What do you think?
Rate this book
Three Roads to the Alamo: The Lives and Fortunes of David Crockett, James Bowie, and William Barret Travis – The Definitive Biography of Legendary Fighters and a Tragic Battle
Three Roads to the Alamo is the definitive book about the lives of David Crockett, James Bowie and William Barret Travis, ”the legendary frontiersmen and fighters who met their destiny at the Alamo in one of the most famous and tragic battles in American history” and about what really happened in that battle.
832 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
239 people are currently reading
1118 people want to read
About the author
William C. Davis
318 books94 followersCurrently professor of history at Virginia Tech, William C. Davis has written over fifty books, most about the American Civil War. He has won the Jefferson Davis Prize for southern history three times, the Jules F. Landry Award for Southern history once, and has been twice nominated for the Pulitzer Prize.
For several years, he was the editor of the magazine Civil War Times Illustrated. He has also served as a consultant on the A&E television series Civil War Journal.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
For several years, he was the editor of the magazine Civil War Times Illustrated. He has also served as a consultant on the A&E television series Civil War Journal.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
April 27, 2016
I was born too late for the coonskin-cap craze that followed the release of the Disney television series about Davy Crockett (later repackaged in the magisterial Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier). That didn't keep me from following my own Crockett obsession. I had a coonskin cap, of course, along with a fringed shirt made by my mother, a pair of mocassins, a plastic knife from Halloween, and a long-rifle cap gun purchased on a trip to the Black Hills (which replaced a hockey stick, which I'd been using for its faint resemblance to a Pennsylvania Rifle). In my basement, my brother and I, along with assorted friends, would push the couches together then relive, over and over, the desperate final moments of a few hundred Texas defenders in a small Spanish mission near San Antonio. We were all Crocketts at the end, swinging our hockey sticks and cap guns like clubs, just as Fess Parker did at the end of King of the Wild Frontier.
Though I no longer wear a coonskin cap in public, the drama of the Alamo still grips my imagination. I've read a lot of the famous titles (though I haven't gotten around to reviewing them, including A Time to Stand, Gates of the Alamo, Blood of Noble Men, A Line in the Sand, etc.). I've seen all the movies. I've watched with interest as generations of scholars and amateur historians have debated whether de la Pena's diary is a historical gold mine or a Protocols of Zion-level hoax.
William Davis's Three Roads to the Alamo is not an Alamo book. It's more of an abbridged, triple biography, following the paths of William B. Travis, Jim Bowie, and David Crockett from birth to death. Their deaths are the least important facets of their lives, in Davis's telling. Indeed, the battle is presented in only a few short pages, with little analysis or reconstruction. If you want to get into the details of the siege and famous battle, look elsewhere. (I'm eagerly awaiting Alamo Exodus which explores the attempted breakouts from the Alamo, which were spoiled by Ramirez y Sesma's lancers; I'm sure that once a majority of Texans know that a majority - or at least substantial minority - of defenders tried to escape, the State will finally make good on Rick Perry's threat and leave the Union forever).
The book is fairly standard with regards to Crockett and Bowie. Both are given a healthy dose of revisionism that cuts their legends down to size. They are not only regiven their humanity, but their flaws are highlighted to a degree that would've infuriated my 12-year-old, coonskin-cap-wearing self. My 28 year-old self, though, didn't flinch. I'm used to seeing once-gold plated icons of American reevaluated with a more objective eye. There's nothing wrong with this approach, since God knows there have been enough Alamo hagiographies. Even so, Davis doesn't seem to relish stripping away the legend, which is refreshing in an age in which every historian seems to want to make his mark by telling us that everything we thought we knew is wrong.
Still, Davis doesn't add much to two of the members of the Texas Triumverate.
Crockett was a shameless self-promoter who was involved in only one battle against the Indians, at Horseshoe Bend. Contrary to Disney, he did not get the Creek chief, Red Stick, to surrender after a mano-a-mano tomahawk fight. Instead, he mostly shot bears to feed the troops. He ended up going to Texas after a humiliating political defeat at the hands of the Jackonsites.
Whereas Crockett played the fool, Bowie was more of a sociopath. He didn't invent the famous knife - that honor belonged to brother, Rezin - but he used it, most famously at the Sand Bar Fight, where he stabbed a man to death after having a lung pierced by a sword cane. He was a slave smuggler, and a land swindler, a petty thief with grand designs. He is more flawed than Crockett, and more interesting. He was a racist who married a Mexican woman for money and fell deep in love. He was a dreamer, who thought he could steal 1/4 of the United States with forged Spanish land grants, and who fought a desperate battle with Indians while trying to find the San Saba silver mines. It's a colorful life, but one that is well trod in other bios.
The revelation here, and the reason you should read this book, is William Travis. Travis, as portrayed by the likes of Laurence Harvey (!), Alec Baldwin, and Patric Wilson, has always come across as a straight-laced, pompous, aristocratic, arrogant blusterer, an uptight counterpoint to the easier-going, frontier-bred Bowie and Crockett. Davis rehabilitates Travis immensely. Here, Travis is as flawed as Bowie and Crockett: an adulterer and debtor who runs off from his wife and children in the dead of night to seek a new beginning in Texas. Unlike Bowie and Crockett, however, who stumble into the Alamo pursuing financial/political gain, Travis is a rarity these days: a true believer. He was one of those men who believed in liberty and freedom (however strained those definitions are to our nuanced, 21st century understanding of the Texas-Mexico relationship circa 1836) and was willing to fight and die for those principles. He was a firebrand, a rabble rouser, and a patriot. He was, simply, a young man on the verge of greatness. To paraphrase T.R. Fehrenbach, he had the great good fortune to have recognized a historical moment and rose to grasp it.
One more thing: if you decide to read this book, check out the endnotes. Most of the fascinating discussions occur there. No joke. If you read them, you will learn how it's nigh impossible to kill a person by throwing a knife at them (since all the weight is in the handle). You will learn that Bowie's brains stained the wall of his room for years after his death.
You will also gain a great deal of insight into Travis's sex life. He kept a diary, in Spanish, in which he tallied the number of women he slept with. Davis notes that, in translation, it is hard to be sure what Travis meant when he said "I have f***** 49 women in my life." Travis might have meant he'd had sex 49 times. Davis says it's more likely he had sex with 49 different women.
I find myself hoping that the latter interpretation is correct. Travis was 28 years-old when he made his stand at the Alamo. He might have become a great man, but he must have known, shortly after the siege began, that he was never going to live long enough to achieve greatness. I like to think that late at night, awake at his desk, penning eloquent and desperate letters by the light of a flickering candle and listening to the Mexican bombardment, he was able to sit back in his chair and think back to 49 different lovers and be comforted for a moment.
When Santa Anna began his final assault at dawn on March 6, 1836, Travis leapt from his cot, grabbed his shotgun, and shouted "Come on boys! The Mexicans are on us!" He raced to the north wall, fired both barrels, then fell dead with a musket ball in the forehead.
He was among the first defenders to die.
Though I no longer wear a coonskin cap in public, the drama of the Alamo still grips my imagination. I've read a lot of the famous titles (though I haven't gotten around to reviewing them, including A Time to Stand, Gates of the Alamo, Blood of Noble Men, A Line in the Sand, etc.). I've seen all the movies. I've watched with interest as generations of scholars and amateur historians have debated whether de la Pena's diary is a historical gold mine or a Protocols of Zion-level hoax.
William Davis's Three Roads to the Alamo is not an Alamo book. It's more of an abbridged, triple biography, following the paths of William B. Travis, Jim Bowie, and David Crockett from birth to death. Their deaths are the least important facets of their lives, in Davis's telling. Indeed, the battle is presented in only a few short pages, with little analysis or reconstruction. If you want to get into the details of the siege and famous battle, look elsewhere. (I'm eagerly awaiting Alamo Exodus which explores the attempted breakouts from the Alamo, which were spoiled by Ramirez y Sesma's lancers; I'm sure that once a majority of Texans know that a majority - or at least substantial minority - of defenders tried to escape, the State will finally make good on Rick Perry's threat and leave the Union forever).
