Tweet
Sword Myths
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
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!
There's also no mention of the other methods of Conquest (example: religion, trade, aliances), but most importantly the omission of the use of the pike in SUPPORT of FIREARMS as huge contributors to the Spanish success in the Philippines is a disservice to maintaining historical accuracy. The author omits that a study of the methods of Divide and Conquer, the Volley use of the Arquebus, formations of Pike and Shot, are all crucial elements in understanding the European 'superior' methods of Asian Conquest.
An unfortunate omission such as this inevitably perpetuates a FALSE myth of Spanish Conquistadores' superiority in ARMS, to specifically indicate their use of the sword.
Simply put, a school devoted to the use of European pike and shot formations would quickly widen the eyes of European sword enthusiasts who may unknowingly overemphasize the use of the sword and dagger over the TRUE superior European ARMS used during the period of Spanish Philippine Conquest... the FIREARM.
The article displays a well done description of the author's new found enthusiasm for European swordsmanship, however imagine if the omission included the sword's importance in battle? Would we idly sit back and read articles devoted ONLY to the use of the dagger and shield symbolizing the SUPERIOR arms of Europe without questioning it's historical validity?
It would seem that simply stating the study of European swordsmanship and its merits would be enough without including this bit about "European superiority in ARMs", especially if the author shies away from revealing which of these superior weapons actually were....
"The Indians of this country are not simple or foolish, nor are they frightened by anything whatever. They can be dealt with ONLY BY THE ARQUEBUSE, or by the gifts of GOLD or SILVER. If they were like those of Nueva Espana, Peru, Tierra Firme, and in other explored places where the ships of Castilla may enter, sound reasoning might have some effect. But these Indians first inquire if they must be Christians, pay money, forsake their wives, and other similar things. They kill Spaniards so boldy, that WITHOUT THE ARQUEBUSES WE COULD DO NOTHING. This was the reason that Magallanes, Sayavedra, and those who came afterward from Nueva Espana were maltreated. All those who have been killed since the coming of Miguel Lopez de Legazpi received THEIR DEATH THROUGH THE LACK OF ARQUEBUSES. The Indians have thousands of lances, daggers, shields, and other pieces of armor, with which they fight so well. They have no leaders to whom they look up. THE HAVOC CAUSED BY THE ARQUEBUSE, and their own lack of honor, make them seek refuge in flight, and give obedience to our orders." Francisco de Sande in his report to the Crown of Spain for the Legazpi expedition dated June 8, 1577, page 337, The Colonization and Conquest of the Philippines by Spain, VIII (CAPS are mine)
--Rafael--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
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!
There's also no mention of the other methods of Conquest (example: religion, trade, aliances), but most importantly the omission of the use of the pike in SUPPORT of FIREARMS as huge contributors to the Spanish success in the Philippines is a disservice to maintaining historical accuracy. The author omits that a study of the methods of Divide and Conquer, the Volley use of the Arquebus, formations of Pike and Shot, are all crucial elements in understanding the European 'superior' methods of Asian Conquest.
An unfortunate omission such as this inevitably perpetuates a FALSE myth of Spanish Conquistadores' superiority in ARMS, to specifically indicate their use of the sword.
Simply put, a school devoted to the use of European pike and shot formations would quickly widen the eyes of European sword enthusiasts who may unknowingly overemphasize the use of the sword and dagger over the TRUE superior European ARMS used during the period of Spanish Philippine Conquest... the FIREARM.
The article displays a well done description of the author's new found enthusiasm for European swordsmanship, however imagine if the omission included the sword's importance in battle? Would we idly sit back and read articles devoted ONLY to the use of the dagger and shield symbolizing the SUPERIOR arms of Europe without questioning it's historical validity?
It would seem that simply stating the study of European swordsmanship and its merits would be enough without including this bit about "European superiority in ARMs", especially if the author shies away from revealing which of these superior weapons actually were....
"The Indians of this country are not simple or foolish, nor are they frightened by anything whatever. They can be dealt with ONLY BY THE ARQUEBUSE, or by the gifts of GOLD or SILVER. If they were like those of Nueva Espana, Peru, Tierra Firme, and in other explored places where the ships of Castilla may enter, sound reasoning might have some effect. But these Indians first inquire if they must be Christians, pay money, forsake their wives, and other similar things. They kill Spaniards so boldy, that WITHOUT THE ARQUEBUSES WE COULD DO NOTHING. This was the reason that Magallanes, Sayavedra, and those who came afterward from Nueva Espana were maltreated. All those who have been killed since the coming of Miguel Lopez de Legazpi received THEIR DEATH THROUGH THE LACK OF ARQUEBUSES. The Indians have thousands of lances, daggers, shields, and other pieces of armor, with which they fight so well. They have no leaders to whom they look up. THE HAVOC CAUSED BY THE ARQUEBUSE, and their own lack of honor, make them seek refuge in flight, and give obedience to our orders." Francisco de Sande in his report to the Crown of Spain for the Legazpi expedition dated June 8, 1577, page 337, The Colonization and Conquest of the Philippines by Spain, VIII (CAPS are mine)
--Rafael--
Comment