|
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 17, 2007 1:26:48 GMT -5
Of course, Mrs. Dickinson quoted one defender (Crockett or Warnell??) as saying they hated begin penned up like that and would prefer to fight out in the open. Old Susannah (Dickerson) allegedly quoted both Crockett and Henry Warnell as not wanting to be " penned or hemmed up " in the Alamo. Who would? However, I believe it's been pretty much proved in the link below that Henry Warnall was not in the Alamo during the battle and that she was confusing him with someone else. I now trust her memories about as far as I would throw my brother's prized banjo. ;D www.thealamofilm.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6434postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 17, 2007 8:58:29 GMT -5
Agreed; Mrs. D's. later assorted testimony is very problematic, quite possibly due to those who transcribed it, not necessarily to what she actually said or remembered. I had forgotten that long-ago thread, but thanks for refreshing my memory on this. In any case, it would not be surprising if one or more of the defenders expressed such thoughts, especially as it became obvious that no help was coming, that the fort was starting to crumble and that an attack was likely. Something like "If they get in here, I'm taking my chances out in the open."
AW
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 17, 2007 21:01:19 GMT -5
Guys, my thanks to MArk and a big apology to you all. These great images were sitting in my MSN mailbox, which I hadn't checked in days. These should enhance our discussions on this thread. Thanks again to Mark Lemon, and all the usual copyrights apply. You may link to these images, but please do not repost! Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 17, 2007 22:26:12 GMT -5
Mark, incredible work as always!
I'm looking at the top picture, from Sesma's initial position in the Alameda, this would be pretty close to his point of view (pov) except more limited due to being at ground level.
I'm going to use this pov for discussion.
Sesma says there were three exits left, right and center. In other accounts the Palisade is identified as an exit. If the Palisade is the Left Exit, the Cattle Pen is the Center Exit, where is the right exit?
If the Palisade is the Right exit the Lunette becomes the Center Exit, but then the only possible left exit, visible, is the SW corner. this scenario is impossible because Morales is either at the SW corner pushing east, or has seized the lunette and is pushing west to seize the SW corner.
From this pov, it sure seems to me that the Palisade has to be the center exit, the cattle pen, the right and the Lunette the left.
Now if you move to an eastern POV and place Sesma opposite the Cattle Pens at 300 or 400 yards, we still have similar problems. The palisade has to be the left exit, but where is the center? The Horse corral is not practical as an exit for 50 men. Now at the cattle corral the walls are easy to negotiate especially off the cannon platform, and very clearly some of the 50 men could come out the East Gate, but due to there close proximity from 300 - 400 yards away this is but one exit (see the bottom two pictures). Which leaves as a Right Exit the NW corner and cutting through Romero's men.
If Mark's research is correct to the heights of these courtyard walls at the time of the battle, I just don't see two major distinct exit points on the East Side.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 18, 2007 0:24:11 GMT -5
Judging from the terrific pictures submitted by Mark, I have to concur with you, Wolf. It's the theory that makes the most sense.
I still can't see the east gate as a breakout point. Chances are the defenders trying to exit out the small gate would have been engaged by the soldados pouring over the north wall and flooding into the compound. And, as you noted, Romero's column was rather close, as was the reserve column I believe. I think it unlikely the defenders would have gotten very far from this exit point.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 18, 2007 14:13:03 GMT -5
Well, a lot depends on Sesma's position when he made these observations, and we don't know exactly where that was. If he was to the east of the corral, then there could have been a large group to his right, some from the east gate and others from the NE corner of the corral (the gun emplacement), who, to Sesma, looked like a single group. I wonder where they thought they were going (Gonzales road?). Would Romero's troops have ignored them, knowing that part of the plan was to flush them out and leave them to Sesma's cavalry?
The left breakout would then be in the area of the palisade, or maybe the lunette or some combination of men leaving from both places.
The center is more problematic, unless they jumped from the back of the church. Another possibility is that some left through the palisade gate and headed east along the side of the church (the middle group), while others bolted from the lunette and headed south or southeast and looked like a third (left side) group.
AW
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 18, 2007 19:33:05 GMT -5
Agreed; Mrs. D's. later assorted testimony is very problematic, quite possibly due to those who transcribed it, not necessarily to what she actually said or remembered. I had forgotten that long-ago thread, but thanks for refreshing my memory on this. In any case, it would not be surprising if one or more of the defenders expressed such thoughts, especially as it became obvious that no help was coming, that the fort was starting to crumble and that an attack was likely. Something like "If they get in here, I'm taking my chances out in the open." AW Your welcome and double agreed. Warnell ought to be taken off all the rolls and stripped of his Alamo Veteran status. I don't know why Amelia Williams ever included Henry Warnell on her list, which started this mess.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 27, 2007 5:55:41 GMT -5
The more I think about this one the more I'm convinced that Sesma viewed the action from the east ridge and that the Alameda was simply his forming up point. We know the surviving order only allocate troops and specify where they were to form up, not where they were to go.
With troops attacking the north wall, Bexar to the west and Morales attacking from the south the obvious gap is to the east and we have an explicit statement from Loranca that Sesma and the cavalry were round there.
I still think that the question is being complicated by an assumption that the Texians were actually leaving the Alamo in distinct bodies rather than simply swarming out any old how and then coalescing into groups which were then attacked and broken up by lancers.
Looking at Mark's model the obvious exit points are the gate at the top end of the upper compound, the compound itself, and the palisade, although it was probably possible for individuals to drop over the walls almost anywhere.
Romero's troops may not have been a hindrance to escapees getting out at the top end (Sesma's right) as it was their getting over the north wall which precipitated the exodus.
Nevertheless, I think what we should actually be looking for is not points on the perimeter at which as many as 60 men could have marched out in a body, but choke points further out where individual fugitives would have come together.
On the assumption that nobody plunged straight into the innundation, that gives us the north end and the south end.
The first I reckon would fit pretty well with Sesma's first group on the right which seems to have been small and isolated and was dealt with pretty quickly.
It would be interesting to superimpose the innunadations on a modern map and see where the fire house is
The second group which was evidently rather larger would have had to go around the southern end of the innundation, and it was probably larger because it comprised most of the men coming out over the the whole length of the east walls, shying away from the action to the north, and perhaps even some of the men coming out of the gate in the palisade and along the south wall of the church.
The third "group" I suggest was also coming out through the palisade. Its likely that there were in fact two distinct groups coming out at this point; those exiting by the little gate at the church and may have formed part of the big (centre) group who died in the fight at the zanja, and some, perhaps alerted to that fight, who took their chances getting out around the other end of the abatis only to be quickly mopped up as the "third" breakout.
As a final parting thought (for the moment at least) I'd also suggest that the theory that the Texians initially bugged out as individuals rather than the much more unlikely interpretation they marched out in bodies would explain why there is evidence that one or two of them actually made it.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 27, 2007 7:37:16 GMT -5
It would be interesting to superimpose the innunadations on a modern map and see where the fire house is. Stuart, can you provide info on the address or street coordinates where the fire house is located?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 27, 2007 11:38:43 GMT -5
Stuart,
I can almost live with this latest scenario! ;D
From having read and written numerous military reports, I've had problems with Sesma's third "group" ever since I first read his report. While there is nothing factual to grab hold of, there is an inconsistency in the way he addressed the third breakout. In my experience, that generally means that there is something that he is trying to avoid saying, officially.
In the past, I figured that this third group was in fact panic stricken individuals that offered little or no resistance as compared to the the first two groups, lately I've been wondering if it was not the group that supposedly attempted to surrender to Santa Anna, outside the walls, and was executed.
To me, the change in style and the lack of details, leads me to believe Sesma is trying to avoid something in his report about this third group.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 27, 2007 12:21:03 GMT -5
Yes, I think the basic thrust of what I'm getting at is that there was no organised breakout as such, except just possibly the initial group at the north end. The centre or main group wasn't really a group in the organised sense but rather the bulk of the would-be escapees funnelling together at the bottom end of the innundation. The third group, the one you're having trouble with, I suspect are just a handful of men with nowhere else to go and with no fight in them who may well have tried surrendering.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 28, 2007 9:25:23 GMT -5
It would be interesting to superimpose the innunadations on a modern map and see where the fire house is. Stuart, can you provide info on the address or street coordinates where the fire house is located? Unless I'm misidentifying it on Google Earth it would be the building wedged in the intersection of Houston and Bonham across the road from the most easterly point of the Alamo grounds
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 28, 2007 11:35:52 GMT -5
Ditto, Wolf. After examining and re-examining all the available material, I'm inclined to concur with Stuart.
The site of the second breakout is key for me. Sesma says the second group (50 men??) emerged from the center fortin. The only place that makes sense to me is the cattle/horse pen. If Romero's column attacked and entered where we believe it did, the NE corner, that would mean the defenders in the convento yard were either engaged lightly or not at all.
Once the north wall collapsed and the compound began to fill with soldados, the defenders manning the stock pen would have been cut off from the safety of the long barracks. Realizing that both the Alamo and the battle were lost, the Texans concluded escape was the only viable option.
If the stock pen was the site of the second breakout, that would indicate the small east gate may very well have been the point of the first Texan egress. Although, I don't think more then a few exited out this spot. I feel a large majority of the defenders in this area retreated to the long barracks.
I still contend that anyone exiting out of the fort via the east gate would have headed toward the rear of the church, away from Romero's column and the flooded area.
So, it would appear the palisade is the site of the third breakout. This, too, makes sense. The defenders in this area of the fort would have been heavily engaged with Morales' soldados. So I don't see a large group of Texans leaving through the palisade.
There are still a couple of questions I could use some help with. First, when Sesma said "fortin", did he mean "battery" or "fort"? Second, if Sesma was referring to specific "battery's" in his description, was he just using them as reference points??
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 28, 2007 12:11:43 GMT -5
Tom K can answer this fortin question better than I can as he has done a pretty good translation of the Sesma report. Its ambiguous but if read holistically I think that he's probably using fortin to refer to the Alamo generally rather than individual features within it.
If on the other hand he is referring to specific features, then from an east ridge viewpoint the church and convento jutting out towards him would look like the "centre".
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 28, 2007 13:31:08 GMT -5
If the stock pen was the site of the second breakout, that would indicate the small east gate may very well have been the point of the first Texan egress. Although, I don't think more then a few exited out this spot. I feel a large majority of the defenders in this area retreated to the long barracks. Glenn See, this is where I can't agree, an exit out of the cattle pen and the East Gate are the same to me - no matter where somebody attempts to place Sesma. They are simply in too close proximity to be viewed as separate exits. No matter how we parse Sesma's report he is talking about three specific groups of men that exited from three distinct points. Now, I had no problem with the original thesis (which btw, I helped develop) that had the East Gate, the Horse Corral, and the Palisade as the three exits. However, Mark's recent work, if accurate, shows the horse corral is physically impossible as an exit. Simply moving the Horse Corral exit north to the Cattle courtyard and sticking to the original theory does not make sense, to me. A difference of only a couple of feet (between the East Gate and Cattle Corral) is too insignificant to mark the separation accorded in Sesma's Report. Very clearly, if only to me, we have got to look elsewhere for a third exit.
|
|