|
Post by Herb on Jul 19, 2010 9:41:05 GMT -5
The numbers issue has recevied a lot of attention and gets pretty confusing. Travis claimed in one of his first letters that there were 150 defenders initially. However, other sources put that number in the 170s. Sutherland spent a lot of time tracking the numbers. He claims there were 156 Anglo defenders and around 20 Tejanos on that first day.
Whether Travis was not counting the men in the hospital or not counting the Tejanos - the numbers in his letters are pretty consistently off by about 20 from what we can track today.
The second reinforcement theory has been debated pretty heavily elsewhere on the board. Very clearly if there were 250+ defenders in the funeral pyres - there had to be a second major reinforcement. Personally, I find those arguments in favor of the second reinforcemen unconvincing. IF you accept Sutherland's figures of 176 men intially add in the 32 from Gonzales and subtract out Travis' messngers you end up with a figure of around 200 men. "Oddly" that number matches what Filisola the Mexican Army's second in command (who would have had access to the true figures and was far enough removed from responsibility to not have lied) claimed in his memiors. And oddly enough again they very closely match Sutherlands figures in composition, 150 initial volunteers, 32 men from Gonzales, and about 20 towns people (Tejanos). Furthermore, Sutherland and Filisola's accounts are far enough removed that cross contamination seems impossilbe.
Which brings us back to the 250+ bodies. Quite frankly, I believe the difference is that a portion (those not buried by their friends) of those bodies were Mexican soldatos. Before somebody brings up Catholic beliefs, battlefiled cremation had been praticed by Catholic armies for years.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 19, 2010 10:49:59 GMT -5
Herb: I happen to think that your math, along with Sutherland's and Filisola's is fairly close to the mark.
The number of wounded/sick has always bothered me a little in that Travis may have been reporting effectiives with his 150, but that is unknowable at this juncture.
Do we have a reasonable handle on how many couriers were sent out, and if more than Bonham returned?
Someone posted here about nine deserters, but I can't find the post and don't remember who.
I think that a late reinforcement in any number (say thirty or so) is out of the question late (meaning after the Gonzales Ranging Company reached the Alamo) but I do not preclude the possability of twos and threes slipping in at any time, even on the 4th or 5th.
The covered road you mentioned in your AJ article, I assume was a sunken road like Sharpsburg or Fredericksburg? With that cut off as a pre-assault maneuver it would seem unlikely any large body could have penitrated the tightening ring.
I agree about Catholic Burial beliefs. Cremation was generally forbidden at the time, but exceptions were made for special circumstances. Garza certainly could have waived the requirement on the spot, and given his blessing based upon circumstance.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 19, 2010 10:59:35 GMT -5
There is some informed speculation that there were more than 32 men from Gonzalez, but that some were turned back by the Mexicans, with only the 32 getting through.
Do we have reliable figures on the number of Texian wounded? Could any of them actually been Mexicans from Cos's 1835 force? If so, it is possible they would not have been distinguished from Texian wounded and were killed. I tend to think that Herb's guess is right; the missing 50 could have been Mexican dead.
I think the March 3 cutoff date for getting out is also a likely deadline for any more reinforcements getting through. The place was just sealed up too tightly by then with the Mexicans having received sizable reinforcements that day.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 19, 2010 11:38:55 GMT -5
Allen: I think it unlikely that any in the hospital were wounded from Cos in December. It, I believe is much more likely that they were cared for in the town rather than in the Alamo itself. I am not ruling out the possability of course, but it seems unlikely to me that a prudent person would house them inside your one and only viable defensive position.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 19, 2010 11:41:12 GMT -5
The number of wounded/sick has always bothered me a little in that Travis may have been reporting effectiives with his 150, but that is unknowable at this juncture. I'm drawing a blank, but the other (than Maverick) garrison representative to the convention left us a number. Dickinson's account of 50-60 wounded has generally been taken as an error by the reporter and what she probably said was 15-16, There is a list someplace, but again I'm drawing a blank this morning. This comes from the Creed Taylor account written by Deshields in his Tall Men and Long Rifles. The Deshields' papers supposedly raises some doubt to its authenticity. While Tom Lindley told Jim and me about the evidence he had that the account was not authentic (and it sounded pretty credible). He never got around to publishing it before he died.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 19, 2010 11:46:55 GMT -5
Allen: I think it unlikely that any in the hospital were wounded from Cos in December. It, I believe is much more likely that they were cared for in the town rather than in the Alamo itself. I am not ruling out the possability of course, but it seems unlikely to me that a prudent person would house them inside your one and only viable defensive position. I don't know, the Jameson letter/plat includes the info that three of the Mexican officers that were wounded were housed in the Alamo, two company grade officers in the Trevino House, and the Mexican colonel that was wounded at Concepcion in another (now unkown) house that was marked on the original plat. Where the enlisted Mexican wounded were located is undocumented to the best of my knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 19, 2010 13:54:33 GMT -5
Quote: Someone posted here about nine deserters, but I can't find the post and don't remember who.
Wolfpack: "This comes from the Creed Taylor account written by Deshields in his Tall Men and Long Rifles. The Deshields' papers supposedly raises some doubt to its authenticity. While Tom Lindley told Jim and me about the evidence he had that the account was not authentic (and it sounded pretty credible). He never got around to publishing it before he died."
See Hansen:466 for the full story. I'm aware that the late Tom Lindley convinced himself that the Creed Taylor book was entirely a concoction of DeShields' - there's some discussion in Alamo Traces if I recall - but while he (DeShields)certainly edited it, the only real problem with its authenticity is that it sometimes contradicts some of Tom's own fertile genius.
Interestingly the account, which Creed Taylor claims to have heard from a Sergeant in the Dolores Regiment named Juan Ortega, mentions that the deserters revealed where 50 rifles had been hidden in Bexar. Santa Anna's letter to Filisola dated 27 March (Ortega says they deserted on the night of the 25th) makes no mention of deserters, but does confirm that 50 rifles had been found. (Hansen:333)
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 19, 2010 16:17:54 GMT -5
There are several reasons to discount this theory. First is the lack of any supporting documentation. If the Mexicans burned their own dead there would almost certainly have been some written comments made by members of the Mexican army.
The burning of the Texan dead was a non-Christian method of body disposal Santa Anna employed as an insult to his enemies. De la Pena expressed this in his account. Additionally, there are three sources that indicate the Mexicans buried (not burned) their dead. DLP wrote the army buried their dead and Mexican Sergent Loranca reported the same. In 1860, R.M. Potter wrote in his footnotes the Mexican army buried their dead.
In Santa Anna's eyes the Alamo defenders were nothing more then pirates...common thieves. Its highly unlikely he would have tossed his dead into a bonfire that included the bodies of the Alamo garrison.
I think the families (camp followers) of the fallen soldados would have insisted upon a Christian burial. They would have protested their loved ones being thrown into a fire. The rank and file of the Mexican army would probably have protested the burning of their friends and comrades as well, especially since Santa Anna allowed a rebel, Gregorio Esparza, to have a Christian burial.
Lastly, the Catholic church would have been outraged if Santa Anna denied his soldados a Christian burial. Santa Anna needed the support of the Church if he wanted to remain in power. Its unlikely he would have condoned any unchristian method of body disposal, be it burning or tossing bodies into the river.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 19, 2010 18:39:42 GMT -5
Glenn: It is about sixty miles from my house to Denver, and we are about that far apart on this issue too.
I don't think Herb locked himself in stone. What he was saying is IF there were 250 two things are possible, a second reinfocement, or that the delta in numbers COULD have been Mexican soldiers. He did not dismiss, at least in my reading of him, the possability that there could be another explanation.
