|
Post by Herb on Apr 11, 2012 19:22:33 GMT -5
I would assume thru the Porteria of the Long Barracks.
|
|
|
Post by gtj222 on Apr 11, 2012 19:37:21 GMT -5
I think that entrance was around 7' wide so I guess that would work. Thank you. If Mark's measurements are correct they had around 10 feet wide gates at the south end of the fort (main gate) and then the porteria would work also to get them into the pens. Thanks for helping me work this out.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 12, 2012 15:16:07 GMT -5
Why wouldn't the catter pen or corral have it's own gate? I would think it not too sanitary to herd cattle and horses through the main compound (like John Wayne' spectacle.) In peacetime, any livestock should be allowed to graze and the simplest way would be to open the gate in the pen. You know I'm a city guy, but it seems logical to me. Lou from Long Island. By the way, Jeff Long's 1990 "Duel of Eagles" is an interesting take on "political correctness." Yet, he still seems to capture the heroic spirit of the legend, even if he portarys many of the defenders as opportunists or slavery advocates. His notes and bibliography are quite extensive and illuminating.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 12, 2012 15:19:51 GMT -5
I think Long did research for his book and knew what went on, but he chose to go for "overkill" and sensationalism. For example, he not only buys the Crockett surrender story, lock, stock & barrel, but paints it in the darkest possible light, making Crockett a coward who "quit." I don't know if Crockett was captured or surrendered and was executed and I don't think we ever will. There is evidence he may have been among some who were executed, but we can't go further than that. Long went all the way and then some. I think he was told by his publisher or agent to senstionalize the book with negatives or he wouldn't get it published. That, at least, has the ring of truth.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Apr 13, 2012 12:00:02 GMT -5
Well, here's a question for you:
Were the Texans preparing for a siege of the Alamo or of Bexar? In all those quotes above, no mention is made of the Alamo itself.
Bowie himself wrote that he, "would rather die in these ditches than ever give them up to the enemy." He didnt say "die on these walls." He said, "in these ditches."
I think Bowie was referring to the trenches in and around Military Plaza, not the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 13, 2012 12:25:37 GMT -5
I have always taken that passage as a figure of speech. Of course you might be right in saying that it was San Antonio and not the Alamo he was refering to. On the other hand I think that Bowie could count, and realized the futility of any attempt to hold the town. I believe the preponderance of evidence suggests that the main effort was to fortify and/or improve the fortifications of the Alamo. Therefore in my view it does not matter much what Bowie might have meant in a moment of literary bravado. It matters what he did.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 13, 2012 14:23:09 GMT -5
I agree, Chuck. Bowie wrote that they were busy laying in supplies and preparing for a siege, but no preparations were ever made to defend the town, nor was there a realisitic possibility that the Texans had a fraction of the men it would have taken.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 13, 2012 14:36:21 GMT -5
That's right Allen. Bowie was no soldier, but neither was he a fool.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 15, 2012 13:14:55 GMT -5
My opinion is that Bowie bought into the strategy that San Antonio was the likely entrance to Texas that Santa Anna would take. Bowie the "psychologist" may have known the brutal history of SA with Arrondondo decades earlier. Another equally valid strategy was that the Mexican army would enter Texas via a coastal route where it could defend Matamorous and invade over a level playing field. Thus, it made sense to defend Goliad located near the mouth of the San Antonio River. The third strategy, apparently supported and implemented by Houston, was to withdraw into Northeast Texas where he could raise an army with possible American assistance, and fight battles on land of his own choosing. All three strategies were tested and the first two failed. Of course, it could be argued that these strategies were valid, there was just not enough men, resources and willpower to fully implement them. Yet, while the bloodied and slowed down the invaders, they failed in their goal to defeat the enemy at the border. Obviously, Houston's withdrawal strategy worked, as similar strategies have succeeded throughout history. (Napoleon had a few words to say about that.) Plus, Houston's leadership was not above rousing his troops to "Remember the Alamo, Remember Goliad!" Smart man...speaks well... Lou from Long Island
|
|
|
Post by daverothe on Apr 16, 2012 13:02:36 GMT -5
I also believe that Bowie was being figurative when he spoke about the trenches. I don't believe that any of the Alamo commanders ever believed that the town was defendable. The number of actual men on the ground defending the Alamo up to the point when they were reinforced was believed to be around 150ish if I am not mistaken. If that is the case, then they probably never expected any in town fighting as all the munitions and cannons were in the Alamo still rather than strategically placed throughout the town.
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Apr 16, 2012 17:06:43 GMT -5
all the munitions and cannons were in the Alamo still rather than strategically placed throughout the town. Though the provisions required for a siege were not, it seems. Also, did the Mexicans not capture a consignment of arms in the town?
|
|
|
Post by daverothe on Apr 17, 2012 16:19:49 GMT -5
I also believe that much of the reason that they were so determined to defend the Alamo and not the town was the false assumption that they WERE going to be reinforced and that all provisions and munitions would be safer in the Alamo once their help arrived.
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Apr 17, 2012 17:05:14 GMT -5
and that all provisions and munitions would be safer in the Alamo once their help arrived. Again, going back to poor leadership (fractured leadership) If your strategy was to survive a siege within the Alamo compound, would you not be building up the basic stuff of life within those walls, as in food? OK, they were not expecting the enemy to arrive when they did, but my god, they should have been tending to the basics.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 17, 2012 17:49:43 GMT -5
I also believe that much of the reason that they were so determined to defend the Alamo and not the town was the false assumption that they WERE going to be reinforced and that all provisions and munitions would be safer in the Alamo once their help arrived. That's it exactly. The mystery is what possible reason they had for believing that as there was little support in Texas for the war at that time, no declaration of idependence, and a dysfunctional government that could not coordinate of organize anything. Nor did many of the very independtly-minded Texan colonists respect the authority of that "government," which functioned almost in name only. As to the provisions, I'm not sure we have much more than Travis's word about the provisions, just as we had his view that no Tejanos would support the defenders. Bowie, on the other hand, wrote that they were busy doing exactly what you're suggesting - shoring up and stocking up the Alamo in preparation for a siege until help arrived.
|
|
|
Post by daverothe on Apr 18, 2012 13:31:38 GMT -5
Thats a real good point to make. The lack of support for the war and no standing formal government made the ability to structure and raise an actual Army to aid the Alamo almost non-existant.
I also agree that Bowie seemed to be more understanding as to what the needs to defend the Alamo were. Unfortunately, both Travis and Bowie had an unwavering faith in a man that history has shown was a complete failure in a leader (Fannin). I know people have speculated as to what would have happened if he had made it there....some say it wouldnt have mattered, while others said that it would have been the catalyst for Houston to have his final battle in SA. Regardless, I personally believe that Bowie had faith in Fannin, as they had fought together previously, and he believed that as long as he prepared the Alamo for a short defense, Fannin would come and bring enough to sustain a long siege.
|
|