Batalhas de Portugal

  • 63 Respostas
  • 30995 Visualizações
*

macholuso

  • 147
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #30 em: Agosto 22, 2007, 05:17:48 pm »
Citação de: "Cabeça de Martelo"
Agora perdi-me, estás a dizer que os britânicos não apanham grandas bebedeiras...os britânicos?! :roll:

E depois o Tuga é que é um vândalo, eu pessoalmente até acho que somos demasiado brandos.

Se soubesses as m#$% que os Belgas fizeram num exercicio que fizeram em tancos...tudo pessoal muito civilizado, é claro.


Leste mal. Eu disse que quando eles, Holandeses e Ingleses bebem a civilização vai por água  :evil: abaixo.
I did not have..repeat.. did not have sexual relations with that woman
Bill Clinton
 

*

macholuso

  • 147
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #31 em: Agosto 22, 2007, 09:01:29 pm »
http://www.albany.edu/campusnews/releases_286.htm

uma link para a divisão norte-sul c34x
I did not have..repeat.. did not have sexual relations with that woman
Bill Clinton
 

*

macholuso

  • 147
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #32 em: Agosto 23, 2007, 12:02:35 am »
Nós aqui em Portugal gostamos de pensar que somos hospitaleiros.
vejam o que este diz dos povos hospitaleiros

The friendliness of people ( and women )of a certain country towards you depends on several factors:
1) The difference in GDP between your country and theirs. The formula is this: Your country's yearly GDP /Her Country GDP= friendliness factor. I.e. $24000/$2400= 10. That means they will be ten times friendlier to you than women in your own country. Before you choose the place to go to, check out the GDP there and you will be able to calculate the friendliness factor with relative accuracy.
2) Similar religion- the more similar the better.
3) Race: the more similar, the better and/or the lighter the better.
4) With very few exceptions, the money factor will override all the other differences. If the factor 2 and 3 is any problem, more cash thrown at the situation will normally sway it in your favor.

The degree of scorn piled upon you, by the same token, will also be in proportion to how many times the GDP of the host nation is greater than that of the nation you come from.

***
Many things that your parents taught you about " That is the way the world is" are actually about the way things are in the country you are living in. While many social laws are universal- such as "nobody likes poor people"- (and even that is not true in all places- Communist countries, in fact, deify poor people), many other social laws vary from country to country and culture to culture. Conversely, many things that we think are proper of our country and only happen here, actually happen in other places, as well, and are just inherently human. So, when they tell you that "people are like that" or " society does not accept that" they are often talking about people and society in your country. A few hours' flight and things are as different as they can be- people are no longer "like that" and "society now accepts" whatever it did not accept back home. The same goes for ways to attract the opposite sex. What is considered to be a sure-fire- ( or imperative) way to get women in your country is no longer required. I for one, do not need to be spending three hours a day in the gym, have a Mercedes and buy elevator shoes to get a date in the Philippines.

***
International travelers often confuse hospitality towards a guest with acceptance, and politeness towards visitors, with friendliness. They also confuse good customer service given to a ( perceived) rich foreigner with sincere admiration. If you really want to see how accepting a certain culture is, try settling down in that country and doing business with the local people. Often, the countries that are the most hospitable and polite to guests are the ones that are extremely hostile to those who want to stay in them for good. By the same token, countries in which people seem to be mean and inhospitable to visitors turn out to be fairly accepting to those who want to settle down and assimilate. It is as if hospitality and politeness were exact opposites of acceptance and friendliness.
***
Fanatical patriots, cultural snobs, "my country is the best" arrogant nationalists, isolationists, ethnic and religious fundamentalists, racists and other such types miss out on huge opportunities to avail themselves of all the great wonders that an international lifestyle can provide. With 200 countries in the world, they think that only one country is the best and " has it all" and they do not take advantage of what the other 199 can confer upon them. They miss out on job opportunities, great natural sceneries, unique products, low prices, delicious foods and great friendships, romance and exquisite sexual delights that they can taste/obtain/partake in. However, because they do not know what abundant treasures are out there, they will still be happy in their country with what little they have for they do not know just *how* little they have. Ignorance truly is bliss. All that suits us just fine since we do not want them to compete with us for all these great jobs, women and other such foreign treasures, anyway.
***
No country has it all, and most countries are heavily weighed in one direction and are severely poor in another area. Countries that are materially rich are poor spiritually and socially. Countries with best jobs opportunities cannot usually provide too many gorgeous dates. Countries with most beautiful women have bad economies and rotten politics. It, therefore, stands to reason that in order to have it all, living in more than one country is often a necessity.
***
Jobs and women are some of the most untouchable treasures of a nation. Nobody likes a poor and/or not very ed.ucated foreigner looking for jobs and/or women in a richer country. He will get bad or no jobs and most probably, no women at all. Everybody, though, likes a rich tourist/ investor coming to the country with money. In the case of the investors, women will be available for marriage and other things depending on how much money he has. Rich tourists will have to avail themselves of less permanent love arrangements.
***
The richer the country, the colder, more arrogant, and unfriendly are its people. It also seems that, the richer the country, the lonelier, less sociable, more self-absorbed and less happy most people are. Beautiful, clean and prosperous, highly advanced countries have huge numbers of zombie-like inhabitants who are extremely unhelpful and selfish. It seems that money, good cars, good clothes and technological progress make masses of people less happy. It does not mean, however, that poverty is what makes people happy. It seems that countries that have* just enough* rather than * too much* or *too little* have the healthiest, happiest populations.
***
Media propaganda and stereotypes of how people in certain countries are, are almost always untrue. Not only they are untrue, the people in those countries often turn out to be the exact opposites of what you were taught they were. For better or for worse. Nationalities that were supposed to be unfriendly turn out to be very friendly and the ones that we were taught were friendly, turn out to be very hostile, indeed. That goes for other supposedly national characteristics as well.
Not only that, but once you start traveling, you will see that many things that you thought were true about your own country turn out to be untrue. They always taught you that your country was the best, the freests with the friendliest, most generous people. Maybe even the best girls. As you discover freeer countries with better people and more beautiful girls, a shock sets in.

Most views of other countries through the media are either completely false or are wild exaggerations. If you think that in Africa people live in trees with snakes around their necks and eat grass, you will probably not go there and will not take advantage of getting to know great, prosperous people, see their modern cities full of cars and skyscrapers, will not make new friends and learn about a beautiful culture, music and diversity that exists there. If you think of the Philippines or Brazil as a dangerous and violent countries, you will not travel to them to meet their high quality women. If you think of the Middle East as a camel- riding, terrorist-infested society, you will not go there to work and make your tax- free fortune. Which is fine with me as I will have less competition.
***
What people call you and how they see you, and even your race and nationality/identity changes as you go from country to country. A person who was known as "Black" in the US all his life discovers that he is now "American" or even "white" as he moves to Africa. Very few Italians, Puerto Ricans, and Poles from the US are seen as such when they go back to 'their countries". They are just referred to as "Americans". People who were "Chinese" in Malaysia all their lives become "Malaysians" when they go to China. People who thought of themselves as short become tall as they go to a society where average height is lower. Men of average looks become handsome in the Philippines and handsome men from the US become average in Italy. Average girls from E. Europe and Asia become "gorgeous" in the US. Popular American women become unsighly nobodys and unneeded white elephants in Asia and E. Europe.

By knowing how the perception of you will change, you can find places where people like yourself fit in better or are afforded more admiration and higher status. You can even use many things that were disadvantageous socially in your country to your advantage in another. A Spanish-speaking person in the US, for one, will not get as much admiration there as he would in Quebec, Canada, where Spanish language is seen as extremely romantic and a sign of status. A man who is 5'7" in the US and who is pumping iron to make up for his short stature in America, will not be called a "shorty" in Japan or Vietnam and will not feel insecure as he often would back in the US. Actually, it will be to his advantage not to stick out like a sore thumb. He will have all the dates he wants once he goes to the right country. If Collin Powell wanted it, he could move to Sudan and become a white man there. He is one to the Sudanese according to the African culture. One drop of Black blood in the US makes you black but 25% white blood in most African Americans make them "white" in Africa.
***
What is good or bad varies from culture to culture. What is normal, accepted and legal behavior in one country will land you in jail in another or even get you killed. While the "Fahreneit 9/11" movie is legal in the US, such a movie made about a president of some other country will not be released and its author ( and all his crew) will be imprisoned or killed. A Dutchman who is used to being able to buy marijuana at any time, will feel that the US is very repressive when it comes to such things. A Kenyan may not criticise his president openly but he can have twelve wives and build a village for his one husband- twelve wife family. In the US, he will be jailed for poligamy-a separate sentence for each wife above one.
As an international traveler, one should be aware of such legal and cultural freedoms and restrictions and be very careful and discreet. Coming back home and bragging about things that you did abroad where they were legal or trying to do things that were legal at home but not legal abroad may prove to be your undoing. Extreme discretion is therefore highly advised. Most people (and judges) are not travelers and will not understand your international view on such things.
***
Contrary to the Hollywood image of how things are, most of the world does not treat Americans as heroes. Most people in the "non-white" world cannot even tell an American from a German or a Russian. You may think of yourself as such ( an American) but they have their own name for you ( such as White Ghost) and will dump you together with the above groups just like you would often dump all people that you perceive to be of one race into one group. It is called "distance decay". A Korean would not put himself into the same category with Mongolians, Japanese and Aleuts, but he would put all white Americans, Canadians, Brits, Iranians and Czechs into one blurred " nationality". A Black African would go even further: he can distinguish different people and tribes in Africa with amazing clarity and sees it as a very diverse place, but a Japanese and a British tourist look exactly the same to him and he cannot tell them apart- they are not Black, the skin is light- they are, therefore, of one nationality. Westerners, of course, cannot tell different Africans apart at all but can probably tell each other apart quite easily.

***
According to Hollywood, all people in the world speak English with perfect grammar but with slight foreign accents. If the country is "bad", then the accent is sharper and more unpleasant. If the country is good, then the accent is barely audible. But the grammar is usually perfect. All the tenses are in place, the irregular verbs are used perfectly, the conditionals are immaculate, the vocabulary is copious.

Actually only some 8% of the world speaks English as the first language and some 20% speak it as a second language- which means imperfectly- past tense is not used, conditionals are of the variety : "If you come yesterday, I have the food, but you come today, I no have food".

About 70+% of the world does not speak English at all. And they have no plans to. If you are a brief tourist in a country whose language is not English, it is OK to get around using an interpreter or an English-speaking guide. If, however, you are planning on going to another, non-English-speaking country to live and work for an extended time period, and you are not making an effort to learn their language you are committing a serious act of disrespect.

People from the "Anglo" countries have a particularly big psychological block when it comes to learning foreign languages- for one, many natives want to practice English with them. Second, culturally, they have been taught that the world "kind of" speaks English and if it does not, it soon will. Plus, in the US, UK, Canada, etc. people have been taught to be practical- if it is not absolutely necessary, then one should not waste his time doing it. English is enough.

I
I did not have..repeat.. did not have sexual relations with that woman
Bill Clinton
 

*

macholuso

  • 147
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #33 em: Agosto 23, 2007, 05:43:20 pm »
Citação de: "Mueda"
Boas,

O combate que referes contra as forças holandesas na ilha de Moçambique está documentado nos dois paises.

A explicação para a força de uma Nação e de um Povo assente em razões climáticas é ... bem ... nem sei o que dizer  :lol:  c34x
I did not have..repeat.. did not have sexual relations with that woman
Bill Clinton
 

*

macholuso

  • 147
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #34 em: Setembro 03, 2007, 10:12:31 am »
ola
o autor de Ormuz disse-me que a surtida contra os Holandeses na ilha de Moçambique deu se numa noite chuvosa. é natural que haja algum exagero na historia
I did not have..repeat.. did not have sexual relations with that woman
Bill Clinton
 

*

HELLAS

  • Perito
  • **
  • 373
  • +0/-0
Re: nova resposta a leonidas
« Responder #35 em: Setembro 03, 2007, 11:57:46 am »
Citação de: "carlos duran"
Leonidas escreveu


O que alguns nacionalistas receiam não é a desagragação (separatismo) de unidade espanhola. O que ele(s) não suporta(m) talvez seja a falta de respeito por um povo inteiro e sua cultura por parte de Espanha, como se deve já ter apercebido

 Eu na miña vida, teño 45 anos, nunca vin falta de respeito algun polo povo portugués e a sua cultura, o que si vin, e muito, foi falta de respeito a cultura galega e ao idioma galego por parte do centralismo de madrid, e tamen falta de respeito a cultura catalana, vasca e de outros pobos do estado espanhol. Realmente na espanha apenas se fala de portugal nin para ben nin para mal. Eiqui na galiza portugal esta mais presente.


Te contestare una cosa, lo hare en castellano,pero si quieres que lo haga en mi portugues particular lo hare y si quieres que lo rice lo hare en catalan.
La consecuencia de lo que dices es el historico goviernos centralista liberal que se impuso en España durante las guerras carlistas que no supo dar el valor a esa herencia de los antiguos reinos, sus lenguas y sus fueros. Lo curioso de todo es que hasta hace nada el mismo govierno centralista que governaba España desde Madrid tambien lo hacia en Galicia por mayoria en muchas ocasiones, por lo que al final podria tener una lectura de que los propios gallegos no le daban el valor merecido a su lengua y cultura.
Repecto a la parte que me toca, no voy a discutir que en alguna fase de la historia el catalan y Cataluña han sido reprimidos, pero tambien es de justicia que han habido governantes españoles respetuosos.
En España todavia estamos pensando en el franquismo y ya de una vez por todas deberiamos quitarnos ese San Benito, pues a dia de hoy las diferentes lenguas hispanicas que hay gozan de fuerza y salud.
Respecto y ya para terminar, de que en España no se habla ni para bien ni para mal, yo me atreveria a decir que se habla mas bien que mal,por lo menos en cantidad, si bien es cierto como tal y como dices que la opinion publica general no tienen a Portugal en la boca continuamente.
Saludos.
 

*

HELLAS

  • Perito
  • **
  • 373
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #36 em: Setembro 03, 2007, 12:12:22 pm »
Aliás, se entendermos que todas as batalhas Luso-Castelhanas/Luso-Espanholas fazem parte do contínuo histórico do conflito entre as duas nações, é mais que óbvio que os Portuguêses continuam a ser vitoriosos pois entre todas as nações da península Ibérica, só Portugal continua a ser soberano no seu território, e não é subejcto de Castela como todas as outras o são.

Amigo, ja faz muito tempo, que ninguem esta subjecto a Castela e ja foram outras que como Portugal tiveram cenas de guerra com eles e que tambem sao Espanha, emtao temos que fazer o esforço em saber diferemçar Castela de Espanha, una vez mais. Castela batalhou contra Navarra, contra Aragao,contra Leao e tambem sao Espanha, emtao se Portugal nao lutou contra Aragao, nao lutou contra Espanha, luto contra Castelha.
 

*

Granadeiro

  • 26
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #37 em: Agosto 12, 2008, 04:10:24 pm »
A Melhor de Todas :D

Conquista de Madrid - 1706

" A 28 de Junho de 1706, um Exército aliado de 14.700 portugueses e 4.200 anglo-holandeses, sob o comando do 2.º Marquês das Minas, Dom António Luís de Sousa, entrou em Madrid ao fim de cerca de 500 km percorridos e ao longo de 3 meses de operações em terras de Espanha. Nesta Campanha, foram feitos mais de 8.000 prisioneiros e capturados mais de 100 peças de artilharia, nos vários combates que tiveram lugar contra as forças franco-espanholas comandadas pelo Duque de Berwick. A campanha do Marquês das Minas realizou-se no âmbito da Guerra da Sucessão de Espanha, que teve lugar entre 1701 e 1714. O Portugal de D. Pedro II, que fazia parte da Grande Aliança, conjuntamente com a Inglaterra, Áustria e Holanda, nesta ocupação de Madrid, fez aclamar Rei de Espanha o Arquiduque Carlos de Habsburgo. Posteriormente, o candidato Filipe de Anjou, neto de Luís XIV de França, viria a triunfar e a inaugurar a dinastia Bourbon que ainda hoje reina em Espanha. Esta obra recorda e repõe a verdade sobre uma campanha silenciada, mas ao tempo tão celebrada na Europa de então, que fez respeitar a recentemente reconquistada independência de Portugal, e foi garante de um povo que continuou a afirmar-se entre as potências do Mundo de setecentos. "
 

*

carlos duran

  • 40
  • +0/-0
conquista de Madrid e depois a batalha de verdade
« Responder #38 em: Setembro 07, 2008, 04:50:43 pm »
Certamente foi un gran éxito das tropas angloportuguesas, mais cando se fala desta conquista hai que aclarar que antes da dita conquista nao houbo nengunha batalha minimamente importante, mais sim conquista de cidades e praças fortes; o exercito hispano-francés recuou de Madrid para reorganizarse e no 25 de Abril de 1707 ganhou a gran batalha de Almansa no leste da Espanha (reino de Valencia). Ista batalha ben pouco conhecida en Portugal foi un completo desastre para os angloportugueses que tiveron aproximadamente 7.000 mortos e feridos. Como curiosidade quero apuntar que os ingleses culparan aos portugueses pola derrota diciendo que o seu comportamento cobarde foi motivo dela. Mais nao foi asim, os portugueses combateran con gran valor e o cronista espanhol da batalha dice que ainda se encontraron mortos e formados alguns regimentos portugueses ja que nao abandoaron en nengun momento o seu posto.
O motivo real mais ben foi os erros tácticos e a pouca competencia dos seus xenerais o Marqués das Minas y fundamentalmente do xeneral inglés, de orixe francesa, Galway. Este xeral, pouco dextro e pouco habil levou dois anos despois a Portugal a sufrir outra importante derrota na batalha do Caia en 1709.
Os paises teñen vitorias e derrotas mais o valor e a gran capacidade do soldado portugués está fora de toda dubida, sempre foi dos melhores soldados do mundo e nao e deshonra haber sofrido derrotas ante Portugal por ser unha naçao de gran capacidade militar, pero para ela nao todo foran vitorias.
Saudos a todos desde Galicia.
Carlos Durán
A verdade nao ten patria
 

*

cromwell

  • Especialista
  • ****
  • 1100
  • +1/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #39 em: Janeiro 29, 2009, 05:54:49 pm »
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Montijo

Finalmente, os castelhanos aceitaram que fomos nós que ganahamos a batalha. :wink:
"A Patria não caiu, a Pátria não cairá!"- Cromwell, membro do ForumDefesa
 

*

macholuso

  • 147
  • +0/-0
Re: conquista de Madrid e depois a batalha de verdade
« Responder #40 em: Fevereiro 23, 2009, 01:17:03 pm »
Citação de: "carlos duran"
Certamente foi un gran éxito das tropas angloportuguesas, mais cando se fala desta conquista hai que aclarar que antes da dita conquista nao houbo nengunha batalha minimamente importante, mais sim conquista de cidades e praças fortes; o exercito hispano-francés recuou de Madrid para reorganizarse e no 25 de Abril de 1707 ganhou a gran batalha de Almansa no leste da Espanha (reino de Valencia). Ista batalha ben pouco conhecida en Portugal foi un completo desastre para os angloportugueses que tiveron aproximadamente 7.000 mortos e feridos. Como curiosidade quero apuntar que os ingleses culparan aos portugueses pola derrota diciendo que o seu comportamento cobarde foi motivo dela. Mais nao foi asim, os portugueses combateran con gran valor e o cronista espanhol da batalha dice que ainda se encontraron mortos e formados alguns regimentos portugueses ja que nao abandoaron en nengun momento o seu posto.
O motivo real mais ben foi os erros tácticos e a pouca competencia dos seus xenerais o Marqués das Minas y fundamentalmente do xeneral inglés, de orixe francesa, Galway. Este xeral, pouco dextro e pouco habil levou dois anos despois a Portugal a sufrir outra importante derrota na batalha do Caia en 1709.
Os paises teñen vitorias e derrotas mais o valor e a gran capacidade do soldado portugués está fora de toda dubida, sempre foi dos melhores soldados do mundo e nao e deshonra haber sofrido derrotas ante Portugal por ser unha naçao de gran capacidade militar, pero para ela nao todo foran vitorias.
Saudos a todos desde Galicia.
Carlos Durán


Cálá-té!! :twisted:
I did not have..repeat.. did not have sexual relations with that woman
Bill Clinton
 

*

carlos59

  • Membro
  • *
  • 2
  • +0/-0
Re: Batalhas de Portugal
« Responder #41 em: Maio 11, 2014, 12:19:18 am »
Porqué teño que calar eu
acaso dixen algo ofensivo alén de dar a minha opinión?????
xa pasaron anos pero por casualidade vin este comentario final
 

*

HSMW

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 12948
  • Recebeu: 3228 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 7821 vez(es)
  • +1031/-1597
    • http://youtube.com/HSMW
Re: Batalhas de Portugal
« Responder #42 em: Agosto 07, 2014, 11:04:23 pm »
http://historia-portugal.blogspot.pt/

Batalhas e muito mais!   :G-beer2:
https://www.youtube.com/user/HSMW/videos

"Tudo pela Nação, nada contra a Nação."
 

*

Lightning

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 11357
  • Recebeu: 2497 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 3550 vez(es)
  • +876/-1056
Re: Batalhas de Portugal
« Responder #43 em: Março 17, 2015, 05:37:15 pm »
Andava a procura do documentário que deu na RTP1 dia 11 de Março, Matança da Páscoa - Memórias do 11 de Março de 1975.


Mas tenho encontrado outras coisas a ver com o assunto

Memórias da Revolução - Processo Revolucionário Em Curso (PREC)
http://media.rtp.pt/memoriasdarevolucao/

O 11 de Março 40 anos depois: Luís Costa Correia conta como foi de táxi para o local dos confrontos
http://www.rtp.pt/noticias/index.php?ar ... &visual=49
 

*

papatango

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7893
  • Recebeu: 1170 vez(es)
  • +5663/-1166
Re: Batalhas de Portugal
« Responder #44 em: Março 21, 2015, 06:48:02 pm »
A «matança da Páscoa» foi um dos boatos mais eficientes que os soviéticos começaram a fazer circular, com o intuito de criar as condições para a segunda fase da revolução, que levaria ao poder o Partido Comunista.

António de Spinola, parecia ser um individuo inteligente do ponto de vista militar, mas no final da Estória, demonstrou ser absolutamente naive. Um general absolutamente ingénuo sem a mais pequena capacidade para a ação política.

Não só caiu de forma clara na armadilha que lhe foi lançada pelos soviéticos, que em 1975 tinham em Lisboa um importante nucleo de especialistas nas táticas da «Maskirovka» como para cúmulo, ainda foi para Espanha, numa altura em que Franco ainda era vivo, pedir auxilio.
Em Portugal, os comunistas aproveitaram a ideia e adoraram a possibilidade da invasão espanhola. Em Setembro de 1975, aceitaram nada fazer aquando da invasão da embaixada espanhola em Lisboa.

Mas entretanto tinham passado seis meses. E nesses seis meses, Brejnev tinha já negociado com os americanos. Cunhal sabia que não tinha apoio militar soviético desde meados de Julho (já depois das eleições para a constituinte) e no final de Outubro os soviéticos também avisaram Costa Gomes de que não interviriam em Portugal acontecesse o que acontecesse.

A «Matança da Páscoa» demonstrou que os agentes soviéticos estavam preparados, que o PCP recebia apoio claro e extremamente substancial para garantir a sua chegada ao poder.
As alterações que entretanto ocorreram pouco ou nada têm que ver com a realidade portuguesa.
Quando Mário Soares vai para o famoso comicio da Fonte Luminosa enfrentar os comunistas em 19 de Julho de 1975, já tem algum tipo de garantias sobre os apoios que terá atrás de si.
Os seus contatos com a Europa, garantiam-lhe esse tipo de informação.
É muito mais fácil enganar uma pessoa, que explicar-lhe que foi enganada ...