|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 21, 2010 12:06:04 GMT -5
One of the perennial problems with this business is unreliable interpretation of documents by non-specialists - the other appears to be the rotten standard of typing in Texas before spell-checkers were invented.
Ampudia's report on arms and ammunition taken at the Alamo (Hansen p376) includes a note of 216 English rifles in good condition.
This is John Wheat's translation and while my gut instinct suggests the very common mistake of carelessly using the word "rifles" without appreciating the important difference between (smoothbored) military firearms and rifled firearms, it would be useful to be sure.
Rene Chartrand tells me muskets would be identified as Fusils, and while rifles were normally referred to in Spanish texts as carabinas (carbines were tercerolas), in Mexico the American term rifle was used; Grant's men for example being referred to as rifleros.
Can anybody cite the actual word used by Ampudia?
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Aug 21, 2010 13:06:34 GMT -5
Stuart, the wording in the manuscript document is "Fusiles Ingleses en estado de [illeg.]." The illegible word doesn't look like "bueno" to me; looks more like an abbreviation. And, I'm not convinced that the number 216 is accurate: the first digit doesn't look like the other 2's in the document; it looks like a scribbled something or other. The 1 and 6 are indisputable, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 21, 2010 14:29:54 GMT -5
Most kind and just what I expected. We are indeed talking about smooth-bored India Pattern firelocks rather than rifles, and I note your comments about the scribbled comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Aug 21, 2010 15:52:20 GMT -5
Stuart, the wording in the manuscript document is "Fusiles Ingleses en estado de [illeg.]." The illegible word doesn't look like "bueno" to me; looks more like an abbreviation. And, I'm not convinced that the number 216 is accurate: the first digit doesn't look like the other 2's in the document; it looks like a scribbled something or other. The 1 and 6 are indisputable, however. Santa Anna's letter from Bexar of February 27, in which he updates the situation both to his generals elsewhere and to Mexico City, noted that upon capturing the town his soldiers seized fifty "fusiles," which has also often been mistranslated as "rifles." Clearly any translator of Mexican military documents of the day should be well versed in the military terminology of both sides. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Aug 21, 2010 17:38:09 GMT -5
Gary-check out the English translation of El Soldado Mexicano and compare the Spanish on page 5 of Bravo's 1836 report to the English version on page 53. Same problem---also, I noticed recently that the translator simple changed "varas" to "feet" with out any change of the actual numerical measurement.
I have looked at three documents: an 1836 ordnance report form, an 1839 report on the state of the army, and a similar report/document for 1841. Both the 1836 form, and the 1839 report designated "fusiles", "rifles", "carabinas", and "tercerolas" as seperate firearms. The 1839 report even went on to designate "fusiles ingleses", "fusiles espanoles", and "fusiles de diferentes fabricas."
|
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Aug 22, 2010 3:39:26 GMT -5
Gary-check out the English translation of El Soldado Mexicano and compare the Spanish on page 5 of Bravo's 1836 report to the English version on page 53. Same problem---also, I noticed recently that the translator simple changed "varas" to "feet" with out any change of the actual numerical measurement. I have looked at three documents: an 1836 ordnance report form, an 1839 report on the state of the army, and a similar report/document for 1841. Both the 1836 form, and the 1839 report designated "fusiles", "rifles", "carabinas", and "tercerolas" as seperate firearms. The 1839 report even went on to designate "fusiles ingleses", "fusiles espanoles", and "fusiles de diferentes fabricas." Right Kevin, even Hefter fell into that trap, which was surprising. Over the past two years I had to tackle such discrepancies and frequently rewrite things because of it. And yes, I have a copy of that 1836 Mexican list, thanks to you way back when, that does differentiate "rifles" from "carabinas" and "fusiles" etc etc as you note. So "rifles" was not a term unknown to Mexico! |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 22, 2010 4:42:31 GMT -5
Gary-check out the English translation of El Soldado Mexicano and compare the Spanish on page 5 of Bravo's 1836 report to the English version on page 53. Same problem---also, I noticed recently that the translator simple changed "varas" to "feet" with out any change of the actual numerical measurement. I have looked at three documents: an 1836 ordnance report form, an 1839 report on the state of the army, and a similar report/document for 1841. Both the 1836 form, and the 1839 report designated "fusiles", "rifles", "carabinas", and "tercerolas" as seperate firearms. The 1839 report even went on to designate "fusiles ingleses", "fusiles espanoles", and "fusiles de diferentes fabricas." Right Kevin, even Hefter fell into that trap, which was surprising. Over the past two years I had to tackle such discrepancies and frequently rewrite things because of it. And yes, I have a copy of that 1836 Mexican list, thanks to you way back when, that does differentiate "rifles" from "carabinas" and "fusiles" etc etc as you note. So "rifles" was not a term unknown to Mexico! As I mentioned in the OP Rene Chartrand also picked up on this. The key I think may be the term Carabinas which was of long established usage in Europe under various spellings. The important point to note is that originally the term referred to the calibre not the barrel length. Baker Rifles were carbine bore and therefore the term Carabinas would have been entirely appropriate. How the term rifles came to be adopted in Mexican practice is an interesting question; there is unquestionably an element of adoption - Rene notes (later) Mexican rifle units being referred to as Rifleros - but it would be interesting to know if a distinction was ever drawn between Baker carabinas and American (long) rifles |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Aug 22, 2010 7:32:50 GMT -5
Right-it would. Chartrand and I discussed some of this years ago. Like Gary, the more I double checked things, including much earlier things I had done, I have had to rethink and re-write as well...
In looking over the 1841 return, which listed weapons and equipment by regiments and branch of service, I noted that the Lina Regts had large numbers of "fusiles" with small numbers of "tercerolas" (example: 11 Lina, 1st Battalion 6-2 fusiles, 15 tercerolas. 2nd Battalion 659 fusiles, 19 tercerolas) while the opposite was true for the Liegero Regts (more tercerolas and less fusiles). I should note that the Cavalry Regiments had no "tercerolas" issued at all or even listed but instead had "carabinas."
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 22, 2010 9:09:44 GMT -5
So far as the line regiments are concerned that looks like sergeants carbines/tercerolas rather than sharpshooters' weapons, however I'd need to see the actual figures to hazard a guess as to that the ligero units were doing.
The cavalry returns are interesting. There was a Baker cavalry rifle and those lucky enough to get it (in the British Army) were very protective about it, but there would surely be plently of surviving examples if this was the case here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Aug 22, 2010 10:26:54 GMT -5
No problem-when I get back to my files this evening I will look it up. If you want a hard copy, send me a PM with your address.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 22, 2010 10:43:47 GMT -5
Going back to Ampudia's report its interesting that while he records the "Fusiles Inglesis" he excuses the lack of any inventory of the American weapons by noting that “Todos los Rifles and pistolas” were given to the troops at Santa Anna's orders
|
|
