Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


View Poll Results: US Military Performance in the Mexican-American War?
10 (perfect strategy and fighting) 2 9.09%
9 15 68.18%
8 4 18.18%
7 0 0%
6 0 0%
5 0 0%
4 0 0%
3 0 0%
2 0 0%
1 1 4.55%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 9th, 2015, 01:45 PM   #11

Salah's Avatar
Baltimorean
Blog of the Year
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Maryland
Posts: 23,284
Blog Entries: 182

Quote:
Originally Posted by Port View Post
could that have been a erason why some catholic soldiers went to the mexican army?
The way I understand it, it's the other way around - they deserted the US Army because they didn't want to kill other Catholics (aka - Mexican soldiers). Then they were executed as traitors when Winfield Scott captured them.
Salah is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 9th, 2015, 01:50 PM   #12

Rodger's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: US
Posts: 4,511

Just about near perfect. The end results were never in question. I gave it a 9.
Rodger is offline  
Old July 9th, 2015, 03:15 PM   #13

SOTG's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: In an ultimate "Spirt of the Game" (SOTG) state of mind
Posts: 128

I would not presume to rate the performance because I do not
really know enough about this. But IIRC this war was the deadliest
in US history in terms of % dead of military per year - or something
to that effect.

Assuming this was because of logistical failures (a big assumption
on my part .. I have no clue if that's true) - that would indicate
it should be rated much lower than so far given.

It reminds me of "Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss
logistics". To this point it appears that most rate on Tactics/Strategy
... if you take into account supply factors was it really that great?
SOTG is offline  
Old July 9th, 2015, 03:27 PM   #14

David K's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: California
Posts: 1,158

The Californios (Mexican loyalist troops) beat us well, at San Pasqual (near Escondido in San Diego County... just past the Zoo's Safari/ Wild Animal Park today).

Wiki seems to have a good bit of data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Pasqual

Click the image to open in full size.
David K is offline  
Old July 9th, 2015, 05:04 PM   #15

EmperorTigerstar's Avatar
The Kaiser of Maps
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: USA
Posts: 6,312
Blog Entries: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaeva View Post
I gave it a 9 for similar reasons.

On that note, Winfield Scott is perhaps the most underrated general in American military history.
He certainly is never talked about except for brief mentions when discussing the Anaconda Plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salah View Post
Desertion was a problem, to some extent, though Scott was apparently a martinet when handling it. Consider the San Patricio battalion in the Mexican Army, which came to include a lot of Irish deserters from the ranks of the American army - apparently they didn't like the idea of fighting their fellow Catholics.

Scott captured some of them in a battle, and ruthlessly hanged them.
That's one way of scaring them to loyalty.
EmperorTigerstar is offline  
Old July 9th, 2015, 05:13 PM   #16

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,298

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOTG View Post
I would not presume to rate the performance because I do not
really know enough about this. But IIRC this war was the deadliest
in US history in terms of % dead of military per year - or something
to that effect.

Assuming this was because of logistical failures (a big assumption
on my part .. I have no clue if that's true) - that would indicate
it should be rated much lower than so far given.

It reminds me of "Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss
logistics". To this point it appears that most rate on Tactics/Strategy
... if you take into account supply factors was it really that great?
Scott was a brilliant planner and a first rate logistician.

The biggest killer on both sides was disease. The regions the two armies were fighting in were often rife with yellow fever and malaria during certain times of the year, and mosquitoes killed more men than bullets.

Scott's plans took into account the disease season and the attack on Veracruz was supposed to take place a couple months earlier than it did, when yellow fever outbreaks were at their lowest ebb. In the end however Scott's timetable ending up being thrown off by delays from the War Department in Washington, and the siege of Veracruz began at the beginning of the spring instead of in January.
Scaeva is online now  
Old July 10th, 2015, 08:01 AM   #17

MountainMoose's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2015
From: Kentucky
Posts: 186

I would say 9/10. Outnumbered in every battle, operating virtually without a supply line, and taking men from completely dissimilar climates without any medical or genetic disease vaccination and still never losing a major battle and winning the war decisively.

I agree with the posts abt Winfield Scott being the most underrated commander in US history. I think he's so underrated because the Mexican-American war was unpopular in its day and is even more unpopular today, and the conflict was soon dwarfed by arguably the most important war in American history a decade later. He should be at the top of the list with Washington, Eisenhower, Grant and Lee.
MountainMoose is offline  
Old July 10th, 2015, 08:18 AM   #18

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,298

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainMoose View Post
I would say 9/10. Outnumbered in every battle, operating virtually without a supply line, and taking men from completely dissimilar climates without any medical or genetic disease vaccination and still never losing a major battle and winning the war decisively.

I agree with the posts abt Winfield Scott being the most underrated commander in US history. I think he's so underrated because the Mexican-American war was unpopular in its day and is even more unpopular today, and the conflict was soon dwarfed by arguably the most important war in American history a decade later. He should be at the top of the list with Washington, Eisenhower, Grant and Lee.
I think his role in shaping the successful strategy of the Union in the American Civil War is also somewhat forgotten.
Scaeva is online now  
Old July 11th, 2015, 02:05 PM   #19

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 12,269
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodger View Post
Just about near perfect. The end results were never in question. I gave it a 9.
^

This, pretty much.
Futurist is online now  
Old July 11th, 2015, 02:24 PM   #20

EmperorTigerstar's Avatar
The Kaiser of Maps
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: USA
Posts: 6,312
Blog Entries: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaeva View Post
I think his role in shaping the successful strategy of the Union in the American Civil War is also somewhat forgotten.
Actually I'd say his creation of the Anaconda Plan is the only thing we're taught about him if at all.
EmperorTigerstar is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
chance, mexicanamerican, mexico, military, performance, war, winning



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How was the Mexican-American war fought? Yekkelle War and Military History 1 August 5th, 2013 09:15 AM
The Mexican-American War (video) EmperorTigerstar Learning History 0 June 26th, 2013 01:20 PM
The Mexican-American War Firsts CFScott American History 51 June 4th, 2013 10:02 AM
Mexican-American War Irish Yankee American History 5 January 31st, 2013 08:37 AM
Mexican-American War dimmit American History 23 February 28th, 2012 05:18 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.