^{page 4 note 1} No less than three out of the kingdoms which were formed out of the Bahmanī State were ruled over by men of Turkish origin, viz. Yūsuf 'Ādil Shāh, founder of the 'Ādilshāhīs of Bījāpur, Kāsim Barīd (often called Kāsim Turk), founder of the Barīdshāhīs of Bīdar, and Sulṭān Kuli Kuṭb Shāh, founder of the Kuṭbsbāhīs of Golkonda. All three probably belonged to the Turkish tribes of Ādarbaijān. The claim afterwards made that Yūsuf 'Ādil Shāh was a son of Sulṭān Murād II of Turkey is probably baseless. I have dealt with this question in my note to my edition of the Book of Barbosa, Duarte (Hakluyt Society), vol. i, p. 72, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 1} This is the account given by De Barros, (Dac. II, ii, 9)Google Scholar, and is the most trustworthy. Correa calls him a Jāo, or Javanese. Firishta says simply that he was the private slave of the Sultān of Gujarāt. Castanheda, (i, 252)Google Scholar says he was a Tartar by nation.

^{page 6 note 2} Lendas da India, vol. i, p. 612.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 1} A Joia do Visorey.

^{page 8 note 1} De Barros, , dec. II, vii, f. 41Google Scholar; Correa, , i, 762–71Google Scholar; Firishta, , i, 204Google Scholar. Mirāt-i-Sikandarī in Bayley, 's History of Gujarat, p. 322Google Scholar (Fazlu'llāh's trans., p. 75), gives the date as 913 H., which year began on May 13, 1507. Castanheda, , i, 254Google Scholar, places these events in 1508.

^{page 10 note 1} See De Barros, , dec. III, i, 6, f. 6Google Scholar, verso; Book of Duarte Barbosa, i, 47–50.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 2} Ibid. III, i, 6, f. 8, and IV, i, 8, p. 24.

^{page 12 note 1} It had been intended that the fleet should go on to the Indian coast, but it was not able to go beyond Aden. See the account in Castanheda, , IV, vii, 11–13.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 1} Castanheda, , iv, 18 and iv, 41.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 2} De Barros, , IV, i, 8. 24 f.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 3} De Barros, , IV, i, 8, p. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 4} Correa, , ii, 780.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 1} De Barros, , IV, 1, 8. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 1} Turkish records (quoted by Hammer-Purgstall) mention one Burhan Beg, “son of Sikandar Lōdī, who had been defeated by Humayun.” No such person is mentioned by the Indian historians. Sikandar Lōdī was the father of Ibrāhīm, who was defeated not by Humāyūn but by Bābur, nor is the title Beg borne by Afghāns such as the Lōdīs. In India it denotes Mughal descent. Firishta, (Persian text, ii, 222)Google Scholar says that 'Alā-ud-dīn was one of the sons of Bahlōl Shah, Lōdī.

^{page 16 note 1} The correct form of this name is uncertain. It may be afar. The Portuguese historians give it as Sofar.

^{page 17 note 1} The principal authorities for Sulaimān Bāshā's expedition are the following:—

De Barros, , IV, x, chs. 1–11.Google Scholar

Castanheda, , viii, chs. 191–7Google Scholar, but history stops short in the middle of the siege.

Faria y Sousa (ed. 1666), i, 354 ff. Do Conto V, iv.

Hājī, alīfa, Maritime Wars of the Turks, O.T.F. trans., p. 65 f.Google Scholar, and History des Guerres Maritimes, f. 26.Google Scholar

Hammer-Purgstall, , History of the Ottoman Turks, v, 297 f. (French translation).Google Scholar

Firishta, (Persian text, ii, 224–5)Google Scholar and the Mirāt-i-Sikandarī conclude their accounts with the death of Bahādur Shāh, and do not relate the events connected with the Turkish fleet. This applies not only to the translation in Bayley, 's History of GujarātGoogle Scholar but also to the fuller translation by Fazlu'llāh Lutfullāh Farīdī (Bombay, n.d.).

The relation of the Venetian officer who was a prisoner under Sulaiman Bāshā is given in Eamusio, i, 274–80Google Scholar(Viaggio scritto par u-n, Comito Vtneziano).

These and subsequent events are also dealt with in the introduction to Bittner and Tomaschek's edition of Sidi 'All's Moḥīt (Die topographische Capitel des Indischen Seespiegels Moḥīt, by Ali, Kapudan Sidi, Kātib-i-Rūmī, ), Vienna, 1897Google Scholar, and in Sīdī 'Ali's own account of his expedition, The Mirāt el Mamālik, which is referred to here in the French version, Relation des Voyages de Sidi Ali, Paris, 1827.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 1} Probably Fernando de Noronha, as the Turkish account says he was son of the Governor. Afonso de Noronha was Governor, and his son Fernando commanded the fleet which fought next year against Sīdī 'Alī.

^{page 25 note 1} At this period, while the brave but unfortunate king Dom Sebastião was still reigning in Portugal, it seems that a project of carrying the war into the Persian Gulf and driving the Turks out of Basra had been discussed. The historian Diogo do Couto, in his Soldado Pratico (a series of dialogues between a Viceroy lately appointed to India and an old soldier on affairs connected with the Eastern relations of Portugal), alludes to this project. The Viceroy asks the soldier's opinion on the question, and the latter condemns the project, evidently giving expression to Do Couto's own opinion. He thought they might succeed in taking Basra, but could not hold it against the great military power the Turks would be able to bring against it, and that it would be better to concentrate on strengthening Hurmuz and keeping it well supplied so that it would be able to resist all attacks. This was good advice, for the Portuguese could only dispose of a small land force quite incapable of resisting the powerful armaments of the Turks; their strength was on the sea and not on land. Such councils appear to have prevailed, for the expedition was never undertaken.

Dialogo do Soldado Pratico, Lisbon, Acad. Real das Sciencias per Diogo do Couto, 1790.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 1} The only full account is that given by De Couto, , Decadas, ed. 1788, Dec. X, bk. vii, chs. 7, 8; Dec. XI, chs. 5–15.Google Scholar