Misplaced Pages

Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Colon-el-Nuevo (talk | contribs) at 04:18, 27 December 2012 (→Contemporary or not?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:18, 27 December 2012 by Colon-el-Nuevo (talk | contribs) (→Contemporary or not?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Origin theories of Christopher Columbus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Origin theories of Christopher Columbus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHistory Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

ORIGINS

The main support for the “genovesity” of Crhistopher Columbus is the called document Assereto of 1479 (called like the one who discovered it in 1904, Hugo Assereto), which carries us to Cristóbal Columbus that supposedly was born in Genoa (Some historians affirm that it was born in other other Italian cities). But any serious historian or good fan to the topics of history must admit that still the doubts persist on this theory or affirmation. To say that it is a closed topic only reflects the interest for the permanency of the current version of these origins for simple convenience, something imprudent in a topic so doubtful and discussed like this one.. This is one of the doubts or contradictions of the official version or commonly accepted version: Fernando II of Aragon or Fernando the Catholic was born in Sos of the Catholic King on 10 March 1452, that is to say, would be younger that Cristopher Columbus whose birth supposes happened in Italy in 1451. It is known that from the year 1494, it was prohibited to all the citizens of the realm (Castilla and Aragon), employ mules like animal of transport for people. As what pretended was to increase the number of horses in the realm, The king gave example stopping to ride mules, as usually it did it. In 1504 (It is supposed that Genoa's Columbus had the age of 53 years) Cristopher Columbus, requests to the king Fernando dispenses to be able to travel riding a mule since his age prevents him travel riding in a so nervous animal like a horse. Registered in the Archive of Simancas and in date 23 February 1505, exists a cocument of the king Fernando conceding to Cristobal Colon licence to ride a mule by any parts of these realms. The King says: “By what am informed that you the Admiral Cristóbal Colon are indisposed of your person by some illnesses that have had and have, and you can not ride a horse without a lot of damage of your health: therefore, observing the aforementioned and your old age, by the present I give you licence so that you can ride a mule by any parts of these realms Date in the city of Toro to twenty and three February one thousand, five hundred quinientos and five. A king aged of 53 years and who still consideres himself like a active person speaks “Your old age” referring to somebody that practically has his same age?. It is logic to recognise that something does not agree in all this, something goes wrong, but it has certain verisimilitude if we believe like certainly that Coumbus died in Valladolid in 1506, having 70 years, "senectute bona" or "age of seventy years" because this way the contemporary historians had written it. That is to say, he dies on the following year of which the king Fernando was granting license to him for not to ride horses in his trips. The King Fernando died on 23 January of 1516 in Madrigalejo (province of Cáceres), when it went to assist to the chapter of the orders of Calatrava and Alcántara in the Monastery of Guadeloupe

Although they persist the doubts on the origin of Cristóbal Columbus, little by little the theory of his catalanity goes earning followers like Charles J. Merrill, Gerard Garrigue, Estelle Irizarry, without mentioning to the ones of Spain. They exist basic and simple doubts on his "genovesity" like that a son of a wool weave had familiar heraldic shield which expanded the king Fernando, when the heraldic shields were conceded to noble people by the king, his Courts or Real Chancelleries. The title of Admiral in the crown of Aragon (initially in the one of Castilla did not exist, conceded the one of General Captain) was reserved to the royal family, as well as the title of Viceroy or "Visorey" of the crown of Aragon. It results incredible that a son of trader by prosperous that it was, plant in front of one of the most powerful kings of his time and in return to loan him a service demand him those titles. On the other hand, if it was genovés of Génova, it is necessary to remember that the Spanish laws forbade of form expresses that any foreigner had any public charge. It is not an opinion without foundation the theory of the catalanity of the discoverer in the person of "Joan Colom i Beltran". The same brothers, the same stay in Portugal after a shipwreck, the fact that it was a prestigious sailor. That it had to escape for struggling at the side of the counts of Urgell against the Trastamara family (the family of de king Fernando). There was thought that he had died according to a document in 1472, maybe appears again with name and signature in documents of 1484, 1487 and 1490 that still conserve . He married Felipa de Coimbra the youngest daughter of Pedro of Portugal, First duke of Coimbra and of Isabel “of Urgel and Aragon”, daughter of the count James II of “Urgell”. Maybe of his stay in Portugal come from the words of portuguese influence that can be read in his writings, combined with words of catalan influence They have not found words of Italian influence in his writings, and when it has tried to write in Italian, it has done it of almost ridiculous form remaining demonstrated his ignorance of this language It signed many of his writings with a "J" crossed by a "S", that all linguists knows that it means "Joanness" or Juan or Joan (Juan in Catalan language) maybe Joan Colom i Beltran? Had with his brother a business of cartography in Portugal, his maps reflect the form to do of the Catalan cartography, which learnt according to some during a long stay in the Balearic, maybe Ibiza

