Sword Myths

[Spada e Pugnale]

Here's a useful link to a site with quite a few original Spanish documents from the 16th century:

http://www.philippinehistory.net/first50/index.htm

Below you will see an excerpt from a request for munitions to be sent to Cebu, from 1565. You will note that both firearms and melee weapons are in evidence:

"Three hundred arquebuses (not of theworthless supply there in Mexico); and with them some with flints, all with horn powder-flasks (large or small) together with their molds and gear, which are to be in good condition,

One hundred corselets with their fittings,

Two hundred morions and helmets,

Fifty coats-of-mail, of rather heavy mail,

One hundred tapir hides,

One hundred white blankets for light andserviceable body armor,

Three hundred pikes with their iron points,

Fifty cavalry lances,

Fifty good broadswords, of which there is great need,

...Three hundred good shields" {emphasis added}

Note that the document specifically mentions that there is a "great need" for swords.

It also has to be understood that arquebusiers were invariably also armed with a sword and dagger, and in some areas, a certain proportion of men in any given group of arquebusiers might actually fight as sword-and-target men (this was a Spanish practice in the New World, even after firearms became widespread).

 

[Spada e Pugnale]

Also interesting is this report by Governor de Sande, made only one year before his famous ARQUEBUS quote (1576):

"98. We have no lead here, but, it abounds in Nueva España; it will be necessary to order that more than five hundred quintals be brought from that country, for this is our sustenance—besides three hundred quintals of gunpowder, for present use. We need some weapons and armor—some corselets, such as are used in Nueva España, and five hundred lances, which should be brought from Nueva España. Those that we had here were used up, through carelessness and in the encounter with the corsair. Until now it was not understood that pikes were necessary, because the natives are wont to flee. But now it has been seen that the Chinese attack other men with these weapons, for fear of their commander. Now as there are so few of us, and the country breathes nothing but war, we have not ventured into the forests to see if there is good wood for these lances. For the lack of these lances here, we have no lance-practice, nor is there a squadron to train the soldiers; although, because of the great need, I have contrived to make some lances from poles and bamboo, with iron and steel from China. I have made one hundred iron points. I do not dare to issue orders for target-practice (which the young soldiers need especially), not even for a day, in order not to use up my miserably small quantity of powder and lead."

Here's the whole report:

http://www.philippinehistory.net/first50/15760607sande.htm

Clearly, the issue was not so simple as using guns to overwhelm the locals. Guns were crucial because they gave an advantage to the Spaniards who were chronically short on manpower--remember that they had to cope not only with hostile Filipinos, but also with Chinese and Japanese pirates (wako), the Portuguese until 1580, and, later, the Dutch and English. However, guns were only a part of the picture. Such slow-firing weapons needed support from melee weapons--pikes, half-pikes, swords, and the like. This would remain the case for centuries (after the pike, the bayonet was adopted).

 

[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?

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.

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.

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions regarding what soldiers could and could not do with matchlock firearms. Let's take a look at the hard facts.

Maximum Ranges of Renaissance Small Arms:

Matchlock Arquebus: 300 yards

Matchlock Caliver: 360-400 yards

Matchlock Musket: 600 yards

These maximum ranges should not be confused with the ranges that were typically employed in combat.

In his Certain Discourses Military of 1590, the English soldier of fortune, Sir John Smythe, wrote on the realistic limits of the firearms of his day. Commenting on the musket, he noted the difference between maximum range and effective battlefield range:

"For although the musket, reinforced and well charged with good powder, would carry a full bullet point and blank twenty-four or thirty scores,"(i.e., 480 or 600 yards) "doth it therefore follow that they should give volleys of musket shot twenty or twenty-four scores off? Whereas in failing to take their just sight at point and blank no more but the length of a corn, their bullets do work as much effect against the moon as against the enemy that they shoot at." (emphasis added)

Smythe then went on to point out that, in practice, the effective ranges were much shorter:

"...the old bands of Italians, Spaniards, and Walloons... who by long experience do better know what effects both harquebuses and muskets of all heights do... And because that by continual experience they know the wonderful uncertainty of those kinds of weapons in the field, they will never skirmish nor otherwise give any volley above twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty paces off at the farthest, although it be a whole squadron or troop of horsemen or footmen". (emphasis added)

In other words, volleys were given off at MUCH shorter ranges--from 50 yards, down to 20 yards!

This corresponds closely with the typical combat ranges of later flintlock muskets from the 18th century. British Major George Hanger, writing during the American Revolution, commented:

"A soldier's musket, if not exceedingly ill-bored (as many of them are), will strike a figure of a man at eighty yards; it may even at 100; but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him; and as to firing at a man at 200 yards with a common musket, you may just as well fire at the moon and have the same hopes of hitting your object." (he seems to be echoing Smythe there!) "I do maintain and will prove, whenever called on, that no man was ever killed at 200 yards, by a common soldier's musket, by the person who aimed at him." (emphasis added)

During the Revolutionary War period, armies typically would not fire volleys at ranges over 100 yards. 80 yards and less was far more typical. Given the comparatively short amount of time it took for a regiment to charge that distance, a defending force would rarely get more than 2 volleys before the enemy came within bayonet point, with the second volley being delivered at only 30 yards.

