Subject: La Bandera
Date: 01/09/99
From: Mike Hardwick
I was just looking at the information on La Bandera [the Alamo Company's flag]. You mention in it that the standard is carried by the Alférez, which is correct. You also mention that the Alferez is the highest non-commisioned Officer in the Company.
I believe if you check, you will find that the Alférezwas indeed a commisioned officer. (Perhaps you could enlighten me on this one.) I have never considered an Alférez to be anything else but an officer.
Spanish dictionary says of Alférez: sub lieutenant, ensign, 2nd Lieutentant. Presidial companies also got officer trainees....they were called cadets.
Before Regulations of 1772 you could have a presidial company commanded by a Lieutenant...his second in command would often be an Alférez.Many times the Alférez came up through the ranks from sergeant. Later Presidial companies were headed up by captains.
Rank was lean on the Spanish frontier. A Lt. Colonel or Colonel could be the governor of a Province...or an inspector general...like Hugh O. Connor. In the early days a Captain might even be a governor.
Hope this helps.
Mike Hardwick
Soldiers of the Royal Presidio of Santa Bárbara
Santa Barbara, CA
Subject: Mexican's use of Texian Artillery
Date: 01/09/99
From: Simon Haines
Some reports state that when the Mexicans entered the Alamo that they used one or more of the Texian's artillery pieces against them. Did Santa Anna send in artillerymen or were his troops trained or was it just easy to use artillery pieces of the time?
Simon Haines
England
Kevin R. Young
Subject: Crockett's body
Date: 01/11/99
From: Ron D'Ambrosi
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Where exactly was Crockett's body found? Susanna Dickinson reported that she saw Crockett's body between the long barracks and the church, while Francisco Ruiz stated that it was found "in a small fort opposite the city", while there are various other reports of Crockett's body's location. Could Ruiz have meant the small fort bounded by the church, long barracks, palisade and low wall, after all, the city he could have meant might have been La Villita? What is the consensus of historians on where Crockett's body was found? Where was it found?
Ron D'Ambrosi
Brooklyn, N.Y.
If Dickenson & Ruiz were describing the same location, that would make for a tidy explanation. However, I believe Ruiz' description should be taken literally. After all, Santa Anna detailed Ruiz to find the bodies of the Alamo leaders, and he would have been given permission to roam over the Alamo grounds in search of them. He described the location of Travis' body as being "on the north battery of the fortress" and Bowie's body "in one of rooms on the south side" -- there is no reason to believe he would then have lost all sense of direction when giving the location of Crockett's body as being "toward the west and in the small fort opposite the city."
Susannah Dickinson gave many conflicting accounts over the years. In a later interview, when questioned on Crockett's death, she said, "He was killed, she believes." If she saw his body, why was she not certain he was killed?
In my mind, the two accounts are contradictory, and the question comes down to who you choose to believe. At the time she claimed to have seen Crockett's body, Susannah Dickinson had just been through a terrible ordeal, in which her husband had been killed, and in which she saw at least one defender slain in front of her. She was being hurried out of the fort past numerous bloody & mutilated corpses, with firing still going on around her (she was wounded in the ankle). Any glimpses she had of the bodies would have been fleeting at best. Also, Enrique Esparza never testified to having seen Crockett's body, and he was in the party of noncombatants being led from the fort with Susannah.
C. J. Long locates the small fort described by Ruiz as the area near the Alamo headquarters, where the cannonade or gunade was located. This area was bounded on the north by the headquarters building, on the west by the wall, on the south by the artillery headquarters or the southwest gun platform, and on the east by the dry acequia. Mexican accounts indicate the acequia was probably deepened and widened to serve as a trench and secondary line of defense, so this area could easily be called a fort.
Another possibility would have been the lunette outside the west wall, described by Gary Zaboly as a "semicircular palisade and narrow trench." In my mind, that better fits Ruiz' description. However, if Crockett's body was found there, outside the west wall of the Alamo compound, that would mean the Mexican accounts of his execution would have been incorrect. If Crockett was found at the gunade battery, then the execution stories could still be true. It is usually assumed that he was found in the long barracks but the Mexican accounts do not specify which building he was found in. He could just as easily been found in one of the buildings along the west wall.
Robert L. Durham
I agree with Durham on this, or at least his exploration of the interpretations. Groneman is trying to justify the "bad translation" as part of his anti-de la Peña campaign. Almost all of the participants make the destinction between the Villa of San Antonio de Bejar and La Villita. Ruiz certainly would not have made that mistake (unless of course, the English translation is wrong, but it was done by a pretty creditable translator).
Kevin R. Young
Subject: Alamo Acequia
Why did the Mexicans try to cut off the acequia from the Texians, during the siege if the acequia didn't run into the compound? If the Alamo contained a usable well, why did the Texians find it necessary to prevent the Mexicans from blocking off the acequia? Was the dry acequia, that ran the length of the compound, really filled with water?
Ron D'Ambrosi
Brooklyn, N.Y.
The acequia, that formerly passed within the walls of the Alamo, dated to the early mission period. While working on the site of the former Radio Shack (Paseo del Alamo) we excavated the acequia that flowed outside the west wall during the battle period. It gave every indication of having been excavated, or at least, re-excavated by General Cos during his fortification prior to the battle of Bexar in November of 1835. If you are refering to the "dry" acequia shown on the Jameson map, it probably indicated the mission period ditch which may have been visible in 1836. The acequia outside the walls was still open at the time of the battle, but would have been easily cut off at any point north of the fortress, so it was evident that a supplimental water supply would have been essential, hence the well.
Waynne Cox
Archaeological Consultant to Alamo de Parras
Subject: Long Barracks
Did the long barracks consist of the two-story hospital, attached to a one-story connection, which was attached to another two-story building (like the hospital)? In some pictures of the long barracks, they show that it consisted of two, two story buildings and one single story building, while in other drawings, the barracks are all two stories and others just show that the hospital was two stories. Were the long barracks all two stories?
Ron D'Ambrosi
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Gary Zaboly's map on this site gives an accurate idea of what the long barracks would have looked like at the time of the battle. The heights of the three buildings, and the door and window placement, agree substantially with Lt. Blake's drawing.
Robert L. Durham
Subject: Fannin's execution
How was Fannin executed? I have read that he was seated in a chair, asked one Mexican officer to give his watch to his family and to shoot him in the breast and not the face. The officer then pocketed the watch and shot Fannin in the face. Is this true? What sources report this besides the de la Peña diary?
Ron D'Ambrosi
Brooklyn, N.Y.
You can find diverse accounts, most of which are similar, with variations in details, of Fannin's last hours on Sons of DeWitt Colony Texas. The Spohn account contains the most detail of those found there.
Wallace McKeehan
See: Accounts of Fannin's Death
Spohn(one of the men spared) witnessed the execution. It is published in part, in O'Connor's book, and was published in several period newspapers during the summer of 1836. The watch (or at least what reputes to be) is in the collection of the Dallas Historical Association. They also had what was believed to have been Fannin's sword, but it "walked" from the collection several years ago.
Kevin R. Young
Subject: Alamo Movie
Date: 01/11/99
From: Steve Hedgpeth shedgpeth@starledger.com
Just in case anyone's wondering and doesn't have access to the info, Leslie Bohem, the screenwriter attached to the proposed Alamo movie, previously did the screenplays for a handful of action/disaster flicks, including "Dante's Peak," "Daylight" (with Sylvester Stallone) and "Nowhere to Run" (with Jean-Claude Van Damme). Does anyone see a pattern there that would lead us to believe that a very good Alamo film is in the making? Or should Bohem be given the benefit of the doubt, such as in the case of director-writer Ronald Maxwell, the man behind the notable Civil War epic "Gettysburg," who came to that project with only a previous credit of a "Mighty Ducks" flick?
Steve Hedgpeth
Bristol, Pa.
Maxwell was passionate about his movie. If Bohem's script is written with a similar passion, then it could be very good. If Ron Howard directs, it'll be a definite winner.
One factor that has kept Hollywood from doing a GOOD historically accurate epic of the Alamo has been the tremendous costs involved. However, as James Cameron showed with Titanic, the use of computer generated images greatly reduces the cost while producing superior results. Since Titanic made in the billions of dollars, epics are also in demand by Hollywood moguls.
My only concern is that as past experience has shown, the phrase "Historically Accurate Hollywood Movie" is an oxymoron.
Randell Tarín
Subject: Howard's Alamo
Date: 01/12/99
From: Steve Hedgpeth
When I e-mailed you yesterday concerning Leslie Bohem and the proposed Ron Howard Alamo film, I was remiss in not telling you how much regard I have for this website. When my interest in the Alamo began to bloom in the late '50s (I am 47 now), I never would have envisioned such a ready source of informative, invaluable and provocative info and chat on all things Alamo. I thank you and others for your dedication.
As to your response on Leslie Bohem and the film he is writing, I agree that passion and inspiration can go a long way and I sincerely hope that that will be the case here. However, as you and other Alamo scholars and buffs well know, John Wayne was full of passion for the Alamo and wound up making a virtually fact-free film. God knows, I've watched the thing countless times since it was released, but as a film and TV critic, I am becoming considerably less patient with it over time. I realize that, despite its flaws, it has inspired many to become interested in the Alamo and I certainly can't discount the very real vestige left behind _ Alamo Village in Brackettville. But, good God, the thing is not only inaccurate, distorted, windy and corny, but, to my mind, disrespectful. This last is where I might depart from others who view "The Alamo" with any sort of benign and/or knowing affection. Wayne made a lot of speeches about honoring the heroes of the Alamo, but does his film give any due to the common soldier there? The film's supporting characters are not only fictional by and large, but too many of them are buffoonish, pickled frontier caricatures. Certainly Wayne and screenwriter James Grant had access to info on Gregorio Esparza, Micajah Autry, Tapley Holland, Albert Martin, Amos Pollard and other flesh-and-blood heroes. To my mind, Wayne did a great disservice to these men and the others. OK, I'm not saying anything original here, and I'm sorry for going on so long. I appreciate your listening. And keep up the great work.
Steve Hedgpeth
Bristol, Pa.
The fact is his movie has inspired many people to delve a little deeper into the Alamo saga. Thus it has opened many eyes to the fact that the Holy Trinity of the Alamo did not fight and die by themselves but had a lot of help from the Taylor bros., Jacob Darst, Toribio Losoya, Galba Fuqua and most likely 200 plus other men.
That, to me, is its legacy. It continues to open the door to a few who hopefully will continue the quest of the "REAL" Alamo. That's the important thing. While the Wayne movie strays from the facts and is overblown, I don't personally feel that it's disrespectful.
John Bryant
