How do we rate the U.S. Army of the Mexican War?

2,280 Views | 24 Replies | Last: 23 days ago by James Forsyth
aTmneal
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:34a, 3/29/24
AG
So I was thinking on this the other day and was wondering just how good the U.S. invasion force under Winfield Scott was and how they would rank among historical armies.

Winfield Scott was a great commander in his day. The junior officers were outstanding. They attempted a successful amphibious landing and siege of a heavily fortified citadel. They didn't even lose a battle and had more soldiers die from illness than battle casualties.

Question...I know the Mexican army was not a good army and most of its leaders were terrible. Was it just a case of Mexico being worn down by multiple revolts?

Without regard to the cultural and political aspects of the war itself and whether it was justified or not...just how good was that U.S. Army?
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
Bag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:17a, 3/29/24
AG
I would say they (The US Army) were young and unproven. The Mexican army was rot with corruption and terrible leadership and it all started at the top, I see some correlation with current Russian Army fighting today.
Reply Quote
2
aalan94
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:39a, 3/29/24
AG
Are we just going to talk Scott, or Taylor vs. Scott.

I think the army performed well considering the actual regular army was small and they had to incorporate so many volunteers. Logistics was weak, but considering we had never done anything like that ever before, it was actually impressive. Compare it to the Spanish American War, which was a logistical c.f.
Reply Quote
2
LMCane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aTmneal • 9:49a, 3/29/24
unfortunately it's more a function of WHO they were fighting.

yes, against Mexicans we kicked some @ss..

try the same thing against the Prussian Army of 1848 and a very different outcome.

In 1871 the Prussians had an army of one million one hundred thousand.

that's only 6 years after Robert E. Lee had an army of 26,000 at Petersburg.
Reply Quote
1
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:34p, 3/29/24
AG
The Duke of Wellington predicted Scott and his army would be destroyed when they landed at Vera Cruz.

I think the regular army junior officers showed what a success West Point had been as they provided the leadership that Mexico had no match for. The US volunteers were not quite as good but were still better than the Mexicans. The fact that the best Mexican outfit was the San Patricios tells you what army was better trained.

Mexican gunpowder and weapons were abysmal. They were still fighting for the most part with surplus Brown Bess muskets from the Napoleonic Wars. Their cannonballs were made of bronze and gave rise to the term "Blue Blazes."

It was a combination of factors that led to US victory.

Reply Quote
Aggie_Journalist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ78 • 11:45p, 3/29/24
AG
I believe the Americans had horse-drawn, mobile artillery that fired exploding shrapnel shells while the Mexicans still deployed immobile cannons that fired metal cannon balls which just bounced in a straight line, and this played a huge role in the outcomes of battles.
Thanks and gig'em
Reply Quote
1
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:54p, 3/29/24
But...but...but...it wuz the MARINES who stormed the Halls of Montezuma! The Marine Hymn says so!*

Scott was an excellent commander, and the regulars and West Point trained officers provided a solid core for an army with a lot of volunteer citizen soldiers. Those volunteers were a good bit more motivated than the soldiers of the Mexican army,

The Mexican army actually outnumbered the American army, but they were in general poorly led, poorly equipped, and in general much better suited for putting down internal revolts than defeating a foreign invasion.

Santa Anna was probably the worst thing to happen to Mexico in that country's unhappy history. It was Santa Anna's policies that led Texas to revolt, and Santa Anna's failed military leadership that failed to put down Texas' revolt. (It's worth noting that several other Mexican states revolted at the same time as Texas, for the same reasons. Texas is the only one that succeeded.) Then Santa Anna bungled the response to Texas joining the U.S., ultimately resulting in the war, which he then proceeded to lose.

* I actually applied for a couple of instructor positions at Quantico when I retired from the Army. If I had gotten one, I would have put a big picture of Winfield Scott in my office, with "From the Halls of Montezuma" on the frame.
Reply Quote
1
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie_Journalist • 9:49a, 3/30/24
AG
Yes, the King of Battle was the decisive arm in that war. With apologies to the marines
Reply Quote
Velvet Jones
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:39p, 3/30/24
AG
It wouldn't be a history or military board post without someone saying that USMC has done absolutely nothing since 1775.
Reply Quote
2
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Velvet Jones • 1:56p, 3/30/24
AG
Didn't they win the race back to DC after Bull Run?
Reply Quote
1
BillYeoman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:37p, 3/30/24
I am huge fan of the Mexican-American War

I read somewhere that the U.S. Army had the highest desertion rate than any other war in which they were involved.

I know about the San Patricios but anyone have info on others who deserted?
Reply Quote
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BillYeoman • 5:27p, 3/30/24
AG
Civil War by both sides had a higher percentage of deserters than the Mexican War.

In both wars immigrants were the most likely deserters. The San Patricios being the most famous of the Mexican War.

Pretty sure Vietnam beats Mexico by percentage of the total armies.
Reply Quote
BrazosBendHorn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Smeghead4761 • 12:45p, 3/31/24
Smeghead4761 said:
Santa Anna was probably the worst thing to happen to Mexico in that country's unhappy history.
No argument there. btw, there was a lot more to Santa Anna than what we learned from our Texas History textbooks. What a crazy life this guy led. Should be the subject of a movie. Or better yet, a Broadway musical.

And I think it's hilarious that his prosthetic leg ended up in Illinois.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Nagler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMCane • 9:10a, 4/1/24
AG
LMCane said:
In 1871 the Prussians had an army of one million one hundred thousand.

that's only 6 years after Robert E. Lee had an army of 26,000 at Petersburg.

This is wild. Never really thought of the time frame being that close.
Reply Quote
1
LMCane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aalan94 • 9:45a, 4/1/24
aalan94 said:
Are we just going to talk Scott, or Taylor vs. Scott.

I think the army performed well considering the actual regular army was small and they had to incorporate so many volunteers. Logistics was weak, but considering we had never done anything like that ever before, it was actually impressive. Compare it to the Spanish American War, which was a logistical c.f.
we had four times as many soldiers killed from disease in Cuba and the Phillipines as we did in combat deaths!
Reply Quote
jwoodmd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Nagler • 10:33a, 4/1/24
Nagler said:
LMCane said:
In 1871 the Prussians had an army of one million one hundred thousand.

that's only 6 years after Robert E. Lee had an army of 26,000 at Petersburg.

This is wild. Never really thought of the time frame being that close.
False comparison. The Union Army had close to one million at peak and the Confederate Army had close to 700,000 at peak earlier in the war. That 26k was a single army group of Lee's at the end of the war.
Reply Quote
13
1 edit
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jwoodmd • 10:52a, 4/1/24
jwoodmd said:
Nagler said:
LMCane said:
In 1871 the Prussians had an army of one million one hundred thousand.

that's only 6 years after Robert E. Lee had an army of 26,000 at Petersburg.

This is wild. Never really thought of the time frame being that close.
False comparison. The Union Army had close to one million at peak and the Confederate Army had close to 700,000 at peak earlier in the war. That 26k was a single army group of Lee's at the end of the war.
Excellent point. And wasn't Prussia's population about 2x that of the North at that time? If so, then the size of the Union Army is more impressive on a per capita basis.
Reply Quote
5
Nagler
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jwoodmd • 11:32a, 4/1/24
AG
jwoodmd said:
Nagler said:
LMCane said:
In 1871 the Prussians had an army of one million one hundred thousand.

that's only 6 years after Robert E. Lee had an army of 26,000 at Petersburg.

This is wild. Never really thought of the time frame being that close.
False comparison. The Union Army had close to one million at peak and the Confederate Army had close to 700,000 at peak earlier in the war. That 26k was a single army group of Lee's at the end of the war.

I understand that. I guess I should have said more to the fact that Prussia always seems like a World War 1 era army/country in my mind and to think that they were that close to the Civil War is weird to me. I've read about the Prussian Franco war and know it was in the 1870's but it never really dawned on me that it was 5 years after the Civil War. Dumb just never thought about it.
Reply Quote
1
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMCane • 3:39a, 4/2/24
LMCane said:
aalan94 said:
Are we just going to talk Scott, or Taylor vs. Scott.

I think the army performed well considering the actual regular army was small and they had to incorporate so many volunteers. Logistics was weak, but considering we had never done anything like that ever before, it was actually impressive. Compare it to the Spanish American War, which was a logistical c.f.
we had four times as many soldiers killed from disease in Cuba and the Phillipines as we did in combat deaths!
This was, historically speaking, normal. WWI was the first war where combat deaths exceeded those caused by disease.

