|
Post by TRK on May 27, 2007 8:39:47 GMT -5
There have been occasional references to Jake Ivey's unpublished manuscript, Mission to Fortress, for over a decade. Any chance this work will ever be published?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 5, 2007 22:10:14 GMT -5
I was asked when was the palisade built, my initial response was by Cos, but when exactly?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 6, 2007 2:13:10 GMT -5
Thanks Mark, looking forward to it. I think you already have my address. Read about your upcoming article on Juana Alsbury's location. I'm interested to see it, as I've been speculating for years on it. Did you address her curious comment about the soldato/officer asking her where the entrance was? I can't remember, but I don't think I ever bought up the question with you about the Northern Postern referenced in some accounts. While I'm not sure, I'm reasonably convinced this was probably a door in the West Wall in I think the Castaneda House(?) Do you think this might have been what the comment was about? Have you identifed a Northern Postern? BTW, now that you have that large 10x13 model, I'll be perfectly willing to take that "small" model, you had last March, off of your hands! ;D It'll fit perfectly in my new study! Herb, The northern postern often referred to was, I believe, located in the northern Castaneda house, which served as a base for the Fortin De Condelle (at the NW corner). It was formed from an western-facing window that had been enlarged to make a doorway. It could not have been the northernmost opening, as this space was filled with rubble to make the platform. It could have possibly been the southernmost opening, but that opening's coresponding room had fallen in. It is more likely in my opiion that it was the middle room's opening to the west, originally a window in the mission days, and subsequently enlarged to a door. It was, by the way, ideally placed extremely near (perhaps only about 10 or 15 feet) the acequia outside. I can imagine during the seige, a courier making his way to the middle room of the house, and waiting there for a few minutes to make sure the "coast was clear" , then exiting the door and moving straight to the acequia, a natural avenue which provided both cover and concealment. He could have been sheltered in this brush- lined position all the way to the northeast of the mission, where he could have made his way on to the east by other means. On the other hand, if there was indeed a east-facing gate located between the northern end of the granary, and the long barracks extension which formed the notheast wall of the plaza (and I think there had to have been one) then it seems more likely to me that couriers bound for the settlements to the east, would have exited via this eastern gate.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 6, 2007 2:21:00 GMT -5
There have been occasional references to Jake Ivey's unpublished manuscript, Mission to Fortress, for over a decade. Any chance this work will ever be published? Jake has been working on this monster for over 20 years, and it has been through innumerable revisions. I have a copy from the 1980's, and one just recently revised, and the difference is remarkable. He is constantly updating and changing things as new facts come to light, or he just decides that his older position was probably not correct. It is an absolutely masterful work (although having a very few errors) and will surely be the last word on the Alamo's detailed history, from it's beginnings, to the post-battle period. The work focuses mainly on the architecture (my own area of interest). Jake says that after he retires from the national Park Service in about 2 years, he is going to try to finish it up and get it published. It will surely become the top item on the "most essential Alamo books list", as it covers all the bases, from history, to tactics, to fortifications (both Mexican and Texian) and most importantly, (for me at least) architecture.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 6, 2007 2:30:58 GMT -5
Another item about which I'm curious is the stone building often depicted just south of the SW corner. Reportedly, Morales and his men took cover in this area. Do we have any definitive answer as to what this building was? It seems awful close to the walls to have been a residence. Jim Jim, The building to which you refer was one of the Indian houses built for the mission, which was left outside the compound when it was walled in against maurauding Apaches in the 1760's (I think, have to refer to my notes for the exact date). It was reportedly the same size as all the other houses along the west wal, that is, about 74 feet long, by 15 feet deep. A curious fact is that apparently, this house had no arcaded porch( I believe this is referred to in one of the inventories). By the way, there is a photograph of this house in Nelson's book, on page 79. It is the rough stone -looking building just adjacent to the little white house at the far right of the picture. To me it looks as if the far left room of the house has fallen in, leaving the northern 2 rooms standing. Mark
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 6, 2007 2:46:48 GMT -5
Another question for Mark: Since the "low wall" was apparently not really a low wall at all, do we have any idea how high the walls along the east of the compound (corrall and horse pen areas) really were? Does your most recent research suggest that these enclosures may have extended further north than most illustrations depict? I had a conversation with Tom Lindley some time ago, and he questioned if these areas might have actually reached as far as the north wall boundary. I'm sure we touched on this some time ago, but I wonder if your recent perusal of the Ivey manuscript has shed any new light on the matter. Jim Jim, The eastern courtyard wall which you ask about have fairly recently been decifered by jake Ivey, after a close inspection of the archaeollogical data, as well as an inspection of many old deeds in which the walls have been surveyed. The northern wall of the so-called "cavalry courtyard" was a very low affair, only about 4.5 feet high. It featured the crenelated, or denticulated, trench behind it, which was a protective area in which the infantry posted behind it could step after firing from the wall. This trench is seen in Labastida's map, as well as archeology. The wall was this height until the corner and continued at the same level for only a few feet down to the south, when it began to increase in height somewhat, but only a foot or so. When it reached the mid-point, or the dividing wall between the courtyards, it rose abruptly to a height of perhaps 8 to 10 feet and continued on south until reaching the northern wall of the Sacistry. The dividing wall between the north and south courtyards was in my opinion a bit lower, perhaps 7 or 8 feet high. By the way, this courtyard area, mainly, the exact location, even the existence at all, of this dividing wall is undergoing heated debate among those foolish enough to care about such things... With all due rspect to Lindley, if he is saying that the courtyards reached all the way to the north wall, he is out of his mind. I could recite many, many references which flatly dispute this, but the best thing I can say is tha archeology says they are exactly where we know them to be. He is apparently looking at Sanchez-Navarro's badly flawed map, and for some strange reason electing to believe what he sees. Strange, since Lindley rejects out of hand so many other features in Navarro's plat.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 6, 2007 8:10:28 GMT -5
Thanks, Mark. I had no idea the eastern wall was so low in places. Your mention of the acequia along the west prompts me to ask, how deep were te banks of this watercourse? You mention that they may have provided cover, something I hadn't considered due to their depiction in most art as little more than a shallow trickle (if acequiasare depicted at all). Wouldn't this western course have posed a problem to the attackers? On a similar note, have you uncovered any more information about the bodies of water to the east? Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 6, 2007 9:17:38 GMT -5
Wow, Mark! Thanks for all the great input, now about that palisade...?
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 6, 2007 13:51:21 GMT -5
Thanks, Mark. I had no idea the eastern wall was so low in places. Your mention of the acequia along the west prompts me to ask, how deep were te banks of this watercourse? You mention that they may have provided cover, something I hadn't considered due to their depiction in most art as little more than a shallow trickle (if acequiasare depicted at all). Wouldn't this western course have posed a problem to the attackers? On a similar note, have you uncovered any more information about the bodies of water to the east? Jim I have always considered it a possibility (without evidence) that the acequias, when close to the mission and/or in the plaza, might have been lined with rock or contained in rock walls. Any evidence of this in your digs, Mark? In any event, Antonio Cruz y Arocha's account says, "Colonel Juan Nepomuceno Seguin escaped from the Alamo [during] the night by the acequia. Cruz was waiting for him with a horse from a jacal [on the] west side in front of the church. Cruz lived in one of the jacales in the vicinity of the place of San [Antonio de] Valero" My scenario based on this and Mark's theory. Juan Seguin left via the "northern postern" in the middle room of the northernmost building, traveled south on foot in whatever cover was offered by the acequia which ran along the outside of the west wall -- and thus the rear of Cruz y Arocha's jacal in line with the building south of the S.W. corner -- and there mounted up with Cruz to ride out for the Goliad Road by whatever route evaded the Mexican encampment and batteries.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 6, 2007 14:09:11 GMT -5
Thanks, Mark. I had no idea the eastern wall was so low in places. Your mention of the acequia along the west prompts me to ask, how deep were te banks of this watercourse? You mention that they may have provided cover, something I hadn't considered due to their depiction in most art as little more than a shallow trickle (if acequiasare depicted at all). Wouldn't this western course have posed a problem to the attackers? On a similar note, have you uncovered any more information about the bodies of water to the east? Jim I have always considered it a possibility (without evidence) that the acequias, when close to the mission and/or in the plaza, might have been lined with rock or contained in rock walls. Any evidence of this in your digs, Mark? In any event, Antonio Cruz y Arocha's account says, "Colonel Juan Nepomuceno Seguin escaped from the Alamo [during] the night by the acequia. Cruz was waiting for him with a horse from a jacal [on the] west side in front of the church. Cruz lived in one of the jacales in the vicinity of the place of San [Antonio de] Valero" My scenario based on this and Mark's theory. Juan Seguin left via the "northern postern" in the middle room of the northernmost building, traveled south on foot in whatever cover was offered by the acequia which ran along the outside of the west wall -- and thus the rear of Cruz y Arocha's jacal in line with the building south of the S.W. corner -- and there mounted up with Cruz to ride out for the Goliad Road by whatever route evaded the Mexican encampment and batteries. Rich, That's a very good question, and one which I have tried , as yet unsuccessfully, to answer. I do know one thing, though..The portion of the acequia that ran from the northwest corner, down along the west wall to the southwest corner, was not lined with stone, because this portion was built only a few months earlier, in October/November 1835, I think, by Ugartachea's men (under Cos). This would have been done under duress, and in somewhat of a hurry, and they would not have had the time or the inclination to dress it up with stone. Another related, but more important point is this: Because of its recent construction, this portion of the acequia would have been all but devoid of the heavy brush that invariably grows up along any waterway, meaning that this stretch would have net had very good cover and concealment. Of course, it does not preclude someone from actually entering (Brrrr!) the waterway itself. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 6, 2007 14:10:35 GMT -5
I had never imagined the acequias being deep enough to provide any real cover. I thought perhaps on the east they might have been the ditches Sesma attacked during the breakouts, but I thought they were little more than very small streams. All this is interesting, and may explain all the comings and goings. Jim
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 6, 2007 14:25:52 GMT -5
Wow, Mark! Thanks for all the great input, now about that palisade...? Herb, The palisade was apparently under construction by Ugartachea's men whe the Texan investment of Bejar in late 1835 made all construction come to a halt. As you know, it was to have had a ditch out front, and a protective embankment of earth up against the outer surface of the palisade. Due to its early termination, only about 20 feet of the extreme western end of the palisade had this covering, leaving the remainder of its 115 foot length uncovered. The Texans, in true gringo style , had little or no inclination to complete this task, electing rather to have an abatis (tree fall) hauled into place. But in all fainess to the defenders, I am of the strong opiion that assaulting infantry wants no part of struggling with a mass of dead trees, especially while being shot at, and think that a similar barrier easily could have, and should have, been placed along the north wall.. As Ivey has found in his research, the palisade was sunk only about 2 feet, instead of the regulation 3, into the earth, and stood 8 feet above ground level. On the inside, there was a banquette, 1.75 to 2 feet tall against the inner surface of the palisade, on which the defending riflemen could stand. The palisade was loop-holed, of course, at intervals along the length. Ivey thinks that the one cannon placed at the wall's mid-point was situated at ground level, because Labastida does not show a platform. He and I disagree on this, as Labastida is on several things, inconsitent, and that having the gun at the same height as the banquette makes much more sense to me, as well as giving the gun a somewhat greater range. So, in my opinion, the gun was on a low, perhaps only 1.75 to 2 feet in height, platform. Or, if you prefer Ivey's interpretation, on ground level. While I am a strong follower of Labastida's drawing as it relates to the reality on the ground, I also realize that it has it's own set of mistakes and limitations. Ivey is much more attached to a literal interpretation of this map than am I. But this being said, he and I share a great, great many more opinions than we have disagreements
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 6, 2007 18:50:43 GMT -5
Interesting, I remember the two foot comment from one of the archeological reports, but I didn't realize that only part of the palisade was earth reinforced. Again I knew about the ditch not being completed but didn't put 2 + 2 together on the reinforcing earth.
Without the reinforcing earth, the palisade wall wasn't near as strong as I've been saying. Still, with the abatis, the flanking tambour at one end and the church at the other it wasn't the weak spot that popular culture holds. Just not quite as strong as I thought, either!
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 7, 2007 1:09:14 GMT -5
Another related, but more important point is this: Because of its recent construction, this portion of the acequia would have been all but devoid of the heavy brush that invariably grows up along any waterway, meaning that this stretch would have net had very good cover and concealment. Of course, it does not preclude someone from actually entering (Brrrr!) the waterway itself. Mark Well, speaking as someone who spent a lot of time in my younger days crawling around on my belly (never mind hands and knees) in and out of water, I do have to say that humans who spend all their time walking upright badly underestimate the amount of cover afforded the smallest dips, folds and ditches. To follow the route suggested Seguin must have gone into the ditch and presumably the water as well because otherwise he would have been silhouetted against the pale adobe/stone walls of the Alamo
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 7, 2007 10:41:02 GMT -5
Another related, but more important point is this: Because of its recent construction, this portion of the acequia would have been all but devoid of the heavy brush that invariably grows up along any waterway, meaning that this stretch would have net had very good cover and concealment. Of course, it does not preclude someone from actually entering (Brrrr!) the waterway itself. Mark Well, speaking as someone who spent a lot of time in my younger days crawling around on my belly (never mind hands and knees) in and out of water, I do have to say that humans who spend all their time walking upright badly underestimate the amount of cover afforded the smallest dips, folds and ditches. To follow the route suggested Seguin must have gone into the ditch and presumably the water as well because otherwise he would have been silhouetted against the pale adobe/stone walls of the Alamo This is the stuff, that makes all this worthwhile. The mentions of the Northern Postern, Seguins' escape, etc. have all come in to a lot sharper focus - at least for me.
|
|