|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 13, 2011 10:08:42 GMT -5
Also, the Mexicans were familar with the fort, having occupied it themselves a few months earlier and having built most of its installations. They knew that, even if they got over the palisade, they'd only find themselves in a small, closed-in area in front of the church, which they might have to fight their way out of if they found any significant number of Texians posted there. Why take that risk when there was a probable easier way in?
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Sept 13, 2011 16:02:04 GMT -5
If the south palisade looked anything like John Wayne's, the Mexicans would surely have focused on it. But it was apparently strong enough to withstand whatever was thrown against it. I've often wondered why Morales 4th column only got two scaling ladders. Perhaps it was determined that only the western end of the low barracks and the SW corner had walls that required ladders for assault. However, on a previous thread, those escavations near the church that included some of the palisade area apparently discovered some small arms and artillary fragments that might indicate at least some fighting took place there before or during the final assault. Of course, it may have just indicate the final melee before the soldados entered the church, or they may have come from the south before or during the assault. Just opinion of course. I haven't been to Fenway, but I agree 100% that Dealey Plaza looks so small once you stand in it. The tragedy that resulted there is felt to this day.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Sept 13, 2011 19:27:29 GMT -5
I haven't been to Fenway, but I agree 100% that Dealey Plaza looks so small once you stand in it. The tragedy that resulted there is felt to this day. I don't want go too far OT, but I was in the 8th grade and in New Hampshire when JFK was assassinated. Little did I know that 46 years later I would be working in a federal building in downtown Dallas with an office window looking directly across Dealey Plaza to the former Texas Schoolbook Depository (now the Sixth Floor Museum). The Trinity Rail thing I rode in on every day passed right behind the "Grassy Knoll". To walk the streets and see the place brought Nov. 22, 1963 to life every day, I swear. But back to the subject, there's no question the Alamo compound footprint, as it was in March 1836, was substantial. However, some parts of the compound, like the cattle pens on the east side, the palisade and even the Low Barracks, don't trike me as being all that big, taken individually. Well, certainly the palisades and pens.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Sept 29, 2011 10:05:21 GMT -5
There is absolutely no evidence of any Mexican attack on the palisade on March 6th. The whole idea of an attack and a shift to the SW corner cannot be found in anything prior to Walter Lord's A Time to Stand and Lord offers no documentation for his claim.
That doesn't mean there was no fighting there during the siege. As Gary Zaboley drew in Blood of Noble Men it is probable that some fighting near the palisade occurred in the skirimsh on February 25th.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Sept 29, 2011 15:59:50 GMT -5
Theodore Gentilz depicted the storming of the Alamo in a remarkably accurate painting in 1885. The three most notable details are the Mexicans pouring into the plaza through the northwall breach, the use of captured Texan cannon against the long barracks and the assault on the pallisade. Whatever historical references and artistic license he used must have indicated at least some kind of assault against the south wall before entry was achieved at the southwest corner. I realize this is not historical evidence, but it suggests that in 1885, their was an opinion that the south fortifications were under attack, however brief and unsuccessful.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 29, 2011 23:45:46 GMT -5
I suspect Gentilz used the same information that has been handed down for ages about the attack on the palisade (which always features Crockett prominently driving the Mexicans off) and the (apparently) non-existent north wall breach. But I'm no expert on the painting or what his sources were.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Sept 30, 2011 10:30:06 GMT -5
The established and accepted manner of assaulting a fortified post in the early 19th century can be found in Hoyt’s Practical Instructions for Military Officers. In the text, Hoyt describes the method of as such:
“In fortified places, the most favorable points of attack are the salient angles (my italics), for these are not so easily defended as other parts.”
The battle orders set forth by Santa Anna reflect this tactic. In that respect, an assault on the palisade does not make sense from a military viewpoint.
Whether consisting of a single row or double row of wooden posts, the palisade was well-built and a strong defensive point; behind the wall would be a banquette or firing step, and in front of the palisade would be a dry ditch approximately 3 feet deep, featuring a scarp and counterscarp below grade, and supported by a single light piece of artillery (perhaps a 4-pounder.)
The only feature possibly added by the Alamo garrison would be the abatis, an entanglement consisting of felled tree limbs, sharpened and directed towards the possible advance of the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 30, 2011 12:18:21 GMT -5
Since the Mexicans built it and had occupied the Alamo only months earlier, they were very familiar with the place. So, they would have known that, even if they took the palisade (probably at unacceptable cost), they would have found themselves trapped within the confined courtyard area in front of the church, not knowing how many Texans might be there or what new installations, cannon placements, etc. might be there. There was no need to risk all that when there was an easier way in.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Sept 30, 2011 17:26:42 GMT -5
You guys bring up very good points and it appears Santa Anna followed the book when carefully planning the attack. Since it appears that the battle plan called for three columns to converge on the northern walls, Morales 100+ Cazadores were probably a diversionary attack to pin as many Texans as possible defending the southern batteries. However I can envision, lining up 100 men in the dark at 300 yards distant could result in some scattering until they were actually under the walls themselves and subject to orders from the commander. I agree there was no need to mount an strong assault on the soutn. Then again, there was really no need for an attack at all. Santa Anna could have waited a day or two for heavier cannon. He had to know the garrision was at the end of its rope and a surrender was very possible. But he chose the bloody way, and the rest is history. I'm just tossing opinions around and I really appreciate your comments.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 30, 2011 21:16:20 GMT -5
I believe the attack on the south had two purposes; primarily to secure the main gate and secondarily to create a "second front," if you will (or diversion) to draw if some defenders from the north, the real target of the main attack. The object was to kill as many Texians as possible, but also to flush the rest out of the fort to the south, into the rising sun, where the cavalry was waiting, with the sun at its back, in the eyes of the fleeing Texians.
Of course, every plan goes at least somewhat out the window as soon as the fighting starts and no one can predict what will actually happen, but "that's the plan," as they say. This one pretty much worked out the way Santa Anna figured. But, as you say, there was really no need for the attack and I'm still not entirely sure why Santa Anna chose to do it. He may have wanted to send the Texians a message, really did consider the Texians pirates, not soldiers, or had intended all along to take the Bexar and the Texians by force quickly. That was the plan when Sesma arrived on Feb. 23 and was delayed by the swollen river, otherwise there may not have been an Alamo siege and battle at all. Santa Anna also waited until all troops had arrived and when the large reinforcement showed up on March 3, the way was clear for the attack with minimal risk.
|
|
cje
Full Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by cje on Oct 1, 2011 19:11:57 GMT -5
I wonder just how many defenders manned the South Wall Palisade?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 1, 2011 20:27:27 GMT -5
My guess -- not many.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 2, 2011 7:56:30 GMT -5
I think its pretty much down to timing. While we don't know what sort of defence plan was worked out for the Alamo it actually looks as though it was quite modern in concept, relying on a series of strongpoints centred around the various guns rather than a continuously manned perimeter and I'd strongly suspect that other than those specifically assigned to particular guns, most of the defenders were simply expected to rush to the point of danger. At most, there may have been a company retained as a reserve/quick reaction force and at first sight the New Orleans Greys might have been an obvious choice, except that I'm not convinced enough of them remained behind (after Grant marched off with most of them) to continue to function as a discrete unit.
Either way with the heavy attack developing on the north wall I suspect that most of the defenders rushed up there at the start and that if there was a quick reaction force it was committed before Morales' attack on the south, which in the immediate term succeded because the majority of the defenders had been drawn to the big fight at the north wall, and then once he had secured a lodgement, the realisation that the Mexicans were behind them directly led to the sudden collapse of the north wall defence.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Oct 2, 2011 14:07:30 GMT -5
Stuart, That idea of a quick reaction force makes sense, assuming it was within Travis' range of military knowledge built primarily on bravery and common sense. Estimates say it took about 100 men to handle all the Alamo cannon which would leave 60 or 70 for rifle defense on the walls. We can assume that once the Mexicans were under the reach of the cannon, the gun crews would also try to repel those climbing the walls. Whether it took 5 minutes or 25 minutes, the north wall defense eventually collapsed and the soldados poured in. We don't know how many of the retreating Texans ran directly into Morales men, but some probably did. Many chose to barricade themselves into the pre-constructed defenses in the Long Barracks and other rooms. Others fled to the Church and no doubt, some jumped the pallisade for the apparent safety of the darkness south of the Alamo, only to be massacred by the awaiting cavalry. I like to think the military amateur Texans aquitted themselves remarkably well. Santa Anna my have commented that it was "a small affair" but certain facts suggest a much more heated conflict. First, the battle was so fierce he called in his reserves rather than accept a stalemate. Second, Mexican casualty reports range from dozens to thousands. Those who should have been able to provide accurate numbers vary widely, including Santa Anna's own diary. Third, the battle degenerated into a killing frenzy that is generally associated with fierce combat. Many reports stated that Texan bodies were shot and bayoneted long after the battle was won. A stray bullet even struck Mrs. Dickinson. Since were still talking about it 175 years later, it was NOT A SMALL AFFAIR. Just my opinion...a history buff with a flair for the dramatic. Lou
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Oct 20, 2011 16:45:29 GMT -5
A little food for thought. John Sutherland, who was in Bexar until the first day of the siege, wrote in his narrative that the palisade wall was constructed by a "double row of Picket." (Hansen, page 175, paragraph 28/21)
This seems to be consistent with some of the other fortifications Cos' engineers constructed, both in the Alamo and in Bexar.
When Cos was fortifying the Alamo in 1835, I believe he was more concerned with repelling cannon balls than musket balls. So, the palisade may have been constructed in the same fashion as the north wall.
I don't think Cos was too worried about fending off an infantry attack. Instead, the focus was making sure the all walls were capable of absorbing artillery rounds.
~Glenn
|
|