This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 16 June 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was moved to Magellan expedition. |
The Spanish wikipedia has 2 men from Bayona, their names also appear on the monument Diego Carmena Gallego y Vasco Gómez Gallego you can also check this website from a Spanish newspaper that has short biographies of most of the survivors https://www.abc.es/cultura/abci-18-supervivientes-primera-vuelta-mundo-historia-201908110112_noticia.html I don't know how to edit, just wrote this here for you to see this issue. English wikipedia and Spanish wikipedia have 1 difference with regards to the 18 survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.84.122.55 ( talk) 03:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The title of this article should be the "Elcano Circumnavigation" because Juan Sebastian Elcano was the navigator who actually sailed around the world. Another option would be "Magellan-Elcano Circumnvaigation" because Magellan started it (with no intention of circumnavigating the world) and Elcano completed it. 88.13.70.87 ( talk) 16:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I see no evidence that Magellan's fleet was called the "Armada de Molucca" other than in 20th century or later writing in English. The Spanish Wikipedia page on the subject refers to it as "Armada para el descubrimiento de la especería", meaning "Fleet for the discovery of the spice trade." Also where did they land what port did they land at i see no evidence so this dosent help me that much.
[The unsigned comment above was left at the top of this talk page (with no section heading). I moved it down and added a section heading, for the sake of following standard talk page layout. Colin M ( talk) 14:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe someone with more expertise on the subject can help me out here. I'm getting some conflicting information from sources about whether the Armada stopped at/sighted the Cape of Saint Augustine:
the fleet raised Cape Saint Augustine on November 29. Here, Pigafetta relates, the fleet paused to take on fresh food and water
On 6 December a brightly-coloured land-bird was sighted, and next day the earthy scent of the great Brazilian forests came drifting out of the west... They hit the coast a little south of Cape Roque: a perfect landfall after a voyage of almost five thousand miles. They were, however, in Portuguese waters; a landing would have been impolitic, and the armada therefore followed the coastline south... On 13 December they came to an anchorage...
Steering south-west and calling at Teneriffe (Sept. 26-Oct.3), Magellan sighted South America at Cape St Augustine, near Pernambuco on the 29th of November; thence he followed the east coast of the New World down to the La Plata estuary...
we sailed south-west, until we found ourselves at the Cape of Saint Augustin, which is in eight degrees of south latitude, having accomplished 1200 miles. And from Cape Saint Augustin we sailed south
...and we crossed as far as a country named Verzin... This country is from the cape St. Augustine... At this place we had refreshments of victuals, like fowls and meat of calves... We entered into this port the day of Saint Lucy [13th December], before ChristmasFrom this description, it sounds like he's talking about their stop in Rio de Janeiro, and that the mention of the Cape of Saint Augustine is just a reference point when talking about the extent of 'Verzin' (Brazil). There's no mention of anything happening on November 29th.
Tuesday, 29th day of November, I began to take the altitude of the sun whilst following the said voyage; and whilst in the vicinity of Cape St. Augustine, and in 7° altitude on the S. side, and at a distance from the said cape a matter of 27 leagues to S.W.I don't know about telescopic technology back then, but I'm guessing that if they never got closer to the cape than 27 leagues (~= 75 miles), then they wouldn't have been able to see it? I'm guessing Alv(ar)o knew he was in the vicinity of the Cape based on his latitude readings and the latitude of the Cape already being known from prior expeditions.
My best guess based on the sum of these sources is that they didn't land at the Cape or even spot it. The only source that definitively states that they did land is Bergreen, and I'm gradually losing my faith in that source's accuracy. A couple of factual errors I've found so far in Bergreen: 1) it gives the name of Pigafetta's employer as "Andrea Chiericati" (actual name: Francesco Chieregati) 2) Misquotes Pigafetta as saying they arrived at Tenerife on the sixteenth of September (he actually says the twenty-sixth).
I'm curious to hear any other perspectives though. Colin M ( talk) 21:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the current title, Armada de Molucca, fails the WP:TITLE criteria of recognizability and naturalness, and the WP:COMMONNAME policy. As a starting point for better titles, here's the list of titles that currently redirect to Ferdinand Magellan#Voyage of circumnavigation (which has historically been linked to more than this standalone article, because it had better coverage):
(It would be interesting to see how many times each redirect is referred to in articles, but it looks like the rdcheck tool doesn't do that) Also, here are some of the non-English names used for this article:
My first choice at this point would be Magellan's circumnavigation. Most of the titles above vary along two axes:
Regarding split 1, I slightly prefer 'circumnavigation' for reasons of clarity. Magellan participated in more than one voyage/expedition, but only one circumnavigation. Regarding 2, I get the sense there might be some controversy here as a matter of national pride, because Magellan was Portuguese and Elcano was Spanish/Basque? But based on a survey of reliable sources, it seems like there's a majority of authors who use Magellan's name alone when referring to the expedition. As an informal experiment, I scanned through all the books and articles listed in the bibliography of Bergreen 2003, which I consider a fairly reliable and comprehensive source. I looked for works whose titles referred directly to the expedition (i.e. not counting biographies of Magellan or Elcano). One referred to both men (Magallanes-Elcano; o, La primera vuelta al mundo by Amando MELON RUIZ DE GORDEJUELA), and 5 used Magellan's name alone (more if you count 4 different translations of Pigafetta's diary). (Zero used the term Armada de Molucca) Also, Bergreen himself casually throws around the phrase "Magellan's circumnavigation" in the text. So my first choice would be Magellan's circumnavigation. Thoughts? Colin M ( talk) 20:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments by banned user hidden -- IamNotU ( talk) 01:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Once more, I arrive late to a discussion, sorry for that. I agree that Armada de Molucca was an awkward title. However, Magellan's circumnavigation has two drawbacks:
For these two reasons, I would support to move the article to Magellan-Elcano expedition. -- Hispalois ( talk) 06:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Armada de Molucca →
Magellan's circumnavigation – Consistent with how RS most frequently refer to the voyage (based on a survey of titles cited in a recent authoritative work on the topic -
Bergreen 2003). Satisfies the
WP:CRITERIA of recognizability, naturalness and precision much more than the current title. See
above for more detailed reasoning, and discussion of a few other available options.
