|
|
Post by rriddle3 on Feb 24, 2009 21:31:09 GMT -5
I have long had a problem with the existence during the Alamo siege of the Charli house outside the southwest corner. Assuming that at least some of the Texians saw the danger that it posed, why was it not destroyed, or at least broken up? I have come to the following possibilities:
1. The defenders discounted its danger as cover for the Mexicans.
2. The Texians found a use for it that outweighed destroying it.
3.The defenders could not destroy it.
Numbers 1 and 2 just do not seem reasonable to me, so that leaves number 3 and my question of, why not? Given that it was made from stone or adobe there were ways to bring it down. It could have been done with hand tools (picks, pry bars, hammers), explosives (gunpowder bombs), or cannon shot. I have ruled out hand tools due to the time required thereby exposing men to enemy fire. Gunpowder was apparently a precious commodity, so I do not believe it would have been used just as an explosive. This brings me down to cannon shots to demolish it and my questions as to why that was not chosen.
1. It has been stated here that the 18 pounder (if it was actually still in operation after the early days of the siege) could not be declined enough to come to bear on the building.
2. If the 18 pounder was unusable for the job, could one of the other guns not have been brought to the entrance of the tambour and used to fire at it?
3. Was the building so close that the Texians were concerned about possible bounce-back from the projectiles?
Apparently lack of cannon balls was not a reason for not using a gun to demolish the Charli house, according to the inventory of captured armament listed by the Mexican army after the battle. Was the construction possibly determined to be too stout for cannon to break apart?
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Feb 24, 2009 23:04:18 GMT -5
I am reminded of a great line in the movie, "The International," which goes: "That's the difference between truth and fiction...fiction has to make sense..."
There has been a lot of speculation on this forum in the past about this question. Stuart may have had a good point when he described the Alamo (during Cos' occupation) as a sort of cannon park, and only a portion of the Mexicans' overall defense strategy...a place they never envisioned being surrounded by Texians.
By the time the Texians occupied the place, they reportedly seemed unconcerned about the Mexicans' return any time soon, and concurrently showed a real aversion to any hard work. By the time they got around to doing some modifications to the defenses, they seemed to focus on strengthening the rooms along the east and west walls of the plaza by loop-holing the walls and doors, entrenching the rooms' interiors, building the "last-ditch" two gun emplacement facing the main gate, and the abatis outside the palisade. Using the principle that "work expands or contracts to fill the time allotted for its accomplishment," we have a situation where the men had a certain amount of work to do, were not motivated to do a lot of hard work anyway (who is?), and perhaps were able to just complete what they were told at the time. It is possible that Jameson /Travis / Bowie et al, intended to tear it down, but were not able to do so due to the early arrival of the Mexican Army.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 25, 2009 2:00:52 GMT -5
Just following on Mark's last sentence.
it was a house which a family lived in and would therefore have been averse to moving out of just so that the Anglos could clear some more space around their fort. Remember there were also a whole lot of jacales left out there as well.
Once the siege began, the first (or second or third...) thing the Texians did was sally out to burn them, but as the Charli house was solid there wasn't a lot they could do. Moreover, they may not have regarded it as much of a problem if it was within their defendable perimeter, ie; much closer to their own "lines" than to the Mexican ones and capable of being covered by fire from the walls and the lunette. They didn't of course figure on Morales, but then they didn't figure on a lot of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by rriddle3 on Feb 25, 2009 20:02:01 GMT -5
Thanks for the replies, guys. While I was actually hoping for some opinions and discussion concerning the possibility of the house being brought down with cannon, what you have said reinforces an opinion that has been growing in me for the last decade. Namely, that the defenders as a whole were a pretty wretched lot to count on to accomplish anything sensible concerning a defense against their enemy.
It would not have taken much in the way of leadership to get some of the men to see what a liability the Charli house was. I guess Travis was too busy writing missives to see what needed to be done around the ‘fort’. I am beginning to think that the situation in Bexar was pretty much doomed by the morning after Cos’ defeat given the level of planning among the Texians.
But, back to my question. Does anybody have any thoughts concerning the possibility and effectiveness of using one of the Alamo’s cannon on the Charli house?
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Feb 25, 2009 20:58:27 GMT -5
But, back to my question. Does anybody have any thoughts concerning the possibility and effectiveness of using one of the Alamo’s cannon on the Charli house? The 18 pounder could have been brought to bear on the Charli House as the gun was sitting on just about a level plane with the roof of the Charli structure 40 some odd feet away, and the gun was emplaced en barbette, which meant that it's barrel stood above the parapet, and had a free and clear arc of fire, as opposed to an embrasured position. With little effort, the gun's barrel could have been lowered to fire on the house next door, although the proximity would have made it interesting....BUT, the problem was not the proximity, or the ability to bring the gun to bear on the Charli House, but rather a lack of ammunition. The 18 pounder was brought to San Antonio with no ammunition, and Travis wrote to the Convention asking, among other things, for 18 pounder ammunition. The projectile that was fired from that gun on the 23rd in answer to the red flag being raised may have, interestingly enough, been found. A home made lead cannonball, roughly corresponding to a 16 pounder (which was what the 18 pounder really was) was unearthed in San Ferbnando Plaza back in the 1930s during the installation of utilities, and made it's way, over many years, to Rick Range. He has done extensive research on this and feels that it very well may be the shot fired by Travis. In any event, this is pertinent because the ball was hand made, and seemingly hammered into shape. This reflects, if it is genuine, the lack of ammunition for this gun, and we assume today that such hand made projectiles would have been very labor-intensive, and not many of them would have been made. So this leaves us with langrage (bits and pieces of cut horseshoes and iron nails) which would havfe been effective anti-personnel ammo, but would have done little to the stone Charli House, with its 2-foot thick walls. This leaves us with having to use the other Alamo cannon, the largest of which was a 12 pounder. This may have done the trick, if solid shot was used, but it would have been very noisy and messy, and would have taken a good while to accomplish. Not to mention that all of those 12-pound shot would have had to have been recovered to use again. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 26, 2009 2:11:17 GMT -5
And again, not worth the effort.
Incidentally, I discovered last year that one of the various ways in which James Grant made himself useful to the Texians during the siege of Bexar in November and December of '35, was in establishing a small foundry for casting cannon-balls
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Feb 26, 2009 8:49:38 GMT -5
Was the construction possibly determined to be too stout for cannon to break apart? There's no doubt in my mind. The Charli house was 26' x 50' in plan, with stone walls that were most likely about two feet thick, and with interior walls, too. Imagine the amount of gunpowder and balls it would take to reduce those walls. I think the Texans decided to just live with the house being there. |
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 26, 2009 11:51:15 GMT -5
The problem here goes back to the Mexican occupation, and why the Mexican's left it standing.
The Mexicans were occupying and defending the town and the Alamo both. As such they were primarily concerned with the TExians attacking from the North and or East (thus the positioning of their three main artillery batteries). The Charli House probably actually served a purpose in that it provided cover for traffic between the Alamo and the town.
The Texians when they initially occupied Bexar, also defended both the town and the Alamo - with the garrison split in half. It wasn't until Bowie's arrival after the middle of January with Houston's orders to destroy the fortifications in town and consolidate the cannon in the Alamo, that the Texians concnetrated their efforts (limited as they may have been) on the Alamo.
Quite simply after staring at the Charli House and the jacales for that long, they may not have even seen them anymore. In other words they were so used to them by that point, they just didn't see them as threats. It's a pretty common occurance when somebody occupies a position for any length of time.
It took the Mexican attack on the south end of the compound early in the siege before they "saw" the terrain outside the compound again. While they could burn down the jacales it was simply to late to do anything about the Charli House. It may be even be probable that it's very proximity to the walls prevented them even then for seeing it as the threat it proved to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Feb 26, 2009 19:37:13 GMT -5
Quite simply after staring at the Charli House and the jacales for that long, they may not have even seen them anymore. In other words they were so used to them by that point, they just didn't see them as threats. It's a pretty common occurance when somebody occupies a position for any length of time. It took the Mexican attack on the south end of the compound early in the siege before they "saw" the terrain outside the compound again. While they could burn down the jacales it was simply to late to do anything about the Charli House. It may be even be probable that it's very proximity to the walls prevented them even then for seeing it as the threat it proved to be. Herb, I think that you make a good point, and one that I hadn't considered. Being visually so close to the compound, and seeing it literally every time that they went to and fro, the Charli house, in effect, "disappeared," from their minds. They probably thought of it, if they thought of it at all, as "part" of the Alamo compound, when in reality, it blocked a crucial part of their field of fire to the SW. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 15, 2009 14:59:19 GMT -5
Mark-
Is it possible that there might have been plans for the Charli House to be used as part of the Alamo defenses? I know at the Presidio La Bahia, the Garcia House on the SE side was incoporated into the defenses to help cover the Goliad/Victoria Rd.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 15, 2009 15:52:51 GMT -5
I don't recall it figuring in Jameson's disneyland plans, but we have speculated on another thread that it may have served as a patrol base for the outer picquet during the hours of darkness in order to avoid opening the gate every time they needed to get a cup of coffee or change sentries
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 15, 2009 16:00:40 GMT -5
That would make some sense: in Goliad's case, the Garcia house did serve to help extend the fortifications--and it was also reputed to be the local house of horizontal refreshment.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 15, 2009 20:16:41 GMT -5
Mark- Is it possible that there might have been plans for the Charli House to be used as part of the Alamo defenses? I know at the Presidio La Bahia, the Garcia House on the SE side was incoporated into the defenses to help cover the Goliad/Victoria Rd. Perhaps, but we have no data to support that. It does not seem to have been reinforced defensively in any way, and neither Sanchez-Navarro, nor Labastida even bothered to even show it on either one of their maps. As both men were mainly interested in depicting the fort's defensive works and improvements, this omission may be interpreted to mean that this house was not significant defensively. And as events played out, it certainly became a great liability to the Texans during the final assault. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 15, 2009 21:09:22 GMT -5
Thnk you for the response. I ws just thinking out load so to speak. Its omission from the two primary Mexican maps is important, and I agree, as it turned out, it appears that the Teans were probably wishing they had destroyed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 16, 2009 1:28:38 GMT -5
I don't know, as we've been discussing up until March 6 I reckon it just blended into their mental landscape so to speak, and come the day I very much doubt if they had time for regrets even if they ever realised that was how Morales did it
|
|
