Hi Rafael,
Sun Helmet said:
<<The arquebus was by all means a primary weapon, but it was a weapon that was dependent upon a "support system" that involved troops armed with melee weapons (pikemen, halberdiers, & targetiers), and even the arquebusiers themselves were typically equipped with a sword and dagger as sidearms. >>
Yes I agree with this and have mentioned the blades as secondary weapons from th every beginning.
Indeed, you have.
However...
YOU and I know this... but if one read this article, there is no reason a person discovering this for the first time would. Look how long it took me to make this point in the DB forums?
True.
Unless the writer makes a better effort in clearly stating the difference between secondary and primary weapons during that time... I think it will just promote the false impression of the 'dream team of swordsmen'. (thanks for reminding me of this phrase...heh).
LOL, no problem, bro! I've always loved the way you express yourself--you're a good writer, and your posts can't be mistaken for anyone else's, not just because of their content, but also because of their
style.
Btw, YOU and I know that long weapon and sword then dagger are part of the whole... again, I doubt many modern 'swordsmen' think in the same vein. I hope I am wrong but I run into this type of thinking more often than not.
I know what you mean, though I'll confess that I don't think I've pondered on it as much as you have. Perhaps I should take it into greater consideration--it's definitely food for thought.
<<This is a complicated issue, since, at the time of Magellan, the sword actually was a primary weapon. >>
I agree, it is very vague.. the only reason I call it Magellan's primary weapon is due to the written accounts. They definitely relied on their gunpowder and firearms and felt that was what held the natives down. In addition, here is an account of a battle where most 'firearm scholars' would state never would be feasible.. being that gunpowder in that climate and setting would be too wet to use. It is obvious by this written account that if they had more gunpowder, climate and setting wouldn't come into play.
Interesting.
Could you direct me to where the non-Pigafetta accounts can be seen and/or acquired?
<<The Spanish may not have mentioned it because it was common knowledge.>>
hmmm.... that would be an assumption that I wouldn't necessarily support. They mentioned keeping their weapons clean, and other details, they mention the gunpowder situation, the duties to keep their other arms in shape, the effectiveness of their lance, the food situation, the conditions of their boats etc... I think someone would have written that the arquebus was slow loading and its obvious weakness... but at that time they probably thought it was state of the art. Many stubborn swordsmen didn't think so, but they were partial to the sword and were soon phased out. This second Magellan account in fact wished they had MORE gunpowder because it was keeping them alive.
<<Not true--the soldiers of that time were very much aware of the fact that an arquebus--much like a crossbow--did not have as fast a rate-of-fire as an ordinary hand bow (English longbow, Turkish bow, Chichimec bow, Filipino bow, etc). As for the natives...>>
There is a difference between rate of fire and effectiveness. It was obvious from the Spanish POV that the guns were more effective.. their rate of fire was eclipsed by their effectiveness, even though there are many other writings that state these weapons weren't that effective compared to today's standards. The writer using the rate of fire to support his theory is what threw him (and also Clements) off in their conclusions. If they would let that go and acknowledge the effectiveness of firearms in that time period, then they would be able to tie up the loose ends in their theories.
I checked my sources on the History of firearms and their use in Warfare and here are some items that disagree with your assessment:
The criticism concerning the complexity and impractical loading stages of the arquebus came from BRITISH sources who advocated their fearsome longbow. However, both a longbow and crossbow took MORE physical effort to load and the weapons did not carry the psychological satisfaction of the gun blast nor its indiscriminate lethal power.
It is true that much of the criticism of the arquebus (or, more accurately, personal firearms in general) came from England, which is certainly no surprise, given her archery tradition. The famous soldier Sir John Smythe (whom we're both familiar with) was the chief gunpowder critic/longbow advocate. Of particular interest was Smythe's citing of the "Prayer Book" Rebellion of 1549, were longbow-armed rebels bested mercenary Spanish and Italian arquebusiers who were commanded by the English Crown.
The shortcomings of the arquebus were perhaps not as heavily stressed on the European Continent, but that is probably because the traditional missile weapon there had previously been the crossbow, which was also a comparatively slow-loading weapon. When the arquebus came on the scene, it's rate-of-fire was probably not seen as a major fault--at least, not initially.
However, Continental European troops likewise had to face quicker-firing missile weapons, and so they must have been aware of the arquebuse's limitations. In 1562 (comparatively late, really), eighty longbowmen from Hampshire were instrumental in the defeat of arquebus-equipped French and German troops at Le Havre. The Spanish, Italians, and Germans likewise had to deal with the deadly composite recurved bow of the Ottoman Turks. The Turkish bow was a very real threat, and it's advantages over the arquebus were well-known. At Lepanto in 1571, Turkish archery probably accounted for the majority of Christian casualties.
Regardless of an enemy's vast skill and experience with HTH weapons or their rank - an arquebus or musket man with relatively little experience could kill them.
Of course.
The arquebus could be used at a range of 60 yards comfortably. It was said at 20 yards a skilled man could hit "a group of four men riding abreast'. The calibre of the old arquebus was akin to that of a 12 bore shotgun, enough to propel the lead projectile through heavy armour.
Interestingly enough--and it's certainly something that adds weight to your side of the argument--there was at least one battle during the "Civil Wars" between rival conquistadore factions in Peru, where the arquebus was used successfully at
100 yards, which would be considered very long range during the American Revolution! The battle in question was at Huarina, in 1547.
Now although most of us today who have little practice with loading such weapons (as I assume MOST of the writers if not all of the writers who tend to perpetuate this concept of a cumbersome weapon)... documents show that " a soldier who has DRILLED the stages of loading enough could EASILY become expert in a relatively short time."
And certainly, perhaps more than any other Europeans at that time, the Spanish and the troops of their client states were the "cream of the crop" when it came to the use of the arquebus and musket.
<<I don't think that fact detracts from the importance of the arquebus as a weapon anywhere--whether it be the Philippines, the New World, or Europe. >>
You and I know that.
I see your point (again).
<<It's not the same thing, Rafael.
Again, melee weapons were still being used on a wide scale in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, as we both know. Cavalry had lances and swords. Infantry were divided up into "small shot" (missile troops) and "armed men" (close combat troops). ALL of them were equipped with swords.>>
We'll see...
Even today a blade or tomahawk is used for Close quarter combat. You have to note that a majority of the fighting with natives and Spaniards did NOT happen in the 1500's. Legaspi was only in the islands for around eleven years and had limited interaction beyond the battles described in the North.
It seems that there was a good amount of combat, both with hostile natives and with the
wako.
By the mid 16th, during the time period mentioned in this article, the bayonet was already making it's rounds in 1647... so the transition was clearly underway.
I'm curious as to when the bayonet was specifically adopted by the Spanish...
There were battles in the latter time periods where the swords barely came in as weapons. For example, even in the revolution Aguinaldo took a Spanish officer's sword because the fellow retreated and left it behind.
During that later period, that is more understandable.
The Brunei boat incident was a boat seige was it not?
It was a classic example of the Spanish method of naval combat at that time--close in and take the enemy vessel by boarding. Although most often associated with Mediterranean galley warfare, this was in fact a style of fighting which the Spanish retained well into the age of the broadside-gunned sailing warship. They were feared for their ability in this regard. The Spanish even preferred heavy, short-range cannon and stone-firing
pedreros that would do the most damage right before boarding. This contrasted sharply with the English, Dutch, and Venetian preference for long-range gunnery with culverins.
HTH was inevitable in that case, but there weren't that many sea battles. There were as I stated HTH battles but more as mop up operations by either side. Note the descriptions of the Spanish as 'chasing down' the retreating natives or when they were 'overrun'. The initial damage was done.
