|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 10, 2012 9:48:16 GMT -5
I think, more and more, that the elevation was supplemental to the plat rather than the other way around.
Herb suggested this to us offline and I think it's a valid consideration.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 10, 2012 9:52:41 GMT -5
That's true if the intent was to show S-N's personal perspective. However, if the only intent was to show an elevation that was supplemental to the plat, this is the view that is necessary. As Covner's work shows, in this view all the buildings line up with the plat.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 10, 2012 10:08:32 GMT -5
Herb suggested this to us offline and I think it's a valid consideration. Jim What's striking is that every single mistake we know of, especially in the two plats makes the Alamo a stronger fortress. Coincidence? or intentional?
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Feb 10, 2012 11:10:19 GMT -5
Sanchez-Navarro indicates he drew the sketch from the rooftop of the Veramendi House.
I have no reason to doubt this.
In his diary he notes several times making "observations" of the fort.
The fact is, we do not know precisely when he drew it, but that it was drawn during the siege is fully implied, and the flag is the clincher---the very flag described by Almonte as Santa Anna approached Bexar on 2/23.
We can also say the same thing about the original plans by Jameson and LaBastida. We can narrow their creation down to the month, (March in LaBastida's case) but not exactly when.
But I am thoroughly convinced that S-N drew the original sketch on the spot, as he wrote, and his map-plans---not to mention the redrawn sketch for the map--- later.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Feb 10, 2012 11:12:29 GMT -5
Herb suggested this to us offline and I think it's a valid consideration. Jim What's striking is that every single mistake we know of, especially in the two plats makes the Alamo a stronger fortress. Coincidence? or intentional? Herb, "A stronger fortress" than who says? All the accounts of the Alamo in 1835 and 1836 use the word "strong," or "very strong" or "stronger than you can imagine," to describe the place. Gary
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Feb 10, 2012 11:18:39 GMT -5
Jim, can't really argue, but I think if it was drawn post battle, it would have been drawn from a different perspective, reflecting more how the battle was fought. I'm really coming to the conclusion that he did some type of rough sketch probably on March 4th, and added to it and refined it at a later date to the drawing we have now. I would submit that the Radio Shack dig, confirms that the existing Vista drawing as we know it was not a prebattle drawing, but completed some later date from memory possibly aided by some unknown prebattle drawing. For those unfamiliar with the Radio Shack dig (the SW corner), the dig confirmed there was no such outerwork as S-N shows in his Vista. Herb, I agree with your second paragraph, as I noted in an earlier post. Your last statement is open up to a lot of argument, since that dig did not explore the ENTIRE area outside that particular corner. I'm sure Jake will disagree, but I've talked with at least two others working in our field who agree that if there was an unfinished ditch there as Sanchez-Navarro indicates, it could have well been missed by the archaeologists, considering the limited dig that was done.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Feb 10, 2012 11:28:58 GMT -5
I would also largely disagree with Jake's assertion that LaBastida is wrong mainly when it comes to the long barracks/corral areas. In fact LaBastida is problematic everywhere else too. This is not meant to diminish his virtues, of which there are many. But I do not agree that Sanchez-Navarro is less valuable in terms of artillery emplacements and other areas of fortifications. Only in S-N do we find some very specific things said (such as vara length) about the fortifications---things not even hinted at in LaBastida. I know I will be opening up the door here to a lot of debate---so what's new---but all this has to be said. If, for instance, we rely solely on LaBastida, we must then conceive of the Fortin de Teran as a raised artillery position with embrasures made by simply notching into the wall itself.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 10, 2012 11:30:49 GMT -5
Sanchez-Navarro indicates he drew the sketch from the rooftop of the Veramendi House. I have no reason to doubt this. In his diary he notes several times making "observations" of the fort. The fact is, we do not know precisely when he drew it, but that it was drawn during the siege is fully implied, and the flag is the clincher---the very flag described by Almonte as Santa Anna approached Bexar on 2/23. We can also say the same thing about the original plans by Jameson and LaBastida. We can narrow their creation down to the month, (March in LaBastida's case) but not exactly when. But I am thoroughly convinced that S-N drew the original sketch on the spot, as he wrote, and his map-plans---not to mention the redrawn sketch for the map--- later. I'm not sold either way. I think there's a strong possibility that the vista is simply an elevation view provided to enhance the plat. I don't have Covner's article handy...didn't he think the opposite was true? That the plat enhanced the vista? Jim
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Feb 10, 2012 12:26:59 GMT -5
Sanchez-Navarro indicates he drew the sketch from the rooftop of the Veramendi House. I have no reason to doubt this. In his diary he notes several times making "observations" of the fort. The fact is, we do not know precisely when he drew it, but that it was drawn during the siege is fully implied, and the flag is the clincher---the very flag described by Almonte as Santa Anna approached Bexar on 2/23. We can also say the same thing about the original plans by Jameson and LaBastida. We can narrow their creation down to the month, (March in LaBastida's case) but not exactly when. But I am thoroughly convinced that S-N drew the original sketch on the spot, as he wrote, and his map-plans---not to mention the redrawn sketch for the map--- later. I'm not sold either way. I think there's a strong possibility that the vista is simply an elevation view provided to enhance the plat. I don't have Covner's article handy...didn't he think the opposite was true? That the plat enhanced the vista? Jim I'm not sure if Covner meant to imply that the plans were drawn first and then the sketch was done to explain them. That makes no sense to me. If that was Craig's theory, then it's just that---a theory with no evidence behind it. And I could not disagree more. Why would Sanchez-Navarro note in his Key that the drawing was a "View of the Fort of San Antonio de Valero, commonly called the Alamo, made from the roof of the Veramendi house situated in the City of Bejar," and also, on the sketch as redrawn onto the map several years later, include the date "1836," unless he was simply striving to be accurate and explain its origin? Again, I see no reason to doubt him, or suspect an attempt to deceive.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 10, 2012 13:32:40 GMT -5
I'm not suggesting that he was being deceptive, I'm sure that isn't the case. Whenever the drawing was done I think SN was attempting to depict the Alamo as it appeared during the siege...hence the flag. I'm just not sure that he didn't draw what we're seeing from memory.
