The Battle Of Alamo

The battle held in Alamo is a living proof to show that the American state was meant and supposed to be the way it is today, independent, governed and organised as as federal state. Unlike other states of America, the battle held in Alamo was highly disproportioned. Guided by national conscience, over 300 lives were lost during this battle held against over 2000 professional, well instructed soldiers, guided by Santa Anna. The Texas department of the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas managed to rebell in late 1835 and proclaim itself as an independent state, fact which has had the battle as a main consequence. Santa Anna desperately tried to bring the Texan society under control, the movement started on March 6 of the following year. The defenders were killed, but not without resisting the great pressures and induring the massacre that had hit them. After gaining the independence against Spain, Mexico started to occupy as many territories in America as it could,at that time do with its army. Historians say that the hard offensive was partly due to the experience concerning those types of battles, in which the Mexicans were supposed to defend their territory, not to conquer another. This is – mainly - why their attack strategy was merciless and, this way, the carnage could have been anticipated. After 1821 the conquering strategy was a way of imposing and highlighting Mexicans’ power and desire for revenge, manifested in many American territories, including Texas. On his full name Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón, the general of the army was sure on his success and strategy. And as a writer said,”Peace is made by the ones who haven’t known the war”, holding such a battle – and winning it –

Its consequence was Texan’s army mobilization. which found it easier to fight the enemy after the event. on which so many dreams clung during history gives an invincible strength and endurance. in 1716. Unfortunately for his army. Alamo was a chapel built by Roman Catholic monks. and its name means “plopar” in Spanish. During the fight. the battle held in Alamo was internationally admitted as being a great success of the so called “lay army” of that time. he “in his official character as chief of the Mexican nation” recognised Texas as being an independent state. The historians talk about 182 people killed by Anna’s army. remembering Alamo was a slogan evoking the massacre caused by Santa Anna’s army. made by over 2000 people(other sources mention even 5000 people – a bit exagerated for the battle’s scale).”(Victor Hugo). he got down. Although the great writers taught us that” War is made by humanity against humanity despite humanity. unfortunate social events do unificate the society in the mental meaning. as well as reorganizing the modest army they disposed of. Moreover.The Goliat Massacre made the Texans reorganise under Sam Huston. As any psychosocial study could confirm. the Texans withdrew inside it. this great feeling of belonging to a nation. they were shouting as loud as they could: “Remember Goliad! Remember the Alamo!”. of fighting for something important. This comparaison between Santa Anna and Goliad.seemed the most natural thing to occur. While fighting. helped the Texan forces to capture Santa Anna. in the town named San Antonio. which was a very important goal to achieve for the Texan army. which placed the Texan army of David’s side. As his life depended on Texas’ independence. . Much more than a simple saying. The massacre has remained in history as the bloodiest battle held in Texas.he was no longer the president of the state.

As a detail of character. determination. Also. also known as „ The seven laws”. the Maxican general of the army taught Santa Anna lost of strategies and gave him tips and advice for as many militar situations as it was needed. admitting – this way – that the system he had created around him was mainly composed by abridgement of rights to people and decent life. without realising this posture was way too much for his power. Santa Anna was not an imposing person. prosperity ofr the society he led. as Santa Anna was thought as being prepared “to hold any battle. . Joaquín de Arredondo. and also how to deal with unforseen leading situations that might have occured in any moment. This heppened only after the vice-president he had named proposed and applied some liberal reforms. he replied to a message of the US government. but these are only speculations based on their very similar behavior. stating that „his people” would not be able to understand and live freedom not even in 100 years’ time. the constitution in 1836. After 10 years. conservative government.The defeat was seen almost as a disaster. the Mexican is believed to have taught Anna secrets and details about the Mexican nationalist rebels. one to have something to say – and to be also heard by society. helping him to become a god leader and strategist from the early 1810s. he formed a centralist. because it gave him the necessary strength. in order to stand out and make himself seen and heard. This is why an alliance with Arredondo seemed natural for him. When he became President. as the XIXth century was one of the most eventful in history. anywhere. against anyone” – at least this is what he used to say about himself. American historians also say that Arredondo was a spiritual model for Santa Anna. about the Texan ones too. first thing he did was to change some rules. power. confidence and it was a way of assuring himself that oratoric and persuasive characteristics were needless for him to succeed in being a good leading example. protecting him and allowing him to practice inside the army. After this.

Imagining the way this highly important battle could have been avoided brings a series of questions to which answering is not very easy. The most important generator element to explain every single battle that took place for the sake of state’s prosperity and wealth the national/local conscience. in order to be free to join United States of America as . Thereby. Of course. held bewteen 1774-1783 has as a result a revolution which led to the U. The historical background conditioned by various agents .this entire process of nation building. which has helped even the most weak armies to bare and win. This whole scenary is very hard to believe and it certainly was imposible to apply. federal republic as an independent state. political.in time – United States of America succeeded being the biggest federal state on a worldwide scale. Similarly to some of the European states. but would have ceased searching for rights and independence. the English colonies’ battles in North America.The XIXth century is very popular in history for the nation building movements that took place all over the globe. because any Texan’s dream was to be independent. A good variant is the one in which the Texan army would not have reorganized under Sam Huston. demographic . It seems like there has been a worldwide tacit pact concerning the moment in which those battles for the national definition processes came to pass. but . The premise from which this theory has to start is the one that the Texan people would have obeyed without holding any battle for their independence. America and Asia have formed their national conscience thanks to the liberation struggles and to the states’ construction.S. social. at first there were only 13 colonies. changing considerably the entire world map. not from a historical point of view.such as economic.

This would have been very easy to do for the Spanish. His biggest strategical mistake was the one of having underestimated the power of the enemy. The . On the other hand.far as it was possible. it is very unprobable that – on a fund on which people were fighting for their rights(as previously mendioned. On the other hand. if the Spanish had infiltrated people to disturb the situation from the inside. Of course. A good strategist would have forseen the event and would have prepared and organised the army so as to impose his authority on every single level of the society. Another situation(less probable) in which this event could have been not prevented. but very improbable to have happened is the one in which the Mexican army would have lost the independence battles against the Spanish. he should have applied some of the strategies that Arredondo taught him as he was younger. Another probable scenary for this fight not to have taken place would have been the intervention of the American army. working of a pyramid scheme. But that one could have been avoided. but all over the globe) the Texans would have obeyed Santa Anna.The good principle: “Divide et impera” would have worked once more. This would not have been so hard to apply. Any of these strategies. In this case. well implemented would have led to a relinquishing of the Texan army(to the extant that such term. autonomists and royalists. somehow. since the Mexicans started(on the background of the independence war) to group themselves in three categories: independentists. as “the army” can fit to some revolted people searching for their individual and social freedom). not only in America. as the most important categories that should have been vised would have been the people holding the power and having the means to influence the rest of the society. on a background of desperate people acting in an unfortunate situation. another battle would have taken place instead of the one in Alamo. the Mexican leader should have forecast the danger and organize its territories so that the people were unable to stand for their rights. by this intervention.

to a larger extent. so as to be a great power for a long time. this fight would have distroyed both sides – at least damage to a great extent – and this would not have been very advantageous for none of the sides: both would have lost more people than they did in reality. if it is to calculate any life as being priceless. such as the power of the American army compared to the Mexican one. The last chance for the battle not to have happened would have been a treaty signed by both parts: Texas and Mexico. taking into consideration the fact that the Americans. after 1821 the Mexican army was not ready to face a great battle. Both would have had their drwabacks: the first one losing lives and military equipment and the second one – respecting the assumed treaty – and offering the promissed privileges. They could have endow the army and all the other institutions. And supposing that the great battle between the American and the Mexican army would have been held for all the states occupied by the Mexicans. On the other hand. this scenary brings into discution a series of topics. then the Mexicans would have been very rich. Of course. The only possible situation for the battle not to have happened would have been the case in which the Texans would have agreed to pay a large amount of money to Mexico for a number of years. Unfortunately. and as people – as a society – tend to fight for their rights and not to negociate them. at the end of the 19th century had just passed through the process of unifying. This would have been the most convenient variant.Americans would have had two possibilities: to attack the Mexicans or to negociate with them and gove them a series of privileges. On the other hand. as well as of the army itself. in which the second one would have recognized the independence of the first one. this meaning a complete reorganization of the institutions. Nietzsche was right when . as history is something to be made mostly by battles. if any American state that fought against Mexico had chosen this possibility.

Belonging to Mexico would have meant obeying to some unhuman laws. It may not sound very bad. living with a centralist. the dictatorship baes on military forces had the power. as well as all the other institutions were. but carefully monitorized by the Government. on an organizational level. For the development of the state. on an internal level. trying to answer to a very important question: How would have the world looked today. but it would have had various consequences over Texan’s lives. I found the will of power” – talking about slaves and masters in his own philosophical system. this would have also meant losing other sets of rights and being part of a closed society. the foreign merchants were encouraged to develop their activity. conservative government. Getting used to live in a complete different system would have been a very hard step to make for a big society as the Texan’s were. First of all. And this can be seen from two very important points of view: The first one. from many perspectives. A very probable status quo would have been. The second point of view encourages a larger perspective. Also. Schools were different. Santa Anna’s power all over the state. the United Nations and Mexico would have both looked . the adopted constitution. The moneylenders. without any of these independence battles? Very different. private property was a luxure. Supposing none of the American states mastered by the Mexicans would have fought for the rights and the independence. in the situation of a Mexican Texas. where the state would have been annexed to Mexico.saying: “Wherever I found life. in which trading was rigurously controlled.

as it is known. at the beginning. imagining World War II without America in it would bring various important consweuences over all the belligerant states. If America had not been one of the greatest powers on Earth. The consequences are easy to follo. Of course. not so powerful as it is today). Without the others. This is the main reason why the Business would have been another way today. which would have probably led to a Russian’s win over it. especially in Europe.different today. the battles also. the Japanese would have developed technology and would have become one of the world’s biggest powers. America could not have intervened on any of the parts. but then again – taking into consideration the large number of states that the . it may be hard to believe that a small battle like the one in Alamo could have had such consequences. What does that mean and imply? That the soviets would have had a greater impact on Europe’s population. A second world war without America would have been won by the Axis Powers. there are some situations to be analysed: First of all. not as developed in America as it is nowadays. the American colonial states were a number of 13. Antanta would have certainly lost on all fronts. one of the biggest powers on a worldwide scale would have been smaller and powerless( at least. there is World War I. And even if the Russians would have still lost the war. It would not have had the necessary money to develop technology and to support democracy. even if the treaties would have been different. the Japanese army would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. And why is this important? Because. all over the globe. Concerning the importance of this federal state in the globe’s problems. managing to make it socialist. taking into consideration the fact that America had the most powerful army from all the allies.

or would have mentained the laws that he imposed to his people. Also. Thia is. Concerning its political system. Its strategic concepts and its power over the globe(especially in situations such as Iraq. conservative way of seeing things and applying . Afghanistan) would have been largely reduced. especially when people always seem tempted to ignore the most important part of it: an ideology sustaining the cause of any of the regimes that have been applied in history. Concerning Mexico. business. This is why. social and economic development. Fortunately. Santa Anna would have certainly ruled a very drastic regime. it would have probably become one of the most important powers( if the premise is the one that the people forming a society are the ones that truly matter). United States itself would have changed many positions of power. political influence and words to say. demography. any of these has been a very important pawn for the construction of democracy. but there is nothing to guarantee that the following ruler would have been the same. North Atlantic Treaty Organization would not have existed today. Italy or Germany would have been good allies) or it would have started following a democratic regime( intensifying relations especially with the Western Europe). of course. as it was founded mainly by America and sustained – economically and military with its resources.Mexicans would have annexed. another situation in which two variables are possible: that Mexico would have been a totalitarian state(case in which – most probably – Russia. Talking about political regimes is not something very easy to do. it is hard do assume a thing or another. it is also very possible that the American regime would not have resisted if the Mexicans would have continued that centralist.

that the spilled blood is something to be regretted and worshiped. and –last but not least – ruled can have a very important meaning for the way future is going to look like. for the democracy to stand a chance and fight for our rights. it was often said that:”One dead person is a true drama. and all over the globe. but one million dead persons only represents a statistic”. but a mix between several regimes. A good lesson is to get the message that it is more important to believe in what you fight for than to have spectacular dotations and military equipment. many years before. today. The way a state is built. Alamo is one of the most painful and also nationalist proof of resistance and colaboration.the laws. This is why Sam Huston(as every American who ever faught for independence) had a very important role in history. America would not have been a good democratic example. on every battle. although it may not seem so. the best of all times. developped. once again. . sustained. on a larger scale. As every battle has had its place in history. held on an important territory could have utterly changed the world’s dominations and great powers. but it has existed in every good citizen’s mind. as well. As a conclusion. every single small battle in the XIXth century. In history. And maybe. Let us not be that cruel and see the hero in every of the 182 men that died in 1836 in Alamo. for the Texans to be free and. It has proven. It appears that Jean Jacques Rousseau’s social contract was only formulated by him.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful