Thread: SAM HOUSTON
View Single Post
 
Old 12-15-2013, 04:08 PM
Texas Star Texas Star is offline
US Veteran
Absent Comrade
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,362
Likes: 24,260
Liked 16,154 Times in 7,408 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by finesse_r View Post
There is no doubt the Texas soldiers were a group of individuals and not a real army. The fact that they followed any one man is a testament to Houston’s ability to command. Just holding that group together was a job in itself.

We can also second guess his strategy of retreat or who actually led the fight at San Jacinto? The bottom line whatever Houston did worked and he took out a professional army with a much smaller group of untrained men, and did so in spectacular fashion.

It is easy to pick and choose quotes from those who opposed him and even a quote or two of his own out of context to make him look like a poor general. The facts are he led a small group against a well trained large group, and won, and won handily.

Was he a good man by today’s standards, meaning a liberalized, civilized, government dependent wimp like most men today? Probably not. All I can say is that I am glad he was in charge when he was in charge and he gets my vote for one of the top military generals. Otherwise we would already be speaking Spanish, rather than just moving in that direction.
I have read the several posts about the relative sizes and competence of the armies involved. The Texans were a volunteer militia, more like the South African Boer Commandos than anything else that comes to mind, or maybe the Swiss, although the Swiss are more formal in their organization.

But good generals with fewer troops have beaten larger armies. The Roman who defeated Boadicea's Celtic hordes did so with about 10,000 men, scraped together from what was left of local legions after the intial uprising, in which the angry lady's minions had burned Londinium and devastated large areas of Britain. I think Sir Walter Raleigh's Royal Navy was numerically inferior to the Spanish Armada, but took advantage of weather and other conditions to triumph.

I thought both Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart and G.S. Patton were considered great generals, as was MacArthur after his landing at Inchon. Some say that David Petraeus (sp?) is a great general now. Eisenhower was, given the scope of his vast responsibility.

I was taught in history classes at university in Texas that Houston intentionally adopted an old Roman tactic of running to lengthen his enemy's supply lines. Then, he struck at San Jacinto when the enemy were enjoying an afternoon siesta, having no expectation that the smaller Texas "army" would dare to attack. I don't know if the quadroon (?) whore was deliberately used to occupy Santa Anna at that crucial moment. But it's possible. The song in her honor is still widely sung.

Last edited by Texas Star; 12-15-2013 at 04:12 PM.
Reply With Quote