|
Post by Herb on Mar 5, 2009 12:00:32 GMT -5
Light pollution does make viewing from the Alamo pretty near impossible - with one notable exception. Five years ago, I went to my first HHD, with a couple of friends, at the dawn ceremony, just before actual sunrise, one of them, David Webb, took the most hauntingly beautiful picture of the Alamo, I've ever seen. The church was largely in shadow, as a flaming red sky with dark clouds framed it, in the eastern background. From what few descriptions of the battle we have, it seemed to me that was what the sky looked like in 1836 as the fighting in the compound was rapidly coming to a close.
One thing I noticed, the other day, when relooking at the chart on the first page is that the sun's transit on March 6, 1836, was 12:45 PM. This reinforces the idea of the reported times of the battle being off, for if the Mexican Army was using "natural" time versus an almanac noon locally was 45 minutes different from our modern concept of time.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 18, 2011 13:47:18 GMT -5
Bumping this thread up due to the recent comments in the Bowie thread. I highly recommend that you read the first post of this thread if you've missed it. While pinpointing read the EXACT time of when the Alamo attack began is impossible, the Mexican accounts do in fact give us enough details of to determine approximately when it began.
Contrary to popular imagination (and Alamo 2004) very little if any of the fight took placee in the dark of night (moon, clouds, whatever), most of it took place in the grey of morning twilight (all of it if DLP is to be believed).
|
|
|
Post by jamesg on Mar 28, 2012 16:41:17 GMT -5
Herb Thanks amigo..being a late comer and new Had not found this Thread when I posted Mine. Excellant research on your part.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 2, 2012 15:29:07 GMT -5
My evolution in the study of the Alamo began with an attack at dawn. Later historian/dramatists claimed the first assault was driven back while still dark. The third and final assault occured at full morning. Later research and the 2004 movie had the entire assault occuring during the pre-dawn darkness. Personally, I liked neither scenario although it's much easier to watch Alamo movie battles when they occur in daylight. I favored the first light theories. Thousands of soldiers rushing about with fixed bayonettes in the dark does not seem practical given an artillery pockmarked battlefield , watery ditches and lakes, and the tendency of attackers to bunch up. An attack in the grey of morning seems to make more sense. I love how this column's fine researchers constantly dig deeper to "illuminate" this amazing historical event and uncover whatever truths remain hidden. Keep up the great work!!!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 2, 2012 18:41:53 GMT -5
Considering that night vision glasses were still more than a century away, an attack at the first light of dawn makes perfect sense. In its most simplest terms, You have to see what you're shooting at. Historically many battles occurred at dawn's first light. Custer's attack at the Washita, for example. There are many, many more.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 2, 2012 19:35:58 GMT -5
I think that's right, Paul; the timing was right and deliberate. I'm not sure how much the rising sun in the east played a role in this plan, but Santa Anna didn't station Sesma's cavalry on that side for nothing. He knew the brunt of the attack would come from the north, leaving the south and east as the only area of egress for any Texans attempting escape, which proved to be the case. They ran toward the east and the Gonzalez or Goliad roads -- with the sun in their faces and to the lancers' backs.
|
|
|
Post by jamesg on Apr 2, 2012 21:23:14 GMT -5
Just one other cavite for a dawn attack ...Black gunpowder produces allot of smoke in a battle with Cannons and allot of rifles etc. Hence "The Fog Of War". A night attack and all that Gunsmoke Visibility would be extremely limited.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Apr 4, 2012 0:57:32 GMT -5
Later historian/dramatists claimed the first assault was driven back while still dark. The third and final assault occured at full morning. What were the so-called "three assaults"? The lore seems to be that the Mexicans were beaten back three times, but what does that really mean? Does it mean the columns led by Duque, Cos, and Romero assaulted the walls and retreated from the walls to reorganize, assaulted the walls a second time only to retreat from the walls and reorganize yet again, and then assaulted the walls a third and final time when they mounted them? There seems to be no good documentation for these two retreats. What seems more realistic is that the Mexican columns massed at the walls, tried to mount them twice unsuccessfully and were beaten down to the bottom of the walls (but didn't retreat), and then succeeded in mounting the walls on the third try. It seems the only other explanation for the "three assaults" is that the Duque, Cos, and Romero columns reached the walls at different times. The latter would explain Cos' right oblique movement.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 4, 2012 8:17:26 GMT -5
There were no three assaults. The bulk of Mexican forces were directed at the north wall and the east and west walls near the north wall. But order quickly broke down and the soldados ended up in a confused mass, the 3 forces somewhat mingling together, taking fire from the defenders and from friendly fire as well. The chaotic situation was broken partly when Cos broke off his troops and moved further down the west wall, while the overwhelming number of Mexicans began making their way up the timbers along the north wall. The final push came when Santa Anna sent in the reserves. Although the Texans were able to sustain fire for a while, they soon ran out of loaded rifles and were then simply overwhelmed by sheer numbers, some coming over the north wall, some coming through openings along the west wall, while Morales' smaller force had gained entry at the south end of the fort.
I don't know where the frequently mentioned 3 charges story originated (even Walter Lord adapted a sort of version of that).
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 4, 2012 10:58:55 GMT -5
Well Allen we can be sure that the story pre-dated Marty Robbins. Don't know the Spanish words for attack-assault-charge, but I think if the story had its genesis from the Mexicans it probably meant the combined north-west-east attack, the commitment of reserves, and the southwest corner attack. If it started with the Texians themselves it was nothing more than a feel good having no basis in fact.
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Apr 4, 2012 20:06:42 GMT -5
Way back in the days before the internet and all the recent excellent research, I discussed this problem in the October 1988 issue of The Alamo Journal in my article " And on the Fatal Third Time". The article is much dated and flawed but it does address many of these concerns. Ken Mahoney
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Apr 5, 2012 0:17:35 GMT -5
While we're at it, what was SA's military rationale for sending three columns against the northern part of the fort, rather then another part? Was it simply that the west, south, and east were better fortified and/or offered worse terrain for an attack? Or was there more to it, e.g., the "scalability" of the earth/timber works on the north side provided a decisive advantage?
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 5, 2012 5:50:07 GMT -5
While we're at it, what was SA's military rationale for sending three columns against the northern part of the fort, rather then another part? Was it simply that the west, south, and east were better fortified and/or offered worse terrain for an attack? Or was there more to it, e.g., the "scalability" of the earth/timber works on the north side provided a decisive advantage? I think a big part of the reason was that there was no possibility of enfilading fire raining down on the attackers due to the lack of bastions along the north side. Plus, there wasn't a lot of room to stage troops along the west due to the river; the southern end of the compound was the strongest point.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Apr 5, 2012 14:09:43 GMT -5
Allen, you touched on a detail I'm curious about:
"Although the Texans were able to sustain fire for a while, they soon ran out of loaded rifles and were then simply overwhelmed by sheer numbers."
How long do you think that would have been? How many loaded muskets would you expect, and how quickly would they have been fired? If it was me, I'd be through those muskets as fast as I could pick them up and point them -- and if they had been sitting all night or longer, I'd also expect some of them not to fire.
What I'm suggesting here is that the attack was very quick, that troops were coming over the north wall very soon after the command to attack was given. They rose up, ran to the wall, swirled into a mixed mess looking for a way over, found it, and were in.
Maybe fifteen minutes or less?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 5, 2012 15:10:54 GMT -5
I go along with 15 minutes or so, Jake. I've just finished re-reading Lord and Edmondson and my impression is that at least some number of Texians made it out of the barracks and to the wall to fire off a few rounds before being overwhelmed. Many were trapped in the barracks and never got out, while those who were not killed at the north wall may have made it back there.
I've read several versions that claim each Texian rifleman would have had 4 or 5 loaded rifles at the ready, but I don't believe there were that many of them at the walls when the attack started; they were largely taken by surprise and had to react very quickly, most of them having just been roused from sleep. Initially, there were a few cannon rounds that got off and temporarily stymied the Mexicans and, while the firing continued, chaos may have kept the Mexicans from organizing to begin scaling the walls, while Cos moved his troops "around the corner" to the west and broke through there. Add Romero's troops somewhere around the northeast corner and then the reserves and whatever number of Texans were up there were quickly overrun, not even able to spike their cannons. Once the Mexicans were inside (and let's not forget about Morales, who may already have been in) I think it became pretty much a mopping up operation in the Long Barrack, a few other rooms, the church and outside among those who broke out.
I often wonder if things would have been significantly different if the Texans had anticipated an attack that morning, and Travis had everyone on alert with most of the men at their posts, even if they were dozing there during the night, with those loaded rifles and charged cannon. I think the Mexicans still would have gotten into the fort, although it may have taken them longer and they would have suffered more casualites, but once in the fort the result would have been the same. As you say, once overwhelmed, there wasn't time to reload rifles. At that point, it's similar to Last Stand Hill once the Indians had begun to roll up Calhoun, Keough, and then Custer; just too many of the enemy and not enough of you.
|
|