|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 5, 2010 10:09:27 GMT -5
What was the hospital for the Alamo garrison prior to the 23rd?
Here's what Richard G. Santos says in SANTA ANNA'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST TEXAS 1835-1836, on p. 63, about the convento: "commonly known as the barracks of the Alamo since 1803, and forming part of the hospital since 1805." No source for this, though. George Nelson also says in THE ALAMO: AN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY that "the first hospital in Texas was established upstairs in the old priest's quarters." So it appears that the upstairs area of the Long Barracks was definitely a hospital. We just don't know if the Alamo defenders' wounded was there before Santa Anna arrived--that's the question. There were 240-300 wounded Mexican soldiers after the Battle of Bexar, and some of those remained in Bexar when Cos left. Where were they? Originally in the Alamo hospital, at least when Cos moved all his men in there about December 8 or 9--right? So did they stay there when Cos left? If so, for how long? If not, where were they moved? (The barracks for the Bexar Presidial Company on the Military Plaza?)
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 5, 2010 11:20:37 GMT -5
I'm in a distinct minority here, but I believe the Mexican wounded were at least intially in the Alamo hospital. Jameson's key to his plat specifies an unknown building in the compound as housing Col Mendoza, and that the headquarters was housing two wounded officers (does this mean that the Treveno House was not in fact Travis's HQs? Sutherland's plat suggests it indeed was not). I have not found anything on where the Mexican enlisted wounded were held, but it seems to me that with the officers in the Alamo that the enlisted men were also.
The greatest counter arguement to me, would be that there is no evidence of any exchange/transfer of the wounded once the siege began (but possible during the cease fire - if that indeed happened). But, again the officer wounded are mentioned in the Alamo and no transfer of them is mentioned either.
I tend to think, that the barracks on Military Plaza became the main housing for the Texian enlisted men, while the garrison was divided into two wings (Carey's wing in the Alamo and Blazeby's wing in Bexar).
There is another problem ref the hospital and that is Sanchez-Navarro's plat that shows it in the Low Barracks/Kitchen extension. It seems to me that this was probably a move made during ths siege. That the defenders moved the wounded from a position exposed to artillery fire to a more protected position.
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Nov 5, 2010 18:34:13 GMT -5
It seems to me that there couldn't have been much room in the hospital to hold even half the 240-300 wounded Mexican Soldiers. In Mark Lemon's book it shows the entire "hospital" to be 26' X 13' 8". That's a little less than 364 sq ft. Was the idea of a hospital different than it is today?
Paul Meske
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 5, 2010 19:06:40 GMT -5
It seems to me that there couldn't have been much room in the hospital to hold even half the 240-300 wounded Mexican Soldiers. In Mark Lemon's book it shows the entire "hospital" to be 26' X 13' 8". That's a little less than 364 sq ft. Was the idea of a hospital different than it is today? Paul Meske Only the wounded that coudn't travel were left in Bexar. I can't find that number right now but simple subtracting Andrade's report of casualties from the Alamo from the surgeon's report of the number of total men he treated (men left in Bexar from December and the Alamo battle) it is quite a bit less.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 6, 2010 9:55:28 GMT -5
I do not doubt that at least at one time the second floor of the long barracks was used as a hospital. That seems to be pretty well established. I also think Wolfpack's speculation that the kitchen extension could, and probably was, utilized to treat the wounded/injured during the siege has some validity. A ground level location largely immune to direct fire makes very good sense to me. It is quite true that the upper floor of the long barracks would be more exposed to fires. In fact from the south and west it might as well have a bull's eye painted on it.
A subject that to me is more interesting however, is what was the ultimate disposition of the Mexican Army wounded from December 1835. These people obviously did not disappear into thin air. Sadly the historical record here is incomplete to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 6, 2010 12:28:44 GMT -5
After a little bit of digging:
Filisola, and Sanchez-Navarro, left accounts of the Mexican wounded. Sanchez-Navarro's account is the fullest, and claims that the Surgeon Arroyo left in Bexar to treat 3 wounded officers and more than 30 enlisted men. Another 30 plus wounded men accomanpied Cos to the Rio Grande (one dying enroute).
Tom Lindley's analysis in Traces concludes that only about 14 enlisted wounded were left in Bexar. Tom tries to track the casualities from the Fall (Concepcion, etc.) as well as the December battle for Bexar. It needs to be noted that Tom considered the Sanchez-Navarro account a forgery - a point disputed by most other scholars.
Tom includes the following information, on December 19, 1835 while returning to Mexico, Cos reported that only 120 able bodied men remained with the Morelos Battalion. On October 3, 1835, the battlion reported a strength of 246 men and it had received reinforcements between October and the December report. This also doesn't include the overall casualties of the presidial companies.
