Remember the fall of The Alamo

[Ben Kenobi]

Earth to Beniverse: The Mexican forces were only a few hundred until Santa Anna's main force arrived on March 4.

Uh, no. You're wrong about this. There were 1,500 Mexicans by the 26th of February.

The town wasn't defended with the Texicans holed up inside the Alamo.

Uh, yes, it was. You do know where the Alamo is located?

If the Texicans wanted to make a defensive stand around Bexar, they had months to do so after de Cos' surrender.

Sure, in an ideal world. The problem is that politically, the Convention didn't form until March 2. Until then there wasn't a 'Republic of Texas' to speak of, nor was there a unified command. Who would the rebels who fought de Cos report to? Houston?

nor does it reflect well on the other Texican leaders.

Given the political upheaval and the lack of authority to Houston at that point, I don't see how it's possible to expect co-ordination where none existed. Bexar was defended by those who were already there at the time and Travis who came of his own authority to protect the city.

No, they didn't

Yes, they did.

Had Santa Anna gone up the coast in Tamaulipas instead of up through Coahuila and modern Chihuahua, he would have gotten to Houston's position faster, drove the Americans coming into the country back into Louisiania and Arkansas, then been in a position to move west to San Antonio after severing the lines of communication between Houston and the Alamo and Goliad forces.

Sure, but San Antonio was the largest populated area in Texas. Remember, you're looking at it from an American perspective, not the Mexican perspective. From the Mexican perspective, the only city and area of any importance in Texas was San Antonio. The rest was just trash. Santa Anna figured that once he took San Antonio, that would be it for the Texas 'rebellion'. Even given this error, he still should have won in San Jacinto. He outnumbered Houston and all else being equal should have won.

Consolidate and train everyone, with light recon screens to look for signs of Santa Anna's eventual approach.

Which is what the Alamo was, a light garrison intended to screen the retreat of Houston eastward. Goliad would have been the same had Fannin done as he was told and stood and fought. The Mexicans wanted Bexar. To get to Houston from Bexar meant travelling through Goliad.

LMFAO. When and where exactly?

From when Travis got there in the start of February to the start of March when the Mexicans finally took Bexar. The Alamo itself was a delaying action intended to hold up the overwhelming advance of the Mexicans, in a similar matter to the fortress of Brest Litovsk in WWII or Mons in the First world war. All three fell, but all three posed significant delays.

Fannin was ordered by Houston to retreat on March 14. It took him 5 days to get off his ass, with the same demonstrated knowledge of transport as in the botched Alamo relief mission, so the forces stopped in mid-afternoon in an open field to rest their grossly overloaded animals.

As I said, Fannin would have been better off staying in Ft. Deliverance near Goliad. He actually fought well when engaged in static defense, but hadn't a clue about logistics. The massacre of Goliad had more to do with Fannin's incompetence than Mexican tactical ability, in allowing the Mexicans to obtain the initiative and choice of ground.

Fought hard, maybe, but that's not the same as fighting effectively.

They had an excellent kill ratio prior to surrender. They were effective, just not effective enough to make up for the poor decisions of Fannin.

Fannin's troops were no longer following his orders, exactly how and why did they burn the stores they couldn't transport, (over)load up wagon, and proceed (albeit late and slowly) to move out of Presidio La Bahia under Fannin's command, pursuant to orders from Sam Houston to Fannin?

Why did it take so long for them to move out and when they did move out - and to be indecisive as to when and where?

Santa Anna was one of the worst military commanders in the history of this hemisphere.

I can't see how that's the case. He brought about a decisive battle against the final Texan army with all the military advantages one could expect. That is why San Jacinto was such a shock to the entire world when Texas actually won. You're simply trying to deprive Texas of her victory earned against a much larger nation.

[Alexander's Horse]

Sava is right, Bruce Lee out in front doing Kung Fu on Santa Ana's men could have tipped the balance

[snoopy369]

Any chance we could create a subforum of OT solely for MtG-BK threads?

[Alexander's Horse]

Maybe, but all MTG has to do is say "attaboy" to Ben, just once, and it will be over

[PLATO]

Any chance we could create a subforum of OT solely for MtG-BK threads?

