The situation was not favorable for Mexico. And although they could establish a European monarchy, we resisted and we could take them out and re-establish the republic.
it was in this war that there was the battle of Camerone, where 63 French soldiers fought against 2000 Mexican soldiers, after several hours of combat the French were only 4, they had out of ammunition and were exhausted but still had the strength to take their bayonets and charge the Mexicans to the death. A Mexican officer stopped them and asked them to surrender, the last 4 Frenchmen agreed to surrender only on condition that they keep their weapons and that the Mexicans treat the wounded, the Mexican officer told them "we refuse nothing to men like you"
French had the powder and lost , Mexico fought with there souls and heart and beat the them , so what does your comment matter Mexico is free and win !!! With all y’all po ser and weapons 🎉😂
@@lindahernandez6360 "they fought with their souls" and they negotiated with the last 4 french soldiers alive so much they had beaten them to 63vs2000 😂
The French won the second Battle of Puebla in 17 May 1863 and advanced to Mexico City . But this Battle was both a crucial morale boost and demonstrated Mexican resolve to stand against the French.
Christian Navarro Mexicans have never been good at warfare, this wasn’t even half the French army and Mexico still pretty much lost the French was able to take Mexico City
As a historical account, Mexico was never fully occupied by the French army. In fact, the guerrilla war exhausted the French army, which had other defeats in addition to Cinco de Mayo such as Santa Gertrudis, La Carbonera and Miahuatlán among others, so Mexico was not a piece of cake for the French army...
@Monster Hunter The mexican republicans Saw the confederates as "slavery Empire and Bad nation" Juárez and Lincoln were close, and the french Empire support the CSA, Even the one of the generals and politicians of here "Santiago Vidaurri" tried to ally with the CSA and mix both wars, It didnt happen but maybe in an alternative war scenario Mexico and USA would fight toogether aganist french army and confederates. In 1864 and 1865 the french army and conservatives startted to losse the war because the guerrillas caused a lack of war supplies and the war fronts were stopped, it wasnt easy for the french advance to the North of Mexico it was a desert, the french army maybe controlled the cities and capital but they didnt get control over rutes, roads and rural zones and this make it complicated for them get supplies, the french decided to leave for the reasons. 1.- the end of american civil war 2.- the future war aganist Prussia 3.- the front in Mexico was paralyzed
@@davidwen9699 Hmmmm...not at all. France went there for the beautiful eyes of empress Eugénie who influenced Emperor Napoléon III to get French army help a austrian prince to become Emperor of Mexico. France didn't had much interest there...and Northern America was in a war which still has sequels nowadays...And the French, like much of the europeans didn't care much about it, they just wanted cotton. The french allowed CSN privateers to supply in France, and there was some kind of sympathy about the South, but invited americans to fight outside Cherbourg in 1864, between CSN Alabama and USN Kearsage, to point out the fact that France was neutral in this war. Prince de Polignac fought with the South while the Prince d'Orléans fought with the US army (ironically!)...
@@gringologie9302 Lincon had a gun block to Mexico during the american civil war because he was in war with confederates and wanted to use those guns for their own war, America sold guns to México just at the end of the war in 1866, those guns were used in the "sitio de Querétaro" btw.
three facts stoped the French to hold Mexico during their invation: 1.- the fierce resistance from the republican mexicans that ambushed their supply lines all over the territory, french arms were superior in open field but in the guerila warfare was another story. 2.- in the USA the Union (who suported the republican Mexicans) won over the confederacy (who suported the french) this created lots of pressure against the invaders. 3.- the Prussian army began to threaten the french borders, this gave Napoleon III no other option than retreating his troops.
@@ChanceKearns then Prussian won the war and made French pissed until ww1. British empire fabricated telegram about Germany promise Mexico to return stolen territories that they lost to USA. And France held the big huge grudge against Germany due of Franco-Prussia war
Cesar LOPEZ VILLALOBOS porque los franceses se marcharon dejando a Maximiliano como emperador, pero el era demasiado liberal y al final no siguió lo que le decía el imperio de Francia, igual y Francia iba a terminar vendiendo mexico a Estados Unidos como Luisina o se negociaría la independencia de forma diplomática, en esos años Francia ocupó mucho más países y estos le compraron su libertad
@@francohernandez3801 En realidad fueron dos invasiones de parte de EUA contra México. La primera del 46-47 y posteriormente del 47-48. Podría parecer la misma guerra pero la primera se dió por el norte directamente, la cual ganó México, concluyendo está invasión en la batalla de la Angostura. Posteriormente la segunda invasión del 47-48 fue por el este atravez del puerto de Veracruz y en contraste con la anterior donde el ejército estadunidense estaba compuesto entre milicias voluntarias y regulares, en la segunda invasión EUA uso una fuerza expedicionaria de regulares bien equipada y preparada, la cual mediante una campaña ráfaga logró capturar la Ciudad de México. Un factor importe para el éxito de la invasión fue la descoordinacion entre algunos mandos del ejército mexicano, ya que el presidente Santa Ana en un momento definitivo de la invasión abandono a un general con el que tenía rivalidades en un momento criticó de la batalla. Por otra parte se puede señalar el problema del sistema de abastecimiento, el cual estába mal organizado, esto se ve en la batalla de Churubusco donde el congreso le envío al general Anaya calibres que no correspondían. Por último un mal sistema de saneamiento, pues de este se encargaron mujeres voluntarias y no profesionales del ejército. Estados Unidos si tenía un buen sistema de abastecimiento y saneamiento pagado y mandos con un sólo objetivo. Por lo que puede ver para México no fue compensatoria la victoria en la batalla de Puebla, pues muchos factores hubo alrededor de las invasiones por parte de Estados Unidos, es más, se puede conciderar la victoria contra el imperio de Maximiliano apoyado por el imperio francés de mayor éxito, pues se venció a una fuerza invasora tras una guerra civil, la cual estába conformada por varios de los mejores soldados del mundo, como los suavos y la legión extranjera.
@@stefan_last_commando Es erróneo hablar de "dos guerras" contra EUA; se trató de dos CAMPAÑAS de la MISMA GUERRA. Ninguna de ellas la "ganó" México; la Angostura se resolvió con lo que podría llamarse una cuasi-victoria táctica mexicana muy costosa (frenó el avance del Gral. Taylor), pero victoria estratégica del ejército invasor que retuvo su posición y Santa Anna debió retirarse por falta de suministros básicos y temor a una insurrección en la capital. Más allá del desorden de abastecimiento y saneamiento, México sufría un escandaloso desorden político y muchos estados se negaron a aportar tropas. La Batalla de Puebla NO se libró contra el Imperio de Maximiliano, pues éste se instauró solo tras la victoria de la expedición militar francesa. La caída del Imperio ocurrió cuando Francia retiró sus soldados y dejó a Maximiliano en desventaja militar contra el ejército juarista, más grande y pertrechado por EUA.
@@danrooc probablemente no me explique bien, pero efectivamente dos campañas del 46 al 47 y del 47 al 48. Y efectivamente el desastre internó político se vio evidente al no poder organizar un ejército efectivamente. Más en relación con la batalla de la Angostura lo concidere como una victoria, pues se logró evitar el objetivo de una de las partes que era la invasión del territorio en esa campaña. Ahora hago referencia a la victoria contra el imperio de Maximiliano, porque la victoria en la batalla de Puebla no fue el final de la intervención, sino que está finalizó tras la caída del imperio de Maximiliano como hace referencia. Y el hecho de que México halla sido capaz de de rechazar una ocupación tras una costosa victoria como la de Puebla, y tras una derrota en esta misma y la perdida de la capital, además de haber pasado anteriormente una guerra civil es algo de gran mérito.
@@__mindflayer__ To be fair you are out of your mind, what you are saying is the equivalent of saying that the US in Afghanistan were fighting farmers with pitchfork. Farmers yes, but with actual weapons, not pitchfork. Go back to school and you'll get the chance to learn that it was the Mexican army... With canons and rifles. You don't destroy a damn fort with pitchfork. 🤣
@@__mindflayer__ and even if "most" of them had pitchfork, you realize that it took only 61 Mexicans with guns to outnumber the French? On 2000-3000 Mexicans I'm pretty sure at least 200 of them had guns
The french had never fought people that used machetes instead of bayonets...They where impressed by the Mexicans so much ,that they understood the bravery of instead of firing they preferred to fight hand to hand ,and face to face..
Brave men against brave men. Mexicans were men of honor, they spared the lives of the survivors of camerone. Even with this war you stay in our hearts our catholic brothers 🇲🇽🇫🇷
@@ardugaleen2231 Mexico was not fighting the French alone , Mexico had volunteers from other countries like for example from Spain, and neighboring countries like Guatemala .... They all where fighting for the liberty of Mexico .
@@etsonguerra4252 That's interesting, I thought it was our people alone against Europe, can you tell me where you saw that information? I want to read more about it.
Lol I like how people wrote down these comments saying that the mexicans defeated the french which is true but the battle in this vid shows the exact opposite lol
@@NOPAINTHERULER.v2 I did, your point? I'm saying that these days war isn't as common as it used to be and if there ever is another war I believe it'll be little combat and more of a technology leaning "war".
My Mexican American wife & one of my grandmothers were born with patently French last names. The legacy of the French endures it seems. Yes, we eat refríed beans in side of a croissant and French toast with huevos rancheros! (Okay, not generally together!)
Are you saying that your Mexican and your Mexican wife are of partial French ancestry. Or that your French and your wife also has partial French roots.
@Stickman Mexicans don't have portuguese bloodlines btw. That's only Brazilians. My name is Jorge Louis Esquivel and im Mexican. French last names are more common than you think among Mexicans. the remnants of our french/spanish ancestors
@@Leo7s1822 Yeah aswell as Ashkenazi jews. Alotta Mexicans have atleast 5-10% jew in them. Ive seen plenty of videos on DNA tests. Mexico is just one big orgy of mixed races lol
Not at all. Europeans invaded countries all over the world, Just France put their armies as far as South Asia. All África and the Middle East were under French control. In Nort America half of Canadá was French colony, same with the Louisiana in the USA, Haití in the Caribbean. Still today, France have some territories in the Caribbean and South America (Goadalupe Island and Guyana). They try to conquer México because USA was distracted by a civil war, but that didn't last long.
During the war with France, the Mexican army continued to use old english brown bess rifles, light artillery such as mortars and 8-pounders were melted down in Mexico, the 12-pounder heavy artillery was still old colonial gribeauval guns. It was not until the end of the American Civil War that the Mexican guerrilla began to be supplied with modern weapons such as the Springfield 1861 and at the end of the war with Henry 1866 rifles
I've hear that in this battle the french used colonial troops armed with melee weapons,they were repelled by Mexican natives with machetes. I'm not sure tho
This is the content I’m here for. A lesser known war and a film I’d never normally see. However it’d be so much if you included things like : The name of the film, the year the film is set in and the conflict it shows, and the battle(s) that it shows. This will enable people to do their own reading around what they see and learn more about it. Also, it would be really great if you could get some substitles.
Ashley Borges for the record, the British name of the film is ‘The Battle, it’s set in 1862 and marks the start of France’s attempt to subdue and make mexico part of the french empire with help from mexican royalists....the film focuses on the First Battle of Puebla
En esta guerra el gobierno de la república mexicana se enfrentó no solo al ejército francés sino a soldados de Bélgica,Austria,Argelia, mexicanos monarquicos y a la legión extranjera
Good scene but accurate only for the early 19th century warfare. At that time a Minié munition could pierce 3 body aligned at 50 meter and still be lethal. So the two side are too close
Did you know that this particular battle was the first defeat the French suffered in more than 50 years. Infact, the last battle they had lost was the battle of waterloo. This battle was so devastating to French moral that its general, the Comte de Lorencez, went mad and was subsequently replaced by a more experienced one that helped lead the fall of Puebla the second time. It was also the battle that helped shield North America from French imperialism and began an area of mild collaboration to kick out European powers with the U.S. from this continent.
Lorencez never went mad. Although in disgrace, he was made Grand Officier de la Légion d'Honneur in 1866. Later on he was inspector general from 1864-1870 and was put in charge of a garrison in Toulouse at the begining of the Franco Prussian war.
@@danrooc Hi there! Very true. Thanks for that info. Though you have to understand I meant to put mad as a way to describe him not being able to recuperate from the devastating loss. According to his own accounts. The fact that he thought the Mexican people where an inferior race only added to his once superior imperialistic ideology. That particular battle greatly influenced his performance in his later war with Prussia as he and Napoleon the III were eventually captured.
@@mazapan383 Hello! You're welcome. I agree, Lorencez bolstered himself too much and too soon. If not turned mad, he was utterly humilliated by his own words. Napoleon III himself wanted him out of command immediately. Though, the term "race" was current back then, commonly used to what we would call today 'people' or 'nationality'. Greetings.
@@danrooc You know in Spanish, particularly Mexican, race or Raza is still used to describe a people or nationality, it is a very interesting thing. To know the french viewed it as such back in their imperialistic era is truly fascinating. Thank you! God Bless!
@@mazapan383 Yep. It's not too long ago since the term was commonly used. In some speeches Churchill referred his nation as the "British race"; no problem. After XXth century eugenics and WW2 the term turned 'politically incorrect'. Rather than politically, Lorencez was militarily incorrect. God bless you too my friend.
México debería aprender de su gloria pasada, volver a ser fuerte y echar al mal gobierno PRIANISTA y a quien fuere que no se comporte a la altura del Pueblo Mexicano fuera
Le second empire avec Napoléon 3 , neveu de Napoléon premier n’est pas connu aux yeux du monde même en France et pourtant c’est peut être à cette période que la France était la plus puissante. Elle mérite d’être connu ! Vive la France 🇫🇷
When Mexico refused to repay their loans, France, the United Kingdom, and Spain got angry at Mexico for not repaying their loans. France, however, had the deepest grievances. The Battle of Puebla is of more significance to the United States of America than many people realize. At that time, the Civil War was at its height, and Union forces were stretched to their limits. France, under Napoleon III, wanted to support the Confederacy, in an attempt to tear the United States apart by possibly reclaiming the Louisiana Territory. The Battle of Puebla, however, changed all that. By the time the French was able to send more troops, the Battle of Gettysburg had broken the back of the Confederacy, thereby showing the French that the Confederates were in no position to be the kind of trading partners that they and other imperialist governments in Europe were looking for. Once the Civil War ended, Lincoln and Johnson openly sent aid to the Mexican troops, thus putting the kibosh on the arrogant Louis Napoleon's schemes once and for all.
The reason Mexico refused to pay the loan was due to the fact it was with interest and it was compounded as the total amount every single Mexican govt has owned . They played both sides the liberals and the conservatives for years and when the fighting was over gave them the bill for all parties involved.
The U.S. sent more than aid, U.S. troops were rushed to the Mexican border as well. This sent a clear message that if the French wanted to try to persist in their efforts, American forces were prepared to cross the border and help the Mexicans kick them out. On January 31, 1866, Napoleon III ordered the withdrawal of French troops.
Yes, the cameraman was very brave and managed to get footage of some heavy fighting. It's a pity he couldn't keep the camera more steady, but he did his best. He was lucky not to get shot himself.
Normally, the standard in US films (at least), is that a good looking guy who refuses to wear a hat so you can see how pretty his hair is MUST be one of the heroes. Imagine my surprise at seeing that this wasn't the case this one time.
Actually, this movie was made in Mexico, its about the Battle of Puebla in 1862, a major victory during the second french intervention in mexico. (The movie is called Cinco de Mayo: La batalla)
For the record, General Zaragoza was born in Goliad, Texas USA. To this date every 5 de mayo in his home town they have a celebration in his honor. Obviously it was Mexico prior to
Actually, it was Spanish. The Dictator Santa Anna violated the Mexican Constitution, and made War upon numerous northern Mexican states. The others were subjugated by Santa Anna! Only Tejas/Texas remained independent! Texas gaining Independence from the Dictator Santa Anna is no less legitimate than the Mexican Independence from Spain.
Both Spain and France had claims upon what is now the western USA. The USA was offered an opportunity to purchase the French rights (because they figured England would take them by force). Mexico claimed the Spanish claims due to victory in War against Spain. Thus the USA did the same thing to Mexico that Mexico did to Spain. Except the USA occupied Mexico all the way to Mexico City. The USA didn't claim the settled areas of Mexico, rather the areas we had claims to from the Louisiana Purchase. And, the USA paid Mexico for that land.
Repudiation of the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo wouldn't return Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California to Mexico, it would "return" everything down to Mexico City to the USA! Remember, Texas had been an independent Republic nearly as long as Mexico had been independent from Spain!
"These are not men! They are demons!" - Franciso de Paula Milán, officer of the Mexican army after meeting the last three surviving French Soldiers after the battle of Camrón
Hahaha you Frenchies were more resentful, They won the camaron one but lost the war, so much so that Napoleon the Third could not even see Mexico in paint.
Solveig LeCosaque 🇲🇽🇲🇽🇲🇽🇲🇽 Just wait until we retake Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, The Empire is back and we can be better as ever, My fellow Mexicans will learn from history.
