|
Post by Jake on Jan 15, 2008 14:01:39 GMT -5
Funny that with the information from those who had fortified and defended the Alamo in October-December, '35, the Mexican Army didn't focus a couple six or nine pounders on the sections of adobe wall along the west side and just punch them down. The walls were about 3.5 or 4 feet thick, but still not particularly well braced, and should have come down without much resistance. Wonder why this wasn't done? Along with knocking down the southwestern stone house, cutting down the big pecan, and all that.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 15, 2008 14:49:04 GMT -5
So it appears that we should say: If the Texans were going to try to hold Bexar, they had no real choice but to go into the Alamo -- but with the numbers they had, they had no hope of holding the place? Rick Range et al. seems fairly convinced that a better defense could have held the place, with no additional numbers -- what do we think of their argument? I think a better defense may have made a difference on March 6th, or it may have forced Santa Anna not to attack at all, but instead go about a more formal reduction of the defenses. The problem with holding the Alamo is the arrival of the Mexican12 pounders (March 7th?). It would only have taken a matter of days to reduce the walls and dismount/disable a large portion of the defenders' artillery.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 15, 2008 16:10:12 GMT -5
Yes -- you could argue that the seige lasted as long as it did only because Santa Anna's larger guns were travelling slow -- had they arrived when the main army did, the seige would have been over in a day or two ... although you could also argue that Santa Anna could have taken the place any time he wanted to give the order, with troops alone (effectively) as he did.
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Jan 15, 2008 19:55:47 GMT -5
Rick Range et al. seems fairly convinced that a better defense could have held the place, with no additional numbers -- what do we think of their argument? I don't see anything short of additional men that could have allowed the Texans to hold their position. With better than 10:1 odds, the only thing that could have prevented Santa Anna from carrying the works would have been the continuation of piecemeal attacks. Once an all out coordinated assault was undertaken, it was only a matter of time before the walls were overrun.
|
|
|
Post by glforeman on Jan 15, 2008 22:04:18 GMT -5
The three weeks of inactivity prior to the arrival of Santa Anna's forces pretty much says it all about the Texians. It's one thing to design your defenses for an impressive showdown with professionals, but only disciplined veterans could have stood up in any fashion at the Alamo. The siege pretty much signed the death warrant of these volunteers. Another way to put it: Fancy fortifications don't turn out fightin' men.
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Jan 15, 2008 22:20:34 GMT -5
Funny that . . . the Mexican Army didn't focus a couple six or nine pounders on the sections of adobe wall along the west side and just punch them down. Sections of the north wall also appear to have been extremely vulnerable (as is evidenced by the eventual breach) and the exposed sections of wooden revetments in the unfinished defensive portions of the wall would have made a tempting target to Mexican artillery. Although the stone wall there was probably around three feet thick, its poor condition would have been known to Mexican officers and must have been easily recognizable - even from a great distance.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 15, 2008 22:37:53 GMT -5
The three weeks of inactivity prior to the arrival of Santa Anna's forces pretty much says it all about the Texians. It's one thing to design your defenses for an impressive showdown with professionals, but only disciplined veterans could have stood up in any fashion at the Alamo. The siege pretty much signed the death warrant of these volunteers. Another way to put it: Fancy fortifications don't turn out fightin' men. Ditto, Gary, you stole my thunder...I was also going to use as an imperfect analogy, the stand at Rorke's Drift by the (Welsh) 22nd Reg't of Foot. True, they had excellent breech-loading weapons in the Martini-Henry, and the enemy had no artillery, but neither did the British. The really deciding factor, and main difference in the two battles I feel was that the Zulu's were attacking a highly trained, well-disciplined force of regular infantry, while the Mexicans were attacking a very loosely organised, poorly disciplined force of volunteers. I'd even say that the Zulu's almost exclusive use of the assagai (stabbing spear) was analagous to the Mexican's heavy reliance on the bayonette once inside the walls and close enough to use them. I tend to think that if the British (armed with the Brown Bess, or Baker Rifles and the allotment of Alamo cannon, with trained crews) had been in the Alamo in place of the Texans, and all else being the same, they may have eventually been overwhelmed, but I'd bet good money they would have built a very effective second line of defense, and used it well, perhaps even repulsing the infantry assaults launched against them until falling perhaps to massed artillery fire with infantry follow-up.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 16, 2008 11:51:44 GMT -5
Wow, what a picture, Mark -- the Brits forming ranks and volley firing against the Mexican Army coming over the walls. Rork's Drift in San Antonio -- makes the hair stand up on your neck.
|
|