|
|
Post by Herb on May 4, 2007 21:50:30 GMT -5
I found one of trk's old posts on the Alamo Sentry that had a link www.cartermuseum.org/books/encountering/art/jb2.htm to the Benton watercolors from the late 1840s. One of the water colors is done from behind the church. The detail on the surviving West Wall buildings really jumped out at me, something I hadn't really noticed before - or didn't realize what I was looking at. It also includes one of the better views of the Low Barracks. I wish I'd found that post a couple of days ago, if I knew they were at the Amon Carter, I'd have drug Jim there while he was in Dallas. I went and dug into Alamo Images to see if I could find a copy there and again had something jump out that I had never really noticed before. On page 44 is a drawing done by William Bisset, probably in 1839. It shows the "low" wall running in front of the church and a portion connecting to the Long Barracks. While it might be a possible perspective error, this drawing shows that the "low" wall was higher than the doorways in the Long Barracks. If this is true, this wall was 6 foot or over, and with the kitchens totally isolated the campo santo/palisade area from the rest of the compound. Seems to add another reason why the palisade was not attacked. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 4, 2007 22:26:14 GMT -5
I forgot about that link, it's a good one.
I put a couple more images from my visit to Concepcion in the images section (heaven forbid). You can compare Benton's painting of the ruins with what still stands.
I especially like his painting of the Alamo column with the boy inspecting it.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on May 5, 2007 9:07:16 GMT -5
Wolfpack wrote, "The detail on the surviving West Wall buildings really jumped out at me, something I hadn't really noticed before."
Yeah! I see it all the time, because that painting has been my desktop background for the past year.
Quote: "Seems to add another reason why the palisade was not attacked."
I tend to agree; the Mexicans who scouted the fortifications before March 6 may well have viewed the area in front of the church as a potential slaughter pen, with its small area and walls on three sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 23, 2007 22:33:31 GMT -5
Herb,
The Benton drawings are interesting, but misleading. Based on numerous conversations recently with Jake Ivey, as well as a thorough reading of his massive manuscript entitled "Mission to Fortress," it is clear that Benton, as well as a few other contemporary artists, were guilty of imaginative embellishment. It was a popluar affectation at that time to romanticize your drawings. During this period, many artists in Europe travelled to Greece and Rome to draw the ruins of classical civilizations, and numerous examples of these pieces exist today in museums. The aim was to convey a sense of romantic desolation.
At the time that Benton drew and painted his Alamo pieces, no house in the compound had any arches remaining except the southern Castaneda House, which is seen in Seth Eastman's drawing in Nelson's book, and which would have been out of view from the viewpoint in his painting.. What he undoubtely did was, in selecting the rear or southeast viewpoint for his Alamo church painting, realize that no arches remained on any houses from that point of view. If one walked a little farther towards the chucrh, then the arcaded Castaneda house came into view. But then the view of the church was not so appealing. So what he did was, simply shift the features around in his painting ("Artist's perrogative") to include all the features he liked: arches, and ruined rear of the church.
The reason we can be sure of this is that a search of all available deeds and grants of these houses are quite detailed as to features, and no house in the 1840s has arches but the one previously noted. Another disappointing (for me anyway) revelation was that the arch seen on the end of the low barracks in Benton's painting was apparently another of these affectations. Looking at all the available army plats from this period, especially those done before any real changes were made to doorway's etc, fail to turn up anything like this at all.
Look also at the rear of the church. Benton has accentuated the depression in the midpoint of the outer apse wall to the point that it is rather like a deep gash, or "v-cut," while it was and remains today, a much more subtle feature. The lesson here (just ask "repo-man") is: "As much as it is tempting to do so...Don't take what any artist draws as the gospel."
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 23, 2007 22:44:14 GMT -5
One more thing I forgot to mention is the so-called low wall. Apparently during the battle period, this wall ran from the southwest corner of the convento towards the low barracks at a height of about 6 feet, until reaching a point about 60 feet from the southern face of the low barracks, where it rose to a height of from 12 to 15 feet. It was against this high portion of wall that the northern "L" extension of the low barracks, consisting of jacale front and north walls, was built, probably by the compania volante. This would have quite considerably blocked in, or "hemmed in" the courtyard in front of the church. By the way, the popular idea of the 18 pounder being turned around to blast the front of the church is not possible. The view from point to point is blocked by the high wall and kitchen. The 18 pounder would have had to have been manhandelled down the ramp, to another point within the plaza, to get a clear shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 24, 2007 5:53:40 GMT -5
All this is very interesting. If the "low wall" wasn't really so low, as Mark suggests, then visibility from the north west corner area to the courtyard in front of the church was virtually nil. Seems to me it would have been very difficult to coordinate a defense with so little visual contact.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on May 24, 2007 9:54:14 GMT -5
Mark, I'm with you as concerns the "artistic license" Benton took in shifting buildings on the west side of the plaza south. The plats made in the late 1840s bear this out.
However, I'm not so sure about the arch on the east end of the "low barracks." If it were a blind (i.e., filled-in) arch, as it appears to be in the Benton drawing, it seems to me it wouldn't show up as a feature in the plats. Capt. Arthur Lee drew the east end of the low barracks in a sketch attributed to 1848. (p. 65 in the first edition of Nelson's The Alamo: An Illustrated History). In it, it seems to show a couple of small windows on that end of the barracks. However, I don't entirely trust Lee's depiction (in particular, the way he dressed off the east wall of the Alamo church).
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 24, 2007 12:30:43 GMT -5
Hey, Mark, thanks for the info! I'm far from expert on the compound, and I sure enjoy your attempts to knock some knowledge in!  I'm anxiously awaiting your book, I have the one picture of yours' of the Compound looking from the West to East, but having it, I want some other perspectives! Greedy aren't I? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 24, 2007 22:36:12 GMT -5
Hey Herb,
I have taken the liberty to insure that you'll have an invitation to an upcoming reception and viewing in San Antonio (on June 28th this year) of the model of the entire Alamo compound done in the same scale as the large church model you saw at the symposium. It sits on a huge table 13' by 10 feet and is almost complete. At the same event, there will be a viewing of a number of photos of my model taken by Gary Foreman which will be taken outside in natural sunlight, with cgi sky, terrain, and in a few cases, realistically clad reenactors dropped in here and there for scale. He says the process is done all the time, and is virtually flawless.
I hate to say it, but it'll instantly make those photos I had at the symposium obsolete.
If you are able to attend, (as well as others here on this forum) you'll be able to take your own photos, or maybe they'll have some professionally done for sale....
Take care,
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 26, 2007 16:10:47 GMT -5
Thanks Mark, looking forward to it. I think you already have my address. Read about your upcoming article on Juana Alsbury's location. I'm interested to see it, as I've been speculating for years on it. Did you address her curious comment about the soldato/officer asking her where the entrance was? I can't remember, but I don't think I ever bought up the question with you about the Northern Postern referenced in some accounts. While I'm not sure, I'm reasonably convinced this was probably a door in the West Wall in I think the Castaneda House(?) Do you think this might have been what the comment was about? Have you identifed a Northern Postern? BTW, now that you have that large 10x13 model, I'll be perfectly willing to take that "small" model, you had last March, off of your hands! ;D It'll fit perfectly in my new study! |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 26, 2007 16:15:17 GMT -5
I asked Steve Hardin about this "postern", which he mentions in "Texian Illiad" as well. He indicated that he thought it was probably a point of egress to one of the houses along the west wall. I'm curious as to Mark's take on it as well.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 26, 2007 19:32:48 GMT -5
Hardin left a slightly different impression on the earliest of the History Channel specials on the Alamo. He said that, once the Mexicans made it over the north wall, they dropped down and opened the "gate", as he put it, and the Mexicans came flowing in.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 26, 2007 19:45:52 GMT -5
That's what I asked him about. He was a bit more specific when I talked to him, yet seemed to indicate that there may be some "wiggle room" regarding this question. I guess it's open to interpretation.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 26, 2007 22:58:16 GMT -5
Another item about which I'm curious is the stone building often depicted just south of the SW corner. Reportedly, Morales and his men took cover in this area.
Do we have any definitive answer as to what this building was? It seems awful close to the walls to have been a residence.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 26, 2007 23:04:38 GMT -5
Another question for Mark:
Since the "low wall" was apparently not really a low wall at all, do we have any idea how high the walls along the east of the compound (corrall and horse pen areas) really were?
Does your most recent research suggest that these enclosures may have extended further north than most illustrations depict?
I had a conversation with Tom Lindley some time ago, and he questioned if these areas might have actually reached as far as the north wall boundary.
I'm sure we touched on this some time ago, but I wonder if your recent perusal of the Ivey manuscript has shed any new light on the matter.
Jim
|
|
