|
Post by bchemerka on Sept 10, 2012 18:18:16 GMT -5
The September 2012 Alamo Journal has been mailed to Alamo Society members worldwide.
Issue #166 features important articles regarding the historic Alamo compound and the death of its commander. And there’s also a report on the latest news regarding Alamo Plaza’s future.
The Fall of William Barret Travis, by New York’s Gary Zaboly, graces the cover. Zaboly also contributes two articles: “The Fall of William Barret Travis” (with an addendum: “The North Wall Palisade and Some Historical Parallels”) and “Sgt. Edward Everett, the Sleeping Tejano, and the Myth of the Earthen Artillery Ramp.”
Georgia’s Mark Lemon offers “North Wall Revisited: The Evidence is Anything But Indisputable.”
The September issue includes book reviews, "Alamo News" and other entries.
"Remember the Alamo!"
|
|
|
Post by jamesg on Sept 13, 2012 20:58:50 GMT -5
Mine came today!!!
|
|
|
Post by jmolini on Sept 17, 2012 13:43:28 GMT -5
Regarding the back and forth between Senors Zaboly and Lemon: I was at turns mesmerized, confused, entertained and enlightened. At the end of it all I had a couple of questions.
Besides Jameson and Sanchez - Navarro who else says there was earth and debris between the wall and its covering? I don't seem to recall ever seeing in any quotes from de la Pena, Ampudia or Filisola any description of that being part of the fortifications along the North Wall, NE corner or East Wall. Nor does la Bastida show it on his map.
Could it have been simpler? That because of reasons having to do with time, logistics, priorities, materials, manpower, etc., the horizontal wood and bracing was placed directly against the wall with the intention of covering it with the earthen embankment and ditch in front?? Because they knew the three cannon position would be more labor intensive, and, they were not fortifying against a "real" army with all the accoutrements like trained experienced and capable artillerymen armed with cannon capable of battering down that section?
Where would they have gotten all the dirt and debris?? And how did they transport it??
In my humble opinion the Alamo to the Mexicans at that time was a depot, barracks and ultimately, in the end, a fall back position. They had to believe the battle would be decided, in their favor, in Bexar itself.
look forward to any answers..
thanks
Johnny Moe
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Sept 20, 2012 14:10:49 GMT -5
Well, from a military engineering standpoint Mark is on much firmer ground. While, I don't have enough command of Spanish, I like the fact that he provided the original Spanish, it's now out there to be evaluated. I also like his conclusion that his position is a probability not an absolute. As most of us knows that have studied the Alamo, there is very little that you can assert as irrefutable.
As far as dirt and debris, Jake Ivey, did some computations that calculated the dirt that the Mexicans dug when they built the west wall aceaquia, and the stone in the convent courtyard and church and it matches up pretty well with the work done.
I don't think the Mexican's lost the 1835 battle in Bexar. I think they actually lost it at Concepion. After that battle, despite superior numbers, Cos surrendered the initiative to the Texans and was totally reactive. The only way Cos could have won under those circumstances was for the Texans to give up and go home - something they just about did.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Sept 24, 2012 18:40:46 GMT -5
I really enjoyed the Zaboly/Lemon Part II go around. I thought Gary had a slight edge after the first essay, but after reading Lemon's second revisitation I think he's on firmer ground. To me, the whole argument boils down to the word "irrefutable." As Herb said, nothing about the Alamo is irrefutable. Quite frankly, I never gave much attention to the engineering of the North Wall defense. I expected that the collapse of the eastern end of the wall (Potter's "breech") was shored up with stone, timber and dirt. It's only recently I discovered how much more engineering by Cos and Jameson went on before the assault. But how much could have been accomplished before it was too late? Mr. Zaboly makes elaborate illustrations of many parts of the Alamo. While they're true works of are and very inspirational, some of the battlements seem too crisp and clean to be the work of volunteers with shovels and axes given the time pressure and shortage of men. I think when Travis wrote that his men were shoring up the walls by throwing up dirt, it was a desperate attempt to bolster from the inside what they couldn't do on the outside. As you can see, I'm trying to carve a path between Zaboly and Lemon because I admire these authors so much. And, I'm so glad some real scholarship is taking place in an area that has so lacked it for over a century. "Let the Legend Grow and Grow..."
