Print Page | Close Window

The most fierce tribe in N. America

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the Americas
Forum Description: The Americas: History from pre-Colombian times to the present
Moderators: Mixcoatl, edgewaters
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=3290
Printed Date: 20-Mar-2019 at 07:04
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The most fierce tribe in N. America
Posted By: eaglecap
Subject: The most fierce tribe in N. America
Date Posted: 07-May-2005 at 15:16
Was it the Apache, Salish, Blackfeet, coastal Tribes, Iriquois, Huron, Siox, Chumash, Aztec. Who????




Replies:
Posted By: SulcataIxlude
Date Posted: 07-May-2005 at 15:34
I would say either the Comanche, or the Blackfeet.


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 07-May-2005 at 16:56
Apache or Comanche

the Mayans were tough to. The conquest of Yucatn started in 1524, but not until 1697 the last Maya city (Tayasal) fell. Even then the Mayans regulary revolted against the Spanish and later the Mexicans. It was not before 1910 when the last rebels were defeated.


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 07-May-2005 at 21:35
Does "fierce" mean just militarily sucessful or generally more brutal in behavior?  The Comanche strike me as the most natural of warriors but being captured and tortured alive for fun  Sioux-style could also be considered "fierce"

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Gorkhali
Date Posted: 09-May-2005 at 16:48

I'd also say Apache or Comanche.  Not only were they amazingly successful in battle and absolutely fearless (it was said that one Apache with bow and arrows was more formidable than ten men with guns), they were also quite brutal.  These were the tribes most likely to savagely torture prisoners, there are some stories that would make any stomach turn

Geronimo, with 38 Apaches, fought so ferociously that the US government sent 1/5 of its army to capture them, along with aid from the Mexican army.

The Seminoles in Florida were also very fierce fighters.  I believe they were the only Native American nation who technically were never defeated, though they fought three wars with the U.S.  This was the only war in which the U.S. sent in its marines and navy as well as its army to fight the Seminoles.



-------------
Ayo Gorkhali!


Posted By: Markolitos
Date Posted: 09-May-2005 at 18:48
if we say post conquest comanche would possibly be the fiercest, but pre conquest they werent as active, choktaw/chickasaw also very fierce! otherwise tlingits are awsome!

-------------
"The Christ that you speak of died, the Sun and Moon never die, besides how do you know your god created the world?" -Atahualpa


Posted By: Anishnabe
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2005 at 02:51
The answer to this question is an easy one. the most fierce tribe in
N.america was the not the lakota(dakota), the huron or the mighty six nations (Mohawk, seneca,onondaga,onieda,cayuga, tuscarora), but the only tribe to beat them all.  Although most of the battles the anishnabe fought in were from a defensive standpoint they were able to push the six nations land out of central and southern Ontario to were they are today in upstate new york. As well as push the lakota out of the some parts of minnesota. the ojibway didnt go looking for trouble but if other tribes started to encroch on there lands they were more then able to push them all back. 


-------------
REMEMBER ZHENG HE!!!


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2005 at 09:35
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

Apache or Comanche

the Mayans were tough to. The conquest of Yucatn started in 1524, but not until 1697 the last Maya city (Tayasal) fell. Even then the Mayans regulary revolted against the Spanish and later the Mexicans. It was not before 1910 when the last rebels were defeated.


Wrong: they are still in rebellion since 1994 (in Mexico). In Guatemala they were also in rebellion for most of the 70s and 80s. Yes, the Mayans are tough.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2005 at 11:44
Surely it varies throughout history. The Comache were the whipping boys of the Apache at one time, then later became the bogeymen of the Texans.

-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2005 at 11:54
I don't think you can call the Zapatista uprising of 1994 a Maya uprising. The uprising was not an ethnic one, but a social/political one (though ethnicity plays a role in the socio-polical position of the people who joined the EZLN).
The ideology of the EZLN is rooted in socialism, it has little to do with Maya tradition or so.


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2005 at 11:54


Hi Guys:

Mayans were in continous rebellion till 20 century.
The so called Zapatista rebellion was not an ethnic clash. The Chiapas state has been in contionous turmoil not because ethnical issues. It is related to the poverty, the interests of the coffe plantation owners, the lumberjacks, the cattle owners and even religion.



However, I would like to point out that the topic stablished fiercest tribe, Mayans and Mexicas were far away to be considered a tribe at the top point of their splendour.

Regards


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2005 at 14:06
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

I don't think you can call the Zapatista uprising of 1994 a Maya uprising. The uprising was not an ethnic one, but a social/political one (though ethnicity plays a role in the socio-polical position of the people who joined the EZLN).
The ideology of the EZLN is rooted in socialism, it has little to do with Maya tradition or so.


EZLN, like it or not, is the armed wing of the grassroots Maya assambleary structures. There are a couple of non-Mayans in like Sup Marcos but they are not the commanders.

The uprising is social but it is definitively ethnic as well, maybe more ethnic than anything else. Another thing is that they charmed the world with their innovative assambleary discourse... but the EZLN is so far a Maya organization concerned specially with Mayan issues. Basically what they want is to rule themselves, though they also want an all-Mexico change.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2005 at 15:42

Good Day to all:

Id say that the Comanches (related to the Shoshones) were one of the fiercest tribes in N.A. They drove the Apaches off the southern plains and resisted the US army until late in 19th century. A smallpox epidemic (probably infiltrated by the white man - [sarcasm emphasized] took a heavy toll on them and ten years later, a cholera outbreak (probably also caused by the white man [more sarcasm intended]wiped out about half of the population.

Morty



Posted By: Ydinkyttinen Jousipyssy
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2005 at 12:05

I'd say that the fiercest tribe wasn't any plains tribe. Their tactics were quite ineffective when fighting battle-hardened woodland indians. Compare also numbers of dead whites during white-indian wars. For example Chokanen apache band of about 200 warriors(some other apaches fought at the same time too, but most whites were killed by chokanes at this time) killed 500 hundred whites in TWO MONTHS - same number of whites died during Red Clouds war, and Red Cloud had more than 1000 warriors.

I can't really say, who were the fiercest as style of warfare was very different between various tribes.



Posted By: El Cid
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2005 at 13:08
I would say the sioux or the aztecs.

-------------
The spanish are coming!




Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2005 at 17:19
Originally posted by Ydinkyttinen Jousipyssy Ydinkyttinen Jousipyssy wrote:

I'd say that the fiercest tribe wasn't any plains tribe. Their tactics were quite ineffective when fighting battle-hardened woodland indians.



You're quite right. Iroquois, a matrifocal society btw, were much more effective being able to make raids even 1,000 km away from home.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Ydinkyttinen Jousipyssy
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2005 at 03:50

Iroquois:

+Iroquois raiding parties were able to make raids even 1,000 miles away from home.

+Iroquois systematically tried to conquest their neiqhbours and expand their confederacy

+Iroquois completely destroyed huron confederacy, another iroquoian speaking, but more than 10000 persons larger tribe.

+Iroquois tortured their prisoners

+Iroquois were militarily most advanced woodland indians before mid-18 century

Tlingits and Haida:

+Tlingit and Haida raiding parties were able to make raids even 1,000 miles away from home.

+Tlingits and Haida stopped russian expansion to east

+They had cannons

+Tlingits were able to successfully defend russian fort they had captured

Apaches

+Apaches were the first tribe with cavalry able to defeat conquistadores.

+Apaches lived for raiding - most of their food, tools and later clothing came from raiding

+Apaches defeated Aztecs who retreated north after fall of Tenochtitlan

+Apaches stopped Spanish invasion north.

+Apaches started war against whites in 1600 and were the last tribe to surrender.

 

These tribes were the fiercest, I think



Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2005 at 09:58

+Apaches defeated Aztecs who retreated north after fall of Tenochtitlan




what are you talking about ?
The Mexica empire did not reached Aridoamerica because it was nothing whortly to conquer up there.
The Mexica started their pilgrimage from Mexcaltitan , Nayarit in Western Mexico all the way to the Basin of Mexico Valley. No interaction at all with the great plains tribes.


Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2005 at 15:44
the haudenosaunee ,better know as iroquees ,were a strong and democrtic
society as long as hadn't any contact to the white men.these alliance out of six nations ,Mohawk ,Onondaga ,Oneida,Cayuga,Seneca and Tuscarora were living St.Lorence River to the Hudson River up to the Lake Erie. they were proud and brave ,but were totaly forced to live in reservates in different parts of the states and canada.
a memorable incident was in the ww II the people of the iroquees nation had declared the war to nazi-german ,but won't cooperate with the usa.


