1434

[Taomeow]

"1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance,"

by Gavin Menzies, a British historian who did his homework, unlike 99.9% of his incurably (and falsely indoctrinated) eurocentric colleagues. In the course of decades of research, he has visited 120 countries, more than 900 museums and libraries, and every major seaport of the late Middle Ages. Here's the timeline of events he presents with fascinating documents accounting for every assertion:

 

1421--1423 The great Chinese navigator Admiral Zheng He circumnavigates the globe and discovers America.

 

1431 The new Chinese emperor dispatches Zheng He and his enormous fleet to sail the globe and announce himself

 

1434 A delegation from the Chinese fleet arrives in Florence and meets with Pope Eugenius IV. They leave behind a mass of knowledge, including maps, astronomy, mathematics, art, architecture, and printing

 

1460s European adoption of Chinese astronomy and rejection of Aristotle and Ptolemy

 

1490 Leonardo da Vinci studies drawings of machines and engineering copied from the Nung Shu -- a Chinese treatise printed in 1313

 

1492 Columbus reaches America. Eighteen years earlier he was given a map of the Americas by Paolo Toscanelli, who admits to having gleaned "the most copious and good and true information from distinguished men of great learning who came to Florence in 1434 from China.

 

1506-- 1515 The appearance of world maps based on Chinese knowledge of the world in 1434. These include the "Strait of Magellan" which had never been seen by a European.

[gendao]

And that was actually one of the latter Chinese global expeditions...

[Taomeow]

Yeah, I know, but I didn't read his first one.

 

There used to be a site a bunch of years ago whose bookmark I've lost that had great info on Zhen He and his huge expeditions around the world with no conquest nor intent to conquer anyone (although they were fully equipped at the time, being the top civilization on earth with military power far exceeding any other nation's). I remember reading that they mostly collected plants from all over the world and animals for the emperor's zoo. When they brought back all the giraffes and elephants and zebras and jaguars, the emperor ordered to take the zoo all over China to show his people, down to the last peasant, what animals live elsewhere on earth. I had mixed feelings about it, I thought it was so cool, on the one hand, but I'm always on the animal's side, so from the animal's point of view, it wasn't that cool at all... but at least they didn't exterminate any, not animals, not peoples... unlike what happened shortly after the other guys "discovered" America. The Incas had a sophisticated all-terrain lama-based transportation system with sometimes as many as fifteen thousand of them linked in a "train" carrying passengers and cargo. The Spanish started out by exterminating all their lamas. For some reason, they decided to eat their tongues as a delicacy. In three years, there were almost none left. Humans followed shortly.

[Yoda]

very cool!

[宁]

i read the first book. quite bewildering.

i cannot help wonder how this magnificent civilisation allowed for the eunucs interference and later the cultural revolution

[Vajrasattva]

Haha cool...Imagine if the Vikings had made MAPS!

[Gerard]

1421--1423 The great Chinese navigator Admiral Zheng He circumnavigates the globe and discovers America.

 

 

I don't believe this Chinese tale very much, sorry.

 

 

If this were true then we would have to accept the rest of the challenges too. Read this:

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1029313

 

 

Officially Cristobal Colon discovered America, and so be it.

Edited September 30, 2008 by durkhrod chogori

[markern]

Sorry guys but the Norwegians discovered America way before both Columbus and the Chineese. Several hundred years before actualy, and there are archeological sites in the US that prove it and records in Europe of their travels.

 

As to setting of the renaisaince that would also be wrong. If it is true that the Chineese gave Europe a lot of knowledge it is a fact that important developments of the renaisance were ALREADY on it`s way in Europe and that the renaisance had all to do with the revival of GREEK knowledge and philosophy. That knowledge was in part rediscovered in Europe and partly transimitted back to us via the muslim world. The influence of Greek tought in the renaisance was EXPLICIT. Numrous artists, writers, philsophers and scientists made it absolutely clear where their inspiration came from and what that they in large part were trying to imitate and further develop what had been in Greece. The historical record of this is massive and the indirect evidence when comparing Greek tought and art the renaisance is obvious beyond any doubts. If the Chineese did bring Europe some inspiration I find that fascinating but it would have been peanuts compared to what came to from Greece.

