|
Post by bchemerka on Jul 30, 2013 13:37:29 GMT -5
The August issue of The Alamo Journal, the official publication of the Alamo Society, has been mailed to all members worldwide. Issue #169 features: "The Continuing Fight to Restore Alamo Plaza" "Setting the North Wall Record Straight" by Gary Zaboly Alamo Society 2013 Symposium Report John Wayne's The Alamo and the Oscars "Lemon's Next Big Alamo Canvas" Book review: Matamoras ansd the Texas Revolution"Alamo News" and more [It's never too late to "cross the line."] www.alamosociety.org
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Aug 3, 2013 12:54:28 GMT -5
I loved every part of the August Journal. From the fight to restore the Alamo Plaza to the Alamo and the Oscars, you did a fine job, Bill. And, once again, Gary Zaboly added another well researched defense of his concept of the fortifications at the North Wall. I think he makes his case, but in the back of my mind I wonder if somethings may have been lost in the translations and meaning of words in English and Spainish since 1836. Anyway, it's good thoughtful reading. I liked the comments on the "Chupacabra vs. the Alamo" SyFy movie. It had to be about the worst ecuse to feature the Shrine and call it shlock entertainment. Yet, now that the SyFi Channel has run wild with "Shark/Tornado movies, I guess it's only a matter of time before deadly sea creatures fall out of the sky on the Alamo. Hey, I got an idea, what if the sharks fell on Bexar after the battle and ate the surviving soldiers? Nah, too good!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Aug 3, 2013 13:27:42 GMT -5
I'm enjoying my read through the Journal, as we speak. Well, mostly.
I'll probably be in the minority, here, but it won't be the first time I've been the odd duck out. I felt that both Gary Zaboly and Mark Lemon had their say regarding their perspectives on the North Wall debate. I respect both artists and writers very much and I truly admire their work which represents so many hours of research and dedication to the subject of the Alamo.
Each made sound, well-research and expertly stated arguments in recent past issues of the Journal. After the final round, I thought it had finally been left up to the readers to decide. At some point you have to either fish or cut bait, especially in a subject like this where it literally boils down to translations and interpretations as to which "side" you believe.
Maybe some day we'll have that answer, but this particular debate seems to be about getting that last word in, especially after I thought it already had been said. I'm all for learning and research and healthy debate (I guess that's why I'm here), but I think this one needs a break.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 4, 2013 14:02:24 GMT -5
I think Jake Ivey had the final word on this.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 6, 2013 11:29:45 GMT -5
Liked Jake's piece immensely. The logic and language was refreshing. There are legitimate reasons to support either side in this "debate". But the thing does seem to be spinning in circles now.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harris on Aug 11, 2013 16:15:13 GMT -5
Hey Gang, Long time, no post! The computerless Rick Range has asked me to post his response to the AJ article along with 2 pics that accompanied the symposium presentation (for those of you who were unable to attend). Anyway, this post is not intended to cause any further marathon debates on the north wall. Hopefully the pics will help illustrate our theory and the points that were touched upon in Jake's article. Thank, MikeJust a brief response to the latest in the long-running series of articles on the north wall. At this year’s Alamo Society Symposium Mike Harris, Craig Covner, and I presented a thorough analysis of the evidence concerning the north wall of the Alamo at the time of the battle based on our research over the last three years, and we do not want to weary the reader with a rehash of all that material here. (And most of it was included in Jake Ivey’s well-written article in The Alamo Journal.) At the symposium, Mike also displayed the north wall portion of his new Alamo model which incorporated all of our findings. For anyone who did not see the presentation, there are plans in the works to have the video of the presentation posted on one or both of the Alamo discussion forum websites for viewing. I speak for all three of us in saying that we greatly admire and appreciate the dedicated work of all our Alamo Society compatriots—the people who love the Alamo. We would, however, like to add the following points in clarification on this subject. 1. There is no evidence that the stone portion of the north wall was “in ruins.” This misconception stems partly from an inaccurate translation of the 1793 Alamo inventory as presented by George Nelson stating that “half the north wall was in ruins” when the statement was in fact referring to the west wall. Filisola’s statement regarding ruination is specific and is referring only to the adobe section of the north wall—the “cortina” or curtain wall running from the middle gun platform to the northeast corner. As was explained at the 2013 Alamo Symposium, the stone part of the Alamo north wall (the western 162 feet) had no wooden revetment—horizontal, vertical, or otherwise. 2. Filisola is describing the adobe portion of the north wall (the eastern 72 feet), which was in a deteriorated state. (It was deteriorated because of the fact that it was adobe—not stone.) He is not describing wooden revetment (and the Spanish revestir means “to revet,” not “to cover” or “to coat”) on the interior side of the wall because on the interior the adobe wall was backed by adobe rooms. That is why that part of the outer-perimeter wall was adobe. Filisola is describing the wooden support placed on the outside of the adobe walls, and regardless of any personal proclivities in Spanish word usage, i.e. parapeto, palizada, barda, etc.,etc., he clearly and unambiguously states that the timbers were placed horizontally, with the horizontals being supported by some verticals. 3. Sa’nchez-Navarro’s index adds the detail that the adobe wall was reinforced by about a foot or so of earth between the timbers and the wall. Peña’s shallow, “scarcely begun” ditch was what supplied this earth. The ditch did not furnish earth for a fortification embankment, and Peña never mentions any embankment. He does state that they were able to climb the timbers—the timbers left exposed because they lacked an embankment and which Potter described as “battered” due to artillery fire. The pockmarked, damaged timbers provided the footholds on which the Mexicans were able to climb. 4. The adobe portions of the north and east walls with their timber revetment do in fact correspond to the Jameson maps’ adobe houses “picketed all around”(and Mr. Zaboly is correct in stating that he, not Rick Range and Mike Harris,was the first to point that out). 5. Lastly, the resulting north- and east-wall structures can be seen exactly as described above and in convincing detail on the enhanced and enlarged digital version of the Labastida map that was shown at the symposium. Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 11, 2013 21:28:48 GMT -5
Thanks for this clarification, Mike (and glad to hear from you again!). Hope you are able to post the presentation soon. I tend to agree with others that Jake's article was a nice way to wrap up the subject (agree to disagree, whatever).
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 12, 2013 18:16:42 GMT -5
Hi Mike! Many thanks for posting this; most interesting. I think most of us would love to see the entire Power Point presentation.
Good to see you and hear from you!!
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Aug 13, 2013 18:09:33 GMT -5
Thanks Mike, In all the decades I've studied the Alamo and long before Messrs Zaboly and Lemon locked into this North Wall kerfuffle, I concluded that the wall, at the time of the attack looked pretty much as the power-point illustrations. I don't know if we can ever know whether the wooden reinforcements were vertical or horizontal or a combination (as illustrated.) The one aspect I was pretty sure about was that only the ruined eastern section of the North Wall (the adobe huts) were replaced with breastworks. At least, that's what I gleaned from Lord, Myers, Tinkle and Rubin Potter's 1848 Map. Looks like I wasn't far off. Nice job fellas. I'm looking forward to more illustrations.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Aug 19, 2013 19:37:11 GMT -5
This makes a lot of sense, Mike. I missed the 2013 symposium and the presentation, so I'd love to see a video presentation (or a link to it) here.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Aug 20, 2013 9:22:49 GMT -5
I was asked by Gary Zaboly if I would post this response from him to Rick Range's post above. I am doing so without taking sides for or against Gary, Rick, Mark or anyone else in this debate. As I said earlier, at some point this should be allowed to rest and let the reader decide. As requested, the following is Gary's unedited response in full. -- Paul
While I have been good friends with Rick Range for a decade now, if by correspondence and phone, and while I had the pleasure of meeting both he and Mike Harris for the first time back in March, it must be stressed that any disagreement I have with them about their concept of the Alamo's north wall defenses is strictly professional and not personal!
It is also important to underscore here that in each of the main points made by Mr. Range in his Forum submission there are glaring errors of fact that have to be corrected. Point-by-point, I will present evidence to make these corrections:
1. Filisola's mention of the "cortina" of the north wall has nothing to do with the adobe house portion of its eastern third. The fortification term "curtain" denotes a single wall that connects the flank of one bastion with another. In other words, the Alamo’s north wall "cortina" was that part of the wall that stretched eastward from the northwest battery to the beginning of the adobe structures, as I keep trying to point out. The “cortina” had no structure against it until Cos’s engineers raised the battery about midway of said curtain wall. Thus, Filisola is only talking about the "cortina" as it related to the construction of the middle battery (Fortin de Teran), not the adobe houses. "Since this curtain was ruined," he wrote, "it was necessary to repair it with timbers of five or six inches in thickness placed horizontally and supported on the outside part with some straight legs, also of timber." Filisola makes absolutely no mention of the wooden wall being placed on the outside of the north wall. In fact he doesn't even mention the adobe houses (as he doesn't mention the long barracks either, because his primary concern is with the fort’s batteries, not its buildings other than as they relate to the battery positions). When he describes the wooden structure, he is clearly relating it to the middle battery’s construction and the “ruined” cortina itself, not the northeastern corner of the compound, which he never mentions at all in his description of the fort.