         &nbs p;         &nbs p;         &nbs p;         &nbs p;     


-------------

http://imageshack.us">


Posted By: Ydinkyttinen Jousipyssy
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2005 at 00:04
Originally posted by Jalisco Lancer Jalisco Lancer wrote:

+Apaches defeated Aztecs who retreated north after fall of Tenochtitlan




what are you talking about ?
The Mexica empire did not reached Aridoamerica because it was nothing whortly to conquer up there.
The Mexica started their pilgrimage from Mexcaltitan , Nayarit in Western Mexico all the way to the Basin of Mexico Valley. No interaction at all with the great plains tribes.

First:I was talking about RETREATING aztecs. Apaches destroyed them.

Second:Apaches weren't plains tribe at this time. Even lipans lived quite north.



Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2005 at 17:44
retreating aztecs ?
Does not make sense at all.
Please show some evidence.
After the fall of Tenochtitlan in Central Mexico, they were assimilated ( at least the survivors ) as well as the Tlaxcaltecas by the spaniards on their conquest of Michoacan , Jalisco, Yucatan Peninsula , Philipines and Central America.

IF, you are refering to remaining tributaries kingdoms, again, the boundaries of the Mexica Empire.




as you can see on the map, the farest point of the empire was Veracruz, REALLY FAR FAR AWAY from the Apacheria. As matter of fact, the Aztecs did not pushed north because the lands were too desertic and were populated by nomadic tribes known as Chichimecas.

Please document properly your claim.

The several branches of Apache tribes occupied an area extending from the Arkansas River to Northern Mexico and from Central Texas to Central Arizona.

Plus the Tarahumara always beated the Apaches


Posted By: Ydinkyttinen Jousipyssy
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 01:59

It's really an apache legend and part of apache folklore, so we can't really know if it's true, but it's quite possible that some meso-americans(aztecs or not) have retreated north terrified by spaniards. This is part of apache stories about their pre-history. We know surely that apaches completely hided when spanish came and spaniards knew nothing about them till apaches started raiding spanish settlements. Unlike in woodlands, all south-west tribes tried to avoid europeans. They must have known much more about these new-comers than woodland tribes knew, so they may have been in contact with some that meso-americans that knew much more about europeans, not just: they are shiny and have huge animals.



Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 09:05


well, let's clarify something about the folckore. Because the Toltecs claimed built space ships

The Apaches did not move towards Mexico till they were pushed by the Comanches till 1700.

source:
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/AA/bma33.html - http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/AA/bma33 .html


The Mesoamerican cultures were subjugated already and the New Spain had stablished 170 years at that time.

Plus, the mesoamerican cultures did not established contacts due the geographical and terrain constrains by travelling into the desertic zones. Specially due the lack of horses, unknown till the arrival of the spaniards.

Regards

Regards


Posted By: Ydinkyttinen Jousipyssy
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 11:01

That site has some crap information:

Its only speaking correctly about plains apaches influenced by other tribes. western bands had completely different culture and had nothing to do with comanches.

Rio Grande thing is crap: we can't divide apaches even roughly as every band was independent.

"Some names of Apache bands in Texas were Limita, Conejero, and Trementina": not native apache names so crap.

apaches arrived roughly at 1400 to utah and colorado, not earlier.

only less numerous and not so warlike eastern apaches had serious war with the comanches, western ones were tougher and mostly moved to arizona and western new mexico at their own will.

Altough comanche tribes pushed eastern apaches to more deserted areas, they were severely beaten by spanish and jicarilla warriors in 18th century.

btw, the Meso-American legend is western apache origin: told to me by some White Mountain tribesmen. We can't know whether it happened or not as it is apache pre-history, so I wouldn't argue about this.



Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 11:50
but at least then quote your sources instead of merely disqualify it.

Regards


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 16:44

Originally posted by Jalisco Lancer Jalisco Lancer wrote:

but at least then quote your sources instead of merely disqualify it.

Regards

That guy really likes the word "crap."



Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 19:33
Indeed

It is valid, but I think that we should base our arguments on quotes or sources.