This, in turn, helps to explain how those Jacobite Scots were able to defeat several modern British armies, using only hand weapons--lochaber axes, basket-hilted broadswords & backswords, targes, and dirks.

We must also take note of the fact that matchlock firearms are, by their very nature, slower to load and fire than flintlocks. The gunner must constantly adjust the matchcord as it burns down in the serpentine, and he must also make sure that it stays lit. A soldier with a flintlock can, on average, fire 3 shots in a minute; 4 if he is really good. A matchlock arquebus, on the other hand, is considerably slower--about 1 shot every 1.5 minutes.

This, in turn, indicates why gunners needed protection, either by pikemen (to fend off cavalry), or by "short weapons"--halberdiers or targetiers--when skirmishing. Such mixed units were mutually supportive: in the case of pike-and-shot, the pikes protected the shot from horsemen, and the shot protected the pikes from other shot. In the case of "loose shot" (skirmishers), the targetiers and/or halberdiers protected the shot from close assault. As I mentioned on one of my earlier posts, sometimes arquebusiers themselves might serve as "short weapons" men, by making use of sword and target (shield)--espada y rodela as the Spaniards called it.

Arqbuebusiers in general also often had to fight in HTH situations, due to the close proximity of the enemy. That's why they were equipped with a sword and dagger. Look at ANY period illustration of an arquebusier or musketeer, and you will typically see them equipped with these sidearms. Soldiers were taught not only to make use of these, but also to use the arquebus or musket as a club.

And thus, the reality of 16th century warfare was a combination of ever-improving gunpowder arms, traditional missile weapons (hand bows and crossbows) that were retained by specific martial cultures (English, Scots, Venetians, Turks, & Japanese), and hand weapons both long and short (pikes and swords).

 

[Sun Helmet]

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.

Hi David,

Yes an ARMY who has the advantage of HINDSIGHT of previous battles.

Not a TRIBE who fought in different terrain and had no history of armoured knights, pike formations etc.
Different tactics and that is what the Spanish found 'dishonorable'.

That is why the European use of armored Cavalry was essential. They could breach the formations. That does not make sense in jungle warfare when you have no horses.

You're still basing your framework of tactics on European battles which evidently was exactly what the Spanish discovered was so different about their skirmishes with tribes in the Philippines.

And you made my point by using POST- Filipino/Spanish 1500- 1600 hindsight.
Even the Filipinos figured this out much later. Once they learned the limitations and tactics of Spanish pike and shot. They retreated amd then figured out that ambush is the better way to CLOSE and defeat an enemy that relies on 'fortified' firepower. Others went the suicide route.

Different enemy, different tactics and different times.

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.

"The Spanish musket could reliably penetrate armor at a hundred yards and kill an UNPROTECTED man or horse at five hundred." page 160 GUNPOWDER and GALLEYS:: Changing Technology and Mediterranean Warfare at Sea in the 16th Century.

Granted, this is technical back and forth and I won't doubt that you have sources stating otherwise. My interest lies in the tactics and from my experience it remains to be true that you cannot close as easily when the other side is structured to pick you off at longer range, and you do not have weapons that equal that.

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

They loaded FASTER than a crossbow. Which was what Spanish troops were carrying at the time of the transition.

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.

You misread what I wrote.
I was comparing the faster and load time between the crossbow and 'arquebus' which later became the musket, but the Spanish chroniclers were still refering to them as 'arquebuses'.

"The 50 picked arquebusiers that accompanied Pedro Navarro in Ravenna in 1512 and who fired their weapons from forked rests were musketeers in FACT if not in name. By the battle of Muhlberg in 1547, effective small arms fire at unexpectedly LONG ranges was SOLIDLY established as a Spanish trademark." page 292 G&G.(same source as above)

" By 1530 crossbows were growing scarce on the weapons inventories of Spanish warships and are hardly ever encountered after 1540. All in all, it is safe to say that the matchlock arquebus was known throughout Europe by the 1520's, though in many areas it was not in general use."

"As far as weight and bulk were concerned the crossbow and arquebus were about on a par, though the arquebus was no doubt easier to carry and made much better club in a pinch." Both from GUNPOWDER and GALLEYS

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.

