|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 7, 2011 18:25:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 7, 2011 20:13:52 GMT -5
Is it possible that Bowie's first knife design was based on a Spanish machete, especially since he spent a lot of time in their former American empire?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 7, 2011 20:24:46 GMT -5
That's part of the problem in trying to capture Bowie; a problem his biographers will continue to have. He did not leave much of a paper trail and was mercurial. I've never really researched Bowie, but looking at Davis's work I get the feeling that a biographer would have to rely on what other people wrote about Bowie, as well as the public record, to get an idea of what sort of guy he was and what others thought of him. Again, I've not really seen a good account of how he fit into the politics of revolutionary Texas, where he stood or what the movers and shakers thought of him, beyond the confidence Houston and Austin seem to have had in him. Also, when push came to shove, the men around him seemed to follow him and have faith in him. Also, do not know the extent of his drinking problem, which clearly existed, when it began, what its causes were, or how much it impacted his performance. By the Alamo, he seems to have been embarrassing himself with drunkenness, which was at least partly responsible for the blowup with Travis.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 7, 2011 21:46:57 GMT -5
In terms of what we know about the men themselves, this is the proper ranking:
1. Crockett 2. Travis 3. Bowie
In terms of name recognition, the order changes slightly:
1. Crockett 2. Bowie 3. Travis
As to their influence, impact, and input during the siege and battle, there is another shift:
1. Travis 2. Crockett 3. Bowie
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 7, 2011 21:50:56 GMT -5
I think I may have created a new thread...sorry about that chief!
Regards,
M. Smart, Agent 86
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 7, 2011 22:01:21 GMT -5
I think I may have created a new thread...sorry about that chief!
Regards,
M. Smart, Agent 86 But a good observation.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 8, 2011 9:59:57 GMT -5
Also, do not know the extent of his drinking problem, which clearly existed, when it began, what its causes were, or how much it impacted his performance. By the Alamo, he seems to have been embarrassing himself with drunkenness, which was at least partly responsible for the blowup with Travis. Allen, I'm not too sure there is a very much evidence of a a drinking problem, other than the letters ref his being drunk after the election between him and Travis, there really isn't too much contemporary/primary evidence of his drinking beyond the norms of the times. Instead, this one particular incident, has so been played in more modern screenplays and literature has to become an "established" fact. Like so many of the established 'facts' about Crockett, it's simply too good a story to be ignored whether true or not. As far as the famous post election drunk - how much of that is due to him possibly (probably) already being sick and the effects of any alcohol, at all, being compounded by his weakened condition. Granted, that Calaphas Ham, was Bowie's friend, but his contemporary accounts of Bowie's character should be given more weight, than what they seem to be.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 8, 2011 10:06:58 GMT -5
Herb, was there one or two incidents of public drunkenness in Bexar? The document Stuart cites refers to the election of Burleson, but Travis also wrote complaining of Bowie's drunkenness in a letter from Bexar prior to the siege. Are we talking about 2 different incidents? Regardless, I take your point. Perhaps it is again the thin documentary record on Bowie that elevates those things that are documented out of their proper proportion.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 8, 2011 11:12:36 GMT -5
Without wanting to descend into the realms of heresy I'm not at all convinced that Bowie was ever much of a leader. There is no doubt at all that he was a plausible bulls**t merchant, and as such got himself into positions of power as the assistant to bigger men, but the soldiers never took to him and when he put himself up against Ed Burleson for commander it was no contest. Sam Houston sent him to Goliad to try and sort out problems between Dimmitt and everybody else down there - to no discernable effect whatsover; then Houston ordered him to organise the Matamoros expedition, but Bowie had sloped off back to San Felipe. Next Houston sent him back there to stop Grant making off with the army, but when he missed him by a few hours, Major Morris refused to recognise his authority and carried on down to Refugio. Then Houston finally turned up and sent Bowie off to Bexar with instructions to evacuate the place, and we all know how that panned out...
The point I'm making is that as his contemporaries noted Bowie could be charming and plausible when he wanted and would fight like a tiger when crossed, but he was a rotten officer - and the soldiers, being soldiers, recognised this.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 9, 2011 8:01:34 GMT -5
Question for John W. Smith-AKA JR-
How much period press did the Sandbar fight get when it happened?
I noticed that in 1860 there was a sudden interest in it as several eastern papers were running a article they had picked up from the Woodsville newspaper.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 9, 2011 15:27:41 GMT -5
"Jim Bowie, he was a bold adventuring man." So went the theme song of his vintage TV show based on the life and legend. If you want to read a real scathing analysis of Bowie, Travis and Crocket plus the whole Texas revolution, try "Duel of Eagles" by Jeff Long 1990 Morrow and Company - publisher. The tone of the book is mythbusting, but the auther does collect a huge amount of facts that are subject to different interpretations than the ones he proposes. Still, I found his account of the actual attack quite moving. Lou (I've got to get back to the Alamo) Capitano
|
|
|
Post by martyb on Apr 9, 2011 15:38:22 GMT -5
According to Clifford Hopewell in his 1994,"James Bowie Texas Fighting Man: A Biography" After the sandbar fight newspapers picked up the story, which became known as the 'Sandbar Fight' in some circles and the 'Great Sandbar Duel' nationally. Bowie's fighting prowess and his knife were described in detail. Eyewitness accounts agreed that Bowie did not attack first, and the others had focused their attack on Bowie because "they considered him the most dangerous man among their opposition." After the Sandbar Fight and subsequent battles in which Bowie successfully used his knife to defend himself, his knife became very popular. Many craftsmen and manufacturers made their own versions of it, and many major cities of the Southwest had "Bowie knife schools", which taught "the art of cut, thrust, and parry."
