Jump to content

Talk:Battle of San Jacinto

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.22.155.114 (talk) at 16:42, 28 June 2013 (→‎A Battle or a Massacre). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Untitled

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

Present-day (180 years later) morality is a weak argument. If it's true that the Texians were shouting "Remember the Alamo!" and "Remember Goliad!" during the battle... then you find fault with frontier justice. Without which, all we'd have is the rule of "law" imposed by a bunch of high-powered lawyers and sell-out politicians getting rich off greedy tycoons.

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)[reply]

Question

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

Killed + captured seems to be exactly equal to the troop strength. Where are you looking? Kuru talk 02:24, 23 September 2smallnesssmall>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evulac (talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC) . I like trains[reply]

Numbers

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

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

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

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

File:SanJacintoBattle.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SanJacintoBattle.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

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

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

Number of dead, wounden or captured is bigger than the number of participants

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

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

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

How was the Mexican army not warned of the approach?

The existing text says: "The main Texan battle line moved forward with their approach screened by the trees and rising ground." For many years, I've been told it was because of a swale, a depression in the ground. This is from people who have walked the battlefield. So to say "rising ground" is a half-truth. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Houston retreating?

Why doesn't this article mention that, at least in part, Houston was retreating because his militias were untrained. Meaning, for example, in shooting. For one thing, do you know how hard it is to shoot another, fellow human being? And even before all that philosophical approach, plain old target practice. Plus, many of the volunteers were not militia in any way. Free-stylers, ya know, who would have run all over any battlefield without reason, rhyme or order. Houston knew there'd be no reinforcements, even from his co-conspirator Old Hickory, who was facilitating westward expansion, and without Tejas (TX, NM, AZ, UT, CO, OK, KS, etc.) it just wouldn't work. So if Houston didn't train those raw recruits in marksmanship and holding the order of battle, we'd be living an alternate timeline where your Denver omelette and Kansas City steak would be much spicier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.155.114 (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_San_Jacinto&oldid=561989259"