Talk:Voyages of 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. --68.209.227.3 04:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is written in biased (pro European) manner. The article mentions "expedition " but it was a "voyage to oppress and destroy". The article mentions "discovery of America". There was NO America at that time, and the region Columbus ran into already existed and already had millions of people. The article is pretty racist.

Navigation plans

It seems worth mentioning here that America already had been described in the litterature for three centuries. St.Trond (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Illogical interpretation

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.[6] 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!)

Landrumkelly (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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 [1] 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.'"

Not sure what to make of it. --Agamemnus (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. I went back through the history. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fourth Ship?

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". '" [2] samwaltz (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutist History?

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)

Yes, and the American Indians discovered America THOUSANDS of years earlier! Europeans were among the LAST people to find America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 07:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Greenlandic Norse didn't seem to be aware that they had entered the fringes of a vast new pair of continents. And even if they had been, nothing came of it. They left Vinland after a few years and never spread the word beyond their community in Greenland, and there were no big followup expeditions. And from the perspective of the Old World, Columbus very much did discover the Americas. If you'd rather say that he enabled the indigenous peoples of the New World to discover the Old that would also be technically correct, but it's more common to think of it the other way. Your statement that he was the "LAST" to discover it is a little absurd, like claiming that Alexander Fleming was the last person to discover penicillin. Once something's discovered, there's no need to discover it again until it's been forgotten. The existence of the Western Hemisphere, if any in the Old World were ever truly aware of it, was forgotten long before 1492. Trilobright (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Terrible map

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. 188.192.109.47 (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 69.116.146.111 (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki links

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. 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) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

From the wikipedio in Spanish, for the knowledge... Better late than never:

• Carabela Gallega
• Carabela Capitana
• Carabela Vizcaina
• Carabela Santiago de Palos

--FaustoLG (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2017 (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 199.167.103.222 (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 50.44.252.45 (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)

Someone marked a sentence as "dubious" that should not be dubious

Someone seems to think that "He described the new lands as belonging to a previously unknown new continent, but he pictured it hanging from China, bulging out to make the earth pear-shaped.[dubious – discuss]" is a false statement. Here is the source that supports it:

"Yo no tomo qu'el Paraíso Terrenal sea en forma de montaña áspera, como el escrevir d'ello nos amuestra, salvo qu'él sea en el colmo, allí donde dixe la figura del peçón de la pera, y que poco a poco andando hazia allí desde muy lexos se va subiendo a él, y creo que nadie no podría llegar al colmo, como yo dixe, y creo que pueda salir de allí esa agua, bien que sea lexos y venga a para allí donde yo vengo, y faga este lago." from Columbus' letter of his third voyage, I am quoting directly from the book ISBN: 978-84-206-9137-4

174.125.165.13 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Over four voyages to the Americas between 1492 and 1492

Over four voyages to the Americas between 1492 and 1492

Doesn't make sense. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.88.122 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Down the river?

This seems unlikely: "By April 6, the garrison he had established captured the local leader El Quibían, who had demanded they not go down the Belén River." Columbus was camped at the mouth of the river, so there was no place to go "down" to. And his goal was to go up the river in search of gold. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Third voyage

In the section on the third voyage, the purpose of voyage is stated to be to verify the existence of a continent southwest of the Cape Verde islands that the king of Portugal claimed was there based on evidence from the western coast of Africa, but the section never states if such a continent was ever verified to exist. Did Columbus discover a continent southwest of the Cape Verde islands as suggested by John II of Portugal? If he did, shouldn't this section of the article make note of such a discovery? It would seem rather significant. I'm not joking. While I know that South America exists, readers of this article otherwise unfamiliar with the geography of South America would never know that it was the third voyage when Columbus first reached South America or that John II was correct as to its existence. --Acjelen (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Columbus was the first european to arrive in Americas

Oficially Columbus was the first european to arrive in Americas. The rest is still the subject of debate by the different anthropologists,so it can not be said with any force that the Vikings were the first. There are evidences for and against that version.

Look: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asentamientos_vikingos_en_Am%C3%A9rica https://web.archive.org/web/20090323233700/http://www.el-esceptico.org/ver.php?idarticulo=155

@JavierNF96: Nonsense. There is no debate over this. The Spanish article you link makes that clear. The fact that the Vinland Map is a hoax doesn't affect the solid evidence discovered by archaeologists. There's no doubt that Scandinavians beat Columbus. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: "There's no doubt Scandinavians beat Columbus"

Conclusion more infantile you have not been able to give. Likewise, even if they arrived earlier (Caught Tweezers), what influence did Escandinavians in the Americas? Nothing, and they abandoned it quickly. You can not call that discovering something.

I don't have to, reliable sources do. You're right however that it was Columbus who opened the Americas to Europe. But, again, there's no doubt that he wasn't the first European. Name-calling, by the way, usually shows that a person has a weak argument. And "caught tweezers" doesn't seem an English idiom. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:

I have not insulted you, I have simply said that you have used an extremely childish expression, quite unfit for someone I assume is adult and who "manages" Wikipedia.

I repeat, considering the discovery of America to be presumably settled for 1 or 2 years without generating any influence seems to me quite incorrect.

And in addition, there is no consensus among archeologists for more than insists. It has been shown that such settlement remains are dubious and quite susceptible to being a forgery, including the Vinland map.

But you know what? It really does not matter because people will really remember Columbus and not some Scandinavians who allegedly came to America "without pain or glory."

So you know who beat who.

A greeting.