1846, Mexican Revenge

[Cryptic]

What if...

1846... After the Texas victories, The U.S. army is over confident and under drilled. Meanwhile, The Mexican army drills day and night. Lethally experienced mercenary officers are wined, dined and signed in Paris and London.

The War: American frontier fighters win in California and New Mexico. But... a French colonel plans a "lesson learned" campaign. U.S. vicotry at Veracruz is deceptively easy. Drawn into the interior, the American army is shattered at Mexico City.

The U.S. retreat turns into a rout as Mexican lancers pursue and peasant guerillas are incited into a nationalistic / religous frenzy. Vera Cruz is evacuated in a panic. Mexican columns easily re-capture California.

What happens next?
Do the Mexicans invade Texas? Do the Americans raise another army and try again? Can Mexico win follow on victories? Does Mexico keep California and the South West permanently?

 

[jycee]

It is quite ASB. Mexico was seriously disorganized at this time, switching presidents every few months. Coup after coup happening every so often. Some of the administrations outright refused to see any foreign ambassador, English , French, etc. With several regions (besides Texas) trying to break off, etc.
Not to mention there was a war against France, (The First French Intervention) in the decade between the Texan Revolution (1837) and the Mex-American War (1846).

As far as everyone was concerned Mexico at this point was a failed state.

Texas was lost. Maybe peaceful negotiations with the US, could result in Mexico keeping the Nueces Strip but the US would require Northern California in exchange. The 37th parallel border is probably one of the best outcomes for Mexico.

Or you could always have the Oregon conflict with Britain explode into a war at the same time. Britain might not outright ally with Mexico against the US, but that is still a whole new set of problems for the US. Though the outcome might still not be positive for Mexico.

 

[Dave Howery]

the problems go much deeper than 'lack of training'... the Mexican army was top heavy in officers, riddled with graft and corruption... and usually, not all that big. IIRC, in both the Texas and the M-A wars, the Mexican armies were formed by press-ganging large numbers of totally untrained peasants into the military. Mexico did have a number of professional long term units, like the famed lancers and some crack infantry regiments. The US was in a similar boat, with a tiny professional army filled out by a mass of untrained militia volunteers. However, unlike Mexico, the American militia were actually patriotic to their nation and more or less willing to fight, where the Mexican militia were rather distant from their central government, and tended to melt away in combat. Plus, the corruption in the Mexican army led to things like gunpowder that was too heavy in charcoal and a real lack of both logistics and medical care. If you want to improve the Mexican army, it would take a LOT of PODs and work immediately after the Texan war... but it probably could have been done...

 

[Cryptic]

The US was in a similar boat, with a tiny professional army filled out by a mass of untrained militia volunteers. However, unlike Mexico, the American militia were actually patriotic to their nation and more or less willing to fight,

True, but the American militia forces were also very unaccustomed to facing skilled opponents in equal numbers. The various Indian tribes were vastly outnumbered by settlers. The conventional, yet manuverable British gave the U.S. a series of defeats in the War of 1812

If you want to improve the Mexican army, it would take a LOT of PODs and work immediately after the Texan war... but it probably could have been done...

It would take work, but it was very possible. The U.S. dominated Mexico because the Mexicans were so bad, not because the U.S. was good in conventional warfare at the time. Even modest Mexican improvements and better leadership could have given the milita based U.S. Army a nasty surprise in the Mexican interior. Once the U.S. militia cracked, the regular units were not going to be able to hold by themselves.

 

[Dave Howery]

True, but the American militia forces were also very unaccustomed to facing skilled opponents in equal numbers. The various Indian tribes were vastly outnumbered by settlers. The conventional, yet manuverable British gave the U.S. a series of defeats in the War of 1812

Britain was a whole 'nuther story... a first class navy and army by anyone's standards at the time. Mexico and the US were definitely second class military powers. Both had small professional armies with hordes of untrained militia. The difference was mainly that the US ones were volunteers and the Mexican ones were unwilling conscripts. The US militia forces proved mainly not-so-useful in the MA war, so far as the actual campaign in Mexico went (I think they did better out in CA)... the bulk of the fighting was done by the professional US army. The militia tended to be unreliable flank-guarders and such...

 

[LtNOWIS]

Winfield Scott's army getting swallowed whole in Mexico City is plausible. After Cerro Gordo had made the decision not to have supply lines, because he couldn't spare the men to protect them. European observers thought that he would end up like Napoleon in Russia. Any reinforcements would have to fight their way to the main army. Both Santa Anna and Scott made a number of large, avoidable mistakes in the final battles.

Recapturing California is less plausible. Even if the Mexican Army had better leadership, the ability to raise, deploy and supply enough high-quality soldiers to take back California just wasn't there.

 

[Cryptic]

Recapturing California is less plausible. Even if the Mexican Army had better leadership, the ability to raise, deploy and supply enough high-quality soldiers to take back California just wasn't there.

I think a small, high quality flying column could have done it. There were not that many high quality American troops in California either. The nueteral California Hispanics would support whoever appeared to be winning and many of the fair weather American militia men / adventurers would be packing their bags or eagerly taking Mexican loyalty oaths after hearing of the Mexico City disaster.

The Mexicans never had full authority in Califronia and their authority would probably return to the status quo before the war. I imagine that the U.S. would still force a "regime change" later when the number of anglos reached critical mass.