Talk:Battle of Pandarane

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Portugal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Portugal To-do: edit history watch purge Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo. Improve key articles to Good article Portugal Lisbon Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box). Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list Military history: Early Modern 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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Naval engagement? 17 large carracks? This article is confusing two separate encounters - the raid on Cranganore (Oct 1504), and the attack on the Egyptian transport fleet in Pandarane (Dec 1504).

Cranganore is in a silted channel of a lagoon that carracks cannot sail - as the chronicles clearly point out. There was a massive Portuguese-Cochinese amphibian raid on Cranganore ordered by Albergaria in October, to destroy the city, but that was all shallow boats. There was a Calicut armed force stationed there, but it wasn't particularly large. Indeed, the whole raid was designed as a pre-emptive strike to raze Cranganore and prevent it from becoming an assembly point for Calicut armies again (as it had been during the earlier Battle of Cochin). During the Cranganore raid, there was a brief and insignificant naval engagement outside the lagoon, around Palliport. But it was small fleet of 5 ships and 40 paraus, a futile hodge-podge sent from Calicut. There were no "large Turkish-style" carracks used there.

The encounter at the harbor of Pandarane, was a different thing. There were 17 large ships here - and it was indeed attacked by the numbers cited (2 caravels, 15 batels, 360 men). But these 17 "carracks" in Pandarane didn't belong to the Zamorin, nor were they warships; they were transports dispatched from Egypt to evacuate expatriate Arab merchants and their families back home. Albergaria attacked them for what he calculated was the plentiful personal belongings and treasures of the evacuating merchant families. Arabs lost 2,000 in the encounter (700 dead) (Calicut arms did not participate). Portuguese casualties were half their force - 23 men dead and 170 wounded. Unlike Cranganore, the attack on the Egyptian transport fleet had no strategic significance - indeed, Albergaria was advised against it, as his own fleet's carracks were heavily-loaded with spices and would be seriously endangered if the caravels and smaller ships were lost. But the prospect of plundering the rich families was too much to resist.

The Pandarane encounter is not dignified of the title of a "naval battle". It was a piratical attack on civilian transports. Walrasiad (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to show some sources? According to a book called Homens, Espadas e Tomates, by German-Portuguese historian Rainer Daehnhardt the battle was a preemptive Portuguese attack on Cranganore while the fleet of the Zamorin (precisely with the numbers and ship types described) was being prepared. If you have source that say otherwise, please show them. --PortugalIV (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know who Daenhardt is, but doesn't seem very reliable if he is contradicting all known chronicles and sources. Here goes the original Portuguese sources:

• João de Barros: Cranganore p.156, Pandarane p.163
• Damião de Góis: Cranganore p.130, Pandarane p.134
• Fernão Lopes de Castanheda : Cranganore p.271, Pandarane p.274
• Gaspar Correia: Cranganore: p.507, Pandarane p.510 (sets the latter in Tramapatam, but Correia is unreliable)
• Jerónimo Osório: Cranganore: p.318, Osorio omits Pandarane encounter
• Manuel de Faria e Sousa: Cranganore p.67, Pandarane ("Banane") p.68

Whom does Daenhardt cite? Walrasiad (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]