I saw something else that explained the reason they were not prepared was Sana Anna kept his forces up all night building fortifications cause he expected a battle in the morning that never came. When the battle never came, he kept his men at the battle ready, and still, the battle never came, so finally Sana Anna ordered his men to stand down around 2 pm and eat and rest. Then the Texans stuck around 3:30 pm.
One of the reasons Santa Anna was not prepared for an attack is that he got reinforcements the morning of the 21st. These men had forced marched to join Santa Anna and were tired from the force march and needed to sleep. I believe it was General Cos that led the reinforcements to join Santa Anna. They had to water their horse and let them graze after the march. I also believe that Santa Anna was over confident, believing that the Texas would not fight. The actual battle only lasted 18 minutes but the Texas continued to chase the Mexican soldiers and shot them down like dogs. That is why they killed so many Mexicans. The shooting went on for yours. No Mercy.
On that date, April 21, 1836, Texas continued being property of Spain (in the strict legal sense, since Spain had not recognized the independence that Irish-Spanish (freemason) Juan O’Donojú O'Ryan ( or O'Donohue) illegally gave to Mexico in September 27, 1821 [It was a dance of freemasons: Samuel Houston also was a freemason] And specifically, Spain had not given Texas to Mexicans, the only foreigners that Spain had allowed to colonize Texas had been those provided by Moses Austin. Spain recognized the independence of Mexico in December 28, 1836. In any case, it would be appreciated if the United States gave a generous economic compensation to Mexico for having appropriated Texas.
@TheMariepi3 Economic compensation? If anything Mexico owes Texas and the USA compensation because we allow millions of their non-productive, burdensome subjects (citizens) to pour across our border and mooch off our taxpayers.
@22:30, how do you go on asserting that "the Civil war was pretty much due to slavery" ignoring the multitude of other issue adding to the complication, but then bend over backwards for the next 3 minutes to assert that the Texas Revolt was not?! Even using the "because only about %25 of Texans owned slaves" when that's literally the % of ALL Southerners who owned slaves at the advent of the Civil War also? The same set of factors lead you to 2 different conclusions within the same paragraph?
The San Jacinto Massacre did not result in the destruction of the Mexican army, like so-called Texan historians want everyone to believe. What was defeated was the vanguard of the army, and at Old Fort (about 40 miles west of SJ), there were still about 2,200 soldiers camped, waiting for orders to move. It was not a battle in any sense of the term, but a massacre and a rout. A rout, like what happened at the Alamo.
I am not sure I would consider the Alamo a rout, since the defenders managed to kill about 3 times the amount of attackers than the number of defenders killed. ( 600 attackers and around 189 defenders) A rout is more like San Jancinto, where 8 Texans died and around 600 Mexicans died.
Your behind on your Alamo research. The Alamo had 253 defenders (mostly illegal aliens from the States) and the Mexican attack force was 1,400 infantrymen. 60 were killed outright with 50 more dying in the next two weeks. As for San Jacinto it was a Massacre and ambush, no glory to the illegal alien force under Houston. @@siryort7024
That opinion that you Posted depends on what Historian you believe. Stating that only 60 Mexicans were killed at the Alamo is wrong, It was more but I doubt it was NOT 600 that other historians say were killed at the Alamo.
Well, that shows the ineptitude of Santa Ana's military wisdom then to place himself in exposed position with a third of his army. And 40 miles is NOT supporting distance. That's a 2+ day march under the best conditions in the 1830s.
Santa Anna was a rash man, his weakness at San Jacinto. No argument on that, the rout was HIS fault and no one else's. For San Jacinto, he should have just sent a colonel or some other general for the final clean-up, but in his eagerness for the final glory, he messed up! Well, he did get to visit President Jackson at the WH!@@H.G.Wells-ishWells-ish
Again these are great videos I love how you teach in story format but like a conversation
Great vIdeos, this is how History should be presented! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍🇬🇧
I saw something else that explained the reason they were not prepared was Sana Anna kept his forces up all night building fortifications cause he expected a battle in the morning that never came. When the battle never came, he kept his men at the battle ready, and still, the battle never came, so finally Sana Anna ordered his men to stand down around 2 pm and eat and rest. Then the Texans stuck around 3:30 pm.
