It’s been (mumble) years since my junior high school Texas History class, so I won’t try to quibble with Cecil’s version of The Alamo, but one assertion certainly took me by surprise:
“The Mexican troops, for their part, were poorly paid, ill-fed, and haphazardly trained, and had been exhausted by a grueling march over the desert.”
Wow, those poor soldiers must have been exhausted, because the nearest desert to the Alamo is in Big Bend National Park, at least 300 miles away.
I have to confess, Cecil, that my faith in your omniscience is a little shaken…
Welcome to the SDMB. A link to the column is appreciated. Providing one can be as simple as pasting the URL into your post, making sure to leave a blank space on either side of it. Like so: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_104.html
The Mexican army did travel a great distance before the battle of the Alamo.
I should have expressed myself better - my disappointment with Cecil’s omniscience is not with the distance travelled, but with the implication that the Alamo was surrounded by, or adjacent to, a desert. Which it isn’t, the nearest desert being more than 300 miles away, even travelling northward from SLP.
Forgive me if I shake your chain, but you know little about Tejas history if this is what you believe. The Mexican army was in fact hardened troops who were so confident of victory that the mere “thought” of bypassing the Alamo would have been considered weakness. Not to mention the idea of having enemy troops on their flanks, if they had been “ignored”.
If anyone thinks San Antonio is in the middle of a desert, then they are just IGNORANT. Granted there is a lot of sand between Mexico City and San Antonio, but I have been horseback over much of it and it’s NOT Death Valley. In fact, I spent weeks in the “desert” between Boquillas and the Sierras, North of Mexico City and had a great time, no problems!
The MEN at the Alamo did not beat Santa Anna. (BUT, the Mexican army’s death toll was a hell of a lot more than 300 by the way.)
At the very least, they did educate him on what to expect when attempting to defeat freemen who believe in their cause. That is why he disguised himself and hid, like a coward, when he met Sam Houston at San Jacinto. (much like another coward on the lamb at present) and don’t you dare take up for him!
BTW he was sent home with his tail between his legs instead of being executed.
Peace… t-kella-from-Tejas
(forgive me if I get my Irish up, I had ancestors there)
Should you want to examine the some info regarding the “Texians” that were at the 13 day siege of the Alamo, refer to this web page The Texians . Those that died during the battle are marked with a cross.
Another web with information about the myths, misconceptions, lore and what is known can be found at site for the Alamo .
And if you’re curious enough, you can check out what an “honorable” fellow Santa Anna was after Col. Fannin and his 342 men surrendered at the presidio located at Goliad. In violation of the surrender agreement, Santa Anna order the prisioners executed on Palm Sunday, March 27, 1836. Nice guy, eh? See the page Goliad .
Not into political correctness, are you, t-keela? Love your enthusiasm for the rich history of our great state. You wouldn’t happen to be an Aggie, would you?
Thanks for the links, Flyfisher. The Alamo Q&A did stir my interest in brushing up my Texas history.
TMWSTER - I’m not quite sure how to take your comment.
I choose to believe you said that I am plain spoken (not into rhetoric)and educated (ATM), rather than rude (not politically correct) and dumb (an Aggie).
If the former, then I thank you, and yes I tend to speak my mind and I went to UT. (hook’em horns)
If the latter, then I apologize if I offended your sense of diplomacy.
Maybe I can buy you a shot of Cuervo some time…hoorah!!
“Desert” throughout much of the 19th century was not identical to sand dunes or baked clay and exhaustive heat. For a period, the region we now call the “American Breadbasket” was called the “Great American Desert”. While a march from the Rio Grande to the San Antonio would not have been one made across sand dunes (à la the Beau Geste movies), it still would have been a thirsty march across an arid region with few rivers or springs.
Claims that the Mexican Army consisted of “hardened veterans” (from what war? The war for independence that had concluded 15 years previously?) need to be supported with references, not patriotic bluster.
Similarly, the claim that Mexicans lost “a hell of a lot” more men than the casualty estimates provided by Lt. Colonel de la Pena (who does not seem to have had any particular axe to grind, condemning the stupidity of each side as he encountered it) need to be substanitated by more than profanity.
(I’m surprised, actually, that the heretical-in-some-locations notion that Crockett and several others were taken prisoner was not also condemned as false.)
On the contrary, I was delighted with your answer. I simply meant that you seem very Texan, since your answer was simply to-the-point, and passionate on the subject. Contrary to some of our most beloved jokes, Aggies certainly are not dummies. However, most Aggies I know are not only well educated, but plain-spoken, conservative, and patriotic (about Texas in particular), which is why I asked. It never occured to me that the question might offend.
I’m a graduate of the UT system myself, but not in Austin, so perhaps I’m less invested in the whole Aggie/Longhorn thing.
I guessed you might be a fan of the cuervo, based on your screen name!
South Texas is certainly hot and dry, comparatively, but it is no desert by any stretch of the imagination. Although the lakes are man-made, there are (I think) three rivers between the Rio Grande and the San Antonio River, and the soldiers would have marched through Matomoros, which would indicate they marched up through South Texas on the coastal side - absolutely NOT a desert.
First, I think you may be reading more into the word desert than is actually meant–see my earlier post.
Second, every account I have read indicates the Santa Anna came up el Camino Real de los Tejas. This road crossed the Rio Grande near the current Mexican community of Gerrero, passing by Carrizo Springs, far from Matamoros, on its way to San Antonio. That road crosses the Nueces and the Frio rivers with a few other streams (of uncertain flow in February) in over 150 miles. That is not a well-watered march–and the terrain definitely meets the nineteenth century definition of desert. The land to the South of the Rio Grande through which the road passes certainly meets the definition of desert by any standard save that of “no vegetation at all” and Santa Anna’s men were not allowed to rest up after crossing that stretch. Thus, Cecil’s statement “and had been exhausted by a grueling march over the desert” remains accurate even if you want to quibble over how close to San Antonio the desert extends. (Remember, the Mexican march did not begin at the border, but from central Mexico.)
(Heat was not much of an issue at that time of year, BTW. In fact, Santa Anna encountered at least one brief but ferocious blizzard during the march.)
TMWSTER, don’t worry, you didn’t offend me…just thought I’d check your intent. Some people could have meant it that way. Some of my good friends at SHSU (my bachelors) went to ATM (great school). I nearly did, UT (grad.school)just accepted me first.
I find it hilarious how some people think they know more about something because they found it in a book. Rather than believe a person with experience in a subject, they will research until they come up with a quote, however biased it may be, as long as it confirms their “expert” opinion.
Apparently you and (for sure) I know a little more about the terrain in Texas than someone who maybe travelled in a vehicle or saw it on TV. If it’s sand dunes your after, go to Monahans, desert head for Chihuahua. Even there, you would not believe how “undesertlike” it can be.
As far as Santa Anna’s march goes, it’s not like they just decided to jump up and go to San Antone. The troops had been out for month’s putting down rebellion’s and had several engagements with the “enemy”. Not to mention numerous encounters w/ the Apache. BTW-the coastal plains of sthwest Tx have lots of fresh water…that time of year grass is the problem. No shortage of wildlife either! and NO not even then. The blizzard that year didn’t make it this far south either.
Nobody knows for sure whether Crocket was captured alive or not. He was definitely killed though as were practically everyone else Santa Anna had the opportunity to kill.
Of course, if the definition of “desert” included sand dunes, you might have had a point.
If the article had said that the desert they crossed was in Texas, you might have had a point.
If Santa Anna had come anywhere near the coast on his march north, you might have had a point.
However, a failure to understand the meaning of a word does not actually indicate superior knowledge. After misquoting Cecil (who never said the desert was near San Antonio), you have now indicated that you do not understand the word as it is used, so your superior knowledge is looking a bit suspect. As noted earlier, the entire region between the Mississippi and the Rockies was once called the Great American Desert. By the standards of current climatological surveys, the Camino Real de los Tejas only passed through the Chihuahua desert for the first couple hundred miles after departing San Luis Potosi. However, by the language usage of the time, the entire march would have been across desert.
In addition, the coastal plains of Texas can be absolutely inundated with fresh water 365 days a year. That is a point that is irrelevant, as the Mexican Army did not march up the coast (an action that would have added nearly 300 miles to their journey).
As to the blizzard: de la Pena recorded one on the march on February 13, and noted that it killed both people and livestock. If you have evidence that he actually wrote about a blizzard that really occurred but that he never saw because it was too far north, it would be interesting to see it.
As to the Mexican battle deaths, Cecil was obviously following the report of Lt. Col. de la Pena. Actually providing references (see how easy that is?) works more to support your statement than simply declaring the article wrong.
(I Live in San Antonio, and have been a Texan all my life)
The march from Mexico to San Antonio was over rough terrain, but not through a desert.
The Texans were not fighting for the right to keep slaves. I have a problem with Cecil on this one. Mexican law prohibited slavery and forced all Texans to convert to the Catholic faith. Of course, the new immigrants ignored both. However, the Mexican Government did not enforce the laws concerning slavery and catholicism. The Mexicans were more concerned with “there are a bunch of bolillos coming over here”
Most reliable sources have Texan losses at 183 and Mexican losses at 1500 dead and wounded.
One survivor was Louis Rose, a Frenchman who had survived Napoleon’s Russian Campaign. It is Rose who gave us the story of Travis drawing the line in the sand. He escaped several days before the final Mexican assault.
The best book on the subject is Walter Lord’s “A Time To Stand”.
Yeah, your right. I’ve been to the alamo(I grew up in Texas…Ive lived here most of my life), and its no desert, hell theres shopping malls, mass transit, hotels and resturants all around there. He would have had no trouble at all getting water, Gatorade or whatever he wanted for his troops.
Just living in Texas today, doesnt make you an expert in what it was liked back then, or what happened back then. Cecil, and Tomndebb both got thier info from writings of people who actually were there at the time, if someone who was there says around 300 died, and my Texas propaganda/history book I was given in grade school says it was 1000, I think I will believe it was 300. Being a Texan doesnt mean I have to be gullible.
