FMA history - Fact or Myth?

[YODA]

There's an extremely interesting discussion on the Eskrima Digest email group.... here's some...

====================

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 04:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Leo Salinel <viceleo96@yahoo.com>
To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net
Subject: [Eskrima] Debunked Myth About Filipinos Not Being Banned From FMA by the Spaniards
Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net

Being a Filipino who lives here in the Philippines and
who ACTUALLY studied and ACTUALLY has a passionate
interest in my country's history, I think that
debunked myth refers to the fact that it is very much
possible, if not very very likely, that the FMA as we
know them today became what they are largely due to
the Spanish colonial government's need for them.

I refer you guys to Dr. Ned Nepangue and Celestino
Macachor's website at http://clix.to/decampo where
Tinny Macachor discusses his theory--which is actually
and honestly VERY SOUND and WELL ROOTED in historical
documentation and observant common sense. The
Spaniards had a "divide-and-rule" strategy of using
Visayans and Tagalogs against each other during
revolts as well as against the southern Muslims in
Mindanao island. Thus, as a result the Spanish
government came to DEPEND ON Filipino martial art
skills with weapons, and the 200 or so years of
Spanish dependence on the same against the Moros of
Mindanao helped shape the FMA. To be honest, at the
very first read I got of Tinny's essay, I was appalled
by his ethnocentrism (he's a very die-hard Cebuano)
but was impressed with his realistic and believable
analysis of how FMA developed. A lot of the terms, the
concepts, and other things were developed with the aid
of the friars and the technical expertise of the
Spaniards (of course building on an already
pre-existing FMA bedrock of fighting skills and
tactics).

After the end of the expeditions against the Moros
(around the mid 1800s when Spain decided to give up
and decided to instead maintain a few outposts along
Mindanao's northwestern coasts), the Christianized
population of Visayas and Luzon still had to contend
with the never-ending Moro piracy raids, for which the
FMA which they honed as faithful foot soldiers of the
Spanish colonial government against the Moros, found a
new use--defending their villages against pirate
raids. To this day, a lot of coastal towns in Luzon
and the Visayas islands have abandoned belltowers and
watchtowers which in recorded history were used to
warn against the approach of pirates from Mindanao.

In all honesty, this account by Dr. Nepangue and Tinny
M. make a lot more sense than all the talk about "the
mother art" which to this day, none of the
anthropological scholars at the University of the
Philippines (our very own harvard) can verify with documentation.

==========================

[Kwan Jang]

-This sounds pretty reasonable going along the lines of what I've been told by Jimmy Tacosca( guro of the serrata system) and by the late Mike Innay and his protege, Jeff Elliott. These are my only real refferences other than articles and books (never been there or greatly exposed to the culture directly), but it sounds logical.

[shootodog]

i refer you to this other forum guys:

http://pinoymma.com/portal/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=184

[Em-em]

I think you don't need to read history. Why don't you experience it yourself? It's been passed on from generation to generation, why rely on books when you can learn from the real history makers? YODA I hope you can visit Bukidnon someday, the same for all other people here. :D

[Bobster]

That article has been the source of more controversy than anything else I can think of, barring michael jackson.

Dr. Ned & Tinny both make some substantial leaps in supposition in thier articles, and often play a sort of historical "connect-the-dots" with the conclusions they draw. Ultimately, Dr. Ned says this himself. The thing to remember is that NO ONE is completely unbiased when recording history, and there is a danger of drawing the wrong conclusions from gathered evidence. In the end, the articles end with a more "Doesn't that make sense?" style, as opposed to "This is clearly the link we were missing" with hard evidence. Take the Laguna Copperplate, for example. Without the existence of this one single artifact, much of the information and "folk stories" about the native pre-spanish script could be called into question.

Remember, the Spanish weren't the only ones operating in the area. There were several factions fighting for control of Indonesia at the same time, before the dutch finally grabbed it entirely. We actually have some witnesess to the proceedings of the Philippines that aren't Spanish, but you have to know to look there in the first place.

