|
Post by stuart on Dec 28, 2007 13:49:35 GMT -5
I agree that the east gate and stock-pen could be considered as synonymous but come back again to my current thesis that we shouldn't be getting too exercised by looking for exit points from the Alamo itself, but should instead be looking at the likely choke-points further out where individuals are going to get bunched together.
Looking at it another way; there are no obvious exit points where Santa Anna or anybody else can anticipate large bodies of men can come out. Those fugitives are going to come swarming out singly or in small groups.
From the cavalry point of view this is actually a nightmare. They can't physically barrier off a cordon and while individual troopers are going to pick off a lot of individual fugitives they are going to be all but impossible to control and a lot of the fugitives are going to get away, especially in poor light and rough ground.
Far better to hold back, in formation, and then launch those formations at the fat targets in the choke points, which are obviously going to be the top and bottom ends of the innundation.
That's where the action is taking place on the first(right) and second (centre) breakouts; not outside some gate or otherwise unifidentifed egress point.
As for the third, that one as we seem to be agreed is a matter of mopping up a few late stragglers coming out of the palisade
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 28, 2007 14:35:03 GMT -5
From the cavalry point of view this is actually a nightmare. They can't physically barrier off a cordon and while individual troopers are going to pick off a lot of individual fugitives they are going to be all but impossible to control and a lot of the fugitives are going to get away, especially in poor light and rough ground. Far better to hold back, in formation, and then launch those formations at the fat targets in the choke points, which are obviously going to be the top and bottom ends of the innundation. Yes, this is more to what I was agreeing with. I'm not too sure if there were really too many viable choke points, but even if there weren't, the tactics are still sound and of course uses the cavalry's greatest asset it's tactical mobility. I think Santa Anna/Sesma could see by the attack plan for the various columns, the bulk of the defenders trying to escape, would be on the eastern and southeastern sides, with the possibility of some "leakers" over the West Wall. Going back to fundamentals and looking at the Avenues of Approach that the cavalry would be concerned with the defenders using for their escape, the three probable battle sites outside the wall would be 1. East of the Cattle Courtyard just past the road that crossed the flooded area (see Mark Lemon's Image 21a in Image Section - I'd post a link but with my download times I'd still be waiting tomorrow). BTW, this corresponds somewhat to the Fire Station we've been mentioning. 2. South of the Flooded Area and East to Southeast of the Church. 3. South to Southeast of the Palisade, but probably shy of the Alameda. This would of course, correspond to right, center and left of the fortin from Sesma's perspective.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 3, 2008 19:28:40 GMT -5
I seem to recall that a writer once told me that there may have been some kind of long tunnel beneath the east or south Alamo walls. I'm not sure of the specifics on the tale, but is it possible that it's true? Perhaps the historical breakout was actually a big dig-out that ended in tragedy when the Texians unearthed and sallied forth amongst the cavalry. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 5, 2008 18:38:29 GMT -5
I guess it's just an uninteresting legend. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 5, 2008 19:43:31 GMT -5
Seems to be; I never heard this one before. Any of our archeologists run across this one?
AW
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jan 5, 2008 20:13:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Jan 5, 2008 20:25:24 GMT -5
I have a couple of newspaper articles on "tunnels" discovered around the Alamo. It has been maintained for years that they are legends and in fact almost all of the missions and ranchos have similar tales. There's a great article in the San Antonio Express from January 22, 1937, about a rock-walled tunnel leading to the river northwest of Mission Concepción. That article even discusses the discovery of a cannon ball and iron implements in the limestone passageway. Don't know how much truth there is in any of it, but it's certainly a captivating read!
There are, however, a couple of cases where these features have been reported near the Alamo. I'll see if I can put something together from the material I have and get it posted.
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Jan 6, 2008 1:34:56 GMT -5
I found two articles related to tunnels at the Alamo. The stories lack details and corroboration and seem just a little bit fantastic. The first is from the San Antonio Express, January 9, 1937, and only describes the discovery of the entrance of two “possible tunnels" discovered by workmen cleaning out the old well. The entrances were reported to have been discovered about 4 feet down on the northern and southern sides of the well. The entrances were initially thought to be crowns of arches but after additional dirt was removed the crowns turned into full circles filled with dirt. The article does not convey any additional information about these features (size, construction, amount cleared, etc.) but does go on to speculate that the southern “tunnel” had a bearing that would send it in the direction of the church. A more reliable account of Alamo tunnels was reported in the Express News on February 9, 1963, when two separate passages were uncovered in the vicinity of the plaza. The first, described as being located opposite the Alamo chapel and extending west toward the river, was explored briefly by workmen who uncovered it while installing new water mains. The workmen recovered around 50 animal bone fragments from the passage and these were later determined to be either cattle, bison, sheep, or goats. A second tunnel was discovered running parallel to Crockett Street but no specific location was given for either of the passages. Several people saw the tunnels including the inspector for the City Water Board, James Boone, but no details were recorded in the newspaper that would aid in dating the features. After Boone inspected the features he had workmen fill in the entrances. Boone added: I just saw a little hole in the ground. I don’t think it was anything of any consequence. Way back yonder when I was a kid they had a lot of drainage ditches around there and an irrigation ditch over at the Alamo Park. This was probably just a connection to it and through the years It filled in and bridged over to look like a tunnel. Efforts by Bell Fenton, director of the Alamo, to have work halted while a survey of the features could be made was unsuccessful.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 6, 2008 2:11:08 GMT -5
Bruce: That one about Concepcion is, I think we decided from the details included, a description of finding the inlet channel and stone funnel for Concepcion's grist mill on the edge of the river northwest of Concepcion's church. I marked the mill on the map in the Concepcion report, and included something on it in the appendices.