Posted By: AlbinoAlien
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 10:55

well i'd like to say the cherokee (im 1/8) but that would be lying! heh, my brothers were just push over pansies.. but id have to say the most fierce are the sioux. they were the last indian tribe to win a major engagement with American troops during the Sioux war.



-------------
people are the emotions of other people


(im not albino..or pale!)

.....or an alien..


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 22:40
Iroquois/B]

I was reading some of the interesting posts. Sometime in the future I will have to do some more research on the Iroquois because they are part of my ancestral heritage. There have been two intermarriages with Native Americans in my family history but the most recent was was my great great step grandfather who was half Blackfeet, but of course he was not related to us. I still say the Apache and Blackfeet were amongst the meanest in battle. I like the Spokan-e (Salish)because in contrast they were amongst the most peaceful tribes in our in the Pacific Northwest region.

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: BMC21113
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 23:28
I had heard it was the Osage, but I could be wrong.......

-------------
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace"-George Washington
"The art of war is, in the last result, the art of keeping one's freedom of action."-Xenophon


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 19:14
I have often heard that the following tribes were amongst the greatest warrriors in North America;
Blackfeet, Sioux, Apache, Modoc, the coastal tribes of the Pacific Northwest(Salish), commanche, Aztecs and the list can go on. They all had a reputation of being war-like tribes
But:
Can anyone list any peaceful tribes?
I know the Spokan-e, Nez Perz, Coeur d' Alene, Cayuse can top that list but can anyone suggest others- I'll put it on a thread.

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2006 at 20:34
I know little about the Iriqouis but that I share an ancestry with them but I will have to do some research in the future but I found this if anyone is interested. I have done much more research on the Salish tribes of E. Washington and N. Idaho.

http://www.tolatsga.org/iro.html - http://www.tolatsga.org/iro.html





-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: RomiosArktos
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 05:33
The way indians fought must have been really savage and fierce,at least that was the impression given to me watching Michael Mann's ''The Last of the Mohicans''
Were the Mohicans a tribe that really existed or is it fictional?



Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 13:40
Originally posted by RomiosArktos RomiosArktos wrote:


The way indians fought must have been really savage and fierce,at least
that was the impression given to me watching Michael Mann's '<span style="font-style: italic;">'The Last of the Mohicans''
</span>Were the Mohicans a tribe that really existed or is it fictional?<span style="font-style: italic;">
</spanspan style="font-style: italic;">
</span>


I am sure they were fierce but I would not take Hollywood too literal but do some research.
From what I understand the Apache would torture their enemies to death because it had something to do with their beliefs in reincarnation. By torturing the enemy their souls could not get rest. I tried to find something on this via the internet but nothing so far. I found this in a history book about the Apache and the fact is they did torture their enemies. I read one sad story about how they captured a wagon train with American and Mexican men and woman. They let the Americans go and also the Mexican women but they tied the Mexican men to the spokes of the wheels and sadly set them on fire- horrible!!! This was before they realized what a threat the Americans really were to their culture.
Of course, they are not longer like this but they were true warriors.

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: RomiosArktos
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 15:44
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:



I read one sad story about how they captured a wagon train with American and Mexican men and woman. They let the Americans go and also the Mexican women but they tied the Mexican men to the spokes of the wheels and sadly set them on fire- horrible!!! This was before they realized what a threat the Americans really were to their culture.


Did the Mexicans hurt  them in the past?It seems that probably  something they had done pissed the natives off.



Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 15:49

I think the word Indian is not appropriate to use Romios.Better Native Americans.



-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 15:57
From what I have read the Apaches were migrating from the north the same time that the Spanish were colonizing the areas we call New Mexico and Arizona.
I am not completely sure but the Apaches were a war-like tribe and it was probably a clash of cultures. I read somewhere that their language is related to the Turkic language but I have no source on that.
I sure it also offered a good chance for them to raid, steal horses, women, goods, and fight.
It was also probably a clash over territory as well but why they hated the Mexicans so much I really am not sure what started it but they learned to dislike the Americans later even more.
The Blackfeet of Montana were also a tribe that was feared by both other Native American tribes and the pioneers. The Flathead (Salish tribe) moved to the other side of the Rocky Mountains to get away from the Blackfeet. The Flathead were great warriors but they were very peaceful. The area I live in was Salish territory- Spokan-e and Couer d' Alene tribes. I was talking to someone from the Spokane tribe- interesting culture and great people.

