|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 11, 2008 18:06:49 GMT -5
I think the attack began in the dark, but it must have been fairly close to dawn. By the time the breakouts occured, the Texians heading east had the sun in their faces, making visibility tough for them, but perfect for Sesma's cavalry, which had the sun at their backs. I don't know if that was part of Santa Anna's plan, but it could have been.
AW
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 11, 2008 18:51:49 GMT -5
I think that we should accept for this and other discussions that the garrison's actions were heroic, to say the least. That is not in question here. But Glenn has a good point. As anyone with military experience well knows, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. And this maxim holds true with regular, seasoned troops. Now realize that we must accept the fact that the men were untrained militia, at best. Now ADD to the equation that they are exhausted, and sleep deprived, and coming out of a near-comatose sleep after nearly a week or more without it. Their minds were cloudy with fatigue, then shocked into reality in the worst way imaginable. While it does seem that they rallied briefly, and put up a good and valiant first effort, they were soon overwhelmed, Travis or no Travis, and some either on impulse, or from previous thought out planning, voted with their feet, in the fine tradition of militia the world over. The Alamo seemed to have been a textbook example of the "fight or flight" syndrome, with those choosing to flee doing so, and those choosing to fight, holing up in the long barracks and elsewhere. Having said this, this in no way diminishes their heroism in my mind. Just the mere fact that they were there, and stayed there, when they certainly could have been somewhere else, is all that needs to be said.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Dec 11, 2008 18:55:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by texast on Dec 11, 2008 21:01:41 GMT -5
Yes this has been discussed regarding time and twilight here and at other forums also and after some other research and taking into consideration what was actually in place at the time I will post here what I found and posted over at Wade's place a while back just for some reference. If you find errors please be feel free to correct. GMT started during 1675/1676 In 1928, the International Astronomical Union introduced the term Universal Time for GMT beginning at midnight, but the two Nautical Almanac Offices did not accept it until 1952. GMT starting in 1834 Noting that chronometers were already in use by most ships which relied on astronomical observations for navigation, and in conformity with the report from a committee of ``the most distinguished navigators and astronomers of the empire'', the British Nautical Almanac began to tabulate phenomenon based on mean solar time. The standards of what we use today were not used such as Daylight savings time, etc. According to calculations from aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.phpon Mar. 6th 1836 SunRise was at 6:54 The following information is provided for San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas (longitude W98.5, latitude N29.4): Sunday 6 March 1836 Central Standard Time SUN Begin civil twilight 6:30 a.m. Sunrise 6:54 a.m. Sun transit 12:45 p.m. Sunset 6:37 p.m. End civil twilight 7:01 p.m. MOON Moonrise 9:09 p.m. on preceding day Moon transit 3:08 a.m. Moonset 9:00 a.m. Moonrise 10:13 p.m. Moonset 9:35 a.m. on following day Phase of the Moon on 6 March: waning gibbous with 87% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated. Taking this into account and considering the variations of accounts of when the battle actually started and ended yes there would have been some light but would it have been enough to clearly see with smoke still in the air from the fires and black powder to see clearly one across the courtyard or to make certain features out if they would have been taken out immediately after the battle? some features maybe and probably but, not enough to be 100% positive in most cases. Even for Santa Anna to have actually entered a conquered battle area without good daylight would be highly unlikely as also if I remember some or most of the accounts properly Santa Anna also asked for some of the local residence of Bexar to go to help identify specific defenders. They would have taken some time be rounded up and to get there, they also would need good daylight considering the mutilation of some for any proper identifications.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 11, 2008 22:36:48 GMT -5
The point I was attempting to get across was when you expose inexperienced and untrained men (essentially green recruits) to sudden, violent, and confusing circumstances, the likely result is the loss of organization. Unlike true Army companies (ones that actually drill), where unit cohesion is typically solid and reliable, the so-called "companies" that made up the Alamo garrison were little more than loosely formed groups of civilians. They would not have responded to a crises as well as trained, professional soldiers and its unrealistic for us to expect them to. Glenn Glenn, this is where I think you are seriously off track. For the most part these men were far from green recruits. The Grey's the largest company had been together for months had marched across Texas and already fought one pitched battle. In fact Forsyth's company, raised by Travis, and The Gonzales 32 were the only truly inexperienced units. What most people who have not served in ground units do not understand is how the shared experiences/hardships of even just a few weeks rapidly causes the development of fairly tight cohesive units. Now, that doesn't mean they were experienced veterans, but they were probably at least equivialnt to any other volunteer unit in the first battles of any