One clue is to consider the source, the origin of the species. In this case, I mean the Filipinos themselves. Where did they come from? What language did thiers evolve from (Where, even today, some words & customs are identical)? What does the term "Tagalog" mean, what are it's root words? The term "Kali" isn't native to the Philippines, it is based in another language, and does NOT have anything to do with the Hindu goddess, either.

I do agree, however, that the Spanish influence helped the art to evolve into what it is today. There is far too much obvious intermingling of cultures to think otherwise.

Just my Dos Centavos,

Bobbe Edmonds

[Matt_Bernius]

This type of examination and speculation is always fascinating. And I think that it's important to examine this along with the aural history of an Art. The lore of an art can guide (and sometimes restrict) the future development of that art.

In any case, this seems somewhat synonymous with the recent "debunking" of the legend that the King of Okinawa banned the peasants from having weapons and that led to wide spread practice of Karate and the conversion/adaptation of farm implements into weapons.

The argument presented in this article is compelling and does help explain some questions that I’ve had about the development of the Filipino arts.

Also Bobbe raised some great ideas in his post as well. This is why MAP rocks!

- Matt

[Gryphon Hall]

originally from the European Swordfighting thread:

This article may be of interest regarding Spanish - Filipino MA
http://www.thearma.org/essays/influence.htm I did visit that link above and article raises very sobering issues. I, for one, did not find it hard to believe that Filipino historians would let national pride before accuracy. (And before anyone gets angry at me, please know that I am a Filipino, born and bred [Ilocano ancenstry], never been abroad and educated in Philippine Public Schools, where our history textbooks change periodically with each transition in our government. So I know how Pinoys behave when dealing with sarling-atin [trans. mine-ours])

Please read the article, if you haven't yet. The one issue there that may be of real interest is the proposition that even though the martial prowess of Mactan drove back Magellan, it was not nearly enough in driving outthe next guy who came after and finally conquered the Philippines. Furthermore, the article implies, the FMA of Arnis/Escrima actually incorporated Spanish Rennaissance "cut and thrust" military techniques, as opposed to the supposed misconception that the doble kalis or sinawali fighting was based on "rapier and dagger" fighting.

You see, I downloaded the AEMMA Spada Longa manual, and was surprised at the similarities between concepts and training techniques with Escrima. Maybe a more systematic comparative study between actual Spanish Rennaisance swordsmanship and Escrima will show that the Spaniards influenced FMA more than actually thought.

[ranger]

I think you don't need to read history. Why don't you experience it yourself? It's been passed on from generation to generation, why rely on books when you can learn from the real history makers? YODA I hope you can visit Bukidnon someday, the same for all other people here. :D

is this an invite? :)

[aml01_ph]

The article raises very good points. It sounds very much like the article of Rob Redmond's (Karate's excellent adventure, found in www.24fightingchickens.com at the Mu section). What I think is that most FMA historians just wrote a book without basing their theories on what can be verified.

Better to just practice the art. One thing that is not contested however, is that FMA is considered one of the best (if not the best) at what it is at.

[Louie]

aml01_ph said...."Better to just practice the art. One thing that is not contested however, is that FMA is considered one of the best (if not the best) at what it is at".

There are absolutely no doubts about the quality and effectiveness of FMA, but mythology and selective history surrounding many Asian Martial Arts have obviously clouded how we in the West view our own indigenous arts, their effectiveness and their influence on other cultures. :(
Few martial artists in Europe are aware that Western stick systems related to swordfighting still exist, Canarian Juego del Palo, Portuguese Jogo do Pau, Canne Italiana and French Savate's Canne de Combat to name a few.....
In the Uk stickfighting (single-stick) was still taught as a training weapon for the sabre by at least one fencing master in Scotland well into the late 80's, early 90's and the art was revived in the Royal Navy back in the 1980's!

Louie

[aml01_ph]

What I think about FMA is that it is an ecclectic mix of fighting methods compiled based on what a particular fighter prefers to use best. There is a drill practiced by certain arnis styles that seem quite similar to the sticky hands and push hands drills present in various wushu styles. The slashing moions of redonda and sinawali actually favor motions that is used for sabres and broad swords. The espada y daga (sword and dagger) is present in the original schools of fencing.

