How can a new geographical term, first used by a late 15th c. Catholic pope, help us evaluate the incompetence, misery and absolute failure of the Ottoman sultans who, after being idiotic enough to invade a small city (Constantinople, 1453) that would only plague them with many troubles, after being pathetic enough not to make the most of an illustrious victory (Chaldiran, 1514), and after being demented enough to make of the sands of Arabia, Egypt and Libya part of their sultanate (1517), thought it possible for them to be the driving force of the Islamic world only to allow Spain and Portugal to rule the waves and prepare the demolition of Islam in just 400 years?
Contents
I. Misinterpretation of
a 15th c. Unhistorical Term by 21st c. Crooks
II. No 'Ethiopian
Ocean' (or Sea) in 'Classical Geographical Works'
III. Phoenicians,
Carthaginians, Iranians, the Circumnavigation of Africa, and the Geographical
Terms Used
IV. Libya (: 'Africa'),
the Periplus of Hanno, and the Early Use of the Term 'Atlantic Sea'
V. The Terms 'Ocean' and
'Sea', and the leading Ancient Egyptian Scholar Ptolemy the Geographer
VI. The Treaties of
Alcáçovas (1479), Tordesillas (1494) and Zaragoza (1529), and the Use of the
Terms 'Sea of Ethiopia' and 'Sea of India'
VII. The Treaties of
Alcáçovas, Tordesillas and Zaragoza, Portuguese-Spanish Colonial Conquests,
Ottoman Ignorance and Stiffness, and the Collapse of the Islamic World
I. Misinterpretation
of a 15th c. Unhistorical Term by 21st c. Crooks
It sounds strange that
the misuse of an Ancient Greek and Latin term by a 15th c. pope relates to the
fall of the Ottoman Empire and the destruction of the entire Islamic world, but
the whole world is nothing more than an enormous field of semiotics whereby all
signs exert impact on one another. At this point, it would suffice to state
that the term "Ethiopian Ocean' was first used in a Treaty signed by
Portugal and Spain under the auspices of the Catholic pope in 1494; that treaty
actually was the death warrant of the Ottoman Sultanate (not yet Caliphate at
that time) and of the Islamic world.
I should rather narrate
things in the correct order; few days ago, a friend of mine based in the
Arabian Peninsula sent me a link to an article published in a South African
site under the title "Mapmakers once referred to the southern Atlantic
Ocean as the Ethiopian Ocean" (see after the end of the present article:
Addendum I). I realized immediately what it all was about, but I visited the
web page, only to realize that the nonsensical and confusing article was the
mere reproduction of an earlier report, which was initially published in another
site; at the bottom of the article, you can read the following: "This
report was written by Africa Check, a non-partisan fact-checking organization.
View the original piece on their website". I subsequently visited that
site, which is an outfit of the French secret services {I am sorry, I meant 'of
the Agence France-Presse (AFP) Foundation'}. Details about the Africa Check non-profit
fact checking organization (including their finances and controversial sponsors)
you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa_Check
If you need to spare
your time, yes! You guessed correctly! Among the sponsors of that self-styled
organization, you can find the disreputable and fraudulent financier George
Soros' Open Society Foundation for South Africa (OSF-SA; get the basics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundation_for_South_Africa)
and the notorious Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (now that they will get
divorced, the name will have to change). Next time you want to learn more about
African History, set up your own 'non-partisan fact-checking kiosk' and get
some money from the lottery (it will not be as dirty as that coming from the
aforementioned crooks)! But I am digressing.
The Africa Check report
(see after the end of the present article: Addendum II) was titled "The
Atlantic Ocean was known as Ethiopian Ocean until the 19th century", which
is a monstrous lie. I am sure that the present article will help many people understand
that this world's fraudulent 'fact-checking' institutes and other similar
associations are set up by criminals intending to tyrannically impose their
forgery systematization and their pseudo-historical dogma which is situated at
the antipodes of the real History of the Mankind, but this is not the intention
with which I write now.
Both publications refer
to an earlier post on Instagram (a site belonging to the notorious Facebook) in
which part of a historical map is featured, whereas the caption reads:
"Today's southern half of the Atlantic Ocean in classical geographical
works was known as Aethiopian or Ethiopian Sea or Ocean". This is a lie.
Where does the historical truth lie?
II.
No 'Ethiopian Ocean' (or Sea) in 'Classical Geographical Works'
It is clear that 15th
century maps and more recent cartography do not constitute "classical
geographical works". This term denotes Ancient Greek and Roman authors,
geographers, historians, scholars, captains, merchants and sailors, who wrote
texts of geographical contents.
Ancient Babylonian map of the world, first half of the first millennium BCE
Geography and
cartography were highly developed in Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Hittite Anatolia,
Phoenicia and Carthage, as early as the 2nd millennium BCE (on the basis of
documentation hitherto excavated). Pharaoh Nechao II (610-595 BCE) hired
Phoenicians, who were the then world's most skillful navigators and therefore
cartographers, and tasked them (around 600 CE) with the circumnavigation of
Africa, which they completed in two years, sailing clockwise around Africa. This
fact was not saved in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic records, but in the part of
Ancient Greek Herodotus' Histories in which he narrates his sojourn and studies
in Egypt (ca. 453-450 BCE).
Typical Phoenician boats
Phoenician boats after Assyrian bas-reliefs of the first half of the first millennium BCE
Narrating the
circumnavigation of Africa, which was undertaken by the Phoenicians
commissioned by Pharaoh Nechao, Herodotus names South Atlantic 'southern sea'
(Histories, book IV, 42):
42.
I wonder, then, at those who have mapped out and divided the world into Libya,
Asia, and Europe; for the difference between them is great, seeing that in
length Europe stretches along both the others together, and it appears to me to
be beyond all comparison broader. For Libya shows clearly that it is
encompassed by the sea, save only where it borders on Asia; and this was proved
first (as far as we know) by Necos king of Egypt. He, when he had made an end
of digging the canal which leads from the Nile to the Arabian Gulf, sent
Phoenicians in ships, charging them to sail on their return voyage past the
Pillars of Heracles till they should come into the northern sea and so to
Egypt. So the Phoenicians set out from the Red Sea and sailed the southern sea; whenever autumn came they would
put in and sow the land, to whatever part of Libya they might come, and there
await the harvest; then, having gathered in the crop, they sailed on, so that
after two years had passed, it was in the third that they rounded the Pillars
of Heracles and came to Egypt. There they said (what some may believe, though I
do not) that in sailing round Libya they had the sun on their right hand.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Herodotus_The_Persian_Wars_(Godley)/Book_IV
Assyrian representation of Phoenician boats
In Ancient Greek the text
reads:
θωμάζω
ὦν τῶν διουρισάντων καὶ διελόντων Λιβύην
τε καὶ Ἀσίην καὶ Εὐρώπην· οὐ γὰρ σμικρὰ τὰ διαφέροντα αὐτέων ἐστί· μήκεϊ μὲν γὰρ παρʼ ἀμφοτέρας παρήκει ἡ Εὐρώπη, εὔρεος δὲ πέρι οὐδὲ συμβάλλειν ἀξίη φαίνεταί μοι εἶναι. Λιβύη μὲν γὰρ δηλοῖ ἑωυτὴν note ἐοῦσα περίρρυτος, πλὴν ὅσον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὴν Ἀσίην οὐρίζει, Νεκῶ τοῦ Αἰγυπτίων βασιλέος
πρώτου τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν καταδέξαντος· ὃς ἐπείτε τὴν διώρυχα ἐπαύσατο ὀρύσσων τὴν ἐκ τοῦ Νείλου διέχουσαν ἐς τὸν Ἀράβιον κόλπον, ἀπέπεμψε Φοίνικας ἄνδρας πλοίοισι, ἐντειλάμενος ἐς τὸ ὀπίσω διʼ Ἡρακλέων στηλέων ἐκπλέειν ἕως ἐς τὴν βορηίην θάλασσαν
καὶ οὕτω ἐς Αἴγυπτον ἀπικνέεσθαι. ὁρμηθέντες ὦν οἱ Φοίνικες ἐκ τῆς Ἐρυθρῆς θαλάσσης ἔπλεον τὴν
νοτίην θάλασσαν· ὅκως δὲ γίνοιτο φθινόπωρον
προσσχόντες ἂν σπείρεσκον τὴν γῆν, ἵνα ἑκάστοτε τῆς Λιβύης πλέοντες
γινοίατο, καὶ μένεσκον τὸν ἄμητον· θερίσαντες δʼ ἂν τὸν σῖτον ἔπλεον, ὥστε δύο ἐτέων διεξελθόντων
τρίτῳ ἔτεϊ κάμψαντες Ἡρακλέας στήλας ἀπίκοντο ἐς Αἴγυπτον. καὶ ἔλεγον ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐ πιστά, ἄλλῳ δὲ δή τεῳ, ὡς περιπλώοντες τὴν Λιβύην τὸν ἥλιον ἔσχον ἐς τὰ δεξιά.
http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekApr19&getid=0&query=Hdt.%204
Further bibliography on
the topic, you can find here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necho_II#Ambitious_projects
Phoenician battle ship
III.
Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Iranians, the Circumnavigation of Africa, and the
Geographical Terms Used
Herodotus mentions also
other efforts of circumnavigation of Africa that were undertaken but not
completed successfully; the story of Sataspes, who was the nephew of the
Achaemenid Iranian Emperor Darius I the Great (522-486 BCE), is quite
informative. Sataspes was forced to undertake the circumnavigation of Africa to
save his life. He was dispatched to Egypt (then an Iranian province named
Mudraya in Old Achaemenid Iranian), thence fully equipped, and assisted to
sail. He moved counterclockwise, which seems to have been a matter of bad planning
or unfortunate decision; he sailed out of the Mediterranean, advanced
southwards, and reached a coastland inhabited by African Pygmies probably in
the area of today's Congo. There, for undefined reasons, he decided to
discontinue his voyage and returned back to Egypt and Iran; he later justified
his decision as due to inability to further proceed.
In this narrative,
Herodotus uses the name 'Libya' (Ancient Greek for 'Africa') for the Black
Continent's southernmost confines (Histories, book IV, 43):
43.
Thus the first knowledge of Libya was gained. The next story is that of the
Carchedonians: for as for Sataspes son of Teaspes, an Achaemenid, he did not
sail round Libya, though he was sent for that end; but he feared the length and
the loneliness of the voyage and so returned back without accomplishing the
task laid upon him by his mother. For he had raped the virgin daughter of
Zopyrus son of Megabyzus; and when on this charge he was to be impaled by King
Xerxes, Sataspes’ mother, who was Darius’ sister, begged for his life, saying
that she would lay a heavier punishment on him than did Xerxes; for he should
be compelled to sail round Libya, till he completed his voyage and came to the
Arabian Gulf. Xerxes agreeing to this, Sataspes went to Egypt, where he
received a ship and a crew from the Egyptians, and sailed past the Pillars of
Heracles. Having sailed out beyond them, and rounded the Libyan promontory
called Solois, he sailed southward; but when he had been many months sailing
far over the sea, and ever there was more before him, he turned back and made
sail for Egypt. Thence coming to Xerxes, he told in his story how when he was
farthest distant he sailed by a country of little men, who wore palm-leaf
raiment; these, whenever he and his men put in to land with their ship, would
ever leave their towns and flee to the hills; he and his men did no wrong when
they landed, and took naught from the people but what they needed for eating.
As to his not sailing wholly round Libya,
the reason (he said) was that the ship could move no farther, but was stayed.
But Xerxes did not believe that Sataspes spoke truth, and as the task appointed
was unfulfilled he impaled him, punishing him on the charge first brought
against him. This Sataspes had an eunuch, who as soon as he heard of his
master’s death escaped to Samos, with a great store of wealth, of which a man
of Samos possessed himself. I know the man’s name but of set purpose forget it.
Phoenician colonization across the Mediterranean
In Ancient Greek the
text reads:
οὕτω μὲν αὕτη ἐγνώσθη τὸ πρῶτον, μετὰ δὲ Καρχηδόνιοι εἰσὶ οἱ λέγοντες· ἐπεὶ Σατάσπης γε ὁ Τεάσπιος ἀνὴρ Ἀχαιμενίδης οὐ περιέπλωσε Λιβύην,
ἐπʼ αὐτὸ τοῦτο πεμφθείς, ἀλλὰ δείσας τό τε μῆκος τοῦ πλόου καὶ τὴν ἐρημίην ἀπῆλθε ὀπίσω, οὐδʼ ἐπετέλεσε τὸν ἐπέταξέ οἱ ἡ μήτηρ ἄεθλον. θυγατέρα γὰρ Ζωπύρου τοῦ Μεγαβύζου ἐβιήσατο παρθένον· ἔπειτα μέλλοντος αὐτοῦ διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίην ἀνασκολοπιεῖσθαι ὑπὸ Ξέρξεω βασιλέος, ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Σατάσπεος ἐοῦσα Δαρείου ἀδελφεὴ παραιτήσατο, φᾶσά οἱ αὐτὴ μέζω ζημίην ἐπιθήσειν ἤ περ ἐκεῖνον· Λιβύην γάρ οἱ ἀνάγκην ἔσεσθαι περιπλώειν, ἐς ὃ ἂν ἀπίκηται περιπλέων αὐτὴν ἐς τὸν Ἀράβιον κόλπον.
συγχωρήσαντος δὲ Ξέρξεω ἐπὶ τούτοισι, ὁ Σατάσπης ἀπικόμενος ἐς Αἴγυπτον καὶ λαβὼν νέα τε καὶ ναύτας παρὰ τούτων ἔπλεε ἐπὶ Ἡρακλέας στήλας·
διεκπλώσας δὲ καὶ κάμψας τὸ ἀκρωτήριον τῆς Λιβύης τῷ οὔνομα Σολόεις ἐστί, ἔπλεε πρὸς μεσαμβρίην·
περήσας δὲ θάλασσαν πολλὴν ἐν πολλοῖσι μησί, ἐπείτε τοῦ πλεῦνος αἰεὶ ἔδεε, ἀποστρέψας ὀπίσω ἀπέπλεε ἐς Αἴγυπτον. ἐκ δὲ ταύτης ἀπικόμενος παρὰ βασιλέα Ξέρξεα ἔλεγε φὰς τὰ προσωτάτω ἀνθρώπους μικροὺς παραπλέειν ἐσθῆτι φοινικηίῃ διαχρεωμένους, οἳ ὅκως σφεῖς καταγοίατο τῇ νηὶ φεύγεσκον πρὸς τὰ ὄρεα λείποντες τὰς πόλιας· αὐτοὶ δὲ ἀδικέειν οὐδὲν ἐσιόντες, βρωτὰ δὲ μοῦνα ἐξ αὐτέων λαμβάνειν. τοῦ δὲ μὴ
περιπλῶσαι Λιβύην παντελέως αἴτιον τόδε ἔλεγε, τὸ πλοῖον τὸ πρόσω οὐ δυνατὸν ἔτι εἶναι προβαίνειν ἀλλʼ ἐνίσχεσθαι. Ξέρξης δὲ οὔ οἱ συγγινώσκων λέγειν
ἀληθέα οὐκ ἐπιτελέσαντά τε τὸν προκείμενον ἄεθλον ἀνεσκολόπισε, τὴν ἀρχαίην δίκην ἐπιτιμῶν. τούτου δὲ τοῦ Σατάσπεος εὐνοῦχος ἀπέδρη ἐς Σάμον, ἐπείτε ἐπύθετο τάχιστα τὸν δεσπότεα
τετελευτηκότα, ἔχων χρήματα μεγάλα, τὰ Σάμιος ἀνὴρ κατέσχε, τοῦ ἐπιστάμενος τὸ οὔνομα ἑκὼν ἐπιλήθομαι.
Carthage and its hinterland
IV.
Libya (: 'Africa'), the Periplus of Hanno, and the Early Use of the Term
'Atlantic Sea'
Early in his Histories,
Herodotus names the entire sea west of Europe and Africa "Atlantic
Sea" (Histories, book I, 203):
203.
The Caspian is a sea by itself, having no connection with any other. The sea
frequented by the Greeks, that beyond the Pillars of Hercules, which is called
the Atlantic, and also the Erythraean, are
all one and the same sea. But the Caspian is a distinct sea, lying by itself,
in length fifteen days' voyage with a row-boat, in breadth, at the broadest
part, eight days' voyage.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_History_of_Herodotus_(Rawlinson)/Book_1
In Ancient Greek, the
text reads:
ἡ δὲ Κασπίη θάλασσά ἐστι ἐπʼ ἑωυτῆς, οὐ συμμίσγουσα τῇ ἑτέρῃ θαλάσσῃ. τὴν μὲν γὰρ Ἕλληνες ναυτίλλονται
πᾶσα καὶ ἡ ἔξω στηλέων θάλασσα ἡ Ἀτλαντὶς καλεομένη καὶ ἡ Ἐρυθρὴ μία ἐοῦσα τυγχάνει. ἡ δὲ Κασπίη ἐστὶ ἑτέρη ἐπʼ ἑωυτῆς, ἐοῦσα μῆκος μὲν πλόου εἰρεσίῃ χρεωμένῳ πεντεκαίδεκα ἡμερέων, εὖρος δέ, τῇ εὐρυτάτη ἐστὶ αὐτὴ ἑωυτῆς, ὀκτὼ ἡμερέων. καὶ τὰ μὲν πρὸς τὴν ἑσπέρην φέροντα τῆς θαλάσσης ταύτης ὁ Καύκασος
παρατείνει, ἐὸν ὀρέων καὶ πλήθεϊ μέγιστον καὶ μεγάθεϊ ὑψηλότατον. ἔθνεα δὲ ἀνθρώπων πολλὰ καὶ παντοῖα ἐν ἑωυτῷ ἔχει ὁ Καύκασος, τὰ πολλὰ πάντα ἀπʼ ὕλης ἀγρίης ζώοντα·
http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?query=Hdt.+1.202.4&dbname=GreekApr19
Further bibliography
about the topic can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus#Early_travels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histories_(Herodotus)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_History_of_Herodotus_(Rawlinson)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Herodotus_The_Persian_Wars_(Godley)
Carthage: a diagram of the city and the harbor
In the middle of the
5th c. BCE, the Carthaginian king Hanno undertook an enormous expedition to
colonize the Western coast of Africa; 60 penteconter (50-oared) ships sailed
with 30000 colons and the necessary provisions in order either to repopulate earlier
Carthaginian settlements or to found new colonies. The deeds of the expedition,
which sailed across the West African coast down to today's Sierra Leone (or to
Gabon according others), were narrated in an inscription dedicated to the
temple of Baal Hammon (equated to Saturn by the Ancient Romans and to Cronos by
the Ancient Greeks) in Carthage. You can find further bibliography here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_Hammon
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/penteconter
The inscription was
destroyed during the Roman conquest of Carthage (146 BCE), but it was however
saved in a rather abridged Ancient Greek translation, which is certainly the
product of translators working in the Library of Alexandria during the 3rd or
2nd c. BCE. The Ancient Greek translation uses terms like 'Liby-Phoenicians'
for the 'Carthaginians' (i.e. Phoenicians of Africa), 'Libya' for Africa, and
'Ethiopians' (i.e. people with burned faces) for various Hamitic peoples
inhabiting NW Africa. Related bibliography, further analysis, and the Ancient
Greek text you can find here:
https://www.academia.edu/23363041/The_Periplus_of_Hanno_King_of_the_Carthaginians_and_explorations_of_West_Africa_before_2450_years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_the_Navigator
https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/Άννωνος_Περίπλους
Carthaginian sites in NW Africa
One of the earlier
Ancient Greek uses of the term 'Atlantic' is noticed in the lyrical mythical
poem 'Geryoneis' of Stesichorus (630-555 BCE); it dates back to the beginning
of the 5th c. BCE. This is saved in fragmentary condition, and it was mentioned
by later poets. The verse reads:
Stesichorus
in his Geryoneis calls an island in the Atlantic
sea Sarpedonian.
S 86=183 P.M.G.
Scholiast on Apollonius of Rhodes
In Ancient Greek, the
text reads:
Στησίχορος δὲ ἐν τῇ Γηρυονίδι καὶ νῆσόν τινα ἐν τῷ Ἀτλαντικῷ πελάγει Σαρπηδονίαν φησί.
S 86 = 183 P.M.G.
Schol. Ap. Rhod. 1. 211 (p. 26 Wendel)
https://www.loebclassics.com/view/stesichorus_i-fragments/1991/pb_LCL476.89.xml
In this verse, the
Ancient Greek poet (who was born in Calabria and lived in Sicily) refers to a
location off the coast of South Thrace in the Balkan Peninsula. In Greek the
term used is 'Atlantic archipelago' (not 'sea'); it clearly corresponds to the
sea that we now call 'Aegean Sea'. The name relates to the mythical Atlantean
generation, i.e. the people of the mythical continent of Atlantis. About:
https://www.greeklegendsandmyths.com/orithyia.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stesichorus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geryoneis
The Ancient Greek use
of the term referred to the Atlas Mountains of NW Africa, which were associated
with Atlas, the mythical king of Mauritania, a homonymous king of Atlantis
(which means 'island of Atlas'), and ultimately with the archetypal, legendary
figure of a Titan named Atlas. As a matter of fact, the location of the
mythical Atlantis in the sea beyond the 'Pillars of Hercules' (i.e. Gibraltar)
is the very reason for which that sea was later named 'Atlantic'.
The Phoenician-Carthaginian god Baal Hammon
Melqart stela from Amrit
Votive statue from the Temple of Melqart in Cadiz
At this point I must
clarify that the Ancient Greek appellation of Gibraltar is due to the Ancient
Greek association of the Phoenician-Carthaginian god Melqart with Hercules. In
reality, the two bronze pillars of the Carthaginian temple of Melqart in Gibraltar
are at the origin of the Ancient Greek appellation. It would therefore be more accurate
to use the expression the 'Pillars of Melqart'.
Clarification of terms
and bibliography:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(mythology)#King_of_Mauretania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauretania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Ocean#Etymology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Hercules#Phoenician_connection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melqart#Cult
Santi Petri island, Cadiz: Temple of Melqart
V.
The Terms 'Ocean' and 'Sea', and the leading Ancient Egyptian Scholar Ptolemy
the Geographer
I have to highlight now
a last point, namely the fact that, for all ancient nations, the large expanse
of sea west of the western confines of Africa and Europe was a 'sea', not an
'ocean'. This is so because the sea was identified as salted waters, whereas
the 'ocean' was thought to be an enormous stream of 'soft waters' that
surrounded all lands and all seas. As term, the ocean of 'soft waters' was
extensively mythologized within the context of the Ancient Sumerian,
Assyrian-Babylonian, Egyptian, Hittite, and Canaanite-Phoenician cosmogonies and
cosmologies, notably as Apsu or Nun. Basics and bibliography can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abzu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu_(mythology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ocean
The greatest of all
geographers of Late Antiquity was Ptolemy the Geographer who was also a
mathematician, an natural scientist, and an astronomer/astrologer; his venerated
masterpiece, 'Geography' (Γεωγραφική Υφήγησις / Geographiki Hyphigisis / Geographical Instruction),
is at the same time an atlas, a gazetteer (geographical directory) and an
elaborate treatise on cartography. He describes the limits of regions, he
identifies the location of mountains, rivers, promontories, islands, cities,
towns and villages, and he names the races of inhabitants of all known regions
of the then known world. He is the first to have used the word 'ocean' in the
(non-mythical) sense of large expanse of sea (as we use it in Modern Times).
All maps attributed to Ptolemy the Geographer are fake, for a very simple reason: they are not his maps. They are maps designed by erudite Christian monks in the Eastern Roman Empire or in Western Europe 800 to 1300 years after Ptolemy. They only reflect the understanding of Ptolemy’s text that those monks had. These maps do not constitute therefore an authoritative documentation.
1- FIRST EXCERPT
Ptolemy the Geographer
never used the term 'Ethiopian sea' (or 'ocean'). He used various terms to
define the sea that we now call 'Atlantic Ocean'. In his book IV, ch. 6
(associated with the 4th table of Africa), Ptolemy described the location of
the limits of Inner Libya (Central Africa); in § 3, the text reads:
Από δε μεσημβρίας τη εντός Αιθιοπία, εν η Αγίσυμβα χώρα
κατά γραμμήν την από του ειρημένου πέρατος έως του κατά τον Εσπέριον και Μέγαν
καλούμενον κόλπον της εκτός θαλάσσης
https://books.google.ru/books?id=4ksBAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
(edidit Carolud
Fridericus Augustus Nobbe, tom. I, Lipsiae 1843; p. 266 - LIB. IV. Cap.6)
In this sentence, there
is no verb; this is due to the fact that the verb is stated before two paragraphs,
at the very beginning of the chapter: 'περιορίζεται' ('is demarcated').
An English translation
reads as:
In
its southern side, (Central Africa is demarcated) from Inner Ethiopia, where
there is the land of Agisymba, by means of a line from that point up to the
Hesperian Gulf, which is also called Great Gulf, of the
Outer Sea.
This excerpt makes
clear the following points:
i- Northern Africa from
the western confines of today's Egypt and Sudan to the Atlantic Ocean was
called 'Libya'.
ii- Ptolemy the
Geographer used the traditional name of Cush (Ethiopia), i.e. Ancient Sudan, in
a wider sense, referring (not only to the kingdom of Meroe but) to all lands
beyond Sudan down to today's South Africa.
iii- Ptolemy the
Geographer mentions a location, namely Agisymba, which is also known to have
been the end of a Roman military and commercial expedition under Julius
Maternus at the time of Domitian (ca. 90 CE). Bibliography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agisymba
and https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/agisymba-e108180
iv- Ptolemy the
Geographer demarcates the limits between 'Libya' (North Africa west of Egypt
and Sudan) and 'Ethiopia' (viewed in a broader sense as the entire region of
today's Sudan and the southern half of Africa) through a line, which starts in
the area of today's borders between South Sudan and Central African Republic
and ends in the coastlands of Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, and Cameroon, i.e. the
Gulf of Guinea.
v- The Gulf of Guinea is
called by Ptolemy the Geographer 'Hesperian (: Western) Gulf' or 'Great Gulf)
vi- The Atlantic Ocean
is called 'the Outer Sea'.
2- SECOND EXCERPT
In the next paragraph
of his text (§ 4), Ptolemy the Geographer states that "in its western side, ('Inner Libya' is
demarcated) from the Western Ocean (τω
δυτικώ ωκεανώ)", therefore mentioning the then
most commonly used term for the sea that we call nowadays 'Atlantic Ocean'.
3- THIRD EXCERPT
In his book IV, ch. 9
(associated with the 4th table of Africa), Ptolemy described the location and
the limits of 'Inner Ethiopia' (Της
εντός Αιθιοπίας θέσις: the location of Inner Ethiopia); the
term 'Inner Ethiopia' clearly refers to the part of Eastern Africa that is located
south of today's South Sudan, Central African Republic, Uganda and North Kenya.
In § 1 (p. 283 as per the above link), the text reads:
Η δε υποκειμένη ταύτη τη χώρα και τη όλη Λιβύη Αιθιοπία περιορίζεται,
από μεν άρκτων ταις εκτεθειμέναις μεσημβριναίς γραμμαίς των ειρημένων χωρών,
διηκούσαις τε από του Μεγάλου κόλπου της εκτός
θαλάσσης, μέχρι του ειρημένου Ραπτού ακρωτηρίου, ...
και έτι τω κατά τον Μέγαν κόλπον μέρει του δυτικού ωκεανού,
από δε δυσμών και μεσηβρίας αγνώστω γη,
από δε ανατολών τω από του Ραπτού ακρωτηρίου Βαρβαρικώ
κόλπω, ος καλείται (Βα)τραχεία θάλασσα διά τα βράχη, μέχρι του Πράσου ακρωτηρίου,
και τη εντεύθεν αγνώστω γη.
An English translation
reads as:
Being
located beyond that land and the entire 'Libya', ('Inner') Ethiopia is
demarcated from the north by the above mentioned southern limits of the said
lands; these limits (lit. lines) stretch from the Great Gulf of the Outer Sea up to the aforesaid Rhapton
promontory, …
…
and still to the part of the Western Ocean that
is inside the Great Gulf.
(Furthermore,
'Inner' Ethiopia is demarcated) from the west and the south by an unknown land,
and
from the east by the Gulf of Berberia, which stretches from the Rhapton
promontory, which is also named 'Harsh Sea' because of the rocks, up to Prason
promontory and the unknown land beyond.
This excerpt makes
clear the following points:
i- The appellations 'Outer
Sea' and 'Western Ocean' are interchangeable across Ptolemy the Geographer's
texts.
ii- South of the line
going from today's Gabon, North Congo, and the Great Lakes region to the coast
of Tanzania around Daresalaam, the southern third of the Black Continent was
totally unknown to Late Antiquity Egyptian and Mediterranean explorers and
scholars – with the exception of the East African coast down to today's North
Mozambique.
iii- The distance from
today's Gabon to the central coastland of Mozambique was not only unknown to
Ptolemy, but also incalculable.
iv- However, it was
clear to Ptolemy that those confines constituted the southernmost part of the
world.
v- In fact, 'Inner
Ethiopia' is located south of the demarcation line with 'Inner Libya' (see
point ii), and consequently, the Black Continent's southern part is called
either 'Inner Ethiopia' or 'unknown land'.
4- FOURTH EXCERPT
In his book VIII, ch.
13 {which contains the first table (map) of Africa ('Libya')}, Ptolemy
described the contents and the limits of the map. Specifying how the map is
delimited (§ 2), he defines the western limit of the map as per below:
Περιορίζεται δε ο πίναξ .... από δε δύσεως τω δυτικώ Ωκεανώ, ...
https://books.google.ru/books?id=vHMCAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
(Ptolemy Kart Friedrich
August Nobbe, Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia, tom. II, Lipsiae 1845; p. 215 - Libyae
Tabula I)
An English translation
reads as:
And
the map is delimited …. from the west by the
Western Ocean, …
This shows that the two
most ordinary terms used by Ptolemy the Geographer to denote the Atlantic Ocean
are 'outer sea' and 'Western Ocean'. Ptolemy never used the term 'Ethiopian
Sea' (or ocean).
A list of Ancient Greek
and Roman geographers and related bibliography can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Graeco-Roman_geographers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geography#Roman_period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geography#Hellenistic_period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_(Ptolemy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_(Ptolemy)
https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Κλαύδιος_Πτολεμαίος
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromata
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhapta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azania
VI.
The Treaties of Alcáçovas (1479), Tordesillas (1494) and Zaragoza (1529), and the
Use of the Terms 'Sea of Ethiopia' and 'Sea of India'
During the
Christian/Islamic Times in Western Europe, Ptolemy the Geographer's works
constituted the most authoritative source of information about faraway lands
where Western Europeans could not travel because they were in war with the Muslims,
who organized in different empires and kingdoms, sultanates, emirates and
khanates controlled progressively 2/3 of Asia, 2/3 of Africa, and 1/3 of Europe.
During the Crusades,
many knights belonging to several Christian religious orders encountered and
secretively cooperated with various members and leaders of Muslim mystical
orders, thus taking with them back to Europe a plethora of valuable
documentation of either scientific-scholarly or spiritual contents. The
Crusaders mainly targeted the Eastern Roman Empire, which managed to withstand
the attacks of Muslim armies for several hundreds of years and after the middle
of the 10th c. started recovering territories from the Islamic Caliphate,
notably Antioch (Antakya) in 969. The real intention of the Crusades launched
by the pope of Rome was not the recapture of Jerusalem and the Christian Holy
Lands, but the obstruction of the Eastern Roman Reconquista; in other words,
the schismatic papal authorities of Rome wanted to prevent the Orthodox Eastern
Roman Emperors from conquering Jerusalem, which was located at a distance of
less than 700 km from the borders of the re-strengthened 'Romania' (Ρωμανία: this was the official name of the
Eastern Roman Empire).
The Crusaders failed to
consolidate their early victories and, as they united Eastern Christians, Jews
and Muslims against them, returned home, defeated. The only tangible and
permanent result was the debilitation of the Eastern Roman Empire, which was
temporarily invaded by the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade (1204-1261). Following
the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire at 1453, the path of the Western
European pseudo-Christian kingdoms had opened for the colonial conquest of the
West and the diffusion of the Roman Anti-Christ. The supreme master of the colonial
expansion overseas was the pope of Rome; when the overseas criminality of the
Portuguese and the Spaniards started at the very end of the 15th c., he had
already got rid of the sole Christian opponent, who could denounce and reject
the deeply anti-Christian activities of the conquistadors worldwide: the
Eastern Roman Empire.
