Sanchez-Navarro pro/con

marklemon
Guest

Sanchez-Navarro pro/con Jan 5, 2008 22:20:52 GMT -5

Quote

Post by marklemon on Jan 5, 2008 22:20:52 GMT -5

Since poor Sanchez-Navarro has been so coldly dropped and dismissed by some (who should know better) in this important field of study, perhaps this is a good time to review his strengths and weaknesses. Much has been made of his incorrect compound configuration: too many outer ditches and inner banquettes, as well as other inaccuracies...these have led many scholars to turn up their noses dismissively at him, fearing perhaps to believe anything he tells us because of a number of documented errors.
But here I believe is where these scholars go terribly wrong- for life and the whole human experience is replete with examples of partially correct memory. If I visit a place and later draw some diagrams from memory, I will make some mistakes to be sure.But it is just as certain I will get many things right. Those features which we know are wrong can be easily dismissed, but the rest, must be carefully considered, and weighed against all other known data, both written and graphic, in order to come to a reasoned, intelligent decision. In this field of study, there is so little existing contemporaneous data, especially graphic data, that we simply cannot afford to be so exclusionary and dismissive.
A cursory comparison of correct vs incorrect features revealed some surprising numbers (and keep in mind, these numbers are preliminary). Hopefully, this review will cast Sanchez-Navarro in a better light. Certainly he deserves better that the short shrift he has gotten lately.

Correct:

1. Compound is correctly placed in relation to surrounding area, and is correctly oriented as per north, south, east and west.

2. North wall features embrasured batteries (as per Labastida)

3. West wall features two embrasured guns (as per Labastida)

3. Correctly shows the two eastern courtyards, north and south.

4. Correctly places the porteria (entrance) to the convento.

5. Fortin de Cos with long ramp and three guns is correctly depicted.

6. The palisade , with its one gun (embrasured) is corrrectly depicted (also as per Labastida)

7. Shows and explains the abatis.

8. Shows and explains the reinforced north wall (verified by DLP and Filisola)

9. Correctly shows the inner trench in the northern courtyard ( verified by archaeology)

10. Correctly depicted the proper shape of the lunette (verified by archaeology)

11. Correctly depicted the lunette outer ditch, as "fading away" to ground level, as it neared the palisade (verified by archaeology)

12. Correctly depicted the three unmounted guns in plaza (verified by Ampudia)

13. Correctly depicted the "Espaldon" (two gun battery facing the main gate-verified by Jameson's map legend)

14. Correctly shows the loopholes and doors in the west wall (verified by DLP)

15. Correctly showes the large pecan tree (verified by many other sources)

16. Correctly shows the interior trenches dug by defenders (verified by DLP)

17. Correctly depicts the configuration of the low barracks/main gate/north kitchen wing (as per Labastida)

18. Correctly shows 18 mounted, and 3 dismounted guns, for the correct total of 21 (verified by many sources)

20. Correctly shows location and orientation of the convento steps(verieifed in the inventories)

21. Correctly shows some north wall banquettes(verified by Filisola)

22. Correctly(more or less) shows the location of the northeast circular outer ditch, (verified by archaeology)

23. Correctly shows an existing portion of the convento arcaded cloister (verified by as post battle maps)

Incorrect

1. Incorrect church /south courtyard placement

2. Incorrectly shows long row of west wall houses

3. Incorrectly omits SW corner gun position

4. Draws too many banquettes

5. Draws too many circular ditches

6. Incorrectly placed a dog-leg in the eastern courtyard wall line.

7.Incorrectly shows (on one of his plan views) the lunette ditch extending along the southern portion of the west wall (probably confused this portion with acequia)

There may be more pro-con features, but this is a pretty complete list. So, what we have is a more than 3 to 1 ratio of correct to incorrect features. While the incorrect features cause some concern, they can very easily be explained as faulty memory, and over-depicting another, known feature, too many times.
The correct features outnumber the incorrect ones significantly, and should a similar comparison be made with Labastida (pro-con) I'd venture a guess that they'd be of comparable accuracy. In any event, the high number of accurate features shown by S/N should certainly show even the most skeptical, that he should not be so easily dismissed.
Mark

Last Edit: Jan 5, 2008 22:32:01 GMT -5 by marklemon

Jake
Moderator

Posts: 199

Sanchez-Navarro pro/con Jan 5, 2008 23:53:51 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Jake on Jan 5, 2008 23:53:51 GMT -5

I will usually accept S-N's written descriptions and statements about sizes and such of the defenses, but not his drawnings, except when Labastida supports them. And I said up front that as an accurate plan, Labastida is crap -- I see him only as an accurate schematic of the defenses, but S-N is even more crap as a plan, and certainly not an accurate schematic. And historical research is not a democratic process, so that whatever gets the votes is right.

Come on, Mark, you look at S-N and you say well, we don't accept this and this because we know better, but you'll accept other things because we don't know better -- except you act like he's equally trustworthy with Labastida, which as a schematic of defense structures we know is correct everywhere we can check. S-N and Labastida are not equal.

... merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. -- "The Mikado"

marklemon
Guest

Sanchez-Navarro pro/con Jan 6, 2008 2:03:32 GMT -5

Quote

Post by marklemon on Jan 6, 2008 2:03:32 GMT -5

jivey said:

I will usually accept S-N's written descriptions and statements about sizes and such of the defenses, but not his drawnings, except when Labastida supports them. And I said up front that as an accurate plan, Labastida is crap -- I see him only as an accurate schematic of the defenses, but S-N is even more crap as a plan, and certainly not an accurate schematic. And historical research is not a democratic process, so that whatever gets the votes is right.

Come on, Mark, you look at S-N and you say well, we don't accept this and this because we know better, but you'll accept other things because we don't know better -- except you act like he's equally trustworthy with Labastida, which as a schematic of defense structures we know is correct everywhere we can check. S-N and Labastida are not equal.

Jake,
It's very simple...not complicated at all. ..I trust Sanchez-navarro on something as specifically rendered as an embrasured position for the following reasons:
1) He was an eyewitness, inside and out, up close and personal. I am not so sure of how close Labastida really got.
2) While his plans are "crap" in your opinion, it's not important how well he drew the plan, or even how he rendered it as a schematic. He obviously wasn't too interested in the accurate planform, or the architecture. As a military man, he seems to be more interested in military/defensive features. This is why he chose to depict the reinforcement of the north wall, and the abatis, even when Labastida did not. His problem may have been that he looked the place over intently, and drew it later from memory, thus getting much of the planform wrong (as he obviously wasn't that interested in it anyway, otherwise it would've made a stronger impression on him) and a little too enthusiastically "over doing it" on the things he did remember.
Anyway, how this relates to my reasons for relying on his embrasured lunette is that this is something that, as a military man, sticks in his head, and he draws it very specifically. This isn't something that he was likely to have made up.. Again: "The ring of truth" applies here.
To put it more simply: he drew it boldly, three times, with no vagueness or equivocation as to what type of position it was. No "informed speculation" is required here. He was there. He saw it. Pretty clear to me.

Last Edit: Jan 6, 2008 2:33:17 GMT -5 by marklemon

Jake
Moderator

Posts: 199

Sanchez-Navarro pro/con Jan 9, 2008 12:41:26 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Jake on Jan 9, 2008 12:41:26 GMT -5

Yes, but what complicates this simplicity is all the other things that he was there, he saw, and he drew it wrong.

However, I'm willing to work with Sanchez's drawings -- sort of isolate the area he's drawing and ignore how it doesn't fit all that well with what we know. I'm more partial to his written stuff.

And yes, I agree with you that he drew the west-side ditch complexes as a mis-recollection of the western ditch.

Last Edit: Jan 9, 2008 12:43:28 GMT -5 by Jake

... merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. -- "The Mikado"

Herb
Global Moderator

Posts: 1,414

Sanchez-Navarro pro/con Jan 9, 2008 13:00:37 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Herb on Jan 9, 2008 13:00:37 GMT -5

jivey said:

And yes, I agree with you that he drew the west-side ditch complexes as a mis-recollection of the western ditch.

Jake, I was looking at the picture of the modern SW corner on the back of Nelson's book, and was wondering if you could roughly place where you found the acequia in relation to the modern buildings and the reconstructed "ruins" of the SW corner?

There's quite a significant drop, today, from the level of the Plaza just beyond those "ruins" toward the river any idea how much of that is modern landscaping and how much of it is the actual topography?

Some folks learn by reading, some folks learn by seeing, and some folks just got to pee on the electric fence.

Jake
Moderator

Posts: 199

Sanchez-Navarro pro/con Jan 9, 2008 13:14:31 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Jake on Jan 9, 2008 13:14:31 GMT -5

The ground was flat going west from the wall to a little beyond the new ditch, and then dropped steeply into the river bed. The ditch is just about 60 feet west of the west wall. The dropoff there today was excavated from the river bed by bulldozer, to allow the construction of those waterfalls, to "symbolize the waters of the acequias of San Antonio, the lifeblood of the town," or some such bull-blather.

In the process of cutting that 15-foot deep slot in the ground for the waterfalls and the deep sidewalks, the bulldozer cut too close to the excavated walls of the Alamo, and the entire west wall within the Radio Shack excavation fell into the cut -- unfortunately without burying the 'dozer. Now there was a nauseating moment. That's why the window showing a section of wall is on one of the interior walls, rather than the massive outer wall.

Last Edit: Jan 9, 2008 13:15:15 GMT -5 by Jake

... merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. -- "The Mikado"

Herb Global Moderator Posts: 1,414	Sanchez-Navarro pro/con Jan 9, 2008 13:21:24 GMT -5 Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by Herb on Jan 9, 2008 13:21:24 GMT -5 Thanks, I don't know how many times I've visited the Alamo, but you Bruce, Craig and Mark are giving me a lot to look for come next March!
	Some folks learn by reading, some folks learn by seeing, and some folks just got to pee on the electric fence.

Allen Wiener Moderator Posts: 3,046	Sanchez-Navarro pro/con Jan 9, 2008 18:13:36 GMT -5 Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 9, 2008 18:13:36 GMT -5 I've walked over that spot a dozen times but really wasn't fully aware of where I was standing or what I was seeing. Thanks guys. AW
	“I knew, even as a boy, that to love this world one must keep one’s distance” -- Bishop Daisy - "King of Hearts"

Allen Wiener
Moderator

Posts: 3,046

Sanchez-Navarro pro/con Jan 9, 2008 18:17:27 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 9, 2008 18:17:27 GMT -5

Go to Google Maps and type in Alamo Plaza San Antonio, TX and then click "Terrain." Is that the original San Antonio River as it was during the siege? What are the other, smaller waterways feeding off it that go to the east?

By the way, is any of the River Walk part of the original river?

Thanks.

AW

“I knew, even as a boy, that to love this world one must keep one’s distance” -- Bishop Daisy - "King of Hearts"

marklemon
Guest

Sanchez-Navarro pro/con Jan 9, 2008 18:50:41 GMT -5

Quote

Post by marklemon on Jan 9, 2008 18:50:41 GMT -5

jivey said:

Yes, but what complicates this simplicity is all the other things that he was there, he saw, and he drew it wrong.

However, I'm willing to work with Sanchez's drawings -- sort of isolate the area he's drawing and ignore how it doesn't fit all that well with what we know. I'm more partial to his written stuff.

And yes, I agree with you that he drew the west-side ditch complexes as a mis-recollection of the western ditch.

As an investigator, and an observer of human nature, what I see when I look at S/N's flawed but important drawings, is a military man who, as a participant in the battle, had occasion to closely inspect the place afterwards, and who attempted to draw it from memory later. This very clearly explains why he shows too many banquettes, for example. Here, he clearly saw some banquettes, but in trying to remember where they were later, basically put them everywhere. The same goes for the outer circular ditches. Jake found nothing at the southwest corner, but there may well have been one further up to the north. Unfortunately, we'll never know, as these areas have been obliterated by construction. He drew in a distorted way, the circular outer ditch at the NE corner, but placed it on the NE corner of the north wall. These errors abound, but when we realize the context in which they were made, the picture becomes more clear. This is the reason that I am sure of his depiction of the lunette with embrasures. As I said on another thread, SN clearly entered the ALamo at least once going in each direction, through the main gate. A military officer, upon first entering such an earthwork, will of course look at it, and notice its appearance, and features. Because there was nothing else at the Alamo so striking in its appearance, this(the lunette) is something which will tend to stick out in one's memory, even months later. On the other hand, just exactly where, and how many, of the circular outer ditches will be something which, if not noted on the spot in a sketch, will be more vague in one's memory. The same goes for the interior trenches inside the west wall houses, the low barracks, as well as the long barracks. When he shows us these, we really can't tell whether they were really in ALL these places, or just some. (Fortunately, DLP confirmed them in the long barracks, so we do know that they did exist there, at least.) So in properly interpreting SN's Alamo plan and elevation, we need to really get schooled up on all the other resources, then make sound judgements based on these comparisons. But when all is said, I strongly maintain, that the very specifically drawn embrasured lunette, smacks of something that was clear in his memory. A visual example of the "ring of truth."

Jake
Moderator

Posts: 199

Sanchez-Navarro pro/con Jan 10, 2008 17:27:54 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Jake on Jan 10, 2008 17:27:54 GMT -5

Allen: No, the river shown on the map was channelized beginning back in the 1930s or '40s, and a lot of the bends and yazoos straightened out. The Riverwalk as we have known it up until recently was along the old horseshoe bend to the east that brings the river almost to the Alamo -- but again, this has been channelized and has virtually nothing natural about it now -- and the channelization cut a direct route for the river across the western mouth of the horseshoe. The channels going off east were added in the last couple decades, dug into the ground to extend the Riverwalk over to the Marriott Hotel east of the Alamo. Never too much of a good thing, apparently.

... merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. -- "The Mikado"

Allen Wiener Moderator Posts: 3,046	Sanchez-Navarro pro/con Jan 10, 2008 17:48:48 GMT -5 Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 10, 2008 17:48:48 GMT -5 Thanks Jake; it's clearer to me now. I'm going to try to superimpose this over a map from 1836. AW
	“I knew, even as a boy, that to love this world one must keep one’s distance” -- Bishop Daisy - "King of Hearts"

Post by marklemon on Jan 5, 2008 22:20:52 GMT -5

Post by Jake on Jan 5, 2008 23:53:51 GMT -5

Post by marklemon on Jan 6, 2008 2:03:32 GMT -5

Post by Jake on Jan 9, 2008 12:41:26 GMT -5

Post by Herb on Jan 9, 2008 13:00:37 GMT -5

Post by Jake on Jan 9, 2008 13:14:31 GMT -5

Post by Herb on Jan 9, 2008 13:21:24 GMT -5

Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 9, 2008 18:13:36 GMT -5

Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 9, 2008 18:17:27 GMT -5

Post by marklemon on Jan 9, 2008 18:50:41 GMT -5

Post by Jake on Jan 10, 2008 17:27:54 GMT -5

Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 10, 2008 17:48:48 GMT -5