Talk:Ottoman–Portuguese confrontations

War?

Portugal has never been at war with Turkey, the story reports conflicts between the two nations is not the same as war.Zorglub-PRV (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE

The so-called Turkish-Portuguese Conflicts and Turkish-Portuguese Wars do not exist in Portuguese historiography. At a time when the Portuguese were engaging a multitude of enemies on various fronts - from Morocco (the "Moors") and Brazil (the French) to East Africa (the Omani) and India and South East Asia (a plethora of Indian and South East Asian kingdoms) - the Turks were merely yet another adversary, although the conquerors of Constantinople and Rhodes perhaps were perceived as worthier opponents than most. Thus, the conflicts that opposed them to the Portuguese were seen as part of a greater system of conflicts that involved a web of alliances along the Indian Ocean, where the Turks, the Persians, the Mughals, the Portuguese, and scores of lesser kingdoms all fought - some for hegemony, others for survival.

In his 8-volume work Batalhas e Combates da Marinha Portuguesa (Battles and combats of the Portuguese Navy (Lisbon, Livraria Sá da Costa Editora 1989-1994)), Capitão-de-Mar-e-Guerra (equivalent to a Royal Navy or USN Captain, NATO rank code OF-5) Saturnino Monteiro, a former teacher at the Escola Naval of the Portuguese Navy, describes more than three hundred combats in the Indian Ocean alone in vols. I-IV, which cover the period up to the 16th century. Of these, only a handful involve Turkish fleets - notably the Battle of Diu (1509), the expedition of viceroy Estêvão da Gama to the Red Sea (1541), the battle of the galleys in the Gulf of Oman (1552), and a couple more (the two sieges of Diu are not included, as they did not involve the navy). It follows that from the Portuguese perspective it makes no sense to speak of the periods 1538-1557, 1558-1563 and 1580-1589 in separate, as the Wikipedia articles do, since the fighting against the Turks was an ongoing, albeit very sporadic, conflict.

Generally speaking, the Turks were no serious threat to the Portuguese presence in the Indian Ocean, and to claim that the result of a so-called war was a draw - as is made in the article regarding the so-called "third Turkish-Portuguese war (1558-1566)" - is erroneous and utterly misleading. The Turks were never able to disrupt the Portuguese trade system in the Arabian Sea. In fact, after the Battle of Diu of 1509 their influence in the region was negligible for twenty years, and after the two sieges of Diu in 1538 and 1545 their influence was again quite modest. To state that the Ottoman fleet in the conflict mentioned above "attacked and plundered Portuguese ships, fortifications and settlements" exaggerates its importance; nearly every year, somewhere from Zanzibar to Malacca and beyond, the Portuguese had to face one or several enemy fleets belonging to old enemies or rebellious allies; the conflicts with the Turks were yet another, and were dealt with as such.

The Portuguese of the 16th century had a saying that they could not successfully venture into the Red Sea (alluding to a couple of failed expeditions), while the Turks similarly could not successfully sail into the Arabian Sea; the first was a Turkish lake, the second a Portuguese sea. As stated earlier, the so-called Turkish-Portuguese Conflicts have received no special treatment in Portuguese historiography, as they are part of a much larger and more complex series of conflicts from the Portuguese point of view. While not entirely fair to the two sieges of Diu, which posed a serious threat to that important port city, the above mentioned saying correctly sums up the situation regarding the Turkish presence in the Indian Ocean in the 16th century. Pedro de Quintanilha e Mendonça (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• All this is truth, but the Turkish history refers to the conflicts with Portugal as war, and these conflicts are mentioned in the history of Portugal, so the article has reason to exist. Zorglub-PRV (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• However I agree that the version of the Portuguese wiki is more accurate than this and as such this one should be amended accordingly. Zorglub-PRV (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese massacres

I'm not sure if it is anti-Arabism per se or just anti-Islam, since Portugal came out from under Muslim rule and developed a very strong anti-Islamic sentiment. They seemed to have deliberately seperated Arabs from others in their Indian Ocean campaigns for brutal treatment, eventually the Arabs drove the Portuguese out.

Portuguese massacres of Arabs

• In Malacca: [1] ; [2] ; [3] ; [4] ; [5] ; [6] ; [7] ; [8] ; [9] ; [10] ; [11] ; [12] ; [13] ; [14] ; [15] ; [16] ; [17] ; [18] ; [19] ; [20] ; [21] ; [22] ; [23] ; [24] ; [25] ;
• In East Africa: [26]; [27]
• In Arabia: [28]; [29]
• In Muscat: [30] ; [31]
• In India: [32]

03:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I am certain there was a component of anti-Muslim sentiment. There was also just plain greed, they wanted to push out Arab traders.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

§ This article is about Portuguese-Ottoman war. Ethnic matters should be considered in another article. SirPortuga (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

First World Power Statement

I received the following message: I appreciate your edits in my article, but the bit where I state that Portugal was the first world power is a consensus among scholars, and it supports how the Portuguese defeated the Ottomans. Also, you edit the quotations from the author Charles Boxer at the bottom of you edition. Could you undo those? SirPortuga (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirPortuga (talk • contribs) 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I think SirPortuga is offering a sincere opinion. I would like some input from other authors. I am always hesitant to label something the "largest", "best", "first" , or "most important". I mean, why don't we call the Macedonian Kingdom of Alexandria the first World Power, or the Romans, or the Early Arabic Caliphate, or China, etc. I am not saying that Portugal was not a world power, I object to stating that the consensus among scholars is that it was the "first world power".

With regard to the edits of Boxer, I thought the paragraph had some redundancy, and would like to limit quotes to circumstances in which the exact words matter. My recommendation is to ask other editors that have edited this and other relevant articles to become involved. I did my bit.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Portugal as the First World Power

Since the discussion here is really valid, I would like to clarify the point in the article were the Portuguese is cited as the First World Power. Firstly, those are the statements from renowned academic authors, not personal. Differently from Persia, Rome, Greece and China the Portuguese influenced the politics and lives of people from every continent, during the 16th century. One of the references cited in the article is G. Modelski that explains what qualifies a Global Power: "At the same time this would also give them monopoly control over global politics. The command of the sea was acquired in a global war and once acquired, laid the foundations for a new world order defined at the close of that war." He goes on in the Chapter 7, p. 174, of the same book saying: "Was Portugal then the first world power? The answer is yes, it most certainly was, and most strikingly so in the first four decades after 1500. It was the first and, until about 1540, the only powerfully active on the world ocean. It was the leader of the age of discoveries, and also the leader in the evolution of the three most important types of ship that dominated the age of discoveries: the caravel, the Great Ship, and the galleon. Moreover, until about 1540, it also had a preponderant numerical share of such major oceanic ships and deployed them in a manner calculated to maintain the command of the sea in crucial areas."

The English historian, Roger Crowley, 2015, confirms that in his Book "Conquerors - How Portugal Forged the First Global Empire."

Another English author, Charles Boxer, says that the 'Portuguese dominated a part of the world and commerce superior to any other country"

The historians Karen Hasler and William R. THompson also shares the same view: "Moreover, we use the same information base to objectively identify when one global power has achieved something approximating a monopoly position (50 percent or more of the global reach capabilities) and thereby earning the designation of “world power” to indicate its distinctive leading position." They conclude: "Only four global powers have qualified as world powers: Portugal, the Netherlands, Britain, and the United States."

The American historian Anthony W. Marx, says that "The Iberian powers were first to emerge on the world scene, primarily as traders rather than as settlers or colonialists. Such early expansion brought Portugal to the fore with all of the strengths and weaknesses of a global power just emerging from feudalism.

Asiatic scholars like Tai-hoon Kim,Hojjat Adeli,Hyun-seob Cho at all also puts Portugal as the "First World Superpower" explaining it in the Chapter 'Hegemonic Power and Technology Advancement' of their 2011 conference: "The first superpower in modern history was Portugal. Growing out of the middle ages, a period of decline for almost one thousand years, Portugal was a the first nation that spearheaded the Age of Discovery and dominated the world from about 1494 on".

Finally, The scholar Richard J. Ellings claims: "Portugal's fifteenth and sixteenth century empire was the first of truly global reach."

I hope those sources can help you to conlude that Portugal was indeed the First World Power. SirPortuga (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Why wasn't Spain the First world power?Rococo1700 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rococo1700 not really, because as you could see in the sources, Portugal began the Age of Empires almost 100 years before Spain. SirPortuga (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirPortuga (talk • contribs) 12:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Rococo1700 Do we have an agreement now, mate? SirPortuga (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Move

I won't deny the effort SirPortuga has put into this page... However, two other perfectly valid pages detailing very specific time-periods of encounters between the Portuguese and Turks were completely thrown out of the window to be merged in this one, and all information with them.

