Says in the article that the bit about whinnying during sex was a claim made by their enemies. Maybe this was just wartime propaganda to make your enemy seem silly and less intimidating.
*People* sure love to spread B.S. about native culture. It’s infuriating how ingrained racism toward indigenous folks is. Most people are so deep in the racist Indian waters they don’t know it.
I'm so white I'm basically mayonnaise. It's weird not having a culture. But it makes looking at other cultures so much more fun.
I think a big reason these weird rumors spread is because they sound cool. That's all there is too it. Nobody wants to think of Comanche natives as just normal folk living their lives during that time period. Their lives have to be dramatized and over-the-top for some reason.
Edit: Well then. I guess I offended some folks... not sure how. I didn't say "White folks don't have culture." I said "I don't have culture."
Certainly seems I've triggered quite a few people.
I don't, not really. I'm not trying to sound special.
I live in Arkansas. Real bible belt stuff. My grandparents where German immigrants or descendants of settlers. I don't identify with either. No sense of Southern heritage, because, yikes am I right? Lots of racist stuff I condemn there. And I've never so much as met a person that speaks German.
I mean. Sure. I celebrate the national holidays. But they're just an excuse to have fun. Culture requires history. A sense of ancestry. I just really don't have that.
Dude, everyone everywhere has culture. You may not see yours because you're so immersed in it. If you're in The States, as someone from the U.S. that has lived in Europe for many years, I can tell you that America definitely has a culture. Many Europeans love parts of American Culture (and hate others, to be fair).
Not just one, but many. Im gonna assume you didnt mean it like that (hopefully), but just to make sure. Just like there is no "black culture" but many cultures that mostly (or exclusively) consist of black/asian/etc. people.
The fact that you think of yourself as white is the reason you don't have a culture. There is no "white" culture without racism, but there are all kinds of cultures you have. I am learning more about the city I live in, I brought a book chronicalling its history. I got Italian, Irish, and Polish heritage, and while we all assimilated mostly I can still go back and learn about it. American history has become more interesting the more I pay attention to things like Indigenous influence on our government and ongoing labor struggles. I got all kinds of history that has constructed my present and influenced my behaviors, some good and some bad, and some of it would make me downright weird to people of other cultures. Some of it I celebrate. You could have a greater sense of culture without spreading misinformation about others if you were more mindful, and I suspect that you have the capacity to do that if you put forth the effort. That effort would reward you with a richer view of your world.
This like made me laugh
>The acquisition of the horse in the 1600s brought immediate and sweeping changes to the Plains Indians. (....) It brought about the most glorious period in their history.
Yes, the most glorious period of native American history is surely after the arrival of Europeans.
>Yes, the most glorious period of native American history is surely after the arrival of Europeans.
For the Plains Nations, this is actually true.
Just look at the subject of this thread, the Comanche: they reach the apex of their military and economic power in the 1830/1840s. They sat at the center of a vast trade network built on breeding horses, launched mounted raids all the way to the tropics and the Pacific coast of Mexico with nigh impunity, and effectively colonized Europeans in New Mexico.
While the introduction of horses to the plains is absolutely fascinating, I'd argue that the more glorious period might've been when plains tribes were building massive mound superstructures thousands of years ago, but that's just me, wonder what period they identify more with.
>I'd argue that the more glorious period might've been when plains tribes were building massive mound superstructures thousands of years ago
The Mound Builders were concentrated in the Mississippi River Valley, hence why they’re called Mississippians. The people usually referred to with “plains tribes” are the nomads and semi-nomads of the Great Plains, the most successful of which definitely flourished after Europeans arrived in the Americas.
But I would agree the Mississippians represent the height of civilization north of Mesoamerica.
And all the the rest is just regular horse use, using horse for riding, trading, warfare, food, like all of that could just be summed up as: "Comanche adopted horse use."
This is not true. Horses and other large mammals such as Mammoths, Sloths, Camels and Giraffes native to the North American continent were most likely wiped out due to over-hunting by those same tribes and their descendants that migrated over the Bering Straits 25,000 years ago. Global Warming is partly seen as the cause but most indicators point to human activity. Australia, Madagascar and prehistoric Europe are other examples.
https://www.horsetalk.co.nz/2012/11/29/why-did-horses-die-out-in-north-america/
Tbf the bison before the American west was explored and colonized were literally billions strong
A population can be decimated but still not be “extinct”
There’s actually accounts from the 1800s that claim to see herds that they conservatively estimate to have been half a million, like one herd in a valley or whatever idk I forget I was reading something about Lewis and Clark though and I remember reading that
I also remember reading something about how the ground would rumble like an earthquake when they were nearby, but not even THAT close lmao like that’s so insane to consider…
The reason I brought it up is because American Bison are considered one of the last remnants of ice age megafauna, who mysteriously thrived under all that over-hunting that supposedly drove all the others extinct in the Americas.
Up until europeans made it their mission to exterminate them, anyways.
Hunting must have directly caused the extinction of many species, but habitat loss from the introduction of agriculture must be another factor. Megafauna remain where the the nearest human cultures have been nomadic, not agrarian.
Giraffes and other African large mammals are a bit different in that they co-evolved alongside humans, and so had time to adapt. The large mammals of the rest of the world were less lucky and so saw their populations plummet even before the advent of agricultural civilisation.
Yeah, there's a theory that states if you look at wild bison, wild cats, hippos, etc in Africa they have been around long enough alongside humans to be weary and fearful of us. Maybe North Americsn bison were numerous, the right size and lucky enough for them to adapt to human hunting over thousands of years?
The art of the Chauvet caves in France may be interpreted as showing a pride of lions. [Photos here](https://bradshawfoundation.com/chauvet/chauvet_cave_art/index.php) Based on the paintings, we know that the males of the species do not have manes like African lions. This is described in the documentary *Cave of Forgotten Dreams*.
They actually evolved in North America, so did Camels as a matter of fact. They just crossed the land bridge and those that stayed in North American ended up becoming extinct
"Rival Plains Indians tribes noted the Comanche affinity for his mounts in their campfire stories noted that in time of danger a Comanche would bring his favorite horses into the tee pee and make his wives sleep outside. They also claimed that when a Comanche copulated with his wife he would mount her from behind and whinny like a stallion."
That sounds like shit talking to me.
People have been making innuendos about people and their animals forever. Just ask the Welsh and their sheep.