Unfortunately this one would be pretty dead if we did.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm having visions of John Wayne on the Alamo parapet and Bruce Lee in the yard knocking out any of Santa Ana's men that break through...

[Ben Kenobi]

Unfortunately this one would be pretty dead if we did.

That could actually be pretty fun for a Friday night. I have a bunch of bull**** to sort but after that's all done...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Uh, no. You're wrong about this. There were 1,500 Mexicans by the 26th of February.

And 1200 or so of which were posted further away along the roads as a blocking force.

Uh, yes, it was. You do know where the Alamo is located?

So that's why the townspeople fled and the defenders had to drive cattle into the Alamo compound, because they remained in control of Bexar?

Sure, in an ideal world. The problem is that politically, the Convention didn't form until March 2. Until then there wasn't a 'Republic of Texas' to speak of, nor was there a unified command. Who would the rebels who fought de Cos report to? Houston?

Political ineptitude may explain failure of planning, it doesn't excuse it. They didn't really have to report to anyone to figure that maybe the Mexicans wouldn't quit that easily, especially as it was known that Santa Anna was forming his army back in October, 1835 and the Mexican Congress issued its piracy proclamation with respect to the treatment of prisoners.

Given the political upheaval and the lack of authority to Houston at that point, I don't see how it's possible to expect co-ordination where none existed. Bexar was defended by those who were already there at the time and Travis who came of his own authority to protect the city.

Another Beniversism. I guess Travis' "own authority" means orders from Governor Smith?

Yes, they did.

Nope.

Sure, but San Antonio was the largest populated area in Texas. Remember, you're looking at it from an American perspective, not the Mexican perspective. From the Mexican perspective, the only city and area of any importance in Texas was San Antonio. The rest was just trash. Santa Anna figured that once he took San Antonio, that would be it for the Texas 'rebellion'. Even given this error, he still should have won in San Jacinto. He outnumbered Houston and all else being equal should have won.

Amd you think there's a "Mexican" perspective? There was only one perspective on that side that counted, and that was Santa Anna's himself. Santa Anna didn't give a rat's ass about Bexar except to erase the "dishonor" to his family name from his brother-in-law's surrender. Santa Anna wanted a "glorious" victory on the battlefield, not a political or strategic victory. He wanted blood and prisoners to shoot. Nothing less.

Which is what the Alamo was, a light garrison intended to screen the retreat of Houston eastward. Goliad would have been the same had Fannin done as he was told and stood and fought. The Mexicans wanted Bexar. To get to Houston from Bexar meant travelling through Goliad.

You don't "screen" in a fixed garrison with a nearly a tenth of your total forces and more than half your artillery. Sorry your understanding of 19th century tactics and operational art is so deficient. Given your other deficiencies, I can't be bothered to explain it to you. Fannin did do what he was told - ineptly, but he was ordered to retreat and he did. Established fact, undisputed except in the Beniverse.

From when Travis got there in the start of February to the start of March when the Mexicans finally took Bexar. The Alamo itself was a delaying action intended to hold up the overwhelming advance of the Mexicans,

Hardly an overwhelming advance. Ponderously slow and undersupplied. With the Texans sitting on their asses, the Alamo could have been bypassed entirely, leaving a Mexican blocking force slightly larger to prevent them from disengaging. In fact, when the lead elements of the Mexican army first showed up and raised the red flag, the Texans proposed to surrender, but Santa Anna wanted blood and a battlefield victory, so he refused to offer any terms but unconditional surrender, which would have meant the murder of the combatant prisoners, per the proclamation of the Mexican Congress. If Santa Anna hadn't been stupider than pig****, he could have had Bexar almost instantly, but he wanted to prove a point.

As I said, Fannin would have been better off staying in Ft. Deliverance near Goliad. He actually fought well when engaged in static defense, but hadn't a clue about logistics. The massacre of Goliad had more to do with Fannin's incompetence than Mexican tactical ability, in allowing the Mexicans to obtain the initiative and choice of ground.

He was ordered to retreat. Broken clock syndrome, you did get one thing partly right - he was incompetent with respect to movement and logistics.

Why did it take so long for them to move out and when they did move out - and to be indecisive as to when and where?

If they weren't under orders, they would have dispersed and not tried to move as a unit - as routed or mutinous troops tend to do. They had insufficient wagons, poor quality draft animals, and they overloaded the hell out of everything.

I can't see how that's the case. He brought about a decisive battle against the final Texan army with all the military advantages one could expect.

He was slow on the march, divided his forces, hamstrung and micromanaged his subordinates, and he only "brought about" a final battle by taking a ****ing nap in an open field with no sentries or pickets, knowing he was fairly close to the Texan position and ignoring cover in his front (in which the Texican army was waiting), despite cavalry skirmishes the day before. He knows he's on top of the Texican army, and decides to take a ****ing afternoon nap with all his troops, and not one picket or sentry up and alert. The Texans closed within 50 yards without being detected. It wasn't a battle, it was a slaughter, due to ineptitude that exceeds even the likes of Saddam Hussein.

That is why San Jacinto was such a shock to the entire world when Texas actually won.

It was a shock to those who cared (which was far less than the entire world) because the news reports played up the "great Texican victory" while glossing over the spectacular incompetence that led to the Mexican defeat.

You're simply trying to deprive Texas of her victory earned against a much larger nation.

Handed to, not earned, and a victory against a fragment of a smallish army led by a buffoon. Even after San Jacinto, de Urrea wanted to attack Houston with the remaining combined force of 2500 men, including cavalry. Had he been allowed to so, he would have mopped the saloon floor with the Texicans, but Santa Anna would rather lose Texas and have de Urrea save his bacon and possibly even rescue him. Santa Anna regarded de Urrea as a domestic political and military rival. Instead of celebrating the Alamo, Texans ought to make a state holiday of Santa Anna's birthday, because he is the one who gifted Texas its independence.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Maybe, but all MTG has to do is say "attaboy" to Ben, just once, and it will be over

I gave him a "broken clock" award for being partly right in one point so far. That was generous, since he should have to be right twice to get a broken clock award. He's lucky to take what he gets.

[Ben Kenobi]

Amd you think there's a "Mexican" perspective? There was only one perspective on that side that counted, and that was Santa Anna's himself. Santa Anna didn't give a rat's ass about Bexar except to erase the "dishonor" to his family name from his brother-in-law's surrender. Santa Anna wanted a "glorious" victory on the battlefield, not a political or strategic victory. He wanted blood and prisoners to shoot. Nothing less.

It's the same perspective that convinced Travis it was worthwhile to stand and fight and die there. San Antonio is pretty much the cradle of settlement in Texas.

You don't "screen" in a fixed garrison with a nearly a tenth of your total forces and more than half your artillery.

You do if you know that the enemy has a vested interest in taking it, and you know you cannot likely hold it with the forces that you do have. If they suspected Santa Anna would bypass Bexar, then there was no point in putting a garrison there.

Fannin did do what he was told - ineptly, but he was ordered to retreat and he did. Established fact, undisputed except in the Beniverse.

He didn't retreat promptly ensuring that he was overtaken on the road. If he was going to obey orders, then he needed to do when they were given, not later. Waiting 5 days changes the overall strategic picture and renders him in disobedience to Houston. If he was going to defy orders based on the present situation - then he needed to stay in Goliad and prepare the battlefield. Instead he did the half in /half out which was complete disaster.

Hardly an overwhelming advance.

10:1 is overwhelming.

Santa Anna wanted blood and a battlefield victory, so he refused to offer any terms but unconditional surrender, which would have meant the murder of the combatant prisoners, per the proclamation of the Mexican Congress. If Santa Anna hadn't been stupider than pig****, he could have had Bexar almost instantly, but he wanted to prove a point.

If he were stupider than pig**** he wouldn't have cornered and caught Houston when he did with superior men and material. Say what you will about his proficiency, he did his job in forcing the decisive battle while obtaining advantageous conditions prior to the condition of the battle.

He was slow on the march, divided his forces, hamstrung and micromanaged his subordinates, and he only "brought about" a final battle by taking a ****ing nap in an open field with no sentries or pickets, knowing he was fairly close to the Texan position and ignoring cover in his front (in which the Texican army was waiting), despite cavalry skirmishes the day before. He knows he's on top of the Texican army, and decides to take a ****ing afternoon nap with all his troops, and not one picket or sentry up and alert. The Texans closed within 50 yards without being detected. It wasn't a battle, it was a slaughter, due to ineptitude that exceeds even the likes of Saddam Hussein.

Or perhaps the Texans took advantage of fortuitous conditions to press home the opportunity.

It was a shock to those who cared (which was far less than the entire world) because the news reports played up the "great Texican victory" while glossing over the spectacular incompetence that led to the Mexican defeat.

Right, that's because revisionists like you came along centuries later have a better understanding than those who were actually there, and the first hand accounts. But then we already know your agenda here - to deny credit to the Texans in all endeavours.

Handed to, not earned

T'was earned.

Santa Anna regarded de Urrea as a domestic political and military rival. Instead of celebrating the Alamo, Texans ought to make a state holiday of Santa Anna's birthday, because he is the one who gifted Texas its independence.

If de Urrea were so amazing, why didn't he just overthrow Santa Anna and take command for himself? There was no stomach to continue the fight after San Jacinto.

[Tuberski]

I gave him a "broken clock" award for being partly right in one point so far. That was generous, since he should have to be right twice to get a broken clock award. He's lucky to take what he gets.

Well, it's a military argument, so, logically, you'd use a military clock...

ACK!.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It's the same perspective that convinced Travis it was worthwhile to stand and fight and die there. San Antonio is pretty much the cradle of settlement in Texas.

Santa Anna and Travis having the same mindset. Never thought of that one, but it would explain a lot. **** San Antonio. The issue is the enemy army - destroy the enemy, and you win. Sit in some two-bit collection of mud huts, and you lose.

You do if you know that the enemy has a vested interest in taking it, and you know you cannot likely hold it with the forces that you do have. If they suspected Santa Anna would bypass Bexar, then there was no point in putting a garrison there.

As I said, you don't know anything about 19th century tactics or operational art. You don't know what screening is.

He didn't retreat promptly ensuring that he was overtaken on the road. If he was going to obey orders, then he needed to do when they were given, not later.

Yep, the moment those orders came in, wagons and draft teams were all magically there and loaded.

Waiting 5 days changes the overall strategic picture and renders him in disobedience to Houston.

Hardly. He sent for more wagons and oxen. He moved slowly, but it was not disobedience in the least. He was beyond his level of competence, not insubordinate.

If he was going to defy orders based on the present situation - then he needed to stay in Goliad and prepare the battlefield. Instead he did the half in /half out which was complete disaster.

He was not defying orders in the least - he did not have the competence to execute them, as the failed support mission to the Alamo already demonstrated. And obviously it was a disaster, but delaying the order to retreat until well after the Alamo fell is a bigger failure. Adequate time existed to get out and join up with Houston, and bring the damn 500 extra muskets, powder, etc, even the four guns.

10:1 is overwhelming.

Not when it's slower than a goddamn snail on the Nevada salt flats on a summer day. Not when you have weeks to disengage and pick more favorable ground.

If he were stupider than pig**** he wouldn't have cornered and caught Houston when he did with superior men and material. Say what you will about his proficiency, he did his job in forcing the decisive battle while obtaining advantageous conditions prior to the condition of the battle.

He didn't corner Houston. After most of the civilian evacuation during the runaway scrape, and the scorched earth tactics to deny the Mexican army useful provisions. Houston's forces engaged in a retrograde movement while they looked for more favorable defensive ground. Santa Anna exerted no pressure on Houston's forces until minor skirmishing the day prior to the battle of San Jacinto. In fact, at one point the Texicans stayed in place for two weeks only 15 miles from the main Mexican force, completely undetected by Santa Anna. Instead he eventually went after (and missed) the civilian government, which was pissed at Houston for his apparent unwillingness to stupidly engage Santa Anna in the open. NOTHING in Santa Anna's planning or execution is in the least praiseworthy from the perspective of military competence. But that doesn't serve the Texican agenda of elevating themselves. Sorry, but the truth is the Texans beat a commander who was so bad he made Nathaniel Banks and Ben Butler look like Napoleon Bonaparte and Sun Tzu in comparison. The only thing Santa Anna was good for was the murder of prisoners and their families. A trait he learned from Arredondo in San Luis Potosi and at Medina in particular, and one he demonstrated in Zacatecas prior to his movement up to Texas.

Or perhaps the Texans took advantage of fortuitous conditions to press home the opportunity.

Fortuitous conditions being, in this case, an absolutely absurd gift from an incompetent enemy. First in his failure to secure Vince's bridge, which he knew to be his only line of communication with his other forces, and all that would have taken was 50 men or so. Second in deciding to take a nap in a poorly selected location, where his primary (in fact, only) threat axis consisted of terrain and cover favorable to an undetected approach by the enemy, and then posting no sentries or pickets at all - none, zilch, zero, nada, which was a first class "no-no" for only about 3,000 years of warfare. What happens to Houston's army if the Mexicans had a picket line and sentries, and a detachment to prevent the destruction of Vince's bridge? Ooopsies....

Right, that's because revisionists like you came along centuries later have a better understanding than those who were actually there, and the first hand accounts. But then we already know your agenda here - to deny credit to the Texans in all endeavours.

I suppose we should rely in the first hand accounts of Joseph Medina, William Calley and David Mitchell? Or maybe Nixon's first hand account of the Watergate coverup? Of course, we should rely on Santa Anna's first hand account of Mexican losses at the Alamo as 70 killed and 130 wounded. After all, he was there. Any real historian understands that first hand accounts are perspective, not fact, and are to be taken with a grain or ten of salt, depending on the credibility of the reporter and their agenda. Take Fannin's failed attempt to reinforce the Alamo garrison. According to Fannin, his troops rebelled and refused to obey orders. You swallowed that one hook, line and sinker. According to other first hand accounts, Fannin aborted the attempt. The truth? Nobody knows, except we do know that Fannin was no wagonmaster or logistician, and we do know he was unpopular and imperious with men under his command. So the facts we do know support either possibility.


I would never deny Texans credit for manufacturing a mythology exaggerating their great heroism against the evil Mex hordes. It sounds a lot better than bayonetting and shooting 600 mostly unarmed Mexicans in 16 minutes because the ****ers were asleep and unprepared. That's war, and I don't have a problem with it. Clubbing seals is part of warfare, but it's not the sort of thing that sold as well back home compared with grandiose tales of heroism. Given the murder of prisoners by the Mexican forces, had I been in command, I would have likely ordered similar retribution against all Mexican prisoners, other than Santa Anna, who was unfortunately more useful for a time alive than dead. After Mexican forces were gone, I would have had a very public hanging with a bit too much drop.

T'was earned.

Just like welfare checks and Christmas presents.

If de Urrea were so amazing, why didn't he just overthrow Santa Anna and take command for himself? There was no stomach to continue the fight after San Jacinto.

Santa Anna still controlled the government. de Urrea, if he had been victorious in defiance of Santa Anna, would have been between a rock and a hard place, but more importantly, he took his sense of honor seriously. It was only after Santa Anna returned to Mexico, having been deposed and in exile, and then started to reestablish himself militarily and politically after the pastry war that de Urrea decided he'd had enough of the buffoon. While Santa Anna was the commander, de Urrea was a loyal officer.

[Uncle Sparky]

I think this thread needs a poll. I've never used Alamo. I use Enterprise Rent A Car.
... so, Mexicans attacked a car rental company? Why is this even news?

[molly bloom]

I have nothing but admiration for Santa Anna- whatta guy!

Who couldn't admire someone who'd do this :

His personal heroism in battle, which resulted in having several horses shot out from under him and the loss of half of his left leg, became the basis of his subsequent effort to secure his power by creating a cult of personality around himself.

In 1842 he arranged for an elaborate ceremony to dig up the remains of his leg, parade with it through Mexico City, and place it on a prominent monument for all to see.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/s_z/santaanna.htm

That's chutzpah.

[Sava]

sounds like a srs douchebag