|
Post by elcolorado on Oct 28, 2007 17:30:24 GMT -5
Question. When did Col LaBastida begin work on his map? I was thinking...if I was Santa Anna I would have directed Gen. Cos and /or any officer to provide as much information as possible to LaBastida. I would want to study a map, even a rudimentary map, of the enemy defenses and make some plans as soon as I could. Though I have no evidence, I feel Santa Anna must have had Cos aid LaBastida in the creation of his map. After all, Cos and his men constructed much of the Alamo's fortifications. So it's possible that much of the detail on the LaBastida map was from the input provided by Cos and less from personal observation. This may also explain, in part, why Sanchez-Navarro's map differed so much from LaBastida. SN's map was, it appears, drawn from memory after the battle and would have revealed any modifications the Texans may have made during their brief occupation of the Alamo. So maybe SN's map is more accurate they we believe. Just think'n during halftime. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Oct 28, 2007 21:24:26 GMT -5
Question. When did Col LaBastida begin work on his map? I was thinking...if I was Santa Anna I would have directed Gen. Cos and /or any officer to provide as much information as possible to LaBastida. I would want to study a map, even a rudimentary map, of the enemy defenses and make some plans as soon as I could. Though I have no evidence, I feel Santa Anna must have had Cos aid LaBastida in the creation of his map. After all, Cos and his men constructed much of the Alamo's fortifications. So it's possible that much of the detail on the LaBastida map was from the input provided by Cos and less from personal observation. This may also explain, in part, why Sanchez-Navarro's map differed so much from LaBastida. SN's map was, it appears, drawn from memory after the battle and would have revealed any modifications the Texans may have made during their brief occupation of the Alamo. So maybe SN's map is more accurate they we believe. Just think'n during halftime. Glenn Glenn, You should do more "thinkin'" during halftime. You have put your finger on an excellent, and I think crucial point which I also thought about last year when comparing the two maps. Much discussion on the subject followed with Rick Range, Craig Covner, and Jake Ivey. I believe strongly that LaBastida made this map with the direct input of Cos and/or Ugartachea, who supervised personally the Mexican defenses. So what we are looking at when we view LaBastida's map is the state of the forifications as built by the Mexican army. It would not have been possible to hover over the compound and draw modifications as made by the Texians, so LaBastida drew only what was known at the time But this is NOT to say that Sanchez-Navarro should be welcomed with open arms as accurately depicting the "Texian" version of the defenses. This is because much of what he showed is NOT backed up by archeology. As I have stated before, Sanchez-Navarro, who drew the place from memory, seemed to get a particular feature right, then duplicate it too many times. But there are some very interesting things that he shows that have independant verification, and show the modifications that the Texians made. For example, note the "espaldon," or small, 2-gun battery facing the rear of the main gate. Labastida does not show this, because it was not done by the Mexicans, and was not known by them until after the fall. In addition, the abatis is shown bt S/N, but not by LaBastida, strongly suggesting it was placed there by the Texians. In fact, S/N specifically states that the Texians placed it there. Lastly, the interior trenches are shown by S/N, and not by LaBastida, although to be fair, it should be stated that LaBastida did not show any interior features. But based on statements by S/N, and de la Pena, it is clear that the interior trenches were dug by the Texians. But back again to the warning...S/N had that nasty habit of inaccurate duplication of an otherwise correct feature, such as too many banquettes, too many interior ditches, and too many exterior defensive ditches. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 29, 2007 10:15:07 GMT -5
That really sheds a lot of light on these two maps, Mark; sort of a bit of before-and-after that we might not otherwise have. Has the original of Jameson's plat ever been found, or at least a detailed description of what he actually altered, compared to what he recommended, but which never got done (I'm looking at these plats in "Alamo Images")?
AW
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Oct 29, 2007 12:29:07 GMT -5
Here is an interesting piece of information. According to George Nelson in "The Alamo - Illustrated History," LaBastida made the map under the direction of Gen. Filisola. If this is accurate, this means that LaBastida may have began work on the map before Santa Anna and Sesma separated from the main force and advanced toward Bexar.
So my next question is: Did LaBastida accompany Santa Anna to San Antonio and complete his map there or did he remain with the Filisola and the main force and actually complete the map before Santa Anna and Sesma departed?
I agree, Mark. Sanchez-Navarro had a penchant for duplication, especially in the representation of trenches and ditches.