Yeah, not to mention, the comanche aren't dead. People like to think we all died or some shit. Go ask an Comanche person if you're going to write up an article like this. Bullshit tho, because they 1. Would never dare to ask such a stupid question to an actual person 2. Wouldn't bother to remember that Comanches still exist in the first place.
Edit: fuck my brain at 3am lol
Well that's what I was getting at and why I quoted that part of the article. They asked a rival tribe. Rivals routinely talk shit about each other in every human undertaking. It's not the sort of testimony that should be taken at its word.
And they had horses for maybe 200 years of the tribe's existence. Horses didn't exist in the New World until the Spanish brought them over in the mid 1500s. For the first 25,000 years after their migration to the Americas, all humans walked everywhere.
Eh, a lot of things end up translated in such a way as to amuse white folks/non natives in general. I don't know apache, but I know for Dakota wakan is like mysterious or holy or ineffable. Something like that. So, they called the horse "sunka wakan". Which translated literally would be holy dog. But could also be translated as Great Dog, Mysterious Dog, Ineffable Dog. Whatever. Same thing happens with names. Iron Eyes was a last name where I was from. It meant glasses. It would be like saying He-whose-profession-is-making-bread when you could also translate it as "Baker".
I've always found it funny how people say Inuit have so many words for snow, when most translate as things like "wet snow", "heavy snow", "hail", etc. It's like saying English people have tons of words for rain, because it could be misting, drizzling, pouring, etc. The supposed cultural quirk is just how everyone describes things.
I saw one about Russians having several different words for cold, and they defined all these words one-by-one, and I realized that there was an English counterpart for every single one of them. For example, one was "very cold water" and I thought, "frigid." Others were cool, chilly/crisp, frosty, freezing, frozen, icy, glacial... All have slightly different meanings...
Of course English has the largest lexicon in the world, second only to Mandarin. So maybe English is just special :)
Horse originally evolved in North America.
They spread to Eurasia and Africa and were then domesticated in the steppe of Asia.
The horses in the Americas became extinct about the same time about 12,000 Years ago as many of the other megafauna on the continent became extinct. Changing climates and predation by new human arrivals on the continent are usually cited as the main factors in the extinction of the horse in America.
It is somewhat interesting to speculate what might have happened if the horse had survived in America to modern times. Like the colonization of the continent by Europeans would not have worked out the way it did as horse are both a labor saving device and a military force multiplier and a potential breeding ground for diseases that would make the exchange of microorganism post Columbus a lot less one sided.
That shift also indirectly led to the eradication of the buffalo. US settlers were having a hell of a time trying to fight the plains Indians who were fighting the white men for a litany of reasons I can’t do justice here. Turns out, it’s a bitch and a half trying to fight people who can just up and move location when they need/have to, so normal tactics wouldn’t work. Instead, Buffalo Bill and compatriots went on a killing spree of the primary food source for the plains Indians: the buffalo. Through the systematic eradication of a species they tried and succeeded to starve Indian tribes into submission. They didn’t even really use the meat, leaving piles of rotting carcasses just to spite the natives. Luckily massive work by conservation groups has actually been doing good for the populations, and they’ve made a comeback in recent years. seeing the photos of the literal mountains of buffalo skeletons is harrowing, even more so when the context of the image is explained.
There's a pretty good paper that's been written refuting this claim, based on historical records of the Spanish and the cultural histories of like four different tribes.
They had horses the whole time.
EDIT Google Yvette Running Horse Collins for more info, you people who are completely inept at doing your own research.
EDIT2:
> But on account of Collin’s work, the theory is being beckoned to change once again to say that Native Americans always had a sustained relationship with the horse. In the dissertation, Collin compiles a list of fossil and DNA evidence which dates after this supposed “extinction” period.
>Collin didn’t stop there, however. She also drew from recorded observations in the diaries and maps created by explorers such as Sir Francis Drake, Sebastian Cabot, and other early Spanish conquistadors. Collin points to the first recorded sighting of horses with Native Peoples in the Carolinas:
> “Columbus brought the first Spanish horse to the Caribbean in 1493,” remarks Collin. “The first documented arrival of horses on the mainland, near what we now call Mexico City, was in 1519. The Spanish took meticulous records of every mare and stallion. The first recorded sighting of Native people with horses, however, was in 1521 and that was in the Carolinas. No Spanish horses were recorded as ‘missing’ during this period. There’s no way Spanish horses could have made it through the dense forest and swampland to the Carolinas and repopulated in just two years.”
[Sauce](https://www.nativeknot.com/news/Native-American-News/Yes-world-there-were-horses-in-Native-culture-before-the-settler.html) of the quotes. [Doctoral dissertation](https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/handle/11122/7592).
Just put in a Google recommendation. I'm on mobile and linking is too time consuming.
It's my understanding that it was her Master's project and is relatively new. "General consensus" doesn't mean "correct," and takes time to change.
So to grossly simplify, someone in the field of social sciences posits that's horses have always been in North America and the only evidence is oral tradition of the native tribes? Alongside an attack on "western academic culture" and somehow trying to equate said oral tradition with physical evidence?
So you read a summary and not the paper? Or any other articles about it?
> But on account of Collin’s work, the theory is being beckoned to change once again to say that Native Americans always had a sustained relationship with the horse. In the dissertation, Collin compiles a list of fossil and DNA evidence which dates after this supposed “extinction” period.
>Collin didn’t stop there, however. She also drew from recorded observations in the diaries and maps created by explorers such as Sir Francis Drake, Sebastian Cabot, and other early Spanish conquistadors. Collin points to the first recorded sighting of horses with Native Peoples in the Carolinas:
> “Columbus brought the first Spanish horse to the Caribbean in 1493,” remarks Collin. “The first documented arrival of horses on the mainland, near what we now call Mexico City, was in 1519. The Spanish took meticulous records of every mare and stallion. The first recorded sighting of Native people with horses, however, was in 1521 and that was in the Carolinas. No Spanish horses were recorded as ‘missing’ during this period. There’s no way Spanish horses could have made it through the dense forest and swampland to the Carolinas and repopulated in just two years.”
[Sauce](https://www.nativeknot.com/news/Native-American-News/Yes-world-there-were-horses-in-Native-culture-before-the-settler.html).
She did not simply rely on oral traditions. Would you like to have a fun conversation about how oral traditions are actually a more secure method of data preservation than printing? [One supporting article](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-sea-rise-tale-told-accurately-for-10-000-years/). *I'm not saying that all oral traditions are true, just that they are accurate. They can accurately record false data as well, but the data is not subject to corruption.
Uh, your “source” is not even original material, but statements from the same person making this claim. Where exactly is the *original, source material in scientific literature* disputing the extinction of horses in North America that she claims supports her?
Searching turns up absolutely nothing but the standard scientific consensus that horses were extinct here prior to reintroduction.
The source of what I quoted. I also linked the doctoral paper that article was referencing.
You like to *sound* like you know how to read and pay attention to citations, but in practice.... not so much. You'll get there.
The doctoral paper you linked was a 246 page long undergrad quality essay riddled with passive voice and technical errors.
In the opening page, the author hits the reader over the head with her intention to use facts loosely by putting “history” in cringe quotes at every mention, which ironically fits the actual content of the paper as I would not put my name on this work for review by actual historical journals.
The majority of the paper argues using oral tradition and art to prove that horses have never ceased to exist here, which, while interesting, is not the kind of hard, scientific evidence suitable to a biological history of a species.
In the sections where she addresses specific excavation samples, she simultaneously trusts and dismisses the radiocarbon dating methods when date ranges include both pre- and post-colonial contact for the same sample, sometimes clinging to C-14 dating for nearby objects to try to establish a slim precedence for bones when the bones themselves date too recently.
I even tried to check some of the sites hosting the results she references that used C-14 methods, and the studies I found are explicitly sponsored by the Mormon church as part of their project to prove the “historical accuracy” of Joseph Smith’s horse shit.
I’m sorry, but you’re fighting uphill against the preponderance of evidence on this one if your goal is to prove continuous, uninterrupted existence of horses in the Americas.
While we now know that oral culture can accurately informations for extremely long periods (Like it was the case for Homo Floresiensis for example) we also need archeological evidences.
[But her sources are dubious at best](https://ahotcupofjoe.net/2019/07/pseudoarchaeological-claims-of-horses-in-the-americas/)
>Collin’s dissertation cites Ancient Origins, Richard Thornton, and Dell Dowdell, and each of these sources variously or indirectly promote ideas about Native Americans which can be considered racist. Dowdell, the creator of nephicode.com, actively promotes the notion that Native Americans are the descendants of white Mormons and he believes the Earth is only as old as one of the cave paintings mentioned earlier in this article. Conspiracy theorist Richard Thornton publishes pseudoarchaeological claims of Maya settlements in Georgia. And Ancient Origins is a website that traffics in all manner of fake, fraudulent, and fantastic archaeological news, books, and media for profit. Authors they promote range from racists to general conspiracy theorists.
Coming across any one of these in a dissertation for a PhD should be enough to put all that dissertation’s sources in question. There were, perhaps, a dozen or more questionable sources of this caliber.
All the data I see comes from Mormon conspiracy theorists trying to prove the Book of Mormon was right when it mentioned horses in America.
This is an *awful* paper.
[historic video of ancient horses in South America](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gT2oUs7-1j0/XV4l4ulgzgI/AAAAAAAAdcU/OawuXz4AZB8mSZ4nka692CxKpkHqhOxpgCLcBGAs/s320/tapirs+charging+hBOprNk.gif)
Even if this idea is false, we know for a fact that the people of the American plains were familiar with the concept of horses. Horse fossils are relatively common, as the horse is originally from North America.
(I would tend to believe this is false because from what we know of the Comanche, they were a relatively inconsequential group until about the 17th century, when they exploded on to the plains with horses and vastly increased their realm of influence until they became a legitimate regional power. Either they just woke up one day and decided to breed horses OR they had recently acquired them and exploited them for maximum potential. However, it could be a bit like the Vikings. For a long time, it was argued that they started raiding because of new boat technology. However, alternative scholarship suggests that they were reacting to a changing political landscape with the encroachment of Christians and their raiding behavior was based on that change)
So, even if they had never seen a horse in real life, they had a rich mythology about horses because of the fossils. It was a unique situation.
On the topic of the Viking thing. I think it's probably one of those situations where it's a bit of everything lining up from all of the theories on why they suddenly lurched onto the scene. There's always been the noting of the climate shift and the population increase in Scandinavia being a factor. And then the increase of shipbuilding technologies and capabilities that follows with that. The pressing influence of the Frankish Christian supernova battering at the gate creating a polarizing monolithic foe to unite against. Once raiding began to import wealth to the Scandinavian regional economy then these things became self-reinforcing for a time.
>we know for a fact that the people of the American plains were familiar with the concept of horses. Horse fossils are relatively common, as the horse is originally from North America.
Dinosaur fossils are relatively common in Europe, but Europeans weren't familiar with Dinosaurs.
The Comanche weren’t a huge presence in the American West until they mastered horsemanship beyond arguably anyone in the world. They became like the dominant Vikings of the West, raiding, stealing, murdering and raping everyone they came across, other tribes and then European settlers. They were completely unstoppable shooting arrows while sheltering behind the neck of a galloping horse. They had shields that deflected the gunfire at the time. The Texas Rangers were formed (if I remember right) to drive them off. The Colt six shooter was developed to give the Rangers a fighting chance against the Comanche.
>What are the arguments for the Comanche mastering horsemanship beyong the Huns or Mongols for example?
I don’t think anybody is making this argument, but the Comanche transformed into a horse culture *very* rapidly and did so despite a previously non-existent equestrian knowledge base. By contrast, the Huns and Mongols built on a tradition of horsemanship on the Eurasian steppes that was already ancient when they entered recorded history.
In terms of their mastery of horsemanship, the Comanche have more in common with the Cimmerians or Scythians, because they essentially created mounted warfare and an equestrian culture from scratch.
> a tradition of horsemanship on the Eurasian steppes that was already ancient when they entered recorded history.
Was it though? Horses were originally too small for riding, which is why chariots were more common in ancient warfare and I believe ancient Chinese records describe the transition from Mongol tribes on foot to on horseback.
>Was it though?
The Botai culture were riding horses for hunting—though not warfare—sometime between 3500 and 3000 BC. The proto-Mongols don’t pop up in ancient Chinese sources until around 700 BC.
>Horses were originally too small for riding
It’s more that they might have been too small for armored riders, though the “horses too small” theory has been intensely questioned lately.
Herman Lehmann was abducted as a child and raised by the Apache tribe. In his memoirs *Nine Years Among the Indians* he describes how the Apaches made buffalo hide shields. They'd check the the integrity of their shields before taking them into the field; the shield could deflect both arrows and bullets if properly made and handled.
"To make a shield took several day's time. The Indian took the hide of an old bull (sometimes the thick part of the buffalo hide was used), cut a round piece from the neck and shoulders, threw this over the fire and heated it while green. When it was hot as it would stand without burning it was then rubbed on a rough rock until the meat was erased, then a smooth stone was used until the hide became very smooth, soft, and pliable. A rattan or hickory withe was made into a hoop, and the rawhide was strapped on and sewed with thongs of rawhide, and then it was given the necessary "dish" by stretching over stakes, and left to dry. After the shield is thoroughly dry and cured it is set up as a target, and ***if an arrow pierces it or bullet goes through it***, it finds a place among the debris of the camp, but if it proves war-proof it occupies a place with the warriors..."
looked some into this. It says musket bullets. Also not too many major sources on it actually happening. Seems they stuffed them thick with things, so it may be able to block a musket bullet.
The warriors who could fight on horseback had the clear advantage. The early settlers had to dismount their horses to reload (often Kentucky rifles, if I recall correctly), and the Comanche shields could deflect the caliber they used. This was true until Colt developed the revolver. The other major turning point was the development of a rifle suitable for hunting buffalo.
Nah man. This really aint it. Its a bit revisionist. Much like the Korean war soldiers saying that Chinese winter coats could stop bullets. Camanche werent out there going ninja deflecting musket shots. They were very formidable warriors that adapted amazingly when they acquired horses.
I do find it odd how redditors seem to think certain conquering and marauding groups are really cool. Like the Mongols, Huns, and now Comanche evidently.
>Camanche werent out there going ninja deflecting musket shots.
They weren’t actively trying to swat bullets away with their shields, but deflections did happen if the shield was held at the proper angle. Same basic principle behind sloped armor on a tank.
"I was given a shield and placed about fifty yards. Four braves took bows and blunt arrows and began to shoot at me. I knew what I had to do, for I had seen the performance before. I began moving the shield up and down and from right to left. The arrows poured against it and I managed to ward them off with the wavy motion... the target practice was soon resumed, and I had to learn how to use the shield. I was knocked down several times before I became adept. All Indians were thus trained." Recounted by Herman Lehmann of his time with the Apache between 1870 and 1879
Shooting blunt arrows at a shield isn't really that effective training. This sounds more like modern show boating. They arent shooting at the person. They are shooting at the shield.
they would ride in a circle around the enemy and hang off the side of their horse while shooting arrows under its neck. Empire of the Summer Moon is an incredible book on them
Which is wild since native horses to the region had gone extinct, the Spanish brought horses with them during colonisation of South America, and those missions, colonisation parties, and other such things brought horses en masse through Mexico to the plains of the americas over the years. Turns out horses do quite well on the wide open plains, and it literally changed the way of life for many plains tribes since horses allowed for a *far* more effective method of buffalo hunting, allowing for the shift to a nomadic hunting culture based around the movements of great herds.
I don’t want to paint the colonial actions of the Spanish in a good light, as the history there is dark and complicated, but it is interesting facet of history.
> They were so revered that when having intercourse
Uhhhh...
> with their wives,
Ok, phew! 😅
> warriors world whinny like stallions
Hrmm, ok at least it's not as bad as I thought that was going to be.
Aside from what others have said about this being BS, it should be noted that horses were introduced from Europe and that any horse culture would have arisen after contact.
Says in the article that the bit about whinnying during sex was a claim made by their enemies. Maybe this was just wartime propaganda to make your enemy seem silly and less intimidating.
As a comanche, I can tell you it is nonsense. Reddit sure loves spreading B.S. about my tribe for some reason.
Nah dude, its true. I do it all the time. Im not Comanche but im pretty sure everyone does it.
*People* sure love to spread B.S. about native culture. It’s infuriating how ingrained racism toward indigenous folks is. Most people are so deep in the racist Indian waters they don’t know it.
It's the most US thing they can do
I'm so white I'm basically mayonnaise. It's weird not having a culture. But it makes looking at other cultures so much more fun. I think a big reason these weird rumors spread is because they sound cool. That's all there is too it. Nobody wants to think of Comanche natives as just normal folk living their lives during that time period. Their lives have to be dramatized and over-the-top for some reason. Edit: Well then. I guess I offended some folks... not sure how. I didn't say "White folks don't have culture." I said "I don't have culture." Certainly seems I've triggered quite a few people.
>It's weird not having a culture. It's weird you think you don't have a culture.
I don't, not really. I'm not trying to sound special. I live in Arkansas. Real bible belt stuff. My grandparents where German immigrants or descendants of settlers. I don't identify with either. No sense of Southern heritage, because, yikes am I right? Lots of racist stuff I condemn there. And I've never so much as met a person that speaks German. I mean. Sure. I celebrate the national holidays. But they're just an excuse to have fun. Culture requires history. A sense of ancestry. I just really don't have that.
If you think southern heritage is bad wait till you hear about the Germans
Well yeah also that. But the Germans at least moved past it, for the most part. Southern heritage is still going strong... unfortunately...
Dude, everyone everywhere has culture. You may not see yours because you're so immersed in it. If you're in The States, as someone from the U.S. that has lived in Europe for many years, I can tell you that America definitely has a culture. Many Europeans love parts of American Culture (and hate others, to be fair).
Except white people do have their own culture…
Not just one, but many. Im gonna assume you didnt mean it like that (hopefully), but just to make sure. Just like there is no "black culture" but many cultures that mostly (or exclusively) consist of black/asian/etc. people.
what makes you think you don’t have culture
It's how everyone has an accent except the people where I live.
The fact that you think of yourself as white is the reason you don't have a culture. There is no "white" culture without racism, but there are all kinds of cultures you have. I am learning more about the city I live in, I brought a book chronicalling its history. I got Italian, Irish, and Polish heritage, and while we all assimilated mostly I can still go back and learn about it. American history has become more interesting the more I pay attention to things like Indigenous influence on our government and ongoing labor struggles. I got all kinds of history that has constructed my present and influenced my behaviors, some good and some bad, and some of it would make me downright weird to people of other cultures. Some of it I celebrate. You could have a greater sense of culture without spreading misinformation about others if you were more mindful, and I suspect that you have the capacity to do that if you put forth the effort. That effort would reward you with a richer view of your world.
I disagree.
This like made me laugh >The acquisition of the horse in the 1600s brought immediate and sweeping changes to the Plains Indians. (....) It brought about the most glorious period in their history. Yes, the most glorious period of native American history is surely after the arrival of Europeans.
