Filipino Martial Arts News Article and History

[SCO]

While this is a valid question, it would be better if you pose it in a separate thread in another forum. Asking the people you train with first might be a good option, too.

On lineages:
http://mozcom.com/%7Edeadlock/peak-l/articles/art01.html

[Samuel Browning]

Originally posted by GRaMLyTZ
If memory serves me right , Pigaffeta painted what he thought happened in the shores of Mactan . [You mean you're calling bullshit on my sources but you are too unmotivated to actually refresh your own memory before doing so?] I myself havent read any history books saying he was actually there ( who knows he was actually there ) [Try reading the various translations of Pigaffeta's works which I have mentioned by name. The scholars who have translated Pigaffeta's narrative accept his story that he was there. Of course they could be wrong, but their historical research supports the authenticity of Pigaffeta's use of the first person narrative.] but from accounts of relayed stories by the defeated men of Ferdinand Magellan , he got the idea of relaying the incident again thru painting . [Painting? Painting? Pigaffeta primarily was a diarist, but could you post a link to any account that will support you're contention that he drew pictures of the battle scene, that would show you know what you're talking about.]

Kris to my surprise , I stand corrected on my comment on what Kali Pula used on Magellan when I asked my good friends from Maranao in Mindanao about the history of the legendary double bladed sword . It was only used in the islands of MIndanao to protect from foreign invasions and what Kali Pula aka Lapu Lapu used was actually SUNDANG or PINUTI . It is a sword about 50 inches long .

COmmonsense wise , magellan wont die from the stick attacks for as what history tells , Magellans troops wore metal armor . The only thing than can penetrate that is the sword itself .

Please read the quote below: [my comments are in brackets]

"Seeing that, the captain-general sent some men to burn their houses in order to terrify them. When they saw their houses burning they were roused to greater fury. Two of our men were killed near the houses, while we burned twenty or thirty houses. So many of them charged down upon us that they shot the captain through the right leg with a poisoned arrow. [So the Spanish were not wearing armor that covered their entire bodies, possibly because they had to walk through water to reach the shore on this operation]

On that account he ordered us [use of the personal pronoun, either the author was there or he was lying, can you provide examples showing that Pigaffeta lied here or in other parts of his narrative?]

Seeing that, the captain-general sent some men to burn their houses in order to terrify them. When they saw their houses burning they were roused to greater fury. Two of our men were killed near the houses, while we burned twenty or thirty houses. So many of them charged down upon us that they shot the captain through the right leg with a poisoned arrow. On that account he ordered us to retire slowly, but the men took flight, except for six or eight of us who remained with the captain. The natives shot only at our legs, for the latter were bare; [unarmored] and so many were the spears and stones that they hurled at us, that we could offer no resistance. The mortars in the boats could not aid us as they were too far away. So we continued to retire for more than a good crossbow flight from the shore always fighting up to our knees in the water. The natives continued to pursue us, and picking up the same spear four or six times, hurled it at us again and again.

Recognizing the captain, so many turned on him that they knocked his helmet off his head twice, but he always stood firmly like a good knight, together with some others. Thus did we fight for more than one hour, refusing to retire further. An Indian hurled a bamboo spear into the captain's face, but the latter immediately killed him with his lance, which he left in the Indian's body. Then trying to lay hand on his sword, he could draw it out but halfway, because he had been wounded in the arm with a bamboo spear. [Arm was apparently not totally armored] When the natives saw that, they all hurled themselves on him. One of them wounded him on the left leg with a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger. That caused the captain to fall face downward, when immediately they rushed upon him with iron and bamboo spears and with their cutlasses, until they killed our mirror, our light, our comfort, and our true guide.

[Magellan is killed face down in the surf, he may no longer be wearing a helmet since it has been knocked off of his head severa times, his neck may be exposed, the back of his chest may not have been fully covered by breastplate, and the natives are using "iron spears" indicating they at least have iron tipped spears which could penetrate some lighter forms of armor.]

When they wounded him, he turned back many times to see whether we were all in the boats. Thereupon, beholding him dead, we, wounded, retreated, as best we could, to the boats, which were already pulling off. The Christian king would have aided us, but the captain charged him before he landed, not to leave his balanghai, but to stay and see how we fought. When the king learned that the captain was dead he wept. Had it not been for the unfortunate captain, not a single one of us would have been saved in the boats, for while he was fighting the others retired to the boats. . . ."

