Fannin at Goliad (1 Viewer)

[Louis A. Cortez]

I was discussing the Alamo and the Texas War of Independence today with a group of teenagers. I was asked what I thought about the decision making skills of Fannin during his time at Goliad and why he did not respond to the requests. At first, I wanted to state that Fannin was a man of indecision and that cost him his life and the lives of several others. But then I hesitated and thought, what would I have done is his shoes. How would I have responded in those times with the limited resources and talent. I now I ask all of you. How would you have handled that situation. Here you are, Fannin with an Army (if you want to call it that) of approximately 800 men. Do you march to the rescue of the men at the Alamo? DO you retreat? WHat other options do you have? Remember, General Urrea and the emperor of the west (Santa Anna) is coming after you next?

 

[Tex]

I believe that it would have made sense to retreat and link up with Houston's army. The number of deserters would probably be huge, but at least he would augment Houston's command, somewhat, and wouldn't get himself and the rest of his command slaughtered by the Mexican Army. I do not believe that 800 rag-tag militia would have been nearly enough to break the seige of the Alamo. The Alamo was, itself, a result of disobedient leadership--LtCol Travis was ordered to withdraw with the artillery. He disobeyed orders.

I think that having so many disobedient officers during the war made Houston distrustful of professional military men (not that Fannin or Travis were professional). This may be why one of his politcies as President was always to dismantle the Texas Military, especially its navy. He comes across as almost derranged in his correspondence about abolishing the navy.

 

[Robert E. Lee]

Seeing that his men were massacred and he was executed by a shot to the face I would hve done done something very different but I am not sure what.

 

[eborris]

Well, since he supposedly made a half hearted attempt in the first place, I would think that you abandon the carts and cannon and take your men to the Alamo. Of course, had he got there, there may have been no Alamo with 1,000 guys I don't think there would have been a need to defend the Alamo. Had Fannin gone to the Alamo maybe it would have proded Houston to get his drunk behind there too.

Interesting though, almost every large battle in history has plenty of what if's to go along with them. Little Big Horn, Isandlwana, Gettysburg, D-day, Pearl Harbor and they go on and on. You can debate then forever which is a good thing, but there is never a clear cut answer because they didn't happen. I guess that's what makes military history fun.

 

[Tex]

I think we could all agree that the Texas Military officers were generally incompetent though--at least, Travis and Fannin were. Travis was an insolent officer, a failed lawyer on the run from his wrecked personal life. Fannin was generally disorganized and inexperienced. I would even say that Houston was not that great an officer--he was just incredibly lucky. He was running west toward San Jacinto because he was hoping to lure the Mexican army into territory then in dispute between the US and Mexico, thus involving the US army on his side. This would have quickly accomplished another goal of Houston's, which was to get Texas annexed by the US on favorable terms for Texas.
I am not generally a fan of Houston--I am more of a Mirabeau Lamar man myself, but he was somewhat of a bad president too. I think, though, that Lamar did more to strengthen Texas as an independent nation that Houston ever did--but then Houston's main policy goal was to get Texas annexed.

 

[Louis A. Cortez]

Gents,
Great discussion. This is what I like about history. All of the what-ifs. As for me, I am not sure that going to the Alamo was the best option for Fannin. He was indecisive but he had a better spot to defend at Goliad. My choice would have been to buckle down and prepare for a seige. Stock up on food, ammo, men, and fortifications. Send notice to Houston that he was awaiting further orders by staying put in a defensiable location. But then, that is my opinion. What's yours?

 

[UK_BOD]

Tex,

I agree with you Fannin should have tried to retreat back to Houston's army, even though as you say it would have entailed desertion and the loss of supplies and heavy equipment (they were lossed after all). To keep an army in being is more important than any short-term political gains (or prestige for the leader). To head towards the Alamo would have certainly led to the destruction of his army and so his options were limited. Houston may have been lucky, but there again "Great" generals from history have also been extremely lucky such as Ceaser (numerous occasions), Not saying that Houston was graet but in the end he got the job done....

Rgds

Andy
Brit with an interest in American History.

 

[Tex]

Again, I think the most realistic option for Fannin would have been to retreat and link up with Houston's army. A retreat, especially with a leader like Fannin in charge, would have generated huge losses to desertion, but even if he lost half his men to desertion, he'd still have 400 that aren't executed by the Mexicans to add to Houston's force. Plus, the deserters may always come back later. The Alamo would have to be left to its fate.

By the way, I hear a lot of dispute on the number of casualties inflicted on Mexican forces at the Alamo. I typically hear the number 1000, but it varies from 3000 to only 60. Clearly, 3000 is very unrealistic, but 60 seems a bit low, too. Why such discrepency in Mexican casualty figures?

 

[eborris]

I guess it all depends on how is doing the counting. If Santa Ana is giving the numbers they will be low, as he wants everyone to think he won a great victory at little or no cost. While a Texian or an opponrnt of Santa Ana would give an inflated figure.

If I had to guess , I would put the Mexican casualties at between 200 - 600, that's dead and wounded with the majority of the wounded dying at a later date.

 

[Tex]

I would have to agree--that sound pretty reasonable to me. In Texas History class, they try to convince us that it was 1000.

 

[eborris]

Well, there's just different versions of what happened and no one knows for sure, I've heard they got over the wall quickly and were inside before the Texans were even awake. I've heard or read that the Texans spoiled at least one attack before they were overcome. I've heard that the Mexicans initially came over the west wall instead of through the nort wall. I've heard 50-70 Texans ran out the South Gate as the mexicans came through the north wall. Heck, Some people even think the Texans didn't even have time to fire their cannons during the final assault. Then there's the time, some say it took three hours some say under an hour. Which one do you believe? What it comes down to is a guess based on the best information available which is not much. Or at least not written down, they didn't have CNN back then with live coverage. There's been a lot of books written and quite a few movies, nobody knows for sure if anyone got it right and we'll never really know for sure.

 

[Louis A. Cortez]

Gents,
Supposedly, Houston was sending his forces to GOliad to await his arrival. If true, then why have Fannin retreat? The Goliad fort was defensable. 800 men is alot of men to lose.
As for the number of Mexican losses. Yes it is debatable, but most published historians, American and Mexican, agree that the number must be between 300-1200. I know that is a big fudge factor but it also includes the number of wounded too on some of those. Santa Anna, in one of his letters, did not downplay his losses. On the contrary, he wanted to upgrade the battle by increasing the number of defenders along with his losses.
The time most agreed upon is slightly less than an hour for the entire assault. That was pretty quick and indicates that the Texans really did not give much of a defensive effort.
Now what about Gen. Urrea. He received orders to kill all of the prisoners. That must have been a difficult order to follow. I am not sure I could have done it. Could you?

 

[Tex]

Honestly, probably not. The prisoners might "accidently" escape...

I was unaware that Houston was on his way to Goliad. I guess I also overlooked the fact that Goliad was an actual fort, designed to repell assault, while the Alamo was a ruined mission. 800 men in a fort stand a pretty good chance--200 in a church probably don't.
I have heard of the theory that 50-70 Texians tried to run at the Alamo but were caught by Mexican Lancers. I think it is plausible. It seems likely that a few hundred Mexicans would have been killed, but I would be doubtful of 1200 casualties--that seems unreasonable to me.
I saw an interesting show about the Alamo a few years ago that referenced a source called the "De La Pena" documents. These seem like a gold-mine for Alamo facts, but their authenticity is in doubt. Apparently the phrase "crime against humanity" is used, but this phrase was never seen before WWI.