The new book Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American Historyseems to be getting great reviews and is on the best seller lists. The Comanche are definitely an interesting tribe that went from poor scavengers to great hunters and warriors with the introduction of the horse. Most cruel tribe they win hands down. But I have a big problem with the subtitle of this book. Not saying they aren't a candidate for the most powerful tribe but even assuming when they say American they mean the US and you eliminate the Aztecs, Incas and Mayans are they still the most powerful tribe? The Sioux and Cherokee certainly could make a better case as could the Seminole and Mohawk. What does Texags think?

Trying to equate a tribe as the "most powerful" after the initial European diseases wiped out significant numbers of their population ignores pre European history and is folly. The author should have qualified the title better.

I take issue with the title anyway. If he is claiming greatest tribe in "America" then it should include both North and South America not just the US.

I would say the Cherokees at their height held more power than the Comanche.

Apaches should as least be included on the list:

Apaches
Commanches
ShoShones
Lakota
Cheyenne
Pawnee
Cherokee

add your selections

Is it just me, or are titles to history books getting longer every year?

bump

Where would the East coast tribes fit in? The Iroquois, Hurons, etc? They didn't have the technology the plains tribes had but gave the early settlers a run for their money.

Who has the biggest Casino.......

As far as size of culture and length of civilization the Pueblo probably out reach all of them.

I think the whole issue is defining "Power".
Militarily - yeah, the Comanche were up there. But I think the Sioux, Apache and some of the Eastern tribes like the Iroquois could also be argued for.

As for political power & influence - the Comanche didn't come close to what the Iroquois had with our government in the 17th & 18th Century.

I always thought the Hekawi tribe was the fiercest!!!

quote:

---

I always thought the Hekawi tribe was the fiercest!!!

---

That was a favorite show of mine, way-back-when ...



In more modern times, I've heard more than one person say that the Apaches who assist you onto the ski lift in Ruidoso are pretty darn powerful ...

[This message has been edited by BrazosBendHorn (edited 7/13/2010 7:27a).]

My argument against the Apache were they were victims of geography. They never had large numbers of people because they had to eke out a living in a God-forsaken part of the world. Tough definitely, powerful as a civilization, not so much. Pick them up and plop them down in upstate New York they might have kicked the Iroquois and Mohawk's butts.

Without the horse the Commanche would nevr had amounted to much more than a bunch of other Texas tribes that became "Christianized" when times were hard and left the missions to go native when the Texas bounty was plentiful.

quote:

---

the Hekawi

---

????? I thought they were the "Fuchawi." As in the band of four, Chief, Lieutenant, two scouts. The band/patrol would ride out into the country side, and the chief would halt the group, ride out a bit farther, signal to his Lt. to come forward, both would then scan the vista in front of them, look at each other and say..."where the fuchawi"

What about the Mohicans?

They could have been...if it hadn't been for that asshat Mogwai!

quote:

---

They didn't have the technology the plains tribes had

---

I assume you refer to the firearms that the plains tribes acquired by whatever means (trading, buying, stealing) ... but when you say "technology" I have this mental image of the plains horsemen galloping around with radio sets and anti-horse missiles ...

Bought it and just started reading it....seems really good...maybe it's because I agree so much with the writer.
PS...by the time of the whiteman, they were the most powerful. Other than those moved by the whiteman, all the other Plains Indians esp. those they weren't related to, lived where they lived because that's where the Commanchee drove them too.
It doesn't matter what they were before the horse, it only matters what they became.
James Michener siad it was one of the few times in history when a people reached their zenith and their demise at the same time.

[This message has been edited by NITESIDE (edited 7/14/2010 3:45p).]

[This message has been edited by NITESIDE (edited 7/14/2010 3:47p).]

What about the Mississippian culture that existed during Pre-Columbian times? The various mounds they created stretch right up the Mississippi River. The question would probably be how interrelated these groups were.

Where is a good source for population estimates of indians (native americans) at different points in history?

Also, the approximate geographic locations of the various tribes.

"1491" is a really great book about what the Americas were like before contact with Columbus.

Powerbiscuit:

Here is a link to two maps (second grouping of links) that show tribal locations in the US.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/histus.html

Information on tribal populations is all speculative. Starting in the late 19th century you get numbers on reservations and estimates of those off the reservation from the Bureau of Indian Affairs but those are speculative too for total population. We didn't have Obama to bring us hope, change and census workers en masse until the 21st century.

Choctaws

I saw a special on the Mayans and it showed their influence stretching all around the gulf coast, around Florida, up the east coast and into the Ohio valley (Mound builders). Apparantly Columbus reported sea-going canoes capable of carrying 100 people. Is this possible?

"Deadiest Warrior" says a Comanche beats a Mongol!

It seems tough to compare the eastern tribes to the western tribes because the eastern groups capitalized on colonial struggles and were able to ally with competing European powers.

I was impressed how much better the Comanche bow was than the bow used by the Mongolians. I thought for sure that a double recurve bow would be superior.