Is Texas' Military Reputation Overrated?

[Tigerace117]

As a side note. Santa Anna is one of the most interesting character in history.

At various times he was a war hero, a scapegoat, a president, the man who defeated the Spanish, the man who defeated the French, the man who destroyed the Alamo, a butcher, a saint, the man who built homes for the displaced, a president again, exiled, redeemed and who had not one, but two state funerals.....

He was the original "Most interesting Man in the World".......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_López_de_Santa_Anna

Wait----- two state funerals?

 

[Tigerace117]

Showing those military chops again. A cannon doesn't have wheels although it is often mounted on them nor does it need "random ridges"

.




Who is "we"? You aren't going to be flying anything.

I'm still waiting for you to figure out that it's 2016 and cannons are irrelevant, but hey. Stick with your ****ty drawing

And yeah, if that's the best you got no wonder y'all surrendered so fast.

 

[Tigerace117]

None of that matters, or is applicable, to what exists today. There are bunch of good 'ol boys that know how to shoot very well. There is the Texas National Guard but they really wouldn't be worth much as a conventional unit vs the rest of the U.S. military.

I'm not sure what the point of the thread is, to tell the truth. Like...could Texas beat the rest of the country? What are we looking at here?

Whether the reputation that has accumulated over the years is actually deserved or not.

 

[Fledermaus]

Wait----- two state funerals?

During the fight against the French he lost a leg. That was buried with a full state funeral. The reast of him later.

 

[Tigerace117]

During the fight against the French he lost a leg. That was buried with a full state funeral. The reast of him later.

He buried his leg with a full state funeral. That's kinda weird.

 

[Fledermaus]

He buried his leg with a full state funeral. That's kinda weird.

6 time president of Mexico.

The man responsible for chewing gum coming to the US.

 

[Renae]

Texas has a bit of a reputation as a military powerhouse, thanks in large part to the brief time they spent as an independent country. But does the myth really live up to the hype.

I've been thinking about this since the secession thread, and I don't think so. Here's my case.

A. The Texans broke away from Mexico. Now, no offense to Mexicans--- they are pretty solid on the defense--- but they aren't exactly Wehrmacht caliber foes. In addition, Texas is in El Norte, and Mexico City at the time couldn't even secure the loyalties of Mexicans, much less a bunch of transplanted Yankees in a land where Mexican power projection was limited at best.

B. The Mexican commander, Santa Anna, was a buffon. He's not making anybody's top ten generals list.

C. The Mexican Army was vastly overconfident, to the point of taking a siesta mid campaign and letting the rebels annihilate them. Plus, they pissed off the Yankees with the needless brutality at the Alamo and Golidad(thanks Santa Anna!)

D. In the next big war, aka the Civil War, a grand total of three or four battles were fought on Texan soil before Texas surrendered. Hardly impressive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)

Now, I KNOW that it included some folks from Oklahoma, but my Grandfather was a 90th INF fighter in WWII.

And those Tough Ombre's kicked some serious ass all over Germany.

So, I'd say the Texans reputation for tough fighters is alive and well.

 

[Tigerace117]

6 time president of Mexico.

The man responsible for chewing gum coming to the US.

And yet, he still was a piss poor military commander.

But hey--- chewing gum :mrgreen:

 

[Tigerace117]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)

Now, I KNOW that it included some folks from Oklahoma, but my Grandfather was a 90th INF fighter in WWII.

And those Tough Ombre's kicked some serious ass all over Germany.

So, I'd say the Texans reputation for tough fighters is alive and well.

That's true, but then again, those guys had the advantage of being in one of best supplied armies of the time period, consisting a number of troops with combat experience from the first go around instead of being a brand new unit, and being under the overall command of General Patton during the Metz campaign.

 

[American]

Texas has a bit of a reputation as a military powerhouse, thanks in large part to the brief time they spent as an independent country. But does the myth really live up to the hype.

I've been thinking about this since the secession thread, and I don't think so. Here's my case.

A. The Texans broke away from Mexico. Now, no offense to Mexicans--- they are pretty solid on the defense--- but they aren't exactly Wehrmacht caliber foes. In addition, Texas is in El Norte, and Mexico City at the time couldn't even secure the loyalties of Mexicans, much less a bunch of transplanted Yankees in a land where Mexican power projection was limited at best.

