What is the world's bravest nation

[Yamamoto]

Half world was the term, written in the pope’s document, and it clearly intend to define the half world that Portuguese gain the right to explore.

Anyway, I stick with this sentence:
"The two million Portuguese people ruled a vast empire with hundreds of millions of inhabitants in the Americas, Africa, the Middle East and Asia."

Siberia is certainly big on sq miles. But that is not what one run to rule for.

Anyway, again, Portuguese among others, where one of the bravest nations. As I said, over and over, all nations, in way or another, represent an important role in the human history, and that is not only a privilege of Britain or Portugal.

 

[Verbose]

I've always thought the fascinating bit about the Portugese empire was the fact that they were so few they had to enlist those people they colonised into the effort rather than go for repression.

If the Portugese got things right it wasn't by having 2 million of them rule everyone else, but by getting their cooperation.

Apart from being the biggest slave traders.

And when Papal authority crops up I always think of a Venetian diplomat brushing it aside, just after his city had been excommunicated, with the words:
"We are just as good catholics as the Pope."

 

[privatehudson]

The British were also pretty reasonable at getting the "natives" to help run the empire, often in administrative posts or in military units of some form or another.

Half world was the term, written in the pope’s document, and it clearly intend to define the half world that Portuguese gain the right to explore.

Which again is nothing like controlling half the known world, let alone the total world which was your original claim.

"The two million Portuguese people ruled a vast empire with hundreds of millions of inhabitants in the Americas, Africa, the Middle East and Asia."

Siberia is certainly big on sq miles. But that is not what one run to rule for.

There's more to empire building than mere population or area (resources, importance of said land and so on), but then again the Brits outdid you in both

"The two million Portuguese people ruled a vast empire with hundreds of millions of inhabitants in the Americas, Africa, the Middle East and Asia."

Well I'm glad we cleared up your earlier error then

 

[Yamamoto]

"America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia" - That include the known and the unknown world, at that age.

When I referred to half world, expressed in the Tordesilhas treaty, that specifies the following:

Signed in Tordesilhas, Castile, on June 7th of 1494, agreeing to divide the "New World", yet to be discovered, along a north-south meridian 370 leagues (1770 km) west of the Cape Verde Islands (off the coast of Senegal in West Africa). The lands to the east would belong to Portugal and the lands to the west to Spain.

So that means, was a division of the world, considering the known world (because no one was supposed to know about the unknown world, right? Else it wasn’t unknown), but was targeting the unknown world also (whatever that would be…). That only exclude for the possessions of the two partsortugal and Spain, the land belonged already to the catholic countries.

In practical terms was a division of the hemisphere in two. Here you have, half of the world. Now you name it what you want…

The permission, the intention, and in a great scale what really happen after, was the exploration, colonization, and conquest of almost all the valuable lands (like Brazil and some possessions in Africa and India) that were in the “our” half of the world.

So of course, more than sq miles, was the resources and the value of lands that were in cause. As example you have Brazil.

Anyway everyone here consider also the England empire great, though not so great in those times.

And my point is, considering two millions ppl of that age, proportionally I don’t think England grab so much land, after in those golden ages. (since England already have much more than 8 million ppl on those times, (4x more land, following your thoughts).

So, if you beat us? Considering this rate, you don’t… but who cares? (we still beat you in soccer last eurocup).lol 

Besides, some Portugal contribution to you – It was the Portuguese that introduced the habit of drinking tea in England.
It was Catherine of Braganca, who married King Charles II of England in 1662. She took with her as a dowry the city of Bombay - the starting point for the British colonization in India - as well as some leaves of Chinese tea, that was worth a fortune in that time.

And concerning slaves trading, yes Portugal was one of the merchants of those “goods”. I am sorry the language, it is totally wrong obvisouly in our age (and morally in all ages) but, in those times, was not only Portugal or Spain that trade slaves. All do! No European country see that a problem. And If Portugal had the resources to trade (Africa), others buy it from us… (Like England for instance.) Years later also you get that “resources” directly.

Anyway, if human right is concerned, in other way, Portugal was the first country to abolish the death penalty - This dates back to 1867 when Portugal led the way immediately followed by the Netherlands. Sweden and Denmark joined this abolitionist movement after the World War I, and after the World War II Finland, Austria, Italy did likewise. More countries would follow, but Portugal was the leader.

And also, other human right achievement: there was a Portuguese who saved 16 times more jews than Oskar Schindler

Schindler was an ordinary man with an extraordinary power who saved 1200 human lives during the Holocaust of World War II. Steven Spielberg immortalized his name with the Movie "The SCHINDLER's list" that Hollywood produced a few years ago.

Yet, even though we should ALL pay our tribute to all the Jews who were saved by the humans actions of Schindler, did you know the name of the ONE Portuguese man who saved over 30.000 Jews to escape Nazi persecution, issuing visas against the orders of his government?

NOTE: If you think about it that's enough people to fill most regular sized football stadiums! His name was Aristides Sousa Mendes, and he was the Portuguese consul in Bordeaux.

Getting back to the main subject, what I corrected from my first statement, besides explain myself in a detailed way?

 

[privatehudson]

"America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia" - That include the known and the unknown world, at that age

But you didn't own all of those areas did you?

When I referred to half world, expressed in the Tordesilhas treaty, that specifies the following:

I know what you referred to, but it doesn't support the "controlled half the world!" idea. Controlling implies much more than a treaty which had very little concrete meaning to many countries or people's.

In practical terms was a division of the hemisphere in two. Here you have, half of the world. Now you name it what you want

Not in practical terms. The pope could not grant you control over a place where you had no influence. The pope can say Spain can have mexico back, it doesn't make it happen until someone turns up and makes it so.

The permission, the intention, and in a great scale what really happen after, was the exploration, colonization, and conquest of almost all the valuable lands (like Brazil and some possessions in Africa and India) that were in the “our” half of the world.

Again, I feel obliged to note that there is a vast gulf between what you did in India for example and owning India like the British did. It is therefore a vast exaggeration to suggest 1/2 of the world was controlled by you, whether that be because of a piece of paper or otherwise.

And my point is, considering two millions ppl of that age, proportionally I don’t think England grab so much land, after in those golden ages. (since England already have much more than 8 million ppl on those times, (4x more land, following your thoughts).

Britain did not come into existence for quite some time after that period, but I was referring to the height of the respective empire's powers, and for Britain that would be the 19th century.

So, if you beat us? Considering this rate, you don’t

Based on your very specific defenition maybe. That still hardly makes "controlling half the world" relevant though which was my entire point.

Getting back to the main subject, what I corrected from my first statement, besides explain myself in a detailed way?

Well you seemed to make the point that Portgual "controlled half the world". I was making the point that unless you twist completely the defenition of "Controlled" and "half" your claim is pure exaggeration and nothing more. Even at the height of your empire you controlled nothing like this amount. You seemed to change this, but apparently not.

 

[Yamamoto]

One can control without owner in fact or occupy every mile of land, cant we?

The ocean spice route was controlled by Portugueses. That didnt mean the Portugueses own all the water through that path.

Again, for instance Africa. Controlled it, didnt mean that Portuguese or European in general have to move to there, specially if we are talking in XV and XVI centuries, were those continents were only seen as a resource of slaves and some spices, and ivory. But the rich key spots, those what matter at that time were controlled alright by the Portugueses.

Later centuries, with the European expeditions in Africa (which Britain contributes alot too), and with a better knowledge of the world, then control it mean grab land alright, but not in XV century, where Africa was seen as savage, and only matter those rich spots and resources.

Again it happens and with other spots in all continents. Whenever the land was rich and full of resources, like Brazil, then it was taken.

Controlled half world, obviously don’t mean to possess half land of the world. But at the eyes of the Europeans of that age (what they know, so, I spoke about known world) control the spices routes, the ports and cities where those rich resources come, plus all the land that are rich like Brazil and some large possessions in Africa, that means control and ruled that portion of the world and his millions of inhabitants that were under Portuguese rule.

Anyway, I close here my case. It seems both of us are dividing this thread in two halfs... your version, and my version... we need a pope around to seal it!

 

[privatehudson]

One can control without owner in fact or occupy every mile of land, cant we?

I would prefer to define "controlled" as occupying the region with a military force, colonising it, dominating it's foreign policy and have it's people do what you tell them. I would not count having extensive trade routes but very little actual land as controlling an entire continent, so no, Africa does not count. Africa was not really under european control in any great degree until the colonial period.

Clearly your defenition suits your arguments, but I consider it to be a rather inncorrect one. Any such defenition would lead to the assumption that the British empire was in fact much larger than it is accepted to be.

 

[Yamamoto]

I would prefer to define "controlled" as occupying the region with a military force, colonising it, dominating it's foreign policy and have it's people do what you tell them. I would not count having extensive trade routes but very little actual land as controlling an entire continent, so no, Africa does not count. Africa was not really under european control in any great degree until the colonial period.

Lets back to XV and XVI centuries (because is from that age we are talking about).

Controlled Africa in those times meant controlled his resources, sadly, the main resource slavery. So Portugal Controlled those resources, and for effect, establish in the spots where those resources could be controlled, and all the political influence nearby, so, ruling that lands.

That’s why Portugal had a lot of a job to conquer Ceuta and Tanger, when it would exist a large, large extense of land near, but who never give a work to occupy. Because who controlled those Cities, would controlled the West north Africa, in resource and Political point of view.

Was all that what matter in those times. No one would leave Europe to go live in Africa grasslands, those days. Else if it was a punishment.
That where a different era from XIX century, when the old Europe was in fact old.

The only portion of world that really matter to occupy as much as possible was the west territories, like cape islands that were a important spot to control the ocean trade route, and also the “new world” because the ore perspective that those lands given to the pioneers.

