|
Post by bmoses on Dec 6, 2007 0:07:13 GMT -5
As Mark pointed out, the nature of the gap between the Convento complex and the structure to the north has not been investigated archaeologically. Its important to note that very little is known about the northeast structure aside from the fact that it was a low and narrow structure (or group of structures), likely constructed of jacal, and was probably built for use as barracks sometime after 1802 by the Compania Volante.
While in theory the location offers some interesting archaeological research questions, my memory in walking the area (immediately north of the Long Barracks under the Houston Street sidewalk) is that there are very large sewer mains and other buried utilities running through the area. I would guess that any remnants of the gateway are probably gone.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 6, 2007 2:17:19 GMT -5
Ah, its a nuisance being 6 hours out of sync with everybody else. The plan is a fairly old one pre-dating Mark's work, hence the dog-leg and some of the proportions may be a little iffy, but the passage is shown very clearly on the Giraud and other early plats and as Mark says it would have been too useful to be stopped up by the defenders.
In any case detail and dog-legs aside what I was trying to do was reconcile Sesma's report (as translated by Tom Kailburn) with the Alamo layout. There are three distinct breakouts described; successively on the right, the centre and on the left. Tom will doubtless weigh in on the ambiguities of the wording, but given that Sesma appears to have been on the east side of the Alamo; that little passage is the likeliest exit point for the first breakout. The third seems to have been on the south side of the church and I have a vague recollection of a suggestion there was some kind of gate or opening at the point where the palisade met the chuch wall (Mark?)
The question which remains is the party who "emerged from the fortin of the center" (or centre of the fort, Tom admits ambiguity) which I've interpreted on the plan as being that gun position at the (non-existent) dog-leg, simply for the reason Mark suggests, ie; an easier exit point than going over the wall itself.
I look forward to further development of this question, but as a general point would go back to earlier comments about Mark's model showing what poor shape the whole place was in and somewhere the Texians may have had no confidence about holding when it really came to a fight - which is why so many of them may have been ready to bug out when it happened. Not through sheer terror or cowardice, just a calculated decision that fighting was hopeless
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 6, 2007 2:38:35 GMT -5
Stuart, You are correct. There was a gap, which I believe was even verified by Eaton's excavations of the palisade area, at the southwest corner of the exterior of the baptistry (or, the eastern end of the palisade), where there must have been a gate of some sort. If any of the defenders exited the compound at the palisade area, they almost certainly exited this gate, although it is possible a few could have jumped out of the embrasure for the 4-pounder. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 6, 2007 8:04:01 GMT -5
If so, is it likely that this is the gate from which the Alamo messengers most likely left and re-entered? Or the Gonzales 32? A while back we discussed the most likely exit route for messengers and there was some thought that they left from a gate or opening somewhere along the northern end of the west wall and used the ditch to conceal themselves as they worked their way around to the south end and one of the roads leading east. Also, would the flooded areas to the east of the fort have discouraged use of a gate in the granery area?
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 6, 2007 8:40:08 GMT -5
I think its quite possible that this gate by the church may have been the exit point of choice for at least some of the messengers since it would have been screened at least to some degree by the abatis.
Remember it was the Mexicans who originally held and fortified the Alamo and they would therefore have known where the exits were.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 6, 2007 8:41:59 GMT -5
Tom will doubtless weigh in on the ambiguities of the wording Sesma's first reference to a fortín reads: "saliendo por el fortín de su derecho". The ambiguity is: by the possessive adjective su did Sesma mean the Texans’ : i.e., “leaving through the fortín of [or on] their right”, or did he mean the fortín itself: “leaving through the fortín on its right” (i.e., right side of the fortín)? The second reference to fortín reads: “otra partida como de cincuenta hombres se desprendió entonces del fortín del centro.” You could read it “Another party of about fifty men then emerged from the fortín of the center” or, “...emerged from the fortín from the center.” Again, rather ambiguous. The third reference to fortín is: “los que por el fortín de la izqierda se desprendian,” or “those [of the enemy] who were emerging from the fortín from the left” (or, “emerging from the fortín of the left”). I've mulled over Sesma's wording for several years, and still don't have a chiseled-in-stone opinion of exactly what and where the three fortines were (if in fact there were three separate ones). ...given that Sesma appears to have been on the east side of the Alamo... His report doesn't specify where he was located at the time of the breakouts. Considering the barrier those ponds Labastida depicts to the east would have posed, perhaps his operations were more to the southeast.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 6, 2007 11:23:29 GMT -5
Tom,
Thanks, you're explanation clarifies where I'm currently having trouble.
As I posted earlier, Stuart's theory pretty well satisfied me when first brought up. Looking at it from the defenders' perspective, and how we think the battle progressed until the breakouts, and then add the deliberate effort by Santa Anna to force the garrison out of the compound into the waiting arms of the cavalry, it all made sense.
Mark's research makes it more problematic for me. First, as Tom says Sesma was probably SE of the Alamo, rather than east. His initial position with the cavalry was the Alameda or where the aqucea east of the Alamo crossed the Gonzales Road (even more South than SE). Using Mark's work, from this location it seems that Sesma would never see anybody exiting the East Gate until they were past the aqucea. It also seems to me that Sesma, from the Alameda, would be unable to tell the difference between a body of men exiting the East Gate from a group exiting the northern courtyard.
Which brings me back to the possibility of the Lunette being one of the exits.
While Potter doesn't say the Lunette was attacked, he does say that the initial attack in the south was repulsed and that the Mexican Commander (incorrectly identified as Cos) rallied the men at the Stone building outside the SW corner of the Alamo. Where we know from Filisola that they attacked and captured the SW corner. As the Main Gate is given in one of the Mexican Accounts as the Southern column's objective. It appears to me, that there is a very real chance that Morales initially attacked the Lunette was repulsed and rallied his men and subsequently took the SW corner. Any defenders in the Lunette would in effect have been cut off and isolated as Morales' men spread into the compound, and may have had no choice but to attempt to breakout.
Adding the lunette, makes Sesma account of three fortins on the right, center, and left, from the Alameda more logical, to me.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 6, 2007 16:06:44 GMT -5
Adding the lunette, makes Sesma account of three fortins on the right, center, and left, from the Alameda more logical, to me. The palisade could not have been the second position attacked though, the logisitcs don't work out if you'll recall the research on the numbers I outlined in the Alamo Journal article. Sesma describes far too much action regarding the second group for the palisade area to have been the place in question. All this reexamination has also caused me to consider that perhaps we're taking Sesma too literally when he refers to the breakout areas. Perhaps the second breakout, the one in the center, might have included men from the gap (as Stuart has suggested) and men exiting through the northermost courtyard. The third breakout might have included the area of the palisade and maybe men coming over the lowest portion of the church wall (or even windows). Once the soldados were pouring into the compound from the north, west, and SW, I don't think men would have been queing up to get through a 5 foot gap...they'd have gone over wherever there was fast egress, so ther may have been a number of points of exit. From Sesma's vantage point he might not have seen where they came from other than generally (left, right, center). Maybe he used "fortin" as a point of reference only...remember, his reprt was written to someone who was there. I don't think this refutes anything that Stuart or I have written in the past, but only offers another possibility. On another note (and this does fly in the face of my previous theory to a degree), if an exit was made from the palisade, how did the defenders deal with the abatis? jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 6, 2007 16:45:58 GMT -5
Nice to see some proper discussion going again, its been quiet here too long...
Anyway, just two quick points:
Remember we're not just dependent on Sesma, there's also the Lorcana account, stating that "Sixty-two Texians who sallied from the east side of the fort were received by the lancers and all killed." (my emphasis)
So far as getting out through an abatis is concerned, its a lot easier than going in since the branches are angled away from you rather than towards you - and in any case if they Texians were using the gate there was more than likely a clear path - which wouldn't have been visible from outside.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 6, 2007 16:58:18 GMT -5
I've just noticed another interesting bit in the Lorcana account:
"There in front of the fosse (following on from the bit about dealing with the breakout he's clearly talking about the acqueia) were gathered the bodies of all who died by the lance, and those killed in the fort, and there they were ordered to be burned, and there being no room in the campo santo or burying-ground, it being all taken up with the bodies of upwards of four hundred Mexicans, who were all killed in the assault."
The immediate Mexican casualties are a bit suspect - this account was published in the SA Express for June 23 1878, but otherwise its pretty clear and explicit.
The Texians tried to break out of the east side of the Alamo but were intercepted and killed by lancers. Their bodies were gathered up by the acqueia, along with those of the other defenders and burned there.
If memory serves me right this wouldn't be too incompatable with the Fire Station/Peach Orchard site and would definitely point to an eastern exit rather than a south eastern one.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 6, 2007 19:36:23 GMT -5
I'm not too hung upon the numbers, as I've mentioned in other posts, I believe Sesma's reported numbers are inflated, based on the number of men he committed. What does seem conclusive is that we had a relatively small number, 12 or less, in the first and last exits; and a fairly large number 35 - 50 in the middle exit.
I concur that the fighting took place on the east side of the compound. The problem I have right now is visualizing how Sesma could see men leaving through the East Gate from the Alameda and why he would separate them from a larger body leaving the northern courtyard. Yes there is a time separation, but wouldn't he say a small body exited the fortin on the right and describe that action, then say a second larger body then exited the fortin on the right and then describe that action?
I don't have a problem seeing a body of men leaving through the palisade and heading east and probably taking up a position in the aqucea (ditch) south of the flooded area. My problem with Tom Lindley's argument of the palisade being the center fortin, was that he had the defenders taking up position in the partially completed ditch just outside the palisade. Clearly, the Mexican Cavalry would never have cleared them out of there without dismounting and taking far more casualties then they did.
Now if Sesma, was personally located with some aides on the East ridge overlooking the Alamo, and only the troopers were in the Alameda, Jim and Stuart's scenario makes sense to me once more. Of course we still have some difficulty with the East Gate and where exactly was Romero's column.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 6, 2007 20:36:57 GMT -5
While I don't believe that Sesma was moving around as much as Tom Lindley suggested at one time, I think there's a possibility he wasn't static. Wasn't it mentioned here that Santa Anna was with Sesma part of the time observing the action? (I don't have time to look up the reference right now, sorry!) If so, where would the two of them likely reconnoiter? I doubt it was at the battery to the NE. Any thoughts? jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 7, 2007 1:58:11 GMT -5
We know of course that Santa Anna started off the assault from the north. Once he'd committed the reserve battalion however the battle was out of his hands, so it seems logical that having anticipated a breakout from the east he would then circle around that way to see how Sesma was doing before eventually making his triumphant entry through the main gate.
In general terms I'm still inclined to go for a viewpoint from the east rather than the Alameda. Even without Lorcana's statement, Sesma's use of terms right, centre and left implies a reference to a linear feature; ie the east walls. If he was viewing the Alamo from an angle so that one of more of the breakouts occurred "around the corner" I'd expect him to use compass points instead.
