christopher columbus principal voyage

  • History Classics
  • Your Profile
  • Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
  • This Day In History
  • History Podcasts
  • History Vault

Christopher Columbus

By: History.com Editors

Updated: August 11, 2023 | Original: November 9, 2009

Christopher Columbus

The explorer Christopher Columbus made four trips across the Atlantic Ocean from Spain: in 1492, 1493, 1498 and 1502. He was determined to find a direct water route west from Europe to Asia, but he never did. Instead, he stumbled upon the Americas. Though he did not “discover” the so-called New World—millions of people already lived there—his journeys marked the beginning of centuries of exploration and colonization of North and South America.

Christopher Columbus and the Age of Discovery

During the 15th and 16th centuries, leaders of several European nations sponsored expeditions abroad in the hope that explorers would find great wealth and vast undiscovered lands. The Portuguese were the earliest participants in this “ Age of Discovery ,” also known as “ Age of Exploration .”

Starting in about 1420, small Portuguese ships known as caravels zipped along the African coast, carrying spices, gold and other goods as well as enslaved people from Asia and Africa to Europe.

Did you know? Christopher Columbus was not the first person to propose that a person could reach Asia by sailing west from Europe. In fact, scholars argue that the idea is almost as old as the idea that the Earth is round. (That is, it dates back to early Rome.)

Other European nations, particularly Spain, were eager to share in the seemingly limitless riches of the “Far East.” By the end of the 15th century, Spain’s “ Reconquista ”—the expulsion of Jews and Muslims out of the kingdom after centuries of war—was complete, and the nation turned its attention to exploration and conquest in other areas of the world.

Early Life and Nationality 

Christopher Columbus, the son of a wool merchant, is believed to have been born in Genoa, Italy, in 1451. When he was still a teenager, he got a job on a merchant ship. He remained at sea until 1476, when pirates attacked his ship as it sailed north along the Portuguese coast.

The boat sank, but the young Columbus floated to shore on a scrap of wood and made his way to Lisbon, where he eventually studied mathematics, astronomy, cartography and navigation. He also began to hatch the plan that would change the world forever.

Christopher Columbus' First Voyage

At the end of the 15th century, it was nearly impossible to reach Asia from Europe by land. The route was long and arduous, and encounters with hostile armies were difficult to avoid. Portuguese explorers solved this problem by taking to the sea: They sailed south along the West African coast and around the Cape of Good Hope.

But Columbus had a different idea: Why not sail west across the Atlantic instead of around the massive African continent? The young navigator’s logic was sound, but his math was faulty. He argued (incorrectly) that the circumference of the Earth was much smaller than his contemporaries believed it was; accordingly, he believed that the journey by boat from Europe to Asia should be not only possible, but comparatively easy via an as-yet undiscovered Northwest Passage . 

He presented his plan to officials in Portugal and England, but it was not until 1492 that he found a sympathetic audience: the Spanish monarchs Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile .

Columbus wanted fame and fortune. Ferdinand and Isabella wanted the same, along with the opportunity to export Catholicism to lands across the globe. (Columbus, a devout Catholic, was equally enthusiastic about this possibility.)

Columbus’ contract with the Spanish rulers promised that he could keep 10 percent of whatever riches he found, along with a noble title and the governorship of any lands he should encounter.

Where Did Columbus' Ships, Niña, Pinta and Santa Maria, Land?

On August 3, 1492, Columbus and his crew set sail from Spain in three ships: the Niña , the Pinta and the Santa Maria . On October 12, the ships made landfall—not in the East Indies, as Columbus assumed, but on one of the Bahamian islands, likely San Salvador.

For months, Columbus sailed from island to island in what we now know as the Caribbean, looking for the “pearls, precious stones, gold, silver, spices, and other objects and merchandise whatsoever” that he had promised to his Spanish patrons, but he did not find much. In January 1493, leaving several dozen men behind in a makeshift settlement on Hispaniola (present-day Haiti and the Dominican Republic), he left for Spain.

He kept a detailed diary during his first voyage. Christopher Columbus’s journal was written between August 3, 1492, and November 6, 1492 and mentions everything from the wildlife he encountered, like dolphins and birds, to the weather to the moods of his crew. More troublingly, it also recorded his initial impressions of the local people and his argument for why they should be enslaved.

“They… brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks’ bells," he wrote. "They willingly traded everything they owned… They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features… They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron… They would make fine servants… With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.”

Columbus gifted the journal to Isabella upon his return.

Christopher Columbus's Later Voyages

About six months later, in September 1493, Columbus returned to the Americas. He found the Hispaniola settlement destroyed and left his brothers Bartolomeo and Diego Columbus behind to rebuild, along with part of his ships’ crew and hundreds of enslaved indigenous people.

Then he headed west to continue his mostly fruitless search for gold and other goods. His group now included a large number of indigenous people the Europeans had enslaved. In lieu of the material riches he had promised the Spanish monarchs, he sent some 500 enslaved people to Queen Isabella. The queen was horrified—she believed that any people Columbus “discovered” were Spanish subjects who could not be enslaved—and she promptly and sternly returned the explorer’s gift.

In May 1498, Columbus sailed west across the Atlantic for the third time. He visited Trinidad and the South American mainland before returning to the ill-fated Hispaniola settlement, where the colonists had staged a bloody revolt against the Columbus brothers’ mismanagement and brutality. Conditions were so bad that Spanish authorities had to send a new governor to take over.

Meanwhile, the native Taino population, forced to search for gold and to work on plantations, was decimated (within 60 years after Columbus landed, only a few hundred of what may have been 250,000 Taino were left on their island). Christopher Columbus was arrested and returned to Spain in chains.

In 1502, cleared of the most serious charges but stripped of his noble titles, the aging Columbus persuaded the Spanish crown to pay for one last trip across the Atlantic. This time, Columbus made it all the way to Panama—just miles from the Pacific Ocean—where he had to abandon two of his four ships after damage from storms and hostile natives. Empty-handed, the explorer returned to Spain, where he died in 1506.

Legacy of Christopher Columbus

Christopher Columbus did not “discover” the Americas, nor was he even the first European to visit the “New World.” (Viking explorer Leif Erikson had sailed to Greenland and Newfoundland in the 11th century.)

However, his journey kicked off centuries of exploration and exploitation on the American continents. The Columbian Exchange transferred people, animals, food and disease across cultures. Old World wheat became an American food staple. African coffee and Asian sugar cane became cash crops for Latin America, while American foods like corn, tomatoes and potatoes were introduced into European diets. 

Today, Columbus has a controversial legacy —he is remembered as a daring and path-breaking explorer who transformed the New World, yet his actions also unleashed changes that would eventually devastate the native populations he and his fellow explorers encountered.

christopher columbus principal voyage

HISTORY Vault: Columbus the Lost Voyage

Ten years after his 1492 voyage, Columbus, awaiting the gallows on criminal charges in a Caribbean prison, plotted a treacherous final voyage to restore his reputation.

christopher columbus principal voyage

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Teacher Seminars In Person : Join us in California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia this summer. Apply by March 5, 2024.

  • AP US History Study Guide
  • History U: Courses for High School Students
  • History School: Summer Enrichment
  • Lesson Plans
  • Classroom Resources
  • Spotlights on Primary Sources
  • Professional Development (Academic Year)
  • Professional Development (Summer)
  • Book Breaks
  • Inside the Vault
  • Self-Paced Courses
  • Browse All Resources
  • Search by Issue
  • Search by Essay
  • Become a Member (Free)
  • Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
  • Program Information
  • Scholarships and Financial Aid
  • Applying and Enrolling
  • Eligibility (In-Person)
  • EduHam Online
  • Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
  • Official Website
  • Press Coverage
  • Veterans Legacy Program
  • The Declaration at 250
  • Black Lives in the Founding Era
  • Celebrating American Historical Holidays
  • Browse All Programs
  • Donate Items to the Collection
  • Search Our Catalog
  • Research Guides
  • Rights and Reproductions
  • See Our Documents on Display
  • Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
  • Interactive Exhibitions Online
  • About the Transcription Program
  • Civil War Letters
  • Founding Era Newspapers
  • College Fellowships in American History
  • Scholarly Fellowship Program
  • Richard Gilder History Prize
  • David McCullough Essay Prize
  • Affiliate School Scholarships
  • Nominate a Teacher
  • Eligibility
  • State Winners
  • National Winners
  • Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
  • Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
  • George Washington Prize
  • Frederick Douglass Book Prize
  • Our Mission and History
  • Annual Report
  • Contact Information
  • Student Advisory Council
  • Teacher Advisory Council
  • Board of Trustees
  • Remembering Richard Gilder
  • President's Council
  • Scholarly Advisory Board
  • Internships
  • Our Partners
  • Press Releases

History Resources

christopher columbus principal voyage

Columbus reports on his first voyage, 1493

A spotlight on a primary source by christopher columbus.

On August 3, 1492, Columbus set sail from Spain to find an all-water route to Asia. On October 12, more than two months later, Columbus landed on an island in the Bahamas that he called San Salvador; the natives called it Guanahani.

Christopher Columbus’s letter to Ferdinand and Isabella, 1493. (The Gilder Lehrman Institute, GLC01427)

For nearly five months, Columbus explored the Caribbean, particularly the islands of Juana (Cuba) and Hispaniola (Santo Domingo), before returning to Spain. He left thirty-nine men to build a settlement called La Navidad in present-day Haiti. He also kidnapped several Native Americans (between ten and twenty-five) to take back to Spain—only eight survived. Columbus brought back small amounts of gold as well as native birds and plants to show the richness of the continent he believed to be Asia.

When Columbus arrived back in Spain on March 15, 1493, he immediately wrote a letter announcing his discoveries to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, who had helped finance his trip. The letter was written in Spanish and sent to Rome, where it was printed in Latin by Stephan Plannck. Plannck mistakenly left Queen Isabella’s name out of the pamphlet’s introduction but quickly realized his error and reprinted the pamphlet a few days later. The copy shown here is the second, corrected edition of the pamphlet.

The Latin printing of this letter announced the existence of the American continent throughout Europe. “I discovered many islands inhabited by numerous people. I took possession of all of them for our most fortunate King by making public proclamation and unfurling his standard, no one making any resistance,” Columbus wrote.

In addition to announcing his momentous discovery, Columbus’s letter also provides observations of the native people’s culture and lack of weapons, noting that “they are destitute of arms, which are entirely unknown to them, and for which they are not adapted; not on account of any bodily deformity, for they are well made, but because they are timid and full of terror.” Writing that the natives are “fearful and timid . . . guileless and honest,” Columbus declares that the land could easily be conquered by Spain, and the natives “might become Christians and inclined to love our King and Queen and Princes and all the people of Spain.”

An English translation of this document is available.

I have determined to write you this letter to inform you of everything that has been done and discovered in this voyage of mine.

