Post by TRK on Jul 21, 2010 12:42:56 GMT -5
I have moved a lengthy off-topic discussion about the "covered road" Almonte reported in his journal, from the "Alamo Defenders" thread to here, with notice of the original posters included. Carry on...
"garyzaboly" wrote:
The "covered road": a similiar discovery was made by Grant's party in December 1835, sixty miles north of San Patricio, of "a narrow pathway through a dense thicket of chapparal." (Johnson, TEXAS AND TEXANS, 422). It could be that, since the Alamo itself was surrounded in parts by dense chapparal and cactus, that Almonte's "covered road" was also a path that had been largely overgrown.
"chieftain" wrote:
Gary: As it happens my house backs up to a piece of ranch land, that is probably not unlike the area that surrounded the Alamo in 1836. After I saw you post I just happend to pass by one of the windows facing in that direction, and I took a good hard look. My conclusion is that with the brush, high prarie grass etc, coupled with a slight depression in the ground, such as a well traveled dirt road would make, it might very well go undetected for some time. A small depression and the vegitation could very well hide a man either, on a horse or leading a horse, from view. Sure would like to know more about this as it may lead to the answers of questions beyond geography.
"garyzaboly" wrote:
There you go! So it might begin to make real sense that that could be what the Mexicans found. According to 1835-36 accounts, the areas immediately to the north and east of the Alamo were overgrown with brush, cacti and very high grass. West of the fort was mostly open fields, and south of course was La Villita.
On the other hand, a "covered road" in military terminology of the time was just that: a road deliberately sunk below the level of the ground, to enable troops, guns, etc. to move freely without receiving shot, shell, and bullet from the besieged fort.
Could Almonte have been referring to a branch of an acequia?
Austin's men in '35 didn't dig any advanced artillery entrenchments as far as I know, aside from the earthen battery across the river to the northwest, and the Alamo didn't experience any siege in 1813 or 1814. So the "covered road" must have been seen as something that COULD be used to advance troops etc., if the implication was that it just wasn't an overgrown path.
In giving this more thought, since the road was "within pistol shot" of the fort and Santa Anna posted the Jiminez battalion there, it HAD to be somewhat sunken to protect them, unless they dug out an entrenchment for cover. Being posted within pistol shot---dangerous work, unless Almonte meant that they were posted on the road beyond the range of the Alamo small arms.
PS: One of the major problems with Almonte's journal is that it's lost, and there's no way to check just how faithful a translation had been done by the N.Y. HERALD in 1836. After the journal was published in that paper, the original was sent to President Jackson in Washington. What happened to it after that is anyone's guess. It might be that it still sits in some dusty 1830s-period Washington archive! (What a find that would be).
Do we REALLY know what Almonte wrote? His Spanish may have written that it was a "HIDDEN road" as opposed to "COVERED road." The difference in definition, to a military man anyway, is significant.
"wolfpack" wrote:
Gary, you touch on a very significant problem. There are very deliberate and different meanings in military language, translating "meanings" from different eras and between foreign languages can lead to a lot of false conclusions. Even sticking with English, the differences aren't obvious to the uninitiated.
I'm not sure whether Almonte meant covered or simply concealed, but the fact that Santa Anna had to post another battalion to cover it, strongly implies that it had to be on the east/north side of the Alamo. If it was elsewhere, a battalion that was already in position, would have simply had received the additional task to outpost this new avenue.
While its imposssible to state catagorically, I feel that the "within pistol shot" means that the covered or concealed route approached within pistol shot of the Alamo walls. I doubt seriously that the Jimenez Battalion was posted that close. I would not expect to find them much closer than 400 yards (outside normal canister range) and even then was at least partially dug in. From here small detachments (less likily to draw fire, and more able to use terrain for concealment) could have further outposted the road, closer to the defenders.
"marklemon" wrote:
Gary,
The designation of "road" is problematic, especially in light of other so-named features in the area, in that period that were really no more than rough paths, or trails.
I have been researching this business of the covered road for an upcoming book out later this year, and find it intriguing and frustrating at the same time. As you know, when one actually gets out and walks a battlefield, what looks like more or less level ground on a map, oftentimes becomes an undulating, rolling series of swales and arroyos. Pickett's men at Gettysburg, covering the mile or so between the lines, were intermittently in and out of view as they marched. With this in mind, the feature referred to could literally be anywhere.
One such area that has yet to be considered, as far as I know, is the series of paths, for people, goats, burro carts, or all of the above, that would certainly have run along, around, and among the houses leading up north from La Villita, by the houses bordering the Pueblo Del Alamo, on up to the SW corner of the mission. I find it absolutely feasible that what Santa Anna found was one such "road" more like a path, that was located behind this line of houses, and which was somewhat in a depression (as the topography begins to sharply drop off towards the river) and also further concealed from view by the houses themselves. As you showed in "Blood.." this point of approach was used to advantage by Morales a few days later. Just a thought.
"chieftain" wrote:
Gary: After I posted I spent a good portion of last night going over the plats in Nelson and Hansen, as well at Nelson's various paintings and your day by days in Huffines. There are several what I believe strong possabilities:
1) Camino de los Machos (Houston Street) leads directly to the high ground and ultimately east to Gonzales if one turns at some point southeast after clearing the Mexican outpost line. It is though in my view much to near the Powder House, and would most probably been included in the cavalry screen or at least patroled on a regular basis.
2) Camino de Nacogdoches is a possible, but I think unlikely due to the early placement of a battery quite near it. I believe I am correct in assuming that where this road is near the Alamo it follows the general trace of Bonham Street?
3) The Camino de Unreadable (Seguin Road) is a very possible as it leads quickly to high ground and might be just far enough north to escape outposting or vigorous patroling.
Is this not the road that Bonham used for his return trip? If my interpretation of the period maps and drawings with Bing Maps is correct this road would have branched off of Bonham to the east about two hundred or so yards from the intersetion of Bonham and Houston.
4) A dried up acequia in the aproximate location you have on your day by days, that is used in conjunction with any of the above or if it went far enough by itself. Seems to me that any acequia would have to start on high ground and take advantage of the water's flow. Who is to say that such a feature from mission days did not still exist, in whole or in part from a spring, long dried up on Powder House Ridge (meaning the entire north-south hill mass).
Any road in long use in those days was likely to be covered, sunken, or hidden, particularly when you enter vegitation into the equasion. The famous sunken roads at Sharpsburg and Fredricksburg did not start out that way but became that way from use. To my eye they are not very much sunken either, but probably just enough.
I doubt if anybody was posted within a pistol shot of the Alamo on 4 March for two basic reasons.
1) Why. All such a posting would do is probably draw more of the attention of the defenders to the north quadrant, the very place you intend to make your main attack. Having a battery close is one thing, an infantry battalion quite another.
2) Why again, when you could close off that avenue with a force much further back and out of immediate danger from small arms. Closing it near the Alamo was not the point. Closing it to use somewhere was the point.
I take Almonte's words to mean very close and not in a litteral sense.
I think we must realize that Santa Anna and his senior officers were trained military professionals. That does not preclude strupidity of course. What it does say though that now after they had enough assets they were going to draw the ring even tighter. While they may not have cared much about the outgoing and incoming traffic in the early days of the seige is not material. What is material is that they initially did not have enough assets to stop it completely. I think on the 4th of March the posting of the Jiminez Battalion was , in the main, a preliminaty posting for the assault that was to follow two days later.
If they followed then the same procedure as today, the journal would be in the Jackson presidential papers. The National Archives would be my guess if it still exists.
The terms hidden and covered may have made a difference in the terminology of thos days. Cover could have indicated a road sunken so deep as to provided cover from direct fire. Hidden denotes to me concealment that may or may not provide that same measure of protection. I suspect though that the two words were thought to have the same meaning.
This whole sub-quest could turn out to be very interesting.
"garyzaboly" wrote:
The "covered road": a similiar discovery was made by Grant's party in December 1835, sixty miles north of San Patricio, of "a narrow pathway through a dense thicket of chapparal." (Johnson, TEXAS AND TEXANS, 422). It could be that, since the Alamo itself was surrounded in parts by dense chapparal and cactus, that Almonte's "covered road" was also a path that had been largely overgrown.
"chieftain" wrote:
Gary: As it happens my house backs up to a piece of ranch land, that is probably not unlike the area that surrounded the Alamo in 1836. After I saw you post I just happend to pass by one of the windows facing in that direction, and I took a good hard look. My conclusion is that with the brush, high prarie grass etc, coupled with a slight depression in the ground, such as a well traveled dirt road would make, it might very well go undetected for some time. A small depression and the vegitation could very well hide a man either, on a horse or leading a horse, from view. Sure would like to know more about this as it may lead to the answers of questions beyond geography.
"garyzaboly" wrote:
There you go! So it might begin to make real sense that that could be what the Mexicans found. According to 1835-36 accounts, the areas immediately to the north and east of the Alamo were overgrown with brush, cacti and very high grass. West of the fort was mostly open fields, and south of course was La Villita.
On the other hand, a "covered road" in military terminology of the time was just that: a road deliberately sunk below the level of the ground, to enable troops, guns, etc. to move freely without receiving shot, shell, and bullet from the besieged fort.
Could Almonte have been referring to a branch of an acequia?
Austin's men in '35 didn't dig any advanced artillery entrenchments as far as I know, aside from the earthen battery across the river to the northwest, and the Alamo didn't experience any siege in 1813 or 1814. So the "covered road" must have been seen as something that COULD be used to advance troops etc., if the implication was that it just wasn't an overgrown path.
In giving this more thought, since the road was "within pistol shot" of the fort and Santa Anna posted the Jiminez battalion there, it HAD to be somewhat sunken to protect them, unless they dug out an entrenchment for cover. Being posted within pistol shot---dangerous work, unless Almonte meant that they were posted on the road beyond the range of the Alamo small arms.
PS: One of the major problems with Almonte's journal is that it's lost, and there's no way to check just how faithful a translation had been done by the N.Y. HERALD in 1836. After the journal was published in that paper, the original was sent to President Jackson in Washington. What happened to it after that is anyone's guess. It might be that it still sits in some dusty 1830s-period Washington archive! (What a find that would be).
Do we REALLY know what Almonte wrote? His Spanish may have written that it was a "HIDDEN road" as opposed to "COVERED road." The difference in definition, to a military man anyway, is significant.
"wolfpack" wrote:
Gary, you touch on a very significant problem. There are very deliberate and different meanings in military language, translating "meanings" from different eras and between foreign languages can lead to a lot of false conclusions. Even sticking with English, the differences aren't obvious to the uninitiated.
I'm not sure whether Almonte meant covered or simply concealed, but the fact that Santa Anna had to post another battalion to cover it, strongly implies that it had to be on the east/north side of the Alamo. If it was elsewhere, a battalion that was already in position, would have simply had received the additional task to outpost this new avenue.
While its imposssible to state catagorically, I feel that the "within pistol shot" means that the covered or concealed route approached within pistol shot of the Alamo walls. I doubt seriously that the Jimenez Battalion was posted that close. I would not expect to find them much closer than 400 yards (outside normal canister range) and even then was at least partially dug in. From here small detachments (less likily to draw fire, and more able to use terrain for concealment) could have further outposted the road, closer to the defenders.
"marklemon" wrote:
Gary,
The designation of "road" is problematic, especially in light of other so-named features in the area, in that period that were really no more than rough paths, or trails.
