|
Post by Jake on Jan 16, 2008 12:40:16 GMT -5
Keep in mind that what I'm talking about here is a change to the distribution of troops after Santa Anna issued his original order of March 5. I suggested in the AJ article where I discussed this that Filisola and DLP both simply described the assault using SA's order as though it was followed literally, while SN gave the actual final distribution.
Documentation that might contradict Sanchez's picture of things is Hansen p. 372, where Sesma mentions those who he was commending for their actions:
"The ones that had distinguished themselves are: Don Juan Morales, Colonel and the commander of the San Luis battalion; The Second Lieutenants of the cazadores (light infantry), from the Matamoros battalion, S. Alonso Gonzales and Don Jose Maria Souza, then to the accredited valor of this leader. And to the gallantry of the two cited officers they were able in a few moments to entirely reduced [sic] the enemy remaining at the fortification of the Alamo." This is not a very good translation, leaving us unsure of who is doing what, but it could be argued that this was saying that the cazadores of the Matamoros battalion were with Morales as Santa Anna's order said they were to be, rather than on the east side as SN said. However, since the document as translated does not say that in so many words, we're left unsure whether Sesma's document disproves SN's description or not.
The other possible disproof of SN's description is Hansen p. 442, where as Wolf says, Hansen just summarizes the San Luis Potosi journal: "The document goes on to list the various columns, the commanders, and the sides against which the assault was made -- basically the same type of information in the attack order of Santa Anna." Talk about ambiguous: "basically" lets us suspect some unknown amount of variation, and "the same type of information" means only that it was a list of who attacked where, without Hansen making any commitment to the idea that the exact same troops in the exact same columns was actually listed. Sure, you'd think that if there were significant differences in who went where, Hansen would probably point this out -- but with the weasling in the phrases, who knows? Clearly this document needs tracking down in the Castaneda papers and the Spanish text extracted.
Also (Bruce, note this), on Hansen p. 441 in the San Luis Potosi journal, under Feb. 25 is the remark that "During the night, construction was taken to protect the line that had been made at La Villita, at the orders of Colonel Morales." This sounds like a reference to the La Villita earthworks, and is another use of the word "line" to indicate defenses. It probably has some relationship to the defensive positions set up south of the Alamo on Feb 25 as described by Filisola, Hansen pp. 388-89.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jan 16, 2008 14:18:36 GMT -5
That statement under G about "la linea," that may actually be a military jargon phrase that would translate as "the wall" -- but I couldn't be sure, so I left it in its more or less literal form as "the line." Nah, it seems to mean line of attack.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 16, 2008 14:28:10 GMT -5
G. ... Por el dicho punto y por la linea que corre acia el medio de la otra bateria asalto el S[eño]r Coronel Duque con su Batallon de Toluca, y por habersido herido continuo el Asalto el S[eñor] G[ene]ral Castrillon y entro al fuerte con Toluca y Zapadores. G. ... At the said point and on the line that ran toward the middle of the other battery [on the northwest corner] attacked Colonel Duque with his Battalion of Toluca, and because he was wounded, General Castrillón continued the assault and entered the fort with the Toluca and Zapadores. That statement under G about "la linea," that may actually be a military jargon phrase that would translate as "the wall" -- but I couldn't be sure, so I left it in its more or less literal form as "the line." Surely the literal translation would be " along the line" rather than "on the line"?
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 16, 2008 15:21:08 GMT -5
Tom and Stuart: here's the whole quote. You can see that the point he's referring to is the big cannon position at about the center of the north wall (although it had three embrasures, according to Labastida, and therefore had three cannon rather than two), so the line he's describing seems to run from that one to one of the others, either the northwest corner or his position marked on the northeast corner of the north wall that wasn't really there. But the point is this line runs at right angles to what I would think of as the line of attack, and along the wall itself.
G. Bateria de dos cañones llamada por los Mejicanos fortin de Terán, colocada sobre la muralla al alto de once pies de bara mejica: la muralla hera del grueso de dos pies, y reforzada p[o]r fuera con empalizada y emmedio tierra quedó con el espesór de cinco pies. Por el dicho punto y por la linea que corre acia el medio de la otra bateria asalto el S[eño]r Coronel Duque con su Batallon de Toluca...
G. Battery of two cannon, called the “Fortín de Terán” by the Mexicans, located against the wall with a height of 10.1 feet, using the length of the Mexican vara. The wall was 1.8 feet thick, and reinforced on the outside with a palisade, with earth between, with a total thickness of 4.6 feet. At the said point and on a line that ran toward the middle of the other battery [on the northwest corner] attacked Colonel Duque with his Battalion of Toluca...
So you see why I'm thinking it means the "line of defense," i.e., the wall. And yes, Stuart, if that was the interpretation, then "along" would work better in English -- it would be referring to the section of wall where Duque carried out his attack.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 17, 2008 10:24:28 GMT -5
The other possible disproof of SN's description is Hansen p. 442, where as Wolf says, Hansen just summarizes the San Luis Potosi journal: "The document goes on to list the various columns, the commanders, and the sides against which the assault was made -- basically the same type of information in the attack order of Santa Anna." Talk about ambiguous: "basically" lets us suspect some unknown amount of variation, and "the same type of information" means only that it was a list of who attacked where, without Hansen making any commitment to the idea that the exact same troops in the exact same columns was actually listed. Sure, you'd think that if there were significant differences in who went where, Hansen would probably point this out -- but with the weasling in the phrases, who knows? Clearly this document needs tracking down in the Castaneda papers and the Spanish text extracted. I expect the Journal reflects Santa Anna's orders or it would have been cited before, but then again I've read the Sanchez-Navarro notes many times and totally passed over what he was saying about the San Luis Potosi Bn. IF the Journal agrees with SN's notes, it makes an attack on the Main Gate/tambour probable (though I'd still disagree with the idea that it was unmanned and undefended and that the SW corner was taken from the inside).
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 17, 2008 15:11:40 GMT -5
Well that business of taking it from behind was my interpretation of the "daring move" after everybody else said Morales took the gate.
However, as I said in my option (a) above. If SN is correct in assigning those additional men from the San Luis, that would explain Filisola's reference to two columns - and allow Morales and the cazadores to take the gun position by a daring move while Minon and the San Luis were taking the gate.
Somewhere I must track down that reference to "building up the SW gun position with entrenchments" or whatever it was whoever it was said
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 18, 2008 11:18:47 GMT -5
Well that business of taking it from behind was my interpretation of the "daring move" after everybody else said Morales took the gate. Nothing personal - I'm just disagreeing. IF SN is correct that seems to be the obvious solution. Though, there is one thing still doesn't make sense, wasn't Morales the actual commander of the San Luis? If the majority of his battalion made up one column - it would seem - like he should be that column's commander and not Minon. Does anybody know if the DRT Library has a copy of the San Luis Potosi Journal? Perhaps, when we're all there we might be able to make a copy for translation.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 18, 2008 14:11:41 GMT -5
The San Luis journal is in the Castaneda papers at the Center for Am Hist in Austin -- I spose someone might have made a copy of the Alamo stuff for the DRT...
My wife and I hope to spend a day or two in Austin at the CAH and the State Library, so I hope to be able to find the SLO journal while there. If I do get copies, and the DRT doesn't have them, I'll post them to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 19, 2008 0:03:04 GMT -5
I'm beginning to like this Jake Ivey feller more all the time.
|
|
|
Post by dimbo33 on Jan 20, 2008 23:40:29 GMT -5
Gentlemen, Here is my translation of the pertinent paragraph from the San Luis Battalion Log. This translation was done several years ago and I do have a copy of the original Spanish. I am too lazy to type it all out in Spanish but I could do so if you all want it badly. Also if there are specific questions from the original Spanish I can find the specific terms used. As I said, the translation was done several years ago so do not hold me to a strict standard.
The corps that commenced the assault were the following: Battalions permanente, Zapadores, Aldama, Matamores, Jimenez, Activos Toluca, San Luis, the regiments of Delores, Presidiales, and pickets of the regiments of Tampico and Veracruz under the command of General Ramirez, who were keeping watch for hunting down stragglers, of which they killed 68. The first attack column under the command of Don Martin Perfecto Cos, was those seven companies of the Aldama and two of the San Luis: This was divided into three ( trazos? Lines?) , the first commanded by the General, the second by me, and the third by Romero first adjutant of the Aldama. The second column under the command of Col. Don Fransisco Duque: it’s companies—two Cazadores and fusileros of Toluca, and 80 fusilieros of San Luis. The third column under the orders of Col. Jose Romero with the companies of fusilaros of Matamoros and Jimenez. The fourth under the command of Col. D. Juan Morales with the companies of Cazadores of Matadors, Jimenez and San Luis. The reserve was composed of the companies of granadores of all the infantry corps and of the battalion Zapadores under the Command of the Gen. In chief. The first column attacked the side with a view toward Bejar. The second was opposite the (prale?) gate, the third that with a view to the camp of the cavalry, and the fourth the (prale?) gate with a view toward La Villita where the enemy dead were burned.
I also have the original Spanish of the Carlos Sanchez Navarro Book and the original Spanish from the Sanchez Navarro journal that is at the CAH if anyone needs me to look up any of the original Spanish from either of those two documents. Gregg
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 21, 2008 2:13:05 GMT -5
Thanks Gregg, I'm surprised this information hasn't been published before. I'll let our Spanish speakers sort out your translations but two immediate points which come out are that the log appears to confirm the original attack dispositions were adhered to and in particular only the cazadore company is recorded as accompanying Morales, which brings me back to my suggestion of the slightly ambiguous wording of the attack orders tripping SN.
The other interesting point is that reference to 68 Texians being killed by Sesma's cavalry.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jan 21, 2008 8:57:56 GMT -5
It's interesting how the writer refers to the north side as the side "opposite the gate," suggesting that the main entrance through the low barracks was a key point of reference for the besiegers.
"prale" doesn't seem to be a proper Spanish term; could this actually be a typo or transcriptional error for "puerta" (i.e., gate, entrance)?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 21, 2008 12:28:12 GMT -5
Thanks Gregg!
Like Stuart, I'm amazed that this portion has never been published before. There's a wealth of information in that short paragraph.
The 68 men indeed stands out.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 22, 2008 11:02:22 GMT -5
Two other things stand out that apply to this topic. The heading of the Journal gives the Battalion strength as 452 men on 17 Nov 1835. Filisola gives the battalion strength as over 500 at the end of the campaign. With Sanchez-Navarro's account and the journals numbers - it appears that only 180 fusiliers participated in the attack on the Alamo. That seems to imply that a very large percentage of the men were untrained/new recruits and left in camp. That seems to tie in with the numbers Nofi gives.
If that's the case, it means there were 90-95 total men in the cazadore and grenadier companies in the assault or roughly 45 men each.
The other comment from Hansen, is that the end of the journal included a by name list of the killed and wounded the San Luis Battalion suffered in the attack. According to Hansen the number of names listed matches exactly the numbers reported for this battalion by Andrade in his report on Mexican Causalities.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 22, 2008 12:51:34 GMT -5
Wow, thank, Gregg. Like everyone else says, what a wonderful little piece of treasure -- why hasn't this been used by anyone?
So Sanchez got the actual troop arrangements wrong. We have his own statements indicating he was in the column under Cos, and he got the companies that were with him under Cos correct, so presumably he was mistaken about the others because he got wrong information about who was where -- it appears that he never saw the Santa Anna order. His journal entry for the 5th says "it is said that his Excellency [Santa Anna] favored the assault ... the assault has been decided upon," but makes no mention of Santa Anna's specific orders, other than "General Cos commands the first column, he has ordered me to be at the head..." He apparently had to reconstruct the other columns (erroneously) on his own.
|
|