Talk:Juan Sebastián Elcano

There's been a lot of modifications the last couple of days about whether Elcano was doing things for Spain or Castille, and whether he was Spanish, Castillian or Basque.

Sugaar, you've based your description of work for Castille because Spain did not exist officially yet as a single Kingdom. Yet, what is now Spain was under the rule of a same person, Carlos I, who is now considered as the first King of Spain (for example he is the first person to be buried in El Escorial with Felipe II and all the kings after him; remember that one thing is the practical reality and another the peace of paper certifying it, for example Italy, the USA and the UK were already military allies with common defence compromise before NATO created as such). This is accepted both in Spain and internationally.

You say Elcano was Basque because of such ethnicity to exist at that time. The Spanish one as well, and he is considered as such. The same applies for example to Juana I, Picasso or Dali (they are not described as exclusively Castillian, Andalucian or Catalan instead of Spaniards), I therefore think that it is much more correct to define him as a "Spaniard from the Basque Country" and not exclusively as "Basque navigator".

I therefore suggest to do something of the following structure: describe Elcano as "Spaniard from the Basque Country", and he "explored, etc, for Spain and Carlos V, king of Spain, at that time still called Castille" Escorial82 (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The Spanish ethnicity wasn't defined at that time, not more than the British one for instance. There was no Spanish state either, because Charles V was the first joint monarch of Castile and Aragon and he was also king of many other realms. Spain was then a mere geographical term that meant the Iberian peninsula.

The first monarch to style himself as "King of Spain" was Philip II, AFAIK, upon his ascension to the Portuguese throne. With that personal union, Philip II became indeed King of Spain, that is: of the Iberian peninsula.

After Portugal broke apart, the name remained, even if the different realms were under different laws and jurisditions until the Bourbon dynasty, that supressed most of them. It could be discussed indeed if under the Habsburgs there was a state named "Spain", as each realm had its own law, tribunals and government, but that's not a debate I want to get into. What I say and, is quite clear, is that before Philip II, there was no King of Spain, and therefore no Kingdom of Spain even if loosely speaking.

Furthermore: non-Castilian subjects of the Habsburgs were in principle not allowed to participate in the colonial enterprises of the Kingdom of Castile. That's a reason why there are so few people of Catalan or Aragonese origin in the colonial history of Latin-America. Southern Basques instead, as subjects of the King of Castile, "Castilians" if you wish, were allowed an often participated in such adventures. Andalusia instead was fully part of Castile (or Castile-Leon), as much as Valladolid, and even participated in the Comuneros revolt (that affected only Castile). The Southern Basque provinces were part of the Kingdom of Castile but unlike the rest of the realm, they enjoyed special autonomy based in the Navarrese right, were off the Castilian customs area and did not have to provide soldiers except for the defense of their own provincial territory.

So any Southern Basque living then was a Castilian with special status... but Spanish (Spaniard is possibly despective, mind you) only in the geographical sense of "Iberian" - fully comparable, mutatis mutandi, to the concept of "British" before the act of union.

You can't say that because some today consider Charles V ("Charles I" in Castile and Aragon only, in Navarre he would be "Charles V" as well) "the first king of Spain" (others consider that to be Ferdinand of Aragon, for instance but it's as well a subjective appreciation), Spain existed then. As you surely know, the domains of Charles were immense and nobody thinks of Austria or Milan as part of "Spain". In any cae, I challenge you (in friendly terms naturally) to provide any historical documentation that justifies the use of the term "King of Spain" or "Kingdom of Spain" as early as the rule of Charles V.

You won't be able, I assure you, as no matter what some want to believe, the first monarch ever to use the term "King of Spain" was Philip II upon the incorporation of Portugal to his domains. --Sugaar (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Carlos was Carlos V of the Holy Roman Empire and Carlos I of Spain. King of Spain, as Carlos I, from 1516 to 1556, and of the Holy Roman Empire from 1519; he was the two things, describing himself as such, and considered as such by Phillip II and the successors (eg read it in Encyclopaedia Britannica) Escorial82 (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Some more examples of my previous comment: Acts of the court, Coins, Many more can be seen in Spanish Wikipedia: De Hispania a España Escorial82 (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably the numbering custom is more recent than Charles V and, as far as I can read in those acts, he's never adressed with any ordinal after his name. He was indeed the first monerch of that name in both Castile and Aragon but he was also known first and foremost as Emperor, his highest dignity and the one he tried to enforce in the many wars he was involved in.