I have been researching this business of the covered road for an upcoming book out later this year, and find it intriguing and frustrating at the same time. As you know, when one actually gets out and walks a battlefield, what looks like more or less level ground on a map, oftentimes becomes an undulating, rolling series of swales and arroyos. Pickett's men at Gettysburg, covering the mile or so between the lines, were intermittently in and out of view as they marched. With this in mind, the feature referred to could literally be anywhere.
One such area that has yet to be considered, as far as I know, is the series of paths, for people, goats, burro carts, or all of the above, that would certainly have run along, around, and among the houses leading up north from La Villita, by the houses bordering the Pueblo Del Alamo, on up to the SW corner of the mission. I find it absolutely feasible that what Santa Anna found was one such "road" more like a path, that was located behind this line of houses, and which was somewhat in a depression (as the topography begins to sharply drop off towards the river) and also further concealed from view by the houses themselves. As you showed in "Blood.." this point of approach was used to advantage by Morales a few days later. Just a thought.
"chieftain" wrote:
Gary: After I posted I spent a good portion of last night going over the plats in Nelson and Hansen, as well at Nelson's various paintings and your day by days in Huffines. There are several what I believe strong possabilities:
1) Camino de los Machos (Houston Street) leads directly to the high ground and ultimately east to Gonzales if one turns at some point southeast after clearing the Mexican outpost line. It is though in my view much to near the Powder House, and would most probably been included in the cavalry screen or at least patroled on a regular basis.
2) Camino de Nacogdoches is a possible, but I think unlikely due to the early placement of a battery quite near it. I believe I am correct in assuming that where this road is near the Alamo it follows the general trace of Bonham Street?
3) The Camino de Unreadable (Seguin Road) is a very possible as it leads quickly to high ground and might be just far enough north to escape outposting or vigorous patroling.
Is this not the road that Bonham used for his return trip? If my interpretation of the period maps and drawings with Bing Maps is correct this road would have branched off of Bonham to the east about two hundred or so yards from the intersetion of Bonham and Houston.
4) A dried up acequia in the aproximate location you have on your day by days, that is used in conjunction with any of the above or if it went far enough by itself. Seems to me that any acequia would have to start on high ground and take advantage of the water's flow. Who is to say that such a feature from mission days did not still exist, in whole or in part from a spring, long dried up on Powder House Ridge (meaning the entire north-south hill mass).
Any road in long use in those days was likely to be covered, sunken, or hidden, particularly when you enter vegitation into the equasion. The famous sunken roads at Sharpsburg and Fredricksburg did not start out that way but became that way from use. To my eye they are not very much sunken either, but probably just enough.
I doubt if anybody was posted within a pistol shot of the Alamo on 4 March for two basic reasons.
1) Why. All such a posting would do is probably draw more of the attention of the defenders to the north quadrant, the very place you intend to make your main attack. Having a battery close is one thing, an infantry battalion quite another.
2) Why again, when you could close off that avenue with a force much further back and out of immediate danger from small arms. Closing it near the Alamo was not the point. Closing it to use somewhere was the point.
I take Almonte's words to mean very close and not in a litteral sense.
I think we must realize that Santa Anna and his senior officers were trained military professionals. That does not preclude strupidity of course. What it does say though that now after they had enough assets they were going to draw the ring even tighter. While they may not have cared much about the outgoing and incoming traffic in the early days of the seige is not material. What is material is that they initially did not have enough assets to stop it completely. I think on the 4th of March the posting of the Jiminez Battalion was , in the main, a preliminaty posting for the assault that was to follow two days later.
If they followed then the same procedure as today, the journal would be in the Jackson presidential papers. The National Archives would be my guess if it still exists.
The terms hidden and covered may have made a difference in the terminology of thos days. Cover could have indicated a road sunken so deep as to provided cover from direct fire. Hidden denotes to me concealment that may or may not provide that same measure of protection. I suspect though that the two words were thought to have the same meaning.
This whole sub-quest could turn out to be very interesting.
