Plausability Check: French Victory at the battle of Puebla?

I imagine that the Mexicans could be lured out into the field, were French artillery and equipment could show their worth, however I just want to make sure that this is plausible. Are any other Expeditionary Forces available for Lorencez to use?
 
The battle of Puebla was almost a French loss from the get go. Badly managed and poorly coordinated it was a testament to how poorly the Mexicans were equipped that the French only suffered 400 dead. They walked into a killing field plain and simple.

The arrogance of the Europeans arriving in Mexico was palatable, for instance here is what Lorencez, the commander of the French forces at the battle, wrote just prior to it: "[the French] are so superior to the Mexican in terms of race, organization and moral discipline that now at the head of 6,000 soldiers I am the master of Mexico"

They felt no need to try and defeat the Mexicans with clever tactics.
 
The battle of Puebla was almost a French loss from the get go. Badly managed and poorly coordinated it was a testament to how poorly the Mexicans were equipped that the French only suffered 400 dead. They walked into a killing field plain and simple.

The arrogance of the Europeans arriving in Mexico was palatable, for instance here is what Lorencez, the commander of the French forces at the battle, wrote just prior to it: "[the French] are so superior to the Mexican in terms of race, organization and moral discipline that now at the head of 6,000 soldiers I am the master of Mexico"

They felt no need to try and defeat the Mexicans with clever tactics.
And as a result, the French literally run away screaming that the Mexicans were essentially demons from hell. Had the Mexicans been better equiped, we'd be talking about the massacre of Puebla rather than the battle.
 
Puebla is foremost a symbolic victory, as its consequences were a surge of the French forces in Mexico and the establishment of the Mexican empire. Had the French took Puebla, they probably would have done the same as OTL, only quicker. The only alternative is a huge defeat at Puebla or elsewhere, making Napoléon III call back the Mexican operation.
 
And as a result, the French literally run away screaming that the Mexicans were essentially demons from hell. Had the Mexicans been better equiped, we'd be talking about the massacre of Puebla rather than the battle.

Never read that description of the battle. The sad truth is though, the Mexican forces were basically a rag tag band of misfits were either long term guerrillas, local militia, and a small band of professional soldiery, who were lead by a very capable leader on the defense which evened the odds spectacularly. After the battle the French withdrew to Orizaba where they holed up, the Mexicans, reinforced to 12,000 men, were unable to dislodge the French from this position, and were unable (or unwilling) to invest in a siege. This allowed the French to commit 26,000 troops to Mexico in 1863.

They lacked the ability to comprehensively defeat the French in the field, hence the turn of the war to a long grueling guerrilla campaign where France occupied 3/4 of the country by 1865.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I think it's quite possible to get a French victory so long as you have them believing that they need to put in the effort - this could be, for example, from a small skirmish where the commander (de Lorencz) gets a scare. In my TL it's instead that the French use Gloire for shore bombardment to show off, and this delays the timeline enough that more French troops arrive - thus making things work out for the French.

It's not that they don't have enough combat power to theoretically win - they do - it's that they don't apply it as if facing a dangerous enemy. If they did then they'd be able to outshoot the Mexicans fairly comprehensively (Vincennes) before closing with the bayonet at a rush.
 
Top