# Could the Texans have held the Alamo? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2007, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408 "2007-04-24T02:41:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![HubZilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@HubZilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HubZilla)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/1 "2007-04-24T02:41:38Z")
I discovered (from these boards, no less) that Napoleon wanted a 4-to-1 advantage when attacking a fortified position. It certainly puts some of those heroic stands in a new light, but what about the Alamo? If 1600 Mexicans participated in the assault against the 180-something defenders, 8-to-1 is very tough odds for defense. But I read somewhere that the defenders had better rifles and more cannons than the attackers, plus the Mexicans were poorly trained. Were the overwhelming numbers of the Mexicans enough, or did the defenders mess up in their defensive works and strategy? Could they have held out? Was the outcome or foregone conclusion, or could the defense have been better directed? At San Jacinto, the Texans won with similar numerical disadvantages, which may say a lot about the quality of the Mexican army and leadership. ---
**Author:** ![Governor\_Quinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@Governor\_Quinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Governor_Quinn)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/2 "2007-04-24T03:08:26Z")
First off, the numbers given for both San Jacinto and the Alamo are wrong. The numerical disadvantage of the Texians at San Jacinto was more like 2-1, and there were around 6,000 Mexicans besieging the Alamo, against around 250 defenders. Second, the defense of the Alamo was actually as good as it could be, given the number of defenders. What errors there were were twofold: Defending it in the first place with the numbers they had (it had no real strategic significance, and probably would have required 500-600 defenders for its size at the minimum), and the failure to obtain any assistance, either from Fannin at Goliad or from Houston, who was then attending the Texas Constitutional Convention. As for advantage: The point I’ve seen is that the Texians at the Alamo had around four guns per man, resulting in them, at first, having a rapid rate of fire when the events of March 6th started. (As for information on the battle, I own (and recommend) [this book](http://www.amazon.com/Three-Roads-Alamo-Fortunes-Crockett/dp/0060930942)) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/3 "2007-04-24T03:14:30Z")
As Governor Quinn pointed out, it’s not just a ratio of attackers to defenders. A fortification of any given size needs enough defenders to adequately man its defenses. The Alamo defenders didn’t have enough men so they were spread out too thin. When the Mexicans attacked there were inevitably weak spots where they were able to break through the defenses. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/4 "2007-04-24T03:23:54Z")
The point Texans don’t like to mention is that was absolutely zero tactical or strategic reason to defend the Alamo at all. Wasted effort that just made martyrs. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/5 "2007-04-24T04:24:51Z")
[QUOTE=silenus] The point Texans don’t like to mention is that was absolutely zero tactical or strategic reason to defend the Alamo at all. Wasted effort that just made martyrs. [/QUOTE] IIRC, the Texans had no warning the Mexicans were coming, and the Mexicans had the Alamo surrounded almost as soon as the defenders were aware of their presence. They couldn’t retreat to join the main Texan forces, escape was cut off. Surrender and death were the only options. What should they have done? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/6 "2007-04-24T04:36:44Z")
People were moving into and out of the Alamo almost until the final battle. There was no purpose to be served trying to defend it, and retreat was possible until fairly late in the engagement. Hell, 32 men managed to make it _into_ the Alamo on March 1st. The Alamo did serve as a delay to the Mexican forces, but that was all. A waste of resources, no matter what the Texans try to say about it. - **silenus** (half Texan on his mother’s side) ---
**Author:** ![HubZilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@HubZilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HubZilla)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/7 "2007-04-24T05:48:32Z")
[QUOTE=Governor Quinn] First off, the numbers given for both San Jacinto and the Alamo are wrong. The numerical disadvantage of the Texians at San Jacinto was more like 2-1, and there were around 6,000 Mexicans besieging the Alamo, against around 250 defenders. Second, the defense of the Alamo was actually as good as it could be, given the number of defenders. What errors there were were twofold: Defending it in the first place with the numbers they had (it had no real strategic significance, and probably would have required 500-600 defenders for its size at the minimum), and the failure to obtain any assistance, either from Fannin at Goliad or from Houston, who was then attending the Texas Constitutional Convention. As for advantage: The point I’ve seen is that the Texians at the Alamo had around four guns per man, resulting in them, at first, having a rapid rate of fire when the events of March 6th started. (As for information on the battle, I own (and recommend) [this book](http://www.amazon.com/Three-Roads-Alamo-Fortunes-Crockett/dp/0060930942)) [/QUOTE] From Wikipedia, it said about 1400-1600 actually took part in the assault. But it might’ve been updated by now. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/8 "2007-04-24T13:52:29Z")
IIRC, the point of defending the Alamo was not to save any strategic advantage but to blunt and slow the Mexican attack. In theory, it gave the Texans more time to organize. But I may recall incorrectly. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/9 "2007-04-24T14:05:10Z")
[QUOTE=silenus] People were moving into and out of the Alamo almost until the final battle. There was no purpose to be served trying to defend it, and retreat was possible until fairly late in the engagement. Hell, 32 men managed to make it _into_ the Alamo on March 1st. The Alamo did serve as a delay to the Mexican forces, but that was all. A waste of resources, no matter what the Texans try to say about it. - **silenus** (half Texan on his mother’s side) [/QUOTE] The Alamo Defenders worked pretty well as a speed bump. The Texians at the Goliad Presidio tied up General Urrea’s forces–for a while. They surrendered, but Santa Ana sent orders they be executed anyway. Thus, the “Runaway Scrape”–in which Texian settlers fled East as fast as possible. But Sam Houston & his forces stopped Santa Ana–assisted mightily by the arrogance of “The Napoleon Of The West.” I had two years of Texas History in school, but have continued my education. (Of course, Walt Disney had already introduced me to Davy Crockett.)[Here’s one account of the Alamo affair. Some reviewers bristle at “Revisionism”–probably those who never got past the Disney/John Wayne versions of the story. But I found it evenhanded.](http://www.amazon.com/Duel-Eagles-Jeffery-Long/dp/0688109675/ref=dp_return_1/104-6060729-8091140?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1177420919&sr=1-1)[And here’s a fine modern history of the whole Texas Revolution.](http://www.amazon.com/Texian-Iliad-Military-History-Revolution/dp/0292731027/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6060729-8091140?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177422422&sr=1-1) The San Jacinto Battleground hosts an annual commemoration of the Battle. (Last Saturday–I missed it again!) Re-enactors represent _both_ sides. A concurrent symposium discusses slavery, Indian relations & other topics far beyond Walt. And _all_ who died there are memorialized. A handful of Texians died, but the Mexican forces were massacred with cries of “Remember the Alamo” & “Remember Goliad.” Santa Anna (who ordered “No Quarter” at the Alamo & ordered the massacre at Goliad) disguised himself & fled. When he was captured, General Houston allowed him to live. So he went on to do more damage to Mexico in his long & checkered career. Sorry for the verbosity. But Texas History is interesting–once you realize that what they teach in school is not the whole story. (But it never is, is it?) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/10 "2007-04-24T16:45:17Z")
> [@](#): > > IIRC, the point of defending the Alamo was not to save any strategic advantage but to blunt and slow the Mexican attack. In theory, it gave the Texans more time to organize. But I may recall incorrectly. I suspect this common point of view is mostly post-battle justification. Obviously, there’s no way the Alamo can be spun as a Texas victory. And nobody wants to say that the Alamo defenders died for nothing. So the easiest thing is to claim that their defeat was a necessary sacrifice to the bigger picture of winning the war. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/11 "2007-04-24T16:54:33Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] IIRC, the Texans had no warning the Mexicans were coming, … What should they have done? [/QUOTE] I was under the impression that Travis and others made repeated pleas for help and reinforcements and were continually ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/12 "2007-04-24T17:28:16Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] IIRC, the Texans had no warning the Mexicans were coming [/QUOTE] Well, _no-one_ expects the Spanish expedition. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/13 "2007-04-24T17:41:11Z")
[QUOTE=adam yax] I was under the impression that Travis and others made repeated pleas for help and reinforcements and were continually ignored. [/QUOTE] Travis’s pleas for help came after the Alamo was besieged. But Texans had warning that Santa Anna was on the way. [From the Handbook of Texas.](http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/TT/qdt1.html) > [@](#): > > After crossing the Rio Grande with 6,000 troops, Santa Anna’s command eventually grew to more than 8,000. It soon became apparent that his target was San Antonio and the Texans stationed there… In point of fact, he probably should have avoided that city, for it was not important to his success… San Antonio, however, even reinforced, could not offer a real threat to Santa Anna or even to his line of communication. But military considerations aside, the general was determined to march on San Antonio, in part because of the humiliation visited upon his family through defeat of his son-in-law, Cos. (General Cos lost the original Battle of San Antonio.) The Battle of the Alamo was “necessary” neither for the Texans nor for Santa Anna. Previously I recommended [_Texian Iliad: A Military History of the Texas Revolution_](http://www.amazon.com/Texian-Iliad-Military-History-Revolution/dp/0292731027/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6060729-8091140?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177436065&sr=8-1). The writer explains the somewhat overblown title by comparing the skirmishes in Texas to that obscure Bronze Age disagreement. In both cases, the legends are probably bigger than the actual battles. (“Texian” is now often used to refer to the Anglo rebels. Mostly because there were many _Tejanos_ who also fought against Santa Anna.) By the way–I don’t think there’s any way the Texans (whatever you choose to call them) could have won the Battle of the Alamo. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/14 "2007-04-24T18:11:50Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] I suspect this common point of view is mostly post-battle justification. Obviously, there’s no way the Alamo can be spun as a Texas victory. And nobody wants to say that the Alamo defenders died for nothing. So the easiest thing is to claim that their defeat was a necessary sacrifice to the bigger picture of winning the war. [/QUOTE] Well, beseiged forces are _always_ playing for time; the undoubtedly intended to bloody Santa Anna’s nose. Given the disp[arity in forces, I assume they didn’t not plan on winning in an all-out assault. But the fact that they stayed when they could have run implies that they were trying to win advantage in the larger conflict. They probably didn’t expect the massacres; they probably didn’t expect an all-out assault. This kind of thinking is pretty common. Beseiged forces, if they can make an assault too costly (and the Mexican attack was way too costly), can force a long seige in which the attacker has more to lose - momentum, deaths due to illness, supplies, favorable weather. Meanwhile, the defender’s allies can assemble a relieving force to reinforce the garrison, drive off the defenders, or pin them against the fortress. Mind you, it _was_ a loss for Texas. It was simply a much greater one for Santa Anna. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/15 "2007-04-24T19:06:31Z")
[QUOTE=silenus] People were moving into and out of the Alamo almost until the final battle. There was no purpose to be served trying to defend it, and retreat was possible until fairly late in the engagement. Hell, 32 men managed to make it _into_ the Alamo on March 1st. ) [/QUOTE] A good number might have been able to sneak out, but that would have left the cannons in the hands of the Mexicans. The defenders had 18 cannon, including an 18# monster. Leaving the canno there would have doubled Santa Ana’s artillery train in one fell swoop. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/16 "2007-04-24T19:35:23Z")
Cannon can be spiked. Nope, the Texans were just being stubborn. As usual. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2007, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/17 "2007-04-25T19:01:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, beseiged forces are always playing for time; the undoubtedly intended to bloody Santa Anna’s nose. Given the disp[arity in forces, I assume they didn’t not plan on winning in an all-out assault. But the fact that they stayed when they could have run implies that they were trying to win advantage in the larger conflict. They probably didn’t expect the massacres; they probably didn’t expect an all-out assault. > > This kind of thinking is pretty common. Beseiged forces, if they can make an assault too costly (and the Mexican attack was way too costly), can force a long seige in which the attacker has more to lose - momentum, deaths due to illness, supplies, favorable weather. Meanwhile, the defender’s allies can assemble a relieving force to reinforce the garrison, drive off the defenders, or pin them against the fortress. > > Mind you, it was a loss for Texas. It was simply a much greater one for Santa Anna. But in order to be a part of a plan it has to be part of a plan. Sam Houston wasn’t basing any plans around the defense of the Alamo - he had in fact told the defenders to abandon the Alamo and was probably unaware it was still be defended at the time the battle was going on. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_Bowe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@Doug\_Bowe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_Bowe)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2007, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/18 "2007-04-25T19:25:03Z")
The Master had something to say about this [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1\_104.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_104.html) ---
**Author:** ![Tully\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ab992/32.png) [@Tully\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tully_Mars)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2007, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/19 "2007-04-26T17:24:22Z")
Although it was clearly not Houston’s intent (see **Little Nemo** ’s post) , the defeat at the Alamo and at Goliad served to distract Houston’s army and give them a fighting spirit that they had lacked up to that point. Many of them were disgruntled with Houston’s leadership and ready to leave up to that point. I may have the time line wrong on this next point, but didn’t the presence of the Texans at the Alamo cause Santa Anna to split his army? If Houston had met up with a unified Mexican army at San Jacinto, the results may have different. If he had met up with the group led by Cos, Santa Anna would not have been captured and the war would have continued. I can only speculate on this, but what impact did the large number of casualties have on the remainder of the Mexican soldiers by the time they reached San Jacinto? Do you think their willingness to fight for Santa Anna could have been diminished by the senseless siege on the Alamo. “This guy’s an egotistical idiot. He’s going to get us all killed. If we surrender, maybe they’ll let us go home.” Of course, that thinking was wrong, too. So, the battle of the Alamo (IMHO) had a strategic impact on the outcome of the war, albeit by accident. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2007, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408/20 "2007-04-27T02:46:21Z")
[QUOTE=silenus] People were moving into and out of the Alamo almost until the final battle. There was no purpose to be served trying to defend it, and retreat was possible until fairly late in the engagement. Hell, 32 men managed to make it _into_ the Alamo on March 1st. The Alamo did serve as a delay to the Mexican forces, but that was all. A waste of resources, no matter what the Texans try to say about it. - **silenus** (half Texan on his mother’s side) [/QUOTE] Well, I got my impression from Michael Lind’s book-length epic poem, [_The Alamo,_](http://www.amazon.com/Alamo-Epic-Michael-Lind/dp/0395827582/ref=sr_1_1/104-9877726-4934363?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177639294&sr=8-1) and its appendix, an essay “On Epic.” From the poem, Book VI: > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, in a cantina near the quarter > called La Villita, Bowie told his rival > of Major General Houston’s direct order > to raze the Alamo before the arrival > of Santa Anna. “Damn it, our survival > depends on stopping Santa Anna here,” > insisted Bowie, “right on the frontier.” > > For once Travis endorsed the older man. > “Though I respect the General, I’m inclined > to agree. We need our own, offensive plan.” > He did not say, though it was in his mind, > that only by attacking could they find > perpetual fame. A tactical retreat > would be almost as shameful as defeat. > > \ > > _“Don Santiago!”_ From his reverie > Louisiana’s fiercest son was roused > and pointed to the chamber door, where three > of Juan Seguin’s scouts huddled, slicked and soused > by rainfall. Bowie, in the door, was doused > himself by silver waves, as he tried hard > to focus on the intelligence he heard. > > Soon Bowie bellowed, “Travis!” Through the hall > his huge voice rang. The younger Colonel’s glance > was mocking, as he swayed amid the ball, > a _senorita_ guided by his hands. > “Can’t you see I’m in the middle of a dance,” > called Travis, “with the fairest bloom to grow > in the desert soil of San Antonio?” > > But Bowie’s swearing cut the waltzing short. > The merriment of Travis slowly faded, > when he heard the _Tejano_ scout’s report > that Santa Anna himself had invaded, > that four, five thousand soldiers had paraded > by the Rio Grande. Apart from the scouts, > Bowie acquainted Travis with his doubts. > > “I know these men,” said Bowie, “and I trust > their judgment, with respect to what they’ve seen; > but what they’ve heard . . . No army could have crossed > the mountains. Santa Anna’d be insane > to march men through a blizzard.” Though Seguin > demurred, the chiefs ignored the scouts’ alarm. > The party thundered on, as did the storm. From Book VIII: > [@](#): > > Through March’s third gray dawn, a horseman veered > across the prairie, slowing on a swell > of shrubby earth. The Alamo appeared > past sawtooth tents. Horse and rider could smell > the breakfast fires. Above the fort, the pale > blue flag brought from New Orleans gave no doubt > that Travis and his garrison held out. > > Within the mission, the distant pop and rattle > made sentries stir. “The gate! Open the gate!” > The oak began to groan, as sounds of battle > were answered from the walls. With one last great > exertion, the small pony bore its freight > over the lunette spikes, with all the grace > of a champion at a fence in steeplechase. > > The cheers died when the courier closed the door > to Travis’s headquarters. It was cold, > like its one occupant. “A ranger corps > has joined us, from Gonzalez,” Travis told > James Bonham. “Thirty men, no more.” His old > companion did not speak. “I take it, then, > that Fannin will be sending us no men.” > > The Carolinian lit a flaring smoke; > the burst, in that room’s darkness, made his face > a gargoyle’s mask highlighted by a stroke > of storm light. “Fannin will not leave that place, > and I can’t blame him. It was quite a chase, > when I got through the lines. Four hundred men > might help us die. They cannot help us win.” > > “I sent for reinforcements, not regrets,” > snapped Travis. Then he ran a weary hand > through tangled bangs. “Why am I wasting threats > on you? I just . . . I have a whole command > depending on me. It’s not what I planned, > it’s not at all . . .” His old friend offered him > one of two glasses filled up to the brim. > > \ > > At sunset on the fifth of March two weeks > of thumping cannonade abruptly stopped. > Around the guns, as ripples warp a creek’s > transparency around a pebble dropped > smack on its roof, the silence spread and lapped > the mission walls. A distant barking drifted > on winds across the quiet grass they sifted. > > Inside the fort’s headquarters, below > the shadows that the candles animated, > sat all but two chiefs of the Alamo. > Captain John Baugh, the adjutant, waited > by Amos Pollard, surgeon of the ill-fated > contingent. Colonel Bonham made a wager > with Hiram Williamson, a sergeant major. > > Elial Melton, quartermaster, paced > with nervous energy around the room. > Green Jameson sat and whittled. Blazeby chased > one drink with another, fighting the gloom, > the New Orleans Greys’ commander. Still as doom > sat Captain Robert White, of the Bexar Guards. > Beside him, Captain Baker shuffled cards. > > Bill Harrison, the captain of the troop > from Tennessee, pulled a watch from his pocket; > the one “high private” found within his group > shared murmurs with him, Colonel David Crockett. > George Kimbell of Gonzalez squeezed a locket > that held his painted Prudence. Captain Carey > sat pert by Major Evans, slumped and weary. > > The man whom they awaited paused alone > in his monastic cell. From that to this > alternative his glancing thoughts were thrown, > reflections from a watch a moving wrist > will flick across a room. He was depressed, > he was exhilarated with despair; > he brimmed with tenderness, he did not care. > > Till now, somehow, he had known a cavalry > would sweep down and then sweep away the foe, > the way that gulls, appearing far from sea, > miraculous as a midsummer snow, > would sometimes plummet through a planted row, > saving a farm from locusts. Now he knew > that there would be no gulls. The crunching grew. > > “Gentlemen.” Chairs scraped, as officers rose. > “At east.” With fluency, the young commander > had spoken once. He paused now, as he chose > each word. "When we received the initial tender > of terms, I chose – we chose – not to surrender, > knowing that the alternative would be the sword > if the enemy should take the fort. > > "Until the last few days, I still believed > that reinforcements, sent from Goliad > to Bexar by Colonel Fannin, might have relieved > this fortress. Gentlemen, it is my sad > and bitter duty to report the bad > news that most of you already know: > there is no rescue for the Alamo. > > "The massacre of Johnson’s captured men > by Santa Anna’s troops only a few days > ago near Goliad is proof again > our enemy is willing to disgrace > his uniform by murder. Now the face > of tyranny is seen behind the mask. > Why Texas fights, no one henceforth need ask. > > “The silence of his guns may indicate > that Santa Anna’s ordered an attack > tonight, or tomorrow. The hour of our fate > is his to choose. We can’t survive a sack; > before we fall, however, we can make > his victory far worse than a retreat, > and his advance a progress to defeat.” > > The men were silent. Travis took a breath, > resumed. “Our purpose, gentlemen, is clear. > Our enemies right now prepare our death; > our task’s to make that death a death we share, > leaving Santa Anna with few troops to spare.” > He acted confident, though deeply pained; > a virtue feigned can be a virtue gained. From the appendix: > [@](#): > > I have followed history closely, although in the interest of drama or clarity I have occasionally employed the accepted devices of historical fiction, such as the omission of insignificant detail and the invention of minor scenes. In choosing between varying accounts of what happened at the Alamo, I have used plausibility, not dramatic value, as the criterion. For example, I have not included the well-known scene of Travis drawing the line in the sand for his troops to cross because it almost certainly never happened. The tale was told in 1873 by William P. Zuber, a veteran of the Texas Revolution who was also one of the prodigious liars of Texas history. In 1877 Zuber admitted that he had invented Travis’s supposed speech, and also “threw in” one paragraph that made a better story – no doubt the one describing the line in the sand. . . . > > Quite apart from its tainted source, the tale of the line in the sand can be rejected because of its absurdity. Are we to believe that Travis took all of the pickets from the walls of the Alamo, to give them a chance to cross the line? If now, how were the pickets given the choice of staying or trying to escape? But there is a more serious objection. If Travis drew the line on March 4, the night before the battle, then the choice he offered his men was no choice at all. The couriers had barely been able to get in and out of the Alamo through enemy lines; by March 4, few if any of the Texan rebels would have been able to escape, even at night. The appropriate response by the members of the Alamo garrison to the offer Travis is supposed to have made would have been bitter laughter. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-texans-have-held-the-alamo/401408.md?page=2)