It's rare that I would waste space blasting a book. Life is short and time is a scarce resource. I'd rather just drop a book unworthy of finishing and move on to a new one. This time, though, I think 1421 merits further explanation because of the sensational success it has experienced worldwide.

Simply put, 1421 is junk history posing as "real history." Gavin Menzies has spun a fantastical and interesting tale out of the very real events surrounding the massive Chinese treasure fleets of 1421. His thesis--that the Chinese discovered the New World in the 1420s, mapped it, and that it was their maps that European explorers used when sailing for the New World (including, he argues, Columbus).

Built by a Ming emperor to gather in tribute from the ends of the Earth, the fleet was one of the last acts of imperial hubris. Shortly after it set sail, the emperor died. His son, in replacing his father's policies, had the fleets destroyed upon their return, along with records gathered during the voyage. Starting with that sparse introduction, Menzies proceeds to gather bits and pieces of evidence stretching from China itself to the Indian subcontinent, from the Congo to Patagonia and beyond, and levies the evidence to tell a tale of the massive Chinese fleet charting the New World the greater part of a century before Columbus set sail in 1492.

It is an extremely interesting and, if it were true, a ground breaking discovery and thesis. Perhaps it is true. But likely, it is not.

As I started reading it, the first question that came to mind for me was this: in the almost six centuries since these events happened, why has no one else suggested that the Chinese arrived first? Menzies explanation is that historians generally lack the skill set necessary to uncover the truth, a skill set that he has as a former captain in the British Navy. Unlike most historians, Menzies argues, he can read a chart, understand what he's looking at, and glean from these 15th century charts things that no historian would otherwise notice.

Yeah. It's a little bit of a stretch. I would be surprised to find that no historian has ever had the skill set to learn maritime charts and understand how to read them (heck, Theodore Roosevelt when only an undergraduate student at Harvard, researched and wrote a book of naval strategy -- "The Naval War of 1812"--that became a classic and a text book used by both the US and British navies for decades after it was published). That being said, I gave Menzies the benefit of the doubt. I've long been intrigued with China and its history, and I think I wanted to believe that history as we have been taught might not be true. How interesting would it be for America to have been discovered by the Chinese?

As I read, though, red flags continued to pop up. Out of only sparse details, Menzies would assert "conclusive proof" that his theories were finding relevance. Finally, over two hundred pages in, I decided to check into what critical review might have said about his methods and evidence. I reasoned that if Menzies is correct, or even has a good theory, then the academic community would support his findings with further research. I went to the internet.

Critical acclaim was anything but what I found. In addition to finding entire sites dedicated to debunking Menzies myths, I also found that historical lectures had been given explaining and demonstrating that what Menzies proposed was just that--a proposal. Be it even true, the evidence was not there, not was the reasoning clearly logical.

For example:

--Menzies claims that Chinese anchors have been found off of the coast of California, but fails to document them.
--1421 says that Chinese DNA is found in North America natives, but fails to account for the influx of Chinese immigrants in the 17th century.
--Menzies finds what he claims are chickens unique to Asia living in Peru, but fails to note that Peru exported millions of tons of silver to China and brought back silk and porcelain (and presumably other things, like, for example, chickens) throughout the heyday of the Spanish during the 16th through 17th centuries.

And that's just to start.

Historian Kirstin A. Seaver says, in disecting claims about the Chinese in Vinland:

"The study of history is likely to reward anyone willing to undertake it in a quest for better understanding of who they are, how they became what they are, and what they might hope to become. The manufacture of a history that never existed rewards only those who make money by deceiving the public."

If 1421 is true, Menzies has not found the evidence to support it. If it is false, it's junk and a waste of time to read. Further, it perpetuates a falsehood that makes the acquisition of real history--real, boring, dry and factual history--that much harder to grasp.

I was 13, I read "Were the Gods kosmonauts?" by von Däniken, and I was immeditaly swept away: it all seemed very plausible and convincing. With this book I almost had the same experience. Menzies writes well, knows how to tell a story, and so he seems to convince you that a giant Chinese flotilla at the beginning of the 15th Century explored the world, and discovered America and Australia.

But then you think about it: the author doesn't understand one word of Chinese and does not but put up a chain of suppositions. Now, indeed, there's convincing evidence that some giant Chinese vessels did explore South Asia and even the East coast of Africa. But some simple checks through internet reveil that his assertions about America and Australia are based upon nothing and lots of experts in the meantime have unmasked Menzies as a fraud. Alas, this book is an enticing read and that's probably why it captivates so many people, we just want these kind of stories to be true.

My condemnation for this pack of fantasized lies knows no bounds. It would have made an excellent work of historical fiction, were it not presented as fact.

A distortion, and one made popular at that. It will be decades before the ill that this has wrought is undone.

I enjoyed reading this book. A bit iconoclastic in nature, the book posits a sea-change (pun intended) for our historical perspective on the discovery and mapping of much of the world.

While it apparently created quite a stir among conventional historians I didn't find its information to be that shocking. On the contrary, the idea that a large fleet of large Chinese ships traveled around the world before Columbus and Magellan and Cook only makes sense, given the advancements in Chinese culture that only became known to the western world after Marco Polo and colonization.

That the Chinese and Muslim nations had a rich history and significant trading around the Indian Ocean that surprises some is only indication of our ethnocentricity. When the Silk Road was such an impactful transport route and its closure caused exploration by the Chinese into far reaches of the world doesn't surprise me.

The information shared on evidence of a significant exploration and mapping and development of means of charting location well in advance of western knowledge of the same is compelling and yet interesting for the casual reader as well. What could be much more scholarly and dry instead has a scope as great as the travels it seeks to recount.

There are times when the evidence gets a little scientific, but the author avoids making this uninteresting for the general reader. The book is listed as 650 pages, but that is because the last 160 pages are addenda and notes and the kind of references that historians would relish. Keeping it out of the main text made it more readable but also provides the backup to the author's contentions and suppositions that makes for good reading.

Again, I'm constrained by five stars in my rating. I'd give this an 8.25 on a scale of 10. A good read, with interesting content, but it suffers somewhat from insertion of reactions to detractors and a feeling by the author of a need to counter their assertions.

I found this book in Emily's room. It makes the case for the Chinese fleets having mapped out most of the world prior to the European explorations of 1492 and after. The case for the Carribean islands and South America, and even coast of Antarctica and Australia is very strong. The case of North America is a little weak, and requires more speculation. I found this very interesting.

Did you ever read this?

I enjoyed it. Universally trashed, nevertheless an interesting theory that is not totally lacking in merit. It is sad that some of the 'experts' tearing the book down have totally misquoted and/or plain just not read the book in its entirety.

I see this book in every History section of every bookshop and the idea of something challenging conventional History does seem rather appealing, so I figured I'd give it a go.

And...

Well, it is certainly is an interesting read. I admit, I tend to read history books moderately critically, but not without immediately running to find any arguments and counter-arguments about it. But with this, right from the off, I was itching to see what other historians said about it. It's written in an engaging style, albeit one which does get repetitive after a while (it's looooooooooong). But it strained against credibility at times, as each successive discovery blasted away any lingering doubt the author's theories.

As it turns out most historians think this is a whole load of bunk. The way it presents itself as an injection of new perspectives and knowledge into the staid convention is well done in the text, but the holes, the convenient omissions, are all noticeable for the discerning reader (as you should be with any history books). It's a shame because it's seductively written, at least for the first 350 or so pages before the repetition renders it less compelling.

So two stars for being entertaining but the mislabelling of it as History means I couldn't really give it much more. History is one genre of books which can't be read in isolation, sorry.

A bit hard to figure where to place this book. Is it historical or is it historical interpretation or misinterpretation? Did Bao, Wang, Qing and Man split off from the Cape Verde Islands with Wen brining the Cherokee Rose plant to N. America, along with some male DNA? That China explored intentionally or unintentionally the West Coast of the continent has more physical eveidence of support. That the entire coastal areas of the continents, less Europe and Antarctica - but including Greenland - were mapped as result of a grand fleet is argued for in this well documented work. It's a half and half sort of result in my view - some of it true, some not but pushed to the fore with scanty evidence and much interpretation. Gets you thinking. China has been an odd place of brilliant invention and daring followed by Egyptian-like aridity of idea and a closed border. Still, what an amazing history.

Totally changed my understanding of american and world history.

You might have that certain relative in your family who is affable enough, but has some really weird ideas that he loves to go on about. For the sake of this review, let's call him "Uncle Gavin." Uncle Gavin is harmless, and charms your friends, but he has one pet topic that you try to steer him away from. Before you know it, he's started asking your friends who they think discovered the world and after a short time, the friend's nods and smiles go from sincerely interested to polite to barely hanging on, and they're looking around desperately for someone to rescue them from this conversation.

Uncle Gavin wrote this book. His premise sounds interesting, and perhaps sane, if far-fetched: he claims that the Chinese sailed essentially the entire world in 1421-23 and made maps of such voyages that were later used to guide the Portuguese and Spanish explorers who "discovered" America and other parts of the world. Why this has been a hidden fact for so long: the Chinese burned nearly every record of the voyages, stopped exploration, and basically forgot about the whole thing over the centuries. Why Uncle Gavin is the only person to have figured this out: he used to captain submarines and therefore knows how ocean currents work and can read a nautical chart. I'll let that sink in for a moment.

In any case, I was willing to go along with him at first, but it became apparent pretty quickly that things were spiraling out of control. I rarely make notes on audio books, but I found myself frantically scribbling things down when I was listening to this one. Things like:

"Just because Verrazzano compared some lighter-skinned Indians and their manner of dress to the "Eastern" style doesn't mean that they are descended from his [Menzies'] imaginary pregnant concubines that were put ashore from his imaginary overcrowded voyages."

I was going to list more, but as I look at that one, I think it sums up everything. Look, it's an interesting idea that the Chinese could have sent an enormous fleet out to see what there was out there, and that they could have drawn up a map of everything, and then decided to close their borders and give up on the outside world, and that the maps could have ended up in the hands of the European explorers, and that those explorers could have found knick-knacks that were Chinese and people who might have been descended from Chinese people who ended up there long-term one way or another. But if you're going to tell me, Uncle Gavin, that the Chinese took out 40 or 50 ships which were wrecked in various places and stayed and lived there, you're going to have to come up with some physical evidence. Wrecked ships off India, or eastern Africa, or Australia simply do not prove that Chinese people built the Bimini Road in the Caribbean to get their ships on land for repairs or had a settlement on Greenland (I am not kidding. I wish I were kidding.).

If this were half as long and half as crazy, it might be worth a perusal. As it is, run from this book. Read Foucault's Pendulum, which features the same sort of wild connect-the-dots game and also has going for it that it is fiction.

PS - It turns out that Menzies has also published 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. I imagine that he is now deep into the writing of 1468: The Year China Traveled to the Moon and Discovered Life and 1498: The Year China Invented Synthetic Life and Created the Spice Girls.

Read half of this and it was not engaging, unbelievable wild goose chase!

I cautiously liked this book. There are a lot of criticisms floating around about this being “pseudo-history”, inaccurate, and, just generally, armchair historiography. Like most others, I’m not in a position to weigh whether those criticisms are valid. However, I can say that I thoroughly enjoyed Menzies attempt to uncover whether China made it to North America before Columbus. He’s kind of like a nautical Indiana Jones.

A former British submarine officer, Menzies brings a sailor view to his examinations of cartography and sea routes. Where Zhang He’s treasure fleets could have encountered currents and winds add dynamism to Menzies’s analysis. He delves into the obscure notations in obscure Western maps to find traces of Chinese influence and questions how Westerners would know certain coastlines before their accepted “discovery.” He may make some conclusory leaps at times, but he lays out the facts he is relying upon which at least makes him transparent as to why he jumps when he does.

Additionally, he leaves the armchair plenty of times. Whether it’s digging into museum archives or trekking out to find moss-covered stone markers on island hilltops that may be evidence of Eastern stone masons, Menzies seeks to support his claim with evidence and not just analysis. A 600-year-old mystery that has enticing traces of long overlooked clues.

Again, is he right or wrong? I have no idea. But I like it. I just wish the cover was Menzies standing on submarine with a fedora and whip.