AHC:Defeat of the Portuguese in Malacca

From what I read the defeat of Malaccans in the Portuguese was linked to the spanish colonization of the philippines.

How could we make the Portuguese defeated by Malaccans?..
 
First, isolate the Portuguese prisoners. One of them had been smuggling information on Malaccan defenses to Albuquerque and need to be kept away from visitors. If and when the Portuguese shell the port to demand their release, have the sultan send their severed heads instead. Also spread rumours of Portuguese atrocities against Hindus and Chinese to weaken potential sympathies for the Portuguese, if you want to avoid expelling them. Not too hard, considering what happened at Goa, though Macau would be a taller tale.

Overall, if the sultan could provoke Albuquerque into making a rash, ill-prepared assault (unlike OTL), the Portuguese are as good as dead. They just don't have the numbers to take on the Malaccans.
 
First, isolate the Portuguese prisoners. One of them had been smuggling information on Malaccan defenses to Albuquerque and need to be kept away from visitors. If and when the Portuguese shell the port to demand their release, have the sultan send their severed heads instead. Also spread rumours of Portuguese atrocities against Hindus and Chinese to weaken potential sympathies for the Portuguese, if you want to avoid expelling them. Not too hard, considering what happened at Goa, though Macau would be a taller tale.

Overall, if the sultan could provoke Albuquerque into making a rash, ill-prepared assault (unlike OTL), the Portuguese are as good as dead. They just don't have the numbers to take on the Malaccans.
Albuquerque's ship was in terrible shape and actually sunk on the way back.

Have it sink with him on board before they arrive. He is succeeded by fidalgos who don't share his manueline vision of forts and occupation but would rather have a purely commercial vision with as little state intervention as possible. As a consequence, they don't try to take it or half ass it because they were ordered to but didn't really want to
 
First, isolate the Portuguese prisoners. One of them had been smuggling information on Malaccan defenses to Albuquerque and need to be kept away from visitors. If and when the Portuguese shell the port to demand their release, have the sultan send their severed heads instead. Also spread rumours of Portuguese atrocities against Hindus and Chinese to weaken potential sympathies for the Portuguese, if you want to avoid expelling them. Not too hard, considering what happened at Goa, though Macau would be a taller tale.

Overall, if the sultan could provoke Albuquerque into making a rash, ill-prepared assault (unlike OTL), the Portuguese are as good as dead. They just don't have the numbers to take on the Malaccans.
I think your POD would make sense because it makes the portuguese unlikely to try again.


Albuquerque's ship was in terrible shape and actually sunk on the way back.

Have it sink with him on board before they arrive. He is succeeded by fidalgos who don't share his manueline vision of forts and occupation but would rather have a purely commercial vision with as little state intervention as possible. As a consequence, they don't try to take it or half ass it because they were ordered to but didn't really want to
I think the Portuguese might try again later..unless another power seizes malacca like Aceh..
 
I think your POD would make sense because it makes the portuguese unlikely to try again.

I think the Portuguese might try again later..unless another power seizes malacca like Aceh..

Portugal would try to conquer the place again. The orders for the conquest had come directly from the King and Albuquerque only found the fleet that was going to attack the city by luck. Diogo de Mendes de Vasconcelos had received 4 ships, partially financed by the fiorentinos, to attack the city in 1510 and they only attacked in 11 because Albuquerque, convinced/forced/threatened the Malacca fleet to help him attack Goa.
 
Portugal would try to conquer the place again. The orders for the conquest had come directly from the King and Albuquerque only found the fleet that was going to attack the city by luck. Diogo de Mendes de Vasconcelos had received 4 ships, partially financed by the fiorentinos, to attack the city in 1510 and they only attacked in 11 because Albuquerque, convinced/forced/threatened the Malacca fleet to help him attack Goa.
Sure it was Manuel's order, but for exemple Almeida was also ordered to take Malacca, and to blocade the Red Sea. He did neither. And yet, he was one of the most competent men
Asia was very very far away and you could always make up excuses. Plus, a lot of the follow-up Portuguese commanders were very incompetent and corrupt. Why go all the way to Malacca when you can just plunder what's around and squeeze custom revenues?
 
Last edited:
Sure it was Manuel's order, but for exemple Almeida was also ordered to take Malacca, and to blocade the Red Sea. He did neither. And yet, he was one of the most competent man
Asia was very very far away and you could always make up excuses. Plus, a lot of the follow-up Portuguese commanders were very incompetent and corrupt. Why go all the way to Malacca when you can just plunder what's around and squeeze custom revenues?

Yes but the problem with Almeida was the loss of his son, which made him a bit irrational, and the infamous unwillingness of the Portuguese commanders to cooperate.

Still I think Malacca would receive at least another attempt because the King in Lisbon thought that capturing the city would ensure dominance of the Spice Trade on that area, sure OTL that was proven wrong but they didn't know. I think that Lopo Soares, Henrique de Meneses, Nuno da Cunha or Garcia de Noronha were loyal and effective enough to try another conquest and probably succeed, if I had to pick one I would go with Henrique "O Ruivo".
 
