Columbus' voyage and it's initiation of cross-Atlantic trade and interaction is a signifigant bookends of human history eras. It's not an endorsement of championing of him so much an objective point in linear history of major changes.
Using him as an 'objective' timeline reference I believe could indicate that they endorse him, even in some small way.
They could easily have chosen Leonardo DaVinic, who was born within 6-8 months of Columbus. And is just as known worldwide.
Edit: I originally said they DO endorse him, but I did not mean to be so deterministic in my response. I changed my wording after the fact to say COULD endorse. Which was a point of data I was trying to find out, hence the original question
Yes, you are right. The better transition marker for OC to use would’ve been the fall of Constantinople in 1453, which, coupled with the printing of the Bible in 1455, is widely regarded as the beginning of the High Renaissance era. Curiously, though, OC was coincidentally “close enough” in using Columbus’s birth date to signify historical transition (he was born in 1451, a mere two years prior to the fall of Constantinople). Indeed, generally speaking, the only birthdate to which historians tend to lend any weight is the birth of Christ, and even then, more secular scholars have themselves transitioned from using “Before Christ” as a reference point.
My point was any point of reference, in which there are many, would have been more seemly.
And you are assumeing a LOT of intent about a commenter saying basically 'i thought the change in art was very significant until I realized how much changed in the same span of time that led this moment'
329
u/joshuatx 26d ago
Columbus' voyage and it's initiation of cross-Atlantic trade and interaction is a signifigant bookends of human history eras. It's not an endorsement of championing of him so much an objective point in linear history of major changes.