Yes, the composite bow had it's merits. However, again.. different enemy.
In addition, we must note that the main advantage of the musket was not based on technical details. No matter of the cons in technicality, one fact remained:

The 'arquebus' took LESS time to learn and use effectively than a composite bow. The contrast is glaring:
It takes several days or weeks to get a soldier to learn how to use a firearm, "while it took YEARS and whole way of life to produce a competent archer." page 162 G&G

--Rafael--

 

[Spada e Pugnale]

Rafael,

You're still basing your framework of tactics on European battles which evidently was exactly what the Spanish discovered was so different about their skirmishes with tribes in the Philippines.

It's pretty clear that what the Spanish found "so different about their skirmishes with tribes in the Philippines" was the fact that they were dealing with an enemy that, in the close combat context, was VERY comparable to themselves. Tough, skilled fighting men quickly recognize other tough, skilled fighting men.

This was markedly different from Spanish experiences in the New World. Conquistadores there commented how the Aztecs had "no style of fencing", whereas the various tribal warriors of the Philippines clearly did have a style (many, in fact). The Aztecs were amazed by the Spaniards' steel weapons. The Filipinos already had steel weapons of their own. The Aztecs had the formidable-yet-clumsy maquahuitl, whereas the Filipinos had "thousands of lances, daggers, shields, and other pieces of armor".

And so, given the fact that the Spanish were perpetually outnumbered, the Philippines obviously weren't going to be taken and held purely through HTH combat--it was a matter of simple mathematics, and, given the odds, attrition would have ended that idea fairly quickly. That's what de Sande's arquebus comment really meant.

Remember that I am not some ARMA revisionist, trying to prove that Spanish sword arts are "superior" to Filipino ones (you no doubt recall my critique of John Clements' essay on the DB site). It's all SKIRMISHING to me. A Spaniard would call it esgrima. A Filipino tribesman, depending on who he was and/or where he was from, might call it pananandata, or kadaanan, or kaliradman (you know those details far better than I do). I just call it "fencing".

And, clearly, the Spaniards and their tribal opponents in the PI respected each other. Were guns involved? Of course. The Spaniards would not have been able to take two-thirds of the PI without them, considering the circumstances.

But HTH clearly played its role too. The use of the gun depended upon a support system involving melee weapons--pikes, halberds, and yes, swords and daggers. It was a crucial component in defense, but had its place in attack as well. When the Spaniards wrote of "giving a Santiago" to the enemy, they were talking about charging and coming to pike's point and sword's edge (and musket's butt).

Simple as that.


Best Regards,

David

 

[Sun Helmet]

Clearly, the issue was not so simple as using guns to overwhelm the locals.

It was a MAJOR factor. Not the ONLY factor.

However, let's not cloud the actual purpose of the thread.
It is not whether it was a gun versus melee weapons debate.

It is about OMITTING that guns even had a factor in the battles as the ARMA article implied. Which is there for anyone to peruse.

Prefacing an article on SUPERIOR European arms then transitioning to talking about sword vs. sword tactics... is a work of sleight of hand.

Why? Because sword vs. sword are EQUAL or like weapons.
It is still thrust and slash.

That's SKILL based not ARMS based.

One sword design is not VASTLY SUPERIOR to another (in the purpose it is designed for - killing)...

The Spanish knew this as well, why? because if it were about SUPERIOR swords, they would have supplied the Visayans with Spanish swords. And you would see a plethora of such swords in museums and in the islands. Instead the Philippines is still known for its own brand of designs even today.

One Sword wielder versus another Swordsman depends on Superior SWORDSMANSHIP.

Guns were crucial because they gave an advantage to the Spaniards who were chronically short on manpower--

I think that is an important statement David, and btw a significant leap from the very first discussion we had several years ago when the use of Spanish firearms was almost totally discounted by many. It supports my whole topic thread.

Guns were crucial and allowed SMALL numbers to exists in a hostile environement.

I would not have said that about Spanish Swords allowing an equally small number of Spanish to exist in the same hostile scenario.

Hence, the Sword is not the SUPERIOR European weapon. The firearm is. (which was the myth that I am alluding to.)

Often the Spanish had the accompaniment of a huge or equal number of Filipino warriors (Visayan, Pampangans, etc.) who sided with them. There's also tribes that Spanish encountered that merely numbered in the double digits.


What the Magellan account taught the Spanish is to rely on the rivalries of tribes to fight one another. Stay in your pike and shot position.. fire away... have natives fight other natives.

As the Magellan account proves... firearms are only as effective as long as your ammunition lasts.

Which brings us back to not closing on the enemy. At this time the Filipinos who first encountered the Spanish had no reference on how MUCH ammunition the Spanish carried.

If they had any knowledge of the Magellan scenario, the tactic of drawing fire and taking cover is a sound tactic. Sooner or later the enemy would run out of firepower... then you close. Remember that Magellan's men never returned, so if that was their only evidence of European tactics... it makes sense.

remember that they had to cope not only with hostile Filipinos, but also with Chinese and Japanese pirates

You have to add that the same is true with the Filipinos.
Some tribes could be twenty men or a thousand. Moros fought anyone that disagreed with them even other Moros. To them the Spanish were just another enemy.

