Sword Myths

[Sun Helmet]

Research into European ARMS (meaning the use of pike and fireARMS) were crucial to my understanding of the Spanish conquest. There's still much to be done to bust the myth of 'sword versus sword' ONLY exchanges between Spanish and Filipinos implied in articles such as this one:

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/firstexp.htm

The author writes about European superiority over Asians in their development and usage of ARMS, but then swiftly segues specifically about his study in RAPIERS and CUT/THRUST swordsmanship. A study that is worthwhile and of true merit. However, prefacing your article on European superiority of ARMS over Asian weapons, and then ignoring the actual ARMS (firearms) which were superior to Asian weaponry is a HUGE omission!

There's also no mention of the other methods of Conquest (example: religion, trade, aliances), but most importantly the omission of the use of the pike in SUPPORT of FIREARMS as huge contributors to the Spanish success in the Philippines is a disservice to maintaining historical accuracy. The author omits that a study of the methods of Divide and Conquer, the Volley use of the Arquebus, formations of Pike and Shot, are all crucial elements in understanding the European 'superior' methods of Asian Conquest.

An unfortunate omission such as this inevitably perpetuates a FALSE myth of Spanish Conquistadores' superiority in ARMS, to specifically indicate their use of the sword.

Simply put, a school devoted to the use of European pike and shot formations would quickly widen the eyes of European sword enthusiasts who may unknowingly overemphasize the use of the sword and dagger over the TRUE superior European ARMS used during the period of Spanish Philippine Conquest... the FIREARM.

The article displays a well done description of the author's new found enthusiasm for European swordsmanship, however imagine if the omission included the sword's importance in battle? Would we idly sit back and read articles devoted to ONLY the use of the dagger and shield symbolizing the SUPERIOR arms of Europe without questioning it's historical validity?

It would seem that simply stating the study of European swordsmanship and its merits would be enough without including this bit about "European superiority in ARMs", especially if the author shies away from revealing which of these superior weapons actually were....

"The Indians of this country are not simple or foolish, nor are they frightened by anything whatever. They can be dealt with ONLY BY THE ARQUEBUSE, or by the gifts of GOLD or SILVER. If they were like those of Nueva Espana, Peru, Tierra Firme, and in other explored places where the ships of Castilla may enter, sound reasoning might have some effect. But these Indians first inquire if they must be Christians, pay money, forsake their wives, and other similar things. They kill Spaniards so boldy, that WITHOUT THE ARQUEBUSES WE COULD DO NOTHING. This was the reason that Magallanes, Sayavedra, and those who came afterward from Nueva Espana were maltreated. All those who have been killed since the coming of Miguel Lopez de Legazpi received THEIR DEATH THROUGH THE LACK OF ARQUEBUSES. The Indians have thousands of lances, daggers, shields, and other pieces of armor, with which they fight so well. They have no leaders to whom they look up. THE HAVOC CAUSED BY THE ARQUEBUSE, and their own lack of honor, make them seek refuge in flight, and give obedience to our orders." Francisco de Sande in his report to the Crown of Spain for the Legazpi expedition dated June 8, 1577, page 337, The Colonization and Conquest of the Philippines by Spain, VIII (CAPS are mine)

--Rafael--

 

[TNRat]

While I will not get into specifics, but there are those that say the HACA organization is built around theatrical sword play, which is nowhere near the same as cutting somone's tater off with a sword, or gutting someone's nutsack with a blade.

I am no sword expert, however.

I do know what when you read Musashi, he talks at length about the ridiculous notion that someone duels with edged weapons of any type for hours on end. Someone is usually cut within one or two moves, and badly.

Do much digging on this topic, and trust no one's judgement more than yours. Also, there is only one path that will lead you to answering the question as to how deep the well really is. But, I do believe society would frown on that method today.

BTW, there are superior quality weapons, and weapons that are superior when suited for one type of job or not, but the greatest weapon will always be made of organic material.

 

[Quixote]

Good point.

What about armor and horses?

 

[AF1]

You make some great points. It's always enlightening to see period documents, and to read what the participants themselves had to say.

The huge edge resulting from having firearms in that conflict would seem kind of hard to deny.

 

[ishiyumisan]

Research into European ARMS
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/firstexp.htm

The author writes about European superiority over Asians in their development and usage of ARMS, but then swiftly segues specifically about his study in RAPIERS and CUT/THRUST swordsmanship. A study that is worthwhile and of true merit. However, prefacing your article on European superiority of ARMS over Asian weapons, and then ignoring the actual ARMS (firearms) which were superior to Asian weaponry is a HUGE omission!

--Rafael--

Well the Roman empire had never been to china;;;; why???
And either one the conquistador had never been to japan or china;
Don't you think that something strange?
Superiority over what?
firearms superiority over same nomadic tribe Philippine .
Don't believe all you read...........




plan no useless move, take no step in vain.

ishiyumisan

 

[Watchful]

Roman empire had ties to China for the silk trade. Roman goblets have even been found in Korean tombs.

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200007/31/eng20000731_46871.html

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/romanenvoy.shtml


Further, the renaissance Spanish had numerous envoys into China, Japan, and India to compete against the Portuguese, and Jesuits had a long period of historical involvement with the East.

Historical research is easy to do, but rarely done.

 

[Chris Umbs]

Superiority over what?
firearms superiority over same nomadic tribe Philippine .

And the Aztecs, Incas and much of Europe during the Hapsburgs.

 

[Sun Helmet]

What is also interesting is that the Spanish account of Filipinos having "no honor" because they didn't line up in formation and charge the arquebusiers is also the same line of thinking some have attributed for the Arquebus NOT having any significant contribution.

Yet, with the hindsight of today, some may think they would charge the volleying line... but is that really sound tactics if you did not have firing options in turn?

At this time the Arquebus can shoot someone at more than a hundred yards, several hundred by some accounts. That's a LOT of ground to cover, and it also means you'd need open flat ground ... not sand, or uneven jungle terrain. The arquebusiers may also be behind a perimeter or above shooting down depending on the situation.

So from my POV, it had nothing to do with lack of honor (I'm sure some warriors were saying the guys with firearms lacked honor as well... but that's war) but sound tactics.

There's also some confusion with the Spanish accounts themselves, because at this time, the musket was already in use.. lighter and faster load time. The Friars and some chroniclers would simply call them "Arquebuses" anyway due to habit.

We should also keep in mind that the Arquebus replaced the Crossbow as preferred weapon of use. So the complaints about firearms not being effective fall flat because it was by the account of the soldiers themselves MORE practical than crossbows.


--Rafael--

 

[1917cutlass]

Great post Sun Helmet! As a practitioner of Filipino martial arts for a better part of a decade, and a student of rapier and cut and thrust swordsmanship for almost as long, I can tell you one is not better than the other. One has to understand that rapier and cut and thrust swordsmanship is NOTHING like sport fencing today, if somebody says otherwise, they probably don’t have a damned idea of what they are talking about. What is very interesting is that both Filipino and rapier/cut swordsmanship both use live hands and incorporate half beats into there techniques and combinations. But to say one style is superior to the other is mere foolishness! I have cross trained with pretty much every type of swordsmanship out there (Filipino (tons of different styles), Rapier/cut (same, Spanish, English, French, Russian, and German), Chinese, Japanese, old English (lots here too, hand-and-a-half sword, single hand sword with shield, great sword (even though they peeked in the renaissance to chop holes in pike formations), ect.) and the list goes on and on. But one style is not better than the other, they were each suited and designed to combat the types of warfare of their day while accommodating their surroundings. I have seen rapier and cut and thrust fighters destroy Filipino practitioners, and I have seen Filipino practitioners wipe the floor with the rapier/cut fighter.

In regards to the Romans not having contact with china is foolishness, watchful already demonstrated that, and the reason Rome did not invade china is because they couldn’t get their empire to expand to their borders before collapsing.

I will also agree that firearms were a HUGE advantage over the Filipinos, and that I will agree that the Filipino warriors did have honor, even though they didn’t march in columns to be shot down by firearms they didn’t even have. The Spanish were just frustrated at the time and had to think of some way to justify their losses in the skirmishes.

This is just my two cents and experience.

 

[Watchful]

...I have cross trained with pretty much every type of swordsmanship out there (Filipino (tons of different styles), Rapier/cut (same, Spanish, English, French, Russian, and German), Chinese, Japanese, old English (lots here too, hand-and-a-half sword, single hand sword with shield, great sword...ect.) and the list goes on and on.

Cutlass,

Can you post a couple of paragraphs on some of your observations? Comparisons? Comments on style as well as weaponry? I think this would be a great addition to this thread.

