A History of the Portuguese

Do you like Portuguese history

  • Yes, I looooove it!!!!!

    Votes: 13 27.7%
  • Yes, I like

    Votes: 21 44.7%
  • No, I don't

    Votes: 8 17.0%
  • Yuck it sucks!!!

    Votes: 5 10.6%

  • Total voters
    47
Well I can answer that.

Portugal enter in wwI too bad prepared for it.

Portugal complied to the British demand to confiscate the German ships interned in Portuguese ports, Germany reacted by declaring war on Portugal, thus forcing the Portuguese into the war.

take a look: Portugal in the Great War
 
Yamamoto said:
Olivenza was taken when the napoleon invasions reach Portugal. Spain allied to Napoleon, and grab that land. Portugal and England get ride off Napoleon army some time later, but, didnt recover that piece of land.

Not exactly correct. Olivença was taken in the War of the Oranges a few years before the napoleonic invasions.


That is why Portugal still prevail, as a kingdom and after as a state, after all theses years of fights. That reveals, since the previous tribes of Lusitanos, that were the most resistants to the Romans invasions (and which from Portugueses descends) the spirit of "no surrender" of that people. That is IMHO, but also history facts too.

Those "history facts" are a bit clouded by myth. Here's a quote from a text I wrote for my blog a while ago that deals with this (sorry to those who can't read portuguese that I don't have the patience to translate it. I'll do a brief sumary at the end:

Na mente popular Viriato é o arquétipo do herói português: pastor simples, guerreiro bravo, chefe carismático, amante da liberdade. Sempre com aquela pureza genuína dos "bons selvagens", neste caso, o serrano não corrompido pela civilização romana, cujos exércitos são sistematicamente batidos pelo seu bando de pastores. De acordo com a estátua que dele existe em Viseu, o seu quartel-general seria a zona da Serra da Estrela.Na verdade, o mito de Viriato é quase tão antigo como ele próprio. Já na Antiguidade houve quem quisesse ver nele esse tal ideal de herói romântico, o que reflecte mais as perspectivas ideológicas dos autores do que factos conhecidos. Segundo as fontes da época, Viriato teria tido uma origem diferente da que imaginamos, quase de certeza no Sul da Península, e junto ao Oceano. Era casado com a filha dum caudilho da Andaluzia e, todos os recontros com as tropas romanas que se conhecem tiveram lugar nessa província. Se ele se movimentava tão bem nessa região, parece pouco provável que a sua ligação ao actual território português tenha sido pouco mais que secundária. A dada altura firmou a paz com o governador romano da região e tornou-se "Amigo e Aliado do Povo Romano", mas a guerra recomeçou em breve e Viriato teve que procurar refúgio a norte. Os historiadores pensam que terá sido na zona de Cáceres e Badajoz (muito distante da serra da Estrela ainda...), e enviou sucessivas embaixadas a pedir a paz, até ser assassinado pelos seus próprios companheiros, presumivelmente a isso aliciados pelos romanos. Dessa forma, não só Viriato parece ter muito pouco a ver com o território português (muito menos com a região montanhosa do centro do país), como também não me parece que seja a perfeita imagem dum pastor (de ovelhas e tropas) que corresponda ao ideal romântico. Na melhor das hipóteses, não existem dados históricos para afirmar o que quer que seja.

To those who cannot read the language I'm addressing the oldest myth of portuguese, that of Viriato, warlord of the lusitanans and that is seen as our ancestor and represented as the "good savage", a sheppard (of cattle, later of troops) that fights for freedom against the roman tyrany. In our defence, this myth was created in fact by the romans themeselves as early as the I century AD.
The truth however is that Viriato was no sheppard and his theatre of operations was not the present territory of Portugal but Andalucia, his probable region of origin. In the eve of his downfall he had to flee north, but that was only as far north as the region of Badajoz in the spanish province of Extremadura, still far away from the site that portuguese nationalistic tradition regards as his base, the mountains of central Portugal.
In Portugal proper, the myth of Viriato was created in the Renaissance and turned mainstream for ideological purposes by the I Republic and later Salazar's régime.
 
Sims2789 said:
Not to mention the 20,000 Confederates that came to Brazil from the southern United States after the American Civil War. One of their reasons for coming was so that they could preserve their "right" to own slaves:lol:.

They created the city of Americana, in the state of São Paulo. There are still some Confederate flags over there.
 
luiz said:
They created the city of Americana, in the state of São Paulo. There are still some Confederate flags over there.

this is actually quite fascinating and something i really didn't anything about.... now i will have to investigate :D
 
MCdread said:
Not exactly correct. Olivença was taken in the War of the Oranges a few years before the napoleonic invasions.

Oh boy!

MCdread, in order we dont end eachother talking about propaganda, as it happen in the other thread, I will answer you with facts and with sources of information (reliable sources on internet, only to be more practical to consult).
If you feel the need to answer it, please do it in the same way.
Thanks.

Here we go.

War of the oranges, Napoleonic invasions. What was the part that you didnt understood?

"War of the Oranges

(1801), brief conflict in which France and Spain fought against Portugal. The war was brought about by Portugal's refusal in 1800 to accept Napoleon's demands to become a political and economic extension of France and to cede to France the major part of its national territory.

In April 1801, French troops arrived in Portugal, and on May 20 they were bolstered by Spanish troops under the…"

WAR of the ORANGES - source: Encyclopædia Britannica

Just for who may be curious, Oranges war comes from: "Godoy, prince of peace, cut an orange branch and sent it to the Queen, whose favourite he was. From then on, this war, which was to last only four days and spilled very little blood, was known by the name of "the War of Oranges."

And after some days:
"June 6: Treaty of Badajoz between France, Spain and Portugal. Portugal ceded the town of Olivenza to Spain, part of Guyana to France, and committed itself closing its ports to English trade."

Concening the light of international law, this treaty would had no right, if one of the parts did not make his part of the agreement, which happen after...

and was decided to be null and Olivença returned to Portugal on The Congress of Vienna (October 1, 1814 - June 9, 1815).

Do you think War of the Oranges and the Napoleonic invasions are not linked or one isnt an extension of the other?



Again, backing to the subject:

WAR of the ORANGES - source: NATO/OTAN site

"In 1796 Spain allied itself with France, and in 1801, when Portugal refused to renounce her alliance with England, invaded Portugal in what became known as the War of the Oranges. This was the first invasion of the period - followed by three French invasions, in 1808, 1809 and 1810. The French reached Lisbon forcing the Portuguese royal family to flee to Brazil. These French invasions left the country largely devastated and broke, despite ultimate success. The ultimate victory over the French was due largely to support by a small British Army commanded by the future Duke of Wellington. The field commander not only expelled the French but also wielded together an extremely proficient and capable mixed Anglo-Portuguese Army. This army began moving east in 1811 to carry the fight into Spain and contributed to Napoleon's ultimate defeat."
 
MCdread said:
Those "history facts" are a bit clouded by myth. Here's a quote from a text I wrote for my blog a while ago that deals with this (sorry to those who can't read portuguese that I don't have the patience to translate it. I'll do a brief sumary at the end:

Ya... Of course! All the beatifull histories have some colour on it, with the pass of the time - Cleopatra, Julio Cesar... you named.
That dont mean it is not true...

Besides the expression of my own like "no surrender" (is a subjectif term that express the lusitan fierce to romans), what was the part that you refer about myths?
was when I wrote: "That reveals, since the previous tribes of Lusitanos, that were the most resistants to the Romans invasions"?
Is that a myth or what you mean?

