|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 20, 2010 9:25:46 GMT -5
How many Mexican soldiers were killed at the Alamo?
|
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Aug 4, 2010 15:59:58 GMT -5
How many Mexican soldiers were killed at the Alamo? An interesting question, because so many of the Mexican wounded died in the following days, weeks, even months. If the latter are included, the number would approach more than a few hundred. |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 4, 2010 19:24:56 GMT -5
How many Mexican soldiers were killed at the Alamo? Somewhere around 70 killed outright, with several hundred wounded, many of which, as Gary said, probably died later. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Aug 4, 2010 20:34:58 GMT -5
Yes, and I truly believe that most of the casualties were probably the product of "friendly" fire, rather than by the defenders. One can only imagine the chaos in the darkness ...
|
|
|
|
Post by jesswald on Aug 4, 2010 21:53:17 GMT -5
There undoubtedly were losses to friendly fire, but de la Pena for one does not seem to think they were that many. He claims that the batteries on the north wall did a great deal of damage to the Mexican assault team. Given his antipathy to Santa Anna, he might have been expected to emphasize the confusion wrought by poor generalship, rather than the marksmanship of the enemy. On the other hand, by citing the losses the Mexicans incurred to Texian artillery, maybe he was arguing what a bad idea the attack was in the first place.
Jesse Waldinger
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 4, 2010 23:08:33 GMT -5
How many Mexican soldiers were killed at the Alamo? Somewhere around 70 killed outright, with several hundred wounded, many of which, as Gary said, probably died later. I used to scoff at that figure of 70 coming from Santa Anna until I realized that it was in his official letter of 8:00 A.M., March 6. It was essencially "first returns" from his officers. By the end of March, it was a very different figure. |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 4, 2010 23:27:21 GMT -5
Yes Rich, I did too.
But all of the Mexican casualty returns, from every battalion, coincide to add up to the 70(+-) figure of killed. To think this is false implies that there was a conspiracy, and that every battalion adjutant was ordered to deliberately falsify their documents for a sinister purpose. Occam's razor applies here....
When one reviews these documents, one can see that the recorder was making a conscientious effort to get the numbers correct, as there are occasional strike-through's where a missing or presumed dead soldado apparently showed up, causing the correction.
As I recall, there were some two or three hundred wounded, which makes perfect sense considering both sides were firing in near total darkness. A non-ambulatory wounded man, especially with little or no medical attention, is as good as dead, as even if he doesn't die, he is removed from active duty. The result is the same. And there is evidence that a very large number of the Mexican wounded died from their wounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 4, 2010 23:43:49 GMT -5
And, according to Dr. Barnard, they died from the simplest of wounds due to having no medicine or anything more than just rudimentary services -- couldn't even perform amputations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 5, 2010 10:11:41 GMT -5
When one looks at the numbers reported by the Mexicans it is important to sort them out. What was put out for newspaper publication ie "bulletins" and what were internal documents meant for the internal use of the Mexican Army. When you do that the numbers become consistent.
The other thing that has to be looked at is unlike today, lightly wounded would not be included - only the seriously wounded that required hospitalization would be included on the unit returns.
Using Andrade's report and the surgeon's report as well as unit returns, about 140-150 soldiers were killed in action or died of their wounds, the hospitalized wounded (minus the died of the wounds) equalled somewhere around 180 - 200. Given those numbers the non hospitalized wounded had to equal another 100 or even more.
The thing that is remarkable to me is how closely this matches Bradburn's quote to Potter, that the Mexican Army lost 300 men permanently (at least for the campaign).
On a sidenote, according to the Surgeon's report dated August 1st from Matamoros, five months after the battle, 68 men remained hospitalized.
|
|
