Remember the fall of The Alamo

[SlowwHand]

Never.

He MUST slant any story towards gays and/or religion, appropriate or not.

[MrFun]

Another McRevelation from your McBrain?

You never let the facts get in the way of your words of wisdom do you?

My bad. White supremacy had no influence on white people's behavior in nineteenth century.

[MichaeltheGreat]

No, that would be the arrogance of Yankees who think they should tell everyone else how to do things.

[Alexander's Horse]

what I don't understand is why they made a stand at the Alamo, wouldn't it have been smarter to join up with your main forces and fight another day?

[Ben Kenobi]

what I don't understand is why they made a stand at the Alamo, wouldn't it have been smarter to join up with your main forces and fight another day?

That's a good question. Back then, San Antonio was, far and away, the largest, most populated area in Texas. It wasn't until 1930 that it was surpassed by Houston and later by Dallas.

I don't have my good historical atlases on hand right now - but there wasn't much of Texas outside of San Antonio in 1835. Total population in 1835, was only about 35k people, of which about 5k resided in San Antonio city area, and moreso by the wider farming area. Texas was the Alamo at that point.

They had to make a stand there. The second largest town/County was probably Nagcodoches which had about 500 people back in 1835. So that should pretty much tell you everything you need to know. In an area larger than France you had 35k people.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's always "glorious" to some idiot who's never seen it or been at risk of it happening to himself. I've never yet seen or heard a single line animal of any shape or form talk about "glory" in death. If I had ever run into such a crazy mother****ing idiot, I would have have kept him in sight and well separated from my ass at all times.

So you've never spoken to a serviceman? I credit them with informing me on what they believed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

what I don't understand is why they made a stand at the Alamo, wouldn't it have been smarter to join up with your main forces and fight another day?

They were amateurs. Texicans at both Goliad and the Alamo should have retreated and consolidated. Especially as Santa Anna was such a buffoon, he'd think it was out of fear and he'd want his battlefield victory for his ego.

The Texicans wasted all that work to get artillery down to the Alamo, then they didn't know to lay it properly. Lots of time to improve the fortification, but they didn't figure that out either.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So you've never spoken to a serviceman? I credit them with informing me on what they believed.

Just because some POG greased up your eager beaver ass with war stories doesn't mean you know ****.

[Ben Kenobi]

They were amateurs. Texicans at both Goliad and the Alamo should have retreated and consolidated. Especially as Santa Anna was such a buffoon, he'd think it was out of fear and he'd want his battlefield victory for his ego.

The Texicans wasted all that work to get artillery down to the Alamo, then they didn't know to lay it properly. Lots of time to improve the fortification, but they didn't figure that out either.

189 men held off 1800 for 2 weeks, with 4:1 kill ratios despite not retreating. Perhaps if MtG were there, he could have won the battle of Alamo.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just because some POG greased up your eager beaver ass with war stories doesn't mean you know ****.

I'd rather rely on the opinion of a man who did serve his country than one who did not about these matters.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The Alamo defenders engaged in minor plinking and skirmishing with advance elements of Santa Anna's army, only engaged in one real fight before Santa Anna's main force arrived, and didn't last even much more than an hour once the main force assault came. As far as kill ratios goes, (a) nobody knows - the 600 figure is one of several estimates, on the high side, and includes both killed and wounded. 4:1 kill ratio is a tribute to your imagination and math skills, it's more likely about 1:1 with additional Mexicans dying of wounds after the fact maybe pushing the ratio to 1.5:1, (b) the Mexicans could afford it, and (c) a good portion of Mexican casualties came from lack of discipline and proper positioning resulting in fratricidal casualties inflicted by panicked green troops and conscripts which made up the center of the Mexican assault.

So spin that ol' Texican hype all you want, I took the tour too. Reality is that it was amateur hour.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'd rather rely on the opinion of a man who did serve his country than one who did not about these matters.

Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!, I guess I must "prove myself" to a quasiliterate circus freak who posts on the internet.

[Ben Kenobi]

As far as kill ratios goes, nobody knows - the 600 figure is one of several estimates, on the high side, and includes both killed and wounded. 4:1 kill ratio is a tribute to your imagination and math skills

Casulties are casulties. I notice how your entire argument revolves around, 'nobody knows', when you dismiss the facts that we do know to arrive at your conclusion. That to me suggests that your opinion has zero basis in fact. As for 'amateur hour', they fought hard and well. This was a successful delaying action with minimal forces, at the cost of few casulties. Again, the point of the Alamo wasn't to defeat the Mexicans but to delay them from destroying Sam Houston's army and to allow him to gather together the forces that he needed.

If you want to call anybody out - Call out Fannin who had 500 men and lost them at Goliad, a far greater loss than at the Alamo.

[Ben Kenobi]

Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!, I guess I must "prove myself" to a quasiliterate circus freak who posts on the internet.

They call them midgets these days. In any case, you're quite wrong about this. You seem to think that unless I have your validation I cannot have an accurate opinion on this matter.

[MichaeltheGreat]

You can't have an accurate opinion on anything.