I can't read in those acts (acts of the Cortes of Castile, only and exclussively - previous Cortes in Aragon and Catalonia are mentioned as something apart) any reference to Carlos as "King of Spain", instead the plural form "Reynos" (kingdoms) is used once and again. Certain Bishop does use the term "España" (Spain) but alongside of Italy and Germany, which weren't either unified states but geographical regions (with all the personality you wish). The comparison wit Italy is very clear.

The coin is indeed interesting but notice please that "Hispaniarum" is plural, meaning "of the Spains" or, as we would say in modern language, "of the Iberias", just as nearby "Indiarum" means "of the Indies" . The term "Hispaniarum" had been used before by monarchs of Leon and, in one case, Navarre. In none of these cases meant anything but that they power was exerted or wanted to be exerted overe several Iberian realms. Close but not quite.

In regard to this coin notice that the coat of arms is that of Castile-Leon.

As I said before, the first monarch of Castile and Aragon to style himself "King of Spain", meaning initially King of all Iberia, was Philip II, who was also monarch of Portugal. After Portugal left the union, the name stuck, even if the several separate administrations remained in place for some time yet.

The process of constituion of Spain as state and nationality was not as swift as you seem to think. It was a sometimes punctuated, sometimes gradual evolution. But in this process, Philip II was the first monarch who used the title that would remain and was also the first monarch that ruled over all what is now Spain and for who that region was the core of his empire. This wasn't the case with Charles, whose policy was basically of Imperial nature and whose empire was formed by many realms, one of them, very important, being Castile. But none bearing the name of "Spain".

--Sugaar (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Spanish Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a valid source for itself. The few cases mentioned there are not convincing on first sight anyhow. It seems mostly an opinion held by the Spanish scholars, who, sadly, often display a strong nationalist bias. --Sugaar (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that Spanish Wikipedia cannot be used as a source itself. If I put it is so that you can see all the other references they mention; I link you here to another one, Larousse. This is another high-reputation encyclopaedia that describes him as Spanish. You mentioned previously that even if the Basque Country was not a country Elcano was of Basque ethnicity. Were some people from the area ever considered as Basque and not Spanish (ethnicity/cultural union considered as such since Fernando and Isabel) from the end of the "Reconquista" until Sabino Arana? I therefore insist that Elcano was a Spanish navigator from the Basque Country. Escorial82 (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no concept of Spanish ethnicity then... it would be something like "Balcanic ethnicity" (the Balcans are a geographic region but people there belong to many different ethnicities) or "Scandinavian ethnicity" or "Indochinan ethnicity". Spain was just a geographic denominator to refer to what we call now Iberian peninsula. People spoke many different languages, were under different administrations (some of them just united in person under Ferdinand and his grandson, the Emperor) but no institution that can be claimed as "Spain".

Naturally people tend to see the past with modern cathegories and it's easy to call these people "Spanish", as it's used for Trajan or Abd-ar-Rahman III as well occasionally. In some cases this perception is enhanced by nationalist bias but for all legal purposes in his time Elcano was Castilian and Guipuzcoan (as the "fuero" gave him different rights and obligations than the average Castilian, like the status of gentry, "hidalgo", in all Castilian lands).

In my opinion, claiming Elcano as "Spanish" (ethnically or legally) is a political statement that cannot be upheld against the historical facts: un his time there was no "Spain" yet, neither ethnical nor legal, just an array of "Spanish" (Iberian) realms, some of which were ruled by the same monarch, who also ruled many other lands throughout Europe.

There is not even a single serious indication that he ever named himself "King of Spain", something that only his son Philip would do. --Sugaar (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the nationality explaining it in precise terms (saying that its how he's now considered, and who was Charles I). I put the needed references Escorial82 (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry. No way. If you want to make a political statement, you can start by trying to claim Trajan as "Spanish" (sarcasm intended). The fact is that there was no state named "Spain" and that your "is considerd" phrase is idelogical and refers only to those with a Spanish naionalist bias. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and not a board for political statements. --Sugaar (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you describe that as a political statement? Something that is worldwide recognised? I would rather say the opposite; what is ideological / political is that some Basque nationalists are "ashamed" that Elcano was a successful Spanish explorer (NB: I'm Basque). Indeed Wikipedia is for informing, but not as a few people want but rather as it is worldwide done (I quoted other prestigious encyclopaedias as sources). I recommend you to read around on how him and others are mentioned, because if applying your principles it is, for example, more suitable to describe Simon Bolivar or Sabino Arana as Spanish (I consider neither as such) Escorial82 (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not discussing Arana's citizenship, I am discussing Elcano's. And he was Castilian. There was no Spain yet. When you demonstrate that Spain existed in his lifetime (what is impossible to do), then you will be right. In the meantime, please avoid these kind of edit wars that go nowhere. --Sugaar 09:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And, btw, an encyclopedy can hardly be a source for another encyclopedy, much less when the entry is just 2 lines long. Another famous encyclopedia opts for not discussing his nationality (a concet probably not existent then) and just mentions his birthplace:

Célebre navegante, el primero que dio la vuelta al mundo, nacido en Getaria (Gipuzkoa) en 1487 y muerto en el Pacífico en 1526.

(Translation: Famous sailor, the first one who circunnavigated the world, born in Getaria (Gipuzkoa) in 1487 and born in the Pacific Ocean in 1526). --Sugaar 09:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just check Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, please. There is no "King of Spain" among his many titles. He was monarch of many different states, one of which was Castile, to which Gipuzkoa belonged then. --Sugaar 09:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Three independent things: You mention me the Wikipedia article on Charles V. It does mention that he ruled Spain as Charles I; the way I had written it states the two things, i.e. that he ruled Spain but at that time it was not a single kingdom.

This other encyclopaedia you link me to says as well how Magellan wanted to leave and then return to "Spain". With respect to Spain as a culture/ethnia it did exist, as shows it those references I mentioned previously when you talked about Basque ethnicity (Charles I was called Spanish by the courts). The British and Larousse encyclopaedia on-line are indeed only two lines. I quoted them because I checked it manually on the paper version.

Before this discussion started the article stated that Elcano was Spanish, according to Wikipedia polemic things should be kept as they were before the discussion, i.e. until this ends it should change back to him being Spanish, maybe afterwards it will change to how you wish. Escorial82 11:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

At that moment there wasn't a state called Basque Country, and there weren't countries called Andalusia and Catalonia either.

In fact, Catalonia has never existed as a country, it existed as a region of Aragon, and as a region of Hispania, and as a region of Spain. 2A0C:5A84:9304:7A00:ADE5:1BD7:EDB6:8BAB (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I meant the list of states of which he was ruler. The intro paragraph is changing all the time (another pathetic edit war). But the facts are well clear in the list of crowns he held:

• Crown of Burgundy: Duke of Burgundy (Franche-Comté) and associated realms of the Low Countries
• Crown of Aragon: King of Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca, Naples, Sicily, Count of Barcelona...
• Crown of Castile: King of Castile and León (including overseas colonies, Western Basque provinces and High Navarre - this latter is wrongly placed in the list as part of the Aragonese crown)
• Crown of Austria: Archduke of Austria, etc.
• Holy Roman Emperor (elect) - and associated titles: King of Germany, Italy, etc.

The term Spain is used now, we know, in anachronistic contexts sometimes. Yet, it was then a geographical term meaning the Iberian peninsula (see: Hispania). We have to adhere to the facts and the fact is that no realm with that name existed then. It's also highly dubious that there was a clear national/ethnic feeling among the different Iberian ("Spanish") populations, after all the Spanish ethnicity is built on the Castilian one and, as we can see in the Comuneros Revolt, for instance, the Castilian ethnic/national indentity was clear then.

Anyhow, I think the issue could easily be solved by adding something like "modernly he is claimed as 'Spanish' by some authors". True that the same can be said of Trajan, Hannibal or Benjamin of Tudela but I guess it's the best way to solve this endless dispute between the historical facts (Kingdom of Castile) and the modern Spanish nationalist perception (tending to imply that Spain existed somehow since at least the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand, what is very very questionable: a romantic, politically charged, idea in fact). --Sugaar 13:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you to put it this way. It mentions how he is "currently considered", and clearly states that defining Charles I as King of Spain is done now-a-days, at the time of Elcano he was King of Castile. I think that like this it says the two things each of us defends, and it puts it clear to someone who doesn't know well Spanish geography (i.e. that Castile became afterwards part of Spain).

Juan Sebastián Elcano (Getaria (Guipuscoa, Spain), 1476 – Pacific Ocean, August 4 1526) is currently considered as a Basque and/or Spanish navigator ^[1][2] born in the Basque Country, Castile (now part of Spain) and a naval commander subject of Charles I (at that time Spain was still divided in some kingdoms, all with Charles I as monarch; with respect to Elcano he was officially King of Castile, he is now also considered as King of Spain).

Escorial82 13:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense at all, in the article on Elcano, all this stuff about the Kingdoms of Spain in the XVI Century and this rather cumbersome wording on Charles I as King of Spain or not exactly. Please, put everything in the articles on Kingdom of Castile, Crown of Castile, History of Spain, Charles V, and so on.

Therefore, let's make the introductory paragraph on Elcano as simple and informative as possible. There are many other areas where the article should be improved.

So getting three times the term "Spain"/"Spanish" in the introductory paragraph is what you understand as "simple and informative". I've removed one of them though I believe that a single mention to Castile now being part of Spain is more than enough, just that I don't know how to do it without leaving the paragraph too confuse.

Factuality in an encyclopedia that pretends to be serious is not cumbersome but a must. Elcano was not born in Spain nor was subject of any state of that name. At most he is considered as such by some modern people. --Sugaar (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Overall agree with what you say, and also simple. In the article on Castile's historical region it says its current location in Spain, so it can be removed there. I'll rather keep the "Basque Spanish" statement (since as previously seen both cultures already existed by then and that keeps the article without the polemic of the long discussion) Escorial82 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We really don't agree. You are POV-pushing your ideology without any evidence. I would not use the term "Spain" at all because it's not a fact, at most, as non-factual opinion, in a separate sentences specifically refering to some authors (sourced with historians' references, no dictionaries, please) claiming him as Spanish.

I also strongly suggest that you leave it the way it is until we can reach a consensus (read the policies please) otherwise we are edit-warrying and that's awful. --Sugaar (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree to what you say in this previous paragraph. But one important thing: this discussion began when the mention of him as Spanish was removed (i.e. the previous consensus was Spanish navigator, and not Basque navigator. I suggest you to leave it in this intermediate status until we do find an agreement. Escorial82 (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree for Sugaar. Escorial82 is #1 POV person of wiki.--La voz de su amo (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)There was no "previous consensus". There was just a "previous edition" of the article. The only place where consensus can arise is in this talk page. --Sugaar (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A section is defined as having consensus when it is not modified for a long time. The introduction of him a Spanish navigator had not changed for almost 2 months (until I deleted by mistake the link you had put to the Japanese Wikipedia on the 22nd of November), i.e. a consensus. Since you don't seem to agree with the intermediate thing I wrote 5 days ago I'll return it to the text it was on the 25th of September. And later in the afternoon, when I'll have a bit more of time, I'll write you about a key thing: how is Elcano considered now. Escorial82 (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How is Elcano currently considered generally all around the world? In most of the publications we've mentioned, or for example in the same article of 14 out of 16 other Wikipedias (including the one in Basque), Elcano is mentioned as a Spanish (or Basque Spanish) navigator. This applies as well to Charles I, he is currently and officially considered as Charles I of Spain (1). So, don't you agree that at least a mention of him being considered Spanish should be included? Escorial82 (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Consensus has nothing to do with stability of the article or section. Consensus means agreement and must be done here: in the talk page. A gross error that has not been reviewed is not any consensus and in any case, it remains being an error that must be fixed. A consensus of one is not any consensus.

Elcano is constantly and universally considered Elcano, logically. Do you think people stops to wonder the nationality of Amerigo Vespucci or Trajan? It's just a circumstantial note unless you are fanatic nationalist who bases his/her own identity on what other people (not you) have done. 16 other Wikipedias, probably based in this one mean nothing.

There is one clear fact here: Spain did not exist in the time of Charles V and therefore in Elcano's life. Can you counter this? No, you cannot. So stop being disruptive, please. --Sugaar (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It is extremely questionable your assertion that 'Spain did not exist in the time of Charles V', but we shouldn't waste time on that discussion. The current Basque provinces were incorporated under the Crown of Castile in 1179, when Alfonso VIII and Sancho VII of Navarre signed the agreement defining the boundaries between their two kingdoms. Therefore, I will change the nationality to Castilian. The three Basque provinces even kept their separate identities until the 19th century, so in the dubious case that Elcano did not consider himself Castilian or Spanish, he would have called himself Guipuzcoan and not Basque. If anyone can provide a reference where they talk about the 'Basque nationality' before or during Elcano's lifespan, I will be ready to accept this, but until then, we should strive to keep Wikipedia clean of anachronisms.Dukeofalba (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Johann

That the Basques were designated by Viscaino, Guipuzcuano (sometimes the Navarrese, but these ones mainly by Navarrese, Basques or not) according to its origin, seems to me a fact. We can use Portuguese, Italian, etc. sources. But they were also called Basques or Vizcainos / Biscaynes etc. as whole sometimes - and they were a nationality (here in the most ethnic sense), or in some European chronicles, whether in the Lusíadas in Portugal, some chronicles or in another international chronicle. But also as Castilians, if framed in a larger group (and not individually), and within a collective situation or rivalry with another country (see Portuguese chronicles on Moluccas and the Pacific as an example). They maintained their foros, but also integrated (in this multiple traditional ancien regime federation of origins) into a formal Castilian "naturality" - Cartas de naturaleza for example, passed on to foreigners, by which one had the rights and duties as a subject of the King as Castilian natural or of the Crown of Castile, Aragonese, Navarrese, Portuguese etc.. Cartas de naturaleza passed to be made Iberian (Spanish), this was in fact impossible) Really as Spain (Iberia then) - a Geography, which included Portugal, not nation, not state - as it did not exist, evidently in the legal plane and in the traditional equivalent (then) to the modern legal naturalness and nationality of state (legal matters), did not exist also in the ethnic sense. The current Spain in Charless V did not exist, only anachronistically existed (current "fantasy" device, but commonly accepted to simplify historiography) and it is, by that way, still, very questionable, I agree there (in fact the anachronistic form is used and accepted in texts without problem), but legal, geographical, at the time - it is a fact - it did not exist. Spain was the Iberian Peninsula, for its peoples, and for all the other Europeans. --LuzoGraal (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"Skottes Irysshe and folke of brytayne Geneuoys baskes and men of spayne." --Kynge Rycharde Cuer du Lyon, 1509 Largoplazo (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Elcano was a Castillian explorer, of Basque origin. At his time, he'd be called Vizcaino (which was usually used to refer to all the basques) or Guipuzcuano by other fellow castillians. He'd be recognized as Castillian or Spaniard by other europeans. However, this article should not link the Basque Country (greater region) article, as it is mainly a modern geographical concept with a nationalist origin, political definitely. Instead, as we mention basque as ethnicity, we should link the article for the Basque people, Basques. Nachx ( talk contr.) 15:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is laced with argumentative content sourced by contemporary writers on non-contemporary matters where assumptions are made. Out of the 83 references in this article, about 40 are after 2018. This was a massive effort made to counter the Portuguese submission to UNESCO in 2017 which was done to classify Magellan's expedition as the first circumnavigation. Just pointing out that this article does not seem to have a neutral point of view and is tendencious. Gkgman (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Historians of any nationality or ethnicity make "assumptions" when necessary to construct a plausible interpretation of events that occurred hundreds of years ago, based on research using available sources and digging in archives such as the General Archive of the Indies. I disagree that the article does not have a neutral point of view; perhaps it seems that way to you because Basque scholarship is not suppressed the way it once was. And the word is "tendentious", not "tendencious". Carlstak (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to know from the person who wrote that portion if the assumptions that were made were present in the source or he made them. Gkgman (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what "portion" of the article you mean, and what your problem with it is. Its Voyage of circumnavigation section says, "The Magellan-Elcano expedition (1519 - 1522), which completed the first circumnavigation of the Earth, started with 5 ships (Trinidad, San Antonio, Concepción, Victoria and Santiago) along with 234 crewmen (some sources raise the number of sailors to 247.) Although Elcano had departed Spain aboard the Concepción, the return voyage from the Moluccas to Seville was made by the single surviving ship, Victoria, captained by Elcano. Having sailed under extreme conditions, only 21 people arrived in Seville, the 18 Europeans and 3 Moluccans."

The UNESCO page you link to says, "Such an extraordinary journey cannot be understood without having in mind a historical moment shared by Portugal and Spain", which would seem to contradict you. On the other hand, its assertion that "The voyage completed by Magellan and his multi-ethnic sailors" is misleading, since as you surely are aware, Magellan did not complete the voyage, as he died en route. Your complaints that our article has "content sourced by contemporary writers on non-contemporary matters" and that "of the 83 references in this article, about 40 are after 2018" implies that you think it should be based preeminently on primary sources. The most recently-written scholarship, supported in such scholarship by reference to and interpretation of primary sources, is generally preferred as sourcing for WP articles. Carlstak (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I am going to bold the parts where I feel like they were argumentative by the person who wrote it.

Throughout the world Elcano has been a marginal character because he was almost forgotten for three centuries (assumption, forgotten by who?). In the first accounts of the voyage, the cold reception that the successful circumnavigation of the world got at the Court of Castile is noticeable; in the long seventeen-page account written by Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, for example, Elcano was not mentioned even once. The reason for this neglect is perhaps that those who sailed around the world were not hidalgos, but common sailors (assumption, who is saying this?) , a fact that contravened late medieval social attitudes among the upper classes.

Nor did the book, Relazione del primo viaggio intorno al mondo, by Antonio Pigafetta, the Venetian scholar who sailed with Magellan and who was among the 18 men that survived the expedition and returned to Spain, mention Elcano. In its received form, his chronicle exaggerates his own role, perhaps explaining why in Italian historiography Elcano disappears and Capitano Pigafetta himself appears as an important character (assumption).

In recent years, however, another point of view has spread: Pigafetta quoted Elcano, but as the works of Pigafetta that have survived to modern times were modified in transmission, perhaps mentions of Elcano were suppressed (assumption). The original Pigafetta chronicle is lost, and the account in its present form would be (assumption) a retranslation of a translation made in France, written later, and suppressing or modifying many sections. The hypothesis is that, since France was at war with Castile, the French eliminated all the "Spaniards" that Pigafetta had praised in his telling of the voyage (assumption). This 'eliminatory' view was further extended when it was written by Philip II's chronicler, embellishing the roles of the hidalgos Magellan and Pigafetta and minimising that of the plebeians. Spanish historiography transformed Magellan into a leader who favored the unity of Portugal and Spain, although he had betrayed Portugal by becoming Castilian. Thus, he became a hero for the Castilians whose political position was consequently enhanced (assumption).

It was in the interest of Castile to elevate Magellan, and to push Elcano aside, but also of the Catholic Church (assumption). The tug of war between the empire of Charles V and the Roman Catholic Church was constant. The Holy Roman Empire presented itself as a Catholic Empire, but at the same time it did not control the center of religion, that is, Rome. The Church did not want Charles V to have too much power. Therefore, the Church wanted to mark a contrast between the bloody evangelisation that Spain carried out in the Americas and the supposedly peaceful evangelisation that Portugal carried out in Asia. Since it was convenient for it to emphasize that Spain's attempt at evangelisation had been drenched with blood, while Portugal's was a builder of civilization, the Church found it advantageous to praise Magellan. Thus, Magellan was praised by Rome and England, who were allied with Portugal against Spain. Magellan was taken as a model of civilization, and Francis Drake as the executor of his dream (reinterpretation of historical political climate, assumption, the church and the habsburg empire had good relations and the empire was the defender of the faith and protector of rome especially with the protestant reformation, france in the italian wars, ottoman empire lurking east and in the mediterranean).

Although many technical and economic documents have survived, most of the originals have disappeared; their existence is known because these documents are cited by those who received the records of the times. Neither the actual text of the chronicle of Elcano's voyage, records of the proceedings of the trial of Carvalho, the documentation provided by Elcano at the Badajoz-Elvas meetings, nor the ship's logbook have been found. The Trinidad ship's book has also been lost, although it was taken by Portugal. Historian Enrique Santamaría believes these documents have been destroyed (assumption), probably in the 19th century; he finds it difficult to credit that they were lost, they being of immense historical value, and observes that documents with many other details of the voyage have survived. Gkgman (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

While there is talk about the trust placed on Spanish sources, and while there is not a specific historical confirmation, shouldn't the following be linked or mentioned that there is a possibility of Enrique being a possible 1st of circumnavigation? Also in other areas of circumnavigation notes such as pages about Magellan's route?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_of_Malacca?wprov=sfla1 72.216.130.163 (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

With no record or source that confirms it, I think it's best not to mention it. Seems undue without a source. Carlstak (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)