One thing that might reinforce the idea that it was drawn before the battle is his depiction of the north wall, which is clearly wrong. Post-battle, SN would surely have known what that wall looked like, even if he couldn't have seen it from the Veremendi rooftop.
As to Craig Covner's comments on the SN drawing from the November 1990 Alamo Journal, Covner writes of the elevation and plat as published in "La Guerra De Texas":
"Apparently, Sanchez Navarro intended the two drawings to be shown together; this has significant ramifications.
We know that the 'index' plan was probably produced more then two months after the battle of the Alamo, and that the finished plan and elevation are a 'set;' it's not unreasonable, therefore, to suggest that the elevation has a similar post San Jacinto origin."
He goes on to state:
"If most of the evidence supports a frontal view of the church, and hence, Sanchez Navarro's stated vantage point, there is still the problem of the slight but undeniably northwest point of view, giving us a glimpse of the north wall which, theoretically, shouldn't be visible from the Veremendi. Sanchez Navarro is so specific in his caption that we tend to expect the same specificity in the elevation itself; however, ONE CAN'T EXPECT MORE LOGIC OF A PICTURE THAN THE ARTIST PUT INTO IT. We must remember that: (1) this is a recollection, with all of one's potential for 'error;' and (2) the elevation was not meant to 'stand alone' as a record. It was drawn in support of the plan, was meant to be seen with it, and appears to be carefully constructed out of it so as not to contradict it."
I would strongly suggest that interested readers order a copy of Craig's article as I am citing only a very small part of it, and you'd do well to read the entire study in context. (Hopefully my quotations aren't taken out of context.)
I know Craig looks in from time to time, so maybe he'll weigh in. He might have modified his position since 1990.
At this point, I'll weigh out on this one and leave the discussion to those who know far more about the compound than I. I only got pulled in because I found it so interesting...I can't add much other than opinion.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Feb 10, 2012 15:24:35 GMT -5
I'm not suggesting that he was being deceptive, I'm sure that isn't the case. Whenever the drawing was done I think SN was attempting to depict the Alamo as it appeared during the siege...hence the flag. I'm just not sure that he didn't draw what we're seeing from memory. One thing that might reinforce the idea that it was drawn before the battle is his depiction of the north wall, which is clearly wrong. Post-battle, SN would surely have known what that wall looked like, even if he couldn't have seen it from the Veremendi rooftop. As to Craig Covner's comments on the SN drawing from the November 1990 Alamo Journal, Covner writes of the elevation and plat as published in "La Guerra De Texas": "Apparently, Sanchez Navarro intended the two drawings to be shown together; this has significant ramifications. We know that the 'index' plan was probably produced more then two months after the battle of the Alamo, and that the finished plan and elevation are a 'set;' it's not unreasonable, therefore, to suggest that the elevation has a similar post San Jacinto origin." He goes on to state: "If most of the evidence supports a frontal view of the church, and hence, Sanchez Navarro's stated vantage point, there is still the problem of the slight but undeniably northwest point of view, giving us a glimpse of the north wall which, theoretically, shouldn't be visible from the Veremendi. Sanchez Navarro is so specific in his caption that we tend to expect the same specificity in the elevation itself; however, ONE CAN'T EXPECT MORE LOGIC OF A PICTURE THAN THE ARTIST PUT INTO IT. We must remember that: (1) this is a recollection, with all of one's potential for 'error;' and (2) the elevation was not meant to 'stand alone' as a record. It was drawn in support of the plan, was meant to be seen with it, and appears to be carefully constructed out of it so as not to contradict it." I would strongly suggest that interested readers order a copy of Craig's article as I am citing only a very small part of it, and you'd do well to read the entire study in context. (Hopefully my quotations aren't taken out of context.) I know Craig looks in from time to time, so maybe he'll weigh in. He might have modified his position since 1990. At this point, I'll weigh out on this one and leave the discussion to those who know far more about the compound than I. I only got pulled in because I found it so interesting...I can't add much other than opinion. Jim Jim, Yes, I'd be surprised if that is still Craig's opinion. In that article he also states, "it is folly for us to imagine that he [Sanchez-Navarro] stood there, pen in hand, doing his best to render the besieged fortress for posterity." Folly? How so? According to whom? And as you quote, Craig assures us that the drawing "is a recollection." Really?? Where is the proof of that??? The fact is that there's no reason to disbelieve it as being anything other than what Sanchez-Navarro wrote: his eyewitness vision of the fort, absurd dimensions notwithstanding. That he added the north wall is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water...it was his apparent attempt to show the viewer that that wall was also lined with cannon embrasures. In transmitting the original drawing to the map, perhaps more distortions crept in. We just don't know precisely how many. But what he drew is very typical of the technique, style, level of "talent" of many military men trained in engineering, surveying etc. Below is one example: the French Fort at Niagara, drawn "on the spot in 1758" and transferred into a map engraving two years later. I include a photo of the reconditioned fort as it looks today (minus its missing embrasured walls), only to convey how often distortions could creep in between original and finished concept. Just how we reconcile these distortions is the challenge. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Feb 10, 2012 15:55:30 GMT -5
the flag is the clincher---the very flag described by Almonte as Santa Anna approached Bexar on 2/23. Gary, did Almonte not place this flag in the town of Bexar (there is a view held that this flag was possibly raised by Tejanos) rather than in the Alamo? From what I have read so far, the particular flag/s flown at the Alamo are very much up for discussion, no?
