Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 21st, 2012, 07:55 PM
Zuvarq Zuvarq is offline
Pinche pendejo güey
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1000 or more
AHC/WI: Mexican invasion/conquest of Thirteen Colonies/America

Many times in history, a very skilled leader leads a nation to conquer a much more powerful one. This scenario is unlikely, but not ASB.

What if Mexico conquers the Thirteen Colonies? They could have lost the Revolutionary War and are revolting again, or their war was much more bloody than OTL, or the Articles of Confederation remain in place and the nation falls apart. Or a combination of those.

If not even a Mexico with, say, Bonaparte on its side could conquer even a divided Articles US that fought a bloodier revolution--what are the effects of a Mexican invasion that occupied about half the country and is then pushed out?
__________________
Collaborative Earthlike World (thread - wiki)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old October 21st, 2012, 08:04 PM
Tobit Tobit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kr'rundor
Posts: 1000 or more
The Mexicans would hold onto the colonies for a little while and then sell them back to Britain for a huge amount of money.
__________________
GESTÖRT!  OH JA!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old October 21st, 2012, 08:44 PM
Sucrose Sucrose is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 893
I'm not saying a one-off invasion couldn't take significant cities or control a large area, but the Spanish crown taking the 13 Colonies after 1750 or probably earlier than that is pure ASB.

It'd be like the United States annexing all of Central America in 1820. Huge and populous territories can't just be swallowed up in one gulp like that. Marching on a capital and forcing the opposing government to concede defeat or sign a treaty is a far cry from conquest of a country.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old October 21st, 2012, 08:50 PM
Zuvarq Zuvarq is offline
Pinche pendejo güey
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sucrose View Post
I'm not saying a one-off invasion couldn't take significant cities or control a large area, but the Spanish crown taking the 13 Colonies after 1750 or probably earlier than that is pure ASB.

It'd be like the United States annexing all of Central America in 1820. Huge and populous territories can't just be swallowed up in one gulp like that. Marching on a capital and forcing the opposing government to concede defeat or sign a treaty is a far cry from conquest of a country.
Not the Spanish crown, Mexico/New Spain.

But actually, the United States could probably occupy and attempt to annex Central America in 1820. Somewhat easily, actually. Central America didn't have many people. The biggest issue is making the US want to invade them and acquire the territory in the first place. (But all that requires is a Kingdom of America with an ambitious king, or a different American perspective on natives and Manifest Destiny).

EDIT: Here's a scenario that I think could lead to a Mexican conquest of America.
- The American Revolution is bloody.
- The Articles of Confederation are not replaced by the Constitution and the nation falls apart.
- During a big war between a New York led alliance and a Virginia led alliance, Britain attempts to reconquer the Eastern Seaboard. New England or some area in the South may be British loyalist.
- The British invasion is repulsed.
- Mexican Emperor decides to invade with the help of a powerful Tecumseh-like Native American chief.
__________________
Collaborative Earthlike World (thread - wiki)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old October 21st, 2012, 08:52 PM
Baconheimer Baconheimer is offline
Berserker of Chaos
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Former Confederate Republic of Virginia (FCROV)
Posts: 1000 or more
If the US is divided, assuming that they are divided enough, it seems plausible.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaijin
Wouldn't that make most mobile phone providers a cult?
Vist Here
Or Here
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old October 21st, 2012, 08:54 PM
RamscoopRaider RamscoopRaider is offline
Some Sort of Were-Orca
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Newtown, Yes THAT Newtown
Posts: 1000 or more
Mexico would need one of two things

A navy capable of transporting and supporting at least 20,000 troops indefinitely, while fending off any US naval forces

Or would need an overland route through over 500 miles of rough terrain with no infrastructure, more likely we are talking about 1500 miles from the Mexican center of power, that can support over 20,000 troops indefinitely

Troop numbers are likely to be closer to 50,000 than 20,000 which makes things worse

Neither of these are very likely, you probably won't get more than a small chunk of the western border, or a few ports and environs occupied, the logistics won't support any more
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old October 21st, 2012, 09:22 PM
Malta Malta is online now
Kirked
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Baltimare
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sucrose View Post
I'm not saying a one-off invasion couldn't take significant cities or control a large area, but the Spanish crown taking the 13 Colonies after 1750 or probably earlier than that is pure ASB.

It'd be like the United States annexing all of Central America in 1820. Huge and populous territories can't just be swallowed up in one gulp like that. Marching on a capital and forcing the opposing government to concede defeat or sign a treaty is a far cry from conquest of a country.
Unless they give the people what they want. Thousands of Americans moved to Canada AFTER the Loyalists had done so because the British offered Free Land and Lower Taxes then the US. When the War of 1812 came around they didn't lift a finger much to help the US or the British. The majority of people just wanted to be left alone.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbomally View Post
"A one-party state? Are you loco in the coco? Why would anypony just want one party?"-Pinkie Pie
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old October 21st, 2012, 09:32 PM
Zuvarq Zuvarq is offline
Pinche pendejo güey
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1000 or more
1776-1785: Bloodier American Revolution
1787-1788: Shay's Rebellion is barely defeated
1787: No Constitution
1790s: More rebellions, unravelling of Union
1791-1804: Haitian Revolution
1803: Louisiana not sold.
1805-1815: New York-Virginia War (involves almost all American states)
1808: Peninsular War begins. French do slightly better.
1810: Mexican War of Independence begins
1811: Natives win Tippecanoe
1812: British Reinvasion of America
1813: Tecumseh does not die.
1815: Agustín de Iturbide proclaimed Emperor of Mexico.
1815: Napoleon exiled from France.
1816-1817: Mexican Anarchy
1816: Tecumseh dies, Tenskwatawa survives.
1817: Napoleon Bonaparte proclaimed Emperor of Mexico.
1819: Napoleon Bonaparte expels the Spanish from Mexico.
1820: Emperor Napoleon I, Prince Napoleon, and Mexican Patriot heroes invade America. Tenskwatawa is promised the Midwest. Americans who support the Mexicans are promised free land and payment. Slaves who support the Mexicans are promised freedom.
1821: Anglo settlers invited to Texas and Louisiana. Most are outlaws or Catholic.
1821-1822: French Canadian revolt
1823: British invasion repulsed.
1824: Napoleon I dies.
1825: Napoleon II Bonaparte crowned Emperor of North America.
1826: Mexican-supporting American troops granted land in West and in Texas. Mexican-supporting slaves freed.
1827: The capital becomes New Orleans.
1831: Tenskwatawa, Chief of "All Indians", dies. To appease American enemies, Napoleon II invades the falling Confederacy and gives land grants.
__________________
Collaborative Earthlike World (thread - wiki)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old October 21st, 2012, 10:50 PM
Falastur Falastur is offline
Fighting Swiss-wank since 1291
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hitchin, Herts
Posts: 1000 or more
In all likelihood, the British would likely step in to stop this from happening at an early stage. Even though the Americans had been somewhat antagonistic towards Britain and Canada in particular, there was a fairly widespread understanding that Britain and the US' common heritage meant that they were destined to be fairly close - and for a long time the US was so tied into British trade that no matter how many times they attacked Britain they would always come back to more amicable terms eventually. Indeed I believe that Napoleon himself, or one of his advisors, has left written quotes stating that the view of the French was that within 50 or 100 years of writing (can't remember which), the US would somehow come back into a political union with Britain. Obviously with hindsight this was never going to happen, but it shows how common the belief was that the two countries were bound at the hip. I just can't see the British allowing such a political partner to be walked over.

Besides which, this begs the question - if Britain couldn't hold the 13 Colonies, what's to say Mexico could?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.