|
Post by Herb on Dec 7, 2007 12:28:10 GMT -5
I take this bit about circumventing the Alamo as a subsequent action. After defeating the mass exits, the cavalry regrouped and deliberately circumvented the Alamo to prevent any surviving individuals from slipping through while the infantry finished mopping up inside the compound.
One additional thought on the last breakout group and again supporting the possibility of the lunette being one of the attempted exits. We have the one execution account that happened outside the walls - as Santa Anna rode up to enter the Alamo some Texians attempted to surrender from a ditch (presumably the ditch around the lunette) and were executed by Santa Anna's escort upon his orders. Interestingly, to me, is that Sesma's report is especially vague about the third group to exit. I wouldn't bet any of Jim's money on it, but I wonder if the group executed wasn't the same as Sesma's third group.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 7, 2007 12:40:49 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 Jim, I don't think Sesma was a stonewall, either, and occupying a point on the ridge east of the Alamo, to me, is the only way he could have observed the action of three groups using the East Gate, Northern Courtyard, and the Palisade. It is a distinct possibility. BUT, it isn't what Sesma said. "I have the honor of telling you you that situated in the position that Your Excellency had the goodness to anticipate for me, I waited for the moment to fulfill the orders that you communicated to me before our attack columns marched forward to the assault." (Hansen, 370). Sesma could indeed have occupied a position separated from the cavalry, but that passage, to me, says that at least initially he was with the cavalry. Which we know from other accounts was at the Alameda when the assault columns began their attacks. And which brings me back to my hang up about the East Gate! ;D
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 7, 2007 13:21:27 GMT -5
Jim, I don't think Sesma was a stonewall, either, and occupying a point on the ridge east of the Alamo, to me, is the only way he could have observed the action of three groups using the East Gate, Northern Courtyard, and the Palisade. It is a distinct possibility. BUT, it isn't what Sesma said. "I have the honor of telling you you that situated in the position that Your Excellency had the goodness to anticipate for me, I waited for the moment to fulfill the orders that you communicated to me before our attack columns marched forward to the assault." (Hansen, 370). Sesma could indeed have occupied a position separated from the cavalry, but that passage, to me, says that at least initially he was with the cavalry. Which we know from other accounts was at the Alameda when the assault columns began their attacks. And which brings me back to my hang up about the East Gate! ;D I'm inclined to disagree on this one. We had the same argument when Tom was still around. Sesma was certainly ordered to form up at the Alameda - which would have provided a certain amount of cover, but I've always taken that as his start point before moving around to an assigned position to the east. As I said above with Morales knocking on the main gate he was hardly going to anticipate a breakout from the south and we have Lorcana's clear and unambiguous statement that the main action took place to the east, by a "fosse" or ditch which really has to be the acquiea
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 7, 2007 13:37:35 GMT -5
Maybe it's just semantics? In referring to his position, was Sesma necessarily talking about himself, or the positon that his force had been assigned (not necessarily where he physically was throughout the battle)?
AW
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 7, 2007 13:43:17 GMT -5
To me, the biggest problem is still the logistics. There's no way the palisade area could have been the second breakout as described by Sesma. There's far too much cavalry involved, and a cavalry charge into an abatis doesn't make any sense. While I agree that Sesma might have padded the numbers of the defenders making their escape attempt (though I'm not convinced he did so), it wouldn't have been to his advantage to overstate the numbers of cavalry he deployed to deal with the escapees. There's also been concerns that had the numbers of escapees been as large as those recounted by Sesma there would likely have been more lancer casualties, but I don't think this is neccessarily the case either. If the defenders were unaware that the lancers were staged in the almeda, they were taken by surprise. Add to that the problems of muzzle loading weapons, and the obvious disadvantage a man on foot has against a mounted opponent, and Sesma's report seems reasonable to me. The "ditch" comment is also problematic as regards this area.
