Talk:Portuguese Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal:Portugal
 Portugal Portal
Portuguese Empire is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Portugal To-do:
Portal:Brazil
 Brazil Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Brazil on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Flag Portuguese Empire is part of WikiProject Indonesia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Indonesian WikiProject • Indonesian notice board • Indonesian WikiPortal
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Improvement

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)

Heh. Yes. But the page is a marked improvement from its first version. :) Evercat 09:30 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Heh, I hadn't looked at the first graffiti version before I suggested a move instead of a new page & redirect, maybe I would have left it alone if I'd seen that. -- John Owens 09:36 21 May 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Doubts

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)

I've gone through the article and hopefully improved it stylistically. It still needs someone to pick through the factual assertions, however. Like you, I raised an eyebrow at the claim that Portugal's empire was larger than Spain's in the 1500s. There's also omissions, for example concerning the conquest of the Azores and Madeira, and the effect of the Napoleonic wars on the relationship with Brazil; and some tidying up and nitpicking is needed in the final listing of the various territories. This is my first ever attempt at this sort of thing, so I hope that I've not embarrassed myself! (Silverhelm 23:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC))
I suppose the compartive size of the Portuguese ans Spanish empires depends on the exact date of comparison... The Ogre 14:33, 22 August 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)

[edit] Zanzibar

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)

No it is Zanzibar in Tanzania. I've heard that there are even Portuguese speakers there. But I can't tell. -- Pedro 23:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
There was Arab exploration, and I think to a small extent, colonization along the coast of East Africa. I'm ashamed to say that I've only got one book here on African history ("Africans: The History of a Continent", by John Iliffe, pub. Cambridge University Press), but it does have this: "It was probably this prosperity that led the rulers of Oman on the Persian Gulf to convert into real authority the nominal overlordship of the coast which they had claimed since leading opposition to the Portuguese there in 1698". I think that this is the origin of the sultanate that fought the famous forty-minute "war" with the British. (Silverhelm 23:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC))
It is indeed Zanzibar, Tanzania. The territory went to Omani control the last time it switched hand from Portugual. I suppose it isn't really the purpose of this article to discuss the eventual fate of the former colonial possessions. In some cases it could've switched hands several times (while none concerning Portugal) before achieving today's status. --Kvasir 16:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map of colonial posessions

