|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 4, 2007 13:33:23 GMT -5
Rich, made a comment in images, that I started to respond to, but thought a possible discussion belonged better here.
I was pretty happy with Jim's article in the Alamo Journal about the breakouts and then Stuart's amplification of it, but more recent research (namely Mark Lemon!) leads me to question if we have correctly identified the three points of exit.
I know the mere thought of breakouts is repulsive to some people, but the documentation is pretty overwhelming. The questions for me are the size (I'm personally convinced Sesma was exaggerating) and where were two of the three exits the defenders used (the palisade was mentioned in Mexican accounts as one exit).
I know this is an old horse, but given Mark's impressive research on the compound, and our recent discussion on Romero's attack, is anybody else interested in revisiting it?
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 4, 2007 13:56:07 GMT -5
...is anybody else interested in revisiting it? Why not? Lately I've been thinking about those ponds or lakes lying to the east of the compound, as shown in the Labastida map. If those bodies of water really existed where plotted on the map, it seems logical that they would have barred effective movement on a large portion of the eastern side of the compound. Even if the water were only a foot or so deep, imagine trying to slog through it. My mind is open but is increasingly tending towards breakout attempts toward the southeast and south. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 4, 2007 13:57:41 GMT -5
Frankly, I'd always discounted the story of Dickinson (or whoever it was) jumping form the church as complete fantasy. After seeing the model however, and realizing that the lowest point of the church's east wall was really not that intimidating from the vantage point of a jumper, it might very well be that the church was an exit point for some defenders. I don't think it was one of the primary points of exit, but it doesn't seem unlikely that the church, one of the last places in the compound to fall, would have provided an exit. And it was a "fortin", after all.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Dec 4, 2007 16:27:59 GMT -5
...but more recent research (namely Mark Lemon!) leads me to question if we have correctly identified the three points of exit. Would someone be so kind as to outline generally where the other two exit points may have been? |
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 4, 2007 16:52:33 GMT -5
Bruce, the key to one version of Capt. José Juan Sánchez-Navarro's map of the Alamo (Center for American History, University of Texas, Austin) states that "a few" of the defenders attempted to escape through a point near the center of the palisade between the church and the Low Barracks.
In his after-battle report, Ramírez y Sesma made reference to breakouts from three fortines: on the left, the center, and the right. (There is some ambiguity in the original Spanish in Sesma's report as to whether he was reporting these "forts" left to right as he, or the Texans, saw them.) IIRC, the following have been suggested as referring to fortines: the cattle pen; horse corral; church; palisades; and the lunette at the main gate, south wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 4, 2007 17:31:42 GMT -5
What bothers me about the palisade is that it was considered one of the strongest defensive positions for the Texians. Morales didn't even try to attack at that point. Why would it be any more easy to get out that way then to get in?
Also, my memory is that Sesma was situated around the Alameda, or southeast of the Alamo. So the "right" and "center" references are either from that vantage point, or from that of the Texians. If one of the breakouts was "to their right" (to the Texian's right) it could have been through the main gate or the palisade area or even further east, depending on what looked like the "center" or "right" to Sesma.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 4, 2007 17:51:05 GMT -5
Part of the problem with the report is that Sesma wrote it for Santa Anna, and as Santa Anna was with Sesma when the actions the report covers occurred, as noted by Sesma, some of the descriptions are vague to a person who did not witness the action.
The issue of whose left and right he is talking about I think is critical. IF he is referring to the Texians' right, I think there is a good probability that the first group exited the Main Gate, the 2d Group from vic the palisade and the final group from the Cattle pen. If he is referring to his right, it would seem the East Gate, the Cattle/Horse Pen and then the Palisade (a combination of Jim's and Stuart's scenarios).
The reference to Colonel Mora covering the opposite flank, and not mentioning any specific action by Mora's forces, seems to me to eliminate the possibility that any of the mentioned attempts exited from the North or the West Walls.
Looking at Mark's reconstruction, it appears to me that any exit from the horse corral is improbable due to the height of the wall and no known gate.
The cattle pen still seems like it must be one of the locations even with the flooded ground (east) and Romero's forces attacking to the immediate north.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 5, 2007 2:04:38 GMT -5
...but more recent research (namely Mark Lemon!) leads me to question if we have correctly identified the three points of exit. Would someone be so kind as to outline generally where the other two exit points may have been? Hi Bruce, I've temporarily lost the facility to post images otherwise I'd treat you to a map, but essentially my own interpretation of Sesma's report is that the Texians were responding to the pressure of the Mexican infantry coming over the north wall and that the breakouts occurred successively from north to south; the first being via the little gate on the east wall at the top end of the Long Barracks, the second (probably via a gun embrasure) from the convento area - being the one with the fighting - and the third from the church/palisade area. I'd need to revisit both the translation and my arguments to give you more and all of it is open to discussion, but we've got to start somewhere  |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 5, 2007 9:28:47 GMT -5
Stuart,
Which map are you trying to post? If I have it among my books I'll scan it and post it for you.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 5, 2007 15:11:18 GMT -5
Thanks Allen, I've emailed a scanned copy. I don't pretend that its revealed truth but its always easier to argue over a map than thin air.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 5, 2007 16:57:39 GMT -5
Here it is; many thanks Stuart for sending it. I'm sorry I couldn't enlarge it anymore than this, but 600 pixels is the limit on Webshots. AW  |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 5, 2007 21:06:06 GMT -5
Here it is; many thanks Stuart for sending it. I'm sorry I couldn't enlarge it anymore than this, but 600 pixels is the limit on Webshots. AW The staggered, or "doglegged" courtyard configuration shown in the posted map has been shown by archaeology to be non-existent. The eastern wall ran in a stright, unbroken line from the northeast corner of the northern courtyard, down south to the sacristy's northern wall. Thewall at the point shown and marked as the site of the "second breakout," was around ten feet tall. So tall, in fact, that no defensive positions were deemed necessary there. There was only one gun position in the northern courtyards, and it was placed in the northeast corner of the northern courtyard, where it fired en barbette over the 4.5 foot wall. If there was a breakout along the east, it could have come from the gate shown and labled as "First Breakout," or over the northeast corner of the northern courtyard, or both. But it is highly unlikely that, with what we know now about the eastern courtyard walls, that anyone clambered over a ten foot wall, or even an eight foot wall. The Sanchez Navarro plat needs to be put to rest once and for all, at least as far as the staggered eastern wall is concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 5, 2007 21:28:48 GMT -5
Sorry, I inadvertantly inserted my post within the last post...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 5, 2007 22:16:35 GMT -5
The"passage" to the north of the northernmost courtyard has long been problematic for me. What do we actually know about this area? Is there any archeological data? Couldn't it have been blocked off, filled with rubble, etc.?
What evidence do we have about its condition or accessability?
It seems an odd place for a gate since that area wasn't seemingly heavily defended.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 5, 2007 23:02:24 GMT -5
The"passage" to the north of the northernmost courtyard has long been problematic for me. What do we actually know about this area? Is there any archeological data? Couldn't it have been blocked off, filled with rubble, etc.? What evidence do we have about its condition or accessability? It seems an odd place for a gate since that area wasn't seemingly heavily defended. Jim Jim, The space in question is a gap of about 5.5 feet between the northern end of the granary, and the southern end of the "extension" or jacal section of the long barracks. Jake Ivey believes that there was most likely a gate there, but also that it may have been at least partially blocked up by earth from the inner, denticulated trench in the northen courtyard, which had been banked against the outer section of the northern courtyard's north wall. As for myself, it is an open question whether the opening was blocked up or not. I think that blocking it would have deprived the defenders of a much-needed egress point on the east side of the compound. We certainly have no archeaological evidence one way or the other. There was no doubt that there was a gap there, and that it was even possibly used as a gated passageway as far back as the mission period. So there is a very good chance that there was a gate of some sort in that location in 1836. If not, the gap would have been covered by a section of wooden wall, or posted palisade. But my "informed opinion" as it were, is that a gate was there. |
|
