavy and unstable on the wagon base. Captain Henry used the cannon only for anti-personnel defense. He could have gotten by using a lighter cannonade, maybe as little as one third the size of each cannon actually used on the boat. Then crew members could load musket balls down the barrel instead of a cannon ball.

The boat's sail looked as it were simple, just for single direction and not able to tack into the wind. There should have been provision for oars as a back-up or complementary means of propulsion. If you ask me, Captain Henry would have been better off with a modified Viking long boat, with its wider, shallower keel enabling a shallow draft. The men could also use oars. There would have been room to stash their bales of beaver pelts. A light cannonade on the bow and stern should be sufficient to repel indian attacks.