Talk:Cristóvão da Gama

Makham's claim
The British historian Makham's claim about Cristovão having fallen in love is not found in any contemporary sources and appears to be his own romantic invention. Should this claim be removed from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.107.64.16 (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Untitled
It is said the numbers of Portuguese who fought with Don Christopher da Gama was 450 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.13 (talk • contribs)


 * According to the sources, da Gama had 400 musketmen and 130 military slaves. (I'm not quite sure how a "military slave" differs from an average combatant, although I suspect they were servants & laborers who had some familiarity of the battlefield, rather than actually entrusted with weapons.) Miguel de Castanhoso also mentions that the Bahr negus provided to da Gama 500 of his own men, but he rarely mentions what part they had in the several battles -- if any; it may be that they were entirely absent at the Battle of Wofla, which Ahmad Gragn appears to have won thru weight of numbers.


 * Whatever the case, da Gama relied on at most 400 musketmen -- & often had fewer than this number -- in his battles. I suspect that, despite their bravery, his opponents rarely had the unit cohesion & discipline to successfully charge into a hail of gunfire, & thus the advantage of their overwhelming numbers was never properly exploited. -- llywrch 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Expensive insult
The monk's habit given to da Gama is described as an "expensive" insult. How is a monk's habit expensive? More expensive than tweezers, perhaps, but surely not a mirror. Rwflammang (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Expensive" insult means merely a "refined", or subtle, insult, if you will. It has nothing to do with price, my poor simpleton friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.131.203 (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre sentence in first paragraph
Unless some strange ritualistic "double killing" is being referred to, the following sentence seems to be in need of revision, but i don't know enough to know in which way to remove the bizarreness of it: "He (along with the allied Ethiopian army) was victorious against larger forces in four battles, but was killed in his last battle, after which he was captured and killed."

Any illumination here? 31.193.12.18 (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)