According to Louis L’Amour the Kiowa killed more non-Indians than any other tribe, yet they have been overlooked in books and movies. It’s either the Apache, Sioux, or Comanche that are always the attackers. Did Louis tell the truth and if so why isn’t the Kiowa used as the bad guys in books and movies?
Terry Lee Rouhier
Dear Mr. Rouhier,
Sometimes one has to consult with specialized colleagues to find the answer, and in this case Gregory Michno, Indian wars expert, the author of many books including Encyclopedia of Indian Wars: Western Battles and Skirmishes, 1850-1890, makes a more qualified expert than Louis L’Amour. Here’s Mr. Michno’s word on the matter:
“In the Encyclopedia of Indian Wars, p. 363. I only counted 1850-1890, and only the tribes vs. the military, but the Kiowas aren’t even close. Sioux lead the list with 1,250 casualties caused; Cheyenne with 642; Apache 566; Paiute 302; Nez Perce 281, etc. The Kiowa are in ninth place with 117. Of course this does not include civilians. I don’t believe anyone could ever count that accurately. Still, I bet the percentages would hold, with maybe the Comanche and Apache moving up the list. The Kiowas were a tiny tribe. Maybe the percentages of those they killed were high in relation to their own population, but not in raw numbers. What I want to know is why the Paiutes are never mentioned.”
More Questions at Ask Mr. History
Don’t miss the next Ask Mr. History question! To receive notification whenever any new item is published on HistoryNet, just scroll down the column on the right and sign up for our RSS feed.