|
|
Post by Doc Al on Jul 6, 2007 3:00:00 GMT -5
If Morales didn't attack the palisade, where in fact was he located and what part did he play in taking the fortress? Also, I understand that the celebrated 18 pounder at the southwest corner did not play a role in the final assault. I think, unless I'm hallucinating, that I read answers to these questions on another board, but I can't for the life of me find the threads. If someone could answer my questions or direct me to other threads dealing with them, I'd be grateful. Man--I gotta start keeping a notebook on this stuff!
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 6, 2007 6:19:06 GMT -5
Ah well, this one is relatively straightforward and actually quite exciting. Morales’ orders were to seize the main gate. At least one account (DLP I think although I can check when I get home from the office) says he executed his orders promptly. Filisola on the other hand credits him with taking the SW gun position “by a daring move”.
This is conventionally interpreted – and illustrated by Gary Zaboly – as meaning that he and his men ran up with a scaling ladder and got straight over the wall at that point. My own interpretation given that he is stated to have executed his orders, is that they surprised the sentry on the main gate, then ran up the internal ramp to take the gun from behind.
Either way, the point is that when DLP and everybody else got over the north wall and started pushing into the plaza they found Morales men already established in the southern part of it.
The way we’re looking at it, whether Morales took the gate first (as per his orders) or took the gun and then the gate, his men were inside the Alamo before the fall of the north wall, and it was very likely the realisation of this which itself led directly to the Texians’ abandonment of the wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 6, 2007 8:19:08 GMT -5
Under the thread titled "When Did the Alamo Attack Begin?" Jim posted this in a post of May 19:
The prevailing idea that Morales first attacked the palisade, was repulsed by heavy fire and moved to the southwest corner, seems to have originated with Walter Lord. If anyone can offer an earlier citation for this scenario I'd welcome it, but Lord is the earliest I can find. This scenario has been repeated until it's become "common knowledge", but I don't think there is a basis for the belief in any primary source.
From all reports, Morales had the clear objective of capturing the main gate, which he apparently did rapidly and effectively with about 100 men under his command. Whether the "bold move" he is credited with was first capturing the gate area and then flanking the SW corner (as Stuart has suggested), or whether that boldness was exhibited by his taking the SW cannon position and commanding the high ground so as to dominate and subdue the main gate (as I believe) hardly matters (though we'd all like to have a definitive report in our hands...maybe someday); Morales took the south end of the fort quickly, and it was no mere feignt to take attention away from the north wall assault.
In capturing the south end, Morales, with the fewest troops at his disposal, took the low barracks, the chapel area, the south end of the west wall, and reportedly began the assault on the long barracks as well.
If Bowie was quartered in the low barracks, Morales' men would have probably been responsible for his death. If Crockett was stationed at the palisade (unlikely, in my opinion), these same troops would likely have killed him. In the chapel they would probably have encountered Dickinson and Bonham. When you consider that Morales was also at Coleto and contributed to Fannin's defeat, he's personally responsible for the fall of quite a few principal players in the Alamo saga.
As Stuart mentioned, DLP is clear that Morales was already in the compound when the north wall was over-run. If Santa Anna had a "secret weapon" in his plan to take the Alamo, Morales is a prime candidate for the position.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 6, 2007 9:25:09 GMT -5
If Morales didn't attack the palisade, where in fact was he located and what part did he play in taking the fortress? Also, I understand that the celebrated 18 pounder at the southwest corner did not play a role in the final assault. I think, unless I'm hallucinating, that I read answers to these questions on another board, but I can't for the life of me find the threads. If someone could answer my questions or direct me to other threads dealing with them, I'd be grateful. Man--I gotta start keeping a notebook on this stuff! Doc, there is a possibility the 18 pounder was disabled before the battle. It's mentioned in Almonte's Feb. 24th diary entry: "Very early this morning a new battery was commenced on the bank of the river, about 350 yards from the Alamo. It was finished in the afternoon, and a brisk fire was kept up from it until the 18 pounder and another piece was dismounted." (Hansen, p. 363) It's likely this gun would not have been effective against Morales' men anyway, as they were under it so quickly. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Al on Jul 6, 2007 9:46:03 GMT -5
Thanks, friends, for the straight story! It's good that something is "straight" in so complicated a subject! I had the Walter Lord account burned into my mind . . . My respect for Morales just went off the scale!
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 6, 2007 10:02:26 GMT -5
Thanks, friends, for the straight story! It's good that something is "straight" in so complicated a subject! I had the Walter Lord account burned into my mind . . . We all have things burned in our memories, and sometimes it's hard to get to the truth because of those memories. Jim and I spent sometime trying to sort out how Morales attacked the palisade then shifted to the SW corner, flanking himself to fire from the Low Barracks and the Lunette, and took it all. As Jim said the earliest mention of this shift we could find was in Lord. It seems to me that this was an attempt by him to reconcile the tradition, Crockett and his Tennesseans at the Palisade, and the first hand accounts of Morales taking the SW corner. Going through all the known accounts, we weren't able to find a single first hand account about an attack on the palisade on March 6th. One of the more interesting accounts about Morales is DLP. One of the things DLP mentions, is that when he crossed the North Wall he saw Morales' men taking cover in a ditch (the aqucea) for protection from the Mexican fire from the North Wall. |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 6, 2007 13:14:38 GMT -5
I think the "Morales Shift," as I call it, from palisade to SW corner is related to the equally burned-in memory of Crockett and his "sharpshooters" defending the palisade, which is typcally described as the most vulnerable spot in the defenses (although quite the opposite, in fact). In this version, Crockett's men are such crack shots that they blister Morales's men, who are forced to move to their left, out of range, and then move to take the SW corner.
I recall being very pleased and impressed when the Hancock film clearly showed the "Morales Shift," only to learn later that it never happened; neither Morales nor Santa Anna was foolish enough to attack the palisade. Taking the SW corner, and the main gate, were far more crucial to Mexican victory. Even if they could have taken the palisade they would have found themselves somewhat trapped, or confined, to a largely walled-in area in front of the church. I believe the Mexicans had a good idea of what the interior of the fort was like from the time Cos spent there and the fact that Cos's men constructed many of the defenses.
I'm impressed if Morales did take the lunette and main gate. In some drawings, the lunette looks like a small fortress, with an impressive stockade and cannon. If accurate, I wonder how many men Travis was able to spare to man that post and how easy or difficult it would have been to take.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 6, 2007 14:03:42 GMT -5
This is one of the reasons why I think Morales may have done just that.
The Lunette was a substantial piece of fortification in its own right, but by rights would have required far more men to defend it than could be spared out of a garrison number less than 200 effectives.
I'm guessing therefore that Travis didn'tactually have much more than a sentry there. The lunette would have protected the gate from artillery fire and from direct assault simply by existing, without cramming it full of men who were needed elsewhere. It would probably have been regarded as an obstacle to attackers rather than a part of the active defensive perimeter.
By Joe's testimony the Mexicans were over the wall in places before the sentries realised what was happening and I'm betting this was one of the places where it happened. Morales and his men got into the undefended lunette unseen - and if the gate was unbarred to allow access for a sentry there would then have been nothing to prevent them siezing it and then going on to take the gun position from behind
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 7, 2007 6:11:24 GMT -5
I'm not up much on this Alamo battle stuff, but have to agree with Ol' Stuart on the Lunette. Strategically I think it would've been a bitch to defend unless Col. Travis had a bunch of men to spare. Although the Mexicans would have possibly taken a beating from Texans positioned in the lunette and the actual walls, Morales could still attack this area from three sides in a mad rush. I think Travis probably left the lunette undefended, but tried to lure the enemy into this shooting gallery, so they could be cut down from the walls. It's just a crazy theory and I may be completely wrong. Adios amigos. I'm off to work.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 7, 2007 9:53:48 GMT -5
I'm not up much on this Alamo battle stuff, but have to agree with Ol' Stuart on the Lunette. Strategically I think it would've been a bitch to defend unless Col. Travis had a bunch of men to spare. Although the Mexicans would have possibly taken a beating from Texans positioned in the lunette and the actual walls, Morales could still attack this area from three sides in a mad rush. I think Travis probably left the lunette undefended, but tried to lure the enemy into this shooting gallery, so they could be cut down from the walls. It's just a crazy theory and I may be completely wrong. Adios amigos. I'm off to work. I think it's likely the lunette was undefended, or sparsely manned, but I disagree with the idea that it was stormed, then the SW corner taken. It seems more likely to me that the corner was taken first, by escalade, then the low barracks area was attacked once the soldados controlled the high ground. Had they rushed the lunette first, anyone on the SW corner could have seen them coming. By using the stone houses to the SW as cover, then attacking the SW, there would have been less time for the defenders to respond. Of course, it would be nice to know where Morales was staged before the attack, too. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by edubravsky on Jul 7, 2007 19:30:15 GMT -5
Another possibility is that Morales was unable to take the gate in the first rush (which is how the Mexican reports have it). At that point they took cover amoung the ruined buildings to the southwest. Many of these same cazadores had used these buildings for cover during the probing action mentioned earlier in the seige. Not having a large force, they held their ground tying down defenders that were badly needed elsewhere and holding as a blocking force in case the defenders attempted to escape via the main gate. When Texan positions began to crumble at the west and north walls, the defenders at the south wall would have turned their focus inward and Morales would have certainly noticed. A quick rush could very well have taken the south west gun position by surprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 7, 2007 20:45:48 GMT -5
Another possibility is that Morales was unable to take the gate in the first rush (which is how the Mexican reports have it). At that point they took cover amoung the ruined buildings to the southwest. Many of these same cazadores had used these buildings for cover during the probing action mentioned earlier in the seige. Not having a large force, they held their ground tying down defenders that were badly needed elsewhere and holding as a blocking force in case the defenders attempted to escape via the main gate. When Texan positions began to crumble at the west and north walls, the defenders at the south wall would have turned their focus inward and Morales would have certainly noticed. A quick rush could very well have taken the south west gun position by surprise. I could see that scenario, as it all would have happened relatively quickly. I don't see Morales' actions as a feint though (although I don't think that's what you're saying anyway). Ed, what report mentions Morales attempting an attack on the gate area? I've overlooked something. Good to see you posting, Ed! Don't be a stranger. (We missed you in San Antonio last March!) Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 8, 2007 3:00:45 GMT -5
Although Ed's scenario is plausible I don't buy it, partly because I've not come across a Mexican account - as distinct from a secondary source - saying he was repulsed at the first go; but mainly because of the DLP account describing how when they got over the north wall they found Morales' men already holding the southern end of the plaza.
Now Jim and I may continue to disagree on whether he took the gate or the gun position first, but either way there seems no doubt about the speed and effectiveness of his assault - and that verry strong suspicion it was his success which precipitated the collapse of the north wall defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 8, 2007 3:26:28 GMT -5
It seems more likely to me that the corner was taken first, by escalade, then the low barracks area was attacked once the soldados controlled the high ground. Had they rushed the lunette first, anyone on the SW corner could have seen them coming. By using the stone houses to the SW as cover, then attacking the SW, there would have been less time for the defenders to respond. Jim While not denying its possible I think you need to look at this one from a practical point of view. Morales' orders were specifically to go for the gate and he was given some elite troops to do it with. They were Cazadores and so used to moving fast and therefore breaking cover and crossing open ground quickly. The chances of being spotted while going for the SW corner were actually greater than when going for the lunette because it will itself have shielded them from view as they approached it - and at the risk of stating the obvious because it jutted out towards the Mexican positions there was less ground to cover, so just how much damage can the guys up above do before Morales' men get there anyway? But there's another consideration. Morales' orders are to sieze the main gate. The SW gun position is at best a secondary objective which doesn't figure in those orders. He's only got two ladders. Its too easy for things to go wrong by going for the SW corner instead of following his orders. Its higher and represents more of an obstacle to his men than the lunette. He can take that lunette and the gate at the first bound if he goes straight for it, but if he's repulsed from the SW corner he isn't going to get another chance at the lunette - and the gate which is his primary objective. In short his orders tasked him with siezing the gate and I simply don't believe he would have jeapordised his chances of carrying out those orders by deliberately going after a secondary objective first. |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 8, 2007 10:28:31 GMT -5
Stuart's argument makes perfect sense, if everything went according to plan, which it did not on the north wall. If the Texan force at the south was sparce, or became so as they rushed to meet the larger threat to the north, Morales could have taken his objective fairly easily, as planned.
However, it's possible that things did not go so well and he somehow ended up sheltering behind the buildings toward the southwest, ala Gary Zaboly's drawing, and then went for the southwest corner, which could have been weakly manned and made a good target of opportunity at that moment.
Either way, though, Stuart's conclusion seems correct; Morales's men got in first and were there by the time the Mexicans began coming over the north wall. Again, all this seems to have happened in a much shorter time frame than has been typically thought. If the entire battle lasted 60-90 minutes, and part of that time included the mopping up in the long barracks and the church, the Mexicans must have gotten into the fort fairly quickly.
If the Texans were surprised by the attack, which seems to be the case, they could have been in something of a state of confusion, trying to react quickly as they poured out of the barracks, most of them probably heading for the north wall, where the most serious threat was apparent, leaving few to deal with the much smaller Mexican force to the south.
AW
|
|
