|
|
Post by Jake on Feb 2, 2012 23:23:25 GMT -5
The interesting thing about these cross-sections of the structure of the stockade is this: Mahan, in his sketched cross-section of such a defensive work, shows a very similar construction, but with the ditch on the outside of the defenses, an embankment of earth from the ditch piled against the face of the stockade, and a firing step on the inside of the stockade also made from the earth from the outside ditch. This leads me to offer you what Mark Lemon calls “one of Ivey’s speculations” – I like that phrase. We know from archaeology that the ditch outside was not finished, and in fact ended near the southeast corner of the low barracks with an abrupt tapering off:  I can’t give you an image of Mahan’s drawing because that’s apparently still in copyright – I could do a tracing of it if we needed it, though. Oddly, the CAR 1992 report by Anne Fox on the 1988 and 1989 excavations that found the taping-off of the outside ditch didn’t mention this detail, but it is in the field drawings: “Anne A. Fox, 1989 Field School, profile drawings, units E1004N1991, E1004N1992, E1004N1993, on file at the Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas.” The drawing I show a piece of above was published in James Ivey, “Archaeological Evidence for the Defenses of the Alamo,” Alamo Journal 117(June, 2000)1-8. Earlier I gave you Wheeler’s description of a stockade, and his remark about how you didn’t want to do this where it was exposed to cannon fire – but if you put an earthen embankment against the outside, you’re considerably increasing the stockade’s resistance to cannon fire, and thereby considerably increasing its defensive capabilities, and making this front stronger. It looks like that was what the Mexican army intended, and they had started the ditch that would supply the dirt to do just such an earthen-faced stockade, where in fact the stockade is a revetment for a defensive berm – but the work abruptly stopped before they got much of the ditch dug along this face. A little problem with Texan sharpshooters. This means that the stockade not only did not get its earthen covering or ditch out front – it also didn’t get its firing step. It was a wall of seven-foot high posts with firing loopholes at intervals but above the average man's head, with no way to actually fire from it, defend it or have any sort of defense for the cannon position when the cannon (that I don't show on the plan above) wasn’t firing. I think TRK is right, and the ditch to the north wanders somewhat, because it was ripped fast and furious out of the ground by the Texans after they entered the Alamo, as the only way to finish the firing step and make the stockade defensible. I call this my “unified trench theory.” What I like about it is that it makes Eaton’s find at the corner of the church more significant, because it suggests, at least, that we’re getting a glimpse of the actual dynamics of that desperate fortification effort immediately after February 23, 1836. So imagine that narrow, neat little trench north of the palisade wall as wider and a fair amount more irregular in alignment and outline. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 2, 2012 23:48:26 GMT -5
But pursuing your thinking about defensive capability in this area, look what we do have, assuming that the stockade ran the way the maps show. We have the single cannon and however many musket guys you can afford to place along the stockade wall; one of the three cannon on the church firing south, and one or both of the cannon in the lunette firing along any line from east to south, if they were in barbette, and however many men you could afford along the top of the wall of the low barracks firing south, plus a few firing east to southeast off the end of it. That's actually a strongly defended face. If you assume barbette cannon in the lunette, instead of embrasured cannon locked into two lines of fire from an embrasured tambour. Wheeler says "A line of stout posts or trunks of trees firmly set in the ground, in contact with each other, and arranged for defence, is called a stockade. A stockade is used principally when there is plenty of timber and little or no danger of exposure to artillery fire. It is frequently used to close the gorge [the unentrenched back side] of a field work, and to guard against the work being carried by a surprise, by bodies of infantry attacking the work in rear." The fact that this stretch of open area, which would count as a gorge, received only this defense, suggests that a) the Mexican army didn't have enough time to do more, and/or b) they thought this was enough of a defense. Yes, I see. Quite impressive coverage for the south side of the fort. It also sounds like what we need to keep in mind, since Cos built the "stockade" (old habits die hard) and not the Texians, is that the Alamo wasn't planned as an isolated fort, but as a bastion, so to speak, for a front that extended from Plaza de Armas to the Alamo. The main fortification concerns then for the Alamo were north and east. Not west and south. Thus Jameson's task was to actually convert it into a single defensive position. Thus, your stockade as "gorge" rather than strong defensive position capable of withstanding cannonade. Hmmmmm. Which brings up another thing that has been bugging me? What did the Alameda batteries accomplish? Actually, they were west of the Alameda and south of Alameda Street. One just across the culvert over the Alamo acequia from the western end of the Alameda; the other between Alamo Street and the Potrero footbridge, also on the south side of the street. One would think they would have inflicted heavy damage to the stockade and tambour. |
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Feb 2, 2012 23:52:12 GMT -5
Another thing we tend to forget is that Maverick while a prisoner in San Antonio during the 1835 fight mentioned that the 18-pounder was placed on the platform in the church -- but the Texans moved it to the southwest corner. Illustrates their different focuses ... foci?
I for some reason can't get myself to use "Texian."
Rich, I don't think anyone has done a full fire analysis for the known Mexican positions outside the Alamo, and the probable ones we have documentary info on, much less the apparent fields and ranges of fire for the Alamo guns, or an effort to take the ground contours into account. Too bad.
Was that second location you mentioned the one down almost at the Little Rhein Steakhouse, the Farimont Hotel site that sort of seems to be a gun position?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 2, 2012 23:55:55 GMT -5
So Cos was building with one intent (particularly if he considered the south wall as the back of an artillery front aimed north and east (Curillian Theory) and Jameson had to alter it for a formal defensive position. Man, I can hear Arthur Hunnicutt saying, "Get 'em to hustlin' over there!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 3, 2012 0:03:54 GMT -5
Was that second location you mentioned the one down almost at the Little Rhein Steakhouse, the Farimont Hotel site that sort of seems to be a gun position? No. Little Rhein's prices have gone too far out of sight! I mean the batteries Almonte report of February 25. "In the night two batteries were erected by us on the other side of the river in the Alameda of the Alamo." The westernmost one would have been about where that ugly 50 foot high metal sculpture is near the Commerce St. Bridge. This is why they are redoing the MacDonald's. It suffered so much from that battery. |
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Feb 3, 2012 0:06:32 GMT -5
Yeah, the worst thing about a fixed defense is trying to get the enemy to stand in the right place.
I should switch out the drawing section I put in up there for a new one that includes the back of the church as well, so we could see the whole defensive concept for the south-east corner.
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Feb 3, 2012 7:57:35 GMT -5
This means that the stockade not only did not get its earthen covering or ditch out front – it also didn’t get its firing step. OK, I know the above falls under the realm of "one of Ivey's speculations," but how does the quoted sentence logically follow the argument that preceded it? How do we know that the firing step did not exist during the 1835 siege? |
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 3, 2012 9:37:36 GMT -5
Was that second location you mentioned the one down almost at the Little Rhein Steakhouse, the Farimont Hotel site that sort of seems to be a gun position? No. Little Rhein's prices have gone too far out of sight! I mean the batteries Almonte report of February 25. "In the night two batteries were erected by us on the other side of the river in the Alameda of the Alamo." The westernmost one would have been about where that ugly 50 foot high metal sculpture is near the Commerce St. Bridge. This is why they are redoing the MacDonald's. It suffered so much from that battery. Rich, has Jack Jackson alluded to, I think we probably have a translation problem (without the original, we'll never know for sure), and what Almonte was really talking about was the fortified camp that was occupied by the Matamoros Bn. Now, apparently a howitzer was positioned in the San Luis Potosi camp in La Villita, that night. As you pointed out a few days ago the Mexican Army never had enough cannon to have much more than one battery in action at a time. |
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 3, 2012 9:49:14 GMT -5
Jake, I think you hit it. One additional possibility, if the Mexicans intended to cover the face of the "stockade" with dirt (which I believe they did) perhaps it was slightly recessed against the Low Barracks for protection of the vulnerable timbers.
It never sank in that the height of the wall was 7 feet before, that would seem to require 10 - 11 foot poles, to put enough length underground for a sturdy wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Feb 3, 2012 12:04:29 GMT -5
What I mean about the lack of a firing step (I left out a couple of my steps as well, I think) is this:
If Mahan's representation of how to build a stockade is the basic military idea the Mexican army was following along the PW (palisade wall, accepting the traditional name for the area), then the ditch in front they had begun was to supply both the dirt for the embankment against the PW and the earthen firing step within it.
The onset of active campaigning around the Alamo in October or November, I forget when, brought a stop to Ugartechea's progress in digging the trench and building the PW berm. To put it briefly, the conditions of engagement put a stop to any work outside the defensive walls -- that is, the Texans shot anyone they could see.
The failure to dig the trench meant no earth to cover the PW, and no earth to build a firing step. I assume the PW itself was built in its full length and then the earthwork construction began.
Without the firing step, the PW was useless for defensive purposes, because it couldn't be fired over.
So the Anglo-Celts, when pushed into the place and required to defend it, did a quick and dirty trench on the inside to supply the dirt for the firing step, producing Eaton's north trench. It was possible to complete this because it was inside the PW.
