|
Post by marklemon on Feb 9, 2009 18:07:34 GMT -5
I was saying to Herb in a PM, that there's plenty of evidence showing that, in the acequia system in and around San Antonio, the acequias passing through low-lying areas (such as existed to the east of the Alamo church) were built at or slightly above actual ground level. It may be that, if such a raised acequia existed in this area, that what caused the flooding was the inadequate maintenance which the stone retaining walls required. The water then flowed through breaks in the wall, and filled the lowest surrounding areas, as seen in many contemporaneous sketches, going back to LaBastida. How this impacts events during the siege, is that, if true, we have the remnants of a raised stone wall (actually, a parallel pair) running north to south for an unknown distance "behind" the Alamo. These need not be inordinantly high, say a few feet, but it still changes the face of the battlefield. Such an example of a "raised" acequia running through low ground is shown at this link: www.texasalmanac.com/history/highlights/landmarks/
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Feb 9, 2009 18:39:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on Feb 9, 2009 20:05:43 GMT -5
Were the acequias lined with stone in 1836 as shown in the pictures above?
How about the dry acequia that ran inside the plaza on the west side--just a ditch or stone walled?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Feb 9, 2009 20:44:11 GMT -5
Were the acequias lined with stone in 1836 as shown in the pictures above? How about the dry acequia that ran inside the plaza on the west side--just a ditch or stone walled? The acequia which ran inside the Alamo compound should have been lined with limestone, but the section built by Cos' men in the fall of 1835, and which ran from the northwest corner of the compound's exterior, down to the southwest corner, would not have been lined with stone. There simply was not enough time, or reason for them to do it in such a permanent manner. Mark
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Feb 10, 2009 20:26:46 GMT -5
Like I mentioned on a previous post, I really believe that Santa Anna was going for the artillery that controlled the Alamo. The attacks from the north, east and west were probably all north wall attacks aimed at seizing the two prominent Texan gun positions there. The south attack was to take out the third one.My question to you Mark, is it possible for the Mexican assault force to have formed up between the SA river and the ponds.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Feb 10, 2009 21:36:18 GMT -5
Like I mentioned on a previous post, I really believe that Santa Anna was going for the artillery that controlled the Alamo. The attacks from the north, east and west were probably all north wall attacks aimed at seizing the two prominent Texan gun positions there. The south attack was to take out the third one.My question to you Mark, is it possible for the Mexican assault force to have formed up between the SA river and the ponds. alamonorth, I'm not quite sure what you mean, as the main thing between the flooded area ("ponds") and the SA river, was the Alamo itself...and which assault force are you talking about? Perhaps you can give me a more specific quadrant, or location which you are referring to. Mark
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Feb 10, 2009 23:24:55 GMT -5
Mark,what I am trying to say is that we are not talking about quandrants or hordes attacking all sides of the Alamo, legend and Hollywood be forgiven. Santa Anna probably planned a strategic strike. If if he struck the north wall and seized the guns there, and also managed to grab the 18 pounder in his surprise attack, he would vertiably control the interior of the Alamo. I see no reason why he would send any soldiers against the east, west or south walls of the Alamo. There is absolutelely no reason that Santa Anna would attack the east side of the Alamo given that the Mexican's had prepared it from an American invasion from the east and as your illustrations show it was not easily attackable. Also by only attacking from the north, with a surprise attack from the south, like in Gary Zaboloy's drawing almost 2/3 of the Alamo artillary would not got off a shot.
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Feb 10, 2009 23:39:22 GMT -5
I quess what I am really asking is whether, the Mexican assault force was east of the acequia at such a close proximity to the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Feb 11, 2009 16:32:32 GMT -5
I quess what I am really asking is whether, the Mexican assault force was east of the acequia at such a close proximity to the Alamo. alamonorth, It depends on just where along the acequia you mean, which is why I was asking for more information. If you mean north east of the Alamo compound, well, it's possible, but as wolfpack opined, having them start up to the north-northeast ran the risk of co-mingling the columns. If you mean farther south, the answer is almost definitely not. As you go south, the acequia veers significantly to the west, bringing it much closer to the compound, and leaving virtually no room for such a large (300) force as Romero had, to get that close without being detected. Mark
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Feb 11, 2009 16:37:32 GMT -5
wolfack, I was thinking the other day about your concerns about Romero's column having to cross the acequia, if coming from AA2, and realized, that both Cos' and Duque's columns had to do the exact same thing, namely, Cos had to cross it at the north part of the west wall, (and here, it was mud and dirt, not stone-lined,) and Duque had to cross the acequia opposite the north wall. So crossing the acequia must have been thought about, and factored into the thinking and planning of the commanders of the assault columns, IMO. Mark
|
|
|
Post by ranger2518 on Feb 11, 2009 18:13:02 GMT -5
I see no reason why he would send any soldiers against the east, west or south walls of the Alamo. I think that at a minimum they were spoiling attacks to divert defending forces, not to mention increasing the odds of penetrating the compound should other avenues of attack stall.
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Feb 11, 2009 18:42:01 GMT -5
Its amazing to me that neither the ponds nor the acequias are mentioned in any of the extant Mexican accounts of the battle. I've always thought the ponds east of the Alamo would have presented a major obstacle but, until I had a chance to talk to Jake Ivey, I thought the other acequias, along the north and west walls, were relatively insignificant, similar to the acequia that presently runs through the Alamo grounds -- narrow enough to be easily leaped across. But, from what Jake said and from what I've been reading since the last HHDs, they were probably 5-6 feet wide and 5 feet deep! And, if the one running along the north wall was not lined with stone, the mud at the bottom would have had to have been a foot deep -- I can't imagine struggling through something like that!
Although the attack orders didn't say anything about it, there almost had to have been some sort of bridging materials carried along ahead of the attacking columns. Maybe engineer troops preceded the columns, carrying materials to bridge the acequias -- and, since the columns themselves weren't issued these materials, they weren't mentioned in the orders. But I can't think the troops would have been expected to wade through the acequia, it would have been impossible to keep their gunpowder and weapons dry -- not to mention casualties from drowning!
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Feb 11, 2009 19:16:56 GMT -5
Just another thought. Almonte's journal suggests that the Matamoros and Jimimes battalions were posted in the Alameda. At a further date the Allende battalion was also posted to the east. My question is, when they were ordered north for the assault how far north did they go before they made the move west? Was crossing the acequia a more than once event?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 11, 2009 21:17:38 GMT -5
wolfack, I was thinking the other day about your concerns about Romero's column having to cross the acequia, if coming from AA2, and realized, that both Cos' and Duque's columns had to do the exact same thing, namely, Cos had to cross it at the north part of the west wall, (and here, it was mud and dirt, not stone-lined,) and Duque had to cross the acequia opposite the north wall. So crossing the acequia must have been thought about, and factored into the thinking and planning of the commanders of the assault columns, IMO. Mark Yeah, Mark, ever since Jake talked to us about the width and depth of the acequias last March, I've thought about that. One of the things I now think, is that when Santa Anna had the water diverted from the northern acequia - it wasn't to deprive the Alamo of water so much but to reduce the effectiveness of the northern and western acequia as obstacles. Another question about these recently dug acequias is how much had they deteriorated in the three/four months of their existence. Unmaintained, exposed earthworks can deteriorate pretty fast. They might have disintegrated to the point that they weren't that significant. The absence of water , however, reduces the effectiveness of these acequias as obstacles (However, had the defenders reinforced these ditches with stake, frisses (?), etc ....) I've heard somebody mentioning that fascines were used to cross the northern acequia, but I've never seen them mentioned in a primary source. The Acequia Madre, according to Jake, was significantly wider than the northern and western acequias that were dug by the Mexican Army prior to the December Battle of Bexar. And as you said the Acequia Madre was stone lined so even given the poor maintenance the width and depth and the presence of water - should have made it a significant obstacle. Bottom line, I don't have a good answer about the northern acequia.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Feb 11, 2009 23:37:20 GMT -5
I think that men in the rush of adrenaline that this situation would have induced upon them, would have made it across the acequia rather rapidly (by the way, the acequia at the north would have been lined with limestone, only the branch running down the west wall exterior was earthen walled). I offer the following passage, written by my great-great grandfather, about the Confederate assault at Gaines' Mill, in which the assaulting troops ran the gauntlet of terrific artillery fire, all the way down to the bottom of a gorge, through which ran a very deep creek (Boatswain's Creek), with earthen banks at least 5 to 6 feet deep, and pretty steep. I myself have crossed this creek, and it seems insane for an attacking force to have to negotiate it's banks especially while under heavy rifle fire. "...as we drew to within 50 yards of the creek, which ran along the bottom of the ravine, we could clearly see now the first line of yankees, as they furiously fired and reloaded. With blackened faces like demons from the infernal regions, they tore cartridges in clenched teeth, while rammers flew up & down in the barrels of their pieces......A few steps closer to our foes, then still without halting, we heard "Ready! Aim! Fire!" We delivered our volley, one thousand rifles, while walking at a very quick gait. At once came the command "Charge!" & the woods fairly rang with the piercing "Rebel-Yell." Running now, at the double-quick, or faster, on we swept the few remaining yards down the slope in good order and, upon reaching the creek, our ranks were broken as each man leapt down into the creek-bed, jumped across the stream, and climbed up the other side. Rising out of the creek bed, we saw......(that) hundreds of Yanks began to flee up the hill with the (18th Georgia) and 4th Texas closely following literally "on their heels" and shrieking like devils. We paused only a moment to re-form ourselves, then raced up the hill after them..." Having walked this battlefield many times, and having spoken with Robert Krick, the superintendent of the Richmond Battlefield Park, I know that this creek is virtually pristine in condition, and is more or less the same exact size as it was in 1862. It's depth is about 1 to 2 feet normally, and about 3 to 3.5 feet after heavy rains. Its width, from bank to bank, is at least 10 feet at it's most narrow, to 15 feet at it's widest. As previously stated, it's banks are from 5 to 6 feet tall, and pretty steep. So in light of the fact that these troops had little trouble scaling this much wider and deeper obstacle, I can see no reason that Mexican troops could not do the same thing. The only exacerbating factor would have been the darkness, but I believe the available moonlight would have illuminated it well enough for them to have sen it. Mark
|
|