|
Post by marklemon on Dec 23, 2008 14:16:37 GMT -5
In the Overview of Alamo Archeology thread in the Alamo Archeology section, Bruce Moses has posted a less-distorted view, from directly overhead. If you look at the tiny white, one-story building immediately to the right of the Medical Arts Building/Emily Morgan Hotel, that is the History Shop. NOW, look at the plan of the Alamo superimposed on the photo. The north wall of the cattle pen is slightly misaligned, and one should look not at the yellow line marking that wall, but the actual wall in the photo. As one can see, that is about 90-100 feet in front of the corner gun position. This illustrates to me that a force coming down from the NE, on the WESTERN side of the acequia, should not be that far out to the NE, but should be over more to the left, or west. I think a key in this understanding is to locate the line of the acequia as it moves north from the church, and to keep in mind that a large flooded area would be almost directly BEHIND and to the east of the History Shop This understanding will make what I am saying more clear.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 23, 2008 14:34:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 23, 2008 15:31:01 GMT -5
In the Overview of Alamo Archeology thread in the Alamo Archeology section, Bruce Moses has posted a less-distorted view, from directly overhead. If you look at the tiny white, one-story building immediately to the right of the Medical Arts Building/Emily Morgan Hotel, that is the History Shop. NOW, look at the plan of the Alamo superimposed on the photo. The north wall of the cattle pen is slightly misaligned, and one should look not at the yellow line marking that wall, but the actual wall in the photo. As one can see, that is about 90-100 feet in front of the corner gun position. This illustrates to me that a force coming down from the NE, on the WESTERN side of the acequia, should not be that far out to the NE, but should be over more to the left, or north. I think a key in this understanding is to locate the line of the acequia as it moves north from the church, and to keep in mind that a large flooded area would be almost directly BEHIND and to the east of the History Shop This understanding will make what I am saying more clear. OK, Mark, Iwas remembering the History Shop as more NNE of the corral and it is more due NE, this picture does clarify things, but doesn't change what I feel is the very high improbability of what you suggest. It is about a 45 degree angle from the NE cannon position to the History Shop (off of the north-south running wall that makes up the eastern side of the cattle corral. Looking at LaBastida and running a 45 degree line that direction and distance looks to me that it places the dig site in the middle or at least the western side of the flooded area (also if you run the acequia as you said out of today's Alamo compound and across the street its hard for me to reach any other conclusion). This to me indicates that the attack came from the east and was probably using the trail/road to the Alamo's "east gate/gap". I think the same photograph vividly shows the very high improbability of this attack coming from the south. The constricted space between the Gift Shop (think flooded acequia) and the walls just will not support moving 300 men . I think if you look at the photograph on page 26-27 of Nelson 2d Edition, these points are even better illustrated. If the attack did originate against the Church/Sacristy and was repelled - it would make more sense that the men fell back across the acequia moved north, control was reestablished and reattacked crossing the acequia north of the cattle corral. But, the problem here is time. For according to Sanchez-Navarro, some of Duque's men and the Reserve were intermixed with Romero's men as they broke in. Bottom line these pictures and the artifacts, suggests to me that Romero's men attacked out of the East, headed for the gate/gap between the Long Barracks and the Extension, came under fire from the Cattle Corral while crossing (or exiting) the flooded area as shown by the artifacts found at the History Shop, was pushed further North as related by Filisola and broke through the Long Barracks Extension at the NE point of the Alamo as related by Sanchez-Navarro.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 23, 2008 16:48:53 GMT -5
Herb, Well, based on what you are now saying (from the east as opposed to from the NE) then we are not so far apart in our thinking. My main point all along is that the column came from SOMEWHERE to the east, (call it south if you want, south east, or just east), but the main point I was trying to make is that they most likely did not come down from the north, along the west side of the flooded area. WHEREVER in the east they came from, they certainly passed in front of the NE corner of the cattle pen, where they were fired upon by the gun placed there. I believe that they were either approaching the cattle pen directly, as you suggest, or were possibly moving past it in order to join with men of Duque's column at the north. Somewhere in all this process, some of these men from the east gained access to the cattle pen, and took that position, an event which likely drove one of the three supposed "breakout" groups from the mission. And always remember, while Labastida's plat is relatively accurate, but the precise accuracy of his placing, size, and shape of the flooded area is not known, so there may have been more room in reality than appears in his map. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Dec 23, 2008 19:36:14 GMT -5
