1434: The Year a Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance [Paperback]

This is a follow-up to Gavin Menzies' previous book entitled '1421'. The problem for Menzies - a retired British submarine commander - is that his books are part historical fact, and part historical speculation, without any clear demarcation between the two very different aspects. In 1421, Menzies provides the historical facts regarding the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) treasure fleets sent out by the emperor to educate and enlighten the world. It is correct that these fleets reached Africa, but then Menzies speculates that they reached North America. In this book, Menzies presents historical documents from Venetian records which suggest that Chinese fleets visited Venice and other city states in the area. He then speculates that the Chinese presence inspired the European Renaissance (1400-1600), that led to the Enlightenment.

The strategy of the first book is repeated in the second book. The discerning reader must weigh the evidence and decide the merit of Menzies' ideas. On the face of it, and with due balance, there is probably a greater chance of the speculation of 1421 being correct, than the speculation of 1434. This book, although a fascinating read, full of lucid historical fact, nevertheless 'reaches' to create a never before thought of idea. In reality, the unsung heroes of the Renaissance are probably the Arabic scholars, who, over hundreds of years, gathered together a plethora of Greek texts, translating them into Arabic, before these texts were re-discovered by 15th century European researchers. In many ways, ancient Greece and ancient China, have had much in common. Interestingly, the author Charles Freeman, in his book entitled 'The Closing of the Western Mind', asserts that the coming of politically dominant Christianity not only prevented the European mind from developing further from its very clever Greek roots, but actually encouraged a dogma and superstition that turned the European mind backward. From the 15th century onward, the advanced Greek heritage of disciplined and ordered thought was re-discovered through Arabic texts preserved within Islamic empires. As the Chinese had little, if any contact with ancient Greek thinkers, it is unlikely that they could have had any connection with the Renaissance, even if they had seen Arabic maps and other documents.

Having said that, however, it must be born in mind that history in the West has often been distorted by the recent politics of imperiaiism and colonialism, a situation compounded by the zeal of Christian missionaries, who viewed all other religions as 'evil', and everyother culture as 'inferior'. Menzies is trying to set an historical record straight, by introducing to a new generation that old China was actually culturally sophisticated and able to project military power around the globe at a time prior to the rise of European powers on the waves. With the invasion of the non-Chinese Manchurians in 1644, the official state policy became one of isolation and introversion, with the Manchus pursuing internal policies that deliberately 'stunted' Chinese intellectual and creative thinking. The books of Menzies give a service that reminds the West that China was not always the apparently weak country its envoys encountered in the 17th and 18th centuries.

One major concern with this book is the inclusion of one 'SL Lee', himself an American-Chinese gentlemen of Hong Kong birth. The discerning reader will note his website, written in English and based in the USA. Its historical content is often inaccurate, and its anti-Western rhetoric borders on the 'racist' at times. Gavin Menzies would do well to seek the research input of other truly eminent Chinese people in both the West and the East, rather than relying on characters whose inclusion in a book only serves to undermine the credibility of the book. This genre explores the possible occurence of a relatively early Chinese imperial presence in Europe and America, and is interesting. A good read.

An enjoyable and thought-proviking read like 1421 but there is a big BUT. I really do not think that Gavin Menzies has proven his theory - if one can call it that. Essentially his technique is to write a "history" on the basis that it is true without giving any proof - that is not even a hypothesis. For example he writes that the Chinese were being readily accepted in Venice because the locals were used to their visits (even though he asserts they first visited in 1434). What he chooses to ignore that there is absolutely no evidence of Chinese visits to Venice. Moreover, it is wrong to infer that outwith a visit from the Chinese fleets of Zheng He (if he did indeed come) that there would have been no knowledge of China in the West - there were documented trade contacts of which Marco Polo is but the best known. Also it should be remembered that a Mongol,quasi-Chinese culture existed relatively near to Venice in the Khanate of the Golden Horde which reached the shores of the Black Sea.

Gavin Menzies once again challenges the orthodox view of history. This time he credits the Chinese with providing the spark for the Renaissance and supports his theory with seemingly irrefutable research. The book reads easily and reflects Menzies' obvious passion for his subject. Does he go too far in implying that the likes of Leonardo da Vinci merely copied Chinese works? Correct or otherwise he certainly stimulates the imagination and offers much for debate. One can understand perhaps that the Chinese would give the Europeans the means to navigate to the East to pay tribute but why would they offer so much else - farming secrets, irrigation techniques, the key to canal building? Above all, why would they present the Europeans with the secrets of their most modern weaponry (surely no power on earth before or since has been so generous with its military secrets)? Was Zheng He hoping the Europeans would one day sail to China and destroy it in revenge for what they did to him and his family?
Menzies might be on the right track but there is much balanced research that needs to be done before definite conclusions can be drawn.