It would have made it harder for Scott to coordinate his forces if he fell for that. It would have been down to a series of bloody slug fest fire fights. The Mexicans knowing the ground would have been an advantage. With the numbers advantage it may have won them the fight. If I was Scott I would not move into the city. If I had the powder and the Mexicans tried to draw me into a city fight, I would use my guns to pummel the city and break the Mexican army (they will either withdraw, attack or disintegrate due to poor morale). The problem of sickness among Scott's troops would work in the favor of the Mexicans if the siege was stretched out. That may force Scott to attack before he got too weak.

RandolphCthulhu Yellow fever was less of a risk in central Mexico than in the coastal areas around Veracruz. The real problem was that Winfield Scott had completely abandoned his supply trains in order to prosecute this offensive into the Mexico Valley. The US would not last long at all in a protracted campaign, and bombarding the city to rubble would probably mean expending almost all their ammunition at hand. At the very least, US forces would have to withdraw away from the city to be resupplied.

Well, with him you have to keep in mind that he had to take politics into account. He was trying to keep up his "Napoleon of the West" image, meaning he'd have to be triumphant over the enemies. Retreating into a city, engaging in urban warfare, having half the city damaged, may have been too much of a political gamble on his part.

What a tragedy in human and cultural terms that would have been. The Historic center of Mexico City is one of the richest and most beautiful examples of grand European architecture in the Western Hemisphere. The Spaniards destroyed almost all the native structures there already, losing what they built on top would have been another huge cultural loss.

+Yasmine Nasser Well, he was mot a good general. So many bad decisions.. Against Scott's so many good decisions

Il Postino That song is of Celia Cruz... dummy.

😂😂😂

yes and better training and moral the mexican soldiers were mostly poor peasants demoralized and poorly trained poorly fed poorly equipped .

we had poor quality gun powder... imagine going to war with a gun that sometimes fire and other not

@@aibraulio9253 that's pretty normal for all armies at the time, so not really an excuse

The Mexican army was poorly armed and outgunned. Plus Mexican commanders were not anxious to sacrifice the troops under their command as political power and influence after the war was based in part by the loyalty of the troops loyal to you. The army was truly betrayed by poor leadership. The writings of American soldiers after the war tell the story of the bravery and courage the Mexican soldier displayed.

da verguenza como mexicano que el batallon de san patricio que eras nativos y descendientes de irlanda fueran una de las fuerzas mas efectivas de mexico .

Jajajaja, what's your non biased source, if you got one. MX is a smart and proud country and holds identity dear, where US does not. Assuming, MX never ever wouldn't have gone to war under armed, they are too smart.

Hello, what do you need to know? I live here ... Can you imagine the places where the Artillery and Mexican cavalry fired while waiting at the house of Los Morales and they did not go to fight? Walking through those places with a map of the battle in your hands is a great thing. google translator, sorry my english

You flag your lack of smarts. That war of almost 400 years ago has nothing to do how certain parts of MX may look now. Why not just warn tourists to be careful of the high crime in certain parts there and for that matter anywhere in the world now. Most Americans who live in these beautiful beach homes in MX don't care about outside influence, they have a stress free life and live very happy there on half or less of their SS checks, that's smart. Salud ; )

He also introduced chewing gum to the use

lol.. true the san patricios were an effective fighting force .

But what did that fool gain by losing on purpose? I do not know, I only know that rulers to date dare to say that they love and defend the people and the land that behind their backs they betray

Name one non biased source my friend, you can't. MX sees it their way, U.S. sees it theirs too. Classic example of Republicans vs Democrats, never could compromise on anything, each side holds each own lie.

rnestor1195 Maybe mexico couldnt stand the cultural an well as the economic pressure by the united states. Mexicans being the low wage workers, like slaves without chains. In addition the monroe doctrine, and see what the US did to cuba, trying to roll over the government and the trade blockade for 50 years and other bad decisions. I think mexico never had a serious chance to go their own way.

They didn't do that because they didn't wanted to be responsable of more people, and because they were racist assholes.

Then the country south of Mexico would basically be the "new Mexico". The U.S. was probably right to determine that they should leave Mexico intact with all its internal issues out of the U.S. when the logistics of war and communication took so much more time and effort. They took the best part of claimed land and left the worst parts to fend for themselves after defeating them and withdrawing out with a treaty.

How can you make, and SUPPORT that judgement?? You're an ASS. YOUR statement proves it.

James k. polk wanted to annex to all Mexico but the congress of the United States did not approve it because they wanted the United States to remain a country of Whites and for them Mexicans were "Indians".

IsSidMad for real. The narrator is boooring

I guess that's why we love the Mongols and Conquistadors so much

+Muralidhar reddy Yeah, too bad there are absolutely no Mexicans left, after this war, to write their history.

