Cagayan Battles of 1582: Debunking the Hoax

Cagayan Battles of 1582: Debunking the Hoax 


A picture taken from the Spanish comics "Las Espadas Del Fin Mundo" depicting the fictitious battle.

Before starting to write anything about the Cagayan battle, I would like to make a premise:
I'm not really a fan of the kind of debates you could find on the internet about hypothetical battles, deadliest warrior scenarios or something like that.
Honestly, I find the entertainment value of such discussions healthy only when they are educated and based on logic, historical accuracy and knowledge of the topic people want to discuss.
However, the average quality of these debates is usually extremely low: people make their arguments based on wrong pop culture stereotypes and "fanboyism", which turn the whole discussion very quickly into a toxic one, where people just insult each other.

In my Blog here you will never find anything similar; this project was born with the purpose to create a place on the internet where people who couldn't speak Japanese or doesn't know where to look, could access to references of Japanese military history related content. You could use these information for everything you want to.
If I made a comparison with some European military history element, it is to allow an easier understanding since the majority of people who come here ( I assume) have some knowledge on that field, not because I want to depict the Japanese version of said element looking better. I hope that this would be clear for the reader that want to approach this article.


So, back to the topic; this article was a request from a reader, and it is a recollection of a series of analysis I have made on the subject.
If you type Cagayan Battle/s on the internet, you get access to a series of questionable articles (including a Wikipedia page full of citation needed brackets!) that describe the event more or less like this:



"The 1582 Cagayan battles was a series of clashes between Spanish colonizers of the Philippines and Wokou (Japanese pirates). Also, it is the only recorded combat involving European regular soldiers and Samurai warriors. This unique battle pitted  musketeers, pikemen and Spanish rodeleros against mostly Japanese and Chinese merchants, fishermen, rōnin, and soldiers.
Only 40 Spanish soldiers were able to defeat 1000 Samurai in an epic last stand at Cagayan."


Let me tell you that something like the things written above NEVER REALLY HAPPENED.

However, it is fair to notice that we have historical references of this episode, and they will be discussed here. There are two letters that deal with the episode, and they are very different from each other, beside showing some signs of contradictions, logical fallacies and wildly inaccurate statements.
Both letters are available inside the "The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803, Volume V., 1582-1583".



A fraction of a 16th century map of South East Asia, partially including the Philippines, done by Gerard Mercator.


The First Letter - Written by Juan Baptista Roman, June 25th 1582

(Here the original letter translated, with highlighted text made by me);

"Most Illustrious and Excellent Sir:

I do not know whether the letters with new information which the governor is writing today will arrive in time to go on this ship, which has been despatched to this port of Acabite; so I wish to give your Excellency notice of what is going on. Yesterday—St. John’s Day—in the afternoon, there arrived six soldiers who had gone with Captain Juan Pablo de Carrion against the Japanese, who are settled on the river Cagayan.
They say that Juan Pablo sailed with his fleet—which comprised the ship “Sant Jusepe,” the admiral’s galley, and five fragatas—from the port of Bigan, situated in Ylocos, about thirty-five days’ journey from Cagayan. 


As he sailed out, he encountered a Chinese pirate, who very soon surrendered. 
He put seventeen soldiers aboard of her and continued his course. While rounding Cape Borgador near Cagayan one fair morning at dawn, they found themselves near a Japanese ship, which Juan Pablo engaged with the admiral’s galley in which he himself was.
With his artillery he shot away their mainmast and killed several men
.
The Japanese put out grappling-irons and poured two hundred men aboard the galley, armed with pikes and breastplates. There remained sixty arquebusiers firing at our men. 

Finally, the enemy conquered the galley as far as the mainmast. There our people also made a stand in their extreme necessity, and made the Japanese retreat to their ship. They dropped their grappling-irons, and set their foresail, which still remained to them. At this moment the ship “Sant Jusepe” grappled with them, and with the artillery and forces of the ship overcame the Japanese; the latter fought valiantly until only eighteen remained, who gave themselves up, exhausted. Some men on the galley were killed, and among them its captain, Pero Lucas, fighting valiantly as a good soldier.

Then the captain, Juan Pablo, ascended the Cagayan River, and found in the opening a fort and eleven Japanese ships. He passed along the upper shore because the mouth of the river is a league in width. The ship “Sant Jusepe” was entering the river, and it happened by bad fortune that some of our soldiers, who were in a small fragata, called out to the captain, saying to him: “Return, return to Manila! Set the whole fleet to return, because there are a thousand Japanese on the river with a great deal of artillery, and we are few.”
Whereupon Captain Luys de Callejo directed his course seaward; and although Juan Pablos fired a piece of artillery he did not and could not enter, and continued to tack back and forth.

In the morning he anchored in a bay, where such a tempest overtook them that it broke three cables out of four that he had, and one used for weighing anchor. He sent these six men 
in a small vessel to see if there was on an islet any water, of which they were in great need.
The men lost their way, without finding any water; and when they returned where they had left their ship they could not find it. They met with some of those Indians who were in the galley with Juan Pablos, from whom it was learned that Juan Pablo had ascended the river two leagues and had fortified himself in a bay; and that with him was the galley, which had begun to leak everywhere, in the engagement with the Japanese.

The Indian crew was discharged on account of not having the supplies which were lost on the galley. Most of these men went aboard the “Sant Jusepe.”
They said that the Japanese were attacking them with eighteen champans, which are like skiffs. They were defending themselves well although there were but sixty soldiers with the seamen, and there were a thousand of the enemy, of a race at once valorous and skilful.
The six soldiers came with this news, and on the way they met a sailor who had escaped from a Sangley ship which had sailed from here, with supplies of rice for Juan Pablo. He says that the Sangleys mutinied at midnight and killed ten soldiers who were going with it as an escort, who had no sentinel. This one escaped by swimming, with the aid of a lance that was hurled at him from the ship.

Moreover, I have just detained some passengers 
who were going on this ship, because there are no troops on these islands, and a hundred soldiers have to go immediately as a reenforcement, although the weather is tempestuous. I expect to be one of them, if the governor will give me permission.

These enemies, who have in truth remained here, are a warlike people; and if your Excellency do not provide by this ship, and reenforce us with a thousand soldiers, these islands can be of little value. May your Excellency with great prudence provide what is most necessary for his Majesty’s service, since we have no resource other than the favor your Excellency shall order to be extended to us.
The governor was disposed to send assistance to the ship, which was a very important affair; but after these events he will not be able to do it, because there do not remain in this city seventy men who can bear arms. May our Lord guard the most illustrious and excellent person of your Excellency and increase your estate, as your Excellency’s servants desire. From Cabite, June 25, 1582. Most excellent and illustrious sir, your servant kisses your Excellency’s hands.
Juan Baptista Roman"


After reading this passage, there are many things that I have to point out.

The Source itself:
The episode was described on a letter wrote by Juan Baptista Roman, based on the account of six indians whom were sent to look for water and didn't partecipate the main battle but heard the story by some other indians soldiers whom were presumably on the ship.
It is a source 3 times away from the original event, and it was clearly modified to fit an "heroic" narrative of the battle. Most importantly, there are no accounts of the Japanese pirates, or any other neutral commentator so we can only read one side of the story. These are details that have to be considered when judging the accuracy of a historical document.

The Japanese Pirates:I could write an entire article dedicated to the 
Wakō (倭寇) also known as Wokou, the Japanese pirates, but I don't have to; luckily, Great Ming Military has already a very well made and detailed series about them that you could see here, which I suggest you the read it before continuing with this article of mine.

The first thing that has to be said about them, is the fact that they weren't strictly Japanese, and that the majority of them was not Japanese. It is hard to establish with accuracy how many were Japanese, but it is very likely that the majority of Japanese people who fight inside Wak
ō ranks were located near Japan; and Cagayan is one of the farthest location that saw the arrival of these raids.
Most importantly, although the Wak
ō raids of the 1540s-1560s that hit China were somewhat related to some minor Japanese clans like the Matsura clan (松浦), the official involvement of any Japanese clan by the 1580s was over.

In the account we cannot read any mention of Rōnin, Samurai or anything resembling a professional army made by professional warriors.
They had spears, arquebuses and breastplates, but this is a totally different story from a Japanese army of the same period. In addition to that, it is not specified if those gears were Japanese or not.

So to sum it up, there were no Samurai in that battle, and is very likely that there were a very few amount of Japanese people too among said pirates.



A depiction of a Wokou band, from the "Wakō-zukan" (倭寇図巻).


The Battles and the Factions:
Let's talk a little about the numbers and the two battle.
We could read through the letter that the Spanish sent a
fleet, made by one galley and five "fragatas"

A Galley of the period was easily able to carry about 190 rowers and around 80 to 100 soldiers. This is a big deal, since the usual reference of these battles is that there were only 40 soldiers which is simply impossible given the dimension of the whole fleet (beside, it contradict the original source, which mentions 60 men instead of 40 - and again, it is impossible for a galley to be manned with only 60 men on board).
A Fregate of the period had also a crew of 90 men, with an additional 70 to 220 soldiers on board, and there were five of them.
So in that fleet there were a lot of people, something in between 1000 to 1750 men in the whole fleet. If anything, they were unlikely to be outnumbered by the enemy.



A 16th century depiction of Spanish Galleons, also known as Kurofune in Japanese (
黒船).


The first battle saw a Japanese pirate ship against the galley, although it is very unlikely that the other five Spanish ships weren't able to give some support in the fight, but let's assume that only the galley was involved.
Here we find another problem; the Japanese listed there were 200.
What is interesting is the fact that the largest Japanese warship of the period, the
Atakebune (安宅船), which also had artillery, had a maximum crew capacity of 140 soldiers.
Beside, the pirates didn't have access to such ships, but they used instead small 
Chinese Junks or Japanese Kenminsen ships; both have a maximum crew capacity of 70 to 100 soldiers, and were not war ships.
Not even with the largest Japanese boat of the period they would have been able to carry 200 fighting men.
In the first skirmish, both factions were likely have been equally strong in terms of number ( assuming that the other 5 ships were too far away to engage in the battle), and yet managed to "fight valiantly", "kill some men" and were able to "damaged the main galley", as we read from the letter. Moreover, if the whole fleet engaged in the battle, as it was very likely, the pirates would have been severely outnumbered.



A section of the "
Wakō-zukan" (倭寇図巻) depicting Japanese pirates and their usual ships - taken from Great Ming Military.


Then we also have a brief long distance encounter, where the Japanese didn't engaged and the Spanish didn't dare to approach the fortifications.

