Talk:Age of Discovery

Improvement drive

A related topic, spice trade, is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support or comment on the nomination there if you are interested.--Fenice 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Conquest of Siberia

See also History_of_Siberia#Yermak_and_the_Cossacks --ajvol 13:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ioann IV the Terrible

If you ranames Ioann IV the Terrible to Ivan IV the Terrible, why not to rename Nicolas II to Nikolay II?--Nixer 12:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow your analogy. In both cases, I am following the common English-language usage. They are known in English as Ivan and Nicholas, respectively. I have literally never seen Ioann in an English-language text by a native speaker. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas is neither an official name, nor a popular.--Nixer 14:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow that remark. Nicholas is the normal name of in English for tsars named Николай. See, for example, http://www.nicholasandalexandra.com/ (a site developed jointly with the Hermitage Museum), Nicholas and Alexandra (bestselling book by Robert K. Massie, and a 1971 film based on that book). -- Jmabel | Talk 00:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at this for example: [1] In 1570 there appeared the official mentioning of the meeting between Russian Tsar Ioann (IV) the Terrible and Calvinist Pastor Rockita who arrived from Poland as a member of the delegation of king Sigizmund August.. Or here:[2] There are the remains of Russian Emperors from Peter I to Nikolai II and members of their families (excluding Peter II and Ioann IV). Here: [3] for example, Ioann IV wrote decrees to the CyrilloBeloozersk monastery against the disorders that were After the terrible Moscow fire o 1547 Ioann IV publicly addressed Metropolitan Macarius with these words: Here are not tsars, but patriarchs: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/hierarchs/russia.htm]--Nixer 00:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying the others are never used. I'm saying that they are uncommon in English, and not the names by which the average educated native English speaker would know these people. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Since you continue to revert me, and I do not feel you have presented a good case to do so, I will bring this to WP:3O [added by Jmabel]

I found this request for a third opinion in the dispute and budding edit war between Jmabel and Nixer. I have reviewed the main page, this talk page, and the edit histories, as well as the references given. My ruling on the matter is that this is the English language Wikepedia, and that since the vast majority of native speakers of English, in trying to find information about a certain person, will do a search for "Ivan" and not "Ioann" (never heard of it before today), this article should refer to the person as "Ivan" in all of the main references. (I have no objections to parenthetical references, such as this, noting that the person's name is sometimes spelled "Ioann".) Nixer, please stop reverting the page to the "Ioann" form. Feel free to link this page to the Russian language Wikipedia, but stop trying to change the way the English-speaking world spells the name. [I will delete the request for a third opinion, and I hope this settles the dispute.] Aumakua 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I cited the sources above, which call him Ioann. Also a text under picture in the Ivan the Terrible article calls him Ioann (I am not the author of this text). It indicates that many people are more fomiliar with this name. Besides it is more correct.--Nixer 05:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

While I don't have 'Googlecountitis' and would never make a final decision based solely on that, I think it is informative to see what the number is, sometimes. A Google search on English pages (this is the English Wikipedia after all) for "Ivan the terrible" and "Ioann the terrible" shows a difference of about 356 THOUSAND to 145. Go convince those 356 THOUSAND people that a name they've never heard of is "more correct" and get back to us. Meanwhile, I've given my third opinion, which is the first and hopefully the last step in dispute resolution between reasonable people. If you absolutely insist that it has to say "Ioann" here, take it up with a mediator -- but do not revert it to Ioann unless you can show a lot better reason than you have so far, and get a consensus that you are right, first. This is my last word on the subject; I just dropped in to try to help settle a dispute, not to get embroiled in it. Aumakua 06:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Before the Portuguese?

The Portuguese voyages in the Atlantic were preceded by the Aragonese voyages and conquests in the Western Mediterranean and in parts of the Atlantic, such as the Canary Islands. Some Italian cities (which had built their own naval empires in the Eastern Mediterranean, as an offshoot of the Crusades) also participated in the early voyages of the Portuguese. It might be good to make a reference to these precursors and collaborators of the Age of Discoveries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.136.232.3 (talk • contribs) 20 Jan 2006.

Largely concur, although that characterization "Aragonese" seems misleading. Aragon itself was inland. The mariners in territories ruled by the Crown of Aragon were Catalan, Valencian, or Balear. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

what date and month was Ferdinand Magellan born

This section head was here with no question. The Ferdinand Magellan article says spring 1480. I doubt anything more accurate is known. - Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, just so you know, Native Americans were in America waaaaaayyyyyy before Columbus "discovered" it. talk

And oxygen existed for billions of years before Lavoisier "discovered" it. These things always relate to a particular perspective. - Jmabel | Talk 23:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exploration by land

Should exploration by land section be merged with conquest of Siberia?--Nixer 09:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

James Cook

I notice that James Cook was added to the lead paragraph, and since it was there I linked it. Certainly an important explorer, but isn't he a bit late for the era we are mainly talking about? One could just as well continue it down to Lord Franklin. Or Henry Morton Stanley. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He certainly doesn't belong there in the way that this article is defined, covering discoveries only up through the early 1600s. I'm going to delete him. He is mentioned at a later point in the article, though I'll leave that since it's clearly presented an afterthought to give greater context to the specific period covered here. 69.108.230.116 16:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Conquest of Siberia

I don't agree to attribute it to the Age of Discovery,at least the Mongols had know perfectly the Siberia before the russian to conquer it.It is only a reconquer not a conquer.Ksyrie December 11, 2006

Chinese Exploration

Although very interesting and important, the section "Chinese Exploration" has - to my opinion - not much to do with the "Age of Discovery", which is a western/European development in history. I suggest it to split the section "Chinese Exploration" into a new article. Demophon 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. - SimonP 12:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll be up to the challenge of creating a new article for it.--PericlesofAthens 19:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.--PericlesofAthens 19:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Explorers do be used as example

Following the removal of some names by Jim.henderson, I believe we should still use Pedro Alvares Cabral since he was the first European to reach what is now Brazil. Although he is less famous, we should not make him less famous by not using him as an example. SalvadorFernandesZarco

Actually it was User:SimonP who removed that name and a great many others. I wouldn't mind taking credit for it, but we mustn't claim someone else's good work. Where I went wrong was in leaving Cabral and his fellows in the intro. The intro should be short, and this worthy but unfortunately little known (among English speakers) figure ought to be omitted from it. Indeed, to improve the list in the introductory paragraph, I would trim out both Cabral and Cabot. We can't put every brave and clever 16th century explorer in the intro; that's why we have a whole article rather than just a long intro. Besides, if I'm counting correctly, Cabral's name is mentioned five times, in more than one section of the article and a caption. That's plenty. To give the fellow full justice requires giving him a whole article; just not this one. Jim.henderson 23:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Change the name of this article to "Age of Exploration"?

Due to the fact that the lands that were explored by europeans during this age were already "discovered" (if you will) by native peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.38.226 (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that is a good point. Also "Age of Exploration" seems to be the more common term.

No, all those places were also already explored by those natives, or what, does someone think there were no eaylier explorations? What matters is, some particular little culture reached out and discovered the geography of the whole world, or anyway explored and opened up the final connections. The Chinese carried out several long range voyages of discovery, the Arabs did a bunch more, and eventually the Europeans pretty much finished discovering the world. This is the last chapter of that long story. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The name of this page is dictated both by the description at the time, and then in both popular and academic history. All three of these descriptions are Eurocentric. The fact that the European discovery of the world was encyclopedically significant in itself (much as say the cultural-economic integration of Africa or Siberia into the world economy, or the international Chinese diaspora are significant), and that the popular and academic discourses of Eurocentric or European Exceptionalism in the European discovery of the world are encyclopedically significant). Ie: the ideology is commonly known by the page name, and is encyclopedically significant as an ideology as well as a description of a series of events.
2. The European "Age of Discovery" or "Age of Exploration" also marked the period of the development of a world spanning international long distance trade economy which was dominated by Europeans, and a subsequent tool for the Europeans to economically appropriate and politically dominate the world. There's a uniqueness in human history, through
   1. The global impact, as opposed to the regional impact of (equivalent late medieval & early modern) Arabic, Indian, Central Asian or Chinese trade economies and trade diasporas
   2. The permanency and totality of European Colonisation which resulted.
3. The current article sucks at expressing these things. When I decided to become an editor, it was a mishmash of pro-Portugese and pro-Spanish ideology surrounding the discovery of the Americas. The current article doesn't adequately discuss the impact of African or Indian economics, or the later Spice Island or Asian economies on discovery. There's a vastly insufficient coverage of the Eurocentrism of the Term, of equivalent moments of long distance trade integration and colonisation (Arabic, Indian, Chinese Coastal Diaspora, Polynesian Oceanic Diaspora would be the central comparisons due to the late medieval / early modern period and the role of trade), or of why when the Europeans did it, it was significant (hint: not that they're Europeans, but that they did it to everyone in the world at the same time). Finally, sources! Academic historians have been tearing these Eurocentric concepts apart for about 60 years now. We're vastly undersourced.

Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All right; so the question of changing the name to "exploration" seems settled since exploration is the method to discover things, while discovery is what you get from a successful exploration. Changing the name isn't going to improve things since a more precise name would also have to be much longer and confusing and less useful to readers. Your other points are either precisely on target (like, undersourced) or belong in another section. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Personally, I think a title change to something like Age of Exploration or Age of European Exploration would make more sense, considering the discussion below about the article which precedes this article chronologically. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What was in it for the Mongols?

The article says: "Mongol states also unified much of Eurasia creating trade routes and communication lines stretching from the Middle East to China.[citation needed] A series of Europeans took advantage of these to explore eastwards."

How did the Europeans "take advantage" of the trade routes? The Mongols must have had some reason for letting them through. Can someone please explain what was in it for the Mongols? HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Iberocentric

Well, of course the article is centered on Iberia. That was the center of the action. A history of papermaking is Sinocentric, of Islam, arabocentric, of Organic Chemistry, Germanocentric, and of the initial populating of the world, Afrocentric, isn't it? Many developments develop from a particular center and no use trying to pump up marginal areas for fairness. The heroic (or villainous) captains who discovered the world 4, 5, 6 centuries ago were mostly Iberians, mostly working for Iberian kings. The linked Portugal article goes into some of the reasons for this, and this article is not the one that should try to provide great detail about it, because this is the one about how the world was discovered. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between Ibero-centrism, which is justified, and Spanish and Portuguese propaganda. Previous versions of these articles made very, very strong equations between the late medieval and early modern Kingdoms of the Iberian peninsular and modern Iberian nationalist politics. They also included needlessly long lists of individual Iberians without explaining the Gold, Silver, Slave, Colonial, Cloth or Spice trades. The article focused almost exclusively on the discovery and exploitation of South America without dealing with Portugal's major African, Indian and Spice Island trading interests. Additionally, there was no explanation of causes, but rather a chronicle of happenstance.

We should have an Ibero-centric article, which briefly discusses the displacement of Germanic and Russian interior trade routes, and Italian mediterranean trade routes; which also deals briefly with the decay and destruction of pre-Columbian societies, as it relates to the generation of Trans-oceanic colonies and trade. More importantly the relationship between Portuguese and African, Indian and Spice Island city-states / merchant-states needs to be increased, as does the general impact of increased access to commodities.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible deletion of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact article

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact will be suggested for deletion if none of its information is able to be included within this article, since it is a perfect example of Wikipedia:Content forking. If anyone involved in this article feels that it should be deleted post haste, go for it. I'm giving the editors of that article until June 29 before I go forward with its deletion, in case you all think it should exist within wikipedia, and wish to include some of its content in this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

These articles cover almost completely different subject matters and are both perfectly valid. There is some overlap, but it is pretty small. The timeframes and geographic scope are both very different. There is no reason they shouldn't continue pretty much as they are. - SimonP (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought that Europeans (and others) exploring America and elswhere in the 15th century would have significant overlap with this article. But that's not reason for deletion. The problem is that this article mentions Europeans discovered America in 1492 or later (accepted by a majority of historians), while the other article going into possible exploration prior to 1492 (not accepted by a majority of historians, therefore following various individual points of view (POV)) which conflict with this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge no historians currently believe that the Americas were only discovered in 1492. L'Anse aux Meadows is pretty incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. There is no claim in this article that Columbus was the first to reach America. Being first is really beside the point anyway. The importance of the Age of Discovery is not that a boat managed to make it across the ocean, but rather that when that boat returned information of the wider world was permanently incorporate into the European body of knowledge and led to permanent links between the continents. That is the series of discoveries that this page is all about. Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts are interesting, but they are merely curiosities that never had a wider effect on the history of the world. - SimonP (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not true according to some of the sources of the other article, which state the European explorers had maps and second hand knowledge of the New World/Africa/southeast Asia before they even left Europe, furthering their curiosity. Anyhow, the decision will be up to the masses. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't thing Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact should be deleted. While the content of that article is interesting, it discusses something of fundamentally different historical importance than this one. Consider the early contact (meaning not covered by this article) Did those early contacts fundamentally alter the way of life of the indigenous peoples of the Americas? Did that result in permanent demographic and cultural change? If we were to go back in time and prevent those old contacts from happening, would the world today be fundamentally different? The answer to all three of those questions is no. Asking those questions of the Age of Discovery gives the answer yes. That's why Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact should not be deleted. Lumping it in here gives too much importance to events that, in a macrohistorical context, were minor. In addition, while it is conceivable (although probably unprovable) to suppose that Columbus (or whoever) had knowledge of earlier accidental discoveries of the Americas, it is hard to believe that Columbus could have known about an ancient exchange of sweet potatoes and chickens between the Pacific and South America. Basically, the amount of fuss people make about Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is way out of proportion to any actual historical impact it had. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, and you make a good point Miss Madeline, as always. But wouldn't that make the name of this article moot? How can any contact, European or otherwise, logically precede the Age of Discovery? I saw the above discussion, and after today's discussion on the other article's deletion, agree that this article has to renamed somehow. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be renamed. That some discoveries happened beforehand does not mean that the main Age of Discovery isn't still a distinct period in human history. Saying that the Age of Discovery is an incorrect name because there were some minor pre-Columbian contacts is like saying the Industrial Revolution has to be renamed because of the discovery of the Baghdad Battery. - SimonP (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) There shouldn't be a rename. The first discoverer of many places (meaning the first person ever to reach that place) happened so long ago as to be unnamable. Anybody know the name of the first human ever to see North America? Is there any way of finding out? While such a person definitely existed, we know nothing about them other than that they were the first person to see North America and that they lived thousands of years ago. This applies to most places in the world, I suspect. But is creating a list of such anonymous discoveries useful? Even if the indigenous people of such a location have a legend about the discovery, there is no guarantee that the current indigenous people of a location are the first people ever to live there (for example, in many Inuit lands the Dorset people preceeded them). I'll agree that a list of legends about the discovery of places might be useful. In addition, the anonymous first people to reach most places might not have been out exploring deliberately; ie they were just hunting/making war/etc and just found a new place. In most cases, the Europeans crossing the oceans were actually looking for something, whether it be China, gold, spices, or a way around the land in their way. Since the European "discoverers" were in most cases actually looking for something, while the anonymous first discoverer might not have, this article should be Age of Discovery because they found something when deliberately looking. Including a note that the European "discoverers" were usually not the first person to reach the places they discovered would form an excellent paragraph. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality of sources

I reverted a good faith edit by a user who cited repeatedly from a generalist textbook aimed at an undergraduate audience. A number of dubious assertions in the article were unsupported (such as the Papacy's interest in Prester John in an early modern context), or the role of the black death in relation to long distance trade (for example, I've read numerous instances that the extension of cash wage labour throughout europe as a result of the black death increased long distance trade). Other statements in the article, that are generally agreed facts, are inadequately supported by citing a textbook that does not deal with the specific subject matter of the article.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For an article like this one that is a broad overview of a huge subject, a generalist text book is a perfectly valid source. We should try to have some more diversity of sources, but unfortunately that is the only one I had on hand yesterday. You should also have a look at WP:CITE, there is no need to reference basic facts that everyone agrees with and are trivial to verify. That Vasco de Gama reached India in 1498 is not the sort of fact that needs to be referenced, and adding cite tags to sentences like that is just pedantic. - SimonP (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As to the specific factual issues, I do agree that the Papacy being the one hunting Prester John is inaccurate and I've changed that reference. As to the Black Death, I don't think it can be argued that at least for a few decades it severely curtailed European trade and exploration. There are many scholars who believe that in the long term it might have boosted the European economy, but that is not what that sentence is talking about. The exact quote from the textbook that I used to reference that sentence is "In the middle of the 14th century, however, the overland route to China was severed by a conjunction of the Black Death, the vigorous expansion of the Ottoman Turks, and the overthrow of the Mongol dynasty in China." - SimonP (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The quality of a two of your citations is highly dubious, and fails to meet required standards. Other citations are acceptable, but its poor form to single source so many. Survey course level textbooks are of equivalent authority to encyclopaedia, which means no further appeal to authority is possible, so single sourcing is out.

