This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
To David...
I agree that there should be sources & even multiple sources to prove the point, and I'm on your side on this issue overall...but SEVEN IS TOO MANY and disrupts the sentence flow, and is too distracting. It disturbs the reader too much in that part. And seven is not really necessary. Your references were good, and I left 3 of them alone, the really good ones. So four all together (mine plus 3 of yours). But 7, bro, is just TOO MUCH for one part of a sentence or word. Peace... Sweetpoet ( talk) 22:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok. -- Davide41 ( talk) 07:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
"Indeed, in 1925, in the archive of the Castillian city of Simancas was found a document dated 28 September 1501 which is the confirmation of the mayorazgo, by the Kings of Spain."
This is simply NOT true. What was found was a confirmation of a 1497 authorization to make a mayorazgo. It is not the same thing as a confirmation of the document so called mayorazgo dated 1498. I don’t expect you to get your facts straight since the people you are quoting from did not get them straight either. I know you can’t read Portuguese or even Spanish but here is the actual document you call the mayorazgo. It starts with the words TRESLADO de ... which means COPY of ... then, this is important so put on your logic glasses and look at the last page. It is signed LOL not with the name of the transcriber, normal practice for the day, but signed with a forged signature of Cristóbal Colón. The signature is Forged, and the whole document is forged, understand? This document was presented to the court in 1586 by an Italian forgerer Balthazar Colombo from who pretended to prove he was a relative of Cristóbal Colón and failed. Colon-el-Nuevo ( talk) 19:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If you look carefully you will even see that the date was 1598 and someone wrote a 4 over the 5. Colon-el-Nuevo ( talk) 20:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
" This is simply NOT true " [...] from ColonD
You mentioned the site "historic" Columbus 100% Português ! A " trusted site "
The document is authentic continues to fantasize. Not so much for me ... but the sentences of all the major historical. Taviani ? Morison ? Irving ? Ballesteros ? Some sacred monsters.
There are at least twenty such publications in the 16th century and nine in the 17th century. In addition, there were sixty-two by Italian writers. Of this last group, only fourteen are by Ligurians, the other authors being Lombards, Venetians, Tuscans, Neapolitans, Sicilians and one Maltese. Regional rivalries were still alive in the 16th century, so that the forty-eight confirmations of Columbus' Genoese origin, by non-Ligurian writers, take on virtually the same significance as those of the twenty-nine non-Italians.
Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. These are the facts. Confirmed ... from all the major historical. All. All. All.
Columbus said he was born in Genoa ... I quote one of the millions of documents and testimonies that all together show only one thing: Christopher Columbus is Italian. There is not even one document, there is not one testimony, there is not anything coeval that shows columbus was not Italian. Every testimony, every document, every thing shows, without exception, he was Italian. At the same time, almost all the "scholars" supposing Columbus was not Italian are actually simple amateurs.
These are facts. Keep your personal fantasies. This is an encyclopedia. Your motives are inconsistent. Your sources scarce. Your story is old (already circulated in 1930). The Genoese origin of Columbus is historically documented. These are the facts. This must be reported. End of conversation. --
Davide41 (
talk)
22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
... I control the " Origins of Christopher Columbus ". There are many scoundrels. -- Davide41 ( talk) 08:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I write all sources, teachers, etc. All.
but Colond is 100 % 100% Português !
... and I write all the sources, teachers, etc.
but Colond is 100 % 100% Português !
... and I write all the sources, teachers, etc.
This game must end. -- Davide41 ( talk) 08:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There's an old saying that the Devil uses quotes from the Bible to prove he is right. Maybe that's something which David 41 and Colon Nuevo need to consider, if they want to be taken seriously. Occam stated that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." - The simplest explanation is usually the one which is correct. Norloch ( talk) 13:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
http://colombodocs.com.sapo.pt/index2.htm
I'm sick of your hallucinations. I got bored. Facts are facts. If Christopher Columbus was Portuguese, I am Jesus Christ. Blasphemy, Madness etc ... You are convinced of your fantasies. Believe what you want but all the sources of the world, historicals and documents say otherwise. Adieu. -- Davide41 ( talk) 22:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Yes. Yes. Adieu. -- Davide41 ( talk) 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
you're probably right about that photo being "useless" and "badly positioned" etc. But in case you thought that it was my photo (because I re-arranged the position), don't think that. It was "HalloweenHJB" who put that image there, not me. I don't like to remove things people put, if it's in good faith. But the image was definitely in a bad spot, so I put it in a better spot. But you didn't like it, so you removed it completely. But it was NOT my photo, but "Halloween's". Just in case you didn't know. Sweetpoet ( talk) 19:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok...
I have a 19 inch monitor. The position of the image was really terrible ! -- Davide41 ( talk) 21:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
According to many tests and many historiological Christopher Columbus was born in Bettola in the province of Piacenza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxBassanetti ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Stickee if you understand the 'Italian look at this http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-col.htm
Other Amateur.
Is a Source ? http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-col.htm
Professor Taviani ? Morison ? Ballesteros ? Irving ? [...] There are no doubts about the origins of Columbus but is only a source of speculation for some amateurs. Hallucinations.
All contemporaries. All the most important historical. All documents [...] -- Davide41 ( talk) 17:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Además del citado, uno de los proyectos más trascendentes y de mayor repercusión fue la identificación genética de Cristóbal Colón y sus familiares, un proyecto internacional y multidisciplinar con el objetivo de descifrar algunos de los enigmas del famoso Almirante. El objetivo principal de este proyecto fue determinar el lugar donde se encontraban sus restos, República Dominicana y/o Sevilla.
El estado de los huesos, de Cristóbal Colón y de su hermano Diego, era mucho peor del esperado por el tiempo trascurrido, los distintos viajes del féretro de Colón y la poca cantidad de material encontrado en la tumba de la Catedral de Sevilla. Igualmente los restos de Diego, debido a las filtraciones de agua, se encontraban en un estado muy deteriorado. De todos los laboratorios participantes en el proyecto, solo en algunos se obtuvieron resultados. Se encontraron coincidencia en los resultados, pero los fragmentos de ADN mitocondrial obtenidos fueron muy pequeños, con lo que fue difícil afirmar una inclusión. La suma de los datos obtenidos por todos los participantes antropólogos, historiadores,... fueron los que nos permitieron afirmar que los restos encontrados en la catedral de Sevilla, pertenecían al almirante. De todas formas este proyecto no se finalizará hasta que las autoridades de la República Dominicana no permitan contrastar estos datos con los restos del mausoleo levantado en Santo Domingo. La cantidad de huesos encontrados en la catedral de Sevilla no descarta que ambas tumbas compartieran la posesión del los restos de Colón, algo que sucedía frecuentemente en los traslados de cadáveres de personajes famosos y reliquias.
Heathmoor ( talk) 10:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
" Martínez-González " [...]
Because nobody called an Italian commission, considering that Columbus was Italian ? Genoese documents are authentic. Come check is secure and easy. I am concerned about the "scientific results". No doubt. I could write more than twenty authoritative sources (of Professors). Wikipedia (Spanish), does not mention sources. Is biased. "Theses", "Theses" and "Theses" There are, at least, 40 Spanish historians (between past and present). Want the names one for one ? Spanish historians have since abandoned the thesis that Columbus was Spanish, and they all recognize that the discoverer was Genoese. Like Ballesteros, Manzano continuously calls Columbus genoves, ligur, and extranjero in his works. There are plenty of sources. Many sources but not inculse. Insert the sources. Report 100 to 1. No document, no historical data, authorize or even partially justify the tales spun around the birth of Columbus. -- Davide41 ( talk) 18:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Columbus was born in Genoa.
I calculated the number of historians:
Spain: 35 ( Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Gaibrois, Ramos [...] )
Ligurian, Genoese, foreigner these are the terms repeatedly used by Manzano Manzano, Rector of Seville University.
Italy: 41 ( Taviani, Granzotto, Anna Maria Salone, [...] )
France: 36 ( Mahn Lot, Heers, Mollat, Braudel [...] )
Report 100 to 1. -- Davide41 ( talk) 07:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Columbus Portuguese? The Portuguese Manuel Rosa ( amateur ). End.
At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, Genoese, a foreigner in Spain. Judging from contemporary writings, nobody even thought it was worth discussing the subject. There are at least twenty such publications in the 16th century and nine in the 17th century. In addition, there were sixty-two by writers. Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. Three contemporary Genoese chroniclers claim him as a compatriot. These are the facts.
Further confirmation comes from the nine folio volumes of the Raccolta Colombiana, published by the Italian government in 1892, and the folio volume of the city of Genoa, published in 1931, both containing such an abundance of documents that there can no longer be any disputing them. No document, no historical data, authorize or even partially justify the tales spun around the birth of Columbus.
Err is human, but to persist is diabolical. There is no excuse.
Columbus Portuguese is Fantasy. The book (of Rosa) is Fantasy. Speculation. Report 100 to 1. -- Davide41 ( talk) 07:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit has added the following text:
to the article. On first reading this I thought that a "not" had been inadvertently omitted from between "is" and "found". However, after seeing who made the edit, I now presume that this is not the case, since that editor seems to have argued elsewhere that the above-quoted claim is correct as it stands. I categorically dispute this.
Moreover, there is at least one reliable secondary source,
Samuel Eliot Morison's Admiral of the Ocean Sea, which dismisses the claim as "pure moonshine" (
p.89), despite having used Ferdinand's biography as one of his principal sources, and having accepted his and
Bartolomé de Las Casas's accounts of the objections which they said were raised against Columbus's proposals (
p.97).
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Though Columbus was born in 1451, his page says he married his wife, Filipa Moniz Perestrelo, in 1455, making him a married man/boy at the tender age of four. Considering that his son Diego was born in 1479 or 1480, I find it much more likely that Columbus was wed in the year 1475. (User: B165789309) 19:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by B165789309 ( talk • contribs)
Valerie IJ Flint, The Imaginative Landscape of Christopher Columbus, Princeton University Press 1992, ISBN 0-691-05681-1 p118. You should study this work as she shows how Columbus' learned about d'Ailly, the information passing through d'Ailly's follower Cusanus to his close confidant Toscanelli (Pope Eugenius' secretary) and thence to Columbus and Fernão Martins for Alfonso V. (ibid p4/5). The underestimation was Toscanelli's. Cusanus was also credited by Kepler as the source of the spherical world concept.
Proof for my thinking (see open question on Origin Theories discussion page) on Columbus' putative membership of the Order of Christ is found in the rather unusual flags (bearing a green cross on a white field) supporting the Spanish Royal standard when he claimed for Spain his first landing site - they are those of the Order of Christ's Guinea Trading Company, under which he sailed between 1482 and 1485, with a superimposed Royal cypher F Y for Ferdinand and Ysbel as his patrons: as Admiral he had the right to use his own cypher, but instead used flags of the Order, indicating where his homage lay. Not OR because I learned this from the Greenwich Maritime Museum maybe 40 years ago - but whence they had it is anybody's guess, I wasn't a historian then and knew too little to ask. I still have the original membership to find - the Sagres incident is still possible, but he also states he saw the Galway natives himself. Is it possible he caught up with the Genoa expedition later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 ( talk) 12:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Eb.hoop- Again you are barking up the wrong tree with the coat-of-arms on the Spanish Wikipedia - that coat of arms is an inacurate representation created by some 20th century artist. The Accurate coat of arms granted in 1493 and signed by the King and Queen is here kept for 5 centuries in the archives of the Dukes of Veragua. The original decree as you can see already has the mainland there and includes the 5 anchors of his Original Coat of Arms showing how wrong have been the historians who say Columbus concocted the coat of arms in 1502. The Royal Decree- also shown here- is signed by Isabel and Fernando in 1493 and it shows that in 1502 all Columbus did was move the lower half of his Original Arms to the point thus making the half with the 5 anchors more prominent. This and many other documents show that a lot of accepted Columbus history is crap that needs to be thrown in the garbage. You cannot trust Columbus when he gives the wrong measurements because he is trying to throw others off-track for ulterior motives. On his own notes he puts the eclipse at 5 timezones but when he writes to others he lies saying it was 10 timezones. You MUST look at the actions and physical evidence of what he did and where he was located and how he sailed and NOT at what he writes to the enemy. If you read his letters to his son and Gaspar Gorricio you will discover the truth because Gorricio and even Vespucci were part of the conspiracy against Spain. A man who navigates with wrong measurements would be completely lost especially after traveling for over a month without seeing land and taking wrong measurements each day - furthermore he would certainly have a hard time finding his way back home. Keep in mind that Columbus was not the only pilot on the voyage. He had the Pinzon brothers, he had Juan de la Cosa and he had Sancho Ruiz, Pedro Alonso Niño and Roldán- all life-long experienced navigators. Yet on February 1493 Columbus had managed to keep them all fooled as to where they were located at high sea:
You will notice from this extract that all the pilots were lost and ONLY Columbus knew that his true location was just West of the Azores. You are very correct when you say Columbus was lying for Political reasons. TRUE. The whole voyage was a political ploy. It had nothing to do with seeking Asia or India. Columbus did not go to his grave BELIEVING he had reached India or Asia- what he went to his grave doing was CONVINCING others that he believed it was India and he used Vespucii,- who was an actual employee of Columbus since 1495- to lie to the Spanish Court.:
It becomes very clear that there was a SECRET plot that involved many of Columbus's contacts in Spain. So when he tells his son Diego in the letter above that "Their Highnesses MUST be made to believe that their ships are in the best and richest parts of India" and that it all be kept secret so Vespucii is NOT suspected -you can see that Columbus, Vespucci, Diego Colon and Bartolomé Colón all know this INIDA is a LIE. Maintaining the lie even as late as February 1505 was VERY necessary otherwise the political ploy Columbus had been initially enlisted to pull-off against Spain would unravel and his descendants would loose all he had worked for. Once you change your prespective on this voyage everything falls into place. It was Genius and fooled the whole world for 500 years. Colon-el-Nuevo ( talk) 15:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Colon-el-Nuevo: The quotations you provide confirm what I claimed above, that the use of celestial navigation techniques by common mariners (as opposed to learned astronomers) was then a recent innovation introduced by the Portuguese. Now, consider the following paragraph from Las Casas's abstract of Columbus's log for his first voyage:
This night the Admiral took the altitude here with a quadrant and he found that he was 42 degrees distant from the equinoctial line and he says that by his computation he found that he had gone from the island of Hierro 1,142 leagues, and he still affirms that that country is the mainland.
— Friday, 2 November, 1492
At the time, Columbus was in Puerto de Mares, now generally believed to be Gibara, Cuba, which is 21° N in latitute. You can search Las Casas's full document for all references the quadrant, and they confirm that Columbus had brought one but didn't know how to use it. On 21 Nov., after first abandoning the quadrant, claiming that it needed to be fixed, he actually says that he thinks the 42° might have been right after all, because he's seen the pole star as high up in the sky as in Castille! In other words, he not only couldn't use a quadrant, he actually thought he might be more than twice as far north as he was from looking at the night sky.
Columbus's ignorance of celestial navigation should be proof enough that he hadn't learned his trade from the Portuguese! And he can't just have been making up figures to confuse the Spanish monarchs, because he actually goes back and forth between believing the reading of 42° N latitude and rejecting it as a mistake. Then there's this:
The Admiral here ascertained the number of hours in the day and the night and from sun to sun; he found that twenty ampolletas glasses of half an hour each passed, although he says there might have been some error either because they were not turned quickly enough, or because some of the sand did not run through. He says also that he found by the quadrant that he was thirty-four degrees distant from the equinoctial line.
— Thursday, 13 December, 1492
So on the same day Columbus manages to screw up a measurement of the number of hours of daylight, and to read 34° of latitude on the quadrant, when he's in fact at 19° 55' N, in what's now the Baie des Moustiques, near Port-de-Paix. (By the way, 10 hours of daylight on the winter solstice, which was indeed on 13 Dec., would correspond to a latitude of 30° 50' N)
It's true that Columbus was remarkably good a using the trade winds, and it's unclear how or where he learned that skill (that's a real historical mystery, which I'd love to know more about). But the winds are all the explanation we need of why Columbus didn't just sail straight west from Palos (he could hardly have sailed west from Lisbon if he was in the pay of the Spanish crown!), but instead first moved south to the Canary Islands.
As to not having Toscanelli's original maps, the fact is that we don't have Columbus's original logs either, only transcripts. How many original maps from the 15th century are there around today? By those standards, we would be able to say very little about the history of the 15th century. You are basically asking us to believe that every bit of the documentary evidence that contradicts your theory is the result of a grand falsification. By whom? Even by your own understanding of things, only Columbus, his heirs, and the Kings of Portugal would've had an interest in continuing the deception about Columbus's mission. How did all these "two-bit" writers and historians end up on board? - Eb.hoop ( talk) 22:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Eb.hoop- "outright insanity and religious mania" Do you think he was more of a religious fanatic than the Portuguese Prince Henry the Navigator who died in 1460? More of a religious fanatic than Portugal's King Afonso V who battled Queen Isabel for the Crown of Spain and who was so constantly attacking the Muslims in Africa he became known as "the African"? Do you think Columbus was more of a religious fanatic than the Portuguese Prince Saint Fernando, whom Columbus always "swore by" and who died in captivity in Morroco in 1443 refusing to save his life by returning to the Muslims the city of Ceuta because "Ceuta now belongs to God and I can't give away something that belongs to God"???? Do you know anything about the Portuguese
CULT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, that Columbus talks about and that the Inquisition nearly wiped out surviving until today only in the Azores? Do you understand that the Portuguese Age of Discovery was also an endeavor of Enlightenment following Templar ideals in which Columbus participated?
