WI: Mexico decisively won the Mexican American War

Chimera0205

Banned
I know its pretty unlikely but people wouldve said the same thing about Korea beating Japan until Admiral Yi happened. All it takes is one extraordinary general and say that happens. Say some Mexico officer turns out to be the next Hannibal and manages to decisivelyand utterly crush the American invasion. What happens from here? Does Manifest Destiny fie in its crib?
 
I know its pretty unlikely but people wouldve said the same thing about Korea beating Japan until Admiral Yi happened. All it takes is one extraordinary general and say that happens. Say some Mexico officer turns out to be the next Hannibal and manages to decisivelyand utterly crush the American invasion. What happens from here? Does Manifest Destiny fie in its crib?

No. The US waits 5 years for the next round in the circular firing squad that was Mexican politics and "politics by other means" in the Clausewitzian sense and makes another go at it. At some point Lady Luck fails, some ambitious rival stabs this Hannibal in the back, or Mexico City gets desperate enough for cash to start peddling claims off in order to pay the army and service the old debts needed to keep the state together
 
USA population reported in 1840 census: 17M +1 hair
Mexican population in 1842: 7M +1 hair

Add to that, the US are making much better use of their free male population. They swatted Mexico into the ground more or less without mobilizing; not that much later they were putting armies of hundreds of thousands of men in the field against each other.

Admiral Yi may have been a badass, but he only won because Toyotomi's forces were laughably inept at sea. In the Mexican-American war it was the underdog (Mexico) who was the far less competent belligerent.

Sure, they could've won, even decisively... if they had, say, the British Army's leadership, tactical prowess, cussedness, logistics and financial support.
 

Chimera0205

Banned
USA population reported in 1840 census: 17M +1 hair
Mexican population in 1842: 7M +1 hair

Add to that, the US are making much better use of their free male population. They swatted Mexico into the ground more or less without mobilizing; not that much later they were putting armies of hundreds of thousands of men in the field against each other.

Admiral Yi may have been a badass, but he only won because Toyotomi's forces were laughably inept at sea. In the Mexican-American war it was the underdog (Mexico) who was the far less competent belligerent.

Sure, they could've won, even decisively... if they had, say, the British Army's leadership, tactical prowess, cussedness, logistics and financial support.
Ooorrrr 1 REALLY REALLY good general.



No. The US waits 5 years for the next round in the circular firing squad that was Mexican politics and "politics by other means" in the Clausewitzian sense and makes another go at it. At some point Lady Luck fails, some ambitious rival stabs this Hannibal in the back, or Mexico City gets desperate enough for cash to start peddling claims off in order to pay the army and service the old debts needed to keep the state together
But even then they should ve able to hold onto atleast a little more than OTL especially with a god tier general.
 
Ooorrrr 1 REALLY REALLY good general.




But even then they should ve able to hold onto atleast a little more than OTL especially with a god tier general.

One God tier commander only gets you so far. Indeed, you run the risk of overcenteralization of command and resulting strategic outmanuvering and wearing down of the army to the point that, while the war is longer and more costly, it ends with said leader in a worse total situation and the US demanding more. End result: political rivals drive him out of town on a rail.
 
Ooorrrr 1 REALLY REALLY good general.

How really really good? IMO nothing short of a mind reader could overcome the Mexican disadvantage. 1840s it the modern period; inspired warlords like Alexander the Not-Great can't topple a rich modern country full of motivated men no matter how many inspired plans they churn out.
 

Chimera0205

Banned
How really really good? IMO nothing short of a mind reader could overcome the Mexican disadvantage. 1840s it the modern period; inspired warlords like Alexander the Not-Great can't topple a rich modern country full of motivated men no matter how many inspired plans they churn out.
you mean besides the half dozen times that exact same thing happened like i dont know KOREA. id argue Korea was at a just as great a disadvantage as mexico was in thier war against japan. didnt stop Yi from SHIT STOMPING the japs. there were literally battles were yi was taking just over a dozen ships against japanese fleets numbering in the 100s and not only beating them but outright annihalating them wholesale with little to no losses of his own. if one admiral can do that then i dont see why a general cant do the same.
 

Chimera0205

Banned
One God tier commander only gets you so far. Indeed, you run the risk of overcenteralization of command and resulting strategic outmanuvering and wearing down of the army to the point that, while the war is longer and more costly, it ends with said leader in a worse total situation and the US demanding more. End result: political rivals drive him out of town on a rail.
yeah but america has always been a pretty casualty adverse nation. if you slaughter a US army whole sale Hannibal style Americas gonna sue for peace. america isnt Rome and is NOT okay with bleeding men like that. So realistically all mr Mexican Hannibal has to do is win one major battle in a hannibal esque fashion and probably get a somewhat favorable peacedeal out of it.
 
you mean besides the half dozen times that exact same thing happened like i dont know KOREA. id argue Korea was at a just as great a disadvantage as mexico was in thier war against japan. didnt stop Yi from SHIT STOMPING the japs. there were literally battles were yi was taking just over a dozen ships against japanese fleets numbering in the 100s and not only beating them but outright annihalating them wholesale with little to no losses of his own. if one admiral can do that then i dont see why a general cant do the same.

