The Apache of the Southwest of the States and northern Mexico...

[Interested Party in UK]

Morning IPUK, what you say is partly true, but it was because of the Apache's method of fighting in Mexico. He invariably used the ambush type of attack. He would fire a volley of arrows or bullets at the peaceful people working in the fields, then appraise the results, finish off the wounded by torture or simply fade away. I would equate his effectiveness as similar to the terrorists in Europe, just a few, cause fear among the general population, out of proportion to their numbers. to the extent that they are willing to give up some of their freedoms in the hope that the ovt will provide some (questionable ) security.

When you have small bands of say 50 or so, you can move faster and easier than a gov't military unit, and it is easier to live off the country if necessary However the attrition rate must be taken into account, even the loss of a few fighting men has a serious effect on your ability to fight, hence the ambush system of attack on the lonely homesteader, or field worker,

Don,

Care to state which part of what I say is "untrue"?

The Apache fought the Mexican with the intent of staying alive, gaining maximum 'goodies' for themselves/band/tribe, whilst minimising his exposure in order to live to fight another day. When needed, look how 'Geronimo' obtained his nom de guerre when looking for vengeance. The Mexican soldiers were on the verge of shitting themselves when faced with an Apache who was on the warpath. Again I will say that the comparison with 'terrorism' in Europe is a false enterprise. But you must also consider what is happening in the US. It is the States that is leading/led the "War on Terror", but that really is of no semblance of the Apache scenario. The Mexicans were in need of slave labour just as much as hilly-billy whitey in that rather questionable part of the States was in years gone by, but instead of buying them from traders in human cargo from Africa, they simply raided native villages to 'get' what they needed. The enmity that many tribes, not just Apache, had against the Mexicans, was built up over an extended period of time.

When the great, perhaps the greatest of Apaches, Chief Cochise made peace with the Americans and lived peacefully on his Chiricahua Reservation and even protected some routes for whitey to travel safely on, a Mexican came to the reservation to ask for Cochise's intervention with some raiding parties south of the border. The chief recalled in years gone by how duplicitous the Mexicans had been with his Apaches and he would never trust them ever or make peace with them.

As well as a 'Tucson Ring', there was also conniving Mexicans who dealt in stolen livestock, raided goods and traded weapons with the Apache.

You make a point of "front-facing" battles, this is a failure to understand Apache mode of warfare and their psyche. Why oh why, get yourself killed for nothing and have your family/band suffer your loss, than fight tactically and get what you need and keep yourself alive..?

When necessary they fought alright, they also had the great responsibility of having their children, women, infirm and injured with them whilst off the reservation. Look how the mighty Victorio died fighting. Imagine what they had to do in order to stay one step ahead of their pursuers, of which there was many and from two nations. Armies, officers, civil law enforcement, bounty hunters and other Injuns wanting to be the 'one' who got Cochise, Mangas, Juh, Victorio, Geronimo, Nana etc...


You talk about the Yaqui holding their own against the Mexicans but in their uprising in 1896, they did the opposite to what the Chiricahua did and left Mexico for Arizona. Out of necessity they also fought with guerilla tactics when it suited them...


IPUK

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Interested Party in UK]

Don Jose/ROT: you posted "the Apache was a skulking, thieving, ambusher, rather than a stand up and fight Injun"... That sounds like the exact description used by the British to describe the colonists fighting for their freedom or the IRA (Irish Republican Army).... or are the Oirish the "terrorists in Europe" you're referring to?

Injunbro, I am no expert on "The Troubles" (as they've been referred to here in the U.K. by politicians regarding the Irish situation), but that is an issue of politics, religion and sovereignty. The Apache were fighting first to retain their lands, then to keep their way of life and finally just to keep alive. Don keeps making comparisons with present-day terrorists, but I for one, fail to see any correlation. Also the environments, norms and circumstances lend themselves to completely differential situations but being an adopted Mexican, perhaps he doesn't wish to accept that the Apache were once a formidable force that were important players on both sides of the border and his adopted friend were, for the most part, bystanders...


IPUK

 

[torie517]

So long for now I will tell what I find always do

 

[torie517]

And if you wish to hunt with some one that really knows just for fun asked I could use to clear my mind next place the cross I am the one who found stone map and lost valley ask me

 

[cactusjumper]

Injunbro, I am no expert on "The Troubles" (as they've been referred to here in the U.K. by politicians regarding the Irish situation), but that is an issue of politics, religion and sovereignty. The Apache were fighting first to retain their lands, then to keep their way of life and finally just to keep alive. Don keeps making comparisons with present-day terrorists, but I for one, fail to see any correlation. Also the environments, norms and circumstances lend themselves to completely differential situations but being an adopted Mexican, perhaps he doesn't wish to accept that the Apache were once a formidable force that were important players on both sides of the border and his adopted friend were, for the most part, bystanders...


IPUK

IPUK,

The Apache, like many Native Americans, never had any land that they didn't steal from someone else. It was just the way of the world, in that time. We took this land by force and intimidation from the Indians, the Spanish, the English and the French. I probably left someone out, but others can correct me. The Apache were never the strongest of the Native Americans, which is why they were constantly pushed out of the better places to live. Eventually they had to settle for some of the most inhospitable land in America.....In that respect, they were survivors.

In the end, they were defeated and subjected to prisons in Florida and other reservations. If the day should ever come where the Apache can kick America's collective ass, they will take "their land" back. Until that time, we are the present owners of the country. History just bites, but it is what it is.

This conversation has to do with the Apache of the Southwest, and is a sub-thread in the Lost Dutchman topic. That means we really should be discussing the Apache of the Superstition Mountains. There were very few Apache in the range, and they were mainly in the northeastern portion of the range near the Salt River. They would be the Tonto Apache.

IMHO, Don Jose is correct.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Interested Party in UK]

IPUK,

The Apache, like many Native Americans, never had any land that they didn't steal from someone else. It was just the way of the world, in that time. We took this land by force and intimidation from the Indians, the Spanish, the English and the French. I probably left someone out, but others can correct me. The Apache were never the strongest of the Native Americans, which is why they were constantly pushed out of the better places to live. Eventually they had to settle for some of the most inhospitable land in America.....In that respect, they were survivors.

In the end, they were defeated and subjected to prisons in Florida and other reservations. If the day should ever come where the Apache can kick America's collective ass, they will take "their land" back. Until that time, we are the present owners of the country. History just bites, but it is what it is.

This conversation has to do with the Apache of the Southwest, and is a sub-thread in the Lost Dutchman topic. That means we really should be discussing the Apache of the Superstition Mountains. There were very few Apache in the range, and they were mainly in the northeastern portion of the range near the Salt River. They would be the Tonto Apache.

IMHO, Don Jose is correct.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

CJ,

You claim that the "Apache, like many Native Americans, never had any land that they didn't steal from someone else."
But what this fails to take into account is, the fact that the injuns were the 'first' ones there, and by default, that gives them first dibs on any location. In Arizona, New Mexico and south of the border, they had been ranging and moving camps for centuries, surely that accounts for something...?

You believe that they "were not the strongest of Native Americans."
This simply doesn't tally with the fortitude, resistance, ferociousness, will and sheer refusal to accept defeat even in the face of overwhelming odds, that they faced. Most other tribes in their vicinity hated them with a vengeance; hardly describing a 'weak' tribe.

Of course they with all the other native tribes were defeated. You state "we are the present owners of the country." That's in contrast to some of the rhetoric coming from various quarters in the US.

I started this thread to discuss all things Apache. Not only to do with the Superstitions.

You are entirely within your rights to agree with Don.

I am free to say I believe you're both wrong!


IPUK

 

[Crowfriend]

The Apaches in Cochise County were preceded by the Mogollons, the Mimbres, the Salados, the Hohokam, and what ever group killed the mammoths. The cave in the Peloncillos was dated to the 1300's. The first Spanish explorers that mentioned the Chiricahua Mountains said there were three different tribes living there, one being the Apaches. After that moment in time there was only one that was ever mentioned. The Apaches. I would suppose they weren't willing to share.

Arch Deni Seymour was the first to realize the Chiricahua group made a hide Peircer distinct to them. When I showed her the cave, this was the first thing found, in just minutes of being there. This allowed her to go back through archives and trace there path to Southern Az. That group, unlike the others, followed the slopes of the Rockies rather than down the plains as the Mescaleros did. All that distance and they pretty much stopped in Cochise County. In every case, when I take visitors to these places they say something like "I sure can feel the mojo of the Apache Spirit here." Maybe this is true but I think it is the land itself that has the mojo. It is definitly a place worth fighting for.

The land belongs, to whatever group can control it. It has little or nothing to do with morality.

 

[Crowfriend]

I knew those boulders looked familiar.

Mud Springs, a dozen miles north of Douglas. The first photo was made around 1880. The Apache kid is on the left and his fellow scout Slim Jim is on the right. Below them is civilian Tribolet and I forgot the soldier's name on the right. Either this Tribolet, or his brother, was the man that sold moonshine to the Apaches at Embudos, thus derailing the peace talks and costing Crook his post in AZ.

 

[cactusjumper]

CJ,

You claim that the "Apache, like many Native Americans, never had any land that they didn't steal from someone else."
But what this fails to take into account is, the fact that the injuns were the 'first' ones there, and by default, that gives them first dibs on any location. In Arizona, New Mexico and south of the border, they had been ranging and moving camps for centuries, surely that accounts for something...?

You believe that they "were not the strongest of Native Americans."
This simply doesn't tally with the fortitude, resistance, ferociousness, will and sheer refusal to accept defeat even in the face of overwhelming odds, that they faced. Most other tribes in their vicinity hated them with a vengeance; hardly describing a 'weak' tribe.

Of course they with all the other native tribes were defeated. You state "we are the present owners of the country." That's in contrast to some of the rhetoric coming from various quarters in the US.

I started this thread to discuss all things Apache. Not only to do with the Superstitions.

You are entirely within your rights to agree with Don.

I am free to say I believe you're both wrong!


IPUK

IPUK,

Of course your opinion is important, just as our opposing opinion is relevant.

Just for the record, the Apache (Athapascan) were the latest people to cross over from Asia to Alaska. They missed being the first "Americans" by around 25,000 years. That means the ancient Asiatics were the "first" owners of America, but the Apache were, basically, interlopers. They came into the Southwest around the same time as the Spanish, the early 16th. century.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Interested Party in UK]

IPUK,

Of course your opinion is important, just as our opposing opinion is relevant.

Just for the record, the Apache (Athapascan) were the latest people to cross over from Asia to Alaska. They missed being the first "Americans" by around 25,000 years. That means the ancient Asiatics were the "first" owners of America, but the Apache were, basically, interlopers. They came into the Southwest around the same time as the Spanish, the early 16th. century.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

CJ,

You've clearly missed the meaning of my post; the Apache were never fighting over Alaska, were they..?

IPUK

 

[cactusjumper]

CJ,

You've clearly missed the meaning of my post; the Apache were never fighting over Alaska, were they..?

IPUK

IPUK,

I believe you are mistaken. The Apache lifestyle dictated that they fight everywhere they went. They were always "warriors". That being said, it seems more than likely that they fought/raided those who had settled in Alaska before they arrived. Pretty much what I have been trying to say all along.

I would recommend reading some of Dr. Gordon C. Baldwin's books.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Real of Tayopa]

feel perfectally free to disagree, that is correct, and the only way, presentaly to have an idea of the truth,. But effectively they were raiding south into Mexico, which was not their land by any count, long before " whitey ' ever showed up in the west.. can you tell me of any frontal fight with whitey. or other Indians that they won except in popular novels, or books written for the same purpose, entertainment.. Why were most of his victims lonely ranchers, miners, women, kiddies, or other non military personal

As for Crook,,it was justification for his failure to bottle up a group on foot while he used a superior force and animals which were as restricted in freedom of movement. as modern vehicles. A man on foot can go up and down in those barrancas, far faster than an animal, who has to follow a zig zag path or a series of u turns in the trail, plus he has the ability to cross over to those ridges and places where there are no trails.

Believe me, I know having traveled and explored that country in search for lost Spanish mines, and history in general etc.

 

[Interested Party in UK]

IPUK,

I believe you are mistaken. The Apache lifestyle dictated that they fight everywhere they went. They were always "warriors". That being said, it seems more than likely that they fought/raided those who had settled in Alaska before they arrived. Pretty much what I have been trying to say all along.

I would recommend reading some of Dr. Gordon C. Baldwin's books.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

Alaska doesn't even come into the equation, CJ. But if you wish to speculate about events that, as you say may have happened 25 thousand years ago, please be my guest.

Even in the Apache nation itself, some tribes were more amenable to sedentary roles than others. Some accepted and worked with the Americans from day one...

Thank you for the reading recommendation, but believe it or not, I've done a tinsy, winsy amount of the aforementioned before reaching any conclusion(s).

IPUK

 

[Interested Party in UK]

feel perfectally free to disagree, that is correct, and the only way, presentaly to have an idea . But effectively they were raiding south into Mexico, which was not their land by any count, long before " whitey ' ever showed up in the west.. can you tell me of any frontal fight with whitey. or other Indians that they won except in popular novels, or books written for the same purpose, entertainment.. Why were most of his victims lonely ranchers, miners, or other non military personal

As for Crook,,it was justification for his failure to bottle up a group on foot while he used a superior force and animals which were as restricted in freedom of movement. as modern vehicles. A man on foot can go up and down in those barrancas, far faster than an animal, who has to follow a zig zag path or a series of u turns in the trail, plus he has the ability to cross over to those ridges and places where there are no trails.

