Talk:Christopher Columbus

October 2006 Peer Review

League of Copyeditors, January 2007 copyedited

Born in Genoa? Maybe. Italian? Definitely not.

Let's not forget that Italy did not exist as a political entity until about 1860. When Columbus was around there was a genoese republic where a genoese language was spoken and written, therefore it doesn't make any sense to mention the italian (that is: tuscan) translation of his name. I would recommend to replace it with the genoese (that is: ligurian) translation of it, Christoffa Corombo [kri'ʃtɔffa ku'ɹuŋbu], the one that he would've presumably used to introduce himself to another genoese person, if that matters anyway. G.B.Parodi dec.21.2008

I took the liberty to edit the page myself and replace the non pertinent italian name with the original genoese one: if this wasn't the appropriate procedure to follow please accept my apologies Gbparodi (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Italy did exist, although as a geographic name and not as a state. Thus, it makes sense to say that Columbus was Italian, meaning that "he came from that particular peninsula". As for the Italian translation, the Tuscanian dialect was already the de-facto lingua franca in the Italian peninsula since at least the 14th century (see Dante Alighieri). So it makes very much sense to leave it there.--Sidsel Sørendatter (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As you correctly stated, Parodi, the Genoese version of his surname is a translation made two centuries later by SOME (who?) who translated the Tuscan (!) piece of work "Gerusalemme liberata" by Torquato Tasso (http://books.google.it/books?id=re4OAAAAYAAJ&dq=Ra+Gerusalemme+deliver%C3%A2&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=6h45wt-roa&sig=0oLT8SGk1BvOb31AFzqhWTTcCvI&hl=it&ei=bTn9SbqCJYWLsAaGsLC5BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPP7,M1). Who is the author of the "Rime diverse" you cited? Besides, if I understand your contribution correctly, you derived the first name "Christoffa" from an unprecised book of poems of the 16th century, and the surname "Corombo" from a 18th century translation in Genoese of a 16th century Tuscan poem. This seems to me as far too ungrounded reconstruction to write the Genoese name is "the original". According to the sources visible at the Italian page, the only written records of Columbus' name at his time were in Latin. This should be written. --S vecchiato (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but conjectures are not scientifical evidences at all, and yours is just a conjecture. It doesn't exist something like a Genoese (Venetian, Milanese, Neapolitan, etc.) surname "translated" into an Italian surname. If that was true, all the Italian surnames existing today should have been invented after the Unification of Italy.. And this is an antihistorical claim. Therefore noone had used any "Tuscan translation of his Genoese surname", but his actual surname.

Besides you forget that the archives of Genoa kept documents about Columbus' father where he is mentioned as "COLUMBUS" (Lat.), if his original surname was "Corombo", as you may think, the latinized version should be would have preserved the "r". Also, the documents using his original Italian surname show it as COLOMBO, not only the Italian ones: even in the Turkish Piri Reis' map _that confirms Columbus was a Genoese_ the Ottoman characters spell the Columbus' surname as "Colombo". Yours is a mere conjecture based on a literary work and not on an official document. You can't even show any reliable historians nor studies to confirm your thesis. In short, your conjecture is interesting within the space of this "Columbus:talk", but it can't be considered as a scientifical evidence and it is not confirmed by any any historians.

So I'm sorry but I am going to delete your correction from the article because it's not scientifically reliable, it is not supported by any scholars and the supposed sources you post are just 2 literary works.

As regards the fact the he was Italian, that's obvious. Even if Italy was not a unified State when he was born, its inhabitants were already known as Italians. By the name of Italian it was not only indicated a man who was from the Italian peninsula, but also a man of a particular ethnicity, the Italian one. Columbus was an Italian man and a Genoese citizen.

The adjective "Italian" to indicate an individual from any part of the Italian peninsula was largerly used since the ancient times: i.e., the Roman poet Virgil call the Romans "Italians" in a passage of the Aeneid.

Nonetheless, to solve every doubt you may have about, I'll show you some passage from important chroniclers and scholars who were coeval of Columbus and who named him "Italian":

The Portuguese Rui de Pina wrote two works, Chronica d'El Rey, don Alfonso and Chronica d'El Rey, don Juan II. It has been ascertained that the manuscripts had been completed before 1504, although they were published in the Eighteenth century. Chapter 66 in the second manuscript, "Descubrimiento das Ilhas de Castella per Collombo," explicitly states, "Christovan Colombo italiano."

