cje
Full Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by cje on Nov 7, 2014 17:43:22 GMT -5
When visiting the Alamo and then seeing pictures over the years, the size and area to defend is just sooooo vast when you think of trying to defend it with so few men! I can remember way back when in the 1960's I made my own Alamo 1/72 scale with balsa wood and plaster then got out my Arfix Confederate soldiers and counted out some 180 men and spread them around the Alamo. Some spots were just kinda thin! When you consider the minimum of men it took to service an artillery piece, well things get interesting! Thanks for your comments!
CJE
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 8, 2014 1:19:23 GMT -5
"We're gonna need more men." - Billy Bob Crockett.
Six men to a cannon (if properly crewed), 18 operative cannon, that's 108 men. Of course, several cannon were just fall-back position and not on the outer walls. So subtract 3 for the two espaldon guns behind the gate and the one at the gap in the "low wall." So that still ties up 90 men. Someone just pointed out that a gun crew would be 5 men, not 6. (Not sure) So perhaps 75 artillerymen. That still leaves only 114 to man the walls. By several accounts, at least 20 were in the hospital (conservative number). So we're down to 94. Let's assume Capt. Harrison's company of 15 to be on the palisade -- until it became obvious that no attack was aimed at the palisade. 78 left to defend the perimeter walls. This perimeter was in excess of 1,600 feet, leaving out the high walls of the church. That's one man every twenty feet!
However, these riflemen would not have been spaced evenly since much of the outer perimeter had no firing platforms or even earthen embankments -- although there were some loopholes. So... groupings on the low barrack, long barrack, northeast houses, houses along the west wall, vying for elbow room next to the gunners on the cannon platforms, firing over the 4.5 foot high cattle pen walls..... and running powder from the magazine in the church.
"We're gonna need a lot more men."
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Nov 9, 2014 13:01:49 GMT -5
Many of us kids who built Alamo models (I used modeling clay and painted toothpicks until I tried one with plaster at age 21) soon discovered how flimsy the defenses were with only 180 men. I was sure that even if Fannin arrived, they still wouldn't have had a chance. None of these factors dampened my ardor for all things Alamo. That's why I enjoy it as much at age 66 as the 7 year old defending my front yard days after seeing Fess Parker do it for Disney. Lou from Long Island
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 9, 2014 15:48:21 GMT -5
My "play Alamo" was the Marx playset (had two of 'em in 1955). But I was pretty innovative too. Dad and I had a fascination with the chase to the Alamo scene in the Disneyland TV version of Davy Crockett -- the way they were riding up and down over the knolls before they reached the plain that the Alamo was on. I made a Disneyamo out of posterboard (the chapel was about an inch wide), put it on the one end of my bed and stuffed small cushions, pillows and rags under the bedspread for the imaginary riders (my fingertip) to "ride up and down" over.
After my first visit to the Alamo in 1958, I wanted to make a model like the one that was then on display in the Alamo. I had just discovered Playdough, and it worked fine. Open up a can of Playdough now and the smell would immediately revert me to 1958!
|
|
|
Post by kerrville on Nov 10, 2014 4:25:25 GMT -5
Greetings all.If Gen'l Cos had a thousand men when he decided to surrender in Dec of 35,and the Alamo garrison had 180 plus 3 months later?That is why Travis wrote correspondance letters and sent couriers.They definitely needed more men.P.S.You could possibly man the cannon with 3 men on each.It would keep everyone busy when needed
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on Nov 10, 2014 8:49:20 GMT -5
I'm with Lou on this one. This battle was not ever going to be won with any number of men within the walls of the Alamo compound. If there were sufficient men to garrison the walls elbow to elbow and three deep, they would still have been trapped. Not to mention, even if a vast army of men got into the compound to help defend it, I don't think they could have gotten in with the necessary supplies of food and ammo, and powder to sustain them. Santa Anna wasn't worried about the number of folks inside those walls. He may have changed his battle tactics if there was a sizeable force inside, but ultimately the final result would be the same.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on Nov 10, 2014 9:17:15 GMT -5
I'm with Lou on this one. This battle was not ever going to be won with any number of men within the walls of the Alamo compound. If there were sufficient men to garrison the walls elbow to elbow and three deep, they would still have been trapped. Not to mention, even if a vast army of men got into the compound to help defend it, I don't think they could have gotten in with the necessary supplies of food and ammo, and powder to sustain them. Santa Anna wasn't worried about the number of folks inside those walls. He may have changed his battle tactics if there was a sizeable force inside, but ultimately the final result would be the same.
|
|
|
Post by aleman73 on Nov 11, 2014 13:57:55 GMT -5
Nothing quite prepares you for just how big the area is until your there and can get a good reference point. I like to take friends who have never been to the Alamo over to Alamo Plaza with a map in their hands showing an overlay of the walls with the current buildings. I have them stand on at the top of the steps of the old post office and point out where the Ripley's ticket booth ends and the Charli/Losoya house begins to give them a real life idea of just how big the compound was. From that raised vantage point its pretty eye opening.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 11, 2014 20:44:04 GMT -5
For the full power of the size of that compound, go on a little farther north up the left side of the post office to a spot in line with the alley across the street and look back. This is where the north wall crossed the street and is about 75 feet beyond the corner of the post office. When you look south from there, it is just mind-blowing.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Nov 12, 2014 17:00:32 GMT -5
In my one visit to the Alamo, I walked what I thought was the approximate perimeter of the plaza. It seemed impossibly huge. At the southwest corner there's a small display of stones that are identified as all that's left of the west wall. Standing there and looking at the chapel and long barracks really gave me a feeling of how huge an area it was. The picture I took of the chapel with a wide angle lens could not include all of the long barracks. By the way, my son at age 7 built a fairly good model with Legos. But he didn't have enough white blocks, so it became quite a rainbow display. But we had fun anyway. He's 38 now and teaching my 6 year old grandson. Lou from Long Island
|
|
|
Post by daverothe on Feb 20, 2015 12:27:48 GMT -5
It is very interesting to pose the question as to whether the Alamo could have held if Fannin came to their aid as was asked. I have served in the Army for 22 years and as an Infantryman, I have been trained in defensive fighting both for training, and in Iraq. The vastness of the Alamo compound is definitely a challenging task. There were a lot of blind spots that existed because there weren't enough men to cover them. So, if we look at 187ish defenders and position them accordingly as is thought where they were, then by far, they were greatly outnumbered. What aided them though is the thick walls of the compound and the openness of most of the terrain surrounding the Alamo. Add the markmanship skills of most of the defenders, then in theory, the defensive front was the only advantage they had. Obviously, lack of men and overwhelming odds overcame them but now we come to the fun part. Hypothetically, we add another 400 men and now, we have more cover for the walls, we have more rifles shooting, and we have the motivatiion of a garrison that was so desperate for help. I am not trying to say that the end result would have changed but if Fannin arrived with provisions and ammunition, then perhaps, they may have been able to self sustain until Houston was able to assemble his forces and the deciding battle of the Revoultion could have been the Alamo. It is truly amazing to see how a force, with a good defensive positon, can hold with a good battle plan and a will to hold at all costs. Best example of that is Masada.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Feb 21, 2015 16:30:06 GMT -5
You're right, it's fun to ponder the what ifs of the Alamo. A good defensive position and the willingness to hold out at all costs has helped determine the outcome of battles throughout history. A few like Rorke's Drift, Cemetery Ridge and Bastogne come to mind as successes. Others like Custer, Isandhlwana and the Japanese at Tarawa were failures. As far as Fannin getting to the Alamo in time, since he likely would have been followed by 1000+ Mexicans under General Urrea, it might not have made too much difference. But I like your suggestion that the Alamo could have been the decisive battle of the war, especially if Santa Anna had arrived in March or April as was expected and Texas rallied in time. Lot's of variables. Santa Anna spent 12 days poking around the Alamo, feeling out its defenses. Eventually he settled on a pre-dawn attack with overwhelming numbers to the North and a small diversionary attack on the South. I believe this was the key to the Texan defeat. Lou from Long Island (where it's cold as hell!)
|
|
|
Post by daverothe on Nov 6, 2015 23:08:56 GMT -5
I think you are probably right about Urrea following Fannin. Although, if Fannin had left and actually made the march to San Antonio, I am not too sure how far back Urrea at that point. I do agree that Santa Anna was more than patient in his plan to assault the Alamo. He could have pretty much attacked whenever he wanted. Fun part of history is to theorize the impossible and find a possibility. Could Fannin and Travis co-existed? Would Houston actually be the hero he is now had the Alamo been the decisive battle? Could Crockett have been the first President of Texas? Fun stuff to think about!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Nov 12, 2015 21:50:17 GMT -5
I doubt Fannin would have made it to the Alamo without being decimated along the way by Urea. Even if he made it to Bexar, would he and his men made it inside the walls of the Alamo? My guess is that Fannin's command would have been erased a couple of weeks sooner than they did on that Palm Sunday at Goliad. Would an additional 400 men inside the Alamo made that much of a difference? Maybe to prolong the inevitable, but that's about it. If nothing else Santa Anna would have just starved them into surrender, but I think he would have attacked the compound with more men than he committed to the actual attack on March 6. I do like some of the theoretical you pose, though, Dave. We will never know for certain what could have happened had the Texans in Bexar succeeded, but it's great fun thinking about it.
|
|
|
Post by daverothe on Nov 13, 2015 19:35:33 GMT -5
Paul, I would probably have to agree with you in terms of Fannin getting hit along the way. Even if he had made it to the Alamo, Urrea probably would have joined Santa Anna there and it would have been too much for the Texans to hold off, even at 500 strength. A sustainable defense would have been difficult with the provisions. More men means more food and more shot needed. History is all about near misses and lost opportunities at times. That's what makes it so fun to think about. Could a decisive and determined Fannin become the big hero of the war?
|
|