Talk:Battle of Buena Vista

Untitled

this site does not tell enough about the battles

Attribution

I am uncomfortable with the vague reference to "Washington,_D.C." causing Taylor's frustration. Explicit reference to President James K. Polk is more accurate--their partisan and personal rivalry was quite real. --JeremyToday 23:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Casualties

Someone changed the casualty numbers to 25,000 and 13,000 without any reference... In fact, there are now more casualties than troops involved! Please don't change the casualty figures without a) source and b)keep track of reality --fdewaele 10:52, 29 Oct 2005 (CET) Yes. Apparently in all the battles of the Mexican-American War the mexican outnumbered the us army 2:1 or 4:1.I'm not sure of that numbers. I've presumed this is not all true, because of the lack of ammunition and firearms of the mexican army. It started an american tradition to exagerate the numbers of the enemies to make the victories more greater than they really are. Many of the mexican soldiers were not professional soldiers and with many casualities they would retreat far more easily then they really did. For example during the polkos revolt in the middle of the war, less than 1,000 soldiers of the army spread with the sound of a single bullet shot by professinal soldierguarding national palace (Guillermo Prieto recalled this on one of his writings). Many mexican soldiers (the ones drafted out of levy) only engaged on oral attacks to enemies ("come cowards, yellows") and ran away at the first smell of gun powder. So if they were on the middle of the bloodiest battle (with a number of 1500 casualities they are) they absolutely will ran. Perhaps its time to put the mexican numbers in perspective I've always thought that of the total casualities only about a 30% were actual dead and 70% were wounded and abandoned the battlefield soon after.

My Apologies

I made a minor edit to the article. I changed "casptured" (I assumed typo) to "captured". In my haste, I failed to mark it as a minor edit or to add a note. My first edit, or contribution other than talk, and it needs to be fixed. How do I go about fixing it..?--Dogfish 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

fighting on the 22nd?

The infobox says the battle started on the 22nd, but the 22nd is not mentioned in the text. Was there fighting on the 22nd? -Gomm 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Result

Well whatever Santa Anna claims there is no way he can claim it as a victory considering the casualties his army sustained compared to what were inflicted. He also failed completely in his objective to destroy Taylor's army. It should be noted that he claimed victory after word had reached him about the coup in Mexico City. A victorious general looks a lot more impressive than a defeated one.Danwild6 06:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You really need to be more objective & provide sources/footnotes. To claim it was a Mexican strategic blunder or an American strategic victory in the Results section of the article would be fine, provided it's backed up. However both sides did claim victory so it's up to wikipedia to provide facts not opinions. Fennessy 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't ascribing victory to one side or the other in a battle necessarily a matter of opinion? That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done - it's obviously important in an encyclopedia article on a battle to explain who won. Also, basing the article's judgment as to who won on the claims to victory of the participants seems a less objective way to decide than an assessment of the facts - e.g. casualty ratio, success or failure in achieving objectives, effect on the wider campaign. I think this article should take a necessary stand and pick a winner (which would be, in this case, the American Army). Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm no military historian, but the battle as described in the article seems like a clear US victory to me. If Santa Anna attacked an outnumbered American army, suffered disproportionate losses, and withdrew, it's pretty clearly an American victory. He failed to attain his objective of dislodging the Americans. They remained on the field. He may have claimed victory, but if the facts are as we report them here, that's a pretty hollow claim. It shouldn't be too hard for some military buff to come up with a citation from a credentialed historian describing the battle as an American victory.

For example, To the Halls of the Montezumas, by Robert Walter Johannsen, describes (p. 105) the battle as an American victory "of immense proportions." From First to Last, by Mark A. Snell, says (p.23) "Taylor had won a great victory" at Buena Vista. Are there any sources by reputable historians who concur with Santa Anna's claim of victory? 65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While Wikipedia does exist to provide facts, not opinions, the statement "both sides claimed victory", while factual, tells us nothing of the "result" of the battle. This is because neither claim is necessarily objective. It takes but an objective look at the other facts of the article, some of which are discussed here already, to back up an objective conclusion about the battle's victor. Taylor had been stripped of most of his force, and lacked sufficient personnel to conduct offensive operations, thus his campaign had been relegated to defending strategic positions already captured (namely, Monterrey). Santa Anna's campaign was of an entirely offensive nature. The battle itself must be considered against these terms. To win, in any sense, the offensive general must either drive away, disperse, destroy, or capture the defending force. Disproportionate casualties aside (and the Mexicans lost many more men, but this fact would only make their claim of victory a Pyrrhic one), there is no getting around the fact that Taylor mounted a successful defense. So, both in tactical and strategic terms, the battle was an American Victory. This is an objective fact, not an opinion, backed up by the facts already annotated within the article.

"Santa Anna's campaign was of an entirely offensive nature"... I disagree. Taylor was invading and fighting in Mexican soil, and Santa Anna was trying to stop him, so by definition, Taylor's campaign was offensive and Santa Anna's campaign was defensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.159.228.214 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This section seems to keep getting worse. Taylor's offensive campaign was over when he captured Monterrey, FIVE MONTHS before Buena Vista. He had insufficient forces to advance further into Mexico while leaving garrisons enough to secure his supply lines. It wasn't "political pressure", but tactical and strategic considerations, which Buena Vista itself had nothing to do with, that halted Taylor's invasion of Northern Mexico. The battle's result was unambiguous - Taylor's orders were to hold Monterrey, and hold it he did. An American army, outnumbered more than 3 to 1, mounted a successful defense in this battle, holding not just the field of battle, but the strategic objective (Monterrey) over which the battle was truly being fought. If Taylor's army had been beaten, or even merely exhausted by the fight, it would have had to withdraw from Monterrey even after holding the field of battle. The Mexican Army failed to achieve any of its campaign objectives. Tactically and strategically, the battle was an American Victory by any objective measure. To the comment above, Santa Anna was not trying to "stop" Taylor, he was trying to destroy his army, or at least expel it from Monterrey. He was on the tactical offensive (home soil has nothing to do with it) - in war, "offense" and "defense" is a matter of who is trying to gain ground, and who is merely trying to hold what they have. Contrast Santa Anna's actions against Taylor at Buena Vista with those against Scott at Cerro Gordo - the latter a truly defensive battle on the part of the Mexican Army - and it's easy to understand the difference. Santa Anna's claim of victory is clearly false. The Mexican Army didn't even gather all their wounded before retreating - what victorious army would do that? Nothing about the result of this battle is ambiguous. 2600:8805:B401:5F00:F9A8:790A:2B58:8554 (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this highly WP:BIASed editor the only reason we currently call this indecisive battle an unambiguous "American victory"? If so, that's obviously something that should be corrected. It might be a strategic American victory, but it wasn't simply a complete one. — LlywelynII 07:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Saltillo

As the area that the battle was fought does not contain Buena Vista, I have changed the location to Saltillo. I'm not sure if it has gone out of local use or simply does not register on Google Earth, but there is another Buena Vista in the same region that is not the site of the battle and this seems to be the best way to avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Frog (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You can find the site of the battle in gogle earth with the name of "Puerto de la Angostura" N 25°20'35" W 101°02'40"

Neutrality

LtNOWIS, There is indisputable the U.S. victory in other battles of the U.S.-Mexican war, but in the Buena Vista battle the U.S. victory is not quite credible and questionable. You need to reference and weighting just among historians from both sides without any nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.175.255.165 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you put up a neutrality tag, you should say how it isn't neutral. -LtNOWIS (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't neutral because apparently it's the opinion of a single editor years ago that of course the Americans won because they weren't completely routed and expelled from all Mexican soil. — LlywelynII 07:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Spelling of Santa Anna vs Santa Ana

I had made an edit and then reversed it after seeing many sources with the same spelling for 'Santa Anna.' I am still uncomfortable because I have never read any reference in Spanish to the Saint or someone named in memorial of her with "Ana" spelled with a double n. I doubt that any Spanish speaker would use that spelling. User:Pumapa Wawa (5 Sept 2009) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Well, I am a spanish speaker and Mexican, and I have always saw his name spelled with double n, "Santa Anna", maybe the name "Ana" was spelled with double n at Santa Anna's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.159.228.214 (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Numbers

I see that the article contains the following texts: "Taylor also diverted the Center Division, under John E. Wool, from its expedition in Chihuahua to join him in Saltillo. With Wool's division, the U.S. force totaled about 11,000 soldiers" and "Later that day Santa Anna arrived at Agua Nueva with 10,000 men, his force diminished because of desertion and exhaustion during the long trek from San Luis Potosí"

Yet the infobox states that the american forcers were 4750 and the mexican ones 16000.

If the information on the quoted parts is true then this is a draw not a clear american victory, a smaller exhausted force managed to withdraw without being almost annihilated like in other battles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.224.236.158 (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Result - again

WP:RESULT (MOS:MIL) and the template documentation give guidance on populating the result parameter and restrict how the parameter should be populated. The parameter has been populated with Both sides claimed victory [and a further dot point]. This is contrary to WP:RESULT and in such a case, inconclusive or see Aftermath would be appropriate terms to use. A recent edit (here) would amend this to an unqualified American victory and there has been some edit warring over this. In consideration of the guidance given in populating this parameter, how should it be populated?

• Reading the body of the article, the Mexican and American forces were not symmetrical - a small force with superior arms, equipment and supplies v a lager force without.

• Santa Anna was not forced from the field but chose to withdraw in good order while not in contact with the Americans. The battle was not fought to a conclusion where one of the opponents was forced to retreat, was overwhelmed or surrendered. A priori, the battle was inconclusive.

• At the time, both sides claimed victory (per the Artermath).

• There are numerous sources which would describe this as an American victory.
  • On the basis of these facts, General Wool claimed credit for the victory [at Buena Vista]. [1]
  • Taylor was later promoted to major general, and his victory at Buena Yista ... (p 7 Similar statements are made elsewhere therein). ... played an important role in the American victory that all bit ended the war in northern Mexico. Nevertheless, Santa Anna proclaimed victory, announcing that the US force in the north was finished and could never again make a southward movement toward Mexico City. In this limited assessment of the battle's outcome, he was correct, though his own army had suffered great losses. (p.10)[2]
  • This was the Battle of Buena Vista in which a small United States army under Major General Zachary Taylor defeated a Mexican force over three times its size. (p13)[3]
  • The narrow [American] victory at Buena Vista, however, had far-reaching political implications ...(pp 63-64)[4]
  • ... the [American] victory at Buena Vista ended the highting in the northern portion of the country. (p 31)[5]
  • While the artillery deserves much of the credit for the US victory [at Buena Vista] ... (p 38 - and other references of a US victory)
  • History of the United States of America Under the Constitution: 1847-1861, Free soil controversy (1897, p 37) Notable for its unadulterated hagiographic parochialism.

• Some sources would describe the battle as inconclusive (or similar):
  • The inconclusive Battle of Buena Vista in northern Mexico, claimed as a victory by both sides, was the background of this Scott expedition. (p 97)[6]
  • In the end, the Battle of Buena Vista was a draw with Mexican casualties double the American and Mexican offensive morale shattered. Personally undaunted, the Western Napoleon retreated south, carrying two American flags and three cannons as evidence of his "victory". Polk was so soured at the inconclusive outcome and so disturbed by the more than 700 American casualties that he refused to allow the army to honor the battle with salutes.[7]
  • The Battle of Buena Vista (or La Angostura) in 1847 was an inconclusive skirmish during the two-year Mexican-American War.[8]

• Except that Santa Anna chose to withdraw, some sources would opine that this would have been a Mexican victory.
  • A major Mexican victory (and Santa Anna nearly won the battle of Buena Vista) might have brought a European loan to Mexico ...[9]
  • Battle of Buena Vista (February 22-23, 1847) was closely contested and came near to being a decisive Mexican victory. Superior American artillery and the stand of the First Mississippi Rifles under Colonel Jefferson Davis broke the spirited Mexican attacks, however, and with both armies largely shattered, Santa Anna withdrew to Mexico City. (p 611)[10]

• Searches of JSTOR, Google Scholar and Google books were made using both victory and inconclusive as terms. What is notable is that there are many hits for regional US journals and the subjects are individuals or units associated with the region rather than critical analyses of the battle or the greater war as their primary topic (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). My general observation is that small regional publications are not as objective as main stream academic publications. In respect to this conflict, we are dealing with two nationalistic historiographies that represent two different POVs and the US sources are by far the greatest proportion of the corpus on this subject. The consensus in sources regarding the result is substantially weighted toward an American POV rather than a POV made at arms length from the subject.

How should we then represent the result in the infobox with due regard for the guidance in the template documentation, which inherently represents core policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:VER. There is also a question of how to improve the article and in particular, the Aftermath section, noting some of the sources presented, which are only a small sample.

Personally, I am leaning toward the see Aftermath option. There is clearly nuance to the result. This option presents the reader with information for them to make their own assessment rather than us making an assessment (of the sources) that might represent a stilted POV. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

To add to the discussion and hopefully to a resolution, these excerpts are from the sources that I have readily at hand. I think they are generally reliable; almost all them are from books by historians whose biographies are shown on Wikipedia pages. They seem to me to support the view that the battle was an American victory though perhaps a near-run thing or pyrrhic victory. I don't have time to do further research on this and will leave it to Cinderella157 and other interested editors to come to any conclusions. The assessment and proposal above appear reasonable to me.

