|
Post by billchemerka on Aug 5, 2007 13:47:25 GMT -5
Little did I know that Mark's letter of July 15, 2004 to me in which he included his Alamo Society membership/Alamo Journal subscription particulars would result in a monumental book for students of the Alamo. But there was a hint of what was to be: his colorful, detailed 1836-like artwork on the envelope! Mark addressed the envelope to me in a parchment-like scroll, and the left-hand portion of the envelope featured a wonderful rendition of the Alamo church! Mark Lemon had "crossed the line" in grand style. His subsequent slide presentation at the 2000 Alamo Society Symposium was impressive, to say the least. He followed up earlier this year at the 2007 Alamo Society Symposium with more information about his reserach, his Alamo models, photos from his forthcoming book and more. His introduction to various Alamo Society members has resulted in new friendships and new professional contacts. But, above all, his talent is the key to his future success.
Oh, yeah, I still have his envelope!
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Aug 5, 2007 15:45:38 GMT -5
Mark
After viewing the amazing pictures you, Gary, and Bill put together, a couple of things stood out to me.
First, I was surprised to see how little room there was for the three cannon at the rear of the church(Fortin de Cos). Makes one wonder "why" the defenders would go with three guns and not two. It sure does appear that servicing three cannon in that small space would be challanging...even dangerous.
The other thing that caught my eye was the row of small buildings North of the long barracks. From the picture I viewed, all of these small buildings or rooms appear to be thatch roofed. Did I see that right??
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 5, 2007 19:47:04 GMT -5
I will ask one question now, after all February is a long ways off! Mark, how did you depict the small gap north of the Long Barracks? The one picture of the whole compound, you show a trail leading from it out past the corral toward it looks like the NE and the Camino Real. I tried blowing up the picture for a close look, but I can't make out what you did there. ? Herb, The gap you mention was made according to Ivey's data from old surveys, which indicate a gap of some 5.5 feet. Of course, what filled this gap is unknown, but most agree that, since the gap was apparently a gateway and egress point during Mission days, which allowed access out to the fields during harvest, etc, having some strong gate of timbers there would give the Texians the same capability. I made a gate at this location, of heavy planks, and about 7 feet high. It should be noted that the backgrounds for the images posted on this site were photoshopped (beautifully) by Bill Hamilton for the recent reception in San Antonio. However, due to time restraints, I had no time to go over the terrain details for the surrounding areas with him. As a result, there are a few areas of inaccuracies, most concerning raising the ridgeline in the eastern background. These have been addressed and will be corrected by the time the book comes out.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 5, 2007 19:52:04 GMT -5
Thanks, makes sense - at least to me!
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 5, 2007 20:10:01 GMT -5
Mark After viewing the amazing pictures you, Gary, and Bill put together, a couple of things stood out to me. First, I was surprised to see how little room there was for the three cannon at the rear of the church(Fortin de Cos). Makes one wonder "why" the defenders would go with three guns and not two. It sure does appear that servicing three cannon in that small space would be challanging...even dangerous. The other thing that caught my eye was the row of small buildings North of the long barracks. From the picture I viewed, all of these small buildings or rooms appear to be thatch roofed. Did I see that right?? The area of Fortin de Cos is accurately depicted, as are the sizes of the guns. This highlights the fact, first brought up, I think, by Gary Zaboly, that the quarters were quite cramped up there for three guns. One thing's for sure: the old picture of one gun facing north, one east, and one south is a fantasy. The best that can be managed with three guns at once is a slight angling of the northern one, and the southern gun, in there respective directions. What most likely happened, is that one gun was pulled back to be serviced, while one or two guns were up and firing. Thus, a sort of "choreography" was worked out, which ensured adequate space to fire, as well as a higher rate of fire. I believe that with this system, one gun could fire about every 10 or 15 seconds or quicker, depending on the skill of the crew. Yes, you are seeing the row of houses north of the Long barracks correctly. In fact, this is one of the areas I'm most proud of, as I don't think they have ever been accurately depicted before. Zaboly came closer than anyone has up until now, but they were still too substantial. I was interested that absolutely no trace of these buildings was left even a relatively short time after the battle (1840's plats by Everett, Blake, and Giraud) I decided to revisit the primary source most reliable: the KEY to Jameson's 1836 map. He referred to these as houses "made from adobe picketed all around as in B (reast) W (orks)." Apparently he was not familiar with Spanish terminology enough to describe them as "jacal" but rather tried to use the best analogy he knew of: that is, the palisade at the south. He was trying to describe a front wall of posts, or "pickets." Working closely with Ivey on this, we both agree that the houses were possibly old adobe mission houses, partly fallen down, leaving the cross walls. The front walls have been repaired by the Compania Volante for trooper quarters in the early 1800's using jacale front walls, and they have been re-roofed with thatch. By the 1830's, they would have been in terrible shape, and by the 1840's, they would have all but disappeared. Mark
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Aug 5, 2007 21:01:26 GMT -5
Mark Thanks for the explanation - super. My next question was going to be: "What evidence did you use to support your conclusion in regards to the row of thatched buildings." But, you already answered it before I could ask. I must say, the section of wall with the thatched houses looks very vulnerable to attack. How do you defend it?? What's to stop an attacking force from spilling over that section of wall and into the compound?? I see it as a huge liability...hard to imagine the forts defenders didn't. If I was Travis, I would have had the roofs torn off and dirt piled up to make banquettes to effectively contest this section of wall. Since the defenders were hurting for firewood, I would have put the materials used to make the roofs to good use...but that's me. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 6, 2007 1:25:54 GMT -5
Can you remind me what evidence we have for the three guns in the Fortin de Cos.
