If it wasnt for Columbus...

On a different front - I think it was around 1400 or so the last Icelandic ships put in at Greenland, due to excessive pack ice as the “Little Ice Age” set in. (Jared Diamond’s book “Collapse”). The last bishop appointed to the Greenland parishes apparently never got around to visiting. But the Icelanders knew of Greenland, and it wasn’t a stretch to suppose they would eventually sail over there to see what was going on - and possibly keep going.

But even though Columbus thought he was in the Indies, he still established a fort on the first voyage, and established colonies immediately thereafter. So I doubt any newly encountered “islands” would have been ignored by the sea-faring powers.

Even if Brazil was just a large island, it would still be worth further exploration, if nothing else as a waystation for longer journeys.

It’s unproven, but it’s also been suggested that Cabral was following up on even earlier Portuguese voyages to Brazil rather than on Columbus, so it’s a bit of a wash. And given the volta do mar route, which went very far west in the South Atlantic and very close to Brazil, it was virtually inevitable that a Portuguese ship would hit Brazil within a few years. The currents and winds in the South Atlanticbring you straight from the Cape of Good Hope to Brazil.

As I said, the discovery of the Americas would come within 1-5 decades later without Columbus, so we’re basically in agreement.

However, the Volta do mar doesnt really come that close to Brazil:

No we’re not. It’s extremely likely that it would have taken place within two decades of Columbus at the latest. That it would have taken five decades is very unlikely.

Did you even click on my links? :dubious: That’s the volta do mar route in the North Atlantic (mainly), as it was developed before 1460. See my links for the volta do mar as it later developed ain the South Atlantic for the circum-African route.

Before contradicting me you might, you know, actually read your own link:

[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
Similarly in the South Atlantic with the exception that the South Atlantic gyre circulates counterclockwise. As India-bound Portuguese explorers and traders crossed the equator with the intention of passing the entire western coast of Africa, their voyages took them far to the West (in the vicinity of Brazil.)
[/QUOTE]

Bolding mine.

Yeah, because 1-5 decades is Soooooooo much different than 1-2 decades. :rolleyes: Especially when others thing much longer.

I did.

It is.

Please don’t assert that we are in agreement when we are not. It’s bad for my reputation. :wink:

Then why did you say the route didn’t pass close to Brazil, when the article says it did?

Had you even heard of the volta do mar before I referred to it or before you Googled the Wiki article?:dubious:

I know, no one ever agrees with you, you like it that way!:stuck_out_tongue:

I said “However, the Volta do mar doesnt really come that close to Brazil:” and it doesnt come within sight. I did cite the wiki article.

Not by that name, but by the terms North Atlantic Gyre, tradewinds and other oceanic techniques used during the Age of Sail. Some credit Columbus for first use of the tradewinds. I am doubtful, but no doubt he used them to good effect.

It’s ridiculous to assert that by “that close” you meant “within sight.” It appears that you just skimmed through the article (if that), saw the map of the North Atlantic portion, and then jumped to the conclusion that that was the entire volta do mar.

If you never heard of it before, then why are you contradicting me on it?

Is there any one individual who is generally thought of as discovering the volta do mar? Seems like it was not something that would have been discovered incrementally by a number of unknowns.

Nm
:slight_smile:

Because I knew about the North Atlantic Gyre. If you never heard of* it *before, then why are you contradicting me on it?

In any case, for your theory to be correct, you’d have to show :

  1. That Cabral did not know of Columbus’s discoveries. However, the hypothesis did know is held by several well known historians. We’ll never really know. Due to the Treaty of Tordesillas the Portuguese wanted lands in that area.

  2. That before Cabral, Portuguese navigators used the volta do mar/North Atlantic Gyre to routinely go that far westward. But since Cabral is documented to be the first to go that far, and since sailing further only wastes time, money and is risky, why assume others would start routinely doing it?

