Portuguese invasion of Melaka 1511
Introduction
The Portuguese invasion of Melaka (1511) is an important point in world history because it marks the commencement of direct European control of the spice trade and the defusion of European ideas to the region.
Nutmeg is native
to Banda Islands
Clove is native
to Maluku Islands
Sandalwood is native
to Timor Islands
The Malay merchants say that God made Timor for sandal-wood and Banda for mace and the Moluccas for cloves, and that this merchandise is not known anywhere else in the world except in these places; and I asked and enquired very diligently whether they had this merchandise anywhere else and everyone said not.
[from Suma Oriental by Tome Pires, written between 1512 and 1515]
The King of Portugal was apparently very proud of this achievement because he bragged about it in a letter directed to the then newly elected Pope, Leo X (r. 1513 - 1521). Four months later, the Portuguese victory was again was orated to the Pope by the would-be Bishop of Teramo, Camillo Porzj (r. 1517 - 1522?) in October 1513.
A meticulous account of the events leading to the fall of Melaka can be found in the Commentaries of d'Albuquerque (Figure 1), which contains enough materials to rebuild the chronology correctly. According to the Commentaries, the first attack took place on St. James's Day. Then they waited 16 days for the next spring tide and launched a second attack on a Friday, which lasted for another 10 days. This account is consistent with Empoli's description (1514), but Empoli made no mentions of the tidal maximum and he associate the second attack with St. Lawrence's Day instead of a Friday. Also, he did not mention anything on the duration of the second attack.
$$ \begin{vmatrix}A\\ \\ {\tiny a}\end{vmatrix} \xrightarrow[]{} \begin{vmatrix}F\\ \\ {\tiny f = \textrm{St. James's Day}}\end{vmatrix} \xrightarrow[{\small\textrm{sed since this took place}}]{\small \textrm{16 days having already elap-}} \begin{vmatrix}S\\ {\tiny \textrm{spring tide}} \\ {\tiny s = \textrm{Friday}}\end{vmatrix} \xrightarrow[{\small \textrm{period of 10 days}}]{\small \textrm{this went on for a}} \begin{vmatrix}L\\ \\ {\tiny \ell}\end{vmatrix} $$$$ \begin{vmatrix}A\\ \\ {\tiny a}\end{vmatrix} \xrightarrow[]{} \begin{vmatrix}F\\ \\ {\tiny f = \textrm{St. James's Day}}\end{vmatrix} \xrightarrow[{\small\textrm{ships for 16 days}}]{\small \textrm{We kept to our}} \begin{vmatrix}S'\\ {} \\ {\tiny s = \textrm{St. Lawrence's Day}}\end{vmatrix} \xrightarrow[]{} \begin{vmatrix}L\\ \\ {\tiny \ell}\end{vmatrix} $$
Efforts to utilize d'Albuquerque's data to unlock the absolute Julian dates associated with these events were initiated by Eredia in 1613, yet historians often find themselves in disagreement on this matter (Table 1). The confusion around the reconstructed dates is made worst when historians published their dates (e.g. \(S\) = August 8, 10, 15, \(L\) = August 15, 24, 25) without any probabilistic quantifier (e.g. approximately, probably, circa), or when these approximate dates are employed by other writers to manufacture new scenarios. For instance, the Portuguese-Melaka War reimagined (Figure 2) by SAMI (2017) consists of 3 (instead of 2) attacks and these attacks are dated to July 25, August 10, and August 24, without realizing that these dates are deduced under different assumptions by various authors and this cherry-picked set is not in full alignment with the descriptions in Commentaries.
Serangan Portugis kali pertama
- Serangan pertama pada 25 Julai 1511 dilakukan dari arah laut.
- Portugis menggunakan 17 buah kapal dan 800 orang tentera.
- Portugis gagal menawan masjid dan jambatan Melaka yang menjadi benteng pertahanan Melaka.
Serangan Portugis kali kedua
- Serangan kedua bermula pada 9 Ogos 1511.
