Weapons of MoroLand Mindanao

Nice weapons Spunjer,I like the Talibong and the kalasag nice work my friend. MABUHAY

 

Again I would like to thank you for sharing, pretty neat stuff and they were effective to boot
Yes, you are correct in the statement about the guesswork of Hollywood and then it becoming history (implanted right or wrong).

But we do know that many of the swords that the Persians used were garnished from both the north and the south of their country So that is saying that the Indians on one side and the Greeks on the other end would have had an impact.

The Zulu sword and shield were used by the Spartans, it also went to the the Romans later (after the Spartans) who advanced it around the lands they touched. (Alexander had been there first though).

Both the long spear and short sword were used in fighting. They were very effective in Greek history and most countries until the advent of firearms. We have shields today that are effective against small firearms. (evolution is wonderful thing).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka

Archery was used in the Philippines also (probably more in the planes than in the jungle) it was part of their arsenal.

What is interesting is the new Leopard that has been found in Borneo of late been around for a very long time, hiding in plain sight.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/15/leopard.species.ap/index.html?eref=rss_latest

Regards,
Gary

 

Yes the Spartans and Romans weapons had a lot in common and one was a develpement of the other so much as to say that the Roman tactics and weaponry was based on that of the earlier Greek empire (Sparta was but a small part of the Greece and their Empire), but at the time of the Spartans and later of the Romans there was No Zulu nation, in fact even if it existed at this time it would have been but a very small tribe and more than likely far more less advanced then they were at the rise of the Zulu nation.

Also, the Spartans and Romans never got that far down into Africa so how you can even try to insinuate that the Zulu influenced these larger Empire builders??? No offence the Spatan and Roman military machine would have run riot with the Zulu nations even if they were around in the 1700's.

The European's at the time of the Zulu nation's had all but given up on the use of the sword (apart from it being a part of an officers dress) and they relied on the gun, cannon and other more effective weapons, much to the dimise of the Zulu nation.

You also have to take note that the Spartans as a nation had already dissappeared over 2000 years before the Zulu nation in the 1700's and the Roman Soldier (whom you are refering to) also died over 1000 years before the Zulu Nation.

Couple this with the fact that he Zulu Warrior did not use a sword or even a knife for that matter in warfare plus the sheilds of the Spartans and the Romans were very different to each other let alone totally different to the Zulu Sheild.

So if the Spartans and Romans were influenced by the Zulu (which is what you have infered) they must have kept it and their nation a secret for thousands of years and even if this was so you cannot see it any resemblance to both the fighting tactics or the weapons other than they all used spears and sheilds.

The facts are that as late as the early 1700's the Zulu used a long throwning spear and it was Shaka that developed the smaller hand held spear for close quarter combat (not a sword).

The sheilds of the Spartans and Romans were not only different in shape but also made of metal, the Zulu sheild was made of Cow Hide and was vastly inferiour to those of the Spartans and Romans who existed 1000's of years before the Zulu Nation.

There is no evidence linking the Spartans and Romans to the Zulu and not only that to suggest there was is actually laughable not only to anyone with an ounce of sense, but also to arciologists and historians.

Best regards

Pat

 

I see what your tring to imply here Gary and your way off the mark.

You are trying to tell us that the Spartans were influenced by the Zulu (who by the way did not exist at the time of Sparta or even the Roman Empire and visa versa), they then of course (according to your supposition) influenced India via Alexander the Great and that of course means that India influenced China who must have influenced the Philippines. So we should therefore call FMA 'Shaka Zulu'

Please for once Gary, look at the fact's, dont just blindly assume.

Not only do the dates no coinside, the facts that you have gave us have no connection at all and is not only historically incorrect, it is so worng it is like trying to tell us the Eskimo's landed on the moon thousands of years before Armstrong.

So what are you really trying to say or insinuate Gary. Stop being so vague.

No offence but what has this got to do with trying to compare weapons of Sparta and the Philippines??? Other than the fact that Zulu King's use leapard skins to denote their status in the tribe there in no connection at all.