However, guns were only a part of the picture. Such slow-firing weapons needed support from melee weapons--pikes, half-pikes, swords, and the like. This would remain the case for centuries (after the pike, the bayonet was adopted).

Glad you said that David, that's the myth I was talking about.
The sword was not the SUPERIOR arm... it was a combination of other weapons and TACTICS... such as Divide and Conquer and the use of Religion.
The sword would not have changed anything in the Philippines.

Limited to the sword ALONE, the Spanish would have been just another tribe with sword skills... open to whomever did come along with Superior Arms.

--Rafael--

 

[Sun Helmet]

Rafael,
And so, given the fact that the Spanish were perpetually outnumbered, the Philippines obviously weren't going to be taken and held purely through HTH combat--it was a matter of simple mathematics, and, given the odds, attrition would have ended that idea fairly quickly. That's what de Sande's arquebus comment really meant.

Hi David,

I disagree that it was merely a matter of simple mathematics.

Why? Not because the Filipinos had superior numbers, but that the way you are presenting it opens it up to speculation.
We are then subjecting a SPECULATION that one side would 'win' (in your case, it implies the Spanish would) if EQUAL number of participants engaged in SWORD only skirmishes.

That would be a matter of speculation, and thus a Sword Myth.

Remember I did not call it a PIKE myth, or HTH myth.

Perhaps the Spanish would defeat a tribe, but that NEVER happened with swords alone. (which the ARMA article implied)

Btw, I'm not confusing you with some in ARMA. But I do try to bring the discussion back to the ARMA article and how that affects what we both add to the discussion.

Remember that I am not some ARMA revisionist, trying to prove that Spanish sword arts are "superior" to Filipino ones (you no doubt recall my critique of John Clements' essay on the DB site). It's all SKIRMISHING to me. A Spaniard would call it esgrima. A Filipino tribesman, depending on who he was and/or where he was from, might call it pananandata, or kadaanan, or kaliradman (you know those details far better than I do). I just call it "fencing".

Yes, that's my whole point.
That's why playing the numbers game opens it up to SPECULATION that the Spanish would win otherwise.

But HTH clearly played its role too. The use of the gun depended upon a support system involving melee weapons--pikes, halberds, and yes, swords and daggers. It was a crucial component in defense, but had its place in attack as well. When the Spaniards wrote of "giving a Santiago" to the enemy, they were talking about charging and coming to pike's point and sword's edge (and musket's butt).

Well, you know as well I do that I was the FIRST to point that out in our discussions on the DB forum!

We must also note though, that in the Philippines... the ones carrying the sword end of the bargain for the Spanish were primarily other Filipinos.

best,

--Rafael--

 

[Spada e Pugnale]

Prefacing an article on SUPERIOR European arms then transitioning to talking about sword vs. sword tactics... is a work of sleight of hand.

Or perhaps it's the work of ignorance of the bigger military picture, on the part of certain WMA revisionists...

One sword design is not VASTLY SUPERIOR to another (in the purpose it is designed for - killing)...

The Spanish knew this as well, why? because if it were about SUPERIOR swords, they would have supplied the Visayans with Spanish swords. And you would see a plethora of such swords in museums and in the islands. Instead the Philippines is still known for its own brand of designs even today.

Well, we know that the Spanish did supply swords to allied troops--New World Indians sometimes used them, and the English commented on the use of Spanish swords by Pampangan mercs during the Seven Years War.

But I agree that it's hardly as simple as one sword being "superior" to another. Context is key.

I think that is an important statement David, and btw a significant leap from the very first discussion we had several years ago when the use of Spanish firearms was almost totally discounted by many. It supports my whole topic thread.

Thanks--I have learned a great deal from even the briefest of our conversations.

Guns were crucial and allowed SMALL numbers to exists in a hostile environement.

Exactly.

I would not have said that about Spanish Swords allowing an equally small number of Spanish to exist in the same hostile scenario.

Nope. Back to those basic mathematics...

Often the Spanish had the accompaniment of a huge or equal number of Filipino warriors (Visayan, Pampangans, etc.) who sided with them.

Indeed, Visayans and Pampangans typically outnumbered Spanish regulars in the PI--they in fact often made up the majority of any "Spanish" force in question (at least in the 16th and early 17th centuries, that is).

What the Magellan account taught the Spanish is to rely on the rivalries of tribes to fight one another. Stay in your pike and shot position.. fire away... have natives fight other natives.

As the Magellan account proves... firearms are only as effective as long as your ammunition lasts.

I still think we'll have to agree to disagree as to what exactly happened at Mactan, but I'll add to your comment, "firearms are only as effective as long as your ammunition lasts."

