War and the Left

[Imran Siddiqui]

As we know today, size of standing army is no measure of national power, plus the US army was better equiped and better trained.

It was then, and as for the US Army better equipped and trained, LOL! A majority of the US forces in the war were volunteers. How well equipped and trained do you think they were?

All you have to look to is General Taylor, who wasn't even in active service before the war.

unless you think what European pundits think it the measure of truth.

Yes, I do. I believe that their views that Mexico would easily win is very, very telling.

Oh , and what about adding the Navies? After all, the rgeat power of the time, Britian, had a small army compared to any Continental power, but a great Navy. How big was the Mexican navy at the time?

About the same size of the American navy, which was small itself.

1848 was only 27 years after the Mexican revolution and Mexico had not established political unity yet.

Mexican armed forces were unified under Paredes and later Santa Anna, who had many more well trained men but was defeated time and time again by superior tactics. Especially when 20,000 Mexicans were stopped cold by 5000 Americans under Taylor's command (they should have learned that repeated charges against enforced defensive positions is stupid, even if it did work in the Alamo).

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Are navies really relevent when fighting a war with a country that you have a border with?

Yes, mobility and blockades.

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://www.lnstar.com/mall/texasinfo/mexicow.htm

Mexican leaders clearly expected to win these battles as well as to recover Texas and win the war. Parades spoke grandly of occupying New Orleans and Mobile. His army of about 32,000 men was four to six times the size of the original U.S. army. Furthermore, Mexican troops were well armed, disciplined, and, above all, experienced in scores of revolutions.

Thus, the quick defeats at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma surprised and shocked the Mexican leadership. The U.S. victories against a larger, better trained force were attributed to the unexpected effectiveness of the American light artillery.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Yes, mobility and blockades.

Blockades don't win wars.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Especially not when your navy is mostly taken over merchant ships, DD .

[GePap]

Imran:

volunteers are probalby more likely to be motivated than Indian levies, which made up the bulk of the Mexican forces, and the uS had better officer training programs. As for equipment, the US could produce modern rifles, with Mexico could not, since the US had better and more eeffctive metalurgical industries and better armories.

As for the navies..give me a break. The US was a maritime nation, with significant shipbuilding and seafearing industries. To state that the Us and mexican navies where on par . I am sorry, but that is just too blantantly wrong.

The same Mexico lost to the republic of Texas ten years before.. and all of a sudden they will take on the US and win?

Read what Lincoln had to say about the Mexican War and its morality: constantly he speaks of the immorality of a stronger state (the US) picking on the weaker one.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It was then, and as for the US Army better equipped and trained, LOL! A majority of the US forces in the war were volunteers. How well equipped and trained do you think they were?

Nonsense, the majority of US were better trained and they had repeater rifles.

Imran,

Even if Mexico would have won the war they would never be able to keep the territory that they had lost. The US had a larger population and gold was about to be discovered in California.

You are only considering the Mexican army. Mexico never had a chance to defend those territories.

[Drake Tungsten]

Although this thread seems like it will be lost in a discussion of the Mexican War, I'd like to get back on-topic for a second and congratulate Hoek for an interesting and insightful first post. It comforts me greatly to know that there are still some sensible people left in the world...

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Blockades don't win wars.

The navy practically won the war by itself in California.

[Imran Siddiqui]

volunteers are probalby more likely to be motivated than Indian levies, which made up the bulk of the Mexican forces, and the uS had better officer training programs.

Volunteers for one war are always lesser troops than those who are professional soldiers.

As for equipment, the US could produce modern rifles

Mexico didn't have modern rifles?! What are you smoking? It wasn't like they were cut off from Europe. France supplied them with similar rifles.

As for the navies..give me a break. The US was a maritime nation, with significant shipbuilding and seafearing industries.

And the navy was mostly built with merchant ships, that had no guns. They basically took over a bunch of merchant ships and made it their navy. The Mexicans had actual war ships.

The same Mexico lost to the republic of Texas ten years before.. and all of a sudden they will take on the US and win?

Someone must explain to you the difference between an offensive and defensive war and the advantages and disadvantages of fighting each.

You are only considering the Mexican army. Mexico never had a chance to defend those territories.

Well duh! In a war, you normally consider armies to decide which is stronger.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DuncanK
The navy practically won the war by itself in California.

Liar.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

http://www.lnstar.com/mall/texasinfo/mexicow.htm

Mexican leaders clearly expected to win these battles as well as to recover Texas and win the war. Parades spoke grandly of occupying New Orleans and Mobile. His army of about 32,000 men was four to six times the size of the original U.S. army. Furthermore, Mexican troops were well armed, disciplined, and, above all, experienced in scores of revolutions.

Thus, the quick defeats at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma surprised and shocked the Mexican leadership. The U.S. victories against a larger, better trained force were attributed to the unexpected effectiveness of the American light artillery.

What the hell is this source? Texas? This is crap.

Here is encarta encyclopedia.

"The war’s conclusion indicated how ill-prepared Mexico had been for the conflict. Although Mexico had the numerical advantage in troops, and Mexican forces fought bravely and with resolve, U.S. forces beat them decisively in battle after battle. Mexico’s internal political battles and the refusal of the Mexican states to help finance the war effort seriously undermined Mexico’s numerical advantages. In addition, Mexican troops that were lucky to be armed with muskets were no match for trained U.S. soldiers with breech-loading rifled guns. Compared to the U.S. military, the Mexican forces were plagued by outmoded artillery, corrupt officers, and poorly trained men. Although no reliable records were kept of Mexican casualties, they outnumbered those of the U.S. forces in most major battles of the war."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Duncan, look at the sources he used. Frankly I think the Encarta Encyclopedia is crap. I have it, and it is useless.

From a PhD.:

http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist6/muzzey.html

Scott took Vera Cruz in March and worked his way slowly but surely, against forces always superior to his own, up to the very gates of Mexico

Furthermore, NorthEast states refused the fun the war on the American side.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Liar.

"On July 7, 1846, naval commodore John D. Sloat, commander of U.S. naval forces along the Pacific Coast, ordered the U.S. flag raised at Monterey, about 140 km (87 mi) south of San Francisco, and formally claimed California for the United States. A few days later, U.S. forces occupied the port of San Francisco."

[DinoDoc]

That backs up your specious claims in what way, DuncanK?