What do you think?
Rate this book
Straits: Beyond the Myth of Magellan
An uncompromising study of the fictions, the failures, and the real man behind the myth of Magellan.
With Straits , celebrated historian Felipe Fernández-Armesto subjects the surviving sources to the most meticulous scrutiny ever, providing a timely and engrossing biography of the real Ferdinand Magellan. The truth that Fernández-Armesto uncovers about Magellan’s life, his character, and the events of his ill-fated voyage offers up a stranger, darker, and even more compelling narrative than the fictional version that has been celebrated for half a millennium.
Magellan did not attempt—much less accomplish—a journey around the globe. In his lifetime he was abhorred as a traitor, reviled as a tyrant, self-condemned to destruction, and dismissed as a failure. Straits untangles the myths that made Magellan a hero and discloses the reality of the man, probing the passions and tensions that drove him to adventure and drew him to disaster. We see the mutations of his pride that became arrogance, daring that became recklessness, determination that became ruthlessness, romanticism that became irresponsibility, and superficial piety that became, in adversity, irrational exaltation. As the real Magellan emerges, so do his real ambitions, focused less on circumnavigating the world or cornering the global spice market than on exploiting Filipino gold. Straits is a study in failure and the paradox of Magellan’s career, showing that renown is not always a reflection of merit but often a gift and accident of circumstance.
With Straits , celebrated historian Felipe Fernández-Armesto subjects the surviving sources to the most meticulous scrutiny ever, providing a timely and engrossing biography of the real Ferdinand Magellan. The truth that Fernández-Armesto uncovers about Magellan’s life, his character, and the events of his ill-fated voyage offers up a stranger, darker, and even more compelling narrative than the fictional version that has been celebrated for half a millennium.
Magellan did not attempt—much less accomplish—a journey around the globe. In his lifetime he was abhorred as a traitor, reviled as a tyrant, self-condemned to destruction, and dismissed as a failure. Straits untangles the myths that made Magellan a hero and discloses the reality of the man, probing the passions and tensions that drove him to adventure and drew him to disaster. We see the mutations of his pride that became arrogance, daring that became recklessness, determination that became ruthlessness, romanticism that became irresponsibility, and superficial piety that became, in adversity, irrational exaltation. As the real Magellan emerges, so do his real ambitions, focused less on circumnavigating the world or cornering the global spice market than on exploiting Filipino gold. Straits is a study in failure and the paradox of Magellan’s career, showing that renown is not always a reflection of merit but often a gift and accident of circumstance.
380 pages, Hardcover
First published March 29, 2022
40 people are currently reading
406 people want to read
About the author
Felipe Fernández-Armesto
129 books182 followersFelipe Fernández-Armesto is a British professor of history at the University of Notre Dame and author of several popular works, notably on cultural and environmental history.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
April 20, 2023
“His strait led him to fame but did not lead the world to a new age or toward globalization or to substantial new knowledge or to new commercial initiatives or possibilities. It did not lead Spain to the coveted dominion of the Spice Islands. It was not even a stage in a planned circumnavigation of the world.”
This book takes a new look at the life of Ferdinand Magellan, and in particular, the journey that took him around the straits at the tip of South America that were named after him. It distinguishes facts from fictions. For example, many people think Magellan circumnavigated the globe. He did not. He made it about half-way and died in the Philippines.
“Ironically, Magellan has attracted adulation for what did not concern him – the circumnavigation of the world, but none for his real achievement – crossing the Pacific and demonstrating its vast extent.”
The author criticizes Magellan as unprepared and lacking in leadership. Magellan’s journey resulted in a mutiny, execution of several crew members, and maltreatment of indigenous peoples. His primary interest seemed to be personal gain rather than concern for his crew or carrying out the King’s orders.
The author takes issue with the historical texts that portray Magellan as a hero. In fact, he contends that Magellan’s voyage was largely a failure. This book provides a more realistic version of events, based on the author’s analysis of primary sources from survivors of the expedition. I was particularly interested in the self-created debacle that resulted in Magellan’s death, and the deaths of about a dozen crew members.
