A question for the Texans

[lcdrdanr]

When you visit the Alamo in San Antonio, you should walk across the street, across Alamo Plaza, and look at the sidewalk in front of where the old Woolworth's used to be. There used to be (I hope it still is) a brass strip set in the concrete which marked the original limits of the outer walls of the mission. At the time of the battle, the chapel had no roof on it and the defenders had quite a lot of wall space to defend.

I have always thought that had Travis made his stand at one of the other missions, San Juan or Espada, both of which had a small foot print and stouter walls, the 180 defenders might have been able to hold off the Mexican Army.

Not sure how "Remember Espada" or "Remember San Juan" would have played out as a battle cry though !!!

Fannin was a disaster as a leader. Goliad was a far greater disaster and a more dastardly act than the Alamo since the Mexican Army deliberately shot and killed unarmed prisoners, prisoners who had surrendered under an agreement of honorable treatment.

Dan R

 

[semperfi71]

I have been a visitor to the Alamo several times. Grew up not too far away and the entire history of that event is still awe inspiring to me.

It appears the defenders were really undecided as to what to do and then decided to stay in disobedience to orders from General Houston. A truly somewhat "rag-tag" group of militia-men they were undecided, even after staying was to what to do and who was going to command. Since Colonel Bowie fell ill command came under Colonel Travis.

Even after the Mexican troops begin to arrive in units and not enmasse the defenders could have probably still escaped, if not in large numbers at least in dribbles. They chose to stay.

At that moment they became some of the bravest men in recorded history. By then they pretty well knew they would not survive and so they prepared themselves as best they could to sell themselves expensively to General Santa Anna.

It has been reported that anywhere from 1,000 to 150 Mexican troops died at the Alamo in the assault and afterwards as wounded. Probably at best maybe 400 or so??? [I assume this based on the number of defenders and how much "lead" they could have slung in 90 minutes.]

It is rumored that two men actually survived the Alamo because there were two men who were on the rolls of particpants of the 1836 War as having "been at the Alamo". Last time I read this there was no corroborating evidence other than the names on the roll. It is assumed they were survivors of a group of about 30 to 36 men who broke from the walls at the final moments and were cut down by Mexican cavalry. There was a couple of jacals in that area that are assumed to have been the hiding places of the two men.

It is interesting that "Colonel Green" [I think that was his rank and name] was the "military engineer" [I think he actually was an "engineer" of some sort] who was tasked with designing the defenses of the Alamo. I assume after he received orders to do so from Colonel Travis.

I too often wondered if he, or someone else, suggested defending one of the smaller missions. Perhaps that was one of the reasons why Colonel Bowie and Colonel Travis were at odds. Colonel Bowie was a somewhat experienced "fighter" [even if not military style or trained] and I think Colonel Travis was not. I would think someone on the scene with experience as a fighter would have thought the Alamo too big.

Colonel Fannin at Goliad was evidentially a stupendous failure, although again we do not know all of the particulars, there could have been valid reasons for what occurred as to why he failed. BUT, had he and his men been at the Alamo, even if BEFORE General Santa Anna's arrival, I think the Alamo would have still fallen. General Santa Anna split his forces because of Alamo and Goliad, but had all of the Texicans been at the Alamo, most likely General Santa Anna would have also been there with his combined forces. Had this occurred, most likely General Santa Anna would not have had such widely split forces at San Jacinto and General Houston's battle would either not have occurred [it is suspected in some circles he really wanted to get to the Louisiana border] or he would have lost the fight when he did attack General Santa Anna.

Again, the history of the United States was "shot-through-with-luck" at a most crucial time. Same as at Midway.

I pray that sometime soon, or in our future, it will happen again because we will be needing it.

 

[Double-O-Dave]

A lot of people fail to consider that at the time, Mexico had a modern army - if I recall correctly, the fourth largest army in the world. There army had modern weapons and professionally trained officers and NCOs. You can't fault the bravery of the Texicans, but their military strategy was a different matter.

Regards,

Dave

 

[lcdrdanr]

Popular fiction doesn't like to admit it but there was one man at the Alamo who refused to cross the line Travis supposedly drew with his sword. Moses Rose, a Frenchman, decided discretion was the better part of valor and refused to cross the line. He slipped out of the Alamo that night, got through the Mexican army lines and got away. His bravery was never impugned (he had been a soldier in Napoleon's Grand Legion, a Colonel I think, and had been awarded the Croix de Guerre by Napoleon for bravery in battle. He just figured the odds were too much at the Alamo.

There was also a black slave belonging to, I think, Captain Dickenson, and of course Dickenson's wife and daughter (Emily, the daughter of the Alamo) all of whom survived the battle.

Could the defenders have gotten away had they tried seriously? Probably. Remember Bonham rode through the Mexican lines several times carrying dispatches and trying to rally reinforcements. The Georgia Battalion arrived quite late in the siege as I recall, and they were some 30 men who had just landed in Texas a few weeks before. Although Santa Ana had demanded the surrender of the Alamo on 23 February, on March first Capt Smith and 32 volunteers from Gonzales came through the Mexican lines and entered the Alamo at 3:00 AM. So, it is conceivable that men could have escaped had they chosen to do so.

Only one defender was given a Christian burial, I cannot remember his name but his brother was an officer in the Mexican Army and received permission from Santa Ana to give his brother a Christian burial. All the others were placed in pyres and burned, the ashes and remains were placed in a common grave.

There were survivors at Goliad partially due to the individual Mexican soldiers, sick berth attendants, who circulated among some of the Texicans and warned them to run when they were marched out of Goliad. On Palm Sunday, March 27, General Urrea (who had sought clemency for the Texican prisoners) obeyed the orders of Santa Ana and had the prisoners marched out of Goliad in 3 columns. Just outside of the town of Goliad, the unarmed men were lined up and shot. In the confus8ion, some broke free and ran off into the native brush and although 390 unarmed men were shot down and killed, there were about 27 who escaped.

Both the Alamo and Goliad proved to be errors by Santa Ana who believed that the almost total wipe out would take the heart out of the Texicans and force them to quit. Instead, the two massacres consolidated several factions and stiffened the Texas resolve.

A similar event, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, caused a similar reaction some hundred odd years later.

Dan R

 

[wbraswell]

I can't believe that Fannin and his men could have made any difference inside the Alamo. You would still have the same scenario. The Alamo would still be surrounded by vastly superior numbers and resources. The Mexican army, if they had wanted to, could have starved them out. Now maybe, if they had an M2 .50 cal on each corner with plenty of ammo..... My Dad took me there when I was 12. I need to go back. Some of my ancestors were citizens of the Republic of Texas.

 

[armadillo]

Originally posted by lcdrdanr:
Moses Rose, a Frenchman,

I read in "Texas Highways Magazine" that he moved to Logansport, LA (on the Sabine River) where he lived another 20 years or so.

 

[norad45]

I think that another 400 men would have to have made some difference assuming that they had adequate food, water, and ammunition. Had they been able to withstand the first assault, Santa Anna might have been forced into a lengthy siege, which of course would have played into Houston's hands.

The comment that they should have picked a smaller mission to defend is an interesting one. In comparison, one reason why the British were successful at Rourke's Drift was because the place was so small. Of course, it helped that the Zulus didn't have any artillery, which was a problem that Santa Anna didn't have.