The reasoning for the placement as shown is excellent, but I'm just a little puzzled as to why they were needed and why there was a requirement to be able to fire them in sequence.
On the original fireplan when Cos was defending the place against Texian rebels coming down the road from the colonies there would certainly be an argument for covering the Gonzales Road as I assume this position does - but afterwards with the threat coming from the west?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 6, 2007 1:58:05 GMT -5
Can you remind me what evidence we have for the three guns in the Fortin de Cos. The reasoning for the placement as shown is excellent, but I'm just a little puzzled as to why they were needed and why there was a requirement to be able to fire them in sequence. On the original fireplan when Cos was defending the place against Texian rebels coming down the road from the colonies there would certainly be an argument for covering the Gonzales Road as I assume this position does - but afterwards with the threat coming from the west? In the index for Sanchez-Navarro's map of the 1836 Alamo, item "C" reads in part: "Church in ruins, with a cemetary.On an esplanade formed in the chancel of the same, a high battery of three cannons was set up..." The other entries in the index make it clear that he was describing the defenses as used by the Texians and not the old arrangement used by the Mexicans a few months earlier. It is obvious that three guns were never intended to be crammed in this space and all fired at once, but rather that two could readily be fired at the same time, in generally the same, or in entirely different directions, while the third was beng readied, and awaited its turn. In this way, the rate of fire upon a threat from the east, northeast, or southeast, would be increased.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 6, 2007 6:14:59 GMT -5
That's what I thought. It all makes perfect sense except for that nagging question over the supposed threat from that direction, but then again I suppose that apart from that position there was very little artillery cover for the east side.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 6, 2007 9:21:38 GMT -5
That's what I thought. It all makes perfect sense except for that nagging question over the supposed threat from that direction, but then again I suppose that apart from that position there was very little artillery cover for the east side. Plus, you know yourself, when you take a position, other than trying to improve the defenses where you came in, you tend to leave the other defenses as they were, initially. While they may have controlled the Alamo for two months between battles, I think it may be argued that the Texians never moved beyond that initial stage.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 22, 2007 12:26:19 GMT -5
As I've mentioned on other tracks on other sites, Michael Corenblith met this *3 guns in the apse battery* question head-on when building the sets at Dripping Springs. As I think you know, the church was actually (for the first time in Hollywood history) built foot-for-foot accurate, and the walls the correct thickness. Michael's decision (most likely helped along by Alan Huffines, et. al.) was to only show two cannons up there, at slight angles north and south from straight east. They decided that three could not be serviced, perhaps never thinking of Mark's "choreographed" technique. This perhaps is a better answer, since in enables Sanchez-Navarro to be correct in his plat and description.
Could one or more of these have been a small tube mounted on a fortress carriage rather than a fieldpiece? This would allow more room on either side for operating it (them).
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 22, 2007 12:46:08 GMT -5
Its a good question Rich, I've always wondered just what evidence there is for placing the various guns on field carriages rather than truck carriages. The inventory of arms and munitions handed over by Cos' men in December 35 does specifically identify some guns as having carriages and I wonder if this should actually be read as (field) carriages.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 22, 2007 14:49:41 GMT -5
Maybe, these are some the questions Rick Range will answer.
Although, to me, it makes more sense that the larger pieces would be on garrison carriages vs field carriages. The largest common field gun at this time was still only a six-pounder. Of course 8 and 12 pounders saw considerable use in Europe during the latter part of the Napoleonic Wars. As field guns, however, Six pounders dominated in North America, during the Mexican War and the first year of the Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 22, 2007 15:20:51 GMT -5
I've always been particularly suspicious of renderings of the 18 pounder on a field carriage. It was originally a naval gun of course and the two guns over at La Villita are Long Nines, which again are naval guns, as was the gunnade.
I believe there is a reference to someone being paid for making wheels to get the 18 pounder up to Bexar, but reckon this will have been for a wagon or some kind of travelling carriage, rather than field carriage. In any case, when travelling, 18 pounders were invariably dismounted and carried flat on the trail rather than on the trunnions, simply because of the weight.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 22, 2007 15:48:16 GMT -5
Tom Lindley brought a photocopy of an account about the moving of the 18 pounder to Bexar, for us to look at a couple of years ago. I can't really recall too many details, I think Jim and Bob Durham also got to look at it maybe they might recall.
|
|