Multiple viewpoints of the same event are presented, such that if sources have disagreed, the disagreements are part of the narrative, not glossed over or summarized into one version. I liked this approach. It seems very realistic that even eyewitnesses remember events differently. Fernández-Armesto’s goal in writing this book is to shatter Magellan’s heroic image. Some biographies are hagiographies. This book is the opposite. If you enjoy the history of exploration or accounts of maritime adventures, this is an excellent choice.
This book takes a new look at the life of Ferdinand Magellan, and in particular, the journey that took him around the straits at the tip of South America that were named after him. It distinguishes facts from fictions. For example, many people think Magellan circumnavigated the globe. He did not. He made it about half-way and died in the Philippines.
“Ironically, Magellan has attracted adulation for what did not concern him – the circumnavigation of the world, but none for his real achievement – crossing the Pacific and demonstrating its vast extent.”
The author criticizes Magellan as unprepared and lacking in leadership. Magellan’s journey resulted in a mutiny, execution of several crew members, and maltreatment of indigenous peoples. His primary interest seemed to be personal gain rather than concern for his crew or carrying out the King’s orders.
The author takes issue with the historical texts that portray Magellan as a hero. In fact, he contends that Magellan’s voyage was largely a failure. This book provides a more realistic version of events, based on the author’s analysis of primary sources from survivors of the expedition. I was particularly interested in the self-created debacle that resulted in Magellan’s death, and the deaths of about a dozen crew members.
Multiple viewpoints of the same event are presented, such that if sources have disagreed, the disagreements are part of the narrative, not glossed over or summarized into one version. I liked this approach. It seems very realistic that even eyewitnesses remember events differently. Fernández-Armesto’s goal in writing this book is to shatter Magellan’s heroic image. Some biographies are hagiographies. This book is the opposite. If you enjoy the history of exploration or accounts of maritime adventures, this is an excellent choice.
October 19, 2022
This is an incredibly detailed and scholarly account of Magellan's saga -- emphasis on scholarly, not necessarily entertaining. It took me almost as long to read it as it took Magellan to find the strait! The author will always use a word you never heard of in place of normal nomenclature (look it up). I wore out my Funk & Wagnalls on this one!
September 7, 2022
Having written a historical fiction novel about Magellan’s voyage, I’m always excited to see a new book about Magellan, and I eagerly opened the newest, Strait: Beyond the Myth of Magellan by Felipe Fernández-Armesto. My excitement didn’t last, although the book does have its strengths. Unfortunately, it comes across as an arrogant and self-important professor’s lecture that rambles from topic to topic lurching towards its final confused conclusion.
The first paragraph of the book gives its thesis: ‘Failure is fatal to happiness but can be fruitful for fame…. Magellan is exceptional because his failure was total. Yet his renown seems impregnable.’ I agree that Magellan was in many senses a failure, yet his discovery of the immense size of the Pacific Ocean and the true circumference greatly aided mankind’s understanding of the world. One might think the first circumnavigation of the globe was significant, but in Fernández-Armesto’s opinion, he felt that, like the first landing on the moon, ‘I feel the same about the first circumnavigation of the world. It did not matter.’ The cynical and nihilistic author lost my respect at this point.
I also do not understand his statement of Magellan’s impregnable renown. Perhaps that is true in Spain and Portugal, but I think most familiar with him realize his strengths and flaws. So, I think the author erected an easy goal to meet.
There is also the question of the author’s writing style and approach. Some may like it. I did not. The forty pages of the first chapter were, I suppose, meant to set the stage for the context of Magellan’s expedition. However, they talked about the plague, ocean currents, weather patterns, Portugal in the Indies, but very little about Magellan. This hapahzard style went on through the book. Once, suddenly, there were some five pages about cannibals, which had a minimal degree of relevance. I felt like the author was trying to demonstrate his expansive knowledge of the era. The effect for me was to simply obfuscate the real story. His chronology of events in the Philippines was particularly confusing.
The greatest value of this book is the author’s extensive use of Spanish and Portuguese sources, many of which are primary sources derived from the survivors of the expedition. Now all serious authors have done this before, but it appears the author’s facility with Portuguese and Spanish aided him in teasing out more information. However, a simple reading of the sources without further analysis presents problems with reconstructing what happened. Those people tied to the mutiny against Magellan in Patagonia, like Elcano, had their self-serving version of events. Some other accounts were written years later through the fog of memory. Hence what happens is that the author often gives you a three-handed account of an event based upon different sources: on the one hand Felipe says this, on the other hand Juan says this, and on the third hand Alfonso says this. But what really happened? It takes logic and analysis to figure it out.
Fernández-Armesto acknowledges Magellan’s single-minded determination, which was similar to that of Columbus, da Gama, Cortes, Pizarro, and the others of that era. I do think he assumes Magellan was treacherous, but doesn’t prove why he thinks so.
A salient event of the expedition was the mutiny in Patagonia. King Charles had appointed several Spaniards as captains and officers of the expedition, none of whom had any experience at sea or the Indies, unlike Magellan and some of his Portuguese cohorts. There was a tension between these two cliques. Some believe that the king or his subordinate Bishop Fonseca had ordered the Spanish officers to depose Magellan once they learned what route he intended to take. The Magellan scholar Medina even says that Magellan received a warning precisely to this effect while provisioning in the Canary Islands. Fernández-Armesto doesn’t mention this. This all sets the stage for the mutiny.
On Palm Sunday in Patagonia Magellan invited the Spanish officers to dinner. Here is Fernández-Armesto’s description of this event: ‘…when Magellan invited the leading men of the fleet to dine after mass. Dinner with the Borgias? Or with Titus Andronicus? Or the Godfather? The summons to a deadly meal has been a topos of art from Absalom and Amnon to Agatha Christie and the Mob. A seat at dinner is a convenient place for an assassination: the victim is pinioned behind the table, disarmed save for unmurderous cutlery, easily approachable to a cutthroat from the rear, and vulnerable to poison in what may be set before him or her.’ This passage encapsulates my problem with the book.
First, the author gives no evidence for Magellan’s treachery other than his own imagination. I doubt Magellan would have killed officers appointed by the king unless he had ironclad evidence, which he didn’t have. And if he did, it would have been revealed by the events that followed. Second, the author’s writing is overwrought. Reading the book is much like listening to a professor droning on and on.
Subsequently, the mutineers did strike that night, mortally wounding one Spanish officer loyal to Magellan and shackling Magellan’s cousin. Later one of Magellan’s loyal officers kills one of the mutineers, which Fernández-Armesto calls an assassination. Assassination??? The mutineers had already stabbed an officer of the fleet and forcibly taken three of the ships! The mutineers initiated the use of force. Magellan was entitled to use whatever means necessary to crush the mutiny.
Magellan certainly had his faults, as evidenced in the Philippines, but he seems the more innocent party in the event of the mutiny. It is also telling, I believe, that the sailors and working men of the crew heavily sided with Magellan against the Spanish dandies.
I cannot judge the veracity of the author’s interpretation of the Portuguese and Spanish accounts. I can judge the veracity of more common knowledge, like when Fernández-Armesto calls the historian S.E. Morison a ‘battle-scarred and battle-ready admiral.’ I think Morison’s books are superb. I especially appreciate that he actually sailed through the Strait of Magellan and many of the other locales visited by the explorers that he documents. However, Morison was not ‘battle-scarred and battle-ready.’ He was a college professor who during World War II was given at age fifty-five the commission of Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy so that he might document the history of that war. He never commanded a ship. His eventual promotion to Admiral was more honorary rather than due to any military accomplishment. There are many more instances of wrong or mis-stated facts.
The book could have used a good editor. For example, he establishes early on that Pigafetta didn’t become a Knight of Rhodes (St. John) until after completion of the voyage. Nonetheless, when at Cebu he says things like ‘Pigafetta, the knight of St. John, who might have been expected to know about Christian standards of chivalry, ….’ But by his own admission earlier, Pigafetta was not then a knight of St. John, so why call him one?
The author’s understanding of navigation also appears shaky. Francisco Albo was the navigator of the one ship to make it back to Spain. Albo’s log is our best record of the route taken by the ships. Fernández-Armesto for some reason continually, and annoyingly, questions whether the log was actually Albo’s. Well, Albo was the only pilot to make it back to Spain from the Spice Islands, so one should feel certain the log during that period was truly ‘Albo’s log.’ As to before that, Fernández-Armesto should read Rossfelder’s book on the route and navigation of Magellan’s voyage. While Albo was sailing with other ships, the navigators would periodically get together to agree upon their course and position. Hence his log did at that time represent his measurements, but periodically these would be adjusted so that all navigators would literally be on the same page.
For those interested in Magellan, I recommend Tim Joyner’s book Magellan for a straight forward, lucid explanation of the voyage. I might be prejudiced in this matter because the late Mr. Joyner was my friend. I found it surprising that Fernández-Armesto dismissed Joyner’s book because he ‘lacked the conceptual knowledge, historical sensibility, humanistic discipline, and factual command the task demanded.’ Really? Fernández-Armesto also seems to be unaware of Rossfelder’s book which concentrates on the voyage’s navigation and could have cleared up some of his questions about those issues. Of course, Rossfelder wasn’t a history professor so I suppose his work isn’t relevant in the author’s eyes. He also ignores Bergreen’s 2003 book, Over the Edge of the World: Magellan’s Terrifying Circumnavigation of the Globe, which despite having been out for nearly twenty years is far out selling Strait.
The first paragraph of the book gives its thesis: ‘Failure is fatal to happiness but can be fruitful for fame…. Magellan is exceptional because his failure was total. Yet his renown seems impregnable.’ I agree that Magellan was in many senses a failure, yet his discovery of the immense size of the Pacific Ocean and the true circumference greatly aided mankind’s understanding of the world. One might think the first circumnavigation of the globe was significant, but in Fernández-Armesto’s opinion, he felt that, like the first landing on the moon, ‘I feel the same about the first circumnavigation of the world. It did not matter.’ The cynical and nihilistic author lost my respect at this point.
I also do not understand his statement of Magellan’s impregnable renown. Perhaps that is true in Spain and Portugal, but I think most familiar with him realize his strengths and flaws. So, I think the author erected an easy goal to meet.
There is also the question of the author’s writing style and approach. Some may like it. I did not. The forty pages of the first chapter were, I suppose, meant to set the stage for the context of Magellan’s expedition. However, they talked about the plague, ocean currents, weather patterns, Portugal in the Indies, but very little about Magellan. This hapahzard style went on through the book. Once, suddenly, there were some five pages about cannibals, which had a minimal degree of relevance. I felt like the author was trying to demonstrate his expansive knowledge of the era. The effect for me was to simply obfuscate the real story. His chronology of events in the Philippines was particularly confusing.
The greatest value of this book is the author’s extensive use of Spanish and Portuguese sources, many of which are primary sources derived from the survivors of the expedition. Now all serious authors have done this before, but it appears the author’s facility with Portuguese and Spanish aided him in teasing out more information. However, a simple reading of the sources without further analysis presents problems with reconstructing what happened. Those people tied to the mutiny against Magellan in Patagonia, like Elcano, had their self-serving version of events. Some other accounts were written years later through the fog of memory. Hence what happens is that the author often gives you a three-handed account of an event based upon different sources: on the one hand Felipe says this, on the other hand Juan says this, and on the third hand Alfonso says this. But what really happened? It takes logic and analysis to figure it out.
Fernández-Armesto acknowledges Magellan’s single-minded determination, which was similar to that of Columbus, da Gama, Cortes, Pizarro, and the others of that era. I do think he assumes Magellan was treacherous, but doesn’t prove why he thinks so.
A salient event of the expedition was the mutiny in Patagonia. King Charles had appointed several Spaniards as captains and officers of the expedition, none of whom had any experience at sea or the Indies, unlike Magellan and some of his Portuguese cohorts. There was a tension between these two cliques. Some believe that the king or his subordinate Bishop Fonseca had ordered the Spanish officers to depose Magellan once they learned what route he intended to take. The Magellan scholar Medina even says that Magellan received a warning precisely to this effect while provisioning in the Canary Islands. Fernández-Armesto doesn’t mention this. This all sets the stage for the mutiny.
On Palm Sunday in Patagonia Magellan invited the Spanish officers to dinner. Here is Fernández-Armesto’s description of this event: ‘…when Magellan invited the leading men of the fleet to dine after mass. Dinner with the Borgias? Or with Titus Andronicus? Or the Godfather? The summons to a deadly meal has been a topos of art from Absalom and Amnon to Agatha Christie and the Mob. A seat at dinner is a convenient place for an assassination: the victim is pinioned behind the table, disarmed save for unmurderous cutlery, easily approachable to a cutthroat from the rear, and vulnerable to poison in what may be set before him or her.’ This passage encapsulates my problem with the book.
First, the author gives no evidence for Magellan’s treachery other than his own imagination. I doubt Magellan would have killed officers appointed by the king unless he had ironclad evidence, which he didn’t have. And if he did, it would have been revealed by the events that followed. Second, the author’s writing is overwrought. Reading the book is much like listening to a professor droning on and on.
Subsequently, the mutineers did strike that night, mortally wounding one Spanish officer loyal to Magellan and shackling Magellan’s cousin. Later one of Magellan’s loyal officers kills one of the mutineers, which Fernández-Armesto calls an assassination. Assassination??? The mutineers had already stabbed an officer of the fleet and forcibly taken three of the ships! The mutineers initiated the use of force. Magellan was entitled to use whatever means necessary to crush the mutiny.
Magellan certainly had his faults, as evidenced in the Philippines, but he seems the more innocent party in the event of the mutiny. It is also telling, I believe, that the sailors and working men of the crew heavily sided with Magellan against the Spanish dandies.
I cannot judge the veracity of the author’s interpretation of the Portuguese and Spanish accounts. I can judge the veracity of more common knowledge, like when Fernández-Armesto calls the historian S.E. Morison a ‘battle-scarred and battle-ready admiral.’ I think Morison’s books are superb. I especially appreciate that he actually sailed through the Strait of Magellan and many of the other locales visited by the explorers that he documents. However, Morison was not ‘battle-scarred and battle-ready.’ He was a college professor who during World War II was given at age fifty-five the commission of Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy so that he might document the history of that war. He never commanded a ship. His eventual promotion to Admiral was more honorary rather than due to any military accomplishment. There are many more instances of wrong or mis-stated facts.
The book could have used a good editor. For example, he establishes early on that Pigafetta didn’t become a Knight of Rhodes (St. John) until after completion of the voyage. Nonetheless, when at Cebu he says things like ‘Pigafetta, the knight of St. John, who might have been expected to know about Christian standards of chivalry, ….’ But by his own admission earlier, Pigafetta was not then a knight of St. John, so why call him one?
The author’s understanding of navigation also appears shaky. Francisco Albo was the navigator of the one ship to make it back to Spain. Albo’s log is our best record of the route taken by the ships. Fernández-Armesto for some reason continually, and annoyingly, questions whether the log was actually Albo’s. Well, Albo was the only pilot to make it back to Spain from the Spice Islands, so one should feel certain the log during that period was truly ‘Albo’s log.’ As to before that, Fernández-Armesto should read Rossfelder’s book on the route and navigation of Magellan’s voyage. While Albo was sailing with other ships, the navigators would periodically get together to agree upon their course and position. Hence his log did at that time represent his measurements, but periodically these would be adjusted so that all navigators would literally be on the same page.
For those interested in Magellan, I recommend Tim Joyner’s book Magellan for a straight forward, lucid explanation of the voyage. I might be prejudiced in this matter because the late Mr. Joyner was my friend. I found it surprising that Fernández-Armesto dismissed Joyner’s book because he ‘lacked the conceptual knowledge, historical sensibility, humanistic discipline, and factual command the task demanded.’ Really? Fernández-Armesto also seems to be unaware of Rossfelder’s book which concentrates on the voyage’s navigation and could have cleared up some of his questions about those issues. Of course, Rossfelder wasn’t a history professor so I suppose his work isn’t relevant in the author’s eyes. He also ignores Bergreen’s 2003 book, Over the Edge of the World: Magellan’s Terrifying Circumnavigation of the Globe, which despite having been out for nearly twenty years is far out selling Strait.
April 7, 2022
I read this courtesy of the publisher, Bloomsbury. It's out now; $39.99 trade paperback.
... and I thought I was an iconoclast. What a remarkable, thought-provoking and intriguing biography.
Things I already knew about Magellan: he did not circumnavigate the world. I learned that in a book about how Basques influenced the world, because the captain of the only one of Magellan's boats that did, actually, go around the globe was captained by a Basque.
Things I did not know: most of what Fernandez-Armesto discusses in this book. I did not know that Magellan (to use his Anglicised name) was Portuguese who ditched that kingdom and went to Spain - a traitorous act at the time. I did not know that he was a little too keen on chivalric romances and maybe wanting to emulate them. I definitely did not know what a truly dreadful leader and person in general he was.
OK, that last bit is something of an exaggeration. Indeed one of the problems that Fernandez-Armesto discusses here is the difficulty of ever truly understanding someone like Magellan: partly because of the temporal distance, as well as the mental distance, between me and a Portuguese court-educated man of the 1500s; but also because much of the evidence is deeply conflicted. There's something close to hagiography by someone who was on the voyage and managed not to die... but there's also plenty of accounts from men who mutinied. So how do you get to 'the truth', and what even is that.
Anyway. As a biography this is awesome. The author brings the context wonderfully to life, exploring what the world was like for someone like Magellan in the 16th century - what Europe knew of the world, and what the world knew of Europe; what kings and adventurers wanted, how empire was going, knowledge of the Atlantic and Pacific, and so on.
Something I had never really appreciated before reading this: just how Very Big the Pacific is. Especially for those accustomed to the Atlantic.
For the historians, Fernandez-Armesto skilfully uses primary sources to make his points, and to show people in their own words - and they never get overwhelming, or in the way of the story. It's a really great example of how such sources can and should be used.
And finally, the last chapter is called "Aftermath and Apotheosis", and this is where my iconoclast remark comes in. I got the sense that Fernandez-Armesto doesn't necessarily like Magellan - which is fine, if intriguing; he certainly proves that Magellan deserves to be studied, if only to learn what he can show about his world. And beyond that, Fernandez-Armesto completely goes to town on previous biographers who do love Magellan, and all those companies who use Magellan's name as if it's some sort of shorthand for scientific endeavour or great achievements or frankly anything good. Because what the author shows is that Magellan deserves none of that. He had no scientific interest; he was out for the main chance. He didn't achieve anything much that was great: yes, he sailed through the straits that bear his name, but he didn't know they were there and he wasn't the pilot or navigator anyway PLUS the cost in human suffering was enormous.
This is a great book. If you're keen on the history of exploration, or early modern biographies, or learning the story behind a fairly familiar name, this is an excellent choice.
April 16, 2022
Towards the end of this riveting, revisionist, account of Magellan and his famous voyage, Fernández-Armesto criticizes a 30-year-old biography of the explorer on the grounds that its author lacked "the contextual knowledge, historical sensibility, humanistic discipline, and factual command the task demanded". No such criticism could ever be made of this work, which - as anyone who knows this author's previous works - supplies all of those qualities in spades. Here we see Magellan's enterprise firmly within the economic, political and chivalric contexts of the day. Evidence is not only cited, but painstakingly laid before the reader's eyes, of Magellan's failure to achieve most of what he set out to do, and of subsequent generations' misunderstanding of his aims. In a provocative final chapter Fernández-Armesto - himself transparently no supporter of latter-day iconoclasm - reflects on why Magellan, of all those engaged in the Age of Exploration, has evaded the accusations of the woke. Deep learning worn lightly: a triumph of a book!
March 30, 2023
An interesting look at Magellan. The author brings Magellan down a few notches, mostly deserved, but he did not give enough credit to his being willing to go where nobody had gone before. Magellan sailed into the Pacific with no knowledge of anything there. Magellan certainly underestimated the size of the Pacific - this is well documented in the book. But he was the first to cross it to our knowledge, and it was a very long hard slog. They sailed non-stop from a harbor in the Magellan Straits (called the "All-Saints Channel" by Magellan) to Guam, without ever stopping. Impressive. Of course Magellan is killed in the Philippines due to hubris. Too bad.
This book is well researched and kept my attention. The author did a job good here. It was an enjoyable and worthwhile read. Recommended.
This book is well researched and kept my attention. The author did a job good here. It was an enjoyable and worthwhile read. Recommended.
June 22, 2022
This is a very well-written book and makes a good case for its theses:
1. Magellan was did not intend to circumnavigate the globe. His plan was to find a viable route to the spice islands by sailing west, finding a strait to pass through the South American continent, sailing across the Pacific to the spice islands, trading for spices and then returning by the same route across the Pacific and back through the strait.
2. His mission was a failure in every possible way:
a. The strait that he found is so far to the south that even getting to it took too long.
b. The strait is impossible for sailing ships to pass through unless they get very lucky with the weather, as Magellan did.
c. The Pacific is more than 3 times wider than he thought, making the entire route he used much longer than the existing route to the spice islands.
d. There was at the time no way to find winds that would enable a ship to return across the Pacific. (Which is why the one ship in his fleet that survived ended up circumnavigating the globe.)
Magellan is also revealed to be ruthless, brutal, sadistic, and even murderous to his subordinates, crew, and various native peoples he encountered. And he was in no sense at all a pioneer of science as he is often proclaimed to be.
The author's prose style is mostly elegant and clear. The book is also a successful experiment in how to structure a history book. Instead of opening with a long forward/prologue discussing the available sources on Magellan, he gets started with the story right away and intertwines the academic "meta" material throughout the book. It works and I hope other authors emulate this technique.
The weaknesses of the book are minor: It is painfully obvious when the author thinks he's come up with a clever turn of phrase. At these moments, he seems smug and self-satisfied. (As he does in the unfortunately chosen photo on the back flap.) He also seems to be the last English-language writer to discover the phrase "pour encourager les autres" and he is overly fond of it. It is actually a tired cliche and was never as cute as he thinks it is.
1. Magellan was did not intend to circumnavigate the globe. His plan was to find a viable route to the spice islands by sailing west, finding a strait to pass through the South American continent, sailing across the Pacific to the spice islands, trading for spices and then returning by the same route across the Pacific and back through the strait.
2. His mission was a failure in every possible way:
a. The strait that he found is so far to the south that even getting to it took too long.
b. The strait is impossible for sailing ships to pass through unless they get very lucky with the weather, as Magellan did.
c. The Pacific is more than 3 times wider than he thought, making the entire route he used much longer than the existing route to the spice islands.
d. There was at the time no way to find winds that would enable a ship to return across the Pacific. (Which is why the one ship in his fleet that survived ended up circumnavigating the globe.)
Magellan is also revealed to be ruthless, brutal, sadistic, and even murderous to his subordinates, crew, and various native peoples he encountered. And he was in no sense at all a pioneer of science as he is often proclaimed to be.
The author's prose style is mostly elegant and clear. The book is also a successful experiment in how to structure a history book. Instead of opening with a long forward/prologue discussing the available sources on Magellan, he gets started with the story right away and intertwines the academic "meta" material throughout the book. It works and I hope other authors emulate this technique.
The weaknesses of the book are minor: It is painfully obvious when the author thinks he's come up with a clever turn of phrase. At these moments, he seems smug and self-satisfied. (As he does in the unfortunately chosen photo on the back flap.) He also seems to be the last English-language writer to discover the phrase "pour encourager les autres" and he is overly fond of it. It is actually a tired cliche and was never as cute as he thinks it is.
June 13, 2025
Desgraciadamente no es el libro de aventuras esperaba leer. Se trata de un ensayo en el que Fernández-Armesto se preocupa más por demostrar su superioridad intelectual a base de enumerar los diversos errores que otros historiadores cometieron en su apreciación sobre Magallanes, en vez de construir un relato objetivo de la expedición. Muchas líneas del texto son dedicadas a desmontar las teorías o propuestas que otros han hecho con anterioridad sobre Magallanes.
Me viene a la cabeza Erebus: The Story of a Ship, como ejemplo a seguir en cuanto a la construcción de una narrativa interesante al mismo tiempo que fiel a los hechos.
Por lo demás, el trabajo de investigación está ahí y el lector se puede hacer una idea del impacto de la expedición de Magallanes y el dudoso carácter del propio explorador.
Me viene a la cabeza Erebus: The Story of a Ship, como ejemplo a seguir en cuanto a la construcción de una narrativa interesante al mismo tiempo que fiel a los hechos.
Por lo demás, el trabajo de investigación está ahí y el lector se puede hacer una idea del impacto de la expedición de Magallanes y el dudoso carácter del propio explorador.
May 14, 2022
Absolutely fascinating.
An amazing insight into a man about whom I knew a couple of facts - both of which turned out to be wrong.
The author paints a vivid picture of the spirit of adventure, the politics of the day, and life aboard a small ship at sea in unknown waters, and intertwines them with history, to create a incredible biography of someone whose fame should probably not be the stuff of legends.
A cracking read.
An amazing insight into a man about whom I knew a couple of facts - both of which turned out to be wrong.
The author paints a vivid picture of the spirit of adventure, the politics of the day, and life aboard a small ship at sea in unknown waters, and intertwines them with history, to create a incredible biography of someone whose fame should probably not be the stuff of legends.
A cracking read.
May 3, 2024
Students of European history and the Age of Discovery recognize the name and recall his immortalization by the association to the treacherous straits at the southern tip of South America, but few ( me included ) know the man and how his times, and the challenges of the seas and the native peoples encountered along the way shaped his “myth”. This well researched and written book will deepen the reader’s knowledge of the man and the unique period of history in which he lived.
December 3, 2022
The best insight into the 15th century mind I have read. Full of wonderful examples of the humanity we all express, if we were to find ourselves in 15th century Portugal. The wonderful insight of human history of early modern Europe. His writing style is an acquired taste, it is in style of stream-of-consciousness.
November 19, 2022
A brilliant writer and a meticulous researcher. I learned a lot about Magellan, and it also made me want to read some more of this author's writings.
February 6, 2023
very good, very detailed, very informative. Not an easy read though. Like it very much!
April 14, 2024
Great book, but written by a serious academic. Not a tale so much as a sober review of the facts, many of which dispel popular myths about the man. But super enlightening and an enjoyable read.
November 4, 2024
It’s a wonder this book makes you feel as if something was lost rather than found.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews