Sun_Helmet

Yes, however there's documentation that one shot could hit three men astride.

Lines during that time were successfully broken using armored cavalry. The natives did not have that option. In battles during this time IN Europe, volley fire proved effective in defeating their own armored European rivals using similar HTH weapons.

Therefore, the Filipino natives would have even LESS of an advantage to defeat troops who utilized volley fire, especially when designed to be supported by pikes. In EVERY historical account that Filipinos engaged Spanish during the 1600's the natives would use hit and run tactics and would retreat from the firearm fire. We have to remind ourselves that projectile weaponry vastly alters the field of battle, especially weapons that were relatively new to the natives.

Sword engagements only happens when:

1. The formation is overrun (see Magellan accounts - note that Magellan used a LANCE and was killed attempting to DRAW his sword), if the Spanish formation is overrun, that means their pikes/lances which support the firearms have also been compromised. Swordsmen were used by the Spanish but one would have to have equal or overwhelming forces to make that tactic work. Hence, the Spanish used Visayans, Pampangans or Tagals as their swordsmen. Accounts of roughly 50 - 200 Spaniards with firearms, accompanied by 1000 Visayans wielding their native weaponry exists.

Therefore if ANY sword versus sword engagements happened - it was
probably with a majority of Filipinos fighting other Filipinos.

2. The natives have been overrun and the sword is used to "mop up" the native populace... meaning execution of men, women and children in some instances.


1. One can have "loaders".
2. Volley fire is also designed so that you cycle loading to produce continuous fire.
3. Pike men in tight formation are difficult to breach. It proved just as effective in Europe.
4. In the Legaspi logs by Morga, EVERY one of his 300 men were issued firearms. That would level a significant amount of onrushing natives.
5. Most importantly, natives did NOT fight that way according to Spanish accounts of that early time period. The natives were more prone to evading and retreating, using ambush...etc.
6. The Spanish IN the Philippines at that time period wrote about their reliance on firearms themselves. There's no mention of the sword being the primary weapon by this time.

Contrary to popular tales of moros going suicidal enmasse (some of our own FMA myths), they valued their lives as much as the next man. Going "juramentado" entails a strict ritual process that was usually reserved for an individual "assassin", not a whole tribe.
--------

The main point of my post however, was the total OMISSION of the firearm in the linked article about SUPERIOR European ARMS. Breaching the volley fire, AND the pikemen would be a SIGNIFICANT achievement during a battle. These were THE superior European arms the article was alluding to, but by completely ignoring this and then go into detail about his training in sword tactics to imply that the sword /dagger/buckler/ (solo) spear training were the actual arms of European superiority is not factually based on historical accounts.

If it were, there would be hundreds of Spanish accounts of how they wiped out Filipinos using their HTH weapons alone. Accounts that do NOT exist. There are however, account after account of firearms and pikes, divide and conquer tactics using religion, trade and exploitation of tribal rivalries used to achieve Conquest.

--Rafael--