The Portuguese Garcia de Resende writes the Cronic de don Joao II between 1530 and 1533, and it was published in 1544. In chapter 165, "De como se descubriram per Colombo as Antilhas de Castella," he writes, "Christouao Colombo, italiano."

The Flemish Theodore De Bry published the HistoriaeAmericanae Secunda Pars conscripta a Jacobo Le Moyne dicto De Morgues in Frankfurt in 1591. In it is written, "Christopher Columbus the Italian Genoese (p. 4)".

I think this is more than enough.

Vittuone (talk) 4:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the evolution from [l] (alveolar lateral approximant) to [ɹ] (alveolar approximant), from latin to archaic ligurian language, please visit the genoese dialect page. thanks! Gbparodi (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Indians ?

He always knew where he was (not really)? I am of Native North American desent. In no way do native North and South americans resemble persons native to India. How wrong was Columbus. 76.71.17.88 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For 'Indians' read 'orientals'. Not literally people from India. dougweller (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Columbus didn't call Native Americans by Indians because somehow he truly believed to be in India. He was only doing it to convince the Spanish Kings that he had reached India. It was all part of his initial plan to fool the Spanish which he did.Colombo.bz (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

At the same time: a Portuguese sailor on Columbus's crew presented a Spanish noble with two cinnamon sticks claiming they were given to him by an "Indian" that was carrying tons of them (and that he alone saw), and the Spanish noble then showed to Columbus, and he used that as an evidence that they had reached India (that was the first and last time they found cinnamon on that island); then he managed to flounder the Santa Maria with the Spanish noblemen inside (they had to survive alone in the island after Columbus stroke a deal with the Indian leader and then kidnapped a few Indians before departing, leaving the Spanish lords to suffer the vengeance, and they were killed), took all the pilots with him back to Spain, and forced the sailors to swear they had been in India with a heavy penalty in case they spoke the truth; back in Spain, his claims were supported only by Portuguese, Italians working for the Portuguese, or foreigners on the Portuguese King's payroll... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.0.63 (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Colombus would have never actually seen an Indian (South Asian), so the comparison could not have been based on physiology.68.148.123.76 (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't say that Columbus was conspiring to lie to the Spanish government and as your resource you simply put that years have researching have given these four answers. If you are going to say something groundbreaking like this, please provide proof or don't submit it to an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.196.209 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that columbus called them Idians beacause he thought he was in India. That simple.22:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw an interesting theory somewhere... here[1]. Near the bottom is a letter that the website author recieved from a Native American explaining his opinion that Columbus was not "a lost white man" and did not call them Indians because he thought they were India. According to this person, he called them "En Dio" which means "In With God", correctly translated. I'm not sure when India was actually called "India", and I haven't researched the validity of his argument at all, but all things considered his POV seems much more rational than the... er... interesting conspiracy theories presented by the no doubt worthy editors above. --Song (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

proofs? facts?

The article states that Columbus was Genoese. Can someone prove that is true? otherwise change the article because it's a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.98.18 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The article also says there are other suggestions for his origin. But most academics say he is Genoese, and our articles reflect what reliable sources have to say about a subject - you need to read WP:RS to know what we mean by reliable sources. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to 'prove' anything. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller. If we're looking for "facts" or "proofs", we can say that maybe it will never be 100% safe to say that Columbus was Genoese, but this is the consensus of the vast majority of academics. And it's always been the same for 5 centuries. Different theories are not necessarily wrong, but they are supported by fewer "facts" and "proofs" than the genoese theory. 212.97.44.126 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

can you proof that "most academics" agree with that theory which doesn't have any supporting proof? you are making a judgement! you are saying that the vast majority of academics believe that Columbus was born in Genoa. That's totally false. It's a false argument it's a judgement. you are not being impartial. if there was a consensus there wouldn't be so many theories. And even if the majority believe it what's the point of stating that in the article when there's no proof whatsoever that Colombus was born in Genoa. it's like saying he was born in china or somewhere else. it's a lie. there's no proofs. maybe we should change every article even if it's false in order to agree with the "consensus of the majority of academics" even if it's proven totally wrong. wikipedia is about facts not arguments. you can't write a lie it's wrong. "Colombus was born in Genoa" it's wrong, it's a lie. "most people believe he was born in Genoa" it can be right.

confusion

in one book i read that christopher was gone for the se arch of spices and in other book i read that christopher went to confirm that the world was flat or round. in any book i have not read about these above talks together --115.186.96.62 (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, he went for a trade reason.21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mus640 (talk • contribs)

Navigation skills

I think there needs to be more clear commentary on Columbus's skills as a navigator - or at least what is known of them. Currently in the "Early Life" section there is a sentence fragment, "Prince Henry's school of navigation in Sagres, Portugal." This needs to be cleaned up and clarified in itself, of course. Also, another sentence in the "Navigation plans" section states: "Columbus's error was put down to his lack of experience in navigation at sea." That's not a particularly clear sentence (not to mention that its footnote credits a book apparently published in 1942). I could very well be wrong (this is why I would like to see some clarification about his actual navigation skills, which I think are an important component of who he was), but it had been my understanding that, despite his general error on the size of the planet, Columbus was actually a very gifted navigator, good at using stars, etc., to chart his path and direct his ships. If he was not a good navigator, someone among his crew must've been, I would think. Harry Yelreh (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The myth of Columbus the Genoese adventurer includes several mistakes: he was illiterate, he could not sail, he managed to marry a Portuguese noble lady using only his beautiful eyes, he was lucky, et caetera; the historical Colon was unmistakingly: literate, bright, of noble descent, very well connected inside Portuguese society, a proficient speaker, reader and writer of Portuguese (he could scratch some Castilian but knew nothing about Geonoese), and an excellent and higly experienced navigator who knew very well where he was going! All the marks of a Portuguese navigator like Bartolomeu Dias or Gonçalves Zarco (btw, "Zarco" is greek for "Colon"). He may not have been an experienced COMMANDER OF SHIPS but he was certainly an experienced sailor.

Agree with the above, but controversy and varying opinions about Columbus make it difficult to improve those aspects of the article. There are several passages, in the transcripts of Columbus's 'Diario' of his first voyage, where his own words appear to show that he was not an experienced commander of ships at that time. However, a lack of practical experience doesn't prove that he lacked theoretical knowledge about navigation techniques - including celestial navigation.

Can you tell us in which specific "passages, in the transcripts of Columbus's 'Diario' of his first voyage, where his own words appear to show that he was not an experienced commander of ships at that time." I am very interested in looking at that evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.158 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref. Columbus and lack of experience. There are maybe a dozen specific references in the Diario which indicate that. A typical example can be seen on 21st. February 1493 - while Columbus was manoevering the ship during stormy weather. The transcript states… "The Admiral says he felt little pleasure because he had but three experienced sailors, most of those who were there knowing nothing of the sea." In that sentence, Columbus is complainng because he is short-handed, in difficult weather conditions. However, if you read the details for the preceding days, it's apparent that the reason he is short- handed is because he had allowed many of his capable men to go ashore and they were then detained by the Portuguese. An experienced captain never leaves himself short-handed - especially not when the weather is doubtful - and definitely not when the ship is in a dangerous anchorage. That is something which only a novice captain would do. It's also a rather foolish thing to advertise the fact, by writing about it in the ship's logbook! It wouldn't be appropriate to give full details of all the other examples, here, because this page isn't a forum - it's intended for discussion on improvements to the article. Check Columbus's 'Diario' yourself, there could be other examples which I haven't identified. A good place to start might be the period 23rd.-25th. December 1492. Norloch (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Norloch, spoken like a true believer of the tall tale. There is no where in the Diario that Columbus says he is inexperienced. You infer from the written account what you wish but because you don't realize the whole lie of the voyage you and everyone before you assumed he was incompetent. There was no danger in Santa Maria in the Azores nor was there a storm at Lisbon in March 3 1493. The lies, and what you see as incompetence, are all part of the plan to mislead the Spanish into not catching on to the fact that Columbus was working for the King of Portugal. The same trick of lies is applied by Columbus when he made a deliberate trip to Madeira in 1498 and to Arzila in 1502. It is incompatible logic to accept that João da Castanheira would send a warm welcome with food the day before and then try to arrest the guy the next day. It is even further fantasy to assume that a Portuguese Captain having half the crew arrested would FREE that same crew so that the prize could sail off on its merry way. But even if you doubt Columbus's own words and his expert actions, I give you King John II's words in 1488 saying that Columbus had "skillfulness and ingenuity will be necessary to us", or Queen Isabel's words to Juan de Fonseca saying "Columbus knows more than all of us" and if those don't suffice read Jaime Ferrer's words to the Queen "I will always refer to those who know more than myself like the Admiral of the Indies who at tempore existente knows about this issues like no one else” and th same Jaime Ferrer to Columbus "of all this you Lordship know more sleeping that I awake." The pigeonhole you guys have blindly been trying to fit Columbus into for 500 years is contrary to the evidence, is not the truth and is not even impartially researched.Colombo.bz (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The passages written about Colon's inexperience are rather farfetching; the loss of his men proves nothing about his experience; the writing about it in the diary was essential; knowing how many good men he had was evidence he could tell who the good sailors were, and that does not prove he is inexperienced, by the contrary shows that he knows what he's doing and regrets not having enough men.

About the storm forcing him into Lisbon... did the storm also pushed him into land, forcing him to encounter King John II miles from the coast, before meeting his spanish "bosses" to tell them the good news? Now, that's an inexperienced sailor...

It certainly seems unlikely that anyone would have loaned him money for an expedition - without ensuring that there were several competent navigators included in the crew. It also seems unlikely that his Royal backers would have instructed him to find new lands for their empire without checking first that the expedition would have sufficient competent navigators to ensure that the positions of all those new territories were known as accurately as possible. Norloch (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Columbus obviously was not a great navigator, simply by virtue of the fact that he did not reach his destination. Navigation at that time was difficult for any sailor, primarily due to the inability to know a ship's longitude. Lattitude could be discerned using astronomy, but finding longitude using the stars would not be possible for another 500 years and then only after the collaborative work of dozens of now famous astronomers and scientists.Veazus (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)veazus

Unless you think out of the envelope, and ponder that maybe Colon wanted precisely to reach the Antilles (as the Portuguese had named them 50 years before); on the other hand, the mismeasure of "longitude" could be due to the fact he was using Portuguese charts who reduced longitudinal distances on purpose, to keep prying foreign eyes away from the land they were discovering westward.

By 1492, the techniques required for navigating the mid-Atlantic region seem to have been well understood by a considerable number of navigators. We have virtually no information about the methods used - nor the people who used them - but this must have been the case. That can be deduced from records which detail the increasing number of unfortunate West Africans who were sold at the Lisbon slave market, year after year. The logistics of the slave trade demanded swift, reliable, voyages. It follows that the navigators on those ships must have been skilled in ocean navigation. An essential part of that skill would have been some reasonably accurate means of determining both their latitudes, and their longitudes, at key points in the voyage. The precise methods that they used is something which has still to be discovered! Norloch (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; Portuguese were able to sail the open ocean (they discovered the Açores 50 years before Colon's travels); to travel in the open Atlantic ocean required only to measure latitude (the height of the Northern Star at night or the Sun at mydday would be exactly the same) and to know East from West, then follow straight on!

By 1492, America had already been described in the "History of Norway" (page 3, lines 2 - 5 ) for three centuries. According to the introduction to the web edition of the text, the "History of Norway" was known to be used in the first half of the fifteenth century in Kirkwall (page x, line 16 ), and it may have been written to influence the papal church (page xvii, line 22 ). The existence of the text in Kirkwall is of relevance, as Tor Borch Sannes argues that Cristopher Colon's father, Domenico Colon, was employed at the monastery [2] of St. Columba on nearby Iona. Both the monastery of St. Columba on Iona and the St. Magnus Cathedral in Kirkwall belonged to the bishopric of Bergen. St.Trond (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the above edit was heavily revised on 09:59, 30 July 2009 by St. Trond. Without a cite saying Columbus knew about this document, it's irrelevant to the article. In any case, page 3, lines 2-6, are about Greenland: "Greenland is cut off from these by icy crags. This country, which was discovered, settled and confirmed in the universal faith by Icelanders, is the western boundary of Europe, almost touching the African islands where the waters of ocean flood in" and in an even more complete context, "However, when certain shipmen were trying to return to Norway from Iceland, they were driven by contrary tempests into the wintry region and at last made land between the Greenlanders and the Bjarmians where, so they claimed, they found men of prodigious size and a country of maidens (these are said to conceive children by a drink of water). Greenland is cut off from these by icy crags. This country, which was discovered, settled and confirmed in the universal faith by Icelanders, is the western boundary of Europe, almost touching the African islands where the waters of ocean flood in.". I find it hard to get America from that - Africa maybe, and certainly a real lack of clarity about the geographical location of Greenland. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Which difference would it make to the navigation if "Greenland" instead of "Vinland" was "almost touching the African islands"? St.Trond (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The churches of Iceland also belonged to the same bishopric of Bergen. Norse sagas would therefore also be available to tell the difference between Greenland, Helluland, Markland, and Vinland. St.Trond (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum to speculate on what might have taken place. You need reliable sources saying that Columbus knew about North America (and explaining the problems that causes), before it can be included in the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller: Adam of Bremen's Descriptio Insularum Aquilonis shows that Vinland was known also in Copenhagen and Bremen in the 11th century, for those interested in the north of the Atlantic. Also Ari Thorgilssons "Islendingabok" from the 12th century on Icelands history shows that the knowledge of land in the west was available throughout the territiories of those speaking norse, in norse and latin texts. Viking ships used to cross the Atlantic via Greenland, were smaller than the ships available in the 15th century. St.Trond (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

St. Trond's comments on latitude sailing are valid, as a generalisation, but not so true when considering the specifics. For all commercial ships, time is money. It follows that trading ships must seek the most efficient routes to their destinations. Navigators who allowed excessive easting or westing, en-route, lengthened voyage times and diminished profits. (In other words, some knowledge of longitude was an important factor.) As noted above, slaves were the most difficult cargo to carry profitably. The fact that unfortunate West Africans were increasingly being sold in Europe during the three decades preceding 1492 would indicate that a well established body of experience existed, in the techniques necessary for efficient Atlantic navigation. It would be incredible if Columbus didn't make some use of that body of navigation experience, when he planned his voyage.

Norloch (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth name

A Spanish historian has claimed Columbus' birth name was Pedro Scotto. A period chronicle apparently refers to "Pedro Columbus" rather than Christopher.[3][4] 59.167.49.237 (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

From a UK paper [5]. He is a prolific writer on Columbus but not a professional historian, see [6] -- he's an engineer (in my experience, a surprising number of people with, to put it kindly, 'fringe' ideas are engineers)> [7]. 11:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)dougweller (talk)

DougWeller, can you tell us what History Degree the Columbus novelist Paolo Emilio Taviani held? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.247 (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The original name was, in fact, Cristovam Colon; Cristovam (with an "m" in the end) is Portuguese; some say the name is a secret message, especially when Colon's signature was strange: ".X. .S.A.S. .X.M.Y. Xpoferens;"; the last "s" is an inverted letter "colon" and is followed by the greek "zarco" (;), which may mean he really is not "Colon" but "Zarco" ("Zarco" is "Colon" in greek); "xpo" is "Xristo" or "saviour", and "ferens" abbreviates "Fernandes"; so, some believe the real name was Salvador Fernandes Zarco, the grand-son of the great navigator Gonçalves Zarco, born in the village of Cuba in Portugal (a village with a big wool industry and red-earth, "terra rubra", like the historical description of Colon's birth-place); the signature is important because the only official document proving Colon's Genoese origin is a document discovered in the 17th century where the signature is all wrong (namely, the third line ".X.M.Y." appears as ".X.M.J.", because it meant "Xristo, Maria, Yoseph" and "Yoseph" was written with an "Y" in the 14th/15th centuries, but as "Joseph" with an "J" in the 17th century, proving it was a late forgery...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.0.63 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Columbus Breaking the Egg' (Christopher Columbus) by William Hogarth.jpg

Recently the file File:Columbus Breaking the Egg' (Christopher Columbus) by William Hogarth.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 23:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've addded your image to the Egg of Columbus article where I believe it is appropriate. --Anthony5429 (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Religion of Christopher Columbus

The religious belief's of Christopher Columbus are relevant to the motivation behind his voyages as well as his actions. A key historical source for this period was Bartolome de Las Casas, he was a contemporary of Columbus and his father and uncles all traveled with Columbus on various voyages. Las Casas was the person that made a transcript and abstract of the Columbus diary. He notes that Columbus was a very devout Roman Catholic. His motivation for the conquest of the New Lands was to convert the native population to Christianity (Roman Catholicism) as well as to find gold. The legacy of Columbus and the subsequent conquistadors that follow was of a forced conversion, mass baptisms, indoctrination or the native people. How therefore can his religion be irrelevant or ignored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivergomez4000 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Nobody would ever be able to figure out Columbus was a Christian. He converted the natives to Scientology, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.79.124 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Inter caetera, which shortly after Columbus's first voyage gave Spain the right, over Portugal, to the New World, required that Spain spread the Catholic faith among the natives. This was not the legacy of Columbus so much as the Papacy. Pfly (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus active role in evangelization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivergomez4000 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would argue for Christopher Columbus active role in evangelization: Ample proof exists that Columbus's legacy included conversion of natives to Christianity and not solely that of the Papacy, Columbus himself requested of the Crown to dispatch friars to "reform the faith in Christians and convert the natives." (Letters to the monarchs sent in the ship of Fernando Colon p 407). Columbus further argued in Spain for the recapture of Jerusalem (crusades) he believed that as St. Augustine had predicted, the world would soon come to an end. Columbus writing and thought are filled with a religious ideas and was very mystical nature. His religious beliefs cannot be separated from his own conquest of the new world. In fact, Christopher means "Christ bearer" and Colon, or "Columbus" means colonizer. He saw his own name as being someone who was chosen by God to convert the natives and find lots of gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivergomez4000 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Pope demamded evangelization, and that was necessary for the Spanish to lay claim on the land; but that would also cellebrate the Tordesillas treaty dividing the world betweem Portugal and Spain and reinforce Portugal's claim to the oher half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.0.63 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

the point isn't the pope- this article isn't about the papacy or spain's claim to the right of conquest. Its about Columbus. A Columbus that had very strong Catholic religious assumptions and beliefs that impacted his actions and his behavior. My only point is that I cannot see how the religious beliefs of someone can be considered to be unworthy of comment in their biography especially when so many distorted views exist regarding columbus religious beliefs. Having a section that speaks objectively to what those beliefs were can help dispell the myths surrounding Colubmus religious faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.77.47 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of origins and motivation

The idea that Columbus was of Italian ancestry can now be confidently considered outdated. As explained in the entry Origin theories of Christopher Columbus the most likely hypothesis is that Cristobal Colon was a Catalan of noble ancestry, engaging in piracy off the coast of Portugal. How else would the son of " Domenico Colombo, a middle-class wool weaver, who later also had a cheese stand", marry a Portuguese noblewoman after shipwrecking in Portuguese shores? In medieval times, a wool weaver, seller of cheese would not marry into the nobility. If one tried, the family of the woman would probably kill him.

It is ridiculous that anyone would take seriously the idea that Colon was originally Norwegian. It is a flight of fancy, but just that. Like in other matters, Colon is a revered figure (apart being a Dead White Male), so everyone wants a piece of him.

The important navigational insight Colon had was in the seasonal winds that cross the Atlantic, blowing eastward one time of the year and westward six months later. His calculations about the size of the planet were obviously wrong, but just to put the issue in perspective consider that the Portuguese had been sailing the coasts of Africa for a whole century, taking stretches of navigation into the ocean away from the sight of shore, for which accurate latitude measurements were important. If you go south and the Sun everyday is slightly higher in the sky at noon, until you see it directly above, and then having the zenith to the north of your ship, how would the Portuguese fail to grasp accurately Earth's sphere? In spite of popular belief and the trial of Galileo Galilei one hundred years later, that Earth was round and circling the Sun was known by expert people of the time. That knowledge is further supported by the need to regulate the yearly calendar.

Further that Colon may have offered his services around, including the English king, needs to be documented appropriately. Rumor has it that he made many travels (including, unbelievably Greenland, a Norse colony dying at the time, only reachable weather permitting and thus infrequently from Iceland), in an obvious case of putting someone all over the map.

Well, the Portuguese were sailing those waters since the beginning of the 15th century, with the Danes, and Colon participated in some of those travels as a teenager; and Greenland was rediscovered by the Portuguese on their way to Canada, so... what's so unbelievable?

It is a well known fact of Portuguese History that Columbus offered his services to King John II of Portugal, who first procrastinated and then declined the offer, before Columbus took the offer to the Spanish Queen Isabella I of Castile. The thing is: John II already knew there was land to the West, but had no reason to let that be known outside a close circle. 1) The Viking colony of Greenland, where Vinland existence was a well known fact, had a Vatican diocese and several churches there. Portugal was at the time a major European power with excellent relations with the Papacy. 2) The Portuguese explorer João Vaz Corte-Real visited Northern Canada (where a stone slab exists) and also Greenland. 3) During the negotiations of the Treaty of Tordesillas, King John II deliberately asked the separating line to be moved West, in the process including land of the Americas, importantly Eastern Brazil. Columbus was right for the wrong reasons and the Portuguese already knew it, but had no need to indulge him or take seriously his services.

Ultimately Queen Isabella heeded to Colon's pleas, by financing the expedition with a few pieces of her personal jewelry, and because she noticed the whole thing would cost about as much as one week of expenses in accommodating and entertaining any high level foreign envoy.

It seems to me there is plenty of reasons to rewrite portions of the article on Cristobal Colon, and make it more accurate. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This looks very much like original research -- see WP:OR and as such does not belong on this talk page or in the article. You haven't brought any reliable sources -- any sources at all, to the table. Let's start with your 'stone slab' in Northern Canada. What's your source for this? Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The stone slab is Dighton Rock, engraved with Portuguese markings (notice the symbols in the photo at Miguel's page). My mistake in attribution to João when it was his son Miguel Corte-Real in 1511. However it is well known that João sailed with two of his sons before that, discovering what the Portuguese call "Terra do Bacalhau" (possibly Bacalao). Both this last link and the Portuguese page on João Vaz Corte-Real give 1472 as the date respectively for a grant of land after his discoveries, or to his voyages. Because there would be a document about the grant of land, João's voyages have to be placed before that year. Today, the land off the coast of Newfoundland is one the biggest cod (Portuguese, Bacalhau) fisheries in the world.

John Cabot reaches America in 1497. Just putting a line in the sand.

John Cabot, the same who hired Portuguese pilots with experience sailing to Newfoundland and Labrador?

From the book in Portuguese "História de Portugal" by José Hermano Saraiva (a very well known scholar) 2nd edition, Publicações Europa-América: page 576. 1492/1498 The Portuguese João Fernandes Lavrador and Pedro de Barcelos travel to Greenland and Newfoundland.

That's how "Labrador" got his name from.

I'll be back in a moment. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

why the article states he is genovese as if there is scholar consensus? schollar consensus? Which consensus? this is not reliable, it is tending to a so called established consensus that never existed. --188.80.91.8 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Discovery of America by Spain

Why don't you state that Christopher Columbus was the discoverer of America? I am perfectly serious when I state that it is historical fairness the fact of writing it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgljuarez (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Because current historical consensus holds that Leif Ericson was the first European to visit the America 500 years earlier. --Leivick (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

How can one person discover two continents inhabited by millions of people?

With a ship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.58.67 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Born in Spain

Colombus was born in Spain, in the town of Pontevedra according to the data coming from the names appearing on his maps. --88.18.150.26 (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, valid point. Recent DNA evidence has suggested that Columbus wasn't of Italian (i.e. Genoa) decent at all but probably from Cataluna. Why does the article not reflex this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.8.93 (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature

It is stated in Thomas Ayres' book That's Not In My American History Book that Columbus went by the name Colon. Can someone explain? --15lsoucy (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The real name was Cristovam Colon ou Xpoval Colon, but his (strange) signature (http://columbus.vanderkrogt.net/other_illustrations/Ccsignature.jpg) has the letters ".S." (1st line), ".S.A.S." (2d line), ".X.M.Y." (3d line), ".Xpoferens.," (4th line), which leaves plenty of room for interpretation; one says that ".Xpoferens.," is encrypted and means "Salvador Fernandes Zarco", the name of the grand-son of the Portuguese navigator Gonçalves Zarco born in Cuba, Portugal. Several quotes from that time refer to him as "Colombo", but "Cristophoro Colombo" only appeared with the famous 17th century forgery that celebrated the myth of the Genoese Columbus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.0.63 (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The 4 voyages

In my opinion, the whole "Voyages" section must be removed from here, or short summaries can be left, and the reader must be referenced to the main article: "Voyages of Christopher Columbus". In the current state, the Voyages section from this article is even more developed than the main, referenced article. It has no sense to always upgrade both articles when new details are to be included.- Mazarin07 (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Voyages of Christopher Columbus covers it, a Wikipedia:Summary style can be done. J. D. Redding 22:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no objection, a Wikipedia:Summary style can be put here and the article {{main}}'ed. J. D. Redding 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In the "third voyage" reference is made to claims of genocide with citations being needed. "A People's History of the United States" - Howard Zinn published in 2001pages 4-5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thushw (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)