|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 8, 2007 1:18:41 GMT -5
Maybe I'm not understanding your position...are you speculating that the lunette was the point of exit rather than the palisade or that both were exits? It's my opinion that if the lunette was a breakout point then the palisade was not. I still don't see any way the palisade could be the position of the second breakout considering Sesma's description. I'm also not sure the lunette lent itself to a breakout. The gate was on the west side, which would have dumped the men right out into Morales' force (which is presumably what forced them out in the first place). Maybe Mark can shed some light on how much of an obstacle (if any) the interior construction of the lunette would have been for men trying to jump over the walls. Jim
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Dec 8, 2007 7:22:56 GMT -5
I wonder if all the speculation about the personal position of Sesma during the breakouts really matters. Wouldn't he have received reports (probably verbal) from his subordinates prior to writing his report? In that case, his report might state incidents and points of view that he did not personally see.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 8, 2007 10:48:52 GMT -5
Jim, Regarding your question in your last post, the lunette most probably had two embrasures, one to the south, and one to the east, as well as a gate perhaps 10 feet wide towards the west. Men wanting out of there quickly could have easily scrambled out of the embrasures. This is assuming that the gun at either embrasure had been fired, and had recoiled back and out of the way (or been man-handled out of the way). They also could have gotten out by the west gate. However they exited, by embrasure, gate, or both, and if the thinking was to get away to the east, they would almost certainly have used the outer ditch for cover, as they moved around the lunette, and then east towards the palisade. But after passing in front of the low barrack, and then along less than 10 yards of ground in front of the palisade, the ditch "topped out" at ground level, and they would have been out and presumably exposed. But this presents another problem as per the account of the breakouts, as men exiting the ditch near the palisade would be virtually indistinguishable from men exiting the palisade gate. This of course assumes a very specific scenario (using the ditch) but I can't see men in desperate straits, and wanting to live, just en masse, clambering out of the lunette, into and out of the ditch, and out into the open to the south of the lunette. Some in their panic may have done so, but my instincts tell me that men in a hard spot use any available depression, in their instinctive effort to lessen their exposure to the enemy. So, this puts us back in about the same fix. Instead of lumping the east gate, and northern courtyard egress points, which wolfpack very correctly points out would have in the darkness been obscured and mixed together in the viewer's eyes, the same situation appears to the south, where men coming out of the lunette near the palisade, would seem to be coming out of the pailsade. But I feel strongly that, if any defenders remained in the lunette as the fort was falling, would have certainly gone OUT OF, rather than BACK INTO, the Alamo, so men exiting the lunette seems perfectly natural to me. On another related note, however, I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut, that the small group of men who presented themselves to Santa Anna's group as they neared the Alamo, were a few "stay behind's" from a larger group, now dead, who exited the lunette. The few who approached SA's group chose to remain behind,either from fear or choice, hunkering down as low as they could get, and were located in the lunette's outer ditch. As they saw the mounted group approaching, they weighed their options (growing daylight, leading to their inevitable discovery) and decided to throw themselves on the mercy of SA. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 8, 2007 11:11:06 GMT -5
I wonder if all the speculation about the personal position of Sesma during the breakouts really matters. Wouldn't he have received reports (probably verbal) from his subordinates prior to writing his report? In that case, his report might state incidents and points of view that he did not personally see. The way I read his report, he was actually seeing these breakouts and very quickly dispatching cavalry to attack them. I don't know how much time might have elapsed between the men breaking out and Sesma sending in the cavalry, but if it had been too long the Texians might have been able to escape. It sounds like the Mexicans dealt with these breakouts very quickly, which suggests that Sesma was able to see or learn of them almost as soon as they happened. AW
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 8, 2007 11:18:03 GMT -5
In the report, the only breakout Sesma explicitly claims to have witnessed was the first (or right) one: "As soon as I observed this [breakout]" he ordered a company of the Dolores Regiment to charge the Texians.
Five days elapsed between the storming of the Alamo and the date on which Sesma signed his report, so it could have been colored by what his subordinates had reported to him. However, at least on the first breakout, he claims to have seen it in progress.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 8, 2007 11:32:16 GMT -5
Maybe I'm not understanding your position...are you speculating that the lunette was the point of exit rather than the palisade or that both were exits? It's my opinion that if the lunette was a breakout point then the palisade was not. I still don't see any way the palisade could be the position of the second breakout considering Sesma's description. I'm also not sure the lunette lent itself to a breakout. The gate was on the west side, which would have dumped the men right out into Morales' force (which is presumably what forced them out in the first place). Maybe Mark can shed some light on how much of an obstacle (if any) the interior construction of the lunette would have been for men trying to jump over the walls. Jim OK, the way I read Sesma's report there were three distinct points of exit from his perspective. The point I've been trying to make is that the East Gate and Northern Courtyard from Sesma's perspective - wherever he may have been - were only one point of exit. Although, nothing in the historical record says this was a point of exit, logic clearly points to it. The palisade as a point of exit is in the historical record, so I don't think disputing it without contrary evidence, is worthwhile. So where was the third distinct exit? There are only four possible alternatives, imo, most of which are no good. 1. The NE corner of the Compound: but how do you get through Romero. 2. The Church: but this makes it the Center fortin and it's clearly unacceptable as an exit for so many men. 3. The Lunette: becomes the third exit for a very small body of men, and makes the palisade the main exit. 4. Somewhere along the West Wall: a debate we've all had before and concluded it was totally unfeasible. By the process of elimination I'm left with the Lunette. Let's take one more look at Sesma's location. Although Bob's comments are right on track, Sesma's report would have been augmented by subordinates reports of their actions, Sesma still had to be in a position to dispatch those subordinates ie see the exits in the first place. There are only two logical places for Sesma to be 1. At the Alameda or 2. Along the East Ridge. I think everybody can see why Sesma could not have seen the East Gate and Northern Courtyard as two distinct exits from the Alameda, but even if he was on the East Ridge it would have been near impossible. Sesma would have of necessity placed himself at 300 - 400 yards from the Alamo to be out of rifle range and be far enough away to react to cannon fire. At that range, at that time of day, there is no way he could have told the difference between men exiting the East Gate and the Northern Courtyard. Now Santa Anna was only 250 yards from the Alamo but he was behind a protected battery not on an open hillside.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 8, 2007 11:36:00 GMT -5
Then it could be that he simply had the cavalry concealed in the Alameda as the battle began and then moved the troops into closer positions around the south and east of the fort with orders to run down any defenders who bolted. It could be that he personally saw only the one breakout and then filled in info on the others after he learned about them. Although it sounds like he personally dispatched officers by name who engaged 2 of the breakouts (for example, re: the second group: "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.") He also mentions that he feared the cavalry might be repulsed by the second breakout group (in the ditch) and so dispatched more troops to reenforce them. It sounds like he was responding very quickly to what he either saw or was told about by messengers fairly quickly. His wording on the third breakout does sound more like something he may have learned about later.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 8, 2007 11:41:06 GMT -5
A different problem connected with the breakouts is that we all assume that the defenders were headed toward Gonzales.
However, they knew about the fortified infantry camp in the Alameda, and the fortified camp on Powder House Hill. Plus according to S. Dickinson they had watched cavalry on Powder House Hill during the siege.
What if the defenders were really trying to exit toward Mina/Bastrop along the Camino Real? The probable fight vicinity of the present firehouse supports this option - as does the account of two survivors, one wounded showing up in Nacogdoches. Just an idea.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 8, 2007 13:05:09 GMT -5
I think its worth bearing in mind that (a) the ambiguities in the translation over the question of whether Sesma was referring to the fortin on the right, the fortin in the centre etc. or simply referring to the right of the fortin, centre of the fortin..., and (b),while the terms right, left and centre, however interpreted suggest Sesma was viewing a single face of the fortress, the east side was not a really a linear feature at all, but was essentially T shaped with the Church/convento jutting out towards his likely vantage point on the east ridge.
Thus if he was referring to the Alamo generally, the first exit would have been on the right of this feature, the second from the feature itself, and the third from the left of it.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 11, 2007 17:47:00 GMT -5
This has been a very interesting and informative discussion about the breakouts....I hope we have more like it. So, thanks to everyone who contributed to the debate. I apologize for not jumping in sooner...I've been out of town, again. Although I find little to disagree with, I though I'd toss in a few comments of my own.
First off, I strongly believe Santa Anna's plan was to use overwhelming force from the North to push the defender's out to the South. With the existence of two southern gates, the main gate and the palisade gate, he probably believed the Texans would naturally egress in that direction. I don't think he anticipated the defenders breaking out where they did.
Looking at Stuart's map, I have to disagree with the location of the first breakout - the small East gate area. A breakout in this particular location just wouldn't make sense. Santa Anna had around 1000 soldados attacking from the North. When the Texans lost control of the north wall the bulk of the Mexican attacking force was still outside waiting to enter the compound. Romero's force of 350-400 men were at or near the northeast corner and easily within striking distance. The fleeing Texans would also have to contend with the flooded area to their front. So I find it difficult to believe that someone hoping to escape death would opt to exit so close to Romero's soldados
I think the site of the first breakout was the livestock pen. As the Mexicans poured into the Alamo compound from the North the defenders in the convento courtyard would have been effectively cut off from the rooms of the long barracks. Separated...and feeling the Alamo and the battle were lost, I feel a large number of Texans went over the wall and trotted off into the brush where they were intercepted by Mexican lancers. As for Sesma's description of the Texans executing an organized march out of the Alamo...I don't buy it.
The second breakout does appear to be the palisade but I doubt Sesma's number of "around fifty men." Those who left through the palisade probably stayed low behind the abatis and made their way East and got as far as the ditch behind the church. From there the Texans may have gotten a good look at Sesma's lancers in the distance...maybe as they were running down other Texans. After watching the Mexican cavalry intercept and kill their comrades, the Texans probably gave up the idea of running for it and made a last stand in the ditch they took cover in. But I think Sesma would have to wait until the church guns were silenced before he could get close enough to apply the coup de grace.
Frankly, I don't think Sesma saw as much as he claimed. His range of visibility would have been adversely affected due to distance, poor light, and battle smoke. He may have moved a little between the east ridge and the Alameda but he would still have to keep his distance due to the guns atop the east wall of the church.
Now, I may be in the minority here but I don't believe Santa Anna tasked Morales with capturing the main gate. I think Santa Anna simply wanted Morales to keep the defenders on the southern end of the Alamo occupied and intercept any Texans fleeing out the main gate and into La Villita. So while Morales' focus was the main gate, I don't think it was his objective to capture it. If Morales did had an objective, I believe it was simply containment.
I think Santa Anna was trying to encourage the Texans to exit out the southern gates and into the Mexican forces he positioned to the south. Sesma's task could have been, in part, to support Morales by running down any Alamo defender that made it out into the open.
At some point during the battle, Morales may have observed the 18 pounder being wheeled around to fire on the Mexicans attacking from the North and concluded that the Texans weren't going to exit the Alamo as expected. So, as we know, Morales makes his "daring move" and leads his men into the Alamo via the southwest corner. However, with Morales' "blocking force" now inside the Alamo, the surviving Texans in the lunette may have concluded that the way of escape was clear. So the lunette may have been the site of the third breakout.
I think Mark was right on with his comments regarding the lunette. I just don't see the defenders in the lunette opening the gate and going in when the battle and the Alamo were already lost.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 11, 2007 18:23:01 GMT -5
I'm sticking to my story that the palisade couldn't have been the site of the second breakout as described by Sesma. Here's a paragraph from my Alamo Journal article, "Another Look at the Perry Account", from a couple of years ago:
There are a number of details in Sesma’s report that indicate the palisade was an unlikely location for the second breakout. Situated between the church and the low barracks, the palisade presented a relatively small front. Sanchez-Navarro indicates an abatis fronting this area [14], which Mr. Lindley disputes, but he fails to provide details as to why he doubts the existence of such an obstruction. Sesma reports that the defenders took possession of a ditch, and while there may have been a trench in front of the palisade, Sesma describes dispatching men to flank the position. Had the Texians been defending a ditch directly in front of the palisade, such a maneuver would have been difficult if not impossible. An examination of the numbers of troops Sesma sent into action to engage this breakout also argues against this action occurring at the palisade. After sending in the first company, Sesma reports such a vigorous defense that he had to commit an additional 47 lancers to the battle. It is far more likely that a force of this size, and a flanking action, was utilized against a group exiting the Alamo along the east wall, perhaps in the corral area, and attempting to traverse open ground to the east before taking cover in a ditch. The geography of the area around the palisade would have inhibited an action of this size. The terrain to the east would have easily accommodated a force such as Sesma described.
According to the latest archaeological info, the "ditch" did not completely front the palisade, as mentioned in one of Mark's earlier posts, but I think the rest of this argument still holds water. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 11, 2007 19:03:54 GMT -5
Jim, I don't know anybody, other than the old argument by Tom Lindley, that is currently saying that the ditch in front of the palisade is where the action took place. As I posted above it very clearly did not. Just because there was a partial ditch in front of the palisade does not dictate that the action took place there. What I am saying is that an unknown number of defenders exited vicinity of the palisade and PROCEEDED EAST, somewhere EAST of the Church, possibly the aqucea , possibly beyond that, these defenders were engaged by Sesma's cavalry.
Like Stuart I think the term fortin is not all that relevant, what is relevant is Sesma says there were three distinct exits by groups of defenders.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 11, 2007 19:15:19 GMT -5
Speaking of acequias, the copy-of-a-copy of the Green B. Jameson map shows a branch of the Alamo acequia to the south of the Alamo. I don't know of any other evidence for such a branch in that time frame, but Jameson indicates it as an actual feature, not one that was "contemplated" in his defensive plans.
To the experts out there, is there any additional evidence for this ditch?
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 11, 2007 22:49:29 GMT -5
That makes more sense. That wasn't clear to me from the previous posts...probably just me. jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 12, 2007 2:21:09 GMT -5
First off, I strongly believe Santa Anna's plan was to use overwhelming force from the North to push the defender's out to the South. With the existence of two southern gates, the main gate and the palisade gate, he probably believed the Texans would naturally egress in that direction. I don't think he anticipated the defenders breaking out where they did... Now, I may be in the minority here but I don't believe Santa Anna tasked Morales with capturing the main gate. I think Santa Anna simply wanted Morales to keep the defenders on the southern end of the Alamo occupied and intercept any Texans fleeing out the main gate and into La Villita. So while Morales' focus was the main gate, I don't think it was his objective to capture it. If Morales did had an objective, I believe it was simply containment. I think Santa Anna was trying to encourage the Texans to exit out the southern gates and into the Mexican forces he positioned to the south. Sesma's task could have been, in part, to support Morales by running down any Alamo defender that made it out into the open. Glenn Sanchez Navarro states that "The fourth column, under command of Colonel Morales and made up of over a hundred chasseurs, was entrusted with taking the entrance to the fort and the entrenchments defending it." (Hansen 422) That pretty unambiguously relates to the main gate and lunette and whether, as I still contend, he did take it before going on to take the gun position or did it the other way around, this was still clearly intended to be a real attack and in any case we have De La Pena's testimony that as the main attack moved down from the north wall they found Morales' men already in the south end of the plaza. The breakouts had to be towards the east, as implied by Sesma and very explicitly described by Lorcana
|
|