cje
Full Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by cje on Sept 3, 2011 22:00:36 GMT -5
I was kinda wondering about the construction and visual appearance of the Wooden Palisade. I have seen many drawings and models over the years of what some folks believe it looked like. I have of course appreciated Mr. Mark Lemon's great work on what the Alamo could have looked like in February 1836 (great job Mark - I have your book!). But would like to explore this subject a bit more in depth. So let me just list some questions and get everyone's insights. Thank ahead for your contributions.
An Alamo "Armchair" Historian
1. When was this wooden wall built? Before the Texans attacked
the Alamo when occupied by General Cos?
2. What type of wood was used and where might it have come
(source of wood nearby).
3. I have seen drawings that suggest two row of "logs" with
earth tamped in between them as well as a single row of
wooden logs.
4. Was there any kind of a gate in the Palisade anywhere and
if so just where?
5. How come the Mexican Artillery not focus on these wooden
logs/wall? Seems better than firing their light artillery pieces
on stone walls.
6. Just how long was the wall? It seems like a long space
between the Church and the Main Gate - South Wall. Looking
at the Alamo site today, it seems awfully long!
7. I know this is a long shot but how many men might have
been stationed there?
8. Were there any rifle holes to fire through or did a rifleman
have to stand and fire over the top of the wall which brings
me to the next question.
9. Just how tall was this wall?
10. I understand when some studies were done, an impression
of the base was found, like a trench where the logs/wood
may have been mounted.
11. After the battle I understand this and other parts of the
Alamo were taken down to rid the Alamo of any defensive
measure.
12. I know that the ground level was much lower in 1836. Looking
at the right side of the Alamo Church (facing it) today, I
wonder how high the wall would have come to meet the
Church/Chapel?
13. Last question (13th - 13 days), Why wasn't this wall
constructed during the Alamo Mission Days? How might it
have looked?
When that is a whole lot of Hay I dumped. Thanks
for your insights !
|
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Sept 6, 2011 14:44:23 GMT -5
1. When was this wooden wall built? Before the Texans attacked the Alamo when occupied by General Cos? 3. I have seen drawings that suggest two row of "logs" with earth tamped in between them as well as a single row of wooden logs. ADP again: (My bold) |
|
|
|
Post by steves on Sept 7, 2011 7:00:32 GMT -5
Wood and earth actually withstands artillery fire better than old stone walls...........
|
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Sept 9, 2011 18:22:51 GMT -5
CJE asks some good questions. It's only since I read George Nelson's Illustrated History that I surmised that the South palisade was indeed two rows of upright logs packed with earth and stone, six or seven feet high and crenalated for riflemen standing on earth piles. These logs probably came from the cottonwood trees that lined the east /west road. That also explains leaving the tree tops along the south wall to slow down infantry attacks. It's pretty clear that at the start of the siege, Major Jameson considered the South wall the weakest and likeliest point of attack, so he did what he could to strengthen it with the pallisade and earthworks that defended the main gate, which I personally think was more impressive than the pallisade.
I would add a question to your list. Early history seems to favor that the pallisade was defended by four 4-pound cannons. Later history seems to favor one 12-pounder at that point. Does anyone know why that change in opinion?
By the way, any way you build it, it was certainly more than the pitifully weak joke of a wall that John Wayne used in his, otherwise masterful, reconstruction of the Alamo.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 10, 2011 3:24:50 GMT -5
The defences have been discussed in considerable depth on other threads with full analysis of the archaeology, but so far as the south wall defences go they were constructed not by Jameson but by the Mexicans. If I recall correctly the only thing which Jameson is known to have built is the little gun emplacement covering the main gate from the inside.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 10, 2011 10:31:51 GMT -5
You also might want to take a look at Gary Zaboly's article in the current issue of "Alamo Journal," which goes into some detail regarding the state of defenses at the north wall and the Mexican army's construction of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Sept 10, 2011 12:53:03 GMT -5
I thought the matter of whether the palisade consisted of one or two rows of pickets was settled when archeological digs in that area only came up with a single trench in which the logs would have been placed on end. Is this not true?
George
|
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Sept 10, 2011 14:29:01 GMT -5
Well, I just received Mark Lemon's 'Illustrated Alamo' to-day( Happy birthday me) & he shows the palisade as a single row of stakes.
A stunning book, I must say,
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Sept 10, 2011 21:57:54 GMT -5
Somewhere in the recesses of my memory, I have a recollection that the archaeological evidence was inconclusive in regard to the question of a single row or double row palisade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 10, 2011 23:15:19 GMT -5
Hiram, I believe Jack Jackson and Jake Ivey did a very detailed article on this for SHQ, which I saw not long ago but can't locate now. I think there still remains disagreement on the structure of this feature, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Sept 11, 2011 8:08:54 GMT -5
|
|
cje
Full Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by cje on Sept 11, 2011 17:46:05 GMT -5
Lots of good stuff on the "digs." Wondeful pictures. The overhead shot sure does give one a "picture" of the length of the wall the defenders had to protect between the Chapel and the Main gate! Four cannon loaded with scrap iron would be a nice touch. A single 12 pounder and a handful of riflemen would have been kept busy. They must have put up a good fight however to cause the Mexican attackers to shift their attack towards the Main Gate and the SW corner where the 18 pounder was located. Even if the Mexican attack on the South Wall was planned to shift sidewise toward the 18 pounder.
That wooden wall still seems to me to be one long wall to defend!
|
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Sept 12, 2011 18:03:41 GMT -5
Thanks to all who added such useful information to this thread.
It seems Morales' 100+ men began the attack on the Pallisade but soon realized it was stronger than expected, so he moved westward to successfully attack the 18 Pounder. Is their any indication whether this was by accident or design?
It's also likely that Santa Anna sent this small force against the South wall to pin down its defenders, so he could concentrate on the North Wall, which would be the narrow flank since it represented less than a quarter of the Alamo's strength.
This is classic military attack strategy which calls for the concentration of force, i.e. three columns plus the reserves, attacking the smallest number of defenders. Yet, it looks like they put up a hell of a fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 12, 2011 18:58:16 GMT -5
See this thread for a long discussion of Morales. alamostudies.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=alamohistory&action=display&thread=45I don't think the palisade was ever the objective and doubt Morales ever attacked it. The Mexicans knew as well as anyone how difficult an objective it was and there was an easier way into the fort. I think the main gate was the objective with a secondary purpose, as Lou suggests, of pulling some Texans away from the main objective, the north. I don't recall whether the concensus at this point is that the 18-pounder was in position at the SW corner or not, but that, too, would have been an obective. As I recall the discussion, the Mexicans did not have that tough a time gaining entrance here as they used the Charly House as cover and also the dry ditch running outside the west wall, where artifacts later confirmed that a Mexican force had attacked from there. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Sept 12, 2011 20:18:16 GMT -5
See this thread for a long discussion of Morales. alamostudies.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=alamohistory&action=display&thread=45I don't think the palisade was ever the objective and doubt Morales ever attacked it. The Mexicans knew as well as anyone how difficult an objective it was and there was an easier way into the fort. I think the main gate was the objective with a secondary purpose, as Lou suggests, of pulling some Texans away from the main objective, the north. I don't recall whether the concensus at this point is that the 18-pounder was in position at the SW corner or not, but that, too, would have been an obective. As I recall the discussion, the Mexicans did not have that tough a time gaining entrance here as they used the Charly House as cover and also the dry ditch running outside the west wall, where artifacts later confirmed that a Mexican force had attacked from there. That's exactly what I was going to say. My reading (at least my recollection of my readings) is that the palisades was actually one of the stronger areas, defensively, and that there was little if any really fight there. The focus was on the the SW corner and the 18 pounder. There is some thought that once that position was breached, it was a simple matter for the rest of the troops to gain entrance via the main/south gate. Regarding the length of the palisade, I don't believe it was excessive. The location is marked on the plaza today and it never struck me as being overly long. Like most things, drawings and photos can make small areas look much larger. I was surprised to see how compact Dealey Plaza in Dallas was when I first saw it -- the old television images made it look much larger. Ditto for visiting Fenway Park the first time after just seeing it on TV. No different for some of the pieces of the Alamo. The area of the pens, behind the Long Barracks and the present-day museum seems so small when seeing it today. It looks huge in drawings and such. It took me a long time to accept the fact that it was not as big as I thought. So, I don't think it would have taken that much to defend the palisades. The real need was along the longer stretches of walls east, west and north and, obviously, south along the Low Barracks/main gate and SW corner, I think. Paul |
|
