|
Post by steves on Aug 31, 2007 15:44:27 GMT -5
First newbie question,so be gentle!......Reading the Osprey on Santa Anna's army,The Alamo OOB refers to his escort Squadron...There's no other reference to this as a separate unit,so I'm presuming it's a role that was fulfilled by a detached squadron of one of the Permanent Cavalry regiments?If not,any further details? Steve
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Aug 31, 2007 16:08:54 GMT -5
Steve,
I'm not 100% sure but I believe the Dolores and possibly the Cuautla regiments were at both the Alamo and San Jacinto. It is possible that Santa Anna had a detached personal escort from one of these two regiments. Somebody else here can probably give you a more definitive answer... try referencing Alan Huffine's Blood of Noble Men, I believe Gary Zaboly had some sort of footnote pertaining to this accompanying the sketch of Santa Anna reviewing the compound after it's fall... but I may be WAY off on this!
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 31, 2007 16:33:49 GMT -5
It is actually a good question. If you're talking about the Alamo there was just one full regiment of cavalry present; the Dolores. (The Cuautla was down south with Urrea), but there were also companies from Coahuila and Rio Grande - the latter was a presidial company which had already changed sides twice. There was also, however a little detachment or 9 men from Vera Cruz, and although Nofi refers to a detachment of 26 (unidentified) lancers serving as his escort, I'd suspect that he was actually escorted by the Vera Cruz detachment as it came from his home area and I really can't see any other reason for their being there.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 1, 2007 0:57:20 GMT -5
I'm not sure by the way where the figure of 26 lancers comes from. The breakdown by regiment comes from Filisola's notes and I don't think he refers to them.
Its possible that the escort was originally comprised of both the Coahuila and Vera Cruz detachments (totalling 39), but that after horses were lost or individuals were sent off as couriers, somebody counted 26 one day.
|
|
|
Post by steves on Sept 1, 2007 1:45:57 GMT -5
Thanks, Don't know about anyone else,but I have to visualise the history I'm reading about......Have to know the uniforms! Steve
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Sept 1, 2007 9:32:34 GMT -5
Mr. Reid,
Thanks for the clarification and detailed info... I knew there was one regiment that served at both battles but didn't have my books here to check. Does anyone know where the idea of this escort came from originally? Is it mentioned in somebody's journal or letters? I can just imagine Santa Anna riding along with the small escort, four in front four(or five) in back looking something like Bounaparte with his Chassuers a Cheval de la Garde... what sort of uniform was the Vera Cruz regiment in? Was it the red with green facings or was it something more elaborate? I wonder what happened to some of the fancier uniforms issued in the late 20's... somebody still had to have some remnants of them in use or leastways you'd think they would.
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Sept 13, 2007 23:53:58 GMT -5
Scott,
I've wondered about the fancy uniforms often myself. I'm thinking the ones imported from Britain in 1826 likely weren't as pretty 10 years later, unless some were kept in storage for special functions such as escorting El Presidente.
I'm not sure how long the plastrons stuck around, but I'd guess not very long. Hefter seems to think the 1832 pattern uniforms were made until 1839, but I have a feeling that the 1833 contract returned the coatees to the style lacking the plastrons because they cost too much or took too long to make.
It's my thought that the Mexican Army looked pretty good and uniform from a distance, but close inspection would reveal plain, worn and cheap uniforms, and I imagine the equipment might be in a similar state.
There are a number of sources on google books where foreign visitors to Mexico are quite less than impressed at the cloth woven and dyed at Queretaro. Somehow, I don't think the finished uniforms would have been very impressive either.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 14, 2007 1:30:37 GMT -5
As usual these things aren't always straightforward. The 1833 pattern uniform featured a neat single-breasted jacket sure enough and although Hefter spoke of the earlier pattern being seen afterwards I'm not sure whether he was suggesting it continued to be made or whether existing stocks were being worn out.
The British Army at this time renewed its clothing annually but in practice actually worked through a two year cycle. EG: in this case clothing issued as new in 1833 would only be worn for Sunday best while the previous year's issue was worn for most duties. Whether the Mexican army achieved this sort of regularity I don't know, but its perfectly possible that some pre-1833 uniforms were still being worn in 1836
On the particular issue of Santa Anna's escort it may to some extent depend on whether they were an ad hoc detachment taken from their parent units at the outset of the campaign, or doing the job regular. If the latter then they were probably better dressed than most as a shabby escort reflects badly on their boss.
In that context incidentally its worth pointing out an error in the old Osprey book on the Alamo and the War of Texan Independence, by Haythrornthwaite. Figure F3 in the colour plates is a bearskinned cavalryman identified as a mounted Sapper (Zapadore), the source being that wonderful "Battle of Tampico" painting. In fact when checking the painting it can be seen that this guy is one of a large number of bearskinned cavalrymen. During the Napoleonic Wars French cavalry regiments had elite companies which in the case of dragoon regiments wore grenadiers' bearskin caps and in this case what's actually being depicted is the elite company (granaderos) of the Cuautla - who by their placement may have been serving as Santa Anna's escort on that occasion.
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Sept 14, 2007 10:46:22 GMT -5
Phil,
I agree on the earlier pattern uniforms... probably not in the best shape. What would have possibly still been in usable condition were the brass helmets that were issued out in the late 20's. I've always thought the leather helmet in the Time Life series on the Mexican War was likely an earlier piece that carried over or was misidentified at some point. And you are correct... cheap cloth no matter how nicely cut still looks like cheap cloth!
Stuart,
I had forgotten about the bearskinned cavalryman in the Tampico painting. An escort of those guys would certainly have been impressive! Being a horseman myself I can't imagine wearing one of those caps and charging into a line of infantry or opposing cavalry!
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Sept 14, 2007 22:57:07 GMT -5
I'm just thinking that the 1833 uniforms were largely identical to the pre-1832 pattern uniforms, and if not too many of the 1832 pattern were made, the army would have a fairly uniform appearance in 1836 as far as uniforms were concerned.
I don't have much doubt that surviving older uniforms would have been worn extensively. I do wonder if some of these had their tails lopped off and were worn as jackets. Gary Zaboly refers to "new research" indicating that the Mexican Army was issued both cotton and wool fatigue jackets in Blood of Noble Men but includes no citation. The closest information I've seen to back this up would be a painting from the 1820's depicting soldados who are obviously on duty (marching in formation, shouldered muskets) wearing red-trimmed frock coats and shakos, while a couple soldados in short blue untrimmed jackets lounge around a courtyard.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 15, 2007 2:59:41 GMT -5
An easy explanation for the coats/jackets question is that they were indeed going through a two year cycle like the British Army; ie coats issued in year one for formal dress parades were being cut down into jackets for everyday use in year two
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 15, 2007 13:21:36 GMT -5
There's also a possible further wrinkle to this although again I'm referring to British practise.
Clothing as I mentioned was issued annually on or about the same date in each year, but of course recruits and replacement drafts drifted in at all sorts of random times and the established practise was to issue recycled/spare fatigue clothing which would be worn until the next general clothing date. The point about this being that if a unit inducted a large number of new recruits immediately before marching north, as we know to be the case with many of Santa Anna's regiments, then there would possibly be a higher proportion than usual of men wearing jackets and worn out clothing than might otherwise be the case.
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Sept 15, 2007 23:53:04 GMT -5
Stuart,
I'd have to agree. I think we'd be seeing whatever Mexico could find in the way of old and hastily made new uniforms in Texas in 1836. It sure would be interesting if quite a number of them were in jackets!
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Sept 16, 2007 8:45:46 GMT -5
The reference is in Huffines, Blood of Noble Men, p. 82, n.5, and cites "recently found evidence" that "among the items issued to Mexican infantrymen, in 1833 at least, were a dress coat and two jackets. One jacket was of wool, the other of linen. The latter is assumed to have been of white, and worn for fatigue duty; the woolen one was probably dark blue and plain in tailoring, used for marching or wearing in camp." It's not clear whether this "evidence" was regulations/legislation, or actual records of uniform disbursements.
There's good evidence that jackets were part of the clothing distributed to infantrymen by 1832 or 1833. Joseph Hefter, in El Soldado Mexicano, 1837-1847 (1958), pp. 51-52, reported that in late December 1831 the Mexican government issued a call for bids for the January 2, 1832, clothing contract (which canceled the 1824 contract). Uniforms were to be classed as 30-month and 60-month duration. The 30-month items included, in addition to a tailcoat of Querétaro cloth, "2 sailcloth jackets and pants." Sometime between 1833 and 1835, "General issue per man was increased to a barracks cap, 3 shirts, a cloth tailcoat, 2 canvas jackets [emphasis added], a pair each of gala, cloth and canvas pants, necktie, pair of shoes, a shako with cords and ornaments, an overcoat, blanket with carrier, knapsack with straps, tool set, canteen, crossbelt with cartridge box, crossbelt with frog, scabbard and bayonet, fusil, satchel of trimmings and towel."
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 16, 2007 10:02:40 GMT -5
That all makes perfect sense insofar as the sailcloth and canvas jackets are obviously one and the same. Woollen jackets don't figure at all (officially) although as I said its possible that they were cut down from previous issues. Recruits would have been issued either with these, or probably more likely with the canvas jackets and as I recall a stock of these was found when Bexar surrendered.
What's interesting of course is that when McArdle was doing his research for his San Jacinto painting he came to the conclusion that the Mexicans there were wearing their white fatigue jackets that day. On the other hand the frequency with which Ehrenberg refers to Mexican troops as the blues certainly indicates that the white jackets were not normally worn on campaign - in winter at least - so on that particular day they were either dressed down because they weren't expecting to fight (which seems unlikely given the level of skirmishing), or had deliberately switched over because their blue uniforms were deteriorating too much after months in the field over the winter.
|
|