|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 14, 2007 11:34:01 GMT -5
Not exactly. The suggestion that Morales entered the Alamo first and caused the north wall to collapse is based more on conjecture then fact. While possible...it isn't probable. Truthfully, we really don't know who entered the Alamo first...Morales or Cos. And so the perpetual debate continues. This question, and ensuing theories, which has been debated on this thread in some previous postings, was initiated by a statement from de la Pena (DLP). Sometime after entering the Alamo from the north, DLP said that he observed Morales' men ahead of him and in action in and around the SW corner. It's easy to understand why some, including our good friend, Stuart, accept this as evidence or proof that Morales entered first. While myself and some others maintain the "possible not probable" approach. I feel there are factors of time, distance, and visibility to consider before we can say with certainty. First, we don't know how long it was before DLP actually entered the fort. He may of been one of the first and he could just as easily been one of the last. Secondly, where was DLP's location when he sighted Morales? My feeling is that he would have to have been relatively close due to the poor visibility caused by the dim early morning light and the huge volume of smoke from the numerous weapons being discharged. As you can see, it could have taken DLP a significant amount of time before he actually sighted Morales' soldados. All just theory of course...but reasonable. One more thing to consider is that the opposite could be true. For all we know, the south wall collapsed because the defenders observed the Mexicans spilling over the north wall. Once the Texans focus shifted to the danger in their rear, Morales saw his opportunity and made his "daring move." Again, it's just more reasonable speculation to think about. So, for me, the "jury is still out" and I'll continue to withhold my judgment until I see something a bit more convincing. Until then, I have to disagree that Morales was largely responsible for the capitulation of the north wall. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 14, 2007 13:07:17 GMT -5
Not exactly. The suggestion that Morales entered the Alamo first and caused the north wall to collapse is based more on conjecture then fact. While possible...it isn't probable. Truthfully, we really don't know who entered the Alamo first...Morales or Cos. And so the perpetual debate continues. Glenn Glenn, I'll agree with you, I don't think Morales caused the North Wall to fall, and we certainly don't know how much time elapsed from the North Wall falling until DLP saw Morales. As Jim is fond of saying, this wasn't linear - all these actions were happening simultaneously. In fact one of the better accounts of the battle tells us this. Filisola specifically says that the the three columns at the North and Morales all entered the fort at approximately the same time. If anything, the circumstantial evidence, from all the sources is that Cos's column may well have broken in first, through the postern and the various doors and windows along the northern portion of the West Wall. Irregardless, these weren't sequential events caused by one preceding another but the cumulative effect of superior numbers hitting the defenders in overwhelming force.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Dec 21, 2007 11:26:44 GMT -5
I have some information about this from the Radio Shack excavations.
Let me first pause and publicly eat crow for a moment: I apologize abjectly for not having finished the Radio Shack report, but I can say, finally, that other things having been cleared up, I will be getting that report to the CAR in '08, which will free me up to finish the Mission to Fortress book, finally after 25 years.
That painful necessity being done -- on the Battle surface in the Radio Shack, one of the very curious things was, from the acequia along the west wall all the way to the west wall itself, we found a scattering (maybe thirty or forty) of funny little brass things, like flattened cones with round knobs on the point, each about two inches long and the knobs about 1/4 inch across. In a few cases the brass knobs were gone and little lead shot balls had been soldered on instead. One of the arms/armaments people, I think Kevin whatshisname, identified these immediately as the brass finials on the bayonet scabbards for Brown Bess bayonets.
OK, so what happened to produce this? My conclusion is that these are from Morales's men, dropped here as part of the assault on the southwest corner -- although Radio Shack is a bit north of the corner itself, it's still within the area where Morales's troops would have milled about as they came up on the wall. Way I see it, they used the acequia some way (the thing was large, about 10-12 feet across and 5-6 feet deep -- we had the whole thing in cross-section), and came up out of it abruptly as they attacked the corner. The Charli/Losoya house just south of the corner would have helped in this as well. I think they had the bayonets fixed, but left the scabbards on them to keep down reflection off the blades, and when they began the last run to the wall, they stripped off the scabbards and dropped them (knowing the quartermaster would give them fits about it later).