To win this argument you need to provide specific examples and evidence that Pigaffeta is lying about being present, and/or is not a reliable first person witness. Otherwise your argument is basically your unnamed Philipino friends, at least ten generations removed from this event, tell you a different story that was never written down and for all we know actually traces back to some pulp novel. That is like me writing the history of New Haven, Connecticut by stopping random people on the town green and asking them what happened there in 1640. Please do some actual research.

[GRaMLyTZ]

Samuel Browning ,

NObody argued ur cpmments was wrong , I was saying what I knew too . I said if memory serves me right , I was pertaining as to if I am still right on what I said due to the fact that I myself did a research on these firsthand from people who knew about it because they did it their whole life dedicating to uncover the mystery and not some mere copy and paste crap from the net . Like you said , better to do some research , why not visit Cebu and check out the real KALI , ESCRIMA action is the same time finding out why I said Pigafetta is a painter . Hehehe , I dont want to argue with you because I have nothing to prove as a Cebuano , the very people who opposed the very first foreign invasion with the use of the old school FMA .

I dont want to sound mean but it sounded like ur explanation is a narrative from the HISTORY CHANNEL . I dont even know if they actually carried bows and arrows at that time . If u follow closely if u want to based it in HISTORY CHANNEL , they even made sketches of 3 different kinds CEBUANOS or the LAPU LAPU"S tribe and 1 of the sketches has the arrows with them , how about the other 2 sketches ?? So they are not sure of the actually weaponry used .

[Samuel Browning]

Originally posted by GRaMLyTZ
Samuel Browning ,

NObody argued ur cpmments was wrong , I was saying what I knew too . I said if memory serves me right , I was pertaining as to if I am still right on what I said due to the fact that I myself did a research on these firsthand from people who knew about it because they did it their whole life dedicating to uncover the mystery and not some mere copy and paste crap from the net . Like you said , better to do some research , why not visit Cebu and check out the real KALI , ESCRIMA action is the same time finding out why I said Pigafetta is a painter . Hehehe , I dont want to argue with you because I have nothing to prove as a Cebuano , the very people who opposed the very first foreign invasion with the use of the old school FMA .

I dont want to sound mean but it sounded like ur explanation is a narrative from the HISTORY CHANNEL . I dont even know if they actually carried bows and arrows at that time . If u follow closely if u want to based it in HISTORY CHANNEL , they even made sketches of 3 different kinds CEBUANOS or the LAPU LAPU"S tribe and 1 of the sketches has the arrows with them , how about the other 2 sketches ?? So they are not sure of the actually weaponry used .

[Personally I don't care how you sound, but once again you betray your gross inattention to detail. The quotes I used were not cut and pasted from the internet, they were quoted from Pigaffeta's translated narrative available in academic books who's titles and authors I have previously cited.]

I was pertaining as to if I am still right on what I said due to the fact that I myself did a research on these firsthand from people who knew about it because they did it their whole life dedicating to uncover the mystery.

[Good, name these experts, any articles they have written, and what these articles relied on. If you're arguing that there is some first person account out there better then Pigaffeta, name it, and where it can be found.]

and not some mere copy and paste crap from the net . [Once again you didn't even look to see that I hadn't obtained it from the net.]

Like you said , better to do some research , why not visit Cebu and check out the real KALI , ESCRIMA action [irrelevant to this argument, I never said anything bad about these arts.]

is the same time finding out why I said Pigafetta is a painter . Hehehe , I dont want to argue with you because I have nothing to prove as a Cebuano , the very people who opposed the very first foreign invasion with the use of the old school FMA .

[That's as dumb as if an American Citizen told you that the American Civil war had nothing to do with slavery and you should take his word because he's 1) an American, and 2) he participates in civil war re-enactments. One's heritage does not mean that one has a better historical argument.]

"I dont want to sound mean but it sounded like ur explanation is a narrative from the HISTORY CHANNEL . I dont even know if they actually carried bows and arrows at that time . If u follow closely if u want to based it in HISTORY CHANNEL , they even made sketches of 3 different kinds CEBUANOS or the LAPU LAPU"S tribe and 1 of the sketches has the arrows with them , how about the other 2 sketches ?? So they are not sure of the actually weaponry used."

My narrative is from an eyewitness, it has nothing to do with the history channel unless they have quoted the same material. Your writing is extremely poor, but you seem to be referring to some television special on the history channel. Why don't you do your argument some good and tell us if they actually featured pictures of this battle which 1) they claimed were produced by Pigaffeta and 2) if they also claimed that he was not on the scene of the battle on the day Magellan was killed. The important issue here is whether as you claim Pigaffeta was not only a painter, but one who produced a work depicting the battle. If you can't attribute who drew what, except based on your questionable memory, you do your argument no good.

Why don't you provide me with the name of a printed source that backs you're claim that the islanders whom Magellan encountered did not use bows, such a work could be based in anthropology and would actually damage the credability of Pigaffeta's account.

[GRaMLyTZ]

Thats thre whole point in there , why would I say PIgafetta is a painter ?? Becasue he has a lot of reproduced paintings in Cebu depicting the Mactan Island battle . Wheres the arrows ?? I dont know maybe somewhere in the house of Lapu Lapu .

SO how did you end up with qoute ?? Scanned the books and relayed it here ?? Thats my whole point of copying and pasting it . Who is talking of the Civil war ?? What relevant issue does it have to do with it ?? My comments are also from what " ACCORDING " to PIgafetta from his " PAINTINGS " and " WRITINGS " . Maybe history channel only had the same author whom where you based ur claim , im not saying what said is wrong cause you only relayed too according to some " EXPERTS " whom got there research from the works of Pigafetta .

[Samuel Browning]

Originally posted by GRaMLyTZ
Thats thre whole point in there , why would I say PIgafetta is a painter ?? Becasue he has a lot of reproduced paintings in Cebu depicting the Mactan Island battle . Wheres the arrows ?? I dont know maybe somewhere in the house of Lapu Lapu .

SO how did you end up with qoute ?? Scanned the books and relayed it here ?? Thats my whole point of copying and pasting it . Who is talking of the Civil war ?? What relevant issue does it have to do with it ?? My comments are also from what " ACCORDING " to PIgafetta from his " PAINTINGS " and " WRITINGS " . Maybe history channel only had the same author whom where you based ur claim , im not saying what said is wrong cause you only relayed too according to some " EXPERTS " whom got there research from the works of Pigafetta .

Thats interesting, none of the three books I have mentioned have reproduced any of the non-copyrighted paintings of this battle that you attribute to Pigafetta. This is not ironclad evidence that they don't exist but I am surprised that there was no mention of them by the authors of these pictures in the text related to this incident. But if you can scan or link some of those pictures on to this site you can easily settle this issue, and I'm sure that other people here would be interested in seeing these pictures for their own merits.

And no, I did not scan the books, I hand typed the text, what you appear to be complaining about is my reliance on one particular named source, and the historians who have broadly followed this source. But look at your sources on how this battle unfolded. Some unnamed guys whose background and sources of information is unknown. If they are working from anything that would be considered a first hand or reliable historical source you haven't revealed this yet. Oral history is used by some historians, but is not considered reliable after it is passed down through more then a couple people UNLESS there is other independant evidence to confirm it retains its accuracy.

I used the American civil war as an example of how someone could make the claim that one version of history is accurate based on one's nationality and connection to a particular culture rather then on hard evidence. That appears to be what you are doing here.

[GRaMLyTZ]

If i have the chance to get a black and white document that would clarify on my claims , its my pleasure to do so . My sources or should I say the infos I got are merely not that professionals like your sources but the thing on mine is , history handed down to generations of stories and textes but I myself dont know where to find one . You do have a point because ur basinf ur infos on the authors who are studying and researching the works of Pigafetta w/c on the contrary , my infos concentrates on the life of Kali Pula aka Lapu Lapu .

[Samuel Browning]

Originally posted by GRaMLyTZ
If i have the chance to get a black and white document that would clarify on my claims , its my pleasure to do so . My sources or should I say the infos I got are merely not that professionals like your sources but the thing on mine is , history handed down to generations of stories and textes but I myself dont know where to find one . You do have a point because ur basinf ur infos on the authors who are studying and researching the works of Pigafetta w/c on the contrary , my infos concentrates on the life of Kali Pula aka Lapu Lapu .