Believe me, I know having traveled and explored that country in search for lost Spanish mines, and history in general etc.

Don, perhaps you need to consult the contemporary records a bit more...

I am trying to give the info you request from the top of my head, so here it goes...:

When Victorio decided on all-out war against the Americans, his warriors, whilst encumbered with large numbers of women, children and the old fought with large detachments of the US cavalry and it was the Americans who withdrew for 'tactical' reasons and left the Apache ad the victors with the spoils, which allowed Victorio to continue his campaign. At the time, the commanding officer, was derided in the national press...

You also fail to acknowledge that even today, the most 'mightiest' of forces, will use guerilla tactics and hit and run manoeuvres, when it suits their purpose.

You constantly mention those "Barrancas". The Apaches knew each and every trail, watering hole, defence position, secret cache that existed in 'Ol Mexico, do you honestly believe that gave a single fart for what lines the Mexicans/Spanish/Americans had delineated were borders or state boundaries...?

If you wish to talk about victims, why were the 'best' results 'achieved' by Mexicans, and even the Americans, when they usually attacked camps when the warriors were away and killed women and children and/or enslaved them...?


IPUK

 

[azdave35]

Alaska doesn't even come into the equation, CJ. But if you wish to speculate about events that, as you say may have happened 25 thousand years ago, please be my guest.

Even in the Apache nation itself, some tribes were more amenable to sedentary roles than others. Some accepted and worked with the Americans from day one...

Thank you for the reading recommendation, but believe it or not, I've done a tinsy, winsy amount of the aforementioned before reaching any conclusion(s).

IPUK

the apache came over here via the bering straight....if you had spent any time with them you'd realize they are totally different (looking and acting) than the other tribes in arizona....and no..i didn't get that from a book..i got it from an apache..lol

 

[Interested Party in UK]

the apache came over here via the bering straight....if you had spent any time with them you'd realize they are totally different (looking and acting) than the other tribes in arizona....and no..i didn't get that from a book..i got it from an apache..lol

Huh...?

Feel free to add something constructive, when you've got over the fact that it's extremely easy to pull your chain...!



IPUK

 

[azdave35]

Huh...?

Feel free to add something constructive, when you've got over the fact that it's extremely easy to pull your chain...!



IPUK

the only thing from the U.K. that could possibly pull my chain is gina bellman...the best thing that came out of your country for years...lol

 

[Interested Party in UK]

the only thing from the U.K. that could possibly pull my chain is gina bellman...the best thing that came out of your country for years...lol

How could you possibly like her - she's not related to you...?

IPUK

 

[Real of Tayopa]

IPUK< ny friend, you posted --- Don, perhaps you need to consult the contemporary records a bit more

Contempory records, are just that, , I was involved in WW II for before Pearl Harbor. The contempory records of that war are starting to be questioned, and some results show a diffeeent view, As they say, " The victor writes the rules and history, I am sure that you know of many examples,

You posted -- it was the Americans who withdrew for 'tactical' reasons
Of course, when you realize that your force is too cumberson for the conditions, it makes sense to regroup, but not because you have been outfought.


you posted - You also fail to acknowledge that even today, the most 'mightiest' of forces, will use guerilla tactics and hit and run manoeuvres, when it suits their purpose.

Oh but I have, reread the posts



You also posted -- The Apaches knew each and every trail, watering hole, defence position, secret cache that existed in 'Ol Mexico,

I agree, I have mentioned this before. Moat of that country is not accesable on horseback, so It makes sense to retire, regroup, and go at it again.


Lastly you posted -- when they usually attacked camps when the warriors were away and killed women and children and/or enslaved them...?

Right, that represented the renagade Apache, there are bad in each group gringoes, Mexicans, Apache.

Who started raiding first ? In the 14 -- 1500''s there were very few mines or other businesses other than the missionaries. I hardly expect that the Jesuit / Franciscan missionaries were involved in such acts, I might ask why and when did they attack the camps ?? I believe that it was in the 1800's , four hundred years after the Apache started raiding into Mexico for the loot.

 

[azdave35]

How could you possibly like her - she's not related to you...?

IPUK

you never know...i am part british.....matter of fact i have a couple friends that are from the UK...they like it here better...they are both from small villages....she tells me the inbreeding that goes on in the UK makes our southern hillbillys look like angels...