Talk:Voyages of Christopher Columbus
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Could we please refrain
- 2 Navigation plans
- 3 Illogical interpretation
- 4 BAD (first voyage) MAP!
- 5 Typo in summary image
- 6 These lines are fragmented
- 7 Fourth Ship?
- 8 Absolutist History?
- 9 Terrible map
- 10 Interwiki links
- 11 File:Piloty Columbus Small.png Nominated for Deletion
- 12 How many ships on the third voyage?
- 13 Capitana is not the name of a ship
- 14 Discovery of America
- 15 Discovery of Nothing
- 16 Proposing a major split
- 17 Reasons for the voyage in the first place
- 18 Proposal to merge with Christopher Columbus
Could we please refrain
From using the Map(or maps) theory. Yes, Columbus most likely observed other maps while in Europe, but stating it in this article is absurd. This will just lead to debates that Columbus discovered the new world by theft. --220.127.116.11 04:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The following passage,in the main article, appears to be flawed in it's interpretation of Columbus's log -
Early in the voyage, Columbus predicted that land should be found within 700 leagues (approx. 2500 miles), and ordered the commanders of the other vessels to refrain from sailing at night once that distance had passed to avoid wrecking. He also suck it
BAD (first voyage) MAP!
The map labeled "The route of first voyage of Columbus in the Caribbean" is not only at odds with other sources (in print and on the internet), but contradicts the first map showing all of the voyages of Columbus.
Whoever wrote this article AND INCLUDED THE MAP LABELED "The route of first voyage of Columbus in the Caribbean" needs to offer some kind of citation to SUPPORT the insertion of this particular map in the article, with the strong implication that it is accurate. Although I am certainly no expert on Columbus' voyages, NOTHING that I have ever seen supports the accuracy of the map labeled "The route of first voyage of Columbus in the Caribbean."
The evidence seems to be overwhelming that Columbus headed generally northward or northeastward from Hispaniola, picked up the westerlies and then used them to return to the Azores, which are far, far to the north of the Canaries, from which he made his first significant move westward toward the "New World." Columbus seems to have caught on pretty quickly that one uses the easterlies to go west, and the westerlies to go east--thus heading generally northward or northeastward to find favorable winds to return to Spain. ONE CANNOT GET BACK TO SPAIN GOING AGAINST THE EASTERLIES WITH OLD SQUARE-RIGGED SHIPS!
WHAT IS SHOWN IS AN ERROR OF MAPS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, ONE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE OR BY MODERN SCHOLARSHIP. This kind of shoddy work is the reason that some very reputable scholars become indignant at times with Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.
I cannot believe that the two maps given which purport to show the first voyage DO NOT EVEN AGREE WITH EACH OTHER! no is an outrageous and egregious error!
The map labeled "The route of first voyage of Columbus in the Caribbean" NEEDS TO BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS SOME ONE CAN CITE SOME SOURCE(S) INDICATING THAT IT IS CORRECT! (Good luck finding that kind of evidence or supporting documentation!)
- Please don't shout, most editors are likely to ignore shouting. You could/should have done that & I note that its creator makes it clear he won't mind. Dougweller (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- They were made nearly 5 years ago, suprised they were still here actually. Now replaced with svg maps. It was based on this, I guess because it was a Caribbean only map, they were not concerned with the exact direction after leaving the islands. --Roke 08:52, 3 july 2009 (UTC)
Typo in summary image
The .svg in the summary  has a typo -- "Atlantic" is spelled "Altantic".
These lines are fragmented
"Columbus, desperate to repay his investors, failed to realize that Isabella and Ferdinand did not plan to follow or allow Portuguese slavery policy, its being counter to the [[. Rounding up the slaves led to the first major battle between the Spanish and the free indigenous people in their old homeland, called by those invading it 'the New World.'"
