|
|
Post by deleson2 on Oct 7, 2011 23:09:53 GMT -5
Just a what if question. How many additional men do you think would be needed to successfully hold the Alamo?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on Oct 8, 2011 8:43:21 GMT -5
I don't think that there is a magic number. No matter how many folks you crammed in the walls of the compound, they were still trapped, and as long as they were going to fight from within the walls, they were imminently doomed. Santa Anna could have won that battle with few if any casualties by merely starving them out. It would have been just a little more time, and of course a lot less glorious victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 8, 2011 10:55:32 GMT -5
How many men did Cos have when he occupied the Alamo? How many Texans were besieging the place at that time? Whatever those numbers, Cos saw fit to surrender rather than try to hold the place. Someone should have taken note.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 9, 2011 4:39:22 GMT -5
Cos was holding the whole of Bexar with the Morelos Battallon, a collection of Presidiale companies and an unknown number or Bexareno militia. The position was different in that the Texians were trying to take Bexar rather than the Alamo, where Cos had his headquarters, and eventually did take it after Grant and Gonzales persuaded some of the Presidiales to change sides. The final hours of the siege seem to have been characterised by confusion as some of the defectors broke out and refugees crammed themselves into the Alamo. The fact it was dark didn't help either. The Morelos Battallon at first refused to surrender and had they actually been in the Alamo Cos might have contemplated holding out for longer, but they were trapped in the town and he had to send them a direct order to stop fighting.
From Cos' point of view it was all going down the pan very quickly and he moved just as quickly to secure decent terms while he still could.
Arguably there was just as much panic and confusion in February as the Texians pulled out of Bexar and into the Alamo minutes ahead of Santa Anna. The difference is that Cos was offered good terms to surrender while the Texians weren't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 9, 2011 9:05:33 GMT -5
I wonder what role Travis/Bowie or, for that matter, Neill saw the Alamo itself playing in the oncoming battle. Did they, too, plan to hold Bexar, which was Santa Anna's actual objective, with less than 200 men? Although the commanders don't seem to have paid much mind to the intelligence coming in about the approach of Santa Anna and the size of his force, they did know he was coming. If they actually planned to hold the town, and the Alamo was to be a headquarters, supply center, barracks and/or (in the last resort) a fortress, where did they plan to get sufficient forces from to do that? I doubt there were enough men under arms in Texas at that point to have held the place, even if every one of them had shown up, so what were they thinking in Bexar?
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Oct 9, 2011 16:31:01 GMT -5
Just a what if question. How many additional men do you think would be needed to successfully hold the Alamo? I'll throw out a number. A thousand, give or take. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Oct 9, 2011 19:41:36 GMT -5
Maybe a thousand just to keep things in check, but as was said earlier, the Alamo was doomed to fall sooner or later by merely cutting off water and food supplies and waiting it out. At some points, Travis would have been forced to surrender or see his force starve to death.
Not that this is a fair comparison, but back in 1969-'73, when I was stationed with the Air Force in what was then West Berlin, Germany, the occupying powers (France, Britain and the U.S.) had all these contingency plans in place should the Russians and East Germans decide to take us on. The allied military was way outnumbered, especially since West Berlin was an "Island City" 110 miles INSIDE Communist East Germany. Some of the guys I worked with were nervous about the "what ifs", but I saw it this way: The Russians would never waste a shot on West Berlin. Nope. They would just close the gates and hang a huge "POW" sign over the city. We weren't going anyway. And unlik the airlift in 1949, they could have ensured nothing flew into West Berlin. Sooner or later, we'd be forced to give it up.
Not much different than the situation inside the Alamo.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by deleson2 on Oct 9, 2011 22:16:30 GMT -5
I should of clarified holding out in a battle, not a seige. I would guess a additional 500 to 700 men could of caused enough damage initially that the mexicans would of retreated. Unless of course the mexicans waited for their seige guns and blew the place apart. I don't think the mexican army was disciplined enough to sustain massive losses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Oct 10, 2011 11:06:06 GMT -5
Just a what if question. How many additional men do you think would be needed to successfully hold the Alamo? Not really a whole lot more. A competently led, ALERT garrison of 300 - 400 men should have been able to stop the attack of March 6th. A well provisioned garrison this size was certainly in the Texian capabilities, (see Goliad) but it would have meant cuts elsewhwere - and a more unified government and military. This however, isn't the real problem, which is what is the strategy the Texians are folllowing? The simple answer is none ... there were mutiple competeing stratgies being employed, but the practical effect was there was none. The government's high command must allocate resources, troops, supplies, equipment, money, etc. to accomplish specific tasks/purposes that will promote the accomplishment of the chosen strategy. Without a strategic plan, the allocatation of resources is haphazard (as it historically was) and tactical battlefield victories become irrelevant unless they are blessed with major events of luck (taking Santa Anna prisoner at San Jacinto). Returning to the Alamo, no more infantry than Santa Anna could muster for the March 6th attack 300-400 men should have been able to stop the attack. But, had 300 - 400 well equiped supplied men made up the garrison, I doubt if Santa Anna would have attacked as he did. Even if he did, he would receive almost 3000 men in reinforcements over the next 14 days. A formal siege, would have given the Texian Army a chance to assemble and march to the relief of the Alamo, but the Texas Army would have faced incredible odds, miles from it's natural base. A defeat would have been disasterous, maybe unsurvivable, and given the numbers that would have been involved a defeat would seem probable. |
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Oct 10, 2011 11:12:35 GMT -5
Did they, too, plan to hold Bexar, which was Santa Anna's actual objective, with less than 200 men? No, when Bowie arrived with Houston's orders to destroy the fortifications in Bexar, the plan to hold both the town and the Alamo went out the window. From the end of January on, only the Alamo was intended to be held. The fact that the Texians continue to garrison Bexar had more to do with comfort and ease than anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Oct 10, 2011 17:03:39 GMT -5
Maybe a thousand just to keep things in check, but as was said earlier, the Alamo was doomed to fall sooner or later by merely cutting off water and food supplies and waiting it out. At some points, Travis would have been forced to surrender or see his force starve to death. I was just answering the original question and providing my fantasy figure, but agree that the mission was doomed to fall. I'd also give up a few hundred men if the Alamo had been built on a nice hill. |
|
boba
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by boba on Oct 11, 2011 21:58:16 GMT -5
Three or four hundred men,well supplied from Goliad ,another couple hundred men from 3-legged Willy and Travis would have his reinforcements .Unfortunately Fannin never came and Willy was too late.From what I've read Travis needed men,powder and lead.Why was Fannin hauling 4 artillery pieces to the Alamo??The Alamo had more than enough artillery and these big guns just got stuck in the mud and slowed his relief attempt.I really don't think Fannin wanted to go to San Antone,to quit a relief attempt while still in sight of your starting point gives Fannin "F"for effort and the cannon ,a convenient excuse why he couldn't make it.I really believe Travis and his men expected and believed they would be reinforced and that the Alamo was a temporary roadblock to Santa Anna's army.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 12, 2011 11:06:13 GMT -5
Fannin took his guns because he expected to have to fight, but its pretty clear from the troubles he had getting going and the al fresco council of war that nobody had any enthusiasm for the expedition and that Fannin shouldn't shoulder the blame alone.
As to reinforcements, unless there was an intention to fight a proper battle shovelling more men into the Alamo would just have meant more men penned up who couldn't fight for Texas
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 12, 2011 16:45:54 GMT -5
And so-called commanders did not necessarily have the final word on these decisions. Texian soldiers adamantly refused to accept any central command, including Houston's nominal status as commander-in-chief of the regular army. They continued to elect their own officers, who essentially served at their behest and they commanded only as long as the troops would follow them. The "regular army" existed only on paper until the runaway scrape when some semblence of command structure finally appeared. I don't know how popular Fannin was but, although my memory is a bit fuzzy here, I believe there were as many as 3 different commanders at Goliad during this short duration.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Oct 12, 2011 18:55:24 GMT -5
The question is a good one and one I've pondered for many years.
I think there are two general answers:
1) If the Alamo was defended by the type of men all ready inside - that is to say a heterogeneous but scrappy band of individuals untrained and inexperienced in the art and science of war - then I think 1,000 of them would have had a hard time holding it against Santa Anna's Army.
2) If the Alamo had been commanded by a trained and experienced Infantry officer, then I think even the tiny garrison all ready there cold have held out for months and inflicted terrible casualties upon the Mexicans.
The plain fact is that Travis was not such a man. He was a great leader of men. The Alamo garrison would have fallen apart if not for Travis' innate ability to inspire and direct men (Lawrence Harvey's arrogant and condescending Travis was just one of many disgusting fictions in Wayne's movie). Unfortunately, this great leader didnt know even even the most rudimentary military defensive concepts and principals - the most important of which is:
"He who defends everything, defends nothing."
Travis violated this principal and the Mexicans, in spite of utterly inept leadership and tactics - carried the walls because of it.
To Tom Sylvain: Tom, I also served in West Berlin, in the 5th Battalion of the 502d Infantry, from May 1983 to July 1986. You're wrong about the Russians attacking Berlin - they had every intention of doing it and for d**n good reason: West Berlin was a gigantic, integrated NSA/ASA electronic listening post in the middle of the Group of Soviet Forces in East Germany. The whole place - all 600 square kilometers of it - was wired up, from Checkpoint Charlie to Checkpoint Bravo. The East Bloc could not have made a move on the West without Berlin knowing about it weeks in advance. Encircling us would have been a waste of time - we were all ready encircled - and every Soviet move would have been "seen" before the could had execute them. They had to in there and eliminate those capabilities. By the way, the Soviets had quite wisely tasked the poor Polish Army, which was deployed just a few kilometers to our east, with the job of clearing West Berlin.
Of course, the Alamo didn't have high-tech commo - at least I don't think it did. The occasional cannon shot doesn't count and there was nothing high tech about Bonham. But there was one similarity between the Alamo and West Berlin: we were in it and the bad guys didn't want us there. The very idea of leaving an unconquered enemy behind their lines was anathema to both Santa Anna and the Soviets. Santa Anna didnt have to take the Alamo - but he couldnt help himself. The propaganda value of an easy victory was too alluring. Same thing for the Soviets. They didn't have to take Berlin at the end of the Great Patriotic War in '45- but they did. It served no military purpose. But for the Soviets, the propaganda value was far greater the 100,000 lives wasted there.
|
|
