"Alamo, what were the Texians thinking?" Topic

A recent thread and a show I watched recently got me to wonder… What in hell were the Texians thinking?

A couple of hundred guys, a fort that would need at least twice as many to defend, way too many cannons. What were they thinking?

Why didn't the Texians shorten the line? Why were they compelled to defend the walls of the whole compound? I know they fortified the inner buildings but the walls of those buildings can't stand up to cannon. Why didn't they spike some of the cannon as soon as the Mexicans arrived. Why didn't they bring the cannon off the wall and create some sort of internal battery?

Help me out. What were Travis and the Texians thinking?

It seemed like a good idea at the time?

Being a Texan myself, I think it was mostly just the thought of a good fight!!

Seriously, Travis was assuming Fannin would march to his aid from Goliad (which he tried to do), and that his stand would shame the rest of the Texian army to come to his aid.

Oh, and glory, too, Travis was into glory and fame. NOt a bad writer, just not a great strategical thinker.

Regards,

Mike

Lots of beer was involved…. Just kidding!

You could ask the same thing of the British at Rourkes Drift or the French at Camerone.

"Sure we'll end up dead but it will make a smashing film!"

One of the important things that has been missed in the discussion is that Fannin was less than 100 miles away at Goliad with over 400 men. Travis sent messages to Fannin requesting relief but after a half hearted attempt, Fannin withdrew to his own fortifications. By the time Travis realized that Fannin wasn't coming the mission was fully invested, leaving the Texians with the options of slinking away or standing to fight a hopeless action. Rebellions are often tests of will. Would the Texians throughout the rest of the territory continued to fight and resist, especially during the periods of constant retreat before San Jacinto, if the initial encounters had gone differently. Consider the consequences of Travis slinking away in the night and abandoning the stores and cannon of the Alamo combined with a lenient treatment of Fannin's surrendered garrison? That could easily have taken all of the wind out of the sails of the Texian's revolt and cused their men to slink back to their farms.

If you've ever seen a map or diaroma of the Alamo, there was really no way to shorten the line without surrendering the high ground of the surrounding wall to the enemy. You either held the whole perimeter or none. As metioned above, Travis expected to get several hundred men from Fannin's group, which would have changed the situation dramatically.

The Texians were amateurs. No real military experience worth having, just frontier fighting mostly against Indians. The original plan was to blow the place up.

You know, I think the Mexicans had something to do with it – -

Seriously, the thinking by the Texians was, I think, predicated on two ideas, neither of which were correct, the first being that the Mexicans would not be there until late spring and the second being that the Goliad garrison would actually help out the Alamo garrison quickly

Having been at the Alamo, I agree with BCantwell, shortening the line would only have let Santa Anna in earlier

And in case anyone does not know the outcome of Fannin's indecision, Google Goliad Massacre.

Conflicting orders, no unity of command, penny packet forces left on their own. It is a wonder the revolution succeeded.

Texian? Been here 30 years and never heard that.

Texian en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texian

"Texian became the official designation for all citizens of the sovereign Republic of Texas,[1] although several unofficial terms were used in the 19th century to denote residents of Texas, including Texasian, Texican, and Texonian."

Joe – the revolution succeeded largely because Santa Anna was a crappy commander, IMHO – if he had taken a little more care at San Jacinto and did something radical like – oh, post sentries and a cavalry picket during the siesta – the outcome might have been quite a bit different, i.e. if the Texian battle line had crossed the open ground into prepared Mexican infantry – well, it be quite a different scene in the Southwest

Maybe God is a Texan

San Antonio was the ONLY city in Texas, and the cultural/economic center, such as it was. The Texians put a lot of emphasis on taking it from Cos in 1835. The Alamo was, for all of its weaknesses, the strongest fortified post in Texas. As mentioned, they didn't expect Santa Anna until months later, after the spring grass had grown. I don't see that abandoning it was really an option. And I don't think the plan was ever to blow it up. That's mostly myth, I believe.

A couple of hundred guys, a fort that would need at least twice as many to defend, way too many cannons. What were they thinking?

They were probably thinking exactly what you said, but with different emphasis: we have a couple of hundred guys! We have a FORT! And, man, we have MANY CANNON!

Well, did the Texians think SA would show with 4000 troops? I really don't know what they were thinking. Maybe they expected a few dozen soldiers to show.

I think that hindsight really twists what the reality was at the Alamo. The guys above are right. The Texans thought there was no chance Santa Anna would arrive that quickly. Fanin was believed to arrive at any moment. The Alamo was the one of if not the largest artillery park in North America. Transport wasn't available to quickly move the guns. It should be viewed in the light of the time.

Thanks,

John

a computer generated "movie" of the Alamo in 1836, juxtaposed with the modern landscape. Reinforces the "what were they thinking" statement of ADub-- no 200-250 were gonna hold that fort:

YouTube link

The Texans, Bowie and others, had just defeated Cos and his 1200 men and ran them out of San Antonio, with Cos's promise not to return. So the Texans thought they were in control of the situation. But SA was only more outraged by Cos surrender and even more determined to march on the Alamo no matter how many men it cost him, even in the dead of winter.
The Texans severly underestimted SA's desire to put down any revolt.

Interesting points. But I'm curious about the tactical questions on the 12 days and perhaps the preceding 12 days.

Why did the Texians choose to defend the Alamo in the manner they did? Granted, they may have expected the reinforcements so they based their plan to have 400 to 600 men to guard the compound (bigger than a football field iirc). But that seems to me to be a bit short sighted. They also prepared the internal buildings (the barracks iirc again) which seems like a good start.

But 200 men and 12 days, just seems like they could have accomplished more.

Someone brought up Rorke's Drift. That seems like a last stand conducted properly.

The main gate is set back from the main compound by about 90 feet. One could imagine that a baracade could be constructed to fence in this 90 feet. 200 men and 18 cannon could defend the 8000 square feet plus the barracks and other internal buildings. Heck, you'd even have to spike some of the cannon before the shooting starts.

Do you give up the high ground? Without enough men, the high ground is as good as given up. If you can issolate the corner--blowing gaps in the wall yourself if you have to--you have a small enough fort for your 200 men.

The final letter from Travis shows that he was committed and had little hope for reinforcement. Why didn't he order his men to build a better position?

Well – not be rude but although William Travis held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel his pre-war military experience was an adjunct to an infantry brigade in the Alabama militia – he also seemed to be a bit of an optimist

Yep. As the ACW proved, many who came up within the militia system had no practical military training. ADub, reading William C. Davis's/Alan Huffine's books on the subject, the trenches dug within the long barracks were incomplete. Both author's hypothesized what would have been needed to turn part of the Alamo into a "citadel," and both agreed that such a task was beyond the training/abilities of the defenders.

That Youtube link is excellent, thanks.

If they were anything like some of the Texans I've met, they were probably thinking,
it. Let's shoot some Mexicans.

"bleep it. Let's shoot some Mexicans."

Probably true for the whole war :)

Someone brought up Rorke's Drift. That seems like a last stand conducted properly.

With repeating rifles, a smaller perimeter, disciplined, drilled infantry who were crack shots under a unified (if cantankerous) command facing a force geared mostly for close combat, a few captured rifles not withstanding and certainly no cannon.

So, give Travis Martini-Henrys, a wall bisecting the compound, at least a year to train and drill the men and take away Santa Anna's cannons, muskets and assault ladders and things would have gone much differently, indeed.

I really liked that Youtube link!

Thanks for posting it.

John

I teach Texas history, seventh grade, public school, in San Antonio.

Bowie was sent to the Alamo by Sam Houston to examine its possibilities as a fort. He was flatly told, "If you don't think you can hold it, blow it up. Hide the cannons, or bring them with you, or destroy them, if you destroy the Alamo." (Prentice Hall LONE STAR: THE STORY OF TEXAS, Fehrenbach, Siegel, & Crowley, 2003, p. 167) The fort's commander, J.C. Neill, was firmly convinced of San Antonio's strategic importance, and convinced Bowie of same. Neill sent Gov. Smith a letter begging for reinforcements; Smith sent Travis and his men to the Alamo.

