Mexico Superpower

Faraday Cage

What are some ways Mexico can be wanked into becoming a global superpower by the present day?

What if the British succeeded in stopping the American Revolution, leading to a much less successful revolt in France? The British support the Indian Nations to keep their less than loyal 13 colonies East of the Appalachians, the French sell Louisiana to Spain to get out of the red, and Spain settles the new territory by making gracious land deals to peninsular nobles and lucrative agreements taking unwanted individuals from other nations as indentured workers. While this scheme will be very productive at first it will lead to a shared feeling of unity between the Indian descendant peasants and the exiles, eventually leading to a revolution and a very large, multicultural Mexico.
 
The scenario proposed seems a bit too easy. But you got two things right: the POD has to be before the independence, and it would be best if the US is out of the picture.

But it takes more Mexico would need stability, investment and growth (the last two are directly related to immigration).

Spain would need to make major reforms to ease New Spain into form a government of its own.
It would also be best if, when fighting for independence, everyone is on the same page and fighting for the same cause, not having complicated alliances between republican insurgents, imperial insurgents nor people like Iturbide and Santa Anna switching sides back and forth as it pleases them. (In fact it would be best if the latter is never born).

Keeping Louisiana as part of New Spain is a neat idea; plus it allows for further expansion northwards. It would also be best if, when it achieves independence, if it managed to keep all of the New Spain territory in the Americas; this includes: Central America, Cuba, and numerous Caribbean Islands. The Philippines could and would be a bonus but I find it hard for Mexico to inherit them immediately; they might win them over in a war.

But even if everything is laid out for the perfect scenario there are many things working against Mexico. Hardest thing is to have it develop an industrial and agricultural infrastructure early on. New Spain was mostly a mining colony. All other enterprises, although present, where very much ignored by the Spanish crown. Mexico would need modern ports with shipyards (all ships were built in Spain, Veracruz was simply a trading port), railroads and means of communication (the first railroad built in Mexico was not built until the mid 1880s and there are no large rivers as in the US to make up for it). As for agriculture keeping Texas and California would exponentially increase arable land, but those were still quite abandoned in OTL until the US moved in. Keeping Louisiana would give tons of arable land but once again, you need people to use it.

It is possible to have a first world Mexico, maybe even a world power if everything goes right. But you have too many things to work your way around.

Also the larger and more diverse it gets, and the later its independence, the least likely it is that the nation will be called Mexico. The name New Spain could have stuck or they could have named it anything with Americas or Colombia in it.
 
Easy just don't have the French invade mexico. Mainly because of the mexi- French war mexico was greatly weakeaned without such a costly war mexico stays in a much better and more secure position.... Also have it get a leader who is a reformer. Then we can have a Mexican superpower due to the vast lands it controls. Simple and easy
 
Easy just don't have the French invade mexico. Mainly because of the mexi- French war mexico was greatly weakeaned without such a costly war mexico stays in a much better and more secure position.... Also have it get a leader who is a reformer. Then we can have a Mexican superpower due to the vast lands it controls. Simple and easy

Far, far too late. By that point the US was too far ahead to overtake.

A POD that gives you more industrial and economic development in Mexico before independence, coupled with a relaxing of the caste system and a quick, easy war for independence, would be ideal. The next big problem is finding enough people to fill up their vast northern possessions before the Americans get there. A more powerful nativist/anti-Catholic movement in the US could lead to the great Irish immigration of the 1840s/1850s getting redirected towards Mexico, which would be a huge boost in population.

The biggest requirements are more economic development and social equality pre-independence, and more political stability and better leaders post-independence.
 
Mexico needs decent leadership. They had Santa Anna. That says it all. Get rid of him and see if some decent leaders come forward.
 
Mexico needs decent leadership. They had Santa Anna. That says it all. Get rid of him and see if some decent leaders come forward.

Santa Anna was a good leader, it was thanks to him that Mexico won against France. He was a hero who defeated mos of his enemies, a shrewd politician, he only sucked in his latter years. Do you know why Mexico lost because they had a poor army, Deserters, internal civil war, bad equipment and a shitload of other problems. Anna took command of a bankrupt state and worked best he could. Don't blame Mexicos fall on him, Anna succesfully fought Taylor he would have won at buena vista had the Mexican govermen not ordered a retreat. Taylor himself was shocked that these mexicans who were abot to win retreated. The Texas rev was overconfidence not stupidity. Btw for Urrea supporters didyou know Anna crushed him at Puebla. New Mexico was lost due to iternal betrayal. The governor general of the capital city was afraid of Americans and thus ordered his troops to disband. Thus New Mexico fell not due to Anna but due to the corrupt general. Likewise Anna won a civil war which he successfully overcame. The mexicans fought extremly well with what they had. Anna deserves respect. I agree his latter reign to be horrible though.

Btw the POD is not too late because the USA cannot fight a strong Mexico. All you need is for Santa Anna to successfully unite mexico and get rid of his corrupt tendencies. Next with no French invasion Mexico is in a stable position. The USA will dare not attack a Mexico which is not in civil war or has not exausted it's troops. Anna was a brilliant general albeit corrupt son of a bitch, but he was mexicos hope. It was due to him Mexico stood even a fighting chance.


Thus this POD is not too late because revolts haven't occured, Mexico is not bankrupt, is united and stable, USA will not be able to win. In otl they won due to another important factor which was Horse drawn artillary, have the mexicans learn about this tech and the US would be screwed. In otl dueto these horse artillary Mexico got fucked badly.
 
Actually, Santa Anna alone is one of the biggest impediments to Mexico being successful in any way. The man was an egomaniac and a caudillo of the first degree. The only person who called Santa Anna "Napoleon of the West" was Santa Anna himself, so that should hint at what the man thought of himself.

I'm not saying Mexico would become a liberal democracy without him, but believe me Mexico would be better off without him.

If you can have a few more of the Independence leaders who had been fighting since the beginning, someone who can perhaps better unite the country and also be a more able military commander who had potential *coughAllendecough* then Mexico might have a better chance.
 
Santa Anna was a good leader, it was thanks to him that Mexico won against France. He was a hero who defeated mos of his enemies, a shrewd politician, he only sucked in his latter years.

Arkhangelsk is right man. Santa Anna (btw that is the full last name) was not a good leader; he was a shrewd politician and a capable general but he cared mostly about himself and his glory. These are qualities that do not make him a good leader. Santa Anna came on and off power for over 20 years (1830s-1850s) yet the total time he was actually residing in power adds up to less than 6 years. Sometimes he step down because of coup but most of the time he simply stepped down to retire until "his country needed him". He did not have a log-term plan at any point in his career.

As a general he enjoyed some success early in his career during the Mexican War of Independence (1810-1821), and during the Spanish attempts at re-conquering Mexico (1829). These allowed him to rise to power and popularity. But the way in which he fought the following wars was stuff of beginners. Texas could have gone much better for Mexico, easily. It didn't because he was a pompous ass who did not listen to good advice. Then after he lost Texas he was able to maintain popularity for his role in The Pastry War (1838). Although most of the resurgence of his popularity was do to the fact that he "lost a leg for his country" rather than for how he fought the war. Arguably most of the credit for his success in Veracruz goes to Yañes.

He was then expelled from Mexico when Farias, Herrera and the Federalistas regained power. The only way Santa Anna was able to make it back to Mexico from Cuba through the American blockade was is he had a deal with Polk. This has never been proven 100%. But I find it hard to believe Santa Anna would be able to make it back had it not been so. Santa Anna made a deal with the enemy promising peace to get back in power. Regardless if it is true or not Santa Anna did not keep his promise of suing for peace. Once he was back in Mexico he fought the Mexican-American war with less skill than how he fought the war against Texas. He was basically trying to lead two armies on two fronts by himself. Refusing to anyone else to take charge. His norther campaign against Taylor went OK at best. But the souther one against Scott was a disaster.

These are not signs of him being a good military leader. Before he became a general I guess he was an decent military man. But power got to his head and that is not good leadership.

Politically. Yes, Santa Anna was a brilliant political survivor. No matter how much he fucked up somehow he managed to get back in power. If this makes him a good politician then, yes, he was a great one. But it still doesn't make him a good leader. When he was in power he would spend madly. When he was not, he was waging wars stupidly.

I am seriously not sure where you got the idea he was a good leader.
 
Last edited:
Far, far too late. By that point the US was too far ahead to overtake.

A POD that gives you more industrial and economic development in Mexico before independence, coupled with a relaxing of the caste system and a quick, easy war for independence, would be ideal. The next big problem is finding enough people to fill up their vast northern possessions before the Americans get there. A more powerful nativist/anti-Catholic movement in the US could lead to the great Irish immigration of the 1840s/1850s getting redirected towards Mexico, which would be a huge boost in population.

The biggest requirements are more economic development and social equality pre-independence, and more political stability and better leaders post-independence.

It's a nice idea, but I just don't see Irishmen coming in more than small numbers to Mexico...........on the other hand, why not a lot of Italians?
 
Arkhangelsk is right man. Santa Anna (btw that is the full last name) was not a good leader; he was a shrewd politician and a capable general but he cared mostly about himself and his glory. These are qualities that do not make him a good leader. Santa Anna came on and off power for over 20 years (1830s-1850s) yet the total time he was actually residing in power adds up to less than 6 years. Sometimes he step down because of coup but most of the time he simply stepped down to retire until "his country needed him". He did not have a log-term plan at any point in his career.

As a general he enjoyed some success early in his career during the Mexican War of Independence (1810-1821), and during the Spanish attempts at re-conquering Mexico (1929). These allowed him to rise to power and popularity. But the way in which he fought the following wars was stuff of beginners. Texas could have gone much better for Mexico, easily. It didn't because he was a pompous ass who did not listen to good advice. Then after he lost Texas he was able to maintain popularity for his role in The Pastry War (1938). Although most of the resurgence of his popularity was do to the fact that he "lost a leg for his country" rather than for how he fought the war. Arguably most of the credit for his success in Veracruz goes to Yañes.

He was then expelled from Mexico when Farias, Herrera and the Federalistas regained power. The only way Santa Anna was able to make it back to Mexico from Cuba through the American blockade was is he had a deal with Polk. This has never been proven 100%. But I find it hard to believe Santa Anna would be able to make it back had it not been so. Santa Anna made a deal with the enemy promising peace to get back in power. Regardless if it is true or not Santa Anna did not keep his promise of suing for peace. Once he was back in Mexico he fought the Mexican-American war with less skill than how he fought the war against Texas. He was basically trying to lead two armies on two fronts by himself. Refusing to anyone else to take charge. His norther campaign against Taylor went OK at best. But the souther one against Scott was a disaster.

These are not signs of him being a good military leader. Before he became a general I guess he was an decent military man. But power got to his head and that is not good leadership.

Politically. Yes, Santa Anna was a brilliant political survivor. No matter how much he fucked up somehow he managed to get back in power. If this makes him a good politician then, yes, he was a great one. But it still doesn't make him a good leader. When he was in power he would spend madly. When he was not, he was waging wars stupidly.

I am seriously not sure where you got the idea he was a good leader.

Firstly, fix two of your dates. I don't think Spain tried to retake Mexico at the begining of the depression. And I don't think the pastry war took place a year before WWII :p

Second, to that last bit, it may be because that, for some reason, despite all the harm that Santa Anna did, there seem to be a number of people in Mexico who think of him as a national Hero.

EDIT:Correction, it was a cork leg, and it is in Illinois State Military Mueseum in Springfield. The Mexican government still wants it.

As to what it would take for Mexico to be a major or superpower? Well, lets see...fewer civil wars, not loosing Texas, perhaps Mexico finding the gold in the west first (and using that to fund various projects to help build the nation up) Industrialize...

oh, and make sure Santa Anna never gains a major position of power. Not neccessarily kill him, but nothing higher than mayor.
 
Firstly, fix two of your dates. I don't think Spain tried to retake Mexico at the begining of the depression. And I don't think the pastry war took place a year before WWII :p

Second, to that last bit, it may be because that, for some reason, despite all the harm that Santa Anna did, there seem to be a number of people in Mexico who think of him as a national Hero.

EDIT:Correction, it was a cork leg, and it is in Illinois State Military Mueseum in Springfield. The Mexican government still wants it.

As to what it would take for Mexico to be a major or superpower? Well, lets see...fewer civil wars, not loosing Texas, perhaps Mexico finding the gold in the west first (and using that to fund various projects to help build the nation up) Industrialize...

oh, and make sure Santa Anna never gains a major position of power. Not neccessarily kill him, but nothing higher than mayor.
No Anna was a brilliant general, just make sure he doesn't become dictator he was I repeat a skilled general.
 
Arkhangelsk is right man. Santa Anna (btw that is the full last name) was not a good leader; he was a shrewd politician and a capable general but he cared mostly about himself and his glory. These are qualities that do not make him a good leader. Santa Anna came on and off power for over 20 years (1830s-1850s) yet the total time he was actually residing in power adds up to less than 6 years. Sometimes he step down because of coup but most of the time he simply stepped down to retire until "his country needed him". He did not have a log-term plan at any point in his career.

As a general he enjoyed some success early in his career during the Mexican War of Independence (1810-1821), and during the Spanish attempts at re-conquering Mexico (1929). These allowed him to rise to power and popularity. But the way in which he fought the following wars was stuff of beginners. Texas could have gone much better for Mexico, easily. It didn't because he was a pompous ass who did not listen to good advice. Then after he lost Texas he was able to maintain popularity for his role in The Pastry War (1938). Although most of the resurgence of his popularity was do to the fact that he "lost a leg for his country" rather than for how he fought the war. Arguably most of the credit for his success in Veracruz goes to Yañes.

He was then expelled from Mexico when Farias, Herrera and the Federalistas regained power. The only way Santa Anna was able to make it back to Mexico from Cuba through the American blockade was is he had a deal with Polk. This has never been proven 100%. But I find it hard to believe Santa Anna would be able to make it back had it not been so. Santa Anna made a deal with the enemy promising peace to get back in power. Regardless if it is true or not Santa Anna did not keep his promise of suing for peace. Once he was back in Mexico he fought the Mexican-American war with less skill than how he fought the war against Texas. He was basically trying to lead two armies on two fronts by himself. Refusing to anyone else to take charge. His norther campaign against Taylor went OK at best. But the souther one against Scott was a disaster.

These are not signs of him being a good military leader. Before he became a general I guess he was an decent military man. But power got to his head and that is not good leadership.

Politically. Yes, Santa Anna was a brilliant political survivor. No matter how much he fucked up somehow he managed to get back in power. If this makes him a good politician then, yes, he was a great one. But it still doesn't make him a good leader. When he was in power he would spend madly. When he was not, he was waging wars stupidly.

I am seriously not sure where you got the idea he was a good leader.
You sir are quite not gettitng my point, texas got fucked not because he was pompous but due to unprepared ness.
The Texan army moved quickly and silently across the high-grass plain, and then, when they were only a few dozen yards away, charged Santa Anna's camp shouting "Remember the Alamo!" and "Remember Goliad!," only stopping a few yards from the Mexicans to open fire. The Texans achieved complete surprise. It was a bold attack in broad daylight but its success can be attributed in good part to Santa Anna's failure to post guards during the army's siesta. Santa Anna's army primarily consisted of professional soldiers, but they were trained to fight in ranks, exchanging volleys with their opponents. The Mexicans were ill-prepared and unarmed at the time of the sudden attack. Most were asleep with their soldaderas (i.e., wives and female soldiers), some were out gathering wood, and the cavalrymen were riding bareback fetching water. General Manuel Fernández Castrillón desperately tried to mount an organized resistance, but was soon shot down and killed. His panicked troops fled, and Santa Anna's defensive line quickly collapsed.
Hundreds of the demoralized and confused Mexican soldiers were routed, with many being driven into the marshes along the river to drown. The Texans chased after the fleeing enemy, shouting "take prisoners like the Meskins do!", in reference to the burning of bodies after the Alamo and the mass murder of Texans at Goliad. Some of the Mexican cavalry plunged into the flooded stream by Vince's bridge but they were shot as they struggled in the water. Houston tried to restrain his men but was ignored.[citation needed] Gen. Juan Almonte, commanding what was left of the organized Mexican resistance, soon formally surrendered his 400 remaining men to Rusk. The rest of Santa Anna's once-proud army had disintegrated into chaos. From the moment of the first charge the battle was a slaughter, "frightful to behold", with most of the Texan casualties coming in the first minutes of battle from the first Mexican volley
from wiki, tell me how does this show anna to be pompous ass, tell me was it his fault this happened at san jacinto.
 
The way my textbook for History of Mexico tells it, there was a point in 1811 where Hidalgo's army got very close to Mexico City, and could have attacked it, but choose not to because Hidalgo was afraid of incurring too many casualties.

What if Hidalgo attacks? Does he take Mexico City? If he does, its an enourmas psychological blow to the royalists, and a huge boost to Hidalgo. The war might follow the course of the American Revolution-shorter, less brutal insurgencies and scorched earth policies, and with all the original founding fathers still alive at the end to lead the new republic. Mexico's economy will be less destroyed, it will have less crippling debt, and all its rulers will be on the same page. While this won't automatically lead to a Mexican superpower, I think it will be a good start in that direction.
 
You sir are quite not gettitng my point, texas got fucked not because he was pompous but due to unprepared ness.
The Texan army moved quickly and silently across the high-grass plain, and then, when they were only a few dozen yards away, charged Santa Anna's camp shouting "Remember the Alamo!" and "Remember Goliad!," only stopping a few yards from the Mexicans to open fire. The Texans achieved complete surprise. It was a bold attack in broad daylight but its success can be attributed in good part to Santa Anna's failure to post guards during the army's siesta. Santa Anna's army primarily consisted of professional soldiers, but they were trained to fight in ranks, exchanging volleys with their opponents. The Mexicans were ill-prepared and unarmed at the time of the sudden attack. Most were asleep with their soldaderas (i.e., wives and female soldiers), some were out gathering wood, and the cavalrymen were riding bareback fetching water. General Manuel Fernández Castrillón desperately tried to mount an organized resistance, but was soon shot down and killed. His panicked troops fled, and Santa Anna's defensive line quickly collapsed.
Hundreds of the demoralized and confused Mexican soldiers were routed, with many being driven into the marshes along the river to drown. The Texans chased after the fleeing enemy, shouting "take prisoners like the Meskins do!", in reference to the burning of bodies after the Alamo and the mass murder of Texans at Goliad. Some of the Mexican cavalry plunged into the flooded stream by Vince's bridge but they were shot as they struggled in the water. Houston tried to restrain his men but was ignored.[citation needed] Gen. Juan Almonte, commanding what was left of the organized Mexican resistance, soon formally surrendered his 400 remaining men to Rusk. The rest of Santa Anna's once-proud army had disintegrated into chaos. From the moment of the first charge the battle was a slaughter, "frightful to behold", with most of the Texan casualties coming in the first minutes of battle from the first Mexican volley
from wiki, tell me how does this show anna to be pompous ass, tell me was it his fault this happened at san jacinto.

No sentinels. I'm sure there are other words for the kind of general who would neglect something this basic, such as "idiot", but pompous ass will do.

I don't know enough on the history of the war in general, but this is definitely a classic bit of folly.
 
No sentinels. I'm sure there are other words for the kind of general who would neglect something this basic, such as "idiot", but pompous ass will do.

I don't know enough on the history of the war in general, but this is definitely a classic bit of folly.

Good general's also don't care about personal glory. They care about winning. (possibly because they know if they win they get glory anyways)

Santa Anna was not a good General. He may have had his successes, but when you count all of his failures, alongside the flaws (which usually caused those failures) he doesn't add up to being a good general.

Now, if Santa Anna is able to do a personality flip of the 180 degree, then he would probably be a very good General. Although he might never become a president of mexico that way...
 
