Could Mexico defeat the US?
No.
>>757530
lol no they lost to Texas
>>757530
They could have. In many battles they had every excellent terrain and deployment. That they lost is another story.
>>757530
From what little I know, corruption hindered their war effort. Santa Anna, from my understanding, was a symptom more-so than the root cause.
>>757530
Maybe, they just needed competent leadership and better morale. It was never even clear wtf they were fighting for. The average Mexican soldier had nothing to do with Texas, they were looked down on by their commanders and abused, the idea of "Mexico" itself was pretty abstract, the fact the the government and constitution had changed numerous times already in the short history of the nation didn't help. Other than "Gringo bad because invader", little actual reason for the conflict could be found.
What was "Mexico"? Your average person and as such average soldier couldn't answer that, which is why their lines so often broke. If you don't know what you're fighting for you're not going to be willing to die for it. The Americans had a significant advantage in that regard, they had constitution, they had a stable government, they knew what their country was and knew they weren't pawns of whoever happened to be in power that year. To top it all off they had as legitimate a claim for fighting in the war as Mexico had. As a result their morale was noticeably higher and they'd fight long after most Mexican forces would have been routed or asked for terms.
To top it all off Mexico had chronic shortages of every war time necessity, their lack of a proper navy saw to that. Almost since the wars onset Mexico found its Atlantic ports blockaded, later on it would even see the comparitively little shipping it had in the Pacific harassed by a US squadron.
In short Mexico couldn't "win" the war in the traditional sense,it just had too much stacked against it. What it could have done is brought the US to the negotiating table, made the US pay $ for a Rio Grande border in Texas and maybe have held onto the CA, NM and AZ or negotiated a better settlement for those territories Maybe even a Status Quo ante Bellum with a later border conflict settling the issue.
>>760715
>What was "Mexico"? Your average person and as such average soldier couldn't answer that, which is why their lines so often broke. If you don't know what you're fighting for you're not going to be willing to die for it. The Americans had a significant advantage in that regard, they had constitution, they had a stable government, they knew what their country was and knew they weren't pawns of whoever happened to be in power that year. To top it all off they had as legitimate a claim for fighting in the war as Mexico had. As a result their morale was noticeably higher and they'd fight long after most Mexican forces would have been routed or asked for terms.
Meanwhile, Texas had the Memes to end all Memes. Good point to share.
Is there really no scenario where we win?
Maybe if the spics accepted their rightful emperor they would actually have a chance at not being useless
>>760858
Don't surrender and fight like sand niggers for 10 years and then we get tired and leave. Then again back then we might have just gone for whole sale slaughter of all the villages we could find. So may have lost that too.
>>760858
Like I said, Maybe.
You needed a good charismatic commander. Santa Anna was charismatic but as a strategist and tactician he was mediocre. You needed a Napoleon, someone that could inspire his men because lord knowa the government and the idea of Mexico wasn't going to cut it. Too many people had fought over power in Mexico in coups and minor rebellions for the idea of Mexico to inspire the citizenry and thus rank and file to great resistance. Couple that with gunpowder and weapon shortages and you don't have good chances.
Low confidence in the government and a bad supply situation though can be mitigated if the soldiers have an immediate figure to inspire them and for whom to fight for, this wasn't the case though but could have been. José de Urrea for example was a fairly skilled commander, competent and had the respect of his men but he was too self serving and greedy for personal power for him to be a popular nationalist. You needed someone draped in the flag that appeared selfless to the common rank and was a tactical genius to top it all off file and you simply didn't have that (as far as I know).
Without that and with all the handicaps of a blockade I don't think a clear cut victory would be possible, as I said at best a status quo antebellum but even that would be unlikely without the aforementioned commander.
>>760892
ffs the greatest Mexican heroes of the war were some cadets that jumped off of Chapultepec
To contrast the greatest hero to come out of the war for the US was Zachary Taylor who resisted at Saltillo despite being outnumbered and surrounded and refused to surrender or give up the field
that's how bad the leadership situation was for Mexico
>Other than "Gringo bad because invader", little actual reason for the conflict could be found.