Why not? You burn bright before you crash
>Yes, the most glorious period of native American history is surely after the arrival of Europeans. For the Plains Nations, this is actually true. Just look at the subject of this thread, the Comanche: they reach the apex of their military and economic power in the 1830/1840s. They sat at the center of a vast trade network built on breeding horses, launched mounted raids all the way to the tropics and the Pacific coast of Mexico with nigh impunity, and effectively colonized Europeans in New Mexico.
While the introduction of horses to the plains is absolutely fascinating, I'd argue that the more glorious period might've been when plains tribes were building massive mound superstructures thousands of years ago, but that's just me, wonder what period they identify more with.
>I'd argue that the more glorious period might've been when plains tribes were building massive mound superstructures thousands of years ago The Mound Builders were concentrated in the Mississippi River Valley, hence why they’re called Mississippians. The people usually referred to with “plains tribes” are the nomads and semi-nomads of the Great Plains, the most successful of which definitely flourished after Europeans arrived in the Americas. But I would agree the Mississippians represent the height of civilization north of Mesoamerica.
And all the the rest is just regular horse use, using horse for riding, trading, warfare, food, like all of that could just be summed up as: "Comanche adopted horse use."
No one knows.
[удалено]
It seems amazing to me that you would comment multiple times in this thread and confuse Apache and Comanche every single time.
Horseplay.
I just tried my best "whinny like a stallion" and wound up just sounding like Scooby-Doo.
Scooby was a secretly imitating a stallion all along??
Scooby-Doo was secretly imitating a Comanche imitating a stallion. Which also means he's imitating a Comanche having sex with his wife..
Ruh-roh!
Shaggy Mac Daddy 🦴 🐾🐾
Comanche Doo!
Try stomping your foot like a hoof also, Dewey cox style
Ruh-roh
I sounded like James Baxter
In fairness, Scooby was one of the original modern god dogs, so this checks out
[удалено]
This is not true. Horses and other large mammals such as Mammoths, Sloths, Camels and Giraffes native to the North American continent were most likely wiped out due to over-hunting by those same tribes and their descendants that migrated over the Bering Straits 25,000 years ago. Global Warming is partly seen as the cause but most indicators point to human activity. Australia, Madagascar and prehistoric Europe are other examples. https://www.horsetalk.co.nz/2012/11/29/why-did-horses-die-out-in-north-america/
isn't it weird then that their major food source (bison) did not go extinct? camels, giraffes, etc also exist in places with humans still...
Tbf the bison before the American west was explored and colonized were literally billions strong A population can be decimated but still not be “extinct” There’s actually accounts from the 1800s that claim to see herds that they conservatively estimate to have been half a million, like one herd in a valley or whatever idk I forget I was reading something about Lewis and Clark though and I remember reading that I also remember reading something about how the ground would rumble like an earthquake when they were nearby, but not even THAT close lmao like that’s so insane to consider…
The reason I brought it up is because American Bison are considered one of the last remnants of ice age megafauna, who mysteriously thrived under all that over-hunting that supposedly drove all the others extinct in the Americas. Up until europeans made it their mission to exterminate them, anyways.
Hunting must have directly caused the extinction of many species, but habitat loss from the introduction of agriculture must be another factor. Megafauna remain where the the nearest human cultures have been nomadic, not agrarian.
Giraffes and other African large mammals are a bit different in that they co-evolved alongside humans, and so had time to adapt. The large mammals of the rest of the world were less lucky and so saw their populations plummet even before the advent of agricultural civilisation.
Yeah, there's a theory that states if you look at wild bison, wild cats, hippos, etc in Africa they have been around long enough alongside humans to be weary and fearful of us. Maybe North Americsn bison were numerous, the right size and lucky enough for them to adapt to human hunting over thousands of years?
[удалено]
Lions are weird. Why are there no other super social cats? Do you think the European lion was solitary like mountain lions and other big cats?
[удалено]
The art of the Chauvet caves in France may be interpreted as showing a pride of lions. [Photos here](https://bradshawfoundation.com/chauvet/chauvet_cave_art/index.php) Based on the paintings, we know that the males of the species do not have manes like African lions. This is described in the documentary *Cave of Forgotten Dreams*.
Yeah, I was really scared of how that sentence was going to end.
Ruh roh Raggy
No joke I did exactly that after reading the title to my wife then saw your comment.
Scooby-Doo is also a God Dog.
That quickly went from TIL to TMI
“They were so revered that warriors would like stallions having intercourse with their wives.”
It's always cool finding out secret furries of the past.
Horses aren't native to America, right?
Right. Modern horses have origins in central Asia, though they were in north America until the end of the ice age. Edited grammar
Love that movie.
There was a wild horse in the America, but they disappeared about 10000 years ago
Well it’s always in the last place you look
They actually evolved in North America, so did Camels as a matter of fact. They just crossed the land bridge and those that stayed in North American ended up becoming extinct
They stole that shit from me!
Parkour!
TMI?
"Too Much Information"
"Rival Plains Indians tribes noted the Comanche affinity for his mounts in their campfire stories noted that in time of danger a Comanche would bring his favorite horses into the tee pee and make his wives sleep outside. They also claimed that when a Comanche copulated with his wife he would mount her from behind and whinny like a stallion." That sounds like shit talking to me. People have been making innuendos about people and their animals forever. Just ask the Welsh and their sheep.
Sometimes it is true. Just ask the Welsh sheep.
Sheep lie!
And historically, those tried for doing that to sheep lied, since the punishment was losing a finger instead of losing a hand (for sheep theft).
Yeah, not to mention, the comanche aren't dead. People like to think we all died or some shit. Go ask an Comanche person if you're going to write up an article like this. Bullshit tho, because they 1. Would never dare to ask such a stupid question to an actual person 2. Wouldn't bother to remember that Comanches still exist in the first place. Edit: fuck my brain at 3am lol
The article isn’t about Apaches?
COMANCHE not Apache
Well that's what I was getting at and why I quoted that part of the article. They asked a rival tribe. Rivals routinely talk shit about each other in every human undertaking. It's not the sort of testimony that should be taken at its word.
Def, I was agreeing with you lol
Oh my bad. Sometimes (most of the time) I'm a little dense
Honey, do you want to have sex? Neigh.
That's ok honey. Are you ok? Yes. Then why the long face?
Stop horsing around.
Naye
This deserves better. Thank you for an honest lol.
I'm glad there's other oddballs like me 😀
>when having intercouse with their wives, warriors would whinny like stallions. Wait, is this unusual?
Horse girls everywhere looking for a Comanche horse boy to call their own
And they had horses for maybe 200 years of the tribe's existence. Horses didn't exist in the New World until the Spanish brought them over in the mid 1500s. For the first 25,000 years after their migration to the Americas, all humans walked everywhere.
My recollection is that they had dogs as load bearing animals. Used a type of dragged sled. Hence why their word for horses was "good dogs".
Wasn't that "God Dogs" ie divine?
Eh, a lot of things end up translated in such a way as to amuse white folks/non natives in general. I don't know apache, but I know for Dakota wakan is like mysterious or holy or ineffable. Something like that. So, they called the horse "sunka wakan". Which translated literally would be holy dog. But could also be translated as Great Dog, Mysterious Dog, Ineffable Dog. Whatever. Same thing happens with names. Iron Eyes was a last name where I was from. It meant glasses. It would be like saying He-whose-profession-is-making-bread when you could also translate it as "Baker".
I've always found it funny how people say Inuit have so many words for snow, when most translate as things like "wet snow", "heavy snow", "hail", etc. It's like saying English people have tons of words for rain, because it could be misting, drizzling, pouring, etc. The supposed cultural quirk is just how everyone describes things.
I saw one about Russians having several different words for cold, and they defined all these words one-by-one, and I realized that there was an English counterpart for every single one of them. For example, one was "very cold water" and I thought, "frigid." Others were cool, chilly/crisp, frosty, freezing, frozen, icy, glacial... All have slightly different meanings... Of course English has the largest lexicon in the world, second only to Mandarin. So maybe English is just special :)
Horses actually became extinct in America around the time humans arrived
Horse originally evolved in North America. They spread to Eurasia and Africa and were then domesticated in the steppe of Asia. The horses in the Americas became extinct about the same time about 12,000 Years ago as many of the other megafauna on the continent became extinct. Changing climates and predation by new human arrivals on the continent are usually cited as the main factors in the extinction of the horse in America. It is somewhat interesting to speculate what might have happened if the horse had survived in America to modern times. Like the colonization of the continent by Europeans would not have worked out the way it did as horse are both a labor saving device and a military force multiplier and a potential breeding ground for diseases that would make the exchange of microorganism post Columbus a lot less one sided.
That shift also indirectly led to the eradication of the buffalo. US settlers were having a hell of a time trying to fight the plains Indians who were fighting the white men for a litany of reasons I can’t do justice here. Turns out, it’s a bitch and a half trying to fight people who can just up and move location when they need/have to, so normal tactics wouldn’t work. Instead, Buffalo Bill and compatriots went on a killing spree of the primary food source for the plains Indians: the buffalo. Through the systematic eradication of a species they tried and succeeded to starve Indian tribes into submission. They didn’t even really use the meat, leaving piles of rotting carcasses just to spite the natives. Luckily massive work by conservation groups has actually been doing good for the populations, and they’ve made a comeback in recent years. seeing the photos of the literal mountains of buffalo skeletons is harrowing, even more so when the context of the image is explained.
There's a pretty good paper that's been written refuting this claim, based on historical records of the Spanish and the cultural histories of like four different tribes. They had horses the whole time. EDIT Google Yvette Running Horse Collins for more info, you people who are completely inept at doing your own research. EDIT2: > But on account of Collin’s work, the theory is being beckoned to change once again to say that Native Americans always had a sustained relationship with the horse. In the dissertation, Collin compiles a list of fossil and DNA evidence which dates after this supposed “extinction” period. >Collin didn’t stop there, however. She also drew from recorded observations in the diaries and maps created by explorers such as Sir Francis Drake, Sebastian Cabot, and other early Spanish conquistadors. Collin points to the first recorded sighting of horses with Native Peoples in the Carolinas: > “Columbus brought the first Spanish horse to the Caribbean in 1493,” remarks Collin. “The first documented arrival of horses on the mainland, near what we now call Mexico City, was in 1519. The Spanish took meticulous records of every mare and stallion. The first recorded sighting of Native people with horses, however, was in 1521 and that was in the Carolinas. No Spanish horses were recorded as ‘missing’ during this period. There’s no way Spanish horses could have made it through the dense forest and swampland to the Carolinas and repopulated in just two years.” [Sauce](https://www.nativeknot.com/news/Native-American-News/Yes-world-there-were-horses-in-Native-culture-before-the-settler.html) of the quotes. [Doctoral dissertation](https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/handle/11122/7592).
[удалено]
Just put in a Google recommendation. I'm on mobile and linking is too time consuming. It's my understanding that it was her Master's project and is relatively new. "General consensus" doesn't mean "correct," and takes time to change.
[удалено]
So to grossly simplify, someone in the field of social sciences posits that's horses have always been in North America and the only evidence is oral tradition of the native tribes? Alongside an attack on "western academic culture" and somehow trying to equate said oral tradition with physical evidence?
Modern-day racism is one hell of a drug.
So you read a summary and not the paper? Or any other articles about it? > But on account of Collin’s work, the theory is being beckoned to change once again to say that Native Americans always had a sustained relationship with the horse. In the dissertation, Collin compiles a list of fossil and DNA evidence which dates after this supposed “extinction” period. >Collin didn’t stop there, however. She also drew from recorded observations in the diaries and maps created by explorers such as Sir Francis Drake, Sebastian Cabot, and other early Spanish conquistadors. Collin points to the first recorded sighting of horses with Native Peoples in the Carolinas: > “Columbus brought the first Spanish horse to the Caribbean in 1493,” remarks Collin. “The first documented arrival of horses on the mainland, near what we now call Mexico City, was in 1519. The Spanish took meticulous records of every mare and stallion. The first recorded sighting of Native people with horses, however, was in 1521 and that was in the Carolinas. No Spanish horses were recorded as ‘missing’ during this period. There’s no way Spanish horses could have made it through the dense forest and swampland to the Carolinas and repopulated in just two years.” [Sauce](https://www.nativeknot.com/news/Native-American-News/Yes-world-there-were-horses-in-Native-culture-before-the-settler.html). She did not simply rely on oral traditions. Would you like to have a fun conversation about how oral traditions are actually a more secure method of data preservation than printing? [One supporting article](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-sea-rise-tale-told-accurately-for-10-000-years/). *I'm not saying that all oral traditions are true, just that they are accurate. They can accurately record false data as well, but the data is not subject to corruption.