On the thirty-third day after leaving Cadiz I came into the Indian Sea, where I discovered many islands inhabited by numerous people. I took possession of all of them for our most fortunate King by making public proclamation and unfurling his standard, no one making any resistance. The island called Juana, as well as the others in its neighborhood, is exceedingly fertile. It has numerous harbors on all sides, very safe and wide, above comparison with any I have ever seen. Through it flow many very broad and health-giving rivers; and there are in it numerous very lofty mountains. All these island are very beautiful, and of quite different shapes; easy to be traversed, and full of the greatest variety of trees reaching to the stars. . . .

In the island, which I have said before was called Hispana , there are very lofty and beautiful mountains, great farms, groves and fields, most fertile both for cultivation and for pasturage, and well adapted for constructing buildings. The convenience of the harbors in this island, and the excellence of the rivers, in volume and salubrity, surpass human belief, unless on should see them. In it the trees, pasture-lands and fruits different much from those of Juana. Besides, this Hispana abounds in various kinds of species, gold and metals. The inhabitants . . . are all, as I said before, unprovided with any sort of iron, and they are destitute of arms, which are entirely unknown to them, and for which they are not adapted; not on account of any bodily deformity, for they are well made, but because they are timid and full of terror. . . . But when they see that they are safe, and all fear is banished, they are very guileless and honest, and very liberal of all they have. No one refuses the asker anything that he possesses; on the contrary they themselves invite us to ask for it. They manifest the greatest affection towards all of us, exchanging valuable things for trifles, content with the very least thing or nothing at all. . . . I gave them many beautiful and pleasing things, which I had brought with me, for no return whatever, in order to win their affection, and that they might become Christians and inclined to love our King and Queen and Princes and all the people of Spain; and that they might be eager to search for and gather and give to us what they abound in and we greatly need.

Questions for Discussion

Read the document introduction and transcript in order to answer these questions.

  • Columbus described the Natives he first encountered as “timid and full of fear.” Why did he then capture some Natives and bring them aboard his ships?
  • Imagine the thoughts of the Europeans as they first saw land in the “New World.” What do you think would have been their most immediate impression? Explain your answer.
  • Which of the items Columbus described would have been of most interest to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella? Why?
  • Why did Columbus describe the islands and their inhabitants in great detail?
  • It is said that this voyage opened the period of the “Columbian Exchange.” Why do you think that term has been attached to this period of time?

A printer-friendly version is available  here .

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter..

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

This site is for modern browsers.

The Ages of Exploration

Christopher columbus, age of discovery.

Quick Facts:

He is credited for discovering the Americas in 1492, although we know today people were there long before him; his real achievement was that he opened the door for more exploration to a New World.

Name : Christopher Columbus [Kri-stə-fər] [Kə-luhm-bəs]

Birth/Death : 1451 - 1506

Nationality : Italian

Birthplace : Genoa, Italy

Christopher Columbus aboard the "Santa Maria" leaving Palos, Spain on his first voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. The Mariners' Museum 1933.0746.000001

Christopher Columbus leaving Palos, Spain

Christopher Columbus aboard the "Santa Maria" leaving Palos, Spain on his first voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. The Mariners' Museum 1933.0746.000001

Introduction We know that In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. But what did he actually discover? Christopher Columbus (also known as (Cristoforo Colombo [Italian]; Cristóbal Colón [Spanish]) was an Italian explorer credited with the “discovery” of the America’s. The purpose for his voyages was to find a passage to Asia by sailing west. Never actually accomplishing this mission, his explorations mostly included the Caribbean and parts of Central and South America, all of which were already inhabited by Native groups.

Biography Early Life Christopher Columbus was born in Genoa, part of present-day Italy, in 1451. His parents’ names were Dominico Colombo and Susanna Fontanarossa. He had three brothers: Bartholomew, Giovanni, and Giacomo; and a sister named Bianchinetta. Christopher became an apprentice in his father’s wool weaving business, but he also studied mapmaking and sailing as well. He eventually left his father’s business to join the Genoese fleet and sail on the Mediterranean Sea. 1 After one of his ships wrecked off the coast of Portugal, he decided to remain there with his younger brother Bartholomew where he worked as a cartographer (mapmaker) and bookseller. Here, he married Doña Felipa Perestrello e Moniz and had two sons Diego and Fernando.

Christopher Columbus owned a copy of Marco Polo’s famous book, and it gave him a love for exploration. In the mid 15th century, Portugal was desperately trying to find a faster trade route to Asia. Exotic goods such as spices, ivory, silk, and gems were popular items of trade. However, Europeans often had to travel through the Middle East to reach Asia. At this time, Muslim nations imposed high taxes on European travels crossing through. 2 This made it both difficult and expensive to reach Asia. There were rumors from other sailors that Asia could be reached by sailing west. Hearing this, Christopher Columbus decided to try and make this revolutionary journey himself. First, he needed ships and supplies, which required money that he did not have. He went to King John of Portugal who turned him down. He then went to the rulers of England, and France. Each declined his request for funding. After seven years of trying, he was finally sponsored by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain.

Voyages Principal Voyage Columbus’ voyage departed in August of 1492 with 87 men sailing on three ships: the Niña, the Pinta, and the Santa María. Columbus commanded the Santa María, while the Niña was led by Vicente Yanez Pinzon and the Pinta by Martin Pinzon. 3 This was the first of his four trips. He headed west from Spain across the Atlantic Ocean. On October 12 land was sighted. He gave the first island he landed on the name San Salvador, although the native population called it Guanahani. 4 Columbus believed that he was in Asia, but was actually in the Caribbean. He even proposed that the island of Cuba was a part of China. Since he thought he was in the Indies, he called the native people “Indians.” In several letters he wrote back to Spain, he described the landscape and his encounters with the natives. He continued sailing throughout the Caribbean and named many islands he encountered after his ship, king, and queen: La Isla de Santa María de Concepción, Fernandina, and Isabella.

It is hard to determine specifically which islands Columbus visited on this voyage. His descriptions of the native peoples, geography, and plant life do give us some clues though. One place we do know he stopped was in present-day Haiti. He named the island Hispaniola. Hispaniola today includes both Haiti and the Dominican Republic. In January of 1493, Columbus sailed back to Europe to report what he found. Due to rough seas, he was forced to land in Portugal, an unfortunate event for Columbus. With relations between Spain and Portugal strained during this time, Ferdinand and Isabella suspected that Columbus was taking valuable information or maybe goods to Portugal, the country he had lived in for several years. Those who stood against Columbus would later use this as an argument against him. Eventually, Columbus was allowed to return to Spain bringing with him tobacco, turkey, and some new spices. He also brought with him several natives of the islands, of whom Queen Isabella grew very fond.

Subsequent Voyages Columbus took three other similar trips to this region. His second voyage in 1493 carried a large fleet with the intention of conquering the native populations and establishing colonies. At one point, the natives attacked and killed the settlers left at Fort Navidad. Over time the colonists enslaved many of the natives, sending some to Europe and using many to mine gold for the Spanish settlers in the Caribbean. The third trip was to explore more of the islands and mainland South America further. Columbus was appointed the governor of Hispaniola, but the colonists, upset with Columbus’ leadership appealed to the rulers of Spain, who sent a new governor: Francisco de Bobadilla. Columbus was taken prisoner on board a ship and sent back to Spain.

On his fourth and final journey west in 1502 Columbus’s goal was to find the “Strait of Malacca,” to try to find India. But a hurricane, then being denied entrance to Hispaniola, and then another storm made this an unfortunate trip. His ship was so badly damaged that he and his crew were stranded on Jamaica for two years until help from Hispaniola finally arrived. In 1504, Columbus and his men were taken back to Spain .

Later Years and Death Columbus reached Spain in November 1504. He was not in good health. He spent much of the last of his life writing letters to obtain the percentage of wealth overdue to be paid to him, and trying to re-attain his governorship status, but was continually denied both. Columbus died at Valladolid on May 20, 1506, due to illness and old age. Even until death, he still firmly believing that he had traveled to the eastern part of Asia.

Legacy Columbus never made it to Asia, nor did he truly discover America. His “re-discovery,” however, inspired a new era of exploration of the American continents by Europeans. Perhaps his greatest contribution was that his voyages opened an exchange of goods between Europe and the Americas both during and long after his journeys. 5 Despite modern criticism of his treatment of the native peoples there is no denying that his expeditions changed both Europe and America. Columbus day was made a federal holiday in 1971. It is recognized on the second Monday of October.

  • Fergus Fleming, Off the Map: Tales of Endurance and Exploration (New York: Grove Press, 2004), 30.
  • Fleming, Off the Map, 30
  • William D. Phillips and Carla Rahn Phillips, The Worlds of Christopher Columbus (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 142-143.
  • Phillips and Phillips, The Worlds of Christopher Columbus, 155.
  • Robin S. Doak, Christopher Columbus: Explorer of the New World (Minneapolis: Compass Point Books, 2005), 92.

Bibliography

Doak, Robin. Christopher Columbus: Explorer of the New World. Minneapolis: Compass Point Books, 2005.

Fleming, Fergus. Off the Map: Tales of Endurance and Exploration. New York: Grove Press, 2004.

Phillips, William D., and Carla Rahn Phillips. The Worlds of Christopher Columbus. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Christopher Columbus at the Court of Queen Isabella II of Spain who funded his New World journey. The Mariners' Museum 1950.0315.000001

Map of Voyages

Click below to view an example of the explorer’s voyages. Use the tabs on the left to view either 1 or multiple journeys at a time, and click on the icons to learn more about the stops, sites, and activities along the way.

  • Original "EXPLORATION through the AGES" site
  • The Mariners' Educational Programs

Distance Learning ad

9 Real Stops On Christopher Columbus’s Voyages

By editorial staff | oct 6, 2015.

istock

In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue … and totally missed his mark. His journey may not have gone exactly as planned, but there were some interesting detours along the way.  

1. THE CANARY ISLANDS  

When Columbus set sail from the Spanish port of Palos on August 3, 1492, he already had his first pit stop planned. The  Niña , Pinta , and Santa Maria headed to the Canary Islands off the coast of Morocco for last-minute preparations and restocking. It's a good thing, too. By the time they arrived, the Pinta 's rudder had disconnected and the ship was taking on water. (Columbus suspected some of the crew had second thoughts about the voyage and sabotaged the vessel.) There was talk of leaving the ship behind—but what were they going to do, order another one online? The men repaired the Pinta during the layover and officially headed west on September 6. 

2. SAN SALVADOR ISLAND  

We know Columbus—or perhaps a sailor on the Pinta named Rodrigo de Triana—first spotted land on October 12. But what we don't know is where exactly they were. Not that there's anything wrong with that—Columbus thought he was in the East Indies! The island was definitely in the Bahamas and already inhabited by the Taino people, who called it Guanahani. Columbus named it San Salvador and recorded that it was "very flat and with very green trees" with a surrounding reef and laguna in the middle. A number of islands fit the description, but many scholars later agreed that it was probably what used to be known as Watling Island. The Bahamanian government renamed it San Salvador Island in 1925. 

Columbus didn't stay put for long. After naming the small surrounding islands Santa Maria de la Concepcion, Fernandina, Isabela, and Las Islas de Arena, the fleet took off again. On October 28, Columbus and his men arrived in what they believed to be China—but was, in fact, Cuba—most likely through the Bay of Bariay. Columbus christened the island Juana after Queen Isabella's son and soon discovered the joys of tobacco. Long before Cuban cigars, the Arawaks smoked with Y-shaped nostril pipes.

4. HISPANIOLA  

After China, which was actually Cuba, Columbus set off for Japan. The trip was no pleasure cruise: On Christmas Day, the Santa Maria ran aground after hitting a reef. Columbus ordered his men to dismantle the ship and build a temporary fort called Villa de la Navidad with some "help" from the locals. Columbus headed back to Spain on the  Niña a few weeks later, leaving 39 sailors behind on La Isla Española, with his mistress's cousin Diego de Arana acting as governor. When Columbus returned a year later, the fort was destroyed and all of the men were dead. Today, Hispaniola is one of only two shared Caribbean islands, split between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. 

5. SANTA MARIA ISLAND

The journey back to Spain was miserable. After a number of storms, the crews of the Niña and Pinta disembarked in the Baía dos Anjos on Portugal's Santa Maria Island around February 15. Columbus set off seeking boat repairs while half his crew went to church (presumably to thank God they were still alive). Alas, the locals were wary of strangers after numerous pirate attacks and quickly arrested the sailors. So first Columbus lost the ship Santa Maria , and then he almost lost half his crew on Santa Maria. Fortunately, he was able to reason with the Portuguese to get the sailors released, plus to get some boat repairs. Then they finally headed home.   

6. DOMINICA  

Columbus didn't have much to show for his adventures when he returned to Spain, but he quickly secured funding for a second voyage. Returning to the fort on Hispaniola was his first priority, but he got a little distracted. On November 3, 1493, Columbus spotted a heavily forested island and had to take a look-see. The Kalinago natives weren't very welcoming—and the Europeans thought they were cannibals—so Columbus quickly named the island Dominica and headed out to explore the neighboring tiny islands, including modern-day Antigua and Montserrat. Why did he call this new place Dominica? Because it was Sunday ( Domingo in Spanish) and, if you haven't noticed by now, Columbus wasn't especially original in the naming department. 

7. JAMAICA  

Columbus was horrified when he finally returned to Hispaniola and found La Navidad in shambles. He and his men built a new settlement called La Isabela, which was later struck by two of the earliest hurricanes ever observed in North America in 1494 and 1495. But before the natural disasters, Columbus made his own trouble by mistreating the locals and alienating his fellow sailors, who were hungry, sick, and mutinous. When they failed to find gold, Columbus headed back to Cuba and soon found his way to St. Ann's Bay in Jamaica. The Taino natives were hostile, so Columbus continued exploring and landed at Discovery Bay, Montego Bay, and Portland Bight. He didn't find gold in Jamaica, either, so he went back to Hispaniola before returning to Spain.

Columbus later returned to—well, was shipwrecked in—Jamaica on his fourth voyage in 1503 after losing his four-boat fleet in a series of storms. He and his men were stranded for a year, until captain Diego Mendez rowed a canoe to Hispaniola. By that point, Columbus wasn't even allowed to visit Hispaniola, and it took months of negotiations before Mendez could charter a rescue caravel.

8. TRINIDAD

Back to the chronology! The King and Queen allowed Columbus to go on a third voyage in May 1498 to resupply the colonists on Hispaniola (before he was blacklisted) and find a new trade route. The six-ship fleet split up: three went to Hispaniola and three went to new islands. Columbus chose the latter, of course. He and his men had almost run out of drinking water when they spied three peaks in the distance. Columbus named the land Trinidad and quenched his thirst in the Moruga River.

9. VENEZUELA  

Contrary to what many people believe, Columbus did not discover America. But he did reach South America on August 1, 1498. As he and his men gathered water in Trinidad, they spotted the coast of South America. They explored the Gulf of Paria for eight days, discovering the "Pearl Islands" of Cubagua and Margarita and reaching the Orinoco River in Venezuela. Ever wrong about geography, Columbus admired this verdant new land and concluded he'd reached the Garden of Eden. Sigh.

George Novack’s Understanding History

Trotsky’s views on dialectical materialism.

January 10, 1937—the day after Leon Trotsky and his wife, Natalia Sedova, had landed in Mexico. His party was on the troop-guarded private train sent by the minister of communications to ensure their safe conduct from Tampico to Mexico City. That sunny morning Max Shachtman and I sat with Trotsky in one of the compartments, bringing the exile up to date on what had happened during his enforced voyage from Norway.

Our conversation was animated; there was so much to tell, especially about developments around the Moscow trials. (This was in the interval between the first and second of Stalin’s stage-managed judicial frame-ups.) At one point Trotsky asked about the philosopher John Dewey, who had joined the American committee set up to obtain asylum for him and hear his case.

From there our discussion glided into the subject of philosophy, in which, he was informed, I had a special interest. We talked about the best ways of studying dialectical materialism, about Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism , and about the theoretical backwardness of American radicalism. Trotsky brought forward the name of Max Eastman, who in various works had polemicised against dialectics as a worthless idealist hangover from the Hegelian heritage of Marxism.

He became tense, agitated. “Upon going back to the States”, he urged, “you comrades must at once take up the struggle against Eastman’s distortion and repudiation of dialectical materialism. There is nothing more important than this. Pragmatism, empiricism, is the greatest curse of American thought. You must inoculate younger comrades against its infection.”

I was somewhat surprised at the vehemence of his argumentation on this matter at such a moment. As the principal defendant in absentia in the Moscow trials, and because of the dramatic circumstances of his voyage in exile, Trotsky then stood in the centre of international attention. He was fighting for his reputation, liberty, and life against the powerful government of Stalin, bent on his defamation and death. After having been imprisoned and gagged for months by the Norwegian authorities, he had been kept incommunicado for weeks aboard their tanker.

Yet on the first day after reunion with his cothinkers, he spent more than an hour explaining how important it was for a Marxist movement to have a correct philosophical method and to defend dialectical materialism against its opponents!

He proved how serious he was about this question three years later by the manner of his intervention in the struggle which convulsed the Socialist Workers Party at the beginning of the Second World War. [1] By this time Shachtman had switched philosophical and political fronts. He was aligned directly with James Burnham and indirectly with Eastman and others against Trotsky, breaking away from the traditional positions of Marxism and the Fourth International on issues extending from the role of philosophy to the class nature of the Soviet Union and its defence against imperialist attack.

The Burnham-Shachtman opposition sought to separate philosophy from politics in general, and the principled politics of the revolutionary working class movement from Marxist theory in particular. In the spirit of pragmatism, Burnham demanded that the issues in dispute be confined to “concrete questions”. “There is no sense at all ”, he declared in “Science and Style”, “in which dialectics (even if dialectics were not, as it is, scientifically meaningless) is fundamental in politics, none at all.” [2]

In “An Open Letter to Comrade Burnham” Trotsky had pointed out that the experience of the labour movement demonstrated how false and unscientific it was to divorce politics from Marxist sociology and the dialectical method.

You seem to consider apparently that by refusing to discuss dialectic materialism and the class nature of the Soviet state and by sticking to “concrete” questions you are acting the part of a realistic politician. This self-deception is a result of your inadequate acquaintance with the history of the past 50 years of factional struggles in the labour movement. In every principled conflict, without a single exception, the Marxists sought to face the party squarely with the fundamental problems of doctrine and program, considering that only under this condition could the “concrete” questions find their proper place and proportion. [3]

On the other hand, opportunists and revisionists of every shade avoided discussion of principles and counterposed superficial and misleading episodic appraisals of events to the revolutionary class analysis of the scientific socialists. Trotsky cited examples from the history of the German social-democracy and from the disputes of the Russian Marxists with the “Economists”, the Social Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks. The Narodnik terrorists, bomb in hand, used to argue: “ Iskra [Lenin’s paper] wants to found a school of dialectic materialism while we want to overthrow tsarist autocracy — It is historical experience”, Trotsky observed with characteristic irony, “that the greatest revolution in all history was not led by the party which started out with bombs but by the party which started out with dialectic materialism.” [4]

Trotsky attached such great importance to the generalised theory incorporated in Marxist philosophy because of its utility in political practice. “The question of a correct philosophical doctrine, that is, a correct method of thought, is of decisive significance to a revolutionary party just as a good machine shop is of decisive significance to production”, he wrote. [5] Many of the now indispensable tools of thought for investigating and analysing reality were fabricated by the great philosophers before entering into common use. In dialectical materialism, he asserted, Marx and Engels forged the theoretical tools and weapons required by the workers in their struggle to get rid of the old order and build a new one.

Trotsky never claimed originality for his philosophical views. He was an orthodox Marxist from his conversion to its doctrines in 1898 to his death in 1940. However, he did enrich and extend the teachings of the masters by his far-ranging applications of their method to the complex problems presented by the transition of humanity from capitalism to socialism. His insight and foresight in this field equalled that of any other disciple, Lenin included.

In his four decades of writing he touched upon almost all the principal aspects of materialism, from its insistence upon the primordial reality of nature to its explanation of the supreme products of human thought and artistic imagination. The basis of all life, of all human action and thought, and the object of knowledge, was the being and becoming of the independently existing material world. This universal evolutionary process of material nature was dialectical in character. It proceeded through the conflict of antagonistic forces, which at certain points in the slow accumulation of changes exploded the old formations, bringing about a catastrophic upset, a revolution.

We call our dialectic, materialist [he explained] since its roots are neither in heaven nor in the depths of our “free will”, but in objective reality, in nature. Consciousness grew out of the unconscious, psychology out of physiology, the organic world out of the inorganic, the solar system out of nebulae. On all the rungs of this ladder of development, the quantitative changes were transformed into qualitative. Our thought, including dialectical thought, is only one of the forms of the expression of changing matter. There is place within this system for neither God, nor Devil, nor immortal soul, nor eternal norms of laws and morals. The dialectic of thinking, having grown out of the dialectic of nature, possesses consequently a thoroughly materialist character. [6]

To clarify the operation of dialectical laws in nature he cited two examples from 19th-century science—one from biology, the other from chemistry. “Darwinism, which explained the evolution of species through quantitative transformations passing into qualitative, was the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter. Another great triumph was the discovery of the table of atomic weights of chemical elements and further the transformation of one element into another.” [7]

Materialism provided the only solid theoretical foundation for progress in the sciences, even though many natural scientists might be unaware of this truth or even deny it.

It is the task of science and technology [Trotsky said in a 1926 speech] to make matter subject to man, together with space and time, which are inseparable from matter. True, there are certain idealist books—not of a clerical character, but philosophical ones—wherein you can read that time and space are categories of our minds, that they result from the requirements of our thinking, and that nothing actually corresponds to them in reality. But it is difficult to agree with this view. If any idealist philosopher, instead of arriving in time to catch the 9pm train, should turn up two minutes late, he would see the tail of the departing train and would be convinced by his own eyes that time and space are inseparable from material reality. The task is to diminish this space, to overcome it, to economise time, to prolong human life, to register past time, to raise life to a higher level and enrich it. This is the reason for the struggle with space and time, at the basis of which lies the struggle to subject matter to man—matter, which constitutes the foundation not only of everything that really exists, but also of all imagination ...

