|
Post by davidpenrod on Sept 13, 2011 20:04:11 GMT -5
And finally, a overhead view of the mission compound via satellite from Google Maps. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Sept 13, 2011 19:59:52 GMT -5
Here is a plat of Capistrano from our friends at the Historic American Buildings Survey. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Sept 13, 2011 19:55:34 GMT -5
Here is another image of Nelson's Capistrano model. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Sept 12, 2011 14:40:44 GMT -5
Thank you for your response. To clarify a bit, I use the term "consensus" instead of "preponderance" in these and ensuing posts because I do not know if the consensus on any issue I have raised or will raise is in fact held by a preponderance - the majority - of those having an opinion on them. A consensus opinion simply means that it is held by the single largest bloc of people within a given population (Alamo scholars and enthusiasts in our case) where three or more differing and equally valid opinions exist. However, no single opinion is held by a majority. Given all this, however, I think it is the consensus of scholars and enthusiasts alike that the new church (the current Alamo shrine) of the Mission San Antonio de Valero was built behind and to the east of the ruins of the old church. We know the old church was smaller than the new church and was rectangular in shape with a single tower. The new church is cruciform in shape with two towers and transepts. We know the new church was not built on or over the foundations of the old church, but on a new foundation. We know this because the new church was designed and built by the same man who designed and built the Mission Concepcion church, which is also cruciform. We know the old church was actually attached to the south side of the Convento and its cloister. We know this because written records from the priests describe how the choir loft of the old church was accessible via stairs within either the Convento or its cloister. Since the Granary was on the north side of the Convento, the old church could only have been on its south side. The choir loft of the new church was not accessible from the Convento. This means that the facade of the old church was most probably flush or in line with the west side of the convento and granary. And in addition to all of this, we also have these facts: The wall connecting Valero's new church to the Convento and cloister does not appear to be a single expanse but is instead two different walls. One wall extends eastward from the south side of the Convento (Convento extension); the other west from the rooms on the north side of the new church (church extension). The Convento extension is narrower than the church extension. In fact, the church extension is approximately the same thickness as the walls of the new church and the Convento extension is the same thickness as the walls of the Convento. Both walls meet at a point approximately 2/3 the distance from the NE corner of the MBR to the SW corner of the cloister, forming an angle that is not apparent from the ground but only from above. In other words, the connecting wall is crooked and not straight, which is not true of any other wall within the mission, all of which are straight, containing no angles (I know about the Trevino house on the west wall, but I am discussing here straight lines and not corners). An excellent example of what the original layout of the Mission San Antonio de Valero may have looked like can be found by viewing photographs, drawings and Nelson's bronze model of the Mission San Juan Capistrano in San Antonio. The relative angles and directions of Capistrano's perimeter wall are strikingly similar to Valero's. In other words, they did not form a rectangle but a an irregular quadrilateral. Like Valero, Capistrano included as many as three churches, the first two of which collapsed. The second church was located, as was Valero's, on the east side of the perimeter. Like the old Valero church, the second Capistrano church was rectangular in shape with a single tower and was attached directly to the south side of long line of one and two story stone buildings and rooms. Like the old Valero church, the second Capistrano church collapsed but the north wall of its nave survived - the east wall (the apse) also survived. Unlike Valero, however, the old Capistrano church was never rebuilt or replaced. I have attached a photograph of Nelson's model to this message. I will attach a drawing and photograph below. You can see how easy it would have been to build a new church behind (to the east of) Capistrano's second church and attach it to the perimeter via the still standing north wall of the second church. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Sept 5, 2011 16:59:22 GMT -5
And finally, here is the best view of the church, connecting wall and south end of the "Long Barracks" as it existed under Army occupation. It shows clearly how the stucco has cracked and fallen away from the lower portion of the gateway's east side pier. You can see the stonework there forming the inside edge of the pier. It also shows that the rubble filled area of the old gateway was recessed and that the Army had to scoop out the wall to get its doorway flush with the old church wall. And finally, you can also see quite clearly where the old church wall and the wall extending west from the church meet and that the church extension is much thicker than the convento extension. Follow a line up from the exposed stone pier, along the upper arch of the old gateway, along the upper line of the scooped out area above the Army door and then up again along the vertical line formed by the join of the east and west portions of the "connecting wall." It matches exactly with Gentilz's depiction. In other words, there was no crack in the wall, only stains and shadows. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Sept 5, 2011 16:49:28 GMT -5
Here is a photograph of the Alamo church and courtyard wall taken when the Alamo was used as a depot by the US Army. It contains an excellent view of the "crack." Notice that the "crack" rises up from the east side pier of the gateway and that the stone of this pier is exposed because the stucco is cracked and fallen away. Also notice how the dark stain of the "crack" actually rises from the inside of the pier - the rubble used to fill the old gateway is recessed - it is not flush with the wall around it. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Sept 5, 2011 16:43:52 GMT -5
Here is an image of Gentiz's 1900 painting of the Alamo, which depicts the "crack" in the wall and the religious ornamentation above it. Notice that the "crack" in the wall is actually just a crack in the stucco covering the wall; the stone wall itself is exposed behind it. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Aug 27, 2011 17:41:53 GMT -5
I previously posted two questions about the Long Barracks. I have a question in the same vane about the free-standing wall connecting the Church to the Long Barracks. Please refer to my previous thread for a listing of my sources.
Is the modern day consensus view of this structure accurate?
As presented to us in the works of Messrs. Lemon, Zaboly, Nelson and others, this generally accepted view includes these features:
1. The free-standing connecting wall included a wide, arched gateway located between the new church and convento. Sometime before 1836, this gateway was filled up with rubble except for a small doorway, which allowed access to the convento courtyard.
2. Religious ornamentation, in the form of two carved stone moldings, one a qua-trefoil and the other a "picture" frame of some sort, decorated the upper level of the wall above and to either side of the partially in-filled gateway. These ornaments were part of the interior of the first church.
3. A significant crack split the free-standing wall in two. It rose from ground level at the foot of the in-filled gateway to the top of the wall, separating the religious moldings.
I am unable to verify any of this.
Theodore Gentilz is our only source for the existence of the religious decorations and structural crack in the free-standing connecting wall. Unfortunately, there is no corroborating evidence for his renderings of these features.
These features do not exist in any drawings, sketches, or renderings by other artists or in any photographs of the connecting wall during the Alamo's occupation by the US Army.
Gentilz is a one man "monkey wrench gang" for our understanding of how the Alamo actually looked in 1836.
Modern day historians, artists and buffs accept without challenge his depiction of the free-standing connecting wall but they do not likewise accept his depiction of the west side of the convento and granary - which is highly inaccurate. To complicate matters, Gentilz's depictions of the church and south side of the convento are accurate. They must have been based on personal observation and sketches before these structures were "rehabilitated" by the US Army.
I am just not convinced that they ever actually existed. Here's why:
The decorative moldings do match any moldings I have ever seen in Catholic churches throughout the world and Spanish Colonial missions and churches in the SW USA - and I've been in most of them on multiple occasions.
The qua-trefoil appears to be similar to others I've seen - but they are windows (such as the Rose Window in San Jose) and the qua-trefoil is not a window - and its too damned big to boot. Its not surrounding decoration for a niche either - there's no niche there. This also applies to the "picture frame" molding to the right.
As for the massive crack in the wall:
When you study the two renderings by Gentilz containing the "crack", doesnt actually appear to be a crack at all but rather a combination of shadow and mineral stains in the stone and stucco. In fact, you can actually see these features in photographs of the Alamo when it was under Army occupation:
1. There is a crack in the stucco (not the stone) that exposed the lower right side edge of the old gateway;
2. There is a recession in the wall where the in-fill is located because it is not flush with the edging of the gateway and wall around it;
3. There is an arching overhang above and to the side of the door carved out of the wall by the Army.
4. There is vertical section of wall directly above and to the right of the doorway that is highlighted by the sun in some photographs. Clearly, this portion of the connecting wall, extending westward from the church to the Army door, is actually thicker than the portion extending eastward from the convento cloister. The Army door was cut out of the wall at the point where the thick wall met the thin wall in order to make the door flush with the thin wall.
Combine these features together and you get a combination of shadow and stain that rises from the ground to the right of the short buttress, follows the side and arching upper edge of the old gateway, joins with an upward arcing beveled carve-out in the wall around the Army door, and finally rises to the top of the wall as a straight vertical protrusion where the thick wall meets the thin wall.
So, to conclude, my questions for the forum are:
If the features decorating the connecting wall are not window frames or niche surrounds, what are they? Is there any evidence, other than Gentilz, for their existence?
Was there really a crack in the wall or is its existence today in various models, dioramas, drawings and painting merely an interpretation of stains and shadows in Gentilz's paintings?
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Aug 26, 2011 0:10:46 GMT -5
Here is a follow up question for members of the forum:
First, the background:
The current consensus view of the Long Barracks is that 3 windows and 1 door were located on its south end. The convento contained 1 upper level window and 1 ground level window. The cloister contained 1 upper level window and 1 ground level door.
This view appears to be based solely upon a pencil sketch of the church and long barracks executed by Edmund Blake in 1845 on a map of Bexar County.
I cannot confirm this view.