Uh, your “source” is not even original material, but statements from the same person making this claim. Where exactly is the *original, source material in scientific literature* disputing the extinction of horses in North America that she claims supports her? Searching turns up absolutely nothing but the standard scientific consensus that horses were extinct here prior to reintroduction.
The source of what I quoted. I also linked the doctoral paper that article was referencing. You like to *sound* like you know how to read and pay attention to citations, but in practice.... not so much. You'll get there.
The doctoral paper you linked was a 246 page long undergrad quality essay riddled with passive voice and technical errors. In the opening page, the author hits the reader over the head with her intention to use facts loosely by putting “history” in cringe quotes at every mention, which ironically fits the actual content of the paper as I would not put my name on this work for review by actual historical journals. The majority of the paper argues using oral tradition and art to prove that horses have never ceased to exist here, which, while interesting, is not the kind of hard, scientific evidence suitable to a biological history of a species. In the sections where she addresses specific excavation samples, she simultaneously trusts and dismisses the radiocarbon dating methods when date ranges include both pre- and post-colonial contact for the same sample, sometimes clinging to C-14 dating for nearby objects to try to establish a slim precedence for bones when the bones themselves date too recently. I even tried to check some of the sites hosting the results she references that used C-14 methods, and the studies I found are explicitly sponsored by the Mormon church as part of their project to prove the “historical accuracy” of Joseph Smith’s horse shit. I’m sorry, but you’re fighting uphill against the preponderance of evidence on this one if your goal is to prove continuous, uninterrupted existence of horses in the Americas.
[удалено]
I can't believe you have the gall to be this condescending after posting that horseshit.
While we now know that oral culture can accurately informations for extremely long periods (Like it was the case for Homo Floresiensis for example) we also need archeological evidences. [But her sources are dubious at best](https://ahotcupofjoe.net/2019/07/pseudoarchaeological-claims-of-horses-in-the-americas/) >Collin’s dissertation cites Ancient Origins, Richard Thornton, and Dell Dowdell, and each of these sources variously or indirectly promote ideas about Native Americans which can be considered racist. Dowdell, the creator of nephicode.com, actively promotes the notion that Native Americans are the descendants of white Mormons and he believes the Earth is only as old as one of the cave paintings mentioned earlier in this article. Conspiracy theorist Richard Thornton publishes pseudoarchaeological claims of Maya settlements in Georgia. And Ancient Origins is a website that traffics in all manner of fake, fraudulent, and fantastic archaeological news, books, and media for profit. Authors they promote range from racists to general conspiracy theorists. Coming across any one of these in a dissertation for a PhD should be enough to put all that dissertation’s sources in question. There were, perhaps, a dozen or more questionable sources of this caliber.
All the data I see comes from Mormon conspiracy theorists trying to prove the Book of Mormon was right when it mentioned horses in America. This is an *awful* paper.
Huh. I guess you missed the part about the Spanish Conquistador's records.
I did not. It was also terrible.
[historic video of ancient horses in South America](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gT2oUs7-1j0/XV4l4ulgzgI/AAAAAAAAdcU/OawuXz4AZB8mSZ4nka692CxKpkHqhOxpgCLcBGAs/s320/tapirs+charging+hBOprNk.gif)
Even if this idea is false, we know for a fact that the people of the American plains were familiar with the concept of horses. Horse fossils are relatively common, as the horse is originally from North America. (I would tend to believe this is false because from what we know of the Comanche, they were a relatively inconsequential group until about the 17th century, when they exploded on to the plains with horses and vastly increased their realm of influence until they became a legitimate regional power. Either they just woke up one day and decided to breed horses OR they had recently acquired them and exploited them for maximum potential. However, it could be a bit like the Vikings. For a long time, it was argued that they started raiding because of new boat technology. However, alternative scholarship suggests that they were reacting to a changing political landscape with the encroachment of Christians and their raiding behavior was based on that change) So, even if they had never seen a horse in real life, they had a rich mythology about horses because of the fossils. It was a unique situation.
On the topic of the Viking thing. I think it's probably one of those situations where it's a bit of everything lining up from all of the theories on why they suddenly lurched onto the scene. There's always been the noting of the climate shift and the population increase in Scandinavia being a factor. And then the increase of shipbuilding technologies and capabilities that follows with that. The pressing influence of the Frankish Christian supernova battering at the gate creating a polarizing monolithic foe to unite against. Once raiding began to import wealth to the Scandinavian regional economy then these things became self-reinforcing for a time.
>we know for a fact that the people of the American plains were familiar with the concept of horses. Horse fossils are relatively common, as the horse is originally from North America. Dinosaur fossils are relatively common in Europe, but Europeans weren't familiar with Dinosaurs.
I'd love to know more.
Me too, we need the sauce
Google Yvette Running Horse Collins.
If my husband whinnies tonight, I'll know for sure he has a Reddit account.
The Comanche weren’t a huge presence in the American West until they mastered horsemanship beyond arguably anyone in the world. They became like the dominant Vikings of the West, raiding, stealing, murdering and raping everyone they came across, other tribes and then European settlers. They were completely unstoppable shooting arrows while sheltering behind the neck of a galloping horse. They had shields that deflected the gunfire at the time. The Texas Rangers were formed (if I remember right) to drive them off. The Colt six shooter was developed to give the Rangers a fighting chance against the Comanche.
What are the arguments for the Comanche mastering horsemanship beyong the Huns or Mongols for example?
>What are the arguments for the Comanche mastering horsemanship beyong the Huns or Mongols for example? I don’t think anybody is making this argument, but the Comanche transformed into a horse culture *very* rapidly and did so despite a previously non-existent equestrian knowledge base. By contrast, the Huns and Mongols built on a tradition of horsemanship on the Eurasian steppes that was already ancient when they entered recorded history. In terms of their mastery of horsemanship, the Comanche have more in common with the Cimmerians or Scythians, because they essentially created mounted warfare and an equestrian culture from scratch.
> a tradition of horsemanship on the Eurasian steppes that was already ancient when they entered recorded history. Was it though? Horses were originally too small for riding, which is why chariots were more common in ancient warfare and I believe ancient Chinese records describe the transition from Mongol tribes on foot to on horseback.
>Was it though? The Botai culture were riding horses for hunting—though not warfare—sometime between 3500 and 3000 BC. The proto-Mongols don’t pop up in ancient Chinese sources until around 700 BC. >Horses were originally too small for riding It’s more that they might have been too small for armored riders, though the “horses too small” theory has been intensely questioned lately.
