I just want to acknowledge the absolute DRIVE that men like Scott and Amundssen, and their men, had to have in order to attempt these treks, utilizing only those tools available to them. In temperatures that froze paraffin.....wearing clothing of only natural materials that could not adequately protect them...starving and suffering from unbelievable cold. It is imcredibly inspiring, this type of strength.
I don't view this as inspiring, but courageous. If you believe in fate, you'd have to think those men were destined to attempt that feat because the average person would never have agreed to do something like that, no matter how great of an impact success would have on the world then and forever.
@@pickititllneverheal9016 The guy was a stupid arrogant focused only on his own career. He didn't care about people. He feared to refuse the task, although he feared Antarctica. He had completely no experience. He wasn't willing to learn from others. All these led to a desaster. He must be remembered as a negative example of how not to do things. Unfortunately, other innocent people died horrible during this tragic expedition. Typical English silly behavior.
I'm feeling huge admiration for the animals who helped these early explorers, their own amazing abilities and loyalty to their humans. I'm feeling terribly sad for those that died in their journeys. None of them asked to go, but I can feel their exuberant or tough spirits through the narration. Humans would be so much the poorer if we didn't have our companions/helpers of different species!
I would greatly encourage people commenting here to read Scott's diary from this expedition, Cherry-Garrard's account The Worst Journey in the World and Amundsen's book on his expedition, South. There is just so much more to learn and understand about these men, the time they lived in, their approaches, and their thinking. You cannot possibly capture it all in a 50 minute video. They all did the very best they could, and we should all judge them as fine examples of humanity who pushed the human experience that much further.
Although the whole film is glorifying Scott, as expected for British national myth, his qualities are: English speaker - Larger Public Reach (L P R), skilled writer ( LPR) good fund riser (L P R) , tragic death (LPR ) , but preparing the journey to South Pole he was wrong in every aspect : departure in a hurry because of Amundsen, not enough food for 5 man, insufficient preparation ( food magazines and their marking) wrong food supply quality, wrong transport, wrong team selection, wrong trajectory . Arrived 2 years in advance with the team of 65 , ponies, mechanical sludges, he lost the race to to Amundsen who arrived 1 season before the pole attack, with a team of 9 and dogs. Amundsen intermediary camps were marked few kilometers in 4 directions to be found in any weather, his food selected to provide calories and vitamins, nobody was ill . Compared to Amundsen, expedition of Scott was a suicide mission from very beginning.
This is largely incorrect, and presumably influenced by the mid-century revision of Scott. Scott planned methodically and accurately for 3 years in the lead up to Terra Nova. You’ve neglected to mention his successful naval career among his qualities, but be assured that attention to detail and provision of resources are central tenets of a Navy captain skill set. It’s why he got the Discovery expedition initially and commanded war ships as a day job. The Terra Nova rations included specially developed foodstuffs that provided higher amounts of necessary proteins. Physician Edward Wilson oversaw this in advance of the expedition. Their clothing was designed to remove in layers. This allowed temperature control as the men themselves were hauling. What this should tell you is that Terra Nova was a scientific expedition as well as an explorative one. Many of those 65 crew pioneered polar research that informed 20th century science. Even the proto-tractors developed directly into WW1 tanks. Scott was a different explorer to Amundsen in that he shouldered the expectations of the globe’s largest empire. One that was dedicated to expansion in knowledge and technology, not just terrain. Amundsen, while a brilliant explorer, had a far more finite purpose; to claim the pole. However, his own character flaws meant he would never be regained as Scott was. Amundsen’s last minute telegram to Scott is very significant. Scott spent years preparing an unchallenged march on the Pole and had no idea he was in a race until the day he left NZ. Amundsen takes an additional competitive edge from this but deserves a huge dollop of criticism; a year previous, Scott visited Amundsen’s home in Norway to benefit from Amundsen’s input. On that occasion Roald Amundsen hid in his bathroom and told his wife to lie to Scott, that he’d been called away. Scott then did seek input from Amundsen, if not Nansen. Amundsen however shied away and ignored the opportunity to tell Scott they would be rivals in the near future. Or at least in person. As brilliant an explorer as he was, Amundsen seemed afraid of competition. Scott meanwhile faced death with his head up.
@@AbiRuShirzan11that miniseries was inspired by the largely debunked Scott biography by Roland Huntford, a fantasist with a dislike of Imperial Britain. His many, many inaccuracies are tackles by an actual polar explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, in his biography of Scott.
Discovery, lets do some manhauling. Almost died. Nimrod, lets do some more manhauling. Almost died. Terra Nova, Lets do even more manhauling - turned out third time was the charm.
This documentary is kind of slanted to vilify Amundssen. Amundssen was just smarter than the Brits and instead of holding the standard racist views of the day, he had respect for the Inuit, recognizing them as the experts in cold weather survival with much to teach him. That's why he spent two years in the Arctic living with and learning from them, something most Europeans would have scoffed at in that time period.
I think it's something to take note of too, that he had more experience with harsh winters and cold being a Norwegian than a Brit. He already had a mind set of thrive rather than just survive
No. It seems slightly biased against Scott when I compare it to fact-based Fanulph Fiennes's book. For instance N and S poles are very different because the South has a land mass and huge mountains and glaciers. Scott couldn't take dogs up the Beardmore glacier due to horrendous crevasses. Amundsen luckily found as easier route up the Axel Heiberg glacier which wasn't badly crevassed. Amundsen had much better weather. Amundsen had a lot of luck as well as dog skills
I remember watching the BBC production Race To The Pole with my dad as a kid and being fascinated by both Scott and Amundsen. The idea of such bravery against the harshest conditions on Earth continue to intrigue me.
Poor little dogs. Atleast shackelton learned from his/their mistskes somewhat... im glad that he ( supposedly) put down the ponies when they were obviously suffering. Those poir animals, dogs included. I just cannot imagine that ponies would be suited to -20°c and colder conditions? And to beat them to continue them moving is terribly sad...
What an amazing film. Well done. They were all amazing men and explorers. As an Aussie, I couldn’t help but notice in one of the photographs inside the ship, there was a bottle of fortified wine made by YALUMBA. I was born in South Australia and YALUMBA wines, made in the Barossa Valley, have been around for over 100 years. I am hopeful that future, modern expeditions will entail much less loss of life and more scientific discovery. 🇦🇺❤️
Come on, to say it is unfair to second guess is a cop-out for Scott. The Preparation and Understanding of what they faced, and how to leave as little as possible to chance is the difference between all returning alive, (Amundsen), and none surviving, (Scott). Scott did not learn the lessons of previous expeditions, where Amundsen did.
Well, I can say Scott, Amundsen, and Shackleton *WERE* 3 of the greatest Antarctic explorers of all time. At least last year, we found Endurance... but, back then, the Brits thought Captain Scott was more important than Shackleton. But, both of them made good and bad in their lives, especially with their Antarctic expeditions. And Amundsen had made it all the way around the Northwest Passage, just like Franklin had tried to, but failed.
Scott was refused promotion to admiral-he was about to be forced to retire. He though reaching the pole would make him a celebrity. He refused to study what others had learned..tried using ponies m(they died) and motor sledges (they broke down). Instead us using Inuit0style clothing, he nused his own design canavas outerwear-the men's perspiration froze and made putting them on difficult. Arrogance and unwillingness to accept sound advice was his downfall.
Well, yes. Amundsen was the more ready one. Since that man traversed the entire Northwest Passage, I could see how he could have no problem with the South Pole, besides the weather.
Excellent I really enjoy learning about historic events that I have never heard about before. I know the story of Shackleton, but I don't remember hearing about Scott. Thanks once again for an excellent documentary.
I live in Indiana. The winter of 2022 we had 2 days where it got -40 degrees with the windchill. It's was about -20, and the winds almost 60 mph. So with the winds it was dropping to -40. It was absolutely brutal. Some antifreeze freezes at that temp .