Bringing back a rebelling province into the fold due to American freebooters is about as legitimate a casus belli as one could get.
>>760715
>The Americans had a significant advantage in that regard, they had constitution, they had a stable government, they knew what their country was and knew they weren't pawns of whoever happened to be in power that year.
That's not even remotely true, The US was hardly stable and there was no real American identity at the time, the vague notion of what it was to be an American only came after the US Civil War.
>As a result their morale was noticeably higher and they'd fight long after most Mexican forces would have been routed or asked for terms.
The Mexican Army at the time of the war was the best-trained and best-equipped army in North America, there was never a question of their morale. What brought them low was poor leadership, something that the country continues to suffer from to this day.
>>757530
In the future they probably can, since cartel armies don't require much in support, while every American soldier requires 12 noncombatants behind them, and aren't very good anyway.
>>762279
found the Mexican nationalist
>Bringing back a rebelling province into the fold due to American freebooters is about as legitimate a casus belli as one could get.
For politicians, for the average soldier that didn't mean anything. They didn't have a tangible personal reason for going to war. To them it was just one more conflict between politicians.
>The US was hardly stable
What was unstable about the US in 1846?
>there was no real American identity at the time
They had the constitution which hadn't been changed once since it replaced the Articles of Confederation. Right to property, free speech, assembly, travel, arms, were all part of the "American identity".
>>762279
>>762617
>the vague notion of what it was to be an American only came after the US Civil War
Utter nonsense and nothing more than your misinformed opinion.
>The Mexican Army at the time of the war was the best-trained and best-equipped army in North America
Hardly, they lacked any proper horse artillery whatsoever and the blockade made itself felt the same year the war started. Furthermore in regards to training:
>The cavalry was drilled only in regiments. The artillery hardly ever maneuvered and never fired a blank shot. The general in command was never present on the field of maneuvers, so that he was unable to appreciate the respective qualities of the various bodies under his command.... If any meetings of the principal commanding officers were held to discuss the operations of the campaign, it was not known, nor was it known whether any plan of campaign had been formed
>Manuel Balontín, quoted in Christensen, The U.S.-Mexican War, p. 137
Both troop and officer training were poor compared to American training.
>there was never a question of their morale.
They broke, easily, at numerous battles. If that isn't an effect of poor morale what is?
>What brought them low was poor leadership, something that the country continues to suffer from to this day.
That too, definitely. However you seem to ignore that poor morale is a symptom of poor leadership. While you seem perfectly happy to acquiesce the existence of poor leadership you seem oblivious to the effect that has on fighting men.
>>762279
>there was no real American identity at the time, the vague notion of what it was to be an American only came after the US Civil War.
The US Civil War was fought over two opposed but well formed concrete ideas of what it meant to be American. Your claim is a complete and self evident falsehood.
>>757530
The Mexican army literally has no tanks, zero, and literally no modern combat aircraft. So absolutely not.
>>762617
>For politicians, for the average soldier that didn't mean anything. They didn't have a tangible personal reason for going to war. To them it was just one more conflict between politicians.
Every single war is started by politicians that's a completely moot point.
>What was unstable about the US in 1846?
Everything. Separatism has been a gigantic problem in the US since independence, why do you think the capital was chosen as DC during the Residence Act in 1790? It was because the Southern states were threatening to succeed and placing the capital closer to the south was a way of appeasing them. You also had endemic corruption and rampant crime in the frontiers; you have no idea how violent and unstable the US was before the establishment of the FBI in the 1920's
>Right to property, free speech, assembly, travel, arms, were all part of the "American identity".
The constitution has been changed many times, amendments have been established and replaced many times through the course of US history. No there is no tangible concept of an American identity, only a vague notion of it, anyone who says otherwise is a fool and/or a liar. A country composed of over a hundred different ethnic, racial and cultural groups will not have a strong national identity, and this is true for every single New World country.
>>762634
After reviewing the facts it seems like you're right about the Mexican Army, however the facts also state that the US Army was only slightly better. While having better officers and better training, the quality of the US soldiers were quite poor. Morale wasn't often low due to lack of pay, most of the causalities came from disease because of lack of knowledge on how to make sanitary camps, and volunteers were wild and unruly. If anything the clash between the Mexican and US army can be best described as two retards trading fists in the schoolyard.
>>757530
Mexico already has.
So much for your revolution Americans.
>>763109
>Every single war is started by politicians that's a completely moot point.
But it's sold to the people and this one wasn't because the people had no identity.
>Everything. Separatism has been a gigantic problem in the US since independence
And it was treated and resolved every time until 1861, there was nothing unstable about the US government in 1846.
>You also had endemic corruption and rampant crime in the frontiers;
They were the frontiers. Hardly anyone lived there of course they had that problem, so what? How does that make the Us as a state "hardly stable"?
>The constitution has been changed many times
I should have said "replaced". Change itself isn't even remotely important or any kind of worthwhile point.
> No there is no tangible concept of an American identit
Yes there is you're jsut a liar and are misrepresenting American society of 1846.
>anyone who says otherwise is a fool and/or a liar.
No sir, that's you. What it meant to be American was clearly written on the US Constitution and the bill of rights, Mexico and Mexicans had no such luxury.
>>763109
>After reviewing the facts it seems like you're right about the Mexican Army, however the facts also state that the US Army was only slightly better. While having better officers and better training, the quality of the US soldiers were quite poor. Morale wasn't often low due to lack of pay, most of the causalities came from disease because of lack of knowledge on how to make sanitary camps, and volunteers were wild and unruly. If anything the clash between the Mexican and US army can be best described as two retards trading fists in the schoolyard.
This entire post is nothing but irrelevant factoids and opinion pieces. Do you have anything worth a damn to say at all or are you content with rambling like an idiot?
>>763319
>And it was treated and resolved every time until 1861, there was nothing unstable about the US government in 1846.
No, check your your facts. It was around that time that the clash between slave and non-slave states were heating up, finally culminating in the Civil War in 1860, and the potential growth of slave states was one of the main catalysts for the Mexican American War
>They were the frontiers. Hardly anyone lived there of course they had that problem, so what? How does that make the Us as a state "hardly stable"?
On the contrary it does. When you can't control a large swath of your country that's when you have instability. Also the corruption referred to the political system, which continues to this day.
>No sir, that's you. What it meant to be American was clearly written on the US Constitution and the bill of rights, Mexico and Mexicans had no such luxury.
Then you clearly know jack shit about American society. This is what a grade school education of American history gets you.
>>763324
I'm sorry that you lack the reading comprehension to grasp a clear message; the US Army was just as shitty as the Mexican Army
>>763407
>It was around that time that the clash between slave and non-slave states were heating up
The situation in congress was stable during the 1840's, there were simply debates on whether or not the new territories would be slave or free states in accordance with the missouri compromise. These rivalries and clashes though wouldn't come to a head until the 1850's with events like bleeding kansas. You're exaggerating the problem to make it seem like you have a point and like the South was on the verge of seceding which is patently false. Washington, Congress and the President were secure in their power, there was nothing unstable about the American government in 1846.
>When you can't control a large swath of your country
That's largely unoccupied and has little to no say in governmental matters and this state stability. You're making a False equivalence.
>Then you clearly know jack shit about American society.
Oh well sir, my word, I'm convinced.
>the US Army was just as shitty as the Mexican Army
It objectively wasn't.
If yoy want a solid history on the Mexican American War, I recimmend the The Training Ground, by Martin Dugard. The Mexicans had the home advantage, superior numbers and certainly weren't lacking in equipment and training, but they lost primarily due to the incompetence of their commanders, low morale, incompetent-tier logistics, and inferior tactics and strategy.
>>763407
>Then you clearly know jack shit about American society. This is what a grade school education of American history gets you.
To say that there was no "American identity" by 1846 is so unbelievably false that I don't even know why you would argue it. American identity has existed since the late 1700s when they rebelled against the British.
The American Revolution was the very first revolution in the New World. To feel so distinguishable from your counterparts in Britain that you declare independence means that there must have been some huge identity difference. The Americans felt very distinct from their British counterparts and they felt that they were being abused by the British monarchy. This is the original portion of American identity, the mistrust of government.
America actually fought and defeated one of the most powerful militaries to ever exist at the time, while Mexico simply declared independence from a crumbling Spain.
Following the revolution, other ideas were instilled into American identity. The concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While the constitution has been changed plenty of times since the late 1700s, the spirit and ideals of the constitution has never changed. It remains a symbol of limited government which Americans hold as part of their identity.
The idea of manifest destiny was also strongly ingrained in the American people, so much that they purchased Louisiana. Then people went to explore the frontier, and later populate it.
Now let's get to the morale. The concepts of limited government and manifest destiny are integral parts of American identity. Texas was being threatened by an intrusive government and wanted to join the United States. Americans could connect to this, as it furthers manifest destiny and frees people. Mexico had nothing to fight for, the ordinary Mexican had no connection to Texas whatsoever.
>The situation in congress was stable during the 1840's, there were simply debates on whether or not the new territories would be slave or free states in accordance with the missouri compromise. These rivalries and clashes though wouldn't come to a head until the 1850's with events like bleeding kansas. You're exaggerating the problem to make it seem like you have a point and like the South was on the verge of seceding which is patently false. Washington, Congress and the President were secure in their power, there was nothing unstable about the American government in 1846.
Check your facts. Just because there was no political stirring on a government level doesn't mean the tensions didn't exist on a social level. As I said before separatism has always been a problem since independence, for one reason or another different groups in the US have been wanting to carve out their own territories or seek independence, it was a problem then it's still a problem now; consider the fact that right-wing militia groups have tripled in number in the past decade.
>That's largely unoccupied and has little to no say in governmental matters and this state stability. You're making a False equivalence.
Those territories were not unoccupied there were people living there and the only time the government was able to enforce law and order was when it had the ability to through force, that by definition is instability especially when you compare the US to other Western countries.
>It objectively wasn't.
It objectively was, the saving grace being that it had better officers and training than its Mexican counterpart. Everyone had a poor assessment of the US military at the time, from Mexican officers to European military observers.
>>763568
>it was a problem then it's still a problem now; consider the fact that right-wing militia groups have tripled in number in the past decade.
if it was as much of a problem then as it is now then that really doesn't help your case bro
>>763563
There's so much nonsense in this post I don't even know how to respond.
Firstly the colonist never identified with an American identity, they always identified as New Yorkers, Virginians, etc. Even the founders identified as such.
Secondly the American Revolution was NOT a revolution, it was a war of independence. Revolution implies a complete overhaul of social and political infrastructure, there was none. Power simply shifted from overseas oligarchs to local colonial oligarchs.
>America actually fought and defeated one of the most powerful militaries to ever exist at the time, while Mexico simply declared independence from a crumbling Spain.
The War of Independence was an extension of the age old rivalry between France and Britain, independence would have NEVER been possible without French aid. Mexico on the other hand stood alone against a still formidable Spain.
>Following the revolution, other ideas were instilled into American identity. The concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While the constitution has been changed plenty of times since the late 1700s, the spirit and ideals of the constitution has never changed. It remains a symbol of limited government which Americans hold as part of their identity.
Ideal are different from reality and the reality is that Americans forsake government in favor of local princes and strongmen. Exactly what de Tocqueville warned about.
> Mexico had nothing to fight for, the ordinary Mexican had no connection to Texas whatsoever.
With that argument if Russia was to invade and annex Alaska it would be wrong for the average American to fight in a war to reclaim it because the average American has no connection to Alaska. Texas was conquered by American freebooters and the Mexican government was well within its rights to retake the land.
>>762279
> there was no real American identity at the time, the vague notion of what it was to be an American only came after the US Civil War.
Nigga do you even era of good feelings?
>>763741
> political differences means there's no national identity
Wew lad
>>763741
>oh look some crazy people did something crazy
>AMERICA ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE
if you seriously think a relevant proportion of the US population supports revolt and secession (besides 5 year old Rick Perry memes) then you're delusional and are probably projecting your own nation's instability on America's. Sad..
