TheAztecJoin Date: 2010-07-12
Post Count: 2011 |
It's lovely how has this battle been hijacked by Hollywood and glorified people who at the time weren't even fighting for the United States.
Texas, as you may or may not know was an independent nation for 9 years, and fought against the Mexicans at The Alamo on its own without much significant support from the US.
Also, General Santa Anna's character has been distorted from reality as to make him look like an evil and selfish dictator. If anything, he is part of a short list of head of states who have fought enemies at the front lines in the name of his country. He, rather than staying in his country sending people to fight in the name of his government decided to fight in the very heart of the conflicts he had to participate in.
While it is crucial for a head of state to stay safe as to avoid instability back home, in my eyes this guy deserves respect for doing that.
Only if you were born in Texas, you should be proud of the 200 or less men who bravely decided to fight against a superior force. Sorry to break it to you but you cannot take pride in a victory your country didn't win. Even if Texas is part of the United States now, it was its own country when that battle was fought.
And please, don't bask yourself in pride by saying "HAHA THOSE MEXICANS HAD TO SEND 4,000 MEN JUST TO FIGHT US!".
If my memory serves me right, the American military sent over ten thousand soldiers just to fight 400 Mexican soldiers, some of them military cadets. There was an equivalent to "The Alamo" in the Mexican American war, and the United States happened to be the massive force attacking the smaller force. |
|
|
But those dastardly Mexicans wanted to abolish slavery! - Rich Texan |
|
Pwnage2mxJoin Date: 2008-12-30
Post Count: 3778 |
That whole conflict was pretty much filled with misconceptions.
By conlict I mean getting Texas. |
|
Twigs180Join Date: 2008-03-10
Post Count: 18664 |
Er....There were volunteers that came from outside Texas. Like Davy Crocket. But w/e. |
|
doggie90Join Date: 2010-11-28
Post Count: 1330 |
The Texans bravely held that thing for 13 days. It took thousands of mexicans to siege the Alamo. I believe that that is somthing to be proud of. |
|
doggie90Join Date: 2010-11-28
Post Count: 1330 |
My Great, Great, Great, Grandfather actually fought in the battle of San Jacinto now that somthing to be proud of. |
|
Zct5Join Date: 2010-08-24
Post Count: 1924 |
The Texans bravely held that thing for 13 days. It took thousands of mexicans to siege the Alamo. I believe that that is somthing to be proud of.
_______________________________
This made me LOL so hard.
LOLTEXAS. |
|
|
@Doggie:
Did you even read the darn post?
'If my memory serves me right, the American military sent over ten thousand soldiers just to fight 400 Mexican soldiers, some of them military cadets. There was an equivalent to "The Alamo" in the Mexican American war, and the United States happened to be the massive force attacking the smaller force.'
|
|
|
The Mexicans owned Texas, and let American settlers live in the region..and then the began to rebel. So, then the Mexicans has justification to fight the Texas rebels. This is a fact no one took into consideration here. |
|
TheAztecJoin Date: 2010-07-12
Post Count: 2011 |
@Doggie
The battle of San Jacinto wasn't even a battle. It was a silent assault on completely unaware Mexican forces and they were completely overwhelmed by the Texans. Their opponents did not even get the chance to fight back. |
|
Yobobo10Join Date: 2009-10-14
Post Count: 3711 |
You write very well. |
|
Person299Join Date: 2008-02-28
Post Count: 7952 |
But we own Texas now, that gave us the right to invade back then. |
|
Pwnage2mxJoin Date: 2008-12-30
Post Count: 3778 |
Lets get this straigt, there were a few americans, but mostly tejonos (I think thats how its spelt) who were defending the alamo from santa annas army. Although it was a misserable defeat. it was used as major propaganda. |
|
bigE123Join Date: 2008-10-22
Post Count: 4743 |
Person,
That did not give us the right. The U.S. itself only sent support, while the rebels were trying to take something they did not own.
Btw, updates broke most of you're admin commands. |
|
Pwnage2mxJoin Date: 2008-12-30
Post Count: 3778 |
@E
Silly updates...
FIX IT
BEFORE PEOPLE USE
THE
ORB
(DUN DUN DUUUUN) |
|
Person299Join Date: 2008-02-28
Post Count: 7952 |
I was kidding...
And you're using an old free modeled version. |
|
Boeing717Top 25 PosterJoin Date: 2008-06-08
Post Count: 70007 |
Didn't Santa Anna pretty much become a dictator after his election? I think I read that somewhere. |
|
|
Um Tg, the majority of the fighters were American in the first place. |
|
Twigs180Join Date: 2008-03-10
Post Count: 18664 |
Nope. Most were Texan Mexicans, Texans, and Native Americans. |
|
|
Texans=American Settlers or children of.
Texan-Mexicans=descendants of Mexican settlers and American Settlers, still having American blood. |
|
Twigs180Join Date: 2008-03-10
Post Count: 18664 |
Okay then, the British build the United States because most of the founders were Settlers or children of. |
|
|
There is a difference between an imperial power setting up colonies and the colonies becoming their own people and settlers from a nation cultivating a territory as a favor for another nation and then later rebeling. |
|
Twigs180Join Date: 2008-03-10
Post Count: 18664 |
Im confused here. I will admit their were Americans, but Texans and Mexicans outnumbered the Americans. |
|
|
As I agree, but essentially the Texans are virtually Americans, Texan-Mexicans are different though. |
|
Twigs180Join Date: 2008-03-10
Post Count: 18664 |
Well, in my opinion, I feel that Texas gets the glory, because even if you own the land, you should not be able to own its history. |
|