Also genetic fact has recently shown that this leapard is not even related (apart from being a cat) to the leapard found in mainland South East Asia let alone Africa.

Regards

Pat

 

As most of the time you are missing the reference I am showing. You have to think outside of the box Pat and have some other History known before saying what you are mentioning. The Zulu wars are recent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu

Zulu was 2000 years later that I am mentioning, it came by way of Sparta and the Romans not the other way around.

The Leopard is a reference about new things being found that are/is in plain sight all along.

Like a obvious inclusion of what came long ago and far away. But we recently ascribe it to the Islands in The China sea.

That is my meaning.

Gary

 

Again Pat, because you used two posts to try and convince yourself the direction you are taking it is totally wrong so I am addressing it twice.

You really missed that one big time. Hmmm is it night or day where you are at.
Been to the pub have we?

Gary

 

There you go again with the insults just because your proven wrong, yet again. Gary, dont be a tw*t all your life, take a day off mate and stop smoking that happy weed it's affecting your judgement.

Not that it is any of your business where I have been, but some of us have a life and other things to do other than trolling forums, such as Working for a living.

Now you said and I quote:

With this comment you are trying to insinuate the Zulu influenced the Spartans who no longer existed when the Zulu people came into being.

Now you back track and say:

So what are you saying????? The Spartans used the Zulu sword and sheild (bearing in mind the Zulu never used a sword) 2000 years before the Zulu existed or did the cow hide sheild and short spear (invented by Shaka) come from the Spartans (who actually used metal sheilds) and had not existed for 2000 years when the Zulu nation was formed.

You can't re-write history and fact to fit into your unique world and cant you even make your mind up about what you say? I doubt it. You say one thing one moment and when someone proves you wrong yet again, you shout no I said it was the other way around.

Your a tw*t and a troll. And if the MAP Moderators ban me for it, so be it. But you will still be a tw*t and a troll.

 

Ok Pat I will just have to say it was not written clearly and say it is my fault, but to clairify it I would like to mention that the Zulu I am talking about are more modern than the Spartan's...

You are easily ruffled, I still do other stuff besides post but as I have mentioned in the past the troll is usually the person who is the big guy on the block and does not want someone else mentioning much.

Not well written I guess. Best I can say regarding the whole exchange.



I would hope the moderators would not ban you for an obvious badly written post by me. Twit and troll, what ever Pat. I am not insulting you, you are doing a good enough job of calling me names .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu

The above time frame is where I was indicating and the weapon of choice was similar to the Spartans of 2000 years prior. Hope that helps Pat.

Wrong and right are not something I am worring about regarding these post's, what is truly wrong is my way of writing it, but your reaction is a give away big time.

You really can't hurt my feeling's Pat, so I'll just say again, not well written, and it won't be the last time I am sure. Nor for your outbursts I am thinking. LOL

Regards, Gary

 

The Zulu sword and shield were used by the Spartans, it also went to the the Romans later (after the Spartans) who advanced it around the lands they touched. (Alexander had been there first though).

Both the long spear and short sword were used in fighting. They were very effective in Greek history and most countries until the advent of firearms. We have shields today that are effective against small firearms. (evolution is wonderful thing).

Pat above is what I wrote.

It should have been written:

The Zulu "spear" and shield were used by Spartans, it also went to the Romans later (after the Spartans) who advanced it around the lands they touched. (Alexander had been there first though).

Both the long spear and short sword were used in fighting. They were very effective in Greek history and most countries until the advent of firearms. We have shields today that are effective against small firearms. (evolution is wonderful thing).

The word spear should be where the word sword was written. I must admit the fault. As far as material in the shield, well they were similar and different at the same time.

I gave you a couple of websites to look at and they make it fairly clear even if my post was a word off or two

Your behavior, can not be fixed quite so easily I am thinking You have been here a long time and even have a trophy, so I figure you don't have to worry much about Moderators. If you did need to worry, I doubt you would act like you do MHO...

Gary

 

Hi there,

just my two cents worth. Gary, what you seem to be advocating, a single source of a particular set of technical and social systems that then sperads out across the world, is a very problematic way of viewing history. As a few people here have tried to point out there just isnt any real evidence to back up that sort of claim in this particular case.

What is much more likely in the case of the evolution of the short (mostly) thrusting weapon and shield combination is that similar combat environments produced a similar set of conclusions and tactics. In this case its the fairly unsurprising realisation that when fighting in very close quarters, and in large groups of people, there is not enough room to swing a cat. Hence the abandonment of cats as offensive weapons just after the bronze age.

In place of razor sharp moggies our ancient forbears worked out that having something that travels in a straight line to your opponent was probably a good call as it minimised the chances of braining your best friend standing beside you. It was also a good idea to try and cover yourself against the literal slings and arrows of the foe, not to mention THEIR sharp stabby or slashy things, and the shield became a good thing to own.

The fact that this happened at different times in different places isnt so much a case of being 'advanced' or not, or of an idea taking a very, very long time to get around the globe. It is probably more the case that the style of warfare that necessitated this form of combat technology and tactics emerged in societies during different periods as they urbanised or competed for resources and territory.

like I said, just my two cents

Paul

 

True I am looking for what you are saying as input, exactly.

Close combat is still a knife and stick or the empty hands.

In many societies (as we are seeing in the UK) is the control of a certain type of weapon and what comes to take its place. The plains was a good place for Archery, in early times, and later when the Khans used it. It is/was mentioned to be in the Philippines early on.

Dragons are in most older societies, so where did that start? Did all the various societies come up with the same thought? By themselves?

I can see where it is a hard sell to compare the Swords of Greek and Roman times to the ones in the Philippines. But if you look at the time of them (swords and spears) which is difficult because of sparse info in the Islands lots of Rattan though, you can see influence of cultures and those cultures were influenced by the Spartans and Romans. Before them.

How did the noodle get to Italy (Marco Polo some mention), from China.

Where did the Damascus steel come from, some say the Khans in the 13 century from Damascus. (Book Genghis Khan by Jack Weatherford). When they controlled a major portion of the world back then and lost it to others.
No single group of people (one man) ever have done it before or after him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

Strickly a thought and some information is all. If others differ that is fine. I think there are many answers for some questions.
For some there is only one answer and that is the Tower of Babel, all spread from there. I am not advocating that.

http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH1/CH1_BAB.HTM

I just started this because of the Movie 300 and some thought as to how it affected the rest of the world, or did it?

Regards,
Gary

 

Hi,

in answer to the 'did all societies come up with the same thought' question, ummmm probably yes and no? Most innovations are a combination of responses to local needs and previous experience, which can include influences from other sources.

But like the whole short weapon and shield combination, the prevelance of heavy cavalry, archers, or even cavalry archers is a response to common set of military needs. For example - how do we break down or pursue those pesky infantrymen, I know, we chase them on horse back and hammer them with a long spear that has the weight and speed of of a horse behind it, and cavalry is born in all of its many forms. Or... bugger standing here getting clubbed, stabbed, and slashed, I need a way of killing people that involves me not getting too close and that can give them a pasting before we come to grips, and you get archers, or slingers, or javelin folk.

Its also that particular sorts of cultures tend to produce particular sorts of soldiers. Urbanised agricultural socieities where horse ownership was primarily for the more wealthy are going to turn out armies composed primarily of infantry and archers with an elite cavalry backing them up (yes, its a big generalisation). Pastoral societies where the horse is an indespensible part of life produce the brilliant cavalry that they are renowned for.

And as for the global impact of the battle of Thermopylae, my guess was that it was probably pretty limited. A great tale, and an epic stand, but at the end of the day and in the big picture of global warfare pretty much a minor altercation with local significance. Europe is only one small part of the world when all is said and done.

Paul

 

BGile,

The theory that one idea can only come from one source has been generally debunked. I know they stopped teaching that at school years ago. (at least they stop it at around Highschool when people generally begin to understand the dynamism of the world, an event you apparently missed out on)

Komuso has mentioned a lot of things that make sense and if his words can't convince you, then me chiming in won't help. But hey, What can you expect from a person who thinks that the current "weapons of moroland" plaques are a good record of weapon styles?

On Dragons:

Anthropologists believe that the creation of the dragon myth all over the world has less to do with a central culture spreading it's ideas but more with the common human fear of reptiles. This would explain why dragons all over the world have different characteristics. Some breath fire(west europe), some acid (north europe if I'm not mistaken), and some breath normal air (south americas)

On Philippine archery:
Philippine archery was relegated to hunting and precious little to combat. This can be seen in the nature of the extant examples of arrowheads found in the Philippines. Most are fish and bird killing heads which would hurt a man, but hardly kill him.

One can also check the general draw strengths of bows. Though I disdain to cite this as an example, the level of academic backing on this thread is at a low bar anyway: most modern reproductions of ancient Philippine bows have a draw strength of under 85 lbs. Good for killing birds and fish, but not for combat.

So your assertion that our people *must* have used it in combat around the plains is simply that, an assertion. An assertion that is unsupported at that.

 

Raymond your mention about draw strength of bows is huge and it just goes along with your thoughts about the rest of your post. IMHO A huge wrong!

But because most of your post is your opinion and not much else. I'll just comment on the draw strength of bows and crossbows.

You statement allows me free will on your knowledge of Archery and Crossbow power and draw strength.

I'll not tell you my thoughts for there is no reason to debate you on this.
The reason is your total lack of knowledge has been mentioned by you.

http://www.huntersfriend.com/draw-length-weight.htm

I'll mention this and see what you say about it. I was a professional Bow maker in my 20's I worked in a small shop with Tom Jennings the owner. Do a google on his name and the Bow that we made in the 60's that revolutionized the design of bows. I, me not Tom. Built the bows (for he became allergic to the chemicals of gluing but was famous for his design of bows, the new glues that were needed were different than those of old). I built the famous recurve Smithwick Citation for him, which was his design we were together for about a year +. I was a person who was a wood worker and still am.

As a side note I conducted hunting trips to Islands off the coast of California for Hogs and Spanish Goats that were left there hundreds of years ago by the Spanish. You could only hunt these animals with Bows (no firearms were permitted)...

He made one big mistake and eliminated the true designer of the Compound and basically was bankrupted over it, when he lost the suit later.
I had a chance to buy into it and be a partner, but did not because of the problem of design. We went our seperate way's.

The rest of your post is like I said your opinion (and in my opinion) just as wrong as your mention on bow draw weight. I use reference most of the time, lets see what you reference to support your claims.

The Crossbow uses high draw weights, but they are much different than bows of the Philippines.

Regards,
Gary

 

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your thoughts I agree and slightly disagree. When locations are isolated (like the Islands, because of the number of them and because they are Islands) It is quite different on how the evolution of ideas came to them.

They were visited by many different cultures and therefore they are a mixture of those cultures not only in the people, but what they brought with them (weapons and skills etc.).

I am not only talking about the battle that occured at this precise date and time. It is still a huge discussion and movie and it was hundreds of years prior to what we classify as this period of time.
It had major impact on a huge amount of the world even if you don't care to admit it. That aside...

Good website for some elementary knowledge and then, you can go on from there. Not to say it is where you/I are at, just a good starting point. IMHO...

http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/subjects/persianwars.htm

The pictures and discussion of the weapons are where I was headed and we have covered it by the great stuff referenced.

Regards,
Gary

 

A military bow and a hunting bow are two different animals, each with a different blend between accuracy and power. I should have mentioned "significantly lower than 85 lbs". I just used 85 as a benchmark, as 85 lbs seems to be the upper norm for bows *recorded* to have been used in (western) combat before the widespread use of armor.

Now other than harping on about how much you know about bows, you mentioned nothing about Philippine bows of antiquity. Could you enlighten me as to the actual draw strength of period Philippine bows?

Another example that I gave that you totally disregarded was the lack of human-specific arrow heads. When I went to an exhibit of existing arrows and arrow heads from Philippine antiquity, only 10-15% of the arrow heads could be considered for fighting and were marked as deer-hunting arrows. A good majority of the arrows were fish and bird arrows.

Other than jumping all over my mention of draw strengths, have you given us any reference on bows were employed in Philippine combat? Enlighten us.

 

Raymond,

Most of the bows were for light game, birds etc. and fighting ie. killing humans. No point in this to enlighten for there is no reason, you have your thoughts and have mentioned them.

Not much armor in the Philippines prior to the Spanish I am thinking. Maybe others can add to this question you have. Most of the people in the Philippines were and are not of very large stature so the Bows were fairly light in draw weight.


http://www.eriksedge.com/weaponsofthenorthernandcentralphilippines.html

The above website has a lot of information about the Philippines and the weapons. If you click on home and continue through the various other information it is good stuff. The picture I wanted to come up shows the police of a tribe and how they dressed.

Nothing in the Philippines should be considered to be a heavy bow like that of the warring people of other nations. The Negrito used bows, and still do they say.

Hopefully someone else will give you some information.

 

nice stuff here

Hi,

This is a good look at an especially nice sword and scabbard.

http://www.eriksedge.com/PH192.html

Regards,
Gary

 

Hi Gary,

I guess the bottom line is that the movie 300 is just that, a movie. And it would seem to be busily replicating a great many of the myths that have grown up around this particular battle. The chief myth amongst these being that the Spartans were somehow the 'good guys'. As a point of fact their society resembled nothing quite so much as an ancient version of nazi Germany. They were super authoritarian control freaks that existed solely due to their capacity to ruthlessly control thousands of slaves, slaves which enabled their menfolk to spend their lives training for war as opposed to say.... working for a living.

And, at the end of the day they got rolled. Brave or not, skilled or not, they died to the last man. And the Persians kept on coming. It took a slightly more sophisticated strategy than just not budging to beat them, and this is just another case of the historically proven military fact that relying on fixed defensive positions is likely to get you hammered by an opponent with sufficient resources and mobility.

All of which gets away from the central point. There is absolutely no evidence that the weapons used by the greeks, spartan or otherwise, had anything whatsoever to do with those used in the Phillipines, other than by the most tenuous of possible associations. As Raymund has pointed out the notion of a single source for most historical events is considerd invalid at any level past the most basic, something that I know because I teach some history at a university level, although I would stress that I am not a teacher of military history.

You also need to watch the possibly unintentional racism that is implict in suggesting that asian cultures were not capable of producing their own responses to the needs of warfare. They didnt need european influences to work these sorts of things out for themsleves. There isnt any equivelent to the Welsh longbowman in asian warfare that I am aware of, just as there isnt a european version of the mongol cavalry archer. They did it all on their own.

Paul

 

You also need to watch the possibly unintentional racism that is implict in suggesting that asian cultures were not capable of producing their own responses to the needs of warfare. They didnt need european influences to work these sorts of things out for themsleves. There isnt any equivelent to the Welsh longbowman in asian warfare that I am aware of, just as there isnt a european version of the mongol cavalry archer. They did it all on their own.
**********************************

Hi,
Yes you are correct, it was unintentional for sure. They are an amazing culture, I study them because I have a deep interest in the things that came out of China and neighboring areas.
The Europeans at the same date in time a thousand years ago were not as advanced in many things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

As far as a single source it seems it had to start somewhere and go and maybe come back, similar to the horse and its origin in the Americas and then returning again about 700 years ago if you believe the book 1421 or less time if you don't.

The earth had to form and universe had to start. The land was one large mass they say. Anyway, not the reason I started this thread. Thanks for the observation and your mention that it was unintentional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword

Majority in this world are not European. And the greatest General or one person was a Mongol they are now saying, Khan. Amazing really when you think of where they came from and where they are now (same location). Very interesting and very interrelated this world of ours.

Gary