Furthermore, there was not "The" Portuguese-Ottoman War, the Portuguese and Turks fought undeclaredly on several occasions throughout a long period of time, but particularly between the years 1538-1559 and 1580-89 but now there's no information at all regarding what exactly happened between the two empires at those critical times. There's only vague notions of military concept, like seapower, etc, without going into actual detail ("in 1538 that happened"). I don't think there was reason to discard the Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1538–1559) and Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1580–1589) pages for this one, instead of improving those individually.

In my opinion they should either be revived at the expense of this one, or the title of the page should be changed to "Portuguese-Ottoman conflicts" and all discarded information put back here.

Also, many of the battles listed in the table hadn't the participation of the Ottoman or Portuguese Empires, or even the attendance of a single Turk or Portuguese in them! Such as Cannanore 1506, Diu 1509, Goa 1510, Diu 1546, Mazagan 1562, Lepanto 1571, Preveza 1538, Alcácer-Quibir 1579 etc. Crenelator (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Crenalator, I appreciate your comment. But let me explain the changes a bit better.

1) The title Portuguese-Ottoman War: have you checked the very first sources in the intro? The term Ottoman-Portuguese War/Conflict are interchangeable and many authors recognize that there was indeed a war between both powers, since they battled for the whole of the 16th century. The Portuguese and Ottomans are even labeled as "main rivals" in the 16th century.

2) Have you seen the pages Ottoman-Portuguese Conflicts you mentioned? They were really vague, with no valid sources. Don't you think is a bit messy to have 3 pages concerning the same period of the 16th century? Here, I covered every known battle fought by Portuguese and Ottomans, in the Table of Battles.

3) Now, concerning the Portuguese/Ottoman participation in the Table of Battles I can assure you that they really fought in every battle mentioned. Please just read carefully the sources and you'll see the Portuguese and Ottomans/Turks mentioned there. If you still have problems to see their involvement just let me know and I'll cite the authors confirming their participation on the battles you mentioned above. SirPortuga (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

SirPortuga, I thank you for the time you have taken into answering my question.

1) I have checked the sources, but they don't serve as a particular resolution to this issue. There was no well-defined period starting with a declaration of war and the signing of a peace treaty to call it "a" war, singular. I did not propose to change the name to Portuguese-Ottoman Conflict, but to Portuguese-Ottoman Conflicts, plural, since there were several periods of undeclared fighting between the Portuguese and Ottomans, typical of colonial warfare, more or less sporadic, throughout a very long period of time.

2) No, here you have not covered anything at all that happened. Why did the Ottomans send an expedition to Diu in 1538? Why did the Portuguese and Turks intervene in the Ethiopian-Adal War? What happened when the Turks sent several armadas to fight the Portuguese in Hormuz in 1552, 1553 and 1554? Regardless of all the sources, this page is actually much more vague. Therefore, I do not think there was any reason to discard those pages, because they served the purpose of explaining why the Portuguese and Ottomans went into confrontation with each other at those separate times for specific reasons. If they lacked valid sources they should simply have been added there, with the explanation of why the Portuguese and Ottomans were fighting at that particular time and place.

3) And I can assure they really did not. No matter what way you put it, there was no Portuguese participation in the battles of Preveza or Lepanto, nor was there any participation of the Ottoman Empire in the Battle of Diu, the Conquest of Goa, the Siege of Diu 1546, the Siege of Mazagan or the Battle of Alcácer Quibir. If a source says they did, it is simply not in accordance with the primary evidence. There is just a lot of confusion. Crenelator (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Crenalator, I'm glad we are having a respectful debate here. Let's go straight to the point though:

1) Ottoman-Portuguese War: Casale, 2008, says: "During the decades that followed, the Ottomans became progressively more engaged in the affairs of this vast and previously unfamiliar region, eventually to the point of launching a systematic ideological, military and commercial challenge to the Portuguese Empire, their main rival for control of the lucrative trade routes of maritime Asia." https://books.google.com.br/books?id=Xf3h3Z1YQtIC&dq=ottomans+portuguese+treaty&hl=pt-BR&source=gbs_navlinks_s

• The historian R.G Grant, 2010, puts the Battle of Diu (1509) in the Portuguese-Ottoman War category. See the description of the first book in the Google Books page here https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&ei=yTTSWp_uCYyOwgSgnJHQCw&q=1+n+PORTUGUESE%E2%80%94OTTOMAN+WAR+DIU+Date+February+1509&oq=1+n+PORTUGUESE%E2%80%94OTTOMAN+WAR+DIU+Date+February+1509&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10151.10151.0.10812.1.1.0.0.0.0.133.133.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.ox7z59lknuc

• As for the primary sources for the war, I invite you to visit the State Archives of the Torre do Tombo, in Lisbon, to see the vast amount of documents concerning the Ottoman-Portuguese conflict. But in case you can't see it yourself, you can see the study of The Indian historian, Suraiya Faroqhi, 1999, about those primary sources confirming the Ottoman-Portuguese Conflict (singular), here is the link https://books.google.com.br/books?id=pjfZ8CxxMyoC&pg=PA68&dq=ottoman-portuguese+conflict&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY1YTSj7raAhUBnJAKHSWJD1QQ6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q=ottoman-portuguese%20conflict&f=false

2) As far as I am concerned the sources presented should speak for themselves, they are from the most respected universities in the world. So, I didn't feel the need to discuss all the battles in the article since the academic sources presented already does that. So, anyone can click and see the battles for themselves. But I like your tip and in the future I shall discuss each and every battle in the article.

3) Again, The Ottoman/Portuguese participation in every battle mentioned in the article is proved by the vast ammount of articles presented there, so, please, check them carefully again. Once more, I refer to the Torre do Tombo State Archives at Lisbon for more information. But, if you can prove (with valid sources) that the Portuguese and Ottomans didn't fight in the battles you mentioned, I'll be glad to listen to you. Otherwise, I don't think we should carry on with this matter. SirPortuga (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

SirPortuga I appreciate all your advice, but resorting to the national archives will not be necessary, nor would I feel like dropping the matter at your disposition. I have noticed you use a lot of English authors and sources, but no Portuguese, which is a big flaw, since the English language may not be as up to date as the research conducted in Portugal regarding it's own history, which is only natural. Even if the most respected university in the world said the Turks fought at the Battle of Waterloo, it would not automatically make it so, unless we analyse the evidence critically (if it exists), instead of merely accepting it as true, since everyone makes mistakes. Furthermore, we are not discussing what individual authors called the matter, but wether it's an approppriate name for an article in Wikipedia. And since there were infact several, disparate, instances of fighting betwen the Turks and Portuguese, between the 16th century all the way to the 18th, calling it all by one single name and in the singular is not very sensible.

Otherwise, if you instead would care to inspect the subject more deeply (I suspect you haven't, if you think the Portuguese participated in the Battle of Lepanto), resorting to both English and Portuguese works, I'm certain you will realize my point of view. In the meantime, if you wish to maintain such a discussion, feel free to message me in my talk page. Crenelator (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Crenelator, I'm impressed on how uninformed you are concerning this matter here. You are saying there is no Ottoman/Portuguese participation in the Battle of Preveza, Battle of Diu, The sieges of Diu, Conquest of Goa...sorry buddy, but you are just talking and presenting nothing to the discussion. What valid argument have you stated since the beginning? Are you a self proclaimed scholar? I just see your words here. I hope someone else shows up here and reflects better on everything.

But I'll try one last time, since I'm really the only one showing evidences here. By the way, I'm still waiting to apreciate your contribution to the matter, proving your points, because until now, you showed nothing. Also, you are sadly neglecting english sources just because they are in English, which is really strange and uncommom. The English historians I mentioned studied in universities of Portugal, searched in our archives, were helped by Portuguese scholars; how can you simple deny their work without providing solid ground yourself?

Sorry for my sincerity. I tried to avoid Portuguese sources because I frequently see people saying they are biased towards their own history. But if you insist, here it goes:

In the Conquest of Goa, Afonso de Albuquerque, in his letters to the King says: “Se Vossa Alteza agora, ou em qualquer tempo que for, deixar Goa aos turcos, (digo que) Nosso Senhor quer que as cousas da Índia se acabem…” Comentários: parte III, cap. LVI.

