|
Post by stuart on Dec 29, 2010 9:18:15 GMT -5
Now the point of this is that its all very well pontificating that the Texians did well when employing "irregular" tactics, but it takes two to tango and in order to employ those tactics they needed to have the initiative and to choose their ground. Even then that was no guarantee of success if they were pinned down there - remember why the Mexicans always referred to Fannin's fight as taking place at Encinal del Perdido rather than Coleto Creek.
As to the Alamo you can't get much more conventional than one side sitting in a fort besieged by a larger one and that's Travis' failure. Despite knowing that the enemy was at hand he allowed himself to be surprised and trapped there, committed to a conventional siege which he couldn't hope to win.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 29, 2010 11:49:42 GMT -5
This point marks the end of where 10 pages of discussion were moved into this newly created thread from the "Alamo Attackers" thread.
Carry on here with discussions of how the Texans conducted their military operations in the siege of the Alamo and the Texas Revolution.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 29, 2010 12:11:22 GMT -5
I had blinding glimpse of the obvious, somthing that was probably painfully obvious to many others on the forum, and that has to do with Gary's use of the phrase "Irregular Warfare". I assumed Gary was using the phrase using its proper military definition. As Chieftan tried to explain at one point there is to the military professional, a thing called the Spectrum of War that spans everything from nuclear warfare to riots un the streets. Again to the military professional, Irregular Warfare is on the lower end of that spectrum and not the specfic tactics that Gary has been using.
Was it Churchill that said "We're a common people seperated by a common language." ?
Rereading much of this, I now think, Gary is using it more to mean:" not using linear tactics". If that is correct, there are still some differences between our positions on the issue, but not the total disagreement that has consumed the last few pages.
Back to the subject of the topic.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Dec 29, 2010 12:53:49 GMT -5
I think something that has not been said before on this thread is that at the time of the Revolution, through the Napoleonic Wars until and beyond the TR was a period of tactical and technological evolution brought on by the advent of the rifle. While the rifle had some drawbacks it did have longer range and much more accuracy than the musket.
There was still a need for the mass formation in order to mass firepower with the more generally issued musket. The rifle though opened much more in the way of possabilities. The ability to use it at longer ranges meant that you could indeed conceal yourself and hit and keep hitting your adversary and still be largely immune from his return fire. It also gave you the ability to be more dispersed and still be able to do a great deal of damage.
Gary is absolutely correct in pointing out the fact that when Americans in both revolutions tried to play the stand up game they were usually, not always but usually, thumped by the other guys.
So if you can fault the Brits and the Mexicans, a lot of their problems stemed from a failure to adapt to the changing conditions of the battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Dec 29, 2010 16:32:57 GMT -5
Now the point of this is that its all very well pontificating that the Texians did well when employing "irregular" tactics, but it takes two to tango and in order to employ those tactics they needed to have the initiative and to choose their ground. Even then that was no guarantee of success if they were pinned down there - remember why the Mexicans always referred to Fannin's fight as taking place at Encinal del Perdido rather than Coleto Creek. As to the Alamo you can't get much more conventional than one side sitting in a fort besieged by a larger one and that's Travis' failure. Despite knowing that the enemy was at hand he allowed himself to be surprised and trapped there, committed to a conventional siege which he couldn't hope to win. My point exactly---and which I had also made in a much earlier posting---that the Alamo was yet another perfect example of the Texians' adopting a conventional situation and finding themselves not only outnumbered but outclassed, militarily.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Dec 29, 2010 16:41:18 GMT -5
My view of "irregular warfare" is the standard one long since adopted by military historians. These days it's often called "assymetrical," since one side usually has to adopt "uncoventional" methods to wage war against a richer, better equipped foe.
In the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century, "irregular" combat was a known quantity; there was no mystery as to what it meant. Evidently I assumed we were all on the same page here regarding most widely-accepted definitions.
All of the tactics that I have used as examples of war as waged in an "irregular" manner were apt ones, and meet the established criteria in terms of those earlier centuries.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Dec 30, 2010 21:09:06 GMT -5
There was still a need for the mass formation in order to mass firepower with the more generally issued musket. The rifle though opened much more in the way of possabilities. The ability to use it at longer ranges meant that you could indeed conceal yourself and hit and keep hitting your adversary and still be largely immune from his return fire. Witness Concepcion. Gary is absolutely correct in pointing out the fact that when Americans in both revolutions tried to play the stand up game they were usually, not always but usually, thumped by the other guys. Witness the Alamo as the usual, but San Jacinto as the unusual. The latter strikes me as the only time the Texians used anything close to linear or stand up tactics and prevailed. Why? Because it was the only significant engagement where the Texians went totally offensive and not defensive? Did the terrain let the Texians get so close to the Mexican line before they were noticed that it was just too late for the Mexicans to defend successfully? Or was it simply because the Texians' failure to attack at dawn led SA to let his army take a nap? Combination of some or all?
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Dec 30, 2010 22:43:53 GMT -5
gbj: I would think the answer is a little bit of both.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 31, 2010 6:06:02 GMT -5
Could you shed any light through your reseaech as to how these tactics became to be known as regular and irregular during that period Guys, if you're inclined to discuss the historiography of regular vs. irregular warfare, that's all good, but it is guaranteed to take this thread off topic, so please start a new thread on it under the "General History" section.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Jan 1, 2011 3:30:35 GMT -5
gbj: I would think the answer is a little bit of both. I'm inclined to agree. Like many history-changing events, the Texas Revolution was a "perfect storm" of sorts. Things happened that, by themselves, mightn't have made any difference one way or the other. But they combined to produce a dramatic result. Texas is a boxing movie where Rocky wins on a split decision, rather than Apollo (SA) Creed. We're a "Hail Mary" pass that succeeded. From that springs Texas' mythology. I don't use that last word derisively. I feel lucky to have grown up in a state with such a unique story underlying it. It's very enriching to be from a state with such a distinct identity. I also feel lucky that so many folks from outside Texas care enough about the Alamo to lend your talents to the preservation of its memory. Happy 2011, friends.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jan 1, 2011 11:30:48 GMT -5
gbj: And a Happy New Year to you. In keeping with the traditions of the day, I think the TR was more like a football game where both teams gave a lackluster performance, and where the game was won by a field goal in the last few seconds. Put another way, wars are sometimes lost not by the guys who make the most mistakes, but by the side that makes the last mistake.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jan 13, 2011 14:24:33 GMT -5
As a fairly new member, I have to say how much I enjoyed the last 10 pages. You all know your stuff and for the most part, you advance your opinions with empiricle style and grace. Maybe the last lines from the chorus in John Wayne's Alamo: "Let the old men tell the story, let the legend grow and grow...once they fought to give us freedom, that is all we need to know..." speakes for many. They simply enjoy the drama and majesty of the events of 1836 and don't want to get bogged down in minutia. But my love includes both drama and history. I don't know where this thread will go next, but keep it up!
|
|