Herb, look at my sketch of my "Ivey speculation" drawing of the cross section of the trench that we found, and the probable heights. A little lower than a Mahan or Wheeler stockade, but still pretty solid, with posts about 9.5 feet long and averaging 6 inches thick set into a 2.5 foot deep, 9 inch wide trench, leaving about 7.5 feet of post above ground, with loopholes, the bases of which were intended to be about 4.5 feet above the intended firing step, itself about 2 feet high. Without the firing step, no can use loopholes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Feb 3, 2012 12:09:21 GMT -5
Herb, you think the strange thing at the site of the Fairmont Hotel, north edge of La Villita, was associated with the Potosi camp in that area?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 3, 2012 23:40:18 GMT -5
Rich, I don't think anyone has done a full fire analysis for the known Mexican positions outside the Alamo, and the probable ones we have documentary info on, much less the apparent fields and ranges of fire for the Alamo guns, or an effort to take the ground contours into account. Too bad. Was that second location you mentioned the one down almost at the Little Rhein Steakhouse, the Farimont Hotel site that sort of seems to be a gun position? To clarify my comment about the two Alameda batteries as per Almonte's diary, I don't confuse them with the Fairmont Hotel dig. It was my understanding that there has been no conclusion drawn that there was a battery at that location rather than just an encampment. Herb, Almonte is corroborated by another source, so I do not think the passage was mistranslated. The locations I pinpointed for the two batteries half the distance from the south wall than the La Villita encampment were based on the 1853 M.L. Merrick map explaining the Siege of Bexar AND the 1836 Mexican batteries. Though crudely drawn, Merrick's map is precise about the locations of the Alamo Ditch, South Alamo Street, Alameda Street -- and even identifies a house at the corner of Alamo and Alameda as belonging to "J. Floris." He shows two cannon batteries on the south side of Alameda St. -- one just a bit S.E. of the footbridge over the San Antonio and the other just a bit S.W. of the small stone bridge over the Alamo Acequia. The first would have had a clear shot at the Alamo's S.W. corner and tambour; the second, at the stockade (aren't you proud of me, Jake?) and the apse battery. The range would have been mas o menos 250 yards and 290 yards respectively. It would seem that they could have done some damage. In fact, the acequia battery would have been looking nearly straight through the cannon embrasure in the Alamo stockade (at 280 yds.). |
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 4, 2012 8:51:05 GMT -5
Rich, i'll have to look for that . That's not the map that takes Travis' letter of March 3rd and converts every Mexican position Travis reported to a battery is it?
If you note, that letter, Travis reports only one battery during the siege up to that point - the river battery.
It certainly is possible, the Mexicans could have dismantled the river battery and shifted the pieces here until they opened the North battery after all they were field guns. If so they should have had a devastating effect on the stockade, but because of their relativily light size almost no effect on the earth work of the tambour.
Even though they were light pieces, they could easily destroy Adobe or wood walls, and sustained fire (at the right range) would eventually bring down a stone wall, but earthworks would have been relatively immune.
But, I think Travis' letter, pretty well refutes anything other than the river battery prior to March 3rd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Feb 4, 2012 17:04:45 GMT -5
While you two sort that out, let me ask: doesn't it seem strange that there was so little damage from cannon fire going either direction? All those big guns violating any reasonable safety precautions (OSHA would have a fit), and we hear virtually nothing about shot or shell destroying this or that -- well, there was the dismounting of the sw corner gun, I guess. When was that?
Anyway, in the most recent Alamo movie, one of the most memorable scenes was the night shot with shell coming in and exploding over the fortress, lighting up everything -- and I thought, we don't hear of that sort of thing doing anything ... why not? Nobody lived to tell the story? Mexican officers didn't notice, or didn't know?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 4, 2012 17:27:33 GMT -5
Rich, i'll have to look for that . That's not the map that takes Travis' letter of March 3rd and converts every Mexican position Travis reported to a battery is it? No. I'm well aware of that latter-day imaginative map -- still being accepted by some. The Merrick map seems to be not linked to any mis-interpreted primary information, but is primary in itself, even if done years later. I was assuming this item was already known by Alamologists. It was brought to my attention by Craig Covner and Rick Range (for whose future book I am preparing two plats). It certainly is possible, the Mexicans could have dismantled the river battery and shifted the pieces here until they opened the North battery after all they were field guns. If so they should have had a devastating effect on the stockade, but because of their relativily light size almost no effect on the earth work of the tambour. Even though they were light pieces, they could easily destroy Adobe or wood walls, and sustained fire (at the right range) would eventually bring down a stone wall, but earthworks would have been relatively immune. According to what I have read, Santa Anna had six cannon (2-4 pounders, 2-6 pounders, 2-8 pounders) and 2-7-inch howitzers. Sanchez-Navarro shows 3 cannon and 1 howitzer in the river battery and 4 cannon and 2 howitzers in the N.E. battery. If accurate and not just symbolic or representing two different times during the siege, it insists that Santa Anna got more guns before the assault. But, I think Travis' letter, pretty well refutes anything other than the river battery prior to March 3rd. He also ignores the ditch battery, which was supposedly emplaced along the Acequia Madre by the 28th. (although now I can only find secondary evidence -- Almonte doesn't say it). Thus, the primary evidence for the 2 "Alameda" batteries behind Commerce St. is Almonte's diary (unless the translation incorrectly has the word "batteries" instead of "entrenchments." This is supported by the exact locations of cannon being indicated as "Mexican Batteries in 1836" on the Merrick map of 1853. Merrick also locates an 1836 battery to the N.E. of the Alamo, however he shows this to be on the left bank of the Acequia Madre rather than on the right bank, as we believe. |
|
