Nah, that takes away the fun. Nothing beats a bunch of mixed race meztisos and blacks beating the living shit out of that one country founded upon White Supremacy.If that's what you want, write a parable. Worked for Tolkien, after all.
Best,
Official "Did the Confederacy Have a Chance to Win the American Civil War?" Thread
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
a close read of Texas history would show you that most of Houston's Army were actually locals. There were some exceptions but the overwhelming majority of it and the one at the Alamo were indeed local residents of Texans (and Tejanos) The mercenary filibuster types were mostly with Fannin at Goliad.
There has been speculation by a lot of students of the Texas War of Independence that Andrew Jackson was looking for a chance to intervene and indeed there was a significant US Army on the Texas / Louisiana border.
Also Houston actually did understand his enemy ... Santa Anna.
If Santa Anna had died (his chances of successfully linking up on foot with another Mexican force wasn't very good) and the Mexicans still kept moving it is entirely likely the US Army would have intervened. No one knows for sure, but as Houston was Jackson's protege, it isn't unlikely at all.
TFSmith121
Banned
Not discounting the intent, but...
Not discounting the intent, but... think there was at least one more than comes to mind.
Best,
Not discounting the intent, but... think there was at least one more than comes to mind.
Best,
Anaxagoras
Banned
Not discounting the intent, but... think there was at least one more than comes to mind.
For once, I agree with TFSmith.
A population of 7 million couldn't overrun a country it outnumbered 19-1 in two years of trying because why again?
TFSmith121
Banned
No idea ... what countries are you talking about?
No idea ... what "countries" are you talking about?
Best,
No idea ... what "countries" are you talking about?
Best,
A country of 7 million couldn't overrun a country of 400,000 in two years because why again?
TFSmith121
Banned
What countries are you speaking of?
What countries are you speaking of?
Who led both combatants?
When did this attempt occur?
Where did this occur?
Why did this conflict break out?
Thanks - need a little more detail here.
Best,
What countries are you speaking of?
Who led both combatants?
When did this attempt occur?
Where did this occur?
Why did this conflict break out?
Thanks - need a little more detail here.
Best,
Thought the post of yours I quoted was pretty clear what conflict we were talking about. I'm quite certain your capable of following your own conversation.
TFSmith121
Banned
Sorry, but
Sorry, but:
Originally Posted by TFSmith121
-snip-
doesn't tell me a whole lot.
Best,
Sorry, but:
Originally Posted by TFSmith121
-snip-
doesn't tell me a whole lot.
Best,
Sorry, but:
Originally Posted by TFSmith121
-snip-
doesn't tell me a whole lot.
Best,
If you can't press the button that leads to the quote itself... afraid I can't help you.
Question still stands though, so I'll just assume you don't have an answer other than playing at obfuscation. All I need to know.
TFSmith121
Banned
Oh, you mean the war of 1812-15?
Oh, you mean the war of 1812-15?
I wasn't aware that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had a population of 400,000 at that point in history.
The things one learns on the internet.
Best,
Prosecuted the hell out of it for Ross, Downie, Pakenham, Gibbs, and their merry men, though.
Prevost had a division of British regulars and the RN in support at Plattsburgh and was defeated and turned back; Ross ended up making an appointment with a bullet at North Point and his troops got turned back at Hampstead Hill, just as the RN got turned back at Fort McHenry and Ferry Branch; and Pakenham and Gibbs were defeated handily at New Orleans, despite RN support at Lake Borgne.
Who was it whose public was tired of it all after almost six decades of nearly constant warfare, again?
Best,
Oh, you mean the war of 1812-15?
I wasn't aware that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had a population of 400,000 at that point in history.
The things one learns on the internet.
Best,
Last edited:
Oh, you mean the war of 1812-15?
I wasn't aware that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had a population of 400,000 at that point in history.
The things one learns on the internet.
Best,
So you don't have an answer then? Duly noted.
I just thought 'locals' was kind of an odd word to use
How close and ready was the US army, when it came to intervention? Houston had ~850 men. There were 4000 Mexican troops in TX that hadn't been involved at San Jacinto. 2500 of them were ~50 miles away from Houston's force. Some of the Mexican generals (one of them Urrea) wanted to strike at Houston's force. The only reason they didn't was because the general in charge, Filisola, was unsure of his authority (being a foreigner), and was worried about attacking the people who held SA captive (fearing he might get killed in the process). So he ordered a general retreat of all Mexican forces out of TX. If SA had been killed/not captured, there wouldn't have been much to stop the Mexicans (who were pretty damn close) from stomping Houston. Would the US army be in place, in strength, and in time to stop that?
