Jump to content

Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Edit war (Colon-el-Nuevo)

Revision history of Filipa Moniz Perestrelo. [1] Edit war (Colon-el-Nuevo) - Fringe theory.

Measures ? When a user is banned ? --Davide1941 (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Admiral Colón, (and NOT Columbus), NEVER declared where he was born." [Colon-el-Nuevo/Manuel Rosa]

The Life of Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand.

  • "Perché, se abbiamo riguardo al cognome comune dei suoi maggiori, diremo che veramente fu Colombo..."

Colombo ... was really the name of his ancestors...

  • 1487-05-05. Francisco Gonzalez : Colomo
  • 1487-08-27. Francisco Gonzalez : Colomo
  • 1487-10-15. Francisco Gonzalez : Colomo
  • 1488-06-16. Francisco Gonzalez : Colom
  • 1489. Isabella I of Castile : Colomo
  • 1492. Galíndez de Carvajal : Colón
  • 1493. De Medinaceli : Colomo
  • 1498. Pedro de Ayala : Colón
  • 1513. Andrés Bernaldez : Colón
  • 1516. De Herrera : Colón
  • 1523/1566. Las Casas : Colombo de Terrarubia, Colón
  • 1535. Pedro de Arana : Colón
  • 1535. Diego Mendez : Colón
  • 1539. Ferdinand Columbus : "Colón, genovés"

...

This spelling indicates an Italian origin: when Columbus asked the permission for his voyages, at first his name was written as "Colomo" in the official documents, that, more or less relates to the apocope in Castilian for the Italian "Colombo". Only later his name was recorded as "Colón".

Colombo/Colomo/Colon. Dilettante. --Davide1941 (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"You should now try to identify, not what countless writers of "hearsay" wrote ..." [Colon-el-Nuevo/Manuel Rosa]

The Life of Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand. [P. 3]

In chapter ii, Ferdinand Columbus writes:

  • "Di modo che lo stesso Giustiniano si convince di falso storico e si fa conoscere per inconsiderato, o parziale, o maligno conterraneo..."

Thus this Giustiniani proves himself to be an inaccurate historian and exposes himself as an inconsiderate or prejudiced and malicious compatriot.

The Life of Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand. [P. 6]

In chapter v, Ferdinand Columbus writes:

  • "E poiché non era lontano da Lisbona, dove sapeva che si ritrovavano molti della sua nazione genovese, più presto che potè si trasferì quivi dove..."

And because it was not far from Lisbon, where he knew there were many Genoese his countrymen, he went away thither as fast as he could ...

" Son of Christopher Columbus, Genoese, admiral who first discovered the Indies ... "

Write an alternate ""history book"", but please stop to harass that article with such meaningless theories. I lost my time here, i lost my patience. --Davide1941 (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

References

  • 1492. The scribe named Galindez, writes: Cristóbal Colón, Genovés.
  • 1493. The historian Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, writes: Ligurian.
  • 1494. Giambattista Strozzi, a Florentine merchant in Cadiz, writes: Cristoforo Colombo Savonese.
  • 1494. The historian Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, writes: Ligurian.
  • 1497. The historian Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, writes: Ligurian.
  • 1498. The Spanish ambassador Don Pedro de Ayala, writes: Genoese.
  • 1498/1504. The historian Rui de Pina, writes: Italian.
  • 1500/1501. The historian Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, writes: Ligurian.
  • 1501. Angelo Trevisan, chancellor and personal secretary to the Venetian ambassador to Spain, writes: Christoforo Colombo, Genoese.
  • 1501. The cardinal and historian Pietro Bembo, writes: Erat Columbus homo Ligur.
  • 1501. Niccolo Oderico, ambassador of the Republic of Genoa, writes: Columbus, our fellow-citizen.
  • 1506. The historian Antonio Gallo, writes: Christopher and Bartholomew Columbus, brothers, of the Ligurian nation.
  • 1506. Paolo Interiano clearly identified Cogoleto as Columbus's birthplace.
  • 1507. The explorer Amerigo Vespucci writes: Colombo Zenovese...
  • 1507. The cartographer Martin Waldseemüller, writes: The Genoese admiral Columbus ...
  • 1508. The monk Arcangelo Madrignano, writes: Chistophorus, natione Italicus, patria Genuensi...
  • Witnesses in the 1511 and 1532 hearings in the Pleitos agreed that Columbus was from the Ligur.
  • 1513. The historian Andres Bernaldez, writes: A man of the land of Milan...
  • 1513. The Piri Reis Map, Cinevizden [from Genoa] bir kâfir [an infidel] adına Qolōnbō [named Columbus] ...
  • 1516. Bartolommeo Senarega a Genoese, wrote Annals of the Republic during his own time, from 1448 to 1514, and describes the Admiral and his brother Bartholomew, and their parents, as of Genoa. He writes as follows: Christophori Columbi Genuensis.
  • 1516 The historian Hernando Alonso de Herrera, writes: Colòn ginoves...
  • 1516. The historian Agostino Giustiniani, writes: Christopher Columbus, born in Genoa...
  • 1519. The cartographer Jorge Reinel, writes: Xpoforum cõlombum genuensem.
  • 1525. Gasparo Contarini, Venice's ambassador to the courts of Spain and Portugal, writes: This Admiral is son of the Genoese Columbus and has very great powers, granted to his father.
  • 1528. The geographer Pietro Coppo, writes: Christophorus Columbus genouensis...
  • 1535/1557. The historian Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés, writes: Christopher Columbus ... originally from the province of Liguria, which is in Italy ...
  • 1539. The testament in Seville of Ferdinand Columbus, Hijo de don Cristóbal Colón, genovés, primero almirante que descubrió las Indias ...
  • There are at least twenty such publications in the 16th century.
  • Sixty-two Italian testimonies between 1502 and 1600.

The fact was fully accepted by Harrisse, the illustrious late 19th-century American historian. Even Vignaud — a relentless detractor of Columbus — does not question his Genoese birth. The greatest of all Spanish historians, that same Ballesteros as was mentioned previously, Professor of the University of Madrid and director of the monumental series of publications on the Historia de América y de los pueblos americanos, devotes eighty pages to the question of Columbus's native land, and concludes that 'no one can cast the least shadow of doubt' on his being from Genoa. The position of Caddeo, an energetic and wholehearted supporter of Columbus's Italian and Genoese origins, is adopted by the Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari, who wrote a succinct and impressive biography in the 1930s, at a time when the last of the absurd hypotheses and comical fantasies were still circulating. Ligurian, Genoese, foreigner — these are the terms repeatedly used by Manzano Manzano, Rector of Seville University, author of a vast work, precise and detailed, on the seven years Columbus spent in Spain, before setting out on his great voyage of discovery. Samuel Eliot Morison, the greatest of contemporary American biographers, writes: 'The story starts in Genoa with the Discoverer's parents.' Salvador de Madariaga, on the other hand, has created a novel, based not on evidence or documents, but on hints and deductions, many without foundation. Yet even he does not deny that Columbus was born in Genoa, his exact words being: 'Christopher Columbus was a Genoese of Spanish- Jewish origin.' In short, we can say that the question of the Discoverer's homeland has been positively resolved. He is Genoese.

Professor Roger Caratini (he was the greatest French historian of his generation) writes: All serious scholars and documents agree, that Columbus was the son of a Genoese weaver... --2.33.180.8 (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Although many writers wrote that Admiral Colón was Genoese/Savonese and some writers that he was a "Colombo" and some that he was a weaver's son, his Portuguese life is incompatible with this because in 1479 he was already uncle to many Portuguese nobles such as this guy, the Count of Penamacor. The question today is not how many writers wrote that he was a "peasant" but how we harmonize the new evidence with the old writings.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
-GALINDEZ is an incorrect attribution. Please revise your list to show that Lorenzo Galíndez de Carvajal did NOT write in 1492 that Colón was Genoese. Galindez wrote his "Anales breves de los Reyes Católicos" in 1525. In it Galindez wrongly attributes the date of Colón's meeting with the Catholic Monarchs as the year 1491. Furthermore, Galindez was put in charge of "censoring and rewriting" the history of Spain, thus described as a "Judge and Censor" he is not a reliable source, see here. Either way Glaindez's account saying Colón was a "natural of Saona" is not from 1491, or even 1492 as you listed. It is written more than 30 years after the fact, this oversight should be corrected in the article. There is no mention of Colón being "genoese" prior to 1493 and one mention of Colón being Portuguese is written in 1487 by Pedro Toledo.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Choosing a bad "source" is as good as no source at all. Galindez's book is not from 1491 nor 1492. It is from 1525, therefore the "source" you found is unreliable and the text should be modified to read:

" But even before Columbus set out on his voyage we find a reference, dated 1492, to the agreements made between him and the Spanish sovereigns in a miscellaneous register kept in the court during the century's final decade by a scribe named Galindez, where Columbus is referred to as "Cristobal Colon, genoves". " --Davide1941 (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Oyo Decir" = Heard Say

In the Genoese theory there is NO absolute certainty that the witnesses bring. For instance here is a witness used by David1941 Spaniard Rodrigo Barreda: "I heard it said that [he] was from the seigneury of Genoa, from the city of Savona..." \ oyo decir que hera de la senioria de Genova de la cibdad de Saona. TRANSLATION: I don't know where he is from, I heard hearsay that he was from Saona!!! Barreda is a perfect example of ALL of the witnesses in this case, NOT ONE knew where the Admiral was from. Many thousands of writers never met the Admiral, yet all say they "heard it said" that he was from "Genoese", "Savona", "Coguleto", "Nervi", "Cuccaro", "Monferrato", "Ligurian" - and even "Milan" which is not in Liguria but Lombardia. But, ALL of this is "hearsay" because Admiral Colón, (and NOT Columbus), NEVER declared where he was born. This fact alone is what keeps this controversy a controversy for over 500 years now. It was a controversy when Fernando Colón (and NOT Colombo) wrote his Historie and it is a controversy now. Admiral Colón wanted that his name, identity and nation remain secret. That is how it still remains today. The problem is evident in João de Barros who wrote: "According to what all affirm, Christovão Colom was of Genoese nation" whihc is hearsay ... Oviedo "Christopher Columbus, according to what I have learned from men of his nation" again "hearsay" and Las Casas states "who he was, where he was born or what name he had in that place we do not know in truth." The identity of Admiral Colón, whose name XpoFerens Colón was an alias, continues a mystery. All we can "affirm" is what others, alien to the truth, affirmed.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The Historian Miles H. Davidson. (P. 6. [2] P. 488. (PP. 6-8) Ref. 31. [3]) writes:

" Another witness at the same hearing placed it more precisely, testifying, "I heard it said that [he] was from the seigneury of Genoa, from the city of Savona." Testimony of Rodrigo Barreda: "oyo decir que hera de la senioria de Genova de la cibdad de Saona". " --Davide1941 (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Columbus was Portuguese." [Colon-el-Nuevo/Manuel Rosa] / Martin Waldseemüller's 1516 Carta Marina

Waldseemüller 1

"Iste insule per Columbum genuensem almirantem ex mandato regis Castelle inventae sunt" or "these islands have been discovered by the Genoese admiral Columbus by order of the king of Castile."

