Talk:History of Portugal

message: hi... We're trying to get up a functional wikipedia page regarding the capture of the Portuguese colony of Goa by the Indians in 1961. So far we have had abundant information from indian military and history sources, but are faced with a paucity of information when it comes to portraying the Portuguese side of the conflict. we would appreciate any inputs you can offer in this regard for The Liberation of Goa
Do forgive me for calling it the 'Liberation of Goa'. I imagine that it would be called differently by the portuguese, and we would want to reflect that too in the page. 
Thank you.
Tigerassault 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed with the Liberation of Goa 

message: A large chunk of Portuguese history seems to be missing between "Crises of the Nineteenth Century" (ending in 1834) and "The First Republic" (beginning in 1910).  Has this never been written up for wiki, or was it deleted?
:I'm currently working on that. I've already written History of Portugal (1578-1777) and I'm finishing History of Portugal (1777-1834). Then I'll start History of Portugal (1834-1910). After that I'll summarize the info and put it in the History of Portugal article. Feel free to join me. If you're kind please make a revision of what I've written so far in the first too so that we can eliminate POV's. Thanks. Gameiro 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something Missing

message: The first lines are an obvious POV!
:I Agree. I have always agreed. It's time to change it. I'm on it. I think. The Ogre 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it already. Now it just states Portugal's ancient origin in the Early Middle Ages and mentions its importance and Empire in the Ages of Discovery. The Ogre 14:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I didn't know that Portugal participated WWI.
What was the outcome for Portugal?
---
* Portugal has allways cared for its allies. The country has a long relation with England, that had helped mantain Portugal independence due to Spanish/ Castillian wishes to control Portugal. Just like in the case of Iraq, when the country helped the US. though most disagreed with the motives of that.  Portugal also did not had a motive not to accept the block made by France to England. The country was invaded, and part of the territory is still ruled by Spain (Olivença), and England hadnt help in fact, it made things worse. Normally, Alies don't care much about Portugal. LOL. Real gains to Portugal being in the WWI there werent any. -Pedro 17:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WWI

message: *After the heading Main article The Establishment of the Monarchy in Portugal. this article needs a brief summary of the fuller treatment at the sub-article. 
* After the heading Main article The Consolidation of the Monarchy in Portugal (1279-1415) this article needs a brief summary of the fuller treatment at the sub-article.
*And others... --Wetman 06:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Integrating a new series

message: Several topics on Portuguese history from 1974 until the present are featured in the Legislative elections in Portugal series. If anyone can fit that into the article it would be good. Afonso Silva 23:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the Democratic Portugal

message: What do you think of the template?--Gameiro 02:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: The article on John III of Portugal is currently nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Support the article with your vote or comment on the nomination.--Fenice 09:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: I think a World Map of Portuguese colonial posessions throughout history is needed in Portuguese Empire! Dont' you agree? The Ogre 14:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of Portuguese Empire

message: Does someone with interrest in the Estado Novo period clean that section. I copy pasted it in here from Portugal article, it seems a copy paste from a Blog, and is extremelly POV and borring! --Pedro 19:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt delete  it because there's useful info that can be used when cleaned. --Pedro 01:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I made a start, condensing it and removing sarcasm and extravagance. --Wetman 01:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Estado Novo

message: History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to state that it is now a featured article candidate. You can support or oppose here. Thanks. Gameiro 01:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: I am reasonably familiar with German history in the 1920's and happen to know that Mauser was supplying arms to Portugal right after WW1. The question I have no answer to is; which Portugese government(s) or institutions were buying, and whether there was major military/police activity either at home or in the colonies?
MauserWerk 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1920's history 

message: The subdivision articles for the History of Portugal are quite a mess. The template is representative of that mess, by having large periods together with small points in Portugal's history (e.g. 1383-85 crisis and Struggle for the Portuguese throne). We should have a simple elucidative template with onky the relevant periods, and eliminating things like Kingdom of Portugal and Galicia. I propose the following scheme:
# Prehistory of Portugal
# Pre-Roman Portugal
# Roman Portugal (History of Portugal (139 BC-410 AD); 139, death of Viriathus; 410 barbarian invasion in Iberia)
# History of Portugal (410-711) (Barbarian Portugal; 711 Muslim invasion)
# History of Portugal (711-1112 (Muslim Portugal and early Reconquista period; 1112 formation of the Second County of Portugal)
# History of Portugal (1112-1279) (Establishment of the Monarchy; 1279 end of Portuguese reconquista and beginning of Dinis reign)
# History of Portugal (1279-1415) (Consolidation of the Monarchy; 1415 conquest of Ceuta, beggining of Portuguese expansion)
# History of Portugal (1415-1498) (part of Portugal in the Age of Discovery; 1498 discovery of the maritime route to India)
# History of Portugal (1498-1580) (part of Portuguese Empire and Struggle for the throne of Portugal; 1580 Philip II of Spain becomes Philip I of Portugal)
# History of Portugal (1580-1640) (Iberian Union; 1640 restoration of independence)
# History of Portugal (1640-1777) (Age of enlightenment; 1777 end of Marquis of Pombal's rule)
# History of Portugal (1777-1834) (Absolutism vs. liberalism; 1834 end of the civil war)
# History of Portugal (1834-1910) (Constitutional monarchy; 1910 establishment of the Republic)
# History of Portugal (1910-1926) (Portuguese First Republic; 1926 28 May 1926 coup d'état)
# History of Portugal (1926-1974) (Ditadura Nacional and Estado Novo; 1974 Carnation Revolution)
It was called the Ditadura Militar and not the Ditadura Nacional
# History of Portugal (1974-1986) (Early democratic period; 1986 Portugal's accession to the EC)
# History of Portugal (1986-2000) (Cavaco-Guterres golden period; 2000 world recession and problems for the Guterres government)
# History of Portugal (2000-2010) (start of a decade-like articles)
Can someone give an opinion on that. Thanks. Joaopais 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. Do not apologize, I'm the one who always answers days later. Ok, here's what I have to say (the numbering corresponds to mine):
# If we have a History of Portugal we should have a Pre-History of Portugal. But I'm fine with Prehistoric Portugal. This topic should be about things in Portugal before writing was invented.
# This one should be about everything that happened in Iberian, Celtic and Celtiberian (and eventually Lusitanian) Portugal, with the contacts with the Greeks, Phoenicians (and Carthaginians), and Northern Celtic peoples. This period is documented by mediterranean peoples and therefore, is not considered Prehistory.
# Ok, I agree that for now Lusitania and Gallaecia are good. But what I meant was having an article for every period in the history of Portugal only focusing in the important events and transformations in today's Portuguese territory. As today's territory corresponds to the majority of Roman Lusitania, a minor part of Roman Gallaecia and the, at that time uninhabited but perhaps visited, Azores and Madeira, we should have a major article covering the importance of the Roman presence in our country.
# When you say that this 3rd period should be "Barbarian invansion and settlement in the west of Iberian Peninsula" you mean its article name or the subject of the article? I believe it's better to have articles in the format History of Portugal (year-year) since it avoids problems in naming such as the Timeline of Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula or the article covering the 1578-1580 succession crisis in Portugal that is named Struggle for the throne of Portugal and can be about the Afonso Henriques vs. his mother crisis, the Sancho II vs. Afonso II crisis, the 1383-1385 crisis, the 1640 Restoration, the Afonso VI vs. Peter II crisis, the civil war, etc.
