|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 19, 2012 9:22:14 GMT -5
IIRC, it was late in the day when the Texians attacked. SA had a reasonable expectation that it was too late to launch an assault.
When I walked the SJ battlefield a couple of years back with a group led by Steve Hardin (doc, here on the forum), I got a different perspective on San Jacinto. The terrain needs to be experienced to fully appreciate what happened there.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 19, 2012 9:29:55 GMT -5
Jim: I have never been there. My daughter promises a side trip when next I visit her in San Antonio.
My impression though is a field containing a gentle roll that would mask the early stages of the Texian advance. Correct or no?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 19, 2012 10:52:25 GMT -5
Chuck, the "roll" is right about where the Texas Army deployed from column to line. A few more paces and they were within easy musket range. They were totally masked until they crested that ridge! I don't think Houston was totally aware of the effects of the terrain, my "gut" tells me he ordered the changein formation when he first spotted the Mexican camp, being horseback, he would have spotted it before the army fully crested the ridge.
It WAS late in the afternoon, too late really to launch an attack, had the Mexican's fought much longer than they did, it would have probably sputtered out at dusk in a stalemate. It was so late, that maybe the sun also played a role. The late afternoon sun would have been in the Mexican Army's eyes. I'm just not certain how late the attack went in.
Unlike others, I'm not convinced about Houston's tactical brilliance here, there is plenty of first hand evidence that the Texas Army would have attacked with or without Houston. What is the truth and what was politics is pretty hard to determine.
What is true, though is that the rudimentary training Houston enforced with the help of US Army "deserters" at Groce's is what allowed the Texas Army to successfully execute the maneuvers that were necessary at San Jacinto.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 19, 2012 10:55:31 GMT -5
Jim: I have never been there. My daughter promises a side trip when next I visit her in San Antonio. My impression though is a field containing a gentle roll that would mask the early stages of the Texian advance. Correct or no? Chuck, that's basically correct. It isn't a flat plain. We were there in very late afternoon, I think at around the same hour the Texians attacked, and it seemed reasonable to assume that, given the oncoming darkness, an attack might not be forthcoming. The lax attitudes of the Mexican command might not be defensible, but they are understandable. Maybe that's just splitting hairs, though. Jim
|
|
|
Post by daverothe on Apr 19, 2012 10:58:17 GMT -5
Chuck...that is so true as it served me well through 27 months in Iraq. Tactics and battlefield strategy is what makes a mission successful.
Herb, I also agree with your assessment. I believe that there were a lot of people within the formation that concluded that the attack needed to happen when it did. The timing was right and I tend to believe as you do....that they would have attacked with or without Houston's orders.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 19, 2012 11:06:08 GMT -5
Chuck, it really is one of those places you have to walk to appreciate. Having doc, march us from the Texas camp, and deploy at the ridge was a real eye opener. Quite honestly, I expect the average Texas infantryman was almost as surprised to suddenly seeing the Mexican camp as were its occupants.
The other thing to remember is that the Texas cavalry hit the camp right about the time the infantry was deploying into line. Perfect or awful lucky synchronization!
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 19, 2012 11:14:21 GMT -5
Chuck, just saw your earlier question, you are right Santa Anna had his army up early and at stand to thru out most of the day. Only after it reached late in the day and the arrival of reinforcements did he stand down.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 19, 2012 11:45:40 GMT -5
Herb: I don't think that Houston displayed a heck of a lot of tactical brilliance either. After all it was a straight on frontal attack supported on purpose or perhaps as you say by accident by a cavalry foray from the flank. Where I believe Houston to be aces is in the operational brilliance of letting him chase Houston, until Houston caught him.
|
|
|
Post by daverothe on Apr 19, 2012 12:01:27 GMT -5
Chuck: I think you are spot on when speaking of Houston being aces for letting SA chase him. Than way, Houston was able to dictate the pace and place to fight and drew him away from any possible reinforcement from Urrea.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 19, 2012 12:07:43 GMT -5
I think the "Runaway Scrape" fed into Santa Anna's complacency and belief the Texans were nothing to fear. However, re: San Jacinto, I hadn't considered how late the hour was when the attack began. With reinforcements having arrived, Santa Anna may have thought he was in fine shape for anything the Texans might throw at him. He did have his back to the water though.
|
|
|
Post by daverothe on Apr 19, 2012 12:13:11 GMT -5
If you look at the terrain, I think that both sides figured they had their opponent right where they wanted them. Kinda intriguing if you look at it. Both sides essentially had their back to the water and each side essentially ad the same piece of ground to advance on.....Houston just beat him to it.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 19, 2012 12:30:44 GMT -5
Dave: Agreed, but, the slope on that piece of ground, if I am reading my fellows correctly, was in favor of masking Houston's advance, and by the same token it would have exposed any advance on the part of Santa Anna prematurely. Little bit of a difference.
I wish I could remember all I once knew of military service, but the things that still stick in the mind are - Numbers matter (most of the time), Training matters (all of the time) Terrain only matters when it is used properly or improperly (which is everytime), violence of execution matters (90% of the time), and timing often is the most important ingedient of all (just like cooking a steak - timing over the coals spells the difference in a great meal or a great charcoal burnt disaster).
|
|
|
Post by daverothe on Apr 19, 2012 12:48:02 GMT -5
Chuck: agreed. If that slope was in Houston's favor, then yeah, I can see where terrain would mask his advance.
In my 20 years as an Infantryman in the Army, I can agree with all those things you stated and the one that makes the greatest impact here is violence of action. Hit the enemy before they are able to mount a counter offensive.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 19, 2012 12:55:04 GMT -5
Infantry huh, complete with IBB Degree no doubt. I could kiss you. I have been hanging around Herb to long, to the point I dream "Of Garryowen and Glory", God awful yellow stripes down the seams of their britches, and the overgrown pen knives they wear on their collars.
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Apr 19, 2012 13:56:22 GMT -5
Unlike others, I'm not convinced about Houston's tactical brilliance here, there is plenty of first hand evidence that the Texas Army would have attacked with or without Houston. Or in spite of? There does seem to be a compelling case that he was heading of the Sabine & the protection of the US Regular Army, no? The rise in the ground can be seen here, though to be honest, I'd never noticed it before this thread:
|
|