@@AngelloDelNorte Cartels only rose to power when the land of the no-so-free decided to hundredfold profit on drugs by declaring a war they could not win. Before, the stuff cost about as much to grow as tobacco and it would only be worth smugling in huge quantities. Since it became illegal it has become profitable to smuggle a few grams. So anytime you feel like calling Mexico corrupt, just remember that corruption starts in the White House ...
@@sjonnieplayfull5859 USA white house? You make it sound like Mexico would get redeem if drugs were legal or something? Mexico is too far gone in general all because of its ppl ideologies.
Really true. Not anymore. I think because of the internet kids don’t have the same imagination we did. I could sit in a room for 6 hours playing with toya and using my imagination.
@@anomalocaris3085 I like how Mexicans are reclaiming their land not by waging war but by replacing Americans with Hispanics. It does put a smile in my face. They had it coming for a while now.
Yep, bit of historical revisionism going on here...Manifest Destiny and racism at its best. Texas was a part of Mexico - which their government had allowed to be settled by Anglos. Never give an American a centimetre or he'll take a kilometre (and won't know what you're talking about because they're the only ones still using Imperial...😂)
Around 1836, the Mexican province of Texas, was mainly inhabited by "illegal" US-American immigrants, but they took up arms against the Mexican government, when Mexico prohibited them from using slavery as a form of work, then the rebels had proposed to emancipate themselves from Mexico. To continue maintaining slavery, but General Santa Anna, then president of Mexico, did not allow them, Texas was Mexican territory, he had no right to separate. The president of Mexico defended the integrity of the Mexican national territory, from the US-American pirates who balkanized Texas, Santa Anna's army was a poor army in resources and weapons, it was not like Hollywood that shows it as an overly powerful invading army, the Mexicans were in their territory, the invaders were the "US-Americans". So an armed conflict began between both parties that led to the secession of Texas. That's the truth, why don't they tell it?
@Tyler Hodges before the US entered the first world war, Germany had sent out the "Zimmerman" telegram to Mexico to secretly form a pact and attack the US before they entering the war ( super scummy) but Mexico declined.
@@anomalocaris3085 and Mexico let Americans populate Texas as a human shield against the Comanche. Once the Americans cleared it out and held it down, Mexico came back in and tried claiming as theirs. Read a book Hefe.
@@anomalocaris3085 the Comanche destroyed mexican missions and ranches, the Mexicans left Texas and New Mexico because they couldn't deal with the Comanche. Americans came, defeated the Comanche then Mexico wanted the land again. No sir, we didn't steal it we conquered it when Mexico couldn't.
Back when Mexico was patriotic, and tho they might have lost a few wars and struggle with the war on drugs I salute those brave Mexican soldiers who try there best to protect it's community
@UC6K6piJljWRoa0iM54aJTwg … he’s talking about modern Mexican soldiers trying to protect their community from drug lords. How about you try not to sound like a jagoff.
@@bnsf9814 You always hear the ten percent that shout loud, but remember: even when Trump's besties stormed the Capitol, more then 99% of all Americans were minding their own bussiness. Next time some moron calls you names, there were hundreds that day that did not. Have a good day
@@manuelzaragoza5010 They stopped using the Marines and army after the National Guard was formed. The Navy (Marines) is now only used in the most important missions which are the final capture of drug Lords.
@@kennethbedwell5188 - It wasn't the US army. They were a bunch of Texan civilians who took up arms in a local rebellion against the Mexican government, so most of them just wore their regular civilian clothing....although I think a few of them, such as Travis, did were something at least approximating an American military uniform. But they were not fighting on behalf of the USA government. They were launching an independent local rebellion on their own collective authority....so what they actually were was "rebels" against Mexican law. The Mexicans considered them to be about the same thing as "terrorists" in today's terms. However, they won in the end, after the Battle of San Jacinto, and founded the new republic of Texas. As we all know, the winners get to decide who "the good guys" are...after the fact.
@@georgecoventry8441 I didn’t say the US army was facing the Mexicans at this time. I was talking in general at this time in the 1820’s the US was a relatively poor nation and so the equipment of the military was the cheapest.
@@kennethbedwell5188- Ah, yes, you are quite right about that. Good point. The Europeans in particular had many hundreds of years behind them when it came to outfitting their troops with fine looking uniforms and equipment, while the USA was a newcomer in that respect.
Damn it's always nice to watch those old war-movies, when they had real men acting as soldiers, not the modern CGI-BULL... Their capacity to mobilize hundreds or even thousands of men was stunning. We'll never see again movies like this one or..."Zulu" or "Waterloo" - "War and Peace" - "SPARTACUS" (just few examples)...
But they are so unrealistic. These wars were way more bloody and gruesome. This looks like a walk in the park compared to what it was really like. Espessially the way they dramatically fall when they die.
@@interestingusername1049 I agree! The Billy Bob Thornton depiction of Crockett was far mor believable, I did enjoy the Wayne version, when I saw it first when I was about ten years old.
I did not realize they had video back then. It is nice to be able to see the actual, real battle instead of needing to wonder if the battle really happened like in the movie.
The site where they filmed this is still standing, though no longer open to the public. It's called Alamo Village outside Bracketville, Texas. The site was used for many movies, tv shows, music videos, and reenactments. I went there many times as a child. So many warm memories running around pretending to be Crockett against an entire army.
And that second Alamo movie, the one Billy Bob Thornton in 2004, was filmed near Dripping Springs, TX. That site no longer exists. It was destroyed in a wild fire resulting from a lightning strike. And what was left was torn down. It also sat on private ranch land, but was never opened to the public. The folks who owned the land didn't want to take out liability insurance for anyone getting hurt going through the structures.
Interesting fact John Wayne's Alamo was built to scale of the original measurements of the real Alamo. So it puts into perspective on how much the 180 something defenders had to defend. I recommend reading blood of noble men which is a full documented account of the day bay day actions during the 13 day siege of the Alamo. The more you read it they more you realize just how hopeless their situation truly was. The documentation of the final assault on March sixth just makes it even more sad for both sides.
This wasn't invasion. Texas did belong to Mexico, and this was taken place during the Texas Revolution. Texas Revolution consisting of Americans (desiring to be annexed by the USA) and Mexicans (Federalist sympathies against the Centralist government), and they broke away from Mexico. General Santa Anna, the Commander and Chief of all of Mexico, personally led troops to crush the rebellion. The Alamo was occupied by the Texas Revolitionaries, but they weren't supposed to be there in the first place. The Texian Army commander, Sam Houston, ordered for the cannons in the Alamo to be removed. This is no invasion.
Tejas no pertenecía a México y eso no lo cuenta la SEP. Tejas dejó de ser parte de la Nueva España para 1803....Búscate el tratado Adam Onis que deja en claro que Tejas ya no era de la nueva España para 1803...los españoles la separaron y se la vendieron a gringolandia en 1819...para ese entonces México no existía sino hasta Septiembre de 1821. Iturbide en Febrero de 1821 dio la orden de tomar Tejas y esta cae en manos militares mexicanas en Diciembre de 1821 derrotando al ejercito yankee comandados por un tal James Long y en 1832 México obliga a EUA a reconocer que Tejas es ahora de México... Luego Tejas se independiza y México la invade en una reconquista por segunda vez...a poco no suena bien....México conquistador en vez del lastimero que todos ustedes defienden a capa y espada. México ganó el 90 % de todas las batallas que se dieron en Tejas y tampoco no las enseñan. La única que perdió México fue la de San Jacinto con la que pierde Tejas y no hubo derrota humillante para el ejercito mexicano...sino más bien a Santa ANNA le pasaron el cheque por debajo y se encuentra con Sam Huston y se abrazan el abrazo de la traición. Hay muchas cosas que el pueblo de México desconoce. Ningún país se salva de ser conquistado y conquistador. México conquisto militarmente tres territorios que no nos enseñan y prefieren enseñarnos una historia falsa de empinados y violados y que pobrecitos de los mexicanos. Hacen una castración ideológica.
I’d like to add that the massacre at La Bahia in Goliad contributed more to rebel sentiments and desire for independence than the Alamo. No, Mexico cannot invade its own territory, as Texas was at this time. However, let’s not forget that Mexico won its independence from Spain barely 14 years before these events. American immigrants to Texas refused to become confessing Catholics, among other grievances, and eventually the sentiments became a war cry for Texas independence.
@Jonathan Williams and I referenced the Tejanos by calling them the Federalists. There were Federalists vs Centralists. Mexican Federalists referring also to the other revolts across Mexico.
Texas era de España. Nunca jamas ningun mexicano habia entrado ni se habia establecido en Texas, no seas paria , quien habia tenido a raya a apaches y comanches y habian tratado de llevarles la religion y las costumbres civilizadas fueron los españoles, nunca los mexicanos . Unos masones españoles, por su cuenta, decidieron dar la independencia a lo que llamaban Nueva España pero sin que los mexicanos hubieran entrado en Texas ( los españoles habian hecho poco antes una matanza de "texanos hispanos" que se habian sublevado contra los españoles, en la "batalla de Medina" , nunca ningun Azteca o similar habia estado en Texas . Pero los mexicanos tuvieron lo que se merecian: el primer acto en cuanto los españoles se fueron ( porque les dio la gana a los masones del gobierno español, no los habian derrotado ni expulsado los mexicanos ni nadie) suponiendose dueños de Texas, fue "anular todos los titulos de propiedad de tierras" que habian dado los españoles en Texas...esto cabreó a los texanos, muchos de origen español o de origen anglo o norteamericano pero que se habian establecido en Texas cuando era de soberania española...y se la tenian guardada a los mexicanos: ese fue el origen de la sublevacion de los texanos contra Mexico, parece que los mexicanos se habian hecho el proposito de quitar los titulos de propiedad de tierras dados por españoles y entregar esas tierras a colonos mexicanos que pasarian desde rio Bravo: los texanos les expulsaron de mala forma igual que habian entrado de mala forma : donde mas odio de todo el planeta se tiene a España y a los españoles es en Mexico, borrego , no en Texas
Texas declared independence from Mexico just like how Mexican declared independence from Spain. So in other words when Texas became a independent nation Mexicans were invading them since it wasn't Mexico at that point. I thought someone from Spain would've know this but I guess not.
@@AngelloDelNorte In a strictly legal sense, Texas was a property of Spain until December 1836, when Spain relinquished its sovereignty over the former "Nueva España."
Actually this is mostly historically accurate. Many of the newer raised units just before the invasion were given all white uniforms. The majority of Mexican infantry wore a dark blue tunic, no infantry unit wore red but many cavalry units did.
nah bro, they were unorganized and had just fought off spain, they had barely any organization, uniform, and other things that make an army professional, it was mostly a militia. Also, the first cannon shot was by the Texans.
@@Leo7s1822Tthe units that emerged directly from the Spanish militias and the guard units did have a uniform Although yes, the rest of the army was a levy and many did not have a uniform, that depended on which region the levy came from. This of the uniforms was not really noticeable during the campaign against texas, if not in the war against the united states
@@aventuratamovil5233 Rectificación: Antes ERA España. Es decir, territorio nacional. No como los ingleses que para ellos serian colonias. Las 13 colonias que luego fueron USA con sus mismas ansias de conquista, explotación y exterminio racista.
Man this battle is actually hectic. First it had two american legends who fought in it and died in it (and i mean they were legends before this happened) and next this one single battle can be track back to be a direct cause of many things. With this battle Sam Houston is able to rally a force to defeat Santa Anna, in doing so creating the republic of Texas, then when the republic becomes an American state it tips the scales on pro slavery vs anti slavery in regards to what states are which, which leads to certain compromises which further divide the nation...but wait there is more, with its acceptance into the US this causes upset to Mexico as the US claims a vast swathe of territory west of Texas in New Mexico and California, leading to The Mexican-American war of the late 1840s, and all of this can be traced back to 186 men all dying in a run down mission, in a southern part of Texas.
David Crockett was a coward who wanted to go AWOL......true fact BTW. Just like a certain future POTUS who faked bone spurs, was a cocaine addict in the 80's, was a bankrupt failed businessman, and is a adderall addict who can't drink water with his Adolf Hitler shaky left hand.
This movie is a great comedy, it shows the Mexican soldiers, like the villains, mistreating the defenseless Texans, when in reality, the Mexicans, were only defending the territorial integrity of their country, Texas was a Mexican territory, that I remember, When the United States annex, I use Texas to maintain SLAVERY, abolished in Mexico since the time of independence. Hollywood because you don't tell the truth.
@@ConstancioRosellini5873 "This movie is a great comedy"- I suppose you can look at a representation of all those deaths as funny. You do you man. "mistreating the defenseless Texans"- Well in part they were. The campaign of Anna here was to remove all settlers of the area, illegal and legal. The new Mexican government and Anna feared the amount of white settlers brought in by the previous government would topple their control, so they set about to remove them. "Mexicans, were only defending the territorial integrity of their country,"- That is it i suppose. Why they did it and did it need to happen are not as simple. "Texas was a Mexican territory"- It was. The area itself went through many changes but it basically remained Mexican territory up until 1848. As the republic was never officially acknowledged by Mexico, so Mexico never saw it as nothing but an independent part of their country. " I use Texas to maintain SLAVERY, abolished in Mexico since the time of independence."- What? I don't understand. The slavery issue was never a big thing after it happened in the 1820's. The Alamo was 1836 and the war was 1846, so what do you mean? The only thing i would add was Mexico as a villain. Anna was a bad guy. His order for this campaign was every white settler be branded a pirate, which means they could kill as many as they wanted and whoever they wanted. Anna wasn't great and the Americans were the ones sticking up for themselves whilst their opponent was pushing them out.
Yes and also see America becoming an 'Imperialist' power by land grabbing from Mexico. Admittedly her future Imperialism is of a more covert nature but virtually every country in Latin America has suffered, and Worldwide.
@@tobyoneil1969 haha keep lying to yourself, but Santa Ana was a terrible dictator. Most of Mexico was fighting him, not only texas. My ancestor fought in the Alamo and he was Mexican. The people in the álamo were actually pissed that Santa changed the constitution of Mexico. They even had a flag with the date of the original constitution.
For those wondering, this is from the John Wayne 1950's (?) 'The Alamo'. Also starring Richard Widmark as Jim Bowie, and Laurence Harvey as Col. Travis.
Wayne filmed in 1959, released in 1960. The scenes after the ad break though, are from the 2004 version of The Alamo, which starred Billy Bob Thornton.
The Mexican army of General Antonio López de Santa Anna defended the integrity of the national territory from the US-American filibusters, who balkanized the Mexican province of Texas to maintain slavery (eliminated from Mexico) as a source of legal work, Santa Anna only went to defend the Mexican territory (Texas) and to eliminate slavery from that province.
@@antoniostark4194 well millions of mexican americans live in Texas. So you might find they fight against you because they will have a much better chance at success if they are a part of america, rather than Mexico. Besides Mexico only formed as a result of Spain being colonists. So Mexico is the same as america and how they took land, my friend.
Fun fact some of those Texans or Tejans weren't Texan, some where from Kentucky, New York, Massachusetts and other states but where declared Texas heroes. You can find their flags in the Alamo museum
Glory to the brave 19th century Mexican soldiers, who defended the territorial integrity of Mexico from the US-American pirates, who were balkanizing the Mexican province of Texas. Yes, because they were illegal immigrants who rose up against the Mexican Republic, Texas did not have the right to separate from Mexico, but the US-American pirates wanted to continue maintaining slavery, abolished in Mexico since 1810. Mexico land of racial equality.
The Mexican assault began around 3:30-4:00 am on March 6. It was pitch dark and the Mexican columns were over the north wall before the alarm was sounded. A good portion of the Texian defenders bolted from the Alamo; heading through a gate at the palisade near the chapel. An estimated 60-70 tried to flee in the direction of the Gonzales road and were run down and killed by waiting Mexican cavalry. Most of the rest were slain in brief, hand-to-hand encounters in the Long barracks and the Artillery barracks across the plaza. There is some evidence that as many as eight men did escape from the Alamo, though only one or two who were slightly wounded lived for any time.
Furthermore, it is believed Davey Crockett surrendered with a handful of other men ... who were then all put to death. In the case of it being a night assault, filming it with 1960's technology would have been difficult so I understand and accept the variation done for the film audiences' sake. Likewise, I am unsure if Mr. Wayne knew about the men who tried to escape the death trap which was the Alamo. Much of the information was discovered, or believed, later in the 20th century. All and all, I like the film despite these irregularities.
Texians did achieve a good 3-1 K/D ratio. Mexicans got to practice the their executioning and murdering before Goliad. Texans got to practice their K/D ratio before San Jacinto.
@@NotOurRemedy From most of the contemporary evidence, the majority of Mexican losses were due to friendly fire in the darkness and the confusion after the assault columns gained entry to compound. The Texians were plagued by a shortage of good powder; they didn't, with the exception of Crockett's small group, have good muskets or rifles. The majority were armed with shotguns, pistols, and long guns more suitable for hunting game. The only cannon the defenders fired were the two 12-pounders of Captain Dickenson, that were used to try and give cover to the group of defenders that were fleeing toward the Gonzales road. The first Mexican columns were ordered NOT to load their weapons, and use the bayonet. The following assault formations did load their weapons and this is where the friendly fire incidents occurred.
@@NotOurRemedy What David said. Plus the Mexicans were attacking a fortifed position. It's a given that the defenders will lose more men than the defenders. That's just how battles work. Attackers need more men to beat the defenders because they'll likely lose more men.
I love how well the 1960 version portrayed the Mexican (Santa Anna’s) Army! They would have had very bright, colorful uniforms and tactics that seemed eerily familiar to Napoleon’s, due to Santa Anna being a great admirer of his, said to demand people refer to him as “Napoleon of the West”. However, they also don’t suck the cool-aid out of the Mexicans’ junks!: Despite being a national army, they were still a bunch of poorly trained and supplied conscripted peasants fighting for a dictator that had only been in power a couple of years! I love how the battle shows the superior marksmanship of the Texians, and shows them laying waste to the Mexicans in a straight fight, only falling under weight of numbers, a costly tactic that would soon cost Santa Anna the entire war!
@@marthagomez7335 No, you’re wrong, dummy! Seriously though, all the Mexican Revolutionary War veterans were freaking dead during the Texas Revolution, man! Shortly after Mexican Independence, one warlord, President and Emperor after another took power; some of them were Revolutionary veterans, others were former loyalists! All the veterans were dead because, sooner or later, most factions were removed from power and purged. Santa Anna himself was a rare breed of rebel leader that survived the chaotic periods but all his men were conscripted peasants! The country was so broke that many of these Mexican soldiers had to wear sandals… in Texas, during the winter… when many of them were seeing snow for the first time in their lives!
@@marthagomez7335 first and foremost I'm talking about the American army not the Texans army (Texas still kicked Mexico ass though lol) Next yes we know Mexicans are "Americans" but not by name just by continent give it up with that shit is so annoying and America Is part of north America as well Next that just means the Mexican army and Santa Anna was an idiot for sleeping and underestimating the Texans Army what you call cowardly is just being smart and and using Lighting tactics to beat a numerically Superior opponent so duh that's the only way And what does me being Mexican have to do with anything? I'm American by birth and proud to be an American this country raised me along with my family and it gave me a home and a life my loyalty lies with the United States of America not Mexico I'm proud of my heritage as a American Born Mexican but not loyal to mexico also really? Gringo? Just stop it's annoying to hear that word spat out by nationalistic idiots from Mexico it makes you look like fools Viva los Americanos, viva los Estados unidos
@@samuela.botello2881 I will never be able to hide the fact that I’m Mexican. I will never be Anglo and wouldn’t want to be. If I lived in those days. I would have asked Santanna to please give me a rifle and ammo to shoot at the shameless invaders. That is why they came. To rob , kill and destroy, exactly like the evil one. El diablo. It’s there in the Bible, read it
The land of Texas was Mexican territory. The defenders of the Alamo were actually rebels, they had been given land grants by the Mexicans if they farmed the land and became Roman Catholic. Travis had been ordered by his superior Sam Houston to abandon the Alamo Mission as he knew it was indefensible. He remained at the Alamo to force the rebel army's hand, to attack General Santa Anna army, they were not ready and if their untrained army had taken the field at that time they would have been defeated by Santa Anna's Mexican Army. The Almo Mission had no strategic importance and if Jim Bowie had not been incapacitated by illness, possibly cholera, at the time he would have overruled Travis as he was vastly more experienced in military matter. Davie Crocket was a failure as a politician in the U.S. he had failed in every venture he had tried, he was an adventurer trying his last throw of the dice to become rich. The myth of his John Wayne like death was debunked years ago as a diary was found from a contemporary diary kept by a Mexican Soldier who took part saying that they had caught him and others trying to sneak out of the Misson before the final attack and they were executed by firing squad. Sam Houston was also an adventurer, a failed U.S. Politician, a drunk and a person who I would not have trusted. Jim Bowie was also not a trustworthy man , he had burnt his boats in the U.S. due to his fraudulent land speculation activities and run in with the law. The war succeed against the Mexican Government was because the General Santa Anna was incompetent and the empty promises that they had made to the Spanish speaking inhabitants that their land grants given years before by the Spanish would be honoured, that was a lie as the triumphant Texas newcomers from the U.S. took their land from them and indulged in ethnic cleansing to remove them from their land. They became a disenfranchised underclass in Texas.
