Post by marklemon on Jan 5, 2008 22:20:52 GMT -5
Since poor Sanchez-Navarro has been so coldly dropped and dismissed by some (who should know better) in this important field of study, perhaps this is a good time to review his strengths and weaknesses. Much has been made of his incorrect compound configuration: too many outer ditches and inner banquettes, as well as other inaccuracies...these have led many scholars to turn up their noses dismissively at him, fearing perhaps to believe anything he tells us because of a number of documented errors.
But here I believe is where these scholars go terribly wrong- for life and the whole human experience is replete with examples of partially correct memory. If I visit a place and later draw some diagrams from memory, I will make some mistakes to be sure.But it is just as certain I will get many things right. Those features which we know are wrong can be easily dismissed, but the rest, must be carefully considered, and weighed against all other known data, both written and graphic, in order to come to a reasoned, intelligent decision. In this field of study, there is so little existing contemporaneous data, especially graphic data, that we simply cannot afford to be so exclusionary and dismissive.
A cursory comparison of correct vs incorrect features revealed some surprising numbers (and keep in mind, these numbers are preliminary). Hopefully, this review will cast Sanchez-Navarro in a better light. Certainly he deserves better that the short shrift he has gotten lately.
Correct:
1. Compound is correctly placed in relation to surrounding area, and is correctly oriented as per north, south, east and west.
2. North wall features embrasured batteries (as per Labastida)
3. West wall features two embrasured guns (as per Labastida)
3. Correctly shows the two eastern courtyards, north and south.
4. Correctly places the porteria (entrance) to the convento.
5. Fortin de Cos with long ramp and three guns is correctly depicted.
6. The palisade , with its one gun (embrasured) is corrrectly depicted (also as per Labastida)
7. Shows and explains the abatis.
8. Shows and explains the reinforced north wall (verified by DLP and Filisola)
9. Correctly shows the inner trench in the northern courtyard ( verified by archaeology)
10. Correctly depicted the proper shape of the lunette (verified by archaeology)
11. Correctly depicted the lunette outer ditch, as "fading away" to ground level, as it neared the palisade (verified by archaeology)
12. Correctly depicted the three unmounted guns in plaza (verified by Ampudia)
13. Correctly depicted the "Espaldon" (two gun battery facing the main gate-verified by Jameson's map legend)
14. Correctly shows the loopholes and doors in the west wall (verified by DLP)
15. Correctly showes the large pecan tree (verified by many other sources)
16. Correctly shows the interior trenches dug by defenders (verified by DLP)
17. Correctly depicts the configuration of the low barracks/main gate/north kitchen wing (as per Labastida)
18. Correctly shows 18 mounted, and 3 dismounted guns, for the correct total of 21 (verified by many sources)
20. Correctly shows location and orientation of the convento steps(verieifed in the inventories)
21. Correctly shows some north wall banquettes(verified by Filisola)
22. Correctly(more or less) shows the location of the northeast circular outer ditch, (verified by archaeology)
23. Correctly shows an existing portion of the convento arcaded cloister (verified by as post battle maps)
Incorrect
1. Incorrect church /south courtyard placement
2. Incorrectly shows long row of west wall houses
3. Incorrectly omits SW corner gun position
4. Draws too many banquettes
5. Draws too many circular ditches
6. Incorrectly placed a dog-leg in the eastern courtyard wall line.
7.Incorrectly shows (on one of his plan views) the lunette ditch extending along the southern portion of the west wall (probably confused this portion with acequia)
There may be more pro-con features, but this is a pretty complete list. So, what we have is a more than 3 to 1 ratio of correct to incorrect features. While the incorrect features cause some concern, they can very easily be explained as faulty memory, and over-depicting another, known feature, too many times.
The correct features outnumber the incorrect ones significantly, and should a similar comparison be made with Labastida (pro-con) I'd venture a guess that they'd be of comparable accuracy. In any event, the high number of accurate features shown by S/N should certainly show even the most skeptical, that he should not be so easily dismissed.
Mark
But here I believe is where these scholars go terribly wrong- for life and the whole human experience is replete with examples of partially correct memory. If I visit a place and later draw some diagrams from memory, I will make some mistakes to be sure.But it is just as certain I will get many things right. Those features which we know are wrong can be easily dismissed, but the rest, must be carefully considered, and weighed against all other known data, both written and graphic, in order to come to a reasoned, intelligent decision. In this field of study, there is so little existing contemporaneous data, especially graphic data, that we simply cannot afford to be so exclusionary and dismissive.
A cursory comparison of correct vs incorrect features revealed some surprising numbers (and keep in mind, these numbers are preliminary). Hopefully, this review will cast Sanchez-Navarro in a better light. Certainly he deserves better that the short shrift he has gotten lately.
Correct:
1. Compound is correctly placed in relation to surrounding area, and is correctly oriented as per north, south, east and west.
2. North wall features embrasured batteries (as per Labastida)
3. West wall features two embrasured guns (as per Labastida)
3. Correctly shows the two eastern courtyards, north and south.
4. Correctly places the porteria (entrance) to the convento.
5. Fortin de Cos with long ramp and three guns is correctly depicted.
6. The palisade , with its one gun (embrasured) is corrrectly depicted (also as per Labastida)
7. Shows and explains the abatis.
8. Shows and explains the reinforced north wall (verified by DLP and Filisola)
9. Correctly shows the inner trench in the northern courtyard ( verified by archaeology)
10. Correctly depicted the proper shape of the lunette (verified by archaeology)
11. Correctly depicted the lunette outer ditch, as "fading away" to ground level, as it neared the palisade (verified by archaeology)
12. Correctly depicted the three unmounted guns in plaza (verified by Ampudia)
13. Correctly depicted the "Espaldon" (two gun battery facing the main gate-verified by Jameson's map legend)
14. Correctly shows the loopholes and doors in the west wall (verified by DLP)
15. Correctly showes the large pecan tree (verified by many other sources)
16. Correctly shows the interior trenches dug by defenders (verified by DLP)
17. Correctly depicts the configuration of the low barracks/main gate/north kitchen wing (as per Labastida)
18. Correctly shows 18 mounted, and 3 dismounted guns, for the correct total of 21 (verified by many sources)
20. Correctly shows location and orientation of the convento steps(verieifed in the inventories)
21. Correctly shows some north wall banquettes(verified by Filisola)
22. Correctly(more or less) shows the location of the northeast circular outer ditch, (verified by archaeology)
23. Correctly shows an existing portion of the convento arcaded cloister (verified by as post battle maps)
Incorrect
1. Incorrect church /south courtyard placement
2. Incorrectly shows long row of west wall houses
3. Incorrectly omits SW corner gun position
4. Draws too many banquettes
5. Draws too many circular ditches
6. Incorrectly placed a dog-leg in the eastern courtyard wall line.
7.Incorrectly shows (on one of his plan views) the lunette ditch extending along the southern portion of the west wall (probably confused this portion with acequia)
There may be more pro-con features, but this is a pretty complete list. So, what we have is a more than 3 to 1 ratio of correct to incorrect features. While the incorrect features cause some concern, they can very easily be explained as faulty memory, and over-depicting another, known feature, too many times.
The correct features outnumber the incorrect ones significantly, and should a similar comparison be made with Labastida (pro-con) I'd venture a guess that they'd be of comparable accuracy. In any event, the high number of accurate features shown by S/N should certainly show even the most skeptical, that he should not be so easily dismissed.
Mark