The ALAMO Sketchbook

[marklemon]

I have just spoken with my editor and received news that they have approved my next book project. It will be entitled "The Alamo Sketchbook," and will basically follow the format of the book: "The Hood's Texas Brigade Sketchbook" by Tom Jones. For those not familiar with this book, it was an illustrated book covering basically every facet of the Texas Brigade: The clothing and uniforms, the personal equipment, flags, weapons, etc, of the Confederate soldiers in the brigade. In my "Alamo Sketchbook," I will detail the weapons, uniforms, clothing,personal equipment, cannon, flags, etc, of both sides, as well as various detailed drawings of the Alamo compound. This book will be completely hand-illustrated, with no photographs.
I will also be working on a follow-up volume to my current book (The Illustrated Alamo 1836) which will be titled: "The Anatomy of the Alamo 1836," which will be a companion to the first book, and focus almost exclusively on interiors of rooms, and "see through" depictions of buildings such as the long barracks, and phased drawings of how various features, such as the gun platforms were built.
As time goes by, I will provide updates on both of these projects.

[Rich Curilla]

STINKER! You are all too rapidly becoming my next hero.

[bobdurham]

Wow! I didn't think I'd have anything to look forward to after I get The Illustrated Alamo -- obviously not so. Do you think you'll have any teaser illustrations to show during the High Holy Days?

Bob

[marklemon]

bobdurham said:

Wow! I didn't think I'd have anything to look forward to after I get The Illustrated Alamo -- obviously not so. Do you think you'll have any teaser illustrations to show during the High Holy Days?

Bob

Bob,
As a matter of fact, I should be bringing a number of sketches, some rough, some more finished, from the "Anatomy" book, which I plan to use during the walk around which Herb and Jim have asked me to do. I may make copies of some of them and use them as hand outs as we go around the place.
Mark

[marklemon]

An interesting point presented itself to me as I was drawing an interior view of the granary circa Feb/Mar 1836. As it is commonly known, the defenders dug interior ditches (more properly called 'trenches' I suppose) in many of the ground floor rooms of the long barracks. This is a measure that has long been called foolhardy by historians. Even the Mexicans (de la Pena comes to mind, as well as Sanchez-Navarro) seemed critical of this.
But an interesting point, that has heretofore not been considered, was quickly apparent: The trench becomes a much more defensable, and "safer" place to be, when one considers that the earth from this ditch can, and probably was, piled up along the western edge of the ditch, to form a parapet. This is helpful in that the dangerous effects from artillery and small arms fired from outside can, to some degree, be diminished (or at least that's what they undoubtedly thought). The defenders are still placing themselves "in a hole" as it were, but the parapet makes the whole interior trenching seem more logical, at least to some degree.
Mark

[stuart]

I suppose it all depends how you define a trench in the first place.

What you're suggesting not only makes a very great deal of sense but I can recall a number of precedents over here from the 16th and 17th centuries where the thin stone walls of agricultural complexes were hastily strengthened against artillery in just such a manner.

Rather than a shallow ditch running through the centre of the floor, I'd expect to find it dug along the inner side, with all the spoil packed against the outer side, not as a parapet but as packing. It would of course have made it more difficult for the Texians to use any external loopholes which would explain the Mexican criticism.

[crc]

Bravo!, Mark, on the new projects.

One thing I've had a hard time understanding, is why, when it's known that trenches were dug in the barracks, that no archaeological dig (to my knowledge) has ever taken place to expressly explore them? I imagine there would be a terrific artifact haul from such venture.

[marklemon]

crc said:

Bravo!, Mark, on the new projects.

One thing I've had a hard time understanding, is why, when it's known that trenches were dug in the barracks, that no archaeological dig (to my knowledge) has ever taken place to expressly explore them? I imagine there would be a terrific artifact haul from such venture.

Craig,
It's astonishing to me that such areas have not been explored. Just imagine, if the entire Alamo was gone completely, swallowed up by the city. How we'd be pining away that no sites are able to be dug, which would no doubt yield great gold mines of data. Well, here we have about 33 per cent or so of the compound still standing, and what do we do in those areas? Or at least those areas we KNOW would yield some important artifacts (such as the interior trenches) NOTHING!!! It's criminal negligence to have easy access to such areas, and to allow them to sit unexplored. What would it involve, I mean really, to what, close off one of the rooms, or a portion (say, the northern end) of the granary, and do a dig there? Am I missing something? Oh, I forgot, it's a "shrine," and such trivialities as archeaological exploration, which may actually advance our knowledge of the true nature of the place, are beneath the dignity of a "shrine." Gee, but selling rubber "Davy Crockett" tomahawks and pop-guns, well, that's more in line with the DRT's high mindedness, I suppose. My head is exploding...
Mark