All true and these facts and all facts should be in everyone's history books. Mexico is to blame too and all facts should be written. The true inhabitants were the american Indians
@@colehall2209 Whether Santa Anna was good or bad he was the leader of Mexico, the immigrants from the U.S had made a contract with that government, to become citizens , Roman Catholics , and improve the land. What they wanted was to bring the practice of slavery that they had in the U.S, the country they had left. This was unacceptable to the Mexican Government. Santa Anna ignored land grants given by the Spanish Government before Mexican independence, giving the land title to the new immigrants from the U.S was a bone of convention with Mexican land owners in the area , who fought on the behalf of the rebels in the belief that the newcomers would honour those rights, they did not after their win they forced them off the land. In addition the newcomers wanted a slave economy, to replicate the plantation society they had left behind.
It's funny when people think their intelligent when they're not. 😂 Crockett's death has not been debunked. The first thing you need to educate yourself with is to look up Susanna Dickinson, the lady depicted in every Alamo movie, read what she says about Davy Crockett, she actually knew him. Next, that De La Pena diary you're trying to reference was murdered on the street; he hated Santa Anna and it's believed he wrote that to illustrate Santa Anna's cruelty. A brain should tell you how strange it is that no one talked to that prisoner referenced as Crockett, hmmm, why would that be? Also, Americans took Texas, so? Where else would illegal Mexicans run to get away from Mexico?
Que dices wey? ?. Someone could post the same but in spanish jajaja. Anyway I only say like SpongeBob Squarepants and Patrick: who wants the dumb old Texas.
John Wayne's "The Alamo" was an exciting movie, but historical accuracy went completely out the window. For one thing, the final attack began about 3:00 am, while it was still completely dark. By the time sunrise had occurred, the fighting was over. In the confusing mele, the Mexicans probably shot as many of their own men as the Alamo's defenders did.
it's called a movie.....most historical epics are only partly factual....does it matter? I mean, if you want near 100% accuracy then go see a documentary....movies have a tight time frame, star power, marks to hit, emotion/tension to build etc etc......it was an awesome movie, a classic
@@fabianpatrizio2865 See the new one a bit more accurate and the final assault takes place at night as it did and it also show that there were Mexican inside the Alamo as defenders
@@damiansaucedo9951 The scene could still have been presented as occurring at night by placing filters over the camera lens for the "Day for Night" effect. It was a common movie practice of the day. Related to the final assault scene of "The Alamo", the Mexican Army was depicted giving the Alamo's defenders everything short of an engraved invitation in signaling their intentions. In reality, the final early morning assault was carried out with stealth; the Mexicans were almost at the Alamo's walls when they were detected by the by-now exhausted lookouts and the alarm was sounded. The confusion of the darkness slowed the attack enough to give time for the Alamo's defenders to man their defenses.
Ever notice there are typically 6 men manning the cannon in a scene? There were 18 operating cannon at the time of battle. In all probability each cannon was manned by 3 As the number defending the Alamo is reported between 180-220 using the median of 200 would indicate nearly 25% of the defenders were manning cannon leaving approximately 150 to defend the walls. This number would be lower as the hospital had many beds filled. Alamo movies show many more riflemen defenders than there actually were.
The General of the Mexican forces (Santa Anna) is the SAME guy we can thank for chewing gum. He brought Chicle from South America to New York City to try and sell it as a coating for buggy wheels. His aide thought up a better use as chewing gum. Believe or not. And that was LONG after this battle!
Interesting. But chicle es actually from the jungles of Southern Mexico and Central America. The word derives form "sicte yá" which means mouth movement in maya.
