ME: The Spanish already transitioned to long weapons and firearms ... when war was fought with firearms and pikes... not swords. (edited for space)
BFB:
The Spanish not transitioned to long weapons and firearms, they used to fight with them in the european battlefields, specially the pike division called "Tercios" (hated and feared by frenchs, italians, english, ...).
ME:
I'm not sure you understood my phrase "long weapons"... that IS the pike division.
History books, military manuals and also the very words of the Spanish in the Philippines DURING THAT TIME PERIOD agree with me.
There is NO RECORD from the thousands of pages of Spanish accounts in the Philippines that state they fought sword versus sword against the Filipino natives.
That is a MYTH.
I'd also like to add that by the end of the 1500's, Spain's methods of warfare had evolved to small teams involved in covert search and destroy missions. As Restall wrote in Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest. There was even a book in 1599 titled, The Armed Forces and Description of the Indies by Bernardo de Vargas Machuca which is called, "The first manual on guerilla warfare ever written". This book was "advocating something that was already common practice among Spaniards in the Americas for a century" (Restall, pg. 32). Spain had abandoned linear formations hierachical units and permanent garrisons. Display violence was also mentioned to psych out the natives.
By 1537, a mathematical treatise on calculating the trajectory of shot was already in existence. By 1586, Collado provided a practical manual for the artilleryman. By the 1620's HTH combat skills in military education gave way to the study of ballistics, siege tactics, formation studies, leadership and the use of campaign mapping. By 1590's the continuous shots (volley fire) was already a documented drill for arquebusiers. One such drill involved six ranks , as one rank fired it retreated to the rear as the second rank took it's place and so on.
The Introduction letter to Legaspi from the Crown of Spain commented on the importance of arquebus drill and practice. Many in Europe were learning, repetition and familiarity bred confidence in this new weapon and form of combat. Swiss and Spanish pikemen had their own drills years prior to the emergence of the 1607 Jacob de Gheyn Dutch drill manual for pikemen and arquebusiers (Wapenhandelinghe van Roers). This drill became a standard practice.
Military drill and formations during the 16th century used manuals such as the revised Vegetius' De Re Militari in 1585, Lipsius'1 1595 De Militia Romana, Cruso's Instructions, Bingham's Tactics of Aelian and Hexham's Principles of the art of Militare.
The Spanish 'hollow rectangle' proved to be a successful tactic vs. the French in 1643. Eventually the pike role diminished into a support role to the arquebusier. By 1650 even Pikemen numbers as stated earlier declined and by 1705 eventually faded away. By 1647, Puysegur's plug bayonet displayed the use of the gun as a hybrid pike. The evolution into the ring bayonet made the pike obsolete.
"On the battlefield, Close Quarter fighting, the prime objective of the Medieval Knight gradually gave way to longer range musketry duels. In 1598 (note the early date), one English writer commented that," It is rarely seen in our days that men come often to blows as in the old times they did."
Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe, Hall.
As the gun evolved further, eventually these formations of tightly grouped soldiers advancing methodically upon the unorganized enemy suffered massive losses in infantry hundreds of years later. Volley fire weakness introduced the line formation, abandoning the psychological reassurance of a pike phalanx formation. Tightly lined formation met another tightly formed formation with both sides possessing faster loading, more powerful guns and capable of longer ranges of fire. We've all seen films or reenactments of troops falling in a hail of gunfire while they steadily advanced.
Spain's Prince Philip II (of whom the Philippines was named after) knew the importance of modern warfare, but the consequences of maintaining an effort of subjugation disproportionate to the empire's resources, overwhelmed him, his countrymen and his place in history.
It led Spain to worse actions. One biographer states, " History has shown itself severe towards this Prince" Under his rule Spain alienated the nations in which the following centuries were to shape and inspire public opinion such as Holland, England and France. It's subjugation of the Americas, colonization of the Philippines and battles with future super powers to come. Philip was caught between the past and the future and he eventually personified the Spanish Empire's greatest triumphs, weakness and demise.
Recommended sources:
The Story of Weapons and Tactics- Wittingham
Evolution of Weapons and Warfare, Col. Dupuy
Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe, Hall
War and Society in Early Modern Europe 1495- 1715, Tallett
Firepower- Hughes
Phillip II- The First Modern King, Mariejol
-----
Me:
Spain was conquered by the Moors when the sword was a primary weapon in war. Spain was under Moors for around 800 years...
BFB:
It´s false, Spain never was under a muslim total control (tha max. a 70-80% for 711-1032 aprox.). Before the XII century the different Spanish kingdoms reconquer the 70% or Spain.
ME:
I never wrote TOTAL control.
That's something that never happens during an invasion by a foreign power. Most historians state that the Philippines was conquered by Spain and the total land control Spain had at one time was even LESS than what you state the Moors had. In fact, the Spanish thought they conquered the Philippines by altering maps and using omission of facts as part of their history. I find it amusing that someone is calling me on a practice that Spanish historians have been doing for hundreds of years. Read Lane Poole's history of Spain. It will have descriptions of battles with swords etc against Moors. No firearms yet.
Now, even if you WERE correct... you're still talking the same amount of time that Spain was in the Philippines... that Spain was under the Moors. So if the Moors did NOT influence Spain, it would be rather smug to say that Spain influenced the Filipino's style of fighting when they didn't even fight blade vs. blade battles?
-----
BFB:
Excuse me Rafael but the idea of the muslim occupation thanks to a higher fighting skills is very stupid and the "cristian" fighting skills over the XV century change drastically, from sword to rapier and here comes the spanish hegemony over european fencing.
This part of Spanish history is very complicated and it´s very hard for me try to explain you in english.
Thanks.
Me:
Yes, that would be ' very stupid' if that is all the info you got from my comment.
ALL history is complicated.
Christian fighting skills changed because the GUN was invented... get used to that idea becuase your sword to rapier transition theory has nothing to do with how countries fought one another in war. That's movie and fiction books. There's a romance with duelling weapons that some people have myths built in their minds that battles were fought like Zorro or the 3 Musketeers movies.
The real D'Artaghan was shot and killed in the neck during battle... so someone should have clued him in as well.
What I was writing about are battles in which Spanish and Moors did fight withOUT forearms involved . Battles the Spanish lost. In fact, there's battles where they got trounced by the Moors.
That doesn't mean it is the ONLY reason that Spain was conquered, but it does show that Spain was not exclusive in the manner of blade use. Nor were they the best in warfare with it.
Now, no soldier who does not become acquainted with the tactics of the enemy will survive.
This Spaniard quoted below was NOT very stupid:
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, "A collection of important source documents related to the Legazpi expedition of 1564..." by the Filipiniana Book Guild bound in 1965. Francisco de Sande sailed in from Acapulco, Nueva Espana and his letters were to the Crown. His accounts of the aftermath of the Chinese corsair Limahong's invasion of Manila is also good reading as it was from a first hand account. de Sande's observations are of note because it came from a perspective of one who had lived in South America, Spain and the Philippines during that time.
(CAPS are emphasized by Rafael Kayanan) :
"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."
--Rafael--
Sayoc Kali
---------
-------
--------
--------
----
