What if Mexico had won The Battle of San Jacinto?

Santa Anna only lost due to horrible luck.

Actually it wasn't luck, it was sheer stupidity on Santa Anna's part and his paranoia of being surrounded by other powerful generals.

A capable leader in this situation does not go up to the front, take the reigns from the other commanding general (Urrea) so as to steal some of his glory and end up getting captured by the enemy and then sell his country out at the peace treaty signing.
 
Actually it wasn't luck, it was sheer stupidity on Santa Anna's part and his paranoia of being surrounded by other powerful generals.

A capable leader in this situation does not go up to the front, take the reigns from the other commanding general (Urrea) so as to steal some of his glory and end up getting captured by the enemy and then sell his country out at the peace treaty signing.

Exactly.

Santa Anna was incredibly skilled at politics (how many times was he president of Mexico? Despite all his shortcoming's and failures?) But he was not a very good general. His personal flaws made him to be a bad general and a bad military leader. As a politician though, the flaws did not hinder him as much (and sometimes probably helped).
 
Exactly.

Santa Anna was incredibly skilled at politics (how many times was he president of Mexico? Despite all his shortcoming's and failures?) But he was not a very good general. His personal flaws made him to be a bad general and a bad military leader. As a politician though, the flaws did not hinder him as much (and sometimes probably helped).

Very true, I keep forgetting to point out that he was indeed a shrewd and adept politician...maybe it's my total dislike of the guy... I am Mexican after all...:p
 
Very true, I keep forgetting to point out that he was indeed a shrewd and adept politician...maybe it's my total dislike of the guy... I am Mexican after all...:p

Funny you say that, as I believe there are a decent number of mexicans who view him as a national hero even to this day.

If nothing else, the Mexican Government can't seem to get over him. As I said in a similar thread, the Mexican Government has repeatedly asked for Santa Anna's cork leg back from the Illinois State Military Mueseum in Springfiled.

I'd personally think they'd rather the US have it.
 
Funny you say that, as I believe there are a decent number of mexicans who view him as a national hero even to this day.

If nothing else, the Mexican Government can't seem to get over him. As I said in a similar thread, the Mexican Government has repeatedly asked for Santa Anna's cork leg back from the Illinois State Military Mueseum in Springfiled.

I'd personally think they'd rather the US have it.

I agree, but I also think we won that leg fair and square and they have to come fight to take it back.
 
Funny you say that, as I believe there are a decent number of mexicans who view him as a national hero even to this day.

If nothing else, the Mexican Government can't seem to get over him. As I said in a similar thread, the Mexican Government has repeatedly asked for Santa Anna's cork leg back from the Illinois State Military Mueseum in Springfiled.

I'd personally think they'd rather the US have it.

Very interesting, I've yet to meet any one Mexican who has a positive opinion of the guy...my own mother considers him a traitorous bastard, and she's the only one in my family who's a Mexican citizen by birth.

As for the leg, I can only assume it's a matter of pride, not so much for how Mexicans feel for Santa Anna, but that the leg is a reminder of a very humiliating time for Mexico, and the fact that it's in an American museum adds insult to injury.
 
[FONT=&quot]Finally the Americans won the war due to one and only one reason. Horse drawn artillery, aka-flying artillery. Mexico still relied on stable set position artillery; against the US movable artillery his was disastrous. The reason Mexico suffered so many casualties was not because they couldn’t fight, they never had a chance. The first battle of the war, the flying artillery completely blew up the Mexicans and killed hundreds. However undeterred the Mexicans advanced under such fire. Americans soldiers were stunned when they saw Mexican soldiers coming out of the slope. Seriously and in fact a division was almost about to cut off US forces but due to smoke (unlucky) the division came right in front of the artillery. Even then they fought on. Every battle where Mexico was prepared and ready the Americans had a friggin tough time winning. Even with their advantages. This I do not consider weak, tell me now Mexico had a great chance to win, they were plagued with internal revolts and horrible luck. Santa anna was a good general who suffered bad luck.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]However I completely agree with everyone that anna was a douche, corrupt, egoistical asshole after he became dictator[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]before that he was mexicos only hope against the USA, during the war, he played polkout as he successfully reached mexico by fooling polk. He deserves credit.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]At the battle of cerro gordo for excample santa anna had hthought the US would walk down the road and set up an perfect ambush. What happened was incredible bad luck, 26000 U dragoons advanced on the position and MExican troops opened fire, this gave awa their positio. tell me how was this Santa annas fault/ It wasn't. it was unexpected. Most of the campaign mexico fought tooth and nail, WHenever the mexicans werent unprepared they wreaked havoc. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Did you know a massive smear campaign was started against Santa anna was started. Throughout the war his enemies spread lies about ow he was dealing with america, e was losing on puprose, he was a traitor and a bastard. Arch, reason why you and most of mexico hate him was because of this hate campaign. In fact Anna played Polk, on his escape he promised polk he would negotiate but polk fell into his trap. As a general whenever he was prepared he almost won. He was no traitor. owever maybe why he is so hated is because of not the mexi american war, but his dictatorship. The gadson purchase I agree was stupid. Santa anna after becoming dictator turned into an asshole son of a bitch, corrupt man, however before his dictatorship he was one of mexicos smartest generals.[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
[FONT=&quot]Finally the Americans won the war due to one and only one reason. Horse drawn artillery, aka-flying artillery. Mexico still relied on stable set position artillery; against the US movable artillery his was disastrous. The reason Mexico suffered so many casualties was not because they couldn’t fight, they never had a chance. The first battle of the war, the flying artillery completely blew up the Mexicans and killed hundreds. However undeterred the Mexicans advanced under such fire. Americans soldiers were stunned when they saw Mexican soldiers coming out of the slope. Seriously and in fact a division was almost about to cut off US forces but due to smoke (unlucky) the division came right in front of the artillery. Even then they fought on. Every battle where Mexico was prepared and ready the Americans had a friggin tough time winning. Even with their advantages. This I do not consider weak, tell me now Mexico had a great chance to win, they were plagued with internal revolts and horrible luck. Santa anna was a good general who suffered bad luck.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]However I completely agree with everyone that anna was a douche, corrupt, egoistical asshole after he became dictator[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]before that he was mexicos only hope against the USA, during the war, he played polkout as he successfully reached mexico by fooling polk. He deserves credit.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]At the battle of cerro gordo for excample santa anna had hthought the US would walk down the road and set up an perfect ambush. What happened was incredible bad luck, 26000 U dragoons advanced on the position and MExican troops opened fire, this gave awa their positio. tell me how was this Santa annas fault/ It wasn't. it was unexpected. Most of the campaign mexico fought tooth and nail, WHenever the mexicans werent unprepared they wreaked havoc. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Did you know a massive smear campaign was started against Santa anna was started. Throughout the war his enemies spread lies about ow he was dealing with america, e was losing on puprose, he was a traitor and a bastard. Arch, reason why you and most of mexico hate him was because of this hate campaign. In fact Anna played Polk, on his escape he promised polk he would negotiate but polk fell into his trap. As a general whenever he was prepared he almost won. He was no traitor. owever maybe why he is so hated is because of not the mexi american war, but his dictatorship. The gadson purchase I agree was stupid. Santa anna after becoming dictator turned into an asshole son of a bitch, corrupt man, however before his dictatorship he was one of mexicos smartest generals.[/FONT]

Making your words bigger isn't going to do you much here. It's just going to make us think your throwing a tantrum (okay, correction. It seems to me thats whats going on here. I shall not put words in anyone else's mouth).

Now, Santa Anna is an ass even before he became dictator. He learned military tactics under Joaquín de Arredondo, who showed him at the time how to deal with Mexican nationalist rebels.

Heck, until 1821, he was fighting AGAINST Mexico. It was only then that he switched sides, and after pushing the Spanish out of Veracruz, he was awarded the title of General, and he used it for his own personal gain.

He also had his hand in the downfall of the First Mexican Empire, and many leaders in Mexico knew he had a propensity for changing sides in an oppurutnistic manner.

I'm sure there are a few people here who know more about Santa Anna than I do, and can provide further evidance of his overall inpetitude.
 
all you really need to do is change the fact that Santa Anna got captured... the Mexicans could lose the battle and still win the war. Because he was captured, the Texans could force a peace treaty on him and guarantee their independence. The Mexicans had overwhelming force in Texas, a lot of whom weren't with SA at San Jacinto. Have SA either be killed or escape capture, and the Mexicans can still win the war...
 
Making your words bigger isn't going to do you much here. It's just going to make us think your throwing a tantrum (okay, correction. It seems to me thats whats going on here. I shall not put words in anyone else's mouth).

Now, Santa Anna is an ass even before he became dictator. He learned military tactics under Joaquín de Arredondo, who showed him at the time how to deal with Mexican nationalist rebels.

Heck, until 1821, he was fighting AGAINST Mexico. It was only then that he switched sides, and after pushing the Spanish out of Veracruz, he was awarded the title of General, and he used it for his own personal gain.

He also had his hand in the downfall of the First Mexican Empire, and many leaders in Mexico knew he had a propensity for changing sides in an oppurutnistic manner.

I'm sure there are a few people here who know more about Santa Anna than I do, and can provide further evidance of his overall inpetitude.
Abiout my large words, whoops I only wanted part of them to be large but unfortunatly fgorgot to change font:eek:


Anyway about your so called Ineptitude, really he lost mainly because he was facing some trouble or the other. For excample let me repeat, he would have defeated taylor at buena vista had he not faced internal troubles. Had he not been off gaurd at san Jacinto the texans would have been crushed in open battle. Had the mexican governor of New mexico not disband the main army, USA would have a really tough time capturing new mexico. The mexicans when they stood and fought fought like lions. Anna lost not due to his ineptitude but due to flying artillary for pete sake this artillary is what caused the mexicans to lose most of their major battles. Name any battle which santa anna lost and I can tell you it was due to some external problem. By your definition if santa was bad then how come he beat Urrea.:rolleyes: He crushed Urea at Puebla but that took him off from the main war. Similiar to Harold defeating Harold the viking but losing to qwilliam due to exaustion. Santa anna was a good leader of trops, he just faced a power that outclassed him in every field and faced some of Americas best generals of the century. For example the battle for mexico city was impressive. Seriously the mexicans under Anna fought like lions winning the respect of the americans. Throughout cali the mexicans put up brave resistance. Anna outmaneuvered Polk, crushed his enemies and was one hell of a polotician.

I do however agree he was a horrible dictator, it does not mean he was a horrible general. So plz name any battle and I can tell you Anna lost due not to ineptitude but due to being outclassed evry way, or was caught ompletly off gaurd:rolleyes:



Plz enlighten me with your vast knowledge:rolleyes:

I am sure you also believe Santa anna worked with the US goverment to overthrow Mexico:p:p Or all the other bad smears to his name most of which are false propoganda. Only the part of him being a corrupt dictator is fact
 
The good generals don't get caught off guard or outclassed.

Outclassed means enemy is way more advanced than you and you have a shit army..... Seriously think of it this way The Gauls under vercingatorix fighting the Romans under Caesar. Good generals no matter how smart will not be able to defeat an enemy which outclasses them technologically

also btw check last page of other Mexican thread I posted yotube video links and info on who Santa Anna really was
 

Cook

Banned
Exactly.

Santa Anna was incredibly skilled at politics (how many times was he president of Mexico? Despite all his shortcoming's and failures?) But he was not a very good general. His personal flaws made him to be a bad general and a bad military leader. As a politician though, the flaws did not hinder him as much (and sometimes probably helped).



He really had no choice exactly for those very political reasons.
Santa Anna presented himself as the big man of Mexico, had he let another general win glory supressing the rebels and gringo thieves north of the Rio Grande he’d have been setting himself up with a rival, freshly minted as the saviour of Mexico and at the head of a victorious and confident army.
 
Lets see the USA is now a world power and Mexico is Mexico. To become a great nation you must have a lot of things go your way. You must have great leadership and a take advantage of the situations when they fall your way. The US did this. Washington and Lincoln are considered two of the greatest leaders to have ever lived. They helped shape America and the world.. Between the leadership of those men the USA had good leaders. Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson, Polk all are considered good if not great Presidents. Mexico had Santa Anna. No one sees him as one of the greatest leaders of all time. In reality he does not rank with any of the good American Presidents of that time period. 20 years after Mexico won their independence they lost to the USA . 20 years after the USA won the American Revolution they fought the war of 1812 against the strongest nation in the world Great Britian. They did not loose. Yes they did not win. But they won the biggest battle of the war, New Orleans. Plus they had other military success. Through out their history the USA stuck to their values and consitutition. Mexico put in the same situations lost every time. Some countries are greater than other countries. It is just that simple. Could that change ? yes. But the years 1820-1845 Mexico lost the USA won. The main reason for this was the USA had better leaders over all in all phases of how leaders are judged and how they perform .
 
Lets see the USA is now a world power and Mexico is Mexico. To become a great nation you must have a lot of things go your way. You must have great leadership and a take advantage of the situations when they fall your way. The US did this. Washington and Lincoln are considered two of the greatest leaders to have ever lived. They helped shape America and the world.. Between the leadership of those men the USA had good leaders. Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson, Polk all are considered good if not great Presidents. Mexico had Santa Anna. No one sees him as one of the greatest leaders of all time. In reality he does not rank with any of the good American Presidents of that time period. 20 years after Mexico won their independence they lost to the USA . 20 years after the USA won the American Revolution they fought the war of 1812 against the strongest nation in the world Great Britian. They did not loose. Yes they did not win. But they won the biggest battle of the war, New Orleans. Plus they had other military success. Through out their history the USA stuck to their values and consitutition. Mexico put in the same situations lost every time. Some countries are greater than other countries. It is just that simple. Could that change ? yes. But the years 1820-1845 Mexico lost the USA won. The main reason for this was the USA had better leaders over all in all phases of how leaders are judged and how they perform .
I agree Im not saying santa anna was a more briliant leader than taylor, just saying he desserves credit for the way he fought the war and shouldnt be considered a weak general.


Btw about Polk i agree he was a good polotician but i do not consider him great, I consider him a racist, bigot, manipulative, asshole who brought the US on false claims into conflict with mexico bullying mexico, feeling indifferent to natives and mexicans, encouraging mass persecution of said mexicans and catholics in newly aquired territory, Polk was in his own litte world, i do believe he was a skilled President on that I agree but I detest his policies and consider him a douchebag as bad as santa anna, instead of corruption, he is a bigot bastard, dishonourable, pompus, arrogant son of a bitch:mad::mad:
 
Top