I know it is a longshot but how about the possability that they were the wounded from Cos. Is there any documentation on the recovery of the three Mexican officers Herb mentioned? I have never seen any or heard such a tale. Was there ever anything about a prisoner release of these people to Santa Anna's custody? Did they die in captivity from their wounds? Did Santa Anna commit a great big WHOOPS and try to cover it up? You can bet your life that they did not vanish into thin air.
One of the real problems with reports from the battlefield are that soldiers report what THEY see. In this instance if a soldiers saw dead soldiers being buried, then that is what he would have reported. Today we call this a foxhole eye view.
If one can conclude that De La Pena wrote the execution story as a political attack on Santa Anna, then why might they assume that another statement has no political intent?
I personally don't think the Catholic Church in the person of Padre Garza or any other that may have been with the army would have said one word. Is cremation any less Christian that throwing a body in the river? You get a battlefield cleaned up in the fastest way you can to prevent disease and the smell of rotting flesh. Soldiers and priests can turn out to be some very practical fellows from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 19, 2010 22:56:02 GMT -5
Or into a mass grave?
If you run numbers on this, and you think there were maybe 180 - 200 defenders and maybe 60 soldados killed outright, you're pretty close to the 250 number.
While I'm sure a few soldados were buried by family members or friends, I don't know of any evidence of a large number of buried soldiers in any of the cemeteries. I'll acknowledge Glenn's sources, but is there a record that backs up those statements? And burying in unconsecrated ground wouldn't have been any less offensive than cremation, I don't think.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 20, 2010 5:39:37 GMT -5
The problem with the varying numbers of defenders is actually a consistent one if examined logically.
In the first place there is always a natural human tendency to round figures, usually upwards; hence the initial count of 146 defenders, which in a later Travis letter became 150, and the same is probably true of Almonte’s 250 – on which more later.
The second question is where those figures actually came from. Travis reckoned he had 150 to which can be added the 32 men from Gonzales to make 182. This total is quoted by Caro (183), De La Pena (182), Dickinson (182), Filisola (182), Nunez (180), Ruiz (182),and probably Loranca, whose 283 is far higher than anyone else but easily explicable by an error in the first digit. It’s also broadly consistent with Houston’s 187.
There are however a couple of important caveats. In the first place Filisola specifically breaks down the 182 into Travis’ 150 plus 32, while DLP makes a point of stating that the Texian records said there were 182, but that he reckoned the true figure was 253, which in turn is consistent with Almonte (250), Navarro (257) and arguably the San Luis Potosi logbook (230). This would suggest that those quoting the figure of 182 defenders or thereabouts are simply repeating Travis’ boasted 150 + 32 without independent verification, while the higher figure of 230-250 derives from an actual or estimated bodycount.
This impression is reinforced by the second caveat, which concerns Travis’ figure of 146/150, which was no doubt true at the outset of the siege but takes no account of the number of subsequent departures. Quite apart from the report of some deserters on the night of 25 February, Amelia Williams reckoned there could have been as many as 20 couriers leaving the Alamo in the course of the siege. This is probably rather too high and to what extent they may have been balanced by returnees and other couriers getting in from outside is unknown, but it does mean that the figure of 150+32 quoted by Caro, De La Pena, Dickinson, Filisola, et al. is wrong.
Conversely if it is accepted that Travis’ initial 146/150 equated only to those fit for duty, then a number of military non-combatants – wounded men and medical personnel, almost certainly exceeding the number of couriers, should be added to the eventual bodycount
The third caveat is the question of just who the original 146/150 actually were. Filisola makes a point of distinguishing between them and an estimated 20-odd Tejanos from Bexar. Similarly Dickinson refers to 182 “Texians” and Houston announces the loss of 187 “white men”.
Therefore if we take Travis 150 + the Gonzales 32 as the base line, to which non-combatants should be added and couriers deducted, we then also need to add an unknown number of Tejanos and black personnel to that figure. Filisola’s figure is far from exact in that he seems to have accepted Travis’ 150+32 without trying to match it to a bodycount, while his estimate of 20 Tejanos seems tolerably vague, but even they will take it up to 200 defenders.
Whether by adding together all of the non-whites and male non-combatants the total can be stretched up to 230-250 I don’t know, but the point is that the long accepted figure of 182 or thereabouts rests entirely on Travis’ boast of 150 + 32 and is not by any stretch of the imagination an accurate reflection of the actual total.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Jul 20, 2010 6:40:19 GMT -5
The figure of 250+ dead Texians at the Alamo has always seemed highly problematic to me because none of the Texian accounts at the time support it.
When the TELEGRAPH AND TEXAS REGISTER gave its first lengthy account of the battle, culled largely from Mrs. Dickinson, Joe, and John Smith, the number of Texians in the Alamo was given as "140" (assuming, effectives).
After the battle a Tejano from San Antonio told Houston at Gonzales that Travis had only "150 effective men, out of his whole force of 187."
Joe also told the Texas delegates at Groce's Retreat that the garrison numbered "187."
Jesse Badgett, culling data from Joe, Mrs. Dickinson, and "a Mexican deserter," wrote that the garrison numbered "183 men (14 of whom were on the sick list, and unable to take part in the battle)." How did he know that there were 14 specific invalids, unless someone who had been in the fort told him? (Remember that Mr. and Mrs. Dickinson both tended the sick during the siege).
So the 180-odd figure range for the Alamo garrison remains compelling, unless you're willing to dismiss Joe's and Mrs. Dickinson's information as being of no value.
Did the Mexicans inflate the number of Texian dead? Did they slyly add the number of dead from Johnson's and Grant's detachments?
Admittedly, it's still a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 20, 2010 10:22:48 GMT -5
Gary, I think your point is spot on.
The point I obviously poorly made was IF there were 250+ bodies burnt, there were only two possible alternatives - there was indeed a second reinforcement, or that some of the Mexican dead had to have been included - otherwise it is pretty close to impossible to reach that number. The other possiblity (and keeping with the principle that the simpliest answer is usually correct) is that the 250 number is wrong.
With the breakouts we now know that defenders bodies were literally spread out over acres of ground. We also know that after the battle was concluded and Santa Anna's speech to the troops in the mission, that the troops were formed up and marched in a victory parade through Bexar and then returned to their camps (San Luis Potosi Journal). Except for the Dolores Cavalry Regiment that was detailed by Santa Anna to police the battlefield with the townspeople.
I would submit, that after about 36 hours with no sleep and having fought a battle - no one physically involved in the detail was overly concerned about anything (including a body count) other than getting the job done and being able to return to their own camp to clean up and get some sleep.
Probably only after Santa Anna awoke form his own nap, and demanded a body count, did anybody really get concerned about it. By then it was too late for the pyres were already burning. I honestly expect that the 250 bodies was only an estimate based on rememebered appearances, especially where casualities were particuarly dense (the North Wall?).
Jim, as far as burials, the only Mexican dead that can be "verified" as being buried are the Mexican officers, who were indeed buried in the established cemetary, and their burials were recorded in the Church/cemetary archives.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Jul 20, 2010 14:31:03 GMT -5
At least one Tejano account, or memoir---right now I can't say whose, but it has stayed in my memory---suggested, or stated flat out, that a number of soldados were added to the funeral pyres. If true, it's no shocking thing, really, and may also explain the "extra" dead garrison members in some Mexican reports, as Wolfpack opined. MAY explain...
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 8, 2010 10:47:37 GMT -5
At least one Tejano account, or memoir---right now I can't say whose, but it has stayed in my memory---suggested, or stated flat out, that a number of soldados were added to the funeral pyres. If true, it's no shocking thing, really, and may also explain the "extra" dead garrison members in some Mexican reports, as Wolfpack opined. MAY explain... After San Jacinto, "Prisioner Pedro Delgado" (Lieutenant Colonel Pedro Delgado) "felt that the Texians 'had not the generosity to burn (emphasis added) or to bury' the corpses of his comrades." (Moore, 394).
|
|