Agree. It was a true super human effort. And don’t know if covered later in the video, but the weather charts apparently show that in something like 14 out of every 15 years, the temps at the time would be much less severe, and there was a decent chance they would have made it. But they caught the one bad year in 15 or so when worse he cold was even worse, and earlier.
Windchill is a man-made estimation of how cold it “feels”. The actual temperature is the coldest anything can get. Wind can’t make an object get colder. Regardless of the “wind chill”, antifreeze that is suitable for -35 or -40 will not freeze at -20, regardless of how much wind there is.
I can sort of imagine what that felt like. I'm from the Gulf Coast of Texas. I think it was 2022 when we basically lost power to the whole Texas grid. It was 18°F. No power and inside my house it was 45° and had I not went and got a generator to run a heater, it would have dropped even lower. But we aren't used to temps like that. But anyways I went to Toronto Canada for business. When I left Bush Intercontinental Airport it was 70-80°F. When we landed in Toronto it was NEGATIVE 8 with wind-chill feel of -16. I was not prepared for how that felt on my bare skin. It was almost immediately pins and needles and my ears started burning. All I did was walk out of the warm airport and into a shuttle bus. Can't imagine what it felt like where you were. It makes me wonder how much insulation is used to make homes up there. Must have felt like what these explorers dealt with. Anyway thanks for the comment it reminded me of the time I went to Siemens in Peterborough Canada for work via Toronto airport. I actually threw up from heavy drinking the night before and the throw up froze the second it landed on the street. I never drink but went out with co workers.
Scott was arrogant and would not lsten to sound (i.e. Nansen's advice). Had he used dogs he would have gotten safely home....instead of freezing to death. By contrast, Amundsen had panned superbly-he had anticipated every possible failre, and had a safety factor figured in to everything-they had more food than the needed for the return. In the end, better planning and learning from the Inuit was the secret of Amundsen's success.
@@LadyWhinesalot He did not -used man hauled sledges. He was only able to travle about 1/3 the distance per day that Amundsen did. Not only that, Scott brought the wrong kind of food-most of his men suffered from scurvey (a disease whose cause and cure was well known by the 19th Century). He was a bad leader and a terrible planner.
@@fionahurley8444No. Scurvy was compleately understood in the way that they new how to avoid it. Scott knew that to, but he was reluctant to do wat was needed. That was to eat fresh meat, that they had in abundance from seal living there. The inuits did not get scurvy either. Amundsen knew that and had dayly rashions. Scotts crew had to go against his orders when they developed scuvy symptomes. He thought it was a kind of «unbrithish» to eat seal.
@@fionahurley8444 Wrong again..Royal Navy Surgeon Dr. James Lind proved that scurvey was a deficiency disease-he cured it by administering orange, lemon or lime juice. This was in 1753about 160 years befor Scott.
These guys are legends clearly. Just the fact that we are still talking about them today. So many might comment negatively yet will pass through this world leaving nothing but a tomb stone in a congested grave yard.
This is an extremely well done video conveying both the heroism and tragedy of Scott's expedition. I have been recently reading his journal. The account of how they suffered near the end is very touching and this fine documentary is in the same spirit.
Extreme cold, not enough food, poor clothing and scurvy are undoubtedly huge reasons as to the demise of Scott's party. However I believe if Scott had been first to reach the pole three and possibly four of the party would have survived. Just my opinion. Brave men all.
32:17 Norwegians were on same weather, and were out in same weeks. They did not whine about weather but worked hard. Norwegians planted depots at 80, 81 and 82 degrees. 83 was too much as winter was coming. Norwegians had 3 tons of supplies in depots after 1st summer. Scott could not even push his only 1st summer depot to 80 degrees...
It is a pity that the English still can recognise the ability of Amundsen.Read the last Viking .Roland H.got it ! RA was the master explorer of his time and the English vilified him because he was not one of them!
The documentary acknowledges, and I do as a brit that Amundsen was a great explorer. I don't recall any where it vilifies him? The only essence of that is in the comments? It clearly states that the English thought the Norwegians as charming men. Experienced also as they were in comparison to us
@@robkitchen2851 Amundsen is still in some circles accused of being too professional. Like eating, let rest of dogs eat weakest dogs. Everybody should understand that Amundsens party had massive reserves of stamina when they left pole. They were at their prime condition, athletes and explorers. Guys had gained even weight during voyage. Scotts men were half spent when leaving pole.
In the end Amundsen never needed the strenght his team had. But make no mistake, he would had arrived to base through equal weather what Scott faced, reporting stiff breeze.
A Scottish surgeon in the Royal Navy, James Lind, is generally credited with proving that scurvy can be successfully treated with citrus fruit in 1753.[9] Nevertheless, it was not until 1795 that health reformers such as Gilbert Blane persuaded the Royal Navy to routinely give lemon juice to its sailors.[8][9] (From Wikipedia) Wasn't Scott a British Navy Captain?
In the movie Scott of the Antarctic, they show Captain Scott writing and narrating his final journal entry. A morbid scene. The writers added a line that Scott never penciled. "These rough notes and our dead bodies must tell the tale." I always loved that line. Maybe he did write it earlier in the journal, but it's not on the final page. Ĺoved that movie.
A remarkable rare breed men, in my wildest dreams , all i can do is look up at the Giants that these men were. They will never have an equal. They stand alone.
Enjoyed this, and I love Shackleton, but I get tired of "experts" continually saying he never lost a man in his expedition -absolutely not true.. People need to stop repeating what other people say and actually do the homework
Yeah, I think Shackleton is overhyped. Amazing character in the grand scheme of things but never achieved his main objectives and his expeditions were overly-ambitious or sometimes vague. He just liked adventure, and probably preferred things going wrong. He'd be delighted knowing that he's celebrated today for Endurance. Many can reach the Pole but no one can recreate the Endurance's journey so Shackleton would feel he's still the defending champion there.
Most who comment here should read «Scott And Amundsen, The last place on earth» by Roland Huntford. I think its a splendid book. Tells a lot about Scotts personality, planning and «life projeckt».
This books is now infarmous for its lies and inaccuracies. So I recommend everyone to stay away from it. Read other authors not inspired by someone who betrays the trust of the readers by purposefully manipulating them. That man had an agenda and run with it not caring for accuracy and many authors such as Fiennes, Solomon, Jones, Crane, Barczewski and others contributed to fix the damage in polar historiography caused by Huntford. Objective and honest account both good and bad things should be reported of course but not at the cost of truth. More recent authors don't shy away from explorers' mistakes (and all of them were guilty of them, Amundsen, Scott, Shackleton and Mawson) but don't invent new ones. Here's a short and incomplete list of things invented by Huntford: -Scott having syphillis and suffering mental problems because of that -Scott Research Institute being part of a conspiracy to hide the truth about Scott's death (lol) -Kathleen Scott's affairs with Nansen and later Mawson (though in that case it would be married Mawson having an affair with widowed Kathleen so I don't know if Huntford came up with that, could've been David Day who's like Huntford except for Mawson) -it doesn't involve Scott directly but Huntford invented the story of Lt. Campbell of Terra Nova lying to Amundsen about motor sldges being on Terra Firma which caused Amundsen to panic and start his journey too early nearly killing him and his crew, you can tell which books are bad by checking if they repeat this fake story. Peter Fitzjames for example was guilty of that -everything that Huntford said about Scott's character and his relationship with his men as well as mischaracterizing his relationship with the admirality and the RGS (those who still believe Huntford but don't hate Scott as a principle like he does sometimes take this route by treating Scott as a hapless victim) -horribly dismissing scientific work done by the expedition and Scott's genuine interest in science -not taking into account abnormal weather, proven by Susan Solomon (dismissed by Huntford in the re-issue of his book) -any claim he ever made about Scott choosing five men, maybe the biggest red herring in polar history -something that I found out recently, he claims that the evaporation of fuel due to the way the cans were sealed should've been known where in fact it doesn't appear so if geologist Frank Debenham wrote in the late 40s that the causes of that are still not fully understood -of course every time Huntford projects and writes about his fake Captain Scott for example looking foward to Oates's suicide and so on and mark of a truly bad historian.
It's a work of fabrication. Huntford is an odd guy, he had some deep-seated hatred for Scott and empirical Britain. It shows in the book, he starts with his gut feeling and scrambles for justification, ignoring a LOT of surviving accounts that contradict him. By his own admission, Huntford presents his own imaginings as fact. Trgyvve Gran, who served with Scott on Terra Nova, was still alive when Huntford's book was published. He actually challenged Huntford's false accounts publicly. There are more impartial and source-driven biographies of both explorers. Fiennes book on Scott is a very clarifying read.
Scott screwed up. BIG TIME. And it wasn't the first time. He was unprepared, he REFUSED to prepare, he made decisions that were stupid and would be stupid on a sunny beach.
There were some fairly good videos here on YT that refute the “Scott the Bumbler” theory, including that he was told the Siberian ponies did well on prior trips, and that rations were calculated with some degree for emergency or changes in plan, and took both the “old” (man hauling) and newer (tractor) methods in case one failed. One of the other videos had a former “Scott was dumb” agree-er who later changed their mind. One thing they noted was that according to temperature records, by bad luck they hit a particularly bad season where the cold is worse and arrived earlier. So in 14 of 15 years, they would have likely gotten back, but the extra cold meant that the sledge didn’t have a thin layer of slick ice to glide on, and was like pulling on sand. Its always easy, and useless, to be Captain Hindsight. But at the time, there are people advising that one way is the ONLY way to go, another that it’s best to do it a different way, a third a different way, and very hard to say what is the correct answer before you try something no one on Earth has ever done before.
He literally spent 3 years preparing. And then another year preparing during the first Antarctic season of the TN expedition. What are you even trying to say.
Also it should be noted that he shot to ponies one by one as they faltered and feed was coming in short supply. He didn't just shoot them all at once. They were used to feed the dog teams and men. But this is correct in the fact that the horses were a bad choice. The second failing was the fact that he did not use the snowshoes that were designed to help the horses. Its just a disaster compiled of failures and errors amounting to much more than the sum of its parts. It is one of the few times I get the sense that false optimism actually killed someone.
44:03 Must have been assisted suicide. Oates couldn't open the tent on his own, zips hadn't been invented and his frostbitten hands wouldn't have been able to untie the tent knot at the door?
Fiennes touches on this, it’s interesting. The tents had drawstrings that frost bitten hands would really struggle to open. I think one of the others opens it for him, either knowingly or thinking he just wanted to go outside to urinate/shit. It’s morning and the men are otherwise asleep when it happens. My money is on Bowers as I think he tended to sleep with his head by the tent door. If he heard Oates attempting to get out, he may have stepped in to help. Oates may have been in too much pain to sleep and attempted to open the door on his own for a while. We’ll never know but I don’t think the 3 others initially realised Oate’s intention. They hadn’t allowed him to remain behind to die in the days previous. My guess is that he made it clear enough in his sign off. I think it’s interesting that Wilson and Scott record a different version of Oates final words. It’s subtle but it implies that one of them misheard him. Maybe the tent door is opened and the blizzard is that loud when Oates actually says it. Oates is also very weak so may have mumbled. Generally though, it sounds like it all happened quickly enough and they didn’t intervene.
Love how these older TV programs stretched out the information. Like one sentence could have explained some of these instances but they slowly build it up over 5 experts. I love modern TH-cam videos on history, they typically get to the point. This could have been done in 10-15 minutes in a much more summed up manner that still didn’t lose any information.
You’re right it’s not like civilised cultures did anything useful like invent vaccines, antibiotics, the steam engine, navigation, timepieces, computers etc etc
Have you ever suspected that the main reason these men left home for months or years at a time is because they hated being at home with their wives and kids?
I assume that’s a joke. You could be a “lifelong bachelor” just fine then, and lots of ways to stay out of the house if married….like now, pretty easy to work a lot. And plenty of other jobs required travel then (merchant navy, government positions, etc). If he just wanted out for weeks or months. And most people don’t go to one of the bleakest, most uncomfortable and most difficult parts of the world because they can’t cope and are too weak to handle having a wife or child in the house. But partly agree, in that other videos said that Scott like tales of explorers and adventures as a boy, and had some drive to pursue that, and not an everyday life.
Just compare: Morning 3 days before Pole. Scotts emaciated men drag themselves like human skeletons to harnessess of their sleds in 50% speed, vs weeks earlierly Amundsens men woke refreshed, have eaten well yesterday. Their dogs have just managed consume their dinner and shat. They are fighting their harnessess demanding sled going forward right now. Bjaaland is skiing on front of everybody and all lead dogs of sleds have eye on him and have dedicated 100% of their concentration to catch the runaway. Bjaaland is Holmenkollen winner in skiing. British amateurs dont have a 1 in 100 chance in this game.
Because the ship he commanded was involved in a collision, Scott's naval career was over-he would never be promoted after that black mark. So he figured that reaching the South Pole would give him a new career and a nice income as well.
I've never seen so many advertisements! Probably not the fault of the poster, but a ridiculous, greedy attempt by youtube to make viewing and enjoying the video impossible. Shame on them 👎🏽
Scott was a miserable man, he forbade Shackleton to use McMurdo and he and Markam blackened Shackleton’s name, yet Scott happily followed Shackletons route towards the pole without a thought of his double standards ☘️🇮🇪
That route had been Scott’s initially from the Discovery expedition. The reason McMurdo sound was off limits to Shackleton was because Scott wanted to use it in his future expedition. Scott’s letter to Shackleton about it is very fairly worded and in no way forbade him to use it.
Susan Solomon, who in 2001, published a research paper that queried Scott's claim of a blizzard has since (2017) published a more extensive investigation into the meteorological conditions of Antarctica in 1912, An Exceptional Summer during the South Pole Race of 1911/12. Evidence squarely supports inconsistent and localized weather phenomenon that was exceptional for that year, including higher temperature values in March on the Ross Ice Shelf. This corresponds to Scott's diary entries about the blizzard as well as the unusual weather that affect his return journey. The paper is supported by not just Simpson's recordings but also the Norweigan weather readings in the same period from their sled teams and base. The paper is available to read to all.
This must have been filmed the year after Scott got back. My God those people have sticks up their ass... Also never seen Fiennes look so young lol, bet he still has all his toes in this interview
35:59 What this joker comment is doing here. 1993? Yeah, comparing 1910 equipped men to 1993. Some Brits say what ever to excuse their fumbler, Scott. Give dogs similar boost on performance than modern equipped, modern trained, and modern doped men vs 1910, lets be fair. Give also dogs 3 months Turinabol scedule, and lets THEN see who wins. Its the dogs, again.
Fiennes and Stroud indeed skied across Antarctic co tinent in 90s and carried their food. Its soooooo easy when there is DHC Twin Otter aircraft checking the team every day. Amundsen had to keep vast reserves of strenght and supplies in case of sickness or accident. There was within half thousand miles only Scotts team. Also, explorers dont have to piss on cup in lab. Early 90s was just the time when GDR:s super secret, an anabolic steroid which causes only neglicable muscle growth (figure skater Katarina Witt wasnt muscled, but was full of steroids) but increases strenght and stamina came to world markets when GDR collapsed. Turinabol. I am not saying Fiennes and Stroud used it, but the timing matches. Curiously Fiennes heart started to cought right at these years, but he lis still living in 2024. I guess he dropped the stuff after active career. Amundsen used 99 days total from coast to pole and back. Taking risks and going full tilt, he could had done it in 80 days. With modern skis, modern sleds, modern waxes for both sleds and skis, no reserve food and equipment, aircraft checking them every day and both men and dogs in Turinabol diet, he could had done it in 40-50 days.
