John Clements Article

[Guest]

Greetings fellow swordsmen.

I just read a very good article/essay by John Clements entitled "The Influence of Spanish Renaissance Swordsmanship on Filipino Martial Arts?"

Concerning his comments on the Spanish/Portugese conquest of the Philippines, "Notice also how no credit is given the Spanish/Portuguese's clear military superiority in training, discipline, armaments, tactics, organization, leadership, morale, etc.?"

I was wondering if you could elaborate further on this in reference to the Spanish/Portugese confilict with the Moros.

From my understanding, in 1646, the Spanish/Portugese negotiated a lasting peace treaty with the Moros of Sulu, and for over 300 years were unable to launch a successful crusade against the Islamic people of the south despite their numerous attempts.

Do you think this is the reason why no clear credit is given to the "Spanish/Portuguese's clear military superiority in training, discipline, armaments, tactics, organization, leadership, morale, etc."

Personally, I don't think the author took this into consideration, but why do you think Spain failed to Christianize the Moros?

Was it because the Moros had superior martial discipline? Was it because the Spanish found it difficult to convert an Islamic civilization of people who shared the same religious frenzy as the Catholics? Was it because the Spanish were content with their conquest of the Pagans in the north?

Please share your thoughts.

Thanks

[Casper Bradak]

Perhaps they didn't try very hard, or perhaps they really didn't want to christianize, who knows?
If the spanish conquest of south america is any indication, they more than likely never tried to convert them by force. In south america, many of the spanish felt they were on a type of crusade, but they had an extensive missionary agenda, which failed to convert the majority of the population there, all of which had nothing to do with their obvious military superiority.
Chances are any christian crusade against islam had conversion at the bottom of the list.

[Guest]

Thank you for your reply Casper.

"they more than likely never tried to convert them by force"

It would be nice to believe the Spanish Conquistadors were merciful in their Campaigns. This however is not true.

Not only did Spain seek to convert the Islamic Malays of Mindanao with the application of their martial strategy, but after 230 years of failed attempts to subdue the Moros, the Spanish Governor of Manila, on December 21, of 1751 issued a decree.

The decree called for:

"The extermination of the Moslems of Mindanao and Sulu with fire and sword and no quarter for Moros of any age or either sex"

"To destroy all crops, desolate all land, make Moro captives and recover all Christian slaves"

Supported by this decree, great fleets sailed from the port of Manila to engage the Moros in the southern seas.

So great was the rage engendered among the Moros by this decree, that after a period of severe Spanish defeats, the decree was withdrawn and the Spaniards were well satisfied to abandon the Campaigns against the Moros.

Furthermore, it was about this time the British had arrived, defeated the Spanish, and established a fort on Spanish territory.

So basically, the Spanish tried very hard to christianize the Moros with force, but failed. After failing to subdue the Moros, they then suffered a defeat at the hands of the superior British arms.

British aside, how is it that Spain, after conquering every people they set their sword upon failed to conquer the Moros?

Was it due to sword applications?

If not the sword, then the Spanish were defeated probably because they were vastly outnumbered. But if they lost due to numbers, that would mean Spain was tactically defecient which according to the Clements article/essay was not the case.

[Shane Smith]

Gentlemen,
Let's be certain to keep this thread focused on Western Martial Arts and military tactics and give religion as wide a berth as possible in context. We do not discuss religion to a significant degree on this forum.There are other forums for that.

[JeffGentry]

well Mohammed IMO i think if you look at history in general any military is hard pressed to defeat and hold territory that is a long way from there home for the simple fact that the people being attacked are defending there home and they can use alot of small unit attack's to wear down and demoralize an army if you look at the crusade's that is a good example in the third crusade of king richard he had a superior army but the he was almost constantly under attack by light cavalry that would hit and run on his camp's and eventualy it worked, the financial cost of war across an ocean get's very expensive very quickly and eventualy you need to just go home win or lose that is pretty much how the U.S got the louisiana purchase because Napolean's war had him financialy strapped and maintaining force's in the america's was an expense he could not afford so he sold it to The U.S to help finance his war in europe and the roman's had sound tactic's for there time but the took the local populace into there military and trained them to fight with them as Legionaire's and then when they were at war with them there tactical weakness was exploited and they were defeated again because of the expense of fighting so far form home and the expense of a long distance war.

[Gene Tausk]

I'm going to echo Shane's sentiments here. This thread is starting to veer towards religious arguments, which will not be tolerated on this forum.

Stick to martial arts, which is the purpose of ARMA.

I will not close down this thread because it is still "on the edge" (no pun intended), but let's not push it any further.

----------->>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Forum moderator

[Matt Easton]

Whoa - did Jeff write the longest sentence EVER? <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

To throw my tuppence into the discussion - swords were not the primary weapons of either side, and I think to try and relate military success to swordsmanship skills in this instance (and most in fact) is very misguided. Pike formations, light cavalry tactics, use of artillery and musketry might be worth discussing in analysing the whys and wherefors here, but not swordsmanship I think.

The Spanish did not conquer Mexico with swords - they did it with huge numbers of native allies, a few horses and big guns.

As for the British succeeding where the Spanish failed, well, that's nothing new <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Matt

[Shane Smith]

"As for the British succeeding where the Spanish failed, well, that's nothing new <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> "

You're a bad man Matt Easton <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[David Craig]

How the Spanish were able to conquer the vast territories of Mexico, Central America and South America (excluding Brazil) with minimal forces is a question that has fascinated historians, particularly military historians, for a long time. I studied the campaigns of Cortes and Pizarro quite extensively years ago, and I believe there was even a question about this very issue in one segment of my PhD written exams. The general consensus is that it was a combination of factors, but that firearms played a very small role. Steel weapons (not just swords, but steel &amp; steel tipped weapons in general) and steel armor were in fact one of the main advantages the Spanish posessed, especially when utilized from horseback. The Spanish soldier with his breastplate/cuirass &amp; helmet (few except the leaders had anything like full armor) was well-protected against enemy weapons unsuited for dealing with such armor. Conversely the soldiers of the Aztec &amp; Inca empires, as well as those of other native peoples, did not have protective armor capable of standing up to a steel sword. Steel gave the Spanish a tremendous advantage in hand-to-hand combat and literally enabled them to kill many times their own number in close combat. When you combine this weapon/armor advantage with the use of horses, against forces with no experience with cavalry, no anti-cavalry tactics, and no anti-cavalry weapons, that advantage became overwhelming. So much so that a Spanish lancer could literally kill until he and his horse were exhausted.
Interestingly enough, the Auracanian people of what is now Chile employed pikes against the Spanish, and gave them all kinds of trouble.

David Craig

[Casper Bradak]

"The Spanish did not conquer Mexico with swords - they did it with huge numbers of native allies, a few horses and big guns."

The majority of euopeans under the command of Cortez were swordsmen. They and the cavalry had a massively disproportionate kill ratio to both the native allies and their gunners and crossbowmen.
Their big guns didn't get far from the ships. Falconets were the largest. And when you get black powder weapons in a tropical environment on a campaign with no resupply, their effectiveness is further limited. I'm not saying they didn't have tremendous impact, but it's far overstated and used as an excuse for western victory far too often.
Before they assaulted the capitol they were already forced to fashion bronze heads for their crossbow ammunition from local sources. Bernal Diaz's writings on the conquest, by the way, are an excellent source for medieval/renaissance european small unit tactics for movement and combat.
Most of the spanish infantry wore home made cotton jacks.

[Randall Pleasant]

David

Check out the book Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson basically says the same things as you but he also shows how specific cultural traits of Western societies have also had a major impact on battles between Western and Non-Western armies. According to Hanson, individual initiative, superior organization and descipline, and tactical adaptation and flexibility have played just an important role as superior weapons. The books is also just good reading.

[Guest]

Wow! A lot of great contributions to this discussion.

I was hoping John Clements would reply.

But back to my original topic and hopefully John Clements author of the article "The Influence of Spanish Renaissance Swordsmanship on Filipino Martial Arts?" would be kind enough to make a contribution.

Mr. Clements,

What was it about the Southern Philippine fighting arts that proved to be so problematic to Spain's 'fencing exponents'?

I understand that you are correcting the historical innaccuracies in Mr.I's book. (a book I also have many discrepancies with) However your article clearly illustrates the Spanish victories over the Filipinos in the North but ignores the fact that Spain, with "clear military superiority in training, discipline, armaments, tactics, organization, leadership, morale" failed to subjugate the Filipinos in the South.

Why did you leave this out of your article Mr. Clements?

It could be because you simply didn't know. It's possible your knowledge of Kali comes only from Mr. I's book.

If that's the case, here's some further info.
The basic Moro sword technique was simple. They were armed with two swords. They would thrust with a Kris (wavy serpentine sword, and hack with a Barong (leaf shaped cleaver) What makes the style unique was one sword was designed primarily for thrusting, and the other for hacking, unlike other swords which are designed for both.

Now that you have a better understanding on the art of Kali, perhaps you could shed some light on the possibilities that may have occurred on the battlefield between the Spanish and the Moros.

Thank You

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hello,

Just a thought. From what I know at least, the Spanish fought in organized formations as circumstances allowed (at least in europe, if not always elsewhere in their empire). I have no idea what Moro small or large unit tactics were like. Maybe this has some part to play in the outcome? For instance, in broken terrain, melee fighting can allow for more individual combat skills to show, whereas in open areas where units can fight together, an organized group fighting in coordination has some advantage. But that would require more knowledge than I have on Moro tactics (although I do have some minimal knowledge of what Kali/escrima at least looks like) for me to say. What sort of area do the Moros live in? Did they fight as individuals or formed units? Did they have Europeon/Asian "formal" military organization or did they have a more "tribal" approach?

[David Craig]

Check out the book Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson basically says the same things as you but he also shows how specific cultural traits of Western societies have also had a major impact on battles between Western and Non-Western armies. According to Hanson, individual initiative, superior organization and descipline, and tactical adaptation and flexibility have played just an important role as superior weapons. The books is also just good reading.

Randall,

I have read articles by Hanson, most of which were excellent, but have not read the book you mention. I would definitely like to. I agree that there were many factors that enabled the Spanish to achieve their conquests, and the ones you mention were definitely of great importance. I would also add excellent leadership, skillful use of diplomacy/treachery, the impact of disease, timing, and just plain luck to the list, among other things. I was just trying to point out that the superiority of Spanish steel weapons/armor, is generally considered more important by military historians than the fact that the conquistadors had firearms. I didn't mean to imply that I thought that Spanish weapon superiority was the paramount reason they were successful in their conquests in the Americas, just that it was one major factor among many.

David Craig

[Guest]

Jason Bernstein,

The Spanish and Moros fought each other in the jungle, forts, open sea, among coral reefs, beaches, fields. They pretty much fought throughout the Philippine Archipelago.

The Moros fought as formed units. But, the Moros as a people were divided into seperate tribes that fought amongst themselves when they weren't fighting the Spanish. Any organized Moro resistance to Spain rarely occurred.

To get an idea of the what it must have been like to face them in battle, I'll provide 2 accounts. One American, and one Spanish.

From American Author Vic Hurley: "The ferocity of the Moros was almost beyond belief, as was their capacity for destruction. On October 17, 1911, one Moro armed with a barong (26 inch leaf shaped cleaver) and a spear succeeded in passing the sentries of the 2nd Cavalry while they were in camp at Lake Seit Jolo. The camp became a scene of wild confusion as the Moro hurtled through the troop street slashing and stabbing with his weapons. Sergeant Oswald Homilius received a spear wound through the chest and died in fifteen minutes and four soldiers were severely wounded before the crazed Moro was shot down by Lieutenant Coppock.

Dr. Montano, an eminent scientist sent by the French government to Sulu, describes the entry into the city of Tianggi of
eleven juramentados (Moros) during the Spanish occupation:

'Hearing the cry of "Los Juramentados", the soldiers seized arms. The Juramentados rushed upon them fearlessly with krises. One of them struck in the breast by a bullet, rose and flung himself upon the troops. Transfixed by a bayonet, he remained erect, trying to reach his enemy who held him impaled. Another soldier ran up and blew out his brains before he dropped. When the last Moro had fallen and the corpses were picked up from the street, it was found that fifteen Spaniards had been hacked to pieces and many wounded. And what wounds! The head of one Spaniard was cut off as clean as if with a razor and another was cut almost in two."

Clearly these two accounts suggest that fire arms were a major proponent used by both the Spanish and Americans in their war efforts against the Moros as opposed to the chivalry of a sword.

If the Spanish and Americans were armed with swords do you think the result would have been the same? Did the Spanish decide not to draw their swords and use bayonnets instead?

Based on the 2 accounts, what kind of sword techniques would have been most effective to stop the Moro charge?

Please share your thoughts.

Thank You