|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 4, 2008 13:35:26 GMT -5
Based on the interesting and informative (if not intense) discussion we've had on the lunette, I feel it needs a thread of it's own.
A question I have is in regards to LaBastida's interpretation of the lunette. The opening to the lunette as shown by LaBastida, is this a "swing" style gate or a simple opening?
Another question. If the lunette was designed as Jake believes, why wouldn't Cos' engineers apply the same defensive philosophy to the area of the palisade? If a two and a half to three foot berm of earth was deemed sufficient protection for the lunette, and barbette fire preferable to embrasure, why go through all the trouble of building a palisade?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 4, 2008 15:14:40 GMT -5
I think the short answer on this one is that they were serving two entirely different purposes. I have to disagree with Wolf that the lunette was the strongest part of the fortifications. It was simply an "outwork", built outside the real perimeter for the purpose of protecting the gate and (higher) perimeter wall behind it.
The stockade on the other hand was built as a wall
Incidentally, a question for the archaeologists here; there's been some discussion of the western wall of the presumed campo santo, but what about the south - has there been any evidence of an earlier wall, perhaps continuing the low barracks/gatehouse wall and running parallel to the church.
Did Cos build the palisade because there was a wide open gap or did he replace an existing wall further out in order to shorten his defensive perimeter?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 4, 2008 16:50:36 GMT -5
I think the short answer on this one is that they were serving two entirely different purposes. I have to disagree with Wolf that the lunette was the strongest part of the fortifications. It was simply an "outwork", built outside the real perimeter for the purpose of protecting the gate and (higher) perimeter wall behind it. It's probably, depends on how you want to define strong. I agree that the tambour was an outwork designed to defend the gate. But, given the outer ditch, it's own earth walls, and that flanking fire (though perhaps limited) was available from the Low Barracks, I doubt if you can find another position that provided as much protection, and capable of providing fire in mutiple directions on the enemy. The church is perhaps the only position that possibly provided better protection, but it's ability to bring fire on the enmy was limited. And the palisade with it's abatis is the only other position that really offered anything to provde "standoff" or delay the enemy from reach the deadspace under the walls.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jan 4, 2008 17:33:56 GMT -5
The 1860 Potter states in the key to his map that the palisade position (although Potter only recognizes it as "an entrenchment running from the south-west angle of the chapel to the gate") was "not manned against the assault". This might be another piece of evidence arguing the ill-preparedness of the defenders, or it might provide further evidence that the palisade never came under assault. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 4, 2008 17:41:48 GMT -5
I'd be inclined to go for the latter. Thanks to the abatis it wasn't going to come under direct assault and didn't. Irrespective of whether Morales assaulted the gate or got all of his men in by the SW corner (and while Wolf's scenario might be plausible in other circumstances I don't see it working here), that's where the threat was coming from and if anybody did rush to the stockade at the first alarm they either shifted right to fight Morales, or simply took advantage of the apparent absence of anything nasty to bug out right away
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 4, 2008 22:50:47 GMT -5
First thing: Glenn, you came away with the wrong impression for that part of the argument -- a barbette position with "light" guns, had a parapet 2.75 feet high, on the inside face -- that is, from the top of the platform where the gun sat to the top of the parapet over which the gun fired. My interpretation of the Labastida plan is that there were two gun platforms inside it, but that the parapets themselves were substantial. The ditch was at least five feet deep or more, and the earth from that was used to form the parapets and platforms, and would probably have been at least four or five feet high above ground level, so that the height from ditch bottom to parapet top would have been nine or ten feet. Wouldn't have been a simple hop, at least coming across the ditch.
The gateway itself was blocked off on its east side, probably narrowing it down to about 10 feet, just wide enough for gun carriages.
On the west side of the tambour, Labastida shows the ditch stopping just around the corner from the south face, and archaeology found this section of trench as well. The space from the end of the ditch north to the wall is shown on Labastida's plan as some sort of gateway or barricade, with a bit of offset embankment right at the Low Barracks wall -- this also was apparently to allow guns and people, and maybe horses, to get through, although with a rightangled turn to actually get through the gate. This little area may have been easier to get through or over, with no ditching and everything at ground level.