- Tentera Portugis bersama-sama kelengkapan perang seperti senjata api dan bot menuju arah bandar.
- Bedilan api daripada kapal meriam Portugis memberikan tekanan kepada askar Melaka untuk berunder ke masjid.
Serangan Portugis kali ketiga
- Portugis kembali menyerang Melaka pada 24 Ogos 1511.
- Tentera Portugis berarak secara berenam melalui jalan bandar dan berjaya menewaskan serangan oleh askar Melaka.
- Portugis menawan kota Melaka dan istana Sultan Mahmud Shah.
| Julian date | Author | Year | Event | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| August 10 | Empoli | 1511 – 1514 | \(S\) | Giovanni da Empoli (1483 – 1517) was a 28-year-old Florentine merchant who took part in the 1511 siege. Note that Empoli's date is unable to meet Condition (1) but it is able to approximately satisfy Condition (2). Note that Empoli did not explicitly mention August 10 in the letter to his father but merely associate \(S\) with St. Lawrence's Day. |
| August 8 | Barros | 1777 | \(S\) | João de Barros (1496 - 1570). It is not known if Barros was influenced by Empoli's date. Barros's date and Empoli's date are very close to each as they are gapped only by August 9. Barros's date was likely the correct date for \(S - 1\) since it is consistent with all three descriptions in Albuquerque's Commentaries: (a) \(S\) or \(S-1\) was a Friday (b) full moon and thus spring tide was observed on \(S\) (c) the day was 16 days away from \(F\). |
| August 10 | Goes | 1909 – 1912 | \(S\) | Damião de Goes (1502 - 1574) repeated Empoli's date. |
| August 10 | Castanheda | 1924 – 1933 | \(S\) | Fernão Lopes de Castanheda (1500? — 1559) again repeated Empoli's date. |
| August 15 | Eredia | 1613 | \(S\) | Manuel Godinho de Erédia (1563 – 1623) was a Bugis-Portuguese born in Melaka. Eredia's work was translated into English J. V. G. Mills in 1930 (based on the French translation by M. Leon Jassen in 1882). Note that Eredia's solution was only able to meet Condition (1). |
| August 15 | Maxwell | 1911 | \(S\) | Maxwell was likely to have repeated Eredia's date, probably without checking. |
| August 10 | Zhang | 1941 | \(S\) | Zhang was likely to have borrowed Empoli's date since he repeated Empoli's reference to St. Lawrence's Day. |
| August 8/10 | Macgregor | 1955 | \(S\) | Macgregor was unable to choose a date decisively, so he quoted both Empoli's and Barros's date. |
| August 8 | Winstedt | 1962 | \(S\) | Winstedt's date similar to that of Barros's. |
| August 10 | Hsu | 1963 | \(S\) | Hsu was probably not aware of Winstedt's 1962 paper since he repeated Zhang's date. |
| August 24 | Loofs | 1964 | \(L\) | It not known how Loofs arrived at his date. Also, it is not know whether Loofs was making a reference to \(S\) or \(L\). Loofs might have reached his conclusion by adding 9 days to August 15 (Maxwell's date). |
| August 24 | Tregonning | 1964 | \(L\) | It is not known whether Tregonning was referring to \(S\) or \(L\). |
| August 24 | Ryan | 1965 | \(L\) | Ryan's date was likely influenced by Tregonning. |
| August 15 | Kennedy | 1967 | \(S\) | Kennedy showed that he was able to reach Maxwell's date by adding 21 days (3 weeks) to \(F\), but he did not explain why 3 weeks was used. |
| August 25 | McRoberts | 1984 | \(L\) | McRoberts cited Loof's date but he disagreed with Loof. He suggested August 25 as the solution for \(L\), this implied that his choice of \(S\) was August 15, and it shows that McRoberts interpreted Maxwell's date as \(S\), but he adjusted his \(S\)-value from August 15 to August 14 because he (incorrectly) thought August 14 was a Friday (when it was not). |
| August 10 | Lew | 2017 | \(S\) | Lew's choice was similar to that of Zhang and Hsu. |
| August 10 | SAMI | 2017 | \(S\) | SAMI's choice was similar to that of Zhang and Hsu. |
| August 24 | SAMI | 2017 | \(T\) | A hypothetical third attack \(T\) was reimagined by SAMI. \(T\) was not documented in the Commentaries. |
Assembling the astro-calendrical data in the Commentaries
The dating of \(F\) is the easiest exercise. Two dates, July 24 or 25, were proposed, since St. James's Day can loosely mean the eve or the actual feast day itself.
The dating of \(S\) is slightly complicated but not completely out of reach. We need to locate a date which simultaneously satisfy the following conditions
- \(S\) was a Friday (or \(S - 1\) was a Friday).
- \(S\) was 16 days away from \(F\).
- \(S\) was very close to a spring tide (i.e. a new moon or a full moon).
Barros's solution (1777) was clearly able to meet the first two conditions. In fact, using only the first two conditions, we are able to reconstruct Barros's date. Thus it is not clear whether the third condition was employed by the Portuguese historian.
In Table 2, we use the lunar-phase algorithm in Reingold and Dershowitz (2001) to compute New moon = 0, full moon = 180, etclunar phase of the Julian dates (at 0:00) and we see that Condition (3) is indeed satisfied by Barros's date. Empoli's date, on the other hand, was not unable to comply with Condition (1) since it was a Sunday, but it was able to approximately satisfy Condition (2) and Condition (3). Macgregor (1955) was unable to decide between the two dates, that he cited both as the probable date for \(S\). Winstedt's solution in 1962, however, was identical with that of Barros's. But it was not clear whether he was merely repeating the Portuguese source or worked out the dates by himself from the data found in the Commentaries. The date proposed by Eredia in 1613, however, is unlikely to be correct since it was only able to meet Condition (1). Unfortunately, Maxwell (1911) and Kennedy (1967) help to propagate this error when they wrote about the War. Another significant deviation from the Empoli-Barros tradition was found in Loofs (1964). It was unclear whether Loofs was referring to \(S\) or \(L\) by his date as it was not able to meet both Condition (1) and Condition (2), although surprisingly, Loof's date was within the vicinity of August new moon. Again, Loof's date is unlikely to be correct but his incorrect selection was then followed by Ryan (1967) and it was used by SAMI (2017) to build a non-existent third attack.
| i | j | Julian date | Day | Lunar phase | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -59 | -83 | May 2 | Fri | 57.27 | The Portuguese armada set sail from Cochin on May 2. The group consists of 19 ships, 800 Portuguese, 600 Malabaris. |
| 1 | -23 | Jul 1 | Tue | 65.51 | According to R. J. Wilkinson (1912), the Portuguese armada reached the port of Melaka on July 1:. . . on the 1st July, 1511, he appeared in the roads with the entire force of Portuguese India, - nineteen ships, 800 European soldiers and 600 native sepoys, - with trumpets sounding banners waving, guns firing, and every demonstration that might be expected to create a panic among the junks in the harbour and the warriors in the town . . .Wilkinson did not cite the source of his date, it is likely that he was using Barros's description (e.g. see M. J. Pintado (1993) Portuguese documents on Malacca from 1509 to 1511, p. 149). Empoli, on the other, mentioned that he and d'Albuquerque reached the port of Melaka on June 28: . . . he remained with us and led us to Malacca by a good route, because the way there was very dangerous and lay across shoals; and thus we reached Malacca on the twenty-eighth day of June. And stationed there in front of the town, we allowed the ships to lie at anchor without firing cannon or anything else . . . |
| 2 | -22 | Jul 2 | Wed | 76.41 | |
| 3 | -21 | Jul 3 | Thu | 87.27 | |
| 4 | -20 | Jul 4 | Fri | 98.18 | |
| 5 | -19 | Jul 5 | Sat | 109.21 | |
| 6 | -18 | Jul 6 | Sun | 120.46 | |
| 7 | -17 | Jul 7 | Mon | 132.00 | |
