Dispute what? That Mexico lost the war and its battles? Im talking about the fact that the Scott's victory in Mexico was brilliant. And that yes the Mexican's did pose a serious threat that would not go down quietly.
Winfield Scott vs Duke of Wellington
- Thread starter Ricdog
- Start date
-
- Tags
- duke scott wellington winfield
Dispute what? That Mexico lost the war and its battles? Im talking about the fact that the Scott's victory in Mexico was brilliant. And that yes the Mexican's did pose a serious threat that would not go down quietly.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
The Mexicans were at best a rather mediocre threat; the hard evidence on such tautology has already been shown here; period.
Mr Scott may have been or not a great commander indeed; but defeating the pathetic Mexican armies (if such mass may have really deserved that name) was hardly any evidence of any exceptional proficiency.
And is that suppose to imply the U.S. troops by themselves were an even bigger threat? Isen't how much something is a threat based on its opposition? Cause in that case Mexico and the U.S. were pretty damn close. Is it that they were pathetic because they lost, or lost because they were pathetic?
The U.S. victories were no push over tasks (especially Scott's). The amount of leadership, flanking, organization, tactics that he showed was what one all those battles you attribute to Mexico's weaknesses. He deserves high praise because IT WAS such a great campaign that was extremely difficult to accomplished given his circumstances.
Just to throw this out there, I hear that Scott's landing in Vera Cruz was the largest amphibious landing in history (up until that point). I know it was definitely the biggest for the U.S., but im not sure about the history part. But nonetheless its another notable mention here.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
Kidding again?
Sorry; my argument stands unaffected; just check my facts above.
All the Mexican "army" was simply not even remotely any "worthy opponent" by any conceivable measure.
Pretending to present another victory over a contender that was absolutely always entirely crushed by absolutely anyone as any major deed (especially relative to the British army & commander facing La Grande Armée that was crushing the whole Europe) couldn't be any more absurd to the Nth degree; period.
An opponent's worthyness depends on the opposing army itself. The U.S. military during the Mexican War was not really better than the those of Mexico. And given the fact that the Mexicans had numerical, homefield, and fortification advantages it could be said that the U.S. was a worthless opponent who only won because of the skill of their leadership and the lack of the Mexicans.
Crushed? Monterey, Buena Vista, Molino del Rey, etc... were hardly a walk in the park. Hell Santa Ana, just after his completely exhausting and long march of his army threw EXTREMELY tough terrain, had the U.S. on its knees at Buena Vista. I hear that an inexplicable reason (possibly a coup?) after the first day made Santa Ana leave the field! Allowing Scott's disorganized and ill disciplined army to follow him south.
Last edited:
Definitely gonna take another look into Santa Ana. Buena Vista was a hell of a fight.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
Last edited:
Maybe, but Mr. Scott was not there ... even so, the Mexicans were duly crushed.
Your "inexplicable reason" is just patriotic revisionism; that's exactly why it was inexplicably present in absolutely all the battles of this war.
And no; the opponent's worthyness is entirely an inherent issue and depends entirely on the actual effectiveness of such army; in the case of the Mexicans at 1846-1848, their effectiveness was exactly zero.
And yes; the Mexicans were crushed in the battles of Monterey, Buena Vista, Molino del Rey, and the battle of etc., and absolutely any other battle of this war too; that's exactly why there were different armies for each battle; each one has been crushed in the previous battle.
"A walk in the park"? Relative to what? Let say the Peninsular War of Mr Wellesley? In any case, not an objective description of anything, IMHO.
True, but I was simply referring to a battle that was very close and could have gone either way.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
No, it wouldn't, even if it was admittedly the closest battle of that war for obvious numerical reasons ... there were four times more Mexicans than Americans!
Even so, there were five times more casualties in the Mexican side!
Even in this their best battle, the performance of the Mexican army was simply pathetic by any conceivable measure.
Pretending to compare them with the Napoleonic troops couldn't be any more absurd by any standard.
OMG, this might need to go into a completely different topic but I aint trying to change anything. Im simpy stating things as they are.
If you desperately wanna continue believing that the U.S. had the war won by default even before a shot was fired, then thats you I can't change that. I just hope that you know maybe in the future if you learn knew things about the war your opinion will change.
A walk in the park compared to easier battles like that of Sacramento River.
Last edited:
4:1 ratio isen't unheard of. Haven't other commanders gone up to supposibly similar odds, including Wellington? [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Assaye"]Battle of Assaye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
And actually the numbers can be quite argued from people. Remember that thousands of troops left Santa Ana's army during its incrediable march towards Taylor. So ratio is actually closer. Im not too sure about them but I would guess a ratio of 2.5/3-1 would be alright. Plus we cant forget the extremely well terrain advantage Taylor picked for the battle.
Im not comparing anything to Napoleonic troops. This is what I hate that this thread has basically turned into a U.S.-Mexican War discussion when it was originally between 2 commanders. For gods sake Mexico isen't the only thing that could have been spoken off here.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
The desperate opinion here is definitively not mine.
My opinion may well change, depending of course on the available information ... however, absolutely nothing was presented here that may have challenged the obvious conclusion from the objective facts and figures of this war.
Regarding the OP, this war was certainly not at the level of Mr Wellesley's campaigns in Europe or India by a long shot.
Well who says there needs to be disperation here? The Mexican War isen't the real task of the topic.
Oh well if you wish to argue that Mexico and the U.S. needed to fall on their knees and worship the all mighty European wars, then thats all you. But the war does not inherently represent the generals badass leadership.
The U.S. didnt crush the Mexican armies, Scott did most of that. I mean its like who takes credit for the victory at Pharsalus, Caesars legions or Caesar's tactics? Sure the legions did their job well and sometimes its really the strength of the army that won the battle, but definitely I think we could say it was Caesar's tactics that won that engagement.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
I never said that; you did.
I can't understand where did the "to fall on their knees and worship the all mighty European wars" came from, but if it means that you are still pretending to compare the Mexican War with the Napoleonic Wars ... I don't know; should such argument be supported against all available evidence just because it may be considered "patriotic"???
Sorry; I don't think so.
Joined Sep 2010
7,699 Posts | 3+
currently Ancient Odessos, BG
What if we say that Scott was the American Duke of Wellington? I have to sleep on it, though.
Anyway, I'm glad to see a thread that involves an US general.
It came from the idea that I thought you were somehow baseing your whole opinion that simply because a general fought in a more well known war, that somehow that makes him better.
No I aint comparing wars, im comparing generals. And in that case I like to see which one showed excellence and genius given his position.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
As I have already stated posts ago; Mr Scott may or may not have been a great commander; but the victory over the Mexican army alone was hardly any evidence of any exceptional military proficiency.
The campaigns of Mr Wellesley in Spain, France and Belgium were not only "more well known" than the Mexican War; the former were against an exponentially more powerful enemy than the latter; there's no possible doubt about it.
Enemies are inevitably the main measure of the performance of any commander.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-