|
Post by Don Allen on Jun 17, 2008 22:23:51 GMT -5
One thing about Mexican architecture--and this hasn't changed much since 1836--is that the roofs of the better houses are flat and cemented with plaster or other cementitious materials. These roofs need replastering and other maintenance periodically, which requires ladders. Plus, back in the day, Mexicans liked to relax on their azoteas (flat roofs), and, except in cases where there was a built-in stairway to the roof, they got up there using movable ladders. Years ago in Saltillo, I watched a crew of plasterers renewing the surface of a flat roof. They had a home-made ladder, very lightweight, with rungs lashed to the uprights with shrunken rawhide. It was tall enough to just reach the top of a one-story wall. The workmen let me climb their ladder up to the top of an adjacent roof to take some photos. It was a rickety affair, and plenty scary to climb, but it got the job done. I bet when the Mexicans entered Bexar 1836, there were plenty of such ladders around for the taking. Excellent bit of insight. That's the kind of thinking that really adds to our understanding of the events of 1836.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 19, 2008 20:48:45 GMT -5
This is interesting about the ladders and roof construction. However, I'd like to return to the original topic, which was to what extent the Texians were taken by surprise and whether Santa Anna intentionally took advantage of the siege pattern things had fallen into, thus lulling the Texians, not with a silent night, but simply with false expectations based on the siege routine.
AW
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jun 20, 2008 10:36:54 GMT -5
Certainly, the garrison was surprised. No question about that. The routine of the siege may have lulled them into a state of complacency.
And Santa Anna appears to have had everyone, including his own officers, believing that an assault wouldn't take place until the walls were breached. This belief may have been validated due to the Mexican battery pounding away at the north wall. Santa Anna, it would seem, was making his intent known. Moving the battery closer to the north wall on March 4th provided Travis with additional cause to believe that an attack might not come until the Mexican artillery knocked a hole in the north wall.
Santa Anna may have decided on an assault by escalade because he was bored with the siege, frustrated with the lack of progress, or both. But it could also be true that Santa Anna believed he could catch the unsuspecting Texans napping and unprepared. If so, an unexpected assault by esclade could produce a quick victory with minimal casualties. Attacking an enemy when and where he least expects it is always preferable. Whatever the reason was, he seems to have caught the Texans as well as his own lieutenant's off guard.
Travis couldn't know the time of the actual attack but he may have correctly assumed it would focus on the northern defenses. Given the uncertainty Travis faced, I think he did about all he could do with the evidence and information he had. Deploy pickets outside the walls to give alarm while keeping some men on the walls and at the ready. The majority of the garrison would get some much needed sleep.
The Mexicans apparently were successful in eliminating the pickets Travis placed outside the walls. As we know, no cry of alarm came from them. I think the surprise would have been total were it not for some excited soldados in Duque's column yelling "Viva Santa Anna" and Viva la Republica." Had the soldados restrained themselves, I believe the Mexicans would have executed a very successful coup de main. Undoubtedly, the battle would have been shorter then it was and Mexican casualties would have been lower.
But by all the accounts I have read the "imprudent huzzas" alerted the garrison and it cost Santa Anna and large numbers of soldados, dearly.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 20, 2008 11:56:43 GMT -5
I think the surprise would have been total were it not for some excited soldados in Duque's column yelling " Viva Santa Anna" and Viva la Republica." Had the soldados restrained themselves, I believe the Mexicans would have executed a very successful coup de main. Undoubtedly, the battle would have been shorter then it was and Mexican casualties would have been lower. Glenn Good point. I don't think there can be any real question that the garrison was surprised. Joe's various accounts all stipulate that the Mexicans were at the walls by the time the garrison got there, and his one account goes even further to state that some Mexicans were already on top of the walls. There's further evidence in DLP's account, though you have to think about it. DLP mentions how confusing the fight for the Long Barracks was, for both sides. He mentions how there would be fanatical resistance from a room, while at the same time some defenders in the same room would be trying to surrender. But, the key point that I think gets overlooked is DLP says that some of the defenders trying to surrender were waving their socks. Now there is only one reason for a man to wave his socks. He never got dressed in the first place. A dressed man, looking for something to use for surrender would take off his shirt to wave, not his boots/shoes then his socks! Very clearly some of the men in the Long Barracks never even left their rooms before the walls fell! We talked about the deep almost catatonic sleep, that men who are sleep deprived fall into when discussing sleep deprivation. I would submit, that when the garrison was awakened by the soon to attack Mexican Army, that it was the bold, energetic, more physically fit members of the garrison that rushed to the walls, presumptively the natural leaders of the garrison, and thus they bore disproportionate losses early in the battle. Perhaps that bears on why the whole battle probably lasted but an hour.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jun 20, 2008 14:00:43 GMT -5
Now there is only one reason for a man to wave his socks. He never got dressed in the first place. I can think of another, and perhaps more plausible, reason: in the darkness/semi-darkness of the interior of the Long Barracks, a defender wishing to surrender could have pawed around among the personal effects and clutter of the quarters, looking for a bit of white cloth, and latched onto somebody's extra, or discarded, pair of socks.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jun 21, 2008 8:24:33 GMT -5
An interesting point to consider. There may have been some defenders, either out of sheer exhaustion or fear, that never left the barracks...hard to say for sure. It could have been the only piece of cloth that was remotely white a defender could get his hands on in that moment of terror and desperation was his or someone else's socks.
