|
Post by stuart on Jan 5, 2008 11:55:00 GMT -5
Alright, if you don't like the word "dispute" I'll cheerfully withdraw it, but at the same time I have to re-iterate that my position is a carefully considered one which doesn't "blindly" follow anything. As I've said before I'm happy to agree to disagree with you - and with your interpretation of the evidence. I have the greatest of respect for your research and the effort put into your model; I just don't feel obliged to "blindly" accept everything you've shown
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 5, 2008 13:32:58 GMT -5
Alright, if you don't like the word "dispute" I'll cheerfully withdraw it, but at the same time I have to re-iterate that my position is a carefully considered one which doesn't "blindly" follow anything. As I've said before I'm happy to agree to disagree with you - and with your interpretation of the evidence. I have the greatest of respect for your research and the effort put into your model; I just don't feel obliged to "blindly" accept everything you've shown Bottom line: citing someone's INTERPRETATION of the record is not citing the record, just his interpretation of it. An embrasured position is supported not only by a perfectly reasonable reading of the archaeological data (admittedly, while persuasive, it's not conclusive one way of the other) as well as THREE specifically drawn maps/plats by an eyewitness. You are perfectly free to disagree with any or all of my stated beliefs, or model-depictions... I just will not accept anyone who is not familiar with the lunette data, turning around and telling me my depiction of an ambrasured lunette disputes that data. And agree with Jake all you want..he's certainly worthy of great respect....I agree with many, many of his positions myself, but I took the trouble to review myself the data, before simply agreeing with him. He's good, but he's not God.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 6, 2008 0:41:43 GMT -5
Glenn (from God -- catchy title; or perhaps it should be "not-God"?): I see both here and in the Labastida map thread your interest in the S-N maps and information, and I know Mark has a strong interest in his depictions. We can shift over to discussing/arguing about S-N if you would be interested - lots of stuff to go over there, including some curious things that make me wonder where he got some of his ideas. I think I've recovered from being ripped apart by Lindley when I insisted on thinking there was some truth to S-N, his maps and his writing -- in spite of Mark's accusations that I think so little of him. I think I'll stick in a smiley -- be contemporary!
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 6, 2008 11:47:10 GMT -5
Nah...not really, Jake. What I do find interesting is the contrast between the two maps. S-N certainly has a lot of detail in his sketches and descriptions that I find intriguing, whereas LaBastida's rendition appears very simple and straight forward...pure. I don't have a favorite or prefer one over the other if that's what you're hinting at.
I'd be happy to hear your thoughts about S-N, Jake. However, since this is the "Morales" thread we should hop over to the appropriate spot.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 6, 2008 23:55:36 GMT -5
I have to admit, after sleeping on this theory and giving it some thought it sounds pretty reasonable to me. I think it would make sense to withdraw the guns from the lunette at night, not to mention the gun crews. The only problem with this premise is that the number of cannon in the Alamo just got reduced by two. But it is an interesting idea.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 7, 2008 12:34:36 GMT -5
I have to admit, after sleeping on this theory and giving it some thought it sounds pretty reasonable to me. I think it would make sense to withdraw the guns from the lunette at night, not to mention the gun crews. The only problem with this premise is that the number of cannon in the Alamo just got reduced by two. But it is an interesting idea. Glenn I don't know Glenn, to me the theory of withdrawling men from the tambour, just doesn't make a bit of sense - and there is nothing to base the theory on historically or tactically. The Main Gate is the one place above all others that would be actively manned 24 hours a day. You just don't go to bed at night and not lock the front door when there are known prowlers operating in the neighborhood! Now, I can buy an argument that there were only a couple of guards in the tambour at night - and that they may well have been caught sleeping when the Mexicans attacked. But, I cannot buy that the position was unmanned and the cannon withdrawn at night. That theory just simply violates every fundamental dealing with security. I can't see (without evidence) that even Travis was that incompetent. But, then that's just me! ;D In fact, I think the argument could be made, that the cannon in the Tambour were the only ones loaded and manned at night!
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 7, 2008 18:23:04 GMT -5
"Sometimes, fatigue slips one past the goalie." I always say. Those are good points, Wolf, and I have no disagreement with you. After all, it is the main gate we're talking about and not some common defensive outwork. I don't know what I was thinking...probably not enough caffeine. Although an interesting theory and not beyond the realm of possibility, in all likelihood, the Texans would have been very protective of the "front door" and prudent with it's security. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 7, 2008 21:04:51 GMT -5
"Sometimes, fatigue slips one past the goalie." I always say. Those are good points, Wolf, and I have no disagreement you. After all, it is the main gate we're talking about and not some common defensive outwork. I don't know what I was thinking...probably not enough caffeine. Although an interesting theory and not beyond the realm of possibility, in all likelihood, the Texans would have been very protective of the "front door" and prudent with it's security. Glenn Glenn & Wolf, Exactly the point I was trying to make-that the main gate was exceptionally important, and would not have been protected, at least by the Texans, by some type of minor, low mounded "security checkpoint." Speaking of which, I recently shared with Jake a theory I have been toying with, that provides answers for the following considerations: The new theory may explain: 1. How the Texans may indeed have had a different philosophy, born of their realization of their inferior numbers, when it came to the Lunette. 2. With this difference in mind, the small interior two-gun battery is also understandable 3. The theory explains, as a result of this difference in concept, how both an embrasured AND a barbetted lunette/tambour may have existed (not simultaneously). and finally,: 4. A strange detail of Sanchez-Navarro's lunette is explained. I am working on fleshing this out at the moment, and will present it on the forum when it's complete. Mark
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 7, 2008 23:01:45 GMT -5
Sounds good, Mark. You've certainly piqued my interest!
