Great video! However, some information that is incorrect: the first horses the Comanche acquired were descended from escaped and stolen Spanish Warhorses which were indeed what we identify as Spanish Mustangs. They did not have horses off all breeds and then mustangs. It was mustangs first and then as white settlers invaded the Comanche were forced to take lesser, heavier horses due to the lack of good mustangs out in the plains. Also it was not “Those Who Like To Fight”, it was simply the Ute word Komat, meaning Enemies Forever.
I strongly disagree to some points here, 4:57 democratically chosen??? No that was not the case, there was a leader and there were followers of course no one was forcing someone to follow a leader but this has nothing to do with democracy. I am not sure if they were deciding about hunting or alliances, but the evidence shows the opposite. Usually when a tribe was making a treaty with the settlers, the settlers were raided by other tribes. Therefore I don't know if they were meet and decide such things. 6:30 it was not the Comanche "expansion" it was the Spanish settlers that wanted to expand to the great plains area like the Chomanches did not exist! 8:14 "they not always interacted with a friendly way???" They had war with the Spanish for 250 years! 8:34 Also this never happened, Comanche were at war with everyone, there is not any evidence that proves that they created a "barrier" please provide your source about this one. 10:06 The European weapons NEVER helped Chomanches, they were excellent archers and horse riders, they could shoot 10 arrows in a blink of the eye, they were fighting mounted and that gave them a very big advantage. The weapons at 1790s were only single shot rifles which was very time consuming to reload. The Europeans were fighting unmounted, they did not understand yet the advantages of the Chomanches. Moreover, the fact that they were nomads was making it more difficult to track them down and fight them. Europeans had no chance against Chomanches up until 1850. 12:57 I don't understand why would someone insist that the Chomanches were not savages, seriously, they made raids took captives, everyone who was not killed in the battle were tortured to death, the tortures were lasting according to the time that they had to spend! One of their captives Rachel Plummer were taken from her family at her 20s she were pregnant and a slave for months. When she gave birth they took her infant, "tortured it", and then killed it. "They tortured the infant"!!! in another raid they gang raped a woman 9 months pregnant, then they took her sculpt, they made cuts below the ear, and left her to die. The woman died 4 days after this event and her baby outlasted her for 2 days! How can you say that they were not savages?? That is extremely inaccurate!! The Chomanches and all the native American population were very primitive at the age of 1600-1700, and there is evidence that shows that this happened because they didn't start the agriculture the same time as Europeans and Asians who started at around 5000BC. Native Americans started at 2000BC. That explains the delay in their civilization. Like I said they were primitive but like you said that does not mean that they didn't have an empire, but what was their opinion about an Indian Empire? They didn't have anything like that in their mind they were nomads they didn't care about history or culture. They had only one song. Other Native American tribes had culture like Mayans. Was there an Empire? Who knows? All the evidence shows that there was not but this may be wrong because they might simply had another a way of life, like to be nomad. Unfortunately when the European "civilized fools" arrived in America created a huge mess, they never understood the Chomanches, and Chomanches did not have any idea how big were the nations that they were fighting. When Europeans arrived in the new land and they immediately thought that "this land belongs to no one but them". They enslaved the civilized tribes, like Mayans, they gave them a part of land to farm in exchange for labor. Imagine an foreigner to come in to your country and ask you to farm your land and give him goods. This proves how fucked up we are as a civilization! We will exchange everything for money and power. We will kill, enslave, destroy the nature, kill the animals, do everything we can in order to raise our stocks and live the "American dream".
Because the commanches were not white, so college professors lie about them and make them sound happy and peaceful. The truth is the commanche committed the grossest of evil atrocities. On par if not worse than ISIS.
You forgot to mention the actual history of the tribe but good try. Anyone who knows history knows the Comanches were a very questionable tribe that committed some major atrocities to other tribes. Not that all were bad but it was a norm in the culture at the time.
Mr. Bowden; I think you forgot to menton that the atrocities practiced by the Comanche were learned from other enemies who were seeking slaves to sell to the Spaniards. The Spaniards as history has shown us, as well as the French, the English and to some degree the Vikings, came to these lands to supplant anyone in the way that would keep those nations from being successful with settlements in the 'New World' which had many civilizations in place before London or Paris were large cities.
A well-known mestizo leader of the Comanchería was surnamed Parker, like his mother, and it seems that he was no exception. Although clearly patriarchal, many Uto-Aztec ethnic groups preserved matrilineal filiation because it prevented the son from inheriting from the father, thereby guaranteeing that a man would rise up the social ladder on his own merit.
That’s all people think of when they hear “Comanche” these days… glad he didn’t bring it up. Anybody can read Empire of the Summer Moon if they want that info
Great input! I watched the loving goodnite video of the history channel. Now I see a lot more of dominant man and human nature. I feel bad for mankind.
The atlatl ceased being used after the acquisition of the bow and arrow technology a few thousand years ago so I can assure you no Comanche ever used an atlatl instead they had long Lances 8 to 12 ft long
12:43 at the beginning of your presentation please edit where to are ... also 2:20 use our Nu word for buffalo instead of a thivo word. hmmm thank you for sharing I will try and watch the rest later 💆🏽♀️
To all, there is alwas discrepancy in how our Comanche languge is written and interpreted. The word for Bison in generic Shoshone-Comanche dialec is Guto=Shoshone, or Kutso=Comanche. However many Comanche peoplemight say that is wrong because they heard the word Numu-Kutso = bufallo/bison. I know this due to discussions and disagreements with my relations here in Comanche land and with relations from Wyoming who are fluent in the language. Mike Burgess, Comanche. Among ourselves you will hear us say Num', or Numu-nai: I am Comanche, so in the future use the word Num or Numunai when referring to self as citizen of the Comanche.
@@chairmanredpony4952 Ura to refer to others and even myself I am still working on. The Comanche word for buffalo is ..... I guess that's what I am getting at as many people should know our word before a thivo word. TY for the reply
The video was good. However, the greatest strength they had was their ability to live off the land and adapt to the environment & by taking resources of their adversity. They grew stonger while their enemies grew weaker especially on the frontier of the plains during the 1850 & 1860s. BTW- my family lives in Kiowa county in Ok. I'm related to the Parker family.
But don't you disagree that Chomanches were savages? I read the Book "Empire of the summer moon" and i was shocked with the tortures and the killing that they were doing at the 1800-1850s
@@sotospt52 all the tribes acted like that. The comanche were particularly advertised as cruel to whites. That wasn't true, they treated all their captives the same. They didn't care if they were white, mexican or utes.
@@gmandersonjr Yes I agree with that. Also when they were captives they expected to be treated in that same way. I just wanted to emphasize the fact that he mentioned that Chomanches were not violent people.
@@sotospt52 we stated many times they just responded in kind. He just never said they were savages. He printed that violence and war was ingrained in their culture.
@@sotospt52 Comanches were not so violent 'among themselves' but when driven to the point of conflict they knew that fear was necessary to have their adversary to respect ones 'line in the sand.'
An empire has a central ruler. Therefore the Inca, Aztec, and Mongols had empires, while the Comanche did not. He also left out the parts about Comanches mass-raping women, torturing captives with fire, joyfully strangling infants to death, murdering helpless civilians, and their constant theft and endless warfare culture. And this was how they treated the neighboring Indian tribes, not just the Mexican and American settlers!
@@manwhat2009 Yes, the Comanches were the best at horse-mounted warfare. And from what I've read, they were also the most cruel and brutal to their enemies. They treated unarmed civilians just as bad as the warriors they fought.
@@widehotep9257 it came from generations of being whooped and focusing there traditions on war and raids! It's all they've known and all there enemies know it's silly for you too think they'd treat settlers who were forcing the buffalo away and taking there land any different! Plus if a settler isn't armed what happens too them is there fault! Everyone knew how dangerous the frontier was
![[Part 1] รักมาไม่ทันตั้งตัว❤ หนุ่มสาวโสดถูกจับมาแต่งงานกันกะทันหัน แถมเธอยังเป็นหัวหน้าของเขา?!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/y2pOOMkuFI0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for makin this. Uh-dah, Comanche Language, i appreciate. As a Comanche, I appreciate it. Uh-dah!! Thank you
Yo! I’m part Comanche we rock !
Maruwa weka pabi!
You know the saupittys from lawton? Narcomey sounds familiar
Orale!
thanks for making, this video aided my reading of the Comanche Empire by Pekka Hämäläinen!
Great video! However, some information that is incorrect: the first horses the Comanche acquired were descended from escaped and stolen Spanish Warhorses which were indeed what we identify as Spanish Mustangs. They did not have horses off all breeds and then mustangs. It was mustangs first and then as white settlers invaded the Comanche were forced to take lesser, heavier horses due to the lack of good mustangs out in the plains. Also it was not “Those Who Like To Fight”, it was simply the Ute word Komat, meaning Enemies Forever.
thanks for adding this info!
your sourcea
TH-cam and Google coming in clutch during online school
This video was shown in our history class
I strongly disagree to some points here,
4:57 democratically chosen??? No that was not the case, there was a leader and there were followers of course no one was forcing someone to follow a leader but this has nothing to do with democracy. I am not sure if they were deciding about hunting or alliances, but the evidence shows the opposite. Usually when a tribe was making a treaty with the settlers, the settlers were raided by other tribes. Therefore I don't know if they were meet and decide such things.
6:30 it was not the Comanche "expansion" it was the Spanish settlers that wanted to expand to the great plains area like the Chomanches did not exist!
8:14 "they not always interacted with a friendly way???" They had war with the Spanish for 250 years!
8:34 Also this never happened, Comanche were at war with everyone, there is not any evidence that proves that they created a "barrier" please provide your source about this one.
10:06 The European weapons NEVER helped Chomanches, they were excellent archers and horse riders, they could shoot 10 arrows in a blink of the eye, they were fighting mounted and that gave them a very big advantage. The weapons at 1790s were only single shot rifles which was very time consuming to reload. The Europeans were fighting unmounted, they did not understand yet the advantages of the Chomanches. Moreover, the fact that they were nomads was making it more difficult to track them down and fight them. Europeans had no chance against Chomanches up until 1850.
12:57 I don't understand why would someone insist that the Chomanches were not savages, seriously, they made raids took captives, everyone who was not killed in the battle were tortured to death, the tortures were lasting according to the time that they had to spend! One of their captives Rachel Plummer were taken from her family at her 20s she were pregnant and a slave for months. When she gave birth they took her infant, "tortured it", and then killed it. "They tortured the infant"!!! in another raid they gang raped a woman 9 months pregnant, then they took her sculpt, they made cuts below the ear, and left her to die. The woman died 4 days after this event and her baby outlasted her for 2 days!
How can you say that they were not savages?? That is extremely inaccurate!!
The Chomanches and all the native American population were very primitive at the age of 1600-1700, and there is evidence that shows that this happened because they didn't start the agriculture the same time as Europeans and Asians who started at around 5000BC. Native Americans started at 2000BC. That explains the delay in their civilization.
Like I said they were primitive but like you said that does not mean that they didn't have an empire, but what was their opinion about an Indian Empire? They didn't have anything like that in their mind they were nomads they didn't care about history or culture. They had only one song. Other Native American tribes had culture like Mayans. Was there an Empire? Who knows? All the evidence shows that there was not but this may be wrong because they might simply had another a way of life, like to be nomad.
Unfortunately when the European "civilized fools" arrived in America created a huge mess, they never understood the Chomanches, and Chomanches did not have any idea how big were the nations that they were fighting. When Europeans arrived in the new land and they immediately thought that "this land belongs to no one but them". They enslaved the civilized tribes, like Mayans, they gave them a part of land to farm in exchange for labor. Imagine an foreigner to come in to your country and ask you to farm your land and give him goods. This proves how fucked up we are as a civilization! We will exchange everything for money and power. We will kill, enslave, destroy the nature, kill the animals, do everything we can in order to raise our stocks and live the "American dream".
Because the commanches were not white, so college professors lie about them and make them sound happy and peaceful. The truth is the commanche committed the grossest of evil atrocities. On par if not worse than ISIS.
Not sure we only had 1 song lmao we have and had many songs. Maybe only 1 the ancestors cared to share with the colonizers.
You forgot to mention the actual history of the tribe but good try. Anyone who knows history knows the Comanches were a very questionable tribe that committed some major atrocities to other tribes. Not that all were bad but it was a norm in the culture at the time.
Mr. Bowden; I think you forgot to menton that the atrocities practiced by the Comanche were learned from other enemies who were seeking slaves to sell to the Spaniards. The Spaniards as history has shown us, as well as the French, the English and to some degree the Vikings, came to these lands to supplant anyone in the way that would keep those nations from being successful with settlements in the 'New World' which had many civilizations in place before London or Paris were large cities.
A well-known mestizo leader of the Comanchería was surnamed Parker, like his mother, and it seems that he was no exception. Although clearly patriarchal, many Uto-Aztec ethnic groups preserved matrilineal filiation because it prevented the son from inheriting from the father, thereby guaranteeing that a man would rise up the social ladder on his own merit.
Wow this guy really toned down the warlike nature of this great Native American Nation.
There's more to people than the war they participated in or orchestrated.
That’s all people think of when they hear “Comanche” these days… glad he didn’t bring it up. Anybody can read Empire of the Summer Moon if they want that info
Long live the Comanche Empire!
Orale!
I like that you recognize biases in historical thinking. Thanks for that!
Good video but Comanche were ruthless AF. Fact
Great input! I watched the loving goodnite video of the history channel. Now I see a lot more of dominant man and human nature. I feel bad for mankind.
Crow crows eagel has fucking landed
The atlatl ceased being used after the acquisition of the bow and arrow technology a few thousand years ago so I can assure you no Comanche ever used an atlatl instead they had long Lances 8 to 12 ft long
Pronounced Co-man-chair-ia with spanish accent.
Maruwa weka pabi patsi tami nami numunu
Practicing my tekwapu numunu
12:43 at the beginning of your presentation please edit where to are ... also 2:20 use our Nu word for buffalo instead of a thivo word. hmmm thank you for sharing I will try and watch the rest later 💆🏽♀️
To all, there is alwas discrepancy in how our Comanche languge is written and interpreted. The word for Bison in generic Shoshone-Comanche dialec is Guto=Shoshone, or Kutso=Comanche. However many Comanche peoplemight say that is wrong because they heard the word Numu-Kutso = bufallo/bison.
I know this due to discussions and disagreements with my relations here in Comanche land and with relations from Wyoming who are fluent in the language. Mike Burgess, Comanche.
Among ourselves you will hear us say Num', or Numu-nai: I am Comanche, so in the future use the word Num or Numunai when referring to self as citizen of the Comanche.
@@chairmanredpony4952 Ura to refer to others and even myself I am still working on. The Comanche word for buffalo is ..... I guess that's what I am getting at as many people should know our word before a thivo word. TY for the reply
Taibo***** maru weka patsi
I think you need to check all your facts? You place the use of the atlatl a bit late?
Year of the bison🐃🐎🏹
The video was good. However, the greatest strength they had was their ability to live off the land and adapt to the environment & by taking resources of their adversity. They grew stonger while their enemies grew weaker especially on the frontier of the plains during the 1850 & 1860s. BTW- my family lives in Kiowa county in Ok. I'm related to the Parker family.
But don't you disagree that Chomanches were savages? I read the Book "Empire of the summer moon" and i was shocked with the tortures and the killing that they were doing at the 1800-1850s
@@sotospt52 all the tribes acted like that. The comanche were particularly advertised as cruel to whites. That wasn't true, they treated all their captives the same. They didn't care if they were white, mexican or utes.
@@gmandersonjr Yes I agree with that. Also when they were captives they expected to be treated in that same way. I just wanted to emphasize the fact that he mentioned that Chomanches were not violent people.
@@sotospt52 we stated many times they just responded in kind. He just never said they were savages. He printed that violence and war was ingrained in their culture.
@@sotospt52 Comanches were not so violent 'among themselves' but when driven to the point of conflict they knew that fear was necessary to have their adversary to respect ones 'line in the sand.'
An empire has a central ruler. Therefore the Inca, Aztec, and Mongols had empires, while the Comanche did not. He also left out the parts about Comanches mass-raping women, torturing captives with fire, joyfully strangling infants to death, murdering helpless civilians, and their constant theft and endless warfare culture. And this was how they treated the neighboring Indian tribes, not just the Mexican and American settlers!
Every tribe fought each other! comanches was just the best at it
@@manwhat2009 Yes, the Comanches were the best at horse-mounted warfare. And from what I've read, they were also the most cruel and brutal to their enemies. They treated unarmed civilians just as bad as the warriors they fought.
@@widehotep9257 it came from generations of being whooped and focusing there traditions on war and raids! It's all they've known and all there enemies know it's silly for you too think they'd treat settlers who were forcing the buffalo away and taking there land any different! Plus if a settler isn't armed what happens too them is there fault! Everyone knew how dangerous the frontier was
@@widehotep9257 but yeah ur correct they were super brutal! They fought everyone sometimes each other
@@widehotep9257 casualties of war
This is not an accurate video
Sorry, this is not history.
How so? he is talking about a historical tribe and how they once were. How is that not history?
im actually sleeping rn dis so fkn boring and monotone
Those bad ass Texas ranger boys raised all out hell on those Indians.
Yeah why they had to make treaties only to break them because they were soooo advantaged
@@kevobrando95lx44 those people of old would have wiped those red basterds out.
Low end PhD. Trying to spin history.