>>757530
No, before the mexican-american war mexico itself was a half-baked spanish colony with no defenses of it's own, and no navy. Most of their population are redskins that barely speak spanish and live in the south. The US quickly stomped the fuck out of them and took the northern, uninhabited, part of the country.
For the rest of mexico's histroy they are mostly an aside, having two civil wars from 1850 to 1930. In the 1940s their economy became totally dependent on US trade. Following NAFTA, most mexican companies were privatized and bought out by American ones. Mexico's own military is mostly funded by the US. But even then they can't even stop centracas from flooding in and selling/killing each other over drugs.
Mexico just isn't a country capable of being powerful. Mexicans themselves are too tolerant of corruption and their low quality of life while the few reformists just move to the US.
>>760858
Spain itself was a fragmented, backwards country for most of the industrial revolution. They never got their shit together and the problems filtered down to their colonies. Spain not only had a major civil war in the 1930s but in the modern day sold themselves to Germany. You never had a chance.
The only way to make "win" scenarios is to have the flu annihilate even more indios so that Spain sends more Spanish women to their colonies. Likewise, a smarter Spanish government (monarchy or otherwise) would have to forego looting and plundering in favor of Puritan style colonization and infrastructure building. None of these things occurred so all their colonies were doomed to external (US) control from the start.
>>763704
>Mexico on the other hand stood alone against a still formidable Spain.
wasn't Spain getting BTFO by Napoleon at the time?
>>763796
>AMERICA ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE
Did I say that? No, that's you putting words into my mouth.
>if you seriously think a relevant proportion of the US population supports revolt and secession
Revolts and the violence that follow them have always been lead by the minority, this is true in every instance of history. The War of Independence was fought and lead by the minority. You don't know shit about shit if you don't think these fringe groups aren't a threat, groups that are growing at an alarming rate. These militia groups have been attacking state and federal authorities all over the country, just because the media refuses to report on these incidents doesn't mean that they don't happen.
>>760858
Even not shit spanish countries (Uruguay, Argentina) are still backwards. Mexico never EVER could hope to win anything because you simply don't have the culture for it. Which is why your country is slowly being Angloized and Americanized.
Brazil is the only country worth any shit, but they annihilated their economy by electing a communist.
>>763877
>>AMERICA ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE
>>Did I say that? No, that's you putting words into my mouth.
>>You don't know shit about shit if you don't think these fringe groups aren't a threat, groups that are growing at an alarming rate. These militia groups have been attacking state and federal authorities all over the country, just because the media refuses to report on these incidents doesn't mean that they don't happen.
>>>/x/
>>763912
>literally grasping at straws to come up with a retort
They're already defeating us. They're defeating us in trade, they're defeating us at the border, Nabisco is moving its plant to Mexico.
>>760742
Growing up in Texas and being memed on by this shit was torturous.
God am I sick and tired of the Bob Bullock museum in Austin.
>>763533
>doesn't mention anywhere the conservative elite immediately gave up because they welcomed American involvement and feared arming the peasants
>no mention of regionalism
>believes in the low morale meme
Considering you don't mention any of that, that book has little value.
Nobody should read it.
I was taught this shit at Brigham Young University and later at the Autónomas of Guadalajara and Mexico City when I was allowed to look at old records from the Mexican Congress.
Kill yourself.
>>760872
fuck you and fuck that faggot puppet king
>>760872
VIVA PORFIRIO!
>>760872
>Habsburg
>not doing anything besides squandering the wealth of the countries they ruled
If only John, Prince of Asturias had lived. Latin America and Spain might not have become shitholes.
>>764023
>>doesn't mention anywhere the conservative elite immediately gave up because they welcomed American involvement and feared arming the peasants
los "culturas" de mejicanos jajaja
>>764061
Yes I agree Mexico is a fucking joke. It's been corrupt since it's birth, but it was/is fun to learn about said shithole.
>>763601
>Check your facts.
You keep saying that but you keep just presenting opinions rather than actual arguments.
You speculate on secessionist leanings even though at that time there weren't any significant movements and there wouldn't be until the following decade.
You're talking out of your ass kid .
>Those territories were not unoccupied
I didn't say they were, why don't you slow down and read at a speed ideal for your reading comprehension.
>the government was able to enforce law and order was when it had the ability to through force
So cops = unstable government?
Are you retarded?
>It objectively was
Prove it.
Give me quantifiable evidence not some dead guys largely prejudiced opinion.
>>764023
>the conservative elite immediately gave up because they welcomed American involvement and feared arming the peasants
I want to know more about this.
>>763982
Hello Trump
>>763704
>Mexico on the other hand stood alone against a still formidable Spain.
Mexico stood alone and got its shit pushed in.
>Hidalgo? Father of Independence nd starter of the war?
CAPTURED AND KILLED
>Morelos? creator of the first organized army?
CAPTURED AND KILLED
It wasn't until the large land owners got worried about liberal reforms being passed by the new monarch that they flipped their shit and actually gave half a rats shit about independence, offering the crown of the newly freed Mexico to, get this, the exact same guy they just declared independence from so they wouldn't be *technically* rebelling all while knowing full well he'd never actually accept the crown.
The Mexican War of Independence is a giant hilarious shit show.
>>757530
AHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>764468
Maximillian was an incompetent fool that wasn't fit to lead a newstand on a Tuesday morning let alone a country as fractured as Mexico.
>>764469
Says who?
>>764477
Says the bullets that killed him
>>764480
are you actually retarded?
Why do you have such a violent emotional reaction to anyone even mentioning him? What the fuck did he do wrong?
>>764486
>violent emotional reaction
Nigga is you autism?
>>764491
nigger
>>764496
busta ass nigga
>>764532
negro please
I will shortly be busting an unpleasant capsule in your posterior if you dain to persist in this ignorant player hating
>>764419
They were find of the liberals gaining power, rightfully so since Juarez and his band were coming into power at this point.
The liberals were also ready to fight for the death, so this meme about low morale is wrong.
Regarding the peasants, well many of the elite were hacienda owners and were afraid that by arming their debt peons, they would take advantage of the situation and revolt.
So in order to save themselves from political and social ruin, they welcomed the Americans and even wanted to become part of the US.
>>764617
>find
*afraid
How the fuck did I go from afraid to find?
Oh and the liberals such as Juarez, Ocampo, Rejon, and Arriaga were the ones interested in using the peasants to fight back. They were prepared to keep fighting, despite the capital was captured. Had they been in power, the Mexican-American War would have turned into a huge clusterfuck.
Mexicans can't organize.
They argue because Mexicans can't visualize others as complete human beings; hence why they yell at each other and make demands.
>>764644
Hi Trump.
Remember, when Britain and France say Russia has to give up Constantinople, you'll tell them to fuck off.
>>763704
>Firstly the colonist never identified with an American identity, they always identified as New Yorkers, Virginians, etc. Even the founders identified as such.
[citations needed]
>Secondly the American Revolution was NOT a revolution, it was a war of independence. Revolution implies a complete overhaul of social and political infrastructure, there was none. Power simply shifted from overseas oligarchs to local colonial oligarchs.
It was a complete overhaul of society from a monarchy with no representation to a constitutional republic with representation to those who payed taxes.
>The War of Independence was an extension of the age old rivalry between France and Britain, independence would have NEVER been possible without French aid. Mexico on the other hand stood alone against a still formidable Spain.
Spain has no ability to defend it's colonies because they were being raped by Napoleon at the time. It was so unstable by the end that almost every Spanish colony got independence in this period.
>Ideal are different from reality and the reality is that Americans forsake government in favor of local princes and strongmen. Exactly what de Tocqueville warned about.
Ideals are part of identity
>With that argument if Russia was to invade and annex Alaska it would be wrong for the average American to fight in a war to reclaim it because the average American has no connection to Alaska. Texas was conquered by American freebooters and the Mexican government was well within its rights to retake the land.
There was no "Mexican identity" being threatened, but American saw it as their duty to extend liberty all across the globe and to expand westward. Fighting Mexico fulfilled both.
>>762674
Whywould mexico need tanks if the country is mostly mountains?
>>762279
found the retard
