|
Post by TRK on Mar 24, 2008 11:13:38 GMT -5
Almonte's journal mentioned that On February 27 "It was determined to cut off the water from the enemy on the side next to the old mill." So, was the acequia along the west wall dry by March 6, or isn't that a safe assumption?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 24, 2008 11:15:29 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 . . . Yeah, that's the information that convinced me that the SW corner and not the tambour/lunette was indeed the direction of the attack. Water depth is a good question, when did the Mexicans cut off the acequia? Thanks Tom! Instead of denying the Texians this as a water source, perhaps the intention all along was to allow time for the acequia to drain - especially the portion along the North Wall -and be less of an obstacle to the attack? I don't think water depth was too significant or it seems it'd be mention in the account about Seguin using it after he exited the northern postern.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 24, 2008 11:32:58 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 Could this be connected with the reference in Almonte's journal for March 2 stating that "The President discovered, in the afternoon, a covered road within pistol shot of the Alamo, and posted the battalion of Jimenez there" This doesn't necessarily mean that the Jimenez boys were actually posted in it, but set to covering it. I don't know what the original Spanish says but I'd expect it should really be read as "way" rather than a road which could be driven along.
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Mar 24, 2008 11:44:54 GMT -5
I've often wondered exactly what is meant by "covered road." A sunken road perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 24, 2008 11:56:00 GMT -5
I've often wondered exactly what is meant by "covered road." A sunken road perhaps? Or a trace through chaparral?
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 24, 2008 12:37:44 GMT -5
The almeda is a covered road, right? But surely the almeda wouldn't have been recently "discovered". Jim
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 24, 2008 12:38:57 GMT -5
Occam's Razor applies here, I think. The most simple, and likely explaination is that there was a road, most likely "covered" from view from the Alamo, which ran along the western edge of La Villita, and which wold have been screened from direct observation by the jacales and/or heavy brush in that area. Eventually, the jacales would have led up to the Charli house, the stone structure 40 feet away from the SW corner.
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Mar 24, 2008 13:59:37 GMT -5
Mark,
Interesting conjecture. Another conjecture -- I wonder if the Charli house could have been left standing purposely, to cover the covered way. . .
An additional possibility -- perhaps it was left standing as an outwork, a convenient picket post for the defenders. It would have provided cover from the elements and the windows would have provided firing positions. I'm thinking of a picket post in this instance as a picket headquarters -- sentries (probably in pairs) would have been deployed further south and west of the Charli house. If the house was manned by a detachment of marksmen, maybe it was the initial objective point of Morales' light infantry. After taking (as opposed to just sneaking up behind) the Charli house, they would have then been in position to attack the Southwest corner or the tambour -- or both.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 24, 2008 15:29:29 GMT -5
Sounds reasonable to me. The house ought to have been occupied, if only to deny it to the Mexicans, and it might also have formed a convenient exit/reception point for messengers, especially if there was a convenient "covered way", whether it was the ditch or something else.
This suggestion also leads to an interesting speculation in another direction (literally);
According to Joe's narrative(s) the Mexicans gained the wall because the sentries were asleep. Its always been assumed that he was referring to the fight for the north wall, but yet we know from the Mexican accounts that they were initially held there. Was Joe really talking about the awful realisation that the Mexicans had got over the south wall behind them because the pickets down there (in the Charli house?) were asleep?
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 24, 2008 15:47:30 GMT -5
According to Joe's narrative(s) the Mexicans gained the wall because the sentries were asleep. Its always been assumed that he was referring to the fight for the north wall, but yet we know from the Mexican accounts that they were initially held there. Was Joe really talking about the awful realisation that the Mexicans had got over the south wall behind them because the pickets down there (in the Charli house?) were asleep? Wow, Stuart. I'll have to go back and peruse the Joe interviews, but this is a really interesting idea if it fits Joe's narrative. It would sure explain a lot. Jim
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 24, 2008 17:16:52 GMT -5
The recently cut off acequia would be very unlikely in my estimation, as a candidate for the "covered road." The acequia leg which ran north and south, along the west wall, was new, having been dug by Ugartachea's men in the late fall of 1835. As well as being quite muddy, it would have been much too close to the walls of the Alamo to have been recconnoitered by SA himself. The leg running from the Alamo's SW corner, westward down the slope towards the San Antonio river, was long-established, and, once cut off from water, at some point after the 23rd, would have by the 2nd, still have been a God-awful muddy, mucky mess at it's bottom, and I can hardly see any Mexican officer, much less SA, trudging through several feet of mud-sludge along the bottom of the acequia. More likely a brush, or foliage-screened dirt path along the western edge of La Villita, leading near to the SW corner jacales, IMHO. Mark
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 28, 2008 13:00:48 GMT -5
There is some question as to the speed in which Morales captured the SW corner. When I visualize the attack, I get a sense that it may have taken a bit more time then we suspect.
First, we need to remember that Morales' starting point would have been 100 yds or further from the Alamo's walls. It's unlikely Santa Anna would have instructed Morales to form-up any closer due to the risk of being discovered and ruining the coup de main. All of the attacking columns were to wait for the given signal (bugle/rocket) before launching the assault.
As we know, some soldados in Duque's column spoiled Santa Anna's surprise attack by preempting the agreed signal with shouts of "Viva Santa, Viva Mexico," alerting the defenders to the attack. With the element of surprise gone, Santa Anna gave the order for the bugle to sound attack and the signal rockets to fire. Only then, did the assault columns surge toward the Alamo.
Morales' force would have raced from their position in La Villita to the protection of the acequia and/or Charli house. Evidence strongly suggests that at least a portion of Morales' men took cover in the acequia just in front of the west wall. As Jake has revealed to us, the depth of the acequia was 5 to 6 feet deep. Getting into the ditch probably didn't take too much time...climbing out of it may have. Given the relatively short stature of the average soldado and burdened with a heavy musket, exiting the acequia could have taken some extra effort and time to accomplish. With the Alamo's defenders aware of the Mexicans attack, it's quite probable that at this point, Morales' column is taking fire from the west wall and possibly the lunette.
Only two ladders were issued to Morales. Adequate I suppose, but hardly enough to accomplish a quick strike if that was the goal.
By the time Morales got his men into position to scale the southwestern wall, unengaged defenders from the south and west walls could have responded to the threat and contest Morales' attack.
Any way you look at it, I don't believe Morales had an easy time of it. I think, for a period, he had his hands full. But eventually, the SW corner was his.
Stuart and I respectfully disagree with each other in regards to the impact Morales' penetration had on the defenders. Stuart feels the north wall collapsed due to Morales' capture of the SW corner and main gate...and who really knows, he could be correct. I believe the north wall was abandoned due to the overwhelming numbers of soldados. In fact, it could be just as easily argued that the SW corner was abandoned due to the approach of the attacking columns from the north. Again...quien sabe??
Here is an interesting fact to consider. It's 521' from NW corner to SW corner. Given the exceptionally poor visibility due to the huge volume of smoke and near dark conditions, just how far could anyone truly see?? Would the men on the south wall be cognizant of what was occurring at the north wall? And if you have someone in your face trying their darnedest to kill you...where would your focus be? On the enemy in front of you or 521' behind you?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 29, 2008 13:05:36 GMT -5
Stuart
I think it boils down to personal interpretation and accepted evidence. I place little faith in the document you refer to. The writer is unknown and the article is either second or third hand information. That is cause for legitimate skepticism. The comment "the enemy had gained possession of a part of the ramparts" was a statement made by the writer. The is no supporting evidence that would imply Joe ever made that particular comment. The article was very broad, condensed, and limited in detail. It didn't even mention Travis' death, something Joe would always vividly describe. I find it most odd that it was left out.
The brief account appears to me as an article based on second or third hand impressions or interpretations. There are no actual quotations in the article from Joe. There are six accounts or articles written about Joe's experiences and only one mentions the comment you site. Given the broad way in which the writer describes the final assault, the statement in question can easily be interpreted as the collapse of the north wall.
I just can't go along with you on this one, Stuart. The evidence is questionable if not underwhelming. We will most likely continue to disagree about this particular subject but I still highly value your insight and opinion. During the next HHD's we can discuss it some more over a pint or two.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 29, 2008 15:41:38 GMT -5
Stuart I think it boils down to personal interpretation and accepted evidence. I place little faith in the document you refer to. The writer is unknown and the article is either second or third hand information. That is cause for legitimate skepticism. The comment " the enemy had gained possession of a part of the ramparts" was a statement made by the writer. The is no supporting evidence that would imply Joe ever made that particular comment. The article was very broad, condensed, and limited in detail. It didn't even mention Travis' death, something Joe would always vividly describe. I find it most odd that it was left out. The brief account appears to me as an article based on second or third hand impressions or interpretations. There are no actual quotations in the article from Joe. There are six accounts or articles written about Joe's experiences and only one mentions the comment you site. Given the broad way in which the writer describes the final assault, the statement in question can easily be interpreted as the collapse of the north wall. I just can't go along with you on this one, Stuart. The evidence is questionable if not underwhelming. We will most likely continue to disagree about this particular subject but I still highly value your insight and opinion. During the next HHD's we can discuss it some more over a pint or two. Glenn Nah, I think you're being too harsh Glenn. The newspaper report was quoting a letter from somebody who had clearly been present at Joe's debriefing, picked up some stuff that William Fairfax Gray doesn't mention, while omitting some of the bits he did speak of. I don't have a problem with it, but at least we can agree to disagree amicably. I'll be in Houston for the San Jacinto symposium in a couple of weeks and will take you up on those beers then if you can make it
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 1, 2009 11:55:52 GMT -5
REF: Stuart's theory that the collapse of the North Wall defense was because Morales having broken through in the South first.
I read a Mexican letter (not Duque's) about DLP's role in the assault on the Alamo the other night, unfortunately as I was looking for something else I didn't note who was the author (other than a senior Mexican officer) or the source where I found it.
Two things jumped out to me. The first is this senior officer stated that DLP was one of the first [officers?] to scale the North Wall. We know from DLP's account that by the time he was atop the North Wall, Morales men were already in the Compound, and forced to take cover in a ditch (the dry acequia?) from Mexican friendly fire from the North Wall. If this statement is not hyperbole, it seems to verify that Morales men were indeed the first to break in.
According to Filisola all the forces broke in nearly simultaneously. Also, according to him the defenders had thrown up earth against the walls to serve as fire steps for the riflemen. Filisola says this hastened the fall of the Alamo has the men were forced to sky line themselves to shoot down at the attacking Mexicans. IF I was a rifleman defending the North Wall, after firing (if I survived) I'd step down so as not to be exposed while I reloaded. It would seem to me, that some defenders reloading probably saw Morales' men streaming in over the SW corner and shouted the alarm - which led to whoever DLP saw in charge ordering the retreat to the Long Barracks. Which in turn led to the rapid scaling of the North Wall and the Mexican soldatos firing on the retreating defenders and coincidentally Morales' men behind them.
The second thing that jumped out at me, while not mentioning anything specific, the letter writer praised DLP's actions once inside the compound - this point seems particularly relevant, as many of the pro forgery group, have argued that DLP was so seriously wounded when Duque fell that DLP played no further part in the battle.
|
|