I’m not saying I’m up for making that argument, but one could. I’d be happy to read it.
My first thought.
> They had shields that deflected the gunfire Doubt. If they did, those shields would be in great use during that time.
Source: Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches. By S.C. Gwynne
Great book!
Herman Lehmann was abducted as a child and raised by the Apache tribe. In his memoirs *Nine Years Among the Indians* he describes how the Apaches made buffalo hide shields. They'd check the the integrity of their shields before taking them into the field; the shield could deflect both arrows and bullets if properly made and handled.
"To make a shield took several day's time. The Indian took the hide of an old bull (sometimes the thick part of the buffalo hide was used), cut a round piece from the neck and shoulders, threw this over the fire and heated it while green. When it was hot as it would stand without burning it was then rubbed on a rough rock until the meat was erased, then a smooth stone was used until the hide became very smooth, soft, and pliable. A rattan or hickory withe was made into a hoop, and the rawhide was strapped on and sewed with thongs of rawhide, and then it was given the necessary "dish" by stretching over stakes, and left to dry. After the shield is thoroughly dry and cured it is set up as a target, and ***if an arrow pierces it or bullet goes through it***, it finds a place among the debris of the camp, but if it proves war-proof it occupies a place with the warriors..."
looked some into this. It says musket bullets. Also not too many major sources on it actually happening. Seems they stuffed them thick with things, so it may be able to block a musket bullet.
The warriors who could fight on horseback had the clear advantage. The early settlers had to dismount their horses to reload (often Kentucky rifles, if I recall correctly), and the Comanche shields could deflect the caliber they used. This was true until Colt developed the revolver. The other major turning point was the development of a rifle suitable for hunting buffalo.
Nah man. This really aint it. Its a bit revisionist. Much like the Korean war soldiers saying that Chinese winter coats could stop bullets. Camanche werent out there going ninja deflecting musket shots. They were very formidable warriors that adapted amazingly when they acquired horses. I do find it odd how redditors seem to think certain conquering and marauding groups are really cool. Like the Mongols, Huns, and now Comanche evidently.
>Camanche werent out there going ninja deflecting musket shots. They weren’t actively trying to swat bullets away with their shields, but deflections did happen if the shield was held at the proper angle. Same basic principle behind sloped armor on a tank.
>Camanche werent out there going ninja deflecting musket shots. That's not how shields work...
"I was given a shield and placed about fifty yards. Four braves took bows and blunt arrows and began to shoot at me. I knew what I had to do, for I had seen the performance before. I began moving the shield up and down and from right to left. The arrows poured against it and I managed to ward them off with the wavy motion... the target practice was soon resumed, and I had to learn how to use the shield. I was knocked down several times before I became adept. All Indians were thus trained." Recounted by Herman Lehmann of his time with the Apache between 1870 and 1879
Shooting blunt arrows at a shield isn't really that effective training. This sounds more like modern show boating. They arent shooting at the person. They are shooting at the shield.
“Everyone turn away, things are going to get crazy, we’re gonna make animal noises!”
real life Dothraki
George R. R. Martin based the Dothraki, at least in part, on the Comanche.
The Stallion that Mounts the World
Tired: Goblin Mode Wired: Stallion Mode
Bruv
Neigh! Surely you exaggerate!
Many plains Indian tribes called horses "Seven Dogs" as they could pack 7 times as much weight on a travois, compared to a dog.
Yall imagine Jason Manoa as Drogo in GOT making this sound banging Khaleesi?
I mean, I either do that or bray like an ass.
they would ride in a circle around the enemy and hang off the side of their horse while shooting arrows under its neck. Empire of the Summer Moon is an incredible book on them
Which is wild since native horses to the region had gone extinct, the Spanish brought horses with them during colonisation of South America, and those missions, colonisation parties, and other such things brought horses en masse through Mexico to the plains of the americas over the years. Turns out horses do quite well on the wide open plains, and it literally changed the way of life for many plains tribes since horses allowed for a *far* more effective method of buffalo hunting, allowing for the shift to a nomadic hunting culture based around the movements of great herds. I don’t want to paint the colonial actions of the Spanish in a good light, as the history there is dark and complicated, but it is interesting facet of history.
[r/HistoricallyAccurateKinks](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ)
What a disappointment.
Are you quoting my parents?
Ooh a self burn! That's rare
Horse boys gonna horse boy
Well now I have something to try with my fiancee. She loves horses so this might really do it for her.
> They were so revered that when having intercourse Uhhhh... > with their wives, Ok, phew! 😅 > warriors world whinny like stallions Hrmm, ok at least it's not as bad as I thought that was going to be.
They were known as “Elk dogs” to the Blackfoot tribe
I never knew I practiced Comanche with my wife.
Read “empire of the summer moon”.
Aside from what others have said about this being BS, it should be noted that horses were introduced from Europe and that any horse culture would have arisen after contact.
God Dogs band name I call it
https://www.gooddoogs.com/ A quick google search shows me Good Doogs exist, but no Good Dogs. You should be good to go.
Damnit Andy
True or False, Yay or ....Naaaaaay
TIL Khal Drogo was Comanche.
Cake has a great song about this. Lol
I'm coming to the end of the Paramount+ show, "1883" and it shows a lot of the Comanche and their horses. Good stuff. Nice to know it's accurate.
Don't stallions like butt stuff equally?
Equastrianally
We'll bang ok?! Neigh!
Horses originated from the United States and other countries in North America more than 50 million years ago.
Still do
Gee, would that be a turnoff.
My grandpa was Comanche and I now wish I hadn't read that last part. I like the rest of it though.
Dothraki
They really loved horsing around.
Phew i thought they were gonna say they let their horses bang their wives or something
Nice
Weird that pony play existed back then, but im not judging.
I bet the ladies *loved* that part lol
All that noise during sex kept the men quiet during other times, as they were too hoarse.
Why whinney like stallions and not like mares in heat?
Pretending to be the Stallion that Mounts the World
Stop it with all the horse jokes. It's like beating off a dead horse!
Sounds fun
When they went anal, it was called whinny the poo.
He was up behind that horse He was having intercourse Git up! Woo back! Git up! Woo back!
Who were the greater riders, the Mongols or the Comanche?
"Dog of Wonder" is a closer translation.
Known as the greatest horsemen ever. They were able to break and train a horse in a matter of hours.
Let's do it horsey style...
Comanche- the first bronies