WI Santa Anna killed during the Battle of San Jacinto?

PoD: April 21, 1836

During the Battle of San Jacinto, Santa Anna is shot by a trigger-happy Texan (in the heat of battle, although maybe seeking revenge for the Alamo and Goliad).

Effects, anyone?
 
this might actually be bad news for the Texans. SA alive meant that he could be forced to sign a peace treaty, and the rather large number of Mexican troops nearby (led by the very competent Urrea) were forced to retreat because of it. If SA is dead, then there is really nothing to keep Urrea from attacking Houston... except for some rather severe logistical problems. But if he can solve them, then Houston is going to have a real fight on his hands, facing some of the best Mexican troops led by who was likely the most competent commander (on either side) in the field...
 
this might actually be bad news for the Texans. SA alive meant that he could be forced to sign a peace treaty, and the rather large number of Mexican troops nearby (led by the very competent Urrea) were forced to retreat because of it. If SA is dead, then there is really nothing to keep Urrea from attacking Houston... except for some rather severe logistical problems. But if he can solve them, then Houston is going to have a real fight on his hands, facing some of the best Mexican troops led by who was likely the most competent commander (on either side) in the field...

Without Santa Anna, there is no treaty of Velasco. That's a problem, in and of itself. But given than neither Texas nor Mexico ever ratified the treaty... maybe not so much.

Urrea was probably Mexico's best general in the field, but he was under the command of Filosola, who demonstrated no interest in continuing the war with Texas.

But, what were Mexico's capabilities really like in the days following Santa Anna's defeat?

The Mexican Army of Operation (as it was called), totaled no more than 5800 men, and that at the beginning of the campaign in January 1836. By the end of San Jacinto, that number was substantially below 3,500, perhaps as little as 2,500. Although, admittedly, google hasn't been kind to my searches.

After San Jacinto, the remains of the army under Filosola and Urrea were centered around San Antonio to Refugio. This was primarily to keep supply lines open, as supplying the army from Mexico's interior was impossible. Supplies had to be brought in by sea.

But as to the issues Filosola and Urrea faced, the single biggest one is that the two men hated each other. In a continued campaign after Santa Anna's death, there's no guarantee the Mexicans under these two generals would coordinate.

The other issue is that with the destruction of Santa Anna, the Army of Operation lost some of its most seasoned soldiers. Many of the men Santa Anna had taken with him were his most experienced troops, heavily weighted toward his grenadiers and light infantry. Another thing is that many of the troops left behind were recent conscripts, poorly armed and uniformed.

Add into this that there were several ships sailing under the Texas flag that were starting to attack Mexican shipping in the coastal waters. What were they poaching? Supplies for Santa Anna's army.

Just to recap, in the aftermath of Santa Anna's death, Mexico would have 2,500 poorly supplied soldiers, under a did-unified command in and around San Antonio. I suppose it may be possible to make a silk purse from this sow's ear, but it's going to take a lot of things breaking Filosola and Urrea's way.
 
Filisola mainly declined to attack Houston because SA had indeed signed the treaty and as a foreigner, he felt reluctant to go against that. With SA dead... I suppose it could go either way... the other Mexican generals tried OTL to get him to attack... here, they might succeed.... or they might not. One problem... with the treaty signed, they left peacefully and mostly undisturbed by the Texans. Without the treaty...?
One of my books on the war notes that there were 'over 4000' Mexican troops in TX after San Jacinto, but only 2500 of them within 50 miles. Some of them (too many) were raw conscripts, but Urrea's troopers were top notch (can't find an exact number for them... he had 500 at Goliad). As you noted, logistics were indeed a problem... maybe an insurmountable one. It's notable that both sides seemed to rely a lot on what they could forage locally... for food at least, military supplies would be more of a problem. It's hard to say from what I've read, but Urrea might have enough for one last fight...
 
