Talk:Second French intervention in Mexico

motivation unclear
"[The invasion followed] Juárez's suspension of payments of interest on loans to foreign countries made by previous governments". This is unclear to me. I am assuming these were loans to Mexico from France, Britain and Spain. Can this be explicitly stated? "Loans to Mexico", made by previous governments of ?...

-fl


 * Mexico had loaned from many countries, and following the bankruptcy at least France, UK and Spain was among the creditors. The entire bankruptcy side of the affair is strangely absent. Is it considered controversial somehow? 82.180.29.126 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

anon edit
removed anons edit "French troops were defeated." from the end of the 1863 section. Astrokey44 05:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

french and spanish version
For a different view, this is the google translated version of the spanish wikipedia article: and the french one:. The french one lists five battles which have their own articles Astrokey44 05:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Mexican constitution
A comment was placed in the article, "--- not strictly true. see Constitutions of Mexico ---" (after it said in the article that "The republic was restored, and a new constitution was written" Astrokey44 00:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Casualties
Can anyone check on the casualties? I wanted to implement a war box here, but didn't have enough stats. Specific number of deaths, etc. Thanks -- WB 03:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I might as well ask this...
... what are the sources for this information? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * its shown in the reference section Astrokey44 14:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Review
The following is a review of this article written for a history class:

''Although a growing number of people in the United States celebrate Cinco de Mayo each year, few individuals among them actually know the history of the holiday. Despite the fact that Mexico is such a close neighbor, its history is rarely discussed in the United States and so many do not know that the 5th of May is the day that Mexican forces defeated French invaders at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. In fact, the Second Empire of France under the leadership of Napoleon III went to great lengths in an attempt to colonize Mexico during this time period. The events 1862—1867 were interesting examples of French imperialism and intriguing part of French, Mexican, and even U.S. history. If the average person wished to learn about them, she or he may turn to the free, online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. For these reasons I have decided to critique the article entitled “French Intervention in Mexico,” and evaluate its usefulness, objectivity, and accuracy about this subject in French history.''

The author does a very good job of presenting the material without strong bias. Overall, the events are presented without a great deal of comment; mostly it is a listing of when and where certain events occurred. Unfortunately this means there is almost no analysis and no explanation of why things happened as they did. When the author takes any stance it is one of condemning the Second Empire’s actions and supporting a Mexican Republic. The author states that France was interested only in “exploiting” the mines in Mexico and had “ambitions of colonizing Mexico.” There is no sympathy towards Mexican Conservatives, or towards Maximilian (even regarding his execution). I believe that the author found Juárez, the Republicans, and the United States to be in the right when it came to the issue of European intervention in Mexico during this time.

The author makes a few statements in the article that I would classify as assumptions because there are no citations for them. The author assumes that France invaded in order to colonize and control the wealth of Mexico, and did so at a time when the United States would not interfere. There is also the assumption that Maximilian could never be accepted by either political group in Mexico. I feel that many of the assumptions made by the author would be substantiated and repeated in other histories about this subject, but the lack of references does not allow the reader to validate these claims. Since the author is not overly concerned with opinions or analysis, there are few ideas she or he tries to convince the reader of. I do find it quite believable that Maximilian found few allies in Mexico, and the idea that France saw this time period as a prime opportunity to invade Mexico (since the United States was busy with its own Civil War) is quite convincing as well. Both these opinions make sense politically. However, I am not convinced that France invaded Mexico merely to control the mines in northwestern Mexico. Such an action seems hardly worth the lives and resources that would be lost in a foreign invasion.

There are only two references listed directly following the article, which are links to pages on a website entitled www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/mexico. One is a timeline of the “Mexican Adventure,” and the other is a bibliography of about 55 books on the topic. The website does not appear very sophisticated, and most of the book titles are in German (I think). It is really anyone’s guess as to whether the author of the article used these references, or if they are meant to be resources for further investigation of the subject. There is no form of citation, and no information about who posted these “references”—was it the author, Wikipedia, or just anyone browsing around the site who felt like adding them? Given the vagueness of the references, I would certainly not judge this article as suitable for use as an academic resource, but I think I trust it enough to consider it a good addition to general knowledge—until it’s proven wrong by a “respected” source.

The most glaring deficiencies of the article seem to be grammatical and spelling errors. There are not an overwhelming amount of typos, but it flips from past and present tense narration, and some of the wording throughout the article is a little awkward. It could definitely benefit from some harsh editing. I was a little confused when it discussed the events surrounding Maximilian’s execution, which were muddled in their presentation, but apart from that the article is direct and easy to understand. It provides a good general knowledge of the French intervention in Mexico during the 1860s.

Although there is a fairly good base of knowledge in the article, there were many unanswered questions I had after examining it. Why did President Juárez suspend its payments to foreign governments? The author says, “The crown was offered to Maximilian, due to Napoleon’s effort,” but what exactly were these efforts? What were the French popular opinions towards Napoleon III’s actions in Mexico? How important was the role of the United States in forcing out the French, and how much did they support the Mexican Republicans? Why didn’t Maximilian abandon Mexico when advised to by Napoleon? And why did the 5th of May become a holiday when the battle it commemorates failed to rid Mexico of the French army completely? Clearly this article is just a jumping off place for further investigation.

Wikipedia can provide a relatively accurate basis of knowledge, and point of departure for future research, but hopefully those that use it recognize its faults. The information presented cannot be assumed to be wholly accurate, and should certainly not be a source of information for academic papers; especially when it is presented without references and an anonymous author. And, of course, as with any article, it should be questioned in regards to its accuracy, attitudes, and assumptions.

I think a willingness to look at Maximilian objectively would make one arrive at the conclusion he was a man with good intentions but in the wrong place at the wrong time. Remember, he was very much a product of the progressive wave in vogue at the time and in some respects more liberal than Juarez himself. Perhaps, had he not been a foreigner, he would have been welcomed with open arms by the great majority of Mexicans.

Alloco1 16:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Egyptians!
Would someone answerr this weren't there egyptian troops fighting under the french at the time or possibly ottoman, I'm pretty sure there was some egyptian troops fighting under french in mexico though it could have been in south america or I could be completely wrong. Zakaria mohyeldin 07:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, pretty sure Egypt was a British colony at the time. You may be thinking of Zouaves, units who's uniforms and orginization were based on that of the units in Algeria, though not even these were significantly comprised of African soldiers.66.133.180.58 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There were Egyptains fighting there for the French. Egypt did not fall under British control until the 1880s and was still fully independent in the 1860s. The French did a deal with the Egyptian King allowing them to recruit troops there, beliving they would be well suited to the Mexican climate. Many were enslaved and forced to serve there. 86.139.149.25 (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Were there war camels and war elephants in the Egyptian contingent? What kind of elephants? --Error (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC) of


 * No there was a battalion sized "Egyptian Auxiliary Corps" numbering about 450 infantrymen, dispatched by the Bey of Egypt in February 1863 as part of a deal with the French. The theory was that they would be largely immune to the tropical diseases that were causing heavy losses amongst the French, Belgian and Austrian troops dispatched to Mexico. Recruited largely from Sudanese conscripts they fought in the Veracruz region and earned a reputation for being ruthless and effective. They did not however include "camel cavalry", "Coptic knights", "cannon elephants" and "war hounds" as recorded in an earlier version of the article. I think that someone is trying to be whimsical by presenting them as a sort of circus parade. I have edited this section and provided a source reference. Buistr (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Title
I reverted a unilateral move of this page, at "French intervention in Mexico" to "Franco-Mexican War" I personally have no strong feelings about what title is better, but any move should be discussed on the talk page before moving; also most wikilinks go to this present title, and any proper move should include fixing links and redirects. -- Infrogmation 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Word "Unfortunately"
I removed the word "Unfortunately" stated twice in "The Battle" section, since they represented only the French perspective.M.Campos (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Confederate States
Did the Confederate States government take any interest in the conflict? France was officially neutral in the American Civil War but leaned toward the South. Which side controlled the Mexican side of the Texas border? 168.137.100.26 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First Decree of 1865, issued 31 December 1864, in case anyone is interested
Decree authorizing the Journal of the Empire as the Official Newspaper

GLIN.GOV is a database product of the Law Library of Congress. There is a sepia-colored image with the Imperial Coat of Arms along with the metadata available for this record. It is available upon request.

