The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance (P.S.)

I think that the author, Gavin Menzies makes an excellent case that renaissance Italy was at least inspired by Chinese civilization and invention.

The author is very well read and the book contained a wealth of knowledge that one cannot find elsewhere. He is well versed with astronomical arguments, though not active in that field. For instance, how many people tell us that, a century before Copernicus, Regiomontanus (von Konisgsburg), a great thinker and polymath, found that the inner planets are 'linked to the sun', whereas the outer planets follow a different epicyclic motion. (presumably calculations of inferior and superior conjunctions, the weird behaviour of Venus) Regiomontanus himself advocated a sun-centered solar system. The discovery of the heliocentric system is a bit like the discovery of America; it happened at the dawn of history and keeps being repeated!

There are mistakes and simplifications. For instance, he writes that Captain Cook is renowned for the discovery of Australia when he did no such thing: it seems to have been long known to the Chinese, Dutch, etc. He uses this as an example of earlier unknown discoveries. In fact the truth is not so black and white. Firstly, Australia is an old name for Antarctica. It means 'south land' in Latin. On old maps of Australia it is clear that only the western part (the Dutch part, New Holland) is known. Where it continues and whether it linked up to New Zealand or the Great Unknown herself, Terra Australia Incognita (proto-Antarctica, A mythical continent [because it was previously discovered?] designed to balance the landmass of the south in order to stop the world from tipping over) was unknown. By charting the east coast, it could be argued that Cook did in fact discover Australia, and old maps certainly seem to refer to the east coast as Australia, (the English part) as opposed to New Holland, the barren Dutch part. In maps from the early 20th century, the whole mass is finally referred to as Australia.

I really recommend this work! The amateur astronomer would also love it, listing five methods of longitude calculation without the use of a clock. The historian (esp of renaissance Italy) would also absolutely love this work. I cannot agree with everything, but that does not matter. The book which contains information that everyone agrees with is not going to contain innovative information. The author who is possibly not credulous enough is not going to take the steps necessary to make any discoveries!

Was Leonardo truly as original as he seems to have been? Was he simply making notes for himself in the pre-Xerox era, from another publication? Menzines makes a great case that a huge Chinese encyclopedia found its way into the hands of the Renaissance Italians. This civilization was one of book lovers and active book printers. They had a real thirst for knowledge. It seems possible they did have some Chinese (or Tatar?) slaves, so why not books? Italy at the time was a civilization of merchant princes and traders, (as was China) competing with each other for the latest acquisitions, so why not? The idea of a magnificent fleet reaching Italy might require a little more proof however, but is not impossible. I have seen criticism that such an event would have been well recorded. Why? Not every event is recorded in the chronicles, for a variety of reasons unrelated to the 'magnificence' or presence that such an event would supposedly have. Chronicles do not record every meeting of kings. I am not aware of the extent of more official records of political affairs in that time.

The author has an excellent writing style: a model for other ancient mysteries authors. The section on the analysis of the 1515 Schoner globe as based upon a lost proto-Toscanelli map is also a sensation for our understanding of Columbus' motives, or more insidiously, as raised to me by a friend, the use European monarchs may have made of a naive Columbus in reaching towards America! (turning that argument of a devious Columbus shrinking the world, on its head). The reconstructed Toscanelli maps found elsewhere are probably not accurate as they do not depict America properly, thus reducing Columbus' profit motive. (Unless he was highly interested in colonizing Antilla: how would he have hoped to colonize the next large island, Cippangu/Japan?). Menzies claims that Columbus knew about the Americas. If this is true, he was still highly insistent on making sure his sailors understood that this was somewhere in Asia. What he himself truly believed, he kept to himself.

China had polymaths, renaissance Italy had polymaths, and Gavin Menzies is one also! This is a five star book from a six star researcher!

Charles Kos, author of "In Search of the Origin of Pyramids and the Lost Gods of Giza."

Gavin Menzies makes radical claims about Chinese travels to the West in 1434, backing up earlier revelations made in his "1421." Here the Chinese supposedly dropped off an encyclopedia at the Vatican containing the accumulated knowledge of 6000 years of Chinese history. According to the author, it is this transfer of Chinese knowledge that actually sparked the Renaissance.

Pros and cons of the author's thesis:

Pros: I am inclined to give the author the benefit of the doubt because the Western view of Chinese History has always been untenable: that the Chinese were idle for 6000 years, producing nothing of value and thus were far behind the West in everything. However the truth is otherwise. In addition to gun powder, and paper, the Chinese also had invented a removable printing press, advance military weaponry, ship navigational devices, and advance farm machinery. Thus, is it reasonable for anyone other than Eurocentric people to think that Chinese culture lay dormant for more than 6000 years?

Leonardo da Vinci's inventions seem uncannily to have sprung from his head fully formed at a time when Europe was digging itself out of the Black Plague and the feudal Dark Ages? Why then would his drawings look like carbon copies of Chinese equivalent machines and inventions produced eighty years earlier?

Indeed, due to the black plague and the feudalism of the Dark Ages, the odds favor the West, rather than the Chinese, as being the more backward of the two. By 1492 when Columbus sailed to America, European Royalty had not yet even invented the bath? The Indians thought the Europeans all stunk. Plus, was it not the Arabs who saved, catalogued, and brought Greek knowledge to Europe via the conquest of Spain?

Second, since it was the Catholic Church that was responsible for revealing such potent new found knowledge, we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls in our own times that the church's track record of doing so is not good. Thus, the chances would be slim to none that this new explosive knowledge would be "aired" by the Church. And it would be even less of a chance that it would be properly and publicly attributed to non-Europeans, like the Chinese.

To do so of course would reveal the Chinese as intellectually and culturally superior to the Western white man, and further would show Chinese culture to be light years ahead of European culture. Plus, given that the Chinese did not believe in the Christian God, common sense tells us that the Catholic track record of exposing unpopular (near heretical) knowledge on this scale is not reassuring.

That this information seeped out rather than was announced publicly seems in keeping with the way the hierarchy of the Catholic Church historically has maintained its secrets: They covet knowledge for their own religious purposes first and foremost, and then they make available whatever remains congruent with their own god's teachings. Knowledge as explosive as this was sure to upset the political, social and ecclesiastical applecart -- especially in a Europe still deep in the throes of the Dark Ages and not yet fully over the Black Plague.

It would be equivalent to a man from Mars landed in New York City. Can't you see the Obama administration scrambling to hide such an event and the kind of new knowledge it might bring? Multiply this tendency by a factor of ten and you have the Catholic Church in the 14th Century.

Plus, the accepted story about how Europe blasted out of the Dark Ages and rebounded from the Black Plague directly into the Renaissance, always struck me as suspicious -- as in extremely lacking in credibility.

Gavin Menzies' book at least gives us a new framework for thinking of an alternative theory -- as well as new food for thought to mull over about how the Renaissance might indeed have actually come sprung out of the ether.

I also read Angelo Paratico's book on Leonardo's genetic pedigree having roots in the orient. And although it too relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, in most cases that evidence is at least as compelling as most claims of American history.

So, much needed cross-confirmations is finally beginning to come in regarding the authors thesis. When multiple independent sources begin to cross-confirm each other, the jig will be up: Western History will have to be rewritten.

Cons: As noted above, a great deal of the author's story is based on soft data: sometimes on common sense logical deductions and sketchy reports, genealogical and baptism records, as well as obscure findings that are at best difficult to validate. Most of it is still trickling out slowly even after half a millennium. At some point these things will have to be tied down. Otherwise this thesis may go the way of "Holy Blood Holy Grail," and become the basis of a whole new pop genre of history.

Also, it is not always a plus that the author grew up in China -- as this makes it easier for him to fall into the trap of Sino-clientele-ism. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, under such circumstances, becomes a lot more problematic.

