|
Post by Herb on Jul 19, 2012 18:40:05 GMT -5
Chuck, a good question. The most important thing Travis would have gained is time. If scouts would have detected Sesma's initial movement on the 12th, a mounted courier could have informed him by the 15th. Let's assume he takes action on the 16th. Sends messengers out and moves the garrison into the Alamo a week earlier. Even assuming a casual response, Fannin and the Gonzales 32 should be in San Antonio BEFORE the Vanguard Bde arrived. Around 500 defenders initially, instead of less than 200. Also add the benefits of a weeks preparation with a genuine sense of urgency.
Assuming the rest of Texas also mobilized 7 days earlier ....
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 19, 2012 22:53:22 GMT -5
Herb -- I totally agree with you. Another indication that Travis and company were caught with their knickers down is that had the local rivers not been flooded, the Mexicans would have attacked the defenders in Bexar during their Washington birthday celebration, almost guaranteeing there would have been no siege or Alamo battle. If Travis knew they were that close, I doubt he and his men would be partying down in Bexar.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 20, 2012 17:32:11 GMT -5
Herb: I guess all this proves is that few things get your attention faster than being the guest of honor at an impending massacre.
Your detection of Sesma on the 12th is a little earlier than I speculated about, but it seems a logical date, if Travis had his act togeher.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 20, 2012 18:30:19 GMT -5
Herb - this is one of the best "what if" scenarios I've seen. It makes perfect sense, but relies on a lot of things going just the right way. The deal breaker might have been either Fannin actually arriving in time and the rest of Texas rallying to the Alamo. My doubts hinge on the fact that both Neill and Bowie had been sending out urgent appeals for men, supplies, powder and ball, etc., for some time long before the Mexican troops were even at the Rio Grande and didn't have any more luck than Travis did later on. Still, that does not change the fact that Travis seems to have been negligent in the gathering of intel or preparing for an imminent Mexican arrival.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 21, 2012 6:40:25 GMT -5
Allen, people forget that when Fannin turned back from the Alamo it was after Frank Johnson showed up with news of Urrea and San Patrico. If Fannin had left a week earlier with the positive news of Sesma's movements he would not have had this nasty surprise from Urrea.
Assuming Fannin had sent out a courier to alert Johnson, after Travis notified him of Sesma's movements, it is highly likely that Johnson and Grant would have fallen back on Goliad. This would have resulted in a credible force still there that would have checked Urrea's small column.
Effective reconnaissance, by Travis could have changed everything. Of course under this scenario Fannin would have ended up in command at Bexar! The only person senior to him was Houston, and he'd still be out with the Indians.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 21, 2012 7:49:50 GMT -5
Of course under this scenario Fannin would have ended up in command at Bexar! The only person senior to him was Houston, and he'd still be out with the Indians. And we'd be watching Alamo movies where the character tension would be Fannin vs. Travis instead of Bowie vs. Travis. Well, maybe not. It's interesting to ponder how this would have played out with Fannin in command of the Alamo. Fannin has always seemed a bit like Charlie Brown to me. Wishy-washy and unable to commit to something. If facing overwhelming odds (even with 500 or so men at his disposal at the 'Mo), I'm thinking he would have surrendered anyway. Travis had his flaws and he certainly was remiss about scouting and intel in the days and weeks leading up to the arrival of Mexican troops in Bexar, but at least he was committed to the cause and wasn't afraid to make some decisions (even if they weren't necessarily the right ones). The end result might have been the same under Fannin, but at least Travis was willing to fight to the death vs. surrender and simply being executed. Paul
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jul 22, 2012 14:49:48 GMT -5
I agree with Herb's suggestion. A similar results might have occured if Santa Anna had not been so anxious to punish the Texans who humiliated Cos and his government and arrived as expected sometime in March or April. Hopefully with Houston back from the Indians a more coherent military strategy could have been developed. As it was in January and February, Texan strategy was splintered by those who insisted on invading Mexico (a la Grant), defending the San Antonio river line like Bexar and Goliad and those like Houston who wanted to raise a competant army to meet SA on the battlefield. The first two options failed primarily because they were undermanned and out generaled. But I can't help but think that Houston's successful strategy was aided by the sacrifices of the men at the other battles that galvanized the Texan/Colonists to come together and fight the Mexicans who were now viewed as deadly invaders.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 23, 2012 12:41:53 GMT -5
Lou, to your point in The book "Eighteen Minutes" it's pointed out that some of the first companies raised in East Texas were actually forming in preparation for the spring campaign, prior to Santa Anna arriving in Bexar.
|
|