Superb. Well said. I have just finished reading several books about the Antarctic expeditions, finishing with Scott's last expedition diary. It is a humbling, thought provoking account that will make you cry; if not on the outside, then surely within. They were men of a different breed. Truly heroic, determined, meticulous and brave. - It is so easy for present day people - who have never read the accounts or been anywhere near the hardships and difficulties these men faced; to dismiss their achievements. Like almost anything, you must READ what these men put to paper. Every day without fail - until their pencils literally fell from their dying hands...
Fantastic stuff. I was lucky enough to meet Fiennes in the early 90s when he visited my school in Mid Yell, Shetland Islands. I wish I'd known then that he would become one of my biggest heroes
Fiennes book Captain Scott is a forensic explosion of all the accumulated myths about Scott researched by one of the great modern explorers.A brilliant moving read and fair to all concerned.
Thank you for your stoicism and tenaciousness in recording and representing the facts surrounding this great polar explorer. I too like many others have been truly fascinated by these accounts reading from an early age and it is a shame that reputations are tarnished. In this day and age we struggle for examples of great leadership, pioneering scientific research etc. Thank you Sir Ranulph.
The best people at the last point are the ones who go forth to the pole? I think it is well known at this point that one of the best never got the opportunity to go on the last leg. That is the Irish man Tom Crean. What Crean done on the Shackleton expedition was remarkable.
“Has it ever struck you that life is all memory, except for the one present moment that goes by you so quick you hardly catch it going?”― Tennessee Williams
I regularly recommend Fiennes' book to anyone with an interest in the Heroic Age of Polar Exploration as it is fantastically researched and written. He's spot on about the character assassination of Scott by those quite unqualified to do pass judgment and his own research that actively disproves some of the nonsense that numtpies like Roland Huntford and others have spouted deserves to be better known. It's all to easy to tear someone down and ruin their reputation but a heck of a lot harder to restore it and build it up again. Amundsen won fair and square (for the most part anyway - read the book for more details!) but Scott was anything but a "heroic bungler" and while his preparations and choice of equipment today might be looked down on as being inadequate, he was in many ways ahead of his time as nobody is using reindeer skins today down in Antarctica. His measurements on calorie requirement might have been off by today's understanding but for the time he overestimated what they needed. He was wrong, yes, but nobody knew any better back then. Hindsight is 20/20 after all!
Despite meticulous planning and preparation for the Terra Nova Expedition, Scott made three fatal mistakes: 1) Scott chose to rely on man-hauling rather than dog sleds to transport equipment and supplies for most of the trek to the pole, even though dog sleds had been well-tested and proven on previous polar expeditions, North and South, to be by far the fastest and most reliable means of traversing frozen terrain. In addition there was abundant evidence of the soundness of dog sleds provided by countless generations of Inuit/Yupik/Aleut peoples. Scott would have needed only one or two men skilled with dog sleds on his polar team. 2) The calorie intake needed for man-hauling in Antarctica was vastly underestimated and consequently the wrong type of food was chosen for the polar trek. Man-hauling a sledge demands an intake of around 6,000 to 7,000 calories a day, and figures as high as 11,000 have been recorded. Rations for the polar team consisted of pemmican, which is ground meat mixed with fat, and biscuits baked by Huntley & Palmers, one of the expedition's commercial sponsors. These rations provided a high level of protein, then believed to be needed, but nutritionists now know this was not the case. Instead, a diet high in carbohydrates was required to maintain blood sugar levels, but with the most energy for the least weight, so the thinking of most of today's nutritionists has moved toward a high-carbohydrate high-fat diet. The lack of carbohydrates and fat in large part was why Scott's polar team struggled and ultimately failed to maintain the necessary pace of travel and suffered so much. They were malnourished almost from day one. 3) Not all the men Scott chose for the polar team were in the utmost physical condition or had undergone sufficient training for such an extreme challenge in antarctic conditions. Captain Lawrence "Titus" Oates was chosen in order to have the British army represented at the South Pole even though a bullet wound to his left leg suffered in battle 10 years earlier compromised his ability to perform his duties efficiently and he broke down physically on the return march from the pole. Petty Officer Edgar Evans was chosen so there would be a non-commissioned officer, a member of the "lower deck", on the polar team to demonstrate that the Terra Nova Expedition was not an elitist enterprise. But Evans was a large man, was overweight, and far from being physically fit. And he had shown himself at times to be reckless and undisciplined. Henry "Birdie" Bowers was chosen primarily because of his loyalty and friendship with Scott, not for any particular skill he could contribute to the team. Lastly, none of the five men on the polar team were proficient on skis. Even without dog sleds and relying on man-hauling, if Scott's polar team had been more physically fit and well-trained and had the proper nutrition there would have been a much greater likelihood of their surviving to make it back to Cape Evans base camp. However, without dog sleds and given their later start, it is extremely unlikely they could have beaten Amundsen to the pole.
Bit of a stretch surely to suggest that Scott and his team didn't think or even know they were in a race and that it wasn't important. The facts and diaries of expedition members and indeed Scott's own diary strongly suggest otherwise and the look on the faces of the five at the pole in that famous - terrifying - pic tells another story. Having said that the overall success of the expedition does need to be stressed as Sir R points out. Scientifically it was a complete and remarkable triumph decades ahead of it time. Scott was an extraordinary and brave man of many talents (as was his son) and he did get very unlucky with the weather on his return from the pole , but he was not entirely without fault. Even a follower and devottee ike Cherry-Garrard clearly had some reservations as well in his brilliant book
Fully agree and for Sir Ranulph to gloss over Scott's failure to set up the vital return food dumps as Amundsen had done sticks in my throat. Scott bogged himself down with his incomprensible insistence of man hauling instead of using the dogs to pull his sleds defies commonsense. He consistently ignored Gran's advice and thus paid the price. Indeed, Amundsen on hearing how Scott and his party perished recorded angrily in his diary on why Scott chose to exhaust his way to the Pole. As much as I admire Scott, he seems to have been an arrogant Englishman who refused to listen to sound advice from his Norweigian skiiing expert. It's perhaps not without significance that Admiral Evans who was with the Scott expedition but ordered back to base camp by Scott that he did not value Scott's skills.
I think what Sir Ranulph was suggesting without being clear at all was Scott never intended to go on a race when planing the expedition, it was only when they were already sailing south that he learned of Amundsden expedition and embarked on a race. That probably contributed to the disaster, trying to race without having planed it out. Still an astonishing triumph.
Fiennes’ glorification of Scott while at the same time treating Amundsen as a nameless nobody, reminds me of a Cold War joke: In Moscow, a car race with only two contestants took place. The American won easily; the Russian went on a humiliating defeat. In the next day’s issue of Pravda the car race was reported as following: «The Russian secured a glorious second place whereas the American came second to last».
Scott was miserable failure. No excuses. There is no try there is DO. Ask the Great Philosopher Yoda. Scott's clothing and Boots were lousy while Amundsen dressed like an Inuit Indian. Scott used Cotton and Wool. Amundsen used dog teams and expert skiers and expert Dog handlers while Scott picked among his crew his favorites. Do not blame bad weather on failure both Scott and Amundsen were in the same conditions for 85% of the time. Fiennes is really embarrassing himself here.
I've read Fienne's biography of Scott and he speaks favorably of Amundsen. Which he should, Amundsen was elite. However, owing to decades of revisionist history, Fiennes chose to collate actual accounts and testimony from the era to present a clearer picture of Scott which is one of a human who had good qualities and bad qualities. However it's all informed by surviving, immediate documentation.
@@ronaldsmith4153 And Amundsen died dressed like an Inuit Indian, riding on the second prototype of a plane model whose first prototype only managed 2 flights before being destroyed.
Here we have Sir Ranulph Fiennes, an Englishman to the very marrow, attempting to repair the tarnished reputation of a fellow Briton, Capt. Robert Falcon Scott. His principal defense of Scott's disastrous decision to rely on man-hauling rather than dog sleds for the major portion of his trek to the South Pole is that Scott did not see his expedition as a race with Amundsen, but as a purely scientific endeavor in which speed was never a prime requirement. What Scott should have realized but obviously did not is that for the Terra Nova Expedition to have a reasonable chance of succeeding he would in fact have to be in a race, not with Amundsen but with the forces of nature, primarily blizzard conditions and brutally cold temperatures. As such, every advantage in reaching the South Pole and returning to his base at Cape Evans as rapidly as possible would need to be utilized, not for the sake of the glory and fame of being the first to reach the pole, but for the sake of survival. Unpredictability being the hallmark of antarctic weather, the extremely limited period of suitability for travel during the brief antarctic spring and summer could not be relied on either to arrive early or remain late. Amundsen, observing a short stretch of favorable weather, made the nearly fatal mistake of starting out for the pole early in the season on September 8 against the advice of one of his veteran polar explorers Hjalmar Johansen. Fierce cold and blizzard conditions more normal for that time of year set in and soon forced him back to base camp. He regrouped and started out again on October 19. The great advantage of dog sleds and proficiency on skis, which none of Scott's men had, in rapidly traversing frozen terrain had been well tested and proven on earlier polar expeditions, North and South. But because Scott's team man-hauled their sledge most of the distance from their base to the pole, it took them 11 weeks to accomplish what Amundsen's team with dog sleds and skis did in 8, plus taking a far greater toll on them physically. And since Scott's team started out on November 1, two weeks later than Amundsen, they did not arrive at the pole until January 17, which was a full five weeks after Amundsen. With good mid-summer weather and a well-marked trail to follow, Amundsen's team arrived back at their base camp at the Bay of Whales on January 26 and so avoided the terribly harsh weather of February and March that Scott and his men had to face and which ultimately doomed them.
@@paulmcdonough1093 Were you bored? I happen to find it one of the better explanations why Amundsen succeeded in reaching the South Pole first and made it back home without a single life lost while Scott and his men all died on the ice.
In his book that's on my shelves, Sir Ranulph - the greatest explorer still living and whose feats should be well known by now - tackled the "lies" and polemics against Captain Scott that were patently, known to be, wrong. Typically, Sir Ranulph's book is well researched and honest, and it needed to be done. It's a fact that Scott ran into uniquely adverse weather conditions and froze to death. The boss carries responsibility which can't be delegated, but Scott could never defend himself, nor answer people who weren't there and who weren't and aren't qualified to pontificate.
Basically addresses none of the criticisms of Scott. He refused to use dogs. Barely knew to ski. Placed too few depots and didn't mark them well or place enough food in them. Dressed poorly. Chose the wrong people to accompany him. Too few people who could navigate or use the dogs. Chose very poor ponies.
Nah, most of that isn't right. > on dogs, you're correct. He'd found them draining on the Discovery Expedition ten years earlier. He also was unaware of Amundsen's true plans so he didn't have an impetus for pure speed. > the ponies were Manchurian and bred for sub-temp labour. Oates' writes mixed remarks about the ponies but they ultimately prove a success, in the capacity of Scott's plan. > While not a native skier, he was a comfortable skier, having learned on Discovery and retrained ahead of Terra Nova expedition. He had also brought a Norweigan skiing champion to train his men. > Crucially, two of his strongest haulers hid injuries from Scott before he made his selection for the Pole. Oates and Evan's were determined to achieve glory but ultimately delayed their companions as they weakened and died. > The clothing was truthfully very effective. It was designed to allow men to cool off as they laboured, so layers where removed when necessary. However, moisture built up through sweat within the clothing but this was not limited to Scott's expedition. Any moisture will freeze and cling to fabric in those conditions. > the depots were fine aside from one or two that proved difficult in a white out.
Very interesting interview but I have to say the comments about Oates are not on. Sir Ranulph describes Oates as a 'whinger' and a 'complainer'. A whinger? A complainer? I don't think so. In Scotts own diaries he says many times how uncomplaining and positive and upbeat Oates was despite his terrible and painful condition. Why is Sir Ralph calling Oates a whinger then? Sir Ranulph says that Oates wrote letters to his mum and would always complain about the boss of whatever he was in. Ok, even if Oates did that, so what? That doesn't make Oates a whinger. Most human beings would share their feelings in a letter home that they would not share outside of it. So it is very unfair to call Oates a whinger when he was very far from that. Oates was a very brave, hard working and self sacrificing man. So please take back your 'whinger' comments Sir Ranulph. I can't believe you dissed him so badly just because he wrote honest letters to his mum. Oates didn't whinge to anyone, and he did not complain to anyone. The only 'complaint' Oates made was about the ponies because he was lumbered with ponies that were not chosen well and were not fit for the job. Those unfit ponies were thrust on him and Oates had to make the best of what he got with the ponies, and that he did.
I agree this was crass and offensive. But then Fiennes is apparently a crass and offensive fellow himself. This is apologetics and an attempt to reconstitute the original Myth of Scott as the hero done in battling stoically against impossible odds. That myth is the myth that has been shattered in the last 40 years. And his arrogant dismissal of Norwegian expertise and the brilliance of Amundsen's achievement is telling.
Oates had that streak in him. His crowning achievement may have been his suicide but he could also be disrespectful, dissenting and fairly bitchy. It's documented in his own diary as well as accounts from the other men on the expedition. He made insulting remarks to Scott behind his back and queried decisions left, right and centre.
@@johnkelly3549 So why did Scott praise Oates in his diary and say how uncomplaining and brave he was despite his painful condition? Plus they lumbered him with rank dodgy donkeys not fit enough or healthy enough for the task. You are just prejudiced because Oates came from a wealthy background. You have a huge chip on your shoulder sunshine.
I like Fiennes and read his book, and others, on Scott, and I think that he is very biased towards Scott... Fiennes says that the fault of the ponies lay solely with Oates, yet Oates didn't get to choose the animals he was supposed to be responsible for, Scott was so ignorant of the ponies that Oates had to pay for extra feed from his own money, and sneak it aboard the ship! The Five man team thing, just because Wilson drew a picture of it, doesn't mean it was the plan, and, it is a fact that following Scott's decision Birdie had to make the journey to the Pole and a good way back WITHOUT skis, because Scott had Lt Evans' team depot their skies. If Scott had intended five to go, why did he get Birdie to depot his skis? Also, why were the rations set up in sets of four? I grew up with Scott as a bit of a hero, but his obsession with getting to the Pole with man-hauling I think was his downfall. Men are not as fast as dogs on the ice, Scott was continually having a go at his dog teams because in his ignorance he thought that the handlers were forcing the dogs to hard, when in fact the dogs were fine, the only issue was Scott's ignorance. The fact is Scott didn't believe in dogs, his rival did, and won. All that said, I think another contributing factor Scott, was having to spend too much time trying to raise funds for the expedition, and having a more complex plan than Amundsen, he couldn't afford his eye being taken off the ball...true, Amundsen had to raise funds too, but his plan needed fewer resources, and less complicated planning. Amundsen only needed to plan the logistics of dogs and men, Scott had to plan for his mechanical sledges, dogs, ponies, and men... Not knocking what Scott achieved, he did reach the Pole, but, he did die, and so wasn't successful in the real sense of the term: it will be a similar tale when and if they find Andy Irvine with the camera and notes proving he and Mallory got to the top of Everest... Personally, I think many of Terra Nova's guys were heroic, the Polar party had a bad time, but so too did Wilson, Cherry and Birdie's on their horrendous egg-hunting trip, and Campbell's Northern Party too... Those guys back then were men, not metrosexuals scared of leaving home with a hair out of place...
Correction - he didn't say the Ponies were Oat's fault. Oats wasn't available to choose them as he couldn't be released from army. Oats did have a tendency to rail against authority and moan to his mother in his private writings and to colleagues. I think people lose sight of the fact that this wasn't a race per se and Amundsen committed a huge deceit.
@@ToreDL87 Nah, that's not what's being said. Scott made mistakes as all humans do but Amundsen did mislead the world about his plans. He planned for a race, Scott didn't; Scott didn't know there was a race. Amundsen was going North, as he had stated. Amundsen even pretended to be out of town when Scott was in Norway to avoid meeting him about a year before the expeditions (Scott, oblivious, wanted his invaluable advice on polar travel). When Scott learned the truth, he had already planned everything and used the budget. He couldn't make meaningful amendments and realistically couldn't compete in a race. Fiennes wants readers to understand that Scott hadn't planned for a sprint, which a lot of revisionist historians criticize him for.
@@greatwhite3461 Lots of people overlook that for a time, Amundsen was very out of favour in his home country, let alone Britain! This is because Nansen was considered the superior polar explorer and when Amundsen asked to borrow Nansen's ship for an expedition it was under the guise of going North. It was only after setting off that he told everyone they were going South instead. Norwegians were concerned that Amundsens achievement was disrespectful to the British. I think this is ridiculous and unfair as Britain had no more right to claim the South Pole than anyone else but that was how it was felt at the time. But even setting aside the British attitude to the whole thing, Norwegians were angry that Amundsen had deceived Nansen. It was only in time that Amundsen got the recognition he undoubtedly deserved for the achievement his team made. But it is also fair to say that the race was not even from the start and that arguably, it was the dogs that got to the pole with the humans along for the ride. Scott may have died on his return journey but had he lived, even if Amundsen had still been first, I honestly feel we'd celebrate Scott's achievement more as it was one made by man and not beast.
Thank you for this this. For me, they were all heroes & l can't begin to imagine what they went through. God bless them. As an aside l met Robert Swan in the early 2000's, a very intesting chap. However, sounds like this Hunt... character's name has been mis-spelt.
Sir, there was a 35 days difference between the two teams. Being 35 days late around and especially after solstice in Antarctica is a matter of reason rather than fate. One doesn't have to be a polar expert to realise that when you are deep in the polar region you are not competing against some opponent team but against nature.
True, but Scott's delay was mostly due to where he was located and because of his many methods of transport...from what I read he couldn't have gone much sooner...and Amundsen attempted an earlier departure that nearly ended in tragedy...I've always felt that Amundsen was chomping at the bit to get the thing done, whereas reading all the stuff I have about Scott, I get a more laid back feel...he only seemed to take things more seriously when he'd heard Amundsen was down there too. Really, not only did Amundsen have a better deal with respect to the conditions, but whatever the conditions, using only dogs he was going to be facing any conditions for less time. I don't know, but I get a sense from Scott that his belief in priority disappeared when Cecil Meares was daily beating the man-haulers by many hours...Scott even telling Meares to leave later and to stop pushing the dogs. Surely it occurred to Scott that even IF Amundsen had left when he did, that the dogs would beat him...I remember some diary entries alluding to the relief Scott's team had when they didn't see dog poo on the ice!
@@realityhurtstoomuch8830 Yes! So often do people overlook that Amundsen tried to set off too soon and nearly paid the price for it. Or rather, some of his crewmates nearly did because Amundsen just fucked off when things got bad and then went out of his way to destroy the reputation of the man he left behind. Look up Hjalmar Johansen below for the details: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Johansen
Fiennes says about Antarctica: “A totally unknown continent about which nothing was known”!!! Brilliant scholarship from a celebrity explorer and less so writer.
@@johnkelly3549 Calm down lad. Why attack me, the mere messenger? I was merely commenting that, of course “nothing was known” of a “totally unknown continent”! It is either a very clever oxymoron or it is poor writing. It’s up to you.
Amundson, who also was the first to sail the North-West Passage over the top of North America, picked up his knowledge of sleds and dogs from the Inuit while he was going through the North-West Passage. So he actually took advantage of existing "Arctic" technology to get to the the South Pole. It is an interesting question as to what the result would have been if the British (who actually had a colony--Canada) had selected people with some knowledge as to how to get around in Arctic conditions to be on this expedition.
What do you think was the attitude of men like Scott in Edwardian England towards the Inuit? That these are people who the BRITISH EMPIRE can learn from? Scott ignored the advice of Nansen. This is just crass and unsubtle apologetics from Fiennes. The problem that Fiennes has with this counter revisionism are the long almost endless list of facts describing Scott's mistakes and poor and inadequate leadership regardless of Huntford's books. Also the attack on Oates as a whinger and moaner, and someone he arrogantly says he knows all about, is offensive. This rather shows Fiennes is a mean spirited and nasty piece of work himself.
He did though. Cecil Mears was a renowned sledger and had traversed Siberia unaccompanied. Tryggve Gran was a champion skier. Several of his officers were experienced polar travelers from Discovery or Nimrod. Even the ponies were a breed from Manchuria, developed to survive sub-temperature labour. Scott had even copied the Inuit footwear of finnesko, made of reindeer to avoid freezing.
Amundsen bright enough to really know what skills & gear to bring, needing funding always a game all had to play a reaction to Scott selecting w/o anthropology & Arctic Cultures who had the tech. Thx, great story of yours, cheers 🍺
It was more than that. It was being shown up as incompetent and rank amateurs. A once great state and people became hamstrung by the privileged and the meretricious who crushed the life out of Britain as its leadership in every single area of human endeavour was allowed to falter
Sorry Ranulph, you can't attach ultimate significance to Scott's diaries and then argue Oates was some kind of perpetual complainer. Scott repeatedly stated that Oates bore his suffering "without complaint". I'd also highlight the hypocrisy of attempting to correct the slander of a dead man by ... slandering a dead man.
