Mexican Accounts of the Battle

[Jim Boylston]

While most of the accounts that are routinely cited regarding the battle are somewhat problematic, which account do you feel is the most valuable or reliable, and why?
Personally, I think Filisola's account is often overlooked, probably because he wasn't a first hand observer. I find the Filisola account to be informative and reasonable, and I don't believe it was agenda driven as were some of the other after the battle reports.
Filisola attempted to gather all the available information, from what must have been a variety of the Mexican sources, and formulate an unemotional account of the affair. His report makes sense to me.
Jim

[Herb]

I believe Filisola's account is probably the most accurate with the exception of Sesma's Report and the San Luis Battalion Journal. They have to be looked at differently and weighed more heavily as they are first hand actual reports instead of accounts of the battle.

As Army second in command, and arriving in Bexar shortly after the battle concluded, Filisola would have been able to walk the ground with most of the senior commanders and got their interpetations. In fact in most armies, it's either the second in command or the chief of staff of the army that is responsible for collecting such information for the "official" history of the battle. Likewise, as you said not being an actual participant, probably makes Filisola a bit more dispassionate and objective reviewer of the actual action.

It seems to me kind of amazing that his account is so often overlooked.