Talk:Battle of the Alamo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Technically the survivors weren't defenders though.... - Hephaestos|§ 02:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Time to lock down 2 Texian against Texan 3 What about the consequences? 4 Missing Mexican cannon 5 Confusing paragraph 6 Mystery of Jim Bowie 7 Date of Last Exit March 15? 8 Prelude to Battle Incomplete 9 Texian 10 Casualties 11 Alamo defenders supporting slavery 12 Bought time for Houston? 13 Constitution of 1824 or Independence? 14 Mexican Casualties in Introduction 15 Did Santa Anna really march through snowstorms? 16 Flags 17 inconsistent numbers (pov)

[edit] Time to lock down

Given the almost daily vandalism of this article, I'd like to suggest that it be locked for editing only by registered users. --Spacini 14:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- I've seen many vandal edits here (just today), and they were all by IPs, so thay will most likely solve the problem. RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 14:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto here. How do we do that? BQZip01 05:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

LET'S LOCK THIS ARTICLE DOWN! Someone please point me in the right direction and I'll get the ball rolling. --Spacini 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The process is pretty easy. Just put in a request for page protection. Did it for Knight and it worked like a charm. Good luck! --Ebyabe 18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll second the motion BQZip01 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism has continued so I have semi-protected the page to keep it from being vandalized by IP addresses or new users. Johntex\^talk 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded and those who made things happen. --Spacini 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texian against Texan

I found the word Texian used about five times, and the word texan used four times. Do the words have seperate meanings, or do they mean the same thing? And, if the latter, should we standardize the usage to one or the other? Sharvael|User talk:Sharvael 17:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Look up the article on Texian to see what it means. In pre-1845 histories, the inhabitants of Texas are known as Texians.

On the subject of spelling, am I missing something in noting that "Santa Anna" was spelled throughout the article with two "n's"? In normal, modern Spanish the name Santa Ana would only have one "n".]

That's how its spelled in English. 69.91.106.248 03:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

since it was a part mexico, it should properly be spelled tejano or in relation to females tejanas.Califman831

Since it's a last name, shouldn't it be spelled the way it was spelled? And wouldn't the English spelling be "Saint Anne"? I'll fix the spelling if no one has an opposing opnion fairly soon....Reggaedelgado 05:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm mexican, we spelled it as "Santa Anna" the name "Ana" has no relation with "Anna", it's just his last name.--Requeson 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about the consequences?

What about the consqeuences? Where is "Remember the Alamo"? How has this shaped US-Mexican relations? -mr100percent|§ 5 June 2004

According to the biography of Sam Houston (I will fill in the author later), a Texian is an Anglo native of Texas. A Tejano is a Latino native. But he seems to also use Texian for any Anglo Texas resident, regardless of birth.

I see two items which could be addeded.

1. Santa Anna's decision to give no quarter (execute prisoners) was made at the beginning of the campaign. According to the source above, Santa Anna marched all the way from Mexico under the no-quarter flag. You could clarify that when Santa Anna asked for the Texans surrender "with discretion" that meant once he took them prisoner, he reserved the right to summarily execute them, which of course is what he did.

2. The entire battle was quixotic, and should never have been fought. Major General Sam Houston, the commander of the Texas forces, and a highly qualified soldier, had ordered Jim Bowie to strip and raze the Alamo, and join the main body of the Texas forces. Bowie did not do this, and he and Travis lost all the men under their command. Bowie was at best a freebooter (thug would be more like it, IMHO), so for him to disobey Houston was merely imprudent. Travis was a regular officer of the Army of Texas, so his disopbedience was muntinous. As Houston forsaw, the Mexicans occupied the Alamo, and got considerable tactical advantage from the facitlity.

The battle of San Jacinto, which saved Texas independance, was won mostly by luck, due to a rare lapse in judgement by Santa Anna, one of the finest generals in the hemisphere. So the loss of 100-200 highly aggressive fighters in the Alamo ultimately had no effect, but that was not forseeable at the time.

[edit] Missing Mexican cannon

Why was the information about the missing Mexican heavy cannon removed? --Grouse 18:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing paragraph

In the following paragraph:

Before the battle, Santa Anna ordered that a red flag be raised indicating to the defenders that no quarter would be given. Several defenders who had not been killed in battle were captured and executed. Among its defenders were James Bowie (the leader of the militia forces), David Crockett, and William Barret Travis. Two dozen women and children, as well as two slaves at the Alamo, were released.