The detailed study of
Ptolemy the Geographer's text, the deep knowledge of all the terms and the
names that he recorded, and the meticulous investigation of the associated cartography
occupied a high position among the tasks of the papal scholars, who advised and
guided the various navigators, naval officers, and colonial gangsters of
Portugal and Spain. It was clear to them that Africa could certainly be
circumnavigated and they were fully aware of the scrupulous division of the
Black Continent that Ptolemy systematically made in his masterpiece (as per
above).
It can therefore be
easily understood -on the basis of the aforementioned- that every 15th c.
Italian, Spanish or Portuguese geographer, cartographer and adviser to a
colonial expedition, who had a strong background in Ptolemy's Geography, would
easily extend the use of Ptolemy's term 'Inner Ethiopia' (or simply 'Ethiopia')
to various parts of Ptolemy's 'unknown lands' where he may have sailed in the
last years of the 15th c. and afterwards. Examples: the coasts of today's
Angola, Namibia, South Africa and South Mozambique and their inlands may have
been expansively called 'Ethiopia' (see above Unit V, 3- THIRD EXCERPT, v-).
This would be a reason
to also name the surrounding seas 'Ethiopian Sea' or 'Ethiopian Ocean'. However,
the need for new names would arise very soon after Bartolomeu Dias reached the
' Cabo das Tormentas' (Cape of Storms), which was later renamed as Cape of Good
Hope, in May 1488, and Vasco da Gama effectuated the first voyage from Western
Europe to India (1497-1499). Why the need for new names would arise it is easy
to grasp. The old terms used by Ptolemy the Geographer could not stand anymore;
the term 'Western Ocean' would be meaningless, because if the Atlantic Ocean
was named 'Western Ocean', the Pacific Ocean {crossed by Magellan (1480-1521)
and his fleet during the period 1519-1522} could be viewed as further located
in the West. The same is also valid for Ptolemy the Geographer's term 'Outer Sea',
which reflects only world perceptions and worldviews of people grown and
educated in the Mediterranean.
The fierce antagonism
between the Portuguese and the Spaniards risked jeopardizing the papal plans
for Roman predominance worldwide though colonial conquests, forced
Christianization, and mass killings of the various indigenous peoples in
Africa, Asia and the Americas. Who had the right to colonize a land or island became
a major and most thorny problem; that's why the 15th c. and 16th c. Catholic popes
- issued many documents
(namely 'papal bulls', like Æterni regis, which was issued in 1481, Inter
caetera, which was published in 1493, and Dudum siquidem, which was
communicated also in 1493),
- convened many conferences
(like the Badajoz Junta in 1524) for royal delegates to negotiate, and
- signed many treaties
(notably the Treaty of Alcáçovas in 1479, the Treaty of Tordesillas in1494, the
treaty of Vitoria in 1524, and the Treaty of Zaragoza in1529) with the two
royal houses (of Castile/Spain and Portugal).
It was essential for
the Catholic popes to prevent wars between Portugal and Castile, like the Battle
of Toro (1476), the Battle of Guinea (1478), and the War of the Castilian
Succession (1475-1479).
Perhaps the Treaty of Alcáçovas
is the most important, when it comes to the conceptualization and the
contextualization of the New World Order, which was tantamount to the
colonization and brought about the elimination of three great Islamic Empires
and of a plethora of sultanates, emirates and khanates. It introduced a new
approach to the world affairs, by totally denying any native people the right to
be self-administered / self-ruled, if they did not belong to one Christian
European monarch – puppet of the Catholic pope. This treaty (1479) generated a
precedent, because it implemented the concept that indigenous nations do not
have the right to even be asked about their colonization by 'Christian'
killers, gangsters, and genocide perpetrators; more critically, this concept
applied for all lands – worldwide. In fact, it triggered the colonial race,
which ensued and lasted for more than five centuries, down to our days.
However, the Treaty of Tordesillas,
which was only complemented by the Treaty of Zaragoza, was more important
because technically it meant that the entire Muslim world was deprived from the
right to sail anywhere. By introducing the concept of papal lines of
demarcation between the Portuguese and the Spanish maritime / colonial zones of
colonial rule and commercial exploitation, the Treaty of Tordesillas prohibited
any other nation's boats from sailing anywhere and consequently from colonizing
overseas territories. In fact, the papal lines of demarcation appeared first in
the papal bull Inter caetera (1493) in which it was stipulated that all the
lands located west of a vertical, north-south line passing 100 leagues west of the
Azores should belong to Castile (Spain). In the Treaty of Tordesillas, the
papal line only moved 270 leagues west to generate a balance between the two
Catholic colonial nations.
The treaty of Tordesillas
turned the Spaniards toward the Americas and the Portuguese to the South (i.e.
today's Brazil and Western/Southwestern Africa) and the East (i.e. the Indian
Ocean, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and further up to today's Indonesia). In
25 years, the future of the Islamic world was mortgaged to the hilt. All the
same, the spectrum of another Portuguese-Spanish war came back in force, after
the Portuguese, having sailed through the Indian Ocean, landed in the Moluccas
(Maluku) islands of today's Indonesia, and few years later, the Spaniards
arrived there too, sailing the other way round through the Pacific Ocean, while
effectuating the circumnavigation of the Earth (the famous Magellan–Elcano
expedition, 1519–1522). A provisory agreement was concluded with the Treaty of
Vitoria (1524), which called for a bilateral conference; however the dispute
was not solved in the Badajoz–Elvas conference (1524), and it was only with the
Treaty of Zaragoza (1529) that a second papal line of demarcation was drawn,
this time 297.5 leagues east of the Moluccas.
With the second papal
demarcation line, the entire world was divided into two zones (later called
hemispheres): Portuguese and Spanish. In fact, almost all the seas of the world
were declared "mare clausum" (Latin for 'closed sea'). The only
exceptions were the North Atlantic (north of the Tropic of Cancer; involving
also the North Sea and the Baltic Sea) and the Mediterranean Sea (including the
Black Sea).
1. 'NORTH SEA' (West
Atlantic) & 'SOUTH SEA' (most of the Pacific) for Spain
It was then that the
need for new names appeared, so that the papal cartographers immortalize their
New World Order, which trapped the Islamic World in an impasse that heralded
the end of every Islamic empire, kingdom or independent state. The western part
of the Atlantic was viewed as their 'North Sea' and the largest part of the
Pacific (until the demarcation line east of the Moluccas) was named 'South
Sea'.
2. 'SEA OF INDIA'
(Indian Ocean and West Pacific) & ' SEA OF ETHIOPIA' (Portuguese Sector in
South Atlantic) for Portugal
Similarly, the
Portuguese introduced the term ' Sea of India' for all the seas between the Cape
of Good Hope and the second papal demarcation line east of the Moluccas. This
large expanse of sea corresponded almost to what the Ancient Greeks and Romans
called 'Red Sea' ('Erythraean Sea') during the Antiquity; but it also included South
China Sea and the Sea of Japan (as per the papal demarcation line). Then, for
the Portuguese sector in Central and South Atlantic (south of the Tropic of
Cancer) the term 'Sea of Ethiopia' was invented and used on the aforementioned
grounds, namely the fact that Ptolemy the Geographer named the lands from Gabon
to Tanzania 'Inner Ethiopia'.
It is however
technically wrong to imagine that 16th–19th c. cartographers called the entire South
Atlantic 'Sea of Ethiopia' or 'Ethiopian Ocean' or 'Ethiopic Sea'. This name
concerned only the Portuguese sector in South Atlantic, namely east of the
first papal demarcation line (stipulated in the Treaty Tordesillas, 1494). This
means that the sea off the coast of Uruguay and Argentina, which belonged to
Spain, was not named 'Sea of Ethiopia'.
The two papal
demarcation lines were called Meridian (1494) and Anti-Meridian (1529). However,
the two sectors were not exactly equal, although the kings of Spain insisted on
this; the Portuguese got a slightly larger portion, namely 191 degrees of the
Earth circumference, and the Spaniards had to be satisfied with about 169
degrees. It is however clear that the two major colonial treaties and the
demarcation lines were not respected scrupulously.
These were the
circumstances under which Ptolemy the Geographer's use of the term 'Inner
Ethiopia' for the northern part of Africa's southern half exerted a so
posterior impact as regards a sea where the Ancient Cushitic Qore (kings) of
Napata and Meroe in today's Sudan would have never imagined to sail. Their
heirs, namely today's Arabic-speaking Sudanese and the Cushitic nations of the
Oromos, the Sidamas and others, must find it strange that the name by which the
Ancient Greeks and Romans named their ancestors had a so long history and
ramifications – to which the Amhara and Tigray Abyssinian tribes and the modern
colonial state of Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia) are totally unrelated, except for ludicrously
and shamelessly usurping names that are not theirs. Sic transit gloria mundi!
However, this posterior
impact of Ptolemy's use of the term 'Inner Ethiopia' took gradually an end;
this happened, when the mare clausum of the two Catholic colonial kingdoms
started being challenged by several rising rival European kingdoms and states,
namely the Dutch Republic (1588-1795), France, and England, which advanced the
principle of 'mare liberum' (free sea). At the forefront of this effort was a
very remarkable Dutch thinker and scholar Hugo Grotius, who wrote a homonymous
book to defend the interests of the corporation for which he worked: the Dutch
East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie; VOC). With 'mare liberum'
and VOC, the entire world entered the second stage of European colonialism, the
colonial empires of Spain and Portugal started shrinking, and gradually the
term 'Sea of Ethiopia' was forgotten.
For further research
about this topics, go through the bibliography and the historical sources that
you can find here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Alc%C3%A1%C3%A7ovas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeterni_regis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_caetera
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudum_siquidem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomeu_Dias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_da_Gama
https://ia902703.us.archive.org/33/items/toscanelliandco00vigngoog/toscanelliandco00vigngoog.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Magellan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Magellan%E2%80%93Elcano_circumnavigation
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/15th_century/mod001.asp
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/16th_century/mod003.asp
https://ehne.fr/en/encyclopedia/themes/treaty-tordesillas-june-7-1494
http://www.enciclopedia-aragonesa.com/voz.asp?voz_id=13214
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iberian_mare_clausum_claims.svg
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/jun7/treaty-tordesillas/
http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/handle/10641/780/La%20Casa%20de%20Contrataci%C3%B3n%20de%20La%20Coru%C3%B1a.pdf?sequence=1
http://historiasdebadajoz.blogspot.com/2008/11/la-junta-de-badajoz-elvas-de-1524-sobre.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maluku_Islands
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junta_de_Badajoz-Elvas
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/16th_century/mod003.asp
http://sevilla.2019-2022.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/12.ICSevilla2019_Tratado-de-Zaragoza-a15.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Zaragoza
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Zaragoza
http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas20/catalogo/description/122513
http://www.self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Treaty_of_Zaragoza_(1529)#The_treaty
https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p66561/mobile/ch04s04.html
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2009/2009.12778.pdf
https://hydra.hull.ac.uk/assets/hull:5720a/content
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13255/13255.txt
https://www.upf.edu/documents/88317877/91074250/6.1.1_EN.pdf/64d20a90-e6c5-2033-16c1-afd8d4a267c1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantino_planisphere
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03085694.2012.673762?journalCode=rimu20
https://web.archive.org/web/20130401215047/http://www.ciuhct.com/online/docs/thesis_joaquim_gaspar_2010-v2.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3350700?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_clausum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythraean_Sea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Nagasaki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Liberum
Portuguese and Spanish trade lines
Attention: the
following two links contain numerous mistakes, distortions and nonsensical
sentences probably written by some ignorant idiots hired or bribed by the
illegitimate and felonious embassies of Abiy Ahmed's criminal, tyrannical
government, which has no right and no authority to represent the numerous
oppressed and persecuted nations that have been subjugated and imprisoned in
the colonial state of Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aethiopian_Sea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aethiopia
South America in 1650
VII.
The Treaties of Alcáçovas, Tordesillas and Zaragoza, Portuguese-Spanish
Colonial Conquests, Ottoman Ignorance and Stiffness, and the Collapse of the Islamic
World
Going beyond the simple
'Sea of Ethiopia' name issue, the associated cartography, and the earlier
colonial conquests, I must underscore the fact that few people today understand
how dramatically World History was reversed in the late 15th and early 16th c. The
shock caused in the 40-year period (1492-1532) was incommensurately greater
than that triggered in the early 7th c. because of Islam (622-662) and stronger
than the one prompted in the early 4th c. due to the Christianization of the
Roman Empire (313-353).
As material conquests,
the new territories conquered by the conquistadores for the benefit of the
crowns of Spain and Portugal during this 40-year period, although significant,
really pale if compared with the territorial advances made and the wealth accumulated
by Timur (Tamerlane) and Genghis Khan or by the early caliphs during the 7th c.
Islamic conquests. Other, earlier rulers and conquerors invaded larger
territories in shorter time: Alexander the Great or Darius the Great. Even
Selim I, who was contemporary with the events that founded the Portuguese and
Spanish colonial empires, conquered more lands in eight (8) years of reign (1512-1520)
than the Iberian conquistadores in 40 years (the territories of today's Eastern
Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar,
Emirates, Yemen and Egypt).
Why was the shock
caused by the conquistadores far greater and lasted longer?
Many would respond to
this question, saying that overseas expansion brings (due to various reasons)
greater wealth to a colonial metropolis than continental land conquest does.
Others would focus on
the dramatic material and military superiority of the conquistadores over the
invaded empires or tribes.
Several historians
would explain the phenomenon by pointing out that, due to the 15th c. – 16th c.
Iberian maritime expansions, the entire world trade was remodeled after very
different plans, patterns, methods and processes terminating the continental
empires' prevalence across the trade routes.
Various historians of
religion would underscore the fact that the widespread, forced evangelization
of numerous nations and vast populations across the world by the Iberian
Catholic missionaries was an unprecedented event in the History of the Mankind,
which is tantamount to spiritual and physical genocide and to perpetuation of
ceaseless series of crimes against the Mankind.
This is true; neither
the early Islamic conquests nor Genghis Khan's thunderous invasions led to such
criminal acts of religion enforcement and mass killings.
However, the
aforementioned approaches (and numerous other interpretations) are not
erroneous, but they reveal only aspects of the phenomenon herewith described. I
believe that the 5-century long irreversibility of this phenomenon has more to
do with the core nature of the acts that were then perpetrated however one may
narrate or present them. Undoubtedly, these acts and events were totally evil
and inhuman, and, if one needs a religious definition, they were inherently
Anti-Christian. The core nature of the Spanish and Portuguese colonial
conquests reflected a totally different notion, ethos, mindset, mentality,
approach, attitude and conviction that had not been hitherto attested
throughout the History of the Mankind.
This notion was first
revealed in the Treaty of Alcáçovas (1479) whereby no indigenous nation (in
either known or unknown lands or islands) was thought of as capable of
self-rule, self-administration, and self-determination. It is in that treaty,
which basically concerned bilateral Portuguese-Spanish relations, that the
concept of Catholic world dominance was explicitly evoked, conceding to all the
other humans, either inhabitants of major empires or members of minor tribes,
no right to be asked about their opinion, choice and will.
This ultra-totalitarian
concept certainly threatened all the nations of the world, and it is due to
this notion that Spain and Portugal first and several other European nations
(Holland, France and England) later colonized the entire world, but what
matters most for us to study (and what determined the world developments over
the past 500 years) is the reaction of the other major empires and states of
the then world.
Evaluating all aspects
and repercussions of the phenomenon of the early 16th c. Portuguese and Spanish
thalassocracy and colonial hegemony, we can easily identify the major empires
and states that were targeted by the two crowns and impacted by the
aforementioned notion and concept, which epitomized the acts and deeds of the
Iberian conquistadors.
Genoa
and Venice
Genoa and Venice were
formidable Mediterranean maritime forces and very wealthy republics, thanks to
their historical trade with the East; they were in constant wars with the
Ottoman Empire and they could not be involved in the colonial conquests at an
early level, but the flourishing and powerful Genoese and Venetian bankers and
magnates, who were also present in the Iberian Peninsula and interconnected
with numerous institutions there, would certainly be able to extract great
benefit from Spain's and Portugal's colonial acquisitions – which they did.
France,
Holland and England
Due to the treaties of
Tordesillas and Zaragoza, France, Holland and England were left with the North
Atlantic, which would only offer them meager benefits compared with those of
Spain and Portugal; however, these Western European states accepted the
aforementioned notion and concept, which are the quintessence of colonialism,
and prepared themselves to contravene the arbitrary papal presumption of 'mare
clausum' (closed sea). It took them some time to be ready and when they were,
they counter-attacked, advancing their own presumption of 'mare liberum' (free
sea), at the very antipodes of the peremptory papal nonsense.
China
Throughout their very
long History, the Chinese were constituted as a great continental empire with
significant maritime activity alongside the eastern coastlands of Asia and with
strong commercial connections with all the other Asiatic kingdoms and empires. More
particularly in the early 16th c., China had ordinary and close commercial
relations with the Kazakh and Uzbek khanates, and the three major Islamic
empires, namely the Mughal Empire of South Asia, the Safavid Empire of Iran,
and the Ottoman Empire.
However, China was
never a colonial empire, and every Chinese activity beyond China's borders was
always undertaken for two reasons only, namely to damage a dangerous invader
and to ensure peace across the trade routes west of China. The notion and
concept contained in the treaties of Alcáçovas, Tordesillas and Zaragoza were
absolutely alien and inhuman to the peaceful and serene Chinese worldview and
world conceptualization. That mindset and attitude was opposite to Chinese
culture and faiths as attested throughout millennia. Similarly, the papal
demarcation lines were meaningless to the Chinese as fully contradictory to the
traditional Chinese humanism. About Chinese humanism:
https://www.transcript-publishing.com/media/pdf/80/2e/bf/ts1351_1.pdf
https://science.jrank.org/pages/7762/Humanism-Chinese-Conception.html
https://www.e-ir.info/2020/02/20/an-examination-of-chinese-humanism/
Ottoman
Empire, Safavid Empire of Iran, and Mughal Empire
The three major Islamic
empires were arguably in the first half of the 16th c. the world's three
largest and most powerful states, with Ming China being the fourth. Contrarily
to China, they had a certain 'colonial' tradition (although the term 'colonial'
here is used with a totally different meaning, rather related to historical
colonialism during the Antiquity and the Christian/Islamic times). All three
empires emerged as continuation of earlier empires with a great past, an
outstanding historical heritage, and therefore continuous presence across the trade
routes between East and West, namely the historical commercial network that we
now call "silk, spice and frankincense trade routes across lands, deserts
and seas".
The Mughal Empire's
(and the earlier Delhi sultanates') sphere of influence, cultural radiation,
and commercial contacts stretched from China and Southeast Asia to Central
Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, and the coastland of Eastern Africa. However, the
Mughal Empire (and its predecessors) never had an involvement in the
Mediterranean.
The Iranian sphere of
influence, cultural radiation, and commercial contacts stretched from the
Balkans, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean to the coastland of Eastern
Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, South-Southeast Asia, and China. However,
any Iranian kingdom or empire and any state based in Iran anytime during the
Islamic Ages never had an involvement in the Mediterranean.
The Ottoman Empire was
the continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire with another official religion and
another official language. Long before becoming the caliph of the Islamic
Caliphate, the Ottoman Sultan willingly became Emperor of the Eastern Roman
Empire and he was therefore styled 'Qaysar-i Rum', i.e. 'Caesar of Rome' (قیصر روم/Kayser-i Rûm). Idiotically invading in
1453 a rather insignificant remnant of the erstwhile formidable Eastern Roman
Empire, i.e. Constantinople, Mehmet II was inevitably burdened with an enormously
heavy past of incessant Roman-Constantinopolitan clashes, disputes, intrigues,
wars, plots and hatred that had already lasted for almost 1000 years. Either
Mehmet II knew or did not know what he was doing, as soon as he became real
successor to the Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos (29 May 1453),
Mehmet II drew upon him the unequalled rage and the vicious rancor of the scheming
Catholic popes. About:
https://www.academia.edu/43199538/29_May_1453_The_most_Useless_Ottoman_Victory
Mehmet II's successors
did not have a clue about what the Catholic pope was about to prepare against
them; that's why they inanely thought they had to fight for their faith,
whereas in reality they had to fight for bearing the title of Eastern Roman
Emperor – something that all the Catholic popes after the First Schism (869 -
and even earlier) wanted to deprive the monarchs of the Eastern Roman Empire
of. The entire worldview, the world conceptualization, and the perception of
targets, tasks and expansion perspectives that all Ottoman sultans had in mind
were disastrously erroneous, puerile and nonsensical. Even more
catastrophically, victims of their pseudo-Sunni and bogus-Islamic theologians,
sheikhulislams, qadis, muftis and imams, the Ottoman sultans hated their own
Turkish people; they repeatedly persecuted, butchered, and exiled their
Anatolian Turkmen subjects – not to mention other ethnic groups. The
Anti-Turkmen hysteria of the Ottoman family became very clear 60 years after
the useless conquest of Constantinople, namely at the time of the Shahqulu Revival
of Anatolian Mysticism (شاه قولو / Şāh ḳulu) in 1511-1512.
To please and satisfy
the heretic, pseudo-Muslim and anti-Islamic theologians of Constantinople,
Selim I suppressed the freedom of the Anatolian Turkmen population, persecuted
and massacred dozens of thousands of people, thus implementing a sectarian and
self-destructive policy, which turned the outright majority of his sultanate's
Muslim inhabitants against him. Thousands of Qizilbash Muslims when then exiled
in Mora (today's Peloponnesus in South Greece). This meant that the criminal
and disreputable sultan was the enemy of his own nation, being merely a puppet
at the hands of the idiotic religious sect that controlled his state. Bibliography
and historical sources can be found here, although the events are poorly
described:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Eahkulu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Eahkulu_rebellion
So blind Selim I was
that he could not even understand the reason why most of his Janissaries
rebelled when he advanced to the East in order to declare war against another
Islamic state, namely the Safavid Empire of Iran. This concludes the case of
the Ottoman Empire, which was a failed state already in the early 16th c.,
although this reality became evident to all only 400 years later. Look now at
it in its real dimensions:
When the Catholic popes
spent time and effort to solve the differences between two Christian monarchs,
the pseudo-Muslim theologians of Constantinople incited Selim I to undertake a
war against another Islamic Empire!
When the Catholic
monarchs used to incite their subjects to check their chances by exploring and
exploiting new lands overseas, Selim I oppressed, killed and deported his own
state's unfortunate inhabitants.
Who were truly the worse
rulers for the Muslims?
The Catholic kings of
Castile/Spain, who simply expelled from their land those who did not have their
own faith (in 1492)…
… or Selim I, who
exiled far from Anatolia those who had the same faith with him (in 1511-1512)?
The weakness of the
Ottoman Empire is characteristically underscored thanks to similar comparisons
that every person, thinking out-of-the-box, can easily make, without being a
specialized Turcologist.
Then, what can one say
about the Ottoman ignorance and stiffness?
The second half of the
15th c. and the 16th c. are considered, very correctly, as the peak of the
Ottoman civilization and power. From 1413 until 1595 (from Mehmed I to Murad
III), namely for 182 years, in reality and despite several other pretenders,
only eight (8) monarchs reigned the Ottoman Empire. This shows an impressive stability
with an average reign period of ca. 23 years! However, there was no knowledge,
no intelligence, and no vision. There were only a) a permanent, lascivious
interest for voluptuous moments in the harem and b) a recurring passion for harsh
moments in the battlefield, especially if the looting would end up with the
arrival of many new virgin girls in the harem of the Constantinopolitan palace
of the Ottoman 'caliphs'.
The Ottoman sultans
failed to have intelligence and insight into their enemies' realms; they knew
nothing about the treaties of Alcáçovas, Tordesillas and Zaragoza, let alone
the extremely alarming notions and concepts involved (as per above). Then, it
is their own mistake that they underestimated the real dangers, which existed
for their state. In this regard, during the 16th and the early 17th c., the
Ottoman Empire failed to react at least in the manner the European rivals of
Spain and Portugal did. After that moment, everything was lost for the stubborn
Ottoman family that wanted to rule a universal empire as a tribal enclosure.
But very few were then smart enough to realize that the Sick Man of Europe had
been contaminated already in the 15th c.
Even worse, there was
no vision, and this is so, because never an Ottoman felt as universal Islamic
Emperor and Caliph. There was no real interest in uniting all Muslims (to say
the least) in a centralized caliphate, because there had never been any
properly centralized form of governance in any Islamic state (with only few
exceptions which only confirm the rule). And at this point, I don't mean modern
states' centralization, but at least Roman Empire-level centralization.
When Selim I managed to
win over Ismail I Safavid in Chaldiran (1514), he had an absolutely unique
opportunity to unite in one realm all the lands between the Balkans and the
Indus River. In fact, only an empire this big could possibly mobilize the
resources needed to oppose the Spaniards and the Portuguese in the open seas. But
to unite populations in the first place, you have to be anyone else except an Ottoman.
They were a highly sectarian family and therefore an early failed state with a
pathetic administration, which preferred to control the useless sands of Arabia
and Egypt, instead of really rebuilding the world after the illustrious and
unsurpassed example of Timur (Tamerlane) whose conquests regenerated the
Islamic World and brought about what scholars worldwide rightfully call
nowadays 'Timurid Renaissance' (https://es.unesco.org/silkroad/node/467).
However, Timur
disdained terribly the miserable Ottomans whom he vanquished in 1402;
unfortunately for them, the descendants of Bayazit I did not take the lesson
and did not make of Timur their own supreme prototype. That's why the Ottomans
were repeatedly humiliated, constantly defeated, and finally dissolved by Kemal
Ataturk; their last reigning offspring, Mehmed VI Vahdettin, was expelled from
the Yildiz Palace in Istanbul, and he had to sail on an English warship to
Malta and then San Remo before he died in 1926. This nefarious misfortune will
also befall on any idiots who use the brainless Ottomans as a possible model
for their own dirty politics. But this will be the topic of another article.
ADDENDUM I
Mapmakers once
referred to the southern Atlantic Ocean as the Ethiopian Ocean
https://qz.com/africa/2004131/the-southern-atlantic-ocean-was-once-known-as-the-ethiopian-ocean/
REUTERS/ALEX GRIMM
An ostrich walks next
to the Atlantic Ocean at South Africa’s Cape of Good Hope.. Few people know
that the southern Atlantic Ocean was once referred by mapmakers as the
Ethiopian ocean.
By Mary Alexander
Chief copy editor and Facebook program coordinator, Africa Check May 2, 2021
“The Atlantic Ocean was known as Ethiopian Ocean until the 19th century,” reads text on a graphic posted on Instagram last month.
It includes what looks like a part of an old map showing the western coastline of Africa, the ocean labelled “Aethiopian Ocean.”
The graphic’s caption adds: “Today’s southern half of the Atlantic Ocean in classical geographical works was known as Aethiopian or Ethiopian Sea or Ocean. The name remained in maps from ancient times until 19th century.” But a comment on the post points out: “Totally great, except Ethiopia is on the other side of the continent!” And Facebook’s fact-checking system (Instagram belongs to Facebook) has flagged the post as possibly false.
Ethiopia is a country in the Horn of Africa, on the eastern side of the continent. Is it true that the Atlantic Ocean, on Africa’s west coast, was once called the Ethiopian Ocean?
An ancient name
Ethiopia is one of the oldest countries in the world. Its name derives from the ancient Greek “Aethiopia”, which Europeans used to describe various parts of Africa. It is mentioned several times in both the Iliad and the Odyssey, ancient sagas said to be written by Homer more than 2,000 years ago.
In 2014, Princeton University in the US held an exhibition of its library collection of old maps of Africa produced by European mapmakers from 1541 to 1880. The exhibition remains online.
A misshapen 1554 map from the collection doesn’t name any of Africa’s oceans, and roughly labels the western region of today’s Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Cameroon as “Aethiopia.” (It also says “monoculi”—one-eyed people—live there.) Related: Why is Central Africa missing from so many maps?
But a map dated 1584, 30 years later, names the ocean to the west of Africa and south of the equator as “Oceanus Aethiopicus”—Latin for “Ethiopian Ocean.” This is today’s South Atlantic Ocean. On the map, the ocean north of the equator is labelled “Oceanus Atlanticus,” the Atlantic Ocean.
The next map in the online Princeton collection is from 1644. Again, the Ethiopian Ocean is west of Africa and south of the equator. The waters north of the equator are named “Mare Atlanticum”—the Atlantic Sea. A sea is generally understood to be smaller than an ocean.
The Ethiopian Ocean starts to disappear in a map dated 1710. Here, the coastal region from Africa’s western bulge to its southern tip is the “Ethiopian Sea.” Everything west of that, north and south of the equator to a coastline identified as “part of Brasil,” is the Atlantic Ocean.
Related: Africa as you’ve probably never seen it before, courtesy of NASA On the map, almost all of central Africa—but not today’s Ethiopia—is labeled: “ETHIOPIA this Country is wholly Unknown to the EUROPEANS”.
The Ethiopian Ocean does not appear in any of the later maps in the Princeton collection, which date from 1737 to 1880. A slight exception is a French map from 1787, which labels the ocean south of Africa as “Ocean Meridion ou Ethiopien” – the Meridian or Ethiopian Ocean.
The collection is just a sample of the many old European maps of Africa, so it’s not evidence that the name did not persist on other maps until the 19th century, or 1800s. But it does show that at least the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean was once known as the Ethiopian Ocean.
This report was written by Africa Check, a non-partisan fact-checking organization. View the original piece on their website.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDENDUM II
The Atlantic Ocean was known as Ethiopian Ocean until the 19th century
https://africacheck.org/fact-checks/fbchecks/yes-southern-atlantic-ocean-was-once-known-ethiopian-ocean-0
The Atlantic Ocean was known as Ethiopian Ocean until the 19th century,” reads text on a graphic posted on Instagram in April 2021.
It includes what looks like a part of an old map showing the western coastline of Africa, the ocean labelled “Aethiopian Ocean”.
The graphic’s caption adds: “Today’s southern half of the Atlantic Ocean in classical geographical works was known as Aethiopian or Ethiopian Sea or Ocean. The name remained in maps from ancient times until 19th century.”
But a comment on the post points out: “Totally great, except Ethiopia is on the other side of the continent!”.
And Facebook’s fact-checking system (Instagram belongs to Facebook) has flagged the post as possibly false.
Ethiopia is a country in the Horn of Africa, on the eastern side of the continent. Is it true that the Atlantic Ocean, on Africa’s west coast, was once called the Ethiopian Ocean?
An ancient name
Ethiopia is one of the oldest countries in the world. Its name derives from the ancient Greek “Aethiopia”, which Europeans used to describe various parts of Africa. It is mentioned several times in both the Iliad and the Odyssey, ancient sagas said to be written by Homer more than 2,000 years ago.
In 2014, Princeton University in the US held an exhibition of its library collection of old maps of Africa produced by European mapmakers from 1541 to 1880. The exhibition remains online.
A misshapen 1554 map from the collection doesn’t name any of Africa’s oceans, and roughly labels the western region of today’s Nigeria, Niger, Chad and Cameroon as “Aethiopia”. (It also says “monoculi” – one-eyed people – live there.)
The next map in the online Princeton collection is from 1644. Again, the Ethiopian Ocean is west of Africa and south of the equator. The waters north of the equator are named “Mare Atlanticum” – the Atlantic Sea. A sea is generally understood to be smaller than an ocean.
The Ethiopian Ocean starts to disappear in a map dated 1710. Here, the coastal region from Africa’s western bulge to its southern tip is the “Ethiopian Sea”. Everything west of that, north and south of the equator to a coastline identified as “part of Brasil”, is the Atlantic Ocean.
On the map, almost all of central Africa – but not today’s Ethiopia – is labelled: “ETHIOPIA this Country is wholly Unknown to the EUROPEANS”
The Ethiopian Ocean does not appear in any of the later maps in the Princeton collection, which date from 1737 to 1880. A slight exception is a French map from 1787, which labels the ocean south of Africa as “Ocean Meridion ou Ethiopien” – the Meridian or Ethiopian Ocean.
The collection is just a sample of the many old European maps of Africa, so it’s not evidence that the name did not persist on other maps until the 19th century, or 1800s. But it does show that at least the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean was once known as the Ethiopian Ocean.
No comments:
Post a Comment