Slitherine

Of course you prefer something better,

Whether that's historically accurate or not is a different matter.

Still we have nothing to judge it on as we can't see the mythical list.

OK, you again take all comments disagreeing with your list as personal attacks on you, they are not.

Those full-time cowboys must have all been John Wayne to ride down European pike & shot units, something that is not that common in Europe from better armed, and mptovated troops.

These sources you quote, cherry picked Portuguese accounts handed down and written as history ? No different to any other nation's accounts of their colonial history for certain, but how accurate are they ? As Napoleon said "History is a collection of lies agreed upon."

I do prefer the historical lists as researched by the authors, no matter how inaccurate you might think they are, they are not biased as you appear to be in the matter.

I'll ask again, is it true that these lists are valid in Portugal for tournament play despite only being play tested right now ? Or did I get the wrong impression from Jeff ?

Scrumpy wrote: I do prefer the historical lists as researched by the authors, no matter how inaccurate you might think they are, they are not biased as you appear to be in the matter.

I see... “no matter how inaccurate you might think they are”...
Let us see what Nick said regarding this particular “historical” list:

nikgaukroger wrote:Feel free to blame me. I have to confess that the list was based on fairly limited sources (I can't even recall what they were I'm afraid ) in rather a short time due to deadline pressure.

So much for the "historical accuracy" and the "research" involved in the lists you prefer to play with! But of course, I think the list is inaccurate because I'm biased. The fact that I have a small library on Portuguese colonial expansion and am not incumbered by "limited sources" (English sources, that is) counts for nothing. I should just stay quiet an accept what the authors tell me is accurate, even if the facts speak otherwise.

The sources which you also say are biased (as I also appear to be, but I'm the one who's taking this personaly, not you), well, those sources, unfortunately for you, are correct, even to the numbers involved such as the amount of Ottoman troops the Portuguese faced in the Indian Ocean (they even correspond to the figures of “marines” aboard the Ottoman galleys), etc.

So, once more, do you have data regarding the colonial Portuguese that contradict the existence of decent colonial cavalry, Tercios in Brazil, good quality troops, etc? That’s what I want do discuss here: informed opinion, not just baseless opinion.

If, however, you prefer to stick with the official Colonial Portuguese list, by all means, knock yourself out. But you’ll be playing fiction, not an historical game.

When it comes to it the Portuguese fighting any European army from non colonial lists is sheer fiction but then I am not a tournament player.

I would be more than happy if I had a bunch of colonials to fight the researched and ammended Portuguese list but they were not involved in the TYW/Deluge or any great European wars so they won't face any of my chaps.

gibby wrote:Of course you prefer something better,

Whether that's historically accurate or not is a different matter.

Still we have nothing to judge it on as we can't see the mythical list.

Like I said earlier, send me a private message with your email. I'll send you the list with the corrections proposed by Jeff.

Regarding the accuracy, in the following lines you'll find the necessary bibliography on this subject. I recomend that you read at least some of it.

Main references:

