WI: A Comanche Genghis Khan

[Indicus]

The Comanche are a native group in northern Texas and Oklahoma in territory known as Comancheria, but at their peak, their reach was far larger. At their peak in the 1840s and 50s, they raided south of the Rio Grande and sacked cities in northern Mexico, going as far as Tepic in 1852. However, they suffered from a number of diseases in later decades, and collapsed.

It seems to me like while they were able to reach quite far, they were too disunited to really gain territory. They were missing a unifying figure to turn them into an imperial force that could not just raid but conquer territories. Someone like Genghis Khan or Kamehameha, if you will. They seem to have had contact with imperial government from Spain, so I don't think it's unreasonable they form an empire. So, what if the Comanche had a unifying figure and became an empire?

 

[Sicarius]

An issue here is that the Comanches have absolutely no tradition of government, really in any sense, and didn't grasp the concept all that firmly. They would make treaties with one Mexican town and raid the next, etc. Comanche tribes functioned more like large families (although they were not, and happily adopted captives and 'foreigners') bound by social mores rather than decrees of a chief or council. The only real organizational unit was the war band, which was quite fluid and depended solely on man-to-man alliances rather than any 'right' to rule. While they were exposed to the Spanish Empire and its Mexican successor states, the tiny, completely helpless towns and weak missions only inspired disgust and amusement.

What did kinda-sorta-almost unite the Comanches was their impending doom. Kwihnai Tosabitʉ / Isatai'i pulled all the tribes together in 1873/4 in a messianic jihad against the whites, and particularly the buffalo hunters who were visibly extinguishing the Comanche's way of life. It went very poorly and more or less fell apart after the first battle, where less than 30 Anglos defeated over 700 Indians. And this cuts to another obstacle to a true Comancheria Empire, the belief in magic and 'medicine'. Kwihnai Tosabitʉ promised that his medicine would stop bullets - it clearly did not, and morale collapsed almost instantly. And this wasn't an unfamiliar scenario for the Anglos. The Comanches weren't cowards in any sense, but in their conception of the world as soon as things started going against you, it was a sign your magic was broken and it was time to beat it.

What does this mean for Comancheria? I think that the Comanche Genghis Khan needs to be a Comanche Mohammad. Someone who can claim religious authority, circumventing the troublesome questions of personal/political authority, and still lead the tribes in war. Maybe a way to get here is make the Spanish more successful in North America. Under real and visible threat, the Comanches come together in, say, the late 18th century the way they did OTL in 1873. The offensive against the Spanish doesn't collapse immediately the way things happened OTL at Adobe Walls, bolstering the authority of this early Kwihnai Tosabitʉ / Quanah Parker hybrid. Then, suddenly, as if by magic - the Spanish disappear. Sure, we know it's because of impossibly distant, strange European affairs, as the Spanish presence throughout the Americas collapses in the Revolutionary-Napoleonic era. But the Comanches don't, and the prestige of the Leader is immense. The previously successful Spanish have founded small towns well within Comanche territory, and these towns are now utterly defenseless. Maybe a system of tribute is what settles in rather than total extermination, and the newly unified Comanches gain a taste for ruling over urbanized populations...

 

[DominusNovus]

Seems to me that any such leader would draw the, ahem, interest of the industrialized sedentary populations pretty quickly, negating his existence in both the immediate and historical sense of the verb.

 

[Arkenfolm]

What does this mean for Comancheria? I think that the Comanche Genghis Khan needs to be a Comanche Mohammad. Someone who can claim religious authority, circumventing the troublesome questions of personal/political authority, and still lead the tribes in war. Maybe a way to get here is make the Spanish more successful in North America. Under real and visible threat, the Comanches come together in, say, the late 18th century the way they did OTL in 1873. The offensive against the Spanish doesn't collapse immediately the way things happened OTL at Adobe Walls, bolstering the authority of this early Kwihnai Tosabitʉ / Quanah Parker hybrid. Then, suddenly, as if by magic - the Spanish disappear. Sure, we know it's because of impossibly distant, strange European affairs, as the Spanish presence throughout the Americas collapses in the Revolutionary-Napoleonic era. But the Comanches don't, and the prestige of the Leader is immense. The previously successful Spanish have founded small towns well within Comanche territory, and these towns are now utterly defenseless. Maybe a system of tribute is what settles in rather than total extermination, and the newly unified Comanches gain a taste for ruling over urbanized populations...

That's a clever way around the inherent issues of having a "khan" in a society with no central authority. But how would you really slot that in with their religious system? And then what happens when this brilliant man dies? What makes the Comanche want to follow his successor?

And then you'd need a reform of Comanche society too to make them even more threatening. More cattle, more sheep, more eating horses, less reliance on bison.

And the Spanish towns at the fringes of Comancheria tended to be "milked" through periodic raids for whatever they could get out of it, rather than destroyed. So by that reasoning, I don't think they'd so much destroy any Spanish town as they would treat them like settled villages of certain peoples. Get stuff out of them, basically, and make them know who's in charge.

Seems to me that any such leader would draw the, ahem, interest of the industrialized sedentary populations pretty quickly, negating his existence in both the immediate and historical sense of the verb.

The good part for the Comanche is that none existed anywhere near their territory until the 1850s, and then said power decided to go turn its industrial might on itself for 4 years.

 

[alaric]

The mongols had battle technique and weapons congruent to their times.They were fast learners.In comparison, the comanches were still quite rigid( even though some guns were adopted).
There were leaders but leading a group of people resistant to change would have not been successful.

 

[Avrorrange]

The Comanche are a native group in northern Texas and Oklahoma in territory known as Comancheria, but at their peak, their reach was far larger. At their peak in the 1840s and 50s, they raided south of the Rio Grande and sacked cities in northern Mexico, going as far as Tepic in 1852. However, they suffered from a number of diseases in later decades, and collapsed.

It seems to me like while they were able to reach quite far, they were too disunited to really gain territory. They were missing a unifying figure to turn them into an imperial force that could not just raid but conquer territories. Someone like Genghis Khan or Kamehameha, if you will. They seem to have had contact with imperial government from Spain, so I don't think it's unreasonable they form an empire. So, what if the Comanche had a unifying figure and became an empire?

By that period,any empire needs to be backed an industry.

 

[Nabongo Mumia II]

That's a clever way around the inherent issues of having a "khan" in a society with no central authority. But how would you really slot that in with their religious system? And then what happens when this brilliant man dies? What makes the Comanche want to follow his successor?

And then you'd need a reform of Comanche society too to make them even more threatening. More cattle, more sheep, more eating horses, less reliance on bison.

And the Spanish towns at the fringes of Comancheria tended to be "milked" through periodic raids for whatever they could get out of it, rather than destroyed. So by that reasoning, I don't think they'd so much destroy any Spanish town as they would treat them like settled villages of certain peoples. Get stuff out of them, basically, and make them know who's in charge.



The good part for the Comanche is that none existed anywhere near their territory until the 1850s, and then said power decided to go turn its industrial might on itself for 4 years.

So do you mean the Comanche could be more powerful if they became sedentary?

 

[Skallagrim]

The mongols had battle technique and weapons congruent to their times.They were fast learners.In comparison, the comanches were still quite rigid( even though some guns were adopted).
There were leaders but leading a group of people resistant to change would have not been successful.

The comparison of a Mohammed being needed rather than a Genghis Khan again strike true, here, though. The Arabian peninsula had not been united, nor had it produced a great conquering empire, before the rise of this one man. A figure with the right abilities, by chance born at just the right time, can make a vast difference.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

The comparison of a Mohammed being needed rather than a Genghis Khan again strike true, here, though. The Arabian peninsula had not been united, nor had it produced a great conquering empire, before the rise of this one man. A figure with the right abilities, by chance born at just the right time, can make a vast difference.

But the Arabs had a tradition of strong chieftains and powerful lineages (the Lakhmids, the kingdoms of the south--indeed, the Quraysh themselves) and a vague sense of Arab-ness. Muhammad built on this legacy of hierarchy and conquest.

The Comanches were extremely egalitarian and extremely loosely organized, which is what distinguishes them from the northern Plains people like the Sioux or the Cheyenne. The Comanche chiefs had far less compulsive authority than Sioux or Pawnee leaders; from the beginning the Spaniards noted that warriors followed their chief "only when they wish," and as late as the 1820s it is noted that chiefs had "impotent authority." They had no semblance of anything like the warrior societies of the Sioux or Cheyenne, which had important policing functions that could have evolved into something more. They had no wide-ranging ceremonies that united a vast number of scattered bands; consider how the Sioux, by contrast, had their sun dances which provided a sense of unity.

Furthermore, the Muhammad example doesn't really work. Muhammad rose in a context of an Arabia split between numerous competing religions, which the Comanche do not have. Nor is Isatai good evidence for the plausibility of a Comanche Muhammad; Isatai was a millenarist prophet like Wovoka; he appealed precisely because the Comanche world was falling apart. Isatai could not have appeared any earlier.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

That's a clever way around the inherent issues of having a "khan" in a society with no central authority. But how would you really slot that in with their religious system? And then what happens when this brilliant man dies? What makes the Comanche want to follow his successor?

Given that the proposed POD already involves the Spanish doing better, perhaps their missionaries also do better. Adopting Catholicism does cut down the rule of cool factor a Comanche Empire would have, but it does come with Jesuit technocrats and a way to legitimize a monarchy.

 

[Byzantion]

Given that the proposed POD already involves the Spanish doing better, perhaps their missionaries also do better. Adopting Catholicism does cut down the rule of cool factor a Comanche Empire would have, but it does come with Jesuit technocrats and a way to legitimize a monarchy.

The Spanish doing better would also mean a more guarded Texas ? On the other hand only the new settlers from the Anglo-Saxon sphere had the ultimative edge against the Comanche eventually. Both must be avoided to enable the Comanche Empire rising. Maybe only missionaries. Maybe an "Ghost Dance" like Nationalism or a new Monotheist approach ( like the Tecumseh religion).

 

[Indicus]

Given that the proposed POD already involves the Spanish doing better, perhaps their missionaries also do better. Adopting Catholicism does cut down the rule of cool factor a Comanche Empire would have, but it does come with Jesuit technocrats and a way to legitimize a monarchy.

Or, alternatively, there could be a syncretic cult between Christianity and Comanche religion.