One of the reasons Santa Anna was not prepared for an attack is that he got reinforcements the morning of the 21st. These men had forced marched to join Santa Anna and were tired from the force march and needed to sleep. I believe it was General Cos that led the reinforcements to join Santa Anna. They had to water their horse and let them graze after the march. I also believe that Santa Anna was over confident, believing that the Texas would not fight. The actual battle only lasted 18 minutes but the Texas continued to chase the Mexican soldiers and shot them down like dogs. That is why they killed so many Mexicans. The shooting went on for yours. No Mercy.
Exactly, that's why it's called the San Jacinto Massacre!
On that date, April 21, 1836, Texas continued being property of Spain (in the strict legal sense, since Spain had not recognized the independence that Irish-Spanish (freemason) Juan O’Donojú O'Ryan ( or O'Donohue) illegally gave to Mexico in September 27, 1821 [It was a dance of freemasons: Samuel Houston also was a freemason] And specifically, Spain had not given Texas to Mexicans, the only foreigners that Spain had allowed to colonize Texas had been those provided by Moses Austin. Spain recognized the independence of Mexico in December 28, 1836. In any case, it would be appreciated if the United States gave a generous economic compensation to Mexico for having appropriated Texas.
@@TheMariepi3 Texas gained independence BEFORE joining the US. The US doesn't owe Mexico a damn thing.
@TheMariepi3 Economic compensation? If anything Mexico owes Texas and the USA compensation because we allow millions of their non-productive, burdensome subjects (citizens) to pour across our border and mooch off our taxpayers.
The Battle of San Jacinto
17:24 Sam Houston's reputation becomes popular for Capturing Santa Ana.
18:49 "Revolution" was it a Revolution?
Hi
@22:30, how do you go on asserting that "the Civil war was pretty much due to slavery" ignoring the multitude of other issue adding to the complication, but then bend over backwards for the next 3 minutes to assert that the Texas Revolt was not?! Even using the "because only about %25 of Texans owned slaves" when that's literally the % of ALL Southerners who owned slaves at the advent of the Civil War also? The same set of factors lead you to 2 different conclusions within the same paragraph?
Some segments in the video are stamped not adjacent to each other
Whine some more
The San Jacinto Massacre did not result in the destruction of the Mexican army, like so-called Texan historians want everyone to believe. What was defeated was the vanguard of the army, and at Old Fort (about 40 miles west of SJ), there were still about 2,200 soldiers camped, waiting for orders to move. It was not a battle in any sense of the term, but a massacre and a rout. A rout, like what happened at the Alamo.
I am not sure I would consider the Alamo a rout, since the defenders managed to kill about 3 times the amount of attackers than the number of defenders killed. ( 600 attackers and around 189 defenders) A rout is more like San Jancinto, where 8 Texans died and around 600 Mexicans died.
Your behind on your Alamo research. The Alamo had 253 defenders (mostly illegal aliens from the States) and the Mexican attack force was 1,400 infantrymen. 60 were killed outright with 50 more dying in the next two weeks. As for San Jacinto it was a Massacre and ambush, no glory to the illegal alien force under Houston. @@siryort7024
That opinion that you Posted depends on what Historian you believe. Stating that only 60 Mexicans were killed at the Alamo is wrong, It was more but I doubt it was NOT 600 that other historians say were killed at the Alamo.
Well, that shows the ineptitude of Santa Ana's military wisdom then to place himself in exposed position with a third of his army. And 40 miles is NOT supporting distance. That's a 2+ day march under the best conditions in the 1830s.
Santa Anna was a rash man, his weakness at San Jacinto. No argument on that, the rout was HIS fault and no one else's. For San Jacinto, he should have just sent a colonel or some other general for the final clean-up, but in his eagerness for the final glory, he messed up! Well, he did get to visit President Jackson at the WH!@@H.G.Wells-ishWells-ish
Anyone else hear that really high pitch screech during the video?
the sound is not good I am quite disappointed
LOL. Trying to be politically correct doesn't work.
What are you rambling on about?
You are a Nazi.
the sound is not good I am quite disappointed