|
Post by estebans on Dec 8, 2013 5:25:00 GMT -5
Superb stuff, Rich--I thought it is an interesting issue to tackle with the model. However, I don't think the answer is necessarily so indeterminable: I'll put the thread link at the bottom, but as I said, the forensic people were adamant that Ben Milam was killed by a Baker-sized bullet traveling at a pronounced upward angle from the right side of his head to the left, that it was close to coming out the top of his head, even. That means that his left side had to be facing the house, his right side had to be facing outward--either over the ruined wall, or that long wall. That narrows it down significantly, and if you ask me, the upward trajectory gives a whole lot of credence to the version where he was inspecting a wagon. One thing you might do when inspecting a wagon is bend way the heck around to inspect the underside of the axles and hubs, and other underpinnings, even. How the heck do you get a bullet coming nearly out the top of his head when using a spyglass, unless he was hit from ground level while looking up, per the extract below? Maybe if he was craning around some extremely odd bit of cover, but very natural if you're truly inspecting a wagon. As for falling into Sam Maverick's arms, IMO that belongs on the dungheap in that courtyard. Pure embellishment added decades later, unless Sam was even further under the wagon than Ben was. Wasn't that written by someone who was in the process of sucking up to the Maverick family? I haven't had time to review the multiple accounts carefully. And Mary Maverick's journal is only as reliable as the newspapers from which it is frequently cribbed--one of the most artificially constructed autobiographical narratives of early Texas, disguised as a diary. I went to check on something in there yesterday that I hadn't looked at in over a year and ooh I am mad, given what I dug up on that particular topic in the meantime. Really tough to believe that spreading a rumor so artfully constructed is not a deliberate slander, is all I'm going to say for now. Ask a forensic expert: Bones don't lie, people do. Extract below. alamostudies.proboards.com/thread/114Enough of the cranium has been reassembled to show part of a bullet hole in the skull which Dr. Vincent DiMaio, medical examiner for Bexar County, Texas, diagnosed as an exit wound. This is based on the beveling on the external surface of the bone, while the edges inside the head, on the cerebral surface, remain sharply delineated (Vincent DiMaio, M.D., personal communication 1993). There is no possibility that this feature is other than what it appears to be.
The wound is located close to the top of the cranium, in the left parietal, just touching the right parietal and obliterating that portion of the sagittal suture. It lies approximately seven centimeters from lambda, the craniometric point where the sagittal suture joins the occipital suture. The edges are widely beveled at perhaps a 30o angle. The diameter of the bullet hole cannot be measured because the portions of the missing left parietal bone which would complete the circle were not found. The size of the part that has been reconstructed appears consistent with the diameter of a bullet from a Baker rifle, which the sharpshooters of Gen. Santa Anna’s army were said to be using (Taylor 1935:65).
Considering the location of the exit wound and the angle of its passage through the skull in relation to the rest of the face (were it there), it can be tentatively speculated that the fatal shot came from below instead of from face level or above (David Henkes, M.D., personal communication 1993). The bullet would have had to hit Col. Milam somewhere in the face. He would have to have had his head raised or be looking upward, in order for the bullet to leave the skull at the point where the exit wound is located (David Henkes, M.D., personal communication 1993).
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 8, 2013 12:04:21 GMT -5
I do not doubt the forensics of the situation. I am only pointing out that Milam's head could have gotten into that position for any one of a number of reasons. A guy can be looking through a telescope, someone behind him says something and he turns to respond. The telescope falls out of his hand. He bends over to pick it up and WHAM! He's dead. As you agree, we don't know where Milam was at the moment, which direction he was looking (whether through a scope or at a wagon), or if he was reacting to something or someone. All these "don't knows" give us a 360 degree possibility for a sniper shot. Likewise, a limb could have broken in the tree above him and he looked up for a split second -- the wrong split second.
Understanding the skull forensics certainly gives us another clue, however I believe their findings could still have resulted from any of the above scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by estebans on Dec 8, 2013 18:38:50 GMT -5
It's too involved a question to get bogged down in right now when you're trying to get all of Bexar up and running (which is more than they ever did, as Groucho Marx would say) but what I should have said is that it should be possible to establish zones where it probably didn't happen--the Baker might have been a fine weapon for its time, but I submit it was patently impossible for one to put a bullet clean through two or more walls of the Veramundi palace and then through both sides of Milam's head. Some combination of open doors and windows might have made it easy--nice silhouetted target or just a stray round--but he could not have been vulnerable through 360 degrees in certain parts of that courtyard. If you use a vantage point five feet off the ground and move around the courtyard, you should see where they start to have the angle on him on the house side, as he moves away from the house. If he's looking at a distant bell tower with the spyglass, then what direction did the shot come from, for that position? And so on. I tend to assume that if he was inspecting a wagon, he assumed he was safe, unless he was too fatigued for good judgment, which seems to happen to many good soldiers; whereas scoping out a distant spot with the spyglass suggests more likelihood of a calculated risk. I don't mean a comprehensive survey of all the possibilities, but an analysis of some likely spots, like for the spyglassing, and identification of safer zones could be a good project for a kid studying forensics down the road when your virtual Bexar is commercially available. An analysis of the de-la-Garza-in-the-sniper-tree story, for example: from that angle, Milam would have to have turned his head back toward the house for some reason, wouldn't he, unless it was quite a ricochet. Was there something he would have been likely to look at with the telescope in that direction (and I don't rule out that he could have been nearsighted and needed the glass just to see anything at a distance well)? To be able to assert that the sniper tree probably wasn't the sniper tree unless Milam was careless in looking at a wagon (those slab-sided solid-wheeled oxcarts seem like they would provide a lot of cover) or had turned with the spyglass to say something or head for better cover is making the incident more concrete visually. I'm fine with the incident being ultimately indeterminate--I just think it's interesting to eliminate some of the possibilities or analyze one of the historical versions for probability per above. We have got to get this cutting-edge digital technology involved in extending wrangles over minutiae--I mean, what are people going to do with themselves if some kind of consensus is developing over the North Wall?
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 9, 2013 11:41:18 GMT -5
I'm fine with the incident being ultimately indeterminate--I just think it's interesting to eliminate some of the possibilities or analyze one of the historical versions for probability per above. We have got to get this cutting-edge digital technology involved in extending wrangles over minutiae--I mean, what are people going to do with themselves if some kind of consensus is developing over the North Wall? Hahahaha! Yes. Well, I hear all your possibilities and suggestions and feel all are possible (except getting shot through two walls) and that the question cannot be answered conclusively (at least not irrefutably ) without further primary information. All this certainly does demonstrate how the virtual Bexar model can be used for this kind of research and discussion. Thanks for the opportunity. lol.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 9, 2013 11:50:56 GMT -5
Just for you, and in honor of the *late* North Wall debate, I submit my own conjecture (created on my previous SketchUp model based on the Waynamo). The North Wall was reveted by by bathroom tile.
|
|
|
Post by estebans on Dec 9, 2013 21:57:14 GMT -5
Is that where they got the pattern for the Menger Hotel bathrooms? It's very tasteful. I found myself immediately wondering how bathroom tile would work as part of a fortification, given that they would intentionally alternate hard and soft layers to dissipate and diffuse impacts. Might be possible to hide a breach by tiling a big wooden panel to match and setting that in front of the breach at night: "Alas, Your Excellency, it appears they have repaired the breach yet again . . . that makes five weeks in a row now . . . Fannin's men have cut off our supply line to Mexico and Houston's army has defeated Urrea . . . perhaps we should negotiate a withdrawal." On the serious side, it is pretty exciting to contemplate how students of the period will eventually be able to see the progress of the siege of Bexar, moving through the city and considering various reported incidents; and though it's difficult to relate that to what's on the ground in San Antonio today, if a sea change in attitudes of those in power leads to some real reconstruction on Alamo Plaza, then new visitors will be able to relate the digital world of Bexar to the real one to a degree that they are no longer disappointed by what they find when they visit. I'm just trying to say that IMO there is no more important enterprise in Alamo studies right now than trying to set some digital hooks in young people to help the transition out of the Disney/Boomer era into whatever the Alamo is going to be. For example, if the Range/Covner/Hunter group is bringing out a "how the defenders could have won" book, I wonder if a "refight the Alamo" video game could eventually follow. Hmm, if the player survived and moved into higher levels, they'd be rewarded by being able to reload their rifle three times a minute instead of two, and so on . . . .
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 10, 2013 2:34:02 GMT -5
Well, doggone it, none of this is outlandish to me. I have read the first draft of Rick's book (co-written with Charles Goolsby). I went into it skeptically, because I'm not into the "what if" aspect of history. My hind-sight is all about "what was." That said, I found myself enthralled from beginning to end -- of 800 pages! (That's double-spaced typing.) I think maybe Rick Range should have been in command since the Battle of Bexar. His construction of the premise and the details of the siege based on the pressures at hand are just mind-blowing. I could see it indeed being the precursor of a video game. You start with history and have the ability to change how you defend the Alamo -- and win the game if you get all his details in place. lol.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 10, 2013 2:39:04 GMT -5
The only thing I have to add right now about the Battle of Bexar is that Cos lost. You'll all have to wait for the "profusely illustrated book with a CD in the back" that Mark Lemon is urging me to write. Ya never know. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 10, 2013 2:50:54 GMT -5
Not that I don't have a lot more to say and show. Researching with this model at my fingertips has forced me into putting Alwyn Barr's wonderful book -- and all the primary sources -- onto the ground and figure out as closely as possible where everything happened and -- more importantly -- why. It's not enough to say the Texians captured the "Priest's House" as a major coup. We must be able to say why that was important and how its exact location was significant. It doesn't help to read of four totally different sites for the house in different places around town. And, as far as the 3x3 mile square virtual 3D map of San Antonio de Bexar is concerned, I will be trying to show that..... There's more to Bexar than meets the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 11, 2013 0:58:49 GMT -5
Been following all of the interesting discussions in all the various topics. I've been looking forward to Rick's book for years! As you know I've long held the belief that the Texas could have "won" the March 6th battle or at least made it a near run thing. The problem with alternative military history is that when you change a few circumstances, an intelligent enemy will change how he acts to those changes. We always tend to forget that the other side has a vote in the outcome.
I seriously doubt Santa Anna would have attacked a more prepared Alamo the same way - and probably not on March 6th.
With a delayed attack (or a real siege) would not Houston have been forced to come to the Alamo's relief? Could Texas have won the one fight the army had in it facing a united Mexican Army at Bexar versus the small portion at San Jacinto?
My apologies for wandering so far off topic.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 11, 2013 2:07:05 GMT -5
Been following all of the interesting discussions in all the various topics. I've been looking forward to Rick's book for years! As you know I've long held the belief that the Texas could have "won" the March 6th battle or at least made it a near run thing. The problem with alternative military history is that when you change a few circumstances, an intelligent enemy will change how he acts to those changes. We always tend to forget that the other side has a vote in the outcome. I seriously doubt Santa Anna would have attacked a more prepared Alamo the same way - and probably not on March 6th. With a delayed attack (or a real siege) would not Houston have been forced to come to the Alamo's relief? Could Texas have won the one fight the army had in it facing a united Mexican Army at Bexar versus the small portion at San Jacinto? My apologies for wandering so far off topic. Well, I am a firm believer that the war would have been lost if the battle had been won. Without the desire for revenge motivated by the Alamo deaths and Goliad massacre, the only unity they ultimately had would not have happened.
|
|
|
Post by rayjr on Dec 17, 2013 21:48:43 GMT -5
Howdy, Have you already ruled out consideration of the "Priest's House" that was purportedly the first 2 story house built in San Antonio (Frederick Chabot; The Makers of San Antonio, pg. 70)? Approval granted for its construction in 1780. This permission granted to Pedro de las Fuentes Y Fernandez, the parish priest of San Fernando de Bexar from 1771 to 1790, longest reigning parish priest of San Fernando. One of the neighbors testifying to the governor "adjacent" to the construction was Maria Gertrudis de la Garza. Said construction on a building on the "plaza of this the said villa, facing eastward and southward", and "on the strict condition that doors and windows are to open only towards the east and south; that the second floor be no higher than three varas". The Bexar Archives contains the resolution of the petition for construction as document e_bx_003467. Dated September 23rd, 1780. Could there be some confusion in distinguishing between more than one "priest's house" on the plaza? I realize the priest in 1836 was different than the one from 1780 - but might the different reports of house locations be conflating the two? Just a thought. Fantastic model! Ray e_bx_003467.pdf (568 KB)
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 23, 2013 15:58:54 GMT -5
Howdy, Have you already ruled out consideration of the "Priest's House" that was purportedly the first 2 story house built in San Antonio (Frederick Chabot; The Makers of San Antonio, pg. 70)? Approval granted for its construction in 1780. This permission granted to Pedro de las Fuentes Y Fernandez, the parish priest of San Fernando de Bexar from 1771 to 1790, longest reigning parish priest of San Fernando. One of the neighbors testifying to the governor "adjacent" to the construction was Maria Gertrudis de la Garza. Said construction on a building on the "plaza of this the said villa, facing eastward and southward", and "on the strict condition that doors and windows are to open only towards the east and south; that the second floor be no higher than three varas". The Bexar Archives contains the resolution of the petition for construction as document e_bx_003467. Dated September 23rd, 1780. Could there be some confusion in distinguishing between more than one "priest's house" on the plaza? I realize the priest in 1836 was different than the one from 1780 - but might the different reports of house locations be conflating the two? Just a thought. Fantastic model! Ray View AttachmentRay, you are bringing much to the table for me with these details. Thanks. I had heard of that early request for building a second story but have never found anything that said it had actually happened or gave a location. (Alas, I've been sort of one step removed from primary research on much of this. Wish I had a copy of Chabot's work on my shelf, as I respect his research and have had his Alamo book since the sixties.) I do indeed see a confusion as the result of there being several priests and their houses... and possibly one erroneous assumption based on William Corner's assertion that the "Priest's House" was on the site of the 1890's orphans' home caddycorner from the Governors' Palace -- and his using it as such on his oft-copied map of the Battle of Bexar. Fortunately, Alwyn Barr chose to avoid that detail in reproducing the map in his book. In 1836, there was Fr. Refugio de la Garza as the parish priest at San Fernando (as we all know), but there was also Padre Maines as the presidial chaplain -- who *perhaps* lived where William Corner indicated (since it was just north of the N.W. corner of the presidio). Padre Maines subbed for Padre de la Garza at San Fernando at least once for several months. On the other hand, according to primary reports and accounts of the Battle of Bexar, the "Priest's House" was clearly on the north side of Plaza de las Islas. By participants' descriptions, this is the house that was pinpointed, attacked and captured by the Texians as access to the plaza. This is where the attackers shot "the priest's son" as he was trying to escape through a window. It is where they ran out the front door onto the plaza only to be driven back inside by the Morelos Batalion. Capturing this house, according to participants, gave them a clear chance at the plaza as well as the Mexican munitions in the front church yard. Etc. Certainly, a house by the Governors Palace would serve none of these goals -- and be virtually impossible to attain, either by way of Presidio Street and Plaza de Armas or over the back fences on the north side of the buildings under the guns of Cos' battery allegedly in the back yard of this building. If accurate, this would have been the site of the later Plaza House hotel -- which was a 2-story structure in the 1860's. In the W.G.M. Samuel painting of the north side of the plaza in 1849 (I think -- I'm not near my source), this same building is a Spanish Colonia 1-story, but with what appears to be an added-on 2nd. story (whereas the Plaza House is all one). This seems to corroborate the site described in the battle accounts -- the site that makes the most strategic sense, in my opinion. Thanks for the kind words on the model. I sure am having fun.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 23, 2013 17:21:21 GMT -5
Said construction on a building on the "plaza of this the said villa, facing eastward and southward", and "on the strict condition that doors and windows are to open only towards the east and south; that the second floor be no higher than three varas". The Bexar Archives contains the resolution of the petition for construction as document e_bx_003467. Dated September 23rd, 1780. This does clearly fit the 2-story building that existed in both the Samuel paintings and the 1860's photos that used to be located on the N.W. corner of Plaza de las Islas with the south face on Presidio Street and the east face on Acequia St. It is depicted as a 2-story on my model and was my previous first choice as the site. My only source however was George Nelson's label on his aerial painting of Bexar -- and he gives no source for that choice. That said, it *nearly* fits the accounts, but my choice fits them exactly, as far as I can see. Perhaps the building on the N.W. corner of the Plaza de las Islas is the one in the 1780 description, a description that must be true, but the "Priest's House" of battle fame is the other one. One of the accounts (primary, if I remember correctly) also refers to this priest as being Padre de la Garza. So, for right now (lol), my conclusion is that this very important stepping stone to capturing Bexar was indeed this building in the middle of the north side of Plaza de las Islas, and that the William Corner presented site by the Governors Place is out of the running as is the fourth site I've heard of -- on the S.E. corner of Plaza de Armas!!!
|
|
|
Post by edward on Dec 23, 2013 22:27:45 GMT -5
Said construction on a building on the "plaza of this the said villa, facing eastward and southward", and "on the strict condition that doors and windows are to open only towards the east and south; that the second floor be no higher than three varas". The Bexar Archives contains the resolution of the petition for construction as document e_bx_003467. Dated September 23rd, 1780. This does clearly fit the 2-story building that existed in both the Samuel paintings and the 1860's photos that used to be located on the N.W. corner of Plaza de las Islas with the south face on Presidio Street and the east face on Acequia St. It is depicted as a 2-story on my model and was my previous first choice as the site. My only source however was George Nelson's label on his aerial painting of Bexar -- and he gives no source for that choice. That said, it *nearly* fits the accounts, but my choice fits them exactly, as far as I can see. Perhaps the building on the N.W. corner of the Plaza de las Islas is the one in the 1780 description, a description that must be true, but the "Priest's House" of battle fame is the other one. One of the accounts (primary, if I remember correctly) also refers to this priest as being Padre de la Garza. So, for right now (lol), my conclusion is that this very important stepping stone to capturing Bexar was indeed this building in the middle of the north side of Plaza de las Islas, and that the William Corner presented site by the Governors Place is out of the running as is the fourth site I've heard of -- on the S.E. corner of Plaza de Armas!!! The priest House of Fuentes I have tentatively located in the SE quadrant of Military Plaza (per Chabot). It may have never been built as a 2 story or it was destroyed way before 1836, as I have as of yet not found any additional data on it. There is a State petition statement of one of the Siege participants that when they broke in to the padre's house the priest son tries to escape out a window and is shot or something like that. I will need to look this up to see if it gives any clues as to where it was located. Also, I have not found any proof that the house located on the NW corner of Acequia and Main Plaza was a 2 story house when Seguin owned it. Juan Seguin had Mortgaged this property, and his personal residence, to help pay for his 100 or so volunteers for Canales’ Rebellion (REPUBLIC OF THE RIO GRANDE). On 9 Mar 1844, Juan Seguin’s property go into foreclosure and are auctioned off by Sheriff George Howard.
|
|