Inquisitor Thaken | 04 Nov 2009 11:21 a.m. PST |
To me there is no question but that he was the greatest explorer of all time. Despite faulty information and some very wrong-headed beliefs, his courage and dedication were almost unbelievable. I think he is worthy of all the praise he used to get. Others will, no doubt, think differently. However, anyone who does should read the story of the Egg of Columbus. link Note that whether or not this story is, in fact, Apocryphal, its point is well made. |
doc mcb | 04 Nov 2009 1:03 p.m. PST |
|
The Black Tower | 04 Nov 2009 1:08 p.m. PST |
Well it was just as well America was in the way or he would have had a mutiny on his hands in another week! I don't think he would have made it to Asia Lucky Nitwit! |
dwight shrute | 04 Nov 2009 1:29 p.m. PST |
aye lucky
mainly cos he didn't get sunk but the uso's
unidentified submarine objects
subject of an alien loving programme i saw on discovery
apparently its in his diary
|
Dr Mathias | 04 Nov 2009 2:04 p.m. PST |
After reading '1421' and spending some time researching some of the oceanic maps that pre-dated his voyage, I think he knew where he was going, or at least knew he was for sure going to hit land. I think Columbus is overrated. One of my Native American friends put it quite well when he said (on Columbus Day) "We don't like him very much". 1421 has a lot of spurious scholarship but the main concept is plausible, and I think Columbus had some rudimentary 'inside information'. |
RockyRusso | 04 Nov 2009 3:57 p.m. PST |
Hi Reading actual scholarly references, would lead one to consider 1491 or the other 1421 book as base speculation. What is clear is that the myths about colombus are wrong. A number of people in the day knew something was out there. Partly based on "rutter" style navigation which consists of minute descriptions of the local conditions to "navigate". A number of sailers had made note in the Rutturs that suggested land close by. What Colombus did was trick the crown into funding the trip. That simple. As for your native american friend. He is just as subject to revisionism as a lot of other people. His folk were living in the old stone age. Crap, they were still doing core rather than flake flint knapping! If he believes that his culture was so wonderful that having half the kids die in childbirth, and living to an age enough to know your grandchildren is an event worth noting, then he is a fool. Civilization in the west was invented in mesopotamia and egypt, and the stone age cultures around it were dragged kicking and screaming into the age of copper and bronze. There was a lot of loss of life. And a lot of great plagues by accident. ALL of us are decendants from that "evil". Making a special case for the american indians is special pleading in my mind. Blue Fez soon? Rocky |
Hrothgar Berserk | 04 Nov 2009 4:30 p.m. PST |
I still think Columbus, Magellan, Cortez, Hudson, Champlain etc were all great men, but I'm immune to the impossible utopian perfectionism of these times. If this perfectionism was employed universally and objectively I might take more heed of it, but it seems mainly aimed at tearing down all Western historical figures. I was able to visit Magellan's Cross in 2007. Now the site of a nice 18th century basilica in Cebu, R.of P. Now it's incased in metal to keep the original wood from rotting away. I also landed at Mactan Island were Magellan was killed in battle. |
Mark Plant | 04 Nov 2009 4:43 p.m. PST |
There is no doubt Columbus was a nitwit. His behaviour AFTER discovering America shows that. He insisted, despite all evidence to the contrary, that he had found the Indies. He got the distances to China all wrong, as the experts said, and was just lucky that he hit something else instead. Sure people suspected that there was something there – fishermen in particular – but Columbus wanted to get to the Indies, NOT to discover anything else. He failed utterly in what he set out to do, which makes it lucky that what he did do was worthwhile. |
doug redshirt | 04 Nov 2009 5:34 p.m. PST |
They knew the world was round. The problem was that there were two different distances put out there for the distance around the equater. There was the right one, which put China too far for any ship to have made it, and most rulers had guys who could do the math. Then there was the distance used by Columbus which showed the distance to China was right about where the West Indies were. Just goes to show you that you should listen to a scientist and not a salesman when planning on a long journey. The other thing is that Columbus had sailed to Iceland and had heard from the Icelandic, Basque and English fisherman along the way,that there was land to the West. These guys had been fishing the Grand Banks for awhile and refreshing their supplies on the coast. Plenty of people knew about the land to the West, but why worry about it when there was nothing of value and it was a long ways off. |
Cacique Caribe | 04 Nov 2009 6:31 p.m. PST |
Most great discoveries happen by mistake. Look at Teflon, Velcro and so many other things essential to life today. Many were discovered by mistake, or were intended for other uses before their true potential and application was realized. Though Amerigo Vespucci and Vicente Yáñez Pinzón (both sailing for Spain) beat Pedro Alvares Cabral by a few months, Cabral is the individual that Brazilians credit with the discovery of that country. Vespucci: "However, Vespucci had other plans [Pohl 49]. Colon's ships sighted Brazil ion June 27, 1499; this would be the first view Europeans had ever had of Brazil [Pohl 52]. His ships had also sailed to the Amazon River." link Pinzon "struck the Brazilian coast at Cabo Santa Maria de la Consolacion (= Cape San Agostinho, near Cape São Roque) on 26 January 1500. Sailing west along the coast of Brazil, on which he spent four months, he entered the mouth of the Amazon. Thinking at first that it was the Ganges he named it Rio Santa Maria de la Mar Dulce. Apart from the claims of Vespucci, this is regarded as the official discovery of the river." link Pinzon went about 50 miles up the Amazon River link "He reached the coast of present day Brazil on January 20, 1500, and claimed it in the name of Spain. He explored the coast of Brazil, and discovered the Amazon River." link Cabral, April 21, 1500. link Yet, was Cabral really looking for Brazil? Nah. "Brazil was discovered by accident when a Portuguese expedition to India, led by Pedro Alvares Cabral, swung too far westward in 1500. It remained virtually ignored by the Crown for twenty-five years" link So . . . accidents happen (as with other mistakes in life). It's what you make of your mistakes that determines your worth. CC TMP link |
Inquisitor Thaken | 04 Nov 2009 6:58 p.m. PST |
Cacique Caribe "So . . . accidents happen (as with other mistakes in life). It's what you make of your mistakes that determines your worth." Very cool statement. |
John the OFM | 04 Nov 2009 7:10 p.m. PST |
Nitwit? Only in the fever dreams of ideological nitwits. I am a follower of Samuel Eliot Morison in this. Columbus was a shrewd businessman, a great captain, and a magnificent blue water sailor. Lucky, too. SOMEONE had to be the first. "America" was just sitting there, waiting to be "discovered". |
mbsparta | 04 Nov 2009 9:42 p.m. PST |
I still think Columbus, Magellan, Cortez, Hudson, Champlain etc were all great men, but I'm immune to the impossible utopian perfectionism of these times. If this perfectionism was employed universally and objectively I might take more heed of it, but it seems mainly aimed at tearing down all Western historical figures.
. Well said Hrothgar! Mike B |
Cacique Caribe | 05 Nov 2009 12:02 a.m. PST |
Inquisitor Thaken, Believe me, I've made (and still make) my share or mistakes. And I can't always say I learn from them. So I have but to admire those who do! Dan |
Mark Plant | 05 Nov 2009 3:17 a.m. PST |
So . . . accidents happen (as with other mistakes in life). It's what you make of your mistakes that determines your worth. Indeed, and Columbus's life ended in misery and recrimination precisely because he refused to make the most of his mistake. He insisted to the end that he had not made any mistake at all. John OFM: where do you get these ideas of Colombus? Firstly he was a long way off the first European to make the voyage to the Americas. He was a notoriously bad businessman, who spent almost his entire life broke. Even when appointed to head the new lands he discovered he never made money. Nor was he much of a sailor. He'd been on boats a little bit, but not captaining them. He very nearly killed his men a couple of times in his voyages with his lack of seamanship. Those Basque fishermen sailing to catch the cod up north had a worse journey in rougher seas. Yet they managed to do it time after time. |
lutonjames | 05 Nov 2009 6:09 a.m. PST |
I'm far less expert than many on here on the subject (on almost all subjects in fact). But, I think Europeans would have got there soon after Columbus did anyway, but you had to be a bit of a nutter to do it before everyone else was ready! Newfoundland was 'discovered' in 1497- they more or less knew it was there already has to be my conclusion. It's like the first colonists, the first colonies in North America kept failing, but each time they learnt a little from the previous failure. And in the end they got lucky. That's why religious nutters make such good colonists to start with, then the saner follow afterwards. Why think think your succecced when everyone else has failed before, because your believe in God is better!? lol. |
Cacique Caribe | 05 Nov 2009 6:30 a.m. PST |
Just like test pilots, people who participate in experimental drug programs, etc. Some call them nuts. Others call them pioneers. CC |
Deucey | 05 Nov 2009 8:09 a.m. PST |
Bravery is a risk. Success = Great Failure = That nut got what he deserved. |
Andrew Walters | 05 Nov 2009 9:57 a.m. PST |
He was not great, was lucky, and was not only a nitwit but not very nice. Everyone knew the world was round, they had since classical Greece. In fact, they had an estimate of it's circumference that was within 10% of accurate. Thus, not knowing of America, they knew it would take so long to sail to India via going West that it would be impossible to carry enough food and water. Thus it wasn't attempted. Columbus re-did the math, and GO IT WRONG. He believed the circumference to be two thirds what it actually is, thus he thought he could make it to India. He got funding, someone showed him his error, and he figured "what the heck, maybe we'll make it anyway." Who fudges numbers on an expedition when your personal own survival depends on it? When he landed in the "New" World he called the natives "Indians" and the chilis "peppers" in a grand moment of "everything is what I say it is" and gave Europeans and Americans etymological confusion that continues today. This is the only reason we have a word "chili pepper." They're two different things. So Columbus is Homer Simpson without the PG rating. In his own diaries he admitted to sexually abusing slaves when he was governor of Hispaniola. Not enslaving the natives was never even a possibility. He was a barbaric governor and even his friends wouldn't deny the atrocities and tortures he used to rule. The Spanish colonists under him were discontent and felt mislead. So yeah, he "discovered" a continent with a million inhabitants that the Vikings and possibly other Europeans had already visited, boldly thought the world was round when everyone (by which I mean no one) thought it was flat, oppressed people for personal profit, confused our language, and worst of all made gross math errors. So I think you'd put me in the detractor camp. Andrew |
Andrew Walters | 05 Nov 2009 10:04 a.m. PST |
I should add that the Spanish government had him in chains for awhile for what he did as "governor." He pleaded for clemency on the basis of how much territory he had "given" the Spanish crown. Can't recall how that turned out at the moment. But if the Spanish government of 150x arrests you for inhumane treatment of non-Catholics, you know you've really gone too far. Andrew |
Andrew Walters | 05 Nov 2009 10:14 a.m. PST |
Looked it up. He was arrested not by the Spanish government in Spain but by the governor Spain sent to supersede him when they received complaints about him. King Ferdinand ultimately freed him and his brothers and funded the fourth voyage, but decided not to let him do any more governing. Please understand that I'm not going all revisionist about this slavery thing, I don't want to judge Columbus based on today's morality. He was considered too brutal and tyrannical in his own time. Magellan, Vespucci, Hudson, Drake (though many will say that last one is just a lucky pirate), these were great explorers. Columbus, with respect to his exploration abilities alone, was dumb and lucky. Really, really lucky. Andrew |
RockyRusso | 05 Nov 2009 10:19 a.m. PST |
Hi Yup, lots of people discovered america
and kept it out of the press. History is replete with examples, and really irrelevent. It is like the old saw about if a tree falls in the forest. If no one knows about your discovery, it might as well not happen. Babbage didn't invent a computer that ended up on every desk. The progentor was the Navy and Univac. In another series of threads, we have a discussion about the fall of the spanish empire. This is related. It is all very nice that people knew, but someone had to GO there and exploit it. Thus, the vikings visited, the spanish came and created a new world. 1421 and the chinese? Cool, but if it happened they kept it to themselves and didn't invent a new world. Now to that "nitwit". A reading of the period would lead one to a simple point. The history of the spanish in america was NOT that of the british in America. Or the Vikings. The Vikings who wanted gold went EAST or South, the ones who went west wanted to be farmers and herdsmen. Different mind set. The French came to get rich. The british came to because they actually wanted land, to be farmers. The spanish were only interested in money and souls. But the Franciscans who wanted the souls didn't pony up the money to those Basques who "knew" it was there. The crown did. Going to the King and promising land didn't cut it for the King, the promise of the "riches of the east" would. Part of Colombus insisting what he did to his death was responsing to his enemies that he had stolen the money on false pretense and thus comitted treason. Later, the spanish "lost" Texas for the same reason. It cost money to hold land that was only useful for farming and ranching, and inviting in the americans was a ploy to get someone who actually wanted the land to pay for this. As with all history, it is easier to simplify to nonsense to make a point rather than actually understanding things. Rocky |
McSorley | 05 Nov 2009 10:53 a.m. PST |
@Andrew Walters "oppressed people for personal profit, confused our language, and worst of all made gross math errors." You've got a funny sense of priorities, my friend. |
Dr Mathias | 05 Nov 2009 12:19 p.m. PST |
Rocky- I agree with you for the most part. I shouldn't have posted my N.A. friend's comment about "not liking Columbus very much" but that's always the first thing I think of when I hear Columbus' name :P That statement is pretty much irrelevant to the thread. I did not mean to imply anything about 'evil' or the relative merits of conflicting civilizations. Having a 'Columbus Day' seems really archaic and old-fashioned to me. People were already living in North America, and isn't there incontrovertible proof that Europeans had already been there prior to 1492? IMO Columbus' worthiness to be included in the 'greatest humans of all time' list is suspect. |
Cacique Caribe | 05 Nov 2009 10:53 p.m. PST |
I think it's funny how some people find it so easy to judge people based on today's standards. What was acceptable then, may not be acceptable if done now. But it was not done now. Probably the same people who judge other nations by the standards of theirs. Oh, well. CC |
John the OFM | 06 Nov 2009 8:50 a.m. PST |
Mark Plant queried "John OFM: where do you get these ideas of Colombus?". I got my crazy ideas from reading Samuel Eliot Morison, who was a Harvard professor of History, a founder of American Heritage history magazine, an Admiral in the Naval Reserves in World War 2, and a very experienced blue water sailor. Pray share with us YOUR credentials that give you the expertise to dispute Prof Morison. |
doc mcb | 06 Nov 2009 9:13 a.m. PST |
The OFM is correct. Morison is one of the greeat American historians, possibly THE greatest naval historian. Read Morison's book on Columbus. THEN you are entitled to an opinion. Otherwise you are just sharing your ignorance. |
John the OFM | 06 Nov 2009 7:55 p.m. PST |
Morison's "The European Discovery of America", in 2 volumes, is a perfect example of what a historian who is also a sailor can do with the varius theories. He sailed to, or flew over, nearly all of the landfalls in both Americas. The man knows his stuff. He also knew the difficulties of sailing the various seas, bays, islands and inlets. What he did not know was not worth knowing. |
basileus66 | 07 Nov 2009 2:08 p.m. PST |
Andrew, Recently I translated into Spanish a book from an American historian. She did research the relationships between the Crown and the earlier settlers. Although she did focus in Pedrarias Dávila and Núñez de Balboa stories and not Columbus', she proves that the accusations of mistreatment of natives were used by the Crown to get rid off those colonizers that held too much power -like Columbus and his sons, or Pedrarias or Balboa-. It's not to say that they were saints -she didn`t- but that a fair share of the accusations done in the trials were just bogus. That is: the arrest were not due to a sudden moral bout of conscience in the part of the Crown, but to a political need: to avoid that in the new territories would appear an aristocracy able to defy the power of the King. Actually Perú, New Spain (present Mexico), Hispaniola (Cuba) and Panama tried to rebel several times in the first years after the conquest. And in one case -Peru- almost succeeded. A. |
basileus66 | 07 Nov 2009 4:07 p.m. PST |
I did a mistake. It's not Hispaniola (Cuba) but Hispaniola (Republica Dominicana) and Cuba
silly me. |