|
 Author | Topic: Fannin~Houston? (Read 1,175 times) |
Wolfpack
Sentry of the Alamo
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v123/Dillon1836/wolfav.gif)
Joined: Dec 2003
Gender: Male 
Posts: 331
Location: Texas
Karma: 0 |  | Re: Fannin~Houston?
« Reply #15 on Mar 1, 2006, 4:17pm » | |
While possible there are a few problems. First is the defenders would have to have adequate intelligence of exactly where the supplies were held, secondly, it'd have to be physically close enough for the defenders to move to, attack, sieze, load, and move back before the Mexicans reacted in force.
The problem with Raids and "cut. slash, and run" is that to sucessfully conduct those type of operations you have to have a mobility (or create) a mobility advantage over the enemy. Surprise and covering fire are a couple of the normal ways of trying to create a mobility advantage. The specific problem here is that the Mexican Army had a significant mobility advantage over the Texians to bein with - the Mexican cavalry, and Travis had very limited means of overcoming that advantage. That's probably why all the Texas raids (the jacales on the south, the water/firewood on the East) took place within range of the walls, so Travis could provide covering fire to his raiders so as to allow them to disengage and sucessfully return.
| |
|
Highplainsman
Alamo Defender
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 541
Location: Texas
Karma: 1 | | Re: Fannin~Houston?
« Reply #16 on Mar 2, 2006, 10:30am » | |
Good points Wolfpack! Santa Anna's Calvary made it a very difficult situation for the Texas Commanders. There were I believe several small Ranger units in the vicinity of Cibola Creek but their numbers were nowhere near enough to offset Santa Anna's advantage. Still with a commander like Bowie, if healthy, and some 2 to 300 men and some of these Ranger units incorporated on an advance toward the Alamo who knows. Still there was the other Mexican units that were moving on Goliad but if the remaining troops there had forted up and not get caught in the open as they did at Colleto Creek-----?
|
"We would rather die in these ditches than give them up to the enemy." |
|
Wolfpack
Sentry of the Alamo
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 331
Location: Texas
Karma: 0 | | Re: Fannin~Houston?
« Reply #17 on Mar 2, 2006, 11:31am » | |
As much as I personally don't like it, a battle on the frontier was pretty much stacked in the Mexican Army's favor. While I've stated previously that had the Texians reinforced Travis with all available means, they might maybe even probably have won a battle around March 6th.
The problem is that Santa Anna only had Sesma's Vanguard Brigade and the 1st Brigade of his army present in San Antonio that day. The Mexican Main Body was still a couple of days away under Filisola, and Urrea was still operating with a small brigade around Goliad. So even a Mexican defeat on March 6th would have solved nothing. The Texians far from their base would have been weakened, operating in terrain that favored the Mexican Army against a professional army more capable of sustaining itself that had major reinforcements nearby.
Houston's ultimate strategy was probably the only one that had a chance to suceed. By drawing the Mexican army into East Texas, he forced them to disperse their units, operate on terrain that negated the Mexican cavlary advantage, and caused them to reach a thing called the "culminating point" ie from that point on just the plain old friction of war would cause the Mexican Army to get weaker and weaker without any Texas action. While at the same tie the Texas forces moved closer (actually through) their base of operations and grew stronger every day. While Houston supposedly said he thought the Texian Army only had one battle in it had Santa Anna not been captured at San Jacinto - Santa Anna's dispersal of forces would have allowed Houston to still fight another column at favorable odds. ReMember, besides the colonists help was beginning to flood in from the US. All Houston had to do was maintain the exsistence of his army (just like George Washington) to maintain the Revolution. With the flood of volunteers coming Houston could now replace losses while the Mexican Army would continue to grow weaker and weaker. In the more wooded country of East Texas Houston could now have done the "cut, slash, and run" tactics against the Mexican Army until, he had acquired sufficent strength to throw them out of the colonies.
Historically, it probably wasn't until May/June that the Texian Army would have been strong enough to have fought a battle and win the war around Bexar. While if Texas had responded they may have saved the Alamo in March, there's a real good chance they might have lost the war.
Less we forget: Happy Independence Day!
| |
|
Highplainsman
Alamo Defender
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 541
Location: Texas
Karma: 1 | | Re: Fannin~Houston?
« Reply #18 on Mar 2, 2006, 11:44am » | |
You are probably right Wolfpack. As it was, the capture of Santa Anna was the only thing that made the March 2nd. Declaration of any value. Had Santa Anna escaped I believe the war would have would have dragged on for awhile.
|
"We would rather die in these ditches than give them up to the enemy." |
|
ranger
Volunteer
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 51
Karma: 0 | | Re: Fannin~Houston?
« Reply #19 on Mar 28, 2006, 6:52pm » | |
"MORNIN"
Gents I get the point.I'm happy to see it from these new perspectives.I was incorrect in feeling Fannin had lost his nerve.That being said he definately did not have the leadership skills.
James
| |
|
Highplainsman
Alamo Defender
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 541
Location: Texas
Karma: 1 | | Re: Fannin~Houston?
« Reply #20 on Mar 29, 2006, 8:14am » | |
I believe your right Ranger. Fannin probably had plenty of nerve but even he questioned his own leadership ability.
|
"We would rather die in these ditches than give them up to the enemy." |
|
The Mountain man
Volunteer
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 17
Location: Southern Indiana
Karma: 0 | | Re: Fannin~Houston?
« Reply #21 on Mar 29, 2006, 6:31pm » | |
How many men did Fannin have? Just wondering  
|
The Mountain Man
Do the best you can!!!!! |
|
rta
Volunteer
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 7
Karma: 0 | | Re: Fannin~Houston?
« Reply #22 on Jun 30, 2006, 8:09am » | |
What if Lee had attacked Meade's left flank on 07/03/1863 instead of the center?
What if Pearl Harbor had been on alert, with all battleships away on 12/07/41?
| |
|
rta
Volunteer
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 7
Karma: 0 | | Re: Fannin~Houston?
« Reply #23 on Jun 30, 2006, 8:45am » | |
And what if Fannin arrived 02/22/1836, Bowie remained well, and Crockett or someone else identified and shot Santa Anna on the afternoon of 03/05/1836?
| |
|
18pounder
Sentry of the Alamo
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 360
Karma: 0 | | Re: Fannin~Houston?
« Reply #24 on Aug 18, 2006, 12:55pm » | |
the alamo was really on it's own from the start. even if Fannin had arrived with his force, the garrison could not have held against the odds. the compund was simply too big for them to hand with around 500 troops. Houston was also at fault because he neglected the command to send any form of help.
| |
|
sitges
Volunteer
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 5
Karma: 0 | | Re: Fannin~Houston?
« Reply #25 on Jun 9, 2008, 6:18pm » | |
But..wasn't Houston's original order to abandon the Alamo
| |
|
|
![[Home]](http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v123/Dillon1836/home1.gif)
![[Help]](http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v123/Dillon1836/help1.gif)
![[Search]](http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v123/Dillon1836/search1.gif)
![[Login]](http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v123/Dillon1836/login1.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/Dillon1836/send.jpg)
![[Print]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/Dillon1836/print.jpg)
Logged