Amundsen vs. Scott. What killed the British polar expedition?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 апр 2021
- Instagram: cutt.ly/NHBU7PA
Twitter: cutt.ly/WHBIq0X
PayPal: donat@was.media
In 1909, the South Pole remained the last major geographic trophy to be won. Captain Robert Scott, who led the British expedition, was not going to rush: he developed a three-year program that involved extensive scientific research and systematic preparations for the trip to the Pole. He had no idea how much the Norwegians would interfere with his plans.
In this episode of ‘How It Was,’ we'll tell you about one of the most dramatic confrontations in the history of geographical discoveries - the rivalry between the British and Norwegians for the title of the first conquerors of the South Pole. Who coped better with the task: strong and hardy Norwegians, dressed in animal furs, or British scientists, equipped with the latest science supplies? What mistakes can cost lives in Antarctica, and how can a literary gift turn defeat into victory? These are the topics explored in our new video.
The covers and animations were designed using crello.com/.
Materials used:
Photos and video chronicles from the archives of the National Library of Norway,
Nasjonalbiblioteket / RUclips (under Creative Commons license),
Illustrations from The South Pole: an account of the Norwegian Antarctic Expedition in the "Fram", 1910-12
by Amundsen, Roald, 1872-1928,
Photos and Chronicle: Herbert Ponting / Australian National Maritime Museum, Diary of Robert Scott / National Library of Great Britain,
Photos from the archives of the National Library of New Zealand,
Stills from Herbert Ponting's film "90 degrees South", 1933
Musical compositions by Scott Buckley ( / @scottbuckley )
'Nightfall' [Dark Dramatic Hybrid CC-BY] - Scott Buckley
'Signal to Noise' [Cinematic Classical CC-BY] - Scott Buckley
Scott Buckley - 'Light in Dark Places' [Epic Orchestral CC-BY]
'Filaments' [Classical Crossover CC-BY] - Scott Buckley
Other musical compositions:
The Upside Down | Hip-Hop Instrumental 2020 | Audiobinger
Kai Engel - Moonlight Reprise - Official Music
The British empire could never accept the fact that they failed an expedition. Preparation, training, methods that work win the day, especially in that cold environment.
I don’t know, was there ever a more widely acknowledged failure than this expedition? I think Scott gained praise for how he faced it but I don’t the British ever denied that it was a disaster.
One other thing against Scott. He placed fuel in depots covered by leather-which evaporated. Amundsen welded his fuel containers shut-the fuel remained. In fact, decades later Amundsen's fuel containers were found still filled.
Yes, that was huge. The thing is Scott was so inefficient, in so many ways, he could not afford too many mistakes...and he made too many.
I think I read in Amundsen's story, that he ordered to give another layer of tin in the fuel cans, perhaps after detecting that they were leaking fuel, Scott (since he didn't want dogs pulling sleds) could have used big Mongolian reindeer, lots of them, pulling sleds loaded with concentrated reindeer feed (in my opinion soybeans, dried egg flour, and some lichen for flavour) and plenty too of seal meat and fuel. And something very important: anti-scurvy lemons (having brought some lemon trees on the boat), and although it is unpleasant, along the way to kill some reindeer to have food on the way back.
@@TheMariepi3 Agree. I must comment though, that lemons aren't actually that high in vitamin C contents compared to many more common and less tropic/exotic fruits.
Many vegetables have heaps more vitamin C: Bell peppers/paprika, berries (like blueberries etc.), rose-hips, parsley, spinach and more
Lemons for vitamin C is basically played as a joke.
So it could never have been because the norwegian was better suit for the climate
@@Saphkey The most effective was then to carry a pot with a resistant and edible plant such as watercress, etc. Something that happened is that the British all fell ill with scurvy, although they had taken a curious precaution, which was not effective: eating a large quantity of liver before leaving for the pole. It is true that the first britanic who fell ill with scurvy (I don't remember the name) had refused to eat seal liver as he found it disgusting.
At least where I live (Staten Island, NY) Amundsen was appreciated. There is an Amundsen park and monument. Plus there is also a large park called Nansen's Lodge. It seems we had an active "Sons of Norway" organization around here back in the 1920's when these things were established. Americans of Norwegian ancestry wanted to make sure everyone knew who not only got there first, but managed to get back alive.
I believe there is a place in Alaska named after Helge Ingstad as well. And there is a lot of Americans with Norwegian ancestry, There's more "norwegians" in the US, than Norway
Did a whole project about Nansen for school. Does not disappoint and got me an A
No wonder the Norwegians had the upper hand: Norwegians are grown up with ice and snow and cold weather; it's second nature for them to tackle such conditions, from childhood. And most, if not all of the men Amundsen brought along with him, were seasoned explorers from the Arctic, a very comparable climate - if not worse, apart from the altitude of the Antarctic continent. But the Norwegian mountains is a splendid place for altitude training; Amundsen tried three times to cross the Hardangervidda (a Norwegian high plateau), from east to west, in winter time and adverse conditions, and never succeeded; but he learned a lot. In addition to this, Amundsen and some of his men had also learned from the Inuits how to survive in a polar climate, how to dress, and handle dogs, in addition to their aforementioned childhood experiences with ice, snow and cold - and skis; almost all Norwegians, at least at that time, were skiing from the day they could barely walk; it was a part of their upbringing, and still is, to some extent.
So, if Scott and his men were brave, and no doubt about it, they were; they, however, lacked the know how, the competence. And maybe Scott's alleged arrogance didn't exactly help either. I don't know.
It's all in all a sad story, really.
A pinnacle of incompetence.
And, maybe, of arrogance.
So sad.
Scott did bring a trainer/coach for cross-country skiing. However, that man was from Norway and Scott never had him train the men.
Nice comment
Scott did not allot his crew mandatory ski-training. Which is a really stupid thing to do when such a skill is as he knows; vital for such an important life-threatening operation.
Scott had also neglected a different famous Norwegian explorer's advise about dogs, clothing and other equipment, advice from the explorer Fridtjof Nansen.
Scott had much of the same advice and knowledge as Amundsen's team had.
But many of Scott's leadership-decisions chose to neglect a lot of it.
Scott's party was also equipped with motorized sledges. But Scott, in another of his many dumb leadership decisions: left the engineer who had created and trialled the motor sledges! Instead taking a different useless guy simply because the engineer was "lower in rank".
That's just pure stupidity.
I recommend reading this wikipedia comparison between the two expeditions. It highlights a lot more:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Amundsen_and_Scott_expeditions#Methods_of_transport
Amundsen knew that after a month of not eating fruit or vegetables scurvy begins, but through Dr. Cook (a friend of his) he knew that eating raw meat prevents getting scurvy and it is even possible to cure it. I believe that to avoid scurvy the Norwegians ate several raw dogs along the way (incredible as it may seem) and then said that they had killed them all at once. One of Scott's mistakes was using horses: I would have told Scott: use two-humped Mongolian camels, which go two or three months without eating, and don't need to drink water since they eat snow or ice, and you can ride them and not walking. In case it was considered eccentric to use two-humped camels for an expedition to the South Pole, the alternative was to use large Mongolian reindeer on which humans can also ride as if they were horses.Mongolian camels with two humps withstand -40º C without problems and do not have problems with sweat, unlike horses, their feet are also adapted to walking on snow. Logically they could put on anti-ice and anti-cold boots and vests
Both camels and reindeer should pull high calorie concentrated herbivore food, I would have suggested to Scott that they pull sleds with a mixture of soybeans, dried egg flour and some flavoring, if reindeer some lichen and if camels some wheat or similar (and take some dogs to eat them raw, as a source of antiscorbutic vitamin C)
Scott did have access to good information. Both Nansen, and Amundsen himself, had previously tried to advice Scott e.g. about how useful it was to use sled dogs, but Scott chose to only halfheartedly follow their advice.
Although animal rights activists would probably regard Amundsen as being two steps behind Nero, his books are very personable and fun to read. His insight regarding the dogs, humorous anecdotes and his well thought out plans can't help but you admire and respect the man.
Scott had no problem killing his ponies for food. How can you say that Amundsen is worse than Scott? Because you prefer dogs over ponies? That's irrational.
Even then, Scott's team over-exhausted the dogs by travelling way longer than was originally planed the first days with the dogs. Scott's party killed their dogs after the dogs were malnutritioned and over-exhausted. A painful and needless death, compared to Amundsen's party's humane butchering of his dogs for the purpose of vital nourishment and survival of his crew.
Animals rights activists would probably prefer another British expedition, that also failed where Amundsen later succeeded, except they allegedly had to eat each other. Talking about Franklin's fail of course.
It is much easier to accomplish certain goals the less you care about certain "others".
So a guy called franklin tried it and they ate people? Changing video👍
I read that Amundsen and his team encountered a ship from Japan on the shore of Antarctica. The Norwegians were shocked and dismayed at how cruel and uncaring the Japanese were to the local wildlife. Amundsen was not cruel to animals. He killed some for food but still treated them all kindly. Animals eat each other so if we eat them there is no wrong done unless we are cruel and uncaring about it.
But Scott was a real "animal rights activist". He refused to use dogs because not only was it more "honorable" to man haul but being unkind to animals was un-Christian in his eyes. I agree with Scott but considering his peaceful inclinations Scott should not have tried conquering the pole!
Scott was not humble enough; that problem, kills and destroys many people.
Yes, in the final analysis what killed Scott was hubris.
@@nomdeguerre7265 Yup. Same with Franklin. They didn't really respect the artic environment like Amundsen did and he succeeded where they both failed. It's a classic tale of hubris.
@@Khenfu_Cake Typical British upper-class attitudes. But Nature doesn’t care if you’re ‘special’. In fact Nature doesn’t care at all. Fridtjof Nansen might have said it best: “there is no such thing as ‘meaning’ in nature”.
Entirely unscientific but I saw a picture of him and he has that self-absorbed look.
A classic example of pride before a fall.
Despite his extensive polar experiences Scott learned nothing. Amundsen spent years accumulating experience and know-how. That made all the difference.
Scott neglected a lot of the knowledge and advise he had obtained.
He made many terribly stupid leadership-decisions along the way too.
Like relying much on motorized sledges, yet dumping the engineer of said sledges because that engineer was "lower in rank", and replaced him with a useless guy of higher rank instead.
Not surprisingly, the sledges broke down early on and they had nobody to operate them.
@@Saphkey Scott was an expert of Antarctic, unlike Amundsen.
@@marguskiis7711 Amundsen was a 1st Mate on the Belgica Expedition led by Adrien de Gerlache in 1897-1899. The De Gerlache Strait was named after him. While there Amundsen led a team exploring the ice sheets where the Belgica was trapped. Frederic Cook was also on that expedition.
Following on.
Knew the fuel evaporated and didn't fix it the second time round. The only thing he did right was taking Henry Bowers but should have dropped another and not taken 5. Henry mapped the pole, he was immensely strong and could probably have saved them if he wasn't forced to walk for hundreds of miles without his ski's. At the end he could have made it to one ton depot and back. Read about Henry Bowers
As strong as he was, it’s unlikely. Scott does panic when dividing his final two parties 3/5 with an aim to have as much pulling muscle on the last trek to the pole. However, owing to Oates and Evans hiding injuries, rapidly deteriorating and dying, Bowers ends up in a team of 3; helping to pull a sled & tent designed for 4 men and rations divided up for 5 men.
I remember reading the calorific breakdown somewhere; by the final camp, the last 3 are near-skeletons. The blizzard stops Bowers and Wilson walking to One Ton unsupported. He was mighty but even he had his limits.
Scott could have left those aforementioned rocks along the route for others to pick up later. He was in a race for his life on the return!
No sure 14 kilos meant life and death, but certainly didn't help.
The 5th man was the real killer. Wonder if even Tom Crean would have made it back
@@stuartburns8657 When you're in a life or death situation, malnourished, desperately tired, and short on fuel and food: 14 kilos will surely make some difference.
@@Saphkey I'd argue having 20% extra food (4 men instead of 5) and dropping the rocks might have helped ;)
it was practically Scott reaching the south pole and starting scurvy on all the British
Scott made probably suicide after he killed his peers.
It's almost as if Norwegians know how to handle the cold and the snow. Weird, considering how warm and tropical Norway is....
These photos and videos are incredible!
Scott felt he could make it to the Pole through sheer determination and British pluck and the ponies. This was a grave error
because team couldn't move quickly which led to a rapid onset of wind chill and cold. This was also case with the man sledge hauling. Scott had a plan but it was flawed because of all its logistics and research and Amundsen's was slick because he kept a trimmed team and one that was fully focused on the South Pole. In way of a slight defenceAmundsen
I have previously commented that Scott, since he did not want to use dogs, should have used not ponies but large reindeer used by a certain Mongolian people, the Tsaatan, who move mounted on these reindeer as if they were horses. ruclips.net/video/O-0WFFoaLBo/видео.html (fed with something that the reindeer can digest but very nutritious, not hay, for example soybeans, dehydrated egg flour and lichens) or also use Mongolian camels with two humps, also adapted to intense cold and snow, and that can endure without eating for a long time, and feed them the same diet as the reindeer. And the British not dressed as Eskimos (unlike Amundsen) but as the Tsaatan Mongols, in the winter clothing of the Tsaatan or other Siberian reindeer herders)
@@pettersaethre One problem is providing food for the reindeer, you can't go with a shipment of alfalfa bales, too much volume. Considering that they are herbivores but eat eggs that they find in the tundra: my option is to feed them a mixture of soybeans, plus dried egg flour plus some lichen. The British could ride them as if they were horses (even doing small championships to see who arrives first to a certain place, to break the monotony) and also take a lactating female reindeer, to obtain milk for breakfast ruclips.net/video/O-0WFFoaLBo/видео.html
Not to mention that Scott left the engineer and creator of the motorized sledges behind.
Choosing instead to take a different useless person because the engineer was "lower in rank".
The sledges broke down early into the expedition LOL
The British were too complacent. Emphasis on scientific research or the Pole should have been determined beforehand. They underestimated Amundsen and trusted to luck and brute force. Amundsen made mistakes too. In his zeal to get to the Pole first he set out too early and in low temperatures. He was lucky to get back to base before making another attempt later. Ultimately, Scott was following Shackleton's route with the same methods of transport. The plan was flawed.
@@TheMariepi3 Dogs are a good meal when teaking to the poles ,North west passage ,the guy they found under ice they used his testicals to bring him back to life,SO WHAT HAPPENED AT THE MAGNETIC NORTHPOLE
Very short and good summarization! Kudos for the video!