Because if you mean that, among all the Iberian tribes, wasnt in the west iberian side where the Romans have the most resistance and lost several battles to the Lusitans (the inhabitants of that lands) then please, could you report your sources?
Because my sources, and all the history sources says exactly that... and you could please be so kind to just follow the links in my signatures.

Because if you do, you will found there the same as in all history encyclopedia and history documents (even in the romans ones), like this statment:

"Lusitania, Roman province in the Iberian Peninsula. As constituted (c.A.D. 5) by Augustus it included all of modern central Portugal as well as much of W Spain. The province took its name from the Lusitani, a group of warlike tribes who, despite defeats, resisted Roman domination until their great leader, Viriatus, was killed (139 B.C.) by treachery. In the 1st cent. B.C. they joined in supporting Sertorius, who set up an independent state in Spain. The old identification of Portugal with Lusitania and of the ancestors of the Portuguese with the Lusitanians (hence Camões's great epic was entitled Os Lusíadas) is now largely ignored, but the creation of Lusitania may have had a faint echoing effect in the setting up of the separate kingdom of Portugal many centuries later."

But hey, you have all the good (and the bad books) to look to. and also all the links.
In other hand, I would like to see your sources.
And of course, I am speaking anyelse your blog. Not because it is your blog. But because, as I know read Portuguese, I noticed that there, only are your own personal opinion and theories.
 
Concerning he, Viriato, be or not a a sheppard, yes, there is no solid arguments facts that he was or not that. Neither that is important really, except for that romantic vision you spoke.

But concerning he was a leader, and a very strategical and tactical one, there is no doubt of that.

Well, all the "reliable" and "non-reliable" sources says so. Plus all history books...
If you look on internet, you have yourself thousants of pages to study that.

But, just to give some book sources off-line too, take a read, for instance, on "The Enemies of Rome: From Hannibal to Attila the Hun"
by Philip Matyszak

you can found it here:

Enemies of Rome: From Hannibal to Attila the Hun

Some statments:

"The time is circa 151 BC. The Romans have successfully occupied much of present-day Spain. To the west is a region called Lusitania, between the Guadiana and Douro rivers, taking in much of present day Portugal. The Romans had never succeeded in occupying Lusitania, but the Lusitanians, due in part to lack of good arable land, constantly preyed on neighbouring tribes for food and materials. Rome did manage to take control of these neighbouring tribes, the Vettones and Celtici, but the Lusitanians continued the raids regardless."

Matyzsak:

After a period of frequent clashes when the Lusitanians repeatedly agreed to and then violated peace accords, Rome lost patience in 151 BC and launched a full-scale attack under Servius Sulpicius Galba.

Again the Lusitanians sued for peace. Galba replied that the poverty of the Lusitanians’ native soil made it impossible for them to desist from raiding for long, so he proposed a whole-scale resettlement on three fertile plains. On an agreed date in 150 BC the Lusitanians gathered in three seperate groups to await resettlement. Galba insisited on disarming them, weapons being superfluous for an agrarian way of life. Then, with the nation in three seperate, unarmed groups, Galba ordered the Roman army to surround each group in turn and massacre everyone there - men, women and children. It was an atrocity that sickened even the brutal Romans. ‘He avenged treachery with treachery - an unworthy Roman imitating barbarians.’ (Appian, Hispania10 [60].)"

One of those to escape was a shepherd by the name of Viriathus, and he had something of a grudge againt Rome.

4 years later and Lusitanian guerilla raids on Roman forces were growing more frequent. Eventually in 147 BC they invaded Turdetania, run by the Roman propraertor Vettius. The Lusitanians were no match for the Roman legions and were pushed back to a fortified town where they were besieged. It was here they were given terms for surrender, with terms that looked alot like Galba’s terms 3 years previous. Viriathus suggested a plan for escape, and was duly elected leader. The plan was basic enough, bring out everyone, line up for battle, let the Romans line up for battle, and then run like hell. It worked, the Romans were unable to catch them. His army met at a rendezvous point in Tribola, and the Romans followed. Viriathus set up an ambush and it worked - the Romans got caught between a cliff edge and the Lusitanians. 4,000 of Vettius’ army of 10,000 were killed, including Vettius.

The new Roman commander then bribed the neighbouring Celtibrerians to fight the Lusitanians. But short work was made of the Celti, they were all slaughtered. Viriathus then went on to plunder modern-day Toledo. As you can imagine, all this seriously pissed off the Romans.

There then followed a series of defeats for the Romans.

In 146 BC the Romans sent another army, commanded by C. Plautius. Viriathus ambushed and destroyed this army while they setup camp. He then went on to pillage and then destroy large parts of Segobriga.

In 145 BC the Romans sent another army, 15,000 foot soldiers and 2,000 cavalry, commanded by Quintus Fabius Aemilianus. They also sent an army commanded by Claudius Unimanus, which Viriathus duly slaughtered. On hearing of that army being destroyed, Fabius decided on a different tactic. The Romans refused to face the Lusitanians in open battle. By 144 BC Fabius decided to do battle, and drove the Lusitanians back, but the damage to Roman prestige for not doing battle earlier was done. The Celtibrerians rose against Rome, and thus began the long and bitter Numantine War.

Q. Pompeius was the next general to try againt Viriathus, he failed miserably, returning to camp after losing 1,000 men.

By 142 BC another Roman army had arrived, commanded by Fabius Servilianus. Rome was getting really pissed off, so this time they sent two full legions, 16,000 men, 1,600 cavalry and elephants.

Servilianus was successful, he besieged Viriathus in Erisone and retook several cities that had been under Lusitanian control. But Viriathus managed to smuggle himself and a large number of forces into the city. The following morning they attacked the Romans, and drove them towards a valley that Viriathus had earlier fortified. Servilianus was thus surrounded, and faced annihilation. He duly surrendered unconditionally, but Viriathus accepted, and demanded Roman forces withdraw from Lusitania, and recognise their independence, Viriathus was to be considered a friend and ally of the Roman people. No one knows why Viriathus let them off so lightly, but it is thought that if he had killed the whole army, Rome would never forget, and would keep sending armies until he was destroyed. So the Roman senate ratified the settlement.

The Romans did send a new governer to the region, Servilius Caepio, brother of the defeated general. Caepio was astute, but hated by the men who served under him. He tried to provoke Viriathus into war, but Viriathus resisted. Instead, some hot-headed tribesmen did get provoked, and in 140 BC the war resumed. Viriathus was reluctant to resume war, so he sent 3 trusted advisors to Caepio, Caepio lavished the 3 advisors with luxuries, and told them if they killed Viriathus they would obtain a huge reward. They went back to camp and stabbed Viriathus in the throat, fleeing to Caepio. Caepio then betrayed the deal, saying he had not meant for them to kill their leader. They were escorted from the city without a penny, though some other students of this era say that the three were killed by Caepio.

To end the hostilities, Caepio did as Galba has promised in the beginning, he resettled the Lusitanians to fertile lands. It worked and peace reigned.

(for a while... :)
 
Yamamoto have you considered that you are dedicatting too much effort to all this? ;)

"The time is circa 151 BC. The Romans have successfully occupied much of present-day Spain. To the west is a region called Lusitania, between the Guadiana and Douro rivers, taking in much of present day Portugal.
That sounds a bit strange since IIRC Lusitania as region did not exist at 151 BC since it was a province invented by the romans specificlly by August. Previously it was circumscribed in the Hispania Ulterior.
 
Thorgalaeg said:
Yamamoto have you considered that you are dedicatting too much effort to all this? ;)

Yes. :) :crazyeye: :)


Thorgalaeg said:
That sounds a bit strange since IIRC Lusitania as region did not exist at 151 BC since it was a province invented by the romans specificlly by August. Previously it was circumscribed in the Hispania Ulterior.