Perhaps not - But the march from San Luis Potosi to the Neuvo Laredo, a greater distance ( ~475 miles ) than the march from Laredo to San Antonio ( ~150 miles ), was through desert and semi-desert. Given this I still think Cecil’s comments were accurate. A vegetative map of Mexico:
I have never been through that area of Mexico. It may have well been desert like. I did read that the weather was bitter cold and that the cold weather had an adverse effect on many of the Yucatan Indians that served as conscripts in the Mexican Army at the time.
We do know from primary sources that there was a severe cold front that came through during the siege. I say “severe” because folks in South Texas are not used to the cold weather that is experienced by those who live up North.
Once in San Antonio, Santa Anna had access to some of the cleanest water in the state. San Pedro springs and the head waters of the San Antonio River (Present day Brackenridge Park) continue to flow with pure spring water.
I suppose his troops took off their shoes and soaked them awhile after that long march!
Hook’em
Looks like y’all are gonna get all bogged down trying to answer the OP. According to my aforementioned link…the Mexican soldiers killed at the Alamo vary greatly. The numbers range from 70-2000. Santa Anna and his close officers claim there to have been more than 600 killed.
All this debate about the march, whether it was or was not desert is subjective I suppose. Simply calling something a desert doesn’t make it so. The Great American Desert, from the Mississippi west, including Louisiana and East Texas? That’s pretty good…ha-ha
The Texas Coastal Plains range from the Sabine River to the Rio Grande River from Del Rio including San Antonio. This area is characterized by it’s abundant rainfall, coastal grasses, native fruit and nut trees and varied wildlife.
This link (not working) don’t worry I’ll get it back! Map of Santa Anna’s march through the coastal plain of southwest Texas include the crossing of several streams and a few rivers. The winter in Texas is not what many of you think. Many if not most people in south Texas have never seen snow.
I have been in the mountains across the river. The Sierra Carmen range, where Santa Anna supposedly crossed is quite high in places. It does get terribly cold there at night, even in the summer. I could see where someone from south Mexico might claim to have been caught in a blizzard. I can also see where some might actually die if not prepared. But, that range can be crossed in a few days. There we go…a few days for me, could be many days for that large a number of men, livestock and munitions. esp. if not used to that tough environment.
I stick to my guns though about the desert description. Some of the most beautiful country I’ve ever seen is in those mountains. Fresh water off the peaks everyday from the night before. Trees (Ponderosa Pine)that are so tall you can’t see the tops. Live game in the valleys at about 4-6,000 elevation, grass so green…anyway I’ve spent some time there, horseback a few summers.
Well maybe y’all are all right and the Mexican army was just a bunch of candy-asses. Have fun w/ the argument!
I’m interested in this whole discussion, because I hear such wildly varying descriptions of the situations that I am certain that I have no idea what actually went on with the Alamo.
One of the descriptions I’ve read of Santa Ana’s march is given by James Michener in his fascinatinbg double biography of Santa Ana and Sam Houston, The Eagle and the Raven. I’ve got it unabridged on tape, and have listened to it a lot (I’ve got a long commute), and that tends to impress things in your mind. In particular, I was impressed with Michener’s description of the march. Michener tendfs to research his stuff pretty well, so I give him credit, although I have no idea what his sources are. No one puts footnotes on a cassette.
Accordint to Michener, a lot of Santa Ana’s troops were Indians from the Yucatan, used to much warmer climates, with little knowledge of Spanish, little in the way of clothing or even food, because of the limited respurces and the money-grabbing corruption of the quartermassters of the Mexican army. As a result, the troops had to forage for their own provisions, and the army was followed by a huge tail of wives, families, and prostitutes. Many of the troops had never seen snow.
The army was hit by a “Blue Northern” – something I’ve never heard of, but which is, I gather, a helluva sudden and bitterly cold snowstorm. Far from being a “brief” blizzard, it lasted long enough to kill great numbers of the ill-dressed and unprepared southern troops and their hangers-on. Michener quotes desciptions of them huddling together for warth and dying of cold, ending up as snow-covered mounds. Following troops broke into these mounds to take the clothing and provisions for themselves. The death toll was high.
As if this weren’t enough, the army suffered Apache attacks during and after the storm, when they were ill-prepared to defend themselves. The officers afterwards said (or rationalized) that the experience had stripped the army of its weaker elements and left only the hardened troops. Hell of a way to build an army, if you ask me – forcing conscription on raw troops, minimally equipping them, and marching them an enormous distance through extreme conditions and hostile attacks without adequate leadership (Michener says the officer corps keopt toward the front of the column and kept away from that civilian tail).
Is Michener wrong about this? As I say, he strikes me as a man who gets his facts straight and cites eyewitnesses. But if his troops were as described, I can easily believe them dying in large numbers, both during a march that sounds brutal, but also at the Alamo, where they were driven as a human wave against the fort, with grossly inadequate equipment (many apparently lacked even guns of any sort). Enough of a wave, though, even without guns, will eventually overwhelm any defence.
I think you misheard. It’s blue norther, a Texas term for a particularly intense cold front that comes out of the north. Dan Rather, who is from Texas, uses the term at every opportunity.
