Scott of the Antarctic
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- They are tales bursting with intrigue, bold claims, even bolder lies and life-or-death consequences. True chronicles of men driven, despite the odds, to conquer a part of the world as yet touched by humanity.
A land of pristine silence, unimaginable cold and unknowable danger - at the very ends of the earth. This documentary will tell the story of those brave and ambitious adventurers who sought to be the first men to stand on the Earth's geographical axes. Their names, Peary, Cook, Amundsen, and Scott, will forever be synonymous with the frozen climes they sough to conquer.
The best way to summarise Captain Scott's legacy is that Amundsen won the race (battle) to the South Pole, but Scott won the myth, (war).
Scott and his expedition were great men, RIP. England will always remember you.
Best pole discovery book- Unsung Hero, Tom Crean. His pub in Co Kerry well worth a visit
'They erected a stone monument to mark the grave'. No, they didn't. Stating they did shows a total lack of understanding of how difficult it was even to get to where Scott, Bowers and Wilson died, and a misconception of what the Ross Ice Shelf is. There is a wooden cross dedicated to Scott, Wilson, Bowers, Oates and Evans on Observation Hill. The 'monument' shown in this documentary at 41:31 is a photograph taken of the snow cairn and cross (made of skis) piled over Scott's collapsed tent.
32:28 78 days. Amundsen would had without much trouble go to pole AND back to base in such time. But as Amundsen was not an idiot, he severely restrictred travel of his team and actually feed both men and dogs so much they gained weight. Amundsen knew that any time weather or accident could fall on them. He used 99 days from framheim-polheim-framheim.
Scott had 90% of his route already travelled by Shackleton. Amundsen did go to totally unknown terrain, and had to discover new way to plateau.
Thanks for the upload. A very interesting documentary.
Dear dear me. What a terrible mess. A disastrous expedition. Poor Evans and Oates. Bowers Wilson Scott. They did NOT nearly make it home, Evans died on the barrier and Oates died on the barrier later. They still had about 140 miles to go when at their final camp they froze to death. Maybe one ton depot 11 miles further on may have saved them but in their physical condition I doubt it. In those very cold climes Late out on the barrier, no food, no fuel, poor attire, no getting home., RIP.
And the worst weather ever recorded at that time, do your homework before attacking Scott and read sir Ranulph Fiennes account of Scott, Huntford is and was living in a fantasy world.
The comments that Scott made mistakes may be true, but these comments are made with 21st century insight and the benefit of modern technology. Virtually no-one had done this type of journey before. Scott was a great leader of men. That they died on the journey back was due to the extreme weather conditions. Ironically it was too warm on the outward journey and when the snow drifts melted their bedding and clothing became saturated, which then froze into solid blocks when ‘normal’ temperatures returned. Later on the return journey continual blizzard conditions confined them to their tent and sealed their fate. Please also note that Antarctica is a huge continent, larger than North and Central America combined, these men hauled a sledge across it, half the time crossing pressure ridges and crevasses in temperatures of -60f and lower with high winds. If you want a true picture of what they went through read “The worst journey in the world” by Apsley Cherry Gerrard, a member of the expedition.
@Dragomir Ronilac Amundsen used dogs, Scott was a dog lover and didn't want to use them on the polar journey, that was the major difference. Also the weather the Scott party encountered on their return journey was exceptional. With hindsight it's easy to say that Scott made mistakes, but it wasn't the shambles portrayed by some people.
Putting one ton depot 30 miles too far north was what finally killed the British. Oates even pointed this out to Scott while laying out the supply depots.
39:03 Wilson and Bowers could propably survive. But they stayed with their leader, Scott, who was crippled. Scott, who was very, very eager to complain at first opportunity in his diaries if anyone in expedition has any ailment or accident. Bowers and Wilson should had left Scott behind.
Roland Huntford is an amazing author... check out his books.
Amundsen learned from the Eskimos on his NW passage journey... Scott and his team seemed to trust proper British tools and materials and technology over the savage indigenous snow people
30:01 Also Amundsen changed pole team from 2 four people tents to one tent with 5 men. He had non what so ever problems. They ate like kings and had so much chocolate they fed it to their dogs (dont do that, chocolate aint good for dogs). They left their depots half full of food and fuel when coming back from pole.