Bowie believed in the importance of the mission. Travis was following his superior's orders. And they were all hoping like hell for more reinforcements that they did not get. Actually, when you read the textbook, you get a pretty clear picture of how chaotic the entire Texas situation was at the time, politically and militarily, both for the Texians and the Mexicans…

And I dare say that if the Mexican Army had had no more than a few troops equipped with rifles, with the vast majority equipped with hide shields and assegais… well, things might have happened pretty differently…

Perhaps it was the Nineteenth Century equivalent of "Here, hold my beer…".

I own the Hudson and Allen Alamo and have gamed it dozens of times, using a garrison of 250. The Texians will try to fall back onto an inner line, but it is very difficult to do. You go from too large to too small. There's an "inner fort" between the main gate and the church and the Long Barracks/Hospital. But the Mexicans usually get in the cattle pen, and also inside the main plaza, at which point the Long barracks and 2 story hospital are under attack from both directions. Once the Mexicans capture a cannon or two, it's all over.

And there were a whole company of Tejanos in the garrison.

I wonder how the Mexican losses at the Alamo effected the Mexican army morale? Before the Alamo the typical Mexican soldier may have thought their leaders were bat-poop crazy. After it ,they knew they were bat-poop crazy! They didn't even fight back at San Jacinto!

Took the edge off the Mexican Army's best units, I think. Some of the battalions that stormed the Alamo (Aldama, Toluca, Matamoros, Jimenez, plus the grenadiers and chasseurs) were used to scout ahead of the main army during the San Jacinto phase of the campaign, and were wiped out on that field.

Please note, I'm more focused on the tactics than the strategy. Assume all who were there were there for good reason. My question is, did the Texians really use their time and man power wisely? Could they have done better?

Or a more direct question, why were the Mexicans allowed to capture the 18 pounder in full working condition?

"Once the Mexicans capture a cannon or two"

Absolutely, isn't that one of Travis' biggest mistakes? Shouldn't he have put the majority out of commision by the time it became apparent that the Mexicans were going to squish them like bugs? After all, it was part of the orders…

"If you don't think you can hold it, blow it up. Hide the cannons, or bring them with you, or destroy them, if you destroy the Alamo."

Why didn't he dismantle the majority of the cannons the ninth or tenth night of the siege?

I wonder how the Mexican losses at the Alamo effected the Mexican army morale?

Initial Mexican losses were low so there would've been very little effect on their morale. More died of their wounds after the Alamo had fallen. If you had money or sufficient rank, medical care was pretty good. For the average foot soldier medical care was a fellow soldier or if he was lucky, a camp follower. No woman or no friends and the end result of a wound was predictable, but this was nothing new.

ADub, have you read any recent works on the subject?

why were the Mexicans allowed to capture the 18 pounder in full working condition?

Because of the training and skill of the men and officers in the column that attacked the southwest corner. Plus, the SLIGHT distraction of the breakthrough that was taking place on the north wall.

I suppose such a question could be asked only because the training/morale of the Mexican army has long been suspect. Rightly so if one reads accounts of the Mexican American War. I can't imagine anyone asking why the 15th Alabama allowed itself to get beaten by the 20th Maine on Little Round Top-- the enemy MIGHT have had something to do with you getting your ass kicked.

I think the best skilled men of Mexico fought, and were lost, in the Texas Revolution. How else can you explain accounts of Ben Milam getting killed by a Mexican sniper who was armed with a Brown Bess musket?

Sad for Mexico, I suppose. Good for anyone in The States.

Well, Santa Anna certainly lost more men than a better commander – oh, like General Urrea, for example – might have, but I suspect the biggest problem at San Jacinto was poor Mexican leadership, not the quality of the troops

Which, as noted, was good for the US but sad for Mexico

>I can't imagine anyone asking why the 15th Alabama allowed itself to get beaten by the 20th Maine on Little Round Top-- the enemy MIGHT have had something to do with you getting your ass kicked.

If the 20th Maine outnumbered the 15th Alabama by more than 20:1 then I don't see that question being asked.

Possibly they had foresight to realise that in years to come it would give John Wayne the chance to make a nauseating speech about "Freedom"

"ADub, have you read any recent works on the subject?"

No, I'm simply trying to answer a question I had while watching a documentary. I appreciate your insight and hopefully I'm not boring you with my ignorance. I also appreciate any links or suggested reading.

…

Little Round Top was fought with the forces that were there at the time. The actions and reactions were immediate. Travis and the Texians had time to think and organize a planned defense. My question is, was Travis' plan worth beans or did he just give up?

"Because of the training and skill of the men and officers in the column that attacked the southwest corner. Plus, the SLIGHT distraction of the breakthrough that was taking place on the north wall."

True, the plan was set once the fight started. If the men were unable to spike the gun then they weren't able to. The Mexican's did a fine job on the assualt and I'm sure the Texians did everything they could to stop it.

But why was the cannon placed there in the first place? The gun is on wheels and up a ramp--why not roll the darn thing off the position. Not during combat, but the night before or a couple of nights before. Knowing the Mexicans could storm in with 4000 men, one would have to know that the vast main compound would be overrun at any number of points. And once overrun, any cannon on the wall immediately gets wheeled around to smash any sort of fortification of the barracks. It seems to me, in my ignorance again, leaving the cannons on the wall is a mistake.

Hi

"Sad for mexico…". Actually, part of the back story was that this really wasn't the issue. Spain and then Mexico fought over texas for a matter of pride and control. Economically, both were trying to get out.

Mexico had the silver and the value. And the tension for the previous 200 years was that all those franciscan missions needed protection from the indians. As there was no hard money to be made in texas, the "solution" involved allowing people to set up little fiefdoms where farming and ranching might produce enough to pay some taxes. the "yankees" were invited in for that purpose.

And, ironically, it was the ability to hunt indians that was the reason they were valued. And the disconnect that creates the texian war was the idea that these nasty folks who hunt commache will be nice docile peasants with Mexico City!

Losing the southwest was pretty inevitable because Mexico city didn't see a good economic reason to spend the money to keep it.

Rocky

Let's not forget the slavery issue, nor the religious one either as some of the causes of the war.

An empty country attracts immigrants and Texas was no exception. Few natives from down south were willing to move to the Texas area and the southern US was full of folks who were.

Dan

Yep-- the historian Fehrenbach relates that the Mexicans viewed their northern regions as being two seperate frontiers, the actual (modern border), and the further( lost to the US). 5000 Mexicans lived in Texas in 1836 after 150+ years of settlement. The American immigrants and aliens numbered 20,000 from just 1821.

About the 18 pound cannon-- I can only surmise that it was on the SW corner because that was the point closest to San Antonio. Heck, the Mexicans might have put it there in 1835. It could sweep the main eastern road leading out of the town, I believe. Wheeling the cannon off the ramps to make a smaller bastion? Smart move of course. But I wonder if the Southern martial ethos of the time, in which men faced danger standing up, ennobled to do or die, would have allowed for that?

Or, I may be reading to much into it. The answer may simply be the Texans didn't know what they were doing.

All my "insight" on this subject comes from a mish mash of the layman's books I've read. Current favorites are:

1. Blood of Noble Men- this one really opened the battle up for me, both historically and visually, and so is my favorite. Everything before this read to me like a civics lesson or diatribe, when I wanted pure military history. Paperback also available if the price is too high:

link

2. The Illustrated Alamo 1836- the final (current) word on the appearance of the fortress during the battle. The YouTube video posted above is based on this model:

link

3. The Alamo Reader: A Study in History- source book of every historical account on the battle, plus commentary

link

4. Lone Star Rising- imo the best recent history on the Texas Revolution. From someone else's review, showing the kind of detail covered: "(The Louisiana) purchase created a great deal of confusion in Texas as the US initially claimed the Louisiana Purchase extended to the Rio Grande. This uncertainty, and the power vacuum left by weakened Royalists in Mexico from 1800 to 1824, accounted for the filibusters, piracy, and tremendous unrest in Texas."

link