Kali and boxing...

[starlight]

filipinoboxers.com doesn't appear to exist :grumpy:

 

[Spada e Pugnale]

Hi Rafael,

David,

How did the Europeans use swords prior to the Moors? Perhaps by this time, so much cross influence between Greeks, Roman, Moor have occured that it becomes grey in some areas. The problem is that warfare and the use of the horse /formation and other weapons begin to dictate the way war is fought. Dueling becomes a separate study for the Europeans at a later time.

Duelling/single combat existed in Europe prior to the Renaissance; the difference was that, during the Middle Ages, such fighting was usually in the form of judicial knightly duels (trial by combat), as opposed to the illegal code duello of the "later time" you refer to.

It would seem that if a theory of a LARGE Spanish methodological influence on FMA is to be seriously considered, based on the qualifier of Spanish occupation, then it must also be determined that Moors influenced Spain based on the their time of occupation in Spain. It is such a large contrast in time from when the Moors conquered Spain, especially during a time period when swordmanship was actually in predominant usage, compared to when the Spanish occupied the Philippines.

We're comparing a hundred years (because by the 1700s - guns were the norm) of Spain in the Philippine islands using swords to 700 plus years of Moors using swords in Spain.

This is a point which you consistently refuse to acknowledge--i.e., the fact that melee weapons played a considerable role in warfare right through the 18th century. Here's a list of such weapons which were in use in Europe and the Americas:

1. The bayonet
2. The cavalry saber
3. The naval cutlass
4. The basket-hilted broadsword/backsword
5. The spadroon
6. The infantry hanger
7. The tomahawk/hatchet
8. The half-pike/boarding pike/trench spear
9. The dirk
10. The machete

There were specific fencing methods for the use of the bayonet, saber, cutlass, etc. There were also various national schools of swordsmanship and other weapons, well into the Age of Firearms.

There were also hand weapons which saw use in duels, personal self-defense, and prizefights (some right into the 19th century):

1. The smallsword
2. The rifleman's knife/Bowie knife/Arkansas toothpick
3. The duelling epee
4. The singlestick
5. The walking stick
6. The shillelagh (sp)
7. The quarterstaff

So no, we're actually talking about 300+ years of Spanish presence in the PI.

Yet there's no influence, or maybe no admittance from the Spanish?
What it sounds like is that one side wants to have its cake and eat it too:

1. Spain influenced the FMA
2. Moors did not influence Spain

Yet using identical qualifiers (time of cultural occupation, actual systemology, etc.) to support these two claims eventually contradicts them.

If we are to entertain the theory that Spain was not influenced by the Moors, then it would seem completely strange to have discussions about Spanish influence on Filipino swordsmanship.

I never said that the "Moors did not influence Spain"; on the contrary, I mentioned right off the bat the use of jinete light cavalry by the Spanish, and the horsemanship and fighting technique of these men was based totally on that of the Moors.

What I did say, however, is that I don't see any readily identifiable evidence of a distinct Moorish influence on the military swordsmanship of either the infantry rodeleros (sword-and-target men) or the heavy cavalry caballeros (knights).

If you have such evidence, I'll gladly modify my stance on the issue.

One just has to look at the design of Filipino weaponry, a marked difference from Spanish cut and thrust swords. A kampilan, kris, barung, talibong, panabas, headaxe look nothing like Spanish weaponry. That's not even including the Filipino tribal societies with almost no Spanish influence like the Bontocs/Igorotes/Aetas/Negritos. Any weapon maker worth their salt knows the design of the weapon dictates the actual usage and methods of the wielder.

There's several key points related to the above that you have not mentioned.

1. There are European edged weapons that are functional equivalents to swords like the kampilan--e.g., swords of the falchion/cutlass/hanger type. There was a wide variety of such sabers and saber-like weapons used all over Europe during the time of the Spanish occupation of the PI. Antonio Pigafetta described the kampilan as a sort of "cutlass" (terciado; what the Spanish would have referred to as an alfanje). Similar weapons included the coltellaccio, the storta, and the sciabla.

In addition, we have the ubiquitous machete--a more utilitarian cousin of the weapons just mentioned (and rather similar in form and function to the Filipino bolo)--which was first introduced in the 16th century. It is interesting to note that a formal method of machete fighting once existed in Mexico (an interesting article on this was published in Chris Amberger's much-missed fencing newsletter, Hammerterz Forum), and it is also worth mentioning that the machete is featured in the Venezualan stick/knife art of garote larense.