I just thought 'locals' was kind of an odd word to use
How close and ready was the US army, when it came to intervention? Houston had ~850 men. There were 4000 Mexican troops in TX that hadn't been involved at San Jacinto. 2500 of them were ~50 miles away from Houston's force. Some of the Mexican generals (one of them Urrea) wanted to strike at Houston's force. The only reason they didn't was because the general in charge, Filisola, was unsure of his authority (being a foreigner), and was worried about attacking the people who held SA captive (fearing he might get killed in the process). So he ordered a general retreat of all Mexican forces out of TX. If SA had been killed/not captured, there wouldn't have been much to stop the Mexicans (who were pretty damn close) from stomping Houston. Would the US army be in place, in strength, and in time to stop that?
this is the same Mexican Army that took serious losses marching from central Mexico to the Rio Grande, so their logistics, such as they were, are in a tattered state and food supplies were a problem as they have by the time they get to the Harrisburg area marched past the area of principal settlement where there was any supply of food. So the retreat was also partly from logistical reasons.
But yes, Filisola did accept the order to retreat. Granted that order was issued under duress, and most European officers would have ignored it. If memory serves those 2500 men were in two columns as well with some distance between them. As Houston's losses were tiny, he still had a pretty decent force, now equipped with all of the battle field loot from the force that just got wiped out, most importantly, all of the powder and shot from it. He also had a decent force of cavalry to harass the Mexican forces that remained. 50 miles without roads is at least 3 days march by this force based on its speed so far in the campaign, perhaps longer.
When led by decent officers (not Fannin), the Texans regularly outfought the Mexicans at San Antonio (for example) and with Goliad as an example they certainly wouldn't have surrendered. They had water and food, could not be outflanked, and Mexican cavalry was in bad shape (mounts were worn out) so it would have been infantry vs infantry with the Texans having a defensive advantage. Not a sure thing at all, as you have to expect some more attrition on the Mexican side just getting there (food supplies low still). In fact the possibility of a serious Mexican defeat and disastrous retreat south is not unreasonable.
Filisola was right. His President was captured, a good chunk of the army destroyed, another large chunk dead at the Alamo and march to it, and he had no supply base and foraging was getting difficult. Better to retreat and come back later (which the Mexicans did do... in 1842). Without a head of government there is also a real consideration of what the proper thing to do is.
As to the US Army... it was on the border, and was a couple of thousand men if memory serves. This is an extremely experienced force (Seminole Wars) with West Pointers as junior officers, good weapons, firm discipline and commanded by another personal friend of President Jackson. One wonders what the actual instructions were. But if Houston's army is wiped out it can be in Harrisburg very quickly (200 miles, and this is a highly professional force so figure 10 days, maybe as few as 7 based on its typical performance in the Florida swamps.. similar terrain to East Texas by the way, including the mosquetoes), and if the Mexican Army pursues the refugees of the Runaway Scrape, that US Army can be on it very quickly indeed.
As to locals.. yes, by Texas standards they were locals as most of the settlers had been there at least 10 years or more. As before they arrived the Tejanos were in the few hundreds, not many could really be called native except the Indians. As about as many Tejanos fought against Santa Anna as supported him, in a lot of ways the Texas War of Independence was a civil war too.
TFSmith121
Banned
Not sure what "country" you are referring to as having a
Not sure what "country" you are referring to as having a population of 400,000, since it obviously is not the UK.
What country are you referring to, anyway?
Best,
Not sure what "country" you are referring to as having a population of 400,000, since it obviously is not the UK.
What country are you referring to, anyway?
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
Good point re the civil war aspect of the Texas Revolution
Good point re the civil war aspect of the Texas Revolution; in addition, as far as Gaines' forces go, they were already in Nacogdoches by April...
Best,
Good point re the civil war aspect of the Texas Revolution; in addition, as far as Gaines' forces go, they were already in Nacogdoches by April...
Best,
Paraguay, War of the Triple Alliance maybe? small country numbers are right. I don't know the population of Brazil at this time, but 7 million doesn't seem unreasonable (at least 7 million under government, the Indians never counted in this era)
TFSmith121
Banned
Upper and Lower Canada?
I think it's a reference to Upper and Lower Canada, which had all of 430,000 in 1814 (77,000 in Upper Canada in 1811), but that would require excising the British Army, the Royal Navy, and the economy of the UK from the strategic balance in 1812-15.
Best,
I think it's a reference to Upper and Lower Canada, which had all of 430,000 in 1814 (77,000 in Upper Canada in 1811), but that would require excising the British Army, the Royal Navy, and the economy of the UK from the strategic balance in 1812-15.
Best,