Talk:Prince Henry the Navigator

Put in a map

put in a map of him going to asia. --Cyberman 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A map would be nice, but not one of Prince Henry going to Asia, since he never went there. The farthest he ever sailed was to Morocco.

Prince Henry did not found a navigation school in Sagres. In fact, there are no historical evidences of such an institution in Sagres during the presence of Prince Henry. The School of Sagres is a later "production" from some authors Therefore, one must understand the idea of “School of Sagres”, not in the physical and institutional sense, but as a to have the idea for it.

---

The recent Peter Russell book Prince Henry the Navigator: A Life 

presents good historical evidence that Henry was indeed instrumental in the conquest of Ceuta, and not simply part of the "operation".

Biography Collaboration of the Week

Possible references:

• [1] - [2] - [3] - [4] - [5] - [6] - [7] - [8] - [9] - [10] - [11] - [12].

In Portuguese:

• [13] - [14].

Gameiro 00:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Typo cant fix

I recently noticed while looking at the article that there is a mispelling under the House of Aviz box to the right of the screen. And being that im new to wikipedia I dont know how to fix it the error is something like Navigaotr as opposed to Navigator. Just trying to let someone know..

Typo corrected. Thanks. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia. You can read this to learn more about it. Joaopais 21:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Asia etc.

Henry had no idea of going to what we know as Asia. If you read Russell, and I fear most here have not, it is clear that references at the time to "the Indies" (which is what has given people the idea he wanted to go to Asia) was understood by him to be further south in Africa. Hence the only useful map would be one of the bulge of Africa.

Homosexuality

I think the mention of homosexuality should be removed, or posed as an hypothesis. It is based on a single article, that (apparently) has never been submitted to a peer reviewed journal. Also, the objective of the article seems more of a political nature than of scientific one. pibizza 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I assume there is consensus in removing the reference to Henry homosexuality ? pibizza 10:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I am quite surprised by the tone of this article. While I don't dispute any of what is said, as I haven't read those last two books added to the bibliography, one gets the notion this article was written to change people's views on the person and not as an encyclopedia entry. By reading the article, I mostly got the the idea Henry, the Navigator was i) into enslaving; ii) greedy; iii) gay. Were it not for previous readings on this subject, this is what I would retain. I mean, this guy promoted the exploration of half the West African coast and ultimately he was among the people who were most responsible for the 1400s age of discoveries. Furthermore, I had never heard of such accounts on Henry's life. The user responsible for these edits (85.241.31.250) single contribution besides the ones in this article was made under the Sebastian_of_Portugal entry, where he claimed i) the king "contracted gonorrhea at age ten, most likely through sexual abuse by his tutor and confessor"; ii) that he died of said sexual diesase and not in the Alcacer Qibir battle in North Africa where he was last seen; iii) that he was gay. He bases his changes on one of the articles he added here. Perhaps this article should be reverted to its previous form until someone with further knowledge on the field should check these... it's an entire article based on two single books that present new and apparently very disputed theories.

It is a LIE that the article outlining his probable homosexuality was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was published in Portuguese in "Textos de Historia", published by the History Department of the University of Brazilia. Further it is authored by an acknowledged authority on Portuguese history at a major US university. Do Johnson's nay-sayers know more than he? If so what are their credentials? It is time for Americans to give up homophobic prejudices. Being gay is no disgrace except to those who are prejudiced. Henry was an important person; he was also probably homosexual. Can you prove that he was NOT? If so, please do so.

I agree, this article is lacking NPOV, and makes many questionable claims. Homosexuality is the least of it, while I neither know nor care whether Enrique was gay, mocking the self proclaimed celibacy of the Grandmaster of a monastic military order the Order of Christ (Portugal). and the attribution of ONLY the basest motives for his life's work seem very biased. Would I be wrong to request a NPOV tag at the least. Catholic Encyclopedia entry is far superior in almost every way to this current entry. Moheroy 10:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, a NPOV tag would seem in place. I don't care if he was gay or not either, I just feel the theory is presented in a far too proeminent and inadequate fashion. And the homosexuality question, as you say, is the least the current article. 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with a NPOV tag. pibizza 08:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To the ignorant one who wrote the entry above: The study of Prince Henry contained in the book by Johnson WAS peer reviewed and published in the Brazilian historical journal, TEXTOS de HISTORIA, put out by the University of Brazilia. The reference is TEXTOS DE HISTORIA, vol. 11, No. 1/2 (2003), pp. 217-244. So you can ditch the idea that it has not been peer reviewed. In addition, it has not be challenged to my knowledge. Can you cite an article that challenges its hypotheses? There has been far too much laudatory nonsense written about Henry. Both Russell and Johnson have the courage to point out some of the real facts. In Johnson's case the opposition comes clearly from homophobia. It was criminal in Henry's day to be a homosexual. It is not so today. Before I removed a reference to a book by an established historian, I would read the book. You seem very unfamiliar with the issues. By the way, Johnson's study of Sebastian does NOT say he died of any disease. That is a complete fabrication. Johnson is clear that Sebastian died in battle in Morocco. How can you make such stupid, uninformed statements?

