Comanche attempt to capture Mexico City

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Mexico, compared to Texas and the United States, did not seem to have a lot of success dealing with the Comanche since their homeland was deep in the territory of the Texan Republic and could not pursue them from stealing horses and attacking Mexican towns in the north in the 1800s. In fact, the Comanche were so devastating that much of the north was left empty (relatively speaking) and destitute when the American armies came during the Mex-American War.

Raids went as far south as Jalisco and Querétaro. I don't think it's implausible for a much larger raiding party, say around 1500-2000 braves make an attempt to raid and attack Mexico City itself.

It shouldn't be much of a stretch to ATTEMPT to take Mexico City.

 

[Plumber]

That sure would be a hell of a memory.

 

[twovultures]

An attempted attack on that scale may be physically possible, but I wonder if it is culturally possible. The Comanche did attack some pretty major settlements as part of very large armies, but these attacks were part of attempts to push the whites out of their land. Much of the parts of northern Mexico that they raided were outside of their home territory already, so going down to Mexico City would be a stretch for them.

In addition, the existence of Mexican traders specialized in trading with the Comanche may have made them reluctant to attack Mexico, as they would be attacking parties that they relied on for supplies and luxury goods. The Comanche had it in for the Texans more than the Mexicans, whereas the Chiricahua Apaches had a vendetta going on with the Mexicans due to the fact that their children were targets of Mexican slave raids.

A Mexico which keeps Texas and pisses off the Comanche enough may end up facing this attack-possibly with an alliance of the Comanche, Chiricahua and other tribes who felt wronged by the Mexicans. I don't think Mexico city would be sacked, but an attack of that scale from that culture would definitely go down as a "Hannibal crossing the Alps" moment in Mexican history.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

An attempted attack on that scale may be physically possible, but I wonder if it is culturally possible. The Comanche did attack some pretty major settlements as part of very large armies, but these attacks were part of attempts to push the whites out of their land. Much of the parts of northern Mexico that they raided were outside of their home territory already, so going down to Mexico City would be a stretch for them.

But not too much of a stretch. Their southernmost reach isn't too far away from Mexico City but I do agree with you.

In addition, the existence of Mexican traders specialized in trading with the Comanche may have made them reluctant to attack Mexico, as they would be attacking parties that they relied on for supplies and luxury goods. The Comanche had it in for the Texans more than the Mexicans, whereas the Chiricahua Apaches had a vendetta going on with the Mexicans due to the fact that their children were targets of Mexican slave raids.

A Mexico which keeps Texas and pisses off the Comanche enough may end up facing this attack-possibly with an alliance of the Comanche, Chiricahua and other tribes who felt wronged by the Mexicans. I don't think Mexico city would be sacked, but an attack of that scale from that culture would definitely go down as a "Hannibal crossing the Alps" moment in Mexican history.

It's an idea that I can see othyrsyde exploring when she's done with her current alt-history project. What do you think might happen as a consequence of a pan-Indian campaign against Mexico's government?

 

[twovultures]

It's an idea that I can see othyrsyde exploring when she's done with her current alt-history project. What do you think might happen as a consequence of a pan-Indian campaign against Mexico's government?

Hmmm...well, in the scenario I proposed it depends on how this Alt-Hist Mexican government managed to hold on to the southwest. If their military is in shape and they crushed attempted revolts/frightened off the States from invasion, I can see them marching northward for reprisals. Of course, finding the Indians to reprise against will be hard, and I can see local rebellions being sparked by frustrated Mexican soldiers attacking peaceful tribes and even settler communities seen as being in league with the Indians (this may be exacerbated by a presence of Anglo settlers that the central Mexican government may not consider trustworthy).

If Mexico has held on to the southwest just by not pissing off the settlers there, this could be a trigger for secession. Even though the Anglo and Tejano settlers may harbor no animosity to the Mexican government, that a horde of Indians managed to move so far into Mexico's metropole may make them decide that the Mexican government can't protect them and that they should strike out on their own.

Like I said, this would be a Hannibal Crossing the Alps moment for Mexico. It's an event that I think would burn itself into folk memory, becoming a common motif in songs, artwork, and literature for quite a while. The event would probably become inflated, with 2000 braves becoming 10,000 in the retellings and the myth possibly becoming an accepted part of popular history.

 

[Malta]

A Cinco de Mayo type of importance in Mexican history?

 

[twovultures]

A Cinco de Mayo type of importance in Mexican history?

The day is celebrated using pinatas depicting a warrior on horseback. People emulate the Comanches by roasting meat outdoors, and children dress up as Indians and 'raid' the neighbors by asking for sweets.

Not very PC, but sounds like fun time TBH.

 

[Plumber]

A Cinco de Mayo type of importance in Mexican history?

So, not really important except in the United States?

 

[katchen]

But not too much of a stretch. Their southernmost reach isn't too far away from Mexico City but I do agree with you.



It's an idea that I can see othyrsyde exploring when she's done with her current alt-history project. What do you think might happen as a consequence of a pan-Indian campaign against Mexico's government?