Filisola mainly declined to attack Houston because SA had indeed signed the treaty and as a foreigner, he felt reluctant to go against that. With SA dead... I suppose it could go either way... the other Mexican generals tried OTL to get him to attack... here, they might succeed.... or they might not. One problem... with the treaty signed, they left peacefully and mostly undisturbed by the Texans. Without the treaty...?
One of my books on the war notes that there were 'over 4000' Mexican troops in TX after San Jacinto, but only 2500 of them within 50 miles. Some of them (too many) were raw conscripts, but Urrea's troopers were top notch (can't find an exact number for them... he had 500 at Goliad). As you noted, logistics were indeed a problem... maybe an insurmountable one. It's notable that both sides seemed to rely a lot on what they could forage locally... for food at least, military supplies would be more of a problem. It's hard to say from what I've read, but Urrea might have enough for one last fight...

You're right about the proximity of Filosola's force. For reasons I'll chalk up to my faulty memory, I thought more of the Mexican army was west of the Colorado River.
I did find an interesting source of information. Here's a dissertation that details the Mexican army's movement through Texas, from the beginning in February through their retreat in June. On page 187 there is a detailed breakdown of the army Filosola had at the Brazos. Your 2,500 is pretty spot on. It includes the men under Urrea, I believe.

I did find this of interest. By the time the Mexican army had assembled and decided to retreat to the Colorado, they still had no idea that Santa Anna was a prisoner. They retreated under the impression that he had died in the battle of San Jacinto. It wasn't until the 27th of April that Filosola's army learned that Santa Anna was alive.

So, using Santa Anna's death as a POD, the earliest that the Mexican army could have reacted to his death was the end of April.

But its easier, I think to outline the Mexican army's potential order of battle going forward than it is to detail the Texian order of battle. I can't find the details, but it seems to me that Albert Sidney Johnston arrived in May or June along with several hundred other volunteers. By the end of 1836, the Texian army had swollen to around 3,000.

The results of a continued war depend on so many factors that arguments can be made for either side decisively winning after San Jacinto. Given the wave of money, supplies and men coming from the US, my inclination is to see Texas as being victorious. But if the coin comes up tails, it could be that Filosola and Urrea could make a silk purse from that sow's ear.
 
I have to admit, I think the main reason that Urrea had enough for one good fight is that he was willing to fight... and he wasn't the type to be reckless. It's notable that the quality troops on both sides were pretty sparse... the Mexicans had Urrea's troops and not much else; OTOH, the Texans' best unit was the US army deserters who joined up; the rest were pretty raw, in spite of the victory at San Jacinto.
Given the wave of money, supplies and men coming from the US, my inclination is to see Texas as being victorious.
could be, but I'd say if they can manage to stay out of battle for a while to get all that. If Urrea gets his way and manages to get an attack in PDQ, he could carry the day...
 
Without Santa Anna, there is no treaty of Velasco. That's a problem, in and of itself. But given than neither Texas nor Mexico ever ratified the treaty... maybe not so much.

Urrea was probably Mexico's best general in the field, but he was under the command of Filosola, who demonstrated no interest in continuing the war with Texas.

But, what were Mexico's capabilities really like in the days following Santa Anna's defeat?

The Mexican Army of Operation (as it was called), totaled no more than 5800 men, and that at the beginning of the campaign in January 1836. By the end of San Jacinto, that number was substantially below 3,500, perhaps as little as 2,500. Although, admittedly, google hasn't been kind to my searches.

After San Jacinto, the remains of the army under Filosola and Urrea were centered around San Antonio to Refugio. This was primarily to keep supply lines open, as supplying the army from Mexico's interior was impossible. Supplies had to be brought in by sea.

But as to the issues Filosola and Urrea faced, the single biggest one is that the two men hated each other. In a continued campaign after Santa Anna's death, there's no guarantee the Mexicans under these two generals would coordinate.

The other issue is that with the destruction of Santa Anna, the Army of Operation lost some of its most seasoned soldiers. Many of the men Santa Anna had taken with him were his most experienced troops, heavily weighted toward his grenadiers and light infantry. Another thing is that many of the troops left behind were recent conscripts, poorly armed and uniformed.