It is clear that the world has still a lot to learn about Columbus and his motives. Would you still consider it far fetched if you learned that Queen Isabel hired Columbus's nephews, John of Braganza, Marquis of Montemor and Supreme Military leader and Lopo de Albuquerque, Count of Penamacor, to Kill King John II so that Isabel could have FREE access to the African trade Routes? Would it make any difference to you if you learned that once they were found out they ran away to Isabel's Court seeking protection? and would it happen to interest you to know that this was in 1484 EXACTLY WHEN Columbus shows up in Spain? Of course none of this mattes to you because your tall tale of a lost incompetent dreamer is more appeasing to your LEARNED views. Would it make a difference in why Columbus was arrested if you learned that King John II was finally killed in 1495 by Isabel's son-in-law, Portugal's King Manuel I who was then SWORN KING OF SPAIN and who had no need for Columbus's intervention any longer? Of course not these FACTS of the history are not important to you as long as you can keep believing the contrived and concocted excuses the historians unfamiliar with Portuguese history have fed you. Soon it will all change.
You misjudge Columbus and I bet it is because you have NOT read all the letters he left behind in the original Spanish. I suggest you take a few months and read through his letters in order to understand him better because your view of a belligerent, incompetent and insane dreamer do not show up in Columbus's letters- One other thing you should keep in mind that is a good clue to his secret agent role is this ""In 1484 Columbus began seeking support for an Atlantic crossing from King John II of Portugal but was denied aid." Columbus supposedly made 1 (one) proposal to King John II and then ran away to Spain to entice Queen Isabel. He makes not one but continuos proposals to Queen Isabel all of which are denied and where 1 denial from Portugal was enough to go somewhere else- in 7 years he does not move out of Spain. he continued hounding Isabel to sponsor him. Why? What made her so special, other than the fact that she had hired Columbus's nephews to Kill the King of Portugal?
Colon-el-Nuevo (
talk)
15:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Colon-el-Nuevo: Astronomers and celestial navigators knew well, even in Columbus's day, that the "pole star" (Polaris, or, more modernly, α Ursae Minoris) is not exactly at the celestial north pole, and therefore rotates around that pole during the day, like all other stars. That this motion takes Columbus by surprise on his third voyage is more evidence that he was unfamiliar with celestial navigation. (See also Axial precession (astronomy), for a discussion of how the position of the celestial north pole changes with respect to the stars over time. The pole star is significantly closer to the true celestial pole now than it was in 1498. Therefore, this diurnal motion of the pole star was more significant in Columbus's day than it is now.)
To confuse this diurnal rotation with an actual deviation from the Earth's sphericity was pure wishful thinking on Columbus's part. He's not only ignorant for not knowing about that diurnal rotation, his purported explanation of the phenomenon doesn't make any sense. (Why would the pole star go up and then down over 24 hours, unless the earth under the ships were also rising and falling during that time?) In other words, he's confused by his quadrant readings and seizes on the apparent anomaly to justify his sense that he was close to a major breakthrough. (See also the account in sec. 4 of [7]). Add to this the absurdity about the ships going faster when they're going down-hill. And these were not just passing confusions in Columbus's head, since he repeated them in the plea he wrote to the Spanish monarchs after his arrest. But even if Columbus's confusion in this regard had been justifiable, how can he be the man you claim, who knew even before sailing from Palos what he was actually going to find?
About Columbus as ruler of Hispaniola, it might be true that he was not much more cruel or avaricious than other Spanish officials. But what really seems to have got him into trouble was that he was also incompetent, in that his brutal methods did not succeed in establishing order. About your theory of Columbus as a secret agent of the Portuguese, I am not an expert on the political history of that time period, but most of what you've said on the subject strikes me as quite implausible. Historians (and especially the publishers and readers of history books) actually like novelties and are constantly falling over themselves to question the established view of things. Comedian Dave Barry describes this phenomenon perfectly:
If you're a historian and you want to write a best-selling book, you have to come up with a new wrinkle. If you go to a publisher and say you want to write that Harry Truman was a blunt-spoken Missourian who made some unpopular decisions but was vindicated by history, the publisher will pick you up by your neck and toss you into the street, because there are already bales of such books on the market. But if you claim to have uncovered evidence that Harry Truman was a Soviet ballerina, before long you'll be on national morning television, answering earnest questions from David Hartman in a simulated living room.
— Dave Barry's Greatest Hits
If an unconventional theory like yours (which, like I pointed out above, is actually not new) is widely rejected, it's probably because it's just too far-fetched. - Eb.hoop ( talk) 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The link to East Indies says that term "indies" came into use around 1600 (an etymology source says first use in 1550 - but remember he is Italiannot English) How could Columbus have used a term in 1492 that didn't yet exist? The third source's title suggests this is one of the widely circulated myths about Columbus but I don't have access to it. 69.37.68.72 ( talk), —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC).
The difficulty with Columbus and navigation is that the surviving records of his own words are often unclear. It's hard to know how much of it is factual and how much is obfuscation or self promotion. That's why it's open to speculation (both learned and eccentric.) Columbus stated that his planned voyage track was to be due west on that first voyage. His actual voyage track was about half a point south of west - a deviation that would have become readily apparent to any average ocean navigator of the period. The loss of the Santa Maria suggests a want of cautious navigation and raises many questions. However, Columbus's own description is a litany of self justification. There is much like that in his journal and perhaps the uncertainty about what it means should be reflected in the article. Norloch ( talk) 12:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Eb hoop; The problem remains that many aspects which are accepted as fact contain contradictions which cannot be explained. Regarding point 1 which you made above. Before the advent of GPS in the late 20th. century, - everyone at sea was a 'dead reckoning' navigator. However, dead reckoning was always supplemented by terrestial or celestial observations wherever possible. It would make no sense to navigate exclusively by dead reckoning. (If you planned to pass an island 10 miles to starboard and you subsequently observed that island right ahead you wouldn't continue blindly with your dead reckoning navigation - you would alter course to avoid it!) As I noted above, Columbus stated that he intended to sail due west from the Canaries. As the voyage progressed, it would have become obvious that the track had deviated to the south of west because the 'pointers' in Ursa Major would have ceased to be circumpolar. The 'pointers' are a very useful navigational tool for identifying Polaris. It beggars belief that none on the expedition would have noticed that they were increasingly below the horizon, night after night. Why didn't Columbus adjust his courses to maintain his planned westerly track? Regarding points 2 & 3. One of the basics of celestial observation is to take as many repeat observations as possible to verify accuracy. Columbus must have had numerous opportunities to observe Polaris between October '92 and January 1493. And yet, his journal only records a meagre handful of observations which Columbus considered doubtful. What does that signify? Does it really mean he ignored the basics - or is it that de la Casa decided to edit out the repetetive stuff in his transcriptions. Regarding the loss of the Santa Maria. Dead reckoning and complacency never mix. There's a contradiction there - either Columbus was a skilled navigator or he was complacent in hazardous waters. There are too many contradictions in the tale. Norloch ( talk) 08:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello again Eb Hoop. It may help to clarify a point or two by noting that I did spend some forty years navigating my way around the oceans of the world in a professional capacity. I intend no disrespect when I say your assertions would perhaps benefit from broader research. With regard to your points, Celestial navigation techniques aren't confined to a dependence on precision instruments and a knowledge of trigonometry. (Scandinavian ocean voyagers had neither - nor did Polynesian voyagers - but they both used the sun and stars). The development of precision navigational instruments was a valuable refinement - but not an esential requisite for celestial navigation.
Regarding your point on the Santa Maria - I'm not sure that any navigator would ever consider water clarity to be a useful factor in the dark of night - when the sea bottom cannot be seen. (or at least - not until it is too late.) It's correct that Columbus was apparently negligent in failing to order a couple of men to the 'chains' to take regular soundings with lead and line.( though I doubt that complacency associated with any previous clarity of the seas had much to do with that - nor the idea that taking soundings might be considered an onerous task. Sounding get done when they are needful - not when it is convenient!) The leadline is considered as one of the essentials in DR navigation. Considering that he was only a few miles from his destination when the Santa Maria grounded, his failure to ensure lookouts were posted was also unusually negligent. The fact that he apparently hadn't ordered the Nina to be the lead ship into the approaches is yet another mystery. These are just a few of the inexplicable features in the account of the incident. Certainly, from the viewpoint of a professional seafarer, the story has many disturbing omissions and contradictions. Norloch ( talk) 22:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Eb hoop. - Third party sources are valuable but they shouldn't be regarded as infallible. Samuel Morison was a dedicated historian but he did have that common human failing of occasionally bending reality to fit his own theories. (The classic example was his proposal that Columbus would have used different units of measurement for coastal navigation and sea navigation. That idea was necessary to support his theories about Columbus's sailing route through the Bahamas but the concept ignores the practical realities.) In a similar way your reference to Morison on the loss of the Santa Maria is notable because there are indication of either gaps in Morison's knowledge of the practical realities - (or perhaps a decision to avoid aspects that were inconvenient). There is no great difficulty in taking soundings while a ship is moving. I've done it on ships making way at 3 knots - so have many others. Additionally, there is no possibility that Columbus's men, on their boat voyage could have accurately surveyed some twenty miles of coastal waters in the time period stated. They may have offered their best guess about the hazards en-route, but Columbus, as a truly skilled navigator would surely have been aware of the limitations of their report and continued with the normal practices of careful navigation. Apparently he didn't and that's an anomaly which poses questions. 188.223.5.128 ( talk) 10:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The written history of this man has been in most cases far-fethced fantasy, detached from both the facts and logic. When you add to this the blind attempt of historians to make him be a "genoese wool-weaver" at all costs, instead of looking at the factual evidence of his life, you get these kinds of conflicts:
The
Christopher Columbus article says:
The original name in 15th century Genoese language was Christoffa[6] Corombo[7]
In the
Origin theories of Christopher Columbus page it attempts to impose a lie that Genoese were the only italians of the Renaissance who did not have a written language:
"Columbus wrote almost exclusively in Spanish which it is suggested he learned in Portugal as there was no written form of Genoese."
Colon-el-Nuevo (
talk)
19:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This essay by Pastor Ray Bentley, "Was Christopher Columbus Jewish?", is well researched with cites. However, the article here seems to have missed much of this. So I'm wondering if the subjects have been brought up before in the article or talk page, and for some reason dismissed, or whether this is new information? In any case, is there a clear reason why at least some of this research should not be added if his cites are valid? His essay adds some interesting aspects about Columbus's purpose. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 23:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Colon-el-Nuevo: Your intention to use Wikipedia to challenge the experts and to show us "what the original documentations says" is clearly against the rules, as spelled out in WP:OR. Wikipedia just won't allow it. Moreover, your theories aren't just based on a different interpretation of the original documents: they entail accepting some documents (or some parts of them) and discounting others as lies or forgeries, based on criteria of your own that are not widely shared (to say the least). Like I said before, you should write a book and wait for it to convert the experts to your way of thinking before you can summarize those views in Wikipedia. For now we'll stick with this mainstream view:
And I do feel like I should add that in the late-medieval world there was a very considerable difference between a peasant on the one hand, and a city-dwelling skilled craftsman on the other. A peasant wouldn't even have had use for notaries, much less been a subject of credit. And, bizarrely, you describe the system of apprenticeship, which was then the universal way of entering into a guild of skilled craftsmen (like that of wool weavers in this case) as "slavery." - Eb.hoop ( talk) 07:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Reactive arthritis is the new name for this condition, shouldn't this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.172.60 ( talk) 16:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
We mention that while Columbus was governor he acted tyrannically, etc. But we never explain how he became governor or even where governed. Anyone know? Thanks! Rhodesisland ( talk) 22:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
In theory, Columbus was governor and viceroy of "the Indies." In practice, he was the governor of the Spanish settlements in the island of Hispaniola. I've clarified this in the text. - Eb.hoop ( talk) 03:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In the section of columbus's later life it said he was resurrected, please delete this
129.186.253.77 ( talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In the section on the Second Voyage, at the end of the second paragraph, add the line. "The father of Bartholomé de Las Casas also accompanied Colombus on this voyage." Then, in the section on the third paragraph, delete the second sentence in the first paragraph, which states that this happened in the third voyage.
This will make the entry consistent with the Wikipedia article on Bartholomé de Las Casas, which states that dLC was on the second voyage, an assertion is also backed up by many sources. For example, Thatcher's book "Christopher Colombus: his life, his works, his remains" states that Pedro de Las Casas was on the second voyage, not the third (p.115). This information can also be found on p. 48 in "Columbus and Las Casas" by Traboulay (e.g., http://books.google.com/books?id=7Jmi4Wb1DdsC&pg=PA48&dq=pedro+de+las+casas+columbus&hl=en&ei=CevYTITsApDCsAOa0dSDCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pedro%20de%20las%20casas%20columbus&f=false). It is also found on p.60 of "The Dominican Tradition" by Zagano ( http://books.google.com/books?id=9A-RF38eK3wC&pg=PA60&dq=pedro+de+las+casas+columbus&hl=en&ei=4OvYTPrHD4z6sAP5xcn5Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=pedro%20de%20las%20casas%20columbus&f=false)
Rosspnelson ( talk) 06:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Done And I used the first book you gave as a citation. Qwyrxian ( talk) 09:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The majority of sailors and staff were moslem arabic moores escaping the final reconquesta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.134.239.46 ( talk) 21:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Although Columbus was not the first explorer to reach the Americas from Europe - i.e. the Norse, led by Leif Ericson[5]; the voyages of which Columbus partook and molded the future of European colonization and encouraged European exploration of foreign lands for centuries to come.
maybe should be changed to as Leif Ericson travels were far too brief
Christopher Columbus is regarded as the first explorer to reach the Americas from Europe an earlier exploration by the the Norse, led by Leif Ericson[5] got as far as Newfoundland but is was the expeditions of which Columbus partook that established the Amercias proper and molded the future of European colonization and encouraged European exploration of foreign lands for centuries to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.11.51 ( talk) 03:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
This sentence is poorly constructed. "Although Columbus was not the first explorer to reach the Americas from Europe - i.e. the Norse, led by Leif Ericson[5] ; the voyages of which Columbus partook molded the future of European colonization and encouraged European exploration of foreign lands for centuries to come."
Please revise (in the English language, not Grade 4 garble).
66.222.237.96 (
talk)
20:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In "Early life" paragraph this sentence has been recently added.
"In Columbus’s new biography just released in Spain, Christopher Columbus was not only a Royal Prince, son of a Portuguese noble lady and of exiled Polish King Wladyslaw III, whose residence in the Island of Madeira, but Columbus was also a Portuguese secret agent working covertly in Spain[14]."
and also added was ref. [14]
I believe this information, which is coming from a newly published and already controversial book, should not be on "Christopher Columbus" page but on "Origin theories of Christopher Columbus" page instead.
84.3.95.71 (
talk)
19:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Done I'm inclined to agree--as a highly different theory (and it sounds like it might even be a fringe theory), it doesn't belong here. Plus, it's confusing, as without a clear context (of the issue being disputed), its unclear how likely this explanation is. I'm going to remove that paragraph. Also, though, I'm going to revise the beginning of the section to add that there is some disagreement about Columbus' origins, and provide a one sentence list with citations pulled from the Origin theories article listing the other most "popular" claims. As far as I can tell, since the bulk of historians support the Genova theory, that is the one that deserves the highest prominence in this article, and, as IP says, readers can go to the other article for more details. Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The new book is pretty impressive in its way of fitting all the pieces of the puzzle in a logical explanation. In the following table the author presents proof of Fernando Colón's statements that his father was descendant of the Kings of Jerusalem and was also related to Colombo "the Younger" who was George Bissipat, a Constantionople Prince (
http://fabpedigree.com/s012/f998868.htm): table is presented on page 365 of «Colon. La Historia Nunca Contada».
"LADISLAO III DESCIENDE DE LOS REYES DE JERUSALÉN
1. Balduino II, rey de Jerusalén 1118-1131
2. Alice de Jerusalén, regente de Antioquía
3. Constança d’ Hauteville, princesa de Antioquía
4. Inés de Antioquía
5. André II, rey de Hungría
6. Bela IV, rey de Hungría 1235-1270 cc María Laskarina
7. Constanza de Hungría
8. Jurij I Lvovitsch, rey de Halicz (Galicia)
9. Anastasia de Galicia
10. Juliana Alexandrovna de Tver
11. Ladislau II Jaguellón, rey de Polonia
12. Ladislau III Jaguellón, rey de Polonia (alias Enrique Alemán en Portugal)
13. Segismundo Henriques (alias Cristóbal Colón en Castilla)"
LADISLAO III DESCIENDE DE LOS EMPERADORES DE BIZANCIO
1. Alexius III Komnenos Angelos, emperador de Bizancio
2. Anna Komnene Angelina cc Theodorus I Komnenos Lascaris, emperador de Nicea
3. Maria Laskarina cc Bela IV, rey de Hungría 1235-1270
4. Constanza de Hungría cc Leo Danilovitsch, rey de Halicz (Galicia)
5. Jurij I Lvovitsch, rey de Halicz (Galicia)
6. Anastasia de Galicia cc Alexander I Michailovitsch, gran-duque de Tver
7. Julianna Alexandrovna Twerska cc Olgierd, Gran-Duque de Lituania
8. Wladislaw (Ladislao) II Jaguellón, rey de Polonia
9. Ladislao III Jaguellón, rey de Polonia (alias Enrique Alemán en Portugal)
10. Segismundo Henriques (alias Cristóbal Colón en Castilla)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
152.16.51.249 (
talk)
18:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
In reference to ClovisPT's question above, I think we need to have at least 1 sentence here listing the alternate theories. With one sentence versus the whole section, I think the weight is correct. Some of those alternate theories, as far as I can tell from the other page, have received significant critical discussion, even though they are mostly rejected. I think having the one sentence here helps point out to people that the other article has more than just a more detailed origin of Columbus, but rather shows that there has been scholarly debate on the issue. Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
To David...
I agree that there should be sources & even multiple sources to prove the point, and I'm on your side on this issue overall...but SEVEN IS TOO MANY and disrupts the sentence flow, and is too distracting. It disturbs the reader too much in that part. And seven is not really necessary. Your references were good, and I left 3 of them alone, the really good ones. So four all together (mine plus 3 of yours). But 7, bro, is just TOO MUCH for one part of a sentence or word. Peace... Sweetpoet ( talk) 22:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok. -- Davide41 ( talk) 07:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
"Indeed, in 1925, in the archive of the Castillian city of Simancas was found a document dated 28 September 1501 which is the confirmation of the mayorazgo, by the Kings of Spain."
This is simply NOT true. What was found was a confirmation of a 1497 authorization to make a mayorazgo. It is not the same thing as a confirmation of the document so called mayorazgo dated 1498. I don’t expect you to get your facts straight since the people you are quoting from did not get them straight either. I know you can’t read Portuguese or even Spanish but here is the actual document you call the mayorazgo. It starts with the words TRESLADO de ... which means COPY of ... then, this is important so put on your logic glasses and look at the last page. It is signed LOL not with the name of the transcriber, normal practice for the day, but signed with a forged signature of Cristóbal Colón. The signature is Forged, and the whole document is forged, understand? This document was presented to the court in 1586 by an Italian forgerer Balthazar Colombo from who pretended to prove he was a relative of Cristóbal Colón and failed. Colon-el-Nuevo ( talk) 19:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If you look carefully you will even see that the date was 1598 and someone wrote a 4 over the 5. Colon-el-Nuevo ( talk) 20:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
" This is simply NOT true " [...] from ColonD
You mentioned the site "historic" Columbus 100% Português ! A " trusted site "
The document is authentic continues to fantasize. Not so much for me ... but the sentences of all the major historical. Taviani ? Morison ? Irving ? Ballesteros ? Some sacred monsters.
There are at least twenty such publications in the 16th century and nine in the 17th century. In addition, there were sixty-two by Italian writers. Of this last group, only fourteen are by Ligurians, the other authors being Lombards, Venetians, Tuscans, Neapolitans, Sicilians and one Maltese. Regional rivalries were still alive in the 16th century, so that the forty-eight confirmations of Columbus' Genoese origin, by non-Ligurian writers, take on virtually the same significance as those of the twenty-nine non-Italians.
Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. These are the facts. Confirmed ... from all the major historical. All. All. All.
Columbus said he was born in Genoa ... I quote one of the millions of documents and testimonies that all together show only one thing: Christopher Columbus is Italian. There is not even one document, there is not one testimony, there is not anything coeval that shows columbus was not Italian. Every testimony, every document, every thing shows, without exception, he was Italian. At the same time, almost all the "scholars" supposing Columbus was not Italian are actually simple amateurs.
These are facts. Keep your personal fantasies. This is an encyclopedia. Your motives are inconsistent. Your sources scarce. Your story is old (already circulated in 1930). The Genoese origin of Columbus is historically documented. These are the facts. This must be reported. End of conversation. --
Davide41 (
talk)
22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
... I control the " Origins of Christopher Columbus ". There are many scoundrels. -- Davide41 ( talk) 08:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I write all sources, teachers, etc. All.
but Colond is 100 % 100% Português !
... and I write all the sources, teachers, etc.
but Colond is 100 % 100% Português !
... and I write all the sources, teachers, etc.
This game must end. -- Davide41 ( talk) 08:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There's an old saying that the Devil uses quotes from the Bible to prove he is right. Maybe that's something which David 41 and Colon Nuevo need to consider, if they want to be taken seriously. Occam stated that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." - The simplest explanation is usually the one which is correct. Norloch ( talk) 13:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
http://colombodocs.com.sapo.pt/index2.htm
I'm sick of your hallucinations. I got bored. Facts are facts. If Christopher Columbus was Portuguese, I am Jesus Christ. Blasphemy, Madness etc ... You are convinced of your fantasies. Believe what you want but all the sources of the world, historicals and documents say otherwise. Adieu. -- Davide41 ( talk) 22:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Yes. Yes. Adieu. -- Davide41 ( talk) 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
you're probably right about that photo being "useless" and "badly positioned" etc. But in case you thought that it was my photo (because I re-arranged the position), don't think that. It was "HalloweenHJB" who put that image there, not me. I don't like to remove things people put, if it's in good faith. But the image was definitely in a bad spot, so I put it in a better spot. But you didn't like it, so you removed it completely. But it was NOT my photo, but "Halloween's". Just in case you didn't know. Sweetpoet ( talk) 19:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok...
I have a 19 inch monitor. The position of the image was really terrible ! -- Davide41 ( talk) 21:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
According to many tests and many historiological Christopher Columbus was born in Bettola in the province of Piacenza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxBassanetti ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Stickee if you understand the 'Italian look at this http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-col.htm
Other Amateur.
Is a Source ? http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-col.htm
Professor Taviani ? Morison ? Ballesteros ? Irving ? [...] There are no doubts about the origins of Columbus but is only a source of speculation for some amateurs. Hallucinations.
All contemporaries. All the most important historical. All documents [...] -- Davide41 ( talk) 17:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Además del citado, uno de los proyectos más trascendentes y de mayor repercusión fue la identificación genética de Cristóbal Colón y sus familiares, un proyecto internacional y multidisciplinar con el objetivo de descifrar algunos de los enigmas del famoso Almirante. El objetivo principal de este proyecto fue determinar el lugar donde se encontraban sus restos, República Dominicana y/o Sevilla.
El estado de los huesos, de Cristóbal Colón y de su hermano Diego, era mucho peor del esperado por el tiempo trascurrido, los distintos viajes del féretro de Colón y la poca cantidad de material encontrado en la tumba de la Catedral de Sevilla. Igualmente los restos de Diego, debido a las filtraciones de agua, se encontraban en un estado muy deteriorado. De todos los laboratorios participantes en el proyecto, solo en algunos se obtuvieron resultados. Se encontraron coincidencia en los resultados, pero los fragmentos de ADN mitocondrial obtenidos fueron muy pequeños, con lo que fue difícil afirmar una inclusión. La suma de los datos obtenidos por todos los participantes antropólogos, historiadores,... fueron los que nos permitieron afirmar que los restos encontrados en la catedral de Sevilla, pertenecían al almirante. De todas formas este proyecto no se finalizará hasta que las autoridades de la República Dominicana no permitan contrastar estos datos con los restos del mausoleo levantado en Santo Domingo. La cantidad de huesos encontrados en la catedral de Sevilla no descarta que ambas tumbas compartieran la posesión del los restos de Colón, algo que sucedía frecuentemente en los traslados de cadáveres de personajes famosos y reliquias.
Heathmoor ( talk) 10:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
" Martínez-González " [...]
Because nobody called an Italian commission, considering that Columbus was Italian ? Genoese documents are authentic. Come check is secure and easy. I am concerned about the "scientific results". No doubt. I could write more than twenty authoritative sources (of Professors). Wikipedia (Spanish), does not mention sources. Is biased. "Theses", "Theses" and "Theses" There are, at least, 40 Spanish historians (between past and present). Want the names one for one ? Spanish historians have since abandoned the thesis that Columbus was Spanish, and they all recognize that the discoverer was Genoese. Like Ballesteros, Manzano continuously calls Columbus genoves, ligur, and extranjero in his works. There are plenty of sources. Many sources but not inculse. Insert the sources. Report 100 to 1. No document, no historical data, authorize or even partially justify the tales spun around the birth of Columbus. -- Davide41 ( talk) 18:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Columbus was born in Genoa.
I calculated the number of historians:
Spain: 35 ( Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Gaibrois, Ramos [...] )
Ligurian, Genoese, foreigner these are the terms repeatedly used by Manzano Manzano, Rector of Seville University.
Italy: 41 ( Taviani, Granzotto, Anna Maria Salone, [...] )
France: 36 ( Mahn Lot, Heers, Mollat, Braudel [...] )
Report 100 to 1. -- Davide41 ( talk) 07:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Columbus Portuguese? The Portuguese Manuel Rosa ( amateur ). End.
At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, Genoese, a foreigner in Spain. Judging from contemporary writings, nobody even thought it was worth discussing the subject. There are at least twenty such publications in the 16th century and nine in the 17th century. In addition, there were sixty-two by writers. Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. Three contemporary Genoese chroniclers claim him as a compatriot. These are the facts.
Further confirmation comes from the nine folio volumes of the Raccolta Colombiana, published by the Italian government in 1892, and the folio volume of the city of Genoa, published in 1931, both containing such an abundance of documents that there can no longer be any disputing them. No document, no historical data, authorize or even partially justify the tales spun around the birth of Columbus.
Err is human, but to persist is diabolical. There is no excuse.
Columbus Portuguese is Fantasy. The book (of Rosa) is Fantasy. Speculation. Report 100 to 1. -- Davide41 ( talk) 07:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit has added the following text:
to the article. On first reading this I thought that a "not" had been inadvertently omitted from between "is" and "found". However, after seeing who made the edit, I now presume that this is not the case, since that editor seems to have argued elsewhere that the above-quoted claim is correct as it stands. I categorically dispute this.
Moreover, there is at least one reliable secondary source,
Samuel Eliot Morison's Admiral of the Ocean Sea, which dismisses the claim as "pure moonshine" (
p.89), despite having used Ferdinand's biography as one of his principal sources, and having accepted his and
Bartolomé de Las Casas's accounts of the objections which they said were raised against Columbus's proposals (
p.97).
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Though Columbus was born in 1451, his page says he married his wife, Filipa Moniz Perestrelo, in 1455, making him a married man/boy at the tender age of four. Considering that his son Diego was born in 1479 or 1480, I find it much more likely that Columbus was wed in the year 1475. (User: B165789309) 19:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by B165789309 ( talk • contribs)
Valerie IJ Flint, The Imaginative Landscape of Christopher Columbus, Princeton University Press 1992, ISBN 0-691-05681-1 p118. You should study this work as she shows how Columbus' learned about d'Ailly, the information passing through d'Ailly's follower Cusanus to his close confidant Toscanelli (Pope Eugenius' secretary) and thence to Columbus and Fernão Martins for Alfonso V. (ibid p4/5). The underestimation was Toscanelli's. Cusanus was also credited by Kepler as the source of the spherical world concept.
Proof for my thinking (see open question on Origin Theories discussion page) on Columbus' putative membership of the Order of Christ is found in the rather unusual flags (bearing a green cross on a white field) supporting the Spanish Royal standard when he claimed for Spain his first landing site - they are those of the Order of Christ's Guinea Trading Company, under which he sailed between 1482 and 1485, with a superimposed Royal cypher F Y for Ferdinand and Ysbel as his patrons: as Admiral he had the right to use his own cypher, but instead used flags of the Order, indicating where his homage lay. Not OR because I learned this from the Greenwich Maritime Museum maybe 40 years ago - but whence they had it is anybody's guess, I wasn't a historian then and knew too little to ask. I still have the original membership to find - the Sagres incident is still possible, but he also states he saw the Galway natives himself. Is it possible he caught up with the Genoa expedition later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 ( talk) 12:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Eb.hoop- Again you are barking up the wrong tree with the coat-of-arms on the Spanish Wikipedia - that coat of arms is an inacurate representation created by some 20th century artist. The Accurate coat of arms granted in 1493 and signed by the King and Queen is here kept for 5 centuries in the archives of the Dukes of Veragua. The original decree as you can see already has the mainland there and includes the 5 anchors of his Original Coat of Arms showing how wrong have been the historians who say Columbus concocted the coat of arms in 1502. The Royal Decree- also shown here- is signed by Isabel and Fernando in 1493 and it shows that in 1502 all Columbus did was move the lower half of his Original Arms to the point thus making the half with the 5 anchors more prominent. This and many other documents show that a lot of accepted Columbus history is crap that needs to be thrown in the garbage. You cannot trust Columbus when he gives the wrong measurements because he is trying to throw others off-track for ulterior motives. On his own notes he puts the eclipse at 5 timezones but when he writes to others he lies saying it was 10 timezones. You MUST look at the actions and physical evidence of what he did and where he was located and how he sailed and NOT at what he writes to the enemy. If you read his letters to his son and Gaspar Gorricio you will discover the truth because Gorricio and even Vespucci were part of the conspiracy against Spain. A man who navigates with wrong measurements would be completely lost especially after traveling for over a month without seeing land and taking wrong measurements each day - furthermore he would certainly have a hard time finding his way back home. Keep in mind that Columbus was not the only pilot on the voyage. He had the Pinzon brothers, he had Juan de la Cosa and he had Sancho Ruiz, Pedro Alonso Niño and Roldán- all life-long experienced navigators. Yet on February 1493 Columbus had managed to keep them all fooled as to where they were located at high sea:
You will notice from this extract that all the pilots were lost and ONLY Columbus knew that his true location was just West of the Azores. You are very correct when you say Columbus was lying for Political reasons. TRUE. The whole voyage was a political ploy. It had nothing to do with seeking Asia or India. Columbus did not go to his grave BELIEVING he had reached India or Asia- what he went to his grave doing was CONVINCING others that he believed it was India and he used Vespucii,- who was an actual employee of Columbus since 1495- to lie to the Spanish Court.:
It becomes very clear that there was a SECRET plot that involved many of Columbus's contacts in Spain. So when he tells his son Diego in the letter above that "Their Highnesses MUST be made to believe that their ships are in the best and richest parts of India" and that it all be kept secret so Vespucii is NOT suspected -you can see that Columbus, Vespucci, Diego Colon and Bartolomé Colón all know this INIDA is a LIE. Maintaining the lie even as late as February 1505 was VERY necessary otherwise the political ploy Columbus had been initially enlisted to pull-off against Spain would unravel and his descendants would loose all he had worked for. Once you change your prespective on this voyage everything falls into place. It was Genius and fooled the whole world for 500 years. Colon-el-Nuevo ( talk) 15:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Colon-el-Nuevo: The quotations you provide confirm what I claimed above, that the use of celestial navigation techniques by common mariners (as opposed to learned astronomers) was then a recent innovation introduced by the Portuguese. Now, consider the following paragraph from Las Casas's abstract of Columbus's log for his first voyage:
This night the Admiral took the altitude here with a quadrant and he found that he was 42 degrees distant from the equinoctial line and he says that by his computation he found that he had gone from the island of Hierro 1,142 leagues, and he still affirms that that country is the mainland.
— Friday, 2 November, 1492
At the time, Columbus was in Puerto de Mares, now generally believed to be Gibara, Cuba, which is 21° N in latitute. You can search Las Casas's full document for all references the quadrant, and they confirm that Columbus had brought one but didn't know how to use it. On 21 Nov., after first abandoning the quadrant, claiming that it needed to be fixed, he actually says that he thinks the 42° might have been right after all, because he's seen the pole star as high up in the sky as in Castille! In other words, he not only couldn't use a quadrant, he actually thought he might be more than twice as far north as he was from looking at the night sky.
Columbus's ignorance of celestial navigation should be proof enough that he hadn't learned his trade from the Portuguese! And he can't just have been making up figures to confuse the Spanish monarchs, because he actually goes back and forth between believing the reading of 42° N latitude and rejecting it as a mistake. Then there's this:
The Admiral here ascertained the number of hours in the day and the night and from sun to sun; he found that twenty ampolletas glasses of half an hour each passed, although he says there might have been some error either because they were not turned quickly enough, or because some of the sand did not run through. He says also that he found by the quadrant that he was thirty-four degrees distant from the equinoctial line.
— Thursday, 13 December, 1492
So on the same day Columbus manages to screw up a measurement of the number of hours of daylight, and to read 34° of latitude on the quadrant, when he's in fact at 19° 55' N, in what's now the Baie des Moustiques, near Port-de-Paix. (By the way, 10 hours of daylight on the winter solstice, which was indeed on 13 Dec., would correspond to a latitude of 30° 50' N)
It's true that Columbus was remarkably good a using the trade winds, and it's unclear how or where he learned that skill (that's a real historical mystery, which I'd love to know more about). But the winds are all the explanation we need of why Columbus didn't just sail straight west from Palos (he could hardly have sailed west from Lisbon if he was in the pay of the Spanish crown!), but instead first moved south to the Canary Islands.
As to not having Toscanelli's original maps, the fact is that we don't have Columbus's original logs either, only transcripts. How many original maps from the 15th century are there around today? By those standards, we would be able to say very little about the history of the 15th century. You are basically asking us to believe that every bit of the documentary evidence that contradicts your theory is the result of a grand falsification. By whom? Even by your own understanding of things, only Columbus, his heirs, and the Kings of Portugal would've had an interest in continuing the deception about Columbus's mission. How did all these "two-bit" writers and historians end up on board? - Eb.hoop ( talk) 22:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Eb.hoop- "outright insanity and religious mania" Do you think he was more of a religious fanatic than the Portuguese Prince Henry the Navigator who died in 1460? More of a religious fanatic than Portugal's King Afonso V who battled Queen Isabel for the Crown of Spain and who was so constantly attacking the Muslims in Africa he became known as "the African"? Do you think Columbus was more of a religious fanatic than the Portuguese Prince Saint Fernando, whom Columbus always "swore by" and who died in captivity in Morroco in 1443 refusing to save his life by returning to the Muslims the city of Ceuta because "Ceuta now belongs to God and I can't give away something that belongs to God"???? Do you know anything about the Portuguese
CULT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, that Columbus talks about and that the Inquisition nearly wiped out surviving until today only in the Azores? Do you understand that the Portuguese Age of Discovery was also an endeavor of Enlightenment following Templar ideals in which Columbus participated?
