Talk:Battle of the Alamo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

i am a san antonio native, THE ALAMO DEFENDERS ROCK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.207.29 (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Technically the survivors weren't defenders though.... - Hephaestos|§ 02:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Change The Belligerents

I'm no historical buff, which is why i just didn't edit the page, but shouldn't Texas be represented as the "Republic of Texas" instead of the Mexican state,as it is considered a battle in the Texas revolution? --Mrlego9 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to lock down

Given the almost daily vandalism of this article, I'd like to suggest that it be locked for editing only by registered users. --Spacini 14:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- I've seen many vandal edits here (just today), and they were all by IPs, so thay will most likely solve the problem. RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 14:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto here. How do we do that? BQZip01 05:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

LET'S LOCK THIS ARTICLE DOWN! Someone please point me in the right direction and I'll get the ball rolling. --Spacini 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The process is pretty easy. Just put in a request for page protection. Did it for Knight and it worked like a charm. Good luck! --Ebyabe 18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll second the motion BQZip01 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism has continued so I have semi-protected the page to keep it from being vandalized by IP addresses or new users. Johntex\talk 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded and those who made things happen. --Spacini 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texian against Texan

I found the word Texian used about five times, and the word texan used four times. Do the words have seperate meanings, or do they mean the same thing? And, if the latter, should we standardize the usage to one or the other? Sharvael|User talk:Sharvael 17:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Look up the article on Texian to see what it means. In pre-1845 histories, the inhabitants of Texas are known as Texians.

It's my contention that the word Texan should not be used in this article at all. Point of fact few if any of the people at the alamo were born in texas. It isn't possible,(even though most were born elsewhere anyway) Texas did not exist until after the war was finished. 68.212.203.106 01:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC) tootall112168.212.203.106 01:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Texan shouldn't be used in this at all. ILoveConcerts (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Santa Ana/Santa Anna

On the subject of spelling, am I missing something in noting that "Santa Anna" was spelled throughout the article with two "n's"? In normal, modern Spanish the name Santa Ana would only have one "n".]

That's how its spelled in English. 69.91.106.248 03:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's American....English would suggest that the person speaking it comes from England (kinda in the name...duh), But I do take issue with the reference concerning British rifles by the Mexicans, there are 3 George Crosses hanging in the Alamo today...and in case anyone does not realise (with an S), that's the Flag of England, the English...you see we also fought and died at the Alamo. Dazzh|User talk:Dazzh 11:40, 13 May 2007 (BST)


since it was a part mexico, it should properly be spelled tejano or in relation to females tejanas.Califman831


Since it's a last name, shouldn't it be spelled the way it was spelled? And wouldn't the English spelling be "Saint Anne"? I'll fix the spelling if no one has an opposing opnion fairly soon....Reggaedelgado 05:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm mexican, we spelled it as "Santa Anna" the name "Ana" has no relation with "Anna", it's just his last name.--Requeson 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about the consequences?

What about the consqeuences? Where is "Remember the Alamo"? How has this shaped US-Mexican relations? -mr100percent|§ 5 June 2004


According to the biography of Sam Houston (I will fill in the author later), a Texian is an Anglo native of Texas. A Tejano is a Latino native. But he seems to also use Texian for any Anglo Texas resident, regardless of birth.

I see two items which could be addeded.

1. Santa Anna's decision to give no quarter (execute prisoners) was made at the beginning of the campaign. According to the source above, Santa Anna marched all the way from Mexico under the no-quarter flag. You could clarify that when Santa Anna asked for the Texans surrender "with discretion" that meant once he took them prisoner, he reserved the right to summarily execute them, which of course is what he did.

2. The entire battle was quixotic, and should never have been fought. Major General Sam Houston, the commander of the Texas forces, and a highly qualified soldier, had ordered Jim Bowie to strip and raze the Alamo, and join the main body of the Texas forces. Bowie did not do this, and he and Travis lost all the men under their command. Bowie was at best a freebooter (thug would be more like it, IMHO), so for him to disobey Houston was merely imprudent. Travis was a regular officer of the Army of Texas, so his disopbedience was muntinous. As Houston forsaw, the Mexicans occupied the Alamo, and got considerable tactical advantage from the facitlity.