Every science is an accumulation of knowledge, based on experience relating to matter, to its properties; an accumulation of generalised understanding of how to subject this matter to the interests and needs of man. [8]

Trotsky made many such penetrating observations on the materialist approach to the problems of the natural sciences. But his principal contributions to scientific knowledge came from his studies of contemporary society. These were all illuminated and directed by the Marxist method.

Trotsky became engrossed in the problems connected with the materialist conception of history at the early age of 18, when he was already involved in the illegal workers’ movement of South Russia. From that time on these two sides of his activity—the theoretical investigation of social reality and the practical urge to transform it with the masses along revolutionary lines—went hand in hand.

Trotsky tells in My Life how he at first resisted the unified outlook of historical materialism. He adopted in its stead the theory of “the multiplicity of historical factors”, which even today is the most widely accepted theory in social science. (Compare the school of Max Weber in Europe or C. Wright Mills in the United States.) His reading of two essays by the Italian Hegelian-Marxist Antonio Labriola convinced him of the correctness of the views of the historical materialists. They conceived of the various aspects of social activity as an integrated whole, historically evolving in accord with the development of the productive forces and interacting with one another in a living process where the material conditions of life were ultimately decisive. The eclectics of the liberal school, on the other hand, split the diverse aspects of social life into many independent factors, endowed these with superhistorical character, and then “superstitiously interpreted their own activity as the result of the interaction of these independent forces”.

During his first prison sentence Trotsky wrote a study of Freemasonry, which was later lost, as an exercise in the materialist conception of history. “In the writings of Marx, Engels, Plekhanov and Mehring, I later found confirmation for what in prison seemed to me only a guess needing verification and theoretical justification. I did not absorb historical materialism at once, dogmatically. The dialectic method revealed itself to me for the first time not as abstract definitions but as a living spring which I had found in the historical process as I tried to understand it.” [9]

Trotsky employed the newly acquired method to uncover the “living springs” of the class struggle in modern society and, first of all, in tsarist Russia at the turn of the 20th century, where a revolution was being prepared. The development of his celebrated theory of the permanent revolution was the first result of his researches. This was one of the outstanding triumphs of dialectical analysis applied to the social tendencies and political prospects of prerevolutionary Russia and, in its further elaboration, to the problems confronting backward countries in the imperialist epoch.

Marxists are often accused by their critics of dogmatism, of obsession with abstract schemes of historical development. Some would-be Marxists have been guilty of this fault. Not so Trotsky. He was a consistent practitioner of historical materialism, but within those principled boundaries he was the least formalistic and the most flexible of thinkers.

The materialist dialectic is based upon the existence of conflicting movements, forces, and relations in history, whose contradictions as they develop expose the shortcomings of all fixed formulas. As Trotsky wrote in 1906 in Results and Prospects : “Marxism is above all a method of analysis—not analysis of texts, but analysis of social relations.” [10]

Trotsky undertook to apply the Marxist method in this materialist manner to the specific conditions of tsarist Russia. He pointed out that the social structure of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was a peculiar blend of extremely backward and advanced features. The predominant political and religious backwardness embodied in the Asiatic despotism of the all-powerful monarchy and its servile state church was rooted in the historical and economic backwardness of the country. In Russia there had been no Reformation, no successful bourgeois revolutions, no strong third estate (bourgeoisie) as in Western Europe. The boundless spaces and windswept climate had given rise to nomadic existence and an extensive agriculture, a thin population, a belated and meagre feudal development, and an absence of commercial and craft centres. The prevalence of peasant agriculture and home industry self-contained in small villages, of large landed estates, and of administrative-military consuming cities restricted the domestic market and led to dependence upon foreign capital and culture.

However, with the entry of modern industry, this Asiatic backwardness became complemented and combined with the most up-to-date products of Western European development. Large-scale industry led not only to the fusion of industrial with banking capital and domination of the Russian economy by foreign finance, but ultimately to a proletariat in the major industrial centres, a modern labour movement engaging in political strikes and mass demonstrations, and scientific socialism. These exceptional conditions set the stage for the revolutionary events which were to explode in 1905 and culminate in 1917.

The schematic thinkers among the Russian social-democrats, who had learned the letter but not the essence of Marx’s method and were more or less under bourgeois influence, asserted that Russia would have to follow the trail blazed by Western Europe.

The older capitalist nations had passed from feudalism through a prolonged period of capitalist evolution toward socialism; in politics they had proceeded from rule by the monarchy and landed aristocracy to bourgeois parliamentarism before the workers could bid for supremacy. From this the Mensheviks concluded that the rulership of the bourgeoisie in a democratic republic on a capitalist basis was the logical successor to feudalised absolutism; the workers would have to wait a long while for their turn.

The attempt to impose such a prefabricated sequence upon 20th-century Russia was arbitrary and false, according to Trotsky. The powerful peculiarities of Russia’s past and present made possible, and even inevitable, an unprecedented path of development which opened up immense new prospects for the labour movement. The rottenness of tsarism, the weakness of the bourgeoisie and its institutions, the strategic position of the industrial workers, and the revolutionary potential in the peasantry springing from the unsolved, but urgent, problems of the land question would enable the pending revolution to compress and leap over stages. The workers could place themselves at the head of the insurgent people; they could lead the peasantry in overthrowing the old order and establishing democracy in a higher form under the government of the working class, which would quickly pass over from bourgeois democratic to revolutionary socialist measures. Thus the belated bourgeois democratic revolution would clear the way for and be a direct introduction to the first steps of the socialist revolution.

The political force of the working class could not be viewed in isolation but had to be judged in its relation with all the other factors at work within the country and the world. Although “the productive forces of the United States are 10 times as great as those of Russia, nevertheless the political role of the Russian proletariat, its influence on the politics of its own country and the possibility of its influencing the politics of the world in the near future are incomparably greater than in the case of the proletariat of the United States”. [11] From all these considerations he drew the conclusion that “the Russian revolution will create conditions in which power can pass into the hands of the workers—and in the event of the victory of the revolution it must do so— before the politicians of bourgeois liberalism get the chance to display to the full their talent for governing”. [12]

This was the first form of his theory of the permanent revolution. Upon the basis of Russian experience he subsequently extended it to cover the problems and prospects of the revolution in other underdeveloped countries where the workers and peasants must struggle against imperialism and its native agents to extricate themselves from precapitalist barbarism and acquire the benefits of modern economy and culture.

From 1904 to 1917 Trotskyism was identified with the conception that the Russian revolution could end only in the dictatorship of the proletariat, which in its turn must lead to the socialist transformation of society, given the victorious development of the world revolution. This outlook was opposed by the Mensheviks, who could not see beyond the bourgeois democratic republic, and was even unacceptable to the Bolsheviks. However, the young Trotsky was able to see farther than all the others among the brilliant constellation of Russian Marxists thanks to his precocious mastery of the materialistic and dialectical sides of Marx’s method and his exceptional boldness and keenness of thought. He was the Columbus of the most extraordinary event in modern history: the first successful proletarian revolution, in the most backward country of Europe.

In working out his prognosis of the Russian revolution, Trotsky utilised the law of uneven and combined development, which he was later to formulate in general terms. This generalisation of the dialectical intertwining of the backward and advanced features of the historical process is one of the most valuable instruments for deciphering the complex relations and contradictory trends of civilised society.

The laws of the class struggle constitute the essence of historical materialism applied to civilised society. Liberals and conservatives find this part of scientific socialism impossible to accept; reformists and Stalinists are unable to carry it through in the day-by-day struggle against capitalism. The recognition of the class struggle in its full scope and ultimate consequences was the very nerve centre of Trotsky’s thought and action.

The history of the development of human society is the history of the succession of various systems of economy, each operating in accordance with its own laws. The transition from one system to another was always determined by the growth of the productive forces, i.e., of technique and the organisation of labour. Up to a certain point, social changes are quantitative in character and do not alter the foundations of society, i.e., the prevalent forms of property. But a point is reached when the matured productive forces can no longer contain themselves within the old forms of property; then follows a radical change in the social order, accompanied by shocks. The primitive commune was either superseded or supplemented by slavery; slavery was succeeded by serfdom with its feudal superstructure; the commercial development of cities brought Europe in the 16th century to the capitalist order, which thereupon passed through several stages. [13]

This historical process was propelled forward by the action and reaction of one class upon another. The material stake in their struggles was the acquisition and distribution of the surplus product—that portion of the total social product beyond the minimum required for the survival and reproduction of the working force. Possessing and oppressing classes, from the slaveholders to the capitalists, have been distinguished primarily by the different methods of exploitation they have used to extract this surplus from the labouring masses. “The class struggle is nothing else than the struggle for surplus-product. He who owns surplus-product is master of the situation—owns wealth, owns the state, has the key to the church, to the courts, to the sciences and to the arts.” [14]

Each society forms an organic whole. The bones of the social organism consist of its productive forces; its muscles are its class (property) relations. The functions and reflexes of all other social organs can be understood only in their connections with the skeletal and muscular systems (the productive forces and property forms) which make up the general structure of the social organism. Since civilised society is split up into classes, the critical point of analysis in scientific sociology has to be “the class definition of a given phenomenon, e.g., state, party, philosophic trend, literary school, etc. In most cases, however, the mere class definition is inadequate, for a class consists of different strata, passes through different stages of development, comes under different conditions, is subjected to the influence of other classes. It becomes necessary to bring up these second and third rate factors in order to round out the analysis, and they are taken either partially or completely, depending upon the specific aim. But for a Marxist, analysis is impossible without a class characterisation of the phenomenon under consideration.” [15]

In order to ascertain the decisive tendencies and the main course of development of any given social formation or nation, the scientific sociologist, according to Trotsky, has to examine its structure and the dynamics of its social forces in their connections with world historical conditions. We must find specific answers to the following questions: What classes are struggling in a country? What are their interrelations? How, and in what direction, are their relations being transformed? What are the objective tasks dictated by historical necessity? On the shoulders of what classes does the solution of these tasks rest? With what methods can they be solved?

During his revolutionary career Trotsky analysed the situations in many major countries at critical turning points in their evolution, according to this procedure. These included Russia, Germany, France, England, Austria, and Spain in Europe; China and India in Asia; and the United States. The results of his inquiries are contained in a series of works which are models for any aspiring scientific historian or sociologist.

Ever since Marxism stirred up the academicians, much dust has been raised about its conception of the relations between the economic foundations and the rest of the social structure in the process of historical evolution. Trotsky tried not only to clear up the misunderstandings around this question in general, but also to show by example how the material substructure of society, crystallised in the relations of production and its property forms, reacted with other social and cultural phenomena.

“The opinion that economics presumably determines directly and immediately the creativeness of a composer or even the verdict of a judge, represents a hoary caricature of Marxism which the bourgeois professordom of all countries has circulated time out of end to mask their intellectual impotence”, he declared. [16] The dialectical approach of Marxism has nothing in common with this crude “economic determinism”, so often practiced by the Stalinist school.

The economic foundation of a given society is organically interrelated and continuously interactive with its political-cultural superstructure. But the relations between them can be harmonious or inharmonious, depending upon the given conditions of historical development and the specific combinations of historical factors. In some cases the political regime can be in stark contradiction with its economic basis. Indeed, this is the source of the deepening class antagonisms which generate the need for revolutions. This can hold true not only for capitalist states but for postcapitalist political structures in the period of transition to socialism. In the Soviet Union under Stalin and his heirs, for example, the economic basis of nationalised property and planned production has been increasingly at odds with the autocratic system of bureaucratic rule.

In the long run, economics takes precedence over politics Political regimes, institutions, parties, and leaders are defined by the roles they play in upholding or changing the existing relations of production. “[A]lthough economics determines politics not directly or immediately, but only in the last analysis, nevertheless economics does determine politics ”, Trotsky affirmed. [17] Capitalist property relations determine the nature of the bourgeois state and the conduct of its representatives; nationalised property determines the nature of the workers’ states, however deformed and bureaucratic they may be.

The controversy around “the cult of the individual” provoked by the de-Stalinisation campaign in the Soviet bloc has raised again for consideration the question of the role of the individual in history. This much-debated issue has long divided one tendency from another in the social sciences.

Nonmaterialists make one or another of the subjective factors in social life, from ideas to the actions of individuals, paramount in the determination of events. For a historical materialist like Trotsky, the social takes precedence over the individual, the general over the particular, the whole over the part, the material over the intellectual. The individual is important in history. But the extent of his influence depends upon broader historical factors. The strictly personal elements are subordinate to objective historical conditions and the major social forces of which they are a product, a part, and an exemplar.

The Russian Marxists from Plekhanov to Lenin gave considerable attention to this question. In arguing against the Narodnik school of subjective sociology, which in its most extreme expression upheld terrorism as a political means of struggle, the Marxists pointed out that social and political power was not simply an individual attribute; it was at bottom a function of the relations between people and, in the last analysis, between classes. The most prominent personages wield power not solely on their own account, but on behalf of social forces greater than themselves. Even kings, tyrants, dictators represent the material interests of a specific class or combination of classes.

No political institution, for example, fuses the superpersonal forces in history with the personal more than the monarchy. “Monarchy by its very principle is bound up with the personal”, wrote Trotsky in The History of the Russian Revolution . [18]

Under tsarism the royal family appeared to count as everything, the rest of the nation as nothing. Yet this was only the outward semblance of things.

“The king is king only because the interests and prejudices of millions of people are refracted through his person.” [19] The king cannot rule without the tacit consent of nobles, landlords, and other class forces which he serves, or even in the end without the acquiescence of the mass of his subjects. When these refuse any longer to recognise or abide by the royal authority, it is in danger or done for. The first act of the Russian revolution, the overthrow of the monarchy, verified this social basis of personal power.

The Russian revolution, led by the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky, abolished both tsarism and capitalism and instituted a workers’ and peasants’ democracy under the Soviets. This was smashed, and a new despotism came to flourish under Stalin. What was the social basis for Stalin’s absolute one-man rule?

Trotsky is often severely condemned for “permitting” Stalin to outwit him in the contest for supremacy after Lenin’s death. Critics of this superficial stamp do not understand that the most intelligent individuals with the most correct ideas and strategy are necessarily subordinated to the historical tides of their time and to the prevailing relations of class forces. Power is not a personal possession which can be transported at will like any commodity from one owner to another.

The fundamental factors at work in the world that decide the turn and outcome of great events were then ranged against the cause for which Trotsky fought; they favoured and facilitated the advance of Stalin. On the basis of the defeats of the working class in Europe, the isolation of the Soviet Union, and the weariness of the Soviet masses, Stalin was being lifted up and pushed to the fore during the 1920s by the increasingly powerful Soviet bureaucrats and labour aristocrats, backed up and egged on by an acquisitive upper layer of the peasantry. The Left Opposition, headed by Trotsky, which spoke for the revolutionary movement of the world working class and fought for the interests of the Soviet poor, was being pushed aside.

Trotsky explained over and over again that Stalin’s triumph and his own defeat did not signify the mere displacement of one individual by another, or even of one faction by another, but the definitive transfer of political power from the socialist working class to the privileged Soviet bureaucracy. He consciously tied his own fate and the fortunes of the Communist Left Opposition to the situation of the world revolution and the Russian working class.

Trotsky had thought profoundly on the dialectical interplay between the individual and the great impersonal driving forces of history. The purely personal characteristics of individuals, he stated, have narrow limits and very quickly merge into the social conditions of their development and collectivity to which they belong. “The ‘distinguishing traits’ of a person are merely individual scratches made by a higher law of development.” [20]

We do not at all pretend to deny the significance of the personal in the mechanics of the historic process, nor the significance in the personal of the accidental. We only demand that a historic personality, with all its peculiarities, should not be taken as a bare list of psychological traits, but as a living reality grown out of definite social conditions and reacting upon them. As a rose does not lose its fragrance because the natural scientist points out upon what ingredients of soil and atmosphere it is nourished, so an exposure of the social roots of a personality does not remove from it either its aroma or its foul smell. [21]

The tsar, as the head of his dynastic caste resting upon the Russian bureaucracy and aristocracy, was a product of its whole historical development and had to share its destiny. The same law held good for his successors at the helm of the Russian state after February 1917. Each of the leading individuals, from Kerensky through Lenin and Trotsky to Stalin, represented and incarnated a different correlation of social forces both national and international, a different degree of determination by the working class, a different stage in the development of the Russian revolution and the state and society which issued from it.

Trotsky was as thoroughgoing a materialist in his psychological observations as in his sociological and political analyser. Stalin as a man, he explained, acquired his definitive historical personality as the chosen leader of the Soviet aristocratic caste. “One can understand the acts of Stalin only by starting from the conditions of existence of the new privileged stratum, greedy for power, greedy for material comforts, apprehensive for its positions, fearing the masses, and mortally hating all opposition”, Trotsky told the Dewey Commission in 1937. [22] Stalin’s depravity, confirmed two decades afterward by Khrushchev, was not uniquely his own.

The more precipitate the jump from the October overturn—which laid bare all social falsehood—to the present situation, in which a caste of upstarts is forced to cover up its social ulcers, the cruder the Thermidorian lies. It is, consequently, a question not simply of the individual depravity of this or that person, but of the corruption lodged in the position of a whole social group for whom lying has become a vital political necessity. In the struggle for its newly gained positions, this caste has reeducated itself and simultaneously reeducated—or rather, demoralised—its leaders. It raised upon its shoulders the man who best, most resolutely and most ruthlessly expresses its interests. Thus Stalin, who was once a revolutionist, became the leader of the Thermidorian caste.

Conversely, the revolutionary essence of the principles, positions, and social interests that Trotsky consistently embodied and expressed throughout his lifetime made him what he was and placed him where he had to be at each stage. He worked at the side of the Russian working class while it was preparing its first revolution; he rose to its head in the Soviet of 1905. He remained with its active vanguard during the subsequent reaction. When the revolution surged up to the heights he organised the October insurrection, and then led the Red Army until after the Civil War.

Later, when the workers again became politically passive and prostrate under Stalin’s regime, he still stood firmly with them. Throughout this period of reaction he did his utmost to stem the decline of the revolution, rally and educate its forces, and prepare the best conditions for its revival. Trotsky was too much the Marxist to desire or exercise power for any purpose other than to promote socialist aims.

Trotsky’s forecast of the Russian revolution was the first triumph of his application of the method of dialectical materialism; his analysis of its degeneration was his final and greatest achievement.

Here Trotsky was confronted with an unprecedented historical phenomenon. To be sure, previous revolutions had mounted to great heights and then receded. But these relapses had taken place within a class society where a new and more progressive—but nevertheless exploiting and oppressing—ruling class had been installed in power. He was familiar with leaderships of other workers’ movements which had succumbed to the temptations of privilege and office, abused their authority, become bureaucratised. But these, too, had been beneficiaries and appendages of imperialist capitalism.

The situation in the young Soviet Republic appeared fundamentally different. The workers and peasants, led by the most conscious revolutionary party in history, guided by the scientific doctrines of Marxism, had taken state power and begun to reconstruct society in their own image. For years the leaders and members of the Bolshevik Party had distinguished themselves in battle by their ideas and their program, showing their readiness to sacrifice everything for the cause of socialism.

And yet the viruses of bureaucratism and privilege—“the professional dangers of power”, as Christian Rakovsky designated them—had attacked the new rulers of Russia and weakened their resistance to alien class influences. The inroads of infection had been manifest during Lenin’s last years, and he had asked Trotsky to join him in combating their spread.

For someone like Trotsky, who had been so wholly and intimately identified with the revolution and its leadership, it required the utmost objectivity to detach his personal fate from this situation and cope with the problems it presented. He was like a medical scientist who, having detected the presence of a wasting disease in a dear companion, notes its symptoms and makes a diagnosis and prognosis, understanding all the while that the disease may not be arrested and can prove fatal. He followed the unfolding of the bureaucratic reaction step by step, analysing its causes, pinpointing its results—while prescribing the necessary therapeutic measures to alleviate and cure the disease.

The basic conditions for the growth of bureaucratism, he said, were first of all lodged in the world situation. The failure of the Russian revolution to be matched by the workers in the more advanced industrialised countries of the West, and the temporary stabilisation of international capitalism, left the first workers’ state in an exposed and weakened position. In the Soviet Union a small working class, exhausted after enormous and sustained exertions, surrounded by a sea of peasantry and poverty, lacking culture, an adequate economic basis, even the elementary necessities of life, had to relinquish the powers and positions it had won to a layer of bureaucratic specialists in administration who wanted rest and the enjoyment of the fruits of the previous revolutionary efforts. The material privileges and narrow political views of this upstart caste came into ever greater conflict with the interests of the masses.

This was the source of the factional conflicts which tore apart the Russian Communist Party and were extended into the Communist International. With the deepening and strengthening of world reaction during the 1930s this process reached its climax in the consolidation of the Stalinist autocracy and the total erasure of Soviet democracy. The ascendancy of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and of fascism in Western Europe were symmetrical historical phenomena. The destruction of bourgeois democracy under the decadence of capitalist imperialism and the destruction of workers’ democracy in the Soviet Republic were parallel products of the defeats of the working masses by reaction.

These totalitarian states had, however, completely opposite and historically different economic bases. The fascist dictators Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Francisco Franco ruled over states which defended capitalist property relations. Stalin’s government, the uncontrolled agent of Soviet bureaucratism, rested upon nationalised property.

Trotsky gave a dialectical, historical, and materialist definition of the Soviet Union. By virtue of its nationalised property, its planned economy, its monopoly of foreign trade, and the socialist consciousness and traditions in the working class, it remained a workers’ state. But it was a special type of workers’ state in which the political structure contradicted the economic foundations. The policies and activities of Stalinist tyranny not only trampled upon the rights, feelings, and welfare of the masses in whose interests the revolution was made but injured the development of the Soviet economy itself, which required democratic administration by the workers to function most efficiently.

The conflict between Stalin’s one-man rule and workers’ democracy, between the totalitarian political structure and the economic foundation, was the prime motive force in Soviet society, however much it was repressed and hushed up. The tension between these contending social forces could not endure indefinitely. Either the workers would clean out the bureaucratic usurpers—or the bureaucrats would extrude a wing which would strike at the last remaining achievements of the revolution and clear the way for the return of capitalism from within or from abroad.

Trotsky was no defeatist; he did not declare in advance that the worst would happen. On the contrary, he threw all his forces and resources into the balance to help the favourable outcome prevail. Now, 20 years after his death, his struggle and foresight have been vindicated. While imperialism tore itself to pieces for the second time and was further weakened by the Second World War, the Soviet state survived, despite all the crimes of Stalinism. After revealing its powers of resistance in the war against Hitlerism, it has displayed amazing capacities for recuperation and swift growth in the postwar years. The socialist revolution itself broke through to new ground, extending into Eastern Europe and Asia and scuttling Stalin’s theory of “socialism in one country” as a by-product.

These international and national developments have elevated the Soviet working class to a higher cultural and material level and impelled the most progressive elements in Soviet society to press hard upon the bureaucrats to relax their dictatorship and grant concessions. The drive for de-Stalinisation breaks through with such irresistible force that—up to a certain limited point—it has even carried along elements among the bureaucracy. Its momentum testifies to the growing powers and impatience of the socialist elements in Soviet society and confirms Trotsky’s analysis of its main motive forces and trends.

Thus far we have seen only the opening events in this new chapter of internal Soviet development, which is heading toward an all-out conflict between the self-appointed successors of Stalin and the resurgent masses. The Soviet workers, intellectuals, and peasants will have to throw off all their overlords and restore democracy on an incomparably higher basis.

The reexamination of values which has been started under the slogan “Return to Lenin” will be supplemented and completed by the slogan “Return to Trotsky”. The new leaders of the people in the coming antibureaucratic revolution will reinstate Trotsky’s achievements to their proper place and honour him as the initiator, herald, and guide in the fight for socialist freedom and the preservation of the heritage of Marxism and Bolshevism.

Trotsky probed more deeply than any other Marxist thinker into the problems of materialist psychology. In the controversies that counterposed Pavlov’s school of conditioned reflexes to the Freudian school of depth analysis he took a third position. While he observed that their respective approaches to the formation of consciousness were different, he did not believe there was an insuperable materialist-idealist conflict between them, as the Stalinists have contended. Both Pavlov and Freud considered that physiology constituted the basis of the higher functions of thought. Trotsky compared Pavlov to a diver who descends to the bottom of the well of the human mind to inspect it from there upwards, while Freud stood above peering through the obscure and troubled waters of the psyche to discern what was at work within its depths.

The characteristic traits of people are elicited, formed, and perfected by their social environments; even the oddest quirks soon pass over into the behaviour and psychology proper to the individual’s epoch, group, or class. Certain common characteristics are imposed on people by the mighty forces of historical conditions; similar conditions call forth similar responses and produce similar personality traits. “Similar (of course, far from identical) irritations in similar conditions call out similar reflexes; the more powerful the irritation, the sooner it overcomes personal peculiarities. To a tickle, people react differently, but to a red-hot iron, alike. As a steam-hammer converts a sphere and a cube alike into sheet metal, so under the blow of too great and inexorable events resistances are smashed and the boundaries of ‘individuality’ lost.” [23]

In this way he explained the puzzles of what bourgeois psychologists call “the behaviour of crowds”, or, more precisely, mass consciousness. Despite all their individual differences and peculiarities, despite their separation in time and place, individuals placed in similar settings and faced with similar problems behave alike.

The so-called faculty psychologists of the 19th century split up the human personality and psyche into different factors such as instinct, will, intuition, consciousness, the unconscious, etc., elevating one or another of these elements of human behaviour into predominance. Trotsky viewed all these various functions as interpenetrating aspects of a unified physiological-psychological process, materially conditioned and subject to development and change.

Inspiration and intuition are usually regarded as the special province of idealists and mystics. However, Trotsky did not hesitate to come to grips even with these obscure and elusive phases of psychic activity. He noted that the conscious and unconscious coexist in the historical process just as they do within the individuals who compose it. He gave an incomparable definition of their interaction in My Life :

Marxism considers itself the conscious expression of the unconscious historical process. But the “unconscious” process, in the historico-philosophical sense of the term—not in the psychological—coincides with its conscious expression only at its highest point, when the masses, by sheer elemental pressure, break through the social routine and give victorious expression to the deepest needs of historical development. And at such moments the highest theoretical consciousness of the epoch merges with the immediate action of those oppressed masses who are farthest away from theory. The creative union of the conscious with the unconscious is what one usually calls “inspiration”. Revolution is the inspired frenzy of history.

Every real writer knows creative moments, when something stronger than himself is guiding his hand; every real orator experiences moments when someone stronger than the self of his everyday existence speaks through him. This is “inspiration”. It derives from the highest creative effort of all one’s forces. The unconscious rises from its deep well and bends the conscious mind to its will, merging it with itself in some greater synthesis.

The utmost spiritual vigour likewise infuses at times all personal activity connected with the movement of the masses. This was true for the leaders in the October days. The hidden strength of the organism, its most deeply rooted instincts, its power of scent inherited from animal forebears—all these rose and broke through the psychic routine to join forces with the higher historico-philosophical abstractions in the service of the revolution. Both these processes, affecting the individual and the mass, were based on the union of the conscious with the unconscious: the union of instinct—the mainspring of the will—with the higher theories of thought. [24]

Trotsky had absorbed the materialist attitude into every fibre of his being; it permeated all his thought and action from his outlook upon human life to his appraisals of the individuals around him. As a consistent materialist he was a proud and avowed atheist. He would not permit himself to be degraded or humanity to be subjugated to any of its own fictitious creations issuing from the barbarous past.

His humanistic profession of faith was frankly stated in the testament he set down a few months before his assassination: “For 43 years of my conscious life I have remained a revolutionist; for 42 of them I have fought under the banner of Marxism ... I shall die a proletarian revolutionist, a Marxist, a dialectical materialist, and, consequently, an irreconcilable atheist.” [25]

He felt no need for the fictitious consolations of personal life after death. Cramped and contaminated though it was by class society, life on earth was enough because of the potential for human enjoyment and fulfilment latent within it. “I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence and enjoy it to the full.” A few days later he added: “Whatever may be the circumstances of my death I shall die with unshaken faith in the communist future. This faith in man and in his future gives me even now such power of resistance as cannot be given by any religion.” [26]

Such was the final testimony of the most gifted exponent of the 2500-year-old materialist philosophy in our time.

[1] Trotsky’s contributions to the theoretical debate are collected in the book In Defence of Marxism (Pathfinder Press: New York, 1973); Burnham’s article “Science and Style” is included as an appendix.

[2] In Defence of Marxism page 196.

[3] Ibid., page 78-79.

[4] Ibid., page 79.

[5] Ibid., page 74.

[6] Ibid., page 51.

[7] Ibid., page 71.

[8] Trotsky, “Radio, Science, Technology and Society”, Problems of Everyday Life (Pathfinder Press: New York, 1973), pp. 252-253.

[9] Trotsky, My Life (Pathfinder Press: New York, 1970), p. 122.

[10] Trotsky, The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects (Pathfinder Press: New York, 1969), p. 64.

[12] Ibid., page 65.

[12] Ibid., page 63.

[13] Trotsky, Marxism in Our Time (Pathfinder Press: New York, 1970), pp. 8-9.

[14] Ibid., page 14.

[15] In Defence of Marxism, p. 129.

[16] Ibid., pages 118-119.

[17] Ibid., page 119.

[18] Trotsky, The History of the Russian Revolution (Monad Press: New York, 1980), Vol. 1, p. 52.

[19] Trotsky, “What Is National Socialism?”, The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany (Pathfinder Press: New York, 1971), p. 399.

[20] The History of the Russian Revolution, Vol. 1, p. 52.

[21] Ibid., page 95.

[22] Trotsky, The Case of Leon Trotsky (Merit Publishers: New York, 1968), p. 581.

[23] Trotsky, The History of the Russian Revolution Vol. 1, page 93.

[24] Trotsky, My Life, pages 334-335.

[25] Trotsky, “Testament”, Writings of Leon Trotsky (1939-40) (Pathfinder Press: New York, 1973), pp. 158-159.

[26] Ibid., page 159.

Return to Understanding History Index George Novack Internet Archive

The Second Voyage of Christopher Columbus

Second Voyage Adds Colonization and Trading Posts to Exploration Goals

Preparations for the Second Voyage

Dominica, guadalupe and the antilles, hispaniola and the fate of la navidad, cuba and jamaica, columbus as governor, the start of the enslaved indigenous peoples trade, people of note in columbus’ second voyage, historical importance of the second voyage.

  • Ph.D., Spanish, Ohio State University
  • M.A., Spanish, University of Montana
  • B.A., Spanish, Penn State University

Christopher Columbus returned from his first voyage in March 1493, having discovered the New World—although he didn’t know it. He still believed that he had found some uncharted islands near Japan or China and that further exploration was needed. His first voyage had been a bit of a fiasco, as he had lost one of the three ships entrusted to him and he did not bring back much in the way of gold or other valuable items. He did, however, bring back a group of Indigenous people he had enslaved on the island of Hispaniola, and he was able to convince the Spanish crown to finance the second voyage of discovery and colonization.

The second voyage was to be a large-scale colonization and exploration project. Columbus was given 17 ships and over 1,000 men. Included on this voyage, for the first time, were European domesticated animals such as pigs, horses, and cattle. Columbus’ orders were to expand the settlement on Hispaniola, convert the population of Indigenous people to Christianity, establish a trading post, and continue his explorations in search of China or Japan. The fleet set sail on October 13, 1493, and made excellent time, first sighting land on November 3.

The island first sighted was named Dominica by Columbus, a name it retains to this day. Columbus and some of his men visited the island, but it was inhabited by fierce Caribs and they did not stay very long. Moving on, they discovered and explored a number of small islands, including Guadalupe, Montserrat, Redondo, Antigua, and several others in the Leeward Islands and Lesser Antilles chains. He also visited Puerto Rico before making his way back to Hispaniola.

Columbus had wrecked one of his three ships the year of his first voyage. He had been forced to leave 39 of his men behind on Hispaniola, in a small settlement named La Navidad . Upon returning to the island, Columbus discovered that the men he left had raped Indigenous women and angered the population. Indigenous people had then attacked the settlement, slaughtering the Europeans to the last man. Columbus, consulting his Indigenous chieftain ally Guacanagarí, laid the blame on Caonabo, a rival chief. Columbus and his men attacked, routing Caonabo and capturing and enslaving many of the people.

Columbus founded the town of Isabella on the northern coast of Hispaniola, and spent the next five months or so getting the settlement established and exploring the island. Building a town in a steamy land with inadequate provisions is hard work, and many of the men became sick and died. It reached the point where a group of settlers, led by Bernal de Pisa, attempted to capture and make off with several ships and go back to Spain: Columbus learned of the revolt and punished the plotters. The settlement of Isabella remained but never thrived. It was abandoned in 1496 in favor of a new site, now Santo Domingo .

Columbus left the settlement of Isabella in the hands of his brother Diego in April, setting out to explore the region further. He reached Cuba (which he had discovered on his first voyage) on April 30 and explored it for several days before moving on to Jamaica on May 5. He spent the next few weeks exploring the treacherous shoals around Cuba and searching in vain for the mainland. Discouraged, he returned to Isabella on August 20, 1494.

Columbus had been appointed governor and Viceroy of the new lands by the Spanish crown, and for the next year and a half, he attempted to do his job. Unfortunately, Columbus was a good ship’s captain but a lousy administrator, and those colonists that still survived grew to hate him. The gold they had been promised never materialized and Columbus kept most of what little wealth was found for himself. Supplies began running out, and in March of 1496 Columbus returned to Spain to ask for more resources to keep the struggling colony alive.

Columbus brought back many enslaved Indigenous people with him. Columbus, who had once again promised gold and trade routes, did not want to return to Spain empty-handed. Queen Isabella , appalled, decreed that the New World Indigenous people were subjects of the Spanish crown and therefore could not be enslaved. However, the practice of enslaving Indigenous populations continued.

  • Ramón Pané was a Catalan priest who lived among the Taíno people for about four years and produced a short but very important ethnographic history of their culture.
  • Francisco de Las Casas was an adventurer whose son Bartolomé was destined to become very important in the fight for the rights of Indigenous people.
  • Diego Velázquez was a conquistador who later became governor of Cuba.
  • Juan de la Cosa was an explorer and cartographer who produced several important early maps of the Americas.
  • Juan Ponce de León would become governor of Puerto Rico but was most famous for his journey to Florida in search of the Fountain of Youth .

Columbus’ second voyage marked the start of colonialism in the New World, the social importance of which cannot be overstated. By establishing a permanent foothold, Spain took the first steps toward its mighty empire of the centuries that followed, an empire that was built with New World gold and silver.

When Columbus brought back enslaved Indigenous peoples to Spain, he also caused the question of whether to practice enslavement in the New World to be aired openly, and Queen Isabella decided that her new subjects could not be enslaved. But although Isabella perhaps prevented a few instances of enslavement, the conquest and colonization of the New World was devastating and deadly for Indigenous peoples: their population dropped by approximately 80% between 1492 and the mid-17th century. The drop was caused mainly by the arrival of Old World diseases, but others died as a result of violent conflict or enslavement.

Many of those who sailed with Columbus on his second voyage went on to play very important roles in the trajectory of history in the New World. These first colonists had a significant amount of influence and power over the span of the next few decades.

  • Herring, Hubert. A History of Latin America From the Beginnings to the Present . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962.
  • Thomas, Hugh. "Rivers of Gold: The Rise of the Spanish Empire, from Columbus to Magellan." Hardcover, 1st edition, Random House, June 1, 2004.
  • The Third Voyage of Christopher Columbus
  • Biography of Christopher Columbus
  • 10 Facts About Christopher Columbus
  • Biography of Christopher Columbus, Italian Explorer
  • The First New World Voyage of Christopher Columbus (1492)
  • Biography of Juan Ponce de León, Conquistador
  • The Fourth Voyage of Christopher Columbus
  • Biography of Bartolomé de Las Casas, Spanish Colonist
  • Biography of Diego Velazquez de Cuellar, Conquistador
  • Where Are the Remains of Christopher Columbus?
  • The Florida Expeditions of Ponce de Leon
  • The Controversy Over Columbus Day Celebrations
  • Amerigo Vespucci, Explorer and Navigator
  • Explorers and Discoverers
  • A Timeline of North American Exploration: 1492–1585
  • Did Christopher Columbus Actually Discover America?
  • Things to Do
  • Restaurants
  • Vacation Rentals
  • Travel Stories
  • Rental Cars
  • Add a Place
  • Travel Forum
  • Travelers' Choice
  • Help Center

Our guide called it Peter Columbus. . . - Peter The Great Monument

  • Europe    
  • Russia    
  • Central Russia    
  • Moscow    
  • Moscow - Things to Do    
  • Peter The Great Monument

When walking towards Gorkyi park we saw Peter’s statue and decided to visit in first. We were on... read more

christopher columbus principal voyage

Even from a distance you can see the enormous size of this statue. Coming up close you see the... read more

christopher columbus principal voyage

Our guide called it Peter Columbus. . .

and stated that it was made to give to Americans as a memorial of Christopher Columbus. Apparently America turned it down. Now it resides as certainly one of the largest outdoor statues anywhere. Its hard to look away from, given its enormous size--a bit like the gigantic Genghis Kahn statue in Mongolia.

christopher columbus principal voyage

walked all around to see the man himself attached to his boat when you have finished there is a park full of statues for you to view this is also free and then as you walk down there is a water display and great scenery all the way down the path very enjoyable and a great day out

It's huge and it can be seen from a long distance. The monument is sculpted in great details. Some people say it's ugly but I like it very much.

It's interesting how both locals and tourists love to hate this 'eyesore'. Not something to try to see up close (and there's truly no need), this looms over the view of the Moscow River south of the Kremlin, seen for miles/kilometers, such is the scale. There's a fascinating story which locals seem to enjoy, whatever the level of amusement vs. disgust with this statue. The work of Zurab Tsereteli, this was unveiled in 1997 and there has been controversy and discussion since. At 660 tons and 315 feet/94meters tall the thing is: This was originally made with the head of Christopher Columbus (explorer/'discoverer' of the Americas) and the figure is still standing on Columbus' ship and dressed accordingly in the style of 18th Century classicist art and/or the style of a "Roman Warrior". In any case, Tsereteli was unable to find a buyer in the U.S., and next turned to Russia, chopping off the head of Columbus and replacing it with Peter the Great. The map in hand was then said to be the charter for the Russian Navy (celebrating 300 years), and the statue was marketed to St. Petersburg authorities - who rejected it. Ultimately it wound up where it is now, and according to authorities recently, it is likely to stay, despite the jokes and cries of 'ugly!'. No need to set out for this 'attraction' as if you do any traveling around Moscow you're quite likely to see it, hear the story, and continue on your way. But yes, 'interesting' story.

christopher columbus principal voyage

Have to agree with the many reviews on here about it being a blot on the landscape.Theres no doubt that it is impressive with the detail and the sheer scale of it but it does look totally out of place where it is.Should be in a park like someone else has said.

Yes, the statue is weird/strange/kinda ugly and yes, it's huge and you can't miss it. And yes, nobody wanted it and it was supposed to be of Christopher Columbus standing on tiny, tiny representations of his ships. For me, that all just added to the charm and delight of this statue plonked down in the middle of the river! A must see! A good giggle! And it's kinda pretty, in an odd way.

Russia: St. Petersburg and Moscow, April 2004

I visited Russia during the Spring of 2004 with DIS. We traveled by plane to St. Petersburg, by night train to Moscow and flew back to Copenhagen. Visas were required. Russian night trains (we went second class, on night train #1 --- the Red Arrow, not kidding) are quite nice. Russia proved to be a very odd place to visit, largely a result of the contrast between developed and undeveloped. Writing this in 2006, I am of the opinion that Russia has more "culture-shock" factor than Africa, largely a result of the stark contrast. Perhaps it is the order in which I traveled to certain places. I would love to spend more time in Russia --- it does cover eleven timezones, and simply seeing Moscow and St. Petersburg doesn't really seem like seeing Russia. Both cities are very European, St. Petersburg more so.

We went to St. Petersburg first, and stayed in the Hotel Moscow , near Alexander Nevsky Square.

The view out our hotel window, across the Neva river. That is ice.

A view of Peter and Paul's fortress, from near this rather odd looking structure that I forget the name of:

It is clear I should've edited these sooner than two years later.

A local souvenir seller, and yet-another-famous-guy-on-a-horse

Hotel Astoria

Traffic. I thought it was bad in St. Petersburg, but Moscow would prove even worse.

St. Isaacs. The view from the top was amazing

Inside Peter and Paul's fortress is this rather odd looking statue, complete with a finger that you rub for good luck.

Peter and Paul's fortress in St. Petersburg is home to the bodies of many of Russia's Czars. Russian churches, palaces and significant builds have so much gold leaf it can make a person's head spin. I saw Russia's palaces before Versailles, and Russia's palaces made Versailles look like a modest country home for the middle class. Is it any wonder the average person was not happy in these countries?

Peter and Paul's fortress was built on an island in the Neva River delta, in May of 1703. The rest of St. Petersburg spreads out from there. The 300 year celebration in St. Petersburg was quite a big deal, and many buildings had been restored for the celebration.

Interior details inside Peter and Paul's fortress.

Further interior details.

The tomb of Czar Nicholas II, former czar of Russia before the Bolsheviks and executed him and his family during the revolution.

Exterior of the church.

These people have coats on. So did I. They have their cameras out. Why?

Because the Russians are going for a swim! Yes, that's ice!

"You see, the walls warm in the sun," said our tour guide.

They really do swim in the Neva in April.

Another exterior of the church in Peter and Paul's fortress.

A local, reading the paper in the park.

The view from the top of St. Isaacs.

With the church of The Saviour-on-the-Blood in the background.

While I was on top, it seems that some sort of explosion went off, and large amounts of smoke billowed into the sky. I never did find out what happened.

The Hermitage Museum is near Peter and Paul's fortress. Inside, it is truly amazing. The exterior is not exactly shabby either. Also known as Katrina The Great's winter palace, it is located in Palace Square. In the square is the Alexander column, erected to commemorate the Russian's victory over Napoleon.

The Hermitage and the Alexander column.

The General Staff building. The size of these buildings are absolutely amazing, especially given that they were built in the 18th century.

Details of the gate to the square.

Hello Mr. [smelly] Toilet.

The church of The Saviour-on-the-Blood, with detail.

We headed out the next day, to see Katarina the Great's Summer Palace in Pushkin, outside St. Petersburg. This is the palace that makes Versailles look like a summer cottage.

Palace exterior, with detail. Waiting for the palace to open to tourists.

Security, as the palace is quite a landmark.

We wore booties to protect the floors. The entire palace had recently been restored, as it was heavily damaged during World War II.

Staircase, with detail.

The second most ridiculous room in the palace. The tour guide said there was ten kilos of gold leaf on the walls. Effectively, it's a ballroom.

A dining room.

A hallway, with the doors extending into the distance.

The world-famous amber room (the most ridiculous), formerly looted and/or destroyed during WWII. The room was restored for the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg. Originally, it was a gift from King Friedrich Wilhelm I of Prussia to Peter the Great in 1717.

Detail of an art room. Notice the size of the chairs.

Exterior of the building and one of the many paths in the gardens.

Yes, that's a hatch in a tree.

Our lunch place before heading back to St. Petersburg.

