Joined Sep 2012
101 Posts | 2+
Salem, Oregon
Portuguese Goa in the 16th century?
- Thread starter SnowLeopardess
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 16th century goa portuguese
no
No, but I will respond to your thread to boost your self esteem.
I've always been fascistnated by the success of 16th century Spain and Portugal. They showed how far western arms had advanced (IMO medieval western armies were logistically flawed and overrated). I am not sure to what extent this had to do with fighting muslims; and to what extent western dominance was an effect and not a cause of the age of exploration.
Portugal conquered Goa in 1510 with the help of a pirate and the Vjjjjsdfds kingdom of southern India. But, I always wondered what the secret of Portuguese arms was that they could conquer Malacca and Goa and even negotiate a lease on Macau.
They're actually more impressive than the Spanish conquistadors because those guys were fighting some distinctly backwards places.
No, but I will respond to your thread to boost your self esteem.
I've always been fascistnated by the success of 16th century Spain and Portugal. They showed how far western arms had advanced (IMO medieval western armies were logistically flawed and overrated). I am not sure to what extent this had to do with fighting muslims; and to what extent western dominance was an effect and not a cause of the age of exploration.
Portugal conquered Goa in 1510 with the help of a pirate and the Vjjjjsdfds kingdom of southern India. But, I always wondered what the secret of Portuguese arms was that they could conquer Malacca and Goa and even negotiate a lease on Macau.
They're actually more impressive than the Spanish conquistadors because those guys were fighting some distinctly backwards places.
Joined Nov 2010
14,406 Posts | 4,143+
Cornwall
Last edited:
Speaking generally the factors which made Spain and Portugal (count as one as it was Castilla, Leon, Navarra, Aragon/Catalonia and Portugal until the Habsburgs appeared) suitable for such endeavors do include as you say, fighting muslims.
In effect the Peninsula had been on a 'frontier' footing for nearly 800 years or so, both with Muslim Kingdoms and other Christian kingdoms, and overseas conquest became just an extension for people raised on war and conquest. In the Americas indians were called 'moros' by the early conquistadors ( is a word for muslim or Moroccan in Spain but used to mean 'heathen'). The whole christian feudal system had been built around fighting and war.
Another factor was that second sons didn't inherit anything at all, so had to go and find fame and fortune, and the removal of the threat of Granada, combined with the large number of 'unemployed' 2nd-class noblemen, or Hidalgos, was a ready-made source of conquerors. The War of the Communities in the early 16th century, which the lesser nobles lost, was another factor which made them persona non grata, broke and keen to leave the Peninsula.
This combined with a bit of individual brilliance from both Spain and Portugal led to these successful colonisations. Portugal was of course free from muslim distractions much earlier than the rest of 'Spain', allowing them to focus outwards somewhat earlier
Joined Aug 2014
5,549 Posts | 582+
India
Last edited:
It was Vijayanagara Empire.
Portuguese did [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition]Goa Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
You can also read articles written by V. Sundaram on Goa Inquisition on online.
Joined Oct 2012
3,562 Posts | 807+
Z
The real advantage of the Portuguese was in their navy, not in their arms. The Portuguese had no great superiority in arms during the 16th century, neither compared to their European counterparts nor to many non-European powers. The Deccan region of South India produced some of the best matchlocks and cannons in the world according to the Portuguese themselves, and Afonso de Albuquerque sent copies of Deccani matchlocks back home to Portugal in 1513. These were probably reverse-engineered and their technology incorporated into Portuguese arsenals. We know that in Goa itself, at least, the "Portuguese" guns that were produced at the local arsenal should be better referred to as "Deccano-Portuguese" guns.
I would not overrate this episode. The Sultanate of Delhi, the largest military power on the subcontinent, was easily overwhelmed by Babur's firepower at Panipat which was modest compared to what any central or western European army could muster at the time.
Moreover, Manueline Portugal is considered by modern military historians to be only a second tier producer of arms, dependent on arms and technology transfer from Germany and other hubs of production.
After da Gama's landfall, we are basically talking about a situation where a second-class European military power by any means wiped the floor with Asian's finest maritime powers in most encounters.
Joined Oct 2012
3,562 Posts | 807+
Z
You appear to be ignorant of basic geography and history. I was talking specifically about the Deccan region and not the Indian subcontinent as a whole. The term "Deccan" refers to a landmass south of the Vindhya mountains, north of the Mysore plateau, and in between the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal; this landmass overlaps with the northernmost parts of what is called "South India". The Delhi Sultanate had no bearing on Deccani political, military, or technological history since the mid-14th century, and by the early 16th century was technologically behind every major power in the Deccan. It was also by no means the "largest military power" on the subcontinent at the time of the First Battle of Panipat; even Babur himself states in his memoirs that Vijayanagar in South India was the most powerful Indian state.
Joined Jun 2014
4,516 Posts | 85+
India
Last edited:
Sultanate of Delhi was ruled by Lodis who had no idea as to what guns and firepower were, almost similar like Safavids in battle of Chaldiran. Lodis were weak and twice defeated by Rana Sanga. Babur himself regards Rana Sanga as more dangerous adversary as do his soldiers and other Turkic Officers( some even advised to return when a contingent of 1500 horsemen were cut to pieces by Rajputs). Even then, Rana had no idea on guns and was crushed by Babur.