The battle of San Jacinto, which saved Texas independance, was won mostly by luck, due to a rare lapse in judgement by Santa Anna, one of the finest generals in the hemisphere. So the loss of 100-200 highly aggressive fighters in the Alamo ultimately had no effect, but that was not forseeable at the time.

[edit] Missing Mexican cannon

Why was the information about the missing Mexican heavy cannon removed? --Grouse 18:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing paragraph

In the following paragraph:

Before the battle, Santa Anna ordered that a red flag be raised indicating to the defenders that no quarter would be given. Several defenders who had not been killed in battle were captured and executed. Among its defenders were James Bowie (the leader of the militia forces), David Crockett, and William Barret Travis. Two dozen women and children, as well as two slaves at the Alamo, were released.

==

Does Among its defenders refer to those who had not been killed in battle? Crockett wasn't killed in battle but I thought Travis was. It seems to be mixing things which happened before the battle with things which happened afterward. Could someone make this clearer, maybe put it in two paragraphs? shoaler 21:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are correct Shoaler, William Travis was killed during the battle, very early on in fact. A ridiculas legend about him emerged soon after the battle. It said that he stood up on the wall and directed vollies of fire for several minutes before a Mexican sniper killed him. Davy Crockett survived the battle, critically wounded many reports say, and he was executed by the Mexicans. This report was heavily biased though. It described the Mexicans as 'cruel, savage murderers'. Reports about him, rumors, legends and so forth are enormously confusing and contridictory though.

-E. Brown

  • We only have Travis' slave's version of when Travis died during the battle. Most accounts does put his death at early on in the battle. Whether it was five minutes, ten or fifteen, we'll never know. As to Crockett's death, again, we'll never know for certain if he was taken prisoner by Castrillon or died 'swinging ol Betsy' as Mrs. Dickinson claims. She was a non-combatant and was inside the chapel so how would she know? Crockett's death is extremely contraversial among Texas historians. Reply Posted 25 June 2005


[edit] Mystery of Jim Bowie

I heard this facinating story about Jim Bowie at the Alamo. Bowie was sick with pneumonia (or flu, depending on who you ask) at the time of the attack. When the Mexicans breached the fort, a horde of them burst into Jim Bowie's room, where he was on his sick-bed. He had two, single-shot pistols and his Bowie knife on the table. He fired both pistols into the crowd of Mexicans before he was riddled with bullets. After the battle three Mexican bodies were found in his room along with his. Two pistol shots and...what happened to the third guy? The Bowie knife was still on the table. Any thoughts. -E. Brown 20 March, 2005

  • Yes. According to what legend you wish to believe, Bowie was either dead before the final assault or killed during the assault. According to Andrea Castanon Villanueva or as she's better known Madam Candelaria who claims to have been with Bowie at the time of his death, he died a few minutes before the final assault on 6 March. Her story, albeit a good one, doesn't have much creedo to it since she had changed it on several occasions. Bowie's death, along with Travis and Crockett will never been known for certain.

-User: tlincoln 25 June 2005

What a romantic modern assumption to assume a man who is on the verge of death from pneumonia could kill two people with two shots from weapons with a very low success rate and then somehow kill someone with a knife, even though he is bedridden. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats the movie version. He may have been bedridden but he wasn't necessarily "on the verge of death." to fire a gun is really easy, and if he died in his room, it would have been most likely to hit the first person who entered. As for killing someone with a knife, it would be possible that he died knife in hand, while it is hard to believe he successfully used it. If a third guy was killed it could be friendly fire, or over penetration. Rds865 (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Last Exit March 15?

The article says that Travis could send out riders as late as March 15. Can't be right, can it?

The last message was dated March 3, so I changed the March 15 date. Good catch!
  • Travis sent out his last messenger, James L. Allen (1815-1901) on 5 March 1836 with a message to Fannin at Goliad.

-User: tlincoln 11 September 2005

[edit] Prelude to Battle Incomplete

The section entitled Prelude to Battle makes no mention of why the Texans rebelled.

  • Actually, it seems to me that the existence of the Texas Revolution article makes the Prelude to Battle section too long, if anything. I have modified the first sentence to make the entrance a bit less jarring. It seems to me unnecessary to re-explain the entire war in an article about a single battle. Mmccalpin 03:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texian

I replaced some of the instances of "Texian" with "Texan" because as I understand it Texian refers to American (white) settlers in Texas; the defenders of the Alamo were not only white, so the more general "Texan" covers both in most cases. If anyone feels I changed it in an inappropriate place, please feel free to fix it. Kafziel 17:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

I just reverted an edit by 207.69.137.20 for two reasons: 1. Anonymous user edits with misspellings always make me mildly suspicious. 2. Very specific claim about one particular source, but without a citation. My apologies to 207.69.137.20 if this was a legitimate fact, but please cite in the future, and please create a login to Wikipedia. Mmccalpin 14:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alamo defenders supporting slavery

I've read that one factor - not the primary reason - for the Alamo defenders' opposition to the Mexican government was the government's anti-slavery policy.

The defenders of the Alamo were in part fighting for the continued right to own slaves.

Why does the article not mention this whatsoever? It mentions other factors, from the increasingly dictatorial powers of the Mexican president to the loyalty of the Alamo defenders to the US over Mexico; I'd think it should also mention the difference on slavery between the two sides, that the battle was in part between the forces for and against slavery.

Indeed, the statement of Texas upon seceding from the United States clearly indicates the importance to them of defending the right to slavery:

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States...

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." —This unsigned comment was added by Craig234 (talk • contribs) .

This is an article about a specific battle; the politics are mentioned only in passing to frame the lead up to the actual events in the article. The motivation for the politics sounds like an intersting topic for Texas Revolution (where it is indeed discussed), or Mexican Texas (where it is mentioned and dismissed). Kuru talk 22:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, this would seem a perfect opportunity to correctly frame the events leading up this historic battle. The complete ommission of this contributory motivation for Texas rebellion is a serious oversight by the editor and does dear disservice to the reader.Bedreaded 10:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Alamo was fought in 1836. Texas seceded from the US in 1861, some 25 years later. The population had grown enormously in those 25 years, and meanwhile the economy of East Texas had been integrated into the cotton-economy of the deep south. That wasn't the case in the early 1830s when Texian agitation began. Citing the above passages as evidence of Texian motivation in 1836 is like citing the Yalta Conference in 1945 as evidence of American motivation in Southeast Asia in 1970. Much changes in 25 years. Think of what our foreign policy concerns were in 1982; the Cold War was still on, Chinese were still starving, we were making friends with the Muhjadin, and everyone thought the Japanese economy was going to steamroller the world!

Having said that, there were obviously slave owners among the Alamo's defenders, and many proponents of Texas independence favored slavery and hoped to link the would-be country's economy to that of the slaveholding South. A Mexican Texas under the central control of Santa Anna would have prevented that. So it was indeed a motivating factor among many motivating factors. However, it is erroneous to give it pride of place; it was peripheral. Santa Anna did not march north to free slaves. If there had been no slaves in Texas, Texians would have rebelled just as surely. Remember; Stephen F. Austin's colony began only 2 years after Mexican independence, and within a very short time Anglo settlers greatly outnumbered Mexicans in sparsely populated Texas. The Texians began agitation less than a decade after Spain lost its great New World empire. Austin's colonists and most of their successors had more in common with the freeholders and small farmers settling the Midwest than with Dixie. Mexico never controlled Texas in any real way, it inherited it because of lines drawn on a map by the Spanish centuries earlier. With at least 75-80% of its population being from a different ethnic group (Anglo writ large), with different cultural and institutional perspectives, with a different language (English) and many with a different religion (protestants), it was all but inevitable that Texas would never submit to Mexican rule and would rebel.

The tragedy is that its geography and subsequent economic and demographic development led it to embrace the slaveholding South and the sentiments reflected in the passage above; maybe inevitable too, I guess. But I doubt that's what most of the Alamo's defenders were fighting for in 1836. --DAS


The constitution of the republic of Texas (1836) articles 6, 9 & 10 seem to substantiate the claim that the right to own slaves was indeed a major element in events leading to the battle at the Alamo so I would have to agree that it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.225.91 (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The sixth deals with the powers of the president and there is not a 9th or 10th article. Could you be more specific? Kuru talk 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's under General Provisions 6, 9 and 10. SEC. 6. All free white persons who shall emigrate to this Republic, and who shall, after a residence of six months, make oath before some competent authority that he intends to reside permanently in the same, and shall swear to support this Constitution, and that he will bear true allegiance to the Republic of Texas, shall be entitled to all the privileges of citizenship.

SEC. 9. All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy.

SEC. 10. All persons, (Africans, the descendants of Africans, and Indians excepted,) who were residing in Texas on the day of the Declaration of Independence, shall be considered citizens of the Republic, and entitled to all the privileges of such. All citizens now living in Texas, who have not received their portion of land, in like manner as colonists, shall be entitled to their land in the following proportion and manner: Every head of a family shall be entitled to one league and labor of land, and every single man of the age of seventeen and upwards, shall be entitled to the third part of one league of land. All citizens who may have, previously to the adoption of this Constitution, received their league of land as heads of families, and their quarter of a league of land as single persons, shall receive such additional quantity as will make the quantity of land received by them equal to one league and "labor" and one-third of a league, unless by bargain, sale, or exchange, they have transferred, or may henceforth transfer their right to said land, or a portion thereof, to some other citizen of the Republic; and in such case the person to whom such right shall have been transferred, shall be entitled to the same, as fully and amply as the person making the transfer might or could have been. No alien shall hold land in Texas, except by titles emanating directly from the Government of this Republic. But if any citizen of this Republic should die intestate or otherwise, his children or heirs shall inherit his estate, and aliens shall have a reasonable time to take possession of and dispose of the same, in a manner hereafter to be pointed out by law. Orphan children, whose parents were entitled to land under the colonization law of Mexico, and who now reside in the Republic, shall be entitled to all the rights of which their parents were possessed at the time of their death. The citizens of the Republic shall not be compelled to reside on the land, but shall have their lines plainly marked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.163.112 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bought time for Houston?

According to this page http://www.thealamo.org/myths.html, the defense of the Alamo had nothing to do with giving sam Houston time to build an army.

It is unlikely that they had much information about what Houston was doing. If they did, they probably hoped that he was coming to relieve them. Theres certainly no evidence that would suggest the defenders thought they were buying time. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

+this is my understanding as well, I was a history major at a university in San Antonio, so we studied the Alamo ad naseum, my understanding is that travis and the defenders believed Santa Anna would wait until spring to start his march north in order to have forage for his calavary, and accordingly thought that they had several months more than they actually did. Also Travis had no knowledge of Fannins' action and believed he and his 400 men were coming as reinforcements, which fannin belatedly set out to do before the battle of Goliad.

[edit] Constitution of 1824 or Independence?

I'm willing to accept the myth-busting revision, but not the ranting tone (encyclopedic articles shouldn't normally be proving negatives), and most of the detail was inappopriate for the introduction. Thus I moved it down to a larger discussion of the defenders and their sympathies. The whole paragraph, however, is unsourced and the claims -- especially -- that this 19th century historian promulgated myths is just the sort of thing that we should have a citation for. Otherwise, perhaps we should restore the text as of yesterday. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican Casualties in Introduction

The article mentions differing claims about casualites depending on Mexican or Texan sources. However, the Introductory summary still states an unequivocal number of 1,000 Mexicans killed. This should be expressed in a range to show up front the uncertainty of the numbers.

[edit] Did Santa Anna really march through snowstorms?

From the Prelude to battle section:

Santa Anna assembled an estimated force of 6,100 soldiers and 20 cannon at San Luis Potosí in early 1836 and moved through Saltillo, Coahuila, towards Texas. His army marched across the Rio Grande through inclement weather, including snowstorms, to suppress the rebellion.

I live in south Texas along the Rio Grande. We got snow here 2 years ago...for the first time in 118 years (that's right, it never snowed here in the 20th Century). I would really like to know where these "snowstorms" are documented. I'm not saying he didn't march his army through snowstorms, it just sounds a little out of the ordinary for the region.