The Comanche were not stupid. They knew better than to attack their trading partners. The Americans now, particularly during the War of 1812.....now that's intriguing.
If the Comanches could have reached Mexico City, they could easily have reached New Orleans. Or St. Louis. Or Natchez. Or all three. In fact there is no reason why they could not have joined forces with Tecumseh. 2000 Comanche cavalry could have wiped out William Henry Harrison at Tippecanoe--and radically changed the course of the War of 1812 in the North. No invasion of Canada. Or evened the odds for the 800 Red Stick (Baton Rouge--where the city's name comes from) Creeks at Horseshoe Bend against Andrew Jackson, possibly even defeating "Old Hickory", especially if they are not expected. (WHO ARE THESE INJUNS??!!) No Battle of New Orleans, which by the way is a smoling ruin. Maybe the Comanche even sack Columbus GA or Atlanta before going home with hundreds of African-Americans in tow, some as slaves, some to be tortured, some as potential braves or wives.

 

[Wendell]

I'd think that were a raid like this to have happened, it would have left the indigenous popularion of Mexico in more dire straights than has been the case in our timeline.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

I'd think that were a raid like this to have happened, it would have left the indigenous popularion of Mexico in more dire straights than has been the case in our timeline.

Any severe reprisal against the entire indigenous population of Mexico would've probably caused more Indians to rouse up and spark rebellions like the Maya in the Yucatan, especially in the southern part of Mexico where they would have a clear majority. Easier said than done.

 

[Plumber]

Any severe reprisal against the entire indigenous population of Mexico would've probably caused more Indians to rouse up and spark rebellions like the Maya in the Yucatan, especially in the southern part of Mexico where they would have a clear majority. Easier said than done.

Nobody said the criollos had to win, right?

I should get to reading more of my books on the Comanche and Mexican history of the period. This POD really interests me, but I don't have enough knowledge to be of much help I'm afraid.

 

[Wendell]

Any severe reprisal against the entire indigenous population of Mexico would've probably caused more Indians to rouse up and spark rebellions like the Maya in the Yucatan, especially in the southern part of Mexico where they would have a clear majority. Easier said than done.

What year is this raid occurring?

 

[Westphalian]

What year is this raid occurring?

In the 1840s, probably.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

What year is this raid occurring?

Late 1830s to early 1840s, I'm not sure if it would mean much of a difference.

 

[Wendell]

Late 1830s to early 1840s, I'm not sure if it would mean much of a difference.

I ask because revolts in southern Mexico weren't successful at this point in history, and I see not how this raid would change that.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Raids went as far south as Jalisco and Querétaro. I don't think it's implausible for a much larger raiding party, say around 1500-2000 braves make an attempt to raid and attack Mexico City itself.

It shouldn't be much of a stretch to ATTEMPT to take Mexico City.

The Comanche could field about 2,000 fighters if they mustered every fighting man in every Comanche band. (That right there is highly implausible; the Comanche never had a supreme authority which could command all of them. That sort of political unity is very rare among nomadic savages.) Mexico fielded 4,000 men at Resaca de la Palma, 7,000 men at Monterrey, 16,000 men at Buena Vista, and so on. The Comanche were not suicidal.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

That sort of political unity is very rare among nomadic savages.)

Savages? I prefer to call them the finest light cavalry ever seen in N. America. Also, muy serio badasses.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

I ask because revolts in southern Mexico weren't successful at this point in history, and I see not how this raid would change that.

Because you talk of the Mexican government going on a revanchist crusade against all indigenous because of a group of nomads outside of their control attacking.

The Comanche could field about 2,000 fighters if they mustered every fighting man in every Comanche band. (That right there is highly implausible; the Comanche never had a supreme authority which could command all of them. That sort of political unity is very rare among nomadic savages.) Mexico fielded 4,000 men at Resaca de la Palma, 7,000 men at Monterrey, 16,000 men at Buena Vista, and so on. The Comanche were not suicidal.

In a forum where you have a timeline with the Byzantine Empire surviving and thriving at 1453 (well beyond plausibility) and another timeline where you have a successful Confederacy, it seems odd that there's this doubt for the Comanche to pull together that many men. I did not say that they needed to be united nor did they have to succeed. Hence the word attempt. The Comanche have to be suicidal if they have already raided successfully as far south as Jalisco. I don't know about you but the risk of facing thousands of Mexican troops while you're deep in Mexican territory.

But whatever, what can you expect from "nomadic savages"? I'm not asking for a Comanche Genghis Khan to conquer all of Mexico and rule it, just for a raid on the Mexican capital itself. It could fail miserably but it's just the question of the attempt itself.

 

[St. Just]

I think the Byzantophilia and Confederate survival speak to the uneven application of proper doubt on this forum. A raid on Mexico City could be attempted, but it would probably have to be much earlier (a good 70 years, during the colonial period) and during a time of great upheaval. Perhaps the Apache could do it. This thread has given me ideas for my own (future) TL...