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 8, 2008 11:38:09 GMT -5
Good promo, Mark -- make 'em tune in!
Now all you need is a few sponsors and we'll have a show.
Glen, I was just figuring we needed to get a wider worldview than just Labastida. In fact, there's a curious exercise one can do, where you take Jameson's letter, the Labastida map, and the SN map, and work out (in Jameson's case, approximate) where the various activity spots are they indicate in their indices, and see if anything makes sense, shows continuity, change, whatever. I wrote up something on this, somewhere ... I'll dig around and find it.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 8, 2008 17:46:33 GMT -5
Good promo, Mark -- make 'em tune in! Now all you need is a few sponsors and we'll have a show. Glen, I was just figuring we needed to get a wider worldview than just Labastida. In fact, there's a curious exercise one can do, where you take Jameson's letter, the Labastida map, and the SN map, and work out (in Jameson's case, approximate) where the various activity spots are they indicate in their indices, and see if anything makes sense, shows continuity, change, whatever. I wrote up something on this, somewhere ... I'll dig around and find it. Nothing quite so crass as that, Jake. I'm just still formulating this scenario, and cross-checking my facts before I dump everything out there. But I did think it was important enough to at least mention. After all this bickering about embrasures vs en barbette, I felt it may be interesting to mention that a POSSIBLE solution may have been found.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 26, 2008 11:29:06 GMT -5
Until, the recent discussions, I never really understood how grossly vulnerable the SW corner was.
Jake's comments about the depth and width of the acequia and that it was only 60 feet from the walls, and Tom's (trk) post that the Charli house was only 40 feet from the walls is almost astounding.
In the army we used to discuss how difficult it was to cross the last 200 yards to close with the enemy during an assault, and here at the Alamo the Mexicans had approaches to the SW corner that provided cover and concealment to almost within spitting distance!
My hat's off to Jake, Craig, Bruce and everybody else that is/has worked so hard to understand the physical aspects of the compound - you can't really grasp the battle if you can't understand the ground it was fought on. To me this is a great illustration of why a book like Mark has been working on is so needed. Thanks all!
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 26, 2008 13:46:04 GMT -5
Wolfpack, Yes, the proximity of this house was one of the first ,glaring things that stood out for me when I built the model. In fact, when Gary came to my house to photograph the model, this closeness was, I think, the first thing he mentioned. It is just stunning how different things look, and how much more clear various issues become when looking at something in 3-D (as long as it's accurate) as opposed to a 2-D map or plat. This has been the most important by-product of the book for me. This model needs to be somewhere in San Antonio, where serious students can access it and use it as a study guide.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 12, 2008 13:06:33 GMT -5
In the Structure of the Alamo thread Allen asked:
"And what about that rather massive lunette? Does anyone think that Morales attacked that position, or went instead directly for the southwest corner and secured the gate once inside the fort?"
My opinion was already leaning toward there was no attack on the tambour/lunette, before the most recent trip to San Antonio, but thanks, to Mark Lemon's work and his, Rick Range, and Gary Foreman actually marking the no longer existent features in the sidewalks and streets I'm absolutely convinced of it.
There are a number of reasons:
1. As mentioned above in other posts, the tambour, guarding the main gate is the one position that was almost certainly manned when the Mexicans attacked.
2. The Tambour, by it's construction is one of the strongest defensive positions in the Alamo. Those of us who had an opportunity to see the two dimensional depiction laid out got an idea about it's ditch, and the width of its walls, but what was missing is how difficult it would have been to scale the wall from the depth of the ditch. First the attackers have to jump down in the ditch, then emplace their ladders, then scale a total height greater than the SW corner all the while being subjected to flanking fire. It is one of the fundamental military principals of the attack, to attack weakness not strength. This was a position of strength.
3. Another key point is, by taking the tambour by a frontal assault what has Morales accomplished? He controls nothing, he has access to nothing. He must still breakthrough the main gate and must sieze the Low Barracks - again by attacking them by the method the defenders most desired and were most prepared for - frontally.
4. The SW corner was vulnerable. The defenders incredibly left two covered approaches that allowed the Mexican Army to approach the SW corner under cover (ie the defenders could not fire upon the attackers) The Charli house and the western acequia, dug by the Mexican Army in 1835. Both of these approaches allowed the Morales to approach within 40 feet of the wall unseen and obviously not fired upon. At this range some soldatos could take up quick firing positions, sweep the SW Corner Walls clear with fire, while others do a mad dash for the walls, emplace the ladders and secure the SW corner.
From the word go until the SW corner was secure would not have taken one minute.
5. Finally, Jake Ivey has posted elsewhere about the remains (I forget the technical term) of bayonet scabbards being found in the acequia. We know it was a moonlit night, Morales trying a stealthy approach probably ordered his men to fix bayonets, but leave their scabbards on the bayonets to prevent flashes of reflected light giving away their position. When the final attack order was given men soldatos simply yanked off the scabbards dropped them in place and charged the SW corner.
Once the SW corner was taken, any defenders in the tambour/lunette were trapped and the position ultimately irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 12, 2008 19:54:50 GMT -5
Good account; I think we also discussed the possibility that Morales' men may well have taken the low barracks rooms, including Bowie's room, soon after entering the fort. Bowie may have been among the first to perish. The low barracks may have provided shelter for some of Morales' men, although they are described (by de la Pena?) as taking cover in the ditches they had overtaken.
AW
|
|