Note: I apologize for my bad english — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikibcnes (talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

little by little the theory of his catalanity goes earning followers like Charles J. Merrill, Gerard Garrigue, Estelle Irizarry, without mentioning to the ones of Spain

Hi Mikibcnes :)

The vast majority of Spanish historians think that Christopher Columbus was Genoese. Examples include: Ballesteros Beretta, Manzano, Navarrete, Munoz, Duro, Asensio, Altolaguirre, Perez de Tudela, Manuel Alvar, Ciroanescu, Rumeu de Armas, Morales Padron, Muro Orejon, Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Demetrio Ramos, Juan Gil, Ballesteros Gaibrois, Milhou, Serrano y Sanz to name a few.

The most important contemporary Spanish historian, Consuelo Varela, has defined the theories that deny the Genoese origin of Columbus as "bizarre conjectures." But the overwhelming weight of evidence and the opinion of almost all serious scholars support the statements made by his early biographers and by contemporary commentators.

Happy reading ! http://en.wikipedia.org/Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus#Confirmation_of_the_Genoese_origin_from_contemporary_European_writers --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is true. Consuelo Varela has written that the Discoverer was Genoese. The Spanish historian has often worked with Paolo Emilio Taviani.

See: --Aries no Mur (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Consuelo Varela and many other people have written that the discoverer was "Genoese" that does not make it true and the discoverer not once said where he was born. A lot of invention has been written and one must not get confused between invention and fact. Here is one very interesting fact:
This is what is written in Peter Martyr's book: PETRI MARTYRIS... Christophorus Colonus Ligur vid, Fernãdo & Helisabethae Regibus Catholicis proposuit... (De Orbe Novo, (1530).
Here is what Richard Eden (the first English translation) translated it to: WRITTEN BY PETER MARTYR... Christophorus Colonus (other wise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua, persuaded Fernando and Elyzabeth, catholike princes... (Decades of the New World (1555) translation of Peter Martyr)
this phrase: (other wise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua was inserted by Eden without proof nor warning the readers that Peter Martyr did NOT write this. And like this, there are thousands of examples of writers inventing and inserting information where it is not on the original document and then others utilizing that invention as proof when there is no proof. Taviani did the same thing and he left our the Portuguese life of the discoverer, a life which completely negates a peasant birth. Reasonable people accept the doubt.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2012(UTC)

For Mikibcnes

Of course, all this information is false.

Primary sources:

Etc.

Don't take Colon El-Nuevo's word for that. He is prone to make arguments like this based almost exclusively on controversial interpretations of primary sources, and his favourite historian the IT analyst Manuel Rosa. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You are very interesting. I quote you two sources and instead of you showing what the two sources say, you show me sources that have nothing to do with the sources I quoted. Nice try.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Consuelo Varela, the most important contemporary historian of Spain, Professor of the University of Seville writes: "...new and bizarre conjectures, is that of the origin and birth date of Christopher Columbus, despite the fact that all chroniclers of that period wrote that he was from Liguria in northern Italy." She, implicitly, considers all testimony of contemporaries of Christopher Columbus, as trusted.

The Historians:

  • Miles H. Davidson
  • Felipe Fernández-Armesto
  • Washington Irving
  • Samuel Eliot Morison
  • William D. Phillips, Carla Rahn Phillips
  • Paolo Emilio Taviani
  • Mario Di Giovanni
  • Consuelo Varela
  • Gianni Granzotto

Etc.

With the greatest of respect... tell it as it is. I would like a reliable source that confirms his point of view. Where is the source? Thanks. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Gianni Granzotto and Washington Irving were not "History PhD.s" therefore their contributions are as valid as Manuel Rosa's.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Washington Irving "an American author, essayist, biographer and historian of the early 19th century."
  • Gianni Granzotto for his book "Christopher Columbus" won the Literary Prize in 1984. The book has been translated into many languages ​​and is used in Universities:

But we should not dwell on these details, should we ?

Your author is not a historian but a "history buff" is different. Why didn't you answer my question ? Reliable sources of important contemporary historians. Where is the source? Thanks. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand what source you need, The source is the books themselves: in Peter Martyr's book it reads "Christophorus Colonus Ligur vid, Fernãdo & Helisabethae Regibus Catholicis proposuit..." (De Orbe Novo, (1530).
Richard Eden (the first English translation) it reads "WRITTEN BY PETER MARTYR... Christophorus Colonus (other wise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua, persuaded Fernando and Elyzabeth, catholike princes..." (Decades of the New World (1555) translation of Peter Martyr) - Richard Eden added text that had NOT been written by Peter Martyr.
Pg Folio iii- 10th line down is very clear what Martyr wrote: http://books.google.com/books?id=QUPN8QiZEuYC&ots=jL7WWTvRMd&dq=De%20Orbe%20Novo%20Petri%20Martyris%20ab%20Angleria&pg=PT22#v=onepage&q&f=false
Pg 65, beginign fo 2nd P.: http://books.google.com/books?id=VHoKAQAAIAAJ&lpg=PR9&ots=DxOPZgTvln&dq=%22Richard%20Eden%22%20Decades%20of%20the%20New%20World%20(1555)&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q=%22Richard%20Eden%22%20Decades%20of%20the%20New%20World%20(1555)&f=false
And like this example, Rosa says there are thousands of insertions and conversions of text to make Cristóbal Colon look like the same guy as Cristoforo Colombo. In fact Rosa is the most coherent historian of this subject, and I have read a lot of authors, you should attend his lecture at Umass Dartmouth 25th of this month. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I read two versions. This would be an evidence ? The document (Martyr) confirms the Genoese origin of Columbus with these exact words: "Christophorus Colonus Ligur vir" (= "Christopher Columbus, man of Liguria"). In the second Decade of his De Orbe Novo book I: "Christophorum Colonum ligurem" and book VII: "Christophoro Colono Genuensi". Rosa found hints of Portuguese origins in the admiral's name, in his coat of arms, and in his symbols and signature. A house of cards. I repeat my opinion: he is not a serious author. Bye. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Daedalus, one MUST be careful. I stated that Richard Eden had inserted (invented) text that was not in the original. Eden put words in Martyr's mouth. You do not accept this is what Eden did? Then show us where Martyr WROTE: (other wise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua - You also write that Peter Martyr «confirms the Genoese origin of Columbus with these exact words: "Christophorus Colonus Ligur vid» - wrong, it is NOT what Martyr says. What Martyr says is that COLONUS was Ligurian, which is not the same as being Genoese, in case you did not know. Also by saying Ligurian, it does not automatically mean that COLONUS was born in Liguria. Do you know how many Irish, Italians, Mexicans, and countless other nationalities, are actually born in the USA? Did you ever hear of anyone saying "Hey, I am Italian" when in fact they are already second generation Americans? Would you still consider a person an Italian even if they are born in the Bronx, just because they declared they were Italian? - What Rosa found were facts that deny the current history and he presented that so convincingly that all historians who have read his work agree with him, including the current president of the Portuguese Academy of History. If you want to know the correct history you need to go read the unadulterated documents NOT their translation. The adulterated translations created the house of cards of a Genoese Colombo, wool-weaving peasant while the navigator Colon, was a nobleman.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Assereto is a Forgery

The italians presented to the public a document that had been modified from its original form, they cut out blank pages and moved pages together to make it look like one continues document. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QtQJk53P5k . Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Manuel Rosa is not a reliable source. He is not a historian. Misplaced Pages:No original research --Aries no Mur (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Aries no Mur- Manuel Rosa has succeeded in proving that the history of a Colombo wool-weaver was trash. I have read his books and you have not. Furthermore, Manuel Rosa's books have succeeded in convincing those academics who read them. You have not read them. And to top if off, Manuel Rosa shows in all his books where the fantasy history of a Colombo wool-weaver becoming a great Admiral and Vice-roy started and who forged what documents. Not one of the Professors who read Rosa's book have come out against it, and many have come out and said they support Rosa's conclusions. You tell me how your ignorant wool-weaver, Cristoforo Colombo, son of another poor and failed wool-weaver named Domenico Colombo, who could NOT EVEN read and Write in Genoese, manage to learn and read so much that he wrote his own extensive "BOOK OF PROPHECIES" based on all the following authors, which the great discoverer Cristóbal COLÓN had read:
Works and Authors quoted by Cristóbal COLÓN in the Book of Prophecies from the Bible (Genesis, Exodus,Deuteronomy, I Books of Kings, Esdras, Judith, Esther, the book I Maccabees, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Wisdom, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Zechariah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Revelation, Romans, Corinthians, Thessalonians, Second Letter to Timothy, Letter to the Hebrews);
Works and Authors quoted by Cristóbal COLÓN in the Book of Prophecies from the Ancient Authors (Aristotle, Julius Caesar, St. Augustine, Eratosthenes, Josephus, St. Ambrose, Strabo, Marinus of Tyre, St. Gregory, Ptolemy, Diodorus Siculus, Isidoro, Seneca, Julio Capitoline, St. John Chrysostom, Solino, Ovid, St. Jerome, Plato, Pindar);
Works and Authors quoted by Cristóbal COLÓN in the Book of Prophecies from Medieval Authors and Works (St. Thomas Aquinas, Alfonso de Zamora, Pedro Comestor, Jean Gerson, Ben-Kothair-Ahmed, Ibn-Roshd (Averroes), Francis Meron, Breviary, John Holywood, Nicholas of Lyra, the Venerable Bede, Duns Scotus, Pierre d'Ailly, Walafrido Strabo, Albumazar, King Alfonso X, Pope Pius II, Johannes Muller, Paolo Toscanelli, Roger Bacon, Joaquim da Fiore, John Mandeville, Aquila, Merlin, The Koran, Marco Polo, Alfragano, Almanac, Rabbi Samuel, Avicenna, Alfonso Tostato, Episc. Abulensis, Nicholas Secundino). SOURCE: Kling, August and Delno C. West, "Libro de las Prophecies of Christopher Columbus." University of Florida. Gainesville, 1991......
Do you see the FANTASY of the Colombo Wool-Weaver Fairytale yet??? If not maybe you can tell us how the poor wool-weaver that Mr. Taviani and Mr. Morison say could NOT READ and WRITE until he was 25 and started to go to school in Portugal, managed to read all of the authors in Latin, Greek, Portuguese, Spanish and Hebrew- but NOT in Genoese???Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Felipa Perestrello e Moniz " a Portuguese noblewoman of the Order of Santiago."

  • According to the historian William D. Phillips, Columbus married Felipa Perestrello e Moniz, "whose family belonged to the Portuguese nobility. Although the family was relatively poor, they still had direct connections to the Portuguese court and the king."
  • According to the historian Eckhart, "Felipa was a lady from a poor but noble Italian family who became Columbus' wife. She and Columbus met at a church in Lisbon."
  • According to the historian Paolo Emilio Taviani, "Felipa Moniz Perestrello was noble: poor, it was true, but with four quarterings of nobility, on both her father's and her mother's side, for the Moniz family was of the highest lineage."
  • According to the historian Berne, " Felipa's family was noble but poor."
  • The professor Samuel Eliot Morison wrote that this is "no great mystery." Filipa was "already about 25 years old," her mother was a widow "with slender means," and "her mother was glad enough to have no more convent bills to pay, and a son-in-law who asked for no dowry."