B. The Mexican commander, Santa Anna, was a buffon. He's not making anybody's top ten generals list.

C. The Mexican Army was vastly overconfident, to the point of taking a siesta mid campaign and letting the rebels annihilate them. Plus, they pissed off the Yankees with the needless brutality at the Alamo and Golidad(thanks Santa Anna!)

D. In the next big war, aka the Civil War, a grand total of three or four battles were fought on Texan soil before Texas surrendered. Hardly impressive.

Chicago's role in the Civil War - Chicago Tribune

On the other hand, Chicago did quite well during the Civil War selling weapons. Yes, quite the profiteering city.

 

[SailaWay]

Texas has no conservative women in Texas?

yes conservative women are more powerful than the liberal women.. but the wars will be with MEN and most conservatives are men.. so no contest.. the federals will not have enough men and what men they have will be weaker... NO contest when conservatives secede

 

[Fledermaus]

And yet, he still was a piss poor military commander.

But hey--- chewing gum :mrgreen:

You are judging him on one incident.

A very USA centric view of the man.

If not for that debacle he might have lived up to his self-appointed title of "Napoleon of the West".

 

[longview]

You are judging him on one incident.

A very USA centric view of the man.

If not for that debacle he might have lived up to his self-appointed title of "Napoleon of the West".

He had other errors, his defense of Mexico City was bypassed by a young American Officer, Robert E. Lee.

 

[Casper]

Texas has a bit of a reputation as a military powerhouse, thanks in large part to the brief time they spent as an independent country. But does the myth really live up to the hype.

I've been thinking about this since the secession thread, and I don't think so. Here's my case.

A. The Texans broke away from Mexico. Now, no offense to Mexicans--- they are pretty solid on the defense--- but they aren't exactly Wehrmacht caliber foes. In addition, Texas is in El Norte, and Mexico City at the time couldn't even secure the loyalties of Mexicans, much less a bunch of transplanted Yankees in a land where Mexican power projection was limited at best.

B. The Mexican commander, Santa Anna, was a buffon. He's not making anybody's top ten generals list.

C. The Mexican Army was vastly overconfident, to the point of taking a siesta mid campaign and letting the rebels annihilate them. Plus, they pissed off the Yankees with the needless brutality at the Alamo and Golidad(thanks Santa Anna!)

D. In the next big war, aka the Civil War, a grand total of three or four battles were fought on Texan soil before Texas surrendered. Hardly impressive.

A. The Mexicans had a far larger Army than the Texans.

B. True but he was good enough to have won all his battles before the last battle which cost Mexico the state of Texas.

C. Correct in the Texas heat people often take the time to rest.

D. Maybe the Yankees did not come here often enough, that reflects on the Texans some how? The war was over when the surrendered, obvious.

Now that was the past, but today Texans serve in the Armed services at a higher rate than any other State, my entire platoon in basic were from Texas and the other three from the rest of the Nation. Texas has the largest US military base in the country and has several large Air Force bases along with Naval forces and depots. Texas also is one of the major producers of military equipment. So let me ask this what other State could take on Texas in a fight if they used the sources available to them? The answer is None.

 

[Fledermaus]

He had other errors, his defense of Mexico City was bypassed by a young American Officer, Robert E. Lee.

Lee... Yrp. He had a.habit of doing things like that.

 

[Chomsky]

yes conservative women are more powerful than the liberal women.. but the wars will be with MEN and most conservatives are men.. so no contest.. the federals will not have enough men and what men they have will be weaker... NO contest when conservatives secede

War? Secession? Hasn't happened, and won't ever happen - you're urinating in the wind here ...

 

[Fishking]

Whether the reputation that has accumulated over the years is actually deserved or not.

I guess that depends on who they are being compared to. Is Texas being compared California or Washington state? Texas is a big state, with a decent population, and they have a different culture from many states.

In some way they may be a little better/stronger but I think it's probably negligible.

 

[1751Texan]

Texas has a bit of a reputation as a military powerhouse, thanks in large part to the brief time they spent as an independent country. But does the myth really live up to the hype.

I've been thinking about this since the secession thread, and I don't think so. Here's my case.

A. The Texans broke away from Mexico. Now, no offense to Mexicans--- they are pretty solid on the defense--- but they aren't exactly Wehrmacht caliber foes. In addition, Texas is in El Norte, and Mexico City at the time couldn't even secure the loyalties of Mexicans, much less a bunch of transplanted Yankees in a land where Mexican power projection was limited at best.