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 25, 2012 16:15:51 GMT -5
As you can see, I'm trying to carve a path between Zaboly and Lemon because I admire these authors so much. And, I'm so glad some real scholarship is taking place in an area that has so lacked it for over a century. "Let the Legend Grow and Grow..." I agree completely. While I've grown weary of the intensity of the debate -- and abhor the rabit-punching -- I conclude that, where the reality was concerned, it was a little of both and neither completely. Avoiding the argument of semantics, I hear Gary clearly and accurately saying that all this was possible and Mark grounding me by saying yes, but it probably didn't happen that way, given circumstances. That each seems "irrefutable" in his stance is, I suppose, what has focused us so much on the details -- and, in the end, I have learned much (and, I think, as much as I can at the moment.) "...Let the old men tell the story." ;D
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Sept 26, 2012 17:52:23 GMT -5
I was disappointed with Mark-Part I. I felt at the time it was more "sniping" without substance. Mark and I exchanged several private messages on FaceBook and he urged me to wait until Part II before I jumped to any conclusions. He was right. Part II was the clincher as far as I'm concerned. I'm not saying there is no merit in Gary's position. To the contrary, what stood as the North Wall on the morning of the final assault probably was a mix of both elements, but I tend to find Mark's argument much more likely.
I've come to learn there are few absolutes when it comes to the Alamo, other than knowing which side won and which side fell. It's through healthy and open (and research-based) debates such as this one that we continue to learn. It's up to all of us to keep an open mind and be willing to reconsider what we've come to believe when evidence suggests otherwise.
Overall, this was an excellent Journal, from start to finish, and all the contributors are to be commended.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Sept 27, 2012 2:06:24 GMT -5
The depth of the Mark's and Gary's analysis is great. The only thing I wonder about is the extent to which artillery fire affected the timber sheathing on the north wall. I think their text and graphics under-represent the extent to which the north wall timbers were pounded by artillery (of small bore, yes, but at relatively close range). Even if the timbers were placed vertically, the contemporary reports imply that artillery broke and re-arranged many of the timbers. Smashed timbers would've created many foot and hand holds attackers could use to scale the walls, unlike the soldado on the cover of the 3/12 Alamo Journal who climbs a vertical palisade that is pristine, but for one lodged cannonball.
I think whoever designed the timber sheathing probably opted for vertical timbers because whatever slight advantage horizontal cribbing had over vertical in terms of structural stability automatically ceded too much of an advantage to attackers by providing an easy ladder for the enemy to climb the wall. That being said, I think the palisade had some horizontal features that facilitated soldados climbing the wall. So I wonder if the relatively rapid scaling of the north wall wasn't a combination of two things:
First, go to one of the web sites on Andersonville Prison and see how its palisades were constructed: Vertical timbers all tied together by a line of planks running horizontially across the face near the top. Second, there's no doubt that earth had been piled at the base of the Alamo's north wall sheathing, creating a horizontal platform soldados could stand on at the wall's base.
Put the two together: First, the designer of the palisade wanted the timbers to be vertical so it would be hard to climb. But vertical timbers need horizontal bracing, necessitating an Andersonville-type horizontal brace on the palisade's outer face. The Andersonville-style design was good for a prison, but not for the Alamo. It was problematic for the designer of the Alamo's defenses because: (1) He couldn't make the palisade more than 10' high max because he had no Andersonville-style 15' plus long pines at his disposal (Bastrop's "Lost Pines" being too far away). (2) Unlike a prison, he had to pile earth at the palisade's base to protect from artillery. Result? Unlike a prisoner at Andersonville or the "hanging monkey" picture on the 3/12 Journal cover, a soldado could stand atop the earthen mound at the Alamo's north end, grasp the horizontal plank brace running near the top of the face of the north wall's vertical timbers, and scramble over the top with a relative ease that did no good for the defenders.
|
|
|
Post by estebans on Sept 27, 2012 18:49:18 GMT -5
I find it puzzling that no one is factoring in the possibility of one soldier giving another a boost to reach the top of the wall immediately, a temporary base for help in clambering over. Given that they could see the walls in the daytime and had relatively few scaling ladders, wouldn't they anticipate helping each other scale the wall, at least for the first ones going over? I'm not sure that officers would bother to mention it, but could it have been happening? With some cooperation of that kind all along that wall, might they get an overwhelming number of troops over the wall almost simultaneously?
I'm not sure what to think about the wooden outer element of the wall. Horizontal cribbing seems both too easy to climb, as others noted, and too vulnerable to catastrophic collapse when a lucky shot hits the right spot. Then again, maybe catastrophic collapses were one thing they were fixing at night, and is it possible that seeing the horizontal timbers was the reason they had what seems like a relatively small number of scaling ladders? Slap a ladder up, the defenders automatically focus there, and meanwhile the attackers are helping each other swarm up everywhere but the ladders, per above. Works with vertical palisading too, just not as easily. Scaling ladders more as diversion, rather than primary means of getting over the wall.
