I assume when the rulers of a country endorse you a significant number of people will listen to you, no matter how crazy you sound.
Sometimes it happens purely by chance - but the chance is made possible because of what else is going on. All of the Vikings’ major discoveries in the North Atlantic - Iceland, Greenland, and Vinland - were made because ships were blown off course. None of them were the result of intentional voyages of discovery. But they happened because once there were a lot of Viking ships sailing around, sooner or later one was bound to get blown in the right direction.
Likewise, once there were a lot of European ships sailing around the Atlantic en route to India around Africa, one of them eventually being blown over to Brazil was a foregone conclusion.
They were hired seamen, and went for the pay. According to later testimony “All thought the enterprise was in vain.” But as Morrison says, they were not held back by fear but by skepticism. They thought the voyage would be too long, and some had heard that the King of Portugal had sent expeditions in that direction and found nothing.
They didn’t think “Oh, we’ll run out of supplies and die in the vast ocean”? Isn’t that what everyone says was bound to happen to Columbus if he wasn’t so incredibly lucky as to strike upon America?
Yeah, they did. As I said, they were skeptical. In fact, they almost made Columbus turn back only a few days before they found land because they had been at sea too long. But there were enough signs of nearby land - floating seaweed, seabirds (which are rarely seen in the middle of the ocean) that he persuaded them to go on.
At some point wasn’t Columbus even fudging the ship logs to convince the crew that they had really been out to see a far shorter time than they really were so they wouldn’t make him turn back?
He also considerably overestimated the size of Asia, thinking it extended considerably further to the East than it actually does. (I believe he based his estimate of Asia’s size largely on the stories of Marco Polo.)
I always heard that he kept two sets of logs, a public log where he wrote down an estimate of how far they’d traveled, and a private one where he’d written down his best guess at how far they’d gone. The private log showed the ships to be much further out at sea.
Ironically, however, Columbus overestimated the daily distance he traveled, so as it turned out what he told his crew was nearer to correct:
From Admiral of the Ocean Sea, p. 191:
Regarding Columbus’ reckoning of distance: in his time, speed was determined by throwing out a “log”-a piece of wood attached to a knotted string. The quartermaster would count the knots while another man turned an hourglass. The speed was calculated in “knots per glass”. This was (obviously) very inaccurate. As far as his navigation, Columbus expected to sight land about 800 (Spanish) miles west of the Azores. He was not far off.
Didn’t Basque fishermen regulary fish on the Grand Banks prior to Columbus, but kept their knowledge secret so that their competitors wouldn’t turn up ?
At least some of them must have been blown off course.
Why would the knots system be inaccurate?
I don’t find that so obvious.
Knots are at fixed, equal distances, so that’s not the problem. Hourglass can be quite accurate for telling time. That leaves the plank at the end of the rope. I would imagine these had standard sizes and some way to minimise wobbling.
But that not only assumes your speed is constant between casts of the log, but only determines your progress in one direction relative to the water - a current (nearly ubiquitous) throws out your distance, direction or both, which is why “dead reckoning” is pretty much a last resort and the reason why a means of empirically determining longitude was keenly sought after for a mighty long time. Latitude’s easy with a cross-staff and a look at the Pole Star; longitude’s so hard to find that at one point the powers that be were seriously investing in observing the moons of Jupiter as a means of finding the true time of day.
Is it? I guess I’ve never really thought of Brazil and Africa being that close. What’s the distance between them?
It’s only about 1600 miles at its closest, compared to about 3200 miles for Columbus’s course from the Canaries to the Bahamas.
Columbus was apparently kick-ass in dead recogning.
He was possibly the first European to understand the right season to go and return from America with ships that weren’t that good at sailing into the wind
The thing is, you don’t get credit for “discovery” of something unless you “discover” it to everyone (say, in your culture). The word “discover” used to take an object, as we see in Shakespeare. Only more recently did the assumption arise that anything discovered was now universally known.
So, while people arrived at the New World before Columbus, they weren’t able to convince anyone to repeat the journey. Thus, Columbus gets the credit, even though he wasn’t where he thought he was.
In any case, I agree with those who think that the time had come and would have happened before long, without Columbus. Seafaring technology had increased to the point where it was inevitable. I also think it would have been Brazil. Not only is it closer, it’s far closer to a trade route, and far likelier to be blown towards by a storm. It was not unusual for a ship hit by a storm to intentionally beach for repairs (there’s a technical term for it, which I forget), and to replenish fresh water and spars for masts, booms, etc. Any educated officer would quickly have known from Brazilian flora and fauna that it was an unknown land.
Assuming that a ship blown to Brazil would get back and survive encounters with the natives (the typical sailor being such an excellent ambassador and all) anyone would go back. Columbus found gold in his first voyage, which made returns a no brainer. I wonder if anyone would bother to return to Brazil if the first trip came back with animals and pretty birds?
Something I’ve always wondered.
What was Columbus’ estimated distance to Asia?
Did the Caribbean Islands end up close to that estimate? I presume so, since he didn’t run out of food.
Columbus’s estimate of the distance to Asia coincidentally was close to the actual distance to the West Indies. When he reached them he was sure it confirmed his theories.