Latin american tribes stronger than Anglo american tribes?

Oct 2012
10
Are indigenous tribes of North America stronger than tribes of South America? In term of warfare and technology?
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,484
South of the barcodes
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?
 

Tairusiano

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
2,978
Brazil
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.
 

zincwarrior

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,713
Texas
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.
 

Tairusiano

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
2,978
Brazil
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
6,523
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.
 

Jax Historian

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
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
What is the meaning of "Anglo" or "latin" tribes?
Is not both by definition at least partially actual or " cultural" european origin?
 

Jax Historian

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
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. :)