Yes but the problem with Almeida was the loss of his son, which made him a bit irrational, and the infamous unwillingness of the Portuguese commanders to cooperate.

I actually was wondering about that, because that's precisely what I just recorded with my podcast (full episode on the Battle of Chaul).
Chaul was in March 1508, while Dabul was in December. To me, that's not an irrational decision, not with so long in between.
It is a revenge, of course, and a campaign of terror, but his stated purpose was to instil terror so they [aka: anybody not Portuguese] would know what would await them if they ever tried again to ally themselves against the Portuguese.

Still I think Malacca would receive at least another attempt because the King in Lisbon thought that capturing the city would ensure dominance of the Spice Trade on that area, sure OTL that was proven wrong but they didn't know. I think that Lopo Soares, Henrique de Meneses, Nuno da Cunha or Garcia de Noronha were loyal and effective enough to try another conquest and probably succeed, if I had to pick one I would go with Henrique "O Ruivo".
Not knowledgeable enough about the commanders to answer, but if Albuquerque dies/is replaced and a classic fidalgos takes his place, the captains might get replaced as well.
Loyalty was not as much a factor when you're a world away with your enemies at the court whispering daily to the King
 
I actually was wondering about that, because that's precisely what I just recorded with my podcast (full episode on the Battle of Chaul).
Chaul was in March 1508, while Dabul was in December. To me, that's not an irrational decision, not with so long in between.
It is a revenge, of course, and a campaign of terror, but his stated purpose was to instil terror so they [aka: anybody not Portuguese] would know what would await them if they ever tried again to ally themselves against the Portuguese.

It was full terror and half politics. He had received orders to ensure that we were the hegemons of the area and then with the dead of his son things just went sour, and with Almeida's record of burning and destroying things just went very bad.

Not knowledgeable enough about the commanders to answer, but if Albuquerque dies/is replaced and a classic fidalgos takes his place, the captains might get replaced as well.
Loyalty was not as much a factor when you're a world away with your enemies at the court whispering daily to the King

Lopo had been the governor of Mina and had lead the 6th Armada on their way to Lisbon and he lead some campaigns in Arabia and Ethiopia.

Henrique was a born soldier, having begin to fight at age 12 in Morocco and had a excelente record from Africa (excelente in that he was ruthless, intelligent and was willing to do anything to win, basically the perfect Portuguese commander of the time) and had a very strange ability for the time, he was one of the few that could ignore his pride, and was a decent diplomat, unfortunately he died age 30 from a leg wound.

Nuno was a proven commander, having served many years in India before becoming Governor. Not much of a politic guy tho having fall from favor thanks to court intrigue while in India.

Garcia is the diplomat of this bunch but he was very Catholic and had something against another religion. Still he had the brains to pull it.

The court intrigue was a war between parties. Albuquerque, for example, never received the full trust of the King because he had been a close friend of John II.
 
It was full terror and half politics. He had received orders to ensure that we were the hegemons of the area and then with the dead of his son things just went sour, and with Almeida's record of burning and destroying things just went very bad.
True, he always struck me as "in control" before that, especially compared to the bloodthirsty psycho that Gama was.
That said, I think that he might have been harder than planned/needed because of his son, but that was very much the initial idea and theory to rain terror on anyone daring to lift a finger against the Portuguese. Scare them now and they won't rise again later. That was especially needed after Cannanore and Chaul, and didn't they have to dismantle the Anjediva fort?

Still, even if it was an unbridled massacre where they slaughtered everything, I find it less revolting than the second voyage of Gama. But then again, I really dislike the character.

Lopo had been the governor of Mina and had lead the 6th Armada on their way to Lisbon and he lead some campaigns in Arabia and Ethiopia.

Henrique was a born soldier, having begin to fight at age 12 in Morocco and had a excelente record from Africa (excelente in that he was ruthless, intelligent and was willing to do anything to win, basically the perfect Portuguese commander of the time) and had a very strange ability for the time, he was one of the few that could ignore his pride, and was a decent diplomat, unfortunately he died age 30 from a leg wound.

Nuno was a proven commander, having served many years in India before becoming Governor. Not much of a politic guy tho having fall from favor thanks to court intrigue while in India.

Garcia is the diplomat of this bunch but he was very Catholic and had something against another religion. Still he had the brains to pull it.
Interesting stories! Thinking of, would you have any picaresque story to recommend? I keep reading about them but not seeing any title!

The court intrigue was a war between parties. Albuquerque, for example, never received the full trust of the King because he had been a close friend of John II.
I see your point, but there was also a difference of vision.

Some wanted to go there and get money. Blast everything as long as you get the gold. Let the merchants do their thing and don't have the state in the middle. The Gama/Cabral approach basically. This one was led by the fidalgos who would have been just as happy to stay in Morocco. This also meant that they didn't care about a long term vision and would be very opportunistic.

On the other hand you have the (Alfonso) Albuquerque/Manuel approach of messianic conquest, with Portugal being Lord of the Indies and using it as a springboard to Jerusalem, as described in the Regimento. For that you need forts and a long term establishment in the Indies. In there, commerce is an after thought to pay for the whole thing.

You also had the third approach which was about commerce/monopoly protection. Merchants were pretty happy to have the new opportunities while being militarily protected by the Crown (the Carreira model).

I may be caricaturising it a bit but I would say on top of the classic court intrigues, it was also a fight of vision.
 
True, he always struck me as "in control" before that, especially compared to the bloodthirsty psycho that Gama was.
That said, I think that he might have been harder than planned/needed because of his son, but that was very much the initial idea and theory to rain terror on anyone daring to lift a finger against the Portuguese. Scare them now and they won't rise again later. That was especially needed after Cannanore and Chaul, and didn't they have to dismantle the Anjediva fort?

Still, even if it was an unbridled massacre where they slaughtered everything, I find it less revolting than the second voyage of Gama. But then again, I really dislike the character.

Gama is a conflicted character. He was a very proud man and he had no experience in dealing with foreign rulers, so for him every little insult was a personal stain on his honor, so when he was sent for the second time he only had one thought in mind.

Interesting stories! Thinking of, would you have any picaresque story to recommend? I keep reading about them but not seeing any title!

About those commanders or in general? Henrique, I read, was besieged in India and managed to foul the besiegers by dressing the women on the fortress as soldiers and placed them on the walls.

Lopo had been a good commander in Africa but he was hated by all in India and ended up being on the receiving end of a inquiry by the king to his governorship.

Honestly the most mad history I found was about D.Diogo de Anaia Coutinho, a fidalgo that had been force to go to India as a simple soldier, that challenged the full army besieging Diu in 46 because of a helmet.

I see your point, but there was also a difference of vision.

Some wanted to go there and get money. Blast everything as long as you get the gold. Let the merchants do their thing and don't have the state in the middle. The Gama/Cabral approach basically. This one was led by the fidalgos who would have been just as happy to stay in Morocco. This also meant that they didn't care about a long term vision and would be very opportunistic.

On the other hand you have the (Alfonso) Albuquerque/Manuel approach of messianic conquest, with Portugal being Lord of the Indies and using it as a springboard to Jerusalem, as described in the Regimento. For that you need forts and a long term establishment in the Indies. In there, commerce is an after thought to pay for the whole thing.

You also had the third approach which was about commerce/monopoly protection. Merchants were pretty happy to have the new opportunities while being militarily protected by the Crown (the Carreira model).

I may be caricaturising it a bit but I would say on top of the classic court intrigues, it was also a fight of vision.

Too true too true.

Albuquerque wasn't much of a messianic, he was more practical on the approach and view it has half God's mission and half to fill the coffers of the kingdom. Gama I don't even know if he made plans in advance.
 
Too true too true.

Albuquerque wasn't much of a messianic, he was more practical on the approach and view it has half God's mission and half to fill the coffers of the kingdom. Gama I don't even know if he made plans in advance.
Gama's plan:
42109283.jpg


I understand your point about being susceptible, but at the point where you start cutting noses, sewing dogs' noses and ears in their place and then burning you alive as a message, I believe we're firmly in psychopath territory.

I mean, the Miri was so bad that even his chroniclers find it awful and even Camoes ignores it instead of putting a spin on it somehow
 
Gama's plan:
42109283.jpg


I understand your point about being susceptible, but at the point where you start cutting noses, sewing dogs' noses and ears in their place and then burning you alive as a message, I believe we're firmly in psychopath territory.

I mean, the Miri was so bad that even his chroniclers find it awful and even Camoes ignores it instead of putting a spin on it somehow

Actually nose cutting was part of the Portuguese penal system of the time...sorry about that.

The dog noses and ears was him being a psycho as was the burning...probably I have no idea if it was part of the penal system and he just decided to go extreme.
 
Actually nose cutting was part of the Portuguese penal system of the time...sorry about that.

The dog noses and ears was him being a psycho as was the burning...probably I have no idea if it was part of the penal system and he just decided to go extreme.
Cutting noses and ears is fairly standard, like eye gouging. Unpleasant to us but different times... It's the dog that really unsettles me, especially, as I remember it, on non-combatants

I get he was paranoid, being alone in a foreign and largely enemy land, which explains a lot (torture, bombardment...) but not all.
 
Cutting noses and ears is fairly standard, like eye gouging. Unpleasant to us but different times... It's the dog that really unsettles me, especially, as I remember it, on non-combatants

I get he was paranoid, being alone in a foreign and largely enemy land, which explains a lot (torture, bombardment...) but not all.

Honestly the only explanation I can find for that was a combination of fear and paranoid behavior combined with the Portuguese policy towards enemies.

Basically most of the the men that went to India went from making war in Morocco to India and in Morocco brutality and torture and bombardment was the common coin there. Still what he did was even considered by us to be over the top which is why most avoided speaking about that and only focus on the rest.
 
Top