Talk:Battle of Chapultepec/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I'd like to propose that references to "Hero Boys" be changed to "Hero Kids", or perhaps "Hero Children", since it better reflects the sense of the expression in the original language. Chapultepec was a school for military cadets, and after the battle was over, lore has it that a baffled officer from the US Army said "But, this are just kids". Altough there were 200 hundred cadets in Chapultepec at the battle, only six are honored as the heroes (altough there were more than one thousand additional mexican combatants, btw).

The ages of these kids range between 14 and 17, and some historians certainly find the term "kids" inappropiate, but so has come to be in history.

Links (in Spanish): http://www.edomexico.gob.mx/newweb/servicios/civica/efemerides/13sep.htm http://www.sopaletras.com/Articles/ninheroes.htm

Alberto Tirado fotodiseno2003@yahoo.com

Also there should be noted that the first references to the Heroes niños were in the first half of the 20th century, 1925 to be precise, there are many historians that doubt the veracity of the story and should be categorized as a myth, or legend Emilio Zucco

Ben's thoughts- OK, the article says the US Army fought the battle. This is only partly true. The Army was there, but the battle was primarily fought by the Marines (Jarheads, leathernecks, or devil dogs). They fought valiantly. The Marines took heavy casualties. The reason E-4s (Corporal) and up in the Corp have a red stripe on their pants is to remember the blood shed by Marines during this battle. I'm in the Navy and I'm saying the Corp got screwed in this article. Their gallant efforts are being forgotten. (And I rarely praise the Corp.)

---What you are saying is also partly true. The Marines did play a significant role in this battle, but to say that it was fought primarily by Marines is not necessarily accurate. The Marine corps in this battle lost 7 killed and 24 wounded. see Roll of Honor. The total losses for the Americans in this battle were a lot more. In fact the regiments that took on the most casualties were the volunteer regiments from Quitman's division. I don't mean to downplay the Marine's role in this battle but there were a lot of other units who played an equally significant role and took on heavy casualties.

Basically this article needs to be expanded if it is going to include the long list of people and groups that it should. Right now the only one who isn't getting screwed in this article is George Pickett.

---The Marines may or may not have played a "primary" role in the battle, but comparing the low number of losses of trained Marines to the higher losses of untrained volunteers as you did does not prove Ben wrong. It has been shown through out history that educated, trained soldiers will experience fewer losses in combat than an group of uneducated, untrained or lightly trained volunteers. The fact that there were so few losses is a testament to their abilities, not a hinderance to their role in the battle.

---

Just like to say that this section:

"Just for the record and I hope the Gringos wouldn't dare to take out this edition, at Chapultepec Castle were only a strength of 400 men... 300 from de Batallón Activo de San Blas under command of Lt.Cnl. Felipe Xicoténcatl, and the castles's garrison of 100 men, INCLUDING the cadets, so, its totally false the statement that were more Mexican Troops in this Battle, but obviously the Americans need to demonstrate the "glorious victory" they achieve at Chapultepec. Any doubt, you may read any Mexican History Book or the Military Records at the General National Archieves in Mexico City."

does not seem very neutral in opinion. --4.248.252.240 04:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

st patricks battalion

If this really happened -- and it looks more like legend than history -- it should be sourced properly. Absent a source, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.161.86.159 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This did happen and there was even a movie about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.207.54 (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)