It is clear that the world has still a lot to learn about Columbus and his motives. Would you still consider it far fetched if you learned that Queen Isabel hired Columbus's nephews, John of Braganza, Marquis of Montemor and Supreme Military leader and Lopo de Albuquerque, Count of Penamacor, to Kill King John II so that Isabel could have FREE access to the African trade Routes? Would it make any difference to you if you learned that once they were found out they ran away to Isabel's Court seeking protection? and would it happen to interest you to know that this was in 1484 EXACTLY WHEN Columbus shows up in Spain? Of course none of this mattes to you because your tall tale of a lost incompetent dreamer is more appeasing to your LEARNED views. Would it make a difference in why Columbus was arrested if you learned that King John II was finally killed in 1495 by Isabel's son-in-law, Portugal's King Manuel I who was then SWORN KING OF SPAIN and who had no need for Columbus's intervention any longer? Of course not these FACTS of the history are not important to you as long as you can keep believing the contrived and concocted excuses the historians unfamiliar with Portuguese history have fed you. Soon it will all change.
You misjudge Columbus and I bet it is because you have NOT read all the letters he left behind in the original Spanish. I suggest you take a few months and read through his letters in order to understand him better because your view of a belligerent, incompetent and insane dreamer do not show up in Columbus's letters- One other thing you should keep in mind that is a good clue to his secret agent role is this ""In 1484 Columbus began seeking support for an Atlantic crossing from King John II of Portugal but was denied aid." Columbus supposedly made 1 (one) proposal to King John II and then ran away to Spain to entice Queen Isabel. He makes not one but continuos proposals to Queen Isabel all of which are denied and where 1 denial from Portugal was enough to go somewhere else- in 7 years he does not move out of Spain. he continued hounding Isabel to sponsor him. Why? What made her so special, other than the fact that she had hired Columbus's nephews to Kill the King of Portugal?
Colon-el-Nuevo (
talk)
15:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Colon-el-Nuevo: Astronomers and celestial navigators knew well, even in Columbus's day, that the "pole star" (Polaris, or, more modernly, α Ursae Minoris) is not exactly at the celestial north pole, and therefore rotates around that pole during the day, like all other stars. That this motion takes Columbus by surprise on his third voyage is more evidence that he was unfamiliar with celestial navigation. (See also Axial precession (astronomy), for a discussion of how the position of the celestial north pole changes with respect to the stars over time. The pole star is significantly closer to the true celestial pole now than it was in 1498. Therefore, this diurnal motion of the pole star was more significant in Columbus's day than it is now.)
To confuse this diurnal rotation with an actual deviation from the Earth's sphericity was pure wishful thinking on Columbus's part. He's not only ignorant for not knowing about that diurnal rotation, his purported explanation of the phenomenon doesn't make any sense. (Why would the pole star go up and then down over 24 hours, unless the earth under the ships were also rising and falling during that time?) In other words, he's confused by his quadrant readings and seizes on the apparent anomaly to justify his sense that he was close to a major breakthrough. (See also the account in sec. 4 of [7]). Add to this the absurdity about the ships going faster when they're going down-hill. And these were not just passing confusions in Columbus's head, since he repeated them in the plea he wrote to the Spanish monarchs after his arrest. But even if Columbus's confusion in this regard had been justifiable, how can he be the man you claim, who knew even before sailing from Palos what he was actually going to find?
About Columbus as ruler of Hispaniola, it might be true that he was not much more cruel or avaricious than other Spanish officials. But what really seems to have got him into trouble was that he was also incompetent, in that his brutal methods did not succeed in establishing order. About your theory of Columbus as a secret agent of the Portuguese, I am not an expert on the political history of that time period, but most of what you've said on the subject strikes me as quite implausible. Historians (and especially the publishers and readers of history books) actually like novelties and are constantly falling over themselves to question the established view of things. Comedian Dave Barry describes this phenomenon perfectly:
If you're a historian and you want to write a best-selling book, you have to come up with a new wrinkle. If you go to a publisher and say you want to write that Harry Truman was a blunt-spoken Missourian who made some unpopular decisions but was vindicated by history, the publisher will pick you up by your neck and toss you into the street, because there are already bales of such books on the market. But if you claim to have uncovered evidence that Harry Truman was a Soviet ballerina, before long you'll be on national morning television, answering earnest questions from David Hartman in a simulated living room.
— Dave Barry's Greatest Hits
If an unconventional theory like yours (which, like I pointed out above, is actually not new) is widely rejected, it's probably because it's just too far-fetched. - Eb.hoop ( talk) 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The link to East Indies says that term "indies" came into use around 1600 (an etymology source says first use in 1550 - but remember he is Italiannot English) How could Columbus have used a term in 1492 that didn't yet exist? The third source's title suggests this is one of the widely circulated myths about Columbus but I don't have access to it. 69.37.68.72 ( talk), —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC).
The difficulty with Columbus and navigation is that the surviving records of his own words are often unclear. It's hard to know how much of it is factual and how much is obfuscation or self promotion. That's why it's open to speculation (both learned and eccentric.) Columbus stated that his planned voyage track was to be due west on that first voyage. His actual voyage track was about half a point south of west - a deviation that would have become readily apparent to any average ocean navigator of the period. The loss of the Santa Maria suggests a want of cautious navigation and raises many questions. However, Columbus's own description is a litany of self justification. There is much like that in his journal and perhaps the uncertainty about what it means should be reflected in the article. Norloch ( talk) 12:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Eb hoop; The problem remains that many aspects which are accepted as fact contain contradictions which cannot be explained. Regarding point 1 which you made above. Before the advent of GPS in the late 20th. century, - everyone at sea was a 'dead reckoning' navigator. However, dead reckoning was always supplemented by terrestial or celestial observations wherever possible. It would make no sense to navigate exclusively by dead reckoning. (If you planned to pass an island 10 miles to starboard and you subsequently observed that island right ahead you wouldn't continue blindly with your dead reckoning navigation - you would alter course to avoid it!) As I noted above, Columbus stated that he intended to sail due west from the Canaries. As the voyage progressed, it would have become obvious that the track had deviated to the south of west because the 'pointers' in Ursa Major would have ceased to be circumpolar. The 'pointers' are a very useful navigational tool for identifying Polaris. It beggars belief that none on the expedition would have noticed that they were increasingly below the horizon, night after night. Why didn't Columbus adjust his courses to maintain his planned westerly track? Regarding points 2 & 3. One of the basics of celestial observation is to take as many repeat observations as possible to verify accuracy. Columbus must have had numerous opportunities to observe Polaris between October '92 and January 1493. And yet, his journal only records a meagre handful of observations which Columbus considered doubtful. What does that signify? Does it really mean he ignored the basics - or is it that de la Casa decided to edit out the repetetive stuff in his transcriptions. Regarding the loss of the Santa Maria. Dead reckoning and complacency never mix. There's a contradiction there - either Columbus was a skilled navigator or he was complacent in hazardous waters. There are too many contradictions in the tale. Norloch ( talk) 08:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello again Eb Hoop. It may help to clarify a point or two by noting that I did spend some forty years navigating my way around the oceans of the world in a professional capacity. I intend no disrespect when I say your assertions would perhaps benefit from broader research. With regard to your points, Celestial navigation techniques aren't confined to a dependence on precision instruments and a knowledge of trigonometry. (Scandinavian ocean voyagers had neither - nor did Polynesian voyagers - but they both used the sun and stars). The development of precision navigational instruments was a valuable refinement - but not an esential requisite for celestial navigation.
Regarding your point on the Santa Maria - I'm not sure that any navigator would ever consider water clarity to be a useful factor in the dark of night - when the sea bottom cannot be seen. (or at least - not until it is too late.) It's correct that Columbus was apparently negligent in failing to order a couple of men to the 'chains' to take regular soundings with lead and line.( though I doubt that complacency associated with any previous clarity of the seas had much to do with that - nor the idea that taking soundings might be considered an onerous task. Sounding get done when they are needful - not when it is convenient!) The leadline is considered as one of the essentials in DR navigation. Considering that he was only a few miles from his destination when the Santa Maria grounded, his failure to ensure lookouts were posted was also unusually negligent. The fact that he apparently hadn't ordered the Nina to be the lead ship into the approaches is yet another mystery. These are just a few of the inexplicable features in the account of the incident. Certainly, from the viewpoint of a professional seafarer, the story has many disturbing omissions and contradictions. Norloch ( talk) 22:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Eb hoop. - Third party sources are valuable but they shouldn't be regarded as infallible. Samuel Morison was a dedicated historian but he did have that common human failing of occasionally bending reality to fit his own theories. (The classic example was his proposal that Columbus would have used different units of measurement for coastal navigation and sea navigation. That idea was necessary to support his theories about Columbus's sailing route through the Bahamas but the concept ignores the practical realities.) In a similar way your reference to Morison on the loss of the Santa Maria is notable because there are indication of either gaps in Morison's knowledge of the practical realities - (or perhaps a decision to avoid aspects that were inconvenient). There is no great difficulty in taking soundings while a ship is moving. I've done it on ships making way at 3 knots - so have many others. Additionally, there is no possibility that Columbus's men, on their boat voyage could have accurately surveyed some twenty miles of coastal waters in the time period stated. They may have offered their best guess about the hazards en-route, but Columbus, as a truly skilled navigator would surely have been aware of the limitations of their report and continued with the normal practices of careful navigation. Apparently he didn't and that's an anomaly which poses questions. 188.223.5.128 ( talk) 10:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The written history of this man has been in most cases far-fethced fantasy, detached from both the facts and logic. When you add to this the blind attempt of historians to make him be a "genoese wool-weaver" at all costs, instead of looking at the factual evidence of his life, you get these kinds of conflicts:
The
Christopher Columbus article says:
The original name in 15th century Genoese language was Christoffa[6] Corombo[7]
In the
Origin theories of Christopher Columbus page it attempts to impose a lie that Genoese were the only italians of the Renaissance who did not have a written language:
"Columbus wrote almost exclusively in Spanish which it is suggested he learned in Portugal as there was no written form of Genoese."
Colon-el-Nuevo (
talk)
19:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This essay by Pastor Ray Bentley, "Was Christopher Columbus Jewish?", is well researched with cites. However, the article here seems to have missed much of this. So I'm wondering if the subjects have been brought up before in the article or talk page, and for some reason dismissed, or whether this is new information? In any case, is there a clear reason why at least some of this research should not be added if his cites are valid? His essay adds some interesting aspects about Columbus's purpose. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 23:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Colon-el-Nuevo: Your intention to use Wikipedia to challenge the experts and to show us "what the original documentations says" is clearly against the rules, as spelled out in WP:OR. Wikipedia just won't allow it. Moreover, your theories aren't just based on a different interpretation of the original documents: they entail accepting some documents (or some parts of them) and discounting others as lies or forgeries, based on criteria of your own that are not widely shared (to say the least). Like I said before, you should write a book and wait for it to convert the experts to your way of thinking before you can summarize those views in Wikipedia. For now we'll stick with this mainstream view:
And I do feel like I should add that in the late-medieval world there was a very considerable difference between a peasant on the one hand, and a city-dwelling skilled craftsman on the other. A peasant wouldn't even have had use for notaries, much less been a subject of credit. And, bizarrely, you describe the system of apprenticeship, which was then the universal way of entering into a guild of skilled craftsmen (like that of wool weavers in this case) as "slavery." - Eb.hoop ( talk) 07:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Reactive arthritis is the new name for this condition, shouldn't this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.172.60 ( talk) 16:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
We mention that while Columbus was governor he acted tyrannically, etc. But we never explain how he became governor or even where governed. Anyone know? Thanks! Rhodesisland ( talk) 22:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
In theory, Columbus was governor and viceroy of "the Indies." In practice, he was the governor of the Spanish settlements in the island of Hispaniola. I've clarified this in the text. - Eb.hoop ( talk) 03:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In the section of columbus's later life it said he was resurrected, please delete this
129.186.253.77 ( talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In the section on the Second Voyage, at the end of the second paragraph, add the line. "The father of Bartholomé de Las Casas also accompanied Colombus on this voyage." Then, in the section on the third paragraph, delete the second sentence in the first paragraph, which states that this happened in the third voyage.
This will make the entry consistent with the Wikipedia article on Bartholomé de Las Casas, which states that dLC was on the second voyage, an assertion is also backed up by many sources. For example, Thatcher's book "Christopher Colombus: his life, his works, his remains" states that Pedro de Las Casas was on the second voyage, not the third (p.115). This information can also be found on p. 48 in "Columbus and Las Casas" by Traboulay (e.g., http://books.google.com/books?id=7Jmi4Wb1DdsC&pg=PA48&dq=pedro+de+las+casas+columbus&hl=en&ei=CevYTITsApDCsAOa0dSDCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pedro%20de%20las%20casas%20columbus&f=false). It is also found on p.60 of "The Dominican Tradition" by Zagano ( http://books.google.com/books?id=9A-RF38eK3wC&pg=PA60&dq=pedro+de+las+casas+columbus&hl=en&ei=4OvYTPrHD4z6sAP5xcn5Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=pedro%20de%20las%20casas%20columbus&f=false)
Rosspnelson ( talk) 06:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Done And I used the first book you gave as a citation. Qwyrxian ( talk) 09:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The majority of sailors and staff were moslem arabic moores escaping the final reconquesta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.134.239.46 ( talk) 21:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Although Columbus was not the first explorer to reach the Americas from Europe - i.e. the Norse, led by Leif Ericson[5]; the voyages of which Columbus partook and molded the future of European colonization and encouraged European exploration of foreign lands for centuries to come.
maybe should be changed to as Leif Ericson travels were far too brief
Christopher Columbus is regarded as the first explorer to reach the Americas from Europe an earlier exploration by the the Norse, led by Leif Ericson[5] got as far as Newfoundland but is was the expeditions of which Columbus partook that established the Amercias proper and molded the future of European colonization and encouraged European exploration of foreign lands for centuries to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.11.51 ( talk) 03:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
This sentence is poorly constructed. "Although Columbus was not the first explorer to reach the Americas from Europe - i.e. the Norse, led by Leif Ericson[5] ; the voyages of which Columbus partook molded the future of European colonization and encouraged European exploration of foreign lands for centuries to come."
Please revise (in the English language, not Grade 4 garble).
66.222.237.96 (
talk)
20:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In "Early life" paragraph this sentence has been recently added.
"In Columbus’s new biography just released in Spain, Christopher Columbus was not only a Royal Prince, son of a Portuguese noble lady and of exiled Polish King Wladyslaw III, whose residence in the Island of Madeira, but Columbus was also a Portuguese secret agent working covertly in Spain[14]."
and also added was ref. [14]
I believe this information, which is coming from a newly published and already controversial book, should not be on "Christopher Columbus" page but on "Origin theories of Christopher Columbus" page instead.
84.3.95.71 (
talk)
19:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Done I'm inclined to agree--as a highly different theory (and it sounds like it might even be a fringe theory), it doesn't belong here. Plus, it's confusing, as without a clear context (of the issue being disputed), its unclear how likely this explanation is. I'm going to remove that paragraph. Also, though, I'm going to revise the beginning of the section to add that there is some disagreement about Columbus' origins, and provide a one sentence list with citations pulled from the Origin theories article listing the other most "popular" claims. As far as I can tell, since the bulk of historians support the Genova theory, that is the one that deserves the highest prominence in this article, and, as IP says, readers can go to the other article for more details. Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The new book is pretty impressive in its way of fitting all the pieces of the puzzle in a logical explanation. In the following table the author presents proof of Fernando Colón's statements that his father was descendant of the Kings of Jerusalem and was also related to Colombo "the Younger" who was George Bissipat, a Constantionople Prince (
http://fabpedigree.com/s012/f998868.htm): table is presented on page 365 of «Colon. La Historia Nunca Contada».
"LADISLAO III DESCIENDE DE LOS REYES DE JERUSALÉN
1. Balduino II, rey de Jerusalén 1118-1131
2. Alice de Jerusalén, regente de Antioquía
3. Constança d’ Hauteville, princesa de Antioquía
4. Inés de Antioquía
5. André II, rey de Hungría
6. Bela IV, rey de Hungría 1235-1270 cc María Laskarina
7. Constanza de Hungría
8. Jurij I Lvovitsch, rey de Halicz (Galicia)
9. Anastasia de Galicia
10. Juliana Alexandrovna de Tver
11. Ladislau II Jaguellón, rey de Polonia
12. Ladislau III Jaguellón, rey de Polonia (alias Enrique Alemán en Portugal)
13. Segismundo Henriques (alias Cristóbal Colón en Castilla)"
LADISLAO III DESCIENDE DE LOS EMPERADORES DE BIZANCIO
1. Alexius III Komnenos Angelos, emperador de Bizancio
2. Anna Komnene Angelina cc Theodorus I Komnenos Lascaris, emperador de Nicea
3. Maria Laskarina cc Bela IV, rey de Hungría 1235-1270
4. Constanza de Hungría cc Leo Danilovitsch, rey de Halicz (Galicia)
5. Jurij I Lvovitsch, rey de Halicz (Galicia)
6. Anastasia de Galicia cc Alexander I Michailovitsch, gran-duque de Tver
7. Julianna Alexandrovna Twerska cc Olgierd, Gran-Duque de Lituania
8. Wladislaw (Ladislao) II Jaguellón, rey de Polonia
9. Ladislao III Jaguellón, rey de Polonia (alias Enrique Alemán en Portugal)
10. Segismundo Henriques (alias Cristóbal Colón en Castilla)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
152.16.51.249 (
talk)
18:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
In reference to ClovisPT's question above, I think we need to have at least 1 sentence here listing the alternate theories. With one sentence versus the whole section, I think the weight is correct. Some of those alternate theories, as far as I can tell from the other page, have received significant critical discussion, even though they are mostly rejected. I think having the one sentence here helps point out to people that the other article has more than just a more detailed origin of Columbus, but rather shows that there has been scholarly debate on the issue. Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)