Magellan\'s Route in the Pacific

Magellan's Route In The Pacific

In his article "Magellan's Route in the Pacific," author George E. Nunn proposes that the historically accepted account of the Portuguese explorer's route is inaccurate, based on falsified accounts from the unreliable log of Francisco Albo. The article directly pertains to any study of the Age of Exploration and is therefore wholly relevant to world history as well as geography. The author also questions and critiques popularly accepted primary sources. Nunn bases his arguments on nautical and geographic facts, historical evidence, and logical inferences based on the prevailing political climate of the time. As evidence, Nunn cites the discrepancies between the various expedition logs regarding the route, and discrepancies between the logs and geographic fact. Furthermore, Magellan and his crew deliberately falsified their accounts so that they could gain control over the Spice Islands and usurp Spain. The author argues that the true course of Magellan's expedition was actually parallel to the coast of South America, not traversing the Pacific directly as is commonly believed, and bases his thesis on three main issues: the point at which Magellan started to cross the Pacific; the latitude of San Pablo and Tiburones Islands; and the direction and distance of the expedition.

One of the reasons why the log of Francisco Albo is unreliable is because it includes no accounts of land being seen. Nunn notes that although the Pacific Ocean is massive, it is nevertheless "filled with evidence of land...what a marvelous occurrence it would have been...to miss all but two rocks in the entire Pacific," (620). To support his point, the author demonstrates that each of the many islands in the Pacific Ocean is enclosed by a radius of only fifty miles. Shore birds frequently fly greater distances than fifty miles from shore; because Magellan and his crew were aware of this fundamental fact of seafaring, it is highly unlikely that the explorers did not encounter any land throughout their expedition.

Nunn cites three main discrepancies regarding the route specifically. First, where Magellan actually set off to cross the Pacific from South America is unclear because of the wide variances in crew logs. As the author states, "The wide variations among the several calculations and their variance from the truth, where discoverable, are sufficient to show their questionable value," (621). To illustrate his point, Nunn offers maps and charts and geographical information such as longitudinal points. Similarly, the question of where Magellan initially veered westward from the continent can only be answered through thorough investigation of the explorers' geographical possibilities. Nunn also notes that major discrepancies in the journal entries make this question difficult to answer but that Albo's log is definitely unreliable. According to Albo, Magellan turned west at latitude 32 degrees south on December 19, 1590. However, Nunn shows that Magellan probably turned a lot farther north. Moreover, the logged locations of the San Pablo and Tiburones Islands differ, making the reports unreliable, while the directions and distance sailed do not correspond with what Nunn proposes actually occurred on Magellan's mission.

One of the reasons why Nunn believes that his theory refutes the Albo log is because at the time Magellan sailed, he and his crew ascribed to the belief, still prevalent at the time, that the Americas were actually the Easternmost portion of Asia. European geographical knowledge was changing dramatically since Columbus, but Magellan still viewed the Pacific Ocean as the Sinus Magnus, or Great Gulf, of Ptolemy, a branch of the Indian Ocean. South America was seen as an Asian peninsula and North America as the Eastern mainland of the continent. Therefore, Magellan would not have ventured along the routes that historians have believed based on Albo's logs.