It is also a fact that the Philippines have been settled by peoples of various cultures, colonized by three (the British had control for about two years, along with the Spanish and the Americans), and subjugated by one. Plus, the Chinese merchants ultimately settled in the Philippines like they did in various parts of the world. No wonder FMA looks very similar to other fighting systems.

[Gryphon Hall]

No wonder FMA looks very similar to other fighting systems.
Too true, too true.

I once experienced being in a fighting stance, and somebody said that it was a fencing stance. My footwork also, was called a fencing stance, though they couldn't agree if it was European footwork or Japanese. Which was strange, since since I was a kid, my Mom and Grandfather called it Escrima.

On these forums, in fact, I learn the FMA footwork is typically based on the triangle. Mine is based on the circle. So sometimes, I get tired of explaining that my art is Escrima (hard to prove, anyway, as I am basically self-taught) and just call it "fencing" (even though technically, it isn't).

However, and other Pinoys will agree with me, there is some sort of "quality" in an Arnisadores/Escrimador stance, or the way they strike that is pinoy na pinoy talaga, that is, translated as "truly Filipino". I have no English equivalent that is meaningful, since the transliterated word means "parent", but the flavor of FMA fighting is that it is "magulang".

[aml01_ph]

The theory behind the basic triangle footwork is that when you attack, you go forward. When in defense you move back at a angle. But when subjected to contnuous attack, the path would roughly trace a circle if the defender was always moving in the same angle.

The word "magulang" when it comes to fighting is to be the man up by whatever means necessary. It is also funny that the word "magulang" when used differently translates to english as "parent" (as in your father and mother).

[shootodog]

Too true, too true.

I once experienced being in a fighting stance, and somebody said that it was a fencing stance. My footwork also, was called a fencing stance, though they couldn't agree if it was European footwork or Japanese. Which was strange, since since I was a kid, my Mom and Grandfather called it Escrima.

On these forums, in fact, I learn the FMA footwork is typically based on the triangle. Mine is based on the circle. So sometimes, I get tired of explaining that my art is Escrima (hard to prove, anyway, as I am basically self-taught) and just call it "fencing" (even though technically, it isn't).

However, and other Pinoys will agree with me, there is some sort of "quality" in an Arnisadores/Escrimador stance, or the way they strike that is pinoy na pinoy talaga, that is, translated as "truly Filipino". I have no English equivalent that is meaningful, since the transliterated word means "parent", but the flavor of FMA fighting is that it is "magulang".


well...it is believed that modern boxing (as against to queensberry) forms came from americans who witnessed a death match between two filipinos. forearms tucked-up and parallel to each other, covering the torso. the forearms were used to take and deflect the knife blows of the opponent. knives were utilised just as boxer would jab, hook, and, upper-cut. the footwork worked in an in- out triangle shuffle.

hmmm...

[aml01_ph]

well...it is believed that modern boxing (as against to queensberry) forms came from americans who witnessed a death match between two filipinos. forearms tucked-up and parallel to each other, covering the torso. the forearms were used to take and deflect the knife blows of the opponent. knives were utilised just as boxer would jab, hook, and, upper-cut. the footwork worked in an in- out triangle shuffle.

hmmm...

:rolleyes: Should be taken with agrain of salt. There is also a belief that the Model 1911 .45 semi-automatic pistol was first made for use against Filipinos during the American colonization of the Philippines (this is from Dan Inosanto's book "The Filipino Martial Arts"). Apparently the Filipino "insurgents" (as the Americans called them, had so much belief in their agimats that bullets did not do much to faze them. :eek:

[ranger]

:rolleyes: Should be taken with agrain of salt. There is also a belief that the Model 1911 .45 semi-automatic pistol was first made for use against Filipinos during the American colonization of the Philippines (this is from Dan Inosanto's book "The Filipino Martial Arts"). Apparently the Filipino "insurgents" (as the Americans called them, had so much belief in their agimats that bullets did not do much to faze them. :eek:

i've heard also this is because of the momentum of the attack of the rebels using talibongs and bolos. even if you shoot them with a rifle the attack could still hit you. so they devise a firearm with knocking power solely dealing with knocking down the advancing "juramentados". :)

[shootodog]

:rolleyes: Should be taken with agrain of salt. There is also a belief that the Model 1911 .45 semi-automatic pistol was first made for use against Filipinos during the American colonization of the Philippines (this is from Dan Inosanto's book "The Filipino Martial Arts"). Apparently the Filipino "insurgents" (as the Americans called them, had so much belief in their agimats that bullets did not do much to faze them. :eek:

i agree. but the 1911 was developed in the moro seperatist movement in the southern island of mindanao against the muslims who would go juramentado (.38 were not effective). incidentally, the usmc were known as lethernecks because of the leather thongs they wore around their necks to defend against having their throats slit open by the natives. facts..you betcha!

and as for the death matches... somewhere in batangas, 1903. double knives (or so the journal of an american serviceman claims).

[Louie]

As mentioned previously the recruitment of Filipino warriors into the Spanish Army of the Philippines involved some form of training in Spanish warfare, perhaps like the training of Scottish Highlanders in the British Army this mainly involved musket drill & military tactics, while the Scots continued to carry & use their broadsword, dirk & shield.
:Angel:

I came across this article by David Black on a WesternMA Sword Forum who debunks the previous Spanish-FMA article and should be of interest....

Whenever two or more cultures come into contact with one another, there's a potential for an exchange of ideas, martial or otherwise. However, I suspect that a lot of the outward similiarities that one sees in arts from the East and West is more a product of parallel evolution than anything else. We all have two arms, two legs, a head, and a torso. There are only so many ways you can hit the other guy (or bend his joints, etc).

And, while I do think there was a definite Spanish influence on FMA, I also feel that it has been "played out" a bit too much. This is understandable to a degree, since WMA practitioners have sought to correct the factual imbalance that obviously existed in FMA texts until fairly recently. Still, two "wrongs" don't make a "right".

Anyone who's examined the history of the Spanish-Filipino conflict will note that it was distinctly different from what took place in the New World. The vast majority of Cortez's men--the same folks who conquered Mexico--were swordsmen. This was not the case in the Philippines.

The Spanish had apparently hoped for another comparatively easy conquest of a supposedly more primitive people, but when they arrived in the Philippines, they found cultures that were technologically more advanced the the Aztecs. One Spaniard, writing long after Cortez's campaigns, commented that the Aztecs had "no style of fencing"; the common gossip in the Philippines was much different, where Spanish soldiers observed that the local warriors could "fight like Moors, and defend themselves like Turks"--high praise indeed.

And the Spanish Empire, which was over-stretched as it was (even their very best fighting force--the Spanish Army of Flanders--was routinely paid late), could only afford to send rather small expeditions to the East. When the Spanish finally established themselves in the Philippines under Legazpi in the 1560s, they were only able to send about 300 men total--not even enough to fill out the complement of fighting men on a single full-sized war galley at Lepanto in 1571 (and there were over 200 galleys in the Christian fleet at Lepanto).

Because the Spanish could only send small expeditions, and because the Filipinos were frankly more advanced technologically and martially than the New World Indians, an equalizer was needed--firearms. So, before we all get too carried away with the supposed heavy Spanish influence on FMA, we should consider what Francisco de Sande wrote to King Phillip II on June 8, 1577:

"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." {Emphasis added}

This doesn't mean that Hand To Hand fighting didn't take place (obviously it did), and it doesn't mean that the Spanish were inferior at HTH fighting, when going up against the Filipinos (we do read of certain actions where the Spanish successfully defeated Filipinos and Bornean Moros through HTH combat). It simply means that there were too few Spaniards to make fighting HTH on a regular basis practical.

And because of that, I feel that the Spanish influence on FMA was not nearly as profound as some WMA/HEMA folks are currently claiming.

Louie :D

[krys]

The Spanish had apparently hoped for another comparatively easy conquest of a supposedly more primitive people, but when they arrived in the Philippines, they found cultures that were technologically more advanced the the Aztecs.