While possible, I wouldn't read too much into the use of socks. Just not enough evidence to say with certainty one way or the other.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 21, 2008 20:57:06 GMT -5
It may be enough to confirm that the attack was so much of a surprise that many Texians never left the barracks before the Mexicans got over the wall. In the dark (I believe it was dark at least at the start), they may have been dazed, drowzy, confused and grabbed for a sock, either from their feet or somewhere else. Thinking may not have been too clear. I'm beginning to believe that the siege pattern may be more important than has previously been acknowledged. If Travis and the Texians had come to believe that they did not have to worry until a breach was made in the walls, they would have been perfectly set up for a nocturnal surprise attack.
AW
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 21, 2008 21:26:12 GMT -5
Seems to me that, what with the very cold temps, especially at night, the men would have slept with their socks on, maybe even their boots/shoes. I cannot imagine myself in that situation, trying to keep as warm as humanly possible by whatever means available, then taking off my socks! Whatever socks were waved most likely were some lying around inside the long barracks.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 22, 2008 10:14:43 GMT -5
Seems to me that, what with the very cold temps, especially at night, the men would have slept with their socks on, maybe even their boots/shoes. I cannot imagine myself in that situation, trying to keep as warm as humanly possible by whatever means available, then taking off my socks! Whatever socks were waved most likely were some lying around inside the long barracks. Well, as for me, it had to get very cold, well below freezing, before I slept in my socks to keep my feet warm. Now, being afraid of being caught by surprise, caused me to sleep with them on quite a bit. This is getting way off topic, but letting the feet dry and air out, when you're wearing the same foot-gear for long periods day after day belongs somewhere on the first level of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs for soldiers! As for me, while granted there are other possibilities, socks would not be what I would grab if I was trying to wave a flag to surrender - unless they were in my hand at the time!
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 22, 2008 10:28:32 GMT -5
I'm beginning to believe that the siege pattern may be more important than has previously been acknowledged. If Travis and the Texians had come to believe that they did not have to worry until a breach was made in the walls, they would have been perfectly set up for a ... surprise attack. AW I really think this may be the case. I was rather astounded, when I went back to the sources and could find no evidence of a night time bombardment, contrary to the popular image. It seems far more certain, that the defenders were lulled into an unwariness, simply by the daily routine and the fatigue of almost two full weeks of siege. Now this sounds simplistic, but psychologically humans desire routine and are comforted by it. So much so, that the modern army actually teaches a concept called "battle rhythm". ie following the same daily schedule for the routine things as much as possible. The danger is obvious, you become predictable, but less obvious is the reduction of stress and stress induced fatigue. As with almost everything in war, there are trade-offs, and the good commander must be constantly aware of just not the enemy's situation but his own.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jun 22, 2008 11:37:57 GMT -5
This is getting way off topic, but . . . . Well, it's no more off-topic than anything else in the last four pages of what started out as as a discussion of what constituted musket-shot range We're seeing some new thinking here, so a little topic-straying is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by dimbo33 on Jun 30, 2008 0:16:23 GMT -5
Sorry to get in on this late but I can add a few opinions and a few facts.
I think that it is clear the Ampudia was there from the 23th as had already been brought up, the San Luis log specifically says he ordered the four grenades to be lobed into the Alamo in response to the shot from the 16 pounder in the Alamo (they do call it a canister shot from a 16 pounder)
I can find no evidence of any more cannons arriving at the Alamo on March 3. I have tracked the Mexican cannons extensively and can only find modern Texas sources that act like cannons were brought with the Zapadores, Aldama and Toluca Btns. that arrived that day.
In his Analysis, Filisola several times mentioned things being a musket shot away (he specifically called these a tiro de fusil which would be a musket shot not a rifle shot). I do not have the inclination to look them all up at this late time but some of you may want to. It is my opinion that the musket shot range they are talking about would be about 200 yds. I also have it in the back of my mind that there is an account from one of the Texans at Coleto that said the Mexican cavalry starting firing their escopetas at a range of 400-500 yards. I got the impression that they could not wound you from that range but would sting. I even want to say that there is an account of one of the Texans being bruised in the chest from a long range musket ball.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 30, 2008 10:29:00 GMT -5
I recall an account, can't recall who, that talks about the north battery being improperly positioned originally, and that when Ampudia arrived he had it repositioned to where it was effective, at least that's how I recall it. I've also seen mention of Ampudia being there from the get go ... Greg, I just checked Hansen page 375, where he has Cos's strength report of Feb 22. He shows the accompanying artillery has 2 - 12 pounders, 2 - 6 pounders, and 2 howitzers. We know that the 12 pounders didn't arrive with the infantry on March 3rd, but what about the lighter pieces?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 30, 2008 10:57:11 GMT -5
Take a look at some of the posts on page 1 of this thread; Tom mentioned that, as it appears on the map, the northeast battery would not have been effective against the north or northeast part of the fort. At the angle shown, it would have fired at something like a 45 degree angle to the walls, rather than squarely against the walls. Ampudia may have corrected the location.
AW
|
|
|
Post by dimbo33 on Jul 1, 2008 0:24:25 GMT -5
Rick Range and I tried to track down the account of the arrival of more artillery on the 3rd with the three battalions of the first brigade. We had no luck at all. None of the Mexican source mention bringing any cannons and the remainder of the first brigade (no mention of cannons) seems to have arrived on the eighth.
|
|