|
Post by billchemerka on Jan 4, 2008 13:26:57 GMT -5
IOn the question of the gate itself I can't resist the temptation to delve into unrestrained speculation. I really do wonder if they were a real barrier because I'm still suspicious of that little fortlet covering it from the inside. In European warfare it was pretty standard practice to seal gates during a siege by piling dirt up against them; yet instead they go and build a gun emplacement to cover the opening?] Sealing a gate within a European castle (originally designed for saving lives) and doing something else for the Alamo (originally designed for saving souls) is not surprising.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 4, 2008 13:34:14 GMT -5
Except for a few stray comments, I've stayed out of this fray up to now! ;D In my mind, I view Stuart's scenario as a realistic possibility, although it is not what I think happened. Until now, the evidence I think has been weak to support a probable versus a realistically possible scenario.
I use the words realistically possible, deliberately. Historically, just about anything is possible - the Lancer Account is possible - it's just not very realistic, given everything else we know.
I've had some problems with what Stuart has postulated for awhile, but some recent posts have clarified the issues for me.
First, I think it is a dangerous error to assume that the tambour was undefended. Whether Jake or Mark is right about its construction is almost irrelevant to this particular discussion. The tambour, however, constructed was one of the strongest defensive position in the whole Alamo - defending one of the weakest and most critical - the Main Gate. No matter how tactically competent or incompetent Travis was, he would see the need to protect the most obvious weakness in the whole compound. I cannot see how to assume otherwise, without some evidence to back the claim.
Second, DLP is reporting what he saw - the after effects of Morales' attack. He did not see the attack itself, only it effects. While as an aide to Duque, it is possible that he might have known Morales' plans, it is equally possible(realistically more probable) he knew nothing other than Morales was attacking the South. In either case he would not know how those plans were carried out.
Third, the strength of Morales' column, I agree with Stuart's premise that the Light Companies would have been manned at a higher level than the Line Companies. I do not agree that they were manned at twice that level. I had a figure, I've been trying to find out from what source that placed Morales column at 120 (+) men. This shows they were manned 4/3 s of what a line company was. This seems far more realistic to me, however, I haven't been able to locate where this number came from.
Some other of my thoughts:
Filisola's comment about a daring move doesn't apply to an attack on the tambour. I admit I'm word-smithing, but daring implies unexpected, bold. A frontal attack on the tambour/main gate is courageous but conventional ie routine anything but daring.
Morales' organization three light companies with two ladders and a senior officer, Minion, that accompanied him gives a clear indication of what the tactical plan was. Tactically an escalde, or clearing a trench line, is done the same way, one element provides suppressive fire, another element breaks in, and turns and clears left, while the third element breaks in and clears right.
One company (led by Morales?) with one ladder assaulted the SW corner and upon entering turned North clearing the lower part of the West Wall. A second company (led by Minion?) with the second ladder assaulted the SW corner and upon entering turned East and cleared the Low Barracks and secured the Main Gate. The third company provided suppressive fire, probably mainly aimed at the defenders in the Tambour.
The facts are everybody says that Morales secured the Main Gate, Filisola is the only person that gives any description of how this was done and he says they entered by the cannon position on a platform near the stone building ie the SW corner.
The final and in my mind the compelling piece of information was just recently provided by Jake Ivey, with until now unknown, announcement of the bayonet scabbards being found in the acequia outside the SW corner. This to me clearly shows that the acequia was used as a covered route to get as near to the SW corner undetected as possible. I can't see any relationship between this find and an attack on the tambour.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jan 4, 2008 13:56:55 GMT -5
A slight aside, but since Filisola's Memoirs has been cited in this thread frequently, I thought I'd mention that recently I have been comparing volume 2 of the 1849 Rafael edition of Filisola's Memorias para la Historia de la Guerra de Texas with Wallace Woolsey's translation (Eakin Press) and am finding numerous translational errors: enough that in the future I plan on going direct to the Spanish edition whenever possible.
I say "whenever possible" because the Rafael edition that I have access to lacks the account of the storming of the Alamo that was included in the 1849 Cumplido edition, but I'm just saying that one should be cautious of putting too much faith in the Eakin Press translation.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 4, 2008 14:19:31 GMT -5
I think the fortified gun emplacement just inside the main gate makes sense. The Texans weren't soldiers. That is to say, they were not professional military men. I really don't think they considered what people "across the pond" would or wouldn't do. They perceived the main gate as a viable target, they anticipated an attack on it and took what they believed were the proper precautions. But most importantly, we have both Sanchez-Navarro's map and G.B. Jameson's map which clearly show a fortified gun emplacement inside the compound and aimed at the main gate (speculation not required). Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 4, 2008 15:06:47 GMT -5
There's no dispute/speculation as to the existence of this feature, and its absence from the LaBastida plan probably indicates that the Mexicans didn't know about it until Morales found it staring him in the face...
I was just wondering why, when the will to construct defences was so clearly lacking, they thought it necessary to create it rather than the easier and more secure option of blocking up the gate - and remember Jameson was a bit of an enthusiast and so I'd hesitate to suggest he was ignorant of the possibility, but hey... this is probably worth a thread by itself.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 4, 2008 15:16:59 GMT -5
Well, I was going to avoid the whole thing, but I have to say that I don't believe in the gun position covering the gate. Why? Gee, because it isn't on the Labastida map, that's why (big surprise that I would use that, huh?). However, I'd buy it as the place where the tambour guns were pulled back to when they abandoned that position and slammed the gate.
And now you hear me muttering the infantryman's prayer of thanks for incoming artillery fire. "For what we are about to receive, oh Lord ..."
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 4, 2008 18:57:35 GMT -5
No Mark, I've never argued that DLP described Morales taking cover in the lunette, that is clearly not what he is describing but a feature inside the Alamo and given that the Mexican accounts are happy that he took the gate I've argued that its a reference to Jameson's little fortlet, and while I'll cheerfully concede it could also refer to the acqeia, I doubt if it was what DLP meant when he said it was Morales' objective. I have to re-iterate once again that while the operations orders refer to one column commanded by Morales with Minon as his 2IC, Filisola (who turned up later and therefore wasn't an eyewitness although clearly well informed) describes two columns, which clearly indicates a pincer movement and while he certainly relates that Morales and Minon approached from the south west under cover, he does not explicitly state that they both entered the Alamo by way of the gun platform. On balance as I've said above I'm happy that the one referred to is indeed the SW one, but I wouldn't entirely rule out the outside chance that since he refers to all of the guns in the Alamo being on platforms it might even have been Jameson's internal one. That's just a distraction, and clearly Mark and I aren't going to agree on this but I do aver that my interpretation is consistent with both the written and the archaeological evidence, while Mark's defence of his model disputes both. Two columns in an assault do not by necessity imply two objectives. The annals of military history are replete with examples of "stacked columns" assaulting a single objective. Obviously, the second ranking officer would have command of the second column, no matter what or how many the objectives, so...two columns may be intriguing, but prove absolutely nothing. I'll tell you what Stuart, since I was unaware, until just now, that you were an expert on the archaeology of the 1836 Alamo compound, I'd love for you to advise me on how my idea of an embrasured lunette/tambour "disputes" the archaeological record. But please be specific.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 4, 2008 19:03:51 GMT -5
Well, I was going to avoid the whole thing, but I have to say that I don't believe in the gun position covering the gate. Why? Gee, because it isn't on the Labastida map, that's why (big surprise that I would use that, huh?). However, I'd buy it as the place where the tambour guns were pulled back to when they abandoned that position and slammed the gate. And now you hear me muttering the infantryman's prayer of thanks for incoming artillery fire. "For what we are about to receive, oh Lord ..." Jake, you have got to be kidding.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 5, 2008 4:09:19 GMT -5
I'll tell you what Stuart, since I was unaware, until just now, that you were an expert on the archaeology of the 1836 Alamo compound, I'd love for you to advise me on how my idea of an embrasured lunette/tambour "disputes" the archaeological record. But please be specific. Hey come on Mark, lets keep this one civilised. As you and I assume everybody else on the board knows I'm following Jake's interpretation of the archaeological evidence here.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 5, 2008 4:13:15 GMT -5
Well, I was going to avoid the whole thing, but I have to say that I don't believe in the gun position covering the gate. Why? Gee, because it isn't on the Labastida map, that's why (big surprise that I would use that, huh?). However, I'd buy it as the place where the tambour guns were pulled back to when they abandoned that position and slammed the gate. And now you hear me muttering the infantryman's prayer of thanks for incoming artillery fire. "For what we are about to receive, oh Lord ..." Up to a point, up to a point; namely my understanding that the Labastida plan was prepared before the Mexican assault and therefore only shows those features they were aware of. If on the other hand it was written up fair afterwards there is a slightly less dramatic (possible) explanation in that as we discussed way back on this thread the Texians may not have manned the lunette at all at night, and this was where they routinely "parked" its guns at night.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 5, 2008 10:20:47 GMT -5
Jake
I would have responded to this sooner but I'm just now recovering from the shock of your....um...er...statement. I admire your unshakable faith in LaBastida's map/schematic...really, I do. But by excluding other valuable sources (Sanchez-Navarro) I think you're doing yourself a disservice. As important as LaBastida's work is, I don't think it should be considered the last word in archeology.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 5, 2008 10:51:13 GMT -5
I'll tell you what Stuart, since I was unaware, until just now, that you were an expert on the archaeology of the 1836 Alamo compound, I'd love for you to advise me on how my idea of an embrasured lunette/tambour "disputes" the archaeological record. But please be specific. Hey come on Mark, lets keep this one civilised. As you and I assume everybody else on the board knows I'm following Jake's interpretation of the archaeological evidence here. Well, so what it comes down to is that, without actually reading the archaeological reports by Fox on the lunette area, or conducting any research on your own, you are simply glomming on to Jake's theory, because it fits YOUR theory of a Lunette quickly taken by frontal assault. While one is, of course, free to use this method of forming an hypothesis, it is like building a house on a sand dune. One falicy built on another, soon comes crashing down. And for this faulty methodology to be the extent of your basis of "fact," and to then flat out say that my version of the lunette "disputes the archaeological record," you do both yourself and me a disservice.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 5, 2008 11:08:07 GMT -5
Not at all Mark; I've read everything published here and am well enoughed versed in archaeology (having dug elsewhere) to form my own opinion that Jake's interpretation is currently more convincing than yours.
The fact that it also accords with my own interpretation of the written evidence is obviously another factor in my accepting his interpretation of the archaeology, but my theory as to how Morales captured the gate does not by any means hang upon the existence or otherwise of an embrasured stockade vis a vis guns in barbette.
As I still remain to be absolutely convinced that the lunette was actively defended during the battle on the morning of March 6 and have a strong suspicion that the Texians may in fact have withdrawn inside the gate at sundown, the existance or otherwise of a palisade is not the deciding factor on which my theory rests or falls.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 5, 2008 11:22:37 GMT -5
Well, then, you in your post basically confirmed mine. Reading "everything published here" meaning on this Forum, while enlightening, is certainly not sound archaeological research, just the thoughts and opinions of others, no matter how enlightnened. Certainly you must admit, that even learned people with an axe to grind, when putting forth their thought on such a forum, will, by accident or design, state those facts which support their theory, while neglecting to mention others. So simply reading someone's posts who you respect and admire, and blindly agreeing wioth them, is the worst and most dangerous kind of "research." Never, never, simply read someone's interpretation of somethng, to form your opinion. And after having done so, to then flatly denounce another's research (without doing your own) as "disputing the archaeological record" is insulting. After all, you don't know how much study and how much research I myself have done on this matter...apparently my "interpretation" is not desireable, because somehow it doesn't fit a scenario of the lunette falling by assault. Well OK, but do not tell me, having done no independent, really independent reading or research on this subject, that my version of the lunette "disputes" anything.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 5, 2008 11:25:38 GMT -5
By the way, Jake himself never said that I was disputing the archaeological record. He and I just had different interpretations of the posthole evidence. Careful with those words...
|
|