EMPIRE of the SUMMER MOON

[Couvi]

EMPIRE of the SUMMER MOON, Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the most Powerful Indian tribe in American History, by S. C. Gwynne, Scribner, New York, 2010.

This work chronicles the Comanche Nation from its move from the northwestern United States to the Central South Plains, and their control of the area roughly bordered by the Kansas-Nebraska border, New Mexico, Arkansas-Louisiana and Central Texas. It illustrates the surprising commercial abilities of this tribe in controlling other tribes in their domain, raiding Texas for horses, mules and cattle; production of buffalo robes and similar products, and their sale in markets in Santa Fe. They drove the Spanish and Mexicans out of North Texas and kept them out, effectively being one of the only ‘primitive’ people to thus effect a European power.

It documents the tremendous loss of population due to plagues of various diseases from a high of about 10,000 to 4,000 to a low of 2,000, due primarily to contact with Whites.

It contains an in-depth study of the life and affairs of Quanah Parker, the half-White leader of the Quohadda band, the last band to surrender, and the last (and only) Chief of the Comanches; his rival Isa-Tia; and his rapid adaptation to the White man’s world after his surrender. The book also touches on the life of BG Ranald Slidell Mackenzie, his exploration and mapping of the unknown Comanche territory, his relationship as Commander at Fort Sill to Quanah Parker, and his decline into mental illness.

It is very easy and entertaining reading about this interesting period in American History that has been so poorly depicted in the modern media.

[FtValleyPS]

Couvi, I'm in about the middle of this book now, have found it interesting, as you apparently did. A couple of points seem to stand out to me, including the idea coming from the author that the Comanches were the first and most successful North American tribe to seize use of the horse from the Spanish and Mexicans in the sixteenth century, and as a result are described as being the most effective and powerful light cavalry on earth at the time, and the most powerful Indian tribe in American history. Later, in the nineteenth century, the Texas Rangers are described as being a quasi military cavalry force in the Republic of Texas, and when no cavalry exists in the U.S. I am finding this part of the book interesting, as the author describes the rangers adopting Comanche cavalry tactics - a completely new concept in Anglo North American culture - after a miserable start where casualty rates for the rangers in battle sometimes approached 70 and 80%; but after learning cavalry tactics from the Comanche, and through adopting the new Colt revolver for cavalry use, the rangers turned the tables on the Comanche and Mexicans. The author details how initially the rangers carried old Kentucky rifles while horseback, how inadequate that was, their transition to better rifles and pistols, and their demonstration of their effectiveness for light cavalry use. The author cites correspondence with Colt on use of the revolver, and how the ranger's use was the first demonstration of the effectiveness of the idea of a revolver for light cavalry.

As I said, interesting reading; my question is in regard to the author describing both the Comanche and Texas Rangers in terms of being 'cavalry' military forces. Would appreciate folks thoughts on that, and thoughts regarding this apparently new use of cavalry in North America, not discounting earlier Spanish presence.

[wkambic]

It's been a while since I've read it, but Walter Prescott Webb's history of the Texas Rangers says about the same thing. He also covers the adoption of new weapons and tactics and how they were developed. He's probably a bit kinder to the Ranger force as they made some pretty serious errors from time to time, but they were a very adaptive group and learned from their mistakes.

In their day the Rangers were feared, mistrusted, and sometimes held in contempt by the Regular Army. But the Army was willing to use them, sometimes for "dirty jobs" the Army didn't want to do. I suspect they would be seen by a Regular force as a species of "mounted partisan ranger." Indeed I think the very term "ranger" in those days was decriptive of an "irregular force."

The Commanche were very good "mounted barbarian warriors." I don't mean "barbarian" in a pejorative sense, only a descriptive one (the way Vikings, Huns, Goths, etc. were "barbarians"). I think some historical figures, like Ghengis Khan, might dispute the "greatest light cavalry of all time" title sometimes given to them (or to the Sioux or other mounted tribes). They were, however, very good at what they did. They were also quite adaptive.

Were either "cavalry?" If you mean "mounted warriors operating subject to the orders of a leader" then I suspect that they are. If you looking at a more limited definition like "the mounted force of an army" I'd say not because neither the Commanche nor the Rangers ever had other arms. They were a purely mounted group.

[FtValleyPS]

That all makes sense, Bill. And it sounds like authors sometimes blur lines between tribal mounted groups, militias and cavalry.

[wkambic]

In our very historically oriented group we tend to think of "cavalry" in the very traditional sense of the mounted arm of a larger military force. For most folks any body of mounted fighters would be "cavalry." It may be "sloppy thinking" but there it is.

I've always thought one of the most interesting historical stories you can cover is the extremely rapid adoption and effective use of the horse by aboriginal American peoples. It's only a couple of generations between the Commanche as "digger Indians" and "Lords of the Plains." That's almost a historical "light speed."

In Texas you had the head-on collision of three cultures: Hispanic, Anglo, and Aboriginal. It makes for fascinating reading and a host of really interesting characters.