|
Post by stuart on Mar 13, 2008 1:38:37 GMT -5
A good analysis indeed, though you'll forgive me if I continue to differ. We've been through it all before but I'll just make a couple of points.
First, I'll reiterate I agree with Mark's post-model re-interpretation of Sanchez-Navarro as showing the lunette built up with sandbags. Paradoxically however this doesn't necessarily strengthen it. The sandbags will certainly provide protection from small arms fire and light artillery, but there's only that one gun embrasure pointing towards the south west and I suspect that its traverse was quite limited. Then there's the matter of the riflemen. How many, if any (were there any?) can shoot and how quickly?
As for the comparative heights of the Alamo walls and the lunette, I still wish I could find that reference to the SW gun position being "raised by entrenchments" or whatever it was, because the low and very exposed parapet is an even more obvious candidate for sandbagging than the lunette.
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Mar 13, 2008 7:52:20 GMT -5
Hi Stuart,
Sgt. Becerra's account might be the one you're looking for. He said, "The doors of the Alamo building [chapel?] were barricaded by bags of sand as high as the neck of a man, the windows also. on the top of the roofs of the different apartments were rows of sand bags to cover the besieged."
Have you seen Jake Ivey's article, illustrated by Mike Waters, "South Gate And Its Defenses" in the December, 1981 edition of the Alamo Lore And Myth Organization newsletter? In it, they show sandbags along the wall -- "In my drawings of the South Gate I have placed sandbags in what I considered vital defensive areas. Although the building was 12' high, the outer wall was only 6" higher than the roof itself, leaving inadequate protection for the riflemen. Becerra stated that many of the doorways and other defenses were fortified with sandbags."
Best, Bob
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 18, 2008 15:30:46 GMT -5
I thought I'd take a moment to revise my interpretation of the Morales attack since Jake provided us with the information regarding the discovery of the bayonet scabbards.
Previously, my position was that Morales' attack at the southwest corner was spontainous...a reaction to circumstances and opportunity. But the discovery of the bayonet scabbards now leads me to believe it was pre-meditated. Whether this plan was conceived by Santa Anna or Morales, I am uncertain.
My revised interpretation goes something like this. I now believe Morales' assignment may have had three (possibly four) responsibilities. One: Keep the defenders at the southern defenses from reinforcing the north wall. Two: Intercept or prevent any defenders fleeing the Alamo from taking refuge in La Villita or the tree-lined river. Three: Suppress and/or capture the eighteen pounder. Four (possible): Capture the gates outer defenses (lunette) by executing a rear attack.
Given that Morales was issued only two ladders, I feel, in consideration for speed and surprise, that both were employed at the southwest corner. Still, two ladders can hardly be considered sufficient for one hundred plus men. So I think Morales may have divided his column in half. Col Minion and his group would maintain a threatening posture while also acting as a safety net by preventing defenders from fleeing into La Villita.
While the Texians attention was focused on Minion's threat, Morales maneuvers toward the southwest corner. By taking advantage of the ditch and the Charli house, Morales finds both protection and concealment.
The suggestion that the Mexicans sheathed their fixed bayonets to prevent moonlight from exposing their approach makes perfect sense. (would the other attacking columns employ this tactic as well?)
At the right moment, Morales rushes his small column forward to the base of the southwest corner and quickly raises the ladders. Bayonet's are unsheathed and the scabbards dropped. Soldados quickly scale the wall and after some brief but fierce hand-to-hand fighting, the position is captured.
The Mexicans then run down the ramp and take the main gate and lunette from behind, finding and killing Bowie at the same time. Minion's force then enters the Alamo. Either through the main gate or at the southwest corner. By this time, Morales may have also captured the gunade.
Due to the threat of friendly fire from the attacking columns approaching from the north, Morales keeps his column restrained but continues to fire on targets of opportunity.
I realize it may or may not have happened that way. However, the one inescapable truth is that Morales captured the southwest corner by scaling the walls. The remains of the bayonet scabbards bare that out.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Mar 24, 2008 5:51:01 GMT -5
I've been searching the site for Ivey's comments about the bayonet scabbard tips being found near the Southwest corner -- but with no luck. We discussed it in San Antonio when I was there. . . Can anyone point me to his message?
