|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 11, 2007 9:03:21 GMT -5
Where are the guns in reference to Commerce St. or the Juarez Plaza?
AW
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 11, 2007 11:58:07 GMT -5
After the AS meeting is '06, I walked over and looked at the guns with some other attendees. I'm not clear anymore on their exact location. I haven't seen Bob Durham here in a while, but I think Bob was with us and may remember. Did you take any photos Bob?
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 11, 2007 12:40:09 GMT -5
Head south out of Alamo Plaza, along South Alamo Street until you get to La Villita.
Very helpfully there are maps of La Villita mounted on posts all over the place, but you then need to turn west along what I think is Villita Street, past the Cos house (worth stopping for a photo) and then the two guns are sitting at the west "gate" into La Villita on S. Pressa Street.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 11, 2007 20:25:16 GMT -5
That may be why I missed them. I think I went north-south through those shops and the Juarez Plaza and never saw them.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 11, 2007 20:34:18 GMT -5
There awful easy to miss. Every March, it seems Jim and I find something that we've somehow missed before. San Antonio really should put together some sort of guide.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 24, 2007 15:43:02 GMT -5
Unlike Allen I did get a look at those guns when I was over - but lost the photos when the card crashed. I was intrigued to recognise them instantly as "long nines" (naval guns - 9lbrs), but what's the evidence placing them on the Fortin de Teran? Back again, after being away for a week, and doing a bit of thinking in the meantime... I'd like to refine this question: I agree that the fact the guns are both spiked and have their cascables and trunnions smashed suggests that they were damaged at two different times, but before constructing a scenario which involves the north wall defenders being overwhelmed in that first rush but nevertheless still having time to spike their guns before falling back into the plaza, I'd like to again ask: 1. what is the evidence that these guns were in fact sited there - and used by the Texians? 2. is it not more likely that as particularly useful guns they were actually spiked by Cos' men back in December '35 and are two of the dismounted tubes depicted lying in the plaza awaiting repair and remounting at some indeterminate period? I know there's no mention of spiked guns in the list of ordnance turned over at the surrender, but I don't consider that significant as the spiking should not have been permanently disabling.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jun 24, 2007 17:35:38 GMT -5
Ampudia's report of March 6, 1836, inventorying the artillery, arms, and munitions captured in the Alamo includes: "Note: Of the cannons, two have been spiked and one is useless." Unfortunately, Ampudia didn't note the caliber of the two pieces or whether they were mounted or unmounted when captured. (See Hansen, The Alamo Reader, p. 376)
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 25, 2007 0:41:32 GMT -5
Unlike Allen I did get a look at those guns when I was over - but lost the photos when the card crashed. I was intrigued to recognise them instantly as "long nines" (naval guns - 9lbrs), but what's the evidence placing them on the Fortin de Teran? Back again, after being away for a week, and doing a bit of thinking in the meantime... I'd like to refine this question: I agree that the fact the guns are both spiked and have their cascables and trunnions smashed suggests that they were damaged at two different times, but before constructing a scenario which involves the north wall defenders being overwhelmed in that first rush but nevertheless still having time to spike their guns before falling back into the plaza, I'd like to again ask: 1. what is the evidence that these guns were in fact sited there - and used by the Texians? 2. is it not more likely that as particularly useful guns they were actually spiked by Cos' men back in December '35 and are two of the dismounted tubes depicted lying in the plaza awaiting repair and remounting at some indeterminate period? I know there's no mention of spiked guns in the list of ordnance turned over at the surrender, but I don't consider that significant as the spiking should not have been permanently disabling. I will make a feeble attempt to answer your question, but the guy you really need to talk with is Rick Range. I have spoken with him about your question, and his answer took about 10 minutes and was so detailed I am afraid I didn't absorb it all. The frustrating thing, to top it off, is that he does not have a computer, and only recently got a cell phone. If you'd like, I can give you his number, and he'll be glad, I'm sure, to speak with you and explain his process much more competently than can I. In any event, what I gathered is that he started with the known number of 18 servicable, mounted guns in the Alamo, and three tubes lying in the plaza unmounted making 21 in all. He then took the KNOWN guns, being the 18 pounder at the southwest corner, and the 12 pound gunade at the west wall, and placed them there. He then placed two three pounders at the two-gun position facing the rear of the Low barracks, as being the most likely place for guns of this caliber. He placed a 6 and a nine pounder at the northwest corner (Condelle), based, I think, on a Mexican account which identified the caliber of at least one of these guns. He placed a twelve pounder and two 6's in the Church, based on some reference that frankly I don't recall. I think that the twelve pounder was the same tube seen lying on the ground in the 1861 photo, and later seen after having it's barrel partially sawn off by Charles T Smith. This is seen in Nelson's book. He also has a source for placing the 4 pounder at the palisade. I think that he placed the remaining two 9 pounders at the north wall mainly on the basis of that location being the most practicable for guns of that calibre. It was a critical location, and there was a good, long field of fire out ahead of them. The other guns were placed at their respective locations based on the fields of fire available, and range capabilities for each location. Rick can explain all of this much better than I can, and can produce his sources. I really hesitated in replying to this post, because I realize that the answer is really not satisfactory. Rick's book should be out later this year, or early next year, and in it, he gives his sources and methods of gun placement.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 25, 2007 3:03:51 GMT -5
Your explanation is clear enough so I think I'll pass on that lengthy Transatlantic telephone call.
The reasoning is plausible if not perhaps a little ingenious and probably requires a seperate thread to itself, but I also think that there's a far simpler explanation:
As Tom Kailbourn points out, Ampudia's report notes that "Of the cannons, two have been spiked and one is useless."
As that corresponds exactly with the three unmounted tubes depicted lying in the plaza its surely much more sensible to conclude that they are the same
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 25, 2007 3:19:42 GMT -5
Your explanation is clear enough so I think I'll pass on that lengthy Transatlantic telephone call. The reasoning is plausible if not perhaps a little ingenious and probably requires a seperate thread to itself, but I also think that there's a far simpler explanation: As Tom Kailbourn points out, Ampudia's report notes that "Of the cannons, two have been spiked and one is useless." As that corresponds exactly with the three unmounted tubes depicted lying in the plaza its surely much more sensible to conclude that they are the same The problem with this scenario is that all three 9 pounders (the third is in Georgetown, I believe) were spiked. All three tubes are identical in style, size, and manufacture, and all three have been spiked...which may point to them being different than the two spiked guns Ampudia referred to. It seems to me that, if before the battle only two guns were spiked, and after the battle, we have three spiked guns, it stands to reason that at least one of them was spiked during the battle.As all of the Alamo guns have not been found, the possibility also exists that those two spiked guns may have been two of the missing 2-pounders. Until all guns are accounted for, we'll just never know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 25, 2007 7:22:11 GMT -5
Not necessarily. Ampudia's report is quite clear. There were two spiked guns and another which was unserviceable for some other unspecified reason. If a third gun (or more than three) was spiked that must have been done when the Mexican Army pulled out; either because they were on truck carriages which couldn't be moved or more likely because there were insufficient horses to haul them away.
Rick Range's theory is ingenious - and I use the word in its original sense - but still rests on too much deduction and supposition. There are elements which are plausible but I'm still not prepared to buy in to the theory that the Texians had time to spike any of their guns during what was a brutally short little battle - and certainly would not have had time to spike those on the north wall given the evidence that it was actually stormed very quickly indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 25, 2007 10:37:53 GMT -5
I, of course, am looking forward to Rick Range's book, and his logic may indeed be right on. But, I highly doubt that the defenders had time to spike any cannon on the North Wall. If these 9 pounders were indeed part of the Travis battery, they almost had to be spiked at some other time then the dawn of March 6th.
Now, cannon at other positions may very well have been spiked - the most probable scenario - to me is the Church battery.
I don't understand 3 cannon being spiked, Ampudia's inventory of captured armaments is very specific about only two tubes being spiked. If there are three spiked cannon, that we are sure are from the Alamo, at least one was spiked after the battle by the Mexican Army.
It then seems to me, that what probably happened was when the order was given to destroy the artillery that could not be hauled off, that some soldatos began spiking the cannon, until they were stopped, by some ordinance/artillery officer and directed to knock off the trunnions and casbels.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 25, 2007 14:16:09 GMT -5
I'll go along with all of that. I've been playing this kind of game for a long time and learned to distrust ingenious theories. The simplest explanations usually turn out to be the right ones.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 25, 2007 15:31:24 GMT -5
I'll go along with all of that. I've been playing this kind of game for a long time and learned to distrust ingenious theories. The simplest explanations usually turn out to be the right ones. I should have know better than to enter this fray without all the facts, but you just have to trust me that Rick has done years of research on this subject, and has actual references (Mexican) to particular calibre guns at the northern end of the fort, as well as elsewhere. He has not just relied on "ingenious theories." With that, I'll bow out of this discussion, because I simply do not have his references, and fighting someone else's fight is distasteful to me in the extreme.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 25, 2007 16:29:23 GMT -5
I should have know better than to enter this fray without all the facts, but you just have to trust me that Rick has done years of research on this subject... I'll bow out of this discussion, because I simply do not have his references, and fighting someone else's fight is distasteful to me in the extreme. Well said Mark. I'll happily fight with anyone face to face, but doing so by proxy is something to be avoided as we learned long ago on the other site
|
|