Talk:Marco Polo

Good refs not yet in the article

Please add here any good refs you find:

• http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/china/trad/marco.htm (Columbia University)
• http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/marco.htm (Did Marco Polo really make it to China? USNEWS)

Images

• 
  Niccolò and Maffeo Polo leaving Constantinople for the east, in 1259.
• 
  Niccolò and Maffeo in Bukhara, where they stayed for three years. They were invited by an envoy of Hulagu (right) to travel east to visit Kublai Khan
• 
  Niccolò and Maffeo Polo remitting a letter from Kublai Khan to Pope Gregory X in 1271.

Was Marco Polo a spy for both parties?

Marco Polo likely had not been to China as Mongol Empire and Europe were at odd at the time, only chance is that Maropolo was a spy for the Mongol, or spied for the Vatican, or both. but he did not work for the vatican nor the Italian court so he was not useful to the Mongol, he delivered no mail for either party neither.

When the Yuan empire collapsed, millions of foreigners , merchants and diplomats and such fled china as Ming would not host them anymore, they became useless , they had to leave china. . thus vast amound of information slipped back to the Middle-East or bordering europe as many states in that regions were allied with the Khan, where Marco picked up the info. for free, as repatriots would not hesitate to tell their tales. Marco seemed to have all the information gathered at or after the time of the collapse of the Mongol empire.

MAIN ARTICLE MENTIONING OF GREAT WALL FACT NOT TRUE

Please don't be that ignorant. Your article is written by ignorant people. The great wall was well maintained and functioning at the time of Mongol invasion, it held up the advance of the Mongols so well the Song army won the war at times, realizing that fact, the Mongol's great general rounded his troupes and invaded China for the N times from the South West instead, hence bypassing the Great Walls. So the main page mentioning the Great Wall didn't exist until the Ming Dynasty is so NOT TRUE please correct your ignorant error.! Imagine if the Great Wall did not exist until the Ming time then there were no need to fight, the Mongols just advanced smoothly without much of resistance. The Song defended China till the last man thanks to the Great Wall of China. why Wiki is so ignarant at times?

Journey to China

Resolved

Marco Polo, now 17 years old, his father and uncle went to China.this was after his mother died and then he brought up by his uncle, and then they went both on adventures. They all sailed to Acre (now Akko), a port in Palestine. The reason for their stop, was because the Polos didn't think the ships at the port were fit to ride on the ocean. After they got off the boat, they rode camels crossing the deserts and mountains in Asia, until, after about three years, they reached their destination; Kublai Khan's summer palace, in Shangdu (or Shang-tu), near the present day Kalgan. The Khan welcomed the Polos very greatly.

Kublai Khan appreciated the Polo's experience, and knowledge. Marco knew four different languages, and the Khan sent Marco on many tours around the kingdom. These tours lead Marco from China's southern and eastern provinces, and as well as far south as Burma. Marco became a government official in a Chinese city; Yangzhou (also spelled Yang-chou) for three years.

Time passed, and Kublai Khan disagreed with the Polos leaving China. Marco, and his family, started worrying about safely returning home, because believed that if Kublai Khan were to die before they left China, his enemies might capture them, because they are always involved with Kublai. In 1292, Khan's great-nephew, Persia's Mongol ruler, sent representatives to China to bring him a bride. The representatives asked if the Polos wanted to come with them on their return to Persia. The Polos agreed, knowing that this was their chance to "escape". Kublai Khan finally agreed. The same year, the Polos, with a fleet of 14 junks, sailed from Zaitun, (or Quanzhou, also spelled Ch'uan-chou), to a port in southern China.

The fleet sailed to present day Singapore. From there, they traveled toward the north of Sumatra, around the southern tip of India, and they crossed the Arabian Sea to Hormuz. There, Marco, and his family, left the wedding party and traveled to the Turkish port of Trebizond (present day Trabzon). The Polos sailed to Constantinople and then, finally, to Venice, about 24 years after the journey began! Their journey round trip probably totaled nearly 15,000 miles (24,100 kilometers).

↑ This info should be merged with the Journey To Cathay and service to the Khan. cite source: "The World Book Encyclopedia", (c) 2004, pub. World Book Inc, Chicago. ISBN 0-7166-0104-4. Book "P" - Volume 15. Pages 648-649.↑

Controversy

Theer seems to be some scholarly controversy (not reflected in the article) about whether or not the Travels is a complete fabrication. For example, there appeaqrs to be no corroboration from the voluminous Chinese records of that time of any such character at all. Should not this discussion be included in the article? Peterlewis (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

yes, actually actually there's a controversy regarding Marco Polo's trip ever since they it was published and there are still some scholar doubting it today. However afaik mainstream academic view is that Marco Polo (most likely) was indeed in China based on various indirect evidence that together makes a rather strong case though the final proof might be still missing. Also most arguments of the few doubting scholars have big issues on their own, meaning their explanations often contain reasoning being less likely/convincing than Polo being in China. (for mainstream view see: Rachewiltz, Beckwith p.416, The Cambridge History of China p. 463)--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So shouldn't the article reflect this ongoing controversy? There is no mention at all of the problem. Peterlewis (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well as I said there is no real controversy just few dissenting scholars. Whether their criticism/opinions should be covered or left out is imho a question of editorial judgement. This is an encyclopdic article on Marco Polo not a compilation of every individual scholarly opinion on Marco Polo out there. In other words the article must cover the mainstream view and may cover dissenting views if they are considered notable enough. Personally I have no strong opinion, whether we stick with the must part or venture into may. Our article is fine to stay as it is, if it similar to The Cambridge History of China treats the issue as settled. However that does not negate the option to extend it by dissenting views as long as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE are taken into account. One of the prominent recent and formally notable dissenters might be Frances Wood, but her book seems to have gotten rather bad reviews by other scholars (see Rachewiltz for that).--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that if indeed it is factual that no record of the Polo journeys exists in the Chinese historical record, then that fact should be stated in the main article. 58.175.208.118 (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, there is controversy. See here for detailed examples of anomalies in his accounts (he mixes up two wars for instance)... The article should cover this without question. If someone thinks it's just 'a few dissenting scholars', give us a ref saying how few there are :) Malick78 (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes you can mention the so called controversy shortly in accordance with WP:DUE, but I'd like to point out that most things those sources claim to questionable or controversial are mostly not controversial or queszionable at all at second glance. I suggest to read Igor de Rachewiltz: F. Wood's Did Marco Polo Go To China? A Critical Appraisal. ePrint der Australian National University, 28. September 2004 (Online) for somewhat authoritative and recent source on that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the first attempt as unfortunately this was exactly how we should not handle the issue in an encyclopedic article. Marco Polo is a well researched historical subject, meaning there is enough proper and realiable scholarly material and absolutely no need to resort to less qualified and reliable sources such as newspapers, regular journalists or self proclaimed pundits. So if you want to include these doubts please use the scholarly sources only (such as Francis Wood).

Aside from the issue of source quality, there is also an issue of providing proper context information. This is in particular important since many of those points that at first glance seem to contradict Marco Polo's don't necessarily do so at closer inspection with context knowledge. To understand why that is I'd like to recommend reading Rachewiltz's review of Wood's book (online version of the review).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There has certainly been plenty of "controversy" in scholarly literature - not so much as to whether Travels are a "complete fabrication", but rather whether he got all the way to China (as opposed to writing about China based on hearsay picked in Central Asia or Mongolia). As mentioned by Kmhkmh above, Frances Wood wrote a very good book actually called Did Marco Polo go to China? For a shorter and more recent review of the controversy, see e.g.: Haw, Stephen G. (2006), Marco Polo's China: a Venetian in the realm of Khubilai Khan, Volume 3 of Routledge studies in the early history of Asia, Psychology Press, pp. 52–57, ISBN 0415348501. (We actually have this ref in the article already). It seems that the view with the wider acceptance (including by Haw) is that Polo most likely did go to China, but, while in China, spent his time in the Mongol and semu (foreign expats in the Yuan Dynasty's service) circles, without ever learning Chinese or becoming familiar all that closely with the Chinese people's life. Thus, no mention of Chinese writing, chopsticks, tea, etc. -- Vmenkov (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. There is actually a very detailed specialist article regarding the ship in which Marco Polo sailed from China to Persia: Wake, Christopher (1997), "The Great Ocean-going Ships of Southern China in the Age of Chinese Maritime Voyaging to India, Twelfth to Fifteenth", International Journal of Maritime History, 9 (2): 51–81 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). Wake tries to convert Polo's info about the ship's capacity into modern measurements, and use it to come up with a "realistic" size for Zheng He's "treasure boats" (which were constructed some 120 years later). Not sure what it says about the number of masts, but I can look it up if someone really needs it. -- Vmenkov (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Doubts that he went to China

I (Anthony Appleyard (talk)) tried to insert this section into the article, but it was deleted.

