Why did Mexicans in 1846/47 perform as badly as Iraqis in 1990/91?

They had no chance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War#Mexican_Army

>The Mexican Army emerged from the war of independence (1810-1821) as a weak and divided force.

>On the Mexican side, only 7 of the 19 states that formed the Mexican federation sent soldiers, armament, and money for the war effort, as the young Republic had not yet developed a sense of a unifying, national identity.[35]

>Mexican soldiers were not easily melded into an effective fighting force. Santa Anna said "the leaders of the army did their best to train the rough men who volunteered, but they could do little to inspire them with patriotism for the glorious country they were honored to serve."[36]

>One of the contributing factors to loss of the war by Mexico was the inferiority of their weapons. The Mexican army was using surplus British muskets (e.g. Brown Bess) from the Napoleonic Wars period. While at the beginning of the war the majority of American soldiers were still equipped with the very similar Springfield 1816 flintlock muskets, more reliable caplock models gained large inroads within the rank and file as the conflict progressed.

low iq

>>2218110
They performed just as bad at the beginning as they did at the end when the Americans had "better" weapons

Who would win in a war between a Latin American and an Arab country (of equal size and power)?

>>2218082
Mexico was as extremely divided nation with a history of dictatorships. These two things tend to kill army moral and discipline. Without that it doesn't matter what you. Look at Mosul to see have five thousand fighters can take the largest city in northern Iraq when the forces against arent willing to fight.

>>2218137
Hard to say

Both groups are more at home fighting civilians and slapping babies than fighting in wars

>>2218158
Their cadets were throwing themselves off flagpoles just to not surrender.


They seemed pretty motivated.

>>2218137
Whoever hired more academi mercs.

>>2218171
Mexico City≠Mexico

>>2218171
Very different circumstances than at the beginning of the war. By this time the war was in the Mexican heartland and these cadets felt more so than before that they were defending their homeland. They were an exception not the rule.

>>2218137

Depends on the ammounts of donkeys, cammels, and aquired old russian and american equipment.

>>2218158
Are you saying together they cause morale and discipline problems or each will do that individually? Because if it's the latter I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong my friend, as there are numerous examples of dictatorships with extremely disciplined soldiers with high morale.

>>2218110
This is a pretty good summery of events. Even when fighting the Texans 10 years prior, the militia were often better equipped with small arms than the Mexican army.

There was also huge logistic issues for Mexico in supplying its army with food an munitions, especially in the relatively unsettled northern part of its country. The capture of many of its garrisons in the early part of the war against Texas, for example, made it difficult for the Mexican army to stage a forward base of operations for the storage of supplies themselves, which led to greater trouble.

Also, Santa Anna had purged off quite a few officers in the army on various grounds, and for a large part hard to rely on foreign mercenary commanders to drill and lead, some of which were fairly old and utilizing Napoleon era tactics.

>>2218122
Compelling argument

>>2218082

If you have ever played Victoria (paradox game) you would know that:
a)Outnumbered three or four to one
b)Outbudgeted several times

Plus Mexico was younger as an independent country, with less military experience and less contact with Europe (less tech).

>>2221001
>Outnumbered three or four to one
They outnumbered the americans in almost every battle

>>2221001
>with less military experience
Also wrong. The entirety of Mexico's war of independence was fought by local royalist troops not by Spanish troops shipped over there. When new Spain achieved independence it did so through the consent of the very same powerful men that had raised and trained those troops, and they kept their army. So these were the very same officers and troops that had both chased rebels and been chased by royalists for 10+ years until 1821, and been fighting Indians since then too and then some uppity Texas to boot. So they possessed troops that were at least as "experienced" as the American troops were.