The Influence of Spanish Renaissance Swordsmanship on Filipino Martial Arts

[jwinch2]

I found this to be an interesting article on the topic. Not surprisingly, there is a good deal of controversy about this in the FMA world. Some FMA stylists readily acknowledge this relationship and influence and some others deny it completely. Personally, I don't care all that much but then again, I'm not Filipino. I can certainly see why it would be a touchy subject depending on the art one is studying or promoting and whether or not one felt if was a slight their national origin.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/influence.htm

Although it is not often recognized or acknowledged, the various Filipino martial arts such as Escrima/Arnis are said to contain many elements of Spanish Renaissance swordsmanship. Frequently, when this is acknowledged, it is often done in a misconceived manner that apparently allows followers of modern Filipino weapon arts to dismiss this influence as either inconsequential or even irrelevant. If there is influence from Spanish Renaissance swordsmanship, it would likely be from methods of military cut & thrust swords, not the style of civilian thrusting rapiers. Just what these technqiues might be, and how they are known to be 16th century Spanish in origin (and not something introduced from 19th century epee fencing) would certainly be interesting for today's student of Reniassance martil arts to discover.

In a work put out some years back entitled "Filipino Martial Arts" (which received mixed reviews among the Filipino martial arts community), one of the very first chapters labeled "Historical Background", display in its final paragraphs typical misconceptions about Renaissance swordsmanship and Western fighting arts. This particular author (by no means atypical) made the usual points concenring Filipino cultural pride (not that there's anything wrong with that) and stated that in 1521 the great explorer Ferdinand Magellan, first one to circumnavigate the globe (almost), died in battle off of a small island he had attacked in order to gain favor with another local ruler. In this famous battle of Filipino history, Magellan's 49 men with pikes, swords, halberds, a little armor, and a few firearms, were attacked by the now legendary warrior king Lapu Lapu and over 1100 fellow islanders. Magellan's force was outnumbered on the beach by more than twenty to one. So, not surprisingly hedied in the waves amid a hail of arrows and spears (note plural, not singular).

What the author fails to mention, is that the very reason we know of the battle's outcome is because Magellan's ship actually escapes (surely not the most decisive victory on the part of the locals). Anyway, the book cites this incident of local historical pride to emphasize how formidable the native fighting skills were/are. But wait. The very next statement is how in 1571, another Spanish explorer under orders to colonize, attacks a native force on another island and faces the "even more formidable" Kali warriors with their (and this is not being made up) fire-hardened rattan sticks. It also says (to quote) that "the native fighting skills far exceeded those of the Spanish". Indeed?

Of course, this author then acknowledges that the Spanish/Portuguese actually go on to win the battle, but suggests that this was "due to their firearms." However, a few light-calibre shipboard cannon and inaccurate, slow firing arquebuses in a tropical climate are not about to win a battle over overwhelming odds (back in Europe at the time, they had a lot more guns and still they had to rely on massed pikes and cavalry).

Notice also how no credit is given the Spanish/Portuguese's clear military superiority in training, discipline, armaments, tactics, organization, leadership, morale, etc.? The very fact they had high-carbon steel tipped halberds and carefuly tempered chest plates was in itself a big factor, a very formidable one (in fact a generation earlier, Spanish sword & buckler men were trashing the vaunted Swiss pikemen all up and down Europe's battlefields and over-running Italy). What is more remarkable is how a few hundred sailors and men (not even first class Renaissance soldiers in their prime), thousands of miles from their homes and families, continually outfought supposedly "superior" warriors in a hostile and unfamiliar land.

The most astounding thing in this revisionist-like view of military history lies in the final paragraph of this particular work. Immediately after all this it goes on to say that "following the Spanish conquest of the islands" (did we miss something here?) and after many skirmishes with (quoting again) "Spanish fencing exponents", the native fighting arts were found wanting. Notice how the Spanish are not called "swordsmen" or even referred to as "warriors" (and certainly not skilled Masters of Arms), but merely "exponents" of "fencing". It's as if they were just going around on the lecture circuit suggesting everyone consider their opinions, rather than defeating native opponents outright. Not surprisingly, this is a good example of the attitude toward historical European martial culture that can be found in many areas of the Asian martial arts community today.