It was much smarter to take position and shoot at the cotta, or stay fortified and shoot at the natives.
I understand.
<<I know that the friars were in the PI to make sure that soldiers didn't commit atrocities like those that were reported by de las Casas and others in the New World. However, Macachor also suggested that the friars taught the locals, in order that they could better defend their homes against piratical raids by Moros--would the Spanish Crown have had a problem with that?
>>
The Spanish Crown had problems with the soldiers engaging in battle with the natives, because they didn't want to go through the same mess they did in South America.
Very true--I mentioned that a long time ago.
They felt they had refined the methods of Conquest by the use of barter, bribe and religion. For a Friar to be doing the opposite would be a direct opposition to the plan that was laid out.
Even if it meant protecting the Christianized subjects of the Philippines?
Now this friar might have had some sword skills, but I would have to check the source of the writers and see if 'defense and instruction' was about tactics or physical use of the sword. There might be no mention of the friar teaching natives how to use a sword biut more how to tactically hold on to a fort or lay seige at a cotta/village.
It may very well have been both.
And remember that Macachor stressed that
eskrima was not a product of the Spanish, but
a synthesis of Spanish and Filipino (Cebuano, etc.) swordfighting techniques--something which would potentially have benefitted both the Christianized locals and the occupying Spanish troops.
Natives may have acknowledged the friar had some cajones and gave him some props... but to suggest beyond that and subtly implying that this might be the birth of 'eskrima' is a huge leap. The natives survived Moro raids hundreds of years PRIOR to the friar's arrival. What defense were they using then? if they had none they would have been enslaved or wiped out by then.
Agreed.
<<I'd personally like to see what the book that he and Dr. Nepangue are writing contains. After all, you can only cram so much info into a single article. I'm willing to give Macachor the benefit of the doubt in this case.
>>
There's a very tribal centric viewpoint expressed that may cause a back lash to the book. Filipinos from other areas will definitely have their own counter points. I hope it isn't a book that ultimately divdes but explores theories rather than state them as FACT.
I hope so too--especially since backlashes often consist of a messy mixture of genuine counterpoints, that are unfortunately hampered by underlying emotional issues, which seem to be tied in directly with martial, cultural, and/or national pride. The John Clements ARMA essay was essentially a backlash that resulted from the uncontested pseudo-history found in so many popular FMA books (and uncritically repeated in MA magazine articles) up to that point. Unfortunately, Clements appeared to have written that essay more with his heart than with his head, and the results were mixed, at best. When I first read Clements' article, I thought he made a few good points, but after you and Steven L hooked me up with sources for the period Spanish accounts (especially the Legaspi stuff), I immediately saw the many flaws in Clements' stance. It was then that I posted the critique of his essay on the DB site.
***Lastly, if these theories were true... why would native weaponry NOT resemble the the same attributes and shapes of Spanish weaponry? It seems much easier to shape a straight sword than a barong or a talibon. Are we now to make the assumption that this friar picked up their own blades and showed them how to use it?***
No, not at all.
But a couple of things need to be considered here as well. First, we must note that there
were some European short swords that are broadly similar to Filipino blades--mainly falchions and falchion derivatives, like the
storta, the
sciabla (saber), and the
terciado (cutlass). This last term is in fact the one that Pigafetta used to describe the
kampilans wielded by Raja LapuLapu's warriors.
The second thing we have to keep in mind is that there were in fact times when Filipino troops in Spanish service used Spanish swords (of the straight, double-edged variety). Gerald Boggs once posted some great excerpts from Blair & Robertson on MMA.tv., concerning the conflict between the Spanish and English during the Seven-Years War in the 1760s. When the Brits attacked Manilla, an English officer noted the long, double-edged, cup-hilted swords carried by Filipino troops in Spanish service. This sword type was not a rapier, but a cut-and-thrust
bilbo. So, we know that there was at least some interaction there--FWIW.
Peace,
David
