Comanche attempt to capture Mexico City

Yeah, fairly loaded term, although raiding for slaves, captives cattle and horses in a number of disorganized and violent bands is fairly typical of what is historically considered to be "savage", as it is also applied to such white peoples as the Vikings and Germanic barbarians, along with the Celts, etc.

Latter day (as in Early Modern) use is much more racially tinged, since the term was used to justify colonial atrocities and violence on native peoples of a duskier variety, often through disproportionate response.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
All arguably true. They're still savages.
Savages?

Really?

I actually was going to let the first one go, figuring it was a bit of thoughtlessness. But you get called on it and you choose to defend it.

I actually considered Banning you, but you have a clean record for infraction before this bit of absolute stupidity, so let's try a kick.

You are kicked for a week for blatant racism. During this time you will be unable to post.

Seriously? I think that is a loaded term to call a people. It reeks of 19th C. racism.

Not just 19th Century.
 
Why would Comanche raid Mexico City. Not being sarcastic : there would need to be some reason, and the reason could predicate the probability. Loot? Revenge? Preservation of land or culture? Religion ? A chance for young braves to let off steam and make a name for themselves?
 
Why would Comanche raid Mexico City. Not being sarcastic : there would need to be some reason, and the reason could predicate the probability. Loot? Revenge? Preservation of land or culture? Religion ? A chance for young braves to let off steam and make a name for themselves?

Quite possibly a religious huckster who thinks that there's going to be a really great haul of loot in Mexico, and that there is some spiritual call for the Comanche to attack Mexico (I've previously stated why that's not likely, though).

Think of it as a Plains Indian equivalent to the Netherland's tulip bubble. People acting individually as rational economic actors (at least within their worldview) can become carried away into mass hysteria.
 
I could see it as a response to slave raids that balloons out of control during a time of great turmoil in Mexico. I suggest the late colonial period.
 
In the era of the great Commanche raids into Mexico -- the 1840s and 50s, they often raided deep into northern central Mexico.


In 1852, in perhaps the most far-ranging of all Comanche raids, they reached the Mexican state of Jalisco in the tropics near the Pacific Ocean, 600 miles from their usual crossing point of the Rio Grande, near Presidio, Texas and nearly 1,000 miles from their Great Plains homeland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche–Mexico_Wars

Mexico City, my friends, is but a wee bit further (about 150 mi.) and the terrain to get there, easier.
I first scoffed at the notion of a raid as far as the Capital, but with the above in mind, I think it could have been done. No special reason for them to do so other than the usual reason --- plunder and/or revenge.
 
I don't really see it as likely. The Comanche would be looking for soft and unprepared targets to raid. Their tactics revolved around traveling in stealth, and then suddenly appearing and attacking before reinforcements can arrive. So, an attack on Mexico City, likely to be the most fortified city in Mexico, seems unlikely, unless for some reason it was left mostly undefended. But the Comanches, unless they're defending their territory, would be unlikely to senselessly battle with Mexican troops while on a raiding mission, so unless there are virtually none stationed in Mexico City, I don't see a raid on it as likely.

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.

This isn't true, while the Comanche did raid Texan settlements, the majority of their raiding for horses and captives was on northern Mexican communities, which led to the partial depopulation of northern Mexico (from flight further south) that was mentioned at the start of the thread. Mexico was in such disarray at the time that troops couldn't be spared to guard the border, and the Comanche took advantage of that.
 
Sucrose, I should have indicated that raiding as opposed to capturing (the OPs POD) Mexico City was what I meant. Raiding the environs and not the city proper, would be more plausible.

I wonder how fortified the city was before the Mexican War?
 
I don't really see it as likely. The Comanche would be looking for soft and unprepared targets to raid. Their tactics revolved around traveling in stealth, and then suddenly appearing and attacking before reinforcements can arrive. So, an attack on Mexico City, likely to be the most fortified city in Mexico, seems unlikely, unless for some reason it was left mostly undefended. But the Comanches, unless they're defending their territory, would be unlikely to senselessly battle with Mexican troops while on a raiding mission, so unless there are virtually none stationed in Mexico City, I don't see a raid on it as likely.



This isn't true, while the Comanche did raid Texan settlements, the majority of their raiding for horses and captives was on northern Mexican communities, which led to the partial depopulation of northern Mexico (from flight further south) that was mentioned at the start of the thread. Mexico was in such disarray at the time that troops couldn't be spared to guard the border, and the Comanche took advantage of that.

Given Mexico's constant civil wars, I don't think it's out of the question for them to get lucky and find an opportunity to attack the capital while most of the garrison is off fighting rebels elsewhere, or has just been mauled by a rebel attack on the capital, or perhaps has just fallen to a rebel faction that endured heavy casualties to take the city.
 
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.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but are Mexico's indigenous not generally held in low regard in that country, and if not today, was this not true of the 1840's?
 
I
This isn't true, while the Comanche did raid Texan settlements, the majority of their raiding for horses and captives was on northern Mexican communities, which led to the partial depopulation of northern Mexico (from flight further south) that was mentioned at the start of the thread.

I did overstate my case. Nonetheless, I find it odd that the Comanche would put so much effort into attacking Mexico in such numbers (which would require a lot of organization for them), when that could harm the Comanchero trade. I stand by my statement that attacking Mexico city itself would require a trigger that would make them overlook the downside of potentially wiping out their source of wealth (astronomically unlikely to happen, but if they believed they could take on Mexico City they would believe that they were capable of that).

Wendell said:
Perhaps I am mistaken, but are Mexico's indigenous not generally held in low regard in that country, and if not today, was this not true of the 1840's?

Hurting Mayans and Nahua for the actions of the Comanche makes no sense, even from the perspective of a 19th-century Mexican racist. Not only are the Native Mexicans clearly 'friendly' to the state, providing labor and living as Catholics (mostly), but they would probably be among the victims of a Comanche raid. There's no reason to punish them for the actions of the Comanche.
 
Perhaps I am mistaken, but are Mexico's indigenous not generally held in low regard in that country, and if not today, was this not true of the 1840's?

Yeah, I'm aware. How does that translate into Mexican troops, some of them probably natives themselves, attacking fellow Mexicans just because the Comanche attacked?

So far you guys convinced me. How successful would a Comanche raid at Mexico City, or at least in the smaller towns along the Valley of Mexico during the late eighteenth century?
 
Yeah, I'm aware. How does that translate into Mexican troops, some of them probably natives themselves, attacking fellow Mexicans just because the Comanche attacked?

So far you guys convinced me. How successful would a Comanche raid at Mexico City, or at least in the smaller towns along the Valley of Mexico during the late eighteenth century?

In the late 18th C.? Not likely. Comanche/Spanish relations were pretty good then and the Comanche, with encouragement by the Spanish, were battling Apaches. There was a falling out in 1811 and once Mexico became independent, relations became worse. 1820s sound like the earliest the Comanche would be raiding ever deeper into Mexico and also synchs with when the Comanche were becoming their most formidable.
 
Top