# In the Muslim period, I opted for a mixed-article where we can have both sides of the conflict amid the Reconquista. The time period goes from the 711 muslim invasion until the 1112 formation of the County of Portugal under Count Henry of Burgundy. It covers the initial Muslim conquer; the almost immediate christian reaction; the formation of the Asturian, then Leonese, and then Castilian-Leonese kingdoms that initiated the Reconquista in today's Portuguese territory conquering Porto early on with the help of Vímara Peres; the First County of Portugal; the Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal; the County of Coimbra; both counties under Raymond of Burgundy (count of Galicia); and the other side, with the Emirate, then Caliphate, and ultimately the taifa kingdoms in the south, in addition to the muslim agricultural, navigational, trading, mathematical and cultural improvements.
# You said you prefered the History of Portugal (1112-1279) to start from the Treaty of Zamora in 1143. I think this article should be about the formation of Portugal as an independent entity. Since this project started earlier with Count Henry I think we should stick to the period from 1112 (formation of the County) until the end of the Portuguese reconquista. It would be odd to separate the Battle of Ourique, the treaty of Zamora, the papal bull, the conquest of Lisbon, etc, from the Battle of São Mamede, Count Henry's incursions in León, Teresa vs. Urraca wars, etc. These are all part of the formation.
# You propose that this article should be splited between "Dinis to the 1383-1385 crisis" and "from there to 1415 with an explanation of Portugals pioneering explorations". I could agree with the Dinis to 1383-1385 crisis, but the second period would be too short for an article (1383/1385-1415 = 32/34 years). I personally think that the 1415 marks a great starting point in Portuguese exploration but I wouldn't be mad with it starting with in 1385.
# What do you think this period should be called: History of Portugal (1415-1498) or Portuguese discoveries (I prefer the first since the discoveries continued and perhaps preceded)
# Same thing as above: History of Portugal (1498-1580) or Portuguese Empire (I'm for the first again since the Portuguese Empire ended in 1976 (African colonies), 1999 (Macau) or 2002 (East Timor)
# Same thing: History of Portugal (1580-1640) or Iberian Union (the last one can be about both countries, and it was a concept both before - 1383-85 crisis, Manuel I's attempts to seize the Spanish throne, the death of Portuguese princes that were heirs of Spain; and after, the Iberism of the 19th century, etc.
# no objections
# no objections
# no objections (just to state that many important things did happen during the early years of liberalism: severel small civil wars, Patuleia, Maria da Fonte, Revolta dos Marechais, Saldanhada, Cabralismo, Setembrismo, Cartismo. It is the period of the Dukes, Marquis, Counts, Viscounts and Barons as leaders known for its political instability)
# no objections
# I didn't know what to do with the military dictatorship as it is only a period of 7 (!) years. It should have an article on it, and for it to be long it has to be extremely detailed since there are few things to say. For now, perhaps, in the template we should have and entry on Dictatorship covering both periods Ditadura Nacional and Estado Novo. Military Dictatorship should have a highlighted "see also" (like the PREC in 1974-1986) in the first part of History of Portugal (1926-1974), that must obviously be named Estado Novo. What do you think?
I think that this is wrong. A great deal happened in the seven years of the Military Dictatorship that was to determine the course of Portuguese politics throughout the Estado Novo. Firstly, Salazar's rise to power was solely due to the political infighting within the military dictatorship, and it was during this time that his relationship with President Carmona was established. There were also several attempts to restore democracy, and there was the rise of an important fascist organisation and several coups. To say that there are 'few things to say' is just nonsense.
# no objections
# no objections
# no objections
Finaly, I'd like to say that this is only my opinion and I encourage you and everyone to reach a better format. I'll not be mad if this turns out different from what I'm proposing. We really need some WikiProject to clean this mess. Thanks Joaopais 02:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see my proposed templates here. Be bold changing them. Joaopais 03:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdivions of the History of Portugal 