Colin M (
talk)
22:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments by banned user hidden -- IamNotU ( talk) 01:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Jacob34T: it seems we disagree on whether Elcano should be mentioned in the first sentence. The accounts of the expedition that I've read (mostly Bergreen and Joyner, but also some older sources) don't devote much attention to Elcano's role. For example, according to the index, the first mention of Elcano in (Bergreen, 2003) is 151 pages in, and he's not mentioned again until pg. 292. The book is just a little over 400 pages. I think there are a few reasons he tends to draw less attention than Magellan in historical accounts:
Anyways, I think mentioning him in the second paragraph of the intro is sufficient. His involvement is a significant piece of information about the expedition, but there are some pieces of information that I think are more significant which should be mentioned earlier (e.g. the goal of the expedition, the rough path they followed). Colin M ( talk) 10:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC) BTW, I do think there's a shortage of coverage of Elcano in the body, simply because the section on the return trip to Spain is just a very brief sketch. If you're concerned about Elcano getting due weight, I think that's absolutely the area that needs attention, rather than the intro. Colin M ( talk) 10:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Jacob34T: I want to discuss the sentence you added to the intro:
References
I mentioned this in an edit summary earlier, I don't know if you saw it, but basically, the identity of the "first circumnavigator"(s) is a confusing question that reliable sources don't have a clear answer to. Some say it was Elcano and the 18 survivors (I think Elcano was actually even given a globe by King Charles that said "thou encircled me first" or something), but others say the circumnavigation doesn't need to be all in one continuous journey, and therefore say Magellan was first. The last para of the intro to
Ferdinand Magellan talks about this: The history.com source you cite even goes into this ambiguity. It merely calls Elcano "the most obvious candidate" for first circumnavigator, but then goes on to say "many historians give the honor to Magellan's Malay slave, Enrique". Given how complicated this issue is, I'd rather not get into it in the intro of this article at all. The article is about the expedition itself, and we certainly know that it was the first expedition to do a circumnavigation. The first person or people to go around the world is an issue that's probably more appropriate to get into in Circumnavigation, and the biographical articles on the possibly-first circumnavigators. Does that sound reasonable? Also, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm opposing or second-guessing all your edits. I'm not trying to WP:OWN this article - I just think the intro is especially valuable real estate, since many readers will only read that, and skip or skim the body, so it's especially important to optimize it. I'm glad to have someone else taking an interest in editing this article, and I hope you'll stick around! Colin M ( talk) 17:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
|
Ok, I know there was discussion about this issue a few months ago, and seems to be closed, but I can't avoid pointing out that, no matter what, "Magellan's circumnavigation" is a unaccurate title for the historic event described in this article.
I have carefully read the talkpage and I can't agree with arguments supporting current title: "Magellan's circumnavigation". The fact is that Magellan didn't circumnavigate the globe in the 1519-1522 expedition as he died in the Philippines. This title is therefore clearly improper, misleading and should be changed under Wikipedia's article titles Policies (mainly Precision and Recognizability).
IMHO:
I would appreciate to hold new discusion on this issue again before filing a new Requested Move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.223.79 ( talk) 23:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I can't help but to point out that the title is misleading, wrongly used. It is true that Magellan was the person in charge of the expedition for the Spanish crown, but he never made it back, not even close. The matter of the fact is that, although unplanned, the person that really accomplished the first true circumnavigation of the world (the first documented and verified) was Juan Sebastián Elcano, an NCO of the expedition. Since we're discussing the facts here (of which the circumnavigation of earth is the most prominent one) it becomes evident that the acknowledgement in the title of the article blatantly ignores history. And just to make it clear, I'm not a Spaniard nor do I want to elevate the Spanish maritime and historical legacy (which is undeniable) but it's important to call out this arbitrary aware omission of historical facts. I can see by reading other threads of discussion related to this here that I'm not the only person who considers that the title is just wrong. I hope this can be corrected in the light of the known history. Augustusrex1210 ( talk) 16:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Magellan's_circumnavigation#Loss_of_Santiago currently says Serrano/the Santiago left San Julian in July and they were wrecked in a storm in August, but I'm thinking that's probably not correct. Joyner (p. 145) says they left around May 1, and was wrecked in Santa Cruz on May 22. Which is a pretty huge difference.
I think the July/August dates came from (Cameron 1974), which is more of a popular account than a high-quality historiographic source, so I have no hesitation about overriding it. However, at Timeline of the Magellan–Elcano circumnavigation there's also an entry saying that the Santiago discovered the Santa Cruz on August 5, which is cited to (Bergreen 2003, p. 156). That gives me a little more cause to wonder.
Could someone who has a copy of Bergreen at hand check that page number to see if it actually says that? I wouldn't be surprised if it were just a transcription error (possibly committed by me). Or could anyone double-check what any other high-quality sources say about the dates here? I can't find any decent online sources that go into that much detail, and the only book I have at hand ATM is Joyner. Colin M ( talk) 17:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@ JMetrope: thank you for your addition of this section. It appears thoroughly written and thoroughly-researched, but I don't think it's quite ready for primetime. The main issue I see is one of WP:DUE weight. I wouldn't exactly say I'm a Magellan expert, but I've read a few of the standard English-language works on the expedition, and they all say that Magellan underestimated the size of the pacific. The theory that he accurately estimated the size of the pacific seems to come essentially from the writing of one "Xavier de Castro", which, depending on how reliable we assess his work to be, would make it at least a minority point of view, or at worst a WP:FRINGE theory. Yet, with this section, we have 1 sentence about Magellan underestimating the size of the ocean, and 10 paragraphs about Castro's theory. That seems like wildly WP:UNDUE weight.
I think it could be appropriate to restore information about this theory in some form, but it would help if you could do some of the following:
Also, if you can provide any evidence of this Xavier de Castro's reliability, that would help. After a bit of googling, it seems like this is a pseudonym for "Michel Chandeigne", who is the founder of "éditions Chandeigne", the publisher of Castro (2019), Castro (2018), and Castro et al (2010). So that seems like... a bit of a red flag.
(The same general comments apply to other ideas you've introduced with attribution to Castro, such as there being ~230 crew members rather than ~270) Colin M ( talk) 23:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The expedition is described in the lead as a "Spanish expedition". However, I wonder if "Castilian expedition" would be more exact. I may be wrong but the affairs of Spanish America were mostly reserved to people and institutions of the Crown of Castile with the Mediterranean being the preserve of the Crown of Aragon. I don't know if Spain was formally considered one country by then or just a combination of the different kingdoms of Charles. From Crown of Castile:
-- Error ( talk) 19:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Two of the surviving sailors are listed as being from 'Rodas'. The wikilink for Rodas goes to a Cuban town founded in the 19th century. This cannot be correct but I do not know what Rodas refers to otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.181.137 ( talk) 15:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Magellan expedition. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 ( talk) 11:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Magellan's circumnavigation → ? – As previously discussed the article title should be modified as it is misleading and not accurate. Magellan's expedition is one thing, other thing is the first circumnavigation of the Earth. This do not underestimate the great Magellan's legacy and achievements, i.e. succeeding the first expedition goal when finding the interoceanic passage through the Americas and then crossing the Pacific. The expedition was led by Magellan until his death in 1521, then others took command of it, ultimately Elcano, to continue the search for the Spice Islands, the expedition's ultimate goal achieved by Elcano. Only then the latter decided to return to Spain sailing westwards achieving the circumnavigation.
Apart from any good reasons already provided here above, consider that Portugal and Spain have recently agreed to submit to the UNESCO a joint candidacy for the Magellan-Elcano expedition be granted the status of World Intangible cultural heritage.
In any case Magellan's circumnavigation is not at all an option. I propose, considering all the above plus the insights provided in previous discussions above, to change the title to Magellan-Elcano Expedition.
This outcome should settle the main controversies and issues at stake: 1. Ends the debate around the fact that Magellan did not achieve the circumnavigation but Elcano. 2. While Magellan led the expedition until his death, Elcano assumed command thereafter to complete the mission. 3. The event is today well known or depicted under that name 4. It follows the wikipedia practice of other articles on expeditions' titles which designate, precisely, the expedition name and not the outcome (see i.e. French Geodesic Mission to the Equator, Malaspina expedition, First voyage of James Cook, Expédition Particulière, United States Exploring Expedition, Challenger expedition, British Arctic Expedition or Great White Fleet
Many thanks PLUS ULTRA CARLOS ( talk) 03:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't help but to point out that the title is misleading, wrongly used. It is true that Magellan was the person in charge of the expedition for the Spanish crown, but he never made it back, not even close. The matter of the fact is that, although unplanned, the person that really accomplished the first true circumnavigation of the world (the first documented and verified) was Juan Sebastián Elcano, an NCO of the expedition. Since we're discussing the facts here (of which the circumnavigation of earth is the most prominent one) it becomes evident that the acknowledgement in the title of the article blatantly ignores history. And just to make it clear, I'm not a Spaniard nor do I want to elevate the Spanish maritime legacy (which is undeniable) but it's important to call out this arbitrary aware omission of historical facts. I can see by reading other threads of discussion related to this here that I'm not the only person who considers that the title is just wrong. I hope this can be corrected in the light of the known history. Magellan-Elcano expedition or Magellan-Elcano circumnavigation would be better, more accurate options for the title IMHO. Augustusrex1210 ( talk) 16:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
did meggelan ever visit the Portuguese colonies in india? Jff69420lolz ( talk) 16:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
You need to get the references sorted. They are shot to pieces. That is a proverb, but it is accurate. scope_creep Talk 15:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
"...was the first voyage around the world in recorded history" Is this necessary? When did recorded history start? Even if we assume it applies everywhere at the same time and take a conservative view that it started in AD 1000, what is the likelihood of anyone else having done it before then? Almost nil I think. Shouldn't we therefore remove that sentence? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 06:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Captains, pilots, Enrique, and the 18 lucky ones on the Victoria obviously deserve direct mention here. The second and third shifts of circumnavigators are certainly notable enough to deserve full inclusion, too, although that can be done on the list of circumnavigations and the separate pages on the Trinidad and Victoria. Personally, I think the full list of known crew are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, although it should be divided by ships or put onto a new separate subpage like Crew of the Magellan expedition.