I do not deny that Indian subcontinent was behind both East Asia and Europe in firepower, though atleast in South India, guns were used much earlier than in Persia and Mamluk kingdom.
Joined Jun 2014
4,516 Posts | 85+
India
I think that Deccanis used their age old expertise in metalworks to good effect while manufacturing guns. Cooper in his book on Marathas quotes how even Arthur Wellesley wrote in early 1800s that some bronze guns of Marathas were finest he had ever seen in his life.
Joined Apr 2014
825 Posts | 1+
Matrix
Small wonder since he had defeated himself the most powerful Indian state by this time.
This is an ancillary question, but I am not sure if this is true. Firm evidence of the presence of cannon and firearms on the Indian subcontinent only emerges in the midst of the 15th century.
Joined Oct 2012
3,562 Posts | 807+
Z
Spare us your vast wisdom. He wrote those lines while explicitly all comparing all kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent, including the former Delhi Sultanate (before he destroyed it). Even the Kingdom of Mewar was more powerful than Delhi, as also indicated by the same account.
The Delhi Sultanate was not the "most powerful state in the Indian subcontinent" since the 14th century.
Could you be so kind to cite the lines. Babur wrote his memoirs AFTER his conquest of the Delhi Sultanate, in his last years.
Ajanbahu, you seem to be right about the temporal order. Guns were later introduced in Persia than in India:
Joined Jun 2013
1,445 Posts | 18+
Mundo Nuevo
The Portuguese "wiped the floor" by getting utterly crushed and massacred by Ming China. They surely wiped themselves off the floor.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tunmen]Battle of Tunmen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xicaowan]Battle of Xicaowan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Ningbo massacre (1542) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ningpo_massacre]Ningpo massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Its hilarious how you described a bunch of pirates, rapists, slave traders and thieves as "traders".
I didn't know it was a traders profession to ...., kidnap, steal, loot, and murder. Multiple European accounts say that the Portuguese "traders" deserved what they got. Raping, kidnapping, murdering, and looting tends to invite "savage brutality" in retaliation.
In the 17th century, a group of desert dwelling Bedouin Arab Ibadi nomads from Oman, who never operated a ship in their life before, founded the Ya'ribah Imamate, expelled the Portuguese from Muscat, inflicted multiple humiliating naval defeats on the Portuguese as far as India, and chased the Portuguese to East Africa and expelled the Portuguese from the entire Swahili coast from Kenya to Tanzania after besieging the Portuguese forts one by one.
A group of Arab Bedouin nomads with zero maritime traditions, single handedly manhandled Portugal at both maritime and siege warfare.
But actually that is not a suprise. Arab Bedouin nomads have been man handleling Iberians ever since their conquest in 711 of Spain and Portugal.
I agree the weapons technologically of the Porteguese significantly more advanced, not enough to give them any kind of decissive edge in battle, except maybe for ship technologically, and even then, any advantage the Prteguese might have had could be overcome by numbers, better leadership, etc. overcome numbers
However, while the guns of India were of excellent quality, but didn't dispaly any particular technological innovation. For example, while India was prefecting matchlocks, Europeans were going on to develop wheel locks and flint locks. While Asians were started making huge cannon after the Europeans, Europeans had already discovered that smaller medium sized cannons were a better bet, being more versatile and easier to transport, and had switched to somewhat smaller guns.
That is pretty much the pattern we see - India craftsmans made excellent product, but their innovation was less. Indians may have made improvements on existing designs, but Europeans came up with major new desgins. (Tipu's rockets weren't really a major innovation, they didn't signicantly change warfare like the matchlock and flint locks did. In a 500 year period ). India built excellent ships for the British, to European designs, but didn't come up with their own major improvements, nothing to match the fast clipper ships, or copper plating hulls, etc.
Mighty Ming who massacred a few traders?
The "battle" of Tunmen is so insignificant an enounter that it only passed the relevance criteria in the permissive English Wikipedia where it was anyway likely written up by Chinese nationalists to bolster their bruised pride.
Joined Oct 2012
3,562 Posts | 807+
Z
Why do you even bother discussing things you have no clue about? Babur wrote his memoirs in the past tense, and takes the reader through his conquests. In Section B of his chapter "Description of Hindustan" (pp.481-84 in the version edited by Annette Susannah Beveridge), he describes the major powers of India as they existed at the time of his invasion of India. Babur indicates that there were five Muslim powers (Delhi, Gujarat, Bahmanis, Bengal, Malwa) and two Hindu powers (Vijayanagar and Mewar). He explicitly states that Vijayanagar was the strongest:
Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=A...g#v=onepage&q="the Raja of Bijanagar"&f=false
What is YOUR basis for asserting that the Sultanate of Delhi in the early 16th century was "the most powerful state in the Indian Subcontinent"?
Where? Please cite the primary source, not a secondary one. How does the modern author know that Babur referred to entire India and not just the Hindu-ruled states as "Hindustan"? Why should he subsume the Delhi Sultanate that had been for centuries a Muslim kingdom under "Hindustan"? This does not match well with the aristocratism of medieval rulers who defined the ethnicity of their enemies by the ethnicity of the elite and the army, and not the rightless peasant masses.
It is not rocket science. The Delhi sultanate controlled the Ganges plain which, apart from the politically fragmented Indus valley, has always been the most populous and fertile region, and thus offered the largest tax base, and had been traditionally the hub of the largest Indian empires for this reason.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-