If you were to assemble a Top 5, which tribes would it consist of?

Nez Perce in 1877 are in the top 5.

Sioux under Red Cloud are too.

Most, if not all, in the Iroquois Nation.

What does the OP mean by "warrior"? For example, the Celts individually were probably better warriors than the individual Roman soldiers, but Roman organization, tactics, and strategy overwhelmed the Celts.

And history has shown repeatedly that, over the long term, settled agrarian cultures end up defeating and dominating mobile, unsettled cultures. The only exception to that I can think of are the Mongols.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

And before the modern horse came to America, they were a backwater little mountain tribe, were they not??

---

Correct. Very closely related to the Shoshone.

Iroquois Confederacy.

Yeah, I'd have to go with the Iroquois also. The Comanches were great light horse warriors, but I suspect that they would have been annihilated trying to fight the Iroquois up in the heavy timber of the Northeast.

BrazosBendHorn said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Yeah, I'd have to go with the Iroquois also. The Comanches were great light horse warriors, but I suspect that they would have been annihilated trying to fight the Iroquois up in the heavy timber of the Northeast.

---

And likewise, I suppose if the Iroquois had taken on the Comanches on the plains and prairies of Texas they would have had a very, very bad day.

The Comanches pushed the Apache out of what is modern-day Texas. That speaks for itself.

---

This discussion is a bit like who would win in a fight between Superman and Spiderman.

Having said that, the Comanches did push the Apache out of Texas, but not out of their mountains in NM & AZ. The Comanches had to have the right terrain for their type of warfare. Also, settled peoples were particularly vulnerable to the Comanche warfare style of hit and run. The Comanches, not being settled themselves, were somewhat invulnerable to retaliatory raids until the US Cavalry showed up.

Given the huge population of the Iroquois, I wonder if they had wanted the southern plains, if they could have used their numbers to force the Comanches out? Could they have adopted a strategy similar to that of the US Cavalry of relentless pursuit and destruction of the Comanche horse herds and women and children?

wildcat08 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

And before the modern horse came to America, they were a backwater little mountain tribe, were they not?

---

Amazing the transformation they made when they came out of the mountains to the plains and started acquiring horses.

---

Sort of the Hells Angels of the Plains Indians.

I'd be interested to see how things would have shaken out Commanche vs Sioux

GSPag` said:

---

As individual warriors the Comanche were some tough SOBs. But as a warring nation I am not sure how their strike harshly and flee swiftly tactics would have held up in a long term onslaught.

One thing they had going for them is that no other tribes wanted the territory that comprised Comancheria. Or did not want it bad enough to give up the resources it would taken to dispatch the Comanche.

---

It didn't work so well once MacKenzie started going after their villages...

Just like other great tribes (Cheyanne, Lakota's, Nez Peirce, Apache) .. their demise was lead by the very tribes that were their enemies and been brutalized by them. In the Comanche's case .. the Tonkawas.

GSPag` said:

---

As individual warriors the Comanche were some tough SOBs. But as a warring nation I am not sure how their strike harshly and flee swiftly tactics would have held up in a long term onslaught.

One thing they had going for them is that no other tribes wanted the territory that comprised Comancheria. Or did not want it bad enough to give up the resources it would taken to dispatch the Comanche.

I have often wondered what the future of the Comanche would have been if gold would have been discovered in the Prarie Dog Fork in 1840 or earlier. To imagine the chaos that would have caused for the young Republic trying to protect the invasion of miners with the limited security forces on hand during that period. We may have found out how great of a warring nation the Comanches were.

---

Did you know that the Comanches allied with Texas against Mexico - until
after the Revolution was successful, at which time there was meeting in
San Antonio that broke down into a brawl over Comanche failure
to return white captives? After that, there was a huge Comanche raid that
destroyed a coastal town and lead to the Battle of Plum Creek near Lockhart.
The Rangers won that battle but the Comanches continued to wipe out isolated ranches
pretty much every full moon (with particular success during the Civil War).
But, I would say that the Sioux were stronger as a nation of fighters -
I mean there were more Sioux than Comanches back then,
and there are WAY more Sioux still around.

Seeing as how todays the day, maybe we should ask Custer about it…..:

JABQ04 said:

---

Seeing as how todays the day, maybe we should ask Custer about it…..:

---

PS... Bring packs

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Comanches

---

The Comanches practiced a "hit and run" strategy. Are you a warrior if you hit and then run away?

doubledog said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Comanches

---

The Comanches practiced a "hit and run" strategy. Are you a warrior if you hit and then run away?

---

We just passed the 150th anniversary of the second battle of Adobe Walls. Comanches and Kiowa besieged a group of Buffalo hunters for several days.

Beyond that, they were outnumbered, so adopting guerrilla tactics is not a surprise

doubledog said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Comanches

---

The Comanches practiced a "hit and run" strategy. Are you a warrior if you hit and then run away?

---

Isn't this the entire strategy of the United States Air Force?

Sapper Redux said:

---

doubledog said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Comanches

---

The Comanches practiced a "hit and run" strategy. Are you a warrior if you hit and then run away?

---

Isn't this the entire strategy of the United States Air Force?

---

Exactly!

I thought it was to allow crunchies to clean their drawers and wipe their tears after panicky radio calls.

I'm currently reading a book on the Deerfield massacre in 1704 on the western edge of the Massachusetts colony.

For that era, terrain and weather……..I'd want nothing to do with the Abenaki and Mohawks.

The Shawnee under Little Turtle and Blue Jacket, inflicted the worst defeat ever suffered by Americans against natives at the Battle of the Wabash.
Of the 1,000 men under St. Clair, only 24 escaped unharmed. Over 600 were killed, the rest captured or wounded. The Shawnee were some tough customers.

Miamis, Potawatomies, Wyandots, and other Indians participated in the Battle of the Wabash.

Sapper Redux said:

---

doubledog said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Comanches

---

The Comanches practiced a "hit and run" strategy. Are you a warrior if you hit and then run away?

---

Isn't this the entire strategy of the United States Air Force?

---

You are comparing an air raid to Comanche raid?

I think Sapper was indirectly answering that "yes, warriors do hit and run" - sometimes.