homer
Full Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by homer on Jan 6, 2009 18:48:41 GMT -5
I,ware of this. My question from a couple of days ago, Was it possible did santa anna dam up the acequia, not to cut off drinking water but to dry out the ponds to give his troops some more room.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 6, 2009 19:54:57 GMT -5
I,ware of this. My question from a couple of days ago, Was it possible did santa anna dam up the acequia, not to cut off drinking water but to dry out the ponds to give his troops some more room. I suppose anything's possible, but that area had been flooding for years, since sometime after secularization of the mission in 1793, when maintenance of the acequia stopped being performed. This means that to dry it out would have taken quite a long time. Even during "dry" periods, when the depressed areas appeared dry, they would be muddy underneath a seemingly dry surface. And Labastida shows the area being quite wet, meaning to get it dry enough for an infantry assault would probably have taken longer than Santa Anna wanted to wait. Just my opinion.
|
|
homer
Full Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by homer on Jan 6, 2009 22:55:45 GMT -5
ok. i just thru out a question that maybe no one considered.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 7, 2009 1:58:39 GMT -5
Nope, that didn't work for me...
In the meantime, going back to your post about the ponding most likely predating the siege by a number of years - and existing for some years afterwards - core sampling should certainly pick it up and given that the area is outside the Alamo perimeter the DRT may be more receptive to the idea
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 7, 2009 19:21:03 GMT -5
Certainly there are many questions which would be answered by selected excavations in the vicinity. For example, just north of the Gibbs Building's north end is the site which corresponds to the area just at the foot of the Northwest corner (Fortin de Condelle). In this area, many, many Mexican soldiers fought and died, and today, this site is essentially a back alley and parking lot, on which no building of consequence has ever, to my knowledge, been constructed. I wonder what would have to occur (politically) to have a selected dig on this site, as finding many significant battle artifacts is virtually guaranteed. Getting back to your post, I am certain that such samples, probably under Houston Street, would find such evidence of sediment resulting from flooding.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 21, 2009 21:18:45 GMT -5
LaBastida viewed the area from a low perspective, and made a mistake when he drew the water in relation with the Alamo walls. Another concept that I believe is going on in LaBastida's map is that he literally changed scale to place the Alamo under a magnifying glass. If you look at the map and draw a circle around the Mo, it appears that you are indeed looking through a magnifying glass. The Alamo was the object in question. He only needed a representation of the town and environs. The question is how much around the fort is also under that imaginary magnifier? In other words, can we even begin to assume that the flooded area is correct in relative size to the Mo?
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Sept 25, 2009 0:55:13 GMT -5
This map makes me wonder if Romero's veering from an attack on the east side to an attack on the northeast corner was really a planned feint, not the result of withering fire from the cannon from the church and cattle pen. Simply put, why attack through the bogs on the east side? It'd be suicide. It makes sense to feint an eastern attack to freeze defenders there, but then swerve to concentrate forces on the dry, level ground at what was really the weakest part of the fort--the north wall. Similarly, was Cos feinting when he advanced on the west part of the northern wall, only to do a right oblique to attack the north part of the west wall? That certainly would have drawn defenders away from Romero's and Castrillon's columns on the central and east parts of the north wall. All the while, Morales held defenders on the south side. Sant Anna sure screwed up at San Jacinto, but he may have had a smart plan on March 6th.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Sept 25, 2009 9:13:33 GMT -5
Since Santa Anna was expecting all the defenders to be asleep and not on the walls, I doubt that he or any of his commanders had any "planned" feints. He was more concerned with surprise and speed. Cos was most likely shifting his column toward the west in response to the "friendly fire" coming from Duque's column.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Sept 25, 2009 9:46:14 GMT -5
I think Romero's attack was initally aimed at either the "gap" between the Long Barracks and the NE corner or the cannon position in the cattle corral. In either case his attack originated more from the NE than the East (I'm inclined to believe his objective was the gap to gain quick access to the main compound).
I think defender fire from the corral surprised the column and caused the shift to the NE corner of the Alamo. There's a pretty in depth discussion of all this up in Alamo History.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Sept 27, 2009 2:23:07 GMT -5
Thanks for directing me to the discussion in Alamo History, Herb. That answers a lot of questions (or questions a lot of answers?) I've had.
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Sept 27, 2009 10:02:02 GMT -5
|
|