|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 1, 2007 10:58:26 GMT -5
We've discussed before about how long it might have taken for the north wall to fall, and have speculated that it fell relatively fast. I was reading DLP the other night and noticed that he mentioned 15 minutes...not too far off from some of our guesses! Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 1, 2007 16:33:29 GMT -5
On the face of it yes, but judging by the other things that happened to DLP that morning he wasn't checking his watch at the time. His estimate of the time was just that and as was discussed on a certain other site not so long ago time spent under fire is very subjective. I'd strongly suspect that while it might have seemed like 15 minutes or longer, it was actually a lot less.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 1, 2007 20:38:40 GMT -5
You could be right of course, Tom. I was reading the Carmen Perry translation of "With Santa Anna In Texas" (not the Hansen excerpt), and there was something about the larger context that made me notice the "quarter hour" comment. I'm out of town without access to my library, but when I get home I'll reread it and see if I can find the earlier remark. I may be off base. That's what I get for relying on my memory! Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 2, 2007 12:10:15 GMT -5
I have to agree with Stuart, here. Even though DLP gives a time, as do many other participants, I'm not inclined to accept them with two exceptions. First the times given by observers - not participants, such as Santa Anna and Almonte, and secondly the describtions, such as DLP's, of where the sun was. Adrenline surges, and the rapid pace of events, just knock a person's since of time totally out of whack.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 2, 2007 14:15:36 GMT -5
To illustrate what Wolf and I are talking about on this business of perceptions of time being distorted under stress, I’d like to refer again to a case study from the battle of Culloden. Although it was fought almost exactly 90 years before, the weapon technology was the same and there are a quite astonishing number of eyewitness accounts of what happened on both sides. Some of them are also very detailed, which means its possible to build up a fairly accurate picture of what was actually happening.
The battle began with an exchange of artillery fire at long range. Traditionally historians have fairly uncritically accepted Jacobite narratives describing a crippling bombardment lasting as long as 30 minutes, before they advanced across the 500 metres separating them from the British front line. Influential popular historians such as John Prebble have dwelt at length on this episode, describing the presumed carnage with a quite unhealthy enthusiasm, and in Prebble’s case at least airily concluding that as many as one third of the Jacobites were killed or wounded before the order to charge was finally given.
Hitherto neglected British Army accounts unanimously present an altogether different picture and a staff officer named Joseph Yorke, who was not being shot at, recorded that after two rounds were fired at them the Jacobites “fluctuated extremely” and after a third commenced their charge. As a staff officer he was supposed to keep an official log and so was very explicit about the timing and in contrast to the Jacobite estimates that they were under fire for 30 minutes, he wrote that they charged after just two or three minutes!
I’d hesitate to suggest that all timings at the Alamo should be reduced by a similar factor, but this particular case is only remarkable in the thoroughness of the documentation. The time dilation phenomenon is absolutely typical of other combat situations, so as far as the Alamo goes I would say that the actual combat phase – the storming of the north wall and south gate, and the securing of the main compound was quite literally all over in a few minutes. The rest of the time was then accounted for by the clearing of the buildings, the fighting outside the Alamo, and with the final mopping up… long after the battle proper had been fought.
|
|
bunker
Member
I live in hope....
Posts: 4
|
Post by bunker on Sept 29, 2014 11:52:10 GMT -5
Hi Gents with regard to the North Wall, is there any illustrations of the external log shoring? Regards Shaun
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 29, 2014 16:32:07 GMT -5
Hi Gents with regard to the North Wall, is there any illustrations of the external log shoring? Regards Shaun There are numerous illustrations -- and opinions -- of the north wall revetment. Most believe it was horizontal timbers held in place by uprights perhaps ten feet apart, all built about two feet out from the wall with packed earth in between. This would have had earth piled and packed against it on the outside, if completed by Cos' engineers, but this never took place. Most if it therefore was bare horizontal revetment. Gary Zaboly has put forth an argument that the timbers were vertical and not horizontal. In short, a palisade wall. The problem is that original accounts describing it are not fool-proof and can be interpreted different ways. A current study spearheaded by Rick Range is making a good case (after retranslating mission period inventories) for the wall being pretty solid stone for its western length and that the revetment was only needed over the eastern portion which was probably all adobe. In short, no conclusions but a lot of argument -- and illustrations for each. I refer you to The Alamo Journal published by The Alamo Society by Bill Chemerka and now Bill Groneman. It is all very thoroughly covered in there in the last few years. Below is a photo of a very recent model of the north wall from the N.E. corner built by Mike Harris to illustrate the current conclusions from the retranslations and the LaBastida plat.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Sept 29, 2014 16:50:32 GMT -5
Hi Gents with regard to the North Wall, is there any illustrations of the external log shoring? Regards Shaun Nothing from the period. There are descriptions but, as Rich pointed out, they're somewhat open to interpretation. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 29, 2014 17:54:52 GMT -5
Let's put it this way. If the reinforcement revetment was there and was horizontal, the way Mike Harris has presented it in the model is highly accurate to the construction techniques in the military field fortifications manuals of the day -- and degraded just a bit in the modeling to be realistic in relation to the materials and conditions of the moment. It's a good and well-researched guess.
|
|
bunker
Member
I live in hope....
Posts: 4
|
Post by bunker on Sept 30, 2014 4:37:57 GMT -5
Thanks gents I will work on the woodwork! Regards Shaun
|
|
|
Post by alamoglenn on Oct 16, 2018 11:34:43 GMT -5
Several artists, modelers, and Michael Cornenblith in the 2004 movie show the revetment being braced by vertical wooden poles spaced to shore up the revetment. But the evidence doesn't seem clear to me on this point. What's the consensus on this?
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 16, 2018 15:25:04 GMT -5
Several artists, modelers, and Michael Cornenblith in the 2004 movie show the revetment being braced by vertical wooden poles spaced to shore up the revetment. But the evidence doesn't seem clear to me on this point. What's the consensus on this? I don't think that there's any real consensus on this, but its worth bearing in mind that most of the fortification work was actually carried out by the Mexican army in 1835, rather than by the Texians. This implies two important points. First those works were superintended by properly trained engineers - and this can be seen most clearly in the fortifying of the south wall, including the main gate. The repair work to the north wall ought to have been equally professional. Secondly, the Mexicans were disciplined soldiers and there were plenty of them who could be relied on to do what they were told, unlike the Texians who were few in number and prone to goofing off. Its also worth noting that in besieging the Alamo the Mexicans evidently didn't regard it as a weak point and didn't reckon it vulnerable to being knocked down
|
|