Duel of Eagles: The Mexican and U.S. Fight for the Alamo

They just weren't the ones we thought they were. The Gonzales 32 were certainly heros. Many of the negative reviews here seem to be merely because Long destroyed the reviewers long cherished perceptions. They see David Crockett as a true Texas Patriot, ignoring the fact that he arrived in Texas, for the first time, just in time to die at the Alamo. He came for the same reason many did - for land and money and to "fight Meskins." They seem to forget that with the exception of Travis and few others, and the Gonzales 32, most of those who died in the Alamo and at Goliad were mercenaries from new Orleans, the Carolinas, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. In fact, the War Dogs were almost to a man land speculators. The True Texians who came here under Austin and others didn't want independence, just for Mexico to honor their contract. Most didn't want the destruction of war coming to their communities and farms, though in hind sight it was inevitable. Sam Houston is indeed portrayed as the alcoholic he is known to have been - the Cherokees called him the Big Drunk. It is also true he took laudnum regularly to fight the pain of the rifle ball lodged in his groin from the Indian wars under Jackson, and it is true he was "Jackson's Man." But he is still shown as a hero by Long. There were many Texians in Houston's army when they met the Mexican army in San Jacinto, but there were just as many who came here to grab land. Long documents his history carefully. He is a great writer and takes no sides, being even handed in is treatment of both sides. Long is a destroyer of myths, and though it may hurt, it is necessary. I have read this book three times now. It is on my shelf beside Fehrenbach's "Lone Star" and stands proudly on its on. This book is a must for anyone who wants the whole story of the Texas Revolution.

Texans will hate this book, but it's probably closer to reality than other Alamo histories. A few real heroes survive the author's microscope, but many come across as bigoted fools. The author brings out from behind the historical curtain the real reason for the war -- the expansion of slavery. It's not a pretty picture, but still a fascinating one, and very well written. Reads like a thriller.

This book is an accomplishment on many fronts. It digs where no one else wants to dig, which is the true hallmark of a historian. It reveals truths that entrenched and calcified communities wish to hide -- a sign of high scholarship and meaningful journalism. Best of all, it is wonderfully written. Jeff Long spends as much time providing ambience and atmosphere than the usual historian. You are transported there. This book is much more interesting that the childish fairytales surrounding the Alamo and Texas "independence." Thanks for expecting that your readers are adults. You won't find any pandering in this book.

This book deals with a very difficult subject--the fight for the Alamo. Shrouded in myth, conflicting accounts, and uncertain details, the battle for the Alamo in March of 1836 (as well as the earlier battle in which the Texians took control of the fort from General Cos) has long been an enormous challenge for historians, since there is no way to tell for sure where fact ends and where legend begins. Accounts of the last stand of Crockett, Bowie, and Travis range from suicide to ignominious surrender to heroic last stands with piles of dead Mexicans at their feet, but no one can know with certainty just how these men came to their ends. Most historians choose one of two routes: either they recount the myth, making the men savage warriors to the end, or they try to dispel the myth by giving Crockett and Co. uneventful ends (such as suicide, surrender, or a quick death without much fighting). Jeff Long does neither of these. This is a book about the Alamo that ignores the whims of historians and mythmakers alike, and truly attempts to understand the Alamo. More importantly still, the book treats the Alamo not as the apex of the Texas Revolution, but as a single event, one of many, which contributed to the eventual independence of Texas. Bowie is portrayed as a greedy speculator, Crockett as a failed politician hoping to get political fame by fighting in Texas, and Travis as a vain and glory-seeking individual whose view of reality has been skewed by reading too much Walter Scott. Houston and Santa Anna are both opium addicts. And yet, somehow, this book does not destroy the heroic vision of the Alamo and Texas independence, but rather casts it in a more realistic light. This book treats the entire revolution of Texas, not just the Alamo. Much background on Bowie, Crockett, Travis, Fannin, Houston, Santa Anna, and even many Mexican officers is included. This serves to enrich the account of the Alamo, as well as give a deeper understanding of what the two sides were fighting for. Long presents the revolution as being, for the most part, unjustified, and does not seem to be biased in one direction or the other. What is presented is a good, objective account of the "duel" between the Mexican and Anglo-American eagles. The obvious benefit of this book is a good look at the Alamo. But the rest, most especially the character sketches of the principal players in the revolution, is also invaluable. The slaughters of the Alamo and the Goliad paint the Mexican army in a bad light, it is true, but the slaughter of Mexicans by Houston's men at San Jacinto (surprisingly) show that the Anglos weren't much better. What is better, this book reads like a good novel, and as such is great not only for a student of Texas independence, but also as a satisfying read for anyone interested in history.

From one who has a passion for history and in particular the moments of crisis in war, this account provides a close look at a moment in time where few were left to speak of the events afterwards. The history of the Texas territory up to and past the Alamo were excellent. The writing was especially good at placing the reader in the frame of events as the story unfolded. I enjoyed it.