If we are successful in the Alamo Plaza Project, I'd like to see some archaeological digs done along the West Wall area. This is the section of the Alamo where Sanchez-Navarro and LaBastida differ the most. I know Jake Ivey did some digging in and around the Southwest corner, but I would like to see a dig along the whole length of the West Wall and see what turns up.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Oct 29, 2007 17:05:55 GMT -5
Here is an interesting piece of information. According to George Nelson in "The Alamo - Illustrated History," LaBastida made the map under the direction of Gen. Filisola. If this is accurate, this means that LaBastida may have began work on the map before Santa Anna and Sesma separated from the main force and advanced toward Bexar. So my next question is: Did LaBastida accompany Santa Anna to San Antonio and complete his map there or did he remain with the Filisola and the main force and actually complete the map before Santa Anna and Sesma departed? I agree, Mark. Sanchez-Navarro had a penchant for duplication, especially in the representation of trenches and ditches. If we are successful in the Alamo Plaza Project, I'd like to see some archaeological digs done along the West Wall area. This is the section of the Alamo where Sanchez-Navarro and LaBastida differ the most. I know Jake Ivey did some digging in and around the Southwest corner, but I would like to see a dig along the whole length of the West Wall and see what turns up. Glenn Glenn, Unfortuantely, that (digging in the west wall area) will not be possible. According to Jake, who did the Radio Shack dig at the SW corner, everything from there up towards the north has been obliterated by the basements dug under the row of buildings bordering the west side of Alamo plaza. He stated that only because the Radio Shack building had been built without a basement were they able to dig under it and find anything. Mark
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Oct 29, 2007 19:25:26 GMT -5
Mark Sorry to hear that...what a tragic loss. So I guess we will never know for sure if the Texans made any defensive modifications to the West Wall. Nor can we confirm or dismiss particular details in Sanchez-Navarro's "trench heavy" map. A shame. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 4, 2008 23:03:48 GMT -5
On the Jameson map, I came to the conclusion that the original has been missing since at least the first years of the 20th c., if not longer. Zavala apparently reconstructed the plan in conversation with whats-her-name who remembered seeing it, and plotted out this remembered version onto a copy of the Giraud plan of the Alamo. I found in Zavala's papers what could be the actual sketch plan that was this attempt at recollection, drawn onto two sheets of paper that overlapped. Todd Hansen has some of that story in his discussion of the Jameson map.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 5, 2008 15:55:34 GMT -5
The value of LaBastida's map as an aid to archeology is undeniable...the information it reveals speaks volumes. It is a rich piece of evidence that not only answers questions...it invokes them. Since we have a battery of experts within our group, I'd like to put forward some questions, comments, and observations that have been forming in my head for a spell. As I eluded to in my initial post, I felt there were indications that LaBastida had some assistance in the creation of his schematic. I think it's not only possible but probable that Cos' engineers provided LaBastida with a wealth of information. After all, who would know more about the defensive layout of the Alamo then the men who constructed the fortifications? The titles LaBastida uses in labeling structures in the Alamo clearly apply to Cos' men and not the Texan garrison. For example: Artillery command, Artillery barracks, Artillery park, High horseman ( Little Fort Cos). So I feel my theory in regards to Cos' input or influence is reasonable. If my theory is correct, my next question is: When would LaBastida have begun to work on his map? Did he put it off until he could see the Alamo for himself or did he begin to work on it prior to his arrival in Bexar? Although I don't think anyone can say one way or the other with absolute certainty, there is cause to believe LaBastida may started to work on the map before he ever set foot in San Antonio. On examination of LaBastidas plan we can see several errors or omissions. Mark has pointed these out in detail in the "Morales" thread so I'll just touch on the most glaring. The palisade, as we know, incorporated a firing-step to allow rifleman to shoot over the stockade wall (en barbette) and a shallow trench just to the north. Neither of these features were included in LaBastida's map. This omission could lead one to conclude that either LaBastida simply made an error or that he was unaware of it's existence. This in itself implies that it could have been a defensive modification constructed by G. B. Jameson and not, as we believe, Cos' engineers. Also missing from the map is the abatis of trees directly in front of the palisade which is clearly visible in Sanchez-Navarro's sketch. One of the more obvious omissions is the absence of the wall in the convento courtyard that separates the cattle pen from the horse pen. One wonders how LaBastida could have missed it. When I view LaBastida's map in it's entirety, I get a sense that, based on Cos' information, he may have drawn the Alamo and it's defensive features first...before he arrived in Bexar. After his arrival, he added the surrounding topography. Notice the contrast in the level of detail between the Alamo and the areas around the Alamo. While the topographical detail appears to have been rendered from direct observation, the Alamo looks like a second-hand interpretation...just the way Cos remembered it after he departed in December of '35. One of the problems I have with relying so heavily on LaBastida's plan is that it excludes any defensive improvements the Texans may have and probably did make before and during the siege. Travis wrote: "I have so fortified this place, that the walls are generally proof against cannon balls and I still continue to entrench on the inside and strengthen the walls by throwing up the dirt." Of course we really don't know what kind of improvements Travis had the garrison working on. However, when we compare LaBastida's schematic to Sanchez-Navarro's detailed sketches we see some additional defensive features that could have been completed by the Texans. In fact, the two maps almost resemble "before" and "after" pictures. For example. LaBastida's plan reveals only one earthen banquette or firing-step whereas Sanchez-Navarro's diagram shows numerous banquettes. Even though archeology may have eliminated a few of the defensive fortifications we find in Navarro's work, it's reasonable to believe some did exist. The two gun emplacement just inside the main gate is another feature that is absent from LaBastida's map. And there may have been some improvements to the lunette. One of the points I'm trying to make here is that the Alamo had undergone some changes and they shouldn't be discounted simply because LaBastida didn't include them in his plan. I don't believe Travis and the garrison were idle during the siege. After all, they couldn't go anywhere, didn't have much to do, and they were fighting for their lives. I think we need to be very careful about placing too much emphasis or faith in any single source. I believe everything should and must be considered before rendering any judgments. I'll say it again, I feel LaBastida's work is very important and highly valuable...I just don't view it as the final word. And that's my word. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 6, 2008 0:30:16 GMT -5
Glen: This was my assessment of the Alamo mapping problem in one of my writings: "In spite of the innumerable drawings and paintings of the Battle of the Alamo, its plan and appearance in 1835-1836 are, at best, poorly known. The Grand Old Man of Alamo architectural studies, Alamo artist and historian Craig Covner, at one time said that the disagreement between the various depictions of the Alamo buildings and plans “precludes any coherent visual chronology of the mission-fortress from being realized.” Gary Zaboly, an eminent artist whose illustrations of the Alamo are considered among the best that can be achieved today, has said that the “deficiencies of pictorial evidence” have made it very difficult for artists to reconstruct the historical appearance of the buildings. Art historian Susan Schoelwer has made it clear that the list of problems needing answer include virtually every aspect of the history of the site – there are large uncertainties about the plan and construction of the church and convento during the colonial period, and “the mission complex, of less permanent construction than the two main buildings, is even more difficult to locate and describe.” In the period after the secularization of the mission, [she added,] the “physical appearance of the early nineteenth-century Alamo remains as problematical as that of the eighteenth century mission.”[Craig R. Covner, “Before 1850: A New Look at the Alamo Through Art and Imagery,” _The Alamo Journal_, 70(March, 1990):3-10; Gary Zaboly in Alan C. Huffines, _Blood of Noble Men_, p. xiii; Susan Prendergast Schoelwer, “The Artist’s Alamo: A Reappraisal of Pictorial Evidence, 1836-1850,” _Southwestern Historical Quarterly_, 91(April, 1988)4:403; Susan Prendergast Schoelwer and Tom W. Gläser, _Alamo Images: Changing Perceptions of a Texas Experience_ (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1985), pp. 23, 26.]"
"Although a number of plans of the Alamo exist, they disagree in so many details, and even in major elements, that no one of them has been considered a dependable map. Rod Timanus, in his article “Mapping the Alamo,” said that “many of the various map efforts produced to date are at odds with each other visually (who could expect less where the mysterious Alamo is concerned?).” The historian Albert Nofi echoed this position: “the precise dimensions and plan of the Alamo in 1835-1836 are not known with any certainty. No two plans or sketches of the place known from contemporary sources are in more than general agreement.” Alamo artist and historian George Nelson summed up the problem: “the contradictions in maps of this period . . . make it difficult to accurately reconstruct the Alamo at the time of the battle of 1836.”[Rod Timanus, “Mapping the Alamo,” _The Alamo Journal_, 108(March, 1998):6; Albert A. Nofi, _The Alamo and the Texas War for Independence_ (New York: Da Capo Press, 1994), p. 70; George Nelson, _The Alamo: An Illustrated History_, (Dry Frio Canyon, Texas: Aldine Press, 1998), p. 23.]"
My conclusions in the Archaeological Evidence for the Defenses of the Alamo paper: "What [all the archaeological information] looks like is the Ignacio Labastida plan. In fact, only the Labastida plan shows all the trenches on our archaeological plan of the Alamo, and does not show ditches where we found none. As a result of the archaeology, then, we can say that the Alamo defenses followed the standard military field fortification practices of the 1830s, and that they were fairly accurately recorded by the Labastida plan, but not on any other known map."
"Finally, we can say that one specific plan is a good representation of the defenses of the Alamo, which gives us a standard against which to measure other maps."
I've been trying to get us out of the state of anarchy things were in before, and into something where we have things we can trust.
There's nothing wrong with differing with Labastida's picture of the Alamo defenses, or proposing changes after the date he prepared it (don't forget it says "March, 1836" on the plan), so long as you say what your evidence is, and expect others to tell you that evidence is as crappy as the source you're depending on (for example, any detail on any Sutherland or Potter map, I wouldn't trust unless it was also on a map I did trust, and there's only one of those so far) -- or you offer reasoned, "informed opinion," and you make it clear that's what it is. As various of us have said, the evidence is limited, and we have to use speculation, theory, hypothesis to go beyond it, but we have to label such stuff clearly. And we have to know what we can trust to start with.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 6, 2008 1:40:41 GMT -5
Glenn, Excellent points...The things that are correct in Labastida's plan, are of course correct. But what to make of those things that we either know, or strongly suspect were there, but that he doesn't show? We must assume that he either didn't see or notice them, or left them off for some other reason, but we must not place so much idolatry in him that we find ourselves saying: "Well, he didn't draw it, so it didn't exist.." Mark
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 6, 2008 10:56:06 GMT -5
Yes. You are correct, Jake. The date of LaBastida's map says "March, 1836." That is most likely a completion date and not a start date. In truth, we don't know the date he started to work on his schematic. Obviously, we need some more digs...and lots of them. There are too many unanswered questions...too many answers lying beneath the surface waiting to be revealed. Question to all you "diggers." What kind of hoops do you have to jump through to get a green light for a archaeological dig?? Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 6, 2008 11:31:30 GMT -5
I think something else to bear in mind is the probably reason why the plat was prepared; namely as an aid to planning the assault, rather than as an illustration to accompany a subsequent narrative.
What's important there is a schematic showing objectives and obstacles and so long as their relationship is accurately depicted there isn't necessarily a requirement to measure them out.
Taking the south wall as an obvious example, Morales needed to know there was a gun position on the SW corner; he needed to know where the other guns in that area were. Some indication of the form of the lunette is also going to be helpful.
The ommissions in that area can also be explained in that light. as I've suggested before, if that little gun position inside the gate was constructed by the Texians then neither Labastida nor anyone else might have known about it until Morales came face to face with it.
The absence of the abatis is less easy to explain but hardly damning. It may not have been very thick - just how much timber was growing locally - or it may not have figured in anyone's calculations since Morales' objective was the gate and he was going to approach both it and the adjacent gun position from the SW.
I don't know of course if that was the case, but I suggest its a plausible explanation in the known circumstances
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 6, 2008 12:17:37 GMT -5
I agree with you here, Stuart. If all you want (or need) is to reveal the defensive capabilities of the enemy, then by all means leave out the unnecessary details. But take another look at LaBastida's map...it's replete with unnecessary details. That indicates to me that LaBastida wasn't adverse to incorporating fine details into his work. So I get a bit confused over the apparent contradictions that I see. For example. Why include a meaningless tree but leave out obvious fortifications or obstacles?? That just doesn't make sense to me.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 6, 2008 12:34:43 GMT -5
The tree isn't necessarily irrelevant if its useful as a reference point; eg: "just to the right of that tree there is a gun in an embrasure..."
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 6, 2008 15:29:39 GMT -5
Well...I didn't specifically mean the tree off the NW corner. What I was getting to, mi amigo, was the level of detail in the topography surrounding the Alamo. Most of which is irrelevant for the intended purpose of the schematic - reveal the layout of the enemy's fortifications and it's defensive capabilities. Clearly, Labastida had an eye for detail. So I find myself asking "why" features of the Alamo are missing. Certainly things like a wall, or trench, or an obstacle like the "abatis" are of more value to combat preparations then some trees along the San Pedro Creek??
Let me further clarify my intent. I am in no way looking to engage in any form of LaBastida bashing. All I'm trying to do is reconcile the errors/omissions in LaBastida's plan.
When I view Sanchez-Navarro's sketches it becomes obvious that S-N was not in San Antonio at the time he made his drawings. As we know/believe, he drew them from memory shortly after the battle. This explains the errors we see in his flawed but valuable work.
So I wonder if LaBastida's map didn't suffer from the same handicap. Is it possible that he wasn't in Bexar when he started to work on his plan? And I believe I laid out a very reasonable theory in my earlier posts. This could help explain why someone of LaBastida's skill and talent had several omissions in his rendering of the Texans fortifications.
Of course, my explanation may or may not be accurate. There may be other reasons for the errors/omissions. We could say LaBastida simply "goofed" but I think he was too talented and meticulous to just "goof."
As I said before, if I was in Santa Anna's place I would want a map or schematic of the enemy's defensive fortifications and capabilities ASAP. Any good general would. And let's remember, Santa Anna didn't know a 13 day siege awaited him. For all he knew his confrontation with the defenders of Bexar would not last longer then a single day. So I feel he would have wanted a diagram of the Alamo as soon as he could get his hands on one.
And since LaBastida had the information in regards to the Alamo's layout available to him, why would he delay? Why not provide Santa Anna with a visual aid he may need upon arrival in San Antonio.
You're a military expert, Stuart. Wouldn't you want a map of the enemy's defensives prior to arriving on the battlefield? Good discussion, gents!
Glenn
|
|