The Comanche Empire (The Lamar Series in Western History)

This is an outstanding scholarly work well deserving of five stars. In some respects I wonder if it could have been written by an American (the author is Finnish) since it sharply contrasts with the politically correct myth of the American Indians, always fighting in defense of their homeland and way of life against the overwhelming encroachments of evil Europeans. Some will use the term "revisionist" to describe this work, but more accurately it should be described simply as Comanche history for two centuries from the Comanche viewpoint. To put the contrast in more familiar terms, until recently almost all books on the World War II Eastern Front between Germany and the Soviet Union have been told from the German side. Now David Glantz and others are writing books that tell the Soviet side. Are they "revisionist?" The author traces the Comanches from origins among the Shoshones, moving through Colorado and becoming allied with the Utes (other authors describe the Comanches as being forced out into the Great Plains by the Utes), acquiring horses and guns from Mexican traders, then spreading into Northern Texas and surrounding country. There they established a virtual "empire", or more accurately, a sphere of hegemony and influence, that extended into six US states and several states in Northern Mexico by 1840. This can be considered as a region controlled loosely by semi-nomads who would eventually face the problem of maintaining their "empire" through population growth in permanent settlements. (The reader should look for parallels to the Golden Horde on the plains of Southern Russia.) The Comanches did not always exterminate all other people in their sphere of influence, but rather used them for trade, a source of slaves, and goods acquired through war and negotiation. The Comanche collapse came swiftly through a combination of factors, notably drought, disease, and the decimation of the Bison herds through natural causes and over-hunting. By the time they faced serious opposition from Americans (Texans), they were already in steep decline. But until 1840, Comancheria was ruled by the Comanches, taking what they wanted from people on their borders, whether Anglos, Mexicans, or other Indians. The Comanches were not a benign people, frequently murdering, raping, and enslaving those who opposed them or simply had nothing else of use for the warriors to take. The author describes their society extremely well (much like the Apaches except for the roles of the horse and bison.) Their warrior society was able to undertake raids over 1,000 miles from the heart of Comancheria into Mexico, and even the Lipan Apaches were forced to migrate to escape annihilation. The author points out that the Comanches were fortunate in their timing in that they were able to build their empire in an area not particularly coveted by the Mexicans or Americans until a hundred years later. But his model of an expansionist Indian nation is in direct opposition to the paternalistic tomes normally emanating from academia, although it also fits to a large degree with the history of other aggressive tribes such as the Aztecs, Pohatans, Iroquois and Sioux (Lakota.) This work is an easy read and stuffed full of facts not normally found in books on the Comanches, or for that matter, on any Indian tribe. All to often, the Indians are simply the enemy and described from the viewpoint of the settler or Army officer, or if the work is coming from academia, it's a discourse on victimhood and how the Indians were mistreated, cheated, and faced with genocide. This book shows them to be real human beings, warts and all, aggressive and defensive, merciful and cruel. There is much to learn here, and if the reader re-assesses his opinions and attitudes towards American Indians as a result, it is all to the good. If the reader is interested in American history, buy and read this book. Its importance goes far beyond the Comanches. A less-than-brief review by Frank McLynn in the Literary Review (it escapes me why the LR would ask a Brit to review a book by a Finn on America -- although he did write Villa & Zapate and Wagons West) (Google "Frank McLynn on the Commanche Empire) will give you a pretty good idea of the book's detail content, but be forewarned that some of McLynn's comments are wrong. The Comanches did not war against the Fox Indians and McLynn apparently does not understand the author's math in regards to the bison herd. 6.5 bison per person per year yields 260,000 animals taken if the Comanche and allied population is 40,000, not 20,000. His remarks about the required academic jargon for peer acceptance are correct however -- the author should have avoided the garbage so loved in the ivory towers in a book slated for wide dissemination. For me, the appearance of academic jargon at various times was this book's only flaw.

The Comanche people have long been recognized as great horsemen and warriors, but while these are important aspects of their success, they do not alone explain the imperial power of the Comanche nation. Other tribes also were great horsemen and warriors, but they were defeated or became allies of the Comanche. The Comanche also turned the Spanish and Mexican provinces of Texas and New Mexico into client states that they used as staging areas to attack Northern Mexico. They created a horse culture that was imitated by other tribes They created a raiding slaving culture that gave them the economic resources to buy technology and agriculture products that they could not produce. Through it all they practiced skilled diplomacy and power politics that until the end never left them without key allies. The Comanche Empire is an original and profound analysis of the rise of the Comanche people.

Hamalainen's book is the epitome of solid, scholarly history. It is well-researched and packed full of information. It is a complete history of the Comanche from the emergence of the tribe, through its dominance of the southern plains, to its decline in the mid-1800s. It is also dense and possibly too dry and detailed for the general reader. But for those in academia or inclined toward scholarly history, the book is incredibly beneficial.Hamalainen does an excellent job of tracing the rise of the Comanche to dominance and telling the familiar tale of their adjustment to the horse and its impact on their lifestyle. He also demonstrates that the Comanche had nuanced relationships with other natives, Mexicans, and whites. This is evident in his description of how the Comanche would play cities such as Taos off from the government in Mexico City and Hamalainen makes an interesting argument that devastating Comanche raids helped to separate regions such as New Mexico from the center leading to their complete detachment during the Mexican-American War. This is objective history and Hamalainen makes it clear that the Comanche were not kind to the Apaches, to the towns they raided, and others. By focusing on a Comanche perspective, he makes a contribution to the growing body of work that restores agency to Native Americans and makes them active players on the historical scene. This is important as it eliminates both the savage and the victim as portrayals of natives. Some tribes will come off looking better than others, just like any other group of people. In this sense, Hamalainen is actively contributing to a growing historiography that includes work on the Arkansas region by Kathleen Duval in The Native Ground: Indians and Colonists in the Heart of the Continent (Early American Studies), the Ohio Valley and Southeastern tribes in Gregory Dowd's A Spirited Resistance: The North American Indian Struggle for Unity, 1745-1815 (The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science), and others.I do quibble with Hamalainen's title and the contention that the Comanche had an empire. This is largely because he never defines his terms. What is an empire? Is it only a large amount of territory under the sway of a single people or does it involve what goes on inside of that territory? Is there a specific economic, social, or political construction that is prerequisite for empire? Hämäläinen hints that empire requires political, economic, and cultural control of outsiders, but what about internal political, social, economic, and cultural structures? While the Comanches may have exhibited some of the outward forms of empire, Hämäläinen does not make a convincing case that their internal systems reflected the sort of political centralization and social hierarchy, among other things, that are typically associated with definitions of empire. Hämäläinen states that the "Comanches never developed a unitary, statelike decision-making system." (p. 269) Can an empire exist without such? If Hämäläinen were to re-define our common conceptions of empire, more needed to be done here.Ultimately, the Comanche would succumb both to their own success (depletion of resources) and to the burgeoning power of the U.S. Hamalainen adds to a developing scholarship which makes it clear that the Confederacy's loss in the War Between the States was a disaster for Native Americans. The only alternative to the behemoth growing to their east was vanquished, leaving them as the next target and with no strong power to play off against the U.S., or to use as a buffer or ally. Like the other Trans-Mississippi tribes, the Comanche were defeated in the latter half of the 19th century.Overall, Hamalainen's book is a detailed and important study of the Comanche which adds to our knowledge of the tribe. It is dense and somewhat dry, but it remains largely objective, is fairly well-written, and is certainly well-researched. I look forward to reading T.R. Fehrenbach's Comanches: The History of a People for a counterpoint.

I did a minor in American history in the later half of the 1960’s. The general response to any questions about native American’s was something like “very little is known” and of course “they were savages.” Hamalainen’s superb history on the Comanches puts the lie to all that ignorance. Hamalainen present a broad and deep view of the Comanches, their economy, their multiple neighbours, and the overall development of the Southwest. I do not think it is possible to understand the period, the area, or the Comanches without reading this superb piece of history.

Definitely worth reading, changes your understanding of the "Wild West" quite a bit.

Simplemente cambia los paradigmas que se tienen sobre el norte de mexico y sur de EU. Reentender la historia de nuestro continente

À la fin du 18-ième siècle et au début du 19-ième, une tribu indienne a retrouvé la logique des hordes barbares de l'Asie centrale après avoir capturé et domestiqué des chevaux dans les grandes plaines de ce qui est aujourd'hui le Texas et le Nouveau Mexique. Ce sont les Comanches, qui ont établi un empire mobile en pillant, rançonnant, et massacrant, le cas échéant, les tribus sédentaires et les colons espagnols. Leur mobilité extrème à travers la plaine leur permettait de voler à l'Est pour revendre à l'Ouest, et vice versa, pour empocher le profit d'arbitrage. Pendant plus d'un siècle ils ont été les rois de la plaine, et Pekka Hamalainen nous fait brillament vivre leurs cavalcades victorieuses et leur vie nomade. Ce sont des épidémies et la politique de terre brulée des colons américains qui finiront par avoir raison de cet empire, réduisant ces fiers bandits itinérants en pauvres paysans parqués dans des réserves.

Fine history but too much detail, some of which is not necessary to totally understand the circumstances of the Comanche subjugation.