londoncalling | 08 Jan 2017 6:34 a.m. PST |
Having just watched it again, and never having studied it historically, could the defenders have done anything different to support a result other than the death of all defenders ? Assuming the forces stay the same and abandoning the post is not an option ? Thanks all. |
parrskool | 08 Jan 2017 6:41 a.m. PST |
|
raylev3 | 08 Jan 2017 6:54 a.m. PST |
No….they were too outnumbered. It was just a matter of time no matter what they had done. |
Cyrus the Great | 08 Jan 2017 7:06 a.m. PST |
|
KTravlos | 08 Jan 2017 7:07 a.m. PST |
Was not the whole plan to hope for a wider revolution in Mexico? |
Who asked this joker | 08 Jan 2017 7:16 a.m. PST |
No. It was always going to give the Texans something to rally around. I think the defenders even knew it was a one way trip. |
pzivh43 | 08 Jan 2017 7:25 a.m. PST |
They were waiting to be reinforced. So maybe if Fannin hadn't screwed the pooch in Gonzales, or Houston had sent some troops, maybe they could have held out. But more likely just more dead Texicans and Mexicans. And maybe an end to Texan independence |
Condotta | 08 Jan 2017 7:34 a.m. PST |
Based upon your assumptions, no. The result was inevitable and could have been won by the Mexican forces with much less loss of the lives of their army. It was a cat and mouse game of enormous symbolic proportions for both sides. |
robert piepenbrink | 08 Jan 2017 8:34 a.m. PST |
Once the assault went in, and given the Mexican nerve held--not everyone will take 25% losses and keep coming--things were pretty much inevitable, Not enough Texicans for the perimeter, and Santa Anna wasn't a quarter-giving kind of guy. That said, if it were a single die roll in a map and pins game, I'd give the defenders a (small) chance. Santa Anna could have lost his nerve or Mexican logistics collapsed. But the final assault was a done deal. |
JMcCarroll | 08 Jan 2017 8:41 a.m. PST |
I'm thinking maybe, if there is like a Taco Bell near by and maybe like the Mexicans skipped lunch or something. |
foxweasel | 08 Jan 2017 8:53 a.m. PST |
Don't want to start a big political debate, and I know I could just Wiki it, but I'd like some real Americans opinions. Why didn't Texas become an independent country? Surely that was what all the blood and sacrifice was for, not just to become another state. Sat in England I don't have an opinion either way. |
Saber6 | 08 Jan 2017 8:53 a.m. PST |
A forlorn hope is often to buy time, and that is something they did. More troops on the outside might have extended or cancelled the siege. |
Extra Crispy | 08 Jan 2017 8:57 a.m. PST |
Texas did become a country for a while, the Republic of Texas. The issue was, as always, slavery, at least from the US's part. Would Texas be a slave state or free? The question of "winnable" really seems moot. The troops were there to recover supplies and get out. The decision to stand was ill considered and foolish. It served no purpose. So what would "winning" even mean? |
cosmicbank | 08 Jan 2017 8:58 a.m. PST |
It was independent for a very short while. Lots of ideas as to why it joined USA best is that it just couldn't survive alone. Then succeeded a few years later and joined the CSA which was like joining a cirus. |
cosmicbank | 08 Jan 2017 9:04 a.m. PST |
Yeah Crispy, They don't use the "S" word in Texas and it is glossed over in most Schools even Colleges in Texas. |
bjporter | 08 Jan 2017 9:08 a.m. PST |
Texas was an independent nation from 1836-1846. A majority of Texians favored annexation by the United States at the time. However, the United States didn't want to risk a direct war with Mexico over Texas and there was a reluctance to admit another slaveholding state to the union. |
Double W | 08 Jan 2017 9:47 a.m. PST |
Yes… if meddling time travelers supplied the defenders with modern weaponry and air support. Otherwise they could've just hid in the basement with the bicycles. //Sorry. Feeling sarcastic today. ///Real answer: No. They are outnumbered and outgunned. |
McKinstry | 08 Jan 2017 10:07 a.m. PST |
"The decision to stand was ill considered and foolish." +1 – Brave, yes. Stupid? Also yes. |
kevin smoot | 08 Jan 2017 10:38 a.m. PST |
Possible, but unlikely. The perimeter for the Alamo was too big to be effectively manned by the numbers on hand. A smaller compound or more troops would have helped, but that would probably have changed Santa Anna's strategy as well. |
Norman D Landings | 08 Jan 2017 11:26 a.m. PST |
From a purely mind-game POV, given command of the Garrison and tasked with finding a 'win' outcome: Defection en-masse to the Mexican side. Their victory is now your victory. A technical win, but the only one I see given the scenario parameters. |
jowady | 08 Jan 2017 11:32 a.m. PST |
No, in fact it was stupid of the Texicans to even try, a mistake redeemed only by Santa Ana deciding to pause with his entire Army and assault it. The Texicans should have taken what artillery they could and then burned the place. |
