Pekka Hämäläinen's The Comanche Empire argues that the Comanches (Numunuu), originating from Shoshone groups in the early 1700s, built a dominant imperial power across the southern Great Plains, Southwest, and northern Mexico from roughly 1750 to 1850, eclipsing Spanish, Mexican, and early American influences through superior horsemanship, bison hunting, raiding, trade, and slavery. Unlike traditional views of Native peoples as passive victims or mere barriers to European expansion, the book portrays Comanchería as an economic and political hegemon that extracted tribute (framed as kinship gifts), manipulated colonial economies, displaced Apaches and Utes, and contributed to the weakening of New Spain and Mexico—indirectly facilitating U.S. expansion. Their decentralized society lacked central authority but thrived on flexible kinship networks, multi-ethnic assimilation of captives, and a pastoral economy reliant on horses and bison, until ecological pressures, overhunting, diseases, and U.S. military campaigns led to rapid collapse by 1875.inverarity.livejournal+3

Strengths

The book excels in reframing North American history by centering Comanche agency, using extensive archival sources from Spanish, Mexican, and Native perspectives to demonstrate their sophisticated manipulation of trade, diplomacy, and violence, challenging victimhood narratives and the "frontier vacuum" myth. Reviewers praise its exhaustive research, vivid mapping of Comanchería's expansion, and insights into how Comanche power hollowed out colonial borderlands, enriching understanding of indigenous imperialism akin to Eurasian steppes. It balances portrayals of all actors—Comanches, Europeans, and other Natives—as pragmatic imperialists, avoiding romanticization while highlighting cultural innovations like advanced horse breeding.reddit+5

Weaknesses

Critics note Hämäläinen's application of "empire" is overstretched, implying centralized strategy in a leaderless, band-based society driven more by local self-interest than coordinated imperialism, potentially confusing readers on definitions. The treatment of Comanche culture, especially religion and internal dynamics like slavery and women's roles, feels superficial and reliant on biased outsider accounts, reducing nuance in places. Dense academic jargon in the introduction and conclusion, plus detached anthropological tone on Comanche brutality (raids, torture, enslavement), draws complaints for lacking victim empathy or deeper cultural context.activisthistory+3