The Alamo isn't just a place, but an event that evokes questions. For scholars historians, researchers, Alamo buffs and the casual visitor, the historic site and its rich history seem to create a need to find answers. The quest may be as simple as "is the ancient Alamo church the original?" or as complicated as "how did David Crockett meet his end?" The compelling need to know is always there. Rarely does one come away with complete answers to many of the Alamo's historical puzzles. Perhaps this is part of the site's magical charm. At a place where cultures and political views often clash, where myth and legend have overtaken historical interpretation and in recent years, were popular culture seems to dominate primary source documentation, the seeker of truth will often find themselves stuck in a swamp of conflicting information and interpretations. l On occasion, these seekers stray from the usual path of often-asked questions and will seek out the more unusual. These kinds of questions are a welcome relief to the usual strain of "what flag flew over the Alamo?" or "what type of clothing did the New Orleans Greys wear?" What makes their unusual questions so compelling is that they are often asked with the same sincerity as those related to the more central and popular Alamo mysteries. Therefore, they deserve something more than a simple shrug of the shoulders or a look of amazement. 2 To this end comes this particular Alamo riddle, often asked of Alamo scholars and staff members:
Where were the bathrooms in 1836?
It's
There is still lot's of archaeology going on at the Alamo. This site is an update on recent finds and on one of the links asks the above question.
They still haven't found the the head.
I'll bet most of us on this board know the actual history of the battle - rather than John Waynes version. No disrespect to the Duke.
saw the movie the other day
was quite surprised when John Wayne blew himself his coon skin hat and everything else up at the end
so are all the archaeological finds in small fragments or was that just hollywood
Perhaps Santa Ana's army scared the shit out of them?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Probably whatever they had handy. 1836 was a little early for 'modern' rifled muskets on the American frontier. Even in 1848 most of the American army was using smoothbore Springfields which were essentially unchanged from the French muskets they were patterned on. The exception was Jefferson Davis' Mississippi Volunteers who he armed with new rifled muskets.
Most people would have had a hunting rifle around. They could fire them un-patched and achieve a rate of fire similar to muskets and probably still have more accuracy. No bayonet capability, though. Would have been at a serious disadvantage in hand-to-hand combat.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
The 40" octagon to round barrel is in .69 caliber.
The French Charleville used a somewhat longer barrel (44 inches) but was in the same caliber.
The British Brown Bess was a .75 caliber weapon.
Mexico bought a bunch of surplus Brown Bess muskets from the British in the 1830's when the Brits upgraded to the rifled-musket. Santa Ana's army was equipped with them.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Mexico bought a bunch of surplus Brown Bess muskets from the British in the 1830's when the Brits upgraded to the rifled-musket. Santa Ana's army was equipped with them
The elite Zapadores troops that breached the north wall were certainly equipped with riflles that took the bayonet. I didn't know they were the Brown Bess.
At a place where cultures and political views often clash, where myth and legend have overtaken historical interpretation and in recent years, were popular culture seems to dominate primary source documentation, the seeker of truth will often find themselves stuck in a swamp of conflicting information and interpretations.
what is that old axiom of publishing..."if you have a choice between printing the truth or the legend, print the legend". {i know that isn't totally correct as i have only heard it once or twice}
will we ever know the whole truth about that battle?
* i prefer John Wayne's version to the Dennis Quaid one.
Thanks Bruce, I'll read the whole thing after while - it looks good.
One defender, Esparza I think, recieved a Christian burial (meaning internment) because his brother was in the attacking Mexican force. Permission was obtained from Santa Ana. That grave has not yet been located. If it could be, it would probably be enshrined, as are the ruins of the mission.
Check this out if you are interested, Beags. The British 95th Regiment was a fairly well known unit. It would not appear as if these weapons were supplied to Mexico as they continued in British service until a year after the Alamo fell.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