Add into this that there were several ships sailing under the Texas flag that were starting to attack Mexican shipping in the coastal waters. What were they poaching? Supplies for Santa Anna's army.

Just to recap, in the aftermath of Santa Anna's death, Mexico would have 2,500 poorly supplied soldiers, under a did-unified command in and around San Antonio. I suppose it may be possible to make a silk purse from this sow's ear, but it's going to take a lot of things breaking Filosola and Urrea's way.

So this being the case would a longer conflict have resulted in some of the land south of the Rio Grande (The Republic of the Rio Grande... Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, & Coahuila, the latter of which having been an actual part of Texas for a while prior to all this) that had been part of some of the secession issues be in play for the Texans?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Butterflies obviously guarantee that the U.S.-Mexican War of 1846-48 would not happen or would happen at a different time and in a completely different manner.

Nevertheless, my first thought on reading the title was "The Mexicans will do much better against the Americans!"
 
Don't forget Santa Anna was ruler of Mexico no fewer than twenty-one times over the years. Removing him means someone else rules, maybe for the better but probably not...
 
Don't forget Santa Anna was ruler of Mexico no fewer than twenty-one times over the years. Removing him means someone else rules, maybe for the better but probably not...
Almost certainly yes though. Santa Anna was a terrible ruler. He looted Mexico’s wealth for himself and his constant plotting destabilised Mexico for thirty years.
 
So this being the case would a longer conflict have resulted in some of the land south of the Rio Grande (The Republic of the Rio Grande... Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, & Coahuila, the latter of which having been an actual part of Texas for a while prior to all this) that had been part of some of the secession issues be in play for the Texans?

I doubt it. Many of the most rabid elements that were looking to unite Texas with what we think of as the Republic of the Rio Grande died at Goliad or before. The longer the war, the more US centric Texas will become (if that's even possible) because the men and material are coming heavily from there.
A lot of the interest to unite with northern Mexico was a residual effect of the land grant system that was part of the larger empressario systm. There were some large land grants held in the north (but south of Texas) held by Grant and Johnson (among others).
 
I have to admit, I think the main reason that Urrea had enough for one good fight is that he was willing to fight... and he wasn't the type to be reckless. It's notable that the quality troops on both sides were pretty sparse... the Mexicans had Urrea's troops and not much else; OTOH, the Texans' best unit was the US army deserters who joined up; the rest were pretty raw, in spite of the victory at San Jacinto.

could be, but I'd say if they can manage to stay out of battle for a while to get all that. If Urrea gets his way and manages to get an attack in PDQ, he could carry the day...

He was one of four generals (IIRC) with the army. It could work out the way you speculate. That raises the question of what would become of the six hundred + prisoners Houston's army held. Holding the prisoners reduces Houston's mobility, which was one thing he ruthlessly exploited in the campaign up to that point.

Alternately, Urrea and Houston could meet in battle and the winner could be American gunpowder and the loser Mexican gunpowder. I was reading about the attack at San Jacinto on a couple of different sites and one thing that they agree to is that the Mexican army was firing on Houston's advancing men, but were not overly effective in their musketry. One can chalk that up to poor marksmanship or inferior gunpowder, but that issue is one that would follow Urrea, too.

We could, if we're of a mind, examine the points in time where Mexico and Texas actually met in pitch battles to get a feel for how a hypothetical match between Urrea and Houston might go. Apart from San Jacinto, the Siege of Bexar was the largest battle during the war, and it was fought at the tail-end of 1835. While tossing around what-ifs, we'd do equally well to speculate what the war would have looked like if James Fannin had actually graduated in 1823 from West Point (he entered WP in 1819, could have graduated in 1823, but dropped out in 1821) and become a competent military officer. A more competent Fannin would have resulted in different results during the battles of Refugio and Colletto. (Of course a more competent Fannin might not have needed to come to Texas to begin with. :rolleyes:)

Both sides were plagued by a series of unfortunate events or leaders.
 
Top