A Forgotten Empire (Vijayanagar): A Contribution to the History of India c17.s1: Date of the Battle

A Forgotten Empire (Vijayanagar): A Contribution to the History of India c17.s1

Language: English

Date of the Battle

I am bold enough to believe, and defend my belief, that when Nuniz fixed the day of the great fight as the new moon day of the month of May, A.D. 1522, he made a mistake in the year, and should have written "1520."

c17.s1.3

The chronicler states that Krishna Deva was prepared to give battle on a Friday, but was persuaded by his councillors to postpone his attack till the following day, Friday being unlucky. The battle accordingly took place on the Saturday, which was the new moon day.

c17.s1.4

Before proceeding to examine the month and day, let us consider the year A.D. of the battle.

c17.s1.5

Paes describes two grand festivals at the capital of which he was an eye-witness, and at which Christovão de Figueiredo was present. He fixes definitely the days on which these occurred. The first was the nine-days *Mahânavamî* festival, and the second was the festival of the New Year's Day. Paes states that on the occasion when he was present the *Mahânavamî* began on September 12 ("*estas festas se começao a doze dias de setêbro* *e durâo nove dias*¹), and the latter began on October 12 (*"entramdo o mes d outubro a omze dias amdados d ele . . . neste dia começo o anno, e dia d anno bom . . . começo o anno neste mes com a lua nova, e elles não contão o mes se não de lua a lua"*)². Previously to this, when writing about Raichûr, Paes has described that place as a city "that formerly belonged to the king of Narsymga (*i.e.* Vijayanagar): there has been much war over it, and *this king* took it from the Y'dalleão" (Âdil Shâh). The chronicler, therefore, was present at these feasts on an occasion subsequent to the date of Krishna Deva's conquest of Raichûr.

c17.s1.6

¹ Below, p 243 "These feasts begin on the twelfth of September, and they last nine days."

c17.s1.7

² Below, p 281 "At the beginning of the month of October when eleven of its days had passed . . . On this day begins their year, it is their New Year's Day . . . They begin the year in this month with the new moon, and they count the months always from moon to moon."

c17.s1.8

Now the *Mahânavami* festival begins in these tracts on the 1st of the month of Âsvina, and the New Year's Day in the time of Paes was evidently celebrated on the 1st of the month Kârttika, as was often the case in former years; both days being the days following the moment of new moon. In what year, then, during the reign of Krishna Deva Râya, did the 1st of Âsvina and the 1st of Kârttika fall respectively on September 12 and on October 12? I have worked these dates out for all the years of the reign, and I find that in no year except A.D. 1520 did this occur. In 1521 the *Mahânavami* fell on September 2, and the New Year's Day on October 1; in 1522 the former fell on September 20, and the latter on October 20. This shows that Paes assisted at the festivals of A.D. 1520, and that therefore the battle and capture of Raichûr must have taken place before the month of September in that year.

c17.s1.9

This again throws fresh light on the magnificent reception accorded to Christovão de Figueiredo by the king, and the latter’s exceptional kindness to the Portuguese at the time of these feasts.¹ Krishna Râya cherished an especial fondness for Christovão on account of his invaluable aid at the siege of the city, and for the fact that but for him the war might have lasted much longer.

c17.s1.10

³ Below, p 243

c17.s1.11

¹ "On the upper platform, close to the king, was Christovão de Figueiredo, with all of us who came with him, for the king commanded that he should be in such a place, so as best to see the feasts and magnificence." (Paes, p. 264 below.)

c17.s1.12

Let us now turn to the other Portuguese writers, and see whether they confirm our date, 1520, for the fall of Raichûr.

c17.s1.13

The decision of this question turns mainly on the date when the Portuguese obtained the mainlands opposite the island of Goa, consisting of the tracts called Salsette, Ponda, and Bardes. It seems certain that this capture of the mainlands took place by Krishna Deva’s connivance shortly after the fall of Raichûr, at a time when Diogo Lopes de Sequeira, the governor-general, was away at the Red Sea, and when Ruy de Mello was governor of Goa. Now Sequeira left Goa for the Red Sea on February 13, A.D. 1520, and arrived again before Diu in India on February 9, 1521.

c17.s1.14

Castanheda tells us (and he is a good authority, since he was in India in 1529) that while Sequeira was absent at the Red Sea war broke out between the king of Vijayanagar and the Âdil Shâh,² at the close of which the latter was defeated and put to flight, while the Hindus took Raichûr and other places—

c17.s1.15

² Lib. v. c. 57.

c17.s1.16

"so that many of the *Tanadâris*³ near Goa on the mainland were left undefended. And since the king of Narsinga was very rich, and had no need of these lands, and wanted that all the horses that came to Goa should come to him and none to the *Hidalcão*, he sent to say to Ruy de Mello, captain of Goa, that he had taken Belgaum by force of arms from the *Hidalcão*, with all the land appertaining to it as far as the sea, in which were *Tanadaris* yielding more than 500,000 gold pardaos, of which he desired to make a present to the king of Portugal . . . and that he wanted all the horses that came to Goa. He therefore said that the captain of Goa could enter and take possession of the *Tanadaris*.”

c17.s1.17

³ *Tanadaris* are small local divisions of the kingdom, each under its own petty official. A *thânâh* is a police-station in modern parlance. I can think of no English word exactly suitable, but, as far as area is concerned, perhaps the term "parish" would best express the meaning.

c17.s1.18

This was immediately done, and Ruy de Mello took possession of the mainland of Goa, including Salsette, in ten days.

c17.s1.19

Correa, who was in India at the time, having gone thither in 1512 or 1514, mentions¹ that de Sequeira left Goa for the Red Sea in January 1520, and that “at that time” (*neste tempo*—the expression is unfortunately vague) war broke out between Vijayanagar and Bījapûr. After its close the Hindu king sent a message to “Ruy de Mello, captain of Goa,” in the absence of the governor-general, regarding the mainlands of Goa. Correa does not mention distinctly the year in which this occurred, but the edition of 1860 at the head of the page has the date “1521.” This, however, must be an error on the part of the editor, for in May 1521 Sequeira was not absent, and therefore the year referred to cannot be 1521; while in May 1522 Dom Duarte de Menezes, and not Sequeira, was governor-general.² Sequeira sailed for Portugal January 22, A.D. 1522.

c17.s1.20

¹ *Lendas da India*, ii. 581.

c17.s1.21

² Menezes assumed charge of the Viceroyalty on January 22, 1522. A short summary of Sequeira’s career is given in the interesting MS. volume called the *Livro das Fortalezas da India*, of which the text was written by Antonio Bocarro, and the numerous portraits and plans were drawn and coloured by Pero Barretto de Rezenda. The British Museum copy is in the Sloane Collection, and bears the number “197.”

c17.s1.22

Barros relates the departure of de Sequeira from India for the Red Sea on February 13, 1520, and states that in his absence Ruy de Mello was governor of Goa, under Sequeira’s lieutenant, Aleixo de Menezes. Ruy de Mello seized the mainland of Goa after the battle of Raichûr,¹ and at that time de Sequeira was absent at the Red Sea. His description of the siege of Raichûr and the great battle in the vicinity clearly seems to have been taken from the chronicle of Nuniz. It follows the latter blindly, even in the misspelling of names, and therefore is really of no greater value. When, however, Barros comes to deal with the acquisition of the mainlands of Goa,² he is dependent on other information, and gives a much more detailed account. The time is clearly fixed. After the battle and flight of the Âdil Shâh the feeling between the two adversaries was naturally highly strained, and this “enabled Ruy de Mello, captain of Goa, to take the mainlands of Goa.” Sequeira was at the Red Sea and Menezes at Cochin. A very important passage for my present purpose occurs a little later on in Barros’s work:³—

c17.s1.23

¹ Dec. III. l. iv. cap. 4.

c17.s1.24

² Idem, cap. 5.

c17.s1.25

³ Idem, cap. 8.

c17.s1.26

“Diogo Lopes de Sequeira, as soon as he arrived at Goa (from the Red Sea), all necessary arrangements having been made for the government of the city, and principally of the mainlands, which he found that Ruy de Mello had taken . . . went to Cochin ;”

c17.s1.27

and thence to Diu, where he arrived on February 9, 1521.⁴ Another passage farther on in the narrative of Barros also establishes the fact that Ruy de Mello took the lands during Sequeira’s absence at the Red Sea.⁵

c17.s1.28

⁴ Idem, cap. 9.

c17.s1.29

⁵ Idem, cap. 10.

c17.s1.30

Faria y Souza, a Spanish writer, whose work was first published a century after these events, confirms the period, February 1520 to February 1521, as that of Sequeira’s absence at the Red Sea, and he writes:—

c17.s1.31

"While the governor¹ was in the Red Sea, the King Crisnao Rao of Bisnaga covered the plains and hills and stopped the flow of the rivers² with an army of thirty-five thousand horse, seven hundred and thirty-three thousand foot, and five hundred and eighty-six elephants carrying castles with four men in each, and twelve thousand watermen . . . and baggage in such quantities that the courtesans alone numbered more than twenty thousand."³

c17.s1.32

¹ "Asia Portugueza" of Faria y Souza, I. Pt. iii. cap. 4 (Stevens' translation).