• Christian leaders, such as Prince Henry the Navigator, also launched expeditions in hopes of finding converts, or the fabled Prester John. claims an intentional motivation for Henry the Navigator in relation to Christianity and specifically to the Prester John myth. Claims of motivation require a citation. As motivation goes to historical opinion, I'd like something better than a first year survey textbook on the early modern period. As such, I've dubioused this.
• The European economy was dependent on gold and silver currency, but low domestic supplies had plunged much of Europe into a recession. is still dubious opinion. Opinion is an exercise of historical judgement. This would require a Review Essay at minimum in a peer reviewed journal of international significance or specialist expertise. Claiming a) Europe had a market b) Its market was dependent on specie supply and c) Europe suffered a recession (an anachronistic term coined c20) is due to conflicts within economic history and political economy over the structure of early modern European economic relations and would require expert citation. As such, I've dubioused this.

The other edits are brilliant and are putting this article in a proper network of context for the early modern period. Needs more Indonesian & Indian trade network impacts still! Fifelfoo (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC) corrected Fifelfoo (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

With no further discussion on the dubiousness of the Monetarist position on late medieval Europe, and, with the source for this being a 1992 textbook, I have deleted the sentences.Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

---

I wouldn't mind seeing a source for which trade goods were "most" sought. It seems to me that salt fish would as sought as gold, as it is my understanding that they had roughly equal value in the 18th century. I assume a similar case could be made for other commodities. TheTyrant (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)TheTyrant

Vikings

Didn't the Vikings discover America first? (http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Did-Vikings-Discover-America-49891.shtml) Dalponis (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Discover, yes. First, no. See Viking. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Article is IMHO too blacklegendly. Influence of Spain is minimized, influence of Portugal maximized. While both play an important role in exploration, Treaty of Tordesillas defines who is and will be top dog for centuries. Please dispose of PC mumbo jumbo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptn. Nemo (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Chapters in human history.

It seems to me Wiki contributors have a strong bias when it comes to recent human history. The last 500 years reflect only a small portion of human accomplishments, failures, errors and successes. No human culture can claim sanctity, none can be seen as the ultimate evil, non-redeemable. Cultures are but a product of their times and should only be seen in their proper context. A native american culture may have deemed glorious the sacrifice and gut extraction of a god-loving member of society, but the deed is just as common to europeans who accepted quartering or burning at the stake. Africans, Asians and even north-pole inhabitants had their own rules and punishments, none too pretty.

May we please get rid of the "europeans-are-the-biggest-monsters-ever"? We were all human when we explored the unknown. We were all human when we killed and got killed in our exploration of our planet. Sometimes it was the climate that killed us, sometimes it was other creatures we were trying to compete with, sometimes it was other humans that were there first, or second, or third...

Western exploration and further conquest of the Americas is no different from the initial fight for food and territory that the first "real" americans had to endure 12.000 or so years ago. The America that Europeans "discovered" was as war-torn, class-divided as all of Europe was. It was just that the time was ripe for Europe to expand. It was time for the quasi-neolithic empires of the americas to give way. Just as the most poweful american cultures forced some to live up north in the ice, far away from the plentiful prairies, just as some tribes condemned other tribes to famine or slavery, so they were forced to retreat upon the advance of the new european force...just as in Europe some lost land and food and life and limb upon the advance of others. Just check History. All cultures have been violated, almost all have been in turn violators. That is the way we all are. I do not think we should judge the past with our present. I think we should be grateful that, timid and still feeble as it is, there is a global consciousness that abhors violence and war, yet understands that military forces ensure peace. Simply expressed: in the past the military was a way to conquer others. Now we hope it is just a planetary police that neither conquers nor steals, just forces all to behave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptn. Nemo (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Find a credible secondary source of monograph length written by a historian of the period with a doctorate which has been positively reviewed in at least two history journals' review section. The interpretive position you're advocating is fairly far outside of the norm for historical interpretations conducted by professionals. You might notice that the article notes that brutal indigenous empires were replaced by brutal non-indigenous empires? Or perhaps that the radical change in human culture is described as forcible change, but not lamented or celebrated, merely noted in the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)