message: The article does not contain correct citations.  The text of the article often contains citations of the (Author, year) format.  But the end of the article does not contain a References section noting the full reference information for the citations.  How is a reader supposed to know exactly where a piece of information was sourced? Patiwat 20:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect citations 

message: Currently, the text of Prehistoric Spain seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia.  Similarly, the text of Prehistoric Portugal seems really to be about the same thing.  This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states.  I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to Prehistoric Iberia.  Please come and discuss the proposal. Jimp 09:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia 

message: Someone might wanna add a fair use tag to that picture so it isn't deleted. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 14:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Adesport.jpg]] 

message: An unregistered user, 213.22.20.21, made a mass of edits, in five sessions within one half hour, just two hours ago. These edits are characterized by broken English, reckless typing (e.g. 'atrated' for 'started', copious failure to capitalize initial letters of words, and other errors. I have taken the action of reverting this contributor's work because they simply do not know English well enough to be contributing to English language Wikipedia. Overall, the *content* of the edits is unobjectionable to the extent it is sincere and not inflammatory. Most of the edits are relevant. Some of them are even factual and enhance the level of detail. Then again, there *was* the following passage, which is either careless or stupid: 
"The region of present-day Portugal was inhabited by Neanderthals and then by Homo sapiens.
Early in the first millennium BC, several waves of Celts invaded Portugal from central Europe. From the contact between these two fierce and strong minded cultures . . . ."
First, it is too subjective for a factual article to use the descriptions "fierce and strong minded" of cultures or ethnic groups. Second, and of course of top importance, is the amusing implication that "Celts" and "Homo sapiens" represent "cultures in contact". This example and the incompetent English show this user -- an unregistered user -- to be a very irresponsible contributor, however well meaning. Hurmata 03:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted edits 7 April 2007

message: The jumbo size image of Prince Henry the Navigator at the top of the article is delirious POV pushing and absolutely tasteless. The history of Portugal has hundreds of notable figures beyond Henrique. I beg you, please remove that ugly picture or at least move it to another section with a smaller size. Miguelzinho 13:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infante Dom Henrique's image

message: 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)
thread_title:  Was Portugal and its empire a part of the "Spanish Empire" between 1580-1640? 

message: There needs to be an article about this. Other neutral nations, such as Ireland , Spain , Switzerland , and Sweden , have articles about their roles during WWII. In the Estado Novo article World War II is mentioned only once. Basically every single European nation has an article dedicated to its role during WWII. Meanwhile Portugal doesn't even have a paragraph about it's role. --Tocino 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugal during World War II 

message: I'm interested in witch trials, and think it would be interesting to have cases from all countries in the subject. I know Portugal was a country with very few witch trials, but I have heard about some; in 1599, five people where burned as witches in Lissabon, another one a little later, and one by the Inqusition at Evora in 1626. If anyone know anything and would like to share the information by starting a stub, or at least give a tip on names to google, I would be grateful. I think it would be very interesting to read about! Best wishes--Aciram (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugese witch trials 

message: I am working on a new map for use at Portuguese Empire: :File:The Portuguese Empire.png.
I feel that, as an aid to understanding the article, it is an improvement over :File:Portugal Império total.png which just shows a lot of dots and does not allow the reader to locate the places mentioned in the article.  I think Império total is more appropriate at Evolution of the Portuguese Empire which covers the full extent of the empire.
I would be interested to know any feedback, as not many people look at the talk page.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick [[User talk:The Red Hat
I think that a new map of the Portuguese Empire would help the readers better understand the variation in 
empires. Portugal is unique in the fact that it was a trading empire. It's goals were to create revenue
rather than "save souls," which was the case for the Spanish empire. A map that shows concentrations of 
Portuguese populations in its empire, as well as the trading networks in the ocean, would be helpful rather
than solely a specific map with barriers that would cut off the sphere of influence that Portugal had over
other territories. This may bring in the deeper question of what one can qualify as an empire.Spartemis (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: A lot of the history, such as the Carthaginian invasion, doesn't apply to Portugal but only to the eastern section of the Iberian peninsula, modern day Spain. In ancient times, the Iberia spoken of was only a small portion on the eastern side and not the entire peninsula as it's referenced today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datarune (talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, you are wrong. There are plenty of documented and sourced incursions of Carthaginian forces into what is today Portuguese territory, and the populations of that territory were involved in Carthaginian expansion and military operations. The Ogre (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect History 

message: This article does a good job integrating the aspects of trade for Portugal, but would it be smart to add somewhere in the section that there are different types of empires in the world and Portugal wanted to establish itself as a trading empire? It's goals were to trade and to be successful by creating allies through various networks. It's true that they integrated themselves in different cultures but very often their goal was to return to Portugal richer than they started. Trade was a main reason for exploratory missions. Spartemis (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trading Empire 

