UKH

Words of Captain Scott
ITV 10:35

Readings from the diaries and letters of Robert Falcon Scott, his companions and his Norwegian rival Roald Amundsen tell the story of their epic Antarctic expeditions. Scott's trek to the South Pole began in 1910 and ended with his death in March 1912 on the journey back. Featuring a cast including Dougray Scott, Max Irons, Alistair McGowan and Lars Mikkelsen, who read from Scott's diary as well as Amundsen's recently translated journal and other diaries and letters

As a bonus, I offer a beautiful picture of Captain Oates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lawrence_Oates_c1911.jpg

lsn

In reply to lowersharpnose:

I always thought Oates looked very modern in that photo - you're right it's a beautiful shot.

In reply to lowersharpnose:

I'm reaching the end of Ranulph Fiennes' book Captain Scott. Well worth reading and debunks a lot of the adverse myths surrounding his relationship with Shackleton, and his allegedly "difficult" character. It also expands on the devious and underhand nature of Amundsen's expedition to beat him to the Pole.

Scott was unlucky in that his push to and from the Pole coincided with some of the worst weather for decades, weather which Amundsen, just a few weeks ahead of him, missed.

What a terrible ordeal for Scott and his companions as the inevitable tragedy unfolded during their return journey, written by someone who knows what it is like to endure such extreme hardship day after day, when starving and suffering from agonising frost bite and blisters, in temperatures of minus 40 to minus 50 degrees.

In reply to Trangia:
Aye, knowing how to ski and using dogs was so very unfair.

In reply to tony:

Have you read Fiennes' book? Sounds as though you haven't. It's comments like yours which he demolishes.

In reply to lowersharpnose: If you're in cambridge anytime soon I would recommend a visit to the Scott Polar Research Institute museum it's quite small but loads of interesting information, we went yesterday and they have his diary open at the final page which is quite moving plus lots of other pieces of kit from that and other expeditions to the antarctic.

In reply to Trangia:

http: //www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/28/captain-scott-antarctic-centenary-profile
"I took a dislike to him because I thought he personified the kind of third-rater that has got to the top of society here and brought the country to its present state. He was a mediocrity, a very poor leader, and, like many mediocrities, was very jealous."
Huntford believes Wilson and Bowers would have made it back without Scott.."

Have you read it? It's comments like yours which he demolishes.

In reply to Anonymous:

You need to read around your subject a little and try not to form an opinion based on one article. Roland Huntford, the article's author, has gained his reputation and made a lot of money by attacking a subject, who can't respond, by selective use of hisorical evidence.

There are some good suggestions for further reading above. You could also try reading some of the expedition diaries

In reply to mountainsheep:

Thanks. Next time I find myself there, I'll visit.

In reply to Anonymous:

Read Susan Solomon's 'The Coldest March', An American climate scientist with extensive antarctic experience she brings a new scientific perspective to the whole story and in doing so 'demolishes' Roland Huntford's views.

In reply to lowersharpnose:

I don't know whether it's still on, but I thought the photo exhibition of Scott and Shackletons expeditions that they had on recently at Buckingham palace was very good, some beautiful photos andthe commentary was very well done too.

In reply to AJM:

Yes - it was good. A bit of a contrast between the large photographs presented by Scott's expedition and the smaller images supplied by Hurley... on the other hand, something of a miracle that the latter survived at all.

The Antarctic display at the Natural History Museum is worth a look too - just to see one of the actual eggs from the 'Worst Journey in the World' and Cherry Garrard's balaclava!

In reply to Anonymous:

Oh, so you're another one who wades in without looking at all the evidence. I pose the same question to you, have you read Fienne's book? He exposes the flaws in Huntford's allegations.

In reply to Trangia:

Why are you getting so worked up about this? Huntford, Fiennes and Solomon all went in with personal bias and agendas. At least Huntford's added something worthwhile to the debate - in its time. Of course he overdid it at times, but many of his points, and interpretations are valid. His take on things was sorely needed.

None of these books 'demolish' anything, due their selective omissions and biases, not unlike Scott's diaries themselves.

I found Fiennes book unreadable, and knowing he had others do his research for him made it worse. Fiennes has had a bee in his bonnet for Huntford for years, aggravated by failing to 'prove' the suitability of manhauling in 1993. All he proved was that, like Scott, you could selectively spin a kind of success out of failure.

As for Solomon, Scott and his men were doomed long before a cold March. Being an atmospheric scientist and living in US bases doesn't mean you know jack schyte about expeditioning. They live in another world down there, that just happens to be situated in Antarctica. She saw an angle for a book and went for it, good on her.

To anyone who has read this history, organised Antarctic expeditions, spent time there, and written about it, the bare facts of Scott damn him more than any 100-years-after book could. By the same token, all those things ensure a sympathy and admiration for him and his men that no armchair patriot could ever know. Their endurance and toughness astounds me. But ...

Every season I see expedition dispatch after dispatch come out stemming from an attitude that things *should* be different but, woe betide us, they aren't. No luck with the weather, dash it! At worst, these expeditions fail. At best, they focus on contrived physical hardship and recreational suffering, rather than be boring by being well prepared, competent and efficiently successful. They perpetuate Scott's cancerous legacy that nature is a foe, to be cursed and battled as an obstacle to personal success, rather than something to be met and enjoyed on its own terms.

As something of an aside, I was at the Pole on 17th January this year for the anniversary celebration of Scott's arrival, having arrived the previous evening, guiding a Last Degree trip. It was a short (brr!) but heartfelt ceremony. No one felt the need to argue about Scott vs Amundsen and the only thing 'demolished' was a case or two of champagne.

In reply to Damo:

Agreed. I recall before writing his book, Fiennes asked for help researching Scott, and from what I remember he was fairly open about the intent of the book - for the public to see Scott in a better light. If that isn't an agenda, I don't know what is.

Personally, I think it's criminal that Amundsen's name and achievements are overlooked by virtually all the world outside Norway.

Sadly it's a very British thing to make excuses for failure, and whilst I have huge respect for Scott and what he did, there's no getting away from the fact he was just that - a failure.

In reply to Damo: Totally respect your opinion Damo because unlike many here you know what youre talking about. However I do think that this is the point slightly. Fiennes and Solomon both had some relevant (very) experience, and Huntford did not. Im also not sure, being familiar with the diaries of Scott himself, that he truly saw nature as an enemy. He writes very lovingly of the environment they were in for the vast majority of the time. I believe that his attitude may have changed somewhat as the seriousness of their predicament became clear. You have to bear in mind that at the time it was uncharted territory and a very different tactic to what is now the status quo was employed. Also the Scott vs Amundsen thing is and never was a real issue. Still gives people something to talk about I guess. I think Scotts efforts cannot be understood fully by anyone of this era, its simply not the same game. Best regards, Tom.

In reply to lowersharpnose:
The Norwegians have a sporting attitude. At Finse (where Scott tested some of his kit before the expedition) the Norwegians have put up a very nice monument to Scott, and the are pictures in the hotel taken during the tests.

In reply to Gaupa: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16530953

Does this make Scott a failure?

Apsley Cherry-Garrard offers a well-considered appraisal of Scott in "The Worst Journey in the World", which is well worth a read anyway.

There are some interesting parallels to be drawn between polar exploration and climbing. Many climbers submit that being the first to summit a mountain by any means necessary simply for the accolade of being the first to summit is little more than an ego-trip. The same could be said about the race to be the first to the pole. Undoubtedly both Scott and Amundsen tried for the pole largely for egotistical reasons. It mustn't be forgotten that Scott was passionate about scientific discovery and that his expedition was a scientific expedition first and foremost.

Amundsen was a great skier and dog-sledder, as well as a brave man, but he made mistakes that went unpunished, while Scott's mistakes led to tragedy.

In reply to walking_disaster: Huntford is entitled to his opinion, but he has gone beyond analytical criticism of Scott's expedition and has taken a personal dislike to Scott, as Huntford pretty much admits himself. Scott seems to stand for everything Huntford resents.

The fact that Scott made mistakes is beyond question, but the suffering he and his party went through without complaint is testament to the mental strength of the man and his companions, especially Birdie Bowers and Bill Wilson, who was unarguably a great man. The comradeship and bravery in the face of extreme suffering of these men is not something to be ashamed of.

Here is Apsley Cherry-Garrard on Scott himself: "I feel sure that he died last...We never realized how strong that man was, mentally and physically, until now."

In reply to walking_disaster: And Cherry-Garrard was no wimp, his teeth split due to the cold on the winter march back from Cape Crozier.

In reply to walking_disaster:

The primary aim of the expedition was to get to the South Pole first, so yes, he failed.

He didn't come back alive either, so again, fail.

In reply to walking_disaster:
... Scott was passionate about scientific discovery and that his expedition was a scientific expedition first and foremost.


I strongly disagree, despite all that is said about Scott. The main aim was to reach the Pole. The science was a major factor but it was not the primary reason. Science has been a cloak for adventure and ambition for centuries, particularly at the Poles. It gives a veneer of worthiness to an otherwise purely personal endeavour. One thing I admire most about Amundsen is that he was willing to be honest and open about this. Messner also wrote about this well in his book of his crossing. Such clear-cut motivations and attitudes affected the way Amundsen did things, which was a factor in his success. His methods were not compromised like Scott's.

Once Scott knew he had competition he did a classic shifting of the goal posts to cover himself in advance for the event of being beaten to the Pole. A truly science-only, or mostly science, expedition would have stayed near the coast where the geology and fauna are, or at least not gone beyond the Transantarctics.

The quoted people in that link you post are hardly objective sources, are they? What do you expect them to say - "Yes, my dear relative was an insecure, ambitious egomaniac hell-bent on fame but without the competence to back it up, and took four men to the grave with him"?

I think the tenor of that piece is well summed up by the absurd quote by the typically shameless Fiennes: "He was a brilliant man in every respect and he was the world's greatest polar explorer."

Absolute rubbish. That's not a fair and objective re-evaluation of Scott, that's an unsustainable hagiography borne out of personal angst and blind, antiquated patriotism.

In reply to lowersharpnose:

http://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2011-12-15-a-century-later-amundsen-clai...

The article above claims that it was Amundsen who was cheated out of polar exploration glory.

The article ends with this statement:

"Victory awaits him who has everything in order – luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck."

In reply to Annoying Twit:

That quote is from Amundsen himself.

Looking into suggestions that Amundsen "cheated" in some way, I presume people are talking about him not telling Scott that he was mounting an attempt on the pole until quite late in the process. Is that correct?

In reply to Damo: I think it's incredibly disingenuous to claim that scientific discovery was not the main aim of Scott's expedition. The expedition was heavily financed by the Royal Geographical Society. Scott was personally passionate about the advancement of knowledge, although not a scientist himself. The southern party carried a significant amount of fossils until the very end.Yes, getting to the South Pole mattered enormously to him, hence why he dies trying to accomplish this feat.

Even if Scott's primary motives were reaching the Pole first, the nature of his expedition's discoveries was very important. My point was that, whatever his motives, Scott fulfilled his duty as the leader of a scientific expedition and gave the world more than a Union Flag planted at the South Pole.

And I agree that Ranulph Fiennes is often over the top in his defence of Scott and sometimes needlessly denigrates the achievements of Amundsen.

As an aside, any accusations that may be levelled at Scott regarding motives cannot be made about Bill Wilson. He was a man of science and I don't think being the first to reach the Pole mattered enormously to him, hence why he was able to carry on so strongly until the end. He was an extremely steadfast man and infinitely patient. His loyalty to Scott speaks volumes, both about Wilson, and about Scott.

In reply to Gaupa: I would argue that, whatever Scott's personal motives (and I believe he was personally passionate about the advancement of scientific knowledge), the primary focus of his expedition was science. In this respect, both Scott and his expedition succeeded.

And yes, he died and thus failed in a successful attempt on the South Pole. But the comradeship, steadfastness, patience and bravery of the southern party in the face of extreme hardship is difficult not to admire. So on the most basic level then, yes, Scott was a failure, but the loyalty and endurance of he and his companions makes it hard, for me at least, to label them failures.

