|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 12, 2008 8:54:33 GMT -5
For those who attended Mark Lemon's tour of the Alamo compound, are there any new or revised thoughts on how the battle actually progressed?
A few of us had a discussion of where Romero's unit attacked, for example -- their original objective, where they ended up, and why. Did he head straight for the jacales north of the granery, or just ended up there?
Was the corral attacked? Was it even defended?
The place was larger than most of us realized. Where were the defenders when the attack came and how did they respond? Was there any sort of plan or pre-set deployment of the defenders should an attack occur? My own thought is that the main attack came at the north end and that's where most of the defenders went, leaving few to defend the rest of the place.
I also wonder how many cannon were actually manned and able to fire when the attack came. Can anyone find records of cannon fire from the fort, other than the north wall? I don't recall any mention of Morales being fired upon either from the lunette or the 18-pounder.
And what about that rather massive lunette? Does anyone think that Morales attacked that position, or went instead directly for the southwest corner and secured the gate once inside the fort?
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 12, 2008 12:39:16 GMT -5
I'll tackle one of those questions here, and I'll resurface the Morales thread on the Morales question.
Really studying Mark's work as led me to reevaluate a couple of things one of them is the Alamo Artillery and manning the walls.
Traditionally, most of us when trying to figure out how the walls were manned have tried to figure the minimum number of men for each artillery piece so as to maximize the number of riflemen available to man the walls. But, when you look at the available rifle positions there just aren't that many. Some loopholes in each building on the outer wall, the partially built firing step between the two batteries on the North Wall. The trench in the Cattle Pen, and the Palisade. Other than the exposed roofs of the buildings there really wasn't much more.
I think the defenders were even more dependent on their artillery then we have previously believed. Instead of a minimum crew of 3 or 4 men per tube, we probably need to look at a closer to average crew of 6 to 8 men per tube. When you figure that the larger crew could probably fire close to 3 rounds per minute instead of one or two of the smaller crew and open effective fire at over 400 yards. I think you can see the advantage. An average rifleman's effective range was only 100-150 yards and if equipped with a musket even less.
Now, if you figure the Alamo cannon would open fire at over 400 yards until the enemy got under the guns, the larger crews should have been able to get off at least 9 shots each, beginning with round shot, shifting to canister and lanridge as the attackers closed.
The problem with all this is it is predicated on the defenders being alert and opening fire at near to the maximum effective range. Santa Anna apparently caught the defender sleeping, and except for a very few cannon shots, the defenders were forced to fight the enemy with their personal weapons (the Mexicans already being under the cannons).
I've gone through every account trying to track the number of artillery rounds fired. Lorcana gives us a specific total of only 4 total shots fired. We have accounts that specify four shots, one shot, the most famous, that did so much damage to the Toluca Battalion. Sanchez-Navarro (I believe) mentions two shots of grape (canister) fired at Cos's column. Mexican Colonel Bradburn (not present) tells about one cannon that was turned on the Mexicans after they crossed the North Wall. The only other shots specifically mention is by Becerra, who said that the artillery on top of the Church fired some rounds - Alan Huffines has concluded that these shots were fired at the cavalry in support of the breakouts. From what we know today, that seems a fair assumption, as it doesn't appear that any other Mexican units would have been able to be engaged by these cannons.
No where is it mentioned that the cannon in the SW corner fired.
Once again Lorcana said a total of four rounds fired - and we know of four specific shots, plus the possibility of the Church cannon firing. While more than 4 total rounds may have been fired the paucity of comments about artillery fire by the defenders, leads me to conclude that there was only a total of between 4 - 10 total artillery rounds fired.
