David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
Around 1760, a Spaniard by the name of Juan Manuel Ruiz immigrated to San Fernando de Bexar (San Antonio, Texas). He married Manuela de la Pena, a native of Saltillo. They had a son, Jose Francisco, on january 29, 1783. Jose was educated in Spain, but returned to manage his father’s ranches on the Nueces River south and west of San Antonio. By the age of thirty, Ruiz was involved in the revolutionary effort to free Texas from Spanish rule. He survived the defeat in the Battle of Medina River in August 18, 1813, but had to flee for his life. He took refuge among the Comanche–who seemed supportive of Texas independence. He lived with the Comanche for eight years.
Jose Fransico Ruiz, 1783-1840.
He was one of two native Texans
to sign the Texas Declaration of
Independence.
In 1828, he wrote a brief account of Comanche life in Report on the Indian Tribes of Texas. (A facsimile of the text is held in the Beineke Rare Book Library at Yale.) He saw the Comanche as “fierce defenders of their freedom.”
He noted what he called an elite group of warriors called “los lobos,” or, the wolves. They wore “profuse adornments,” Ruiz wrote, which they alone had the privilege of wearing. The Lobos are not allowed to retreat from the scene of the battle, not even when they are vastly outnumbered. It is their duty to die rather than surrender their ground, although the other warriors may be in full retreat.
(Ruiz says this was a big hit among the Comanche women.) Ruiz reports that any Lobo who surived, when other Lobos were killed, must find a new Comanche band to live with. If he survived, and other Lobos were killed, that meant, to the families of the dead, that the survivor had somehow neglected their duty. He should be dead!
The Lobos were normally treated as royalty, with great ostentation. Now, whether the Comanche referred to these kinds of warriors as “wolves” we cannot say. It was quite clear in Ruiz’ mind, however, that this was their nomenclature.
Timber Bluff, Comanche, 1872. Eyes of a wolf?
Later oral tradition has it that the Lobo would tether himself to a lance or pole stuck in the ground, and there fight until he was either killed, or the killed anyone who challenged him, until the battle was over. This tradition is aggrandized in Comanche lore. James M. Cox, great grandson of Quanah Parker, has a wonderful painting of such a Comanche, tethered to his lance, stuck in the ground. The Comanche thus declares his final stance. He will win, or die trying. He will not give ground. This fine art piece hangs in Cox’s office in Midwest City, Oklahoma. I asked him about it. He told me the oral tradition. It was especially meaningful to him, as head of the Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police, and as the son of James M. Cox–Chairman of the Comanche Nation, elected in 1976. There was a special verse accompanying the artwork, written below it. It was about never backing down from principle, from right, from defending your people.
I told him about the Ruiz account. I was most interested to know that the oral tradition was so similar to the written record of Ruiz, in 1828. Of course, Yale has dozens of historical, published accounts of captives who wrote about their horrifying “two days” with the Indians, or their “three months,” etc. These kinds of accounts were a dime a dozen. They were the cheap paper-back novels of day. They were the TV Westerns, or even the soaps. Yet, Ruiz seems to have been describing a very real social phenomenon among Comanche–certainly when compared to living oral tradition.
But the idea of the “crazy” warrior was not limited to the Comanche. Other plains Indians have similar traditions. Among the Lakota there was the Heyoka. These kinds of warriors were indeed killers. Often it was the result of personal tragedy, as in the case of Crazy Horse, who lost his baby daughter to war. Sometimes it was a vision. But whatever, it made the warrior exceedingly dangerous in battle. No one knew what he was going to do. He often did the opposite of what was expected, even in peace time, and in battle this meant he would stop at nothing.
One of the two photographs of an
Indian who may have been the
famous Crazy Horse.
The Cheyenne had warrior societies comprised of these kinds of heart-broken, heart-ripping warriors. Among them, the Dog Soldiers and Bowstrings turned into something similar to motorcycle gangs. They were on the fringe of their own societies. The Crow Indians had such phenomena among them as well.
Not every Comanche band or tribe accounted for the “crazy” warrior in the same way. Perhaps what Ruiz reports about Los Lobos was in fact about a group of such men. Perhaps it wasn’t. There is an oral tradition about a more singular warrior, whom you could count on to do something crazy. They called him Pu-kut-si. He was much more rare. In the 1930′s, an old Comanche woman said she had only known one, personally, in her entire life.
This kind of social psychology among the 18th and 19th century days of the Plains Indians is a sorely neglected field of study. This is of course due to the fact that there is little known evidence or documentation, and even less understanding on the part of early anthropologists. At least, this is the case for American Indians. I say it is the lack of conceptual identification on the part of the white observers. The world is often left with misconceptions of behavior and values when it comes to Indian life.
A Crow brave. Was he a “crazy” warrior?
15 responses so far ↓
1 kschwantz // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:14 am
Do you think it would be historically feasible, (in a story sense) that a young Comanche could have been captured by Spanish Soldiers, (not Mexican) and taken back to Spain during any of thoses times?
You see I have a story that i’ve been piddling with for fun, and there’s a sub-story about a feud between between two Fencing Masters, a Spainish and a French. The Spainish killed the Son of the French in a duel. The Spainish Master gets sent to America and in doing so ends up in battles with American Indians. He Captures a young Comanche boy and takes him back to Spain as a personal Valet. There again meeting the Frenchman at card table where the Frenchman wagers on a hand that within two months he could train the Young Comanche to best the Spainard in a duel. The bet is made, the Frenchman wins and he gives the boy the option of flight, or fight with the Spainard. The Comanche chooses to stay and fight. The Frenchman teaches him a single move. which he uses to Kill the Spainard with. Afterwards they flee Spain, go back to France, the boy is properly trained and becomes a fencing master himself. The Frenchman dies leaving him everything, (like a son) He marries a French Gal, has a son and eventually Moves back to America – New Oreleans. He’s now an Aristocrat. Get’s in a duel over his wife, but looses since they don’t duel with swords in America, but guns! The son grows up, etc etc. Present day this character meets this fellow who’s a professional Chef with a French Canadian wife. The Chef, who is the descendant of the Comanche Fencing Master, now pays homage to his ancestor by being both a fencing and a pistol master. Blah blah, etc.
Do you think that scenario could even fly? Historically speaking?
2 David Yeagley // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:00 am
If you’re talking about a “historical” novel, then it would have to occur before Mexico’s long war of independence from Spain (1810-1821), or before the Texas war of Independence from Mexico (1835-36). Better make it 17th century.
Bad Eagle, as a young Comanche brave, was captured probably not before 1850. But that was by Mexican military authorities, in a Comanche raiding incident. (Comanches loved to raid the villages down in old Mexico.)
Your idea is quite apropos. The French and Spanish conflict continued in the New World, and French were in Mexico a long time.
Sounds like you have a great idea for a novel.
3 kschwantz // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:46 am
Actually, its a screen play. (See you don’t even have to know how to write, to write one of those!) I had watched Barry Lyndon, and a few other things and driving to work made up the screen in my head, but since it was all just made up, I wondered if any of it was even ever historically feasible. (Something else you almost need not worry with in a screenplay these days!)
This was an interesting article, thanks for it.
4 jew // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Before leaving my first comment, I should like to say that as an observant Jew and a proud American, I consider it an honor to take part in your discussion.
I want to address something you mentioned parenthetically, that among the “wolves”, the resolve to emerge victorious in battle or die trying was “a big hit among the Comanche women”.
It has always seemed to me that the standard by which men are held accountable to the noble ideals of their societies have forever been upheld by their women. Even the bravest warrior must surely have had second thoughts when founding himself outnumbered in battle and on the brink of defeat. The derision he would surely have to face among his fellow braves around the campfire may have acted as discouragement enough, but among men, social acceptance is not a necessary condition, as for him society is not a necessary condition.
But knowing the scorn that awaits a defeated warrior in the eyes of his woman, she whose domesticating impulse is at the foundation of society and whose fidelity to ideals its keep men honest, must have galvanized his fighting spirit and forever banished any thoughts of retreat.
Looking at the history of the Jews, one discerns periods of great confidence, a manifestation of the conquering urge, the masculine, which are marked by social, religious, and intellectual innovation. In between these periods, the Jew is simply nesting among the gentiles, absorbing much foreign culture, managing to continue in the ways of his fathers only by adherence to halacha, Jewish law.
Herein I discern the female, in the role delegated to her by society as “the gatekeeper of sex”, has kept the men’s animal passions in check, “civilized” them, by holding them accountable to the law of their people.
5 David Yeagley // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I like it! I like especially that any Jew can come to this site and, feel proud and unabashed. This is what I look for. I must admit, there are those on this site who hold the Jew to the highest standards known to man, of course, but then, that’s an honor in itself, I do believe.
In the future, I plan a series of posts on the pioneer woman in America, as well as women during those non-aggression periods.
I wonder. Does a better woman make a better warrior? And a better warrior a better woman?
They say Comanche men were complete and vain slobs around the camp. They did nothing but be pampered. After all, they put their lives on the line, weeks on end, in battle, on raids, on great hunts, to bring home the goods. When he was home, the brave was pampered beyond anything we know here in modern American society. That’s for sure!
6 Matilda Darquerider // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Actually it’s very simple — pms.
7 Phidoux // Mar 5, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Good read.Wish there were more like this. But hey it’s your camp.I like the referance to the Spanish/ Mexican involment in Texas independene.For tears the early Anglo revisonist had kept that out of standard school history books as well as anything else that did’nt meet the dominant agenda.
As a young fella I heard the Crow speak of such men in the contempory since. Can’t remember the Crow word but it translated to something like “Dwells on the Camp edge” Not always a good thing but was usefull at times I guess.
This is good.
A man could not even court a girl unless he had proved his courage. That was one reason so many were anxious to win good war records…. They were all afraid of what people, and especially the women, would say if they were cowardly. The women even had a song they would sing about a man whose courage had failed him: “If you are afraid when you charge, turn back. The Desert Women will eat you.” …It was hard to go into a fight, and they were often afraid, but it was worse to turn back and face the women.
John Stands in Timber
8 jew // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:44 pm
It seems to me like a simple equation:
(Brave to squaw): “Stay with me, do all the work, be fed from my hand – live; watch soaps all day on your own – starve and die”.
The more civilized and prosperous society becomes, the more there is to go around for everyone; the less the woman is dependent on the man and the fewer burdens she is made to bear.
At least that is how things look from where I stand – an indian might have deeper insight. Is it so or not so?
Does a better woman make a better warrior? Why, of course! There must be a darn good life back home the he should be willing to die for. And I’m sure the wife of a warrior who distinguishes himself in battle can be prideful and lord it over the other women in camp.
This might not be the place, but I’m curious: Is there any parallel in the development of a young indian, a coming of age moment, to the step spoken of by martial arts masters “losing your fear”? Fear of dying that is, when a warrior resigns himself to his fate, before which he can never be truly effective?
9 David Yeagley // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Among the Comanche, there was something called po-ha-cut, or “medicine,” meaning one’s individual power, the power of one’s individual person. But there was not social event, no formal rite of passage. Comanche were astoundingly individualistic. I’ve used the word “solipsist” before, trying to pin a name to the unique psychology of the Comanche. It was not an “organized” people. Just innumerable hunting/raiding bands, a few uniting now and then for some special battle, but usually, the Comanche hunting band represents the most powerful, autonomist social unit in known history! Independence was some abiding, guiding compulsion.
10 David Yeagley // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Phi, if you’ll look over to the left column of this home page, you’ll find two lists, on top of each other: Op-ed Columns, and Bad Eagle Journal. Under the Journal, you’ll see several Comanche posts. I intend to do many more.
The new site takes some getting used to. Of course, then there are the forums, which you are well aware of!
11 Matilda Darquerider // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:53 am
kschwantz (#1),
It’s feasible. The Spaniards took King Carlos and some other Caloosas to Spain and Cuba to “educate” them to the white man’s ways.
12 David Yeagley // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:52 am
Well, sometimes folks forget, Spain was once the “America” of the Western world. All things came from Spain, and all things went into Spain. This, of course, after the defeat of the Muslims, and the fall of the Alhumbra in Granada–in the eventful year of 1492.
13 David Yeagley // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:25 am
I also want to say, openly, that the conditions in Washington are so utterly despicable that I can scarcely bear to speak of them.
I find rather inspiration and solace in the lives of my ancestors.
14 J.Kills_Straight // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Dr. Yeagley:
I am interested in where you procured that photo alleging to be the Great Oglala Warrior Crazy Horse.
Can you elaborate further on why you think it’s him when there has not been a single photo of him that’s been verified as legitimate. Give us some history as to how you came about it.
I am not saying it is or not is Crazy Horse, however if it is, then you have uncovered one of the greatest mysteries in American Indian history.
Please, reveal your sources, we need to know.
J.Kills Straight
Santee, Sioux.
15 David Yeagley // Mar 9, 2009 at 1:21 pm
As far as I know, there is no historical photograph of Crazy Horse. Note, I did say, under the photo I used, “may have been” Crazy Horse.
That is from an unidentified historical photo, which happens to be feature on Wikipedia’s Crazy Horse page. Pretty clear it can’t be him. I doubt the circumstances of his last days and death would permit such a posed photo in 1877.
By the way, he died on my birthday, September 5.
You must log in to post a comment.