Was Scott Of The Antarctic So Wrong? 10
rm-r writes: "The commonly held view, amongst scientists and the public, is that British explorer Scott of the Antarctic was hideously under-prepared for the expedition which claimed his and most of his crew's life. However, new evidence presented here suggests that he wasn't all that bad. Suggests that he was perfectly prepared for *normal* conditions but was caught out by an extreme cold spell, a lesson here for all of us whatever our technical/scientific pursuits -- Be prepared ..." That is, "an extreme cold spell" for the Antarctic, not for, say, Brisbane.
Balanced View of Scott (Score:2, Interesting)
The man (and the rest of the team) made mistakes, and got caught in a bad situation. But to either to deride him or glorify him makes it to simple. He was a man, trying to do something that had never been done before. In the end he failed: He was beaten to the South Pole and never made it out of Antartica. But he TRIED. And that's more than a lot of other people did (including those who derided him).
Not all heroes are successes; not every mission that falls short is a failure.
Wondering how (or if) I'll be remembered in a hundred years,
Abnormal conditions (Score:2)
While Scott probably doesn't deserve the villification he has received in recent years, he was also not entirely competent as a polar explorer.
Re:Abnormal conditions (Score:3, Interesting)
My greatest hero is Shackleton. Now there is a story to inspire! He failed, but he got every last man home under the worst conditions imaginable.
Bravery, skill and leadership of the highest order. And then, he came home to the first world war where the leaders threw away lives by the tens of thousand.Bah!
What a stark comparison between one who wouldn't sacrifice a single man and the Generals.
Has everyone forgotten the Pabode expedition? (Score:1)
In light of the discoveries by Dyer and Danforth, of the Pabode expedition of 1931, I have to suspect that the real causes of Scott's failure have likely been covered up or otherwise obscured. We can say Scott was ill-prepared or just unlikely, but deep down, don't we all really know that The Truth was likely something far more horrible?
sheer bloody mindedness (Score:1)
You either have to admire or despair at the man's sheer bloody mindedness and the way the men died, or perhaps both. I think I agree that Amundsen was far better prepared, actually spending time with people who lived in these conditions and learning from them.
I have to say as a character I much prefer Ernest Shackleton and his great achievement [amnh.org] of salvaging a failed mission and bringing back all his men alive.
Bull. (Score:1)
Taking such risks himself was just foolishness. Imposing them on his men was gross negligence. It was treason, too, because he dragged good Navy men down with him.
They didn't die of extreme cold: they died of scurvy. It had been known for a century how to prevent it, but he couldn't be bothered.
He took *ponies* with him to haul sledges; he couldn't be bothered to learn how to handle dogs, or bring along anybody who could. They froze.
He took skis but didn't use them, because they didn't ever bother to try them until after they got there.
He had the first Sno-cats, and left behind the mechanic just for spite, so he couldn't fix them when they broke. He dropped one through the ice because he was bored waiting for it to solidify.
He didn't seal his fuel cans properly, and it mostly leaked away, although it had been known for a century how to do it and why. I could go on and on.