In any case, I do think there should be more granularity in the treatment of the crew here. Some important things that seem to be missing:
— LlywelynII 09:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
are not the weight of the ships. They were their
capacity. Also, the original figures were certainly in
toneladas, which are calqued as the word "tons" but aren't at all the English unit ton of the period, let alone modern
tonnage. Tons are a huge mess everywhere across Europe but generally the
traditional English tons were reckoned around 100 cu. ft. Scholars think the Sevillian tonelada of the period was nearly exactly the Bordeaux "sea ton" of about 1.42 m³ (almost exactly half the English number).
The only reason not to just change "ton" to "tonelada" here and link to their sourced article that it's unclear whether the (eg) our sources' "110-ton Trinidad" is actually just a lazy way of writing "110-tonelada Trinidad" (i.e., the "c. 55-ton Trinidad") or if our sources already approximated the conversion to English units without saying so and the original Spanish sources were talking about the 220-tonelada Trinidad. — LlywelynII 09:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, it seems like it gets even stupider: The historians seem to have directly calqued the local Biscayan tonel (" tun") from the records of the expedition without converting it either into English language tons or standard Spanish toneladas ("tunful"). Cf. Walls y Merino (1899), which includes the documents from the Spanish archives. — LlywelynII 23:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
don't really need their accent mark in English (although it's kinda prettier) but they certainly need some kind of conversion to be meaningful to any reader. Our current overview of Spanish currency is hilariously bad (~85 characters long) and the separate maravedí article just says "it was a lot of different things at different times" and skips over the relevant part of Spanish history here entirely. At the same time, just saying "it was exactly $115,000,000 (1980)" based on an inflation converter is fairly useless since the purchasing power was so completely different and modern currencies inflate so quickly.
Probably the cleanest way to set up an explanation would be to use {{
efn}} notes since those are already set up, providing the methodology. The generic way to handle this that I've seen is that the conventional money at the time was actually the
Venetian ducat (3.545 g of gold at 99.47% purity) and Sevillian merchants reckoned the maravedí
unit of account at 375 to the ducat. (For what it's worth,
that's implicitly exactly the exchange rate being used by this discussion of Magellan's ships and their price.) This could produce a conversion similar to
People who want to see it in dollars, euros, or yuan RMBs could then look up the day's spot price but understand that it was a very different system at the time. I think this would help understand the values much more clearly—82 kg of gold is much easier to grok than 8.75m maravedis and much easier to grok correctly than just writing $5m followed by a bunch of caveats—and still be easy to fix if (eg) a subsequent search shows that in 1519 the exchange rates were slightly different for whatever reason. — LlywelynII 09:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
...and of course it turns out the Spanish had their own knock-off ducats that were slightly smaller than the Venetian ones and those are the ones that traded at a value of 1 to 375 maravedís. So the actual entry should go something like:
— LlywelynII 23:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
can be used as a source for Ruy Faleiro getting pulled for mental health reasons. It also has an extensive discussion about the document he prepared for Magellan before the voyage and the way the expedition subsequently went about doing its reckoning. Particularly important points are that a date in one of the sources is obviously a typo based on the actual timing of a conjunction, plus discussion of the honesty in the calculations of Pigafetta, Albo, and the rest w/r/t the effect of their calculations on Spanish interests. — LlywelynII 04:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I know that the first sentence is now longer, but I wanted to be concise. Magellan's expedition goal was to go the Molukas sailing westward, and not sailing through Portuguese waters. Then, they should return by the same way. So, the term Magellan's expedition should be applied to that part. Eventually, after Magellan's death and some changes in leadership, two ships remained. One of them, the one leaded by Elcano, decided to continue sailing westward and circumnavigate the world. But this wasn't the goal for the expedition. I have tried to make this evident in the first sentence, but I aknowledge that it may be longer now. Theklan ( talk) 08:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
As a NON-historian, I have some minor questions about the article. I think another article somewhere clarified that astronomer and astrologer were evolving terms at the time. (Was Magellan a Libra? /s) ...With the international composition of the crew, did they find it difficult to communicate? I suppose it's sufficient as is. ...Shouldn't it be Islas Infortunadas? (two capital I letters). ....Should south-west be changed to southwest? ....Should the article indicate (as mentioned in Exploration of the Pacific) that Balboa named it the "South Sea"? ...I'm not quite clear why the King of Portugal was initially trying to arrest Magellan. ...Was charcoal a typical disguise method? Gprobins ( talk) 14:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
User:LlywelynII, since you seemed informed about this and raised first the problem in the past, do you know if this "Magellan-Elcano expedition" and "Elcano succeeded Magellan" terminology in the intro and infobox is backed up by books and sources? My doubt is that the position and role of Elcano is not presented correctly. We have the problem that very weird language on Elcano and Magellan has been introduced and pushed (over many years) by essentially one agenda-driven and blocked user (and his socks) who disregarded or twisted the sources in various wikipedia articles. To my knowledge, Elcano is the captain of the only ship that managed to return at the starting point, but was he promoted to Magellan's place after the latter died? I fear this language is OR and/or undue weight. But I may be wrong and I'd like to know what people with a better knowledge on the matter have read in books and sources. Barjimoa ( talk) 09:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 16 June 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was moved to Magellan expedition. |
The Spanish wikipedia has 2 men from Bayona, their names also appear on the monument Diego Carmena Gallego y Vasco Gómez Gallego you can also check this website from a Spanish newspaper that has short biographies of most of the survivors https://www.abc.es/cultura/abci-18-supervivientes-primera-vuelta-mundo-historia-201908110112_noticia.html I don't know how to edit, just wrote this here for you to see this issue. English wikipedia and Spanish wikipedia have 1 difference with regards to the 18 survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.84.122.55 ( talk) 03:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The title of this article should be the "Elcano Circumnavigation" because Juan Sebastian Elcano was the navigator who actually sailed around the world. Another option would be "Magellan-Elcano Circumnvaigation" because Magellan started it (with no intention of circumnavigating the world) and Elcano completed it. 88.13.70.87 ( talk) 16:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I see no evidence that Magellan's fleet was called the "Armada de Molucca" other than in 20th century or later writing in English. The Spanish Wikipedia page on the subject refers to it as "Armada para el descubrimiento de la especería", meaning "Fleet for the discovery of the spice trade." Also where did they land what port did they land at i see no evidence so this dosent help me that much.
[The unsigned comment above was left at the top of this talk page (with no section heading). I moved it down and added a section heading, for the sake of following standard talk page layout. Colin M ( talk) 14:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe someone with more expertise on the subject can help me out here. I'm getting some conflicting information from sources about whether the Armada stopped at/sighted the Cape of Saint Augustine:
the fleet raised Cape Saint Augustine on November 29. Here, Pigafetta relates, the fleet paused to take on fresh food and water
On 6 December a brightly-coloured land-bird was sighted, and next day the earthy scent of the great Brazilian forests came drifting out of the west... They hit the coast a little south of Cape Roque: a perfect landfall after a voyage of almost five thousand miles. They were, however, in Portuguese waters; a landing would have been impolitic, and the armada therefore followed the coastline south... On 13 December they came to an anchorage...
Steering south-west and calling at Teneriffe (Sept. 26-Oct.3), Magellan sighted South America at Cape St Augustine, near Pernambuco on the 29th of November; thence he followed the east coast of the New World down to the La Plata estuary...
we sailed south-west, until we found ourselves at the Cape of Saint Augustin, which is in eight degrees of south latitude, having accomplished 1200 miles. And from Cape Saint Augustin we sailed south
...and we crossed as far as a country named Verzin... This country is from the cape St. Augustine... At this place we had refreshments of victuals, like fowls and meat of calves... We entered into this port the day of Saint Lucy [13th December], before ChristmasFrom this description, it sounds like he's talking about their stop in Rio de Janeiro, and that the mention of the Cape of Saint Augustine is just a reference point when talking about the extent of 'Verzin' (Brazil). There's no mention of anything happening on November 29th.
Tuesday, 29th day of November, I began to take the altitude of the sun whilst following the said voyage; and whilst in the vicinity of Cape St. Augustine, and in 7° altitude on the S. side, and at a distance from the said cape a matter of 27 leagues to S.W.I don't know about telescopic technology back then, but I'm guessing that if they never got closer to the cape than 27 leagues (~= 75 miles), then they wouldn't have been able to see it? I'm guessing Alv(ar)o knew he was in the vicinity of the Cape based on his latitude readings and the latitude of the Cape already being known from prior expeditions.
My best guess based on the sum of these sources is that they didn't land at the Cape or even spot it. The only source that definitively states that they did land is Bergreen, and I'm gradually losing my faith in that source's accuracy. A couple of factual errors I've found so far in Bergreen: 1) it gives the name of Pigafetta's employer as "Andrea Chiericati" (actual name: Francesco Chieregati) 2) Misquotes Pigafetta as saying they arrived at Tenerife on the sixteenth of September (he actually says the twenty-sixth).
I'm curious to hear any other perspectives though. Colin M ( talk) 21:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the current title, Armada de Molucca, fails the WP:TITLE criteria of recognizability and naturalness, and the WP:COMMONNAME policy. As a starting point for better titles, here's the list of titles that currently redirect to Ferdinand Magellan#Voyage of circumnavigation (which has historically been linked to more than this standalone article, because it had better coverage):
(It would be interesting to see how many times each redirect is referred to in articles, but it looks like the rdcheck tool doesn't do that) Also, here are some of the non-English names used for this article:
My first choice at this point would be Magellan's circumnavigation. Most of the titles above vary along two axes:
Regarding split 1, I slightly prefer 'circumnavigation' for reasons of clarity. Magellan participated in more than one voyage/expedition, but only one circumnavigation. Regarding 2, I get the sense there might be some controversy here as a matter of national pride, because Magellan was Portuguese and Elcano was Spanish/Basque? But based on a survey of reliable sources, it seems like there's a majority of authors who use Magellan's name alone when referring to the expedition. As an informal experiment, I scanned through all the books and articles listed in the bibliography of Bergreen 2003, which I consider a fairly reliable and comprehensive source. I looked for works whose titles referred directly to the expedition (i.e. not counting biographies of Magellan or Elcano). One referred to both men (Magallanes-Elcano; o, La primera vuelta al mundo by Amando MELON RUIZ DE GORDEJUELA), and 5 used Magellan's name alone (more if you count 4 different translations of Pigafetta's diary). (Zero used the term Armada de Molucca) Also, Bergreen himself casually throws around the phrase "Magellan's circumnavigation" in the text. So my first choice would be Magellan's circumnavigation. Thoughts? Colin M ( talk) 20:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments by banned user hidden -- IamNotU ( talk) 01:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Once more, I arrive late to a discussion, sorry for that. I agree that Armada de Molucca was an awkward title. However, Magellan's circumnavigation has two drawbacks:
For these two reasons, I would support to move the article to Magellan-Elcano expedition. -- Hispalois ( talk) 06:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Armada de Molucca →
Magellan's circumnavigation – Consistent with how RS most frequently refer to the voyage (based on a survey of titles cited in a recent authoritative work on the topic -
Bergreen 2003). Satisfies the
WP:CRITERIA of recognizability, naturalness and precision much more than the current title. See
above for more detailed reasoning, and discussion of a few other available options.