Various newspaper and other articles, including Daily Telegraph Wednesday 10 August 2010 page 17, suspect that March Polo got no further than the Black Sea coast, and there over years wrote up his account of his travels from returning merchants' stories of their travels. Points mentioned by the Daily Telegraph article (by "Nick Squires in Rome") include:

• Confusion between the 1274 and 1281 attacks by Kublai Khan on Japan.
• Statement that the Mongol ships had 5 masts, but in reality they had only 3 masts.
• Marco Polo describes Kublai Khan's ships being waterproofed with "chunam", which is a Persian word for pitch (resin), but means nothing in Chinese and Mongolian.
• Marco Polo uses Persian forms of Chinese and Mongolian place names.
• Marco Polo never describes the wellknown Chinese customs of foot-binding, tea-drinking, chopsticks, or the Great Wall.
• There is nothing in the Polo family's archives to say that he had been to China.
• Marco Polo's surviving possessions contain nothing that came from China.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The reasons for the deletions are stated in the section above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're reason was that newspapers aren't "reliable" enough, then you were wrong to delete it Kmhkmh. Especially since one of the books you mention was published in 2004, and can reasonably be argued to lack recent research. If you want to argue that the above is inelegantly written, then that may be true - but editing it to improve it would be a better response. I'd suggest:

In August 2011 the Daily Telegraph reported on research suggesting that Marco Polo got no further than the Black Sea coast, and that he wrote up his account using information from returning merchants' stories of their travels. Points mentioned by the Daily Telegraph article include:

• Confusion between the 1274 and 1281 attacks by Kublai Khan on Japan.
• Statement that the Mongol ships had 5 masts, but in reality they likely only had 3 masts.
• Marco Polo describes Kublai Khan's ships being waterproofed with "chunam", which is a Persian word for pitch (resin), but means nothing in Chinese or Mongolian.
• Marco Polo never describes the wellknown Chinese customs of foot-binding, tea-drinking, chopsticks, or the Great Wall.
• There is nothing in the Polo family's archives to say that he reached China.
• Marco Polo's surviving possessions contain nothing that came from China.

I'd prefer not to use a list, but that's my preference I guess. The information itself though is valid, unless you show a source which disputes it, rather than implying that you merely don't like it. Malick78 (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok maybe I wasn't fully understood here, so forgive me for the bold print to make the point unmistakenly clear. The Daily Telegraph is not an acceptable source, when ample scholarly sources are available. If you want to include that information use the original scholarly publication. Moreover the argument stated here is essentially the same as Woods extended by some minor details and that is not exactly that well regarded by the scientific community either (again please read Rachewiltz to understand why).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It seem that some Anglo-Saxon sinologist don’t read history books especially in foreign languages. Probably they would understand immediately that Polo is not the only one. The Venetians had doubts for his close relationship with Kublai (intimancy) no for the journey --Andriolo (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Where was Polo born?

Isn't it the case that it is generally believed that Polo was born in Venice, but that this is disputed by the Venetians themselves? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No.--Presbite (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Did Marco Polo ever really existed

how do we know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.153.200 (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

VERY BIG ERROR !!!!

......Il Milione was dictated by Marco Polo to Rustichello da Pisa while both were prisoners of the Genova Republic. Rustichello translated it from Venetian Language to Tuscan dialect,.....

Rustichello didn't translate in Tuscan dialect (Dolce stil novo), but in the OIL language...... See Le divisament dou monde At time the OIL language was used from Crusaders and from Western merchants in Asia as LINGUA FRANCA. At the time the use of the Dolce stil novo (based on Tuscan language) had yet to be accepted among the intelligentsia classes of the peninsula.

--Andriolo (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on the subject right now, but according to the German wikipedia (and other non english ones) there seems to be langues d’oïl and langue d'oc and the latter being the one spoken in southern France, Spain, Northern Italy and possibly used as lingua franca by merchants in the Mediterranean. The en.wp entry on seems to have issues and might be faulty.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it, but I've simplified, because it is essentially in the Langue d'Oil, but it is strongly mixed with venetian words. In Asia the merchants spoke a mixture based on crusaders aristocracy language the old French. It was mixed with the languages of the merchants especially the Venetian and Genoa. For example existed texts of a curious mix French-Venetian literature The divisions into neo-latin “modern categories” we have invented later with “national idea”. It is possible that Rustichello and Polo both speak in this common language to understand each other. My English is certainly not good, if someone can rewrite the paragraph better... thank you. --Andriolo (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

---

This paragraph

Marco Polo is famous for his memoirs, that he told to Rustichello da Pisa while both were prisoners of the Genova Republic. Rustichello wrote a book in langues d'oil: The Devisament du Monde, language that he known very well and that was used as Lingua Franca from crusaders and western merchants in orient. The clergy and notaries used the Latin. The book became famous in all Europe and quickly it was translated into many languages and dialects. In Italy he is known as il Milione. The idea probably was to create a handbook for merchants, substantially a technical book on weights, measures and distances as others books of others authors, today preserved. But due to the particularity of the story, the book became more than a technical manual.

---

was deleted and replaced with

Il Milione was dictated by Marco Polo to Rustichello da Pisa while both were prisoners of the Genova Republic. Rustichello translated it from Venetian Language to Tuscan dialect, subsequently embellished, copied by hand and adapted by many others; there is no authoritative version. ---This last paragraph hasn't references because it doesn't exist scientific book that supports the "Tuscany translation".

If the text is not grammatically correct, please improve it. But the paragraph with the UNACEPTABLE ERROR about Rustichello “Dolce Stil Novo” (Tuscany) translation cannot stay. The information that Rustichello wrote in Tuscany is simply stupid and has no historical evidences. It seems that someone wants to give to Rustichello the role of precursor of Dante or Cavalcanti ? It would be a huge discovery for Italian literature. ;-)))

I ask an arbitration.

--Andriolo (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC) A correction could be: Marco Polo told his memoirs to Rustichello da Pisa while both were prisoners of the Genova Republic. Rustichello wrote The Devisament du Monde, in langues d'oil that was used as Lingua Franca from crusaders and western merchants in orient.[1] The book translated into many languages and dialects became famous in all Europe. In Italy he is known as il Milione. The idea probably was to create a handbook for merchants, substantially a text on weights, measures and distances as others today preserved. But due to the particularity of the story, it became more than a technical manual.[2] Have you an opinion ? --Andriolo (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I put it newly because Rustichello didn't write in Tuscan language..... He wasn't author of Dolce Stil Novo school. Il Milione isn't a book of Italian literature. See every serious book on IL Milione. --Andriolo (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Death date

This doesn't seem to have been discussed before. The lede says 8 January 1324, without qualification. So does the infobox. Any casual reader skimming the intro will come away with the view that 8 January 1324 is his accurate death date. It's only if one reads more closely that one discovers it's not that certain after all. All we know for sure is that it happened between the sunsets of 8 and 9 January 1324. Mathematically speaking, assuming sunset happens around 6 pm, he's 3 times more likely to have died on 9 January than on 8 January. Yet we say 8 January as if that was established fact. Why is this? Can we not at least say 8-9 January, with a footnote explaining the uncertainty? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And now it's been changed to 9 January, but I doubt this is the optimal solution. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Very likely it is optimal, since I've changed it to the date recorded on Polo's will (No original research over here). I've checked and sunset in Venice on 8 January falls at 16:44, so you might have to redo your maths. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Still 2.31 times more likely to be 9 Jan than 8 Jan by our reckoning. But that's not the point. The point is that their day ended at sunset, and the next day started at sunset. So, if a document from that time is signed with the date "9 January", it means it was signed by our reckoning at some time between 4:45 pm 8 Jan and 4:45 pm 9 Jan. We can never know, from the date alone, on just exactly which date in our reckoning the event occurred. Now, the dating of the will is one thing, and Polo's death is a later event. But how much later? It could have been 5 minutes or approaching 24 hours or anywhere in between. We just don't know.

In any case, there's a glaring inconsistency between having any specific date in the lede, and the following: "Due to the Venetian law stating that the day ends at sunset, the exact date of Marco Polo's death cannot be determined, but it was between the sunsets of January 8 and 9, 1324.". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)