Talk:Comanche history

message: This page has a lot of references to Comanche raids, but there is never an explanation of what a raid would actually entail.  The resulting history is a bit dry and doesn't provide much insight as to why the Comanche were viewed differently from other Indian groups (or mere horse thiefs, in terms of raiding).  108.207.5.136 (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comanche Raids 

message: It seems that certain portions of the history are mixed together. They should be in a more chronological order. 206.131.28.251 16:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this page be cleaned up? 

message: 1) "Among the New Mexico Comanche, the main opposition to peace was a parabio named White Bull (Toro Blanco)."
Could somebody clarify "parabio", because some idiots probably have no idea what this word means. Like me, for example.
2) "One of the things that had attracted them south was trade: first with the Spanish in New Mexico, and then with the Americans."
"Americans", indeed.... we all know what's intended here, but just to be pedantic, the Comanche, Apache, Ute, Lakota, Cheyenne, Arikara, Pawnee, Kansa, Osage, Kiowa and Arapaho, all previously mentioned here, were and are "Americans". I think the word needs replacing with something a bit more specific. I'm not sure what, though.... TheMadBaron 23:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two little words.... 

message: "Forming a part of the Eastern Shoshone linguistic group in southeastern Wyoming who moved on to the buffalo Plains glottochonologically about 1500, proto-Comanche groups split off and moved south some time before 1700 AD to take advantage of the increased buffalo herds allowed by the Little Ice Age. That move may bave been inspired as much by the desire for Spanish horses released by the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 as by pressures from other groups drawn to the Plains by the changing environment."
This doesn't make much sense. They moved onto the Plains to chase buffalo that would become more numerous 150 years in the future? Or to get horses 180 years in the future? And wouldn't buffalo become less numerous, noot more, because of harsher winters? Rmhermen (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a bit confused, yes. I reworded and sourced. It was a group of Shoshones, which included the future Comanche, that moved to the plains around 1500. Then the proto-Comanche split from this group around 1700 and moved south. The first migration was (probably) about bison, the second about horses (among other factors). As for the bison, apparently the era preceding the Little Ice Age meant long-term drought, poor grass, dwindling bison herds, while the Little Ice Age brought more rain, causing the grasslands to thrive and the bison herds to recover and become very numerous. Pfly (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening a mess

message: This book modifies or disagrees with much that is written in this article. For instance in the section 1700-1750 From here they fought not only with the Spanish, Ute and Apache, but with most of the tribes of the central plains. But Hamalainen says (p24)...the Utes and Comanches formed by the early years of the 18th century a long standing military and political alliance that remained ... until the mid 18th century. Also that they raided Navajo, Pawnee and mainly Apache for slaves to trade to the Spanish in New Mexico. Someone versed in Comanche history should compare the book to this article and make changes when appropriate. Hamalainen seems to know what he is writing about but I am no expert. Nitpyck (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pekka Hamalainen's Comanche Empire  

message: It is noted that the word "anglo" is used in this article, a term offensive to some, a term employing the short a sound at its start, which itself has negative connotations (like the sound one makes when someone steps on one's foot).  Does the article imply that these settles were primarily descendants of the Angles, as opposed to Saxons, Normans, Bretons, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Prussians, Bavarians, Austrians, French, northern europeans?  Does it exclude southern Europeans, e.g. Italians?  Probably the more correct expression would be "persons of northern European descent."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacePeace (talk • contribs) 20:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anglo" is the term used in much relevant historical literature for non-Indians in the United States.  It refers to the primary ethnicity of the white conquerors of the Native population.  It is widely used and understood.  Your comment seems to imply that you don't know much about either this area or this era of history.  --Taivo (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting discussion. I am an Anglo and take no offense to use of the term. Please look up the Wikipedia page. Anglos are English speakers, as opposed to Spanish or Navajo or Mohawk speakers. There were other non-Anglo/non-Native conquerors of "the Native populations" of North America. Most notably those who spoke French and Spanish.  Minor conquerors might include the Dutch and Russians.  If we want to look at the grains of sand, to call Anglos "white" is also not entirely accurate.  Buffalo Soldiers certainly had a hand in "conquering" the Apache and perhaps subduing the Comanche. They spoke English, not Spanish. In at least the context of the Comanche there were two non-Native groups that were in the conflict: Anglos and Hispanics. While they have their points, I do not agree completely with either  PeacePeace or Taivo. Rcollman (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Comanche "recognized" three distinct populations of non-Indians surrounding them.  1) The New Mexicans.  They maintained peaceful relations with the New Mexicans, who were Hispanic and Indian, for the purpose of trade.  2) The Mexicans.  The Comanche raided northern Mexico for horses and would sometimes live for extended periods of time in the northern provinces of Mexico on long raids.  The Mexicans, however, posed no existential threat to the Comanche since they were not trying to drive the Comanche out of west Texas.  3) The Anglos.  These were the overwhelmingly white Texan settlers who were forcefully trying to drive the Comanche off their land for the purpose of settling white Americans/Texans on the land.  The small number of non-Anglos mixed in were inconsequential in terms of labelling the flood of white settlers as "Anglo".  --Taivo (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank you  Taivo!  I see the divisions you are talking about, especially in the context of the mid 1800s. You also correctly point out that at any point in history, different Hispanics settlements might have different attitudes. Commanches historically recognized these differences.  Brugge researched NM church records between 1694-1875.  His primary (and mine general) interest is with the Navajo.  However he talks about other tribes and the Comanche. "The only other tribe which can claim notable success in its attacks on New Mexico is the Comanche, with 168, probably more than any Apachean tribe except the Navajo." 111 of these took place in just the 1770 decade. After 1880, Brugge also agrees with your NM & TX statements.  Rcollman (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I also confess my ignorance and apologize. I completely forgot about forced migrations of "Eastern" tribes.  Specifically that a tribal group in Delaware end up being used by the Mexicans in Texas against the Anglos. I should know better.  Some learn by our mistakes and hasty conclusions. Rcollman (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "anglo" be removed from the article? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion