|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 6, 2008 9:08:15 GMT -5
Are we sure about this? I mean, at a distance of 300 yards, wouldn't that place the Mexican camp within range of the Alamo's guns? What is the evidence the Mexicans were encamped at the Alameda?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Jul 6, 2008 9:31:26 GMT -5
My earlier remark about the American army during the revolution specifically referred to the army at Boston but while there were certainly women following other American armies my impression has been that there were were a lot fewer of them than in the British and Mexican armies, but I'm happy to be corrected on this. On the Revolution...I believe Massachusetts provided a large part of the early Continental forces & they were noticable in the French & Indian War for NOT having female camp followers...Contemporary sources refer to their health suffering as compared to the other British & Provincial troops.... Steve A) "Massachusets provided a large part of the early Continental forces" because the fighting (Lexington, Concord, Breed's Hill, Siege of Boston) was in Mass. The first actual units of the Continental Army were ten rifle companies raised from PA, MD and VA (Continental Congress authorization of June 14, 1775) which subsequently arrived at Cambridge in the summer of '75. B) Massachusetts, like the other colonies during the F&I, utilized campfollowers. However, the behavior of regulars around Lake George in 1758 discouraged a number of MA, New England and NY woman from going into the field. Note: The 15 chaplains served all 6,000 Sabbath-attending MA provincials in the Lake George area but only one was needed for the regulars, an aggregate in need of moral guidance in the colonies. Now then, back to 1836.....
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 6, 2008 9:32:14 GMT -5
I also thought that at least some of the camp followers were prostitutes, perhaps providing other services as well, ala "The Great Western" (what a nickname!). Sounds like Miss Kitty's darker side! I apologize for the side topic in advance, but for the uninformed, the American soldadera known as the Great Western was Sarah Knight Bowman. This extremely large woman was christened the Great Western after the giant British steamship with this name. She was quite a colorful character in Texas and Southwest history. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 6, 2008 9:40:06 GMT -5
Are we sure about this? I mean, at a distance of 300 yards, wouldn't that place the Mexican camp within range of the Alamo's guns? What is the evidence the Mexicans were encamped at the Alameda? Glenn According to Almonte, the Matamoros Battalion was posted there starting Feb 24th. Other fortified camps according to Travis, La Villeta (400 yards), Powder House Hill (1000 yards), the old mill/Sugar Mill (800 yards).
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Jul 6, 2008 12:54:46 GMT -5
"the American soldadera known as the Great Western was Sarah Knight Bowman"
RR,
I believe this was her name while she was living at the Yuma Crossing after the MAW. She was married SEVERAL times over during her stint with the army!
SMc
edited for spelling!!!
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 6, 2008 14:14:01 GMT -5
You are correct Sir. She had a few married names and several aliases that looked similar to Bowman. I'm not sure how the different spellings helped her as she really stood out in a crowd or above it at 6 foot, 2 inches.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 6, 2008 14:46:53 GMT -5
Well...I'm trying, guys. I'll be the first to admit to being almost completely uninformed on the subject of the soldaderas. I seem to recall one of Santa Anna's lieutenants, Filisola I believe, was not exactly enthusiastic about the woman and children following the army into Texas. If I remember correctly, he felt the soldaderas consumed too much food and slowed the army down. In regards to the medical services, Santa Anna was heavily criticized by his own officers (not to mention many contemporary writers) for neglecting the medical needs of his men. De la Pena was particularly harsh in his condemnation of Santa Anna for not providing sufficient and professional medical personnel. So there was a Mexican encampment at the Alameda? How close was that to the Alamo? Glenn Its not a question of getting it right or wrong on this one Glenn, but rather a matter of emphasis. As we've been saying before the soldaderas were an integral part of the Mexican army from its inception until long afterwards, precisely in order to provide all the necessary supporting services. However, most of the time the Mexican army also tended to move fairly slowly, in generally good weather and through well-populated areas when it could (all things being relative of course in Mexico); what was different about the Texas campaign was not that Santa Anna "burdened" his army with camp followers, but that he led it over the mountains and across the desert in the middle of winter. Those soldaderas were with him in Zacatecas but nobody complained then. Whether or not his medical establishment was adequate is probably a topic in itself, but the point is that the soldaderas were not a substitute covering any failure to recruit enough doctors; they were there anyway, rain, shine or snow and irresperctive of who was in command
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 7, 2008 8:44:42 GMT -5
These positions appear to be fortified battery entrenchments and not the type of "tent cities" one would expect to find soldaderas going about their business. I feel the main Mexican encampment would have been somewhere behind the front line, somewhere less hazardous. I just don't see woman and children dodging cannon balls.
With this in mind, San Pedro Creek looks to be the safest and most obvious spot to bivouac. Lots of fresh water for drinking, washing clothes, bathing, cooking, etc. And plenty of room for pitching numerous tents. It may also have served as a latrine to carry human waste.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 7, 2008 9:06:47 GMT -5
No.
These were not batteries!!! but, troop encampments, though a howitzer was positioned for a time at the encampment in La Villeta. You must PERMANENTLY station troops around a fortress to maintain a siege. Now you may have a reserve position back along say a San Pedro Creek where you rotate troops out of line for a rest, but that's a totally different matter. Until Cos's arrival on March 3rd with his brigade of troops, there weren't enough troops to do even that.
Water was not a problem, The Alameda had the acequia, La Villeta and the mill had the SA River. The only one I don't know about is Powder House Hill.
These "fortified" encampments were probably nothing more than an earthen berm and a trench thrown up between the actual bivovac site and the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 7, 2008 16:31:07 GMT -5
Well, the Matamoros Battalion was certainly within easy range of the church guns. I'm curious as to why the Alamo didn't take advantage of the short distance and throw 6 and 12 pound iron ball into their camp. Or did they?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 7, 2008 18:38:19 GMT -5
Well, the Matamoros Battalion was certainly within easy range of the church guns. I'm curious as to why the Alamo didn't take advantage of the short distance and throw 6 and 12 pound iron ball into their camp. Or did they? Glenn I'd be curious to hear what Mark has to say, but I'm not too sure that the way the church battery was constructed that it could engage anything much beyond 10 degrees to the left or right. ?? It looks like it was designed to engage almost purely an attack coming out ofthe east from vic Powder House Hill. If anything it would appear that the cannon at the palisade or the tambour would be the best bets to engage the Alameda. But, other than the artillery duel, on the 24th, at least according to Almonte, the Texians didn't fire their cannon too much during the siege. I kind of expect that other than a shot every now and then to keep the Mexicans honest, Travis was hoarding his ammunition for the final assault.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 8, 2008 10:56:26 GMT -5
Thanks for enlightening me, Herb. I was under the mistaken impression the fortified encampments Travis spoke of were merely reinforced battery emplacements. After carefully re-reading Travis' letter and Almonte's diary, I could see what you were describing. I found the maps in Zaboly's "Blood of Noble Men" very beneficial in helping me locate and separate to actual battery positions and fortified encampments.
It still appears to me the San Pedro Creek area would have been utilized as an initial or base camp when Santa Anna first arrived. It's close proximity to the Military Plaza make it an ideal location before troops transitioned to the front lines.
Almonte only mentions a battalion of Matamoros (25 Feb) and the battalion of Jimenes (2 Mar) being positioned south and east of the Alamo. Aside from some of Sesma's lancers, do we know of any other battalions that were advanced to fortified positions? There must have been others.
Would you know the troop strength of the Matamoros and Jimenes Battalions?
Would some of the soldaderas have followed the soldados to the front lines or would they have remained in a base camp...wherever it truly was?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 9, 2008 11:21:04 GMT -5
Nofi, includes figures for the various battalions in the assault, but as the San Luis Journal shows, there could be a significant difference between the number of troops that participated in the attack and the actual strength of the battalion.
Glenn, I wouldn't necessarily assume that very many troops bivouacked in the open. For instance, the battalion, encamped in La Villeta probably occupied the houses and jacales, there. Probably, only a duty company or so manning the fortifications, etc. was actually exposed on any given day.
Likewise, most of the homes/buildings in Bexar would have been used by the Mexican Army that were not in the fortified encampments. Remember in war, armies generally take what they need/want.
I really don't think until Cos arrived, there were the numbers that would require a "tent city".
The one real notable exception to this is the cavalry, for the very nature of its operations, patrolling, screening, etc. they are almost constantly exposed. However, because of this, the nature of their operations, they very seldom erect tents, instead usually using canvas to make a hasty lean to, something quick to erect and more importantly quick to strike. This constant operational tempo and exposure, also helps explain the breakdown of the horses, mentioned elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 9, 2008 12:00:26 GMT -5
The book titled "Soldaderas in the Mexican Military" by Elizabeth Salas, has some brief but interesting information about the women who followed Santa Anna's army into Texas. According to the author:
"The chusma (mob) that accompanied Santa Anna's 6,019-man army consisted of "numerous children, women...curanderos (herb healers), and speculating merchants" Over 1,500 women and children marched from Laredo to Bexar. Fewer than 300 women and children actually reached their destination, as many died from starvation, thirst, and the harsh environment. Mexican Generals Filisola and Ramirez y Sesma both petitioned the authorities to eliminate the women from the ranks. They were informed that the women were a necessary evil because, without them, most of the men would desert. Soldiers, who earned twelve and a half cents a day, knew that without the women foraging and supplying other life-supporting kinds of services, they would starve to death."
"The people along the path of the march inland to Texas feared the chusma more than the soldiers. As one soldier observed, "Much like the locusts they destroy everything in their path." The women of the chusma criticized Ramirez y Sesma for not capturing the American steamboat, the Yellowstone, well within Mexican territory and in full view of a superior Mexican force. Only two days before the battle of San Jacinto on April 21. the women were separated from the men to speed up troop movements. The chusma women resented the separation."
There is an interesting paragraph about Panchita Alavez, "the Angel of Goliad," but little else about the 1836 Texas conflict.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 9, 2008 12:33:53 GMT -5
Yeah...these are good points, Herb. And I did consider the possibility and probability of the army being quartered within the town itself. But I wasn't all that sure just how much vacant space there would have been for hundreds of soldados and soldaderas. I don't recall reading anything on it or hearing about displaced bexarnos. At the very least, the officers were likely quartered in town. Santa Anna and Almonte, for sure. And Cos most certainly found a place to hang his hat when he arrived on the third.
In regards to rapid assembly, wouldn't it be easier and faster if your men were bunking in the same area or structure as opposed to having them spread out in different rooms/houses?
You may very well be right, Herb. I just like to examine all the possibilities, discuss them, and see what turns up.
Glenn
|
|