2. Again, Filisola is not describing any part of the north wall where adobe structures stood. The Spanish word “revistir” does not mean “to revet,” as Mr. Range claims. Filisola in fact uses the word “revestirla,” which does indeed mean “to coat,” as I pointed out in my August Alamo Journal article, and also “to repair or fortify a wall” (Neumann and Baretti, 1839). It does not mean revetment, and there is a world of difference between reveting a wall and saying that you repaired it. The Spanish word for revetment is “revestimiento,” not “revistir” or “revestirla.” The main point of the matter here is that Filisola never indicates that the horizontal wooden construction was on the outside of the wall, or that there was any earth involved, as Sanchez-Navarro and Jameson do---and in the latter two cases they emphasize “palisades,” “stakes on end,” and "picketting" being on the outside, NOT horizontal timbers. This is crucial on-site corroborating documentation that cannot be ignored or denied.
3. Sanchez Navarro does not write that the adobe house section of the wall was covered frontally with “a foot or so of earth between the timbers and the wall.” He in fact shows a palisaded wall covering the ENTIRETY of the north wall. Whether this is right or wrong in terms of the palisade’s extent, by using the word “palisade” he is in agreement with Ampudia, who also calls it a “palisade,” and Jameson, who clearly describes the structure as made of “stakes on end” or “picketed”---that is, timbers standing vertically with their points at the top: a precise definition of a standing pale or stake or picket or palisade---NOT a horizontal timber wall. Nor does Sanchez-Navarro's or any other Mexican account state that the wooden revetment was so damaged by battery fire that the soldados were able to use the impact sites as foot-and hand-holds. That’s a new one on me. Nor does any account state where the earth packing between the wooden wall and the main wall came from.
4. Thank you for the credit.
5. LaBastida only shows the incomplete ditch, and absolutely does not depict a wooden structure either on the inside or the outside of the north wall...just as he omits other structures known to have been built in the fort. My main argument in all this is that there is too much wishful thinking in some of these interpretations. Again, Sanchez-Navarro says it was a "palisade," and draws it thusly, twice. Jameson says it was composed of earth and "stakes on end," and elsewhere he says it was "picketed." Col. Ampudia calls it a "palisade." These are unambiguous descriptions of how the logs stood...all of them straight up, with not a single horizontal one mentioned. Rather than employ wishful thinking, I trust that these military men knew what they were talking about.
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Aug 29, 2013 16:41:04 GMT -5
In Bruce Dettman's review of Craig Roell's new book on Matamoros he did not mention that Roell did not at all discuss the circumstances of the Mexican retreat through Matamoros. After all it was in Matamoros that Reuben Potter picked up much of his interviews and information on the Alamo. Matamoros must also have many public, church and possible burial records of the Mexican army passing both north and south. Matamoros might still have a lot to say on the Alamo and the Texas Revolution.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 29, 2013 19:07:46 GMT -5
In Bruce Dettman's review of Craig Roell's new book on Matamoros he did not mention that Roell did not at all discuss the circumstances of the Mexican retreat through Matamoros. After all it was in Matamoros that Reuben Potter picked up much of his interviews and information on the Alamo. Matamoros must also have many public, church and possible burial records of the Mexican army passing both north and south. Matamoros might still have a lot to say on the Alamo and the Texas Revolution. I haven't seen Roell's book yet, but I agree that the events in and around Matamoros are certainly an area that deserves a much closer look.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 30, 2013 8:13:17 GMT -5
Where was Bruce's review published?
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Sept 2, 2013 17:56:20 GMT -5
Bill Chemerka did a fine job of showing how John Wayne's Alamo competed with the Oscars of 1960. He pointed a number of Wayne's biographers and critics declared that his hubris cost him better results in that year's Oscar race. But thanks to his research, I think the Alamo suffered most from the type of competition that year. Elmer Gantry, the Sundowners and the winning entry the Apartment were "thinking peoples" pictures. That is, they appealed to an intellectual audience. I was only 12 at the time or I would have voted The Alamo. The Academy members were in a different place emotionally that year. Had JW made the movie in 1956, like he wanted to, who knows... Chill Wills never had a chance, although I marvel at his performance more each time I see it. I'm sorry, Tiomkin should have won, no matter how good the Exodus and Magnificent Seven scores were. The music in the Alamo has haunted me for over 50 years. They will play it at my funeral. "Never on a Sunday" was a cute jingle, but no comparison to "The Green Leaves of Summer." No question, the Alamo had the best sound recording. You could even hear people's words in the midst of frantic battle scenes. Cinematography could have gone to the Alamo or Spartacus. Both had huge panoramic scenes. Santa Anna's troops marching into position at dawn is breathtaking, but seeing the Roman legions marching across the plain in Spartacus, is just as emotional. I still marvel at the editing in both The Alamo and Sparticus. I can't see how the Apartment won,except that the academy members did not appreciate the art of editing in 1960. Having suffered from red/green colorblindness, I don't see color as well as most people. But the colors of the Mexican uniforms were so vivid to me, I think the Alamo should have won the Art Direction award. So thanks Bill for adding a little more to the history of the "Waynamo." It's great stuff. Lou from Long Island
|
|