Tweet
Swordplay
While Magellan may or may not have been a decent swordsman, his death illustrates the very point that the sword was ***never*** a factor. Magellan died with lance in hand not the sword. He never got his sword deployed because tactics at this time period had evolved to the drilled formations of the pike and shot. It was further evolved once Legaspi arrived years later. Read Pigafetta1s own account of Magellan1s death. There is no mention of Spanish swordsmanship engaging the natives.
The tactics during this time for Spain were to use formations of firearm and long weapons like the lance. To be overrun with sword by many natives would be the admittance of the failure of their modified pike and shot phalanx.
<< ... the statement was ignorant. >>
Unfortunately going down this road will open the thread up to a rapid degeneration.
On the number of Filipinos killed compared to Spain...
This is a loaded statement and full of misinformation. You have to qualify this statement that the majority of those battling for Spain were fellow Filipinos who were tribal rivals of the tribesmen. Filipinos killing Filipinos... kinda doubles the body count. Spain was good at the omittance of native's contributions to conquest, but even so they sometimes get mentioned in brief accounts. The Spanish didn't think the natives were much without them that was the elitist and racist pov of the time. Youy have to realise when the Spanish attacks another tribe they may have severa hundred Filipinos backing them up to fight the rivaltribe.
You will note that even in the Magellan accounts this is rarely discussed. Lapu Lapu and his men did not follow the retreating Spaniards because tactically this would leave them open in the waters, to the rival tribe consisting of a thousand warriors.
Thus my statement on divide and conquer methods being a primary element in the conflict.
On possession of firearms being the sole cause...
I have read just about every Spanish account of their Conquest (And Spanish text is HEAVILY slanted towards Spain.) Their reliance on the pike and shot, religion and divide and conquer were the main causes. No accounts of the sword ever coming into play.
Principles of warfare compared to principles of a bar room brawl....
Again you will have to list support of this theory in military tactic books or even in history. This is not true. Not according to the statement I originally gave. One individual's fighting skill is not, nor ever will be the cause of defeating a whole nation nor it's standing army.
Having fighting skills adds to the chances, but principles of war and principles of daily altercations are vastly different in tactics, logistics, political implications, collateral damage and deployment for starters.
However, give a guy in bar room brawl a gun and leave the other guy with a beer bottle and the guy with the gun will most likely win.
On one Filipino defeating a Spaniard....allowing them to defeat all Spainiards.:
Yes, if you totally discount all the elements I have stated above. One Filipino warrior getting shot by a firearm makes a huge difference. Remember the Spanish did not use their swords as their primary weapons.
The involvement of firearms dictated how the skirmish would go. The involvement of rival tribesmen and the involvement of religion. That was the methods of Conquesta as dictated to Miguel Legaspi from the Crown of Spain. It is written in the Blair and Robertson volumes , and also in the translation of Morga by Jose Rizal.
I can also list Restall's Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest to support the above.
On defeating technology....
You will have to list in ANY Spanish account of when this held true. Tell me where divide and conquer methods, the firearm with pike and shot formation and religion were UN-involved and only the Spanish skill of the sword came to play.
It never happened.
Remember the basis of the discussion is whether the Spanish SWORD ever came to play. NOT the firearm or pike. My whole contention is that the Firearm created a huge difference in battles. If you look at the history of the firearm, the introduction of the weapon even in the European theater of war caused a significant shift in military tactics. The Spanish themselves wrote of the arquebuses1 success and their dependence on such technology.
Unless you have Western Swordsmen teaching drilled pike and shot formations as part of their present curriculum then the fighting skill as it pertains to the SWORD alone is pure myth.
Your theory of individual fighting is again not holding a candle to your statement because there is no record of the Vietnamese individual fighting skills defeating an American1s skill. You are over simplifying the Vietnam war and that is one war especially that can never be called simple.
On Spanish American war being the catalyst of Filipino success against Spain...
The Americans themselves account that the Spanish troops were "routed" in the Philippines. By the time Dewey entered Manila Bay, Spain was huddled to its last fort. Read the accounts of the Katipunan and you will see that there is a daily account of the progress of the Katipuneros against Spanish guns.
Again even this rout does not state the individual skill of one Filipino can attest to defeating the Spanish Arms. I would state that it also supports the fact that not the martial art either but a consolidation of MANY factors. The US destruction of the small Spanish fleet also aided in the battle but was not the sole cause of the defeat.
What is interesting is that you give credit to my statement on the Spanish Naval defeat to the US . It supports my statement about the complexities of war. That not ONE factor can lay sole claim to a defeat or win.
On Teddy Roosevelt.....
Aguinaldo had the Spanish on the run and down to one large fort PRIOR to Dewy's arrival. How can this statement carry any credibility?
Read the history of the Katipunan and how unity was the peak of the revolution and the eventual breakdown of the Katipunan also reverberates to today's events.
Why would the defeat of Spain in one island be more significant than another? Especially if Roosevelt was never even involved in the battle in Manila Bay?
What it does indicate was that as an empire Spain was fading. The methods of Conquesta were proven to be ineffective in the long run.
As per people who are whacking each other, you have to take into consideration of the history of the country and how the oppression of the so called Spanish government played a HUGE role in the way the people act today.
If one is to state the positive s of the Conquesta methods, you have to also recognize the dismal failures of such limited thinking.
A Filipino named Jose Rizal wrote:
"ŠAwaken your conciousness of our past. Already effaced from your memory and to rectify what has been falsified and slandered."
best,
--Rafael Kayanan--
--------
---------
---------
------
While Magellan may or may not have been a decent swordsman, his death illustrates the very point that the sword was ***never*** a factor. Magellan died with lance in hand not the sword. He never got his sword deployed because tactics at this time period had evolved to the drilled formations of the pike and shot. It was further evolved once Legaspi arrived years later. Read Pigafetta1s own account of Magellan1s death. There is no mention of Spanish swordsmanship engaging the natives.
The tactics during this time for Spain were to use formations of firearm and long weapons like the lance. To be overrun with sword by many natives would be the admittance of the failure of their modified pike and shot phalanx.
<< ... the statement was ignorant. >>
Unfortunately going down this road will open the thread up to a rapid degeneration.
On the number of Filipinos killed compared to Spain...
This is a loaded statement and full of misinformation. You have to qualify this statement that the majority of those battling for Spain were fellow Filipinos who were tribal rivals of the tribesmen. Filipinos killing Filipinos... kinda doubles the body count. Spain was good at the omittance of native's contributions to conquest, but even so they sometimes get mentioned in brief accounts. The Spanish didn't think the natives were much without them that was the elitist and racist pov of the time. Youy have to realise when the Spanish attacks another tribe they may have severa hundred Filipinos backing them up to fight the rivaltribe.
You will note that even in the Magellan accounts this is rarely discussed. Lapu Lapu and his men did not follow the retreating Spaniards because tactically this would leave them open in the waters, to the rival tribe consisting of a thousand warriors.
Thus my statement on divide and conquer methods being a primary element in the conflict.
On possession of firearms being the sole cause...
I have read just about every Spanish account of their Conquest (And Spanish text is HEAVILY slanted towards Spain.) Their reliance on the pike and shot, religion and divide and conquer were the main causes. No accounts of the sword ever coming into play.
Principles of warfare compared to principles of a bar room brawl....
Again you will have to list support of this theory in military tactic books or even in history. This is not true. Not according to the statement I originally gave. One individual's fighting skill is not, nor ever will be the cause of defeating a whole nation nor it's standing army.
Having fighting skills adds to the chances, but principles of war and principles of daily altercations are vastly different in tactics, logistics, political implications, collateral damage and deployment for starters.
However, give a guy in bar room brawl a gun and leave the other guy with a beer bottle and the guy with the gun will most likely win.
On one Filipino defeating a Spaniard....allowing them to defeat all Spainiards.:
Yes, if you totally discount all the elements I have stated above. One Filipino warrior getting shot by a firearm makes a huge difference. Remember the Spanish did not use their swords as their primary weapons.
The involvement of firearms dictated how the skirmish would go. The involvement of rival tribesmen and the involvement of religion. That was the methods of Conquesta as dictated to Miguel Legaspi from the Crown of Spain. It is written in the Blair and Robertson volumes , and also in the translation of Morga by Jose Rizal.
I can also list Restall's Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest to support the above.
On defeating technology....
You will have to list in ANY Spanish account of when this held true. Tell me where divide and conquer methods, the firearm with pike and shot formation and religion were UN-involved and only the Spanish skill of the sword came to play.
It never happened.
Remember the basis of the discussion is whether the Spanish SWORD ever came to play. NOT the firearm or pike. My whole contention is that the Firearm created a huge difference in battles. If you look at the history of the firearm, the introduction of the weapon even in the European theater of war caused a significant shift in military tactics. The Spanish themselves wrote of the arquebuses1 success and their dependence on such technology.
Unless you have Western Swordsmen teaching drilled pike and shot formations as part of their present curriculum then the fighting skill as it pertains to the SWORD alone is pure myth.
Your theory of individual fighting is again not holding a candle to your statement because there is no record of the Vietnamese individual fighting skills defeating an American1s skill. You are over simplifying the Vietnam war and that is one war especially that can never be called simple.
On Spanish American war being the catalyst of Filipino success against Spain...
The Americans themselves account that the Spanish troops were "routed" in the Philippines. By the time Dewey entered Manila Bay, Spain was huddled to its last fort. Read the accounts of the Katipunan and you will see that there is a daily account of the progress of the Katipuneros against Spanish guns.
Again even this rout does not state the individual skill of one Filipino can attest to defeating the Spanish Arms. I would state that it also supports the fact that not the martial art either but a consolidation of MANY factors. The US destruction of the small Spanish fleet also aided in the battle but was not the sole cause of the defeat.
What is interesting is that you give credit to my statement on the Spanish Naval defeat to the US . It supports my statement about the complexities of war. That not ONE factor can lay sole claim to a defeat or win.
On Teddy Roosevelt.....
Aguinaldo had the Spanish on the run and down to one large fort PRIOR to Dewy's arrival. How can this statement carry any credibility?
Read the history of the Katipunan and how unity was the peak of the revolution and the eventual breakdown of the Katipunan also reverberates to today's events.
Why would the defeat of Spain in one island be more significant than another? Especially if Roosevelt was never even involved in the battle in Manila Bay?
What it does indicate was that as an empire Spain was fading. The methods of Conquesta were proven to be ineffective in the long run.
As per people who are whacking each other, you have to take into consideration of the history of the country and how the oppression of the so called Spanish government played a HUGE role in the way the people act today.
If one is to state the positive s of the Conquesta methods, you have to also recognize the dismal failures of such limited thinking.
A Filipino named Jose Rizal wrote:
"ŠAwaken your conciousness of our past. Already effaced from your memory and to rectify what has been falsified and slandered."
best,
--Rafael Kayanan--
--------
---------
---------
------
Comment