And Cuba and the Philippines are, well, tropical, and tropical areas are just nasty in terms of disease. Even in WWII, disease was a huge problem in the South Pacific (Solomons, New Guinea, Philippines) where the numbers of servicemen medically evacuated, or at least removed from service for some period of time, was extremely large. Disease was much less of a problem in Europe, although malaria did cause problems in some parts of Italy.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
laavispa
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Smeghead4761 • 12:27p, 4/4/24

John Eisenhower in his biograph of Scott relates the following:

When Santa Ann was removed after the fall of Mexico City, Gen Scott was asked to become the 'dictator of Mexico' by the power elite of Mexico to allow "politicians and agitators to recover pacific habits and learn to govern themselves "(Eisenhower, Agent of Destiny, The life and times of General Winfield Scott 308)
Reply Quote
1
RGV AG
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to laavispa • 1:38p, 4/4/24
AG
It is an interesting "war" for sure. Although I grew up there it was not something that ever pulled my keen interest in digging into, I now wish I would have paid more attention to it. From the Mexican perspective the US was somewhat reviled as an oppressive enemy, but during the left leaning 20's-60's a slant that was bandied about and taught in Mexico is that Mexico lost that war, or suffered the ignominious defeat it did, as much due to internal Mexican strife, greed, corruption as it did to US Military prowess.

Some of the still leading Mexican families, and their fortunes, have their root in that war as many Mexicans became very wealthy by trading with the US Armies and government and or taking advantage of the Mexican defeat. Hell, Santa Anna even sold beef to the US Army as it went through Veracruz.

Several bodies of Mexican troops were held out of the fray as defeat was all but conceded early on and the internal players wanted to be in a position of strength to assume as much power after the Mexican defeat as they could.

As you mention there was a contingent that hoped for a protracted US occupation and governance and there were international interests that fell on both sides, some wanted the US out of Mex as quickly as possible and others that wanted a lasting US presence.

As much as that contributed to the US historical catch all "Manifest Destiny" it also contributed to internal Mexican shame and historically shifting blame. Also the war sewed the seeds of increased decades long political disarray and showed the rest of the world the dysfunction that was Mexico.
Reply Quote
1
jwoodmd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RGV AG • 2:00p, 4/4/24
RGV AG said:
It is an interesting "war" for sure. Although I grew up there it was not something that ever pulled my keen interest in digging into, I now wish I would have paid more attention to it. From the Mexican perspective the US was somewhat reviled as an oppressive enemy, but during the left leaning 20's-60's a slant that was bandied about and taught in Mexico is that Mexico lost that war, or suffered the ignominious defeat it did, as much due to internal Mexican strife, greed, corruption as it did to US Military prowess.

Some of the still leading Mexican families, and their fortunes, have their root in that war as many Mexicans became very wealthy by trading with the US Armies and government and or taking advantage of the Mexican defeat. Hell, Santa Anna even sold beef to the US Army as it went through Veracruz.

Several bodies of Mexican troops were held out of the fray as defeat was all but conceded early on and the internal players wanted to be in a position of strength to assume as much power after the Mexican defeat as they could.

As you mention there was a contingent that hoped for a protracted US occupation and governance and there were international interests that fell on both sides, some wanted the US out of Mex as quickly as possible and others that wanted a lasting US presence.

As much as that contributed to the US historical catch all "Manifest Destiny" it also contributed to internal Mexican shame and historically shifting blame. Also the war sewed the seeds of increased decades long political disarray and showed the rest of the world the dysfunction that was Mexico.
And that's why after the US got out, the French went in!
Reply Quote
4
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jwoodmd • 2:21p, 4/4/24
AG
The US was the meat between the French bread sandwich, between the Pastry War and Mexico's failure to pay the reparations extorted from them for that war.
Reply Quote
SRBS
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Nagler • 3:45p, 4/5/24
In 1863 the total strength of the Confederate army was over 400,000.
The Union forces totalled around 600,000. That a million American soldiers in 1863.
By 1865, the Yankees had around a million.
Reply Quote
James Forsyth
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:14a, 4/15/24
Abraham Lincoln once asked General (Winfield) Scott this question: "Why is it that you were once able to take Mexico City in three months with five thousand men, and we have been unable to take Richmond with one hundred thousand men?"

"I will tell you," said General Scott. "The men who took us into Mexico City are the same men who are keeping us out of Richmond." Confederate Veteran Magazine, September 1913, page 471.

Probably apocryphal, but an interesting idea nonetheless.

Reply Quote
2
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.