dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Nov 3, 2017 17:51:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 3, 2017 18:13:09 GMT
As far as I can see the Mexican casualties are all complete fiction Dave.
The Mexicans probably had somewhere between 60 to 100 KIA's and another two to three hundred wounded. The Mexicans lacked any kind of legitimate medical treatment, so probably a good number of those wounded also died shortly after the battle.
What you can get a pretty good handle on is the Mexican order of battle for the assault and those numbers tell us that only between 1400-1600 made the actual assault. So if you say that total Mexican casualties were in the 25 percent range that was still a good day's work on the part of the defending force.
Losers try to inflate the number of casualties incurred on the other side, while winners always try to minimize
There are some pretty respected names listed on that chart, along with a few who cannot be taken seriously. Almonte is the only source I take anyway seriously on the Mexican side. de la Pena was a fraud.
Notice what Lord and Hardin have to say. They are both serious people. Problem is with Lord is that he wrote nearly 60 years ago, and a lot has been learned since.
Something you will run into with the Alamo is much the same as with LBH, The Alamo and LBH are journeys not destinations. The best thing about the Alamo though is that they journey takes on much more good well researched fuel, than LBH ever will. Somewhere in Mexican records, probably in some dusty box, most of the answers will be eventually found.
As of today though, there is still much we do not know, and some of the things we think we know are complete fiction, such as the 1824 flag. What we do know is that the only flag captured by Mexican forces was the New Orleans Gray's flag, and it still exists in Mexican custody, which is exactly where it should be.
If you stick to a number above two hundred defenders but not over 250 there is not one soul on God's green earth that can tell you that you are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 3, 2017 18:35:29 GMT
I would encourage you to get hold of a copy of Hansen's "Alamo Reader" a collection of all know contenporary documents on the Alamo Dave. It is very expensive, so the library or inter-library loan may be the best course.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Nov 4, 2017 0:24:31 GMT
QC Thank you for suggesting Hansen's "Alamo Reader" which I will check in with the library about a loan. The flag of the New Orleans's Grays was more than likely made out of silk and since it has been in the custody of the Mexican government since 1836 I suspect that if it still exists it must be in really bad shape. The Museum of the Confederacy has long been restoring many fags that were made of silk and the process is expensive and time demanding. Would or could the Mexican government spend valuable resources and man power restoring a flag of traitors? Probably not.
I know little about de la Pena except his diary is highly suspect and he in someways reminds me of Theo Goldin in that he was everywhere and heard all important conversations. So you seem to be on target regarding his trustworthiness.
In regards to members of the Mexican and its casualties they were poorly treated by Santa Anna then and by their own government since. No provisions were made for medicines or doctors by Santa Anna and in fact saved a few medical personnel from the Goliad massacre to treat his wounded 3 weeks after the fall of the Alamo. Yet how many soldiers were identified except a few generals and staff members? Texas remembers the fallen and Mexico knows nothing. Sad very sad. Brave men deserved better from their leader and government. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 4, 2017 1:31:55 GMT
Well he did invent chewing gum.
It was a time when very few records were kept Dave, and thinking about it how many of those you would expect to keep those records were literate.
Getting back to the Alamo defenders though, most of them were identified as being defenders was as a result of land claims filed by their nearest relative. Such statements as - I left so in so at the Alamo on 2 March - fill those records. So other than that prime source the only ones who were widely known were the famous, like Travis and Bowie. Taking the next step on that how many actual defenders identification slipped through the crack by not having anyone knowing they were there, no relative, no friend who knew where they were going etc.
I suppose we are very fortunate to know what we do know about them, which with very few exception is a name and possibly where they were born.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 4, 2017 15:55:14 GMT
Another book that you should have in your Alamo library is "Blood of Noble Men" by Huffines and illustrated by Zaboly.
Huffines gives you a day by day from primary sources and the illustrations by Zaboly alone make the book worth twice what you pay for it
If your interest lies in the mission structure, go to Nelson.
Both of these books are reasonably priced and can be obtained on line from the Alamo Museum book store
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Nov 4, 2017 20:02:12 GMT
I have Huffines's book and Lord's and a few more. I am still amazed that not one young Mexican history. PhD candidate has not researched the members of Santa Anna's army and produced a dissertation that could morph into a book. I know that in this country we have had countless doctoral students write about our nation's wars and would expect the same south of the border. I am sure that many students have produced these papers but evidently there is little to no interest by Mexicans for those stories or we would have heard of them or seen them translated.
De la Penna's diary---if you believe that it would lay undiscovered fro 119 years---is the best known document regarding the Mexican army at the Alamo that I know of. Perhaps there are others that you are aware of or other members of this board know of. Reagrds Dave PS I have left the Crockett story out of the mix as that is a dog chasing its tail story
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 5, 2017 1:13:55 GMT
Dave: I am not all that sure that Mexican military records are all that open for research purposes. Lord had to practically move heaven and earth to get at the material he did.
The Almonte diary is the best, but unfortunately we only have pieces. His rendition of the siege though is most reliable.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 24, 2017 20:07:56 GMT
Here is one for you Alamo fans; link
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 23, 2018 1:51:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 23, 2018 12:07:45 GMT
Dave, I didn’t know those Six pound Rio Grande cannon used at the Alamo were around a hundred years old when they used them on those walls and were made in Great Britain, Wales to be exact. Very interesting as I thought that most of the cannon used during that battle may have been French, and probably Napoleonic.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 24, 2018 16:49:03 GMT
I have never had much faith in the provenance of any of the artillery said to be an "Alamo" gun.
Supposedly the Alamo contained the largest artillery park in one place west of the Mississippi, and the 18 pounder the largest gun west of the Mississippi as well. I don't know why that came to be, for at the time of the battle San Antonio de Bexar was another variation of Bumscrew Egypt.
Most if not all of those guns therefore would have been brought to San Antonio by either the Spanish before 1824 or the Mexicans after that year.
The Alamo, or more properly the Mission San Antonio de Valero was secularized in the late 1700's, and thereafter used as a military outpost for the Mexican Presidial Companies, and later as a residential area as San Antonio grew. At the time just before the siege and battle of Bexar in December 1835 the buildings within the walls of the plaza were privately owned. That is especially true of the buildings along the inside west wall of the plaza. Just prior to the December battle the Alamo was fortified by Mexican troops, and they took refuge inside the walls, during the battle itself.
So considering all of the above, why did that place contain so many guns? I don't know, and have never seen any authoritative source to tell me why. Certainly they did not need them against the Indians. Their use by the Presidials would be improbable because these troops were the Mexican equivalent of the Texas Rangers.
So far as I know, no one has an exact count of how many pieces of artillery there were within the walls and how many of those pieces had mounts. I have seen as few as four and as many as twenty.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 4, 2019 22:18:37 GMT
In case everyone is seeing a new post in this discussion, it was a spam that I deleted.
|
|