which hostile tribes were toughest - Mapuche/Tehuelche, Sioux/Comanche/Apache, Maori, or Xhosa/Zulu/Sotho/Tswana?

Nov 2010
96
#1
In the 19th century, whites were expanding into frontier lands within many New World areas and encountered many hostile, warlike tribes, particularly in the Pampas and Patagonia (in Argentina plus Chile), the Great Plains and Southwest (in the United States), New Zealand, and South Africa. The whites fought wars against these tribes and it oftentimes took decades to fully subdue them. Which tribes were the most formidable of all and took whites the most effort to subdue - the Mapuche, Tehuelche, and other Araucanized tribes in Argentina/Chile? The Sioux and Comanche of the Great Plains? The Apache of the American Southwest? The Maori of New Zealand? Or the Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho, Tswana, etc. of South Africa?
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,066
Las Vegas, NV USA
#3
Considering the Mapuche haven't even been subdued yet, they might win by default.
I don't think it's a matter of being subdued or not being subdued. The government of Chile signed a treaty with the Mapuche (1883) and actually kept their word.

"Between two Chilean provinces (ConcepciĆ³n and Valdivia) there is a piece of land that is not a province, its language is different, it is inhabited by other people and it can still be said that it is not part of Chile. Yes, Chile is the name of the country over where its flag waves and its laws are obeyed."

I don't know about all the tribes listed but I'm going with the Comanche (Texas and New Mexico). They weren't really a tribe. They largely came from other tribes and didn't fit in because of their violent tendencies. They mercilessly raided established tribes and white settlers. They weren't above stealing from and killing each other for loot, captive women and children.
 
Last edited: