• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Texas Rising

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Inasmuch as TEXAS RISING is so INACCURATE in geography (The TV show looks NOTHING like South or Southeast Texas.), uniforms, etc. all that I can say about that is that it is (more or less entertaining) FICTION.

My understanding of the bridge was that it was SET AFIRE by Deaf Smith & 2 friends rather, than "blown up" with several kegs of gunpowder. = I'd guess that 3 fellows setting a relatively small plain wooden bridge afire didn't make "good theater".
(I'm 99.99% sure that Vincent's Bridge looked NOTHING like the depicted "railway bridge".)

just my OPINIONS, satx
 
My "title" of the "The Great Killing" is a translation of the term, "La Gran Matanza" from several period diaries/journals/documents, which are in Spanish. = For example, Lorenzo M. Gomez de Vaca (late CPT of the Mexican Artillery) uses that term in his "campaign journals", which are in the library of The Autonomous University of Mexico. - He says in the entry for the Wednesday (SIX days later), after the Battle of San Jacinto, that "The savages were still hunting down & murdering our poor soldiers, without mercy."
(Btw, I've seldom seen the use of the term, "The Great Killing" in documents that were originally written in English.)

Did "The Great Killing" last as long & was that revenge as PITILESS as some Mexican accounts say? - I simply don't know that answer BUT I repeat my comment of earlier in this thread: Committing ATROCITIES in wartime ALWAYS results in COUNTER-ATROCITIES by the opposing forces.

just my OPINIONS, satx
 
satx78247 said:
My understanding of the bridge was that it was SET AFIRE by Deaf Smith & 2 friends rather, than "blown up" with several kegs of gunpowder. = I'd guess that 3 fellows setting a relatively small plain wooden bridge afire didn't make "good theater".
(I'm 99.99% sure that Vincent's Bridge looked NOTHING like the depicted "railway bridge".)

just my OPINIONS, satx

Thank you.

Setting fire to the bridge made a lot more sense as Sam Houston's men did not have spare barrels of gunpowder to blow it up.

Gus
 
Artificer said:
satx78247 said:
Setting fire to the bridge made a lot more sense as Sam Houston's men did not have spare barrels of gunpowder to blow it up.

Gus

ALSO 100% TRUE. = Our little/amateur/largely untrained/mostly "poor folks" Texas Army simply had LITTLE "extra supplies or money" to do something "spectacular", when taking down an ordinary wooden bridge, even if they wanted "to make a show" of doing it. = a pile of locally gathered firewood & a bucket of lard (or other available grease) as the acclerant would "do the job" & cost very little.

yours, satx
 
To ALL,

As many times as I have read CPT Gomez de Vaca's comment about "the savages" over the last years, something just occurred to me while I was re-reading this thread: Could it be that "los salvajes" (the savages) refers to our Tsalagi warriors & the warriors of our allies, The Apache Nation?
(Native warriors preyed upon the Mexican Army from the time that the forces entered Texas-Coahuila until they left in MAY 1936? - Also, both Anglos & Latinos called NA people "savages" for centuries.)

just wondering about that, satx
 
Obviously, I meant "1836", rather than "1936" in the last line of my comment above. = SORRY for the DUMB-bunny mistake/typo.

mea culpa, satx
 
I have stuck with the series and began to think of it in the vein as the story behind the Titanic movie. I anticipated creative license and such action. I will agree that it can spark renewed interest and by the comments so far, it has been a bit more entertaining for me than Washington Spies. Then again, I did not expect a documentary, which tend to be accurate but do not always generate a larger audience of viewers.

TexiKan
 
As I said earlier, the REAL STORY of the Texas-Coahuila struggle for LIBERTY is MORE INTERESTING than "the myth" and/or TEXAS RISING.

Further, I agree 100% with your comment about the movie TITANIC & the mini-series TEXAS RISING, as one is about as authentic as the other.

yours, satx
 
Maybe Texas Rising will do for the Alamo what "Gettysburg" did for the civil war interest. If so it will be well worth over looking the inaccuracies.
There was possibly fewer(?)inaccuracies in "Gettysburg" but they were not noticed by regular folks and led to a huge wave of interest.
 
I gotta give a thumbs up for action. It's not a boring mini series by any means. Just set aside the historical accuracy and enjoy it for what it is.
 
TO: cavsgt,

We TEXICANS are PLEASED with TEXAS RISING if only because it PROMOTES Texas TOURISM. ====> Goliad & LaPorte can surely use all those new dollars from vacationers, just as hotels/motels/restaurants/tour operators/museums now receive $$$$$$$$ here in San Antonio.
AND
While they are here, perhaps we TEXICANS can teach them a little of our REAL history.

TO: Ohio Joe,

EXACTLY SO.

just my OPINION, satx
 
So far all I can tell is there were fights at the Alamo and San Jacinto and ole Sam and Don Antonio were in charge of the two sides...past that, it's all made up. Most of the central characters existed but acted in no way as portrayed. When they tried to put Emily D. West and Sam Houston together in the first night, I knew it was crappola from Hollywood and gave up before the first night ended. Have seen a few snippets and except for the murder of Fannin and his men at La Bahia (Goliad) most is total fiction.
Emily D. West was a free woman of color from New York who signed a contract (hence could never be a slave) with Col. Morgan to work at his plantation as a cook of one year. She sailed to Texas with Emily de Zavala, wife of the original Vice President of the Republic and never went farther west in Texas than a line running from current Houston to Galveston. She never was in or near the Alamo, she never met Houston till after the battle (and may not even then) and there's no proof outside of hearsay and speculation, that she was 'entertaining' Santa Anna when the attack came. Several of the senior Mexican officers survived and if she had been in El Presidente's marguee that afternoon, they'd have trumpeted it from the tree tops as they did every other thing he did wrong. Sorry, but Tony was an opium addict and I'd bet dollars to donuts he was passed out in said tent. Several "women" were reported working in camp and one was uselessly sabered by one of Houston's officers and the whole thing nearly went to duels. Miss Emily, as she's known in Texas, was a woman of color without papers after the battle and it took intervention of a number of the officers who knew her to get permission to get the hell out of here and go back home to New York, where she drops out of historical sight!
Sorry...but there are snippets that would have made a much better tale than what's been going on TV the last couple weeks. Imagine the fun they could have had with Don Antonio's phobia of swollen creeks, his crediting of it to the snow run off in the mountains (even his aide laughingly commented in his journal about "only his excellency can see the mountains on the deserts of Texas". Build a barge, float ole Tony over, let him get a swallow of opium and off he went to the next creek where it started all over again. And all the time dragging a bronze barreled 12 or 16 pounder, "The Gold Standard" through the coldest and wettest spring on record.

Then the paddle wheel steamer "Yellowstone" made a run down the Brazos and the Mexican Dragoons tried to lasso it to stop it...how much more Keystone Cops could you get. There are a hundred incidents of history they could have drawn on to make a story of unbelievable truth instead of unbelievable MBBW!

Even at the Alamo, a large black man picked up a small Mexican officer and used him to fend off bayonet thrusts from the soldados, who joined in the fun by laughing uproariously and poking bayonet points into the officer's nether regions...I mean, really, the whole story is a comedy of errors and bad decisions, why couldn't we see that?
 
Ohio Joe said:
Just set aside the historical accuracy and enjoy it for what it is.

Personally, I can't even enjoy the action scenes because the whole thing is so far off the mark. Those of us who live in Texas and attended school in Texas and/or anyone who knows a snippet about Texas history recognize this sorry series for what it really is.....dusgusting Hollywood crapola of the lowest degree. :td: It is an insult to Texas and to anyone who holds Texas history, or history in general, dear.

BTW, I see that The History Channel has closed their contact page so it is not possible to express our feelings about this series, or any other matter. Do you suppose it could be that they are getting too much negative mail about Texas Rising?
 
Ohio Joe said:
Just set aside the historical accuracy and enjoy it for what it is.
Joe,
I would guess with the commercials running at
17/18 minutes per hour(some several times) I would
guess at least the HC found it an enjoyable
venture.Hoping all feel that way.
snake-eyes:hatsoff:
 
After seeing what they did with their other series "Son's of Liberty", it wasn't hard to fathom that they would do the same with the Alamo story.

The History channel is, most likely, ran by the same idiots who made MTv and VH1 into reality tv garbage. Not that either were good to begin with, but they are no longer what they started out as. Same with the History Channel. It no longer has history on it, but is full of "Reality (read that scripted) shows".

It's a sad thing that they won't listen to their customer/viewer base and clean up their act, but they really don't seem to care what we think. As long as they sell advertising space they are making millions. They should change their name to the Anything but History Channel. :td: :shake: :nono: :barf:
 
I knew goin' in that there wouldn't be much historical accuracy involved. but, bein' a life-long fan of westerns & mountain man stories, I watched it for the entertainment value because we don't have much to choose from these days.

and i'll say it again, at least they weren't all wearin' levi's & stetsons, carryin' '92 Winchesters & Colt's peacemakers and the "Indians" didn't all have that coarse Italian 5 o'clock shadow.
 
It gave me something to do with my wife for a couple hours each Monday evening, plus since I am neither a history prof or raised in the schools of Texas, It caused me to look for the real history. This made it a history learning experience.

I highly appreciate those here who helped by providing some real history, which I probably wouldn't have even read had I not watched the show.
 
Due to being sick with a summer cold I watched the final episode last night. By approaching it as a TV movie it worked OK for me.
A question for the historians here, I have looked up Deaf Smith and nothing that I've read refers to him having TB yet that seems to have been a big thing in his portrayal during the series.
Being a primitive archer myself I did enjoy the fellow using his bow versus the muzzleloaders.
 
Yep, after the first couple of episodes, that was my solution. I think it was a good decision. I highly recommend it to all.
 
Back
Top