So false it hurts dude. Kills me to disagree so adamantly cuz you my homie, but... sources? Help me understand.
I've long heard a lot of disagreement on the breadth of his travels, but this is the first time I've ever heard anyone submit he was a complete figment, a myth. Far as I know Mongol sources confirmed he was there, was used as a diplomat by both Mongol Shangdu and Rome. Omission by the Ming doesn't "make no sense," it was the attitude they had with Westerners sometimes, they were the superior culture remember? W
e rule everything under heaven!
Hans Ulrich Vogel, a Sinologist from University of Tübingen addressed this:
"However, this argument overestimates the frequency of documentation and the intentions of Chinese historiographers. Even Giovanni de Marignolli (1290-1357), an important papal envoy at the court of the Yuan rulers,
is not mentioned in any Chinese sources -- nor his 32-man retinue, nor the name of the pope. Only the "heavenly horse" sent as tribute from the "Kingdom of Franks" in 1342 gets a mention."
Marco Polo's writings are supported by an overwhelming number of verified accounts about China containing unique information given over centuries. His details on money exchange, salt production and trade monopolies are a matter of fact, and he couldn't have been correct about those had he not been to China.
Unlike the Ming, those in the Vatican actually
are meticulous at keeping records. The money he paid out to the Church, legal papers, his last will and testament, these are all records in the Library of Saint Mark. If he never existed, then who is in his grave at San Lorenzo in Venice? His parents and children are known and don't seem to be a point of contention. If there were other travelers doing the same thing, can you direct me to a single one with the accuracy of Marco Polo's findings? Anyone else detail how the Chinese made paper money from the mulberry tree? His details on salt alone put him in his own category. His book was not a biography, it was a kind of didactic vernacular record, a different thing in the 14th and 15th centuries.
I bet christians wish they had these kind of
details to bring up, though I'd like to point out researchers like Henry Charles Lea keeping a bit of skepticism. Had no issue calling out creative license where he saw it. The recounting of the siege of Xiangfan and the Polos involvement for instance, which he called "dubious."