Man hauling their supplies doomed them. Amundsen used dog teams and traveled twice as far in a day than Scott ad his men rested well. Their clothing was inadequate and so was their diet. Adding a 5th man w/o extra food doomed them. Scott was not a victim of bad weather but a victim of his own mistakes. The fuel canisters leaked and yet Amundsen soldered his and his cans did not leak. Without fuel Scott did not have the ability to cook or melt snow for drinking water. Scott failed.
34:13 No men or animal was hungry during Amundsens expedition. And WHAT an earth "arrogant efficiency" means?
Amundsens team averaged nothing. It was Amundsen who STOPPED team just after men and dogs were properly warmed up, and called quit for this day. He needed all in team to maintain maximum strenght and resilience in case of accident or severe weather. Also "when navigator said". Which one? 4 out of 5 man polar team were skilled navigators and could ski well. British Empire did not have single such invidual, but Norwegians had THOUSANDS. 3 out of 5 men had lived with inuit for years and could properly handle dogs. Fumbling idiots vs highly trained professionals...
It is worth noting that Roland Huntford is a HIGHLY controversial biographer who is VERY negative of Scott and the primary source of the "Scott the Bungler" anti-myth. Many of his claims are questionable to highly doubtful - and there are other authors with far better backgrounds (Huntford is just a journalist while his primary detractors are Antarctic experts/explorers) who soundly dismiss Huntford's work as only marginally better than character assassination.
For example, his claim at the start that Scott was a "dud" with no future in the Royal Navy is pretty much his OPINION based on mere inferences and guesses without a solid basis in fact. However, since by Huntford's logic Scott was little better than a heroic idiot he concludes that the only way he could have ever gotten ahead in the Navy is with the help of powerful friends and so forth, but that Scott was so incompetent that even with said aid he was failing. But, this conclusion is built upon taking the assertion of "Scott the Bungler" as a given and from there theorizing and reading a lot of conclusions into a little data. Take away that convenient assumption and apply a more balanced reading Scott turns into a competent sailor with at least a reasonably healthy career.
Basically, the core of Huntford's arguments are based on always reading the worse possible conclusion or implication into everything Scott did, but under that sort of bias how could anyone look good?
While not everything Huntford claims is wrong nor are all his theories baseless, one should take his assertions about "Scott the Heroic Bungler" with a LARGE grain of salt!
Ranillon One needn't be an Antarctic expert to see that Scott came second by FIVE weeks, deliberately PLANNED for a far smaller safety margin than Amundsen, and made a number of avoidable mistakes, failure to seal his fuel cans being only one. In fact, with far more money, men, and equipment than Shackleton, Scott couldn't even beat HIS pace, let alone Amundsen's. There's a word for a man like that, and it isn't "competent".
Hunpecked You are making the same mistake of Huntford - only point out Scott's mistakes and then declare that, since he died, he must have ipso facto been incompetent. But, again, if you only point out his failures while ignoring Amundsen's mistakes you create an artificial strawman that does a serious disservice to Scott.
For example, Amundsen took a number of serious risks that only look good because he got away with it. For one, he established his base on what turned out to be ice rather than land - and in about 1 year in 15 the tip of that sheet breaks off into the sea. That's the rough odds of the terrible cold weather that did in Scott - but since Amundsen got lucky while Scott got seriously unlucky suddenly the one is the perfect explorer and the other a bungler.
Likewise, when he first set off for the pole Amundsen left too early in the year (despite being warned not to) and almost caused complete disaster as a result, but was barely able to get back in time. When he left again he did so without knowing if there was a way through the mountains into the highlands. Again, he got lucky that were was a pass pretty much exactly where he needed it - if not he would at a minimum failed to reach the pole and at worse would have spent so much extra time searching for a way that he got his whole team killed!
