|
Bowie
Jun 6, 2011 18:37:11 GMT -5
Post by ronald on Jun 6, 2011 18:37:11 GMT -5
Since Jim Bowie was a great leader of men, and had a pretty good knowlege of the way the mexicans would fight, would he have made a difference had he not been ill?
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 6, 2011 21:17:52 GMT -5
Post by Seguin on Jun 6, 2011 21:17:52 GMT -5
I don´t think it would have changed the outcome of the battle had he not been ill.
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 6, 2011 22:25:22 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 6, 2011 22:25:22 GMT -5
The outcome was beyond anything Bowie or anyone else in the Alamo could do about it.
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 7, 2011 19:29:00 GMT -5
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jun 7, 2011 19:29:00 GMT -5
I'm with Allen on this. The odds and circumstances made the outcome a certainty. A healthy Bowie might have taken a few more Mexicans down, but it would have taken a miracle of biblical proportions for the defenders to prevail at the Alamo that March morning.
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 8, 2011 8:49:08 GMT -5
Post by Chuck T on Jun 8, 2011 8:49:08 GMT -5
Although I am a well known Travis non-fan on this board, I agree with Allen, Paul, and Seguin, that Bowie as commander could have done little more in his place once the decision was taken to occupy and defend the Alamo. I would say the same thing about George Washington, U. S. Grant, or George S. Patton also. The only thing that would have helped is if the defenders were trained to the same standard as say the British Rifle Regiments of the period, they were adequately supplied with arms, ammunition, and provisions, and did not place over-reliance on artillery, an arm where they had little knowledge as to employment. At that point with a competent commander they would have made it much more difficult for the Mexican Army, but that army would have still prevailed.
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 8, 2011 9:51:24 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 8, 2011 9:51:24 GMT -5
Some commanders would not have gotten themselves into such a spot. Once they were trapped, Travis may have been better than Bowie as commander; he sure wrote more compelling letters and that's about all he could do by then.
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 8, 2011 14:04:31 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Jun 8, 2011 14:04:31 GMT -5
The odds were so against the garrison that I don't think the Alamo's ultimate fall could have been prevented. However, I think a more energetic, knowledgible commander could have changed the outcome of the March 6th battle or at a minimum made it a far bloodier affair.
The Mexican Army occupied, unmolested, for hours before the assualt, attack positions well within artillery range, in fact within rifle range. An alert garrison, that had awake picketts, should have begun inflicting casualities as soon as the Mexican Army moved within range.
The sheer magnitude that the Mexican Army achieved tactical surprise and reached the walls before the garrison was fully alert and the walls fully manned cannot be overstated. That the garrison even temporarily stalled the attack and threw the North column into confusion offers a hint of what might have been done had the garrison been alert and more energetically and competently led.
Could a recovering Bowie could do that? Doubtful, a healthy Bowie maybe. There's a basic requirement, that leaders, must constantly check their men at night to ensure they remain alert. That doesn't mean the commander must stay awake 24 hours a day, but it does mean he must make spot checks, and ensure his subordinate leaders are also checking. In any case it is very demanding for a healthy man, never mind a man recovering from an illness that was debilitating.
JMO.
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 9, 2011 15:39:36 GMT -5
Post by loucapitano on Jun 9, 2011 15:39:36 GMT -5
Ronald, It's a good idea to compare the Alamo to some other famous sieges in history. One that came to mind after reading some of the comments above was the defence of the Hougoumont farm and the La Haye Sainte farm by British troops during the Battle of Waterloo only 20 years earlier. Both are good examples of close quarter fighting and all out massive troop assaults against well trained soldiers trying to hold out as long as they could. The key words are "well trained" which the Alamo defenders were not, inspite of their fierce bravery. So it's not likely a healthy Bowie would have made much difference, assuming he agreed to stay and fight (Victory or Death.) But it's so much fun to speculate. Lou
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 9, 2011 17:16:28 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 9, 2011 17:16:28 GMT -5
Another thing to speculate on is what Bowie MIGHT have done in the way of training, inspiring, motivating the men so that they might have been better prepared to deal with the assault when it came. I'm not saying the outcome would have been different, only that (as Herb noted) it could have been much more contentious, bloody and costly to the Mexicans. In addition to the troops being untrained, their commander was as green as grass. Had Travis ever fought in any battle before, or ever led men into battle? Bowie had certainly done that.
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 9, 2011 18:38:53 GMT -5
Post by Chuck T on Jun 9, 2011 18:38:53 GMT -5
Lou: Can't recall the configuration of La Haye Sainte, but Hougoumont was smaller in area than the Alamo and had the surrounding terrain working for it.
Allen: Fighting an open battle and commanding a besieged garrison takes a slightly different skill set. I don't know if Bowie would be up to that task.
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 9, 2011 21:09:39 GMT -5
Post by elcolorado on Jun 9, 2011 21:09:39 GMT -5
Much of the evidence I've seen indicates the garrison was indeed inflicting causalities before the Mexicans hit the north wall.
I can't believe a healthy Bowie would have made any difference in the outcome. And I'm not sure he could have done much better then Travis. Could he have trained them better? Maybe. But the garrison as a whole wasn't interested in training or drilling, or fortifying the Alamo.
Considering the circumstances, I think Travis did okay...not great...but okay.
The garrison was suffering from terrible sleep deprivation due to night alerts, music, and having to work in the evening repairing the north wall and fortifying the place. Not to mention that manpower was limited. Not much Bowie could have done to improve those conditions.
I believe Travis sensed an all-out assault was very near. He deployed pickets to raise the alarm, the cannons were loaded, rifles stacked and ready, Baugh was officer of the watch and making the rounds. What more could he have done? What would Bowie have done different?
For a guy with zero military experience, professional or otherwise; Travis didn't do too bad.
~Glenn
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 10, 2011 0:28:30 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Jun 10, 2011 0:28:30 GMT -5
I'd just add to Glenn's comments that Bowie's military knowledge and experience also pretty well added up to somewhere between zilch and zero. Sure he had been shot at a couple of times but while useful in its way it didn't make him a soldier, far less "a great leader of men [with] a pretty good knowledge of the way Mexicans would fight"
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 15, 2011 17:57:29 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 15, 2011 17:57:29 GMT -5
I find Bowie to be a very successful leader of men -- one they would willingly follow. He was a key element in several battles in the past. His command (along with Fannin) beat four times their number at Concepcion. Likewise, Bowie and ten others beat "164" Indians at Calf Creek five years earlier. I can't see this causing his military knowledge and experience to add up to "between zilch and zero."
As for Travis, he too had led men into battle, once at Anahuac in 1835 (even though I see that more as a romp) and once under Stephen Austin to capture the caballado from the Mexican Army south of Bexar. At the Alamo? Well, I would be willing to bet that he won his spurs with the garrison by the evening of March 5th.
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 16, 2011 1:00:49 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Jun 16, 2011 1:00:49 GMT -5
As I said he had indeed been shot at, which is always a good education in itself and there's no doubt he had the grit, but the OP concerned his military experience and knowledge of Mexican tactics, neither of which he possessed.
In that respect therefore he didn't have an advantage which would have helped the defenders make a better fight of it than Travis did.
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 16, 2011 18:03:28 GMT -5
Post by loucapitano on Jun 16, 2011 18:03:28 GMT -5
To continue along with this thread, it could be asked, did Travis make maximum use of the military talent he did have at his command? It's clear, Green Jameson was the engineer for the fort, but what other help did Travis have available and did he use it? And, would his command follow whatever military discipline was there?
|
|