Post by Jake on Feb 9, 2012 17:57:35 GMT -5
Gary says: “Who ever said that the Sanchez-Navarro sketch was redrawn from memory? (I'd like to see documentation of that). When it was drawn onto the map it was copied from the sketch S-N made from town. Have never seen proof that the artist relied only on his memory to redraw it more carefully for the map. The map- plan may have been drawn from memory, to some degree. But unlike LaBastida (as far as we know), Sanchez-Navarro took a very active leadership role in the assault, and so his memory on a number of key points was good, and jibes with the other contemporary evidence we have.”
And his point is correct, we have no proof that the vista on the Aguayo map is anything other than a direct copy of the original. And the plan associated with it is, as Craig makes clear in his article, intended to be a plan of the same features shown on the elevation view of the vista, pretty much point for point.
But we know two things from that set of statements. The plan is a schematic, not an actual plat, if you will, of the Alamo. It does not replicate the plan of the fortress, its gun positions and salients, in anything other than a very general way, certainly far less accurately than does the Labastida plan. Sure, the Labastida plan has its problems, but mostly they are a failure to understand, or perhaps to render well, the long barracks/corrals area on the east side, and this is the result of compressing the whole thing too much, as though Labastida failed to put in two courtyards instead of one.
But with the remarks I made in earlier posts in mind, about the quality of draftsman S-N was, I think we can say his plan is not poor because he didn't have the skill to draw it -- far from it. Looking at the original in the Ayudantia volume at the CAH is very instructive - he has an excellent command of line and labeling, of scaling, layout, and inking. He began the pencil lines to lay out a plan of La Bahia inside the other cover of this volume, but didn't get beyond inking the river, for some reason, so you can see his method there, and probably, if they let you look closer, probably pencil guidelines and such for the layout of the Alamo plan.
To me the conclusion is inescapable. S-N drew an excellently drawn but very inaccurate plan of the layout of the Alamo and its defenses because he didn't have a better plan to work from. Perhaps he had a sketch plan, but it was pretty inaccurate, if so. His memory of the plan wasn't good enough to allow him to correct whatever plan he may have had, so what he produced was not a reasonable approximation of the actual plan of the Alamo.
I'd say he had some notes as to what was where, defenses-wise, and what happened in the assault. I consider his descriptions and notes to be excellent, and I agree with Gary:
“Sanchez-Navarro is the single richest contemporary source we have for minutely detailed documentation on the fortifications of the Alamo, in both written and visual terms, and how they affected the course of the battle. With his two plans (flawed as they are) and their extensive keys, along with his sketch (poorly drawn though it be), not to mention his March letter describing the battle, his diary entries, and his carefully drafted movements of Cos's column that March 6 morning, we are left with a feast of facts that are there to cull, if we only choose to carefully 'see' and understand them."
In very few places would I raise a question about what S-N says about the assault. But the plan is just the best he can remember -- presumably if he could remember better, the plan would be better. And the second plan, drawn later, is changed even from that, but not for the better, or the more accurate. So if the vista fits the plan, and the plan is from memory, what should we conclude?
And his point is correct, we have no proof that the vista on the Aguayo map is anything other than a direct copy of the original. And the plan associated with it is, as Craig makes clear in his article, intended to be a plan of the same features shown on the elevation view of the vista, pretty much point for point.
But we know two things from that set of statements. The plan is a schematic, not an actual plat, if you will, of the Alamo. It does not replicate the plan of the fortress, its gun positions and salients, in anything other than a very general way, certainly far less accurately than does the Labastida plan. Sure, the Labastida plan has its problems, but mostly they are a failure to understand, or perhaps to render well, the long barracks/corrals area on the east side, and this is the result of compressing the whole thing too much, as though Labastida failed to put in two courtyards instead of one.
But with the remarks I made in earlier posts in mind, about the quality of draftsman S-N was, I think we can say his plan is not poor because he didn't have the skill to draw it -- far from it. Looking at the original in the Ayudantia volume at the CAH is very instructive - he has an excellent command of line and labeling, of scaling, layout, and inking. He began the pencil lines to lay out a plan of La Bahia inside the other cover of this volume, but didn't get beyond inking the river, for some reason, so you can see his method there, and probably, if they let you look closer, probably pencil guidelines and such for the layout of the Alamo plan.
To me the conclusion is inescapable. S-N drew an excellently drawn but very inaccurate plan of the layout of the Alamo and its defenses because he didn't have a better plan to work from. Perhaps he had a sketch plan, but it was pretty inaccurate, if so. His memory of the plan wasn't good enough to allow him to correct whatever plan he may have had, so what he produced was not a reasonable approximation of the actual plan of the Alamo.
I'd say he had some notes as to what was where, defenses-wise, and what happened in the assault. I consider his descriptions and notes to be excellent, and I agree with Gary:
“Sanchez-Navarro is the single richest contemporary source we have for minutely detailed documentation on the fortifications of the Alamo, in both written and visual terms, and how they affected the course of the battle. With his two plans (flawed as they are) and their extensive keys, along with his sketch (poorly drawn though it be), not to mention his March letter describing the battle, his diary entries, and his carefully drafted movements of Cos's column that March 6 morning, we are left with a feast of facts that are there to cull, if we only choose to carefully 'see' and understand them."
In very few places would I raise a question about what S-N says about the assault. But the plan is just the best he can remember -- presumably if he could remember better, the plan would be better. And the second plan, drawn later, is changed even from that, but not for the better, or the more accurate. So if the vista fits the plan, and the plan is from memory, what should we conclude?