Barata, Manuel Themudo; Teixeira, Nuno Severiano (ed.). Nova História Militar de Portugal, Lisboa: Círculo de Leitores, 2004, vol. 2
Barros, João de. Da Ásia, Décadas, Lisboa: Regia Oficina Tipográfica, 1778. Biblioteca Nacional, scanned on-line edition
Boxer, Charles Ralph. O Império Marítimo Português 1415 - 1825; Lisboa: Edições 70, 1992
Castanhoso, Miguel de (not. Neves Águas). História das cousas que o mui esforçado capitão D. Cristóvão da Gama fez nos Reinos do Preste João com quatrocentos portugueses que consigo levou, Mem Martins: Publicações Europa-América, 1988
Costa, João Paulo Oliveira e; Rodrigues, Vítor Luís Gaspar. A Batalha dos Alcaides 1514. No apogeu da presença portuguesa em Marrocos; Lisboa: Tribuna da História, 2007
Couto, Dejanirah; Loureiro, Rui Manuel. Ormuz 1507 e 1622. Conquista e perda; Lisboa: Tribuna da História, 2007
Couto, Diogo. Da Ásia, Décadas, Lisboa: Regia Oficina Tipográfica, 1778. Biblioteca Nacional, scanned on-line edition
Coutinho, Lopo de Sousa. O primeiro cerco de Diu; Lisboa: Alfa - Biblioteca da Expansão Portuguesa nº 41, 1989
Daehnhardt, Rainer. Homens, Espadas e Tomates. Porto: Edições Nova Acrópole, 1996
Daehnhardt, Rainer. Espingarda feiticeira. A introdução da arma de fogo pelos Portugueses no Extremo Oriente/ The Bewitched gun. The introduction of the firearm in the Far East by the Portuguese . Lisboa: Texto Editora, 1994
Lemos, Jorge de. História dos cercos de Malaca, Lisboa: Biblioteca Nacional, 1982
Melo, Martim Afonso de. Regimento da Guerra in Provas da Historia Genealogica da Caza Real Portuguesa, 1744.
Monteiro, Saturnino. Batalhas e Combates da Marinha Portuguesa, Vol. II. Livraria Sá da Costa, 1ª Edição, 1991.
Mousinho, Manuel de Abreu (not. Maria Paula Caetano). Breve discurso em que se conta a conquista do Reino do Pegú na Índia Oriental, Mem Martins: Publicações Europa-América, 1990
Nuñez, Jose Maria Blanco. Reconquista da Bahia 1625. Portugueses e espanhóis na defesa do Brasil; Lisboa: Tribuna da História, 2006
Ribeiro, João. Fatalidade História da Ilha de Ceilão; Lisboa: Alfa - Biblioteca da Expansão Portuguesa nº 3, 1989
Sousa, Luís Costa e. Alcácer Quibir. Visão ou delírio de um rei; Lisboa: Tribuna da História, 2009
Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. Improvising Empire – Portuguese Trade and Settlement in the Bay of Bengal 1500-1700; Oxford University Press 1990
Zinadim ben Ali ben Ahmed (transl. David Lopes). História dos Portugueses no Malabar; Lisboa: Antígona, 1998

I'm with Scrumpy and Gibby in this debate. We seem to be discussing lists that not many of us have seen but which some feel are generous in the context of other armies.

Sources that are limited to Portuguese will always incur an element of "rose-tinted glasses" - after all it was Winston Chrchill who once famously said:-

"Of course history will be kind to me for I intend to write it!"

He also said "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"

This has been the longest debate on these forums and I for one am now bored with it - I do not intend to play tournements in Portugal so - Let's stick with the official list as written.

Don

nickdives wrote:When it comes to it the Portuguese fighting any European army from non colonial lists is sheer fiction but then I am not a tournament player.

I would be more than happy if I had a bunch of colonials to fight the researched and ammended Portuguese list but they were not involved in the TYW/Deluge or any great European wars so they won't face any of my chaps.

THAT, in my view, is the correct approach (I'm not a tournament fan either). That's why every colonial list should be tested against its natural foes. I did it vs the Indian (Muslims and Hindu) and the outcome was decent: the Portuguese foot had a certain advantage agains their foot opponents, but when facing cavalry in the open... well, you may imagine the outcome!
Curiously enough, the contemporary Portuguese feared the Indian cavalry for the exact same reasons: they simply couldn't stand up against them. But they surely could charge and destroy an entrenched enemy army, though.

quackstheking wrote:I'm with Scrumpy and Gibby in this debate. We seem to be discussing lists that not many of us have seen but which some feel are generous in the context of other armies.

Sources that are limited to Portuguese will always incur an element of "rose-tinted glasses"

They are not limited to Portuguese. Learn some other languages. An American (Jeff) has done it.

quackstheking wrote:He also said "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"

I agree. If someone gives evidence that something is incorrect and still people don't changing their minds, yes, they're fanatics.

Unless you were there how can you state that ANY history is accurate to 100% ? For all we know the Colonials exploits of any nation are nothing more than 16th & 17th century Viking sagas told around the fire to accompany drinking. As I said, nobody is going to tell the tale of 'nothing much happened', much better to have tales of daring do and swashbuckling adventure to get the blood going and keep the coins rolling in from the backers.



Sorry Pippo, you can play all the lists as you think they should be, but it is wrong to inflict them in tourney play on others.

And for the record, Jeff is a fluent Portuguese speaker. So I guess he could have read the same text as you in their original language.

Scrumpy wrote:Unless you were there how can you state that ANY history is accurate to 100% ? For all we know the Colonials exploits of any nation are nothing more than 16th & 17th century Viking sagas told around the fire to accompany drinking. As I said, nobody is going to tell the tale of 'nothing much happened', much better to have tales of daring do and swashbuckling adventure to get the blood going and keep the coins rolling in from the backers.

Scrumpy, you're not being reasonable. THE LIST IS INACCURATE! Period.
It ignores too many items the Portuguese had: it ignores cavalry and Tercios in Brazil; it ignores hand-picked, higher quality troops made of fidalgos and veterans; it ignores historical facts, dates and weaponry for which we have reliable data, confirmed by alternative sources. The authors simply didn't read enough on the subject, did the job presto and recognise it. And now you´re saying that what they've done is good and everything else - even if supported by sources - is wrong?
The fact that you consider colonial exploits as "ear-say Sagas" tells much about what you're saying: it's based on... well, nothing, really.

Scrumpy wrote:Sorry Pippo, you can play all the lists as you think they should be, but it is wrong to inflict them in tourney play on others.

I see, your problem is with tournaments. I'm sorry but I do not agree that we should play with lists that are proven to be incorrect. As I said earlier, I play historical games, not fantasy.

Scrumpy wrote:And for the record, Jeff is a fluent Portuguese speaker. So I guess he could have read the same text as you in their original language.

I know he´s a fluent speaker, and he also writes quite well, I might add (even if his wife corrects him here and there.) so sure he could read the textes in Portuguese, and probably he will, or at least I hope so. There are some online editions of João de Barros (at Google books), and I think of João Ribeiros and Miguel de Castanhoso as well. As for the rest, if he's interested and he can afford it, he can by some of the other stuff online. The books by Tribuna da História are good, even if too expensive for my taste.
Anyway, he can read Portuguese and maybe that's why he contacted me and as far as I was told, the only problem he found out was with the Civilized Indians, and I totally agree on that. As an American, he's not "biased" (as I seem to be), but we both agree that the official list is, lets say, poor.

pippohispano wrote:

quackstheking wrote:I'm with Scrumpy and Gibby in this debate. We seem to be discussing lists that not many of us have seen but which some feel are generous in the context of other armies.

Sources that are limited to Portuguese will always incur an element of "rose-tinted glasses"

They are not limited to Portuguese. Learn some other languages. An American (Jeff) has done it.

quackstheking wrote:He also said "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"

I agree. If someone gives evidence that something is incorrect and still people don't changing their minds, yes, they're fanatics.

I'm not sure whether I will be learning a new language to further my knowledge of Portuguese history, but here is another book for you to add to your collection:

Carnegie, Dale: How to Win Friends and Influence People, Simon and Schuster, 1936.

Every question raised has been savaged by you, usually in a fairly belligerent tone. I can't speak for others but I am actually on your side regarding the effectiveness of the colonial armies vs their native opponents. Personally I believe that the native armies are stronger than they were historically. Too many superiors, too few poors, too many swordsmen. But I question whether colonial > native is neccesarily the same as colonial = European or colonial > European.

Like it or not the colonial lists have to be seen in the context of the game as a whole which encompasses anachronistic conflicts. Renaissance is a less popular time period than Ancients so there will be perhaps fewer themed tournaments and more scope for 'fantasy' battles between non-historical opponents. Lists need to take this into account. They also need to take into account the quality of the opposition - see Scots Royalist. After all if you are just doing a 'friendly' match or a historical recreation there is really no need for lists.

Making Portuguese colonials musket, impact foot means you are saying that the Portuguese colonials were better at shooting than 17th century French. Is this the case? From my reading of the rules & lists, there seems to be a continuum from better shooting (more dice) to better at impact - from musket to musket*, impact foot to salvo. Presumably the idea being that if someone is charging in they won't get as many shots as their opponent just standing there for the most part.


Walter

I may not have your detailed knowledge of Portuguese history but in the context of these rules and the relationship to other lists, I don't see how this one could be sanctioned.

The Portuguese also suffered reverses and defeats to the dutch and the Ottomans and I like others think there is definately rose tinted specs being employed here.

One of the problems may be that we have rated natives to generously and this has knocked on to your outrage. Imagine my outrage when the famous Irish brigade of Montrose was Average. Surely if 1 Scots brigade was going to be Superior it would be them.

I mean, do we now have to re write the Dutch.

Many of the accounts I have read about the colonial past has been small action stuff, defending forts and ambushes. Or 800 dutch soldiers plus 10000 natives defeating 600 portuguese soldiers and 20000 natives or vice versa.

So yes I do have problems with masses of Portuguese being given superior status with no restrictions such as only one in three regiments can be superior. Yes I have a problem with Musket, Impact foot. These need to be Musket*, Impact foot. I think as a general rules concept units with a tactical doctrine of closing to close combat lose some shooting power and need to be Musket*.

gibby

At the moment I thank you for the source info but I do not have the time to go through it. Maybe one day I will have

waldo wrote:I'm not sure whether I will be learning a new language to further my knowledge of Portuguese history, but here is another book for you to add to your collection:

Carnegie, Dale: How to Win Friends and Influence People, Simon and Schuster, 1936.

It’s funny you should say that I’ve been agressive.
I came into this Forum to question an army list which is historicaly incorrect. That is a fact beyond “interpretation”, for there are too many documents and papers – many of them by moder historians - regarding what I’ve wrote.
But from the onset, I was challenged, not by people who know what they are talking about, but by people who are ignorant, who have no knowledge whatsoever on Portuguese military History. They have acused me, right from the start, of havig bias in favour of the Portuguese, although not only they can’t read the sources (probably they don’t know any other language besides English) but also don’t seem to care about knowing more. They didn’t even care to look at my proposed list. They have their own views of reality and whatever contradicts it is to be attacked.
Therefore, instead of staying quiet and trying to know a few more stuff, those people, in a very arrogant and insulting fashion, charged my with “bias”. But who are they to acuse me? They have no legitimacy whatsoever to charge me that way, for they simply don’t know what they are talking about.
What are you afraid of? Do you fear that, should the Colonial Portuguese be “that good”, then some armies which “are not supposed to be defeated” (Poles, Ottomans, etc.) whould be in trouble? Don’t be. The Colonial Portuguese have hard hitting infantry that can’t face cavalry.

gibby wrote:I may not have your detailed knowledge of Portuguese history but in the context of these rules and the relationship to other lists, I don't see how this one could be sanctioned.
The Portuguese also suffered reverses and defeats to the dutch and the Ottomans and I like others think there is definately rose tinted specs being employed here.

Yes they have, so has every army in the lists. Are those lists definately rose tinted as well?
The defeats against the Dutch in Brazil and Ceylon, or against the Turks in Aden and Abyssinia are well documented in contemporary “rose tinted” accounts who, by the way, are confirmed by other sources. For instance, Castanhoso, in his “rose tinted” account, refers that the Portuguese shot dead the Somali leader Ahmad “Grangn” in the battle of Wayna Daga. Interestingly, in several Ethiopian paintings, you can find the same event, like in here (look at the uper left corner where the Portuguese are shooting. They are the only ones with guns, the Ethiopians have swords), or here (botom row, again the Portuguese have their characteristic morrion helmets and arquebuses).
So, if even small details such as this one are confirmed by other, independant sources, what do you have to say about the full story?

gibby wrote: I mean, do we now have to re write the Dutch.
Many of the accounts I have read about the colonial past has been small action stuff, defending forts and ambushes. Or 800 dutch soldiers plus 10000 natives defeating 600 portuguese soldiers and 20000 natives or vice versa.

Those fights are described by João Ribeiro, just like other battles involving Portuguese vs Sinhalese, etc. I’ve reffered them in my posts and the reasons of those defeats, as well as their victories, form the basis of my analisys on the Portuguese soldiers’ characteristics and behaviour.

gibby wrote: So yes I do have problems with masses of Portuguese being given superior status with no restrictions such as only one in three regiments can be superior.

Do you have the same problem with the ETYW Swedish, who may have 1 elite Brigade, 3 Superior and 1 Superior commanded shot? Or with the Spanish who have several superior and elite LT? Or with the Catholic Germans who may have 3 Superior ET and 1 Superior LT? Or with the LTYW Germans who may even have superior LF(!)? Or with the LTYW Swedish who may have 3 Superior regiments + 12 bases of MF?… and so forth. And I’m not even counting with cavalry!

gibby wrote: Yes I have a problem with Musket, Impact foot. These need to be Musket*, Impact foot. I think as a general rules concept units with a tactical doctrine of closing to close combat lose some shooting power and need to be Musket*.

Interestingly, you don’t get bothered with the Arquebus, Impact foot. Why?
Nonetheless, the Portuguese kept their tacticts the same, no mather what weapon they used: a hail of bullets followed by a powerful charge.
So, should their abilities be reduced because they changed weapons, or because they just shouldn’t be that powerful, no matter if that doesn’t correspond to reality?

PS - Isn't that you the one who wanted to see the "mysterious" list? Where's the private message with your email so I may send you the file?

I think there can be little doubt about forces in the TYW and I am sure that the colonial Portuguese had some handy troops. I have not seen the colonial lists, but I do suspect that they are for much smaller armies that fought much smaller battles than were found in Europe at the time.

If a small force was full of good blokes who fought small battles then all is well and good. There will always be a problem when one trys to match them with an army who would normally fields 30 - 40000. Forget the points, I am not a competition gamer, as a point of intrest why not try a game with the Swedish Lutzen OOB and a Portuguese army of the size on which all of these lists are based. I do suspect that they may be slightly out numbered, and not by a bunch of natives but seasoned troops.

Gibby has a copy of the list, I sent him mine.

I like the argument toward historical accuracy but really do not want to get involved in a debate that I think we always will have a slight bias either way with. I want to focus rather on the classification of Musket, Impact foot. Now I have yet to play FOG:R so I don't know the exact stats (hopefully after the 21st I will be able to say for sure) but as far as I can see although the classification as Musket* might be historically inaccurate would it not possibly help for game balance.

In regards to the question of superiority, all I have read about the Portuguese indeed backs this...but... It does deal with especially small numbers. So how about 2 BGs of Musket (for the superiors I back this one)/Musket*, Impact Foot as Superior and the rest as average? Would this not serve to improve the portuguese substantially and still maintain some form of balance?

Duane

lonehorseman wrote:I like the argument toward historical accuracy but really do not want to get involved in a debate that I think we always will have a slight bias either way with. I want to focus rather on the classification of Musket, Impact foot. Now I have yet to play FOG:R so I don't know the exact stats (hopefully after the 21st I will be able to say for sure) but as far as I can see although the classification as Musket* might be historically inaccurate would it not possibly help for game balance.

In regards to the question of superiority, all I have read about the Portuguese indeed backs this...but... It does deal with especially small numbers. So how about 2 BGs of Musket (for the superiors I back this one)/Musket*, Impact Foot as Superior and the rest as average? Would this not serve to improve the portuguese substantially and still maintain some form of balance?

Duane

Duane, my proposal goes to just 3 Superior BG (up to 24 bases in all), which is nothing compared with the above mentioned lists (Swedes, Spanish, Germans, just to mention these...). The rest are ALL just Average. Mounted troops are almost nonexistant.
Now, will those Superior shooters defeat a LT? Perhaps. I already saw a similar BG of Janissaries (Superior, simply erase an elite (!) Early Tercio! But that's just a question of dice.
Perhaps people here don’t yet realise what the list looks like so in my next post I’ll try to describe, in general terms, what the list looks like.
Anyway, if you wish, send me a private message with your email in it and I'll send you the proposed list. I did with with Jeff and in general terms he was pleased with what he saw.

This is a summ of my proposed list for the Colonial Portuguese.

Fidalgos and veterans: from 6 to 24 bases – Warriors; Unarmoured; Superior; Crossbow (before 1540)/Arquebus (any date)/ Musket (from 1600); Impact Foot

Soldados: from 16 to 100 bases – Warriors; Unarmoured; Average; Crossbow (before 1540)/Arquebus (any date)/ Musket (from 1600); Impact Foot

Casados, topazes and freed slaves: from 0 to 24 bases – Warriors or LF; Unarmoured; Average/Poor; Arquebus

0 to 24 bases of:
“Civilized” Brazilian Indians: Warriors; Unarmoured; Average; ½ Bow*; Impact Foot; HW; ½ Bow*; Impact Foot OR ½ Arquebus ; Impact Foot; HW; ½ Impact Foot (tehy can also be turned into LF Bow or Arquebus)
And/or
Indian and Negro Terços (only in Brazil from 1645): MF; Unarmoured; Average/Poor; Musket; Impact Foot

Drunken black slaves (in Macau, 1622): 0 - 6 bases - Warriors; Unarmoured; Average; Impact Foot


Portuguese Terços (only in Brazil from 1625 to 1630): 2x Average LT OR the equivalent number of bases in pike&shot regiments

Cavalry (only in Brazil from 1645): 0-8 bases - Cavalry; Unarmoured; Average; Carbine; Swordmen

Portable artillery – up to 3 regimental guns

Artillery – up to 4: Light or Medium - 2,3 or 4; Heavy artillery – 2

Naval units – 0-1

Allies:
Indian allies (in India and Ceylon) – Hindu Indian
East African allies (only in East Africa) – Zanj or Horn of Africa
Tupi allies (only in Brazil) – Tupi - see FOGR Companion 6: Cities of Gold
Moluccan allies (only in Indonesia before 1606) – Indonesian or Malaccan


Special campaign: Bahia 1625
1 Neapolitan Average LT
Up to 2 Spanish LT (1 Average, 1 Superior)

Had my 2nd game against Jeff & his Portuguese today. Kicked the crap out of them with Weimarians !

Highlight had to be a disrupted & shot up dragoon unit charging some scummy light foot who evaded through a unit of fragged Fildagos. The Superiors than routed rather than face the might of my dragoons and flew through the evading lights leaving their backsides free to hit. 2 units routing off table !

Jeff used the Fildagos as m* if sw, which seemed to give a reasonable feel to the unit, although the problem seems to be with the Soldados arquebus armed impact foot sword types.

For my money they should just be impact foot & sword, arguing that the arquebus firing is taken into account with their charge. Otherwise we have to have an arquebus* type to reflect their lack of sustainable firepower.

Again, not certain why they get muskets a lot earlier than other nations seem to, I would have thought the colonial backwoods would be the last to get new technology.


According to your list, Jeff's version of using both Cav & Tercios is illegal as they don't overlap. I must admit an illegal version of a fantasy list is a new one on me

After two games I struggle to see how your list really adds much to improve the original list Pippo.