Grass in the compound

[Riley Gardner]

After so many years of studying Wayne's film set and Hancock's film set on Google Earth, a thought occurred to me: in Alamo films, often times the open compound tends to be shown as sand. Even Travis's famous "line in the sand" story reinforces that belief. Might I ask why that is? Certainly sand would have to be imported from the coast for some unknown purpose if it were truly sand in the compound.

One of Google Earth's features is the historical imagery, where you can go back to see images years previously. If you're overlooking the Hancock set, there's dirt/sand in the compound. A few clicks forward and around 2008, grass covers the entire compound. It looks like similar grass growth has happened at the Waynamo (forgive me if I'm wrong, Rich) as a point of interest. I wonder, can we use these sets to consider some possibilities of the state of the actual Alamo at the time of the battle? As we know it had been used as a base of operations since Spanish rule ended (again, feel free to call me out if I'm incorrect) but how much action would there have been to turn that whole compound and courtyard into a field of dirt? Plus, with an acequia running parallel to the west wall inside the fort, I imagine planet life would have clung to that pretty quickly similar to any old river.

There's no descriptions of the compound that I can recall that discuss the state of grass or shrubbery. And in terms of films on the Alamo, I believe that Price of Freedom had the compound with less dirt and sand and a little more of the "nature taking back over". Not to an extreme but enough where it was apparent to me as a boy that I still recall.

At the time of the siege and battle, what do we think the compound, in terms of flora, looked like?

[Paul Sylvain]

Well, I'm no expert and have factual basis for my opinion, but considering the Alamo's use as a presidio, and the amount of traffic in and out of there, I'm guessing it was mostly dirt or sand. Not saying there wasn't patches of green, but I don't think it was landscaped.

[Rich Curilla]

I think the later condition of both Alfred Ybarra's and Michael Corenblith's Alamo sets is a great way to begin to evaluate the probable condition of the real Alamo compound in 1836, but only a beginning. Paul is right. It has totally to do with the amount of traffic in the plaza and the pattern of that traffic. There was probably always grass growing, but with paths narrower and wider for where people and animals walked. Grass would grow into weeds in spots of neglect, but grazing animals would keep it trimmed -- and there were always animals grazing. Major areas of wear would have been inside the gate in the south wall, the whole area in front of the church (remember, the south side of the churchyard was open until Cos built the palisade) and the central areas of the plaza. Mark Lemon's new painting of the battle is an excellent study of this very question. The plaza surface was not perfectly level either. Grass tends to grow more in low-lying areas where puddles form.

[Rich Curilla]

As for "sand," it's just a word that seems to work better than saying "Travis' immortal line in the dirt." Nobody means it to mean the Sahara or Atlantic City. Clay would perhaps be a more accurate description. At Alamo Village, it is a clay called caliche and when wet it sticks to your boots big-time. Bexar, of course, was in a spring-fed river and creek valley -- with a system of acequias for irrigation. But even with that, as you moved away from a stream, the land would have quickly been drier and more sparsely vegetated. Again, see Mark's painting -- as well as George Nelson's aerial painting of Bexar from the S.W. George gives a highly accurate feeling of the nature of the landscape around the town and mission.

[Paul Sylvain]

Good answers, Rich. Traffic in the compound would determine grassy and dirt area. There are lots of undeveloped tracts of land in and around San Antonio today that can give folks a good idea of what it would be like if unoccupied. Heck, just look at the Wayneamo, right, Rich? But the Alamo saw steady use at that time, and like you said, animals grazed. There was traffic of all of sorts. I agree with your assesment, Rich.

[Rich Curilla]

Remember too that Cos' army just spent two months there fortifying the place using hundreds of soldiers within the walls, carting stone from portions they knocked down to areas where they needed to build cannon ramps, digging entrenchments, mounting cannon, drilling the men.......

Any grass that had been there was dead underfoot by the time the Texians inherited the place.

That said, one of the few details I disagree with regarding Michael Corenblith's awesome Alamo set is the pristine and smoothly raked "sand" of the compound and the Plaza de las Islas.

[mjbrathwaite]

Thanks, gentlemen. I've often wondered about this since I first saw "Viva Max!", which shows plenty of foliage in the 20th-century Alamo, in contrast to the films depicting the siege.

[Rich Curilla]

That "20th. century Alamo" (or at least the inside and the convento yard) was built in Rome.

[Paul Sylvain]

Dec 2, 2014 0:38:19 GMT -5 Rich Curilla said:

Remember too that Cos' army just spent two months there fortifying the place using hundreds of soldiers within the walls, carting stone from portions they knocked down to areas where they needed to build cannon ramps, digging entrenchments, mounting cannon, drilling the men.......

Any grass that had been there was dead underfoot by the time the Texians inherited the place.

Exactly, Rich. And it was winter (and a particularly cold one at that). Not much chance to green anything up in the months leading up to the siege and battle.

[Rich Curilla]

Well, we certainly answered that question. LOL.

[Riley Gardner]

Dec 2, 2014 20:04:39 GMT -5 Rich Curilla said:

Well, we certainly answered that question. LOL.

Indeed! Thank you all for the information. Little things such as this in historical production design have always fascinated me. People tend to overlook the little and natural stuff.