|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 12, 2012 12:43:58 GMT -5
Great minds, Herb!
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Feb 12, 2012 13:17:28 GMT -5
Let's take another look at the 1837 sketch by George W. Fulton, the earliest post-battle image we have. The top of the church looks more "even," or less damaged than in later images by Eastman, et al., which were done a decade or so after the battle. If we give Fulton the same leeway that we are giving S-N, we may conclude that increasing amounts of destruction of the church took place as time passed after the battle. First, no one seems to have treated the Alamo as anything special in that period. No efforts were made to preserve it or even note the fact the battle had taken place there. Within a relatively short time, it was taken over, and made over, by the U.S. army. Later it became a grocery store and was used for other commercial enterprises. In short, no one seemed very concerned with the Alamo or its preservation. It is entirely probable that there was gradual destruction, after Andrade did whatever he did, by vandals, by locals who simply wanted stone from the Alamo to build their own structures (which is what happened to the Colosseum in Rome), hence the loose stones on the ground in front of the Alamo in the 1840s drawings. Why would they still be lying around a decade after Andrade's dismantling? Or maybe even sold as souvenirs to tourists. There are lots of ways an ignored building deteriorates. It's a not entirely impossible scenario, and one I've often pondered too, since other post-battle drawings also show less of a gouge. In my book I do make note of the pillaging of the site by locals, souvenir hunters, sculptors, etc. If anything, it would lend even more credence to the Alamo facade roof being a more straight-edged skyline during the siege, as Sanchez-Navarro shows, than heretofore believed. However, this is another case of how much you want to trust the amateur artists (paging Jose Juan!). There is too much seesaw variety in their depictions of that ruined skyline to make any entirely certain conclusions. If you look at Bollaert's sketches of the Alamo from the south and the west in 1844, you see that he draws two entirely different skylines, the latter one an almost straight line rather than a gouge. Edward Blake's 1845 rendition brings the gouge down almost in a line with the bottom of the upper niches, while two years later (1847) Everett shows it scooped down only halfway down the niche (as Thomas Falconer had done in 1841). Fulton also makes a straight-edged box of the rear of the church, not as the broken nave/transept area the other postbattle artists show. Gentilz, who arrived in Bexar in 1844 and thus saw the Alamo much as Bollaert did, raised the gouge back up to match the height Fulton gave it, even though Falconer in 1841 had it considerably lower. In my opinion it's just faulty artwork... but certainly more fuel for the fire.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 12, 2012 15:21:52 GMT -5
Interestingly, Gentilz shows the top of the facade two different ways himself -- at least in three of his finished paintings. Compare the skyline in his painting in Nelson's book with that of his battle painting and both other church paintings of just the building. The one in George's book has a skyline more like the Fulton drawing, with the gouges only going down to the top element of the niches. The other paintings show them dipping half-way down the niches, like Everett and Eastman. Of course, Gentilz was known to paint copies of his originals that were in themselves based on on-site drawings, measurements and plats, and there is an extreme variance in care displayed in the Alamo Church "portraits." So......................
But my point is how unreliable the paintings are.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Feb 12, 2012 15:33:40 GMT -5
Interestingly, Gentilz shows the top of the facade two different ways himself -- at least in three of his finished paintings. Compare the skyline in his painting in Nelson's book with that of his battle painting and both other church paintings of just the building. The one in George's book has a skyline more like the Fulton drawing, with the gouges only going down to the top element of the niches. The other paintings show them dipping half-way down the niches, like Everett and Eastman. Of course, Gentilz was known to paint copies of his originals that were in themselves based on on-site drawings, measurements and plats, and there is an extreme variance in care displayed in the Alamo Church "portraits." So...................... But my point is how unreliable the paintings are. Some the earliest field sketches also combined the facade with the high transept ruins, so that the two elements actually melded together, making the church front seem even higher than Fulton drew it.
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Feb 12, 2012 16:34:15 GMT -5
In the legend for his Alamo plan, what did S-N mean by: '19. Ramp of the Battery that they couldn’t finish.'?
I was under the impression that it was complete.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 12, 2012 18:31:46 GMT -5
My money is on those gouges being post-Andrade, since Fulton reportedly drew his image in 1837. It does lend credence to the Sanchez Navarro "straight edged skyline," and Fulton is the better artist (though he has his limitations as well).
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Feb 12, 2012 19:49:49 GMT -5
My money is on those gouges being post-Andrade, since Fulton reportedly drew his image in 1837. It does lend credence to the Sanchez Navarro "straight edged skyline," and Fulton is the better artist (though he has his limitations as well). Jim, I would ask you to read the entirety of what I wrote: If you look at Bollaert's two sketches of the Alamo from the south and the west in 1844, you see that he draws two entirely different church skylines, the latter one a very low, almost straight line rather than a gouge. Edward Blake's 1845 rendition brings the gouge down almost in a line with the bottom of the upper niches, while two years later (1847) Everett shows it higher, scooped down only halfway down the niche (as Thomas Falconer had done in 1841).