|
|
|
|
Post by bhist on Mar 12, 2008 14:16:40 GMT -5
With respect to Lemon’s work (as I’ve already noted in another thread I love his new book), this idea that we never knew the actual size of the Alamo compound until Lemon told us is not true. We’ve known about it for decades. For just as long, anyone crossing the street from the Church can look down at the foundation of where the west and south walls connected. You can see a photo I took of it in 2003 at vonsworks.com/Battle%20of%20the%20Alamo.htm We’ve also known for as long as I can remember that Travis might have fallen inside the present post office. I cannot remember the last time I visited the Alamo when I did not look at the buildings across the street and picture the west wall. I cannot remember the last time I looked at the post office and did not picture it as the north wall. So, before we all go overboard here and start crediting Mark Lemmon with a new mind-blowing unveiling of the real Alamo, I think it’s best that we set the record straight. His layout is nothing new. It’s been known for generations that the businesses across the street own property that once was part of the Alamo compound. Now, the information that Lemon has put into his new book might support what Foreman is trying to do with the development or redevelopment of the compound. If that change takes place, now that would be news. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 12, 2008 17:11:10 GMT -5
Bob, I think what all the attendees are referring to is how the scale of the compound came alive when we walked the perimeter with Mark. Mr. Lemon certainly wasn't attempting to credit himself with discovering this information.
Personally, I was especially bowled over by the size of the lunette. Seeing these structures actually measured and marked on the street brought it home the way just reading about it or looking at a picture had not.
Your point is well taken, I just wanted to clarify that in Mark's own words he is "standing on the shoulders of giants" with regards to his new book and research.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 12, 2008 17:22:24 GMT -5
I lost count of the number of times Mark credited all of those who had worked in this area in the past. Mark is about as humble as anyone I've met. I also had been over the ground myself several times in the past, but the chalk markings made things clearer in a way I've never seen before. I agree -- the lunette was a particular eye-opener and I'm not sure anyone's shown that in its true form and size. Moreover, Mark's model, and the wonderful photos of it in his book, really do show me "how it looked," to use Mark's phrase, in a way that no one has ever done before. It really is like a time machine to me and the level of minute detail is just incredible. I don't think it's taking away from anyone else's work to praise Mark's. I think Jake Ivey, Craig Covner, Rich Curilla and others who accompanied us on Mark's tour would agree that even they got something unique out of this experience.
Now, if only the city fathers in Bexar would listen up and get with it!
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Mar 12, 2008 23:28:08 GMT -5
Indeed, I have many times plotted out the compound on paper, in my mind and visually on the plaza. I've experienced both movie sets' underscaling, drawn groundplans of the correct scale myself and lectured this information to others. I assure you, however, that I was absolutely bowled over by the revalations that came from our walk-around with Mark and Gary on those simple chalk marks. (I was almost bowled over by a bus, as well.)
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 13, 2008 1:26:03 GMT -5
Going back to Wolf's point, I recommend you read Filisola's account again (and DLP's); its very clear in there that the Texians had great difficulty in manning the walls due to the absence of fire-steps and that a lot of them were shot trying to fire from the tops of the walls. DLP interestingly refers to the effective rifle fire coming from the roof of the long barracks.
Where I'd part company with Wolf is in the number of men assigned to each gun. As he points out there isn't much evidence for many shots being fired and I keep coming back to my arguement that the Alamo was a refuge rather than a fortress. The Mexican accounts are all consistent in describing how the outer perimeter collapsed quickly simply because it was indefensible. If there was a defence plan in the first place I reckon it all fell apart in the opening minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by bhist on Mar 13, 2008 2:45:59 GMT -5
I lost count of the number of times Mark credited all of those who had worked in this area in the past. Mark is about as humble as anyone I've met. AW Most definitely; I don’t doubt Mark’s modesty, and please note that nowhere in my previous post did I claim that Mark was trying to take credit where credit was not due. I specifically pointed the finger at "us" on this board. Some of "us" are forgetting what we've known for so long. I'm sorry I wasn't there to see the "outline" of the compound. Maybe I've seen the Alamo differently from most, for all these years I've always been able to see its scale. The good thing is for those who can't, then Mark's book will make the Alamo appear for the first time. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 13, 2008 12:56:50 GMT -5
It isn't difficult to visualise the true size of the Alamo even without what I'm sure were very graphic lines which really ought to to be picked out permanently in brick or stone (there's a lot of that over here and very effective it is too) but in general terms I can only re-iterate what I've been saying for some time; the best representation of the storming of the Alamo is Gentilez' painting. Never mind the architectural errors or the fact he depicts the battle in broad daylight, what's compelling is his picture of tiny, scattered figures in a big landscape.