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Feb 10, 2012 16:22:35 GMT -5
the flag is the clincher---the very flag described by Almonte as Santa Anna approached Bexar on 2/23. Gary, did Almonte not place this flag in the town of Bexar (there is a view held that this flag was possibly raised by Tejanos) rather than in the Alamo? From what I have read so far, the particular flag/s flown at the Alamo are very much up for discussion, no? Hollowhorn, Yes, it's been the subject of endless debate. Almonte's quote does not state exactly where the two-starred tricolor was raised as the advanced guard approached Bexar, only that "the enemy lowered the flag and fled, and possession was taken of Bexar." So the impression is definitely one of the flag being raised in town somewhere, in one of the two plazas one would assume. Because this particular flag is documented in two separate Mexican sources---Almonte and Sanchez-Navarro---and because at least one old Tejano recalled seeing a tricolor over the church during the siege, it's much more confirming evidence than we usually have in terms of the Alamo. Travis did buy a flag weeks earlier, but its size and colors are not known.
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Feb 10, 2012 17:21:43 GMT -5
There is also the confirming evidence of the N.O.G. flag & the possibility of at least two others. I'll let this one go for now but am about to assault you with requests for evidence (if any) regarding musket / rifle fire from the church facade.
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Feb 10, 2012 18:09:52 GMT -5
Gary, In the ‘Altar’ thread you mentioned: But with the evidence telling us that there were riflemen on the Alamo roof during the battle---as opposed to the cavalier battery---that it wouldn't have been used as a position for marksmen seems very unlikely. I asked you in reply: And you answered: One of these accounts was penned by R. M. Potter from the testimony of Mexican veterans, in his FALL OF THE ALAMO. That's evidently what you read. I sought out the Potter account & it stated: (In the Chapel) “The inmates of this last stronghold. Like the rest, fought to the last, and continued to fire down from the upper works after the enemy occupied the floor. A Mexican officer told of seeing one of his soldiers shot in the crown of the head during this melee.” And: “Of those left behind him (Dickenson, after his leap) the bayonet soon gleaned what the bullet had left; and in the upper part of that edifice the last defender must have fallen. The morning breeze which received his parting breath probably still fanned his flag above that fabric, for I doubt he fell ere it was pulled down by the victors” And: “When he (Santa Anna) moved up towards the Alamo, escorted by his aides and bands of music, but turned back on being greeted by a few shots from the upper part of the chapel” It is all so open to speculation, the ‘last stronghold’ could relate to the Fortin de Cos, but this would not explain the ‘crown of the head wound’ unless the soldier was moving forward, head down. I don’t think this is what the ‘officer’ intended to convey, I am sure he meant ‘from directly above’ Does 'and in the upper part of that edifice the last defender must have fallen' give us a view that the said defender died in the in the wee wooden fort at the front of the church given the ref to the flag? I should think so (if the wee wooden fort existed of course) Looking at Mark Lemons’s model of the church on page 89 of his ‘Illustrated Alamo’ & the drawing of same on page 92 (if one accepts Mr. Lemon’s view) there would appear to be ample vantage points for such fire along the top of the north wall of the church. These vantage points could also explain the (alleged) fire directed upon Santa Anna without the need for defenders being placed along the whole front of the chapel façade. I realise that Potter’s account draws from certain Mexican accounts of the battle, but have you (or anyone else) reference to direct accounts from Mexican participants that state that there was fire from the front of the façade? I feel that this really is the crux of the matter, the more evidence we have for marksmen on ‘the roof’ the easier it would be to accept ‘defensive structures' on same. Robert.
|
|