Stephen Schneider
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Sept 28, 2012 11:38:50 GMT -5
I find it puzzling that no one is factoring in the possibility of one soldier giving another a boost to reach the top of the wall immediately, a temporary base for help in clambering over. Personally, I think that almost surely happened. I think your assumption that it wasn't mentioned because it was such a natural thing to do, is also correct. I think an important point here may be getting overlooked, both Mark and Gary say that this wooden structure was never intended to be the outer wall . Instead it was meant as a retaining wall, a butress for a dirt embankment, that was to be the outer surface. Both also agree, that only the northeastern portion of the oute wall was covered by dirt, prior to the beginning of the siege. This fact (?) would point to why the Texans had to nightly throw dirt up on the interior wall as the outer wooden wall was damaged daily by the bombardment. A fire that had the outer earthwork been completed, the wall would never have been subjected to. So the question becomes which makes sense, - if your going to cover the wall with dirt and its purpose is to serve as a butress? Horizontal cribbing or vertical palisade. I think Mark's reasoning is much more sound based on this. A vertical palisade gives you no increased benefit, in fact it's less stable, and is far more resource intensive. It requires far more work (time) to construct and many more large timbers than the horizontal cribbing. I think the Mexican Army was probably too competent to waste the time and wood necessary to build a vertical palisade under those conditions. I do wish I had command of enough Spanish to verify the translations that Mark provided. If they are indeed correct, it seems to close the arguement.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Sept 29, 2012 17:04:30 GMT -5
Mr. Estebans makes a good point that the soldados helped each other scale the walls. Basic infantry tactics teach standard procedures to overcome an obstacle like a wall. Two men hold a rifle horizontally and boost the third man who can hopefully gain a handhold higher up. If necessary he extends his rifle so a fourth man can scale higher. Judging by reports of the poor quality of the Mexican ladders, this or similar methods of scaling the wall was surely used. The question is how long did the Mexican columns gathered at the base of the walls take to put enough men over and crack the Texan resistance? Five minutes? Ten minutes? Fifteen? The intensity of the fighting, and that Santa Anna had to call up the reserves, suggests that regardless of the outside of the North Wall, it was no easy feat to scale it and overcome the few score of defenders. Horizontal or verticle cribbing, it must have been one hell of a fight.
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Sept 29, 2012 17:38:05 GMT -5
Good Lord! (‘scuse the pun) Here we go again. In his article on the ‘Fall of William Barret Travis’ Gary Zaboly states “At least we can now understand the documented sequence of his rise to, and fall from, the rampart’s parapet”
Gary makes a good case for his theory, especially in his use of primary sources, and who could disagree with that theory if Gary’s drawing of the physical reality surrounding the event was universally accepted as undisputed fact.
This is not the case however. I cannot think of any other drawing, painting or sketch that shows the rampart, platform and slope that is in agreement with Gary’s vision of it. (I may well be wrong, my memory is not great)
The problem is that all (many?) other versions of the structure show the ramp placed behind the cannon, not running up between them. So, it could easily be said that Gary is basing his theory on his own imagined view of how the structure would have looked at the time of the incident.
So, Gary is mainly (exclusively?) on his own in offering us his version of the fall of Travis? Yes, as far as his drawing goes, the bit that bothers me though is that the primary sources (that Gary quoted) seem to back him up. How could Travis roll down the slope and come to rest on the cannon if the slope was actually behind said cannon? I’ll leave this one for clearer minds than mine.
I have another problem, if Travis was shot by a ball from a musket, in the forehead, at close range, would he be in a fit state to crawl anywhere? Would it not have taken the back of his head off, poor powder notwithstanding? Gary does not help his own theory by stating that some reports have Travis being shot twice, all the more reason to question whether he would have been able to crawl from the defined slope to the cannon.
Joe, as a primary source, worries me. I think he exaggerated his role in the fall of Travis, I do not believe that he fired his gun before retreating, why would he? It was not his fight. I do not believe that he fired on the Mexicans several times from the house he had taken refuge in. I do not believe that a Mexican officer would ask (even after the battle) “Are there any negroes here” What reason would he have to do so?
Childress (another of Gary’s sources) says of Travis: “his gun falling upon the enemy and himself within the fort” no mention of a slope.
It’s a hard one, my own opinion is that Gary’s theory, sketch, opinion is just too neat and not one that should be seen as “At least we can now understand” This one is open to further debate, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Sept 30, 2012 2:14:21 GMT -5
Yes, the timber sheathing was a retaining wall needed to hold dirt, stones, and other rubble. The key issue is how the defenders dealt with the lateral pressure of all that dirt, stone, and rubble fill. With a horizontal cribbing design, tremondous lateral pressures had to be born only by a few laterally-placed timbers. A true palisade of vertically-placed timbers offerred greater structural stability against the lateral pressures. The defenders may have made mistakes, but they're still my heroes.
|
|