|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 9, 2010 15:04:07 GMT -5
In writing about Fortin de Cos, Jose Sanchez-Navarro mentioned a problem with the gun platform that precluded the maneuvering and firing of cannon to the north. Whereas, De la Pena wrote: Romero’s column, “which had been sorely punished on its left flank by a battery of three cannon (Fortin de Cos) that cut a serious breach in its ranks; since it was being attacked frontally (Northern Courtyard 4 pounder) at the same time from the height of a position (Fortin de Cos), it was forced to seek a less bloody entrance, and thus changed its course toward the right angle of the north front.”
So we have some good evidence the 3-gun Church battery played a role in causing Romero’s column to shift to the north. This made me think about the problem with the gun platform Sanchez-Navarro had mentioned. Did he make his assessment after the 13-day siege or was in made while he was in the Alamo with Cos during the battle of Bexar?
When the Mexicans occupied the Alamo in ’35, the guns of Fortin de Cos were trained on the eastern approaches; little consideration would have been given to the north, at least for this particular battery. There would have been little to no incentive to correct the problem that impaired the ability to swing a gun to the north and fire.
But I was wondering; when the Texans occupied the Alamo from December of ‘35 to March of ‘36, would they not have come to the same conclusion as Sanchez-Navarro and addressed the problem? Certainly G.B. Jameson and the gun crews would have taken notice to the uneven platform. There would have been a degree of motivation to remedy the problem during the 13-day siege since Santa Anna positioned a threatening battery to the north and the Mexicans made a probing attack on the northern courtyard.
So my question is: would the defenders have made the necessary adjustments to the gun platform to allow them to fire a cannon north?
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jan 9, 2010 17:09:01 GMT -5
Geez, you raise some interesting points. As I was reading your post, I couldn't help but think about the area east of the Fortin de Cos canons and the cattle pens and their defenses. I believe the evidence points to those areas being flooded and making a full assault from the east difficult at best. Perhaps Jameson and the others recognized that and did what they could to address the shortcomings mentioned by Sanchez-Navaro, and place the cannon in such a way they they would be more effecting against an assault for the north/northeast.
I'm just thinking out loud, relative to what you suggest, and might be way out of the ballpark on this one, but I think the defenders had to play the odds, given the limited number of men they had to defend the compound. I'm thinking they planned for what they thought would be the most likely points of attacked and hoped for the best.
Paul
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 10, 2010 12:49:27 GMT -5
Glenn, this is a good question, but I don't know if we can reach a logical conclusion.
First off, DLP, is not relating information he witnessed, but either something he heard or worse yet surmised, so there's an added chance that his info is inaccurate. Becerra, not the most reliable of sources, was with Romero's column and directly contradicts this. So a lot of this comes down to how accurate is this part of DLP's account?
The second part of this, is how exactly was the gun platform was constructed. The only thing we know for sure is that it was primarily earth and stone, primarily rubble most likely from the ruined courtyard. Whether it was covered with planks we don't really know, In fact from Dickinson's testimony we know it was pretty crude for she talks about climbing over stones to join her husband and watch the cavalry during the siege form the top of the platform.
Large pieces of rubble could possibly explain for the conditions Sanchez-Navarro related. And very obviously, would be difficult to correct during the siege.
Romero's casualities (roughly 16 KIA, 60 WIA) could very easily simply have come from a couple of cannon shots and rifle fire from the corral, scaling the North Wall and clearing the Long Barracks, etc. As we discussed on the Romero topic, the fire from the corral probably had the practical effect of an ambush and the psychological effect would have been far greater than its actual physical effect (and that would have been pretty good).
Then again, DLP, might have it right, and the Texians somehow fixed the Navarro problem, and it was the fire from the church that caused it. IMO, we're just missing too much info on what happened to even "guess" what fire caused Romero to shift to from the corral area to the NW corner.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 10, 2010 17:09:08 GMT -5
Dickinson's account of climbing "over the rocks up to her husband's position at the top of the east wall of the church" gives a tantalizing hint, but no details of how the platform was actually constructed. And, barring any as yet to be discovered description, we'll never really know for sure.
That being said, however, we do know by the accounts and the archaeology that the defenses were constructed with a fairly high degree of military skill by the Mexicans. Therefore, making a high battery atop a loose pile of stones doesn't make much sense, and does not comport with what we know about the other Mexican-made emplacements.
My personal opinion, based on the reasonable assumption that there were some stones already present within the church when the Mexicans began their work at fortifying the place, is this:
The engineers, once the decision was made to lower the east apse wall, so that the ramp would not have to run the entire length of the nave, and out the front door, decided to demolish 10 or so feet of this wall. In doing so, they probably hit upon the idea of using the rubble to their advantage. From this point on, they began to arrange the rubble in such a way as to create a base upon which they could then fill with earth, then more rubble, then more earth, and so on. This method of "in-filling" is and has long been a method of filling up a large void. (parenthetically, this same method was used at my old pre-Civil war home place in Georgia, where, in the 1930's, someone poured a large front porch concrete slab over earth and rubble base, as well as in the old root cellar, where the same method was used to fill in the
space back up to ground level.)
This method thereby utilizes the available materials, earth and rubble. On the other hand, we also know from accounts and the drawings and schematics that the platforms were regular in shape, and had a wood component.
I believe that a reasonable conclusion, based on this fact, is that once the base of the platform began to take shape, a palisade was placed along the perimeter, which defined the outline of the platform. As the structure rose in height, rubble would be piled not only inside the palisade, but also outside of it, in order to buttress it. Otherwise, the pressure on the palisade from the rubble and earth within would push outward against the palisade, and flatten it. So, what we have then, is what would have looked a bit like a palisaded ramp arising from a pile of rocks, and it is these rocks which I believe Dickinson referred to as having climbed.
That all being said, this method (building on rubble) has the nasty tendency to shift about, once the earth and stones settle a bit. It is most likely this phenomenon which caused the northern portion of the top of the platform to sink, thus creating the "declivity to the north" which Sanchez Navarro described.
ML
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Jan 11, 2010 8:52:32 GMT -5
The description "from the height of a position" may not describe the chapel at all -- the Fortin de Cos was not all that high. Could Sanchez Navarro have been describing the roof of the Long Barracks? Also, we know that there were several swivel guns (three I believe) -- the Long Barracks may have been a logical place to mount at least one of these pieces
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 11, 2010 12:09:07 GMT -5
Mark, You fully describe the foundations of the gun platforms the way I intended, and very obviously dirt settling around a large, or even the lack of stone in a particular area is the most logical explanation for this problem. I'm not arguing with you on how the surface of the platform looked. Your argument is perfectly logical - for what we know. I would suggest that there are a couple of reasonable alternatives that also make sense. The sides of the ramp may not necssarily been picketed, but simply stone holding an earth filled center, or even a wicker type construction (like a gabon) that was so predomiant on ACW breastworks, trenches and etc. The surface of the platforms were probably planks, however they also could have been simple corduroy or even flat stone and sand/earth. As you well know if the base of the platform was built as you describe, and then a several inch level layer of earth or sand was placed on top, then embedded with flat surfaced stones and then spread with sand and wetted down you end up with a very durable and flat surface. I sugest these alternatives not because I disagree with you, but that soldiers usually take shortcuts and also because there probably was a shortage of materials that had to be conserved. I do think that the ramps were probably corduroy and that wicker/gabon type retaining walls were utilized, but when it came to the gun platforms themselves that they were planks. But, that's only opinion.  |
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 11, 2010 15:37:45 GMT -5
An interesting theory, Bob. I had not considered the swivel guns. The northeastern corner of the granery would have been an ideal location; a swivel gun here would be in good position to protect the small east gate. But the statement from de la Pena about Romero's column taking cannon fire in their left flank still leads me to believe Fortin de Cos was somehow involved.
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 11, 2010 23:10:02 GMT -5
Glenn,
You are probably right about the surface of the ramps being corduroy, probably cedar or mesquite logs half buried. I decided some time back that, due to the relative scarcity of planed lumber, corduroy was most likely the method that was used, and will incorporate this feature in any future Alamo models.
As for the gabions, I doubt that these were used to shore up the perimeter of the massive Fortin de Cos. The platform was about 12 feet tall, and the gabions are way too short to have been used, unless they were stacked about four rows high. It's possible, but the graphic record does not seem to support their use. Every diagram that shows the emplacement depicts it as precisely delineated. This seems to suggest palisade construction. If gabions had been used, the form of the emplacement would have been much more amorphous and vaguely shaped, more like a reinforced mound. As I have stated ad nauseum, I have to go with the best evidence, and try not to speculate. To me, the palisade fits the bill and conforms with the available evidence.
Mark
|
|