Hey Paul, that's "Hardin". Better get it right, the man is on board here and you're sure to cross paths in Bexar come March. The doc's a big guy, too... Jim Le oops! My head's been under water with a wicked head cold for more than two weeks. Sorry for the typo! Um ... how big is he? Paul
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Dec 23, 2008 19:51:53 GMT -5
This discussion clearly needs visual aids. I suggest that we suspend any more hair-pulling until such time (March?) as we can get together with a large map (I'll provide) and go over the possible scenarios. It is also clear that the History Shop location is not clearly being visualized, with regards to how the artifacts found there comport with possible Mexican movements. We'll have to literally stand there and look at the place to get the actual concept. Nothing beats on-site evaluation. Mark The maps are helpful, but I think the only way to get a true feel for the lay of the land is to do what Mark suggests. Meet and walk the area. I think that's the only way we'll get a real sense to distances and locations. Good suggestion. Paul
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 24, 2008 11:26:06 GMT -5
The tour that Mark did last March was terrific. I think the only area we didn't cover was to the east. I'd like to do that because I'm completely clueless about the distances we're talking about. My only real points of reference are the fire house and the Crockett Hotel.
AW
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 26, 2008 9:29:25 GMT -5
How do we know the recovered artifacts were not fired from one of the church guns. Judging by all the pictures I've seen, including Bruce Moses' overhead view, Mexicans in the area of discussion would have made an easy target for whichever cannon in fortin de Cos was pointed north. Are we assuming the church guns were firing solid shot and not canister and/or langrage? Just a thought.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 26, 2008 20:21:09 GMT -5
Glenn, While its certainly possible that some of the artillery artifacts were from the Fortin de Cos, the fact that so many of them were found in rather close patterns indicates to me that they had not traveled very far from the muzzle of the gun, as there was not a great deal of separation in some. Again, there's nothing to say that some of them were not from the church, but if the church gun facing north was firing in that area, one can reasonably assume that the cattle pen gun, being at a much closer range, would have an even better shot at them. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 30, 2008 11:48:32 GMT -5
Glenn, While its certainly possible that some of the artillery artifacts were from the Fortin de Cos, the fact that so many of them were found in rather close patterns indicates to me that they had not traveled very far from the muzzle of the gun, as there was not a great deal of separation in some. Again, there's nothing to say that some of them were not from the church, but if the church gun facing north was firing in that area, one can reasonably assume that the cattle pen gun, being at a much closer range, would have an even better shot at them. Mark Glenn, Besides what Mark, says above, I think it's very improbable and perhaps not even possible. If you use Mark's book, and look at the Church battery, for a gun to fire and hit a point NNE of the cattle corral, would require that the cannon had to be oriented around due North. To do this would require rotating one gun from its eastern orientation to a northerly one, and pulling the other two guns back toward the rear of the cannon platform, so as to be out of the first gun's recoil. While possible, it's a time consuming process, especially for men only recently awakened with the Mexicans already at the wall. It seems far more logical that the much simpler explanation of a cannon shot from the corral cannon is what happened. Besides which, this particular cannon shot may just not be possible. I'm not sure of the angles, but the northern vertical wall of the Church (that was not taken down by Cos) may interfere with this specific shot. Remember this battery was built by the Mexicans to orient on a Texian advance from the East, what limited traverse they had was primarily to cover the open rising ground east of the acequia. The cannon mounted in the church probably had the most limited fields of fire of all the Alamo cannon. Not only were they limited by the north and south vertical walls, but the confined space for three cannon to operate in. Again, I'm not sure, if the north wall would limit the traverse for this particular shot or not, but it's a factor to keep in mind.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 30, 2008 14:14:08 GMT -5
I have to retract my previous post to Glenn, regarding the possibility of the cannister and langrage as having come from the church battery. (It always helps, in every case, to consult the primary sources, as I'm discovering to my chagrin!) Here's what Sanchez Navarro says about this battery: "C. Church in ruins, with a cemetery. On an esplanade formed in the chancel of the same, a high battery of three cannons was set up and named Fortin de Cos. (It was) not very practical because it COULD BE USED FOR FIRING DOWN ONLY TOWARD THE EAST (AND BECAUSE OF) A SLIGHT AND CUMBERSOME DECLIVITY TOWARDS THE NORTH......."(emphasis mine).