No citations in article?
The whole article is basically one big unsourced mess. Needs inline citations and more verifiable sources please. Put template up also. Cartras (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is that?
Result 	John attempts to throw knife at Isaias, but Isaias kills him with magnum. ISAIAS IS ONLY MEXICAN SURVIVOR while the french retreated.

What the hell is that honestly? That can't be serious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.129.150 (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruminative links?
- could anyone add in a note relating the story told in this article to the issue of developing countries' debt - and thus link to that article? . . and, actually, write an article on sovereign debt as a banking-craze / banking-crash of the, erm, 1980s I think? - with the (existing) developing countries' debt article linked to it?

What's in my mind is that the French intervention in Mexico was an early incident in the history of loans to sovereign states / "recourse" (banker's term) when the loans "go sour" (banking slang!) / "moral hazard" (banker's jargon for a type of loan where central bankers will be reluctant to rescue a borrower, for fear of encouraging feckless borrowing, but will eventually have to anyway - so that there's a window of opportunity for junk lenders). This is an important and continuing theme in the development of our culture! - ask Lehman Brothers!

(Argentina's role in the history of the Paris Club seems to be another section of the same story.)

- same again but "Monroe Doctrine"? As a Brit, I lack insight into the origins / purpose / impact of the Monroe Doctrine. I'm aware of Reagan's response to Thatcher's appeal at the start of the Falklands (Malvinas!) War as a conscious exception to that doctrine (Reagan made satellite intelligence available to the Brits - ie supported a European power's intervention in South America) .. and of the real possibility that, eg, Obama's Administration will decline to offer similar support to Britain if Argentina again moves against those islands .. and of the possibility that this is among the reasons for Britain's comparatively large-scale involvement in Afghanistan (comparatively = with other European NATO allies, not with the US obviously!!) - and of course Iran!

SquisherDa (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Falkland Islands were British long before the Monroe Doctrine. Booting invaders off your own territory was never 'intervention'! Monroe was about preventing European powers from establishing NEW territorial claims in the Western Hemisphere or intervening in the affairs of independent nations there.
 * If Monroe can be interpreted as you (and others) believe, it would be impossible for the UK to control any territories in the Americas - yet, in addition to the Falklands, the UK held Belize (British Honduras) in central America and British Guiana in south America until the late 20th century. Furthermore, US territorial claims in the western hemisphere didn't alter the ownership of Dutch and French posessions there either - Aruba and Curacao, for example.
 * Sadly, Wikipedia is just so full of pro-American bias as to make it virtually useless on geopolitical affair.2A01:4B00:AE0E:6200:DC7D:D977:5E79:92BB (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"Cruzoob" needs to be removed
The addition of a third belligerent, Cruzoob, to the infobox seems to be wholly unwarranted, as there is, in fact, no mention of it anywhere in the article except in the infobox. I'd remove it myself, but I have little experience with infoboxes, and fear I'd remove parts that should remain. MayerG (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your doubts a bit more please? The fact that is isn't mentioned in the article (and note that there are several subarticles - battles, treaties...etc) is no reason for its removal since it is well referenced within the infobox.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  07:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There never was a "Cruzoob state" that was a belligerent in the French intervention in Mexico, and the meager information in the infobox gives no reason to think there was. "Cruzoob" is an apparent reference to the religious views of some of the participants in the civil unrest (the Caste War) that accompanied divisions within the rebellious Mexican states in Yucatan during its time of proclaimed independence and lasting till after its reincorporation into Mexico. If you have any evidence that this religious group sent troops against or to the aid of the French or, conversely, France sent troops against or to the aid of them, then by all means add this to the article, but as it is any mention of these particular participants in a geographically and chronologically distinct conflict is unwarranted. MayerG (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, so first, there's a map at the Történelmi világatlasz, Budapest, Hungary, 1991, Kartográfiai Vállalat, ISBN 963-351-696-X-CM, page 71/II, which shows that part of the Yucatan as being independent from 1821 to 1868. That's one source and I don't want to cite more as I don't have time to go through all the available references in the Cruzoob column of the infobox - although you can do it if you have time and looking for answers -, but several of them has evidences that the Maya people living there and exclusively worshiping the Cruzoob religion launched attacks on both the Mexican authorities as well as the French invaders (as their struggle began earlier than this particular war and continued after). It is also mentioned that Maximilian unsuccessfully tried to please them by giving the Cruzoob freedom of religion and other privileges regarding the land they owned, but as his treasury went low he had to reconsider and so the Maya ambushes restarted. A quote from an infobox reference to your request on troops: The machete and the cross: campesino rebellion in Yucatan (page 4); "The establishment of Maximilian's empire in 1864 brought significant but short-lived changes in government policy. Campaigns against the bravos were renewed, although to no avail, for the rebels at the height of their power inflicted serious defeats on the government forces.". It's all there all it requires is checking the references, for me it took like five minutes so for a deeper insight expend time on its research.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But Yucatan was not an independent state from 1821 to 1868, even if you can find a Hungarian map that says it was. Yucatan separatists decreed their independence for a few months in 1823, and again in 1841, but rejoined Mexico in 1848. Take a look at these maps here, from 1827 http://wchsutah.org/maps/finley-1827.jpg and 1847 http://wchsutah.org/maps/upper-california-1847.jpg, showing Yucatan in Mexico. As far as the French are concerned, this map http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_mexico/french_intervention_1862.jpg (from a Mexican source) shows that the theater of French operations in Mexico did not reach to the corner of Yucatan where the religious rebels operated. There's no evidence in what you've cited that French troops took part in any way in the Yucatan Caste War, nor any evidence that there was ever a "Cruzoob state", as opposed to rebels fighting against others in Yucatan, who sometimes did, and sometimes didn't, claim allegiance to central control from Mexico City. It took only a few minutes to find these sources; someone familiar with French and, especially, Mexican sources could probably clean this up easily. It's not a question of can you find a map somewhere, or a sentence somewhere, that seems to link the two. The question is do significant, reliable sources on Mexican history concur that Mayan rebels in a corner of southeast Yucatan formed an independent state whose participation in the French-Mexican War is of such import as to count as a third belligerent state in that war? I don't think so, and you've not presented evidence to the contrary. MayerG (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say the first two maps you presented are simply too old to be reliable in this issue. While my map is from 1991 and probably better supervised by scholars (its credits list about a 30 of them) and thus historically more accurate. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, it is a reliable source. As for the Mexican-source map, it says that it shows the political boundaries as of 1857 so it doesn't concern to the French Intervention era, which is the main scope of this article (nor does it show e.g. the American Civil War boundaries, which happened the same time). And as I said read the books in the references and not just my quote before writing a statement such as "there's no evidence". There's not only English but German sources as well. Those have several other evidences but I won't copy-paste them here one by one.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  14:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Why the second of anything?!
I'm wondering why in the list of titles some have the word "second" in it, I mean was there a first invasion, war or intervention by France in/with Mexico or is the used of "second" a reference to France being in an imperial state for the second time if not just why the used of it. I read the article and it did not reference a first time that France was belligerent towards Mexico other that this. -- Sion8 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, there was a first French invasion to Mexico in 1838. --148.247.186.142 (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Role of United States
In the main article, in the left box, where we see the belligerents, the must also be the United States, the profe is Siege of Mexico City, where the American Legion of Honor from US is with 3000 man involved in the war. --93.184.26.78 (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Be bold but neutral. Juan Riley (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * there were less tan 100 american voluntaries in the mexican army according to the soldiers who fought in the war 2806:102E:B:1876:BCBA:BC29:C456:6856 (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Change the wikipedia title to Second Franco Mexican war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.252.249.164 (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Mention of Sudanese soldiers in infobox
Hi, the parenthetical note in the infobox clearly says that the Egyptian force came "with Sudanese slave soldiers", not that "the entire Egyptian force was made up of Sudanese slave soldiers", as you interpreted it here. I see no issue here unless the source itself has been misread or unless there are other reliable sources contradicting this. R Prazeres (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Casualties
, as you have made edits citing Codfelter, you may be able to confirm details. The infobox presently gives casualties for Mexican Republican, Mexican Emperial and French forces as well as "others" under French command. Can you confirm what Codfelter has to say on casualties. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The entire book is available online for free, so you can access it yourself to verify the information. Gilbertstry (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , do you have a link please? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)