The Portuguese Colonel PilAv (in Revista Militar) João José Brandão Ferreira says that in the Conquest of Goa: "A 10 de Setembro, partiu AA com 16 velas para Cananor e Goa. AA começou por cercar a fortaleza de Benastarim que o Hidalcão guarnecera com 6.000 homens de armas comandados por um dos seus melhores generais, Roçalcão, e muita artilharia. Roçalcão acabou por se render após ter sido batido em campo aberto e a fortaleza derrubada pela artilharia. Afonso de Albuquerque ditou as condições e os turcos saíram apenas com o vestuário que envergavam, entregando todos os renegados". A fortaleza foi reconstruída e os traidores tiveram o tratamento que mereciam. Goa estava salva. Apareceu, entretanto, um enviado de Meliaquez, governador de Diu, e tudo se fez para o impressionar e intimidar seu amo." https://www.revistamilitar.pt/artigopdf/1152

Since you will not go to Lisbon to check the sources for yourself, I bring to you here a masterpiece of the Portuguese Empire and this should end the discussion about the Ottoman-Portuguese War: The 'Commentaries of Afonso de Albuquerque' (Portuguese, Comentários do Grande Afonso de Albuquerque) to the King of Portugal, happily available on Google Books, concerning the Portuguese War against the Turks, in Part II, Chapter XXIII: "Além de senhorar os mares da Índia, também as tuas armadas corriam o mar de Levante, e que de uma parte, e da outra fazia guerra ao Turco, e o grande Sultão." (I'll translate the part in bold: "your armada navigated the Levantine Sea, and that from one part to the other, made war to the Turks, and the great Sultan) https://books.google.com.br/books?id=vkILAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=afonso+de+albuquerque+guerra+turcos&source=bl&ots=G2X19AmYjB&sig=2dsjOGR-0lPZfLyth2xCs6XR1nk&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW3JXU0braAhWBkpAKHVs1BOYQ6AEIaTAO#v=onepage&q=guerra%20turcos&f=false

The Epic Portuguese Poet, soldier and eyewitness, Luis de Camões also declares that "Assim, que não podeis negar a que vos pede benigna aura: que se muito valeis na sanguinosa guerra turca (bloody turkish war) e moura.

I'll talk with you no more here, let others present their arguments now. SirPortuga (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

SirPortuga again, if don't wish to reply don't, but do not expect your own messages to go unanswered. So you accuse me of being uninformed, without knowing yourself that the Portuguese in the 16th century applied the word "Turks", or to be precise, rumes to Turkic people, Mamluks and Muslims of the near-east and Balkans in general. Here's what the author José Pissarra has to say:

Rum, Rumi, Romanos. Designação dada pelos povos do médio oriente aos bizantinos, considerados como herdeiros do Império. Ainda na versão final das Mil e Uma Noites o país dos Rumes tinha por capital Constantina (Constantinopla). Num sentido dado posteriormente pelas fontes árabes, designava um espaço geográfico, limitado aos domínios orientais de Bizâncio.

Com o avanço dos vários povos e grupos de tribos turcas na Anatólia (do século XI ao XV), alguns chefes passaram-se a entitular senhores da Anatólia e Romania. A partir do momento que passaram a controlar as regiões de Konia do Sul da Capadócia, cultural e etnicamente gregas, os seljúcidas da Anatólia passaram a entitular-se Saldjukyian-i Rum. Daí que a partir dessa altura a designação seja plurisignificativa, tanto se aplicando aos Turcos da Anatólia como aos Cristãos orientais, livres ou já sob alçada Turca.

Quando a expansão Otomana engoliu todos os territórios de Bizâncio (Romania) - da Anatólia aos Balcãs - os turcos passaram a ser designados por "rum", embora no particular "rum" ainda chamasse pelos cristãos orientais da zona greco bizantina e a terra se chamasse Rumelia (Rum-eli), zona principal de recrutamento do exército e dos Janízaros em particular. Grécia Albânia Valáquia, Transilvânia, Moldávia, Bulgária, Bósnia, Kosovo, Sérvia entre outras eram terras de Rum. Nos inícios dos séculos XVI, os muçulmanos que os portugueses encontraram na índia chamavam aos otomanos "rum", audível por "rume".

A mesma designação aplicava-se aos Mamelucos do Egipto. De forma despropositada, pois o Sultão do Cairo controlava poucos territórios que tivessem sido de rumes. Os Portugueses passaram a repetir o erro: "Os rumes perderam uma nau em Caliate (Inquirição dos actos de Afonso de Albuquerque em Ormuz 20/6/1508), embora também usassem a designação correcta "mamelucos" e a genérica mas inadequada "turcos". A razão deste aparente equívoco parece estar na composição do exército Egípcio. Embora poucos dos mamelucos fossem etnicamente rumes (no sentido original), muitos eram de origem turca e cita, merecendo a mesma designação. Por outro lado o exército era completado com grossos contingentes de mercenários, em que entravam muitos europeus, quer da Rumélia quer de terras mais a ocidente.

