|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 1, 2011 13:59:02 GMT -5
Given ongoing debate about the Alamo's appearance in 1836, it's interesting to note that Sanchez-Navarro reportedly drew his original sketch of the fort from the top of the Veramendi house. I wonder how tall it was and how clear a view of the fort he could have gotten from there.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harris on Dec 2, 2011 12:03:47 GMT -5
Thanks, Bowie. This was a test model in 1/144th scale to see if I had the layout correct for a larger 1/72nd scale model. So, unfortunately I don't have any figures for you to gauge the scale. But I did find this blurry (sorry) pic with a quarter in front of the model to give you some idea. The quarter basically covers the entire door. Hope that helps. Hey Allen! The height of the large doors is 10 ft 10.5 inches and that is factoring in the estimated 6 inches of missing panels from the bottom. The height of the smaller inset doors is 5 ft 8 inches also factoring in the missing panels. (Thanks Hiram!) BTW, I found out it's a bad thing to actually do an on-site measurement of the doors without permission! Although during my research I was never actually able to find documentation of the exact height of the building itself, there is enough photographic evidence, coupled with the door measurements, to make an educated "guess" as to the height of the building. I would estimate the Veramendi house at being anywhere from 18.5 to 20 ft tall. I believe for the model I used 19 ft. I think S-N would have had an excellent view of the Alamo from the roof. Probably even from the ground. Take care Mike
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 2, 2011 12:43:13 GMT -5
Thanks Mike; very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Dec 5, 2011 17:18:20 GMT -5
Terrain must also be factored in, specifically the fact that Plaza de las Islas is sixteen feet lower than Alamo Plaza. Sanchez-Navarro would certainly have a better view of the Alamo from the Veramendi roof, but he would not be elevated above the former mission.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 5, 2011 19:07:15 GMT -5
Hiram - I think his sketch reflects that.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 5, 2011 19:31:39 GMT -5
Terrain must also be factored in, specifically the fact that Plaza de las Islas is sixteen feet lower than Alamo Plaza. Sanchez-Navarro would certainly have a better view of the Alamo from the Veramendi roof, but he would not be elevated above the former mission. Hiram, I totally agreed with you until I got curious and double checked the elevations on Google Earth Satellite. San Fernando and the plaza are at 651 ft. above sea level, the S.W. corner of the Alamo compound is at 655 ft. and the Alamo Church is at 660. The Veramendi Palace site clocks in at 650 even. So.... ten feet higher than the Veramendi. The river sits at 630 closest to the Alamo, and this is what gave it the appearance of being on a hill (as in the Labastida map and the Filisola description of "overlooking the city."). All said, my guess is that standing on the roof of the Veramendi (which I agree would have been around 18 feet high, S-N would have been about eye level with half way up the west wall, and that is exactly how it appears in the drawing. What is indeed confusing is that he would have been looking straight at the 18 pounder from this point (the Alamo's south wall pointed directly at the north wing of the Veramendi), and he definitely would not have been able to see the whole north wall face as he has it in the drawing. In order to get the perspective on the north wall that he shows, he would have had to have been at lease 300 yards up-river. So either he was, or he took artistic license in order to show a perspective drawing -- or he just did it all from memory and confused his angles and points of view.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 5, 2011 19:35:02 GMT -5
And Mike, I make your quarter out to be 12-1/2 feet high. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 5, 2011 21:24:36 GMT -5
Posted for Rich. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Dec 5, 2011 23:11:00 GMT -5
Hiram, I totally agreed with you until I got curious and double checked the elevations on Google Earth Satellite. San Fernando and the plaza are at 651 ft. above sea level, the S.W. corner of the Alamo compound is at 655 ft. and the Alamo Church is at 660. Rich, the numbers I referenced come from the USGS National Elevation Dataset. It lists San Fernando @ 643 feet and Alamo Plaza @ 659 feet. The numbers are not that different, but with all due respect to Google, I prefer using the USGS measurements.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 6, 2011 21:55:55 GMT -5
Hiram, I totally agreed with you until I got curious and double checked the elevations on Google Earth Satellite. San Fernando and the plaza are at 651 ft. above sea level, the S.W. corner of the Alamo compound is at 655 ft. and the Alamo Church is at 660. Rich, the numbers I referenced come from the USGS National Elevation Dataset. It lists San Fernando @ 643 feet and Alamo Plaza @ 659 feet. The numbers are not that different, but with all due respect to Google, I prefer using the USGS measurements.Yikes! I was under the impression that Google Earth 3-D was a function of entering all the USGS data into their map program. Isn't it? How else would they do it?
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 6, 2011 22:01:19 GMT -5
Do check out my overlay on the Google Satellite photo above (blow it up by clicking on it). For research purposes, I laid down the Alamo compound and the Veramendi Palace in their correct relationship. Compare the sightlines to the Alamo from ANY portion of the Veramendi roof to the angle shown in the Sanchez-Navarro drawing. There is no way he would see the north wall from there. (Thanks for posting the photo, Jim.)
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 7, 2011 9:53:28 GMT -5
Rich, they use commercial gps data. I don't remember my higher math, but it involves at least 3 satellites and a lot of trignometry! Commercial gps has (had) some built in errors to keep it reaching the accuracy needed for military weapons programs, but is unremarkable for most civilian uses.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 7, 2011 15:41:13 GMT -5
So how greatly could it's accuracy differ from USGS figures?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 7, 2011 20:46:28 GMT -5
Need to go back to the sources, but IIRC, Sanchez Navarro did a sketch from the roof of the Veramendi house, but later revised it and fleshed it out. In the interim, he'd had a chance to examine the Alamo in more detail and, at some later date, made the revised sketch that we are familiar with. From what I'm seeing here, it doesn't look like he could have seen the north wall from the Veramendi house.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 8, 2011 3:27:09 GMT -5
I think that's a very possible scenario, Allen. Possibly, he just used different points of view to do sketches to keep details fresh, and then later did the drawing we have from his "own" angle, using the sketch or sketches simply as sources of information on the details.
|
|