B. The Mexican commander, Santa Anna, was a buffon. He's not making anybody's top ten generals list.

C. The Mexican Army was vastly overconfident, to the point of taking a siesta mid campaign and letting the rebels annihilate them. Plus, they pissed off the Yankees with the needless brutality at the Alamo and Golidad(thanks Santa Anna!)

D. In the next big war, aka the Civil War, a grand total of three or four battles were fought on Texan soil before Texas surrendered. Hardly impressive.

You are thinking of the SW/ Tejas y Coahuila/ and Mexico in 19th century US population terms.

From the mid-1700's to 1819...Texas and Mexico in the Southwest were very sparely populated. Migration into Texas did not begin until after 1845 when Texas could issue land grants and continued lightly until just before the Civil War...but even then Texas' population was still sparse.

 

[Oberon]

You are thinking of the SW/ Tejas y Coahuila/ and Mexico in 19th century US population terms.

From the mid-1700's to 1819...Texas and Mexico in the Southwest were very sparely populated. Migration into Texas did not begin until after 1845 when Texas could issue land grants and continued lightly until just before the Civil War...but even then Texas' population was still sparse.

A UT professor has a decent book on the subject, Let There Be Towns, that pretty much makes the Mexicans' claims and the whole 'Aztlan' nonsense on the former Spanish territories more than just a little ridiculous; there is a reason why they were desperate to attract European and American colonists to Texas. It was the only way they were going to settle it and keep it. They couldn't find many Mexicans who would be caught dead north of Tampico. Santa Anna then came along and tried to extort far more from the settlers than the original deal allowed, and the rest is history, of course. The author couldn't find more 5 or 10 thousand in the entire Spanish territories north of the Rio Grande to Oregon, and that's by counting soldiers and mission slaves. The Valley had a few, and Santa Fe of course, but they hardly considered themselves 'Mexican', they were so isolated.

 

[Tigerace117]

Chicago's role in the Civil War - Chicago Tribune

On the other hand, Chicago did quite well during the Civil War selling weapons. Yes, quite the profiteering city.

26,000 Chicagoans also fought in the Civil War, of course. Don't forget that.

 

[Tigerace117]

You are judging him on one incident.

A very USA centric view of the man.

If not for that debacle he might have lived up to his self-appointed title of "Napoleon of the West".

It was more then one incident; it was an entire campaign. He ended up costing Mexico, down the line, the entirety of the country north of the Rio Grande.

 

[Tigerace117]

A. The Mexicans had a far larger Army than the Texans.

B. True but he was good enough to have won all his battles before the last battle which cost Mexico the state of Texas.

C. Correct in the Texas heat people often take the time to rest.

D. Maybe the Yankees did not come here often enough, that reflects on the Texans some how? The war was over when the surrendered, obvious.

Now that was the past, but today Texans serve in the Armed services at a higher rate than any other State, my entire platoon in basic were from Texas and the other three from the rest of the Nation. Texas has the largest US military base in the country and has several large Air Force bases along with Naval forces and depots. Texas also is one of the major producers of military equipment. So let me ask this what other State could take on Texas in a fight if they used the sources available to them? The answer is None.

A. Large army doesn't always mean anything . History is filled with larger armies being beaten badly by much smaller ones.

B. Taking heavy casualties in order to merely seize a fortified position is hardly Cannae like, wouldn't you say?

C. There's a difference between "resting" and "letting your army completely drop its guard"

D. You never heard Virginians or South Carolinans bragging about how their state could wipe the floor with any comer. I wonder why?

 

[Tigerace117]

I guess that depends on who they are being compared to. Is Texas being compared California or Washington state? Texas is a big state, with a decent population, and they have a different culture from many states.

In some way they may be a little better/stronger but I think it's probably negligible.

I was wondering about it because during the Texas secession thread somebody claimed that as an independent state Texas would be in the top ten in the world military-wise. I was wondering why somebody would think that so I made a thread discussing it.

 

[Tigerace117]

You are thinking of the SW/ Tejas y Coahuila/ and Mexico in 19th century US population terms.

From the mid-1700's to 1819...Texas and Mexico in the Southwest were very sparely populated. Migration into Texas did not begin until after 1845 when Texas could issue land grants and continued lightly until just before the Civil War...but even then Texas' population was still sparse.

Yeah, that's true...... Not entirely sure what point it's addressing though. Maybe point A?

 

[Cryptic]

Ah. I guess the hole on the end is so it can be carried on a keychain.

Hmm.... a bottle opener? I have seen some pretty belliegerant drunks....