In later studies it was calculated that man can burn 11.000 calories manhauling. Going with 4500 calories is death sentence if it goes for months. For g sake, Scandinavians feed 4500 calories to their soldiers in similarily cold weather, just sitting in foxholes. All of them had scurvy. And were subjected to near frostbite, dozens of times, being needlessly outside months longer than for example Amundsens men. Scott, the idiot, selected his pole team only after men had exterted themselves for 2 months. Amundsen had his pole team when they left base near sea. The fumblings of Scott are never ending list. I personally have frozen my ears in youth couple times. Frozen solid. They never heal to what they were, even after decades.
Scott even let Wilson and Bowers, et al to go hunting for penguin eggs in middle of winter, before southern push. They spent weeks in EXTREMELY cold weather and just made back without serious injuries. That distraction left Wilson and Bowers just couple weeks to rest from near death excursion, before southern push started. I am sure that Bowers was not already selected to pole team, but Wilson WAS. He was Scotts friend and they were on Discovery expeditions southward push with Shackleton.
@@kimj2570hold up, that expedition was Wilson’s idea. He was examining the embryos of developing Emperor penguin eggs and needed to procure eggs at a particular stage of development. That necessitated travelling in winter. While that was an insane side-quest, Wilson and Bowers are the two men who persevered with Scott until the final camp. They were well rested before the polar trek. Cherry-Garrard also hauls. Scott also had additional men to call upon in the event any of his initial 12 couldn’t travel. Also, he didn’t name a final team for the outset to maintain focus on the entirety of the expedition. He didnt want to generate hype or show favouritism early on to a select few. As the men were the means of locomotion, he also couldn’t name his final team with certainty that those same men would be capable of the final trek later.
@@kimj2570 I’ve been meaning to say this to you, I really respect you for how much you know on this subject. Don’t necessarily agree with your perspectives but I’m a huge fan of your’s because you know your angle and have a lot of core knowledge at hand.
Totally nuts! British hybris emperors of the world! Attitude! Poor animals surviving families human incapability! Nature takes over wisdom security sufficient stuff to take along
The Poms who put this together seem very reticent to criticise Scott and his mistakes. I think this because to do so would mean criticising the whole English mentality and system at the time. Why they talk about Scott in such heroic terms is beyond me. Of course it was unfortunate that Scott and his men perished, but if Scott had listened to common sense instead of the British way of thinking they might have survived. Give me Shackleton with his practicality any day. Or better still, Amundsun! The commentators on this documentary would have done England a service if they had looked back on the English mentality of the time and said 'it was bollocks', rather that trying to make excuses.
@@EGORLAZOUSKI The arrogance and self-destructive stupidity of some people shows no mercy, let us console ourselves with that, because it is always only the stupid others who are to blame. Forgive me, I'm always one of the stupid ones.
That was a great story and very well narrated. Next time… get rid of the pompous obviously British said historians or so said book readers who still think Britain is great and just tell the story how it was. In such a trying time he did what he did. Stop making up excuses and if you were in that situation crap and give us actually 20 year olds who have studied this in their version and not plum in the mouth privileged so calls who think they are smart 👍. Otherwise I really enjoyed it
Sounds like the team was a bit of a disaster. Typical uk arragonce of the era... probably not in a mean way, just a representation of the times. Scott sorta picked a team that was not great obvioysly. I understand the hindsight argument. But their complete incompetence regarding dog, dog handling, having any really experienced crew ( plenty of countries have super similar conditions that coulda been utilised). Its simply a sign of those times i guess- Treating the dogs poorly was a big mistake...
Looks at how the expeditions were run: Scott's had seperate quaters for enlisted men and officers; Amundsen's men lived together-each man was equal to the next, this level of committment made Amundsen's team the best
My theory is. For ice to melt at significant amount the sun would have to generate increased amount of heat thereby creating more evaporation and cause clouds that would then move further south and fall as snow. Therefore that wouldn't cause anything to to rise except the snow levels.
I *think* the volume of water wouldn’t be negated by reduced landmass as a lot of the polar ice sheets rest atop open ocean. You’re not swapping land for water.
The only people who are allowed to critique Scott or his men are those who have actually been to Antarctica, everyone else should just S.T.F.U. I have nothing but respect for all explorers whether it my be space, the ocean, ocean deep, the wilderness, arctic etc.
I just want to acknowledge the absolute DRIVE that men like Scott and Amundssen, and their men, had to have in order to attempt these treks, utilizing only those tools available to them. In temperatures that froze paraffin.....wearing clothing of only natural materials that could not adequately protect them...starving and suffering from unbelievable cold. It is imcredibly inspiring, this type of strength.
Absolutely. People now days can't even decide which bathroom to use. Lmao wow have times changed.
I don't view this as inspiring, but courageous. If you believe in fate, you'd have to think those men were destined to attempt that feat because the average person would never have agreed to do something like that, no matter how great of an impact success would have on the world then and forever.
Inspiring?? A typical English stupidity lad to a tragedy. How can this be inspiring???
@@kenboulder212 That's why you live in your grandma's basement and will never amount to much.
@@pickititllneverheal9016 The guy was a stupid arrogant focused only on his own career. He didn't care about people. He feared to refuse the task, although he feared Antarctica. He had completely no experience. He wasn't willing to learn from others. All these led to a desaster. He must be remembered as a negative example of how not to do things. Unfortunately, other innocent people died horrible during this tragic expedition. Typical English silly behavior.
I'm feeling huge admiration for the animals who helped these early explorers, their own amazing abilities and loyalty to their humans. I'm feeling terribly sad for those that died in their journeys. None of them asked to go, but I can feel their exuberant or tough spirits through the narration. Humans would be so much the poorer if we didn't have our companions/helpers of different species!
Well said Sir 👌🙏
Thanks for ruining the God damn video for me
L99😊
999
They started experiencing terror whilst still on the Terra Nova
Bravo Christopher, who was out to kill the nearest member of the expedition '24/7'
I would greatly encourage people commenting here to read Scott's diary from this expedition, Cherry-Garrard's account The Worst Journey in the World and Amundsen's book on his expedition, South. There is just so much more to learn and understand about these men, the time they lived in, their approaches, and their thinking. You cannot possibly capture it all in a 50 minute video. They all did the very best they could, and we should all judge them as fine examples of humanity who pushed the human experience that much further.
Those last words make this failed journey worth something. Their expedition was not totally in vain.
🙏🏼🕊
we be failin child
A poor return for the lives of the men he led so badly.
I will always remember Scott for his achievements and not give his failures a second thought
Very well said freind .
Although the whole film is glorifying Scott, as expected for British national myth, his qualities are: English speaker - Larger Public Reach (L P R), skilled writer ( LPR) good fund riser (L P R) , tragic death (LPR ) , but preparing the journey to South Pole he was wrong in every aspect : departure in a hurry because of Amundsen, not enough food for 5 man, insufficient preparation ( food magazines and their marking) wrong food supply quality, wrong transport, wrong team selection, wrong trajectory . Arrived 2 years in advance with the team of 65 , ponies, mechanical sludges, he lost the race to to Amundsen who arrived 1 season before the pole attack, with a team of 9 and dogs. Amundsen intermediary camps were marked few kilometers in 4 directions to be found in any weather, his food selected to provide calories and vitamins, nobody was ill . Compared to Amundsen, expedition of Scott was a suicide mission from very beginning.
This is largely incorrect, and presumably influenced by the mid-century revision of Scott.
Scott planned methodically and accurately for 3 years in the lead up to Terra Nova. You’ve neglected to mention his successful naval career among his qualities, but be assured that attention to detail and provision of resources are central tenets of a Navy captain skill set. It’s why he got the Discovery expedition initially and commanded war ships as a day job.
The Terra Nova rations included specially developed foodstuffs that provided higher amounts of necessary proteins. Physician Edward Wilson oversaw this in advance of the expedition.
