Blood of Heroes

The Alamo encapsulates the entire American experience into one event. There stood the two hundred armed American citizens in a crumbling mission defending their liberties to the death against the pompous tyrant Santa Ana and his professional army of 6,000 men. The defenders stepped across the line that young William Travis drew in the sand, understanding that this meant that their odds of surviving were slim, but knowing that they would buy time for the rest of the Texans to organize their forces and secure their independence.The "big picture" has been immortalized in books and Hollywood movies. In the famous one starring John Wayne there's the scene where John Wayne (playing Davy Crockett) is asked by his sidekick, "Why should we leave our homes and travel 500 miles to risk our lives fighting to help a bunch of people we don't even know?" John Wayne/Davy Crockett replies, "Because there are Americans in trouble there. That's all we need to know."When Crockett got there he made the rousing (at least according to Hollywood) speech: "We're fighting to establish a Republic. 'Republic.' It's one of those words that stirs a man's heart, like watching his son take his first shave. It means the right to elect our own government, to choose the way we want to live, and to be free to buy and sell in the market." Maybe he said something like that, maybe he didn't, but he and his volunteer Tennesseans surely felt that way, as did the Americans who had immigrated there before him, and the resident Mexicans who sided with the Americans in wanting to liberate Texas from Santa Anna's dictatorship.The Alamo's defenders all died, but their deaths fiercely inspired the rest of the Texans, who until that time had been in demoralized retreat, to rally and turn the tables on Santa Anna at the epic Battle of San Jacinto. Thus did the Texans win their independence from Mexico, and the USA later acquired Texas and the other 600,000 square miles of the Southwest that came after it.That's the big picture. What about the details, some of which have been subjected to recent historical revisionist debate:1. Was the battle a tactical victory for Santa Anna's Mexican Army? The traditional version has it that the Alamo defenders wrecked the Mexican Army before they died. Santa Anna allegedly said, "One more victory such as this, and I am ruined." The revisionist version has it that the Mexicans lost only a few dozen men, many of them hit by "friendly fire" from their comrades who swarmed over the other side of the fort.2. Did Davy Crocket die swinging his rifle "Old Betsy" or did he surrender and suffer execution by Santa Anna's firing squad? The latest TV movie rendition has Crocket being shot on Santa Anna's orders AFTER he surrendered, when Crockett refuses to ask Santa Anna for mercy.Author James Donovan compares tradition to revision and comes down on the side of tradition. As to casualties, he explains that although the Mexicans seem to have lost "only" about 75 men killed outright, they also suffered hundreds wounded, many of whom would never recover, there being only one doctor to treat them. Thus, the traditional story of Santa Anna's Army being "gutted" by the victory seems to be true. It also seems that while a small party of Americans did surrender and were executed after the battle, that Davy Crocket wasn't among them. He died "fighting in the open" perhaps with his rifle in his hand. It also seems that there WAS a "backdoor" at the Alamo. About sixty defenders tried to escape near the end of the battle, but were almost instantly cut down by Mexican cavalry, though even then they went down fighting and took some Mexican soldiers with them.Besides providing the most likely answers to these questions, the book is written in a thrilling style that makes it read like an epic novel. It vividly describes the battle, the events leading up to it, and its aftermath. It makes the reader feel like a participant in the story. It thoroughly captures and explains in the most interesting way the essence of the great personalities, in all their glories and defects, of William Travis, Stephen Austin, Jim Bowie, Davy Crockett, Sam Houston, and Santa Anna.It also tells the story of American settlement in Texas before the Alamo, which is interesting in itself. One interesting point was the incredible cheapness of the land. Travis bought 4,428 acres (nearly seven square miles) for a down payment of ten dollars! Travis was surely a brave, freedom-loving man, but also the rascally sort that fled to Texas to escape creditors and a wife and children back in Alabama. He was typical of that generation that fled to Texas, primarily to make a "new start" by stiffing their creditors and abandoning their families. Stephen Austin, Jim Bowie, and Sam Houston were cut from the same cloth. That flawed but ferociously brave men like these could fight together in the common cause of liberating Texas is a story that doesn't need any embellishment.The only very minor point that I think was missing from the story was any after-the-Alamo mention of the fate of Mexican General Santa Anna. After being elected president of Mexico eleven times after the Alamo, his fondness for women and corruption finally caused him to flee the country. He spent his last days in New York City, inventing the chewing gum industry using the extracts from tropical plants found in Mexico. Kind of a mundane ending for the Dictator of Mexico who once ruled over 1.5 million square miles from Central America to Oregon! That's also a microcosm of American/Mexican relations: occasional conflicts from time to time, but no lasting hard feelings.This book is not only thoroughly researched but succeeds in making the reader feel like a participant in the story. It is inspiring even for those who have been familiar with the Alamo stories since childhood. And it provides credible answers to some of those questions that revisionists have raised: Yes, the Mexican Army did take a beating at the Alamo; and yes, Davy Crockett did go down fighting with his rifle in his hands.

I enjoyed this book. It will now be part of my Alamo library that includes 13 Days to Glory, Three Roads to the Alamo, and Alamo Avengers. And now, The Blood of Heroes. I would appreciate it more if there were more maps at the beginning of each chapter. Read this one on Kindle and it is not convenient when trying to find maps.

