vintage panabas for comment

[mross]

Originally Posted by xasterix

Noted on this, sir. One of my BangsaMoro friends- a former member of this forum, and I believe the foremost expert on PH traditional blades- has expressed doubts regarding the accuracy of Cato's information. The Moros would not readily give up information on their culture or weaponry; in effect, Mr Cato may very well have been told tall tales. I agree some panabas were built for transport, but not as battlefield weapons; rather, as intimidation tools, a sign of potency of a ranking Moro chieftain that would be transported and displayed along with his retinue of best warriors. My evidence for this are the junggayan-style barungs- yes, they were sharp and had functional scabbards, but they aren't the go-to weapons during battle; they served better as status indicator and intimidation tool. Same goes for other BangsaMoro weapons with elaborate designs- the reason for their preservation was that they were never really in the fray.

Wow, could not agree more. I have often said Cato, while currently the best out there, should be taken with a grain of salt. I own many Moro weapons, the ones that are Datu class I would never think of using in a battle. While the blades are of top quality the balance is all wrong. I have weapons that I would classify as fighters. No frills, no fancy handles, just solid well balanced tools. When compared to the higher class blades, there is not comparison. To bring this back to the Panabas. My thoughts are they may have been used in battle. Better than nothing, but I would not want to be swinging a Panabas against a spear or sword. Just too slow. It would be an excellent mop up weapon or status symbol. I am in full agreement with xasterix on this.

[Battara]

Here's the difficulty: Moros more than a century ago (and anyone else then for that matter) are different than their descendants today in a different culture and usage of tools. Much has been lost even in Western generations.

Thus I would not be surprised if there is some truth in both of these views.

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by Battara

Here's the difficulty: Moros more than a century ago (and anyone else then for that matter) are different than their descendants today in a different culture and usage of tools. Much has been lost even in Western generations.

Thus I would not be surprised if there is some truth in both of these views.

Although I have to point out that, due to the isolation of the BangsaMoro from most outside influences and the rest of the Philippines (Luzon, Visayas), they have much better cascading of oral and written tradition regarding their culture, fighting arts, and weaponry. My BangsaMoro friends are able to differentiate the features and nuances of antique and modern weaponry, especially since they have century-old weapons in their keeping (usually family heirlooms). There is also a trend that isolated areas in the Philippines- especially those under military contention- incidentally have the most number of traditional smiths who are able to build traditional blades that are not influenced by modern trends, and are very close in design and function to their antique counterparts.

I would be willing to concede that the panabas can be considered a mop-up weapon IF the survivors were brought to the panabas (situated at camp, inside city walls, or a corner of the battlefield) for summary public execution (yet another intimidation tactic), rather than the panabas be lugged and used against the writhing survivors in the battlefield itself. It's redundant and unnecessary to use a heavy weapon as a mop-up tool, when the warriors who had just survived the battlefield can do the job more efficiently with their lighter weapons.