Colonial Portuguese – who made this list???

[pippohispano]

An army of 20.000 for any Decan Sultanate was only available in literature. Any time we have documentary evidence, the Indian armies, like Ottoman armies, are quite smaller than literary sources suggest. Mind that even in Europe we have this kind of inbalance between literary and documentary sources, medieval European armies are consistently put in the ten of thousands, while documentary records show them to be a few thousands at most.

Since I was refering to the sieges of Diu in 1538 and 1546, do you have elements to support that claim?

But lets imagine that it wasn't 20.000 but only 10.000. They would still outnumber the 400 Portuguese defenders (in Diu) 25:1. Did I say 10.000? No, lets imagine they were a mere 5.000 strong army! I guess these numbers would be avaiable and not only in literature. But with 5.000 men they would still outnumber the Portuguese 12:1...
The ratio between Turks and Christians at the Great Siege of Malta would be, at best, around 8:1 (48.000 Ottomans vs 6.100 defenders).

Oh, and by now the Indians had good artillery such as the 19 tons Gun of Diu (Peça de Diu, in Portuguese), now on display at the Military Museum in Lisbon (http://expressodalinha.blogspot.com/200 ... e-dio.html).

So, going back to business, the Colonial Portuguese list is ... lets just say, not very good. I say this because I know and read the sources. The list doesn't reflect the army its supposed to represent so it should be corrected. How would you do it?

[Aryaman]

There are other sieges with other sources that tell different stories about Portuguese performance, for instance in 1552 Piri Reis captured Muscat with just 850 men, and in 1622 a force of 5 armed merchants of the East Indian Company and 4.000 Persian infantry took Ormuz, defended by 1.000 Portuguese that surrendered after only a light resistance.
In all, I think we shouldn´t make Colonial Portuguese superior just because their self perceived superior performance in some battles

[pippohispano]

There are other sieges with other sources that tell different stories about Portuguese performance, for instance in 1552 Piri Reis captured Muscat with just 850 men, and in 1622 a force of 5 armed merchants of the East Indian Company and 4.000 Persian infantry took Ormuz, defended by 1.000 Portuguese that surrendered after only a light resistance.
In all, I think we shouldn´t make Colonial Portuguese superior just because their self perceived superior performance in some battles

Oh, really???

So, because the Portuguese lost battles they shouldn’t be superior… I see...

Well, in that case, no list in the universe of FOG rules should ever be superior or should have superior BG!
Should what you say make any sense, the Teutonic Knights should never be classified as Superior. After all, the battles of Lake Peipus and river Neva (not to mention the many defeats suffered at Lithuanian hands) clearly equals, or even surpasses, every Muscat or Ormuz that you may mention.

Should the French have Superior Knights? A certain Crecy and Agincourt tells us otherwise...

Why should the Ottoman Turks have Superior or Elite Janissaries when even these troops lost against the Maltese Knights, the Poles or even… the “Average” Portuguese (in Diu)?

The Spanish were utterly defeated in Tunis in 1574, not to mention that they never were able to defeat the Dutch. Should they have Superior Tercios then?

Why should some Hawaiian or Maori troops be considered Superior? Superior to whom?

And how about some "Household" Abyssinian cavalry that is considered Superior despite the fact that it didn’t proved to be so during the 1500’s?

What you say is absolutely nonsense.

The Portuguese superiority was just "self perceived" because they won "some battles"…
That, unfortunately, goes against the facts: they won a lot of battles and they did conquer - and held - too many places. If theirs was just a "self perceived" superiority, they wouldn’t have done it.

So, again, at least some of their BG should be classified as Superior: superior to their foes and better than average, because they were better. They should have a powerful charge with good close combat stamina, because that's how they fought, plus shot. That is not reflected in the list.

Therefore, the list must be changed, and I'm working on it.

[hazelbark]

pippohispano i fear your passion is overcoming your facts. You made what I think many believe is an excellent factual case. Even with that there can be a debate over what defines "superior" in game terms. The troops may have other advantages that compensate and still be classified average. That is not the debate you want to be drawn into.

Also it is a fair critique that many histories everywhere are written by the victors. That does not take away from your research, but can inform it.

I think you made incredibly excellent points and have encourage a lot of us to want to read more on portuguese colonial history.

Let's get a list that does two things:
1) fits in with the research.
2) fits in with the authors philosophy of not wanting non-european theater armies to be exccessively good.

We get to that point and then we can return to the issue of will the authors incorporate it as an errata item.

[pippohispano]

pippohispano i fear your passion is overcoming your facts. You made what I think many believe is an excellent factual case. Even with that there can be a debate over what defines "superior" in game terms. The troops may have other advantages that compensate and still be classified average. That is not the debate you want to be drawn into.

