|
Post by jrboddie on Jul 22, 2010 19:48:38 GMT -5
Almonte's journal says that on Mar 3 "the enemy attempted a sally in the night at the Sugar Mill, but were repulsed by our advance." Is it correct that the Sugar Mill is actually on the west side of the river about 700 m NW of the compound?
I wonder how many men were engaged and what was their mission? Was this a breakout that failed? A probe for a future breakout? Was it sanctioned by the garrison command or possibly deserters? Or could it possibly be reinforcements?
Any other references to this skirmish?
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 22, 2010 20:07:45 GMT -5
Almonte's journal says that on Mar 3 "the enemy attempted a sally in the night at the Sugar Mill, but were repulsed by our advance." Is it correct that the Sugar Mill is actually on the west side of the river about 700 m NW of the compound? There were two sugar mills at the time, generally north of the Alamo on the west side of the river: Zambrano's and la Garza's. It's not clear which mill Almonte is referring to. Read more about them here, sections 16 and 16a: alamostudies.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bexarwalkingtour&action=display&thread=295
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 22, 2010 20:28:44 GMT -5
So TRK, was "Sally in the alley" between the two Sugar Mills?
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 22, 2010 20:44:11 GMT -5
I knew you wouldn't be able to resist that thread title, RR!
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 23, 2010 17:30:00 GMT -5
Yea, it just sounds like old folk song.
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on Jul 23, 2010 19:48:27 GMT -5
So what do you suppose they were trying to accomplish? We know of a couple of missions outside the compound: one to destroy the jacales that were providing cover to the Mexicans to the south and others to get water. Why the action at the sugar mill?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 23, 2010 19:58:26 GMT -5
Hey Jim, The late Tom Lindley theorized that the sally was actually an attempt by a second reinforcement to enter the fort, only a fraction of which made it through. Crockett was supposed to have been one of the defenders who went out to meet them at the Cibolo, and was able to get back in. This theory has been debated a bit on this forum over the past few years, but the general concensus was that it lacked foundation. Still, it's interesting to speculate that, in the darkness, and general confusion, directions can be misleading, and the direction from which a sudden rush of horses comes in the darkness may not be so easy to ascertain. Quien sabe? This leads to another related sally question: Were the Texians mounted? Seems so...It makes little sense to believe that they would have been on foot, exposed, and that far from the safety of the mission. So this then implies that the Texians did in fact have a good supply of horses in the mission during the siege. The matter of horses has also been discussed here a while back... Mark
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 23, 2010 21:53:48 GMT -5
The original post stated several possabilities about the Almonte journal entry. Every one of them is a valid point of speculation. To them I would add one more. Could it have been a courier attempting to break out with letters and dispatches?
Almonte gives us three key words Sugar Mill (which one?), sally (thought to mean from within the garrision), and advance (possibly meaning an advanced outpost or roving patrol?). He fails to give us that fourth word (how many).
I fully agree with Mark on two things The distance to each of the sugar mills from the compound is quite far for a man on foot, not in distance but in terms of immediately available support if you get into trouble. Hearing a noise at night and determining the direction it comes from can be quite difficult.
Let us consider for a moment it was either a combat patrol or a reconnissance patrol. Were it either of these then what would be the objective. Of the two a recon patrol makes more sense than the other. But then the question arises what could they find out by beating bush at night that they could not see from the north or west wall during the day? If it were a combat patrol it would probably require a fairly good number of men, which would entertain quite a risk for an already understrength garrison. In either instance a commander must ask himself is the risk worth the potential reward.
Another thing to consider is that it was 3 March. Reinforcements arrived that day and had possibly started deployment to the north and east. Fresh troops in a new area at nightfall have a tendency to get a little jumpy and the slightest noise could sound to them like a freight train.
Finally Travis wrote at least three letters on 3 March. Somebody had to carry them out.
So I will state my hypothisis - A courier leaves the Alamo after dark on 3 March. Instead of working his way directly north or east, possibly wishing to avoid troop deployments in that area, he decides to work his way north along the river and by necessity past each of the sugar mills, before turning east and proceeding with his mission. Along the way he runs into or spooks a sentry or outpost, shots are either one sided or exchanged.
To a sentry, NCO, or officer in the vacinity it may very well seem in the dark to be something it isn't, and is reported so. Almonte did not indicate any casualties on either side.
To a possible courier all he does is say whoops and works his way around another way, or returns to the Alamo, or is laying dead and undiscovered out on the prairie.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Jul 24, 2010 5:15:37 GMT -5
The Mexicans had dug an entrenchment at the Sugar Mill, according to Travis in his March 3 letter, so it's possible the sally was made to throw some disruption their way. The country northwest from the north wall to the San Antonio River was probably largely devoid of the enemy, and the overgrown nature of the landscape would have allowed such a group of Texians enough cover to travel unnoticed.
They no doubt remembered Austin's battery, planted near the Sugar Mill in 1835, and how it had damaged the Alamo walls even from that distance.
Alan Huffines opined that the sally was made to distract the enemy's attention so a courier could get through. Very possible. But it was also the duty of any besieged garrison to sally forth, if they could, and do whatever damage they could to the enemy.
I must admit I did a double-take when I read "Sally at the Sugar Mill." Sounds sweet!
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 24, 2010 10:00:19 GMT -5
Gary:
I think that everything mentioned in this entire thread is possible. I do believe though that to ascertain what is most probable we must start with the question - How had the situation on 3 March changed from the preceeding days of the siege?
If this sally was to meerly disrupt the enemy, such an action could have been taken much closer to the Alamo than the sugar mill. That would lead one to believe that had Travis decided to do this, and the vacinity of the sugar mill was to be the terrain objective, then there must have been some specific purpose for the sugar mill area to be chosen.
I fully agree about the northwest quadrant short of the river being largely unoccupied. Probably no more than a combat outpost line existed if anything. I also agree that the nature of the terrain would allow undetected movement by a relatively few dismounted men. I think the movement of mounted men (say 20 or more) would have been problematic. Horses cannot be counted on not to make noise at an inappropriate moment. Of course with dismounts you have to take into account the fact that they might not be to easy to support if they get into trouble. A close attack on either of the sugar mills would require crossing the river. I don't know what the depth of the river is in the vacinity of the mills. Depending on that, it could get a little bit stickey to have your back to the river if a firefight goes bad.
I would trust Alan's judgement on this in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. I am sure he would have looked at this with a soldier's eye, before expressing his opinion. I do not mean this to imply that his is the only or even the most probable solution. I think though that it is one of perhaps three most probable.
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on Jul 24, 2010 10:54:14 GMT -5
There is another reference to this in Hansen 1.7.3.3 p.212 regarding John Smith, the last courier out of the Alamo, and the Mar 3 letters from Travis.
"There are different versions of how Smith succeeded in getting through the Mexican cordon. One is that he slipped through the northern postern as others had before. When he was ready the postern swung open and a few Texans rushed out of the Alamo, manuevered their way toward the sugar mill, and engaged the enemy in a feint to distract attention. With the Mexican guns spitting replies and the patrols rushing to the spot, Smith got through unnoticed and was quickly swallowed up in the darkness of midnight." (suggested by Lord, A Time to Stand, 141.)
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 24, 2010 11:28:03 GMT -5
I would submit, that the sally, to the NW was in fact a recon patrol sent out because of the Mexican reinforcements that arrived that day. Travis could reasonably see, what was going on at all points - except the NW. The distance, terrain and river growth would have limited his ability to know exactly what was going on at the mill. He obviously had a need as well as a duty to determine what was going on. I doubt if the patrol was mounted, while the mobility could have got them out of trouble faster, the dramatic increase in the risk of detection was not worth it, imo. Even modern cavalry, would at most only move part way to the recon objective mounted, and then conduct the reconassince itself dismounted.
While night actions do severely limit the ability to know what exactly is going on, according to Almonte, gun fire was exchanged and that adds a totally new dimension. Because of muzzle flashes it s obvious where the enemy is. That's why more modern infantry have been trained to use hand grenades, mortars, artillery, mines, etc. at night before ever exposing themselves by using their rifles. While what the Texian mission was, and how it was conducted is debatable, I trust Almonte's version that the men came from the Alamo and were not a second reinforcement.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 24, 2010 11:44:52 GMT -5
Yes, the other two versions of how he may have gotten out do not particularly trip my plausability trigger.
If, and I place great emphasis on if, this was the reason for the sugar mill sally, then I think we can draw either one of two conclusions or both. An escorted courier or a courier that required a diversion to get out indicates to me that the situation was perceived by the defenders to have greatly changed by 3 March, or that the dispatch(s) were deemed so important as to require an extra bit of caution. The letter to the Convention would certainly meet that criteria.
Another conclusion that can be drawn under the "if" circumstances is that any Mexican unit near the sugar mill had most likely outposed the Alamo side of the river. I do not think it prudent to trust forward security to any roving cavalry patrol that might make its way through this area from time to time. This is particulary true at night when dismounts could easily avoid them
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Jul 24, 2010 13:59:21 GMT -5
March 3rd was an interesting day for the Alamo garrison. That morning Bonham arrived with word from Williamson that 300 men would soon be heading west from the Texian settlements, and of course that Fannin's 300 were also "on the march."
It was also the day that Gaona's Mexican reinforcements arrived (with De la Pena).
From what I can gather after looking at a variety of contemporary military books, sorties were made by besieged troops for any number of reasons: to retard the enemy's preparations when an assault was soon expected (and Gaona's arrival may have heightened this expectation, naturally), to simply disrupt the enemy's siege lines, to destroy the enemy's works and/or munitions, to obtain some of the enemy's materiel, or to distract the enemy when reinforcements or couriers were ingressing or egressing. It is also indicated that sorties to disrupt the enemy had to be large enough to withstand a counterattack, so chances are that northward-moving body on the night of March 3rd was fairly sizable.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 24, 2010 14:25:34 GMT -5
Gary: I have read an account recently of Henry V's siege of Harfleur. During that siege the French sotied several times for exactly the reasons you describe. So yes, the action at the sugar mill could indeed be for any of these purposes.
It could also be for something like Herb suggests, a recon patrol. In fact it could very well be a standing recon patrol that went out every night, with the only difference being that this one was detected and therefore reported.
I just wish that the language of the day had been less flowery or romantic and much more specific. Repelled by our advance. I can recall similar language from a Confederate report on the Battle of Ox Hill (or Chantilly). What that little phrase did not tell you was that in this particular instance it was a full blown engagement between two army corps that cost a 1000 lives.
|
|