The other one, I think Waynne and I decided it was like the guy says, a description of the stone-lined channels of the Alamo ditch.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 8, 2008 20:05:49 GMT -5
I believe this is the correct theory (thanks, Stuart). I think we have been taking Sesma too literally and have been focusing too hard on specific breakout points.
If you have a copy, take a look at The Alamo 1836 by S. Hardin (Osprey). On pages 46-47, Hardin has a petty good take on the breakouts. It appears to concur with Romero's attack (according to Sanchez-Navarro) and Sesma's observations.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 9, 2008 13:02:59 GMT -5
For those of you who have remarked on this, the stone channels were a late addition to the paths of the major acequia lines, mostly built by German immigrants, mostly starting in the early 1850s. Much smaller water flow in those things by that time, so the ditches were much smaller in cross section.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 21, 2008 16:01:03 GMT -5
Just to return to this thread in the light of that comment in the san Luis log:
Sesma refers to dealing with three groups; the first is implied to be strong, although no numbers are given; the second is estimated at 50, and the third is again uncounted although Herb suggests, and I've no reason to disagree with him, that it may just have been a handful of men.
Loranca very specifically says 62, although this may not include the third group
Now we have the San Luis log (Mexican numbers thread) with 68
Now of these, Sesma is the vaguest, but not at all inconsistent with the others given that he was sitting back from the action. What's interesting is Herb's suggestion that the third "breakout" referred to by Sesma may in fact have been the 6 or 7 men seen executed outside the Alamo. Take them away from the San Luis total of 68 and we've got Loranca's 62 - and remember that he says those 62 were killed trying to get out at the east side, while we've this shrewd suspicion that the third breakout/executions occured to the south.
Its almost too neat I know, but all three accounts independently seem to be consistent, so I think that figure of 68 in the San Luis log might just be correct.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 21, 2008 18:49:29 GMT -5
Just to return to this thread in the light of that comment in the san Luis log: Loranca very specifically says 62, although this may not include the third group.... Its almost too neat I know, but all three accounts independently seem to be consistent, so I think that figure of 68 in the San Luis log might just be correct. I won't argue with your analysis. What I would add is the exactness of these numbers, they imply an actual count versus a number ending in 5 or 0 which in military reports more often then not is an estimate - or worse, sometimes a deliberate misrepresentation. The troubling part of the San Luis Journal is the recorded total defender dead of 230, but that's a discussion for another topic!
|
|
|
Post by glforeman on Jan 21, 2008 19:22:15 GMT -5
This type of process may be helpful at solving a host of problems dealing with the numbers of Texian dead. DLP (p. 54, With Santa Anna in Texas) states that 253 defenders were killed "but that the force WITHIN the Alamo compound consisted of 182 men;" If you start adding the two sets of numbers ---from within the compound plus the men killed on the outside--- the numbers start making sense from what the Mexican sources state. Perhaps this could be the problem all along.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 23, 2008 22:17:06 GMT -5
Very clearly, if only to me, we have got to look elsewhere for a third exit. O.K. I'm gonna put my three cents in. I still think Sesma was at the Alameda no matter where he sent squads of cavalry right and left. I believe the goal was to push the defenders out of the fort deliberately. The big push from the north and the very few attackers on the south (just for show, and perhaps to take the gate) would automatically force the garrison from north to south. Sesma was laying in wait and watching the "back door" or the south end. And the three breakouts proved him (Santa Anna?) correct. From his point of view at the Alameda (and very clear to me on Mark and Gary's photo), the breakout points would have been the tambour, the palisade and the apse battery -- literally the last places defenders on the fall-back would end up. And what did they see when they looked out from these positions? Day breaking to the southeast and -- nobody. All the infantry by this time was inside the compound pushing them out. Cavalry in squads in the shadows, bushes and depressions north and west from the Alameda and dawning light in the Texians' eyes. A thousand bayonets behind them and open country to the southeast. The tambour, the palisade and the apse -- all fortines; all low enough to jump from (the apse with soft ground below it). No water in the way, save the acequia flowing out of the flooded area, and the high ground in the distance.
|
|