Most successful Emiliano Zapata?

Zioneer

Banned
So what PoD could lead to Emiliano Zapata being as successful as plausibly possible? Could he take control of Mexico? If so, what could a Zapata-controlled Mexico look like?

EDIT: As a side note, what are some good sources on Zapata and his legacy?
 

Hnau

Banned
I wrote a short timeline at one point where Wilson got involved in the Mexican Revolution and had American troops occupy Mexico City. There were a lot of butterflies to this, but one of them is that all the factions in the civil war were severely weakened... except for the Zapatistas in the south. I never explored it further than that though.
 
Yes, that's a good place to start. Wilson (or TR '12 if you prefer) gets involved in Mexico. Mexico loses the northern states: Baja (territory), Sonora, Chihuaha, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaluipas, and Sinaloa and Durango would be good too. Wilson and TR are probably dumb enough to push for Zacatecas and San Luis Potosi too. Even better.

All of Zapata's rivals now have their bases in U.S. land or are discredited. The importance of eliminating the Sonorans cannot be overstated, as well as getting rid of Pancho Villa, Zapata's Northern counterpart, who was the caudillo of the North in general and Chihuaha in particular.

This is the only way to get Zapata to power really. Zapata and Villa were, more than any other figures of the Revolution, true revolutionaries interested in improving the lives of Mexicans, but they were too bloodthirsty and also bandits at heart. They were not trusted by the rest of the revolutionaries. So you'll have to get rid of the support base - literally - of the rest of the revolutionaries.

Zapata will easily come to power in the rump Mexico, and he will be bloodthirsty. But Mexico will likely be better off. Real land reform and agrarian reform will be instituted. Educational reform stands a better chance as well. Mexico did this half-heartedly before and after Cardenas because most of the leaders were Sonoran, or in the Sonoran clique. In Sonora, there was less need for land reform, so the leaders there were considerably less radical and did not understand, or care to understand, the problems of the poorer and indigenous South. The haciendas were not their concern.

Zapata has the potential to be a Mexican Tito: A tough bastard, but the best shot his country's got. I see Villa in the same light, but as long as one is in the same country, the conservative revolutionaries will use the two's divisions against them and both will lose. The conservative revolutionaries and Villa are largely gone with a Second Mexican War. And one more thing Zapata has in common with Tito is that I could see him turning to the Soviet Union for support at first, but he won't be its lapdog. Such support will be like Sun Yat-sen and the KMT: Zapata won't pledge he's an outright communist, but the two will be friends. Like all sane (this rules out Santa Anna) Mexican leaders, Zapata will try to concentrate on internal problems instead of the Colossus to the North. With the turmoil of integrating New Mexican territories and likely still being involved in WWI, he needn't worry very much.

Mexico will probably end up being in the first world, around Italy I'd say. If this is what you want, you can do with a POD in the 1970s. I think a better and different Mexico is what you want. Ironically, by losing more territory to America, Zapata can come to power and ultimately increase Mexico's standard of living. But with Mexico's luck, things could always go to hell and another civil war could occur when he dies.
 
Yes, that's a good place to start. Wilson (or TR '12 if you prefer) gets involved in Mexico. Mexico loses the northern states: Baja (territory), Sonora, Chihuaha, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaluipas, and Sinaloa and Durango would be good too. Wilson and TR are probably dumb enough to push for Zacatecas and San Luis Potosi too. Even better.

All of Zapata's rivals now have their bases in U.S. land or are discredited. The importance of eliminating the Sonorans cannot be overstated, as well as getting rid of Pancho Villa, Zapata's Northern counterpart, who was the caudillo of the North in general and Chihuaha in particular.

This is the only way to get Zapata to power really. Zapata and Villa were, more than any other figures of the Revolution, true revolutionaries interested in improving the lives of Mexicans, but they were too bloodthirsty and also bandits at heart. They were not trusted by the rest of the revolutionaries. So you'll have to get rid of the support base - literally - of the rest of the revolutionaries.

Zapata will easily come to power in the rump Mexico, and he will be bloodthirsty. But Mexico will likely be better off. Real land reform and agrarian reform will be instituted. Educational reform stands a better chance as well. Mexico did this half-heartedly before and after Cardenas because most of the leaders were Sonoran, or in the Sonoran clique. In Sonora, there was less need for land reform, so the leaders there were considerably less radical and did not understand, or care to understand, the problems of the poorer and indigenous South. The haciendas were not their concern.

Zapata has the potential to be a Mexican Tito: A tough bastard, but the best shot his country's got. I see Villa in the same light, but as long as one is in the same country, the conservative revolutionaries will use the two's divisions against them and both will lose. The conservative revolutionaries and Villa are largely gone with a Second Mexican War. And one more thing Zapata has in common with Tito is that I could see him turning to the Soviet Union for support at first, but he won't be its lapdog. Such support will be like Sun Yat-sen and the KMT: Zapata won't pledge he's an outright communist, but the two will be friends. Like all sane (this rules out Santa Anna) Mexican leaders, Zapata will try to concentrate on internal problems instead of the Colossus to the North. With the turmoil of integrating New Mexican territories and likely still being involved in WWI, he needn't worry very much.

Mexico will probably end up being in the first world, around Italy I'd say. If this is what you want, you can do with a POD in the 1970s. I think a better and different Mexico is what you want. Ironically, by losing more territory to America, Zapata can come to power and ultimately increase Mexico's standard of living. But with Mexico's luck, things could always go to hell and another civil war could occur when he dies.

I don't think we'd able to go quite as far as you speculated without REALLY pissing Mexico off even more than they already probably would be, not at this late date. TBH, though, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila and Baja wouldn't be all that hard to get, as all but Baja kinda were keeping Mexico down to a degree, especially the former two.

The one real bonus would be mineral resources in Sonora and Chi., as well as the iron ore in northern and central Coahuila(I imagine the Mexicans would want to keep the south, though).

I can also see Zapata possibly cozying up with the Russians as well.
 
I don't think we'd able to go quite as far without REALLY pissing Mexico off even more than they already are, not at this late date. TBH, though, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila and Baja wouldn't be all that hard to get, as all but Baja kinda were keeping Mexico down to a degree, especially the former two.

The one real bonus would be mineral resources in Sonora and Chi., as well as the iron ore in northern and central Coahuila(I imagine the Mexicans would want to keep the south, though).
The U.S. played around with Latin America enough that I'm more surprised it didn't happen. Roosevelt and Wilson would be thirsty for territory. And Taft would be pressured into it were he POTUS. And most importantly, Zapata cannot come to power in Mexico as long as the North is part of Mexico.

Zapata wouldn't cozy up to the Russians enough for the U.S. to try to depose him, though. He's nothing if not wily.
 
The U.S. played around with Latin America enough that I'm more surprised it didn't happen. Roosevelt and Wilson would be thirsty for territory. And Taft would be pressured into it were he POTUS. And most importantly, Zapata cannot come to power in Mexico as long as the North is part of Mexico.

Quite honestly, Plumber, I can't disagree with that. Roosevelt would've been a fool not to take advantage of this opportunity, Taft even more so, and if Mexico even lost Baja, I betcha the conservatives would've been in real trouble, then. Biting off Sonora, Chihuahua and part or all of Coahuila? IMHO, Zapata would've been guaranteed to win then. :D
 
Luckily for Zapata, Baja, Sonora, Chihuaha and Coahuila are as good as gone. Zapata was the highest profile man not from those states.
 
Zapata actually wanting to become president on his own right.

OTL, he only wanted to get the land reforms passed at all costs, and refused to have anything to do with the additional politics. Also, he was horrified when he was asked to sit down on the presidential chair for a photography. Giving him more ambition, and more foresight would do.
 
What?......Sorry misread this as "Most Succesful Emilio Estevez". Which was weird because I was like, More successful then Emilio Estevez already is?
 
Zapata actually wanting to become president on his own right.

OTL, he only wanted to get the land reforms passed at all costs, and refused to have anything to do with the additional politics. Also, he was horrified when he was asked to sit down on the presidential chair for a photography. Giving him more ambition, and more foresight would do.
He doesn't need to become President of Mexico. He could easily be the most powerful member of the government, but principally interested in land reform. The President will have no power of Zapata's land reform policies, but might be able to have power in other areas. The President will likely have to be a follower of Zapata for this to happen though. Zapata could end up being a Robert Moses or J. Edgar Hoover of Mexico - preeminent in their area of interest.

Or he could get into it like Castro. At first he doesn't want absolute power, but he has the most power. And he isn't satisfied by the people he put in power, so he puts himself in power, reluctantly. But power is a powerful drug.
 
Last edited:
The best opportunity might be when Pancho Villa fell out with Carranza and Obregon in late 1914 after the Convention of Aguascalientes. Villa had a chance to decisively defeat Carranza if he immediately pursued him to Veracruz. IOTL, he dithered and allowed Carranza to regroup and Obregon defeated in Spring 1915 in several battles. If Villa instead marches and defeats Carranza/Obregon in December 1914, he's won the war and Zapata is his only major ally.

At that point, Zapata is riding high and in a good position to push his land reforms. The only question is whether Pancho Villa tries to eliminate him. Villa and Zapata were allies of convenience, and there is evidence Villa didn't trust him. However, Zapata had no personal ambition. He only wanted land reform. So it's possible Villa could work out a deal with Zapata that leaves Villa in power, but gives Zapata the authority to conduct land reforms as he sees fit in southern Mexico, and allows lesser land reform in the north where Villa's power base is.

I don't see Zapata ever becoming Mexican president. But he could serve as a cabinet member or as governor in Chiapas. I only see him becoming President in an actual democratic election many years away if he determines it's the only way to achieve the land reforms. Of course, that requires Mexico to actually have competitive, democratic elections which it didn't have until the 1990s. Instead, the winners were determined behind the scenes, and those who attempted to dispute them usually ended up dead. It really depends on how Villista Mexico develops.
 
Top