The book is fairly standard with regards to Crockett and Bowie. Both are given a healthy dose of revisionism that cuts their legends down to size. They are not only regiven their humanity, but their flaws are highlighted to a degree that would've infuriated my 12-year-old, coonskin-cap-wearing self. My 28 year-old self, though, didn't flinch. I'm used to seeing once-gold plated icons of American reevaluated with a more objective eye. There's nothing wrong with this approach, since God knows there have been enough Alamo hagiographies. Even so, Davis doesn't seem to relish stripping away the legend, which is refreshing in an age in which every historian seems to want to make his mark by telling us that everything we thought we knew is wrong.
Still, Davis doesn't add much to two of the members of the Texas Triumverate.
Crockett was a shameless self-promoter who was involved in only one battle against the Indians, at Horseshoe Bend. Contrary to Disney, he did not get the Creek chief, Red Stick, to surrender after a mano-a-mano tomahawk fight. Instead, he mostly shot bears to feed the troops. He ended up going to Texas after a humiliating political defeat at the hands of the Jackonsites.
Whereas Crockett played the fool, Bowie was more of a sociopath. He didn't invent the famous knife - that honor belonged to brother, Rezin - but he used it, most famously at the Sand Bar Fight, where he stabbed a man to death after having a lung pierced by a sword cane. He was a slave smuggler, and a land swindler, a petty thief with grand designs. He is more flawed than Crockett, and more interesting. He was a racist who married a Mexican woman for money and fell deep in love. He was a dreamer, who thought he could steal 1/4 of the United States with forged Spanish land grants, and who fought a desperate battle with Indians while trying to find the San Saba silver mines. It's a colorful life, but one that is well trod in other bios.
The revelation here, and the reason you should read this book, is William Travis. Travis, as portrayed by the likes of Laurence Harvey (!), Alec Baldwin, and Patric Wilson, has always come across as a straight-laced, pompous, aristocratic, arrogant blusterer, an uptight counterpoint to the easier-going, frontier-bred Bowie and Crockett. Davis rehabilitates Travis immensely. Here, Travis is as flawed as Bowie and Crockett: an adulterer and debtor who runs off from his wife and children in the dead of night to seek a new beginning in Texas. Unlike Bowie and Crockett, however, who stumble into the Alamo pursuing financial/political gain, Travis is a rarity these days: a true believer. He was one of those men who believed in liberty and freedom (however strained those definitions are to our nuanced, 21st century understanding of the Texas-Mexico relationship circa 1836) and was willing to fight and die for those principles. He was a firebrand, a rabble rouser, and a patriot. He was, simply, a young man on the verge of greatness. To paraphrase T.R. Fehrenbach, he had the great good fortune to have recognized a historical moment and rose to grasp it.
One more thing: if you decide to read this book, check out the endnotes. Most of the fascinating discussions occur there. No joke. If you read them, you will learn how it's nigh impossible to kill a person by throwing a knife at them (since all the weight is in the handle). You will learn that Bowie's brains stained the wall of his room for years after his death.
You will also gain a great deal of insight into Travis's sex life. He kept a diary, in Spanish, in which he tallied the number of women he slept with. Davis notes that, in translation, it is hard to be sure what Travis meant when he said "I have f***** 49 women in my life." Travis might have meant he'd had sex 49 times. Davis says it's more likely he had sex with 49 different women.
I find myself hoping that the latter interpretation is correct. Travis was 28 years-old when he made his stand at the Alamo. He might have become a great man, but he must have known, shortly after the siege began, that he was never going to live long enough to achieve greatness. I like to think that late at night, awake at his desk, penning eloquent and desperate letters by the light of a flickering candle and listening to the Mexican bombardment, he was able to sit back in his chair and think back to 49 different lovers and be comforted for a moment.
When Santa Anna began his final assault at dawn on March 6, 1836, Travis leapt from his cot, grabbed his shotgun, and shouted "Come on boys! The Mexicans are on us!" He raced to the north wall, fired both barrels, then fell dead with a musket ball in the forehead.
He was among the first defenders to die.
August 26, 2025
An excellent book. It is a triple biography of Crockett, Bowie, and Travis.
December 12, 2009
I picked up this book several years ago after reading Empires Lost and Won The Spanish Heritage in the Southwest. I realized how little I knew about the Southwest and wanted something a little more substantial. I figured reading about the Alamo would be fun, given the outsize personalities and its legendary status in American history.
I really wasn't expecting to learn as much as I did. I can't think of another non-fiction book I've read that pulled off what Davis did in Three Roads to the Alamo. It's a triple biography that somehow makes the days of Jacksonian Democracy (yawn) come alive.
The selection of Crockett, Bowie and Travis takes you to all corners of the young country (not to mention Mexico). There's Crockett, coon-skin cap and all, failing miserably to stay out of debt on the Kentucky frontier, who somehow becomes a huge celebrity in Washington and the East. Bowie's just plain scum, trying to scam the U.S. government out of vast tracts of land it just acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. Somehow, he manages to stay a step ahead of the law and, of course, that's how he ends up in Texas. Travis, as a lawyer, is trying to establish himself as a respectable citizen.
Davis characterizes them as representative of the first three waves of settlers. First come the frontiersmen, like Crockett, who hunt for their food, build the very first outposts of civilization and drink rotgut/mountain dew/moonshine. Then come the opportunists, like Bowie, who need a new start on life and have big plans on making it big. Finally, the businessmen, like Travis, come in to "civilize" the place.
You notice I haven't even mentioned the Alamo yet. If you think about it, the Alamo isn't all that exciting as far as battles go. A small group holes itself up in a weak position and then is surrounded and slaughtered by a much larger army. Even Bowie's "line in the sand" moment -- one of the big moments of drama as I read Empires Lost and Won -- turns out not to be true.
But working with that material, Davis manages to extract plenty of drama for the main event. The payoff is so much better, having tracked these characters through their whole lives.
The book is masterfully done. I haven't touched it in years but here I am writing all of this from the top of my head, trying to figure out what details to include and which to leave out. It's that memorable. Read it.
I really wasn't expecting to learn as much as I did. I can't think of another non-fiction book I've read that pulled off what Davis did in Three Roads to the Alamo. It's a triple biography that somehow makes the days of Jacksonian Democracy (yawn) come alive.
The selection of Crockett, Bowie and Travis takes you to all corners of the young country (not to mention Mexico). There's Crockett, coon-skin cap and all, failing miserably to stay out of debt on the Kentucky frontier, who somehow becomes a huge celebrity in Washington and the East. Bowie's just plain scum, trying to scam the U.S. government out of vast tracts of land it just acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. Somehow, he manages to stay a step ahead of the law and, of course, that's how he ends up in Texas. Travis, as a lawyer, is trying to establish himself as a respectable citizen.
Davis characterizes them as representative of the first three waves of settlers. First come the frontiersmen, like Crockett, who hunt for their food, build the very first outposts of civilization and drink rotgut/mountain dew/moonshine. Then come the opportunists, like Bowie, who need a new start on life and have big plans on making it big. Finally, the businessmen, like Travis, come in to "civilize" the place.
You notice I haven't even mentioned the Alamo yet. If you think about it, the Alamo isn't all that exciting as far as battles go. A small group holes itself up in a weak position and then is surrounded and slaughtered by a much larger army. Even Bowie's "line in the sand" moment -- one of the big moments of drama as I read Empires Lost and Won -- turns out not to be true.
But working with that material, Davis manages to extract plenty of drama for the main event. The payoff is so much better, having tracked these characters through their whole lives.
The book is masterfully done. I haven't touched it in years but here I am writing all of this from the top of my head, trying to figure out what details to include and which to leave out. It's that memorable. Read it.
February 20, 2011
Well done triple biography of Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and William Travis. As another reviewer has stated, the book isn't so much about the Alamo but rather the lives of these three men up until then, and how the mythology of their lives was created afterwards. Extensively researched with a deep bibliography and 150 pages of footnotes!
February 7, 2015
For most readers the last two chapters of this book will most likely suffice: they are rich in detail and source material, revisit enough of the geographical, political and personal backgrounds of the three main subjects - Bowie, Crockett and Travis - to build up a new and interesting account of their lives, and put paid the the mythologies that sprang up around each after their deaths at the Alamo. Beyond these last two chapters, however, this book seemed to take forever and a day to lay out the background of each man as he made his way to what would become ground zero of the Texan independence movement.
One particularly shining example of the ‘long’ road the author takes to get to the Alamo is the good 50 pages or so that are given over to rehashing the precise details of each of Bowie’s numerous land speculations and fraudulent deals. While this discussion obviously helps to bring out a bit of the Bowie biography lost in the schoolroom histories most Americans will have learned, at points it just becomes a trial of the will to get through the pages and see the forest for the trees. The same can be same for the painting of the picture of Crockett as an itinerant frontiersman, moving from home to home, before ultimately finding a resting place in Bexar. Though this is no doubt central to reframing our understanding of Crockett the man, it has the effect of drowning out the larger (and important) narrative about his forging of a new American hero in a sea of frustrating minutiae.
What is perhaps the most interesting part of the book is actually the last chapter, which deals with posterity and the building up of Bowie, Crockett and Travis into Texas-cum-American icons. The eternal linking of Bowie to a knife, Crockett to a coonskin cap and Travis to trite moralising and unyielding authoritarianism, all are credibly and skilfully dispatched by the author. In fact, it was largely the subject matter of the section on ‘posterity’ that spoke to my choosing of the book in the first place. The names of Bowie, Crockett and Travis are to Texas history what Washington, Jefferson and Madison are to US history. However, it is often hard to find any real truth about their lives before a certain point in time and the unintentional (and intentional) misrepresentations of their pre-heroic selves, their origins, their family lives and their personal idiosyncrasies and failings are what what makes their stories all the more compelling and worthy of further study. In this sense, the author completes the task admirably.
The ebook version I read is littered with typographical and capitalization errors, which becomes quite distracting in particularly tense areas of the narrative.
One particularly shining example of the ‘long’ road the author takes to get to the Alamo is the good 50 pages or so that are given over to rehashing the precise details of each of Bowie’s numerous land speculations and fraudulent deals. While this discussion obviously helps to bring out a bit of the Bowie biography lost in the schoolroom histories most Americans will have learned, at points it just becomes a trial of the will to get through the pages and see the forest for the trees. The same can be same for the painting of the picture of Crockett as an itinerant frontiersman, moving from home to home, before ultimately finding a resting place in Bexar. Though this is no doubt central to reframing our understanding of Crockett the man, it has the effect of drowning out the larger (and important) narrative about his forging of a new American hero in a sea of frustrating minutiae.
What is perhaps the most interesting part of the book is actually the last chapter, which deals with posterity and the building up of Bowie, Crockett and Travis into Texas-cum-American icons. The eternal linking of Bowie to a knife, Crockett to a coonskin cap and Travis to trite moralising and unyielding authoritarianism, all are credibly and skilfully dispatched by the author. In fact, it was largely the subject matter of the section on ‘posterity’ that spoke to my choosing of the book in the first place. The names of Bowie, Crockett and Travis are to Texas history what Washington, Jefferson and Madison are to US history. However, it is often hard to find any real truth about their lives before a certain point in time and the unintentional (and intentional) misrepresentations of their pre-heroic selves, their origins, their family lives and their personal idiosyncrasies and failings are what what makes their stories all the more compelling and worthy of further study. In this sense, the author completes the task admirably.
The ebook version I read is littered with typographical and capitalization errors, which becomes quite distracting in particularly tense areas of the narrative.
August 17, 2023
WARNING, this review will be rambling and in no way acceptable for any level of school report. THAT is one of the advantages of getting old.
The three main characters allow us to feel something of the spirit of the times during the 1820s and ‘30s.
First off, man! Everybody is in debt, always, and it is damn hard to get ahead. This, in a way, feeds into the mad rush to keep going west from the original 13 colonies. You get some free land, cut down all the trees and borrow money, from somewhere, then some disaster happens and you are so far in debt you can’t get out.
So what do you do? Go west and find some more free, or near free, land and cut down all the trees and start over...rinse and repeat. Given the super tight monetary policies of the day it is kind of amazing there ever any money to loan out. And if fact it seems like many were just passing around IOUs in lieu of cash, because nobody had any cash. ANYWAY really a side story to the main theme, but money or lack thereof, is a hell of a motivator
Before I move on, this is one of his many quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville in the book, with this about America and money...
I know of no other country where love of money has such a grip on men’s hearts” Tocqueville said of Bowie’s generation...”They despised a petty thief but admired Lafitte; despised a man who would defraud a neighbor or deceive a friend, but would without hesitation co-operate with a man or party who or which aspired to any stupendous scheme or daring enterprise without inquiring as to its morality.” Pg. 95
Anyhoo…
*David Crockett, first American folk hero
*James Bowie, Courageous fighter, audacious forger and fraudster, known braggart, and of course an enterprising slaver
*William Barret Travis, intelligent striver, poor business man, deadbeat dad, melodramatic letter writer
To my mind Crockett is the most sympathetic, Bowie the most irritating, yet still interesting, and Travis the most boring (sorry about that Will). I didn’t realize how famous David Crockett was across the still young country and how he was really an icon of frontier America.
In a way Crockett is an opportunity to give us the feel of the times since he really wasn’t part of the buildup of Texas revolution. And really he is only in Texas a few months before he dies. But he does show us how people finally give up and just go west to start over.
Objectively it was a very poor military decision to defend the Alamo. Of course it became a rallying cry during the battle of San Jacinto where Houston captured Santa Anna and turned the tables. And the winners write the history but if Santa Anna hadn’t been so arrogant maybe Alamo books would not have become a small industry. BUT Santa Anna lost and the men of the Alamo became martyrs, so here we are.
In case you don’t know, by tradition and now by law all Texas public schools must teach the story of the siege of the Alamo and its Texian participants as “heroic”.
For the most part this book is historically even-handed and certainly well researched, and doesn’t pull any punches about the failings of the Texas founders. YET by the end of the book he feels compelled to tells us that the fact that they waited for overwhelming opposition troops of Santa Anna to arrive soon, “that alone made them heroes” (Pg. 559) So it seems Davis agrees with the Texas State Board of Education decision to keep "heroic" in description of Alamo defenders.
As for why these guys felt confident enough to stay and fight, I guess it shows arrogance along the lines of “one of us can whip 10 of them”. Which you have to admit in some earlier fights Bowie and Travis did prevail, or maybe bluster, their way to victories over larger opposition. BUT here they knew it wasn’t just a few hundred Mexican’s it was thousands of them.
About Bowie:
The audacity of Bowie’s scheme was stunning….In all if his scheme succeeded, he would own more than 65,000 acres, just over one hundred square miles of Louisiana and all at almost no expense other than the surveying . Pg. 99
Seguin’s son Juan recalled the Bowie was ‘known among the Mexicans from Saltillo to Bexar.’ Some loved him. Others loathed him, calling him ‘fanfarron Santiago Bowie’ - ‘ James Bowie the braggart.’ But whether they liked him or not, said Seguin, ‘they all know that he was absolutely brave, and they could depend upon his being fair to foe and loyal to friends.’ Pg 355
Somewhere in the story he shows how some of Bowie’s forged Spanish land grants and deeds are often comically bad. But the Bowie family definitely believed “fortune favors the bold”, even if ultimately it never paid off.
And this is just me being petty about somebody who died over 170 years ago, it is really silly of me, but boastful people have always rubbed me the wrong was. It just bugs me to hear people talking about themselves. So Bowie gets demerits from me for being ‘fanfarron Santiago Bowie’ , not that anybody cares. But it is my review so it gets past the editor.
Davis makes an interesting observation the Crockett and Bowie were different examples of how America viewed men going west.
The distinctive type of American Frontier character was evolving from bumpkin and prankster, like Crockett and Mike Fink, toward a more sinister stereotype, surrounded by the ever-present danger and violence of the less civilized new West. Pg. 582 ...eg Bowie
So, lots of great background about America of the day and well told tales of the men who went to Texas and why they rebelled.
One final bit, it is amazing how many native American Tribes where all around the parts of Texas being settled in the 1830's. And yet after living in Texas for over 40 years I don't recall hearing about them at all. Well, other than town names which is all that is left in the area like, Waco, Tawakoni, and Wichita.
When you web search why people so prevalent are missing now you get..
"Unlike most western states, Texas today has almost no Indian lands, the result of systematic warfare by Texas and the United States against indigenious groups in the nineteenth century that decimated tribes or drove them onto reservations in other state" - The Texas Politics Project
This lines up with what I remember of another Texas book I read
Big Wonderful Thing: A History of Texas
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
The three main characters allow us to feel something of the spirit of the times during the 1820s and ‘30s.
First off, man! Everybody is in debt, always, and it is damn hard to get ahead. This, in a way, feeds into the mad rush to keep going west from the original 13 colonies. You get some free land, cut down all the trees and borrow money, from somewhere, then some disaster happens and you are so far in debt you can’t get out.
So what do you do? Go west and find some more free, or near free, land and cut down all the trees and start over...rinse and repeat. Given the super tight monetary policies of the day it is kind of amazing there ever any money to loan out. And if fact it seems like many were just passing around IOUs in lieu of cash, because nobody had any cash. ANYWAY really a side story to the main theme, but money or lack thereof, is a hell of a motivator
Before I move on, this is one of his many quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville in the book, with this about America and money...
I know of no other country where love of money has such a grip on men’s hearts” Tocqueville said of Bowie’s generation...”They despised a petty thief but admired Lafitte; despised a man who would defraud a neighbor or deceive a friend, but would without hesitation co-operate with a man or party who or which aspired to any stupendous scheme or daring enterprise without inquiring as to its morality.” Pg. 95
Anyhoo…
*David Crockett, first American folk hero
*James Bowie, Courageous fighter, audacious forger and fraudster, known braggart, and of course an enterprising slaver
*William Barret Travis, intelligent striver, poor business man, deadbeat dad, melodramatic letter writer
To my mind Crockett is the most sympathetic, Bowie the most irritating, yet still interesting, and Travis the most boring (sorry about that Will). I didn’t realize how famous David Crockett was across the still young country and how he was really an icon of frontier America.
In a way Crockett is an opportunity to give us the feel of the times since he really wasn’t part of the buildup of Texas revolution. And really he is only in Texas a few months before he dies. But he does show us how people finally give up and just go west to start over.
Objectively it was a very poor military decision to defend the Alamo. Of course it became a rallying cry during the battle of San Jacinto where Houston captured Santa Anna and turned the tables. And the winners write the history but if Santa Anna hadn’t been so arrogant maybe Alamo books would not have become a small industry. BUT Santa Anna lost and the men of the Alamo became martyrs, so here we are.
In case you don’t know, by tradition and now by law all Texas public schools must teach the story of the siege of the Alamo and its Texian participants as “heroic”.
For the most part this book is historically even-handed and certainly well researched, and doesn’t pull any punches about the failings of the Texas founders. YET by the end of the book he feels compelled to tells us that the fact that they waited for overwhelming opposition troops of Santa Anna to arrive soon, “that alone made them heroes” (Pg. 559) So it seems Davis agrees with the Texas State Board of Education decision to keep "heroic" in description of Alamo defenders.
As for why these guys felt confident enough to stay and fight, I guess it shows arrogance along the lines of “one of us can whip 10 of them”. Which you have to admit in some earlier fights Bowie and Travis did prevail, or maybe bluster, their way to victories over larger opposition. BUT here they knew it wasn’t just a few hundred Mexican’s it was thousands of them.
About Bowie:
The audacity of Bowie’s scheme was stunning….In all if his scheme succeeded, he would own more than 65,000 acres, just over one hundred square miles of Louisiana and all at almost no expense other than the surveying . Pg. 99
Seguin’s son Juan recalled the Bowie was ‘known among the Mexicans from Saltillo to Bexar.’ Some loved him. Others loathed him, calling him ‘fanfarron Santiago Bowie’ - ‘ James Bowie the braggart.’ But whether they liked him or not, said Seguin, ‘they all know that he was absolutely brave, and they could depend upon his being fair to foe and loyal to friends.’ Pg 355
Somewhere in the story he shows how some of Bowie’s forged Spanish land grants and deeds are often comically bad. But the Bowie family definitely believed “fortune favors the bold”, even if ultimately it never paid off.
And this is just me being petty about somebody who died over 170 years ago, it is really silly of me, but boastful people have always rubbed me the wrong was. It just bugs me to hear people talking about themselves. So Bowie gets demerits from me for being ‘fanfarron Santiago Bowie’ , not that anybody cares. But it is my review so it gets past the editor.
Davis makes an interesting observation the Crockett and Bowie were different examples of how America viewed men going west.
The distinctive type of American Frontier character was evolving from bumpkin and prankster, like Crockett and Mike Fink, toward a more sinister stereotype, surrounded by the ever-present danger and violence of the less civilized new West. Pg. 582 ...eg Bowie
So, lots of great background about America of the day and well told tales of the men who went to Texas and why they rebelled.
One final bit, it is amazing how many native American Tribes where all around the parts of Texas being settled in the 1830's. And yet after living in Texas for over 40 years I don't recall hearing about them at all. Well, other than town names which is all that is left in the area like, Waco, Tawakoni, and Wichita.
When you web search why people so prevalent are missing now you get..
"Unlike most western states, Texas today has almost no Indian lands, the result of systematic warfare by Texas and the United States against indigenious groups in the nineteenth century that decimated tribes or drove them onto reservations in other state" - The Texas Politics Project
This lines up with what I remember of another Texas book I read
Big Wonderful Thing: A History of Texas
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
July 13, 2019
I started reading this book with hopes of finishing by March 6th. But along the way I took detours to read other books. I think that may be emblematic of the three roads that Bowie, Crockett, and Travis took to reach their fate on March 6th, 1836.
This book traces the early lives of these three men and the experiences that brought them together in San Antonio in 1836. I learned something new about each these three men. Each represented a type or class of men. David Crockett was representative of the frontiersmen who were always moving towards the western horizon. James Bowie represented the next wave of settlers moving into the new land. I was surprised to learn that Bowie was a dishonest land speculator who sold forged land grants. William Travis represented the professionals who arrived once the land was settled and brought a measure of law and stability. Despite their individual flaws and individual motivations which the book details at length, each of these men courageously met their fate at the Alamo.
The biggest surprise for me was the portrayal of Sam Houston. This hero of the Texas revolution refused to believe reports that the Mexican army was crossing the Rio Grande and allowed differing political opinions to sway his judgment. He is reported to have been drunk in San Felipe rather than recruiting soldiers and leading a relief mission to reinforce the men at the Alamo.
I now feel that I have a better understanding of the men, rather than the myths, who were the leaders at the Alamo.
This book traces the early lives of these three men and the experiences that brought them together in San Antonio in 1836. I learned something new about each these three men. Each represented a type or class of men. David Crockett was representative of the frontiersmen who were always moving towards the western horizon. James Bowie represented the next wave of settlers moving into the new land. I was surprised to learn that Bowie was a dishonest land speculator who sold forged land grants. William Travis represented the professionals who arrived once the land was settled and brought a measure of law and stability. Despite their individual flaws and individual motivations which the book details at length, each of these men courageously met their fate at the Alamo.
The biggest surprise for me was the portrayal of Sam Houston. This hero of the Texas revolution refused to believe reports that the Mexican army was crossing the Rio Grande and allowed differing political opinions to sway his judgment. He is reported to have been drunk in San Felipe rather than recruiting soldiers and leading a relief mission to reinforce the men at the Alamo.
I now feel that I have a better understanding of the men, rather than the myths, who were the leaders at the Alamo.
November 1, 2018
The story of life in the South the settlement of Texas and the origins of Texas independence is told through the lives of three Alamo heroes Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and William Travis. They represented three waves of men on the frontier. Crockett always lived on the edge of new land the explore. Next Bowie trying to exploit opportunities with land deals and the third type was Travis the professional who brought stability and rule of law. The author dispels myths of the Alamo and how the three died. A great read.
August 7, 2013
A very interesting approach to Alamo history. A thorough biography of the three major figures with a concise yet fairly complete depiction of the run up to the battle and the battle itself. Davis doesn't appear to have a point of view to champion or a fight to pick with any of the conflicting tales that surround Alamo history, which is a rare and welcome perspective, just a calm description of the facts as they exists.
February 8, 2018
Three Roads to the Alamo: The Lives and Fortunes of David Crockett, James Bowie, and William Barret Travis is about...well...exactly what the title says.
The first time I read this book, I was in 7th grade. It was not long after I realized how much I had a passion Texas History that I read it. I just got around to reading it another time fully for an English project and geeked out. I wrote a total of 22 pages of notes, for "main points" for the project and also just for fun. I loved this book then, and I still love it as much now.
The author uses really extensive sourcing. And by really extensive sourcing I mean enough to fill over 200 pages at the back of the book. That's when you know a history book author really did their research. The author is aware that there's many gaps in their stories and the event that led them to their deaths. He looks at both the image society has built them all up to, and their flaws that make them real men, rather than saints.
Of course, I know that most people aren't interested in this subject or find the famous battle and its martyrs overrated. If you're an extreme nerd in this area of history like me though, I recommend it. :)
November 2, 2018
Three Roads to the Alamo by William C. Davis is a good book on the Alamo. It is NOT an easy read. It is a scholarly work with over 161 pages of footnotes.
The work covers the lives of David Crockett, James Bowie, and William Barrett Travis from 1786 to their deaths at the Alamo and their consequent place in history.
With a scholar’s detail, every part of their early lives is explored, and with a scholar’s care, every possible choice for why they did what they did and if they actually did it is examined.
As a native Texan, I enjoyed the book and managed to wade through the minutiae until the action heats up in the last 150 pages or so in the book.
I would recommend the book as long as you understand his is not a popular history but a detailed scholarly work. I gave it 4 stars rather than 5 because it is at times a rather tedious book to read.
The work covers the lives of David Crockett, James Bowie, and William Barrett Travis from 1786 to their deaths at the Alamo and their consequent place in history.
With a scholar’s detail, every part of their early lives is explored, and with a scholar’s care, every possible choice for why they did what they did and if they actually did it is examined.
As a native Texan, I enjoyed the book and managed to wade through the minutiae until the action heats up in the last 150 pages or so in the book.
I would recommend the book as long as you understand his is not a popular history but a detailed scholarly work. I gave it 4 stars rather than 5 because it is at times a rather tedious book to read.
December 5, 2013
The book is rather long (791 pages, if you include the extensive notes, bibliography, and index).
The casual reader who enjoys an abundance of graphically detailed action and drama in such books may have a difficult time plodding through Mr. Davis' extremely thorough descriptions of the three main characters and their personal histories.
Someone like me, who loves detail and facts will be enthralled by this thorough investigation into the lives of the three best known participants in the epic battle of the Alamo. However, be prepared to have the myths and legends surrounding them to be debunked and their frail, human side mercilessly detailed. Your feelings toward Misters Crocket, Bowie, and Travis may be tarnished forever.
The casual reader who enjoys an abundance of graphically detailed action and drama in such books may have a difficult time plodding through Mr. Davis' extremely thorough descriptions of the three main characters and their personal histories.
Someone like me, who loves detail and facts will be enthralled by this thorough investigation into the lives of the three best known participants in the epic battle of the Alamo. However, be prepared to have the myths and legends surrounding them to be debunked and their frail, human side mercilessly detailed. Your feelings toward Misters Crocket, Bowie, and Travis may be tarnished forever.
April 2, 2015
I might have rated this with four stars but the typographical errors, especially beginning with the second half of the book, made reading difficult. Shame on the publishing company for having the worst copy editor ever! In some places there were more than 4 errors on a page, which is totally unacceptable.
As for the research and the actual story, Mr. Davis did an exceptional job of researching his subjects. It is satisfying to finally put the myths to rest and learn what really happened on that fateful day in March, 1836.
As for the research and the actual story, Mr. Davis did an exceptional job of researching his subjects. It is satisfying to finally put the myths to rest and learn what really happened on that fateful day in March, 1836.
February 21, 2013
Astoundingly well done. Don't read it for the Alamo or you'll be disappointed. But if you want to know how these three men came to be in that place at that time and do what they did, I doubt you will find a better book!
June 14, 2011
This book could use some editing. It's awfully slow going. It gives you every single detail--no matter how mundane--about Crockett, Bowie, and Travis.
October 26, 2025
read for history 404.
the type of book i write when i have to reach the word count. like holy shit. i think every person who has ever existed in the history of ever was mentioned at some point or another. davis really does get bogged down in infodumping, and ultimately leads to unnecessary storytelling. i can only imagine if i had turned this into my professors the amount of pages that would be marked in red ink with “fluff” written in the margins.
overall, a good triple biography that does depict the early american republic. the importance of the frontier almost can’t be overstated. crockett paints himself as a poor, uneducated man, which ultimately he ends up having his regrets about, sees texas as the hope for the poor. bowie, a violent and entrepreneurial man, banking on the scams and schemes he could develop in texas. travis, a driven but failed, entrepreneur who sees the frontier as the chance to start anew.
clearly, there was a bowie bias. travis’ age unfortunately forces him to take the backseat. crockett’s story is the main focus within the first third of the book, and immediately drops off in the second and final third. it’s inconsistent and uneven in pacing.
the type of book i write when i have to reach the word count. like holy shit. i think every person who has ever existed in the history of ever was mentioned at some point or another. davis really does get bogged down in infodumping, and ultimately leads to unnecessary storytelling. i can only imagine if i had turned this into my professors the amount of pages that would be marked in red ink with “fluff” written in the margins.
overall, a good triple biography that does depict the early american republic. the importance of the frontier almost can’t be overstated. crockett paints himself as a poor, uneducated man, which ultimately he ends up having his regrets about, sees texas as the hope for the poor. bowie, a violent and entrepreneurial man, banking on the scams and schemes he could develop in texas. travis, a driven but failed, entrepreneur who sees the frontier as the chance to start anew.
clearly, there was a bowie bias. travis’ age unfortunately forces him to take the backseat. crockett’s story is the main focus within the first third of the book, and immediately drops off in the second and final third. it’s inconsistent and uneven in pacing.
August 30, 2025
I enjoyed the first couple of chapters and the last couple but the middle section was just too long and detailed for me.
February 22, 2024
A detailed account of the lives of three men who led one of the most famous chapters of US history. I thought it was a fascinating read but I think you'd have to be a bit of a history nerd to like it.
February 28, 2024
First, I’m a Texan. Born and raised there then transplanted to Louisiana. With a stint in Tennessee in college. So The Alamo is a big deal to me.
Unfinished….
Unfinished….
May 28, 2008
Everyone has heard about the Alamo. Everyone has heard about David Crockett and Jim Bowie, and perhaps William Travis. These men are forever enshrined in glory and legend, thanks to the tragic event of March 6, 1836, the day the Alamo fell to Santa Anna’s army.
While Crockett was a legend, or at least a celebrity (perhaps the first true American celebrity) before the Alamo, Bowie and Travis were not well-known. Their lives were a rough mix of fact, exaggerations, and legend. William C. Davis fixes that.
In this well-written historical narrative, Davis traces the lives of each man, from birth to the Alamo. It’s a fascinating tale.
Of the three, Crockett is by far the most likeable. Always poor, he used his extraordinary wit and good humor to win three terms in the House of Representatives. As good as he was on the stump, though, he was a lousy politician. His major goal, a land bill making it easier for poor farmers to buy land, failed, due to his incompetent management of it. He was naïve about the political situation of his times. For example, he backed Andrew Jackson, yet feuded with the Democratic members of his own Tennessee delegation.
Despite his failures in Congress, he grew very popular all over the country. Several books and plays were made with his character as the model. The Whigs even thought about running him for president against Martin Van Buren.
But Crockett’s early support of Jackson turned to opposition. He became obsessed with Jackson, railing and ranting against him from the House floor, while producing no legislation for his district. In the end, it cost him a fourth term and his chance at the Presidency.
However clumsy his political efforts, he stayed true to his convictions. Although he played up his backwoodsman image, he strived to be a gentleman, and largely succeeded.
After losing his final run for Congress, he went to Texas, mostly on a whim, to hunt for game and land. He toured several cities before ending up in San Antonio and the Alamo, at the worst possible time.
James Bowie is a fascinating figure. Brave, loyal to his friends, and a natural leader, he was a dishonest land speculator in Louisiana. He forged several Spanish land grants that showed him as the owner of several thousand acres of prime land. He hoped to then sell “his” property for huge profits, but it never worked. The government slowly got wise to his scheme, so he went to Texas to search for more land.
Travis fled to Texas to escape crushing debt. He also abandoned a failed law practice, newspaper, wife and two young children. Young, hot-blooded and impetuous, Travis tried again at practicing law and succeeded.
Of the three, Bowie was the first at the Alamo in late January 1836, sent to relieve and reinforce the garrison already there. It was a shambles, poorly equipped with little money. A survivor of some prominent battles, in which he was outnumbered, he was already a hero to Texans, and his arrival boosted morale.
Travis showed up with a small contingent of cavalry just a few days later, and Crockett shortly after that.
Shortly after Santa Anna’s two to three thousand soldiers arrived, Travis sent several urgent requests for aid. Sam Houston, who led all armed forces in Texas, thought that Travis was making everything up and trying to co-opt his command. So he did nothing.
The provisional government published Travis’ letters to attract recruits, but few volunteered. In essence, Texas abandoned the Alamo.
When the battle finally occurred, Travis died right away, defending the north wall, with a bullet in the forehead. Bowie, weak and delirious with typhoid, was bayoneted while lying on a cot. To make sure, the soldiers shot him in the head, splattering his brains against the wall (the stain would be visible for over a year). All the bodies were burned, and the ashes and bone lay scattered on the ground for another year, until finally they were gathered into a coffin and buried. However, no one marked the burial spot, and it has now been lost.
So no one knows where the heroes of the Alamo lie.
While Crockett was a legend, or at least a celebrity (perhaps the first true American celebrity) before the Alamo, Bowie and Travis were not well-known. Their lives were a rough mix of fact, exaggerations, and legend. William C. Davis fixes that.
In this well-written historical narrative, Davis traces the lives of each man, from birth to the Alamo. It’s a fascinating tale.
Of the three, Crockett is by far the most likeable. Always poor, he used his extraordinary wit and good humor to win three terms in the House of Representatives. As good as he was on the stump, though, he was a lousy politician. His major goal, a land bill making it easier for poor farmers to buy land, failed, due to his incompetent management of it. He was naïve about the political situation of his times. For example, he backed Andrew Jackson, yet feuded with the Democratic members of his own Tennessee delegation.
Despite his failures in Congress, he grew very popular all over the country. Several books and plays were made with his character as the model. The Whigs even thought about running him for president against Martin Van Buren.
But Crockett’s early support of Jackson turned to opposition. He became obsessed with Jackson, railing and ranting against him from the House floor, while producing no legislation for his district. In the end, it cost him a fourth term and his chance at the Presidency.
However clumsy his political efforts, he stayed true to his convictions. Although he played up his backwoodsman image, he strived to be a gentleman, and largely succeeded.
After losing his final run for Congress, he went to Texas, mostly on a whim, to hunt for game and land. He toured several cities before ending up in San Antonio and the Alamo, at the worst possible time.
James Bowie is a fascinating figure. Brave, loyal to his friends, and a natural leader, he was a dishonest land speculator in Louisiana. He forged several Spanish land grants that showed him as the owner of several thousand acres of prime land. He hoped to then sell “his” property for huge profits, but it never worked. The government slowly got wise to his scheme, so he went to Texas to search for more land.
Travis fled to Texas to escape crushing debt. He also abandoned a failed law practice, newspaper, wife and two young children. Young, hot-blooded and impetuous, Travis tried again at practicing law and succeeded.
Of the three, Bowie was the first at the Alamo in late January 1836, sent to relieve and reinforce the garrison already there. It was a shambles, poorly equipped with little money. A survivor of some prominent battles, in which he was outnumbered, he was already a hero to Texans, and his arrival boosted morale.
Travis showed up with a small contingent of cavalry just a few days later, and Crockett shortly after that.
Shortly after Santa Anna’s two to three thousand soldiers arrived, Travis sent several urgent requests for aid. Sam Houston, who led all armed forces in Texas, thought that Travis was making everything up and trying to co-opt his command. So he did nothing.
The provisional government published Travis’ letters to attract recruits, but few volunteered. In essence, Texas abandoned the Alamo.
When the battle finally occurred, Travis died right away, defending the north wall, with a bullet in the forehead. Bowie, weak and delirious with typhoid, was bayoneted while lying on a cot. To make sure, the soldiers shot him in the head, splattering his brains against the wall (the stain would be visible for over a year). All the bodies were burned, and the ashes and bone lay scattered on the ground for another year, until finally they were gathered into a coffin and buried. However, no one marked the burial spot, and it has now been lost.
So no one knows where the heroes of the Alamo lie.
December 31, 2023
This book is very well researched and thorough. I'm close to giving it three stars because it did do the job of teaching me about these three men (discarding quite a few myths on the way) and through the minutia of their lives I learned more about that time in American history. However, I have several complaints that overall make it a 2 for me.
1.Too much information. The author gives mountains of minute detail about every occurrence in the lives of these men. Perhaps that would be good if he were a better writer and could weave the bits together in a way that is fun to read, but he lacks that ability and the information he provides is extremely repetitious. He also has a strange compulsion to name as many tangential characters as possible- many of whom are truly insignificant and who won't be featured in the text later on. Overall, this wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that the space used on these details could have been better used elsewhere...
2. Not enough information. In the preface, the author makes it clear that this is a book about the lives of these three men, not their lives and times. I'm already generally familiar with the period, so I wasn't overly concerned about this at first. If you know a decent amount about the period and Jacksonion politics you can probably follow Crockett's political journey fairly well, but if you have a limited background, I'd advise to avoid this read until you have fleshed out your understanding of the period a bit more. Even entering with fair knowledge of the Texas revolution I felt like I was totally lacking context for the all the events the book discusses in Texas. This is largely because the book, while jumping forward and back through time to follow it's protagonists, looks at events day by day or sometimes week by week. There is virtually no discussion of events outside of the ones these three men are directly involved in, so while I may know what sources of frustration drove the Texas revolution, without remembering exactly when certain events occurred from prior knowledge it was difficult to understand the political changes going on in Texas since the author often didn't provide any context. "Why?" was often ignored so the author had more time to answer "What/How" in minute detail that didn't add to the readers comprehension of events. He remains so tied to these three men that there is virtually no discussion of Santa Anna the man, or his defeat after the Alamo. Nor is the massacre at Goliad mentioned. I understand that the author didn't write this book to give readers an understanding of "1800-1836 America", but I think there was ample space to provide readers with a basic understanding of the Texas Revolution, and he chose not to so he could instead give pointless details about every single land fraud scam Bowie ever committed (and there are a lot of them). It feels like he was so proud of himself for successfully finding these boring details that he couldn't keep himself from including all of them, even at the expense of excluding more interesting and salient information.
3. It isn't a joy to read. I say that as someone who loves reading history books. It's not a horrible slog, but you definitely won't have any trouble putting it down and will probably be tempted to skim everytime he starts talking about another Bowie land fraud case.
Read it if you want every little piece of info known about these three men and already know about the period. Otherwise, I'd say you're better off skipping this one.
1.Too much information. The author gives mountains of minute detail about every occurrence in the lives of these men. Perhaps that would be good if he were a better writer and could weave the bits together in a way that is fun to read, but he lacks that ability and the information he provides is extremely repetitious. He also has a strange compulsion to name as many tangential characters as possible- many of whom are truly insignificant and who won't be featured in the text later on. Overall, this wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that the space used on these details could have been better used elsewhere...
2. Not enough information. In the preface, the author makes it clear that this is a book about the lives of these three men, not their lives and times. I'm already generally familiar with the period, so I wasn't overly concerned about this at first. If you know a decent amount about the period and Jacksonion politics you can probably follow Crockett's political journey fairly well, but if you have a limited background, I'd advise to avoid this read until you have fleshed out your understanding of the period a bit more. Even entering with fair knowledge of the Texas revolution I felt like I was totally lacking context for the all the events the book discusses in Texas. This is largely because the book, while jumping forward and back through time to follow it's protagonists, looks at events day by day or sometimes week by week. There is virtually no discussion of events outside of the ones these three men are directly involved in, so while I may know what sources of frustration drove the Texas revolution, without remembering exactly when certain events occurred from prior knowledge it was difficult to understand the political changes going on in Texas since the author often didn't provide any context. "Why?" was often ignored so the author had more time to answer "What/How" in minute detail that didn't add to the readers comprehension of events. He remains so tied to these three men that there is virtually no discussion of Santa Anna the man, or his defeat after the Alamo. Nor is the massacre at Goliad mentioned. I understand that the author didn't write this book to give readers an understanding of "1800-1836 America", but I think there was ample space to provide readers with a basic understanding of the Texas Revolution, and he chose not to so he could instead give pointless details about every single land fraud scam Bowie ever committed (and there are a lot of them). It feels like he was so proud of himself for successfully finding these boring details that he couldn't keep himself from including all of them, even at the expense of excluding more interesting and salient information.
3. It isn't a joy to read. I say that as someone who loves reading history books. It's not a horrible slog, but you definitely won't have any trouble putting it down and will probably be tempted to skim everytime he starts talking about another Bowie land fraud case.
Read it if you want every little piece of info known about these three men and already know about the period. Otherwise, I'd say you're better off skipping this one.
December 9, 2025
As a storied tradition, I enjoy reading non-fiction history works based on locations where my travels intend to take me. In theory, this informs my visits to these areas and gives me a chance to have deeper insights and appreciation for these places/events/people.
Also as a storied tradition, I seem to never finish the book before the visit; indeed, I have often barely started the book by the time I visit, thus negating the whole purpose of the book selection.
Never one to be daunted by pointlessness, I still manage—eventually—to finish the book well after the visit has come and gone. Still, though, I submit that even after the fact, the impact of joining my experience with the literary connection is not negligent in outcome. Or, in other words, it is still worth it!
Any guesses where my trip took me this time? If you said Machu Picchu, I don’t really know what to tell you (but if you can tell me a good book to precede such a trip and then foot the bill, you’ll be forgiven). Okay, the Alamo is correct (and/or Texas in general, a first for me).
While it may be difficult to get excited to read about a historical event that has “spoiler” as a part of its nature, I did find it nice to get a bit more of an understanding of the three big names going into the Alamo, the political and diplomatic context surrounding the Alamo, and the careful description of what is known of its last stand.
Here is what I took away from this exhaustive—but not usually exhausting—research project. Davy Crockett was the real deal. Sure, he maybe got caught up in his celebrity a bit, and definitely he could have been a more attentive husband and father (though he definitely could be worse too!), but as a man/politician of personal principles and integrity, who was also down-to-earth and just plain entertaining, Crockett impresses—especially given the comparable state of political duplicity and reckless populous movements headed by a Constitutionally ambivalent firebrand going on in his day and age (wait, was I talking about his day and age or ours?).
James Bowie, on the other hand, is nothing more than a charming, brave, and sloppy con-artist. I knew his name based on the knife, but the more I got to know him as a character, the more disillusioned I was about his greatness. Certainly, he had his episodes of bravery, and I won’t take that away from him, but ultimately the guy was a shameless opportunist and criminal. It is fitting that in the final stages of the Alamo, Bowie did not even fight but instead faded into a sickly and ignominious end. I say “fitting” not because he was not a figher—that is the last thing I could accuse him of being—but because his contributions to society at large were more in name and celebrity than actual acts.
William B. Travis was the name I least recognized of the three. And he is the happy medium between the other two scions. Travis’s leadership and principled stands against Mexico were inspiring, even if his personal life and morals were questionable to quixotic.
Besides the fascinating characters, the historical context of the Texas revolution is also illuminating. Say what you will about the Mexican-American War (and I’m going to side with Lincoln and Grant in declaring it unjust and overreach), the Texas revolution was actually based on principles of liberty. Granted, Mexico was not used to the same kind of liberty that the emigrated Americans were used to, so expectations were different. But the fact that Mexico itself was experiencing the turbulence of a revolution and that Texas—so far and remote from the sphere of federal Mexican influence—was left with very little guidance, support, or representation makes the Texan independence cause very sympathetic. The only time Mexico did pay attention to Texas was when they wanted to go in and hamper them with customs regulation using troops that treated them with contempt and suspicion.
Also of interest was how much land played out in the American character and identity. For all three men of the story, the theme was always land, land, land. Fighting for squatters rights (Crockett), taking advantage of gray areas of titles and rights through fraudulent means (Bowie), and finding purpose and societal respect through legal representation of land rights (Travis). If we are telling the story of America and we are not assuming that land was the main driving force for everything with all other things coming secondarily, then I think we are missing the big picture.
(P.S. While talking about land as a driving force for everything with these characters, that may come off as negative, greedy, and imperialism-y. I think something I learned about this, however, is that the land of America allowed its citizens to throw off the shackles of Europe’s deep-seated and stratified class society. Equality and liberty as it was dreamed in the pen of Jefferson and the other Founders became most possible through access to land. That is not to say that other inequalities came about due to the avarice of many—Native Americans and enslaved persons being among the most obvious and drastic examples of this—but to get where we are now, first we had to dispense with the inequalities of the Western world. And land was the biggest driving factor to this. It was not inherently bad to seek, offer, and provide land to as many as were willing to work that land. Eventually, as a result of this, the whole of western civilization and then the world has benefitted.)
Going back to the smaller picture, I learned that the actual battle of the Alamo was avoidable. Then as things progressed, while perhaps not avoidable, at least a different outcome could have occurred with better organization and support and reinforcements from without.
Once Santa Ana fully engaged with the force at the Alamo, however, the outcome was definitely set. But we still “remember” it as something remarkable because something like the Alamo was inevitable in that conflict, just as the march from Atlantic to Pacific was inevitable for Americans seeking opportunity they could not get elsewhere.
Davy would say: “Be always sure you are right, then go ahead.” Was the Alamo right? I’m not confident to say I’m sure that it was, but we went ahead, and honestly, I also can’t say that it was wrong—especially because of the principles of liberty that it espouses from some of its more noble sentiments. Perhaps the Alamo is still worth remembering, partly for its imperfect but determined participants, and partly for the liberty their stand represented.
Also as a storied tradition, I seem to never finish the book before the visit; indeed, I have often barely started the book by the time I visit, thus negating the whole purpose of the book selection.
Never one to be daunted by pointlessness, I still manage—eventually—to finish the book well after the visit has come and gone. Still, though, I submit that even after the fact, the impact of joining my experience with the literary connection is not negligent in outcome. Or, in other words, it is still worth it!
Any guesses where my trip took me this time? If you said Machu Picchu, I don’t really know what to tell you (but if you can tell me a good book to precede such a trip and then foot the bill, you’ll be forgiven). Okay, the Alamo is correct (and/or Texas in general, a first for me).
While it may be difficult to get excited to read about a historical event that has “spoiler” as a part of its nature, I did find it nice to get a bit more of an understanding of the three big names going into the Alamo, the political and diplomatic context surrounding the Alamo, and the careful description of what is known of its last stand.
Here is what I took away from this exhaustive—but not usually exhausting—research project. Davy Crockett was the real deal. Sure, he maybe got caught up in his celebrity a bit, and definitely he could have been a more attentive husband and father (though he definitely could be worse too!), but as a man/politician of personal principles and integrity, who was also down-to-earth and just plain entertaining, Crockett impresses—especially given the comparable state of political duplicity and reckless populous movements headed by a Constitutionally ambivalent firebrand going on in his day and age (wait, was I talking about his day and age or ours?).
James Bowie, on the other hand, is nothing more than a charming, brave, and sloppy con-artist. I knew his name based on the knife, but the more I got to know him as a character, the more disillusioned I was about his greatness. Certainly, he had his episodes of bravery, and I won’t take that away from him, but ultimately the guy was a shameless opportunist and criminal. It is fitting that in the final stages of the Alamo, Bowie did not even fight but instead faded into a sickly and ignominious end. I say “fitting” not because he was not a figher—that is the last thing I could accuse him of being—but because his contributions to society at large were more in name and celebrity than actual acts.
William B. Travis was the name I least recognized of the three. And he is the happy medium between the other two scions. Travis’s leadership and principled stands against Mexico were inspiring, even if his personal life and morals were questionable to quixotic.
Besides the fascinating characters, the historical context of the Texas revolution is also illuminating. Say what you will about the Mexican-American War (and I’m going to side with Lincoln and Grant in declaring it unjust and overreach), the Texas revolution was actually based on principles of liberty. Granted, Mexico was not used to the same kind of liberty that the emigrated Americans were used to, so expectations were different. But the fact that Mexico itself was experiencing the turbulence of a revolution and that Texas—so far and remote from the sphere of federal Mexican influence—was left with very little guidance, support, or representation makes the Texan independence cause very sympathetic. The only time Mexico did pay attention to Texas was when they wanted to go in and hamper them with customs regulation using troops that treated them with contempt and suspicion.
Also of interest was how much land played out in the American character and identity. For all three men of the story, the theme was always land, land, land. Fighting for squatters rights (Crockett), taking advantage of gray areas of titles and rights through fraudulent means (Bowie), and finding purpose and societal respect through legal representation of land rights (Travis). If we are telling the story of America and we are not assuming that land was the main driving force for everything with all other things coming secondarily, then I think we are missing the big picture.
(P.S. While talking about land as a driving force for everything with these characters, that may come off as negative, greedy, and imperialism-y. I think something I learned about this, however, is that the land of America allowed its citizens to throw off the shackles of Europe’s deep-seated and stratified class society. Equality and liberty as it was dreamed in the pen of Jefferson and the other Founders became most possible through access to land. That is not to say that other inequalities came about due to the avarice of many—Native Americans and enslaved persons being among the most obvious and drastic examples of this—but to get where we are now, first we had to dispense with the inequalities of the Western world. And land was the biggest driving factor to this. It was not inherently bad to seek, offer, and provide land to as many as were willing to work that land. Eventually, as a result of this, the whole of western civilization and then the world has benefitted.)
Going back to the smaller picture, I learned that the actual battle of the Alamo was avoidable. Then as things progressed, while perhaps not avoidable, at least a different outcome could have occurred with better organization and support and reinforcements from without.
Once Santa Ana fully engaged with the force at the Alamo, however, the outcome was definitely set. But we still “remember” it as something remarkable because something like the Alamo was inevitable in that conflict, just as the march from Atlantic to Pacific was inevitable for Americans seeking opportunity they could not get elsewhere.
Davy would say: “Be always sure you are right, then go ahead.” Was the Alamo right? I’m not confident to say I’m sure that it was, but we went ahead, and honestly, I also can’t say that it was wrong—especially because of the principles of liberty that it espouses from some of its more noble sentiments. Perhaps the Alamo is still worth remembering, partly for its imperfect but determined participants, and partly for the liberty their stand represented.
May 31, 2019
An excellent historical perspective on the three larger-than-life man whose lives ended defending the Alamo in San Antonio touching off the rallying dry that helped win Texas independence. It's insightful as to the backgrounds of Crockett, Travis, and Bowie.
November 14, 2007
This tri-fold biography is an excellent work in every way. Good biographies can be dry reading due to their thoroughness, but Davis does a good job of keeping the story moving. The three men whose legends became immortality at the Alamo, Bowie, Travis, and Crockett, deserve the complete coverage that Davis gives them. Some of the details of their earlier lives can prove surprising to readers of more heroic treatments. Bowie's shady deals with slave trading, for example, come to light. The modesty that Crockett's autobiography expressed about his Indian fighting turns out to be more than justified. Crockett emphasized that service in the militia was the important thing and did not describe his personal feats of valor. Davis informs us that Crockett was not present at some battles he describes, so his modesty is a facade. This is a biography for historians - that is, it is long and detailed.
May 8, 2015
I first purchased this book when I lived in San Antonio, Texas, so it was easy enough for me to be steeped in the history and legend of The Alamo. You can party in San Antonio within sight of the old mission. I did not pick up this book to read until after I had moved away from the Shrine of Texas Liberty.
William C. Davis' approach with this story is to follow each of the key players - David Crockett, James Bowie and William Barret Travis - and bring each forward to those fateful few days before the slaughter by Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
I was particularly interested in the Bowie frauds, both in Louisiana and in Arkansas. And since my father was born in Hope, I've always been interested in the Bowie Knife history. Anyone who grew up watching Davy Crockett King of the Wild Frontier may not recognize David Crockett of Tennessee.
This is truly an excellent read for those who are interested in Texas history and the move westward of the frontier.
William C. Davis' approach with this story is to follow each of the key players - David Crockett, James Bowie and William Barret Travis - and bring each forward to those fateful few days before the slaughter by Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
I was particularly interested in the Bowie frauds, both in Louisiana and in Arkansas. And since my father was born in Hope, I've always been interested in the Bowie Knife history. Anyone who grew up watching Davy Crockett King of the Wild Frontier may not recognize David Crockett of Tennessee.
This is truly an excellent read for those who are interested in Texas history and the move westward of the frontier.
May 6, 2019
Exhaustive biographies on Crockett, Bowie, and Travis. I had already read a biography on Crockett, so for me that part was slow. But it would be fascinating for anyone else. I learned a lot about both Bowie and Travis.
The author did a great job talking about the myths in addition to the actual lives of the men. It was good to see them as plain men, humans who were flawed and made selfish decisions. They've been so lionized for their actions at the Alamo.
I also liked the author's way of seeing each of them as the three stages of settlement of the frontier: Crockett the explorer, whose undying wanderlust leads him ever forward to new lands. Followed by Bowie, the enterprising exploiter, who takes advantage of the lack of laws in the newly settled area to make advantages for himself. Finally, Travis, the professional who brings laws and such to the frontier.
It's a great book. And I highly recommend it.
The author did a great job talking about the myths in addition to the actual lives of the men. It was good to see them as plain men, humans who were flawed and made selfish decisions. They've been so lionized for their actions at the Alamo.
I also liked the author's way of seeing each of them as the three stages of settlement of the frontier: Crockett the explorer, whose undying wanderlust leads him ever forward to new lands. Followed by Bowie, the enterprising exploiter, who takes advantage of the lack of laws in the newly settled area to make advantages for himself. Finally, Travis, the professional who brings laws and such to the frontier.
It's a great book. And I highly recommend it.
May 10, 2019
I grew up with Davy Crockett as my hero. I remember Jim Bowie and William Travis as heroes of the Alamo. As a history buff I found the detail of their background very interesting, though of course I was disappointed to have the myths exposed. The book goes into great and lengthy detail making for a long read. As you get closer to the end there is duplication as their lives intersect but this does not take away from the read. Well worth the time required to read.
I did have an issue with the poor editing. As someone else said the second half of the book seemed to be full of 'misspellings' and duplicate sentences as if they editor was tired of reading the book. Things like 'below' instead of 'blow' and 'and' instead of 'an'. Typical spell check errors. Perhaps this is only the kindle version? Speaking of Kindle version, I found the maps at the beginning and the drawing of the Alamo toward the end totally illegible (this is not the first kindle book where this is a problem).
I did have an issue with the poor editing. As someone else said the second half of the book seemed to be full of 'misspellings' and duplicate sentences as if they editor was tired of reading the book. Things like 'below' instead of 'blow' and 'and' instead of 'an'. Typical spell check errors. Perhaps this is only the kindle version? Speaking of Kindle version, I found the maps at the beginning and the drawing of the Alamo toward the end totally illegible (this is not the first kindle book where this is a problem).
August 3, 2016
The book is rather long (791 pages, if you include the extensive notes, bibliography and index).
The casual reader who enjoys an abundance of graphically detailed action and drama in such books may have a difficult time plodding through Mr. Davis' extremely thorough descriptions of the three main characters and their personal histories.
Someone like me, who loves detail and facts will be enthralled by this thorough investigation into the lives of the three best-known American participants in the epic battle of the Alamo. However, be prepared to have the myths and legends surrounding them to be debunked and their frail, human side mercilessly detailed. Your feelings toward Misters Crocket, Bowie and Travis may be tarnished forever.
The casual reader who enjoys an abundance of graphically detailed action and drama in such books may have a difficult time plodding through Mr. Davis' extremely thorough descriptions of the three main characters and their personal histories.
Someone like me, who loves detail and facts will be enthralled by this thorough investigation into the lives of the three best-known American participants in the epic battle of the Alamo. However, be prepared to have the myths and legends surrounding them to be debunked and their frail, human side mercilessly detailed. Your feelings toward Misters Crocket, Bowie and Travis may be tarnished forever.
September 16, 2015
Finding the hurricane to be blown away
Fascinating account of who Crocket, Bowie and Travis were when they arrived at the Alamo. Crocket a self mythologizing politician who was also a hunter of some repute, Bowie a slave trader and swindler (who also was brave and a natural born warrior/leader), and Travis, a failed and then successful lawyer and political gadfly.
The book offers one of the shortest but likely most accurate description on the Alamo battle written, at least based on known facts.
Fascinating account of who Crocket, Bowie and Travis were when they arrived at the Alamo. Crocket a self mythologizing politician who was also a hunter of some repute, Bowie a slave trader and swindler (who also was brave and a natural born warrior/leader), and Travis, a failed and then successful lawyer and political gadfly.
The book offers one of the shortest but likely most accurate description on the Alamo battle written, at least based on known facts.
July 30, 2010
An interesting book. Had some parts that were really great and some that were really bad. I'm giving the book a rating of three because part of the book would be a five while another part would be a one. I really liked William Davis' writing style and ability, so I will probably read other books by him if I can get my hands on them. This book, however, was not necessarily a book that I would recommend, mostly due to some of the content.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews