Spanish Friars Teach Filipinos Eskrima?

[Sun Helmet]

Here's another new discussion concerning the early Spanish Jesuit Friars who some theorize MAY have possessed martial skills, and POSSIBLY taught the Filipinos what we know today as 'Eskrima' in Cebu.

I used to give this theory the benefit of the doubt, perhaps there were rare cases and relating more to a monk or a few teaching fencing (Spanish) as he knew it to those who wanted to pick up some fencing tips. By the 17th century (the time period used by the theorists)... if one was fighting Jolo Moors with swords when they already had access to firearms- they shouldn't be the people in charge of teaching anyone military tactics. Even some of the 'Moros' had guns by this time.

There's several books which cover many of the friars in that area. NONE refer to friars teaching the natives anything relating to sword skills. The vast amount of journals the friars kept at this time speak of fear and just praying they would survive their post. This explains why no one really addressed this prior to this specific article (listed below). The evidence weighs heavily on the side of modern FMAs account. After further research, I no longer give this 'Fighting Fray' theory much credence.

Much of this theory was presented in an article about a Spanish 'Fighting Fray' named Father Ibanez who lived in the latter part of the 1600's and early 1700's. Much credence was given to his fighting prowess and of how he may have INSTRUCTED the Filipino (Cebuanos in this case) of his Spanish sword arts. Speculation has risen to the point that Fray Ibanez may have introduced the art of eskrima (or what it is today) to the natives.

The primary source has to do with a small comment by author Vic Hurley, whose important work, "Swish of the Kris' describes a specific Fray's last moments in Jolo.


-----------------------
From
http://cebueskrima.s5.com/custom2.html

Below is the comment on the Fighting Fray from the above article:

<
"Indeed, matters reached such a state that before the end of the year warships were ordered out for another attack on Jolo. Four regiments of infantry and a corps of artillery aided the gunboats. Included was a battalion of Cebuanoes (sic)who sought revenge for the Moro raids. The wives of the Cebuanoes(sic) emulated Lysistrata in reverse. Every wife took an oath before Father Ibanez to deny forever their husbands all of their favors if the Cebuano men turned their backs to the Moros.
In the battle of Jolo, Father Ibanez lost his life in the assault on a Moro cotta. The good Father tucked his cassock about his waist and plunged into the thickest of the battle. The Cebuanoes(sic) performed prodigies of valor and Jolo fell again. The seat of the Sultanate was removed across the island to Maybun, and the Moros paid regular visits to Jolo to slaughter the Spanish garrison which remained. " >>

end quote
----------------------------


The information I discovered about Fray Ibanez is found in the pages of THE JESUITS IN THE PHILIPPINES, 1581 - 1768 a 700 page tome of the history of the Jesuit order in the Philippines. It was written by H. de la Costa. It contains dates and places on the Jesuit's missions.

The book also contains notes on every Jesuit fray who served in the islands. If they were killed in the islands, it was noted by year and place. Fray Juan Ibanez was only listed on two pages. He did serve in Cebu. On May 18, 1684 Fray Ibanez was sentenced to banishment by the Audiencia of Spain. They removed Fray Ibanez along with Fray Francisco de Vargas from Santo Domingo, and transferred them to the Cagayan missions. (page 498) Three other frays in Fray Ibanez's mission were banished from the islands altogether, placed on a Spanish galleon and banished to Mexico.

The Jesuits were accused as, 'disturbers of the peace'. At this point in time Spain itself had internal problems between several Christian factions in the Philippines. Jesuits were accused (falsely or not) of undermining the Crown's authority, and under-cutting Spain's profits from the islands. Archbishop Pardo had supposedly blamed the Jesuits of Fray Ibanez's mission on the huge loss at sea of the galleon Santa Rosa (1682) to the overabundance of merchandise the frays had smuggled on board to send to a corrupt general, which in turn "deprive the Crown by this method of many millions".

Counter claims and accusations by the Jesuits were fired back at the archbishop which resulted in the excommunication of a prominent Jesuit, Fray Ortega by the archdiosesan tribunal, and triggered the subsequent domino effect upon the rest of the mission's order, including our 'Fighting Friar' Fray Ibanez. " The mine was charged and fused which forthwith exploded with ruin irreparable and a detonation that struck all Christendom with terror and amazement." (pg 467)

By 1702, 20 years later an older Fray Juan Ibanez was now rector of Santo Tomas and assisted in diffusing the rivalry between the rival Dominican and Jesuit orders and "dedicated a public theological disputation to Saint Ignatious of Layola" in which the Domincans reciprocated in kind. (page 580)

No other mention of Father Ibanez in the book, of which such a romantic and gallant account of taking up sword for the Crown and Cross would hardly be ignored by the meticulous records of the Jesuit order. This act would have been favorably received by both Crown and Church. However, there is no mention of Fray Ibanez dying in the jungles of Jolo. There is no mention of Fray Ibanez being in any battles in Jolo PRIOR to, or AFTER he was banished to Santo Tomas.

On May 19, 1768 the Jesuit order was shocked to be surrounded by Spanish troops and were told that they were now prisoners of the state and were ordered expelled from their dominions.

"187 years after Sedeno first set foot on Philippine soil, his successors were expelled from it. A King of Spain had opened its door to them and a King of Spain had now shut it in their faces."

Beyond the Spanish crown's unfavorable mid 1700's view towards Fray Ibanez and the Jesuit order, he was by most accounts looked on favorably by the populace of Cebu, and perhaps his expulsion became the revisions of oral history amongst the christian Cebuanos explaining the sudden disappearance of their friar. Instead of the friar having his life's work on the islands and college invalidated by their own Christian church, his fate had evolved into a legend of the Friar perishing in the fight against their rivals, the Moors of Jolo, with sword in one hand.... the cross in the other!

It was most likely much easier to explain the Fray's expulsion this way than to place oneself in the precarious position of publicly criticizing the actions of their church's archbishop. Perhaps, it was the replacement church leaders who promoted this myth to pacify the Cebuanos. Disunity in the religious order could have been seen as a weakness to the Spaniard's god. It was not unheard of for natives to change their tribal religious beliefs purely based on the positive outcome of a hunt that month, because they prayed to the Christian's god. Something the Jesuits exploited to full effect. As time passes by, the story about the fighting fray becomes fact.


The burden does not lie solely on SWISH OF THE KRIS author Vic Hurley. Hurley's research may have been limited in this case. He did not have access to the Jesuit records of this time and probably went with what had been passed down about this fighting fray. Most possibly from those belonging in the now Catholic church where once the Jesuit fray resided.

By their very own records, the Jesuits dispute any accounts of the fighting prowess of Fray Ibanez in their order. I've always stated that even if the Spanish often had one sided records, certain clues can be obtained that could debunk offshoot myths.


Like the one about the Fighting Fray who MIGHT have taught the Cebuanos 'ESKRIMA'.


--Rafael--
Sayoc Kali

*

 

[Spada e Pugnale]

By the 17th century (the time period used by the theorists)... if one was fighting Jolo Moors with swords when they already had access to firearms- they shouldn't be the people in charge of teaching anyone military tactics. Even some of the 'Moros' had guns by this time.

Hi Rafael,

We've argued this point before, and, IIRC, we never really came to an agreement on this particular issue.

In any case, the fact remains that the use of various melee weapons (polearms, swords, etc) was still common in the 17th century--due largely to the poor ROF (rate-of-fire) of matchlock muzzleloading firearms.

It wasn't simply a matter of "fighting Jolo Moors with swords"--firearms were very naturally a crucial part of the equation--but one still had to have something else to fall back on.

That's why arquebusiers and calivermen were protected by pikemen in the open field, during the 16th and 17th centuries.

It's also why "loose shot" (skirmishers) were protected by targetiers (sword-and-target men) in guerrilla-style warfare (such as what the English encountered in Ireland) during the same period.

Therefore, it comes as little surprise when late 16th and early 17th century European military writers devoted so much space in their treatises, to the proper arming and training of troops, in regards to melee weapons. We have plenty of famous names, like Cesare d'Evoli (late 16th century), Sir John Smythe (late 16th century), George Silver (late 16th/early 17th centuries), and Johann Jacobi Wallhausen (17th century), who wrote about the efficacy of swords and other hand weapons. This is specifically the time period that we are concerned with here.



Even if we look to later centuries, we can see the utility (both potential and genuine) of hand weapons.

Certainly, the troops of Company C, who were attacked at Balangiga by bolo-armed guerrillas during the Philippine War, would probably have found such skills rather useful in such a tight spot.

It was perhaps with things like the "Balangiga Massacre" in mind that Lt. Col. Anthony Drexel Biddle developed his knifefighting system, which specifically made use of the '03 Springfield bayonet, which had a 16-inch blade (and thus was almost of short sword dimensions). Significantly, Biddle's system was used successfully in Nicaragua against machete-wielding locals.

Indeed, if we embrace your logic in the quote above, we then also have to wonder why the Philippine military today bothers to employ Jerson Tortal of Dekiti Tirsia Siradas Arnis, to teach its troops the use of swords like the talibong and ginunting. Apparently, there is still a need over there for teaching soldiers some sword skills.

And if the need exists today (in the Age of Automatic Guns), it certainly existed in the 17th century.

Respectfully,

David/Spada

 

[Federico]

Another good book on Moro usage of guns is a more modern work by Thomas Kiefer, referring to modern Tausug during an era of high proliferation of modern firearms the 1960s. Even during this era, when firearms were widely abundant, the use and ownership of bladed weapons among Tausug remained high.

Also, in the book The Sulu Zone 1768-1898: The Dynamics of External Trade, Slavery, and Ethnicity in the Transformation of a Southeast Asian Maritime State by James Francis Warren (at least if my memory is working right) also mentions the lack of firearms for outlying Christian islands due to either A. corruption (eg. corrupt mayors selling cannon and powder) or B. paranoia (eg. Spanish officials refusing to supply powder to outlying settlements due to fear of insurgency). Along with these conditions Warren tracks massive re-settlement due to slaving as well as some areas where fighting back occured with what arms were available. Also he does detail some accounts of how Moro slave raiding was conducted.

Anyways, not a sign that the Friars taught anything, but I would not under-estimate the importance of bladed weaponry during these times. Not necessarily because they were preferred by Christian Filipinos, but because it was one of their few options for self defence.

 

[AF1]

Interesting thread.

Scattered throughout European history/folklore you'll find many refereneces to fighting monks, from Robin Hood's Friar Tuck to the priests demonstrating fighting techniques in the I.33 fechtbuch. And the Jesuit order in particular is famous for being "warrior holy men."

So the idea that Spanish friars may have taught a system of fencing to the Filipinos sounds plausible, at least to me.

Which is not to say that the Filipinos didn't already have their own styles of fighting before the Spanish came. The Moros for one seemed to have their own thing going, and I seriously doubt that any Spaniard, churchman or otherwise, would have wanted to teach a Moro anything about fighting. Why help out a hated enemy? Especially one that (at times) is already pretty good at kicking your butt?

 

[Sun Helmet]

<<In any case, the fact remains that the use of various melee weapons (polearms, swords, etc) was still common in the 17th century--due largely to the poor ROF (rate-of-fire) of matchlock muzzleloading firearms.>>

Hi David,

Didn't know this thread was actually getting response, thus the delay.
The post I wrote was in direct response to a Spanish Friar teaching the natives Spanish sword skills. There's no mention of him teaching the natives melee tactics. Within that context, if the friar was teaching the natives swordsmanship to fight the Jolo moros, then they need to find another tactician. IF the friar was directing the natives how to fight in formation and other actual melees tactics, then that would actually make some sense.

It is not about whether or not swords were backup weapons to the polearms and firearms, it is whether or not the Spanish sword was taught to the natives and then they were sent to fight the Jolo Moros.

This premise basically falls flat. First of all, as you stated the Filipino sword design used even today does not look like the sword the Spaniards used. Why teach the natives the Spanish sword, and have them use their native swords? Why would the Spanish, in all their arrogance think that Filipinos should use weapons that are inferior to theirs in terms of the way they would use those weapons?

Obviously, the natives already knew how to use their native weapons, thus the unique attributes inherent in their designs. Some serious practical thought went into the way these blades were formed. A curved pointed blade tells me that the person using that will have circular and sliding footwork. When the panabas was used to train against wild boars, there's a reason for the way they are held and wielded. The forward pressure of the boar, charging faster than a human could, dictated the design. If it worked on boars, it would work on a charging native.

As per "rate of fire", that is balanced by "rate of volley". I indicated several books on warfare the last time we discussed this which contradict the notion that the firearms of that time were as slow as people today state they were. Well-trained loaders and troops who used volley effectively can keep the natives back, balancing the lapse in loading time. If the Spanish soldiers all had possession of firearms, that would greatly increase the rate of volley.

By 1761, Don Juan Moreno wrote that the Moros no longer feared nor respected their Spanish arms as they did in previous times. The Moros may have figured out the rate of volley, the limitations of the firearms and the way formations were structured. They no longer retreated as they did so in the past. So even the Moros, were adapting to firearms.

The Armadilla de Pintados (Armada of Painted Ones) were Visayans that patrolled and engaged Moros in the 1600's for Spain and again in the late 18th century. There is no record of Spanish instruction of swordplay to these Visayans. They were already well-versed in their own blade culture.

<<It wasn't simply a matter of "fighting Jolo Moors with swords"--firearms were very naturally a crucial part of the equation--but one still had to have something else to fall back on. >>

Which basically supports my stance. The article was insinuating how Filipinos were taught the Spanish sword to fight the Jolo Moors.
However, that means the formation was already overrun IF the natives were fighting with swords, if the Spaniards taught them melee formations. It still does not back up the theory that a Spanish Friar taught the natives tactics of warfare IF he was teaching his sword techniques. Wouldn't the obvious method be to teach them how to use polearms, and firearms first? If that did happen, wouldn't there be evidence of Spanish formations and records of that occuring?

The fact remains, that the natives already knew how to use their native swords, and the best tactic was to incorporate the natives as backup to the Spanish formations. They would be a barrier or breacher to the Spanish soldiers. Morga's accounts of how the Visayans backed the Spanish support this. Morga never mentions the Visayans being taught Spanish swordsmanship so that they can fight other Filipinos. Basically, the Spanish just needed more warriors on their side. The Spanish themselves wrote about how difficult it was to retain the Filipino's attention in many matters.

<<That's why arquebusiers and calivermen were protected by pikemen in the open field, during the 16th and 17th centuries.>>

Which as you know I introduced a lot of text into the dialogue in our various forum discussions. That still supports my stance that the Filipinos would've been taught how to use a pike in formation rather than Spanish swordsmanship. Since there's no evidence in that, the writer makes a huge leap in logic that Filipinos were now taught Spanish sword tactics to fight their war... by a friar... who as I noted, has no record of even existing at that time.


<< We have plenty of famous names, like Cesare d'Evoli (late 16th century), Sir John Smythe (late 16th century), George Silver (late 16th/early 17th centuries), and Johann Jacobi Wallhausen (17th century), who wrote about the efficacy of swords and other hand weapons. This is specifically the time period that we are concerned with here.>>

However, as you may know by the time the 17th century rolled around, if one were fighting swordsmen with swords... you were behind the time in terms of warfare. One only has to look at military history books for this. Swordsmen and military men were often at odds at this time. Perhaps the larger presence of sword manuals at this time was a backlash at the new weapon of warfare now phasing out their beloved swords.

<<Even if we look to later centuries, we can see the utility (both potential and genuine) of hand weapons.>>

As backup or if one had no firearms to speak of.

<<Certainly, the troops of Company C, who were attacked at Balangiga by bolo-armed guerrillas during the Philippine War, would probably have found such skills rather useful in such a tight spot.>>

Sure, but again that supports my stance that one is now being overrun if one had to resort to sword versus other weapons in warfare.

<<It was perhaps with things like the "Balangiga Massacre" in mind that Lt. Col. Anthony Drexel Biddle developed his knifefighting system, which specifically made use of the '03 Springfield bayonet, which had a 16-inch blade (and thus was almost of short sword dimensions). Significantly, Biddle's system was used successfully in Nicaragua against machete-wielding locals.>>

The bayonet was basically a transition weapon, a holdover of the pikemen. This is why you still had formations during the civil war of men marching in pike formations and getting mowed down by bullets. Today, we look at how civil war soldiers marched bravely into the curtain of bullets and wonder at the absurdity of it all. Again, not my idea of logical use of blades in a world of the gun.

<<Indeed, if we embrace your logic in the quote above, we then also have to wonder why the Philippine military today bothers to employ Jerson Tortal of Dekiti Tirsia Siradas Arnis, to teach its troops the use of swords like the talibong and ginunting. Apparently, there is still a need over there for teaching soldiers some sword skills.>.

That is based on CQB tactics, room clearing and how soldiers with firearms should deal with folks with blades. It also means that Filipinio soldiers are marching into jungle type fauna and need to clear way. Blades are also the ideal tool to live off the land. Sword skills are just as important for utilitarian usage. You are NOT going to charge a Moro cotta with your talibong if you have any sense these days. Guaranteed, that Moro on the other end is going to shoot you.

There's a traditional and cultural tie to the Filipino weapons our ancestors used prior to firearms.. True story, when my uncle was gathering guerilla fighters in Mindanao against the Japanese during WW2.. the guerillas showed up with barongs and bolos in hand. My uncle told them they were out of touch with modern warfare. Carry your bolo, but better find a firearm quickly if you want to stay alive.

When we teach US soldiers the blade, it is not because they will carry them, it is so that they need to position themselves safely, so that people with blades can not get close to them in an attack. We give them the proper cues and danger zones to look out for. What to look for in a room clear, etc.

<<And if the need exists today (in the Age of Automatic Guns), it certainly existed in the 17th century.>>

I would be the last to say there's no need to learn how to use a blade, but again the firearm and air power is how war is fought today. The blade is a last ditch weapon... there's no way you attack a fortification with just blade in hand. Certainly not with the instruction of a Spanish fray that may not even have lived during that time period. Filipino warriors would need a LOT of convincing to take the techniques of a Spanish friar who has not proven themselves in combat. Anyone who believes that would mean they never met a Filipino!

best,
--Rafael--

 

[Sun Helmet]

Scattered throughout European history/folklore you'll find many refereneces to fighting monks, from Robin Hood's Friar Tuck to the priests demonstrating fighting techniques in the I.33 fechtbuch. And the Jesuit order in particular is famous for being "warrior holy men."

However, the Jesuits themselves do not record this in their accounts in the Philippines. There were probably a friar or two who knew how to use a sword, but we really have to view the natives as self respecting warriors in their own right. They might take one or two moves that are of use to them, but it is quite a leap to think FMA was developed via the efforts of a friar who may or may not have existed.

--Rafael--