Columbus "discovered" America in 1592?

Could this be an innocent mistake? I don't know. That would be like some Mercedes misspelling its own name on their AMG class cars. It's not only Columbus's 1492 date which is wrong on there.
1652 Nova Totius Terrarum Orbis geographica ac hydrographica tabula_1_1.jpg

KD: What are your thoughts on this?
Greetings Korben
With regards to this post I thought here is something I can contribute unless already some one has. There is a very fascinating book which I am still trawling through of many, called "1421"!

It was published 2002 and written by "Gavin Menzies", a former submarine commander. He was born in China 1937 and since his seafaring knowledge which is extensive to say the least has retired, but has visited 120 countries and some 900 museums and libraries and far more besides in order of tracking down what the Chinese succeeded at well before Columbus etc.

He has his own sight for reference and review THE YEAR CHINA DISCOVERED THE WORLD. the result of fifteen years research and It became a best seller Kindest regards Brett.
The dating of 1592 AD converges well with the actual beginning of the colonization of North America about 40 years after. I always thought it was kind of akward that North and Central/South America were explored after more than a century.

But we have aproblem with this map supposedly from 1587 (is87) by Urbano Monte



Translation: "made by Urbano Monte, the year is87 after the Nativity of our Lord"
Fine by me. Italians are in general quite vain and put importance in names (i'm a "her" and they find my name quite funny because in Italy it's a men's name) so I can't imagine that they will give themselve such a hideous name like urban mountain + ugly self portrait, but ok. If you say so.
There is something to this 1592 date. It's like the remnants of the previously suggested, but altered narrative bleed through.

This would be Hispaniola, discovered by Columbus during his first voyage.

The below excerpt is from a book published in 1651. That is 159 years between 1492 and 1651. 159 years is hardly "lately."

I can't imagine that they will give themselve such a hideous name like urban mountain + ugly self portrait, but ok. If you say so.
Back then it didn't come to mind but there's a contemporary "famous" example. I'm talking of businessman Urbano Cairo, where 'urbano' is still something relative to the city, while 'Cairo'.... it's the Italian name of the capital of Egypt 🤣

There is something to this 1592 date.
I was thinking about how Uwe Topper says there's something wrong when it comes to the alignment of German and Italian chronologies, since he thinks their 'renaissances' should not be 100 years apart. There's no mention of Columbus in his articles though, at least not that I remember.
For what we know, the definitive version of the Scaligerian chronology was given by Scaliger himsef and his successor Petavius, but I don't know where they published their data (given that they didn't explain how they came to their results, according to Fomenko). I have a pdf of the 'Emendatione Temporum' by Scaliger (1629 - Latin edition) but when I put 1492 or 1592 in the search nothing comes out. Same with Columbus.
This indeed could be the case, but wouldn't we see more instances where significant and well known dates a seriously messed up?
I think not because chronology as we know it came out "only" starting from the XVI-XVII century and it was institutionalized from the start and considered the ultimate scientific proof which had to be adjusted in details and nothing else. So I guess there were few alternative chronologies around already a hundred years later and those who disagreed with Scaliger were notorious, like Newton for example, as Fomenko points out.

When it comes to this example the doubt is right there before our eyes because Columbus is said to have discovered America in 1592 and Vespucci rediscovered in 1599 but then few lines below we start again from Francis Drake in 1579 so the question is if the first two dates were just an mistake. But in that case it would be TWO mistakes (1592 and 1599), which is weird!

Similar articles