Romans didnt invented it from nothing! Ok, the name, to the Lusitan people, were "Lusitani". The romans called it Lusitania (where they leave), and later they rule a province in that place giving that name to it.

The Roman province of Lusitania was located in the west Iberian Peninsula, what is now Portugal. Before the Roman conquest, tribal people, mostly of Celtic origin, settled in Spain. They are classified into three major groups: Lusitani (or Lusitanian), Celtiberians, and Iberians. The Lusitani lived on the western coasts and were a group of warlike tribes. They resisted Roman domination until their leader was killed in 139 B.C. The Lusitani revolted again in 61 BC. However, the revolt was put down by Julius Caesar. The final conquest of Spain took place between 39 B.C. and 19 B.C. The province of Lusitania was established in 27 BC by Octavian Augusts. The province of Lusitania took its name from the Lusitani tribe.
 
jonatas said:
this is actually quite fascinating and something i really didn't anything about.... now i will have to investigate :D

You could try the offcial homepage of Americana: http://www.americana.sp.gov.br

There is some interesting information there.

For exemple, their Coat of Arms makes quite clear their Confederate origins:
brasao3.jpg


The city anthem also mentions the Confederates:
...
Por estas paragens,
Muitos dos confederados
Que nos trouxeram
O trole, a melancia,
O algodão e o arado.
E o progresso chegou,
...
 
Spain originally controlled Portugal.

No it didn't. Portugal's independence from Castile-León can be traced to 24 June 1128 with the victory of Afonso Henriques in the Battle of São Mamede. Afonso proclaimed himself first Prince of Portugal and in 1139 the first King of Portugal. By 1143, with the assistance of a representant of the Holy See at the conference of Zamora, Portugal was formally recognized as independent, with the prince recognized as Dux Portucalensis. In 1179, Afonso I was declared, by the Pope, as king.

On the other hand, Spain came into being only in 1469 trough the marriage of Queen Isabella I of Castile with King Ferdinand II of Aragon, uniting both crowns and eventually through their descendants creating the kingdom of Spain.

Therefore, it is not the case that "Spain originally controlled Portugal", since Portugal pre-dates Spain by ~350 years, Q.E.D.
 
Ok Ok. nice first post. That is like to say that Great Britain fought the 100 yeras war war when it was England. But it is the case that castile controled "portugal", right? or better it is more accurate to say that portugal didnt exist then and was a count conquisted to the mooros by castile. In fact current Portugal (the north at least) was a present from Alfonso VI king of Castilla-León to a french nobleman called Henry of Burgundy who married with Alfonso bastard daughter.

BTW what a BUMP i would say... ;)
 
Haamu is right, Spain din't controll Portugal, neither Castille, Leon controled it until 1143 (offically).
 
It s rather pointless if current Portugal was originally under Leon or Castilla, since it was the same thing. It was called Leon or Astur-leones kingdom since el 8th century. At the year 950 or so, southern Leon proclaimed itself an independent kingdom called castile, but in the 1030 it was unified again, Fernando VI was in fact king of castile and Leon.
It was during the long period of the Christian reconquest that the Portuguese nation was created. The kings of Asturias drove the Moors out of Galicia in the 8th cent. Ferdinand I of Castile entered Beira and took the fortress of Viseu and the city of Coimbra in 1064. Alfonso VI of Castile obtained French aid in his wars against the Moors. Henry of Burgundy married an illegitimate daughter of Alfonso VI and became (1095?) count of Coimbra and later count of Portucalense. Henry's son Alfonso Henriques, wrested power (1128) from his mother and maintained the independence of his lands. After a victory over the Moors in 1139, he began to style himself Alfonso I , king of Portugal. Spain recognized Portugal's independence in 1143 and the Pope did so in 1179. Alfonso's long reign (1128-85) was an important factor in Portugal's attainment of independence.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/Portugal_History.asp
 
Back
Top Bottom