Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus

The Columbus from Genoa was not the same guy as the discoverer

The Last Will and Testament of Christopher Columbus dated 1498, known as the Mayorazgo (Majorat), materialized in Spain decades after the discoverer died. The document was presented during the Columbus inheritance lawsuit by an Italian imposter named Balthazar Colombo who was not a family relation. The document includes the statement “being I born in Genoa,” which has been utilized as the crucial proof that the Discoverer of America was born in Genoa, Italy. However, neither the contents of the Mayorazgo nor the circumstances of its creation pass scientific scrutiny. It turns out to be a fraudulent document invented by Balthazar Colombo in his shameless effort to steal from the discoverer’s legitimate heirs the immense inheritance of the Dukedom of Veragua, Admiral of the Indies and Marquis of Jamaica. ( http://www.iustel.com/v2/revistas/detalle_revista.asp?numero=21&id=15 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.158 (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a connection to the article's author? Doug Weller (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a big house of cards is about to tumble !!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.172.59.41 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If Rosa proves the document is a forgery, how long will WP begin to change the Columbus articles to reflect the doubts regarding his place of birth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1118:2105:494C:A066:E586:A266 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Read more and more false it becomes. Manuel Rosa is appears to have right view the history of Columbus very shaky, why there is no more doubt of Genoese theory written in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.53.176.253 (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Write a book. Get some reliable sources. Build a website. Stop trying to plug your own fringe theories into Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

At the most this should have a short paragraph. This clearly reliable source says "Within the Polish-American community, identified by its members as Polonia, there is the recurrent story of Jan z Kolno, a supposed early “pilot” on one or more pre-Columbian Danish expeditions to North America, but the evidence of this is scant and open to considerable interpretation. The recent assertions by Manuel Rosa in his Colon, la historia nunca contada, published in Spain, that Christopher Columbus was the son of the Polish king Wladyslaw III, promised a major revelation, but has yet to undergo the scrutiny of scholars. As yet, the first appearance of Poles in North America that is verified by accepted evidence was the arrival of three or four in Jamestown in 1608, only a year after the founding of the first successful..." We don't need a lot more than that. open ejournals aren't reliable sources normally, by the way. Doug Weller (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"A tiger does not change its stripes, nor a leopard its spots." This proverb is perfect for Colon-el-Nuevo [1] alias 152.16.51.158 alias 46.53.176.253 alias 2606:A000:1118:2105:494C:A066:E586:A266|2606:A000:1118:2105:494C:A066:E586:A266 --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

A general comment on the Polish hypothesis - and by a Polish scholar who cites Rosa as one of the claimants for it, says "While the authors of the 1472 mystification remain unknown, the scene itself has become a source of subsequent rumors claiming that Henrique Alemão was really King Wladyslaw concealing himself on the Portuguese island. Beginning in all probability around the time of Henrique's death, such rumors were for the first time recorded in the early eighteenth century.53 Further popularized by Leopold Kielanowskin the twentieth century, they became the starting point for a bizarre hypothesis that Christopher Columbus was actually the son of King Wladyslaw III Jagiellon hiding on Madeira under the name of Henrique Alemão.54" "Deceptive Practices in Fifteenth Century Europe: The Case of Wladyslaw III Jagiellon (Varnensis)", Krystyna Lukasiewicz The Polish Review Vol. 57, No. 2 (2012), pp. 3-20. Doug Weller (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Good job, Doug Weller. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Uncertain Sources

The reference inserted in the article is bogus. The the book, "Długosz, Jan. Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae. IM Publications, 1997." says no such thing about King Wladyslaw. Długosz's only reference to any homosexuality is in the year 1447 (3 years after Varna) and it is about King Casimir's court. Nothing to do with King Wladyslaw. If you insist on keeping this reference in the article please provide the exact page for the reference, otherwise one should remove this reference.Reynatour (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Rosa

I'm getting tempted to treat Rosa's contributions on this talk page -- and I'll happily assume all the contributions from Duke are Rosa's -- the same as I've treated Anthony Appleyard's at Talk:0.999.../Arguments since 2007: remove it without comment as soon as it appears... --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I am doing for now on, especially since he saw fit to delete this comment as well as sticking in more. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Add the Galician origin please

There are many reason to add the Galician origin:

-In the XV century Galician and Portuguese are the same language born in the north west of the Peninsula four or five centuries earlier.

-The surname Colom can be traced back to Middle Ages in Pontevedra (Galicia)

-All the names used by Colon to rename the places he conquered are names from Ria de Pontevedra (Pontevedras firth).

-The main boat used by Colon (Santa Maria) was made in Pontevedra

Apart from that if you understand Spanish you can read a lot about this theory here (you can use google to): http://www.cristobalcolon.gal/

this is an extrac (google translated)

Having dropped Christopher Columbus in oblivion before his death and did not begin to study until the beginning of the eighteenth century, it was mainly foreign historians who recovered the character and gave it the importance that really had.

On the other hand, the litigation for succession in the mayorazgo (1578 - 1606) did nothing but bring more doubts to his life, motivated by a multitude of false and adulterated writings, contributed by the litigants with the sole intention of winning a lawsuit Certainly tasty. The best known of all (1498) is the one where the famous phrases of:

"Being born in Genoa ... I came out of it and I was born in it ...", also "... nor in another end of the world did not fail a man of my true lineage who had been called and called him and his predecessors of Columbus ... in such case There is the woman who has arrived in debt and legitimate blood. "

In the 1498 testament, there are many irregularities:

The signature that appears does not correspond with the spelling of the Admiral and make several errors by placing the points that Christopher Columbus placed on each side of the eses. It is given as I live the Infante D. Juan when he died on October 7, 1497. When this document was presented, 80 years have passed since the events. He was not elevated to public deed. Several litigants took Pauline orders, or letters of excommunication issued in court for the discovery of some things suspected of having been stolen or maliciously concealed. They took their name because they were instituted by Pope Paul III. Several crossed out lines with different dates appear. The Galician twists that Christopher Columbus used so much in his speech and writing, appear correctly in the one of 1506 and replaced in the one of 1498: aviamiento instead of aviamento, to indicate instead of to signify, to seal instead of cover, to understand and to understand instead Of intenda and intende, likewise instead of asymmetry, admiral instead of admiral, privilege instead of privillejo and privillejos, show instead of sample. The institution was not of its letter, the document was missing a leaf, the most important, and the court with signa that: "is not authentic or solemn" It appears signed by the Catholic Monarchs and their Secretary of State, Don Fernando Alvarez, who had died in 1501 and who had not signed for four years. The testament of 1506, granted in Valladolid, was the only one that was considered as indisputable to regulate the succession of the inheritance, titles and privileges, in it does not say that it was born in Genoa or anywhere, nor does it mention any town Of Italy or of the genovesate, neither distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate relatives and nor does it include the exclusion of any surname except the "de Colón".

Approaching the Fourth Centenary of the discovery of America, the Italian nationalists ( Mussolini) find in Christopher Columbus the propitious figure to extol with such a glorious personage to the Italian nation, but for this it would be necessary to create the personage, why? Christopher Columbus only knew what some chroniclers had said, that he was a Genoese, because they had heard it said so. The city of Genoa orders fourteen volumes between 1892 and 1896, in order to underpin the Genoese nationality of the admiral, it is when the "colombo" appears as a solution to so much mistrust, mediatically proved effective, however the personage who became known "Cristóforo Colombo ", Does not fit with that of the discoverer of the New World," Christopher Columbus " — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauloJones (talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to add it, put it under "other hypothesis" and provide a source. Also make it clear that it's just a speculation. Barjimoa (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Assereto document

It is important to bear in mind that at the time when Assereto traced the document, it would have been impossible to make an acceptable facsimile. Nowadays, with modern chemical processes, a document can be "manufactured", made to look centuries old if need be, with such skill that it is hard to prove it is a fake. In 1960, this was still impossible.

I have no opinion as to the authenticity (or otherwise) of the document in question, but the above statement seems a rather strange and misleading generalisation. Basing the claim on "pp. 17-500" of a book is none too helpful, either. 82.132.220.113 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Agenda?

An observation: The article spends a lot of soace pushing the standard theory of his Genoese origins (approximately 75% of the main text) and then devotes only a tiny fraction talking about the other theories. Seems to me rather odd. As this article was created explicitly to discuss all of the varying theories, it seems strange to devote the majority of the article to the standard theory. Would seem the standard theory should be well covered in the Christopher Columbus article and this one should devote more space to the alternatives.

--MC

Problems in the language section

- there is a small handwritten Genoese gloss in a 1498 Italian (from Venice) edition of Pliny's Natural History that he read after his second voyage to America: this shows Columbus was able to write in Italian and understand it. No, being able to read "Italian" (at the time, Tuscan) in no way implies ability to write it. If the Genoese gloss is Columbus's, that shows that he was able to write Genoese, quite a different language then and now from Tuscan/Italian.

- Phillips and Phillips point out that 500 years ago, the Romance languages had not distanced themselves to the degree they have today. They may point that out, but they're historians, not philologist/linguists. In essence, it's not really true. With the partial exception for various reasons of the Strasbourg Oaths, the earliest extant attempts to write in Romance vernaculars show very clear regional differences that unmistakably enable establishment of their origins.96.42.57.164 (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)