No problem, I would encourage you to post any such material you can find. Interestingly there are ways to prove the reliability of oral history that could be used to support your position. I know a forensic anthropologist who once worked on an escavation in the Aleutian islands off of Alaska. During the 1700s, one Russian group that landed to set up shop were killed off by the native indians. An oral history had been passed down concerning this event, and my associate was able to confirm the accuracy of parts of the story by examining the wounds on the skeltons of the deceased. (they had been indeed hamstrung and their throats cut, with the sharp impliments leaving marks on the underlying bone)

Perhaps someone could survey the old battlefield and evescate part of it though the coast line may be different and part of the area may still be tidal flats. If you wish to post the pictures attributed to Pigaffeta I would be happy to look at them and see if they are considered authentic by scholars who specialize in his work.

[Sun_Helmet]

From several books interpreting Pigafetta's words and just about every historical account of the battle, it places Pigafetta on the scene of the battle.

However, the ORIGINAL journals of Pigafetta are no longer in existence. Only the translated versions of which each one differs slightly from the other. So we really are not reading it from first hand accounts but translated accounts that were interpreted by different scribes.

There is no mention of a kris being used against Magellan. The english translations often use the word 'scimitar' and the closest thing would have been a pinuti or kampilan design, not a Moro weapon like a kris or panabas.

What is often forgotten in the accounts of the Battle of Mactan was that Magellan had equal numbers of allies offshore (the rival tribe of Humabon) at a moments reach watching the events of the battle unfold as per orders of Magellan.

Most of the battle was through the use of projectile weaponry and only until Magellan's men ran out of firepower and other projectile did close quarter fighting ensue.

Tatically, it was sound for Lapu Lapu's forces to stay on the beach as Magellan's men ran back to their boats. With equal numbers or more of Lapu Lapu's enemies in their praus awaiting them, the warriors would have been sitting ducks for their arrows and long weapons. It could be argued that Magellan wanted to lure the warriors into the waters so that this might happen but it backfired on them when he was caught in retreat.

The Spaniards relied heavily on long weapons, firearms and projectiles... proof of this was even Magellan was described to have died holding on to his lance and was cut down as he tried to unsheath his own sword. Spanish formations and methods of war during this time relied heavily on close knit pike and shot methods. If the sword was used at all, it was because their formation had been overrun or they were finishing off a battle that was already favored to their side.

--Rafael--
Sayoc Kali

[Jolly_Roger]

One also has to take account the mindset of the conquistadore´s sailors. Most of them were recruited forcibly. In the spanish mindset of the time (preserved mostly in the jesuitic accounts of the "conquest" of the philippines) the people of the island were heaten savages. There was no way that the officers would take a one on one fight with a native. That just wasn´t common sense. So the accounts of Magellan taking the lead against Lapu-Lapu and dying are somewhat romantically overblown, in my opinion. I´m working on translating some Jesuitic accounts to, at least, modern spanish (they are damnably florid, and written in medieval spanish).

[Samuel Browning]

I like the previous two posts, good argument and welcome Sun Helmet. I did not catch that the original of P's work no longer existed. That explains some of the differences in the various copies of his accounts I saw.

[Angry_Historian]

Hi Rafael,

David/TFS/Spadaccino here! :)

What is often forgotten in the accounts of the Battle of Mactan was that Magellan had equal numbers of allies offshore (the rival tribe of Humabon) at a moments reach watching the events of the battle unfold as per orders of Magellan.

Most of the battle was through the use of projectile weaponry and only until Magellan's men ran out of firepower and other projectile did close quarter fighting ensue.

Unless I am reading Pigafetta incorrectly, I assume that the praus of Humabon's men were at least "2 crossbow flights" from the shore, which I interpret/estimate to be about 700 yards or so (source: The Crossbow--Mediaeval and Modern Military and Sporting--Its Construction, History & Management by Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey). Does that sound correct to you?


Tatically, it was sound for Lapu Lapu's forces to stay on the beach as Magellan's men ran back to their boats. With equal numbers or more of Lapu Lapu's enemies in their praus awaiting them, the warriors would have been sitting ducks for their arrows and long weapons. It could be argued that Magellan wanted to lure the warriors into the waters so that this might happen but it backfired on them when he was caught in retreat.

What I don't understand is that Pigafetta states that Magellan "stood fast with some others" and fought it out at HTH "for more than an hour". I must confess that I fail to see how less than 50 men could have stood against over 1000 for that amount of time. Thoughts?

The Spaniards relied heavily on long weapons, firearms and projectiles... proof of this was even Magellan was described to have died holding on to his lance and was cut down as he tried to unsheath his own sword.

A lance is neither a "firearm" nor "projectile weapon" of any other type--it is simply a long-range hand weapon. ;)


Spanish formations and methods of war during this time relied heavily on close knit pike and shot methods. If the sword was used at all, it was because their formation had been overrun or they were finishing off a battle that was already favored to their side.

I must humbly disagree.

The Battle of Mactan took place in 1521, at a time when the colunela was the standard Spanish formation, which was made up of arquebusiers, pikemen, and swordsmen, in a ratio of 2:2:1--therefore, swordsmen (espadachins) made up a full fifth of any given force of infantry, who were the majority of Western European armies at that time anyway (source: Pavia 1525 by Angus Konstam). It would remain as such until the establishment of the larger, more predominantly pike-and-shot tercio, in 1534.

It's also interesting to note that, around the same time that Magellan met his demise in the PI, the Spanish under Cortez were fighting against the Aztecs, using mainly swordsmen (a practice which resembled pre-colunela Spanish armies). In 1520, Cortez had 1300 infantry, and over 1000 of them were swordsmen. In 1521, he had some 700 espadachins, but only 118 crossbowmen and arquebusiers. Clearly, the sword was still very much in evidence at this time (source: Armies of the Sixteenth Century 2--The armies of the Aztec and Inca Empires, other native peoples of the Americas, and the Conquistadores 1450-1608 by Ian Heath).

Best,

David

[Angry_Historian]

In the spanish mindset of the time (preserved mostly in the jesuitic accounts of the "conquest" of the philippines) the people of the island were heaten savages. There was no way that the officers would take a one on one fight with a native. That just wasn´t common sense. So the accounts of Magellan taking the lead against Lapu-Lapu and dying are somewhat romantically overblown, in my opinion.

I don't understand your logic above. Spanish "officers" in the New World had no qualms about fighting "heathen savages". Ditto for Spanish commanders in battles against the Moors and Turks, for that matter.

On the contrary, the Spanish had a longstanding tradition of close combat, well into the Age of Firearms. In the late 16th century (when firearms had really taken over, and swordsmen were very much a minority), the Spanish referred to the pike as senora y reyna de las armas (the "mistress and queen of weapons"). The implication there was that it was still considered "honorable" for a Spanish gentleman to fight on foot, so long as he was using an "honorable" weapon like a pike (as opposed to a "coward's" weapon, like the gun). Even high-ranking folks--like Alessandro Farnese, the Duke of Parma--fought in battles as common pikemen, right alongside their social inferiors (source: Armies of the Sixteenth Century 1--The Armies of England, Scotland, Ireland, the United Provinces, and the Spanish Netherlands 1487-1609 by Ian Heath).

The Spanish retained this penchant for HTH combat at sea as well, even after the introduction of effective long-range gunnery. Both their oared galleys and sailing vessels were designed and equipped for the close boarding fight (sources: Gunpowder and Galleys--Changing Technology & Mediterranean Warfare at Sea in the 16th Century by John F. Guilmartin; Galleons and Galleys by John F. Guilmartin; Naval Warfare Under Oars 4th to 16th Centuries by W.L. Rodgers; and Spanish Galleon 1530-1690 by Angus Konstam). A classic Far Eastern example of Spanish prowess in this kind of naval warfare is the incident in which Legaspi's men took the junk full of Brunei Moros, in 1565 (source: The Philippine Islands 1493-1898 by Blair & Robertson).

[Angry_Historian]

...and congrats to Samuel Browning, for making use of the original Italian MS of Pigafetta, which refers to "cutlasses" and "scimitars", when describing the Filipino swords...

[Sun_Helmet]

What I don't understand is that Pigafetta states that Magellan "stood fast with some others" and fought it out at HTH "for more than an hour". I must confess that I fail to see how less than 50 men could have stood against over 1000 for that amount of time. Thoughts?

That's because they did NOT use their swords. If you begin with your premise that the swords were the primary weapon, you will always have an illogical conclusion. See below for the second account of Magellan.


A lance is neither a "firearm" nor "projectile weapon" of any other type--it is simply a long-range hand weapon. ;)

heh... you know what I meant.




I must humbly disagree.

The Battle of Mactan took place in 1521, at a time when the colunela was the standard Spanish formation, which was made up of arquebusiers, pikemen, and swordsmen, in a ratio of 2:2:1--therefore, swordsmen (espadachins) made up a full fifth of any given force of infantry, who were the majority of Western European armies at that time anyway (source: Pavia 1525 by Angus Konstam). It would remain as such until the establishment of the larger, more predominantly pike-and-shot tercio, in 1534.

