How could Mexico win TWI and or MAW?

Could Mexico have won the Texan War of Independance, the Mexican American War, or both?

I'm working on improving my knowledge in this area, but am rather busy (curse you real life)

So, anyone up for some discussion?
 
To my knowledge, for the Texas War, simply remove Santa Anna out of the equation and viola. Had Santa Anna simply stayed put and let his more able military commanders handle the conflict (instead of jumping headlong into the melee and getting captured), chances are Texas would have remained in Mexican hands.

As for the Mexican American war, I'm not sure, but there is the possibility that had Mexico proved more able in Texas, any future war with the US would be different IMO.
 
Mexican American War is impossible. But Mexico could get a much better deal out of it had it been fought correctly. Mexico changed President 6-9 times (depending on where you say the war began and if interim presidents counted) over the 18 months of war. That was about 1 president for every 3 months.

Get rid of Santa Anna and his endless coups and you have a stabler Mexico that might be able to hold off the Americans for a while longer. Had Mexico managed to keep Taylor's troops in the north from connecting with Scott's troops in central Mexico (easily done with more organization) the war would have probably dragged on until it became very unpopular in the Northern States, got in the way of the negotiations over the Oregon boundary with Britain, and the 1848 elections would make it a big issue.

In order to win the war quickly enough Polk would have to offer a reasonable peace.

IMHO the best Mexico could have hoped for is a boundary set at the 37th parallel (38th would be pushing it but also OK). This way Mexico keeps Monterey Bay but the US gain the San Fran Bay (in case of 38th the San Fran Bay is split) all the way to the Rio Bravo.
Mexico might also be able to keep the Eastern part of the Nueces strip around Matamoros, which was rightfully part of Tamualipas. The Coahuila, larger Western, chunk is lost regardless.

------------

Arkangelsk is right the Texan War of Independence that one could have been won had Santa Anna stayed in Mexico City and allowed his generals to handle the conflict. Ampudia& Urrea where capable leaders with a large enough army who could have easily defeated the rebellion.

Assuming the TWI is won however it will still not be long before a new Mex American conflict is sparked over Texas. The read above.

Santa Anna and a few others were really on the way of allowing Mexico to get things done.
 

Thanks for the clarification jycee, and you're right Mexico couldn't defeat the US and at the very best just get a better settlement than Guadalupe-Hidalgo. As you pointed out it would require better leadership and stability in Mexico City for this to happen.

As for the point on a Mex-Am War rising out of the ashes of this alt-Texas war, you are also correct.

I haven't yet read enough into Mexican politics in the mid 1830's, but would Santa Anna and the centralistas get a boost from a victory in Texas? Would it reaffirm the Siete Leyes or could there be a chance Santa Anna could be "dealt with" before he does more damage?
 
http://www.bookfinder.com/author/albert-a-nofi/ I just read Nofi's book on TWI a couple of years ago. Basically, TWI was a near run thing.

Here are some PODs
1) 1835 was similar to say 1774: The northern provence was in rebellion, but they were agitating for legal reform, and only when that failed did they start talking true secession. If Mexico City had been willing to follow the current constitution as written, no revolt.

2) 1836-1 For political reasons, Santa Ana wanted a quick end to the rebellion, so he grabbed the nearest troops that could be fielded immediately, and marched north. His professional military pushed for a gradual buildup, and then overwhelming force. As it was, with the Texicans basically hiring mercenaries, the troops on hand were only equal to the defending rebels.

3) 1836-2 There were no true battles in 1836. The Alamo was a small garrison facing a complete field army. The Matamoro and Goliad forces were out maneuvered and surrendered. OTOH, at San Jacinto the two armies set up camp within sight of each other. The next morning the Mexican sentries watched the Rebels form up in battle array, march forward...

If the Mexican army had actually y'know *faught* it might have been a four zero victory, and the Texicans would have been crushed.

Note to the true researchers: I'm committing the cardinal sin of using only a single source here.:eek: Other sources may find other conclusions. :D
 
Quiet simple, just have a certain man known as Santa Anna die while he is young, then you can see an easy Mexican victory against Texas, also have a certain man named Sam housten die in a bar( In otl Sam had a wife who he did not get along with, they got divorced but he lost his political carreer becoming a drunkard wandering towns) so this is before he became prez of Texas just have him commit suicide( which he almost di) thus you have no Texas. About the Mexican American war....... Mexico is in a Terrible position I really don't know how they can win, we
need a POd before Texas revoulution with no
Santa Anna. That is the key, have a modernized take the place of santa Anna.
 
... at the very best just get a better settlement than Guadalupe-Hidalgo.


Mexico was lucky to get Guadalupe-Hidalgo as it was.

Polk was upset with the negotiations as it was and actually sent an order to Trist to come home. Trist not only ignored that order, he finalized the treaty with the people Polk didn't want to treat with, and then returned with the treaty to Washington presenting Polk with a fait accompli.

For various domestic reasons, Polk found himself stuck with a treaty Polk didn't want negotiated by a man Polk didn't want handling the process and negotiated with people Polk didn't want to negotiate with.

Trist lost his job and didn't even get his expenses paid.

As the others have pointed out, some sort of military competence by the Mexicans could help matters. Keeping Scott's army stuck on the coastal plain for a little longer and thus more susceptible to yellow fever would be a start. Mexico managed to do the that for a brief period during the French-Austrian invasion in 1862 so, if they'd been able to pull their thumbs out, it shouldn't have been too hard to do it in 1847.
 
I haven't yet read enough into Mexican politics in the mid 1830's, but would Santa Anna and the centralistas get a boost from a victory in Texas? Would it reaffirm the Siete Leyes or could there be a chance Santa Anna could be "dealt with" before he does more damage?

Honestly everything can happen. Mexico is seriously unstable at this point even with a victory in Texas. It would probably give Santa Anna and the Centralistas a boost in Mexico City and the Central provinces.

You have the First French Intervention (Pastry War) happening in between the War with Texas and the MAW. Santa Anna did well in this war in OTL regaining a lot popularity that was lost after his failure in Texas. If he doesn't loose his leg there is a chance he will remain somewhat sane. (What ever little reasoning capacity he had was lost with his leg).

With both victories Santa Anna might actually begin to be seen as a capable leader in Mexico with less likelihood of someone organizing a coup against him (at least in the early years). This would stabilize Mexico a bit and might prepare it better for whatever conflict arises afterwards against the US. The problem is that Santa Anna staying in Mexico City administrating while he lets others get all the "glory of war" goes entirely against his personality.

However the Federalistas in Guadalajara and Monterrey would grow even more weary of further centralization. This particularly the case for the Rio Bravo provinces who are in the way between Central Mexico and Texas. If Santa Anna remains in power there is a chance Llano and his men might take the Rio Bravo Rep idea a little more seriously. (Their independence is still unlikely). You also have the problem that Santa Anna came into power as a liberal Reformer and changed platforms once he was elected. The liberals are probably still very pissed off at this and will still try to get Santa Anna out.
 
In order to get a stronger Mexico one must somehow butterfly away the continual struggles between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Not to mention the ugly race politics in Mexico beginning under Spanish rule contributed much to the weakening of Mexico. On top of this the terrain was not conducive to easy transportation. Still Mexico would need to find a way to populate its Northern territories but not with Anglos. The Mexican Army would also need to be stronger and able to patrol the border to prevent illegal American immigrants from squatting on Texas land as they did in OTL. In order to strengthen the Army one will need to take the caudillos (ie. Santa Anna) and their private army out of the question. A good Mexican politician to look at Manuel de Mier y Teran as he wrote a report about how to save Texas from seceding and being annexed by the United States. Of course in OTL he became so discouraged by the lack of any progress on the Texas problem that he killed himself so there is that. On the Anglos side Stephen Austin would be a good character as he immigrated to Mexico and swore an oath of allegiance to Mexico and became a citizen and got others who followed him to do the same.
 
While "remove Santa Anna from the equation" is certainly the best plan for Mexico, the MAW wasn't nearly as lopsided as folks here seem to think. The Mexicans had cavalry superiority every step of the way, the Americans had artillery superiority, and Taylor was uncommonly good, perhaps even brilliant, at picking battle sites where his artillery could carry the day and the enemies' cavalry superiority wouldn't matter. Even so, the Mexicans caught him once in transit with all his cannons packed up in crates - things could easily have gone very wrong there.

It helped Taylor that the Mexicans wanted a stand-up fight rather than a series of hit and run engagements designed to make the Americans bog down and starve. Competition for battle-glory was fierce among the Mexican generals, as was competition for Santa Anna's mercurial favor. However, all it takes is one Mexican officer willing to carry out the inglorious raiding strategy, and Taylor's northern campaign is screwed.

Can Scott still take Mexico City despite the failure of the Northern theatre? Probably - but Scott would be facing an uphill battle getting that plan approved. He'd probably be ordered to relieve Taylor rather than let Taylor fall and go for the Mexican throat. Scott was also cautious, without the troops stripped from Taylor after the latter's victory he may not have wanted to try the Mexico City gambit anyway.

I wonder how the election in '48 goes if the "short, victorious war" has turned into a quagmire?
 
While "remove Santa Anna from the equation" is certainly the best plan for Mexico, the MAW wasn't nearly as lopsided as folks here seem to think. The Mexicans had cavalry superiority every step of the way, the Americans had artillery superiority, and Taylor was uncommonly good, perhaps even brilliant, at picking battle sites where his artillery could carry the day and the enemies' cavalry superiority wouldn't matter. Even so, the Mexicans caught him once in transit with all his cannons packed up in crates - things could easily have gone very wrong there.

It helped Taylor that the Mexicans wanted a stand-up fight rather than a series of hit and run engagements designed to make the Americans bog down and starve. Competition for battle-glory was fierce among the Mexican generals, as was competition for Santa Anna's mercurial favor. However, all it takes is one Mexican officer willing to carry out the inglorious raiding strategy, and Taylor's northern campaign is screwed.

Can Scott still take Mexico City despite the failure of the Northern theatre? Probably - but Scott would be facing an uphill battle getting that plan approved. He'd probably be ordered to relieve Taylor rather than let Taylor fall and go for the Mexican throat. Scott was also cautious, without the troops stripped from Taylor after the latter's victory he may not have wanted to try the Mexico City gambit anyway.

I wonder how the election in '48 goes if the "short, victorious war" has turned into a quagmire?
Or all you nee is for sam housten to die thus leaving no good president of texas, have mexico get at least one competant general and kill santa anna, that should about do it...
 
Mexico was lucky to get Guadalupe-Hidalgo as it was.

Actually it was a bad as it was going to get. Polk's demands were quite exaggerated. Mexico was not going to let off Baja in the negotiations. And Yañes led the only campaign you can actually call a Mexican victory in Sonora, so the hole idea of the Americans taking anything south of the Bravo or Gilla rivers would be out of the question.

Do consider that the entire Mexican coast was under blokade and that major Mexican cities Monterrey, Saltillo Veracruz,Matamoros Tampico, Puebla, Cuernavaca were under occupation (Guadalajara was the only major intact city) when the treaty was signed.

Guadalupe Hidalgo was less than what Polk would have hoped for it it was still soo much territory that he could not say no when that was delivered to him.

While "remove Santa Anna from the equation" is certainly the best plan for Mexico, the MAW wasn't nearly as lopsided as folks here seem to think. The Mexicans had cavalry superiority every step of the way, the Americans had artillery superiority, and Taylor was uncommonly good, perhaps even brilliant, at picking battle sites where his artillery could carry the day and the enemies' cavalry superiority wouldn't matter. Even so, the Mexicans caught him once in transit with all his cannons packed up in crates - things could easily have gone very wrong there.

It helped Taylor that the Mexicans wanted a stand-up fight rather than a series of hit and run engagements designed to make the Americans bog down and starve. Competition for battle-glory was fierce among the Mexican generals, as was competition for Santa Anna's mercurial favor. However, all it takes is one Mexican officer willing to carry out the inglorious raiding strategy, and Taylor's northern campaign is screwed.

Can Scott still take Mexico City despite the failure of the Northern theatre? Probably - but Scott would be facing an uphill battle getting that plan approved. He'd probably be ordered to relieve Taylor rather than let Taylor fall and go for the Mexican throat. Scott was also cautious, without the troops stripped from Taylor after the latter's victory he may not have wanted to try the Mexico City gambit anyway.

I wonder how the election in '48 goes if the "short, victorious war" has turned into a quagmire?

Agree with you points. Mexico wasn't that badly of in terms of cavalry or its ability to fight. It was mainly the generals attitude that got them screwed. You need Santa Anna and several of his followers out of the equation for the war to turn into a quagmire.

If you happen to prolong it long enough you will have the 48 election in the way. Polk promised not to run for a second term, if the war prolongs his popularity might not stay high enough. Most Whigs were against the war in the first place yet their generals are leading the war (Taylor and Scott would both be in Mexico so they can't run).

My guess is the Democrats would nominate someone within Polk's cabinet and would try to change the least in their platform. The Whigs I'm not sure, some anti-war candidate maybe Webster?
 
Anyone know a list of Mexican political and military leaders during the the 1830's (preferrably during the Texas Revolution)?

Well aside from the obvious individuals already permeating the thread (i.e. Santa Anna), there are Anastasio Bustamante, who alternated the presidency with Santa Anna during the 1830's. There's also Valentín Gómez Farías (who was President from around 1832-1834 I believe) and Manuel Gómez Pedraza. Those were politicians. In terms of the military there was Generals José de Urrua and Vicente Filisola, who were Santa Anna's subordinates. There was also General Manuel de Mier y Téran.
 
Well aside from the obvious individuals already permeating the thread (i.e. Santa Anna), there are Anastasio Bustamante, who alternated the presidency with Santa Anna during the 1830's. There's also Valentín Gómez Farías (who was President from around 1832-1834 I believe) and Manuel Gómez Pedraza. Those were politicians. In terms of the military there was Generals José de Urrua and Vicente Filisola, who were Santa Anna's subordinates. There was also General Manuel de Mier y Téran.

You also have:

Valentín Canalizo, José Mariano Salas, Mariano Paredes (all of them followers of Santa Anna, Paredes was actually the one to declare war on the US).

José Joaquín de Herrera, Mariano Arista (important anti-Santaannistas)

Juan N. Alamonte (ambassador to the US before the war, pro-Santa Anna, and supposedly the illegitimate son of Morelos)

José Maria Luis Mora, Lorenzo Zavala (radical liberals)

Pedro de Ampudia (governor of Nuevo Leon during the Siege of Monterrey),

José Maria Yañes (anti-war general, led the only campaign that could be considered a Mexican victory in the defence of Guyamas and Sonora, against William Walker. Post war the state of Sinaloa was created form Chunks of Sonora and Jalisco and he became governor)
 
I've always thought that keeping this fellow in charge may have helped the Mexican cause greatly. This of course links backs to the earlier posts made by many that removing Santa Anna is a big improvement.
 
Top