I just saw on TV they're making a new movie about the Alamo.  Fantastic!  Our family supposedly has an anscestor that died there but I can't prove it.  If you look at the casualty list, there is a Ryan on it.  I have been to the real Alamo twice and both times, I was filled with a sense of awe I have rarely felt anywhere else.  I can't think of any story that has ever moved me more.   189 Texas volunteers against something like 4000 Mexican soldiers.  I don't think a better story has ever been told.  It's about time someone did a realistic retelling of this famous battle.

It doesn't look like they will.  Check out the website and look at the trailer.  Awesome!

http://www.thealamofilm.com/

  Looks like it's going to be a good one, these types of movies are awesome when they stick closely to the actual history of the event, instead of being watered down with a bunch of fluff and macho man stars to try and attract a female audience.

Best let Oso know, thats his corner of the world

This new rendition was filmed in my home town, a little truck stop just outside Austin, TX called Dripping Springs.  I even went out to see the set when I was there!  It was incredible!  The entire thing was set up in a little part of the Hill Country (yeah, capital letters) that looks nothing like San Antonio, but somehow they shot the movie juuuussst right.

The day I went to see the set was the day after they shot the first part of the first day of the battle.  The place was a mess.  There were rifles lying EVERYWHERE, some standing up against walls, others leaned up against each other, and a lot just lying around in general.  It was as if I were actually there, and the feeling was incredible!!!

It was also supposed to star the guy who plays Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings (forgot his name) as William Barrett Travis, my great, great, great grandfather, whom I am named for (Travis is my first name).  But apparently he was replaced by some guy named Patrick Wilson, who I have never heard of . . . some relation to Owen Wilson?

But it should be great, anyway.  Billy Bob Thornton is a great actor, and Jason Patric can certainly hold his own, although that casting surprised me a lot.  And I'm not sure about Dennis Quaid, but I'm keeping an open mind.

I most likely am going to see this as soon as it comes out, maybe even the opening show.  I can barely wait . . .

Quote:


i'd have to agree with you there - and they also have to make it accurate unlike Pearl Harbour.

Without invoking ethnic sympathies, a historically accurate retelling of the "Alamo" is possible.

Remember - Tejas was a province of Mexico, sparsley populated, with a strong immigrant population of Anglos.  The facts of Santa Anna's presidency aside, once these immigrants started making noises for separation and independence from Mexico, of course, the Mexicans had to try to put the insurrection down.

Also, these immigrants wanted to establish and import slaves, and slavery had already been abolished. 

Faced with the possibility of fighting against the Mexican regular army, these Texan immigrants started bringing in mercenaries - "freedom fighters" such as Davy Crockett.

These are just general issues/points, not to take away from the actual valor and bravery of all the participants.  In attacking a fortification, the defenders generally have the upper hand until there is a breach.

Strategically, it can be argued that the stand at the Alamo could have been avoided, and the decisive victory for the Texans would come later.

As with England and its rebellious colonies, other preocupations also had their toll in the Mexicans pursuing the Texans - finally, pursuing a campaign in the vast region of Texas became undesirable, and the Mexicans cut the cord.

In history, there are two sides to every story, and a historically correct account may not necessarily be "politically correct".  The 1960 John Wayne movie was not exactly a highlight of historical accuracy.


(Note:  I have no professed "sympathy" for one side or the other in this issue - which c an be emotional.)


Quote:

Even though I'm about as Irish as they come (Kevin Ryan?) I've always been fascinated by the story of Masada and the stand there.  It didn't have much of a happy ending, but they did take the moral high ground in their decision to commit suicide rather than surrender...

Quote:


But the Zulus didn't have firearms!  

Sorry, someone's already pointed that out.

There is the battle of Long Tan in Vietnam. Two Australian Platoons against a Regiment of VC, which ceased to exist as a Unit afterwards.

From 1969 onwards, the VC and elements of the NVA were under instructiuons not to engage Australain troops.
Our blokes virtually walked through the jungles with impunity.

Very brave men. 

Quote:


Makes you awfully proud to be Aussie, hey Professor!!!!!!!!!!!!

Custer - for all his flamboyance, made a serious tactical and strategic mistake.  He was in the open, for starters, in an area where his location could be approached under cover of terrain - depressions, ravines, etc.  The "Natives" were seasoned warriors, armed with weapons reasonably as good as Custer's soldiers.  He could have waited for reinforcements, but didn't.  A lot has been written on Custer, the conclusion points to a disastrous blunder.

Quote:

I haven't done much reading on the 'Little Bighorn' incident, but have done some and seen a Doco or two. I have seen a History Channel Biography on Custer.

For my limited knowledge, I can tell you that Crazy Horse's men were armed with Winchester repeaters. The same as the 'Cavalry' were. Some even had revolvers for close quarters fighting.
As Felix says, what he did, seemed more an act of suicide than anything else. Although some may see it as a level of contempt and refusal to believe that the 'Indians' of the day were anything but savages with no ability to wage 'modern' war at all. How wrong he was. And he should have known much better. 

If only he could have lasted a little longer in the Army. He would have been demoted even further, and not had command over so many men.