Thoughts on "Forget the Alamo"

[daverothe]

I recently re-read a book called "Forget the Alamo" by William Chariton and it really was an interesting read. If the Texans had enough advanced warning about the Mexican march to San Antonio, would they have chosen a more defensible location. The book suggests that they were able to forfify and defend Concepcion and that Fannin marched to relieve the garrison and the Texans ultimately were victorious. He adds later in the book that the title is not meant to be taken literally but rather is used to generate a alternate history perspective. So....my question is would an alternate location have worked to the Texans advantage? I know there is no right or wrong answers here....just generating discussion.

[Rich Curilla]

In my mind, it all still boils down to this. If the Alamo defenders hadn't been immortalized in blood on March 6, Independence would not have been won at San Jacinto on April 21. It was the Fall of the Alamo and the Massacre at Goliad that unified the Texians. If those events hadn't happened, the divergent attitudes and politics would have blown the Texas Army apart from inside. Revenge -- not a healthy motive -- won the Revolution.

[daverothe]

Rich, I can see that. It would be crazy to see how all of these personalities would have meshed together had the Texans won at the Alamo or any other mission.

[Bill Yowell]

Battles are not going to be won from the inside of any compound. You can to some extent keep the enemy at bay, but you can't defeat them. When Cos was beaten into submission in December, it was accomplished outside the walls of the Alamo. San Jacinto was also won out in the open, and even against a much larger Mexican force. Rich I agree 100%, the battle cries of "Remember the Alamo" and "Remember Goliad", provided an overwhelming motivation to beat the Mexicans forces' brains out, and they did so in a mere 18 minutes.

[Rich Curilla]

As for Wallace O. Chariton's book, I never got that one, although I do have his 100 Days in Texas and Exploring the Alamo Legends, both excellent additions to my Alamo library. And Wally is a nice guy too, but I haven't seen him in many years. I wonder why he never showed up on Alamo forums or joined the Alamo Society. Hope he's O.K.

[5thgentexan]

Totally agree with Rich. While thoughts of "what if" are largely subjective, I agree that simply fortifying one position with more men would not have achieved the same result. Concepcion was a few hundred Mexican cavalry in a wooded river bottom. Santa Anna would have massed an army of even more men and cannon than at the Alamo, and larger cannon, for a more heavily-fortified Texian position. Those old missions were not made to withstand cannon fire at all, much less what was available post the Napoleonic wars. Not to mention the logistics and details needed to house 600/800/1000 men, and for possible a long period of time. Having read about the disorganization, morale, and poor decisions of the Texian army's leaders at that time, such a plan just doesn't seem advantageous.
What defeated Santa Anna was getting him to split his massive army and artillery. And the cries of revenge were no doubt more motivating than being holed-up in an old mission and constantly bombarded for who knows how long. And with all the Texians in one location for a long siege, who knows what Santa Anna would have done to the rest of towns and settlements absent their men to try and get them to disperse.

[loucapitano]

Most military historians will agree that a fort rarely succeeds as an offensive weapon. A well fortified position may dissuade an enemy from attacking. But a determined enemy will eventually bring up sufficient force to overwhelm the defense. So the purpose of a defensive position is to deter an enemy attack or to hold off an enemy attack until a relief force can be brought up to engage the attacker and hopefully defeat him.
In my opinion, this was strategy of Travis and those who supported a defensive line across south Texas. It might have succeeded if Santa Anna had not invaded Texas in February instead of the Spring when he was expected. With the additional time to fortify both Bexar and the Alamo supported by a large force under Sam Houston, the revolution might have had a similar outcome. But the fly in the buttermilk is the intangible revenge factor "Remember the Alamo" that so unified the ragtag militia into the Army of Texas.
Lou from Long Island (expecting our first blizzard of 2016)

[rayjr]

Lou,
I am in Dutchess County NY at the moment - and I am hopeful that I just dodged snowmargeddon!  It seems so at this hour.  Not so lucky those Long Islanders

Anyway, I think the defensive structure only works when the opponent does not have siege equipment or time.  This is seen over and over and over again in Europe where castle fortifications abound.  I think most of this was born of Norman origin...

I think a tremendous point that Santa Anna divided his forces!  

And of course the MOTIVATION!

Ray