Some factual notes on Mike Shupp's comment:
> From: Mike Shupp <ms44278@email.csun.edu>
Nikolai:
> > But we must also take into account such complex factor as the
> > documented existance of a special project of world invasion and
> > division combined with intensive geographical studies and
> > purposeful transoceanic expeditions.
> > I mean here Papa's bulla of the division of ALL non- Christian
> > lands to be discovered in future between Portugal and Spain,
>
Mike:
> I don't see this as terribly important; it strikes me as the Pope's
> attempt to reduce squabbling betwen the Spanish and the Portuguese
> by giving each an exclusive area to investigate/develop-- but it
> was an ad hoc response to new circumstances created by Columbus
> and de Gama and Magellan, etc., not a real statement of European
> policy.
This Bull 1493 was really an ad hoc response to Columbus (but before de Gama
1497-9 and Magellan 1520-26). It was most famous and GLOBAL document
but not first an a rather long tradition. Popes Niccolo V and Kalikst III
(sorry for misspelling) confirmed rights of Portugal on all non-
Christian lands discovered to South and East from the cape Bochador 'up to
Indians' (1452-56).
English expedition to North America of John Cabbot 1497-8 was prepared
by Henry VII in great conspiracy from Portugal and Spain.
Companions of Magellan knew very well of Portugal legal
monopoly in Indian ocean and tried to escape Portugeuse ships but failed,
'Trinidad' and all its people were arrested and almost all died in jail.
English expansion had in beginning pirates like Frensis Drake just because
foreign activities in Southern sees were banned.
Finally, what was the reason of European monarchs to support Reformation?
Taking into account that legitimization by ancient Roman Church was of primary
value for each of them, we must assume that only a very serious political-
economic reason could urge monarchs to change their own and state religion
(in Netherlands, England, German states). The hypotethesis that namely
freedom for further colonization, the striving to escape Pope's ban seems to
be rather plausible as explanation of this type of decision.
Mike:
> There's precious little evidence other European states took
> the division very seriously.
Nikolai:
Can a change of own and national religion by monarchs be an argument
that European states took the global devision VERY SERIOUSLY?
best, N