|
Post by TRK on Aug 28, 2007 7:39:25 GMT -5
In November 2007, Texas A&M University Press is publishing General Vicente Filisola's Analysis of Jose Urrea's Military Diary A Forgotten 1838 Publication by an Eyewitness to the Texas Revolution, edited by Gregg J. Dimmick and translated by John Wheat (ISBN 978-0-87611-224-3). This book should be of great interest. Details here: www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2007/dimmick.htm
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 28, 2007 15:08:14 GMT -5
I was real impressed with Dimmick's Sea of Mud, he touched on the Filisola vs Urrea dispute there. That work also, imo, pretty well confirms the authenticity of the DLP manuscript.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 28, 2007 15:10:37 GMT -5
Yeah - and I think Jim Crisp made that connection in "Sleuthing the Alamo." It's corraborating evidence that went largely ignored in most of the debate over DLP.
AW
|
|
|
Post by highplainsman on Sept 5, 2007 13:48:10 GMT -5
I know Bill Groneman and others have questioned authenticity especially the part about Crocketts being executed, but what about accuracy?? I was real impressed with Dimmick's Sea of Mud, he touched on the Filisola vs Urrea dispute there. That work also, imo, pretty well confirms the authenticity of the DLP manuscript.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 5, 2007 15:48:15 GMT -5
There is a lot of accurate information in DLP. Some of it, including the Crockett execution account, seems second or third hand and is of less value, but the document is no different in that respect from many other Texas Revolution documents (Potter, Sutherland, et al) and it is still a valuable source. I think the argument that it is inauthentic or a forgery was lost some time ago.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 4, 2008 22:22:26 GMT -5
Yes, looking over the manuscripts, and the other materials still at UTSA, it becomes fairly clear that while DLP was in prison, he had friends doing some of the interviewing and research -- actually, the DLP account works out to be much like the Filisola account in that they are both sort of works by committee or at least by more than the primary author.
I'm still fairly sure that the Sanchez Navarro account is his alone, and that it was written pretty much at the time on the dates he includes in the journal, although the Alamo plan included on the flyleaves were done later. He had started to draw a plan of Fannin's fort at La Bahia on the back flyleaf, but left it unfinished.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Feb 14, 2008 6:03:58 GMT -5
General Vicente Filisola's Analysis of José Urrea's Military Diary, edited by Gregg Dimmick and translated by John R. Wheat, is finally out; I got my copy yesterday.
Basically, it is a translation of the extremely rare book by Filisola, Análasis del Diario Militar del General D. José Urréa Durante la Primera Campaña de Tejas.... (Matamoros: 1838) in which Filisola savagely critiqued Urrea's 1838 Military Diary of General José Urrea. The book is well annotated, and includes background information and conclusions by Gregg, along with some interesting appendices.
This is a book that all members of this forum will want to study. I'm looking forward to clearing the decks and delving into it. Congratulations to Gregg and John Wheat!
|
|
|
Post by dimbo33 on Feb 15, 2008 13:51:48 GMT -5
Tom, Thanks for the kind words. I am very excited about the final product. I asked John Wheat to try to translate as close to word for word as possible and we tried to keep the book totally intact. There are no changes in spelling, paragraphs, etc. Not one word was left out. I feel as though this book as as close to the original as a translation can be.
If any of you all find any errors in the book please let me know in case we do a second edition. If you have any questions as to sources etc., I will be glad to answer them as best I can.
I think you all will be surprised and amused at the level of animosity that is shown in the book by Filisola.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 11, 2009 11:48:21 GMT -5
For reasons that need not detain us I have finally gotten around to reading this one and can heartily endorse it. If you are interested in the military history of the Texas Revolution outside the walls of the Alamo this is an essential source.
I’ll declare an interest here in that I’m primarily interested in the Matamoros Expedition and its aftermath, rather than the retreat of the Mexican Army after San Jacinto which takes up most of Filisola’s treatise. I’m also mindful of James Grant’s opinion delivered via Frank Johnson that Filisola was “an old woman”, but nevertheless, adding that caveat to the obvious partisan nature of the narrative, I found it immensely valuable for its insights into Urrea’s character and actions.
As those who have read my “Secret war for Texas” and my arguments on both this and the old forum will know, I’ve long been reluctant to buy into the notion that Urrea was the most competent of the Mexican commanders and an all round good sort. As I’ve pointed out his account of his victory at San Patricio is a work of fiction directly contradicted by every other eyewitness, and I have likewise had strong reservations about his account of the fight at Agua Dulce and his professed regret at Grant’s death.
Filisola’s account of Urrea’s independent campaign is not only highly critical, even allowing for the evident animus between the two men, but backed up both by the quoted evidence from Garay’s journal and other eyewitness accounts, and also by his own curious inability to locate and engage Grant’s Federalistas for several weeks – a failure now devastatingly explained by Filisola.
As to the events of the post-San Jacinto retreat, I’ll leave that to others to discuss, but this certainly forces (or reinforces) a radical re-assessment of Urrea’s role and effectiveness
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 11, 2009 17:17:40 GMT -5
Just by way of a postscript, there is an error in Filisola's service record on pp272-3. In recording his promotions he has himself down as a soldier, corporal and sergeant for a total of 5 years 11 months and 18 days, corresponding with his service in Spain, but his first commission is down as 15 March 1810. This should in fact be 1812 when he joined the Mexico Regiment.
His early service is interesting. The Regiment de Asturias was an old regular one, from which he seems to have transferred as a cadre to two provincial ones, Grado and Castropol. The latter was the one in which he fought at the battle of Albuera. The Spaniards generally had a pretty poor reputation (often unfairly) in the Peninsular War, but Albuera saw them at their best. An Anglo-Spanish Army commanded by Beresford and Blake was comprehensively out-generalled, out-flanked and completed defeated by a French Army under Marshal Soult. Unfortunately, as the Marshal complained afterwards, they refused to admit they were beaten. First the Spaniards of Zayas' and Ballasteros' divisions (including the Regiment de Castropol) stood their ground and fought the 5th Corps to a standstill, then the British waded in, were shot to pieces, ridden down by Polish lancers and still wouldn't give way. In the end it was Soult who packed it in and went off muttering. Casualties were pretty horrific - nothing that happened in Texas came anywhere near it - and the battle was afterwards known as "Bloody" Albuera.
Notwithstanding my wicked old grand-daddy's characterising him as an old woman, Filisola gets my respect for that.
|
|
|
Post by dimbo33 on May 26, 2009 21:46:33 GMT -5
Stuart, I have not been on the board for a while--busy with archeology at San Jacinto and my daughter's wedding coming up. This is fascinating information on Filisola. Being Yanks we know very little about Spanish history. I think that Filisola was a bit on the cautious side but that is not always a bad thing. Gregg
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 28, 2009 21:37:09 GMT -5
Hey Gregg. Congratulations to you and John on the book. Sorry I missed you at the San Jacinto Symposium. I'm betting that you guys still havn't found any 12 or 9 pound cannon balls buried on the battleground out there. Good luck with the archeology anyway.
|
|