The Aztecs had deep knowledge astronomy, built pyramides and monuments, watter sewage,..... With all respect to filipinos I can't buy they were less advanced than filipinos....They hadn't firearms, true, but on some aspects they were even more advanced than europeans at that time...


One Spaniard, writing long after Cortez's campaigns, commented that the Aztecs had "no style of fencing"; the common gossip in the Philippines was much different, where Spanish soldiers observed that the local warriors could "fight like Moors, and defend themselves like Turks"--high praise indeed.

If it was long after Cortez campaigns how could he say that? There weren't any Aztec warrior's left, just slaves working in mines and fields..... Aztec engaged in large scale warfare for centuries and had schools of military arts, I really doubt they had no martial arts...... Jaguar and eagle knights were famous for their martial skills....

Anyone who's examined the history of the Spanish-Filipino conflict will note that it was distinctly different from what took place in the New World. The vast majority of Cortez's men--the same folks who conquered Mexico--were swordsmen. This was not the case in the Philippines.

It was the same story, they played each tribe against it's neighbours in Luzon and the Visayas..... it was even easier as filipinos were less unified than the aztecs....The spaniards had japanese mercenaries too, there were more than 300 men.....


The muslims gave them huge problems..... they were (more or less) unified in sultanates, had faster ships, and firearms and weren't impressed by the invader's technology.....Their martial arts were less influenced because they weren't under spanish rule, actually their escrima is quite different but I am convinced they also learned some tricks from the spaniards (among them the espaday daga stuff).

Because the Spanish could only send small expeditions, and because the Filipinos were frankly more advanced technologically and martially than the New World Indians, an equalizer was needed--firearms.

Because the spaniards didn't use firearms :woo: in the conquest of the new world? :)

And because of that, I feel that the Spanish influence on FMA was not nearly as profound as some WMA/HEMA folks are currently claiming.

Yes and that is why most of the terms used in Arnis and escrima are spanish......
There are a lot of stories of dominicans/friars who taught christian filipinos how to fight against muslim raiders and those are easy to find in history books, if I remember well the two volumes on the history of Bukidnon have lots of stories of fighting friars who trained locals ....

This is again an attempt by foreigners to rewrite fmas history :( .......
fmas were influenced by spanish fencing, there is no shame in it, those arts combine the best from european and south asian martial culture....

[Louie]

This is again an attempt by foreigners to rewrite fmas history :( .......
fmas were influenced by spanish fencing, there is no shame in it, those arts combine the best from european and south asian martial culture....

Hi Krys,
As a WMA practicioner I am also seeking to redress the East-West balance regarding MA, researching both sides with an open mind...
As David Black who wrote the article isn't here to reply to any of them, I'll add the last of his posts regarding how he came to his conclusions :Angel:

************************************************** *******
The next phase in the Spanish/FMA debate came when I read John Clements' now-controversial essay, "The Influence of Spanish Renaissance Swordsmanship on Filipino Martial Arts?". I initially viewed Clements' piece in a positive light, as he had clearly sought to correct the imbalance which had existed on the subject (basically, he tried to counter the claim found in so many FMA texts that Spanish HTH fighting was "no match" for the Filipino arts)--the best part of Clement's article was pointing out the obvious disparity in numbers regarding the Battle of Mactan Island in 1521, where Magellan was killed (Magellan had less than 50 men, whereas Raja LapuLapu had over a thousand).

However, Clements essay came under severe flak from many in the FMA community. Chief among Clement's critics was/is Tuhon Rafael Kayanan, of Sayoc Kali. I first came into contact with Kayanan during a heavy debate on the Dog Brothers Forum. Rafael maintained that the common FMA claim regarding the Spanish reliance on firearms was in fact true (and this was something that Clements had tried to push aside, by saying that arquebuses were too slow to reload, etc).

What really moved me was that Kayanan was able to back his claims with primary Spanish sources, like the one I quoted above from de Sande. Rafael then directed me to some good sites that contained many of these primary sources, and I was then able to research the issue for myself.

As it turned out, in terms of the use of guns, Rafael Kayanan was right, and John Clements was wrong--simple as that. The Spanish themselves acknowledged this.

However, FMA books made it sound as if firearms were required because the Spanish sword/HTH skills were inferior to those of the Filipinos--I, on the other hand, maintain that it was more an issue of the small numbers of Spanish troops that were present in the Philippines.

And so, it was clear to me that there were (and still are) misconceptions on this topic in both the FMA and WMA/HEMA camps.

In fact, another interesting debate happened, when I decided to critique James Keating's interview in realfighting.com, when he made what I felt were many questionable claims about FMA and its relationship to Spanish/European blade arts (I did this critique on the DB site). Rafael Kayanan and others on the Dog Brothers site were sharply critical of Keating's claims as well. Kayanan suggested that Keating should be invited to participate in the debate--I volunteered to contact him. I exchanged several bizarre e-mails with Mr. Keating--I was later told that he was apparently disturbed by some lame past online sniping of some sort (by whom, I know not), and this manifested itself in the fact that he was distinctly reluctant to join the debate. Ultimately, he refused outright, and the situation deteriorated when he broke off all contact with me. I have reflected on that incident since then, wondering what I could have done differently in order to show Mr. Keating that neither I nor anyone else at the DB site had any ulterior motives--we simply wanted to hear his side of the debate. I would also like to state that, despite the different views Mr. Keating and I obviously hold about certain historical martial topics, I have never questioned his ability as a martial artist--I have heard only GOOD things about Mr. Keating's technique (and the same applies to Mr. Clements--he is to be congratulated for his emphasis on free-sparring, as well as attempting to correct the imbalance I mentioned above).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had just always heard that there was a connection there, and the more I study FMA, the more I see how there *could* be a connection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree--there definitely is some connection, though the more I look into it, the more it appears to be a post 16th century connection. I believe it was you who mentioned that Pete Kautz observed the similarities between later Spanish saber work, and certain styles of FMA. Amante P. Marinas, of Pananandata, has also noted similiarites between his style, and the three modern Western fencing forms of foil, saber, and epee (his article appeared in a fairly recent issue of Filipino Martial Arts magazine). We also know that certain arnisadors, like the famous Filipino activist and martyr, Jose Rizal, were also skilled in Western fencing (Rizal, for example, studied fencing in both the Philippines and Spain).

************************************************** *******

You may find follow ups to his research on the sites he's mentioned

Louie :)

[Gryphon Hall]

I can maybe accept that, militarily, the peoples found in the Phlilippines were much more advanced than the Aztecs, but not in other ways. If I remember correctly, and I may be wrong, the Mayans and the Aztecs made more use of cudgels and pointed sticks in their warfare, great as it was in scope. They may have been a nominal warrior culture, as opposed to or compared to the Filipino Sultanates, who were already being influenced by Arabia and India, but we may not deny that they (the Aztecs) had more "science" than most cultures at that time, expcept probably the Ottoman Empire or some of Rennaisance Europe.

Also, the Spaniards may not have had the chance to influence FMA during the period of actual conquest, but how about those three hundred years of occupation, when groups of Filipinos would be played off against another group. Plenty of opportunity there.

Nevertheless, I am inclined to take what Francisco de Sande had said at face value. It is, after all, an historic reference, reported in very unflattering tones towards their own nation when it comes to feats of arms—I just see no agenda in it. Maybe the Filipinos were really that good. Maybe they really did have more advanced armor and weapons than the Aztecs, if advanced in no other way. Maybe that other "one Spaniard" was right when he said that Filipinos really did have a systematic sword style easilly recognizeable as a style, compared to the Aztecs who, if I do remember correctly, were more dependent on their group strategy than particular individual tactics.

And maybe the real reason why the Philippines was conquered was really by the use of guns.

It still does not prove that the influence of WMA on FMA was not as extensive as is being supposed. I suspect (and, again, I could be wrong, so bear with me) that that article was not so much written to downplay that influence, but rather to make the efforts of the WMA (to present WMA as a viable and effective MA) as misguided.

Peace, bro. :love:

[Louie]

Also, the Spaniards may not have had the chance to influence FMA during the period of actual conquest, but how about those three hundred years of occupation, when groups of Filipinos would be played off against another group. Plenty of opportunity there.

Yes, very true...... :D

Regarding using circles, triangles and other geometric devices, I've posted a picture of a Western MA practicing his footwork (can't remember off-hand the title/date but looks 15-1600's)

On a similar note; I believe the crossed sword Highland dances of Scotland were originally footwork drills (similar to FMA) that mixed sword fencing footwork with the kicks and trips of Highland wrestling :eek:

Louie

[aml01_ph]

... militarily, the peoples found in the Phlilippines were much more advanced than the Aztecs

I do not know why people disregard these people's (Aztecs, Mayans...) military capabilities. The main reason they were defeated is primarily because of religious reasons (Cortez was thought to be the scond coming of a god in their pantheon). Add that to the fact that the westerners brought in diseases that these people had no biological resistance. I think people who have allegedly practiced certain blood rites in their religion would be as "magulang" as the warriors in what is now known as the Philippines.

Secondly, the expeditions were comprised mainly of explorers. Experienced maybe in fighting pirates but not in open warfare onshore. Magellan (Magallanes) only had to contend with just 1 or 2 tribes, and his crew was equipped with firearms. Because of their combat experience, Magellan's group is clearly outlassed, and despite of firearms, outnumberred.

Legaspi, however, is a different story. He came with a punitive force (did I use the term correctly?) His was not an expedition that came to explore but was clearly intent on colonization. When he came to the Viasayas region he offered tribute to avoid fighting. And in order to conquer Manila, he bombed it offshore using his canons. Sound military judgement.

Guns always make a difference when you have to kill the other guy from a distance.

[krys]

I do not know why people disregard these people's (Aztecs, Mayans...) military capabilities. The main reason they were defeated is primarily because of religious reasons (Cortez was thought to be the scond coming of a god in their pantheon). Add that to the fact that the westerners brought in diseases that these people had no biological resistance. I think people who have allegedly practiced certain blood rites in their religion would be as "magulang" as the warriors in what is now known as the Philippines.

Another reason is that the Aztecs made many ennemies among the other tribes living in their neighbourhood.... these tribes allied themeselves with Cortez and in the end he had enough troops to encircle the Aztec forces inside the city of mexico......

Legaspi, however, is a different story. He came with a punitive force (did I use the term correctly?) His was not an expedition that came to explore but was clearly intent on colonization. When he came to the Viasayas region he offered tribute to avoid fighting. And in order to conquer Manila, he bombed it offshore using his canons. Sound military judgement.

Guns always make a difference when you have to kill the other guy from a distance.
Actually Legazpi used also 600 visayan warriors along his spanish troops (more or less 250 men) to take rajah's Suleiman kota in Manila....
Many of the filipino tribes were fighting each others and the spaniard used this allying themselves/converting some to attack others.....

[aml01_ph]

Another reason is that the Aztecs made many ennemies among the other tribes living in their neighbourhood.... these tribes allied themeselves with Cortez and in the end he had enough troops to encircle the Aztec forces inside the city of mexico......


Actually Legazpi used also 600 visayan warriors along his spanish troops (more or less 250 men) to take rajah's Suleiman kota in Manila....
Many of the filipino tribes were fighting each others and the spaniard used this allying themselves/converting some to attack others.....

Like I said, sound military judgement. Why kill your fellow Spaniards when you have a lot of gold to buy off guys willing to kill and get killed for you.

[shootodog]

Like I said, sound military judgement. Why kill your fellow Spaniards when you have a lot of gold to buy off guys willing to kill and get killed for you.

sounds like a plan. but seriously, pinoys have been killing pinoy on behalf of the invaders since the first blood compact.

somethings never change.

[krys]

One other thing is that many "spanish" soldiers who faught during the invasion Philippines were in fact indian (mexican) troops....
Spaniards also later used (christian) Japanese Samurais, there was actually a japanese community in Manila ...