Marching to the South Pole is a terribly dangerous task and while Amundsen did do a lot of things right, he also got damn lucky - yet here you are with Huntford confusing luck with skill. Likewise, Scott got incredibly unlucky but you again just conveniently assume that is in fact just proof of his incompetence. Sorry, but your argument falls apart on close inspection and is based on a dishonest appraisal of the evidence to fit a predetermined bias where you only accept Amundsen's successes and only Scott's mistakes.
+Ranillon Hi, Ranillon.
"...and then declare that, since he died, he must have ipso facto been incompetent." No, I never mentioned Scott's death. I wrote that he was FIVE WEEKS behind Amundsen, consciously and deliberately planned for a very narrow safety margin, made several avoidable mistakes (some of which he himself admitted: "We ought to have kept the bearings of our outward camps." "In future food must be worked so that we do not run so short if the weather fails us."), and with far more resources than Shackleton couldn't even beat his pace. No misinterpretation here, the facts speak for themselves.
"For one, he established his base on what turned out to be ice rather than land" Yup. And it got him 60 nautical miles closer to the Pole than Scott. Guess what. If Scott had also based at the Bay of Whales, he and (most of) his party might have returned alive. You've also overlooked the very real risks of basing at Cape Evans: Ignoring the greater distance to the Pole, the sea ice connecting to the Ross Ice Shelf disintegrates pretty much EVERY summer (not 1 in 15 or whatever). It cost Scott a motor sledge and some ponies, and could easily have killed him when he returned from his first depot journey.
"... Amundsen left too early in the year..." This particular mistake reflects Amundsen's confidence in his methods, tested in the previous season. Note that Amundsen could survive and even travel in weather WORSE than what stopped and killed Scott's party! It's also instructive to see how Amundsen took advantage of the fiasco: He added even MORE supplies to the overabundance in his depots, he corrected (again) deficiencies the "mistake" revealed in his equipment, and he reduced the size of his polar party, increasing his safety margin even more. If only Scott had made such "mistakes"!
"Again, he got lucky that there was a pass pretty much exactly where he needed it..." Actually there were several suitable glaciers, one of which (Amundsen glacier) would probably have been an easier way up. In that sense he was UNLUCKY to pick the Axel Heiberg glacier (which Scott probably couldn't have climbed at all). Again, Amundsen's methods gave him options Scott didn't have. For taking this minimal risk, Amundsen gained the advantage of less time spent at the high altitude of the polar plateau.
"... he also got damn lucky - yet here you are with Huntford confusing luck with skill." Sorry, friend, you're the one who's confused. Was it "luck" that Amundsen could travel faster, in worse weather, and up steeper glaciers than Scott? That Amundsen put more supplies along his route, marked them better, and PRESERVED them better? That Amundsen beat Scott by FIVE WEEKS and was nearly back at base before Scott even reached the Pole?
"Likewise, Scott got incredibly unlucky..." At the end Scott MAY have been unlucky with the weather, but up until then his "luck" was no worse than Shackleton's. It was Scott's CHOICE to emulate a failure (Shackleton) and not successful explorers like Nansen, Cook, and Peary. Scott brought a horse expert, but had a DOG expert buy his ponies. He brought a few dogs, but tied them to the pace of his ponies. He brought motor sledges, but left their designer home. He brought a ski instructor, but didn't require his men to learn to ski. He brought skis, but ordered half his remaining men to abandon their skis (then took one of them to the Pole). He foolishly took FIVE men to the Pole instead of four, and was actually LUCKY that one of them died, leaving more rations for the survivors. Scott's incompetence was glaringly obvious long before the "freak" cold snap hit. Dying was just the icing on the cake, so to speak.
The race to the South Pole was about as close as history comes to a controlled laboratory experiment, and the results were unambiguous. To attribute the outcome to "luck" is...well, I'll be diplomatic and say it's "unscientific".
+Ranillon You have rightly explains it! With today's knowledge should not see and refer to fault this story. One must therefore see 1911 from the perspective of time. And this continent was virtually unknown. Scott was there with Lashly and Evans who, Antarctica discovered on their trip West as a continent 1903rd Amundsen was an icy man who lied, too soon launched in September and endangered the lives of others. He was also guilty of Johanssen his suicide.