Prometheusg 18:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - that's a bold claim for most of that area. I can see that earlier versions of the article (Junish) said "including snowstorms in mountain passes" - no idea why that was

+it is my understanding that a norther hit and the temp dropped very low, but I've always had a hard time believing the stories about several feet of snow.

It's strange but true. There are several first hand accounts of a freak snow and ice storm that hit south Texas as the Mexicans marched toward San Antonio. "Several feet" is probably a big exaggeration; I'd think flurries and a dusting would be more likely, like the snowfall that hit the Rio Grande Valley on Christmas Eve in 2004. Regardless, the weather was very cold and nasty, and for soldiers used to tropical temperatures, it was probably miserable.

Recently got into a discussion with a pard/fellow student of Battle of the Alamo about the snow storms. The snow storms are, in fact, highly documented and were more than a "dusting"--they were many inches deep with high drifts. The Mexican soldier suffered greatly during the march. One possible cause for serious snow storms that far south may be the Little Ice Age and the eruption of Tambora in 1815. The global consequences of this eruption are now only being pieced together. In 1816, frosts and snows fell in North America in June and July--albeit in the northern states. While it seems highly unlikely to us today, the Mexican army did march through some nasty, cold, snowy weather to reach Texas. Spacini 02:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

The description of the flag of the revolution is a little unclear; I am assuming that the brown field referred to is a typo, and should read blue? Also surprising to me is that there seems no reference to this flag in the several flags of texas articles that I have just scanned. Yendor1958 (Not signed in)


[edit] inconsistent numbers (pov)

Under casualties it says

However, most historians and military analysts accept those reports which place the number of Mexican casualties at approximately 1,500.

and under Mexican casualties it says

The accounts most commonly accepted by historians are the ones that single place the number of Mexican dead around 200 and the number of initial Mexican wounded around 400 [...] the Texian account of 1,500 dead also lacks logic.

There seems to be a lot of opinion in the article in general. I came here not knowing about Alamo at all and have a hard time figuring out what is historical fact and what is "interpretation". If there is a controversy I 'd like to read about it not witness it. 85.178.5.248 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Most sources I've seen say there were around 1,400 mexican fighters.....so 1,500 casualties is nuts.....I'm going to change it to 600 so the article at least doesn't contradict itself....that is still much higher than the unbiased sources I've seen estimate, but it's an improvement.

Restepc 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brown Bess etc.

In the article it states that the Mexicans used the old British "Brown Bess" and Baker muskets. Then it makes a note that marksmanship was not emphasized in Santa Anna's forces. The "Brown Bess" - and all other muskets at the time - were smooth bore weapons that were fantastically inaccurate. They were most effective in disciplined volleys at massed troops. So in defense of Santa Anna, emphasizing drill was his best bet. Only Davy Crocket and a few others with him brought weapons with rifled barrels.

Later in the article it mentions General Santa Anna being the best general in the hemisphere. This is wrong. General Santa Anna fancied himself the Napoleon of the Americas, but his war record is considerably less impressive. Yes, he beat some peasant rebellions in Mexico - no great feat. Even if he crushed the Texas rebellion it would hardly be a major victory. He squandered valuable time and troops fighting at the Alamo. Then his "take no prisoners" policy solidified the rebels' resolve rather than broke it. Finally, he let his army get crushed by Sam Houston's amateurs during siesta. Yes, Mexicans have siestas - it's a cultural thing. But to consider that their army would have one without perimeter scouts or sentries verges on slandering the entire race. That they did not can only be traced to Santa Anna's negligence. Later he would prove totally inept defending Mexico from Yankee aggression. (Yeah, I'm an American but I have to be honest. Check out what Abraham Lincoln said about it.)

Finally, historians and would be historians should note that the Alamo is a legendary battle. And people on both sides started to realize it right away. So various accounts started to take that into consideration immediately. Some witnesses or alleged witnesses took pains to cast each defender in the best light - Davy Crockett defending the door swinging his long rifle, Jim Bowie defending his deathbed with his eponimous knife, etc. A few of the same on the Mexican side sought to disparage the defenders or minimize their influence. Some of this happened immediately and some in later years. In the late 19th Century American historians sought to magnify all American historical achievements and ignore our failings and the Alamo played a prominent part of this. The John Wayne Alamo movie is right off their script. In the 1960's leftist historians sought to deny or slander our achievements and magnify our failings. The Mexicans, no matter their political stripe, will never see the Alamo in a wholly positive light. Almost every version is a POV. Even a historian who traveled to physically read each source document must admit there will always be an element of doubt as to exactly what happened exept this: a small group of men faced a large army in a dusty place they didn't neccessarily have to and fought mostly to the end. There were few survivors.

[edit] Jargon

Under the controversies section, the phrase "to draw a line in the sand," is described as "jargon." Lexicon or some other word choice would be more appropriate as jargon usually refers to more specialised language that is clearly understood by a relatively small group of people and not a widely accepted colloquialism.

[edit] Ethnics

The first paragraph says there were "Anglos" (ethnic European) and "Tejanos" (ethnic Mexican) as if there were a "Mexican ethnic" different from an "European ethnic" I think that I know what it supposes to mean but what it actually says is not correct.--200.125.51.93 01:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a "Mexican ethnic" different from a "European ethnic." What's the confusion? Someguy1221 01:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Mexicans are composed mainly of Europeans and Native Americans. Suggesting a "Mexican Ethnic" different from an "European Ethnic" is not correct. The article should say something like that "Anglos" were English speakers from the States and "Tejanos" were Spanish speakers of Mexican origin.--200.125.49.165 01:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Mexicans are descended mainly from Europeans and Native americans, creating a "mexican ethnic" distinct from a "european ethnic" (who do not have Native american blood in them, generally). We even have articles on Tejanos and anglos to explicate the differences. People can speak any language they please. Someguy1221 06:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's anachronistic for the article to use the term "Anglo" at all. The article on Anglo makes clear that it is both inaccurate and potentially offensive to use the term Anglo to refer to someone of non-English European ancestry (which the article presumably is doing, otherwise it would say "English" and not "European" in its gloss) and also that the term "Anglo" in this sense only dates to recent years. 86.133.54.73 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure your main point is relevant. The article on Shakespeare, for example, isn't written in Elizabethan English!! The term "Anglo" is sometimes more practical than "Group of English-speakers who are mainly (but not exclusively) white." It probably can be avoided in this article, but do not take offence where clearly none is meant. Cuvtixo (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the page says "including both Anglos (ethnic Americans) and Tejanos (ethnic Mexicans in Texas)," I suggest that the term "Anglo" does not refer to "ethnic American" - rather to those descendants of the Angles and Saxons of Europe. "Anglo" as a term is of the vernacular and unsuitable for wikipedia. Ladislas (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the term to refer to an English speaker, mainly, but not always of "white" European ancestry. The term does also differentiate white Texans from Mexicans of Spanish-only (or other European) descent. I have no idea what percentage of the Mexican army was "white," although I would guess there might be some amongst the officers and higher-ranks (because of racism and other prejudice). Perhaps also some of the defenders also had mixed white and Native American ancestry? Obviously there is a large number of ethnic reference issues here of which authors and editors should be careful, but intelligibility could also be lost. Please don't take offense where none is intended! Cuvtixo (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] subject to heavy controversy

Currently the article says:

According to a Mexican report[citation needed], a group of male survivors were executed after the battle. Davy Crockett was alleged to be among them, but this claim is subject to heavy controversy.

Why is there no source given (if it is controversial) and why is this "subject to heavy controversy"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quick and dirty summary of the de la Peña diary controversy. You can literally spend hours reading on the topic - the battle of the alamo is just fraught with legend and it's fairly difficult to get to the facts. Even when it comes down to the actual number of defenders. I can probably take a look later a dig up a few book citations and clean up the text. Kuru talk 02:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

Please have a look at the Battle of Waterloo and how it was a year ago. The text has not changed a lot but full references makes it a far more usable resource for the reader. See WP:PROVEIT. Some things like quotes have to have citations. Somethings that are controversial or not well known will need citations otherwise they will be challenged at some time. However even thinks that are well known to ever school child in Texas will not be know to the average person reading this in Invercargill (Just a Cook's voyage on The Endeavour are better known to the average Kiwi than a school child in Texas, so it is very useful to add a citation at the end of every paragraph even when to some the information is well known. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Listing the Alamo defenders

I've created a list of the Alamo defenders known at List of Alamo defenders (see the talk page there for the reasons why I wanted to have a list). When the list is useful enough, it might be an idea to integrate it into the main article. It's not pretty enough for prime time yet.... --Alvestrand (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Worse than useless to include the list as-is here. Apparently someone has tried to integrate the article against your advice? I would like to see reasons for listing them here on this talk page-- not only on the List of Alamo defenders talk page! If you or someone else wants to integrate the list, please give a justification, and beware of format, etc. Cuvtixo (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking back, I was either not thinking straight or not typing straight. I now think I intended to say "link it from the main article", not "integrate it with the main article". Putting the list into the main article makes no sense to me whatsoever. Sorry! --Alvestrand (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA Push?

I am thinking about targeting this article for my next FA push. I have a whole list of books to wade through. Any help would be very much appreciated. Karanacs (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: still researching. My ideas on structure:

  • Prelude - Houston sent Bowie to disband/retreat from the Alamo
    • Neill went home to visit family, Bowie in charge
    • Travis showed up and argument over leadership
  • Siege - divide up by dates, can do ranges
    • Mexican Army spotted outside of San Antonio
  • Battle (March 6)
    • Mexican Army maneuvers; see Santa Anna, cheer, charge at dawn
    • Battle specifics
  • Aftermath
    • Santa Anna came to see
    • Prisoners
    • Casualties on both sides
    • Disposition of bodies
    • Survivors
    • How message of battle was spread
    • What did Gov't of Texas and 2 armies do in response
  • Legacy
    • documentation of memories - might be best in the list of defenders article
    • DAR purchased and restored Alamo Mission; now a state park?
    • DAR efforts to figure out who qualifies as defender and who died
    • Movies and music and books

Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of George Kimbell's name

In the brief portion on the "Immortal 32" from Gonzales, it refers to "Captain George Kimbell". The only problem with this is that his family name was not Kimbell, it was Kimball. Kimbell is a common mispelling of it, and I would like to propose that the article be changed to use the proper spelling of his name. FamilySearch.org verifies that Kimball is the more common spelling, and I have seen his genealogy, and it ties him to the Kimballs, (such as the more famous Heber C. Kimball, albeit quite distantly) using an A instead of an E.--LWF (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to go on reliable sources (Family Search is not one for the purposes of WP). I'll check some of my books this week and see what they say. Karanacs (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The reference for List of Alamo defenders also uses "Kimbell". So I guess it's tradition to refer to him by that name now. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I checked a few other sources, too, and they all use Kimbell. A lot of people in that time period were illiterate, and it was not uncommon for even siblings to spell their last names differently. Sometimes they all converge on the same spelling a few generations later, but in the meantime the provided much fun for genealogists. Karanacs (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is true that spelling was a bit lax in that respect, although I have seen his genealogy, (obtained from the folks at the Alamo), and it traces him to the Kimballs, I'll see if I can find other sources. Although I will admit that it has become tradition to use an e, heck they named a street in Houston, Texas after him and used an e. Would it perhaps be of use to mention that he is related to the Kimballs with an a despite the different spelling, or would that just be a distraction in the article?--LWF (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That would just be a distraction. His genealogy would be relevant in an article about him, but since all the sources I have seen spell his name with an E, I think it might still be Original research to include it. Karanacs (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of the Alamo

Did the Alamo have any strategic importance? Was it worth Santa Ana spending 13 days taking it, why did the Texans not what to destroy it?

[edit] Politics

there is a paragraph on the politics of the defenders. It seems to operate on the assumption that independence and opposition to Santa Ana's dissolution of the constitution. While independence may seem more extreme than reinstatement of the constitution, independence is more feasible, because to reinstate the constitution the Texans would have to take over all of Mexico, not just Texas. Rds865 (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to do a major revamp of the article (one more book left to read!). The politics will probably be the last part I write because it is going to be difficult to explain concisely. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)