Waldseemüller 2

  • Martin Waldseemüller in 1516 :

" After the bold citizens of Venice, the great pontiffs Clement IV and Gregory X, and after both Christopher Columbus and Americo Vespucci, captains of Portugal, published the accounts of their discoveries many things were added to our knowledge. "

The text you quote does not say that Christopher Columbus was a Portuguese, in fact, Italy is the birthplace of Amerigo Vespucci (He was born around 1454 in Florence). The text simply says that both were captains of Portugal. --Davide1941 (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No contemporary of Columbus had any doubts about his Genoese nationality

No contemporary of Columbus had any doubts about his Genoese nationality. Indeed, throughout the centuries up to the end of the 19th century no one questioned the fact that Coumbus was Genoese. Las Casas, Bernaldez and Oviedo were Columbus's contemporary historians, and they would serve as authoritative sources for centuries to come. There was never any doubt in their minds that Columbus was born anywhere but in Genoa, on Ligurian soil. Three contemporary Genoese chroniclers claim him as a compatriot...

Explanation? The glorious myth of Columbus has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves. --Davide1941 (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

[4]

This episode deserved extended coverage not only for the sake of destroying a fiction, but also to duly recognize the seriousness of Portuguese historiography. "Unwarranted deductions, hallucinations, imaginary delusions ..." --Davide1941 (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"No contemporary of Columbus had any doubts about his Genoese nationality," Davide1941, I think you do not grasp the meaning of the sentence you are writing. The doubts existed then as they exist today. In fact we now have 477 proofs that Admiral Colón was not a Colombo. If the Admiral had in fact been a Colombo from Italy, DNA would have shown that, instead 477 DNA tests prove no connection of Colón to any Italian Colombo. 477 families tested and all negative on matching. Game Over. Instead of combing the web for countless writers of repetition to add to your list, you should now try to identify, not what countless writers of "hearsay" wrote, but who in fact was the man who in 1479 married an elite Portuguese lady whose marriage had to be authorized by the King of Portugal.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"A poor wool weaver who could not even pay 2,5 ducats to his creditors... But Colón was not Genoese. Colón was a noble with a coat of arms and very Portuguese." [Colon-el-Nuevo/Manuel Rosa]

By the way...

  • 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," [See Ferdinand Columbus "malicious compatriot"] 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 Spaniard Francisco de Medina y Nuncibay, author of 16 century, well-known genealogist, says that Columbus was "teger su linaje" (alluding to the office of wool weaver who had in youth) [See also: Antonio Ballesteros Beretta] and shows how his family was connected by marriage with the house of Portugal.
  • The Portuguese Pedro de Mariz, historian and librarian, says that Columbus was Genoese... and that was "very poor."
  • Jerónimo Zurita y Castro, Spanish historian who founded the modern tradition of historical scholarship in Spain, writes: "Christopher Columbus ... born and raised in poverty and the banks of Genoa."

"Columbus uses the word "homeland" in relation to Portugal." [Colon-el-Nuevo/Manuel Rosa]

The leading North American authority, Admiral 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." --Davide1941 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Davide1941: "he has been presented as Castilian, Catalan, Corsican, Majorcan, Portuguese, French, German, English, Greek, and Armenian"" yes but please do not forget also that he has been presented as Genoese, Milanese, and the first recorded record in Iberia gives him as Portuguese. Your constant avoidance of the facts makes it seem like he was only presented as "Genoese" and that ONLY NOW we are questioning this "genoese" notion. Andrés Bernáldes wrote "Almirante Don Cristóbal Colón, de maravillosa y honrada memoria, natural de la provincia de Milán." Milan is not Genoa, nor Liguria. Furthermore, I shall like to remind you, who continuously pretend that no one had any doubts as to where Columbus was from until Manuel Rosa started to publish his books, that Martín Fernández de Navarrete, who died almost 200 years ago, wrote "Nada diremos sobre la cuestión suscitada y tan empeñada en nuestros días acerca de la verdadera patria del gran Colón" which in English means "We will say nothing about the question raised and highly contested in our days about the TRUE NATIONALITY of Columbus" meaning that the nationality of Columbus has been an OPEN QUESTION, this not only in our times, not the times of Navarrete but since late 1484, when Columbus ran away secretly from portugal and hid himself in Spain.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The nationality of Columbus has been an OPEN QUESTION
  • There is no doubt as to the birthplace of Columbus. Today all Columbus scholars recognize that he was Genoese.

The historian's mission is essentially that of making the past come to life, of resuscitating the fact which has been forgotten in time; but to construct studies, which are only scientific in appearance, based on second-hand third-hand hypotheses, leads not to history but rather to a more or less gratuitous fiction. This is what Rosa has done! --Davide1941 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Davide1941, The historian's job is to write the events of the past correctly based on cold, hard FACTS, utilizing his skills as an investigator, the historian must look through the events of the past and report them as accurately as possible. To do that one must consider multiple sources and root-out censorship, bad sources, wrong sources, and intentional lies put into the ancient documents. Just as Columbus is no longer seen as the "discoverer" of America, he will soon cease to be seen as a peasant wool-weaver. You will see announcements very soon from the Portuguese Academy of History on Manuel Rosa's work. You will be very surprised to learn that they will rewrite Portuguese history books. Soon, the same will happen in Italy. The wool-weaver Colombo is now naked. The forgeries created by Baltazar Colombo and his Genoese mafia to try and steal the Gold, Titles and Name of Duke of Veragua is now exposed and I would cease to utilize those forged Genoese documents to write "history" if I were you. You as a historian MUST know that a penniless peasant NEVER married an elite NOBLE. Baltazar Colombo falsified history and the mistake made by the City of Genoa in its Raccolta was to not understand who Cristóbal Colón married and to not forge documents for a NOBLE Cristoforo Colombo. They forged documents for a wool-weaver because they were ignorant of the factual life of Colón in Portugal, and this is how the current history will now fall to the wayside to be replaced by a more accurate version fo the events.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

" The first recorded record in Iberia gives him as Portuguese. " - Manuel Rosa.

  • The document speaks of a Portuguese, or considered as such, but his name is empty. However, Antonio Rumeo De Armas in his book presents plausible reasons to identify the person, whose name is omitted with Christopher Columbus. But are deductions ... the name of Columbus simply isn't there.
  • The historian says that Columbus was Genoese but so influenced by his years in Portugal that he could have been mistaken for a Portuguese by Spaniards.

" Andrés Bernáldes wrote Amirante Don Cristóbal Colón, de maravillosa y honrada memoria, natural de la provincia de Milán. " - Manuel Rosa.

The Historian Paolo Emilio Taviani writes:

Taviani, Paolo Emilio. Christopher Columbus: the grand design. Orbis, 1985. p. 236.

  • In the volume published by the City of Genoa the testimony is cited of the historian Andres Bernaldez, who died in 1513. He was the author of a Historia de los Reyes Catolicos don Fernando y dona Isabel. In this work, belatedly published in Seville in 1869, it is written: "In the name of Almighty God, a man of the land of Genoa, a merchant of printed books who was called Christopher Columbus." Actually, in the original text of Bernaldez, it says "land of Milan". However, this is merely lack of precision. In the 15th century, the Republic of Genoa was alternately fully and legally dependent on the Duchy of Milan and the latter's satellite. This is historically correct.

" Baltazar Colombo falsified history " - Manuel Rosa.

  • Ferdinand Columbus writes: "Son of Christopher Columbus, Genoese, admiral who first discovered the Indies."
  • D. Diego, a grandson of the admiral, writes: "Paternal Grandparents / Christopher Columbus, a native of Saona near Genoa, / and Filipa Moniz, a native of Libon."
  • Alessandro Geraldini who was an intimate friend of Admiral, writes: "Christopher Columbus, an Italian, was from Genoa, a city of Liguria."
  • Pedro de Arana, a cousin of Columbus's Spanish mistress, testified that he knew Columbus was from Genoa. Pedro was close enough to Columbus to have commanded a vessel on his third voyage across the Atlantic.
  • Diego Méndez, one of his captains, in testimony given in the Pleitos, he said that Columbus was "Genoese, a native of Savona which is a town near Genoa."
  • Bartolomé de las Casas, whose father traveled with Columbus on his second journey and who personally knew Columbus' sons, writes: "This distinguished man was from the Genoese nation, from some place in the province of Genoa; who he was, where he was born or what name he had in that place we do not know in truth, except that before he reached the Nation in which he arrived, he used to call himself Cristóbal Colombo de Terrarubia." These are the overwhelming evidence. --Davide1941 (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The hallucinations of Colon-el-Nuevo/Manuel Rosa ( 2 )

See: [5] [6] [7] [8] [Continue]

The world map (1507) by Martin Waldseemüller

In 1507 Martin Waldseemüller published a world map, Universalis Cosmographia, he inserted the words: "Iste insule per Columbum genuensem almirantem ex ma[n]dato regis Castelle invent[a]e sunt" or "these islands have been discovered by the Genoese admiral Columbus by order of the king of Castile."

Carta (1516) by Martin Waldseemüller

" After the bold citizens of Venice, the great pontiffs Clement IV and Gregory X, and after both Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci, captains of Portugal, published the accounts of their discoveries many things were added to our knowledge. "

The text does not say that Christopher Columbus was a Portuguese, in fact Amerigo Vespucci was born around 1454 in Florence.

Columbus uses the word "homeland" in relation to Portugal. - Colon-el-Nuevo/Manuel Rosa

The leading North American authority, Admiral 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 language Columbus utilized to write his letters was a Portuguese-based Castlian and he could not write Italian. - Manuel Rosa

Taviani, Paolo Emilio. "Christopher Columbus: Genius of the Sea", 1991. pp. 5-37:

"Valiant scholars have dedicated themselves to the subject of Christopher Columbus's language; chief among them are Menendez Pidal, Arce, Caraci, Chiareno, Juan Gil, Milano, Consuelo Varela. They have conducted in-depth research both on the ship's log and on other of his writings that have come down to us. They have analyzed the words, the terms, and the vocabulary, as well as rather frequent variations often bizarre in style, handwriting, grammar, and syntax. Their findings are often contrasting: however, in our opinion (1) an overall judgement can be attempted. Christopher Columbus's language is Castilian punctuated by noteworthy and frequent Lusitanian, Italian, and Genoese influences and elements."

(1) Menendez Pidal, Arce, Caraci, Chiareno, Juan Gil, Milano, Consuelo Varela, Taviani.

This is not a paradox: the fact that Columbus used castillian instead of Italian as the basic language of his writings stand to prove rather than to disprove his Genoese origins. Genoese was the commonly used language, as we can see in the fact that speeches at the senate of the republic were given and transcribed by the chancellors in Genoese. Different letters in Genoese by fifteenth century merchants can be consulted today in the archives. Italian, or the vulgate, as it was then called, was a literary language. A Genoese child from the lower classes could not have known it. The child spoke Genoese; in the guild's primary schools Genoese was the language of instruction, while Latin was not only the language of scientific literature, but the language of public and private documents, notarized writings, and contracts as well.

