|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 1, 2008 10:55:39 GMT -5
A simple question for all our "structure" experts. I understand that the current outer walls of the courtyards are approximately located where the originals were; is this correct?
How about the location of todays' inner wall dividing todays Cavalry Courtyard from the Main Courtyard versus the original?
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 1, 2008 11:14:36 GMT -5
I have the same and a similar question; are any of the walls surrounding the two courtyard sections today original? I assume the outer walls of the long barracks are original, although the second floor was gone ages ago and the roof is new. In short, how much of what we see today was there during the battle?
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 1, 2008 12:00:45 GMT -5
Wolf,
Your question is anything but "simple!" In fact, you couldn't have asked a more "loaded" question, in my opinion, and one over which many of us have wrangled more than once. I could literally write a chapter-long answer to that question, but since it's New Year's Day (nice cop-out) I'll stick to the short version, firm in the belief that someone, perhaps Craig or Jake, will feel like a more expansive answer (and even we don't agree on this completely). But suffice to say, this is an issue I have personally gone over in modrerate detail for years, and in great detail for the last three years.
The issue is maddeningly obscured by the fact that many mistakes were apparently made in some of the surveys and early plats, namely some by Giraud, in which he gives different measurement values to the same feature (such as a wall length). Decifering these mistakes and interpolating what the correct value is can be difficult to almost impossible. Added to this is an error made by Everett, whose placement of the remaining courtyard stub wall, in relation with the southernmost granary (interior) wall nearby, gives a misleading idea of just where this stub wall really is, and WHICH one it is, the northern, or southern wall of the old north convento wing of apartments. (You can already see that this is one of those areas which is difficult to describe in words without visual aids)
While there is still room for honest disagreement between informed "experts," I have ,after many, many months of specifically focused study on this one issue alone, come to the conclusion that it was the back, or northern wall, of the northern convento apartment wing which survived in some form, to some height.
So the "short" answer to your question is that the current dividing wall position is most probably the one which existed at the time of the battle, making the northern courtyard significantly smaller in size that the southern one.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 1, 2008 12:12:39 GMT -5
I have the same and a similar question; are any of the walls surrounding the two courtyard sections today original? I assume the outer walls of the long barracks are original, although the second floor was gone ages ago and the roof is new. In short, how much of what we see today was there during the battle? AW Allen, grab your Nelson's and look at the spread on 94 and 95 (in my soft cover edition) showing the circa 1912 appearance of the inner courtyard area, which, after the Hugo & Schmeltzer "improvements,"and the back walls and floors of the long barracks had been removed, left only the outer wall of the long barrack, and the connecting wall, now all perforated by numerous apertures. Take off the second story of the long barrack, and that is about what you see now that is original. The current courtyard walls were said to have been rebuilt on the original footings. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Jan 1, 2008 14:54:16 GMT -5
As long as we're on the topic of the courtyard walls, where does a person find out their condition in 1836 as well as their height, construction, composition, and thickness? I agree that some sort of picture would help in the discussion.
Mark, you said "the current dividing wall position is most probably the one that existed at the time of the battle, making the northern courtyard significantly smaller in size that the southern one." Are you implying that the northern and eastern walls were not rebuilt on their old foundation/location?
I'm making the assumption that the southern wall connecting the convento with the chapel is in the original location. Maybe it isn't though??? Is any of this wall original or was it torn down when the Mexican army pulled out of Bexar, or possibly for the construction or destruction of the commercial building on the site.
- Paul Meske
- Wisconsin
|
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Jan 1, 2008 14:58:24 GMT -5
OOPS... I just re-read Mark's post where he very clearly says "The current courtyard walls were said to have been rebuilt on the original footings." Duuuuuhhh...
- Paul Meske
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 1, 2008 17:38:22 GMT -5
Thanks Mark,
So, if I understand you right, today's Northern/Cavalry Courtyard is roughly comparable in size to the 1836 Northern Courtyard.
That's not a lot of space, for a cannon position, the latrines, the interior trench and 30 (?) head of cattle.
Makes me think, that at least half the cattle were butchered right away, simply due to a lack of space (never mind fodder).
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 1, 2008 23:51:24 GMT -5
Allen, grab your Nelson's and look at the spread on 94 and 95 (in my soft cover edition) showing the circa 1912 appearance of the inner courtyard area, which, after the Hugo & Schmeltzer "improvements,"and the back walls and floors of the long barracks had been removed, left only the outer wall of the long barrack, and the connecting wall, now all perforated by numerous apertures. Take off the second story of the long barrack, and that is about what you see now that is original. The current courtyard walls were said to have been rebuilt on the original footings. Mark Mark, I've got the paperback and I'm looking at pp. 89-90; this gives a great view of the courtyard area from the north, or "rear" of the courtyard. It shows what you seem to be describing quite well. It looks like the perforated, upper levels of the one remaining long barracks wall and the connecting wall were removed; what is left is all that remains of the original courtyard walls (if I'm getting this right). The remaining current courtyard walls were all built some time later, apparently in the same places where the originals once stood. The picture at the top of pp. 89-90 (circa 1912) shows the same area, but from the west, or "front" of the long barracks. The courtyard wall foundation, seen in the lower photo, does show that the northern courtyard would have been considerably smaller than the southern, or convento, courtyard. The picture on the lower part of page 92 shows a small remaining fragment of what must have been the northern wall of the northern courtyard. The picture at the bottom of page 95 (circa 1916) shows what must have been new walls added to the long barracks, creating two sections, one of which looks like an arcade along the eastern side of it. This is what appears to have been roofed over and enclosed, as seen today and in the aerial photos circa 1990s. The 1916 photo also shows a new eastern wall for the convento courtyard, with an odd looking opening allowing passage to the eastern part of the property. Page 99 shows a rear (eastern) view that includes a new dividing wall at the north end of the convento courtyard and a much lower new wall along the northern end of the north courtyard, similar to what I believe is there today. Thanks for the citation; this adds to the ability to explore the current site with an eye on what is and what was. AW |
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Jan 2, 2008 9:30:43 GMT -5
Makes me think, that at least half the cattle were butchered right away, simply due to a lack of space (never mind fodder). Wolf, I doubt very seriously that many cattle would be butchered all at once. Beef is not all that easy to preserve and I don't think it was cool enough to hang beef without spoilation(sp?) during the seige. I gues you could jerk the meat but imagine the amounts you would have to jerk and the fuel needed to maintain the smoke during the preservation! The cattle situation is one that has always been interesting to me... just what did they do with all those cattle? I wish I still had an electronic copy of that receipt Travis wrote up for the cattle and corn, it would give us a good idea of just when they were rounded up and therefore a better understanding/idea of how many cattle where around during the seige. |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 2, 2008 10:28:36 GMT -5
I can't find the receipt either, but in his letter of Feb. 23 Travis added a P.S.:
P.S. The Lord is on our side. When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn. We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels and got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves. Travis
So it's not clear how many cattle actually made it into the Alamo (20 or 30?)
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 2, 2008 14:11:53 GMT -5
Makes me think, that at least half the cattle were butchered right away, simply due to a lack of space (never mind fodder). Wolf, I doubt very seriously that many cattle would be butchered all at once. Beef is not all that easy to preserve and I don't think it was cool enough to hang beef without spoilation(sp?) during the seige.. Yeah, I know, but feed and water and space are a concern. Cattle can sicken on you awful fast, and will die within a couple of days of getting sick. But, you are right, about slaughtering, especially even with the scrawnier cattle of the time, just butchering one beef a day would provide every man of the garrison with close to two pounds or more of beef per day. It's a pretty mundane question, but one I'm wrestling with. My corrals and cattle trap take up about a half an acre, and I wouldn't keep that many cattle in there for more than a day, without a lot of hay and food, (It has two 100 gallon water tanks that they'd drain twice a day if held in there). But, then again, during a siege you do what you have to do! |
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jan 2, 2008 15:05:41 GMT -5
I wish I still had an electronic copy of that receipt Travis wrote up for the cattle and corn, it would give us a good idea of just when they were rounded up and therefore a better understanding/idea of how many cattle where around during the seige. Here's a jpeg of the beef receipt dated Feb. 23, 1836: tslarc.tsl.state.tx.us/repclaims/91/09100041.pdfThe translation refers to "thirty beeves," but the original receipt, in Spanish, which came up for auction a month or two ago, is more specific, calling the cattle "nobillas," or heifers. I'm not sure about a receipt Travis wrote for corn; There is a document in the Antonio Cruz file, Republic Claims, Texas State Library and Archives, that combines on the same sheet of paper the last part of the Travis letter of Feb. 22, 1836, testifying to Cruz's service in the storming of Bexar (Hansen, Alamo Reader, p. 28), with an Oct. 26, 1837 affidavit of Juan N. Seguin testifying that Cruz supplied 40 fanegas of corn worth $320 to the Texas Republican Army, but if you read all of the documents in the file (see the second link below), it's clear that Cruz supplied those 40 fanegas during the siege of Bexar in late 1835. Seguin affidavit: tslarc.tsl.state.tx.us/repclaims/23/02300013.pdfIndex to Cruz claim: www.tsl.state.tx.us/arc/repclaims/viewdetails.php?id=16694&set=1#viewSet |
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 2, 2008 15:57:59 GMT -5
The translation refers to "thirty beeves," but the original receipt, in Spanish, which came up for auction a month or two ago, is more specific, calling the cattle "nobillas," or heifers. Heifers, that puts things in a little different light. While the term means different things to different people, most people generally use it for a young cow between when it's weaned and when it has it's first calf, or roughly between 6 - 24 months old. Todays English Cattle will weigh between 300 - 700 pounds at that age, on the hoof, (as compared to an adult cow weighing around 1000 lbs). Just guessing, but Spanish Cattle in the 1830s probably would run between 1/2 - 2/3s what modern English cattle would. |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 2, 2008 22:18:48 GMT -5
Wolf, I doubt very seriously that many cattle would be butchered all at once. Beef is not all that easy to preserve and I don't think it was cool enough to hang beef without spoilation(sp?) during the seige.. Yeah, I know, but feed and water and space are a concern. Cattle can sicken on you awful fast, and will die within a couple of days of getting sick. But, you are right, about slaughtering, especially even with the scrawnier cattle of the time, just butchering one beef a day would provide every man of the garrison with close to two pounds or more of beef per day. It's a pretty mundane question, but one I'm wrestling with. My corrals and cattle trap take up about a half an acre, and I wouldn't keep that many cattle in there for more than a day, without a lot of hay and food, (It has two 100 gallon water tanks that they'd drain twice a day if held in there). But, then again, during a siege you do what you have to do! Wolf, You may remember that we had an in-depth discussion on the issue of slaughering beef way back when on the other site. This is a subject (livestock) that I admittedly know very little about, but which I had some very good input on at the time. The final decision was that, in all likelihood, the beef was walked to the site of cooking (outside the kitchen) and slaughtered (why haul it when it can walk itself?), then hauled up on a primitive scaffold with block and tackle, to gut and drain the blood. It was then butchered and cut into the desired sized portions for cooking, probably on a nearby butcher block or table, then carried inside to cook. The remains were tossed somewhere nearby, probably in a very unsanitary heap. I show as much in my book, and while it is admittedly speculation, I believe that it is the most likely and reasonable way to have done it, and anyone present who would have had any experience in such things, would probably have suggested this method. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 2, 2008 22:26:39 GMT -5
Allen, grab your Nelson's and look at the spread on 94 and 95 (in my soft cover edition) showing the circa 1912 appearance of the inner courtyard area, which, after the Hugo & Schmeltzer "improvements,"and the back walls and floors of the long barracks had been removed, left only the outer wall of the long barrack, and the connecting wall, now all perforated by numerous apertures. Take off the second story of the long barrack, and that is about what you see now that is original. The current courtyard walls were said to have been rebuilt on the original footings. Mark Mark, I've got the paperback and I'm looking at pp. 89-90; this gives a great view of the courtyard area from the north, or "rear" of the courtyard. It shows what you seem to be describing quite well. It looks like the perforated, upper levels of the one remaining long barracks wall and the connecting wall were removed; what is left is all that remains of the original courtyard walls (if I'm getting this right). The remaining current courtyard walls were all built some time later, apparently in the same places where the originals once stood. The picture at the top of pp. 89-90 (circa 1912) shows the same area, but from the west, or "front" of the long barracks. The courtyard wall foundation, seen in the lower photo, does show that the northern courtyard would have been considerably smaller than the southern, or convento, courtyard. The picture on the lower part of page 92 shows a small remaining fragment of what must have been the northern wall of the northern courtyard. The picture at the bottom of page 95 (circa 1916) shows what must have been new walls added to the long barracks, creating two sections, one of which looks like an arcade along the eastern side of it. This is what appears to have been roofed over and enclosed, as seen today and in the aerial photos circa 1990s. The 1916 photo also shows a new eastern wall for the convento courtyard, with an odd looking opening allowing passage to the eastern part of the property. Page 99 shows a rear (eastern) view that includes a new dividing wall at the north end of the convento courtyard and a much lower new wall along the northern end of the north courtyard, similar to what I believe is there today. Thanks for the citation; this adds to the ability to explore the current site with an eye on what is and what was. AW Allen, The photo to which you refer on the bottom of page 92 (it's on page 97 in mine) shows not a remaining portion of the north courtyard wall, but rather a remaining portion of the north face of the granary, or said another way, the northern face of the long barracks. It does appear that some effort was made to rebuild the courtyard walls on the footings thet were uncovered during the demolition of the Hugo& Schmeltzer add-ons to the long barracks (which actually demolished much of the old original structure itself.) Mark |
|