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 made a map of the Empire, but only during John III's reign. Tell me what do you thing in order for me to improve it. You can see it in Portuguese Empire or John III of Portugal. Thanks. Gameiro 05:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello João Pais / Gameiro! Good work on the map! Tell me: how do you do it? I'm interested in knowing how to do that. What program do you use? Now for some comments on the map.
  • This is very good, but the article, as you very well know, is about the Portuguese Empire troughout history and not just during D.John III's reign. The idea I had in mind was a map depicting all of Portuguese colonial posesions (as the list Portuguese Empire#Territories of the Portuguese empire seems to show). This could be done with different colours for diferent time periods of actual control of territories. It would even be more perfect if the map could show voyages of discovery and exploration (land and sea) again all troughout history (or maybe this could be better in a topic of its own?).
  • What does the difference between the green areas and the brown spots represent (I know they are green squares with a red border, but they look brown everywhere but the high-resolution version...)? It seems to me that the brown spots are cities, is that it? But still, why the diference?
  • The island posessions are not very visible (even in the high-resolution version). Maybe they could be represented by a slightly larger and more visible dot (even if this is not cartographically very acurate)?
  • What is the green spot (island) south of Madeira and north of Cape Verde? The Canary islands? I think they are much closer to mainland Africa...
  • What areas did Portugal actually and effectively controled? All those green coastlines in Africa weren't "real" colonies, were they? I mean, maybe there were specific spots (such as Elmina Castle or the Fort of São João Baptista de Ajudá) effectively controled, but the rest was kind of just an area of influence and commerce, right? That difference should be visible on the map.
I think it's everything... Do tell how the maps are done, maybe I could help! Keep up the good work! The Ogre 16:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
P.S. - there seems to be a slight formating problem in the page due to the map. The first word of the first paragraph of the introduction ("The") is above the map and the rest of the intro is below. This needs fixing... or is it just my browser? The Ogre 16:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, first of all, thanks. I've worked hard on that map. Now your questions:
  1. I did the map on Adobe Photoshop but first copied one of the blank maps that you can find in here: Wikipedia:Blank maps.
  2. About your idea for the perfect Portuguese Empire map. Yes, I know that the map regarding John III's reign isn't sufficient but you can imagine what tremendous task it would be to build a map with all Portuguese possessions with: all the territories, plus minor cities and fortresses, effective control (but with no active presence) plus the voyages and chonological differences. If you are up to it then I wish you the greatest of lucks. My suggestion is to divide it by periods... One map it's impossible. I put the map during John III because it is the height of Portuguese control in all the continents.
  3. As for the brown spots... I was a bit disappointed when I saw the green squares with red border turn brown... It was supposed to represent a city or a fortress that was under Portuguese control and couldn't be seen if it was just a small green spot (like the islands of Azores). I thought that the red border would be fine but now I'm starting to dislike it.
  4. As for the islands size I don't think they can't be represented by a larger dot... It would be surreal. But I didn't try to enlarge them. I'll try it to see if it's fine.
  5. Sorry for the spot between Madeira and Cape Verde... It's just stupid. I forgot to delete it... It was an initial study for the "brown spots". I need to make some adjustments to the map.
  6. Yes, I believe you're right about the influence areas. I spent some time thinking about how could I make them seem different. As I said, I'm going to make adjustments. What do you think about making a differente lighter green area for the influence? And add that area to the coasts of India, Southeast Asia, Moluccas and perhaps southern China?
  7. As for the help. I would apreciated it. Be my guest and copy my map if you want, and make all the changes you want. If you want to do the task I proposed above (lighter green area or add Elmina and Ajudá) tell me something first. I'm a bit tired of making the map because I spent all night doing this one. If you'd help me would be great. If you need help with photoshop ask me in my talk page. As for my name is João Gameiro Pais, but I prefer Gameiro.
  8. Keep up the good work. Gameiro 17:16, 23 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 Spanish territories in North America as seen in the article's map seem to be exaggerated. For example, it appears from the map that a large section of what is now the central United States was included in the Spanish empire whereas, in reality, those territories were actually under French control by the early 18th century.

[edit] Empire of Brazil

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)

  • I'm not the author, but that's not about a title, but an event. After India, Portugal turned to Brazil and then to Africa... but it maybe is misleading. --Pedro 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upper Peru?

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)

[edit] Cleaning up

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

Done as of yesterday. --maf 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This is still a big problem with this article. I've been trying to clean things up this weekend, but there is still a lot to do. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 13:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy ...

.. 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)

[edit] Terra Nova, Terra do Lavrador and Terra de Corte Real

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)

[edit] Sugestions

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)

Thanks for your suggestions Câmara. I encourage you to be bold and edit the article. I'll help you out in the process. It is obvious that this article needs a revamp. Those subdivisions you mentioned were pretty good. This lacks a good introduction by the way. Joaopais 01:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Second that. Edit live. A friendly hand will always be near to help if needed. --maf 14:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
New sections, some more information. More sugestions, anyone?Câmara 02:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empire in the 20th century

How about a map?!? The Ogre 10:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Done it! The Ogre 14:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Good work, The Ogre. ;) How is with the XVI century map? There is discussion in the image talk and here too.Câmara 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please look carefully at Feb. 1/Feb 2 revisions

They look like troll-work - loss of the "independence of Spain?" NorCalHistory 12:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The navigator

In Portuguese Empire:

In Sagres:

  • "Contrary to outdated studies that claim that prince Henry the Navigator gathered around him at his Vila do Infante, within the walls of an old Moorish fort on the Sagres peninsula, a school of navigators and map-makers, in fact he did none of this."

In Henry the Navigator:

  • "Contrary to outdated studies that claim that Henry gathered around him at his Vila do Infante on the Sagres peninsula a school of navigators and map-makers, in fact he did none of this. He did employ some cartographers to help him chart the coast of Mauretania in the wake of voyages he sent there, but for the rest there was no center of navigational science or any supposed "observatory"…"

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)

[edit] An exploration = Empire?

Don't think so. Specially not when it has been explored before. --Arigato1 10:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your removals were sound, it is best to discuss on the talk page first. I've reverted your map removal and removal of Greenland from the list of territories. The fact tag is fine but not removing the map. ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 27 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)

"Deal with it, thats's not our problem, it's yours." - not only is that a rather unpleasant order to a fellow contributor, but it really is your (pl.) problem. You need to provide references that back up this statement, otherwise it is a candidate for immediate removal from Wikipedia. That also means providing something more than some historical maps that place the Portuguese crest on the east coast of Canada: that alone is not evidence a colony existed: for you to make that conclusion is OR, plain and simple. I agree with Arigato1 - exploration is certainly not equivalent to empire, and it is misleading to suggest that it is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 11:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW - this issue has "moved" to Evolution of the Portuguese Empire as I have branched off a sub-article in the manner of the Evolution of the British Empire vs British Empire distinction. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, we have some problems here. The first is called Treaty of Tordesillas. Just a question, when did Brazil become portuguese? I'll wait for answers.

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:

   * ------ 1516–1521. Descobertas de João Alvares Fagundes, in Archivo dos Açores, IV (1882), 466–67.
   * ARAÚJO, José Rosa de, Quem era João Álvares Fagundes, in Actas do Congresso Internacional Bartolomeu Dias e a sua Época, vol. II, Porto: Universidade do Porto - CNCDP, 1989, 363-368.
   * BETTENCOURTE, E. A., Descobrimentos, guerras e conquistas, (Lisboa, 1881) 132–35.
   * BIGGAR, H. P., Voyages of the Cabots and the Corte-Reals (1903).
   * BRAZÃO, Eduardo, Os Descobrimentos Portugueses nas Histórias do Canadá, Lisboa: AGU, 1969.
   * CANTO, Ernesto do, Quem deu o Nome ao Labrador?, in Arquivo dos Açores, vol. XII, 1892, 353-371.
   * CORTESÃO, Armando, Cartografia e cartógrafos portugueses dos séculos XV e XVI, (2v., Lisboa, 1935), I, 287–88.
   * GANONG, William F., João Álvares Fagundes, Vianense Ilustre, Donatário das Terras do Bacalhau, Lisboa, 1953.
   * GANONG, William F., Crucial Maps (II) in the Early Cartography and Place-Nomenclature of the Atlantic Coast of Canada, in Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Third Series, Section III., 1956.
   * HARRISSE, Henry, The discovery of North America: a critical, documentary, and historic investigation, with an essay on the cartography of the new world. (London, 1892), 182–88.

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)

This is the English language Wikipedia, so references in Portuguese can't be verified by the majority of contributors. Your two English language references were written in 1892 and 1903. You really need to provide contemporary sources. Here's one I found, which demonstrated why those maps aren't good sources: A History of Portuguese Overseas Expansion, 1400-1668 By Malyn Newitt: "The year 1500 had witnessed not only the discovery of Brazil but also the expedition of Gaspar Corte Real to explore the coasts of North America. Gaspar sailed a second time in 1501 but did not return, and his brother Miguel went in search of him in 1502. The Corte Reals obtained from the king the grant of the captaincy of Newfoundland and, although no settlements were made, their successors did begin the systematic exploitation of the Grand Banks. Maps of the period triumphantly showed the Portuguese banner flying over Greenland and Labrador (named after Jolio Fernandes who explored the coast of Greenland in 1499) both of which were confidently placed east of the Tordesillas line. However, Portuguese interest in the northern lands soon waned and nothing further was done to exploit these regions." On the other hand, The Portuguese Empire, 1415-1808: A World on the Move By A. J. R. Russell-Wood says "By 1500 (the Portuguese) had probably voyaged to Greenland, Labrador, and Newfoundland. By the 1520s they attempted settlement on Cape Breton island, and on Nova Scotia by mid-sixteenth century." So those are two conflicting contemporary sources. One thing is for sure, to claim these were "Portuguese lands" is stretching credibility somewhat. Yes, they were explored, but a few ships charting a coast does not equate to empire. Yes, grandiose claims were made by Portugal in their maps, but anyone can make a grandiose claim. Yes, possibly attempts at settlement were made, but they were unsuccessful. So they were never parts of the empire in the same way that, say, Brazil, Malacca, Macau and Goa were. If they must be on the map, they should clearly be marked in a separate category to the empire-proper. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are very few contemporary English language writers interested in the Portuguese history of Newfoundland and Labrador, the ones interested in the Portuguese Empire are absorbed by Asia, Africa and Brazil. And again the settlements, the "exploration=empire?" thing... by the Treaty of Tordesillas Portugal had control of those lands, recognized by "Spain" and the Pope, the emerging power and the most powerful person in Europe (at least morally). Exactly like Brazil: in 1500 Portugal claimed it, but colonization, "settlementation", happened years after. And Brazil is everywhere recognized as Portuguese possession since 1500. Why? Because of the Treaty of Tordesillas. The same for Newfoundland and Labrador (and Greenland too): they were explored AND claimed almost at the same time as Brazil. Immediately, they become Portuguese possessions, with recognition of the two states ("Spain" and Pope) I referred before. Maps of the XVI century show Newfoundland and Labrador associated with Portuguese coat-of-arms. These maps are from different countries, so at least foreign cartographers were aware of Portuguese claim. Francis I of France did complain about the vicious monopoly of the Treaty of Tordesillas, for example, claiming also lands in this part of North America, but latter (and without the recognition Portugal had from other states), when Portuguese interests were different. So, even without settlement, those lands were Portuguese at least in the 1500-1520's period. We can say those lands were Portuguese at least de jure. Did Portugual had a de facto control of it? Possibly, we don't know, we don't have enough information to answer that. We know that in the 1500's (1506 I think) king Manuel I established taxes for the cod fished in Newfoundland, for example, but I never heard of how the control of the fisheries was made. In the 1500's the Corte Real family was the landholder of those lands, so maybe they did something there. Later we have João Álvares Fagundes, landholder too, of the lands between the Land of the Corte-Real (Newfoundland and Labrador) and the Spanish zones, who was given the right to settle and explore. Also about Fagundes:
  • MORISON, Samuel Eliot. The European Discovery of America: The Northern Voyages,

A.D. 500-1600. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971. and Portuguese Voyages to America in the Fifteenth Century. New York: Octagon Books, 1965.

  • GOERTZ, Richard. João Álvares Fagundes, Captain of Terra Nova (1521), Canadian Ethnic Studies XXXIII:2(1991):117-128Câmara 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

York: Octagon Books, 1965.

The Treaty of Tordesillas wasn't recognised by England, France and the Netherlands though. Anyway, our argument on this is irrelevant, it's the sources that matter. The only point of agreement across them as far as I can see is that Newfoundland etc were visited by Portuguese explorers. Any statements beyond that - claims of settlement - are speculative, and should be marked as such on the map. BTW - instead of throwing the titles/authors of books or papers at me (which I can't verify myself), please quote the relevent sections of the sources like I did for you. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
First:I'm not throwing anything, I was just citing references that talk about Portuguese presence there. Sorry if it looked like that to you. I can't verify the references too, all I know is that, for example, Morison says that Fagundes established a colony in Breton Island, etc. Anyone who have these references will be a great help here. But like you said the references are everything. Second: In your first reference the author says Portugal claimed it (banners on maps of the period), that the Corte-Real had the captaincy of those lands and that theirs successors (fishermen?, other Corte-Real?) exploited it although no settlement was made, the second says Portugal attempted colonization. Your sources are only contradictory about Portuguese settlement, not about Portuguese "possession". That's why I called Brazil into question: in 1500 Portugal had no settlement in Brazil but it is shown as Portuguese possession since 1500. It is need to have a settlement? In Pedro Álvares Cabral page on Wikipedia it says that they "took possession of it by erecting a cross and holding a religious service"... (The Treaty of Tordesillas was not recognized by England nor France but they only entered with conflict with it latter [The period is the 1500-1520's, so Netherlands recognized the Treaty of Tordesillas because they were under Spanish control])Câmara 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend with my use of the word "throwing". Anyway, for the references to be "admissable as evidence" the text really needs to be quoted (if challenged, which I am doing): it's not good enough to say that "I can't verify the references too, all I know is that..." Also, other WP pages aren't usable as sources. For a Wikipedia article or one of its maps to say that Newfoundland etc were "Portuguese colonies" or were "part of the Portuguese Empire", it needs to be demonstrated that this is the standard view of historians, and therefore that many contemporary sources can be found saying exactly that. I do understand your arguments re the Treaty of Tordesillas, but nevertheless you are making the mental leap from the fact that Portugal claimed possession to suggesting it was therefore part of its empire or a colony, but drawing that conclusion is WP:OR. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, like I said before we need the references. Maybe someone here might provide them. Until then, this discussion is useless.Câmara 08:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anachronous map of the Portuguese Empire (1415-1999)

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)

The map has been moved to Evolution of the Portuguese Empire, but I still think it should be present in this article, namely at the begining, what do you think. I'll wait for your reactions before adding it or not! The Ogre 15:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fair. But (continuing our discussion from Talk:Evolution of the Portuguese Empire) I think that the pink and blue areas are not necessary. Instead, showing the exploration routes of the "famous" explorers would be better, alongside the colonies where Portugal really had sovereignty beyond a short stop or an indefensible claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 15:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just re-added the map. The Ogre 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What you propose would provoke a loss of info. What I would really like is an interactive map showing the evolution dinamically - but that is out of my league. And some of the pink areas were areas of real influence (eg the Kingdom of the Kongo or Ethiopia), others were real areas of discovery/exploration (namely the African coastlines), and the blue sea areas do represent, even if they don't have the exact routes of specific famous explorations, maritime areas of exploration and influence (though not in all the period between 1415 and 1999, obviously!). The Ogre 15:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, leaving that information in there without prominent disclaimers is misleading. The theory that Portuguese sailors discovered the eastern coast of Australia is just that, a theory. I don't think a question mark does this matter justice. Furthermore, showing the exploration routes covers both your blue and pink areas, because it shows (a) the navigational routes followed and (b) the coasts explored. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 15:48, 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)

Sure. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 15:55, 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)

[edit] Incorrect Map - Canary Islands & Brazil?

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.6.31.46 (talk • contribs).

The map is not chauvinistic - my friend, assume good faith! And the map does not present the Canary Islands as part of the Portuguese Empire, they are in pink, that is to say, an area of "explorations, areas of influence and claims of sovereignty" - in this case a claim of sovereignty in the 15th century. The Canary Islands article states:

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.

Regarding Brazil, the country's final frontiers would only be settled in the 20th century, but, grosso modo, it's modern configuration is largely the same as it was the day before the declaration of independence in 1822. If you can read Portuguese, check the article called Frontiers of Brazil in the Portuguese language Wikipedia (at Fronteiras do Brasil). Thank you. The Ogre 14:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Brazil, there are BIG differences. Large parts of Amazonia were not annected and 1874 was a war against Paraguay, where Brazil won a territory. --J. Patrick Fischer 17:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Hello again. I'll came back to the question of the Amazonian territory latter, but regarding the question with Paraguay, the Portuguese Wikipédia article on the Frontiers of Brazil states (my translation): "Regarding the frontiers with Paraguay the fixation of the frontier occured after the War of the Triple Alliance, when, in 1872, a peace treaty was signed with Paraguay in wich were specified the country's respective limites with Brazil, and that, according to historian Hélio Vianna (História da República e História diplomática do Brasil, São Paulo, Melhoramentos, 1957), respected the agreements of the colonial period and claimed for Brazil only the lands already occupied or explored by Portuguese and Brazilians." This reads to me as saying that the limits in 1822 were more a less the present ones indicated in the map. Wouldn't you say? See you soon! The Ogre 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
However, going somewhat your way in this issue regarding the borders of Brazil and Paraguay (and also somewhat regarding the Amazonian issue) the present map of Brazil and that of 1822 do present some differences - see images bellow retrieved from States of Brazil. I'll try to correct the map of the Portuguese Empire accordingly. The Ogre 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

1534
Capitanias hereditárias

1573
Two states

1709
São Paulo at its greatest

1789
Inconfidência Mineira

1823
Imperial provinces

1889
At the Start of Republic

1943
Border territories

1990
Current


[edit] Map of the Habsburg Kings' possessions

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/r/Talk%7EPortuguese_Empire_c107.html"