This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Heh, anyone who takes a look at the history of this page is going to have fun sorting that all out. ;) -- John Owens 09:27 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Was the Portuguese Empire "the first and largest colonial empire of the 16th century", as the article says? And the Spanish Empire? (see the opinion of Wetman in the end of Talk:Spanish Empire) -- Gimferrer 19:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If we take into account that the Spanish Crown, through Phillip II of Spain (I of Portugal), took control of the Portuguese possessions at the end of the 16th century, then the 'Spanish' Empire would be bigger! lol But before that 'outrage' (note: personal oppinion of a Portuguese lol), most of the Atlantic and Indian Ocean's coast of Africa, West Coast of India, Ceylon, etc, etc were under control of the Portuguese and compared with the Spanish terrritories in America, that were still struggling against the Mayans, Aztecs, etc, the Portuguese Empire had been bigger. De facto it had been bigger since its creation in 1415, after the conquest of the moorish city of Ceuta, wich, ironically, nowadays is under Spanish control.-- Ciga 22:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the Portuguese Empire was the first and largest empire in the first half of the XVI century. In terms of continents it was the most scatered, as it existed in at least 4 continents. Athough most of the territory inhabited were the mian coastal cities, technically their influence in the region was greater than any other in most cases not to mention that in large areas there weren't any oppositions that was seem as problematic but the main problem of the Portuguese settlers was that their numbers were few and the population in Portugal was already relatively low. Technically, by the year 1578 with the death of D.Sebastião, Spain was able to join all the Portuguese Empire with it's Empire, thuis creating the greatest empire of that time. But if you look at the total area under the rules of the Portuguese crown in the first half of the 1500s and compare it with the Spanish crown you will see that despite all Portuguese possessions are all scatered all around the planet, they still in total make a large area than the Spanish possessions, which were mostly limited to central america and Peru and in south america, the possessions were mostly in the north and coastal parts of Peru. .-- Thorius Maximus 23:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Portugal and its empire were ever part of the Spanish Empire. The two countries maintained its independence and their colonies were ruled separately, that's why when the personal union ended no problem existed concerning any land (although Ceuta was loyal to Philip III of Portugal [IV of Spain] and so did not returned to the Portuguese crown). So, from 1581-1640 there was not one empire, but two, ruled by the same king. The size is subjective. If you measure the area, the Spanish was bigger, if you measure the vastness, the Portuguese was bigger. Câmara 18:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
My apologies Câmara, you are right indeed concerning the Iberian Union, that last past in my coment was just a detail that I incorrectly described.
Thorius Maximus 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats part of Tanzania not Oman is it just a mistake or was there another place called Zanzibar? Falphin 22:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I think a World Map of Portuguese colonial posessions throughout history is needed here! Dont' you agree? The Ogre 14:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that a map of all possesions of the Portuguese Empire of all times would be very illustrating, to say the least, to a lot of people. I get the impression that many English speaking people are not aware of the dimensions of the Portuguese Empire and certainly not aware that almost litterally everywhere they look in a world map they will see a Portuguese name of some location.-- Ciga 22:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The header "Empire of Brazil (1640-1822)" is both inaccurate and misleading since no such entity existed in the aforementioned period. From 1549 till 1714, Brazil was a crown colony ruled by one or sometimes two Governor Generals. From 1714 till 1815, the colony was divided into two Viceroyalties, styled respectively the Viceroyalty of Brazil and the Viceroyalty of Grão-Pará. From 1815 till 1822, Brazil was elevated to the status of United Kingdom with Portugal and Algarve. It was only after 1822, when Brazil was already an independent country, that Pedro I used the title of "Emperor of Brazil" ( AFAIK, no Portuguese monarch had ever claimed that title before during the colonial period). (anonymous)
The list of American colonies lists Upper Peru as colony in 1822. I can't find information on this anywhere, does anyone know the history? -- Andrelvis 03:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Upper Peru (today's Bolivia) was occupied by the Portuguese during the Napoleonic Wars. Since Spain was, until 1808, an ally of France, and the Portuguese Queen and Court had «withdrawn» to Brazil, the Spanish colonies became fair game for the Portuguese. Uruguay and the French Guyana were also occupied during this period, and remaind occupied for quite some time. In my opinion, however, to call Upper Peru a Portuguese colony is a bit far-fetched.-- Nuno Gabriel Cabral 18:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This article needs someone whose native language is english to clean up some cumbersome sentences. "In 1433 Cape Bojador was doubled" <- Vê-se mesmo que isto foi escrito por um português. "Dobrado" vem de dobrar como em dobrar roupa e assim. Em inglês não existe coincidência entre dobrar de fazer o dobro e dobrar de dobrar roupa. -arcozelo
.. could be disputed at present; e.g. Burma, Sri Lanka. The article implies that entire countries or territories belonged to Portugal, though the actual possession was limited to a few settlements, coastal areas, or was contested. Imc 18:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Technically since there wasn't almost any opposition(and some of these costal settlemenst were taken through belical means), the autoctone populations weren't much of a danger to the securaty of the coastal possessions(due to the strong military presence in those cities), and since there weren't any opposition in the surrounding area, not to mention that many of these coastal cities were the economically and political centre of entire regions that could reach hundreds of miles, technically by taking the main coastal cities or dozens of miles, you also gain economical, political control of the region, that is, providing you have the necessary military power to continue having the city under your control, but it is also true that Portugal also tried to maintain teritorial control of the regions around these coastal cities, thus by saying that it was more that just the cities isn't entirely untrue. -- Thorius Maximus 23:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think portuguese exploration and colonization of this north american lands are not discussed here. Portugal was an active force on exploration of the north-eastern part of North America and de facto claimed these lands to Portugal (Cantino 1503 is the first map claiming this, showing Newfoundland as "Terra del Rey de Portugal", followed by Waldseemuller 1507 in wich Newfoundland is shown with the portuguese flag) and tried to colonise them in the 1520s (with João Álvares Fagundes). In several maps of the 16th century the portuguese shield is shown, as in João Vaz Dourado (I don't remember now exactly the year, but is from the middle of the century). I think the article and the map could talk about this subject more than a single dot in the map. These lands were really part of the portuguese empire and it seems nobody is pointing this, here and everywhere in wikipedia excluding, obviosly, the articles of the explorers.-- Câmara 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Then we should put these facts, we should also establish connections between these facts and Colombo's related facts, at is, if the sub article is made. -- Thorius Maximus 4:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. But how I can put the pictures with the copyright thing? The Cantino (and the João Vaz Dourado) maps are essencial in here! Câmara 02:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I have some sugestions, please comment:
-I think the map should appear at the top of the page, and the "history of portugal series" after.
-I think the "begining of the empire" should be split because it's too big now, very massive. I think we can make some chapters in time: From Ceuta to Cape Bojador, From Cape Bojador to Cape of Good Hope, Tordesilhas and implications, the route to india, asiatic exploration, north american exploration, south american exploration and the height of the empire. Only after we can go to the Habsburg kings. Now we have like a super massive block having all these things together, it's not good to read, and I think is a mess. I sugest some more images too (maps, caravels, etc).
-I suggest to grow "The empire of Africa 1822-1945". Why not talking about portuguese explorers, the pink map (lol, I don't know if in english is like this).
-I think the territories of the portuguese empire should go to another page, here they are huge.
Please also comment the North American portuguese possession thing I wrote here.-- Câmara 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
How about a map?!? The Ogre 10:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
They look like troll-work - loss of the "independence of Spain?" NorCalHistory 12:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In Sagres:
What are the facts? — Athænara ✉ 11:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to know, recent studies indicate that there was a cartography and navigational center in Sagres, yet it was a minor one. The main installations and also for the departure of ship were all in Lisbon, and later voyages departure from Lisbon.
In fact if you must know, one of the main cartography centres and vesel research was in the Guadiana river because it's was a relatively isolated place, and the level of the waters in the Guadiana had risen in those times. That's were the caravel was developed. And no, the caravel was not developed by either the moors, or italians of anyone. The caravel's design is based on a model of a ship that was used by muslims in the mediterranian and shortly after also by venesians italians etc, yet this was only the basic design on some levels, in those naval centers they had to change the ship in order that it can sustain the sea waters, storms of the atlantic, it's cargo capacity had to be increased, yet without sacrificing the ship's speed etc.
The main cartography centre was in Lisbon. And from the entire mediterranian came cartgraphers and many of then were also from portugal since portugal was a nation in which the sea had an important part in it's economy.
There wasn't one observatory, there were several observatories. The astrobalious was already used by muslims yet they were very primite models, yet the quadrant was invented in portugal. The existing version at that time of the astrolabious had to be further developed in order to be appliable concerning star maps and orientation methods, and even the complexity of the astrolabious itself had to be develpoed.
If there is one field that historians say the kingdom of portugal at that time completely revolutionized without any external influences with the exception of maps that were brought by portuguese spies in far east such as Master Spy Pero da Covilha, it is cartography. Other fields would not have developed without portuguese influence, fields such as naval technology, astronomy and mathematics concerning geographical and planetary measures. Yet, it is true that Portuguese planetary calculations were based on the muslim one's, yet they had to be further developed.
When comparing the Navigator's time with the zenite of John II, Henry didn't do much, yet it is worth to be said that "he had to do the hard part in some fields".
Does the text in the page remain faithfull in most aspects to what I've said? Yes, don't forget this is a sum up of many things, thus some precision is sacrificed, yet the idea it presents is supported by historical researches.
Thorius Maximus 21:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've made an error here.
The main research center was indeed in Sagres, but it was not a school, such statement is a mith, it was in fact a citadel. With the death of Henry, everything was transfered to Lisbon, from then all voyages departured from Lisbon.
My apologies abou the mistake.
Thorius Maximus 21:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't think so. Specially not when it has been explored before. -- Arigato1 10:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's get an example. Let's think for example Ascension Island. If there was no population on Ascension Island, who ruled in there? It's not need to have a soldier in every square meter of land, there was international recognition and no other claim. So, even without soldiers in there Ascension Island would be of the UK. Portugal was not the first to explore Greenland, that's obvious, but in the 1500's Portugal explored it, Portugal claimed it, Portugal had recognition of it (treaty of Tordesilhas/Tordesillas by "Spain" and the Pope (the most important person at that time)) and nobody claimed it too (Denmark, Norway, England, etc). It is shown in lots of maps of that time. (We don't know if there was a colony there, probably no, and we don't know how strong the portuguese presence was there.) Think also in Canada. Canadian borders were defined before the total exploration of the country. In Persia Portugal explored all the coast, but had only Hormuz, so exploration is not the same as empire, as you say.
I said this on the portuguese empire image discussion:
"Portugal did have lands in North America (I'm including Greenland). They were not famous, that's why nobody knows about them (even in Portugal). João Fernandes "Lavrador" and Pêro de Barcelos explored Greenland and Labrador, but the date is matter of dispute (1492, 1495, 1498, 1499). AFAIK the letter of king Manuel I to João Fernandes giving rights of the lands he would discovert is only of 1499. After that Miguel and Gaspar Corte-Real explored Newfoundland and near coasts, in 1500-1501. They disappeared but some ships returned to Portugal. Another expedition was set to look for them. We do not know how many voyages went there. In 1521 João Álvares Fagundes asked permition to colonise those lands, and the king accepted. The colony was abandoned in 1526, and we do not know why. After that, we do not know if portuguese presence was significative or not, but fishermen continued to fish in Newfoundland.
This is the history. Unfortunately, portuguese discoveries were mostly secret, so we have very few documents. And we have maps. And maps that show those lands as portuguese.
Cantino 1502 http://docenti.lett.unisi.it/files/33/1/6/1/cantino.jpg The first uncontroversial representation of Newfoundland (and maybe the land dispicted is also Labrador, connected to Newfoundland). And the name that appears is... "Land of the king of Portugal", and it has two portuguese flags in it. Greenland also has portuguese flags in it, although I cannot see what name appears above it. It is enough to show that those lands were portuguese. But let's analyze some more maps.
Ribero/Ribeiro 1529 search in internet We have a Land of Corte-Real and a Land of Lavrador. Interestingly, Greenland is connected to Labrador, wich might explain why Labrador visited both (remember there was a mini ice age in the 15th century, so maybe they were connected)
Waldseemuller 1507 http://docenti.lett.unisi.it/files/33/1/6/2/wald.jpg We have a land in North Atlantic with the portuguese flag (you may search for a coloured map, to see portuguese flag better). It may be Newfoundland or Newfoundland+Labrador or Newfoundland+Labrador+Greenland. I cannot tell what it is.
Lopo Homem 1519 hard to find We have a map of Newfoundland and Labrador with portuguese shields and lots of portuguese names
Vaz Dourado c.1576 search in internet We have again a portuguese shield and portuguese names
We have lots of another maps, and also about Fagundes.
I hope the Greenland/Newfoundland/Labrador thing is clear now, as they were short lived portuguese possessions. The only doubt I have in the map is the Barbados thing. I included it but maybe I shouldn't, I never heard of it and I just heard about it in the Portuguese Empire page. Anyway the map is clearly conservative, and is not fantasy nor BS. If you have doubts, just look at the documents and maps and books." Câmara 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That's wrong. What is the sources for you think Greenland has been Portugiese?? -- Arigato1 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you saw the maps, especially Cantino? It is a claim, since the portuguese flag is in there. Câmara 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This user seems to have a problem in accepting documented history, Perhaps the idea of a portuguese colony existing in newfoundand is not of your liking? Deal with it, thats's not our problem, it's yours.
By the way, the new map is very well done, yet the only thing I disagree(but that's just my opinion) are the pink regions in newfoundand and north america, they should the defined as colonized.
Thorius Maximus 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Second: A map is a document, and so can be a reference. Maps can be very elucidative about some details. Third: Newfoundland and Labrador...not only some maps show them as a portuguese possession, there are lots of them, maps from 1502 to the latest half of the XVI century, from different countries... but OK, here are some references to "not maps" about portuguese presence there:
Fourth: Australia. Although I think portuguese explored it (at least), I think we should wait until more conclusive details are revealed, and so should not be included in the map (yet). Câmara 23:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/portuguese.html
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/early_ex.html
I'm still looking into more sources. Indeed I have not found an article saying by 100% that there was a colony, but in all articles I've seen, it is strongly suspected that indeed happened, nevertheless I'm still searching.
There is one thing wrong with the current map. It's the pink zones in newfoundland and labrador with interogation marks. Those maks should be removed but the pink zone should remain. All articles clearly state it's was explored and trade routes were created, thus the interrogations mark should disappear.
By the way, in an article about Cabot, it was said that the natives he found had a word for a certain fish which was Bacaalao. Coincidence hum? :P (cod existed in the portuguese coast, but it was extinguished in the early middle ages)
Thorius Maximus 23:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that those areas were explored by the Portuguese is an undeniable fact. These are some maps of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador and Greenland with the Portuguese coat-of-arms and/or the cross of the Order of Christ. They could be used for the article as some show also other Atlantic possessions of Portugal. I think the maps speak for themselves, showing that these lands were considered part of the Portuguese Empire:
Câmara 01:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I forgot Waldseemuller 1507, that also shows the Portuguese coat-of-arms in Labrador or Newfoundland or Newfoundland+Labrador or Newfoundland+Labrador+Greenland - the land in the Western North Atlantic. Câmara 17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Another thing, and this is just because of accuracy issues. I suggest that in the pink areas description be pointed one more things and that's the presence of trade routes. Although the presence of a colony in newfoundland, labrador and corte real is not confirmed, besides from explorations, there were indeed trade routes, and this also applies to many other regions. Thorius Maximus 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I just did and added an anachronous map of the Portuguese Empire (1415-1999). Please feel free to comment. Thanks. The Ogre 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just re-added the map. The Ogre 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to work on it, still have some objections, but will voice them latter (sorry, I'm in a hurry just now!). For now, can we leave at that? The Ogre 15:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!! The Ogre 15:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Brazil was not in his borders of today part of Portuguese Empire. -- J. Patrick Fischer 13:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Luis_wiki Can you please remove the white border lines between current Brazil and Uruguai and Brazil and French Guiana? Thank You. Luis_Wiki
Canarias Island never was included in the portugueses empire and part of the Brazilian territory was purchased after the independence, etc, etc. The map is only portuguese chauvinism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.31.46 ( talk • contribs)
In 1402, the conquest of the islands began, with the expedition of Juan de Bethencourt and Gadifer de la Salle to the island of Lanzarote, Norman nobles who were vassals of Henry III of Castile. From there, they conquered Fuerteventura and Hierro. Béthencourt received the title King of the Canary Islands, but recognized King Henry III as his overlord. Béthencourt also established a base on the island of Gomera, but it would be many years before the island was truly conquered. The people of Gomera, as well as the Gran Canaria, Tenerife, and La Palma people, resisted the Spanish invaders for almost a century. Between 1448 and 1459, there was a crisis between Castile and Portugal over control of the islands, when Maciot de Bethencourt sold the lordship of Lanzarote to Portugal's Prince Henry the Navigator, an action that was not accepted by the natives or the Castilian residents of the island, who initiated a revolt and expelled the Portuguese. In 1479 Portugal recognised Castilian control of the Canary Islands in the Treaty of Alcaçovas.
Hello J. Patrick Fischer! I'll try to adress your objections some time soon (as well as other objections made by others), I promise. I just don't have the time right know. Thanks! The Ogre 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Corrected the map regarding Brazil - basically some changes to the Amazonian region, the border with Paraguay and the inner part of modern Santa Catarina state. Those areas were fomerly in red and are now in pink, since they were areas claimed by the Portuguese.