Colin M (
talk)
22:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments by banned user hidden -- IamNotU ( talk) 01:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Jacob34T: it seems we disagree on whether Elcano should be mentioned in the first sentence. The accounts of the expedition that I've read (mostly Bergreen and Joyner, but also some older sources) don't devote much attention to Elcano's role. For example, according to the index, the first mention of Elcano in (Bergreen, 2003) is 151 pages in, and he's not mentioned again until pg. 292. The book is just a little over 400 pages. I think there are a few reasons he tends to draw less attention than Magellan in historical accounts:
Anyways, I think mentioning him in the second paragraph of the intro is sufficient. His involvement is a significant piece of information about the expedition, but there are some pieces of information that I think are more significant which should be mentioned earlier (e.g. the goal of the expedition, the rough path they followed). Colin M ( talk) 10:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC) BTW, I do think there's a shortage of coverage of Elcano in the body, simply because the section on the return trip to Spain is just a very brief sketch. If you're concerned about Elcano getting due weight, I think that's absolutely the area that needs attention, rather than the intro. Colin M ( talk) 10:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Jacob34T: I want to discuss the sentence you added to the intro:
References
I mentioned this in an edit summary earlier, I don't know if you saw it, but basically, the identity of the "first circumnavigator"(s) is a confusing question that reliable sources don't have a clear answer to. Some say it was Elcano and the 18 survivors (I think Elcano was actually even given a globe by King Charles that said "thou encircled me first" or something), but others say the circumnavigation doesn't need to be all in one continuous journey, and therefore say Magellan was first. The last para of the intro to
Ferdinand Magellan talks about this: The history.com source you cite even goes into this ambiguity. It merely calls Elcano "the most obvious candidate" for first circumnavigator, but then goes on to say "many historians give the honor to Magellan's Malay slave, Enrique". Given how complicated this issue is, I'd rather not get into it in the intro of this article at all. The article is about the expedition itself, and we certainly know that it was the first expedition to do a circumnavigation. The first person or people to go around the world is an issue that's probably more appropriate to get into in Circumnavigation, and the biographical articles on the possibly-first circumnavigators. Does that sound reasonable? Also, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm opposing or second-guessing all your edits. I'm not trying to WP:OWN this article - I just think the intro is especially valuable real estate, since many readers will only read that, and skip or skim the body, so it's especially important to optimize it. I'm glad to have someone else taking an interest in editing this article, and I hope you'll stick around! Colin M ( talk) 17:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
|
Ok, I know there was discussion about this issue a few months ago, and seems to be closed, but I can't avoid pointing out that, no matter what, "Magellan's circumnavigation" is a unaccurate title for the historic event described in this article.
I have carefully read the talkpage and I can't agree with arguments supporting current title: "Magellan's circumnavigation". The fact is that Magellan didn't circumnavigate the globe in the 1519-1522 expedition as he died in the Philippines. This title is therefore clearly improper, misleading and should be changed under Wikipedia's article titles Policies (mainly Precision and Recognizability).
IMHO:
I would appreciate to hold new discusion on this issue again before filing a new Requested Move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.223.79 ( talk) 23:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I can't help but to point out that the title is misleading, wrongly used. It is true that Magellan was the person in charge of the expedition for the Spanish crown, but he never made it back, not even close. The matter of the fact is that, although unplanned, the person that really accomplished the first true circumnavigation of the world (the first documented and verified) was Juan Sebastián Elcano, an NCO of the expedition. Since we're discussing the facts here (of which the circumnavigation of earth is the most prominent one) it becomes evident that the acknowledgement in the title of the article blatantly ignores history. And just to make it clear, I'm not a Spaniard nor do I want to elevate the Spanish maritime and historical legacy (which is undeniable) but it's important to call out this arbitrary aware omission of historical facts. I can see by reading other threads of discussion related to this here that I'm not the only person who considers that the title is just wrong. I hope this can be corrected in the light of the known history. Augustusrex1210 ( talk) 16:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Magellan's_circumnavigation#Loss_of_Santiago currently says Serrano/the Santiago left San Julian in July and they were wrecked in a storm in August, but I'm thinking that's probably not correct. Joyner (p. 145) says they left around May 1, and was wrecked in Santa Cruz on May 22. Which is a pretty huge difference.
I think the July/August dates came from (Cameron 1974), which is more of a popular account than a high-quality historiographic source, so I have no hesitation about overriding it. However, at Timeline of the Magellan–Elcano circumnavigation there's also an entry saying that the Santiago discovered the Santa Cruz on August 5, which is cited to (Bergreen 2003, p. 156). That gives me a little more cause to wonder.
Could someone who has a copy of Bergreen at hand check that page number to see if it actually says that? I wouldn't be surprised if it were just a transcription error (possibly committed by me). Or could anyone double-check what any other high-quality sources say about the dates here? I can't find any decent online sources that go into that much detail, and the only book I have at hand ATM is Joyner. Colin M ( talk) 17:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@ JMetrope: thank you for your addition of this section. It appears thoroughly written and thoroughly-researched, but I don't think it's quite ready for primetime. The main issue I see is one of WP:DUE weight. I wouldn't exactly say I'm a Magellan expert, but I've read a few of the standard English-language works on the expedition, and they all say that Magellan underestimated the size of the pacific. The theory that he accurately estimated the size of the pacific seems to come essentially from the writing of one "Xavier de Castro", which, depending on how reliable we assess his work to be, would make it at least a minority point of view, or at worst a WP:FRINGE theory. Yet, with this section, we have 1 sentence about Magellan underestimating the size of the ocean, and 10 paragraphs about Castro's theory. That seems like wildly WP:UNDUE weight.
I think it could be appropriate to restore information about this theory in some form, but it would help if you could do some of the following:
Also, if you can provide any evidence of this Xavier de Castro's reliability, that would help. After a bit of googling, it seems like this is a pseudonym for "Michel Chandeigne", who is the founder of "éditions Chandeigne", the publisher of Castro (2019), Castro (2018), and Castro et al (2010). So that seems like... a bit of a red flag.
(The same general comments apply to other ideas you've introduced with attribution to Castro, such as there being ~230 crew members rather than ~270) Colin M ( talk) 23:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The expedition is described in the lead as a "Spanish expedition". However, I wonder if "Castilian expedition" would be more exact. I may be wrong but the affairs of Spanish America were mostly reserved to people and institutions of the Crown of Castile with the Mediterranean being the preserve of the Crown of Aragon. I don't know if Spain was formally considered one country by then or just a combination of the different kingdoms of Charles. From Crown of Castile:
-- Error ( talk) 19:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Two of the surviving sailors are listed as being from 'Rodas'. The wikilink for Rodas goes to a Cuban town founded in the 19th century. This cannot be correct but I do not know what Rodas refers to otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.181.137 ( talk) 15:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Magellan expedition. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 ( talk) 11:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Magellan's circumnavigation → ? – As previously discussed the article title should be modified as it is misleading and not accurate. Magellan's expedition is one thing, other thing is the first circumnavigation of the Earth. This do not underestimate the great Magellan's legacy and achievements, i.e. succeeding the first expedition goal when finding the interoceanic passage through the Americas and then crossing the Pacific. The expedition was led by Magellan until his death in 1521, then others took command of it, ultimately Elcano, to continue the search for the Spice Islands, the expedition's ultimate goal achieved by Elcano. Only then the latter decided to return to Spain sailing westwards achieving the circumnavigation.
Apart from any good reasons already provided here above, consider that Portugal and Spain have recently agreed to submit to the UNESCO a joint candidacy for the Magellan-Elcano expedition be granted the status of World Intangible cultural heritage.
In any case Magellan's circumnavigation is not at all an option. I propose, considering all the above plus the insights provided in previous discussions above, to change the title to Magellan-Elcano Expedition.
This outcome should settle the main controversies and issues at stake: 1. Ends the debate around the fact that Magellan did not achieve the circumnavigation but Elcano. 2. While Magellan led the expedition until his death, Elcano assumed command thereafter to complete the mission. 3. The event is today well known or depicted under that name 4. It follows the wikipedia practice of other articles on expeditions' titles which designate, precisely, the expedition name and not the outcome (see i.e. French Geodesic Mission to the Equator, Malaspina expedition, First voyage of James Cook, Expédition Particulière, United States Exploring Expedition, Challenger expedition, British Arctic Expedition or Great White Fleet
Many thanks PLUS ULTRA CARLOS ( talk) 03:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't help but to point out that the title is misleading, wrongly used. It is true that Magellan was the person in charge of the expedition for the Spanish crown, but he never made it back, not even close. The matter of the fact is that, although unplanned, the person that really accomplished the first true circumnavigation of the world (the first documented and verified) was Juan Sebastián Elcano, an NCO of the expedition. Since we're discussing the facts here (of which the circumnavigation of earth is the most prominent one) it becomes evident that the acknowledgement in the title of the article blatantly ignores history. And just to make it clear, I'm not a Spaniard nor do I want to elevate the Spanish maritime legacy (which is undeniable) but it's important to call out this arbitrary aware omission of historical facts. I can see by reading other threads of discussion related to this here that I'm not the only person who considers that the title is just wrong. I hope this can be corrected in the light of the known history. Magellan-Elcano expedition or Magellan-Elcano circumnavigation would be better, more accurate options for the title IMHO. Augustusrex1210 ( talk) 16:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
did meggelan ever visit the Portuguese colonies in india? Jff69420lolz ( talk) 16:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
You need to get the references sorted. They are shot to pieces. That is a proverb, but it is accurate. scope_creep Talk 15:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
"...was the first voyage around the world in recorded history" Is this necessary? When did recorded history start? Even if we assume it applies everywhere at the same time and take a conservative view that it started in AD 1000, what is the likelihood of anyone else having done it before then? Almost nil I think. Shouldn't we therefore remove that sentence? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 06:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Captains, pilots, Enrique, and the 18 lucky ones on the Victoria obviously deserve direct mention here. The second and third shifts of circumnavigators are certainly notable enough to deserve full inclusion, too, although that can be done on the list of circumnavigations and the separate pages on the Trinidad and Victoria. Personally, I think the full list of known crew are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, although it should be divided by ships or put onto a new separate subpage like Crew of the Magellan expedition.
In any case, I do think there should be more granularity in the treatment of the crew here. Some important things that seem to be missing:
— LlywelynII 09:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
are not the weight of the ships. They were their
capacity. Also, the original figures were certainly in
toneladas, which are calqued as the word "tons" but aren't at all the English unit ton of the period, let alone modern
tonnage. Tons are a huge mess everywhere across Europe but generally the
traditional English tons were reckoned around 100 cu. ft. Scholars think the Sevillian tonelada of the period was nearly exactly the Bordeaux "sea ton" of about 1.42 m³ (almost exactly half the English number).
The only reason not to just change "ton" to "tonelada" here and link to their sourced article that it's unclear whether the (eg) our sources' "110-ton Trinidad" is actually just a lazy way of writing "110-tonelada Trinidad" (i.e., the "c. 55-ton Trinidad") or if our sources already approximated the conversion to English units without saying so and the original Spanish sources were talking about the 220-tonelada Trinidad. — LlywelynII 09:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, it seems like it gets even stupider: The historians seem to have directly calqued the local Biscayan tonel (" tun") from the records of the expedition without converting it either into English language tons or standard Spanish toneladas ("tunful"). Cf. Walls y Merino (1899), which includes the documents from the Spanish archives. — LlywelynII 23:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
don't really need their accent mark in English (although it's kinda prettier) but they certainly need some kind of conversion to be meaningful to any reader. Our current overview of Spanish currency is hilariously bad (~85 characters long) and the separate maravedí article just says "it was a lot of different things at different times" and skips over the relevant part of Spanish history here entirely. At the same time, just saying "it was exactly $115,000,000 (1980)" based on an inflation converter is fairly useless since the purchasing power was so completely different and modern currencies inflate so quickly.
Probably the cleanest way to set up an explanation would be to use {{
efn}} notes since those are already set up, providing the methodology. The generic way to handle this that I've seen is that the conventional money at the time was actually the
Venetian ducat (3.545 g of gold at 99.47% purity) and Sevillian merchants reckoned the maravedí
unit of account at 375 to the ducat. (For what it's worth,
that's implicitly exactly the exchange rate being used by this discussion of Magellan's ships and their price.) This could produce a conversion similar to
People who want to see it in dollars, euros, or yuan RMBs could then look up the day's spot price but understand that it was a very different system at the time. I think this would help understand the values much more clearly—82 kg of gold is much easier to grok than 8.75m maravedis and much easier to grok correctly than just writing $5m followed by a bunch of caveats—and still be easy to fix if (eg) a subsequent search shows that in 1519 the exchange rates were slightly different for whatever reason. — LlywelynII 09:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
...and of course it turns out the Spanish had their own knock-off ducats that were slightly smaller than the Venetian ones and those are the ones that traded at a value of 1 to 375 maravedís. So the actual entry should go something like:
— LlywelynII 23:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
can be used as a source for Ruy Faleiro getting pulled for mental health reasons. It also has an extensive discussion about the document he prepared for Magellan before the voyage and the way the expedition subsequently went about doing its reckoning. Particularly important points are that a date in one of the sources is obviously a typo based on the actual timing of a conjunction, plus discussion of the honesty in the calculations of Pigafetta, Albo, and the rest w/r/t the effect of their calculations on Spanish interests. — LlywelynII 04:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I know that the first sentence is now longer, but I wanted to be concise. Magellan's expedition goal was to go the Molukas sailing westward, and not sailing through Portuguese waters. Then, they should return by the same way. So, the term Magellan's expedition should be applied to that part. Eventually, after Magellan's death and some changes in leadership, two ships remained. One of them, the one leaded by Elcano, decided to continue sailing westward and circumnavigate the world. But this wasn't the goal for the expedition. I have tried to make this evident in the first sentence, but I aknowledge that it may be longer now. Theklan ( talk) 08:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
As a NON-historian, I have some minor questions about the article. I think another article somewhere clarified that astronomer and astrologer were evolving terms at the time. (Was Magellan a Libra? /s) ...With the international composition of the crew, did they find it difficult to communicate? I suppose it's sufficient as is. ...Shouldn't it be Islas Infortunadas? (two capital I letters). ....Should south-west be changed to southwest? ....Should the article indicate (as mentioned in Exploration of the Pacific) that Balboa named it the "South Sea"? ...I'm not quite clear why the King of Portugal was initially trying to arrest Magellan. ...Was charcoal a typical disguise method? Gprobins ( talk) 14:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
User:LlywelynII, since you seemed informed about this and raised first the problem in the past, do you know if this "Magellan-Elcano expedition" and "Elcano succeeded Magellan" terminology in the intro and infobox is backed up by books and sources? My doubt is that the position and role of Elcano is not presented correctly. We have the problem that very weird language on Elcano and Magellan has been introduced and pushed (over many years) by essentially one agenda-driven and blocked user (and his socks) who disregarded or twisted the sources in various wikipedia articles. To my knowledge, Elcano is the captain of the only ship that managed to return at the starting point, but was he promoted to Magellan's place after the latter died? I fear this language is OR and/or undue weight. But I may be wrong and I'd like to know what people with a better knowledge on the matter have read in books and sources. Barjimoa ( talk) 09:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)