Thanks, Bob
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 24, 2008 6:44:20 GMT -5
Bob:
Go to page 5 of this thread; third message from the top.
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Mar 24, 2008 8:19:54 GMT -5
Many thanks! How did I miss that extremely informative portion of this thread??? Not only about the bayonet scabbards but also about the width and depth of the acequia -- I'm going to have to do some heavy thinking on this . . .
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 24, 2008 8:27:12 GMT -5
Bob,
I missed it too. This does enlighten our wanderings around that area a few weeks ago (where the waterfall is now and the entrance to Riverwalk). Also, the stones in the sidewalk marking the location are not nearly wide enough, but at least suggest the location. I had not known (or remembered) that the acequia inside the Alamo plaza was shut off and diverted outside the compound in 1835. Most accounts claim that this was a source of water that the Mexicans cut off, forcing the Texans to rely on water from the well. But the acequia was shut off long before the siege began and the one outside the fort, along the west wall, had been shut off by the Mexicans, thus providing the dry ditch used for cover by Morales' men.
The use of the scabbards does suggest that there was more method than madness in Santa Anna's plan. In fact, the plan makes sense when you think about it. A massive attack at the north to flush the Texans out, another attack at the south to secure the gate and cut off any retreat in that direction, thus forcing them either outside to the east or into the long barracks. Those outside to the east would be easily spotted by the lancers, who had the rising sun to their backs, while the Texans would be staring into it. Or am I giving the old tyrant too much credit?
AW
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 24, 2008 8:45:22 GMT -5
Allen, Jake said the acequia outside the wall was quite wide, 10 feet, I think in some places. However, this has more to do with the amount of earth needed by them to complete their defenses, including massive earthen ramps, etc, inside the fort, than it did the supply of water to anyone outside. I am sure that the acequia inside the mission was significantly more narrow. So, while the dark gray pavers may be somewhat too narrow, they certainly don't represent a 10 foot wide acequia inside the compound. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 24, 2008 9:22:11 GMT -5
Any idea of the water level in the outside acequia? Seems that we ought to be considering that in light of this new theory.
Allen, I don't think you're giving SA too much credit. I believe it was a well planned attack. Jim
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Mar 24, 2008 10:05:29 GMT -5
Allen and Mark,
Jake said that, based on Giraud's plat, the acequia inside the Alamo was ten feet wide -- "The one that ran through the Plaza along the inside of the west wall was maybe ten feet wide, going by Giraud's plan showing it." The account of Morales' men using the ditch for cover makes more sense in light of this -- its hard to imagine a hundred or so men taking cover in a ditch only a couple of feet wide.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 24, 2008 10:48:26 GMT -5
Well, Bob, this may be true, but I know from experience that relying on a plat, even (sometimes especially!) Giraud's, alone for specific measurements, can be dangerous. I think that a more realistic span for the inner acequia, was something more like 6 or 7 feet. This span would have had sloping sides, angling towards the interior, and the water level, (when water was running through it), based on the available supply from the river upstream (which would have been based on recent heavy rainfall, or lack thereof) would vary. Just my opinion. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 24, 2008 10:54:09 GMT -5
Jake also indicated (during Mark's tour) that the dry acequia wouldn't have been very deep. Jim
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 24, 2008 10:57:12 GMT -5
In addition, Jake's latest data concerning the height above ground level of the low barrack buiulding is roughly 17 feet. This would have allowed for interior rooms with 13 or 14 foot ceilings, a roof about 2 feet thick, and a parapet of about 1 or 2 feet. Still low enough to probably require a few sandbags. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 24, 2008 10:57:31 GMT -5
My bad; I was confusing the acequia inside the fort with the larger one outside. The paving stones mark the one inside the fort as they are well inside the stones marking the location of the southwest corner. The larger one, roughly where the waterfall is now, was the one used by Morales.
Would a 10-foot wide acequia been inordinately large inside the compound? Could it have been that large to accommodate heavy rains and avoid flooding? Just a guess.
AW
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Mar 24, 2008 11:00:12 GMT -5
Mark,
Makes sense, I can't imagine a plat would be very accurate on something like that -- especially since the width probably varied.
|
|