This makes sense when one envisions the firing procedure of a gun in those days. The gun had to be run back about one gun length from the wall in order to load it, then be run up again to the wall to fire. If as SN says, the platform's surface had a slight and cumbersome declivity towards the north, this would preclude the gun's being run back after each firing, as the gunners would have to, quite literally, push the gun uphill in order to service it. It could however, be possible to service a gun on such a surface, if the gun was oriented towards the east. The gun in such a position would have been slanted somewhat off level towards the north, but could conceivably be run back and forward again, although at an odd angle. So based on this, it is next to impossible that the fragments came from the church battery. Sorry for not catching this earlier. Mark
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 1, 2009 0:19:20 GMT -5
It all sounds good to me guys. So my next question is; where was Romero's column initially positioned in the morning and what was his objective? He had six ladders with him and I'm guessing each ladder was any where between eight to ten feet in length. The northern courtyard walls were a short four and a half feet high, ladders were hardly needed. And, if you recall, DLP stated the three gun battery from the church ripped into the flanks of Romero's column causing it to do it's shift to the northwest and mingle with Duque's column.
And another problem I'm having is the location of Romero's column in relation to the flooded area. I can't imagine Santa Anna would expect Romero's men to swiftly and silently move through a wet, marshy, and mucky obstacle. It just doesn't make sense. It's beginning to sound and look like Romero's starting position was due east of the church and that his objective may have been fortin de Cos. That would explain the necessity for ladders and it also places Romero in a position to take fire from the church. Now, I can see Romero's column becoming disorganized and running northwest past the northern courtyard, taking heavy fire and driving the rattled soldados even further to the north until they merged with Duque's men.
These are just some thoughts. I'm still trying to get all of this straight in my head.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 1, 2009 8:15:39 GMT -5
I really can't see Romero being tasked with taking the Fortin de Cos. In the first place if he did have such a specific objective it would have been set out in his orders. Secondly it was always going to be a difficult objective to be assaulted out of hand and probably quite pointless. Thirdly, the general outline of Santa Anna's operational plan is quite clear; massive assaults on the vulverable northern end of the compound, a secondary attack (by Morales) on the main gate - however that panned out - and Sesma waiting off to the east for the inevitable breakout. A frontal assault on the Fortin de Cos doesn't make any sense in this context.
A agree that some aspects of Romero's attack do need to be cleared up, but I don't think this scenario is going in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on Jan 1, 2009 9:40:11 GMT -5
It seems that the issue of using the guns from the Fortin de Cos to defend an attack in the NE quadrant is settled but I thought you might be interested in seeing the field of fire that would have been possible. The link below is to a photo of the view to the north from the Fortin de Cos using data from Mark's book. (The area of the flooded field is only an approximation.) i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp276/jrboddie/NorthernView-1.png
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 1, 2009 10:20:36 GMT -5
Stuart,
I agree with you. Believe me, I've been struggling with this one ever since the artifacts were discovered. Up until recently, my belief was that Romero's attack originated from a point northeast of the flooded area and was targeting the jacales. But the artifacts and Mark's premise cause some problems with that idea.
Maybe Santa Anna was unconcerned about the flooded ground and Romero's column did move through the muck, as foolish as it sounds. Another possibility could be the size of the "wet spot" decreased significantly from the time Labastida made his map. Perhaps the water level dropped enough to create some additional "dry" areas for Romero's men to move through without getting bogged down.
Again, I'm just thinking out loud and putting ideas out there for discussion. This is really bugging me.
Glenn
|
|