|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 17, 2010 16:19:21 GMT -5
I have swiped, I mean purchased a copy of Tucker, but haven't started it yet, and I'm afraid I won't know enough to contradict its "facts." However, I can state definitively that it was the Bears who defeated the Redskins by that 73-0 score in the 1940 NFL Championship Game. See? I'm contributing. And there's no truth to the report that the Redskins skedaddled out of Soldier Field before the final gun in a futile attempt at escape and were lanced by Sesma's cavalry. Jesse Waldinger Jesse, you're alright!
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on May 17, 2010 16:58:08 GMT -5
Jesse: You are so right it was the Bears. Age is catching up with me. The Giants are from my family's other football story. My mother until the day she died swore that she was watching the Giants play the Redskins on TV when Pearl Harbor was bombed. It did not matter to my mother that our familiy did not have a TV until 1951. When I would from time to time point this out to her she would reply - "details". Now, I have not checked into the 7 December 1941 football schedule for which team played the Redskins that day. That may have been a detail too. Sesma's cavalry would not have stood up well against my mother. She read the Washington Post from cover to cover and drank a pot of black coffee the day she died at age 100 + 60 days.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 17, 2010 18:49:00 GMT -5
Please check my diatribe at the end of the previous page. I brought it forward, but it got zipped.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on May 17, 2010 19:48:40 GMT -5
I think you have your geography right but the 2000 yards seems a bit (maybe a lot) to much. As to a preconcieved planned breakout, were I the commander I would have such a plan complete with routes of withdrawl, rally points and a detachment left in contact. I would do a lot of things different than Travis in my notional command of the Alamo. The thing that keeps me from saying yes, is that it is not me. It is a man raised in the romantic era of Byron, Scott and knightly virtue. I'm just not sure.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 18, 2010 14:32:37 GMT -5
Please check my diatribe at the end of the previous page. I brought it forward, but it got zipped. Rich, I think (as usual) you make some excellent points. The Historic Alameda is on the same level as the Alamo - basically ranging from 660 feet to 670 feet. The whole thing about the Alameda being to the NW and Roger's theory about the breakouts occuring from the Fortins Condelle and Teran is imo, patent nonsense. According to Roger's theory the majority of the garrison were so panic filled, that they jumped down and fought their way through Santa Anna's attacking infantry (that outnumbered them at this point by at least 6:1) to reach the open plain where only then, they were destroyed by the waiting cavalry. It's surprising that Roger, would advance a theory that shows the Mexican army to be so incompetent, and its commanders so grossly ignorant. When if you simply accept the historic Alameda, and Sesma's report, it show that a competent Mexican Army, competently led drove a sizable portion of the garrison out into a preplanned killzone established for the cavalry before the battle even began. As far as the Texians, I think the idea of breakouts had to have been thought about during the previous days. What impact those thoughts had on what happened on March 6th ...?
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 18, 2010 20:19:31 GMT -5
Please check my diatribe at the end of the previous page. I brought it forward, but it got zipped. Rich, I think (as usual) you make some excellent points. The Historic Alameda is on the same level as the Alamo - basically ranging from 660 feet to 670 feet. The whole thing about the Alameda being to the NW and Roger's theory about the breakouts occuring from the Fortins Condelle and Teran is imo, patent nonsense. According to Roger's theory the majority of the garrison were so panic filled, that they jumped down and fought their way through Santa Anna's attacking infantry (that outnumbered them at this point by at least 6:1) to reach the open plain where only then, they were destroyed by the waiting cavalry. It's surprising that Roger, would advance a theory that shows the Mexican army to be so incompetent, and its commanders so grossly ignorant. When if you simply accept the historic Alameda, and Sesma's report, it show that a competent Mexican Army, competently led drove a sizable portion of the garrison out into a preplanned killzone established for the cavalry before the battle even began. As far as the Texians, I think the idea of breakouts had to have been thought about during the previous days. What impact those thoughts had on what happened on March 6th ...? I agree with you on all of the above.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 20, 2010 0:42:00 GMT -5
I think you have your geography right but the 2000 yards seems a bit (maybe a lot) to much. If we are to assume that the watch tower and powder house were on top of Powder House hill as depicted by Eastman, Gentilz and on the Civil War map of San Antonio, then that places them 2000 to 2200 yards as the crow flies from the apse battery. That's where the crest of the ridge is and its knolls. Anything closer would place the watch tower on the side of the hill and not the top. What would be the point of that?
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 20, 2010 8:13:45 GMT -5
I think you have your geography right but the 2000 yards seems a bit (maybe a lot) to much. If we are to assume that the watch tower and powder house were on top of Powder House hill as depicted by Eastman, Gentilz and on the Civil War map of San Antonio, then that places them 2000 to 2200 yards as the crow flies from the apse battery. That's where the crest of the ridge is and its knolls. Anything closer would place the watch tower on the side of the hill and not the top. What would be the point of that? I think the location of the Powder House has now been pretty well covered by a detailed post on this forum. A question-does anyone have a copy of the pictures from the booklet on the SA River that Roger B. is using to support his claim of the Alameda being NW of the Alamo?
|
|
|
Post by TRK on May 20, 2010 8:35:06 GMT -5
Kevin, I have in front of me the booklet "The San Antonio River" by Mary Ann Noonan Guerra, if that's what you're referring to, but I don't see anything in it that indicates an alameda or tree-lined road northwest of the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 20, 2010 11:09:33 GMT -5
Maybe Richard C. remembers the page number Roger cited...
|
|