The Alamo - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Squidyak
#882859
And what is the indisputably reliable source of your account?


i don't have an account, and as a result don't need a source. i'm not putting forth an argument that crockett died swinging his rifle as represented in folklore, i'm simply stating that there isn't enough evidence to state for a fact that he was executed after the alamo fell. a journal entry written months after the event by a military officer who had absolutely no way of being able to personally identify crockett and was part of a military force that made no attempt to verify their prisoner's identities and had a propensity towards distorting facts so as to glorify themselves is not solid evidence.
By Rajin Cajun
#882961
You continue to prove your ignorance of military tactics more specifically the siege tactic. This discussion is going nowhere they surrounded the place to cut off supplies and weaken the defenders which is obvious since they took it in one day of actual combat operations.
By Squidyak
#882981
You continue to prove your ignorance of military tactics more specifically the siege tactic. This discussion is going nowhere they surrounded the place to cut off supplies and weaken the defenders which is obvious since they took it in one day of actual combat operations.


i'm doing no such thing. i know the way a siege works, i also know that a siege isn't easy on the investing army either. you apperantly are clueless of this fact. if santa ana felt he was capable of taking the fort on the first day he would have. he felt it was neccessary to weaken the fort for 13 days. stop making stupid accusations and pay attention to what's written.
By Rajin Cajun
#883000
Its always in the best interest to weaken any fortification only a moron charges in guns ablazing the first day. Santa Ana was also probably doing recon of the area to make sure there was no backdoor the defenders could slip out from. The lack of Mexican losses proves that he was right in holding off the offensive.
By Squidyak
#883007
while i wouldn't call mexican losses light, the about 1,000 men lost are what would be expected in an assault on a fortified position defended by 200 men. i doubt it would have been much different on day 1 though.
User avatar
By Truthseeker
#883023
i doubt it would have been much different on day 1 though.


More defender's would have escaped.
By Squidyak
#883024
More defender's would have escaped.


that i will concede.
By Squidyak
#883071
Rather than fight to the last?


i have never argued that a siege wasn't the best tactic, as it obviously was. i never argued that davy crockett went down fighting. but saying that the alamo was taken quickly (it wasn't, it took 13 days), many prisoners were taken (only 6 or 7 depending upon your source), and davy crocket was executed by santa ana (there is no strong evidence on the details of his death, and we'll never know) is bending the truth at best.

Yes I was using the word fun, loosely , ironicall[…]

Trans people are just people. They have no less an[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

You should impose your own standards on yourself.[…]

No, I want you to be happy. I will be happy when[…]