|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 23, 2010 16:13:57 GMT -5
Or, he may in fact have been showing the "improvements" made by Andrade, not Jameson, and described to him by Bexarenos. Perhaps the "Jameson" plat reveals more of what Andrade did. The cannon placement and count has always driven me nuts, as well as the disparity between what he says in his key and what the plats show.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 24, 2010 6:41:36 GMT -5
Or, he may in fact have been showing the "improvements" made by Andrade, not Jameson, and described to him by Bexarenos. Perhaps the "Jameson" plat reveals more of what Andrade did. The cannon placement and count has always driven me nuts, as well as the disparity between what he says in his key and what the plats show. As even he admitted, Potter relied heavily not only on his own observations but on the recollections of both Bexarenos and Mexican veterans of the battle. Jameson's plats reflect the compound circa January and early February, and of course he also added red-colored "contemplated" improvements that are exasperating to "contemplate" because we don't have the original plat(s) with their red-colored notations. Nor do we really know what possible additions were made by De Zavala and others to the two copies of Jameson ---additions that may have been inspired by Potter's conclusions to no small degree. Andrade admitted that he made major renovations to the fort. It would be terrific, and edifying, to see a plan of THAT post-battle Alamo compound. After San Jacinto work on the fort was ramped up, no pun intended, for Andrade feared that a Texian army would soon descend upon San Antonio to retake the fort. Certainly four guns loaded with grape or canister at the palisade would have discouraged any frontal attack on that position.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 24, 2010 16:16:13 GMT -5
Andrade admitted that he made major renovations to the fort. It would be terrific, and edifying, to see a plan of THAT post-battle Alamo compound. After San Jacinto work on the fort was ramped up, no pun intended, for Andrade feared that a Texian army would soon descend upon San Antonio to retake the fort. Certainly four guns loaded with grape or canister at the palisade would have discouraged any frontal attack on that position. If Andrade followed through with Cos and Jameson's unfinished work on the palisade -- completing the trench and embankment -- then possibly he would have *completed* any plan to have more than one gun located there. I kinda liked the idea presented earlier that perhaps four cannon ports were in place even if only one cannon remained by February-March, 1836. Even if Cos had only planned to emplace four cannon there and never actually did it, he certainly would have used the foresight to prepare four embrasures rather than have to cut them after the palisade was completed.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 24, 2010 16:25:04 GMT -5
Andrade admitted that he made major renovations to the fort. It would be terrific, and edifying, to see a plan of THAT post-battle Alamo compound. After San Jacinto work on the fort was ramped up, no pun intended, for Andrade feared that a Texian army would soon descend upon San Antonio to retake the fort. Certainly four guns loaded with grape or canister at the palisade would have discouraged any frontal attack on that position. If Andrade followed through with Cos and Jameson's unfinished work on the palisade -- completing the trench and embankment -- then possibly he would have *completed* any plan to have more than one gun located there. I kinda liked the idea presented earlier that perhaps four cannon ports were in place even if only one cannon remained by February-March, 1836. Even if Cos had only planned to emplace four cannon there and never actually did it, he certainly would have used the foresight to prepare four embrasures rather than have to cut them after the palisade was completed. Filisola specifically stated that the palisade at the time of the battle had but one "tronera," or embrasure. Filisola arrived at the Alamo just a few days after the fort fell, so his observations are among the most valuable we have.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 25, 2010 10:30:02 GMT -5
It would be interesting to see what Andrade actually had done, no doubt a report was filed somewhere.
The "improvements" would probably tell us a lot about the battle itself. No doubt, the first things done were "corrections" to weaknesses that the Mexicans perceived and exploited in their attack. As such I would expect somethings were very simple such as building firing steps along the walls, something like building a redan along the North Wall, improving the fields of fire for the artillery, etc.
The palisade area, ignored by the Mexicans during the attack, is one of the few areas that there have been serious archelogical studies done. The exsisting evidence would suggest that Andrade did not view this area has a priority in his improvements, and ignored it, too.
Given his strength in Bexar, and about a full month, between when he heard about San Jacinto and when the Mexican Army withdrew from San Antonio, Andrade could have accomplished a lot.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 25, 2010 15:22:52 GMT -5
Andrade did do a lot to build up the fort, and de la Pena commisserated with him after he was ordered to dismantle everything. In early May the Mexicans had been "hard at work fortifying" the Alamo, in the words of one observer. The General had about 700 healthy soldiers under his command, and no doubt "labored to put the fort in the best possible condition," as De la Pena noted.