Zargon | 08 Jan 2017 11:40 a.m. PST |
Caltrops, explosive charges to drop over the wall, mined sections, using the cannons inside the compound to spray the walls as they came over, a central command post/defense section similar to Rorke's Drift this could just maybe have won it but you'd have to make it a charnal house for the attackers, remember once inside the walls and hemmed in they would be bunched tight and easy to kill. But on the other hand they didn't have a chance because it WAS the Alamo and history is not hindsight history and thats why so many gamers game that selfsame battle, hoping to change history and prove brave but doomed men wrong. Remember the Alamo. |
pzivh43 | 08 Jan 2017 12:02 p.m. PST |
Full disclosure here---I consider myself a Texan (lived there from age 6 to 18, then off to the military---still have relatives there in God's country). So, I bristle a bit when someone says the Alamo defender's stand was stupid. That statement seems too dependent on our perfect hindsight. Sure, Travis' orders were to secure the supplies and then scamper back to the main Army. But he had sent letters back to Houston (and also to Fannin, IIRC) apprising him of the strength of the position and that with a few more men, the Alamo could be held. Of course, what he didn't know, until it was too late, was that Santa Ana had decided to concentrate his Army there, rather than keep it spread out. And he was also ignorant of the disaster Fannin would suffer at Goliad. So I think calling the decision to stand a stupid one, is, well, ignorant! |
Nick Stern | 08 Jan 2017 12:08 p.m. PST |
I ran an Alamo game last September using the "Come and Take It" rules. The Texian commander had played the same game with the same rules a few years ago and thought he had came up with a way for the Texians to win. The game requires the Texians to begin the game manning the walls and the artillery in its historic position. When the game started, since the rules allowed it, he abandoned the north and west walls and prolonged the artillery toward the long barracks. The south and east walls held off the Mexican attacks long enough for the Texians to form a strong defensive position in front of and on top of the long barracks. As the Mexicans came over the north and west walls, they were mowed down by the concentrated Texian firepower. Eventually the Mexicans stormed over the south and east walls, but they could not crack the defenses around the barracks. As we called the game, the Mexicans were about to occupy the chapel, but they had run out of reinforments and the barracks still held, so we called the game in favor of the Texians. |
Frederick | 08 Jan 2017 12:11 p.m. PST |
I don't think they could have held them off, but strategically the Alamo allowed Houston's army to survive and eventually win at San Jacinto To be fair to Santa Anna (now that's something I never thought I would say) he stole a march on the Texians by a strategic advance in the winter and through lousy weather – the Texians did not expect the Mexican army so early Plus Fanion did not exactly help matters |
Milhouse | 08 Jan 2017 12:56 p.m. PST |
They had a lot of artillery but their powder was inferior . The walls were flimsier than you'd think in terms of protection and while they had great interior lines , simply not enough men to cover the entire perimeter and man all those guns. |
attilathepun47 | 08 Jan 2017 1:31 p.m. PST |
On the question of Texas remaining an independent nation: There was a pro-independence faction among the Texan settlers, but its numerical strength is hard to judge. More important, however, is that Sam Houston almost certainly went to Texas in the first place as an agent of the United States Government with a mission to ensure that Texas ultimately would become American territory. All his activity as President of the Republic of Texas supports such a view. |
ColCampbell | 08 Jan 2017 1:47 p.m. PST |
As well as his actions in opposing secession in 1861. Jim |
doug redshirt | 08 Jan 2017 2:02 p.m. PST |
Well the 10 million dollars the Republic owed was mighty big incentive to join the USA if the feds would pick up the whole debt load. Also anyone who thinks defending the Alamo was a great military idea, has to wonder why they didnt occupy the government compound in the city instead. Smaller area and better walls. |
londoncalling | 08 Jan 2017 2:36 p.m. PST |
My learned colleagues… Texan, Texian or Texican ??? Which is the right term for a son or daughter of Texas ? :) Thanks for the insightful discussion on the battle, it appears the consensus is that from a military perspective the defenders did all they could on the day and it was a foregone conclusion. Are there any historical documents that indicate the defenders knew it was a one way trip ? |
Cacique Caribe | 08 Jan 2017 5:42 p.m. PST |
Pzvih43: "I consider myself a Texan … still have relatives there in God's country). … So, I bristle a bit when someone says the Alamo defender's stand was stupid. That statement seems too dependent on our perfect hindsight." That's why I'm not showing my wife this topic. A portion of her "Texican" family traces back to that time and they fought for independence. I've been here myself since age 17 and, like you, I see this as "God's country". :) But, for the sake of this hypothetical gaming discussion: 1) The Texans should have incited rebellion in areas across the border. Not to make those areas part of some greater Texas, but to keep pressure on Mexico behind enemy lines. Some Texican volunteers could have been used for that operation. This might have bought Texas a little time for proper reinforcements; also 2) They should have also armed and offered freedom to all slaves in Texas. This could have resulted in actual help from Washington. At the very least more recruits from Americans who wanted abolition to be the norm.* But that's also just nonsense hindsight on my part. There were just too many things that did not turn out in their favor as is. And the Alamo simply ended up becoming Texas' own little Thermopylae. Even so what they accomplished against such overwhelming odds, a short-lived independent Republic, was incredible. Dan * There no telling what effect that would have had on the Civil War later on, if at all. Even as a free state Texas could have still joined the Confederacy's struggle for independence from Washington. How could that be? Well, unlike what most people think, in the ACW the states didn't all line up exactly according to whether they were all free states or not. There was a handful of pro-slavery states that wanted to remain in the Union (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, as well as the counties that seceded from Virginia and became West Virginia – see map below). To avoid confronting that topic, some historians like to just call them "border states", as if they had been coerced into remaining Union. But even the Emancipation Proclamation specifically excluded the freeing of slaves in those pro-Union slave states. However, to avoid derailing this thread, that's just a topic that could be discussed elsewhere at another time.
|
Rudysnelson | 08 Jan 2017 6:20 p.m. PST |
No, too many factors against them. |
Old Contemptibles | 08 Jan 2017 7:31 p.m. PST |
No. No chance at all. Which version did you watch? Hopefully not the John Wayne version. The Billy Bob Thornton version is much better and more in line to what actually happened. Great movie. |
mwindsorfw | 08 Jan 2017 8:44 p.m. PST |
The Mexicans had endured a brutal march through endless miles of rugged country, wearing tropical uniforms, through sleet and wind. Stragglers had to worry about Apaches and Commanches, but they arrived before the Texans left San Antonio. The Texans thought they would be reinforced, and probably thought they could hold out. The Mexican cavalry was efficient enough, and holding out for reinforcements likely seemed like a good idea. Besides, the movies where everything is sunny and green are BS. February and March can be miserably cold and windy, and I'm sure that was on the mind of individual defenders (stay where it's warm and wait for help, or try to sneak by the Mexicans, and be stuck in the countryside miles from help. The Texas army was not a professional one, and the Mexican army wasn't much better. One unfortunate fact is that many Texans bristled that Mexico didn't allow slavery, although language, culture, and regional ties played a large part in the Texas Revolution. By the time the Civil War rolled around, slavery was important enough for Texas to leave the Union, despite Sam Houston urging Texas not to secede. |
piper909 | 08 Jan 2017 10:42 p.m. PST |
I've read extensively on the Alamo and the Texas revolution for decades and belong to the Alamo Society, which sponsors an annual symposium and for many years has regularly published a periodic journal devoted to all aspects of the battle in history and culture. Many scholars and experts have contributed to the field of Alamo studies since the 1960s and plenty of new information has emerged that has yet to trickle into public consciousness. And the battle has acquired a heavy patina of myth, fable, and unsubstantiated revisionism that only clouds the many lingering issues surrounding it. That said, as some small bona fides (and I also live in Texas and have visited the Alamo more times than I can count since the 1970s, if this matters to some), under the original rubric, no, I don't see how the Alamo could have stood an prolonged siege -- not without substantial reinforcement/relief. Which was not coming, although how much Travis was aware of this is unknown. We don't know for a fact how much the Alamo command was operating in the dark, altho' the truth may have been dawning in the last days, when the noose had been considerably tightened. Had the Mexican assault of March 6 