N3O Age Of Empires and Starcraft 2 Clan

nope

meh..........

okay.. well. a history lesson for us all now.

1.) yeah, alot of people did hate santa anna, thats why there was a civil war going on.. hm? no big deal..

2.)the mexicans that did fight with the so called "texans" were just people that wanted a stable country, **autonomy**. one notable soldier is named (i believe) juan seguin. after the revolution juan seguin held office as mayor in san antonio, he was shortly ran out of office though, (thanks for the support, juan!*

3.)if you mean mexico stole "LAND" as in during the revolution, thats absolute meh dude, no offense but youre reading texas text books. what actually happened is mexico passed anti slavery laws, which in turn pissed off the new anglo saxon settlers that were running around their territory. they tried to enforce the laws, simple and moral.

4.) as for the army that santa anna wielded, as you say superior*, i believe the numbers ranged from 1500-6000 (estimates). most of the army did however, consist of POORLY TRAINED mayan conscripts, imagine that superior army?

5.) strategy? no. the texans for the most part went into santa annas camp in the middle of the night and blew the @#^@ out of all the soldiers. real clever, texas. any of the soldiers that surrendered were clubbed, knived... etc. HEROISM at its best. im sure that if the mexicans had run in while the texas rebels were taking a siesta, they would of been stapled as using dirty tricks.. history bias anyone? glorious victory.. meh

6.) any MASSACRE that happened, opposed upon the texans, well.. i believe the name of the massacre is @ goliad & alamo. do you wonder why you never hear about the massacre at san jicnto, when santa annas army was asleep? . . .

7.) time to denounce the people at the alamo. the leader, william travis (?) had fled to texas after killing a man, leaving his family (wife/kids). davy crockett.. as im aware was an aging politician, who had no apparent reason to even be at the alamo. you get the idea

not even just at the alamo, but the entire people behind the texas rebels, were just people out to tell mexico to piss off because they wanted to have SLAVES they were fighting to have the freedom of owning SLAVES.

glorified.

afterwards, this set the stage for the mexican american war, a good excuse to continue the manifest-destiny idea presented by the anglo saxons of america, allowing them to conquer the remaining southwest that belonged to mexico.



the numbers have no real meaning, please note that im not "angry" so to speak, im just passionate

out

I'm not arguing with you, but you're twice as biased as Cyclo in this. Everything the Texans do you dismiss as "dishonorable" and "disgraceful". It's war. In war, you must kill as many of the enemy soldiers as possible with the least casualties. If you don't like that, go back to Europe and invite the enemy to fire first.

Also, you claim Cyclo is reading Texan textbooks. Of course he is, but what textbooks are YOU reading?

What I'm trying to say is that you're both biased as hell (especially you, Tatl) in this argument. You can't really deny that.

[quote=""Navarone_Guy""] In war, you must kill as many of the enemy soldiers as possible with the least casualties. If you don't like that, go back to Europe and invite the enemy to fire first.[/quote]

what's that supposed to mean? :roll:

yeah, in chaos's quote, you are sort of diluting what was actually occurring with the rebels.. i know that is what war is about, but what i meant was to show that texas wasnt exactly cunning.. at all. as for the bias, well. there is none, its just the way ive written it, i know those are facts.

massachusetts textbooks, and ive read the book "Occupied America" by Rodolfo Acuña

They may be facts, but the way you present them can change the meaning completely. Everyone knows that.

I know Texas wasn't cunning. Neither were the Mexicans. It was just war.