First Westerner to the Philippines?

Bill · 13th December 2006, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MABAGANI

when the leader Lapu Lapu won the battle with native weaponry, the focus of the exhibit and of interest.
I recall in a study of Magellan, his contemporaries other mercenaries had prior knowledge of the region from which he was able to use

Lapu Lapu did not win the battle with native weaponry, at least in Pigafetta's account. Lapu Lapu would not engage untill most of Magellans men were already aboard boats. The men were in armor & the boats could not come to shore because of the rocky coast, Magellan covered the retreat. You may want to do a search on Enrique, Magellan's slave. He was either from Malacca or was a Cebuano depending who you want to read. Most likely he was the source, about the PI, for Magellan.

MABAGANI · 13th December 2006, 10:51 PM

I stated Lapu Lapu and his warriors (see original post and don't take it out of context), not Lapu Lapu himself, last i read he was struck in the leg and cut down with a sword...who actually killed him no one could know, did he lose the battle to Lapu Lapu? Yes
Did they use native weaponry? Yes, again who could actually say what type.
There was a translated list of native weaponry.
Magellan with his arrogant overconfidence in what he perceived as superiority in arms and combat, underestimated Lapu Lapu who had knowledge of the terrain and his enemies fighting ability, easily overwhelmed the opposition with his loyal warriors.

I've read the accounts of Enrique too who may have actually been the first human to circumnavigate the world, but do Malay/slaves count?

Spunjer · 14th December 2006, 12:03 AM

when cato's book came out, it became the bible of every moro sword collectors. it was regarded as the most accurate book when it comes to moro weapons. as time go by, it was questioned on some of its claims, as one can read on the earlier version of this forum. now, we know some of the claims in that book is just not true. the point is, it was challenged, regardless of how thorough cato research this massive project, as far as travelling all over the world. but still, we questioned it, and the truth was revealed.

it's good to question these so called documents from time to time. just because common knowledge states such and such, it doesn't mean it's the fact.

lapulapu's exploit might not mean much to a lot of you, but since he and his warriors used bladed weapons to beat magellan, i believe that's relevant to this forum. btw, how many of you are aware that there are strong evidence rajah (or rajiki) lapulapu was a moro? what does that got to do with anything? well, now it makes more sense when pigafetta mentioned that the natives were using campilanes, don't it?

edited for spelling....

Bill · 14th December 2006, 01:33 AM

To keep this is perspective, this was 49 men with Magellan & 1500 with Lapu Lapu. This site http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/magellan.htm seems to have the most accepted version of the battle and some other interesting links. According to the Encyclopaedia of SEA Ethnography, the Tausug probably came to Sulu from north-eastern Mindanao, possibly because of Chinese trade, Yuan period (1280-1368)

MABAGANI · 14th December 2006, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill

To keep this is perspective, this was 49 men with Magellan & 1500 with Lapu Lapu. This site http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/magellan.htm seems to have the most accepted version of the battle and some other interesting links. According to the Encyclopaedia of SEA Ethnography, the Tausug probably came to Sulu from north-eastern Mindanao, possibly because of Chinese trade, Yuan period (1280-1368)

If I recall, Magellan had christened Visayans who were enemies of Mactan and recruited them for the battle, they waited on the sidelines but when they saw the conquistadores losing they didn't engage. Do you really believe they thought they had a chance with 49 men?

Spunjer · 14th December 2006, 02:26 AM

Quote:

To keep this is perspective, this was 49 men with Magellan & 1500 with Lapu Lapu.

bill,

i always question pigafetta's account. kinda remind me of the time me and my friend got beaten up; but you shoulda seen the other guys. there were 50 of them. and they were all football players. oh yeah, they all had ball bats and chains...

seriously, how would you explain such incident to your higher ups, getting killed by a bunch of uncivilized savages, when spain is supposedly the most powerful nation in the world at that time. though we could never prove what really happen; i think it's safe to use some judgement and common sense on some of these so called "documented" claims..

Robert · 14th December 2006, 03:07 AM

Gentlemen,
History like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Arguments like this are tantamount to arguing religion or politics, no one wins. Just my HO.

Robert

Bill · 14th December 2006, 03:38 AM

Never said he was smart, although history does say he was a seasoned warrior. Some of the things the Spanish conquistador's did though seems to defy odds. Pizarro, with 150 men attacked 6000 & is said to have killed 4000 Inca in the battle of Cajamarca, although most were unarmed and unprepared for battle. Even after Custer had devided the 7th Calvery into 3 groups, was greatly out numbered, & out weaponed; I've read critics that claim Custer still should have prevailed, but for bad command decissions. It isn't the ability the warrior as much as the discipline in battle. Magellan is claimed to not only have warned Lapo Lapo, but to have waited until Lapo Lapo could gather more men. It would seem that Magellan lost the discipline of his men early in the battle, but still only lost 8 men. I'm sure you don't have to read very far into any history book to find errors or at least enter into debate on it's validity.

13th December 2006, 10:51 PM	#2
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	I stated Lapu Lapu and his warriors (see original post and don't take it out of context), not Lapu Lapu himself, last i read he was struck in the leg and cut down with a sword...who actually killed him no one could know, did he lose the battle to Lapu Lapu? Yes Did they use native weaponry? Yes, again who could actually say what type. There was a translated list of native weaponry. Magellan with his arrogant overconfidence in what he perceived as superiority in arms and combat, underestimated Lapu Lapu who had knowledge of the terrain and his enemies fighting ability, easily overwhelmed the opposition with his loyal warriors. I've read the accounts of Enrique too who may have actually been the first human to circumnavigate the world, but do Malay/slaves count? Last edited by MABAGANI; 13th December 2006 at 11:14 PM.

14th December 2006, 12:03 AM	#3
Spunjer Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Witness Protection Program Posts: 1,730	when cato's book came out, it became the bible of every moro sword collectors. it was regarded as the most accurate book when it comes to moro weapons. as time go by, it was questioned on some of its claims, as one can read on the earlier version of this forum. now, we know some of the claims in that book is just not true. the point is, it was challenged, regardless of how thorough cato research this massive project, as far as travelling all over the world. but still, we questioned it, and the truth was revealed. it's good to question these so called documents from time to time. just because common knowledge states such and such, it doesn't mean it's the fact. lapulapu's exploit might not mean much to a lot of you, but since he and his warriors used bladed weapons to beat magellan, i believe that's relevant to this forum. btw, how many of you are aware that there are strong evidence rajah (or rajiki) lapulapu was a moro? what does that got to do with anything? well, now it makes more sense when pigafetta mentioned that the natives were using campilanes, don't it? edited for spelling.... Last edited by Spunjer; 14th December 2006 at 12:25 AM.

14th December 2006, 01:33 AM	#4
Bill Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Chicago area Posts: 327	To keep this is perspective, this was 49 men with Magellan & 1500 with Lapu Lapu. This site http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/magellan.htm seems to have the most accepted version of the battle and some other interesting links. According to the Encyclopaedia of SEA Ethnography, the Tausug probably came to Sulu from north-eastern Mindanao, possibly because of Chinese trade, Yuan period (1280-1368)

14th December 2006, 03:07 AM	#7
Robert EAAF Staff Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Centerville, Kansas Posts: 2,196	Gentlemen, History like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Arguments like this are tantamount to arguing religion or politics, no one wins. Just my HO. Robert

14th December 2006, 03:38 AM	#8
Bill Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Chicago area Posts: 327	Never said he was smart, although history does say he was a seasoned warrior. Some of the things the Spanish conquistador's did though seems to defy odds. Pizarro, with 150 men attacked 6000 & is said to have killed 4000 Inca in the battle of Cajamarca, although most were unarmed and unprepared for battle. Even after Custer had devided the 7th Calvery into 3 groups, was greatly out numbered, & out weaponed; I've read critics that claim Custer still should have prevailed, but for bad command decissions. It isn't the ability the warrior as much as the discipline in battle. Magellan is claimed to not only have warned Lapo Lapo, but to have waited until Lapo Lapo could gather more men. It would seem that Magellan lost the discipline of his men early in the battle, but still only lost 8 men. I'm sure you don't have to read very far into any history book to find errors or at least enter into debate on it's validity.