I've heard a few times that Columbus had a fourth lesser-known ship. Has anyone seen solid evidence? "In 1992, Rita M. Stark [...] research[ed] more about the so-called Fourth caravel of Columbus" in this city to corroborate Prof. Mazzanti's research. On January I8, 2004, while in Santo Domingo visiting "El Museo de Las Casas Reales", she found a picture of this fourth ship. This fourth ship was not a caravel, but a "fusta". '"  samwaltz (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I for one, would LOVE to know why "Discovery of America" defaults to this article! Leif Erickson was here almost 500 years BEFORE Columbus made his voyage...Edit Centric (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The current map is terrible, because it currently doesn't show the direction of travel -- i.e. which routes correspond to Columbus travelling towards America and which were the return journeys. The first voyage even intersects with itself, making things even more ambiguous. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Just for the sake of clarity, the word "Indians" mentioned in this article has nothing to do with actuals Indians live in Indian subcontinent (Hindavan mispronounced as Indian by Europeans) in Asia. Columbus thought he reached India via sea route but he landed in the land that was "unknown to Europeans" at that time. He called them Indians by mistake but they are natives. All references the word "Indian" in this articles refer to these natives but not to the actual Indians from Indostania (again mispronounced for Hindutaan or Hindavastaan). Another point, the discovery of these lands are "discovery to the Europeans and should be viewed within the context of Eurpeans history" but not to the rest of the world. It is unfortunate that colonialism and education substitution lead to this kind of universal acceptance - still being tought that way during the post-colonial era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Because "Discovery of Americas" redirects here, a lot of interwiki links (certainly Dutch, German, French, but maybe more) are incorrect. Shouldn't the redirect - and with it the wrong interwiki-links - go?? Joost 99 (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Piloty Columbus Small.png Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Piloty Columbus Small.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Piloty Columbus Small.png)
How many ships on the third voyage?
The Spanish ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago, which was sighted on this voyage, has said that Columbus was leading eight ships (Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, La Castilla, La Gorda, La Rábida, Santa María de Guía, La Gaza, La Vaqueña) and not just three (Santa Maria de Guia, El Correo ex-Gorda, La Vaqueños) as recorded in most English sources. One point in his favor is that instead of reading La Vaqueños, his list has La Vaqueña which seems like better Spanish. Another is that the Catalan wiki started out with our version and now uses his ship list.
So I'm thinking that he's probably right but that sourcing it is a problem, given that nearly every English-language source gives no ship names but insists that there were only 6 ships and that Columbus divided his fleet before going on a pleasure cruise of the Portuguese islands. — LlywelynII 07:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- One source that might explain it is this one, which says that Columbus began with eight ships, but two were sent directly to Española from port and Columbus chose to alienate another three later, leaving him the three generally known. — LlywelynII 10:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Capitana is not the name of a ship
Another problem with our sources is that they really want to treat Capitana as the name of a ship on the fourth voyage. Capitana isn't a ship name, but just the Spanish for "Flagship". The Catalan wiki has the ship as yet another Santa Maria, although it doesn't explain whether this is the Santa María de Guía from the 3d voyage or a fourth Santa Maria in addition to the original, the Gallega's real name, and the de Guia one. — LlywelynII 07:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Discovery of America
This article should be called "Discovery of America" (or merged with an article with that title). The Discovery, its significance and place in world history are much more important than a simple set of "voyages". Fortis est Veritas (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's also an arguably much less accurate title. It's incredibly Euro-centric (although its impact on Europe, on the Americas, and the world can't be understated), it ignores the Ericson trips, and invites complaints about discoveries by natives, etc.
- On the other hand, "Discovery of America" redirects here, so you sort of have your wish.Ischorr (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The Discovery of America is of course, from a European point of view, so it is redundant to say that it is "Euro-centric". The discovery of a new continent by those 15th century navigators is of huge historical importance for mankind. It led to the rise of new cultures, nations, trade and to a whole new perception of the world. There is no reason why it should not have its own article. The discussion about Viking trips to North America prior to 1492 is interesting, but not relevant to the discovery, as such hypothetical trips did not make the existence of a New World known to Europeans. Vikings, or Basque fishermen, as others argue, might habe been the first to cross the Atlantic, but such voyages did not lead to discovery. The natives obviously did not discover America as they were already there. They might have discovered Europe if they had crossed the Atlantic, but the fact is Europeans crossed it, leading to mutual discovery of each others' existence. Historical events should not be smeared with politics or ideology. They should be explained neutrally, as they are. For some reason "Discovery of America" not only lacks a proper article, but now not even redirects to the Voyages of Columbus. Fortis est Veritas (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is incredible how much effort is done trying to avoid the term Discovery of America. For that, you will hear the most absurd arguments. But if you are familiar with the envy that the Discovery of America and the position of Spain in the exploration of the world awoke in Europe, especially in the English speaking world, then you will understand this fact better. Next time that a scientist, researcher or explorer discovers something new, jealous people will use the same highly intellectual argument: But it was already there!!! Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a good discussion to have. If you say that 1492 was "the discovery of America," then doesn't that imply that the world discovered America, or the human race discovered America? You could call it "Spain's discovery of America," though, because it's true that Spain never knew about the Americas before this event. Also, some of the posts above me seem to be saying that the word "discovery" implies significance in history, implies something that has a major impact on the world. That's not necessarily true. Consider the discovery of chemical elements. The discovery of iron certainly had a huge impact on the world, but the discovery of Yttrium in 1840 didn't. But we still use the term "discovery" for Yttrium. I think the word "voyages," as in the current article title, could certainly be applied to something historically significant. The Apollo program included our voyages to the moon. Navigatr85 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navigatr85 (talk • contribs)
- That's why many modern historians use the term "European" discovery of America. It was a discovery and it was European. There is not much more to it. I wish our fellow editors would think twice before erasing this from the lede. Fortis est Veritas (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Discovery of Nothing
Vikings came from Scandinavia. It is in Europe. Columbus came from Genoa. It is in Europe.
He led the first European expeditions to arrive in Central and South America.
Columbus 'discovered' that if you sail west across the mid-Atlantic you will land in Asia (or so he thought). B. Fairbairn (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Proposing a major split
In my view Wikipedia is currently a mess when it comes to the discovery of America by modern Europe -- a hugely important historical event. "Discovery of America" links to this article, but then the article itself states that Columbus was important for inspiring exploration, but that he did not discover that it was a separate continent, massively miscalculating the well-established circumference of the Earth and deluding himself unto his deathbed that he had found a shortcut to Asia. For this reason historians usually demur from ascribing the title of "discoverer" to him; it usually goes to Amerigo Vespucci. But the Amerigo article is of a poor standard too, as it does not explain how he established that Columbus was incorrect.
The solution to me is simple; there should be a "Discovery of America" article which explains all of this; the native habitation, the Viking settlement, the role of Columbus, Vespucci, Waldseemuller, and ultimately the spread of the knowledge that the Americas were a separate landmass, leading to their settlement. It's a patent lacuna and I don't see any reason that it shouldn't be filled. --Denziloe (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. I think there should be one simple article called Discovery of America because that's what it was: a discovery of a new continent called America. If editors wish, we can include a section called "The Discovery Question" and there address the different points of view, the trips of the Vikings, the Basque fishermen, and other interpretations. The matter of the fact is that Columbus stumbled upon a New World which Europeans initially thought was Asia, but a few years later, with the sighting of the Pacific Ocean by explorer Vasco Nuñez de Balboa in 1513, the Spaniards confirmed that it was not. A new continent was in fact discovered. The native Americans also discovered that other civilizations existed across that great sea. You know, there have been many historians and researchers before we were around, who have studied this issue in depth, and have always called it the same way. We should learn to respect and appreciate the knowledge that has been handed down to us, without questioning everything. There is a reason why things are called a certain way. There is a reason why the Discovery of America is called the Discovery of America. Fortis est Veritas (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Reasons for the voyage in the first place
Could somebody put in the specific reasons for the voyage with sources cited. There really in not enough information on the specific reasons for the voyage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to merge with Christopher Columbus
This article is largely redundant with Christopher Columbus, which also covers the voyages in detail. The biggest difference appears to be that this article is whitewashed of Columbus' horrific treatment of the natives of Hispaniola. --Wormcast (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)