Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Texas Rangers vs Comanches

I’m not sure where in Texas you are but even with the migratory buffalo herds and plethora of wild game in the pre-Civil War days it was unforgiving country. A lot of arid wasteland with not much nutritional value in the native forage that just didn’t support a lot of game. Other areas were obviously much better since Texas is a big state but it didn’t change the Comanche’s motivation for fighting.

The settlers lightly guarded cattle and horses made for easy pickings in the early days of the Republic and whatever possessions the whites had were valuable to the the Comanche.

Fighting and stealing was what the Comanches, like most tribes simply did, they were ruthless, thieving, grudge holding bastards that loved brutality all in their quest for wealth and dominance. The Comanches were pioneers amongst the natives for their unbelievable horsemanship and their understanding of animal husbandry. Their wealth was almost exclusively tied to the horse so capturing a herd of horses was their equivalent of winning the lottery. White man’s guns were useful in their quest for wealth and as trade goods. Mostly though the young men needed to steal horses, count coup and perform the other requirements for manhood and warrior status so they needed to fight and do battle in order for the tribe and the young men to grow and flourish.

The Comanches were less guarding “their land” than they were simply doing what they’d done for generations upon generations. The ease with which they could steal horses, cattle and slaves as well as gang rape the white women and brutally torture and murder made attacking whites an easy choice. They iron loot, guns, coffee, sugar, tobacco, ALCOHOL and other plunder was how tribes garnered power and prestige and “wealth”. The Comanches were nomadic with vast territory. The buffalo and game were “theirs” but they really were not fighting for “their land”….at least certainly not in the early years pre-Civil War. Their desires were more geared towards the accumulation of wealth and power, ie horses, guns, powder and lead.

Pretty much however the Comanche were the worst of the worst. The Comanche were feared by other fearless tribes and didn’t need provocation to unleash total brutality.

Yeah and it’s a well deserved name. As a kid I always thought the Apache were the worst but the more I read the more I realized that the Comanche made the Apache look like Sunday school teachers. 😁

After the Comanche chiefs were killed in the fort at San Antonio, the Comanches back at the camp had about 20 white captives there. They staked them out naked, including little children, and the squaws slowly tortured them to death. Cut open their bellies, cut off or burned off their hands and slowly tortured them over a span of a dozen hours.

After the Comanche chiefs were killed in the fort at San Antonio, the Comanches back at the camp had about 20 white captives there. They staked them out naked, including little children, and the squaws slowly tortured them to death. Cut open their bellies, cut off or burned off their hands and slowly tortured them over a span of a dozen hours.

So says Fehrenbach, he was born before his time, today he would be writing “graphic novels”.

Actually the Comanches did torture, of course. Indeed the sight of the brutally disfigured and abused Matilda
Lockhart is what triggered the Council House Fight in the first place wherein all twelve (??) Comanche chiefs, including the one that had hosted Smithwick, died.

To the Comanches, the Texians had practiced unparalleled treachery, killing people who had entered trustingly under a flag of truce.

What Fehrenbach chooses to omit however is that subsequent to the fight, and the tortures, the Comanche Chief Isomania, working quietly behind the scenes through like minded residents of San Antonio, did arrange the exchange of several unharmed White captives for Comanche women and children held in Mission San Jose.

Have any of you guys read the book by J.W. Wilbarger titled "Indian Depredations In Texas" ?

It is a very interesting read that focuses on the " Battles, wars, adventures, forays, murders, massacres, etc., etc."

I assume it is rather one sided, yet I was a bit shocked on the cruelty of the Indians towards women and children.

I was wondering what you scholars think of the book and it's authenticity?

Dammit, I thought Fehrenbach was a scholar. Looks like his book needs to go into the trash. I did buy today The Comanche Empire by Hamailanen.

Yes. I have that one.

I’m pretty sure Wilbarger’s accounts are accurate, he spoke to the people involved, first person.

Good thread.

Similarly to some of the other comments I had always believed that it was the Apache that were the most brutal and most warlike. I mostly based that on Geronimo and what he was able to do with a small band of warriors and had assumed that the Comanche were the second string as far as warriors and warfare went.

I’m in some rugged country with big peaks, clear creeks, cypress, maples, sycamore, Lacey Blue Oaks, pinion pines, madrone trees, and over 1000 springs. God’s abundance of game animals, so many exotics that don’t fall under Texas law that eat better than any whitetail and I kill them all year round. NO MOSQUITOES, ALWAYS BREEZE, and 68 degree nights on the hottest of Texas days. My Hollows look much like the Buffalo River in Arkansas.

I am Blessed, Thanks Be to God !

And I’ll fight harder than any Comanche to keep it !