Gentilz, who arrived in Bexar in 1844 and thus saw the Alamo much as Bollaert did, raised the gouge back up to match the height Fulton gave it, even though Falconer in 1841 had it considerably lower.So any claims that Fulton was accurate in terms of scale do not stand up against the above array of contradictory depictions. I would be careful with your betting money, Jim.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 13, 2012 11:51:16 GMT -5
With basically the same discussion going on in two threads, it's hard to be certain where to exactly post this, but since I agree with Gary that criticism of one small part of his book doesn't belong in a topic with the same title as his book, here it goes.
I think I can summarize the questions of the battlemented church, and which imo, have yet to be answered.
1. There was no 2500 feet of battlement erected around 1810, as stated on pages S12- S13 of the book. This seems based on an erroneous translation by Mixon (?) Even if Jakes corrected translation is wrong, as claimed, the total amount of battlement is about 316 feet and installed not on the church but on the Long Barracks.
2. Ugartechea and Jameson faced such a daunting amount of work fortifying the Alamo, that neither man was able to complete such a fundamental necessity as building corner bastions necessary for the sucessful protection of the outer walls. But, we are to believe that they had the time to build a position (a much lower priority) that could only fire into the Alamo Compound (and a very small portion at that). A sidenote - if fixing a rampart and parapet in the Church was done, why wasn't it done on the south side facing potential attackers outside the walls?
3. While there are a few sources that mention a rifleman (men) on top of the Alamo Church, there were plenty of places for him (them) to be without creating a firing platform and parapet across the front of the church. The scaristy, baptistismal, confessional and monks burial ground were all roofed and offered plenty of potential sniper positions, besides which the palisaded SE corner (even if primarily an observation post as some claim) seems too probable a point to discount as a sniper perch.
While I can't claim to speak for all, this to me sums up the "anti" side of the debate.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 13, 2012 18:49:47 GMT -5
Maybe I'm getting screwy from looking at all this, but I'm looking at the S-N on page 59 of Nelson (3rd edition) and the ENTIRE thing shows the Alamo from the northwest -- not just fudging in the north wall, but the entire fort. We see the northern side of the church and Long Barrack too. How could this be the view from the Veramendi house? I realize this has been discussed earlier and I may have missed the answer to this question.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 13, 2012 20:41:23 GMT -5
Herb-
Forgive me for thinking outload. If only it was possible that we could either climb into the minds of Cos, Ugartecha, Jameson (and for that matter Dimmitt, Fannin, Chadwick and Brooks) when they looked around their respective fortification projects and said we need to do this first...we of course have hints and some ideas set forth in letters, but for the most part we have to sit here and try to interprete what the heck they were thinking and why they were doing the things they were doing and in what order.
In the case of the fall of 1835 that would include seeing which area-the Alamo or the town-gets priority and where the work details would be the largest.
Odd-that constructed battery inside the compound that protected the gate or both the inside of the gate and the rest of the compound. Apparently, the crew at La Bahia was thinking the same thing, but instead of building the earthwork, Brooks constructed his "infernal machine" of musket barrels.
It becomes interesting how the Alamo fortifcations have to evolve during times of possible attack-the curtain walls going up following San Saba; the threat of American invasion in the early 18th century and then the events of 1835-1836.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 13, 2012 21:49:25 GMT -5
Kevin, see the link Jake posted to his notes on this on the "Alter to Their Sons" thread; you appear to be on the right track here regarding time, manpower and materials available, and priorities in choosing which fortifications to construct first. Bastions never seem to have come into Mexican thinking, although given more time/resources they might have been.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 13, 2012 22:11:51 GMT -5
Apparently, my words weren't clear. There was way too much to do, with too little time, that only the very basic things were done. There was insufficient time to rig fighting platforms that only had a limited field of fire INSIDE the Alamo Compound. Things like this are as a rule only done when the basic things have been completed this would include something so fundamental as Bastions. The fact that there was insufficient time to build bastions, argues against the church front ramparts as they would be an extremely low priority.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 13, 2012 22:51:45 GMT -5
That's consistent with what I'm suggesting, Herb (or, rather, what Jake's notes appear to say). Cos chose priorities and went about achieving them; I don't think that kind of facility would have been on the list, especially if they ran out of time before building any bastions.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 13, 2012 23:02:07 GMT -5
I wish I could read it, but my system won't download it right.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 13, 2012 23:18:21 GMT -5
I wish I could read it, but my system won't download it right. Herb - I just emailed the PDF to you; let me know if you are able to open it. Allen
|
|