|
Post by Jim Boylston on Sept 19, 2014 20:44:20 GMT -5
Does anybody know of a relatively inexpensive copy of "The Alamo Reader" for sale. I'd like to see it too, but have also been put off partly by the price, but also by one of the reviews in Amazon: I get the impression the book (and perhaps its selection of accounts) is biased towards the views of the author, and I suspect I would disagree with him on some issues. When author Todd Hansen editorializes in "The Alamo Reader," he always states his opinions clearly and uses primary sources to explain how he came to those conclusions. Most of the time his comments are provided to give better context to the documents he collects in the book. "The Alamo Reader" is not a narrative history like "A Time To Stand," or ""Blood of Heroes." It's a massive collection of primary and secondary source documents. It's really an indispensable collection and I was surprised to find that it's out of print. Todd and Jim Donovan interviewed each other for "The Alamo Studies Review." If you haven't read it, I'd highly recommend reading the exchange between the two authors. Really interesting. You can still download the issue for free. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Sept 20, 2014 7:36:48 GMT -5
I would add to Jim ' s comments that Hansen almost always provides the complete document, in general the only documents edited are long accounts where the Alamo was only mentioned in a portion of the account eg Filisola ' s memoirs of the whole Texas campaign. Hansen ' s comments are limited to afterwords on each chapter and at the end of the book. The body of the book is a unique collection of primary sources that for the average person are unavailable anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by rayjr on Sept 20, 2014 10:12:55 GMT -5
Howdy!
I found my copy on Abe's Books - cost a bunch - but man what a great reference. I'm talking depth!
Cheapest one I have seen out there right about a hundred bucks... Ray
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 21, 2014 18:03:28 GMT -5
You will be patting yourself on the back for getting it for many years -- long after the cover falls off. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by dtcurran on Sept 24, 2014 17:32:23 GMT -5
this is another new question by a new member, i am either the oldiest new member or newest old member, take your pick, anyway this question concerns the extensive damage to the upper facade of the church. if the church was the second built and never finished, with the arches pulled down for fill by cos, where did all the damage come from?
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 24, 2014 18:12:57 GMT -5
Not sure I understand your reference to "extensive damage to the upper facade." If you mean that literally (meaning just the front), then it had only been finished to just above the second level -- the niches and choir loft window -- so no damage other than weathering over seventy-odd years and possible cannon ball hits during the Siege of Bexar and the Siege of the Alamo, and perhaps other engagements in 1813 and later. Another strong possibility is that Col. Andrade, between March 6 and mid-May, knocked down portions of the facade that served as parapets over the baptistry and confessional rooms. Gary Zaboly makes a good case for this in his book "An Altar for Their Sons." Andrade was tasked with destroying all fortification elements of the Alamo. Thus, the gouges on the left and right sides of the facade that are chronicled in late 1830's and early 1840's drawings might be the result of post-battle Mexican Army demolition.
On the other hand, if you mean damage to the overall church, you sort of named it. When Cos decided to turn the apse of the church into a cannon emplacement, in addition to pulling down the arches he had to knock down the east end to half it's original height to enable the cannon platform to be low enough so that a ramp to it would fit within the church without having to knock out the front wall. The formula for ramp pitch was 6 to 1 (6 feet of length for each foot of elevation). Thus, if he brought the east wall down to 15 feet, then the platform could be 12 feet above ground, requiring a ramp of 72 feet plus the 24 feet or so needed for platform depth to accept recoil and loading of the guns. The ramp, according to eye-witnesses, went right to the front entrance.
|
|
|
Post by dtcurran on Sept 25, 2014 11:50:14 GMT -5
thank you very much for your prompt answer sir, the two deep damaged areas on the left and right of the facade are exactly what i was refering to in my question. i guess now i will have to mr. Zaboly's book, my wife will just love that, but don't worry about about me, I will just blame it on you guys and this forum for feeding my enduring love of everything alamo again thant you for the answer . dtcurran
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 25, 2014 17:14:40 GMT -5
thank you very much for your prompt answer sir, the two deep damaged areas on the left and right of the facade are exactly what i was refering to in my question. i guess now i will have to mr. Zaboly's book, my wife will just love that, but don't worry about about me, I will just blame it on you guys and this forum for feeding my enduring love of everything alamo again thant you for the answer . dtcurran Hahahaha! I get in trouble every time, or, as an old Jewish Mother comic used to say to her son, "Good luck with your mouth!" You will find Gary's book rewarding in every way. It is the greatest collection of articles, quotes, chronicles, and so forth, ever assembled between two covers. Plus it has a number of new Zaboly drawings in it illustrating his points with complete commentary. How can a book that commits 8 pages solely to the history of the 18-pounder possibly go wrong. He also has a whole dissertation on his conclusions on how different the fortified Alamo might have been than what we have believe. I don't necessarily agree with some of his conclusions, but he has the ability to really make me think about how damaging it can be to decide that it was a certain way and not be open to "seeing" other possibilities. Phil Collins contributed a number of pages as well, presenting pictures of his many artifacts (now presented to the Alamo) and giving descriptions of them. In all, a heavy book -- literally. No book in my library is as physically heavy.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Sept 26, 2014 7:49:00 GMT -5
I was very eager for Zaboly's book to come out and pre ordered it. Something I very rarely do. The collected articles, etc are very impressive, but I, personally, was very disappointed in the "supplementary" chapter of his recent drawings and conclusions on the physical Alamo. This was pretty heavily discussed elsewhere on the forum at the time. Three main points on the parapets, the document Zaboly used as his foundation for his argument is a MISTRANSLATION (see Nelson and Ivey), where Zaboly places the parapets is illogical and makes no military sense, and finally Zaboly instead of using the actual Sanchez-Navarro drawing that Zaboly claims to show the parapets - Zaboly, himself draws an imitation of the original that ADDS this feature. While definitely not a lie (the careful reader will catch the "based on" citation), it is IMHO a very deceptive manipulation. I loved Gary's previous works, but was bitterly disappointed in this his latest.
Given the cost of this book, it is not one I would recommend unless you are a serious student or simply have to have everything on the Alamo. If you are interested in the physical Alamo, I'd instead recommend George Nelson ' s book.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 26, 2014 13:45:16 GMT -5
If you are interested in the physical Alamo, George's book is great because it offers many of the primary drawings and paintings all in one volume -- and he updates it regularly, thanks to Phil Collins. However, his presentation of the Alamo in his aerial view drawing, while impressive (and a quantum leap for its time), is over 16 years old, and a lot of research has been done and new conclusions reached. Plus, George's relative scale is quite a bit off and you cannot get a true perspective of the fort. In this regard, I would highly recommend Mark Lemon's The Illustrated Alamo 1836: A Photographic Journey (2008) as currently the most up to date visual and narrative treatment of the mission-fortress. The 1/48 scale model Mark constructed in order to be photographed for the book is also derived from dialogue with Jake Ivey, et. al., but presents numerous foot-for-foot accurate images of all the walls, structures and courtyards, and makes it clear how huge the place was.
Current research by Mssrs. Rick Range, Craig Covner and Mike Harris using corrected translations of mission records and later property deed descriptions opens another window on the condition of the Alamo at the time of the siege and battle. These results are only now taking the form of published material, hopefully soon to be available.
In short, it do go on!
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Sept 26, 2014 17:03:01 GMT -5
Agree about Mark's work, but since it's out of print it maybe cost prohibitive. Like you said the Rick Range work sounds awful good. Seems like we've been waiting forever....
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 26, 2014 23:41:12 GMT -5
Oooops! I forgot that it's out of print. Still.......
Yeah, Rick needs to stop researching and "lock it in."
|
|
|
Post by dtcurran on Sept 29, 2014 18:10:29 GMT -5
I have one more annoying question to ask, at least at this time, I am sure I will have many more annoying questions to ask laterbut for now, can anybody tell mewhat the distance is between the end of the long barracks/convento and the east end of the low barracks? and the estimated length of the l-shaped hospital/kitchen building? I have both mr. Lemon and mr.Nelson book but can not find the measurements I need . thank you D.T.G.C.
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on Sept 29, 2014 19:00:00 GMT -5
On my model, it is about 38 m (124.6 ft) and the kitchen is 18.8 m (61.7 ft). The model was based on Lemon's plan (see page 117).
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 29, 2014 21:15:02 GMT -5
The measurement from the S.W. corner of the Long Barrack to the S.E. corner of the Low Barrack was recorded at 143.0 feet by Theodore Gentilz and 143.5 feet by Francois Giraud. Giraud's measurement from the same corner of the Long Barrack to the supposed N.E. corner of the Low Barrack (it part of the east end was gone by the time of the survey) was 126.5 feet. This would in effect be the length of the "low wall" plus the eastern side of the hospital/kitchen building.
There is no extant measurement of the hospital/kitchen. Mark estimated it based on the relationships in the Sanchez-Navarro plats to the church width (risky at best, but all one can do). As Jim says, that came out to a bit more than 60 feet. On my virtual model, I chose to make it only 54 feet long, also reasonable due to the vast discrepancy between the depiction on the S-N plats and that shown by LaBastida in his battle plat.
|
|