If the Battle of the Alamo had taken as long to fight as it was to "read", the outcome could have been completely different. After suffering from headaches, hysteria & historical overload in iambic pentameter, surely, the "Anglo boys" (Crockett, Travis, etc.) could have won in order to save future generations the humiliation of reading "history" in prozac prose

The Alamo is a natural subject for an epic poem, though the form has fallen out of favor. Congratulations to Michael Lind, and to his publisher, for taking a chance on such an ambitious project. The poetry is first-rate, concrete, image-driven work that captures the flavor of the battle detail by detail. Laced with wit, and historically informed, I count this as the single best non-academic approach to the subject that I've seen.

This book provides a detailed look at what the Tejano people experienced and thought of the seige on the Alamo by Santa Anna and the Mexican Army during the Texas Revolution. Matovina takes authenic documents and accounts and arranges them in an unaltered form in this book. His arrangement(chronologically as they were originally recorded) gives you an idea of how feelings and attitudes changed during the years that followed the actual event. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in furthering their knowkledge of what took place during the battle and, especially, its affects on the citizens of San Antonio after the battle.

This book isn't bad - but if fails to include probably half of the singletrack in the county, and puts in a lot of crappy dirt road rides. It's a bit dated, and the maps aren't very clear at all, but if you're new to Los Alamos or just visiting and need a guidebook, this is pretty much your only option.

For all interested in the beginnings of Los Alamos, this book is a must-read. Written, as it were, by the Los Alamos staff, the details are not as objectively presented as they would have been by an "unofficial" annotater, however one who wishes to have a fuller knowledge of the beginnings really ought to read through this book. The informatuon presented herein is not "rare" material, but presents a very nice beginning point to all interested.

A year earlier than the release of this Illustrated history The Alamo: An Illustrated History by George Nelson was released a excellent book full of images, information and original artwork, unlike this awful illustrated history in which I can find nothing original, new or even mildly interesting. This might catch an elementary school students attention if they had not been exposed to any Alamo history previously, and I wouldn't guarantee that, in otherwords skip this book go straight to George Nelsons originally titled and excellent book and spend your dollars on a book thats worthwhile

This is a book to read primarily for the illustrations, which are numerous and fun to look at. The narrative is an adequate telling of the story of the Alamo, but the book is not well written. The book is Alamo Lite--good for a quick, breezy overview of the battle, but not for an in-depth treatment. Readers interested in a more definitive treatment of the battle should turn to Jeff Long's Duel of Eagles.

I remember United States History from high school and how the Alamo was overrun by a huge Mexican Army lead by Santa Ana. I also remember John Wayne portraying Davy Crockett in the movie version of the Alamo.

All of that was fine until I was able to read this book and what I missed from high school and the movies was filled in. Reading this book brought to life the what really happened at that missionary in Texas.

Once you open this book and start reading you'll be transformed back in time and ride along with Fanin's Army, meet Sam Houston, follow Jim Bowie and share a laugh with Davy Crockett.

The author's ability to transform the one event that has always remain the folklore of history into so much more is nothing short of remarkable. It was one of the best books I have read all year - excellent job!

When I saw this book on the shelf, I was really hoping to read an objective analysis of this topic. I had read several earlier books by other authors about the battle for the Alamo, and was aware of the de la Pena account, and thought this book would be the true scholarly discourse on the topic I wanted. What a disappointment! It quickly became clear while reading that scholarship was absent. Scholars don't write works like this in first person, or flip-flopping between 1st and 3rd. Even more however, the author states upfront a personal scepticism about the de la Pena account before ever discussing it, and makes it clear this book is motivated by criticism he received on an earlier book on the same topic. When he finally gets to the de la Pena account, his arguments appear more to be opinion, and does he want scientific testing of the document, no, that wouldn't prove anything to him! How about present the facts and let the reader decide? Throughout the book, at every opportunity he poos all over the de la Pena account without ever giving the reader the information/analysis to decide for themselves. The sad thing about this is that I still haven't seen an objective scholarly treatment of this topic and I need to keep on looking.

The argument goes on and on..

But it is bewildering how some authors will find any means possible to support their hero worship sentiments. The question I ask is why are Mexican eyewitness accounts scrutinized and summarily dismissed if they counter legend? And why are some Mexican accounts acceptable when they support legend? Why does the author accept questionable Anglo accounts (Dickinson) yet fail to question her credibility in light of some confused observations (her sighting of Travis body on the chapel roof)?

The author,I guess, believes students of the Alamo will believe what they want to believe...and accept the verification of that belief that best fits their views. In my opinion, those who want to maintain the The Legend Must Live! view of the siege and fall of the Alamo have an ally with this author.

I try and read everything that comes out of the Alamo and the Texas Revolution. This author is beginning to make "a living" off the argument that the de la Pena diary is a fake, but in the end he can offer absolutely no evidence is the contrary from what we already know before the work is read! Did Crockett die in battle? Groneman says no one knows. But was Crockett taken prisoner and then executed? Groneman does not know, but believes that the de la Pena diary on which much of, but not all, that tale is founded, is a fake. So by the time the reader gets to the end of the work, there is nothing conclusive. So, the question that begs to be asked is: what's the point? Crockett was at the Alamo. Crockett fought. Crockett died. What difference does it make HOW he died? The entire exercise is analogous to the question of whether or not Napoleon was murdered on Saint Helena? Who cares? It does not change what Napoleon did in life any more than how Crockett met his end changes what he stood for by choosing to fight and die at the Alamo. My suggestion to Mr Groneman is for him to please move on.

Don't waste your money on this one, unless you just HAVE to buy EVERY book on the Alamo and the Texas War. Serious students might want to check this one out from their local library, just to get another perspective, but that's about the only thing positive about this book. Inaccurate and careless research, need I say more ? There are plenty of well done tomes on this subject, but this isn't one of them. A better choice would be Edmondson's book: THE ALAMO STORY, or Hardin's: TEXIAN ILLIAD or better still, Todish's: ALAMO SOURCEBOOK 1836.

It may not be right to critize the book, however, since the author allowed his work to be used in making the IMAX movie that is shown hourly ajacent to the Alamo he must bear the responsibility for the appaling movie that reflects his work.

Disjointed and inaccurate are the kindest words to use. The movie script has actions taking place out of sequence and worst of all it contains so many omissions as to make it almost a parody of the heroic stand of the Texicans against Santa Anna. The glaring omissions and literary license taken with known facts make this work easily the worst treatsie on the Alamo ever.

Mr. McAlister should have stood on his head to make sure it was at least historically accurate as far as known facts and it would not have cost a dime to have a voice over narration to fill in the many omissions in the Alamo story. There are too many for me to list here but it should suffice to say "shame" on you for allowing such a travesty to parade ! under the guise of purporting to tell the story of the Alamo. Even John Wayne's script was better!!!!! (Wayne's was the worst script ever used for a movie.)