Neither Fulton nor Bolleart include renderings of upper level windows in the south end of the Long Barracks - although both include windows on the west side of the Convento. In both sketches, the west side of the Convento was foreshortened by linear perspective. Both Fulton and Bolleart drew the Alamo while facing the south end of the Convento (the Low Barracks masked the lower level). Plenty of room therefore was available for them to include windows up there if they existed, but they did not.
Francis Moore sketched the Alamo while facing the church and west side of the LB. However, the linear perspective of the south end and connecting wall was not significant and he could have easily included renderings of any windows and doors located there if they had existed. But he did not.
Finally, Everett drew two diagrams of the Alamo, one in 1846 before the Long Barracks were "rehabilitated" and the other in 1848 after it was rehabilitated. In the 1846 "before" diagram, he does not include any apertures or openings in the south end of the LB - although he does include such features, both interior and exterior, throughout the rest of the LB. His 1848 "after" diagram includes apertures and openings in the wall of the south side.
The Burke drawing contains the windows and doors and several other features not included by Fulton, Bolleart and Moore in their renderings or by Everett in his 1846 diagram.
And finally, in two different paintings by Gentilz depicting the south end of the LB, he does not include any upper or lower level windows there but does include a ground level door in the south end of the Convento (Fall of the Alamo). Supposedly, these paintings are based upon sketches he made of the scene in the mid 1840s.
So, based on all this, I not sure there were any windows or doors in the south end of the LB. This wall may actually have been solid and remained so until the mid 1840s when the US Army cut them out.
So my question to the forum is this: what data not described in this post is available to prove or indicate the existence of windows and doors on the south end of the LB in 1836? If you have access to this material, can you share it?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Aug 22, 2011 11:43:49 GMT -5
Hello everyone. I am a first time poster here but a lifelong (52 years) Alamo enthusiast.
I have a question for the forum about the east side of the Long Barracks. Here is some background to help eliminate most clarifying questions:
A well-known consensus view exists today of what the Long Barracks looked like in Feb/Mar 1836. This generally accepted interpretation has been established by Feely, Hansen, Hardin, Ivey, Lemon, Lord, Nelson, Waters, Zaboly, and others. The commonly recognized features of the Long Barracks as they existed in 1836 are:
1. It comprised two rows of one and two story rooms running south to north.
2. The west side row consisted of a convento on the south (consisting of a series of one and two story rooms) and a granary on the north (an extended single story, but very tall, building).
3. The east side row consisted of a two story structure on the south, a one story room on the north, and the remnants of a cloister (a single span of arcade) between them.
My research cannot corroborate the generally accepted interpretation of the east side row. My interpretation of the limited amount of evidence available to me, which I will describe below, is this:
1. No rooms of any kind existed on the east side at the time of the siege in 1836.
2. The only structure on the east side was the remnants of a one- and possibly two-story cloister spanning nearly the entire length of the convento.
3. Running south to north, it ended in a solid wall that attached to the convento approximately 11 feet short of where the convento and granary joined.
4. This solid wall extended eastward several yards. It probably extended the full width of the convento courtyard before the siege. However, by the time of the siege it was just a stub, having been knocked down by the Mexicans for use as fill in the Fortin de Cos.
5. This stub wall did not form the north wall of the convento courtyard. This feature was located further north, attaching to the granary approximately 17 feet north of the granary/convento junction and extending eastward therefrom.
I have reviewed every sketch, drawing, painting, diagram, map, city plat, and early photographs that have been posted and discussed on this and other Alamo forums and websites.
Here are the sources: 1. Diagrams, Plan and Plats: La Batista, Sanchez-Navarro, Jameson (various second hand renderings), Fulton, Sutherland, Potter, U.S. Army (Everett in 1846 and 1848 and F.E.B. in 1849), City Plats (Giraud and others), and the Registry Historical American Buildings.
2. Sketches, Drawings and Paintings: Maverick, Moore, Bissett, Fulton, Sanchez-Navarro, Falconer, Bolleart, Blake, Lee, Gentilz, and Benton.
3. I have only reviewed excerpts of written material quoted on this and other forums and websites. In other words, I have not reviewed all the material available to Messrs Hansen, Lemon, Zaboly, Nelson, etc.
My interpretation, therefore, may be completely wrong. Therefore, my questions for the forum are:
1. Given that my interpretation is so different from the consensus view and that the consensus view has been established by professional, educated and highly regarded researchers who have had access to more information than me, what evidence in their possession or reviewed by them contradicts my interpretation and substantiates theirs?
2. If this material does not contain contraindicative evidence, what is there in it that inspired their interpretation?
3. In other words, what am I missing?
Thanks!
|
|