That in turn indicates that a) the Morales troops came at the southwest corner from the south and west, from the acequia and the cover of the Charli/Losoya house (why the hell didn't Travis knock down that house, or cut down the big pecan tree towards the north end of the west wall?); b) the retaining of the scabbards until the last moment suggests that this was the intended target all along, and that any movement towards the south gate defenses (tambour, rather than lunette) was a feint.
Ok, so I'm beginning to be impressed by Santa Anna.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 21, 2007 11:41:16 GMT -5
I like your scenario, Jake. I had no idea the acequia was large enough to stage troops. Jim
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 21, 2007 11:50:02 GMT -5
At first, it seemed strange that Mexican ordnance personnel didn't pick these up and recycle them after the battle. Even a lowly bayonet scabbard would have some value. But, on further reflection, perhaps they were so trampled during the attack that they weren't worth salvaging.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 21, 2007 12:30:58 GMT -5
any movement towards the south gate defenses (tambour, rather than lunette) was a feint. Ok, so I'm beginning to be impressed by Santa Anna. You're of course right about tambour vs lunette, while it's convenient to use the common term, lunette, perhaps like chapel vs church, we really should start using the more correct term. I did not realize, either, that the acequia was so large, do you know if the acequia in the North and East were similar?
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Dec 21, 2007 13:27:56 GMT -5
All the ditches around Valero were huge. 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 (by the way, this, and its replacement outside the west wall, moved there apparently in late 1835 as part of the fortification of the Alamo by the Mexican Army, would have been called a "desague," with an umlaut-type mark over the "e", meaning you pronounce the "u," or "zanja," a drain, rather than an acequia). The main one that runs just east of the church was much larger when it was operating to water the Valero fields -- the present stone-lined ditch occupies the middle of the original ditch. And the "secondary" ditch that ran even farther to the east (see the plan of San Antonio in Nelson's Illustrated History, p. 83 of the second revised edition) was as large -- important for you guys arguing about the "Breakout."
The thing is, when these were operating ditches, they were kept fairly well cleaned out, but usually had weeds and brush along the sides, and you could have a platoon crawling/swimming down them without being seen, especially in the dark. I think it unlikely that everyone who went out of the Alamo at the end would have been seen and killed, and the reports of a few surviving escapees supports this.
Even early on these ditches were large -- the earliest one we have at Valero is described in my "North Wall" report. It was five or six feet across, but shallow in the area we saw it, only about 2 feet deep.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 21, 2007 15:55:29 GMT -5
Regarding these bayonet scabbards, how standard would it have been for bayonets already affixed to barrels to remain in their scabbards while awaiting an attack order? While I like the idea, and it explains the find, was this practical? Jim
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Dec 21, 2007 16:12:05 GMT -5
I have some information about this from the Radio Shack excavations. That painful necessity being done -- on the Battle surface in the Radio Shack, one of the very curious things was, from the acequia along the west wall all the way to the west wall itself, we found a scattering (maybe thirty or forty) of funny little brass things, like flattened cones with round knobs on the point, each about two inches long and the knobs about 1/4 inch across. In a few cases the brass knobs were gone and little lead shot balls had been soldered on instead. One of the arms/armaments people, I think Kevin whatshisname, identified these immediately as the brass finials on the bayonet scabbards for Brown Bess bayonets. OK, so what happened to produce this? My conclusion is that these are from Morales's men, dropped here as part of the assault on the southwest corner -- although Radio Shack is a bit north of the corner itself, it's still within the area where Morales's troops would have milled about as they came up on the wall. Way I see it, they used the acequia some way (the thing was large, about 10-12 feet across and 5-6 feet deep -- we had the whole thing in cross-section), and came up out of it abruptly as they attacked the corner. The Charli/Losoya house just south of the corner would have helped in this as well. I think they had the bayonets fixed, but left the scabbards on them to keep down reflection off the blades, and when they began the last run to the wall, they stripped off the scabbards and dropped them (knowing the quartermaster would give them fits about it later). Howdy, Jake! The reason for the accumulation of brass-tipped, bayonet scabbard finials suggests something else. There was no reason to place a bayonet scabbard on a bayonet since there was no sunlight to reflect during the March 6, 1836. Furthermore, the entire scabbard would have to be removed from the cross belt, a rather awkward move. Such a action would not reduce the noise (if that was another motive) of a bayonet clanking against the bayonet lug, and the quick removal of a bayonet from a well-seated bayonet secure on a musket could have resulted in the entire bayonet coming off the musket prematurely. [The entire belt may have been removed, but there would have been a host of cross belt plates at the dig as well if the soldados did not retrieve them.]
