|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 7, 2010 17:38:05 GMT -5
my concept of the battle is based largely on those contemporary accounts I've read, and archaeological reports of the battlefield (Fox, etc.). That's pretty much how I approach the Alamo, too: I didn't really rely too much on modern-day opinion unless it's backed up with some evidence of a like nature. Sage advice in general, Gary. Too often I've seen the same misinformation repeated without original sources being checked. I'd never quite thought about the two lines of defense in the way Potter describes them, but it makes sense. Re: Custer, I recently read or re-read most of the secondary literature, but I really got a sense of what went on there from Fox. Only after reading Fox did the excellent picto-map, sold at LBH, make sense to me. I'm looking forward to my visit there next month and I think I have a much better feel for events since reading Fox. In fact, I get the feeling that most authors have relied on him perhaps more than they let on. Allen
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Aug 8, 2010 4:36:15 GMT -5
Gary: Can't disagree with a word of what you said. I knew Myers drew heavily on Potter, and assumed that is where it came from. The Marine reference was meant more toward leadeship, training, and planning. The long barracks as a citadel would have made the plaza a deathtrap. Would love to see the painting. Did you do it on site? Chieftain, The painting was reproduced in Urwin's UNITED STATES CAVALRY circa 1983, also in MONTANA Magazine in 1976. I did it at home! I re-read Myers's book recently and of course it was disappointing. But I can never forget my initial, awestruck impression of his THE ALAMO, when I was about 14, at a time when there were really only three available "adult" books on the subject...and at a time when we youngsters almost bought everything we read.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Aug 8, 2010 4:50:31 GMT -5
my concept of the battle is based largely on those contemporary accounts I've read, and archaeological reports of the battlefield (Fox, etc.). That's pretty much how I approach the Alamo, too: I didn't really rely too much on modern-day opinion unless it's backed up with some evidence of a like nature. Sage advice in general, Gary. Too often I've seen the same misinformation repeated without original sources being checked. I'd never quite thought about the two lines of defense in the way Potter describes them, but it makes sense. Re: Custer, I recently read or re-read most of the secondary literature, but I really got a sense of what went on there from Fox. Only after reading Fox did the excellent picto-map, sold at LBH, make sense to me. I'm looking forward to my visit there next month and I think I have a much better feel for events since reading Fox. In fact, I get the feeling that most authors have relied on him perhaps more than they let on. Allen Allen, This whole, very long subject thread exists mainly because the author did not do his homework---or at least was very selective about what sources to quote, and ignoring other, often more important documention. But then we all know that!
|
|