|
Post by quincannon on Mar 8, 2015 11:33:42 GMT -6
Question of the day:
What was the last offensive maneuver conducted by the Alamo defenders, and why. You will have to really dig into Alamo lore to find this one. It is also the subject of some controversy, involving the second reinforcement theory promulgated several years ago, by a fellow whose name I can't recall off hand, but was also one of those who went apoplectic over Crockett's supposed execution as related in the de la Pena diary.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 8, 2015 12:55:44 GMT -6
The burning of the Jacales?
I may be too early with that answer as this action happened on the third day of the siege.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 8, 2015 14:02:27 GMT -6
That was the first of the three known, but not correct.
It does point out what I said earlier though about this whole affair being amateur hour as far as the Texians went. Who that know their business would leave obstructions in the form of those jackals (shacks of little substance with a thatched roof) smack in the middle of their field of fire on one of the two best avenues of approach? There was a stone and adobe building left standing as well, a few feet from the southwest corner, and it was used as cover for the break in force of light Infantry, that assaulted that very place.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 9, 2015 7:17:36 GMT -6
Did it involve the Gonzales Ranging Company? Or was it the scout led by Crockett to find Fannin’s men, they may have found a group of Texicans and broke through any cordon and re-enforced the Mission.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2015 7:47:33 GMT -6
1) It may have involved some there is no real way of knowing.
2) I doubt if such a thing happened, but if it did why would you have David Crockett who had never set foot in the area until a relatively short time before lead anything, for he was no more than a private in the Tennessee Company, and had no intimate knowledge of the terrain?
3) I think I will let the question stand without answer for now. It will require some looking, and may spark some interest. I think Beth knows the answer. The reason I feel it is important is that it indicates the state of mind of the defenders at that juncture, and is add odds with other legendary stories of the siege.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 9, 2015 11:04:02 GMT -6
QC Coming back to the de la Pena diary. If it was written 1836 by de la Pena how would he know about Crockett? Francisco Ruiz, the alcalde or mayor of San Antonio was alleged to have identified Crockett, Bowie and Travis right after the battle, correct? But would de l Pena know about this action by the mayor and even remembered Crockett a comparative unknown west of the Mississippi? It seems a little like the rumor that the indians knew they were fighting Custer and knew which body was his. That was not true either was it? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2015 12:28:15 GMT -6
Dave: Crockett was a rock star in his day. He was not in anyway part of the command structure at the Alamo, but was more like having Elvis Presley being part of your tank crew in 1961.
It is possible that the Mexicans, some of them knew that Crockett was among the garrison. They certainly knew Travis and Bowie were there, and while Bowie was a widely known figure to the locals as a resident of Bexar, Travis was a back country lawyer, trying his best to populate Tejas with the offspring of his numerous lady friends. Other than that a largely unknown that had popped up a few times on the Mexican radar screens.
I don't think any of those Indians at LBH would know George Custer if they fell over him. Once it was known that Custer had been whacked, everyone in a blue suit was Custer, the whole shebang was Custer, and the all had a hand in killing Custer. That's one reason why we have to look carefully at some aspects of Indian testimony. When they say Custer came over the hill, it's more likely someone did but it was not necessarily George himself or George with anyone else.
My personal opinion is that de la Pena might have written something, but what first appeared, brought to light in 1955 was not it. It may have been based on it. It may contain portions of what de la Pena wrote. Don't know for sure, but I would not mortgage the house and bet that sum on the authenticity of it.
To me it is very much like the Rose/Zuber bushwa, a whole lot of fantasy with a fact or two thrown in.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 9, 2015 14:24:40 GMT -6
QC The Alamo has more mysteries than the Little Bighorn it seems to me. Mentioning Travis brings to mind the famous scene of drawing a line in the sand. The only source of this alleged event came years after the battle. I believe that it could have been true that Travis spoke to the garrison on March 5 and told them the situation but beyond that I am skeptical. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2015 14:47:02 GMT -6
I was wondering how long it was going take to get around to this most widely accepted Alamo myths.
The Daughters of the Republic eat that crap up. The even have a gold line imbedded in the part of the plaza that fronts the chapel. It is meat and drink to every red blooded Texan that ever wore a Stetson and drank a long neck Lone Star at Billy Bobs. Problem is that its likelihood of happening is somewhere between Zippo and Zilch. Great story. Great Legend. Inspiring Stuff. Not great history.
According to Rose/Zuber. Travis called the garrison together on either the evening of the 4th or 5th. I suspect it was the earlier date, drew this line in the sand, saying, probably in lofty tones, our crap is weak, no help is on the way, if you want to stay cross over, if you don't grab you gear and bug out. Legend has it that Tapley Holland was the first over and there is a painting in the chapel depicting such. Louis "Moses" Rose said No I don't think so, went over the wall later that evening, made his way through town and skied out. This same Rose somehow made it in poor condition to the Zuber cabin some far distance from SAdB, and he was tended too. Years later Ma and Pa Zuber tell this story to their son, who writes it up and gets it published. Here is the kicker though:
Zuber later admitted that he inserted into the story an element that it did not seem complete without. Examining the story the only thing that could be is the line.
Mrs. Dickensen, God rest her illiterate, non-inquisitive soul, said that Travis called the garrison together shortly before (I suppose a day or so) the final assault.
So I fully buy the calling together. I think Rose went over the wall. I just don't buy the specific detail of drawing the line. Some legends though are worth keeping. This is one of them for it speaks to our character as Americans.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 9, 2015 15:03:23 GMT -6
I think that history and myths are both important as long as they remain seperate. History shows our journey to today. The myths show how we want to see ourselves on that journey.
Sorry I haven't been too active in this discussion. I am very interested in it but currently experiencing a lack of time.
Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2015 15:34:45 GMT -6
I think George Washington sat his butt down in the boat Beth, but that does not detract from the accomplishment of Trenton.
Same here. It is one of those things that add more luster to an epic event. Same thing if we come to find out there were only 299 Spartans.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 9, 2015 15:47:09 GMT -6
At Thermopylae the Spartans were not the only Greeks fighting the Persians. The just had a better PR department. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 9, 2015 16:11:36 GMT -6
Speaking of Spartans and the Famed 300, could the Alamo have repelled the Mexicans if they had 300 men? I have read that the number of defenders was some where between 175 to 183. Other sources I can't speak for say over 200 plus defenders. How many defenders would it have taken to hold the Alamo? How eerie that Custer could have used more men just like Travis but maybe for different reasons. Travis did not spread his force half way all over Montana. Is that a fair comparison? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by mac on Mar 9, 2015 17:44:08 GMT -6
Question of the day: What was the last offensive maneuver conducted by the Alamo defenders, and why. You will have to really dig into Alamo lore to find this one. It is also the subject of some controversy, involving the second reinforcement theory promulgated several years ago, by a fellow whose name I can't recall off hand, but was also one of those who went apoplectic over Crockett's supposed execution as related in the de la Pena diary. OK I am intrigued. I thought the last thing was to leave their defences and fight hand to hand with the attackers. Perhaps just a myth but I like the spirit. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2015 17:46:57 GMT -6
Dave: Now into an area, that I have tried to lead into since this thread started. It is a question where no real satisfactory answer has ever been given, and that is unlikely to change.
I think the last time I looked there were either 187 or 191 identified. Ruiz mentions disposing of well over 200 bodies and I just can't recall that exact number, without a trip to consult Hansen. Travis mentions in an early letter that he had 150 give or take. Again I would have to go to Hansen for that exact number, but it is close enough for what we intend here.
It is also known that 32 came in with the Gonzalez Mounted Ranging Company, and all their names are known.
There were also somewhere between 20 and 30 men sick, or that had been wounded and still recovering from the assault on Bejar, when Cos was thrown out of town in December 35. They were confined to the second story of the long barracks (the building still standing facing the plaza - the second story now gone). What is unknown, at least to me is if these men were included in Travis's total or did he only include fit for duty men in his letter.
There may also have been two or three Mexican officer POW's housed in one of the buildings along the west wall.
There also exists a possibility that individuals dribbled into the garrison by ones and twos unmentioned anywhere.
Finally there is the second reinforcement theory. On the evening of 3 March Almonte's diary entry mentions "The enemy attempted a sally in the night to the (Garza) sugar mill but was repulsed by our advance (there is that damned bloody word again - this time meaning our forward elements, probably outposts) This is the answer to the question of the day as it is the last known offensive maneuver made by the garrison. Some, but not I, speculate that this was a coordinated effort to assist another organized break in. In the main those that subscribe to this theory do so to explain the delta between the number of identified defenders and the number that Ruiz disposed of. Very shakey ground I think.
The most likely explanation for this delta is that all the defenders have never been identified, along with some Mexican bodies who probably found their way to the burn piles. And probably no one really cared how many were there anyway 250-260-270, close enough for Alcalde work.
How many would it take to hold the place. Against the vanguard force of around 11 to 12 hundred, those that were there were enough. Against the main body that came up on 3 March, you would need on the order of 500 to adequately man the defenses, with a reasonable chance of success. More Mexicans, and there were more available you might need as high as 800. Remember though they must be provided with food, water, and ammunition, all of which were in very short supply.
In the question I also ask why the Texian offensive maneuver. Damned if I know, but it was most probably a combat patrol designed to obtain information on those Mexicans of the main body that were that day installing themselves up that way. Keep in mind the sugar mill is a good piece away, and if memory serves was located where the campus of Saint Mary's University now stands.
What this offensive escapade shows though is that garrison still had plenty of fight in it at that late date. I pay no attention to what was little more than idle gossip that Travis was on the verge of surrender, come either the 6th or 7th of March. They were under no illusions what would happen if they surrendered anyway. Being captured in revolutionary Mexico meant a one way trip to the wall and everyone was aware of the fact.
Another thing we do not know is how many have the right to call themselves Alamo defenders. Many went out Seguin and Allen to name but two. We have no way of knowing how many, or if they returned. We only know Bonham went out and returned, but there may have been more. We don't know how many Hispanic locals were in Seguin's company. We don't know if the all stayed when he left, some stayed. You get the picture.
Anyway you all have enough to chew on here, and we can explore other areas tomorrow.
|
|