Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
The “body” chapters (2 and 3) of Comanche Empire that we were assigned were undoubtedly interesting, and did quite a good job of expanding upon author Hämäläinen’s general argument that Comanches were able to establish a Southwestern “empire” by exploiting Spanish and French colonies for their own gain. At times I feel like these chapters do veer into a bit of redundancy; it seems that the conclusion to every section, whether about the Comanche-Apache Wars, Western Comanches’ rise to power in New Mexico, or Eastern Comanches’ similar rise in Texas, was some variation on the idea that Comanches succeeded due to their economic prowess and Spain’s tendency to underestimate them.
What I absolutely love about this book however, is the introduction. Hämäläinen’s argument and the overall trajectory of his work is laid out so clearly that it is impossible to miss any of the major points he makes (I assume that because the major arguments of first two chapters were part of his introductory remarks, the rest of the book flows this way as well). He also presents a very comprehensive and widespread historiography that does not just situate Comanche Empire within the confines of 19th Century America, but within a much wider field that I feel underscores the importance of his work. His discussions of important current historians in his specific field, as well as more famous (although often considered “outdated”) historians and ideas such as Frederick Jackson Turner and the Frontier Thesis. This wide-ranging examination of not only the important works in the field, but how they specifically inform and diverge from Hämäläinen’s own work, makes the importance and place of his book very clear. Drawing upon relatively recent scholarship that sees Native Americans as powerful historical actors with agency, and combining it with cultural history as well as an amalgamation of other ideas, he equates Comanche dominance in the Southwest with the classic idea of an empire.
In his historiography, Hämäläinen acknowledges that he engages in “the broader debates about colonialism, frontiers, and borderlands in the Americas” (6), but I would argue that he sells himself short – it reaches further than just the Americas. By considering the Comanches an empire, I think he opens his work up for comparison with world and European history as well. Andrew mentioned in his response a comparison of sorts: the Comanches were able to modify their worldview in order to advance, while it was impossible for Spanish colonial leaders to change theirs due to their deep-seated conviction that not only the Comanches, but Indians in general, were somehow inferior despite their losses at Comanche hands. This is basically the extent of Hämäläinen’s comparisons. I think this idea of comparisons could be taken further by future historians: by examining the Comanches alongside more traditionally studied empires, they could possibly come to new conclusions regarding the characteristics of empires as a whole.