Talk:Battle of San Jacinto/Archive 1

Untitled
I corrected the numbers of troops and casualties by actually reading the cited articles. TODO: Identify the number of infantry, calvary, and artillery. The Jacobin 03:11, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

The numbers of troops involved is glaringly incorrect. The template says that there were about 1200 Mexican troops involved, yet a total of 1568 dead, injured or captured on the Mexican side. Firestorm 01:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

According to Sam Houston's official report, there were 630 Mexicans killed, 730 captured. Noted as the first external link for this article, a great place to start research is The Handbook of Texas, which contains a detailed account of the battle. It's compiled by the Texas State Historical Association (headquartered on the University of Texas campus, and closely associated with the Barker Texas History Center). Written by noted historians, curators and professors, it contains both primary and secondary sources with annotations and footnotes. 71.240.173.186 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Kirill LokshinHey Kirill, who is going to be assigned to rewrite this article? It is not bad history, but it needs to be divided into sections, (early revolution; the Alamo; the Long Retreat; the battle of San Jacinto; Aftermath of the battle, for instance)  I don't want to start working on it if you have someone in mind for it, sir! Also, did you see the note I left you on my working notes on reworking the entire set of articles on the Mongol Empire, which i feel are very weak? I would be glad to forward all my notes, sources, and drafts to whoever you have in mind. Hope you are having a good day! Mine has been a little rough physically, but I am still typing away, lol! old windy bear 02:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This article may benefit from additional editing. It states that during the battle the mexican forces could not fight effectively without their leader, Santa Anna, who it says was not even present at the battle--a bit of informatin that is almost certainly misleading if not entirely inaccurate. Santa Anna certainly was on the battlefield, although he did not play any important leadership role in the fighting. The article then states that Santa Anna "escaped" the battle, which would not be possible were he not present. In the next section, the article states that Santa Anna was "re-captured." As a frequent reader of Wikipedi entries, I suggest further review and revision of this posting.68.65.38.231 18:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)gfls Aug 27, 2006

New Orleans Greys
The New Orleans Greys, another company raised in America, had fought and died at the Battle of the Alamo

First of all, "raised in America" is a very strange way to phrase this -- as if they were Hessians and had to cross the ocean to get to Texas. Second of all, only about 25 of the Greys (all of Breece's company) died at the Alamo, which was a bit less than half the original company. The remainder had mostly already gone home. I'm going to half to expand and correct this stuff when I get time. And write an article on the Greys, too. --Michael K. Smith 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A correction to this note:

There were actually two companies of Greys formed (or raised, which is a proper term) in New Orleans. After the Battle of Bexar, one stayed at the Alamo, the second went to Goliad and formed the principal garrison there. Some continued to Matamoros with Grant. None of them "went home" and only 7 survived. They later fought at San Jacinto.

For better info with primary sources, visit The Handbook of Texas Online, published by the Texas Historical Association. The Grey's entry there is written by Kevin Young, Curator of Goliad. 71.240.173.186 (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.173.186 (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Texian
I reverted edits made by 221.126.155.75 which changed "Texan" to "Texian". Is there any reliable source that notes that the Texans called themselves Texians? — Loadmaster (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's literally thousands. Are you looking for something specific to the context of San Jacinto, or just in general?  I usually don't bother correcting the texan/texian distinction unless there there is a mass edit, since in some contexts it ignores the contributions of tejanos.    Kuru   talk  19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The people of Texas of that time were called Texans, Texians and Tejanos. That's well documented all-freaking-over the place. See Texian. Kar98 (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A Battle or a Massacre
This article has an irritatingly triumphalist and one-sided tone. Plenty of serious historians consider the Battle of San Jacinto something more like a massacre after a brief fight: the Texans massacred several hundred surrendering Mexicans as revenge for the massacre at Goliad. It is striking that this article doesn't even mention this alternative way of describing the so-called battle. --jackbrown (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Among my other edits I've fixed that imbalance, hopefully without making it too in your face by only using reliable American sources for it. Wayne (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Texas Revolution was stupidly fought on the Mexican side. The fact that a conditional surrender was offered by the Texas at the Alamo by the hoisting of the 1824 Mexican Flag only to be rebuffed by being slaughtered certainly infuriated the Texans. Had Santa Anna not been so macho, there would not have been a Texas Revolution. Santa Anna just got a dose of his own foul medicine. Sam Houston outsmarted Santa Anna, but was also lucky to have Emily Morgan on the battlefield as a distraction for Santa Anna. Sam Houston cannot be faulted for making his victory at San jacinto look easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.14.4.85 (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. For starters, which part in particular do you think is "triumphalist and one-sided"? I can't find any. I'm suspecting you attended a class in New History, where every evil in the world is the fault of white people in general, and Americans in particular. Yes, no quarter was given to surrendering Mexicans. Seems only fair after the Alamo and Goliad. Kar98 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jackbrown. Kar98's "New History" objection is questionable, since this article can be unbiased simply by statintg the objectively true Texan viewpoint. For instance, describing it as a "stunning victory" is fact-based and objective but shouldn't be the only approach since Mexican suffering demand a more nuanced approach. Kar98's objection about the previous massacres attributed to the Mexican army are irrelevant, since they do not morally justify such abuses. A balanced approach is applied on the article about Goliad or Alamo, or it should be, but the memory of another battle should not dictate the entire viewpoint of this article. EuropeanLight (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no battle. It was a massacre and an opportunity for sick animals to butcher fellow humans beings that's all it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.160 (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There was definitely a battle. You are the sick animal, sick with your single minded and SIMPLE minded hatred of Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.108.204.244 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, 180 years later, present-day morality makes a weak argument. If it's true that the Texians were shouting "Remember the Alamo!" and "Remember Goliad!" during the battle... then you find fault with frontier justice.

