Hide this

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

The Comanche Empire by Pekka Hamalainen

The Comanche Empire (original 2008; edition 2008)

by Pekka Hamalainen

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingMentions
220452,892 (3.72)7
Title:The Comanche Empire
Authors:Pekka Hamalainen
Info:Yale (2008), Paperback
Collections:Your library
Tags:history, American history, non-fiction, Indians, 18th century, 19th century

Work details

The Comanche Empire by Pekka Hamalainen (2008)


Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

No current Talk conversations about this book.

» See also 7 mentions

Showing 4 of 4
The Comanches and their clients controlled a huge chunk of the American west for a long time, draining the resources of Spain and then of Mexico/Texas. The empire, in a familiar story, expanded so far that it collapsed from its own successes, especially its successes in killing buffalo and bringing more and more horses into the same territory where they competed with the buffalo for forage. While the Comanches played a significant role in weakening Spain/Mexico to support the US annexation, they then fell victim to that growing power. ( )
  rivkat | May 1, 2017 |
Pekka Hämäläinen’s The Comanche Empire reframes the colonial experience in the American Southwest as a clash between four empires, Spanish, American, French, and Comanche. Hämäläinen seeks to answer the question of how the Comanche managed such a large empire and posed a challenge to the other three. His answer to this question draws upon social history and environmental history. Much of this work relies on an understanding of the ecology of the American Southwest and how that shaped the human geography of the region.
Hämäläinen argues, “Instead of merely defying white expansion through aggressive resistance…Comanches inverted the projected colonial trajectory through multifaceted power politics that brought much of the colonial Southwest under their political, economic, and cultural sway.” He frames his argument with a continued discussion of the role of an empire and how it maintains itself, especially over such a widespread area as Comanchería. Hämäläinen argues that the eastern and western halves of the Comanche Empire were semiautonomous. Discussing the western Comanche and their interaction with Mexico, Hämäläinen writes, “This was an empire that marginalized, isolated, and divided Spanish and Mexican colonies, demoting them, in a sense, from imperial to peripheral status.” According to Hämäläinen, expanding Comanche power directly led to New Mexico breaking away from Spanish and Mexican influence. Discussing the role of natural resources, Hämäläinen identifies the horse, imported by the Spanish, as the primary element that enabled the Comanche to create and maintain their empire. He spends a great deal of time discussing the nutritional needs of horses, the ability of the grasslands to provide for them, and how horses enabled the Comanches to hunt the buffalo, which became their primary export and further enhanced their imperial authority. Equestrianism also created a rigidly structured hierarchy of gender in Comanchería, encouraging the capture of slaves and polygyny in order to support the elite members of the empire. Hämäläinen makes numerous comparisons to eastern Native American tribes, specifically the Iroquois. Discussing Comanche influence, he writes, “Like the Iroquois in the Northeast, the Comanches attached on their sphere numerous Native and non-Native groups as exchange partners, political allies, and metaphorical kin, enveloping themselves in a protective human web.” To expand this empire, the Comanche created a system whereby captives and others could become Comanche, further echoing studies of Northeastern tribes in the colonial period.
Hämäläinen primarily seeks to counter the legacy of historians Walter Prescott Webb and Rupert Norval Richardson. Responding to their work and its impact on the historiography, Hämäläinen writes, “The Comanches who appeared in historical studies from the 1930s on terrorized the Spanish and Mexican frontier with relentless raids, but beyond that they merely occupied space…The narratives that spoke of different kinds of Comanches were marginalized.” Hämäläinen argues for returning to the original European sources as the agents of the French, Spanish, and American imperial systems understood the Comanche as a dynamic empire capable of countering Euro-American designs. Further, Hämäläinen relies on a detailed understanding of ecology, even referencing Alfred Crosby’s Ecological Imperialism in his conclusion. ( )
  DarthDeverell | Dec 20, 2016 |
This is very much one of those "wake up and smell the coffee" sort of books which makes you wonder what else you've misunderstood about the course of history. Be that as it may, this is the story of how a not especially notable tribe of hunter-gathers totally committed to the equestrian way of life and created, if not a formal empire, a hegemony in the southern plains of North America that aborted the dreams of power of many other peoples; particularly the Spanish and their Mexican successors. How did the Comanche do this? It was not just a question of being great horse warriors, it was a question of making themselves indispensable so that all trade in the greater region essentially had to flow through them, having the population mass to back up their pretensions to predominance, and having the adaptability to seek new opportunities when faced with a challenge. Being as ruthless as any other empire based on the horse didn't hurt either.

In the end though the equestrian-nomad way of life did become a dead end for the Comanche. Their massive population of horses competed for the same habitat as the buffalo, so that when a major drought hit in the mid-18th century, at a time when Comanche economic machine had to run "all out," the results were catastrophic. By the time a respite came in the 1860s, the American government was in a position to put an end to this nuisance once and for all.

That's the thing, while Hamalainen goes to some lengths not to romanticize the Comanche, such as devoting a chapter to demonstrating just how hard the practice of empire was even on the rank-and-file of the Comanche Nation, not just their victims, that does bring up my main issue with this work; how Hamalainen could have played up how parasitic their way of life was. The reality is that the Comanche system worked best when they had other major powers to play off against each other to gain weapons and backing, or other, more settled societies to loot for food and captives. After considering the course of Comanche empire, and keeping in mind the downright genocidal end game of the American war on the First Nations, I at least have to think goodbye to bad rubbish. ( )
  Shrike58 | Jul 27, 2016 |
This book will change your mind about how the West was won. Hint: The Comanches got there first. The Comanches arrived obscurely in the American Southwest in 1706. This book provocatively makes the case that the Comanches created an imposing Southwestern American empire that spanned 150 years, blunted the 18th century colonial ambitions of the Spanish in Mexico and the French in Louisiana, and stalled the westward thrust of Americans and the U.S. government until the middle of the 19th century. A broad coalition of Comanche rancheria chiefs throughout the territory of Comancheria first dominated the Apaches, eventually turned against their Ute allies, and commercially or militarily subjugated numerous lesser tribes. Comanches managed a succession of peace treaties and conflicts with the Spaniards and completely blocked their repeated efforts to extend colonial settlements northward from Mexico. The political, commercial and military supremacy of the Comanches was based principally on their success in adopting and adapting Spanish horses for efficient transportation, military power and a thriving and lucrative trade in horses throughout the Southwest.
The title and Hamalainen's central argument invite—indeed they provoke—a reasonable dispute about the credibility of his claim for a Comanche empire. In classical political or geopolitical usage, the claim is untenable, at least in part; the Comanche empire had neither fixed borders, nor a single self-sustaining centralized supreme authority, nor a durable bureaucracy, nor a definitive political structure. Nevertheless, the Comanches had a respected, recurring broadly representative council of chiefs that planned and organized extensive raids, trading and other commerce, and military operations. Their hunting, pasturing and trading territories had indistinct geographic borders that were never surveyed or adjudicated; Comanches never sought to occupy and permanently control any specifically delineated territory; Hamalainen says they were "conquerors who saw themselves more as guardians than governors of the land and its bounties." Nonetheless, the geographical extent of the their domains was well known, respected and enforced by the Comanches. Each Comanche rancheria had its own geographic territory, rigorous socio-military culture and hierarchical organizational. The situational circumstances of Comanche military superiority, their control of trade and their ability through the decades to repeatedly impose and maintain obviously favorable terms in their treaty and trade agreements are undeniable evidence of the Comanches' extended dominance of terrain, physical resources, culture and commerce, and, not least in importance, the Spanish and French colonial enterprises that sought to compete with them.
For decades the Comanches set the terms of their success; no competing power could defeat them, and no Indians or Europeans could evade the Comanches' dominance in their domain. Thus, the Comanches created a de facto empire. Ultimately, they were marginalized by a combination of drought that constrained their bison hunting and weakened their pastoral horse culture, disruption of trade which limited their access to essential carbohydrate foodstuffs, epidemic disease that repeatedly reduced the Comanche populations, predatory bison hunting by the Americans in the early 1870s that wiped out this essential food resource, and, finally, by the irresistible tide of U.S. government-sponsored westward migration that pushed American citizens into Comanche territory.
Too bad the Comanches left no accounts of their own. It would be fascinating to hear this story in their own words.
Read more on my blog: http://barleyliterate.blogspot.com/ ( )
1 vote rsubber | Dec 24, 2012 |
Showing 4 of 4
The history of North America as a contested land has always turned on the axiom that it was a prize in the clash of empires fought among European powers.… By proposing a counternarrative "in which governing historical forces emanate from the continent's center, Comanchería, and spread toward its margins," the author has presented a provocative thesis that suddenly brings into question every assumption that has forever kept the standard narrative fixed in place (p. 353).… Hämäläinen projects his interpretation through a scrupulously documented narrative that proposes some compelling and original arguments.… Among all the old assumptions Hämäläinen brings into question, those that most appealed to this reviewer concerned the odd relationship between Mexicans and Texians.… Comanche Empire is an impressive, well-written, and important study that should significantly influence future metanarratives, whether they include all or parts of Texas, the West, the Borderlands, or even general histories of the United States and Mexico.
The Comanche Empire is a hugely important documentary survey of the Comanche Nation, as known from documentary sources between the late 17th and the late 19th centuries. For these two centuries, author Pekka Hämäläinen has repositioned Comancheria as a Central North American empire, rather than painting them as peripheral colonial hangers-on, noble savages, or unknowable illiterates.… The arguments for the collapse of Comancheria break down into several limes of speculation,… without much in the way of firm conclusion. In the end, though, this volume is not intended to be the end-all of Comanche histories but rather a starting point.
Although the word 'empire' may be author's hyperbole, the Comanches ruled an extensive domain that worked on a melange of kinship ties, trade, diplomacy, extortion and violence.… Hämäläinen's most detailed scholarly labours concern the eighteenth century: he claims that by 1730 the Comanches had all their people on horses and had reached what he calls 'the critical threshold of mounted nomadism'. The narrative, firmly based on admirable scholarship, shifts from warfare to diplomacy and back.… Hämäläinen is very good on Comanche social structure.… Hämäläinen's great achievement is to force a rethink about Mexican history from its independence from Spain in 1821 to its defeat by the United States in 1846-8.… Hämäläinen's book contains powerful scholarship, original insights and some intermittently excellent narrative writing, but is, sadly, marred by… jargon, academy-speak and gobbledygook.
You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.
Series (with order)
Canonical title
Original title
Alternative titles
Original publication date
Important places
Important events
Related movies
Awards and honors
First words
Last words
Disambiguation notice
Publisher's editors
Publisher series
Original language
Book description
Haiku summary

Amazon.com Product Description (ISBN 0300126549, Hardcover)

In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, a Native American empire rose to dominate the fiercely contested lands of the American Southwest, the southern Great Plains, and northern Mexico. This powerful empire, built by the Comanche Indians, eclipsed its various European rivals in military prowess, political prestige, economic power, commercial reach, and cultural influence. Yet, until now, the Comanche empire has gone unrecognized in American history.


This compelling and original book uncovers the lost story of the Comanches. It is a story that challenges the idea of indigenous peoples as victims of European expansion and offers a new model for the history of colonial expansion, colonial frontiers, and Native-European relations in North America and elsewhere. Pekka Hämäläinen shows in vivid detail how the Comanches built their unique empire and resisted European colonization, and why they fell to defeat in 1875. With extensive knowledge and deep insight, the author brings into clear relief the Comanches’ remarkable impact on the trajectory of history.

(retrieved from Amazon Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:14:07 -0400)

Discusses the power wielded by the Comanches in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in the southern Great Plains, the Southwest, and northern Mexico, covering their military ability, political dominance, and commercial and cultural influence as they resisted European colonization until their defeat in 1875.… (more)

(summary from another edition)

» see all 2 descriptions

Quick Links

Swap Ebooks Audio
25 wanted1 pay

Popular covers


Average: (3.72)
3 8
3.5 2
4 10
4.5 1
5 2

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.


You are using the new servers! | About | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 115,150,175 books! | Top bar: Always visible