Talk:Ottoman–Portuguese confrontations

message: 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)
thread_title: War?

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: NOTE

message: 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:  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ; 
*In East Africa: ; 
*In Arabia: ; 
*In Muscat:  ; 
*In India: 
03:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese massacres 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First World Power Statement

message: 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."G. Modelski, 1988, SeaPower and Global Politics, p. 17 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."Roger Crowley, 2015, 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"Charles Boxer, 1969, The Portuguese Seaborne Empire 1415-1825, p. 11
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." Karen Hasler, William R. THompson, 1994, The Great Powers and Global Struggle, 1490-1990, p. 17 
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.Anthony Marx, 1998, Making Race and Nation, p.43
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".Tai-hoon Kim,Hojjat Adeli,Hyun-seob Cho at all, 2011, Grid and Distributed Computing: International Conferences, GDC 2011, p. 562
Finally, The scholar Richard J. Ellings claims: "Portugal's fifteenth and sixteenth century empire was the first of truly global reach."Richard J. Ellings, 1985, Embargoes and world power: lessons from American foreign policy, p. 19
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)
thread_title:  Portugal as the First World Power 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Return this page to its original name and other fixes 

message: 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. 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 , since I've noticed the thread you're both involved in on the MILHIST talk page. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current title