The work then goes on to say the native Filipino fighting arts adopted many techniques and dropped others. Excuse me? Now then, we must ask, if the native fighting arts were so formidable, and the Spanish won by merely having firearms, why then were their techniques seen as so useful and effective as to be incorporated? What was suposedly deficient within native fighting talents (especialy seeing as how developed they are)? What exactly were these Spanish "skills" they were borrowing from? They certainly could not have had anything to do with firearms.

As with others like it, not only did the book miss all this, but it went on to make the inaccurate and misleading statement that "the Spanish rapier and dagger system of fighting has had a great influence on Filipino arts". Sorry, wrong. The Spanish at the time of Magellan and even later, would not have been fighting with civilian rapiers. The rapier, as we know was a personal weapon of urban self-defense, not a battlefield one. The Spanish/Portuguese sailors and soldiers would have been using military "cut & thrust" swords and fighting in the well-documented style of the Spanish and Italian Masters of the time such as Manciolino, Marozzo, Altoni, Agrippa, and Di Grassi, as well as the highly regarded styles of the Spanish Master Carranza and de Narvaez. The later civilian rapier style simply had not progressed to the point yet where it would likely have been common in the Philippine Islands even during the 1570's let alone earlier.

Additionally, for the Spanish/Portuguese the rapier was very much a weapon of the upper classes, not the common men and sailors who would have been the vast majority of fighters the natives would have encountered. These men would have trusted in the sturdier, quick slashing cut & thrust blades which were far better suited for shipboard fighting than the lighter, thrusting rapier would ever have been (Hollywood pirate movies notwithstanding). Additionaly, swords were not the favored or most common weapon of such Renaissance warriors, that would have been left to spears, halberds, falchions and long-knves (an interesting thought...).

Apparently though, rather than do accurate research when it comes to European weaponry and fighting arts, the author relied instead on familiar myth and observations of irrelevant epee and foil fencing. Sadly, what many Asian martial-art stylists apparently know of European swordsmanship seems invariably to come from Hollywood films, modern sport fencing, and Renaissance-fair stage shows. So, you can't really blame them completely.

Anyway, the material makes the usual mistake that many proponents of admirable Filipino arts seemingly do. It assumes it was the rapier, instead of the Renaissance cut & thrust sword, that had influence on their arts (without really knowing exactly what either weapon is or how they're actually used). Not only this, but the obvious techniques of Filipino stick fighting utilize little thrusting comparitive to the rapier and instead rely predominately on shorter, close-in strikes. These are clearly techniques completely inappropriate for the extra long, virtually edgeless rapier favored by the Spanish. Thus, Filipino techniques are not reminiscent of the vicious and elegant European rapier, but only perhaps of the sophisticated and highly effective Renaissance sword & dagger form. Just what any of this influence may be has yet to be substantially identified or documented by anyone. However, that there were leading proponents of Filipino who arts in the early 20th century did study modern sport fencing is a fact. What effect this sport exposure may have had on their methods of teahcing is another matter for speculation, but certainly it is no evidence of "Renaissance" skills. After all, modern sport fencing (i.e., foil, epee, sabre) is far removed from its martial origins in Renissance swordplay and for more than 150 years has not been about self-defense or been taught as a killing art.

Anyway, this is the kind of historical inaccuracy and ignorance of Western martial history that permeates much of the prejudice found in a great deal of the practice of Asian martial arts today. For some Filipinos it has now become a matter of cultural pride to explain why they were colonized, their weapons confiscated, and their native fighting skills forced to hide under the disguise of presumably harmless stick dances (not that there's anything wrong with that). It would seem they have had the final laugh though. Westerners are victims of our own military success (and excess). For it is the splendid Asian traditional fighting arts that have survived and prospered while we struggle to reconstruct and interpret what documented information survives of ours.

But for too long a good many false assumptions and assertions made by promoters of Asian styles in regard to our Western martial heritage have gone unchallenged. In this age of cultural sensitivity, renewed ethnic pride, and political correctness, we must give credit whenever it's do and clear up misconceptions when possible. Not to cause offense, but we must treat historical facts as facts even if they make us uncomfortable or damage our pride.

The Spanish essentially conquered much of the Philippines islands militarily, and to a lesser extent culturaly. They did not do it through shady deals and corporate take-overs of "noble savages" who were somehow their martial superiors. The very reason the Filipino martial arts today primarily utilize sticks is essentially because of both their ancestors' lack of a widespread advanced metallurgical technology and because their Spanish overlords, as an occupying force, confiscated their weapons as victorious powers have been known to do (not that there's anything wrong with that). Plus, its just far wiser to practice fighting techniques with safe sticks than with metal blades.

The diverse Filipino martial arts are very adaptive and pragmatic. They are said to contain elements of many cultures which had contact with them over centuries; Chinese, Indian, Malay, etc. So likely, there is some European in there as well. But if any influence that elements of Filipino arts owe to Renaissance Spanish sword forms is going to be determined and acknowledged, then it demands that exactly what such Western forms and weapons were, and what practitioners today are capable of still, also be correctly understood. For today's practitioners of Medieval & Renaissance fighting systems who are familiar and experienced with the technological and martial significance of group combat and armored battle, including shields, bucklers, spears, bills, pikes, and longbows, the naivete of most comments regarding European arts is astounding. Further, if one wants to argue the validity or effectiveness of modern Arnis/Escrima (or any Asian sword form, for that matter) against a sword & buckler or a rapier & dagger, then they very much need to arrange some serious cross-training and friendly sparring sessions with qualified proponents. Otherwise, everything else is myth and useless conjecture.

[X_plosion]

Yes, that's highly probable. In the 300 or so years of Spanish presence, Western swordfighting would possibly have been available to at least some Filipinos. Acknowledgment here is mixed, some styles are very open on the influence, others claim that their style has no relation to it whatsoever.

At any rate, I have had the good fortune to meet some practitioners of a system who say that Western Saber Fencing concepts are an integral part of their style.

[jwinch2]

Yep. It is my understanding that Doce Pares, particularly San Miguel Escrima is open about the influence while other groups like Pekiti Tirsia Kali claims none.

I have no way of knowing if that information is true or which is right and which is not or if they both are correct. At the end of the day San Miguel Escrima is not diminished in my eyes if they have taken techniques from the Spanish. It only makes sense to me. These guys conquered us so lets see what they have that we can use. Also, if we learn what they are doing and how to defeat it, perhaps we will win the next time around. So many great arts were blended this way that I see it as a strength.

If PTK is completely without outside influence from the Spanish that is cool with me also.

They are both great arts regardless in my view

I also like the points made about how we Westerners tend to turn to the east to look for martial arts and tend to ignore our own history of martial prowess. European sword fighting was highly advanced and anyone who is interested in sword work would probably do well to look there. I posted some old training manuals on here a while back but it is my understanding that few if any are still teaching this or even understand it to the point where they could teach it. Ironically, those FMA arts who have taken techniques from Spanish swordplay may be the closest link we have left to the original Spanish sword methods.

[jwinch2]

Here is another article about foreign influences on FMA.

FMA CORNER: Possible Foreign Influences on the FMA
By Perry Gil S. Mallari - September 28, 2009





Of the many foreign forces who have invaded the Philippines, the Spaniards were the only ones that made a tangible influence on the Filipino martial arts (FMA). The concept of espada y daga (sword and dagger) for instance was borrowed from Spanish swordplay. Even today, a lot of FMA terminologies are still in Spanish.

The influence of Spanish swordsmanship may have entered the FMA after intermarriages occurred between Spaniards and Filipinos and on instances where the Spanish government had to train the natives as an auxiliary fighting force against invaders.

On the latter, the Spanish clergy may have possibly played an extensive role. On the extent of the authority of Spanish friars, the historian Rosario Mendoza Cortes wrote, “As the only Spaniard in town and for many miles around, he became not only the spiritual caretaker of the area but the representative of the government as well. He became part of the administrative machinery of the colony,” (Pangasinan, 1572 to 1800, New Day Publisher, 1974). So great was the involvement of these priests in their communities that some of them even took up arms in the event of a foreign invasion.

On the participation of the Spanish friars in the British invasion, National Artist for Literature Nick Joaquin in his book “Manila, My Manila, wrote, “Also heroes of the British war were a host of anonymous friars who left their convents, took arms, and led the resistance in Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan and Pampanga. The Franciscans of Laguna held off the British while treasure smuggled out of hiding was conveyed to Anda in Pampanga. When Chinese rebels armed by the British attacked Pasig, they were driven back by an impromptu army captained by a Franciscan friar. The fiercest fighters were the Augustinians, whom the British abhorred as mortal antagonists. Ten Augustinians died in action and nineteen were captured in battle. An Augustian friar led the guerilla band that ambushed British troops in Bulacan. It is said that several of the friar guerrilleros became so fond of fighting they did not return to their convents at the end of the war but continued operating in the boondocks, this time as bandit leaders.”

Another book that mentions the Spanish clergy’s valor in combat is “Swish of the Kris” by Victor Hurley, a part of it reads. "Indeed, matters reached such a state that before the end of the year warships were ordered out for another attack on Jolo. Four regiments of infantry and a corps of artillery aided the gunboats. Included was a battalion of Cebuanoes (sic) who sought revenge for the Moro raids. The wives of the Cebuanoes (sic) emulated Lysistrata in reverse. Every wife took an oath before Father Ibanez to deny forever their husbands all of their favors if the Cebuano men turned their backs to the Moros. In the battle of Jolo, Father Ibanez lost his life in the assault on a Moro cotta. The good Father tucked his cassock about his waist and plunged into the thickest of the battle. The Cebuanoes (sic) performed prodigies of valor and Jolo fell again. The seat of the Sultanate was removed across the island to Maybun, and the Moros paid regular visits to Jolo to slaughter the Spanish garrison, which remained."


A painting by National Artist Carlos “Botong” Francisco depicting Limahong’s invasion of the Philippines

Besides the Spaniards, there are other foreign forces that could have made an influence on the FMA.

Though the Chinese preceded the Spaniards in the Philippines, their influence came in a bit late. Joaquin commented that while the Filipinos were in constant contact with the Chinese primarily because of trade for 10,000 years, so little of Chinese civilization reached the Philippines. Again, in “Manila, My Manila,” he wrote, “The Chinito look would come (along with pancit and lugaw) only after 1565, when the Chinese began to migrate here in droves. In the history of Chinese-Philippine relations, therefore, those ten thousand years of supposed past together have little or no importance. The impact of Chinese culture on us begins only in 1565.”

If official documentation was to be the sole basis, the Chinese martial arts only influenced the FMA during the last century. It happened when Grandmaster Johnny Chiuten got involved in the development of Lapunti Arnis De Abaniko of Grandmaster Filemon Caburnay. A student of the legendary Lao Kim, Chiuten infused elements of his Dragon-Tiger Kung Fu to Lapunti Arnis De Abaniko.

But there may be earlier instances where the Chinese martial arts may have blended with the FMA. One of them may have happened after the attack of the Chinese pirate Limahong on the Philippines in November 1574. On the Chinese corsair’s invasion Joaquin wrote, “Some 600 of the pirates fell in battle, including poor Lieutenant Sioco. Killed were around 50 of the defenders. Limahong lost no time decamping from the bay. He sailed to Pangasinan and there tried to establish a colony but was driven from there by his nemesis Juan de Salcedo. Some of his men escaped to Igorot country, where they sired a mestizo breed among the highlanders.”

Known for their fearsome prowess in combat, it is highly probable that these Chinese pirates may have had shared their fighting skills with the Philippine highland tribes where they found refuge. It is interesting to note that the Chinese pirate Koxinga taught combat to the natives of Taiwan when he came to the territory. In an article titled “The Sung Chiang Battle Array – Taiwanese Martial Arts Show,” Bernado Tuso wrote, “Taiwan was a sparsely populated, practically virgin island when Koxinga and his people arrived. To aid in the development of the island's economy and protect it against possible invasion by the Manchus and the Dutch, Koxinga trained and armed the peasants. Many of the weapons used in the Sung Chiang battle array are actually the farm tools--rakes, sickles, hooks, umbrellas – used by the early peasantry.”

The Japanese may have also imparted influence on the FMA long before their conquest of the Philippines during the Second World War. Another part of Joaquin’s “Manila, My Manila,” reads, “Dilao, a village occupying the present location of City Hall and the San Marcelino area, included a Japanese quarter on the banks of the Estero Tripa de Gallina [where Hotel Mirador and the Tabacalera now stand]. The site has been a Japanese ghetto since pre-Hispanic times. When the Spanish took Manila, they found twenty Japanese living there, one of whom was a Christian.”

Joaquin told that most of the Japanese in Dilao (literally means “yellow” in Tagalog) were displaced Samurai warriors or ronins. Hence the friars decided that it was appropriate to set up a new parish in the area in honor of a soldier saint. So was created the San Miguel parish in Manila.

The ronins of Manila remained adherents of Bushido or “The Way of the Warrior.” Though the Lieutenant-Governor Antonio de Morga commended them as “honest and law-abiding,” they remained fighters. In fact, 500 Japanese mercenaries from Dilao participated in Governor Juan de Silva’s conquest of the Moluccas in 1615 and Spain’s battle against the Dutch in Malacca in 1616. These displaced Samurai warriors were said to be hired “at high pay,” a testament to their formidable fighting prowess.

Joaquin said in his book that the San Miguel Parish did not remained exclusively Japanese but became “mixed” in character by the 1640s, “A community of Japanese and Filipinos,” he explained. Given the tremendous spiritual and nationalistic characteristic the Japanese attached to the sword, it was doubtful if they ever taught kenjutsu (skill with sword) to a foreigner at that time. There’s a remote possibility though that they may have imparted some of their jujitsu (empty hand fighting skills) to Filipinos.

When the Americans came to the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century, they introduced Filipinos to their brand of combat sports like western boxing and wrestling. While there are interesting historical materials presented indicating that FMA concepts did influenced western boxing, I believe it was not one-sided and an exchange took place. Elements of western boxing made it to the FMA too particularly the use of modern equipments like the heavy bag and the speed bag as well as numerous combat conditioning methods. I have also known players of dumog (the indigenous wrestling of Panay) who have incorporated western wrestling techniques into their native grappling arts.









About the Author:

Perry Gil S. Mallari has been a practitioner and researcher of the Filipino martial arts for the last two decades. His single stick method of escrima bears the stamp of approval of Ignacio Mabait an old-school escrimador who was also a former eight-rounder boxer. Manong Ignacio, a product of the juego todo (all-out stick fighting matches) era, has employed his escrima while fighting the Japanese in Manila during World War 2. Realizing the connection of Filipino escrima and Western fencing, Perry studied the art fencing with the foil in the early 1990s under Socorro Olivan at the then Quezon City Fencing Club ran by Celso Dayrit Jr. Dayrit’s father Celso Sr. is the father of sports fencing in the Philippines. Perry considers himself primarily a largo mano (long hand or long range) fighter because of the influence of his Western fencing training. Perry also practices hilot, the Filipino healing art of bone setting and therapeutic massage.

While concentrating on the FMA, Perry also cross-trains in other martial arts whenever his schedule permits. Perry believes that the principle of body mechanics is the uniting factor of all martial arts.

A professional journalist by profession, Perry’s column “Martial Talk,” published every Sunday in the Manila Times is the only column about martial arts published in a national broadsheet in the Philippines. He is also a regular writer of the Rapid Journal, the country’s only martial arts magazine for the past 11-years. His articles on the FMA is a weekly feature of fmapulse.com a US-based website aiming to unify the global FMA community.

[Dia Shan]

First disclaimer: I have not been an active student of Pekiti Tirsia (which is my only FMA experience) in about ten years, my information is not current, nor representative of the organization.

Second Disclaimer: My knowledge is what my teachers told me, but I believe it because it is logical and consistent with my knowledge of history, geography, and sociology. I have NOT done much research on this subject, as it really not of any great importance to me.

The Spanish influence in Filipino arts depends on the geographical roots of the FMA style in question, as the Spaniards control diminished the further south you go, with the northernmost styles being mostly based on Spanish techniques with some native influence, to nearly zero Spanish influence in the furthest south.

[jwinch2]

Wiley's text talks about this a bit and concludes a similar pattern but not to the point of "most of their style was Spanish influenced". Even if it was to that point, it would really only be the Espada y Daga techniques that were greatly influenced to my understanding of history. At the end of the day I don't think it is that big of a deal either but it makes for interesting conversation as long as no attaches value statements to things which happens too often unfortunately.

[Dia Shan]

That predilection for attaching value statements is why I put my disclaimers in. I'm passingly familiar with the regional history, I wouldn't use any stronger term than that. And in the final analysis (in my mind) the origin/influences do not matter....the effectiveness of the style is what matters. Generally speaking, Filipino styles are very effective.