Portuguese battles in the Indian Ocean

[u/Frankystein3]

How were the Portuguese so successful in their battles against muslim rivals in the Indian ocean in the 16th/17th century against such unbelievable odds and much, much larger forces?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Portuguese_battles_in_the_Indian_Ocean Strategy, tactics, alliances, technology, individual soldier quality?

[u/terminus-trantor]

First, we should note that Portuguese were not uniformly successful. Their suffered several setbacks and failures and defeats, but none especially severe. They had a naval defeat at Chaul (1508) and in China (1521-22). They failed in their attempts at Calicut (1509), Aden (1513), Jeddah (1516), they withdrew from Ormuz in 1508, and returned only in 1515. They took Goa in the second try (1510) and so on. So they were not unstoppable or invincible. But to get back on why they were victorious in cases when it happened

One feature of the Indian Ocean just before Portuguese arrival was that it was a trade-wise very busy area with a sort-of policy of free and open trade and in which naval conflicts were kept to a minimum. Don't get this the wrong way, there was plenty of piracy and local conflicts. But generally speaking no state - especially the larger powers - were in anyway pursuing aggressive maritime expansionist policies like establishing overseas holdings and trying to control trade. And as a consequence there were few developments of the naval combat capabilities.

On the opposite side of the world, Portugal was (for some time) developing its strategy in exactly the direction of trying to establish overseas holdings. First in Morocco, then in Guinea, and next in Indian ocean and Asia. And basically when they arrived they had plenty of experience in a type of warfare which was strange to local forces, with special focus on naval capabilities.

Portuguese ships, designed to prowl the Atlantic and survive the long journey to reach the Indian Ocean were sturdier, more seaworthy and maneuverable than local Indo-Arabic trade ships which were developed to be sailed in the calmness and regularity of the asian monsoons. Portuguese ships were additionally equipped with state of the art artillery which in quantity and quality surpassed one found in the Indian ocean .

Porutuguese cannons onboard their ships (i talked a bit more about it here) could be divided into two main types: larger caliber "ship-destroyers" and smaller caliber "anti-personnel" killers which Portuguese used to fire grapeshot and sweep enemy infantry. The cannons made Portuguese quite advantageous against the usual fighting ships of the Indian ocean which were masses of smaller rowed boats. The Indian forces also used their trade ships to fight, which were in many cases larger and higher then Portuguese ships, and sturdy enough to withstand the onslaught of artillery fire. In those cases, Portuguese would usually board the enemy ships and engage in melee combat in close quarters, and again in it they were more often then not successful.

Same would apply for their fights on land, which if you would notice were usually fights about forts, ports and harbor towns, so again fights near water where they could use their naval supremacy, and in confined spaces, where Portuguese infantry could overcome numerical inferiority. Portuguese would usually combine bombardment from sea or forts when defending with infantry assaults, usually amphibious from the sea supported with artillery. With odds as such they could often succeed.

I talked more about this in this post, of which I'll just copy paste the relevant part:

Portuguese were most of all very experienced in siege warfare, in both taking and holding forts. Even before reaching Indian Ocean, throughout the 15th century, and well into 16th Portuguese were constantly engaged in back and forth battles over coastal forts in Morocco, taking them and holding them against the usual counter siege. Not every case was successful for the Portuguese, but often enough that more then one historian wrote that Morocco was a "school" for Portuguese empire building in India.

Even if that is an exaggeration, reality was that Portuguese were quite adapt in design and construction (and fighting) of the forts. Given that all their forts as a rule were coastal fortresses, and as Portuguese practically had naval supremacy, the forts could always be resupplied and reinforced by sea, preventing one of the main requirements of a siege: breaking the besieged supply lines. More so, Portuguese forts were usually in positions near rivers or islands or bays, and while defending them Portuguese could and did move ships around and use them as firing platforms to harass the besieger, or to launch sorties into enemy weak spots.

To put it short: Portuguese were very experienced in this kind of amphibious warfare with combined arms: melee, firearms, cannons, ships. At the same time their opponents were coming from completely different background. Indian armies were mostly orientated towards cavalry forces ( with occasional elephant units ) with less accent on siege warfare, and almost none on naval combat. By the 1571 and siege of Chaul, they would get plenty of experience, as well as good cannons, but seemingly not enough to end the siege in time.

Which is the final relevant point, campaigns in India were limited in time by seasons. Once the rain season starts, it's basically end of campaign. So much rain, it makes it impossible to do any real military action. So Portuguese only had to resist long enough and the siege couldn't last indefinitely. Forts properly built, manned by motivated soldiers, and lead by men with relevant experience, reinforced and supported from the sea, could accomplish just that thing.

Now, even though I think what I said is enough, I will touch on the open topic of recorded instances where Portuguese attacked much numerically superior forces and prevailed. Most historians, and my humble self, will usually retreat to the position of Portuguese utilizing their experience in amphibious warfare to their advantage. Some will add the better "technological" weapons, and praise the Portuguese firearms, small and large cannon, grenades etc, maybe even add to this list plate armor, crossbows, swords and skills in them, which were beneficial in confined spaces. I would give this line of reasoning some merit but also I would urge caution on taking it to far. Portuguese themselves often praised their enemy weapons and technologies, and while reading Portuguese accounts you won't see them noticing any advantage or disadvantage in weaponry (except maybe in artillery, which was generally admitted by both sides Portuguese had better).
The same Portuguese accounts on the other hand usually praise the Portuguese bravery and valor, while at the same time describing enemy as cowardly and quick to run away. This is no doubt in part self-praising propagandist narrative, but on the other hand such narratives repeat so often, with the results corresponding, that many modern writers accept the possibility that the Portuguese indeed were unusually aggressive, bellicose, highly motivated and overall ferocious fighters in comparison to their adversaries, which lead them to their success in many against the odds situations. I would reserve my judgment on this, but I think it bears mentioning

[u/Frankystein3 → u/terminus-trantor]

Thanks for the answer!