 

[1917cutlass]

In response to watchful’s request, with the Filipino styles, they have vicious double handed combinations like the sinwali that like walking into a lawn mower, the sayoc half-beats also help with intercepting the incoming weapon hand or making for a quick kill. They can also do mind baits where he will use one sword/stick/ knife to attack towards the face to distract him and then take out his legs. The list will go on and on with Filipino tactics that others who specialize in certain Filipino styles can go into more. With the rapier, its usually just one or two quick attacks at odd awkward angles to slip past your opponents guard for a lethal stab, some say its ill suited for offence and others say the opposite, it all depends on the style you are using. Don’t get confused between sport fencing and historical rapier fencing, I have done both and both are very different from each other. Rapiers are long and stiff blades that weigh between 2-3 pounds usually. Rapiers are also infamous for being ill-suited for cuts, however a rapier is very capable of successfully parrying a full broad sword swing using the forte (first half of the blade that’s closer to your hand). The cut and thrust style (side sword, broad sword, and saber) cut and thrust swords take both straight blades and curved blades like sabers, my personal favorite is the side sword, it’s a long tapered blade that’s like a thicker rapier. It is extremely lethal in that it has the ability to turn a parried thrust into a deadly cut or vise versa. A saber is also very deadly because it can use a parried cut into a extremely lethal and effective thrust merely by turning the blade over at the correct time. The basic tactics are attacks at the hand using stop thrusts or to the thighs to disable an opponent, then finish him off with one or two thrusts (people fail to realize that it is an extremely rare occurrence for an opponent to die from a single thrust with a civilian sword, it usually takes 3-8 thrusts to smite your foe). For the different nationalities styles for dueling however, the Germans preferred the curved saber and had the highest fatality rates of duels (one out of four). The Russians preferred the pistol but also used the saber in a similar fashion as the Germans. The French preferred the court sword and had the lowest fatalities in duels (one in almost a thousand, which made it less dangerous than football!) they were often criticized by other countries by saying they dance instead of fight. English were vary similar to the Russians in regard to the pistol except they preferred the rapier for edge weapon duels and not the saber, the fatalities for their blade duels was about one in sixty. The Spanish and Italian both preferred the rapier, but the Italians were usually most consistent and far more skilled, and continued to duel far after the Spanish stopped, the deaths were about 1-60 to 1-200 depending on the time period. The Chinese fighters I have faced are usually more fancy and not so much about skill as it is “for the sake of the art”, as a justified excuse for what they do. But the hard core fighters usually fight in a more circular style emphasizing the cut that can contend with the best of the fighters. The Japanese are also great fighters when they study historical kenjutsu, they fight in straight lines using different types of “chain or combo” cuts, they are usually in constant motion until either they or their opponent losses. The old European styles of fighter go on and on, but the three main sword styles are sword and shield, hand and a half, and great sword. A sword and shield are a very powerful combination that if a person masters, they can be any martial artists worst nightmare. They will often push with the shield to create an opening for a thrust or cut. They will often get close to the ground to protect their legs while they close the distance and go in for the kill. The hand-and-a-half sword is also a great weapon, the swordsman will usually parry with the flat of a blade to create an opening for a quick stab, will often grapple with it in a clinch to maneuver for a pressure cut or a stab. The two handed great sword is probably the most misunderstood weapon of them all, it is a little weighty but it is proportional and practical for its size, it is surprisingly quick, and it is used as a total weapon, meaning that they will often hit with the guard and pommel and even handle of the sword when in close so they can get some distance and then go for the kill. If I missed the point with your request watchful, let me know, and I will gladly try to answer your request the best I can.

P.S. if anybody out there wants to say something that i missed or somebody who specializes in something wants to correct me please do so.

 

[Watchful]

Shoot, no, you got my point (no pun intended). I think each one of your sentences could be a couple of paragraphs in itself. What a great comparison of so many different styles.

This might be a loaded question (I don't mean it to be), but have you encountered any swords or long blades which probably weren't as useful as you'd have liked them to be? Any that surprised you?

For me, I just never really found the Southern Chinese butterfly swords at all helpful. I found them to have an awkward grip, and not enough length for good leverage. I've seen a lot of guys do amazing things with them, but they just never clicked for me. On the other hand, a weapon I didn't think I'd like but really find interesting is the falcatta. Anyone use one?

Cutlass: Thanks! Great post.

 

[Chris Umbs]

A few notes from a traditional fencer who enters FMA tournaments...

I'm an instructor at the Martinez Academy in NYC and I run my own classes in NJ. M. Martinez is best known for his re-creation of the Spanish Destreza style of rapier. What's not as well known is that he also learned a 19th c. style of rapier from his teacher M. Rohdes who learned it from his teacher M. Cabijos. Cabijos came over to America from France in the early 1900's (don't have my exact references in front of me here). This is my prefered style and uses shorter rapiers than the 17th c. Italian or Spanish styles. It therefore uses more two time (dui tempi - parry/riposte) actions than the earlier styles. The cutting actions are also quicker due to the shorter blades so one actually ends up using more cuts than the earlier styles. Obviously these aren't 'hack the arm off' kind of cuts, but rather harrasing cuts that allow for a quick follow up thrust in the same unit of fencing time. This is the style I use for espada y daga tournaments since it fits the shorter blades better. I have also studied Spanish folding knife with M. Martinez and M. Loriega and I use this for knife tournaments.

Since I started entering FMA tournaments in 2000, I've collected a goodly number of FMA books by various authors. My main observation is that the techniques in the books tend to be thrown out the window by most FMA competitors. In single knife, I don't see any use of the live hand and in E&D I don't see any parrying done with the dagger and only occasional parries with the sword. What I do see is what sport fencers call 'parrying by distance' - jumping out of range when attacked and then re-closing distance. This means that they can't respond to an attack in a single tempo. Despite the fact that we're in a ring, I don't often see any circular footwork being done. Obviously there's a big disparity between the books and what the competitors end up using. What I've seen in the books seems to be a much more valid style. In tournaments there doesn't seem to be much respect for the blade - people attacking into attack and causing double hits. I'm not sure if that is cultural or just bad tourney habits. For trad. fencers it's always hit without being hit. Of course I should add that I've seen plenty of WMA folks with bad tourney habits as well.

Chris

 

[Sun Helmet]

Since I started entering FMA tournaments in 2000, I've collected a goodly number of FMA books by various authors. My main observation is that the techniques in the books tend to be thrown out the window by most FMA competitors. In single knife, I don't see any use of the live hand and in E&D I don't see any parrying done with the dagger and only occasional parries with the sword. What I do see is what sport fencers call 'parrying by distance' - jumping out of range when attacked and then re-closing distance. This means that they can't respond to an attack in a single tempo. Despite the fact that we're in a ring, I don't often see any circular footwork being done. Obviously there's a big disparity between the books and what the competitors end up using. What I've seen in the books seems to be a much more valid style. In tournaments there doesn't seem to be much respect for the blade - people attacking into attack and causing double hits. I'm not sure if that is cultural or just bad tourney habits. For trad. fencers it's always hit without being hit. Of course I should add that I've seen plenty of WMA folks with bad tourney habits as well.

Chris

Sounds like VERY bad tourney habits to me.

If you look at the recent accounts of the COLD STEEL CHALLENGE which the Atienza Kali reps entered, their intercepts and parrying along with their FMA footwork garnered much positive attention. Their student Guro Leo Manalo ended up winning the long blade competition against various styles (FMA, WMA etc.).

Another thing you must consider is that dueling tactics such as multiple levels of exchange /parries/trapping are often voided when placed in a melee scenario. If the instructor/practitioner does not understand the tactics involved then it will look like the way you described it.

If you ever get a chance to train outside the FMA tourney experience you've had with other systems that do skirmishes, mass attack and knife tapping like the Sayocs and Atienza Kali - I would highly, and biasedly (heh) recommend it.

--Rafael--
Sayoc Kali

 

[Chris Umbs]

Rafael,

I've been entering the Bakbakan tournaments which have a variety of different schools. One on one - not melee.

Chris

 

[Sun Helmet]

Rafael,

I've been entering the Bakbakan tournaments which have a variety of different schools. One on one - not melee.

Chris

hmm, never seen one of those.
It is difficult to gauge how FMA practioners spar based on the quality or rules of one type of competition.

When you have beginners and novices from any system go at it, you get the same kind of back and forth no half beat style of fighting.
In our own Sama Sama matches, we see it as well when the fighters are not up to speed yet.
Although once the level of competition picks up, you get some very nice exchanges.

We have a saying in Sayoc that a system's judged not by the quality of their best students but by the quality of their worst. It could possibly be the case in this matter as well.

Have you fought any of the higher level folks in Bakbakan? Perhaps you might have to move on to their next tier and try their top guys to get a better gauge of the system's complexities.

Another observation is that FMA books in general are poor representations of the actual art. They tend to make simple movements look complex. I think it possibly goes with ANY kind of weapon based manual, when placed into static pictures and text... the simple looks insanely complex. In fact looking at Thibault's engravings come to mind... I've seen Maestro Martinez do demos of the Spanish circle and it seems much simpler than those ornate yet highly complex (looking) geometric configurations.

Btw, if you haven't done any multiple skirmish type of sparring - I'd recommend it. In my eyes, it gets even closer to the real thing than one on one duels.

--Rafael--

 

[ishiyumisan]

firearms were a HUGE advantage over the Filipinos, and that I will agree that the Filipino warriors did have honor,

Many interesting points from you!
About Honor
I can't find any Honor in today's wars!
Why should be any Honor on the past wars!
Do you find any honor in ambush?
What you mean for honor?




plan no useless move, take no step in vain.
-----------------------------------------
ishiyumisan

 

[Spada e Pugnale]

Hi Rafael,

"The Indians of this country are not simple or foolish, nor are they frightened by anything whatever. They can be dealt with ONLY BY THE ARQUEBUSE, or by the gifts of GOLD or SILVER. If they were like those of Nueva Espana, Peru, Tierra Firme, and in other explored places where the ships of Castilla may enter, sound reasoning might have some effect. But these Indians first inquire if they must be Christians, pay money, forsake their wives, and other similar things. They kill Spaniards so boldy, that WITHOUT THE ARQUEBUSES WE COULD DO NOTHING. This was the reason that Magallanes, Sayavedra, and those who came afterward from Nueva Espana were maltreated. All those who have been killed since the coming of Miguel Lopez de Legazpi received THEIR DEATH THROUGH THE LACK OF ARQUEBUSES. The Indians have thousands of lances, daggers, shields, and other pieces of armor, with which they fight so well. They have no leaders to whom they look up. THE HAVOC CAUSED BY THE ARQUEBUSE, and their own lack of honor, make them seek refuge in flight, and give obedience to our orders." Francisco de Sande in his report to the Crown of Spain for the Legazpi expedition dated June 8, 1577, page 337, The Colonization and Conquest of the Philippines by Spain, VIII (CAPS are mine)

Governor de Sande's quote must be viewed in the proper context--i.e., the numbers of Spanish troops present at any given time in the Philippines, at least in the 16th and early 17th centuries, was very small, thus they needed every advantage they could get.

What is also interesting is that the Spanish account of Filipinos having "no honor" because they didn't line up in formation and charge the arquebusiers is also the same line of thinking some have attributed for the Arquebus NOT having any significant contribution.

I'm not sure that's what de Sande was saying.

Yet, with the hindsight of today, some may think they would charge the volleying line... but is that really sound tactics if you did not have firing options in turn?

Actually, yeah.

It's exactly what Jacobite Highland Scots did to British redcoats time and again (the celebrated "Highland Charge" with broadsword and targe). It's also interesting to note that the flintlock musket of the redcoats was considerably superior to the matchlock arquebus used by the Spanish.


Best,



David

 

[1917cutlass]

Very interesting point spada, i never really studied the spanish/filipino wars, even though im a huge history buff. I have however studied the english and french incursion into america in its early years, and its pretty much SSDD.
Just my 2 cents.

And ishiyumisan have you ever even been to war? I have. I can tell you there is still honor for fighting for ones country. Standing up for somebody who cant stand up for themselves, that’s what honor is all about. Historically there were a ton of honorable duels and jesters. During the civil war, graduates from west point would constantly watch each others backs and give each other leeway on and off the battle field. Im sure other history buffs out there can comment on a lot more incidents than I can.

Unfortunately I will be gone for a couple of weeks without much access to a computer. I cant wait till I get back to see how this thread has developed. Later all, and stay safe.

Cutlass

 

[Spada e Pugnale]

Yet, with the hindsight of today, some may think they would charge the volleying line... but is that really sound tactics if you did not have firing options in turn?

The army that lacks an advatage in missile weapons and/or specializes in close combat, will typically seek to close the gap one way or another.

At this time the Arquebus can shoot someone at more than a hundred yards, several hundred by some accounts.

100 yards is the upper practical range for a smoothbore firearm of this type. 80 or even 50 yards is far more typical. I can back that up with period sources. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

That's a LOT of ground to cover, and it also means you'd need open flat ground ... not sand, or uneven jungle terrain.

Not really, when you consider the slow rate-of-fire of matchlock weapons.

There's also some confusion with the Spanish accounts themselves, because at this time, the musket was already in use.. lighter and faster load time. The Friars and some chroniclers would simply call them "Arquebuses" anyway due to habit.

On the contrary, the musket of the 16th century was a heavier gun than the arquebus, and it had a slower rate-of-fire. It did, however, fire a heavier ball, and had a longer maximum range.

We should also keep in mind that the Arquebus replaced the Crossbow as preferred weapon of use. So the complaints about firearms not being effective fall flat because it was by the account of the soldiers themselves MORE practical than crossbows.

Actually, the incorporation of firearms was a topic of fairly hot debate, especially in areas where effective, quick-firing handbows were still in use (England, Venice, the Ottoman Empire, etc). The cons of guns were noted along with the pros.