Summary

On balance, I believe if we use the same academic standards used to verify US History, this story will qualify as valid history too, and thus will lean heavily towards uncovering long overdue truths that have been buried at least since the end of the Dark Ages, a period in which modern man was slowly moving from a complete reliance on oral records, to print.

Knowledge was a jealously guarded commodity in those days, especially within the Catholic Church hierarchy, which obviously served as the gatekeeper for most Western knowledge well into the 19th Century.

That this was so, leaves open possibilities of a cover-up about Chinese advancements. Thus, I am open at least to see what the author comes up with next. Five stars

Awful. Just plain awful. It has about as much history as say... Lord of the Rings, but at least Tolkien never tried to pass off LOTR as a history book. This book would be almost funny if it weren't so sad. I've studied history, and in all my studies of the renaissance I never found any Chinese influence. I'm pretty sure a Chinese fleet going to Florence is something that someone in the west, or China, would have mentioned. Guess both sides forgot. To hear Menzies tell it the western world couldn't figure out how to pour water out of a glass until the Chinese showed them how to do it.

One critic wondered why Gavin Menzies, in his previous work "1421," had the fleets of Zheng He sail to and explore every nook and cranny of every continent (including Antarctica) except Europe. Well, in "1434," Menzies answers.

And wow!

Do you want a short synopsis of this book? Here's the thesis: everything Europeans have ever done was stolen from the Chinese.

That's it, that's all.

Menzies states that the Renaissance and the Age of the Discovery were sparked by an unrecorded visit by a fleet of Chinese ships that sailed through the Red Sea-Nile canal, about six hundred years after historians say it silted up, and were all the rage in Venice and Florence. In fact, Menzies claims that the canal was in use until 1899 (p. 50), which makes you wonder why the silly Europeans spent so much time and treasure digging the Suez Canal. (Even the article on the canal that Menzies' website points to, Carol A. Redmount, "The Wadi Tumilat and the "'Canal of the Pharaohs,'" Journal of Near Eastern Studies 54, no. 2 (April 1995): 127-135, says it was purposely blocked-up in the mid-eighth century!) But, still, Zheng He's fleet, upgraded from hundreds of ships in 1421 to thousands here in 1434, sail through the canal and reach Venice.

Proof of the Venice and Florence visit? Nothing really. An innacurate, incorrect, and tortured reading of Toscanelli's letter to Columbus (pp. 96-97), which turns "men of learning," which could be two travelers or overland merchants from the East, to a panoply of ambassadors from a vast fleet docked at Venice. So let us compare, history teaches us that a letter and handful of Ethiopians show up in Europe and the legend of Prester John echoes and reverberates for centuries; while Menzies would have us believe that a fleet of ships and a troop of people from China show up and... nothing? Nothing but a misinterpreted bit of Toscanelli. A FLEET of Chinese ships docks in Venice and NOBODY writes about it, paints it, chronicles it, sings about it? Nothing.

Then there are the maps, the reason I purchased the book, as maps are my trade. The book proves that Mr. Menzies hasn't idea one about cartographic history. Let's go through some of Menzies' cartographic sins. First, the "1418/1763" map that serve as bookends. First, it is European in shape, not Chinese. It bears no resemblance to either Chinese maps of the 1400s (see the "Kangnido map," which looks nothing like the "1418 map", which Menzies insists on calling it) or Chinese maps of the 1700s. In fact, it gets several portions of the Old World wrong, portions of the world Menzies would have us believe were mapped more precisely by the Chinese than anyone until the 1700s. The map also repeats the strictly European conceit that California was an island! The map in the Doge's Palace in Venice, which mentions Niccolò Da Conti and Marco Polo, Menzies continually insinuates was actually created in the 1400s, which is nowhere near the truth, clearly showing "Nuova Spagna" ("New Spain"), thus post-1519, as one of the toponyms. He also claims "north at the bottom" was "the practice of Chinese cartographers," but Europeans put the top of the map at almost every cardinal direction well into the 1600s (in fact "orientation" first meant putting east, "orient," at the top of the map). Menzies repeatedly claims that Waldseemüller's globe and map were "accurate" when they are nothing of the sort! They show a strait between North and South America by God! And Menzies makes the claim (p. 130) that this "strait" is in fact the "Raspadura Canal" which still exists during heavy rains! A strait is not a canal, and a quick Google Book Search shows that; to quote Charles L. G. Anderson, Old Panama and Castilla Del Oro; A Narrative History of the Discovery, Conquest, and Settlement by the Spaniards of Panama, Darien, Veragua, Santo Domingo, Santa Marta, Cartagena, Nicaragua, and Peru, (Washington: Press of the Sudwarth Co., 1911), p. 296:

"Alexander von Humboldt, writing in 1808, gives credence to the story of the Raspadura canal, made, in 1788, by the Cura, or parish priest of Novita, between the headwaters of the Atrato and San Juan rivers. In 1852, the eminent engineer, J. L. Trautwine, proved this so-called canal to be a hill, over which the Indians dragged their canoes in the wet season."

Menzies claims that because the Pacific Ocean, nameless, might be shown on maps before Balboa saw it, this means the information was gleaned from the Chinese. Poppycock! If there is a continent between Asia and Europe, any dunce with a brain can postulate TWO oceans. Menzies claims that the Chinese gave Europe knowledge, and presumably the name, of Brazil (pp. 238-242), seemingly unaware of the mythical "island of Brazil" that may date as far back as the Vikings. (I am assuming that the next volume in the Menzies corpus will not prove that the Northmen were in fact Chinamen.) I could continue for pages on the maps, but I'll finish with this gem: Menzies claims that his evidence is from "maps, which do not lie" (p. 164). What?! Maps lie all the time, they are but tools of their creators. Mr. Menzies, go buy a book entitled "How to Lie with Maps" which is even in its second edition.

Then there are just the inanities and inaccuracies. Menzies loves to play the DNA game, though I don't think he understands anything about DNA. He confuses mitochondrial-DNA, from mothers, with haplogroups, from fathers. This leads to numerous errors, such as claiming pockets of Asian haplogroups in Eastern Europe came from Chinese slave women from the fleets (instead of the much more plausible marauding, and male, Mongols). He even makes his "Chinese-DNAed Croatians" the founders of Croatoan Island in the Carolinas! Cartographic historians will need to bone up on the chief cartographic formulator of the Greco-Roman world that Europe based its maps on for centuries: "Ptolomy" (pp. 141 passim, though he mentions "Ptolemy" as well). Astronomers will be astonished to find that Galileo discovered Saturn (p. 249). The ancients must be pissed about that one. Menzies basically plagiarizes one of his followers/supporters Gunnar Thompson. Compare his description of the Marco Polo "Map with ship" maps (p. 129) with Thompson's website. It is almost a cut and paste job. (For a real report on these maps, see Benjamin Olshin, "The Mystery of the 'Marco Polo' Maps: An Introduction to a Privately-Held Collection of Cartographic Materials Relating to the Polo Family," Terrae Incognitae 39 (2007): 1-23.) Then there is the laborious and laughable system of determining longitude (ch. 4) that would be practically useless for sailors, and with no proof whatsoever in Chinese records.

Lastly, to the more physical aspects of the book. It seems as if written by a committee, a committee of dachshunds who dropped out of college. Some sentences don't make sense; the chapters have only a thin string tying them together; some paragraphs contain one sentence, several contain just two; Menzies often makes no sense, moving on from one snippet of info to another with no connection; he repeats himself ad nauseum; and he bores to death. He block-quotes authorities (and "authorities") entirely too much, and often senselessly or out of context. I'm sure that Felipe Fernández-Armesto, a brilliant and fine scholar, would be appalled to know that his work is cited to support Menzies' contention (pp. 104-105) that Columbus had maps of the Americas, obviously from Chinese sources. Menzies says Columbus knew he would discover America! Too bad Columbus thought he was in China and said so multiple times! Which brings us to the "scholarly apparatus," which I am putting into quotes for numerous reasons. They are so muddled and inconsistent they might as well NOT be there. Sometimes he cites something, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes the citation allows for easy lookup, at other times it is as inscrutable as Chinese characters written by the same group of dropout dachshunds. Items when first mentioned are already in shortened form, quotation marks are out of place, etc. His bibliography, split into groups of chapters is annoying and does not aid lookup of anything. They are often not in alphabetical order, and often repetitive. Sometimes he adds rambling text into his bibliographic entries as if they were a content note! Also, just as the good scholars at 1421exposed prophesied, Menzies uses the fact that the Library of Congress hosted a "symposium" on 1421 to boost his "scholarly" credentials. He footnotes one item by stating she "presented her findings at a Library of Congress symposium in May 2005," making it seem as if the Library of Congress gave its imprimatur and seal of approval. His constant referral to his own website for "more information" is annoying and unprofessional, as the website, though neat, offers little scholarly material to reference.

In conclusion, I must say that there is some possibility for true scholarly work in this general field. The Chinese impact on European thought is almost virtually unexplored, and I think that there was much more cultural contact between worlds (i.e. East, West, and Africa) then anyone thinks. Still, this does not mean that because some Chinaman drew a parachute in a book and Leonardo did too, that there must be some concrete link delivering information from point Orient to point Occident. To do this we must all believe that aliens gave Mayans and Egyptians the blueprint for pyramids, because there is no way the two cultures could have independently created pointy buildings. And Leibniz and Newton were in fact the same person, because there is no way they could both independently invent calculus. Wallace was in fact Darwin in disguise. I would also not be surprised if the Chinese may have glanced upon the shores of America pre-1492, just as a Portuguese fisherman or two may have fished off Newfoundland and Bjarni Herjólfsson was blown off course. But the inane theory of Menzies, that EVERYTHING created by or inspired by the Italian Renaissance occurred only because a hitherto unrecorded fleet of Chinese ships sailed through a silted up canal in 1434 (while other Chinese ships sailed all over the world) is just that: inane.

I give it one star for nice images and numerous fun tid-bits that are cited.

"1434" is a major disappointment: badly written, and overwrought with technical detail. It's an interesting read because it shows how closely interconnected the world was even back in 1434.

But I had major issues with Gavin Menzies' main argument that the Chinese, by sailing to Italy and transferring technology to the Italians, ignited the Renaissance. I would think that the Italians' republicanism and capitalism fueled the Renaissance. The Chinese may have provided the Italians with ideas, but it takes an open and progressive people to accept and implement them. For the past two centuries, China has lagged far behind the West, and technology transfer has constantly flowed from West to East. But new ideas could not find root, breathe, and grow in China.

The Renaissance was not just about ideas and technology -- it was more about attitude and openness. And if that's something that Admiral Zheng He could have brought back to China then that would have been more valuable than all the gold, the slaves, and the art in the world.

If you liked Menzies earlier book - 1421 - you will be disappointed in this follow-up. While 1421 appeared to be based on years of scholarship, much of it naval, by a dedicated and skilled naval officer, obviously pursuing an obsession, 1434 seems to have been dashed off to meet a publisher's deadline. The central thesis is that after Zheng He (hero of 1421) returned to China he was despatched to Europe armed with a complete compendium of all Chinese knowledge to enrich the barbarians. Unfortunately, the book is almost entirely devoid of substantiated facts - instead we are treated to reminiscences of holidays the author took with his wife, meetings with collaborators, trips to restaurants and florrid descriptions of the countryside that the Chinese sailors might have seen had they actually made then journies Menzies proposes. The sense of desperation the author must have had in trying to fill pages with something - anything - is almost palpable. This book is a very different beast to 1421. Admittedly, there are some intriguing findings(Pisanello's sketches of a Mongol face from the 1430s, Toscanelli's observation of comets,for example) that hint at some European contact with China in the early 15th century, but Menzies' thesis is far from convincing. One also gets the feeling that Menzies has deliberately held something back. At the end of 1421 we are decisively informed, after years of study, that the great Chinese treasures fleets were stood down, the information collected destroyed, and Zheng He made to retire. Yet at the beginning of 1434, we are told that within 2 years of their return the fleets were up and running again. Surely, Menzies (and the horde of Chinese scholars who have worked on this saga for decades) must have had some hint of this during his research for 1421? Overall, the book is intriguing yet must be taken with a large pinch of salt.

The first book I really enjoyed, because regardless of the controversy I learned a lot about China and the world during that period. The writing style really got me hooked. However, this book is not of the same quality, and in at least one section, he appears to go on a diatribe to vindicate himself against the critics. He meticulously goes through his discoveries in a more journal like fashion, which I felt wasn't all that entertaining as in first book with the colorful introduction of the China.

Nevertheless, I was able to glance this time at introspective of European culture, especially the importance of Venetian culture, government, economy to inventions and innovations that catapulted Europe beyond imagination. What I was amazed, or at least convinced by Menzies, is that there are unknown or questionable parts of European history that need to be further investigated, such as early inventions before Di Vinci.

On one major criticism is that in this book, all roads lead to China, or specifically Zheng He's fleet, which may not have been the case. Spherical trigonometry according to one source, have come from Arab world, which in turn could have originally come from China. Other inventions from China could have been introduced through other cultures, or directly from China through other routes other than Zheng He.

I think the book has some interesting and valid points, but I feel that at least this book it is not well thought out in presentation, and there are huge leaps between a running hypothesis to a conclusion, then the morphed conclusions draws other theories morphed into conclusions. I think if the book was carefully scrutinized and later the book was re-presented, it would be more widely accepted, and could lead to further research, but drawing conclusions from indicators will end up discrediting valuable points.

On a side note, I read some of these other reviews that point out inaccuracies of fact, but actually have nothing to do with the book. One review was a review of 1421 that tries to attack Menzies himself. Be careful with some of these reviews, as some have nothing to do with the points he is trying to make in this book.

If you liked Menzies earlier book - 1421 - you will be disappointed in this follow-up. While 1421 appeared to be based on years of scholarship, much of it naval, by a dedicated and skilled naval officer, obviously pursuing an obsession, 1434 seems to have been dashed off to meet a publisher's deadline. The central thesis is that after Zheng He (hero of 1421) returned to China he was despatched to Europe armed with a complete compendium of all Chinese knowledge to enrich the barbarians. Unfortunately, the book is almost entirely devoid of substantiated facts - instead we are treated to reminiscences of holidays the author took with his wife, meetings with collaborators, trips to restaurants and florrid descriptions of the countryside that the Chinese sailors might have seen had they actually made then journies Menzies proposes. The sense of desperation the author must have had in trying to fill pages with something - anything - is almost palpable. This book is a very different beast to 1421. Admittedly, there are some intriguing findings(Pisanello's sketches of a Mongol face from the 1430s, Toscanelli's observation of comets,for example) that hint at some European contact with China in the early 15th century, but Menzies' thesis is far from convincing. One also gets the feeling that Menzies has deliberately held something back. At the end of 1421 we are decisively informed, after years of study, that the great Chinese treasures fleets were stood down, the information collected destroyed, and Zheng He made to retire. Yet at the beginning of 1434, we are told that within 2 years of their return the fleets were up and running again. Surely, Menzies (and the horde of Chinese scholars who have worked on this saga for decades) must have had some hint of this during his research for 1421? Overall, the book is intriguing yet must be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Aside from the historical accuracy that other reviewers have questioned, the book is not an easy read. The first three chapters are basically a prologue to the rest of the book with statements that introduce an idea and then finish with, "but this will be discussed in future chapters." Menzies names a lot of historical figures, dynasties, titles, geographic locations to add a level of authority, but it ends up detracting from the concept that is being described. Overall, a so so effort marred by writing style.

The nonsense and fabulist nature of the book has been detailed by many reviewers here. I'll add another point:

The author makes the claim that Lean Battista Alberti learned the science of linear perspective from the Chinese during this 1434 voyage. There are several problems with this.

1) there is no evidence the Chinese understood linear perspective. It is not a system that has ever had a place in Chinese art. And the underlying geometry is decidedly Western.

2) Alberti published his book that describes linear perspective (among other things) in 1435, but was working on it well in advance of that date. A little early to have picked it up from a 1434 voyage.

3) In any case, Alberti didn't invent it, either. He gave the most famous and precise description of perspective. But it was known in Florence well in advance of the Chinese voyage. Brunelleschi demonstrated his knowledge of linear perspective decades earlier. And his young friend Masaccio used linear perspective in several works that predate the Chinese voyage (such as his Trinità in the late 1420's).

A line from the confessional prayer from the old Morning Prayer Service, "I have done those things I ought not too have done and left undone those things I ought to have done..." comes to mind in reviewing this book. Menzies includes what supports him claims and excludes what does not. Then he goes on to fill in any inconvenient blanks.

China is one of the world's phenomena, richly cultured long before Europe. Diffusion of Chinese culture and technology doesn't need to be supported by someone like Menzies who tries to link nearly everything to China via solitary sea ventures. Please - diffussion is rarely that simple or that sudden. And certainly not that invisible.

As alternative history, I would have given Menzies previous book a rating of at least 4 stars, and this one at least 2. As history, and that's what he seems to think he's writing, I wish I could give it a zero. Bad history, even if it was well written (which this entry isn't) remains bad.

If you're interested in reading history, try reading the less favorable reviews first. You'll get a better idea of the worth of the book in terms of its place in the library. That's probably true of any non-fiction, but my love happens to be history, and I've found the critical reviews for history books most useful. Sometimes the critics convince me to buy the book!

I didn't buy this book - I borrowed it from the library. If you remain interested despite negative reviews (certainly not just my own), I strongly recommend you do the same thing. If you do read this book, please try checking out the sources yourself. That's even better than reading someone else's conclusions.

There's no doubt that the Chinese made some amazing voyages in the 1400s. However, this book starts from there and takes a speculative leap. He asserts that Chinese ships visited Italy in 1434, bringing maps of the Americas and numerous other inventions, helping to start the Renaissance. I just don't see that Menzies' evidence supports his conclusions.

In many places the book seems simply sloppy. For example, in Chapter I Menzies says that the Forbidden City of Beijing built by Zhu Di still stands today. Only a few paragraphs later he says that the Forbidden City built by Zhu Di burned to the ground in 1421. I'm sure there's an explanation for this, but this sort of error doesn't incline me to trust Menzies' scholarship.

The book's constant instructions to check the author's website for more information are very annoying. If Menzies has evidence, why not present it?

Menzies believes that the Chinese explorers knew how to calculate longitude at sea from the stars. He also says they knew in 1384 that the sun was the center of the solar system and moves in an ellipse. This strikes me as very doubtful indeed, the more so as Menzies gives very little evidence for it. Of course it's theoretically possible that they might have calculated longitude at sea, but that's a long way from saying that this was a common practice. The calculations involved are formidable.

Menzies believes that the Chinese fleet passed from the Red Sea to the Nile through a canal. My understanding of this is that a shallow canal pre-dating the Suez canal may have existed at various times, starting in antiquity. The older canal may have been usable only at flood times; at any rate, it seems to have frequently silted up and been abandoned for centuries at a time. I find it difficult to believe that a canal existed in 1434 suitable for use by Chinese junks. Why would European explorers such as Columbus and Vasco da Gama have gone to such trouble and expense over the next century to find a sea route to Asia if a readily available sea route already existed? I would not take Menzies' word on this without confirmation by other historians.

The maps and globes relied on by Menzies to show Chinese influence don't seem particularly accurate to me. I also don't see anything there that Europeans couldn't have come up with. Menzies says that Magellan had a chart of the Strait of Magellan before he went there. I'm sure Magellan had seen some charts of the area; the question is whether such charts were the product of fantasy or were accurate enough to provide reliable sailing directions. Fantastic charts having little connection to real geography were, of course, widely available at the time. If Magellan actually had an accurate chart, it seems odd that Magellan had so much trouble finding the strait (he spent months exploring every inlet on the South American coast, looking for a passage through). Again, I would not take Menzie's word on any of this.

Gavin Menzies' newest book 1434, takes up where he left off in his prior book 1421, that was focused on the voyages of the Chinese navigator Admiral Zheng He. Menzies picks up the thread in this outstanding new history book continuing to show new evidence of Zheng He's influence to other European countries, specifically Italy at the time of the Renaissance.

1434 presents startling information, that is more than likely and highly plausible, regarding the fact that Admiral Zheng He did reach America close to 80 years prior to Christopher Columbus. Menzies backs up his evidence and feasible speculations with maps, logbooks, and letters from other explorers who all had copies of maps that more than likely originated from the maps of Zheng He. Through these maps, Menzies follows the history of many voyages, traces DNA lineage from various world port civilizations, evaluates artifacts found, and comes up with some very credible ideas that are worth noting.

This book also details many other aspects of the Chinese influence to Europe through Menzies' incredible research. 1434 reveals uncanny knowledge that compares early thoughts on astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, physics and mechanical engineering. Within these pages, the reader can view side by side, many illustrations of mechanical inventions such as siege weapons, parachutes, grinding machines and printing presses, that until now were believed to be created by Leonardo Da Vinci and other brilliant Renaissance men. With these fascinating presentations, it's hard to not realize that the early historians could have been wrong, when in truth; most of all mechanisms shown in the book were initially invented by the Chinese and then introduced to Europe by Zheng He himself. Menzies' new findings that appear to be more than coincidence, offer up a wealth of knowledge, provide serious thought, and are beyond difficult to believe untrue. His in-depth research extends to the belief that these new thoughts stretch to the idea that the works of Leonardo and other inventors were simply enhancements to the diagrams given to them by the Chinese, and not original creations.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, found Menzies' research to be extensive and thought-provoking. The chapters on cartography, and the voyages of Admiral Zheng He fascinated me. Other newly found shocking tidbits revealed here made me wonder if perhaps the scholars will now be rewriting the history books. I found 1434 intriguing and fun to explore. This book is well written, inspiring, and presented nicely with three sections of color inserts showing illustrations and maps to enhance the book's readability. I can highly recommend this book and give it 4 stars.

After "1421, the year China discovers the New World", I could not let this second book of Gavin Menzies without reading.
Where "1421" reads like an adventure book in which the somewhat jumping-to-and-fro-style, repetitions and some unfinished argumentations (more so in 1434) are not an obstacle for enjoying, in "1434" Gavin Menzies goes beyond the adventure and the Chinese contribution gets the size of an obsession, where I think Gavin Menzies went beyond his metier. He undergoes a complete change of view on the renaissance, at least in comparison with what one learns in schoolbooks, but at the same time comes short in describing the situation of Europe at the end of the Middle ages, and certainly comes short in realizing that the renaissance is not just a period of newly available technical information.
On the one hand he presents new evidence and viewpoints for his argument that Zheng He discovered the New World. He established the fact that in order to discover the new world a change of view from earth-centric to solar-centric is necessary. This change in thinking is of course an important part of the renaissance. And because the Chinese provided that information to the Italians, they have ignited the renaissance, is the argumentation.
On the other hand he establishes that many technical advances in the renaissance can all be traced back to a Chinese book that Zheng He probably has left as a gift in Italy. Different Italian engineers copied technical drawings from this book, made models and applications in waterworks and war machines. One of them was Leonardo da Vinci. Now, do we have to change our view of Leonardo da Vinci as one of the great genius from his time because this relation with a Chinese book?
In proof of the similarity in design, Menzies shows drawings of Leonardo and those from the original book. But instead of thinking that Leonardo is just a copier, I think that he, taking other drawings and designs available to him, tried to accentuate the essence of the designs and make them as real as possible in his drawings, making him a real genius.
I think Menzies passes by the fact that in order to integrate new knowledge, there has to be a certain basis of knowledge and thinking skills, and moreover a society which is open to new information and knowledge. This situation of course is the essence of the Renaissance. New knowledge cannot ignite a change in society when this society is not ready to accept the changes it signifies.
That a society is much more than the available knowledge is proven by Menzies in 1421 where he states that the Chinese in 1423, supersticious as they were in that time, changed completely their policy after the travels of Zheng He because the Forbidden Palace was destroyed by fire, and having al the knowledge available, seized to used it.