| 8 | -16 | Jul 8 | Tue | 143.90 | |
| 9 | -15 | Jul 9 | Wed | 156.18 | |
| 10 | -14 | Jul 10 | Thu | 168.85 | |
| 180.00 | Spring tide. Astronomical full moon = 10 July 8:37 pm. | ||||
| 11 | -13 | Jul 11 | Fri | 181.66 | |
| 12 | -12 | Jul 12 | Sat | 195.15 | |
| 13 | -11 | Jul 13 | Sun | 208.61 | |
| 14 | -10 | Jul 14 | Mon | 222.14 | |
| 15 | -9 | Jul 15 | Tue | 235.64 | |
| 16 | -8 | Jul 16 | Wed | 249.04 | |
| 17 | -7 | Jul 17 | Thu | 262.30 | |
| 18 | -6 | Jul 18 | Fri | 275.38 | |
| 19 | -5 | Jul 19 | Sat | 288.29 | |
| 20 | -4 | Jul 20 | Sun | 301.02 | |
| 21 | -3 | Jul 21 | Mon | 313.57 | |
| 22 | -2 | Jul 22 | Tue | 325.95 | |
| 23 | -1 | Jul 23 | Wed | 338.13 | |
| 24 | 0 | Jul 24 | Thu | 350.11 | Eve of St. James's Day. R. J. Winkinson (1912) and Zhang Liqian (1941) assigned July 24, instead of July 25, as St. James's Day: . . . the crowning attack took place on St. James' Day, the 24th July, 1511. The Viceroy landed troops again under cover of the guns of his floating-battery but when once they had come ashore they were charged by a wild mob of 700 Malays and mercenaries under the Prince Alaedin in person . . . |
| 0.00 | Spring tide. Astronomical new moon = 24 Jul 8:09 pm. | ||||
| 25 | 1 | Jul 25 | Fri | 1.87 | St. James's Day. All other authors employ July 25 as the date for St James's Day. |
| 26 | 2 | Jul 26 | Sat | 13.41 | |
| 27 | 3 | Jul 27 | Sun | 24.73 | |
| 28 | 4 | Jul 28 | Mon | 35.85 | |
| 29 | 5 | Jul 29 | Tue | 46.82 | |
| 30 | 6 | Jul 30 | Wed | 57.68 | |
| 31 | 7 | Jul 31 | Thu | 68.50 | |
| 32 | 8 | Aug 1 | Fri | 79.37 | |
| 33 | 9 | Aug 2 | Sat | 90.37 | |
| 34 | 10 | Aug 3 | Sun | 101.60 | |
| 35 | 11 | Aug 4 | Mon | 113.14 | |
| 36 | 12 | Aug 5 | Tue | 125.06 | |
| 37 | 13 | Aug 6 | Wed | 137.42 | |
| 38 | 14 | Aug 7 | Thu | 150.24 | |
| 39 | 15 | Aug 8 | Fri | 163.48 | August 8 was first explicitly mentioned by R. O. Winstedt in 1962:Two hours before dawn on Friday August 8th, the day of the blessed martyr St. Lawrence, the captains and their men, having received absolution, set out for the city on the high spring tide.‘Friday - two hours before morning' was originally found in Albuquerque's Commentaries. The following is Walter de Gray Birch (1880) English translation of the 1774 Portuguese text: Having agreed upon this method of attack, all went away to their respective ships to get ready, waiting for the day when it would be high water in the spring tides, so that the junk could get up to the bridge; and when the time was come — on a Friday, two hours before morning — Afonso d'albuquerque gave orders for the signal which he had agreed upon, to wake them, and they, as they were already prepared, came on board his ship, and from it set forth all together in their boats . . .August 8 was likely deduced based by Winstedt based on (a) August 8 was a Friday (b) Astronomical full moon occurred on August 9, since d'Albuquerque was waiting for the day when it would be high water in the spring tides (c) The gap between August 8 and July 24 was 16 days (i.e. if July 24 is Day 1, then August 8 is Day 16). Winstedt was likely to have peruse Zhang's 1941 paper but corrected Zhang's date to make it consistent with (a), (b), and (c). Also, Joginder Singh Jessy, apparently aware of the 16 days gap between the first and second attack, suggested something similar: On 25th July (St. James' Day) he launched the offensive. The bridge was captured. However, when the night fell, the Portuguese retreated. Two weeks later, they launched a second attack. . . |
| 40 | 16, 1 | Aug 9 | Sat | 177.07 | |
| 180.00 | Spring tide. Astronomical full moon = 9 August 5:07 am. Dawn = 6:47 am (i.e. 2h before dawn = 4:47 am). | ||||
| 41 | 17, 2 | Aug 10 | Sun | 190.89 | August 10 was the date given by Zhang Liqian (1900-1955) 張禮千 in 1941:于是盛极一时之马六甲亡。时在1511年8月10日，星期五，亦即圣劳陵斯之节日也。which was approximately ‘So the once-thriving Malacca fell into decline. It occurred on August 10, 1511, a Friday, also the feast day of Saint Lawrence.' Zhang was first person to mention St. Lawrence's Day as the day on which Melaka was captured. August 10 was probably constructed by Zhang by adding 16 days to July 24 (Zhang's date for St James's Day, i.e. July 24 + 16 days = August 9 = Eve of St. Lawrence's Day. It it not known why Zhang gave August 10 instead of the arithematically correct August 9), in which the gap of 16 days was extracted from the speech given to the Portuguese army by d'Albuquerque before the second attack: . . . It is, too, well worthy of belief that as the King of Malaca, who has already once been discomfited and had proof of our strength, with no hope of obtaining any succour from any other quarter - sixteen days having already elapsed since this took place - makes no endeavour to negotiate with us for the security of this estate . . .Zhang's August 10 date was repeated by Hsu Yun-tsiao in 1963 (however, Hsu's date for St James's Day was July 25: July 25 + 16 days = August 10): 满剌加王朝从此覆亡。那是8月10日，又是天主教的一个节日 - 圣劳陵斯日。Hsu's words, in English, are: ‘The sultanate of Malacca collapsed from that point onward. It was on August 10, also a Catholic holiday - the feast day of Saint Lawrence.' Note that, however, Hsu discarded Zhang's incorrect statement that August 10 was a Friday. |
| 42 | 18, 3 | Aug 11 | Mon | 204.82 | |
| 43 | 19, 4 | Aug 12 | Tue | 218.70 | |
| 44 | 20, 5 | Aug 13 | Wed | 232.41 | |
| 45 | 21, 6 | Aug 14 | Thu | 245.89 | |
| 46 | 22, 7 | Aug 15 | Fri | 259.07 | August 15 was the date given by William G. Maxwell (1911) An account of De Siqueira's voyage to Malacca, JSRAS 57 , p. 195.W. G. Maxwell (1871 – 1959) in 1911 as the day on which Melaka was captured: It was to effect Ruy de Aranjo's release and to chastise the Malays for the treason which they had practised upon Diogo Lopez de Siqueira that Alboquerque attacked Malacca. He captured it on the 15th August 1511.Maxwell, was likely to have copied Eredia's date (1613), without checking. . . . and was succeeded by the following Malaio Kings: Xeque Darxa, Sultan Medafarsa, Sultan Marsuse, Sultan Alaudin, and the last Sultan Maahamet, who ws overthrown and destroyed by the invincible captain Affonso de Alboquerque, when his royal state was conquered and Malaca subdued on the 15th August in the year 1511.J. Kennedy, in 1967, gave his explanation as follows: Albuquerque's first attack gained a footing on the river-bridge which linked the two sections of the town, but a withdrawal was ordered at nightfall. Three weeks later, a second landing was effected with the aid of a modified Chinese junk which, loaded with men, was rammed against the bridge to serve as a huge landing-craft. The bridge and the town centre were taken on August 15th, after some hard fighting, but pockets of resistance held out for several days. Finally, the town was systematically sacked.Thus, Kennedy justified Maxwell's date by adding 21 days (3 weeks) to July 25. However, Kennedy's three-week-gap was inconsistent with the 16-day gap given in Albuquerque's Commentaries. |
| 47 | 23, 8 | Aug 16 | Sat | 271.96 | |
| 48 | 24, 9 | Aug 17 | Sun | 284.56 | |
| 49 | 25, 10 | Aug 18 | Mon | 296.88 | |
