Talk:Battle of Monterrey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Your version of the Battle of Monterrey is at odds with eye-witness and after-action battle reports of the units and personnel involved. While sustaining significant casualties, U.S. forces attacked Monterrey defenses from both the West and East simultaneously. Mexican defenses on the West side of town were penetrated and overrun more quickly and at less cost than on the East side of that city, where defensive positions and fire were better coordinated and overlapping.

And while the first 2 U.S. attacks on the Eastern perimeter of Monterrey were indeed repulsed by Mexican forces, the 3rd attack made significant gains which the Mexicans could not resist. Although the Mexican general, Ampudia did organize sophisticated defenses in and around the ciudad de Monterrey, and it was vigorously defended by Mexican army units, the inherent weaknesses of Mexican unit leadership and the defective powder their firearms depended on were inadequate to halt the advance of U.S. forces.

Insofar as your account would have readers believe that U.S. forces were in general retreat, that is an entirely false portrayal of the documented battle events, and a disservice to those brave U.S. troops and units who tenaciously attacked into the face of withering enemy fire until the Mexicans broke.

And how in fact, did that happen? At the end of the third day of battle, U.S. units had penetrated into a full 20% of the ciudad de Monterrey, fighting house to house, from roof-top to roof-top often in hand-to-hand combat with Mexican defenders. This is well documented in many soldiers' journals and letters home, as well as in unit battle reports on file in the National Archives.

So what caused the battle to end after the third day? Was it because U.S. General Taylor was whipped and his army running away? If that's true, why would General Ampudia surrender? No, the truth is that U.S. forces continued to attack, relentlessly gaining ground and killing Mexicans even though they were taking heavy casualties. The Mexican General Ampudia saw that unless he sued for peace, the inevitable outcome would be a disasterous Mexican defeat. More importantly, his job was on the line and losing another battle would end his career, according to most historians knowledgeable about the matter.

Let's tell our children and other readers the whole truth about American feats of arms, courage in battle, compassion to civilians and fair treatment of prisoners of war. It's a lot better than selling our armed forces and volunteer citizen soldiers short, like your version of the Battle of Monterrey does here.

Respectfully submitted, Michael D. Zeiler

                          (free_enterprise_dynamics@msn.com>

I think this should be editted too, it seems to focus on certain aspects of the battle, such as atrocities by Americans and completely leaves out any tactical content. --Omnicog 03:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I must agree that the article as written contained a lot of nonsense, prejudice towards the Mexicans, and strange allegations against the American forces and their commanding General. I've edited out some of the worst (for the time being) and encourage someone more knowledgeable to rewrite this article. The Battle of Monterrey was a vital victory in the American liberation of California from Mexican rule. And many Californians favored this: if you don't believe it, please see the article in Mariano J. Vallejo, a Mexican Army officer who later became a Senator in the California Legislature. Dale A. Wood, europamoon100@yahoo.com

---I think you are confusing the Battle of Monterrey (Mexico) with Monterey (CA). The battle described in this article has nothing to do with the "liberation" of California. It has to do with the Mexican-American war that in the end gave CA, AZ, TX, CO, NM and NV to the US. But, Monterrey, Mexico is many thousands of miles away from California. There was another battle in California named tha Battle of Monterey (one R).