|
Post by pff on Jan 9, 2014 12:26:30 GMT -5
The Bodies of the Anglo/Texans who fell at the Alamo were cremated The Bodies of the Mexicans were apparently buried in San ANtonio However came across two accounts that not all the dead mexicans were buried-but remains thrown into San ANtonio river Some Thoughts...is it possible that the difference in reported losses at the Alamo to the Texans over 180 to mearly 200 that could be explained that there could very well have been a large number of civilians in there as well? That while the Anglo-Texans of Travis forces was burned; and the Mexicans soldiers were buried: that there could have been a number of civilians as well killed in the Alamo-and that a number of those civilians who were not burned -were the ones thrown into River?
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 9, 2014 15:09:37 GMT -5
pff, Here first is some background visual information for you to augment the primary accounts on Mexican soldiers being buried vs. dumped in the river. Images are from my virtual model of Bexar in 1835-36(all Copyright protected). Click on them to enlarge to full screen. According to Alcalde Franciso Ruiz (whose 1860 account must be one which you have read), he was ordered (as a civilian) by Santa Anna to attend to all the dead from the Battle of the Alamo, both Anglo and Mexican. He was ordered to cremate the defenders and bury Santa Anna's soldiers in the Campo Santo (the town cemetery). Following is my location-accurate depiction of the Campo Santo to the northwest of Bexar. It is the small walled square at the top of the picture and actually on the side of a slight hill. Our angle is from above the middle of the town and San Fernando Church. The Alamo is east of town, approximately 800 yards from San Fernando's bell tower, and not in this picture (way off over our right shoulder). The Campo Santo was a small affair, less than 50 yards on a side, and already overcrowded. This is where Alcalde Ruiz would have had to take the dead soldados. Here is an angle looking from the Campo Santo back toward the western edge of town. Sorry, I haven't placed tombstones yet -- or all the skulls that reportedly were lying around and in the pile in the middle. This shot is looking toward the Alamo compound (top-left) from the N.E. corner of Main Plaza. San Fernando Church is now to our back, and the Campo Santo way to our back. The long street foreground to background is Potrero Street (now Commerce) and leads to a footbridge (the only bridge crossing over the river). Beyond it is the Alameda -- the grove of cottonwood trees where Ruiz placed two of the funeral pyres, flanking to the left and right. Ruiz had all he could do to scounge up enough carretas (ox carts) and locals to transport both sets of bodies and all the lumber necessary for three funeral pyres brought from the neighboring woods. In spite of this difficult assignment, the fires were started by late afternoon on March 6.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 9, 2014 15:41:11 GMT -5
The funeral pyres must have been a no-brainer for Ruiz. There were dead defenders in the fort and a number in the field across the acequia to the east (left side of picture). Since the occupying Mexican army would be manning and living in the fort, no bodies could be burned within the compound (contrary to later depictions). Those outside the fort could be piled and burned in the vicinity where they fell. Thus, Ruiz created three pyres. One somewhere to the east of the Alamo and the other two (both major ones) at the Alameda (seen in distance 300 yards away -- 500 yards by way of the accessing streets). Since he ultimately placed these two flanking the Alameda (thus the road to and from Gonzales and the east), it might have been Santa Anna's ultimate warning to locals and "land pirates," serving as a horrific gateway to San Antonio. Francisco Ruiz was tasked with carting several hundred dead Santanistas to the Campo Santo. This photo is a depiction of the Potrero Street footbridge (at the site of the present Commerce Street bridge and the Casa Rio Restaurant). It would have been impossible to drive a carreta or wagon over this bridge and he would have had to use the low water ford near La Villita way downstream (to the right), thus giving him a journey of 1.05 miles to the Campo Santo gate. This footbridge was 300 yards by the streets from the main gate of the Alamo (seen in the distance). One can see how tempting it would have been for him to authorize dumping soldados in the river. Even closer at 200 yards was this spot down a dirt road (now Crockett Street) to the edge of the river. While no crossing of any kind was available here, it was an even more convenient dump spot. Later historians suggested that Ruiz, being the mayor, would never have done this because the river was the community's drinking water. This is just not true. The acequias (irrigation canals) were -- and they all branched off the river miles upstream.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 9, 2014 16:17:06 GMT -5
If Alcalde Ruiz did try to be responsible to Santa Anna's orders and began carting bodies to the Campo Santo, he would have come around from the Alamo (behind us and 500 yards to the right) and driven west through La Villita to the river ford in the distance beyond the dam which diverted river water into the Concepcion Mission acequia. Then he would have had to drive all the way through town and out the far side to the cemetery on the hill. Here is a reverse angle looking east over the ford and dam at La Villita and the street coming from the Alamo (off left) beyond the river bend upper-left. Eyewitnesses (Bexarenos) reported seeing hundreds of dead bodies snagged in and around that river bend (where the Arneson River Theater is now). The dam itself would have caused this for any bodies dumped upstream as suggested in my previous post. (Note: The wagon depicted is crossing in the opposite direction from how Ruiz would have crossed). It is plain to see how easy it would have been to simply drop bodies off into the river and avoid the time-consuming journey to the Campo Santo where there was no room anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 9, 2014 16:37:15 GMT -5
Some Thoughts...is it possible that the difference in reported losses at the Alamo to the Texans over 180 to mearly 200 that could be explained that there could very well have been a large number of civilians in there as well? I tend to doubt that any civilians (as in non-military townspeople) were still in the Alamo other than the noncombatants we are already aware of. That while the Anglo-Texans of Travis forces was burned; and the Mexicans soldiers were buried: that there could have been a number of civilians as well killed in the Alamo-and that a number of those civilians who were not burned -were the ones thrown into River? Again, no civilians, in my opinion. However, I do see a very strong possibility that, in the heat of the moment (pardon the pun), Ruiz' crew burned some Mexican soldiers with the Texian and Tejano dead. This fellow was under extreme pressure from Santa Anna and had to perform the impossible to appease him. Thus, "Whoops, I didn't notice that those twenty were soldados and not piratas, since they were in fatigues and not uniforms." or "Oh my, you have half the Aldama Batalion in that wagon. Never mind. Throw them on the pyre and I'll still say only 182, but keep your mouth shut or we will join them." I do indeed think that this (or something like this) could account for the difference in reports ranging from 182 to 257 dead defenders of the Alamo. A long way around the barn perhaps by way of explanation, but these are my "thoughts" complete with illustrations. Hope I didn't wear you out. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by pff on Jan 10, 2014 20:52:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 17, 2014 16:26:38 GMT -5
...a last minute thought...could some of the burned remains have been dumped in to the river as well...? Interesting thought, but I rather doubt it due to the pressures of the moment. My feeling is that each of these activities (i.e. identifying the leaders, burning rebels' bodies, removing soldados' bodies to the Campo Santo) were administered by Alcalde Ruiz as individual and seperate activities, possibly with different crews. Anything expedients would have been on a per-moment basis. Hence, the dumping of bodies in the river was only because the river was between the Alamo and the Campo Santo. Not so with the Alamo and the funeral pyres. It was easier to drag or cart the bodies to these sites and burn them than take them to the river. Just my gut feeling. If you mean (as I see you said) the "burned remains" rather than pre-burned Texians, then I think absolutely not. The goal on Santa Anna's part was to make the "lesson" visually evident. Hence, the burning of the bodies on both sides of the main road from the east. This is sort of in the tradition of decapitating the "traitor" and placing his head on a pike at the river crossing, as one actually done earlier in Bexar's Spanish history. A warning to others. All primary accounts indicate piles of remains until the dogs, relic hunters, the wind... and finally Juan Seguin a year later... removed it all.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jan 17, 2014 20:36:57 GMT -5
Interesting reading, Rich, and perfectly sensible. Having walked to the site of the former Campo Santo, I can agree with you that it would have been a haul. And in the grand scheme of thing, I think Santa Anna viewed most of the poorer troops s little more than cannon fodder. Perhaps his elite troops might have warranted proper burial, but I don't think he gave a fig for the poorer class. I can see him saying to simply toss them in the river.
As far as the Alamo's defenders, he did not consider them worthy of any honorable treatment. Burning them would certainly set an example in manner you describe. That is, akin to piking the head of an executed traitor on a bridge. Or like Spartacus' men being crucified along the Apian Way and left to rot on their crosses as a warning to others incliden to rebel.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 20, 2014 0:55:50 GMT -5
Interesting reading, Rich, and perfectly sensible. Having walked to the site of the former Campo Santo, I can agree with you that it would have been a haul. And in the grand scheme of thing, I think Santa Anna viewed most of the poorer troops s little more than cannon fodder. Perhaps his elite troops might have warranted proper burial, but I don't think he gave a fig for the poorer class. I can see him saying to simply toss them in the river. As far as the Alamo's defenders, he did not consider them worthy of any honorable treatment. Burning them would certainly set an example in manner you describe. That is, akin to piking the head of an executed traitor on a bridge. Or like Spartacus' men being crucified along the Apian Way and left to rot on their crosses as a warning to others incliden to rebel. Paul Exactly. I can't quite hear him "saying" to throw the soldados in the river, but I can indeed see him implying that this might be done -- and Ruiz quickly getting his "message."
|
|
|
Post by bobster021 on Mar 4, 2014 16:14:21 GMT -5
Is it possible that Ruiz was only counting the bodies of the defenders within the walls and that 60 or so were killed outside the walls?