Your edits violate two of our most important policies: WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The user "Colon-el-Nuevo" is destructive. His actions: "Original research" and "controversial interpretations of the Primare sources." Stop. ... and his favourite historian the IT analyst Manuel Rosa. Measures ? --Aries no Mur (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Daedalus&Ikaros- Samuel Eliot Morison is useless when it comes to Portuguese history, he wrote things that today are clearly proven to be fantasy. Tavianni knew nothing about the history of Portugal, so little did he know that he wrote "Genoa was the foremost city of navigation of its time.." trash like this was taken as "truth" when Lisbon and NOT Genoa was the "foremost city of navigation of its time.."" Today, according to Portuguese historians, Filipa was a noble lady and a member COMENDADORA of the Portuguese Order of Santiago. So affirmed the Presidente of the Portuguese Academy of History, Manuela Mendonça, a Professor and author of Portuguese History books during her lecture on May 19, 2012, http://colon-portugues.blogspot.com/2012/06/d-joao-ii-e-cristovao-colon-que-relacao.html - she explained that Filipa Moniz was a noble in the elite of the elite of Portuguese families and it is not my fault that you guys are incapable of reading other languages. Your ignorance of the language does not make you correct in your edits. It is irrelevant what the foreign writers of the last Century, such as Tavianni, wrote. Today we have documentation of Filipa Moniz's belonging to the elite Portuguese Military Order of Santiago. It was clearly presented by Prof. Joel Mata in 1992 and then presented by Manuel Rosa in 2006, with an the actual image of the document in 2009 and accepted by the Portuguese Academics. Your insistence on denying the new evidence is ridiculous since wikipedia has the information in its Filipa Moniz Perestreloarticle. Furthermore, it is more ridiculous that you would take out statements made by the author of the "Polish Theory," seeing that those statements make up part of the very Polish theory section of the article. The insistence that we keep looking at the Columbus article through the eyes of the 1892 Raccolta, which completly ignored Portuguese documentation, is denying all the research that has taken place since 1892. Who will you belive about Portuguese families, Portuguese historians who know the country's history and can read the language, OR Italian and American historians who know nothing of Portuguese history and can't even say a word in Portuguese? Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Time will tell- All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.- Arthur Schopenhauer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.52.236.221 (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In this regard, the historian Felipe Fernández-Armesto writes: "The Catalan, French, Galician, Greek, Ibizan, Jewish, Majorcan, Polish, Scottish, and other increasingly silly Columbuses concocted by historical fantasists are agenda-driven creations, usually inspired by a desire to arrogate a supposed or confected hero to the cause of a particular nation or historic community - or, more often than not, to some immigrant group striving to establish a special place of esteem in the United States. The evidence of Columbus's origins in Genoa is overwhelming..."
  • The historian Samuel Eliot Morison writes: "If, however, you suppose that these facts would settle the matter, you fortunately know little of the so-called "literature" on the "Columbus Question." By presenting farfetched hypotheses and sly innuendos as facts, by attacking documents of proven authenticity as false, by fabricating others (such as the famous Pontevedra documents), and drawing unwarranted deductions from things that Columbus said or did, he has been presented as Castilian, Catalan, Corsican, Majorcan, Portuguese, French, German, English, Greek, and Armenian."
  • The historian Paolo Emilio Taviani writes: "It is understandable that certain Spanish historians would seek to bestow full credit for the great discovery on Spain by arguing that Columbus was a Spanish citizen. It is equally understandable that the Castilians and Catalonians - two populations that have been linguistically and culturally divided for centuries - have fought over which of the two had the honor of being the birthplace of Christopher Columbus. But what wild imaginings could have generated a Greek Columbus, an English Columbus, three French Columbuses, and, as if that were not enough, a Corsican Columbus, a Swiss Columbus, and three Portuguese Columbuses? For an explanation, we can look only to the immeasurable greatness of Columbus's achievement and to its profound consequences on the course of human history; only to the mythic figure of the Navigator, the first man to unveil the mystery of the New World to the inhabitants of the Old World, only to the amazing story of his life and his voyages. The glorious myth of Columbus has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves."
  • The historian Consuelo Varela writes: "One of the mysteries that important historiographers like to discuss, idling away the time with new and bizarre conjectures, is that of the origin and birth date of Christopher Columbus, despite the fact that all chroniclers of that period wrote that he was from Liguria in northern Italy."

Mr. Manuel Rosa (and inappropriate uses of alternative accounts), Misplaced Pages does not really care what's "true", as long as it is sourced, and by the majority consensus. And there are too many copious references and reliable sources that say he was from Genoa. And that is the majority historian consensus. Case closed.

Evidence of intent to obscure Columbus's true origin

I've picked up some bits and pieces that support the idea that Columbus or his patrons made efforts to obscure his origins. That doesn't prove anything by itself, but if that situation can be cited properly, it definitely belongs in this article somewhere, perhaps in its own section.

It appears to be impossible at this point in history to definitively prove Columbus's origin if it was successfully obscured, so all that might remain is evidence that the obscuring was done. If there is evidence to support that, then the rest of the article gains credibility. Without evidence of that, then maybe the article doesn't have credibility. Since so many respected historians keep coming up with speculations about the origin of Columbus, I think they must have detected evidence for obscuring his origin before they decided to speculate about what the truth might be. Whatever evidence they have found, ought to be cited in the article. Badon (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

For me, Christopher Columbus may also be Chinese... but the facts are these:

  • At a minimum, we can say that the vast majority of historians believe that Christopher Columbus was born Cristoforo Colombo in Genoa, Italy, around the year 1451.
  • The Columbus documents, include more than 2,500 notes penned in the margins of books he owned; some 80 letters, notes and memorials; copies of the log from his first New World voyage; and volumes he compiled.
  • Apart from the documents, there is the testimony of contemporaries. There are at least twenty such publications in the 16th century and nine in the 17th century. In addition, there were sixty-two by Italian writers.
  • Then there is the eloquent testimony of the ambassadors: Angelo Trevisan, Gasparo Contarini, Pedro de Ayala, and Nicolò Oderico.
  • In a testament executed in 1539, Ferdinand Columbus states that his father was of the same country with Mons. Agostino Giustiniani.
  • A grandson of Columbus, D. Diego, knight of the Order of Santiago, in the genealogy section, of 1535, says: "Paternal Grandparents / Christopher Columbus, a native of Saona near Genoa, / and Filipa Moniz, a native of Libon."

