Why attack the Alamo?

stratego

Trying to be good.
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
3,681
Location
At critical limit
The Alamo is just a fort right? There's a giant desert surrounding it and there are no cities contained within it. So, why did the Mexicans attack it? Couldn't they get to the heart of Texas by just walking around it? Or maybe I just have a completely different image of the Alamo in my mind than what it actually was.
 
The Alamo was a symbol of the Texas rebellion and Santa Ana intended to crush it with a massive show of force. Unfortuntately for him, it backfired and created a bunch of martyrs. and as they say, the rest is history.
 
The story started in the 1820's when Mexico encouraged settlement of Texas by ambitious American planters in order to add a share of potentially huge cotton profits to Mexican tax revenues and, likely, to aid in control of indigenous people. The settlers were Southerners, familiar with cotton agriculture and the administration of the numbers of slaves necessary to accomplish cotton's brutal labour demands. The settlers brought their slaves with them, so from the beginning that there was approximately one slave for every 5 Texans. The Texans enjoyed years of freedom to develop their property and become established in Texas. Their investment produced a potentially large tax revenue source for Mexico as well. Allowing the Texans to continue to keep slaves to work the fields and pick the cotton kept the relationship going. The Texans, after all, were producing large amounts of valuable cotton on the otherwise desolate northern Mexican lands, which enabled them to pay taxes to the cash starved Mexican government. Also, it helped secure the land against Indian claims. However, events outside the control of Texans threatened this mutually prosperous relationship.

Mexico had a politically active abolitionist movement . In September of 1829 slavery was prohibited in Mexico. Because the politically connected Texans were outraged, one month later, the law was changed to allow slavery only in Texas. A few months later in early 1830, Mexico altered its policy under a new government that was less interested in catering to Texas. Mexico passed a law that prohibited further American settlement, and banned importation of additional slaves into Texas. The Mexican abolition movement, following the pattern seen around the world, had apparently pressured for more restrictions. This was a strict proviso, but for the Texans it was survivable, as they already had thousands of slaves within Mexico. The law must have created difficulties for the Texans and been a great source of irritation to them as they worked to develop their slave labour based agricultural economy. There were other grievances by this time, such as the amount of taxes the Texans were required to pay, but none struck home so much as the "bread and butter" issue of slavery. Without it, the Texans could not make a profit and ultimately would be out of business.

As the American population of Texas grew increasingly disgruntled with the various restrictions imposed by Mexico, an independence movement developed led by Stephen Austin. He presented a petition for independence to the Mexican government in 1833, and was then arrested and jailed until 1835. In 1835, there were about 20,000 Texans and 4000 slaves in Texas. In December of 1835 the newly crowned dictator General Antonio Santa Anna amended the slavery laws to ban slavery in Texas.

The settlers and their newly freed leader Austin quickly announced that they would secede from Mexico. To the great dismay of the Texans, however, in December of 1835 President Santa Ana extended the slavery ban to Texas to appease Mexican abolitionists. The Texans immediately rebelled and declared that they were seceded from Mexico, and declared the Republic of Texas. One of their first actions was to ban free blacks from the Republic. Not content with the possibility of withdrawing from Texas, the Texans enlisted the help of citizens of the United States in order to preserve slavery and the huge tracts of cotton growing land. This resulted in the famous siege and battle at the Alamo, a Catholic mission taken over by the Texans.



History Channel
 
Anyone who asks this question clearly hasn't played civ enough ... I mean, why NOT attack it? You've got your armies tearing deep into your enemy's territory, taking his cities systematically one by one. Suddenly, you find a lone fort sitting off to the side with one out-of-date defender sitting on top. Tell me you DON'T send at least one tank out of your armada to go stomp it?
 
Guess I missed the point of the thread. Ofcourse the fort there was a symbolic gestrue on the part of the Texans that turned into an actual bloody fight. Strategically, there is no question about what had to be done. Take it out and take it out fast. However Santa Anna failed to do this losing nearly 2000 soldiers to take the thing. This certainly demostrates a resolve, which can be historically appreciated. But at the time, it made heroes out of a group of men fighting to preserve slavery in Mexico. Not good. Perhaps a better response would have been to send a detachment of about 3000 men to do a land blockade of the fort. No actual siege, just cut off their supplies until they starve or surrender. A much less glorious way to go out. Hindsight is always 20/20.
 
Errggh, I bet this thread is gonna be moved to World History soon....
 
I just want to point out that the men in the Alamo lost. Not only did they lose, but they almost all died in doing so. No matter what way you look at it, the Mexicans won at the Alamo.

This is the point-of-view of a person who has spent the last decade in Texas and just wants everybody to come to terms with what actually happened there. :)
 
Originally posted Flak
Perhaps a better response would have been to send a detachment of about 3000 men to do a land blockade of the fort. No actual siege, just cut off their supplies until they starve or surrender. A much less glorious way to go out. Hindsight is always 20/20.
3,000 troops is an awful lot to waste laying seige to a tiny little fort. It would have been better to blast the hell out of it then do a massive charge.
Originally posted by Yaype
I just want to point out that the men in the Alamo lost. Not only did they lose, but they almost all died in doing so. No matter what way you look at it, the Mexicans won at the Alamo.
You're missing the point. Yes, the Mexicans technically won the battle but that is only if you look at it from the straight forward 'who's left standing' point of view. At the Alamo a tiny number of men held up a much superior force, killing a significant amount of them, and gave valuable time to the Texan army. That is why it is a victory, or at least a glorious defeat.
 
A beaten faction will always try to pull a triumph from obvious defeat.

PS
I recall Ozzy done his bit for the Alamo - by urinating on it.
 
@MrPresident: Oh, I know what the effects of the battle of the Alamo were, but the fact of the matter is that Mexico still won. There are too many Texans who forget that fact.
 
Ozzy is awful lucky the cops got him before the non-Mexican good 'ol boy population of San Antonio did.
 
Originally posted by gorn
Ozzy is awful lucky the cops got him before the non-Mexican good 'ol boy population of San Antonio did.

Ozzy leads a charmed life! :p
 
Originally posted by MrPresident

3,000 troops is an awful lot to waste laying seige to a tiny little fort. It would have been better to blast the hell out of it then do a massive charge.

I agree. But if you're willing to waste 2000 dead on overrunning the thing, why not just surround it with 3000 and starve them out? It's obvious they had the forces to do it. That way maybe nobody on either side dies. Again, I wouldn't siege it at all. Just cut off their supplies and starve them out.
 
The amount of Mexican casulaties at the Alamo is not known and the first hand acounts of the number vary greatly: Killed plus died of wounds varies for 600 (one report, and close to inherent military probability) to 1600 (one report) to 2000 (2 reports, including the man in charge of disposing of the corpses). Both the 1600 and 2000 seem very excessive given the numbers of troops involved and the nature of the battle. In any case the casulaties among the assualt force would have fallen very heavilly on the prosfessional core of the the army: officers and noncom up to the batallion level. Necessitating the period of reorganization which Santa Anna took after the battle to restructure and incorporate more that 1000 local levies to his army.

IN the pricipla topic, as noted above by Mr President, Santa Anna could not leave the fortified position on his line of supply, and in the middle of an importan local supply area (at that time nothing to be had between the Rio Grande and San Antonio along the route form Satillo.). This is particularly the case in this type of war. A civil war (evovling into a war of independaence) with both local mampower joining both side, and foreign manpower dribbling in at the coast. Recall that this was the tail end of a massive civil wr all over Mexico, and Santa Ann over the previous year of so had put do armed opposition in several other state. The Texican was just at the time of the Alamo siefe decideng that the federalist vs centralist/Santa Anna civil war was lost, and that they would declare and fight for independence.
 
Originally posted by Yaype
but the fact of the matter is that Mexico still won. There are too many Texans who forget that fact.

Obviously, these folks are the direct product of a failed education system! :D

I don't know anyone over 30 that thinks Texas won the Alamo.

Although, they may have won the battle, but they lost the war in a rather pathetic way. :shotgun: :sleep:

I do think it is rather simplistic to blame the Texas independence movement on slavery (as in most events, there are many different perspectives and motives). But, hey, who am I to say, it is a sign of modern times to revise history to suit our current trend towards political correctness. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by gorn
Anyone who asks this question clearly hasn't played civ enough ... I mean, why NOT attack it? You've got your armies tearing deep into your enemy's territory, taking his cities systematically one by one. Suddenly, you find a lone fort sitting off to the side with one out-of-date defender sitting on top. Tell me you DON'T send at least one tank out of your armada to go stomp it?
I wouldn't attack it if it doesn't pose a threat to any of my units or cities. Better just take the city that supports the unit, and watch it disappear. :)
 
Originally posted by addiv

I wouldn't attack it if it doesn't pose a threat to any of my units or cities. Better just take the city that supports the unit, and watch it disappear. :)

you play Civ2 only, do you? :)
 
Originally posted by SanPellegrino


you play Civ2 only, do you? :)
Oh, that's right, in Civ 3 units aren't supported by cities (are they?). I have played Civ 3 a couple of times but I mainly play Civ 2 indeed.
 
Back
Top Bottom