|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 23, 2008 11:17:08 GMT -5
As I peruse through Mark's book and examine the pictures of walls, fortifications, etc., I often wonder about additional defensive enhancements that may have existed.
For example. Along the west wall, there are a number of single, bare, or open walls. No hint of earthen firing steps or wooden scaffoldings for rifleman.
And then there is the northern extension of the Long Barracks - the jacales. This is 158' of relatively open or sparsely defended wall.
The question I have is this: "These areas appear to be quite vulnerable to attack, would Travis have ignored them...would Santa Anna?"
We know for sure Travis had his men piling-up earth on the north wall to strengthen it and to provide a firing-step for the defenders. But would he have stopped there? And if you were Santa Anna, wouldn't you rather attack a length of wall that had undefended gaps as opposed to an unbroken defensive line?
Gary Zaboly's illustrations does depict some of these possible improvements. But, they fall under the heading of "speculative."
And since Mark was relying on facts and hard evidence for his model, it's understandable why he could not incorporate "possible" defensive features into his representation.
But I still wonder. Would the garrison have remained idle for 12 days or would they have attempted to better their situation by improving the walls?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 23, 2008 14:17:40 GMT -5
Glenn, You have raised a fair question, and one which occurred to me while doing research for years before even starting on the book, or model. One thing we must, as serious historians, refrain from doing whenever possible, is to replace a lack of evidence with "reason" or 'common sense." As a character in Dicken's "Great Expectations" says: "take nothing on looks, but everything on the evidence." So, while it may be almost overwhelmingly tempting to put ourselves in the Texians' place, with, it must be said, the advantage of hindsight, and go on to industriously build fortifications like madmen, we should always remember the context of those few months. The Texians, both volunteers and "regulars," had only recently won a significant victory over Cos and his army, expelling them from both the town and the Alamo, and reportedly were quite proud of themselves as a result. Accordingly, they diminished the very real threat posed by an approaching Santa Anna bent on recovering his honor. This, coupled with the well-documented lack of pay, caused a real malaise in the Texians at bexar in late December '35 to February '36. Doing any real hard labor was an anathema to them, and whatever else we may think of G.B. Jameson, we must admit he had an almost Herculean task of not only thinking about how to bolster the Alamo's defenses, but then employ a bunch of Texians who were really not motivated or otherwidse disposed to do the "heavy lifting." TRhat he managed to make any improvements at all, under the circumstances, is at least admirable, if not commendable. As it was, he managed to have trenches dug in the interiors of many of (we dont know exactly how many) the rooms along the west wall, and the low and long barracks. Nearby, he also had constructed the barricades of rammed earth inside of stretched cowhides which were placed inside of the long barracks doors. Also, he built the "last stand" type two-gun "espaldon" which faces the south gate interior. He more than likely placed the abatis along the south palisade's exterior. He blocked up, then loopholed the windows and doorways of the interior facing apertures along the compounds interior. He also reportedly loopholeed sections of the west wall. And lastly, he may have (emphasis on "may") heightened the lunette by the use of earth or sandbags. As Jake thinks the Mexicans built it as a low "en barbette" position, while Sanchez-Navarro drew it as a higher embrasured one, something must have heppened in the interim. So, when taken together, with the near impossible atmosphere under which he had to work, it can be seen that Jameson did quite a lot. He most probably, if given the time, and a more motivated work force, would have addressed those areas you mention. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 23, 2008 15:00:43 GMT -5
Sadly, there are two critical things missing from Mark's work, that we need, to make a true analysis. First, is the contour lines of the surrounding terrain, and second is the vegetation, outbuildings, etc, that would limit observation and shape the avenues of approach.
Work priorities have to be focused on the most dangerous avenues - obviously the North and South Walls. Looking at a topographic map, an approach on the West Wall using Napoleonic tactics is nearly impossible - except from the NW. From the middle of the Alamo's West Wall to the SW corner the terrain just dropped off too rapidly to the river to provide maneuver space for an attacking column. This of course doesn't mean that here wasn't space for light infantry using skirmisher tactics!
The problem is where do you place your efforts? On a clearly secondary avenue, or on the massive avenue to the north?
Likewise the east, I still don't think we have any appreciation for what really happened with Romero. If what Jake Ivey has said about the flooded acequia is true, it seems to me that the only way Romero could have attacked was from the NE down the right bank of the acequia. Of course this leads right into the jacale portion of the wall. The cannon position and the rifle trench along the North Wall of the cattle corral is covering this approach. Other than loopholing the jacale outer walls, it may very well be that not much else was possible here except placing obstacles outside the wall to force an attacker to turn or force him to breech these obstacles under fire.
