|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 24, 2007 13:45:32 GMT -5
Thanks Wolf; that's very informative. Perhaps the attack at the north end was designed to both create some degree of confusion for the Texians and to gain entrance and drive them into the cavalry outside to the south. I'm not sure how Morales' movements fit into it, but it's possible that the Mexicans simply expected the Texians to scatter and bolt once the fort was entered. Thus, the plan to have cavalry in place to run them down. I've seen it frequently mentioned that men on the ground were easy prey for mounted troops, which seems to have been the case here.
Somewhat related -- since the attack took place in the dark, was it still dark when the defenders bolted and were run down by Sesma's cavalry? If so, I'm surprised that at least some of them didn't escape in the dark. The Mexicans did use skyrockets, as seen in the 2004 film, which could explain that.
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 24, 2007 14:47:57 GMT -5
I'm planning to respond to this at greater length in due course, but I think the key may be Filisola's story about the soldier shouting Viva Santa Anna at an inopportune moment. This is a bit puzzling when set against the alternative version that a rocket was used to signal the assault. What I suspect happened was that either the soldier (in Ducque's column) did get carried away or the story was told to excuse Ducque getting carried away (sorry ) and launching the attack on the north wall prematurely. Once that happened the rocket was used to get everybody else moving at one and the same time. Romero and Cos we've discussed. Morales I suspect, although tasked with taking the gate, was really intended as another diversion, this time to draw defenders away from the north wall ahead of the real assault. Instead Ducque mucked up the timetable by moving too quick and Morales' diversion was at first ineffective. However once the real assault went in and drew the defenders north he came to the happy realisation that he had an opportunity - and took it.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Oct 28, 2007 18:11:44 GMT -5
In regards to Romero's attack, Sanchez-Navarro says: "Col. Jose Maria Romero with Battalions "Jimenez"and "Matamoros" assaulted and entered" the North extension of the Long Barracks - the Jacales. So, if correct, that would seem to put to rest the question where Romero attacked.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 8, 2008 19:38:55 GMT -5
I need to amend my post and my position on Romero's attack.
The above quote came from Nelson's Alamo Illustrated and is incomplete. Hanson's book (pp408-409) has a complete translation of Sanchez-Navarro's index. When comparing the index description with his sketch, S-N describes Romero attacking and entering, not just the north extension of the Long Barracks but the northern convento courtyard (horse corral) as well.
If Navarro is accurate, this would have some bearing on the breakouts. My belief was that Romero largely ignored the horse corral and surged over the walls of the north extension of the Long barracks. But the complete translation has Romero overwhelming the horse corral as well.
So, according to Sanchez-Navarro, my position that the defenders in the north courtyard (horse corral) were not engaged is incorrect. It would appear they were not only engaged by Romero but pushed out like some of the defenders in the southern end of the plaza.
I'll follow-up in the breakout thread.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 9, 2008 12:58:19 GMT -5
That northern courtyard defensive position was not a strong one, as Labastida showed it, at least -- one cannon (en barbette again) and the rest shoulder arms; along the north side a very low wall, just under five feet; and really dependent on a bunch of people with loaded weapons being there and awake.
A tempting target for assault if you have the men to do it -- 4 3/4 feet is low enough you can go right over if you're motivated, and it had no trench on the outside, just apparently an earthen rampart packed against the outside of the wall, so you could approach at a full run.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 9, 2008 14:26:10 GMT -5
Yes, I see what you mean. A wall of that size would be a target. Jake, with the wall that low was a firing step really necessary?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 9, 2008 16:16:54 GMT -5
Woops -- I checked my calculations in one of my files, and find that I figured this north wall to be about 4.25 feet high, based on my calculations of how much dirt they had to work with.
It works out like this: wall about 4.25 feet high, no firing step, and about a 6-foot wide strip south of the wall between it and the ditch. The ditch was about 3.5 feet deep at its deepest point, and served as the area where the troops could step back down and be below the fire of the enemy, with the floor of the trench 7.75 feet below the top of the wall.
The circular trench we found outside the corner itself supplied enough earth to make the low gun platform inside the corner and an earthen embankment outside the corner between the wall and the circular trench.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 30, 2008 12:15:16 GMT -5
I'd like to get back to our discussion about Romero's attack and how it dovetails into the breakouts.
I'm looking to gain a clearer perspective of Romero's starting position, the focus of his attack, where he penetrated and entered the Alamo, and his role in the breakouts.
I went back and re-read all of our posts and then compared some of our conclusions to what de la Pena had wrote. So, now I'd like to get some further clarification.
DLP states the "target areas" as follows: "General Cos...was to move against the western front, which faced the city." "Colonel Duque...was entrusted with a like mission against the front facing the north." "Colonel Romero...was to attack the east front, which was the strongest, perhaps because of it's height or perhaps because of the number of cannon that were defending it..."
Going by DLP's description, it appears Romero was tasked with attacking and entering the Alamo via the jacales. An assault here would make sense to me providing this section of wall was as weak as it appears. But I don't think you could attack the jacales without engaging the convento courtyard as well. I also wonder if perhaps the east gate was an objective.
As for Romero's starting point, I'm guessing it was to the northeast, somewhere between the Mexican battery and the acequia. Wherever Romero's column started, it's clear they took fire from the rear of the church. According to DLP: "the third (column), which had been sorely punished on it's left flank by a battery of three cannon on a barbette that cut a serious breach in it's ranks....was forced to seek a less bloody entrance, and thus changed it's course toward the right angle of the north front."
As I try to visualize DLP's description, I see Romero's column racing toward the jacales and taking fire in their left flank, just above the flooded area. Seconds later, as the column draws closer to it's designated point of attack, the north wall of the convento courtyard, joined by any defenders positioned in or on the jacales, opens a destructive fire on Romero's soldados, driving them to what DLP describes as the "right angle of the north front."
Here is where it starts to get a little hazy for me. DLP does not specify where Romero entered. Neither does Gen. Fillisola. The only reference I'm aware of was made by Sanchez-Navarro in his map key.
So if Romero did enter the fort through the jacales and cattle pen, I'm thinking it may have been after the defenders in the northern courtyard went over the wall and made a dash to the east. I don't see Romero's attack as being the catalyst for the breakout from the courtyard. I think the Texans in the convento courtyard would've made their escape before Romero's soldados got close enough to prevent the breakout.
Once the garrison abandoned the convento courtyard, Romero's soldados had few, if any, defenders to contest their entry into the Alamo.
On a somewhat related question, what effect would the acequia directly in front of the north wall (Acequia del Alamo) have had on the attack?
I wonder if it would have been an impediment to speed. For example. As the Mexican columns raced toward the north wall, would they not have been tripping and stumbling as they tried to negotiate the ditch - in the dark and under fire? It seems like a few soldados tripping or stumbling could easily cause a pile-up. Would the Mexicans have used the acequia as protection?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Apr 30, 2008 16:38:53 GMT -5
Good post -- brought up a lot of great questions. First, maybe for Mark Lemon, how far to the north could the cannon in the apse of the chapel have been swung, to bear on Romero's column? From the model, it doesn't look like they would have had much range to either the south or north. I'm thinking that the major thing that caused Romero's column to shift to the Northeast wall was the cannon at the northeast of the convento courtyard and the firing positions in the north wall of the courtyard.
Another question to me -- just pondering. Once Romero's men (probably just a portion) gained access to the courtyard, it seems that the only way to get from there to the Alamo plaza was through the porteria. I wonder how many would have even known of its existence. It seems like most would have been trying to gain entrance to the Long Barracks through doorways in the east, facing into the courtyard. Seems like they would have been bottled up in the courtyard for a while, and not have made much of an impact on the rest of the battle.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 30, 2008 18:03:17 GMT -5
If there was a column of infantry attacking due west from the east (Romero), and headed for the long barrack extension (jacale), a gun from the Fortin de Cos, pointed north at this column could fire upon them until they reached about 50 yards east of the extension wall. Any closer than that, and the fire of this gun would have been blocked by both the northeast corner of the north courtyard, and the inability of the gun to be traversed any farther to its left due to the ruined chancel wall. The gun in the north courtyard would have a clear field of fire upon this column, virtually all the way to the extension wall (though the gunners may not have fired at the infantry once the extension wall was in the line of fire...) Mark
|
|