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Dec 21, 2007 16:13:03 GMT -5
I saw a complete rig of Brown Bess, bayonet, scabbard, and other bits on display in the Tower of London earlier this year -- it looked like all you did was slide the scabbard and bayonet off your belt and put it on the musket. But without actually handling one, I wouldn't know for sure.
I took a great photo of my camera flash in the glass of the display case, too. Most informative.
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Dec 21, 2007 16:22:07 GMT -5
I saw a complete rig of Brown Bess, bayonet, scabbard, and other bits on display in the Tower of London earlier this year -- it looked like all you did was slide the scabbard and bayonet off your belt and put it on the musket. But without actually handling one, I wouldn't know for sure. BC: I've handled them over the years, whether Rev. War or Civil War, and am aware of the "rig." A bayonet scabbard secure on its respective belt allows for a bayonet to be returned. A bayonet without a scabbard is, well, problem about to happen. I took a great photo of my camera flash in the glass of the display case, too. Most informative. BC: I have decades of similar photos, and they are equally "informative!"
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 21, 2007 16:52:11 GMT -5
I'm trying hard to remember the details but I have come across this business of putting the scabbard on the fixed bayonet before... I'll probably wake up in the middle of the night, but in the meantime I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it.
I'll get back to you
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Dec 21, 2007 18:37:31 GMT -5
I was just talking to Gary Foreman on the phone -- he made a good point: you don't leave a major outwork like the south gate tambour while going after a main defense position on the wall. So my scenario of a feint doesn't sound all that good -- one shot with grape from one of the tambour guns and the whole assault is gone.
So now I'm thinking a combined sw corner and tambour attack. One thing about this: Mark Lemon shows the tambour with a palisade defense above the earth parapets, but I don't agree with that. Labastida shows the tambour as en barbette -- that is, the top of the parapet is at gun height, not embrasured. To say that a differrent way, the parapet is low enough for the guns to fire any direction, which is very low for the people manning the guns -- no protection for them, as there is with embrasured guns. And the spacing and layout of the guns as shown on Labastida's plan supports the idea of this as explicitly a gunner's position, not a sort of gunnery and small-arms position. A gateway on the west side of the tambour up against the wall, wide enough for horsemen and cannon to move through, and the main gate itself blocked down to about a ten-foot gap on its west edge. If -- big if -- everyone was asleep in the tambour, troops could be on it and over the parapets in seconds from the ditch and behind the Charli/Losoya house. Lord help you if the gunners wake up before you get to them, though.
So, thinking using Gary's suggestions, I propose that both the sw corner and the tambour were Morales's target, but from the southwest and west, from the cover of the ditch and the house. I don't think he would have actually moved up due north against the tambour guns, sw corner gun, and the gun in the palisade wall.
Of course, somebody could have just dropped a packing crate of scabbards sometime in April, '36, and not cleared them all up.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 21, 2007 20:10:04 GMT -5
Jake, While you and I agree on many things, as I have said before, the subject of the lunette/tambour is one of the few areas of disagreement. I am very well aware that you interpret LaBastida very literally, because he has shown to be reliable in those areas which have been excavated. However, I feel that a too-literal "reading" of ANY contemporary artist/draftsman is fraught with peril. It should be pointed out that Labastida is demonstrably wrong in some areas: the north-south axis of the compound is truncated severely (or shortened, if you will). He shows a huge gap between the granary and convento of about 25 scale feet(vice 5.5). He deletes entirely the northern courtyard, or at least, he combines the two. Other thoughts notwithstanding, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that two seperate courtyards existed during the battle, and after. He shows no embrasures in the palisade, or the two west wall gun positions, while simultaneously and properly, showing them along the north wall. The flaws, some great, and some small, go on:
The transepts are much too narrow compared to the nave, and he shows no Baptistry or Confessional at all. Also, the north rooms are incorrectly positioned and delineated. The expanse of north wall just east of Fortin de Condell is much too large, The Fortin de Condelle is much too large as well, and The Fortin de Teran is much too small. etc, etc....
My point is that ,yes, while he does show some important features correctly, caution should be exercised when attempting to LITERALLY interpret every detail of what he shows us, especially when he is so wrong in some areas, or imprecise in others. When archeaology can be brought to bear to validate, or refute, a point in question, then we can definitively narrow down the appearance of this or that feature. In others where archeaology is lacking, we have to fall back and compare all other extant documents relating to that feature. This brings us to the tambour/lunette. The digs at this site show a well-defined, and large, outer earthwork, with fairly precise 5-sided outer ditch. The ditch, according to reports which attempted to interpolate the original width and depth, was said to be slightly more than 5 feet deep (with tapered sides) and from 8.5 to 10 feet wide at ground level. The earth from this ditch would have formed an earthen parapet much higher that the 2.75 feet high berm you suggest (in your manuscript). From a military perpsective, making an earthwork lower that three feet is relatively useless, as it provides virtually no protection for the crews serving the guns, and could have been taken (admittedly with some casulaties) with one gallant rush of infantry running up and over the less than 3 foot mound of earth quite easily. The only way to make such a barrier work is to dig out the lunette's interior to lower the interior platform, thus making the 2.75 foot berm "higher" as a result, but to me this seems like severely tortured logic, and I think no signs of this have been found archeologically. This may all be a moot point anyway, as a close study of Labastida shows nothing, either en barbette, or embrasures. What to do? As distasteful as this may be, we are left with Navarro, who (let's face it) WAS there, and personally observed the place. In his two plans of the Alamo, he shows, quite clearly, embrasures (though probably incorrectly showing three in one of them). An embrasured position such as this has many, many precedents, as well as examples subsequent to the battle in military engineering, while a "embrasureless" lunette (or tambour) is rare in my studies. The fact that Navarro, who admittedly was obviously more impressed with defensive detail rather than architectural precision, showed embrasures TWICE in both of his plan views, is , to me, telling. Also, let's remember, LaBastida depicted the compound prior to the battle most likely as described to him be Ugartachea's engineers, while Navarro saw it AFTER. Though personally, I don't think this is a factor, but it may be. Bottom line: The evidence available to trust in a very low berm allowing the tambour guns to fire en barbette is basically non-existant, while there is ample evidence, both archeoilogical as well as pictorial, to suggest otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 22, 2007 12:47:56 GMT -5
Well I still reckon that Morales did take the gate first - exactly as he was ordered...
But going back to the bayonet scabbards, I still can't dig up chapter and verse yet, but it sticks in my mind that this practise (of fixing bayonets with scabbards) was a safety thing, both for certain types of training and more crucially, night operations or to be more precise moving into position in the dark immediately prior to an assault when the bayonets need to be fixed but there's a lively possibility - as when scrambling about in ditches - of accidental injury.
|
|