Question about the US-Mexico War of the 19th century

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,733
SoCal
Why didn't Mexico request, or get, aid from any other great power like Britain or France during the US-Mexico War of the 1840s?
Well, what exactly would be in it for them? Was the question of whether the US or Mexico controlled the Southwest genuinely vital to any European powers?
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,790
Spain
Evidence? The outcome of the war? The way the held off the French in the 1850s? The next 100 years?

You probably shouldn't bother trying to substantiate. I am only going to pick holes in it anyway.

Humbold maybe? Outcome of the war means nothing... USA lost the War in Vietnam, Cambodja... that means Vietnam is stronger than USA?
Mexico was in a civil war in 1845.... not only fighting USA!

Yes.. Mexico defeated French Army (the army was seen as the best army in the world in 1859).. Have you ever listen the word Puebla? You should....there Mexican crushed French Army.. their zouaves, their Foreing legion etc etc

It if funny.. they won in Solferino, Marengo, Argelie... Madagascar...Crimea.... but no way in MEXICO....Mexico.. Mexico...



Mexican taking French Flag in Puebla...
 
Sep 2012
1,172
Tarkington, Texas
The US lost a war in Cambodia? I don't think so. There are still a lot of old Vietnam Vets that insist that THEY did not lose a war in Vietnam! They will tell you the South Vietnamese lost a Civil War after we left.

Pruitt
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,790
Spain
The US lost a war in Cambodia? I don't think so. There are still a lot of old Vietnam Vets that insist that THEY did not lose a war in Vietnam! They will tell you the South Vietnamese lost a Civil War after we left.

Pruitt

And they are right... as USSR didn´t lost any war in Afghanistan.. nor Spain in Cuba nor France in Algerie or UK in Yemen....but finally.... they didn´t achive their goals....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Oct 2019
41
Near the dogbowl
Mexican politics did not allow them to back down to the US. Mexico recognized the Nueces River as the boundary. Texas and the US claimed the Rio Grande. The US Army proceeded to march up to the Rio Grande in the disputed area. The Mexican Army decided to attack the American troops there. Unfortunately, the Mexican Army had arms and uniforms they bought from the British who used them in the Napoleonic Wars. Many of the American Volunteers had modern firearms that had rifling and percussion locks (caps). The American Artillery also was more modern and used tactics still in vogue in the ACW.

By the way, if one went by the Texas claim, Albuquerque and Santa Fe would have been in Texas...

Pruitt
Yes we really screwed up by giving that up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,431
Caribbean
Outcome of the war means nothing
Perhaps in a certain context, but in common sense the outcome of the war and the course of the war means everything.

USA lost the War in Vietnam, Cambodja... that means Vietnam is stronger than USA?
You call this "evidence" of Mexican military might in 1845?

And, the US lost? When did the NVA occupy Washington and set up a military government, and when did the US surrender half its territory for $30 million - ala Mexico 1848?

Mexico defeated French Army (the army was seen as the best army in the world in 1859).
In 1859. That's "evidence" of 1845?

BTW, when I asked for evidence of Mexico's 1845 military juggernaut, I did NOT ask about 1968 or 1859. Normally, evidence would incoude inventoring of more and superior weaponry, better troops, better generals, etc. Or how the Mexico version of West Point was cranking out officers better trained in the smithy of warfare than their counterparts from the North.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,431
Caribbean
Mexican politics did not allow them to back down to the US. Mexico recognized the Nueces River as the boundary. Texas and the US claimed the Rio Grande. The US Army proceeded to march up to the Rio Grande in the disputed area.
Actually the entirety of Texas, as described the 1836 agreement. is the "disputed area," not just the land between the rivers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,790
Spain
Perhaps in a certain context, but in common sense the outcome of the war and the course of the war means everything.

You call this "evidence" of Mexican military might in 1845?

And, the US lost? When did the NVA occupy Washington and set up a military government, and when did the US surrender half its territory for $30 million - ala Mexico 1848?

In 1859. That's "evidence" of 1845?

BTW, when I asked for evidence of Mexico's 1845 military juggernaut, I did NOT ask about 1968 or 1859. Normally, evidence would incoude inventoring of more and superior weaponry, better troops, better generals, etc. Or how the Mexico version of West Point was cranking out officers better trained in the smithy of warfare than their counterparts from the North.
Well, you said about outcomes and you said Mexico was weaker than USA because Mexico lost war... I only said USA Lost the war in Vietnam.... and USA was not weaker...

Well.. about why Mexico lost:

1st: Mexico was not united against a common enemy as ye they were USA
2nd: Mexico fought in endless wars from the independence... USA hadn´t wars from 1815.
3rd: USA was a independent country from 1783... Mexico from 1821.
4th: USA experimented great economic growth .. Mexico experienced a period of continuous crisis due to political instability.
5th: USA was aware of being a new and independent country. Mexico just was independent... and not because they wanted to be... Mexican independence War was lot by the separatis and won by the Royalist... Only when Spain became a Liberal Country (1820)... the Royalist decided to stablish an Absolute Monarchy in New Spain...and a Spanish General became "Emperor of Mexico".... So.. not "Social awareness of being Mexican".... USA just did an agression war in 1845.. only 24 years after independence....as a country organized in 1995 and attacked today.


I did NOT ask about 1968 or 1859
Well you ask when you wrote about French in 1850... not me... and I said Mexico defeated French Army (really better army than US Army) in the war. Different circumstances...you can say French Army fought very far from France... ok.... and what? French Army defeated Chinese Armies in 1860....or Sevastopol in 1855... however... In Mexico everything was wrong...

USA Army managed to overcome very serious difficulties and was a worthy winner ... it was not easy, much less and it could have gone very badly ... but Scott proved to be a better general than Bazaine ... and although I would not say that he was a Hernán Cortés. .. if it is true that he made a brilliant and admirable campaign from the military point of view. A great victory for the USA ... but it was not much a walk nor was "determined" before starting operations.