There are several very good books on this subject, including the loss of the Franklin expedition. Like Scott, Franklin was a bad choice.
Lack of Vitamin C leads to scurvy not lack of Vitamin B.......
Yes, the rocks should have been left behind, but it was only 30 kg, not really that big a deal. It was the 5th member that doomed the company. Plus not knowing how to ski, or manage dog teams, and a plethora of other errors, it was doomed from the get go.
actually they used ponies and they didnt ressist to that climate..instead amundsen used huskys and was succesfull
That 30KG wasn't a significant extra burden is ludicrous.
@@cameroncameron2826 You're right about that. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I think I meant that 30kg would've made the return journey slightly easier but it would not have changed the ultimate outcome.
Having said that they were only 11 miles (approx.) from One Ton Depot. They could have made it but half the team was already dead and the final three were disease ridden with scurvy. Things were so dire their death could be considered merciful at that point.
They were too weak to continue and spent the last few days immobilized in their tent. They should have taken dog teams like Amundsen did. No shame in that. But as I originally stated there were a plethora of other errors and missteps. Poor souls.
@@davidgo8874 Hello David - yes most would agree with your overview as do i ( and poor souls yes ).. With respect to the deaths whether solo or otherwise, it always strikes me how desperately & profoundly bleak and lonely it all was for them.Well as are deaths on K2 / Everest & so on are. Although at least one source explains that Scott would hand out a Med to help with passing over peacefully.
As you remark - far too much wrong with the way their expeditions were performed. At its core simply not knowing how to drive dogs was the problem upon which all other problems amplified.
@@davidgo8874 The amount of food Scott allotted wasn't enough for 4 men much less 5 and he had the depots with food and fuel spaced too far apart with too little of everything. Scott's prior naval experience has some odd details including his sponsorship of a very questionable sponsor.
I always wanted to visit Antarctica but changed tack, spending 3 months in Greenland. Now at 60 I feel I've left my run too late to visit Antarctica. Greeting from Australia.
That's fantastic you spent three months in Greenland. Is there a specific reason you can't still go to Antarctica, like health or finances? Otherwise, it's never too late. If you can, I hope you get to visit.
About ten years ago I saw some documentaries on Discovery or similar in which groups of "adventure tourists" visited Antarctica on Russian passenger ships, ships with the ability to withstand collision with sea ice. They came down to earth in great zodiacs. I imagine that it is a somewhat expensive tourism.
I’m 72 and will be going to Antarctica in a couple weeks on an Altas cruise. Planning on kayaking, walking around on the continent and doing the “penguin plunge”. Only cost $3K USD for 9 days.
Good health! Stay strong!
@@gondwanalon So cheap, great value 🙄.
Booked on cruise for 7/1 if i get a visa for Chile, its on a large ship so you don't get off. Excited😅.
Question. If taking five men meant less food and equipment for the expedition how would four men be able to pull all of that gear to the pole without exhausting themselves? Scurvy was also a problem and it would have weakened a crew of four. Scott's poor planning and decision making doomed his men to failure. Their clothing was inadequate and their boots never dried out after weeks of brutal man hauling of sledges. Their fuel cans leaked and they froze b/c of a lack of heat for their tent.
One thing this video did not mention is that Scott had a platform that unfolded in the tent and was just large enough for 4 men, not 5. Each night one person, or two, would be partly hanging out with just the tent bottom between them and the snow below the tent material.
I know this is a long shot, but what IF it was Scott who actually got there first? Lets say by some completly unrealistic events that prevented Amundsen from reaching the pole, it was Scott who won. Don´t you think that their high spirits would make them "invincible"? Look at the photo taken on the pole: They are completly beaten by their defeat! If they were first, I think they would be all smiles and would face the elements on their way back with much, much greater motivation!
@@perhentzepetersen9310 " ... some completly unrealistic events that prevented Amundsen ..." Actually, Amundsen was lucky that the part of the big glacier where he ascended was climbable. Scott went up the tested side. There is a way Scott 1st???
@@kevinbergin9971 I did not know that! So that makes Scott´s trip even more heroic. And I think they would have made it back home had he been the first on the southpole. When defeated men can make such a superhuman effort like they did, what could victorious men not do?
@@perhentzepetersen9310 Even with high spirit, there are limitations as to how long humans can drag heavy loads through a tough winter while not eating enough. In addition to this, the Scott expedition missed some of their food and fuel depots, as they were poorly marked. They also carried drastically less food than the Amundsen expedition, and they put much of it in the 1 tonne depot they didn't reach, whereas the Norwegians spread their depots and marked them well.
Amundsen achieved while Scott whined. Absent Amundsen’s stunning objectivity and his ingenious preparation, Scott knew that the only way to fame was to create a myth. Such is the way of all who- rather than being inspired by heroes- are eaten by envy. The mindset of Scott and those who propagated this myth was the real cause of the fall of British greatness. Amundsen may well have been the first to BOTH poles and yet the growing darkness of irrationalism did- and still does- all it could to steal this hero Amundsen from future generations.
Amundsen was also flawed. He once hid in his bathroom while Scott visited his home to seek his advice. He actually sent his wife to the door to make up excuses. It’s cowardly to not look a peer in the eye and say ‘I’m going south too’. What makes it all the more petulant is that he did sent a telegram. Amundsen effectively burst Scott’s tires the morning of the big race. It’s why no one really cares about him.
That bloke, Peary, never made it to the pole. Amundsen went through the North West Passage, and he may have also have been the first to the North Pole (I have forgotten the reports). Amunsen lived in ice and snow. It is sad how he lost his life, and for what. His good judgement had failed him.
I feel Amundsen’s achievements will always be undercut by the legacies he and Scott left behind.
Amundsen never enjoyed the fame that should have come following his capture of the Pole. For good reason, he lied to the world and Scott about his expedition plans, tricking Scott into a race.
He immediacy lost respect over this. Even Norwegians disowned him for this decision, before and after the race was run. It clashed with ideals of sportsmanship at the time. I think it’s why Amundsen has never enjoyed the adoration Scott did; many saw Scott as brave in defeat but Amundsen as cowardly in victory.
Amundsen was the greatest ice explorer to ever live, undoubtedly, and I think he’d still have beaten Scott had the British known ahead of time of the race. It baffles me that Amundsen, brave as he was, felt the need to hide his plans for so long. Wiring a telegram to Scott on the eve of Terra Nova leaving Australia gave the British no time to rearrange (with no funding remaining) and just looked incredibly juvenile.
Ultimately, it remains Scott of the Antarctic which vexed Amundsen. Scott got the adoration and Amundsen got the medal. I think the two would have happily switched places.
Scott: I represent the British Empire; Antarctica and South Pole shout submit to us.
Amundsen: I have the uttermost respect to the hashens of Antarctica. I will do everything in my power to reach my goal (the South Pole) and ensure the safety of my men.
🤣🤣
@@Amaglabiddiaghloughbuite it's a comical but pretty accurate summation of their mindsets when preparing for their respective expeditions.
What a comical joke, Amundsen left for the pole way too early, out of his hunger for glory, nearly killing his men. Caught in a blizzard, he left some of his men for dead. When Hjalmar Johansen heroically saved Prestrud from death and carried him to camp, Amundsen demoted Johansen, humiliated him, ordered him to return back to Norway on a separate ship and even erased him from the histories of the expedition. This very likely drove Hjalmar Johansen to taking his own life a year after the expedition. Amundsen was cruel and spiteful, for him it was death or glory, he did not do everything in his power to ensure the safety of his men, he maintained a "every man for themselves" attitude and drove an expedition member into possibly taking his own life. And the reason for Amundsen's cruelty? Because Hjalmar Johansen had the audacity to declare "You don't leave men behind".
@@Edax_Royeaux Amundsens got first to the South Pole and all of his men survived. Amundsen and Johansen did not get well together, that is no secret. That Johansen later had depressions, drinking problems and committed suicide is tragic. But none of Amundsen's men died on Antarctica - which cannot be said about Scott. Some will say bad luck, some will say incompetence. I tent much more to incompetence; While Amundsen spend years in Greenland learning from the natives, Scott spend his time in London convincing sponsors that he and not Shackleton should lead the next expedition (and it is no secret that he had a competition going on with Shackleton and did not like him). We should remember the outcome of the expeditions: Amundsen as success and Scott as the failure.
@@todortodorov940 If Amundsen wanted to ensure the safety of his men, then he did the exact wrong thing abandoning Prestrud in a blizzard and erasing Johansen from history. Amundsen attitude was that it was every man for himself, the reason this didn't produce causalities was because he brought professionals that could actually look after themselves.
He was a glory-hog, erasing people contributions in his book, he abandoned his men during an expedition to the North Pole because there wasn't enough glory in it. When Amundsen went to the North Pole again, he ended up feuding with Nobile, in part because Amundsen couldn't stand to not be totally in charge, and would lash out in his book. Amundsen is a success in that he managed to reach his destinations, but as a explorer and leader of men, he was a failure. And let's not forget, Amundsen and his entire team in the Nobile rescue all froze to death like Scott.
Scott, for all his many failings, used his last days alive to look to the welfare of the families of the lost expedition members, writing letter after letter. This is something I suspect Amundsen would never have done.
Not just picking nits but you said that Scott, Wilson and Bowers got to within 40 Kilometres of the next food cache. They actually were 11 miles from One Ton Depot. Forty Kilometres = 25 miles. Although it made no difference I think it pays to do proper research.
Amundsen said he was going to the north pole then decided to go to the south pole. Then he left a letter at the pole for Scott to deliver to the King of Norway. In the end Amundsen got the skiing certificate, Scott's team got the legend. Recommended reading "The worst journey in the world" by Apsley Cherry-Garrard.
Scott would always have been second to the pole, but he might have survived if the weather that year hadn't been unexpectedly cruel. Scott had a man taking weather measurements in the years before the expedition and his records were far warmer for that time of the year than Scott had experienced. It was bad luck that killed Scott's team as much as bad practices.
I agree that Scott's team had bad luck with the weather, but good practises could've compensated for that bad luck. Amundsen basically used both belt and braces, making his team much better equipped to survive the same bad luck that killed Scott's team.
Part of it was Scott's own fault, but when you look at how many things went wrong that were *outside* scott and his men's control, it's almost as if God Himself willed for Antarctica to be Scott's grave.
It's like every possible thing that could have gone wrong, did.
He also designed the ENTIRE polar trek believing he was unopposed. He didn’t factor in the Norwegians, who had the benefit of knowing they were in a race.
The blizzard Scottt described actually never happened.
Literally recorded by Bowers metrological entries. Only a revisionist gombeen follows the Huntford version of events@@marguskiis7711
Muy conciso, pero muy buen trabajo, enhorabuena desde España
Get your facts right the Scott party were only 11 miles away from the one tonne depot not 40 kilometers
With frozen feet it might as well have been a thousand. They were dying well before they reached that last camp.
I've read that quote of Sir Raymond Priestly's before: “For scientific discovery give me Scott; for speed and efficiency of travel give me Amundsen; but when disaster strikes and all hope is gone, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton.”
Actually, I'd take Amundsen over Shackleton regardless. Amundsen's ability to plan well ahead would ensure that disaster _wouldn't_ strike and all hope be gone. As he said, "adventure is just bad planning."
These are philosophies- each leader had a distinct goal as he saw fit based on talents of foreplanning/expeditionary skill and culture & style. Wondering what Amundsen would have done had he been on the exact journey from the Endurance...... Also I dont think this automated narrator spot mentioned that Scott's group may have made it first (can we see the Ego of the age) had he not been there primarily as a scientific journey with time taken en route to disembarck, take samples, and wait for weather etc... and Scott said this: "...no one can say that it will have only been a pole-hunt. We want the scientific work to make the bagging of the pole merely an item in the results..." ... the bluff of the race making it only secondary in importance to the work for scientific understanding. Wickipedia "Terra Nova Expedition"
Ah but he also left things to chance. Had there been no safe landing at Bay of Whales, he had no base of operations. He had no idea if there’d be one.
He also abandoned his men in a blizzard during the depot laying period.
Amundsen had that ruthless focus on success but there was a lot of self-preservation in there that makes him unheroic and just a bit unlikable.
Sir Priestly is another idiot. Edward Wilson was the lead scientist. SCOTT WAS NOT A SCIENTIST, HE WAS ROYAL NAVY, HE WAS SUPPOSED TO GET TO THE POLE BUT HE SUCKED AT IT. Hubris all the way.
That quote is woefully inaccurate because it reflects back when Shackleton and Scott were overly romanticized by the British people, and by extension much of the world. However in the decades since, the clear TRUE explorer is Amundsen. Scott and Shackleton were full of pride and ego that only got them nowhere. Shackleton's Endurance fiasco was very much his own fault and it was a lot of luck as well as the skill of his captain that got them all out alive moreso than Shackleton's part. While I am critical of the two, I do admire the spirit of exploration both Scott and Shackleton held, but they're both also BIG examples of the flaws of the hubris of the British Empire.
Shackleton was lucky in his failures. He took risks and survived to die at 47.
England for all their pomposity never won anything on the world scale. Scott, and Mallory, two great men lacking the skill for leadership, Franklin was a tired old man as unfit for the job as those who sent him. I talk from the records.
They were not 40 km from the next depot, but 20. White mans burden? The reason why the wore the said clothing is because of body heat, which would rise dramatically when marching. Fur would have made them sweat even more, losing body fluids. However, when they halted the clothing was not adequate. Scot made many mistakes, and he and his men paid the ultimate price.
Wear the fur loosely to let sweat cool and body-heat regulate itself. Skin-tight clothing is less than optimal regardless of weather. Doesn't matter if it's hot or cold, make room for air between clothing and skin. Amundsen's team did that with their clothing.
@@Saphkey And Amundsen's team suffered whenever they weren't moving, because of their wolf-skin and reindeer-skin clothing, they struggled with trying to sleep.
pride goes before a fall
Amundsen killed dogs to feed other dogs, but Scott killed ponies to feed his dogs and humans.
Amundsen and Scott both chased fame in their own ways for their own reasons. And when you consider that Amundsen disappeared in June 1928 while flying on a rescue mission for the airship Italia in the Arctic. You need to consider that he was far from merely being a fame-hungry uncaring person, as some make him out to be.
There are several reasons behind Scott's failure, bad luck and bad weather being some but perhaps the real issue comes not from this trip but from an earlier one called Worst Journey in the World, undertaken for the shake of collecting penguin eggs, a trip that well live up to its name and took a massive toll on some that took part on in the trip to the pole without any real chance of recovery. So they started weaken on a journey that even at best would have taken a massive toll.
There wasn`t any blizzard when Scott died actually-
Scott was risking his crew members lives by not preparing for any eventuality. He and Amundsen had been to Antarctica previously but only one of them learned from the experience.
@@marcime174 Amundsen had been close to Antarctica once before but nevet been on soil of it. Scott was the well known expert of Antarctica.
@@marguskiis7711 Amundsen was 1st mate on the Bélgica expedition under de Gerlache. On July 7, 1898, Amundsen, Lecointe & Cook (of Artic fame) left the ship for the first sledge expedition in Antártica. Their sledge exploration lasted 6 days. So, Amundsen did set foot on Antarctica. Scott's first experience included Shackleton who I would argue is a far more admirable English explorer than Scott. Scott was highly honored in memoriam & because his scientists did make important discoveries. Amundsen was largely ignored precisely because he wasn't an Englishman, imo.
@@marcime174 ok, I did not know about the 5 days trip but it was still a minimal experience. And was almost nothing against Scott's years.
The camp the final three in Scott's party could not reach was not 40km away, more like 17km
Thank you. Subsribed. Bloke from Aus.
Listen to Ran Fiennes breakdown of Scotts expedition it's quite different and he is highly qualified to remark on this topic.
Fiennes is tough as nail man. But he is still showman. When he claims that manhauling is better than sled dogs, he coveniently forgets that he had airplane coming to rescue of his duo if any problem arises. Amundsen had to keep weeks of rations plus fattened men and dogs as resource in case of accident or extreme weather.
Being 600 miles from any other human being makes you more humble than Fiennes is. BTW. Amundsen braked his expedition all the way, must have felt frustrating as he cut daily travel at 20 nautical miles, just when his men and dogs had properly warmed up and could had started munching miles. Especially on return journey, part of which was downhill, and route was known. Amundsen made sure he had prime condition men and dogs on hand if something happens, all the way to Framheim. This is stark contrast to Scott, who spent almost all resources of his men to reach pole. Scotts mwn were human carcassess when they reached pole. We dont have good pictures of Amundsens men there (crevasse accident), if we would had, we would see men at their prime. From start to pole Scotts last trio spent 150 days out. Amundsens 5 men spent 99 days. They could had done it in 75 or so days, but that journey was not freaking Olympics track running.
@@kimmoj2570yes but Amundsen planned for a race and didn’t bother to let Scott know. Scott actually visited Amundsen a few years previously in Norway and Amundsen pretended not to be home so as not to lie.
And Fiennes’ book is far more impartial than anything Huntford inspired. It doesn’t glorify Scott but it corrects the inaccuracies that have grown about him.
Fiennes is an idiot and a Scott apologist.
Scott was a truly incompetent leader of the expedition. Using ponies to pull a sledge was an absurd idea and trying to to bring back an amount stones on the sledges, when fighting for their life, was hopeless!
Manchurian ponies are from Siberia and bred for labour. It was a rational decision.
The ponies were killed for food, they did not die of the cold. There are quite a few errors in quoting Scott's diary too.
Some did died from exposure or at least were weakened ahead of schedule. I think. They were also been used for food once dead but I think a few did die primarily from their environment.
How did the explorer know where the exact south pole was?
There was no equipment or instruments like GPRS in those days.
@RICH!How would there be a map of the exact south pole when there were no previous visitors there?
@@thoskel1 They could tell by such things as measuring shadows. How did the Greeks come very close to measuring the exact circumference of the earth thousands of years ago? The fact that boiith expeditions started out to get to the pole and ended up in the exact same spot is proof enough of their methods.
It is unsafe to try to judge events from over one hundred years ago in a place of which nothing was known at the time. Scott was unprepared for a race, when he set off from England he did not know that Amundsen was also planning an expedition to the same place. It was a different era: no maps, no modern materials, no modern weather forecasts, no radio comms, high altitude extent unknown, etc.
The equipment that Amundsen took with him to calculate the exact position of the pole was called a *Sextant.* It operates by measuring the angle between the Horizon, a stationary object, and an astronomical object, such as the *sun* (during the daytime) or the stars (during the nighttime.)
He also took a *Theolodite,* an older device used for land surveying, but this device is fragile and was unfortunately damaged during the journey.
Several readings were taken from various positions as they neared 90S, to "Box in" the pole, before they made their final determinations to get as close to the South Pole as possible. This device was (for it's time period) highly accurate, trusted by the Geographic Society, and combined with *good record-keeping,* solid evidence.
For accurate use of the Sextant (Antarctica has extreme, sometimes Blurry weather) he took a *Tray of Mercury* as a reference for a flat, stationary surface. However, the weather at the south pole proved to be relatively clear for about 3 of the several days he spent there.
*A camera* was taken to document and photograph both his usage of the Sextant and the work they did while at the South Pole.
In addition to this evidence, Amundsen left *his supply drops,* several markers showing where he had "boxed" in the South Pole, and erected *a Tent* which he called *PolHeim* at the position he could closest determine was the south pole. a Norwegian flag flew atop it. Inside the tent he left supplies should Scott's party arrive at the pole, and a letter.
Photographic evidence was taken by Scott's party when they reached the tent later.
A bit of trust is required for the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration; Amundsen's reputation was relatively good, compared to the more fraudulent Peary and Cook's North Pole expeditions. Although initially distrusted by the *Royal Geographic Society* (including a slight the president made by calling Roald's group a "party of dogs" in reference to their usage and consumption of sled dogs to reach the pole) most people accepted that he had indeed reached the South Pole.
*Ernest Shackleton,* another veteran explorer who had previously marched to the *88S* latitude before bad weather and supply shortages forced him to retreat North for rescue, backed and applauded Amundsen upon his return to civilization, calling him _"Perhaps the greatest Polar explorer of today."_
*Kathleen Scott,* the wife of Robert Falcon Scott, also expressed admiration for Amundsen's triumph, although she admitted she was "irritated" that her husband did not conquer it first. (this was before she received news of *the tragedy* of Scott's Polar expedition.)
Today, Scientists are still attempting to find Amundsen's tent, which should be well-preserved in the ice sheet. Modern Geographers have determined that, with modern technology, Amundsen was *about 250 to 2500 yards off* from the precise location of the South Pole, but was "extremely close, close enough to still count as it's champion." The tent is likely covered with about 50-60 feet of solid ice, and has shifted some over the past 100 years.
Ernest Shackleton's ship, *_Endurance,_* was very recently rediscovered at the bottom of the Weddell Sea in 2022. It is brilliantly preserved, due to the freezing cold temperatures of the Weddell Sea; you can still even read the nameplate on the ship. it will probably not be very long before the Tent is also discovered.
A lot of misguided information here.
Scott's team died due to the rare harsh conditions at that time. The fittest two men at that time Wilson and Bowers could of walked the 11 miles, especially as Bowers was the navigator of the team.
He was 11 miles from One Ton, they walked more than that daily. Averaging about 15 miles daily, only 5 behind Amundson and his dogs.
He didn't use animal skins because perspiration dosn't leave the skin. Instead it freezes to the human skin when you rest. He did use reindeer skin as sleeping bags.
Scott did use dogs on both voyages, Discovery and Terra Nova. He favoured man hauling over dogs mainly due to a few of his men nearly falling and dying down a crevasse while being led by dogs.
They obviously did suffer with scurvy as meat and vegetables were known to cure it. Which is mildly true for meat, such as the boiled pony they were eating.
Scott was a torpedo officer and was soundly beaten by Amundson. An experienced artic navigator who had a team of professional skiers
The two reasons Scott died was Taff Evans hiding a cut on his hand that slowed the haul back. Followed by Oates lying about his bad foot that got worse. Again slowing daily progress to 6 miles per day.
Most of todays critism comes from Huntford's biography, where he clearly lied and was sued by Peter Scott.
If Scott was such a bad leader why did a Wilson and Edgar Evans follow him on both voyages? Why did Armitage only start commenting on Shackleton and Scott's alleged feuds after Shackleton's death? Even when Shackleton betrayed his word of not using Mcmurdo sound for his expedition, Scott still congratulated him via telegraph when he arrived in New Zealand on Nimrod.
Two very different expeditions. One was lead by naval and scientific ideas while reaching the pole. One was strictly to get to the pole first.
I think Scott's methods probably worked for some things, just not for the needs of the expedition he tried here.
He must have been _somewhat_ skilled; unlike many previous expeditions, he actually managed to reach antarctica, make it into the Antarctic interior, and scale the mountain range.
His incompetence lie not in his determination to succeed, but in his planning, delegation, and unwillingness to adopt strategies that might bruise his ego (even if they would make his journey immensely easier.)
@@hobomike6935 His planning was fine but when an expedition like this takes more than 18 months to plan, a last minute change can derail a lot. Such was it with Scott. Amundsen telegrammed him days before Scott left civilization to inform him that the two were in direct competition.
Amundsen, brilliant as he was, had the benefit of knowing he would be in a race. He planned as such. He left his competitor in the dark for as long as possible; Scott planned in anticipation of sledging unopposed for nearly two years before that telegram reached him in Australia. There's very little he could have changed when the truth was revealed. The money was spent, the logistics all carefully balanced.
All's fair in exploration, so whether that's a masterstroke or Machiavellian by Amundsen is your choice.
Scott was an adaptive learner however, and sounded out several top authorities ahead of Terra Nova on a number of issues. Of these experts he contacted, there was one he telephoned while he was testing materials in Norway in the hopes of meeting in person. That person declined to speak to Scott, instructed his housekeeper to tell Scott that he was travelling and thus denied Scott the opportunity to meet him. That person was Roald Amundsen. His resolve to succeed was ferocious but this incident is significant to me; I think on some level his secrecy grated with his own morals and humanity.
How can Captain Lawrence `Titus`Oats not get a mention? He gave his life to try and give his friends a chance of survival.
He also fucked up. He allowed his injuries to worsen secretly before alerting the doctor. By the time his injuries were discovered, it was too late.
Evidence suggests he could have returned with the support party if her after sooner. In that case someone else could have gone to the Pole in his place. Had a fully healthy man gone on with Scott, perhaps they’d have pulled through.
Oates became weaker gradually until he was no longer even pulling the sledge. He needed assistance in eating and toileting for days before his death. His sacrifice was valiant but also far too late and ultimately avoidable.
@@johnkelly3549 have some respect. He didn't have a crystal ball to see the terrible weather they would have to face and he didn't know how bad his feet would be ...... if only he could have known the future like you do.
@@3vimages471 well it’s the past to me, that’s why I can see it. And the point is he did; he had worsening injuries that he hid from his Captain and then he embarked on a 800km trek in freezing, horrible conditions. He knew they were a liability.
@@johnkelly3549 wow I didn't realise you had such profound insight and intimate knowledge of Scott's expedition ...... if only they had had you with them. You obviously knew the remarkable storms that would endure too.
Amazing how you can delegate such a brave man as Titus.
@@3vimages471 yeah fuck me for actually reading books on a subject. Where’s my statue?
Oates exists now as a symbol for stiff-upper-lip Britain, his self-sacrifice was held aloft as a shining example to young men in the World War that was to come shortly after Terra Nova.
The man himself was different and conflicting. He could be hard working, polite, dependable and committed to his causes. He could also be socially aloof, a pessimist, arrogant and entitled.
He sought adventure and risk. He’d paid the modern equivalent of £47,000 pounds of his own money to join the expedition, as he was listless in civil or military life. When the time came, he was less executive in making that ultimate sacrifice on the plateau.
By the time he walked from the tent his hands were so frostbitten that it’s impossible he could have opened the tent-door drawstring by himself. He needed assistance in his great suicide. It took bravery to do it but he was also promoted by a lot of pain. That’s the brass facts of his suicide.
Also, he fucked a 13 year old when he was 21 and she had his baby in secret.
R.I.P.
Capt. Robert F. Scott
Edward A. Wilson
Henry R. Bowers "Birdie"
Capt. Lawrence E. G. Oates "Titus"
PO Edgar Evans
Men were built of sterner stuff back then, british or norwegian
No comparison with norwegians there
_“For scientific discovery give me Scott; for speed and efficiency of travel give me Amundsen; but when disaster strikes and all hope is gone, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton.”_
-Sir Raymond Priestly, Antarctic Explorer and Geologist.
I spent 3 months in Greenland before going to Antarctica on a cruise. When cold I simply went inside.
So you saw absolutely fuck all. Great story.
@@johnkelly3549 Never left the cabin, watched it on screen. Waste of money.
@@freeagent8225 Sounds like it
U forgot to mentions in modern rerun to antartic at greenland, the difference between norwegian and english. Norwegians didnt kill their dogs, but got suplemented by meat from other animals. Some norwegian crew gain as much as 10 kilos during this test at Greenland. Commentary by norwegians, we eat alot... Chocolade used by this antartic trip is still sold in norwegian shops today. I think its called"kokesjokolade" or boil chocolade
Great series but come on, it was just a reality TV show. It was filmed in an entirely different hemisphere, not even the same landmass. The teams were cast more or less so they aren’t particularly accurate as recreations without like-for-like individuals. It was a lot of fun to see but it isn’t scientifically sound.
The value of the scientific knowledge gained by the Terra Nova Expedition by all 34 members of the shore party, and which was the main reason for the expedition in the first place, far outweighs the value of a flag stuck in the snow -- British or Norwegian.
Scott's own reaction upon reaching Amundson's camp puts the lie to this. The science was an excuse. The race was the reason.
@@charlesfaure1189 Hello Charles, quite agree with you sir. Since the mid 60s I have been interested in this expedition but have learnt more since the internet. Very unfortunate the exstream adverse weather conditions hampered Scott's team. Had the weather conditions been average that season do you think Captain Scott and his team would of been first to arrive and return safely too. Kind regards Glynn n greetings from Stourbridge West Midlands UK 🤝
Scott apologist. By the way, fool, Scott HAD NOTHING to do with the science (just keep perpetuating this lie to make you feel better). The science was headed by Edward Wilson. If this was done today, Scott would be tried in court for negligence and gross incompetence. He killed 4 men. Poor Oates, he knew.
@@charlesfaure1189 Regardless of Scott's personal feelings on the matter, the fact remains that the expedition did produce a significant amount of scientific data.
