Should Vespucci be axed? (vote)

[unmerged(1385)]

Having Frontenac as an explorer is possibly the most bizzare thing I've ever seen, that's like having Tokugawa Ieyasu as an explorer!

Although my list is a bit long I don't think there is any anything wrong with de-VILLARS' list.

That what I want to say : you have 2 solutions :

1) Add all minors explorers such as Marquette, Beauchene, Cadillac, Hennepin, or Aco and delete Frontenac.
2) Keep Frontenac and do not add all these explorers.

I prefer the second option for 2 reasons. First, all these minors explorers have a very small life (as explorer) and the IA has a lot of problems to use explorer. Most of the time, the IA give the order to explore a lot of time after the appearance of the explorer. Second, the sum of years for all the minor explorers is superior to the duration of Frontenac, so it is a great advantage for the player.

 

[kolmy]

This is actually incorrect. At least two and probably three Spanish expeditions arrived to the coasts of Brazil before Pedro Álvaro Cabral.

Vicente Yáñez Pinzón departed Spain in December 1499, and anchored at point Mucuripe in the coast of Brazil on January 26, 1500 (first landfall in Brazil on January 20 at 10° South). The expedition of Diego de Lepe departed Spain in early January 1500 and also reached Brazil, with first landfall on February 14 at 4° South.

Historians do not agree on the first one, leaded by Amerigo Vespucci himself, that according to his own accounts, together with Ojeda, they had first landfall in late June 1499 at 4° North (still Brazil) and he continued on his own Southward.

Pedro Álvaro Cabral did not arrived to Brazil until April 24, 1500 (first landfall at 18° South).

EDIT: See for example: here
Also: Frederick J. Pohl, "Amerigo Vespucci, Pilot Major"

In the words of a Brazilian: Errou quem respondeu Pedro Álvares Cabral, a 22 de abril de 1500. Quem descobriu o Brasil foi o capitão espanhol Vicente Yañez Pinzón (ex-comandante da Niña), a 26 de janeiro de 1500, tendo chegado à ponta de Mucuripe, dez quilômetros ao sul da capital do Ceará (sem qualquer relação com o Monte Pascoal ou com Porto Seguro).

A very extensive Brazilian page on the issue, regarding also some undocumented claims.

If you ask anyone in Portugal who discovered Brazil, they say you Pedro Álvares Cabral, but, Portugal = Portuguese point of view, and in my History book says Pedro Álvares Cabral. Considering your teory, my teacher as put on a chronology that she gave us, (Re)Discovery of Brazil, because there's a possibility of the Portuguese, allready know of the existence of Brazil, but this possibility will only be correct if Portugal had allready know of Brazil before the ToT, explaining the widening of the West line of the ToT from 100 léguas (i can't find the meaning in english) to 370 (maybe Zheng He maps, as there are a possibility that Zheng He was in Azores).

But the official vesion is that Pedro Álvares Cabral discovered Brazil. The rest, as you say are possibilities.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

That what I want to say : you have 2 solutions :

1) Add all minors explorers such as Marquette, Beauchene, Cadillac, Hennepin, or Aco and delete Frontenac.
2) Keep Frontenac and do not add all these explorers.

I prefer the second option for 2 reasons. First, all these minors explorers have a very small life (as explorer) and the IA has a lot of problems to use explorer. Most of the time, the IA give the order to explore a lot of time after the appearance of the explorer. Second, the sum of years for all the minor explorers is superior to the duration of Frontenac, so it is a great advantage for the player.

Ok I agree,the fact that De-VILLARS is a bit less detailed is better, France shouldn't have too much explorers but given the huge swaths of territory they explored (all the way to the Rocky Mountains), they deserve more. Also I think we agreed that Jacques Gouin de Beauchene should be an explorer because frankly, France doesn't have many explorers to begin with and certainly none of them in de Beauchene's time period and he did explore South America and Africa for France.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

But the official vesion is that Pedro Álvares Cabral discovered Brazil. The rest, as you say are possibilities.

Then the Portuguese official version is a lie. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that both Pinzón and de Lepe visited Brazil before Cabral. Even Brazilians agree on that. These two are not possibilities, as there is documented proof of their visit.

 

[kolmy]

Then the Portuguese official version is a lie. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that both Pinzón and de Lepe visited Brazil before Cabral. Even Brazilians agree on that. These two are not possibilities, as there is documented proof of their visit.

All is a possibility, you were there to prove that?

 

[sturmvogel]

discovery of Brazil

I concur with Fodoron, modern scholarship admits that Pinzon actually discovered Brazil in January 1500 although he landed somewhere on the northeast coast. This is a very sensitive subject for the Portugese-speaking world and many of them do not wish to admit Pinzon got there first. Even most English-language works credit Cabral with the discovery.

Given that Vespucci didn't lead but a single expedition (or half expedition) and the Spanish already have Columbus and Pinzon; I feel that they have more than enough explorers to be able to discover everything that they historically discovered.

While I'm not denying Vespucci's skills, he was far more important as a popularizer of the New World with his letters being published in many editions. However he was not above fraudulently claiming to have discovered the American mainland a voyage in 1497-8 that cannot be confirmed in any other account nor from the archives.

I have more information on his voyages from Samuel Eliot Morrison's The Discovery of America: The Southern Voyages, but I'm on a business trip for another week and a half and won't be able to post extracts until then.

 

[Garbon]

That what I want to say : you have 2 solutions :

1) Add all minors explorers such as Marquette, Beauchene, Cadillac, Hennepin, or Aco and delete Frontenac.
2) Keep Frontenac and do not add all these explorers.

I prefer the second option for 2 reasons. First, all these minors explorers have a very small life (as explorer) and the IA has a lot of problems to use explorer. Most of the time, the IA give the order to explore a lot of time after the appearance of the explorer. Second, the sum of years for all the minor explorers is superior to the duration of Frontenac, so it is a great advantage for the player.

Or couldn't we just give generic explorers?

 

[kolmy]

I concur with Fodoron, modern scholarship admits that Pinzon actually discovered Brazil in January 1500 although he landed somewhere on the northeast coast. This is a very sensitive subject for the Portugese-speaking world and many of them do not wish to admit Pinzon got there first. Even most English-language works credit Cabral with the discovery.

Given that Vespucci didn't lead but a single expedition (or half expedition) and the Spanish already have Columbus and Pinzon; I feel that they have more than enough explorers to be able to discover everything that they historically discovered.

While I'm not denying Vespucci's skills, he was far more important as a popularizer of the New World with his letters being published in many editions. However he was not above fraudulently claiming to have discovered the American mainland a voyage in 1497-8 that cannot be confirmed in any other account nor from the archives.

I have more information on his voyages from Samuel Eliot Morrison's The Discovery of America: The Southern Voyages, but I'm on a business trip for another week and a half and won't be able to post extracts until then.

In my school, is Pedro Álvares Cabral who rules. But I don't disagread with Fodoron, I just learned in my school that.

 

[unmerged(1385)]

Or couldn't we just give generic explorers?

Well, it is also an another possibility, but don't forget that generic explorers have a duration of 20 years. So I think we shouldn't give too much generic explorers to France, especially when France is played by a player.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

I still don't see why we need generic explorers when we have Brûlé, Jolliet, La Salle, de La Mothe, de La Rocque etc. We don't have to use every single French explorer ever but I don't see why we would need to resort to having 'fake' explorers/conquistadors like Frontenac or resort to generic ones either.

 

[unmerged(1385)]

I still don't see why we need generic explorers when we have Brûlé, Jolliet, La Salle, de La Mothe, de La Rocque etc. We don't have to use every single French explorer ever but I don't see why we would need to resort to having 'fake' explorers/conquistadors like Frontenac or resort to generic ones either.

OK for Frontenac because we have plenty of explorers to substitute.

But what about Pierre Poivre which is also a governor without any action to explore in his life ?
I have always thought that this explorer simulate all the French Trade Company explorers...

 

[Semi-Lobster]

OK for Frontenac because we have plenty of explorers to substitute.

But what about Pierre Poivre which is also a governor without any action to explore in his life ?
I have always thought that this explorer simulate all the French Trade Company explorers...

I'm not too sure on Poivre since my book I ordered on the French East India Company has been on back-order on Amazon for what seems like forever. Therefore, my knowledge on the French presence in India is limited.

 

[cfeedback]

Well I only play this mod, and don't really contribute, so I don't know if my vote counts or not...

I would say keep him, but shorten his time of service a little. It sounds like 1499 would be a better start date than 1497.

 

[Toio]

Statements on who discovered Brazil are silly in the that the true discoverer was the man who navigated the bulk of the brazil coast line. And not by someone who discovered some small north eastern portion of 20th century brazil.
Remember there was NO borders at that time of discovery to indicate where brazil commenced or finished. So the only alternative was as I stated above.

That said, then it was Cabral from Portugal.

does Australia say it was discovered by POR or Holland even though they saw the lands many years before the English?

 

[unmerged(29041)]

In my school, is Pedro Álvares Cabral who rules. But I don't disagread with Fodoron, I just learned in my school that.

Hope you are still capable of learning

 

[unmerged(29041)]

So the only alternative was as I stated above.

That said, then it was Cabral from Portugal.

Yes, the only alternative is always what you state.

 

[Toio]

Yes, the only alternative is always what you state.

Its just that everyone looks at today's maps and think they have not changed from the EU2 period and declared with modern maps this is the fact. the facts are there was NO borders in south america, you cannot deny this!!! So we must assume that Cabral was the first to travel and explore the bulk of the brazilian coastline.

Of course certain things need to be done for the benefit of the game. this is why I have not asked for the inclusion of Niccolo Da Conti, a venetian explorer from 1419 to 1444 who discovered south east asia , burma, india well before any european in the EU2 timeframe. As I see it certain explorers are best left out of the EU2 for game reasons.

The vote ( and I supported you on this ) is for
1. yes or no to include Vespucci, next is , if a yes vote for who.
Who needs vespucci the most for game reasons.
will it be .
1499-1500 for SPA
or
1501-1504 for POR

this is what I presume we modders, are voting for.

If I have presumed something else, please correct me.
cheers

 

[Herr Doctor]

Statements on who discovered Brazil are silly in the that the true discoverer was the man who navigated the bulk of the brazil coast line. And not by someone who discovered some small north eastern portion of 20th century brazil.
Remember there was NO borders at that time of discovery to indicate where brazil commenced or finished. So the only alternative was as I stated above.

That said, then it was Cabral from Portugal.

does Australia say it was discovered by POR or Holland even though they saw the lands many years before the English?

What are you speaking here about? Australia was defiantly discovered and explored by the Dutchman, Tasman, who proved btw that it is a separate continent…