Land Reform: Emiliano Zapata And Pancho Villa

1034 Words5 Pages
Emiliano Zapata was born in Morelos while Pancho Villa was born in Durango, Mexico even though they were 600 miles away this two men, both shared the same aim and it was that they both wanted an agrarian reform and a change in the economy and society of the country. To accomplish this they both went different routes. They were both very loyal men who expected the same loyalty back. In Morelos the main source of income was sugar, so in order to modernize this plantation they would need machinery and to acquire money for this the planters did this at the cost of the peasants. On the other hand in northern Mexico where most of the land was desert water would be the factor in the economy. The big difference here is that Pancho Villa was a politician…show more content…
The Plan of Ayala was a document where Emiliano called for a land reform, which drew support from the campesinos. The reason for why Emiliano Zapata wanted a land reform was because he noticed that the hacendados and the top class had monopolized all the land that belong to the people and he became like a robin hood to them because his plan was to take this land from the privilege and give it to the campesinos and that's the big difference between Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa even though they both wanted a land reform they did it differently. The land reform stated that one third of the land of the hacendados had to be given for them to share with the campesinos and whoever disobeys this would have the other two thirds taken away as the Plan of Ayala states. To the revolution the Plan of Ayala because it was a standard test of who they could trust because whoever disagree with this plan wasn't much of Emiliano’s liking, he was also able to carry this plan out in his home state of Morelos but had not much luck or time for him to implement his plan in the rest of Mexico. The Plan of Ayala was quite important for the aim of Emiliano Zapata in the Mexican revolution because it managed to give some of the land back to campesinos even though it wasn't at the scale Emiliano Zapata Invision. One of the disadvantages he had was that he had no easy access to weapons and the only way to get them was to tax the…show more content…
In the Journal article The Life and Times of Pancho Villa we can see how even though they both wanted land reform they were completely different.
First of all the way of fighting was completely different he wasn't much of a guerilla style fighter rather an all cavalry army who had men trained to use weapons. Land reform was important to Pancho Villa the main reason for it wasn't to give it back to the campesinos like Emiliano Zapata but the economy behind it was the reason driving this land reform. Francisco Villa was more of a politician so his reasons were more political and economical. Instead of taking the land monopolized by the hacendados to give back to the campesinos, he took the land to create profit for high to maintain his revolutionary efforts. He gave so of the land he seized to his supporters and let his supporters keep the land they had. Another thing important to him was US support so he made sure to protect properties of US citizens. This wasnt even though becuase later the united states would turn against him. Other foreign powers took advantage of him for their own countries interest so they would supply him with arms and
Open Document