Finally, we came to the famous last stand, where we have the biggest exaggerations.
It is not specified if the other five boats engaged too in the battle, since only the galley was mentioned, although I find it unlikely that the fleet decided to split up in such a situation.
In any case, we read that the Galley, which was leaking everywhere due to the previous engagement (and possibly due to a storm), faced 18 Sampan, which were like skiffs. As mentioned above, the Galley here had 60 (and not 40!) soldiers, which again is fairly impossible (where was the entirety of the crew?), while the Japanese were 1000 men.
Here we have another problem: a Sampan, which the same source specified being similar to a skiff, was a very small boat of 3 to 5 meters.
There were presumably 1000 men, on board of 18 ships of 3 to 5 meters.
Which means roughly 56 men per boat, in a space in between 3 to 5 meters.

This is simply impossible and pretty much illogical to claim.
The average number these boats were able to carry was 8-10 men, so instead of 1000, the pirates here would have been 140-180 men. Again, in any case the Japanese would have been lightly outnumbered in this scenario too, if we assume that the average crew size of a galley was in between 200 and 250 men.


Another section of the 
 "Wakō-zukan" (倭寇図巻) depicting Ming soldiers fighting Wokou pirates; on the right, you could see the dimensions of the Sampan boats, which were indeed like skiffs.

Even if we take the account as it is, it is just impossible that 60 men would have been able to defeat 1000, given the fact that both factions had access to firearms and artillery and especially if we consider that the galley was not in perfect condition, as we read through the letter.
Funnily enough, there are no details of the battles, which is something you could find quite easily online. No pike formations, no katana vs rapier or such. But most importantly, it is not specified whether or not the Spanish managed to survive.



The tone of the letter:
The whole purpose of this letter is to ask for serious reinforcements since, in a way or another, the Spanish fleet suffered heavy casualties and most of the fleet's ships were gone (presumably).
The letter talks about these Pirates as "a race at once valorous and skillful", "warlike people" and says that "they fought valiantly"; if the account is to be believed, so that merely 60 soldiers were able to defeat 200 pirates and then 1000 in two separated engagements, these terms don't fit at all and the reinforcements would have not been needed given the bad performance of the pirates.
However, this whole contradiction seems to be a facade to cover the below average performance of the Spanish against the pirates while reclaiming new troops and resources to deal again with the problem.




The Second Letter - Written (presumably) by Don Gonzalo Rounquillo De Peñalosa, July 1st 1582


"Royal Catholic Majesty:


By this ship, which is to leave these islands on the last of June of this year, I am giving your Majesty a full account of the condition of affairs and events in this region. As it was about to sail news came of the fleet—which, I wrote among other things, I had despatched to effect a settlement in Cagayan—and of the punishment and resistance of the Japanese pirates, of whose coming we had news this year.

The fleet sent by me, as above stated, met two vessels of the enemy near Cagayan, one of Japanese and the other of Sangleys; an engagement ensued, and those vessels surrendered after a fierce fight, in which two hundred Japanese, among them the commander of the fleet and his son, were killed, while we lost only three soldiers.

Juan Pablo de Carrion, whom I sent as my lieutenant-general in charge of this fleet, continued his journey, and entered the Cagayan River, where he was to make a settlement.
At the entrance of the river he found six more Japanese vessels belonging to the fleet of those which had surrendered. There was also a goodly number of people there, and fortifications. On account of his lack of men—a severe storm having driven out to sea the flagship, which he took on this expedition—he did not sack these forts, but attempted only to enter the river. This he did, going up about six leagues, where he made a settlement in a place where he could erect a fort, whence he could direct offensive and defensive warfare against the enemy.

This news came yesterday; and with all possible despatch I am sending reënforcements, boats, ammunition, and the provisions necessary. I considered it so needful to employ the soldiers for this purpose, because too small a force remains to me for the aid of Maluco, as I have written, since that undertaking is so important. However if they send from that place to beg aid, I shall give it with what forces I can. For I suffer a great lack of men and other things because no reënforcements have been sent me from Nueva España, although I have implored them. This land suffers from a constant and pressing need of reënforcements, on account not only of its unhealthful climate, but of the many emergencies which continually arise when I must send aid.

These occasions now are not so much a matter of jest as they have been hitherto; for the Chinese and Japanese are not Indians, but people as valiant as many of the inhabitants of Berberia [Barbary], and even more so. I entreat your Majesty to give careful attention to this, and to order that in all vessels as many men as possible be sent; for it is the key to what is necessary for the preservation of this camp. I beg also that careful attention be given in the other things.


The gratuity for the expenses incurred in these necessary undertakings and for others similar to them, which are thrusting themselves forward every moment—which was provided by your Majesty’s auditors of your royal Audiencia of Mexico in the 
ship arriving at this bay on the twenty-fourth of last month, consisted of a decree and warrant in which they order that Doctor Sande be paid here for the time while he remained here after my arrival, and until his arrival at Mexico. For this purpose they set aside in their decree the tributes which belong to your Majesty, and order that they be attached for this and sent to them—threatening me with imprisonment if I do not comply. I have written to your Majesty already of the poor state of your treasury here and its many pressing necessities, and of the extreme difficulty experienced in raising the amount needful for the same. Will your Majesty please take suitable action in this? for without the aid of what little resources your Majesty possesses here, this colony cannot be preserved. May our Lord guard the Catholic and royal person of your Majesty for mary prosperous years, and give you increase of many kingdoms and seigniories for the good of Christianity. Manila, July first, 82."


This letter, which was written after the first one, deal with the same episode but in a different light.



Another picture taken from the comics "Las Espadas Del Fin Mundo" depicting the "fairy tale" version of the story.


The Source itself:
This letter was based on news that have came from the fleet, which might be more reliable than the previous ones, since they weren't transmitted (presumably) by various people.
Interestingly enough, these news arrived 6 days after the date of the previous letter written by Juan Baptista Roman.


The Battle and the Contradictions with the previous letter:


The same fleet in this version of the story, met two pirates vessels at the same time, a Japanese and a Sangely one, not just one  Japanese vessel after a very brief encounter with a Chinese ship like in the previous story.
Again, it is not specified how many Spanish were on board, but it gives the number of the Japanese pirates as 200. I've already explained how this is not possible on the average Wokou ship, but it might be possible if the account is giving the number of pirates present on both ships, the one of the Sangleys and the Japanese one - in this case however, they would have not been all Japanese (why writing about the Sangelys then?), and the Japanese would have been even less than in the previous account for the reasons I have already explained.

What I find odd is the fact that the letter talks about a fierce fight, while saying that they only lost 3 men and defeating 200 pirates. It might be possible but I find it very unlikely, mainly because the pirates were supposed to have firearms as well, and it also contradicts the previous versions were "some men died", and although the number is not specified, in my humble opinion "some men" is a higher number than 3.

Then we have others contradictions; the galley in this version of the story was destroyed by the storm, and the Japanese settlement had 6 ships instead of 11, as well as a fortification of some sort. In both cases, the Spanish didn't engage.
And here we have the biggest difference among the two letters; unlike in the previous version, the Spanish organized a settlement without the galley, and didn't face the second famous battle against the overwhelming Japanese pirates.
Given the fact that this account arrived 5 days after the previous one, it is very likely that such heroic battle didn't happen at all. 

What I also find odd and contradictory is the fact that the letter says about the Japanese: "
 for the Chinese and Japanese are not Indians, but people as valiant as many of the inhabitants of Berberia [Barbary], and even more so" which again doesn't fit the narrative of the Spanish defeating 200 Japanese pirates while only losing 3 men.
Even in this case, we do not know how it ended, if the Spanish managed to survive or not; there are no more letters that talk about the episode.


The tone of the Letter:
What these letters have in common is the fact that both are asking for reinforcements in order to deal with the Japanese pirates. Even in this case we could assume that the situation is quite desperate, and that the Spanish for some unknown reasons, beside the storm, lost most of their men in these encounters.



Conclusion 

So after this very long analysis of original sources, I hope that this even has been cleaned by all the fabrications that thrived online.
The Spanish soldiers, although very well disciplined and equipped, were not superhumans able to defeat an overwhelming force, and the Wokou were not an ideal representation of a Japanese Samurai of the period.
There are no real detailed account of the battles, they aren't given in any serious historical document dealing with that, and said letter are inherently flawed and contradictory with each other.

If you want to use this article to trying to get that infamous Wikipedia page down, please feel free to share it and spread the value of historical accuracy over boorish fanboyism.
For any questions, feel free to leave a comment if you want to!

Gunbai





Comments

  1. Nice job debunking the myth! Glad that I am now able to read the translation of the full letters. The Chinese-translated excerpts I have have many mistranslations from the look of it.

    By the way, could it be that the galley mentioned in Spanish souce be the oared kind? It think it was still used for coastal defense during that period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you!! I appreciate it!
      I don't think the Galley mentioned here would be the oared kind, although there is no way to check it for sure since the sources doesn't mention it. I might check the Spanish version to see how they translated the term, since many times Galley and Galleon have been used as synonyms over the time.

      Also thank you for the spot, I've corrected the typo!

      Delete
    2. One problem with your blog.
      The armor the Spanish took back is still in the Madrid Spanish military museum.

      Delete
    3. Several problems with your reasoning;
      First of all, there no claims of having Japanese armors sent back to Spain after the battle in the original sources.
      Second, it's not in Madrid, but the picture linked in this comment section are from the Army Museum in Toledo.
      Third, the official website of the museum clearly states that those armors were collected during the 19th century, which was a common practice in Europe after the opening of Japan. No mention of 16th century, Spanish fighting abroad or stuff like that:

      http://www.spainisculture.com/en/obras_de_excelencia/museo_del_ejercito_de_toledo/armadura_japonesa_do_maru_44125.html

      https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_armor_d%C3%B3-maru,_Edo_perdio,_Museo_del_Ej%C3%A9rcito,_Toledo.JPG (Edo period armor pretty much means late 19th century stuff).

      Forth, Japanese armors were sent as a gift in many different European countries during the end of the 16th century; read "Diplomatic gifts of arms and armour between Japan and Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries" by Ian Bottomley.

      Fifth, no full suits of armor dating 16th century exist outside Japan, save for temporary exhibition. 99% of what you see in museum are Edo period armors. The only expecetions are two half armor in the Royal Armories donated as a Gift by Tokugawa Ieyasu. There was one donated at the Spanish King, as we read through the documents that you can find in Bottomley's article above, but it was lost in a fire.

      Delete
    4. Actually you are right it is in Toldeo.
      http://www.museo.ejercito.es/exposiciones/exposicion_permanente/recorrido_tematico/

      But why lie?
      19th century stuff?
      It clearly states it is from 1630-1638......
      Nowhere does it say it came from a Japanese diplomatic gift nowhere.
      If they were sent as gifts prove it.
      All you have done is assume which is obvious given your bias.

      Delete
    5. In another coment he talks about a document wich talks about the diplomatic reations between Japan and Spain. Also, an Edo period armor has some elements and decorations wich are not present in a Sengoku period suit, much like a plate armor of the 14th century and a 15th century plate armor.

      Also, you are not understanding how a debate works, if you presents an argument you have to prove it right. We don't need to prove you wrong, you need to prove you right, the burden of proof is on you, not on us.

      The inverse situation would be like someone saying "The earth is flat because I say so, proof me wrong". If you made an statement, you should explain why is true.

      Also, assuming that an object is from the XIX century because it has many elements of the XIX century is not a bias.

      Delete
    6. Also, this suit of armor that you are showing us has two issues to you argument.

      1- Is from 1630, wich is not the Sengoku period, is the Edo period.

      2- This thing never could be a battle trophy or loot. Is in perfect conditions, no bullet marks, no dents, no holes. Is in perfect condition. Even armors in good conditions who saw battles have marks and dents. Also, no bullet holes in a looted armor in the age of gunpowder is really strange.

      Delete
    7. Well first of all there are other suits that are dated 19th century, since it's the museum that claims so and it's definitely a consistent fact that in every collection of Japanese arms and armors outside Japan, 99 % of the stuff is Edo. See the Met Museum or the Stibbert collection in Florence.

      Also, I'm not saying that those suits were given as a gift. They were probably acquired by the museum; some suits as a matter of fact were given as gift, and as far as we know none of them surived in Spain.
      Moreover, unless they have a signature on the armor, good luck with the accuracy on dating that. Still, even if we assum that it is from the 1630s and given the quasi-perfect condition, that's not a "war trophy" of a battle that happened 50 years before. This really doesn't help your argument at all.

      Finally, can we please stop of all this war trophies things? The main source for that is a wikipedia page that mentions a letter dated 16th June 1582 from Penalosa to Felipe II. You can read all the sources that I've used here in "The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803, Volume V., 1582-1583", including that damn 16 June letter and there is no mention of Japanese armors being taken as trophies.
      The letters that mentions the battle are dated respectively 25th of June and 1st of July and you can find the original text here as well plus the inconsistency of the accounts.
      It's not even present in the original sources, I don't understand how someone could bring this as an argument.

      Delete
    8. As a side note, my comment about armors being given as a gift is a reply to someone else questioning the fact itself in this comment section ( and I suppose it was you since the argument was the same). I inserted here as well to show you that armors were indeed given as gift since there is quite a good amount of evidence.
      Not that those armors must be gifts. They were very likely bought by the museum.

      Delete
  2. Reading this, I want to say it. I'M REALLY HAPPY! Finally one person with common sense, thank you so much! Thank you a lot!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to say, in any case, that the most known wikipedia article is the one written in Spanish. Which is the worst of all, to the point of claiming that the Japanese did not wear metal breastplates until this "battle"

      Something to add also, I gave myself the task of finding where the number of troops come from and in no other source of the time he mentions it. It is mentioned in "History of a disagreement: Spain and Japan" that of Tay Fuza and his thousand pirates (which in any case does not say where he got that information from), although none of the 40/60 Spaniards. I'm still wondering where those numbers came from, but it seems I'm not going to find the answer.

      Delete
    2. Thank you! I'm glad you liked it!

      It is very stupid to claim such a statement like the Japanese not wearing metal armor up until the 1582.
      The numbers of the famous account came from the letter of Juan Baptista Roman, although they were clearly made up and weren't mentioned in the second letter of Penalosa. So it is very likely that such encounter didn't happen at all.
      Curiously enough, although the aforementioned letter talks about 1000 Japanese pirates, it doesn't talk about 40 but 60 Spanish soldiers... I wonder how they came up with the 40.
      Anyway, the whole episode was overly inflated by Spanish pop culture books, and by the internet itself.

      Delete
    3. I guess the responsible for all this was the sensationalist newspaper ABC Spain. Add supernationalist people with blogs and all that will end in wikipedia. And in a comic ...
      The funny thing about all this is that the people who write these articles claim that the samurai are very overrated (at some point it was true, we must admit it), but they end up giving quasi-mystical characteristics to the Spanish soldiers, giving us such well written sentences and raised as: "Unlike the Japanese, the Spanish army was one that fought to the death in all its battles, never retired or surrendered unless it was necessary"
      Yes, I read that wonderful contradiction once ...

      Delete
    4. None of all those lies you have written are found in the Wikipedia article

      Delete
    5. @Anonymous
      Using a wikipedia page full of fake references that lead to nowhere in the internet is pathetic.
      You can read the whole documents here and there are references to the original source if you want to double check. Unless you believe that the Wako had the latest available military ships that Nobunaga used or that 55 men can fit 18 ships of 3 meters long, there is concrete evidence here that the fact didn't happen as it is portrayed in your wikipedia page.

      Moreover,at Mactan in the 1521 50 Spanish tercios and 300 natives lost against 1500 warriors from the Philipphines who had stick and stones, how can you even possibly claim that 60 tercios could hold 1000 pirates armed with swords, armor and especially period firearms? It's ridiculous, they weren't able to withstand native with spears and were outnumbered 1 to 5, how can they keep at bay a foe with same level of technology, outnumbering them 16 to 1?

      Next time instead of using salty empty words with no real value, try at least to use some source. Unless you can show me that 55 men can stand in a 3 meters long boat, the value of those letter is bullcrap.

      Delete
    6. Yeah, I also was talking about the Wikipedia in spanish article, wich is even worse. You can found all of the "lies" that I said there. Oh, also in certain unreliable internet sites

      Delete
    7. Tercios at the battle of Mactan? 49 sailors exhausted after half circumnavigating the world? I read carefully your comment, and although you have some good points for your claim a serious bias percolates all of your account of the facts.
      You don’t trust the sources because you, subjectively, assign a hidden agenda to the original writers that needs to fit with your narrative, that’s preposterous.

      There are really few historical events, as minor as this one, where we have two different sources to rely on, and yet you dismiss them and jump on conclusions because you say so.
      As someone stated if you think that the numbers are too high for the naval encounter, you need to come with proof to support your claim, not just say, “nah, the usual ships are too small, so it’s impossible” you need to proof that they had those ships and no others that might be captured elsewhere or that they did not bring into battle many of them, as they were pirates, you know, and pirates have always shun battles where they were outnumbered.

      Delete
  3. Nice work, and I think of something else you can add I remember you told me once the person who said to I've been in command during the Second Battle you said there's no death certificate something like that.

    If anybody comes around and start some stuff I got your back just so you know.

    By the way have you read turnbull's book on ninja I've haven't decided where to buy it or not, the guy isn't somebody I like to rely upon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much Kevin! Yes I remember I was thinking about the hypothesis that said man, Juan Pablo de Carrion might have been dead by the 1582 since he would have been 69 which was quite an impressive age for a soldier, but we have the letters mentioning him so I discarded that thesis.

      About Turnbull book, you might want to buy the ebook version which is around 14 $ I believe; I haven't finished it yet and honestly I don't like Turnbull, but the book is filled with notes and references so it might be worth it.
      However, the main focus is about Koga, Iga and how the Ninja were popularized in popculture - so you might find various things you already know! Maybe check the preview on google books to decide it! I hope that this was helpful.

      Delete
  4. Could you also do a piece on the Nossa Senhora da Graça incident?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello and thanks for leaving a comment!

      Maybe in the future, although I have to admit that the sources involved in that episode are quite a lot and they all give a different version.
      It's challenging but I would like to do so.
      However I would also like to cover much more famous (and important) battle like Nagashino or Mikatagahara before doing that.

      Delete
    2. Those all sound very interesting. Thank you for considering my comment and indeed, seeing the big cavalry battles first makes sense.

      Delete
    3. You are welcome!
      I always appreciate the feedback of the people that read my articles, it is really important for me!

      Delete
  5. Very nice job. I wasn't familiar with these accounts, so I suppose I wound up learning a little spanish history as well here... I wonder what kind of fortification the wokou could have been using?

    This incident reminds me that a Japanese invasion of the Philippines was planned by Hideyoshi I think? I'm sure the'll be lots of alternate history discussions about that somewhere.

    It also reminds me of the fight between the "Tiger" under captain Sir Edward Michelborne, and a "Junk of the Japones", of the coast of malaysia in 1605. Who seem to have actualy been Japanese as Edward refers to them a carrying daisho, and It seems like they even referred to themselves as Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you I'm glad you liked the article!!

      Well we do not know what kind of fortifications they used but my guess is that they built some very primitive types of forts with palisades and earth walls and maybe some watchtowers.

      It is also true that there were some rumors of a Hideyoshi's Invasion of the Philippines but it was also "hyped" by Spanish sources themselves; it seems that they were quite scary about an invasion mainly because they didn't have many soldiers while they were aware of the number of troops deployed by Hideyoshi in Korea.

      About the fight with the "Tiger", I've read about that too; however, carrying a daisho doesn't mean being Japanese, in fact by that time period, Japanese swords were really popular in Asia, both in their native design as well as Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese versions. It is also likely that pirates themselves used the word wokou for "pirates" rather than for "Japanese pirates", since by that time period the Japanese involved in said gangs were very few. In fact any major Japanese pirates were dead and gone by the 1570s-80s.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was going to answer him and maybe make a fool of him but luckily it was not necessary

      Delete
    2. Well, it is the first time honestly and I hope that I won't need to do it again in the future.
      Criticism is welcomed when is always backed by some form of argument and it is good to have different opinions as well.

      No-sense bs with a racist flavour are not welcomed at all and I don't have time to argue with these dudes

      Delete
  7. This guy made the same argument as you did 2 years ago: https://historum.com/threads/spanish-conquest-of-japan.123791/page-42

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see, thank you to pointing it out; honestly I wasn't aware of it, although I'm quite happy to see that people already debunked the story with good sense and proper use of the historical sources

      Delete
    2. You can also look here for the Nossa Senhora da Graça incident: https://historum.com/threads/spanish-navy-vs-oda-nobunagas-navy-in-ad-1578.137985/page-6

      Delete
    3. Thank you! Those are useful information

      Delete
  8. Good posts! I too hate these "vs" debates and I have been sceptical of the description of these fights but I have never gotten around to look more deeply in to it.

    An additional observation, the first letter mention sixty soldiers "with the seamen", indicating that there were 60 soldiers plus an non-specified number of seamen that could also have participated in the fight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, I'm glad you liked it!

      Nice spot, as I wrote in the article, those ships needed a lot of men to be manned and it doesn't make sense that those seamen didn't partecipate in the fight.

      Delete
  9. >We could read through the letter that the Spanish sent a fleet, made by one galley and five "fragatas".

    Stop-stop-stop.
    Galleon is a galleon. It's an entirely different type of sailship.
    Galley is an entirely different, oared vessel. For it complement of 60 actual soldiers(soldiers by profession, i.e. from tercio del mar) is a reasonable number. What's important, though, is what war galley has crew and oarsmen on top of that.

    Same with fregatas - don't mix them with much later(80-100 years!) frigates. Fregata here is a much smaller oared vessel.

    >Even in this case, we do not know how it ended, if the Spanish managed to survive or not; there are no more letters that talk about the episode.

    Afaic, there were multiple(around 40) weapons presented as spoils of war to the Spanish court.

    >It might be possible but I find it very unlikely, mainly because the pirates were supposed to have firearms as well, and it also contradicts the previous versions were "some men died", and although the number is not specified, in my humble opinion "some men" is a higher number than 3.

    Again, key is who are accounted here. If 3 actual soldiers + "some" others - it's quite reasonable.
    It shall be remembered, what Spanish soldier from tercio del mare is a paid, full-time, state-equipped(1/2 plate armor, morion, marine pike, sword, daga and so on) soldier, specifically trained to fight as a part of cohesive unit onboard(!).
    These were oldest professional marine units in the world, at the time of this action - unique in their status. As if not enough, date sugests very real chances of Mediterranean veterans onboard. Lepanto and all that.
    Thus, against ragtag mob of glorified robbers result doesn't seem nonsencial. It was just more than pirates could chew.

    Great ming military blog, after all, mentions what properly used and trained Ming southern army units sometimes annihilated superior numbers of Waku with little or no losses in return. With tercios we aren't talking about "just" properness, but about best infantry in Europe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I might have confused the two terms indeed thank you for the correction! Still, only 60 soldiers for a fleet made by 6 ships (which dimensions or crew size aren't specified in the letter) which was meant to deal with a pirate base is a very low number, too low to be reliable. Worth saying that by that time period, as far as I am aware, the ships involved in East Asian trade were all big ones.
      Beside, the number of the pirates are still off.

      Also, as far I know, having read several official pubblications on the subject, both in English and in Spanish, there are no other official documents dealing with the episode and no mention of spoils of war. In any case, Japanese weapons in that period were found throughout all Asia. You can find Chinese, Koreans and even Vietnamese variations of Japanese weapons.

      I don't question the skill of the Tercios; my biggest problem here is how only 60 soldiers were supposed to deal with 1000 men which had firearms, artillery as mentioned in the letter and even armor.
      Even if numbering 140-180 men the pirates would have been still too many for 60 men.
      The problem here is not the outnumbering factor; I have no doubt that 1000 tercios could fight 2000 or 3000 pirates.
      The problem here is that 60 men are too few to fight outnumbered on a half sunk galley as the letter suggest. Especially when they are in enemy territory, and said enemy had acces to equal level of technology.
      Even when the Ming were able to defeat the Woku pirates, they weren't at such severe disadvantage.
      Also, the narrative of the battle doesn't fit with the description of the pirate skills and their reputation as described in the letter.

      All things considered, even if we assume more reliable numbers, the episode is very questionable itself, let alone the 60 vs 1000 legend that is often associated with the story.
      That's was the point of my analysis after all.

      Delete
    2. Numbers are most certainly inflated, that's for sure.
      Even knowing what ship is a choke point by definition and so on, 16-17:1 is just... well, as one of the most famous russian military comanders said, - "write more, why pity those [turks]?"

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  10. The Spanish soldier was very ferocious and well trained in those days! The best in Europe if not the world in combat! It ain't just simply the number 40 t0 50 to 60 men, its the fight in each man! GOOD MEN! Not just any amount of men but good skilled well trained men and put them together in a number of 40 to 60, you have an unbeatable team! And not just any army or group, these are SPANISH SOLDIERS!!! Very possible to take on 1,000 Asian pirates with Samurai!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't even know if this comment is serious or not, but beside the facts that a) there are some serious problems with the account's details as I have mentioned in this article and b) we do not know the final outcome of the episode, there is no way that 60 soldiers could defeat 1000 men.

      Nobody is claiming that the Spanish soldiers were not formidable; but they were not superhumans.

      In 1521, at the battle of Mactan, 49 Spanish soldiers with firearms and armors and 200-300 native warriors were defeated by Lapu-lapu's 1500 native soldiers armed with stones and bamboo spears. And in this case, they were outnumbered 6 to 1 and had a massive advantage in terms of technology. And yet they lost the battle and around 15-20 spanish soldiers plus a lot of natives died there.

      So how is it possible that a similar force could withstand 1000 pirates, outnumbering them 16 to 1, with equal level of technology ,as the account claims? Not feasible and quite ridicolous if you ask me.

      Delete
  11. First of all, let me thank you for organizing such a wonderful blog. Truly, one of the few good sources of information about Japanese tools of war in English, hats off to you good sir.

    Now, closer to the topic. I know neither Japanese nor Spanish but I think I can bring my 2 cents into it, although my opinion may come from observing some scientific historical mechanisms as a whole.

    It is quite possible two letters we have now are not the only sources of information on the subject because there's nothing left from these times. If I got it correctly, there is really some kind of info vacuum surrounding this event so we can't reliably recreate what happened except vague "Pirates attacked us and were defeated, there's still a lot of them, send reinforcements pretty please". It is possible some other documents describing buildup to this expedition or aftermath were recorded and transported somewhere, but seeing this as not something extremely important (worth guarding and checking) those papers very well could've been lost in an accident. The fact that it was common even for state officials to employ random flavoursome jargon or overexxagerating episodes they found to be fascinating isn't helping, that's for sure. So either one of the Spanish sources is lying, or they are talking about different occasions, or they are incomplete, or they're downplaying their losses, or they're overblowing number of enemies, or they're probably just spewing random nonsense hoping to prove they're somehow useful at the frontline when in reality nothing really happened there ("we were almost beaten facing ferocious enemy and our ship almost sunk" then BLAM, "we lost about three guys and that's it").

    I wouldn't call it straight up lies with 100% certainty since there is at least one comparable event in Russian history (1697 Azov campaign; general Shein was sending letters about "hours-long" battle against thousands of Tatars also describing his dire situation, which - after state's investigation - amounted to one (!) killed and 30 wounded Russian/Kalmyk soldiers) which, if we drop all the poetic flavour, is a simple overblowing of a random skirmish. Same thing happened when Swedish mounted patrol faced Russian troops during 1656-1658 war with Swedes IIRC describing Russian assault as "ferocious" and demanding reinforcements for future campaign when in reality there was some random 10-minute long shootout with little casualties and that's it. Same with American history (Rosebud creek). Sadly, not enough data to give exact answer what happened. We're treading into the field of pure guesses here.

    Numbers given are all over the place, that's for sure. Making enemy forces 2-10 times as big as yours is a popular sport among many different cultures all around the world. It is plausible that Spanish indeed didn't suffer high losses but that could simply mean there weren't big groups of enemies to begin with (personally I think this is the most possible outcome).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much!!

      I agree on pretty much everything you said. The account in the sources available is very incomplete and lacks details, not to mention that has some serious contraddictions within itself.
      In my opinion it was indeed a overblown skirmish between the south east asian pirates and the Spanish. Still, the point of this post is to debunk the usual internet myth that surround such event.

      Delete
  12. I still don't know were the number 40 soldiers, the 40 spoil of war weapons, or the name Tay Fusa came from.

    One posible answer for the question of why gobernor Peñalosa asked for help and resourses even when the spanish defeated all the pirates, a general and his son, with only one spanish soldier dead(letter from Governor to the King, 1983, 20 June, 6, 2, 60/61) is that he wanted money, and that's why he was acussed of corruption and was desmissed a year or two later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's true. Apparently,
      Tay Fusa was mentioned in some books ( I used to have an archive of this but at the moment I'm moving house and so I'm not able to get them yet). But 40 soldiers is totally out of the blue indeed.

      Delete
  13. Regardless of the number of Japanese pirates there was. The fact that there was accounts and letters of it means that the battle might still have existed but maybe the numbers of pirates were exaggerated. Also according the original source in the wikipedia, the pirates were stated to be a mix of Chinese and Japanese not just Japanese. The numbers of the pirates may be wrong due to the fact that they couldn't have count every pirate or could be exaggerated but I doubt that the numbers for the Spanish soldiers were wrong as I'm pretty sure they could count their own soldiers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't claim that the battle (or should I say, the "skirmish") might have happened, but the reason behind this article is the fact that the story as it is told is a hoax, it doesn't hold at all and has a lot of contraddictions itself.

      The number of the pirates were clearly exagerated (which was done pretty much all over the world and at any time: look for any historical battle and you can find different numbers on each side of the account), and again the number of the Spanish soldiers doesn't consider the hundreds of native men that were with them and fight for them.

      Still I find it funny that while this battle is still considered something feasible, the same Spanish soldiers few years before lost against "stick&stone" armed natives in much better conditions during the battle of Mactan ( in which their enemy didn't have firearms and armors and outnumbered them only 6 to 1 rather than 16 to 1 as the inflated Cagayan episode claims).

      Delete
  14. Creo que usted no ha desmentido ningún "mito". Históricamente hay menciones a esos hechos, los cuales posiblemente no ocurriesen como se cuentan hoy en día.
    Pero lo que si tengo claro que demuestra un gran desconocimiento histórico naval y militar, de los hombres y hechos bélicos por sus errores al describir los buques y medios que se usaron y por ende sus deducciones.
    Entiendo que sea un friki de los samuráis, pero eso no quiere decir que fuesen invencibles igual que no lo eran los tercio españoles.
    Lo que si le puedo afirmar con rotundidad que durante casi doscientos años, los tercios de infantería española, fueron la mejor infantería del mundo....... y eso no son suposiciones, sino hechos históricos comprobados.
    Hay que leer y documentarse.
    Antes

    ReplyDelete
  15. Vamos a abordar tu comentario punto por punto.

    El articulo busca desmentir el relato armado alrededor de las cartas, no las cartas en si (Que por cierto, dos cartas no es suficiente para considerarse un hecho "bien documentado")

    El autor del blog tiene mucho conocimiento sobre materias militares, lo demostró en otros artículos. Solo tuvo un error de terminología en este artículo, el cual alguien resaltó y el autor se disculpó en comentarios mas arriba. (Y no se animó a afirmar que 18 esquifes pueden transportar 700 hombres)

    Mostranos en que momento del articulo (o de todos los artículos del blog) dijo el autor, que los samuráis eran invencibles. (Es mas, ha dicho lo contrario varias veces)

    Durante el siglo 16 y en el contexto europeo, sin duda eran los mejores (fuera de ese contexto muchas cosas cambian y deben tenerse en cuenta). Durante el siglo 17 los tercios comenzaron a quedarse obsoletos, la veterania de sus soldados y la inteligencia de ciertos estrategas hizo que pudiesen seguir el paso y tener éxito a pesar de eso. Pero sistemas como el holandés o el sueco estaban probando ser superiores. Cosa que también son hechos comprobados y aun mejor documentados que el combate del Cagayan.

    Así que te pregunto... Acaso leíste el articulo, o el blog?

    Hay que leer y documentarse!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anonimo

      You should write in English in order to have a proper answer; my Spanish is reasonable but this blog is fairly international so if you want everybody understanding you, you should use an international language. Francisco has already address your points, but I will just spend few words to answer you:

      First of all, I'm not denying that such "skirmishes" might have happened, and that the Spanish didn't won such engagement with the pirates. What I am contesting through logical reasoning and evaluation of the true historical sources is that a) the internet popularized version of the encounter ("40 tercios against 1000 Samurai") is fake and has no historical basis and b) the sources themselves lack consistency between each other and fail to address some logical issues.
      Historiography is a thing, we cannot take everything for granted just because somebody in the past wrote something we like to read.
      In no way 60 Spanish soldiers could have won an engagement with 1000 pirates, who were (as the account itself claim!) armed with artillery, firearms and armor, let alone a regular army made by professional warrior.
      I find ridiculous that I have to highlight something like that every time I got contested in this article.

      Finally, if you want to argue that my article is flawed, feel free to do that! I have already addressed a couple of mistakes I did in the past. But please, provide solid and logic arguments, not mere and empty non-constructive critiques.

      Delete
    2. Since when Spanish is not an international language? It is the official language of twenty nations of this world, this is about 10% of the world and is spoken as second language by millions all over the world.

      Delete
  16. Not a hoax, it's well documented, you are not debunking anything

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you actually read the article?

      Delete
    2. Yeah? Show us a proof of well documentation of the event instead of two letters, please

      Delete
  17. Maybe some of the armor of those peasants that you say are these, I think they are samurai:
    http://shotokankarate-do.blogspot.com/2010/11/museo-del-ejercito.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably all of those armors are diplomatic gifts that the embassy of Japan sent to Spain in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.
      They were probably made to be gifted, or were used by samurais and then sent to the Spanish Court.
      Basically this images doesn't prove anything. The burden of proof is in you. You have to say and prove why do you think that those armors where used by "peasants" or in the skirmish at Cagayan river.
      Also, probably the main suits of armor used by the wako were Tatami gusoku or mass-produced, munition quality tosei gusoku. Maybe a pirate lord would had a full suit of armor...

      Delete
    2. Probably?
      That is not proof.
      This armor came from warriors not a gift from Japan.
      If it is a gift prove it.
      Given your blog name it is obvious you are biased.

      Delete
    3. I presented a detailed analysis of original sources, highlighting the problems and the clear exagerations. I have also replied to a similar comment about this "armor" issue that I believe it belong to you, scroll above to see 5 points that actually address that.

      Moreover, the argument against my article, which uses original sources that you yourself could doublecheck, is a blurry picture showing two Japanese armors, with no dates on it. I did some further research to establish that the museum itself date those armor 19th century, but still, the burden of the proof should be on you, not on me.

      Again I want to stress the fact tha I've used the original historical documents for my analysis, not random pictures from the internet (at least you should have brought the pictures from the official museum website).

      We know that diplomatic gift of Japanese arms and armors were sent to Spain, but as it is with pretty much all the Japanese armors outside Japan, more often than not those suits were acquired by collectors and museum in the late 19th century. This is a well established fact that you yourself could acknowledge by reading about Japonisme, Bashford Dean or browsing any major European Museum collections on Japanese arms and armor; the word Edo period is everywhere.

      Delete
  18. With respect to the fact that more people were traveling on Spanish ships, of course, the sailors apart from the thirds' infantrymen, with respect to the fact that 50 tough men, in a good position and in good time, can end up with 800 or even reach one thousand militiamen and samurai could be.
    Regarding that there are battles that in theory would be won if or if and then end up in disaster like the ones you say about sticks and stones, they have always happened.
    And about the letters and that is not documented, I see it relatively normal, he thinks it was 500 years ago and they were expeditions, there are Spanish conquerors who do not know where they were buried or where they died, we Spaniards are not propaganda and film machinery , like the United States for example.
    Sorry traducido con google

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. English:
      A good position is always a game-changer when you are in a battle, but 40 men against an small army of professional soldiers with same level of equipment is the recipie of a disaster.
      I don't think the fact that the skirmish had happened 500 years ago had anything to do with the fact that is not well documented. We have a lot of documentation of the Spanish Empire, or even from the Roman Empire (wich is older!). The fact is the letters are only two, we barely know if they are talking about the same event and they contradict themselves.
      The problem of all of this is that a lot of people starting to talk about this skirmish as a glorious battle between the Tercios against 1000 samurai, with basically no evidence at all. But the worst part of it is that many proffessional spanish media (like the newspaper ABC) talked about all of this sort of fake story as a fact. Wich is basically propaganda. And then a lot of nacionalists started to write more lies in internet, and all of those lies ended in wikipedia.
      All nations have propaganda-idiots, is inevitable. No one is claiming that all spaniards are nacionalist or something like that, but the 90 percent of the people who share and defend this myth are from Spain. Is not really a matter of propaganda machinery, this topic has more to do with nationalism and chauvinism.
      Español:
      Una buena posición siempre cambia las reglas del juego cuando estás en una batalla, pero 40 hombres contra un pequeño ejército de soldados profesionales con el mismo nivel de equipo es el receptor de un desastre.
      No creo que el hecho de que la escaramuza sucedió hace 500 años haya tenido algo que ver con el hecho de que no está bien documentado. Tenemos mucha documentación del imperio español, o incluso del imperio romano (¡que es más antiguo!). El hecho es que las cartas son solo dos, apenas sabemos si están hablando del mismo evento y se contradicen.
      El problema de todo esto es que muchas personas comienzan a hablar de esta escaramuza como una gloriosa batalla entre los Tercios contra 1000 samurais, básicamente sin evidencia alguna. Pero la peor parte es que muchos medios de comunicación profesionales en español (como el periódico ABC) hablaron de todo este tipo de historias falsas como un hecho. Lo cual es básicamente propaganda. Y luego, muchos nacionalistas comenzaron a escribir más mentiras en internet, y todas esas mentiras terminaron en wikipedia.
      Todas las naciones tienen idiotas de propaganda, es inevitable. Nadie afirma que todos los españoles sean nacionalistas o algo así, pero el 90 por ciento de las personas que comparten y defienden este mito son de España. No es realmente una cuestión de maquinaria de propaganda, este tema tiene más que ver con el nacionalismo y el chovinismo.

      Delete
    2. And the remaining 10 percent are italians, who tell the embarked soldiers came from the Tercio of Sicily, then at least a considereable part of them mast have been from South Italy! ;) By the way, does some evidence of this detail exist? Thanks a lot.

      Delete
    3. Well, the first Tercios organized by Charles V (the Tercios Viejos) are all from Italy: Tercio Viejos de Sicilia, Napoles and Lombardia (Sicily, Naples and Lombardy), followed by the ones from Sardinia and the Tercios de Galeras, the marine units. Essentially, from what I've seen they were composed of people from Spanish-controlled countries rather than Spaniards themselves. (as in inhabitants of Spain).

      Delete
  19. If you're right that these stories are often used by very nationalistic people and often transgressed. I still do not believe the numbers, but regarding the lack of data as Spanish I still see that they did not bother to document it correctly or in the end it was forgotten, although I was not there and I do not know what really happened. Regarding that they spoke well of the defeated, if it really happened, many times it has also happened, maybe they put the reed in a bad position or could not put it another way and had to be used thoroughly melee without weapons of projectile and still because of the position they could have lost, and the soldiers of the thirds remembered them as brave people, possibly they were. If you see pictures of reeds you will see that they are quite large, one Chinese puts 140 m, enough to put 500 people. Still it is good that you talk about history, that it is good for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Te recomiendo que hables en español, pasar un cacho gigante de texto por el traductor no es realmente buena idea. Al menos yo voy a poder entenderte.
      English:
      The fact that the event is bad documented means a lot.
      First of all, this make us understand this as not a big and glorious battle, but as a non-important event.
      Second, we can't give a thing the status of historicall fact if is bad documented.
      Third, the thing a ship is big doesn't means it can carry a lot of people. A ship needs to be operational and relatively comfortable for the crew. You can put with some pressure 500 in a junk, but the junk will be basically useless. Also, the majority of pirate junks weren't big ones, we are talking about criminals, not about welthy traders. The same for European pirates. You wouldn't see a pirate crew with a big military galleon. Also, again, the number of 1000 pirates is inflated because according to the letters, there was a junk and 18 sampans, wich were like skifs. The numbers are still off.
      Español:
      El hecho de que el evento esté mal documentado significa mucho.
      En primer lugar, esto nos hace entender esto no como una batalla grande y gloriosa, sino como un evento no importante.
      Segundo, no podemos darle a una cosa el estado de hecho histórico si está mal documentado.
      En tercer lugar, que un barco sea muy grande no significa que pueda transportar a mucha gente. Un barco debe ser operativo y relativamente cómodo para la tripulación. Podes meter a presión a 500 hombres en un junco, pero el junco será básicamente inútil. Además, la mayoría de los juncos piratas no eran grandes, estamos hablando de delincuentes, no de comerciantes poderosos. Lo mismo para los piratas europeos. No verías una tripulación pirata con un gran galeón militar. Además, una vez más, el número de 1000 piratas está inflado porque, según las cartas, había una chatarra y 18 sampanes, que eran como esquifes. Los números todavía están mal.

      Delete
  20. Puedes tener razón,tambien puede ser que el junco fuese grande y que a lo mejor estaban ocupando ese territorio o asegurándolo, de hay un número de samurais, si en el santísima Trinidad de 60 metros podían entrar 1100 personas ( también tenía más pisos) en un junco de 140 metros podían entrar en un momento dado 600.
    De todas formas como no hay muchos documentos no se sabrá la verdad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Si, pero tenes que entender que un grupo de piratas no iba a tener acceso a semejante embarcación. Gunsen ya habló en comentarios mas arriba sobre esas embarcaciones y sobre barcos de guerra japoneses, no son tan grandes. Una nave comercial puede ser grande pero debe transportar carga, no guerreros. Ademas las naves comerciales eran grandes, lentas y caras, no muy util para acciones de pirateria.
      En ninguna parte de las cartas se mencionan samurais. Por la epoca y la distancia geografica es muy poco probable que hubiese 1000 ronin/samurais dando vuelta por ahí. Quizas algun señor pirata ronin, pero con los datos que tenemos podemos llegar a la conclusion de que no habia 1000 samurais.
      Que ademas no se de donde salió que eran samurais, en ninguna carta se los menciona.

      Delete
  21. https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junco_(embarcaci%C3%B3n)

    En la última foto se ve las proporciones de un junco grande, si hubiesen ido con uno como la mitad del de la foto ya entran 500

    ReplyDelete
  22. En verdad sin datos bien documentados de la época todo lo que digamos es hablar por hablar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ese es el tema. No hay suficientes datos, pero hay mucha gente clamando sobre la supuesta batalla. Lo que si tenemos es datos sobre los wako y la actividad pirata en China, Corea y Japón. Sabemos como iban armados, sabemos que embarcaciones tenían, sabemos su modus operandi, sabemos un numero aproximado de cuantos eran japoneses (una minoría por cierto) por lo que podemos saber que tan improbable es la historia armada alrededor de las cartas.
      Por cierto, estas seguro de que en esto entran 500 personas? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_(ship)#/media/File:Guangzhou,_Chinese_Boats_by_Lai_Afong,_c%D0%B0_1880.jpg
      Que un barco sea largo no implica que sea espacioso. Con ese sentido los barcos vikingos hubiesen cargado a muchisima mas gente de lo que podían solo porque eran largos.

      Delete
    2. @Chucky to be fair, you can see Samurai armors everywhere in the world. Those suits of armors were made from the 16th century up until the 19th century, and when Japan was open to the West, a lot of those items ended up in private collection or in museum. It is very likely that these suits are no different, in fact I'm quite sure that they are Edo period pieces acquired by the museum.

      The main objective of this article is actually highlight that:
      1) The battle as it is portrayed on internet, which is that 40 tercios - which were not 40 but 60 according to the original sources - were able to defeat 1000 ronin is crap. As a matter of fact, it was a skirmishes between a Spanish fleet against some pirates, "presumably Japanese" but we didn't really know for sure.

      2) That there contradictions and fallacies throughout the sources. First of all the story has two different versions, there are some details that are missing (we don't really know how the battle looked liked) and there are some clear exaggeration mixed with unreliable narratives: if 60 men managed to defeat 1000 enemy, said enemy is not dangerous at all, which is against the whole purpose of the letters: asking for reinforcements.
      Moreover, we learn that the pirates had armor, pikes, firearm and artillery: that's simply not doable to win for a force of merely 40 men.

      I don't deny the fact that the Spanish might have won the engagement. What I contest, through the accurate usage of the original sources, is that the story itself contains errors and exaggerations, so there's nothing special about it, at all.
      No Samurai vs Tercios, no incredible last standing, not a victory in face of a sure defeat, no superior western tactics and all the crap that you can see associated with this massive hoax that is the Cagayan battle, which has 0 (and I want to stress, 0!) historical value.

      Pirates forces against a regular army are supposed to lose, otherwise the regular army would be a very crappy one.
      The Ming consistently defeated Japanese pirates, but against Japanese army they lost both of the two main field battles as well as several sieges in which they had more than favorable numbers.
      Those are two different things.

      Moreover, Tercios and the Spanish military were not superhuman with super weapons at the time: I want to stress these things through the article, not that Spanish wasn't a world power back in the days. But apparently people love this kind of narrative of their own country and get triggered as soon as you pointed out that this "Cagayan thing" is not real at least in way it is told.

      I find stupid that I have to highlight everytime that 60 men cannot defeat a force that outnumber them 16 to 1 even if they don't have an equal level of technology, let alone if you put into the equation the same artillery and arquebuses.
      If the Spanish fleet managed to win that engagement, the pirates weren't 1000, the Spanish weren't only 40 and a Japanese army wasn't involved at all.

      Delete
  23. What is your answer to the Samurai armor Spain took back from the battle which resides in the Madrid military museum?
    http://shotokankarate-do.blogspot.com/2010/11/museo-del-ejercito.html?m=1

    If it is a gift like you claimed in another post prove it.
    It's obvious you are biased given your blog name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have already replied to this kind of comment, but to make sure that the message is sent, here we are again.

      First of all, there no claims of having Japanese armors sent back to Spain after the battle in the original sources.

      Second, it's not in Madrid, but the picture linked in this comment section are from the Army Museum in Toledo.

      Third, the official website of the museum clearly states that those armors were collected during the 19th century, which was a common practice in Europe after the opening of Japan. No mention of 16th century, Spanish fighting abroad or stuff like that:

      http://www.spainisculture.com/en/obras_de_excelencia/museo_del_ejercito_de_toledo/armadura_japonesa_do_maru_44125.html

      https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_armor_d%C3%B3-maru,_Edo_perdio,_Museo_del_Ej%C3%A9rcito,_Toledo.JPG (Edo period armor pretty much means late 19th century stuff).

      Forth, Japanese armors were sent as a gift in many different European countries during the end of the 16th century; read "Diplomatic gifts of arms and armour between Japan and Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries" by Ian Bottomley.

      Fifth, no full suits of armor dating 16th century exist outside Japan, save for temporary exhibition. 99% of what you see in museum are Edo period armors. The only expecetions are two half armor in the Royal Armories donated as a Gift by Tokugawa Ieyasu. There was one donated at the Spanish King, as we read through the documents that you can find in Bottomley's article above, but it was lost in a fire.

      And I will add, if those armors were supposedly trophies of such battle, why on earth they are complete and in perfect conditions. No battle damage, no sign of decaying; you might not be familiar with Japanese armor, but the laces have to be replaced at least once every 60-100 years otherwise they will decay, especially if the silk had been exposed to the environment for long period.
      Those armors did not see battle at all, otherwise there would be clear sign of that, and also 16th century armor tend to be way more aged than those two suits.

      Finally, the burden of the proof is on you, not on me.
      If you bring an argument to a discussion , you need to support that. I stated that Japanese armors usually found in Europe date to the late Edo period: this is a statement that you can doublecheck by having a quick look on what I wrote few comments above.

      Delete
  24. High I am from the province of Cagayan this said battle happened in Nueva Segovia now called Lallo, Cagayan. I'm just speculating here there is a possibility that the Saint Dominic de Guzman Parish Church in Lallo (Nueva Segovia) formerly known as Nueva Segovia Church was the very land the fort of this said Wokou pirates were built upon the Spanish had a habit of building stone Churches on existing fortifications from the natives they even built Churches around wells to hit three stones at once Building a fort, Making a Church and because we natives needed water we had to go to these Churches and convert. The name of the Church too also tells a story cause it was once called Nueva Segovia Church then renamed as Saint Dominic de Guzman Parish Church but not before naming another Church in Vigan as Nueva Segovia which brings us to Vigan where the Ships came from a Galley which probably a native ship with rowers (Karakoa) the frugatas i can't seem to find any clue but according to it's description it should be small and maneuverable it could be Vintas but the Spanish called it Virey so i found this (http://www.keyshistory.org/SS-Sp-Sail-ships.html) The frugatas are small galleys. Now the Spanish also has a habit of not acknowledging their native troops or the rowers is it possible when they say the 60 men fought valiantly they are only including the tercios disregarding the rowers i'm not sure. May i include that i believe this is a true battle cause the Spanish created the 4th city in the colony here for the same reason the pirates came.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello, as a quick note I should say that this article need a bit of rework as I ackwnoledge I may have miss the proper estimations for the Spanish forces and the dimensions of their ships.
      However, I have never claimed that said battle didn't happen or didn't exist; simply, I challenge the "mainstream" view that saw 40 (?) brave and immortal Spanish soldiers with advanced technology defeating an army of pirates, ronin and Samurai alike numbering 1000 men.

      Delete
  25. Great discussion. Spaniards do have that touchy spot about others writing, or re-writing Spanish history.
    Cagayan may have never occurred as portrayed in Wikipedia, or as it could ever be deduced by the sources presented in this article. "40" against "1000", trained, pirates, natives, Samurai/Ronin... impossible to say with the present knowledge.
    Spaniards have done similar things before. It really depends on strategy, weather, terrain, and other asymmetric conditions.
    Greeks defeated the Persians at Thermopylae in a stupidly unhistorical unbelievable ratio. It is a constituting myth, we may say.
    Cortes and Pizarro, infamous as they may be for some, did not have 13 colonies to fight from to overcome the native empires. Or annihilate them. But it could have been a pandemic (STD, or infected clothe, who knows for sure) that overcame the natives: a battle won with the help of other natives not affected by it.
    Guess work.
    Spaniards find it difficult to accept the rulings of newcomer self-attributed "empires" that attempt to explain out Western history with summarized statements that tend to ignore 400+ solid years of an Empire, the Spanish, that was just as substantial to world history as the Silk Road or more. Spain, Hispania, opened the Blue Way to become the first undisputed Global Power. No English, Portuguese, or whatever could ever match that on cold numbers, expanse, or mixed marriages and offspring. Spaniards mixed. Others did not. Moses did, Aaron did not.
    Terms like "hoax", "myth", plus conclusions such as "...cleaned by all the fabrications that thrived online" are not going to help at all. They do imply a bias clearly. If I said Churchill was a drunk that screwed up in Gallipoli and, due to an awful hangover, delivered a lucky speech about fighting in streets and hills.... it would be unfair. Maybe close to the truth, but unfair. A slanted approach to a historiography.
    This blog is great (I will come back surely), and facts are what they are. We just do not know about this enough. History is written in languages, and languages are spoken by people. And people are what people are. Nothing close to a consent, but more to a machine that cheats. Letters are letters, reproduced memes, self-fulfilling conclusions in the vacuum of reliable sources. Rameses II carved in stone his defeat of the Hittite empire. Just it wasn’t quite that. Kantian apodictic judgements are beside the point in disputed areas.
    I find it hard to believe that the Tercios fought the Samurais and “epic” this, “heroic” that. But it would not be a first in history. I doubt it. But the worse of it is not the “mythification”, but the “politicization” of it. Which is what has caused some blisters in this discussion. And no fact sheet of sorts is going to amend a prejudiced language.
    With a very valuable blog such as this, I would have expected less nuanced semantics.
    Cagayan maybe just a skirmish. Let it be so. Let us continue connecting the dots. When some interested Spaniards read about Arthur and the Roundtable, Merlin, or whatever, we know there is a core of truth, but the issue remains undecided. It is a myth too, but one we do not disrespect with uncalled-for words or dismissive arguments.
    The science of this, if it cannot be resolved, should never be decided upon.
    Again, great discussion. I would like to see more of it, I will be myself looking more into it.
    History is a perception, historical truth makes enemies friends :)

    ReplyDelete
  26. I feel like you know pretty well the Asian side of the story but lack from knowledge on the Spanish side. Such a low number of soldiers it's totally possible. Not the greatest example, but not more than 300 Spaniards were in charge of defending Texas in the 18th century - and they managed to do so somehow. Population size always was one of the weak points of Spanish empire - constant war all over the world tends to diminish your population.

    With regards to the ships crew, it's reasonable that they didn't fight. You need to understand that rowers (most of the people serving in a galley) were people doing that labour as a punishment. They were chained and seen like garbage. Depending on the circumstances and the captain of the vessel, a soldier would never go and row even if in a desperate sulituation; it was better for their honour to die in combat. The same applies to the other direction. Besides, if you set the rowers free to help you in the fight, they might turn against you since they still are your prisoners.

    Finally, you mention a few times that 1500 Philippines defeated 300 Indians plus a few Spanish and such a result should be extrapolated. Well, please check these other battles involving ships (not all of them are victories tho, but you can check the numbers and so):

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Castelnuovo

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_of_the_Glorioso

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cartagena_de_Indias

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ponta_Delgada

    As I said, lack of soldiers - multiple wars and a huge empire - and supplies - multiples bankrupts - were often an issue in the Spanish empire. I would say that the main reason behind it lasting for so long was that natives improved their living standards under Spanish domain and didn't want to overthrow them - they would even help them against foreign powers such as the UK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary, this story exist only within the Spanish sources (as one could expect it to be, as it was a skirmish between pirates and the Spaniards, and the Pirates didn't left anything to recall the event).
      The number of soldiers could be possible (it would be very low for all the ships in the fleet) but we do know that they also had quite a lot of natives in their ranks and files, not only those who were assigned to the rows, from other similar context in Asia.

      Also, the Americas are a totally different context, in such case they had a massive biological (Eurasian diseases), technological and moreover ethnical advantage (as most tribes were at war with each other).

      My counter example of the battle of Bactan is used to underline the fact that the Spanish soldiers are not superheroes, and such battle saw the Spaniards losing even with more fabourable odds, hence it is quite evident that such encounter presented here was embellished. Also, according to some sources of this event, the ship was damaged.

      We are supposed to believe that 60 Spanish soldiers, within a damaged ships (furthermore, it is not clear if the boat was beached or not), could witshtand an attack of 1000 mauraders equipped with guns and artillery. This is what I question and the whole point of the article, to stop extrapolating from this (flawled) account to infer how a potential fight between the Spanish and the Japanese regulars would have ended, because such a thing didn't happened.

      Delete
    2. The famous massive biological advantage of the Spaniards in America, is false. It is false because Spaniards were so few, not even a couple of hundreds in Peru against the Incas and a few hundreds against the Empire of the Triple Alliance in today's Mexico, that in all accounts, since the beginning to the end, Spaniards were outnumbered many, many times.

      The guns and artillery, could scare the natives at first, but not for long. They were not modern guns and artillery but quite primitive equipment of early XVth century that took a lot of time to recharge and fire them again. You forgot to mention, as usual in the anglos sources, the horses. There were about 16 of them, not many to fight against tens or hundreds of thousands enemy warriors.

      Courage with cojones the size of cathedrals, quick resolution on critical moments and most intelligent information and diplomacy to overcome the odds, those were their main "guns" fighting the Meshicas and the Incas.

      Delete
  27. From the Spanish wikia page:

    El conflicto demostró la superioridad de las tácticas de combate españolas sobre las japonesas, mejor ilustrado por las espadas europeas de acero toledano, que probaron ser más útiles que las katanas en las numerosas escaramuzas.

    ..... yeah, at first I thought you were exaggerating, but this is worst than I thougth. I don't want to imply that the Spaniards actually lost, or that Tercios were nothing special, but excessive boasting about this inflated victory leads to false myths which spread into pop culture, kinda like the Battle of Agincourt, where the loss of the Genoese Crossbowmen was taken as a sign of the inherent superiority of the longbow over the crossbows. I really don't think that arguments like the quote above should find their place on Wikipedia.

    Again, Gunsen, excellent article, keep up with the good work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ps: Battle of Crécy, sorry.

      Delete
    2. This article is far from being perfect and might require some updating, but still, it address the idea that 60 Tercios defeated 1000 Samurai in hand to hand combat due to (presumed) superior capabilities/tactics/technology, in which none of these BS is found in the original sources describing the event.
      Furthermore, by critical analysis (or an attempt to do so by my part) one can see how the sources fail in some details especially the idea of the 1000 men fitting on 18 boats of 3 to 5 meters.

      Delete
    3. Maybe they were standing on each other's shoulders like in Kibasen (Cavalry Battle)?


      Delete
    4. I doubt you could fit more than 10 men on these boats without them sinking :'D

      Delete
  28. As a Filipino, I actually never heard of this battle ever like I don’t recall this battle was actually taught in Social Studies or in our History books. I’m not a native of Cagayan or anywhere within the National Capital Region but your blog actually made a lot of good points that it makes me doubt the sources provided by Wikipedia. I applaud you for your efforts of debunking the myths of the 1582 Battles of Cagayan.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Let's see, good man, why do you insist that there were only 40-60 soldiers? those were professional soldiers. It does not mean that there were only those soldiers. How do you think 40 sailors will control 6 vessels? of course there were more men than 40-60 soldiers, in addition there is talk of an indeterminate number of natives. It may be true that these letters are exaggerated ... it would be normal or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the claim of many people is that only 40 soldiers engaged in combat those 1000 pirates and defeated them on their own, which is nonsense

      Delete
    2. Only fools can think that, not even that they were armed with machine guns. Anyway, that should be the debate. In the event that a combat of these characteristics occurs. With enough native and armed troops, along with experienced thirds, achieving a victory could be feasible.

      Delete
    3. Fools and nationalists. The truth is probably the professional Spanish soldiers along with the native troops could certainly win an engagement against pirates while outnumbered, but not at that ludicrous amount.
      Also, just as a quick note, the correct term is not "third", is Tercio (you don't translate that), and it doesn't refer to individual soldiers but to an entire military unit composed by at least 3000 men

      Delete
    4. Evidently he is refering to military trained Tercio'ss soldiers. Not to a Tercio which was a first class military unit.

      Delete
  30. Nice article!
    By the way I just wanted to ask if you have any available sources that mentions the inclusion of Southeast Asians as members of the Wokou Pirates( Vietnamese, Siamese, Filipinos etc.)
    Also, is it safe to assume that there were any? Was it possible for the Wokou Pirates to collaborate with existing raiders from countries like the Philippines?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, I hope this gets noticed
      I'm really exited to know more

      Delete
  31. Very nice post on the topic Gunsen. I do think there are two important details that can cause confusion. One has been mentioned, the difference between a Galleon and a Galley. The other is the way the Spanish describe the men who man their ships.

    When the Spanish say "a ship had 60 soldiers" they do not mean it had a crew of 60. They mean a ship with a crew of sailors had 60 soldiers on board. You can see this if you read Spanish letters about the Armada of 1588 (6 years after these events.)

    A lot of your questions about numbers make more sense if you think "60 soldiers + a large number of sailors."

    The combat power of the soldiers is very high during boarding actions, which is why the authors mention the numbers of soldiers.

    The English refused to get into a boarding action with the Spanish during the armada battles because they were rightly afraid of the combat power of Spanish soldiers vs English sailors.

    If we look at the fight as 60 Spanish soldiers backed by (hundreds?, 1000) Spanish sailors vs some number of pirates the letters may make more sense. I'm curious about your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Replies
    1. wow, so intelligent. so eye-opening.

      Delete
  33. Dear sir, I began to read your article about such battle or fights between the Spanish Army and Japanesses (I'm not saying Army, sometimes a big group of well trained soldiers or in this case Samuraiis, are deadliest and effectivest than a proper Army), but I stoped reading, realising it was too biased, the whole article when I read this:

    "(beside, it contradict the original source, which mentions 60 men instead of 40 - and again, it is impossible for a galley to be manned with only 60 men on board)."
    Please, sir, when you drive your car you always say that you were 3 persons and 4 wheels?.
    The 60 or 40 men you mention were infantry soldiers or sailors.
    The writer of the document you quoted obviously had in account that the person who was going to receive and read the letter knew very well about the number of rowers in a galley.
    He didn't need to mention the "wheels".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure if that's enough to debunk his analysis, but maybe worth considering if he reads this.

      Honestly the original "articles" he is discussing/critiquing sound near-fantasy. Good novels, but not true history.

      Delete
    2. There is no biases here, just a critical analysis of historical sources.
      If you can provide your own analysis on how 60 or even 40 men can defeat an army of 1000 men, armed with cannons and arquebuses at the same level of technology since the same sources claims so, feel free to go on. The whole purpose of this article was to deal with such narrative.

      Delete
  34. Hello you all!

    Since I read the text long time ago I felt tempted to post something here but I always didn't because I know how things are on internet and I don't pretend to start an argument, I am just interested in history in general and I find interesting all the opinions when they are exposed with respect and logic.

    First than nothing I will say I am from Spain, obviously I am human and we all use to feel inclined to believe things that talk well about our countries, so I risk this and I am aware of if, but said that I think I am quite mature to try to always give a step back and try to forget as much as possible this.

    Said that, I think the article's title is not independent, but from start takes a position on a fact it tries to find if it was fake or not, I think a simple “?” at the end of the title would had left the debate open, but that is just my humble opinion.

    Well, we are in XXI century and te article talks about a supposed fact that happened at the end of XVI century, more than 400 years ago, and we apply to them reactions and behaviors of our era, bravo, that is very wise.

    If you let me use a simple example, I had the opportunity to talk in person with a man that left Spain in our civil war, he left when he was only 12 and went to the USSR and rest there during many years, when Germans attacked the USSR he fight them as fighter pilot, I wonder if somebody actually find common sense of somebody that scaped from war being a child today would be ready to enrole another army of a strange country and return to war, that were different times and the reactions of people were different than ours that our only worry is to keep our works and pay our bills. So apply directly actual behaviours is an enormous mistake.

    You talk about contradictions in the two chronicles done by two different persons, sorry? There is no single chronicle in history that has more than one version that doesn't counts with contradictions, wich is no proof of fake, but of different points of view or each one, and obviously each one can be more “entusiastic” than the other, but that doesn't means the fact isn't true. Somebody believes that the Julius Caesar's War on the Gaul chronicle was absolutely accurate and not too friendly with the winner? Obviously, but that doens't mean the facts were true and more or less happened like are explained beside some “decorations”.

    I continue on other comment as far as the original one I wanted to post seems to long for the blog parameters...

    ReplyDelete
  35. I continue here, sorry for splitting it:

    40, ok... Spain since his creation is a Christian country, I mean, christianity was the basic structure over wich the country was build, was a fight against Islam, ok, do any of the people that had critisized the number 40 has the slightiest idea what 40 means for christianity?

    If you read the Bible, you will find the number 40 a often, and it is used to mean “a lot” when somebody in the Bible were lost in the desert, they spent 40 days, or 40 years, when the Kings from Orient arrive to Belen to offer gifts to Christ they spent 40 days in the desert, so 40 is an icon of something that lasts during a long period, something that at same time supposes an effort, so again, to interpretate words from a chronicle 400 years old with a direct translation is a nonsense.

    Beside that, somebody had just been enough curious to try to find a blueprint of a regular galley and their dimensions? A galley counts with a reduced surface on the front that used to carry 3 or less light cannons, a thin passage in the middle of the oars that carries to the back and in the back another surface not much bigger than the frontal one, so that hardly could carry 40 warriors. ¾ parts of the Galley are occopied by the oarsmen. So if you press me I will say that even 40 warriors are a lot if you don't consider the people at the oars as warriors.

    Christian Galley oarsmen were usually prisoners that were attached to the oars, go to galleys meant to pay a prison punishment so as prisoners they were chained to oars, so they couldn't fight, but that was in the Mediterranean Sea, and as I had been told that doesn't happened outside the Mediterranean Sea, so maybe in this case that 40 warriors were counting the oarsmen too.

    To assign a certain measure of a ship in XVI century is absolutely wrong, the normalization of sizes, types of ships etc didn't arrived to Spain until the end of XVIII that due to the fact to fight in line forced navy to standarize ships to make them able to fight together and maintain a regular size and power.

    Filipinas are an enormous group of islands wich make saling among inbetween or inside them through rivers very difficult to certain size of ships, so imagine a big galley inside a river sounds difficult to me, I better imagine a medium or small one able to enter anyplace, more if the goal of the expedition was to chase the pirates that obviously hide on difficult places.

    In fact, in the chronicle talks of several spanish ships and only one was able to enter the river, wich makes more sense to imagine a small vessel.

    So 40 against 1000, both round numbers just means for me a unbalanced fight, in wich one part was really outnumbered, and this happened often in the past if people are curious enough to read history, and doesn't happened to spanish only, to all countries, so think that couldn't happen is not scientific, but an opinion, so of no use.

    And next the 3rd part, sorry again :-P...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Last part...

    Samurais, ok, this was an expedition against japanese pirates, not samurais, why to use the samurais word then? Well, I can think of several reasons, the chronicle comes from the spanish side, so when a country talks about an stranger we all use to simplify, wether we are right or not, so name them samurais makes sense to me wether they were or not.
    Japanese pirates were well known in all this area during this period and after it, so place them here is absolutely easy, as far as exists several facts in wich Spaniards and japanese fighted, and japanese never won, in one or two occasions they came to Manila with the Dutch to try to take the capital and they were repelled by the garrison lower in number than the agressors.
    I love samurai movies too, but to think that a samurai was invincible was a nonsense and just idealized pseudo history. Read a little about japanese battles and you will see how they really fought and that the main japanese warrior was a spearman or archers, not Miyamoto Mushashi. A sword has little to do against a man with a spear, so let's be serious please.

    Returning to contradictions and so, do you know that the japanese pirates were named by several names? Wako, wakou and others, that the chinese named the spaniards as the “castillas” or other words, they simplified us as we all do with other nations due to our ignorance, wich doesn't means all the facts are wrong, just a wrong or generalized word.

    If you check on internet and search about wakos, japanese pirates you will find many descriptions of them and basically they were like pirates of any other place, wearing no matter what, usually light weapons, small vessels, and just attaking people that weren't professional soldiers, so that didn't gave them nothing extra when they had to face a professional habituated to fight in real fights not chasing peasants, so 40 soldiers well armed against people that just weared a sword and haven't any training in how to fight togeher seems to me really able to chase not 1000 but even the double if needed, we are talking about professionals against people that robbed, killed and violate people, not soldiers. If I get a katana I don't become a samurai I am just a man with a katana.

    Analize facts from the past from a actual position and being so simplistic is to have zero respect for history and no interest in find what could happen.

    To finish this, I repeat I don't try to start any argument, for me all opinions are interesting if they are well based, not just on a “ well I don't find that credible” that is not scientific what we can believe or not, takes time to read, investigate, think and try to make sense, and even like that we never will know what happened two days ago. Thanks to all for read.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I find that you have your own bias rooted so deep that you cannot even notice it. The Spanish Infantry ruled the World for 150 years. I reckon is Hard as it can be for you to acknowledge the fact that the Tercios were not defeated a single time during 150 years. The conquista of te aztec empire, the battle of Levantó and many other feats where the Spaniards were outnumbered and yet won.if it itches well...read about the counter Armada and other pirate named Drake

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find your own biases to be disturbing. Have you read the whole thing? Did I diminished the historical accomplishment of the Spanish empire in any way? No.
      I just debunked a chronicle of the period that has so many holes in it that it is ridicolous to see how much it has been circulating over the internet, with all the possible mannerism of distortion.

      Delete
    2. Right. . .
      If this isn't a whole lot of coping I don't know what is.
      Just makes me more confident "Gunsen" made a great analysis.

      Delete
    3. As for the conquista of the Aztec Empire, yes, spaniards were outnumbered.... good thing they had a huge ass number of natives who were, understandably, not too fond about the Aztec's little habit of hunting them down so that they could drag them on the top of a pyramid and gut them for whatever reason. Otherwise, they'd have died, as many soldiers, no matter how superbadass or hyped, do in unfavorable conditions. And honestly, I'll take Gunsen's "coping" over your silly fairy tales, a mark that, yes, the amount of things you don't know is truly staggering.

      Delete
  38. The Wikipedia Article lists more than two letters... In addition to the two you mentioned, there are:

    General Archive of the Indies, Philippines, file 6, bunch 2, number 60. Letter from the Governor of the Philippines to the Viceroy of México, 20 July 1583

    General Archive of the Indies, Philippines, file 74, bunch 1, number 24. Letter from Bishop of the Philippines to the King of Spain, 18 January 1583

    General Archive of the Indies, Council of the Indies, 339,L.1,F.286V-287R. Order to send men to the Philippines from Mexico, 14 June 1583

    General Archive of the Indies, Philippines, file 6, bunch 2, number 56. Letter from Gonzalo Ronquillo, Governor of the Philippines to the King of Spain, 16th of June 1582

    I'd advise that you find a way to access these letters somehow to verify their contents for yourself so you can either update this article (which also requires numerous grammatical
    and spelling revisions). Additionly, you ought to listen to the often-repeated calls to address your misunderstandings and conflations on ship types and possibly reword you needlessly pedantic misrepresntation of "40 (60) soldiers" as indended by the authors to include the crew, which nobody with any familiarity with naval history knew already.

    I also hope you'll publish your sources because you'll probably get nationalists all riled up if you don't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha....they've already gotten rild up as always... you really can't get anywhere with them. Honestly sounds fantastical when thinking about the event.

      Delete
  39. The Wikipedia Article lists more than two letters... In addition to the two you mentioned, there are:

    General Archive of the Indies, Philippines, file 6, bunch 2, number 60. Letter from the Governor of the Philippines to the Viceroy of México, 20 July 1583

    General Archive of the Indies, Philippines, file 74, bunch 1, number 24. Letter from Bishop of the Philippines to the King of Spain, 18 January 1583

    General Archive of the Indies, Council of the Indies, 339,L.1,F.286V-287R. Order to send men to the Philippines from Mexico, 14 June 1583

    General Archive of the Indies, Philippines, file 6, bunch 2, number 56. Letter from Gonzalo Ronquillo, Governor of the Philippines to the King of Spain, 16th of June 1582

    I'd advise that you find a way to access these letters somehow to verify their contents for yourself so you can either update this article (which also requires numerous grammatical
    and spelling revisions) or delete it and start from scratch.

    Additionly, you ought to listen to the often-repeated calls to address your misunderstandings and conflations. Specifically on ship types (Galleon = Galley, etc...) and possibly reword you needlessly pedantic misrepresntation of "40 (60) soldiers" as somehow indended by the authors to also include the crew... which nobody with any familiarity with naval history ever assumed.

    I understand that you may not consider yourself a scholarly source. But you're taken more seriously tha Wikipedia on this matter and so you should probably take some responsibility for that (in my opinion) unearned credibility.

    I also hope you'll publish your sources because you'll probably get these far more annoying nationalists all riled up if you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Did The TLAXCALTECAS PRESENT ON THE BATTLEFIELDS

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Masakari (鉞) - The Samurai's War Axe

Tate & Tedate (盾 & 手盾) - Japanese Shields

Yumi (弓) - The Japanese Bow

Sengoku Period Warfare: Part 1 - Army and Battle Formations

Tosei Gusoku (当世具足) - Body Coverage Explained

Wantō (湾刀): Early Curved Japanese Swords