I want to reiterate that I am not criticizing these men - they are the bravest that mankind has to offer and I wonder if today there are even a handful of such men left - myself included...
However, imagine the potential of these men if they'd just used the tactics of which I know that they possessed knowledge... We'd be telling a very different story today, I think, and the eventual victory of Houston would have been that much more easily won...
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment there Goober. The men at the Alamo trapped Santa Ana in his own arrogance. Meanwhile Sam Houston was on the move and picking the location from which he would engage the enemy. . Running around in the open with 188 men vs. 1800 soldiers is not a winning strategy. Particularly with muskets. Let's say you bring to bear all 188 marksmen, and every man hits his target felling 188 mexican soldiers. Now it's time to reload. And so the first line of enemy soldiers volleys 200 rounds into your position, falls back and immediately following comes another 200 rounds, and so on and so on.
The siege at the Alamo is not epic only because every last man fought to the death. From a strategic standpoint, it set up Santa Ana's army for a decisive defeat.
The time that the men at the Alamo provided to Houston distilled into a 20 minute battle that ended the war. I'm not sure how running around amongst the live oaks in the San Antonio surrounds would improve on that one bit.
My point all along was that 188 (I thought it was 184, but whatever) men against 1800 is no dog-fall, and they will lose. Fixed fortifications or not, they will lose.
I never recommended that they stand off against all 1800 of Santa Anna's men. I'm not sure where you picked that up from what I wrote. Guerilla warfare, by it's very nature, is warfare where you refuse to engage with the enemy's superior forces, and instead erode the periphery of it's forces by attacking supply, patrols, lead scouts, and so forth.
I will not accept any argument that says that the Alamo was a good delaying tactic that allowed Houston to prepare. They only held Santa Anna up by what? 12 days? San Jacinto was over a month and a half later! The Alamo had no strategic significance to the war other than to become a rallying cry for the troops at Jacinto - Not worth the lives of 188 men!
Do some reading on Lawrence of Arabia to see what I mean. He won the war that he was engaged in specifically BECAUSE he refused to engage the enemy. He never traded a shot with the force that he eventually defeated. He beat them by denying them the ability to recon, to resupply, and to travel unmolested.
5 comments:
'Inner Texian' I love it!
While being an Arizonan from Connecticut, I AM a descendant of Stephen and Moses Austin. So I proudly will.
gfa
Travis' letter, read by Brian Burns. Have a listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HaUQhzqwJs
I wrote a little post on the Alamo recently, funny you should bring it up. If you'll allow it, here is a link:
http://notboutthing.blogspot.com/2011/04/alamo.html
I want to reiterate that I am not criticizing these men - they are the bravest that mankind has to offer and I wonder if today there are even a handful of such men left - myself included...
However, imagine the potential of these men if they'd just used the tactics of which I know that they possessed knowledge...
We'd be telling a very different story today, I think, and the eventual victory of Houston would have been that much more easily won...
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment there Goober. The men at the Alamo trapped Santa Ana in his own arrogance. Meanwhile Sam Houston was on the move and picking the location from which he would engage the enemy. .
Running around in the open with 188 men vs. 1800 soldiers is not a winning strategy. Particularly with muskets. Let's say you bring to bear all 188 marksmen, and every man hits his target felling 188 mexican soldiers. Now it's time to reload. And so the first line of enemy soldiers volleys 200 rounds into your position, falls back and immediately following comes another 200 rounds, and so on and so on.
The siege at the Alamo is not epic only because every last man fought to the death. From a strategic standpoint, it set up Santa Ana's army for a decisive defeat.
The time that the men at the Alamo provided to Houston distilled into a 20 minute battle that ended the war. I'm not sure how running around amongst the live oaks in the San Antonio surrounds would improve on that one bit.
KX - you totally missed the point. Totally.
My point all along was that 188 (I thought it was 184, but whatever) men against 1800 is no dog-fall, and they will lose. Fixed fortifications or not, they will lose.
I never recommended that they stand off against all 1800 of Santa Anna's men. I'm not sure where you picked that up from what I wrote. Guerilla warfare, by it's very nature, is warfare where you refuse to engage with the enemy's superior forces, and instead erode the periphery of it's forces by attacking supply, patrols, lead scouts, and so forth.
I will not accept any argument that says that the Alamo was a good delaying tactic that allowed Houston to prepare. They only held Santa Anna up by what? 12 days? San Jacinto was over a month and a half later! The Alamo had no strategic significance to the war other than to become a rallying cry for the troops at Jacinto - Not worth the lives of 188 men!
Do some reading on Lawrence of Arabia to see what I mean. He won the war that he was engaged in specifically BECAUSE he refused to engage the enemy. He never traded a shot with the force that he eventually defeated. He beat them by denying them the ability to recon, to resupply, and to travel unmolested.
Post a Comment