Christopher left Liguria with a good naval and religious background, but with neither scientific nor literary preparation. When he began to read and write more frequently, he used Castillian. something similar happened with thousands and thousands of Italian immigrants. When they arrived in the New World, the language they began to write, depending on where they were, was English, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.; but they remembered the dialect which was the only language they spoke in their homeland, which they transmitted to their children.

Manuel Rosa changes the meaning of sources. This user is problematic. --Davide1941 (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

DAVIDE1941: It is incredible to see how you both utilize a source and then discard what that source said:
  • Menendez Pidal - says Portuguese based Castilian
  • Juan Gil - says Portuguese based Castilian
  • Consuelo Varela - says Portuguese based Castilian
Now you say "The child spoke Genoese; in the guild's primary schools Genoese was the language of instruction".. another words in the Genoese school the weaver Colombo would have been learning Genoese otherwise he could not have been "instructed" in anything. But, just like you fail to understand the social background of the person who married Filipa Moniz, you fail to understand the scholarly background of Cristóbal Colón, a man who not only knew Cartography, Geometry, Algebra, Latin, Portuguese, Castilian, Theology, Navigation, Astronomy, Geography, amongst other subjects, but knew many of these sciences to such an expert degree that other Experts of his day, such as Jaime Ferrer, considered the Admiral's knowledge way above themselves. Certainly you do not wish to make us believe that Colón would be studying all these subjects behind the loom in Genoa? I also like how you discard the other historians who said that Colombo never went to school in Genoa, thus the first written language he learned was Portuguese at age 25. Or how you discard those historians who say that Genoese was not a written language in the 1450s. I find it illuminating that, aside from denying what the sources wrote about the Portuguese language of Colón, you are now questioning the silliness of your own sources regarding the Genoese language not being a written language. Your change is indicative of the unsoundness of the "facts" on which the genoese Columbus was based.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

" It is incredible to see how you both utilize a source and then discard what that source said " - Manuel Rosa.

  • A Source ? Paolo Emilio Taviani, not only Europe's leading authority on Columbus, but was one of modern Italy's leading historians.

" But, just like you fail to understand the social background of the person who married Filipa Moniz " - Manuel Rosa.

This is not the place to teach history.

  • The Spaniard Francisco de Medina y Nuncibay, well-known genealogist, says that Columbus was a Ligurian. The writer introduces many transcripts of documents of great historical interest, and the entire book is written more in an historical style. There are some 362 pages of which about 20 altogether refer to Christopher Columbus. He transcribes the codicil to his will and relates something of the great navigator's work "teger su linaje" (alluding to the office of wool weaver who had in youth) and shows how his family was connected by marriage with the house of Portugal. He concludes that the family of Filipa Moniz, was of the average nobility. (Like all historians have always claimed.) Happy reading !

" Your change is indicative of the unsoundness of the "facts" on which the genoese Columbus was based " - Manuel Rosa

No. I hate the bad faith (unwarranted deductions, hallucinations ...)

My work

I reported:

  • Primary and Secondary sources.
  • The views of the greatest historians on the subject.

I've talked with numerous scholars from Italy and Abroad.

The folly of a user, will prevent me from completing my work. This is not right. The my work has always been very controlled, meticulous and precise. After 30 years of teaching, this is a humiliation. --Davide1941 (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There should be room for unbiased sourced material in the article especially if it is utilized by the supporters of this or that theory to make their case. Leaving out this information leaves the article lacking the important facts.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Do not confuse "Teaching" the History you were taught with "Investigating" the History you were taught. They are not the same thing.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Next Job

  • Eliminate unjustified deductions.
  • The sources in the "Portuguese hypothesis" aren't written in encyclopedic format.
  • The Spanish historian Consuelo Varela, in her book, writes that Columbus was born in Genoa. -

Stop this lying propaganda. Manuel Rosa changes the meaning of sources, no one takes action. I'm angry and I'm off. He continues to disrupt...

Manuel Rosa alias 50.105.10.197 Alias Colon-el-Nuevo. See: [9]

  • Alias 71.111.202.252 [10]
  • Alias CuriousColonal [11]
  • Alias 152.16.51.158 [12]
  • Alias Colombo.bz [13]
  • Alias Colombo-o-novo [14]
  • Alias 83.50.255.137 [15]
  • Alias 213.22.127.201
  • Alias 50.105.20.195

[...] [...] See: Revision history of Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. This user is not honest. --Davide1941 (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding Verifiable Sources to the Article

Davide1941: The meaning of the sources are not being changed. The sources are quoted exactly as they are written. Go read them. Columbus history is not made up ONLY of Taviani and Morison:

  • Antonio Rumeu de Armas in the book "El «portugués» Cristóbal Colón en Castilla." (The "Portuguese" Cristóbal Colón in Castile ) Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana, 1982, was able to prove that the person called "Portuguese" twice to whom Queen Isabel's comptroller, Pedro Diaz de Toledo ordered be paid 30 gold coins in 1487, was in fact the Admiral Cristóbal Colón, to whom Quintanilla handed the 30 gold coins and noted in his receipt book. Therefore there is nothing wrong with distilling the text to a simply phrase: "Colón is called Portuguese in Queen Isabel's documents in 1487."
  • "His only note written in Italian - of merely 57 words - is in a macaronic Italian embellished with Castilian and Portuguese" ("Su única nota escrita en italiano –de apenas 57 palabras– lo está en un italiano macarrónico trufado de castellano y portugués") - CONSUELO VARELA in Cristóbal Colón y la construcción de un mundo nuevo, Estudios, 1983-2008, ARCHIVO GENERAL DE LA NACIÓN, Santo Domingo, República Dominicana, 2010
  • "In his Castilian is found clear Portuguese... Definitely, the Admiral used a norm that was more Portuguese than Italian" ("En su castellano se encuentran portuguesismos claros... En definitiva, el Almirante se sirve de una norma más portuguesa que italiana"). - Consuelo Varela y Juan Gil, Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos, Edición de Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.
  • "Names clearly from the Portuguese African conquests Cabo do Monte, Cabo Verde, Cabo Roxo, Cabo das Palmas, Río do Ouro, Porto Santo, etc. amongst many others so clearly Portuguese like Valle del Paraíso." ("nombres claramente africanos: Cabo do Monte, Cabo Verde, Cabo Roxo, Cabo das Palmas, Río do Ouro, Porto Santo, etc., entre otros tan portugueses como Valle del Paraíso.") - Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos, Edición de Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.
  • "Here is a point not sufficiently explained, because it is NOT CREDIBLE that a mariner, not matter how much he pretended to be a noble, would learn to read and write Castilian in Portugal" [learning Castilian was a fad amongst the then Portuguese elite]. ("He aquí un punto de la vida de Colón no suficientemente aclarado, porque no es creíble que un marino, por muchos aires de cortesano que se diese, aprendiera a hablar y a escribir castellano en Portugal"). - Consuelo Varela y Juan Gil, Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos, Edición de Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.
  • "The 21 years of residing amongst Andalusians and Castilians (from 1485 to 1506) were unable to remove the Portuguese from his speaking and his writing", ("Los 21 años de residencia entre andaluces y castellanos (de 1485 a 1506) no han conseguido quitarle el lusitanismo de su habla y de su escritura") -Ramón Menéndez Pidal, La Lengua de Cristóbal Colón, 6ª edición, Madrid, 1978
  • "In his classic study into the language of Colón, Menéndez Pidal has pointed out, with reason, that his Castilian texts have a very clear Portuguese tendency, especially noticeable in the spelling and phonics" ("En su clásico estudio sobre la lengua de Colón, Menéndez Pidal ha señalado, con razón, que los autógrafos castellanos tienen un claro barniz portugués, perceptible sobre todo en la grafía en el vocalismo.") - Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.

I can bring you many more sources about Colón's Castilian language being Portuguese based but that is not necessary. I am merely requesting that the sources be added in an encyclopedic form and NOT censured as you continuously have been attempting to do for half a decade now. These are FACTUAL items of the life of Admiral Colón that MUST be included in an article about his origins. Especially as it pertains to his spoken and written language.

Furthermore, in 1488, King John II of Portugal wrote a secret letter to "Xpoval COLON, Our Special Friend in Seville" written in Portuguese. The letter was found in the Admiral's Archives. If the King of Portugal, who could very well have written in Castilian or even Latin, both of which Colon could read, but wrote a secret letter in Portuguese it is because the king knew Colón could read it. Furthermore, in this 1488 letter King John II thanks Colon for being his His service and orders that he come back to Lisbon immediately because Colon's "industriousness and ingenuity are very necessary" to the king.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two notes in Italian which are definitely in Columbus's handwriting: both came long after the discovery. The first is a gloss to the Libro de las profecias, and the other is in the margin of an Italian translation of Pliny. Columbus would not have written anything in Italian if he had not been intimate with many Italians, first in Portugal, then in Spain, and finally, in the voyages of the discovery. The Italian language, i.e. Tuscan or Roman, was then a sort of lingua franca among the Genoese, Tuscans, Corsicans, Venetians, Neapolitans, Umbrians, Romans, and Sicilians who met outside of their common homeland, which already had a well-defined traditional and literary identity, but no political unity.

It is generally accepted that he was on friendly terms with Genoese, Tuscans, Corsicans, Venetians and Neapolitans, and the point has been especially underlined by historians.

The Spaniard Antonio de Aspa mentions that three Genoese merchants helped to finance the venture: Jacopo Di Negro, from Seville, Zapatal, from Jerez, and Luis Doria, from Cadiz. To these names we can add the Genoese merchants Rivarolo, Doria, Castagno and Gaspare Spinola, mentioned by Nuncibay in his Genealogia de la Casa de Portugal, and in Columbus's correspondence with his son Diego. Ballesteros [The greatest of all Spanish historians] remarks that the only certain thing is that the Italian families of Pinello, Berardi, Centurione, Doria, Spinola, Cattaneo, Di Negro and Rivarolo appear continually in the presence of the great Genoese (Taviani) --Davide1941 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Eliminate unjustified deductions.
  • The "consolation":

Manuel Rosa's book [Rosa, Manuel da Silva. "COLÓN: La Historia Nunca Contada." Esquilo, 2009.] is "blank paper." Source: The silence of the Historians. (I know what I say) --Davide1941 (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Do not like your Job. Method of Work:
  • Rosa began with the assumption that all the Genoese documentation referring to Christopher Columbus has nothing to do with Colon. He found hints of Portuguese origins in the admiral's name, in his coat of arms, and in his symbols and signature. To Rosa, even the navigator's reminiscences on geography were proof of his Portuguese origins.

The pertinacious Portuguese presented his thesis on the discovery of America relying, as always, on suppositions and interpretations of texts:

  • Carta (1516) by Martin Waldseemüller.
  • Columbus uses the word "homeland" in relation to Portugal.
  • "Xpoval COLON, Our Special Friend in Seville"

His system of historical elaboration and his method of work will immediately invalidated. --Davide1941 (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Davide1941: Here is your native Genoese's Italian note:
"Del ambra es çierto nascere in India soto tierra, he yo ne ho fato cavare in molti monti in la isola de Feyti vel de Ofir vel de Cipango, a la quale habio posto nome Spagnola, y ne o trovato pieça grande como el capo, ma no tota chiara, saluo de chiaro y parda, y otra negra."
These are the NON-Genoese words in Columbus's sentence above "es, çierto, tierra, yo, pieça, como, el, y, pardo, otra, negra". Note that Columbus could NOT even write the word "I" in Genoese but wrote it instead in Castilian "Yo." What kind of Genoese could not even say the most important word "I" in his native language? Explain that, Mr. Historian, did the Genoese of the 15th Century not yet invented a word for "I"?.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

See the works of Paolo Emilio Taviani, Samuel Eliot Morison, or Antonio Ballesteros Beretta. Dilettante. --Davide1941 (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources and What They Say

Again I repeat that t is imperative to an Article on the different theories of the Origin of Columbus to include the support for those theories. No one is asking to utilize Manuel Rosa's book as a source. In fact nothing that has been added by me in the Portuguese section is sourced from "COLÓN: La Historian Nunca Contada" but from other sources clearly identified and who were clearly perplexed by three Genoese wool-weavers who could not speak, read nor write in Genoese but who could read and write Castilian with Portuguese as its basis. And by a Genoese who did not utilize any Genoese names but named the New World places after Portuguese places. The Portuguese theory centers on very important facts of Columbus's life. The NUMBER ONE FACT is that the Admiral changed his name when he went to Spain and did all he could to HIDE his Identity and place of birth from the public. All those writers who wrote that he was "Genoese" could not have been writing from facts but from fiction. The Admiral and his son, Fernando Colón, did ALL they could to maintain the IDENTITY and the PLACE OF BIRTH a secret. They succeeded until today mainly because so many writers, either intentionally or unintentionally, wrote that he was Genoese, thus helping to cover up the truth. The lie served its purpose well. Regardless of what was written by the hearsay bandwagon, Columbus wanted his name and Identity to remain SECRET therefore he would not be telling to the four winds where he was from. The sources I present show a man who was tied to Portugal not only by marriage, but by language, royal connections, who called Portugal his "HOMELAND" and was even called Portuguese by Queen Isabel's court. All others who wrote "HEARSAY" were ignorant of the facts.

Regardless of what you see as truth, the fact is that in an article that wants to show the different theories, the basis for those theories MUST be presented. Doing otherwise would be censoring the facts and pretending there was no Secret around the identity as well as pretending there was not controversy from 1493 until today.

If you want to attack my sources, please prove that they did not write what I am transcribing from their books, otherwise let the text stand as they wrote it.

As for your COMMENT: Manuel Rosa's book [Rosa, Manuel da Silva. "COLÓN: La Historia Nunca Contada." Esquilo, 2009.] is "blank paper." Source: The silence of the Historians. (I know what I say), it is irrelevant to the sources I added, however, the Historians have not been silent they have supported it and praised it, but for those who remain silent, have you ever thought that they are silenced by the shame of being shown HOW WRONG they have been in accepting that an illiterate and penniless peasant wool-weaver could have shown up in Portugal from a shipwreck and 12 months later be married by the King of Portugal to the aunt of Counts, Marquises, Aunt to King Afonso's Falconer and of John II's own Lord Chamberlains, sister-in-law to his bodyguard and sister of his Captain???? What kind of a Historian are you to accept that such Walt Disney Cinderella fairytales took place in Medieval courts???Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Unfounded inferences \ Hallucinations \ Imaginary delusions.

Source by Manuel Rosa [Portuguese hypothesis]

"Consuelo Varela y Juan Gil, Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos, Edición de Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997."

  • Gil and Varela 1984 and Columbus 2003 provide a comprehensive set of documents (in Spanish) on Columbus's Genoese origin. Dilettante.

Are useless words... This is fiery imagination. I lost too much time...

Next Job

  • Eliminate unjustified deductions.
  • The sources in the "Portuguese hypothesis" aren't written in encyclopedic format.
  • The Spanish historian Consuelo Varela, in her book, writes that Columbus was Genoese.
  • As a historian, I cannot accept these Ravings.
  • This is the point of view of the Greatest Historians. Your changes will be reverted. --Davide1941 (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Historian, Professor of 30 years, Davide1941- If YOUR "Genoese Theory" is so solid, it should not matter to you if these FACTUAL items of Columbus's life are added to the Portuguese Theory. After All, the whole world knows that "Colombo" was a "penniless peasant Genoese wool-weaver" who never went to school. Please allow the facts of Admiral Colón's life to be inserted into an article about him and stop trying to censor the facts just becasue it makes no sense in your idea of who Admiral Colóm was. Allow the sources to speak for themselves and stop trying to pretend the sources do not exist so you can keep preaching your FairyTale of a wool-weaver who did not even know how to say the word " I " in Genoese. PLEASE- Choose all the sources you want for the "Genoese Theory" and let the Portuguese Theory have its sources as well.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Source material to be inserted into the Portuguese Theory

I am trying to focus the discussion on the material and sources. This is the items I am proposing be inserted into the Portuguese Theory:

  • "Columbus is identified as Portuguese twice in Queen Isabel's court document in 1487." SOURCE REFERENCE: Antonio Rumeu de Armas in the book "El «portugués» Cristóbal Colón en Castilla." (The "Portuguese" Cristóbal Colón in Castile ) Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana, 1982
  • "His only note written in Italian - of merely 57 words - is in a macaronic Italian embellished with Castilian and Portuguese" SOURCE REFERENCE: - CONSUELO VARELA in Cristóbal Colón y la construcción de un mundo nuevo, Estudios, 1983-2008, ARCHIVO GENERAL DE LA NACIÓN, Santo Domingo, República Dominicana, 2010
  • "In his Castilian is found clear Portuguese... Definitely, the Admiral used a norm that was more Portuguese than Italian" - Consuelo Varela y Juan Gil, Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos, Edición de Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.
  • "New World toponyms were clearly from the Portuguese African conquests Cabo do Monte, Cabo Verde, Cabo Roxo, Cabo das Palmas, Río do Ouro, Porto Santo, etc. amongst many others so clearly Portuguese like Valle del Paraíso." Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos, Edición de Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.
  • "Here is a point not sufficiently explained, because it is NOT CREDIBLE that a mariner [former wool-weaver], not matter how much he pretended to be a noble, would learn to read and write Castilian in Portugal". SOURCE REFERENCE: - Consuelo Varela y Juan Gil, Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos, Edición de Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.
  • "The 21 years of residing amongst Andalusians and Castilians (from 1485 to 1506) were unable to remove the Portuguese from his speaking and his writing" SOURCE REFERENCE: -Ramón Menéndez Pidal, La Lengua de Cristóbal Colón, 6ª edición, Madrid, 1978
  • "In his classic study into the language of Colón, Menéndez Pidal has pointed out, with reason, that his Castilian texts have a very clear Portuguese tendency, especially noticeable in the spelling and phonics." SOURCE REFERENCE:- Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.
  • "In Portugal Columbus learned his language as well as to express himself in Castilian. A Castilian, that was much more Portuguese than Italian, which he employed with masterly skill. And in Portugal he learned the practice of handwriting: his handwriting is typically of Portuguese form." - SOURCE REFERENCE: - CONSUELO VARELA in Cristóbal Colón y la construcción de un mundo nuevo, Estudios, 1983-2008, ARCHIVO GENERAL DE LA NACIÓN, Santo Domingo, República Dominicana, 2010

Note that CONSUELO VARELA, the top Columbus historian in the world today, is writing this in the Year 2010, she supersedes Morison and Taviani, certainly you do not mean to say she is not a reliable source. What is your opposition to adding these sources? Are they unreliable sources? Why should these items not be added to the Portuguese Theory since they make up part of the reasons Portuguese authors support that Columbus was Portuguese?

Stop tying to bring manuel Rosa's book into the discussion and address these items please.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

" certainly you do not mean to say she is not a reliable source. " - Manuel Rosa

  • This is another hallucination of Mr. Rosa. I hate your work system; the improper use of sources for promote your false theory.
  • Juan Gil and Consuelo Varela have written that the Discoverer was Genoese.

Consuelo Varela. 2008. Christopher Columbus and the Mystery of the Bell of the Santa Maria. p. 13.

She writes the following words:

" ... 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 ... "

Davide1941- Feel free to utilize Consuelo Varela. 2008. Christopher Columbus and the Mystery of the Bell of the Santa Maria. p. 13. as a source for your support that Columbus "was from Liguria" BUT PLEASE stop attempting to remove my sources that Admiral Colón's first languages was Portuguese.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

" Why should these items not be added to the Portuguese Theory since they make up part of the reasons Portuguese authors support that Columbus was Portuguese? " - Manuel Rosa.

  • This is not research, but examples of the improper use of sources. This vision has no basis in reality.
  • Consuelo Varela, a Spanish historian, writes: " ... [He] "Born in Genoa..." and "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 ... " Manuel Rosa changes the meaning of sources.
  • Your changes will be reverted.
  • See also:
Davide1941- Enough of the redundancy. Please expound as to why the following SOURCED material SHOULD NOT be added to the article:
  • Columbus is identified as Portuguese twice in Queen Isabel's court document in 1487
  • His only note written in Italian - of merely 57 words - is in a macaronic Italian embellished with Castilian and Portuguese
  • In his Castilian is found clear Portuguese... Definitely, the Admiral used a norm that was more Portuguese than Italian
  • New World toponyms were clearly from the Portuguese African conquests names so clearly Portuguese like Valle del Paraíso
  • Here is a point not sufficiently explained, because it is NOT CREDIBLE that a mariner [former wool-weaver], not matter how much he pretended to be a noble, would learn to read and write Castilian in Portugal
  • The 21 years of residing amongst Andalusians and Castilians (from 1485 to 1506) were unable to remove the Portuguese from his speaking and his writing
  • In his classic study into the language of Colón, Menéndez Pidal has pointed out, with reason, that his Castilian texts have a very clear Portuguese tendency, especially noticeable in the spelling and phonics
  • In Portugal Columbus learned his language as well as to express himself in Castilian. A Castilian, that was much more Portuguese than Italian, which he employed with masterly skill. And in Portugal he learned the practice of handwriting: his handwriting is typically of Portuguese form
Do you have any sources that contradict these statements? Do you find my sources unreliable? IF NOT, then the sources must remain in the article. Discussion is over.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Soundness of the Portuguese Theory

It is obvious you do not understand one iota of the Portuguese Theory of Columbus. In Fact you DO NOT EVEN KNOW ANYTHING about the Life of Columbus in Portugal or his family connections there. All you know is Morison, and Morison and Morison, an author who could not even translate the simplest Spanish phrases into English and who knew NOTHING about Portuguese Age of Discovery History. Morison translated the Spanish "pájaro puerco" as "flying pig" instead of the correct "dirty bird"... this is YOUR HERO, Mr. Professor. Morison was the epitome of a FairyTale teller.

The Portuguese Theory is the Soundest of them all because it is based solely on the life of Admiral Cristóval Colón and DOES NOT invent FairyTale weddings nor utilize HEARSAY as FACTS:

  • Fact Number ONE: The Admiral, who held considerable statuts with King John II and at the Portuguese court and who worked closely with Martin Behaim and Bishop Ortiz Calçadilha high members of king John II's secret Council of Mathematicians, changed his name and assumed a NEW IDENTITY when he ran away "secretly" to Spain end of 1484. OUTCOME: any name, nationality or place of birth attributed to him by third parties is useless since he was concealing who he was and where he was from.
  • Fact number TWO: His son Fernando did all he could to MAINTAIN the IDENTITY SECRET, which he succeeded in doing by skipping around the subject of the birthplace and saying NOTHING concrete except that his father wanted his name and birthplace to REMAIN a MYSTERY.
  • Fact number THREE: The Admiral's chosen NAME was NOT COLOMBO/COLUMBUS/COLOMB/PALOMO meaning pigeon but COLON from the Greek Kõlon meaning MEMBER.
  • Fact number FOUR: COLOMBO and COLON are NOT the same thing. COLOMBO in Latin is COLUMBUS while COLON in Latin is still COLON since it is from the Greek Kõlon. The Pope calls him Colon in four Latin letters in 1493, the King of Portugal calls him COLON in his 1488 letter, the Admiral himself calls himself COLON and his SON says the name was COLON. Will you deny these FOUR highest authorities in the land of what his name was? BUT if you want to forcibly latinize COLON then you should write it as COLONUS, like Fernando Colón insisted it be written.
  • Fact number FIVE: Admiral Colón in 1479 married a lady that could only marry a high nobleman by social restrictions, by ancient customs and by the very rules of the Order to which she belonged to and King John II had to authorize her marriage to the future discoverer. Thus Admiral Colón was a blue-blood and NEVER a poor penniless peasant wool-weaver.
  • Fact number SIX: Admiral Colón NEVER knew Italian, but he did know PORTUGUESE so well that ALL historians admit it was his FIRST known language.
  • Fact number SEVEN: Only 1 official Spanish court document from 1484 to 1506 gives the Admiral a nationality and that nationality is "Portuguese" they even say "this was the Portuguese that met with your Highness." FOOLISH it would be to accept that the Queen of Spain who had been paying the future Admiral on a regular basis and who ordered on that day the "Portuguese" future Admiral to be paid 30 gold doblas in 1487 (26,100.00 maravedíes equal to 20,000.00 Dollars today) would NOT KNOW who she was paying. You think they did not know who they were paying????
  • Fact number SEVEN: The Admiral utilized over 80 purely Portuguese names to name the New World including: Santa Cruz, Rio das Canas, Rio do Sol, Cabo da Galé, Porto Sancto, Porto Sacro, Cabo do Namorado, Ponta de Ferro, Cabo de Cruz, Rio Seco, Cabo Campainha, Madalena, Porto dos Jardins, Cabo do Farol, Boca do Dragão, Beata, Canal de Vacas, Ponta do Areal, Cabo de Lapa, As Formigas, Ilha Santa Maria, Ilha Horta, Natividade, Cuba, Ponta de Caxinas, Monserráz, Santa Maria de Belém, Rio de Belém, Guadalupe, Rio da Lua, Cabo de Estrela, Trásmontana, Nossa Senhora das Neves, Porto dos Fidalgos, Cabo Formoso, Cabo de Palmas, Porto Almadías, Cabo de Pena, Porto de Natal, Rio de Ouro, Ponta Roxa, Cabo Talhado, Cabo Lindo, Rio de Santo Domingo, Ponta da Praia, Golfo da Baleia, Cabo Boto, Porto Formoso, As Barbas, Ilhéus Barbas, Ponta da Agulha, Ilha Agulha, Cabo Rico, Cabo do Monte, Santa Catarina, Fortaleza de Esperança, Ilha S. Tomé, Porto do Mar de Sancto Tomás, Galo, Cabo do Monte, Cabo Verde, Cabo Roxo and even Vale do Paraíso - property belonging to the Comendadoras of the Order of Santiago, where Colon met with King John II for days in March of 1493.... WHAT names did the Admiral use from Genoa?????
  • Fact number EIGHT: The Admiral was in close contact with King John II of Portugal, while living in Portugal as well as while living in Spain, and King John II shared the highest State Secrets with the Admiral who even sailed with a secret Declination Table of the Sun invented in Portugal in 1485.
  • Fact number NINE: The Admiral intentionally sailed straight for Portuguese territory on his return voyage in 1493 and while in Portugal wrote in a letter to Queen Isabel referring to PORTUGAL as his HOMELAND.
  • Fact number TEN: Thousands of writers who knew NOTHING about the true life of the Admiral, wrote that they "heard say" he was from Genoa. This proves nothing and the facts of the Admiral's life (language, marriage, political affiliation, religious beliefs, toponyms and even his lies to the Spanish court to fool them while aiding King John II) negate this.
  • Fact number ELEVEN: The Admiral never ONCE wrote that he was Italian or Genoese nor did he EVEN know how to write in those languages.

What you have in support of the Genoese Theory is "Hearsay" invented to fill in the Admiral's SILENCE of where he came from and who he was. They called him GENOESE because that served well his intent to hide his true identity, this is clearly explained in the Pleito contra la Corona:

--This witness says that to the foreigners in these kingdoms we are accustomed to calling them "Ginoveses" EVEN when they are from OTHER NATIONS. We call all foreigners Ginobeses.
--This witness is certain hat the said Admiral don Christoval would be called Ginobés EVEN if he was from another nation.
--This witness says that the common way of talking in Spain is to call ginoveses to any foreigner.

This Mr. Historian Davide1941, Professor of History for 30 years, was the FACT in 1511, ONLY 6 years after the Admiral DIED and already the controversy over whether OR NOT Admiral Colón was a Genoese was in full controversy. Does this constitute for you clear proof that he was from Genoa?

Also don't forget about this: "to flatter certain elites who did not look with good eyes at the large rewards the discoverer was receiving at the Spanish Court, some documents were hurriedly written calling him "Genoese." When the Emperor was to be crowned in Italy, he gave, of his own accord, an order addressed to Admiral Don Luis Colón, that he collect all those documents that written wrongly about the brave Admiral and burn them."
And the Admiral's own words: "I am not the FIRST ADMIRAL of my family. Let THEM give me then, WHATEVER name [and description] THEY WANT" for in the End he had no choice but to accept it. Acceptance is not confirmation.
How many Admirals were in the weaver COLOMBO family? So please do all you want to support your "genoese" theory, BUT DO NOT prevent the sources from being added to the Portuguese Theory. Preventing the sources from being added amounts to censorship of the facts.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Mr. Manuel Rosa, IT analyst at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, without entering into the merits of the question, your system of historical elaboration and method of work will be immediately invalidated.
  • Christopher Columbus came from a Ligurian family. His grandfather Giovanni was born at Mocnesi. His father Domenico was born in Quinto. He lived for a long time in Genoa, then in Savona. Christopher spent his boyhood and the first years of his adolescence in Vico Diritto, a street below the gate of Sant'Andrea. These are historically verified facts. Two unquestionably authentic documents are the basis for assuming that his birth-date is between 25 August and 31 October 1451. In one dated 31 October 1470, Columbus declares himself "major annis decemnovem" ("nineteen years old"); in the other, dated 25 August 1479, he says he is "annorum vigintiseptem vel circa" ("about twenty-seven"). Domenico Colombo, Christopher's father, was warder of the Porta dell'Olivella, Genoa's eastern gate, and therefore lived near the gate itself. So it was there that Christopher would have been born.
  • Not until the 18th and 19th centuries, did anyone begin disputing Columbus' Genoese origins.
  • There were sixty-two by Italian writers. Of this last group, only fourteen are by Ligurians, the other authors being Lombards, Venetians, Tuscans, Neapolitans, Sicilians and one Maltese. Regional rivalries were still alive in the 16th century, so that the forty-eight confirmations of Columbus' Genoese origin, by non-Ligurian writers, take on virtually the same significance as those of the twenty-nine non-Italians. Still more significant is the testimony of ambassadors of the period. Pedro de Ayala, Spanish ambassador to the English Court, writing, on 25 July 1498, to their Catholic Majesties Ferdinand and Isabella about the discoveries of John Cabot, affirms Columbus' Genoese birth. Nicolo Oderico, ambassador of the Republic of Genoa to the court of Spain, made an address to the Spanish monarchs in April 1501, praising them for having discovered hidden and inaccessible places under the command of Columbus, "our fellow citizen, illustrious cosmographer and steadfast leader."
  • The claim for a Portuguese Columbus emerges every now and then from that country's dilettante historians, and it reappeared during the 1930s with the fantastic thesis that Zarco - the rediscoverer of Porto Santo and Madeira - and Cristobal Colon were one and the same. Obviously, these are comic fantasies. No document, no historical data, authorize or even partially justify the tales spun around the birth of Columbus. All of the serious scholars, some of whom are deservedly well known and widely quoted abroad, use unequivocal documents, examples the Banco de San Giorgio in Genoa; the text of two letters addressed to Nicolo Oderico, ambassador of the Republic of Genoa to the Court of Spain.
  • Samuel Eliot Morison was a great American historian, was professor of history at Harvard University and subsequently was professor of American history to the University of Oxford. In his book: "Admiral of the Ocean Sea: a Life of Christopher Columbus ", notes that existing legal documents demonstrate the Genoese origin of Columbus.
  • The professor Taviani is considered both in Italy and abroad to be the greatest expert in Columbus studies and donated his entire collection of books ( 2.500 volumes and 1.000 scholarly essays ) to the Berio library in October 2000. I need not say more ...
  • The greatest of all Spanish historians, that same Ballesteros, Professor of the University of Madrid and director of the monumental series of publications on the Historia de America y de los pueblos americanos, devotes eighty pages to the question of Columbus' native land, and concludes that "no one can cast the least shadow of doubt" on his being from Genoa.

The world's leading authority. The Spanish: Navarrete, Serrano y Sanz, Altolaguirre, Perez de Tudela, Morales Padron, Manuel Alvar, Ciroanescu, Rumeu de Armas, Muro Orejon, Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Demetrio Ramos, Consuelo Varela, Juan Gil, Ballesteros Gaibrois, and Milhou. The French D'Avezac, Roselly de Lorgues, Vignaud, Sumien, Charcot, Houben, de la Ronciere, Mahn Lot, Heers, Mollat, and Braudel; the English Robertson, Johnson, Markham, Brebner, and Bradford; the Belgians Pirenne and Verlinden; the Germans Humboldt, Peschel, Ruge, Streicher, Leithaus, and Breuer; the Swiss Burckhardt; the Russian Magidovic; the Rumanian Goldemberg; the North Americans Irving, Harrisee, Winsor, Dickey, Thacher, Nunn, Morison, Parry, and Boorstin; the Cubans Alvarez Pedroso, Ramirez Corria, Carpentier, and Nunez Jimenez; the Puerto Ricans Aurelio Tio and Alegria; the Colombians Arciniegas and Obregon; the Argentinians Molinari, Levillier,a nd de Gandia; the Uruguayans Laguarda Trias and Marta Sanguinetti; and the Japanese Aynashiya.

Other Historians

  • This is the point of view of the Greatest Historians.
  • The History is based on facts not on deductions, as for example: " Xpoval COLON, Our Special Friend in Seville " or "Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci, captains of Portugal". These are hallucinations.
  • Your changes will be reverted. --Davide1941 (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
--------
I see that you admit you HAVE NO ANSWERS to the FACTS presented above because you are not a Historian, you are merely a History teacher who teaches what others have agreed to write. I expected as much since you never researched the life of the Admiral in Portugal. Repetition of hearsay, even if done by millions of world scholars is still repetition of hearsay. Hearsay is not admissible in court as facts and I must insist on asking for answers to the FACTS listed above. And when you say:
* "All of the serious scholars, some of whom are deservedly well known and widely quoted abroad, use unequivocal documents, examples the Banco de San Giorgio in Genoa; the text of two letters addressed to Nicolo Oderico, ambassador of the Republic of Genoa to the Court of Spain."
-Do you know what LANGUAGE the letters to the Banco de San Giorgio in Genoa and to Nicolo Oderico are WRITTEN in? PORTUGUESE-based Castilian. What a GREAT Genoese the Admiral Colón was who could write Portuguese and Castilian BUT could not write ONE WORD in Genoese not even when writing to GENOA institutions forcing them to have to TRANSLATE his correspondence.
And as for YOUR:
  • "This is the point of view of the Greatest Historians." YES you have finally admitted something about your edits POV.
However, you continue to deny the facts of the life of the Admiral and try to make him be a Colombo peasant weaver. You can keep your Cristoforo Colombo and rejoice in his lowliness. He has nothing to do with Admiral Colón. "O seu a seu dono" Colombo keep the Italians - Colon keep the Portuguese.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Is 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 the sake of vanity, or an easy notoriety, or a misguided nationalism, they have voiced risky opinions without bothering to seriously verify their statements.

I'm sick. Last Post :

No Consensus - End of Discussion

Davide1941- Enough of the redundancy. Please expound as to why the following SOURCED material, as shown under the "Source material to be inserted into the Portuguese Theory" above, SHOULD NOT be added to the article:

  • Columbus is identified as Portuguese twice in Queen Isabel's court document in 1487
  • His only note written in Italian - of merely 57 words - is in a macaronic Italian embellished with Castilian and Portuguese
  • In his Castilian is found clear Portuguese... Definitely, the Admiral used a norm that was more Portuguese than Italian
  • New World toponyms were clearly from the Portuguese African conquests names so clearly Portuguese like Valle del Paraíso
  • Here is a point not sufficiently explained, because it is NOT CREDIBLE that a mariner [former wool-weaver], not matter how much he pretended to be a noble, would learn to read and write Castilian in Portugal
  • The 21 years of residing amongst Andalusians and Castilians (from 1485 to 1506) were unable to remove the Portuguese from his speaking and his writing
  • In his classic study into the language of Colón, Menéndez Pidal has pointed out, with reason, that his Castilian texts have a very clear Portuguese tendency, especially noticeable in the spelling and phonics
  • In Portugal Columbus learned his language as well as to express himself in Castilian. A Castilian, that was much more Portuguese than Italian, which he employed with masterly skill. And in Portugal he learned the practice of handwriting: his handwriting is typically of Portuguese form

Do you have any sources that contradict these statements? Do you find my sources unreliable? IF NOT, then the sources must remain in the article. Discussion is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colon-el-Nuevo (talk • contribs) 18:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

" Columbus is identified as Portuguese twice in Queen Isabel's court document in 1487 " - Manuel Rosa (IT analyst)

  • The document speaks of a Portuguese, or considered as such, but his name is empty. However, Antonio Rumeo De Armas in his book presents plausible reasons to identify the person, whose name is omitted with Christopher Columbus. The historian says that Columbus was Genoese but so influenced by his years in Portugal that he could have been mistaken for a Portuguese by Spaniards.
  • There is nothing surprising about the plausibility of such definition.
  • Columbus came from Portugal. He was included in a Portuguese family and had a son Portuguese.

But the mistake would not be repeated ... and the truth emerges.

  • The poet Giano Vitale (c. 1480\1485 - 1560), a contemporary of Columbus, writes that he was "Ligurium ... magnae Columbe."
  • Torquato Tasso, one of the greatest poets of the late Renaissance, writes (Jerusalem Delivered, 1581. P. 133.): "Un uom de la Liguria..." or "A man of Liguria..."
  • The historian Paolo Giovio writes (Gli Elogii ... d'huomini illustri di guerra ... P. 218. Florence, 1554.): "Questo Colombo appresso di Savona Nacque in un loco ch' è detto Arbizolo."
  • The historian Benedetto Giovio [1471-1545 (the older brother of Paolo)] writes (V. Il Giornale di Milano. Il Raccoglitore Ann. I. fase. V.): "Colombo nacque in Arbisolo." / "Columbus was born in Arbisolo"
  • The Spaniard Gonzalo Argote de Molina clearly identified Albissola Marina as Columbus's birthplace.
  • Gabriello Chiabrera writes that Columbus was originally from Savona. ([17] pp. 30-31.)
  • Agostino Giustiniani, a contemporary of Columbus, says that Columbus was of Genoa.
  • Alessandro Geraldini who was an intimate friend of Admiral, writes: "Christopher Columbus, an Italian, was from Genoa, a city of Liguria."
  • Antonio Gallo, a historian and family friend, who became a diligent chronicler of Genoese events after 1477, wrote that Columbus: "Was born in Genoa of plebeian parents."
  • The historian Bartolomeo Senarega attests to Columbus's: "Genoese birth."
  • The historian, Uberto Foglieta says that Columbus was of Genoa.
  • Battista Fregoso, a former doge of Genoa, writes: "Christophorus Columbus natione Genuensis."
  • Pedro de Arana, a cousin of Columbus's Spanish mistress, testified that he knew Columbus was from Genoa.
  • Arcangelo Madrignano writes, in his Itinerarium portugalense (Milan, 1508): "Christophorus natione Italicus, patria Genuensis, gente Columba ..."
  • The geographer and cartographer Pietro Coppo, writes in his De summa totius orbis (Venice, 1528): "Christophorus Columbus genouensis ..."
  • The historian Enrico Glareano writes (Paris, 1551): "Christopher Columbus Geniiensis."
  • The historian Paolo Internano writes (Istorie Genovesi Lib. VIlI; Lucca, 1551): "Cristoforo Colombo Genovese, il cui nome fila per essere ai posteri d'eterna venerazione ..."
  • The historian Francesco Gonzaga writes (De Oriff. Seraph. lieti f; Fran, par. iv.): "Christophori Columbi, patria Genuensis."
  • The physician and mathematician Giuseppe Meleto writes (V. Geogr. C. laiid. Plotoni. Alex. olim. a Ditibaldo etc. collata etc. a Joseptio Moletio Matieinatico.): "Christophori Columbi Januensis."
  • The historian Bernardo Segni writes (Storie Fiorentine. Volume II. P. 100): "Cristoforo Colombo, Genovese."
  • The cardinal Pietro Bembo, writer, historian, and theoretician, writes (Istoria Viniziana. Volume I. P. 261.): "Era Colombo Genovese..."
  • The historian Francesco Guicciardini writes (Istoria d'Italia. Volume III. P. 219.): "Cristofano Colombo Genovese."
  • The explorer Amerigo Vespucci, after whom the Americas are named, writes (Paesi nouamente retrouati ... Vesputio florentino. Vicenza, 1507.): "Christophoro Colombo Zenovese."
  • Francesco Sansovino, a versatile scholar and man of letters, writes (Della Cronica Univ. del Mondo. Volume III. Venice, 1581.): "Colombo Genovese."
  • The geographer Giovanni Lorenzo d'Anania writes (L'universale fabrica del mondo. P. 298. Venice, 1576): "Christoforo Colombo Genovese."
  • The Spaniard Hieronymo Girava writes (Dos Libros de Cosmographia, Milan 1556. P. 186.): "Christoval Colón, Genovés."
  • Michele Neander, writes (Orbis Terrae Partium succinta explicalio tee, Leipzig 1586. P. 211.): "Christophoro Colombo Genuensi."
  • Simon Grynaeus writes (Novus orbis regionum ac insularum veteribus incognitarum. apud Io. Hervagium, 1532. P. 90.): "Christophorus natione Italicus, patria Genuensis, gente Columba..."
  • An author writes anonymously (Chronica delle Vite de Pontefici et ... Venice, 1507.): "Chistophorus Colombo, Genuensi."
  • The historian Tommaso Bozio writes (De Signis Ecclesiae Dei. Volume I. P. 131. Tornerius, 1591.): "Christophorus Columbus natione Genuensis."
  • The historian Antonio Chiusole writes (Il mondo antico, modermo e novisimo, 3. P. 1086.): "Cristoforo Colombo Genovese."
  • The author Guido Panciroli writes (Raccolta breve d'alcune cose più segnalate ch'ebbero gli antichi, e d'alcune altre trovate da moderni. Venice, 1612. Chapter I / Book II.): "Il Genovese Colombo."
  • An author writes anonymously (Libretto de tutta la navigatione de Re de Spagna de le Isole et Terreni Novamente Trovati. Venice, 1504.): "Chistophorus Columbo, Genuensi."
  • The explorer Sebastian Cabot, the son of John Cabot, writes (Raccolta of Giovanni Battista Ramusio. Volume I. P. 415.): "Cristoforo Colombo genovese avea scoperto la costa dell'Indie..."
  • The geographer Giovanni Battista Ramusio, writes (Primo (-terzo) volume, et Terza editione delle Navigationi et viaggi ... P. 16. Antonio Giunti, 1565.): "La nobilissima ... città di Genova si vanti ... di così eccellente huomo Cittadin suo." / "The noble city of Genoa is proud of his fellow-citizen"
  • Battista Fregoso, a former doge of Genoa, noted in his Chronicle of Memorable Words and Deeds for 1493 that (Morison, Samuel Eliot. "Christopher Columbus, Admiral of the Ocean Sea". United States. 1942.) Christophorus Columbus natione Genuensis had safely returned from India, having reached it in 31 days from Cadiz, as he proposed to do.
  • The historian Tommaso Fazello writes (Della storia di Sicilia deche due ... P. 509. Assenzio, 1817.): "Cristoforo Colombo Genovese ..."
  • 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 [...] [...] [...] [...]
  • Giovanni Pietro Maffei [18] (1588) "Cristofano Colombo Genovese"
  • Antonio Doria (c. 1485 - 1577), admiral from Genoa, writes: [19] "Christoforo Colombo Genovese."
  • Gabriele Falloppio, perhaps the most outstanding and versatile of 16th century Italian anatomists, writes: (Operum genuinorum ut ab auctore ipso constripta sunt. 1606) "Cristoforo Colombo, ovvero Colon ... genovese." \ Cristoforo Colombo, or Colon ... Genoese.
  • The historian Tommaso Porcacchi (1530 – 1585), writes: ("Le isole più famose del mondo", 1576. p. 81.) "Cristoforo Colombo Genovese."
  • Alessandro Tassoni writes: "Christofaro Colombo Genovese." [20] p. 409.
  • The theologian Francesco Giuntini writes that Columbus was "Genuensis" ("Commentario in terzum et quartum capitum Sphera Io. de Sacro Bosco." Lyon, 1577. P. 221.)

The list of contemporary writers, be they Spaniard, Portuguese or Italian, who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries and referred to him as a Genoese is endless. Thus, it would be pointless to continue... This is another unjustified deduction.

Columbus Theories - no consensus over sources

Article is protected - There are several theories on this article page as to where Columbus was from. I have been trying to add some sources for the Portuguese Theory. User "Davide1941" keeps removing those sources. We have not been able to reach a consensus to allow the sources to remain. User merely states "Your Changes will be reverted." I am asking for a non-biased intervention to review the discussion and decide what to keep in the article and what to remove.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

" No consensus over sources " - Manuel Rosa (IT analyst)

  • The claim for a Portuguese Columbus emerges every now and then from that country's dilettante historians.

According to a piece of fiction written by Rosa, the discoverer of America was a Portuguese; no, " the son of the exiled Polish King Władysław III. " He suggests that the king survived the battle with the Ottomans (although the Turks claimed to have his head). The author of this bizarre pseudo-historical construction is a Portuguese, an IT analyst at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, one of the small and discredited band of supporters of the theory that the discoverer of America was a Portuguese.

  • I am a historian. The consensus of opinion among historians is that Columbus was born in Genoa.
  • The History is based on facts not on deductions.
  • Your changes will be reverted. --Davide1941 (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I am also a historian and we don't need to list here all the millions of "hearsayers" who claimed Admiral Colón was a Columbus from Genoa. What we are discussing here is NOT the GENOESE theory, BUT the sources that the PORTUGUESE THEORY proponents utilize to support their Portuguese Theory. Do you see that the Sources I added above DO NOT SUPPORT a Portuguese Theory? This is the questions we need to answer. Can the Sources I added NOT be used to support a Portuguese Theory? All the rest that you insist on putting here about the Genoese Theory is useless irrelevant filler.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No One Here is TALKING About ROSA's Book we are trying to Discuss Sources for the Portuguese Theory But you SAY "--- Rosa is one of the small and discredited band of supporters of the theory --" to which a reponsce can only be ROFLMAO- Descredited by who? By you? What Academics do you know that have read Manuel Rosa's work and have descredited Manuel Rosa's research? Is it You, who has never read it???

  • Prof. Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão Dean of University of Lisbon, President of Portuguese Academy of History 1975-2006 wrote in the Preface that the author “has made a meticulous study of the life and deeds of Columbus” and declared that he “is in full agreement with Mr. Rosa.”
  • Prof. Félix Martínez Llorente, Professor at University of Valladolid said “a comprehensive and documented work on the still-enigmatic figure of Columbus, with absolute certainty its highly significant and controversial contributions will be discussed hereinafter.”
  • Prof. Antonio Balcão Vicente, History Professor at Lisbon University, says “for the first time ever a book was written about Columbus without starting from any preconceived certainties and every piece of the puzzle is examined and explained point by point.”
  • Prof. James T. McDonough Jr., Professor at St. Joseph's University for 31 years, says, “the more I read, the more convincing its massive accumulation of historical details became. I would say that the book provides the best answers to many previously unexplained problems in the Columbus puzzle… Columbus is guilty of huge fraud carried out over two decades against his royal patrons.”
  • Prof. Manuela Mendonça, President of Portuguese Academy of History wrote: I congratulate Dr. Rosa on all the extensive work he has done to clarify for us the big mystery that was "Colon".
  • Prof. Marcel Balla, Boston University, says “your work is of great importance and deserves to be read carefully.”
  • Prof. Trevor Hall, Johns Hopkins University, 1993, writes “I am a professor of History who specializes in 15th and 16th century… I do Portuguese paleography, and my research supports your conclusions that Columbus was a Portuguese spy for King John II”
  • Prof. Rui Duque, from Madeira wrote “The book is extensive and very detailed... exceptional in the way that it succeeds in bringing together practically everything... I admire the exhaustive work about the kingdom of Portugal in the XV century, the detailed analyses of Columbus's Portuguese in-laws and his notes, etc....”
  • José Antonio Carbonell Pla, (Spanish reviewer of COLÓN: La Historia Nunca Contada) wrote in his review “written in plain language that avoids artifice and based on the strength of documentation… I think that indeed, the book succeeds in changing the existing historical perspective on Columbus… thanks to its scientific rigor and based on the strength of the documentation."

So if you are going to be a critic of Mr. Rosa's work, please quote the pages of his book you are not in agreement with. BUT for now please concentrate on the issue at hand which is the Sources to be added to the article under the Portuguese Theory.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Following on from your request for comment, my opinion is that it seems that things have gotten a little out of hand here. I counted 27 edits by two people on the 27th Dec and this can't be that much of a fast moving subject to need all that. If you find yourself ending up in an edit war then the best thing is for you both to take a break from the article for a while and work on something else.
That said, I have no idea whether the Portguese theory is true or the Genoese theory or the Polish theory or my own personal Nigerian theory. It doesn't really matter who is right. What is important is that material be sourced and the article is weighted properly to reflect the relative strengths of the argument, in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight. If the information about the Portuguese theory has been published in a reputable source then it can go in. It shouldn't have undue prominence if it really is a small minority viewpoint but it should be there, whether or not you agree with it. Wikipedia isn't the place for discussing or critiquing these theories and it isn't the place to decide if they are true or not. After all, there are nine different theories in the article and only one can be right. But if we all just removed the ones we disagreed with, there wouldn't be much of an article left.
So you guys need to declare a truce, stop editing the article, stop debating the topic and work together on the talk page to reach a consensus on only including properly sourced material covering all the reliable theories, without according undue weight to fringe stuff. This is an encyclopedia, not a battlefield... Robinr22 (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

We do include significant minority views. If it is true or not is not a criteria for inclusion. A few good sources would be enough to mention it. You would have to attribute it to the source "Simon said" not as a statement of fact.

@Davide If [as you say] the hypothesis is discredited by real historians it should be easy to find sources for that, such material should also be included. Usually the party discrediting the theory is considered a better source for it's significance than the proponents. In other words, we include things like that because they are significant enough to be discredited.

Hope that helps, 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

" I am also a historian " - Manuel Rosa

  • NO. Do not offend the category.
Davide1941, Please learn the English definition of the words you are utilizing- Definition of HISTORIAN Merriam-Webster : a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis- If you are not capable of understanding the English meaning of Historian here you can read it in your language. Dizionario Italiano stòrico studioso e scrittore di storia - (scholar or writer of history).
NOTE- A Teacher of History is NOT a Historian. Teachers of History are not historian they MERELY teach that which Historians have written.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


Contemporary Authors :

Portuguese Authors :

  • 1498-1504. The Portuguese Rui de Pina writes: "Christovam Colombo, italiano..."
  • 1519. The Portuguese Jorge Reinel writes: "Xpoforum colombum genuensem."
  • 1530-1533. The Portuguese Garcia de Resende writes: "Christouao Colombo, italiano."
  • 1540. The Portuguese Damião de Góis, writes: "In his life [he refers to D. João II] the Genoese Columbus ... offered him his services."
  • 1552. The Portuguese João de Barros writes: "As all men declare, Christovão Colom was of Genoese nation, a man expert, eloquent and good Latinist, and very boastful in his affairs."
  • 1574. The Portuguese Damião de Góis, writes: "The Genoese Columbus, a man expert in nautical arts" ; and, in the index: "Columbi genuen- sis, alias Coloni commendatio."
  • 1550. The Portuguese Gaspar Barreiros writes: "Duce Christophoro Colono Ligure."
  • 1563. The Portuguese António Galvão, writes: "In the yeere 1492, in the time of Don Ferdinando king of Castile, he being at the siege of Granada, dispatched one Christopher Columbus a Genoway with three ships to goe and discouer Noua Spagna."
  • 1580. The Portuguese João Matalio Metelo Sequano, writes: "Christophorus ergo Columbus prouincia Ligur vrbe vt aiunt, genuensis, qui Maderam inhabitabit."
  • 1580. The Portuguese Fernão Vaz Dourado in the Atlante of 1580, notes: "Land of the Antipodes of the King of Castile discovered by Christopher Columbus Genoese."
  • 1591. The Portuguese Gaspar Frutuoso, writes in the Anales of Porto Santo: "On this island the great Christovao Colombo, the Genoese, resided for some time."
  • 1594. The Portuguese Pedro de Mariz, writes: "Colon Genoves."

Spanish Authors

  • 1487. Pedro Díaz de Toledo y Ovalle - name is empty - Portuguese. (1)
  • 1492. Galindez Carajal : Genoese.
  • 1498. Pedro de Ayala : Genoese.
  • 1513. Andres Bernaldez : Milan. (2)
  • 1516. Hernando Alonso de Herrera : Genoese.
  • 1523-1560. Bartolomé de las Casas : Genoese.
  • 1535. Pedro de Arana : Genoese.
  • 1535. Diego Méndez : Genoese, a native of Savona.
  • 1535-1560. Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés : Cogoleto, village of Genoa.
  • 1539. Ferdinand Columbus : Genoese.

(1) Rumeu de Armas, Antonio. "El «portugués» Cristóbal Colón en Castilla. 1982. p. 29. It should be noted that Rumeu de Armas thinks Columbus was Genoese but so influenced by his years in Portugal that he could have been mistaken for a Portuguese by Spaniards.

  • There is nothing surprising about the plausibility of such definition.
  • Columbus after leaving Portugal is in the south of Spain, in 1485.
  • In 1479 he married Felipa Perestrello e Moniz, the daughter of Portuguese nobleman Don Bartolomeo.
  • Columbus had a good knowledge of the portuguese language.

But the mistake would not be repeated ... and the truth emerges.

(2) Bernaldez, Andres. "Historia de los Reyes Catolicos don Fernando y dona Isabel", Vol. I, p. 357. The Historian Paolo Emilio Taviani, writes: In the 15th century, the Republic of Genoa was alternately fully and legally dependent on the Duchy of Milan and the latter's satellite. The editor rightly interpreted the Milanese reference in the sense of Genoese origin. This is historically correct.

Italian authors

  • 1493. Peter Martyr d'Anghiera : Ligurian.
  • 1494. Giambattista Strozzi : from Savona.
  • 1499. Antonio Gallo : Genoese.
  • 1501. Nicolò Oderico : Genoese.
  • 1501. Angelo Trevisan : Genoese.
  • 1504. Anonymous author : Genoese. (1)
  • 1507. Amerigo Vespucci : Genoese.
  • 1507. Anonymous author : Genoese. (2)
  • 1508. Arcangelo Madrignano : Genoese.
  • 1516. Agostino Giustiniani : Genoese.
  • 1528. Pietro Coppo : Genoese.
  • 1538. Francesco Guicciardini : Genoese.

(1) (Libretto de tutta la navigatione de Re de Spagna de le Isole et Terreni Novamente Trovati. Venice, 1504.): "Chistophorus Columbo, Genuensi."

(2) (Chronica delle Vite de Pontefici et ... Venice, 1507.): "Chistophorus Colombo, Genuensi."

  • Not until the 18th and 19th centuries, did anyone begin disputing Columbus' Genoese origins. The first author who claimed Portuguese nationality for Christopher Columbus was Patrocínio Ribeiro in 1916. --Davide1941 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

But what document, what proof can be exhibited which affirms that Columbus was Portuguese ?

  • The Testimony of contemporaries ? At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Genoese.
  • The testimony of the ambassadors ? They confirm the theory that Columbus was Genoese.
  • Every early map on which his nationality is recorded describes him as Genoese.
  • The The Life of Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand ? The publication of Historie has been used by historians as providing indirect evidence about the Genoese origin of Columbus.
  • The testament in Seville of Ferdinand Columbus ? He calls his father "Genoese."
  • In May 2006, the Dr. Aldo Agosto, a noted Columbus scholar and state archivist at Genoa, has collected — for be officially presented to the conference of studies in Valladolid — one hundred and ten notarial documents, largely unpublished; the result of many years hard work, where reconstructs with precision, the family tree of Christopher Columbus, going back as far as seven generations.

These """proofs""" ?

  • Carta (1516) by Martin Waldseemüller.
  • Columbus uses the word "homeland" in relation to Portugal.
  • "Xpoval COLON, Our Special Friend in Seville"

These are suppositions and interpretations of texts. Imaginary delusions. --Davide1941 (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Name.

References to contemporary authors of Columbus - Spain

The Life of Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand.

  • "Perché, se abbiamo riguardo al cognome comune dei suoi maggiori, diremo che veramente fu Colombo..."

Colombo ... was really the name of his ancestors...

  • 1487-05-05. Francisco Gonzalez de Sevilla : Colomo
  • 1487-08-27. Francisco Gonzalez de Sevilla : Colomo
  • 1487-10-15. Francisco Gonzalez de Sevilla : Colomo
  • 1488. Francisco Gonzalez de Sevilla : Colom
  • 1489. Isabella I of Castile : Colomo
  • 1492. Galíndez de Carvajal : Colón
  • 1493. De Medinaceli : Colombo
  • 1498. Pedro de Ayala : Colón
  • 1513. Andrés Bernaldez : Colón
  • 1516. De Herrera : Colón
  • 1523/1566. Las Casas : Colombo de Terrarubia, Colón
  • 1535. Pedro de Arana : Colón
  • 1535. Diego Mendez : Colón
  • 1539. Ferdinand Columbus : Colón, genovés

This spelling indicates an Italian origin: when Columbus asked the permission for his voyages, at first his name was written as "Colomo" in the official documents, that, more or less relates to the apocope in Castilian for the Italian "Colombo". Only later his name was recorded as "Colón".

Colombo/Colomo/Colon.

  • 1486. Alonso de Quintanilha : Colomo
  • 1487. Francisco González de Sevilla : Colomo
  • 1487. Francisco González de Sevilla : Colomo
  • 1487. Francisco González de Sevilla : Colomo
  • 1488. Dom João II : Collon, Colón
  • 1489. Isabella I of Castile : Colomo
  • 1492. Galíndez de Carvajal : Colón
  • 1493. Duque de Medinaceli : Colomo
  • 1498. Pedro de Ayala : Colón
  • 1498-1504. Rui de Pina : Collombo, Colombo
  • 1513. Andrés Bernaldez : Colón
  • 1516. Hernando Alonso de Herrera : Colón
  • 1523-1566. Bartolomé de las Casas : Colombo de Terrarubia, Colón
  • 1535-1557. Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdés : Colom
  • 1539. Ferdinand Columbus : Colón
Extracts from 4 Pope Alexander Letters in LATIN showing that the discoverer's name in Latin is Colon NOT Columbus

(1513) Piri Reis map : Amma şöyle rivayet ederler kim Cinevizden [from Genoa] bir kâfir [an infidel] adına Qolōnbō [named Columbus] derler imiş, bu yerleri ol bulmuştur ...

All those people who wrote that the discoverer was Genoese DID NOT KNOW who the discoverer was or where he was from because he was hiding his identity. - Definitely Piri Reis is no authority on who Admiral Colon was or were he came from - Piri Reis, who stole a map from some other theif is not a higher authority than the Pope. The Discoverer was hiding his identity.
It was all "HEARSAY" - The discoverer's name was COLON and not COLOMBO which is Italian of COLUMBUS in Latin -
In fact Consuelo Varela stated "Colón hubiera dado [en Italiano] Colomo o Colonna, nunca Colombo" (Colon would have been (in Italian) Colomo or Colonna NEVER Colombo). The Pope in all his communications wrote COLON, King John II of Portugal wrote COLON, the Admiral wrote COLON.
Who are you to say that the name the Pope, the King and Colon himself used, was not COLON but COLOMBO?Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


" All those people who wrote that the discoverer was Genoese DID NOT KNOW who the discoverer was or where he was from because he was hiding his identity. - Definitely Piri Reis is no authority on who Admiral Colon was or were he came from - Piri Reis, who stole a map from some other theif is not a higher authority than the Pope. The Discoverer was hiding his identity. "

Dilettante.

  • D. Diego, a grandson of the admiral, was 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." In the same year, Pedro de Arana, a cousin of Columbus's Spanish mistress, testified that he knew Columbus was from Genoa. Pedro was close enough to Columbus to have commanded a vessel on his third voyage across the Atlantic.
  • The testament in Seville of Ferdinand Columbus ? He calls his father "Genoese."
  • Diego Méndez, one of his captains, in testimony given in the Pleitos, he said that Columbus was "Genoese, a native of Savona which is a town near Genoa."
  • Las Casas knew his son Diego, who provided some information on the early life of Columbus, and also was well acquainted with his natural son, Ferdinand. Las Casas knew both brothers of Columbus, Diego and Bartholomew, "rather well" and gave a succinct description of Bartholomew's person, temperament, and abilities, which demonstrated that he could both observe and describe with economy and distinction. Pedro de Arana, captain of one of the ships Columbus had on his third voyage and brother of Ferdinand Columbus' mother, was another member of the Columbus family group whom Las Casas knew well. He also "held frequent conversations" with Juan Antonio Colombo, a Genoese relative of Columbus, master of a ship on the third voyage. --Davide1941 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Davide1941, was this "Juan Antonio Colombo" another one of your Genoese WOOL-WEAVERS??? How did he learn to CAPTAIN a ship? Do you think the Spanish nobles would ALLOW a Wool-Weaver to CAPTAIN a Ship in Spain????? Mr. History professor!!! Do you NOT KNOW that Juan Antonio Colombo, who went on to become a servant of Fernando Colón, was NOT from GENOA but from FONTENETO in France. You know why he was called COLOMBO?? Mr. History Professor? Do you know who lived in Fonteneto, actual correct name Fontenoy-le-Château. Do you know who was the lady of this French town Fontenoy-le-Château? Her name was D. Margarida de Castro, sister of the Portuguese COUNT of Monsanto, D. Álvaro de Castro. Do you know who this family was connected with?? None other than Colombo el Mozo, Georges Paléologue de Bissipat (also known as Georges le Grec) whose daughter was Hélène de BISSIPAT "Colombo", Vicomtesse de Falaise, whose granddaughter Philippe de La MARCK "Colombo" married Louis Guillaume de DOMMARTIN, LORD of Fontenoy-le-Château in Lorraine, France where Juan Antonio, servant of D. Fernando Colón came from. Do you know who else was in St-Die in Lorraine France, who Louis de Dommartin, seigneur de Fontenoy-le-Château of watched over? None other than Martin Waldseemüller! Does this not make you think?Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

" Extracts from 4 Pope Alexander Letters in LATIN showing that the discoverer's name in Latin is Colon NOT Columbus" Manuel Rosas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davide1941 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The universally accepted theory is that Columbus was born in Genoa. This must be reported. Not the ravings of an amateur.

[...] [...] [...] --Davide1941 (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Books

  • [21] Professor Juan Manzano Manzano.
  • [22] Professor Antonio Ballesteros Beretta.
  • [23] Professor Miles H. Davidson.
  • [24] Professor Paolo Emilio Taviani.
  • [25] Professor Washington Irving.
  • [26] Professor Samuel Eliot Morison.
  • [27] Professor Laurence Bergreen.
  • [28] Professor William Least Heat-Moon.
  • [29] Professor Felipe Fernández-Armesto. He writes: "The evidence of Columbus's origins in Genoa is overwhelming."
  • [30] Professor Dan Zadra.
  • [31] Professor Edward Everett Hale.
  • [32] Professor Kirkpatrick Sale.
  • [33] Professor Kay Brigham.
  • [34] Professor Robin Santos Doak.
  • [35] Professor David M. Traboulay.
  • [36] Professor Daniel S. Preston.
  • [37] Professor Wendy Conklin.
  • [38] Professor Mary L. Eckhart.
  • [39] Professor Kathleen Kudlinski.
  • [40] Professor Néstor Ponce de León.
  • [41] Professor James R. McGovern.
  • [42] Professor Martha Kneib.
  • [43] Professor Tim McNeese.
  • [44] Professor Peggy Pancella.
  • [45] Profressor Charles Kendall Adams.
  • [46] Professor Consuelo Varela.
  • [47] Professor Gianni Granzotto.
  • [48] Professor Steve Dodge.
  • [49] Professor Aldo Agosto.
  • [50] Professor George Cubitt.
  • [51] Professor Valerie Irene Jane Flint.
  • [52] Professor Dario G. Martini.
  • [53] Professor Antonio Rumeu de Armas.
  • [54] Professor Henry Harrisse.
  • [55] Professor Alphonse De Lamartine.

[...] [...] [...] [...] [...] Dilettante. Your changes will be reverted. --Davide1941 (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Genovese in the introduction and the main body of the article, appropriately sourced (but not over-sourced!); Claims of Portuguese origin should be a small, separate section listing the attempts to present a different version of events. -The Gnome (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus/Archive_5&oldid=906134122"