The Ogre
20:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the supposedly "map of the lands of the Habsburg kings in the period of personal union of Portugal (1580-1640)". you see, the map does not show the the lands of the Habsburg kings, but is an anachronous map showing areas pertaining to the Spanish Empire at various times over a period exceeding 400 years! As can be seen in the article Spanish Empire. Therefore, I'm removing it. Anyhow it was a bit strange to have an essencialy Spanish map as first map in an article called Portuguese Empire... The Ogre 20:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This refers only to 1580-160, right? The Ogre 15:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Câmara. If you contact User:Merbabu, he may probably help you with Indonesia. Cheers! The Ogre 12:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
What a great article! Well done! I'm a bit confused about the following para though - which sticks out like a sore thumb for poor expression and a lack of neutrality. "A not so well known and disputed fact is that a 16th century maritime map in a Los Angeles library vault proved that Portuguese explorers, not British or Dutch, were the first Europeans to discover Australia. The map, which accurately marks geographical sites along Australia's east coast in Portuguese, proves that Portuguese seafarer Cristóvão de Mendonça lead a fleet of four ships into Botany Bay in 1522 - almost 250 years before Britain's Captain James Cook.[1]" I suspect this just slipped in recently, un-noticed? Perhaps the author could re-word it in accordance with Wiki standards and the style of the rest of the article!-- Nickm57 02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick is right. The maps proves nothing. The Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia is just a possibility. Anyway, a "true" discovery (sorry for the eurocentric view) is going there and back and letting people know! Even if the Portuguese knew Australia, they sure didn't let know... The Ogre 08:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Pageup/Mr Lack of Neutrality, no offense intended! However, the new text is clearer. I guess we'd better keep clear of Reuters... -- Nickm57 10:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
First global empire? what about the Mongols? VanTucky 00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so we strictly mean global here. As in, must have occupied every continent not just multiple ones. In that case the article is correct. Just depends on the def of globla empire of course. And btw: the Mongols covered a hell of alot more territory than the Portuguese did, so saying just a little bit of Europe is rather silly. Have you seen the bloody map on the Mongol Empire page? VanTucky 01:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Please come to Talk:Spanish Empire#Map and participate in the discussion. It pertains to the inclusion of the Portuguese Empire in the territories of the Spanish Empire during the period of the Iberian Union from 1580 to 1640. Thank you! The Ogre 13:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The conquest of the Canary islands began in 1402 with the expedition of Juan de Bethencourt and Gadifer de la Salle, who were vassals of Henry III of Castile, to the island of Lanzarote. The portuguese expansion began with the capture of Ceuta in 1415. So the extra-peninsular and extra-european expansion of the kingdom of Castile was earlier than the portuguese. Before that the aragonese had conquered several territories all over the Mediterranean. And what about the Roman empire? Conclusion: It is uncertain that the portuguese empire was the earliest at all. I don't understand the interest to eliminate every reference to Spain and the spanish in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignaciogavira ( talk • contribs)
Historical consensus about that? are you sure? Facts: Lanzarote (Africa and Spanish today) 1402, Ceuta (Africa and Spanish today) 1415. The historical consensus is that Spain and Portugal compited during the 15th century to expand their territories out of Europe (Spain inside too). It is a fact too that portuguese explored first the routes around Africa. The disputes between Castile (not Spain) and Portugal were resolved first with the treaty of Alcaçobas-Toledo, and after with the Treaty of Tordesillas. Those are historical facts, not "my own original research". Really you need references?
Anyway, my question is about the interest to eliminate any reference to Spain in this article. The other matters are quite controversial. In my oppinion refferences to Spain in the Portuguese Empire, and to Portugal in the Spanish Empire in the beginning of both are essential to make them really neutral. -- Ignacio 18:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
OK maybe it is so that Castile explored those islands in 1402 but this wasn't the real change that the spanish needed to start their conquest!! it was from 1492 that the difference was obvious for Spain. In the Meanwhile the Portuguese explorer were already in South-Africa !! not to mention the attempts of Portugal to navigate West of the Azores (America)!!!! so that's why 1415 is synonim of the beginning of the exploration of the globe !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.92.176.3 ( talk • contribs)
Sorry for opening another thread on this, but the others are big and this new one can possibly captivate more people. I discovered a Portuguese source from 1570 by Francisco de Souza, "Tratado das Ilhas Novas" (Treaty of The New Islands) that mentions a Portuguese colony in Cape Breton Island. In Portuguese:
"Haverá 45 annos ou 50 que de Vianna se ajuntarão certos homens fidalgos, e pela informação que tiveram da terra Nova do Bacalháo se determinaram a ir povoar alguma parte d'ella, como de feito foram em uma náo e uma caravella, e, por acharem a terra muito fria, donde ião determinados, correram para a costa de Leste Oeste té darem na de Nordeste--Sudoeste, e ahi habitaram, e por se lhe perderem os Navios não houve mais noticia d'elles, sómente por via de Biscainhos, que continuam na dita Costa a buscar e a resgatar muitas coisas que na dita Costa há, dão destes homens informação e dizem que lhe pedem digam cá a nós outros como estão ali, e que lhe levem sacerdotes, porque o gentio é domestico e a terra muito farta e boa, como mais largamente tenho as informações, e é notorio aos homens que lá navegam; e isto é no cabo do Britão logo na entrada da costa que corre ao Norte em uma formoza de Bahia donde tem grande povoação; e ha na terra coisas de muito preço e muita nóz, castanha, uvas, e outros fructos, por onde parece ser a terra boa e assim nesta companhia foram alguns casais das Ilhas dos Açores, que de caminho tomaram como é notorio: Nosso Senhor queira por sua misericordia abrir caminho como lhe vá soccorro, e minha tenção é hir á dita costa de caminho quando fôr á Ilha de S. Francisco, que tudo se póde fazer d'uma viagem."
I will try to translate, so please point my errors:
"45 or 50 years ago (1520 or 1525) some fidalgos [small nobles] from Viana [very north of Portugal] group together and being aware of the news of Terra Nova do Bacalhau [Newfoundland], decided to colonise in some place of it, so they went in one nau and one caravel and found the land very cold, the one they had thought to go, they navigated the coast East-West until they found a Northeastern-Southwest one, and there they settled, and because the ships were lost there was no informations of them, information only came from the people of Biscaya [in Spain, basques], that continued in that coast gathering the things the coast gives [fish, probably]. This people [Basques] said that the Portuguese in there want to say to us [Portuguese in Portugal] how they live there, and ask to take them priests, beacause the gentios [I'm not sure, but I think they are refering the indians] are domestic [?] and the earth is very fertile, as I [Francisco de Souza] have information, and can be seen by the people that navigate there; and this is in Cape Breton, in the entry of coast that runs in North, in a beautiful bay that has great population; and exists there things that have great value and lots of nuts, chestnuts, grapes, and other fruits, where the land seems good and with them went some couples from Azores, that went with them when they passed there: that Our Lord may open way as give them help, and my intention [Francisco de Souza] is to go to that coast when I will go to the Island of St. Francis [Anticoste Island, my interpretation from an indication in this text (200 leagues west of Onze Mil Virgens, todays St. Pierre et Miquelon, and the island is 40 leagues long and 20 leagues wide], as both things can be done in one voyage."
Fagundes is from Viana, so almost surely he went with them (he had the captaincy of these lands).
A thought of mine: Samuel de Champlain mentions a portuguese colony that was only one winter long. Possibly this one-winter-long colony was in Newfoundland or East Cape Breton, the one they found too cold.
I was searching for this text and I found it in a site, which seemed to me respectable enough: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21011/21011-h/21011-h.htm
Please comment, and please correct my attempt of translation :P Câmara 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Spanish_Empire about whether an anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire should include the Portuguese colonies as of 1580-1640 (indeed, Portugal itself), during the time of the Iberian Union, as "Spanish". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Calling Salazar a "military dictator" is ridiculous. Salzar's was a right-wing authoritarian regime, but Salazar himself was not an Army man. He was an Enconomics Professor at Coimbra University. He was called upon by the Portuguse bourgeoisie to rescue their interests which were threatened by the economic crisis and social unrest. His policy was : stabilize the currency, cut social programmes, help the rich keep rich and help the poor accept their fate. No so far from what has become the dogma in neo-liberal circles and at the ECB ! Actually, Portugal became poorer and poorer as its currency continued to strengthen, accumulating gold reserves whereas the peasants were starving. One of Salazar's merits, however, was to have kept Portugal out of World War II (although his sympathies went to the US and UK allies, to whom he granted military facilities in the Azores). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.220.87.68 ( talk) 21:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree!! what the fuck you know asshole. He was a great man,no different than any other good leader today.He looked after the country as a hole. All other nations were trying to fuck Portugal up (America & England) but he failed because he forgot to look at the Portuguese past history..... PORTUGUESE NEVER STAND TOGETHER AS A PEOPLES NATION.P.S. At times it sad for me to be Portuguese.
I have read several articles about the Portuguese Empire from Wikipedia and Encarta encyclopedias. I read them in English, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian. Lots of the dates between these articles do not match (particularly on Wikipedia).
For the followings, I would like to know the date of discovery:
For the followings, I would like to confirm one and only one date of discovery:
If any of you knows the correct dates, please add a comment before correcting the encyclopedia.
ICE77 -- 84.223.77.237 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Various alterations to the Dutch Empire map have been made, with no sources provided for these alterations. Would appreciate comment on the Talk:Dutch Empire page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As the one above me has said, we are having a dispute. He claims this site is an unreliable reference despite the fact that they list where they got every single piece of information from. http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ ( Red4tribe ( talk) 23:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
There's no mention of East Timor being invaded by the Japanese in World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.125 ( talk) 10:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
how can an empire that was declining since the spanish hasburgs left Portugal appear as decling from the mid-20 century? i changed the title of the subheading to : "The last remnants of the empire". also im going to try to expand the Legacy part of the article :) -- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 01:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
"There is little evidence to support the notion that Portugal had actually become a real global power [1].While it did predominate the trade route around Africa, its function was more of an entrepreneur than a global power [2].Also it had no monopoly over the trade from the East as Venice had control over most trade entering into the Mediterranean [3]. Spain enjoyed more riches than Portugal in the Treaty of Tordesillas, as the Incan and Aztec prizes fell into its sphere of influence [4].Claims of Portugal's super power status are further vitiated by observing its swift conquest by and absorption into Spain later by the 16th century [5].Even extent of its victories over Muslim naval power in the Indian ocean has been questioned with the observation made that the Ottoman holdings and commercial enterprises were little affected by Portuguese military and naval operations [6]. "
Somebody wrote this in the "The last remnants of the Empire" , i have no idea what it has to do there so i deleted it -- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 01:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Only after 1535 Ottomans enter in Red Sea by Egypt, persecuted by the Portuguese in Red Sea(even in its beginning of its "fall" as dominant empire) The Turkish Threats on Diu or any another Portuguese position in India or Arabia had failed, after 1540s Portugal already did not have absolute (or majority until that) commercial monopoly in Indian Ocean. This had reflections in the terrestrial commerce.(a response to that statement by Somebody, not to you here ok!)
WT? but Indian Ocean was a Portuguese Lake, with 22 cities in west coast of India, more than half Ceylon, Oman(Muscat and all major cities and fortresses in Oman - Arabia Peninsula), Bahrein(Arabian p.), Queshem and Ormuz in Persian coast, part of today Emirates(Arabian Peninsula) and from Brazil to Moluccas, Macau and Deshima. For some years the thalassocracy was total with expeditions to the coasts of the Sinai, against the still incipient but increasing Turkish positions in Egypt(its fleet in particular) and attempts for one year in Basrah(Iraq). Of course 1540 -1550(even years before) mark a long decay and loss of domain in this maritime and commercial empire.
The first Global Empire was Portugal - for the degree of its expansion in determined chronological time, without forgetting that Spain became the main global power in the second half of XVI century in Europe (where Portugal had only its own continental and Atlantic territory) and in the world as colonial power(in its part of North America and in its part of Oceania by the half part that fit to it in the treat of Tordesillas and Zaragoza/Elvas) - and that the global empire (or empires) the first one, was a deed of both Iberians.
In 1500-1501 - the first one in 4(or 5) Continents and the first one in some subcontinents - and with the first Establishments in the Moluccas, Ceram and Bante Islands in 1512-1513 the first in 5(or 6) Continents - in fact already in the Australian continental plate - and proclaiming nominal domain on west Papua (New Guinea) in 1526.
Let us respect the truth and history.
The article is very good and interesting but it can be more clearly in the first paragraph. Is good.
Empire:
EUROPE(EUROPEAN PLATE and AFRICAN OCEANIC PLATE)
PORTUGAL - Continent; Azores; Madeira(Selvagens)
MOROCCO:
Aguz (1506-1525) Alcácer-Ceguer (1458-1550) Arzila (1471-1550, 1577-1589) Azamor (1513-1541) Ceuta (1415-1640) Mazagon (1485-1550, 1556-1769) Mogador (1506-1525) Safim (1488-1541) Agadir (1505-1769) Tanger (1471-1662) Ouadane (1487- midle XVI)
AFRICA(SOUTH OF SAHARA):
ANGOLA (1575-1975) Cabinda-(1883-1975)
ANO BOM (1474-1778)
MAURITANIA: Arguim (1455-1633)
CAPE VERDE(1462-1975)
GANA: São Jorge da Mina (1482-1637) Costa do Ouro (1482-1642) Acra (1557-1578) FERNANDO PÓ (1478-1778)
GUINEA BISSAU: Guiné Portuguesa (1879-1974)
KENYA: Melinde (1500-1630) Mombaza (1593-1698, 1728-1729)
MOZAMBIQUE (1501-1975)
MADAGASCAR: Nominal - a base(necessary to review the sources)
TANZANIA: Kilwa (1505-1512) Zanzibar (1503-1698)
BENIN: Fortress of São João Baptista de Ajudá (1680-1961)
SÃO TOMÉ E PRINCIPE (1753-1975)
SENEGAL: Ziguinchor (1645-1888)
YEMEN(ASIA- "near" AFRICA): Socotra (1506-1511)
And more several areas of influence, indirect domain or tributaries Kingdoms in Africa, Asia etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 ( talk) 11:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
ASIA
ARABIAN Peninsula:
BAHREIN(ARABIAN PENINSULA):
Bahrein and Al Qatif (1521-1602)
OMAN-(ARABIAN PENINSULA) and ARAB EMIRATES:
Muscat(1515-1650) Doba, Libedia, Corfação, Mada and Quelba (1515-1650)
SAUDI ARABIA and U. ARAB EMIRATES:
Khasab, Julfar(1515-1650)
IRAN -PERSIAN Coast:
Hormuz (1515-1622) Comoron (1515-1622) Qeshem (1515-1622) Bandar Abbas (1506-1615)
INDIA:
Laquedives Islands (1498-1545) Baçaím (1535-1739) Bombay (Mumbai) (1534-1661) Calecute (1512-1525) Cananor (1502-1663); Chaul (1521-1740) Chittagong (1528-1666) Cochim (1500-1663) Cranganor (1536-1662) Dadrá e Nagar-Aveli (1779-1954) Daman (1559-1962) Diu (1535-1962) Goa (1510-1962) Hughli (1579-1632) Nagapattinam (1507-1657) Paliacate (1518-1619) Coulan (1502-1661) Salsette (1534-1737) Masulipatão (1598-1610) Mangalore (1568-1659) Surate (1540-1612) Thoothukudi (1548-1658) São Tomé de Meliapore (1523-1662; 1687-1749)
SRY LANKA:
Portuguese CEILON (1518-1658) Half Island, all west to the interior and part of the east.
MALDIVES (1518-1521, 1558-1573)
CHINA:
Macau(1515 - 1557-1999)
JAPAN:
Deshima(Nagasaki)-(1571-1639)
ASIA, AUSTRALASIA and OCEANIA
MALAYSIA:
Malacca(1511-1641)
INDONESIA and PAPUA:
Coastal Forts in Sumatra (XVI century) Flores Island (XVI-XIX) Makassar(1512-1665) Bante- Banda (XVI-XVIII) Moluccas(Maluku): (1512 - Discovery - Amboina 1576-1605, Ternate 1522-1575, Tidore 1578-1650) West Timor(until XVIII century) Solor Islands(Middle of XVI century to 1850)
EAST TIMOR(1642-1975):
Discovery-1512-1517 process of Independence -Indonésia -Timor Timur (1975-1999) "Protectorate" UN(1999-2002)
NORTH AMERICA
CANADA:
Newfoundland Factory(1501--1503) Only Claims of Nominal Possession of LABRADOR and TERRA NOVA by the King (1501-1570) - Terras del Rey de Portugal Colony established by João Alvares Fagundes(It lasted 3 years after 1521) in Newfoundland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 ( talk) 11:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
SOUTH AMERICA
BRAZIL(1500-1822)
BARBADOS- a Factory (1536-1620)
URUGUAY: Nova Colónia do Sacramento (1680-1777) Cisplatine Province (1808-1822) - Ocupation (Expantion of Portuguese Brazil and Empire of Brazil) Change between Portugal and Spain many times.
FRENCH GUIANA (1809-1817)Conquest and ocupation. (to complete)
"Portugal's exploration and trade with most of the Western and Eastern coasts of Africa, Eastern South America, and Western, Southern and Eastern Asia, was the first major trade based form of globalization. A wave of global trade, colonization, and enculturation reached all corners of the world." and for First Global Empire "Portugal began establishing the first global trade network and empire under the leadership of Henry the Navigator."
Modelski and Thompson state that in the 16th century is frequently not recognized the true paper of the Leader Portugal in the Global Economy(already global - Brazil-Moluccas-Pacific before Cortés set foot in Mexico). Martin Paige wrote "The First Global Village,How Portugal changed the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 ( talk) 12:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Alex MacGillivray admits that Portugal was strategicaly,technicaly,comercialy more Global than Spain.Michel Chandeigne lead the very sugestive book "Lisbonne hors murs.1415-1580.L'invention du Monde par les navigateurs portugais".Leo Huberman atributes the Portuguese "the Leading Role of the "trully international" comerce".
The words "union with Spain" for the heading of the Iberian Union section are perfectly acceptable.
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new map, Image:The Portuguese Empire.png, which has labels and dates, in a similar style to Image:The British Empire.png. I believe this map is more useful than one with a million dots everywhere, leaving the reader to wonder what they mean. The use of illustrative not-to-scale squares for trading posts, forts and settlements avoids the problems of original research that inevitably arise when editors decide for themselves the extent of the areas that should be shaded. Note that it is a map of the principal forts and trading posts and is not meant to be an exhaustive list such as can be found at Evolution of the Portuguese Empire. I will add the sources used shortly to the image description at Wikicommons. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The new map is a big improvement, but seems to show Uruguay - an error, I assume, or if not then requiring explanation. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
EHT wrote: "stress fact that the dutch (NETHERLANDS) returned brazilian-held land 'cause it gives notion that they conquered all brazil)"
I do not for the life of me know how you can get the notion that this map suggests the Dutch conquered all of Brazil, when the territory is clearly shaded Portuguese. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Obrigado Ferrick-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh dude i didnt even notice the difference between those 2 maps in the PE page until now. Btw this map File:Iberian_Union_Empires.png is WRONG and innacurate, the portuguese lands werent limited to the angolese and mozambique coast, they extended much further north and south (in portuguese east africa for example the portuguese reached the Horn of Africa (somali horn).--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
He says he want to discuss his proposed map, so go ahead Pat.-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you put labels on the current red map? or at least copy the lands of the red map to the green one you are proposing and then label them? -- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 01:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I am quite curious as to the author's intended meaning in differentiating between a "commercial"& a "powerfull " [sic] empire here. Is not the conquering metropole's historic objective in enhancing military might & extending spatial reach in its transcontinental exploits the protection of far-flung commercial interests? What is this alternate imperial power to which the passage author refers? If someone could expound on the implications of this statement in-text, or provide a clarification-affording referential link (within or without Wikipedia), the effort would be greatly appreciated.
sewot_fred ( talk) 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Proving so was the sudden need for a real occupation much later, during the scramble for Africa and the Berlin Conference (1880's). Portuguese assumed sovereignty over the land based on its historical presence, so Portugal pressed into the hinterland of Angola and Mozambique, creating the Pink Map. I hope this helps you, what do you think?-- Uxbona ( talk) 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
sewot_fred 23:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rande M Sefowt ( talk • contribs)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Heh, anyone who takes a look at the history of this page is going to have fun sorting that all out. ;) -- John Owens 09:27 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Was the Portuguese Empire "the first and largest colonial empire of the 16th century", as the article says? And the Spanish Empire? (see the opinion of Wetman in the end of Talk:Spanish Empire) -- Gimferrer 19:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If we take into account that the Spanish Crown, through Phillip II of Spain (I of Portugal), took control of the Portuguese possessions at the end of the 16th century, then the 'Spanish' Empire would be bigger! lol But before that 'outrage' (note: personal oppinion of a Portuguese lol), most of the Atlantic and Indian Ocean's coast of Africa, West Coast of India, Ceylon, etc, etc were under control of the Portuguese and compared with the Spanish terrritories in America, that were still struggling against the Mayans, Aztecs, etc, the Portuguese Empire had been bigger. De facto it had been bigger since its creation in 1415, after the conquest of the moorish city of Ceuta, wich, ironically, nowadays is under Spanish control.-- Ciga 22:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the Portuguese Empire was the first and largest empire in the first half of the XVI century. In terms of continents it was the most scatered, as it existed in at least 4 continents. Athough most of the territory inhabited were the mian coastal cities, technically their influence in the region was greater than any other in most cases not to mention that in large areas there weren't any oppositions that was seem as problematic but the main problem of the Portuguese settlers was that their numbers were few and the population in Portugal was already relatively low. Technically, by the year 1578 with the death of D.Sebastião, Spain was able to join all the Portuguese Empire with it's Empire, thuis creating the greatest empire of that time. But if you look at the total area under the rules of the Portuguese crown in the first half of the 1500s and compare it with the Spanish crown you will see that despite all Portuguese possessions are all scatered all around the planet, they still in total make a large area than the Spanish possessions, which were mostly limited to central america and Peru and in south america, the possessions were mostly in the north and coastal parts of Peru. .-- Thorius Maximus 23:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Portugal and its empire were ever part of the Spanish Empire. The two countries maintained its independence and their colonies were ruled separately, that's why when the personal union ended no problem existed concerning any land (although Ceuta was loyal to Philip III of Portugal [IV of Spain] and so did not returned to the Portuguese crown). So, from 1581-1640 there was not one empire, but two, ruled by the same king. The size is subjective. If you measure the area, the Spanish was bigger, if you measure the vastness, the Portuguese was bigger. Câmara 18:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
My apologies Câmara, you are right indeed concerning the Iberian Union, that last past in my coment was just a detail that I incorrectly described.
Thorius Maximus 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats part of Tanzania not Oman is it just a mistake or was there another place called Zanzibar? Falphin 22:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I think a World Map of Portuguese colonial posessions throughout history is needed here! Dont' you agree? The Ogre 14:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that a map of all possesions of the Portuguese Empire of all times would be very illustrating, to say the least, to a lot of people. I get the impression that many English speaking people are not aware of the dimensions of the Portuguese Empire and certainly not aware that almost litterally everywhere they look in a world map they will see a Portuguese name of some location.-- Ciga 22:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The header "Empire of Brazil (1640-1822)" is both inaccurate and misleading since no such entity existed in the aforementioned period. From 1549 till 1714, Brazil was a crown colony ruled by one or sometimes two Governor Generals. From 1714 till 1815, the colony was divided into two Viceroyalties, styled respectively the Viceroyalty of Brazil and the Viceroyalty of Grão-Pará. From 1815 till 1822, Brazil was elevated to the status of United Kingdom with Portugal and Algarve. It was only after 1822, when Brazil was already an independent country, that Pedro I used the title of "Emperor of Brazil" ( AFAIK, no Portuguese monarch had ever claimed that title before during the colonial period). (anonymous)
The list of American colonies lists Upper Peru as colony in 1822. I can't find information on this anywhere, does anyone know the history? -- Andrelvis 03:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Upper Peru (today's Bolivia) was occupied by the Portuguese during the Napoleonic Wars. Since Spain was, until 1808, an ally of France, and the Portuguese Queen and Court had «withdrawn» to Brazil, the Spanish colonies became fair game for the Portuguese. Uruguay and the French Guyana were also occupied during this period, and remaind occupied for quite some time. In my opinion, however, to call Upper Peru a Portuguese colony is a bit far-fetched.-- Nuno Gabriel Cabral 18:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This article needs someone whose native language is english to clean up some cumbersome sentences. "In 1433 Cape Bojador was doubled" <- Vê-se mesmo que isto foi escrito por um português. "Dobrado" vem de dobrar como em dobrar roupa e assim. Em inglês não existe coincidência entre dobrar de fazer o dobro e dobrar de dobrar roupa. -arcozelo
.. could be disputed at present; e.g. Burma, Sri Lanka. The article implies that entire countries or territories belonged to Portugal, though the actual possession was limited to a few settlements, coastal areas, or was contested. Imc 18:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Technically since there wasn't almost any opposition(and some of these costal settlemenst were taken through belical means), the autoctone populations weren't much of a danger to the securaty of the coastal possessions(due to the strong military presence in those cities), and since there weren't any opposition in the surrounding area, not to mention that many of these coastal cities were the economically and political centre of entire regions that could reach hundreds of miles, technically by taking the main coastal cities or dozens of miles, you also gain economical, political control of the region, that is, providing you have the necessary military power to continue having the city under your control, but it is also true that Portugal also tried to maintain teritorial control of the regions around these coastal cities, thus by saying that it was more that just the cities isn't entirely untrue. -- Thorius Maximus 23:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think portuguese exploration and colonization of this north american lands are not discussed here. Portugal was an active force on exploration of the north-eastern part of North America and de facto claimed these lands to Portugal (Cantino 1503 is the first map claiming this, showing Newfoundland as "Terra del Rey de Portugal", followed by Waldseemuller 1507 in wich Newfoundland is shown with the portuguese flag) and tried to colonise them in the 1520s (with João Álvares Fagundes). In several maps of the 16th century the portuguese shield is shown, as in João Vaz Dourado (I don't remember now exactly the year, but is from the middle of the century). I think the article and the map could talk about this subject more than a single dot in the map. These lands were really part of the portuguese empire and it seems nobody is pointing this, here and everywhere in wikipedia excluding, obviosly, the articles of the explorers.-- Câmara 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Then we should put these facts, we should also establish connections between these facts and Colombo's related facts, at is, if the sub article is made. -- Thorius Maximus 4:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. But how I can put the pictures with the copyright thing? The Cantino (and the João Vaz Dourado) maps are essencial in here! Câmara 02:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I have some sugestions, please comment:
-I think the map should appear at the top of the page, and the "history of portugal series" after.
-I think the "begining of the empire" should be split because it's too big now, very massive. I think we can make some chapters in time: From Ceuta to Cape Bojador, From Cape Bojador to Cape of Good Hope, Tordesilhas and implications, the route to india, asiatic exploration, north american exploration, south american exploration and the height of the empire. Only after we can go to the Habsburg kings. Now we have like a super massive block having all these things together, it's not good to read, and I think is a mess. I sugest some more images too (maps, caravels, etc).
-I suggest to grow "The empire of Africa 1822-1945". Why not talking about portuguese explorers, the pink map (lol, I don't know if in english is like this).
-I think the territories of the portuguese empire should go to another page, here they are huge.
Please also comment the North American portuguese possession thing I wrote here.-- Câmara 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
How about a map?!? The Ogre 10:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
They look like troll-work - loss of the "independence of Spain?" NorCalHistory 12:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In Sagres:
What are the facts? — Athænara ✉ 11:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to know, recent studies indicate that there was a cartography and navigational center in Sagres, yet it was a minor one. The main installations and also for the departure of ship were all in Lisbon, and later voyages departure from Lisbon.
In fact if you must know, one of the main cartography centres and vesel research was in the Guadiana river because it's was a relatively isolated place, and the level of the waters in the Guadiana had risen in those times. That's were the caravel was developed. And no, the caravel was not developed by either the moors, or italians of anyone. The caravel's design is based on a model of a ship that was used by muslims in the mediterranian and shortly after also by venesians italians etc, yet this was only the basic design on some levels, in those naval centers they had to change the ship in order that it can sustain the sea waters, storms of the atlantic, it's cargo capacity had to be increased, yet without sacrificing the ship's speed etc.
The main cartography centre was in Lisbon. And from the entire mediterranian came cartgraphers and many of then were also from portugal since portugal was a nation in which the sea had an important part in it's economy.
There wasn't one observatory, there were several observatories. The astrobalious was already used by muslims yet they were very primite models, yet the quadrant was invented in portugal. The existing version at that time of the astrolabious had to be further developed in order to be appliable concerning star maps and orientation methods, and even the complexity of the astrolabious itself had to be develpoed.
If there is one field that historians say the kingdom of portugal at that time completely revolutionized without any external influences with the exception of maps that were brought by portuguese spies in far east such as Master Spy Pero da Covilha, it is cartography. Other fields would not have developed without portuguese influence, fields such as naval technology, astronomy and mathematics concerning geographical and planetary measures. Yet, it is true that Portuguese planetary calculations were based on the muslim one's, yet they had to be further developed.
When comparing the Navigator's time with the zenite of John II, Henry didn't do much, yet it is worth to be said that "he had to do the hard part in some fields".
Does the text in the page remain faithfull in most aspects to what I've said? Yes, don't forget this is a sum up of many things, thus some precision is sacrificed, yet the idea it presents is supported by historical researches.
Thorius Maximus 21:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've made an error here.
The main research center was indeed in Sagres, but it was not a school, such statement is a mith, it was in fact a citadel. With the death of Henry, everything was transfered to Lisbon, from then all voyages departured from Lisbon.
My apologies abou the mistake.
Thorius Maximus 21:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't think so. Specially not when it has been explored before. -- Arigato1 10:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's get an example. Let's think for example Ascension Island. If there was no population on Ascension Island, who ruled in there? It's not need to have a soldier in every square meter of land, there was international recognition and no other claim. So, even without soldiers in there Ascension Island would be of the UK. Portugal was not the first to explore Greenland, that's obvious, but in the 1500's Portugal explored it, Portugal claimed it, Portugal had recognition of it (treaty of Tordesilhas/Tordesillas by "Spain" and the Pope (the most important person at that time)) and nobody claimed it too (Denmark, Norway, England, etc). It is shown in lots of maps of that time. (We don't know if there was a colony there, probably no, and we don't know how strong the portuguese presence was there.) Think also in Canada. Canadian borders were defined before the total exploration of the country. In Persia Portugal explored all the coast, but had only Hormuz, so exploration is not the same as empire, as you say.
I said this on the portuguese empire image discussion:
"Portugal did have lands in North America (I'm including Greenland). They were not famous, that's why nobody knows about them (even in Portugal). João Fernandes "Lavrador" and Pêro de Barcelos explored Greenland and Labrador, but the date is matter of dispute (1492, 1495, 1498, 1499). AFAIK the letter of king Manuel I to João Fernandes giving rights of the lands he would discovert is only of 1499. After that Miguel and Gaspar Corte-Real explored Newfoundland and near coasts, in 1500-1501. They disappeared but some ships returned to Portugal. Another expedition was set to look for them. We do not know how many voyages went there. In 1521 João Álvares Fagundes asked permition to colonise those lands, and the king accepted. The colony was abandoned in 1526, and we do not know why. After that, we do not know if portuguese presence was significative or not, but fishermen continued to fish in Newfoundland.
This is the history. Unfortunately, portuguese discoveries were mostly secret, so we have very few documents. And we have maps. And maps that show those lands as portuguese.
Cantino 1502 http://docenti.lett.unisi.it/files/33/1/6/1/cantino.jpg The first uncontroversial representation of Newfoundland (and maybe the land dispicted is also Labrador, connected to Newfoundland). And the name that appears is... "Land of the king of Portugal", and it has two portuguese flags in it. Greenland also has portuguese flags in it, although I cannot see what name appears above it. It is enough to show that those lands were portuguese. But let's analyze some more maps.
Ribero/Ribeiro 1529 search in internet We have a Land of Corte-Real and a Land of Lavrador. Interestingly, Greenland is connected to Labrador, wich might explain why Labrador visited both (remember there was a mini ice age in the 15th century, so maybe they were connected)
Waldseemuller 1507 http://docenti.lett.unisi.it/files/33/1/6/2/wald.jpg We have a land in North Atlantic with the portuguese flag (you may search for a coloured map, to see portuguese flag better). It may be Newfoundland or Newfoundland+Labrador or Newfoundland+Labrador+Greenland. I cannot tell what it is.
Lopo Homem 1519 hard to find We have a map of Newfoundland and Labrador with portuguese shields and lots of portuguese names
Vaz Dourado c.1576 search in internet We have again a portuguese shield and portuguese names
We have lots of another maps, and also about Fagundes.
I hope the Greenland/Newfoundland/Labrador thing is clear now, as they were short lived portuguese possessions. The only doubt I have in the map is the Barbados thing. I included it but maybe I shouldn't, I never heard of it and I just heard about it in the Portuguese Empire page. Anyway the map is clearly conservative, and is not fantasy nor BS. If you have doubts, just look at the documents and maps and books." Câmara 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That's wrong. What is the sources for you think Greenland has been Portugiese?? -- Arigato1 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you saw the maps, especially Cantino? It is a claim, since the portuguese flag is in there. Câmara 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This user seems to have a problem in accepting documented history, Perhaps the idea of a portuguese colony existing in newfoundand is not of your liking? Deal with it, thats's not our problem, it's yours.
By the way, the new map is very well done, yet the only thing I disagree(but that's just my opinion) are the pink regions in newfoundand and north america, they should the defined as colonized.
Thorius Maximus 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Second: A map is a document, and so can be a reference. Maps can be very elucidative about some details. Third: Newfoundland and Labrador...not only some maps show them as a portuguese possession, there are lots of them, maps from 1502 to the latest half of the XVI century, from different countries... but OK, here are some references to "not maps" about portuguese presence there:
Fourth: Australia. Although I think portuguese explored it (at least), I think we should wait until more conclusive details are revealed, and so should not be included in the map (yet). Câmara 23:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/portuguese.html
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/early_ex.html
I'm still looking into more sources. Indeed I have not found an article saying by 100% that there was a colony, but in all articles I've seen, it is strongly suspected that indeed happened, nevertheless I'm still searching.
There is one thing wrong with the current map. It's the pink zones in newfoundland and labrador with interogation marks. Those maks should be removed but the pink zone should remain. All articles clearly state it's was explored and trade routes were created, thus the interrogations mark should disappear.
By the way, in an article about Cabot, it was said that the natives he found had a word for a certain fish which was Bacaalao. Coincidence hum? :P (cod existed in the portuguese coast, but it was extinguished in the early middle ages)
Thorius Maximus 23:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that those areas were explored by the Portuguese is an undeniable fact. These are some maps of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador and Greenland with the Portuguese coat-of-arms and/or the cross of the Order of Christ. They could be used for the article as some show also other Atlantic possessions of Portugal. I think the maps speak for themselves, showing that these lands were considered part of the Portuguese Empire:
Câmara 01:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I forgot Waldseemuller 1507, that also shows the Portuguese coat-of-arms in Labrador or Newfoundland or Newfoundland+Labrador or Newfoundland+Labrador+Greenland - the land in the Western North Atlantic. Câmara 17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Another thing, and this is just because of accuracy issues. I suggest that in the pink areas description be pointed one more things and that's the presence of trade routes. Although the presence of a colony in newfoundland, labrador and corte real is not confirmed, besides from explorations, there were indeed trade routes, and this also applies to many other regions. Thorius Maximus 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I just did and added an anachronous map of the Portuguese Empire (1415-1999). Please feel free to comment. Thanks. The Ogre 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just re-added the map. The Ogre 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to work on it, still have some objections, but will voice them latter (sorry, I'm in a hurry just now!). For now, can we leave at that? The Ogre 15:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!! The Ogre 15:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Brazil was not in his borders of today part of Portuguese Empire. -- J. Patrick Fischer 13:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Luis_wiki Can you please remove the white border lines between current Brazil and Uruguai and Brazil and French Guiana? Thank You. Luis_Wiki
Canarias Island never was included in the portugueses empire and part of the Brazilian territory was purchased after the independence, etc, etc. The map is only portuguese chauvinism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.31.46 ( talk • contribs)
In 1402, the conquest of the islands began, with the expedition of Juan de Bethencourt and Gadifer de la Salle to the island of Lanzarote, Norman nobles who were vassals of Henry III of Castile. From there, they conquered Fuerteventura and Hierro. Béthencourt received the title King of the Canary Islands, but recognized King Henry III as his overlord. Béthencourt also established a base on the island of Gomera, but it would be many years before the island was truly conquered. The people of Gomera, as well as the Gran Canaria, Tenerife, and La Palma people, resisted the Spanish invaders for almost a century. Between 1448 and 1459, there was a crisis between Castile and Portugal over control of the islands, when Maciot de Bethencourt sold the lordship of Lanzarote to Portugal's Prince Henry the Navigator, an action that was not accepted by the natives or the Castilian residents of the island, who initiated a revolt and expelled the Portuguese. In 1479 Portugal recognised Castilian control of the Canary Islands in the Treaty of Alcaçovas.
Hello J. Patrick Fischer! I'll try to adress your objections some time soon (as well as other objections made by others), I promise. I just don't have the time right know. Thanks! The Ogre 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Corrected the map regarding Brazil - basically some changes to the Amazonian region, the border with Paraguay and the inner part of modern Santa Catarina state. Those areas were fomerly in red and are now in pink, since they were areas claimed by the Portuguese.
The Ogre
20:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the supposedly "map of the lands of the Habsburg kings in the period of personal union of Portugal (1580-1640)". you see, the map does not show the the lands of the Habsburg kings, but is an anachronous map showing areas pertaining to the Spanish Empire at various times over a period exceeding 400 years! As can be seen in the article Spanish Empire. Therefore, I'm removing it. Anyhow it was a bit strange to have an essencialy Spanish map as first map in an article called Portuguese Empire... The Ogre 20:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This refers only to 1580-160, right? The Ogre 15:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Câmara. If you contact User:Merbabu, he may probably help you with Indonesia. Cheers! The Ogre 12:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
What a great article! Well done! I'm a bit confused about the following para though - which sticks out like a sore thumb for poor expression and a lack of neutrality. "A not so well known and disputed fact is that a 16th century maritime map in a Los Angeles library vault proved that Portuguese explorers, not British or Dutch, were the first Europeans to discover Australia. The map, which accurately marks geographical sites along Australia's east coast in Portuguese, proves that Portuguese seafarer Cristóvão de Mendonça lead a fleet of four ships into Botany Bay in 1522 - almost 250 years before Britain's Captain James Cook.[1]" I suspect this just slipped in recently, un-noticed? Perhaps the author could re-word it in accordance with Wiki standards and the style of the rest of the article!-- Nickm57 02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick is right. The maps proves nothing. The Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia is just a possibility. Anyway, a "true" discovery (sorry for the eurocentric view) is going there and back and letting people know! Even if the Portuguese knew Australia, they sure didn't let know... The Ogre 08:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Pageup/Mr Lack of Neutrality, no offense intended! However, the new text is clearer. I guess we'd better keep clear of Reuters... -- Nickm57 10:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
First global empire? what about the Mongols? VanTucky 00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so we strictly mean global here. As in, must have occupied every continent not just multiple ones. In that case the article is correct. Just depends on the def of globla empire of course. And btw: the Mongols covered a hell of alot more territory than the Portuguese did, so saying just a little bit of Europe is rather silly. Have you seen the bloody map on the Mongol Empire page? VanTucky 01:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Please come to Talk:Spanish Empire#Map and participate in the discussion. It pertains to the inclusion of the Portuguese Empire in the territories of the Spanish Empire during the period of the Iberian Union from 1580 to 1640. Thank you! The Ogre 13:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The conquest of the Canary islands began in 1402 with the expedition of Juan de Bethencourt and Gadifer de la Salle, who were vassals of Henry III of Castile, to the island of Lanzarote. The portuguese expansion began with the capture of Ceuta in 1415. So the extra-peninsular and extra-european expansion of the kingdom of Castile was earlier than the portuguese. Before that the aragonese had conquered several territories all over the Mediterranean. And what about the Roman empire? Conclusion: It is uncertain that the portuguese empire was the earliest at all. I don't understand the interest to eliminate every reference to Spain and the spanish in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignaciogavira ( talk • contribs)
Historical consensus about that? are you sure? Facts: Lanzarote (Africa and Spanish today) 1402, Ceuta (Africa and Spanish today) 1415. The historical consensus is that Spain and Portugal compited during the 15th century to expand their territories out of Europe (Spain inside too). It is a fact too that portuguese explored first the routes around Africa. The disputes between Castile (not Spain) and Portugal were resolved first with the treaty of Alcaçobas-Toledo, and after with the Treaty of Tordesillas. Those are historical facts, not "my own original research". Really you need references?
Anyway, my question is about the interest to eliminate any reference to Spain in this article. The other matters are quite controversial. In my oppinion refferences to Spain in the Portuguese Empire, and to Portugal in the Spanish Empire in the beginning of both are essential to make them really neutral. -- Ignacio 18:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
OK maybe it is so that Castile explored those islands in 1402 but this wasn't the real change that the spanish needed to start their conquest!! it was from 1492 that the difference was obvious for Spain. In the Meanwhile the Portuguese explorer were already in South-Africa !! not to mention the attempts of Portugal to navigate West of the Azores (America)!!!! so that's why 1415 is synonim of the beginning of the exploration of the globe !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.92.176.3 ( talk • contribs)
Sorry for opening another thread on this, but the others are big and this new one can possibly captivate more people. I discovered a Portuguese source from 1570 by Francisco de Souza, "Tratado das Ilhas Novas" (Treaty of The New Islands) that mentions a Portuguese colony in Cape Breton Island. In Portuguese:
"Haverá 45 annos ou 50 que de Vianna se ajuntarão certos homens fidalgos, e pela informação que tiveram da terra Nova do Bacalháo se determinaram a ir povoar alguma parte d'ella, como de feito foram em uma náo e uma caravella, e, por acharem a terra muito fria, donde ião determinados, correram para a costa de Leste Oeste té darem na de Nordeste--Sudoeste, e ahi habitaram, e por se lhe perderem os Navios não houve mais noticia d'elles, sómente por via de Biscainhos, que continuam na dita Costa a buscar e a resgatar muitas coisas que na dita Costa há, dão destes homens informação e dizem que lhe pedem digam cá a nós outros como estão ali, e que lhe levem sacerdotes, porque o gentio é domestico e a terra muito farta e boa, como mais largamente tenho as informações, e é notorio aos homens que lá navegam; e isto é no cabo do Britão logo na entrada da costa que corre ao Norte em uma formoza de Bahia donde tem grande povoação; e ha na terra coisas de muito preço e muita nóz, castanha, uvas, e outros fructos, por onde parece ser a terra boa e assim nesta companhia foram alguns casais das Ilhas dos Açores, que de caminho tomaram como é notorio: Nosso Senhor queira por sua misericordia abrir caminho como lhe vá soccorro, e minha tenção é hir á dita costa de caminho quando fôr á Ilha de S. Francisco, que tudo se póde fazer d'uma viagem."
I will try to translate, so please point my errors:
"45 or 50 years ago (1520 or 1525) some fidalgos [small nobles] from Viana [very north of Portugal] group together and being aware of the news of Terra Nova do Bacalhau [Newfoundland], decided to colonise in some place of it, so they went in one nau and one caravel and found the land very cold, the one they had thought to go, they navigated the coast East-West until they found a Northeastern-Southwest one, and there they settled, and because the ships were lost there was no informations of them, information only came from the people of Biscaya [in Spain, basques], that continued in that coast gathering the things the coast gives [fish, probably]. This people [Basques] said that the Portuguese in there want to say to us [Portuguese in Portugal] how they live there, and ask to take them priests, beacause the gentios [I'm not sure, but I think they are refering the indians] are domestic [?] and the earth is very fertile, as I [Francisco de Souza] have information, and can be seen by the people that navigate there; and this is in Cape Breton, in the entry of coast that runs in North, in a beautiful bay that has great population; and exists there things that have great value and lots of nuts, chestnuts, grapes, and other fruits, where the land seems good and with them went some couples from Azores, that went with them when they passed there: that Our Lord may open way as give them help, and my intention [Francisco de Souza] is to go to that coast when I will go to the Island of St. Francis [Anticoste Island, my interpretation from an indication in this text (200 leagues west of Onze Mil Virgens, todays St. Pierre et Miquelon, and the island is 40 leagues long and 20 leagues wide], as both things can be done in one voyage."
Fagundes is from Viana, so almost surely he went with them (he had the captaincy of these lands).
A thought of mine: Samuel de Champlain mentions a portuguese colony that was only one winter long. Possibly this one-winter-long colony was in Newfoundland or East Cape Breton, the one they found too cold.
I was searching for this text and I found it in a site, which seemed to me respectable enough: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21011/21011-h/21011-h.htm
Please comment, and please correct my attempt of translation :P Câmara 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Spanish_Empire about whether an anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire should include the Portuguese colonies as of 1580-1640 (indeed, Portugal itself), during the time of the Iberian Union, as "Spanish". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Calling Salazar a "military dictator" is ridiculous. Salzar's was a right-wing authoritarian regime, but Salazar himself was not an Army man. He was an Enconomics Professor at Coimbra University. He was called upon by the Portuguse bourgeoisie to rescue their interests which were threatened by the economic crisis and social unrest. His policy was : stabilize the currency, cut social programmes, help the rich keep rich and help the poor accept their fate. No so far from what has become the dogma in neo-liberal circles and at the ECB ! Actually, Portugal became poorer and poorer as its currency continued to strengthen, accumulating gold reserves whereas the peasants were starving. One of Salazar's merits, however, was to have kept Portugal out of World War II (although his sympathies went to the US and UK allies, to whom he granted military facilities in the Azores). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.220.87.68 ( talk) 21:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree!! what the fuck you know asshole. He was a great man,no different than any other good leader today.He looked after the country as a hole. All other nations were trying to fuck Portugal up (America & England) but he failed because he forgot to look at the Portuguese past history..... PORTUGUESE NEVER STAND TOGETHER AS A PEOPLES NATION.P.S. At times it sad for me to be Portuguese.
I have read several articles about the Portuguese Empire from Wikipedia and Encarta encyclopedias. I read them in English, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian. Lots of the dates between these articles do not match (particularly on Wikipedia).
For the followings, I would like to know the date of discovery:
For the followings, I would like to confirm one and only one date of discovery:
If any of you knows the correct dates, please add a comment before correcting the encyclopedia.
ICE77 -- 84.223.77.237 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Various alterations to the Dutch Empire map have been made, with no sources provided for these alterations. Would appreciate comment on the Talk:Dutch Empire page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As the one above me has said, we are having a dispute. He claims this site is an unreliable reference despite the fact that they list where they got every single piece of information from. http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ ( Red4tribe ( talk) 23:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
There's no mention of East Timor being invaded by the Japanese in World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.125 ( talk) 10:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
how can an empire that was declining since the spanish hasburgs left Portugal appear as decling from the mid-20 century? i changed the title of the subheading to : "The last remnants of the empire". also im going to try to expand the Legacy part of the article :) -- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 01:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
"There is little evidence to support the notion that Portugal had actually become a real global power [1].While it did predominate the trade route around Africa, its function was more of an entrepreneur than a global power [2].Also it had no monopoly over the trade from the East as Venice had control over most trade entering into the Mediterranean [3]. Spain enjoyed more riches than Portugal in the Treaty of Tordesillas, as the Incan and Aztec prizes fell into its sphere of influence [4].Claims of Portugal's super power status are further vitiated by observing its swift conquest by and absorption into Spain later by the 16th century [5].Even extent of its victories over Muslim naval power in the Indian ocean has been questioned with the observation made that the Ottoman holdings and commercial enterprises were little affected by Portuguese military and naval operations [6]. "
Somebody wrote this in the "The last remnants of the Empire" , i have no idea what it has to do there so i deleted it -- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 01:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Only after 1535 Ottomans enter in Red Sea by Egypt, persecuted by the Portuguese in Red Sea(even in its beginning of its "fall" as dominant empire) The Turkish Threats on Diu or any another Portuguese position in India or Arabia had failed, after 1540s Portugal already did not have absolute (or majority until that) commercial monopoly in Indian Ocean. This had reflections in the terrestrial commerce.(a response to that statement by Somebody, not to you here ok!)
