John Clements Article

[John_Clements]

Hi David,

Yes, steel was the big technological advantage in terms of weaponry, but tactics and skill were also factors for the Spanish. The material we've collected from original sources on close combat during the conquests are a fascinating account of superior martial skills using technically superior hand weapons. It was really surprising how many comments on swordsmanship and sword function were included. We're preparing a future article on it.

JC

[John_Clements]

I'm not qualified to address it, sorry. I've never studied that or even looked into it. That’s not what the article was about besides. So I wouldn’t make a guess at this point, except to say, it wouldn’t surprise me bit that they would not have encountered anything unfamiliar in the use of indigenous arms and armor from what was going on in Europe. Remember, a few thousand Spaniards thousands of miles from home in a geographic area of thousands of small islands achieved what they needed to ensure their ports and trade routes to Japan and the Far East for their political masters and economic backers. After all, it's not like the Spanisih were lining up first rate soldiers straight from European armies and pitting them one on one against the locals in set battles or duels. You can't really determine specifics from generalized accounts. So, try to look at it all geo-strategically in terms of the individual regional leaders looking out for their own careers first, rather than through a prism any ethnocentric pride.

Bye,

JC

p.s.
Hanson's book is awesome, it's listed on our Book Review section, check it out.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Mohammed , <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

You wrote: "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."

Terrain plays a big factor in most conflicts. The worse the land, the harder it is to fight as formed organized units.

You wrote: "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."

That is also a big advantage for the Spanish. You may be familiar with organized Roman victories over far larger but less organized "tribal" groups of Gauls. Of course, there WERE many Gallic victories also, so maybe we shouldn't say too much. I would add 2 books to your list:

The Military Revolution by Geoffrey Parker
Guns, Germs and Steel by Jerod Diamond

They explain better than I can.


You wrote: "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."

Sounds to me like this guy had really great skills with his hand weapons, but had a few disadvantages also. 1. He fought alone and not with an organized unit and 2. He (literally) brought a knife to a gun fight. One big reason why the Europeons abandoned the skills that ARMA is trying to revive is the advent of effective firearms.

You wrote: "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."

That shows something else that comes to mind. I will tell you a story from the Chinese boxer rebellion. A old bagua (an internal Chinese style) got into fight with a platoon of German infantry. After slaying 11 or so of them, they finally shot him dead. While on the surface that makes the bagua master seem the better bet (and indeed he was in individual weapon combat) actually he wasn't at a societal war level. It took a full lifetime of training to develop his skills against far less time to teach far more Germans to handle a rifle.

You wrote: "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."

How much chivalry really was there even with the sword? If you look at the development of Europeon shot and shock weapons, it is a continual cycle of one form being used until an innovation (better armor, swords designed against said newer armor, etc.) came to defeat the current generation of weapons. Witness the English longbow's dominance until the French found other more creative ways to defeat it.

You wrote: "If the Spanish and Americans were armed with swords do you think the result would have been the same? "

I would say that it depends on a few things. First, what were the Spaniards and Yankees in question mainly trained with? If you have Spanish or US troops whose main training is in guns, then logically they wouldn't be so good with bayonets and swords. OTOH, if you have earlier Spanish who were VERY good with their swords, then I would suggest they could give the Moros a run for their money. Another factor even with just melee weapons is the technology. How much difference does it make if 2 equally skilled fighters are mismatched in terms of metal armor or weapons? Finally, are your 2 opposing melee weapon armed parties fighting in formed organized units or just running amok as individuals? I get the impression from your 2 examples that the Moros fought more as individuals. A formed unit in melee (which the Spanish in the days of their glory did very well if you look at their tercio) has an advantage over people fighting on their own. Take a look at the Swiss pike hedgehog or Alexander's phalanx for what teamwork can do. I would argue that those are things worth considering.


You wrote: "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?"

I can't speak for specific sword techniques. I am just now learning the basics of the German/Italian longsword and don't know much about what swords the Spanish used or how they used them. Maybe others here can be more helpful on that item.

Hope that helps,
Shukran
Jaron

[TimSheetz]

Hi Mohammed,

The anecdotal references to an individuals skills are much less important than how the COLLECTIVE FORCE FIGHTS. Collective tasks performed excellently are much more important than skilled individuals acting individually together.

Peace,

TIm

[Guest]

Mr. Clements,

Thank you for your comments.

Will your upcoming article also include a section about The clash of Spanish and Moro steel? I'd love to read about.

as for your reply though, I now understand that you have not done enough research on the Spanish conflict with the Malay people of South East Asia. Your research is limited to the Spanish conquest of the Northern Archipelago of the Philippines (not that there's anything wrong with that)

But if you are going to publicly present an article that is blinded by your ethnocentric passion of Rennaissance Swordsmanship in reference to the destruction of a culture, you should take more responsibility and discover all the facts.
Otherwise your publication will be just as innacurrate and biased as the book your article sought to correct. (not that there's anything wrong with that either)

Despite your reasoning for Spain's inability to subdue the Moros (being thousands of miles away from home, they weren't the best fencing masters in the army, achieved the trade route etc..) it is true the Spanish guile that had so successfully and quickly smothered the civilations of the incas and the aztecs, failed to impress the Moros.

So much so, that Spain had actually paid an annual tribute to the Moro Sultan of Sulu! Why? In addition to using Spain's military as Kris fodder, the Moros regularly raided the trade routes the Spaniards had established for their political masters and economic backers.

To give readers an idea of how the Moros would attack both military and trade vessels, For distant offensive work the Moros made use of the simbilan, a small bamboo spear with an iron or fire-hardened point. The dexterity with which the Moros handled this weapon was amazing. Some of them were able to hurl as many as five of the spears in one motion, causing them to spread in their flight. They were intended primarily to force the crews of attacked vessels to seek cover, during which interval the Moros could board for close work with the kris, barong and Kampilan.
(note* the kirs, barong and Kampilan were the same Kali weapons the Renaissance swordsmen faced in their conquest of the Northern Philippines)

With that being said, the reason for the success of the ship raids must have been because the best Rennaissance Swordsmen were too busy fencing the Vikings into Valhalla to defend the trade vessles from the Moros, or maybe they were homesick and figured if they let the Moros plunder their cargo, the Fat Friars would get mad and punish them by sending them back to Spain. (j/k)

To Spain's credit though there were in fact some battles where the Spanish had amazingly defeated the Moros. Under the leadership of Great Spanish Generals like Corcuera and Almonte a couple of Moro tribes suffered decisive losses in the early years of the war. They probably lost because they fought these battles in Spanish territory and were thousands of sea miles away from home.

[David Craig]

Hi David,

Yes, steel was the big technological advantage in terms of weaponry, but tactics and skill were also factors for the Spanish. The material we've collected from original sources on close combat during the conquests are a fascinating account of superior martial skills using technically superior hand weapons. It was really surprising how many comments on swordsmanship and sword function were included. We're preparing a future article on it.

JC

John,

I agree, Spanish tactics and skill, as well as innovative and adaptable leadership were critical factors in the conquest. I studied the conquest of the Americas extensively years ago, and it has always fascinated me as it does many military historians. I would love to see the upcoming article focusing on close combat. I wish it had been available back when I was in graduate school <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

David

[Guest]

Hello Mr. Jaron Bernstein and Tim Sheetz,

The two examples I posted were used to illustrate the type of threat the homesick Spaniards faced. In other battles, you would have 1000 Moros fighting as organized units and demonstrating the combat mentality as expressed in my examples. It is no wonder that the Spanish suffered so many losses to Moro blades when you take this into consideration.

Also, when I stated "Any organized Moro resistance to Spain was rare" what I meant was, the Moros were composed of tribes scatterred throughout the south. They were always at war with one another, and it was rare that the tribes would ban together to fight the Spanish, French or British.

The boxer rebellion story....He may have been seeking death in combat. And even though it only takes a fraction of the time to teach someone how to shoot a gun the fact is 11 people died before he got shot. I do see your point though.

Chivalry in the sword... LOL. I was being sarcastic. But I'd like to add that a lot of people think guns are ineffective in tropical climates and believe that superior fencing arts are the reason for Spain's many successes in their conquest of global domination.
We also have to remember that the Spanish were an Empirical regime who used treachery, deceit, propaganda and the name of Jesus Christ to aid their careers.

An effective example of this would be how they subdued many tribes without shedding any blood. The Spanish would come as friends. They would then put on their steel armour and have a soldier hammer away at the armour with swords and pikes to convince the pagans that it is Jesus Christ who makes them invincible to the strikes of Renaissance Swordsmanship. The natives, in awe of the fantastic armour of the Spanish also wanted this gift of invincibility to bladed weapons and immediately adopted Catholicism and were baptized on the spot.

I apologize for bringing religion into the discussion again, but since this discussion has gone the way of Spanish Conquest and Moro Resistance, religion naturally finds it's way in.

As for the Gauls...Asterix is my hero. A question about the Gauls though, were they tribesman who believed in magic potions and amulets as depicted in the Goscinny and Uderzo book?

Thanks

[David Craig]

But I'd like to add that a lot of people think guns are ineffective in tropical climates and believe that superior fencing arts are the reason for Spain's many successes in their conquest of global domination.
We also have to remember that the Spanish were an Empirical regime who used treachery, deceit, propaganda and the name of Jesus Christ to aid their careers.

Mohammed,

I believe you are misinterpreting what I and others have been saying. It is not that guns were ineffective in tropical climates. But in the context of the early and middle 16th century and of Spain's American conquests, the use of firearms was not the overriding factor that led to Spanish success against apparently overwhelming odds. Only a small percentage of the conquistadors were equipped with firearms, and those of the time were slow-firing and prone to malfunction, particularly in tropical climates. For these reasons, military historians tend to emphasize many other factors, one being the superiority of Spanish weapons and armor. But no one is arguing -- at least I am not -- that this the one single greatest factor in the Spanish conquests.
Treachery, deceit, propaganda and religion were indeed key elements of the Spanish conquests. But that is nothing unique to Spain. You will find those elements present if you look at the conquests of just about any great empire.
Please note that I have not studied the Spanish conquest of the Phillipines or the resistance of the Moros. So I would not presume to debate those specific points of history of which you know far more than I. My comments are meant to address points relative to the conquest of the Americas.

David

[Stacy Clifford]

This is a fascinating thread, but I'm getting the impression here that there are too many factors involved and not enough historica detail being presented to determine why the Spanish would have had so much trouble with the Moros. I don't know a whole lot about the history of the region, but I do know that conquest rarely breaks down to just pure military superiority. There are usually lots of political and social issues involved that give one side or the other advantages and disadvantages, as has already been discussed. Timing of events can be just as important. Here are some of my questions:

1. How concerted was the Spanish effort to conquer the southern islands? How many of the battles between the two factions were "battles of conquest" by the Spanish, and how many were due to fending off raiders, ambushed exploratory parties, etc.? An ambushed trade ship ashore for supplies may not make for much of an opponent to a couple of hundred angry, territorial Moros.

2. What were the numbers of Spanish vs. Moros in these many battles and skirmishes? Starting conditions are pretty important. Army vs. army is one thing, raiding parties and tribal militias vs. a ship or two of Spanish who aren't all soldiers is something else.

3. Were the Moros converted to Islam before or after Magellan brought Catholicism to the Phillippines in 1519? Who brought Islam to them, and for what purpose? Maybe some Caliph wanted to counter the growing threat of Christian colonization, or maybe some Muslim traders just saw a chance to make some converts. I don't know. Since the two religions were declared enemies at the time, broader historical context would be enlightening.

That's probably enough to spark some more debate. My point is I don't think enough evidence has been presented here to determine whether the Moros were martially superior, or just a lot more motivated. They were, after all, defending their home turf (hostile and difficult terrain) against a declared religious enemy. That goes a long way by itself. The Aztecs couldn't have cared less about the Catholics; not so for the Muslims. I don't doubt that the Moros were good fighters, but I don't think that's the whole story.

[Gene Tausk]

Mr. Jikiri:

"But if you are going to publicly present an article that is blinded by your ethnocentric passion of Rennaissance Swordsmanship in reference to the destruction of a culture, you should take more responsibility and discover all the facts."

This can easily be turned around, as I will do now. If you are publicly going to present a statement that is blinded by your ethnocentric passion for the Moros in reference to a very violent period of history, you should take responsibility and answer some questions yourself.

1. If the Moros were such great fighters, as you seem to make them out to be, why were they never able to drive the Spanish from the Philippines? Indeed, the word "Phillipines" is a tribut to King Filip of Spain, in whose honor the islands were named. Funny that some Moro chieftain is not claimed as the conqueror of the islands.

2. If your answer to the above question is that the Moros were interested in defending their part of the islands only and could not care about the rest of the islands, then you seem to be saying that the Moros were interested in fighting a defensive war only. Fighting defensive wars is easier than offensive wars.

3. You seem to be saying that the Moros were able to drive the Spanish away and keep them at bay because of their martial arts ability. Great. Please answer for me then why the Moros did not conquer the rest of the Philipines using this great ability. After all, the Spaniards were certainly able to, and if the Moros were these incredible warriors it should have been a piece of cake for them.

4. Once again if your answer is that the Moros were only interested in defending their turf, then we seem to be going down the same line of reasoning - the Moros were fighting a defense war only.

5. If the Moros were such great fighters and martial arts practitioners, as you insinuate, and if Spain was at their mercy, which once again you seem to insinuate, it is funny that the Spaniards never bothered to pick up any of these devastating techniques. The Spaniards certainly were excellent fighters, as historically documented, and they were innovative fighters as well (there is a theory that Spaniards were responsible for the development of the rapier, as an example). Were they too dumb to examine the fighting techniques of the Moros and see if such techniques would work for them? Certainly the Moros would not show the Spaniards these techniques, but they could have been observed, copied and written down. Funny how we have no records of this.

I am also not impressed when you state that the Spaniards paid tribute to a Moro chieftain. So what? They may have found it more economically feasable to buy off some warlord then deal with him.

In summary, while I am impressed by your enthusiasm for this subject, you seem to be forgetting a few simple facts:

1. The Spaniards sailed thousands of miles from their home to conquer a nation. Whether you wish to face the facts or not, the simple truth is that the Spaniards conquered the Phillipines. How many words of Spanish influence appear in Tagalog or for that matter the language of the Moros? More than words of Tagalog influence appear in Spanish I am sure.

2. The Moros did not conquer Spain. They had neither the resources or technology to even find Spain.

3. Fighting a guerrilla war against an occupying power does not mean that fighting techniques are superior. I would be more impressed if the Spanish abandoned the Phillipines entirely because of the fearsome martial arts techniques of the Moros and documented it (incidentally, note that the Spanish were a literate people at the time) rather than someone bragging about what amounts to bee stings in the big version of history. The Jews held off the Romans for years at Masada, but eventually all of Judea was speaking Latin and Greek.

4. The Spanish conquered most of the New World. They had plenty of gold and resources from these conquests and whatever resources Moro territory seemed to offer pailed in comparison. You seem to state that the Spanish were hell-bent on conquering the Moros and they were stopped because of the superior fighting techniques of the Moros. How about these alternative explanations:

- The Moros were a pain in the butt and Spain did not want to devote the time and resources to deal with what was essentially a petty nuisance
- The Spaniards had more than enough loot from the other territories and were content to let the Moros be, albeit with some harrassment and battles between them

If you continue to suggest that the Moros were able to defeat the Spaniards because of these incredible techniques and the Spanish fighters were ineffective agains them, then please provide evidence that Spain starting sending its best warriors to the Phillipines from the New World and from Spain to deal with the problem and devoted a significant amount of resources to defeat the Moros ("significant" would mean that Spain saw it as a major millitary operation such as the Armada and spent the time and money to deal with it) and, faced defeat after defeat ON THE BATTLEFIELD despite such massive expenditures of time and money. I am not interested in guerilla warfare because, in the end, the Phillipines remained a Spanish possession and it was ONLY ANOTHER EUROPEAN POWER that was able to drive them off.

In the end, Mr. Jikiri, you are arguing that "their can only be one explanation for the failure of the Spaniards to conquer the Moros and that is because the Moros were the supreme kick-ass fighters." The Moros were good fighters. No doubt. But in the end, the Phillipines still belonged to Spain. Someone can claim that they are kick-ass all they want, but if an occupying power is still occupying this territory, THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM HOME, I am not impressed.

I am not defending Spanish conquests or colonization. However, face it, it is a part of history. Latin America and Central America speak either Spanish or Portuguese, another colonizing power. Not the language of the Moros.

You will have to do better than this.

--------------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene

[John_Clements]

I think intelligent discussion is not going to be possible on this subject with you; your posts indicate a real agenda as well as a misunderstanding of both my article and the answer I gave you earlier. I see in your posts an intent to view the Spanish involvement in the islands as some sort of failure on their part in an intentional clash of civilizations and religions. I've tried to point out it was in fact about trade and access to shipping as well as personal accumulation of wealth.

To use a rough analogy, it's a bit like arguing that some burglars who invade your house and took it over were actually failures because they never managed to seize hold of the hall closet and the basement bathroom. Whereas, from the invaders point of view, they only wanted a base of operations and if they own all the big rooms they wanted and most of your family has now invited them for dinner and a sleep over, they've got most of what they wanted with very little effort or loss. You can call it “failure” from your closet if you want. But try seeing it from their point of view.

In the end, it was the 16th century Spaniards who came around the globe to harass your ancestors, not the other way around, and if the few busy Spaniards over there decided in the larger strategic picture it wasn't worth doing, I can only imagine that adds insult to injury for you. If you want to see it as some great military and martial arts victory …well, that not my problem and not my concern.

[Steve Thurston]

I think treachary, deciet etc have been the thing that has allowed every Empire to expand as far as I can see, wether Spanish, British or Ottoman or Mongel so lets not keep dissing the Spanish for it!

I also think anybody talking about any form of chivelry in regard to physical violence has to be being a bit sarcastic, honour has always been used as an excuse to cave some ones head in, no matter what religion!

Violence is violence and religion has only ever been used as an excuse, never a reason!

If you ask me (which you haven't) it comes down to power and wealth whether Christian, Muslim or Pagan.

I think the most logical reason for holding out was probably a combination of things, but the biggest factors are that fighting a long way from home is always hard; and some people just won't give in - Scotland held out against the Romans because they were too bloody minded, distance was a factor but they had techniqually subdued most of England and Wales, but the Romans wanted cash out of the Scots and that wasn't going to happen, and nobody has managed it since not even the English.

Every Empire encounters one like them sooner or later!

Plus you'll always fight harder and longer for what you percieve as yours, most belief structure tell you steeling is wrong!

Steve

[Gene Tausk]

OK - I see that my warnings have been ignored and religion has once again crept into this discussion.

This thread is now closed.


------------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
ARMA forum moderator