Justinian Girgis
Banned
I'm working on a timeline where Texas remains Mexican until 1850, ends up with half the population it did in OTL (until possible after the 19th century) and has a lower gun ownership rate until 1840
What if the Comanche were more successful in the 19th century?
- Thread starter Justinian Girgis
- Start date
Justinian Girgis
Banned
There's far fewer americans in texas, and a much higher proportion of the ones in texas assimilate, more Germans move there and some Alaskans move to texas too. Since very few rebel in mexican texas the mex vs US war is delayed until the california gold rush is in full swing (in 1850) So with Texas joining the union being delayed they buy Cuba
It means the Commanche are facing a less effective foe, the Mexican Army, in comparison to the otl US Army, particularly after the lessons of the American Civil War.
Justinian Girgis
Banned
what does it mean when the US eventually does take over texas though in the 1850s?
The Comanche were, long term, doomed barring some sort of really massive POD that kept agriculture and prospectors from ever making it into their territory. Given the realities of the wider world, where lots of that land is sitting on top of an enormous pool of oil and most of it is absolutely outstanding from growing crops, especially cereals, te chances of that happening are close to nil.
This is made more difficult by the basic lifestyle of the Comanche Peoples. They were nomadic even before the reintroduction of the horse to North America, after adopting the horse they simply became more successful in the nomadic way of life, following, primarily, the enormous herd of buffalo that occuppied most of the Commanche's tradition territory. Nomadic people run into serious problems as soon as pastoral or agriculture centered societies arrive in a region. The newcomers tend to be present in some number, tend to be very well armed (as much to protect their herds and crops from others practicing the same way of life as against nomadic bands) and will often settle into a region while the nomadic group is far off, somethings without even knowing that they are actually intruding on another groups territory.
In the end it wouldn't have mattered if it was Americans, Mexicans, British/Canadians, Russians, or any other industrialized society that came along. Without literal ASB level intervention (e.g. no gun power, no steel, no railways) the nomadic way of life would always either be obliterated or marginalized to a degree that it may as well have been obliterated. There is a finite amount of ground where crops can be grown with high levels of success, limited areas where oil and other raw materials can be found, even limted areas where people can live (Texas alone currently has a population over 27,000,000).
Nomadic groups simply don't stand a chance anywhere that isn't "worthless" ground; even then it gets really dodgy.
This is made more difficult by the basic lifestyle of the Comanche Peoples. They were nomadic even before the reintroduction of the horse to North America, after adopting the horse they simply became more successful in the nomadic way of life, following, primarily, the enormous herd of buffalo that occuppied most of the Commanche's tradition territory. Nomadic people run into serious problems as soon as pastoral or agriculture centered societies arrive in a region. The newcomers tend to be present in some number, tend to be very well armed (as much to protect their herds and crops from others practicing the same way of life as against nomadic bands) and will often settle into a region while the nomadic group is far off, somethings without even knowing that they are actually intruding on another groups territory.
In the end it wouldn't have mattered if it was Americans, Mexicans, British/Canadians, Russians, or any other industrialized society that came along. Without literal ASB level intervention (e.g. no gun power, no steel, no railways) the nomadic way of life would always either be obliterated or marginalized to a degree that it may as well have been obliterated. There is a finite amount of ground where crops can be grown with high levels of success, limited areas where oil and other raw materials can be found, even limted areas where people can live (Texas alone currently has a population over 27,000,000).
Nomadic groups simply don't stand a chance anywhere that isn't "worthless" ground; even then it gets really dodgy.
Essentially what Calbear said with the further caveat that, especially in the case of the Indigenous peoples of North America, frequent bouts of disease would simply rip through their population which would cause them to decline. It is impossible to understate how badly this effected them alongside the disappearance of the buffalo. Nomadic societies with a lot of space can, for a time, stave off encroachment, especially if they have numbers. In the span between 1840 and 1870 the Comanche, even with the de-facto absorption of the Kiowa, had dwindled from roughly 20,000 to 8,000. and were split between many semi-cooperative bands. To even represent a more eloquent threat to settlers they'd need to be at least double their 1840s number to have a hope in hell of driving the line of settlement back and mounting a more effective resistance.
If you want an absolutely best case scenario, they might survive in a pocket of semi-independence until 1880 if their numbers stay high and all the various bands come under a principal leader who can direct them. Even then, disease and violent encroachment will take their toll which will inevitably shift their lifestyle to an enforced sequestration or absorption into a colonial country like the rest of the indigenous peoples.
If you want an absolutely best case scenario, they might survive in a pocket of semi-independence until 1880 if their numbers stay high and all the various bands come under a principal leader who can direct them. Even then, disease and violent encroachment will take their toll which will inevitably shift their lifestyle to an enforced sequestration or absorption into a colonial country like the rest of the indigenous peoples.
Justinian Girgis
Banned
Can I pm u what I have for my timeline and you can tell me what you think would happen to the comanche & apache differently from OTL (ofc their traditional way of life will meet it's ultimate demise sooner or later) I'm curious about what would happen in both the short and long term
Justinian Girgis
Banned
Can I pm u what I have for my timeline (in Texas & and the states that border western texas) and you can tell me what you think would happen to the comanche & apache differently from OTL ?(ofc their traditional way of life will meet it's ultimate demise sooner or later) I'm curious about what would happen in both the short and long term
Just pop it right here in the thread! It will inform the discussion.
You could write it either way. And yes, I agree with Calbear, but I do feel they'd last longer against the Mexicans.
twovultures
Donor
I'm curious, do the Cherokee migrate into Mexican Texas in this scenario? I could see them siding with Mexico in a war against the US in the 1850's, which might see the Texan Cherokee being exiled out of the US entirely into northern Mexico after US annexation.
Justinian Girgis
Banned
my PoD is the first leaders of the first Mexican republic are smarter. So they strike a balance between regionalization and centralization. Then have the prez & VP elected on the same ballot. Then to who they let in to texas. They would try to get northerners to move there but not many more would come than in our timeline except the appalachian scots. Since the north is so anti-catholic, so they'd make up for this by allowing single southerners in who marry Mexicans, Another thing is instead of telling them all they have to convert to catholicism, They can convert to any form of apostolic christianity (christianity minus protestantism) ofc this would still have massive ramifications in other parts of mexico but I made this timeline because I'm banking on them having texas for longer, you'll see why. That means some Alaskan orthodox christians would move to texas too and last but not least Catholic germans like Swabians, austians & bavarians. This latter group would probably end up being the largest ethnic group since quite a few Germans moved to Mexican texas in our timeline. These groups would keep the slave owning anglo-americans from over-running them, possibly teaming up with [the Comanche to repel them (considering Germans got a long quite well with the comanche). So with far less rebellions in texas, there's no republic of texas so that means the mexican american war doesn't happen when it did in otl. Furthermore because this timeline's texas would have a high literacy rate (since many of the americans wouldn't convert, only pretend to and teach their kids to read the bible and interpret it for themselves rather than (depending on your point of view) either how the pope wants you to interpret it or how the early christians interpreted it) and since the Spanish empire actively discouraged literacy in the colonies. And at least a small handful of farmers would have made it big and at least 2 or 3 universities would have started it would have some very rich people who would start up industry. Then the merchant class would become even more powerful by selling the newly produced goods from texan industry to nearby parts of the U.S. & Mexico. Then when the mexican-american war would eventually happen around 1850 (when the california gold rush is in full swing and the US fears how powerful it would make mexico so they decide to go manifest destiny) Mexico would do better due to having some industry but still lose, so I'll say they keep everything within the chihuahan and sonoran desserst that they lost but nothing else. Since most of texas gets conquered many of the literate native americans (ones that are modernized and live in towns, cities and villages etc since the comanche & apache are even more likely to not have yielded by this time) would be deported (to mexico) as a part of the ethnic cleansing and literate Meztisos would leave due to fear of being lynched. Then the american mexicans would be persecuted by the pro- slavery ones and start moving to free states but the ones who only knew Spanish follow their friends to Mexico, then Mexico makes the offer and a few who were going to move to free states move to mexico to be with their friends because mexico would have realized that they need to industrialize in order to make sure they don't lose anymore land full of gold or some other natural resource. Some of the mexican elite would want the industry started off by the texans to be absorbed by monopolies set up by foreigners, but a minority, which would be the remnants of the initial smarter elite that were put in place as a part of my PoD would want to use what industry the nortenos started and let them compete with each other. since they'd know nationalizing or monopolizing their work would cause them to rebel and make them lose even more territory to the americans. So the other elites would worry and there would be a civil war. Any push into the norteno land is slowed due to attrition, then the nortenos push back due to much more production and better transportation, like the eastern front in world war 1. Whenever they counquer any territory the civillians welcome them as liberators due to giving much more representation in their congress or parliament, their numbers grow and grow due to more mexicans joining their side and the rest of mexico is conquered unless the other elites grow a pair and share their power with the merchants. Then during the US civil war Mexico helps the south since their cheap cottton helps mexico's thriving textile sector which is result of mexico's new industry and abundance of natural resources. This textile sector is also the reason why Mexico is able to pay off it's debt to france. They reclaim what was the viceroyalty of new spain west of texas. Shortly before the 20th century the british empire invents machines that increase their cotton production in Egypt and india and impoverish the confederacy, Due to a conflict of mexico's & the CSA's interests in central america and the Union's grievances the Union & mexico split the CSA between each other.
Good points. I understand that the only time the Comanche advanced against White settlement in Texas was during the ACW. Once the war ended the Comanche were rapidly rolled back. All of the NA Native populations were just on the wrong side of history, they had no chance of continuing in their way of life much past the ACW.
twovultures
Donor
I'm not clear reading your scenario, does Texas go Union or Confederacy during the interim before they are annexed? That makes a big difference, I think. The CSA is not going to be investing in railroads to the west or the sort of industrial work necessary to really crush the Comanche. They will probably rely on heavily armed local militias which will be enough to hold Comanche bands at bay, but in this scenario I think the Comanche could remain autonomous until Mexican or US re-annexation.
Justinian Girgis
Banned
America doesn't conquer all of texas, they conquer the parts outside the Chihuahuan desert, those parts later on become a part of the CSA, then when the US & Mexico divide it among themselves it goes back to mexico