Again, call the pope, lets sign the bloody treaty.

 

[privatehudson]

Controlled Africa in those times meant controlled his resources, sadly, the main resource slavery. So Portugal Controlled those resources, and for effect, establish in the spots where those resources could be controlled, and all the political influence nearby, so, ruling that lands.

Disagree with your defenition sorry... as I said. You can adopt that defenition should you wish, I prefer a more sensible one though.

 

[Dreadnought]

Was all that what matter in those times. No one would leave Europe to go live in Africa grasslands, those days. Else if it was a punishment.

Africa wasn't used as an area to send prisoners...Australia was the place.

 

[Dreadnought]

Lets back to XV and XVI centuries (because is from that age we are talking about).

Controlled Africa in those times meant controlled his resources, sadly, the main resource slavery. So Portugal Controlled those resources, and for effect, establish in the spots where those resources could be controlled, and all the political influence nearby, so, ruling that lands.

That’s why Portugal had a lot of a job to conquer Ceuta and Tanger, when it would exist a large, large extense of land near, but who never give a work to occupy. Because who controlled those Cities, would controlled the West north Africa, in resource and Political point of view.

Was all that what matter in those times. No one would leave Europe to go live in Africa grasslands, those days. Else if it was a punishment.
That where a different era from XIX century, when the old Europe was in fact old.

The only portion of world that really matter to occupy as much as possible was the west territories, like cape islands that were a important spot to control the ocean trade route, and also the “new world” because the ore perspective that those lands given to the pioneers.

Again, call the pope, lets sign the bloody treaty.

Portugal did not have that much land...well yea, they did have Angola and Mozambique, but, compared to France and Britian, Portugal was rather weak. Portugal did have some islands here and there, but still, nothing compared to France/Britian.

 

[Yamamoto]

Portugal did not have that much land...well yea, they did have Angola and Mozambique, but, compared to France and Britian, Portugal was rather weak. Portugal did have some islands here and there, but still, nothing compared to France/Britian.

Fisrt of all:
Brasil was not and still is not an Island.
Angola was not and still is not an Island.
Moçambique was not and still is not an island.
...

But again, so tell us what France and England possess in the XV and XVI centuries, concerning Africa, since you mentioned Angola e Moçambique and also as you know, we are talking about the XV and XVI centuries.

 

[Dreadnought]

Yea BRAZIL (not Brasil, reminds me of basil ) is an island, and so is Portugal, and the US. Of course it isn't and island.

In the 1500s and 1600s Portugal had many lands, but when the French and British and Spainish came, Portugal simply couldn't keep up with them militarily and financially.

PS I should really start reading all the pages of a thread, not skipping to the last one...

 

[Dreadnought]

But again, so tell us what France and England possess in the XV and XVI centuries, concerning Africa, since you mentioned Angola e Moçambique and also as you know, we are talking about the XV and XVI centuries.

Most of the world uses numbers, aka 15th and 16th centuries

 

[Dreadnought]

Again, for instance Africa. Controlled it, didnt mean that Portuguese or European in general have to move to there, specially if we are talking in XV and XVI centuries, were those continents were only seen as a resource of slaves and some spices, and ivory. But the rich key spots, those what matter at that time were controlled alright by the Portugueses.
Later centuries, with the European expeditions in Africa (which Britain contributes alot too), and with a better knowledge of the world, then control it mean grab land alright, but not in XV century, where Africa was seen as savage, and only matter those rich spots and resources.

You were talking about Africa

 

[Yamamoto]

Yea BRAZIL (not Brasil, reminds me of basil )

LOL

Excuse me sir, if I, in spite of this forum be an english written (not perfect in my case), I used the real name of the countries, when I refer to them.

Brasil, is called Brasil and written Brasil. In English it is translated to Brazil. I accept you write Brazil, but translate names of ppl or land, is not 100% right.

As I know that Brasil calls Brasil, and writes as Brasil as original name (as they so called it, and as Portugal called it), then I wrote Brasil.

Pardon me.

 

[Yamamoto]

In the 1500s and 1600s Portugal had many lands, but when the French and British and Spainish came, Portugal simply couldn't keep up with them militarily and financially.

Spanish came at the same time as Portugal. Were the British and French that came later. The Duch came at the same time and also later too.

Anyway the things didnt happen exactly in that way, IMHO, and IHO of the most of the history thinkings, but hey, that would be another thread.

Lets play civ!

 

[privatehudson]

Co-incidentally I was watching Michael Wood's excellent series on the Conquistadores today and he mentions that the Aztec reaction to being told that the Pope had given his lands to Spain was that the Pope must have been drunk

 

[Yamamoto]

Well they were wrong, obviously. Moctezuma shall believe the Pope.
Aztecs lands were taken by Spanish.

 

[privatehudson]

It wasn't what the pope said or decreed that meant the fall of the Aztec empire so methinks the point is still very relevant and funny. Besides that kind of misses the point entirely.