How this was constructed -- Stuart, actually the tambour, as a field fortification en barbette, would probably have followed standard fortification techniques for a barbette battery, which is described fairly well in the handbooks, so I do have something like instructions on how to build one, and the gateway on its west side would probably have been one of the standard things to close such an opening. I'll put together a little something on that, maybe Monday or over this weekend. Mark, keep in mind I'm working out the construction scenario for my version of this thing, not saying this was the way it had to be.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 5, 2008 11:01:53 GMT -5
Jake, That's one thing that just floors me. I can't believe that on the one hand, you believe so strongly in a personal interpretation of something that Labastida never says, while on the other hand, have never actually "built," or engineered the thing, either on paper, or in 3-D, to see how feasible, or dubious it may turn out to be. If you aren't saying "this is the way it had to be," then why are you so dogmatically sure about it? Why not first do the "math" and engineer the thing, then extol its virtues?
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 5, 2008 17:12:48 GMT -5
I sure did! Thanks for the additional explanation of your interpretation, Jake.
This is all very interesting information. I have yet to see two identical views of the lunette/tambour. LaBastida, Sanchez-Navarro, Potter, Zaboly, Nelson, Mark, and Jake...all different interpretations.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 5, 2008 23:44:20 GMT -5
Now hold on, Mark -- who's the one who keeps swearing no matter what I tell you, you'll never change your opinion on this? While at the same time adding a wooden stockade without any evidence at all except a few four-inch-wide post molds from some unknown period?
And what do you mean, something Labastida never says, when he shows something we both agree is a gun position? Once again: we're not arguing about whether this thing had guns, or platforms, or parapets -- we're arguing about the configuration of those things. So how is it that mine is a personal interpretation of something Labastida never says, and yours is pristine truth?
I have worked it out, of course -- once I had all the ditch excavation information I worked out the probable surface from which it all came, which gave me the volumes of earth available, and then I calculated what that would build, and I looked in Wheeler and Mahan to see how to build it and what sort of gateway, and all that. Very nice thing, very serious, non-frivolous defensive position, very classical. But that's just an excercise in what could have been there, using the ideas that a) it was en barbette because it didn't have embrasures and it didn't have little cannons drawn in, and b) it was a standard gun position like those described in Mahan, with two platforms, that more or less followed the plan shown by Labastida. No additional assumptions, no structural additions, just a straight classical gun platform. But that's a speculative recreation (and recreation in the other sense as well -- it's fun to work out earthworks, and I also wanted an estimate of how long it would take to build such a thing) of what might be there. I'll argue that it was those two thing, a and b, because that's the simplest conclusions about what Labastida shows, not adding any additional structures like embrasures or stockades. But the actual working out of how it looked and like that -- speculation. So I'm not saying this is the way it had to be, I'm saying if you make additional assumptions like embrasures not shown on the Labastida plan or stockades not shown on anything except Zaboly and Nelson drawings, say so, say you assumed those things, don't act like you've seen the ultimate truth. Grump, snarl.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 6, 2008 0:58:07 GMT -5
Now hold on, Mark -- who's the one who keeps swearing no matter what I tell you, you'll never change your opinion on this? While at the same time adding a wooden stockade without any evidence at all except a few four-inch-wide post molds from some unknown period? And what do you mean, something Labastida never says, when he shows something we both agree is a gun position? Once again: we're not arguing about whether this thing had guns, or platforms, or parapets -- we're arguing about the configuration of those things. So how is it that mine is a personal interpretation of something Labastida never says, and yours is pristine truth? I have worked it out, of course -- once I had all the ditch excavation information I worked out the probable surface from which it all came, which gave me the volumes of earth available, and then I calculated what that would build, and I looked in Wheeler and Mahan to see how to build it and what sort of gateway, and all that. Very nice thing, very serious, non-frivolous defensive position, very classical. But that's just an excercise in what could have been there, using the ideas that a) it was en barbette because it didn't have embrasures and it didn't have little cannons drawn in, and b) it was a standard gun position like those described in Mahan, with two platforms, that more or less followed the plan shown by Labastida. No additional assumptions, no structural additions, just a straight classical gun platform. But that's a speculative recreation (and recreation in the other sense as well -- it's fun to work out earthworks, and I also wanted an estimate of how long it would take to build such a thing) of what might be there. I'll argue that it was those two thing, a and b, because that's the simplest conclusions about what Labastida shows, not adding any additional structures like embrasures or stockades. But the actual working out of how it looked and like that -- speculation. So I'm not saying this is the way it had to be, I'm saying if you make additional assumptions like embrasures not shown on the Labastida plan or stockades not shown on anything except Zaboly and Nelson drawings, say so, say you assumed those things, don't act like you've seen the ultimate truth. Grump, snarl. Jake, with due respect, the problem with your method is that you have obviously fallen completely in love with Labastida, and have, in doing so, taken on the role of speaking for him even when he does not speak for himself. NOWHERE in his map does he say his position is a barbette. ALL he had to do is take his pen and make a "J" by the thing and you'd be correct. BUT HE DID NOT DO SO.....Oh, I see, now you're going to speak for him again and tell me "well, he forgot..he was so busy and tired, you see.." You simply do not have the power to say what he was thinking, and what he wasn't thinking, and what he meant, or didn't mean. If he doesn't show it as an en barbette position, you cannot by tortured logic or "informed speculation"make it so. So this is how, to answer your question, you are saying something Labastida never says. On the other hand, Sanchez-Navarro, (whom I'm sure you'll be telling me next wasn't even there) SAW the place, was there inside and out, walked around it, and drew the lunette SPECIFICALLY as an embrasured position THREE TIMES, (No "informed speculation" necessary here).....But, what? Because he draws a bad schematic? Or a bad plan? SO WHAT! Look at Mary Maverick's drawing. Certainly no Rembrandt, but full of good information. You are blowing smoke, trying to portray everything in S/N as crap because he drew it badly. There's a wealth of good information in it, that we KNOW was correct, and verified by not only archaeology, but the written record, (and hey, even verified by your hero Labastida)...So your summary dismissal of S?N does not change the fact that much of what we know about the compound comes from him. Please tell me, just for giggles, whose outline of the lunette is more accurate, Sanchez-navarro's, or the vaunted Labastida?
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 6, 2008 1:08:13 GMT -5
Hm. Nastiness level going up. Still, I'll try one question. We both assume the tambour is a gun position, right?
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 6, 2008 1:21:43 GMT -5
And what happened to the agreement the other day, where we decided to let this be an area of disagreement?
You know I trust Labastida, and you know the reasons why -- at least, I presume you read the article I wrote about it. You apparently don't know any significant details about what I think about Sanchez, or why, so why do you insist on putting words in my mouth about him?
And to answer your question, obviously Sanchez's outline of the lunette is more accurate, as a plan, but also obviously, not actually accurate, in a measured drawing sense. How do I know? By comparing it to the archaeology. So from this I should conclude what?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 6, 2008 1:22:27 GMT -5
Hm. Nastiness level going up. Still, I'll try one question. We both assume the tambour is a gun position, right? I'll take your non-answer of my question as acquiesence that Sanchez-Navarro's version of the lunette has proven, BASED ON ARCHAEOLOGY, to be much more accurate than Labastida's. Anyone not clear on this can simply look at S/N's Alamo plan, then flip to the 1988 Fox dig, both in Nelson. And yes, no argument that the tambour/lunette is a gun position.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 6, 2008 1:31:17 GMT -5
And what happened to the agreement the other day, where we decided to let this be an area of disagreement? You know I trust Labastida, and you know the reasons why -- at least, I presume you read the article I wrote about it. You apparently don't know any significant details about what I think about Sanchez, or why, so why do you insist on putting words in my mouth about him? And to answer your question, obviously Sanchez's outline of the lunette is more accurate, as a plan, but also obviously, not actually accurate, in a measured drawing sense. How do I know? By comparing it to the archaeology. So from this I should conclude what? Gee, I don't know...Hmmm, what can we conclude from an eyewitness who draws a feature fairly accurately, (without any serious attempt to make it an exact schematic, he still got it better than Labastida)... Well I guess we can give him some credit for accurate depiction. Why is it so hard to give any type of credence to the guy, when we know he got so much correct? This subject is beginning to absolutely baffle me. He made some errors...so? This suddenly means EVERYTHING he drew was "crap?" How then do you explain those things he got right? What? Did Labastida creep into S/N's tent at night and make corrections?
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 6, 2008 1:51:47 GMT -5
You're saying that you've based your conclusions about the tambour on the depiction by SN. So let's look at that. How did you decide which of the two plans to follow, the one with a third gun position instead of the west gate, or the one with a gate instead?
And why, then, do you show a stockade wall when he doesn't? And why do you show an earth embankment when he shows some sort of stone or adobe facing? Presumably the answers to these two are archaeological information? So did you place your stockade wall where the archaeology said it would be, if those posts were a stockade wall?
|
|