And here is what João Paulo de Oliveira e Costa and Vítor Luís Gaspar Rodrigues have to said about your Turks in Goa:

"De imediato o Adil Shah enviou para ali um seu general de origem turca Pulad Khan, o Pulatecão das crónicas Portuguesas. Este levava consigo um contigente militar de cerca de 40,000 homens, na sua maioria vindos do Irão e da Ásia central" in Conquista de Goa 1510-1512 - Campanhas de Afonso de Albuquerque.

As you can see, while scholars in Portugal have already realized that the Portuguese word "turk" might not actually mean Ottomans, your sources in English still fall to that mistake, which you repeat, because you just take someone's word for it and neglect Portuguese sources, which is even stranger and more uncommon.

Again, if you don't even know the Portuguese didn't participate in Lepanto and refuse to acknowledge it, this discussion is clearly not worth continuing, but if you wish to maintain it, I will reply suit. Crenelator (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Crenelator, finally some sources to make the discussion more straightforward. It's interesting how you cited the words Rume and Turks. Did the sources you mentioned discarded that Turks were not really Turks? Or did the Portuguese sources you mentioned say it was a generical term that emcompasses Turks as well? Since muslims Powers were allied virtually all the time to face the Portuguese, it should come as no surprise that the Portuguese labelled them as simply Turks. This is what you say: "the Portuguese in the 16th century applied the word "Turks", or to be precise, rumes to Turkic people, Mamluks and Muslims of the near-east and Balkans in general." So, according to you, the word Turks were applied to Turks as well. So, are you the one to say that there were no Turks in those battles, because of these generic term 'Turks'? Again, isn't the term Turks applied to Turks as well? The sources I cited say that there was a coallition of muslim states: Turks, mamluks, Arabs and more. What you are saying here is that the term Turks were applied not only to Turks, which is nothing inconsistent to my arguments.

Now lets go to the Rumes term: In "Commentários do grande Afonso Dalboquerque: Volume 2" Afonso de Albuquerque himself says in the Chapter 4 what follows: "Como o Vice Rey Francisco de Almeida, depois de desbaratar os Rumes, se partiu de Diu." Here we see the expression Rumes applied. Although a generical term as well, José Pisarra says the reason why the Portuguese applied the term: "Embora poucos dos mamelucos fossem etnicamente rumes (no sentido original), muitos eram de origem turca e cita, merecendo a mesma designação."

The Portuguese historians Dejahnira Couto and Rui Loureiro, 2008 uses the term turks when the Portuguese defeated them at the Battle of Mombasa (1589): 'When they saw the Captive "Mir Ali and the other Turks..."

In conclusion, saying that the term Turks were applied not only to Turks doesn't confirm your theory, that there were no Turks in those battles. You cited João Paulo de Oliveira e Costa and Vítor Luís Gaspar Rodrigues above that say "De imediato o Adil Shah enviou para ali um seu general de origem turca Pulad Khan..." So, again, Turkish presence in the Battle.

It's not reasonable to say, specially looking at older sources, that there were no Ottomans/Turks in those battles. It would be biased and inaccurate. What we can rightfully say is that there was a coalition of Ottomans, Arabs, Indians and Egyptians in the war, as the modern historiagraphy suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirPortuga (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

SirPortuga, there isn't anything theoretical about this. In short, the Portuguese in the 16th century used the same word, "rumes" or "turcos", to refer to Turkic people, Mamluks, and Muslims from the Balkans. Which means that, when they say "we fought the Turks at Goa", a scholar knows they were actually Turkic or Mamluk mercenaries, because there were many in the kingdoms of India (like Pulad Khan); whereas you think this was a conflict that involved the Ottoman Empire. It wasn't, plain and simple, sorry. Same goes for Diu 1509 or 1546. Again, it's pointless for you to dump a million sources if all commit the same mistake of not knowing what "rume" means. Hence why I told you to be mindful of English sources.

Dejanirah Couto is right in using the word Turks at the Battle of Mombasa. Because in that particular case, they really were Turks sent from the Ottoman Empire. Of course, the page that explained that (Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1580-1589)) was deleted.

To finish, I will leave you with an example: If you go search for primary Dutch accounts of the 17th century (I'm not gonna waste time pointing them to you even if you ask, sorry) you will find that sometimes they call the Portuguese "spaniards". Does that mean they were fighting Castillians in India? Of course not. Hopefully you will understand your mistake. Crenelator (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Strangely, you didn't point out that the Portuguese were also known to Indians as Franks. As for primary Dutch sources calling us Spaniards there is nothing really knew to that, since Iberia was known as Hispania to the Romans. Spanish People were also called Lusitani in ancient times. So, it's really normal for ancient peoples to be known by different and generic names.

Again, what you say about the Turks and Rumes being a generic term that encompasses not only Turks but Mamluk and Arabs it doesn't prove that there wasn't 'real' Turks in those battles. The term Turks and Rumes were applied to Turks as well. Don't you think it's impossible for you to prove otherwise? At most you only prove that there were more than Turks in those battles, which is not something new or not known in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirPortuga (talk • contribs) 02:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say there weren't Turks, only that the Ottoman Empire wasn't necessarily envolved in all those battles, just because some Turkic mercenaries were. This should be obvious. Crenelator (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Crenelator I appreciate your efforts now, really, but not you nor me have the authority to question this. You have no proof, in primary sources, that the Portuguese were only fighting Turkish mercenaries. You are making things too difficult for yourself here. There is another thing: If we discard every modern source and historiagraphic study about the Ottoman/Portuguese participation either in Portuguese or English (because you are discarding various english sources saying they are 'mistaking' the word Turks; I, on the other hand, discard none of them); we still have the Letters of Afonso de Albuquerque to the King saying that they were at War with the Turks, as I showed you above.

So, mate, you are commiting a terrible mistake by simple discarding english sources. Some of them are written by German authors as well, (Like Suraiya Faroqhi, mentioned before) so are they mistaking too? Let me cite you one of the most renowned English specialists in the Portuguese Empire: Charles Boxer. He is a Doctor Honoris of the University of Lisbon (I think you know what that means), received the prize of the Ordem of Santiago de Espada, he was advised by the Principals of the Portuguese State Archives that granted him unlimited access to the Portuguese primary sources. All this you can see in the Acknoledgement part of his "The Portuguese Seaborne Empire". We Portuguese respect him as much as we respect J. Pisarro.

But again, let's discard every modern scholar, as you wish (because we cannot be biased: if you can discard mine, I discard yours too): We still have Albuquerque saying they were at War with the Turks. End of the matter, buddy! SirPortuga (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Crenelator By the way, as just one good example, see for yourself Portuguese sources concerning the Participation of the Ottomans in the Battle of Diu (1509) in which you say there were no Ottomans:

• Maria Helena Guedes, 2015: "Em 1509 é travada a batalha de Diu contra uma frota conjunta do Sultanato Burji do Cairo, do Sultão Otomano Bayezid II, do samorin de Calecute e do Sultão de Gujarat, com o apoio naval da República de Veneza e da República de Ragusa." https://books.google.com.br/books?id=qZGwCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA184&dq=batalha+de+diu+1509+otomanos&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX88P5pLzaAhXFgZAKHU-EAxoQ6AEIPzAE#v=onepage&q=batalha%20de%20diu%201509%20otomanos&f=false

• Alexandre Borges, 2014: "Levando o Flor de la Mar como seu navioalmirante, avançou a 3 de Fevereiro de 1509 para a batalha de Diu e triunfou de forma retumbante, expulsando definitivamente os Otomanos e os Mamelucos das águas do Índico." https://books.google.com.br/books?id=hO3KAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT54&dq=batalha+de+diu+1509+otomanos&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX88P5pLzaAhXFgZAKHU-EAxoQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=batalha%20de%20diu%201509%20otomanos&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirPortuga (talk • contribs) 12:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, I don't know why it's so important to you to believe the Ottomans were everywhere, but at this point you're basically in denial, repeating the same thing over and over. Crenelator (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Crenelator You insisted in you point that there were no Ottomans in those battles; I told you otherwise and proved it. You asked for Portuguese sources, and I showed them to you. But as for me, it's not important to know they were battling against the Portuguese whatsoever; But they simply were. It's so textbook! Actually, I think you are the one that is in denial here and want to believe that there were no Ottomans fighting there; and I really don't get it (unless you are a Turk, perhaps...). I think that's all there is to it. SirPortuga (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Return this page to its original name and other fixes

I removed my contributions to this page due to contests presented in this talk page and to undertake my personal project. I decided to do that since I wrote almost 100% of this article and decided to undertake a personal project myself. But since I'm new with editing pages here, It seems I messed things here and moved this page to a user called "Turco-Portuguese conflicts" and redirected it wrongly. Since I'm removing my contributions here, I think it's fair to return the previous name of the article, but sincerely I don't know how to do that.

Sorry for the trouble, I'll be more careful next time. SirPortuga (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes you managed to make a complete disaster out of it, I think I've fixed it all, next time please use WP:RM. I also feel I should point out that the moment you hit save on an article, it is no longer yours, you do not get to remove it all again because you've had a conflict or whatever--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Jac16888 I really appreciate your support and advice. SirPortuga (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Current title

@Sir Thiago: Your move from Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts to The Ottoman-Portuguese Conflict was invalid as it goes against Wikipedia's naming conventions, namely WP:THE. I couldn't move it back to its original title so I chose Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations instead. I was going to make a request at WP:RMT for it to be moved back to "conflicts", but I just noticed that sources more often use "confrontations" to refer to the events.[33] Let me know if you disagree with the current version.

I also moved The Portuguese-Ottoman War to Ottoman-Portuguese War for the same reason, and I do believe that both articles should be merged together, preferably the "war" article into this one. Also pinging Crenelator, since I've noticed the thread you're both involved in on the MILHIST talk page. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan: I have no objections concerning this present article because it is very limited and presents virtually no useful information about the strife between both powers. I tried to change it back to its original name as well, but I couldn't. Therefore, my first suggestion would be to delete this article, since it presents no valid sources or arguments concerning the matter.

@Fitzcarmalan: Now, I only desagree with you when you renamed the "war" article inverting the position of the names based on secondary sources. If you refer back to the Portuguese primary sources at the Torre do Tombo National Archive, in Lisbon, which is also cited in the other article you will see that the declaration of war was made primarily by the Portuguese, hence the correct name "Portuguese-Ottoman War" was chosen. I would like to kindly suggest you to undo the change for these reasons.

Conflicts

@عبدالرحمن4132 Nowhere in this article states that this is only for "separate conflicts", in fact it is called "Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations" for a reason. All conflicts they participated against each other should be added to expand this page as much as possible. In the Battle of Diu, the Ottomans supported the muslim alliance and therefore it should also be added just like the Battle of Alcacér quibir was. In world war 1, Portugal and the central powers were at war and that included the Ottoman empire. I hope you understand this. Javext (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

We (other editors as well) have already discussed this on the talk page of the battle of Diu, in which the Ottomans cannot be participants.

Regarding WW1, Portugal did fight the central powers but mostly with Germany; unless if there's a record of them fighting the Ottomans, then it can be included; otherwise, no.

Regards. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes and we concluded that the Ottomans did participate and the reason why they werent included in the info box was because the "Supported by" practice is discontinued and cannot be used. Well to be fair in WW1 the Ottomans and Portugal were officially at war with each other therefore it counts as a conflict doesn't matter if they actually fought each other in battle. Also I assume you agree with me on this part since you ignored it:

-"Nowhere in this article states that this is only for "separate conflicts", in fact it is called "Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations" for a reason." Javext (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

They weren't direct belligerents in the battle of Diu, and if they were, they were mercenaries who had no business with the Ottoman authority fighting under Mamluk Sultan.

You still can't include WW1. The article is about the confrontations between the Ottomans and the Portuguese, and since you didn't provide any record of them fighting, they cannot count. Since you added the African theater of World War I would imply they fought each other there, but no. I don't know if they declared war on each other, but surely the Ottomans didn't focus a lot on them; they had Russia, France, and Britain to fight with.

Regarding that point, we already have templates for the conflict of 1538–1560; you don't need to add them here, but if you want to add them, enlist every battle that happened. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Direct belligerents or not wont matter, it happened just like in the Battle of Alcácer quibir, the ottomans supported them and sent soldiers. If you want to remove the Battle of Diu because they werent directly involved then also remove the Battle of Alcacer quibir. I will concede on the African theatre. WW1 is just fine as it was a conflict between the central (which included the Ottomans) and allied (which included Portugal). I added basically every battle I know that has a wikipedia page, if you know more feel free to add them. I will add them back as I think we agree on this but not WW1 nor Battle of Diu until this is sorted out. Javext (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)