As the title says
Get better officers to lead the army, the Mexican army was at the beginning of the war larger and generally looked better on paper. Another thing is to increase guerrilla warfare as It would have been very effective against the Americans but this was discouraged by Santana as " un honourable" and "unmanly"
I think if Mexico wins the war, America would still be strong enough to prevent any loses in it's own territory. If France conquers Mexico enough Americans will remember the defeat and want to aid France.
Mexico doesn't need America's territory, its own is sparsely populated what it needs is to not lose that huge stretch of pacific coast we call California.I think if Mexico wins the war, America would still be strong enough to prevent any loses in it's own territory. If France conquers Mexico enough Americans will remember the defeat and want to aid France.
Mexicans don't like gold? why can't a gold rush help Mexico instead of destroying it?I doubt Mexico could pull off a big enough victory to reclaim Texas, especially given its large Anglo population by that time. It might've been able to secure a border at the Nuces River, though. Ultimately it likely would've lost much if not all of the territory it did OTL in the same manner it lost Texas; sparsly populated regions being flocked to by Americans. And sooner rather than later, given the Gold Rush.
Mexicans don't like gold? why can't a gold rush help Mexico instead of destroying it?
I can see Mexico outright forbidding future American settlement in its territories, and building a good many forts in its northern territories to enforce this ban. Especially after California gold is discovered (which might finally provide a way to increase the population of the northern territories--IOTL, only 1% of Mexico's population was annexed by the US). Which could be the spark of future wars--American settlers working their way in, Mexican troops firing on them, avenge the atrocities, blah blah blah.
A Mexico that gets at California's gold might manage to repay its European debts, butterflying the European intervention in the 1860s.
Finally, a smaller Texas and a lack of territories south of the Missouri Compromise Line might add fuel to the secessionist fire in the United States.
So a larger, economically rising Mexico watches as the United States descends into internecine warfare even sooner than IOTL?
I have a hard time seeing how Mexico would retain California even under a scenario with an over-all repulse of American forces.
Frankly, any scenario has to deal with the fact that New Mexico, Arizona, and California will be occupied by American troops with little to no opposition. So you either need to game out a successful re-invasion by Mexican forces, or have the US agree to hand those areas back as part of any peace deal. Both are possible, but both seem unlikely.
I don't remember the exact statistics, but Mexico's population was somewhere less than a third of the US' at the time, concentrated far from the North, and did not have quite the high the level of inward immigration or migration that the US had. I don't see many more Mexicans flocking to the region than did OTL even with the the region still Mexico City's control, especially since the Mexican government didn't really have the means to prevent a flood of Anglo miners.Mexicans don't like gold? why can't a gold rush help Mexico instead of destroying it?