The reason why the Mexicans appeared to be outgunned at the beginning even though clearly having more men is because the Mexicans were equipped with brown bess muskets which were ineffective at longer ranges. The texians had sharpshooter rifles so they had the initial advantage.
people also forget how far away Texas and San Antonio is from Mexico (the populated part at that time) most of the Mexican troops were NOT soldiers but forced conscripts from the provinces they picked up along the way, and who did not care or want to be a part of this, just like most Texans (or whatever word you want to use) did not really support independence.
They really stood no chance. The Alamo was huge (compared to what everyone see’s today.) and even the recreated Alamo for the 2004 movie was still only about 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the original. They didn’t have the manpower and even if all of San Houston’s men had been there, they still wouldn’t have had the manpower to defend it. They were spaced so far apart (regardless of what this shows) they couldn’t cover each others firing arcs.
Gotta give props to the older Alamo movie for really showing the fort just get blown to absolute bits by the Mexican artillery, there were probably explosions going off right up to when the walls were breached.
This version of the Alamo is the most historically inaccurate movie ive ever seen, but that doesn't stop it from being totally bad ass. If you want a more historically accurate battle of the Alamo watch the 2004 movie under the title "The Alamo" it's way more historically accurate. However if you want a totally bad ass battle scene which makes you want to pull off your clothing, pull on a New Orleans's Grey's uniform and grab your Kentucky Rifle while screaming "No step in snek" please do watch on.
Whats funny about this is I live in L.A. and go to Tijuana all the time so I have a lot of Mexican Mexicans as friends. The mexican half of my family is all from Texas, so when they ask where in Mexico my Mexican side of the family is from I say Texas, then they say thats not Mexico. SO then we have to have a whole history lesson on the subject if my family is mexican or not haha
@@tacoguy764 Please explain how Mexicans are Americans. Americans are citizens of USA. Mexicans are citizens of Mexico. How can someone who is not a citizen of Mexico be Mexican?
@@tacoguy764 That is not accurate. The United States and Mexico are located in North America. America is used as a short version of the United States of America.
I remember watching this when I was little it was so intense it was the first war movie I’d seen and it was awesome. Although for 6 year old me The blood was a bit much even though it looked pink and unrealistic lol
Lol you're right, these rebel is just American (mostly) immigrant migrated into Mexican-held Texas, and then proclaimed to be independent and later annexed by USA.
I visited the Alamo last year and was surprised to hear how savage and murderess the Texans were. If the didn’t died at the Alamo they in modern times would have been charged with war crimes. Too bad some folks think they are hero’s.
Crimes to us but at the time there was no such thing. Texan frontiersman/ Texas Rangers pre annexation by the USA were some tough motherfuckers. Not motivated by money they just wanted adventure. Yes they committed many atrocities but so did the people they fought. Compared to what Comanches did while raiding it was pretty tame.
@@adrianryan5609 I meant before the USA annexed Texas. Which was done peacefully. I’m not defending the actions of anyone. It was a different time and I don’t think it’s fair to hold them to the same standard that we set for ourselves today.
Texas rose up against the Mexican Republic, balkanized by US-American immigrants to continue maintaining a system of labor based on SLAVERY, Mexico had abolished slavery since independence.
@@Dawsonguidroz8538 Ah you said almost so John Wayne saved the day but its just a shame he is not alive today to do the same in films to make America look great as the are the laughing stock of the world with Creepy Biden in control the man who likes to sniff little girls and talk dirty in their ears.
Erick of course they were it happened to b still Mexico 🇲🇽 not Texas, the Mexican army lost a lot of young soldiers which weakened Santa Ana chances to win 🤔 so n a way the texans were able to defeat him & the men at the alamo were successful n creating problems for him 😉
Glory to the brave 19th century Mexican 🇲🇽 soldiers, who defended the territorial integrity of Mexico from the US-American pirates, who were balkanizing the Mexican province of Texas. Yes, because they were illegal immigrants who rose up against the Mexican Republic, Texas did not have the right to separate from Mexico, but the US-American pirates wanted to continue maintaining slavery, abolished in Mexico since 1810. Mexico 🇲🇽 land of racial equality.
It was the same kind of arrogance you exhibit which allowed Santa Ana to split up his army before he had defeated Sam Houston's rebel forces leading to his defeat at San Jacinto. By all means, keep demeaning Americans. It has worked out so well for our enemies in the past.
Ojalá que así de elegante, equipado, preparado y organizado hubiese sido el ejército mexicano de aquella época. La realidad es que la mayoría eran campesinos analfabetos, reclutados a la fuerza por la leva sin ningún tipo de entrenamiento militar, muchos hasta descalzos andaban...
@Alexis Caselis You for real? Well that would help explain how that despite outnumbering the Americans and winning the Mexicans still lost more soldiers. Son of the Morning Star portrays Custer’s Last Stand as an epic final battle where Custer is one of the last to be killed. In reality I guarantee it wasn’t as exciting as how the film portrayed it and Custer was apparently one of the first to be killed according to various accounts.
Interesting fact. Of all the people (who's nationality/ state is known) more Britons fought at the Alamo than Texans. Britons were the single largest contingent.
The Alamo will always be a good part of history , it has heart and in a class of it's own , bold and brave were the Men that fought there and gave there lives for something so sacred to them and their country. Remember the Alamo!!!