I don't say this just because Scott was British, either. if Amundsen and his men had endured the same suffering and fate with the same uncomplaining courage, then I would admire them just as much. In fact, I admire Amundsen, as an extremely accomplished polar explorer, just as much, albeit in a slightly different way.

In reply to Annoying Twit: What is often frustrating about discussions of Scott is the constant clashing between the pro-Scott and pro-Amundsen camps.

It is perfectly possible to admire both men. One as a great skier and dog-sledder and an extremely efficient polar explorer, as well as a very brave man. The other led an expedition that made profound scientific discoveries and also provided an example of human endurance and grit until the very end.

Rather than trying to demolish the achievements of Amundsen in the name of Scott and vice versa, it is better to celebrate the achievements of both men, as well as analysing their mistakes.

In reply to Annoying Twit:

Not exactly "cheating", but possibly "underhand" by the standards of the day? He had deliberately hid his intentions from Scott, and from the rest of the world, including initially his own crew, giving the false impression that he was headed for the Arctic.

Certainly no one country or individual had any claim to attempt to reach the South Pole over any other, but in climbing terms I would liken it to pinching a new route you know someone else has been working on.

But as Amundsen commented "first come, first served"

In reply to Trangia:

I have read Scott's diary, but haven't yet read Amundsen's account of his expedition. I'm reading some materials online which discuss Amundsen's trip, and have read some details of the "deception". I didn't realise that it went as far as blanking Scott's attempts to collaborate (e.g. Scott trying to send instruments to Amundsen which could be used at the two poles at more or less the same time) and refusing to take phone calls from Scott. Nor that even the crew had no idea what was going on until the journey was well underway. I can see how people would think this underhand. But on the other hand, with there having been several "disputed" claims to have reached the North Pole, Amundsen was in a position of having to go for the South Pole, or give up. Things I'm reading now suggest that if Amundsen hadn't done things the way he did, but announced the change of target earlier, that he would have at least been pressured to give up, if not outright forced to.

In reply to walking_disaster:

If you read my first post on this thread, you'll notice I said I have resepect Scott and what he did. I'm merely responding to the 'we was robbed' attitude of the like of Trangia - if Scott didn't win the race, it was down to his own failings, not because the Norwegians used 'underhand tactics'.

Amundsen should be a household name, but he isn't. Trying to use him as an excuse for Scott's failings is unsporting and rather pathetic in my opinion.

We are going to have to agree to disagree about the motives of the trip; it *was* a race to the South Pole and the Norwegian with the big beak won it.

For what it's worth, I regard Scott as a better 'explorer'

In reply to walking_disaster:

Yes, I agree, hence noting the dual feelings in my post above.

Which is partly why I find Fiennes statement so annoying. His ill-founded bombast may actually do Scott a great disservice.

In reply to walking_disaster:

I think it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

And yes, it was precisely to get the financial backing of the RGS they needed to be seen to be about the science. The RGS does have a genuine scientific heritage and could not have justified funding a purely sporting conquest. They needed to wrap the nationalist conquest in a more respectable robe of worthy science. I never said the science was not important, it was very important. But the main game, overt or not, was reaching the Pole.

Scott had already been part of the way several years before, and Shackleton even further - which of coruse riled Scott greatly, as you can discern from his diary. They knew what was there, beyond the Beardmore. They had no scientific reason for committing so many resources, efforts and lives to attaining the Pole. Their actions speak louder than Scott's crafted words. They did not NEED to reach the Pole, Scott WANTED to, and if you doubt to what degree he did, look how much he committed to it. Everything.

In reply to Gaupa:I didn't intend to dispute the fact that you have respect for Scott, I was merely trying to articulate my own respect for what he achieved.

We'll agree to disagree then. Both were very brave men who went into the unknown and to a place that even by today's standards is very isolated. One was a very efficient polar skier, the other led an expedition made significant advances in scientific knowledge. Both made mistakes. Both set quite an example of courage and showed what the human spirit can achieve.

I would, however, disagree with you when you say Amundsen isn't a household name. I think that today he is seen as paragon of planning and efficiency, while Scott, sadly, is a by-word for failure and incompetence.

In reply to Damo: I don't doubt the degree to which Scott wanted to be the first to the pole, but I also feel that he was genuinely passionate about the accumulation of knowledge.

I guess my point is, that while the strength of Scott's motivation to reach the pole first is in no doubt (indeed, he died for it), this shouldn't be used as an argument that the scientific nature of his expedition was merely a veneer for colonial conquest. I think science mattered enormously to Scott, but he wasn't a scientist himself, and, as such, had other ambitions.

Put simply, I don't think the importance of science to Scott, and the importance of the race to the pole are mutually exclusive.

In reply to Damo:

I agree. But Fiennes's bombast is a direct result of what he feels is character assassination of Scott by Roland Huntford. Huntford resents Scott enormously, especially the esteem in which Scott was previously held, and his criticism of Scott often veers into a personal attack and away from analysing Scott's mistakes and successes to reach an unbiased historical argument.

This doesn't excuse some of what Fiennes says, but it explains why he is so passionate in his defence of Scott.

It is very sad that Huntford was not content with being a revisionist historian and tried to utterly destroy Scott's achievements and reputation and it is sad that it has provoked Fiennes to respond in a similar at times.

In reply to Gaupa:


Are you sure of that? Ever since childhood I have known both names, has there been a change in the way this is presented in schools more recently (my schooldays were over 50 years ago)? Could this be a sign of the creeping nationalism that seems to be raising it's ugly head in Britain?

Scott was always presented as a romantic hero but Amundsen was always accorded the victory. The failure of Scott's chosen methods - mechanical tractors that broke down, horses that proved unadapted to the conditions and his refusal to use dogs that left him reliant on human means to drag sledges. A film I saw back then had a telling image when Scott and his companions reach the pole and look down in dismay at the tracks of dogs all around the marker...

Scott came across as the typically British "plucky amateur" going to a heroic, but unfortunate death, whereas Amundsen was the one who "got it right" due to his better experience with travel in cold conditions, being Norwegian is hardly a crime!

As for anything Fiennes has to say, I don't think he is in a position to make such judgements, the man's clearly just a media created sham... typical of today's Britain, just as Scott was typical of his epoch. He doesn't need support from Fiennes, in fact his memory would probably be better off without it!

In reply to Trangia:
What bearing does that have on the fact that Amunden's party was faster than Scott's, once they both got going?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>The failure of Scott's chosen methods - mechanical tractors that broke down, horses that proved unadapted to the conditions and his refusal to use dogs that left him reliant on human means to drag sledges.

Scott could be considered a forward-thinking pioneer in his use of mechanised tractors.

I think that celebrating Scott as a hero and celebrating Amundsen as a hero are not mutually exclusive, even though sadly this seems to be the case. For me, that is the bottom line.

In reply to tony:

Amundsen left Norway fully prepared for a race against Scott. Scott planned his expedition and set out for Antarctica unaware that he was even in a race.

That's not to say that he would have still failed had he known earlier.

Look I'm not suggesting one way or the other merely repeating what I have read in Fiennes' book, something I made quite clear in my first post. If you or others know better than Fiennes, go ahead, but please eloborate in what way you think he's wrong?

>

I don't think anyone in this age knows 'jack schyte' about organising a polar expedition in the early 20th century, but Ms Solomon knows rather more than most on her subject and I thought brought out some interesting points whereas Fiennes is bit of a euology and Huntford is so often absurdly venemous I found him hard to read ( I had no choice though it was an 11 day blow), perhaps the best overview I've read so far comes from David Crane. For sheer hardness though have you read the recent book (whose title escapes me) about Victor Campbell's party?

In reply to rogerwebb:

'Longest Winter' by Meredith Hooper.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: ' Could this be a sign of the creeping nationalism that seems to be raising it's ugly head in Britain?' I hardly think this is anything new. When I was growing up 50 years ago, there were pictures to cut out of Scott on the back of Scotts Porridge Oats. 'Everyone' clearly understood that Scott had been beaten by an unscrupulous Norwegian who stooped to eating his own dogs - sure mark of a bad 'un!

In reply to Trangia:

And?...

That hardly makes him the Dick Dastardly character you're trying to make him out to be.

How many people these days go off to do unclimbed routes or peaks and say nothing about their specific objective at the time? I don't see the difference between this and the race for the pole. Why on earth should Amundsen have stated his intention?

Assuming it was a one horse race was obviously Scott's first big mistake.

In reply to Gaupa:

And why don't you read my posts?

In reply to Trangia:

Your statement above seems pretty clear to me(?).

In reply to Trangia:
I honestly don't what any of that has to do with anything, Amundsen went planning to get to the Pole and back again. Scott did the same. I don't know why anything that Amundsen did or didn't do has anything to do with what Scott did.

In reply to Gaupa:



"Look I'm not suggesting one way or the other merely repeating what I have read in Fiennes' book, something I made quite clear in my first post. If you or others know better than Fiennes, go ahead, but please eloborate in what way you think he's wrong?"

I see no point in arguing because I am not qualified to make judgement on Antarctic travel. I made it perfectly clear that I had just finished reading Fienne's book at the outset, and was giving a VERY brief resume of it.

I have no axe to grind either way. If you have issues with Fiennes, and it's pretty clear from this thread that you are not alone, fine lets hear why, but don't direct your personal attacks at me please, because all I can do is base my replies on what he wrote. He maybe wrong, I happily acknowledge that.

The only point where I have a personal opinion, and that's my perogative because it revolves around what I consider to be an honourable behaviour, is that (on the basis of the facts provided by Fiennes if they are correct) then I consider Amundsens behaviour in keeping quite about his true intentions to have been underhand. That's a moral issue. We obviously don't agree, so lets leave it at that.

In reply to Trangia:

If I read a book about a race to the south pole and the person who got there first didn't broadcast it to the world, my assessment would be he'd done absolutely nothing wrong and it wouldn't even get a mention in any summary from me. You however think this is worthy of mention, and refer to it as 'devious and underhand'. Yes, you're right we don't agree on this.

I'm with Tony on this, Amudsen's actions played no part in Scott's expedition.

Btw,I have a huge respect for Fiennes, both his achievements and him as a person (I have had personal dealings with him), but thats not to say I agree with everything he says or does.

In reply to Trangia:
And of course the fact that Scott was flying the good old Union Jack, as opposed to being some Jonny Foreigner, is completely coincidental to your position...

In reply to rogerwebb:


Huntford was a marxist "intellectual", who had never been in a harsher environment than behind an academic desk. He therefore hated Britain and everything about the British, so he set out to do a hatchet job against what he saw as a British icon, Scott, being essential to be denigrated by all possible methods, fair or foul. Most of Huntford's methods were pretty foul, intentionally so.

Looking at things objectively from this distance in time, most people can see they were both remarkable (and remarkably driven), men, who both achieved incredible things, but also made significant mistakes. Amundsen certainly had more experience of cold and made less mistakes, but the courage and sheer guts and self-belief of both of them to keep going into a white wilderness for 10, 20, 50 days one end, into the complete unknown, where no-one could possibly rescue them, is almost beyond belief. It (IMHO) far exceeds the very considerable courage of say Bonnatti on the Matterhorn North Face direct solo, though I have a very profound respect for Bonatti's achievements.

People like Amundsen and Scott are not going to be your run-of-the-mill, polished and polite types - they wouldn't have tried what they did if they were. You are bound to find some rough edges, including some quite pronounced ones. No reason whatever not to admire them both despite that, not sure where this idea that Amundsen was some how underhand came from - apart from a very different era to our own, which looked at things very differently.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Any chance you feel like justifying this incredible comment?

In reply to Arcticboy:

I don't think it needs justifying, there have already been loads of threads on the subject. Just look at his "career" closely - starting with a bomb attack that would have seen him in prison today but he treated as a great joke, the aristocratic right to whatever he liked, through his "exploration" of a well frequented Norwegian glacier, his numerous trips when he had to be rescued etc etc. He certainly is skilled in self promotion and has a level of fitness and toughness that is not negligible but so do many others, simply he is a showman making a living out of it and others are not.

Cue for the tread to degenerate into for and against the man, or, as was suggested on a previous thread, boy scouts and the rest

In reply to Bruce Hooker: What are your views on Shackleton?