|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on Jun 27, 2011 20:25:59 GMT -5
As a young lad I was led to believe that the Mexican army suffered casualties(KIAs) into the thousands. As an adult, when I began to collect and read books on the Texas Revolution and the "Alamo" specifically, I came to believe that the number was around 600, give or take. I recently read a post that placed the number at 60. What happened to the reports that near entire batallions were being wiped out by the canon fire as the Mexican stormed the walls and were temporarily being repulsed. I also remember a Mexican officer being quoted as saying that another such victory would spell the ruin of the Mexican army. I would certainly admit to changing many of my beliefs about the battle over the years, and by no means does the final count have any bearing on how I feel about the courage and sacrifices of the combatants of both sides. Was the final charge such a huge surprise that the 60 count is a realistic number. I am not taking the smallest issue with the poster who put the number at 60, his authority on the subject of the Alamo is beyond question in my book, especially by a greenhorn like me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jun 27, 2011 21:27:19 GMT -5
Truth is the first casualty of war, it has been said. I think it was Allen who gave the number 60 and that is pretty much on the mark give or take a few. Ask Allen but I don't think that counts those Mexican soldiers that later died of wounds received during the battle. Estimates of the wounded are all over the place too.
|
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Jun 27, 2011 21:28:25 GMT -5
I suspect the number of casualties recounted grew over time, although I haven't checked that out by rereading the eyewitness accounts in chronological order. Considering the attack happened in the dark and there were no machine guns, I wouldn't expect there to be a great many Mexican soldiers killed outright. The total of 60 doesn't include the wounded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 28, 2011 8:51:55 GMT -5
The 60 figure was in the first battle reports and included those killed. More died of wounds later and some wounded were still in Bexar from the 1835 siege and battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 28, 2011 10:56:37 GMT -5
General Filisola's account includes a post battle report by General Andrade, that breaks down the Mexican casualities at the Alamo, by battalion (The Alamo Reader, p393). The total losses, were 8 officers killed, 18 officers wounded, 52 enlisted men killed, 233 wounded (a total of 60 killed).
In addition, the Mexican Surgeon, made a report in August (after the Mexican Army withdrew back to Matamoros, giving the total wounded treated in San Antonio (this included the men left in Bexar by Cos in December 1835). He states that 4 officers and 71 enlisted men died while being treated (The Alamo Reader, p378).
While this latter number includes Cos's wounded, it seems safe to me, to assume that the majority if not all of the wounded that died of their wounds, were a result of the Alamo battle.
When one considers that the battalions that made the assault on the Alamo were some of the best battalions of the Mexican Army, and that they suffered 15 - 20% men permanently lost for the remainder of the campaign, the losses as reported were very significant. Another such victory - surely would have ruined at least the most combat capable units of the Mexican Army.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on Jun 28, 2011 12:31:28 GMT -5
Thanks guys, I guess I'm still guilty of believing that if it is printed and published, it is absolute fact. I have been buying and collecting Alamo related books now for well over thirty years, perhaps I should re-read some of the latter endorsed material and try to flush out some of the older data that I seem to be hanging on to. This is why I enjoy and appreciate this forum so much. Thanks again for always answering my often lame questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jun 28, 2011 16:55:44 GMT -5
I'm going to post once on the subject of Mexican Army casualties and leave it at that. I've poured over the same reports that everyone else has; the same scholarly articles, the same books.
I find it "uplifting" that the Mexican Army is the only army in recorded history to accurately report it's own dead and wounded after unceremoniously losing a war they had no business losing in the first place. The sixty KIA most assuredly cannot be challenged by any rational person, because it flies in the face of the undisputed accuracy of the Mexican government, which has a well-established tradition of being honest, frank, and transparent.
