Defense of the Alamo

So how can we prolong the siege and have Santa Anna's army destroyed at the Alamo? I saw that all the Texian sentinels were asleep and killed without alerting the defense. Perhaps a better led defense might have held the Mexican assault?
 
Not enough "Texans" to destroy Santa Ana's army.

You might be able to prolong the siege, but even that might be difficult - alert sentinels or no.
 
Not enough "Texans" to destroy Santa Ana's army.

You might be able to prolong the siege, but even that might be difficult - alert sentinels or no.

Not disagreeing. I am suggesting other reinforcements lifting the siege. Is that even a remote possibility?
 
As news of the siege spread throughout Texas, potential reinforcements gathered in Gonzales. They hoped to rendezvous with Colonel James Fannin, who was expected to arrive from Goliad with his garrison.[68] On February 26, after days of indecision, Fannin ordered 320 men, four cannon, and several supply wagons to march toward the Alamo, 90 miles (140 km) away. This group traveled less than 1.0 mile (1.6 km) before turning back.[69][70] Fannin blamed the retreat on his officers; the officers and enlisted men accused Fannin of aborting the mission.[71]

Per wikipedia. So that is something. What exactly was Sam Houston doing at the time? San Jacinto was only a month or so after the Alamo.
 
I'm not 100% sure - I think he was trying to handle things in some other area, but the place escapes me.

Santa Anna had what, a couple thousand men? Three hundred might not be enough to do much good.
 
I'm not 100% sure - I think he was trying to handle things in some other area, but the place escapes me.

Santa Anna had what, a couple thousand men? Three hundred might not be enough to do much good.

They suffered unbelievably high losses in the siege though. Some 400-600 lost by most estimates. If the defense is a little more prepared it could do significantly more. Perhaps if the Texians or Texans whichever we want to use;) can reach the Alamo who knows. The fact that they didn't even set out more then a mile is awful.
 
They suffered unbelievably high losses in the siege though. Some 400-600 lost by most estimates. If the defense is a little more prepared it could do significantly more. Perhaps if the Texians or Texans whichever we want to use;) can reach the Alamo who knows. The fact that they didn't even set out more then a mile is awful.

True. Maybe if or such a force arrives before the siege, that would probably be enough - Santa Anna was not a complete idiot, he's not going to waste his whole army (though how many more die before he gets the hint...:eek:).

On the Texians (used to distinguish from post-independence "Texan"): I don't know whose fault that was, but I'm going to say it was a sign none of them knew what they were doing.

Better not to have set out at all.
 
True. Maybe if or such a force arrives before the siege, that would probably be enough - Santa Anna was not a complete idiot, he's not going to waste his whole army (though how many more die before he gets the hint...:eek:).

On the Texians (used to distinguish from post-independence "Texan"): I don't know whose fault that was, but I'm going to say it was a sign none of them knew what they were doing.

Better not to have set out at all.

The Alamo is actually very small I doubt it would be able to house them comfortably. Hmm.
 
They suffered unbelievably high losses in the siege though. Some 400-600 lost by most estimates. If the defense is a little more prepared it could do significantly more. Perhaps if the Texians or Texans whichever we want to use;) can reach the Alamo who knows. The fact that they didn't even set out more then a mile is awful.

Well could Travis have done something strengthen the Alamo's defenses? Would he have had the time and manpower to dig stake pits or perhaps a dry moat?
 
The Alamo is actually very small I doubt it would be able to house them comfortably. Hmm.

What you see today is actually only the chapel of the Alamo; the original walls enclosed several acres, indeed so large an area that the defenders had difficulty covering it all. Fannin's troops could have been accomodated very nicely.

The problem is feeding them; the original defenders ran short of supplies as it was. Santa Ana could simply have starved them out in a couple of weeks.

As for destroying the Mexican army, even with Fannin's force the defenders are outnumbered five to one; the probability of annihilating the Mexicans is approximately zero.
 
The Alamo isn't a great place to defend... it was never really designed to be a proper military fort, and lacks a lot of the things that better military posts had. That said, the Texans could have done more to fortify the place... they dawdled a lot, and then rushed the repairs when Santa Anna was practically on top of them. The main problem was lack of leadership... Bowie, Travis, and Neill did nothing in nearly all the time leading up to the siege, and the men they were in charge of were mostly loafing. Bowie and Travis bickered a lot, which didn't help matters, and Neill was pretty much ignored (which is why he eventually left). Crockett got there too late to do much of anything, and refused any real command status.
Even if the whole of Fannin's and Houston's forces had gathered in the Alamo, it would have meant that the Texan revolution would have been squashed completely. They simply didn't have the men to hold the crumbling place, and the army that Houston had at San Jacinto had been built up and trained over time (especially in the weeks after the Alamo's fall). Santa Anna had 3000 men at the siege of the Alamo (with more on the way), although only 1800 of them were really seasoned troops. There was also Urrea's cavalry force of about 600 (he was probably the best commander in the field during the whole war). The Alamo had only 200 men, Fannin had about 450 (on paper, at least), another 200 or so were in the doomed Matamoros expedition, and Houston at San Jacinto had about 800 men (although these weren't all there during the time of the Alamo siege). If the entire Texan army had forted up in the Alamo, Santa Anna could have rather easily surrounded, besieged, and then either starve them out or cannonade them into rubble...
 
The Alamo is actually very small I doubt it would be able to house them comfortably. Hmm.

To expand upon what dgharis posted, the Alamo was actually a former Spanish Mission and built as a fortress to prevent the priests there from being slaughtered by outside forces. In its heyday, the structure was over three acres large and largely self-sufficient. The massive courtyard could be used to farm, raise cattle and host small shops while still comfortably housing around 400 people. The exterior walls were around 8 ft tall and 2 ft thick.

What is there today really does not do justice to what once was. Most of the former Mission has been destroyed.

In all honesty, what is called "The Alamo" today is perhaps one of the most dull and unpleasant historical historical sites I have ever been in. All that remains is the Church, which has largely been turned into a gift shop. If I never return, it will be too soon. I would recommend visiting and supporting San Antonio's other missions.
 
I think a better defense for the Alamo can be found in Mexican politics. After all one of the themes was the clash between Liberals and Conservatives (Not the modern conceptions of these ideas). The Texas rebellion can be considered a Liberal revolution and perhaps if other Mexican states rose in revolt to they could provide the reinforcements for the Alamo/shrink Santa Anna's army.
 
Top