Chess will never be solved, here's why

     What does the earth being flat or spherical have to do with the Phoenicians' never discovering America? I didn't mention anyone thinking the earth was flat, that's just something unrelated you thought up. Try to pay more attention to what others actually say before replying.

<<They were too afraid of getting lost forever at sea to venture out of sight of land. It took them many centuries to learn that they could sail straight from (modern) Tunisia to Sicily.>>??

It was due to the kind of boats thay they had taken to using. Those kind of galleys weren't suited to ocean voyages, although there is speculation that it may have been possible in calm weather. They probably got used to hugging the coast. After all, if they were coastal traders first and foremost, it wouldn't make sense to take the risk of crossing from Tunisia to Sicily if they could safely follow the coast and make many trades along the way. You don't seem to understand commerce and what their priorities would have been.

nutcase.

     There is no Gaelic language spoken in South America. There is no evidence of Phoenicians discovering America, let alone getting all the way to the west coast of South America. What possible link could there be between Welsh speakers and Phoenicians?

     You're the one who fails to understand commerce. Why would anyone in that era sail from the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere for commercial purposes? In the ships they had, provisions for the voyage would have taken up all storage space. 

     A voyage from Tunis to Sicily along the coast would have taken them many months (and a lot of extra cost) and could not have been done safely as it would have involved travel through hostile territory.

     Making up "facts" like nameless Polish explorers and Welshmen in ancient America, then calling others "nutcases" for pointing that out is evidence of a limited understanding of history and civil discourse.

It's a lot better if you don't deliberately create arguments and bad feeling by communicating in your customarily angry way. It makes you look foolish.

Try to manage to develop a sense of humour, even at this late stage. Also you might profit by looking at the evidence that the Phoenicians discovered the Americas, which is pretty strong. I can remember clearly when no-one believed that the Vikings visited the North American continent, even when they were told that the evidence for it existed and was very convincing.

<<You're the one who fails to understand commerce. Why would anyone in that era sail from the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere for commercial purposes? In the ships they had, provisions for the voyage would have taken up all storage space. >>

Oh dear me, stop being so daft ... you can reprovision as you go, as part of the trade. There was loads of trade between the East and West. The Phoenicians very likely visited Britain and there's strong evidence that they sailed down the West coast of Africa, if I remember right. Britain was a wealthy and relatively under-populated and unexploited country and Celtic tribes did a lot of trade here, for a couple of thousand years. They were from the East originally.

Anyway I'm off because I'm actially reading a history book about Queen Victoria. I'm 40 pages in and she's just been born. The last 15 pages have mainly been about the financial troubles that her father, the Duke of Kent was in, which explains why he had to live in Belgium and Germany because it was much cheaper there. It's fascinating and makes me want to read up more on the other royal Dukes of the later Georgian and Regency period.

     I see, when you can't think of a reply it's time to attack others. If you know of ANY evidence of Phoenician presence in America, cite it. Incidentally, the Vikings' presence in North America was well known when I was a child, and I am older than you. 

I'm not attacking you. I'm trying to treat you like a normal person but you come across like an aggressive idiot. If you don't want an argument then don't deliberately pick fights. You're like a big 8 year old.

I think that you're a troll, actually. I think that most of the bouts of bad feeling between people here have been deliberately created by you. You have an anger-related problem, don't you. Incidentally, the Welsh thing is true and I obviously make up the North Pole thing but with your autism, I don't think you understand humour or something. You should seek treatment for your anger issues.

     Just noticed your last post. There was NO trade in ancient times between Europe/Africa/Asia and America. Yes, Hanno the Navigator did sail quite a way (arguments go on over just how far) down the west coast of Africa--a feat FAR different than crossing thousands of miles of open ocean to reach America.

     Britain was likely known to the Phoenicians from traders from the north who came bearing tin to their city of Gades (modern Cadiz). This was considerably earlier than the Celtic incursions into the British Isles.

     If you don't wish to be corrected, don't peddle misinformation. Only one person here is angrily attacking anyone. At least you finally admit you just make things up. 

The Celts and the Phoenicians were around the same period. Byblos was only founded around 1500 BC and Celts were already coming to Britain then, although their culture really only flourished in the West after about 1200 BC.

But you do have a problem. You seem to think that everything you "know" is true and you're extremely impolite. If you make the kind of aggressive attacks you make, you're going to be put in your place so stop pretending you didn't start it. Ever since you came to this site you've been causing bad feeling between people. You have a problem so stop blaming others.

You wrote "between East and West". You didn't mention between East and America. However there is even some evidence of that. How do you think the Fijians and Mauris and so forth got to where they got? Of course there was a lot of travel in the Pacific region. I'm beginning to think you don't know a thing about history outside the USA, so stop spouting your crapola about correcting others for their misinformation. OK so you're an argumentative and highly aggressive fool and I shouldn't be getting angry.

Definitely need a citation for this one...

Yes that's fair enough. I'll try to find something but it won't be tonight. It was something I remember from probably the 1960s. There were second hand accounts of a now probably extinct tribe in Peru, I think it was, who could be understood by a Welsh sailor who landed there. Don't forget I'm old enough to remember talking to people who were born before 1860. Only just before 1860 of course but I have a fairly clear memory of an old guy who said he was born around 1859 or 1858. It would have made him about 95. It's likely that these were stories passed on from that sailor to younger people, at a guess around 1830, when trade was starting to expand due to the increasing prosperity after the Napoleonic Wars ended. The stories were corroborated by others. Normally I'd say "find them yourself" but after lecturing someone for impoliteness, that might not be quite the thing, so I'll definitely attempt to find some references.

One thing that has come up is the Welsh speaking town in Paragonia, Argentina, formed around 1865 by Welsh colonists. I'm pretty sure I can remember that being cited as an objection to the Peruvian tribe, at the time I was listening to the program around the 1960s. At the time, there was speculation that the sailor may have thought he was in Peru when he was in Argentina. But they were pretty firm that was not the case. Now it occurs to me that if there was a welsh expedition to Pataagonia, there may have been an earlier expedition that got lost and settled in Western Peru. If it had occurred some time before, say in the early 1700s or the 1600s, that would explain the apparent fact that the Weslsh that was spoken was only recognisable with difficulty. I'll look for any more evidence tomorrow but this might be one of the many things never recorded on the internet or where the connections on the internet have been broken or lost, as is common.

This is an example of a "nomole" tribe which is only just making contact.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalgeographic.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2F151013-uncontacted-tribes-mashco-nomole-peru-amazon&psig=AOvVaw3yBEOaOq4d9pFXkyir0EQq&ust=1665881955094000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA4Q3YkBahcKEwjIi_uDhOH6AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA

The chances are that there are other, hidden tribes in Peru. However this is the first time I've thought about this since being more or less a child. I think very likely the hypothesis that an earlier expedition from Wales became lost or shipwrecked and ended up in Western Amazonia seems to me to be the most likely scenario and that they are most likely now extinct or integrated.

     Again, you weren't paying attention. I wrote Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere. What would trade between the eastern and western Mediterranean have to do with Phoenicians in America? 

     There is a recent theory that Celts originated as a linguistic group in Britain around 3000-2500 BC, but of course no proof can exist as no written language, or written mention of such a language, is earlier that 400 BC. Archeological evidence of Celtic culture--in Gaul, as Romans and Greeks called Celts--not Britain dates from no earlier than 800 BC.

     Byblos, also called Jubayl and Jebeil, has been continuously populated since 5000 BC. The Phoenicians founded Gades around 1800 BC. Gauls came south and were noticed by Mediterranean civilizations just prior to 500 BC. Phoenicia was conquered by Nebuchandnezzer in 550 BC and ceased to exist as an independent people. 

     Finally, the idea that any Celts that had reached the Americas would hold onto a clear enough version of their ancient language, and Welshmen 2000 years or more removed from their ancestral dialect also still spoke a reasonably close language, is exceedingly unlikely.

To be quite honest with you, I haven't any interest in what you consider to be exceedingly unlikely because you never support your opinions but state them as facts. And since I've seen that you make mistakes and factual errors regularly, you aren't a person whose opinion I trust.

Here's some account of an earlier Welsh migration, a thousand years ago.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmichelinewalker.com%2F2015%2F10%2F11%2Fwelsh-native-americans-madocs-story%2F&psig=AOvVaw3yBEOaOq4d9pFXkyir0EQq&ust=1665881955094000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA4Q3YkBahcKEwjIi_uDhOH6AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQCQ

Also you seem to be mixing up Celts with Ancient Britons. The Welsh may be more Celtic than Anglo-Saxons or Vikings but the idea that Celts settled in Britain in any great numbers is probably erroneous and those tribes who were pushed into Wales would be mainly Ancient Britons and not Celts. Celts came from regions around and to the North East of Persia, if I remember right. Britain was populated just before the last small ice age and the immigrants were wiped out but when the snow and ice retreated, was repopulated by people who probably walked over the land bridge from the direction of Belgium or the Netherlands. Many of them were wiped out when the great snow dam burst and a tidal wave came North West and swamped much of this country but the survivors would have been the first Ancient Britons. That was about 11000 years ago. The population of Britain would have been measured in hundreds, rather than thousands. The Celtic peoples seemed to start coming here maybe 1500BC. The height of their activity seems to have been around 300BC. The Celtic people tended not to settle but just to trade. There's a common or popular misconception that the tribes living in Britain at the time of the Roman invasion were Celtic, but they were not. They were mainly Ancient British.  It's probably the result of some Victorian romanticisation of history. By contrast, the Beaker People, who arrived about 4400BC settled, especially in the North West of England. My brother and I found a fort that was possibly one of theirs. It guarded one of the few crossing places of the River Kent and is on private land. The owner of the land seems to have paid someone to break all the connections, so now it isn't easy to find a reference to a stone age fort on his land. I've spent hours looking at it and working out exactly what it was. Very nearby there is a tiny hill but from that hill there is a clear view of the top of another hill across the valley. From that hill, in turn, there's a view miles to the East, to the top of another hill. A message could have been got from about 30 miles away to the settlement in 10 minutes, because the small fort is five minutes fast run from where the settlement would have been.