c17.s1.33

² Compare Nuniz (text, p. 329).

c17.s1.34

³ These numbers are probably taken from Barros, who copied Nuniz.

c17.s1.35

Souza also states, as does Nuniz, that after the defeat of the Âdil Shâh, Krishna Deva Râya demanded that, as the price of peace, the former should visit him and kiss his foot; and that, taking advantage of the Âdil Shâh's difficulties, Ruy de Mello seized the mainlands of Goa.⁴ It is clear, therefore, that both authors are writing of the same event.

c17.s1.36

⁴ "Asia Portugueza," I. Pt. iii. cap. 4, sec. 5. "Ruy de Mello, que estava a Goa, viendo al Hidalchan divertido con sus ruinas ó esperanças, ó todo junto, y a muchos en perciales remolinos robando la tierra firme de aquel contorno, ganóla facilmente con dozientos y sincuenta cavallos, y ochocientos peones Canaries."

c17.s1.37

Osorio, a later writer, confirms the story in most of its details, stating that after the defeat of the Âdil Shâh, Krishna Râya sent to Ruy de Mello ("Roderigo Melos"), captain of Goa, offering the mainlands, and promising after the return of Sequeira to send a regular embassy to conclude a solemn treaty. De Mello accordingly took the mainlands.

c17.s1.38

Lafitau⁵ also states that the war took place during Sequeira's absence at the Red Sea, and that the mainlands were taken after the Âdil Shâh's defeat.⁶

c17.s1.39

⁵ "Histoire des Descouvertes et Conquestes des Portugais" (Paris, 1733).

c17.s1.40

⁶ Danvers, "The Portuguese in India," i. 347, gives us the same dates for Sequeira's absence, and mentions De Figueiredo's presence at the battle of Raichûr.

c17.s1.41

Turning to Firishtah, I find a difference. He states that the battle of Raichûr took place in Hijra 927 (December 12, 1520, to December 1, 1521, A.D.), which, if it was fought in May, as Nuniz declares, makes the date May 1521. That he is speaking of the same affair is obvious from the details given. He mentions, for instance, the vast host constituting the Hindu army, the Shâh’s force advancing to the river Krishnâ, the too hasty crossing of the river, the gallant fight of the Muhammadans, their defeat and rout, the fact of the Âdil Shâh’s forces being driven to the river and perishing in large numbers while attempting to re-cross it, the Shâh’s narrow escape, and his dependence on Asada Khân. All this leaves no room for doubt. The only difference is that, whereas we learn from the other authorities that the fortress of Raichûr was in the hands of the Muhammadans, Firishtah states that the war arose because the Âdil Shâh “made preparations for marching to recover Mudkul and Roijore from the Roy of Beejanuggur,” as if the latter were then in possession of those places. As to Firishtah’s date, I believe it to be wrong by one year, for the reasons given above. It must be remembered that he wrote many years after the event.

c17.s1.42

Having thus, I hope satisfactorily, established the fact that the date given by Nuniz for the battle of Raichûr is wrong by two years, and should be 1520, I turn to examine the day and month. It was the new moon day of May, according to Nuniz, and a Saturday. Krishna Deva Râya was ready for battle on the Friday, but postponed his attack to the next day since Friday was considered an unlucky day.

c17.s1.43

The moment of the occurrence of new moon in May 1520 was 2.27 A.M. on the morning of Thursday, May 17. We do not know whether Nuniz ascertained his facts from native almanacks or the calculations of the astrologers, or whether he spoke from observations made by himself or by some one who was present; but Nuniz was an ordinary person, not a skilled astronomer, so far as we can tell, and he may well have called the day on which the crescent of the new moon first made its appearance just after sunset the "new moon day." This first appearance actually took place on the Saturday following. The first day of the Muhammadan month Jamâda' l âkhir, corresponding to the heliacal rising of the moon on that occasion, was Saturday, May 19.

c17.s1.44

I therefore believe that this great battle took place on Saturday, May 19, A.D. 1520,¹ a date almost synchronous with that of the "Field of the Cloth of Gold."

c17.s1.45

¹ The corresponding actual new moon day in May 1521 was Monday, May 6, and the new moon was first visible on Wednesday. In 1522 the actual new moon day was Sunday, May 25, and it was first visible on Tuesday.