Although I enjoyed reading most of this book, I have doubts about its usefulness as a reference book, partly because of the lack of footnotes (which I understand was the publisher's decision rather than James Donovan's), but also for its tendency to present as established facts things we are not sure about. Admittedly, Donovan discusses these issues in the notes, but I would have preferred to see them discussed in the text, as I already have plenty of historical novels describing the battle, and was expecting this to be a scholarly history book. Even the notes are not always adequate for checking his statements: for example, on page 450, he attributes a quote to Dan Kilgore but, although he may have said it, I can't find it in "How Did Davy Die?" It appears on page 53 of Bill Groneman's "Defense of a Legend", but not as a quote from Kilgore. For me, the best chapter was the one on Louis Rose and the line in the sand, where the sources of his information were noted in the text. While I'm happy to go along with him on these issues, I haven't studied them with the same diligence/obsession as I have David Crockett's death, but his section on that gives me grave doubts about his competence as a historian: although he lists a good selection of writings by historians whose opinions I value and respect (especially James Crisp and Bill Groneman), the only thing he seems to have read thoroughly is the interesting but seriously flawed article by Michael Lind. However, it seems he is unfamiliar with the critical responses to it. One error he gets from Lind is his statement that the de la Peňa account that did not name Crockett comes from "Una Victima del Despotismo" when it does not, as both James Crisp and Bill Groneman pointed out in their responses. Also, the fact that de la Peňa did not name Crockett in this account suggests merely that either he did not consider it relevant in the context of his article, or that he found out later (from Almonte or Dolson's informant?) that Crockett was one of the men executed. The fact that we do not know how de la Peňa came to identify Crockett does not mean we can assume he just heard a rumour and presented it as fact. Similarly, just because we do not know when Almonte had seen Crockett previously, we cannot assume he had not. After all, he had spent a considerable amount of time in the United States, and could have seen or even met him. Of more consequence is Donovan's assumption that Santa Anna would have known he was having Crockett executed and would therefore not have needed to have him identified later. (He places that before the executions in the main text, but if that could be proved there would be no debate!) Neither the Spanish version of "With Santa Anna in Texas" (as James Crisp observed in "Sleuthing the Alamo" - p. 106) nor the Dolson letter suggests that Santa Anna was aware one of the survivors was Crockett before he ordered their execution. According to the Dolson letter, Almonte told only a fellow officer but was, as James Crisp pointed out in "Documenting Davy's Death", too cautious to risk incurring Santa Anna's wrath by interrupting him when he was angry. Donovan suggests that Santa Anna's officers would have had good reason to name Crockett as one of the men executed (p. 448), assuming they knew, but although Dolson's informant did just that, Donovan discounts it because Dolson did not name his source. If only Almonte and Dolson's informant were aware of Crockett's identity, it is hardly surprising that he was not named in all of the officers' accounts, including de la Peňa's first one. Also, I'm not sure that admitting to the brutal murder of a prominent American hero would have been wise while Santa Anna and his officers were being held captive (as Dolson's informant's wish to remain anonymous if possible testifies). Santa Anna did not need to state that he had had Crockett executed after the battle in order to claim "that many of the rebels were American citizens" (p. 448). Donovan makes the unscholarly conclusion "let history show that he died fighting with his comrades" (p. 453), but makes little comment on the evidence for that other than merely stating that it is unreliable (p. 451). Although to his credit he gives more attention to where Crockett died (to my mind, the main difficulty with the execution theory) than some previous writers, if he wanted to argue that Crockett died in combat, he should have discussed the evidence for that and presented a case instead of just rehashing Michael Lind's inept rebuttal of the execution theory in a manner that leaves me wondering how far we can rely on the rest of the book. My doubts are compounded by his comments on my great great great great grandfather, King George 111: while I know he had his faults, and understand why the revolution took place, I think it is going a bit far to describe him as a "despot" comparable to Santa Anna, and he certainly wasn't a "tyrannical dictator" (p. 251)!

Good read. It gives a long-winded background but once it gets to the actual battle it reads pretty fast. I was entertained.

Still reading it. I think it will be a valuable addition to my Alamo library

This is a good account of events leading up to the Alamo and its aftermath. It is particularly effective in placing the siege within its context and the Mexican political background is clear and shows how the political frameworks within which the Mexicans and Texians operated were equally flimsy and unstable. The style is very readable, if slightly more folksy than a British author might assay, but the author is as objective as this mythic subject allows and fair minded. I agree with previous reviewers that his treatment of events after the Alamo is concise and highly informative,particularly his account of Fannin. The case Donavan makes quite deftly and which is most convincing is that the effect of the Alamo on the war lies in its propaganda value and the extent to which it was the Mexican taking time out to besiege the Alamo that inflicted them with logistical problems that reduced their abilities to confront Houston in any meaningful way later rather than the effects of the actual fighting when the Alamo was over run.My only slight quibble ,which is why I only gave the book four stars, is that the final section dealing with Moses Rose,while interesting to historians in terms of the nature of the evidence, is a bit of an anticlimax. Otherwise a relly good read which has persuaded me to buy his Custer book.

I knew about the Alamo but not the history behind it. This book gives a very detailed view of before, during the battle, and the aftermath. The famous and well known participants are described in great detail.An excellent read.

Bought this for my husband, his hobby is history, he really enjoyed the read.

Learnt a lot from this and really well written.