The debunking of Henry's previously exhalted reputation, fostered by Portuguese fascist nationalists during the Salazar years, was done by Sir Peter Russell, the chaired Professor of Spanish at Oxford University. So the ignoramus who thinks he knows more than Russell will defy Russell great biography? What insolence, what intellectual insolence. I find it odd that people who have not read the latest and most important research on topics think themselves capable of accepting or rejecting the work of professional historians who know far far more than they do.

If said references exist, why aren't they included in the article. At the very least it deserves an NPOV tag O.M. Nash 17:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The article states: "He never married or had children although nothing would have prevented his doing so, and other aspects of his character that Johnson details in his study all tend to lend credence to the thesis that he was a closet homosexual." This hardly seems like an objective argument. Hundreds of historical figures never married or had children, were they all homosexuals? This was an especially religious era, it was not uncommon for many people to lead chaste lives. That doesn't imply homosexuality. This article seems like it's more concerned with painting Henry in a homosexual light, like it was the pinacle of his existence. The part about portuguese nationalism only reinforces this. How many studies have been done about this? One? On the other hand there are probably hundreds that don't support this theory and yet they are simply being dismissed as homophobic portuguese nationalism? This is definitely not a neutral article and one that certainly doesn't do justice to the subject matter. 0cm 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read all of the books listed. The Russell biography lacks a lot of detail. It is the most recent proper biography, but it has many weaknesses. It does't matter what these authors think anyway, and whether or not the subject is peer reviewed. It is the original sources that matter. For proof of homosexuality you would have to provide evidence from the original sources. There simply isn't any. Claiming that something is true simply because it could be true has no validity. It is often claimed that Leonardo Da vinci was homosexual, merely because he was anonymously accused of it. There is even less evidence of that, in fact no actual evidence of that in the case of Henry the Navigator. --DavidLeslie 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And WHO, pray tell, Is David Leslie, to diss Sir Peter Russell, late of Oxford University?. The author, perhaps, of a book on "Part Time Faculty"? The idea that Russell's bio "lacks detail" is hilariously absurd given its length and depth and makes clear Leslie has not even read it. It is based on an exhaustive examination of the original sources. Likewise the same re Johnson's article about Henry's homosexuality. What does Leslie know about the original sources? What has he published in the field? Where did he get his Ph.D? Leslie appears to be no more than a phony historian with no credentials. Are these the kind of "authorities" who run Wikipeida? No wonder it has a dubious reputation. And Leslie is apparently a homophobe to boot. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, David, or didn't you know? Henry most probably was. Face it.

cruzado

Cruzado link and definition looks incorrect.--Filll 16:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Its incredible.... lies lies lies.... amazing... at least my country wasn't conquered in single invasion... ;) do you believe in what you all right??? Prince Henry was gay, Alexander was gay, Aquiles was gay, julius Cesar too? speak's the country that "invented" gays's everybody is gay except Elton John, and Prince Charles.

Calm down, homophobe. You think major historical figures were never gay? How ridiculous.

School or no school

The article states that "The old view that Henry's court rapidly grew into the technological base for exploration, with a naval arsenal and an observatory, etc., has long ago been debunked. There was no observatory or "school" of navigation, although Henry did possess geographical curiosity and therefore employed cartographers." but the Vasco da Gama article states "From the early 15th century, the nautical school of Henry the Navigator had been extending Portuguese knowledge of the African coastline." and my high school history book (pub. 2001) says "he brought together mapmakers, mathematicians, and astronomers to study navigation". BJ^Talk 08:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bjweeks: If you think a "high school book" is to be used for authoritative opinions on history you are a silly ass. People who get their history from "high school books" are just that---barely educated. Read the entry on Prince Henry in the Diccionario de Historia de Portugal. Read Magalhaes Godinho, the great Portuguese historian, on the matter. Read Oliveira Marques. Grow up and learn to use authoritative sources, not your little "high school book". What nonsense. Or can't you read Portuguese, or don't you have access to a university library? If so, what are you doing pretending to pronounce on matters re Portuguese history? In general the article is poor. It does not use the latest research on many matters and was apparently written by someone who is not an authority on Portuguese history and who may not even read Portuguese. It is in general full of outdated information and outdated ideas. Russell and Johnson's takes, however, should be the basis for a new rewrite of the article. But of course the Russell book is long and amateurs would find it hard going, and Johnson's ideas run up against widespread homophobia.

Precisely what "latest research" are you referring to, because beyond mere theories and ideas there is no significant new research. There hasn't been for a long time. Russell's book is full of inadequacies, really lacking in detail in many areas. Major's book although much older is actually far more thorough in many respects. If you put the two books side by side and compare the comparable sections in each book, such as those concerning the rediscovery of Madeira, this becomes very apparent. Johnson's claims of homosexuality are purely unproven speculation. It is not homopbobia to point out apparent facts. To base the article on Russell and Johnson would lead to an article lacking in detail that included baseless theories. --DavidLeslie 13:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To prefer Major's antiquated book to Russell and or Johnson is ridiculous and prima facie evidence of a fool who knows nothing about the subject. What are the "apparent facts" to prove that Henry was heterosexual? Please provide them. In detail. Leslie has no credentials that I know of. Let him tell us what they are. What have you published on the topic, David?