I remember the exasperation I felt when I first read "1421", Menzies's first book. "This guy obviously knows NOTHING about Chinese history, knows NOTHING about the development of Chinese science & technology!" (for the REAL story see Needham's magisterial "Science & Civilization in China"). This book, "1434", is even worse. This guy obviously knows NOTHING about the history of the Mediterranean, knows NOTHING about the history of the Renaissance, knows NOTHING about the development of technology in late-Medieval/early Modern Europe, knows NOTHING about the transmission of ideas from East to West! Not only that, he is a terrible, boring writer.

I'm astounded by the positive reviews: "How could ANYONE, with even a lick of sense or taste..." (I shouldn't be surprised: a while ago someone I used to think was intelligent swore that "The DaVinci Code" was absolute fact.) Oh, well... Please, gentle reader, save your money.

Okay, here we go again....when are people going to stop giving credence to this admitted "amateur historian" who consistently
provides no conclusive evidence for his claims......why are people of European descent so anxious to take a chainsaw to their
history? Why is it so desirable in people's minds to replace a "Eurocentric" history with an Asian or central American one? Why
couldn't have Europeans have accomplished the things they did by themselves? Oh, and people, bear in mind that it's only
acceptable in today's world to make these claims about Europe only....no author today would stand up and say any other
continent's history was BS!
Hey, Menzies..... your irresponsible claims reflect your native country's desire to commit cultural and national suicide....
now you're trying to assist the rest of Europe in this sad, sorry undertaking.......

Heaven bless China! "In seven days comes the Return." (I Ching) 700 years a climax.
Zhou Dynasty, 841 BC, inception of Gonghe Regency (Joint Harmony), 1st golden dynasty.
Han Dynasty, 141 BC, heydays of Emperor Wu of Han, 2nd golden dynasty.
Tang Dynasty, 627 AD, reigns of Zhenguan and Kaiyuan, 3rd golden dynasty.
Ming Dynasty, 1368 AD, 7 Voyages of Zheng He, 4th golden dynasty far surpassing Han and Tang.
People's Republic of China, 2069 AD, Chinese Cultural Renaissance, world harmony.

PRC's lucky # is 9. Any significant date or data related to PRC is 9. 30 years is small change, 60 years is big change, that's how we count using ancient Chinese calender. And its Five Element's qi is wood (east), Mao Zedong literally Mao water east.
In 1919, the Chinese people suffered.
In 1949, the Chinese people stood up.
In 1979, the Chinese people becoming rich.
In 2009, the Chinese people took off.
In 2039, the Chinese people is peaceful and content.
In 2069, world harmony.

The Republic of China's Five Element is earth. The People's Republic of China's element is wood and spring, lucky number is 9.
Started with Mao Zedong, Mao hydrates the east wood.
Followed by Deng Xiaoping, flat, wood, energize wood qi.
Continued with Jiang Zemin, moisturize Chinese people.
Passed on by Hu Jintao, splendid China, endless waves.
Carries on by Xi Jinping, spring in the air.

The great Admiral Zheng He's boss was the mighty, energetic Emperor Yongle who ordered to build a large portion of the Great Wall, the whole of Forbidden City, and created the mammoth Yongle Encyclopedia which the Encyclopedia Britannica called "the largest encyclopedia in history." He was also a curious Emperor about the unexplored worlds, so he addressed an Imperial Decree to Zheng He to set out the strategic guidelines for the naval expedition and declared, "Thou shall only follow Heaven's Way, abide My words, follow reason and know your place, do not violate and overstep, must not bully the little, must not invade the weak, perhaps then we may all share peace and prosperity." Admiral Zheng He loyally executed the Emperor's commands.

This is, like 1421: The Year China Discovered America (P.S.), a well written fun account of a story that will leave many interested to learn more. It poses a radical hypothesis. But like all things, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and in this case there are almost no shreds of evidence to back any of this up. Thus one is left with a sort of Da vinci code type chase through the sources where alluding to ideas and facts is more important than the facts themselves. For these reasons this eminent author leaves the reader spell bound but to call this history is to stretch things a bit.

In the end, if it makes people more interested in the famous voyages of exploration launched by the Chinese, than it was worth it.

Seth J. Frantzman

Menzies 2nd book, like his first, has a wealth of information about the world during the 15th century and the history of China's contributions to human knowledge. He makes a good case for the well known fact that much of Western science and technology was derived from the Chinese and Arabs. He also details the extensive trade network linking China, the East Indies, India and the Arab world into a vast global village to which Europe was relatively peripheral. This is all a very valuable contribution for the casual reader interested in the world as it was prior to the spread of European hegemony. What doesn't hold up is Menzies contention that Zheng He made his way to Venice in 1434. Forget about the central premise of the book and the rest of it all makes sense.

Okay, First off everything the other reviewers say about this book is true. I have a BA in History from IU, and a MA from American Military. The facts are off, however, the reading is none the less fascinating. Want to be historians need to understand that we are hear to give opinions and interpretations on history. Gavin is fun to read and offers some interesting points. If you go into this knowing it is a theory, rather than a knowledgeable written out thesis. Then I see no reason to dislike it. Books like this are what real historians live for whether you like it our not it makes you fact check and wondering if its true. THIS IS WHAT HISTORY IS SUPPOSE TO DO! Do I think this has some good arguments, yes, but do I think its based solely on everything WE KNOW, no, I do not. However for a amateur history person this would be an exciting read and a good way to get someone excited about learning history. As many of us only search for bits and piece of the history we want to hear or acknowledge rather than the evidence.
Overall, This is book is a great theory and gives a good sense of adventure for people who may not like reading the dry boring stuff I read everyday. Highly recommend for a fun read away from the standard dry history books were all use to reading. Just know its not always embedded in truth.

It is tedious to critique Menzies work because it consists of little more than a tissue of error and self-delusion. It is like trying to discuss the pre-war intelligence in Iraq. If you are rational and objective, Menzies looks laughable. But if you are disposed to believe him, the most cogent argument won't shake your faith.

There are two very sad things about Menzies' success. One is that so many people have swallowed his fantasies, when a good undergraduate degree should be enough to debunk him. The second is that Menzies' writing has obscured the facts, at least in the popular mind, about China's contributions to world culture. There were thousands of years of contact between Europe and China prior to 1434 and there is a great deal of good research to be done on mutual influences. But this book doesn't help at all.

Menzies has a potentially interesting hypothesis, unfortunately unsupported by much in the way of evidence, other than that of the weak and circumstantial kind. That in itself would be ok if he would front up and admit that the book is a work of speculation and be prepared to critique his own argument. Unfortunately he does not, so the book has a polemical quality with the author clutching at every straw to support himself. To touch on two disciplines I know something about, some of his assertions around astronomy, and also linguistics are just plain wrong, which makes the book heavy going - its hard to relax and pay attention when your teeth are gritted.

Having read and thoroughly enjoyed 1421, I was delighted to finally get my hands on 1434. That was until I started reading it. It's terrible.

1421 had a good story and a good pace to it. It made me interested in history and made me want to know more about what I had previously perceived to be the truth. 1434 is the exact opposite. 1434 is very disjointed and difficult to read. It's confusing, contradictory, and blatantly misuses facts. It's exactly the type of book that would put me off (psuedo!) historical books.

For anybody who is thinking about buying 1434, I would suggest instead that they look at Toby Lester's excellent "Fourth Part of the World" which details the making of the Waldseemuller world map of 1507. This book gives a detailed account of the accepted history of the discovery, and naming, of America. It's probably one of the best books that I've ever read - it's informative and very easy to read.
The Fourth Part of the World: The Race to the Ends of the Earth, and the Epic St

This book has caught my attention and imagination when published, but has been a great disappointment after reading: No documented evidence that such a voyage ever took place, and such knowledge transferred at that time! Not in China and not in Italy. Pure speculation and fiction. Loose connections between facts. The story does not stand in any test of logic and science. This is a perfect book for those who believe to everything that somebody puts in a book and claims it to be true.

Trash history... This is only "real" history if you believe in alternate theory, conspiracy theory, or alien/UFO history. Gavin Menzies is either having a great L. Ron Hubbard style laugh, or is certifiable. If you enjoy good New World discovery books, grab "Medieval Mind" by Manchester or "1491" by Mann. Don't waste good money even out of curiosity of what this, or the other Menzies books contain. All are equally ridiculous.

Before reading this book, I was honestly a bit skeptical about its claims and doubted that there would actually be any reliable or solid evidence to back them up, but after reading the book (as well as doing some side-research of my own), I came to the unexpected conclusion that it is not only more probable, but also, more plausible, that the intellectual wellspring of the Renaissance was not Classical Greece or Rome--as the textbooks in Western schools teach us--but China.

It's sort of ironic how China's rise today is being achieved by doing to the West, what the West--in their own rise to power during the Late Middle Ages--initially did to China (i.e., stealing or adopting technology and intellectual property).

P.S. I found another book with a very similar premise that is worth reading if any of you are interested, called: The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization, by John M. Hobson.

Cheers.

Rally enjoyed the data about ship wrecks & dna in america. You can tell a lot of work went into this book! Raises a lot of questions, but i enjoyed that as well because there is a lot we don't know about history. This book prooves that and it will make you want to investigate more.

Gavin Menzies' foolish and ridiculous book 1434 claims that a Chinese fleet sailed to Italy and gave the Europeans knowledge which started the Renaissance.
This statement is false.

Allow us to examine several major items of knowledge originated in China and found later in the West. In no case was the knowledge transmitted in 1434.
This information is from Temple's The Genius of China, cited by mangy Menzies as a source but apparently unread by him.
The stirrup was invented in the third century CE and was introduced into the Byzantine Empire in 580. Not in 1434.

Porcelain was invented in China in the third century CE and was independently re-invented in England by Josiah Wedgewood in the eighteenth century. Not in 1434.

Printing was invented in China in the eighth century and was introduced into Europe before the middle of the fourteenth century, not in 1434. Gutenberg did begin to use movable type in 1458, but it did not appear in Italy first, but in Germany; there is no indication of its transmission from a visiting Chinese embassy, as printing had been practiced for more than one hundred years already in Europe.

The idea of the circulation of the blood was brought to the Near East by al-Nafis and the works of this Arab were translated by Servetus, Renaldus Columbus and others, not working from information transmitted in 1434.

The compass was found in Europe by 1180, mentioned first, I believe, by Neckham. Not in 1434.

The rudder was invented in China in the first century CE and found in Europe by 1180, not transmitted in 1434.

The crossbow was invented in China, and was known to the Greeks by 397 BCE, not 1434 CE.

Gunpowder was known in China by the 800s CE, and in the West by the late 1100s, not 1434.

Therefore to claim that vast amounts of knowledge was transmitted all at once in one imaginary voyage is clearly false. Menzies should learn history.

The author hasn't read the Chinese sources or anything about the Renaissance. He simply got a goofy idea into his head and started looking for "facts" that fit his preconceived conclusion. This is the opposite of how history is done. First you read the sources and then let them guide you to a conclusion.

The works presented by Mr. Menzies opens a doorway revealing the total inadequacy of our education. I'm nearly eighty years old, attended college, and was never made aware of, hardly any, of this information. We were taught that the Europeans simply "woke up" one day and started being smart. Now we find out that they practically plagiarized the "smarts" that they displayed; what they did do was certainly noteworthy but still just an extension of previous discoveries and inventions.

I can't recommend this work more highly. I read it from the Kindle edition and find that there are some serious drawbacks to this media. As an example: the footnotes are impossible to access since they are at the back of the book and NOT "linked". One cannot "flip" to the very back of the book, page at a time, and then return to the text every time a footnote is encountered. I used an iPad. Perhaps some of the other, actual, "e" readers do a better job.

I read 1434 first, instead of 1421, because 1421 is not available in the "e" format.

Another fantastic volume in Gavin Menzies's trilogy, "The Fifteenth Century: When China Discovered the Universe". Volume 2, "1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance" follows Menzies's successful and enlightening Volume 1, "1421: The Year China Discovered America". Menzies fans are looking forward to next year's equally profitable final Volume 3 of the trilogy, "1438: The Year China Launched the First Manned Rocket to Mars". Who says history can't be fun...

A comment upon the above review asked for more specifics on my attitude toward Menzies, so...

I'll make a few more comments:

The issues with Menzies are twofold. First, there are many contemporary Chinese descriptions of these voyages which Menzies ignores, all of which describe the voyages (including the 1421 sixth voyage) as being confined to the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. Second, Menzies just invents out of his imagination events and descriptions and evidence that have no relevance to reality. Hence, his many scholarly detractors.

Zheng He himself in 1431, prior to his seventh and last voyage, left us two engraved inscriptions (at Liujiagang and Changle) that describe the first six voyages, and which describe the 1421 voyage as only delivering ambassadors back to their home countries (such as Hormuz) and returning to China with their tribute in local products. Nine years after the end of the 6th voyage, he knew of nothing extraordinary that took place on any of the 1421 voyages. Ma Huan (who sailed on the 4th, 6th and 7th trips as an interpreter) in 1433 wrote the "Overall Survey of the Ocean's Shores" describing the many places that the various Chinese fleets had visited, including the places visited by others in the fleets that he himself had not seen, and he knows of no places ever visited outside of the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. Fei Xin (who sailed on the 3rd, 5th and 7th trips) in 1436 wrote the "Overall Survey of the Star Raft" again describing the many places that the fleets had visited, including the places visited by others in the fleets that he himself had not seen, and he knows of no places ever visited outside of the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. Gong Zhen (who sailed on the 7th trip as Zheng He's private secretary) in 1434 wrote "The Monograph on the Foreign Countries of the Western Ocean", once again describing the many places that the various Chinese fleets had visited, including the places visited by others in the fleets that he himself had not seen, and he knows of no places ever visited outside of the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean.

So you have five still existing contemporary sources by participants in the voyages, including Zheng He himself, all writing within 14 years of the voyages, describing the many places that the various Chinese fleets had visited over the years, and NONE of them report any Chinese trips outside of the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. Hummm... you'd think they would have noticed that they or their fellow Chinese had sailed round the world landing at many new continents and visiting many new peoples - that kind of thing would probably not go unnoticed by participants of the voyages.

The "Mingshi" is the official history of the Ming dynasty compiled from Ming Court documents (during which all of these voyages took place) and in its biography of Zheng He the Mingshi describes again the seven voyages - and describes nothing extraordinary. The "Taizong Shilu" which is the official history of Yongle's reign, the "Renzong Shilu" covering Hongxi's reign and the "Xuanzong Shilu" documenting Xuande's reign all again mention Zheng He, and the various voyages in some detail, and they know of nothing extraordinary that took place during any voyage, or any place visited by any fleet outside of the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. All of these documents and inscriptions exist, and other relevant documents also, but Menzies ignores them all - since they all refute his wild and unsupported claims. These many contemporary sources give detailed accounts of each voyage: when the various fleets left and returned, which places were visited, how long it took on various voyages to travel from A to B, how long they were in various ports, etc.

Then again you have Menzies' claims for Chinese "evidence" and "events" throughout the world. Once you really look at his "evidence" you will see that it doesn't actually exist - it is based on unsubstantiated claims and assertions - actually the "evidence" is either speculative, imaginary, only possible, misinterpreted, misunderstood - in brief, you can't go and examine actual, verified, evidence that passes even the barest of scholarly merit. Claims are many and asserted often - actual evidence for Menzies' claims is lacking. Hence, his many scholarly detractors.

I will give you one example of Menzies' method. He describes in glorious detail the concubines on board the voyages, specifically the 1421 voyage. He describes in detail where the girls come from, their appearance, their clothing, their many sexual practices, their sexual relationship with the ambassadors on the ships, and on and on in fine detail. But we have two contemporary sources (as well as all of the sources mentioned above) that describe in precise detail the personnel present on the ships, with precise numbers in each category of people - and (surprise) not a single Chinese source mentions any women on board, much less beautiful concubines. Ma Huan (1433) mentions women in a sexual function taking place only once on a voyage - that some married Thai women had sex with some of the Chinese men - but no concubines anywhere. They are completely a figment of Menzies' imagination. Let me say it again - he just makes them up! Why? Because he wants to fabricate events later in his imaginary voyage that he needs the existence of women for (he needs these imaginary women to spread Chinese DNA all over the world) - so he just invents women on the trip, and invents all of the details that he describes. He does the same thing with hundreds of other elements of the 1421 voyage - he just INVENTS WHAT HE NEEDS to make his unsubstantiated and wild claims.

Another instance: Menzies makes many claims of Chinese junks being found throughout the world, but in spite of his many vague claims, I have yet to see him tell us a single location where we (and a scholar) can actually examine and date a single Chinese junk of Zheng He's period (or before) outside of the China Seas and the Indian Ocean where you would expect to find them. So I went to his "1421" web site looking for evidence and found three entries. These following are his headlines and my comments about his article.

"A fleet of Chinese junks wrecked on the Pacific coast of North America?"
The article says, "there are potentially over 40 unidentified wrecks lying under the sand dunes". Notice what the article says: "potential", "unidentified", therefore, undated, no time period, no nationality, no ship type.

"100 foot long Chinese junk raised from sea bed"
Oops... the junk "has been raised from the sea bed off the coast of China", right where you would expect to find one.

"Chinese shipwrecks in the Caribbean?"
Golly. "Local folklore has it, that this [totally unidentified] ship sank long ago..."... and the article goes on to say that there is no "light on the ship's origin"... and oops, "We are not able to divulge the precise location of the wrecks as yet." I.E., again, no actual observable evidence of a Chinese junk. Just another vague unsubstantiated claim.

So much for Chinese junks found throughout the world...

The bottom line is that for anyone familiar with the actual Chinese sources, and with the actual evidence pertaining to Menzies' claims throughout the world, it is clear that Menzies has almost zero evidence behind his empty assertions - it is just a money making gimmick that gullible readers who have no actual knowledge of the facts and evidence fall into. Virtually everything that Menzies asserts has been shot down by the scholars in their respective fields. That there have been some contacts in the Americas with other peoples I am not denying - that there have been any contact with Chinese fleets, much less fleets of Zheng He's time - is just fun fantasy in a long line of pseudo-scientific and pseudo-historical best sellers. If you look at it as a historical novel (i.e., fiction) you'll have a fun romp - it you look at it as history, well...... Meszies is smiling all the way to the bank...

This book is written with the intention of proving that virtually anything of significance during the Renaissance should be credited to pre-existing work by the Chinese. The writing style is based on the personal premise and values highly speculative supposition while discounting established history and fact. The arguments are presented in such a biased and presumptive fashion that I know I would have failed High School English had I had turned in a term paper that resembled this book.

It is somewhat insulting to be constantly directed to the author's websites every dozen pages or so.

If you are interested in a well written book that discusses interesting twists on established versions of history, but based on credible evidence, read "1491." The subject matter is obviously quite different, but the writing style is fascinating while not being unnecessarily speculative or self-promoting.

Though I generally enjoy this type of book, and I went into it with and open mind, I found 1434 one of the most disappointing books I've read in years.

Gavin Menzies's "1434" hits a boundary six (a homerun for Americans who aren't familiar with cricket) in the game of challenging wisdom delivered by conventional historiographers. Following in the wake of his controversial "1421 -- The Year China Discovered America" Menzies has again assembled the most extraordinary collection of data and given us a new way to connect the dots.
Menzies's latest look at Chinese influence on western civilization turns conventional scholarship on its head, just like the ancient maps that `orient' the picture of the world with south on the top, north on the bottom.
"1421" pioneered some of the most innovative approaches of yoking the static information of the printed page to the fluid evolution of website interplay, generating hundreds of thousands of emails and scores of vitally important new discoveries. "1434" promises to take the medium to the next stage.
The hypothesis is stated boldly. The Italian renaissance seems to spring out of the early 15th century without precedent. Advances in science, mathematics, astronomy, navigation, engineering, painting, sculpture, commerce ... they all seem to explode as if the requisite fuel was ignited by a spark plug.
Instead of marveling at the serendipitous admixture of volatile gas and air, Menzies seeks the spark plug.
He finds it in the hitherto little-known or overlooked visit of a Chinese embassy to the Papal Court which had moved in 1434 to Florence. From the Chinese, Menzies argues, flowed the vast treasure of ideas that made possible the unprecedented rise in European civilization, exploration and worldwide domination.
It was a near run thing.
A series of natural disasters, including a recently discovered monstrous tsunami that destroyed the vast ocean-going Chinese treasure fleets, and cataclysmic fire that destroyed the Forbidden City, coupled with domestic introversion took China out of the international sphere. Sophisticated engineering skills and intellectual capital accumulated in the east all but disappeared from the written record. What remained in the west was claimed as its own.
The histories that were written, the histories that were taught, ignored the accomplishments of the "heathen" Chinese. The reports of adventurers like Marco Polo were relegated to myth. No longer. Menzies puts Toscanelli, Alberti, Nicholas of Cusa, Regiomontanus, Fontana, Pisanello, Taccola, Di Giorgi ... even Leonardo da Vinci into the post-1434 spectrum of Chinese beneficiaries.
Historians may challenge Menzies's broad hypothesis, his startling conclusions, his many and bold submissions. But they will have to deal with his uncomfortable facts. His genius lies in his breadth of vision: a new way of seeing facts that previous historians have relegated to "anomalies" that do not fit the model.
Copernicus did not invent the heliocentric view of astronomy, planets revolving around the sun; that laurel must go to Aristarchus who proposed it 1700 years earlier, (without success). What Copernicus did, by compiling thousands of observations (some of which were wrong), was create an alternative to the universally accepted Ptolemaic model of geocentrism, all planets revolving around the earth. As astronomers added to the data, the need for deferents and epicycles to explain "anomalies" fell away. The new model proved itself.
Anyone with a love of science, adventure and good old-fashioned detective work will delight in this new work of this ex-submariner from the Royal Navy. Better yet, there's promise of a further book in the works: based on evidence suggesting the great Chinese admiral Zheng He ended his days in North Carolina.
Up periscope!

