First Westerner to the Philippines?
 

wasnt there another european that visited the indo/philippine archapelego centuries before magellan?
did marco polo ever make it there?

Marco Polo did not get out to the islands, though he does relay what most agree are second-hand accounts of kingdoms on Java and/or Sumatra. I can't think of any Europeans that might have gotten out there earlier than Magellan. There were undoubtedly Arab, Persian and Indian travellors long before then, of course, so it sort of depends on how your define "West."

mark,
thanks for the info. time for me to do some research. :):)

Search outside what is considered history by the conquerors, tradition has it that natives knew of and fought Europeans before Magellan's arrival, but its repeated over and over again that he was first, so should the claim stick? or should it read something like first "recorded" landing? caveat, which perspective do we take as truth?

Yes, absolutely. It's probably safest to say that Megallan was the earliest documented (in the West) European there. It isn't hard to believe that someone got there earlier, even much earlier, particularly an individual trader/mercenary or small group of such, as there was so much trade between Europe and Asia, going back centuries, by all kinds or routes. It's not like people in Europe didn't know "The East" existed.

On the other hand, even "documented" travels are not especially reliable. Marco Polo describes the kingdom of Burma in some detail, as if from first-hand observation, but it is widely agreed that he never actually went there. Sir John de Mandeville was another medieval travellor who claimed to have gone all over Asia but is believed to have gone only as far as India, or perhaps Java, getting most of his written account second-hand (he is one of the guys who described visiting places inhabited by one-footed people, cannibals with tails, men with no heads and their faces in their chests, giant birds, unicorns, and so forth and so forth). It is hard to separate truth from fiction (maybe the unicorn was a rhino, or maybe he made it up).

Sometimes if what you are looking for is a definite date, such as that of the arrival of the "first" European, you have to settle for the first documented date, or for a date that is "at least as early as" a well-documented date. For a long time Columbus was considered the "first" European to have arrived in the Western hemisphere, even though Viking sagas describe Leif Erkisson as having arrived a few hundred years earlier. This was considered legend or fiction until archeological evidence of a Viking settlement in Newfoundland, Canada, confirmed it. There are theories of even earlier contact, based oral traditions (native or visitor) or tid-bits of physical evidence, but they are not yet regarded as reliable fact because they haven't been satisfactorily verified in some objective way. So, was Eriksson or Columbus, or someone else, "first?" Eriksson got there earlier, but Columbus was the first to create a lasting contact. Eriksson has the earliest verified arrival date, Columbus the first documented (i.e., in writing) arrival date. Any number of peoples (Celts, Phoecians, Egyptions, Chinese, etc., etc.) are possible earlier arrivers, but there isn't enough firm proof to establish if, and when, they did arrive.

It really depends on what you mean by "first" and what significance you attach to it, what is the point you are trying to make.

Ironically, in the HOS timeline the Magellan landing got highlighted, 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 to route his journey. -vast subject and off topic.
Lapu Lapu, appears in Moro tradition and was linked back to their history.

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.

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?

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....

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?

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..

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

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.

Some of Magellan's native recruits stayed behind to help the retreat. What probably saved them from a hunt and annihilation was the rest of the spectators sitting off the coast.
Ever visit the site of the battle? I was there about ten years ago.

Moderation alert
 

This "debate" is digressing into a sand box argument. We are well-past discussing the facts of the arrival of Magellan, and whether or not he was the first European. We are also well off any discussion of the weapons involved. Enough with the bickering over irrelevant issues, or I'm going to start suspending people.

Been to Cebu City, but by land, crossing from Negros. Tried to get there but the people I was with, had no interest. Have seen how long stretchs of sandy beach quickly turn to jagged rocks and back to sandy beachs, assume it has to do with ancient volcanos.

?In the original post before splitting I tried to bring the discussion back about the relevance of ethnographic weaponry and Lapu Lapu vs. Magellan's landing in the HOS, (exploration) which was way off topic in the EEWRS forum too, in the first place. Most made the switch towards weaponry and the battle but some stayed with discussing exploration. Why would exchanging ideas about a battle with ethnographic weaponry warrant a suspension?

HOS? :confused: