|
Post by Herb on May 3, 2015 11:40:46 GMT -5
Lou, it is a puzzling question. Santa Anna did reprimand the 1st Brigade commander for not sending the 12 pounders with the infantry reinforcements. So apparently he originally intended to use them before assaulting.... There are only two reasons I can come up with why he didn't wait, the more sound reason is after the new north battery had opened, and the limited return fire from the Texians he determined they weren't necessary. The second less probable reading from a computer screen but more likely from my experience he had already made HIS plan to attack after giving the reinforcements two days in Bexar, a day of rest, and a day of preparation. And, he was going to carry out his plan as long as it was feasible.
I know this doesn't seem logical, that he would make his decision on a preconceived idea, despite the situation changing, but it happens all the time in the military. Supporting this idea is the fact that Santa Anna did absolutely nothing for over a week after taking the Alamo. Delaying the attack for two more days would not have delayed his future operations.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 3, 2015 14:31:12 GMT -5
According to Santa Anna, or was it Almonte's diary, it was just S.O.P. for siege warfare -- simply a time-honored development schedule. Arrive, order a surrender, and, if the enemy refused to surrender, begin siege operations. First, a period of observation. Santa Anna and staff rode around the fort to determine where to do what. Then a period of moving various battalions and/or companies to specific locations as well as establishing major "entrenched encampments" where Travis indicated in his letter of March 3. Acquiring food from the ranchos down-river. Gradually tightening the "circle" around the fort. Cannonading from two specific points (one N.E. and one W.S.W. on the Potrero), and continually bombarding to weaken and demoralize the insurgents. Choosing a basic point of assault (the north end)... etc. Once all these standard details were accomplished, I'm sure his excellency wanted to jump to the conclusion. I do think it is a good point about his criticizing Gaona for not sending the twelve-pounders with the infantry that arrived on the third, but this could well have also been his planting the blame (in advance) on someone else in case he was criticized later for proceeding without them. When he was ready to move, he moved.
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on May 4, 2015 13:32:27 GMT -5
On one of my last phone conversations with Tom, he told me that Stuart's primary research had indeed proved that his theory about the second reinforcement was wrong, yet he insisted that there were other interpretations of the facts, which he could have made, supporting the idea of the second reinforcement. He gave no further detail. Tim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 5, 2015 17:18:34 GMT -5
I've been off the board for quite a while; busy in Elvis land these days. I'm pretty rusty on this, but Jim, Herb, and Rich's posts ring solid bells with me. I think we have discussed this before and this is where the consensus seemed to fall IIRC. Tom's research remains very valuable to Alamo research, but I agree that his conclusions were not always supported by the evidence. The decisive factors may have been the missed opportunity on opening day, when the Mexican cavalry failed to catch the Texans in Bexar and end it right there, the siege that emerged from that, the failure of the Texans to gain significant reinforcement, the Mexicans learning that there was not likely going to be a significant reinforcement for the Alamo, and the arrival of the Mexican reinforcements on March 3. The siege guns may have made a difference, but I think the result would have been the same.
I think we mentioned in an earlier discussion of this that siege guns might have opened a really large breach in the Alamo and, under standard siege warfare at the time, would have led to the Texans laying down arms. Had that happened, I have every confidence that Santa Anna would have ordered them all executed, ala Goliad.
It is a challenge to follow all of the different groups that had mustered to relieve the Alamo and their movements, but I think you all did a great job of it in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 5, 2015 19:18:46 GMT -5
It is becoming increasingly obvious that help was coming -- lots of it. If the Alamo could have held out, I believe Three-Legged Willy's encouragement of March 1 would have become a reality within a few days. However, if they had won the battle, they possibly would have lost the war. It took the vengeance motivation to unify the army and cause San Jacinto to happen. Without the loss of the Alamo garrison and the execution of the men at Goliad, how could they have been successful?
|
|
|
Post by rayjr on May 8, 2015 21:10:29 GMT -5
Rich, Since you mentioned Three-legged Willie, I thought I would re-attach a post I provided Stuart Reid relative to his recent publication on Dr. James grant. I quote: "First, I think you incorporated a delightful illustration in your article. Appropriately from the Illustrated London News. "Texan Mounted Militia". This was several issues after the inaugural issue in May of 1842, and one of the first newspaper illustrations of Texas available to the world. A wood engraving, by unknown artist, and unknown engraver - it would be interesting if you found in London, this missing information. Anyhow, if you look closely at the illustration, you may notice that it appears the man riding the white "destrier" (a name used for a horse in medieval Scotland , has one leg that does not seem to have a foot. It looks like he is riding "side-saddle". Here is my theory - it is an engraving of the first appointed Major over all of the Texas Rangers. This man was appointed by the provisional government of Texas on November 28th, 1835. This man is named - Robert McAlpin Williamson (from Georgia) - and his nickname is "Three-legged Willie". At a young age he was afflicted with Polio, which caused his right leg to bend at a 90 degree angle. He attached a "peg-leg" to facilitate walking. He was very active, as a member of the war party, during the years of the Republic of Texas. Eventually, a major political figure and Judge. Now - if you look closely - you might say "Ray, the peg-leg is not attached to his right leg - it is attached to his left leg, and is placed across his saddle - but if you hold the image up to a mirror - wallah - it now looks like the correct leg. I won't even go into the coincidence of his middle name - which many in Scotland are familiar with relative to Kevin MacAlpin (Cinaed mac Allpin) - King of the Picts, Founder of the Kingdom of Alba, and referred to as First King of Scots, in 848, died in 858 at Forteviot, Perthshire, Scotland - beautiful place - by the way." Anyway - I wonder - do you think the illustration in London is of Robert Williamson? Regards, Ray
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 9, 2015 0:19:22 GMT -5
Alas, the image will not expand and I cannot view it. It remains but a thumbnail. The forum lost its visual connection to history a year or two ago. Too bad.
|
|
|
Post by rayjr on May 9, 2015 9:37:56 GMT -5
Rich,
Do you have the SWHQ publication with Stuart Reid's recent article on James Grant? Nice reproduction on the first page. Regards, Ray
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 9, 2015 10:11:41 GMT -5
Nope. But it looks like the picture that was used in Time-Life's THE TEXANS by David Nevin. If so, then I am very familiar with the work and used it myself on the cover of a ring-binder notebook I kept on plans for a western. It is full of bold Texian get-up-and-go! I love it.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 25, 2015 3:41:32 GMT -5
It is indeed one and the same and whether or not Three-legged Willie is the central figure its interesting to note how many of the riders are non-Europeans
|
|
|
Post by rayjr on May 25, 2015 10:08:36 GMT -5
Yes - page 211. It is interesting the picture credits state: 211 - Courtesy General Research and Humanities Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations.
Robert M. Williamson is mentioned with illustration on page 124.
it is not noted that this illustration was in The Illustrated London News of June 18th 1842. It is a much larger image - and although it may not be 3-legged Willie - the rider certainly had a peg leg. Perhaps several people in the 'Texas Militia" in 1842 had peg legs...
thanks for the David Nevin reminder.
Texas Rises! Ray
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 25, 2015 10:21:41 GMT -5
- and although it may not be 3-legged Willie - the rider certainly had a peg leg. Perhaps several people in the 'Texas Militia" in 1842 had peg legs... Texas Rises! Ray ...or... The illustrator had just watched a movie about Long John Silver. Texas Rising doesn't. Rich
|
|
|
Post by rayjr on May 25, 2015 10:49:52 GMT -5
Yes - but I mean in spite of the "channel"!
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 25, 2015 11:05:56 GMT -5
Gotcha!
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Oct 9, 2015 18:31:27 GMT -5
I've also been away for a long time. As I recall TRL's 2nd reinforcement theory was totally based on Tumlinson's ranger company moving West when they were actually heading East. I dismantled this theory on the Old Alamo movie forum as others did elsewhere.
|
|