Accused of Drinkos Pee Pee Did the mongols write down their story? Latin america and parts of south america still talk spanish, brazil talk portugues.

@Edgar - Correct! That attack on the right flank, new troops, trained troops, morale, fighting skill, leaders who knew how to fight ... all that and the right flank! You nailed it!

If you're claiming if they have actually had some sense of tactics they might have had a chance instead of losing battle after battle. Well, you might be on to something.

I wondered the same. Crumble the artillery, and raid the US' camp. I think Santa Anna was just being as stupid as usual, playing so defensively even when he outnumbered the US 2 to 1. Or he could have fought a war of attrition rather than on the field since disease and dirty water was harming the US. Honestly as a Hispanic this battle is just an embarrassment.

My house is dark and my pots are cold. 😂

Ab

Are you a Latin American?

Bran Espin yep

nico nico nii :v Hola papu :D ¿cómo estás prrro :v?

lemon fish they won against french. They won against Spainsh, they won against Guatemala.

@@machinacheater7725 they won agaist usa two

@alyssa lemus you hate America so much,it's made you delusional.

@dark shadow you "won" against the french,with a whole lot of American help.

@@machinacheater7725 the french won all battles except puebla the french left because the union won the civil war in the united states but they occupied most of mexico .

Aidan Christy sadly, but not surprisingly, yes

Sundae Icecream why sadly? The territory that Mexico lost in the war is better off now. Not to mention the situation tons of Americans were moving west little to no Mexicans were moving north to live in the "mexican land" that is now the south west. This war was fought well and won well.

Santa Ana did it

@@antiochusiiithegreat7721 mexico won rhe war

@@alyssalemus4462 Lol how did they win this?

well mostly of the moral lose is cuz we had bad gun powder to fire

Yes, well, any exploited country like the USA could beat a country that was devastated by its independence struggle (which by the way, they fought alone without the help of France and Spain like the USA), due to their instability and government incompetence. And using poor quality old weapons. Still we made them cry in Buenavista, Padierna, Tabasco and BC.

I LOVE YOU NIIIICO!

nico nico nii :v Be my girlfriend, please respond

no

Der Volksfreund Yes because the territory sold would of been much better if Mexico kept them right? It would've led to war eventually many Americans were moving west and almost no Mexicans moving north. The California republic already wanted to leave Mexico and join America.

Do you honestly try to justify invasion by saying the lands would be used better by the invader?

@@antiochusiiithegreat7721 The "Republic of California" was only proclaimed by 30 Americans locked in the government palace of the capital of Alta California. That independence was never consummated or had legal status by the two countries, it was annexed to the United States because the United States in that year he had already won the war and entered Mexico City, where the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty had already been signed. That can not be called Independence because only 30 Americans wanted independence but not the rest of the Mexicans who defended cities like the Angeles of the American army.

30 Americans were not even 1% of the total population of the territory of Alta California, the only state that did have an independence and could really call it "independence" was Texas because most of the Texan population that was American origin, they were thousands who wanted Independence, in Alta California only a small group of rebellious Americans.

@@MatthewMcVeagh the land never belonged to the Mexicans and they didn't even settle the land if the territory that was bought belonged to anyone it would be the Indians they are the rightful owners so I dont know why Mexicans get all butthurt over the Mexican American war when land they basically conquered was taken from them its basically like them saying I stole it first lol

A Free North American Union is the way of the future. Mexicans and hillbillies cant fight over land and law if they're shared. Plus why do you Believe Peter Magro is Mexican?

I'm not Mexican. You can be certain we have less criminals where I live than in USA

Well, I'm an American of Mexican heritage, and a vet. 1. Mexico is a failed state, my parents didn't risk their lives to come to a country they hate(Yes, my parents were ILLEGAL immigrants) but they understood that they must choose between what society they would choos. 2. The Mexicans north of the border become American, and their loyalties should be for the United States. Plain and simple, none of this "reconquista" bullshit. If you hate the states so much, go back to Latin America. . And no, no fucking hillbilly will kick me out of my country because they want to go back to the "good ole days where the white people were in charge".

Jonathan Williams I'm pretty sure it's not just about the law

not likely plus there are millions of Mexican Americans who are loyal to the u.s I promise you that it will be bloodshed on both sides Mexican Americans vs Mexican Americans plus you got to remember that most Mexicans in America are mix with different races or different nationalities.

RoyalistCavalier You really believe your shit, do you...?

lol, No. You libtard

Mylionking maybe not mexico

damn just wondering why not mexico? i mean we are the 14 largest economy and we have tons of natural resources

And which laws would we follow? Should Americans start obeying Mexican law? Cause that sounds like mental illness to me.