I thought this book was amazing. It elaborates on the learning of the Chinese before the Renaissance. This will be emotionally difficult for westerners to listen to because we have been taught that all scientific learning started in Europe and spread to the rest of the world. However, it was already well known that Guttenberg was not the first to invent movable type; the Chinese had it long before. Of course the Chinese invented gunpowder; any reasonably well-educated person would know that. At the time of the early Renaissance, the Chinese had nearly 5,000 years of continuous cultural history while Europe had gone through centuries where learning and literacy were treated as suspect and dangerous since reading the Bible by common people would have reduced the power of the church over their lives. This book gives a credible explanation of the seeding of Chinese engineering and knowledge into the European renaissance; more credible than to believe that a few smart guys in Italy and Germany thought up new ideas about physics, math, chemistry, astronomy, and engineering out of thin air with no guide. To do science and engineering, you need math, and a mathematical mind. European scholars based their mathematical understandings on Roman numerals. Roman numerals were preferred for accounting because it was harder to fake financial records with them, but they are difficult and cumbersome for doing complex mathematical calculations. One of the other reviews complains that it could not have all happened in one year: Menzies does not say it did. He discusses Chinese trips to the Europe taking place over nearly 100 years, with 1434 being toward the end of that period. It is not an easy read, and if you make it to the end, the last section, about the background of the Conquistadors, was also enlightening.

This book begins with a lot of technical stuff. If you majored in Latin to avoid taking math, don't give up, just turn the pages. About the third chapter it gets really interesting and fun to read. It is filled with extraordinary bits of information that will delight you.

This book begins with a lot of technical stuff. If you majored in Latin to avoid taking math, don't give up, just turn the pages. About the third chapter it gets really interesting and fun to read. It is filled with extraordinary bits of information that will delight you.

This book is an excellent presentation of fact, conjenture, and connections that dispel much of the myths foisted upon much of western history. For those who are open minded, it is a must read especially for those who have had the foresight to read two other books;1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann and
1421: The Year China Discovered America (P.S.) by Gavin Menzies. Much of the conjecture in these three books has now been proved by research since publication dates.

The author's foolishness and ignorance are just unbelievable. There is no doubt that The Communist Chinese government paid this author to rewrite history for them. It is even hard to believe that some (comments) actually believe this nonsense. The old Chinese empires would never venture out to sea. The proof: The Taiwan island is right in front of their faces and it was not occupied by mainland Chinese until Mao overthrew the Nationalists; despite that they lived in a very crowded along the shore line. What the Chinese communist government wanted to do is to bullied and occupied islands in the Philippine and Vietnam sea and lay claims any other uninhabitable reefs around the world to expand their power and harvest the natural resources of these areas. They hired an idiot westerner writer who would sold his soul for the devil for a buck to cook up history of the Chinese adventures and discoveries to provide the pretext for annexing these areas. Books from this author are not by accident; they are propaganda of the Chinese government.

A fascinating read - Although I do not agree with every point that Menzies makes, the sheer amount of the evidence he has compiled is astounding. Menzies manages to take the reader on a real adventure through the Chinese Fleet's journey to Florence. Even if one has little interest in this period of history, the evocative way it is written will hold their attention to the end. Menzies has once again made history accessible and exciting.

I very much enjoyed '1434'. Like '1421' it questions the history that we've been taught at school. The book is informative and well researched. It is also well illustrated and contains some stunning maps and photos. Most striking perhaps are the comparative illustrations, showing the Chinese inventions, and the European copies from years later. These illustrations form the basis of the simple argument - the development of China before 1434 had a strong influence on Europe and her advancements after that year.

However, as with '1421' I feel Menzies has put too much weight behind the 1434 visit. Cultural diffusion does not happen overnight.
Still, '1434' remains a thought-provoking and fascinating read.

In his new book, Gavin Menzies holds the even more provocative view that it was the Chinese who sparkled the Renaissance in Italy in 1434. Although at first glance an unlikely assertion, the author strongly makes his case, and again much in the book seems inescapable. The passages about Leonardo DaVinci and his inventions, which according to Menzies are Chinese, are particularly enjoyable, as well as those about rice cultivation in the Po valley and Regiomontanus, a badly-known German mathematician and astronomer. With a special mention to the chapter about longitude, a topic which has always been a great interest of mine, it being of cardinal importance in my own theories. Just like in "1421" the claim is bold and the theory quite captivating. Of course everything the author suggests might not ultimately prove entirely true -- but with this new book a new thread is woven into the Great Tapestry of History, which never ceases to be better known, even if some of these threads shatter some biases and well-established ideas within mainstream history.

Sylvain Tristan, author of "Les Lignes d'or" ("The Golden Lines"), Paris, Alphée 2005

In his book "1434: The Year a Magnificent chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance", Gavin Menzies explains how Europe rose out of the dark ages into enlightenment in such a short amount of time. They had help from the Chinese! While it had been long assumed the knowledge of ancient Greece served as the basis for the Renaissance, 1434 provides another perspective. Europe's enlightenment was fueled by it's interaction with China. While 1434 is an easy read, it has enough quotes and references to substantiate it's position that the Chinese should be credited with starting the European Renaissance.

Menzies returns to face his critics with a sequel better than the original. He builds on is first book by uncovering the history of contacts between China and Europe. Most of this, to some extent, are known facts. But now Menzies solidifies where Europe found maps of the New World and that Chinese contacts were, up to this point, an unconsidered factor in the Renaissance. One of his strongest evidences is finding the Chinese sources that have the same inventions that da Vinci and others would later become famous for publishing. No longer a lone voice, Menzies' first book, and now this one, have unleashed a flood of researchers on Chinese exploration, a subject formally looked down upon.

I only read non-fiction, usually history. I don't want to feel like I'm back in college but I do like some meat on my bones. This book is pure garbage. Total fantasy. There is not a single piece of corroborating evidence offered. I threw the book in the garbage before leaving the beach. This book should be reclassified. It's not history.

1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance
As usual in science new ideas will create havoc and will be heavily scrutinized. The concept presented here is certainly revolutionary but the evidence presented is suggestive and once the typical concept of European supremacy is abandoned, the sequences presented seem logical and trustworthy. Thrilling to say the least and highly recomendable.

1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance
As usual in science new ideas will create havoc and will be heavily scrutinized. The concept presented here is certainly revolutionary but the evidence presented is suggestive and once the typical concept of European supremacy is abandoned, the sequences presented seem logical and trustworthy. Thrilling to say the least and highly recomendable.

To understand the controversy over Menzies's books 1421 and 1434, you have to understand the politics of writing - and rewriting - history. Careers are built upon, towns are named for, and a segment of the publishing and entertainment industries are programmed to maintain a keystone American myth about "Discovery."

If what Menzies postulates in 1421 and 1434 is true, why, Columbus, Ohio, would have to rename itself Zheng He-ville. Columbus Circle in NYC would change to Zheng He Circle. All the nursery songs would have to be rewritten. All those scholarly texts would be put in the recycling bin. All those illustrations of a handsome Italian dressed in velvet standing on a sandy shore under the admiring gaze of "primitive" people would end up lining kitty boxes.

It's pretty staggering, what would happen if the myth of Columbus bit the dust once and for all.

Menzies was attacked by his critics. Not a pretty sight.

But 1434 is succeeding anyway, largely because of the internet. Menzies very smartly asked for help from the world's scholars and lay researchers.

They answered his call, from around the world.

If you are not deterred by naysayers, you will be treated to a well-researched and well-written, fully foot-noted twosome, 1421 and its sequel, 1434.

If you can admire the accomplishments of civilizations outside of Europe, you will be totally fascinated by the pieces of information Menzies has doggedly pursued. 1434 is a fun-to-read history book that rests on new discoveries as well as scholarly, less accessible works like the survey of Chinese science and math written by Joseph Needham. At times 1434 reads like a detective novel. Menzies traveled to many cities and towns around the Mediterranean and discovered, for example, that Leonardo's brilliant "inventions" were actually based on drawings done by another Italian artist who based his work on Chinese inventions.

Menzies very intelligent, collective approach to history mirrors what you come to realize while reading the book - that the collective work of an entire culture far exceeds the accomplishments of the individual "genius." Students and anyone interested in history will learn an important lesson from reading 1434: that you don't have to have a degree in history to study, think, and contribute to human knowledge. And the lesson that Menzies learned? Those who step outside the cabin and rechart history must be readly to withstand a flogging from the captains of academia.

I'm glad he was up to the task. Read his books. You will enjoy the journey.