Tags
Tab Item Content
Join Us!
Archives Meta
Notifications
Clear all

Interesting video on the kampilan


ashkenaz
Posts: 44
Topic starter
(@ashkenaz)
Eminent Member
Joined: 4 years ago

 Originally Posted by ShazamsLaw View Post
I'm trying to find evidence of non-muslim Filipinos like the Visayans or Pampagans using the Kampilan or any longsword 3ft or more. So far I've found iffy sources for them.....
The best evidence of Visayans using Kampilans was Spanish records during the Battle of Mactan where mentions of large cutlass swords were employed skillfully by the Visayans.

Visayans were very close to cultural spots like those of what would become Indonesia.... Majapahit and other Sultanate and Rajahnate cultures in trade and the Austronesians of the would be Indo-Malaysian archipelago were the ones who invented the Kampilan sword family from which Moros literally derived their swords. There were back and forth migrations of Austronesians, it is unrealistic to say the least that non-Muslim Filipinos never used Kampilans. They obviously did, including the Lusungs (who were of Luzon origin ethnically) who were employed as mercenaries and fought in Thailand also obviously did.

Religion is irrelevant, as most Filipinos of Austronesian origin are all ethnically the same, well, small exception for Igorots for being far purer Austronesian.

 
Quote Originally Posted by Prau123 View Post
I agree that non-Muslim Filipinos likely had their own kampilans. But perhaps they didn't have the smiths or high quality iron to produce them. I also think that the Moros, in particular, the Sulus developed a war and raiding culture (slave trade in particular if I'm not mistaken), and thus they needed effective weapons such as the kampilan to accomplish those ends. The Visayans were likely more pacifistic and had less motivation to produce or acquire kampilans.
Except the primary weapon of ancient warfare was the Spear, not the sword. Like you seem to imply as is in the common misconception. There is a reason the Spear was far more popular in warfare.
 
 
 
 
3 foot long swords are not always favorable in all situations.

You get this idea that Kampilans are this super ubbermensch weapon because they are larger, but that thing takes 3 foot lengths of the best available steel around. That's not even accounting that there are various collections of poorly made Kampilans and Kris's just like how in Europe there were poorly made swords depending on the individual skill and experience of the blacksmith.

On the other hand, for every sword, you can arm 10 more men with 10 more iron or steel tipped spears that are in many ways far more practical and far easier and cheaper to repair and reproduce.

None of these really matter anyway because the Tausugs themselves are literally Visayan immigrants who became Islamic. Definitions make things pointless.

Reply
Topic Tags
3 Replies
ShazamsLaw
Posts: 21
(@shazamslaw)
Eminent Member
Joined: 4 years ago

"Visayans were very close to cultural spots like those of what would become Indonesia.... Majapahit and other Sultanate and Rajahnate cultures in trade and the Austronesians of the would be Indo-Malaysian archipelago were the ones who invented the Kampilan sword family from which Moros literally derived their swords. There were back and forth migrations of Austronesians, it is unrealistic to say the least that non-Muslim Filipinos never used Kampilans. They obviously did, including the Lusungs (who were of Luzon origin ethnically) who were employed as mercenaries and fought in Thailand also obviously did.

Religion is irrelevant, as most Filipinos of Austronesian origin are all ethnically the same, well, small exception for Igorots for being far purer Austronesian."

 

 

Actually, the blade that swells towards the tip as seen on the kampilan along a few other examples, dates back to India or Indo-European as that concept was what spread towards Nepal and south east asia maritime and mainland. To give the southeast Asians in Indonesia/Malaysia the credit without acknowledging what people they learned it from is another way to stab oneself in the foot. 

I agree with your point on the spear. I'm not sure if I posted it here or on the previous forum site but, out of most weapons the spear is seen as the best weapon on the field even in a pact island like the Philippines. Even for the moros, I've been told by one that practices silat on how spears have always been the primary to-go weapon while the sword or knife is seen as purely a side arm. The kris and barong are maybe preferred on special cases when a juramentado attack happens. 

Reply
Prau123
Posts: 1985
(@prau123)
Noble Member
Joined: 4 years ago

I agree that spears are better than swords, and that's why most tribes used spears as compared to swords.  As you mentioned they are a lot cheaper and require less metal for construction which obviously is an expensive material.  Spears can be made from a variety of materials that are readily available, and can be made quicker than swords.  Spears don't even require a metal tip if metal can't be found or is too expensive.  

Spears are also easier to use in my opinion, require less training, and are generally more safer for the wielder as compared to swords.  You can easily hit yourself with the blade of a sword.  Spears are also lighter, therefore easier and faster to use, and lead to less exhaustion.  

Spears can be thrown.  Swords usually are not thrown as they are not good projectiles.

Spears provide distance that swords cannot effectively do.   This is important at individual fights but also group fights especially formations as shown in that video that was posted.  Had the spear wielders had more training and holding their formation especially a formation with two or three lines of soldiers one behind the other, then we could see how effective the spear is in battle.  

As mentioned earlier spears provide distance, but they are also have quick movements (especially quick back and forth movements) that are quicker than the side swings of swords especially the swords that were used in the video.  The spear is a hard weapon to fight against with a sword, because a spear wielder can attack, retract its spear and attack again very quickly.  Moreover, if a swordsman attempts to close the distance and manages to pass the spear, the spear wielder can still retract the spear (and even walk backwards) to attack the swordsman at the closer distance.  

Spears resemble the fencing foil.  The foil has been proven to be very effective against most swords due to its speed and ease of use (short quick movements of the arm and wrist).  The main weakness of the foil is that it's not effective against armor.  The spear can be effective against armor especially if it's a heavier spear with a strong and sharp spearhead.   

Reply
Prau123
Posts: 1985
(@prau123)
Noble Member
Joined: 4 years ago

Spears are also versatile.  They can be used for hunting a variety of animals on land, trees, or in the water.  A soldier would want such a survival tool if the situation called for it. 

Reply
Share: