Do you believe China discovered America and circumnavigated the world in 1421-1423, like in the book, 1421? I do. Post please!

No! There's not a shred of evidence for it beyond hearsay, obscure written accounts which could well be forged, circumstantial physical evidence, and a lot of guesswork.

On the other hand, we have Chinese court records pointing to a much, much less extensive series of voyages, confirmation of said shorter voyages that is entirely lacking for the hypothetical circumnavigation, and strong physical evidence for the same.

If those treasure ships did cross the Atlantic or Pacific, they were being very careful to not leave an impression -- which wasn't at all the style of the other Chinese missions, which were an effort to project Chinese influence and power. Moreover, if the Chinese had made contact with native North America, which was very densely populated at the time, or native South America, which was even more so, diseases would have spread like wildfire there. Since they didn't, and the Europeans' smallpox wiped out a hemisphere later, I'm forced to conclude these Chinese voyages never happened.

:mad: :mad: Yeah. Right. So you suppose all that evidence was jsut made up? :mad:

I do believe it in a way, BUT, however, I definitely do not believe it to the extent that was suggested in the book. It is plausible that a few ships, even one fleet, managed to make it to America. Whether they made a lasting impression is not probable.

However, I am certain that they must have gone to Australia, or at least the Northern Tip - it is quite probable that their Indian merchant comrades did so as well when the accidentally sailed off course.

Hasn't most of his theory been debunked by proper historians? and for that matter who really cares if the Chinese were the first to discover America what matters were which nations were the first to settle/conquer/exploit it.


see here for what seem like to an amateur historian myself a good debunking of his theory.


http://www.1421exposed.com/

:mad: :mad: Yeah. Right. So you suppose all that evidence was jsut made up? :mad:

Quite honestly? Yes.

Read When China Ruled the Seas by Louise Levathes to get a different perspective. The truth about the voyages is much more interesting -- to me, at least -- than Menzies' material.

Even if the Chinese did have colonies in the Americas and what not, and even if the Europeans' voyages were significantly helped by the CHinese navigators, for better or worse, it was the Europeans that came to dominate the world. That is why we're writing in a latin-based alphabet and not CHinese characters, why most of us are Christian and not Buddhist, and why most of us know and make a hero of Columbus more than Zheng He, even though in my opinion the latter was much more capable.

I am forced to vote no because I don't agree entirely with the book. I will admit there is some circumstantial evidence available to support Menzies' hypothesis, but unfortunately, it is not conclusive by any stretch of the word. Not to mention he draws conclusions that are tenuous at best.

I have read the book, by the way, as well as some opposing viewpoints. But my specialization in history is not on China, so my opinion should not count more than an amateur's on this subject.

I'm still making up my mind. "1421" is a tantalising and definitely plausible theory, but it's still just that, a theory. I need more evidence.

Probably not.
But whydiscuss that? We all know that the Vikings were there long before :)

Probably not.
But whydiscuss that? We all know that the Vikings were there long before :)

My opinion exactly. :)

I don't believe that theory. First of all, as North King wrote, they brought no diseases. That thing alone buries the theory.

Do you believe China discovered America and circumnavigated the world in 1421-1423, like in the book, 1421? I do. Post please!

Yeah ... of course; as they had aliens to guide them, how could they not have?! And please, if they didn't, please explain to me where Tiwanaku or the Maya pyramids came from?! :p

I don't believe that theory. First of all, as North King wrote, they brought no diseases. That thing alone buries the theory.

Althuogh one couold say conversely that there are no reliable surviving records that stated that Mayans were dying by the thousands before the Spaniards.

Althuogh it is still a good point you made there, I don't think it alone would bury the theory.

I'm still making up my mind. "1421" is a tantalising and definitely plausible theory, but it's still just that, a theory. I need more evidence.

...

You mean hypothesis. A theory is supported by solid evidence (not only circumstantial), whereas a hypothesis is not (and needs testing).

I think he overestimates the peak Chinese exploration surge in and around
1421 in so much as there was activity in previous decades and it is not
always possible to distinguish precisely when ships were wrecked.

There is evidence of population die offs possibly due to disease
before 1492 in the Yucatan peninsular and Mississippi valley.

What do we call a theory supported by cherry-picked "facts" that turned out to be old known mistakes? A lie.

What do we call a theory supported by cherry-picked "facts" that turned out to be old known mistakes?

Examples of those mistakes?

I don't believe that theory. First of all, as North King wrote, they brought no diseases. That thing alone buries the theory.

Or did they?

The period between 1420 - 1492 was one of great change in Mesoamerica. The Aztecs and Incas rise from obscurity to become the dominant power, while the powerful Mayan state of Mayapan collapses, and the culture of the Anasazi and the Missisippi valley both disappears around this time. It's too much of a coincidence imho.

Yeah ... of course; as they had aliens to guide them, how could they not have?! And please, if they didn't, please explain to me where Tiwanaku or the Maya pyramids came from?! :p
Don't mock my theory, calgacus!:mad: :mad: :(

There is massive DNA, linguistic, cartographical, material (junks, beads, stones, lacquer, etc.), and nautical evidence for his theory. Zhu Di's golden age died out shortly after, and his son destroyed all the treasure ships and records of them, as he was a xenophobe, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Admittedly some of that evidence was interesting, but I bet it is far less convincing to people who really understand those fields as none of them have stood up to support his conjecture. In the end it could simply show how much more we need to understand about pre-Columbian America.

Menzies claims that evidence suggested wide settlement by Chinese all over North America, but couldn't it also reflect migration patterns within North America, all ultimately Asian descendents any way.

I thought the artifacts he mentioned were very unconvincing. They could just as easily be the remnants of unusual natural processes or an indication that native American technology has been slightly underestimated.

:D


http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/5364/numberski6.png

To add, althuogh I do believe something like the 1421 hypothesis happened, albeit at a lesser degree, upon analysis, Menzies' book is more "entertaining" than "persuasive", I have to say unfortunately, althuogh for many entertaining = persuasive. But I do firmly believe that althuogh China probably didn't have colonies all round the world, they very well could have explored more of the world than is known, althuogh they probably didn't send out a huge-*** expedition.

There is massive DNA, linguistic, cartographical, material (junks, beads, stones, lacquer, etc.), and nautical evidence for his theory. Zhu Di's golden age died out shortly after, and his son destroyed all the treasure ships and records of them, as he was a xenophobe, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No there isn't. Menzies was a successful submariner, but an amateur at history, who has little grasp of even the basics of historical methodology. The number of professional historians who support Menzies can be counted on my third hand. Congrats to him for making so much money though. :goodjob:

His theorising could easily be debunked by any freshman history student, but here are some things you might wanna read before buying into it:
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/15.2/finlay.html
http://www.asianreviewofbooks.com/arb/article.php?article=201

I don't believe it and I haven't read it. It sounds a bit far fetched, though I do think it is highly probable that Islamic merchants/explorers rounded the cape of good hope and "found" australia by the 14th century though not explicitly documented. Archaeologists recently found an Islamic settlement in Chibuene near Maputo.

I don't believe it and I haven't read it. It sounds a bit far fetched, though I do think it is highly probable that Islamic merchants/explorers rounded the cape of good hope and "found" australia by the 14th century though not explicitly documented. Archaeologists recently found an Islamic settlement in Chibuene near Maputo.

I'm not surprised. The first person to round the Cape of Good Hope (discounting probable voyages by the ancient Phoenicians) was after all a Muslim Gujarati captain, almost a century before da Gama.

Do you believe China discovered America and circumnavigated the world in 1421-1423, like in the book, 1421? I do. Post please!

Yeah. Right. So you suppose all that evidence was jsut made up?

No there isn't. Menzies was a successful submariner, but an amateur at history, who has little grasp of even the basics of historical methodology. The number of professional historians who support Menzies can be counted on my third hand. Congrats to him for making so much money though. :goodjob:

His theorising could easily be debunked by any freshman history student, but here are some things you might wanna read before buying into it:
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/15.2/finlay.html
http://www.asianreviewofbooks.com/arb/article.php?article=201
Menzies is all about selling books and not about history. His evidence is mostly bogus, twisted or wishful thinking. There have been other thrreads on this. If you search back a couple of years you will find them. In some of them you will find lots of reasons to ignore Menzies. As stated by Calgacus, he has zero standing among real historians.

1421 is fun fiction and tells a nice tale, but it is crap history.

There is evidence of population die offs possibly due to disease
before 1492 in the Yucatan peninsular and Mississippi valley.

How so? The collapse of the mound builders? That was environmental catastrophe, centered around Cahokia. As for the Yucatan Peninsula, they were in the middle of a centuries long decline.

Or did they?

The period between 1420 - 1492 was one of great change in Mesoamerica. The Aztecs and Incas rise from obscurity to become the dominant power, while the powerful Mayan state of Mayapan collapses, and the culture of the Anasazi and the Missisippi valley both disappears around this time. It's too much of a coincidence imho.

Then I guess we'll have to conclude that the 7-800s, with the collapse of the Maya heartland, and the rise of Tiwanku and Wari, were a result of diseases brought over by Brendan? And then in the 1000s, the Vikings' diseases were able to mysteriously jump over a continent to collapse the Wari and Tiwanku, while also ruining the Toltecs, while boosting up the Anasazi?

No, this doesn't work. No one has found evidence of anything near the 95% death rates in the 1500s. Sure, people died at points, in large numbers. Sure, some civilizations were boosted up and down at points in history. But the 1500s onwards were something utterly unprecedented.

We're not talking about some little Black Death. We're not even talking about something doubly as virulent as the Black Death. We're talking about diseases that left anywhere from one in twenty to one in fifty alive. We're talking about one hundred million dead. We're talking about the Eastern Seaboard going from a densely populated area to an area entirely deserted.

The plagues that devastated the Americas in real history were truly immense. So many people died off that we saw the populations of wild animals that the Natives hunted shoot up. It's no coincidence that there were so many bison thundering across the plains, or passenger pigeons in the air. These were species that thrived when the Native American populations imploded.

If anything like this occurred in 1421, we would see real evidence for it -- widespread evidence. What we would not see is empires springing up (I'd challenge you to find a nation that suddenly rises after at least 95% of their population falls), and we would not see Mesoamerica with a population of 30 million people, which was the estimated level in the 1490s.

Nor would we see a complete and utter lack of immunity to European diseases that was actually observed in later centuries. If people were to have survived a hypothetical mass death in 1420, they would have to be immune to smallpox, at least. And yet we saw a 95-98% fatality rate for that same disease.

It's nearly impossible to reconcile this theory of 1421 with real history.

Nor would we see a complete and utter lack of immunity to European diseases that was actually observed in later centuries. If people were to have survived a hypothetical mass death in 1420, they would have to be immune to smallpox, at least. And yet we saw a 95-98% fatality rate for that same disease.

Although I agree with the vast majority of what you have posted, this raises significant questions for me. If we do not know which disease caused the mass deaths, then we cannot be certain they would have immunity to smallpox. Surviving a mass death does not immediately confer resistance to smallpox unless that disease was caused by a biologically similar disease (i.e. similar antigens).

Although I agree with the vast majority of what you have posted, this raises significant questions for me. If we do not know which disease caused the mass deaths, then we cannot be certain they would have immunity to smallpox. Surviving a mass death does not immediately confer resistance to smallpox unless that disease was caused by a biologically similar disease (i.e. similar antigens).

Smallpox was virulent enough and widespread enough that it would be one of the first diseases to be spread by any Old World fleet arriving in the New World.

Smallpox was virulent enough and widespread enough that it would be one of the first diseases to be spread by any Old World fleet arriving in the New World.

That little detail makes your above post make more sense.

Smallpox was virulent enough and widespread enough that it would be one of the first diseases to be spread by any Old World fleet arriving in the New World.And there is this too:

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/feb/megadeath-in-mexico/?searchterm=mexican%20disease%20of%20the%2016th%20 century

This reminds me of an article I once read detailing how a Polish ship discovered America before Columbus did. My parents were all over it.

It's all, most likely, wishful thinking.

This reminds me of an article I once read detailing how a Polish ship discovered America before Columbus did. My parents were all over it.

It's all, most likely, wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking that it was more than just smallpox and typhus that killed off the natives of Mexico?

What about his "evidence" is so obviously wrong?

Wishful thinking that it was more than just smallpox and typhus that killed off the natives of Mexico?

What about his "evidence" is so obviously wrong?

I don't know.. but hey.. maybe the Lithuanians discovered America.

I don't know.. but hey.. maybe the Lithuanians discovered America.The comparisons you use are not really valid and your lack of support for denying this assertion makes me think that you have some agenda for defending the status quo thinking on disease and the conquest. It is not like you.

Theories about China circumnavigating the world are preciesly part of the reason why I named China the most overrated civilization in terms of influence.

The chinese achieved much, but probably not even 1/3rd of what some people claim they achieved.

:mad: :mad: Yeah. Right. So you suppose all that evidence was jsut made up? :mad:
Wait, wait, wait. Did you start this thread to snap at people who disagree with you? Jesus, grow up... :shake:

Personally, I think that the idea of China reaching America is plausible, but unlikely.

Here's an idea to shoot out!

What if instead of the Chinese, it was Polynesians? maybe those disease outbreaks you guys are discussing is from the polynesians and not the chinese? The polynesians are alot more likely to have reached the americas before europeans then the Chinese. There are fruits only known to the polynesians and the pacific islands that was found growing and harvested in the west coast of North America. Polynesian Pottery and Arrows and even there canoes have been used by the natives of the west coast of North America.

While it is plausible that the Chinese made pre-Columbian contact with the Americas, there simply is no evidence for it. Of course a century ago people were saying the same thing about the Norse, until conclusive proof was found in Newfoundland.

However, his argument that Columbus and the other European explorers in the Age of Discovery used Chinese maps and knew exactly where they were going is absurd and contradicts tons of sources from several nations. If Cabot knew where he was going why would he head to Newfoundland instead of the far more lucrative Caribbean? It just doesn't make any sense.

My pops said it was a load of trash, and that's good enough for me.

Come on. Even if it's not true, don't you guys want it to be true? ;)

^many wouoldnt. i can tell you that.

It is a cool idea, though.

You have to admit.

i myself believe this:

Chinese discovering America is...

Possible: yes.

Plausible: yes.

as a extremely small scale expedition: maybe.

as a large scale expedition: hmm... probably not.

influencing the European explorers to a huge degree: very likely not.

as a extremely small scale expedition: probably...

This is where most historians diverge. The standard account says "probably not", and without more direct evidence (not the circumstantial evidence that Menzies is relying on), that is the way it will stay.

And, it doesn't matter if you want something to be true or not. I want the actual truth, irrelevant of how "cool" it is. I'm certain Stephen Colbert would have a ball with these last few posts...

This is where most historians diverge. The standard account says "probably not", and without more direct evidence (not the circumstantial evidence that Menzies is relying on), that is the way it will stay.

point taken. i changed my wording. :D

i did think, however, that something did happen. most likely not a massive expedition, but something. however, i must make a point here - let us just say, that, a real more credible historian does find evidence that a couple Chinese ships somehow said hello to the Aztecs, for example - however, who would believe him? still, i will agree that Menzies is not all too reliable on this. we'll just see.

then again, it doesn't relaly matter much, when China takes over the world it can brainwash us as much as it wants. :)

I don't see how China having made Pre-Columbian contact with the New World really changes anything. Even if they did, they obviously didn't have a major impact on it or on the events following which is Menzies' argument. The culture of the New World was distinctly American in 1492 and there is no evidence that it was anything otherwise prior to that.

Even in the bragging rights department of 'who was first', the Chinese would still have been beaten by the Europeans by some 420 years. So ultimately it ends up being a whole lot of hoopla about nothing even if it is true.

^generally agreed. althuogh there are other less well-known theries that stated the chinese discovered america c. 400 AD or c. 1000 BC... and then there are even more theories:

- Polynesians
- Malians/Songhainese/Ghanians
- Ancient Africans
- Egyptians
- Romans
- Phoenicians
- Greeks
- Ancient Pre-Viking Scandinavians
- Celts
- Welsh
- Knights Tempalrs
- Ancient Japanese
- Space Aliens

ack. and it goes on.

^generally agreed. althuogh there are other less well-known theries that stated the chinese discovered america c. 400 AD or c. 1000 BC... and then there are even more theories:

- Polynesians
- Malians/Songhainese/Ghanians
- Ancient Africans
- Egyptians
- Romans
- Phoenicians
- Greeks
- Ancient Pre-Viking Scandinavians
- Celts
- Welsh
- Knights Tempalrs
- Ancient Japanese
- Space Aliens

ack. and it goes on.

Ugh..all a bunch of hearsay. Even if China did discover America they never made and impact to change/effect anything or matter at all. They definitely had the technology but frankly they lack the need or motivation to search for new lands becuase they are financially very secure. Europe had the tech AND had the motivation of mercantilism spurring them on to make more money through monopolizing the asian trade which currently went through a middle man. Therefore they sailed and found america in the process.

Even if China was for some odd reason the founder of the Aztec and Incan empires, the thing is that it was the Europeans that came to dominate the world, for better or worse. that is what really matters.

No, it's not the only thing that matters, because knowledge about cultures is valuable in and of itself, and can act as a symbol for the present as well. Especially this baloney about China founding the most powerful of Native American civilizations, which, regardless of the intention, is damaging. It helps justify our taking over of their lands, and the genocide that followed. "They never built anything interesting unless they had outside help." It's the same old "bringing civilization to the savages" ideal, which is definitely not something I want hanging around in my history books.

Fact is, if they had utterly no impact that we could find, then believing in this voyages is completely silly. It's like believing that the entire Earth was ruled by an Atlantean Empire which, oh, by the way, was situated under Antarctica until the crust slipped around and the poles shifted to land it under solid ice, then vanished without a trace. It's frankly a little insulting to our ancestors to assume that they needed help in establishing their nations, and that all cultures have to spring from a single source.

It's frankly a little insulting to our ancestors to assume that they needed help in establishing their nations, and that all cultures have to spring from a single source.

that wouldn't be insulting to me.

Yeah! I'm American, and this is how it goes:

Mesopotamians->Etruscans->Romans(+ Celts)-> Britain-> America.

Everything that's American is borrowed from somewhere else.

Mesopotamians->Etruscans->Romans(+ Celts)-> Britain-> America.
Well it's more like:

Mesopotamians
V
Phoenicians
V
Greeks
|---------V
|.......Etruscans
|----------|
V
Romans....Celts
|-----------|-------|
|-----------|----|...|
|-----------|......|...|
V V V
Romano-British Romano-Gallic.....Franks......Angles, Saxons, Jutes & Frisians
|......................|-------------|...................|
|----------------|-----------------------------|
V......................V
Anglo-Saxons.....French......................Norse
|----------------------------------------|
|........................|----------------------|
V........................V
English...........Normans
|-----------------V
V
British.....Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians, etc.
|----------|
V.............................. Irish, Italians, Poles, Jews, etc.
Anglo-Americans................|
|.....................................|
V
Americans

Needlessly complicated? Maybe. Accurate? Not completely. Worth the twenty minutes it took to create? Almost certainly not.

So, yeah, I have no good reason to post this. ;)

I was just giving examples. Most people would leave out the Etruscans :p .

Well it's more like:

Mesopotamians
V
Phoenicians
V
Greeks
|---------V
|.......Etruscans
|----------|
V
Romans....Celts
|-----------|-------|
|-----------|----|...|
|-----------|......|...|
V V V
Romano-British Romano-Gallic.....Franks......Angles, Saxons, Jutes & Frisians
|......................|-------------|...................|
|----------------|-----------------------------|
V......................V
Anglo-Saxons.....French......................Norse
|----------------------------------------|
|........................|----------------------|
V........................V
English...........Normans
|-----------------V
V
British.....Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians, etc.
|----------|
V.............................. Irish, Italians, Poles, Jews, etc.
Anglo-Americans................|
|.....................................|
V
Americans

Needlessly complicated? Maybe. Accurate? Not completely. Worth the twenty minutes it took to create? Almost certainly not.

So, yeah, I have no good reason to post this. ;)

What do the Anglo-Saxons ... i.e. the English ... have to do with Ancient Greece?

Yeah! I'm American, and this is how it goes:

Mesopotamians->Etruscans->Romans(+ Celts)-> Britain-> America.

Everything that's American is borrowed from somewhere else.

Utterly, horribly incorrect. Even the Europeans were influenced by the Native Americans.

Needlessly complicated? Maybe. Accurate? Not completely. Worth the twenty minutes it took to create? Almost certainly not.

You forgot Poland.

Im thinking a world with a Ming Dynasty colonization Policies

What do the Anglo-Saxons ... i.e. the English ... have to do with Ancient Greece?
Well, the chart only shows the existence of influence, it doesn't show the proportions. Obviously the Anglo-Saxons were influence by their Germanic ancestors more than the Romans, but it's a fact that the Christianisation of Britain brought Greco-Roman influence,even beyond religion. For example, the Anglo-Saxons abandoned their runic alphabet and adopted a form of Latin alphabet (modified to include "W", "ð" and "Þ").
(And the distinction between "Anglo-Saxons" and "English" is, I admit, arbitrary, intended purely to reflect the distinction between the pre- and post-Norse invasion English).

You forgot Poland.
AH, right. Well, just correct the first bit to say:

Poland
V
Mesopotamia
V
Phoenicians
etc.

;)

No, Poland rules the world.... :king:

And to think we almost could've....

(...Courland should've been more of a colonizer.... damned dutch taking over polish colonies.... damned russians for everything else :lol: .....)

Im thinking a world with a Ming Dynasty colonization Policies

basically like this:


The Priorities of the Ming Colonization are...

1. Sinicize the Aztecs.
2. Sinicize the Incas.
3. Sinicize the Iroqouis.
4. Sinicize the Missisippi Peoples.
5. Sinicize the River Basin Peoples
6. Sinicize the Mayans.
7. Sinicize the Eskimos.

|
|
|
and so on.

basically like this:


The Priorities of the Ming Colonization are...

1. Sinicize the Aztecs.
2. Sinicize the Incas.
3. Sinicize the Iroqouis.
4. Sinicize the Missisippi Peoples.
5. Sinicize the River Basin Peoples
6. Sinicize the Mayans.
7. Sinicize the Eskimos.

|
|
|
and so on.

forgot the caribs....

ah, of course, Khan of Kielbasa. i was thinking of putting in Poland too. :p

Needlessly complicated? Maybe. Accurate? Not completely. Worth the twenty minutes it took to create? Almost certainly not.

So, yeah, I have no good reason to post this. ;)

:lol:

Your last line lively sums up what most of the posts on Civfanatics should have as disclaimers.

18 points for Greece from beating Moldova, Latvia and Luxembourg twice.
18 points to Switzerland from beating Moldova, Latvia and Luxembourg twice.
18 points to Israel from beating Moldova, Latvia and Luxembourg twice.
from there, Greece will have a hard time playing Israel but still come out on top. probably in a game ending in 1-0 or 3-2 for Greece. 6 points to Greece. greece has 24. Switzerland plays Israel. I'm not sure what the outcome might be. possibly 1 win, 1 draw, or 2 wins (i don't think switzerland will lose twice or lose ounce and tie) getting 22 points or 24 points. Greece plays Switzerland. Greece wins twice. they have 30 points. Greece Tie twice. 26 points to greece, Switzerland either 24 or 26 points. Greece win ounce, tie ounce. 28 points for greece, 25 or 23 points for switzerland. Greece loses ounce, Ties ounce. 25 points for greece, and either 23 or 25 points for switzerland. Greece loses twice, (not sure of that happening...) greece 24 points, switzerland either 30 points or 28 points.

-Remember, that is only my prediction, not including screw ups made by the teams, no mistakes, and just possible outcomes.-
Who knows how different it'd be if greece loses to Latvia or something...

in all of those outcomes, Greece came first 4 times, swtizerland 2. although that list i made above is completely stupid and a waste of a half an hour... And i probably the most innacurate thing ever....

Wc 2010 qualifiers thread. Me in an arguement against some swiss guy he wondered why i thought greece will come first in the group. I answered with this, and it was one of the biggest waste of a half an hour in my life...

Back on topic: what if it was the polynesians instead of the chinese? see last post of page 2 for more info about the polynesians)

Then a few tribes were influenced. The Polynesians weren't exactly the stuff of empires.

Back on topic: what if it was the polynesians instead of the chinese? see last post of page 2 for more info about the polynesians)

There would just be more people the US government would have to kill. Seriously.

Back on topic: what if it was the polynesians instead of the chinese?

more laborers for the Spaniards.

more laborers for the Spaniards.
:lol: The Conquistadores, with their guns, germs, and steel (Jared Diamond, I'm giving you credit!!! NOT Plagiarizing!) would wipe them out. The Chinese or Vikings would have a much better chance if their colonies' economies had taken off. But, the Chinese and Vikings did not have the funds.

The Chinese or Vikings would have a much better chance if their colonies' economies had taken off. But, the Chinese and Vikings did not have the funds.

Actually, their "colonies" either (in the case of the Chinese) never existed, or (in the case of the Vikings) were a temporary encampment. :p

^True. even if the Chinese did go around on their ships in a massive scale, they wouldn't really have colonies.

How do you explain the Chinese DNA?

What Chinese DNA?

He says he's had DNA samples analyzed and they show evidence of Chinese ancestry all over North and South America. According to some theories the American populations came from Asia across a land bridge 40,000 years ago so common ancestry could mean many things, besides don't all human beings have highly similar DNA. I don't know enough about DNA analysis or the techniques Menzies used to know if his claim is valid.

How do you explain the Chinese DNA?

He says he's had DNA samples analyzed and they show evidence of Chinese ancestry all over North and South America. According to some theories the American populations came from Asia across a land bridge 40,000 years ago so common ancestry could mean many things, besides don't all human beings have highly similar DNA. I don't know enough about DNA analysis or the techniques Menzies used to know if his claim is valid.

Try looking around this site.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

How do you explain the Chinese DNA?

By pointing out that all humans share most of their DNA, and the Asians and Native Americans quite a lot of it. It's also kind of odd that the Native Americans have several unique genetic markers fairly consistently through their population... Not something you'd see from supposedly widespread genetic mixing...

Cool link Birdjaguar. National Geographic and Dr. Spencer are collecting data so they can check his theory though. He thinks he knows when and why those genetic markers became important but he still needs an enormous amount of data before he can verify his conclusions. I'll be interested in reading his results in 2010.

Cool link Birdjaguar. National Geographic and Dr. Spencer are collecting data so they can check his theory though. He thinks he knows when and why those genetic markers became important but he still needs an enormous amount of data before he can verify his conclusions. I'll be interested in reading his results in 2010.

Our family contributed, twice.

Theories about China circumnavigating the world are preciesly part of the reason why I named China the most overrated civilization in terms of influence.

The chinese achieved much, but probably not even 1/3rd of what some people claim they achieved.

I have to agree with you.

Years ago I did a report on the Celtic civilization. I was surprised to find out that almost all the primary sources were written by Romans as they conquered Gaul. The Celts did not keep written records of their history or accomplishments and made a lot of advances that the world does not credit to them.

"Why do I bring this up?" you might ask. One historian thought that the Celts, and not the Chinese, may have invented gunpowder. Julius Caesar wrote that Celts performed ceremonies in which the sound of thunder could be heard and that smoke filled the air but there did not seem to be enough fire to produce such smoke. The had other "evidence" to back up his theory as well, and suggested that the process to produce gunpowder may have been taught by word of mouth for 100s of years before someone eventually taught it to the Chinese.

Both theories (hypothesis?) of gunpowder and the Chinese mariners discovering the new world are interesting to debate. Since we can't go back in time, there will never be a difinative answer.

From a historical perspective, which is more important to know. Who first did something, or who made an important change by doing it? Maybe the Chinese or the Vikings did discover the new world before Columbus. So what? Columbus was the one who reported back to the European powers of the riches in store accross the ocean. The colonies they formed are what bacame the modern nations that exist today. Likewise, maybe the Celts did know how to produce a primitive gunpowder that they used in ceremonies. Who cares? The Chinese use of gunpowder to make fireworks and primitive projectiles had a much more profound impact on history.

It was a very compelling book. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

From a historical perspective, which is more important to know. Who first did something, or who made an important change by doing it? Maybe the Chinese or the Vikings did discover the new world before Columbus. So what? Columbus was the one who reported back to the European powers of the riches in store accross the ocean. The colonies they formed are what bacame the modern nations that exist today. Likewise, maybe the Celts did know how to produce a primitive gunpowder that they used in ceremonies. Who cares? The Chinese use of gunpowder to make fireworks and primitive projectiles had a much more profound impact on history.

I think though you can say that the Vikings discovered the New world. They had a settlement at l'anse aux meadows in Newfoundland if you count that as the New World. More to the point I think that what you said is really whats important even if China discovered America it only matters if they made an impact that changed the whole world and altered the New world like the europeans did. They didn't so it really doesn't matter.

Yes. If China discovered America... and didn't do anything about all that free nations-to-be-culturally-assimilated, well... they made a huge mistake. Because the Europeans took over, that is why we are speaking a Germanic and/or Romance languages. That is what matters.

On the DNA "evidence" he proposes...I have a background in Biochemistry, so I wouldn't mind taking a look at it. Unfortunately, I've never seen it presented. Can anyone post a link to the evidence he claims supports his position so I can take a look at it?

heres the 1421 website: http://www.1421.tv/

Here is my issue with his evidence page: I am looking for an article in a journal that specifically compares genetic markers. Instead, all I get is stuff like this:

The author's conclusion that Chinese seafarers and concubines settled in Malaysia, India, Africa, the Americas, Australasia, and across the Pacific, almost a century before the Europeans started their historic voyages of exploration has come up against a great deal of opposition. However, with the publication of the paperback in October 2003, and the posting of 'Synopsis of Evidence 17' on the 1421 website, people will surely begin to take off their historical blinkers and adopt a more open attitude to interpretations of world history. The historical purists have constantly stood their ground in the belief that Magellan’s expedition was the first to circumnavigate the globe, and that the supporting cast of Columbus, da Gama and Cook were the pioneers of their day. Nonetheless there is overwhelming evidence on this website to support the author’s claim that the Chinese reached the great continents years before the Europeans first set foot there.

Nice paragraph, but this isn't any evidence, it's just filler text. The reason why I'm not taking off those "historical blinkers" is because you haven't given me nay reason to take them off.

By the time the paperback is published on 2nd October, we hope to have DNA results of 43 people whom we believe are descendents of Zheng He’s sailors. To date we have 30, with 13 to go. These 13 are:

North America

Haida of Queen Charlotte Islands
Concows of Chico, California
Gallinomero of Healdsburg, California
Ming Ho of W. Virginia
Melungeons of N. Carolina
Wydants of Rhode Island

Australia

Gunditjmara of Warrnambool
Nyungah speakers of South-West
Aborigines of Darwin
Aborigines of Fraser Island

New Zealand

Waitaha of South Island

South Africa

Pate Islanders
Namaquas – “Chinese Hottentots”

Okay...where are the other 30 names? Care to share, and show which genetic markers that are in common with native Americans?

Finally, I come across this: http://www.1421.tv/assets_cm/files/pdf/1421_biblio.pdf, a bibliography for the book. Can someone indicate where I should look in those 44 pages where he references sources for genetic markers? I searched for the words "genetic", "marker", "dna", "genome" and a few more and came up negative each time. I don't know which chapter he makes a reference to the genetics, so if anyone who has read it more recently can point me in the right direction, I would be thrilled...

Why should we believe anything the book says?

In total, some 34 different lines of evidence have been found to support the theory that the Chinese circumnavigated and charted the globe, a century before the Europeans staked claim to having done so. The evidence is overwhelming, and encompasses both physical entities, (such as shipwrecks of Chinese junks in America, Australasia and Indonesia,) and examples such as the carved stones of Africa, the remains of Chinese peoples in South America, and artefacts scattered all over the world, inscribed with Chinese characters, in Chinese styles, and some successfully dated back to before the arrival of the Europeans.

Well, that question and answer page wasn't any more helpful than the last. 34 lines of evidence...and some are successfully dated back to before the arrival of Europeans? What about the others? A percentage, please? Maybe some pictures? I remember having a similar gripe with his book when I read it...he didn't seem to have as many pictures of these things he was describing, and he seemed to only listen to sources that gave him the answer he wanted.

I finally found a list of sources for his material on genetics by searching the evidence on his home page...took me long enough to find something. It's in "Part IV. Papers referred to in a Genetics Study", if anyone else is interested.

Here is my issue with his evidence page: I am looking for an article in a journal that specifically compares genetic markers. Instead, all I get is stuff like this:



Nice paragraph, but this isn't any evidence, it's just filler text. The reason why I'm not taking off those "historical blinkers" is because you haven't given me nay reason to take them off.



Okay...where are the other 30 names? Care to share, and show which genetic markers that are in common with native Americans?

Finally, I come across this: http://www.1421.tv/assets_cm/files/pdf/1421_biblio.pdf, a bibliography for the book. Can someone indicate where I should look in those 44 pages where he references sources for genetic markers? I searched for the words "genetic", "marker", "dna", "genome" and a few more and came up negative each time. I don't know which chapter he makes a reference to the genetics, so if anyone who has read it more recently can point me in the right direction, I would be thrilled...



Well, that question and answer page wasn't any more helpful than the last. 34 lines of evidence...and some are successfully dated back to before the arrival of Europeans? What about the others? A percentage, please? Maybe some pictures? I remember having a similar gripe with his book when I read it...he didn't seem to have as many pictures of these things he was describing, and he seemed to only listen to sources that gave him the answer he wanted.

I finally found a list of sources for his material on genetics by searching the evidence on his home page...took me long enough to find something. It's in "Part IV. Papers referred to in a Genetics Study", if anyone else is interested.Thanks. I will look for it.

EDIT: I looked and saw nothing that resembled a Part 4 other than Chapter 4 and it didn't have any papers on genetics. Can you post a page in the Bibliography or copy and paste the citation? Thanks.

Thanks. I will look for it.

EDIT: I looked and saw nothing that resembled a Part 4 other than Chapter 4 and it didn't have any papers on genetics. Can you post a page in the Bibliography or copy and paste the citation? Thanks.

I actually don't have a copy of the book with me, I just searched for "genetic" on the main page thing that says search the evidence (it's in the middle of the page) or something else like that. I have a lot of work that has to be done by Friday, so I might not get the chance to look at any of these papers by the weekend.

I didn't find any references in the book's bibliography by searching for "genetics", "genetic", "dna", or any other number of keywords.

Or did they?

The period between 1420 - 1492 was one of great change in Mesoamerica. The Aztecs and Incas rise from obscurity to become the dominant power, while the powerful Mayan state of Mayapan collapses, and the culture of the Anasazi and the Missisippi valley both disappears around this time. It's too much of a coincidence imho.

The Anasazi were long gone by then. There isn't definitive proof, but it's hard
to believe their disappearance at the same time a massive drought occurred
(late 1200s-early 1300s) is coincidence. Espcially since there *is* evidence that
the area was overpopulated just before the drought started.

I'm about midway through the book, and I can't help but notice the paucity of evidence when it comes to the Americas. It's essentially all the Piri Reis map (which I note does NOT show the Tierra del Fuego much if at all). Plus the annoyingly ubiquitous Mylodon.

That the Treasure Fleets would have reached further than we know they did is easily believable, IF there is indeed a 2-years gap in their sailing record (1421-23). That they would have made it to the Cape and to Australia, I could easily believe. The oral history he presents to support it, and the fact that these just aren't particularly extraordinary claim (I mean, it,s at the limits of the Indian Ocean, and we know China had an interest in the Indian ocean)

Beyond that? I think he goes far out on a limb with very little to support it. Particularly when he starts on about colonies. Honestly, I actually have an easier time believing the Treasure Fleet sucesfully sailed around the world long before Magellan than believing they actually started colonies. And I have a hard time believing that.

Well....The mylodon is hard to believe, but I fell asleep when I was reading that bit :)

:mad: :mad: Yeah. Right. So you suppose all that evidence was jsut made up? :mad:

Yes. Ten characters.

Maybe not outright made up, but what evidences there are are thin and inconclusive.

It doesn't make much difference anyway. We can put the Chinese in as a "maybe", but it is Columbus' voyages that have a much more significant impact.

Sorry I did not have the time to read all the posts so I am not sure if any of what I am about to say was mentioned. A couple of years I decided to read this book for a college Asian history course. It was a good read and at first I thought some of the things Menzies mentioned could be true but part of the assignment was to critique the book with a scholarly book review. Lets just say every review I read ripped the book to shreds.

Many things Menzies mentions in the book are completely made up(On the top of my head I can remember his explaination of how they used otters to corral fish into nets). Many of the scholors believed he got his "evidence" in the reverse order. Such as non native Sea Otters being spotted by New Zealand(I think), BAM, the ships must have had otters on board(plus he invented a use for them). Or the possibility that the fleet left marking stones on islands on the way, BAM, they must have had stone carvers on board. Even though there is no evidence to support it, well, besides strange stones on the opposite side of the world from China.

So if any of you that have read the book want to get a good laugh do please try to locate one of these reviews.

If chinese were the first civ to circumnavigate the world, then their ships would move faster LOL

If chinese were the first civ to circumnavigate the world, then their ships would move faster LOL


Their ships weren't that good--they were JUNK :mischief:

Alright, let's compare the size of the "Treasure Ships" and 15th century Portuguese caravels.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/2c/images/ChinaZhengHeShip1405vsSantaMaria500pxw.jpg

So Chinese junks were larger, more sophisticated and more seaworthy than any European ships. Given the Chinese navigational knowhow, a voyage to the Americas is a possibility, but not a certainty.

Anyway, I think we're forgetting Zheng He's real significance. His voyages pretty much secured Chinese dominance of the Indian Ocean trade route east of India, even after the arrival of the Spanish and Portuguese. His voyages were also a factor in the large scale Chinese immigration to South East Asia from the 14th century onwards.

Alright, let's compare the size of the "Treasure Ships" and 15th century Portuguese caravels.

So Chinese junks were larger, more sophisticated and more seaworthy than any European ships. Given the Chinese navigational knowhow, a voyage to the Americas is a possibility, but not a certainty.

Anyway, I think we're forgetting Zheng He's real significance. His voyages pretty much secured Chinese dominance of the Indian Ocean trade route east of India, even after the arrival of the Spanish and Portuguese. His voyages were also a factor in the large scale Chinese immigration to South East Asia from the 14th century onwards.

True. Regardless much of his actions were undone by growing isolationism and conservatism which had Asia and the Middle east in its death grip.Are you sure the Chinese dominated trade in the seas east of India, I may be wrong?

True. Regardless much of his actions were undone by growing isolationism and conservatism which had Asia and the Middle east in its death grip.Are you sure the Chinese dominated trade in the seas east of India, I may be wrong?

Ming China was never really totally isolated (hell, even Japan allowed traders to settle on their soil. It was only a small island but still...). Chinese junks trade (legally or illegally) with the rest of South East Asia including Spanish Philippines, and Chinese immigrations continued over the period of so-called isolation. This continued in the Qing Dynasty, which is even more open to foreign trade than the Ming (it's good profit, after all, opium notwithstanding). Same story goes for the rest of Asia and the Middle East. Burma, Siam, Safavid Persia, Ottomans, Vijayanagara and Mughal Empire all thrived on trade. (would the Ottomans send a massive coalition fleet to "liberate" Diu if they're isolationist and don't care for trade?)

Alright, let's compare the size of the "Treasure Ships" and 15th century Portuguese caravels.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/2c/images/ChinaZhengHeShip1405vsSantaMaria500pxw.jpg

So Chinese junks were larger, more sophisticated and more seaworthy than any European ships. Given the Chinese navigational knowhow, a voyage to the Americas is a possibility, but not a certainty.


More seaworthy? I absolutely refuse to believe that. Is there any proof of it?
If chinese contemporary sources give ship lengths of over 400 feet for some of Zheng He's ships then we can know, for sure, that they lie, either in the reach of the voyages of the size of the ships. As those sources are the single support of this whole "Treasure Fleet" myth, the whole thing is shaky to say the least.

It would be impossible to keep such large wooden ships seaworthy over any long voyage, and impossible also to repair them adequately without a convenient shipyard - things which would not be available far from their home bases.
In all of (accurately) recorded history no wooden ships that large were reliably sailed. Some very large ships may have been used on the Mediterranean in roman times, but that was a relatively quiet sea, with many sheltered harbors and navigated only when good weather allowed.

Ming China was never really totally isolated (hell, even Japan allowed traders to settle on their soil. It was only a small island but still...). Chinese junks trade (legally or illegally) with the rest of South East Asia including Spanish Philippines, and Chinese immigrations continued over the period of so-called isolation. This continued in the Qing Dynasty, which is even more open to foreign trade than the Ming (it's good profit, after all, opium notwithstanding). Same story goes for the rest of Asia and the Middle East. Burma, Siam, Safavid Persia, Ottomans, Vijayanagara and Mughal Empire all thrived on trade. (would the Ottomans send a massive coalition fleet to "liberate" Diu if they're isolationist and don't care for trade?)

I do know that the Ottomans ultimately failed at Diu due to their lack of interest in the area and focus in the Balkans. Most of the Middle East's economy went under when Europe bypassed them and went straight to Asia/america. Asian nations were more isolationist and the middle east was more conservative. Just look at Asia/Middle East's magnificent technological progress in the 14th century onwards.

More seaworthy? I absolutely refuse to believe that. Is there any proof of it?
If chinese contemporary sources give ship lengths of over 400 feet for some of Zheng He's ships then we can know, for sure, that they lie, either in the reach of the voyages of the size of the ships. As those sources are the single support of this whole "Treasure Fleet" myth, the whole thing is shaky to say the least.

Sigh. The problems with history (all history, not just Chinese) is that you can never know if you can trust the sources. Now, Chinese sources are generally correct, and by the way they have found archaeological evidence to support that the sources (a giant drydock and a giant rudderpost were found in Nanjing for example. A wreck of a large, well-built ocean-going ship was also found near Quanzhou, dating from the late 1200s).

It would be impossible to keep such large wooden ships seaworthy over any long voyage, and impossible also to repair them adequately without a convenient shipyard - things which would not be available far from their home bases.

Maintainance would've been no problem for them while they were in the Indian Ocean. Once they've sailed further they could've set up a repair station, assuming the people on board did have the technological know-how. If you read the book, you would've noticed a section on the Chinese building docks in North America.

In all of (accurately) recorded history no wooden ships that large were reliably sailed. Some very large ships may have been used on the Mediterranean in roman times, but that was a relatively quiet sea, with many sheltered harbors and navigated only when good weather allowed.

Chinese ship designs were quite different from European ship designs. Watertight compartments and crossbeams strengthening the ship, for example, were main features of medieval Chinese ships.

Meh well the Chinese loved to exagerate, the truth wasn't as important as the romanticised message, generally. For me I can believe the ships were massive but maybe not on the scale as they say, I think its sheer size would just be an enormous handicap and logistical issue.

I do know that the Ottomans ultimately failed at Diu due to their lack of interest in the area and focus in the Balkans. Most of the Middle East's economy went under when Europe bypassed them and went straight to Asia/america. Asian nations were more isolationist and the middle east was more conservative. Just look at Asia/Middle East's magnificent technological progress in the 14th century onwards.

Trade between the Ottomans and India remained strong even after the Ottomans (largely, but not entirely) retreated to concentrate in the Balkans. Europe did not "bypass" the Middle East entirely, since they still have to go through the Indian Ocean, which is largely controlled by Asian states and merchants. European trade in the Indian Ocean (at least the period before the late 1700s, when Europeans began to industrialise) depended largely on cooperation and compromise with local rulers. Asian states were indeed more isolationist by European standards of the time, but still they were not entirely isolated from the rest of the world. Japan, often given as the prime example of the Xenophobic Asian Despotic State, remained opened to foreign trade. Trade links with China remained, and limited trade with western countries were allowed. Scientific knowledge from the West still reached Japan during this time, and this helped Japan to industrialise relatively quickly after isolationism was officially abolished.

Chinese descendants in South island of NZ?

What bull.

The south island was almost unpolulated before the europeans came and enslaved northern maori (bringing them to the south to build roads).

Impossible that they could be descended from Chinese, or that the family lines of Maori could even be traced that far back as they had no written language.

Sigh. The problems with history (all history, not just Chinese) is that you can never know if you can trust the sources. Now, Chinese sources are generally correct, and by the way they have found archaeological evidence to support that the sources (a giant drydock and a giant rudderpost were found in Nanjing for example. A wreck of a large, well-built ocean-going ship was also found near Quanzhou, dating from the late 1200s).

You mean the Houzhu Ship, excavated in the Quanzhou bay in 1974? It was 24m long and 9m wide, with an estimated displacement of 200 tons. Large, but well within what was reasonably expected, and on pair with the largest ships from the same period in the Mediterranean. Certainly nowhere near the fabulous dimensions so often repeated for the "treasure ships" (120m in lenght).

Unless chinese 15th century shipwrights had some wonderful insight that was later entirely lost and never occurred to people in other places (including China), right up to the 21th century, those dimensions are impossible to achieve with wooden ships.
They may have had a giant drydock, even build giant ships. That wouldn't prove they had actually sailed them in the open ocean. What would prove that would be either preserved shipwrecks of those giant ships (none that came even close was ever found), of independent historical records of visits by such ships from the other Indian Ocean ports. Again, nothing is mentioned, and the "treasure fleets" would have been difficult to ignore - had they existed!


Maintainance would've been no problem for them while they were in the Indian Ocean. Once they've sailed further they could've set up a repair station, assuming the people on board did have the technological know-how. If you read the book, you would've noticed a section on the Chinese building docks in North America.

Chinese ship designs were quite different from European ship designs. Watertight compartments and crossbeams strengthening the ship, for example, were main features of medieval Chinese ships.

Well then, if such designs would work mr. Menzies only has to build himself a functional treasure ship replica to prove he's not a complete liar in every aspect of his book. Then he'd be a liar only in the more far-fetched "they settled America" type parts... settlements complete with gigantic docks, and everything else necessary to maintain a fleet of giant ships. Sure!

Scientific knowledge from the West still reached Japan during this time, and this helped Japan to industrialise relatively quickly after isolationism was officially abolished.

The Japanese industrialized so quickly because of prior technology? Are you sure it wasn't to do with massive government reform and foreign advisors?

More seaworthy? I absolutely refuse to believe that. Is there any proof of it?

No proof, but multiple contemporary accounts, plus the fact that they definitely did sail all the way to East Africa. This is not disputed by the majority of historians.

If chinese contemporary sources give ship lengths of over 400 feet for some of Zheng He's ships then we can know, for sure, that they lie, either in the reach of the voyages of the size of the ships. As those sources are the single support of this whole "Treasure Fleet" myth, the whole thing is shaky to say the least.

No. The largest ships probably maxed out at 400 feet long. Some will give the figure of 444, but their unit of measurement was not exactly a foot; it was somewhat under. However, we can say for certain that they were several hundred footers, and that their fleets definitely did exist. The treasure fleet is not a myth; it's unfortunate that this bull about them sailing all over the place obscures the actual history (this is one of the main reasons I hate 1421 so much).

If you want a researched, sensical account of the actual treasure fleets, I'd highly recommend When China Ruled the Seas by Louise Levathes.

15th Century Chinese ships more seaworthy than the portuguese caravels? :lol:

Let's keep it real, guys. This is about as historically (and physically!) accurate as the "aliens built the pyramids" theory.

No proof, but multiple contemporary accounts, plus the fact that they definitely did sail all the way to East Africa. This is not disputed by the majority of historians.

No. The largest ships probably maxed out at 400 feet long. Some will give the figure of 444, but their unit of measurement was not exactly a foot; it was somewhat under. However, we can say for certain that they were several hundred footers, and that their fleets definitely did exist. The treasure fleet is not a myth; it's unfortunate that this bull about them sailing all over the place obscures the actual history (this is one of the main reasons I hate 1421 so much).

If you want a researched, sensical account of the actual treasure fleets, I'd highly recommend When China Ruled the Seas by Louise Levathes.

Thank you, North King. :goodjob:

The Japanese industrialized so quickly because of prior technology? Are you sure it wasn't to do with massive government reform and foreign advisors?

Japan would not have been able to industrailise or reform so quickly had it not been for existing Japanese institutions (banking establishments, industries, manufacturing, laws and regulations, urbanisation, etc) established during the Edo period and European technology acquired through (admittedly very limited) foreign trade.

The (little) reserach I did on the subject completely confirms what innonimatu (and non-revisionist history, and common sense) was saying: the cited dimmensions are a complete fraud. Not only because there is absolutely no record of a wooden ship that long, but because the suggested dimmension in the length-to-beam ratio of 2.47 would be completely unsailable in the ocean. Plus the claimed dimmensions are inconsistent with the reported displacement of 1500 tons.

All in all, while it seems clear that a Treasure Fleet did exist, many of it's traits were widely exaggerated as it so often happens with that sort of endevour. But just because it's China, a bunch of people will believe in such non-realistic stuff.

And just because it's ships getting somewhere before Portugal, every last Portuguessse and Brazilian on the face of the planet will exaggerate the other way...

The dimensions of the ships are likely indeed exaggerated, though. From what I see the "more reasonable" estimates seems to look at 59-84 meters (but that's per wiki, which has been known to be wrong), that appear more reasonable. Large ships, certainly, but not so large as to be utterly unrealistic ; there is at least one known European 60-meter ship of the 15th century (again per Wiki).

Seaworthiness...more seaworthy than the average contemporary european ship is not entirely unthinkable (after all, 1400 is the tail end of medieval shipbuilding in Europe : we're not talking about galleons, let alone frigates and man-o-war here). The caravels are likely another story entirely, though.

Japan would not have been able to industrailise or reform so quickly had it not been for existing Japanese institutions (banking establishments, industries, manufacturing, laws and regulations, urbanisation, etc) established during the Edo period and European technology acquired through (admittedly very limited) foreign trade.

Nah, Japan was still very isolated. Afew ships a year into Dejima? Thats open to you? Japan barely saw any technical innovations between 1600 and 1854. Japan did not industrialize so fast not because it was already pretty advanced and industrialized by that time but because of the pure drive and discipline of the Japanese society to accomplish what it wants working in one concentrated effort not millions of people going every which way thinking for themselves. The Japanese society is quite different from any other. I cite post WWII Japan as an example.

Al;so look at china. China was open to all it just closed its mind of sorts for lack of a better term. Its taken China so long to "modernize" because everybody goes every which way not looking for the end goal but for every single individuals drive for self-interest.

Oh and I'm not anti-Chinese and Japan obsessed if you think so. I'm Chinese, I just see whats really going on and am not held back by nationalism of any kind.

Nah, Japan was still very isolated. Afew ships a year into Dejima? Thats open to you? Japan barely saw any technical innovations between 1600 and 1854. Japan did not industrialize so fast not because it was already pretty advanced and industrialized by that time but because of the pure drive and discipline of the Japanese society to accomplish what it wants working in one concentrated effort not millions of people going every which way thinking for themselves. The Japanese society is quite different from any other. I cite post WWII Japan as an example.


I am not dismissing the importance of Japanese efforts in the Meiji era or the post-WWII era. No, I'm just saying that it was made possible partly because of the institutions already existing in the Edo Period. Many companies were founded in the Edo period (eg Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Sumitomo, etc) including manufacturing firms, shipping firms and banking institutions. And besides,

During the period, Japan progressively studied Western sciences and techniques (called rangaku, literally "Dutch studies") through the information and books received through the Dutch traders in Dejima. The main areas that were studied included geography, medicine, natural sciences, astronomy, art, languages, physical sciences such as the study of electrical phenomena, and mechanical sciences as exemplified by the development of Japanese clockwatches, or wadokei, inspired by Western techniques.


All in all, while it seems clear that a Treasure Fleet did exist, many of it's traits were widely exaggerated as it so often happens with that sort of endevour. But just because it's China, a bunch of people will believe in such non-realistic stuff.

People once believed that the Great Pyramid took twenty years and 100,000 slaves to build (when Ancient Egypt did not even have 100,000 slaves at that time). Herodotus said so, but now we believe that he was exaggerating.

Thing is, you can never fully trust historical sources because they're almost certainly biased or inaccurate in some way. On the Treasure Fleet, Chinese records are supplemented by contemporary medieval accounts and archaeological evidences.

People once believed that the Great Pyramid took twenty years and 100,000 slaves to build (when Ancient Egypt did not even have 100,000 slaves at that time). Herodotus said so, but now we believe that he was exaggerating.

Thing is, you can never fully trust historical sources because they're almost certainly biased or inaccurate in some way. On the Treasure Fleet, Chinese records are supplemented by contemporary medieval accounts and archaeological evidences.
There is no archeological evidence of a ship as long as claimed and, what is more, the description goes against hydrodinamics.

Your last paragraph makes a very good point, you can't always trust the records as they might exaggerate or be biased, and this is precisely the case with the Treasure Fleet, or with chinese naval expeditions as a whole. In this case clear exaggerations did take place, as is obvious by the impossible claimed dimensions.

As I mentioned in another thread, China achieved enough on reality so there is no need to make chinese achievements up, as is fashionable these days. If things continue to go this way in 20 years people will be debating in internet forums if chinese voyagers didn't make it to the moon centuries before the US :D

To sum it up, China did not reach the Americas in the 15th Century, their ships were not 440 feet long, and they were not at all more seaworthy than a caravel, which represented a tremendous breakthrough in ship building.

There is no archeological evidence of a ship as long as claimed and, what is more, the description goes against hydrodinamics.

Your last paragraph makes a very good point, you can't always trust the records as they might exaggerate or be biased, and this is precisely the case with the Treasure Fleet, or with chinese naval expeditions as a whole. In this case clear exaggerations did take place, as is obvious by the impossible claimed dimensions.

As I mentioned in another thread, China achieved enough on reality so there is no need to make chinese achievements up, as is fashionable these days. If things continue to go this way in 20 years people will be debating in internet forums if chinese voyagers didn't make it to the moon centuries before the US :D

To sum it up, China did not reach the Americas in the 15th Century, their ships were not 440 feet long, and they were not at all more seaworthy than a caravel, which represented a tremendous breakthrough in ship building.

"The Chinese junk: 12th century - 15th century

The design of the Chinese junk (a western word from the Malayan djong, meaning 'boat') is perfected during the later part of the Song dynasty, when the loss of the northern empire increases the importance of overseas trade. A merchant fleet, and a navy to defend it, become essential. The resulting junk is an ideal craft for the South China seas.

The region suffers violent typhoons, so a strong hull is essential. The Chinese achieve this by means of the bulkhead - a partition across the interior of the hull, and sometimes along its length as well. Bulkheads make the hull rigid and also provide watertight compartments - invaluable when a leak at sea needs repair.

The Chinese junk has other pioneering features later copied elsewhere. Traditionally built without a keel (allowing access to shallow waters), the junk is ill-equipped to sail a straight course until an important innovation of the Song period - the addition of the sternpost rudder. This is a large heavy board which can be lowered on a sternpost when the junk moves into deep water. Coming below the bottom of the boat, and capable of hinging on its post, it fulfils the function both of keel and rudder.

Until this time, throughout the world, the conventional method of steering a boat has been by means of a long oar projecting from the stern.

Another important innovation on the Chinese junk is multiple masts. Marco Polo describes sea-going junks as having four masts, with a further two which can be raised when required. Each mast has square-rigged sails. They concertina on themselves, when reefed, in the manner of a Venetian blind.

These ships are huge. Marco Polo claims that sixty private cabins for merchants can be built on the deck, and archaeological evidence suggests that by the 15th century a large merchant junk is about 450 feet from the bow to the high poop in the stern - six times the length of the contemporary Portuguese caravel. In 1973 the discovery of a junk of the 13th-century confirms much of what Marco Polo reports from the time of Kublai Khan."

From: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=107&HistoryID=aa14.

To sum up, although the dimensions of the Treasure Ship may be exaggerated (although they are still very large compared to European caravels), and they probably did not make it as far as the Americas, Chinese ships designs are still ahead of European by centuries.

I would not necessarily say "by centuries".

Yes, it took the European a few centuries to get in the business of mass-producing (relatively) big boats, but when they did...there is no doubt that those ships were FAR superior to the Chinese junks.

Heck, even a caravel exhibit fairly advanced shipbuilding. Yes, it's small, but it's probably the more seaworthy ship by a very fair margin.

Nah, Japan was still very isolated. Afew ships a year into Dejima? Thats open to you? Japan barely saw any technical innovations between 1600 and 1854. Japan did not industrialize so fast not because it was already pretty advanced and industrialized by that time but because of the pure drive and discipline of the Japanese society to accomplish what it wants working in one concentrated effort not millions of people going every which way thinking for themselves. The Japanese society is quite different from any other. I cite post WWII Japan as an example.

Al;so look at china. China was open to all it just closed its mind of sorts for lack of a better term. Its taken China so long to "modernize" because everybody goes every which way not looking for the end goal but for every single individuals drive for self-interest.

Oh and I'm not anti-Chinese and Japan obsessed if you think so. I'm Chinese, I just see whats really going on and am not held back by nationalism of any kind.
Couldn't agree more. And yet when I try to say this to the locals they gang up on me with nothing but the standard rhetoric. :shake: Chinese think they're nationalistic, but it is a very shallow version and nothing compared to what the Japanese have (or once had).

And lets not forget that bigger is not necessarily better - where is the long term benefit of a huge treasure ship if it cost more to build and keep running than the possible profits it can generate?

That would be a valid comment as well. though I'm not certain how well it applies.

But on a more basic approach,which would you rather have, as a merchant - a flotilla of galleons, or a single treasure junk?

The answer is pretty obvious. You want the galleons, because your odds of losing all your ships are much lower.

(Pre-1400s Cogs are another issue entirely. They're just bad ships, period)

Nah, Japan was still very isolated. Afew ships a year into Dejima? Thats open to you? Japan barely saw any technical innovations between 1600 and 1854. Japan did not industrialize so fast not because it was already pretty advanced and industrialized by that time but because of the pure drive and discipline of the Japanese society to accomplish what it wants working in one concentrated effort not millions of people going every which way thinking for themselves. The Japanese society is quite different from any other. I cite post WWII Japan as an example.

Al;so look at china. China was open to all it just closed its mind of sorts for lack of a better term. Its taken China so long to "modernize" because everybody goes every which way not looking for the end goal but for every single individuals drive for self-interest.

Oh and I'm not anti-Chinese and Japan obsessed if you think so. I'm Chinese, I just see whats really going on and am not held back by nationalism of any kind.

This is a very interesting cultural observation, I have never heard this before but then again my knowledge of Chinese history is not as great as I would like.

Do you believe China discovered America and circumnavigated the world in 1421-1423, like in the book, 1421? I do. Post please!

While I was initially SO sure it happened (I read the book), I am now floundering... Why?

1: Mylodons. They were long extinct by 1421-1423.
2: 1418/1763 map is OBVIOUSLY a fake
3: DNA tests called a "scam" by professionals
4: Gavin Menzies lied about where he was born (he is a Londoner but said he was born in China).
5: Inconsistencies with the timing of evidence (is it from 1410? 1418? 1421? 1423? 1440? 1459? 1528? TELL US!!!!!)
6: Gavin Menzies launched a frivolous lawsuit in 1996.


I really WANT it to be true, but wishful thinking doesn't translate into reality. So, I'd say:
67% No, 33% Yes.

That would be a valid comment as well. though I'm not certain how well it applies.

But on a more basic approach,which would you rather have, as a merchant - a flotilla of galleons, or a single treasure junk?

The answer is pretty obvious. You want the galleons, because your odds of losing all your ships are much lower.

(Pre-1400s Cogs are another issue entirely. They're just bad ships, period)

Or would you rather have a flotilla of treasure junks?

The Zheng He fleets have hundreds of ships (maybe thousands, if records aren't exaggerating), and only a few of those are treasure junks. Most are normal junks (although they're still pretty big, as compared to contemporary European ships).

After reading the book the first time, I was completely sure that it was real. However, I read 1421 another time and it seemed like complete nonsense. I almost feel betrayed by Menzies. I am especially incredulous to the part about Mylodons.

It's just another sad attempt to snatch the idea of Europeans being the discoverers.

It's just another sad attempt to snatch the idea of Europeans being the discoverers.

Yeah. Menzies is just trying to make a buck (or thousands of bucks...)

It's just another sad attempt to snatch the idea of Europeans being the discoverers.

No the Asians were the discovers. They crossed to America across the Bering several thousand of years ago and build houses and villages and cities and civilisations. The Europeans were the conquerers.

Maybe it goes like this:

The Chinese trasmitted a disease that is both harmful to animals and humans to the far flung traders, who accidentally discovered some islands in the pacific. The contaminated goods were traded to the natives which in turn was traded by the natives in the Americas.

Maybe it goes like this:

The Chinese trasmitted a disease that is both harmful to animals and humans to the far flung traders, who accidentally discovered some islands in the pacific. The contaminated goods were traded to the natives which in turn was traded by the natives in the Americas.
Except that there's absolutely no records or evidence of contact, let alone trade, between pre-Columbian America and the Pacific Islands. In fact, the closest we can inarguably say that Pacific Islanders got was Easter Island, and that was anywhere between 500 and 1000 years earlier than the period that would be necessary.

I don't believe that.

One big problem I have with the idea is the sheer number of people involved. You would need thousands just cut down the trees, then people to transport and then people to actually cut the wood and finnally the ones building the ships. Add together with everything else you would need, sails, food, equipment, rope. And then put that all ontop of all that the Forbidden City was still being built. Thats a lot of people. Plus I believe it mentions a devestating plague happening sometime aroudn then