stalled and failed -- which was a possiblity -- it is still more than likely Santa Anna would have regrouped and launched an even larger attack within the week, when reinforcements and heavy siege guns would have arrived. The defenders would have been far too depleted and short of shot to have resisted another assault. As has been pointed out, they couldn't even man the weak Alamo mission perimeter in strength as it was, and keeping their artillery in action -- their main chance to hold the Mexicans at bay -- required a huge percentage of their available manpower as it was, even at minimum crew levels. Parts of the Alamo compound WERE prepared for a "redoubt" fall-back position, primarily the Long Barracks and the church, but these defenses were poor (barricades at doorways, trenches dug in the floors of rooms) and did not allow for placed artillery or coordinated defence. Those who took refuge in these positions could only wait blind for the inevitable. When the Mexican soldiers penetrated the outer walls and some Texians made the attempt to retreat to these prepared "redoubts", the effort was disorganized and piecemeal, some defenders were cut off from a retreat path, and the Mexicans methodically cleared the buildings one by one in close action or by turning the Alamo's own cannon around (the defenders had not been able to disable or spike them all) and blowing the defenses apart. Santa Anna was an egomaniacal fool for not waiting patiently for his siege guns and bombarding the Alamo to pieces while keeping the Texians penned in and his cavalry patrolling for any signs of a relief column -- not that the incompetent Fannin was coming anyway; and Houston has been legitimately criticized by many contemporaries and modern commentators alike for abandoning the Alamo to its fate, whether out of stubbornness, ruthlessness, or timid hesitation. The debate over his motives and reasons rages on. Now, something that was a possibility, altho' not an attractive one, was a Texian breakout. Some defenders could have likely escaped, but probably not as an organized body, and not without abandoning all their artillery and supplies (the Alamo held the largest collection of cannon in Texas). Even a successful breakout would have cost the Texians a lot of casualties in the face of Mexican cavalry superiority, and probably dispersed the survivors. Texas gave up its independence for much the same reasons Scotland did in 1707 -- it was broke and vulnerable and its richer neighbor coveted it (apart from the abolitionist wing of Congress) and so the Texians sold their independence in exchange for debt relief and the sturdier military protection of Uncle Sam. Few "white" Texian citizens or settlers had lived in the independent Republic very long anyway, the non-Tejano (native Latino inhabitants) population was very small in the 1830s. PS: "Texan" is the modern term, but "Texican" was sometimes employed back in the day and "Texian" is the most commonly encountered term during the Revolution and Republic period. |
KTravlos | 09 Jan 2017 4:54 a.m. PST |
I am not even sure a independent Texas would had escaped its own civil war when the US went to civil war. So many potential cleavages (Tejano, Texian, Slavery etc). Indeed I wonder if Napoleon III would not intervene there as well as Mexico. |
cosmicbank | 09 Jan 2017 6:49 a.m. PST |
They couldn't Burn the Alamo. It was going to be a state Landmark. |
daler240D | 09 Jan 2017 9:12 a.m. PST |
and the relevance to the objective discussion if you "hail from Texas" or "Gawd's Country" is that you can emotionally take umbrage at someones assessment? |
creativeguy | 09 Jan 2017 9:30 a.m. PST |
There was a book called Forget The Alamo that the premise was something to the effect that the defenders would have had a better chance defending Mission Concepcion with a smaller perimeter. Always meant to read it but never got the chance. |
Cacique Caribe | 09 Jan 2017 10:17 a.m. PST |
Daler240D: "and the relevance to the objective discussion if you "hail from Texas" or "Gawd's Country" is that you can emotionally take umbrage at someones assessment?" LOL. I didn't take "umbrage", as you call it, but someone here definitely took umbrage at the sight of those phrases! Maybe I should say them more often. :) Dan link |
Murvihill | 09 Jan 2017 10:53 a.m. PST |
"Otherwise they could've just hid in the basement with the bicycles." Heh heh. I showed my 11 year old that this weekend. |
daler240D | 09 Jan 2017 11:23 a.m. PST |
I hear you Dan, It seems someone "bristled" though! ; ) |
Shagnasty | 09 Jan 2017 11:44 a.m. PST |
piper40's analysis was superb. "Bristling" has become a regular aspect of being a Texan these days. |
attilathepun47 | 09 Jan 2017 11:55 a.m. PST |
Texas may possibly be "Gawd's Country," but Oregon is God's Country. And Oregon had something to do with the strategic situation. Until a political compromise was reached with Great Britain on the division of the Oregon Country (which originally went right up to Russian Alaska), the U.S. Government had to consider the possibility of a much more severe conflict with Britain. That militated against U.S. intervention in Texas in 1836 just as much as domestic political problems over the slavery issue. |
Cacique Caribe | 09 Jan 2017 11:59 a.m. PST |
Shagnasty, With the constant jokes and sly comments from entertainment and "news" media about Texas in just this past decade, I can certainly understand the current predisposition to "bristling" at certain comments or at what might appear like insinuations. London calling: "My learned colleagues… Texan, Texian or Texican ??? Which is the right term for a son or daughter of Texas ? :)" My wife says (and right or wrong I'm not going to argue with her about it) that Texians (Texans of American/European descent) and Texicans (Texans of Mexican descent) are all Texans. Like I said, I dare not argue with her. I've been married long enough to know better. :) Dan PS. Where is Oregon anyway? The name sounds slightly familiar. :) |
piper909 | 09 Jan 2017 2:39 p.m. PST |
I myself don't think that living in Texas or being born in Texas automatically gives anyone any special insight about the Alamo OR Texas OR "Texasness" (whatever that may be). Plenty of people living here know nothing about the Alamo, or couldn't care less. I only brought it up in my post because some people both inside and outside of Texas seem to think it grants special abilities (pro or con). There are a lot of different Texas's inside the big state called "Texas" and many parts have little in common with other parts (Austin ain't no El Paso, Dallas ain't no San Antonio, the Valley ain't the Panhandle, and so on…) Not to mention that the huge influx of out-of-staters over the last decades has changed the demographics of the state, and its culture, considerably, in the big cities at least, whether or not folks like to admit it. I always point out that Davy Crockett is a Hero of the Alamo and he was only a "Texian" for about nine weeks! And most of the defenders came from elsewhere, including a lot of "Yankees" that are usually overlooked, and a number of foreign-born. I don't particularly think of this as Gawd's Country -- after all, there is a fairly accurate folk ditty called "The Devil Made Texas"…. YouTube link It hurts 'cause it's true!! |
piper909 | 09 Jan 2017 2:51 p.m. PST |
PS: there was in fact a fairly sloppy but grandiose plan in the Texas revolution to encourage the spread of the uprising to northern Mexican states, and incorporate these into a Greater Texas and eventually the US --or, tantalizingly, Great Britain! See the fascinating book The Secret War for Texas by Stuart Reid. link These half-baked machinations led only to disaster, of course (the Matamoros expedition), and another massacre of scheming gringo troublemakers by the Mexican army. |
vtsaogames | 09 Jan 2017 3:03 p.m. PST |
Where is Oregon anyway? Up near the 49th parallel. "54-40 or fight!" Didn't get 54-40 so we turned around and fought the Mexicans. Guess they weren't as gnarly as the Brits. No navy either. |
mwindsorfw | 09 Jan 2017 5:56 p.m. PST |
It should be noted that not all Texans take umbrage about the Alamo. On part of the San Antonio Riverwalk, I discovered a bright, festive tile sign commemorating the location of a cypress tree from which Mexican snipers would shoot at Texans who ventured out to fill their canteens in the river. No idea if it's true, but it's a bit of an eye-opener if you grew up on John Wayne and he heroes of the Alamo. |
piper909 | 09 Jan 2017 11:33 p.m. PST |
I've seen this tile before, but can't remember if it referred to the Alamo siege or the earlier battle for Bexar (San Antonio), when the rebel Texians besieged the Mexican army holed up in the town and the Alamo mission. (Three months later, the positions were reversed.) An interesting thing is that the Alamo is a bit of a problem for San Antonio and the native Bexarenos. More natives than you might expect are uncomfortable with the glorification and celebration of the "gallant garrison" since this is often, or has been in the past, coupled with a demonization of all "Mexicans". San Antonio is an Hispanic-majority city and some of the residents have come to believe that the popular Alamo story signifies a subtle or not-too-subtle put-down of themselves as a Mexican-heritage people. So the number one tourist attraction is a bit of a sticky wicket for natives and local authorities sensitive to the attitudes of residents. This has only made it more difficult to make arrangements for the preservation and restoration of the site and anniversary commemorations. The Alamo also, sad to say, attracts a certain unruly, gung-ho triumphalist element, shall we say, that only exacerbates these problems. The Alamo as a political symbol lives on, often to the dismay of historians, preservationists, and well-intended enthusiasts. |