Was there ever a person like the man with no name in actual US history in the wild west?

was there ever a person like the man with no name in actual US history in the wild west?

Other urls found in this thread:

independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803
twitter.com/AnonBabble

There were Outlaws, thrillseekers, and bandits.

There were mercenaries.

They were much likely less appealing than TMWNN.

I mean TMWNN doesn't rape or kill innocent people like most outlaws did back then.

And his chaotic neutral ploy of taking Ugly from town-to-town and setting up a hanging only to rescue him is too fraught with danger to actually work IRL.

Moreover the towns would just telegraph each other about the criminal pair.

This desu. They were also extremely rare. The "Wild" West was never really like it was in movies, outside of the Army vs. Injuns movies.The Wild West was just as peaceful as the current West is today (sans California, in which case it's even more peaceful). Life was harder on the frontier, but it was fair and there was actually not that much crime.

Frank Canton

No, the Wild West was extremely violent compared to its relatively low population density, which normally entails tranquility. Even being much more peaceful than contemporary California doesn't change that, since contemporary California is radically urbanized.

>No, the Wild West was extremely violent compared to its relatively low population density, which normally entails tranquility
Primary sources say "No." The violent crime rate wasn't any higher than it is today.

Also here's a source. Sorry, Pilgrim. No John Wayne fantasies today.
independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803

Ever heard of Apacheria, mate? Read some about it.

I literally just linked you a source. Are you seriously blanket statementing the entire frontier over a contested border region?

>The violent crime rate wasn't any higher than it is today.
I KNOW. But relative to how little urbanization it was, it was exceptional.

The "wild" west wasn't very wild

EVEN PER CAPITA IT WAS FAR LOWER THAN TODAY. Jesus. The urbanization is irrelevant anyways. Much of the West, particularly the Southwest, is rural nothingness for hundreds of miles. The closest city to me is 4 fucking hours away.

t. Southwest resident whose town holds the largest Native archive between Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico outside of UNM

Stop fucking mythologizing the frontier. It wasn't a fucking John Wayne movie. It was closer to Little House on the fucking Prairie than Shootout at the OK Corral. Do you know WHY it is so mythologized? BECAUSE of super rare shit like the OK Corral that made national headlines.

Population density isn't just about "per capita". If you take a million people and spread them out, they are going to have a lot less crime than if you cram them together.

You're implying cities didn't exist though, which is false. The majority of towns in the Southwest were founded in the same period. Mine, for example, was founded in the 1850's. Cities like Denver, Ogden, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Tuscon, Yuma, etc. existed. It wasn't some barren wasteland. Just read the fucking source. It's not even as bad as you're claiming at all, with or without urbanization.

I'm not implying, I'm stating overtly that the population density of the the 19th Century West was way, way, way, way, way lower than the West of today..

You're implying that crime was overly existent on the frontier and just deliberately misinterpreted my statement to shuck that notion. Don't kid yourself and quit posting bullshit.

Sure, but that's because big cities have gotten bigger. Have you been out west? It's fucking empty, even today. New Mexico, most of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, eastern CA being perfect examples...

Also before you even post let's go over the facts here. I have posted a source which refutes your statement that crime was overly existent on the frontier. You have posted nothing but John Wayne bullshit. See the issue here?

The Texas Rangers?

I'm stating that crime was rampant relative to the number of people per square mile, which is not quite the same as per capita. If you took the population of L.A. and spread them so thin there was only 100 people per square mile (the average is about 7000), the crime would be drastically lower.

>I'm stating that crime was rampant relative to the number of people per square mile
Except it wasn't and I already posted a source. Just fucking stop already.

You posted a source that hardly addresses population density.

If you took the Old West and squished them into a density of 7000 people per square mile, the crime rate would multiply enormously. I'm not talking about the per capita being higher, the per capita would be the same. Density of population, how close people are to each other, drastically multiplies homicide. The West, even in the densest cities, had a very low density compared to today. If you compared the West to lower density England (the densest cities of the West were much lower than London), you'd see a large discrepancy in crime.

Source your bullshit, pilgrim, otherwise fuck off

>I'm stating that crime was rampant relative to the number of people per square mile, which is not quite the same as per capita.
By that logic, Alaska must be the first place you think of when you think of crime ridden shithole.

Alaska has a murder rate per hundred thousand people, adjusted for it's population density, of 5.6. Chicago has a murder rate per hundred thousand people, adjusted for it's population density, is .00098.

In other words, Alaska is nearly 6,000 times as lawless as Chicago, by the same math that tells us the old west was really bad.

>wild west wasnt that wild

stop getting your history from old Cracked.com articles

The guy from Red Dead Redemption.

>I only use primary sources & I take them at face value
lol fucking faggot, you're what's wrong with the world