WT? but Indian Ocean was a Portuguese Lake, with 22 cities in west coast of India, more than half Ceylon, Oman(Muscat and all major cities and fortresses in Oman - Arabia Peninsula), Bahrein(Arabian p.), Queshem and Ormuz in Persian coast, part of today Emirates(Arabian Peninsula) and from Brazil to Moluccas, Macau and Deshima. For some years the thalassocracy was total with expeditions to the coasts of the Sinai, against the still incipient but increasing Turkish positions in Egypt(its fleet in particular) and attempts for one year in Basrah(Iraq). Of course 1540 -1550(even years before) mark a long decay and loss of domain in this maritime and commercial empire.
The first Global Empire was Portugal - for the degree of its expansion in determined chronological time, without forgetting that Spain became the main global power in the second half of XVI century in Europe (where Portugal had only its own continental and Atlantic territory) and in the world as colonial power(in its part of North America and in its part of Oceania by the half part that fit to it in the treat of Tordesillas and Zaragoza/Elvas) - and that the global empire (or empires) the first one, was a deed of both Iberians.
In 1500-1501 - the first one in 4(or 5) Continents and the first one in some subcontinents - and with the first Establishments in the Moluccas, Ceram and Bante Islands in 1512-1513 the first in 5(or 6) Continents - in fact already in the Australian continental plate - and proclaiming nominal domain on west Papua (New Guinea) in 1526.
Let us respect the truth and history.
The article is very good and interesting but it can be more clearly in the first paragraph. Is good.
Empire:
EUROPE(EUROPEAN PLATE and AFRICAN OCEANIC PLATE)
PORTUGAL - Continent; Azores; Madeira(Selvagens)
MOROCCO:
Aguz (1506-1525) Alcácer-Ceguer (1458-1550) Arzila (1471-1550, 1577-1589) Azamor (1513-1541) Ceuta (1415-1640) Mazagon (1485-1550, 1556-1769) Mogador (1506-1525) Safim (1488-1541) Agadir (1505-1769) Tanger (1471-1662) Ouadane (1487- midle XVI)
AFRICA(SOUTH OF SAHARA):
ANGOLA (1575-1975) Cabinda-(1883-1975)
ANO BOM (1474-1778)
MAURITANIA: Arguim (1455-1633)
CAPE VERDE(1462-1975)
GANA: São Jorge da Mina (1482-1637) Costa do Ouro (1482-1642) Acra (1557-1578) FERNANDO PÓ (1478-1778)
GUINEA BISSAU: Guiné Portuguesa (1879-1974)
KENYA: Melinde (1500-1630) Mombaza (1593-1698, 1728-1729)
MOZAMBIQUE (1501-1975)
MADAGASCAR: Nominal - a base(necessary to review the sources)
TANZANIA: Kilwa (1505-1512) Zanzibar (1503-1698)
BENIN: Fortress of São João Baptista de Ajudá (1680-1961)
SÃO TOMÉ E PRINCIPE (1753-1975)
SENEGAL: Ziguinchor (1645-1888)
YEMEN(ASIA- "near" AFRICA): Socotra (1506-1511)
And more several areas of influence, indirect domain or tributaries Kingdoms in Africa, Asia etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 ( talk) 11:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
ASIA
ARABIAN Peninsula:
BAHREIN(ARABIAN PENINSULA):
Bahrein and Al Qatif (1521-1602)
OMAN-(ARABIAN PENINSULA) and ARAB EMIRATES:
Muscat(1515-1650) Doba, Libedia, Corfação, Mada and Quelba (1515-1650)
SAUDI ARABIA and U. ARAB EMIRATES:
Khasab, Julfar(1515-1650)
IRAN -PERSIAN Coast:
Hormuz (1515-1622) Comoron (1515-1622) Qeshem (1515-1622) Bandar Abbas (1506-1615)
INDIA:
Laquedives Islands (1498-1545) Baçaím (1535-1739) Bombay (Mumbai) (1534-1661) Calecute (1512-1525) Cananor (1502-1663); Chaul (1521-1740) Chittagong (1528-1666) Cochim (1500-1663) Cranganor (1536-1662) Dadrá e Nagar-Aveli (1779-1954) Daman (1559-1962) Diu (1535-1962) Goa (1510-1962) Hughli (1579-1632) Nagapattinam (1507-1657) Paliacate (1518-1619) Coulan (1502-1661) Salsette (1534-1737) Masulipatão (1598-1610) Mangalore (1568-1659) Surate (1540-1612) Thoothukudi (1548-1658) São Tomé de Meliapore (1523-1662; 1687-1749)
SRY LANKA:
Portuguese CEILON (1518-1658) Half Island, all west to the interior and part of the east.
MALDIVES (1518-1521, 1558-1573)
CHINA:
Macau(1515 - 1557-1999)
JAPAN:
Deshima(Nagasaki)-(1571-1639)
ASIA, AUSTRALASIA and OCEANIA
MALAYSIA:
Malacca(1511-1641)
INDONESIA and PAPUA:
Coastal Forts in Sumatra (XVI century) Flores Island (XVI-XIX) Makassar(1512-1665) Bante- Banda (XVI-XVIII) Moluccas(Maluku): (1512 - Discovery - Amboina 1576-1605, Ternate 1522-1575, Tidore 1578-1650) West Timor(until XVIII century) Solor Islands(Middle of XVI century to 1850)
EAST TIMOR(1642-1975):
Discovery-1512-1517 process of Independence -Indonésia -Timor Timur (1975-1999) "Protectorate" UN(1999-2002)
NORTH AMERICA
CANADA:
Newfoundland Factory(1501--1503) Only Claims of Nominal Possession of LABRADOR and TERRA NOVA by the King (1501-1570) - Terras del Rey de Portugal Colony established by João Alvares Fagundes(It lasted 3 years after 1521) in Newfoundland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 ( talk) 11:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
SOUTH AMERICA
BRAZIL(1500-1822)
BARBADOS- a Factory (1536-1620)
URUGUAY: Nova Colónia do Sacramento (1680-1777) Cisplatine Province (1808-1822) - Ocupation (Expantion of Portuguese Brazil and Empire of Brazil) Change between Portugal and Spain many times.
FRENCH GUIANA (1809-1817)Conquest and ocupation. (to complete)
"Portugal's exploration and trade with most of the Western and Eastern coasts of Africa, Eastern South America, and Western, Southern and Eastern Asia, was the first major trade based form of globalization. A wave of global trade, colonization, and enculturation reached all corners of the world." and for First Global Empire "Portugal began establishing the first global trade network and empire under the leadership of Henry the Navigator."
Modelski and Thompson state that in the 16th century is frequently not recognized the true paper of the Leader Portugal in the Global Economy(already global - Brazil-Moluccas-Pacific before Cortés set foot in Mexico). Martin Paige wrote "The First Global Village,How Portugal changed the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 ( talk) 12:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Alex MacGillivray admits that Portugal was strategicaly,technicaly,comercialy more Global than Spain.Michel Chandeigne lead the very sugestive book "Lisbonne hors murs.1415-1580.L'invention du Monde par les navigateurs portugais".Leo Huberman atributes the Portuguese "the Leading Role of the "trully international" comerce".
The words "union with Spain" for the heading of the Iberian Union section are perfectly acceptable.
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new map, Image:The Portuguese Empire.png, which has labels and dates, in a similar style to Image:The British Empire.png. I believe this map is more useful than one with a million dots everywhere, leaving the reader to wonder what they mean. The use of illustrative not-to-scale squares for trading posts, forts and settlements avoids the problems of original research that inevitably arise when editors decide for themselves the extent of the areas that should be shaded. Note that it is a map of the principal forts and trading posts and is not meant to be an exhaustive list such as can be found at Evolution of the Portuguese Empire. I will add the sources used shortly to the image description at Wikicommons. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The new map is a big improvement, but seems to show Uruguay - an error, I assume, or if not then requiring explanation. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
EHT wrote: "stress fact that the dutch (NETHERLANDS) returned brazilian-held land 'cause it gives notion that they conquered all brazil)"
I do not for the life of me know how you can get the notion that this map suggests the Dutch conquered all of Brazil, when the territory is clearly shaded Portuguese. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Obrigado Ferrick-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh dude i didnt even notice the difference between those 2 maps in the PE page until now. Btw this map File:Iberian_Union_Empires.png is WRONG and innacurate, the portuguese lands werent limited to the angolese and mozambique coast, they extended much further north and south (in portuguese east africa for example the portuguese reached the Horn of Africa (somali horn).--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
He says he want to discuss his proposed map, so go ahead Pat.-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you put labels on the current red map? or at least copy the lands of the red map to the green one you are proposing and then label them? -- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 01:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I am quite curious as to the author's intended meaning in differentiating between a "commercial"& a "powerfull " [sic] empire here. Is not the conquering metropole's historic objective in enhancing military might & extending spatial reach in its transcontinental exploits the protection of far-flung commercial interests? What is this alternate imperial power to which the passage author refers? If someone could expound on the implications of this statement in-text, or provide a clarification-affording referential link (within or without Wikipedia), the effort would be greatly appreciated.
sewot_fred ( talk) 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Proving so was the sudden need for a real occupation much later, during the scramble for Africa and the Berlin Conference (1880's). Portuguese assumed sovereignty over the land based on its historical presence, so Portugal pressed into the hinterland of Angola and Mozambique, creating the Pink Map. I hope this helps you, what do you think?-- Uxbona ( talk) 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
sewot_fred 23:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rande M Sefowt ( talk • contribs)