Fortunately I'm not THAT passionate when it comes to History (chauvinism and jingoism is definitely NOT my style), but I do like to find solid arguments. When someone tells me that a certain list should stay as it is because "those guys suffered some defeats", that's, to say the least, unlogical. I wouldn't like to be drawn to that sort of discussion but one has to draw a line. I believe I made my point.
Regarding the "superior vs average" debate, I see no advantages in the Colonial Portuguese troops that may compensate that (not to mention that I simply consider to be a bad classification to put them as Arquebus, Impact Foot, without Sword).

I think you made incredibly excellent points and have encourage a lot of us to want to read more on portuguese colonial history.

Let's get a list that does two things:
1) fits in with the research.
2) fits in with the authors philosophy of not wanting non-european theater armies to be exccessively good.

That's what I'm doing. The research is done full and full, and believe me, they will never be THAT good, if anything else, because they neither have cavalry nor pikes. It will be a bunch of Warriors, some Superior, most Average, and I think the best option and the one that better reflects that sort of troop would be either Salvo, Sword or the "impossible" Arquebus, Impact Foot, Sword.
And like I said before, you may do your bit and play some test games.

We get to that point and then we can return to the issue of will the authors incorporate it as an errata item.

They wont do it, at least until May, and I'm in no hurry. I prefer to have a good list before having a "quickly done" one.

Thanks

[Aryaman]

Ok, you will do your research and get your list done, however may I suggest that you don't rely exclusively on Portuguese sources? at least not when gauging their performance in battle

[pippohispano]

Ok, you will do your research and get your list done, however may I suggest that you don't rely exclusively on Portuguese sources? at least not when gauging their performance in battle

Sure! Just present me with viable non-Portuguese sorces.

For instance, regarding the veracity of souces (and numbers), when he writes about the 1510 battle of Calicut (a badly coordinated land attack which resulted in a Portuguese debacle), Zinadim, in his Tuhfat al-mujahidin fi Ba’d Ahual al-Burtukaliyyin, refers 500 Portuguese dead in the fight alone, plus many more drowned.
On the other hand, João de Barros, in his Décadas da Ásia II, book IV, 1st Chapter, puts the Portuguese casualties at 80 dead and 300 wounded.

Since the Portuguese forces consisted of two bodies of 800 men each (plus 600 Indians), if we accept Zinadim’s numbers, that would meant a staggering 30-50% dead, not to mention wounded, etc.! Considering the fact that afterwards, in that very same year, the Portuguese took Goa, I think we can discard Zinadim, which leaves us only João de Barros (a Portuguese source!), whose numbers (5% dead; 19% wounded) seem much more reasonable.

Another example: you refered the conquest of Muscat in 1552 as an example of the Portuguese "poor" performance. However, if you said that Piri Rais had 850 men (plus some galleys), you failed to mention that the Portuguese only had 128 men and no chance whatsoever of receiving reinforcements.

BTW, in his The Portuguese Seaborne Empire, CRBoxer considers that “both views [Portuguese and foes] are well represented by João Ribeiro's Fatalidade Histórica da Ilha de Ceilão” which happens to be one (and seemly viable) of my sources. Another one, (which I don't have, for the sake of my sins!) is Johann Jacob Saar's account of Ceylon, 1647-1657.

[Scrumpy]

Were the Portuguese killed, or did they just throw themselves to the ground a la Ronalado everytime someone was within 5 yards of them ??

[pippohispano]

Were the Portuguese killed, or did they just throw themselves to the ground a la Ronaldo everytime someone was within 5 yards of them ??

If we believe in Zinadim, I suppose the infidels (the Portuguese) died from sheer fear!

[Aryaman]

Ok, you will do your research and get your list done, however may I suggest that you don't rely exclusively on Portuguese sources? at least not when gauging their performance in battle

Sure! Just present me with viable non-Portuguese sorces.

For instance, regarding the veracity of souces (and numbers), when he writes about the 1510 battle of Calicut (a badly coordinated land attack which resulted in a Portuguese debacle), Zinadim, in his Tuhfat al-mujahidin fi Ba’d Ahual al-Burtukaliyyin, refers 500 Portuguese dead in the fight alone, plus many more drowned.
On the other hand, João de Barros, in his Décadas da Ásia II, book IV, 1st Chapter, puts the Portuguese casualties at 80 dead and 300 wounded.

Since the Portuguese forces consisted of two bodies of 800 men each (plus 600 Indians), if we accept Zinadim’s numbers, that would meant a staggering 30-50% dead, not to mention wounded, etc.! Considering the fact that afterwards, in that very same year, the Portuguese took Goa, I think we can discard Zinadim, which leaves us only João de Barros (a Portuguese source!), whose numbers (5% dead; 19% wounded) seem much more reasonable.

Another example: you refered the conquest of Muscat in 1552 as an example of the Portuguese "poor" performance. However, if you said that Piri Rais had 850 men (plus some galleys), you failed to mention that the Portuguese only had 128 men and no chance whatsoever of receiving reinforcements.

BTW, in his The Portuguese Seaborne Empire, CRBoxer considers that “both views [Portuguese and foes] are well represented by João Ribeiro's Fatalidade Histórica da Ilha de Ceilão” which happens to be one (and seemly viable) of my sources. Another one, (which I don't have, for the sake of my sins!) is Johann Jacob Saar's account of Ceylon, 1647-1657.

The example of the battle of Calicut is an excellent example of what I am saying, you can´t trust Zinadim on Portuguese casualties or total numbers, Barros is much more reliable on Portuguese numbers. Equally Zinadim would be more reliable on Indian numbers.

[pippohispano]

The example of the battle of Calicut is an excellent example of what I am saying, you can´t trust Zinadim on Portuguese casualties or total numbers, Barros is much more reliable on Portuguese numbers. Equally Zinadim would be more reliable on Indian numbers.

Not really. In Zinadim’s work, Muslim casualties are nimble on inexistent when they win and ignored when they loose, unless, of course, if there are civilian involved, in which case he exploits the gore.
Zinadim wasn't a real historian (unlike Couto ou Barros) and his work, which is, if fact, a Muslim call to arms, is full of jingoism and proselyte speech. One just needs to look at the title of his book to understand what I'm saying.

So, again: show me reliable non-Portuguese sources. I just need author's names, titles and issue dates (and if there are particular pages I should read, I need these ones as well)

[Aryaman]

I see, only Portuguese can have light casualties...

[pippohispano]

Aryaman, this has been fun but unless you have something relevant to say, such as presenting us some reliable sources, I guess we're done.

[Aryaman]

I haven´t done a research on the specific theme of Colonial Portuguese, and I don´t have time to do it, so no, I can´t supply you with alternative sources, it is up to you and your good judgement to make an historically correct but also well balanced list. Good Luck

[pippohispano]

Recent developments

Right now I'm concluding a Colonial Portuguese list which I intend to submit to the FOG Team.
It won't be a much feared "über army" - far from it! – but it will be a list much different from the current one.
It will include Tercios (in Brasil, at specific dates), a few Superior BG ("fidalgos" and veterans), and a couple of things more.

Stay tunned.

Best Regards,

[khurasan_miniatures]

pippohispano, how do you think the Colonial spanish models I posted pictures of yesterday will do to represent Portuguese?

[pippohispano]

Of course they can represent Portuguese, although…
One of the swordsmen looks a bit “oriental” (and you could have some more half-plate armoured guys, at least for the early period);
The Portuguese arquebuses didn’t really used that sort of matchlock but a schnapp-lunte lock that goes back-forth (i.e., the opposite of what you have, which is the most common sort of European lock).

Of course, bear in mind that everything that looks Hispanic is also Portuguese. After all, Portugal is part of Hispania – not Spain, but Hispania!. Fashion was pretty much the same, many Portuguese fought alongside the Spanish, there was a common heritage and culture, there was trade, matchmaking, etc.

So, my final conclusion is “yes, they fit as Portuguese”.

BTW, I've sent to the Warflag Yahoo Group some new Portuguese flags so I suppose that in a few days they will put them in the Warflag site.

[khurasan_miniatures]

One of the swordsmen looks a bit “oriental” (and you could have some more half-plate armoured guys, at least for the early period);

All of the models are straight out of Ian Heath's book, and he generally draws his imagery from period illustrations.

Which one do you mean?

Two of the swordsman models have plate armour on.

[pippohispano]

All of the models are straight out of Ian Heath's book, and he generally draws his imagery from period illustrations.

Which one do you mean?

I mean the second from the left.

BTW, please bear in mind that by late 16th century the Portuguese in Asia wore what they called calças bombachas, i.e., long, baggy trousers. You may see some pictures of these in Jan Huygen van Linschoten's "Itinerary" (aka "The voyage of John Huyghen van Linschoten to the East Indies"), or in some Namban Japanese art.

[khurasan_miniatures]

All of the models are straight out of Ian Heath's book, and he generally draws his imagery from period illustrations.

Which one do you mean?

I mean the second from the left.

Thanks for that, yes, that fellow is straight out of Heath's book. I'll get the plate number when I have the book in hand.