Wild West Unconquered

Could we get a situation where the European colonists from the Wild West turn into Mongol style horse nomads and prevent anyone else from exerting their influence over the Great Plains?

I was thinking of a Zomia type situation. People leave the areas in the northernmost Reaches of North America (OTL Canada) and the land east of the Mississippi River to escape taxation, conscription, oppressive rule or for opportunity etc. This leads to small bandit gangs forming which grow in power until large Golden Horde-esque tribes develop, rich off the trade between the east and west coasts (colonization worked out way different in this timeline).

The societies of Central Asia seemed to be able to maintain metal equipment and their armour despite being horse nomads. Perhaps these Central Plains hordes will be able to maintain reasonably advanced equipment for their time too (roughly 1700 onwards).

They could have metal working equipment that they take with them when they move camp. Small sedentary communities in the area would be forced to pay tribute to them and provide whatever the hordes cannot manufacture, similar to the Tarim basin societies and the Xianbei. They turn the area into an extremely hard to conquer area due to the horde's camps being mobile, "living in the saddle" and the large amounts of cavalry they can bring to bear against their neighbours.

How far would the hordes be able to get in the timeline before these horse nomads are unable to defend their land from their sedentary neighbours? Currently I've got them getting to 1800 before their northern neighbour takes over.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure white settlers turning into Mongol style nomads is super likely, but of course not impossible. The life styles are just very different and the transition from white settlers to horse nomads is pretty difficult. Plus the skill at horse riding required to become a steppe empire probably takes generations to develop, and in the meantime they would be at danger by surrounding Native American peoples who were already more advanced at it.

I think a better case of pretty much exactly the scenario you are describing are the OTL Comanche. They remained an immensely powerful force in the West well into the 19th century. Check out The Comanche Empire by Pekka Hämäläinen if you haven't already. The only issue is their vulnerability to Eurasian diseases. But in a timeline where colonization etc. develop a bit differently they could remain powerful even longer.
 
Further if there’s already a colonial power on the other side of the continent, there’s less of an idea that you need to extend from sea to shining sea and control everything in between. Perhaps that leads to greater political will for a buffer state along the plains?
 
Or just have the mongols reach north America. Maybe following a successful invasion of Japan the "island hop" across the Bering straits
 
Why would the western settlers not want to be part of a Euroamerican style country? Trying to quit your previous lifestyle to be a steppe nomad is very culturally alien. It also cuts them off from markets in the east. Given the choice between loyal farmers and these Cossack types, it's a no brainer they're going to get taken down as little better than Indians, who speaking of which, would likely smash this group in their infancy as competitors since they can expect no government protection for what amounts to a tax rebellion.
Or just have the mongols reach north America. Maybe following a successful invasion of Japan the "island hop" across the Bering straits
The nearest steppe nomad country to there is thousands of kilometers south across two mountain ranges in the Columbia Plateau, so certainly not very likely. And it's likely there aren't many Mongols there to begin with, it would all be Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese.
 
Taking @InMediasRes idea of the Comanches and combining it with @Madhav Deval idea of another colonial power on the west coast, a scenario develops where Comanches and other indigenous tribes are funded from the western colonial power who shows no indication of expanding east of the West Coast Mountain Range (does not includes the Rockies for this discussion). This western colonial power provides real material support to the horse riding tribes allowing them to hold their own against the U.S. Calvary. The flaw in this scenario would be what @InMediasRes mentioned regarding the impact of disease.
 
@InMediasRes, that sounds like an interesting book. Definitely going to look into that one.

@InMediasRes, @steelbrok and @metalinvader665 that sounds like a valid point it would be a pretty big change. I like the idea of the American Indians though. Makes for a more interesting North America.

As @Madhav Deval, @steelbrok and @Musadutoe mentioned, these central states could be a buffer state between the other powers. That would definitely make them a formidable power and could significantly limit the European presence on the central plains.

@InMediasRes and @Musadutoe, perhaps a timeline where another culture introduces diseases to them and does not invade the North American continent might work for dealing with the disease issue?

@steelbrok, funny you should say that idea about the Mongols. Had an idea for this timeline where one of the powers bordering the great plains pays for and provides transportation for nomadic horse tribes neighbouring their territory in other continents to relocate to the great plains. This was to disrupt the other powers that had started to expand onto the Great Plains and to support their own troops and during the war effort.

As for why I initially had the settlers going west in my original draft I initially had a cycle of devastating wars cripple Europe after an earlier colonization had happened. It was kind of how WW2 followed on from WW1 and if it wasn't for the advent of nuclear weaponry it looked like WW3 was on the horizon OTL. Many never returned from being conscripted to fight in the wars, taxes on most people were cripplingly high to pay for the wars and religious persecution was rife (there were constant Spanish Inquisition level events sweeping across most of the European sphere of influence). Due to damaged or neglected infrastructure disease was rampant. Initially those who wanted to escape the population centres in the East and West North American coast fled and set up settlements in the Great Plains. The main powers in the region then expanded towards them and brought them back under their control, in some cases forcing them to relocate back to the areas where the powers could more easily police them.

Eventually the settlers, having had to abandon several settlements stopped building new ones and just stayed in the saddle, expecting the regional powers to come after them again and forcing them to relocate.

The American Indian idea is good too. Do you think that the American Indian tribes would perhaps accept such refugees into their ranks with whatever resources and knowledge they brought with them? This could perhaps give us a much stronger American Indian presence.
 
Last edited:
Taking @InMediasRes idea of the Comanches and combining it with @Madhav Deval idea of another colonial power on the west coast, a scenario develops where Comanches and other indigenous tribes are funded from the western colonial power who shows no indication of expanding east of the West Coast Mountain Range (does not includes the Rockies for this discussion). This western colonial power provides real material support to the horse riding tribes allowing them to hold their own against the U.S. Calvary. The flaw in this scenario would be what @InMediasRes mentioned regarding the impact of disease.
Not just disease but starvation too. Having vast numbers of horses (combined with all the feral mustangs) reduces the amount of bison through competition over resources, and horseflesh was taboo amongst many groups. They'd have to switch to rustling cattle (which they did, but rather late i.e. 1860s IIRC) and raising them instead, which puts them in much stiffer competition with outsiders, and also leaves them even more vulnerable to environmental destruction, since cattle compete with bison as well and are very vulnerable to cold.

However, trading Mongol horses to the Plains Indians instead of Iberian horses would be interesting since they're much more fit for the climate of the Plains. It would cut down on warfare over horse theft since northern Plains Indians needed to "replenish" their stock of horses every spring, and if they couldn't trade for them, they'd just steal them. Although since you'd have groups ejected from the Columbia Plateau meeting groups ejected from the eastern woodlands you'd probably make up for things in terms of conflict.
As for why I initially had the settlers going west in my original draft I initially had a cycle of devastating wars cripple Europe after an earlier colonization had happened. It was kind of how WW2 followed on from WW1 and if it wasn't for the advent of nuclear weaponry it looked like WW3 was on the horizon OTL. Many never returned from being conscripted to fight in the wars, taxes on most people were cripplingly high to pay for the wars and religious persecution was rife (there were constant Spanish Inquisition level events sweeping across most of the European sphere of influence). Due to damaged or neglected infrastructure disease was rampant. Initially those who wanted to escape the population centres in the East and West North American coast fled and set up settlements in the Great Plains. The main powers in the region then expanded towards them and brought them back under their control, in some cases forcing them to relocate back to the areas where the powers could more easily police them.
Problem is if they're strong enough to resist control and Europe is such a mess, why wouldn't they just declare independence Latin America style? High taxes and dislike of conscription isn't limited to frontiersmen after all. Why wouldn't they make common cause with the urban middle class and usurp power away from the European colonialists? Fighting wars against rebellious settlers is expensive for everyone and more directly affects the people on the coast than wars in Europe.
Eventually the settlers, having had to abandon several settlements stopped building new ones and just stayed in the saddle, expecting the regional powers to come after them again and forcing them to relocate.
This really does sound more like the Cossacks then anything else, but I don't think they'd be totally rebellious but instead be subject to various laws and treaties to keep their nominal allegiance, while in return they'd no doubt ge some good incentives.
 
What're the proposed name(s) for these frontier nomads, @Matti23?
Problem is if they're strong enough to resist control and Europe is such a mess, why wouldn't they just declare independence Latin America style? High taxes and dislike of conscription isn't limited to frontiersmen after all. Why wouldn't they make common cause with the urban middle class and usurp power away from the European colonialists? Fighting wars against rebellious settlers is expensive for everyone and more directly affects the people on the coast than wars in Europe.
Perhaps they develop into a semi-seperate culture even before the switch to becoming horse nomads? If the frontier settlers don't trust said urban middle-class to aid their interests, whether due to cultural differences or the different interests of those groups (after all, the urban settlers could still try and conquer the frontier post-independence; whether or not they actually would is irrelevant, the possibility would undoubtedly influence frontier settlers' viewpoints).
 
@245 yeah. Everything but made a bit more epic. Not just bandits roaming but giant hordes. Not just some American Indians here and there but viable and formidable factions and so on.

@metalinvader665, fair point on the starvation thing. Instead of cattle rustling could we see them bringing herds of cattle along with their wandering camp like the Mongols? They might buy/steal the initial stock from the surrounding nations.

The American Indians hunted and ate the horse population of North America (the origin point of the horse) to extinction in the past. Could we get the horse eating taboo changed? Perhaps when they realize that the Bison stocks are being affected they start a tradition of eating all the wild horses they find in order to protect their environment and the Bison herd, taming what few horses are uneaten to grow their domestic herd? Because there is a permanent presence of domesticated horses the escapees and their descendants will provide the occasional source of new horses until the wild stocks are eaten into oblivion again. This source of horses could be supplemented by bred/purchased/stolen horses from the surrounding nations.

Good point about horses not being as good with the Great Plains weather as Bisons but the Mongolian breeds seem to be a good option. Now I'm getting the mental image of Bison Cavalry :)

Might the lack of replenishment sources for their horses be an incentive to unify the tribes? If fighting isn't as viable due to a lack of horses and threats are ever present does this leave them disunified or drive them together?

Conflict with the groups being driven out of the coasts sounds like an interesting scenario.

In my initial draft the coasts do eventually declare independence. It is just that different groups experience different amounts of pressure from the powers dominating the coasts. Religious minorities or the very poorest feel the pressure the most and leave quite a while before the main bulk of the coastal population begins their own revolt. The main powers also try to maintain control of their colonies by blaming the weakest and most powerless members of society for the situation, deflecting the anger away from the central government onto those groups, further pushing them away.

The urban middle class eventually do have a Latin style revolution but unfortunately by that point the hatred of the groups driven onto the Great Plains is ingrained into their minds and the newly independent states continue their assaults against the people of the Great Plains as they continue to blame them for their problems (in between copping a flogging from the European powers in their unsuccessful efforts to take their colonies back)

Fighting rebellious settlers does deeply affect the coastal population and leads to the rebellion spreading rapidly across both coasts.

I suppose that this does sound like the Cossacks. Good catch there. I like the idea of them trying to exert indirect control over them. Kind of like China and the Central Asian horse nomads.

Could we get the dynamic where they alternate between being aligned with a particularly powerful neighbour, then being a threatening prescence during times when either their neighbours are weak or the Great Plains communities have a period of strength and unity? How does the coastal people blaming the Great Plains people for their problems factor into this?

@Lord High Executioner, yep kind of like Spain and Mexico. They start under the control of Spain, then a variety of nations that declared independence from the European powers. These are the Auregian Empire (based in a Central America that managed to unify successfully post independence), Terran Commonwealth (Capital in Northern Australia then the South East) and Cesairitic Empire (Capital in North Eastern Australia). Colonisation in Australia has turned out a bit differently.

Ethnically the region has significant populations of American Indians, Iberian peoples, Northern Europeans, North Asians and Africans (quite a few people flock here to escape oppression or disasters elsewhere)

@Madhav Deval, that sounds good. Works pretty well for the timeline.

@52cardsshortofadeck, some the names of the tribes in the Great Plains in my timeline are The Children of Solomon, Greater Louisianna, Elamitic Collective and Ephraimitic Legion. A few American Indian ones include the Western Mississippian Confederation, a migrating splinter group of the Iroquois, Cahokian league, Arapaho, Blackfoot, Hidatsa, Sarcee and Ponca.

As something similar is happening in other regions of the world we get tribes such as the Followers of the Broken Hill, Lagash and Cania imported to the region from Australia by the powers on the West Coast.

I like the idea of the frontier settlers becoming a semi-separate culture prior to becoming horse nomads. It links nicely with the initial motivation for them moving and the government's turning the anger of their people against the frontier settlers. Something like that could leave a bad impression and result in continued paranoia between the coast and those who went to the Great Plains.
 
Last edited:
I skimmed through this, but the Mongols themselves were conquered once the Russians and Chinese got enough gunpowder, and enough peasants. Nomads were doomed after gunpowder and after the Columbian Exchange boosted agricultural yields worldwide, let alone what the industrial revolution did, and American nomads like the Comanche and Apache probably fought against this as best as they could have been able to.
 
The American Indians hunted and ate the horse population of North America (the origin point of the horse) to extinction in the past. Could we get the horse eating taboo changed? Perhaps when they realize that the Bison stocks are being affected they start a tradition of eating all the wild horses they find in order to protect their environment and the Bison herd, taming what few horses are uneaten to grow their domestic herd? Because there is a permanent presence of domesticated horses the escapees and their descendants will provide the occasional source of new horses until the wild stocks are eaten into oblivion again. This source of horses could be supplemented by bred/purchased/stolen horses from the surrounding nations.

Good point about horses not being as good with the Great Plains weather as Bisons but the Mongolian breeds seem to be a good option. Now I'm getting the mental image of Bison Cavalry :)
Sounds like an interesting way to manage horse populations, at least. I doubt bisons could be used as cavalry, though that'd be nice to see...

Might the lack of replenishment sources for their horses be an incentive to unify the tribes? If fighting isn't as viable due to a lack of horses and threats are ever present does this leave them disunified or drive them together?
Unification would probably be the better option if you want to strengthen them, I'd presume.
Conflict with the groups being driven out of the coasts sounds like an interesting scenario.

In my initial draft the coasts do eventually declare independence. It is just that different groups experience different amounts of pressure from the powers dominating the coasts. Religious minorities or the very poorest feel the pressure the most and leave quite a while before the main bulk of the coastal population begins their own revolt. The main powers also try to maintain control of their colonies by blaming the weakest and most powerless members of society for the situation, deflecting the anger away from the central government onto those groups, further pushing them away.

The urban middle class eventually do have a Latin style revolution but unfortunately by that point the hatred of the groups driven onto the Great Plains is ingrained into their minds and the newly independent states continue their assaults against the people of the Great Plains as they continue to blame them for their problems (in between copping a flogging from the European powers in their unsuccessful efforts to take their colonies back)
Well it looks like the formation of the nomads will be interesting, as well as the resulting sociopolitical makeup. And given the alienation of the frontier settlers from the coast, I'm willing to bet even before they become nomads, the fighting between the fronteir settlers and the coastal then-colonies will be vicious...
Fighting rebellious settlers does deeply affect the coastal population and leads to the rebellion spreading rapidly across both coasts.
North and South America, or is there not much room for the nomads to expand west?
I suppose that this does sound like the Cossacks. Good catch there. I like the idea of them trying to exert indirect control over them. Kind of like China and the Central Asian horse nomads.

Could we get the dynamic where they alternate between being aligned with a particularly powerful neighbour, then being a threatening prescence during times when either their neighbours are weak or the Great Plains communities have a period of strength and unity? How does the coastal people blaming the Great Plains people for their problems factor into this?
If the coastal states don't unify, perhaps it leads to different coastal groups trying to use the Plains nomads against their enemies...(it'd be interesting to see if the nomads interfere in coastal conflicts independently because of this dynamic; "support the enemy of the coastal state that's fighting us the most to undermine them" sort of logic)
@52cardsshortofadeck, some the names of the tribes in the Great Plains in my timeline are The Children of Solomon, Greater Louisianna, Elamitic Collective and Ephraimitic Legion. A few American Indian ones include the Western Mississippian Confederation, a migrating splinter group of the Iroquois, Cahokian league, Arapaho, Blackfoot, Hidatsa, Sarcee and Ponca.
What would relations between the various nomads be like? There'd be clear motives for conflict based on "who's tributary is this", but on the other hand there'd be a motive to present a united front in the face of coastal threats.

Also, does Greater Louisianna hold any land in Louisianna, or did they just originate there? And do they speak French? And if they don't hold land in Louisianna, do they try and conquer it when the coastal states are weak?
I like the idea of the frontier settlers becoming a semi-separate culture prior to becoming horse nomads. It links nicely with the initial motivation for them moving and the government's turning the anger of their people against the frontier settlers. Something like that could leave a bad impression and result in continued paranoia between the coast and those who went to the Great Plains.
And of course, the conditions of the frontier plus nomadism would probably cause their culture to diverge even more...makes you want to imagine what cultural differences would develop after they become nomad.

If they do eventually "settle", I can imagine that nomadism might sort of continue, even if as a large minority as in Mongolia.
 
I'm not sure white settlers turning into Mongol style nomads is super likely, but of course not impossible. The life styles are just very different and the transition from white settlers to horse nomads is pretty difficult. Plus the skill at horse riding required to become a steppe empire probably takes generations to develop, and in the meantime they would be at danger by surrounding Native American peoples who were already more advanced at it.

I think a better case of pretty much exactly the scenario you are describing are the OTL Comanche. They remained an immensely powerful force in the West well into the 19th century. Check out The Comanche Empire by Pekka Hämäläinen if you haven't already. The only issue is their vulnerability to Eurasian diseases. But in a timeline where colonization etc. develop a bit differently they could remain powerful even longer.
A factor of the downfall of the Comache Empire I think was the arriving of more and more settlers with evolved firearms.
As for the question of European settlers turning into Mongol like horselords, I suggets something more akin to Cossacks ? Problem is, thar there would be no need for already free man to form such bands except for intendured servants or fugitive slaves.
 
Nomadic hordes fail once gunpowder is invented. Basically, a nomadic population has a lower number of people per unit area than a settled agricultural people. Now, when it's nomadic horse archers against peasants with spears, then the nomads win when outnumbered 10-1. But if both sides have guns, the settlers can take 2-3 losses per nomad, and still win.

So. No. Not believable after gunpowder arrives.
 
A factor of the downfall of the Comache Empire I think was the arriving of more and more settlers with evolved firearms.

The Comanche also were never even close to the level of power like that of the Mongols or the Huns. There was never a real chance of them marching on D.C. like the Mongols took Beijing. So once the U.S. got fed up with them the U.S. army crushed them and confined them to reservations.
 
Could we get a situation where the European colonists from the Wild West turn into Mongol style horse nomads and prevent anyone else from exerting their influence over the Great Plains?

I was thinking of a Zomia type situation. People leave the areas in the northernmost Reaches of North America (OTL Canada) and the land east of the Mississippi River to escape taxation, conscription, oppressive rule or for opportunity etc. This leads to small bandit gangs forming which grow in power until large Golden Horde-esque tribes develop, rich off the trade between the east and west coasts (colonization worked out way different in this timeline).

The societies of Central Asia seemed to be able to maintain metal equipment and their armour despite being horse nomads. Perhaps these Central Plains hordes will be able to maintain reasonably advanced equipment for their time too (roughly 1700 onwards).

They could have metal working equipment that they take with them when they move camp. Small sedentary communities in the area would be forced to pay tribute to them and provide whatever the hordes cannot manufacture, similar to the Tarim basin societies and the Xianbei. They turn the area into an extremely hard to conquer area due to the horde's camps being mobile, "living in the saddle" and the large amounts of cavalry they can bring to bear against their neighbours.

How far would the hordes be able to get in the timeline before these horse nomads are unable to defend their land from their sedentary neighbours? Currently I've got them getting to 1800 before their northern neighbour takes over.
You'd probably need a Boer-esque migration of people, otherwise the settlers will be inclined to plant their native flag and live under their native laws.

Perhaps the British ITTL are cruel enough to expel the Canadiens from OTL Quebec, and tens of thousands of Canadiens (the "Great Trek" of the Boers only involved 12,000 Afrikaners, and they were able to make a few viable states) are sent to Spanish Louisiana, where they and their native allies do their best to beat back all forms of anglo-american encroachment on the "Third Homeland".
 
The Boers immediately spring to mind. Quebec is conquered earlier and treated more harshly by the British but you'd still need France to be strong enough to keep the British-Americans occupied a while. Stronger in the Caribbean?
You could have something like an earlier and more southerly Riel Rebellion (which was itself not too successful).
 
Top