message: The article certainly covers the discoveries and explorations of Portuguese navigators along with the individuals themselves.  However, it was also a time of remarkable advancement in the instruments of navigation and the sciences behind those developments. tools like the ancient kamal, compass, quadrant were already in use, but the astrolabe, nocturnal, and the ephemerides were just beginning to emerge.  Not to mention the developments in ship technology itself.  There is very little mention of what kinds of tools allowed Columbus to complete a trans-oceanic voyage.--Casini1 (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Spanish reconquista.gif Nominated for Deletion

message: This intro is very unfavorable, it needs to be revised. It is so detrimental that it is unreliable. Remember Portugal retained large portions of the empire in a period where other countries lost it. And for instance, much of the 20th century Portugal was in better shape than Spain and in the 19th century Portugal was in better shape than several countries in Europe. Furthermore, the history of the country is not just the empire, battles or kings. More focus on culture of those civilizations and shaping Portugal.
*It needs more on prehistory: talking (inc. pics) about Stone Age paintings (esp. coa valley)  and sites like the ones in Alentejo.
*Portuguese protohistory (focusing on local peoples, their culture/religion/art and technological achievements/relations with Mediterranean civilizations and how these were described by them. Names of tribe wont do it.
*Carthaginian Portugal. It is more than we might think.
*Roman Portugal. the article is poor even in this.
*Medieval Portugal. More info on battles, castles, art, free fairs, feudalism, invasions and such. stuff covered by regular schoolbooks
*Modern Portugal, less focus on the empire, and more foccus on other things like urbanism/art/changes in society, as these were quite significant even in our lifetime.--Pedro (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro & the article

message: Dear Maurice Carbonaro, I do not even know yet the history of Greek terminology for Orange, but I assume that they used the term of Persian origin Arantia / Orange / Oranje (this one of Sanskrit origin) like most or much of the Ancient World who knew the fruit (and most(?) of Indo-European languages who knew the fruit)
In fact Portugal came from the local place and region of Portucale, Portus Galle, Cale (also called Gale). Connection with the Gallaeci etc. (the name itself (not the state) with already more than 2000 years)
And Portugal do have a relation with the Orange:
Even before the official scientific discovery of the scurvy, the Portuguese in their global expansion (especially in the Indian Ocean in this case) in the 16th century, showed a great need for vitamin and refreshments as oranges for the hungry and for this disease, that led to the Arab world (who used "Orange" before) and even much of the Iranians (who were a source of the original word) the adoption of the name of Portugal ( Arabic "Portukali /Portugali/Burtugall" and the Persian "Porteghal") for this fruit.
On the other side was Portugal that eventually spread further into the western world and not only the name of Persian and Sanskrit (before) origin and the West: Laranja/Naranja (Oranje).
Has been a popular replacement of this terminology in the Greek world after the sixteenth century by Ottoman influence, Arabic influence etc.? Maybe?
Thanks for your contribution. Any way it's good the debate and to have new ideas and sources for the etymologies. --LuzoGraal (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugal and Orange (Laranja/Naranja) 

message: Hallo there LuzoGraal (talk),
:thanks for getting involved in the debat about the greek etimology of the word "Portugal".
:It's interesting to know that the name could date back to Sanskrit origins... and not just from the greek name for "orange (fruit)" Πορτοκαλιά (portokalia).
:On the sanskrit wikipedia dictionary (sa:wikipedia or sa:संस्कृतम्) I have found नारङ्गफलम् (Latin alphabet transliteration: naara.ngaphalam.h).
:Maybe you (or some expert on the subject) could elaborate further on the matter.
Catch you later.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer to alleged Sanskrit origins of the name 

message: I changed this statement to
Between 1498 and 1501, Pêro de Barcelos and João Fernandes Lavrador explored North America.
from Between 1491 and 1494. I don't know where the earlier dates came from, but they certainly did sail earlier than Colombus.Pacomartin (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese exploration of north america 

message: Please, don't change my additions, if you didn't know about Countess Theresa you can look that information in her Wikipedia page. Arthur45454 (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Portugal 

message: Hgfv 92.12.48.33 (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese