Silat and FMA

Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) and Silat both come from the maritime world of the Malay Archipelago and can be seen as related traditions. Some even describe them as sister arts. Influenced by trade, migration, and warfare, these martial arts developed in ways that are different but complementary. FMA focuses on smooth weapon movements, tactical flow, and precise blade control. Silat, on the other hand, emphasizes grounded body movement, deceptive footwork, and cultural philosophy. When studied together, they strengthen each other, helping practitioners improve their skills and gain a deeper understanding of Southeast Asia’s shared martial heritage.

Both Silat and FMA share roots in the culture of the Austronesian seafaring peoples. Long before modern nations existed, the ancestors of the Malay Archipelago carried blades, boats, and belief systems across islands and coasts. Their martial arts developed through this shared experience. Silat grew with ritualized movements, grounded stances, and clever entries, while FMA focused on weapon flow, angle awareness, and tactical techniques. These arts are not separate inventions but different expressions of the same ancient maritime warrior tradition.

At their core, Silat and FMA are both weapon-based systems. They were created from the use of knives, sticks, and swords. Empty-hand techniques are built on the principles of weapon movement, not the other way around. This makes the connection between Silat and FMA undeniable, and it shows why understanding weapons is essential to fully grasping either art.

The Srivijaya Empire, which flourished from the 7th to 13th centuries, was an important center of trade and culture in Southeast Asia. Evidence shows that Silat was practiced during this time, particularly in the Srivijaya kingdom in Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula. This early form of Silat laid the foundation for martial traditions that would develop later.

After the decline of Srivijaya, the Majapahit Empire rose in the 13th century, bringing much of the Indonesian archipelago under its rule. Silat reached its peak during this period. It was used not only for fighting but also to teach loyalty, discipline, and spiritual strength. Silat was part of military strategy and governance, showing its importance in shaping Southeast Asia’s culture and martial arts.

At the same time, the Philippine islands, connected through these same maritime networks, developed their own martial traditions that evolved into FMA. The movement of people and ideas across the seas allowed martial knowledge to spread, creating arts that, while different, share common principles rooted in the region’s maritime culture.

Silat and FMA are not separate traditions. They are deeply connected and reflect the shared heritage of Southeast Asia. Their common roots allow practitioners to improve their skills and understanding, linking culture, history, and martial arts in a meaningful way.

As for the question whether at that point of time their (the Filipinos) fighting art is already called silat or they go by another name?

My answer is that from what I’ve seen and know, the southern Philippines especially Mindanao silat exponent and masters (excluding eskrimadors), still use the term silat. They’re really part of the same cultural family as us if you look at the artifacts, history, and movement styles. In the northern and central Philippines, they use terms like kali, eskrima, and arnis for similar arts, likely because of Spanish influence and the knowledge that came with it. The Spanish added fencing elements to their weapons training, and later the Americans added boxing into the empty-hand techniques, which developed into panantukan basically boxing, kuntau, and silat without the flowery parts. 

In mainstream eskrima circles, silat is officially not seen as part of FMA (Filipino Martial Arts). This is clear in the views of many pro-colonial historians and practitioners. However, some Muslim practitioners in Mindanao were aware of this exclusion but still remained loyal to the Philippines, creating their own systems that combined FMA, kuntau, and silat.

Still, you can’t deny what Guro Dan Inosanto said: “We are all the same people; it’s just tribal ego that keeps us divided.” Senior silat practitioners who disagree with this can argue about it endlessly, but maybe they just haven’t seen the evidence yet.

Personally, I lean toward a unified Nusantara narrative and as a pesilat. (answers have been streamlined to observe grammar - slightly different from what I had typed in forum posting ) 

 

Nuances to consider:

  Silat as practiced in Mindanao is part of the “Malay world” martial system, sharing DNA with Malaysian Silat and Indonesian Pencak Silat, while adapting to local context.

  FMA’s claim of “ancient warrior arts” often does not acknowledge pre-colonial or Islamic influences in detail, partly due to nationalism and colonial narrative simplification.

 

In practice, FMA and Silat overlap significantly:

Stances, footwork (triangular), and weapon angles often align.

Kuntaw itself is a bridge art (Chinese Kuntao + Silat) that predates some organized FMA systems.

Personally in practice, It is not wise to say you can't put it together.    As long as its not a baseless knowledge.