My final point is this: I respect everyone's opinion on this forum, and in the past, I have altered my opinions based on some thought-provoking posts, but at this juncture, I find myself in opposition to the official casualty reports of Army of Operations. Now that and a five-dollar bill will get you a nice cup of coffee at Starbuck's.
|
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 28, 2011 18:06:33 GMT -5
Don't be concerned about lame questions Bill, I've spent many years believing from numerous sources that 1566 Mexicans died at the Alamo. I don't yet have a copy of "The Alamo Reader" but author Albert A. Nofi's 1992 "The Alamo and the Texas War for Independence" list General Filisola's detailed breakdown of Mexican casualties on page 135 as follows:
Regiment Engaged Killed Wounded Surviving
Aldama 340 11 46 283
Dolores Cal 285 1 3 281
Jimenez 275 9 25 241
Matamoros 275 7 37 231
San Luis 275 9 37 239
Toluca 320 20 79 221
Zapadores 185 3 24 158
TOTALS 1955 60 251 1644
Most reports say the Toluca battalian attacking the breach of North Wall took the heaviest casualties, and these figures seem to bare that out. They lost a third of their men.
Filisola later gave the figures at 70 killed and 300 wounded which may simply represent his rounding over time. He also commented that many wounded died from poor medical care. In addition, the army tended not to count minor wounds if they didn't put the soldier out of action (walking wounded,) even though they may have succumbed to gangrene later.
More recent scholarship may change these figures, but think they're close enough.
Isn't this Forum terrific for the knowledge it shares? Enjoy!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jun 28, 2011 21:20:27 GMT -5
Hiram: I understand what you are saying, and look forward to finally meeting up with you when next in SA, perhaps sometime this fall if things work out. That said I will buy that cup of Starbucks and you can tell me why you think these approximate numbers are not close. I find them fairly high actually for a night assault, levened even by the brutality of the house to house "complex terrain" inside the wall. You more than most have this thing close at hand and I look forward to hearing your reasoning. I remember the Saint Louis Browns too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 28, 2011 23:54:52 GMT -5
John Lundstrom's article, Assault at Dawn: The Mexican Army at the Alamo (Campaign: The Magazine of Military History No 1 Summer 1973) may be 30 plus years old, but is still a good look/discussion at this subject.
Consider that the number of Mexicans attacking the works is 1100 men and if you throw in the reserves, add and additional 400. I think one misconception that has gone on for years is that when people read that Santa Anna sent in the reserves they think he threw in large numbers of troops (like everyone he had) instead of what really happened-he committed the established reserve of the grenadero companies and the Zapadores.
Running the numbers, estimate on # of men in a Mexican infantry company at the Alamo is between 58 and 34 men. So when you read that half of the cazadores of the Toluca battalion are taken out then that could reflect between 17 and 23 soldados...
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jun 29, 2011 0:31:15 GMT -5
Chuck,
I respect your insight, and I respect where that insight comes from. With your permission I will exchange that over-priced cup of coffee for an adult beverage and be more than happy to share my thoughts on that fateful 6 March 1836; and I will be looking forward to hearing your opinions as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jun 29, 2011 8:44:23 GMT -5
Hiram: Adult beverage? Let's see that eliminates Iced Tea, I wonder what you are talking about? Well I suppose we must see what we must see.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronald on Jun 29, 2011 9:47:36 GMT -5
I wonder? why Sana Anna in his autobiography says he lost almost a 1000 men at the Alamo. The book was not published first in the US was it, Why would he inflate the dead at such a late date, I don't think all the roles are correct I can not belive 60 or 1000
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jun 29, 2011 10:35:01 GMT -5
Ronald: I think lost can mean a lot of things, and this is just a shot in the dark. Could it possibly mean that he lost the services of a thousand men? Perhaps. When you total, the KIA, WIA, and add to that what he probably left behind to garrison San Antoniio and guard his supply lines to facilitate further advance, I would think the number could approach that figure. Again a shot in the dark, perhaps another reason was missed translation. Who knows what may have motivated him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 29, 2011 13:17:16 GMT -5
Hiram: Adult beverage? Let's see that eliminates Iced Tea, I wonder what you are talking about? Well I suppose we must see what we must see. I can recommend the draft beer at Ernie's when discussing military affairs! |
|