My homeland 🇲🇽 has been attacked in the worst moments of anarchy, by superior enemies, such as the United States, and France. The Mexican political anarchy of the 19th century was exploited by the worst neighbor that could touch us, the United States, in its expansionist policy, who stole from us in the most unjust way a large portion of national territory. But empires are not eternal. I'm Mexican-Italian but when the country calls me I will be ready to defend it. Greetings from Xalapa, Veracruz.
GREAT Action! Seems the Mexicans are the only ones that fought & WON the struggle from being a European colony in the 1800s! WELL done Mexico! Also, in the end they executed a European king, Maximilian, for trying to rule over Mexico, what country has ever done THAT?
@@jonathanwilliams1065 England too, and Russia too have executed so-called royalty. As for Mexico, conservatism was bad for the country during the 19th century - the country was ruled by the military & church.
Sin el mano de hierro del General Diaz, la Republica Mexicana huberia perdido la guerra contra la invasion francesa y el Segundo Imperio. Viva La Republica 🇲🇽
At 1:54, what the French artillery officer says? "Canon numéro un, Feu!"???Does he say that??? Please help! Thank you! From a Greek friend of Mexico and France!!!❤
He says "pièce numéro, feu !", which can translate in the litteral sense "piece number one, fire !", but a more accurate meaning would be "first gun, fire !"
@@cpp3221 thank you a lot my friend!!!thank you so much!!! I had squeezed my mind to understand what did the artillery officer say...perhaps the reason for that is the fact that they are Mexican actors who speak French and their accent is not good. Anyway, thank you so much for your response and for your help!!!
@@theofiloschristodoulakis7350 You're welcome. Even though their accent isn't the one most french people got, as a native speaker, I must give them credit as if they're mexicans actors that spoke french, they did a very good job (but I can understand it is hard for you to understand if you're not a native speaker).
Remember everyone, Mexico is the other United States in the neighborhood. We share so much, have fought the same nations and should be much better friends than we are. We're basically already melded in the southwest.
oscarwildeghost Like I posted earlier; my Mexican grandmother had a French last name as does my wife and a number of other Mexican-American families I know of out here in southern AZ. The French kept very good records. Research showed us her ancestor’s full name, year and place of birth, his parents, year of his passing in Mexico, etc.
Yes exactly, hell Mexico fought in ww2. They've had their own struggles like civil war and french intervention which I didn't know was a thing. And we're all so used to each other cause of our unique situation, being so close. Let's have more peace and cooperation, the Southwest has American and Mexican/Spanish influence and I enjoy the differences.
Not bad for a movie but completely unrealistic in reality, charges where made in and stayed in formation close quarters on the field of battle would be in formation usually the ones being charged would rout, the movie makes it look like both sides broke rank and routed.
There was more to it than that...American military aid and the threat of American military intervention after the American Civil War ended helped to force the French out of Mexico. Without French support, the Mexicans were able to topple the regime of Emperor Maximilian.
@@hhale Not only, the political mistakes and clumsiness of Maximillien who did not know Mexico and its customs. As well as the pressure from the French Parliament which thought that the operation was becoming too costly in resources. And finally, the tensions with Prussia which forced Napoleon III to withdraw his troops.
at the beginning we were fighting with not enough weapons..and yes we lost most battles..we had to wait the USA end their civil war so we could buy them weapons
Love to the rebels in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Great fighters, always kicked the ass of the invaders. The US spent trillions of dollars to win in Afghanistan, the US left and they are back to the dark ages.
@_jeff _ he does. He separated families and put their kids in cages, he supports the muslim concentration camps in China, he said laziness is a trait in blacks, he called an indigenous woman pocahontas, he said he doesn't support gay marriage, he called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers, and he said not to trust a lawyer because she's Mexican.
Im a daughter of Mexican parents & I just found out my great great great grandmother was from France I’m thinking she and her family migrated to Mexico around this time.
Somebody help me out here. I know that during the American Civil War that repeating firearms (lever-action rifles) were starting to come into action, but were any of these used in the French Mexican War?
The only battle lost of the campaign by France, who was outnumbered 2 to 1. I could speak about the victories of Cerro del Borrego where 140 frenchmen beat 2000 mexican, or San Lorenzo (4500 french/imperials vs 8000 mexican republicans) or Atlixco (1400 vs few thousands mexican), or Camerone (62 vs 2000)