2. There are several historical and modern examples of Filipino fighting men using swords not normally seen in FMA today:

A. The use of the Spanish cut-and-thrust cup-hilted bilbo by Pampangan troops in the mid-1700s, as described by British officers during the Seven-Years War. One such account can be found in the Blair & Robertson compendium.

B. The school of Don Jose de Azes in Manilla--the Tanghalan ng Sandata ("Hall of Weapons")--which taught both Spanish esgrima (fencing) and Filipino eskrima, in the late 19th century. Jose Rizal, among others, studied there.

C. I remember seeing a photo of the late GM Leo Giron and Antonio Somera, "playing with Spanish sabers"--hardly a surprise, given the larga mano emphasis in Giron's method.

So we have to contend that Moorish influence in the FMA (where these weapons actually have resemblances) is MUCH larger than Spanish, BUT Spanish LANGUAGE, especially in the Christianized regions seem to have had an influence.

This all depends on whether or not one believes FMA is actually the war art in 'martial', not the belt /dojo system of Filipino 'martial' arts. Because then we would have to say that the Spanish would have to take a backseat to the Japanese and Indonesians, becuase many FMAs have appropriated those systems... we hear the word 'Master' not 'Maestro'... Guro/Tuhon/Datu/Sultan more often, we see rankings, forms/sayaw, etc.

Let's see what GM Benjamin Luna Lema of Lightning Scientific Arnis has to say on that matter, historically speaking:

"Back then [in the Philippines], they didn't use the term grandmaster. They just called you maestro".

Best,

David/S e P

 

[Sun Helmet]

Hi David,
I was refering to serious study of dueling in terms of sword combat, as in manuals. I was well aware of the judicial knightly duels since I was a technical advisor for a film that delves primarily in that era... when chivalry was not gentlemanly at all...heh.

This is a point which you consistently refuse to acknowledge--i.e., the fact that melee weapons played a considerable role in warfare right through the 18th century.

If you check back on my writings I think you will find that you are mistaken. I always include melee weapons but I emphasize that by the time a SWORD is drawn as the primary weapon, the formation is overrun.

I wrote about the use of the lance/pike in battle long ago. You tend to lump the sword with the lance, but Spanish accounts dispute this. They only used the sword if the natives had overrun them or if they have already won the battle with superior firepower.

The firearm was more important than you state. In Blair and Robertson, the firearm and lance are LISTED as being used, NOT the sword. In practically EVERY account! The sword is there as a secondary weapon or even backup to the lance.

I recently quoted from the second Magellan account where the firearm was again given PRIMARY importance. Now, this is coming from a FIRST HAND account of the battle and it does not dispute my findings.

Account of the Battle of Mactan, April 27, 1521 by Fernando Oliveira:

"Magellan, undertook to do him (CiLapu Lapu) some damage or humble him, and decided to set out for that land with some armed men and make a strike in his lands, as in fact he did set out with sixty men armed with (h)arquebuses, and commenced to burn his huts and cut palm trees."

NOTE: All sixty men armed with firearms! Backups were lance and crossbows, then the sword... which didn't even factor in. Read on:

"At this the king took steps to defend his land with many people, and gave battle against him. However, as long as our GUNPOWDER lasted, those of that land did not dare to close with them; but when it was used up, they surrounded us on all sides, and since they were incomparably more numerous, they prevailed, and our men were not able to defend themselves or escape..."

I always differ to the quotes from sources that were DIRECTLY involved, not what was going on in Spain, Germany, or Americas ... but what the Spanish /Portugese soldiers in that particular situation are quoted as saying.

Here's a list of such weapons which were in use in Europe and the Americas:
(snipped)
There were specific fencing methods for the use of the bayonet, saber, cutlass, etc. There were also various national schools of swordsmanship and other weapons, well into the Age of Firearms.

There were also hand weapons which saw use in duels, personal self-defense, and prizefights (some right into the 19th century):
(snipped)
So no, we're actually talking about 300+ years of Spanish presence in the PI.

However, melee weapons were no longer of importance by the time firearms made their way into the battlefield.
You can look at books I have often listed on the history of firearms and battles and they support this.
The Spanish accounts in the Philippines support this.
The battles chronicled by the Filipinos supports this.
Read the final battles with Spain and you'll never see a Spanish sword or other melee weapon in play.
You are listing weapons that existed in Europe, but there's no accounts of 80 percent of them being utilized in the Philippines.

There are no account of Spaniards going against Moros with an Arkansas toothpick. Just because these weapons existed in one continent does not mean they were used in the Pacific.

I am using the same logic here.
If there's 300 years of Spanish influence on the FMA, then there's 700 plus years PRIOR to their arrival by the Moors.
Are we to believe that Spaniards ignored the use of swords by the very people who destroyed them on the battlefield PRIOR to the invention of firearms? Did they really just take ONE portion of their fighting methods? Or was it as Stead wrote, the evolution of crossing swords with the Moors and learning from them that Spanish methods as we know it surfaced:

W.T. Stead 1899:
"As the Moor was the anvil on which the Spanish sword was beaten until it became a veritable Toledo blade, so in turn Spain became the anvil on which our malleable English metal was beaten into the broad sword and trident by which we rule the sea to-day."

I never said that the "Moors did not influence Spain"; on the contrary, I mentioned right off the bat the use of jinete light cavalry by the Spanish, and the horsemanship and fighting technique of these men was based totally on that of the Moors.

What I did say, however, is that I don't see any readily identifiable evidence of a distinct Moorish influence on the military swordsmanship of either the infantry rodeleros (sword-and-target men) or the heavy cavalry caballeros (knights).

If you have such evidence, I'll gladly modify my stance on the issue.

In turn, using your logic... How does a Visayan's methods look like a rodeleros? How does a Moro's methods look like heavy cavalry?
They don't even use the same kind of weapons. Why would they have Sanskrit based terms for their weapons if the Spanish influenced them the most? Why do these weapons not look like any Spanish weapon?

There's several key points related to the above that you have not mentioned.

1. There are European edged weapons that are functional equivalents to swords like the kampilan--e.g., swords of the falchion/cutlass/hanger type.

The weapon that struck his lower limbs and initiated his death was described as a SCIMITAR or cutlass. In the Italian translation it was also the same. Many have described this as Kampilans and we envision the 'v' tipped straight swords. However, after looking at old books of that time especially weapons catalogued by the Spanish government for their own studies, the kampilans of that day look very much like scimitars, NOT the straight bladed kind that it turned into.

The 'Campilanes' illustrated in the Resen'a Historica de la Guerra al Sur de Filipinas in 1857 were markedly different than the ones we see today. They are twice as wide where the tip widens, some bow out instead of the 'v' prongs, or in reverse, bow in at the tip instead of making the 'v', more of an exagerrated curve on the blade shape than a straight weapon. At the punyo were tassels, similar to the ones we see on latter versions.

I always wondered why the Portugese, Spanish and Italian had described the kampilans as scimitars, and that was due to the weapons looking more like a fatter classical scimitar from the Arabian Nights. A page of the catalogue is reproduced on page 213 of 'Muslims in the Philippines' by Majul.

However, it would be stranger still if a 'cutlass' was used if Magellan was the FIRST European to set foot on Mactan island.
David, I don't follow your logic here... how could the Spanish introduce Filipinos to like weapons if the Filipinos already use that weapon? Pigafetta was chronicling the FIRST interactions of Europeans on Philippine soil.

In addition, we have the ubiquitous machete--a more utilitarian cousin of the weapons just mentioned (and rather similar in form and function to the Filipino bolo)-

We must consider the Manila Galleon trade routes as possible ways for Mexico to begin using bolo type weapons. Btw, the bolo came late in the game, the barong was the native blade and the bolo isn't considered historically as a Filipino weapon. It was utilitarian, but the Spanish considered the Barong design as unique to the Philippine islands as evidenced in the weapons catalogue I referred to earlier.

2. There are several historical and modern examples of Filipino fighting men using swords not normally seen in FMA today:

Filipinos/FMAs today are well aware of the various weapons that the Spanish left behind. That is why they can readily distinguish that Filipinos had their own forms of indigenous methods. One can SEE the Spanish design of weapons as opposed to the native ones. It also belies the fact that the Filipinos used Spanish weapons against them. The point was to kill the Spaniard and take their weapons. The most famous example was the cavalry sabre that Aguinaldo took from a fleeing Spanish officer that he carried around as a badge of honor. Btw, the Spaniard was fleeing because his formation was overrun.. no time for swords!

Remember David, the ORIGINAL premise is whether or not the Spanish were the MAJOR influence in FMA... NOT whether or not Filipinos were aware of Spanish fencing or weaponry... that's a given.

A. The use of the Spanish cut-and-thrust cup-hilted bilbo by Pampangan troops in the mid-1700s, as described by British officers during the Seven-Years War. One such account can be found in the Blair & Robertson compendium.

Yes, that is because they were fighting briefly for the Spanish at that time and were supplied that. They eventually defeated and drove the Spanish out of that region. However, Kapampangans are not known for their FMA bilbo fighting methods, they are known for their SINAWALI methods. Terms such as 'siniwali' is also used. The word 'wali' means, " saintly or holy man" in Arabic. The first portion of the term 'sini' can easily be phonetically the same as the Arabic 'sunni', meaning 'traditional'. The best known interpretation is 'sinAwali' which means 'woven'.

B. The school of Don Jose de Azes in Manilla--the Tanghalan ng Sandata ("Hall of Weapons")--which taught both Spanish esgrima (fencing) and Filipino eskrima, in the late 19th century. Jose Rizal, among others, studied there.

No one is saying that Spanish fenicng did not exist, especially in the turn of the 19th century when it was relegated to sports. The premise was that Spain was "MUCH of the influence" in FMA which is NOT true.

C. I remember seeing a photo of the late GM Leo Giron and Antonio Somera, "playing with Spanish sabers"--hardly a surprise, given the larga mano emphasis in Giron's method.

Are you implying that the late GM Leo Giron derived his largo mano methods from Spanish sabers? I could ask around. They might just be playing with the sabers as the caption stated. Considering Giron used a bolo when he was part of the brigade, not a saber.

Let's see what GM Benjamin Luna Lema of Lightning Scientific Arnis has to say on that matter, historically speaking:

"Back then [in the Philippines], they didn't use the term grandmaster. They just called you maestro".

Best,
David/S e P

You're falling into the linguistic trap... his very statement reveals that Filipinos use the current popular terminology, it does not imply the cultural origin of the methods... because prior to that they used Sanskrit based terms! There's no proof of Spanish systemization being the root of FMA. That was the whole point of the linguistic trap I described earlier.

For example, in the Sultanate of Sulu, the term KALI exists, it means the same as the chief Qadi and he is called the TUAN KALI.

The title is given by the Sultan who is held as the highest rank over all others due to his placement in their culture and religion. The Sultan was given this right upon the old agreement between the first elected Sultan (Sharif ul-Hashim) and the ancient Moro datus.

So the word KALI exists in the islands. It means, "ecclesiastical official" from the writings by Cesar Adib Majul. (And for those who might not know... I do NOT subscribe to KALI as the MOTHER art theory.. so we can save several pages )

I was talking about the martial art systemization of FMA as we know it... it was not Spanish at all but Malay/Indo and Asian based. Prior to that it is TRIBAL based. Tribes do not call their fighting art anything. Northern tribes describe what we would call their training as "mock fighting" so it is structured (if any structure can be attributed to the learning method) under the studies a young boy learns in their rituals. For example, tribal men learn rituals for headhunting by mock fighting. They set a time and place and take it VERY seriously. All misfortune to the tribe that is unnatural is somehow linked to headhunting. Whether they practice today or not, the rituals are very important to the society. The taking of an enemy head is called 'Chita', they have a term for the attempts to kill with a spear "Mafofongot". The "Chomallong" is the ritual trip where a husband goes into the forest with two other males and they build a straw man (tribal version of practice dummies/). The husband then takes a sharpened stick and uses it to attack the straw man and severs the head. All have a secondary purpose, beyond the arts of war. For example this ritual practice (which we could understandably call a training session) links "the decrease of the outer world (the enemy) to the increase of the inner world in general." Woman had their own rituals which can be described as being martial arts practice as ritual.. such as piercing a gaba tree with a spear with the goal of knocking it over with one blow. A battle cry of triumph during headhunting is called "humipag". The act of running around and attacking people with a spear or sword is called, "chumuhig".

The Philippines and its martial art (meaning, warrior based methods) are much much larger than the FMA as we know it.. to state that Spain is the major influence would be a huge misrepresentation of the various tribes which belong to the islands and the accounts left behind that dispute that statement.

--Rafael--

 

[Sun Helmet]

Duelling/single combat existed in Europe prior to the Renaissance; the difference was that, during the Middle Ages, such fighting was usually in the form of judicial knightly duels (trial by combat), as opposed to the illegal code duello of the "later time" you refer to.

Hi David,

You cite EUROPE... not Spain.
I looked back at some reference materials and where I think the disconnect here is, is that you're lumping Spain's unique history with the rest of European development. Spain's history and evolutionary progress in terms of civilization and military prowess was too heavily influenced by the Moors. One can NOT ignore this crucial fact.

For example (caps are mine): A view commonly held has been that there was an essential CONTINUITY between the Catholic Spain of Visigothic times and that of Ferdinand and Isabella. The difficulty about this view is that the kingdom of the Asturias, which was the center from which the RECONQUISTA began, was NOT part of Visigothic Spain in ANY important sense, but rather a rebel on its borders. Much nearer to the TRUTH seems to be the view of Americo Castro in 'The Structure of Spanish History' (Princeton)... 'Christian Spain emerged into being - as she incorporated and grafted into her living process what she was compelled to by her interaction with the Moslem world.'
from 'A History of Islamic Spain' by Watt, Edinburgh University Press

We have to take into the account that great Spanish cities of Toledo, Cordova and Seville were developed and nurtured by the Moors for at least 300 years before the northern Christians even took note of them.

"...Christian Spaniards and the Arabo-Iberian Muslims (Andalusians) felt themselves to be essentially a single people"

Spanish Muslims had kinships to Spanish Christians, so religion in the first hundred years was not a dividing point between the two.

We have to take into account that the Moors of this time were not the radical Islamic presence as we know it. Islam in Spanish territories did not allow religious precepts to interfere in their politics. It was only until AFTER the resurgence of Christianity hundreds of years later (Almoravid period) that the Moors developed a self-awareness in Islam.

What I did say, however, is that I don't see any readily identifiable evidence of a distinct Moorish influence on the military swordsmanship of either the infantry rodeleros (sword-and-target men) or the heavy cavalry caballeros (knights).

If you have such evidence, I'll gladly modify my stance on the issue.

"At the same time (Spaniards) could not afford to neglect the material foundations of military victory; and as far as they could, they took over the WEAPONS and TECHNIQUES which seemed to give the Muslims superiority" page 171 'A History of Islamic Spain' by Watt, Edinburgh University Press

We must take into account that PRIOR to the Moor's arrival, what did Spain have as far as military superiority or development of culture? Just about everything we know of Spain has been the results of what came AFTER the Moors.

The Moors introduced:
1. The concepts of guilds. The status of Master (ahem.. maestro) and Apprenticeship.
2. Cultivated Literature, the study of philosophy (the introduction of the works of Aristotle came via the Moor's in-depth studies not directly through the Greeks)
3. Libraries
4. Development of Music and the arts
5. International Commerce
6. Created the FIRST Spanish Fleet
7. Merchant Marines - developed seamanship
8. Improved Textiles
9. Ceramics
10. Spanish words of commerce/weights/measures are rooted in Arabic.
11. Improved their craftmanship and architecture.
12. Developed outposts to repel Nordic invasions.

Without the above, Spain as the great power would not be. So it is much much MORE than the mere influence of one segment of Spanish war tactics... one can say the Moors introduced the concept of developing a functional civilized society!

One must ask what were the Spaniards prior to the Moors arrival but loose clans, without a developed civilization to speak of? There would be no Conquest of the Americas nor Manila Galleon trade to as we know it... not without the Moors. What of Toledo, Cordova and Seville?

We must begin to think of Spain NOT AFTER the Reconquesta where they shunned and tried to erase everything that was Moor.. but what made Spain - Spain.

--Rafael--

 

[Aprendis]

The discussion may be too far away from the original quetion for this to be relevant anymore, but for Filipino boxing history Joe Svinth has some good online coverage at: http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_0701.htm. His articel has good references to the era he covers in:

Tracy Callis, "Pancho Villa (Francisco Guilledo)," http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/villa-p.htm. For more about the Filipino boxers that followed Guilledo to the United States, see Cornelio M. Pasquil, "The Great Filipino Boxing Era," Filipino American National Historical Journal, 3 (1994), and also Pasquil’s film documentary called The Great Pinoy Boxing Era. Photos of some of these later fighters appear at http://www.sports.nd.edu/exhibits/winkexhibit/winkmenu.html.

Hope this is helpful.