Given manpower constraints, I'm not really sure too much else could have been done inside the walls. The longer I've studied this the more and more I'm convinced that the effort needed was outside the walls, building obstacles, to shape the direction of the Mexican attack and then to create standoff from the Alamo walls.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 24, 2008 8:31:12 GMT -5
Mark
We've had this discussion before and I agree with all of your points. Were I in your shoes, I would have constructed my model precisely as you did. Please, don't misunderstand me. I'm delighted you committed yourself to be guided by facts and evidence alone and in your determination to adhere to them. Had you have done otherwise your work would not be the "stand alone" achievement that it is today.
However, when it comes to the Alamo, I'm not "comfortable" with absolutes because so much history...so much evidence was either lost or contradictory. While I'll never say this was or wasn't there without evidence to back-up my claims, I do consider "possibilities."
Like you, I don't believe the garrison would have accomplished much before Santa Anna arrived and surrounded the Alamo. But once the defenders found themselves trapped inside a crumbling fort it's difficult for me to believe they just sat around. It's not like they could go any where or had a lot to do. I think they would have discovered the motivation that was noticeably absent prior to Santa Anna's arrival. The fear of death can provide one with much needed inspiration.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 24, 2008 10:48:25 GMT -5
Glenn, I took no slight whatsoever from your well-reasoned comments. I simply wanted to reiterate my methodology, and go on to point out that, when taken in their totality, the Texians actually did make a fair number of "improvements," especially in light of their lack of proper pay, and motivation. Mark
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 24, 2008 11:57:40 GMT -5
I was lucky enough to pick up a copy of Mark's book while I was over at the weekend and in the end I think it raises almost as many questions as it answers - and I say this as a positive comment.
As Mark very rightly says, in building the model as an historical record he is constrained to represent only the known facts or at the least those which can reasonably be reconstructed from the remains. As such it is an invaluable tool to further research - and speculation. The question of possible sandbagging the lunette which he raises in his post above is one example, and I'd extend that to suggesting the SW gun position may similarly have had its parapet raised with sandbags. I can't say it was, but looking at the model suggests it should have been a priority. Similarly there's that question of the defensibility of the low barracks. Looking at the model it seems pretty clear that something ought to have been done there - but what?
Less speculatively, but more illuminatingly there's the question of the north wall itself. (as an aside I'd be interesed in the justification for two 9lbs and a 6lbr rather than three nines) looking at the model as constructed - and I've no reason to disagree with any aspect of it - the sheer difficulty of defending it against an assault is pretty obvious
And without re-opening that particular argument, at the south end that lunette still looks pretty vulnerable to an escalade from the direction of the Charli house by one column while a second went for the SW gun position...
No, there's a lot of food for thought here. Thanks Mark
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 25, 2008 12:00:26 GMT -5
Wolf I agree the Texans would have taken a very close look at the south wall defenses. The approaches to the Alamo were to the south (bridge, ford). The main gate would have been a huge concern. The palisade would also have been a consideration. And, of course, La Villita was just south of the Alamo. The north wall was in poor shape and definitely needed attention. So we agree here as well. What considerations the garrison would have given the west wall is anybodies guess. The Texans had a number of guns aimed in that direction, so that tells us something. I really don't think the contours of the terrain or whether or not Santa Anna was going to employ Napoleonic tactics, factored into their thinking. The Texans were, after all, untrained volunteers and had no way of knowing what the Mexicans would or would not do. So, we disagree here. Would Travis and Jameson be satisfied with some loopholes along sections of wall? I honestly don't know. If the terrain was broken or sloping as it appears it was, then wouldn't shooting from an elevated position be more advantageous? Personally, I feel the defenders would have at least addressed some of these questions. If not before, then during the siege. There may or may not have been some enhancements added to the west wall. But since most of the western defenses were destroyed and developed, we can never know with absolute certainty. Today, all that we have to go on is what was left to us by Labastida and Sanchez-Navarro and by Mark's faithful interpretation of historical evidence. I understand what you're saying, Wolf. On the "Romero" thread, we've discussed a number of ideas about the "where" and the "how" of Romero's attack. I think we can all agree that Romero would not have approached his objective, what ever it was, by sloshing through the flooded acequia. Just not a good idea. Unfortunately, Romero left us nothing to read. We only have de la Pena's account and a brief reference made by Sanchez-Navarro to go on. But my interest on this particular thread is in the wall of jacales and any enhancements the defenders may have made to strengthen the walls defensive capabilities. As I look at this section of wall, I see a 158' of vulnerable defensive perimeter. In my mind, a few loopholes isn't going to be enough to discourage a large group of determined enemy. The 4.5' high wall of the northeast courtyard, while formidable and dangerous, does not appear to be, by itself, a sufficient deterrent either. I think it would have been unwise to dismiss the obvious risks and assume the flooded acequia and the northern wall of the courtyard could provide adequate protection for the wall of jacales. Although it's possible the Texans did just that. Were I Travis, I would've addressed this weakness. I would have instructed Jameson to remove the roofs of the jacales and use the materials to construct something that would allow rifleman to shoot over the wall. This would have made this stretch of wall a bit more formidable. Now, add the firepower of the northeast courtyard and you have something rather intimidating to attacking forces. I'm not disputing known evidence left by Labastida, Sanchez-Navarro or anyone else. Additionally, I am not disputing anybodies contemporary interpretation of the facts. I'm simply suggesting that what we have may be incomplete. And because it is incomplete, it's interesting to contemplate other possibilities. It also makes for a good discussion. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by steves on Apr 25, 2008 12:51:39 GMT -5
I don't know if storming a wall calls for 'tactics' as such....British assaults in the Peninsula & India seem to have used riflemen,(when available) to provide covering fire,a 'forlorn hope' of volunteers to lead the assault,followed by the remainder in whatever formation was appropriate....difference is,they would normally have waited for the artillery to make a breach,while the enfilade parties main role was to spread the defenders out....Sure Stuart will correct me if I've got anything wrong!....I think a 'professional' engineer,bearing in mind the area & the size of the garrison,MAY have not bothered with shoring up the North wall,but built a trench/rampart further back to create a smaller 'fall-back' perimeter...leaving the area between the two as a killing ground. OK...I've finally put forward an opinion!...shoot me down guys! Steve
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 25, 2008 14:42:07 GMT -5
Not really a matter of shooting anybody down Steve, but I don't think the Texians ever really seriously considered defending the Alamo (Jameson's fantasies aside) until it was too late and they were compelled to take refuge in it and make the best of things rather than follow any carefully worked out defence plan.
If Mark's book should ever make it into a second revised edition, something which might be worth considering is to present the photos of the model as it is, but add a series of speculative drawings to illustrate how say the lunette may have been reinforced with sandbags, or any of the other things we can theorise about such as some of the other weak points, or the real purpose of those internal trenches...
|
|
|
Post by steves on Apr 25, 2008 15:08:45 GMT -5
Stuart, I quite agree with you on the 'oh bu**er,we're stuck here now' factor....I was just typing out loud(?)...given X men to defend Y area,what would have been the trained solution?...other than not being there in the first place....... Steve
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 25, 2008 15:25:20 GMT -5
Glenn,
Let me address the West Wall, first.
Terrain wise, the Alamo is almost on a plateau - with gradually rising ground to the East and a significant drop to the river to the West. Today there is an elevation Benchmark located at the Post Office of 665 feet. Near the historic North Wall.
There is almost a Benchmark in the Military Plaza (west of San Fernando) of 649 feet. The river runs between the two at roughly 635 feet.
At the SW corner of the Alamo roughly 665 feet, before the stairs to the riverwalk were cut, you had roughly 70 meters of level ground to the west then a 30 foot drop to the river in less than 15 meters. Its practically a bluff at this point. This bluff continues north fronting the West Wall to a point between Travis HQs and where the 12 pound gunade was located. At this point where northern bend of the river is you are at most 200 meters and more probably only 150 meters from the bluff to the West Wall. Clearly massing troops for an assault in this location is impossible.
Now from Travis HQs, North, the terrain opens up considerably, George Nelson in his drawing (page 4 2d edition) shows a smaller bluff with a small acequia between the West Wall and the river, but the contour lines on the map show a more gradual slope then what Nelson depicts. From Travis HQs due west it looks like about 600 meters to the river and somewhere around 700 - 800 meters from the NW corner. Very clearly there is room to assemble troops for an attack on the West Wall from Travis HQs on North.
Now, I'll agree with your basic premise, that once Santa Anna arrived, the defenders had strong motivation to strengthen their defenses - and that they probably did expend some effort in doing so. And, I'll agree with you that I would be concerned about that NE stretch of weak wall. But, let's look realistically at what they could do.
I talked to Jake Ivey about the availability of wood (building scaffolds, support timbers, bracing, etc. etc.) I'm not convinced that other than pulling down the jacales, that there was any lumber inside the Alamo to do too much (let's not forget, the necessity of firewood for cooking and warmth and the jacales themselves for quarters). Or any quantity of tools to do any massive works requirements.
The things we know they did, all involved digging, throwing up earth on the North Wall, digging ditches in the jacales and some of the other buildings, creating earth filled cowhide barricades to block the doorways.
I don't think at this point it had much to do with them being trained or not, what they could to was limited, by their numbers and a lack of materials.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 25, 2008 15:40:21 GMT -5
I think a 'professional' engineer,bearing in mind the area & the size of the garrison,MAY have not bothered with shoring up the North wall,but built a trench/rampart further back to create a smaller 'fall-back' perimeter...leaving the area between the two as a killing ground. OK...I've finally put forward an opinion!...shoot me down guys! Steve Well, I think you have a valid point especially if the defenders believed the Red Flag meant what it in fact did. I think you would have to look at creating an inner citadel, if you will, out of the Long Barracks, the corrals, The Church and the Church courtyards. While loopholing this smaller perimeter and digging ditches, etc was probably done, the difficult thing, as it is always, is timing. When do you fall back to the inner perimeter? You obviously want to man the cannon on the outer wall as long as possible, but you have to allow sufficient time to disable them and have your men fall back in an organized state. The fall back can't be on command, but has to be event driven, ie so many organized men reach a certain point (the north side of the acequia fronting the North Wall ?) automatically temporarily disable the guns (take the implements) and retreat to the inner perimeter. The problem historically, is that by the time the Texians reached the Walls, the Mexicans had already closed the gap necessary to allow an organized with drawl to the inner perimeter. The Texians were decisively engaged as soon as they reached the walls.
|
|
|
Post by steves on Apr 25, 2008 15:48:54 GMT -5
I think a 'professional' engineer,bearing in mind the area & the size of the garrison,MAY have not bothered with shoring up the North wall,but built a trench/rampart further back to create a smaller 'fall-back' perimeter...leaving the area between the two as a killing ground. OK...I've finally put forward an opinion!...shoot me down guys! Steve Well, I think you have a valid point especially if the defenders believed the Red Flag meant what it in fact did. I think you would have to look at creating an inner citadel, if you will, out of the Long Barracks, the corrals, The Church and the Church courtyards. While loopholing this smaller perimeter and digging ditches, etc was probably done, the difficult thing, as it is always, is timing. When do you fall back to the inner perimeter? You obviously want to man the cannon on the outer wall as long as possible, but you have to allow sufficient time to disable them and have your men fall back in an organized state. The fall back can't be on command, but has to be event driven, ie so many organized men reach a certain point (the north side of the acequia fronting the North Wall ?) automatically temporarily disable the guns (take the implements) and retreat to the inner perimeter. The problem historically, is that by the time the Texians reached the Walls, the Mexicans had already closed the gap necessary to allow an organized with drawl to the inner perimeter. The Texians were decisively engaged as soon as they reached the walls. On further thought,I reckon I'd leave the north wall to sentries...move the guns back to the new line & just leave the wall as an obstacle...maybe even lower it a bit,so attackers get over it,but disorganised...then(hopefully) try to get back over it when the artillery opens up!...So,Plan II....not so much a fall-back as a shrinkage! Steve
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 25, 2008 16:09:29 GMT -5
Not really a matter of shooting anybody down Steve, but I don't think the Texians ever really seriously considered defending the Alamo (Jameson's fantasies aside) until it was too late and they were compelled to take refuge in it and make the best of things rather than follow any carefully worked out defence plan. If Mark's book should ever make it into a second revised edition, something which might be worth considering is to present the photos of the model as it is, but add a series of speculative drawings to illustrate how say the lunette may have been reinforced with sandbags, or any of the other things we can theorise about such as some of the other weak points, or the real purpose of those internal trenches... Stuart, If you had been able to make it to San Antonio last March ( I know its harder for you to get there each year than it is for many of us) You'd have seen that I have already done what you suggested. In a packet of drawings I gave out to those attending the walk-around tour of the compound on March 7, was a sequential drawing of the speculative evolution of the lunette from Jake's low, en barbette position, to the higher, embrasured position that may have been improved by Jameson. Unfortuantely, the whole dust-up between Jake and myself about the two configurations didn't happen until the book had already gone to press. If there is to be a second edition, the drawing will be in it, otherwise, it will be included in my follow-up volume, to be entitled:" Inside the Alamo 1836, A Photographic Journey Pt II." Perhaps Jim or someone else who has a copy, can post it in the images section. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 25, 2008 23:04:45 GMT -5
I think this is the illustration that Mark is talking about. AW
|
|