|
What If
Oct 31, 2011 8:53:35 GMT -5
Post by Bill Yowell on Oct 31, 2011 8:53:35 GMT -5
Folks this is just a "what if" question, and at best we can only speculate, but I would be interested in the forums' thoughts. If Bowie had followed the orders to blow up the Alamo and move all the weaponry to Goliad, and if all the able bodied men who manned the Alamo were to re-enforce the existing troops in Goliad, would the ultimate outcome have been much different? Was Goliad more defendable given the addition of men and weapons? If I have missed previous discussion of this question, please forgive and direct me to the thread.
|
|
|
What If
Oct 31, 2011 10:58:22 GMT -5
Post by Chuck T on Oct 31, 2011 10:58:22 GMT -5
Bill: I suspect this has been covered before, but I can't put my finger on where just now.
I think a better question would be though would Santa Anna have done anything different in the situation you describe. My personal belief is that Santa Anna would have knocked on the front door (Goliad) and entered through the back door (San Antonio), the only difference being that the back door was left unlocked.
|
|
|
What If
Oct 31, 2011 12:10:55 GMT -5
Post by Hiram on Oct 31, 2011 12:10:55 GMT -5
This is one of the old stories that never seems to go away. Bowie was not ordered to destroy the Alamo and relocate artillery. The letter addressed to Henry Smith by Houston on 17 January explains what is being considered.
Bexar was a military/political/economic center; it was the first place to stop between the Rio Grande and the interior of Texas, and because of water, food, supplies; it was the best place to stop. Both sides understood that, both sides wanted to control it.
Goliad was a second entry point into the interior of Texas, located on the Lower Atascocita Road. It also provided a potential base of operations for the Texas Army in respect to a southern offensive across the Rio Grande.
In October 1835, both areas were garrisoned by Mexican forces and were targeted by the insurgents, and both were subsequently taken. The Centralists responded with a counteroffensive; their goal being the re-establishment of military and political control. The first step in that process was the complete destruction of rebel forces at Bexar and Goliad. Santa Anna took the larger component and took the larger base at Bexar, leaving the less prominent garrison at Goliad to his subordinate Urrea.
I normally discount the personal motivations of Santa Anna, the whole "Napoleon of the West" label that was put upon his shoulders by ethnocentric Americans. Having said that, I do understand the role that personality plays in decision-making, and I think it's clear that Santa Anna specifically targeted Bexar over Goliad for several reasons, one of those being self-grandification.
|
|
|
What If
Oct 31, 2011 16:12:45 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 31, 2011 16:12:45 GMT -5
I think Hiram said it all, except "would it have been any different if..."
Of course it would have been different. My call on how is that winning the battle of the Alamo would probably have lost the war of independence, because there would have been no vengeance motive (sad motive though it be). A won Alamo battle would have been just one more step in Texian victories. This would have expanded their irresponsible pompousness and arrogance to the point where Santa Anna would have marched over them all the way to the Sabine. "Remember the Alamo!" and "Remember Goliad!" had to be on their lips, or their unity would never have been achieved.
Beyond this, I have never had much patience with the "what if" question, although I suppose it is useful for avoiding repitition of a debacle. ;D
|
|
|
What If
Oct 31, 2011 18:07:41 GMT -5
Post by loucapitano on Oct 31, 2011 18:07:41 GMT -5
I don't think we should be so hard on "what if" questions. Many of us fans grew up with campfire bull sessions where we played what if. What if the Texans had repeating rifles or machine guns? What if Fannin arrived in time? etc. It's fun to speculate on the Alamo and virtually every dramatic historical event. What if Eve to the snake to drop dead? Lighten up. Have fun! And don't forget the Alamo!
|
|
|
What If
Oct 31, 2011 20:27:18 GMT -5
Post by Kevin Young on Oct 31, 2011 20:27:18 GMT -5
Ok-if Bowie had pulled back to Goliad...would there have been a fight for command between Bowie (a Smith man) and Fannin (a Council Supporter)...certainly Travis would have been the odd man out (would he have ended up just an officer under Horton?)...and if Santa Anna had driven them back to the Sabine, would the US Army joined in? Gaines was certainly spoiling....just some more of the "what ifs."
|
|
|
What If
Oct 31, 2011 21:13:20 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Oct 31, 2011 21:13:20 GMT -5
This is one of the old stories that never seems to go away. Bowie was not ordered to destroy the Alamo and relocate artillery. The letter addressed to Henry Smith by Houston on 17 January explains what is being considered.
Bexar was a military/political/economic center; it was the first place to stop between the Rio Grande and the interior of Texas, and because of water, food, supplies; it was the best place to stop. Both sides understood that, both sides wanted to control it.
Goliad was a second entry point into the interior of Texas, located on the Lower Atascocita Road. It also provided a potential base of operations for the Texas Army in respect to a southern offensive across the Rio Grande.
In October 1835, both areas were garrisoned by Mexican forces and were targeted by the insurgents, and both were subsequently taken. The Centralists responded with a counteroffensive; their goal being the re-establishment of military and political control. The first step in that process was the complete destruction of rebel forces at Bexar and Goliad. Santa Anna took the larger component and took the larger base at Bexar, leaving the less prominent garrison at Goliad to his subordinate Urrea.
I normally discount the personal motivations of Santa Anna, the whole "Napoleon of the West" label that was put upon his shoulders by ethnocentric Americans. Having said that, I do understand the role that personality plays in decision-making, and I think it's clear that Santa Anna specifically targeted Bexar over Goliad for several reasons, one of those being self-grandification. I agree with most of what you say, but I don't necessarily believe that the Napoleon of the West title was bestowed on Gen. Santa Anna soley by bigoted Americans and inaccurate. I think Santa Anna was compared to Napoleon and Cromwell for years before the Texas Revolution. Didn't Santa Anna also refer to himself as such?? Generals and leaders are often compared to others of like rank and this slight comparison seems closer than most examples. Although Napoleon was a Corsican and Santa Anna was a Creole, both generals became dictators and dressed their armies in similar fashion. If Santa Anna had taken a more democratic or liberal path in his policies, he might have been called the Washington of the West, although I would probably have had a problem with the more noble appellation.
|
|
|
What If
Nov 25, 2011 17:32:14 GMT -5
Post by loucapitano on Nov 25, 2011 17:32:14 GMT -5
Too bad this thread couldn't get more traction. But "what if's are fun." Take this one: What if Texas lost its war for independence and Texas and California remained the northern provinces of Mexico until the late 1840s? Would a presidential candidate like Polk campaign on a 'manifest destiny' platform to annex all or part of those territories? Would the inevitable gold strike in California become the excuse for a war with Mexico? How would these events affect the problems of sectionalism between the North and South? Sorry if this sounds like a Social Studies extra credit questions I might have asked my High School students years ago. But it's fun to speculate. Any opinions?
|
|
|
What If
Dec 5, 2011 15:54:51 GMT -5
Post by daverothe on Dec 5, 2011 15:54:51 GMT -5
You know....there was actually a book written about this very idea. It was called "Forget the Alamo" and it was written based on the Texans's abandoning the Alamo and preparing Conception for assault. Fannin turned out to be the hero and Houston was the goat.
One of the biggest questions with "What If's" is what makes it fun in the 1st place. We can speculate that Fannin is capable of making a military decision and can be the leader that most believed he was. We can speculate that Travis would have had some kind of leadership role although with Bowie and Fannin together, it is not clear what role that would have been. Crockett, with his reputation, may have had a similar effect as he had at the Alamo.
As for the actions of Santa Anna, I agree with Hiram in regards to Santa Anna going straight to Bexar rather than Goliad. I also believe it was a personal thing more than strategic that led Santa Anna to San Antonio. He could have easily gone around SA and taken a more strategic path to Houston. It is clear that he knew where Houston was and where he expected him to be. Urrea and Santa Anna could have closed in the middle and sealed Texas off.
It is fun to think of what could have been. I really recommend the book I mentioned. I personally feel it has the Harry Turtledove feel to it and gives an amazing alternative to history!
|
|
|
What If
Dec 7, 2011 15:18:08 GMT -5
Post by Paul Sylvain on Dec 7, 2011 15:18:08 GMT -5
I don't mind "what if" questions too much. Let's assume that Bowie really had been ordered to blow up the Alamo, and the Alamo's men and cannon joined forces at Goliad. Okay, who who would ultimately have commanded that lot? I find the potential power play between Bowie, Fannin and Travis especially intriguing. IMO Fannin was inept, in a Charlie Brown kind of way, at best. Had he been in charge of the combined Alamo-Goliad force, what would he have done differently? I don't know. Was Travis strong enough to lead such a combined group of fighters? Bowie? I don't think it really matters much. It still comes down to a whole lot of people being penned up within walls and subject to a lengthy seige. It might have taken longer, but I can't imagine the final result being much different.
|
|
|
What If
Dec 7, 2011 20:15:50 GMT -5
Post by daverothe on Dec 7, 2011 20:15:50 GMT -5
Those are some good questions Paul. The command issue is indeed intriguing. Would Fannin be able to realize his potential and take charge when needed. Travis, if what history tell us about him is true, would have had no issue puttting Fannin in his place if needed. Could he lead such a diverse, combined element? Hard to argue he couldnt as he his correspondence demonstrates.
If Bowie was as bad off as everything suggests, then his role, regardless of the location or characters involved, probably would not have changed much.
For me, I firmly believe that the key player to the entire "what if" scenario is Fannin. As the commander of a force of greater than 500, his decisions, or lack thereof, impacted not just the Alamo garrison, but Houston's plans as well. If Fannin reinforced either the Alamo, or Houston, the outcome would be interesting to theorize. After 20 plus years in the Army, I have learned that a strong defense can beat a strong offense any day. If the garrison at the Alamo was reinforced by 300 to 400, I believe that the siege lengthens by weeks and Santa Anna would have had to either starve them out or greatly increase the size of his assault force.
Thanks Paul for generating more questions to think about!
|
|
|
What If
Dec 8, 2011 13:54:57 GMT -5
Post by Hollowhorn on Dec 8, 2011 13:54:57 GMT -5
If the garrison at the Alamo was reinforced by 300 to 400, I believe that the siege lengthens by weeks and Santa Anna would have had to either starve them out or greatly increase the size of his assault force. Santa Anna's siege guns were on the way, I'm not sure it would have taken weeks to blow the Alamo away. The 300 to 400 men would also have to bring their own food & ammunition with them. Having said that, a garrison that size could perhaps afford to be more aggressive.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 9, 2011 3:53:15 GMT -5
The real "if" is what would have happened if Grant's plan had worked out and Texas became part of the Federal Republic of Rio Grande
|
|
|
What If
Dec 14, 2011 15:56:35 GMT -5
Post by Hollowhorn on Dec 14, 2011 15:56:35 GMT -5
What if Susanna Dickinson had accepted Santa Anna's offer of a new life in Mexico? Could her life & that of her daughter have turned out any worse? I would imagine that they would have, at the very least, received better care there than they ever did in Texas.
|
|
|
What If
Dec 14, 2011 16:34:33 GMT -5
Post by Hiram on Dec 14, 2011 16:34:33 GMT -5
Not a definitive answer, but if you look at the life of John C.C. Hill, Mier Expedition survivor and adopted son of Santa Anna, the answer would be yes; Susanna and Angelina Dickinson would have found life to be better in Mexico than in Texas.
Having said that, clearly the quality of life for men was vastly superior to women in the 19th century. The fact that the young Hill was educated at the Colegio de MinerĂa speaks not only to the benefit of being adopted by Santa Anna, but to the benefit of being male.
|
|