His fame, and that of his knife, spread to England, and by the early 1830s, many British knife manufacturers were also producing Bowie knives, exporting many of them to the United States for sale.
Information from "James Bowie Texas Fighting Man: A Biography", Hopewell, Clifford (1994).. Austin, TX: Eakin Press. ISBN 0890158819
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 10, 2011 20:07:18 GMT -5
I think everyone had a drinking problem back then, whether it was too little clean water or too much alcohol. I don't see any evidence that Bowie's possible alcoholism was abnormal for the time and will have to side with Herb on this issue. John J. Bowie said his brother: "would take a glass in merry mood to drive dull care away, but seldom allowed it to steal away his brains or transform him into a beast."
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 11, 2011 21:19:12 GMT -5
According to Clifford Hopewell in his 1994,"James Bowie Texas Fighting Man: A Biography" After the sandbar fight newspapers picked up the story, which became known as the 'Sandbar Fight' in some circles and the 'Great Sandbar Duel' nationally. Bowie's fighting prowess and his knife were described in detail. Eyewitness accounts agreed that Bowie did not attack first, and the others had focused their attack on Bowie because "they considered him the most dangerous man among their opposition." After the Sandbar Fight and subsequent battles in which Bowie successfully used his knife to defend himself, his knife became very popular. Many craftsmen and manufacturers made their own versions of it, and many major cities of the Southwest had "Bowie knife schools", which taught "the art of cut, thrust, and parry." His fame, and that of his knife, spread to England, and by the early 1830s, many British knife manufacturers were also producing Bowie knives, exporting many of them to the United States for sale. Information from "James Bowie Texas Fighting Man: A Biography", Hopewell, Clifford (1994).. Austin, TX: Eakin Press. ISBN 0890158819 Clifford Hopewell's book is a nice little biography on James Bowie's life and legend, but I disagree on one knife point. The original Sand Bar Fight blade is not singularly described in detail. He gives the descriptions of New Orleans merchant John S. Moore's 1890 dimensions (8 1/4' long X 1 1/4' wide w/ a curved point and single edge) P.Q.'s 1838 dimensions from the Baltimore Commercial Transcript (12' long X 2' wide at heel w/ a curved point, hollow back and double edge) and Rezin Bowie's 1838 description (9 1/4' long X 1 1/2' wide w/ a straight single edge), which Rezin specifically called a hunting knife. Like other Bowie Knife historians, Hopewell puts forth a gaggle of possible designers/ makers (James/ Rezin Bowie, Jesse Cliffe, Rees Fitzpatrick, Lovell Snowden, James Black, Pedro, Manuel, or a Philidelphia cutler, etc.) of the knife, but devotes two chapters to James Black. Most of the descriptions of the original Bowie knife appear so vague, non-contemporary and secondary. After reading a lot of accounts, I'm swinging toward the ancestor of the classic Bowie Knife having a Spanish or Mexican origin. Jim Bowie supposedly wanted a big, tough, multipurpose knife for hunting, working and fighting. While Bowie was visiting and living in former Spanish territories, he almost certainly came across people using the long Spanish machete or the shorter and more stout cutacha, which is also called the fighting machete. I'm not a knife expert, but it seems possible that one of the Hispanic blacksmiths mentioned above (Pedro or Manuel) could have made a big cutacha out of an old rasp, which Jim Bowie introduced to the world at the Sand Bar on that bloody day. Afterward Rezin Bowie, James Black and the other alleged creators possibly downsized, refined and improved the crude weapon in the 1830s, then claimed the famous knife as their own Anglo invention to cut out the knife-making competition. This may account for all the different lengths, descriptions and origins for one particular knife that was only described in the most indefinite terms when first revealed to history almost 185 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Apr 12, 2011 1:24:47 GMT -5
I agree with Herb that Bowie was a man who was relied on in those situations. Davis mentions a couple of incidents where Bowie stood for election by soldiers, or petitioned for a commission, but never got any support in either case. That really puzzles me because, not only did men like Houston and Austin rely on him to lead, but he proved himself an excellent commander who earned the confidence of his men under fire and got them through scrapes like San Saba. Why, then, would he not be given a formal rank or command, other than for political reasons? Though Bowie could get a majority of the few soldiers isolated in Bexar drunk enough to vote for him over Travis, he couldn't do the same in settings where there were a larger numbers of soldiers being influenced by larger figures (e.g, Austin). Bowie's economic interests depended on a continuing influx of Americans, so the 1830 law gave him a lot in common with other Texans. However, those interests were largely grounded in his illegitimate land speculations with the Monclova government. The Monclova speculations were very unpopular with many Texans because they were seen as stiffing the average guy in favor of Bowie and an elite few. Key leaders could trust Bowie to lead a particular fight (e.g. Concepcion), but his shady land dealings left him without the the popular support among average guys in the army to get the votes needed to give him a significant military command.
|
|