Talk:Battle of the Alamo/Archive 1

"Notable Last Stands" link
I propose that the link "Notable last stands" in the section: "See Also" be redlinked or (preferably)rewritten to properly reflect the article to which it actually links; Last Stand -- Bshoen (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember the Alamo
Currently Remember the Alamo is a redirect to this page, even though it is actually a song about the alamo. Jehorn (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Heading
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)

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)

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.  Ry Guy    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)

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)

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)

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.

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

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

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 -User: tlincoln 25 June 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.

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)

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!

-User: tlincoln 11 September 2005
 * Travis sent out his last messenger, James L. Allen (1815-1901) on 5 March 1836 with a message to Fannin at Goliad.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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.

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)

"for soldiers used to tropical temperatures, it was probably miserable"? Mexico is a largely arid country (except for the far south, which is indeed quasi-tropical) and most of the soldiers came from those arid regions. So most Mexican soldiers were not actually "used to tropical temperatures." In fact, when Mexican armies were confined to tropical regions, or stationed in humid port cities, they almost always suffered heavy casualties from tropical diseases. What's more, in the nineteenth century, even longtime inhabitants of tropical climates could not completely get "used to" such regions--until the advent of modern medicine, tropical diseases killed off large portions of the population each year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.58.15 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * {Note: a breakdown of Mexican casualites reports total 311 {60 killed/251 wounded} from Vicente Filisola quoting Juan de Andrade in Williams. See Amelia Williams, "Critical Study of the Siege of the Alamo and of the Personnel of its Defenders", Volume 37, Number 1, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, http://www.tshaonline.org/shqonline/037toc.html {Reference} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.73 (talk • contribs)
 * The article already lists estimates from reputable historians. I don't think we need to go into detail on each of the contemporary accounts. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * Agreed. The best general in the Western Hemisphere at that time was Winfield Scott, and he proved it against Santa Anna in 1847. GABaker (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)
 * No, no, you've got the terminology all wrong. What you are referring to is the "mestizo" race, which today makes up anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of the Mexican population. Mestizo is strictly defined as someone of mixed Native American and European ancestry. Other racial groups in Mexico include Native Americans (mainly in the south) and whites (central Mexico and the Bajio); a less prominent group includes Afro-Mexicans and mulattoes, who today number only in the single thousands and mainly live in the south. So to speak of mestizos as comprising a Mexican race or ethnicity is technically incorrect, even if it is clear that they do make up the vast majority of the Mexican population. It should also be noted that mestizos made up only about 50 percent of the Mexican population in the early nineteenth century--proportionally, there were more Native Americans and whites in Mexico.--Unregistered user, 11 March 2009

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:
 * Background
 * Pirates proclamation


 * 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
 * "Remember the Alamo" at Battle of San Jacinto

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

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)

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?
 * What I remember from the History channel the Alamo garrison could attack His supplies lines if he bypass it.--66.229.17.49 (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Updated to-do list
Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Finish putting research into the article. I've finished reading but have a lot to put into the article still.  I'm still working on the latter part of the siege, and I want to rewrite the Prelude and Background sections.
 * The article desperately needs images. I can envision FA reviewers asking for the following:
 * A map of where San Antonio is in relation to Gonzales, Goliad, Copana Bay (sp?) and Mexico
 * A map of San Antonio that shows where the Alamo was in relation to the town and La Villita
 * Diagram of the Alamo
 * Order of battle for Mexican columns in final assault (diagram of Alamo with arrows showing where the 4 columns attacked)
 * When all the text is in, some sections might need to be trimmed so that the article is not too long.
 * Check to ensure NPOV.
 * Copyedit

The United States did not initially support Texans
The fact is the United States did not initially support Texans at or during the Alamo why is this not stated. Sam Houston had troops but was ordered not to send them until after the Texas parliament signed an agreement to join the united states of America as the 28th state. And that is the true history of the Alamo. The fact is the United States turned their back on Texans until it was to late, thus forcing Texans to join the united states as their only choice not willingly but by force. Their was no other choice after the Alamo was lost when Sam Houston could have sent troops sooner, but did not because he was ordered by the president not to do so until after Texas agreed to become a state. And think what you want many Texans during that time we're not necessarily only white. As well as the fact their are many flags over the Alamo, many different states whose greatest men came to protect the Alamo. Regardless of numbers they stayed to the last and that's the America I know. A few great men who gave their all for the greater good. Not because they we're or we're not Americans as the union did but simply because it was the right thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klowner (talk • contribs) 05:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your participation, but unfortunately I think you have your facts a bit wrong. The agreement for Texas to join the US did not occur in 1836.  Sam Houston also did not have troops - at this point in the Revolution 4 different men claimed to be leading the Texian Army, and Houston was the only one with no troops.  He did not become sole commander of the army  until after the Alamo fell, and at that point he took charge of the troops that had already gathered to reinforce the Alamo.  Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Duh the Texans didn't sign it in 1836 but by the time Sam Houston arrived with troops the Texans had already started the process of signing the agreement, because after the Alamo fell they felt they had no choice. And having knowledge of the possibility of admitting Texas into the union the president of the united states then gave full control of the forces over to Sam Houston.. In a way you are right because Sam Houston himself was not at fault he wanted nothing more then to help Texas all along, but was held back from it until after the Alamo. But what do you know you can't even spell Texan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klowner (talk • contribs) 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The correct contemporary spelling is "Texian." Not to be harsh, but I suggest you acquaint yourself with a library. Mark Shaw (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Feedback
copied from User:Mark Shaw's talk page
 * Okay, it's - heh - somewhat later than the weekend of January 10th, but I've finally gotten around to this. I think the article is in pretty good shape, but I do have the following suggestions:
 * I think some brief in-line description of what the three major players - Travis, Bowie, Crockett - were doing prior to their arrival at The Alamo would be good. I know that each of these has his own WP page, but the article would read better if it were a little more descriptive on this point.  (Note that I'm not talking about a full biographical summary; just what they were doing in the days and weeks before the siege.)
 * My understanding is that the "line in the sand" legend has been pretty well deprecated, and that many historians feel that it's likely that Louis Rose fabricated it. That last bit is, in my opinion, speculation, but I do think the language describing this legend should be a little more definitive in describing it as just that - a legend.
 * I'm afraid I can't put my finger on exactly how, but it's my impression that the intro could use a little tightening up. I may have to reread it and think about that a little more.
 * Anyway, that's my input. I can help with some of this, and with other points, if necessary.  I have (from the article's bibliography) Chariton, Hardin, and Lindley on my shelves, as well as William C. Davis's Lone Star Rising and Three Roads to the Alamo and Randy Roberts's A Line in the Sand.  Please let me know what you think. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

IN THEIR OWN WORDS
In 1905 the State of Texas granted the Daughters of the Republic of Texas trusteeship of the historic site with instructions to preserve the Alamo as a sacred memorial to the heroes who immolated themselves upon this hallowed ground.

A few of the defenders became household names but most are still relatively unknown. This section contains letters written by members of the garrison and as well as accounts of the Alamo’s fall.

SAM HOUSTON:Sam Houston arrived at Washington-on-the-Brazos on February 29, 1836, where he served as a delegate to the constitutional convention. On March 6, Travis' final request of help (dated March 3) reached the convention. Houston, who had been reconfirmed in his role of commanding-general of the Texas Army, told his fellow delegates to continue their important work and that he would help the men of the Alamo. Houston and his staff arrived at Gonzales on March 11, where he found a relief party already gathered. Within hours of reaching the town, however, word of the Alamo's fall arrived.1

To Colonel J. W. Fannin, commanding at Goliad2 Headquarters, Gonzales, March 11, 1836

Sir: On my arrival here [Gonzales] this afternoon, the following intelligence was received through a Mexican, supposed to be friendly, though his account has been contradicted in some parts by another, who arrived with him. It is therefore only given to you a rumor, though I fear a melancholy portion of it will be found true.

Anselmo Borgara states that he left the Alamo on Sunday, the 6th inst.; and is three days from Arroche's rancho: that the Alamo was attacked on Sunday morning at the dawn of day, by about two thousand three hundred men, and carried a short time before sunrise, with a loss of five hundred and twenty-one Mexicans killed, and as many wounded. Colonel Travis had only one hundred and fifty effective men out of his entire force of one hundred and eighty-seven. After the fort was carried, seven men surrendered, and called for Santa Anna and quarter. They were murdered by his order. Colonel Bowie was sick in bed, and also murdered. The enemy expected a reinforcement of fifteen hundred men under General Condelle, and a reserve of fifteen hundred to follow them. He also informs us that Ugartachea had arrived with two millions in specie for payment of the troops. The bodies of the Americans were laid together and set on fire. Lieutenant Dickinson, who had a wife and child in the fort, after having fought with desperate courage, tied his child to his back and leaped from the top of a two story building. Both were killed in the fall.

I have little doubt but the Alamo has fallen--whether the above particulars are true may be questionable. You are thereby referred to the enclosed order.

I am sir, &c., SAM HOUSTON

In corroboration of the truth of the fall of the Alamo, I have ascertained that Colonel Travis intended firing signal guns at three different periods each day until succor should arrive. No signal guns have been heard since Sunday, though a scouting party have just returned who approached within twelve miles of it, and remained there forty-eight hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.54.222.250 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Casualties
There is a some mistake. How could Seguin claim something in 1899 when he has died in 1890? --Vasyatka1 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

F&f's detailed FAC comments on the text

 * Lead


 * 1. All but two members of the small Texian garrison were killed. (doesn't say on whose side they were)
 * 1a. All but two members of the small Texian garrison defending the mission were killed.  (I would even suggest that you go for something like:
 * 1b. All but two members of the small garrison of Texians---settlers from the United States---who were defending the mission were killed. " (Many readers will confuse Texians for Texans, so greater clarity might be helpful.  They will likely not click on the Texian link.)


 * 2. Santa Anna's perceived cruelty during the battle inspired many Texas settlers and adventurers from the United States to join the Texian Army.
 * 2a. Santa Anna's perceived cruelty during the battle inspired many Texians as well as adventurers from the US to join the Texian Army.  (Best to stay with Texian, IMO)


 * 3. Buoyed by a desire for revenge, the Texians defeated the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto several weeks later, ending the revolution.
 * 3a. Buoyed by a desire for revenge, the Texians defeated the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto several weeks later, accomplishing (or concluding) the revolution.  (What you have is not wrong, but "revolution" is sometimes also applied to unsuccessful uprisings or revolts (depending on who is writing the history) and "ending" could then be ambiguous.)


 * 4. By the end of 1835, Texians had driven all Mexican troops out of Mexican Texas.
 * 4a. Earlier, by the end of 1835, Texians had driven all Mexican troops out of Mexican Texas.  (for clarity)


 * Background


 * 5. Most of his soldiers were raw recruits, including conscripts and convicts. (not clear)
 * 5a. Either: "Most of his soldiers were raw recruits, and included conscripts and convicts." or "Most of his soldiers were raw recruits, even the conscripts and convicts."


 * 6. Many Texas settlers, unprepared for a long campaign, had returned home
 * 6a. Many Texas settlers, unprepared for a long campaign, had returned home to the US. (I'm guessing they were mostly from the US?)


 * 7. Angered by what he perceived as American interference in Mexican affairs, Santa Anna spearheaded a resolution classifying foreigners found fighting in Texas as pirates. (I guess I myself would not use "spearhead" with "resolution," although it is probably OK.  Also, I wouldn't Wikilink "spearhead," unless it had some special meaning in law or politics.)
 * 7a. Either "Santa Anna promulgated a law classifying foreigners found fighting in Texas as pirates." or "Santa Anna initiated a resolution classifying ..." or "Santa Anna spearheaded a campaign (or drive) to classify foreigners found in Texas as pirates"


 * 8. The resolution effectively banned the taking of prisoners of war; in this time period, captured pirates were executed immediately (shifted semi-colon)
 * 8a. The resolution effectively banned the taking of prisoners of war in this time period, captured pirates were executed immediately


 * 9. When Mexican troops departed San Antonio de Béxar (now San Antonio, Texas), Texian soldiers established a garrison at the Alamo Mission, a former religious outpost now used as a makeshift fort. (Second "now" confusing in light of first "now")
 * 9a. When Mexican troops departed San Antonio de Béxar (now San Antonio, Texas), Texian soldiers established a garrison at the Alamo Mission, a former religious outpost which was now being used as makeshift fort.


 * 10. "Described by Santa Anna as ... stood a cattle pen and horse corral."  (Nicely done!)


 * 11. stressing that the garrison was likely unable to withstand a siege greater than four days.
 * 11a. stressing that the garrison was likely unable to withstand a siege (lasting) longer than four days.


 * 12. Four different men claimed to have been given command over the entire army; on January 14, Neill approached Houston for assistance in gathering supplies, clothing, and ammunition.  (Slightly confusing.  Was Houston among these four men?  Or, was he the overall head honcho, and Neill went straight over the heads of the feuding four?)


 * Prelude to battle


 * 13. Instead, he sent Colonel James Bowie with 30 men to remove the artillery from the Alamo and destroy the complex.
 * 13a. Instead, he decided to remove the artillery from Alamo and destroy the complex; he sent Colonel James Bowie with 30 men to accomplish the task.


 * 14. After learning of the planned celebration, Santa Anna ordered General Joaquín Ramírez y Sesma to seize the unprotected Alamo; sudden rains halted the raid
 * 14a. After learning of the planned celebration, Santa Anna ordered General Joaquín Ramírez y Sesma to immediately seize the unprotected Alamo; sudden rains, however, halted the raid. (easier on the reader)


 * Assault preparations:


 * 15. On March 4, the day after his reinforcements arrived, Santa Anna proposed an assault of the fort.  Many of his senior officers recommended that the battle wait for two 12-pounder cannon anticipated to arrive on March 7
 * 15a. Many of his senior officers recommended that they wait for two 12-pounder cannon anticipated to arrive on March 7


 * 16. That evening, a local woman, likely Bowie's cousin-in-law Juana Navarro Alsbury, approached Santa Anna to negotiate a surrender for the Alamo defenders.[76] According to many historians, this visit likely increased Santa Anna's impatience. ("likely" repetition)
 * 16a That evening, a local woman---likely Bowie's cousin-in-law Juana Navarro Alsbury---approached Santa Anna to negotiate a surrender for the Alamo defenders. According to many historians, this visit in all likelihood (or very likely) increased Santa Anna's impatience

More soon. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Remaining comments

 * Exterior fighting


 * 17. As Santa Anna had planned, the exhausted Texians soon fell into the first uninterrupted sleep many had gotten since the siege began.
 * 17a. As Santa Anna had anticipated, the exhausted Texians soon fell into the first uninterrupted sleep many had gotten since the siege began. (Can't really plan someone else's sleep.)


 * 18. As each door was blown off, Mexican soldiers would fire a volley of muskets into the dark room, then charge in for hand-to-hand combat.
 * 18a. Either, "As each door was blown off, Mexican soldiers fired a volley of muskets into the dark room, then charged in for hand-to-hand combat."  (I personally like future-in-the-past constructions, but I was told they are not popular on Wikipedia.  Changed to simple past.)


 * 19. Some witnesses maintained that they saw several Mexican soldiers enter Bowie's room, bayonet him, and carry him, alive, from the room. Other witnesses claimed that Bowie ...
 * 19a. Some witnesses maintained that they saw several Mexican soldiers enter Bowie's room, bayonet him, and carry him, alive, from the room. Others claimed that Bowie


 * 20. As soldiers approached the sacristy, one of the sons of defender Anthony Wolf stood to pull a blanket over his shoulders
 * 20a. As soldiers approached the sacristy, one of the young sons of defender Anthony Wolf stood up to pull a blanket over his shoulders


 * 21. Mexican generals were unable to stop the bloodlust and appealed to Santa Anna for help. Although he showed himself, the violence continued, (This paragraph is nicely done.  Chilling.)
 * 21a. Mexican generals were unable to stop the bloodlust and appealed to Santa Anna for help. Although the latter (or the General) made an appearance, the violence continued,


 * 22. Dickinson, her daughter, and Joe were sent to Gonzales, escorted by Ben.  (What happened to Alsbury and her son?)


 * Legacy


 * 23. Mexican perceptions of the battle often mirrored the current viewpoint
 * 23a. Mexican perceptions of the battle often mirrored the prevailing viewpoint


 * 24. Santa Anna had been disgraced following his capture at the Battle of San Jacinto, and many Mexican accounts of the battle were written by men who had been, or became, his outspoken critics.
 * 24a. Santa Anna had been disgraced following his capture at the Battle of San Jacinto, and many Mexican accounts of the battle were written by men who had been, or had become, his outspoken critics.


 * 25. "there can be little doubt that most Americans have probably formed many of their opinions on what occurred at the Alamo not from books, but" (This, of course, is a quote, but I like the academic doublespeak, "It is a certainty that most Americans have probably ..." )

I enjoyed reading your article. Please feel free to collapse this section after you've read it. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC review by Moni3
Heya. I'm going to read the article and review, but it will take me several sessions. I get interrupted frequently and don't have time to dedicate to one long thorough review, but I hope this is the next best thing.

Lead
 * I think the first sentence is weak in light of the iconic nature of the Alamo across American consciousness. Even not caring a whit what goes on in Texas, I knew the importance of the Alamo. In some respects, it is as iconic as Gettysburg. I think the first sentence should be made much stronger. When I learned of the facts of the Alamo, I was surprised how few people were involved in it. Its reputation far precedes it.

Background
 * Can you provide a sentence or two that briefly summarizes the settlement of Texas and the conflicts of ownership (for lack of a better word) between the U.S. and Mexico? I don't get a sense of impending conflict from this section.

