|
|
Post by silverwolf on Mar 6, 2015 10:04:39 GMT -5
Today being 179th anniversary of the fall of the Alamo, I just wanted to wish all the people who with pride, can look at a tragic moment in the history of Texas and understand that the battle had nothing to do with stealing land as revisionists would have the uninformed believe, and that indeed the battle caused a narcissistic dictator a valuable amount of time that allowed Sam Houston to rally enough troops to stomp the Napoleon of the West from not only running roughshod over Texicans and Tejanos alike, but also possibly making good on his threat to march on Washington D.C. itself.
Had Santa Anna not been so vainglorious, he would have left the defenders to bake in the sun while he continued his unopposed march across all of Texas, with the knowledge that the Alamo would be there when he came back. Houston may not have been prepared and we would have had a very belligerent Northern Mexico very close to the borders of the United States.
Lets all Remember the Alamo for the right reasons. And to the defenders descendants I stand and salute your ancestors bravery. Today, lets all cross the line in the sand.
Long Live Texas, God Bless the United States Of America.
|
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Mar 7, 2015 17:38:53 GMT -5
Your sentiments are right on target. The vainglorious Santa Anna was not the first to mistakenly think massacre was an effective way to intimidate an enemy. He wasn't the last as we have seen in all the bloody years before and after 1836.
There were 185 deeply personal reasons for staying at the Alamo.
When the time came, they stood together. "It speaks well..."
Lou from Long Island
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Mar 8, 2015 13:23:02 GMT -5
I am not at all sure that I can subscribe to the idea that Santa Anna could have bypassed the Alamo and maneuvered early against Houston. Generally I am in favor of aggressive maneuver to bring on decisive battle, but you also must consider the resources at hand to do it. With the initial strength of the vanguard force he lacked those resources, to both maneuver, and contain the Alamo garrison as well. He did need to contain that garrison, and that containment would require a good portion of the vanguard force dedicated to accomplishing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 11, 2015 19:30:30 GMT -5
Agree Chuck,until Santa secured his southern flank and had sufficent men to mask the Alamo further advance into Texas just wasn't practical.
|
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Mar 12, 2015 17:14:13 GMT -5
As I recall, some of Santa Anna's generals proposed waiting for the arrival of larger cannons that would have toppled the walls and left the surviving garrison to the bayonet. Ignoring that sound advice, he chose a bloody attack thus giving Houston time to retreat, form an army, give them a rallying cry to fight for and gain the final victory. Sounds pretty "vainglorious" to me. Then again, Santa Anna is an enigma and we're still trying to figure him out.
Lou from Long Island
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Mar 13, 2015 14:11:22 GMT -5
Lou: I look at what Santa Anna wanted to do a little differently than most I believe. If he could surprise Travis and company in San Antonio, and outside the Alamo, and I think he had sufficient intelligence about current affairs there to do so, he could dispose of them and draw Houston to him. That would entail a wait of only a few days to see if Houston would take the bait. Houston probably would not, but then Santa Anna could move into the interior. In any event Houston would not have the time he ended up with. I do not believe Santa Anna wanted any part of a siege of the Alamo.
Ignoring that advice, and not waiting for the heavier guns, I believe to be sound, although he would have to spend more resources in the assault.
Time is the most valuable commodity on the battlefield. Once lost it is never recovered. Also good enough beats the snot out of perfect three days late.
|
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Mar 28, 2015 13:07:36 GMT -5
Chuck, I agree that time in battle is a valuable commodity and can list any number of times where waiting was catastrophic in battle. At the same time, knowing when to wait before commitment has had it's share of success over the course of military history. It's the old "would'a-could'a-should'a" alternatives that those of us with historical interest find so fascinating and mind boggling. For example, I recall a recent Super Bowl that still fascinates and boggles.
Lou from Long Island
|
|
