|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 24, 2012 2:47:22 GMT -5
Here is the West Side elevation. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 24, 2012 2:44:46 GMT -5
And here is my view. The consensus view pic includes a diagram of the Long Barracks based on schematics created by the Historical American Buildings Survey. This sketch is also based on those "blue prints" as well as the diagrams of Labatista, Sanchez-Navarro (will he ever go away?), and Everett. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 24, 2012 2:40:38 GMT -5
I have completed several computer sketches related to this post. The first is a sketch of the "consensus" view of the east side of the Convento/Long Barracks. The second is my interpretation of the available evidence. The next two are sketches of the Convento in a natural setting. These sketches are half the size of their originals so some of the detail is not as good. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 16, 2012 7:47:13 GMT -5
Allen, here is another rendering of the points of view, this time on a map of Bexar as it appeared in 1836. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 16, 2012 7:23:06 GMT -5
Allen, to your question about SN's point of view when he sketched the Alamo's defenses: He could not have sketched the Alamo from the Veramendi house. The point of view in the drawing is from the northwest of the Alamo, not from the west (the Veramendi house is due west; the facade of the church and the rear of the Veramendi house are parallel to each other and on the same azimuth). Based on the angle described by the sketch, I believe SN drew it from a stand of mesquite, cottonwoods, live oak and cypress on the east side of the San Antonio River where the river and Calle de Soledad almost converge - about 4 blocks north of the Veramendi house. Here is an image depicting the two points of view. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 15, 2012 5:09:08 GMT -5
Jake, as for the SN sketch and his depiction of entrenchments along the southern end of the West Wall:
Is it not possible, given the probable location from which he drew the sketch and the distance from that location to the two "circular trenches with ditches," that what SN saw were two separate piles of dirt in the form of mounds thrown up during the digging of the acequia by the Mexicans in Oct/Nov 1835 and, having just arrived in Bexar, he misinterpreted them as defensive entrenchments?
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 12, 2012 0:26:56 GMT -5
Although I disagree with Gary's perspective on the whole of SN's sketch, particularly the location from which SN drew it, I think his analysis of the church facade's parapet is spot on. The familiar parapet line as depicted by Fulton, Falconer, Bolleart, Maverick, Eastman, etc., is the result of Andrade's picks and crowbars after San Jacinto. During the siege, however, the parapet line was basically flat. This is a classic case I think of the evidence staring us in the face and not seeing it. That is until Gary "saw" it. When I read his analysis in the other thread it hit me like a thunderbolt.
I dont know if any of you folks have ever watched masons at work, but when you build a stone or brick structure, you dont raise one wall at a time. You build all the walls simultaneously, laying down one course of stone or brick at a time - except for the corners which are kept 3 to 5 courses higher in brick and 1 or 2 in stone than the span of the wall in between.
That's what would have happened in the case of the Alamo church, the masons would have kept the height of the baptistry's south wall parapet in line with its western wall (the facade side). There would have been no "dip" or "saddle" in the parapet line between the southwest corner of the church and the right-side, upper level niche.
The corner joining the two may have been slightly higher, but basically the southwest corner of the church would have been flat.
Using this rationale, it appears that Andrade's men may also have knocked down the parapet of the baptistry's eastern wall and a short portion of the parapet of the nave's south side as well - between the baptistry and the first buttress.
Although the consensus view today is that the confessional's parapet was also scooped liked the baptistry, together forming a pair of horns, one each on either side of the church face, I dont think there ever was a horn on the north side or that Andrade knocked it down. Falconer et. al. depict this side of the facade as basically flat and at the same height as its north side.
I may be wrong about this, and Gary can correct me, but I dont think the parapet of the confessional was fortified to the same extent as the baptistry - if at all. The field of fire available to riflemen stationed there was limited to the interior of the fort - basically the southside of the plaza. You couldnt engage enemy troops outside the perimeter.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 5, 2012 21:17:50 GMT -5
Hey, Jake - take a look at the footings of the Mission Espada - bears a striking resemblance to the Alamo's footprint - assuming the facade of the original Alamo church was flush with the west face of the Convento.
I've read your posts concerning the Granary as the original church. I think Espada converted its Granary to a church before the attempted construction of the permanent facility - and then used it as a permanent church after the "permanent" church either collapsed or could not be completed.
I think you're right about the religious decorations on the "connecting wall." They existed only in the imagination of Theodore Gentilz and nowhere else.
Of all witnesses to the Alamo's physical plant, Gentilz is the most frustrating. He is both the most accurate and inaccurate of them. And at the same time.
He is the one guy I'd love to go back in time so I could interview him and then throttle him.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 4, 2012 20:22:57 GMT -5
Hello, Mike.
Great question!
You may be right - it is possible the openings were there but plugged at the time of those sketches.
I think the Everett maps would be stronger evidence against my theory had Everett included the baptismal/confessional windows in the facade of the church in his '48 map. But he didn't. I think that's significant because they are an outstanding feature of the church facade. And yet, he didn't include them in either the '46 map or '48 map. So, for some odd reason, he is consistent on that point in both maps. The only features that change between the two, besides several Army "improvements" such as the wooden staircase and landing on the east side of the convento, is the windows and doors on the south side of the convento. So I think my argument holds together on this point.
Actually, your question reminds of another issue I am considering - the possibility that the arches in the Cloister had been filled in. Take a look at both of Everett's maps. The openings in he depicts in the cloister run are very small - more like windows instead of the ample arcade openings we see there today (apparently built on the foundations of the original arches). I wonder if the arcade had been filled in with stone or adobe and then windows cut through them.