[hagar]

Sorry guys but the Norwegians discovered America way before both Columbus and the Chineese. Several hundred years before actualy, and there are archeological sites in the US that prove it and records in Europe of their travels.

 

As to setting of the renaisaince that would also be wrong. If it is true that the Chineese gave Europe a lot of knowledge it is a fact that important developments of the renaisance were ALREADY on it`s way in Europe and that the renaisance had all to do with the revival of GREEK knowledge and philosophy. That knowledge was in part rediscovered in Europe and partly transimitted back to us via the muslim world. The influence of Greek tought in the renaisance was EXPLICIT. Numrous artists, writers, philsophers and scientists made it absolutely clear where their inspiration came from and what that they in large part were trying to imitate and further develop what had been in Greece. The historical record of this is massive and the indirect evidence when comparing Greek tought and art the renaisance is obvious beyond any doubts. If the Chineese did bring Europe some inspiration I find that fascinating but it would have been peanuts compared to what came to from Greece.

 

Well, as far as I have read, the Norwegians kind of stumbled upon America by accident. They were going back from Iceland, to Norway, and after a heavy bout of home brew, and some late night betting, a fellow fell asleep at the rudder, and there you go. And by accident, it was about 400 years before Columbus.

 

The Vikings really are Danes by the way. As for the Norwegian "Vikings", they were mostly peacful, but got a little bored no and then.

 

h

[markern]

1434 A delegation from the Chinese fleet arrives in Florence and meets with Pope Eugenius IV. They leave behind a mass of knowledge, including maps, astronomy, mathematics, art, architecture, and printing

 

If this is true then were is the actual influence on tehse toughts in the European renaisance. There certainly was none in terms of architecture and art. The devlopment of printing techniques in europe is, as far as I can understand from previous reading, traced in al steps of its development and does not show chinees influence. Chineese mathematics was completly different from European mathematics. If it had influnced European matheamtics we would have seen a huge shift towards chineese style mathematics and we did not. Maps I am more inclined to belive and possibly astronomy but since the devolopment of European astronomy is well documented in history a chinees influence should be easily seen as a complete shift and as far as I can remember it is not. I can easily imagine there being some truth to this but if knowledge was transmitted to the Europeans it was either lost, ignored or not very significant. This is sensationalist history at its worst with intelectual rigour a long the lines of the Da Vinci Code

 

Well, as far as I have read, the Norwegians kind of stumbled upon America by accident. They were going back from Iceland, to Norway, and after a heavy bout of home brew, and some late night betting, a fellow fell asleep at the rudder, and there you go. And by accident, it was about 400 years before Columbus.

 

The Vikings really are Danes by the way. As for the Norwegian "Vikings", they were mostly peacful, but got a little bored no and then.

 

h

 

I can certainly imagine the Vikings discovery being a drunken accident but the discoerers of Vinland as they called the US were Noregian, we have dug of plenty of viking battleships in norway and teh record of norewgian vikings conquring and looting is large so the vikings being Danish is not true.

 

Generally speaking, the Norwegians expanded to the north and west to places such as Ireland, Iceland and Greenland; the Danes to England and France, settling in the Danelaw (northern England) and Normandy; and the Swedes to the east.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings

 

And although it is true that the Danes were more prevalent in England and France we did plenty of looting and wife snapping in Ireland and Enlgland.

[hagar]

1434 A delegation from the Chinese fleet arrives in Florence and meets with Pope Eugenius IV. They leave behind a mass of knowledge, including maps, astronomy, mathematics, art, architecture, and printing

 

If this is true then were is the actual influence on tehse toughts in the European renaisance. There certainly was none in terms of architecture and art. The devlopment of printing techniques in europe is, as far as I can understand from previous reading, traced in al steps of its development and does not show chinees influence. Chineese mathematics was completly different from European mathematics. If it had influnced European matheamtics we would have seen a huge shift towards chineese style mathematics and we did not. Maps I am more inclined to belive and possibly astronomy but since the devolopment of European astronomy is well documented in history a chinees influence should be easily seen as a complete shift and as far as I can remember it is not. I can easily imagine there being some truth to this but if knowledge was transmitted to the Europeans it was either lost, ignored or not very significant. This is sensationalist history at its worst with intelectual rigour a long the lines of the Da Vinci Code

I can certainly imagine the Vikings discovery being a drunken accident but the discoerers of Vinland as they called the US were Noregian, we have dug of plenty of viking battleships in norway and teh record of norewgian vikings conquring and looting is large so the vikings being Danish is not true.

 

Generally speaking, the Norwegians expanded to the north and west to places such as Ireland, Iceland and Greenland; the Danes to England and France, settling in the Danelaw (northern England) and Normandy; and the Swedes to the east.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings

 

And although it is true that the Danes were more prevalent in England and France we did plenty of looting and wife snapping in Ireland and Enlgland.

 

You're right about those facts. The only thing I clearly remember is that the term "viking" originated in Danmark.

 

What I didn't know until recently was that there was a flourishing shamanistic tradition also among the viking tribes. That explains the "berserk" tribe and their eagerness to force their slaves to eat poison mushrooms and drink their urine, as to get high before going into battle. There was also some pretty nasty torture techniques at the time. Good thing we're all more civilized now, and drinking on boats have prevailed only along the coastal waters...

 

h

Edited September 30, 2008 by hagar

[mjjbecker]

I don't believe this Chinese tale very much, sorry.

If this were true then we would have to accept the rest of the challenges too. Read this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1029313

Officially Cristobal Colon discovered America, and so be it.

 

No, you wouldn't have to believe the other 'theories' to follow what Mr Menzies is saying.

 

I read his first book, '1421', and found it very interesting and plausible. I say that as someone who studied history at university, under some world class tutors, and as someone who is well known for having a cynical disposition.

 

You see, Menzies was a submarine officer, rank of Commander, who himself had sailed around the globe and commanded his own vessel. He did this before the advent of GPS, and so used charts and star constellations, in a manner that other mariners had done for centuries. In a nutshell, he is an educated man, experienced sailor who does have some understanding of what he is talking about.

 

As I understand it, various people have 'poo pooed' his hypothesis, but no one has disproved it.

 

Before you get me wrong, I have happily dismantled the horse feather logic of the likes of Graham Hancock. Mr Menzies, unlike many of his detractors, and the likes of Graham Hancock, did not start with a conclusion. He has followed the evidence and allowed it to lead him where he has got to. That is the correct way to study history.

 

History is a 'living' discipline, which changes as new evidence comes to light. Have an open mind and follow the evidence, don't simply condemn something because it does not fit with your pre-existing world view.

 

I have not read his latest book but I will, as Renaissance history is something I have long been interested in. I will approach it with an open mind and make my own judgements accordingly.

 

You might want to try that yourself.

 

Best,

 

Mike

[mjjbecker]

I can easily imagine there being some truth to this but if knowledge was transmitted to the Europeans it was either lost, ignored or not very significant. This is sensationalist history at its worst with intelectual rigour a long the lines of the Da Vinci Code

 

You should read it before coming to any conclusions. As for quoting Wikipedia, you should be careful as it certainly does not follow any academic standards or 'intellectual rigor'. A useful reference, yes, but one that should be followed up by more 'solid' evidence.

 

I will give you one simple example to show how well Europeans ignored great wisdom and insight. Leonardo da Vinci's pioneering and masterful studies of human anatomy. One of da Vinci's most enthusiastic biographers has been Professor Sherwin Nuland, a professor of surgery at Yale. He has commented that da Vinci made discoveries about anatomy THREE HUNDRED years before the rest of Europe caught on.

 

Alas, Europe never enjoyed the benefit of da Vinci's work in this area because it was never appreciated for what it was, and such studies were strongly criticised by the Church. Da Vinci understood how valves in the heart worked in a manner not appreciated until open heart surgery and heart transplant surgery of the late 20th century. Knowledge suppressed and hidden away because of the superstitious nature of the times.

 

Now, you must put things in context here also. The Roman Catholic church was under unparalleled attack at this time in its history. Constantinople would soon fall and the threat of the Ottoman Empire was very real to Europe. There is also the rise of Protestantism.

 

Paranoid at the best of times, it is highly unlikely the Roman Catholic church would have been receptive to ideas from a completely alien and non-believing culture such as the Chinese.

 

I could go on, but I won't because I have better things to do with my evening. I would say study your history long and deeply, don't just rely on Wikipedia for your information. I spent three years studying European history at the University of London, Early Modern period in particular, along with time spent at high school doing the same. In that time I barely scratched the surface, but did learn something about what does and does not constitute good study. I can only imagine what reaction I would have gotten from any of my lecturers had I quoted something like Wikipedia at them. At the very least I would have been laughed out of the room.

 

Best,

 

Mike

[Gerard]

No, you wouldn't have to believe the other 'theories' to follow what Mr Menzies is saying.

 

I read his first book, '1421', and found it very interesting and plausible. I say that as someone who studied history at university, under some world class tutors, and as someone who is well known for having a cynical disposition...

 

Well I can say you haven't taken a look at the link I posted in my first message, otherwise you wouldn't have posted that.

 

 

It clearly says at the top:

 

Many people have discovered America. Only one can claim to be the real discoverer, because all the others discovered a land already occupied by people. Sadly, the original discoverer's name is lost in the mists of time, so it's now left to the reader to decide which of the following to believe.

 

I guess many discovered America but officially it was Colon, period.

[mjjbecker]

Well I can say you haven't taken a look at the link I posted in my first message, otherwise you wouldn't have posted that.

It clearly says at the top:

 

Many people have discovered America. Only one can claim to be the real discoverer, because all the others discovered a land already occupied by people. Sadly, the original discoverer's name is lost in the mists of time, so it's now left to the reader to decide which of the following to believe.

 

I guess many discovered America but officially it was Colon, period.

 

I did. And my comments were a response to your casual dismissal of a body of information to which you have made no effort to familiarise yourself with:

 

I don't believe this Chinese tale very much, sorry.

 

What you have said is very much typical of someone who has a google search at their finger tips, but lacks the depth of study and understanding to deliver an educated opinion. Mr Menzies has sincerely tried to find out what has actually happened, followed the evidence he has found and invested a substantial amount of his own time, effort and money. You make snipes from behind your keyboard.

 

I couldn't give a fig about who 'officially' discovered America. If you had bothered to look into this in more detail, you would understand the book, '1421', is NOT about who discovered America. It IS about the first circumnavigation of the world. It is plausibly argued that the Chinese did this BEFORE the Europeans.

 

The book deals with how circumnavigation and 'discovery' has been largely 'Eurocentric' according to current historical thought. The book deals with THIS issue, not with whomever or whatever might have otherwise, at any other time, may have 'discovered' America. There is a compelling argument that the Chinese did get there before the Europeans of the 15th century.

 

Of course, since you only took a quote of a few words and did not understand the context, because you had not read the book, or even bothered to read the authors website, you didn't know this.

 

However, if it makes you happy, you stick with your 'official' line.

 

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.

 

Albert Einstein

 

Best,

 

Mike

[markern]

You should read it before coming to any conclusions. As for quoting Wikipedia, you should be careful as it certainly does not follow any academic standards or 'intellectual rigor'. A useful reference, yes, but one that should be followed up by more 'solid' evidence.

 

I will give you one simple example to show how well Europeans ignored great wisdom and insight. Leonardo da Vinci's pioneering and masterful studies of human anatomy. One of da Vinci's most enthusiastic biographers has been Professor Sherwin Nuland, a professor of surgery at Yale. He has commented that da Vinci made discoveries about anatomy THREE HUNDRED years before the rest of Europe caught on.

 

Alas, Europe never enjoyed the benefit of da Vinci's work in this area because it was never appreciated for what it was, and such studies were strongly criticised by the Church. Da Vinci understood how valves in the heart worked in a manner not appreciated until open heart surgery and heart transplant surgery of the late 20th century. Knowledge suppressed and hidden away because of the superstitious nature of the times.

 

Now, you must put things in context here also. The Roman Catholic church was under unparalleled attack at this time in its history. Constantinople would soon fall and the threat of the Ottoman Empire was very real to Europe. There is also the rise of Protestantism.

 

Paranoid at the best of times, it is highly unlikely the Roman Catholic church would have been receptive to ideas from a completely alien and non-believing culture such as the Chinese.

 

I could go on, but I won't because I have better things to do with my evening. I would say study your history long and deeply, don't just rely on Wikipedia for your information. I spent three years studying European history at the University of London, Early Modern period in particular, along with time spent at high school doing the same. In that time I barely scratched the surface, but did learn something about what does and does not constitute good study. I can only imagine what reaction I would have gotten from any of my lecturers had I quoted something like Wikipedia at them. At the very least I would have been laughed out of the room.

 

Best,

 

Mike

 

Firstly, I did not say that the chineese did not make these journeys nor that they did not give such knowledge to teh europeans. What I did say was that if such knowledge was given to the europeans it was either lost, ignored or not significant. In other words they could very well have received such knowledge but ignored it, possibly for reasons such as those you suggest. You actualy qouted me on that if such knowledge was given it was ignored, lost or insignificant so there is no reason for you to explain to me why such knowledge might have been there without being used.

 

As stated I have no problem beliving that china sent such an expedition nor that it gave us such knowledge, only that this was what started the renaisance. That is such a ridiculous claim that it is on par with the Davici Code in terms of truth and strength of argument. The fact that the renaisance started way BEFORE the chineese came should be enough to illustrate this although, as I have showed previously, there are numerous other ways of showing the claim is completly laughable.

 

As for using wikipedia I only used it handidly as I was on the web to support the claim that norwegians were in fact vikings not for saying anything about China and the europeans. From my own history classes I know very well that they were but I didn`t have other sources handy and it isen`t very likely to be too much mistaken in this regard. Especially since wat it says is more or less consistent with ewhat I have read in serious history books.

[mjjbecker]

Started the 'Renaissance'? Nope, I agree with you on that. The concept of the 'Renaissance' has been questioned for some time anyhow. That is a long and detailed area to go into...

 

However, I do believe it would be worthwhile reading the book to see what it has to say. Any missing piece to the jigsaw is welcome. Publishers love their hype as it sells books. I'm only interested in the substance.

 

Best,

 

Mike

[markern]

Started the 'Renaissance'? Nope, I agree with you on that. The concept of the 'Renaissance' has been questioned for some time anyhow. That is a long and detailed area to go into...

 

However, I do believe it would be worthwhile reading the book to see what it has to say. Any missing piece to the jigsaw is welcome. Publishers love their hype as it sells books. I'm only interested in the substance.

 

Best,

 

Mike

 

Then we are pretty much in agreement. I would like to read the book as well and I think he is probably right about the expeditions having taken place.

[gendao]

Sorry guys but the Norwegians discovered America way before both Columbus and the Chineese. Several hundred years before actualy, and there are archeological sites in the US that prove it and records in Europe of their travels.

 

As to setting of the renaisaince that would also be wrong. If it is true that the Chineese gave Europe a lot of knowledge it is a fact that important developments of the renaisance were ALREADY on it`s way in Europe and that the renaisance had all to do with the revival of GREEK knowledge and philosophy.

The Norwegians beat Zheng He to America, but likely not the Chinese in general. There were actually likely several earlier migration waves, as detailed in my link above. There is archaeological evidence on the coasts and also a lot in Mesoamerica. Including DNA links in Mesoamericans today. Fact is, it is thought that Shang dynasty refugees may have escaped to America and influenced the Olmec civilization and subsequent Mayan/Itzas...

As was said though, many migrated to America even before the Chinese. You had older Asians from the Ice Age land bridge 12,000 years ago, probably some Austronesians by rafts, other miscellaneous seafarers and probably Atlantean fugees..

 

As far as Chinese and the European Renaissance, Chinese mathematical/scientific discoveries did predate the Europeans by long stretches in most cases. Robert Temple has written a good primer on this, with many photos. The evidence has been there, just not well-publicized in the West due to the language/cultural gap. Now, whether these discoveries actually reached and influenced European technology is another question. Obviously, a lot of their higher knowledge was esoteric wisdom filtered through the Greeks from the Egyptians.