[p. 352] “The Battle of Buena Vista was over. A handful of artillerists backed up by volunteers fighting bravely when bravely led had repulsed a superior force executing a well-conceived and well-nigh successful turning movement. Taylor's losses were high – 746 killed, wounded and missing – but Santa Anna's were five times higher. And on the morning of February 24 he turned his troops and began his horrible retreat to San Luis, arriving there with [353] half of the force he had led north with the next best thing to victory: an announcement of one.” Leckie, Robert. The Wars of America: Volume 1: Quebec to Appomattox. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. OCLC 1940480.

[p.357] “Although the hierarchy mistrusted him, he [Santa Anna] was obviously a lesser evil than Farias, and the Moderados, believing in his “victory” at Buena Vista, also rallied to his support.” Leckie, 1968.

[p. 139] “About 14 percent of his [Zachary Taylor's] men were dead, wounded or missing. Although Mexican losses had been severe and Santa Anna retreated, Old Rough and Ready took little joy in the victory. 'The great loss on both sides,' he wrote, 'has deprived me of everything like pleasure.'” Millett, Allan R. and Peter Maslowski and William B. Feis. For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607 to 2012. Third Edition. New York: Free Press, 2012. ISBN 978-1-4516-2353-6.

At pages 233-234, historian Steven Woodworth concludes his description of the battle as going back and forth. His final paragraph at page 234 is: “Morning light on February 24 revealed that Santa Anna had retreated, leaving his campfires burning to mask the withdrawal. As the realization of what this meant spread through Taylor's army, cheer after cheer swept along the U.S. lines.” Woodworth, Steven E. Manifest Destinies: America's Westward Expansion and the Road to the Civil War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, 2010. ISBN 978-0-307-26524-1. Pages 151-296 cover the Mexican-American War.

Woodworth [p. 233] and Eisenhower [p.190] give Taylor's casualties as 673. Both note 1,500 missing, Eisenhower states they were deserters.

[p. 190] “Two regiments, in fact reached Buena Vista on the night of February 23. With these reinforcements Taylor's army was as strong as it had been, numerically, before the beginning of the battle. And Taylor's critical supply situation, much to his relief, would be eased the next morning by the arrival of forty wagons.” Eisenhower, John S. D. So Far from God: The U.S. War with Mexico, 1846-1848. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. ISBN 978-0-8061-3279-2. Originally published New York: Random House, 1989.

[p. 191] February 24: “Santa Anna had held a council of war the previous evening, the results of which convinced him that supplies on hand could not sustain another day's attack, He paused at Agua Nueva, rationalizing that he was luring Taylor to more open ground. That may have been so, for he still had superior numbers, even after suffering 2,100 casualties. But Taylor did not bite.”

“From Taylor's side the close squeak was soon forgotten, and dispatches to Washington reflected nothing but satisfaction.” Eisenhower goes on to say that Taylor fell back to Monterrey and stayed there. (This left the remainder of the fighting to the forces under Winfield Scott.) Eisenhower, 1989.

[p. 354] “That night Santa Anna, realizing that his effort to destroy the invading American army had failed, vacated the field. Taylor once more had demonstrated his nimble tactical brilliance, chalking up another victory that would stir appreciation and adulation among his countrymen back home. But Polk was right in concluding this was a victory without strategic significance in what was probably an unnecessary battle.” Merry, Robert W. A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, The Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009. ISBN 978-0-7432-9744-8.

[p.355] “While Taylor's Buena Vista triumph was much heralded in the land as another reflection of America's growing military strength, Polk chafed at the fact that it did nothing to hasten the war's end.” Merry, 2009.

[p. 259] “On the very day that Scott laded at Veracruz, Santa Anna stumbled back to San Luis Potosi after his defeat at Buena Vista. Early reports tried to cheer Mexico into believing that the battle had been a Mexican victory, but half of the twenty thousand men that Santa Anna had started north with two months before had died in battle, starved to death, or deserted. Only the horror of a foreign invader on Mexican soil could wipe away the stigma of Buena Vista and cause the Mexican populace to rally once more around Santa Anna.” Borneman, Walter R. Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America. New York: Random House, 2008. ISBN 978-1-4000-6560-8. Donner60 (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)