I think the word Indian is not appropriate to use Romios.Better Native Americans.

We have a lot of reservations nearby and most Indians or Native American don't mind either, that I have talked to. But here they want to be called Salish indians after their ethnic groups or tribe.
Now Injun would be an insult!!!

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: RomiosArktos
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 16:14
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

I read somewhere that their language is related to the Turkic language but I have no source on that.



Maybe distantly related to the Ural-Altaic languages(possibly closer to Mongol language) since most of the natives migrated from eastern parts of what is now Russia to Alaska.When exactly happened this?Difficult to know since there is no written evidence.

PS:I am afraid i used an inappropriate term,the word natives should be replaced by Native Americans.I apologise for this.


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2006 at 20:46
Originally posted by RomiosArktos RomiosArktos wrote:



Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

I read somewhere that their language is related to the Turkic language but I have no source on that.


Maybe distantly related to the Ural-Altaic languages(possibly closer to
Mongol language) since most of the natives migrated from eastern parts
of what is now Russia to Alaska.When exactly happened this?Difficult to
know since there is no written evidence.


With the Kennewick man the theories are changing about who were the first Americans. Facial rescontructions and the bone structure indicates he was not MOngoloid like the Native Americans are suppose to be. He might be related to the Ainu of Japan but this is still speculation. Interestingly the Indians on the east coast were generally more fair skinned, depending on the tribe. Remember Indian or Native American are usually acceptable to them.

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: Cuauhtemoc
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2006 at 02:39
There is no question that the Native American Empires have to be considered as among the most fierce tribes. How can their achievements be disregarded? To ignore the empires of the Mexica and the Mayas would be absurd on the very face of this question! It would be like denying that Roman soldiers conquered much of their known world and were not among the greatest warriors of the old world, simply because they fell to invasions by germanic tribes in 476 A.D. Are we simply talking about resistence to Europeans as a the standard? The criteria must include the accomplishments they achieved prior to European invasion! One could ask that question about resistence to the European invasion, however that is entirely a different question! Who would deny the heroic defence and defiance of the Aztec culture once they realized that Cortez was not a returning god! What about the Maya resistence until 1697 and the fall of Tayasal! Clearly these nations must be considered as the fiercest. I wish to consider what tribe would be the fiercest in the continental United States and respond to that later. However many responses seem to be basing there responses to resistence to European invasion. I have studied extensively about the Souix, Commanches, Iroqois, Apaches and Modocs? All worthy of consideration if we are talking about fighting European incursion? What about Chief Joseph and the Nez Pierce in spite of their small numbers? They defeated every American army until they were forced to surrender, after miscalculating the distance of those pursuing them, just 40 miles from their destination in Canada? What about the Seminole? Tecumseh and the Shawnee? Is there enough information about tribes prior to European incursion? What about victories by eastern woodland tribes that killed many more then Souix did when attacked by Custer? I wish to consider this before I respond. Any websites others might suggest to me would be appreciated.


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 17:29
I can't go with the Aztecs or the Maya; the Aztecs fell swiftly to very early European firepower and machinations, where more northerly tribes easily resisted initial attacks, some lasting a century or more in constant warfare with Europeans.

I can't go with any of the Plains tribes. They had a brief moment where they were "ferocious" because of a lucky combination of newer firearms, horses, and a geography suited to those things, but it was a brief period.

My vote goes with the Iroquois - they were dominating their neighbours and building an empire at the time the Europeans showed up, and not only did they survive that arrival, they turned it to their advantage and accelerated their conquests. They participated in numerous wars with European powers, and in the end were never really conquered but torn apart by internal disagreements over which power to support. By far this group was present on more of the great battlefields of North American history and made a much greater impact in war, across the span of centuries, than any other single native entity.


Posted By: Mayra
Date Posted: 25-May-2009 at 22:15
I missed this thread. here is a link for blackfeet.
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/blackfeet/blackfeetindiantribe.htm - http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/blackfeet/blackfeetindiantribe.htm
 
It sounds like they controlled a very wide area and talks about how they kept their southern neighbours under control also. I had a friend who was Blackfeet, and actively involved in the reservation, traditions etc. He told me that the people used to smear their body in excrement, dangle cut off ears on necklaces, basic scare tactics. It's hard to say looking back who was most fierce, but this guy was an ex Ranger and pretty scary. He'd killed a lot of people in covert operations and seemed pretty suited to it...


-------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
" I have no particular talent. I am merely inquisitive". Albert Einstein


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 26-May-2009 at 04:04
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

I can't go with the Aztecs or the Maya; the Aztecs fell swiftly to very early European firepower and machinations, where more northerly tribes easily resisted initial attacks, some lasting a century or more in constant warfare with Europeans.
 
There is a mistake, here. The Aztecs didn't surrender but were crashed in a major disaster that only can be compare to the bombings of Germany or the Nukes in Japan. The Aztecs simply didn't have more resources to resist, and died fighting against superior forces of Spaniards and every single native enemies they had.
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 26-May-2009 at 07:44

I didn't say they surrendered. I just said they fell swiftly.

The Blackfoot were a fierce group, but weren't able to build an empire and compete as an equal with colonial powers at any point - the Iroqouis did this from the time of contact until just before the American Revolution (which tore them apart, internally).



Posted By: The Canadian Guy
Date Posted: 26-May-2009 at 07:44
Originally posted by Anishnabe Anishnabe wrote:

The answer to this question is an easy one. the most fierce tribe in
N.america was the not the lakota(dakota), the huron or the mighty six nations (Mohawk, seneca,onondaga,onieda,cayuga, tuscarora), but the only tribe to beat them all.  Although most of the battles the anishnabe fought in were from a defensive standpoint they were able to push the six nations land out of central and southern Ontario to were they are today in upstate new york. As well as push the lakota out of the some parts of minnesota. the ojibway didnt go looking for trouble but if other tribes started to encroch on there lands they were more then able to push them all back. 
  So, your Anish as well eh? It is good to find other Anish in the internet community. I was born in Garden River. We Ojibwa were considered a superpower above Mexico by the whites at somepoint in time. 
 
BTW: for those who consider the Blackfoot nation as Blackfeet, plz don't state them as Blackfeet, that is a bit racist and they find that insulting. Blackfoot is that nations name. Just for further consideration. I will get the staff on any member for racisim.Wink


-------------
Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 26-May-2009 at 13:24
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

I didn't say they surrendered. I just said they fell swiftly.

As I said. Your argument is false. Don't match historical events.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Mayra
Date Posted: 26-May-2009 at 14:44
Originally posted by The Canadian Guy The Canadian Guy wrote:

Originally posted by Anishnabe Anishnabe wrote:

The answer to this question is an easy one. the most fierce tribe in
N.america was the not the lakota(dakota), the huron or the mighty six nations (Mohawk, seneca,onondaga,onieda,cayuga, tuscarora), but the only tribe to beat them all.  Although most of the battles the anishnabe fought in were from a defensive standpoint they were able to push the six nations land out of central and southern Ontario to were they are today in upstate new york. As well as push the lakota out of the some parts of minnesota. the ojibway didnt go looking for trouble but if other tribes started to encroch on there lands they were more then able to push them all back. 
  So, your Anish as well eh? It is good to find other Anish in the internet community. I was born in Garden River. We Ojibwa were considered a superpower above Mexico by the whites at somepoint in time. 
 
BTW: for those who consider the Blackfoot nation as Blackfeet, plz don't state them as Blackfeet, that is a bit racist and they find that insulting. Blackfoot is that nations name. Just for further consideration. I will get the staff on any member for racisim.Wink
Oh for God's sake. Now we are going to quibble over the singular or plural of "foot" being racist??? I give up. The link I pasted here says FEET, FEET, it is for geneaology. Go report them then.

-------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
" I have no particular talent. I am merely inquisitive". Albert Einstein


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 01:27

One group of Native Americans that also showed a good fighting ability were the Susquehannoks (also refered to as Minkess, Conestoga or Seruskwack). This people who were not especially many were among other things the protectors of the Swedish enterprise New Sweden.

They came to dominate the neighbouring Lenapes and dictate the terms of the fur trade between the Swedish colonists and the inland. They were in conflict with the Iroquois and they also fought the English. On top of that they also conflicted with the Dutch at some occassion.

At some points they really got the mighty Iroqoois confederacy on it´s knees but their resources weren´t enough for a final victory.

The Susquehannoks lent some help from Swedish soldiers (of whom some where intermarried among them) to fortify their city and they even used cannons in their defence.

As the time went by their low numbers and the multitude of their enemies finally weakend them and in the end they split up and some were assimilated in other tribes, some banded up with other groups and went westward, where they continued fighting the British and others, while some stayed in the vicinity of their old homeland. The last of the latter group (just about 20 persons), except two, were murdered by militiamen (the Paxton boys) in 1763.

 
It is interesting to notice that the only remnant we have of the language of the Susquehannoks is a vocabulary of about 100 words (Vocabula Mahakuassica) compiled by the Swedish Lutheran priest Johan Campanius in the 17th century.
 
See also this tread:
 
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=27115 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=27115
 
 


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 01:41
Originally posted by The Canadian Guy The Canadian Guy wrote:

BTW: for those who consider the Blackfoot nation as Blackfeet, plz don't state them as Blackfeet, that is a bit racist and they find that insulting. Blackfoot is that nations name. Just for further consideration. I will get the staff on any member for racisim.Wink


I will thank you not to threaten fellow members with disciplinary action that you do not have the authority to enact, in jest or otherwise. If you have a concern, please review the CoC and pursue the normal channels.

-Akolouthos


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 02:47
Penguin, face it! The Aztec's surrendered! When you quit fighting, and accept the invader;s terms, it's called surrender. When your daughter adopts the Spanish religion, and is baptized Susana, and becomes the mistress of your conqueror (Cortes), that is defeat! The fact that there are still Mexica living in what was Tenochtitlan is proof that they were intelligent enough to know that they were beaten. 

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 17:10
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Penguin, face it! The Aztec's surrendered! When you quit fighting, and accept the invader;s terms, it's called surrender.
 
They were exterminated in the siege of Tenochtitlan. I wonder how many real Aztecs survived, but at least weren't many warriors left. And, of course, Germans also surrender in WW II when they didn't have more people to be send to the war.
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

When your daughter adopts the Spanish religion, and is baptized Susana, and becomes the mistress of your conqueror (Cortes), that is defeat! The fact that there are still Mexica living in what was Tenochtitlan is proof that they were intelligent enough to know that they were beaten. 
 
It was not called Susana but Doña Marina, and she addopted Spanish ways simply because they treat her better than Mayans! She was sold into slavery by her own mother. It those antecedents, nobody would call "Malinche" a "traitor".
 
But that has nothing to do with the topic. Europeans (all of them) simply robbed the Americas from the Amerindians. That the way we should call all those adventurers, from Columbus and everybody else. When we finally do so, we will see the "discovery" of the Americas in the real perspective.
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 18:33
Pinguino, you've got the wrong mistress. Dona Marina, aka la Malinche, was not Moctezuma's daughter. Notice that two of his mistresses were Moctezuma II's daughters.

From:  http://www.answers.com/topic/hern-n-cort-s

Natural children of Hernán Cortés:

  • don Martín Cortés, son of doña Marina (La Malinche), called the First Mestizo; about him was written The New World of Martín Cortés; married doña Bernaldina de Porras and had two children:
    • doña Ana Cortés
    • don Fernando Cortés, Principal http://www.answers.com/topic/judge-2 - Judge of http://www.answers.com/topic/veracruz - Veracruz . Descendants of this line are alive today in Mexico.
  • Martín - the legitimate son of Cortés and Catalina Juárez Marcaida
  • don Luis, son of doña Antonia Hermosillo
  • doña Catalina Pizarro, daughter of his relative doña Leonor Pizarro
  • doña Leonor, daughter of doña Isabel de Moctezuma, the oldest legitimate daughter of Moctezuma II Xocoyotzin
  • doña María Cortés de Moctezuma, married to don Juan de Tolosa, a http://www.answers.com/topic/miner-1863 - miner , daughter of Mexica (Aztec) princess Tecuichpotzin Xocoyotzin, born in http://www.answers.com/topic/tenochtitlan - Tenochtitlan on July 11, 1510 and died on July 9, 1550, daughter of Moctezuma II Xocoyotzin and wife doña María Miahuaxuchitl


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 18:37
This book on the Commanche, by a Finnlander no less, has received very good reviews. I have not read it yet, but it is on the way.

http://www.amazon.com/Comanche-Empire-Lamar-Western-History/dp/0300151179/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245173720&sr=1-1



-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net