I was talking to someone from Mexico about Texas history, and there the way it is taught is much different than here. There they say Sam Houston basically left the guys at the Alamo out to die; they were waiting for him and he didn't show up. Thoughts?
what's bad is that d1 is a huge troll on HAIF, also do the Houston community a favor and post much less TIA brah
The defenders of the Alamo were ordered to abandon the mission because Houston didn't have the resources to defend it. I'm not sure the fact they stayed in contradiction to those orders means Houston betrayed them. Seems to me like he made a wise tactical decision, and his soldiers disregarded him to their own detriment.
sorta He was not a traitor. Houston knew that tactically there was no way to win the battle of the Alamo. He knew even more lives would have been lost had he took his army to San Antonio. He chose winning a bigger battle over a smaller one, and it was the right choice. Houston studied the strategies of historical battles and he knew he needed more soldiers and better positioning. He retreated and retreated and retreated until he had the right location and the tactical advantage.
I am a little rusty on my history but from what I remember was that the order came too late or that it wasn't clear. Sam Houston probably didn't stand much of a chance if he tried to save the Alamo, and Goliad which was more heinous than the Alamo. He carried out a classic strategic retreat to where he could fight Santa Anna on his own terms.
This. The Alamo had absolutely no tactical value as it would be nearly impossible to defend. Houston told Bowie to abandon the mission and move east towards land that is more familiar and defensible for the Texans. Bowie (and the other leaders of the Alamo) refused, and it cost them their lives. It could be argued that huge wins for Santa Anna at Goliad and the Alamo led to arrogance. His tactical error at San Jacinto seems to reflect his comfort level - he had no fear of the Texian army. Source: "Sleuthing the Alamo" James E. Crisp
No, he sent Bowie originally to vacate the mission. From reading the wiki, Bowie and the men there changed their minds when they saw they couldn't take the artillery with them and started second-guessing the wisdom of abandoning the Alamo. It seems like they had a hard time with discipline and taking orders, generally, so I suppose it's no great surprise that they ignored Houston. So, to da1's point, yes, I'd say they were dummies, not martyrs. So much of the teaching of Texas history in Texas middle school was total bs, along with the playground stuff people share laterally to somehow make our secession from Mexico into some glorious revolution.
You are right. I looked at the wiki also. From the Wiki though there was some confusion regarding the chain of command in the early Republic of Texas which is why Col. Neil and Col. Bowie could refuse orders from Gen. Houston and why the Republic also sent another officer, Col. Travis, to reinforce the Alamo. They probably should've listened to Houston but given the confusion regarding command and also the value of the Alamo artillery it looks more like a mistake in judgement among Neil and Bowier than just stupidity. Maybe they figured they would be reinforced enough to hold out.
IMO, thier lack of discipline and poor decision making is evident. They were told to retreat and refused those orders. That said, thier sacrifice and fearless opposition to the Santa Ana's army was BEYOND heroic. I'm not sure that the Texans would have prevailed without the vengance and motivation caused by the battle at the Alamo. YES, they are heroes/martyrs.
The battle of the Alamo itself, for the Texan defenders, was an unprepared one. Even the defenders inside the walls were taken by surprise, relatively last minute. Sam not only have low troops, but low rations and low morale. A hypothetical rescue of the Alamo would be futile. Houston retreated to stall, to weaken Santa Anna's army in pursuit (they did raze everything they came across to prevent supplies from falling into their hands) and to possibly entice the US to intervene if the battle drew too close to their border.
The defenders of the Alamos were heroes. The massacred at Goliad were the martyrs. Both played crucial parts into motivating the Texan army.
Semantics, I'm sure... But, there's no differentiation between thier cause and the ultimate cost payed by both parties. The definitions fit for both.