Anyway, back to your question:
Fulton depicts the arched gateway in the courtyard wall (or connecting wall) and it is blocked up with stone or adobe (I chose adobe in my own sketch to contrast it with the surrounding stone - it could have been either stone or adobe or even a combination of whatever was available). I think if he had seen in-filled windows on the second story of the convento's south side, he would have included them.
Something else, Mike: both Fulton and Bolleart depict what appears to be a window in the south wall of the church's chancel (what some folks inaccurately call the apse) - the location of the Fortin de Cos. Or am I just imagining things?
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 4, 2012 2:46:07 GMT -5
Rich, good question and an important one. My response, unfortunately, will have to be long and boring because there is alot of data to sift through and consider. Anyway, here my evidence:
1. Neither Fulton (in 1837) nor Bolleart (in 1843) include windows in the second story of the south side of the convento in their drawings, although they both include windows in the second story of the convento's west side. Both Fulton and Bolleart drew their sketches while facing the south side of the Convento, with the Church to their right and all or a portion of the Low Barracks masking the first floor of the convento. It would have been quite easy for them both to include windows in the upper level of the convento if windows had actually been present, but they did not - just some scribblings. The upper level of the convento's west side was at an extreme angle to them both but they still included clear, unmistakable windows up there within an area quite narrow due to perspective compared to the relative expanse of the south side. In other words, Fulton and Bolleart did not see any windows in the second story of the convento's south side.
2. Maverick (in 1838), Bissett (in 1839) and Moore (also in 1839) did not include windows and doors in the south side of the convento. Of course, unlike Fulton and Bolleart, they were facing the west side of the convento instead of the south - with the south side angling away from them toward the Church's north side. However, they could have easily included windows and doors on the south side, just like Blake would do in 1845, but they did not. This is especially true of Moore's depiction. In other words, Maverick, Bissett and Moore did not see any windows and doors in the south side of the convento.
3. The two most compelling pieces of evidence against the existence of windows and doors in the south side of the convento during the siege of 1836 are the maps drawn by Edward Everett in 1846 and in 1848:
In his map of 1846, Everett does not include any windows, doors or any other openings or apertures in the south side of the convento - although he does accurately portray numerous doors and windows throughout the interior and exterior of both the Long Barracks and Church. That's why I included a portion of this map in my renderings.
In his 1848 map, however, Everett includes all the same windows and doors from the 1846 map but also includes openings in the south side of the Long Barracks that were not present in 1846. In other words, in 1846 Edward Everett did not see any windows and doors in Long Barracks south side; in 1848 he did. That can only mean one thing: the United States Army carved out those doors and windows between 1846 and 1848.
An argument against my theory is the 1845 drawing by Edmund Blake which not only depicts windows and doors in the south side of the Long Barracks, but also depicts a two story room on the east side of the Long Barracks where the convento's cloister would have been (I argue in another thread that there were no rooms of any kind on the east side of the Convento, just a cloister - an arcaded passageway - but that's another fight).
Blake's drawing precedes Everett's map by 1 year.
So what gives?
Well, I think Blake made it up.
I think he took the Long Barracks as it appeared after its modification and tried to depict what he imagined it had looked like before those modifications. As a result, he kind of gives the parapet line on the south side a quasi-peaked roof - almost following the new roof line built by the Army. That's why I included a depiction of the south side in 1868 - so you could see that the Army's roof line and Blake's parapet match. And you can also see that the Army built a gabled roof over the west side of the Long Barracks but not the east.
The problem for Blake is this: Fulton, Bolleart, Maverick, Bissett, and Moore do not include a two story room on the west side of the Convento, only on the east side.
Blake simply didn't know that the one and two story rooms on the east side of the convento had been built by the US Army from the ruins of the Cloister, the center of which had collapsed sometime after the siege. The Army had simply cleared away the rubble and debris in the center and enclosed the remaining Cloister spans, creating a two story room on the south side and a one story room on the north with a gap between them.
So, how do we know this for sure? Well, take a look at the maps of Sanchez-Navarro and La Batista from 1836 and Everett's map of 1846. None of these diagrams include any rooms on the east side of the Convento - just an arcaded gallery running alongside the two story Convento from the "connecting wall" on the south to a point some 3 yards shy of the junction of the Convento's 1 story room and the 19 foot tall Granary.
So that's it. I think the evidence is convincing, although I dont like it. I prefer the consensus view with the windows and doors and hand-hewn stone decorations above the little gate in the connecting wall. Unfortunately, the evidence does not support that concept. But I may be wrong - I hope I am - but I have a bad feeling we will be left in the end with only a boring, plane-jane stone wall.
Love to read an argument against my theory.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 3, 2012 21:54:41 GMT -5
Its okay. I had to reduce the size. I might post the originals on Flikr or Picasa if folks want them.
What do you think of the comparison. Stark difference between them?
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 3, 2012 17:33:49 GMT -5
And this image depicts the Long Barracks on the ground in 1868. Unfortunately, all these images I've posted have been reduced in size from the original to fit the forum's standards. Alot of fine detail is smooshed. If you would like a copy of the originals, let me know. Keep in mind that these are sketches and I am not a commercial artist (you can do with them as you please). These sketches do not include perspective angles - yet. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 3, 2012 17:14:31 GMT -5
In this image I have placed the convento as it appeared in 1836 on the ground so you can better understand how it looks. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 3, 2012 17:01:30 GMT -5
Here is a depiction of how the south side of the convento and courtyard walls appeared in 1868 after 20 years of U.S. Army occupation. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 3, 2012 16:55:30 GMT -5
This image depicts how I believe the southside appeared during the siege. It is significantly different from the consensus view. Attachments:
|
|