Without which, too much of what we'd have is the rule of "law" imposed by a bunch of high-powered lawyers and sell-out politicians getting rich off greedy tycoons.

More than that, it'd be revisionist "history." Which would offend at least my POV sensibilities. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor incoherence = exact number of Texan casualties
If I am not mistaken, this article cites 9 Texan casualties, but only 2 deaths and 6 DOW which makes 8. EuropeanLight (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
How can the killed and captured exceed the number of Mexican troops in the battle?-Kieran4 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Killed + captured seems to be exactly equal to the troop strength. Where are you looking?  Kuru   talk  02:24, 23 September 2smallnesssmall> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evulac (talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC) .    I like trains

Numbers
Someone please explain this passage, or make it clearer. Specifically the part in brackets.

He received roughly 500 reinforcements under General Martín Perfecto de Cos, bringing his total strength up to roughly 1,400 men (2 Battalions = 2 Regiments).

121.108.242.207 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

when we say tell us about the battle of San jacinto yall dont tell us nothing about it just who's their and what they did.Also yall folk just be throwing things anywhere put them where they belong.For example we want to find out information about a dog and we scoll down and yall start talking about pizza if we wanted to talk about pizza we would have typed in info about pizza.So all im trying to say is that put things were they belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.215.153 (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits
The paragraph beginning, "Santa Anna pursued Houston and devised..." needed some work. Now, to begin with, "After the Battle of the Alamo, while still at Bexar, Santa Anna had devised..."

The recent edit ("He" changed to "Santa Anna") clarified the confusion with the antecedent; but the flow remains confusing, as it implies that Santa Anna set-up camp at San Jacinto before Houston. That, of course, is not what happened. I'll omit the part with the camp dimension-- because I have no idea what the camp sizes were.-- cregil  (talk)  04:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Number of dead, wounden or captured is bigger than the number of participants
How is it possible, that the number of the wounded, captured and dead is higher than the participants on the mexican side. I have calculated, there are 208 more victims than participants... Something must be wrong. Please excuse my English, it is not my mother tongue!

212.186.20.6 (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The wounded are among the captured.-- cregil  (talk)  16:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How was the Mexican army not warned of the approach?
The existing text says: "The main Texan battle line moved forward with their approach screened by the trees and rising ground." For many years, I've been told it was because of a swale, a depression in the ground. This is from people who have walked the battlefield. So to say "rising ground" is a half-truth. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Why was Houston retreating?
Why doesn't this article mention that, at least in part, Houston was retreating because his militias were untrained. Meaning, for one basic, in shooting. For example, do you know how hard it is to shoot another, fellow human being? And even before all that philosophical approach, plain old target practice.

Plus, many of the volunteers were not militia in any way. Free-stylers, ya know, who would have run all over any battlefield without reason, rhyme or order.

Houston knew there'd be no reinforcements, even from his co-conspirator Old Hickory, who was facilitating westward expansion, and without Tejas (TX, NM, AZ, UT, CO, OK, KS, etc.) it just wouldn't work. So if Houston didn't train those raw recruits in marksmanship and holding the order of battle, while retreating... we'd be living an alternate timeline where your Denver omelette and Kansas City steak would be much spicier. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Research

 * I have removed Fehrenbach as a source, and removed any text that appears to be cited to his book. Having read the chapters that are pertinent to San Jacinto and its aftermath,  I find the book to not be credible by Wikipedia standards. There is a generalized bibliography in the back, but no Notes section whatsoever.  Through my eyes, the method of writing is that of repeating unverified oral history, rather than documenting historical fact.— Maile  (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed Fehrenbach as a source, and removed any text that appears to be cited to his book. Having read the chapters that are pertinent to San Jacinto and its aftermath,  I find the book to not be credible by Wikipedia standards. There is a generalized bibliography in the back, but no Notes section whatsoever.  Through my eyes, the method of writing is that of repeating unverified oral history, rather than documenting historical fact.— Maile  (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Removed, listed under References, but no citation exists
 * Removed, listed under References, but no citation exists