"I did what I could to improve it," Andrade himself wrote. "I wanted to insure a victory" in the event the Texians reappeared. So there's little doubt that the improvements would have been fairly formidable.
The palisade poses a strange dilemma. Even the archaeologists do not agree on its configuration. More digging needs to be done, especially when you consider that the excavated evidence possibly reflects different occupancies.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 25, 2010 21:38:06 GMT -5
Filisola specifically stated that the palisade at the time of the battle had but one "tronera," or embrasure. Filisola arrived at the Alamo just a few days after the fort fell, so his observations are among the most valuable we have. Thanks Gary. That's what I get for not checking Filisola, because I agree with you. Just didn't think of him.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on May 26, 2010 0:59:40 GMT -5
The plaza and surrounding environs need to be treated as an archaelogical site. There doesn't need to be urban rail or a made-for-TV plaza makeover. Treat it as an archaelogical site. That's the dignity it deserves.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on May 26, 2010 12:26:52 GMT -5
Gary:
You're right about the multiple interpretations by archaeologists about the palisade line, primarily Jack Eaton's in his report, based mostly on Chabot's descriptions, and mine based on what I saw in the ground. But don't take that to mean there were two different palisade lines in the ground. There was a single set of trenches, and Jack and I interpret them differently. Problem is that Jack kept all the field notes and drawings, so they aren't in the CAR files to be looked at as support for one view over another -- they give much more detail than the drawings in Eaton's report.
Oh, while I'm here: Gary, I'm uncomfortable about giving Filisola's description of the Alamo defenses any great weight as a separate source of information about those defenses -- I have a strong suspicion that the description was actually made from the Labastida map, rather than Filisola's notes onsite. And I suspect that this description was written by Filisoa's ghost writer/collaborator, whose probable name I don't recall right now.
Seriously, take the Filisola description and follow it on the Labastida map. I know, you can say they're both depicting the same defenses so they should be very similar, but the Filisola description reads like a verbalization of a map, rather than of real space and structure.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 26, 2010 15:46:20 GMT -5
Gary: You're right about the multiple interpretations by archaeologists about the palisade line, primarily Jack Eaton's in his report, based mostly on Chabot's descriptions, and mine based on what I saw in the ground. But don't take that to mean there were two different palisade lines in the ground. There was a single set of trenches, and Jack and I interpret them differently. Problem is that Jack kept all the field notes and drawings, so they aren't in the CAR files to be looked at as support for one view over another -- they give much more detail than the drawings in Eaton's report. Oh, while I'm here: Gary, I'm uncomfortable about giving Filisola's description of the Alamo defenses any great weight as a separate source of information about those defenses -- I have a strong suspicion that the description was actually made from the Labastida map, rather than Filisola's notes onsite. And I suspect that this description was written by Filisoa's ghost writer/collaborator, whose probable name I don't recall right now. Seriously, take the Filisola description and follow it on the Labastida map. I know, you can say they're both depicting the same defenses so they should be very similar, but the Filisola description reads like a verbalization of a map, rather than of real space and structure. Jake, I've always leaned towards your own interpretation of most of the archaeological evidence re: the palisade, as opposed to Fox and Eaton et al. And it's difficult to believe that anyone placed any great reliance on Chabot, who was merely repeating an early description of Cos' breastworks in town. I've also heard that Filisola may have relied upon the LaBastida plan, and while that may be true to some degree, yet Filisola provides us with unique, additional facts about the fort that we simply cannot cull from LaBastida. For instance, Filisola gives the height of the church battery. He describes the log reinforcements on the north wall. He also notes the thickness of some of the walls and buildings, and in some cases their physical makeup (viz., whether of "cut stone" or "mud"). He describes several ditches, and in at least one case mentions depth. He notes how the earth the Texians had shored up against the walls was inadequate in terms of providing banquettes, and had proved detrimental during the final attack. He describes the type of vegetation around the fort and town, too. We can derive none of this information by simply looking at LaBastida's aerial view. (It would seem incredible to me that any ghost writer for Filisola would have simply made up some of these data. It's all dry, dull factual description, and does not redound to Filisola's glory in any way. So why invent things?). Filisola was there, so he has that advantage over us. And no doubt he probably also leaned---aside from his firsthand observation---upon the commentary of his fellow officers as well as drawn plans, such as LaBastida's, to round out his narrative. But that can be said about almost any military officer of the period, of any country, setting about to writing his memoirs.
|
|