The final assault was actually at early dawn, the Soldados formed in silence before the sun was up. The defenders had pre-loaded muskets stacked against the walls. Each gun (artillery) had two men to operate it because one of them had to hold his thumb over the vent wile sponging and ramming the round. It was a mean, bloody fight. But both sides knew what was happening, the Texanos knew that they would all be killed on the last day and they did whatever they could to kill as many of their assailants as possible, including waving white flags from the barracks and then shooting the Soldados that approached to take their surrender. But there is a very important point here. The Tejanos were fighting as Mexican citizens under the flag of the Mexican Constitution of 1824, It is likely that the defenders, except for Crockett's recently arriving contingent, spoke Spanish with each other. They did not know Texas had declared independence. That took place at Washington-on-the-Brazos far away and three days before the Alamo fell. They were fighting as Mexicans for Mexican rights against a tyrant.
One thing that we tend to forget is that these were were just regular guys no more different than you and me who were thrusted into a terribly hopeless situation. They took a calculated risk when Santana and his army appeared out of nowhere on march 23 catching them completely by supersize. They had a choice to try run away and all be rundown by the cavalry or hold up in the Alamo and try to last ass long as possible until reinforcements could arrive. They calculated wrong and they paid for it wit their lives. I'm not down playing their courage at all far from it. I'm just putting this in perspective because we can only speculate what was their thought process, because of the simple but very critically important fact is that we were not there. We do not know what it was really like, how the conditions were during the 13 days and the siege did not happen instantly as the Mexican army took several days to incurcle the Alamo, set up their camps well out or the range of the Alamo's guns, then they had to set up their siege batteries of artillery which were four of five positions which had to be place far enough away where the Alamo cannon could not just blast away at them but, they could not set the artillery so far away that the cannon balls would have no effect on the Alamo's walls, on to of that the army had to set pickets or little outpost rining around the army to protect them from any enemy forces coming to reinforce that Alamo. Travis, Bowie, Crockett, captain Dickinson, Bohnan and a few other officers were fully aware of how hopeless their situation was as they were the ones to learn of information happening well beyond Sanantonio. They kept the information to them selves and what information they did let circulate was well down played for the moral of the men. At some point Travis, Bowie, Crockett, captain Dickinson, Bohnan and a few other officers had to have come to the conclusion that nobody was coming or if any one was coming they would most likely not come in time before the final assault. When Travis finally did tell the defenders how hopeless their situation was. There were only three options, surrender and be killed, slip over the wall in the night and take their chances in the dark, or stay in the Alamo and have a fifty fifty chance of living for dieing. Non of these choice are desirable but, I like most of them would probably take the fifty fifty chance of staying in the Alamo as they were far more likely to survive in the walls. Even after Travis told the men that no one was coming many of the defenders probably believed that help was coming right up to the moment that they were being bayoneted to death. I want to restate again that I'm not down playing their courage at all far from it. I'm just putting this all in perspective as best I can
Mexico gained its independence in 1810, BUT my college professor told me that Mexico was still heavily funded by Spain for this battle against the Texans, this is why you see all those fancy uniforms and good calvary etiquette, cannons, etc. Hell they are even playing a Spanish army marching song 1:32
With all respect to your teacher, that fact does not seem to be true, since there are several details that do not fit in that narrative. Spain and Mexico had been without any kind of diplomatic relationship since the existence of the country. The King never recognized the independence of the nation and carried out several unsuccessful attempts to reconquer it, which did not stop until he died, and his wife became Queen Regent of Spain, which was when Mexico's independence were finally recognized and diplomatic relations were established. However, diplomatic relations between the two nations were always very tense, to the point that Spain supported the sending of troops to Mexico during the French invasion that would occur years later. Added to that, all of this happened a couple of months before this battle, with the revolution already underway and with Santa Anna already in the field, so it is difficult at least for that scenario that you propose to have occurred. There are several reasons behind the use of that clothing and war music, but the most important here is that Mexico, as a nation of Spanish/Western based culture and society, simply continued to keep those cultural aspects embedded in things like administration and military after its independence from the metropolis on the peninsula. Other relevant reasons would be: - The importation of Napoleonic military tactics and clothing from Spain during the war of independence, elements that many Mexican military officers sought to continue to emulate in independent Mexico. - The arrival of veteran European officers who became “unemployed” after the Napoleonic wars and traveled to Latin America during its wars of independence in search of adventure and to make a living and try their luck
Spain gave up its claim to Florida and in exchange the US gave up its claim to what is now Texas. The Spanish empire collapsed and Mexico became its own country. Mexico was having trouble with Comanche raids in what is now Texas, so they allowed people from the Louisiana Territory to come live there. Too many northerners started moving into Texas so Mexico abolished slavery and raised taxes to discourage more settlers. The Texians revolted so Mexico sent an army to reclaim its territory. This led to the Battle of the Alamo. So this was actually the theft of Mexican land. The US eventually invaded the entire southwest and California. It was totally unjust theft, but in the end we the descendants are much better off being part of the US than Mexico.
To be fair, the Texicans were in revolt against Santa Anna's regime, not out to form their own Republic when things began. They only settled on a Republic when it became clear how outmatched they were. They couldn't never beat Santa Anna's other armies so the accepted independence for their slice of Mexico instead. That is why the flag has '1824' on it - for the Mexican Constitution of 1824, which Santa Anna had cast down and the Texicans were fighting to restore. The Mexican-American War was a rather different matter. That pretty much an unjust land theft.
@@jamesdosher2057 The theft of the South West by the US was nothing more than a country with superior military power invading a neighbor. My ancestors in New Mexico revolted in Santa Fe and were captured and hung by the US military. Fast forward to 1941-1945. If the US did not exist with sufficiently large population, resources and fortitude to defend itself, the world would be a very different place, and we would probably be speaking German or Japanese!!! So even though the details on how the US was created are unsettling, we the descendants are better off. My ancestors fought and died in WWII to preserve the country we have today. I am grateful for the country we have regardless of how it came into existence. That is why I won't partake in criticizing our history. We simply don't know what the outcome would have been.... conditions in our country could easily be much worse than they are today.
The US supported the independence of Texas because it was the way that they could integrate Texas and then just a war with México and BOOM the manifest destiny is complete, it's just pure imperialism.
@@rksando1toy de acuerdo con todo lo que dijiste, menos en la parte de que hablarían aleman, porque recuerde que los que ganaron la segunda guerra mundial fue Rusia tomando Berlín
This is so badly edited it boggles the mind. When I first started watching, I thought I'd finally found the best clip ever of the last battle from John Wayne's epic. Only a few minutes into it, my hopes were dashed in realizing it couldn't be shared to my Facebook group. What a shame!
How the hell could the Mexican army "invade" the "republic of Texas" when it was part of Mexico"? What really happened was Texas was stolen from Mexico and now Americans are paying the price .A price well deserved
Thrilling, how close this is to the battles between the Germanic tribes and Rome. The societal structures of the Germanic and Romantic worlds never changed between Teutoberg and Alamo.
"Mexican army invade Republic of Texas" makes it sound as if the Mexicans were in the wrong in any way. They literally gave free land for colonists to settle. These colonists then clashed with the mexican government at least in part because *they wanted to keep their slaves*. And when the situation went bad, they declared independence and called for help from the USA. The mexican army was literally coming to protect their country from these slavers who got land for free, broke their word and rebelled, allying themselves with a foreign power. Ironic that Americans nowadays accuse latin american inmigrants of wanting free stuff and conquer the United States, since it's literally what they did not even 200 years ago. Literal american propaganda
@@palious13 It was 13 days i believe and Mexican casualties are estimated between 200-500 of an attacking force of 2000 and almost immediately afterwards the rest of the Mexican army was routed by a Tennessee militia and Santa Anna was found hiding in the grass. Never forget a hand full of men (and some women) of different ethnicity (white, Mexican and native american) came together to hold off a run down fort to secure a life for themselves and hold back a dictator bent on expanding his already large empire.
@@victoryoneable They secured the mission to act as a holding ground for Texas territory, something that itself was trying to be secured by many for a 'new life'. So yeah, they secured it for themselves, regardless of the fact they failed. Are you specifically talking about the word 'secured' and how that means it should not have failed?
used to be, Until mexico brought in Protestant american immigrants to settle in lands that were frequently raided by native american tribes. After a while the mexicans began trying to get rid of the protestant americans for various reasons, which resulted in tensions rising between the two until the Americans rebelled due to heavily increased taxation and a ban on any more protestant immigrants. Mexico fought its own short term civil war, in which the rebelling mexican faction led by Santa anna emerged victorious. the texans rebelled against santa annas government not long afterwards and won their war of independence.
Around 1836, the Mexican province of Texas, was mainly inhabited by "illegal" US-American immigrants, but they took up arms against the Mexican government, when Mexico prohibited them from using slavery as a form of work, then the rebels had proposed to emancipate themselves from Mexico. To continue maintaining slavery, but General Santa Anna, then president of Mexico, did not allow them, Texas was Mexican territory, he had no right to separate. The president of Mexico defended the integrity of the Mexican national territory, from the US-American pirates who balkanized Texas, Santa Anna's army was a poor army in resources and weapons, it was not like Hollywood that shows it as an overly powerful invading army, the Mexicans were in their territory, the invaders were the "US-Americans". So an armed conflict began between both parties that led to the secession of Texas. That's the truth, why don't they tell it?
@@andresmora5192 they dont tell it as they tell so much other BS about the US history. It would not sound so "heroic" if the dumb, average us citizen would know the truth.
It's crazy to think but the guys at the Alamo weren't so different from those Russian soldiers that rolled into Ukraine ten years ago, pulled the flag patches off their sleeves, and said "nah bro we're not russian regulars haha. We're uh, mercenaries. Yup."
@@dirtywhiteboy5674Most people don't know that these settlers were illegal immigrants and the war was sparked when the Mexican government tried to enforce border controls to keep more from coming.
@@Elitecommando501 2025 the Us breaks into 5 countries, Republica de Estados Hispanos (All West states that belonged to Mexico" The confederacy of Independent states, (Southern Usa) Union of socialist states (Middle Usa) Some join Canada marking "Kingdom of Canada" and finally, the normal Usa (what is left of it)
