Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mexico was wracked by serial political instability, serial economic collapse, serial corruption in every institution, and a church which changed sides on the basis of who was offering them the best deal.
Santa Anna was a mediocre general, excellent at overwhelming peasant rebellions, but ineffective against more professional armies, and in the case of the Texicans, an amateur volunteer army.
The quality of the Mexican armed forces varied wildly. There were some well trained and competent officers, but many more lazy and venal ones who owed their positions to influence and bribery. The cavalry was top notch, but the infantry was composed partly by professional soldiers, and partly by instant conscription of peasants wherever they were found and needed. They received very little training of any sort, were typically small in physical stature and had enormous difficulty handling the large caliber muskets being used. They were further hampered by extremely low quality gunpowder which also rendered their artillery ineffective.
The American army was led by a superbly trained cadre of West Point officers and a core of professional soldiers. As for the volunteers, far from being undersized peasants, these were the super rugged frontiersmen who grew up with rifles in their hands and typically had experience fighting the native tribes. At the top of the chain of command was the truly brilliant Winfield Scott, and the less brilliant but hyper energetic and aggressive Zachary Taylor.
Mexico was far from politically united, they were forced to continue putting down rebellions even as they fought the Americans. Financing for the war was always a hit and miss proposition, with Santa Anna finally having to bully the church into coming up with the needed revenues. This made Santa Anna an enemy of the church for a time and that institution encouraged the revolts which were taking place as the war unfolded.
It was overwhelming superiority in discipline, unity, quality of fighting man and quality of artillery, accompanied by excellent leadership at the top, which did the trick.
Mexico was wracked by serial political instability, serial economic collapse, serial corruption in every institution, and a church which changed sides on the basis of who was offering them the best deal.
Santa Anna was a mediocre general, excellent at overwhelming peasant rebellions, but ineffective against more professional armies, and in the case of the Texicans, an amateur volunteer army.
The quality of the Mexican armed forces varied wildly. There were some well trained and competent officers, but many more lazy and venal ones who owed their positions to influence and bribery. The cavalry was top notch, but the infantry was composed partly by professional soldiers, and partly by instant conscription of peasants wherever they were found and needed. They received very little training of any sort, were typically small in physical stature and had enormous difficulty handling the large caliber muskets being used. They were further hampered by extremely low quality gunpowder which also rendered their artillery ineffective.
The American army was led by a superbly trained cadre of West Point officers and a core of professional soldiers. As for the volunteers, far from being undersized peasants, these were the super rugged frontiersmen who grew up with rifles in their hands and typically had experience fighting the native tribes. At the top of the chain of command was the truly brilliant Winfield Scott, and the less brilliant but hyper energetic and aggressive Zachary Taylor.
Mexico was far from politically united, they were forced to continue putting down rebellions even as they fought the Americans. Financing for the war was always a hit and miss proposition, with Santa Anna finally having to bully the church into coming up with the needed revenues. This made Santa Anna an enemy of the church for a time and that institution encouraged the revolts which were taking place as the war unfolded.
It was overwhelming superiority in discipline, unity, quality of fighting man and quality of artillery, accompanied by excellent leadership at the top, which did the trick.
Great post and spot on. Fighting on one's own soil or not, it doesn't portend well for your side when your nations "hero" starts out by cutting deals with both sides to be allowed to return home then reneges on both so he can seize power for himself.
Mexico was wracked by serial political instability, serial economic collapse, serial corruption in every institution, and a church which changed sides on the basis of who was offering them the best deal.
Great post. I think Mexico was also wracked by indentity problems as the inhabitants of certain towns and cities did not consider themselves to be "Mexicans" (they still viewed themselves as imperial Spanish) and refused to aid the Mexican army.
Mexico was wracked by serial political instability, serial economic collapse, serial corruption in every institution, and a church which changed sides on the basis of who was offering them the best deal.
With the exception of the Catholic Church, that pretty much describes 21st-century Mexico.
With the exception of the Catholic Church, that pretty much describes 21st-century Mexico.
It does describe the first 110 years of Mexican Independence, but after 1930 they did finally achieve political stability, albeit a stability at the price of one party rule, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) which sustained a monopoly until 2000. The National Action Party (PAN) held sway from 2000 until 2012 when the PRI regained the executive branch, but has to deal with a PAN majority legislature.
At least they are electing their officials and power may now be transferred without the loser having to flee to Miami or Tierra del Fuego.
It does describe the first 110 years of Mexican Independence, but after 1930 they did finally achieve political stability, albeit a stability at the price of one party rule, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) which sustained a monopoly until 2000. The National Action Party (PAN) held sway from 2000 until 2012 when the PRI regained the executive branch, but has to deal with a PAN majority legislature.
At least they are electing their officials and power may now be transferred without the loser having to flee to Miami or Tierra del Fuego.
But the "serial corruption" continues apace. There's no good reason why Mexico can't be more prosperous than it is now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why did Mexico lose the Mexican - American War?
