Talk:Niccolao Manucci
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]as,yhwh 20:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Is this person Niccolao Manucci for real? as,yhwh 20:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It is this article which is completely unbalanced - devoting 10 times as much space to the alleged inaccuracies in Storia di Mogor as to explaining its enduring and powerful historical appeal. No wonder wikipedia gets a bad name when it traduces and slanders great historical personalities in this shameful way. itihasi 00:38, 15 January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itihasi (talk • contribs)
I must agree with Itihasi. Note that the article states first: "He [Manucci] wrote about his work: "I must add, that I have not relied on the knowledge of others; and I have spoken nothing which I have not seen or undergone...""
It goes without saying that when describing say, Akbar, who was dead before Manucci was even born, it would be impossible for him to have witnessed the events he describes. Such examples — in fact, all three examples given in the "Controversy" section — fail to raise doubts about Manucci's claim to only writing what he has witnessed — in his own lifetime, naturally.
Actually, the "Controversy" section acknowledges this: "There are numerous other incidents in this book which are completely flawed, this raises very big concerns about the veracity of Manucci's work, ESPECIALLY HIS WRITINGS ABOUT INITIAL MUGHAL RULERS HUMAYUN, BABAR AND AKBAR" (my emphasis). Unless you believe in time travel (wouldn't it be nice?), all this shows is that some of his sources for earlier history were flawed. That does not detract from the merits of the work regarding his own lifetime.