Help support TMP


"Generals in the Texas Independence" Topic


8 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Mexican-American Wars Message Board


Areas of Interest

19th Century
World War One

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

The Sword and the Flame


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Profile Article

Report from Bayou Wars 2006

The Editor heads for Vicksburg...


Featured Movie Review


803 hits since 19 May 2022
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

corzin19 May 2022 5:16 p.m. PST

Not an expert.

But driving around the battlefields on my last vacation it seemed that all the major commanders were not good. If Santa Anna was just a D level commander the world might be a different place.

Am I reading this wrong?

Frederick Supporting Member of TMP19 May 2022 5:25 p.m. PST

Well, you're not wrong – Sam Houston to give him credit realized that as long as he had an army he had a chance, hence the "Runaway Scarpe" made sense; one wonders how things might have turned out if Urrea had had overall command instead of Santa Anna

Grattan54 Supporting Member of TMP19 May 2022 7:56 p.m. PST

I wouldn't rate Santa Anna as a D general. Prior to the Texan Revolution he had performed well against a number of opponents. He also won at the Alamo and Goliad. He was excellent at raising armies. However, he was not as great as he thought he was. He was no "Napoleon of the West" as he liked to be called. I would rate him a C level general who at times could rise up to a B.

15th Hussar20 May 2022 1:22 a.m. PST

Grattan54 … Si, Plus! wink

doc mcb20 May 2022 6:03 a.m. PST

I agree Santa Anna had too large an ego. But Houston was lucky at San Jacinto. (Both men were probably better politicians than generals.)

I think, too, that with the very small armies and the low level of training -- remember SA had a lot of raw recruits too -- small factors could have a huge effect. In a game we'd call that luck.

corzin20 May 2022 6:35 a.m. PST

i was saying Santa Anna wasn't even a D in Texas. I don't know much about him even now

it almost seems like, all he had to do was not get captured and he wins

Grattan54 Supporting Member of TMP20 May 2022 10:47 a.m. PST

Houston's tactics were very good. He kept retreating forcing Santa Anna to go after him. As he did Santa Anna had to leave garrisons behind and detach other troops which weaken is forces forces.He started the campaign with 6,000 and he had what some 1,500 at San Jancito?

doc mcb20 May 2022 11:07 a.m. PST

Houston was also retreating onto his supply base -- via steamboat from New Orleans -- and also east Texas is more wooded and less cavalry-friendly. But there is evidence that Houston's army forced his hand both as to when and where to fight.

San Jacinto was a lucky win. Timing was everything and not under Houston's control. Both sides were receiving re-enforcements, both required rest and recovery. What happened was the equivalent of naval battles in WWII in which a carrier is caught refueling its planes -- which it HAS to do at some point.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.