Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 1, 2011 18:15:28 GMT -5
Okay, I'll weigh in, for what it's worth (I prefer Dunkin' Donuts coffee to Starbucks, BTW) ...
At the time of the attack, it was dark and, clearly the Alamo was asleep for the most part, until the Mexicans were pretty much at the walls. Certainly there were some casualties from blind (in the dark) cannon fire, but I'm guessing in an educated way that the attackers were too close to the walls for that cannon fire to be do much. So, let's see, that leaves a bunch of sleepy-eyed folks, jolted awake by the commotion outside the walls, shooting single-shot long rifles and such, in the dark, at the attackers.
I think Hollywood has done more to inflate the numbers with those broad, sweeping shots of scores of Mexicans being mowed down by well-aimed rifle volleys and raking cannon fire in broad daylight. And let's face it -- we want to believe that Davey and the boys made the Mexicans pay dearly by killing three or four or five or six times the number of defenders killed.
Sure, the Mexicans could have downplayed the official number of their troops killed. I just think there are too many reports and sources that put that number at or around 60. I'd like to believe there were thousands killed, too, but it just didn't happen, IMO. The number of actual dead may have grown to a couple of hundred or so, with the eventual passing of many of the wounded, but I think the 60 KIA -- at least those who died immediately in the battle -- is believable, supportable and realistic.
As to Santa Anna's comment about 1,000 "lost", something might have been lost in the translation. I don't see "lost" as translating into muerte (dead) or killed. Like any military campaign and action, you have the KIA, wounded in action, folks who become ill or otherwise incapacitated. It could mean any number of things .... and even though it may have been quoted or published in Mexico, first, there may have been an intent to appease the Norte Americanos for some reason (sort of like a "tell 'em what they want to hear" kind of thing).
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. For now. But I'm always open to reconsidering in the face of other evidence.
Oh, and for the record, I think history (and even current events) has shown that we can't really believe what our government, military reports and media says any more than the Mexicans or most any other country I can think of.
Paul
At the time of the attack, it was dark and, clearly the Alamo was asleep for the most part, until the Mexicans were pretty much at the walls. Certainly there were some casualties from blind (in the dark) cannon fire, but I'm guessing in an educated way that the attackers were too close to the walls for that cannon fire to be do much. So, let's see, that leaves a bunch of sleepy-eyed folks, jolted awake by the commotion outside the walls, shooting single-shot long rifles and such, in the dark, at the attackers.
I think Hollywood has done more to inflate the numbers with those broad, sweeping shots of scores of Mexicans being mowed down by well-aimed rifle volleys and raking cannon fire in broad daylight. And let's face it -- we want to believe that Davey and the boys made the Mexicans pay dearly by killing three or four or five or six times the number of defenders killed.
Sure, the Mexicans could have downplayed the official number of their troops killed. I just think there are too many reports and sources that put that number at or around 60. I'd like to believe there were thousands killed, too, but it just didn't happen, IMO. The number of actual dead may have grown to a couple of hundred or so, with the eventual passing of many of the wounded, but I think the 60 KIA -- at least those who died immediately in the battle -- is believable, supportable and realistic.
As to Santa Anna's comment about 1,000 "lost", something might have been lost in the translation. I don't see "lost" as translating into muerte (dead) or killed. Like any military campaign and action, you have the KIA, wounded in action, folks who become ill or otherwise incapacitated. It could mean any number of things .... and even though it may have been quoted or published in Mexico, first, there may have been an intent to appease the Norte Americanos for some reason (sort of like a "tell 'em what they want to hear" kind of thing).
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. For now. But I'm always open to reconsidering in the face of other evidence.
Oh, and for the record, I think history (and even current events) has shown that we can't really believe what our government, military reports and media says any more than the Mexicans or most any other country I can think of.
Paul