Although Antonio Pigafetta and Gines de Mafra are both eyewitnesses to the said events for they were

part of the voyage, their accounts differ in so many ways. There are some uncertainties in the
information and a lot of misconceptions arise from both perspectives, we cannot say whose account tells
unbiased and the real happenings in the First Voyage of Magellan.

The first issue in their accounts is the first encounter in Homonhon, where Pigaffeta stated that they
meet and exchange goods, while in Mafra's account, it was stated that Magellan sent a boat to the shore
for them to observe the nature of the island. Their accounts of the blood compact in Limasawa also
differ from those involved in the events. In the conversion of the Cebuanos, Mafra's account forgot to
mention some of the persons involved that were mentioned in the account of Pigaffeta. In the battle of
Mactan, their statements are not the same. Just like in the number of Mactanons, the number of
Magellan's soldiers who went to battle, and how many survived. We cannot tell which account is the
truth since there are no other written documents that would break this controversy. Their testimonies
must be prone to biases which is why there are inconsistencies and that is the main issue in the
selection.

Reading the two versions gives insight into the said event. I realized that even though there are some
uncertainties in the information brought by the authors, there was certainly acceptance and resistance
to foreign contact with the natives of the island. I discovered that Filipinos are hospitable, and they
warmly accepted Magellan’s group. On the other hand, I also learned that not all Filipinos before will just
follow the command of foreign people and that includes Lapu-Lapu the reason for Magellan's death. The
different testimonies give a wider perspective on what happened during that historic event. The account
of Gines de Mafra is lacking pieces of information in his account. Although he was considered a first-
hand witness since he was a part of the said voyage. But the account of Pigaffeta is more clear and more
detailed than Mafra's account. Also, most of Pigaffeta's statements were used by Historians since they
believed that it is credible. So, for me, Antonio's account is more believable than Mafra's.