@@b.e.nbairesenglishnatives7020 Regardless of Scott's personal feelings on the matter, the fact remains that the expedition did produce a significant amount of scientific data.
The next depot was merely 16Km from their last resting place, (not 40! ) also you failed to mention the storm which stopped them and that in reality the food for the five men was simply shared out properly from the other sledge when Scott deceived to take 5 men at the decision when. They died due to bad luck with the weather conditions .
you're talking like one of them hadn't died a month earlier already. Poor preparation meant more time out there and more chances of bad conditions
@@alexandrefernandes3941that doesn’t fit. two of Scott’s men in the final polar party intentionally hid injuries. It wasn’t until the final 5 we’re unsupported and it was too late that they disclosed their problems.
They died from exhaustion
Apparently the author decided to ignore Climatologist Solomon's review study of Scott's data by Expedition meteorologist Simpson. His calculations were spot on except for an unpredictable turn of extreme cold and no warming wind. Temps dropped to an unsurvivable -40C on the return leg. Scott suffered from fatal frostbite. Unable to walk, he collapsed. His companions refused to abandon their Captain & perished alongside him after 10 days.
No one is denying Solomons studies, but sadly a lot of Brits still have a urge to fake the history with it. "Those poor noble Englishmen, they died ONLY because of bad luck, and the cruel Amundsen who crushed their harts". The conditions were survivable, both Amundsen and other parts of the Scott expedition had met worse, but now their bodies was ruined by the failed tactic/ planning by Scott. First of all nutrition- transportation.
At the very end, this video refers to an excellent source for those who want to learn more about the fate of both of these expeditions. The name is`nt told, but it is the BBC production "Blizzard: Race to the pole". It enlightens many different aspects of the expeditions, and the fate of Scotts men is proven clearly.
She was just too much of a Scott Fangirl to be taken seriously.
I don’t buy the ‘refused to leave him’ line. Why not send Bowers & Wilson, or even just Bowers, alone to get to One Ton and return with enough supplies to have a chance to get everyone there? No, from where I sit it’s more likely Scott quit and failed to see any reason for anyone to survive if he wasn’t going to make it. Scott quit and Scott didn’t exercise leadership to even try to get anyone that last 11 miles that might, possibly, have saved some or all of them. To paraphrase a member of his expedition with Scott everything was all about Scott. Oddly, with its myopic insistence that failing to plan for ‘bad weather’ in the Antarctic late in the season is somehow excusable if it was contrary to a weather forecast makes the Climatologist author seem a bit like Scott.
@@annadalassena5460 You’re perfectly competent to critique whether or not it matters though. 😉
@@nomdeguerre7265 I don't think anybody was in any shape to make another eleven miles, much less get back. And Scott's diary was self-serving, to say the least.
If Scott got to the pole first everything would have been TICKETY BOO lets face it scotg made some bad decisions and didn't do the research the norwegians did brave men they were RIP
Presumption precedes perdition. my condolences
So so many wrong things here. Where did you do your research for this video??
It was a mistake when they didn't go all the way with one ton depot but instead placed it short of where it was gonna go originally.
That might have been the fatal mistake.
Maybe they reach the forbidern city found overthere by Chile explorers and it was secret of.our north friends
The narrator mispronounced the norwegian names Roald and Haakon. 👎
Why is it that brits never bother to learn?
At Year 2 Green I Learned About Robert Falcon Scott
I just read a book called Sternstunden der Menschheit and brought me here:)
Hope you learned how not to run an expedition to the South Pole. That's what Scott demonstrated.
3:18 65 people
Dec 14 1911
Apparently stupidity killed the British expedition and stupidity is still killing British expansion..
Amundsen tried to fly a plane to North Pole and got himself killed about 10 years later. And that’s pretty much the last time anyone really cared about Norway that I can tell.
The real reason Scott died is because he relied on the wrong officer at base camp. Scott required that the officer establish a stock pile that he would rely on for his return path about 110km out from base camp. This stockpile was never established. To understand why you have to put yourself in the shoes of the officer at base camp: A large science team had set out the prior summer, never returned, and assumed dead. Another key officer was injured. As such this officer who was at best a 5th pick, never was seriosuly meant to be a leader or in charge, but was ultimately the only 'officer' they had to run base camp. After Scott left, the ship never returned with supplies as was expected. As the sea was ice free - it was assumed the ship had sunk. So the officer thought he was in a survival situation - and simply never made the re-supply because he wanted the extra food at base camp and was scared.
Not only did he never re-supply Scott. They never left the base camp at all, never even attempted to go and see how close they were. He then spent the entire winter trying to convince the others not to go looking for Scott. By the next Summer it was only Aspley Cherry-Garrard who went by himself to look for remains. In the end Aspley (who was only 24 at the time, short cited, and not a navigator) went out by himself to find Scott and travelled by making line-of-sight cairns. The officer let him go because he knew he could never make it the 110km and so would never find Scott.
Also Scotts expedition was not meticulously planned. It was put together on a shoe string budget. The ship was a pile of garbage (it nearly sank on the way to Antarctica). Most of the people he brought with him (including Aspley) were only there because they paid. Scott fell out with Shackleton and his only goal was a rush job Expedition to beat anything organized by Shackleton.
> there were 2 paying members of the expedition. Cherry-Gerrard and Laurence Oates. Everyone else was recruited.
> The Terra Nova didn’t nearly sink. It listed on the way to the Antarctic as it had excess luggage. Leaks, which were par for the course with such vessels, were fixed with the pump system.
> you’ve absolutely mangled Scott’s order for a relief party to meet him on his return from the pole.
Between Evans and Atchinson (the 3rd and 2nd in command) respectively, Scott’s orders were confused; instead of a relief party venturing past One Ton depot to meet him, the party stayed at One Ton depot. One Ton Depot was stocked with food and there was additional provisions at Hut Point brought by the relief party. However, as per Atchinson’s orders, the party didn’t sled onwards.
Cherry-Gerrard arrives there mid-March and waits at the depo. Scott dies 11 miles away in a tent days later. This didn’t occur ‘next summer’.
There was also no arguing over whether to go find Scott over the winter months; the reason Scott instructed the relief party to meet him was because the Antarctic winter closes in in late March/early April. Past this setting of the sun until August, travel along the plateau is effectively impossible. It’s total darkness and temperatures of sometimes -100’ Celsius.
Once it went dark, that was that. There was no anticipation from anyone of skiing through those conditions to find Scott’s tent.
Scott was an arrogant man who was leader on a previous attempt to the pole. They only just about survived. He did not learn anything by the mistakes made. He did not favour dogs, only because he didn't learn how to handle them properly on the first expedition, which he should have rectified for the second. Didn't send the experienced cavalry officer Oates to choose the ponies. So ended up with a bunch of old crocks (as Oates put it) who were not up for the journey. To be continued.
Bizarrely, Oates grating diary comments about the ponies and Scott change tone once the polar journey is undertaken. He starts to applaud the ponies and write favourably about Scott.
The ponies performed relatively well because they weren’t as crocked as Oates described. Oates was just a wealthy and opinionated dickhead at times. He was also army and sat outside the hierarchy of naval command.
And tell me how Scott learned nothing from the Discovery expedition? Because his approach to Terra Nova included an entirely new system for reaching the pole, nutrition-enriched non-perishable good and expansive scientific research. He hardly just repeated the Discovery expedition again.
6m only 11 dogs returned
Dogs are a good soures of food for long treak ,not sure why scott would think less so,North west passage ,the guy they found under ice they used his testicals to bring him back to life,SO WHAT HAPPENED AT THE MAGNETIC NORTHPOLE
Scott should have left the photographer home and brought a few cases of oranges....
🇳🇴
Natives been there long before. Just different countries joining in.
There are no natives or indigenous people at the South Pole.
British national pride in a nutshell: I would rather die with 5 men eating food for 4 next to a broken mechanical sled, than eating dog meat and survive.
...Than learning something outside your cage
I still don’t understand the point or the gain of this self-inflicted pain, starving, cruelty and horror some people do to themselves and others. Why do men need to outdo other men in being so macho.
100 % MEN
DHL Delivery
Why the strangely staccato delivery from the narrator? It grates and detracts from the content.
Please learn how to pronounce correctly the name of one of the two main protagonists
and a more balanced presentation would have been helpful if you are pretending to present this video as research-based truth,
5:10 BULL! We have yet to construct a material that matches arctic clothing by inuit and sami, nenet, etc. Fur on animals that lives in arctic conditions have a very unique property where it is both strong and holds lots of air, perfect for insulation. So while you might see people wear some modern red parka on a base in the Antarctic, if they go for serious trips they normally wear fur clothing.
Yes but you can’t regulate your temperature in that kind of insulation. Layered clothing can be stripped off to prevent overheating in men who are doing the hauling. If you’re stationary then the furs keep in the warmth.
Nowhere in this is there mention of a blizzard on 20 March 1912 which kept Scott and his team in their tent in which they perished around 29 March 1912. The fact that March of 1912 was a freak cold snap which can be attested by the meteorological recordings taken at the time, another thing you do not mention. You are also in error saying they were 40kms from the next depot, in fact they were 11 miles (18kms) from One Ton Depot. Your video should be corrected to state the facts and not make a tragic event in which 5 lives were lost as a blame game.
It is people such as you that spread lies and do not report the facts as they should be and because of this perpetuate the myth that Scott was incompetent, etc. Perhaps if you were better at researching than spreading propaganda rubbish and showed a balanced view more people might appreciate your content. Amundsen was the greatest polar explorer of this there is little doubt. i could go on but I think I have made my message quite clear.
Yes, the weather was bad, but they were already on their last leg by that point and had lost two men by the time the blizzard struck. They might have survived with good luck, but that doesn't make Scott's planning any more competent. A lot of things went wrong for Scott, but most of it could have been avoided with better food, clothes, and using dogs instead of man-hauling.
@@vanyadolly all true! But you must admit, an 11 mile march to 'One Ton Depot' in good weather, was doable!
Every mistake can be ticked, but the deciding, over-riding factor for Scott and his men's deaths... Was the weather!
@@jmartin1885 The overriding factor was Scott's unpreparedness for it. A previous excursion to gather penguin eggs nearly killed the party, due to--guess what?--unpredictably bad weather. The Northern Party expedition also nearly became a fatal fiasco. The possibility of bad weather in the Arctic, particularly without modern weather science? Who'da thunkit? There are no excuses for Scott at all. He singlehandedly killed his team.
But Scott never allowed for the fact that a blizzard was always possible - Amundsen did.
Scott was TOTALLY INCOMPETENT. He should have been tried and convicted of negligence and murder.
🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶😖😖🤒🤒🤕🤕🤒🤒🤕🤕
yezz!!!!111!1
Amundsen just wanted to be first. Scott wanted to discover the scientific secrets of the Antarctic as well as get to the pole.
I suppose that explains his wailing at discovering Amundsen had got there first? The race to the pole was the real reason from the beginning. The science was marketing, at best a fall-back to save face if the pole excursion failed. And either way, Scott killed his team and very nearly lost two other parties through his own bad judgment. Stupid for fame or stupid for science, the common trait is the stupidity.
@@charlesfaure1189 He very clearly didn't wail, I don't think you can find a more stoic response to that kind of defeat. He even acknowledges the risks undertaken on the expedition in his diary and letter to the public. Regarding fame, you're probably right in the sense that success provided recognition for any who attempted to reach the pole; who would travel all that way anonymously? Scott was a naval officer with a career but obviously felt the pull to undertake the journey as the representative of his realm. The science, meanwhile, reflected Britain's pursuit of progress into modernity; it was highly valued information that wasn't obtainable anywhere else and never had been. It did satisfy the RGS's requirements for funding but that also upheld Britain's thirst for societal progress. Scott, by all accounts, was an active agent in facilitating the various means of research conducted by his scientists. This was the space race before we left earth and for academics, leading the inaugural studies in Antarctica was planting the flag.
hubris of being "superior" over the "natives" led to the extinction of the vikings in greenland centuries earlier. and in this case, led to the death of the british exploration. of the south pole.
Still would have starved even if he wore a fur coat
We don't know what led to the Vikings' demise on Greenland.
Heck, just the hubris of thinking they were superior to the Norwegians, let alone the natives. They were mighty Britain and the other guys were from little old Norway.
@@sleepingchannelsandbridges I would guess the fact that Greenland was, and still is, a wasteland.
But knowing the vikings any number of things could have happened.
Ah yes, the Antarctic natives you hear so much about.
Satan 🎩👈🏻
Arrogance and lack of research.
What a load of BS. Scott had planned everything to the point, but weather anomaly in return played the faithful role.
Scott was a scientist, who collected enormous wealth of knowledge in the process and Amudsen just an adventurer who made a dash for glory.
Utterly rubbish content.
Scott decided to add the 5th member to the final pole crew. Except they planned ratios (inadequate anyway) to support just four people. Amundsen himself advised Scott ... Scott would listen.
@@kitko33 the did separate food for a fifth person so not a big mistake but it did take more time to cook. My understanding bowers was needed as he could navigate using the theodolite....
scott was above eating dogs and died cuz of it
Amundsen knew that eating raw meat prevents and also cures scurvy. A hypothesis about his famous killing of dogs followed by eating them, may not be exactly like that, but from time to time, to avoid scurvy, the Norwegians killed a dog and ate it "raw". It is believed that all the British expeditionaries, when they began the return trip from the pole, are sick with scurvy and therefore extremely weakened
@@TheMariepi3 my wife likes my raw meat also
🇬🇧
North pole : failed
South pole: failed
Everest: failed
Western pass: failed
1st human in space: failed
First satellite in space : failed
R101 zeppelin flight: failed
Titanic maiden voyage: failed
Finding titanic: failed
First jet aeroplane: failed
Hope they send the 1st failed attempt to colonise mars. Because wherever britain fails, other nation will succeed rapidly.
Well, they invented (for the most part) radar.
@@RRaquello it was developed by multiple people from various nation working on same concepts.
what is the point you're trying to say here? Britain sucks? You hate Great Britain and want to see it fail repeatedly?
well there's not really any need, it's basically been destroyed as a nation, partially by it's own doing and it's former colonies and territorial holdings.
why keep beating a dead horse when you could move on and focus on something more positive?
Eh they had the largest empire of all time and pioneered a shit ton of modern technology.
Oh and pacified Hitler’s German spread.
And sorry, the Titanic?! Who triumphed there? The iceberg people?!