Subject: Musket Flints & Keepin' your powder dry
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997
From: Bob Durham
Here are a couple of questions that the reenactors out there may be able to answer.
Question 1 - In Santa Anna's orders for the final assault on the Alamo, he tells how many extra flints should be carried by each man in the attacking columns. I am a little familiar with percussion cap muzzle loaders but know very little about flintlocks. I know that flints can get knocked out and they need to be periodically replaced. But, would there really be a need to carry four or five extra flints for one combat action? I have seen some books that translate this as extra rounds - if that is the correct translation, it does not seem to be enough, especially when de la Peña talks of the Mexican soldiers firing thousands of rounds during the attack.
Question 2 - de la Peña says that each Alamo defender was armed with four or five muskets. Many weapons were captured from Cos' troops when the Texians stormed Bexar, so there definitely were enough muskets available. Long, in "Duel of Eagles", says that it would have been impossible to keep the weapons loaded and ready because of moisture, etc. Is what Long says true? I know the weapons couldn't be kept primed and loaded indefinitely but it seems that, if the firing mechanism were wrapped in oil cloth or some other waterproof material, it would keep the powder dry enough to fire. If that wouldn't work, couldn't they keep the guns loaded, but just not primed? That would still save quite a bit of time, if the defenders only had to prime the weapon before firing.
Bob Durham
Being issued two muskets or rifle flints prior to battle was not unusual-the US troops did the same thing. The flint had a life of about thirty to forty rounds of heavy firing: allowing of course for adjustments, napping and the like.
It sounds like the translation you have of the battle orders is a good one: I don't think Woolsy got it right in his translation of the Filisola Memories. I come up with: "The companies of granaderos and cazadores will be issued with six packets of cartridges to every man, and the fusilero companies with two packages and two spare flints."
Mexico, like every other standing army, used paper cartridges as fixed ammunition. A US package of the period carried ten cartridges, so it is likely the soldados of the granaderos and cazadores were carrying sixty rounds while the fusileros were carrying twenty.
Pedro Ampudia, the Mexican Artillery commander at the Alamo, reported that the Mexican troops used/issued 36,000 cartridges and 2800 flints. The flint number is noted, because if you double the number of solados used in the assault including the granaderos in reserve(which was 1400)you get 2800.
About the Texian four or five weapons per man-it is possible: Ampudia reports that 14,600 ball cartridges were captured from Texian stores along with 816 muskets, rifles and pistols. If you look at the number of weapons captured at the battle of Bexar, and compare with Ampudia's figures, you get a good idea of just how many spare weapons per man were inside(this of course is allowing for those weapons that didn't work).
I know what point Jeff Long was trying to make: but his experiences with a working period weapon were limited to the time Norman Power and I took him out to Norman's ranch outside of Goliad to fire a replica Brown Bess.
I think that the figures show us that the Texians were not hurting for weapons, nor apparently, fixed ammunition. Then again, Mexican gunpowder was not the best in the world.
Kevin R. Young
Subject: Flints & Muskets, Pt. 2
Date: 5 Sep 1997
From: Bob Durham
Kevin, I appreciate the information you provided me in the Alamo Forum. I thought, when they spoke of cartridge packs that they were talking about individual rounds not packs of ten rounds. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
One thing that has always puzzled me is why most writers have all of the Texians doing their hand-to-hand fighting with clubbed rifles and Bowie knives instead of using the muskets and bayonets they captured at Bexar. I'm sure that clubbed rifles and muskets were used, even by the Mexicans, if that was what was in reach. But the Mexican first person accounts usually have both sides armed with bayonets, which seems more realistic. I received the back issues of the "Alamo Courier" but I haven't had a chance to read all of them yet. I'm really looking forward to the "ABA Journal" when it comes out.
Maybe sometime I'll be able to take you up on showing me how a flintlock musket really works.
Thanks again,
Bob Durham
One translation of the battle orders leaves out the word packet, which of course, is there in the original Spanish. I often run into people making the claim that Santa Anna only allowed his troops have a few rounds for the battle. This of course is quite ridiculous when you compare the original battle orders with Ampudia's report of rounds issued/used.
Part of the Bayonet-meets-Bowie knife mystique, I think, has to do with the romantic Victorian American idea of the American citizen-soldier vs. the trained, equipped professional. The Minute Man and the Hunters of Kentucky were much stronger popular American icons than the reality of the Continental soldier or the 7th US Infantry behind the cotton bales of New Orleans(the Kentuckians only fired two volleys in the battle). Of course, you can add to that the vision of the Davis Mississippi Rifles forming the V at Buena Vista with their M1841 Rifles and Bowie knives in their red overshirts, white pants and straw hats! A much better popular image than the doughboys in sky blue slugging it out!
I've even read one modern account where the Texians were supposed to have tied Bowie knives to their rifles at San Jacinto! Sam Houston was always one for creating vivid imagery. Wanting to emulate his father figure, Andrew Jackson and his victory at New Orleans, Houston greatly contributed to creating the same kind of imagery in his own battle report. He says that his men did not have bayonets, yet there are dozens of accounts of Texian soldiers at San Jacinto with bayonets.
Personally, with the Mexican army rushing the walls in the pre-dawn hours, I would have much rather had a musket, which I could load three times a minute to a rifle which took a minute to load. As to this notion that the Texians aimed at the Mexican cross-straps as targets, I wonder how well you could have seen them in those light conditions. And what about the Mexican cazadores wearing black cross-belts?
Like New Orleans, the Mexican losses at the Alamo were inflicted by the canister rounds fired from the Texian Artillery. I think the rifle had little to do with it, and for that matter, was probably used much more effectively by Mexican cazadores than the defenders.
Keep in mind, the Mexicans started the assault at "rifle range" which was set by their standards at 250 yards. In a rush, that is not that far.
When we filmed Price of Freedom, a lot of the guys playing Texians had come up with these swinging Davy death scenes, only to find out that once the soldados were over the walls, you were dead meat if you tried to stand on the wall or on the Plaza. One of our Texian officers had planned out this big sword fight finish, only to trip over his scabbard. Before he could say, "Givem' what feer Davy" the soldados were turning him into a pin cushion.
I think the true image of the land-stand defender at the Alamo is not a Texian swinging or slashing on the walls, but rather hold up in the barracks. I am often asked which Alamo defender I would have wanted to be: I don't know, but I know which one I don't want to be: and that is the last guy in the last room of the Long Barrack, listening in the dark as the soldados smash their way toward him room by bloody room.
Kevin R. Young
Subject: Sam Houston's Tree?
Date: October 7, 1997
From: Jeff Pendleton
Last year, on a trip to San Jacinto, I noticed a tree stump between the water and the parking lot, which is about in the right place to have been the tree Sam Houston lay under when he received the prisoner Santa Anna. This may sound silly, and there was no sign to indicate that it was, but the park seemed to have gone out of their way to maintain this old dead stump. Could it be?
Jeff Pendleton
Subject: Houston's Tree.
Date: October 8, 1997
From: Jim McCrain
It has been several years since I have been to the San Jacinto battleground, but there USED to be a sign that identified this dead tree stump as the "possible" location of the Santa Anna surrender. Remember, though, that the land around there has changed hands several times, and been altered quite a bit. (Ever notice that big boat near the stump?)
It is "possible" that this is the correct sight. It might even be "probable." To me, though, the more important sight is a little further away. That small cemetery is a much more meaningful site to me.
Jim McCrain, Chief Curator
Dallas County Heritage Society
They tried to plant a new tree at San Jacinto sometime back, but I don't know what it's status is. The so-called Houston oak was nothing more than a stump on the edge of the ship channel, but there were at least two markers-one in bronze the other a rather impressive marker in granite with the surrender painting inscribed in it.
Of course, where Sam Houston sat at the San Jacinto battlefield isn't really what interests me (just came back from Fort Gibson where he begged for drinks).
The cemetary has one interesting flaw-while the de Zavala stones and that of Castrillion are there, the bodies are not. Their removal to the site was blocked by a de Zavala family member and remained in the family cemetery across the river, and thanks to mother nature, are probably mid-channel today.
Kevin R. Young
Date: 26 Oct 1997
From: Jeff Pendleton
What is the final decision on Mose or Louis Rose? Most of the books I've read doubt his very existence, much less the story attributed him. But I read somewhere recently that new evidence from land claim records has verified that the man was counted on as a witness by the state of Texas for years as to the presence of different individuals in the Alamo. So, what is the definitive answer on Mr. Rose?
I think the jury is still out on this one. Yes, a researcher did apparently find Rose being used as a witness in several land cases involving Alamo defenders in the Nacogdoches court. But Tom Lindley, who is doing most of the current work on who and who didn't die in the Alamo, believes that these are fraudulant claims.
I think there was a Louis Moses Rose in the Texas Revolution and he may have been at the Alamo before the siege. As to the William P. Zubner's account, and the story of Travis' line, I think the R.M. Williamson letter to Travis dated March 1, 1836 that was found on Travis' body helps to nullify that tradition.
Steve Kellerman did some work on Rose a while back, including publishing what Kellerman thought was Rose' Napoleonic service record. Philip Haythornthwaite and I disagree with Kellerman's belief that this particular Rose (on the service record) is the same Rose who was in Texas in 1836. Kellerman's Rose won the Legion of Honor, was made a sub-adjuant and served not in Russia(as Zuber claimed) but in Spain. Our problem was that the Texas Rose was illiterate, and the
French Army had strong rules about having illerate officers.
So the mystery continues. We will have to wait on Lindley's finds and judge the documentation.
Subject: Mexican Battle Tactics
Date: Friday, October 31, 1997
From: Bob Durham
Were the infantry formations and tactics used by the Mexican Army during the Texas Revolution the same as those used by Napoleon? Battalion/regiment organization seemed to be the same, i.e. six line companies, one grenadier company and one chasseur company per battalion. When fighting from a line, would they have used a three rank line or a two rank line? What would be the firing procedures?
I'm familiar with American Civil War tactics and formations, where they used a two rank line, and both ranks fired at the same time (it must have been hard on the ears for the first rank!).With a three deep line, would the first rank kneel so the back two ranks could fire over their heads or would the rear rank hold its fire? It doesn't seem like it would be too safe for the front rank if all three ranks fired while standing. During the assault on the north wall of the Alamo, the Mexican soldados opened fire before reaching the wall (de la Peña thought this was a major blunder; he thought they should have relied strictly on the bayonet). These were well-disciplined troops, so I don't think they would have fired indiscriminately without orders. Under the tactics of the day, would they have halted to fire a volley or would they have fired while advancing? How difficult would it have been to reload a flintlock musket in the pre-dawn darkness?
I know that this is speaking in probabilities, and there is no way to know for certain, but it seems that a better understanding of the battle could be had by viewing it in terms of the tactics of the time. The map of the Alamo by Sánchez shows Cos' attacking column as being composed of three lines. In Duque's force, the blast from a single cannon decimated one of his companies, so Duque must have had at least some of his companies massed in some columnar formation rather than inline. I have always assumed that the troops attacking the south wall were in an open-order skirmish line since they were all chasseur companies. I would appreciate any light you can shed on this.
Bob Durham
The infantry formations and tactics used by the Ejercito Mexicano during the Texas War were not so much those used by Napoleon or Le Grande Armie, but rather were Napoleonic in nature. The two Mexican infantry drill manuals I have (1821, reprinted 1831 and one from 1828) are very similar to both the French and Spanish manuals of the Napoleonic period. It is interesting to note that when Mexican adopted its reglamento for the presidios and presidial companies in 1824, they simple re-adopted the old 1770's Spanish reglamento for the same. The 1847 light infantry manual I have for the Mexicans is similar to the British. There is really not a lot of difference between the US drill (Scotts) and the Mexicans.
By regulation, and in a perfect world where a battalion had all of its companies and they were full strength, a Mexican infantry company would form in three ranks. The file closers, consisting of the extra NCO's and officers would be behind the third rank. However, when the company was not at full strength (which was most of the time, and certainly the case in the Texas Campaign) the Mexicans formed a company in two ranks, with the extra NCO's thrown in the second rank and the extra officers being the file closers.
If you are familiar with Hardee's or Casey's from the 1850's or 1860's, when you fired in two ranks, you did so standing. There is a position for the rear rank to step up and fire over the shoulder/side of the man in front of him. Generally, you would wait until the front rank had reloaded, for safety' sake and to keep your fire from slackening.
The Mexican and Scott's drills are the same. Now, if you were ever in three ranks, the front rank would kneel to fire. However, I am sure this did not happen in the Alamo assaults, because the Mexicans were moving two quickly and were in two ranks. As a rule, the cazadore company assigned to the attack column would be to the flank of the column. Its job was to provide cover fire, and in the case of a fortified position, to clear the wall line for the fusilero companies to get over the works. The Alamo is interesting, because de la Peña was right-the general rule on an assault is the attack force (save the flankers/skirmishers/cazadores) goes in with out firing or even having loaded their weapons. However, apparently in the Alamo assault, everyone was loaded.
There just aren't enough details to know if the front ranks opened fire while advancing or what. It is possible that only the cazadores were firing until the fusileros got under the walls. Loading a flintlock at night is easy-and from practical first hand experience, which some people may discount 'cause we weren't firing lead, you tend to overload the frizzen with powder. Makes a hell of a flash in front of your face! Something to remember, by several period accounts, Mexican soldados tended to not fire their weapons from the shoulder but the hip (during independent fire). Mexican gunpowder was often high in charcoal, and burned slow, so to give things an extra punch, their cartridges were over loaded. Again, hell of a flash in your face and what a kick!
What Sánchez-Navarro is showing is Cos attacking in column, not line. He is attacking in column of companies. The reproduction of the map is not as clear as the original, in which you can see the company divisions and the file closers. What looks like a line is actual two ranks of a company. Since Cos' column is the only one we have an illustration of, you have to assume that the other columns, save Morales' cazadores, were doing the same. If Duque's column was following form, his cazadore company would have been one of the flanks of the attack column-and it was the cazadore company who got "cut in half".
There was a battle in Nepal in the early 19th century where the British attacked a fortified village (defended by cannon). Their attack plan is almost the same as the Santa Anna's at the Alamo. Except the British retreated when one of their commanders was killed!
Kevin R. Young
Subject: Susannah Dickinson
Date: 11/03/97
From: David Folds
On your site, there is a story about Alamo mythology. In it, there is a paragraph that states:
Likewise, Susannah Dickinson originally stated she stayed in one of the rooms of the Alamo church and did not see any of the siege or final assault. Later, when rediscovered by the press and sensationalist writers, she continuously changed her "recollections" to fit whatever new story was in fashion. Her life and that of her daughter, Angelina," immediately before and long after the battle of the Alamo are tragic stories best left in peace.
What is the whole story on Susanna and Angelina Dickinson? I have read that they both become prostitutes. But this article states that "immediately before" the battle was tragic for them. What is the whole story?
Thanks, David
I am not sure what was suggested here, unless it is a reference to the incident in the fall of 1835 when Susannah's house was attacked by members of an East Texas militia company. If I remember the story correctly, Lancelot Smithers tried to protect her, only to get beaten by the militia members. There is no real indication why this incident happened, and I have not tried to run down the particulars, but it could be a reason why Almeron insisted on keeping his family by his side in 1836.
Kevin R. Young
See Also:Susannah Dickinson
Subject: Alamo Plaque
Date: 11/06/97
From: Charles B. Baxley
I'm really glad you have this web site because without it I would never have been able to make an essay on the Alamo. Do you know the wording on the sign as you enter the Alamo or is there a plaque with an inscription on it? Thanks for your help!
Charles Baxley
The Alamo: San Antonio de Valero Mission, Fort and Shrine Be silent friends, here heroes died so others might be free. Gentleman please remove hats.
Subject: Hardin's Article and Houston's Intentions
Date: 9 Nov 1997
From: Wallace L. McKeehan
Although Hardin quotes Pvt. J.H. Kuykendall's opinion about Houston as a commander, (unless I missed it), Pvt. Kuykendall also wrote describing an encounter with Houston on their march toward Groce's Point as early as March 29:
"Late in the afternoon we arrived at a creek. Ere the army had crossed this stream it began to rain in torrents. As we foundered through mud and water, pelted by the storm, General Houston rode slowly close my company. He wore a black cloth dress coat, somewhat threadbare. He complained of having no blanket. He said he'd had a good one but some soundrel had stolen it. He then said: 'My friends, I am told that evilly disposed persons have told you I am going to march you to the Redlands. This is false. I'm going to lead you into the Brazos bottom near Groce's to a position where you can whip the enemy even if he comes ten to one, and where we can get an abundant supply of corn."
Wallace L. McKeehan
Visit Mr. McKeehan's website --"Sons of Dewitt Colony Texas"
