|
|
Post by edward on Mar 27, 2014 19:09:51 GMT -5
A mixture of past and present: ----Deleted photo--- |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Mar 28, 2014 17:21:02 GMT -5
 It's funny how we can get the original Alamo footprint right in relation to the post office, but the G.L.O and the ALAMO can't! Is there something peculiar about this? Here's mine:  |
|
|
|
Post by historybuff on Apr 3, 2014 5:29:25 GMT -5
You guys are incredible! Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 3, 2014 10:49:12 GMT -5
Rich - how does this square with the bronze (brass?) markers that are located at various places in the pavement around the compound? I'm thinking specifically of the one somewhere west of the federal building near the new hotel located there. These depictions are not the same as those on various Alamo pamphlets I've seen over the years, not that I'd be surprised to learn that they are wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Apr 7, 2014 13:18:48 GMT -5
Allen, I was skeptical of those markers since I first visited the Alamo in 1958 and particularly 1960 as a precocious Yankee buff -- particularly the one north of the gift shop on Houston Street that said "Original Alamo Property Line." First (in '58), I thought, "Heck no! That doesn't fit with the Walt Disney Davy Alamo!" Then, in the '60's, when I understood more about the east side of the true fort, I sort of accepted them as "somewhat." Then, after a lot of latter-day study, I realized these were based on the Francois Giraud mid-nineteenth survey done for Sam Maverick, I began to accept them as "more than somewhat." Now, with the ground penetrating radar done by Rick Range, et. al., finding traces of footer walls at several places directly under the markers, they once again take on a whole new significance. As for the northern one you mention, since that marked the boundary between the Alamo wall and Maverick's "Alamo City" addition, I believe it to be a precise positioning of the north wall. My above green line for the north wall connects that marker with the known location of the N.E. corner and thus projects the correct bearing of the north wall itself, thus providing a pretty good idea of where the N.W. corner was as well as how long the west wall truly was. Again, all is from the "groundbreaking" research of Range,Covner, Ivey, and Mike Harris, (all after the very visual and accurate Mark Lemon contributions) which I believe is bringing us a much truer picture of the 1836 Alamo.
It just frustrates me that the GLO/Alamo authorized overlay (above) does such a stupid depiction, showing the north wall (conveniently!) along the front wall of the Post Office. The Alamo's history department as well as the earlier plats presented by the D.R.T. were far far more accurate in the 1960's. (Of course they were. They were using the Giraud survey plat as their basis. Not the goals of the city planners.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 7, 2014 18:54:11 GMT -5
Thanks Rich. I'd not thought about the relationship of that marker to the position of wall's north east corner, which should give us a better idea of how the north wall ran.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Apr 8, 2014 11:02:29 GMT -5
There is no eye-opener better than standing on that marker and looking south. Man, that was a big place!
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 8, 2014 12:23:01 GMT -5
Indeed. I got that feeling the first time I stood on top of the federal building steps and looked south. They REALLY needed a lot more men!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Apr 8, 2014 14:23:21 GMT -5
Indeed. I got that feeling the first time I stood on top of the federal building steps and looked south. They REALLY needed a lot more men! Yep. Those fellers could have defended the Waynamo or the Corenblithamo, but not THAT one! |
|
