|
|
Post by jrboddie on May 13, 2010 10:52:19 GMT -5
Tucker's book continually refers to the Alameda as being a high ground which overlooked the Alamo plaza to the northwest. As I understand it, the Alameda was the area along Commerce Street west of Bowie Street (about 300 m).
Today, this is not high at all and has about the same elevation as the plaza (200 m ASL). I am having some trouble visualizing this as high ground because the area was flanked by two acequias running from the north (which must obviously be higher). Commerce street continues to be rather flat to the east for about 700 m where it then rises into the hills that run N-S to the east of the area.
So was the Alameda just a small hill between the two acequias or am I missing something? Anyone have any references that can help me understand the topography here?
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on May 13, 2010 11:17:29 GMT -5
Google Earth's altitude function shows that E. Commerce Street in the general area of the site of the Alameda is at virtually the same elevation as Alamo Plaza. Even when you go east on Commerce as far as I-37, which is considerably to the east of the site of the Alameda, the elevation of Commerce Street rises only a couple of feet. Sounds like Tucker got his topography screwed up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 13, 2010 12:32:30 GMT -5
Well, he's nothing if not consistent, then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on May 13, 2010 14:27:59 GMT -5
I saw that too. I believe Tucker is confusing the Alameda with Powder House Hill, which as the name suggests is high ground. It appears to be about 500-600 meters from the southeast corner of the chapel. The hill itself is part of a ridgeline that generally runs north and south. I have never walked this ground and it probably would not do much good today but it is my belief that Powder House Hill is what Tucker is talking about and its location is between where I37 crosses Commerce and where Walnut and Commerce intersect. My best guess and that is all it is, is that Tucker confuses the Alameda which we know to be a parallel grove of trees as the road itself. In which case Tucker is saying there was high ground along the Alameda (his mistaken Alameda) which would be correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 13, 2010 16:09:59 GMT -5
But, the Powder House Hill is to the southeast? Is Tucker saying that the Alamo was to the northwest of the Alameda or that the Alameda is to the northwest of the Alamo?
Or, is he jumping on Roger B's new pet theory that the place known as the Alameda since the Spanish established it, is not the real Alameda, and that the real Alamo Alameda is by the river to the northwest of the northern wall of the Alamo?
Either way, Turner does use the Lingkwitz 1857 painting of the remains of the Alameda (the one most of us accept as the one since it was established in 1804).
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on May 13, 2010 17:29:57 GMT -5
It is apparent to me that Tucker in many instances does not know what he is saying. I took it to mean that the Alamo is northwest of whatever he calls the Alameda. There could have been two or ten Alamedas in San Antonio de Bexar (maybe a slight exaduration). As I understand the Spanish of common useage it means tree lived boulevard. There are a lot of strrets with this name throughout the Southwest, the one most familiar to me is in Denver.
The key factor in this discussion however is high ground and not the Alameda. The only high ground of any significance and military value effecting the Alamo is the ridgeline to the east.
Tucker as I stated before has destroyed any reputation that he might once have had with this book. I don't mind being called an Anglo-Celt clod but you better be smiling when you do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on May 13, 2010 17:31:35 GMT -5
That should be lined and streets. That is my Anglo-Celt clodishness for this day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 13, 2010 20:03:52 GMT -5
It is apparent to me that Tucker in many instances does not know what he is saying. I took it to mean that the Alamo is northwest of whatever he calls the Alameda. There could have been two or ten Alamedas in San Antonio de Bexar (maybe a slight exaduration). As I understand the Spanish of common useage it means tree lived boulevard. There are a lot of strrets with this name throughout the Southwest, the one most familiar to me is in Denver. The key factor in this discussion however is high ground and not the Alameda. The only high ground of any significance and military value effecting the Alamo is the ridgeline to the east. Tucker as I stated before has destroyed any reputation that he might once have had with this book. I don't mind being called an Anglo-Celt clod but you better be smiling when you do it. Agreed. Not that you are an Anglo-Celtic clod, but on the Alameda and where the high ground was. I just finished my re-read of Tucker's book... Proud still to be Anglo-Celtic and a Celtic American! |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 13, 2010 22:07:19 GMT -5
Kevin, you deserve some sort of medal for getting through that thing once, let alone twice. You're a better man than I am!
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on May 13, 2010 23:32:30 GMT -5
Allen: Your last comment reminds me of one my dad made many years ago after the New York Giants beat the Washington Redskins 72-0 in the Old NFL Chapionship Game I think it was 40 or 41. He was talking about the game some fifteen years later and being a smart mouthed 12 year old I ask him Dad, If it was so bad why did you stay to the end. He told me that he just couldn't believe it and he stayed in hope that it would get better. Such is the Tucker book whebn you loose all hope of resonable scholarship, you turn the next page hoping for redemption and instead of finding it you are treated to the same old claptrap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 14, 2010 7:16:49 GMT -5
Kevin, you deserve some sort of medal for getting through that thing once, let alone twice. You're a better man than I am! Well, I had to read to twice: the first read left me with a confused feeling, and the second read was to make sure I read things correctly. Even now, because of the way the thing was written, I get confused... |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 14, 2010 9:31:56 GMT -5
Proud still to be Anglo-Celtic and a Celtic American! Its always worth remembering of course that the only difference between the cloddish Spanish conquistadores who created Texas and the cloddish American filibusters who siezed it is a couple of hundred years. ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on May 16, 2010 6:43:55 GMT -5
Thanks for the replies. I read the post-battle report of Sesma but found no reference to high ground. He does, of course, talk about escapes from the right, center and left that could imply a vantage point corresponding to the Alameda--or perhaps even west of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jesswald on May 17, 2010 15:44:15 GMT -5
I have swiped, I mean purchased a copy of Tucker, but haven't started it yet, and I'm afraid I won't know enough to contradict its "facts." However, I can state definitively that it was the Bears who defeated the Redskins by that 73-0 score in the 1940 NFL Championship Game. See? I'm contributing. And there's no truth to the report that the Redskins skedaddled out of Soldier Field before the final gun in a futile attempt at escape and were lanced by Sesma's cavalry.
Jesse Waldinger
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 17, 2010 16:15:06 GMT -5
jr,
I haven't read (nor will read) the book (I thought I'd never say that about a book -- must be getting old and opinionated!). However, I want to comment on this "high ground" issue because I believe (without any proof) that an organized move was being made toward "the high ground" and the colonies and that it was planned by Travis and his officers after Travis' letters of March 3. (Hey, they didn't just sit there and twiddle there thumbs as things began to appear terminal.)
I believe this "Alameda N.W. High Ground" concept does indeed come from Roger's thin theory that the Alameda was to the northwest of the Alamo on the left bank (north bank) of the river around where Travis street crosses it. This, I believe, comes from a latter-day photograph that Roger locked in on from that great and accurate historian Mary Ann Noonan Guerra which she had in one of her highly accurate books (I am indeed being facetious -- and a bit unfair) showing a tree-lined road at that location.
First, even this location would not have been higher than the Alamo, as the ground gradually rises from the river to the crest of Powder House Hill. While the Alamo might be on a level portion, it is absolutely higher than Roger's Alameda location.
Second, the real Alameda (according to everybody else, then and now) was most likely a bit lower than the Alamo. The "high ground," if they were headed to it, was at least 2,000 yards east -- could have been any knoll along the ridge that is Powder House Hill from the site of future Fort Sam Houston to east of Mission Concepcion.
Always think *river valley.* The river, even with all its meanderings, is lower than the ridges on both sides of it -- for its whole length. In relation to this reality, the Alamo and the Alameda (if I may be so bold as to say Roger is wrong) were *nearly* equidistant from the river, in geological terms. Thus on roughly the same elevation from the river channel.
If one considers the acequias as indicators (and I do), then any area 200 to 300 yards south or southeast of the Alamo would be downstream, thus a bit lower, than the Alamo. Those old missionaries knew that water flows downhill,. ;D and had their Indians dig accordingly.
These acequias were sliced off of the river upstream and dug so that they were always slightly uphill from the river so they could have laterals crossing down and emptying into the river while watering labores. The Alameda was along the Gonzales Road from the western Acequia de la Villita to the easter Acequia Madre, both flowing downhill from a line projecting due east from the apse of the Alamo. Thus, the Alameda was downhill from that point. And thus, even Roger's Alameda location would have been downhill, since we know there were labores in that loop of the river.
I theorize that Travis, et. al., finally planned to leave the fort for "higher ground" if the battle went against them (hence, once the wall was overrun by the infantry) and that, even with their commander being dead, the remaining officers led the march.
Remember too, they were looking at fire and night behind them and daybreak in front of them -- making the ridge look mighty inviting.
O.K. guys. How far off am I?
|
|