Believe it or not, I started this three hours ago and this is as far as I got. I will try to return, but don't be surprised if I can't. It's very hard for me to review FACs anymore for this reason. --Moni3 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate anything you can provide, Moni. You are very good at picking out areas that reeaally need to be improved. Let me think about these points; at least on the second it is difficult for me to condense that into a short space. Karanacs (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some additions to the Background section; please see if that makes things a little more clear. I don't want to get into too much detail here because much of that really belongs in other articles; this battle took place well after the revolution had started.  As for your first point, I'm having trouble finding a source for anyrhing suitably dramatic enough to go at the beginning of the lead.  Do you have any suggestions for something I might be missing? Karanacs (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Well done!..Modernist (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 'ipipip 'ooray!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Santa Anna's perceived cruelty

 * Santa Anna's perceived cruelty during the battle inspired many Texians—both Texas settlers and adventurers from the United States—to join the Texian Army.

The implication here is that accusations of cruelty which spread after the battle were false -- that behavior of the Mexican forces under Santa Anna's command were not cruelty in fact but only cruelty in perception. patsw (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence is trying to say that the feeling was not unanimous. Some people (Texians especially), believed that Santa Anna's actions were cruel. Santa Anna and much of Mexico believed that his actions were appropriate given the circumstances - they considered the Texans and Americans to be pirates, and pirates could be summarily executed.  In the interest of NPOV, "perceived" was used.  Is there a better term that might be more clear? Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is disputed the Santa Anna killed non-combatants and surrendering combatants without a trial? I would remove "perceived cruelty", which is a subjective moral judgment, and replace it with a summary of the actions of Santa Anna which inspired the actions of the Texians.  Also, the conflation of any rebellion on land to piracy is absurd. patsw (talk)
 * That is our POV (that the conflation was absurd), but that is not necessarily the only way to view those actions. Can you suggest an alternate wording that would be concise enough for the lead so that we can replace this? Karanacs (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

DUMB QUESTION ABOUT PHOTOS
Okay so please forgive me if this question has already been asked, or if it seems silly. I appreciate all the historic photos and such on this Wikipedia page... but... last time I checked the Alamo was still standing right in the heart of San Antonio, and is one of the most popular and busy tourist attractions in Texas. Is there a reason that there is not a current photo included somewhere in this article? 68.12.110.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Clarifying my previous question: I just noticed that this article is entitled "Battle of the Alamo" and is separate from the article about the building itself, "Alamo Mission in San Antonio". I got confused because typing "The Alamo" or "Alamo" (which is what a lot of people would type when searching for the building) directs to this article. It may just be a personal opinion, but shouldn't those search terms direct to the article about the building instead of the battle? Or at least a disambiguation page? Thanks. 68.12.110.233 (talk)
 * Why is there no diagram of the Alamo at the time of the battle to help the reader make sense of the battle description? One such diagram is available online here. There are others. At least a link to such a diagram would be helpful. 98.204.46.67 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Proposal to change redirect
I suggest the redirect be changed to Alamo Mission in San Antonio as that is what is commonly referred to as The Alamo. It is even used as the primary name in the first sentence of that page. The Battle of the Alamo is linked in the lede of the Mission article. I guess another alternative is to have Alamo redirect to Alamo (disambiguation). --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support redirecting to the disambiguation page, but not to the mission itself. I suspect most of our readers type "Alamo" wanting to learn about the battle.  I'm not sure how many realize that the building is still standing. Karanacs (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - a redirect to the disambiguation page makes a lot more sense. It seems as if the two different pages would be the first choices for two different audiences. -- Clorox ( diskussion ) 22:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think most people know the building still stands, but I also believe the vast majority of searches for the "Alamo" relate to the battle and not the Mission, just as searches for Gettysburg relate to the U.S. Civil War battle and not the farming community. I suggest the redirect remain as is. Jnmwiki (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

POV
the article expresses very much the US-american point of view, not least the subsumptions (".. point in the texas revolution"..). articles in the english wikipedia should not express an "anglo-saxon" (or american/british/..) POV just as little as articles in other-lingual wikipedias.--Severino (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote most of the text in this article, and I worked very diligently to keep it as neutral as possible. That doesn't mean, of course, that there isn't room for further improvement.   Do you have some specific suggestions of text that should be reworked?  Karanacs (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Severino but have no suggestions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What would be most helpful would be a list of particular sentences/phrasing/sections that appear to push a particular POV. I'll be happy to work on new wording (or find other editors who can help with that), but I'm at a loss to know where to start. Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I also think it’s got a pretty heavily US-slanted POV. Specifically:
 * The cited cause of revolt is Mexico’s “increasingly dictatorial policies” and attempted state centralization, as compared to the US federalist model. But this was a pretty self-serving justification on their (i.e. the Anglo Texians’) part, since Mexico, so soon after independence, was much less centralized or in control of its territory at the time than the US government was. Most of the complexity of the dispute is basically ignored.
 * Following the previous point, no mention is made of the slavery issue, which was hugely important and contentious: Mexico outlawed slavery in 1829, and anglo Texians ignored the new policy, which they strongly opposed. The article Mexican Texas does a much better job of presenting both sides, IMO.
 * There’s little discussion of the Mexican army’s side. In the background and prelude sections, all that’s said about them is that they were mostly conscripted raw recruits, and that they started marching north. Not described is where in Mexico the soldiers came from, where they were gathered or trained, what their march was like before they crossed the Rio Grande into Texas. The reinforcements section carefully describes attempts to gather Texian reinforcements, and what those inside and outside the Alamo thought about it, but when Mexican army reinforcements show up, it’s just out of the blue, without any description of messages sent between parts of the Mexican army, its logistical and political considerations, &c. (I don't have any idea what these would be or where they'd be found, but they surely exist). We get all kinds of apocryphal anecdotes like Travis’s line in the sand, the death-bed actions of Bowie, &c., but nothing similar from the other side.
 * In the legacy section, the impact on Mexican’s view is hand-waved away as “soon overshadowed by the Mexican–American War”, while considerable space is given to Texan and American memories. There’s surely scholarship about Mexican feelings about the Alamo: after all, it’s described in detail in every Mexican history book I’ve ever seen, kids learn all about it in school, the messaging can get just as distorted and propagandistic as the messaging on the US side (basically along the lines of “imperialist americans stole half our country, and this was the beginning”).
 * Cheers, jacobolus (t) 11:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't read Spanish, and the English-language sources I've consulted don't say anything more about the Mexican reaction to the battle than is already in the article. I did a lot of searching for this perspective after the peer review and couldn't find much.  If you have access to Spanish scholarly sources that could give a more detailed picture of the Mexican reaction I'd dearly love to see translations.
 * As for the background section, this is intended to be an extremely brief summary of the situation. The details should be covered in the articles that are linked at the top of the section (Mexican Texas and Texas Revolution).  There isn't space here to go into the larger argument, and, at least according to the sources I've read, slavery wasn't nearly as big a factor in the revolt as many of us have often thought - most settlers just ignored the issue anyway.
 * I agree with your point about a lack of detail on the Mexican army preparation. I had moved a lot of that to Texas Revolution, as it applied not only to this battle but also Urrea's Gulf Coast offensive.  I'm going to move some of that back here.
 * Thanks!! Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I imagine much of the discussion from the Texas/American side has at least a bit of interest in justifying the rebellion, no? If you go look at (for instance) Mexican history textbooks, especially ones from 15 or 20 years ago, slavery is mentioned loudly and often. Of course, the Mexican side is also biased about the matter. Don't get me wrong, I think you've done a bang-up job. The article just seems to cover the details of the US/Texas side much more than the Mexican side. Edit to add: even if slavery wasn’t the main reason, claiming that it was just about economic & political freedom from tyrannical dictatorial Mexicans overstepping their bounds is a pretty simplified POV explanation, no? :-) –jacobolus (t) 21:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The American sources from 15-20 years ago also emphasized slavery more. The more recent works don't, and that was the scholarship I was following.  I really am interested in anything you can provide on recent Mexican scholarship - my lack of Spanish is a hindrance there. Karanacs (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I find your refusal to include the role of slavery in motivating the Texan Revolt disturbing. Even if US sources now down play slavery it must be obvious that the inclusion of the ‘right’ to own slaves in the first Texan constitution along with the expulsion of all free Africans does imply that the Anglos who revolted against Mexico, and amongst whom the slave-owners mainly were, thought the matter important. Without a reference to the role of slavery this article cannot be considered balance or even truthful. The article on Mexican Texas is far more reliable, balanced and truthful. Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lochalsh1912 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Failure in location
The original name of the alamo mission was "San Antonio de Valero" and it was located very near the old town of "San Antonio de Bejar". It´s a big mistake saying that the mission was located in San Antonio de Bejar.