They're also only effective as long as you can keep the enemy out of spear & sword range. Look at those redcoats who fought and died at Killicrankie, et al.

Which brings us back to not closing on the enemy. At this time the Filipinos who first encountered the Spanish had no reference on how MUCH ammunition the Spanish carried.

In Magellan's time, I guess so, but that's not necessarily the case with Legaspi's time. The Filipinos may have had to deal with wako incursions prior to the 1574 attack on Manilla. Wako took to European firearms quite early (the Portuguese brought them to Japan in the 1540s). The Brunei Moros that Legaspi's men fought against had some guns of their own. Given the close proximity of the Brunei Moros and the Filipinos, it would be interesting to know about how familar the latter may have been with guns too.

Glad you said that David, that's the myth I was talking about.
The sword was not the SUPERIOR arm... it was a combination of other weapons and TACTICS... such as Divide and Conquer and the use of Religion.

And hook up with those allied tribes!

The sword would not have changed anything in the Philippines.

It still had it's place in the Conquest--just not as much as some revisionists claim.

Best,

David

 

[Sun Helmet]

Nope. Back to those basic mathematics...

See above on the mathematics part. Not that superior numbers was not a factor in the ACTUAL skirmishes, but my disagreement is speculating on the outcome if numbers were equal.

I still think we'll have to agree to disagree as to what exactly happened at Mactan, but I'll add to your comment, "firearms are only as effective as long as your ammunition lasts."

I am only quoting from the actual source which is Oliviera's account. Not Pigafetta's.

"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, and fighting until they were exhausted, some died, and Magellan among them, "

Which btw, Oliviera is also speculating that with equal numbers they would have prevailed.

They're also only effective as long as you can keep the enemy out of spear & sword range. Look at those redcoats who fought and died at Killicrankie, et al.

Yes, I think I mentioned the part about being overrun. That's when the swords etc. actually come into play. There's no more time for shooting by then.

--Rafael--

 

[Sun Helmet]

Hi Rafael,
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.

Yes, which proves that they can be sent a thousand swords and it won't alter the balance. Note that de Sande did NOT ask for a thousand swordsmen. He wanted guns!

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.

ahem... The Battle of Culloden.


--Rafael--

 

[Spada e Pugnale]

ahem... The Battle of Culloden.

Rafael,

Culloden was an example of the "Highland Charge" being defeated (and the Scots were outnumbered that day, btw), but there are plenty of other examples of the reverse being true--i.e., of Highlanders with traditional edged weapons defeating modern European forces, such as the devastating defeat at Killicrankie in 1689, Prestonpans in 1745 (only one year before Culloden), and Falkirk (the same year as Culloden). Heck, even as late as 1758 during the Battle of Quebec, Highlanders in the British Army made a successful broadsword charge against the French!

Also, it's interesting to note that Culloden represented a battle where new tactics were used, based on the many past British defeats--there was a far greater reliance on artillery against the Scots, and there was also the so-called "oblique thrust" (where the redcoat would thrust his bayonet not to the Highlander in front of him, but to the Highlander to his immediate right) that was apparently utilized to some good effect by the redcoats against the Highland swordsmen that day.

Best,

David

 

[Sun Helmet]

Rafael,
Culloden was an example of the "Highland Charge" being defeated (and the Scots were outnumbered that day, btw), but there are plenty of other examples of the reverse being true
David

David,

Charging a firearm formation WITHOUT your own firearms/breaching cavalry is BAD tactics. The Macdonald's were slaughtered by it and some eventually realized that this tactic yields high casualties and opted to do what the Filipino natives instinctively did.

The reason the Brits were defeated earlier is because they didn't hold formation, and Culloden just proves that with equal or greater numbers it is pure suicide. Suicidal tactics can have positive results but in the long run you opt to lose a LOT of men. Sooner or later, this will yield diminishing returns.

With the Filipinos not armored (ala the shields on chest) and the terrain quite different from the plaines... it would be a turkey shoot. Just read about the Battle of Bud Bagsak...

As per the oblique thrust, you mean no one ever came up with this idea prior to the redcoats? Not the Greeks, Spanish or Romans? However, it does support that long range HTH weapons will defeat someone with a sword. Makes the pike even more of a player in the Filipino / Spanish skirmishes.

--Rafael--

 

[Spada e Pugnale]

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!

The article cited above is certainly quite problematic, but it should also be noted that such essays appear to be a sort of backlash against the pseudo-history which has all too often been presented in various popular FMA books.

For example:

(From Dan Inosanto's classic The Filipino Martial Arts as taught by Dan Inosanto)

"The Filipinos were impressed with the Spanish sword and dagger system of fighting, imitated it and soon found the weaknesses in the Spanish style. Their new method that employed a long and short stick eventually assumed the Spanish name of 'espada y daga,' meaning sword and dagger."

Considering that you, Rafael, have stressed time and again that the SWORD ALONE had comparatively little to do with the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, one has to wonder about the above paragraph from Inosanto's book. Clearly, the ARMA folks are not the only ones who have "implied" things. Inosanto claimed that the Filipinos "imitated" the Spaniards' espada y daga (which "implies" that swordfighting had an important role in the conquest), and then found the "weaknesses" in the Spanish method (what "weaknesses"?) This "implies" that the Filipino arts were "superior" to Western fencing methods of that time.

(From Remy Presas's Modern Arnis: The Filipino Art of Stick Fighting)

"When the Philippines were invaded by the Spanish, the invaders required guns to subdue their fierce opponents. The deadly fighting skills of Filipino warriors nearly overwhelmed them, and they dubbed the native stick style escrima (skirmish)."

The "implications" here are pretty obvious too. Presas claimed that the Spanish "required guns" to fight the Filipinos, and that the "deadly fighting skills" of the latter "nearly overwhelmed" the invading forces. Nowhere did Presas mention the typically small numbers of Spanish troops involved; on the contrary, the "implication" was that Filipino fighting skills were somehow "superior".

(From Mark V. Wiley's Filipino Martial Arts: Cabales Serrada Escrima)

"When the Spaniards travelled to the Island of Luzon in 1570, they found it inhabited by Filipino, Chinese, and Indonesian cross-cultures, and upon their arrival they were confronted by Kalistas (Kali warriors) whose fighting method far exceeded theirs. But the Spaniards, using firearms, defeated the inhabitants of Luzon."

No "implications" there--Wiley claimed flat out that the fighting style of the Filipinos "far exceeded" that of the Spanish.

Wiley's claim above regarding Filipino martial superiority is not backed up by historical evidence. Take, for example, the nameless Spanish chronicler who commented in 1572,

"For instance, they say that there are in this country Moors like those of Barberia [Barbary], and that their strength in arms is quite equal to that of those people; and that they fight and defend themselves like the Turks. Those who have so written are in error."

The entire account of the Conquest of Luzon can be found here:

http://www.philippinehistory.net/first50/luzon.htm

I invite all the forum members to make their own conclusions.

Back to Wiley's book, it should also be noted that, after making the claims above, he strangely contradicts himself:

"During the 330 years of Spanish reign, after many skirmishes with Spanish fencing exponents and after careful observation, the art of Kali was altered.

...It was the Spanish rapier and dagger systems that had the greatest influence on the development of Escrima."

Wiley seems to be echoing Inosanto with the above notion, at least in part. Whatever the case, it is equally problematic. Once again, we have stories of "many skirmishes with Spanish fencing exponents", which contradicts what we know about the fighting in the PI at that time. In addition, if the "Kalistas" (a fabricated term?) had a fighting style that "far exceeded" that of the Spanish, then why would the former even bother with "careful observation" of an ostensibly "inferior" method? Even more, why would the "inferior" method (Spanish espada y daga) have any profound influence on the already "superior" native arts?


So, as you see, the SWORD MYTH has been propagated on BOTH sides. Arguably, it began in popular FMA circles. That doesn't make the later WMA emotional backlash from writers like Clements and Harris valid, but it does show that false claims and "implications" were made within the FMA community long before ARMA even existed.

FWIW.

 

[Spada e Pugnale]

David,

Charging a firearm formation WITHOUT your own firearms/breaching cavalry is BAD tactics. The Macdonald's were slaughtered by it and some eventually realized that this tactic yields high casualties and opted to do what the Filipino natives instinctively did.

The reason the Brits were defeated earlier is because they didn't hold formation, and Culloden just proves that with equal or greater numbers it is pure suicide. Suicidal tactics can have positive results but in the long run you opt to lose a LOT of men. Sooner or later, this will yield diminishing returns.

This doesn't change the fact that several modern, firearm-equipped British armies during the 17th and 18th centuries were defeated outright by Scottish clansmen armed predominantly with traditional edged weapons.

Those defeats, in turn, showed the limitations of the firearms (and their corresponding systems of use) of that time.

And the limitations of the firearms used by the Spanish in the 16th and 17th centuries were even greater.

With the Filipinos not armored (ala the shields on chest) and the terrain quite different from the plaines... it would be a turkey shoot. Just read about the Battle of Bud Bagsak...

I will. Do you have a link or a book title? Or both?

As per the oblique thrust, you mean no one ever came up with this idea prior to the redcoats? Not the Greeks, Spanish or Romans?

No.

I didn't mean to suggest that Cumberland and the British invented the oblique thrust. I suspect it must have been used much earlier, perhaps by the Greeks or Romans, as you suggest. Nevertheles, it can be surmised that it was "re-discovered" (at least in modern European circles) by Cumberland and the Brits.

However, it does support that long range HTH weapons will defeat someone with a sword. Makes the pike even more of a player in the Filipino / Spanish skirmishes.

Which is fine.

The pike is still a melee weapon, albeit a long-range one. Spanish rodeleros likewise found themselves unable to cope with the long spiess (pike) of the Swiss, when they first tackled each other at Seminara in 1495. They later learned the use of the Swiss/German weapon, and incorporated it into their military system. Supported by friendly pikemen, rodeleros were then able to close the gap, and execute great carnage among enemy pikes. I guess it's similar in concept to what GM Angel Cabales said--he was fine with his close-range work, because he knew larga mano too, so larga mano fighters didn't worry him.

As for the Highlanders' broadsword-and-targe vs. the bayonet, the former generally has the advantage. A bayonet is formidable, but it's still mediocre as far as polearms go--it's shorter than a pike or half-pike, and yet it's heavier (because the "shaft" is a gun). Google for accounts of the melee during various Jacobite battles, and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Federico]

I will. Do you have a link or a book title? Or both?

Not Sun Helmet, but Swish of the Kris does cover Bud Bagsak, and is online on the Bakbakkan site.

I have more info on the massacre of Bud Dajo. Again Swish covers that, Bullets and Bolos by John R White, Muddy Glory by Russel Roth, Mandate in Moroland by Peter Gowing, and check out the Philippine Commission Reports (though the reports tend to be dry and very dismissive of these conflicts).

Though, I would throw one cautionary note, at least in current Indian Studies, I would not over-estimate the ability of Spanish Conquistadors to kill primitively armed Aztecs (even with native allies), without taking into factor that one thing that existed in the Americas that did not exist in PI were the effects of disease. Massive and massive epidemics pretty much destroyed any Native American ability to mount longterm viable defenses. These epidemics reduced native populations by as much 1/2.

However, I would agree with you, that pseudo history on both sides only lessens the achievements of our ancestors (whomever you may claim descent). At least in the two Universities I have attended, I have yet to see a professor make a claim that colonialism functioned primarily through military conquest. Particularly in SE Asia. For many colonial groups in SE Asia, prior to the 18th century, military actions against natives were something that was not seen as priority number one (Laarhoven's Triumph of Moro Diplomacy goes a long way into providing insight to Dutch, Spanish, and British policy in the region) if other means were possible. Most European colonials were more concerned about their European colonial neighbors, and geared their military preparedness to fight eachother vs natives. Another good book on that topic, though old, is KC Tregonning's The British in Malaya.

 

[Sun Helmet]

The article cited above is certainly quite problematic, but it should also be noted that such essays appear to be a sort of backlash against the pseudo-history which has all too often been presented in various popular FMA books.
....

So, as you see, the SWORD MYTH has been propagated on BOTH sides. Arguably, it began in popular FMA circles. That doesn't make the later WMA emotional backlash from writers like Clements and Harris valid, but it does show that false claims and "implications" were made within the FMA community long before ARMA even existed.

FWIW.

I agree.

Well, you don't see me quoting off these sources on matters of history. I think Guro Inosanto would revise some of his book if he ever rewrote it.

When I first posted in the DB forum about the Sword Myth, it wasn't relating to the Harris article but another one by Clements. However, it is self evident when I say it is a Sword Myth that it can't be to the contrary on the other side.
If it never happened on the Filipino side - it never happened on the Spanish side as well. I definitely agree with you on that.

Back to the Scots and Brits... again, it can't apply to the Spanish /Filipino conflict. It would be bad tactics multiplied. The Scots had a reference of European army engagements. The Filipino culture did not have open battlefield wars with horses and knights etc.... prior to the Spanish or they would have fought in a different manner altogether.

We have to put ourselves in the same referential setting and bg to see how each side would react. If the Filipinos charged like Highlanders, the Spanish would have stated these details (tactics-wise not actually naming something that happens many years in the future).

I have the Culloden book which has excellent accounts of the various battles leading up to the massacre.

As per Bud Bagsak, it was US versus Moros... you can find various accounts online and I think Bullets and Bolos was a better account than Swish of the Kris which I have problems with concerning accuracy.

--Rafael--

 

[Sun Helmet]

The pike is still a melee weapon, albeit a long-range one.

heh.. I can't believe you finally called them LONG RANGE weapons.

As you recall, I always placed the pike (lance in most translated accounts) as a very important factor in HTH combat.

Now if the ARMA article had transitioned to how the pike is the weapon which showed European Superior arms, then I'd probably be more likely to agree with him.

However, it isn't as cool as the sword!!!

--Rafael--

 

[Spada e Pugnale]

I agree.

Well, you don't see me quoting off these sources on matters of history.

Very true.

I think Guro Inosanto would revise some of his book if he ever rewrote it.

And I wish he would--not just for a re-writing of the historical material, but also because, on the instructional level, The Filipino Martial Arts as taught by Dan Inosanto is still one of the best books ever written, and it would be really cool if it was generally available again (my copy is coming apart at this point).

When I first posted in the DB forum about the Sword Myth, it wasn't relating to the Harris article but another one by Clements.

I remember.

However, it is self evident when I say it is a Sword Myth that it can't be to the contrary on the other side.
If it never happened on the Filipino side - it never happened on the Spanish side as well. I definitely agree with you on that.

Fair enough.

Back to the Scots and Brits... again, it can't apply to the Spanish /Filipino conflict. It would be bad tactics multiplied. The Scots had a reference of European army engagements. The Filipino culture did not have open battlefield wars with horses and knights etc.... prior to the Spanish or they would have fought in a different manner altogether.

We have to put ourselves in the same referential setting and bg to see how each side would react. If the Filipinos charged like Highlanders, the Spanish would have stated these details (tactics-wise not actually naming something that happens many years in the future).

Okay.

As per Bud Bagsak, it was US versus Moros... you can find various accounts online and I think Bullets and Bolos was a better account than Swish of the Kris which I have problems with concerning accuracy.

Yeah, Swish of the Kris--at least the portions I have read--seem highly problematic. Hurley's interpretations of primary sources seem downright skewed in some places (like the fight between Legaspi's men and the junk of the Brunei Moros, for example).

I'll Google for Bud Bagsak--thanks.

Best,

David

 

[Spada e Pugnale]

Rafael,

heh.. I can't believe you finally called them LONG RANGE weapons.

Long range hand weapons.

As you recall, I always placed the pike (lance in most translated accounts) as a very important factor in HTH combat.

True.

I also recall that, on the DB site, you posted a period account of an early 17th century action involving the Spanish (including pikemen, under a certain Cervantes) against a combined force of Moros and Dutch. Stirring stuff!

Now if the ARMA article had transitioned to how the pike is the weapon which showed European Superior arms, then I'd probably be more likely to agree with him.

I hear ya there!

However, it isn't as cool as the sword!!!

LOL!

About the pike. Modern writers and researchers tend to be really specific with their terminology--i.e., a "pike" is a footman's weapon, whereas a "lance" is a horseman's weapon (I'm guilty of this myself). However, back in the day, the folks who actually used these things in earnest weren't so picky or specific. You mention that Spanish accounts are inconsistent with "lance" and "pike", and this is correct. The terms were, in fact, largely interchangable at that time.

Take, for example, the fine German landsknecht infantry who fought predominantly as pikemen. Landsknecht literally means "servant of the land" (a reference to Emperor Maximilian's new force to stop the Swiss). However, as early as 1500, the word was being spelled as lanzknecht, which had an entirely different meaning ("lance servant"), which was a reference to their use of the pike. The name stuck, and even at the end of the century, we have Sir John Smythe referring to the "lance-knights of Germany" ("knight" simply meaning "servant").

In addition, the most common German word for "pike" was actually spiess, which simply means "spear".

As for the pike's fighting qualities, it certainly had obvious advantages. The Swiss/German system became standard throughout Europe. Even the Ottoman Turks finally adopted it (though they did so very late, and when they did they had to face Polish hussars who's 14-foot lances often outranged infantry pikes of that time). The Spanish called the pike senora y reyna de las armas (the "mistress and queen of weapons").

Although commonly thought of only as a mass formation-type weapon (and it was admittedly strongest in that capacity), certain European martial cultures taught the use of the pike on a more individual, fencing-type level (the Germans, as well as English--see Joachim Meyer's 1570 treatise, and George Silver's Brief Instructions from c. 1605).

It is also interesting to note that, at this same period, the Japanese were fielding their version of the pike--the nagae-yari. Just as some ARMA writers have apparently failed to see the importance of the pike, there are likewise many modern Japanese sword art practitioners who are apparently caught up in the spell of the Sword's appeal, and they often fail to recognize that is was the YARI, in all its forms, which really won battles for the various rival bushi all those centuries.

Is the pike really "not as cool" as the sword? Yeah, I guess so. People always associate the great zweihander sword with the landsknechts, and yet only a small minority of troops actually used it. Landsknechts were eventually called lanzknechts, but they were never called "zweihanderknechts" or anything like that. That should tell us something.

Best as Always,

David

 

[Sun Helmet]

It is also interesting to note that, at this same period, the Japanese were fielding their version of the pike--the nagae-yari. Just as some ARMA writers have apparently failed to see the importance of the pike, there are likewise many modern Japanese sword art practitioners who are apparently caught up in the spell of the Sword's appeal, and they often fail to recognize that is was the YARI, in all its forms, which really won battles for the various rival bushi all those centuries.

I believe the Japanese Nagi arts have become predominantly female attended in Japan.

I blame the popularity of the sword on Erroll Flynn and Toshiro Mifune.

--Rafael--