Any sources on non-moro Philippine forging?

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by MaharlikaTimawa

I think the assertion is right that Filipino "steel" was faulty in comparison to their asian and moro counterparts. Moro weapons have always been compared to spanish, japanese and even other european blades. However barely if any Filipinos blades are even looked at by the Spanish or Americans. In fact during te Fil-Am war, most Americans were scared of the Moros as opposed to Filipinos wielding knives.

Hi I'm sorry, but with regard to the Filipino American war, I must strongly disagree with your assertion. The Americans had great difficulty in securing the Leyte/Samar areas due to the bolo-wielding Pulahanes and their crescent talibongs, to the extent that the real casualty count of American soldiers had to be censored, and the death toll of Filipino rebels falsely increased just to avoid demoralization of American troops. I have a ton of historical references and footnotes regarding this, if you need further proof.

[xasterix]

Sorry I don't usually snap, but as someone who collects Luzon and Visayan swords, may I point out that the Katipunan pieces are highly prized and, I think, of a quality level that at least equals that of the Mindanao, while with regard to Visayas, eBay is filled with tons of Pulahan weapons and Panay blades that survived the war or were given as bringbacks. The survival of these weapons until now is, I believe, enough proof that that these were in no way inferior than their Moro counterparts.

[Robert]

Originally posted by xasterix.
I point out that the Katipunan pieces are highly prized and, I think, of a quality level that at least equals that of the Mindanao

I totally agree, here is one of those "inferior" Luzon blades where I would say the quality of both workmanship and materials used is equal to or better than any Moro pieces I have ever owned or so far seen.

Best,
Robert

[ShazamsLaw]

Originally Posted by xasterix

Hi I'm sorry, but with regard to the Filipino American war, I must strongly disagree with your assertion. The Americans had great difficulty in securing the Leyte/Samar areas due to the bolo-wielding Pulahanes and their crescent talibongs, to the extent that the real casualty count of American soldiers had to be censored, and the death toll of Filipino rebels falsely increased just to avoid demoralization of American troops. I have a ton of historical references and footnotes regarding this, if you need further proof.

I would like to see those sources.

[MaharlikaTimawa]

Originally Posted by xasterix

Hi I'm sorry, but with regard to the Filipino American war, I must strongly disagree with your assertion. The Americans had great difficulty in securing the Leyte/Samar areas due to the bolo-wielding Pulahanes and their crescent talibongs, to the extent that the real casualty count of American soldiers had to be censored, and the death toll of Filipino rebels falsely increased just to avoid demoralization of American troops. I have a ton of historical references and footnotes regarding this, if you need further proof.

If you look at some of the statistics of the amount of men the Filipinos lost to the Americans, you can see that the difference is by a couple of thousands. There's also little to no sources of how much "difficulty" it was to take over a people who were willing to be colonized.

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by MaharlikaTimawa

If you look at some of the statistics of the amount of men the Filipinos lost to the Americans, you can see that the difference is by a couple of thousands. There's also little to no sources of how much "difficulty" it was to take over a people who were willing to be colonized.

There are actually a lot of sources, they're well documented in the National Library of the Philippines. It was also ascertained that the American death toll was lessened and the Filipino death toll grossly exaggerated to discourage other areas from uprising. Why else would the Americans acknowledge General Lukban as brilliant? Kindly PM me your email address so I could send you the relevant references. Otherwise we'd just be going back and forth here.

[MaharlikaTimawa]

Originally Posted by xasterix

There are actually a lot of sources, they're well documented in the National Library of the Philippines. It was also ascertained that the American death toll was lessened and the Filipino death toll grossly exaggerated to discourage other areas from uprising. Why else would the Americans acknowledge General Lukban as brilliant? Kindly PM me your email address so I could send you the relevant references. Otherwise we'd just be going back and forth here.

I sent a PM for the sources.

You mention General Lukban but recent studies have shown that some of the famous battles that he "partook" in were actually a facade and that he was never behind some of the battles that were well known to the Philippine side such as the Balangiga massacre.

[kai]

We really need to be careful when interpreting history! Even more so if emotions play any role.

Any and every contributor has an agenda (or even several) - be it any historical source or any scientific research. Without scrutinizing all possible agendas and their possible influence on each contribution, we can't even start to evaluate them.

There are quite few historical events (of any wider importance) that have been sufficiently documented as well as studied by a larger number of independant scientists, extensively discussed at an international level, and finally resulting in a widely shared interpretation of that event. In the vast majority of historic events, especially if badly documented, of lesser interest, from periods long ago, we may never be able to ascertain what really happened. period.

A healthy dose of skepticism does help to avoid falling prey of agendas, spurious claims, as well as uncritically believing in "established facts" - not rarely defined by the winning side of history...

Regards,
Kai

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by kai

We really need to be careful when interpreting history! Even more so if emotions play any role.

Any and every contributor has an agenda (or even several) - be it any historical source or any scientific research. Without scrutinizing all possible agendas and their possible influence on each contribution, we can't even start to evaluate them.

There are quite few historical events (of any wider importance) that have been sufficiently documented as well as studied by a larger number of independant scientists, extensively discussed at an international level, and finally resulting in a widely shared interpretation of that event. In the vast majority of historic events, especially if badly documented, of lesser interest, from periods long ago, we may never be able to ascertain what really happened. period.

A healthy dose of skepticism does help to avoid falling prey of agendas, spurious claims, as well as uncritically believing in "established facts" - not rarely defined by the winning side of history...

Regards,
Kai

Well said Kai, thanks for this. Actually I was just looking for a particular Waray sword in that era, never thought I'd stumble upon a version of history that's not included in local history books. As I delved further, I understood why.

MaharlikaTimawa, I've shared with you three studies for starters

[kai]

to take over a people who were willing to be colonized.

Sounds like an unusual assertion - could you elaborate, please? TIA!

Regards,
Kai