of America's 19th Century's Wars. Besides that, there were quite a number of US Army veterans to include combat veterans in the Alamo garrison. They may have been undisciplined, and everything else, but as a whole they certainly weren't "green recruits". Given the facts of the battle, surprise, Mark's sleep depriviation and the early loss of the commander, I'm not too sure that many "regular" units would have done much better. The key difference regulars would have brought to the battle is in the disciplined work force they would have provided with an energetic commander prior to the battle, and perhaps a better alert guard force that Sunday morning. As far as "no plan surviving contact with the enemy", Mark, that ususally an excuse for those who don't know how to plan! ;D Seriously, I'm not suggesting that the defensive plan was executed on the morning of March 6th. What I am suggesting is 1. There was a plan. 2. The plan was disrupted by a surprise attack. 3. That the early loss of the commander caused even more disruption and probably most importantly 4. That core groups still attempted at least initially to execute the plan. And 5. last but not least despite everything possilby going wrong, at least enough men reached the walls and did enough to stop the initial attack and inflicted casualities on the attackers beyond what a sucessful surprise attack should have.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 11, 2008 23:03:46 GMT -5
Yes this has been discussed regarding time and twilight here and at other forums also and after some other research and taking into consideration what was actually in place at the time I will post here what I found and posted over at Wade's place a while back just for some reference. If you find errors please be feel free to correct. This is my favorite "dead horse" to beat! ;D A critical element left out of this table is Beginning Morning Nautical Twilight which was 6:06 AM on Sunday March 6th, 1836. I won't get into all the technical discussions on what that means, but for a simple ground soldier it mean there is enough light at that time to use the sights of his individual weapon. The Moon light conditions are also significant, having forgotten all that I once knew, I went out and experimented on a night with nearly identical moonlight conditions a couple of years ago. I could pick out a man size target and use my sights over 300 meters away in an open field. That certainly wouldn't mean I could hit him but I sure could have shot at him and if he was in a column formation with 300 other soldiers, I could at least make it a bit uncomfortable. The problem with night firing even on moonlit nights is you can't use your sights when you aim much below the horizontal ie downhill. Shooting from the walls at infantry in the distance wouldn't be much of a problem, but shooting down at men huddled up along the walls you're simply pointing and hoping. Virtually every account of the battle says the battle ended at sunrise or 6:54 with the last defenders exiting the Alamo to be killed by the cavalry. There seems to be a consensus that the battle lasted 60 minutes (30 - 90 minutes seem to be the logical extremes). That means that in all probability only the first 10 minutes of the battle were fought in true night conditions (with a nearly full moon). Normal morning weather conditions though would probably hold any gunsmoke close to the ground inside the Alamo. Winds that are ususally generated by the rising of the sun might help disperse gunsmoke outside the walls, but inside the walls gunsmoke would have been a far greater limiting factor on vision then the "night" attack.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 12, 2008 10:58:42 GMT -5
[quote author=wolfpack board=alamohistory thread=457 post=6121 time=1229053008 What most people who have not served in ground units do not understand is how the shared experiences/hardships of even just a few weeks rapidly causes the development of fairly tight cohesive units.[/quote]
A very good point, and a good illustration is how people from different units very quickly bond together on training cadres; especially when the DS are riding them hard and the weather's bad.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Dec 12, 2008 23:24:12 GMT -5
Wolf, I take your point, and understand that some of the garrison had some measure of training, but I will counter with a "war" story of my own. In 1983, I went through Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL Training, in Coronado, CA, Class 125. As you probably know, the selection process for this training is second to none (or was back then-can't vouch for now). The Navy takes only the most highly motivated, best-performing recruits who passed a grueling battery of physical tests, just to START training. Well, after the first "phase" of training, which lasted two months, we ended that phase with what is known as "Hell Week;" an entire week during which we got a total of about 1.5 hours of sleep, and were constantly on the go with physical evolutions 24-7. Hell Week started at midnight on a Sunday night, prior to which the whole class had pitched tents on the beach, and gone to sleep. Mind now, we all knew exactly what was coming, meaning a mind-numbing and shocking evolution called "breakout," when the instructors come barging into the tents with M-60 machine guns, M-16's, grenade simulators, and bull horns, all firing and exploding and screaming at once. We KNEW it was coming, and WHEN. STILL, when it DID come, this class of highly trained, super motivated and physically fit trainees stumbled out of our racks glassy-eyed, tripped over each other trying to get our boots on, grab our helmets, fall into formation, etc. The utter pandemonium, sheer noise, and chaos,wreaked havoc on our senses, and I as a class officer had my hands full trying to count heads, get an accurate muster, etc during all this cacophony. I guess my point is that even the most highly trained guys in our military, KNOWING what was coming, had severe performance degradation under such circumstances.Trying to function efficiently when being suddenly, shockingly jarred from a sound sleep is next to impossible unless you've done it over and over and over again in training. Now, this is not even to mention how we progressed during the week, as severe fatigue set in, and lack of sleep, hindered our most basic motor functions. I can only wonder what the relatively undisciplined garrison felt and experienced, having fallen deeply asleep for the first time in days, and then being shocked into reality. I'd wager that if we could go back there on that morning as witnesses, we'd see a LOT of confusion amongst the garrison, with many (the "good ones") making it to their posts, even firing off a round or two of artillery from the battery positions (north wall and church). But I'd also bet that some never even made it out of the barracks. Some made it to the walls, fired off a round or two from their muskets, saw what was happening, and fled back to the dubious "safety" of the long barracks or some other position which seemed "far" from the threat. And some, whether by panic, "fight or flight" or actual design, made a break for it. Just my 2 cents. mark
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Dec 13, 2008 7:45:56 GMT -5
Mark -- I couldn't agree with you more. Your example is telling, indeed. We'll never fully know what those initial moments that followed that alarm were like, but you "war story" gives us a darn good idea.
There's a scene in the '04 Alamo movie that comes to mind and always give me a bit of the shivers. It's the one where the Mexican solders are inching closer to the walls, in the darkness, and are just a few feet from the posts outside the walls. I can't imagine the shock and horror of awakening to find the enemy already on top of you.
Nicely said, Mark.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 13, 2008 12:22:19 GMT -5
Wolf, I take your point, and understand that some of the garrison had some measure of training, but I will counter with a "war" story of my own. mark No problem, Mark, but I think you're missing one of my key points: I don't disagree at all with you on the effects of sleep deprivation, but once again the facts are the garrison stopped the initial attack long enough that 1. A messenger reached Santa Anna that Duque had been wounded, and 2. Santa Anna committed the reserves and they reached the wall where they added to the confusion before the wall was finally successfully scaled. Now, for all this to happen is a much longer time frame then one or two shots - while certainly not on the order of the mythical several hour fight, it was in all probability around 10+ minutes. The fight was lost, when the Mexican Army got under the cannon, and reached the walls. I think what we are doing here is confusing the facts of why the Mexicans were able to accomplish this versus the fact that the defenders did mount an at least temporarily a credible resistance.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 13, 2008 12:27:32 GMT -5
Herb, Your points are valid and well taken...but I have to disagree with a few of your assessments. I agree there was a small handful of men in the Alamo who had some formal military training but I believe they were few-and-far-between. The Grey's, to my understanding, were not professional military soldiers, they were not professionally led, and they had not received formal military training. They were civilian volunteers who were given uniforms and muskets. They may have been taught how to form-up and march but I'm not sure it went beyond that. They had their baptism-under-fire during the battle of Bexar and did very well. In fact, I think we can all agree they were probably the best organized unit in the Alamo. But in my opinion, they still lacked sufficient experience and the necessary training that would have enabled them to fight more effectively as an organized unit. Let me put it another way, Herb. When I think about battles where professional military leadership and formal military training made a big difference, I have to look at the way the British handled themselves at Rorke's Drift in 1879. These guys epitomized unit organization, cohesion, and coordination. Admittedly, I don't know much about Rorke's Drift other than the British were surrounded and faced overwhelming odds - similar to the siege of the Alamo. The point of all this is, the Brit's survived their ordeal due in part to their superb training and their ability to use that training to coordinate an effective defense - fighting as a unit and not as individuals. The Alamo garrison, because they were deficient in experience and training, didn't have the skills necessary to maintain: order, organization, cohesion, and coordination, when the stuff-hit-the-fan. The men who made up the ranks of the New Orleans Grey's may not have been green recruits, per say, but at best I can only consider them as marginally experienced rookies. Herb, I know you feel I was "seriously off track" by comparing the Alamo defenders to "green recruits" but as Paul reminded us in an earlier post, the garrison consisted of men who were largely civilians. Doctors, lawyers, clergy, farmers, tradesmen, shopkeepers, drifters, and adventures. Only a small portion were actually trained as soldiers. So I stand by my assessment of the Texians inside the Alamo. Honestly now, Wolf...I'm your favorite "dead horse," aren't I? As always, Herb, I respect your knowledge and appreciate your point of view. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 13, 2008 12:33:12 GMT -5
Herb
I'm curious, what plan did the defenders have other than to kill as many Mexicans as they could before they reached the walls and then to withdraw to the long barracks if and when the walls were taken??
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 13, 2008 13:03:35 GMT -5
The men who made up the ranks of the New Orleans Grey's may not have been green recruits, per say, but at best I can only consider them as marginally experienced rookies. Herb, I know you feel I was "seriously off track" by comparing the Alamo defenders to "green recruits" but as Paul reminded us in an earlier post, the garrison consisted of men who were largely civilians. Doctors, lawyers, clergy, farmers, tradesmen, shopkeepers, drifters, and adventures. Only a small portion were actually trained as soldiers. So I stand by my assessment of the Texians inside the Alamo. Glenn Glenn, I have never said that the garrison were professional soldiers. The only comparison to professional soldiers I have made is that given the circumstances of March 6th, I doubt that professionals would have done any better. Lets look at the Grey's, formed in mid October 1835, were in Texas by the end of October, and were one of the key elements in the assault on Bexar a rather nasty house to house fight. So by March 6th, an element that has been together for 4 and half months and successfully fought in one pitched engagement. given the typical "professional" company in the US Army in 1836, thats compares very favorably in cohesion and was far greater as far as combat experience! Still, by no means would I call the Grey's professional - but they are significantly beyond green, rookies, or amateurs. Most of the core of the Alamo garrison is similar. Yes, they left their civilian occupations to serve as volunteers, But, it was a different time, unlike today when a civilian has absolutely no exposure to the military, for the most part these had at least exposed to rudimentary service in the militia, and they knew how to handle personal weapons, besides, again, there was a significant number over 10%(I'll dig when I got some extra time and come up with a list) that had served in the regular army. In other words, they already had most of what basic training consists of today! In the US military system prior to WWI, the US relied almost totally on volunteer units for all the major wars. How much difference do you really think, there was between the Alamo Garrison and T.R.'s Rough Riders, Chamberlain's 20th Maine, or Hood's Texas Brigade? Again, I think we are confusing why Santa Anna's army reached the walls unimpeded and undetected, with the resulting fight.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 13, 2008 14:15:51 GMT -5
No real dispute here, Herb. I also believe, based on what I've read, the defenders, though surprised, stymied the assault by answering the screaming soldados with significant and deadly fire. I think the only disagreements I have with you here is where you feel the garrison lost the (north?) wall in about 10 minutes. I believe they held it for a bit longer; maybe 15-20 minutes.
The other disagreement I have is that I view the battle lost once the Mexicans entered the compound. As long as the Texians could maintained control of the walls and keep the Mexicans out of the Alamo then I would have to say "No victory for Santa Anna." Although another person could easily say the Texians lost the battle when the Mexican army arrived since the Alamo was a "no-win situation." It's really just a matter of opinion.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 13, 2008 14:46:56 GMT -5
I don't see it this quite the same way as you, Herb. The evidence indicates the Mexicans were detected by the garrison before they reached the walls. If you recall, both DLP and General Filisola stated the soldados foolishly began cheering and shouting "Viva Santa Anna" and "Viva Mexico" prior to Santa Anna giving the go-ahead signal. The defenders were alerted and, as we know, the Mexicans paid for their enthusiasm.
In regard to the Mexicans reaching the walls "unimpeded," wouldn't the cannon and rifle fire from the Alamo constitute an impedance? And what about the acequia outside the north wall, how would that effect hundreds of rushing troops packed in attack columns - in the dark and under fire? Do we know how deep the north acequia was?
Glenn
|
|