 * Removed, listed under References, but no citation exists
 * Removed, listed under References, but no citation exists


 * Removed, listed under References, but no citation exists
 * Removed, listed under References, but no citation exists


 * Removed, listed under References, but no citation exists
 * Removed, listed under References, but no citation exists

Notes available (partial or complete)

 * Davis, Lone Star Rising notes by Karanacs
 * Edmondson, The Alamo Story notes by Karanacs
 * Hardin, Texian Iliad notes by Karanacs
 * Henderson, A Glorious Defeat notes by Maile
 * Lack, Texas Revolutionary Experience, notes by Karanacs
 * Moore, Eighteen Minutes notes by Karanacs
 * Poyo, Tejano Journey notes by Maile
 * Todish, Alamo Sourcebook notes by Karanacs
 * Todish, Alamo Sourcebook notes by Karanacs

Progress note
I am on the waiting list for a copy of Moore's definitive book through my local library system. Thanks to THC mini-series, all copies of his book have been out for eons.

Other than that, the background as I have it is not in its final form. I'm writing in the article with future intent of copy editing it down to size, after I see how much the other sections will be. I would very much like to keep the part about Almonte's 1834 intelligence report mission in Texas. It's significant in that it shows that they had a method in how they approached this. Modern countries do the same thing. As for the rest, we shall see how it all goes. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Article overhaul in process


Over the next several months, this article will be undergoing a re-working to improve its quality and clarity. Everyone is invited to participate. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in. Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC).


 * All right. Temporarily, let's do it this way.  Before we ever get to the point of sectioning it out on this talk page, I'd like to personally edit a reworking of the basic article.  Talking in terms of weeks/months, since we have no hurry on this one.  I'm going through my library sources and looking for what is accessible to me that you have already used as credible in other articles.  For transparency, I have the first section at Talk:Battle of San Jacinto/San Jacinto rewrite draft to be worked on.  That one section is all I'm concentrating on at the moment.  Once I've done some edits on that page, you can do whatever you feel led to do while I'm in process.  Later...much later. — Maile  (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Much of this article is not sourced. The article has too little about the battle and otherwise filled in with other sections. "Memorialization" section is now re-named "Legacy", and I'm removing items. I've also removed the section "Legend" which focuses on Santa Anna's love life, and is about Emily D. West.  Both may have factored in to his distraction at the battle, but not enough for an entire section. And as the former section said, it's a "legend", not verifiable.— Maile  (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikisource The New Student's Reference Work/San Jacinto, Battle of
This link is listed under "Other links" on the article. Do we leave it there? Please click on the link to read it. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Copied from the Texas Revolution
, offer your opinion here if you like. What existed in this article as far as the battle and aftermath, needed a lot of improvement. So, I figured the most efficient way to resolve that was to do an attributed copy of same from what you had written on the Texas Revolution. That version has already passed through FA, so we're ahead of the game. If more expansion needs to be done, or other editing, fine. But the copy seemed to be a short way to jump start this article in the direction of FAC.

And I wish I had thought of copying this over before the mini-series. If you didn't watch it all the way to the end, it had Houston and Santa Anna sharing Emily West, even comparing notes on her charms after Santa Anna was captured. And then Houston offering to sacrifice his political career if Emily would marry him. And the final scene was Santa Anna on a balcony in Mexico, lifting his arms in triumph before a cheering mass audience.

That said, above the copied section is what I had written prior to that. Perhaps that part needs more work. I still think it's important to have some version of a mention of Almonte's 1834 intelligence report. The actual report is reproduced pp. 208-283. When people (the ones not named Karanacs) think of this revolution, they are generally thinking of these two giants Houston and Santa Anna going at each other. That 1834 report indicates that somewhere in the Mexican government someone had some sense of long-range military preparation. — Maile (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahahahahaha. I have to make time to watch the rest of that.  You're right; we need to work in a mention of the Almonte report in the Texas Revolution article too.  It's important. I haven't looked at this article at all in a while...soon.  Karanacs (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ready for Karanacs input
, I still need to work on the Legacy section. Other than that, you are now free to do what you want to anything above it. Anything above the Retreat section is my work. From the Retreat section on down is the copy from the Texas Revolution. I have no problem if you want to rename sections, or edit within them. But I would like to see a mention in some form of Almonte's 1834 report left in the article.— Maile (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of San Jacinto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130226023709/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=623&ResourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=623&ResourceType=Site

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)