|
Bowie
Jun 17, 2011 4:47:14 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Jun 17, 2011 4:47:14 GMT -5
I think the best way to answer that is with a quote about volunteers during the Civil War (I forget the origin) to the effect that they would follow any sensible order but only because it was sensible, not because it was an order. How much formal military talent was available to Travis from any quarter is open to question, the real problem was that he had a garrison of volunteers who would fight but lacked the discipline, training and above all the inclination to subordinate themselves to do what was necessary to properly prepare themselves for that last fight on March 6
|
|
|
Bowie
Jun 18, 2011 21:34:31 GMT -5
Post by ronald on Jun 18, 2011 21:34:31 GMT -5
I do think a healthy Bowie would have led to a better prepared garrison, But the out come would have been the same. The only way they could have made a big difference would have taken a lot of work early on, Maybe moving the cannon to one of the smaller missions around Bexar that they could have manned better, But they were expecting help and the Alamo was allready armed.
|
|
|
Bowie
Jul 12, 2011 23:21:41 GMT -5
Post by Blacksmith John on Jul 12, 2011 23:21:41 GMT -5
Hi all,
Depending upon how ill Bowie was, he may well have given Travis advice. By the 6th though, James was probably as good as dead.
|
|
|
Bowie
Jul 20, 2011 9:32:16 GMT -5
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 20, 2011 9:32:16 GMT -5
By March 6, they all were just as good as dead ...
|
|
|
Bowie
Jul 20, 2011 23:40:12 GMT -5
Post by Hiram on Jul 20, 2011 23:40:12 GMT -5
I understand that Bexar was an urban battle and quite different than being besieged, and quite different than attempting to repel a coup de main. Having said that, we should remember that almost half of the Alamo garrison (46%) had exhibited sufficient training and discipline to defeat an army superior in numbers, training, and discipline.
|
|
|
Bowie
Jul 21, 2011 15:40:40 GMT -5
Post by loucapitano on Jul 21, 2011 15:40:40 GMT -5
Bowie is a hard man to measure and we can only speculate what a healthy Bowie would have done during the siege. Based on his actions prior to taking command, he certainly seemed to support that the defense of Texas depended on keeping Bexar out of Santa Anna's hands. He even referred to it as the "salvation of Texas" that served as a picket guard to repell the dictator's march to the Sabine. So Neill and him solemly resolved that they would "rather die in these ditches than give it up to the enemy." I don't think this was false bravado and the men he commanded certainly chose to follow his reasoning, in spite of the odds that appeared on February 23rd. So, I'm going to support the opinion that a healthy Bowie may not have been victorious, but his leadership would have been a positive influence to a hopeless situation.
|
|
|
Bowie
Nov 30, 2011 16:31:02 GMT -5
Post by bowie on Nov 30, 2011 16:31:02 GMT -5
They were sleepless for two long weeks. They were bound to become not alert. I think that's what Santa Anna intended. Even with useful watches, to arouse the sleeping defenders who were exhausted in such a quick spur of the moment was almost impossible by then. They probable got to their positions as quickly as possible under the circumstances. The odds were so against the garrison that I don't think the Alamo's ultimate fall could have been prevented. However, I think a more energetic, knowledgible commander could have changed the outcome of the March 6th battle or at a minimum made it a far bloodier affair. The Mexican Army occupied, unmolested, for hours before the assualt, attack positions well within artillery range, in fact within rifle range. An alert garrison, that had awake picketts, should have begun inflicting casualities as soon as the Mexican Army moved within range. The sheer magnitude that the Mexican Army achieved tactical surprise and reached the walls before the garrison was fully alert and the walls fully manned cannot be overstated. That the garrison even temporarily stalled the attack and threw the North column into confusion offers a hint of what might have been done had the garrison been alert and more energetically and competently led. Could a recovering Bowie could do that? Doubtful, a healthy Bowie maybe. There's a basic requirement, that leaders, must constantly check their men at night to ensure they remain alert. That doesn't mean the commander must stay awake 24 hours a day, but it does mean he must make spot checks, and ensure his subordinate leaders are also checking. In any case it is very demanding for a healthy man, never mind a man recovering from an illness that was debilitating. JMO.
|
|
|
Bowie
Nov 30, 2011 16:47:09 GMT -5
Post by bowie on Nov 30, 2011 16:47:09 GMT -5
Between Zilch and Zero? Sandbar duel, defeating overwhelming odds, Concepcion, defeating overwhelming odds, overtaking a Mexican cannon himself, and spinning it on the Mexicans, The Indian Grass fight, defeating overwhelming odds, Bowie and ten others beat "164" Indians at Calf Creek five years earlier. This is only a few "Against all odds" triumphs that can be DOCUMENTED. Imagine what else he may have done. Zilch and Zero? And Larry Bird could'nt play basketball. I'd just add to Glenn's comments that Bowie's military knowledge and experience also pretty well added up to somewhere between zilch and zero. Sure he had been shot at a couple of times but while useful in its way it didn't make him a soldier, far less "a great leader of men [with] a pretty good knowledge of the way Mexicans would fight"
|
|
|
Bowie
Nov 30, 2011 16:58:04 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Nov 30, 2011 16:58:04 GMT -5
They were sleepless for two long weeks. Not really true, and I'm not minimizing their fatigue, which is why I emphasized the importance of leaders proactively checking their men in the quote above. If you check the Mexican bombardment schedule, roughly after breakfast to sundown daily, and what we know of the defenders activities (working on the defenses after the bombardment stopped until roughly midnight). They were able to get 5 - 6 hours sleep a night. Modern combat studies have shown that 4 hours a day is the minimum requirement for adequate combat performance. Fatigue would have been an issue, don't get me wrong, but one that good leadership could have overcome. Instead of a garrison lured into sleep as the popular belief tends to be, Santa Anna lulled them into a routine where nothing ever happened between midnight and 8 or 9 AM. Attacking in the predawn darkness of 6 AM, he literally caught the garrison asleep.
|
|
|
Bowie
Nov 30, 2011 17:08:42 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 30, 2011 17:08:42 GMT -5
I agree with Herb (check the Mexican documents on when bombardment opened and ended each day during the siege - I think Almonte made notes of this). Also, Santa Anna may have figured that Travis would expect the Mexicans to wait until a real breach was made in the walls before attacking, and then after making a last demand for surrender. Travis may well have expected Santa Anna to do this, which was common siege strategy at the time, IIRC.
|
|
|
Bowie
Nov 30, 2011 17:17:37 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Nov 30, 2011 17:17:37 GMT -5
Besides leaders checking their men a couple of other very easy procedures could have prevented the surprise of March 6th.
The first of these is "stand to" while the term is more modern (Boer War?) the concept is as old as warfare, every man with his weapon, at his assigned position before first light to repel a surprise attack.
The second concept is dividing the men into shifts (or watches as navies call them) where 1/2 the men are always on duty. (personally I prefer 1/3rd because of the fatigue issue, unless there is a suspicion of enemy action vs a possibility of it) - but that is a commanders call - only mounting guards as done at the Alamo is not a commander's call but a command failure.
|
|
|
Bowie
Nov 30, 2011 18:29:45 GMT -5
Post by Hollowhorn on Nov 30, 2011 18:29:45 GMT -5
Physical fatigue, possibly, mental fatigue (morale?) must also be taken into consideration. Command failure? Perhaps, maybe they were relying on the outposted picquets to give the alarm. The issue of 'command failure' should not be blamed on any one aspect of the defeat. The reaction to the (several instances of) warnings that the Mexican army was near & the resulting panic of the 23rd leading to the resultant pell mell evacuation from Bexar to the 'safety' of the Alamo compound tells us all we need to know about 'command failure'.
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 1, 2011 0:49:26 GMT -5
Post by estebans on Dec 1, 2011 0:49:26 GMT -5
I'd agree that the Alamo siege wasn't Bowie's kind of fight. Reading about him recently, it seemed like his forte was a rapid assessment of and efficient response to a developing situation. When he stumbled into an adverse situation, he could calmly read the terrain quickly and deploy his men for maximum effect, and then keep changing his tactics to take advantage of developments as the battle progressed. A formal military setpiece like a siege of a fortress didn't play to Bowie's strengths, as the moves were pretty much known in advance. The way they'd prepped the barracks rooms for fighting indicates at least some defenders already had a plan for when the walls were breached and things got wholly chaotic.
When this thread started, what it really had me speculating about is whether a healthy Bowie might have managed a successful breakout once the perimeter defense collapsed--that seems more like the type of thing at which he excelled. Not that I can really imagine how; Bernard Cornwell describes teams of highly trained skirmishers fending off cavalry while crossing open terrain, but I wonder if a random group of Texians could work together that effectively against what was probably a much higher ratio of lancers to men on foot. Nonetheless, didn't the lancers supposedly have a tough job of it? So I prefer to fantasize that a healthy Bowie would have been the Alamo's messenger, and then helped lead the charge at San Jacinto.
Re: schedules and routine, what that recently auctioned Travis receipt made me think about was how on the one day that they really, really needed it most, the Texians had to run to the walls without their morning coffee. Sure, you start off more ornery, but are your motor skills at their best? I'm not wholly joking here; it's one of the points I try to imagine about that morning.
Another is the practicality of running to your station with three or four loaded firearms, especially long guns. Davis accepts the claim that the Texians hit the walls with enough loaded guns to create a noticeably high initial rate of fire, saying that the post-battle inventory shows enough guns to do that. But I don't think I could hustle to my post with a loaded rifle and a couple or three loaded captured muskets without hurting myself or somebody else on the way there. Anybody out there ever try the experiment? Could the secondary weapons be left at one's intended station on the wall? Or were the Texians just tap loading their personal rifles after their first shot to achieve that purported high rate of fire? I know this is digressing--it can be another thread if anyone thinks it's a legitimate issue.
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 1, 2011 9:56:46 GMT -5
Post by Bill Yowell on Dec 1, 2011 9:56:46 GMT -5
I think I read once that at best, an adept fighter could load and effectively fire a long rifle 2 times a minute. The extra guns(assuming they were fire ready) were only effective for a VERY short period of time. Were they tired and emotionally spent, most certainly, but given a week to rest, the sheer number of mexican combatants envolved in the final charge I believe could have taken the Alamo defenders bare handed in short order. As for leadership, Patton, Eisenhauer, Bradley, and MacArthur wouldn't be able to get them out of the fix they were in.
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 1, 2011 12:33:39 GMT -5
Post by Chuck T on Dec 1, 2011 12:33:39 GMT -5
In Cornwell's Sharpe's series of novels he indicates that Sharpe trained the fictional South Essex to ge off four rounds a minute with a conventional musket. What I don't recall is if he ever said it could be done with a Baker. He does mention tap loading for speed in situations that require volume of fire as opposed to accuracy and range. There are several instances where Sharpe's good guys are caught in the open by cavalry, and some where they get caught and stampeded. I mention this because I have read them all and have never detected a gross error, and think his research is top notch.
Now could have anyone included Bowie have led the breakout(s) and had some measure of success. I think the answer is yes, it could have been done in the conditions of deminished light, but the key would be training. They were not trained. They for the most part were not soldiers, and what Herb and others have said about the most simple of soldierly procedures being either overlooked or half heartedly employed must I believe stand.
|
|