Note that the wiki map I linked to shows the extant of the volta do mar before Columbus. Can you show the Portuguese navigators were going as far west as Cabral did- before Cabral “discovered” Brazil*?

  • Of course, natives were there before and also Vespucci, Pinzón and De Lepe. All of whom sailed due to Columbus.

It was discovered by trial and error over a period of time. When one voyager reported having good winds along a certain route, others would repeat it. In portions where he found adverse winds or was becalmed, others might try a different route until they found a circuit that worked.

I believe that Vasco da Gama pioneered the far offshore route on the outward leg through the South Atlantic. Cabral on a follow-up voyage swung out even farther which brought him to Brazil.

An easy round-trip route across the Pacific from the Americas was forestalled for more than 40 years before a good return route eastward was found. Magellan was able to use the westward trade winds when he crossed in 1521, but efforts to find good easterly winds failed until 1565. After that a trade was established by the [Manila Galleons](“Drive straight ahead until you see a house with a broken fence. Make a right after that house and keep going until you pass two big rocks on the left. Soon after that you will see a bush that looks like a giant cockroach. Turn left at that bush and keep going for another twenty minutes. You should pass two gas stations on your right. About a mile after the second gas station, you will see three mounds of dirt and a house with a horse tied to a tree. Make a right at that house and it will be the second restaurant on your left. The sign is broken but you can’t miss it. It has a rock next to it that looks like a bear holding a sword. You may see a few people standing outside drinking beer. Good luck!”) between the Spanish colony in the Philippines and Mexico.

Of course I’ve heard of it before, and I didn’t contradict you on it.

And no, I’m not going to argue with you about the rest of it. It’s not worth it and will give me a headache.:wink:

It seems that the main reason for the OP has been decided: one way or another, the Americas would have been discovered in short order.

That being said, I think the criticisms leveled at Columbus as an explorer are misguided. He was wrong, and he certainly had some flaws, but I do think there was at least one element of his character which did lead to greater things, and in a good way.

He’s the first man I know of to have set out to test classical ideas, not in academic experiments, but in genuine exploration of the world. IN that sense, he can be thought of as the first anthropologist, and certainly an early scientist. True, his figures were wrong - but scientists are quite often wrong, and just as often don’t realize the true importance of their own discoveries. Columbus had a theory, and he set out to test it against the world. His reward was to find something new. And hey, it’s not like he knew what the natives of Cipangu looked like; few Europeans of his day had even seen the near side of India, and perhaps none had set foot in the Far East. He found lands right where his calculations said they would be, and he only saw small areas of the New World. I think we can forgive him a little confusion on the point.

And in doing that, he inspired generations of explorers to travel the world ever more widely and test rumor, gossip, ideas and reams. He wasn’t the first, and he wasn’t the last, but Columbus strikes me as a bit of Baron von Munchhausen - and we can always use a few more of those.

:smiley:

The problem with this analogy is that Columbus didn’t actually test his theory. Sure, he made the voyage, but once he was there he didn’t critically test the idea he was in the Asia. Instead, he interpreted everything he saw as confirming he was in Asia, and refused to consider contrary evidence. He’s a great example of confirmation bias rather than of the actual scientific method. The cost was that his great discovery ended up being named for someone who actually did evaluate the evidence and came up with the correct explanation, Vespucci.

Aha … finally found it:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=791905&highlight=newfoundland

I’m not sure I believe the last bit about the letter, it’s too convenient.

There have been discoveries of Basque shore facilities in Labrador for processing cod, dating to around the time of Columbus.

You know I think Little Nemo has a point. How many times did sailors sight or land in Australia before Cook?
America may well have remained a curiosity for centuries, like Australia. And people actually thought there was land in the Southern Hemisphere.

You’re asking me to provide you with examples from history of things that happened after Columbus didn’t discover America?

And now you’re saying your posts are your cites.

You seem to be looking for an argument and I’m not interested in having one. So this is where I walk away.