It doesn't matter if they anticipated Napoleon. The only thing they "fought" were a bunch of tumbleweeds and indians. So I'll ask you once again: Who did they "capture" the fort from?
but the Texans had already skedaddled back to San Antonio - abandoning their wounded and sick along the way.
You do not know for certain what killed the one single corpse found at the fort. The yankees that camped there for a single night did not know for certain either and could only speculate that he was left. For all we know he could've been killed in a hasty Indian skirmish as they were withdrawing or even as the group from New Mexico was passing through. What we do know, however, is that the fort was abandoned as a worthless location in the middle of nowhere long before the union cavalry had their campout at it and that those yankees did not see any more point in occupying it than the confederates did.
Your problem obviously stems from your misinterpretation of my usage of the word "capture." We have been over this before. I used the word in the sense of a common defination: to take control of or seize. To "capture" may, does not necessarily, imply the use of force. One can capture prisoners. And one can capture an objective. One can capture an object by simply occupying it.
I cannot account for your miscomprehension and stubborn insistance of your own misinterpretation. Your continued filibustering the point shows, yet again, that you are not a poster who is serious about discussing or debating issues. You are a waste of my time.
"You do not know for certain what killed the one single corpse found at the fort."
I presume it was the arrow sticking out of him.