==

Does Among its defenders refer to those who had not been killed in battle? Crockett wasn't killed in battle but I thought Travis was. It seems to be mixing things which happened before the battle with things which happened afterward. Could someone make this clearer, maybe put it in two paragraphs? shoaler 21:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are correct Shoaler, William Travis was killed during the battle, very early on in fact. A ridiculas legend about him emerged soon after the battle. It said that he stood up on the wall and directed vollies of fire for several minutes before a Mexican sniper killed him. Davy Crockett survived the battle, critically wounded many reports say, and he was executed by the Mexicans. This report was heavily biased though. It described the Mexicans as 'cruel, savage murderers'. Reports about him, rumors, legends and so forth are enormously confusing and contridictory though.

-E. Brown

• We only have Travis' slave's version of when Travis died during the battle. Most accounts does put his death at early on in the battle. Whether it was five minutes, ten or fifteen, we'll never know. As to Crockett's death, again, we'll never know for certain if he was taken prisoner by Castrillon or died 'swinging ol Betsy' as Mrs. Dickinson claims. She was a non-combatant and was inside the chapel so how would she know? Crockett's death is extremely contraversial among Texas historians. Reply Posted 25 June 2005

[edit] Mystery of Jim Bowie

I heard this facinating story about Jim Bowie at the Alamo. Bowie was sick with pneumonia (or flu, depending on who you ask) at the time of the attack. When the Mexicans breached the fort, a horde of them burst into Jim Bowie's room, where he was on his sick-bed. He had two, single-shot pistols and his Bowie knife on the table. He fired both pistols into the crowd of Mexicans before he was riddled with bullets. After the battle three Mexican bodies were found in his room along with his. Two pistol shots and...what happened to the third guy? The Bowie knife was still on the table. Any thoughts. -E. Brown 20 March, 2005

• Yes. According to what legend you wish to believe, Bowie was either dead before the final assault or killed during the assault. According to Andrea Castanon Villanueva or as she's better known Madam Candelaria who claims to have been with Bowie at the time of his death, he died a few minutes before the final assault on 6 March. Her story, albeit a good one, doesn't have much creedo to it since she had changed it on several occasions. Bowie's death, along with Travis and Crockett will never been known for certain.

-User: tlincoln 25 June 2005

What a romantic modern assumption to assume a man who is on the verge of death from pneumonia could kill two people with two shots from weapons with a very low success rate and then somehow kill someone with a knife, even though he is bedridden. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Last Exit March 15?

The article says that Travis could send out riders as late as March 15. Can't be right, can it?

The last message was dated March 3, so I changed the March 15 date. Good catch!

• Travis sent out his last messenger, James L. Allen (1815-1901) on 5 March 1836 with a message to Fannin at Goliad.

-User: tlincoln 11 September 2005

[edit] Prelude to Battle Incomplete

The section entitled Prelude to Battle makes no mention of why the Texans rebelled.

• Actually, it seems to me that the existence of the Texas Revolution article makes the Prelude to Battle section too long, if anything. I have modified the first sentence to make the entrance a bit less jarring. It seems to me unnecessary to re-explain the entire war in an article about a single battle. Mmccalpin 03:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texian

I replaced some of the instances of "Texian" with "Texan" because as I understand it Texian refers to American (white) settlers in Texas; the defenders of the Alamo were not only white, so the more general "Texan" covers both in most cases. If anyone feels I changed it in an inappropriate place, please feel free to fix it. Kafziel 17:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

I just reverted an edit by 207.69.137.20 for two reasons: 1. Anonymous user edits with misspellings always make me mildly suspicious. 2. Very specific claim about one particular source, but without a citation. My apologies to 207.69.137.20 if this was a legitimate fact, but please cite in the future, and please create a login to Wikipedia. Mmccalpin 14:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alamo defenders supporting slavery

I've read that one factor - not the primary reason - for the Alamo defenders' opposition to the Mexican government was the government's anti-slavery policy.

The defenders of the Alamo were in part fighting for the continued right to own slaves.

Why does the article not mention this whatsoever? It mentions other factors, from the increasingly dictatorial powers of the Mexican president to the loyalty of the Alamo defenders to the US over Mexico; I'd think it should also mention the difference on slavery between the two sides, that the battle was in part between the forces for and against slavery.

Indeed, the statement of Texas upon seceding from the United States clearly indicates the importance to them of defending the right to slavery:

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States...

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." —This unsigned comment was added by Craig234 (talk • contribs) .

This is an article about a specific battle; the politics are mentioned only in passing to frame the lead up to the actual events in the article. The motivation for the politics sounds like an intersting topic for Texas Revolution (where it is indeed discussed), or Mexican Texas (where it is mentioned and dismissed). Kuru ^talk 22:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, this would seem a perfect opportunity to correctly frame the events leading up this historic battle. The complete ommission of this contributory motivation for Texas rebellion is a serious oversight by the editor and does dear disservice to the reader.Bedreaded 10:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bought time for Houston?

According to this page http://www.thealamo.org/myths.html, the defense of the Alamo had nothing to do with giving sam Houston time to build an army.

It is unlikely that they had much information about what Houston was doing. If they did, they probably hoped that he was coming to relieve them. Theres certainly no evidence that would suggest the defenders thought they were buying time. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

+this is my understanding as well, I was a history major at a university in San Antonio, so we studied the Alamo ad naseum, my understanding is that travis and the defenders believed Santa Anna would wait until spring to start his march north in order to have forage for his calavary, and accordingly thought that they had several months more than they actually did. Also Travis had no knowledge of Fannins' action and believed he and his 400 men were coming as reinforcements, which fannin belatedly set out to do before the battle of Goliad.

[edit] Constitution of 1824 or Independence?

I'm willing to accept the myth-busting revision, but not the ranting tone (encyclopedic articles shouldn't normally be proving negatives), and most of the detail was inappopriate for the introduction. Thus I moved it down to a larger discussion of the defenders and their sympathies. The whole paragraph, however, is unsourced and the claims -- especially -- that this 19th century historian promulgated myths is just the sort of thing that we should have a citation for. Otherwise, perhaps we should restore the text as of yesterday. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican Casualties in Introduction

The article mentions differing claims about casualites depending on Mexican or Texan sources. However, the Introductory summary still states an unequivocal number of 1,000 Mexicans killed. This should be expressed in a range to show up front the uncertainty of the numbers.

[edit] Did Santa Anna really march through snowstorms?

From the Prelude to battle section:

Santa Anna assembled an estimated force of 6,100 soldiers and 20 cannon at San Luis Potosí in early 1836 and moved through Saltillo, Coahuila, towards Texas. His army marched across the Rio Grande through inclement weather, including snowstorms, to suppress the rebellion.

I live in south Texas along the Rio Grande. We got snow here 2 years ago...for the first time in 118 years (that's right, it never snowed here in the 20th Century). I would really like to know where these "snowstorms" are documented. I'm not saying he didn't march his army through snowstorms, it just sounds a little out of the ordinary for the region.

Prometheusg 18:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - that's a bold claim for most of that area. I can see that earlier versions of the article (Junish) said "including snowstorms in mountain passes" - no idea why that was

+it is my understanding that a norther hit and the temp dropped very low, but I've always had a hard time believing the stories about several feet of snow.

[edit] Flags

The description of the flag of the revolution is a little unclear; I am assuming that the brown field referred to is a typo, and should read blue? Also surprising to me is that there seems no reference to this flag in the several flags of texas articles that I have just scanned. Yendor1958 (Not signed in)

[edit] inconsistent numbers (pov)

Under casualties it says

However, most historians and military analysts accept those reports which place the number of Mexican casualties at approximately 1,500.

and under Mexican casualties it says

The accounts most commonly accepted by historians are the ones that single place the number of Mexican dead around 200 and the number of initial Mexican wounded around 400 [...] the Texian account of 1,500 dead also lacks logic.

There seems to be a lot of opinion in the article in general. I came here not knowing about Alamo at all and have a hard time figuring out what is historical fact and what is "interpretation". If there is a controversy I 'd like to read about it not witness it. 85.178.5.248 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)