Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill
Pigaffeta's account certainly can be argued from what "version", you read. Originally written in Italian, I believe it was translated to Spanish & French, then Spanish & French to English, then sort of picked & chosen by researchers which suited them. Other writings of Pigaffeta were in time incorperated into his account, as well as statements & letters of the few crewmen that survived. & I think what I just wrote could be debated. I have a feeling the answer to "terciado" is going to be a kris, but Pigafetta describes the sword as a scimtar, only larger. So, is a scimtar a Kampilan (or Panabus) & a Campilan a kris. What would the terminoligy of a 16thC Italian with a Spanish/Portuguese crew be, for cutlass & scimtar?
|
Ok, along with the translation errors, I am finally home and able to check my own copies. In my copy of Pigafetta's account, translated by RA Skelton, his text reads that Magellan was killed (eg. the death blow) by "...large javelin (which is like a partisan, only thicker)..." now this is in direct contradiction to him being killed by a kampilan, or sword in general. So we go to the translation notes and here is what Skelton writes "The author of this French version has misapprehended the Spanish terms for these two weapons, rendered by him as javelot and partisane but preserved in the Italian Ms. as terciado (=cutlass) and simitara (= scimitar). Reports of the manner of Magellan's death by witnesses differ. Nicholas of Naples, a seaman of Victoria, reported 19 years later: "I was by his side and saw him killed by arrors and by a lance thrust which pierced his throat" (Guillemard, p 254)". So terciado is Italian for cutlass and simitara is Italian for scimitar, but then if it is a translation error (depending on the version of the account you read), then it could be a javelin and spear. And then if we go with the other account of the death, then the Javelin/spear is what killed Magellan, and not a sword. Hmm...wish I could read 16th century French and Italian.
Anyways, as for Luzon, looking into my copy of Barangay, on pg. 232-233 Scott notes that "Tagalogs fought with the usual Philippine weapons-the single-edged balaraw dagger, the wavy kris (kalis), spears with both metal and firehardened tips, padded armor and carbao-hide breastplates, and long narrow shields (kalasag), or round bucklers (palisay)." He does go on to note that some with access to trade even had Japanese katana. He goes on to say in 1570, after the Spaniards burned down a Tagalog fort in now modern Manila that it "...contained a gun foundry where the Spaniards found evidence of considerable industry...clay and wax moulds and one 4 meter piece in the process of manufacture..." He goes further to note that Governor De Sande in 1579 collected "18,000 kilos of bronze artillery from towns surrounding Manila, and his employment of Filipinos to cast him a 4,000 kil cannon of which he reported,'There is not in the castle of Milan a piece so well made'".
Ok, now to Brunei. On pg. 74 of his work Muslims in the Philippines Majul notes that Brunei's presence in the Philippines was largely that of Islamic missionaries, and that by 1588 Brunei's presence (in terms of missionaries) had begun to decline in Mindanao in favor of a Moluccan presence. He goes on to say on pg 79, that the ruling family of Manila was in fact Bornean, with the Sultan of Brunei being the grandfather of the ruler of Manila (circa 1521) and that Rajah Suliman married the daughter of the Sultan of Brunei. He goes further to postulate that Manila was Brunei settlement established to conduct trade and Proselytize the local population, which by Legaspi's coming were still only in the beginning stages (starting in 1521).
Anyways, another factor to bare in mind is that the first encounters with PI come circa 1521 with Magellan, but Spain's first real attempts at colonizing doesnt come til 1565 with Legaspi, who goes first to Visaya, and then does not conquer Manila til 1571. So realistically Spanish antagonism in the area does not begin till the later half of the 16th century.