Posted on 06/12/2015 3:01:02 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Christopher Columbus wrote that he sailed in February 1477 to an island a hundred miles beyond Tile (Iceland). This trip, which would have led him to Greenland according to the distance he mentioned, was questioned many times in the 20th century. Arguments against accepting his claim have been that ice and snow would not have allowed him to make an expedition to the North in winter, and that the details he had given about the size of the tides (26 braccia) were far too overstated to be taken seriously. Taking into consideration new research concerning the change of climate at the end of the Middle Ages, Columbus' statement must be reconsidered in our days. It seems to be consistent not only with the climatic facts at that time, including extremely high and low tides, but also with the historical sources documenting the competition among European countries with regard to Greenland as a base for further advances to Newfoundland and Canada. This short essay shows, that there are substantive historical and climatic arguments supporting Christopher Columbus' claims.
Commenting on the five earthly zones and their habitability as described by Isidore of Seville in his treatises Etymologiae and De Natura Rerum, Columbus wrote in one of the rare records of his early seafaring time: In the month of February, 1477, I sailed a hundred leghe (miles) beyond Tile (Iceland), to an island, of which the south part is at a distance of 73 degrees from the equator, and not 63, as some say; and it does not lie within Ptolemy's western boundary, but much farther west. And to this island, which is as big as England, the English, especially those from Bristol, go with their wares...
(Excerpt) Read more at christopher-columbus.ch ...
Leif Ericsson was in Newfoundland 400 years earlier.
Right, that’s how Columbus knew where to go.
for example, this little town is just about 73 n latitude:
> The town was founded as Upernavik in 1772.[3] From the former name of its island, it was sometimes known as Women’s Island; its name was also sometimes Anglicized to “Uppernavik”.[4] In 1824, the Kingittorsuaq Runestone was found outside the town. It bears runic characters left by Norsemen, probably from the late 13th century. The runic characters list the names of three Norsemen and mention the construction of a rock cairn nearby. This is the furthest north that any Norse artifacts have been found, other than those small artifacts that could have been carried north by Inuit traders and marks the northern known limit of Viking exploration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upernavik
Did he also call it: Vineland? (an indication that grapes were growing in a climate much warmer then in later years).
The mentioning of the Bristol Men reminds me of one of the most heartbreaking novels I have ever read:
There is evidence Portuguese fisherman fished off the cost of Newfoundland for centuries before Columbus ... and they kept their fishing grounds a secret because dried salt cod was so useful and in demand that it was used as money in some places.
And Leif may have found the route from St. Brendan.
A league is not a mile. It's 3 miles. So depending on which mile was used, 100 leagues would to 240 to 460 miles.
Thanks.
Vinland was further west, beyond Newfoundland. It was apparently the coast of Maine.
Don’t speak that particular language.
Well, maybe, but I’m still skeptical. The last record of European activity on Greenland was just after 1400 and it is estimated the last settlement was abandoned mid-century because of the cooling climate. So, why would someone want to go there? The best fishing was to the southeast.
I get 482 miles to the 73rd parallel on the east coast of Greenland. It’s not that far west.
240 miles as the shortest route to Greenland - this would be about the 68th parallel.
600 miles to the east coast at the 63rd parallel.
Greenland’s much larger than England though....maybe one of the islands of the Canadian Archipelago?
But that’s more like 1400 miles at the 73rd parallel.
1250 at the 63rd parallel.
Hmm....maybe oceans were deeper then??
I tried Google translate (on this 20 year old machine) and it gave me, uh, mixed results. It appears to be Romanian?
Greenland’s population was stuck there, because there are no trees to build ships; the likelihood is, they worked their way south toward other known settlements as well as they could during the daytime months, then eventually either got picked up by visitors (notice CC’s reference to English traders from Bristol who plied their wares in Greenland) or they died out.
I assumed Portugese.
I saw a documentary several years ago where a multidisciplinary team took a close look at the last Norse settlement. They concluded the evidence pointed to a sudden abandonment. They acknowledged several possibilities where the settlers could have gone, but their best guess was a ship picked up the last of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
