|
|
Post by estebans on May 25, 2012 13:19:02 GMT -5
As a companion to the "What should Santa Anna have done?" thread, I also want to start a "What other way could Texas have won?" thread. What's your grand strategy for achieving that? I was thinking of three specific conditions for framing your approach: - Start on January 1, 1836, so you have some time to get things ready
- No Matamoros expedition, so the Alamo is better equipped
- No bringing in General Gaines and the U. S. army
Ideally, how should the Texians used what they had on hand when Santa Anna and Urrea crossed the Rio Grande? Please suggest other parameters if the above ones are not good for this exercise. |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 25, 2012 15:33:03 GMT -5
Well, for a start, they could have been united, formed a competent government and a truly centralized permanent army. That never happened and the latter was a non-starter with most people in Texas.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesg on May 25, 2012 19:36:27 GMT -5
Intell gathering and Recon on Santa Anna's movements once he crossed the Rio Grande.
|
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on May 25, 2012 20:27:32 GMT -5
The place that the rebels could effectively fight was in the forests where the Mexican cavalry couldn't dominate, and the foot soldiers could not fight in the Napoleonic style.
Or lure the cavalry into traps and slowly eliminate the cavalry.
Basic guerrilla warfare. I was looking over Sun Tzu's book for inspiration and there is much that could have been done, especially if they were organized and unified.
- Paul Meske
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesg on May 26, 2012 0:07:45 GMT -5
Texas Ranging Corps to act as mounted insurgents, "Cut Slash and Run"
Texian Army using its land.... in Opposed River crossings,, Blockaids at Natural barriers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 26, 2012 22:41:53 GMT -5
Before you develop a strategy, you must have an objective. As a Texan decision maker, in December, 1835, what is your objective? Annexation to the US, an Anglo dominated independent republic, an independent Mexican dominated Republic of the Rio Grande, a separate state in the Republic of Mexico, or a restoration of the Constitution of 1824? Quite simply, it was the inabiiliy of the Texans to determine their own endstate that led to their strategic failings. Santa Anna actually faced far easier decisions.
However, if you seriously think about it the best strategy available to the Texians, in December, 1835, was a RAPID descent on Matamoros. The highly likely spread of a Federalist revolution south of the Rio Bravo, would aid in the accomplishment of all the strategic objectives (except annexation). This also had the advantage of the Texians retaining the initiative, and forcing Santa Anna to react to the rebels, unlike what really happened.
It should be noted that the Matamoros expedition, historically, was delayed and ultimately turned into a fiasco, by one man, Houston, who just happened to be the man who was the biggest proponent of annexation. The only one of the strategic objectives that the Matamoros expedition did not support.
|
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 30, 2012 10:46:05 GMT -5
It seems that everyone had a good or at least plausible idea for the defense of Texas. All seemed to fail because there was not enough will or personnel to make them work. Thus, Grant mounts a weak expidition. San Antonio is undermanned, Houston's army is not organized, the Texas legislators are divided and the U.S. is sending mixed messages reflecting its own political split.
Personally, I favor the strategy of focusing on a goal and implementing a strategy towards that goal alone.
However, it might have been a little easier for all if Mexico City had rejected government by military dictatorship and never let Santa Anna rise to power in the first place. Once the "Napoleon of the West," assumed power, the future was cast and only blood could follow. What's most astounding is that SA managed to float in and out of power in Mexico for decades and really screw up a beautiful country that should have thrived like the rest of North America.
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 9, 2012 20:38:04 GMT -5
I'm not much for what if scenarios or armchair generalship, but I'll throw in my grandad strategy and hope nobody tears it apart. I agree that the provisional Texas government and army had little organization and was ill-prepared to fight a war. With an effective government and a lot of monopoly money, I would have recruited and started training a regular Texan army of a few thousand men in January. I would have also hired (with horses, Mexican property, trinkets, etc.) some mounted Comanche and Apache warriors to harass the hell out of Santa Anna's rear, preparatory to a decisive battle. Cash and booty talks.  Spelling goofs corrected |
|
boba
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by boba on Jul 11, 2012 20:32:22 GMT -5
I like Jim Bowie's plan in (The Alamo 1960)"Cut,Slash and Run"Bleed Santa Anna"s army,Harass them,hit their supply wagons and just annoy the heck out of them.The Texians knew the landscape and could ambush at will.The Mexican army was probably strung out for miles and quick strikes into their ranks would cause much confusion ,delaying their march to Bexar
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 12, 2012 10:34:10 GMT -5
Well the movies are the movies, but that said I liked that plan also, for which I have been cut, slashed, bleed, and run over on this board for saying previously. Were the capability to adopt these tactics present in the Texian contingent in San Antonio of February 1836, I think this approach would be the correct one, delay and harass. That capability was not there though in the form of the superior mobility means it would have taken.
While there was cavalry present in Santa Anna's vanguard brigade, I think work arounds could have been managed. So it was the absense of mobility combined with another even stonger element, I just don't think that the San Antonio garrison was thinking along these lines at all, movies notwithstanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 12, 2012 11:33:38 GMT -5
If I recall an earlier discussion of this idea correctly, the Texans lacked anything close to the number of horses that would be required for such a strategy (John Wayne probably had more in his movie than the Texans had). It also would require more than the 150 or so men remaining in the Bexar garrison after Grant made off with much of their livestock, men and supplies. There is no certainty that even a significant number of the remaining troops had the skills to carry out such operations. Finally, the lack of discipline and cohesive leadership among the small Texan forces at that point does not suggest that such an operation even could have been properly organized.
The Bexar command could muster no more than the 150-200 men who ended up in the Alamo and the rest of the Texan forces could not manage any significant reinforcement for them over a two week period. Going back even earlier than that, Neill and Bowie had both repeatedly asked for more troops and equipment, to no avail. This is why I doubt any coordinated strategy of guerilla tactics like these could have been organized or effectively carried out. As Chuck says, movies are movies and history is something quite different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 12, 2012 13:43:26 GMT -5
The problem with "cut, slash and run" is two fold. First is, if you are going to "make him bleed" and not just nuisance raids, you must do this in some strength. The second is you MUST have a mobility advantage! While, Chuck, correctly points out horses aren't the only way to achieve this, but given th terrain between the Rio Grande and Bexar, it is the simplest way to achieve it. Given the Mexican cavalry numbers, and their clear superiority in quality in this branch, it makes achieving a mobility advantage of any but the smallest Texian force difficult. On the other hand given the poor quality of Mexican horse flesh at this point in the march, there are possibilities for a well led and equipped Texian force - if there was one.
Something to think about, the Texians never had a truly effective mounted arm until they got Colt pistols. Instead, they generally rode to battle and fought dismounted ie mounted infantry. This would indeed be a way to fight at every river crossing, but the difficulty would be avoiding the pursuit of the Mexican cavalry once the crossing was forced.
As Chuck, said there are ways, but it is a significan t problem for an undisciplined, ill equipped, ill supplied force. I also think the only man, in Texas, truly capable of commanding/leading such a venture was also ill - Bowie.
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 12, 2012 16:26:01 GMT -5
I like Jim Bowie's plan in (The Alamo 1960)"Cut,Slash and Run"Bleed Santa Anna"s army,Harass them,hit their supply wagons and just annoy the heck out of them.The Texians knew the landscape and could ambush at will.The Mexican army was probably strung out for miles and quick strikes into their ranks would cause much confusion ,delaying their march to Bexar Sounds like Injun tastics to me. The Comanches and other tribes knew the Mexicans and terrain better than anyone. Many had the ability, rapid-fire weapon, horses and hatred of the enemy that the Texans lacked. They were an ignored resource that past goverments have used, but everything turned out well in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 13, 2012 15:32:43 GMT -5
From what I've gathered about the Comanche, they didn't use their raiding tactics against military targets. They raided brutally and continually on towns and villages, including those of both whites and other tribes, that were virtually defenseless against them. Their objectives were to steal goods and livestock and to take captives that could either be sold as slaves or integrated into their tribe.
|
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jul 15, 2012 16:47:20 GMT -5
"Cut Slash and Run" was a catchy phrase for a movie that had very little to do with reality, regardelss of how rousing a picture it was. No army would allow itself to be ambushed more than once or twice before taking the simple action of scouting river crossings and the like for such sneak attacks. The "fly in the buttermilk" was there was no such hit and run guerilla skills in the Texas Army. By the time the Texians could learn such skills from the Comanches, or even enlist their aid, Santa Anna's army would have reached the Sabine.
Much as we would want, by the time w.e review all of the Texian alternatives, we end up realizing that what occured in 1836 was pretty much all that could have happend given the conditions as they existed. As I've come to appreciate during my years in the Forum, all the "shoulda, woulda, coulda" scenarios are fun to speculate, but don't stand up very well to historical examination and scrutiny.
|
|
