Post by marvelous35 on Mar 24, 2008 23:15:44 GMT -5
I always think about what a diffrence it could have made if the Texans would have built some deep and wide treches all the way around the alamo, or around the weakest points, like something 4 to 6 foot wide, so when all the soilders charged the walls, they would have gotten bunched up trying to get organized and trying to get through the deep ditch. I figure it would have slowed the advace pretty well, and caused some confusion.
Well, there were some protective trenches by the weakened north wall, but the Mexicans overcame them by tossing bundles of sticks called fascines into them. Over on the east side, meanwhile, a large pond and the marshy area behind the church (thanks to the acequia there) prevented the Mexicans from assaulting at that point. As it turned out, the bulk of the assault hit the north wall and while the ditches proved an obstacle, the pause in action was but brief.
Oh yeah, the palisade did have a six foot wide ditch in front of it that was 4 foot deep. This brought the height of the palisade up to 9 feet, and discouraged an assault there, as the soldados would had to have bunched up down in the ditch before making the climb back up. (Sort of like fish in a barrel.)
Post by marvelous35 on Mar 25, 2008 0:53:14 GMT -5
If only there would have been a way to do something more like that all the way around, I think confusion would have been good, even is breif, could have given us another cannon shot or two, another couple of rounds of musket shot.
What would have helped, and I'm not joking around, are bows and arrows. If they had trenches big enough to prove an obstacle they could get off atleast eight times as many shots with a bow then a rifle. I have mentioned this many times and no one seems to take the idea seriously.
"I'll leave this rule for when I'm dead-- be always sure you're right, then go ahead."-David Crockett
A plan like that would have to be the brainchild of an individual in the Alamo who was willing to put it into effect independently. Bows and arrows would have to be crafted and there would have to be someone who was knowledgable of the art. Even at that, this individual would probably be lucky to gather together a dozen, or so defenders willing to train as a unit. And while a dozen good bowman may've been able to give the north wall attackers what fer in the initial push, it was still only a matter of time before the Mexicans would be over the walls.
I remember seeing this one Western where an Indian chief was using his archers like artillery, judging the trajectory and then firing the arrows up into the air to come down on the enemy.
Over on the Alamo Sentry, there's a similar thread going now called COULD THE ALAMO HAVE BEEN SAVED.
Here's what Herb "Wolfpack" had to say:
Yeah, I think the Alamo could have been "saved", but the saving involved work that had to be done before Santa Anna arrived on February 23rd.
The only way, the Alamo could have held out, is by keeping the Mexicans from closing the walls. By finishing the work the Mexicans began in 1835, by adding more and better abatis, and by emplacing sharpened poles (I forget the technical term - think giant punji stakes) in the acequia along the North and West Walls, the defenders could have held the Mexican Army in a kill sack for the defenders' artillery. Every chance for sucessful defense was tied to openning the engagement of the attacking Mexicnas at maximum artillery range, with roundshot, shifting to canister and lanridge as the Mexicans closed, and then using the obstcles to hold them at close range until forced to retreat.
The problem of course is that the Mexicans had their siege artillery enroute and any repulsed attack would have led to a deliberate siege and a reduction of the walls and obstacles before a follow up attack.
Maybe they could killed more Mexicans had they done things differently, but the Alamo would have fallen in the end anyway. Apart from the fact that the Mexicans heavy artillery was under way, the Alamo was´nt prepared for a long siege. No matter how you look at it, the Alamo was doomed, I think. Just my two cents...
Post by marvelous35 on Mar 30, 2008 12:23:53 GMT -5
I would think you would want to kill as many of the mexicians as you could have, so that theory on the poles and stuff is good. You take a army and you knock out 60 to 70 percent of them, you change Santa Annas whole gameplan
And that the fall of the north wall was because it had been repaired by the mexicans with timber and dirt, it was over three feet thick so the defenders had to expose themselves in order to fire down at the crouching soldados. One by one they where being picked off and soon the fire was slowed enough for the soldados to scale the timber and such..
Hey, new member here. I was rereading Three Roads to the Alamo and got to the part about the number of weapons Travis had. Apparently he had 25 exploding shells with fuses that could be used as grenades, and 686 solid shot cannon balls. Why didn't they use these at the north wall once the Mexicans were under the walls. These could have been dropped over the wall without exposing yourself to enemy fire.
The boiling oil would also have been a great idea. The bows and arrows would be good to, especially if they were English War bows. Those things have ridiculous range.
aquila non captat muscas- The Eagle is no fly catcher