|
|
Post by tracesoftexas on Feb 24, 2011 21:00:46 GMT -5
Forgive me if this question has been discussed. I did a search and didn't come up with much.
Over on another board that I frequent, one of the posters claims that most of the Alamo defenders were killed outside the walls.
I've read most of the important, substantive books about the Alamo and the only real testimony that I've encountered that suggests that this might be true is General Sesma's account as related in Todd Hansen's book of primary sources. Sesma claimed that about 1/3rd of the garrison was killed outside the walls.
So I put the question out there for you guys to answer: is there much in the way of real evidence that most of the defenders were killed outside the walls.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 24, 2011 21:11:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tracesoftexas on Feb 24, 2011 21:18:06 GMT -5
Thank you so much, Allenw. I will go through those now.
You guys rock!
TOT
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 24, 2011 23:06:35 GMT -5
My pleasure!
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 25, 2011 15:53:47 GMT -5
Allen has done a remarkable job compiling the FAQ, and while this has been frequently discussed, I still find it fascinating - probably because there is so little actually "known" and conversivly what historical records do exsist are totally ignored or misrepresented by the two opposing extreme positions.
As far as I know there are only three primary accounts that give actual figures, the Lorcana Account, the Sesma Report, and the San Luis Potosi Journal. Lorcana relays what appears to have been the major action and does not appear to include the wo smaller "breakouts". Sesma only gives approximations for the first and the second (major) breakout, but his report is full, imo, of some telling omissions about the 3rd group, (and is subject to what we today would call body count inflation). The San Luis Potosi Journal is straight forward and is the only one that gives an exact number. Something like 58 or 68, I can't recall for sure, and I don't have that portion readily availiable. Perhaps one of our Spanish readers can check their copies.
This number is well within the range of the other two reports - and like I sid for some reason totally ignored by the proponents of the two extremes.
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Feb 25, 2011 17:42:39 GMT -5
The San Luis Potosi Journal is straight forward and is the only one that gives an exact number. Something like 58 or 68, I can't recall for sure, and I don't have that portion readily availiable. Perhaps one of our Spanish readers can check their copies. It says 68. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 25, 2011 21:13:33 GMT -5
I just read that part of the San Luis Journal last night and was impressed with how insignificant and matter-of-fact the statement was. It gained a lot of credibility for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by tracesoftexas on Feb 26, 2011 0:56:33 GMT -5
Well, since the number would have to be upwards of 90 in order for "most" of the defenders to have been slain outside the walls, it would appear that the poster's statement is not true.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 26, 2011 7:51:25 GMT -5
I'd put "most" down to hyperbole rather than say it isn't true. What seems to be as certain as anything can be about this battle is that a substantial number of the defenders were killed during an attempted breakout - and a couple of them may even have made it. While I agree that the figure of 68 in the San Postosi log sounds reasonably convincing in its matter of factness, the debate over this issue hasn't hinged on the precise number killed outside the walls but rather on whether the breakout occurred at all, with one gentlemen on another forum insisting that those killed by the cavalry must have been fleeing Mexican soldados since all of the defenders would have stayed to the bitter end.
Here we try and deal with the evidence and while 68 dead don't equate to "most" it still points to a very different battle to the one recreated by John Wayne.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 26, 2011 9:12:14 GMT -5
I believe the location of the funeral pyres also is a clue as to where the men died.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 26, 2011 12:07:09 GMT -5
You also would not tend to burn the dead inside a military instillation that you are going to be using as a garrison. To some extent, it is easier to bring the dead to the wood source.
If you go with the Texian number of the garrison (180-189) the 121 died inside. If you go with the Mexican 250 number then 182 died inside (plus or minus).
Stuart, the Alamo conservatives are always going to discount the Mexican accounts/sources. Just as their polar opposites are going to discount any non-Mexican source and take the breakouts to the exterms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 26, 2011 13:22:30 GMT -5
Good point, Kevin. That is the other side of the coin and I'm guessing you are probably right; it is more likely that the bodies were moved to areas conducive to burning them, rather than in the compound. IIRC, the Mexicans set about fixing the place up to use as an installation themselves after the battle, so they would have wanted it cleaned out first and removing the bodies would have been the first task.
Of course, we've had discussions about the breakouts on the threads I noted, but it's going to be thrashed over for a long time. I find interesting the theory that it was Santa Anna's strategy from the beginning to flush the defenders out by massing his forces at the north, creating the Morales diversion at the south, which also had the objective of taking the main gate, and having the cavalry ready and waiting for the defenders when they bolted.
I've never understood the obsession some people have with how and where defenders died, including the increasingly tiresome debate over Crockett's death. It's as if the defenders' decision to join the war in the first place, and to remain in Bexar when most of the December 1835 army had left, and did their best on March 6 means nothing. I think some people cling so tightly to the images created in overly-simplified movies, pulp fiction and the like that they can't deal with realities that conflict with those images; as if they are forever playing Davy Crockett at the Alamo in makeshift, backyard play fortresses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 26, 2011 15:06:36 GMT -5
Just as their polar opposites are going to discount any non-Mexican source and take the breakouts to the exterms. While, Kevin, you address my original point about both extremes, this is the position I find the hardest to understand. The most noted people who hold this position, are also people known for their (rightful) promotion of the use of the original primary Mexican sources. Yet their position on this issue is totally opposite their promotion of the Mexican sources. For their position on this issue requires corrupting the Sesma and Lorcana Accounts, and totally ignoring the San Luis Potosi Account. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Feb 27, 2011 6:53:18 GMT -5
Allen -- you are so right. And these same debates will probably be going on a century after you and I are dust ourselves. I had a gentleman at work strike up a conversation with me based on the 2004 Alamo movie. Unfortunately most people "know" the Alamo story only from what they've seen in the movies and so on. We are kind of a minority here on this forum, and even the folks who frequent this site don't agree on many of these points.
Bottom line for me, as it apparently is for you, is that in the end, where and how Crockett (and the others) died, or how many were involved in the breakouts, really doesn't matter. The story of the Alamo and this event's meaning are much bigger than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 27, 2011 10:26:33 GMT -5
Bottom line for me, as it apparently is for you, is that in the end, where and how Crockett (and the others) died, or how many were involved in the breakouts, really doesn't matter. The story of the Alamo and this event's meaning are much bigger than that. That's it, Paul. |
|
