Talk:Battle of Pandarane

Wrong Battle

Naval engagement? 17 large carracks? This article is confusing two separate encounters - the raid on Cranganore (Oct 1504), and the attack on the Egyptian transport fleet in Pandarane (Dec 1504).

Cranganore is in a silted channel of a lagoon that carracks cannot sail - as the chronicles clearly point out. There was a massive Portuguese-Cochinese amphibian raid on Cranganore ordered by Albergaria in October, to destroy the city, but that was all shallow boats. There was a Calicut armed force stationed there, but it wasn't particularly large. Indeed, the whole raid was designed as a pre-emptive strike to raze Cranganore and prevent it from becoming an assembly point for Calicut armies again (as it had been during the earlier Battle of Cochin). During the Cranganore raid, there was a brief and insignificant naval engagement outside the lagoon, around Palliport. But it was small fleet of 5 ships and 40 paraus, a futile hodge-podge sent from Calicut. There were no "large Turkish-style" carracks used there.

The encounter at the harbor of Pandarane, was a different thing. There were 17 large ships here - and it was indeed attacked by the numbers cited (2 caravels, 15 batels, 360 men). But these 17 "carracks" in Pandarane didn't belong to the Zamorin, nor were they warships; they were transports dispatched from Egypt to evacuate expatriate Arab merchants and their families back home. Albergaria attacked them for what he calculated was the plentiful personal belongings and treasures of the evacuating merchant families. Arabs lost 2,000 in the encounter (700 dead) (Calicut arms did not participate). Portuguese casualties were half their force - 23 men dead and 170 wounded. Unlike Cranganore, the attack on the Egyptian transport fleet had no strategic significance - indeed, Albergaria was advised against it, as his own fleet's carracks were heavily-loaded with spices and would be seriously endangered if the caravels and smaller ships were lost. But the prospect of plundering the rich families was too much to resist.

The Pandarane encounter is not dignified of the title of a "naval battle". It was a piratical attack on civilian transports. Walrasiad (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong battle?

Would you like to show some sources? According to a book called Homens, Espadas e Tomates, by German-Portuguese historian Rainer Daehnhardt the battle was a preemptive Portuguese attack on Cranganore while the fleet of the Zamorin (precisely with the numbers and ship types described) was being prepared. If you have source that say otherwise, please show them. --PortugalIV (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't know who Daenhardt is, but doesn't seem very reliable if he is contradicting all known chronicles and sources. Here goes the original Portuguese sources:

• João de Barros: Cranganore p.156, Pandarane p.163
• Damião de Góis: Cranganore p.130, Pandarane p.134
• Fernão Lopes de Castanheda : Cranganore p.271, Pandarane p.274
• Gaspar Correia: Cranganore: p.507, Pandarane p.510 (sets the latter in Tramapatam, but Correia is unreliable)
• Jerónimo Osório: Cranganore: p.318, Osorio omits Pandarane encounter
• Manuel de Faria e Sousa: Cranganore p.67, Pandarane ("Banane") p.68

Whom does Daenhardt cite? Walrasiad (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)