The absurd theories:

  • One book in Norwegian, considering Columbus as a Norwegian: Tor Borch Sannes, Christopher Columbus: En europeer fra Norge? Oslo: Norsk maritimt forlag, 1991. Forskning.no, run by the Research Council of Norway, writing about cult archaeologists such as von Daniken, calls Sannes Norway's funniest cult archaeologist.
  • According to Mr. Manuel Rosa (Colon-el-Nuevo), Columbus was son to the king of Poland Władysław III, who survived the battle of Warna in 1444 and later lived on Madera.
Manuel Rosa does not know that the story is absolutely impossible: he should have known that the Władysław III was a homosexual and thus would have rather had sex with men rather than with women, ergo would not have children. The Church officially recognised his homosexuality and because of that, Wladyslaw is only King Crusader who has never been beatified.
Here goes the facts: Jan Długosz in his Chronicles of the Kingdom of Poland unambiguously suggested kings homosexuality. - A primary source.
Wladyslaw III was fighting with Turkey in the defence of Christian Europe and he was killed during a battle in 1444 near Warna (seven years before Christopher Columbus was born!).
Mr. Rosa claims Władysław escaped to Madera after disaster near Warna. This escape is no a Historical Fact. It is only theory or rumour.
  • Theory of Croatian origin ? The Swedish theory ? The theory Spanish ? These theories are not considered reliable sources. The silence of historians is the result of this unreliability. --Daedalus&Ikaros

I've picked up some bits and pieces that support the idea that Columbus or his patrons made efforts to obscure his origins. - Badon

Your research probably violates this rule: WP:NOR

Many contemporary descriptions say that Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa, in northern Italy, although perhaps not in the city itself: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedalus&Ikaros (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  • The historian Paolo Giovio: “Arbizolo Ligurie vico iuxta Savonam nasa potuisset? Hic enim ille est Christophorus Columbus.”
  • The historian Benedetto Giovio, elder brother of Paolo: “Columbus was born in Arbisolo.” (A comune in the province of Savona, located about 35 km west of Genoa and about 4 km northeast of Savona).
  • Antonio Gallo, a Genoese historian who wrote some 20 years after Columbus' death: “He was born in Genoa of plebeian parents.”
  • The bishop Agostino Giustiniani: “The Genoese Christopher Columbus, with admirable daring, discovered the New World.”
  • The historian Alessandro Geraldini: “Christopher Columbus, by nation an Italian, was of Genoa, a city of Liguria.”
  • The historian Bernardo Segni: “Christopher Columbus was Genoese in origin.”
  • The cardinal Pietro Bembo, writer, historian, and theoretician: “He was a Genoese navigator.”
  • The historian Francesco Guicciardini: “Christopher Columbus was Genoese”.
  • The historian and geographer Giovanni Lorenzo d'Anania: “Christoforo Colombo Genovese.”
  • The historian Tommaso Bozio: "Christophorus Columbus natione Genuensis."
  • The historian Antonio Chiusole: "Cristoforo Colombo Genovese."
  • The geographer Giovanni Battista Ramusio: “The noble city of Genoa is proud of his fellow-citizen”.
  • The historian Tommaso Fazello: “Christopher Columbus a Genoese”
  • The Poet Torquato Tasso: “A man of Liguria will have the daring first to set himself on the unknown course: and not the menacing howling of the wind, nor inhospitable seas, nor doubtful clime, nor anything else that now may be esteemed more formidable and filled with fear or danger will make the proud spirit content his lofty mind within the narrow proscriptions of Abyla. You, Columbus...”

Other contemporary European writers confirm the Genoese origin of Columbus are:

  • Nicolò Doglioni di Udine
  • Lodovico Dolce
  • Lodovico Domenichi
  • Francesco Carletti
  • Gaspare Bugati
  • Giacomo Filippo Foresti
  • Antonio Danti
  • Giovanni Tarcagnota
  • Giovanni Antonio Magini
  • Tommaso Fazella
  • Jacopo Bonfadio
  • Girolamo Benzoni
  • Gabriello Chiabrera
  • Bartolomeo Senarega
  • Uberto Foglieta
  • Battista Fregoso
  • Arcangelo Madrignano
  • Amerigo Vespucci
  • Francesco Sansovino
  • Hieronymo Girava
  • Michele Neander
  • Simon Grynaeus and Sebastian Cabot among others. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

--

Cristóbal COLÓN, and not Columbus, did write "more than 2,500 notes penned in the margins of books he owned; some 80 letters, notes and memorials; copies of the log from his first New World voyage; and volumes he compiled" does this prove that he was the wool-weaver from Genoa? Is there one single note of his where he says that he was from Genoa? No! not one. Furthermore, all those notes PROVE that Cristóbal COLÓN could not write in Italian nor in Genoese. Even more, all the historians who say Colon was a Colombo from Genoa, never cited one single document from the discoverer that proves that he was from Genoa, it was all hearsay. To top it all off, the wool-weaver Colombo as a peasant, could NEVER marry the noble lady that Cristóbal COLÓN married in 1479. That is 1479, when the wool-weaver had no standing to make such marriage.
When you say "a native of Saona near Genoa" are you now implying that he was not that Colombo from Quinto in Genoa???? It is a sad state of the "theory" when even its proponets cannot decide what documents to take as correct!!! Let me quote you from "The Literary Gazette and Journal of Belles Lettres, Arts, Sciences, &c., for the year 1828 (Printed by James Moyes.., London, Page 475: "...the village of Cogoleto, which has the distinguished reputation of being the birthplace of Columbus... That the state of Genoa attaches belief to the evidence that this was the place of his nativity, is shown in the fact that a civil officer, a préposé, is stationed here, a part of his duty is to showe the howse to strangers...." As anyone can tell, it was so obvious for all time eternal that "Columbus" was born in Genoa that the state of Genoa itself was showing his house to be located in Cogoleto!!!
It is not Mr. Rosa, but Mr. Leopold Kielanowski who proved that Władysław III escaped to Madera after disaster near Warna. The facts are shown in the book "Odyseja Władysława Warneńczyka" 1991. Go read it than we can continue discussion. Until then, all your interventions are based on ignorance of the published works and, as thus, has no meaningful contributions.
Daedalus&Ikaros- spoken like a true evader of the original question: "I've picked up some bits and pieces that support the idea that Columbus or his patrons made efforts to obscure his origins.." It is a proven fact that Cristóbal Colón's true identity and origins were covered up in Spain and Portugal. Nobody disputes that. Do you dispute it? Furthermore, it is a proven fact that, "Cristóbal Colón" was not his name of birth. Do you have PROOF, of what his true name of birth was? Proof means a DOCUMENT where both names are shown together as in Cristóbal Colón is the same as Cristoforo Colombo. Furthermore, if the man covered up his true identity and location of birth, than even if he said that he was Genoese, which he NEVER did say, it would only help him in the plan to cover up his true identity and place of birth. Furthermore, Mr. Rosa in his books has shown that he took part in the DNA studies at the University of Granada with Prof. José Lorente, the ONLY published historian to be involved in such tests ever, and those results include 477 negative results between COLON and COLOMBO. He further wrote in his books that he is actively seeking more DNA tests.
21st Century science is shedding light on the 16th Century Italian invention of a Genoese Colombo. Prof. José Lorente's DNA studies prove that the discoverer Cristóbal Colón had not the same DNA as 477 Colombo families from Genoa. 477 proofs that Colon was not Colombo. 477 scientific results that Mr. Rosa is right when he writes that Colon was not from any Colombo family.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Also Davide/Daedalus&Ikaros/et al. you are severely misinformed as to what contemporary means. "Contemporary" means they are writing at the same time that the man who discovered America was living. The various authors you list are writing decades and centuries after the discoverer died and therefore are noncontemporary and almost ALL of them are not even living at the same location as the Discoverer but thousands of Miles away and writing from hearsay. They are not reliable sources.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what the foreign writers of the last Century, such as Tavianni and Morison wrote about the noble Filipa Moniz. Today we have valid documentation that Filipa Moniz was one of the twelve elite "donnas" of the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago. This was clearly presented by Prof. Joel Mata in 1992 and then presented by Manuel Rosa in 2006 with an the actual image of the Torre do Tombo document published in his 2009 book "COLÓN. La Historia Nunca Contada" and accepted by the Portuguese Academics as a history changing document. Your insistence on denying the new evidence is ridiculous since wikipedia has the information in its Filipa Moniz Perestrelo article showing that any wool-weaver from anywhere in the world, had ZERO chances of marrying such an elite noble lady. Game Over Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Contemporary" means they are writing at the same time that the man who discovered America was living. - Colon-el-Nuevo

This is fun.

  • The Genoese historian Antonio Gallo who knew the Columbus family, wrote in 1506 an account of his expedition. This he began with the following words: "Christopher and Bartholomew Columbus, brothers, of the Ligurian nation, sprung from plebeian parentage."
  • In 1516, ten years after Columbus's death, a Genoese friar who became bishop of Nebbio, Agostino Giustiniani, published a text in several languages entitled Psalterium Hebraeum, Graecum, Arabicum, et Chaldaeum, which proved to contain a wealth of hitherto unknown information. Giustiniani writes that the man who discovered America, a Christopher Columbus, of "patria Genuensis," "born in Genoa," was of "Vilibus ortus parentibus," meaning "of humble birth," and his father was a "carminatore," or wool carder. According to Giustiniani, Columbus was also a wool carder, having received only a rudimentary education.
  • The historian Alessandro Geraldini, was a particular friend of the Admiral's, who relates some valuable facts concerning him, commencing his account thus; "Christopher Columbus, an Italian, was from Genoa, a city of Liguria."
  • Battista Fregoso, a former doge of Genoa, noted in his Chronicle of Memorable Words and Deeds for 1493 that Christophorus Columbus natione Genuensis had safely returned from India, having reached it in 31 days from Cadiz, as he proposed to do.
  • These authors are all contemporary writers of Christopher Columbus: Pietro Bembo, Paolo Giovio, Benedetto Giovio among others. Have you ever had hallucinations?
  • Finally, the testimony of Ferdinand Columbus himself, who, tells that his father was from Genoa.

It is irrelevant what the foreign writers of the last Century, such as Tavianni and Morison wrote about the noble Filipa Moniz. Today we have valid documentation that Filipa Moniz was one of the twelve elite "donnas" of the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago - Colon-el-Nuevo

The article is based, and should be based, on the interpretations found in the best biographies and historical works about Columbus. Your research violates this rule: WP:NOR.

Mr. Manuel Rosa. Yes, we know... All those errors in the same direction have been committed by everyone (Dougweller, Aries no Mur, Maunus ...) except you. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


Contemporary or not?

- "The Genoese historian Antonio Gallo who knew the Columbus family, wrote in 1506 an account of his expedition. This he began with the following words: "Christopher and Bartholomew Columbus, brothers, of the Ligurian nation, sprung from plebeian parentage.""
You are wrong again. The fact is that 5 out of 9 copies of the manuscripts attributed to "Gallo" DO NOT mention the "Columbus" brothers. The other four manuscripts that mention the "Columbus" brothers, the short passage is written at the end of the manuscript. Yes, it is written after Gallo's signed off on the manuscript. Furthermore, of those 4 Codexes where the "Columbus" brothers are mentioned, NOT ONE is from the 16th Century. They are from the 17th and 18th Centuries. I suggest you and your cronies go read more and write less. Go read "Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, Raccolta degli Storici Italiani del Cinquecento al millecinquento, ordinata da L.A. Muratori..." there you will read that those four manuscripts containing the "Columbus" account are these:

  • British Codex - written in the seventeenth century
  • Torino Codex - written in the eighteenth century
  • Civica Genoa Codex - written in the seventeenth century
  • Federici Codex - written in the seventeenth century

Interestingly the Codex stored in the Library of Kopenagen "Ms. Reale antico fondo n. 2205" the oldest writing from the sixteenth century - therefore written long before the British, Torino, Civica and Federici codexes - has nothing about "Columbus brothers"! Why is that? Did Gallo's ghost came to write it in the seventeenth century? As you can see the so-called "Gallo accounts" are not Contemporary.
Furthermore, Hernando Colon NEVER said his father was "Genoese" and blamed Agostino Giustiniani for writing lies in his book about Hernando's father. Again your sources are non-contemporary and unreliable. Gallo's manuscripts are not his but copies from centuries later. The same thing happened with the first English translation of Peter Martyr's Opera. Legatio Babilonica Occeanea Decas. Poemata done by Richard Eden in 1555 Martyr's words were falsified by the statement "otherwise called Columbus". Peter Martyr wrote: "Christophorus Quidam Colonus Ligur Vir Regibus Proposuit..." while Richard Eden wrote "Christophorus Colonus (otherwise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua, perswaded Fernando and Elyzabeth..." As has been the case with most writers, Richard Eden, INVENTED this (otherwise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua as if Peter Martyr had written it, which Peter Martyr HAD NOT written "Columbus" nor "Genoese". You can do the same exercise with all your other "contemporary sources" and you find that they are NOT contemporary nor copied in an accurate manner. The wool-weaver Columbus has been a red herring that served its purpose well for 500 years. We are now dealing with the facts not the fantasy of a peasant marrying a noble lady. Remember this was medieval Europe. Peasants were not even allowed to talk to noble ladies.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

False Documentation

Good article regarding Paolo Emilio Taviani's statement that: "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. Fifty years ago this was still impossible." Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus Add topic