Hm, true. I suspect that in a cannibalism situation, you’d still run out of Calories before you ran out of Vitamin C, but that’s just a wild guess, based on my not-at-all-extensive knowledge of human physiology.
For the somewhat elastic definition of the word “continent”. For sure he missed the mainland of North and South America. But if those islands are not part of that continent, which continent are they part of? “None” is a fine answer in some folks’ continental taxonomy, but not everyone’s.
Sorta. Agree 100% that hitting CentAm was a long way farther west.
But the collection of Caribbean islands between the Bahamas to the north and Trinidad and Tobago to the far south form a kinda dense obstacle course to run through while proceeding generally westbound. He’s very lucky all those islands existed.
Here’s a decent close-up map of the area Columbus is thought to have made initial landfall. To this day it’s uncertain exactly which island it was although there is a decent amount of academic consensus. Guanahani : Candidate Landfalls - Wikipedia.
That area is a whole meshwork of small islands and he’d likely have gotten close enough to see something of an island while going more or less westbound had he been at a slightly different latitude.
50 miles farther north and he’d have run into what’s now Miami after a couple more days’ sailing. He could have been up to about 300 miles south of where he was and would have run into something either a week sooner, or maybe 3 weeks later. What’s now Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, and Cuba are all in his way. The good news about them is that unlike the very flat Bahamas, those island are mountainous. Which triggers different and obvious clouds, and the high terrain can be seen from a farther distance than the barely dry land of the Bahamas whose highest point is ~10 feet above sea level.
At least assuming his less than perfect westbound course-keeping by terrible luck didn’t have him unknowingly zigging and zagging between the islands keeping them all just out of sight. That would suck.
If he was south of present-day Puerto Rico, so about 300 miles south of where he really was, the islands remain mountainous, but get much smaller and sparser and he could have slipped between them unknowingly. Or found one small useless 1/4-mile wide 100 foot tall rocky tree-covered bump sticking out of the water and not known what to do about that.
If he had the bad luck to slip through the BVI-to-Tobago arc without sighting land, then he’s pretty well screwed. As you said. It’s well over a 1,000 miles to CentAm.
Although if he was ~250 miles south of Puerto Rico, so about 550 miles south of his actual latitude, and he just barely missed Tobago to his north without sighting it, he would be close aboard the South American mainland and roughly paralleling it westbound. With just a little course drift south, or by chasing floating evidence of land, he might, just might have brushed South America proper in what’s now Venezuela, Guyana, or far northeastern Colombia near Barranquilla. All of that coast is pancake-flat, so unhelpful to spot from a low boat well out to sea.
The nature of the winds in that area suggests that if he did cross the windward island arc without sighting land, his track would have trended north of due west. Leading to him driving across the trackless emptiness of the central Caribbean then finally trending even more northerly after missing Cuba. And then stuck in the central GOM with dying mutinying crew.
Assuming counterfactually no mutiny and more food / water than they actually had so they could have sailed on another month before encountering distress, that leaves an interesting question. ...
What would a navigator of his era thought as they found the prevailing winds slowly changing from slightly south of westbound to due west to north of westbound and then to northwest-bound? A hundred years later the idea of “trade winds” and why and how they worked was well-established. They reliably powered the next 300 years of global exploration, conquest, and commerce.
Could Columbus have recognized that these are signs of approaching a major body of land? if so how might he use that? If you just blindly follow the trades from e.g. someplace a bit north of Venezuela you’ll make a gigantic tour around the center of the Caribbean and GOM then finally make landfall going northeast-bound somewhere between, say modern Houston and modern Tampa. That would be a very long trip in a slow boat. Like as long as from the Canaries to the Windward Islands chain you missed.
Of course Columbus had the advantage of a telescope to spot land. As per a ton of images on the Internet such as this period precise one.
Note: Assume I’ve tacked on 1000 wink smilies after the above.
Lump of salt taken, but a telescope doesn’t help you very much. It helps you make out details, but whether you can see land at all or not is limited by the curvature of the Earth and the height of the land and of your crows-nest.
The telescope was a long way from being invented in 1492.
Supposedly, Columbus may not have been as stupid as we are all led to believe. He had a number of Basque sailors who would have been highly accomplished deep sea fisherman who may have at least suspected that the Americas existed. Even if the claims that they actually spotted land aren’t true, Basque fishermen in the deep Atlantic may well have seen some of the signs that land is nearby, like flocks of birds, or cloud patterns.
A gap? Like Central America no longer existed? How can this be answered factually?
What is GOM , please?
From context, Gulf of Mexico
Thank you.
The earliest known refracting telescope was developed by Johann Lippershey, which he unsuccessfully submitted for patent in 1608. His patent was denied because other eyeglass makers in the Zeeland had purportedly already been building similar instruments for several years, but it is almost certainly a 17th century invention.
This does seem like a speculative question more appropriate to IMHO, or perhaps The Pit for unfettered expression of Columbus’ ‘accomplishments’.
Stranger
I think it is a factual question. “What would have happened to Columbus’ ships if Central America wasn’t there and he missed all the islands?” And the answer is, they would have died and left no trace. Maybe there would be some Polynesian legends of ghost ships, and a few artifacts found washed up on islands. And eventually, someone else would have discovered Magellanerica or Balboanis.
But once you conveniently excise a continental mass out of existence like Central America you’re messing with plate tectonics and continental drift which would completely change the geological history of earth as we know it. So how could Columbus even exist?
Well, that closed that discussion. “If things were different, they wouldn’t be the same.” Nothing more to say.
That question literally calls for speculation, and not in the newfangled ‘literally<==>figuratively’ use of the term.
Stranger
I think some of the crew were Limeys… (OK, I’ll let myself out).
What did they eat on the way home, anyway? I would think most of the foods they’d be able to find in the Caribbean would be highly perishable, and even the ones that weren’t would be unfamilar enough that they would have real difficulty figuring out how to preserve and prepare them. I guess if they managed to kill some animals, they might be able to smoke or brine the meat, but did they even land in a place that had large animals?
Smoked fish? Smoked birds?
On the first voyage, they found both Cuba and Hispanola. I expect there were large animals on both of those islands. I don’t know, but I doubt they took the time to hunt. I expect they got more food by trading with the natives.
Hmm, I was trying to post the maps of his voyages, but something interfered with that.
True. If Columbus had hit nothing but islands (which is what he did, he never landed on North America, and it wasnt until a later voyage he got to South America), he would have been okay. But say the isthmus wasnt there- he still would have hit the islands he did. But going forward- it is a long sail until Hawaii and that is easy to miss. Easter island or the Galapagos would be a poor choice.
If the islands hand been there- never mind the isthmus or the continents- his expedition would have failed, and he’d have been a mysterious footnote in history. Maybe it it was Florida.
Exactly.
Not doubting it, but if this is so, why did all of the subsequent explorers and conquistadors cross with relative ease?
Was it just the knowledge it was there (that offered hope) or did Columbus not stock the larder well enough? Apparently the founders of Roanoke had enough supplies to make it there and back (going off of my very unreliable memory).