|
Post by quincannon on Jul 14, 2016 14:03:27 GMT
Not at all. No one could have lasted as long as he did in politics, especially Mexican politics, where a screw up was a one way ticket to a bullet pocked wall.
He was a very clever and bright man. He was a superb leader on the battlefield, especially so, since he had so little to work with in terms of quality (as in well trained and capable) soldiers.
Like the Spanish before them, the Mexicans are very much a product of a pure Spanish Blood/Roman Catholic aristocracy, and the average Mexican is not of that heritage. The church is the method of control they use over the population, and from that point of view it was about then the closest you could get to a theocracy.
Santa Anna was a product of that upper class of society, but understood without the support of both his class and the church he could not exercise control. To him, that class, and the church, rebellion of any sort would be met with the most harsh retribution. Nothing short of death would do. So it was at the Alamo, and Goliad. The Texian rebels were treated no worse than those who had rebelled in the interior of Mexico proper. That was how it was done.
Santa Anna's decision to destroy the Alamo, and Goliad, was a bad one in that it cost him time, and with that a loss of focus on the campaign as a whole. Time is a military commodity. Once lost it cannot be resupplied.
There is also a bit of underestimation of the enemy involved. Santa Anna thought that with brutality he could incite the colonists to run for the border. Most of them did. It was called in Texas the Great Runaway Scrape. He underestimated Houston though for Houston used the fear instilled, apparent inaction and retreat, and a very clever scheme of maneuver to do two things, make his (Houston's soldiers) hate and distrust him for his apparent non-action, while instilling in them a stronger will to fight because of it, and, equally as vital, spread Santa Anna thin, and away from his logistics, before Houston would give him battle, and only then on Houston's terms.
Santa Anna was very much a product of an old school, while Houston was a product of a new and emerging American school of operational maneuver.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 14, 2016 14:19:59 GMT
I wonder how much French military doctrine influenced the Mexican army, in regards to weapons, uniform, training and tactics.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 14, 2016 15:20:51 GMT
The only tangible influence exerted on the Mexican Army was the Roman Catholic Church.
Anything else was influence by accident.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 14, 2016 18:32:48 GMT
It’s just that their infantry was organised along European lines with Light infantry, line fusiliers and grenadiers. They even used French facings with the light infantry (green) and grenadier (red). Their uniforms may have looked European but their infantry muskets were exclusively British.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 14, 2016 21:10:37 GMT
More than half of them were fresh off the farm in peasant dress, and straw hat.
The only ones in the Mexican Army that were any good were the light Infantry and Zapadores, the rest were cannon fodder. Their artillery could not hit the broad side of a barn.
Their cavalry was another matter altogether, especially their Presidial companies.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jul 14, 2016 22:06:12 GMT
The theme of this thread, why do we care, should, if we think about it be called an appreciation of issues. Non appreciation of a given issue leads to an inherent fear concerning that issue. If you understand the issue that goes a long way in dispelling the fear that may surround it. When I want to understand what makes an issue tick, I often turn to the novels of Michener. If he has written on the subject at hand I find it a very good place to start on the road to getting a clearer picture. I moved to Colorado in 1991. I had read Centennial when it first came out in the mid 1970's as a celebratory piece for the Centennial State, as it approached the 100th year in the Union. Upon arrival I found myself a stranger in a strange land, not understanding the locals, local politics, and the driving factors of everyday life including race relations, conservative values, the value put on preservation, and a host of other things. I picked up Centennial again, as I have two more times since, and read it through cover to cover. From it I learned to appreciate the back story on what makes my now home tick, and how to live among these people in harmony. I did the same thing with Texas. I had long been a student of the Texas Revolution. I was as familiar with the Alamo story as I was with the story of my children's birth. I never understood Texas though, until I reread Michener, drawing on the same reasons and methods that I used in Centennial. I am from the Chesapeake Bay area, so when my mom passed away, I picked up a copy of Chesapeake from her book shelf brought it home and read it. Mind you I was raised there, but still I had never understood both Bay and Tidewater, until I sat down to read Michener. Later, although I had seen the movie many times (highly recommended) I had never fully understood the attitudes of our military in the Korean Conflict until I read Bridges of Toko Ri. We face many problems today. Most of them deal will an inherent fear, particularly people of my generation, of change. This is not the America we were born into. Why can't it be the same? Why can't successive generations adapt to me? Why must I adapt to them? These are what concerns us, the proximate cause of all the ills of our communities and country. When we learn to understand that those same concerns were present among those who came before us, only then will we learn to deal with many of those same problems today. Warfare as I have said many times on this board and others is a struggle of continuance, and we deal with it by learning from the past, and building upon that knowledge, while keeping the basic principles in place. Life is also like that, everyday life, yours and mine. Michener helps us discover a pathway to those truths. When we stop caring, we stop living. Marvelous philosophical post! Cheers x2
|
|
|
Post by mlynn on May 26, 2017 22:34:33 GMT
Since I am a new member, I am just now reading these posts and I see one reason missing. Interest in the history of Native Americans, especially the Sioux. This is the reason I initially became interested in this battle. Also, when studying the development of the West a person must start with the barriers of expansion and two, transportation and hostiles were the main issues. This battle, as you know, was just one of many conducted to eliminate the Indians. The drama of the battle itself, well publicized at the time, created heroes and villains to feed the curiosity of the public. Since history got most of it wrong, it became a puzzle (I use this word often when referring to history) and everyone loves a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on May 27, 2017 11:26:32 GMT
ML,
We have no survivors to give the Custer side of his portion of the battle. Language barriers with the NA's. Agenda driven translators. NA's afraid to tell there story for over a generation to anyone other than to other NA,s. Telling the white man what he wanted to hear, due in large part to fear. Writers with an agenda. A president even talked a writer out of telling what he learned and his opinion of those findings. Missing contributors to the RCOI, such as French and some EM,s.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 27, 2017 16:00:04 GMT
Both of you make excellent points. Very valid, and both the right reasons to care. They are among the very right reasons, and the main among them is in seeking the truth of the event.
Personally I don't care, except for the conduct of the battle itself and the lessons that can be learned for the future generations of officers, commanders and leaders of all stripes from it. To understand that battle though you must dive deep into every area you both suggest.
Others care in the same superficial way you may care about the front page story in the National Enquirer. For some, like for instance the leadership of the LBHA, the story of LBH is like People Magazine for the elderly. Custer is the Kim Kardashian of his age. They are Barbie Doll collectors, and the Barbie doll house is their mind, where the personage is more important that that which surrounds him. They reject criticism of Kim and Barbie because Kim and Barbie are the poster children of their mental adventures into hedonism. That is the wrong way to care.
The message is then for all who study, make whatever aspect of what you study worthwhile for you, but reject those whose only reason for being here is mental gratification, that when left run rampant, places layer upon layer of bull shit on top of events in an effort to hide what for them is an inconvenient truth.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on May 27, 2017 20:35:54 GMT
Those of which you speak and I have something in common, gratification, but that is another story, and best not discussed in open forum.
For far too long people have taken what suits their narrative from JST and other NA's and have disregarded the rest. The same with what I alluded to in Godfrey tells a tale. I could go on here but am afraid I will bore the Barbie and Kim fans.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 27, 2017 21:48:04 GMT
Is that not why this board was founded, that being to take the complete story of those two you mentioned and many others, and be inclusive of all they have to say.
We have our own way here of boring the Barbie and Kim fans away from our precincts, at least I suppose we must, for few show themselves, and those that do rarely tarry long enough to see next months edition.
The result is a small but dedicated group who may disagree on the temperature coffee is served, but not on the fundamental purpose of seeking the truth.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 18, 2017 14:37:54 GMT
I am currently reading "A Warrior Who Fought Custer" which is Wooden Leg's account. In the publisher's notes there is this question. "Why do people still care about this?" I am asking the same question. Why do we still care? Beth this is a late follow on, this youtube video even mentions your book selection, these guys yack a great deal but do mention the book. Why do people care. Hmmm, I read the book a number of years ago, and by the way it mostly supports JSIT.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJK0RF6ULMI&t=8115s
|
|
|
Post by mlynn on Jul 18, 2017 15:54:52 GMT
Could it be said that we still care because the Sioux are still fighting the battle of the Black Hills? They are still fighting for land rights and for their way of life. I have a friend who is married to a Sioux NA and she worked for me when I was managing a store. We had many conversations about the current Sioux concerns and situations.
Of course, this is just one little piece of why we still care about this. The basic reason we care is because there are too many unanswered questions and Americans love a mystery.
|
|