Another factor to bear in mind is that since the main effort was going into the north, and Morales was tasked with taking the south gate, Santa Anna had to be anticipating a breakout from the east and Sesma ought to have been positioned accordingly where, as he says he could see each breakout as it occurred and direct his lancers accordingly
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 7, 2007 9:32:02 GMT -5
I have just re-read Tom's translation of Sesma's report and these seem to be the key sections of it: "The fire being persistent and the enemy being dislodged from their first line of fortification as you predicted, many of them believing their retreat [withdrawal] secure leaving through the fortín of their right and came out in sufficient numbers that they were marching organized through the plain, trying to take advantage of the adjacent rough and brambled ground." What "plain" is he referring to? This image of a number of Texians "marching" in some kind of order suggests a planned exit, not a scramble to get out after the Mexicans had entered the fort. "I ordered a company of the Dolores Regiment...to cause damage to the enemy through the area of the rough ground and charge them with the lanzacitos. The brave officers, just like the troop that they were commanding, charged them and stabbed them to death in moments...." Sesma describes a "charge" over rough ground by mounted lancers. If the ground to the east was flooded, and the area to the south, beyond the abatis, was not a "plain", where might this area have been? If it was around the "gap," and assuming they'd have avoided the flooded areas, wouldn't this have placed them rather near Romero's force (assuming they had not all entered the fort yet and bearing in mind Wolf's point about us not really knowing exactly where Romero was)? Also, if this was a fairly small group (less than 20, say), then they might have been able to exit through the 5-foot gap without too much trouble. Note that the next group is much larger and is described as exiting from another location (possibly over the wall of the northern courtyard). "Another party of about fifty men then emerged from the foríin of the center, and I ordered the company of lancers of the Regiment of Dolores to charge them...and since the enemy saw their movement, they [the Texans] took possession of a ditch, making a defense so vigorous that I had to order Lt. don Francisco Molino with twenty Lancers of Tampico and twelve of Veracruz to assist that force, which, although it never hesitated, I feared would be repulsed, and the Captain of the Rio Grande[,] don Manuel Barragan, and the lieutenant of the same company, don Pedro Rodríguez, with fifteen men of that company to flank them [the enemy]: all those officers executed the movement with such determination and exactness that some men [Texans] truly entrenched in that position and resolved to sell their lives very dearly were cast out in a few minutes and put to the sword." Where might this ditch have been? Apparently, it represented a significant feature, in which the Texans were able to put up some kind of fight (Sesma later mentions one soldado who was killed there) and from which they were dislodged. So we now have at least one group being charged across a brambled plain by lancers, and at least one other group entrenched in a ditch. "Then [other officers] were detained with another company to charge those [of the enemy] who were emerging from the fortín from the left and who were also killed...." This is the third group and, again, the Mexicans are described as charging them, presumably over open ground. Sesma also adds this detail: "Finally, Most Excellent Sir, the cavalry has circled the fortification of the Alamo at a distance of fifteen paces around[,] under enemy fire, and has carried out its orders...." I'm confused -- they have circled the fort, only 15 paces from the walls, while the Texians are still firing at them? How does that square with cavalry awaiting the breakouts at some distance in order to run down the Texians? The only reference I can find regarding Jim's point about Santa Anna's possible location is this: "It is for the rest to tell you about the desperate resistance of those men [the enemy], since you have been in the midst of the danger, dictating my orders, and you have been a better eyewitness than any other person of the deeds of everyone." This does suggest the possibility that Santa Anna joined Sesma toward the latter part of the battle (wherever he may have been at that point) and directed some of the Mexican actions against those fleeing the fort. Or, maybe just Sesma trying to flatter his excellency. AW
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 7, 2007 10:17:43 GMT -5
Sesma also adds this detail: "Finally, Most Excellent Sir, the cavalry has circled the fortification of the Alamo at a distance of fifteen paces around[,] under enemy fire, and has carried out its orders...." I'm confused -- they have circled the fort, only 15 paces from the walls, while the Texians are still firing at them? How does that square with cavalry awaiting the breakouts at some distance in order to run down the Texians? I agree, that passage is confusing. Here is the original Spanish, from the typescript of the report at Center for American History, UT Austin: ". . . la caballeria Srá circunbalado la fortificacion del Alamo á distancia de quince posos en contorno bajo el fuego de los enemigos y ha cumplido con las orns. q. tenia . . . ." The translation of this extract in Sesma's Report by Adam Lifshey in Hansen, The Alamo Reader, p. 370, reads: ". . . the high cavalry fired upon the Alamo fort at a distance of fifteen strides under enemy fire, and has fulfilled the orders that it had . . . ." This translation interprets "Srá" as meaning "high" and "circumbalado," a non-word, as somehow being a composite meaning "fired upon." Instead, IMO "circumbalado" was probably a transcriptional error for "circunvalado," a real word, past participle meaning encircle or surround. And, "Srá" is problematic, but, since circunvalado should have an auxiliary verb, I tend to think "Srá" may be a transcriptional error for the auxiliary ha ("ha circunvalado" = "has circled") posos, as in "á distancia de quince posos" is another non-word but, as Lifshey/Hansen state, is probably a misspelling of pasos, or paces. "en contorno" simply means around. I agree that this part of Sesma's report doesn't seem to make much sense, but I'm giving my take on the translation as I see it.
|
|