--200.121.140.70 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC) pochales@yahoo.com


 * I just read that it was named in honor of Saint Anthony of Padua (or Padova in Spanish/Portuguese). It is located in Bexar County, though.  Danwaggoner (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Were 50 Texians trying to escape?
I remember viewing a researched article on the Alamo a couple years ago on TV which said that the 50 Texians (under the Interior Fighting heading in the Wiki article) who headed west toward the San Antonio River and were killed, were actually trying to escape. Anybody got any further info on this? Also, what's the difference between Texian and Texican? By the way, I've visited the Alamo and I was amazed at how LOW the walls were (the movies make the walls seem really high), they're just like garden walls so it seems to me that it would be easy for the Mexicans to scale them. It seems the Alamo was a poor choice to try to defend. Why would Travis pick such an indefensible position? 69.236.142.154 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock
 * They were likely trying to leave, because they couldn't reach the areas where the defenders were gathering. There weren't any other Texan fortifications near the San Antonio River. Should we make this more clear in the article?  Texian and Texican mean about the same thing, Texian is the term more commonly used by modern historians. As to the Alamo walls, what you currently see in San Antonio are not the original walls - they were added in the early part of the 20th century.  The original walls would have been further away and much taller. There are more details about what the building looked like in Alamo Mission in San Antonio.  Karanacs (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Texican is an older term, during and after the revolution, some Texas residents began to call themselves Texian (without the c) to differentiate from Mexican, although I'm not sure where I heard this. As for the walls you saw at the Alamo, the chapel is the only original structre still standing from the fortress, and even there the roof is not original.  All the walls you saw were rebuilt in the 20th century as part of the revitalization of the site to make it more attractive to tourists.Tanktimus (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember the Alamo
A couple of notes on the song: Donovan recorded a version of the song, combining previous versions of it, but the original was composed by Jane Bowers (according to the article on the song itself). The song is not anti-war in any version I've heard or read. It stresses the glory of dying for one's beliefs and patriotism. I've edited the page accordingly. Arrataz (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've actually removed the sentence on that song as it is unsourced (and there are no sources listed in its wikipedia article either). This is a featured article and shouldn't have unsourced info.  Karanacs (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replaced mention of this song, sources for two of its major recordings. Pam  D  00:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Texian instead of Texan
As a new user who is unable to edit I hope someone will change the Texians to Texans as the defenders of the Alamo were not just white Americans. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Txcheez (talk • contribs) 06:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Texian is the form used by most of the books I consulted when writing the article, so that is what I used in the article. Welcome to wikipedia, by the way, and happy editing! Karanacs (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This raises a question I hadn't previously considered, though: does "Texian" encompass "Tejano?" I don't know that it would make much difference to the article, in most cases, but it seems (if we can trust Wikipedia, heh) that it does not. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The meaning of Tejano has changed through time. Originally it just meant residents/citizens of the Mexican state. I think that what this article refers to as “Texians” would have been considered a subset of “Tejanos” at the time of the battle, but I doubt the boundaries were completely clear-cut. These days Tejano means hispanic Texans, or sometimes just people from the state in general. The beginning of the history section of the Tejano article seems to me to be particularly NPOV. –jacobolus (t) 11:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen the term 'Texian' anywhere but here. It either needs a page of its own, to explain the term, or a definition needs to be included in this article - or ideally, an actual word or phrase will replace the term 'Texian' in the article.
 * Click here: Texian...Modernist (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Factual Error In Notes, Number 7.
While most of the course of the Nueces River is within 50 miles of the Rio Grande, the northern-most point for it's course is approximately 175 miles north of the Rio Grande, not "several hundred miles north." Reference a road map of Texas. FA Partin Jr. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.40.227 (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.196.224.77, 11 January 2011
edit semi-protected

The correct dates of the battle of the Alamo are February 22, 1836 to March 6, 1836. Thirteen days to glory!

66.196.224.77 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Thank you for the suggestion, but you'll need to provide reliable sources that show that the start of the battle was February 22. -Atmoz (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that 1836 was a leap year, February had an extra day that year, so 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 = 13 days

Spelling
Correct - STORY; 3 story building, American

Incorrect - Storey - British

See WP:ENGVAR...Modernist (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Feedback
See this article in Beachcombings Bizarre History Blog on the famous line allegedly drawn by Travis: Mythic Lines at the Alamo. Citation: PS Beach notes with interest that the line is not in the Wikipedia article on the Alamo… Wikipedia has changed from being an ill-disciplined rabble of encylopedists to a cohort of drilled and sententious purists. Oh, well ... --LeastCommonAncestor (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Number of defenders vs number of attackers
I know it may seem stupid but i took a Texas history class a while back and i could have sworn that there was around 150 Texans fighting against 1500 Mexicans. I only want to make sure that my knowledge and what the articles says is correct.
 * The long-taught version in Texas schools is that 182 defenders died at the Alamo. Recent research indicates there were as many as 260  (all of this is cited in the article).  There's a little less agreement on the number of Mexican troops involved.  There were probably about 1200-1800 involved in the final assault, and unknown how many other troops were there and not involved (for example, one source says the Bexar militia was called up to join the Mexican army, but Santa Anna did not deploy them, as he didn't want them to have to fight their neighbors in the Alamo). Karnacs (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Our school taught 185 Texans/Americans held against almost 5,000 Mexicans for 13 days.

Background: No mention of slavery?
The most amazing part of this article is the lack of any mention whatsoever of slavery. The right to own slaves was one of the primary causes for the Texas Revolution, and one of the primary reasons for the Battle of the Alamo to take place.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 05:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's covered pretty well at Texas Revolution. Since this article is about a battle fought in pursuit of that revolution and not about the revolution itself, I'm not sure I see what purpose would be served in repeating that information here. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Alamo defenders didn't wear uniforms?
I am sure the vast majority of the soldiers didn't have proper uniforms, but wasn't there a twenty three New Orleans Greys at the Battle of the Alamo? Could this have accounted for the uniform fragments found in the ashes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamo#cite_note-chariton78-158

"Fragments of uniforms were found in the coffin, and it is known that the Alamo defenders did not wear uniforms.[139]"

I found the source material and didn't find any mention of uniforms or lack thereof. http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth47925/m1/1/

Does anyone have a reliable source to this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.172.76 (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No American blacks or Jews at the Alamo?
In terms of ethnicity among the Texian defenders, 13 were native-born Texians, with 11 of these 13 being of Mexican descent. The rest of the Alamo defenders consisted of 41 men born in Europe, two Jews, two blacks, and the remainder were Americans from states other than Texas. Santa Anna's forces were a conglomeration of former Spanish citizens, Spanish-Mexican mestizos, and indigenous Mexicans.[4]

The way this is written the blacks and Jews weren't Americans, or can someone help me understand how it was meant?

Goyar (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Flags
The infobox uses the Republic of Texas flag for the combatants yet this flag did not come into use until three years after the Battle of the Alamo. Evidence supports that the defenders used the Texas Lone Star and Stripes flag. Thus, shouldn't this flag be used for the combatants? Also there is a picture of the "Alamo Flag" without any text supporting why it is in the article. Wayne (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"Legend" portion of 3.4 Assault Preparations
There is really no reason to include a paragraph re: the "legend" of Travis drawing a line in the sand, as there are many versions of this legend--some more glorious, others more mundane--and presenting it withing a narrative that strives to be historical fact.

If "legends" are to be utilized as a part of the narrative, then I suggest adding all the other legends attributed to Bowie, Santa Anna, et.al. I mean, where does one draw the line (pun intentional) between fantasy and reality?

Now, if one decides to keep "legends" as a narrative device, then it is only logical to provide the context which sprang from reality, which I endeavored to do with Edmondson: Historian J.R. Edmonson, however, in the final analysis, dispels the legend, stating that "despite Travis' dramatic rhetoric, that legendary pact [was] nonsense.  Even if the defenders crossed a line, it was only a commitment to stay longer, hoping for reinforcements." (Edmonson, p.406)" In other words, essentially, the debunking of the myth...

But for the sake of NPOV and balance, if a legend is added, then it should be balanced with the actual reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiztuhX (talk • contribs)


 * There are several very well-known legends that almost everyone thinks is fact. This includes the line in the sand, Bowie killing men from his bed before he's killed, and Davy Crockett dying in battle. The article doesn't do a good enough job of putting these in context.  I think there's broad agreement that the article needs some polishing.  It uses some outdated sources when new and betters ones are currently available.   and I just brought Texas Revolution up to FA, and I think it does a MUCH better job of presenting everything neutrally and with better sources.  Would you be open to following a process similar to what we did there?  We 1) identified the sources that we thought were best to use and 2) made an outline of the article and analyzed what needed to be fixed, section by section and topic by topic.  Once we'd done all the background and analysis, then we started working on the article text.  I think this would work pretty well here, too, considering we will probably need to make some sweeping changes.  Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am all for this idea. This article achieved FA October 2009. Since that time, it has had almost 3,000 edits, much of it happening while  was on a sabbatical from Wikipedia. I think maybe we should re-examine the article, perhaps putting an invitation over at WikiProject Military History, since this is right up their alley.  Let's go for it, Karanacs. , you could give some valuable input on this. — Maile  (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , do you think we ought to (end goal) make sure how we present it here is that same as Siege of the Alamo? And BTY,, I'm pinging you for insight on what we're doing here - you gave us some good food for thought over at Texas Revolution. — Maile (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Eventually, yes. Siege of the Alamo is in rougher shape. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , the above-mentioned Santa Anna book is available through my local library, so I have requested a hold for it. — Maile (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)