|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 3, 2008 10:04:36 GMT -5
This is a topic I know very little about but would like to know more. I haven't seen much written about the soldaderas, the woman and children who would normally accompany the soldados.
As I ponder the daily life and routines of a typical Mexican soldado in Santa Anna's army, I often wonder what life was like for the woman and children that bravely trudged along with the army. Much has been said about the hazards and hardships the Mexican Army faced during the long march to San Antonio. But what of the soldaderas? It must have been hell for the women and children. Exposure to the elements, Indians, wild animals, hunger, thirst, exhaustion, sickness. It makes one wonder how they survived such a long and arduous trek.
Once the Mexican Army arrived in Bexar, where did the soldados and soldaderas bivouac? Would they have encamped along the San Pedro creek? Seems like an ideal location. Would the woman and children have lodged with their soldado husbands and fathers? Or did they remain separated?
Here's another question. What would become of the soldaderas and their children if the soldado they were dependent on became a casualty (killed or captured)? Did they remain with the army or were they on their own?
After the siege at the Alamo ended, did the soldaderas follow their men as Santa Anna drove up the coast and pursued Houston?
Greg, since the Mexican Army is your forte, can you shed any light on these questions?
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 3, 2008 11:57:25 GMT -5
Glenn: Maybe Gregg can fill us in on some of the particulars in your questions. I've seen references to the lifestyles of soldaderas in the context of the Mexican War, ten years after the Alamo. They were sometimes wifes of soldiers, and sometimes just camp followers, looking to eke out a living by cooking, laundering, nursing the wounded, etc. Here's a book you might want to try to get via interlibrary loan: Soldaderas in the Mexican Military: Myth and History, by Eliazabeth Salas. Excerpts of it are available on Google Books, but it's still in print in paperback, and Amazon has lots of used copies cheap: books.google.com/books?id=enTYhWN_CgkC&pg=PA112&vq=alamo&dq=soldaderas+%22mexican+war%22&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U0wgFjFcuvWaPTz10f-eEJYf-tlzg#PPA68,M1 |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 3, 2008 15:57:22 GMT -5
While the soldaderas are indeed worthy of recognition in their own right its worth pointing out that they were far from unique. Indeed amongst its contemporaries it could be argued that the US Army was unique in not having an equivalent.
The British Army certainly had them and relied on them for all sorts of supporting services, including cooking and nursing and the washing of clothes. Although I can't recall the reference I do recall a contemporary comment by a British officer during the Revolutionary War to the effect that the Americans were always indescribably filthy and suffered an appalling level of disease precisely because they weren't accompanied by their women. Nor did they stop at the washing up and other personal services; I have references to British Army wives carrying extra cartridges up to the firing line and actually carrying out a replen under fire; watering the men in the firing line, evacuating casualties and from time to time becoming casualties themselves.
As far as what happened if a "husband" was killed, they re-married as quickly as possible. One soldier, a sergeant, wrote how after waiting a decent interval (a couple of hours) he proposed to one widow, only for her to burst into tears because she'd already accepted a proposal from the corpral in charge of the firing party at her ex's funeral!
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Jul 3, 2008 17:20:58 GMT -5
While fiction, Gates of the Alamo gives a good depiction of the life of the soldaderas. And some of the Sharpe novels provide some good views of the Napoleonic camp followers.
|
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 3, 2008 18:07:47 GMT -5
Thanks for the information, Tom. I ordered the book just a moment ago.
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Jul 4, 2008 8:33:19 GMT -5
While the soldaderas are indeed worthy of recognition in their own right its worth pointing out that they were far from unique. Indeed amongst its contemporaries it could be argued that the US Army was unique in not having an equivalent. The British Army certainly had them and relied on them for all sorts of supporting services, including cooking and nursing and the washing of clothes. Although I can't recall the reference I do recall a contemporary comment by a British officer during the Revolutionary War to the effect that the Americans were always indescribably filthy and suffered an appalling level of disease precisely because they weren't accompanied by their women. Nor did they stop at the washing up and other personal services; I have references to British Army wives carrying extra cartridges up to the firing line and actually carrying out a replen under fire; watering the men in the firing line, evacuating casualties and from time to time becoming casualties themselves. As far as what happened if a "husband" was killed, they re-married as quickly as possible. One soldier, a sergeant, wrote how after waiting a decent interval (a couple of hours) he proposed to one widow, only for her to burst into tears because she'd already accepted a proposal from the corpral in charge of the firing party at her ex's funeral! Camp followers were a ubiquitous presence in the American ranks during the Revolutionary War, starting with the March to Canada in 1775. And some women went beyond the duties of camp followers by actually serving in the ranks, like Deborah Samson (who hid her identity) and Mary Hays, who joined a gun crew at Monmouth. Camp followers were issued a half ration; children one-quarter ration. Washington did not enjoy the presence of such non-combatants in his camps. And the ration rule was designed to apply to married women of soldiers only. These women were tough and courageous, whether they aided their men in 23rd Royal Welch Fusiliers, the 2nd New Jersey Regiment or the Toluca Battalion. |
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 4, 2008 10:00:25 GMT -5
There were women camp followers in plenty with the U.S. Army in the war with Mexico, too. The most famous was Sarah Borginnis, who went by a variety of other names, including the nickname "The Great Western." She was a laundress and cook, and was well enough off by the time of the Battle of Buena Vista that she owned her own restaurant in a house in Saltillo. According to all accounts, she also supplemented her income by the "oldest profession," both on the labor and management sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 4, 2008 16:10:20 GMT -5
Regarding the soldaderas with Santa Anna's forces in 1836 -- I had the impression that the Generalissimo encouraged them to come along because they could relieve the army of providing many services, including medical attention to the wounded. I also thought that at least some of the camp followers were prostitutes, perhaps providing other services as well, ala "The Great Western" (what a nickname!). Sounds like Miss Kitty's darker side!
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 5, 2008 4:07:43 GMT -5
It wasn't a case of "encouraging" them; they were integral to most European style armies at that time precisely for those reasons - it wasn't a clever cost-cutting wheeze by Santa Anna.
My earlier remark about the American army during the revolution specifically referred to the army at Boston but while there were certainly women following other American armies my impression has been that there were were a lot fewer of them than in the British and Mexican armies, but I'm happy to be corrected on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 5, 2008 9:18:46 GMT -5
Since Santa Anna failed to provide for the medical needs of his army, I can understand why he allowed soldaderas to tag along. But attending to sick and wounded soldados were just a couple of their assumed duties. Cooking, cleaning, mending uniforms, and of course, providing for sexual needs were all a part of what was expected of them. No doubt the soldaderas were more of a help than a hindrance.
I think the morale issue is another important reason why Santa Anna consented to the presents of the soldaderas. Many families were entirely dependent on their soldado husbands, fathers, son's, and lovers for their very survival. And the only way a man in Santa Anna's army could ensure his family was provided for would be to bring them along. Had Santa Anna denied his soldados the comfort of their loved ones, I believe he would have arrived in Bexar with fewer men.
One of the unanswered questions I had was: "Did the soldados and soldaderas camp/sleep together or were they separated?" And "where" did they make their encampment? Was it around San Pedro creek?
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 5, 2008 13:51:33 GMT -5
Generally, camp followers stayed with their men, or at least close by.
Without evidence to the contrary, I'd expect that was what happened. The women lived with their men, even in the fortified camps such as the one at the Alameda. They might have been bivouacked toward the rear of the encampment, but it would have been unusual if they had been separated from their battalion.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 5, 2008 14:53:11 GMT -5
Since Santa Anna failed to provide for the medical needs of his army, I can understand why he allowed soldaderas to tag along. But attending to sick and wounded soldados were just a couple of their assumed duties. This is where you're not quite grasping the point Glenn. The soldaderas were the normal medical service in both the Mexican and British armies. The doctors merely provided expert supervision. Santa Anna may not have had enough trained doctors/surgeons (though I'm not entirely convinced he had less than was usual) but he can't really be accused of failing to provide for the army's medical needs since the soldaderas were there - and not just as a stop-gap substiute for anything better. Again, you're not quite there. The soldaderas always were an integral part of the army, leaving them behind on this campaign or any other was never an option as the army couldn't function without them Again, as Wolf suggests, they would have stayed with their regiments because they were an integral part of them, not a bolt on optional extra. The army was a community and the soldaderas were a fully paid up part of that community |
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 5, 2008 18:00:45 GMT -5
Well...I'm trying, guys. I'll be the first to admit to being almost completely uninformed on the subject of the soldaderas.
I seem to recall one of Santa Anna's lieutenants, Filisola I believe, was not exactly enthusiastic about the woman and children following the army into Texas. If I remember correctly, he felt the soldaderas consumed too much food and slowed the army down.
In regards to the medical services, Santa Anna was heavily criticized by his own officers (not to mention many contemporary writers) for neglecting the medical needs of his men. De la Pena was particularly harsh in his condemnation of Santa Anna for not providing sufficient and professional medical personnel.
So there was a Mexican encampment at the Alameda? How close was that to the Alamo?
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 5, 2008 18:55:47 GMT -5
So there was a Mexican encampment at the Alameda? How close was that to the Alamo? ~900 feet |
|
|
|
Post by steves on Jul 6, 2008 8:11:13 GMT -5
My earlier remark about the American army during the revolution specifically referred to the army at Boston but while there were certainly women following other American armies my impression has been that there were were a lot fewer of them than in the British and Mexican armies, but I'm happy to be corrected on this. On the Revolution...I believe Massachusetts provided a large part of the early Continental forces & they were noticable in the French & Indian War for NOT having female camp followers...Contemporary sources refer to their health suffering as compared to the other British & Provincial troops.... Steve |
|