It's also interesting to note that, around the same time that Magellan met his demise in the PI, the Spanish under Cortez were fighting against the Aztecs, using mainly swordsmen (a practice which resembled pre-colunela Spanish armies). In 1520, Cortez had 1300 infantry, and over 1000 of them were swordsmen. In 1521, he had some 700 espadachins, but only 118 crossbowmen and arquebusiers. Clearly, the sword was still very much in evidence at this time (source: Armies of the Sixteenth Century 2--The armies of the Aztec and Inca Empires, other native peoples of the Americas, and the Conquistadores 1450-1608 by Ian Heath).

Best,

David


The second Magellan account disagrees with you David. It may also have to do with the book you are refering to - it is an account of battles with infantry, not folks sailing uncharted and unknown waters. Note too that Spanish accounts of Filipinos remarked how markedly different these natives were than those from South and Central Americas.... so what worked there did not necessarily work on the islands.

Fernando Oliveira, the other account of Magellan's voyages. from the writings of Karl Heinz Weiznor and Pedro Sastre.

In April 1911 the German historian Dr. Walther Vogel wrote about a certain Fernando Oliveira in the German nautical journal Marine- Rundschau. Oliveira was a contemporary of Magellan, but Oliveira's account had never been published whole in English. The manuscript is located in the University Library of Leiden, Netherlands. It was further researched and translated respectively by Dr. Karl- Heinzs Wioznek and the Dutchman Pedro Sastre in English.

Oliveira's Magellan account was ignored throughout the centuries because it was tucked within the contents of a larger voluminous work based on his scholarly manuals on the Art of Naval Warfare and the Art of Shipbuilding in the 16th century.

Unlike Magellan's official biographer Antonio Pigafetta, Oliveira was known more for his own accomplishments as a nautical encyclopedist, the first author who systematically wrote about all branches of the nautical and maritime sciences, and less about his time with Magellan. Oliveira was also a scholar of linguistics, a Portugese historian, and an author of Civil Law. In addition he was also an experienced seaman, soldier, diplomat, and fought against the English as an employed soldier of the French army in 1545. The finding and publication of Oliveira's account is an important source in piecing together the puzzle and falsehoods propagated by the various edited Pigafetta interpretations of Magellan's life and death.

Account of the Battle of Mactan, April 27, 1521 by Fernando Oliveira:

****"Magellan, undertook to do him (CiLapu Lapu) some damage or humble him, and decided to set out for that land with some armed men and make a strike in his lands, as in fact he did set out with sixty men armed with (h)arquebuses, (Rafael: there it is again David!!!) and commenced to burn his huts and cut palm trees. At this the king took steps to defend his land with many people, and gave battle against him.

However, as long as our gunpowder lasted, those of that land did not dare to close with them; (Rafael: and AGAIN!!!!) but when it was used up, they surrounded us on all sides, and since they were incomparably more numerous, they prevailed, and our men were not able to defend themselves or escape, and fighting until they were exhausted, some died, and Magellan among them, who, when he was alive, did not want the king his friend to aid him with his men who were there at that time, saying that with divine favor, the Christians would be enough to conquer that whole rabble. But when he was dead the king (Humabon) rushed in and saved those many who were wounded and ordered them carried back to the ships, because he was afraid that all those other enemies of his would get together and seize them."****

In summary, Oliveira's account supports
1. The use of firearms as primary weapons to buy Magellan time
2. The larger land force by Lapu Lapu
3. That Magellan's men were aided by rival tribal king Humabon's men in their escape which somewhat defers from Pigafetta's account that the Spaniards fought back by themselves to gain escape.
4. Had less poetic flourish than Pigafetta's account


Oliveira's description appears to be more tactically sound, since Lapu Lapu's men would most likely not have gone after the retreating Spaniards by wading into hostile waters inhabited by an equally large enemy force armed and awaiting in their boats. Pigafetta somewhat supports this by a slight mention of some of Humabon's men falling to Spanish cannon fire during the retreat.

As per the praus being 700 feet away, they ventured closer as Magellan was retreating. I believe they even got hit with friendly fire from the ship's cannons. If my theory that Magellan had actually planned to lure Lapu Lapu and his men into Humabon's space, then it was a tactical move which backfired when Lapu Lapu did not take the bait.

--Rafael --
Sayoc Kali