It's not so much admiral vs general as it is 1590s vs 1840s; the character of the world, of (advanced) nations, and of (modern) warfare changed tremendously in that time. Even if he stays in command with no obstacles of disloyalty and backstabbing, a Mexican military genius simply isn't enough.

If you want a Mexico wins scenario, simply change other things (as well): most importantly, political stability and stronger economy for Mexico.
 
yeah but america has always been a pretty casualty adverse nation. if you slaughter a US army whole sale Hannibal style Americas gonna sue for peace. america isnt Rome and is NOT okay with bleeding men like that. So realistically all mr Mexican Hannibal has to do is win one major battle in a hannibal esque fashion and probably get a somewhat favorable peacedeal out of it.
Could you tell us who among the Mexican generals in 1846 has this god like ability as a general, since this isn’t ASB? We know Yi existed before 1592, Hannibal was already a general before 218 BC etc. Tell us a name please and tell us how he has the ability to whop Gen Winfield Scott, who is a very very good general, and I would even say a great general.
 
yeah but america has always been a pretty casualty adverse nation. if you slaughter a US army whole sale Hannibal style Americas gonna sue for peace. america isnt Rome and is NOT okay with bleeding men like that. So realistically all mr Mexican Hannibal has to do is win one major battle in a hannibal esque fashion and probably get a somewhat favorable peacedeal out of it.

Not exactly. The US isen't fielding any single army into Mexico that makes up 1/10 of her male population, for starters, nor is pulling a Canne viable given the situation of 1840's technology, especially given the facct tat Mr. Mexican Hannibal isen't going to have the crushingly superior Nubian cavalry, fantatical Gauls, or hardcore mercenaries at his disposal, but roughly equal quality Mexican conscripts to put up against the American volunteers. Let's also not forget such a victory is on the DEFENSIVE in ONE PART of his country; other US forces are advancing on every other front.

And then, as I said, in 5 years he's out of power due to the politics in Mexico at the time. Mexican American War Round 2 takes place at some point and likely Mexico ends up with ultimately more lost territory.
 
Ooorrrr 1 REALLY REALLY good general.




But even then they should ve able to hold onto atleast a little more than OTL especially with a god tier general.

You need more than one really good general. The US invasion was a multi-pronged offensive, including invasion by sea. So, you need multiple really good generals, and a really good admiral. And a navy.
 
If an unknown Mexican commander finds himself field-promoted to General because all his superiors fall to snipers and cannons, and then utterly routes an American army before moving on to fight the next...

The Americans start taking the conflict seriously and start a real mobilization, and negate this one outstanding general by striking in a half-dozen places at once.
 
you mean besides the half dozen times that exact same thing happened like i dont know KOREA. id argue Korea was at a just as great a disadvantage as mexico was in thier war against japan. didnt stop Yi from SHIT STOMPING the japs. there were literally battles were yi was taking just over a dozen ships against japanese fleets numbering in the 100s and not only beating them but outright annihalating them wholesale with little to no losses of his own. if one admiral can do that then i dont see why a general cant do the same.
First off, the Imjin War was less a demonstration of Japanese military might than of Joseon Korea's utter lack of preparations for naval invasions. The Japanese marched from Busan to Pyongyang in the span of a few months (almost the entire peninsula), then lost everything from Pyongyang to Seoul in the same amount of time (half of the peninsula). The war itself, despite nominally lasting 7 years, only involved maybe 3-4 years of actual fighting. Joseon forces, once organized and directed from their northern focused positions (as the Manchu were more of a historical threat than the Japanese at the time), were able to blunt the Japanese advance and push back once the Ming contributed forces. This is a far cry from Mexico's performance in the Mex-Am War.

Additionally:

1. Admiral Yi was highly successful but saying he singlehandedly defeated the Japanese is a bit of Park Chung-Hee era war hero worship propaganda. In terms of leadership, the Joseon kingdom also had General Gwon Ryul, Admiral Won Gyun, Admiral Yi Eokgi, and so on, all of whom were able to score vital victories against the Toyotomi forces. Mind, Yi Sun Sin also had a nasty habit of taking full credit from victories involving other admirals (Won Gyun, for example). Even without Admiral Yi, the Joseon still had a fair chance of survival.

