There is no way any European power would support Mexico over the United States. France actually supported the United State's annexation of Texas. At the time, France and Britain were still rivals. To them, any gains made by the Americans were gains that weren't made by the British, because if by some ASB intervention the United States actually looses the war the British were going to get California and most of the Mexican northwest. British support is fractionally more likely, but still just as ASB. What does Britain actually gain by supporting Mexico? The United States was an important trading partner and a large market for American goods, Mexico was some unstable nation in the middle of nowhere.France and UK perceive US extraterritorial hungers as threats to their holdings in the Caribbean, Belize, and as a threat to the UK Dominion of Canada. One, or both nations, provides Mexico with teams of expert advisors. Mexico is also allowed to purchase a certain number of modern artillery and muskets at “friendship prices” with “friendship” bonus items. The Mexican populace mobilizes for a people’s war to be fought in Mexico proper, not in fringe territories of dubious loyalties. The people' s units are leavened by some well-trained units under expert advice.
In short, the small US army and supporting “fair weather” militias and security contractors were taking a big risk when they landed in Veracruz and marched west into the Mexican heartland. I don’t think it would take ASB level intervention to give that force a nasty surprise outside of Mexico City and bog down the grab bag of invasion forces marching overland from Texas.
Sure, some things would have to change….
- Mexicans in Mexico proper would need to perceive the war as the defense of home, culture and religion- and be willing to pay for that defense in fatalities.
- The Mexicans would need put their pride aside, seek and actually heed expert advice. Fortunately, such advice was available in Europe in the form of expert military officers from UK, France, Italians states doubling as security advisors / combat leaders for hire.
Changing the opinion of a people en mass is not a POD. To change the perceptions of the entire Mexican people years before the war is, be definition, ASB. Even so, the Mexicans already perceived the war as a defence of home (how else would they perceive a foreign nation invading them) but they lost anyway because spirit is not a substitute for numbers and weaponry.
And how was landing in Veracruz a risk? Mexico had next to no naval forces. At the time of the Veracruz invasion, the US navy had already instigated a blockade of the state. Mexico couldn't defend Veracruz as all their forces were tied up fighting on the US border. The US army landed on Veracruz completely unopposed. Even if the Veracruz landing went horribly wrong, it was only a fraction of the US armed forces. The Americans had already pushed Mexico nearly as far south as Tampico. Even if Mexico made it absolutely impossible for the US to gain another meter of ground, which is also ASB, the United States had already taken what they wanted. All Mexico would achieve would be extending the war a few years.
They were definitely a formidable power, and were capable of winning wars against the Europeans. There's a reason Latin America weren't colonised by the British or French after they got independence. Were they a great power? No. But they were not a nation the rest of the world would consider a pushover, even if the United States shared a border with the Europeans. The US invasion of Canada failed because the US was woefully unprepared and were not just fighting Canada, but the British as well. It is a completely different scenario. Napoleons invasion of Russia is also a completely different scenario. Napoleon was outnumbered, Russia is huge and has roughly equivalent weapons, and the weather is inhospitable. The sheer distance involved in a Russian campaign is something that has no equivalent in a Mexican one. Not to mention Mexico is far smaller than Russia. Napoleon lost because of a lack of supplies and the Russian winter. Mexico has no equivalent to a Russian winter. Mexico also has a coastline, which means that supply lines become not as necessary because the Americans could just resupply their forces using ships.True, Mexico was weak. But I don’t think the US was a formidable as you imply. Rather, the USA was relatively formidable in the minor league sense and comfortably far away from Europe- home of the military major leagues and big wars against viable opponents. The successes of the American Revolution noted, invasions of foreign nations via expeditionary forces are tricky, even for experts (Napoleon takes the witness stand). The US invasion Canada, though not a Moscow disaster, did not go so well.
It's not an attrition battle, because supplies can be transported easily to the front line. Transporting some supplies from the coastline to inland Mexico is easy, the distances are quite small. Mexico also doesn't have the capacity to win a war of attrition at the time. They didn't even have the capacity to give their own army proper weapons, how are they going to do the same for their citizens? And even if the US can't win a war inland, they can certainly raze every Mexican coastal city. Remember, Mexico is fighting for some fringe territory that the majority of Mexicans have never seen in their lives. Your asking the Mexican people to sacrifice everything in a brutal war of attrition for territory even the Mexican government considered worthless. They aren't battling for the preservation of their own homes, they are battling over some uninhabited land that had already rebelled against them.The inland result is Napoleon on a smaller scale. Sure, the US force is better trained and better led- but that does not matter much in the attrition battles on the way to Mexico City. There are a lot of lean, mean bushwar fighters in US ranks, but this is not a bush war of manuver against numerically doomed native american foes. Rather, the war is fixed attrition battles against a numerically strong opponent- very un bush like and very disturbing to bush fighters.
Last edited: