Scan barcode
lizbusby's review against another edition
Interesting example of a real discovery made by an amateur. However, he really should have hired a ghost writer to do the book as he doesn't tell a cohesive narrative.
creativelifeofliz's review against another edition
5.0
This book was a fascinating journey through the evidence of Chinese voyages of 1421-23 exploring most of the world, including Antarctica and North and South Americas long before Europeans visited any of these places. I am interested to see what additional evidence has come to light in the past 2 decades since this book came out and if there will be changes to the conventional American schooling about the discovery of the New World.
jhg1995's review against another edition
1.0
Anyone who give this pseudohistory trash anything above two stars should watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqwry93-p0U
I may be Chinese-American but I know that Ming China was not THAT badass.
I may be Chinese-American but I know that Ming China was not THAT badass.
uncle_remus's review against another edition
2.0
I want to see Dr. Ivan Van Sertima debate Gavin Menzies. Who really discovered America? Dr. Ivan Van Sertima who says that the Africans discovered the Americas circa 1262... which is well before 1421... but both are after the Norse 'discovered' America circa 1000... although how can a human discover a new land when there are humans already living there?
However you look at it, both Dr. Ivan Van Sertima and Gavin Menzies start with an assumption, and set forth seeking things to support their claim. They cherry-pick the facts, alter facts, invent facts, to provide support of their arguments, rather than gather all the facts and come to a conclusion.
For example.... in some cases Menzies points to a map and says, look how well the map aligns to this geographic feature. In others, he says, looks like they don't match, must be because of global warming and the oceans are 6 feet higher than back then. Or, look how peaceful the Natives were, as opposed to the nearby tribes (they must be the kind Chinese), yet 6 pages later talk about the warring Chinese with guns and swords. Maybe how the Bimini Road was built in, well, seemingly just days by a handful of people. How he managed to explain that this feature is a set of islands, whereby several are missing, to be explained that they must have passed at night, so the Chinese discovered the New World on a specific date of a New Moon: 26 Nov 1421, and not only that, the time of day - dawn! He talks of Mylodon, which are like the Mastodons and Mammoths - not seen for 10,000 years, but he proposes an idea that they captured some and put them on a ship. He calculates that one explorer would have completed his route in x amount of time, 4 months before he actually returned to China, so, ...Oh, I know, ... he made another circuit around the Pacific to discover BC and San Francisco.
But isn't it peculiar that the Asian coast north of China (which would've been traverse by 2 separate parties (the S. American to Pacific party, and the Arctic party) did not map that coastal region? Funny how EVERY place on earth was mapped and visited, EXCEPT Europe and the Mediterranean. And once in the Atlantic, not being able to sail against the wind, how did those who discovered America get home? Wouldn't they endlessly circle the Atlantic? If they did, how did the maps get back to China? and if they did get back to China, and the Emperor squashed all further trips, why bother to consolidate the maps, especially if the rest were being burned?
Well, it was entertaining, but flawed. There are anomalies in the historic record, or in the interpretation of the historic record. In Van Sertima's case, the answer is "because Africans..." and in Menzies case, it is "because Chinese..."
I do give credit to Menzies for pointing out the anomalies in the maps (assuming that they are not fakes), and to pointing out the Columbus and Magellan diary/ledger entries where the explorers state that they know something exists because they have seen it on a map. The maps seem to suggest somebody was there before them, but I've not been convinced with either author.
For scientific process, I rate this as a 1 star. For entertainment, 3 stars, so I am averaging it as a 2 star rating. If you like conspiracy theories, feel free to be entertained.
However you look at it, both Dr. Ivan Van Sertima and Gavin Menzies start with an assumption, and set forth seeking things to support their claim. They cherry-pick the facts, alter facts, invent facts, to provide support of their arguments, rather than gather all the facts and come to a conclusion.
For example.... in some cases Menzies points to a map and says, look how well the map aligns to this geographic feature. In others, he says, looks like they don't match, must be because of global warming and the oceans are 6 feet higher than back then. Or, look how peaceful the Natives were, as opposed to the nearby tribes (they must be the kind Chinese), yet 6 pages later talk about the warring Chinese with guns and swords. Maybe how the Bimini Road was built in, well, seemingly just days by a handful of people. How he managed to explain that this feature is a set of islands, whereby several are missing, to be explained that they must have passed at night, so the Chinese discovered the New World on a specific date of a New Moon: 26 Nov 1421, and not only that, the time of day - dawn! He talks of Mylodon, which are like the Mastodons and Mammoths - not seen for 10,000 years, but he proposes an idea that they captured some and put them on a ship. He calculates that one explorer would have completed his route in x amount of time, 4 months before he actually returned to China, so, ...Oh, I know, ... he made another circuit around the Pacific to discover BC and San Francisco.
But isn't it peculiar that the Asian coast north of China (which would've been traverse by 2 separate parties (the S. American to Pacific party, and the Arctic party) did not map that coastal region? Funny how EVERY place on earth was mapped and visited, EXCEPT Europe and the Mediterranean. And once in the Atlantic, not being able to sail against the wind, how did those who discovered America get home? Wouldn't they endlessly circle the Atlantic? If they did, how did the maps get back to China? and if they did get back to China, and the Emperor squashed all further trips, why bother to consolidate the maps, especially if the rest were being burned?
Well, it was entertaining, but flawed. There are anomalies in the historic record, or in the interpretation of the historic record. In Van Sertima's case, the answer is "because Africans..." and in Menzies case, it is "because Chinese..."
I do give credit to Menzies for pointing out the anomalies in the maps (assuming that they are not fakes), and to pointing out the Columbus and Magellan diary/ledger entries where the explorers state that they know something exists because they have seen it on a map. The maps seem to suggest somebody was there before them, but I've not been convinced with either author.
For scientific process, I rate this as a 1 star. For entertainment, 3 stars, so I am averaging it as a 2 star rating. If you like conspiracy theories, feel free to be entertained.
donzhivago's review against another edition
2.0
An interesting book of historical fanfiction. 4 stars for entertainment, 2 stars for reality.
publius's review against another edition
1.0
It's rare that I would waste space blasting a book. Life is short and time is a scarce resource. I'd rather just drop a book unworthy of finishing and move on to a new one. This time, though, I think 1421 merits further explanation because of the sensational success it has experienced worldwide.
Simply put, 1421 is junk history posing as "real history." Gavin Menzies has spun a fantastical and interesting tale out of the very real events surrounding the massive Chinese treasure fleets of 1421. His thesis--that the Chinese discovered the New World in the 1420s, mapped it, and that it was their maps that European explorers used when sailing for the New World (including, he argues, Columbus).
Built by a Ming emperor to gather in tribute from the ends of the Earth, the fleet was one of the last acts of imperial hubris. Shortly after it set sail, the emperor died. His son, in replacing his father's policies, had the fleets destroyed upon their return, along with records gathered during the voyage. Starting with that sparse introduction, Menzies proceeds to gather bits and pieces of evidence stretching from China itself to the Indian subcontinent, from the Congo to Patagonia and beyond, and levies the evidence to tell a tale of the massive Chinese fleet charting the New World the greater part of a century before Columbus set sail in 1492.
It is an extremely interesting and, if it were true, a ground breaking discovery and thesis. Perhaps it is true. But likely, it is not.
As I started reading it, the first question that came to mind for me was this: in the almost six centuries since these events happened, why has no one else suggested that the Chinese arrived first? Menzies explanation is that historians generally lack the skill set necessary to uncover the truth, a skill set that he has as a former captain in the British Navy. Unlike most historians, Menzies argues, he can read a chart, understand what he's looking at, and glean from these 15th century charts things that no historian would otherwise notice.
Yeah. It's a little bit of a stretch. I would be surprised to find that no historian has ever had the skill set to learn maritime charts and understand how to read them (heck, Theodore Roosevelt when only an undergraduate student at Harvard, researched and wrote a book of naval strategy -- "The Naval War of 1812"--that became a classic and a text book used by both the US and British navies for decades after it was published). That being said, I gave Menzies the benefit of the doubt. I've long been intrigued with China and its history, and I think I wanted to believe that history as we have been taught might not be true. How interesting would it be for America to have been discovered by the Chinese?
As I read, though, red flags continued to pop up. Out of only sparse details, Menzies would assert "conclusive proof" that his theories were finding relevance. Finally, over two hundred pages in, I decided to check into what critical review might have said about his methods and evidence. I reasoned that if Menzies is correct, or even has a good theory, then the academic community would support his findings with further research. I went to the internet.
Critical acclaim was anything but what I found. In addition to finding entire sites dedicated to debunking Menzies myths, I also found that historical lectures had been given explaining and demonstrating that what Menzies proposed was just that--a proposal. Be it even true, the evidence was not there, not was the reasoning clearly logical.
For example:
--Menzies claims that Chinese anchors have been found off of the coast of California, but fails to document them.
--1421 says that Chinese DNA is found in North America natives, but fails to account for the influx of Chinese immigrants in the 17th century.
--Menzies finds what he claims are chickens unique to Asia living in Peru, but fails to note that Peru exported millions of tons of silver to China and brought back silk and porcelain (and presumably other things, like, for example, chickens) throughout the heyday of the Spanish during the 16th through 17th centuries.
And that's just to start.
Historian Kirstin A. Seaver says, in disecting claims about the Chinese in Vinland:
"The study of history is likely to reward anyone willing to undertake it in a quest for better understanding of who they are, how they became what they are, and what they might hope to become. The manufacture of a history that never existed rewards only those who make money by deceiving the public."
If 1421 is true, Menzies has not found the evidence to support it. If it is false, it's junk and a waste of time to read. Further, it perpetuates a falsehood that makes the acquisition of real history--real, boring, dry and factual history--that much harder to grasp.
Simply put, 1421 is junk history posing as "real history." Gavin Menzies has spun a fantastical and interesting tale out of the very real events surrounding the massive Chinese treasure fleets of 1421. His thesis--that the Chinese discovered the New World in the 1420s, mapped it, and that it was their maps that European explorers used when sailing for the New World (including, he argues, Columbus).
Built by a Ming emperor to gather in tribute from the ends of the Earth, the fleet was one of the last acts of imperial hubris. Shortly after it set sail, the emperor died. His son, in replacing his father's policies, had the fleets destroyed upon their return, along with records gathered during the voyage. Starting with that sparse introduction, Menzies proceeds to gather bits and pieces of evidence stretching from China itself to the Indian subcontinent, from the Congo to Patagonia and beyond, and levies the evidence to tell a tale of the massive Chinese fleet charting the New World the greater part of a century before Columbus set sail in 1492.
It is an extremely interesting and, if it were true, a ground breaking discovery and thesis. Perhaps it is true. But likely, it is not.
As I started reading it, the first question that came to mind for me was this: in the almost six centuries since these events happened, why has no one else suggested that the Chinese arrived first? Menzies explanation is that historians generally lack the skill set necessary to uncover the truth, a skill set that he has as a former captain in the British Navy. Unlike most historians, Menzies argues, he can read a chart, understand what he's looking at, and glean from these 15th century charts things that no historian would otherwise notice.
Yeah. It's a little bit of a stretch. I would be surprised to find that no historian has ever had the skill set to learn maritime charts and understand how to read them (heck, Theodore Roosevelt when only an undergraduate student at Harvard, researched and wrote a book of naval strategy -- "The Naval War of 1812"--that became a classic and a text book used by both the US and British navies for decades after it was published). That being said, I gave Menzies the benefit of the doubt. I've long been intrigued with China and its history, and I think I wanted to believe that history as we have been taught might not be true. How interesting would it be for America to have been discovered by the Chinese?
As I read, though, red flags continued to pop up. Out of only sparse details, Menzies would assert "conclusive proof" that his theories were finding relevance. Finally, over two hundred pages in, I decided to check into what critical review might have said about his methods and evidence. I reasoned that if Menzies is correct, or even has a good theory, then the academic community would support his findings with further research. I went to the internet.
Critical acclaim was anything but what I found. In addition to finding entire sites dedicated to debunking Menzies myths, I also found that historical lectures had been given explaining and demonstrating that what Menzies proposed was just that--a proposal. Be it even true, the evidence was not there, not was the reasoning clearly logical.
For example:
--Menzies claims that Chinese anchors have been found off of the coast of California, but fails to document them.
--1421 says that Chinese DNA is found in North America natives, but fails to account for the influx of Chinese immigrants in the 17th century.
--Menzies finds what he claims are chickens unique to Asia living in Peru, but fails to note that Peru exported millions of tons of silver to China and brought back silk and porcelain (and presumably other things, like, for example, chickens) throughout the heyday of the Spanish during the 16th through 17th centuries.
And that's just to start.
Historian Kirstin A. Seaver says, in disecting claims about the Chinese in Vinland:
"The study of history is likely to reward anyone willing to undertake it in a quest for better understanding of who they are, how they became what they are, and what they might hope to become. The manufacture of a history that never existed rewards only those who make money by deceiving the public."
If 1421 is true, Menzies has not found the evidence to support it. If it is false, it's junk and a waste of time to read. Further, it perpetuates a falsehood that makes the acquisition of real history--real, boring, dry and factual history--that much harder to grasp.
alannafowler's review against another edition
adventurous
informative
slow-paced
1.75
I won’t be picking up anymore Gavin Menzies