2. As important as cutting off naval supply lines were, the Righteous Armies (made up of peasants, scholars, government officials, and Buddhist warrior monks) harried Japanese land forces, delaying them from total conquest until the Joseon armies could reorganize and Ming forces could arrive to assist.

3. The victory you mentioned there, the Battle of Myeongnyang, was in the second phase of the war, when Joseon survival was guaranteed. The Ming had already entered the war and the Japanese were unable to make even a quarter of their previous gains. While Yi's contributions were invaluable, Japan no longer had any chance of annexing Korea, let alone invading China. Absent Admiral Yi, the Japanese would still have been defeated.

Mexico, on the other hand, had no patron like the Ming were to the Joseon. They were not fighting for the continued existence of the state (Hideyoshi intended on taking over the peninsula, America was going after uninhabited territories), nor were entire villages torched, slaughtered, and abducted. The Americans weren't selling Mexicans into slavery or abducting them, thus engendering a huge amount of militancy amongst the Mexican populace which would lead to widespread insurgencies in the manner of the Righteous Armies.

It's not a one-to-one comparison you can make there. There's just way too many differences between those two situations.
 
I think that more than a good general, Mexico needed a good diplomat. Get the Europeans on their side and the US probably won't start anything. Pointing out how the war was a campaign of conquest to spread the institution of slavery could turn the British people to support the Mexican cause, perhaps even get the British to mediate between the two countries.
 

Chimera0205

Banned
I think that more than a good general, Mexico needed a good diplomat. Get the Europeans on their side and the US probably won't start anything. Pointing out how the war was a campaign of conquest to spread the institution of slavery could turn the British people to support the Mexican cause, perhaps even get the British to mediate between the two countries.
So dropping the general idea since its clearly infeasible is it possible for mexico to draw a european into the war? Im tryibg to get a somewhat realistic scenerio where mexico wins the war without a POD so far back it butterflys away the war thus ruining the entire point. Maybe a eurooean power joining in could accomplish that?
 
It really depends on what do you mean a decisive victory.

For Mexico to defeat the United States in the 1840s, it can't be the same Mexico as IOTL. Let's say Mexico sorts out its independence in a much less chaotic manner so you have a big, stable, democratic, and independent Mexico by 1815; that's a starter. But such a Mexico would not see its border provinces try to break off, so Texas is still part of Mexico. But the USA really really wants California, and makes some other excuse to go to war.

The USA still has the advantage, but it won't be as simple. With Mexicans united behind a popular and democratically-elected government, you will see them fight for every kilometer in favourable terrain. It's not like in OTL where most towns and cites surrendered without a fight and nobody knew who was supposed to be in charge. A Mexico that has been stable for decades will also have a decent navy, it won't be as easy for the Americans to land wherever they want. If it comes to it, the Mexicans can wage a guerilla war across the deserts, mountains, and valleys of their country as the Americans advance. The terrain of Mexico is really advantageous for the defenders. Refuse to sign any treaty until the Americans retreat to their country, the USA at this time can't afford a long and inconclusive occupation of such a huge territory.

This is similar to the strategy Juarez used against the French. I think Mexico can keep Texas, NM, Arizona, and Southern California this way.
 
So dropping the general idea since its clearly infeasible is it possible for mexico to draw a european into the war? Im tryibg to get a somewhat realistic scenerio where mexico wins the war without a POD so far back it butterflys away the war thus ruining the entire point. Maybe a eurooean power joining in could accomplish that?
Britain, especially if the Oregon question doesn't get settled like OTL, could do it. The best outcome for Mexico would be for Britain to get Oregon and for Mexico to regain Texas. Such a defeat removes the US' window to the Pacific and gives them a lesson in respecting sovereignty. Under no circumstances do I see Mexico gaining territory it had before 1830.
 
yeah but america has always been a pretty casualty adverse nation. if you slaughter a US army whole sale Hannibal style Americas gonna sue for peace. america isnt Rome and is NOT okay with bleeding men like that. So realistically all mr Mexican Hannibal has to do is win one major battle in a hannibal esque fashion and probably get a somewhat favorable peacedeal out of it.

You know, there was once another nation that thought that America lacked fighting spirit and that a few good victories would knock them out of a war.

When the war happened, let’s just say that it did not proceed to their advantage...
 
I'd say another war in about ten years, fifteen at the latest. Mexico reestablishes control over Texas but it's a short lived victory. Though if gold is still discovered in California than it would be more populated. Another question could be the Mormons, they still need a place to go, and if the Nauvoo Legion still takes part in an attempted expedition towards California I could see them trying to turn Utah into a Texas 2.0. This Mexican Hannibal probably doesn't survive the coups that dominated this era. Of course without the territory acquired in the War the American Civil War is delayed and that could cause some interesting butterflies.
 
Top