Ed Borris Alamo Conversions for 2016. Once again Ed has done a number of various figured from Marx, BMC and other figure makers to do his conversions. Ed is a big fan of the battle of the Alamo.
Ed did these Alamo conversions for a friend. His friend wanted to have a Mexican being boosted up a wall by standing on a musket .
Ed’s friend also what figures under the wall in shock and awe of the attack.
Here is a close up of the Mexican being boosted up by the musket.
Here is a Mexican looking up at the top of the wall.
Ed apologizes for the darkness of the photos. He is using a Windows of the world building that he got from Bill Nevins some years ago. According to Ed, the walls are a little taller than they should be, but it is a nice sturdy building with a good paint job.
Can’t have too many Alamo figures – how big was Santa Ana’s army supposed to be?
According to historical detail and modern estimated sources not larger than 6000,but he split it and barely 3000 regulars plus few hundred (militia many Indians) armed with machetes and working field tools) were used direct in the Alamo.
The attack was done by about 2000 max on three front I guess.
Most cavalry did not participate till walls broken at the end. Mexican dispatched other cavalry and forces to deal with possible other treats of Texan armies far from Alamo area.
So you need least 3000 figures in the Mexican size
Holly cow Ed ,I think will broke my pocket if I ever come across your table at Chicago.
Erwin,
I only charge $5.00 per figure, the three man piece is only $15.00, how can you beat that?
Depending on who you ask there was anywhere between 2 & 7 thousand Mexicans, most say less than 3 thousand and around 2,000 took part in the final assault. The Mexican casualties ranged between 65 & 600. The Texans between 189 and 250+, no one knows for sure, some people claim that some of the names of the Texans on the memorial outside the Alamo weren’t even really there. It’s pretty much an unsolved mystery even more vague than Custer’s Last stand. I think the only issue they agree upon is how many cannons were inside the Alamo, 18. Heck, there must be 6 or 7 books regarding what the Alamo looked like, what did the North wall look like, did it have embrasures, were there logs reinforcing the wall, how many lunettes there were, etc. etc. .
Nice job Ed !
I agree, to reinforce what Ed said (not that he needs it) Santa Anna had anywhere between 5 and 6,000 troops in Texas during the campaign; I think most historians (from what I’ve read) agree he had about 2,400 in San Antonio during the siege. There was the column of about 900 – 1,000 under acting General Urrea, who took Goliad and executed Fanin’s command after the battle of Coleto Creek, and several battalions (and his heavier artillery) didn’t join him until after the battle.
About 1800 took part in the direct assault, with a couple hundred cavalry posted to head off any defenders who tried to escape. I add this to pose a question to you all. I find it interesting the cavalry are rarely counted in head counts for assault force, but they were involved and did account for a number of defenders caught outside the walls who were either found themselves outside and trapped or were escaping. Do any of you agree with me they should be counted in the numbers assaulting the Alamo – even if they were relegated to a support role?
Oh yes, I almost forgot – great job on the conversions Ed; you’re an artist!
Well, while they may have been involved in the battle to some degree, I don’t think they were directly involved in the assault. A fine line I guess.
Agree, they have to be taken into account somehow, I guess with a sidenote.
That is not bad price at all!! It just that I will try too buy as many I see because the awesome nice poses(it is in that part that I admire more your work-the realism and dramatic view of poses)
Yes agree in attack not more than 2000 ,same as most resent studies said. Casualties had been reduced and inflated but I use my personal opinion to said this.
I think the Mexican had more casualties ,but had been exaggerated a lot before. Not because I doubt the accuracy and bravery of defenders ;just because by all historical accounts the actual assault took no more than 30 minutes and after was just a killing spree of wounded and those remaining inside the few building parts. Assault march start at 5:30 am but first shot at 5.47 am and the battle was over and Alamo secured by 6:30 am.
So base in that and superiority of Mexican forces in numbers I doubt the defenders had the chance to inflict too many casualties in so short time considering the slow loading muskets weapons, not canister fire in cannon and few day light light as very early winter morning during attack. Plus so spread defenses in the three point assault at same time. Most defenders may had been kill as wounded or executed inside during the separated skirmish that ensued after the 15 minutes the Mexican had entered the compound.
Movies show often a single man hand fighting 5 and 6 at the same times. In reality when using either clubs or blade weapons wile you can fight off two assaulting you ,the 3 or 4th will definitely hit you bad before you notice and you may barely have chance to kill any at all. This how in ancient and medieval-post time non skilled soldiers deal with knights and skilled soldiers/officer. No matter how much an skilled warrior could be the logic indicate the opposite in reality and had been proven in real history so often.
Another and last detail I like to add is that during the Alamo early hours and night the temperatures were between 30-36 f and mild windy,this was cold x many not just to this weather and area. Santa Ana forbid the use of long coat on those who have it as may impede the agility during dark of soldier quite advance. But he did permit the use of Ponchos and it is written in Mexican historical records by two general who fought at the battle. As far I know not regular soldier had been done by any company in plastic with ponch over the uniform!?
About cavalry ,if they did not attack the walls and went inside as not order x this given I think from military tactical point of view they should not be counted as assault troops but only as reserve. I had not read of any defender been cut outside or kill the Alamo by cavalry either. Main historical data just mention S Ana place Joaquin Ramírez y Sesma with some 500-(436) more exact to cover any scape around the Alamo divided in 7 detachment. According to Sesma own words he was very disappointed he did nothing during the Alamo, so his men(probably one of the best in Mexican army cavalry at moment).The lack of his troops with S Ana may had been a great help in the victory of Texans at S Jacinto.
You wouldn’t be the first one to buy them in bulk, the first year I brought them to OTSN one guy bought over 120 of them, the following year the same guy bought 55 and the third year the same guy bought 110. Other guys have bought up to 10 at a crack. Each year I seem to pick up a few new customers.
Well, I don’t know for sure about the time frame of the battle, if it was 40 minutes or an hour an 40 minutes. In any case 43 minutes would seem to be too short. By all accounts though, two attacks on the north were repulsed before they finally made over or through the wall so that would seem to extended the time frame somewhat. Also, the Texans had a large amount of 500-600 captured Mexican Muskets, taking into account artillery men, who would not need too many muskets each Texans could have 4 to 5 almost muskets at his disposal. That doesn’t take into account pistols , clubs knives and the fact they had to get over the wall either by ladder or clambering over which would expose them to great danger. These facts alone could up the Mexican casualties considerably. Then too we have the raw recruit factor and friendly fire incidents. Once they got over or through the wall I imagine it was over fairly quickly, the bayonets would make quick work of the defenders.
I was going to bring up Ed’s point about the captured muskets that were loaded 4 & 5 apiece at each defender’s battle station. Most of the Mexican survivor accounts I’ve read say the first assault really caught it because the Texians were able to fire off those muskets in rapid succession. The Mexicans were packed even more tightly in formation than normal because of Santa Ana’s concern of new troops panicking – this greatly increased the effect of the fire from the Alamo as when you fire into a crowd that is that tightly packed it’s hard to miss – even in the darkness – and there was probably just enough light in the pre-dawn hours to make out the formations of troops at the close distance the Mexicans reached before the unauthorized cheer wakened the garrison. So, figuring there were twenty or thirty men manning the North wall, where by most accounts the heaviest Mexican casualties occurred, and each guy got off about four rounds (average it) before he had to reload… and even if some missed, there are a lot of dead and/or wounded Mexicans on the North wall from musket fire.
Then, there were the cannon on the North wall. De la Pena reported losing half of the Toluca Grenadier company to a blast from at least one of the cannon that was loaded with nails and other debris, having the effect of a shotgun. Estimating a Grenadier company at between 30-50 men (I am currently doing an estimate of casualties and need to re-check the strength of each company – just haven’t gotten around to it) you have between 15 and 25 troops lost in that one cannon blast.
The first few minutes of the first assault was a living hell for the poor soldados assaulting that wall.
The second attack didn’t go much better as the Texians had some time to reload at least one of their weapons and poured it into them. I doubt the fire was as deadly as the first, but the Mexicans were no doubt stunned from the savage beating they had taken from the first attempt.
By this time, though, many Mexicans began to return fire and there is much disagreement and speculation as to how many Mexicans might have been killed by friendly fire from inexperienced troops and the poor powder in their muskets causing rounds to fall short. No doubt there were a number and this would add to the body count.
At the same time, Texian fire probably began to lesson – partially due to the time required to reload now that the extra muskets had been used and partially due to the fact the Alamo was never designed to be a military fort. There were no crenellations on the walls for the defenders to fire from; the Texians had to expose themselves to Mexican fire to shoot and even if one criticizes the quality of Mexican marksmanship (as some have), with that many rounds coming your way some have to hit the mark and you are just as dead by a stray round that hits you than one dead on the mark.
The third assault succeeded (in spited of General Amador’s denial) at least in part due to the movement of General Romero’s column from the East wall (to avoid the heavy fire there), and Santa Ana’s committing his reserve troops (made up of elite companies from the infantry battalions) into the fray. Also, by this time, some accounts have troops breaking in to the compound from various doors, windows, and firing ports that opened to the outside of the compound. Some troops entered through the corral. Another force of about 100 men (3 companies) of Cazadores (Light Infantry) after being driven away from a direct assault on the palisade to the South (manned by Crockett and the Tennesseans) managed to scale the wall at the Southwest corner of the Alamo and take control of the cannon there, which had been turned North to use against the horde pouring in from the North wall.
After that, the battle degenerated into a deadly large-scale brawl as defenders, realizing the defenses had been breached began retreating to the last lines of defense – the long barracks and other barracks, which had been somewhat fortified as last redoubts.
I would imagine the sheer numbers of Mexican casualties began to drop, but the fighting in the darkened barracks was no less deadly as Mexican and defender both fought in the darkened rooms with fist, knife, shot, club, and even teeth. The Mexicans finally grabbed at least one of the garrison’s cannon and turned it on the barracks.
I first heard about the defenders outside the walls from William C. Davis’ “Three Roads to the Alamo,” and most contemporary accounts have accepted the fact that some of the defenders ended up outside the walls – either due to the confusion of the fighting, realizing discretion was the better part of valor, or one theory says it was the defenders of the West wall, who couldn’t make it to the long barracks on the other side of the compound, made a break for the San Antonio River. Some were run down by the cavalry before they made it, others made it to a stand of trees and brush by the river. There they made such a fight of it Sesma had to send in reinforcements. Others found themselves cut off in the corral and jumped the East wall trying to make a break for it. In spite of covering fire from Dickenson’s cannon(s) in the Alamo church they were run down by the Mexican cavalry. You can find this in Edmundsons book (pp. 366-367). One account has as much as a third of the garrison taking off. I disagree with that, though Sesma estimated as many as fifty.
The problem of figuring out how many died at the Alamo on either side is that only one side had survivors to tell the tale. As the man said, “Thermopylae had its messenger, the Alamo had none.” So we are left with the memories of Susannah Dickenson which bore some differences over time, memoirs and diaries of Mexican soldiers and I can bear witness to how the “fog of war” can really leave one with misconceptions as to what was really going on around him, and then there are the official reports of Santa Ana, who was probably embarrassed by the casualties he received in taking such a lightly defended garrison – that wasn’t even a military garrison. It makes it difficult to figure out.
I doubt the higher (up to 250) number of defenders theory; as Ed and I have discussed and debated a couple times in other places (may we never tire of it) , folks keep talking about some 60 or so reinforcements coming in right before the battle, over and above the 32 or so who rode in from Gonzales on the tenth day. But no one can (as far as I’ve been able to find) account from where those 60 came from. In a war where the largest “army” the Texans fielded came to about 800 troops or so – sixty guys disappearing into the Alamo would have been missed from somewhere – the 32 from Gonzales were. However, we can account for about 180 – 190 bodies, even if (as Ed states) we really can’t prove the identities of those bodies:
100 or so under Bowie
20 or so under Travis
18 rode in with Crockett.
32 from Gonzales
180 bodies more or less (these numbers are estimates) – and there were the messengers such as Juan Seguin and James Allen, who didn’t return; and of course Louis (or Moses) Rose, the man who chose to leave when given the chance – though some even doubt this.
Now, there might be some more there, as I said, my numbers are estimates, but 60 or more? Again, I doubt it.
As to Mexican casualties? I think the consensus (from my readings at least ) is about 1/3 of the assault force were casualties, either killed outright or wounded – and without a medical corps because of Santa Ana’s cost-cutting measures in outfitting his expedition, most of the wounded died from even the minor wounds. We’re talking around 600. I recall reading more than one Mexican account of the courtyard of the Alamo being so full of bodies one could walk across it without touching the ground. Exaggeration? Maybe, but it is echoed throughout the ranks.
IMHO the best account of the Alamo (with all due respect to Lord’s “A Time to Stand”) is Jack Edmundson’s “The Alamo Story.”
I hope I haven’ run on too long. As Ed and maybe some of the others can tell you, I love discussing the Alamo – and the Little Big Horn – and a bunch of other topics. Looking forward to your opinions.
Nice buildings………… LOL
Yeah, I wonder where I got it.
To change the subject a little, I just got a new Custer book, The Mystery of E troop. I’m through about 110 pages and as you can tell by the title it mostly concerns the gray horse troop and what happened to them. So far is contains a lot of Indian accounts of the battle and the flaws of how some of those interviews were conducted. As usual with eye witness accounts they are limited to where they were during the battle and many were led somewhat by the interviewer who believed he had an account of what really went down and based on a map he used when he interviewed them. Anyway it’s kind of an interesting read so far. Again it seems to be written to discount the idea that E Troop was killed in the deep ravine, but she shall see where it goes as I haven’t finished it yet.
I do agree that Jack’s book is the best I have read despite his obvious fascination with Mr Bowie. I like it simply because he presents all or at least most of the many scenario’s and sort of leave’s it up to you to decide. That’s probably why some of the books aren’t as popular with me, as once they roam outside my own beliefs I get defensive and have a tendency to downgrade the book on my favorites list. Or, maybe it’s just because I feel the author is trying to convince everyone his thinking is correct without presenting all sides of the argument.
I’ll have to check that book out, Ed. As you know, that’s another of my favorite subjects. And I think you’ve nailed why I like Jack’s book, too. And he’s a great story teller.
Yeah some of those authors aggravate me almost as much as the History Channel. The excavation of the Little Big Horn battlefield 120 years after the fact on probably the most dug up battlefield in existence and then trying to convince us that the results of that excavation was fact with no consideration given to the extensive previous burials, construction , souvenir hunters not to mention 120 years of rains and snows. Everybody and their mothers went over that battlefield and we won’t even take into consideration the animals dragging around the bones of the dead, but let’s call it fact. Why let a a few little things like I have described get in the way.
Ed
I always love seeing your conversion figures. It takes a great imagination to come up with those figure poses. Wish you did WW2 figures as I would love to see what you would come up with.
BOBBYGMOORE
Bobby,
Thanks for your kind words
Right now I’m branching off into Civil War a little bit, who knows WWII may be next. I have converted a few WWII guys into Alamo defenders, but there is a lot of work in that.
Wow….I’m late to the party here. First off – I liked the new ideas for the conversions. Well done! Second – I’m not going to get into the discussion over the numbers. I DO like a GOOD properly written History book that will present you with the findings and NOT try to tell you the author’s theory is a proven fact. Thirdly – what I WILL impart the doctrinal definitions to determine ‘who took part in the assault’. The names for the elements involved have changed over time, but all European based armies understood that you have 3 major components to an ‘assault’ or ‘deliberate attack’. You have the Support Element; they perform the task of providing support by fire, casualty collection, command and control and other things of lesser relevance here. Next is the Security Element – they seal off the objective to prevent any surprises from the outside or stopping any escape. Lastly – the Assault Element. That’s the guys who had to scale the wall. So, technically those are the guys who ‘took part in the assault’. The cavalry actions, with casualties or not, were part of the Security Element. Nobody mentioned the poor ol’ artillerymen who did their job during the siege. I wonder if there were any casualties among them. Those guys belong to the Support Element and even though they did not fire, I’m sure they were ‘stood to’ for possible action on day 13. So, that’s my bit of useless information for today.
I agree with Ed: J. R. ‘S The Alamo Story is a must read for anyone interested in the Alamo. I also recommend A Time to Stand by Walter Lord, Exploring the Alamo Legends by Wallace Chariton, Death of a Legend, The Alamo Reader, and The Alamo Source book. We have spent many an hour walking the Alamo grounds and trying to picture the final assault. The entire compound covers a city block, about three acres. Stand by the post office. It’s built over the North wall, gre perimeter they had to defend.and look South towards the Menger, you’ll get an idea of how large it was and you begin to wonder, how could 189 men defend all this space? And you wonder again, hoe could the self styled ” Napoleon of the West” fail to overwhelm the defenders in a matter of minutes due to the large perimeter they had to defend.
Walk the area at night and listen to the wind, the voices, the walls, they will talk to you…
One interesting aspect of the Alamo is that at night many people gather there to just sit and I guess pay homage. We actually talk a walk through Alamo grounds with Jack after hours, interesting to hear his theories. Jack is my drinking buddy.
Greg, some good points and agree. Mike you’ve mentioned some great books on the subject, I consider them required reading for anyone with more than a passing interest in the subject. The Alamo is undoubtedly one of my favorite places on this earth. Over the years I manage to stop by there at least once a day when in town – particularly at night when the crowds have died down. And Ed, sitting with Jack outside the Alamo is a blast – particularly when Gary Beadl is there and they go into their John Wayne and Lee Marvin routine.
Yes I still doubt many of those accounts,too many speculation and the so call witness alive after battle in the Texan side(few and all time inside the chapel)
In the Mexican side that accounts were taken years after and in most cases by generals who witness the main movement and some are not credible but still officially accepted.
Sample the part so much repeated (Then, there were the cannon on the North wall. De la Pena reported losing half of the Toluca Grenadier company to a blast from at least one of the cannon that was loaded with nails and other debris, having the effect of a shotgun.).This come from Jose Enrique de la Peña
Who wrote this wile in jail years later because he was against (Santa Ana) in uprising involvement.
His apparently memories were used years after by an editor claiming were real,but most American and no American historians claim all the memories apparently were written much after by some body else and taken in consideration by few writers to increase the beauty of their books.
Yet this minor part above was add to the battle general description from the suppose (De al Pena) memories as historical account. But no only that ,this claim of carnage was made by De al Pena when he wrote back to report to general(Manuel Fernández Castrillón) during battle,according to De la Pena himself ride back and forth 2 times during the advance and then did not took more action. Yet general Fernandez diaries do not mention this at all ,only that De la Pena ride back to inform of general Duque been wounded and need of column commanding officer soon.
So how historical could it be?
You can find all this discrepancy by googling each officer and else easy,you may use some writers books as well to find the discrepancies as well.
I do not have doubt in the improvised canister,neither in amount muskets used by defenders as was both found and described by Mexicans later. But about the accuracy of amounts casualties per action is a big debate and very hard to proof. I won’t dare calculate in contradictory accounts and claims with not much base as will let to a very speculative number .
About the Mexican lack of firing is correct described by 4 Mexican general diaries and Santa Ana that complain of it .The order of battle is correct reported as row recruits in front ranks(these had been never train in firing ,not even shot a blank in practice) and dare to fire from shoulder the musket -dus the depiction in figures firing from elbow position with out any aiming.
They place the more trained soldiers in back and side rows of columns. So the main casualties were front inexperience soldados send as body bullets ,either to give courage or to use them to test the defenders accuracy as Santa Ana did not care about his soldiers neither was a good general at all.
Here is why.
Most had been told about the battle ,yet few said about one fact.
How in heck Santa Ana give the order of battle as to march in compact deep columns formation against a fortify position. This by any military annals is against military logic rules of the time.
Strong defenses are to be bombarded first,if not possible approach in oblique open light column formation,line or better skirmish advance formation. None of it was used in the battle.
Why Santa Ana did this. Because he was a … well you know .He proved again at San Jacinto battle after choosing a very bad location and poor preparation against his general advise. At S Jasinto is where historians least mention his fatal various mistake before the battle and during it (any how it last 15 minutes).
Last but no least add in this fact is the deep rank column formation is primary used when enemy massive cavalry is present to march with out been attack as cavalry hold their attack against massive infantry because from column formation they(infantry) can form solid square to repel them fast and easy.
But when facing defensive enemies in firing position and in high wall this create havoc as only the front rank are able to shoot at the time,wile defender could fire at the column from more larger (wide ) formation using more shooters per fire round at the time as well fire to the sides of the columns exposed when this is turning.
Similar situation is when open line face better against column during firing combat but then if frontal attack by column in bayonet charge will loose easy as not deep rank(line formation)
So my point is the Mexican were in more disadvantage responding firing even thought they had massive superiority but could not use this because of their attacking marching formation prevent them to use their number wile advancing and firing.
I’m wondering from the battle perspective view if not Texan or Tejano fighter alive standing the veracity of the witness, how come the correlation timing of action and those directing is taken in consideration as true battle facts from the Texan point of view.
Sample :Who witness and staid alive to recount this part so much told in all books and else.?
( The last of the Texians to die were the 11 men manning the two 12-pounder cannon in the chapel.A shot from the 18-pounder cannon destroyed the barricades at the front of the church, and Mexican soldiers entered the building after firing an initial musket volley. Dickinson’s crew fired their cannon from the apse into the Mexican soldiers at the door. With no time to reload, the Texians, including Dickinson, Gregorio Esparza and James Bonham, grabbed rifles and fired before being bayoneted to death. Texian Robert Evans, the master of ordnance, had been tasked with keeping the gunpowder from falling into Mexican hands. Wounded, he crawled towards the powder magazine but was killed by a musket ball with his torch only inches from the powder. Had he succeeded, the blast would have destroyed the church and killed the women and children hiding in the sacristy.
From where Julien Lon Tinkle take this account as cveridic and historical from in his book?
I doubt any Mexican knew who was who in the defenders side,so if the Mexican are mentioning the defenders by name it is a fake account. Only main witness and account of few event during siege and if any of battle is Susanna Wilkerson Dickinson.She herself mention she was told to identify the commanders of the texan/tejanos by Santa Ana after the battle ende among the death.
By her own account she remain hiden during entire battle and did not witness it.
The accounts of Slaves Sam(who is presumed never existed) and that of Joes are vage and of oratory orige much later edited.
Joes claim to be next to Travis and later go and hide in the chapel.However Concepcion Losoya
one of survivers and familiy of a mexican tejano defender that died in alamo claim Joes was with them at all time in the church.So here is another contradiction of what witness said and is been taken as historical account of the battle.
The casualties may not doubt increase after battle by wounded. The so call medical corp did not exit in Mexican army at the moment,it was none. The wounded were attended by the soldadera and civilian followers in most Mexican armies,often from near by villages and most time forced to do so.
But in most of the wounded were taken to Bexar and there account of this and the Mayor of the town been responsible together with over 50 people attending the Mexican wounded at the church and 7 other houses/building intermediately before mid morning. Meaning they were attended in better places than tents but no know of their wounds and strong medical attention,so many may had well died .
Another calculation that I made base in the numbers given that bring more enigma is the following.
By most account Mexican were about 3100 max of which by order of battle 2175 were direct involved in the assault but with 500 cavalry that barely few or none took direct action,meaning 1675 or so ever took action in the final attack. If the Mexican suffer 600 plus casualties as most historian claim now and most outside the walls because that is were the fire from muskets and cannon did the most damage .I doubt too much that Santa Ana would had been see so much casualties and not recall for reinforcement ,no even dismounted cavalry of 500 outside or the rest of more 1000 still in back lines.
He send the 400 reserve (part of 1675 force) to the same point where the other columns were massing or getting close(north wall).Some said he fear a rout in his troops,but others claim he use it to keep pressure of overwhelming push force in one point and brake the defenses as he was using massive deep rank columns in odd way against a defensive position.
So we can go on here x years because at the end ,most it is said is base in loose speculation,few Mexican not too much credible accounts and almost not real witness of actual battle.
At the end not doubt the few stand against the many and fought till the end like most Texan/tejanos did in the others battles. But the accuracy of how many died and were kill is a mystery.
Last
With all respect for all these writers. In my opinion,most books are written one taken from each other and reversing arguing or adding their opinion base in very few true data and most false speculation written 40 years or so after the event.
Even the so call “Mexican “ witness words interview had been take deliverable as truly words.
But if you actually read what apparently (he said) either the transaction was very bad wrong or he was not Mexican. In all the words of the event he depict the Mexican soldiers that participate in the battle of Alamo plus San Jacinto in a very antimexican view and very pro Texan. There is not sympathy in his words for his (apparently comrades) during battle and is a very clear the admiration to a high level for the Texan who he during the battle apparently know their names!!!??/No idea how but well,it is up to others to believe or not.
I will live this long written as last as otherwise will go off the toy forum and never end.
But I need to said this,I know plenty Mexican;either mestizo(mix race),Indians and Spaniards direct descendant and ,none have much admiration for Texan;specially when talking about this war or the Mexico war .Please do not take my words as generally opinion but understand that a Mexican veteran soldiers from an army that eventually was defeated will never feel so proud of their enemy and admiration and no talk any good for his own. So Mr Nunes words are in my opinion (a made up history)
here is a link to the words from Mr Nunes Alamo battle account as he said and were translated.
http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/adp/history/1836/accounts/nunez/frameset.html
Best …
I find most eye witness accounts about battles to be almost useless. For one thing you can really only report on where you were and maybe what went on there, but things are moving so fats you really don’t have time to record everything in your mind. Even if you standing on a hill where you could see the whole battlefield, the smoke would obscure much of it. In any case what you would remember is probably not even close to what you actually did. It’s like playing football or fighting in the ring, you really don’t have time to think about what you did you just react. Like the man they all have a plan until they get hit. Putting it on paper years later is only what you think you remember and it is probably a lot different than what you actually did. The fear and adrenaline affects your perception.
I take de la Pena’s book with a grain of salt, though it is an interesting read. But it’s like my grandma used to say, “chew the wheat, spit out the chaff.” That is part of some of these writers’ challenge in trying to determine the “truth” of what happened; too often, that search suffers from the researcher’s own bias.
When I was doing my graduate work and had to write papers and my thesis, I had problems with some of my professors who used to always demand my thesis when I started doing my research. One in particular, a female, used to always kind of nag me. I loved her as a teacher and I learned a lot from her but it was always a conflict. I had a hard time explaining to her I didn’t like to start out with a thesis but a question; in answering the question I would find my thesis. I thought this was a more honest way of doing research as I was afraid if I started out with a conclusion it would taint my research. In trying to prove my thesis I might ignore facts that disputed my thesis. Instead, as I said, I preferred to try and stay as objective as I could in my research and let it take me where it would.
As far as first person accounts are concerned, I agree one has to take them with a grain of salt. In my street law and psych classes I used to have a masked student come into the class and shove me, then run out. As soon as the kid left, before they could react, I would tell the entire class to describe the person who had come into class without talking to anyone else. It was amazing how different the descriptions would be. Something I learned from a friend who was an LEO.
I do know from personal experience that often memories are vivid; some things I’ve experienced still haunt me and it’s like I’m back there – it is a form of PTSD. I’ve had some memories escape me until sometime later when they come flooding back. The problem for me comes with interpretation. Historians and analysts call it the fog of war. About three years ago I was able to get up with a bunch of guys I served with in the Army. Shooting the breeze through social media we’ve been able to correct each others’ memories and clarify confusion on each others’ parts about certain things that happened in our time together. Sometimes we remember an incident clearly as far as things we saw, but didn’t understand the context or facts surrounding what happened. Sometimes latrine rumors get corrected. Overall, it’s been a great experience.
The problem is, looking back at an incident that happened some one hundred and fifty years ago where the primary participants on one side of the incident were killed, our info is so sketchy and most is left up to conjecture depending on hearsay, remembrances of people who weren’t directly involved with the major action, or those who were on the other side.
So how do we discover what REALLY happened? We may never know the exact facts and minutiae surrounding the battle, but we can determine the major facts, a small number of Texians defended an old mission converted into a military fort for thirteen days against a much larger Mexican force. Early on the morning of the thirteenth day a large number of Mexicans attacked the mission in the predawn hours of the morning and after a fierce battle killed every defender, sparing a few of the noncombatant family members inside.
The rest, really is speculation. But isn’t it fun batting it around?
Wayne, you sound like you were a history major, like myself — or at least something closely related.
My understanding of the beginning thesis in a research project was not that my research would PROVE the thesis, but rather that the subsequent research would TEST the validity of the thesis, MODIFY the thesis, add CAVEATS to the thesis, and finally, either PROVE or DISPROVE the thesis.
Looked at in this light, adopting a beginning thesis does not create an immediate bias in the graduate student researcher, forcing him into a situation where he’s trying to prove a theory by selectively manipulating his research to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion. Rather, it allows the graduate student to EXAMINE the theory (the thesis) to determine whether it is valid, partially valid, or invalid. If your research doesn’t sustain your initial thesis, that is perfectly acceptable, because the purpose of the research is to discover the truth, wherever it may lead.
In other words, you can rest assured your graduate professors knew what they were talking about.
Don, I know they knew what they were talking about, I learned much from them; I just chose to take a different tack. I did run into some who were biased to prove their thesis in my time.
Those were the ones who misunderstood the process.
I tend to agree. I had one professor, Lord help you if you altered your thesis.
BTW: I was a history major and then moved to take a couple extra courses to get certified in Social Studies.
Wayne, I could tell by your terminology your field of study must have been in history. Did you ultimately become a teacher, if I might ask?
I spent about nineteen years in the classroom before my knees and other issues from my service injuries caught up with me and I had to retire. I really miss the kids – but not the other bovine scatology.
What we know about the Alamo with absolute certainty:
1- There was a place referred to as the Alamo, were not entirely sure what it looked like though.
2- A bunch of settlers or Texans took refuge there, including Davey Crockett, Jim Bowie and William Travis.
3- A bunch of Mexicans led by Santa Ana laid siege to the Alamo and eventually killed all the defenders.
That’s really about it, most of the details surrounding the Alamo are basically unknown and everything is pretty much conjecture. Many theories abound.
Ed, you nailed it.
Yep,still I found odd the fact that so few is know about it,yet so many battles before in history are much better documented. It is sad that such heroic moment is surrounded in so much myth !?
But their deed endure x ever in history.
Custer’s Last Stand is almost as bad, and there were people there two days later and they still can’t figure out where E troop died. Or, at least they all can’t agree on a location on the field. Mainly it seems to be an issue with naming locations on the battlefield. They seem to want to ignore where the guys were buried. The more I read about it the greater the confusion becomes.
Yep.That is another messy.And then u find other battles of indian war w more detail.But again as in Alamo,the lack of witness alive reduce all possibility of know too much,plus Indians moving bodies and the fact it was a moving battle plus not reliable other side account made it another enigma.
Great x book writers to do as they please.
To all, pictures are up on Paragon’s site of their upcoming Alamo Mexican Set # 1, four figures in four different poses, ” available at the West Coaster March 2017 if not sooner”.
We know a lot about the Alamo. Because it was a ‘Glorious Failure’ some people get obsessed and look for the tiniest details that you’d never bother with in any other battle. We know: exactly when it was, where it was, the names of all the major maneuver unit commanders, decent documentation of how the attack went down from several sources. OK, true, we don’t know when Jim Bowie hocked his last lugie, or if Crocket was regular that day. We know who won, even how long the assault lasted. No messengers? That’s not true and you know it. So it was JUST LIKE Thermopylae. We know A LOT. Discrepancies in manning? You’ll get FAR worse in many other battles. You guys want chalk lines drawn where the bodies fell. It’s the same with Little Big Horn. We know a lot, but because it was a tragic slaughter, some people get magnetized to it. There is SO MUCH MORE out there. Reading about them has never been easier.
These are great looking conversions. I like the guy being lifted by the musket, but also like the guys cowering against the wall. Well done!
I did those for a special order. I’ve added to them since I posted those pictures, did to more different versions of getting a leg up and another cowering guy. Thanks for the compliments.