That night, we left St. Petersburg for Moscow. We went by train, on Russian Night Train #1, called, "Red Arrow." I thought we had gone first class (it was quite fine), but upon further reading now, it seems that we traveled second class, since we had four bunks in a cabin.

The hallway.

The lock, and the smart, fold-away ladder.

Complete with food, and amenities.

And a posted list of ... something?

Hello Mr. Toilet.

What trip would be complete without a drunk American college student on a Russian night train? Thankfully, he was not in my cabin.

Arrival the next morning in Moscow. Had I known Russian at the time, I would've known it was the "Red Arrow" --- it says so on the side!

Our group, shortly after arriving in Moscow. On Red Square (which isn't really red), walking towards Gum, the big department store on the right.

One of the towers on the Kremlin, complete with searchlights and cameras.

The Kremlin, Lenin's Mausoleum is the building with the black stripe. You can view a satellite photo here on Google Maps. We went inside, where you can see Lenin's body embalmed in a glass case. There are many turns to get inside, and at the end of each corridor is a guard. When we were entering, the man in front of our group slipped some money to the guards that search bags. Photos are not normally allowed.

Inside Gum.

Souvenir shopping for the little nesting dolls.

The view out our hotel window in Hotel Russia , next to Red Square. Hotel Russia is one of the largest hotel in Europe, with "about 3000 rooms.". It is so large, some of the staff didn't know everything that was inside. Effectively, with four different entrances, it "feels" like four separate hotels. The hotel is so large that underneath is a giant go-kart track. I'm not even kidding. The staff at our entrance didn't know where it was, but we spotted the sign out our window. It was the full deal, with crash suits and helmets and gas-powered go-karts.

St. Basil's Cathedral, Red Square, Moscow, Russia, at night.

Photos at night around near Red Square. One looks across a street towards the largest McDonald's in the world. The last one is a nearby eatery/mall that is partially submerged, where young people seem to hang out. The McDonald's inside plays hard-core techno at lunchtime, and a lady collects your order while you wait in line.

Looking back toward the Kremlin Wall, standing next to the State museum.

Red Square at night.

Touring Moskovsky Komsomolets , a daily paper addressing social and political issues.

Traffic near Red Square. I thought St. Petersburg was bad. Moscow is effectively a "ring city" --- meaning that it grew like the rings of a tree. Each successive ring has a circular road that often looks like this.

More traffic. It's more congested in Russia in terms of lanes and number of cars, but the driving style isn't nearly as hap-hazard as the developing world.

Looking out the top floor of our hotel.

I was told this was a statue meant to commemorate Christopher Columbus, but the Americas didn't want it. So the face was changed, and now it commemorates Alexander the Great. Or something along those lines, it sounded very odd.

Miscellaneous statues in the sculpture park behind the New Tretyakov Gallery.

One of the main churches in Moscow. It was, sadly, closed because Putin was speaking there later that day.

And so ended the trip to Russia. Admittedly, this page is missing most of the more in-depth, funny and/or interesting stories. Those are best conveyed verbally. I did visit the Kremlin and the Bolshoi, but did not take any photos.

The Kremlin was not nearly as exciting as I had hoped for, at least after seeing all of the palaces outside St. Petersburg.

The Bolshoi, on the other hand, was amazing. The interior was quite fine, and the curtain with the little hammer and sickle was quite a surprise.

Adam can be reached at adam dot morley at gmail dot com

IMAGES

  1. The People Who Discovered Christopher Columbus

    christopher columbus principal voyage

  2. The Four Voyages of Christopher Columbus

    christopher columbus principal voyage

  3. What Day Did Christopher Columbus Land In America

    christopher columbus principal voyage

  4. 7+ Columbus Made His First Voyage From Europe To America 1942 Sedang

    christopher columbus principal voyage

  5. The maiden voyage of Christopher Columbus: the quest to find trade routes

    christopher columbus principal voyage

  6. The Four Voyages of Christopher Columbus

    christopher columbus principal voyage

VIDEO

  1. Columbus: A Voyage Through Time #history

  2. Columbus: The Voyage that Changed the World

  3. Christopher Columbus A Voyage Through Time

  4. Christopher Columbus Bio

  5. The Columbus voyage explained by

  6. Christopher Columbus' voyage discovered the American continent

COMMENTS

  1. Christopher Columbus

    Exploration Christopher Columbus Christopher Columbus Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer who stumbled upon the Americas and whose journeys marked the beginning of centuries of...

  2. Christopher Columbus

    Home World History Global Exploration The first voyage of Christopher Columbus Christopher Columbus's fleet Illustration depicting Christopher Columbus's fleet departing from Spain in 1492. The ships for the first voyage—the Niña, Pinta, and Santa María —were fitted out at Palos, on the Tinto River in Spain.

  3. Christopher Columbus

    Category: History & Society Italian: Cristoforo Colombo Spanish: Cristóbal Colón Born: between August 26 and October 31?, 1451, Genoa [Italy] Died: May 20, 1506, Valladolid, Spain Notable Family Members: son Diego Columbus brother Bartholomew Columbus On the Web: Al Jazeera - Christopher Columbus: The myth that keeps on giving (Jan. 22, 2024)

  4. Voyages of Christopher Columbus

    Between 1492 and 1504, Italian explorer Christopher Columbus, under the Catholic Monarchs of Spain, led four Spanish transatlantic maritime expeditions of discovery to the Caribbean, and to Central and South America. These voyages led to the widespread knowledge of the New World.

  5. The First Voyage of Christopher Columbus (1492-1493)

    Having convinced the King and Queen of Spain to finance his voyage, Christopher Columbus departed mainland Spain on August 3, 1492. He quickly made port in the Canary Islands for a final restocking and left there on September 6. He was in command of three ships: the Pinta, the Niña, and the Santa María.

  6. Christopher Columbus

    Written sources The majority of the surviving primary sources about Columbus are not private diaries or missives; instead, they were intended to be read by other people. There is, then, an element of manipulation about them—a fact that must be borne fully in mind for their proper understanding.

  7. Columbus reports on his first voyage, 1493

    On October 12, more than two months later, Columbus landed on an island in the Bahamas that he called San Salvador; the natives called it Guanahani. Christopher Columbus's letter to Ferdinand and Isabella, 1493. (The Gilder Lehrman Institute, GLC01427)

  8. Christopher Columbus

    Word of his voyage soon spread throughout Europe. Columbus made three further voyages to the Americas, exploring the Lesser Antilles in 1493, Trinidad and the northern coast of South America in 1498, and the east coast of Central America in 1502. Many names he gave to geographical features, particularly islands, are still in use.

  9. Christopher Columbus

    Voyages Principal Voyage Columbus' voyage departed in August of 1492 with 87 men sailing on three ships: the Niña, the Pinta, and the Santa María. Columbus commanded the Santa María, while the Niña was led by Vicente Yanez Pinzon and the Pinta by Martin Pinzon. 3 This was the first of his four trips. He headed west from Spain across the ...

  10. Christopher Columbus

    Columbus' journeys, by contrast, opened the way for later European expeditions, but he himself never claimed to have discovered America. The story of his "discovery of America" was established and first celebrated in A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus by the American author Washington Irving (l. 1783-1859 CE) published in 1828 CE and this narrative (largely fictional ...

  11. Christopher Columbus Timeline

    1498 - 1500. Third Voyage of Christopher Columbus to the New World to find a passage to the East; South and Central America are identified. 1502 - 1504. Fourth Voyage of Christopher Columbus to the New World; Spanish colonies now operating fully without him, systemic exploitation of indigenous people has become policy.

  12. The Third Voyage of Christopher Columbus

    Sighting South America For the first two weeks of August 1498, Columbus and his small fleet explored the Gulf of Paria, which separates Trinidad from mainland South America. In the process of this exploration, they discovered the Island of Margarita as well as several smaller islands. They also discovered the mouth of the Orinoco River.

  13. Early career and voyages of Christopher Columbus

    Christopher Columbus, Italian Cristoforo Colombo Spanish Cristóbal Colón, (born between Aug. 26 and Oct. 31?, 1451, Genoa—died May 20, 1506, Valladolid, Spain), Genoese navigator and explorer whose transatlantic voyages opened the way for European exploration, exploitation, and colonization of the Americas.He began his career as a young seaman in the Portuguese merchant marine.

  14. Columbus's letter on the first voyage

    Christopher Columbus, a Genoese captain in the service of the Crown of Castile, set out on his first voyage in August 1492 with the objective of reaching the East Indies by sailing west across the Atlantic Ocean. Instead of reaching Asia, Columbus stumbled upon the Caribbean islands of the Americas.

  15. 9 Real Stops On Christopher Columbus's Voyages

    1. THE CANARY ISLANDS When Columbus set sail from the Spanish port of Palos on August 3, 1492, he already had his first pit stop planned. The Niña, Pinta, and Santa Maria headed to the Canary...

  16. Trotsky's Views On Dialectical Materialism

    As the principal defendant in absentia in the Moscow trials, and because of the dramatic circumstances of his voyage in exile, Trotsky then stood in the centre of international attention. He was fighting for his reputation, liberty, and life against the powerful government of Stalin, bent on his defamation and death. ... He was the Columbus of ...

  17. Christopher Columbus

    Between 1482 and 1485 Columbus trades along the coasts of West Africa and makes at least one voyage to the Portuguese fortress of São Jorge da Mina (now Elmina, Ghana), gaining knowledge of Portuguese navigation and the Atlantic wind systems along the way.

  18. The Second Voyage of Christopher Columbus

    The second voyage was to be a large-scale colonization and exploration project. Columbus was given 17 ships and over 1,000 men. Included on this voyage, for the first time, were European domesticated animals such as pigs, horses, and cattle. Columbus' orders were to expand the settlement on Hispaniola, convert the population of Indigenous ...

  19. What impact did Christopher Columbus's voyages have on the Americas

    The impact of Columbus's voyages to the Americas was massive. First of all, he showed that it was possible to sail west from Europe across the Atlantic Ocean. This led to many more voyages of ...

  20. Our guide called it Peter Columbus.

    Peter The Great Monument: Our guide called it Peter Columbus. . . - See 374 traveler reviews, 359 candid photos, and great deals for Moscow, Russia, at Tripadvisor.

  21. A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus

    A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. Title page of Vol. I, UK first edition, 1828. A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus is a fictional biographical account of Christopher Columbus written by Washington Irving in 1828. It was published in four volumes in Britain and in three volumes in the United States.

  22. Russia: St. Petersburg and Moscow

    I was told this was a statue meant to commemorate Christopher Columbus, but the Americas didn't want it. So the face was changed, and now it commemorates Alexander the Great. Or something along those lines, it sounded very odd. Miscellaneous statues in the sculpture park behind the New Tretyakov Gallery. One of the main churches in Moscow.

  23. The fourth voyage and final years of Christopher Columbus

    They were right. He departed from Gran Canaria on the night of May 25, made landfall at Martinique on June 15 (after the fastest crossing to date), and was, by June 29, demanding entrance to Santo Domingo on Hispaniola. Only on being refused entry by Ovando did he sail away to the west and south.