In either case it appears that at most the total Mexican wounded left in Bexar was less than 40.
Given that these men were too severly wounded to travel, they probably had a higher than average mortality rate - and their numbers were significantly lower by February 23rd.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 6, 2010 15:37:17 GMT -5
There is another problem ref the hospital and that is Sanchez-Navarro's plat that shows it in the Low Barracks/Kitchen extension. It seems to me that this was probably a move made during ths siege. That the defenders moved the wounded from a position exposed to artillery fire to a more protected position. Yes, I totally agree (and am also in the minority . Funny what makes one think of things in more detail, but in trying to help Michael Corenblith live with his decision to eliminate the originally planned upstairs long barrack hospital interior after Disney cut the budget by $50-million, it suddenly dawned on me that NO eyewitness accounts of the battle refer to a hospital upstairs, just the downstairs one. Only Jameson's map key of mid-January places it there. I therefore suggested a scene where bombardment would take out the northeast corner of the upstairs of the long barrack and inmates would be hurriedly moved into the low barrack. It never went anywhere, but I always guessed it was felt that the focus on Jim Bowie's room in the low barrack would have been *cluttered* creatively if the spot were given a double use. Clear "playing areas" are vital to film design. Later, I saw the Sutherland plat (in Hansen) that labels the long barrack south end as "Sick Room," but that only reinforces my theory that the move didn't happen until during the siege, after Sutherland left.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 6, 2010 15:47:58 GMT -5
What was the hospital for the Alamo garrison prior to the 23rd? Here's what Richard G. Santos says in SANTA ANNA'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST TEXAS 1835-1836, on p. 63, about the convento: "commonly known as the barracks of the Alamo since 1803, and forming part of the hospital since 1805." No source for this, though. George Nelson also says in THE ALAMO: AN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY that "the first hospital in Texas was established upstairs in the old priest's quarters." I have seen sources other than Santos and Nelson (but probably all secondary also) referring to the 1805 hospital and its longevity. However, I would guess that Santos found the details in the Bexar Archives, over which, I believe, he presided for many years. Many official communications of the Alamo de Parras company were printed in the huge multi-volume set of books about The Richardson Colony of Texas. I used to borrow them religiously from the library and may have seen something in there too.
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 6, 2010 17:11:55 GMT -5
Good information and thank you all.
But the question remains: Where was the hospital prior to 23 February? Is the consensus that it remained the convento?
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Nov 6, 2010 18:57:50 GMT -5
I suspect that almost anyplace could have been labeled "hospital" if it held wounded soldiers. Move the cots and you move the hospital. It's not as if they had an operating room or any special services that we typically associate with hospitals today.
Forty wounded Mexican soldiers sounds more reasonable than 240, but still about three times more than could probably be fit into the "hospital" associated with the Long Barracks.
Long Barrack vs Long Barracks: Which is correct???
Paul Meske Wisconsin
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 6, 2010 19:20:07 GMT -5
Long Barrack vs Long Barracks: Which is correct??? Paul Meske Wisconsin Convento.
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Nov 6, 2010 22:07:32 GMT -5
Long Barrack vs Long Barracks: Which is correct??? Convento.Oooooohhhh, you mean " the Long Convento"!!!!!! ;-) Paul Meske
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 7, 2010 9:44:18 GMT -5
Oooooohhhh, you mean " the Long Convento"!!!!!! ;-) Paul Meske
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 7, 2010 13:52:29 GMT -5
Long Barrack vs Long Barracks: Which is correct??? Throughout the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties, it was "the Long Barracks." Throughout the nineties to now, it is "the long barrack." A "convent" is occupied by nuns. Padres live in a "friary." Marion Habig (Order of Franciscan Monks) corrected the labeling of the building during mission times from "convent" to "friary." Long aware of this, I have called it (for mission reference) the "friary," but in later years, due to virtually ALL Alamo historians, archeologists, curator/historians and Alamo buffs referring to it ONLY as the " convento," I gave up and joined them -- with the hope that we someday find evidence that Fray Olivares kept some nuns handy as well. ;D So, this was the quick answer to your question as only I could say it! An even quicker answer is that, for what it is worth, I now refer to the building as the " convento" and/or the "long barrack." Perhaps that will become *history* for the future.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 7, 2010 14:00:49 GMT -5
Alan, I don't know what the consensus is, but I currently believe it was indeed a hospital (for what it was worth) for those decades before 1835-36, and that it was dismantled during the siege due to bombardment from the Mexican batteries -- that the kitchen area and low barrack (South Barracks ;D) were the hospital during the latter portion of the siege.
I should point out that Mark Lemon's point about an upstairs area evacuation in discussions with me was that the southern-most room was still completely intact, even though the northern-most of the two was probably in partial ruins and vulnerable.
|
|