| 50 | 26, 11 | Aug 19 | Tue | 308.96 | |
| 51 | 27 | Aug 20 | Wed | 320.82 | |
| 52 | 28 | Aug 21 | Thu | 332.47 | |
| 53 | 29 | Aug 22 | Fri | 343.92 | |
| 54 | 30 | Aug 23 | Sat | 355.21 | |
| 0.00 | Spring tide. Astronomical new moon = 23 August 10:28 am. | ||||
| 55 | 31 | Aug 24 | Sun | 6.33 | August 24 was the date given by Helmut H. E. Loofs-Wissowa (1927 - 2018) in H. H. Loofs (1964) Südost Asiens Fundamente: Hochkulturen und Primitivstämme, Geisterglauben, Religionen, große Politik, Safari-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 337 - 338.1964:Es ist zwar genau bekannt, das Afonso d'Albuquerque am 24 August, 1511 gegen Mittag die Stadt Malakka eigenommen hatte, und das damit das Koloniale Zeitalter in Sudostasien begann.Loof's text can be approximated as: It is well known that Afonso d'Albuquerque captured the city of Malacca on August 24, 1511, around noon, marking the beginning of the colonial era in Southeast Asia. Since the gap between August 15 and August 24, it is very likely that Loofs used Maxwell's August 15 as his standing point and Albuquerque's ‘for a period of ten days' . . . when morning came, the Moors, terrified at the unexpected misfortune which they witnessed, dared not appear in the streets, and this went on for a period of ten days running without any cessation by night or by day, and during this time our men were continually spilling the blood of the Moors, for inasmuch as the hunger they suffered was extreme, they risked their lives to go and look for food in the city, and there they lost their lives . . .to arrive at August 24. Coincidentally, K. G. Tregonning, in 1964 also suggested August 24: Malacca's internal disunity was fatal for its defence, and the city was captured on 24th August 1511.N. J. Ryan, in 1965, repeated Tregonning's and Loof's date: The final attack, when it came on August 24th, was therefore very quickly successful, for the morale of the defenders had wasted away. By the same evening the city of Malacca was captured and given over to organized looting by d'Albuquerque's men. |
| 56 | 32 | Aug 25 | Mon | 17.31 | R. W. McRoberts (1984) suggested August 25:Thus, on the evening of the eleventh day of the second attack, d'Albuquerque found himself in possession of what remained of Melaka. He allowed his troops to spend the evening of the twenty-fourth/twenty-fifth in plundering the burned city, reestablishing his authority in the morning. And so Melaka fell, on a Tuesday, at a time of spring tide, before the monsoon, probably on the twenty-fifth of August, 1511.McRoberts estimation is problematic because (a) August 25 was a Monday and not Tuesday (b) August 25 should be the 12th day of the second attack since McRoberts explicitly mentioned August 14 . . . and d'Albuquerque exhorted his forces to a second attack, launched a few days later, two hours before dawn on a Friday, probably the fourteenth of August. After this first day of battle, ten further days of bitter street-fighting ensued. . .as the first day of the second attack (c) August 14 was Thursday and not Friday. |
| 57 | 33 | Aug 26 | Tue | 28.18 | |
| 58 | 34 | Aug 27 | Wed | 38.99 | |
| 59 | 35 | Aug 28 | Thu | 49.78 | |
| 60 | 36 | Aug 29 | Fri | 60.63 | |
| 61 | 37 | Aug 30 | Sat | 71.61 | |
| 62 | 38 | Aug 31 | Sun | 82.79 | |
| 63 | 39 | Sep 1 | Mon | 94.27 | |
| 64 | 40 | Sep 2 | Tue | 106.13 |
The dating of \(L\) is easy when the date of \(S\) is known since it has to only satisfy one condition: Melaka was bombarded continuously for a period of 10 days, or \(L\) was 10 days away from \(S\).
A probable solution that is consistent with the Commentaries
We are now in a position to interlace our proposed solution (Table 3) with the text in the Commentaries:
. . . The great Afonso d'Albuquerque was so devoted to the Apostle St. James, that after it had been agreed by all that the city should be attacked, he delayed the completion of his preparations for some days, with the object of putting his hands to this work on that saint's day, for he trusted that through the prayers and merits of the saint, Our Lord would give them victory over it, as He had done in the capture of Goa. (we now know d'Albuquerque was waiting for the new moon so that he could take advantage of the tidal maximum, the July new moon, coincidently, occurred around St. James's Day). And when the time was come (July 24), he summoned the captains and declared to them that he was determined to attack the city upon the following day (July 25), which was the day of the Apostle Saint James, and it was necessary, before doing so, to discuss where and in what order they must disembark, in order that every one should know what duty was assigned to him. . . 2 hours before the break (of July 25) Afonso d'Albuquerque ordered the trumpet to be blown, in order to awaken them, and they embarked immediately with all the rest of the men-at-arms and went on board his ship, and when a general confession had been made, all set out together and came to the mouth of the river just as morning broke, and attacked the bridge, each battalion in the order which had been assigned to it . . . And when all this was ready he told Antonio Dabreu to sail up along the river pass over a spit of rand which lay before the bridge, while he himself, with all the rest of the men, would follow up close behind. But because the junk drew very deeply in the water, and could not pass over the spit on account of the neap tide, Afonso d'Albuquerque desired, in order not to lose any more time, to send another junk with less draught of water, but this also could not pass over, so he was compelled to wait for the spring tide (astronomical full moon = 9 August 5:07 am) . . . When the great Afonso d'Albuquerque had all things ready that were necessary for attacking the city again, it was reported to him that there were some among the Captains who were in the habit of saying that they did not think if of service to the King for them to maintain the city nor to build a fortress within. On being apprised of this, he ordered them to be called to his ships, with all the Fidalgos and Cavaliers of the Fleet, and said to them: . . . it is, too, well, worthy of belief that as the King of Malaca who has already once been discomfited and had proof of our strength, with no hope of obtaining any succour from any other quarter - 16 days having already elapsed (July 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31; August 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) since this took place - makes no endeavour to negotiate with us for the security of his estate, Our Lord is blinding his judgement and hardening his heart, and desires the completion of this affair of Malaca . . . Having agreed upon this method of attack, all went away to their respective ships to get ready, waiting for the day when it would be high water in the spring tides, so that the junk could get up to the bridge; and when the time was come - on a Friday (August 8), 2 hours before morning (of August 9) - Afonso d'Albuquerque gaves orders for the signal which he had agreed upon, to wake them, and they, as they were already prepared, came on board his ship, and from it set forth all together in their boats . . . When morning (August 9) came, the Moors, terrified at the unexpected misfortune which they witnessed, dared not appear in the streets, and this went on a period of 10 days (August 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) running without cessation by night or by day, and during this time our men were continually spilling the blood of the Moors, for inasmuch as the hunger they suffered was extreme, they risked their lives to go and look for food in the city, and there they lost their lives . . .
| Event | Day index | Julian date | Lunar phase |
|---|---|---|---|
| \(F-1\) | 0 | July 24 Thursday | New moon (3%) Spring tide |
| \(F\) | 0 + 1 | July 25 Friday | New moon (1%) Spring tide |
| \(S-1\) | 0 + 15 | August 8 Friday | Full moon (91%) Spring tide |
| \(S\) | 0 + 16 | August 9 Saturday | Full moon (98%) Spring tide |
| \(L\) | 0 + 16 + 9 | August 18 Monday | Waxing gibbous (82%) Neap tide |
Comments