What went wrong?
>>554131
There's no such thing as wrong and right in history.
Decentralize patchwork of lands that shouldn't have been a nation.
A minority landed aristocracy that placed their own self-interests over the nation and majority colored masses.
White flight aka many of the wealthy families fled back to Spain, thus ruining the economy.
The war of independence was destructive and unlike the American Revolution, destroyed much of the infrastructure, again further retarding Mexico's economy.
Shit tier leaders
Take your pick
>>554131
If victoria 2 has any hint of historical realism then:
>too low population density, making factories and stuff like that not possible/profitable
>laggin in tech like 30 years
>conservatives vs liberals tearing the country apart
>hungry neighbor with "eternal anglo" culture
>>554250
>"eternal anglo"
I can still can't decide if this is a funny meme or a shitty one.
>>554137
History is perspective, and yes, there is a wrong and right depending on the perspective.
>>554255
It's best to err on the side of shitty.
>>554255
Its not a meme, its real. England and the USA are the most treacherous countries that have ever existed, allying with one country just to declare war with them the next decade while declaring themselves more civilized and more cultured and more honorable, etc., how could anyone think they were honest enough to sign a treaty is beyond me.
>>554285
>History is perspective
Nope. We historicise those perspectives. We deeply resist injecting our own.
>there is wrong and right
My perspectives don't contain wrongs and rights.
>>554375
proofs?
>>554250
>too low population density
This was the big deal as far as the territory lost to America goes. The amount of land looks huge (and it is), but it was extremely thinly populated by Mexicans on the ground. The Mexican government actually invited American settlers into Texas to civilize it and get the land under cultivation, which bit them in the ass when the Anglos who settled there decided they didn't much like Santa Anna's centralization and would much rather be in the US.
Settling territories is everything. You can claim it all you want, but if all you have there is missions and large ranches it's not going to be easy to hold, and it's going to be a tempting target for foreign settlers or foreign countries that figure they could take it and settle it with their own people.
>>554375
t. central european
>>554131
Mexico had very few settlers in those northern territories.
But they do now :^)
>>554400
>Nope. We historicise those perspectives. We deeply resist injecting our own.
Tell that to Howard Zinn.
>>554250
>>conservatives vs liberals tearing the country apart
easily one of the stupidest things i've ever seen in a country's history
>>555305
Mexico was always in a culture struggle, the country was born a monarchy and lived like that for 300 years, but being right next to the US of A kinda fool some into thinking a republican system could work for them the same way as it did for their northern neighbor, at the end it was all that fighting the one that fucked Mexico the most, since America and Europe were in a hurry to get a share of old spanish land and resources.
>>554131
Indios who inherited the death fetish from the aztecs
Colonel Travis Davy Crockett and a hundred eighty more
Captain Dickinson Jim Bowie present and accounted for
>>554666
>Tell that to Howard Zinn.
If your standard of historiographical conduct is "better than Howard Zinn" you have problems.
>>554375
>>554131
their rebellion started as a popular revolt and ended as an elitist movement. their class struggle was cemented by their war of independence.
>>554250
It is true that Mexico was not the ideal location for a center of industry but the reasoning given by the gameplay mechanics are wrong.
>too low population density, making factories and stuff like that not possible/profitable
Every major city was importing grain from 100s of miles away, local agricultural productivity wasn't much of a factor. It was more the expense of supporting dense populations which can be difficult in hot climates.
>laggin in tech like 30 years
Everyone who could afford it was educated the same way as europeans and other north americans, they just couldn't afford cutting edge capital goods and services. Setting up something like a textile mill in the 1850s is easy. Doing so better than your competitors such that it yields high returns and justifies investment on a massive scale can be very difficult.
>conservatives vs liberals tearing the country apart
every country suffers from instability, one country doesn't spontaneously decide to be more rebellious than another
>hungry neighbor with "eternal anglo" culture
obviously just a meme, again, anglos didn't spontaneously decide to be expansionist, every undemocratic nation acts like a psychopath that gains power by any means necessary only held back by their own decadence, mexican rulers just lacked the means to go on the offensive
>>554400
>We deeply resist injecting our own.
History is one of the most biased things we have.
>My perspectives don't contain wrongs and rights.
How fucking noble of you.
>>554255
There's nothing wrong with hating A N G E L S A C H S E N
>>554255
It's a good one. If you want a nation of people who control the world behind the scenes with financial power, and have a role in just about every conflict and human misery in the world, it' the English.
I mean, 'anglos' to the north aside, The British had their part in recolonizing mexico, at the least.
>>554400
>how best to study history, the chronicle of humanity's struggles?
>I know, I'll dehumanize it!
>>554519
>>554375
>>554255
>>554131
They bordered the USA
A N G L O
N
G
L
O
>>554131