The way my textbook for History of Mexico tells it, there was a point in 1811 where Hidalgo's army got very close to Mexico City, and could have attacked it, but choose not to because Hidalgo was afraid of incurring too many casualties.

What if Hidalgo attacks? Does he take Mexico City? If he does, its an enourmas psychological blow to the royalists, and a huge boost to Hidalgo. The war might follow the course of the American Revolution-shorter, less brutal insurgencies and scorched earth policies, and with all the original founding fathers still alive at the end to lead the new republic. Mexico's economy will be less destroyed, it will have less crippling debt, and all its rulers will be on the same page. While this won't automatically lead to a Mexican superpower, I think it will be a good start in that direction.

Indeed, in November 1811 as Hidalgo's army neared Mexico City Allende pushed for an attack on the capital. You are right that Hidalgo was afraid of pushing forward, even though he commanded an army of 80,000 men they were nearly all Indian peasants and the like. From what I have read They could very well have taken the capital, albeit with heavy losses. Viceroy Venegas was even preparing to evacuate to Veracruz should the Insurgents penetrate Mexico City.

This is near exactly what I did in my timeline. In the original plan of action by the Conspiracy of Querétaro Ignacio Allende and the Aldama Brothers (Captains and members of New Spain's military elite) were supposed to lead the revolution beginning in December 1810. They were discovered and Hidalgo (a parish priest) ended up taking command. In fact Allende was all for pressing toward Mexico City, and there are many POD's to take for this to happen in some way (Me obviously using one of them :p).
 
The more ticked off folks get in the successfully supressed 13 colonies, the more likely you'll have those folks tempted to try their luck in what becomes a big and strong Mexico.

I think that astute leadership in New Spain/Mexico would make at least a show of wooing disgruntled settlers from British-administered colonies for two purposes, a) ticking off the British, and b) securing energetic population assets for their own development.

In South America, various countries over time got valuable additions in population from Japan, China, Europe and so on. Grand Mexico could do similar to its own benefit.

Oh yes: I don't precisely know how Mexico was on slavery, but, if it was similar to South America and the Caribbean, I imagine ambitious would-be plantation owners would also come to Mexico/New Spain to set up shop.


In otl, the slave trade was a bona fide atrocity and crime against humanity, and, obtaining the population was a long-term boon for the United States in "hard" terms (economic, military) and in terms of cultural reach (invention of rock and roll, cowboys).

I dare say the perpetuation of similar in New Spain/Grand Mexico would bring similar strengths.
 
To get a Mexican superpower on par with what the US became you need a POD that goes back years prior to Mexican independence. America became a superpower because common folk went to the colonies to find freedom and start a new life. It was the idea that the colonies represented a new life and with hard work and dedication anyone could prosper. The aristocracy, church, royalty and vested business interests didn't have nearly as much power in the colonies, thus anyone could work their way up and become "new money." This didn't seem to hold true in the Spanish colonies where both the landed aristocracy and church attained and retained a lot of power especially over the landless poor. It may even take a major in the way Spain herself developed.

Benjamin
 
Good general's also don't care about personal glory. They care about winning. (possibly because they know if they win they get glory anyways)

Santa Anna was not a good General. He may have had his successes, but when you count all of his failures, alongside the flaws (which usually caused those failures) he doesn't add up to being a good general.

Now, if Santa Anna is able to do a personality flip of the 180 degree, then he would probably be a very good General. Although he might never become a president of mexico that way...
Fasilures you mean his failures where either he was caught surprised and did not expect it or his failures where he did not lose on purpose:rolleyes: Plz explain to me some battle where the mexicans fought horribly and lost, which does not involve a shitload of problems facing mexico. Do you know what Santa anna had to face, he faced an army superior in skills, morale,discipline, AArtilarry, outclassed in every way, yet his troops fought like lions. All major battles where he was prepared and fought were near victories only lost due to some internal troubles. Plz explain to me a battle which he lost due solely to his battlefield mistake. Not ambushes or cheap shots but a real battle where he actually lost like a coward. I agree he had flaws but he was in no way a bad general, just a guy who had horrible luck....
 
Top