Talk:Victoria (ship)

Factual Omissions
This article states the tonnage and crew of every ship in the fleet EXCEPT the Victoria, which is the subject of the article. Maybe someone could make a fact-box with the vessel's length, crew numbers, tonnage, gun numbers, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Remove vandalism
Can someone please remove the vandalism on the first paragraph. It doesnt seem to work on my comp.RQ (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Only Surviving Ship"??
Perhaps a rephasing of this statement is needed. The San Antonio also survived; however, it did so by deserting the expedition and returning across the Atlantic. CFLeon 22:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting statement
it was said here that "The four other ships were Trinidad (110 tons, crew 55), San Antonio (120 tons, crew 60), Concepcion (90 tons, crew 45), and Santiago (75 tons, crew 32). Trinidad, Magellan's flagship, Concepcion, and Santiago were wrecked or scuttled; San Antonio deserted the expedition before the Straits of Magellan and returned to Europe on her own."

according to S.Zweig in 'Conqueror of the Seas', San Antonio deserted after and not before the Straits were discovered and a passage was found.

It's not mentioned that Trinidad survived also, but, in precarious condition, Magellan's flagship already without its captain who died some weeks before was forced to stay in the Spice Islands and was eventually captured by the Portuguese. Later it would eventually be wrecked in a storm as it was held captive and wouldn't receive any maintenance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.114.24.2 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Tonnage
It seems rather odd that the tonnage of the other ships is mentioned but not of Victoria, the subject of the article.Eregli bob (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
The article claims that Trinidad (ship) was a caravel, in contradiction to the primary article, and to Trinidad (Schiff), both of which claim nao or Carrack (which, for that time, are somewhat interchangeable). And while later caravels grew in size, a 110 ton caravel would also be surprising in 1519. Is this based on any source? Apparently, the Santiago was a caravel - maybe this is a mix-up? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Nationality instead if ethnicity
Previous edits, sailors has been wrongly identified with tags referring to their national region identity as "Ethnicity". This is not only wrong but is consider as racist. I can not be more emphatic about this. Cultural differences between different areas of a country are just that. Ethnicity refer to racial differences, concept extremely offensive when referenced wrongly. Please beware to not offend and provide references that can be consider offensive. Thanks. Flyper com (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "Ethnicity refer to racial differences, concept extremely offensive when referenced wrongly." What the h* are you talking about? You have engulfed the topic into more confusion. There is no such thing as a "Spanish nation" in this period, just a crown of different kingdoms made up of subjects and different nations/peoples, one of them being the Basque, referred as Biscaynes or Cantabrians during the period. It is fine to use "Nationality" but that is definitely not Spanish.
 * During there expeditions, e.g. the Magellan-Elcano expedition, the different national groups got together according to this affiliation as attested in Colon's and Elcano's voyage accounts. Just a bit later Portugal became another kingdom under Felipe II's crown, until 1640. Would that mean these Portuguese were Spanish? Please refrain from projecting present-day categories to the past. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's terribly anachronistic to refer to mariners' nationalities as Spanish at a time when the Iberian peninsular was made up of multiple kingdoms. If a clear formulation is helpful to readers, I suggest using that for the Venetians, so perhaps we should use "Spanish (Basque)" for example. I'll make that change and see if we can find consensus. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see Nationality Spanish is an option. This is what on his return to the Iberian Peninsula Juan Sebastian Elcano goes in an excerpt, answering to the questionnaire handed over to him (1522, see here): "todos los capitanes y la otra gente tenía miedo que los tomaran presos por los muchos portugueses y gente de muchas naciones que había en la armada ", i.e. people from different nations living on the expedition. At about the same period, Nebrija, who wrote that his Gramática should be also useful to "learn Spanish for Biscaynes, Navarrese, Italian, French etc." goes that "los que moraban en aquel Condado de Vizcaya y en la provincia de Guipúzcoa son gente sabida en el arte de navegar y esforzados en las batallas marítimas e tenían naves e aparejos para ellos y en estas tres cosas que eran las principales para las guerras de la mar eran más instruidos que ninguna otra nación del mundo ". Also the Basque chronicler Esteban de Garibay (late 16th century) speaks of Elcano as "de nación, cántabro" (=of the "Cantabrian" nation), as he identifies himself (=Basque). Iñaki LL (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I've self-reverted my last edit to allow the experts like you to see if you prefer that. What leaps out to me now is the use of "Italian" to describe the Venetians and Genoese. I understand why these anachronistic simplifications are made: to help the less-informed reader understand the context, but on the other hand they can always follow links. Should the Italian description be removed as well? --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks RexxS for understanding the period and the actual make-up of the people(s) inhabiting the Peninsula in the 16th century. I think Genovese and Venetian is best, they had their own very specific features that in other places of the Italian peninsula did not exist, including their own language and institutions. Everybody can understand where they come from by means of the links. That is my take. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For consistency, I've regularised the entries. Both the Republic of Genoa and the Republic of Venice were independent states until 1797, and I seriously doubt whether their citizens considered themselves part of an Italian nation in the 16th century. --RexxS (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks RexxS for understanding the period and the actual make-up of the people(s) inhabiting the Peninsula in the 16th century. I think Genovese and Venetian is best, they had their own very specific features that in other places of the Italian peninsula did not exist, including their own language and institutions. Everybody can understand where they come from by means of the links. That is my take. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For consistency, I've regularised the entries. Both the Republic of Genoa and the Republic of Venice were independent states until 1797, and I seriously doubt whether their citizens considered themselves part of an Italian nation in the 16th century. --RexxS (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)