One argument that faovers the eastern "gate" as a point of exit is Sesma's observation that the men marched out in an organized fashion. If they were exiting through a narrow passageway in near single file, that might have given Sesma the impression of an organized effort. A group of men coming over a wall or a larger point of egress might have looked less organized. Just a thought. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 7, 2007 13:54:08 GMT -5
To me, the biggest problem is still the logistics. There's no way the palisade area could have been the second breakout as described by Sesma. There's far too much cavalry involved, and a cavalry charge into an abatis doesn't make any sense. While I agree that Sesma might have padded the numbers of the defenders making their escape attempt (though I'm not convinced he did so), it wouldn't have been to his advantage to overstate the numbers of cavalry he deployed to deal with the escapees. There's also been concerns that had the numbers of escapees been as large as those recounted by Sesma there would likely have been more lancer casualties, but I don't think this is necessarily the case either. If the defenders were unaware that the lancers were staged in the almeda, they were taken by surprise. Add to that the problems of muzzle loading weapons, and the obvious disadvantage a man on foot has against a mounted opponent, and Sesma's report seems reasonable to me. The "ditch" comment is also problematic as regards this area. Jim That's Tom Lindley's position that the fight occurred in the ditch in front of the Palisade. It very clearly did not. What I'm saying is that the defenders who exited the palisade (no matter whether it was the second or the third group) proceeded east and took up a position in a ditch east of the Alamo - possibly the aqucea south of where it was flooded. With the Church on one side, the Low Barracks on the other and the abatis in front, there is no way the cavalry made a mounted attack against defenders in the partial ditch in front of the palisade. Don't forget there was a gate near the church in the palisade, with a probable abatis free area right next to the Church. While certainly insufficient space for a company in line to march out a column of 2-4 men abreast could.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 7, 2007 14:08:32 GMT -5
Maybe it's just semantics? In referring to his position, was Sesma necessarily talking about himself, or the position that his force had been assigned (not necessarily where he physically was throughout the battle)? AW It certainly could be semantics - but it's also an assumption, imo. As Stuart alluded, we had a discussion sometime ago on how Sesma would have controlled the cavalry. Tom Lindley and others contended that Sesma was riding all over the battlefield leading cavalry attacks. Very clearly, imo, he was not. He was directing attacks not leading them. As such he was probably located in a position (s) that allowed him to best see the battlefield, direct the cavalry, and allow his subordinates to be able to find him and to report. Stating the obvious this wasn't an FM radio directed battle. Sesma had to be located at a position where he could be found and where he could send aides to direct his subordinates. For all these reasons a position on the East Ridge makes infinite sense. But, there is nothing in Sesma's report to lead us to believe that he took up a position separate from the cavalry prior to the attacks. The wording of his report, to me, seems very clear that at least until the attacks began that he was with the cavalry. That he moved to a better position to observe and command his portion of the battle once the attacks began is a reasonable assumption, but it is an assumption. His Command Group moving out into the open prior to the beginning of the breakouts carries a high risk of detection and revealing that portion of Santa Anna's plan before it was implemented. Moving out to that position after the first breakout was detected makes infinite sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 7, 2007 14:12:42 GMT -5
The way I read both the Sesma and Lorcana accounts is that the defenders came out in a body which was well clear of the Alamo before it was attacked, and that the Texians esconced themselves in the ditch - which by then was presumably behind them - when they were attacked.
I think a lot of this argument could be getting hung up around a mental picture of all of this occurring close undrr the walls when in fact it was probably well out.
If the peach orchard/firehouse connection is correct then that places the scene of the action and (per Lorcana) the site of the pyres clear of the innundation from the choked acquiea
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 7, 2007 14:27:14 GMT -5
The way I read both the Sesma and Lorcana accounts is that the defenders came out in a body which was well clear of the Alamo before it was attacked, and that the Texians esconced themselves in the ditch - which by then was presumably behind them - when they were attacked. I think a lot of this argument could be getting hung up around a mental picture of all of this occurring close undrr the walls when in fact it was probably well out. If the peach orchard/firehouse connection is correct then that places the scene of the action and (per Lorcana) the site of the pyres clear of the innundation from the choked acquiea We're very much in agreement here. Though I am intrigued by the one execution account and the very vague comments about the third group by Sesma.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 7, 2007 14:50:22 GMT -5
Leaving that execution aside, I think we have to bear in mind the likely sequence of events and orders.
Sesma clearly is with the cavalry. He explicitly describes ordering particular units to intervene at various points in his report. I'm therefore inclined to put all of them up on the east ridge after moving off from the Alameda, because the way they are sent to deal with each breakout implies that they aren't hanging around close by say the east gate waiting. If they are too close in to start off with not only are they likely to get caught up in the main battle but any Texians who don't actually run into them head on are likely to get past them and perhaps clear away. Far better to hold well back, watch for them and only then close in.
So far as the supposed vagueness of his report on how the third breakout was dealt with; that's probably just down to distance. The fight by the firehouse (for lack of a better identifier) was big and obvious, but if, as is likely he was still sitting up on the east ridge he may simply not have seen very much detail of what was happening in that last fight - especially if he was briefing Santa Anna at the time
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 7, 2007 15:43:03 GMT -5
. . . we have Lorcana's clear and unambiguous statement that the main action took place to the east, by a "fosse" or ditch which really has to be the acquiea Stuart, I have some problems with the Manuel Loranca account, but will give you some extra ammunition here: the word Sesma uses for the ditch that the Texas who came out of the "center" fortín resorted to is zanja, which refers quite specifically to an irrigation ditch, or acequia, rather than a military-type entrenchment.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 7, 2007 16:12:21 GMT -5
Tom, I'll be interested in your take on Lorcana. The publication is so late I'd ordinarily be wary; but he describes clearly and in some detail a breakout which no-one else spoke about until Jack Davis discovered the Sesma report.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 7, 2007 16:18:49 GMT -5
Stuart, I'll start a separate thread on him next week.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 7, 2007 17:36:57 GMT -5
Sesma clearly is with the cavalry. He explicitly describes ordering particular units to intervene at various points in his report. I'm therefore inclined to put all of them up on the east ridge after moving off from the Alameda, because the way they are sent to deal with each breakout implies that they aren't hanging around close by say the east gate waiting. If they are too close in to start off with not only are they likely to get caught up in the main battle but any Texians who don't actually run into them head on are likely to get past them and perhaps clear away. Far better to hold well back, watch for them and only then close in. This is the impression I get from his report. He mentions three incidents involving breakout groups and which units he dispatched to meet them. That does sound like someone in a central position of observation, either close to his units or with messengers who could quickly reach them with orders to move. I am unfamiliar with typical practices of that time, but would it not have been typical for a commander to position himself in that way? AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 7, 2007 22:13:07 GMT -5
Yes, but that doesn't bear on my argument.
I must not be making my self clear. I'm not saying that the big fight didn't happen east of the compound, or that Sesma wasn't with the cavalry, or in a position to control the cavalry.
My argument is simply that the East Gate was probably not one of the fortins identified by Sesma as one of the exits.
IF Sesma was located at the time of the breakouts at the Alameda, he could not see any men exit the Alamo from the East Gate or the Northern Courtyard until they were at the aqucea or beyond - thus they would have been one group and not two.
IF Sesma was located on the East Ridge he was too far away to tell the difference between men exiting the East Gate or exiting the Northern Courtyard especially prior to sunrise.
Very clearly, imo, some men exited from the vicinity of the East Gate/Northern Courtyard, but I do not see now, how Sesma could tell the difference and call features that are literally right next to each other as separate fortins. HIS ability to even see or tell the difference was limited. I truly think we have to look for a third feature as the third exit - the only other feature I can pick out is the lunette that fits into Sesma's descriptions.
|
|