Their clothing was designed to remove in layers. This allowed temperature control as the men themselves were hauling.
What this should tell you is that Terra Nova was a scientific expedition as well as an explorative one. Many of those 65 crew pioneered polar research that informed 20th century science. Even the proto-tractors developed directly into WW1 tanks.
Scott was a different explorer to Amundsen in that he shouldered the expectations of the globe’s largest empire. One that was dedicated to expansion in knowledge and technology, not just terrain.
Amundsen, while a brilliant explorer, had a far more finite purpose; to claim the pole. However, his own character flaws meant he would never be regained as Scott was.
Amundsen’s last minute telegram to Scott is very significant. Scott spent years preparing an unchallenged march on the Pole and had no idea he was in a race until the day he left NZ. Amundsen takes an additional competitive edge from this but deserves a huge dollop of criticism; a year previous, Scott visited Amundsen’s home in Norway to benefit from Amundsen’s input. On that occasion Roald Amundsen hid in his bathroom and told his wife to lie to Scott, that he’d been called away.
Scott then did seek input from Amundsen, if not Nansen. Amundsen however shied away and ignored the opportunity to tell Scott they would be rivals in the near future. Or at least in person.
As brilliant an explorer as he was, Amundsen seemed afraid of competition. Scott meanwhile faced death with his head up.
@@AbiRuShirzan11that miniseries was inspired by the largely debunked Scott biography by Roland Huntford, a fantasist with a dislike of Imperial Britain. His many, many inaccuracies are tackles by an actual polar explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, in his biography of Scott.
@@johnkelly3549 Scott was a melodramatic crybaby who probably killed his pals and made the suicide.
@@marguskiis7711 That's just silly talk. You're a silly man.
couldn't agree with you more well said he was an amateur really quite foolish and heroic at the same time
Discovery, lets do some manhauling. Almost died. Nimrod, lets do some more manhauling. Almost died. Terra Nova, Lets do even more manhauling - turned out third time was the charm.
True professionalism vs. guts! Amundsen vas 100 percent professional leaving nothing to chance...
Not guys but passion and egoism
Scott was a extraordinary person with big dream and new ideas to change the course of history.
This documentary is kind of slanted to vilify Amundssen. Amundssen was just smarter than the Brits and instead of holding the standard racist views of the day, he had respect for the Inuit, recognizing them as the experts in cold weather survival with much to teach him. That's why he spent two years in the Arctic living with and learning from them, something most Europeans would have scoffed at in that time period.
I think it's something to take note of too, that he had more experience with harsh winters and cold being a Norwegian than a Brit. He already had a mind set of thrive rather than just survive
Complete nonsense.
Amundsen's supposed _two years in the Arctic living with and learning from_ Eskimos zero bearing on his expedition.
British propaganda, they're the best at it. They can skew the facts until nothing of what really happened is left.
No. It seems slightly biased against Scott when I compare it to fact-based Fanulph Fiennes's book. For instance N and S poles are very different because the South has a land mass and huge mountains and glaciers. Scott couldn't take dogs up the Beardmore glacier due to horrendous crevasses. Amundsen luckily found as easier route up the Axel Heiberg glacier which wasn't badly crevassed. Amundsen had much better weather. Amundsen had a lot of luck as well as dog skills
I remember watching the BBC production Race To The Pole with my dad as a kid and being fascinated by both Scott and Amundsen. The idea of such bravery against the harshest conditions on Earth continue to intrigue me.
Poor little dogs. Atleast shackelton learned from his/their mistskes somewhat... im glad that he ( supposedly) put down the ponies when they were obviously suffering. Those poir animals, dogs included. I just cannot imagine that ponies would be suited to -20°c and colder conditions? And to beat them to continue them moving is terribly sad...
In Yakutia, horses live outdoors all year round (in summer +30°C and in winter -50°C) and search for food on their own.
What an amazing film. Well done.
They were all amazing men and explorers.
As an Aussie, I couldn’t help but notice in one of the photographs inside the ship, there was a bottle of fortified wine made by YALUMBA.
I was born in South Australia and YALUMBA wines, made in the Barossa Valley, have been around for over 100 years.
I am hopeful that future, modern expeditions will entail much less loss of life and more scientific discovery. 🇦🇺❤️
From an American...Well said
Come on, to say it is unfair to second guess is a cop-out for Scott. The Preparation and Understanding of what they faced, and how to leave as little as possible to chance is the difference between all returning alive, (Amundsen), and none surviving, (Scott). Scott did not learn the lessons of previous expeditions, where Amundsen did.
Well, I can say Scott, Amundsen, and Shackleton *WERE* 3 of the greatest Antarctic explorers of all time. At least last year, we found Endurance... but, back then, the Brits thought Captain Scott was more important than Shackleton. But, both of them made good and bad in their lives, especially with their Antarctic expeditions. And Amundsen had made it all the way around the Northwest Passage, just like Franklin had tried to, but failed.
Scott was refused promotion to admiral-he was about to be forced to retire. He though reaching the pole would make him a celebrity. He refused to study what others had learned..tried using ponies m(they died) and motor sledges (they broke down). Instead us using Inuit0style clothing, he nused his own design canavas outerwear-the men's perspiration froze and made putting them on difficult. Arrogance and unwillingness to accept sound advice was his downfall.
Well, yes. Amundsen was the more ready one. Since that man traversed the entire Northwest Passage, I could see how he could have no problem with the South Pole, besides the weather.
@@huebolser Correct, even though I am a historian, I don't try to overextend that much of my historical research.
Don't forget about Tom Crean🇮🇪
Yes but Shackleton has the" fourth man" story And you can't beat that
Excellent
I really enjoy learning about historic events that I have never heard about before. I know the story of Shackleton, but I don't remember hearing about Scott.
Thanks once again for an excellent documentary.
I live in Indiana. The winter of 2022 we had 2 days where it got -40 degrees with the windchill. It's was about -20, and the winds almost 60 mph. So with the winds it was dropping to -40. It was absolutely brutal. Some antifreeze freezes at that temp .
Agree. It was a true super human effort. And don’t know if covered later in the video, but the weather charts apparently show that in something like 14 out of every 15 years, the temps at the time would be much less severe, and there was a decent chance they would have made it.
But they caught the one bad year in 15 or so when worse he cold was even worse, and earlier.
It didn’t get -40f in Indiana.
Wind chill don’t count
Windchill is a man-made estimation of how cold it “feels”. The actual temperature is the coldest anything can get. Wind can’t make an object get colder. Regardless of the “wind chill”, antifreeze that is suitable for -35 or -40 will not freeze at -20, regardless of how much wind there is.
-40 Fahrenheit or Celsius?
I can sort of imagine what that felt like. I'm from the Gulf Coast of Texas. I think it was 2022 when we basically lost power to the whole Texas grid. It was 18°F. No power and inside my house it was 45° and had I not went and got a generator to run a heater, it would have dropped even lower. But we aren't used to temps like that. But anyways I went to Toronto Canada for business. When I left Bush Intercontinental Airport it was 70-80°F. When we landed in Toronto it was NEGATIVE 8 with wind-chill feel of -16. I was not prepared for how that felt on my bare skin. It was almost immediately pins and needles and my ears started burning. All I did was walk out of the warm airport and into a shuttle bus. Can't imagine what it felt like where you were. It makes me wonder how much insulation is used to make homes up there. Must have felt like what these explorers dealt with. Anyway thanks for the comment it reminded me of the time I went to Siemens in Peterborough Canada for work via Toronto airport. I actually threw up from heavy drinking the night before and the throw up froze the second it landed on the street. I never drink but went out with co workers.
Thanks for another entertaining video.
Scott was arrogant and would not lsten to sound (i.e. Nansen's advice). Had he used dogs he would have gotten safely home....instead of freezing to death. By contrast, Amundsen had panned superbly-he had anticipated every possible failre, and had a safety factor figured in to everything-they had more food than the needed for the return. In the end, better planning and learning from the Inuit was the secret of Amundsen's success.
I guess you missed what was said at 1:40 and 3:10 - it is impossible to know for sure and wrong to make judgements. Scott did use dogs.
@@LadyWhinesalot He did not -used man hauled sledges. He was only able to travle about 1/3 the distance per day that Amundsen did. Not only that, Scott brought the wrong kind of food-most of his men suffered from scurvey (a disease whose cause and cure was well known by the 19th Century). He was a bad leader and a terrible planner.
@@fionahurley8444No. Scurvy was compleately understood in the way that they new how to avoid it. Scott knew that to, but he was reluctant to do wat was needed. That was to eat fresh meat, that they had in abundance from seal living there. The inuits did not get scurvy either. Amundsen knew that and had dayly rashions. Scotts crew had to go against his orders when they developed scuvy symptomes. He thought it was a kind of «unbrithish» to eat seal.
@@fionahurley8444 Wrong again..Royal Navy Surgeon Dr. James Lind proved that scurvey was a deficiency disease-he cured it by administering orange, lemon or lime juice. This was in 1753about 160 years befor Scott.
@@genekelly8467 you might want to actually watch the video...and read some books
These guys are legends clearly. Just the fact that we are still talking about them today. So many might comment negatively yet will pass through this world leaving nothing but a tomb stone in a congested grave yard.
Robert Headland needs to be a voice actor.
This is an extremely well done video conveying both the heroism and tragedy of Scott's expedition. I have been recently reading his journal. The account of how they suffered near the end is very touching and this fine documentary is in the same spirit.
The illustration of a naval officer with a polar medal is inverted left to right so the medal is on the right breast instead of the left.
Extreme cold, not enough food, poor clothing and scurvy are undoubtedly huge reasons as to the demise of Scott's party. However I believe if Scott had been first to reach the pole three and possibly four of the party would have survived. Just my opinion. Brave men all.
32:17 Norwegians were on same weather, and were out in same weeks. They did not whine about weather but worked hard. Norwegians planted depots at 80, 81 and 82 degrees. 83 was too much as winter was coming. Norwegians had 3 tons of supplies in depots after 1st summer. Scott could not even push his only 1st summer depot to 80 degrees...
And Amundsen had only 9 man in Bay of Whales. One being cook who never left Polheim. He was there alone when other 8 men were out establishing depots.
It is a pity that the English still can recognise the ability of Amundsen.Read the last Viking .Roland H.got it ! RA was the master explorer of his time and the English vilified him because he was not one of them!
The documentary acknowledges, and I do as a brit that Amundsen was a great explorer. I don't recall any where it vilifies him? The only essence of that is in the comments? It clearly states that the English thought the Norwegians as charming men. Experienced also as they were in comparison to us
@@robkitchen2851 Amundsen is still in some circles accused of being too professional. Like eating, let rest of dogs eat weakest dogs. Everybody should understand that Amundsens party had massive reserves of stamina when they left pole. They were at their prime condition, athletes and explorers. Guys had gained even weight during voyage. Scotts men were half spent when leaving pole.
In the end Amundsen never needed the strenght his team had. But make no mistake, he would had arrived to base through equal weather what Scott faced, reporting stiff breeze.
You Tube's Redemption, that's how I feel about the offering of this channel.
Much obliged for this presentation.
Very well presented and informative. Thank you all who participated in this.
Uhhhhh it’s not hindsight. Amundsen had proven a correct model a month before Scott.
Love the thumbnail picture of Steve Buscemi’s great grandfather 👍
A Scottish surgeon in the Royal Navy, James Lind, is generally credited with proving that scurvy can be successfully treated with citrus fruit in 1753.[9] Nevertheless, it was not until 1795 that health reformers such as Gilbert Blane persuaded the Royal Navy to routinely give lemon juice to its sailors.[8][9] (From Wikipedia) Wasn't Scott a British Navy Captain?
Kieran Culkin needs to play the character shown on the title screen 🤣
Looks like Steve Buscemi
Great,thankyou ,and great to see a young Ran.
Yrs I do judge the leaders, it is on their hands. May all my enemies be lead by such.
Wireless technology was available in 1911. Scott didn’t want to use it. Yet another mistake that he made !
In the movie Scott of the Antarctic, they show Captain Scott writing and narrating his final journal entry. A morbid scene. The writers added a line that Scott never penciled. "These rough notes and our dead bodies must tell the tale." I always loved that line. Maybe he did write it earlier in the journal, but it's not on the final page. Ĺoved that movie.
He did write that. It’s in his Letter to the Public I believe
18:11 lol how can he say shackleton’s expedition was successful? yes, they survived but they didn’t fulfill the goals of the expedition.
A remarkable rare breed men, in my wildest dreams , all i can do is look up at the Giants that these men were. They will never have an equal. They stand alone.
Thanks, well worth watching
Unfortunately an arrogant leader can lead others to there doom
So much respect and appreciation for this.
Everyone can do mistake, which may even cost life, but that does not take away the appreciation to acheive something no one has done before
Enjoyed this, and I love Shackleton, but I get tired of "experts" continually saying he never lost a man in his expedition -absolutely not true.. People need to stop repeating what other people say and actually do the homework
Yeah, I think Shackleton is overhyped. Amazing character in the grand scheme of things but never achieved his main objectives and his expeditions were overly-ambitious or sometimes vague. He just liked adventure, and probably preferred things going wrong. He'd be delighted knowing that he's celebrated today for Endurance. Many can reach the Pole but no one can recreate the Endurance's journey so Shackleton would feel he's still the defending champion there.
Im currently learning abt captain scott and Antarctica
Most who comment here should read «Scott And Amundsen, The last place on earth» by Roland Huntford. I think its a splendid book. Tells a lot about Scotts personality, planning and «life projeckt».
This books is now infarmous for its lies and inaccuracies. So I recommend everyone to stay away from it. Read other authors not inspired by someone who betrays the trust of the readers by purposefully manipulating them. That man had an agenda and run with it not caring for accuracy and many authors such as Fiennes, Solomon, Jones, Crane, Barczewski and others contributed to fix the damage in polar historiography caused by Huntford. Objective and honest account both good and bad things should be reported of course but not at the cost of truth. More recent authors don't shy away from explorers' mistakes (and all of them were guilty of them, Amundsen, Scott, Shackleton and Mawson) but don't invent new ones. Here's a short and incomplete list of things invented by Huntford:
-Scott having syphillis and suffering mental problems because of that
-Scott Research Institute being part of a conspiracy to hide the truth about Scott's death (lol)
-Kathleen Scott's affairs with Nansen and later Mawson (though in that case it would be married Mawson having an affair with widowed Kathleen so I don't know if Huntford came up with that, could've been David Day who's like Huntford except for Mawson)
-it doesn't involve Scott directly but Huntford invented the story of Lt. Campbell of Terra Nova lying to Amundsen about motor sldges being on Terra Firma which caused Amundsen to panic and start his journey too early nearly killing him and his crew, you can tell which books are bad by checking if they repeat this fake story. Peter Fitzjames for example was guilty of that
-everything that Huntford said about Scott's character and his relationship with his men as well as mischaracterizing his relationship with the admirality and the RGS (those who still believe Huntford but don't hate Scott as a principle like he does sometimes take this route by treating Scott as a hapless victim)
-horribly dismissing scientific work done by the expedition and Scott's genuine interest in science
-not taking into account abnormal weather, proven by Susan Solomon (dismissed by Huntford in the re-issue of his book)
-any claim he ever made about Scott choosing five men, maybe the biggest red herring in polar history
-something that I found out recently, he claims that the evaporation of fuel due to the way the cans were sealed should've been known where in fact it doesn't appear so if geologist Frank Debenham wrote in the late 40s that the causes of that are still not fully understood
-of course every time Huntford projects and writes about his fake Captain Scott for example looking foward to Oates's suicide and so on and mark of a truly bad historian.
test
I wouldn't recommend it. Half of it is made up lol
It's a work of fabrication. Huntford is an odd guy, he had some deep-seated hatred for Scott and empirical Britain. It shows in the book, he starts with his gut feeling and scrambles for justification, ignoring a LOT of surviving accounts that contradict him. By his own admission, Huntford presents his own imaginings as fact.