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 23, 2014 16:27:36 GMT -5
Going on all sorts of precedents elsewhere I'd rather suspect that burials in the campo santo were effectively limited to the officers.
As to the numbers, the Texian sources are pretty consistent on something around 180. Looking at other battles there's an equally consistent tendency for the winning side to inflate the body count for the losing side so there's no reason why the Alamo should be any different
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Apr 24, 2014 19:38:20 GMT -5
Going on all sorts of precedents elsewhere I'd rather suspect that burials in the campo santo were effectively limited to the officers. As to the numbers, the Texian sources are pretty consistent on something around 180. Looking at other battles there's an equally consistent tendency for the winning side to inflate the body count for the losing side so there's no reason why the Alamo should be any different I've thought about this a lot over the years. Research and tally though we will (and thanks to folks like Tom Lindley who did their darndest to flesh out the higher tally of 257 or 262), how could there have been that many more when all the contemporary Anglo accounts (I think all) said 180 to 200. How could half a hundred or more men have remained unaccounted for AT THAT TIME? Thus, while I would still encourage the research and be open to higher figures, I would personally lean toward the number range reported by the Texians and Tejanos (San Antonio's alcalde Francisco Ruiz ultimately said 182 burned -- and he burned them).
|
|
|
Post by edward on May 1, 2014 11:34:56 GMT -5
Going on all sorts of precedents elsewhere I'd rather suspect that burials in the campo santo were effectively limited to the officers. As to the numbers, the Texian sources are pretty consistent on something around 180. Looking at other battles there's an equally consistent tendency for the winning side to inflate the body count for the losing side so there's no reason why the Alamo should be any different Recorded Mexican Soldier Burials at Camposanto Mar 4, 1836 Guillen, Joaquin, Captain of the Mexican Army, Granadiers, married to Urbana. Died from wounds from the battle of the Alamo. Mar 6, 1836 Alcala, Jose Maria, Lt. of the Mexican Army, married to Dolores from the permenente battalion of the Alamo. Died of wounds from the battle of the Alamo. Guerrero, Irineo, Lt. of the Mexican Army, married to Hermengilda. He was from the active battalion of San Luis Potosi. Torres, Jose Maria, Lt. of the Mexican Army of the battalion of the Sapadores. Single died of wounds from the battle of the Alamo.
Alamo defender, Esparza is also recorded being buried at Camposanto. Damacio Ximenes, another Alamo defender associated with the 18 pounder, was also most likely burned with the rest of the defenders. His niece and nephew applied for his land grant but did not pay the filing fees so it was never processed. I believe this paper work was found in the 1980's.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 1, 2014 14:35:00 GMT -5
Going on all sorts of precedents elsewhere I'd rather suspect that burials in the campo santo were effectively limited to the officers. As to the numbers, the Texian sources are pretty consistent on something around 180. Looking at other battles there's an equally consistent tendency for the winning side to inflate the body count for the losing side so there's no reason why the Alamo should be any different I've thought about this a lot over the years. Research and tally though we will (and thanks to folks like Tom Lindley who did their darndest to flesh out the higher tally of 257 or 262), how could there have been that many more when all the contemporary Anglo accounts (I think all) said 180 to 200. How could half a hundred or more men have remained unaccounted for AT THAT TIME? Thus, while I would still encourage the research and be open to higher figures, I would personally lean toward the number range reported by the Texians and Tejanos (San Antonio's alcalde Francisco Ruiz ultimately said 182 burned -- and he burned them).
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 12, 2014 18:48:44 GMT -5
Edward, dare we think that ALL the rest were thrown in the river? I doubt it. Most likely, only a few were recorded or acknowledged. Of course, as you brought to my attention, the Campo Santo was quite small -- and active (!!!) since 1808. How much room could there have been?
|
|