|
Post by historybuff on Mar 8, 2014 7:07:52 GMT -5
Having recently been allowed to join the forum (Thank you!), I'd like to ask a question that hasn't been covered in my reading of the seasoned forom members. When did the compound lose the north, west, and south walls? I was a little kid the last time I was there, and all I remember is the church and the Long Barracks. Funny how some things stick to you.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 8, 2014 17:02:41 GMT -5
Having recently been allowed to join the forum (Thank you!), I'd like to ask a question that hasn't been covered in my reading of the seasoned forom members. When did the compound lose the north, west, and south walls? I was a little kid the last time I was there, and all I remember is the church and the Long Barracks. Funny how some things stick to you. First, welcome to the forum! (The membership requirements here aren't that exclusive, by the way ; we require a moderator to approve your application in order to keep the spammers at bay.) Though a consensus is often hard to reach with anything Alamo related, the best evidence has the actual battle lasting somewhere around an hour so, time-wise, everything happened quickly. The north wall probably fell first, but the rest is a little hazier and a lot likely happened concurrently. There were perimeter breaches at the north and south of the compound, so the fate of the west wall was sealed. The church was reportedly the last area to fall, and it's unclear how much of the east side fell due to an outside assault (as opposed to an attack from soldiers who had already breached the perimeter), especially since the initial attack was diverted toward the north.
|
|
|
Post by Riley Gardner on Mar 9, 2014 11:13:58 GMT -5
Having recently been allowed to join the forum (Thank you!), I'd like to ask a question that hasn't been covered in my reading of the seasoned forom members. When did the compound lose the north, west, and south walls? I was a little kid the last time I was there, and all I remember is the church and the Long Barracks. Funny how some things stick to you. Jim just gave a great answer, though I'm not sure if you're asking as to what happened to the walls in battle or afterwards, and why they are gone now? In terms of what happened to the walls: After the battle Santa Anna was wanting to establish the Alamo as a major fort within Texas, and a number of improvements were made on it to make it so (all of which are unknown). After the disaster at San Jacinto and the Mexican retreat from Texas, the order was given to reduce the Alamo to the point where it could never be used against them again, as the Mexicans assumed they'd eventual gain control over the territory again (which is me assuming why the order was given). They demolished the entire north wall, long barrack extensions, the single walls between the houses along the west wall, and all fortifications. All the cannon ramps, the palisade wall, etc. were burned or torn down. The calvary courtyard and cattle pen were also destroyed. In the following years, the houses remaining on the west wall became reoccupied and remodeled in many cases, and were forgotten to be a part of "The Alamo" as we now know it. As the city continued to expand, the houses were eventually torn down for larger structures, many of which still remain today. The Gatehouse was demolished in the 1880's in order to, as the city put it, "connect plaza de Valero to Alamo Plaza", and make one large city plaza we have today rather than two separate ones. And of course when the Alamo was going through the "second" battle, the second floor of the long barracks was torn off and the archway to the right of the church was built, all done to "center" the Alamo church and make it look like the most important aspect of the mission. Here's a cool image from George Nelson showing the evolution of the mission: Also, welcome to Alamo Studies!
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 9, 2014 12:08:06 GMT -5
Having recently been allowed to join the forum (Thank you!), I'd like to ask a question that hasn't been covered in my reading of the seasoned forom members. When did the compound lose the north, west, and south walls? I was a little kid the last time I was there, and all I remember is the church and the Long Barracks. Funny how some things stick to you. Jim just gave a great answer, though I'm not sure if you're asking as to what happened to the walls in battle or afterwards, and why they are gone now? In retrospect it looks like I completely missed the context of the question!
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 9, 2014 13:29:15 GMT -5
"The Alamo: An Illustrated History," by George Nelson is indispensable in answering your question. The physical Alamo deteriorated rather quickly in the years following the battle and did not achieve "shrine" status till some time later. Texas didn't really "remember the Alamo" in that sense for a while. By the time it did, most of the actual fort, where the fighting took place, was gone. This included the Long Barrack, which, as Adina de Zavala correctly pointed out, was one of the key locations of the fighting, where many defenders and Mexicans died. Once the army had completed its renovations in the 1840s and various private businesses had their way with the place, there wasn't all that much left work with in developing an historic site, except for the church, which by then had been adorned with its iconic gabled hump. That became "the Alamo" in most people's minds from then on. Here's a link to Amazon's listing of the Nelson book with several sellers. The author also may still be selling autographed copies of the book, but I don't have an address for him (perhaps someone else does) The book may still be available in the Alamo Museum Gift Shop as well. The third revised edition was published in 2009 and I believe is still the most recent edition. www.amazon.com/Alamo-Illustrated-George-S-Nelson/dp/0965915905/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394389956&sr=1-1&keywords=the+alamo+an+illustrated+historyAlso - I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the only original structures that remain from the 1836 Alamo are the (revamped) church and the front wall of the Long Barrack.
|
|
|
Post by Riley Gardner on Mar 10, 2014 1:42:13 GMT -5
Also - I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the only original structures that remain from the 1836 Alamo are the (revamped) church and the front wall of the Long Barrack. From my time working at the Alamo, I recall it being around 80% of the church being the original structure, while the Long Barrack remained a bit in question. It was around 20-40% depending on who answered, and that was only the western-most wall that was facing the plaza, as well most of the southern and northern ends of the that section of barracks, though I could be wrong. Most of it is a recreation, so when I was there touching the walls in the shrine was something very much against the rules (for obvious reasons), but it was never enforced for the LB. Jim just gave a great answer, though I'm not sure if you're asking as to what happened to the walls in battle or afterwards, and why they are gone now? In retrospect it looks like I completely missed the context of the question! Good information by any means, though, Jim!
|
|
|
Post by historybuff on Mar 10, 2014 11:34:58 GMT -5
Thanks folks! Great info-going to have to get that recommended book! Got another one for the forum to field. Are there any authenticated portraits of either Bowie or Travis? Seen the line drawings and sketches of the two, and Crockett's picture of course.
|
|
|
Post by Riley Gardner on Mar 10, 2014 12:30:01 GMT -5
Thanks folks! Great info-going to have to get that recommended book! Got another one for the forum to field. Are there any authenticated portraits of either Bowie or Travis? Seen the line drawings and sketches of the two, and Crockett's picture of course. Yes and no. Crockett is obvious authenticated, but Bowie and Travis remain in question. I think it's all subjective. Most people agree this was Travis, This is the only thing we believe was done within his lifetime, by Wiley Martin in 1835. I personally think it's Travis, though I'm sure someone on here would be willing to challenge that, which would be a good discussion: Also, this portrait is commonly believed to be Bowie, but I challenge that claim as well. I believe it's actually Bowie's brother, Rezin Bowie. A side by side comparison here: I think the key here is the widow's peak. Later portraits of Rezin don't have that feature, but some seem to hint that he was balding over time. Also, most accounts of Bowie claim he had lighter, possibly even blonde hair. Someone on here can question me about that, but I remember hearing that from some sources.
|
|
|
Post by historybuff on Mar 12, 2014 4:49:19 GMT -5
Asked and answered. I had a small wager with a friend. Looks like we're both somewhat correct. I'm suspicious of the knickleduster-handled knife, doesn't seem like something Rezin would have made. But who knows whether JB had the original, much less what happened to it after the battle. Trying to catch up on all the threads- lot to digest. Apologize for typo errors, redundancy, and spelling. Having a few "senior moments" lately.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 12, 2014 10:34:48 GMT -5
There is an excellent discussion of the Bowie portrait in two articles that appeared in Southwester Historical Quarterly. The first, by Don Arp, Jr., makes the case for it being a portrait of Rezin, rather than James. The second, by Joseph Musso, makes the case for it being a portrait of James: Arp, Don, Jr. “The Face Behind the Knife: A Study of the James Bowie Portrait Purchased by the Texas Historical Commission and the State Preservation Board.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 109, no. 3 (January, 2006): 303–17. Musso, Joseph. “A Reevaluation of ‘The Face Behind the Knife’.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 110, no. 3 (January, 2007): 363-378. As to that knife, I have seen little information on any specific "original Bowie knife" even existing, other than the knife that Bowie used in the notorious Sandbar brawl. Aside from that, there are only fictional or unsupported stories about Bowie even carrying a knife, let alone using it. There is some information regarding knives that Rezin Bowie made, some of which he gave away as gifts, which resembled the so-called Searles Knife. No doubt there were knives called Bowie Knives in circulation during Bowie's lifetime, and Bowie certainly might have had one, but it would be difficult to identify a single knife as the "original Bowie." Those that have survived from that period are of interest in any case since they show the types of knives that were used then and later. There are quite a few photographs taken during the Civil War that show various Bowie Knives, so knives called "Bowies" were common by that time. For more sources of information on Bowie, see our FAQ: alamostudies.proboards.com/thread/1339/bowie
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Mar 13, 2014 17:35:08 GMT -5
Regarding the Travis picture, I like to think it is of Travis, and it could well be, but Bill Groneman has pointed out ("Defense of a Legend" pages 104-5) that it first appeared in Frank Templeton's 1907 novel "Margaret Ballentine, or the Fall of the Alamo", and that there is no original copy that we know of, and that could be tested forensically.
|
|
|
Post by historybuff on Mar 18, 2014 5:54:56 GMT -5
I appreciate the feedback! Read Groneman's article as well as Rezin's statements, but haven't been able to mine all the info on the board. If I'm off topic, please excuse me. Suspect it will turn up at the "Roadshow" or Cristie's, if ever. Allen's thread on the knife was excellent. Couldn't ask for more, displays my ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by historybuff on Sept 12, 2014 5:53:49 GMT -5
I obviously don't know how to navigate this site properly, but I have a question? Does anybody know of a relatively inexpensive copy of "The Alamo Reader" for sale. I've been looking for some time, and the requested prices are comparable to my mortgage. Give an old man a break! I somehow think this should be somewhere else, but don't know how to post it properly. I apologize for my foolishness.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 12, 2014 14:52:17 GMT -5
Asked and answered. I had a small wager with a friend. Looks like we're both somewhat correct. I'm suspicious of the knickleduster-handled knife, doesn't seem like something Rezin would have made. But who knows whether JB had the original, much less what happened to it after the battle. Trying to catch up on all the threads- lot to digest. Apologize for typo errors, redundancy, and spelling. Having a few "senior moments" lately. The "knife" is nothing of the sort, but rather the hilt of a sabre. Somewhere in the dim recesses of my failing memory I have a recollection its one of the things pointing to the portrait being of Rezin rather than James Bowie, as the former was an officer of militia or volunteers at one point. As I also recall the particular model of the sabre has also been identified, but I'm not an expert and can't add anything to that.
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Sept 19, 2014 5:23:37 GMT -5
Does anybody know of a relatively inexpensive copy of "The Alamo Reader" for sale. I'd like to see it too, but have also been put off partly by the price, but also by one of the reviews in Amazon: I get the impression the book (and perhaps its selection of accounts) is biased towards the views of the author, and I suspect I would disagree with him on some issues.
|
|