The LaBastida Map

Glenn,
You should do more "thinkin'" during halftime. You have put your finger on an excellent, and I think crucial point which I also thought about last year when comparing the two maps. Much discussion on the subject followed with Rick Range, Craig Covner, and Jake Ivey.
I believe strongly that LaBastida made this map with the direct input of Cos and/or Ugartachea, who supervised personally the Mexican defenses. So what we are looking at when we view LaBastida's map is the state of the forifications as built by the Mexican army. It would not have been possible to hover over the compound and draw modifications as made by the Texians, so LaBastida drew only what was known at the time
But this is NOT to say that Sanchez-Navarro should be welcomed with open arms as accurately depicting the "Texian" version of the defenses. This is because much of what he showed is NOT backed up by archeology. As I have stated before, Sanchez-Navarro, who drew the place from memory, seemed to get a particular feature right, then duplicate it too many times. But there are some very interesting things that he shows that have independant verification, and show the modifications that the Texians made.
For example, note the "espaldon," or small, 2-gun battery facing the rear of the main gate. Labastida does not show this, because it was not done by the Mexicans, and was not known by them until after the fall. In addition, the abatis is shown bt S/N, but not by LaBastida, strongly suggesting it was placed there by the Texians. In fact, S/N specifically states that the Texians placed it there.
Lastly, the interior trenches are shown by S/N, and not by LaBastida, although to be fair, it should be stated that LaBastida did not show any interior features. But based on statements by S/N, and de la Pena, it is clear that the interior trenches were dug by the Texians.
But back again to the warning...S/N had that nasty habit of inaccurate duplication of an otherwise correct feature, such as too many banquettes, too many interior ditches, and too many exterior defensive ditches.
Mark

Here is an interesting piece of information. According to George Nelson in "The Alamo - Illustrated History," LaBastida made the map under the direction of Gen. Filisola. If this is accurate, this means that LaBastida may have began work on the map before Santa Anna and Sesma separated from the main force and advanced toward Bexar.

So my next question is: Did LaBastida accompany Santa Anna to San Antonio and complete his map there or did he remain with the Filisola and the main force and actually complete the map before Santa Anna and Sesma departed?

I agree, Mark. Sanchez-Navarro had a penchant for duplication, especially in the representation of trenches and ditches.

If we are successful in the Alamo Plaza Project, I'd like to see some archaeological digs done along the West Wall area. This is the section of the Alamo where Sanchez-Navarro and LaBastida differ the most. I know Jake Ivey did some digging in and around the Southwest corner, but I would like to see a dig along the whole length of the West Wall and see what turns up.

Glenn

Mark

Sorry to hear that...what a tragic loss. So I guess we will never know for sure if the Texans made any defensive modifications to the West Wall. Nor can we confirm or dismiss particular details in Sanchez-Navarro's "trench heavy" map. A shame.

Glenn

The value of LaBastida's map as an aid to archeology is undeniable...the information it reveals speaks volumes. It is a rich piece of evidence that not only answers questions...it invokes them.

Since we have a battery of experts within our group, I'd like to put forward some questions, comments, and observations that have been forming in my head for a spell.

As I eluded to in my initial post, I felt there were indications that LaBastida had some assistance in the creation of his schematic. I think it's not only possible but probable that Cos' engineers provided LaBastida with a wealth of information. After all, who would know more about the defensive layout of the Alamo then the men who constructed the fortifications? The titles LaBastida uses in labeling structures in the Alamo clearly apply to Cos' men and not the Texan garrison. For example: Artillery command, Artillery barracks, Artillery park, High horseman (Little Fort Cos). So I feel my theory in regards to Cos' input or influence is reasonable.

If my theory is correct, my next question is: When would LaBastida have begun to work on his map? Did he put it off until he could see the Alamo for himself or did he begin to work on it prior to his arrival in Bexar?

Although I don't think anyone can say one way or the other with absolute certainty, there is cause to believe LaBastida may started to work on the map before he ever set foot in San Antonio.

On examination of LaBastidas plan we can see several errors or omissions. Mark has pointed these out in detail in the "Morales" thread so I'll just touch on the most glaring.

The palisade, as we know, incorporated a firing-step to allow rifleman to shoot over the stockade wall (en barbette) and a shallow trench just to the north. Neither of these features were included in LaBastida's map. This omission could lead one to conclude that either LaBastida simply made an error or that he was unaware of it's existence. This in itself implies that it could have been a defensive modification constructed by G. B. Jameson and not, as we believe, Cos' engineers.

Also missing from the map is the abatis of trees directly in front of the palisade which is clearly visible in Sanchez-Navarro's sketch.

One of the more obvious omissions is the absence of the wall in the convento courtyard that separates the cattle pen from the horse pen. One wonders how LaBastida could have missed it.

When I view LaBastida's map in it's entirety, I get a sense that, based on Cos' information, he may have drawn the Alamo and it's defensive features first...before he arrived in Bexar. After his arrival, he added the surrounding topography. Notice the contrast in the level of detail between the Alamo and the areas around the Alamo. While the topographical detail appears to have been rendered from direct observation, the Alamo looks like a second-hand interpretation...just the way Cos remembered it after he departed in December of '35.

One of the problems I have with relying so heavily on LaBastida's plan is that it excludes any defensive improvements the Texans may have and probably did make before and during the siege.

Travis wrote: "I have so fortified this place, that the walls are generally proof against cannon balls and I still continue to entrench on the inside and strengthen the walls by throwing up the dirt." Of course we really don't know what kind of improvements Travis had the garrison working on. However, when we compare LaBastida's schematic to Sanchez-Navarro's detailed sketches we see some additional defensive features that could have been completed by the Texans. In fact, the two maps almost resemble "before" and "after" pictures. For example. LaBastida's plan reveals only one earthen banquette or firing-step whereas Sanchez-Navarro's diagram shows numerous banquettes. Even though archeology may have eliminated a few of the defensive fortifications we find in Navarro's work, it's reasonable to believe some did exist. The two gun emplacement just inside the main gate is another feature that is absent from LaBastida's map. And there may have been some improvements to the lunette.

One of the points I'm trying to make here is that the Alamo had undergone some changes and they shouldn't be discounted simply because LaBastida didn't include them in his plan. I don't believe Travis and the garrison were idle during the siege. After all, they couldn't go anywhere, didn't have much to do, and they were fighting for their lives.

I think we need to be very careful about placing too much emphasis or faith in any single source. I believe everything should and must be considered before rendering any judgments. I'll say it again, I feel LaBastida's work is very important and highly valuable...I just don't view it as the final word. And that's my word.

Glenn

Glenn,
Excellent points...The things that are correct in Labastida's plan, are of course correct. But what to make of those things that we either know, or strongly suspect were there, but that he doesn't show? We must assume that he either didn't see or notice them, or left them off for some other reason, but we must not place so much idolatry in him that we find ourselves saying: "Well, he didn't draw it, so it didn't exist.."
Mark

I think something else to bear in mind is the probably reason why the plat was prepared; namely as an aid to planning the assault, rather than as an illustration to accompany a subsequent narrative.

What's important there is a schematic showing objectives and obstacles and so long as their relationship is accurately depicted there isn't necessarily a requirement to measure them out.

Taking the south wall as an obvious example, Morales needed to know there was a gun position on the SW corner; he needed to know where the other guns in that area were. Some indication of the form of the lunette is also going to be helpful.

The ommissions in that area can also be explained in that light. as I've suggested before, if that little gun position inside the gate was constructed by the Texians then neither Labastida nor anyone else might have known about it until Morales came face to face with it.

The absence of the abatis is less easy to explain but hardly damning. It may not have been very thick - just how much timber was growing locally - or it may not have figured in anyone's calculations since Morales' objective was the gate and he was going to approach both it and the adjacent gun position from the SW.

I don't know of course if that was the case, but I suggest its a plausible explanation in the known circumstances

The tree isn't necessarily irrelevant if its useful as a reference point; eg: "just to the right of that tree there is a gun in an embrasure..."