Trgyvve Gran, who served with Scott on Terra Nova, was still alive when Huntford's book was published. He actually challenged Huntford's false accounts publicly.
There are more impartial and source-driven biographies of both explorers. Fiennes book on Scott is a very clarifying read.
Never before have I heard so many lame excuses for want of an admission of gross arrogance and incompetence
Sounds like you’re the problem
When I go ski touring and camping in the Australian mountains I always take a Norwegian flag, they really work😅.
Scott screwed up. BIG TIME. And it wasn't the first time. He was unprepared, he REFUSED to prepare, he made decisions that were stupid and would be stupid on a sunny beach.
There were some fairly good videos here on YT that refute the “Scott the Bumbler” theory, including that he was told the Siberian ponies did well on prior trips, and that rations were calculated with some degree for emergency or changes in plan, and took both the “old” (man hauling) and newer (tractor) methods in case one failed.
One of the other videos had a former “Scott was dumb” agree-er who later changed their mind. One thing they noted was that according to temperature records, by bad luck they hit a particularly bad season where the cold is worse and arrived earlier. So in 14 of 15 years, they would have likely gotten back, but the extra cold meant that the sledge didn’t have a thin layer of slick ice to glide on, and was like pulling on sand.
Its always easy, and useless, to be Captain Hindsight. But at the time, there are people advising that one way is the ONLY way to go, another that it’s best to do it a different way, a third a different way, and very hard to say what is the correct answer before you try something no one on Earth has ever done before.
He literally spent 3 years preparing. And then another year preparing during the first Antarctic season of the TN expedition. What are you even trying to say.
Is the company that put waste products in the cans supposed to have meat in them still in business and was the company ever punished????
Good question!
Ego is a powerful motivator.
Also it should be noted that he shot to ponies one by one as they faltered and feed was coming in short supply. He didn't just shoot them all at once. They were used to feed the dog teams and men. But this is correct in the fact that the horses were a bad choice. The second failing was the fact that he did not use the snowshoes that were designed to help the horses. Its just a disaster compiled of failures and errors amounting to much more than the sum of its parts. It is one of the few times I get the sense that false optimism actually killed someone.
44:03 Must have been assisted suicide. Oates couldn't open the tent on his own, zips hadn't been invented and his frostbitten hands wouldn't have been able to untie the tent knot at the door?
Fiennes touches on this, it’s interesting. The tents had drawstrings that frost bitten hands would really struggle to open.
I think one of the others opens it for him, either knowingly or thinking he just wanted to go outside to urinate/shit. It’s morning and the men are otherwise asleep when it happens.
My money is on Bowers as I think he tended to sleep with his head by the tent door. If he heard Oates attempting to get out, he may have stepped in to help. Oates may have been in too much pain to sleep and attempted to open the door on his own for a while.
We’ll never know but I don’t think the 3 others initially realised Oate’s intention. They hadn’t allowed him to remain behind to die in the days previous. My guess is that he made it clear enough in his sign off.
I think it’s interesting that Wilson and Scott record a different version of Oates final words. It’s subtle but it implies that one of them misheard him. Maybe the tent door is opened and the blizzard is that loud when Oates actually says it. Oates is also very weak so may have mumbled. Generally though, it sounds like it all happened quickly enough and they didn’t intervene.
6:40 "There was only thing more important to him than getting a man to the pole" that was getting a man on HIS pole.
The guy failed once before.... and he didn't learn from it in any meaningful/helpful way.
The failed attempts to reach the south pole are well documented. The man who got there first and got back alive hardly gets a footnote.
Love how these older TV programs stretched out the information. Like one sentence could have explained some of these instances but they slowly build it up over 5 experts. I love modern TH-cam videos on history, they typically get to the point. This could have been done in 10-15 minutes in a much more summed up manner that still didn’t lose any information.
Having read a lot of books on this; 15 minutes is a quickie for the amount of information.
Why does so called civilized cultures always make everything more difficult whereas native cultures try to expend less effort
Civilization is more about regression not progression. We humans need to go backwards.
You’re right it’s not like civilised cultures did anything useful like invent vaccines, antibiotics, the steam engine, navigation, timepieces, computers etc etc
Advancement. So much of modern knowledge comes from pushing the limits of understanding outside of your comfort zone.
They should have treated the dog sleds better,like feeding them
Robert 💔
Can't you use earth penetrating radar similar a the Time Team uses to lead the gang and show where the holes are under the snow/ice.
I don't understand this bizarre need to risk life and limb of several people to walk to a blank spot in the middle of nowhere and plant a flag.
⚪️ ppl BS
A desire to be thought a hero, with all the financial benefits that would go with it.
Don’t forget the Eddie Bauer jackets
"I might be gone for quite some time", to become an ice cube that is forever England!.
Have you ever suspected that the main reason these men left home for months or years at a time is because they hated being at home with their wives and kids?
I assume that’s a joke. You could be a “lifelong bachelor” just fine then, and lots of ways to stay out of the house if married….like now, pretty easy to work a lot. And plenty of other jobs required travel then (merchant navy, government positions, etc). If he just wanted out for weeks or months.
And most people don’t go to one of the bleakest, most uncomfortable and most difficult parts of the world because they can’t cope and are too weak to handle having a wife or child in the house.
But partly agree, in that other videos said that Scott like tales of explorers and adventures as a boy, and had some drive to pursue that, and not an everyday life.
Just compare: Morning 3 days before Pole. Scotts emaciated men drag themselves like human skeletons to harnessess of their sleds in 50% speed, vs weeks earlierly Amundsens men woke refreshed, have eaten well yesterday. Their dogs have just managed consume their dinner and shat. They are fighting their harnessess demanding sled going forward right now. Bjaaland is skiing on front of everybody and all lead dogs of sleds have eye on him and have dedicated 100% of their concentration to catch the runaway. Bjaaland is Holmenkollen winner in skiing. British amateurs dont have a 1 in 100 chance in this game.
Scott was pretty stupid to go down there. He should have just left the exploration to experts like Amundsen.
Because the ship he commanded was involved in a collision, Scott's naval career was over-he would never be promoted after that black mark. So he figured that reaching the South Pole would give him a new career and a nice income as well.
Amundsen who died attempting to fly over the North Pole a decade later?
Barely 5 minutes in and hit with a barrage of loathsome ads. Not worth it.
It's about time YT lets some actual truth be seen.
I've never seen so many advertisements! Probably not the fault of the poster, but a ridiculous, greedy attempt by youtube to make viewing and enjoying the video impossible. Shame on them 👎🏽
Scott was a miserable man, he forbade Shackleton to use McMurdo and he and Markam blackened Shackleton’s name, yet Scott happily followed Shackletons route towards the pole without a thought of his double standards ☘️🇮🇪
That route had been Scott’s initially from the Discovery expedition.
The reason McMurdo sound was off limits to Shackleton was because Scott wanted to use it in his future expedition. Scott’s letter to Shackleton about it is very fairly worded and in no way forbade him to use it.
Love the Mendelsohn.
The blizzard was fake. The Scott's base some 200 km away from the last tent did not register any blizzard those days.
Susan Solomon, who in 2001, published a research paper that queried Scott's claim of a blizzard has since (2017) published a more extensive investigation into the meteorological conditions of Antarctica in 1912, An Exceptional Summer during the South Pole Race of 1911/12. Evidence squarely supports inconsistent and localized weather phenomenon that was exceptional for that year, including higher temperature values in March on the Ross Ice Shelf. This corresponds to Scott's diary entries about the blizzard as well as the unusual weather that affect his return journey. The paper is supported by not just Simpson's recordings but also the Norweigan weather readings in the same period from their sled teams and base. The paper is available to read to all.
