|
Post by TRK on Mar 28, 2008 19:08:26 GMT -5
I agree, Glenn, but I tend to think the reason Travis, or the Mexicans who occupied the Alamo the previous fall, didn't level the Charli house was because it would have taken a lot of work. That house was built stoutly enough that it was still standing decades after the battle. Imagine the man hours it would have taken to dismantle by hand a house of fairly substantial size, with stone and mortar walls, interior partitions (as I recall), and intact roof of timbers, earth, and plaster, and then haul off the refuse.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 28, 2008 19:48:01 GMT -5
I'm sure you're right. It appears to be quite solid in it's construction. And I suppose even it Travis wanted to tear down the Charli house he'd have a difficult time finding enough willing workers.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Mar 28, 2008 22:16:08 GMT -5
The Charli house was so close to the Alamo, I don't see how it could not have been used by the defenders -- if it was not manned in some manner, it would have presented a weakness just begging to be exploited by the Mexicans. The Texians made several sorties during the siege so I think it would be wrong to think they spent most of their time keeping under cover behind the walls of the Alamo. They mounted an active defense, which would have meant taking advantage of the terrain around the fortress and denying as much of it to the Mexicans as they could. Once the siege began, there were only one of two outcomes possible. Either they would be relieved by Fannin or some other Texian force -- or the Alamo would fall. The only positive impact the defenders could have on the revolution was to delay the Mexicans as long as possible, wasting their time and resources. That meant doing everything they could to make things as difficult as possible for the Mexican army, including defending any Alamo outworks like the Charli house. When the attack finally came, the outpost in the Charli house, if there were any, didn't actually do much to prevent the Alamo from falling -- but that doesn't mean there was no attempt made to defend it.
Also, there is no way to tell whether or not the Charli house contained loopholes or windows on the southern side -- I don't believe there are any existing photographs or drawings that show that side. It certainly contained a door and window on the eastern side -- that's shown in the photograph on page 74 of the George Nelson book. I agree that entering or leaving the Charli house would leave men exposed to enemy fire but that could have been kept to a minimum by relieving the sentries after nightfall. Actually, I don't think any of the sentry posts would have been manned during the day, including the Charli house.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 29, 2008 11:04:29 GMT -5
Bob
I understand where you're coming from. Initially, manning the Charli house looks like a good idea. But the more one thinks about it the less appealing it becomes.
I do see it as a hindrance or liability. Placing some men inside would not change that. It's close proximity to the Alamo render it useless to either the Texans or the Mexicans.
Now, you feel that the Mexicans could exploit or make use of the building in some way. Ok, lets just say that Santa Anna felt the same way and somehow managed to get a small unit of soldados to occupy the house. Then what? What do the Mexicans stuck inside do? Do they really pose a threat to the Alamo? How do they protect themselves? How do they sustain themselves (food, water, latrine needs) How do they communicate with Santa Anna? Do you see my point? There is no advantage to be gained. In fact, if I was Travis, I would welcome any soldados who wanted to risk occupying the structure. It would be a turkey shoot. The Charli house would be a death trap for anyone who tried to make use of it...especially for the Mexicans.
The only way I can see the Mexicans exploiting the house is in the way Morales' attack column did during the final assault. By using it to screen movements and to provide some protection from small arms fire.
The "weakness" to the Alamo doesn't come from an unmanned Charli house but from the existence of the building itself.
Having said all that, I'm keeping an open mind incase I missed something.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Mar 29, 2008 11:27:59 GMT -5
Hi Glenn,
I see your point about the Charli house being of little use to the Mexicans. You're right, it was too close to the Alamo walls. And, based on how easily the Mexicans were able to use its cover to shield themselves on the morning of the final attack, it probably was not defended. Or, to use Stuart's scenario, if there was a sentry post there, they were dispatched quickly.
It was in such an awkward location! It masked the fire of the 18-pounder for a far distance to the South and would have even masked infantry fire from the tambour to the Southwest although I don't think that would have had much effect. The cannon mounted in the southern embrasure of the tambour would have been able to cover any attacks from La Villita but the embrasure, if that position was embrasured and not en banquette, would have prevented them from covering the area of the Charli house. And I doubt there would have been room in the tambour to station riflemen, it would have probably just been the two artillery crews.
The Charli house reminds me a little of the Bliss house at Gettysburg. Between the lines, it didn't provide any strategic advantage to either side but neither side could leave it to be occupied by the other. There is no way to know whether the Charli house was occupied by the defenders but it sure seems that they should have stationed a couple of riflemen there.
Best, Bob
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 29, 2008 11:37:29 GMT -5
The only way I can see the Mexicans exploiting the house is in the way Morales' attack column did during the final assault. By using it to screen movements and to provide some protection from small arms fire. Glenn That's the point Glenn, its a blind spot, which is why the Texians need to cover it; although we're getting away from the OP here. I hear what you say about the strength of the attack on the north wall, but the point I was making is that we have a clear statement by Joe that the Mexicans gained a foothold on part of the walls before anyone realised they were there because the external pickets had failed to give any warning. Since he couldn't have been talking about the north wall, its logical to look for this unforseen calamity on the south wall. Yes its a long ways back from the frantic action on the north wall but all it takes is for one man (Joe?) to turn around and see it... all through military history there have been countless instances of resolute defences immediately collapsing at the words "they are behind us!", or "we are betrayed" or (in the case of the French "Save que Peut!"
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 29, 2008 11:52:37 GMT -5
Bob
I based my comments about the windows and loopholes from what I saw (or didn't see) in Mark's book, pages 113-115. Personally, I cannot account for the eastern window in the photograph. I did not see a window in Mark's model. Perhaps it was installed later by whoever occupied the Charli house after 1836. Maybe Mark will comment.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 29, 2008 12:07:23 GMT -5
There is no way to know whether the Charli house was occupied by the defenders but it sure seems that they should have stationed a couple of riflemen there. Best, Bob If I was defending the Alamo, I'd put two men out there every night as an Listening Post/Observation Post, LP/OP. It's a blind spot in the defenses, and allows two covered approaches right up on to the SW corner. I don't think you can afford not to have it manned. That said, it doesn't mean that it was, or that the men manning it were awake the morning of March 6th. I kind of like the idea of using it as a base for the pickets. We know according to Joe that there were three pickets outside the walls (I personally wouldn't consider an LP/OP in the Charli House as being truly outside the walls). I think Joe's statement of 100 yards beyond the walls is probably dead on. Again if I was defending the Alamo I would be concerned with 4 possible areas that I would want picketed. One, I would want observation of the Potrero Street Bridge. Two, I would want observation to the SE toward the Alameda. Three I'd want observation due north, and four I'd want to observe toward the NW and the Sugar Mill. These are the four directions that I would expect movement out of if the Mexicans were to attack. Now both of the southern avenues and both of the northern avenues could be covered by a single post if I was excessively concerned about manpower. Ideally, I'd post 10 men outside 2 per each avenue, and 2 in the Charli House (but, 3 men could be made to stretch, to cover all 5 positions - a bad idea, but a common mistake that a "considerate" commander might make). For the men posting the south I'd move them out toward the end of daylight to the Charli House (I'd want the Mexicans to at least think it was manned) and then have them position out of there after dark. For the men (man?) posting the north I would move him out of the northern postern after dark. Nothing, historical to base this on, just what I'd do given the avenues of approach and the defense's blind spots.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 29, 2008 14:55:12 GMT -5
Wolf
Those are some good spots for pickets. But aren't they a little far out? The Potero Street Bridge for instance looks to be more then a 100 yds from the fort. The Alameda also appears to be a long ways off. Chances are Santa Anna had his own sentries watching the Alamo and observing the comings and goings.
Since the garrison was severely under-manned, I'd worry about my pickets getting too close to the enemy and getting themselves "picked-off." I understand you would want to approach as close to the enemy as possible to gather as much information as you can. I think prudence would be the rule in selecting picket posts.
One of the many jacales somewhere between the bridge and the ford would be a suitable spot to watch the Mexicans from. Not too close and not too far.
I totally agree that the Charli house created a blind spot. But since it was a mere 38' from the Alamo, would having someone inside really make a difference? Say Travis did have the building manned on the morning of 6 March...would it have mattered?
I believe there were other structures (jacales) available that would have been better suited for spotting the approaching enemy and sounding the alarm.
If you look at the Charli house as it appears in Mark's book you will see that it offers little in the way of visibility. Were I to feel the need to keep the house under surveillance I might consider using the roof as my point of observation. But only at night.
This discussion about the blind spot and/or the vulnerability created by the Charli house really underscores the necessity of having advanced pickets in strategic locations.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 29, 2008 20:03:44 GMT -5
Bob I based my comments about the windows and loopholes from what I saw (or didn't see) in Mark's book, pages 113-115. Personally, I cannot account for the eastern window in the photograph. I did not see a window in Mark's model. Perhaps it was installed later by whoever occupied the Charli house after 1836. Maybe Mark will comment. Glenn The Charli house as I depicted it is a strict representation of the structure as it appeared in the late 19th century photo of the plaza area which included the structure. According to the size of the house in the photo, it consisted of the northern two of the original three rooms of an old Indian mission house, which was left out of the plaza when the compound was walled in in the early 1760's. In the photo, one can faintly make out the two outer arches of the eastern-facing porch, which have evidently been blocked in, and a full sized door placed in one, and what to me appears as a smaller door in the other. There would have been no southern-facing opening, no northern-facing opening, and two western facing openings (windows) which would most probably would have also been blocked in by stone or adobe, and which possibly featured loopholes. I hope this clears up any confusion about the openings on this structure. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 29, 2008 23:38:49 GMT -5
Wolf Those are some good spots for pickets. But aren't they a little far out? The Potero Street Bridge for instance looks to be more then a 100 yds from the fort. The Alameda also appears to be a long ways off. Chances are Santa Anna had his own sentries watching the Alamo and observing the comings and goings. Sorry for the misunderstanding, those are the places/directions I want to observe - not where I actually want the pickets. I would not really be too happy with pushing them out much more than 50 yards in 1836, I want to be able to cover them with direct fire and if I get them out much beyond 50 yards that starts to get problematic. Now there is a very big exception to that, if they have a good covered route from their post back to the Alamo I could see pushing them further out. The whole purpose of the pickets though is to give early warning, so they have to be positioned where they are able to see the probable attack positions of the Mexican Army or the routes they would use (eg. Potrero St Bridge) to move into those attack positions. Likewise they can't be so far out that they are unable to get back to give that warning. The exception, to me, is the Charli House it's proximity is exactly why somebody needs to be in there. It's very exsistence creates weakness, as was demonstrated historically.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 30, 2008 10:07:28 GMT -5
Wolf - Bob - Stuart I still don't see how putting anyone in the Charli house would be of any real benefit. A sentry on the SW corner wall would accomplish virtually the same thing. By the time the picket saw anything it would already be too late. If the purpose is to sound the alarm then you have to position your picket further out. And once a picket makes visual contact with the enemy he has to be able to return to make his report. If Travis had someone in the Charli house on the morning of March 6th, would it have made any difference? I don't believe it would have changed anything. Even if the picket or sentry made it out alive and was able to raise the alarm it would have been too late. If you want to monitor the blind spot or "weakness," and give the garrison adequate time to prepare, then position the picket 50-100 yds forward from the house. Somewhere where he can observe the acequia and the approaches to the Charli house. A picket on watch just 40'-50' from the Alamo's walls is a waste of manpower. Yes, the house itself was a weakness, we all agree. But a weakness with a man inside is still a weakness. I remain open minded on the subject. If someone can explain to me the practical benefit(s) of a manned Charli house...I'm listening...um...reading...you know what I mean. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 30, 2008 10:44:26 GMT -5
I still don't see how putting anyone in the Charli house would be of any real benefit. I see one possible benefit. For anybody atop the southwest corner of the Alamo compound trying to observe the ground to the southwest, the Charli house probably posed a significant blind spot, including approaches to the Alamo from the Potrero (Commerce) Street bridge. If you look at 19th-century photos of the west side of Plaza de Valero that include the Charli House (see Nelson's illustrated history), it's apparent that the ground starts falling away towards the river from the area of the Charli house. That being the case, it's possible that an observation post on the roof of the house would have afforded a view of activities between there and the river/bridge that other OPs wouldn't have provided.
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Mar 30, 2008 20:23:32 GMT -5
Glenn,
Pages 37 and 106 of Mark Lemon's book give an idea of how important the Charli house was. The view on page 37 is not from the Southwest gun platform but you can see how the Charli house would block the view. Page 106 gives a better idea because it shows what the Mexican troops directly to the south of the Alamo would have seen -- the Southwest of the Alamo can't be seen at all because of the Charli house.
Some of the illustrations by Gary Zaboly in Blood of Noble Men illustrate the importance of the Charli house also. Look at Fig. 4, page 30, of Blood of Noble Men -- from the bridge, you can't see the tambour at all because of the Charli House, at the upper left of the drawing. A great view is Fig. 7 on page 36; you can see that it blocks the view from the gun platform of the road leading to La Villita.
The Map of San Antonio de Bexar and Vicinity Circa 1836 that Mark handed out before the tour he conducted gives a real good look at the importance of the Charli house. It interfered with the view of the whole span from the Potrero St. bridge to the road from La Villita. However, a couple of sentries stationed on the roof of the house would have had a great look, plus a view of the Presa St. ford.
Not trying to convince you of anything, just thought you'd find these views interesting if you haven't already looked at them. ;D
Best, Bob
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Mar 30, 2008 23:23:05 GMT -5
Potrero (A pet peeve of mine, sorry.)
|
|