Hello all, life is a curious thing indeed, while searching information of Byzantine Law, I found this thread and forum.
First of all, I want to adress some things:
Originally Posted by Salah
What are your thoughts on it?
Being objective, it was something "normal" as for what History can show us. But, being rather subjective, it is still for us now (yes, if the image hasnīt tell you yet, Iīm Mexican) a very painful chapter in our history. It is so painful that we try not to touch the subject, and when we do so, anger or indignation are commonplace.
Originally Posted by sylla1
It was lost due to a colossal military disparity; period.
Technological disparity was also something critical; many rifles used by the Mexican Army dated back to the War of Independence period (1810-1821) vs the more modern and less problematic used ones by the US. Army. Also;
Originally Posted by pikeshot1600
If anyone has info on the 1846 Mexican Army, please post it.
The Mexican "standard" (if the term can be applied) rifle was the Brown Bess, and I say standard because the Army was ill-equiped and utterly undertrained
Someone said that Mexicans had numerical advantage. Well, thats ignorance. Mexico as a country had no real unity since it became independent, when the war bursted, many states said: "Thats not my problem, go arrange it yourself" to the Federation, giving no support thus to the war effort. In fact, some states even rebelled against the central government. The figures for the US Army (as for my sources, which donīt differ greatly with the ones already mentioned) are of 78,800 soldiers. The Mexican "Army" in its whole (with militia) was barely managing 40,000 men.
Now, lets pass to a statement for which many will try to undermine many of my clarifications on this subject; The historical success, setting aside the territorial changes, was for the US; in their aim to legitimate the land grab they fabricated many false claims and things to get a "fair" casus belli against Mexico. This "marketing" hit can be seen in the mind of many people nowadays;
Originally Posted by zincwarrior
You can't deny the first battles were on US-Texas soil. if the Mexican army didn't attack there would have been no war.
"American blood in American soil", a logic hard to question or argue against without being labelled as "un-american" or "unpatriotic".
Last but not least;
Originally Posted by zincwarrior
God only knows why Mexico renounced its claims? I think the casualty numbers and taking of Mexico City did it.
I concur with Sylla1, a fascinating hypothesis, but I would add, another war for Mexico was not an attractive and profitable business to do again. Although Mexico "renounced" its claims only on papers
( it is more a "de iure" and not a "de facto" issues).
Many Mexicans view those lands as ontologically part of the Nation, by which no law or treaty can be over for what it is its rightful propriety.
Nota bene: As inflaming as it can be the aforementioned statement, it is more a passive collective thought than a proactive will.
PS.: Sylla1, I have to commend your wit and use of language while exposing and defending your points.
I hope that this "Mexican point of view" can complement the panorama and context, no intention to stir controversy.