Talk:Battle of San Jacinto

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

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

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

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

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

New Orleans Greys

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

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

A correction to this note:

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

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

Texian

I reverted edits made by 221.126.155.75 which changed "Texan" to "Texian". Is there any reliable source that notes that the Texans called themselves Texians? — Loadmaster (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There's literally thousands. Are you looking for something specific to the context of San Jacinto, or just in general? I usually don't bother correcting the texan/texian distinction unless there there is a mass edit, since in some contexts it ignores the contributions of tejanos. Kuru ^talk 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The people of Texas of that time were called Texans, Texians and Tejanos. That's well documented all-freaking-over the place. See Texian. Kar98 (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A Battle or a Massacre

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

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

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

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

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

There was no battle. It was a massacre and an opportunity for sick animals to butcher fellow humans beings that's all it was.

Minor incoherence = exact number of Texan casualties

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

Question

How can the killed and captured exceed the number of Mexican troops in the battle?-Kieran4 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Killed + captured seems to be exactly equal to the troop strength. Where are you looking? Kuru ^talk 02:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)