Subconsciously or otherwise I think we still tend to be overly influenced by cinematic images, especially from the John Wayne version, of massed Texian riflemen standing shoulder to shoulder along the parapet when in reality it was probably more akin to the gunfight at the OK corall than the battle of Waterloo.
|
|
|
|
Post by ranger2518 on Mar 13, 2008 21:32:48 GMT -5
It isn't difficult to visualise the true size of the Alamo even without what I'm sure were very graphic lines which really ought to to be picked out permanently in brick or stone... Some of that already exists. Witness the Plaza planters where the Low Barrack sat, the bricks and plaque where the Losoya room existed, and the flagstone lines delineating the palisade, camposanto wall, and acequias...but most of the rest now lies under the Crockett and Federal Buildings except where they cross Alamo and Houston Streets. |
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 14, 2008 12:41:56 GMT -5
It isn't difficult to visualise the true size of the Alamo even without what I'm sure were very graphic lines which really ought to to be picked out permanently in brick or stone... Some of that already exists. Witness the Plaza planters where the Low Barrack sat, the bricks and plaque where the Losoya room existed, and the flagstone lines delineating the palisade, camposanto wall, and acequias...but most of the rest now lies under the Crockett and Federal Buildings except where they cross Alamo and Houston Streets. You're absolutely right, but something needs to be done so the casual visitor knows where and what to look for. I've known about the stone markings for years, and have spent many a night sitting on the planter that marks the Low Barracks, but this was the first time I ever saw the markings for the Low Wall running from the Low Barracks to the Long Barracks. Likewise, I never realized until this year that the gray stone running down the sidewalk on the west side of Alamo St was the dry acequia, and until this year I missed the markings for the Southern Castenada House in the middle of Houston Street. Now I knew about the markings and knew what to look for, and I missed a lot of it, for years. Unless somebody just happens to ask a Alamo Ranger or a docent - they'll never realize how much has been marked off. Somehow, this information has to be made more readily available to the tourist. |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 14, 2008 22:29:10 GMT -5
In Boston there is something called the Freedom Trail, which is a red line painted along miles of sidewalks and streets that lead tourists to all of the key historical sites in Beantown. There also is a good visitors center, where maps are available that show what is on the Freedom Trail and where it is. Naturally, there also are markings at key locations (although the site of the Boston Massacre was strangely unidentified and I only found out where it was after asking someone in the visitors center).
I was totally unaware of the gray sidewalk stones that marked the acequia and other stones that marked other points. This is minimal help, but a few discreet signs posted around the plaza, pointing out these things, might give visitors a little better idea of what the fort looked like. Glenn's idea of placing the Lasoya statue to a location near the southwest corner is another good one. A few small steps now could encourage the city to take larger ones, especially if visitors respond to them. Considering the encouragement Gary has gotten to such ideas, it's frustrating that the city doesn't seem to be moving in this direction.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 1, 2008 1:04:26 GMT -5
This is a discussion I'd like to get back to. The cannons that fired and the number of rounds the Texans got off are intriguing. Reading de la Pena's account, I get a sense that a few cannons fired more then we think.
It's true that the garrison was caught sleeping. But according to DLP and Gen Filisola, the defenders were alerted to the attack and responded with deadly results. In fact, Filisola stated that the defenders "own artillery was ready and alert."
The most notable comment about artillery fire is when DLP says: "It could be observed that a single cannon volley did away with half the company of Chasseurs from Toluca..." Notice, he clearly says "cannon volley" which implies more then a single gun firing. This sounds very much like all three cannon from Travis' position, Fortin de Teran, opened-up simultaneously. Not a just single cannon as had been suggested. It makes sense to me that most or all the Alamo's guns were loaded and ready to fire. So if one cannon on Fortin de Teran fires...why wouldn't all three discharge as de la Pena's statement implies they did? DLP goes on to say: "Another volley left many gaps among the ranks at the head, one of them being Colonel Duque..." Again we have another "volley" of battery fire directed at the oncoming soldados. This too, sounds like the three guns from Fortin de Teran.
DLP also describes the fire of a three-gun battery on Romero's soldados that appears to be coming from the church. In reference to Romero's column, DLP says: "...the third, which had been sorely punished on it's left flank by a battery of three cannon on a barbette that cut a serious breach in it's ranks..." The only three-gun battery to fit that description would be the three guns of Fortin de Cos. Personally, I didn't think the church cannons would have had the required angle to deliver effective fire on Romero's attack column. But DLP's comment implies that they did. I would imagine the gun in the northeast courtyard got in a few licks on Romero as well.
De la Pena relates one more incident that involves battery fire. As the reserves raced toward the north wall, the Sapper Battalion took casualties. According to DLP: "Before the Sapper Battalion, advancing through a shower of bullets and volley of shrapnel, had a chance to reach the foot of the walls, half their officers had been wounded." The gun or guns that struck the Sappers isn't identified but it could have been the work of Fortin de Teran, again.
As for the eighteen pounder firing...well, we really can't know for sure. If it did fire on Morales' column I doubt if got off more then a single round and it probably wasn't a very effective hit. The stories of the famous "Eighteen Pounder" decimating the Mexicans were, in all likelihood, hyperbole.
And what of the four pound cannon at the low wall protecting the opening between the convento and the kitchen? I can't imagine the defenders not firing-off at least one round in Morales' direction...assuming it was loaded.
One question I would like answered. Would Dickinson and Bonham be able to spin their guns around and depress them enough to fire down the ramp at the Mexicans as they charged onto the church?
I've read Lorcana's account. The numerous errors make it highly questionable. I don't reject it...but I am skeptical of his many claims. If he was a member of Sesma's lancers, it's possible he witnessed the guns of Fortin de Cos firing a few times. But his statement that only four of the Alamo's cannon discharged is doubtful. I'm unsure how he would know what guns fired or how many times they fired. During the battle, I would think the sound of all the guns firing would resemble one continuous roar. I believe one would have some difficulty discerning the discharge of an individual cannon. Besides, in the heat of battle, who in the heck is consciously counting artillery fire. Most individuals would be terrified and concerned with survival.
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 1, 2008 6:13:17 GMT -5
While I agree there's no evidence the 18 pounder contributed anything, I'd be very wary of your interpretation of "volley" really meaning more than one cannon firing. You're working from a translation, which can be tricky things at the best of time and the original might well have really meant "discharge"
All of us who've been involved in this business will be familiar with the pitfalls of muskets being translated as rifles and so on, and just to throw another one into the pot you've also got to allow for forgotten slang.
The 18th century British Army for example used to use a system called platoon firing, and casual usage saw "platoon" substituted for volley, ie "we fired a platoon or two".
Perhaps our Spanish experts can clear this one up. Did DLP really refer to volleys (plural) or cannon fire, or discharges (singular)? The contexts I suggest point to singular ones
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 1, 2008 6:21:01 GMT -5
And what of the four pound cannon at the low wall protecting the opening between the convento and the kitchen? I can't imagine the defenders not firing-off at least one round in Morales' direction...assuming it was loaded. One question I would like answered. Would Dickinson and Bonham be able to spin their guns around and depress them enough to fire down the ramp at the Mexicans as they charged onto the church? Glenn As to the first, that gun was poiting the wrong way to fire on Morales, who would have been very successfully sheltered from it by the lunette. As to the lunette gun and whatever was up on the SW corner, well as some of us are arguing Morales was almost certainly able to get up too close without being detected. The three guns on the church are an interesting question and I'd say on balance the liklihood is that they weren't turned around. There is a Mexican comment from Cos' time that there was very little room up there and even if one could have been turned around in the little time againable I'd say that its most unlikely it could have been depressed sufficiently unless it was actually rolled pert way down the ramp and held there with drag ropes - not impossible I suppose but highly unlikely in the circumstances |
|
