"Alamo Artillery" article by Mark Lemon

Saw too late for inclusion in the article, the following bt of data, which finally clears up where the three swivel guns came from:
In 1778,, Fr. Juan Agustin Morfi along with De Croix, conducted an extensive inspection of the entire frontier of New Spain, which included the Mission de Valero (Alamo). In his book: "History of Texas, 1673-1779," Morfi states the following:
"At the entrance of the friary, a small watchtower was built, with three loopholes for three swivel guns, which, with other firearms and their ammunition, are carefully guarded." I had heard or read, this information long ago, but hadn't realized it mentioned three swivel guns.
Mark

Rich,
Thanks..well, the article's not really an article..mostly just a poster-type chart of illustrations of the gun tubes of the known types of Alamo cannons, with captions, of course. I really think (or hope!) that you'll like the book. Basically, I followed the philosophy of a filmmaker (whose name now escapes me), who said he makes the types of movies that HE wants to see. That's what I've done with this book...it's the Alamo book I always wanted someone to write, but never did. It doesn't tell story of the battle, but is, I think, indespensible to really understanding the story.
Yes, I saw your post, darn you for posting it!! I'm still stewin' on it...seems to raise more questions than it answers. I'm gonna have to talk this over with Rick Range and see what he thinks.
Mark

I don't know how many have seen the new "Alamo Journal," but Mark's article is very interesting, even to someone like me, who isn't all that interested in the artillery. I still found it interesting and enlightening regarding the siege. It's amazing how many so-called "little things" have added new information about the Alamo and changed our perceptions of the siege and battle, and of the defenders themselves.

In that regard, AJ is also heavily devoted this time to tributes to Thomas Ricks Lindley (I'm really sorry I never got to meet that man) and Jerry Hadley (I'm sorry that I met him only very briefly at last March's high holy days, but glad to have met him at all). Some really moving tributes to both men.

AW

The 18-Pounder was brought to Velasco Texas from New Orleans on the schooner Columbus on October 22, 1835. The lack of ammunition you mention is the reason it did not continue on to the interior with the Greys, but remained behind. In November, the gun was shipped on to Matagorda on the San Felipe (as you mention), and was still on the ship when it foundered on the Matagorda peninsula. It took 8 days of hard labor to salvage the ship's cargo, including the 18-pounder. It was not long thereafter that a group of Greys,(Commanded by Capt Hardiman) back-tracking from Bexar, returned to pick up the gun and its carriage. From there, they travelled through Goliad from Dimmit's Landing, and on to Bexar, arriving on the 12th of December, too late to partake in the siege of Bexar. The wheels, reportedly wagon wheels, were fitted to the carriage on the 16th of December. Hopefully this answers your concerns about the gun's route into Texas.
I thought I was fairly clear in my article that controversy exists today, not so much on which guns were at the Alamo, but rather HOW they were mounted. In fact, this is one reason why I chose to depict only the gun tubes, sans carriages. However, when one chooses, as I have, to make an overall pitorial representation of the Alamo at the time of the 1836 siege, with guns in situ, one must come down on one side or the other on this issue.
The evidence of specific mounting method is scanty, and I think it's scholastically perilous to attempt to read too much into terms such as "mounted," versus terms such as "w/carriage," and "field piece." We just cannot put ourselves into the mind of the recorder, and KNOW why he, or they, used one term over the other. We don't know if the different terms were arbitrary, or if each meant something specific and exclusionary. But to come down and firmly believe that it is unambiguous, and that we KNOW that "mounted" means "on a garrison carriage," is stretching to say the least.
(Personally, I have no dog in this hunt, and would be just as satisfied if one or all of the guns were found to conclusively been mounted one way or the other, or in combination. I certainly have had my preconceived ideas deflated more than once, and had to change my mind.)
The fact that a particular gun was designed as a naval piece means literally nothing when seen in the light of the Texians' needs, or common practicality. There is nothing inherantly characteristic of a naval piece which precludes it from being field-mounted. Basically, if it had trunnions, it could be mounted on a field carriage. The iron loop (breeching loop) on the breech of the gunade, through which a recoil-dampening rope was to be run, when mounted aboard ship, was simply ignored.
Speaking of the gunade, we can be virtually certain that it was field-mounted, as it took an active part in the siege, battle, and assault on Bexar, being fired and moved about in the advance. It strains credulity to imagine the Texians scurring about trying to roll this heavy gun through rough, rutted terrain, and dirt roads, on tiny trucks.
It must be remembered that all the so-called Alamo guns (except the 3 swivel guns, and perhaps the wall gun, were not ever part of the mission/fortress' original arsenal and were hauled in, either by the Mexicans under Cos, or by the Texians from various points.
I believe that most, if not all of the Mexican guns were intended for campaign that is to say, not intended for static, or fortress usage. These guns, "long nines" included, most probably were mounted on field carriages for this reason.
There may however, be some wriggle room in those guns brought in by the Texians. While most of these guns were probably also field-mounted, including the bronze captured Mexican 6-pounder takan at Concepcion, the 18-pounder, and the gunade, one Texian gun, the so-called Huff-Harrisburg cannon," was an iron 6-pounder and was described as being mounted on "old trucks." Here, Stuart, is the one unambiguous reference to a garrison carriage I could find. There may have been others among the Texian guns, of which we know little, that may have been garrison mounted, but we just do not yet have that data.
It is a debatable point that the guns were brought to Bexar to defend the town. It is my understanding that they were assembled and taken there in order to assault the Mexicans occupying the place and drive them out. If so, the guns would and should have been mounted on field carriages.
I am quite sure that wagons in Texas were in very short supply. In order to move guns on truck carriages, (or naval carriages) a good supply of wagons, with either mules or oxen, would have to be obtained just to haul them about. Just out of sheer economy, the most intelligent thing to do would have, it seems to me, been to mount them on their own set of wheels (large ones), which then gives one the option of mobility that scooting about on tiny trucks does not, not to mention the hassle of hauling them into, and out of, wagons when you want or need to move them.
As to your question about the Culverine/Pedrero. There seems to have been a general confusion as to what to call this one particular gun. So much so that we really don't know what it really was. But Tom Lindley pretty conclusively argued that it most likely was NOT a culverine, as one of that calibre (9 inch)would have had a barrel some 16 to 22 feet in length. So, it was most likely a Pedrero. The howitzer went with Grant.

Stuart: Bailey Hardeman.

The 18-pounder is covered in almost nauseating detail in my book, primarily, and most exhaustively in the main-body of the book itself. There is even another appendix which depicts the gun close up, mounted, with the necessary implements arrayed around the platform in order to show what tools were required to fire the guns of that period. The appendix you saw, (which is the "article" in the Alamo Journal) is supposed to be only a brief overview, and was meant to mainly be a pictorial presentation of the guns and what they looked like in comparison with each other, as well as their scale compared to the gunners in the center of the drawing.

I can only second your thoughts about discussing topics in depth on this site, sans all the extraneous nonsense seen elsewhere. I can't speak for anyone else, but I simply have no time or patience to read someone's mindless attempts at comedy. This site to me has only one purpose: the serious exchange of important information which hopefully forwards the boundaries of our knowledge. So, no, I don't mind intelligent questions, or think they're "picky." I have found that questioning supposedly "known facts" is the ONLY way that we can either confirm, or refute them. You will see that in my book, there are several very radical departures from "what is known." And I expect a firestorm to come at me...but that is the nature of the business we are about.

Mark, I'm going to break the staples on my Alamo Journal, stuffing all your posts in between the pages! You are amazing. I am just thrilled at your presentation in the journal, and now have even more anticipation of your magnum opus than I did before.

Ditto on my respect and appreciation for this site. It's great not having discussions evolve into large font, colored one-liners.