Latin american tribes stronger than Anglo american tribes?

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,356
South of the barcodes
#2
I'm not sure what your asking?

By northern tribes do you mean the original native civilizations like the Iroqois or the modern anglo-americans who definitely aint tribal (party politics aside) because those are two completely different things?
 
Jun 2012
2,970
Brazil
#3
South and North America are quite large is difficult to measure the power of each tribe and we are talking about hundreds of different people
is we can not forget that some of the ancient nations as the Incas or Missipian consisted of several different tribes.
 
Jun 2012
2,970
Brazil
#5
Also is this before or after re-introduction of the horse? Give a Comanche a horse and he becomes the best light horse cavalry in history.
zincwarrior i'm not trying to play the smart guy but this is subjective depend of the bias of each individual chilean says that the best light cavalry were the Mapuche, Uruguayans says that the best were the Charrua,Brazilians and paraguayans will tell you that the best were the Guaycurus because these people also become (like the comanche) incredible and very successfully horsemen.

We dont have information about the social and military organization(man power, logistics,comanders, weapons) from most of the native americans in my humble opinion any results on who is more or better than another is a matter of personal bias
 
Last edited:

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,104
#6
The Aztec and Inca empires were more "advanced", had higher population density, and were mostly agricultural. The southern and eastern US Indians tended to be partly agricultural and more "advanced". In most other areas, the Indians were hunter gatherers, with lower technology and population density.
 
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
#7
The Aztec and Inca empires were more "advanced", had higher population density, and were mostly agricultural. The southern and eastern US Indians tended to be partly agricultural and more "advanced". In most other areas, the Indians were hunter gatherers, with lower technology and population density.
That's not true. Pre-contact Eastern Indians were agricultural as well as hunters. In most eastern tribes, men did the hunting, women did the farming. Colonists spoke about it often; they considered Indian men lazy because in European culture farming was men's work. When Indian men went hunting, colonists considered it a leisure activity.
 

Fantasus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2012
2,381
Northern part of European lowland
#9
What is the meaning of "Anglo" or "latin" tribes?
Is not both by definition at least partially actual or " cultural" european origin?
 
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
#10
What is the meaning of "Anglo" or "latin" tribes?
Is not both by definition at least partially actual or " cultural" european origin?
I think it was a way to distinguish the geographical location of the Indians by using European colonization. Latin = Spanish = Meso-America and South America; Anglo=British=North America. I guess he wasn't interested in the Franco Indians of Canada. :)
 

Similar History Discussions