Natural environment! Not a bloody bug or plant lives there! At least you know I listened to the end. Now Mawson...
I finished watching @watcher's ep on this and then this shows up. It's good. Could use more puppets and singing 😂 #puppethistory
The ship had to be made of woods lest it be sucked down the magnetic maw of charbrydis.
Those men were larger than life ! They don't make men like that these days .
This must have been filmed the year after Scott got back. My God those people have sticks up their ass... Also never seen Fiennes look so young lol, bet he still has all his toes in this interview
How do they know they actually know where the south Pole is if no one has ever been there.
Look for the Norwegian flag. 🇧🇻🇧🇻😁💪
Naigation Skills.
Shackleton lost three men due to his abysmal planning and penny pinching. His story has been subject to ‘spin’ for a century
35:59 What this joker comment is doing here. 1993? Yeah, comparing 1910 equipped men to 1993. Some Brits say what ever to excuse their fumbler, Scott. Give dogs similar boost on performance than modern equipped, modern trained, and modern doped men vs 1910, lets be fair. Give also dogs 3 months Turinabol scedule, and lets THEN see who wins. Its the dogs, again.
Fiennes and Stroud indeed skied across Antarctic co tinent in 90s and carried their food. Its soooooo easy when there is DHC Twin Otter aircraft checking the team every day. Amundsen had to keep vast reserves of strenght and supplies in case of sickness or accident. There was within half thousand miles only Scotts team. Also, explorers dont have to piss on cup in lab. Early 90s was just the time when GDR:s super secret, an anabolic steroid which causes only neglicable muscle growth (figure skater Katarina Witt wasnt muscled, but was full of steroids) but increases strenght and stamina came to world markets when GDR collapsed. Turinabol. I am not saying Fiennes and Stroud used it, but the timing matches. Curiously Fiennes heart started to cought right at these years, but he lis still living in 2024. I guess he dropped the stuff after active career. Amundsen used 99 days total from coast to pole and back. Taking risks and going full tilt, he could had done it in 80 days. With modern skis, modern sleds, modern waxes for both sleds and skis, no reserve food and equipment, aircraft checking them every day and both men and dogs in Turinabol diet, he could had done it in 40-50 days.
hagiography of scott
In later studies it was calculated that man can burn 11.000 calories manhauling. Going with 4500 calories is death sentence if it goes for months. For g sake, Scandinavians feed 4500 calories to their soldiers in similarily cold weather, just sitting in foxholes. All of them had scurvy. And were subjected to near frostbite, dozens of times, being needlessly outside months longer than for example Amundsens men. Scott, the idiot, selected his pole team only after men had exterted themselves for 2 months. Amundsen had his pole team when they left base near sea. The fumblings of Scott are never ending list. I personally have frozen my ears in youth couple times. Frozen solid. They never heal to what they were, even after decades.
Scott even let Wilson and Bowers, et al to go hunting for penguin eggs in middle of winter, before southern push. They spent weeks in EXTREMELY cold weather and just made back without serious injuries. That distraction left Wilson and Bowers just couple weeks to rest from near death excursion, before southern push started. I am sure that Bowers was not already selected to pole team, but Wilson WAS. He was Scotts friend and they were on Discovery expeditions southward push with Shackleton.
@@kimj2570hold up, that expedition was Wilson’s idea. He was examining the embryos of developing Emperor penguin eggs and needed to procure eggs at a particular stage of development. That necessitated travelling in winter.
While that was an insane side-quest, Wilson and Bowers are the two men who persevered with Scott until the final camp. They were well rested before the polar trek. Cherry-Garrard also hauls.
Scott also had additional men to call upon in the event any of his initial 12 couldn’t travel.
Also, he didn’t name a final team for the outset to maintain focus on the entirety of the expedition. He didnt want to generate hype or show favouritism early on to a select few. As the men were the means of locomotion, he also couldn’t name his final team with certainty that those same men would be capable of the final trek later.
@@johnkelly3549 Hmm. Rested is an really much to be asked. I personally have 38 year old frost bite wounds which still bother.
@@kimj2570 I’ve been meaning to say this to you, I really respect you for how much you know on this subject. Don’t necessarily agree with your perspectives but I’m a huge fan of your’s because you know your angle and have a lot of core knowledge at hand.
Scurvy does not depend on the number of calories.
100 mg of vitamin a day - no scurvy.
0.00 mg of vitamin C - scurvy in a month.
Dr. Julie Hall looks like Gwyneth Paltrow!
Looked forward to this. Gave up because of the constant adverts....
Totally nuts! British hybris emperors of the world! Attitude! Poor animals surviving families human incapability! Nature takes over wisdom security sufficient stuff to take along
The Poms who put this together seem very reticent to criticise Scott and his mistakes. I think this because to do so would mean criticising the whole English mentality and system at the time. Why they talk about Scott in such heroic terms is beyond me. Of course it was unfortunate that Scott and his men perished, but if Scott had listened to common sense instead of the British way of thinking they might have survived. Give me Shackleton with his practicality any day. Or better still, Amundsun!
The commentators on this documentary would have done England a service if they had looked back on the English mentality of the time and said 'it was bollocks', rather that trying to make excuses.
*Amundsen.
I wonder if the announcer would be brave enough to go on the journey. I doubt it!
Robert Falcon Scott: A hypocrite breaks on the ice!
Everyone around you is a loser, but you are D'Artagnan.
@@EGORLAZOUSKI The arrogance and self-destructive stupidity of some people shows no mercy, let us console ourselves with that, because it is always only the stupid others who are to blame. Forgive me, I'm always one of the stupid ones.
Wonderful narration, terribly biased though
No need to feed off the greed
Worrms , weasels abound
their depths go deeo
Arrogance and bad prep costs a team their lives😊
That was a great story and very well narrated. Next time… get rid of the pompous obviously British said historians or so said book readers who still think Britain is great and just tell the story how it was. In such a trying time he did what he did. Stop making up excuses and if you were in that situation crap and give us actually 20 year olds who have studied this in their version and not plum in the mouth privileged so calls who think they are smart 👍. Otherwise I really enjoyed it
🇬🇧❤️🇬🇧🏴🇬🇧🏴💯🤝❤️
Ponys??? Wha...???
Why would you travel to the South Pole in December
Because December in the Southern Hemisphere is the same as June in the Northern Hemisphere.
Sounds like the team was a bit of a disaster. Typical uk arragonce of the era... probably not in a mean way, just a representation of the times. Scott sorta picked a team that was not great obvioysly. I understand the hindsight argument. But their complete incompetence regarding dog, dog handling, having any really experienced crew ( plenty of countries have super similar conditions that coulda been utilised). Its simply a sign of those times i guess-
Treating the dogs poorly was a big mistake...
Looks at how the expeditions were run: Scott's had seperate quaters for enlisted men and officers; Amundsen's men lived together-each man was equal to the next, this level of committment made Amundsen's team the best
I think they wanted to become famous and paid the price.
Falcon? More like a Pigeon.
How would the sea levels rise if the Antarctic ice melted, it doesn't make sense.
My theory is. For ice to melt at significant amount the sun would have to generate increased amount of heat thereby creating more evaporation and cause clouds that would then move further south and fall as snow. Therefore that wouldn't cause anything to to rise except the snow levels.
I *think* the volume of water wouldn’t be negated by reduced landmass as a lot of the polar ice sheets rest atop open ocean. You’re not swapping land for water.
The only people who are allowed to critique Scott or his men are those who have actually been to Antarctica, everyone else should just S.T.F.U. I have nothing but respect for all explorers whether it my be space, the ocean, ocean deep, the wilderness, arctic etc.
Yeah and the only people who can critique dead men are dead men, oh wait...
You don't need to be a master chef to see there are maggots in the soup.