+Ranillon
It's all true. Same for others in this comment section. To be honest I had no idea that so many people criticize Huntford nowadays. It's really the end of an era. Huntford's opinion in the newest books about Antarctic is usually followed with "such and such denied this statement" which usually refers to some of his conspiracy theories. Like the one about Scott suffering from a mental illness brought to him by syphilis. Or that the Scott Institute hides from us that Bowers died later than Scott and so on.
Thanx this is explaining Scott to me better . My name is Scott also .
Sounds like Scott had it off with that guy that liked him and then set sail ?
I read somewhere that Captain Scott's wife was canoodling with another man. This is terrible.
Lol
Rumour has it that it was Nansen
She was canoeing with another man
Good documentary; which should have been narrated by an Englishman, as good as Keith David was John Hurt or Robert Powell would have given quite a British story MORE gravitas IMHO.
Any movies about this ?
There was a British mini-series based on Roland Huntford's book called Last Place on Earth starring Martin Shaw as Robert Scott that aired in 1985. Considered accurate at the time but now Huntford's research has come under scrutiny so take it with a grain of salt.
32.27 NineteenTWELVE, not nineteen eleven.
The first 3 minutes: Speculation, rumour, innuendo, suspicion, belief, claim...not much evidence to back these up though.
The problem with Roland Huntford is that he attempted to become more Norwegian than the Norwegians - and failed quite badly. He may regard himself as an authority on the Scandinavian countries, but to me he just seem out of touch with the Scandinavian mentality and reality. During the research of his Amundsen/Scott book he behaved quite dishonest (described in revealing detail in Ranulph Fiennes book "Race to the Pole") I find him an arrogant and disagreeable man. As a historian he works in a less than honest way, his basic work is flawed. What is worse, today he appears to be out of step with the massive amount of research that has since been carried out on Scott's South Pole expedition.
bit of a prick then
+generalstabssjef Well said my friend
Just like the pair of you.
All irrelevant he smoked those Brits badly...they weren’t in the same league as him getting to the pole.
Scott sailed for many reasons. His clothing was inadequate and his food lacked enough calories and Vitamin C. One man did not have skis and pulling the sledge by hand exhausted his crew. They sweated and their feet froze their boots were hard leather and their socks never dried out. Scott could have quit before the Pole and admitted his failure but he but drove his Expedition onward to their death. Not a Leader at all.
Roald left a BLACK flag in Scotts path to the mathematical point.
They came from different directions.
“In a normal year they would have succeeded”, not my words but Susan Solomon’s (climate scientist who studied the ozone layer in the Antarctic for many years) Scott planned meticulously and but for the unseasonal blizzards would have been successful.
Scott cared about doing science for mankind, not just the race to the Pole. It was different than Amundsen because Amundsen was gone before the beginning of winter, unlike Scott.
The original cold war 😂
Read sir Ranulph Fiennes account of Scott, far better than Huntford.
+rikuk3 Thats Right!! Huntford hat viel spekuliert und gelogen. Er log auch um an Informationen zu kommen!
Not correct though.
Das stimmt! Peter Scott und das Polar Institut führten viele Prozesse und gewannen diese auch gegen Huntford. Er spekulierte und erfand Thesen und er war offen ein Amundsen Fan und sagte offen dass er Wilson und Scott nicht leiden konnte. Das ist somit ein sehr unseriöser Mensch!
sir Ranulph Fiennes account of Scott is accurate, far more than Huntford who made it up as he went along.
Genau! Huntford ist nicht seriös. Er liebt offen Amundsen und mag Scott und Wilson nicht.
SEAMEN HAHAHAH
M
Very tough and disappointing to see the high sacrifice & price to claim one's spot on the face of the earth and then not live to either bask in glory or attempt other undiscovered feats...RIP to the Brits who never gave up despite adversity....
What a sly bugger that Amundsen !
Brilliant Polar Explorer Amundsen !!!!!!. Get Real.
Poor old Con.
what bollox.
Well I made it 3 minutes in before I realized what rubbish I was watching.
Shame on these disgusting People....taking Dogs to their doom.