Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Let me begin with a quote from the work under discussion, found on page 307: "...the truth of what really happened at the Alamo - the exodus - has been overlooked by historians, scholars, and writers since 1836. One of the few American historians who has even dared to hint -and even then ever so carefully - at the scale of the exodus from the Alamo was the respected author of BLOOD OF NOBLE MEN: THE ALAMO, SIEGE AND BATTLE (1999), Alan C. Huffines...However, he only dealt with this controversial aspect of the Alamo's story in a footnote..." Please read the above quotation with great care because what I am about to reveal may shock one. It shocked me! In the illustrations of EXODUS FROM THE ALAMO there is a fine drawing by artist Gary Zaboly captioned by the author of EXODUS FROM THE ALAMO, Philip Thomas Tucker, that reads: "A depiction of the fighting outside of the Alamo when fugitives from the fort encountered Santa Anna's cavalry, by the artist Gary Zaboly." Below that is written: Author's Collection. Well, friends, perhaps the original is indeed in Phillip Thomas Tucker's private collection, perhaps not. What I do know for a fact is that it is reproduced full-paged on page 178 in the superb and beautifully illustrated (by Zaboly) BLOOD OF NOBLE MEN by Alan C. Huffines. Opposite the drawing, is a half-page description of it entitled "Intercepting the Fugitives" wherein Huffines describes what the drawing is depicting. He writes right from the starting gate: "A substantial number of Alamo defenders - perhaps as many as one hundred - attempted to escape the mass slaughter they realized was inevitable once the Mexicans began flooding over the walls." There is a problem here with Tucker. He claims that Huffines is about the only historian to deal with the flight from the Alamo, but only in a 'footnote' and that Huffines 'ever so carefully dared to hint' at the 'scale of the exodus.' This is absolute hogwash on Tucker's part! He is either being deliberately deceitful or was overwhelmed and deluded by too much source material whilst cherry-picking for his book or just plain dumb. Huffines in 1999 had no trouble whatsoever in commissioning artist Zaboly to include the exodus in his illustrations, and Huffines had absolutely NO hesitation in stating a large number - 100 - of the Alamo defenders may have made a run for it when the going got hot. And Huffines did NOT hide this information in a footnote! But it isn't just Huffines who has told the story of the 'exodus' from the Alamo: J. R. Edmonson addresses it in THE ALAMO STORY. William Davis in THREE ROADS TO THE ALAMO tells the tale of three groups leaving the Alamo and guesses that maybe a many as 80 died out in the open. A LINE IN THE SAND by Randy Roberts and James Olson also describes the exodus that for some bizarre reason Tucker feels he is the first to blow the whistle on, other than his Mexican sources. Tucker, in his final chapter, says his is "a more honest and realistic version of the events of March 6, 1836 than has even been presented before. Based upon fact rather than fiction, truth rather than mythology, and an unbiased, open-minded approach..." and he goes on blowing his own trumpet. Unbiased??? If a picture is worth a thousand words, than the photo selection for this massacre of a book is worth millions - and there is NOTHING unbiased in the selection. So, first off we have a drawing of the mythological siege of the Alamo, then a nice, handsome drawing of Santa Anna, followed by one of General Filisola (one of Santa Anna's most gifted top lieutentants...how nice), a drawing of one of Mexico's lethal lancers, another drawing of a Mexican Dragoon, a woodcut of the battle, a photo of the Alamo's 18-pounder, a photo of the son of Alamo defender Gregorio Esparza, a photo of the church from which Santa Anna hung the flag of No Quarter, two drawings of the Alamo itself, a pic of a Mexican battle flag, Travis' ring, the drawing mentioned above showing the exodus from the Alamo which the author claims is in his collection and fails to mention it is also in Huffines masterful book, a few more pics of the Alamo, a drawing of the area where the defenders who made it outside the walls of the Alamo were killed, a drawing of Mexican Lieutenant Torres being killed whilst attempting to take down the Alamo garrison's flag and last but not least, another drawing by Gary Zaboly showing an overhead view of the Texians' rush from the stockade into the waiting jaws of death of Santa Anna's cavalry. That's all, folks. Unbiased, Tucker claims? Sure, there is a picture of Travis' ring...but what about an illustration of Travis or Bowie or Crockett or the common Texian...excuse me...Anglo-Celts as Tucker renames the defenders over and over and over and over again. Okay - so where is there an unbiased photo section to an allegedly unbiased, honest, "open-minded" book? The photo section, alas, is as biased as the book. Tucker is also all over the place in his tome. The list of idiotic conclusions and contradictions is too great to go into here - but here is one, just to give you an idea. Tucker goes to great length to convince us - and himself probably - that Travis more than likely killed himself. Fine. Absurd for a variety of reasons, but I waded through Tucker's zany reasoning for this conclusion only to find him writing on page 274 that perhaps Travis himself led the 62 men in the first run from the Alamo! He also keeps referring to the first number of men as 62....even though his source for this - one Sergeant Loranca of the Delores Cavalry Regiment "never forgot the sight with the dawn's first light..how some 'Sixty-two Texians (had) sallied from the east side of the fort.'" Loranca estimates - but Tucker finalizes. 62 is the number he repeats over and over and over again. (How the good Sergeant got such a head-count in the dim dawn and fury of battle is not explained.) Apart from all of the above, apart from the numerous typos, apart from the definitely pro-Mexian bias of the author, what is truly terrible about this book is the writing of it. Tucker comes at us as if we are all stupid sixth-graders who have to be told over and over again in order to learn anything. This book is perhaps the most repetitious 'history' book I have ever read in my entire life. Talk about the overkill at the Alamo! Tucker reminds me of a man hammering nails that have already been driven inches deep into the wood of his assemblage yet he keeps banging away anyway just to make damn sure - in this case the assemblage is his book, his 'startling new analysis of one of America's most famous battles..." That quote, by-the-way, is from the back cover. And that is all that is on the back cover. There are no academic blurbs, no bravos from his peers, no words of endorsement whatsover. In conclusion, apart from the very biased nature of the book, its writing and redundancy, its sheer overkill in driving its major dump on the Alamo myth literally gave me a headache. This book may be almost as torturous as listening to the Deguello over and over and over again. Anyway, be sure you're right...and then go ahead!!!!