Savages? I prefer to call them the finest light cavalry ever seen in N. America. Also, muy serio badasses.![]()
All arguably true. They're still savages.
Savages? I prefer to call them the finest light cavalry ever seen in N. America. Also, muy serio badasses.![]()
All arguably true. They're still savages.
All arguably true. They're still savages.
Savages?All arguably true. They're still savages.
Seriously? I think that is a loaded term to call a people. It reeks of 19th C. racism.
Savages?
Really?
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?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche–Mexico_WarsIn 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?