Post by elcolorado on Apr 26, 2008 9:38:07 GMT -5
Wolf
I must say, you make a good case. The sloping terrain may have been one reason why a direct assault on the west wall didn't factor onto Santa Anna's attack plans. It doesn't appear conducive to large scale military maneuvers. But I don't see the terrain as so unsuitable that an attack on the west wall could not be carried out. From the looks of it, Santa Anna could have gotten his men into position safely and unobserved by staying below the line-of-sight of the garrison and guns. So the terrain could have provided somewhat of an advantage.
If we consider a few engagements in the American Civil War we can find a couple of examples of "attackers" making assaults on fortified defensive works on elevated positions. "Little Round Top" at Gettysburg, The numerous redoubts at Vicksburg, and the heights of "Lookout Mountain." These are just a few examples of where sloping or steep terrain did little to discourage an attack.
Now, back to the Alamo. In my view, the Texans could not afford to assume, second guess, overlook, underestimate, ignore, or dismiss anything. Travis should have prepared the walls for an attack coming from any and all directions. When your enemy has the initiative, all you can do is prepare and respond.
I agree with you on the availability of materials. This would certainly have posed a problem. There may or may not have been adequate resources to utilize. We simply don't know. However, in light of scarce materials the defenders could have gleaned what they needed (lumber) from gun ramps and platforms as well as any jacales. Desperate situations call for desperate measures.
Wolf, the next time we're back in San Antonio we should take note of elevation changes toward the river if they still exist.
Glenn
I must say, you make a good case. The sloping terrain may have been one reason why a direct assault on the west wall didn't factor onto Santa Anna's attack plans. It doesn't appear conducive to large scale military maneuvers. But I don't see the terrain as so unsuitable that an attack on the west wall could not be carried out. From the looks of it, Santa Anna could have gotten his men into position safely and unobserved by staying below the line-of-sight of the garrison and guns. So the terrain could have provided somewhat of an advantage.
If we consider a few engagements in the American Civil War we can find a couple of examples of "attackers" making assaults on fortified defensive works on elevated positions. "Little Round Top" at Gettysburg, The numerous redoubts at Vicksburg, and the heights of "Lookout Mountain." These are just a few examples of where sloping or steep terrain did little to discourage an attack.
Now, back to the Alamo. In my view, the Texans could not afford to assume, second guess, overlook, underestimate, ignore, or dismiss anything. Travis should have prepared the walls for an attack coming from any and all directions. When your enemy has the initiative, all you can do is prepare and respond.
I agree with you on the availability of materials. This would certainly have posed a problem. There may or may not have been adequate resources to utilize. We simply don't know. However, in light of scarce materials the defenders could have gleaned what they needed (lumber) from gun ramps and platforms as well as any jacales. Desperate situations call for desperate measures.
Wolf, the next time we're back in San Antonio we should take note of elevation changes toward the river if they still exist.
Glenn