Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Columbus or Colón?

In English we always call the discoverer by Christopher COLUMBUS, however in Spain he is always known as Christopher COLÓN. I think it is worth reviewing what Professor Rosa writes on his new book which for me clarifies some of this confusion. I apologize for those who cannot read Spanish but the gist of the argument is that the meaning for the name Columbus or Colombo is not the same as the meaning for Colón. Columbus means Pigeon while Colón (Greek Kõlon) means Member as the son Fernando says the meaning was member, Rosa argues in "Colon, La Historia Nunca Contada" that we pursued the wrong named individual: "Las palabras de D. Fernando rezan: Siendo sus antecesores de la sangre Real de Jerasulán ... tanto más quiso que su patria y origen fuesen menos ciertos y conocidos ... aquello que toca a la variedad de tal nombre y apellido no fue sin misterio ... no sin causa oculta fueron puestos para indicio del efecto que había de suceder ... el sobrenombre de Colón ... en griego quiere decir miembro ... su nombre a la pronunciación latina, que es Christophorus Colonus. Creo que en estas afirmaciones no existen contradicciones y que son un principio porque, de hecho, la palabra latina Colon viene de la palabra griega Kõlon, que significa miembro. De este modo podemos descartar todos los Colombos y Palomos porque, tal y como su hijo explica, el nombre que él eligió para ser llama do no era «Colombo» de paloma, sino «Colon» de «miembro».
Columbus es latín.
Colombo es italiano.
Colombe es francés.
Colom es catalán.
Pombo es portugués.
Todos estos nombres tienen el mismo significado de «paloma » o «palomo» y, como se puede ver, ninguno de ellos se traduce como miembro, el significado del nombre adoptado por el descubridor."
Wikipedia editors should consider mentioning this argument since it is true that the discoverer never called himself Columbus in any document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.218.96 (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC) "The words of D. Fernando read: «As his predecessors come from the Royal Blood of Jerusalem ... the more he wanted his country and origin to be less certain and known … what encompasses the variety of the name and surname was not without mystery ... not without underlying cause was it chosen to indicate the effect that was to happen … the last name Colon ... in Greek means Member … his name in the Latin pronunciation is Christophorus Colonus.» I believe that in these statments do not exist contradictions and that is a good starting point because, in fact, the Latin Colon word comes from the Greek Kolon, which indeed means a member. Thus we can discard all Colombos and Palomos because, just as his son explained, the name he chose to be called was not "Colombo" of dove, but "Colon" of "member." Columbus is Latin. Colombo is Italian. Colombe is French. Colom is Catalan. Pombo is Portuguese. All these names have the same meaning "dove" or "Pigeon" and as you can see, none of them translates to member, the meaning of the name adopted by the discoverer.174.109.167.129 (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting and comprehensive. But established English name, please! No matter what it translates into in any other language. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely, that's the way the English Wikipedia works. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE SUPPORTS LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME

"American history textbooks recognize Columbus's importance by granting him an average of a thousand words... Unfortunately almost everything in this traditional account is either wrong or unverifiable. The authors of history textbooks have taken us on a trip of their own, away from the facts of history, into the realm of myth. They and we have been duped by an outrageous concoction of lies, half-truths, truths and omissions that..." - James W. Loewen in Lies My Teacher Told me, Pg 32 152.16.51.249 (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder on logging in

This is a reminder to all editors here: if you have an account, please log in when you edit. Not logging in as a way to avoid scrutiny or to get around the reverting policy is unacceptable and may result in either you being blocked from editing, or this page being temporarily semi-protected. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment from IP

The Native Americans were there first there but he made them into slaves after his settlement there. (written by User:99.107.235.244 at 23:58 15 December 2010)

In reply to the above, that's an interesting idea, but if you want to add it to the article, you need to provide a reliable source and state how/where you think it should be added. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Cristóbal Colón only ruled Haiti for less than 7 years total (1493-1500). However, much of those 7 years he did not spend on Haiti. He arrived on December 8, 1493 at the new colony called Isabella and he left Haiti on April 24, 1494, when he set sail to discover westward of Haiti. He returned only at the end of September 1494 to Haiti. From March 10, 1496 until August 19, 1498, he was absent for those 2.5 years because he made a voyage to Spain. Then on August 1500 he was arrested and replaced by Francisco de Bobadilla. Do the Math. Cristóbal Colón was only in Haiti, as colonizer, for a total of 3 years and 10 months and these 46 months were not even continuous. How many natives do you think he could have killed in that time with only 1000 men at his disposal? Especially knowing that half his men were mutinous and did not follow his orders but instead fought against his loyal forces? And keep in mind that the Cristóbal Colón NEVER wanted to kill the native Americans he wanted to rule over them, thus the natives were no good to him if they were dead.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Wife of a Colombo Wool-Weaver??????

It is imperative that we effect the necessary paradigm change from a peasant wool-weaver to a nobleman for the true identity of Columbus. The guy who married this women http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipa_Moniz_Perestrelo in 1479 could NEVER have been a peasant from any place. The facts are the facts. Please adjust the article accordingly.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC) if that was the only major lie... Filipa Moniz not a peasant, she could never married a wool-weaver. Colombo brothers and he's wife were Portuguese, that is a proven fact. Colombo was Portuguese. Problem is that narrowminded americans think not. Common sense based on nothing but false claims gains versus science and scientific proofs. Absurd incorrections like saying Filipa was a wool-weaver just proves it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.107.53 (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Local time

The 2 a.m. figure for the first undoubted sighting in 1492 seems to be in local time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The transcript of Columbus's journal specifies the time that land was sighted as "two hours after midnight". Given the limitations of time-keeping technology, in that era, a time of 2 A.M. (local time) would seem to be a reasonable approximation. Norloch (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Article section 2.2 "Geographical Considerations" - lack of citations

The fourth paragraph of section 2.2 does not have citations or references for the claim that Columbus made a fundamental error in his research on the size of the Earth and the actual distances that would be involved in his planned voyage calculations. Since Columbus was marketing his proposals to people who had access to a considerable range of navigational and geographical expertise, it's likely that such a basic error ( i.e. confusing Arabic miles with Italian miles ) would have been brought to his attention, rather quickly ! After all, if his estimates of distances to unexplored places were one third less than the opinions of contemporaries, then it would follow that the distances between known places were also one third less. Such a margin of error could easily be identified by those who were sceptical about Columbus's proposals. The tale sounds apocryphal - rather than factual. Norloch (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that Samuel Eliot Morison's Admiral of the Ocean Sea—cited at the end of the next paragraph of that section—doesn't mention the fact that Columbus did in fact make such a fundamental error the error as described in the article? I would be very surprised if that were the case. But, in any case, the fact itself is very easy to document. See, for example, page 39 of Ronald S. Love's Martime Exploration in the Age of Discovery, 1415-1800. Nevertheless, I agree that the documentation of the fourth paragraph could do with some improvement. From the way Morison's Admiral of the Ocean Sea is cited it's certainly not at all clear how much of that paragraph could be verified by consulting it. In my opinion, more citations with specific page numbers are definitely needed.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Norloch, the fundamental error was in longitude - the errors in stadia are a minor part. There was a misleading statement in section 2.2 that Ptolemy's estimate of Asia was correct, presumably because technically the Chukotka peninsula does indeed stretch (past) 180°. However Ptolemy was only grasping faintly the latitude of mainland China which a look at any atlas will show to be about 121° E and Japan is actually only 20° past that. So to get to Japan Columbus would actually have to transverse 210° of latitude whereas Ptolemy would have estimated 150° (if he'd known about Japan) and Toscanelli's map shows less than 100°. That's the major error. It seems that they took enough provisions for this, though the sailors' experience wasn't up to it psychologically. Chris55 (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged to you for the references. However, even if there was a surviving 15th. century document which claimed that Columbus's calculations were in error (i.e. due to some confusion between Arabic miles and Italian miles) such a document would still have to be questioned because it would conflict with other evidence from the period. For example, Columbus's own journal of his first voyage indicates that he knew the true distance between the Azores and Portugal. He wasn't using measurements that were 30 per cent in error. It therefore seems unlikely that the mistake suggested in the article was ever a factor in his 'geographical considerations.' Norloch (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't get your point. The Azores were actually inhabited in the 15th century, something I find hard to believe though I don't think Columbus had visited them. But it appears even its inhabitants hadn't ventured much further west. Columbus held till his death that what he had reached was "The Indies", ie. India. Although Marco Polo had travelled through South-East Asia, his experience wasn't altogether believed - Ptolemy's atlas was based on the travels of Marinus of Tyre and the Islamic empire in the 15thC blocked any approaches to the east, which was the point of both Portuguese and Spanish plans.

But you're right that the opposition at the time wasn't based on more accurate estimates. Even Martin Behaim's 1492 globe places China 233°E according to the Geographia article. The actual opposition was based much more on misunderstandings about the spherical nature of the earth as well as theological scruples. Chris55 (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chris55 ! - no disrespect intended, but the point is as exactly described in the title of this section - i.e. there appears to be no citation or source reference for the specific claim which is made in the fourth paragraph of section 2.2 of the main article. It might be helpful to read the reply, above, in this section, which was submitted by David J Wilson. His reply is clear, it is concise and it's entirely relevant to the matter in question. Regards. Norloch (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In fairness to Chris55, I have to say that the comment of yours which he was responding to seems to me to be asserting a little more than merely that the fourth paragraph of section 2.2 is inadequately sourced. I interpreted the comment—as Chris55 apparently also did—as presenting an argument which supposedly cast doubt on the veracity of the article's contention that Columbus underestimated the distance spanned by a degree by some 35% 30% 25-37%, and that this played a role in his belief that sailing westward was a practicable method of reaching Asia. As I tried to indicate in my response to your original comment, it's easy to find good sources to verify these assertions. A google books search or scholar search will provide you with any number of them—along with a certain amount of useless crud that you'll need to filter out.

If I have properly interpreted your second comment, I'm afraid I don't find the argument it contains at all persuasive—but I also don't believe it would be appropriate for me to elaborate further on this talk page. Nevertheless, since there seems to me to be a fairly obvious response, I have taken the liberty of copying the comment to the humanities reference desk and replying to it there.

There may be at least one respect in which the exposition in the paragraph under discussion is not quite neutral in its point of view. It appears to me to smack just a little of presentism. Columbus is depicted as being personally responsible for making the error in question, and as stubbornly maintaining it in the face of better informed scholarly opinion, with all the implications of crankishness that this carries. But even a contemporary of Columbus who happened to have accepted an estimate of the size of the Earth closer to what we know it to be today would not necessarily have had any sounder basis for his opinion than Columbus did for his (though, of course, he might have). According to George Emra Nunn (Geographical Conceptions of Columbus p.1), Columbus's estimate of 56⅔ Italian nautical miles for the size of the equatorial degree was already a "commonplace of medieval geography", so it would appear that the estimate might not have been quite as ill-informed as the article makes it out to be—despite the fact that it did happen to be 35% 25-37% too small.

David Wilson (talk · cont)

Norloch, the reason I didn't answer your question directly is that I've sent the appropriate books back to the library and couldn't supply chapter and verse for his miscalculation. Morison's Columbus on himself makes the argument that he started from Alfraganus's estimate from his annotated copy of Pierre D'Ailly's Imago Mundi which Major (pxliii) claims was his favourite. I was inclined to agree with David about Morison. Many others including, for what it's worth, Irving and Jeffrey Burton Russell, quote the mistake. e.g. Russell says "Columbus chose to assume that Alfragano's were the short Roman miles rather than the longer nautical miles." so that a degree was 45 not 56 nautical miles. If anyone has a usable citation, it would be worth adding.

David, Columbus's overall error was nearer to 80%. He was hoping to only go about 45° to the mythical Antillia whereas the actual latitude difference was 210° to Japan. Chris55 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the info, but I was already aware that Columbus made other errors besides that in his estimate of the size of the degree. My figures of 25-37% were intended to refer only to this latter error.

I have now added a citation to the appropriate pages of Morison's Admiral of the Ocean Sea to the paragraph under discussion, and amended the size of Columbus's "Roman mile" to conform to that given by Morison. This is the figure which makes Columbus's error "only" 25%. According to this web site the figure of 1,240 metres, previously given in the article for the size of Columbus's mile, was proposed in 1983 and now enjoys "wide support among historians". If a reliable source—which, in my opinion, the web site isn't—can be found to confirm this, then the article will need to be amended further. This figure is the one that would make Columbus's error 37%, but I haven't yet found a reliable source which mentions it as a possibility. The well-respected Columbus historian, Felipe Fernández-Armesto, seems to be either unaware of the latter possibility or not support it, since a very recent publication of his gives only the traditional figure of a 25% error.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all Martin Behaim was part of the Portuguese King's Council of Scientists and part of the Portuguese propaganda machine, do not accept that Behaim did not know how big the world was or where the Azores and China were located. His Globe was created in direct support of Columbus's false mission in Spain. His partner in the Council of Scientists, Duarte Pacheco Pereira, had measured the globe to within 4% of its true size by being put ashore in Africa near the Equator in 1482 on a scientific mission. This whole idea that Columbus grossly miscalculated the size of the earth is ridiculous. Completly without basis in the facts. As Norloch wrote above and as Manuel Rosa demonstrated in his 2 latest books, Columbus measured the exact distance between the Azores and Lisbon on his First Voyage. The exact same measurement that the Portuguese had been utilizing since mid 1400s, as is documented. Therefore it is not correct to say that while Columbus measured some 6000km per league between the Azores and Lisbon, that he would then be measuring 4000km per league on the rest of the sphere. Furthermore, according to his own writings he measured about 1000 leagues between the Canaries and the Caribbean on his first 2 voyages and he measured 5:23 timezones from Cadiz to Saona in 1494.

Columbus was a man of science. If he travelled 5 timezones in 1000 leagues then the earth being 24 timeszones would give him another 4.8 sections of 5 timezones x 1000 leagues = 4.800 leagues to sail west from Saona to Cadiz heading, on the 20th Parallel. Which amounts to a total of 5,800 leagues or 23,200 miles at the 20th parallel. Math is a horrible thing whe one tries to lie. These 23,200 miles divided by the 360º of the sphere gives, by Columbus's own notes, a degree at the 20th parallel equal to 64,44 of his miles. How could he believe that at the equator it was only 56.66 miles? Columbus was a Portuguese pawn perpetrating a lie against Spain he was not stupid. Separate the lies from the truth and you have the facts. It's about time we woke up to the facts. The old prejudices must not be allowed to blur our logic.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Norloch asks how come Columbus confused Roman and Arabic miles when estimating the circumference of the Earth based on the writings of Alfraganus, but was then able to measure correctly the distance from Lisbon to the Azores (as well as other distances). I think that here Norloch is missing an elementary point about geography: that Columbus could only have translated his measurement of the distance to the Azores into an estimate of the size of the Earth if he knew the longitude of the Azores. And, with the technology existing at that time, longitude could only be computed by comparing a careful astronomical observation to an ephemeris, which Columbus was not qualified to do, as he demonstrated by his botched attempts at celestial navigation during his voyages.

In other words, Columbus was a dead reckoning navigator, who could accurately estimate the distance and direction that he travelled in a given day, and then plot his position on a portolan chart. To translate these positions into coordinates of latitude and longitude he had to rely on someone else's estimate of the size of the earth. All of this is amply documented in all the mainstream secondary sources about Columbus, some of whch David J. Wilson has quoted here. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to Chris55 and everyone else for the time and effort they have given to references for paragraph four of secton 2.2 of the article. There does seem to be a large, though perhaps not unanimous, academic consensus that Columbus "didn't realize" he was dealing with "Arabic miles", in relation to the length of Alfraganus's degree of latitude. However, there also seems a disinclination to address the inherent contradiction of a Columbus navigating the real world, with his belief that distances between places were less than they actually are. ( Rather like a motorist in (say) France, driving a car with the speedometer calibrated in miles per hour.)

I think that EbHoop has summarised the contradiction very well. - Columbus, in his presentation period, misconstrued Alfraganus's units of measurements and "believed" that that distances between places were some 25% less than they really are. While navigating at sea, he relied on charts and data compiled by others and didn't "believe" that the distances between places were less than they are. Norloch (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Norloch: Yes, I think that's almost right. But maybe an analogy will clarify things further. Suppose I set out to drive from San Francisco all the way to Boston. I check up on a road atlas and read that the trip is about 3,200 miles long. But suppose I'm unfamiliar with the concept of a "mile" because I'm Asian and have an Asian car that measures distances in kilometers. Imagine that, for some reason, I think that a mile is 1.2 km, rather than the correct number, which is 1.6 km. I therefore think that the trip is only about 3,800 km long, when the correct number is more like 5,100 km. I can still correctly measure the distance I have driven from San Francisco to, say, Salt Lake City, in the units I know, which are kilometers. This is about 1,200 km. But if I don't know exactly how much of the total trip to Boston I've completed by getting to Salt Lake City, then correctly measuring the distance driven will not make me realize my mistake about how long the full trip to Boston is. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Eb.Hoop for the analogy, though it doesn't quite fit the case. Picture an additional event, in the journey, - that our San Fransisco driver stops briefly, en-route and, at that point, he is able to tell you the correct distance still to go - to Salt Lake City or Boston. Of course, that wouldn't fit into the framework of the analogy as it stands, it would be a contradiction. However, Columbus actually did something like that. On February 27th. 1493 while en-route from Santa Maria island, in the Azores towards the Portuguese coast, he recorded in his journal that he reckoned he was 125 leagues distant from Cape St. Vincent, 80 leagues distant from Madeira and 106 leagues from Santa Maria. We don't know why he recorded that, but since the weather was adverse, it's a fair guess that he plotted his D.R. / estimated position, and measured the distances to consider his options - whether to press onwards or maybe divert to the nearest port of refuge. The main point is that it's possible to work back from those known landmarks to ascertain Columbus's estimated position on the date. Taken together with the accrued daily distances he had logged, since leaving Santa Maria, this information indicates strongly that he was measuring distances that conform with the real world. Norloch (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Norloch: I still think that you are missing something. There's no question that Columbus could measure distances correctly in the units that he was familiar with. But knowing the distance from Portugal to the Azores (or, in my analogy, from San Francisco to Salt Lake City) didn't get Columbus any closer to knowing the distance left to Japan (in my analogy, to Boston), because there was no one to tell him what the distance from the Azores to Japan was. All he had to go on was his own wrong estimate, based on a misreading of Alfraganus and on Marinus of Tyre's exaggerated estimate of the size of Asia.

Of course, if Columbus had been able to measure longitudes (something which, in his day, only learned astronomers knew how to do) he would have been able to translate the distance from Portugal to the Azores into a measurement of the size of the Earth. He still wouldn't have known exactly where Japan was, but at least he'd have realized that he'd underestimated the size of the Earth. But Columbus was a self-educated navigator who repeatedly tried and failed in his first voyage to measure his latitude with a quadrant --which is vastly easier than measuring a longitude-- so he was simply not qualified to translate the distance to the Azores into a measurement of the size of the Earth. - Eb.hoop (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Eb.hoop, All very logical analogies if you keep looking at Columbus as a dunce. What map do you think Columbus was following to sail from Haiti to the Azores???? Even if he did not know where Japan was, he and ALL learned Europeans certainly knew where INDIA was. It was located inside Ptolmey's 180º - forget the miles and everything else. No matter how big the globe, he still had to travel a minimum of 180º west of the Canaries to reach India. According to his own calculations he traveled only some 60º- that's right. He travelled 1000 leagues of 18 leagues per degree. Furthermore, according to his own measurement on 1494 e was only 5 timezones of our globe west of Cadiz. Again, 5 timezones is 75.º Take away the 10º from Cadiz to the Canaries and you have the same measurement. Now, I suggest you stop looking at Columbus through the hazed eyes of modern historians prejudiced by their lack of belief in what Columbus knew and read what the people who knew Columbus said: Jaime Ferrer, a great master in his own right said: "and i say that to understand above-said this rule and practice, it is necessary to be a good cosmographer, mathematician and sailor, or know thr sailor's art. And whomsoever does not have these three sciences together, it is impossible for them to understand, not even by another means if the said three sciences are lacking... I will always defer to any corrections from those who know more than I, especially from the Admiral of the Indies [Columbus] who tempore existente in these matters and knows more than any other." and the King of Portugal, master of all the high tech scientists of navigation and geography of his day wrote to Columbus a secret letter saying "your industriousness and ingenuity is very necessary to us ...come without delay." Do you think these two authorities did not know Columbus's skills? Columbus measured 1000 leagues in 65 degrees that is what you have to accept. He measured 231 leagues from the Azores to Lisbon the same the Portuguese were measuring, how could he measure that unless he was using the same size miles and leagues and the Portuguese? All of this saying that he believed the globe to be smaller is trying to put into Columbus's measurements something he did never wrote or utilized. - do you think it is very difficult to use a quadrant? do you think Columbus could misread such a simple instrument to be off by 20º?? or do you think he was really trying to fool someone? Think about it.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read most of the above, but it looks to me like y'all are debating the "facts" (i.e., what is true about Columbus), but please note that this is not the purpose of article Talk pages, nor may any conclusions you derive be based upon your own analysis. That would be original research. All we can say is what reliable sources have said, so try to focus your discussion on what is in those sources, not on which sources have the "best" arguments. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian makes a good point and highlights a notable dilemma for Wikipedia. What should define a reliable source ? As one example, Samuel Morison was an eminent and stalwart researcher - but he was also an uncritical admirer of Columbus. Does that make him a reliable source for all aspects of the article? Norloch (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I've told/warned Colon-el-Nuevo about this, including in the last few days about his posts to this section. If he continues I may go to ANI. As for Morrison, he is definitely a reliable source by our criteria but we given what you say we should make sure anything cited to him is attributed to him. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In 1483 the Portuguese were measuring many of their latitudes almost exact. Diogo Cao sailed to 15º 8' South of the Equator in 1483- many of his measurements were taken with minuscule errors: an average of 8' = 15KM error. Don't forget that Columbus sailed those same waters and with those same pilots, sailors and captains. Don't forget that Columbus was called the most expert pilot in Spain because he utilized Portuguese technology. You can't be both and expert and a dunce at the same time but you can be an expert and a liar at the same time.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing about Columbus again, not about what reliable sources say and what should be in the article. The next time, I'm just going to remove your comments from the talk page per WP:NOTFORUM. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nationalism, patriotism, chauvinism... There is bound to be much fogging of the facts and many claims by Proud Spanish People, who were taught in their bachillerato that Colón was Spanish. Maybe he was, maybe the Spanish also invented the helicopter and the submarine. These debates will run and run. Personally I am more concerned by the fact that the main article contains far too many words with -ize endings instead of the more English -ise and we have the pro-American Oxford Dictionary to blame for that. Ant501UK (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Genoa/Italy - anachronism

Given that Genoa seems most likely as Columbus's place of birth and that Italy as we know it today did not exist then, would it help sensitivities and nationalistic issues to rephrase the first line of this article? I would do it myself, except for the fact that it does appear to be such a contentious issue. I noted that the Enclyclopaedia Brittanica (as referenced in the article) uses the term "Genoese explorer" (although it seems the title hasn't been updated). Thus I would propose referring to him here also as a "Genoese explorer" rather than "Italian explorer" and note that Genoa is "now in northwestern Italy", or similar, rather than simply "in northwestern Italy". What do people think about this suggestion?IADavidson (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely and have already carried out the suggestion.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, No problem. " Change the name but not the substance " --Davide41 (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that Genoa seems most likely as Columbus's place of birth

The "production" of Pontevedra documents continued... But the 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 foreign in his works. Then... the claim for a Portuguese Columbus emerges every now and then from that country's dilettante historians; to construct studies, which are only scientific in appearance, based on second-hand third-hand hypotheses, leads not to history but rather to a more or less gratuitous fiction. Today all Columbus scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Genoese. --Davide41 (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

However, there are two notes in Italian which are definitely in Columbus's handwriting: both came long after the discovery. The first is a gloss to the Libro de las profecias, and the other is in the margin of an Italian translation of Pliny. The Italian language, i.e. Tuscan or Roman, was then a sort of lingua franca among the Genoese, Tuscans, Corsicans, Venetians, Neapolitans, Umbrians, Romans, and Sicilians who met outside of their common homeland, which already had a well-defined traditional and literary identity, but no political unity. --Davide41 (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I just removed information Colon-el-Nuevo added here that violated WP:NOTFORUM. Colon-el-Nuevo, you have been warned repeatedly that you may not use this page to try to argue historical reality. You may not discuss the meaning or interpretation of primary sources. If you have a case to make that other historians have repeatedly make mistakes, then write an article and get it published in a scholarly journal or in a scholarly book. Since you have been warned and the warning does not seem to be penetrating, the only choice I have is to remove your comments until such time as you conform to our policies on the proper use of article talk pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See testimony:

• The Portuguese Rui de Pina writes: "Christovan Colombo italiano."
• The Portuguese Garcia de Resende writes: "Christouao Colombo, italiano"
• Portuguese chroniclers, from eyewitness Rui de Pina on, all call Columbus "Italian" or "Genoese."

The book of Manuel Rosa is Anti-History --Davide41 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, Davide41, but who are you arguing with? You don't need to keep giving us list after list of people that think Columbus was from Genoa. Your lists won't dissuade any new soapboxing, and none of the regular editors are seriously considering changing his origin. Again, the purpose of the talk page is to discuss changes to the article--everything you're adding in these lists is just more evidence which we don't need to keep the article the same. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but see " Please cut it out now " \ Colon el nuevo \ Columbus 100 % Portuguese. He is convinced of his fantasies. Insists and Change of Nickname. --Davide41 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

All very interesting but something even more interesting is the following article I discovered while researching the etymology of "Columbus."

That the word originates from the ancient Greek "kolymvo" (kappa, omicron, lamda, ipsilon, mi, beta, omega). That there are more than one word to describe the movement of swimming: kolympao (alternative form}, kolympo {verb), kolympisa (simple past), kolympithra (baptismal pool, resembling a giant silver chalice in which the Greek Orthodox baptism takes place), kolympisi (swimming), kolymvitis (male swimmer), kolyvitria (female swimmer), kolymvitikos, kolympi (to swim). If you look at the Greek character spellings of these words, you can see the etymology of the spelling of Columbus in the Latin/English translation.

I leave you to peruse and ponder the following bearing in mind that the ancient Greeks were founders of ancient Greek cities from Spain to India: in modern Spain (Emporio), modern France (Marsailles and Calais), ancient Rome/modern Italy (Naples{from Neapolis}), Angon, Actium, Calabria, Salento, etc. Sicily (Acragus, Akrillai), modern Corsica (Alalia), modern Turkey (Smyrna, Alexandretta, Troy{Ilium},Akronion, Halicarnasus, Marmaris, Hellespont, Myra, Antioch x 5, Ephesus, Miletus, Myus, Priene, Colophon, Lebedius, Teos, Erythrae, Clasomenae, Phocaea, Abydos, Aenus, Alexandria Troas, Alinda, Amaseia, Amisos), ancient Egypt (Alexandria, Acanthus), Modern Afghanistan (Alexandria in Arachosia, Alexandra in Ariana, Alexandria Aslana, Alexandria of the Caucasus), modern Pakistan (Alexandria Buchecphalous) and hundreds more.

Was Columbus Greek?

Was Columbus a woolworker from Genoa or a Byzantine Prince and sailor from the island of Chios in what was then the Republic of Genoa?

The ferry that sails between the island of Lesvos and Athens port city of Pireaus stops at the island of Chios, a few miles off the coast of Asia Minor. If you are traveling from Athens it arrives at four a.m. and unless you are awakened by the change in the rhythm of the ship's engines as it slows down and backs into the quay you won't even know you have been there. But if you are coming from Lesvos you will usually arrive in Chios at around nine p.m. when the city is in full swing. The ship stays in Chios for an hour which is enough time to jump off, eat a souvlaki, have a coffee, wander around and look at the shops and perhaps buy some mastika, the gum that comes from the trees that Chios has been famous for centuries. There is also enough time to stop in to one of the bookstores and buy a small book that may change your mind about the origins of Christopher Columbus, the man who discovered America.

The book is called A NEW THEORY CLARIFYING THE IDENTITY OF CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: A BYZANTINE PRINCE FROM CHIOS, GREECE. It was written by Ruth G Durlacher-Wolper, the founder and the director of the New World Museum and the New World Foundation in San Salvador, Bahamas, where Columbus' ships first landed in 1492.

There has been more written about Christopher Columbus than about any person with the exception of Jesus Christ, and yet his past has been shrouded in mystery. We all have been told that he came from Genoa, a city in Italy and sailed for Isabella and Ferdinand, the king and queen of Spain, after many years of trying to convince them that the world was round, a belief that was uncommon despite the fact that Aristotle had said it over a thousand years before. But most of what we know about Columbus is conjecture and much of his history was written by people who never knew him or had reasons of their own for rewriting or presenting as truth something that was just a theory. The story of his being the son of a woolworker from Genoa for example only came from the fact that there was someone named Columbus from Genoa who was a wool worker and is a legend attributed to Peter Martyr de Anghiera. Go to Genoa and you will see that there are monuments and a show of pride in it being the birthplace of Columbus.

But I am convinced Columbus was from Chios.

The book is carefully researched and after reading it even if you are not convinced you will certainly be less sure that all you knew before was the truth. For those of you who remember your Byzantine history, you may recall that the Paleologos Dynasty were the Byzantine Emperors who traced their descendants to the Royal House of David and fled to the west after the fall of Constantinople. According to the book, Columbus and his kinsman Colon-the-Younger came to France with the Paleologi and mixed with the royalty of the period, which would make sense. Why would the King and Queen of Spain would give him three ships and a lot of money if he was the son of a Genovese woolworker?

Columbus never said he was from Genoa. He said he was from the Republic of Genoa, something much different. The island of Chios was part of the Republic of Genoa. The name Columbus is carved above many doors in the villages of Pirgi and Cimbori and a priest with that last name traces his ancestry on the island back over 600 years. There are also many Genovese families who trace their ancestry back to Chios. Columbus also wrote about the gum-mastic called mastika which comes only from Chios.

The book presents many convincing arguments and in the end summarizes them with 22 FACTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE CLARIFICATION OF COLUMBUS IDENTITY.

Among the most interesting:

Columbus signature "Xro-Ferens" Christophoros is Greek-Latin or Byzantine.

Columbus spelled Chios with a Greek 'X'.

Columbus named Cape Maysi in Cuba using Greek words, Alpha and Omega.

Columbus never asked Italy for ships or aid for food and shelter when he needed help. If he was from Genoa than why not? Nor does he ever mention the Columbo family of Genoa to whom history says he was related. He neither spoke or read Italian. Yet in his favorite book Imago Mundi by Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly he wrote in the margins in Greek.

Columbus was called Genovese because he dressed in Genovese fashion from Chios. He signed his name "Columbus de terra Rubra" which means of the red earth. The Mastic areas of Chios was known for the red color of the earth. He banked at St. George in Genoa which took care of the colonies like Chios.

Columbus kept two logs on his journey, one real and one false. The true log used the measurements in Greek leagues and the false in Roman. The author used the real logs and measurements to reconstruct Columbus discovery of the island of San Salvador and cleared up many discrepancies in the geography of the area.

The Colombo family of Genoa were illiterate and the Genovese Christophoro was a woolweaver. For this person to acquire the learning, experience and spirituality that Columbus had that could convince a foreign king and queen to entrust a small navy and a fortune to him doesn't seem probable. Maybe in twentieth century America a poor son of a common garment worker can grow up to become president but in the Europe of the 15th century it is unlikely he could make Captain, much less Admiral in command of a fleet. It is more likely that for Columbus to have received an audience with a king and queen he would have to be royal himself or have some pretty good connections.

Columbus' son Ferdinand wrote that his ancestors have always followed the sea. Unless the Columbo family of Genoa had a long history of being ships tailors or official shearers of sea-sheep then they were not related. In fact even though they were living in Genoa at the time that Ferdinand was writing about his father, they are not mentioned. Nor are they mentioned in the Will of Columbus.

Columbus was not a wool-worker struck by God like Joan of Arc and instantly filled with knowledge of navigation, philosophy, astronomy, psychology, languages and the power to convince kings to give him whatever he wanted. This was a man with a lifetime of education, culture, experience and inspiration who had a sense of his own destiny and the drive to fulfill it.

In the book we discover that not only was Columbus connected with the Paleologos family but many of his buddies were Greek too. Perhaps this is the most convincing argument for me. Anyone knowing Greeks in exile is aware that they are a tight group that trust each other and spend all their time together, bound by that thread of Hellenism. As convincing as all the other arguments, (and there are many in this small book), the fact that his 'parea' was Greek, (in other words his group of friends and associates), proved to me that Christopher Columbus was not the son of an itinerant Genovese wool-worker, but a Byzantine prince from Chios who came from a life of enlightened education and spiritual aspirations, and as an islander, combined it with a love of the sea.

The islanders from Chios are known for their skill on the sea and for the number of sea-captains and ship owners from there. If Columbus was Greek then Chios is the most likely island he would be from. With it's Genovese architecture and sea-faring history, the heroic exploits of the people of Chios and also the evidence that Chios was the birthplace of Homer, where else would he be from?

Maybe you aren't convinced. But I am. Columbus was Greek.

Lifetime pension to the first man who sighted land.

Done

Include the lifetime pension offered by Queen Isabel and King Ferdinand to all the crew of the three ships on the second paragraph of the “First Voyage” section.

Edit the second paragraph of the “First Voyage” section the following way:

King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella offered a lifetime pension to the first man on any of the ships who sighted land. Land was sighted at 2 a.m. on 12 October 1492, by a sailor named Rodrigo de Triana (also known as Juan Rodríguez Bermejo) aboard Pinta. Columbus let it be known that he had spotted land several hours before Rodrigo de Triana and took the lifetime pension for himself.

<Barry Lopez, The Rediscovery of North America, Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1990. ISBN 0 8131 1742 9> IkaMcRudes (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked the spanish article of Christopher Columbus (rated as a distinguished article in Spanish Wikipedia)and it mentions a pension offered by the King and Queen, also that Columbus was the one that got the pension instead of Rodrigo de Triana. I think it is a good addition to the article. The source of the pension offered is taken from the Book of the First Voyage and Discovery of the Indies. Colon, Cristobal.( Libro de la primera navegación y descubrimiento de las Indias. COLÓN, Cristóbal. Relación compendiada de Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas & DÍAZ-TRECHUELO, María Lourdes. pág. 82-83.) The books are in spanish but the information is the same that I have found on The Rediscovery of North America. IkaMcRudes (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for you suggestion. I have now added this information as requested. Since I took the opportunity of adding some further details from Morison's Admiral of the Ocean Sea the addition is not a verbatim copy of the above suggested text. However, I believe all the information contained therein has been included.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Lombard

The text mentions a "lombard", which I gather is a gun or a weapon of some kind. Is it fairly obscure?--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I found it in the 1913 Webster's as as type of cannon.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

BLATANT LIES

THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. DID SOMEBODY COPY THIS OUT OF A 5th GRADE TEXTBOOK FROM THE USA? 1) IT WAS NOT HIS ORIGINAL IDEA TO TRAVEL WEST. 2) HIS MOTIVATION WAS NOT ECONOMIC, HE WANTED TO PROSELYTIZE INDIANS OF THE SUBCONTINENT. 3) NOT HIS REAL NAME. 4) NOT GENOESE.

THIS IS PURE LIES. THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE FIRED FROM WIKIPEDIA IMMEDIATELY. IF THE EDITOR IN CHIEF SEES THIS TAKE ACTION NOW BECAUSE THIS IS OUTRIGHT FRAUD. IF THE AUTHOR CAN PLEASE STATE WHERE HE RECEIVED HIS EDUCATION I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW.

- CONCERNED READER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.119.157 (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you any verifiable sources or references for these claims? ConconJondor (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Alias 74.12.119.157 --Davide41 (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This episode deserved extended coverage not only for the sake of destroying a fiction, but also to duly recognize the seriousness of Spanish historiography, which is that of a great nation whose glories are such and so many, including some concerning the discovery of America, that it need not display false vanities.

The facts

• 101 Contemporary European writers
• 225 Documents
• 192 Historians --Davide41 (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's incredibly hard to take anyone who types completely in caps and talks of "firing people from Wikipedia" at all seriously. This article would not likely have been writen by one author, but various. That's how Wikipedia works you see, the world at large contributes to create an online encyclopedia, so granted facts get skewed and people who know what they're talking about have to come edit in the truth. And while there are moderators I don't think there is an "editor in chief" of sorts, any one person tasked with that kind of responsibilty over Wikipedia would go quickly insane under the strain of so many pages, so much infomation, so much vandalism and half truths and outright lies. This isn't a book or a newspaper, and as every other page on the internet, people reading this or the actual page will automaticaly struggle to see anything more than someone with sevre anger issues when they see something writen in all caps, it's a general unspoken truth of the internet now'days. --Lyco499 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Concerned Reader. Firstly I think it's important to bear in mind that nobody owns Wikipedia articles, and anyone can contribute towards making this article better. Secondly I have read the article bearing in mind your comments, and I've found that the article is well written and that the facts and claims that it makes are verifiable. It doesn't seem to be fraudulent or full of lies at all.

Verifiability (obtaining information from high-quality published sources) is far more important on Wikipedia than 'truth'. Before reading this article I didn't know, for instance, that Columbus was born in Genoa - now I do. This is verifiable fact, in that there are reliable sources outside of Wikipedia ([such as the 1911 Encyclopedia britanica (click here)]) which testify to this fact. This article also links to other verifiable sources, both for Columbus's Genoa birth, and also throughout for all other claims made. If you have found verifiable sources elsewhere, please feel free to contribute to making the article better. TehGrauniad (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Carracks

There's a problem nobody mentioned before about Colombus voyages. Previous any discussion about the drivers or motivations of such voyage, we should always focus first into the ships in use. Even at Wikipedia I didn't find any relevant information about those ships. From a document from Portuguese Navy, a Carrack or Nau, has the max speed of 6 knots (not 8, as I saw in some web places) and an autonomy of 4.000 Km at 4 knots, what in reality means even less, if 3 knots of velocity would be the average with good wind. And that's the problem. Even if Colombo was sailing under a mistake of 50%, means the average distance of 20.000km to Papua New Guinea, closest land following the main winds, it would be at his mind at 10.000km. How can You get a Ship with an average autonomy of 4.000km to make 10.000km, if not more? Won't be like planning a trip to the moon with less than half of the fuel you need? If there's not an Central America Continent, over 6.000km away from Canarias, He would never return alive. So or He (Colombo) knows more than He tells, or He's a very terrible Admiral, but can´t be both. And We already know the duplicity of such character, like keeping 2 velocity diary's, one for the crew and another for himself, among all other lies.

Another Sociology aspects: Cristofõm (fõm its a exclusively Portuguese vocab, represents the same of "ão"), would never marry a Portuguese Nobel Woman, unless He was also a Nobel himself, or lied about it, or simply It would never happen. With His actions, the King John II, proved to be up for this kind manipulations, and duplicity's, along His life. He usually provides the rope where the enemies will hang themselves. Any foreigner trying to get any nautical information in Portugal in that Era, would find two things, a knife in his back in a dark alley, or very false information. Any given nautical information would be considered treason by the Portuguese Crown, and Lisbon was not very hospitably to any foreigner, unless they were costumers for the Slaves and Spices. Neither Italy or Spain had big traditions concerning sailing, not the kind of knowledge the Portuguese already had, and accumulated with long sailing journeys. (And 1 of each 7 Portugueses carry the Phoenician genotype, the highest average in Europe).

Very well known Portuguese Historian, José Mattoso once said: "There's no Scientific History in Portugal before 1974". Its no different concerning Spain, till Franco step down, and Spain turns to a democracy. And the same apply for all other country's. In Portugal till 1974 (and after), the teacher should never be criticized, or any of what His states should ever be investigated, it was like a elitist cult. I don't care if Cristóvão is Portuguese or not, and I would wish rather not, as His showed to be a perfidious sociopath.

Bibliography:

About Carraca or Nau: http://www.areamilitar.net/DIRECTORIO/nav.aspx?nn=111

Books: "Brasionário Português e a Cultura Hebraica", Cinco Mil Anos de Cultura a Oeste", "Origens Orientais da Religião Popular Portuguesa e Ensaio sobre Toponímia" from Moisés Espírito Santo, edited by Universidade Nova de Lisboa - Intituto de Sociologia e Etnologia das Religiões.

"A Identidade Nacional", "A História de Portugal" from José Mattoso

Other sources "Política de Sigilo das Navegações" http://cvc.instituto-camoes.pt/conhecer/bases-tematicas/navegacoes-portuguesas.html

Human Genome Project

Vatican: Cristofõm, Spelling used by papal bull

From a contemporary and interdisciplinary view, the "official" history of Colombo is very "fishy", so under the authorization of his authors, contemporary history and quoting of "dissident" Historians should be allowed and accommodated, and not dismissed, under Christopher Columbus's Wikipedia, according to the same rules of any other scientific publishing. Both Portuguese and Spanish historiography, should be analyze carefully, as they lack credibility in many aspects, and only reflects the established power, prejudices and perpetuation of myths. "Ask the Sphinx", is a good illustration how some Historians and Scholars positioning themselves to any investigation process. Impossible could be a very relaxing sentence, but do not allow or add anything to the pertinent object of study, and is a positioning taken repeatedly by many Spanish and Portuguese Scholars along History..

There's another investigation by a Portuguese journalist that published a fictional book based in genuine documents, from his own investigation, http://www.gradiva.pt/?q=C/BOOKSSHOW/1037, besides Manuel Rosa, that pointed to the exactly same solution for the puzzle of so much contradictory pile of information about him and the surrounding context, Cristóvão was most likely Portuguese.

And those ships were the most valuable and less contradictory tool Christopher used, dismissing them from any part of an attempt of dynamic, constructive, reliable and scientific information or history (besides chronology), and any debate concerning, is a mistake, and that's why I included them. And that´s I believe, the Wikipedia objective, but I can be wrong. At any Social Human Science, the debate is essential, probably even more rather any Physical Science, for the pursuit of truth.

Marmorto (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Marmorto; all valid points, but on this site we are not to be questioning the illogical but only asserting what the "reliable sources" have written. I have 6 years of trying alert the editors exactlya s you just did. It makes no difference. Here it is not "Let it be done so let it be written" rule but "Let it be written so let it be done." Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are all fascinating theories about history. However, that's not what this page is for. What, specifically, do you suggest needs to be changed with the page, and what reliable sources support that position? I think you're saying something about the ships, above, but those have their own articles, so that info doesn't belong here. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on your talk page. You may not use this page to debate the quality of others academic scholarship. All we can do in the article is represent what reliable sources have said about Christopher Colubus. We may not conduct our own research, nor decide that since the "official history is fishy", that we'll substitute our own. So, again, if you have a specific suggestion about what should be changed in the article, based on reliable sources, then make it. If not, please cease using this as a place for academic debate. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Add a new section: Relationship of Spanish with the Natives

I have come across the Spanish version of Wikipedia's Christopher Columbus (which it is categorized as a distinguished article)and found a section that illustrates the relationship of the Spanish and the Native Americans. It is an important section, since it explains how the search of Columbus to fullfill the promises he made to the Spanish Monarchy started a Goverment of disrespect towards the indigenous.

I have translated the section along with another article that is linked to it.

The translation with their references are as follows:

Relationship between Native Americans and Spanish

[[1]]

The relations established by Columbus and his crew members were within the guidelines of the traditions in those times: conquering land for the Kingdom they were representing.

Since Columbus and his crew believed they were in the land of the Great Khan, they tried to take defensive military positions and searched to get in contact with any King of the land. They were not able to find anything and gradually proved they had superiority in weaponry over the natives which did not know anything of the Great Khan. This lack of knowledge led the Spanish to believe they had a low level of culture and assumed that the task of conquering this land would be easy. This is shown in the communication they kept with the Monarchs.

The government of the Columbus brothers in Hispaniola did not comply with the expectations the Spanish monarchs had. Not only did they have confrontation with other Spanish in Hispaniola but also became violent with the Natives when they did not find the riches they were expecting. These behaviors were disobedient to the orders expressed by Queen Isabella who made it clear that all indigenous should be treated as subjects of Castilla <178>. For this same reason was that Columbus and his brothers were sent back to Europe to see the Queen by Francisco Bobadilla <179>. The behavior of Columbus was denounced by Fray Bartolome de las Casas because he did not respond to the laws proposed by the Spanish law <n.15>.

<178. ↑ IRVING, Washington (1832). Vida y viajes de Cristobal Colon. Gaspar y Roig. p. 151. http://books.google.es/books?id=MsUjjRTlDGoC.>

<179. ↑ Enciclopedia Católica [2]>

<15. ↑ También para el maestro de la Universidad de Salamanca, Francisco de Vitoria, uno de los principios fundamentales reconocidos en la Carta Constitucional de los Indios, como teología alternativa, era el derecho de los indios a ser hombres y ser tratados como seres libres (véase: Luciano Pereña Vicente, Derechos y Deberes entre Indios y Españoles en el nuevo mundo según Francisco de Vitoria. Salamanca (España), Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, 1992: p. 10.[1]>

From the main article: Relationships of Native Americans and European Conquerors

[2]

Columbus and his men had as a main objective to reach the King of Kings of Asia. This way, while they were trying to find the “King of the Land” their behavior towards the indigenous would vary depending on how important they would consider them to reach their goal. In their first contact with the Natives, they verified there was no such ruler and their perception of the Native cultural organization was suitable for transforming them in subjects of Castilla <1>. As it can be proven in several chapter of history the technique to incorporate new land under their kingdom would be by a peaceful union where the Native of the new land would accept the Kings and Christian religion or an armed conquest in case there was no acceptance from the natives.

Mainly, the relationship of Columbus with the indigenous was based around the fact that he considered them (Antillanos) as an inferior race in a sociopolitical way and the way he was treating them would be under the circumstances of the moment and what Colombus could obtain to his convenience.

Columbus impression of the superiority in the armed forces and cultural aspects they had towards the Natives is made clear in the descriptions he would make of the Taínos when he was looking for a place to establish a fortress for the Monarchs. For example, two days after arriving to America, Columbus wrote in his diary:

Sunday October the 14th :[…]” I have seen a piece of land […] that in two days could be reached, even though I don’t see it necessary, because this people are equipped with simple arms […] Our Highness can have them all taken to Castilla o keep them captive in this island since with 50 men we can have them do as we wish.”

In the first voyage Columbus left a group of Spaniards installed in the Hispaniola Island (currently Dominican Republic and Haiti) in a fortress located on the north shore and called Navidad.<2> Upon his return, with the goal of establishing in the Indies and extend the discovery of land to reach the territories of Catay he found all his men (about 40 men) dead and that the fortress had been burnt down.<2> In search of convincing explanations for this happening; the relationship with the Native started to worsen to a extent of threatening them of making them slaves if they did not provided him large amounts of gold and spices.<2>

In the Antilles, Columbus made contact with the Taina culture, extended all over the islands of the Caribbean they added up to 250.000 members at the arrival of the Spanish. In his diaries, Columbus introduces the Tainos as a culture socially indifferent with no socio-politic structure. In November the 2nd of 1492 he established the first contact with Taina authority, which he does not give any type of importance in his writings. It wasn’t until November the 6th that Columbus realizes that the Tainos constitute a structured society when he made contact for the second time to a Taino that went to visit him at his camp. Still obsessed with meeting the King of the land, and proving that none of the local Caciques knew anything about the Great Kan, Columbus considered the Taina social structure of no use by planning a kidnap of one of the Caciques, which he did not do fearing a violent reaction from the people.<1>

Ramos Gomez includes:<1>

“Of what occurred in Rio de Mares it is known that Columbus knew about the complex sociopolitical structure of the Antillanos, but did not give any importance since it did no utility to his plans that were to reach the Great Kan […] With this goals, what importance would a Cacique and his son represent? What importance did he have, his space and his subjects? Undoubtedly, none, which is the reason why he would not show any respect to his figure and his political significance.”

In the first Voyage, Natives were captured to be taken back to the Monarchs in Castilla and in occasions Spanish would show sexual violence towards indigenous women. In this respect, Michel de Cuneo, one of Columbus men, tells us how he captured a women, which became his property under the consent of the Admiral and with which he maintained forced sexual relations.<3>

“While I was on board, I made captive a very beautiful Caribbean women, who was given to me by the Admiral, and I took her to my cabin, and while she was naked, as it was her tradition, I felt desire to have her. I wanted to fulfill my desire but she did not consent and she hurt me in such ways with her nails that I would have preferred not to come on to her. But as I saw this happened (and to tell you everything until the end), I took a rope and whipped her, it made her shout so loudly that you would not believe your ears. Finally we got to be in such an agreement that I can assure you that she seemed as if she was raised in a school of whores.”

On December the 12th, by the end of the first voyage, Columbus writes in his diary how in their arrival to Caritaba, after confirming the fear of the Native, they captured a woman so that the rest would not be afraid of them. They took her to the ship and dressed her up with bells and rings of brass and then took her back to her land with other crew men and three “Indians”.<4> “The crew men… told the Admiral that the woman did not want to leave and that she wanted to stay with the other women that had been taken from the port of Mares of the Island of Juana de Cuba.” Columbus sent her back to her people in hope that they would want to serve the Kings after seeing the good things the Christians did for the woman. He knew there was gold in the land, since the woman had a little gold piercing on her nose he sent nine armed men to find out more about the gold. When they were arriving to her village they found that the almost two thousand habitants had ran away, but the Native translator they took with them was able to convince them to come back. They did and treated them hospitably by feeding them and letting them go in their houses. The husband of the woman gave thanks for the honor of what the Admiral had done to his wife.

Reference <1. ↑ a b c RAMOS GÓMEZ, Luis J., «Cristóbal Colón y la estructura sociopolítica indígena antillana durante el “Primer Viaje”: del silenciamiento al pacto», Revista Española de Antropología Americana, pg. 241. Edit. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1991)>

<2. ↑ a b c Biografía de Cristóbal Colón>

<3. ↑ Cólón, Cristóbal, Michel de Cúneo y otros (1982). Cronistas de Indias: antología, Buenos Aires. "Ediciones del Pensamiento Nacional" ISBN 950-581-020-2}}>

<4. ↑ Diarios de Colón, Primer Viaje, pag. 448-449, Biblioteca Virtual Cervantes>

(IkaMcRudes (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC))

A quick glance through this, without having examined any of the sources, makes it look like the information you list as being in es.wiki's Relationship between Native Americans and Spanish section of es:Cristóbal Colón could be added here. Again, this is assuming the sources meet our reliable source guidelines, as they are not identical on the different languages of Wikipedia, and just because it was published there, doesn't certainly mean it is trustworthy. That said, I have no fundamental objection to this addition, and trust that anyone who adds it will first verify the accuracy of the information vs. the sources. The rest of the info is getting too long; we should stick with only a limited amount of info here, and consider that for inclusion in other articles (essentially, just like at es.wiki). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we could just add the first section of what I translated. I will have a look at it and make it shorter so it is more suitable to be added. (IkaMcRudes (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Reading through, I suggest the section to be added to be made of three paragraphs. Basically explaining the objective of the spanish, the actions made on both parties and the reactions that came to affect their relationship. The last paragraph mentions how Columbus failed to comply with the Monarch's requests, this I consider would create a good intro to move on to what I think the next section in the article should be: Governorship and Arrest

The shorter version of my suggestion goes as follows:

'Relationship between Native Americans and Spanish

The relations established by Columbus and his crew members were within the guidelines of the traditions in those times: conquering land for the Kingdom they were representing. Since Columbus and his crew believed they were in the land of the Great Khan, they tried to take defensive military positions and searched to get in contact with any King of the land. They were not able to find anything and gradually proved they had superiority in weaponry over the natives which did not know anything of the Great Khan. This lack of knowledge led the Spanish to believe they had a low level of culture and assumed that the task of conquering this land would be easy. This is shown in the communication they kept with the Monarchs.

In the first voyage Columbus left a group of Spaniards installed in the Hispaniola Island (currently Dominican Republic and Haiti) in a fortress located on the north shore and called Navidad <2>. Upon his return, with the goal of establishing in the Indies and extend the discovery of land to reach the territories of Catay he found all his men (about 40 men) dead and that the fortress had been burnt down <2>. In search of convincing explanations for this happening; the relationship with the Native started to worsen to a extent of threatening them of making them slaves if they did not provided him large amounts of gold and spices <2>.

The government of the Columbus brothers in Hispaniola did not comply with the expectations the Spanish monarchs had. Not only did they have confrontation with other Spanish in Hispaniola but also became violent with the Natives when they did not find the riches they were expecting. These behaviors were disobedient to the orders expressed by Queen Isabella who made it clear that all indigenous should be treated as subjects of Castilla <178>. For this same reason was that Columbus and his brothers were sent back to Europe to see the Queen by Francisco Bobadilla <179>. The behavior of Columbus was denounced by Fray Bartolome de las Casas because he did not respond to the laws proposed by the Spanish law <n.15>.

<2.↑ a b c Biografía de Cristóbal Colón>

<178. ↑ IRVING, Washington (1832). Vida y viajes de Cristobal Colon. Gaspar y Roig. p. 151. http://books.google.es/books?id=MsUjjRTlDGoC.>

<179. ↑ Enciclopedia Católica [2]>

<15. ↑ También para el maestro de la Universidad de Salamanca, Francisco de Vitoria, uno de los principios fundamentales reconocidos en la Carta Constitucional de los Indios, como teología alternativa, era el derecho de los indios a ser hombres y ser tratados como seres libres (véase: Luciano Pereña Vicente, Derechos y Deberes entre Indios y Españoles en el nuevo mundo según Francisco de Vitoria. Salamanca (España), Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, 1992: p. 10.[1]>

(IkaMcRudes (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

European Bias

I wouldn't be surprised if there were many European contributors, who are clearly biased, are trying to embellish their history. He shouldn't be heralded as a hero or a selfless explorer. He should be described as a mere human being with flaws and his crimes should be put under greater scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholegrainfacts (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Name

The article claims that Colombus's name in his native language was Christoffa Corombo. The references given for this are totally inadequate, since they refer, vaguely, to ancient texts that are not about Colombus at all. Unless someone can give an appropriate secondary source (for instance, a modern, mainstream biography) to document this form of his name, it should be removed. - Eb.hoop (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Manuel Rosa is not a reliable source. He is an analyst, not a historian. --Davide41 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Material unrelated to the point at issue, or to otherwise improving the article

David41, do not blame Manuel Rosa for the inaccuracies in the article that you have helped to propagate. As far as I know Manuel Rosa NEVER stated that the discoverer's name was Christoffa Corombo from Genoa. In fact he has always opposed both the idea that his name was Colombo/Columbus and genoese.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC) " Manuel Rosa for the inaccuracies in the article that you have helped to propagate " Thirty five years of teaching. Respect. The facts (Genoese Origin) 101 Contemporary European writers 225 Documents 192 Historians The four main writers: Ferdinand Columbus, Bartolomé de las Casas, Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés and Peter Martyr d'Anghiera are agrees that the discoverer was Genoese. Only respect for History, Sources (Morison, Taviani, Ballesteros, Caddeo, Harrisse ...) , and for Documents. --Davide41 (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC) " In fact he has always opposed both the idea that his name was Colombo/Columbus and genoese. " It's not the only: There is an absurd story of a Greek Columbus, concocted by an English writer toward the end of the last century. And then there are the namesakes, which have given rise to tales and legends wherever one finds the surname Columbus. Two centuries later, in honor of the fourth centennial of the discovery of the Americas, some heraldic scholars labored hard to trace the origins of the Coullons or of the Colombs of Bordeaux, Bourgogne, and Savoy [...] The documents (and Contemporary European writers), irrefutably demolish the dilettantish claims. At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, Genoese, a foreigner in Spain. Only in the 18th and 19th centuries, did anyone begin disputing Columbus' Genoese origins. (1) (1) The Idea of a "Portuguese" Christopher Columbus, was born in Portugal only in 1915. Patrocínio Ribeiro "Docet" ! --Davide41 (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Manuel Rosa is not a reliable secondary source for Wikipedia, but here I was not complaining about that (I had already reverted that edit). I was questioning the current claim that Columbus's original Genoese name was Christoffa Corombo and the sources given. - Eb.hoop (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the second source cited in the article—a 1755 translation of Torquato Tasso's Jerusalem Liberated into Genoese—does not have Columbus's name written as "Corombo", as the article currently seems to imply. The Google books copy of the source shows that his name was written as "Colombo", just as it is in standard Italian. This query and the response show that "Cristoffa" is merely a name which appears in the 1595 anthology of poems cited in the article and thence presumed to have been the then Genoese version of Columbus's first name by the editor who added that assertion to the article. I agree that these assertions are inadequately supported and should be removed.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Finally a voice of clarity. David_J_Wilson can you go through the whole article please and look for ALL assertions that are inadequately supported and remove them.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Questionable statement in the lead

I feel like we discussed this before, but I can't find it in the archives.... A new user removed the paragraph from the lead that says, in part, "the voyages of Columbus molded the future of European colonization and encouraged European exploration of foreign lands for centuries to come." Personally, I think this statement should come out, because it's entirely unsourced, and the claim is not supported by information in the body of the article. In order to make such a huge and overbearing claim, I think we need some pretty solid sourcing from reliable historians. I'm fairly certain I've read arguments that said that it's not specfically Columbus' voyages, but rather changes in European social and governmental structures that caused those voyages to "trigger" European conquest of the Americas, along with other possible issues not directly attributable to Columbus. I decided to just add a cite needed tag to the sentence rather than remove it, given how contentious every change to this article usually is, but I'm wondering if others can produce sources that document this claim. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't read that statement as saying that columbus triggered anything, only that they set the scene for the subsequent stages of colonization, which I don't really find to be controversial.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, how's that? The phrase "molded the future of European colonization" clearly implies that the voyages themselves significantly shaped/influenced/caused European activities in the Americas. That very clearly says to me that the voyages caused the changes. The second clause, "encouraged European exploration of foreign lands for centuries to come" again makes an explicit causal link between these voyages and the European "exploration". This is, in fact, a controversial statement. As an analogy, imagine a room packed full of people, fleeing a fire. Everyone is moving rapidly but in growing panic towards the very narrow and distant exit. People are yelling and coughing. Then, one person in the middle slips and nudges the person next to them. That person yells out, bumps another person, and a chain reaction occurs leading to a stampede. Now, that first person "bumping" the others isn't actually the "cause" of the stampede, in anything other than a trivial way. The cause of the stampede was the overall psychological atmosphere, the physical environment, and the survival drive. Now, I'm not saying with certainty that this situation is exactly analogous to the Columbus voyages, but I'm saying that it may have been and, if memory serves, is in fact the way that some reliable historians interpret it. So, I'm not saying that the sentence should be removed, but I do think we need some good citations. As written now, it just sounds like the sort of hero-worship we typically find in high school (and earlier) textbooks. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Other names in intro

Especially considering it wasn't how the name called himself ever (even in Latin it's slightly different), surely his other names should be put in the intro sentence just after the English one? If you do it for Genoa, why not for one of her most famous sons? Munci (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Columbus - Polish?

Any truth to the recent claims by the Poles that Columbus was Polish? --KpoT (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Those claims come from a new book by Manuel Rosa, but the Poles are corrupting that author's research which says that Columbus was a Portuguese born son of Polish King Władysław III exiled in Portugal and therefore not Polish but portuguese. His father was Polish.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese Ignorance and the Italian Lie

"Christopher Columbus and I,
In 2004 a friend from the University of the Canary Islands came to Lisbon intent to conducting research on Christopher Columbus in Portugal. My friends and I, the vast majority teachers, told him to go to Italy. He returned to the Canaries with the feeling that Columbus's life in Portugal was unimportant. The work of Mascarenhas Barreto on Colombo, dated 1989 was known to me. The truth be told, academia saw that work as of little worth and therefore I did not read it much less recommend it. In 2005, I enjoyed the novel by Jose Rodrigues dos Santos in a fictional scenario that exposes some historical facts, although romanticized, aroused my curiosity to learn more on the subject. Luckily, in October 2006, Manuel Rosa and Eric J, Steele published an important book about Columbus. The theme and the multiplicity of new facts presented by these two authors, showed me my grave ignorance on the issue of the nationality of Columbus and all that it involves.
Since then in my spare time I have read an extensive bibliography on this subject, on the characters around him and their time, as well as all documents written by Columbus himself. The first finding that one easily arrives at is that some of the brightest of the Portuguese historians, as Vitorino Magalhães Godinho and Avelino Teixeira da Mota, wrote real atrocities about Columbus revealing a huge amount of ignorance of the Portuguese scholars on this subject. They merely repeated what others had written, without critically examining the existing documentation. Those who held other interpretations in Portugal, often did nothing to restore the facts and to frame the issue within the Portuguese court. Most abused esoteric readings, genealogical and heraldic by believing in a Genoese Columbus they simply refused to review any documents. The result was an authentic pseudo-biographical delusional history that no person with a minimum of common sense and historical knowledge of the times can accept. Given this very poor picture of Portuguese historiography on Columbus, it is not surprising that references to Portugal in numerous biographies and studies of Columbus is full of factual errors and a very incomplete and distorted view of the Portuguese contribution to the discoveries. One could not to expect anything else given the absence of experts in Portugal on the subject of Columbus. Following up on the investigation presented in Manuel Rosa's third book, the documentation I have collected to answer the riddle of Columbus's identity is so vast, that I wonder about the social and cultural significance of this indifference of Portuguese intellectuals on the subject. I am now convinced that the current history is a monumental Italian and Spanish hoax, only possible because it was fueled by a profound ignorance of Columbus's life by the Portuguese historians.
As a modest contribution, we will publish new data in a systematic way about Columbus, supported by a vast literature and unpublished or little known documents. In the footnotes will be pointing out the bibliographic and documentary sources consulted in order for the more interested reader to verify the authenticity of the evidence.
Professor Carlos Fontes

I removed the link, as this is not the place to advertise your site. As for the rest of this, I'm sure it's all fascinating, but Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, so you'll need to provide those, not your own analysis. Another way of saying that is that Wikipedia is not a place for you to publish you original research--you'll need to do so through reliable, academic presses, after which those publications can be considered for inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk)

Bearing in mind that ancient Greeks travelled as far as what is now the United Kingdom and Ireland(Parthalonian Greeks are written into Irish ancestry), what is now Spain(Emporio), what is now, France(Marsailles - from Massalia and Calais - from Kalais), what is now Italy(Napoli/Naples from Neapolis, Calabria, Syracuse, etc), etc., I think the follwoing is pertinent:

Was Columbus Greek?

Was Columbus a woolworker from Genoa or a Byzantine Prince and sailor from the island of Chios in what was then the Republic of Genoa? The ferry that sails between the island of Lesvos and Athens port city of Pireaus stops at the island of Chios, a few miles off the coast of Asia Minor. If you are traveling from Athens it arrives at four a.m. and unless you are awakened by the change in the rhythm of the ship's engines as it slows down and backs into the quay you won't even know you have been there. But if you are coming from Lesvos you will usually arrive in Chios at around nine p.m. when the city is in full swing. The ship stays in Chios for an hour which is enough time to jump off, eat a souvlaki, have a coffee, wander around and look at the shops and perhaps buy some mastika, the gum that comes from the trees that Chios has been famous for centuries. There is also enough time to stop in to one of the bookstores and buy a small book that may change your mind about the origins of Christopher Columbus, the man who discovered America. The book is called A NEW THEORY CLARIFYING THE IDENTITY OF CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: A BYZANTINE PRINCE FROM CHIOS, GREECE. It was written by Ruth G Durlacher-Wolper, the founder and the director of the New World Museum and the New World Foundation in San Salvador, Bahamas, where Columbus' ships first landed in 1492. There has been more written about Christopher Columbus than about any person with the exception of Jesus Christ, and yet his past has been shrouded in mystery. We all have been told that he came from Genoa, a city in Italy and sailed for Isabella and Ferdinand, the king and queen of Spain, after many years of trying to convince them that the world was round, a belief that was uncommon despite the fact that Aristotle had said it over a thousand years before. But most of what we know about Columbus is conjecture and much of his history was written by people who never knew him or had reasons of their own for rewriting or presenting as truth something that was just a theory. The story of his being the son of a woolworker from Genoa for example only came from the fact that there was someone named Columbus from Genoa who was a wool worker and is a legend attributed to Peter Martyr de Anghiera. Go to Genoa and you will see that there are monuments and a show of pride in it being the birthplace of Columbus. But I am convinced Columbus was from Chios. The book is carefully researched and after reading it even if you are not convinced you will certainly be less sure that all you knew before was the truth. For those of you who remember your Byzantine history, you may recall that the Paleologos Dynasty were the Byzantine Emperors who traced their descendants to the Royal House of David and fled to the west after the fall of Constantinople. According to the book, Columbus and his kinsman Colon-the-Younger came to France with the Paleologi and mixed with the royalty of the period, which would make sense. Why would the King and Queen of Spain would give him three ships and a lot of money if he was the son of a Genovese woolworker? Columbus never said he was from Genoa. He said he was from the Republic of Genoa, something much different. The island of Chios was part of the Republic of Genoa. The name Columbus is carved above many doors in the villages of Pirgi and Cimbori and a priest with that last name traces his ancestry on the island back over 600 years. There are also many Genovese families who trace their ancestry back to Chios. Columbus also wrote about the gum-mastic called mastika which comes only from Chios. The book presents many convincing arguments and in the end summarizes them with 22 FACTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE CLARIFICATION OF COLUMBUS IDENTITY. Among the most interesting: Columbus signature "Xro-Ferens" Christophoros is Greek-Latin or Byzantine.

Columbus spelled Chios with a Greek 'X'.

Columbus named Cape Maysi in Cuba using Greek words, Alpha and Omega.

Columbus never asked Italy for ships or aid for food and shelter when he needed help. If he was from Genoa than why not? Nor does he ever mention the Columbo family of Genoa to whom history says he was related. He neither spoke or read Italian. Yet in his favorite book Imago Mundi by Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly he wrote in the margins in Greek.

Columbus was called Genovese because he dressed in Genovese fashion from Chios. He signed his name "Columbus de terra Rubra" which means of the red earth. The Mastic areas of Chios was known for the red color of the earth. He banked at St. George in Genoa which took care of the colonies like Chios.

Columbus kept two logs on his journey, one real and one false. The true log used the measurements in Greek leagues and the false in Roman. The author used the real logs and measurements to reconstruct Columbus discovery of the island of San Salvador and cleared up many discrepancies in the geography of the area. The Colombo family of Genoa were illiterate and the Genovese Christophoro was a woolweaver. For this person to acquire the learning, experience and spirituality that Columbus had that could convince a foreign king and queen to entrust a small navy and a fortune to him doesn't seem probable. Maybe in twentieth century America a poor son of a common garment worker can grow up to become president but in the Europe of the 15th century it is unlikely he could make Captain, much less Admiral in command of a fleet. It is more likely that for Columbus to have received an audience with a king and queen he would have to be royal himself or have some pretty good connections. Columbus' son Ferdinand wrote that his ancestors have always followed the sea. Unless the Columbo family of Genoa had a long history of being ships tailors or official shearers of sea-sheep then they were not related. In fact even though they were living in Genoa at the time that Ferdinand was writing about his father, they are not mentioned. Nor are they mentioned in the Will of Columbus. Columbus was not a wool-worker struck by God like Joan of Arc and instantly filled with knowledge of navigation, philosophy, astronomy, psychology, languages and the power to convince kings to give him whatever he wanted. This was a man with a lifetime of education, culture, experience and inspiration who had a sense of his own destiny and the drive to fulfill it. In the book we discover that not only was Columbus connected with the Paleologos family but many of his buddies were Greek too. Perhaps this is the most convincing argument for me. Anyone knowing Greeks in exile is aware that they are a tight group that trust each other and spend all their time together, bound by that thread of Hellenism. As convincing as all the other arguments, (and there are many in this small book), the fact that his 'parea' was Greek, (in other words his group of friends and associates), proved to me that Christopher Columbus was not the son of an itinerant Genovese wool-worker, but a Byzantine prince from Chios who came from a life of enlightened education and spiritual aspirations, and as an islander, combined it with a love of the sea. The islanders from Chios are known for their skill on the sea and for the number of sea-captains and ship owners from there. If Columbus was Greek then Chios is the most likely island he would be from. With it's Genovese architecture and sea-faring history, the heroic exploits of the people of Chios and also the evidence that Chios was the birthplace of Homer, where else would he be from? Maybe you aren't convinced. But I am. Columbus was Greek. Was Columbus Greek?

Was Columbus a woolworker from Genoa or a Byzantine Prince and sailor from the island of Chios in what was then the Republic of Genoa? The ferry that sails between the island of Lesvos and Athens port city of Pireaus stops at the island of Chios, a few miles off the coast of Asia Minor. If you are traveling from Athens it arrives at four a.m. and unless you are awakened by the change in the rhythm of the ship's engines as it slows down and backs into the quay you won't even know you have been there. But if you are coming from Lesvos you will usually arrive in Chios at around nine p.m. when the city is in full swing. The ship stays in Chios for an hour which is enough time to jump off, eat a souvlaki, have a coffee, wander around and look at the shops and perhaps buy some mastika, the gum that comes from the trees that Chios has been famous for centuries. There is also enough time to stop in to one of the bookstores and buy a small book that may change your mind about the origins of Christopher Columbus, the man who discovered America. The book is called A NEW THEORY CLARIFYING THE IDENTITY OF CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: A BYZANTINE PRINCE FROM CHIOS, GREECE. It was written by Ruth G Durlacher-Wolper, the founder and the director of the New World Museum and the New World Foundation in San Salvador, Bahamas, where Columbus' ships first landed in 1492. There has been more written about Christopher Columbus than about any person with the exception of Jesus Christ, and yet his past has been shrouded in mystery. We all have been told that he came from Genoa, a city in Italy and sailed for Isabella and Ferdinand, the king and queen of Spain, after many years of trying to convince them that the world was round, a belief that was uncommon despite the fact that Aristotle had said it over a thousand years before. But most of what we know about Columbus is conjecture and much of his history was written by people who never knew him or had reasons of their own for rewriting or presenting as truth something that was just a theory. The story of his being the son of a woolworker from Genoa for example only came from the fact that there was someone named Columbus from Genoa who was a wool worker and is a legend attributed to Peter Martyr de Anghiera. Go to Genoa and you will see that there are monuments and a show of pride in it being the birthplace of Columbus. But I am convinced Columbus was from Chios. The book is carefully researched and after reading it even if you are not convinced you will certainly be less sure that all you knew before was the truth. For those of you who remember your Byzantine history, you may recall that the Paleologos Dynasty were the Byzantine Emperors who traced their descendants to the Royal House of David and fled to the west after the fall of Constantinople. According to the book, Columbus and his kinsman Colon-the-Younger came to France with the Paleologi and mixed with the royalty of the period, which would make sense. Why would the King and Queen of Spain would give him three ships and a lot of money if he was the son of a Genovese woolworker? Columbus never said he was from Genoa. He said he was from the Republic of Genoa, something much different. The island of Chios was part of the Republic of Genoa. The name Columbus is carved above many doors in the villages of Pirgi and Cimbori and a priest with that last name traces his ancestry on the island back over 600 years. There are also many Genovese families who trace their ancestry back to Chios. Columbus also wrote about the gum-mastic called mastika which comes only from Chios. The book presents many convincing arguments and in the end summarizes them with 22 FACTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE CLARIFICATION OF COLUMBUS IDENTITY. Among the most interesting: Columbus signature "Xro-Ferens" Christophoros is Greek-Latin or Byzantine.

Columbus spelled Chios with a Greek 'X'.

Columbus named Cape Maysi in Cuba using Greek words, Alpha and Omega.

Columbus never asked Italy for ships or aid for food and shelter when he needed help. If he was from Genoa than why not? Nor does he ever mention the Columbo family of Genoa to whom history says he was related. He neither spoke or read Italian. Yet in his favorite book Imago Mundi by Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly he wrote in the margins in Greek.

Columbus was called Genovese because he dressed in Genovese fashion from Chios. He signed his name "Columbus de terra Rubra" which means of the red earth. The Mastic areas of Chios was known for the red color of the earth. He banked at St. George in Genoa which took care of the colonies like Chios.

Columbus kept two logs on his journey, one real and one false. The true log used the measurements in Greek leagues and the false in Roman. The author used the real logs and measurements to reconstruct Columbus discovery of the island of San Salvador and cleared up many discrepancies in the geography of the area. The Colombo family of Genoa were illiterate and the Genovese Christophoro was a woolweaver. For this person to acquire the learning, experience and spirituality that Columbus had that could convince a foreign king and queen to entrust a small navy and a fortune to him doesn't seem probable. Maybe in twentieth century America a poor son of a common garment worker can grow up to become president but in the Europe of the 15th century it is unlikely he could make Captain, much less Admiral in command of a fleet. It is more likely that for Columbus to have received an audience with a king and queen he would have to be royal himself or have some pretty good connections. Columbus' son Ferdinand wrote that his ancestors have always followed the sea. Unless the Columbo family of Genoa had a long history of being ships tailors or official shearers of sea-sheep then they were not related. In fact even though they were living in Genoa at the time that Ferdinand was writing about his father, they are not mentioned. Nor are they mentioned in the Will of Columbus. Columbus was not a wool-worker struck by God like Joan of Arc and instantly filled with knowledge of navigation, philosophy, astronomy, psychology, languages and the power to convince kings to give him whatever he wanted. This was a man with a lifetime of education, culture, experience and inspiration who had a sense of his own destiny and the drive to fulfill it. In the book we discover that not only was Columbus connected with the Paleologos family but many of his buddies were Greek too. Perhaps this is the most convincing argument for me. Anyone knowing Greeks in exile is aware that they are a tight group that trust each other and spend all their time together, bound by that thread of Hellenism. As convincing as all the other arguments, (and there are many in this small book), the fact that his 'parea' was Greek, (in other words his group of friends and associates), proved to me that Christopher Columbus was not the son of an itinerant Genovese wool-worker, but a Byzantine prince from Chios who came from a life of enlightened education and spiritual aspirations, and as an islander, combined it with a love of the sea. The islanders from Chios are known for their skill on the sea and for the number of sea-captains and ship owners from there. If Columbus was Greek then Chios is the most likely island he would be from. With it's Genovese architecture and sea-faring history, the heroic exploits of the people of Chios and also the evidence that Chios was the birthplace of Homer, where else would he be from? Maybe you aren't convinced. But I am. Columbus was Greek.

There are other Greek surnames of similar etymology, i.e., Theodore Couloumbis (Professor emeritus at the University of Athensand vice-president of the board of directors of the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy{Eliamep}, Caloumbaris (George Caloumbaris, a judge on Australian Masterchef, heritage is from Cyprus(Greek)), Callouris, Columbos, Colivas,Colon(a in the Greek derived "colonoscopy" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.144.132 (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm not reading anything you wrote. Wikipedia is not the palce to publish your own original research. Point us to reliable sources, but don't try to argue your theory here. What you or I think is 100% irrelevant--all that matters is what reliable sources say. Please note that if you continue to use this page to argue for your own theories rather than providing us with information to improve the article, your posts will be removed under WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTFORUM. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify--please provide some evidence that the results of that book are accepted by historians. That is, please demonstrate the book is reliable and due.Qwyrxian (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

For a Greek Columbus theory to stick you MUST explain why he and his brothers communicated in Portuguese-flavored Spanish (including the word Xios which was then Portuguese for Cyprus) , why he was married to a Portuguese noble lady in 1479, why he called Portugal "my homeland" in a letter dated March 4, 1493 to queen Isabella and why he used only Portuguese names to name the New World as has now been proven beyond a doubt in Manuel Rosa's book COLON: La Historia Nunca Contada. To counter Rosa's investigation will not be easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.144.213 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus did not discover Americas

Thousands of Years ago, the Phoenicians dominated all of the mediterranean countries..... And one day, when they were about to travel by sea from the mediterranean to the Atlantic (Africa), three of their ships were carried on by the wind and took them by accident to Brazil... there, some ruins and statues have been found which have been traced back to the phoenicians. By leaving those traces, the phoenicians proved that they were the first to discover the land, not Christopher Columbus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.133.80 (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If this were true, it would be in all the histories. But it's not. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's "sort-of" true. There are some historians who believe that there were other non-American explorer who came to the Americas prior to Columbus. The evidence is quite inconclusive. In any event, 77..., if you want to suggest changes to the article, please provide reliable sources and we can discuss the issue; but nothing will be changed without such sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the statues. We do have an article on pre-Columbian contacts in any case - Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact which is where any reliable sources should go, not in this article. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian visits to America? Are you kidding? The lands were already known prior to the Vikings, but lets start there. The Vikings settled in Canada around the year 1000 and maintained a settlement in Greenland at least until 1408 when the last wedding celebration was recorded. That's 400 years of habitation with countless voyages between the Old World and the New Wprld. In the early 15th Century the Portuguese made voyages to the Americas naming those lands "Antilhas" meaning beyond the Ilhas (Islands) of the Azores. Those Antilhas were drawn on a 1424 map, housed today in the James Ford bell Library at the U. of Minnesota. Columbus himself was in Canada in February 1477 in a voyage so clearly described that it leaves no doubt he visited the area of Bay of Fundy. He admits sailing 100 leagues beyond the Island of Tile (Greenland) which lay far to the West of Ptolemy's western frontier of Thule (Iceland) [which was already so well visited by year 150 that Ptolemy identified it as an island]. Columbus did not discover America, he was simply the first navigator allowed by Portugal to make the news known worldwide.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source: http://phoenicia.org/brazil.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.116.47 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but what does any of this have to do with this article? The article doesn't say that Columbus was the first to discover the Americas. Maybe this is info you want to take to some other article (however, when you do so, you should note that the link you provided is not a reliable source, as it's a self-published website by a "student of archeology"--we need info from peer reviewed journals or other reliable sources). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Right off the bat the "reliable source" begins with "and the very large continent- island that existed in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, known as Atlantis, sank." While this may be true it is hardly mainstream thinking. Carptrash (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Read more: Phoenicia, Phoenicians in Brazil http://phoenicia.org/brazil.html#ixzz1Nx2cXOPy

Untrue Statement

This statement is not true: "Never admitting that he had reached a continent previously unknown to Europeans..." In at least three different letters Admiral Colón admitted he had reached NEW LANDS until then unknown:

• "Y Vuestras Altezas ganaron estas tierras, tantas, que son otro mundo..." (And Your Highnesses gained these lands, many, which are another world..)
• "Puesto so el señorío del Rey e de la Reina, Nuestros Señores, otro mundo..." (Put under the lordhsip of the King and Queen, Our Lords, another world...)
• "Cometí viaje de nuevo al cielo y mundo que fasta entonçes estaba oculto..." (I made a trip anew to the sky and world that until then had been hidden...)

May I remind you that the INDIA was not a new world but the old world and had ever been hidden but was known for thousands of years prior and well depicted by Ptolemy in the year 150. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colon-el-Nuevo (talk • contribs) on 30 April 2011

The translation of the first sentence is poor. It should read "gaines these lands, so many, that are another world" (the sentence just meaning that the new lands are huge)--RR (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

RR- actually the most accurate meaning for the Colón's employment of "ganaron" is "have gained" or "have won" - but the important part of this note is that Admiral Colón was quite aware that he was not in India but in a "New World" that did not include the old India.50.105.32.113 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That all sounds like original research, which is not something Wikipedia deals with. Find a reputable, verifiable source for your assertion. --Scaletail (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Casasdobigodes, 24 May 2011

the place and birth location are not define yet and so the nacionality aswell

Casasdobigodes (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)I would like to see a (?) insted of maiby false informations with no prof, thank you

They're defined right in the infobox. The information is supported by a large number of sources; see Origin theories of Christopher Columbus for more details. The infobox includes that information most widely believed by international historians. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't an Italian guy

Cristobal Colón (Christopher Columbus for english people) Was bornt IN VALLADOLID. He serves to the Real Marina Española. His child bornt in Córdoba Youssef 96 96 (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

According to some sources he was actually Polish, not Portuguese: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333895/Christopher-Columbus-Polish-Portuguese-claim-historians.html or http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/8166041/Christopher-Columbus-was-son-of-Polish-king.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruok (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is entirely too positive

I understand that there is a human want to venerate historical figures. And from this want comes an impulse to wash them (historical figures) of their sins, however this is an encyclopedia. If the goal of the encyclopedia is to provide unbiased information, then this article is lacking. There is no talk of Columbus' impact on the Native people of the lands he discovered. I believe this information has been deliberately left out in order to improve Columbus' reputation. Columbus' effect on the native peoples should be recorded whether they are positive or negative; regardless they must be included. Mwentz88 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Deliberately left out by whom? The hundreds of contributors to this article? If you have information that's verified by reliable sources, be bold and add it yourself. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am looking forward to seeing what a more negative article will read like. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Having just looked at the legacy section it seems to me that some of the downside of Columbus' arrival is mentioned. To assign to Columbus all the calamities that befell the native peoples would, in my opinion be making the old mistake of crediting him to much for what was to happen. Add more, but document it, please. Carptrash (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

17,000,000 est. dead native Americans throughout his career. Good job, Chris! This makes him a bigger killer than Hitler. You verify it, I have other things to do. To put it most concisely, beings who spring from crotches should not be over-rated. Our history is controlled by the winners, and the winners are often evil and always ruthless. Don't you find it interesting that such an evil man was apparently born on Halloween?

My feeling about some of this is that Columbus often receives too much credit for what happened after him and I am not interested in giving him too much blame for the bad. You seem to be saying ("17,000,000 est. dead native Americans throughout his career.") that 17 million natives died during his lifetime? That's a lot. More than i would accept without a pretty good source. " You verify it, I have other things to do. " is fine, but don't come complaining about what does or does not get done. We all have lives that we are living. Here is a place where the winners are not necessarily going to write the history and you have better things to do. Happy doing. Carptrash (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Maps

The maps should have arrows, showing the direction that the ships took. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.183.227 (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

his origins are in discussion

The legend says he was italian, but the most possible is that he was catalan. Studies of his name and the "dialect" he used to write in his texts suggests he was trying to hide his origins, but there was some particularities in his way of writting he could not hide, and the most possible is that he was catalan. For more information, just read Jordi Bilbeny's articles and books about his 18 years long investigation about the origins of Columbus.95.17.168.200 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of historians agree that he was Genoese. A few scholars still speculate about his ancestry - those theories are described at Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. This article presents the mainstream views and do not go into details about alternative speculations.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately all of the Catalan studies have left out the major part of Columbus's life. They make the same oversight the Italian investigations made, they leave out the Portuguese life as if it was an imaginary dream. Once you focus on the Portuguese life, the other theories simply become incompatible and the Portuguese nationality becomes obvious.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Signature

"in Spanish he used Cristóbal Colón, which is the only known signature by his hand.

There is no source for this, and the signature in the infobox clearly does not say Cristobal Colon. I actually have no idea what it says (appears to be written partially in Greek). Unless someone can provide a source and explain the discrepancy, I am going to delete the part about the signature. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. While we're on it, what evidence to we have that that image is actually Columbus' signature? The image file doesn't say where it came from; unless we have a good source, I don't see why we should trust it as valid either. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The signature is apparently legitimate (I don't see any RSes, but Guernsey issued a stamp with the signature in 1992), however exactly what it says is a subject of dispute. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The image which appears in the article is apparently not a copy of any single signature of Columbus's, but copies of two different versions of his signature, which have been combined into a single image. There is apparently much conjecture about the meaning of the pyramid of letters s, s a s, Χ M Y which appear above each version of the signature, but there seems to be no doubt whatever about the interpretation of the rest of them. The left version of the signature, ΧρόFERENS, is a mixture of Greek and Roman characters which stand for "Christoferens" ("Christ bearer"). The right version is "El almirante". The loops and lines which appear before, above, and below it—and also pass through it—are clearly extended flourishes originating from the letters X M Y which appear above it. Here is one source which explains how he typically wrote his signature.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case, that statement about his "Spanish signature" is clearly wrong, and glad that it was caught and removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually both those signatures are some artists rendering. Some of his letters can be seen in John Boyd Thacher's "Christopher Columbus : his life, his work, his remains" available for download on the web, Some letters can be viewed at the Spanish Archives online http://pares.mcu.es - and an image is here: http://1492.us.com/portugues/images/carta_colon.jpg - the correct signature carried "XpoFERENS" which is an intentional corruption of Christophorus and thus Christopher or Cristóbal in Spanish. This is then followed by a dot "." and slash "/" which is the way the ancients wrote ";" or semi-colon, thus inferring his last name of COLÓN. There are several letters signed as El Almirante which may or may not be authentic as well as some where the handwriting on the signature is totally different bringing into question if they are fraudulent. The pyramid os .S., .S. A .S., XMY is still a true enigma to be decoded.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This is UNACCEPTABLE

HE IS ITALIAN, GET OVER IT, GENOA IS IN ITALY, WHICH PART ARE YOU HAVING A ISSUE WITH?

NEXT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.36.94 (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This page is unacceptable. It does not mention the possibility (and probably truth) of the true nationality of Colombo: he was Portuguese, born in the small town of Cuba. Why do you think he called Cuba to the island the found? Also, his real name was Salvador Gonçalves Zarco, and he was the descendent of portuguese families with history in seasailing. Why do you think he called Salvador to the capital of the new-found island? Also, he was a spy employed by the portuguese government to discover lands for Portugal with the money of Castilla. Why do you think he stopped in Lisbon before going to Sevilla when he was returning? That is why the Alcaçovas Treaty was annulled by the Spanish Pope and a new one was created, the TREATY OF TORDESILLAS.

EVEN IF THIS IS A THOERY, IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukutawhiti (talk • contribs) 12:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not unless there are reputable sources who espouse the theory. Wikipedia's no original research and neutral point of view policies require that included information be referenced to a reliable source. Gentgeen (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Manuel de Rosa thinks that Columbus was the son of King of Poland [3]. For that matter, I think that Columbus was really me, traveling back in time to conduct a steamy, illicit affair with Queen Isabella and lord it over the Arawaks. Should these be mentioned? - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There is only one fact about the nationality of Columbus, and its that is unknown. Even the source related (British Enciclopedya) admits he could has born in Spain or Portugal. I really don't know why this article call that is Genevese when after more than 500 years its unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.126.157.145 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Because wiki articles give weight to the preponderance of reputable sources, and avoid giving undue weight to fringe theories. 204.65.34.156 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Dates

Are the dates Julian or have they been converted to the Gregorian Calendar used today? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus was Polish

New research suggests Chrispopher Columbus was actually the son of exiled Polish King Vladislav III - and not the son of a humble craftsman from Genoa. Search for Manuel Rosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.138.99 (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are suggesting new material be added, it helps to recommend specific changes, and link to a reputable source.204.65.34.156 (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

this article is wrong

this article has false information columbus wasnt trying to descover japan he was trying to descover Asia! please revise this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.55.156.62 (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are sources that contradicts the sources used in the article, then it can be written. The article refers to sources (Encyclopedia Britannica online) that say at the latitude he sailed, he thought he would first encounter Japan. You can check the sources yourself and help edit Wikipedia. Dominick ^(TALK) 21:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The much propagated view is that he was trying to discover a route to India, he wrote to the Spanish Monarchs that he was returning from India. However, this and many other of his statements are intentional lies meant to hoodwink the Spanish court. As an example, in one on of his letters he wrote that in 1494 he sailed 9 timezones to the west of Cuba which is impossible since the way is completely blocked by land, while another time he admitted correctly that Haiti is only 5 time zones from Spain. Thus the article should be modified to explain that what he said and what he did were intentionally done as two opposing things.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly was a time zone in Columbus' time?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Maunus|snunɐw, The same as it was in Ptolemy's Time. Timezones have always been the same. They are 1/24 of the earths circumference. 360º÷24=15º thus Columbus admits in 1494 that he was ONLY 75º west of Spain while India was known to be 9 timezones or 135º East of Spain. Another words, Columbus sailed a mere 75º of the 225º required to reach India heading West. He sailed only some 1040 leagues or 4 miles each when he needed to have sailed 4050 Leagues. Another words, he sailed 1/3 of the way which still left him 2/3 to go. It was our shortcomings in understanding Columbus that created a flawed history of Columbus. All is clearly explained in COLÓN: La Historia Nunca Contada (COLUMBUS: The Untold Story.)Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Luckily, blogs are useless for Wikiepdia. Please look at Time zone#History, and you'll see that the notion of time zones didn't even exist until the 19th century. So, how Columbus could have written about them, I simply don't know. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, it seems to me that if an editor is going to tackle a certain subject, the said editor should know about the subject, or be willing to study up on the subject, otherwise the editor's contribution is leading readers astray. I stated above that the concept of timezones was well defined by Ptolemy. Ptolemy wrote "the intention of an individual who wishes to build a globe... draw the equinoctial line... divide into 180º and begin the numbering from the limit of the most western meridian .... the meridians, according to what we have already shown, will embrace the space of twelve hours." Thus, Qwyrxian, half the sphere or 180º was already equal to 12 hours in Ptolemy's time. These 12 hours means 12 timezones. In 1494 the guy you call Columbus, but who was actually called Colón wrote himself a note that stated that while he was on the island of Saona next to Santo Domingo, he was at a location that was 5 hours, thus 5 TIMEZONES, west of Cadiz in Spain. Take a look at any world map and see if you can tell how many timezones separate Santo Domingo from Spain. It is the lack of knowledge in today's schools about what knowledge the ancients possessed that continues to blind us to the truth. I am no longer blind.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Blindness notwithstanding, wiki articles require changes or addition to material be backed up by reputable sources, not our own logic, original research, or questionable sources.204.65.34.156 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually america was first discovered by a black man. no one thinks of the black man because black men were not very well known. christipher columbus didnt go to america. he went to asia. vespucci didnt actually LAND on america he just saw it.

(TRUE FACT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantasia21 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Genoese name of Columbus

The article claims that Colombus's name in his native language was Christoffa Corombo. The references given for this are totally inadequate, since they refer, vaguely, to ancient texts that are not about Colombus at all. Unless someone can give an appropriate secondary source (for instance, a modern, mainstream biography) to document this form of his name, it should be removed. - Eb.hoop (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Manuel Rosa is not a reliable source. He is an analyst, not a historian. --Davide41 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Material unrelated to the point at issue, or to otherwise improving the article

David41, do not blame Manuel Rosa for the inaccuracies in the article that you have helped to propagate. As far as I know Manuel Rosa NEVER stated that the discoverer's name was Christoffa Corombo from Genoa. In fact he has always opposed both the idea that his name was Colombo/Columbus and genoese.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC) " Manuel Rosa for the inaccuracies in the article that you have helped to propagate " Thirty five years of teaching. Respect. The facts (Genoese Origin) 101 Contemporary European writers 225 Documents 192 Historians The four main writers: Ferdinand Columbus, Bartolomé de las Casas, Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés and Peter Martyr d'Anghiera are agrees that the discoverer was Genoese. Only respect for History, Sources (Morison, Taviani, Ballesteros, Caddeo, Harrisse ...) , and for Documents. --Davide41 (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC) " In fact he has always opposed both the idea that his name was Colombo/Columbus and genoese. " It's not the only: There is an absurd story of a Greek Columbus, concocted by an English writer toward the end of the last century. And then there are the namesakes, which have given rise to tales and legends wherever one finds the surname Columbus. Two centuries later, in honor of the fourth centennial of the discovery of the Americas, some heraldic scholars labored hard to trace the origins of the Coullons or of the Colombs of Bordeaux, Bourgogne, and Savoy [...] The documents (and Contemporary European writers), irrefutably demolish the dilettantish claims. At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, Genoese, a foreigner in Spain. Only in the 18th and 19th centuries, did anyone begin disputing Columbus' Genoese origins. (1) (1) The Idea of a "Portuguese" Christopher Columbus, was born in Portugal only in 1915. Patrocínio Ribeiro "Docet" ! --Davide41 (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Manuel Rosa is not a reliable secondary source for Wikipedia, but here I was not complaining about that (I had already reverted that edit). I was questioning the current claim that Columbus's original Genoese name was Christoffa Corombo and the sources given. - Eb.hoop (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the second source cited in the article—a 1755 translation of Torquato Tasso's Jerusalem Liberated into Genoese—does not have Columbus's name written as "Corombo", as the article currently seems to imply. The Google books copy of the source shows that his name was written as "Colombo", just as it is in standard Italian. This query and the response show that "Cristoffa" is merely a name which appears in the 1595 anthology of poems cited in the article and thence presumed to have been the then Genoese version of Columbus's first name by the editor who added that assertion to the article. I agree that these assertions are inadequately supported and should be removed.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Finally a voice of clarity. David_J_Wilson can you go through the whole article please and look for ALL assertions that are inadequately supported and remove them.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to revive the old topic about the Genoese name of Christopher Columbus, i.e. Christoffa Corombo, since I believe its hastily deletion was based on a misunderstanding. Mr Wilson misread the source. The name is indeed written [COROMBO], 3 times, with an R. Mr Wilson read page 202, the italian version instead of page 203, the genoese version. I'd also like to add that the name Cristoforo didn't exist back then. We had Christoffa in Genua and [Christofano] in Florence as you can verify by reading the L'historia d'Italia by Guicciardini printed in 1561 which I believe is the oldest written source of the italian translation of Christophorus Columbus. I hope this clarifies things a bit. I do apologise for the terrible formatting of my contribution. Gbparodi (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my rather careless and embarrassing mistake, and many thanks for the correction. I vaguely recall that when I did searches for "Colombo" and "Corombo" in the Google books copy of the text back in April, neither of them showed up, and I had to manually page through the text to get to the appropriate stanza. I've no idea now why this happened, since when I tried it again just now the search had no trouble finding both terms. But in any case, I should have recognised that the text I found was the Italian original rather than a Genoese translation.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe one should look at what the "supposed" genoese documents say "Christoforo de Columbo" as the Raccolta shows it to be. Funny that the document is in LATIN yet the names of the persons are in Genoese... very funny indeed for this funny business of inventing a "Colombo" wool-weaver.

The information I'm trying to convey is actually that IF he was born in Genoa and IF he was a native speaker of the Genoese language THEN his name would have sounded like this Ligurian pronunciation: [kriˈʃtɔffa kuˈɹuŋbu] . It may not be so relevant, maybe just a little bit interesting, therefore I put this bit of information back into the articleGbparodi (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Portuguese-Polish Theory?

While the Spanish are doing all they can to try to prove Columbus was a Catalan Colom, and the Italians try to prop up their wool-weaver of dreams, the Portuguese-Polish "Columbus" is sailing into history "Columbus’s 1479 marriage to Filipa Moniz, who was an elite member of the Order of Santiago, required the approval of King John II of Portugal indicating the recognition by the King of Columbus’s aristocratic lineage. As for the identity part, Rosa feels that he has gathered plenty of documentation that refutes the Italian wool-weaver theory." The Portuguese-American Journal "“This new Portuguese document alone,” stated Rosa, “makes the entirety of Columbus’ Italian history false.”" VilNews e-magazine is published in Vilnius, Lithuania. Editor-in-Chief: Mr. Aage Myhre.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Enslavement of Christians, Spanish law not Catholic law

Under the third voyage section the article states, "Since Columbus supported the enslavement of the Hispaniola natives for economic reasons, he ultimately refused to baptize them, as Catholic law forbade the enslavement of Christians.[57]" Reference 57 refers to the Christian Science Monitor, Who really sailed the ocean blue in 1492?, this article actually says that it's a Spanish law and doesn't even mention Catholicism. The laws of a Kingdom/Country and Cannon laws of Catholicism are not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.230.232 (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thank you for picking this up.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Columbus refused baptism to the Indians?

In the third voyage section it says "Since Columbus supported the enslavement of the Hispaniola natives for economic reasons, he ultimately refused to baptize them, as Spanish law forbade the enslavement of Christians" and the citation given is a Christian Science Monitor article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1017/p05s01-woeu.html) which I do not believe reliable and which does not provide any supporting evidence. If the phrase is true then there must exist reliable, preferably contemporary, supporting mentions which could be used as cites and if no such cites can be found then it is better to remove the phrase.

This page in Spanish http://www.historiadelnuevomundo.com/index.php/2010/09/la-pesquisa-contra-los-colon/ is about the accusations and trials against Columbus and has a viewpoint which is quite critical of Columbus. It asks whether Columbus prevented some natives from being baptised and then goes on to describe a more complicated situation than on would think at first sight. It seems Columbus wanted to reserve for himself the authority of who could be baptised which brought a confrontation with the priests who were with him and who thought the purpose of the colonization was to convert souls. So, it seems more like a power struggle and a conflict of personalities of which Columbus had so many in his life.

Then we can also read that the conflict about who was to be baptised was not natives who were to be enslaved but that some Spaniards who were already cohabitting with native women requested these be baptised so they could be joined in holy matrimony rather than living in sin to which Columbus replied that only those who were already taught in the Christian faith and knew the basics of it should be baptised and that just wanting to 'legalise' their union was not sufficient reason. That page also says Columbus was a devout Christian so it seems likely that this last reason was genuine.

In the enquiries and trials he was subjected to upon his return to Spain some did accuse him of being motivated by wanting to enslave the natives but it does not say on what grounds these accusations were supported and it was obvious, then as much as now, that many accusations were motivated by political agendas or personal grudges and Columbus had a special ability for creating enemies.

I believe more and better evidence should be searched before we can really say that his motivation was enslaving people. GS3 (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Columbus did capture "in battle" for control of Haiti about 400 "troublemaking" natives which he sent to Spain to be sold as slaves. However, Queen Isabel freed them and ordered them sent back to Haiti reprimanding Columbus that no natives should be enslaved. Columbus did refuse to allow mass baptisms until the natives were properly cognoscente of what baptism was, because the natives did not know anything about Christian religion and had not had sufficient teachings and could not even understand what "cult" they were agreeing to join. Columbus was a devout Christian but not necessarily a devout Catholic. Baptism in the Spanish sense meant joining the Catholic Church. There was more to Columbus's arguments with the "Catholic" monks than a simple baptism. It was centered around which theology the natives would eventually align themselves with: that of the Vatican enslaved into supporting an ever-increasing self indulgent clergy, or that of the Cult of the Holy Trinity, envisioned by the "Abbot of Calabria" Joachim of Fiore which completely bypassed the vatican and which Columbus and the Portuguese Order of Christ (Portugal) subscribed to. Columbus saw his voyages as the needed preparation for the Apocalypse which would bring on Joachim of Fiore's Age of the Holy Spirit He so much believed in this that he wrote his own Book of Prophecies which was censured in Spain and had about 14 pages ripped out. There is still a lot more to learn about Columbus's whole "Enterprise of the Indies".Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

So we are in agreement in that saying his motivation to not baptize the Indians was so that he could enslave them is not a fair description of what happened as far as we know. GS3 (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article in the Christian Science Monitor (or any article in any other newspaper, in fact) is not a reliable source for non-contemporary historical facts. However, the book by Consuelo Varela, which the article cites, certainly is such a source. On p.111 of that book Prof. Varela seems to say that many witnesses accused Columbus of not allowing Indians to be baptised so they could be sold as slaves. The sentence under discussion should probably be rewritten to better reflect what that book actually does say, but I'll leave that for someone whose understanding of Spanish is much better than mine.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The blog page I linked to (in Spanish) is a summary of that same book by Varela and does not seem to support the assertion. I am trying to contact the author of the blog to see if he can tell me exactly what the book says as I do not have a copy. If I cannot get it from him I will try to find it elsewhere. For now I think it is safe to say Columbus was accused but not that he was guilty of it. My general view of Columbus is that he was a great seaman and navigator but was terrible as a leader and in dealing with people. It seems he managed to antagonize everybody around him. GS3 (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

An on-line electronic copy (I presume only partial) is available at Google books. I have included a link to p.111 in the citation I added to the article. For some reason the copy-paste function on my iPad is not currently working in this edit window, so I haven't yet been able to paste a copy of the link here.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In my own research I had found the book in Google Books but could not access that particular page and I had missed your link. By clicking on the link you supplied I was able to see the page. Here is a translation of the entire page:

Many witnesses testified that Columbus, in order to sell them as slaves, would not allow the Indians to be baptized, because, as noted by Gonzalo Vizcaya, the admiral [Columbus] "wanted more the tribute they gave him than to see them Christians." Several [witnesses] said that the Viceroy had demanded that they hand over one or two Indians to be sent to Castile as slaves and that he would take from their owners the better Indians for resale in the island or to send them back to Spain. The translator said Columbus told him to go to talk to the Indians who had fled to the mountains because they could not pay taxes, to tell them that Admiral promised to help them against other Indians which were their enemies and when they were convinced of their safety Columbus would imprison them. Once imprisoned, goes on to say Cristobal Rodriguez, they were either sent to Castile or they were given to Spaniards in payment of their salaries. Pedro Foronda seems to refer to Columbus’s craving for slaves when he told the story of the admiral’s [Columbus] anger when he learned that upon the arrival of Bobadilla the monks devoted themselves diligently to baptizing Indians.

This is not the place to discuss at length the slaving policy of Don Cristobal, which is well known. Both the admiral and his brother Bartholome sent to Castile as many slaves as they could procure. Suffice it to recall some specific shipments prior to the date of our inquiry.

The first batch of fifty natives was sent to Seville in February 1495. They were all vassals of Guatiguaná, from whom they were taken in retaliation because he ordered the killing of ten Christians. The second batch of 600 Indians, was taken by 80 Christians sent by Columbus to the province of Cibao in retaliation against Caonaobó, who had already been taken prisoner by Alonso de Hojeda and was in La Isabela ready to be sent to Castile. As Las Casas tells us, a storm destroyed the fleet before it set sail, drowning the chief [Caonaobo] and the fate of the 600 natives is unknown.

In there there are two phrases which refer to the issue at hand.

Many witnesses testified that Columbus, in order to sell them as slaves, would not allow the Indians to be baptized, because, as noted by Gonzalo Vizcaya, the admiral [Columbus] "wanted more the tribute they gave him than to see them Christians."

Pedro Foronda seems to refer to Columbus’s craving for slaves when he told the story of the admiral’s [Columbus] anger when he learned that upon the arrival of Bobadilla the monks devoted themselves diligently to baptizing Indians.

The second one seems to me like interpretation and speculation. Varela says it could be. Then again, maybe not. As we know Columbus had other reasons for wanting to control and decide who was baptized. Not only religious reasons but just plain old political power and control. He was, after all, the viceroy.

The first phrase affirms without a doubt that many witnesses accused him of this charge so that is something we can safely affirm. On the other hand nowhere does it say that the enquiry or trial found him guilty or confirmed it as proven fact which is telling because a guilty finding would always be a preferable cite to an accusation. As long as we do not have information about a finding of guilt I would say that does more to disprove the accusation than anything else. After all Columbus was dispossessed of his ranks and adding a finding of guilt in this regard would have only helped and supported the action. If there is no finding of guilt then I find that telling.

We should not forget that this was a political enquiry and trial against Columbus and many of the witnesses were his declared enemies. The book is based in new found documents in the archives of Simancas which contain the preliminary investigation by Bobadilla regarding three specific accusations against Columbus. (1) Whether Columbus had tried to lead a rebellion against the new Governor (Bobadilla himself). All the witnesses said this was true (what a surprise!). (2) Whether Columbus had prevented the baptism of natives. This part gets complicated fast because it involves Christian doctrine, civil and religious laws about Christian marrying natives (for example, a Spaniard could not inherit from his Indian wife), laws or war on who could be enslaved, etc. It seems this is a very complex issue where, as is the norm, politics, power struggles, religion, dogma, etc. were all part and relevant and it would be very difficult to say if making slaves was a motivation for Columbus unless we go very, very deeply into all the original declarations of the witnesses and their motivations and those of Bobadilla. Let us not forget they were out to get Columbus, which they did and, then as now, the victors write the history. (3) How Columbus administered justice. The witnesses were more unanimously against Columbus here although there are accusations that only his enemies were called. They paint him as harsh and capricious. So, of the three accusations the second one is the least proved and the most confused.

Let us not forget this was an enquiry by governor Bobadilla who was Columbus's political and personal enemy. I am familiar with other enquiries, trials and judicial processes of those times in Spain and then (as now) the process seems more designed to obfuscate the facts than to find the truth and both sides would throw in the ring whatever they thought might help their cause. The Spanish crown had decreed that with the Indians saving souls should be put before profit so it is no wonder Columbus's enemies would accuse him of putting profits before saving souls.

Regarding the author, Consuelo Varela, she is a university professor and a scholar specializing in Columbus so I suppose that gives her some authority. What I have read from her makes it seem like she has a rather anti-Columbus stance. Also, she supports as genuine the transcripts of Columbus's papers found in 1985 (Libro copiador de Colón, I am surprised to see it has no page in the English Wikipedia) which have been questioned by some scholars. She does seem like an expert on Columbus but I am not qualified to say if she might have a certain excessive bias. I have found some pages which are very critical of her, like http://www.xpoferens.cat/lib02.html , but I suppose one should be prudent and assume everyone has their own agenda. Still, it is telling that in that page one of the accusations they level against Varela is that she takes an unproven accusation and assumes it is proven.

It seems Varela's book has two parts, the first is her own interpretation and the second is the transcripts of the original archived papers so it may be worth reading the entire book, specially the second part with the original documents of the enquiry transcribed by the curator of the archives, Isabel Aguirre. Some of the criticism I have read about Varela is that she manages to make herself the author by writing little and put Aguirre in the shade when it is Aguirre who has done the more valuable work.

With the evidence we have at hand at this point I think it is fair to say "his enemies accused him of not allowing the natives to be baptized so they could be sold as slaves" but not to state it as a proven fact. For that I think we would need more circumstantial evidence or a finding of guilt by the court that tried him.

Sorry for the long post but it is an interesting topic. GS3 (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The proof you seek is in how many "Indians" did Columbus sell as slaves? How many boatloads were shipped to the usual slave markets? How many to Morocco? Seville? Lisbon? Unless Columbus can be shown to have actually put in place a slave market, the accusations are false. As I stated before, Columbus captured war prisoners as slaves, an accepted practice in those days, but I have never found any evidence that he actually began or planned a slave trade with the subjects he hoped to subjugate and rule over.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)