The point if you’d read Sir Ranulphs books is that Oates complained privately in his letters. And not publicly, because he was a gallant and brave man. Scott never knew he felt the way he did Oates just got in inspite of his perceived grievances. And Sir Ranulph doesn’t slander a dead man he points out the the Ronald version is made up of abject falsehoods. And in his book he provides plenty of proof that they are such.
@@JohnBloggart IMO, Feinnes makes exactly the same mistake. Only he flips to the opposite side of the argument. The truth almost certainly lies somewhere between both and yet neither man is prepared to back down an inch. Scott wasn't the bumbling simpleton Huntford claims. But he wasn't a paragon of virtue, either. His biggest blunder was not realizing his men were played out at the top of the Beardmore. The journey from there to the pole at high altitude, low oxygen and under hellish pulling conditions killed them all. Even with good weather all the way back they'd need a miracle.
@@deaddropholiday I appreciate your point. I think your right that the answer is somewhere in between. I think that Sir Ranulph is so vehement in Scotts defence because for a long time Scotts international reputation has been so tarnished by easily provable falsehoods. But I also agree that he wasn’t a perfect man. Wether he would have made it back in perfect conditions is difficult to say, but I’d tend to think he would as, he died only 11 miles from the next supply depot (being held up because of a blizzard). With that said he still would have probably lost some of his men; PO Evans certainly would have died either way. Which Scott would have been responsible for.
@@JohnBloggart John, they were dead men walking from the top of the Beardmore to the Pole. Sure - they were eleven miles from the next supply depot. But ... Scott's feet and fingers were gone. Wilson - maybe worse. Bowers was still mobile. But all three men were suffering severe malnutrition and by any medical standard - totally unfit for anything other than weeks of bed rest and recuperation. Which they were never going to get. Let's say - somehow - Bowers drags himself up and - somehow - summons the strength to set off for the next supply depot. Eleven miles might as well be eleven thousand miles with winter closing in all around them, hurricane force winds, driving snow, zero visibility (how is he supposed to get a bearing??) and -50 degree temperatures. It's not like Crean(?) walking all the way back to base without a rest to save his colleagues. He didn't have to make the return journey. Bowers would have needed extraordinary luck to have found that depot and even more to find his way back (remember - the snow obliterates the tracks). Even if he had made it the journey would have finished him. No, Scott knew they were finished. That's why he spared Bowers the journey. It's my belief that Scott knew they were dead men as far back as the Pole. I don't think enough is made of the psychological trauma they suffered discovering Amundsen had beaten them. Take a look at that photo they took together. It speaks volumes. Maybe ... maybe if they had reached the pole first the joy of their achievement might have given them just that little more impetus. Or just a positive mindset for them to disappear into on the long journey back. But whether it would have changed the outcome? I'm skeptical. Maybe they could have dragged themselves to One Ton Depot. But ... supplies WEREN'T THE PROBLEM. Their desperate physical condition was. Physically fit men can endure a lot of hardship. But physically shot men are one short gasoline ration from calamity. The truth of the matter is they had no right to make it as far as they did. Scott doesn't deserve 85% of the criticism he's received. But what is undeniable is he KNEW his men were almost physically gone dragging a heavy sled over hundreds of miles of polar plateau. Maybe Shackleton gets too much praise at the expense of Scott. But one mistake he didn't make was pushing his men beyond what they could physically give when he had the Pole almost in his grasp (he was less than a HUNDRED miles away!!!) He turned back - much to the detriment of his career. But he got ALL his men home - alive. That's leadership - of the most honorable and exemplary kind.
So my understanding here watching this interview was that it was everybody else fault but Scott and everything else for that matter. So perfect leadership...OK!
If a race was not important, then why is it so difficult for the British to acknowledge that Amundsen achieved what he intended, which is to be the first person on the South Pole? Just say that Scott succeeded in reaching South Pole, while Amundsen was the first the reach the South Pole. Scott wanted to reach the South Pole first, so he lay dibs on it? That's what children do. Thinking it was not "sporting" of Amundsen is being coy and misrepresenting Scott's intentions. Scott did not prepare for the expedition. Reading the diaries alone is enlightening. While Amundsen was practising and preparing throughout the winter, Scott was passing the time with lectures that had no bearing on surviving Antarctica. Amundsen of course chose the best people for a successful mission, as well as dogs. Any good leader selects a team that will achieve the goal, not a team that's "rather good sports, these chaps!" Both faced similar weather. Amundsen prepared for the weather, educating himself with the way indigenous peoples of the polar regions survive. Amundsen also prepared with food supplies for the dogs and men. His food choices included only the high nutrition foods, Scott included tea, with zero nutritional value for polar expedition, and it adds bulk and weight. In fact, Scott went on familiar terrain while Amundsen went on entirely unfamiliar terrain that no human had charted.
What is your theory then that Amundsen didn't even tell anyone in Norway he was on his way to the Antarctic until he was at least half-way there in his ship? Isn't that a wee bit coy?
@@pauljohnson2982 Amundsen's actions are not in question, and he kept quiet because he was not certain whether he would get backing if he declared for the South Pole. Again, it is irrelevant in this particular conversation. It was a race, being first was important to both. To try and discredit Amundsen is not being "good sports".
This is some bullshit. Scott put a solid two years into prepping for Terra Nova. He commissioned production of ultra high protein and high calorie non-perishable foodstuffs. He borrowed from the Inuit through the reindeer skin boots. He developed an entire scientific remit. He even did a reccy trip to Norway to test out materials on snow. You know what else happened when he was in Norway? He met Nansen, to gain his insight. Nansen and Scott got on quite well. You know who didn’t meet Scott, and in fact told his housekeeper to lie to Scott over the phone by saying he was away travelling? Yeah, Amundsen. Scott paid Amundsen a very big compliment by trying to arrange a meeting & ask his advice. Scott valued Norwegian opinions. Amundsen, brave elsewhere, hid himself on this occasion. He was preparing for the South Pole Race and didn’t have the guts to meet his only competitor. Maybe he was worried he’d feel the need to actually tell Scott he was racing if he met a fellow explorer, or even, just human. Normally, Amundsen’s ruthlessness is admirable. On this occasion, it seems even he knew he was morally incorrect.
Lies about Scott's character, scientific achievements of the expedition and issues involving polar exploration as a whole given how Huntford is an amateur and makes lots of mistakes. Fiennes points it all out and also stories about Huntford making up more and more lies probably as a response to new discoveries (such as those featured in Susan Solomon "The Coldest March") so he started claiming that Scott had syphilis and according to a different author he was determined to find a proof of a great conspiracy in either RGS or Scott's Research Institute (he found no proof but declared that he will). I read similar stories in different books about polar exploration so he's considered a joke as he should be. Probably the worst thing of all he betrays the readers by feeding them stories with absolutely no evidence except for his own words most of which can be easily debunked (such as Scott's wife's love affairs). What a lying sack of shit but again just like Fiennes mentioned in the 70s it was extremely fashionable to write books that were just character assassination on faous popular historical figures with evidence or not. And Scott is not the only one because revisionism sells all we have to do is to maginify the flaws, make some shit up and that's it. Shackleton's abandonment of Ross Sea Party, Amundsen's ungratefulness towards Johansesn which lead to his suicide, Mawson's alleged canibalism and even murder of Mertz. No one is safe.
@@diomedes8791 No, Huntford's treatment of Scott is distinct from how he writes about Amundsen. Amundsen was elite, no one can deny that. Huntford just seemed to detest anything remotely empirical or British. Scott embodied those qualities to a man so it feels like Huntford is venting his feelings at one individual. His joint biography contains a lot of speculation or baseless comment about Scott's character or actions; he's been accused of fabricating writings to support his opinion of Scott. A good example is a completed fabricated conversation where Scott ordered his men 'to lie down and die with him'. There's no evidence of this, neither such a conversation nor that that was Scott's attitude. But Huntford isn't a factual writer; he's a fantasist. Recently first hand sources have been presented to contradict Huntford on several points. In the 1970s, Terra Nova crew member Trggve Gran was still alive to publicly contradict Huntford's portrayal of Scott. In this instance, Huntford had presented Scott as a verbally abusive boss who swore incessantly at his men. Gran was there to state that Scott never swore or behaved as such.
Sorry Sir but your interpretation is bias. Not true that 5 man hauling is almost as fast then dogs, perhaps on the best of condition, they would make the same distance but remember Amundsen was doing 25 miles in 4 hrs and Scott in 12 hrs. But most of the time they did not cover that distance at all. They were starving to death, the food was totally insuficient, since the beginning they stave, missing at least 1/3 of the calories they needed. They took way too long, they should have turn back. Just be honest here. You have to make your own luck.
Sir Ran Fiennes is tough, but he is showman. Somewhere else he claimed how manhauling is superior to anything else, because he did it in 1990s. Yep, with DHC Twin Otter flying over them daily to watch them and radio connection to base. Amundsen on other hand was stomping on speed brake all the way in his 99 day voyage. He needed his men and dogs in absolute top condition all through voyage in case of someone have accident or sickness. Going flat out and risking his men, Amundsen could propably shaved 3 weeks from total voyage time.
Amundsens pole team and surviving dogs gained weight during their pole "sprint". They ate like kings, left many depoes half full (some have been found and studied) and moved only daily distance allowed by Roald Amundsen, so that they would be "fat" and warm, primed for adversity.
Good talk, and yet, he claims (repeatedly) '...a continent no one had been to before'. In what context? Charting, landing, early travels? There were Davis and Nordenskiold. This is, in many ways, simply untrue.
Discovery was a disaster. He, Wilson and Shackleton got scurvy and Scott almost got them killed. Also on Terra Nova he just followed Shackleton's route through Beardmore Glacier that was named for the backer of Shackleton's Nimrod expedition. Fiennes is fitting a narrative to suit the idea that Scott was a hero myth. Also Huntford as written excellent biographies of Shackleton and Nansen. He is hugely admiring of Shackleton, but also notes that Shack had many of the faults that Scott had.
@@myroseaccount Huntford's biographies are borderline conspiracy. He's been called out by other, better biographers who actually read source materials.
@@johnkelly3549 Which biographies are you referring? Huntford is the only one who has used primary sources including given access to the dairies of Amundsen and members of Amundsen's expedition. He compared the diaries DAY BY DAY with Scott's diary. Huntford provided limited commentary and let the diaries speak for themselves & do the talking and they are devastating
@@myroseaccount he also fabricates entire episodes and argues against recorded narratives. Huntford claimed Scott was verbally abusive, regularly swearing at his men. Terra Nova crew member Tryggve Gran, still alive when the book is published, contradicted Huntford publicly, saying Scott never swore. Huntford made explicit claims that Clement Markham was a rampant closeted homosexual based on his (Huntford’s) interpretation of a Markham diary entry where Markham spoke to a local man in Sicily. That’s it. Biographer David Crane simply called Huntford ‘unhistorical’ for this. He overlooks Simpson and Bower’s meteorological data to claim there was no blizzard to keep Scott stranded. He has implied Scott commanded Bowers and Wilson to lie down and die with him. There is no evidence for this. That’s a conclusion you reach if you’re trying to tarnish a man’s character. An interviewer once queried Huntford on how he could posit his unfounded opinions on Scott with such an absence of evidence. Huntford’s response was that ‘these are landscapes of the mind’. The man is/was a fantasist with an innate dislike of empirical Britain and Scott; he’s selective of what accounts and evidence to include. He equally doesn’t acknowledge anything that contradicts his charged opinions. Fiennes’ biography of Scott, which I think is an impartial and fair overview, is very much also a retort to Huntford’s characterisation of Scott. Yes, I know Fiennes vibe but this book is not a homage to Scott. It presents a man who was neither a fool nor a glorious tragic hero, in an informed way. Fiennes utilises a wider base of data and his own lived polar experience allows him to highlight flaws in Huntford’s theories when put into practice. I will say it’s been a few years since I read this one so I’d need to go back to provide more examples.
When he says science was the first aim of the expedition, I'm slightly skeptical because if it was, why were they so crushed when they found the Norwegians had beat them to the pole? I compare it to the Apollo missions. Yeah, they did some science when they got to the moon because once you got up there, what else were you going to do? But the main point was getting there first, then you could worry about the science. The astronauts had varying degrees of interest in the science, from Frank Borman, who didn't want to do any at all, to, by coincidence one who was also named Scott, Dave Scott on Apollo 15, who was very gung-ho on the science. But the main focus was "Beat the Russians" and then if you had time, do the science, and in this "race for the pole" it seems to me to be the same thing.
Simpler times. This is before world wars and modernism. The world was still unexplored and the south pole was a big prize. They also walked about 900 miles to get there so they were obviously flattened to get the silver medal. A lot of Scott's final team dreamed of a happy retirement with the glory of being first and that all disappeared.
I tend to agree that much of the criticism of Scott is largely unwarranted. However, he did make one crucial error which certainly was a factor in the failure of the mission. Between the completion of the ascent up the Beardmore and the arrival at the pole Scott failed to recognise that the tough sledding in the thin air on the polar plateau was diminishing the condition of his men at an exponential rate. Couple this with the psychological shock of realising Amundsen had beaten them (which meant they couldn't offset the mental toll of the return journey with thoughts of being lauded as successful) and they were pretty much shot. Within just a few days of turning back you hear ominous references to Oates getting "cold feet". Mystery surrounds the seemingly rapid deterioration and demise of Evans. Fiennes agrees with Wilson that he most likely suffered some kind of concussion and/or brain haemorrhage following several falls. But if you read Scott's diaries it's pretty clear Evans was going downhill before they'd even arrived at the pole. The injury to his hand was a worrying sign. Then just a few days into the return journey he is so physically and mentally exhausted he fails to realise he has suffered severe frostbite to his face. Claiming he died as a direct result of a fall is far easier to admit than failing to recognise Evans was cooked and should never have been included in the final party. Why did Evans fall apart quicker than the others? Possibly because he was a bigger build and big guys burn out quicker. Contrast with the diminutive Bowers who had the slight frame of a special forces soldier built for endurance. Indeed, Scott refers to Evans losing weight at a much faster rate than all of his colleagues. For me Wilson also bears a lot of responsibility. He was the team physician. He also had experience not just on the Terra Nova expedition but also the nightmarish trek to the penguin rookery where he was tasked specifically with monitoring the condition of the party all of whom were given different sled rations. And let's not forget that Shackleton made the very same journey and hit the ejector seat with only a hundred miles to go because he realised they had enough left in the tank to make it to the pole - or make it back alive. But not both. The fact that Bowers, Scott and Wilson somehow got back to the barrier is deceptive because even if they had made it to One Ton Depot - Scott's feet were gone and Wilson's weren't far behind. Even in optimal conditions and with no shortage of fuel they were never going to make it back to the hut unless they'd been met by Cherry-Garrard. And even then he would have had a devil of a task to bring them home. No - Scott's party ran out of gas long before they got to the pole. They were doomed thereafter.
I agree on all points but perhaps if Cecil Meares and later Atkinson had actually carried out the (admittedly confusing) orders to bring the dogs south at the beginning of March then the Polar Party could have been saved. There were so many errors that snowballed (if you'll forgive the choice of words!) into catastrophe but the fact they came so close considering all the hardships and limiting factors is nothing short of incredible.
@@jacktorrance3522 It's a fascinating conundrum to ponder. I think a lot of people fall into the trap of thinking that once they'd reached the pole half of their journey was complete. That's true in the obvious miles and distance sense. But it's a lot more complicated than that. The return journey was always going to be arduous. However, two things were in their favour on the way back - greatly reduced sled weights and not having to ascend the Beardmore. In theory they should have been able to move at a healthy clip. But the men were in such bad condition upon arriving at the pole they might as well have only completed 25% of the journey. Their final camp was 900 miles short of home. 900 miles to men who could no longer walk, were severely malnourished and frostbitten and with very little supplies remaining might as well have been 9,000. I've always found it odd why Cherry was so critical of himself because even if he'd somehow pushed onward and discovered their camp the chances of them getting back were practically nil. Garrard still hadn't gotten over the physical beating he'd taken to the penguin rookery and the notion that he could have took them all with him - let alone given them enough supplies to survive, travelled the 900 miles to base camp, picked up a rescue team, travelled 900 miles back and then a further 900 to safety is utterly ridiculous. So why was he so self-critical? My suspicion is a hell of a lot more took place on the polar journey than we've been told, Cherry knew it but couldn't say and that knowledge ate away at his mind for the rest of his life.
@@deaddropholidaywhere did you get the "900 miles" from? the distance between Cherry Garrard and the returning team was less than 70 miles (still quite a distance, but not as long😅). and One ton depot was 150 miles from the Hut.
@@urskaferletic445 Sorry, I was thinking of the total distance. Yes, Scott was somewhere around 170 miles from home. Cherry was a non-factor and gone by the 10th whilst Scott was crawling along with Oates and his bad feet somewhere near Mount Hooper. But they were finished. Scott's feet were gone. Wilson was in a similarly bad condition. The only chance they had was for Bowers to make a run for it like Crean did when he left Evans and Lashly to get help from Hut Point. But Crean was only 35 miles from home which meant he could make the journey in a single march without having to make camp (which was an astonishing feat with a very low probability of success). Bowers would have needed to make several camps initially with no tent (I'm not sure if they cached a spare at One Ton Depot). So, 170 miles to go. Let's posit that he had optimum weather conditions, clear skies for navigation, located all of the markers and found a spare tent. Say, 20-25 miles per day. Best case scenario - he makes it back in a week, give or take a day. The alarm is raised and the Hut Point team put together a rescue party. Say a day to organize all of the provisions and make a start. They then need to get to Scott. That's another 5-7 days in perfect conditions. Scott's last camp was struck - 19th March. Even if Bowers made that run on the 19th they're all dead days before the rescue party can get to them. And this is with everything going their way. Now let's factor in reality. Bowers was in the best shape of all of them - but 20-25 miles per day ... for a week ... in his condition? Bowers was way further gone than Crean and facing far bigger challenges. With winter drawing in rapidly and temperatures plummeting to hitherto unknown levels the chances of him getting a week of clear skies for navigation are slim to non-existent. I seriously doubt he could have made it to Minna Bluff or Corner Camp without freezing to death or falling down a crevasse. But let's say he somehow drags himself back home - the rescue party is still facing the same problems. You can't march if you can't navigate and it's so cold you can't stave off frostbite while moving. It was hopeless. Moreover, the men at Hut Point knew it was hopeless. After all, they could have sent out another party after Cherry returned. The fact that they didn't tells you they had written Scott off.
I've read Captain Scott by Ranulph Fiennes. I thought it very fair in its critique. Certainly no fanboy worship. But it did remove the myth that Scott was a know- nothing polar blunderer. He was physically fitter than his men and he did listen to advice as Fiennes pointed out. The sail-sled technique to be used on the polar plateau return legwas very successful regards mileage and had that freak Antarctic weather not intervened, they would've made it home. Did Scott lose the race to the Pole? - yes. Did he cause his own death? - no.
Rimmer : History, Lister, is written by the winners. How do we know that Oates went out for this legendary walk? From the only surviving document: Scott's diary. And he's hardly likely to have written down, "February the First, bludgeoned Oates to death while he slept, then scoffed him along with the last packet of instant mash." How's that going to look when he gets rescued, eh? No, much better to say, "Oates made the supreme sacrifice," while you're dabbing up his gravy with the last piece of crusty bread.
Oates left the tent at around the exact spot that one Ton depot was supposed to have been placed 30 miles further south and Oates had urged Scott to push further south the previous season by killing some of the ponies to get the depot further south. But Scott refused saying he wouldn't kill any ponies just to save on a couple of marches. Oates said that you would regret it. After Oates committed suicide they struggled on another 20 miles finishing 11 miles short of where Scott had positioned One Ton Depot. Perhaps that was just a coincidence. This is just one in a catalogue of errors, and mistakes made by Scott. Making mistakes is forgivable. What is not acceptable is making the same mistakes over and over again. Forcing Evan's team to depot their skis and reducing them to exhaustion on foot. And then selecting Bowers from Evan's team who had no skis and had to trudge on foot in a team of 5. You could go on and on. The Man was an arrogant and bungling oaf who repeatedly risked the lives of his Men multiple times in multiple locations and situations in positions he was wholly unsuited. The idea you have to be a polar explorer to understand the particular and unique problems faced by Scott is risible in the face of quite overwhelming evidence. Scott failed in practically every area of what a leader is supposed to do, and either Fiennes is wilfully overlooking that, which I suspect, or he himself knows little about what constitutes good leadership.
Captain Scott is a hero. That Sirs, who selected not the right person to organize the expedition are responsible for lost human lives. Captain Scott was just a soldier. A soldier must not judge his "rightness". Fiennes gets it somehow deep in his mind. Sad to see a gentleman acting like a piece of ****.
You seem very bitter about the way Scott has been represented in Rolands book, i thoroughly enjoyed it. Scott was never the greatest explorer and you are a very biased old man.
This is because Huntford effectively pulled his biography out of his hole. Trggyve Gran, the last surviving Terra Nova crew member, was still alive when Huntford published his nonsense and had to contradict accounts Huntford had included that were total fiction. Fiennes is probably upset that he had to write an impartial and informed account of Scott because Huntford had done such a crappy job.
Fiennes is a great guy. But look, man hauling (Scott) means terrific wear and tear on bodies and high caloric requirements. Modern study suggests that on a day to day basis., Scott and Co. had inadequate food EVERY day, given man hauling, often as Fiennnes notes, under adverse conditions. Amundsen gets it-- let the dogs do the work--and then eat the dogs,
Scott lost. Due to faulty preparation. Amundsen was the winner. Fullstop. That's a fact you can't deny. Even the English can't do so in orden to glorify Scott. After he had recognized to be only second at the pole it would have been his duty to bring his men back alive into his base camp but to resign.
Scott was so incredibly successful he got his whole team killed and made it second. His team got scurvy....something the British figured how to avoid nearly a century earlier.
There's no evidence scurvy impacted his crew, save for one individual who didn't go on the polar trek. Scott supplied Vitamin C with the medical case of each sled.
There is no such thing as "incredibly bad luck" when embarking on such an expedition. One must plan for any, and all, possibilities when embarking on such a potentially deadly adventure.
@@pauljohnson2982 Yes, Paul... all possibilities. The most blatantly obvious possibilities are the possibilities of freezing or starving to death. Scott was, evidently, ill-prepared for both.
You can't fix stupid. Scott took five men when had planned on 4. He had an inadequate ration. His clothing was inadequate. English Woolens and sealskin. Despite these things he could have made it home if he had dogs doing the large part of the hauling. His depot was 50 miles short of where he initially planned it. He would have still lost some of his crew and struggled brutally frostbit to One Ton Depot had he positioned it where planned. Blaming the weather when you are in Antarctica is absurd also. Fiennes next show on the Titanic or Dunkirk?
The successful guys know to keep it simple. Lindbergh, who was only 15 years after this, saw the others trying to cross the ocean with larger planes, extra crew, multi-engine crafts and saw that as the wrong way. The more you have, the more that can go wrong. Lindbergh had one man, one engine, didn't even take a radio and his plane was basically a large fuel tank with wings, a seat and an engine. Keep everything to a minimum, just go with the most basic needs, and it all becomes much more manageable.
Oates did not buy the scrawny ponies they had. He just correctly reported to Scott that their ponies were crap when he first saw them. Oates demanded that the ponies they had on depot laying should be ran to exhaustion, and made extra food depot from them, around 80 degrees or even beyond. Scott would gladly eaten that food 1 year later (assuming they would had left also some kerosene there). Oates said to Scott he will regret not heeding his advice. Oates was 100% correct.
Oates quite correctly regarded their ponies only as 4 legged meat delivery vehicles, after seeing how ill-suited horses were in Antarctic. This in 1st summer. 1 year before summit attack. Oates loved horses, but could see realities.
About daily travel. Fiennes "forgets" to mention that Amundsen stopped his men and dogs and ordered going to lager after 15nm every day, just when they were properly warmed up. Reason? = Amundsen needed to have RESERVES of strenght in his team. At any moment there could had been accident like dropping to crevasse, and/or long period of bad weather. Amundsen was going to bring his team back.
Maybe Scott could have planned for the race if he'd known he was in one. Amundsen knew and lied about his travel plans, so maybe he felt threatened by the British, those amateurs. Either way, there's a saltiness to Norweigans when it comes to Scott's legacy of bravery. Comparatively, Amundsen's home received a phonecall from Scott a year before either team departed as Scott wanted to avail of Amundsen's polar knowledge. Amundsen told his housekeeper to tell Scott he was away, out of town, can't answer or meet. Amundsen seemed to be intimidated about sitting down with the Scott. Perhaps he didn't want meet the man with such as respect for his knowledge, his unassuming rival. Perhaps he was worried he'd be compelled to tell the truth. As elite as Amundsen was at polar travel, there's a reason people remember Scott's humanity instead.
Superb. Well said. I have just finished reading several books about the Antarctic expeditions, finishing with Scott's last expedition diary. It is a humbling, thought provoking account that will make you cry; if not on the outside, then surely within. They were men of a different breed. Truly heroic, determined, meticulous and brave. - It is so easy for present day people - who have never read the accounts or been anywhere near the hardships and difficulties these men faced; to dismiss their achievements. Like almost anything, you must READ what these men put to paper. Every day without fail - until their pencils literally fell from their dying hands...
Fantastic stuff. I was lucky enough to meet Fiennes in the early 90s when he visited my school in Mid Yell, Shetland Islands. I wish I'd known then that he would become one of my biggest heroes
Fiennes book Captain Scott is a forensic explosion of all the accumulated myths about Scott researched by one of the great modern explorers.A brilliant moving read and fair to all concerned.
Fiennes is an Englishman, maybe he finds it hard to put the boot into his fellow countryman..?
His book on Shackleton is equally good.
Thank you for your stoicism and tenaciousness in recording and representing the facts surrounding this great polar explorer. I too like many others have been truly fascinated by these accounts reading from an early age and it is a shame that reputations are tarnished. In this day and age we struggle for examples of great leadership, pioneering scientific research etc. Thank you Sir Ranulph.
Fiennes is spot on - and much better qualified to judge than those armchair explorers who criticise.
The best people at the last point are the ones who go forth to the pole? I think it is well known at this point that one of the best never got the opportunity to go on the last leg. That is the Irish man Tom Crean. What Crean done on the Shackleton expedition was remarkable.
“Has it ever struck you that life is all memory, except for the one present moment that goes by you so quick you hardly catch it going?”― Tennessee Williams
I regularly recommend Fiennes' book to anyone with an interest in the Heroic Age of Polar Exploration as it is fantastically researched and written. He's spot on about the character assassination of Scott by those quite unqualified to do pass judgment and his own research that actively disproves some of the nonsense that numtpies like Roland Huntford and others have spouted deserves to be better known.
It's all to easy to tear someone down and ruin their reputation but a heck of a lot harder to restore it and build it up again.
Amundsen won fair and square (for the most part anyway - read the book for more details!) but Scott was anything but a "heroic bungler" and while his preparations and choice of equipment today might be looked down on as being inadequate, he was in many ways ahead of his time as nobody is using reindeer skins today down in Antarctica. His measurements on calorie requirement might have been off by today's understanding but for the time he overestimated what they needed. He was wrong, yes, but nobody knew any better back then. Hindsight is 20/20 after all!
Despite meticulous planning and preparation for the Terra Nova Expedition, Scott made three fatal mistakes:
1) Scott chose to rely on man-hauling rather than dog sleds to transport equipment and supplies for most of the trek to the pole, even though dog sleds had been well-tested and proven on previous polar expeditions, North and South, to be by far the fastest and most reliable means of traversing frozen terrain. In addition there was abundant evidence of the soundness of dog sleds provided by countless generations of Inuit/Yupik/Aleut peoples. Scott would have needed only one or two men skilled with dog sleds on his polar team.
2) The calorie intake needed for man-hauling in Antarctica was vastly underestimated and consequently the wrong type of food was chosen for the polar trek. Man-hauling a sledge demands an intake of around 6,000 to 7,000 calories a day, and figures as high as 11,000 have been recorded. Rations for the polar team consisted of pemmican, which is ground meat mixed with fat, and biscuits baked by Huntley & Palmers, one of the expedition's commercial sponsors. These rations provided a high level of protein, then believed to be needed, but nutritionists now know this was not the case. Instead, a diet high in carbohydrates was required to maintain blood sugar levels, but with the most energy for the least weight, so the thinking of most of today's nutritionists has moved toward a high-carbohydrate high-fat diet. The lack of carbohydrates and fat in large part was why Scott's polar team struggled and ultimately failed to maintain the necessary pace of travel and suffered so much. They were malnourished almost from day one.
3) Not all the men Scott chose for the polar team were in the utmost physical condition or had undergone sufficient training for such an extreme challenge in antarctic conditions. Captain Lawrence "Titus" Oates was chosen in order to have the British army represented at the South Pole even though a bullet wound to his left leg suffered in battle 10 years earlier compromised his ability to perform his duties efficiently and he broke down physically on the return march from the pole. Petty Officer Edgar Evans was chosen so there would be a non-commissioned officer, a member of the "lower deck", on the polar team to demonstrate that the Terra Nova Expedition was not an elitist enterprise. But Evans was a large man, was overweight, and far from being physically fit. And he had shown himself at times to be reckless and undisciplined. Henry "Birdie" Bowers was chosen primarily because of his loyalty and friendship with Scott, not for any particular skill he could contribute to the team. Lastly, none of the five men on the polar team were proficient on skis.
Even without dog sleds and relying on man-hauling, if Scott's polar team had been more physically fit and well-trained and had the proper nutrition there would have been a much greater likelihood of their surviving to make it back to Cape Evans base camp. However, without dog sleds and given their later start, it is extremely unlikely they could have beaten Amundsen to the pole.
Scott did start off with dogs, ponies and motorised sleds .... don`t make out his only plan was for man hauling.
Thanks for this interview. Most enlightening. I learned a lot. The pendulum swings one way, then back, eventually the truth emerges....
Thank you , Sir Ranulph
Bit of a stretch surely to suggest that Scott and his team didn't think or even know they were in a race and that it wasn't important. The facts and diaries of expedition members and indeed Scott's own diary strongly suggest otherwise and the look on the faces of the five at the pole in that famous - terrifying - pic tells another story. Having said that the overall success of the expedition does need to be stressed as Sir R points out. Scientifically it was a complete and remarkable triumph decades ahead of it time. Scott was an extraordinary and brave man of many talents (as was his son) and he did get very unlucky with the weather on his return from the pole , but he was not entirely without fault. Even a follower and devottee ike Cherry-Garrard clearly had some reservations as well in his brilliant book
Fully agree and for Sir Ranulph to gloss over Scott's failure to set up the vital return food dumps as Amundsen had done sticks in my throat. Scott bogged himself down with his incomprensible insistence of man hauling instead of using the dogs to pull his sleds defies commonsense. He consistently ignored Gran's advice and thus paid the price. Indeed, Amundsen on hearing how Scott and his party perished recorded angrily in his diary on why Scott chose to exhaust his way to the Pole. As much as I admire Scott, he seems to have been an arrogant Englishman who refused to listen to sound advice from his Norweigian skiiing expert. It's perhaps not without significance that Admiral Evans who was with the Scott expedition but ordered back to base camp by Scott that he did not value Scott's skills.
@@yahyahussein425 I agree, i think as a fellow Englishman he wants to take easy on him..never knew Admiral Evans disliked Scott's approach..
I think what Sir Ranulph was suggesting without being clear at all was Scott never intended to go on a race when planing the expedition, it was only when they were already sailing south that he learned of Amundsden expedition and embarked on a race. That probably contributed to the disaster, trying to race without having planed it out. Still an astonishing triumph.
Fiennes’ glorification of Scott while at the same time treating Amundsen as a nameless nobody, reminds me of a Cold War joke:
In Moscow, a car race with only two contestants took place. The American won easily; the Russian went on a humiliating defeat.
In the next day’s issue of Pravda the car race was reported as following:
«The Russian secured a glorious second place whereas the American came second to last».
Scott was miserable failure. No excuses. There is no try there is DO. Ask the Great Philosopher Yoda. Scott's clothing and Boots were lousy while Amundsen dressed like an Inuit Indian. Scott used Cotton and Wool. Amundsen used dog teams and expert skiers and expert Dog handlers while Scott picked among his crew his favorites. Do not blame bad weather on failure both Scott and Amundsen were in the same conditions for 85% of the time. Fiennes is really embarrassing himself here.
@@ronaldsmith4153 Well you should know..?!!?
I've read Fienne's biography of Scott and he speaks favorably of Amundsen. Which he should, Amundsen was elite. However, owing to decades of revisionist history, Fiennes chose to collate actual accounts and testimony from the era to present a clearer picture of Scott which is one of a human who had good qualities and bad qualities. However it's all informed by surviving, immediate documentation.
@@ronaldsmith4153 And Amundsen died dressed like an Inuit Indian, riding on the second prototype of a plane model whose first prototype only managed 2 flights before being destroyed.
skiing used to be done with one big stick. Later 2 became the norm. Scotts team were photographed practicing with 1. SRF is the man!
Here we have Sir Ranulph Fiennes, an Englishman to the very marrow, attempting to repair the tarnished reputation of a fellow Briton, Capt. Robert Falcon Scott. His principal defense of Scott's disastrous decision to rely on man-hauling rather than dog sleds for the major portion of his trek to the South Pole is that Scott did not see his expedition as a race with Amundsen, but as a purely scientific endeavor in which speed was never a prime requirement.
What Scott should have realized but obviously did not is that for the Terra Nova Expedition to have a reasonable chance of succeeding he would in fact have to be in a race, not with Amundsen but with the forces of nature, primarily blizzard conditions and brutally cold temperatures. As such, every advantage in reaching the South Pole and returning to his base at Cape Evans as rapidly as possible would need to be utilized, not for the sake of the glory and fame of being the first to reach the pole, but for the sake of survival. Unpredictability being the hallmark of antarctic weather, the extremely limited period of suitability for travel during the brief antarctic spring and summer could not be relied on either to arrive early or remain late. Amundsen, observing a short stretch of favorable weather, made the nearly fatal mistake of starting out for the pole early in the season on September 8 against the advice of one of his veteran polar explorers Hjalmar Johansen. Fierce cold and blizzard conditions more normal for that time of year set in and soon forced him back to base camp. He regrouped and started out again on October 19.
The great advantage of dog sleds and proficiency on skis, which none of Scott's men had, in rapidly traversing frozen terrain had been well tested and proven on earlier polar expeditions, North and South. But because Scott's team man-hauled their sledge most of the distance from their base to the pole, it took them 11 weeks to accomplish what Amundsen's team with dog sleds and skis did in 8, plus taking a far greater toll on them physically. And since Scott's team started out on November 1, two weeks later than Amundsen, they did not arrive at the pole until January 17, which was a full five weeks after Amundsen. With good mid-summer weather and a well-marked trail to follow, Amundsen's team arrived back at their base camp at the Bay of Whales on January 26 and so avoided the terribly harsh weather of February and March that Scott and his men had to face and which ultimately doomed them.
? yawn lots of pointless words there
And what have you achieved Mr. Collinson?
@@paulmcdonough1093
Were you bored? I happen to find it one of the better explanations why Amundsen succeeded in reaching the South Pole first and made it back home without a single life lost while Scott and his men all died on the ice.
@@paulmcdonough1093 what's pointless about them
@@paulmcdonough1093 sorry but you made a poor remark because you have a wrong attitude
In his book that's on my shelves, Sir Ranulph - the greatest explorer still living and whose feats should be well known by now - tackled the "lies" and polemics against Captain Scott that were patently, known to be, wrong. Typically, Sir Ranulph's book is well researched and honest, and it needed to be done. It's a fact that Scott ran into uniquely adverse weather conditions and froze to death. The boss carries responsibility which can't be delegated, but Scott could never defend himself, nor answer people who weren't there and who weren't and aren't qualified to pontificate.
Superb presentation, of historical facts, and expert interpretation, thank you.
Basically addresses none of the criticisms of Scott. He refused to use dogs. Barely knew to ski. Placed too few depots and didn't mark them well or place enough food in them. Dressed poorly. Chose the wrong people to accompany him. Too few people who could navigate or use the dogs. Chose very poor ponies.
Nah, most of that isn't right.
> on dogs, you're correct. He'd found them draining on the Discovery Expedition ten years earlier. He also was unaware of Amundsen's true plans so he didn't have an impetus for pure speed.
> the ponies were Manchurian and bred for sub-temp labour. Oates' writes mixed remarks about the ponies but they ultimately prove a success, in the capacity of Scott's plan.
> While not a native skier, he was a comfortable skier, having learned on Discovery and retrained ahead of Terra Nova expedition. He had also brought a Norweigan skiing champion to train his men.
> Crucially, two of his strongest haulers hid injuries from Scott before he made his selection for the Pole. Oates and Evan's were determined to achieve glory but ultimately delayed their companions as they weakened and died.
> The clothing was truthfully very effective. It was designed to allow men to cool off as they laboured, so layers where removed when necessary. However, moisture built up through sweat within the clothing but this was not limited to Scott's expedition. Any moisture will freeze and cling to fabric in those conditions.
> the depots were fine aside from one or two that proved difficult in a white out.
Really informative and appreciated account, of one explorer to another
Very interesting interview but I have to say the comments about Oates are not on. Sir Ranulph describes Oates as a 'whinger' and a 'complainer'. A whinger? A complainer? I don't think so. In Scotts own diaries he says many times how uncomplaining and positive and upbeat Oates was despite his terrible and painful condition. Why is Sir Ralph calling Oates a whinger then?
Sir Ranulph says that Oates wrote letters to his mum and would always complain about the boss of whatever he was in. Ok, even if Oates did that, so what? That doesn't make Oates a whinger. Most human beings would share their feelings in a letter home that they would not share outside of it. So it is very unfair to call Oates a whinger when he was very far from that. Oates was a very brave, hard working and self sacrificing man.
So please take back your 'whinger' comments Sir Ranulph. I can't believe you dissed him so badly just because he wrote honest letters to his mum. Oates didn't whinge to anyone, and he did not complain to anyone. The only 'complaint' Oates made was about the ponies because he was lumbered with ponies that were not chosen well and were not fit for the job. Those unfit ponies were thrust on him and Oates had to make the best of what he got with the ponies, and that he did.
I agree this was crass and offensive. But then Fiennes is apparently a crass and offensive fellow himself. This is apologetics and an attempt to reconstitute the original Myth of Scott as the hero done in battling stoically against impossible odds. That myth is the myth that has been shattered in the last 40 years. And his arrogant dismissal of Norwegian expertise and the brilliance of Amundsen's achievement is telling.
Oates had that streak in him. His crowning achievement may have been his suicide but he could also be disrespectful, dissenting and fairly bitchy. It's documented in his own diary as well as accounts from the other men on the expedition. He made insulting remarks to Scott behind his back and queried decisions left, right and centre.
@@johnkelly3549 What sane person wouldn't question Scotts dodgy decisions?
@@rl7012 Each to their own but in the case of Oates, he was a fabulously wealthy Etonian who paid for his inclusion. He was just a bit of a muppet.
@@johnkelly3549 So why did Scott praise Oates in his diary and say how uncomplaining and brave he was despite his painful condition? Plus they lumbered him with rank dodgy donkeys not fit enough or healthy enough for the task. You are just prejudiced because Oates came from a wealthy background. You have a huge chip on your shoulder sunshine.
I like Fiennes and read his book, and others, on Scott, and I think that he is very biased towards Scott...
Fiennes says that the fault of the ponies lay solely with Oates, yet Oates didn't get to choose the animals he was supposed to be responsible for, Scott was so ignorant of the ponies that Oates had to pay for extra feed from his own money, and sneak it aboard the ship!
The Five man team thing, just because Wilson drew a picture of it, doesn't mean it was the plan, and, it is a fact that following Scott's decision Birdie had to make the journey to the Pole and a good way back WITHOUT skis, because Scott had Lt Evans' team depot their skies. If Scott had intended five to go, why did he get Birdie to depot his skis? Also, why were the rations set up in sets of four?
I grew up with Scott as a bit of a hero, but his obsession with getting to the Pole with man-hauling I think was his downfall. Men are not as fast as dogs on the ice, Scott was continually having a go at his dog teams because in his ignorance he thought that the handlers were forcing the dogs to hard, when in fact the dogs were fine, the only issue was Scott's ignorance.
The fact is Scott didn't believe in dogs, his rival did, and won.
All that said, I think another contributing factor Scott, was having to spend too much time trying to raise funds for the expedition, and having a more complex plan than Amundsen, he couldn't afford his eye being taken off the ball...true, Amundsen had to raise funds too, but his plan needed fewer resources, and less complicated planning.
Amundsen only needed to plan the logistics of dogs and men, Scott had to plan for his mechanical sledges, dogs, ponies, and men...
Not knocking what Scott achieved, he did reach the Pole, but, he did die, and so wasn't successful in the real sense of the term: it will be a similar tale when and if they find Andy Irvine with the camera and notes proving he and Mallory got to the top of Everest...
Personally, I think many of Terra Nova's guys were heroic, the Polar party had a bad time, but so too did Wilson, Cherry and Birdie's on their horrendous egg-hunting trip, and Campbell's Northern Party too...
Those guys back then were men, not metrosexuals scared of leaving home with a hair out of place...
Correction - he didn't say the Ponies were Oat's fault. Oats wasn't available to choose them as he couldn't be released from army. Oats did have a tendency to rail against authority and moan to his mother in his private writings and to colleagues. I think people lose sight of the fact that this wasn't a race per se and Amundsen committed a huge deceit.
@@greatwhite3461 So now there's laying dibs on South Pole too.
My god the excuses you people come up with, blaming everyone under the sun EXCEPT Scott
@@ToreDL87 Nah, that's not what's being said. Scott made mistakes as all humans do but Amundsen did mislead the world about his plans. He planned for a race, Scott didn't; Scott didn't know there was a race. Amundsen was going North, as he had stated. Amundsen even pretended to be out of town when Scott was in Norway to avoid meeting him about a year before the expeditions (Scott, oblivious, wanted his invaluable advice on polar travel).
When Scott learned the truth, he had already planned everything and used the budget. He couldn't make meaningful amendments and realistically couldn't compete in a race. Fiennes wants readers to understand that Scott hadn't planned for a sprint, which a lot of revisionist historians criticize him for.
@@greatwhite3461 Lots of people overlook that for a time, Amundsen was very out of favour in his home country, let alone Britain! This is because Nansen was considered the superior polar explorer and when Amundsen asked to borrow Nansen's ship for an expedition it was under the guise of going North. It was only after setting off that he told everyone they were going South instead.
Norwegians were concerned that Amundsens achievement was disrespectful to the British. I think this is ridiculous and unfair as Britain had no more right to claim the South Pole than anyone else but that was how it was felt at the time. But even setting aside the British attitude to the whole thing, Norwegians were angry that Amundsen had deceived Nansen.
It was only in time that Amundsen got the recognition he undoubtedly deserved for the achievement his team made. But it is also fair to say that the race was not even from the start and that arguably, it was the dogs that got to the pole with the humans along for the ride. Scott may have died on his return journey but had he lived, even if Amundsen had still been first, I honestly feel we'd celebrate Scott's achievement more as it was one made by man and not beast.
Thank you for this this.
For me, they were all heroes & l can't begin to imagine what they went through. God bless them.
As an aside l met Robert Swan in the early 2000's, a very intesting chap.
However, sounds like this Hunt... character's name has been mis-spelt.
Sir, there was a 35 days difference between the two teams. Being 35 days late around and especially after solstice in Antarctica is a matter of reason rather than fate. One doesn't have to be a polar expert to realise that when you are deep in the polar region you are not competing against some opponent team but against nature.
True, but Scott's delay was mostly due to where he was located and because of his many methods of transport...from what I read he couldn't have gone much sooner...and Amundsen attempted an earlier departure that nearly ended in tragedy...I've always felt that Amundsen was chomping at the bit to get the thing done, whereas reading all the stuff I have about Scott, I get a more laid back feel...he only seemed to take things more seriously when he'd heard Amundsen was down there too.
Really, not only did Amundsen have a better deal with respect to the conditions, but whatever the conditions, using only dogs he was going to be facing any conditions for less time.
I don't know, but I get a sense from Scott that his belief in priority disappeared when Cecil Meares was daily beating the man-haulers by many hours...Scott even telling Meares to leave later and to stop pushing the dogs. Surely it occurred to Scott that even IF Amundsen had left when he did, that the dogs would beat him...I remember some diary entries alluding to the relief Scott's team had when they didn't see dog poo on the ice!
If you've achieved 1/100th of what Ranulph Fiennes has done then I might take your opinion a bit more seriously.
@@realityhurtstoomuch8830 Yes! So often do people overlook that Amundsen tried to set off too soon and nearly paid the price for it. Or rather, some of his crewmates nearly did because Amundsen just fucked off when things got bad and then went out of his way to destroy the reputation of the man he left behind. Look up Hjalmar Johansen below for the details:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Johansen
Fiennes says about Antarctica: “A totally unknown continent about which nothing was known”!!! Brilliant scholarship from a celebrity explorer and less so writer.
Shit, you're gonna be shocked by this but he actually wrote a lot more than just that one sentence.
Read what he wrote again. Rubbish.
@@jfalconer1948 I’ll save you the embarrassment of admitting you haven’t read his works.
@@johnkelly3549 Calm down lad. Why attack me, the mere messenger? I was merely commenting that, of course “nothing was known” of a “totally unknown continent”! It is either a very clever oxymoron or it is poor writing. It’s up to you.
@@jfalconer1948 messengers usually possess important information of some kind, no?
Amundson, who also was the first to sail the North-West Passage over the top of North America, picked up his knowledge of sleds and dogs from the Inuit while he was going through the North-West Passage. So he actually took advantage of existing "Arctic" technology to get to the the South Pole. It is an interesting question as to what the result would have been if the British (who actually had a colony--Canada) had selected people with some knowledge as to how to get around in Arctic conditions to be on this expedition.
What do you think was the attitude of men like Scott in Edwardian England towards the Inuit? That these are people who the BRITISH EMPIRE can learn from? Scott ignored the advice of Nansen. This is just crass and unsubtle apologetics from Fiennes. The problem that Fiennes has with this counter revisionism are the long almost endless list of facts describing Scott's mistakes and poor and inadequate leadership regardless of Huntford's books. Also the attack on Oates as a whinger and moaner, and someone he arrogantly says he knows all about, is offensive. This rather shows Fiennes is a mean spirited and nasty piece of work himself.
He did though. Cecil Mears was a renowned sledger and had traversed Siberia unaccompanied. Tryggve Gran was a champion skier. Several of his officers were experienced polar travelers from Discovery or Nimrod. Even the ponies were a breed from Manchuria, developed to survive sub-temperature labour. Scott had even copied the Inuit footwear of finnesko, made of reindeer to avoid freezing.
It's very frustrating that Studio Canal hasn't made this (and several other) film in region 1 or even region free dvd. It's inexcusable.
Amundsen bright enough to really know what skills & gear to bring, needing funding always a game all had to play a reaction to Scott selecting w/o anthropology & Arctic Cultures who had the tech.
Thx, great story of yours, cheers 🍺
Well said Sir, well said !!!
The Brits will never get over Amundsen was first on the south pole
It was more than that. It was being shown up as incompetent and rank amateurs. A once great state and people became hamstrung by the privileged and the meretricious who crushed the life out of Britain as its leadership in every single area of human endeavour was allowed to falter
"Well done to the dogs!" I say.
Sorry Ranulph, you can't attach ultimate significance to Scott's diaries and then argue Oates was some kind of perpetual complainer. Scott repeatedly stated that Oates bore his suffering "without complaint". I'd also highlight the hypocrisy of attempting to correct the slander of a dead man by ... slandering a dead man.
Good one!
The point if you’d read Sir Ranulphs books is that Oates complained privately in his letters. And not publicly, because he was a gallant and brave man. Scott never knew he felt the way he did Oates just got in inspite of his perceived grievances.
And Sir Ranulph doesn’t slander a dead man he points out the the Ronald version is made up of abject falsehoods. And in his book he provides plenty of proof that they are such.
@@JohnBloggart IMO, Feinnes makes exactly the same mistake. Only he flips to the opposite side of the argument. The truth almost certainly lies somewhere between both and yet neither man is prepared to back down an inch. Scott wasn't the bumbling simpleton Huntford claims. But he wasn't a paragon of virtue, either. His biggest blunder was not realizing his men were played out at the top of the Beardmore. The journey from there to the pole at high altitude, low oxygen and under hellish pulling conditions killed them all. Even with good weather all the way back they'd need a miracle.
@@deaddropholiday I appreciate your point. I think your right that the answer is somewhere in between. I think that Sir Ranulph is so vehement in Scotts defence because for a long time Scotts international reputation has been so tarnished by easily provable falsehoods. But I also agree that he wasn’t a perfect man.
Wether he would have made it back in perfect conditions is difficult to say, but I’d tend to think he would as, he died only 11 miles from the next supply depot (being held up because of a blizzard). With that said he still would have probably lost some of his men; PO Evans certainly would have died either way. Which Scott would have been responsible for.
@@JohnBloggart John, they were dead men walking from the top of the Beardmore to the Pole. Sure - they were eleven miles from the next supply depot. But ... Scott's feet and fingers were gone. Wilson - maybe worse. Bowers was still mobile. But all three men were suffering severe malnutrition and by any medical standard - totally unfit for anything other than weeks of bed rest and recuperation. Which they were never going to get.
Let's say - somehow - Bowers drags himself up and - somehow - summons the strength to set off for the next supply depot. Eleven miles might as well be eleven thousand miles with winter closing in all around them, hurricane force winds, driving snow, zero visibility (how is he supposed to get a bearing??) and -50 degree temperatures. It's not like Crean(?) walking all the way back to base without a rest to save his colleagues. He didn't have to make the return journey. Bowers would have needed extraordinary luck to have found that depot and even more to find his way back (remember - the snow obliterates the tracks). Even if he had made it the journey would have finished him.
No, Scott knew they were finished. That's why he spared Bowers the journey. It's my belief that Scott knew they were dead men as far back as the Pole. I don't think enough is made of the psychological trauma they suffered discovering Amundsen had beaten them. Take a look at that photo they took together. It speaks volumes. Maybe ... maybe if they had reached the pole first the joy of their achievement might have given them just that little more impetus. Or just a positive mindset for them to disappear into on the long journey back. But whether it would have changed the outcome? I'm skeptical. Maybe they could have dragged themselves to One Ton Depot. But ... supplies WEREN'T THE PROBLEM. Their desperate physical condition was. Physically fit men can endure a lot of hardship. But physically shot men are one short gasoline ration from calamity.
The truth of the matter is they had no right to make it as far as they did. Scott doesn't deserve 85% of the criticism he's received. But what is undeniable is he KNEW his men were almost physically gone dragging a heavy sled over hundreds of miles of polar plateau. Maybe Shackleton gets too much praise at the expense of Scott. But one mistake he didn't make was pushing his men beyond what they could physically give when he had the Pole almost in his grasp (he was less than a HUNDRED miles away!!!) He turned back - much to the detriment of his career. But he got ALL his men home - alive. That's leadership - of the most honorable and exemplary kind.
So my understanding here watching this interview was that it was everybody else fault but Scott and everything else for that matter. So perfect leadership...OK!
blackypain what have you done douche
Yes and those dastardly foreigners just didn't play fair and were not gentlemen
@@myroseaccount Pirates, oh I didn't know that was such a case. Still Amundsen did came back alive and Scott is still there...man hauling
If a race was not important, then why is it so difficult for the British to acknowledge that Amundsen achieved what he intended, which is to be the first person on the South Pole? Just say that Scott succeeded in reaching South Pole, while Amundsen was the first the reach the South Pole. Scott wanted to reach the South Pole first, so he lay dibs on it? That's what children do. Thinking it was not "sporting" of Amundsen is being coy and misrepresenting Scott's intentions.
Scott did not prepare for the expedition. Reading the diaries alone is enlightening. While Amundsen was practising and preparing throughout the winter, Scott was passing the time with lectures that had no bearing on surviving Antarctica.
Amundsen of course chose the best people for a successful mission, as well as dogs. Any good leader selects a team that will achieve the goal, not a team that's "rather good sports, these chaps!"
Both faced similar weather. Amundsen prepared for the weather, educating himself with the way indigenous peoples of the polar regions survive. Amundsen also prepared with food supplies for the dogs and men. His food choices included only the high nutrition foods, Scott included tea, with zero nutritional value for polar expedition, and it adds bulk and weight.
In fact, Scott went on familiar terrain while Amundsen went on entirely unfamiliar terrain that no human had charted.
What is your theory then that Amundsen didn't even tell anyone in Norway he was on his way to the Antarctic until he was at least half-way there in his ship? Isn't that a wee bit coy?
@@pauljohnson2982 Amundsen's actions are not in question, and he kept quiet because he was not certain whether he would get backing if he declared for the South Pole. Again, it is irrelevant in this particular conversation. It was a race, being first was important to both. To try and discredit Amundsen is not being "good sports".
This is some bullshit. Scott put a solid two years into prepping for Terra Nova. He commissioned production of ultra high protein and high calorie non-perishable foodstuffs. He borrowed from the Inuit through the reindeer skin boots. He developed an entire scientific remit. He even did a reccy trip to Norway to test out materials on snow.
You know what else happened when he was in Norway? He met Nansen, to gain his insight. Nansen and Scott got on quite well. You know who didn’t meet Scott, and in fact told his housekeeper to lie to Scott over the phone by saying he was away travelling?
Yeah, Amundsen.
Scott paid Amundsen a very big compliment by trying to arrange a meeting & ask his advice. Scott valued Norwegian opinions. Amundsen, brave elsewhere, hid himself on this occasion. He was preparing for the South Pole Race and didn’t have the guts to meet his only competitor. Maybe he was worried he’d feel the need to actually tell Scott he was racing if he met a fellow explorer, or even, just human.
Normally, Amundsen’s ruthlessness is admirable. On this occasion, it seems even he knew he was morally incorrect.
It's weird no one has made a documentary about the Denmark expedition ...
That was a similar scientific achievement.
Huntford's lies did so much damage. Good to see things are changing.
Animosity And what lies were those? That Amundsen’s team won because fortune favors the prepared?
Lies about Scott's character, scientific achievements of the expedition and issues involving polar exploration as a whole given how Huntford is an amateur and makes lots of mistakes. Fiennes points it all out and also stories about Huntford making up more and more lies probably as a response to new discoveries (such as those featured in Susan Solomon "The Coldest March") so he started claiming that Scott had syphilis and according to a different author he was determined to find a proof of a great conspiracy in either RGS or Scott's Research Institute (he found no proof but declared that he will). I read similar stories in different books about polar exploration so he's considered a joke as he should be. Probably the worst thing of all he betrays the readers by feeding them stories with absolutely no evidence except for his own words most of which can be easily debunked (such as Scott's wife's love affairs). What a lying sack of shit but again just like Fiennes mentioned in the 70s it was extremely fashionable to write books that were just character assassination on faous popular historical figures with evidence or not. And Scott is not the only one because revisionism sells all we have to do is to maginify the flaws, make some shit up and that's it. Shackleton's abandonment of Ross Sea Party, Amundsen's ungratefulness towards Johansesn which lead to his suicide, Mawson's alleged canibalism and even murder of Mertz. No one is safe.
@@diomedes8791 No, Huntford's treatment of Scott is distinct from how he writes about Amundsen. Amundsen was elite, no one can deny that.
Huntford just seemed to detest anything remotely empirical or British. Scott embodied those qualities to a man so it feels like Huntford is venting his feelings at one individual. His joint biography contains a lot of speculation or baseless comment about Scott's character or actions; he's been accused of fabricating writings to support his opinion of Scott. A good example is a completed fabricated conversation where Scott ordered his men 'to lie down and die with him'. There's no evidence of this, neither such a conversation nor that that was Scott's attitude. But Huntford isn't a factual writer; he's a fantasist. Recently first hand sources have been presented to contradict Huntford on several points.
In the 1970s, Terra Nova crew member Trggve Gran was still alive to publicly contradict Huntford's portrayal of Scott. In this instance, Huntford had presented Scott as a verbally abusive boss who swore incessantly at his men. Gran was there to state that Scott never swore or behaved as such.
Absolutely brilliant
Always take a Norwegian flag in polar regions, its a lifesaver.
Sorry Sir but your interpretation is bias. Not true that 5 man hauling is almost as fast then dogs, perhaps on the best of condition, they would make the same distance but remember Amundsen was doing 25 miles in 4 hrs and Scott in 12 hrs. But most of the time they did not cover that distance at all. They were starving to death, the food was totally insuficient, since the beginning they stave, missing at least 1/3 of the calories they needed. They took way too long, they should have turn back. Just be honest here. You have to make your own luck.
Sir Ran Fiennes is tough, but he is showman. Somewhere else he claimed how manhauling is superior to anything else, because he did it in 1990s. Yep, with DHC Twin Otter flying over them daily to watch them and radio connection to base. Amundsen on other hand was stomping on speed brake all the way in his 99 day voyage. He needed his men and dogs in absolute top condition all through voyage in case of someone have accident or sickness. Going flat out and risking his men, Amundsen could propably shaved 3 weeks from total voyage time.
Amundsens pole team and surviving dogs gained weight during their pole "sprint". They ate like kings, left many depoes half full (some have been found and studied) and moved only daily distance allowed by Roald Amundsen, so that they would be "fat" and warm, primed for adversity.
Good talk, and yet, he claims (repeatedly) '...a continent no one had been to before'. In what context? Charting, landing, early travels? There were Davis and Nordenskiold. This is, in many ways, simply untrue.
Discovery was a disaster. He, Wilson and Shackleton got scurvy and Scott almost got them killed. Also on Terra Nova he just followed Shackleton's route through Beardmore Glacier that was named for the backer of Shackleton's Nimrod expedition. Fiennes is fitting a narrative to suit the idea that Scott was a hero myth.
Also Huntford as written excellent biographies of Shackleton and Nansen. He is hugely admiring of Shackleton, but also notes that Shack had many of the faults that Scott had.
@@myroseaccount Huntford's biographies are borderline conspiracy. He's been called out by other, better biographers who actually read source materials.
@@johnkelly3549 Which biographies are you referring? Huntford is the only one who has used primary sources including given access to the dairies of Amundsen and members of Amundsen's expedition. He compared the diaries DAY BY DAY with Scott's diary. Huntford provided limited commentary and let the diaries speak for themselves & do the talking and they are devastating
@@myroseaccount he also fabricates entire episodes and argues against recorded narratives. Huntford claimed Scott was verbally abusive, regularly swearing at his men. Terra Nova crew member Tryggve Gran, still alive when the book is published, contradicted Huntford publicly, saying Scott never swore.
Huntford made explicit claims that Clement Markham was a rampant closeted homosexual based on his (Huntford’s) interpretation of a Markham diary entry where Markham spoke to a local man in Sicily. That’s it. Biographer David Crane simply called Huntford ‘unhistorical’ for this.
He overlooks Simpson and Bower’s meteorological data to claim there was no blizzard to keep Scott stranded.
He has implied Scott commanded Bowers and Wilson to lie down and die with him. There is no evidence for this. That’s a conclusion you reach if you’re trying to tarnish a man’s character.
An interviewer once queried Huntford on how he could posit his unfounded opinions on Scott with such an absence of evidence. Huntford’s response was that ‘these are landscapes of the mind’. The man is/was a fantasist with an innate dislike of empirical Britain and Scott; he’s selective of what accounts and evidence to include. He equally doesn’t acknowledge anything that contradicts his charged opinions.
Fiennes’ biography of Scott, which I think is an impartial and fair overview, is very much also a retort to Huntford’s characterisation of Scott. Yes, I know Fiennes vibe but this book is not a homage to Scott. It presents a man who was neither a fool nor a glorious tragic hero, in an informed way. Fiennes utilises a wider base of data and his own lived polar experience allows him to highlight flaws in Huntford’s theories when put into practice.
I will say it’s been a few years since I read this one so I’d need to go back to provide more examples.
When he says science was the first aim of the expedition, I'm slightly skeptical because if it was, why were they so crushed when they found the Norwegians had beat them to the pole? I compare it to the Apollo missions. Yeah, they did some science when they got to the moon because once you got up there, what else were you going to do? But the main point was getting there first, then you could worry about the science. The astronauts had varying degrees of interest in the science, from Frank Borman, who didn't want to do any at all, to, by coincidence one who was also named Scott, Dave Scott on Apollo 15, who was very gung-ho on the science. But the main focus was "Beat the Russians" and then if you had time, do the science, and in this "race for the pole" it seems to me to be the same thing.
Simpler times. This is before world wars and modernism. The world was still unexplored and the south pole was a big prize. They also walked about 900 miles to get there so they were obviously flattened to get the silver medal. A lot of Scott's final team dreamed of a happy retirement with the glory of being first and that all disappeared.
I tend to agree that much of the criticism of Scott is largely unwarranted. However, he did make one crucial error which certainly was a factor in the failure of the mission. Between the completion of the ascent up the Beardmore and the arrival at the pole Scott failed to recognise that the tough sledding in the thin air on the polar plateau was diminishing the condition of his men at an exponential rate. Couple this with the psychological shock of realising Amundsen had beaten them (which meant they couldn't offset the mental toll of the return journey with thoughts of being lauded as successful) and they were pretty much shot. Within just a few days of turning back you hear ominous references to Oates getting "cold feet". Mystery surrounds the seemingly rapid deterioration and demise of Evans. Fiennes agrees with Wilson that he most likely suffered some kind of concussion and/or brain haemorrhage following several falls. But if you read Scott's diaries it's pretty clear Evans was going downhill before they'd even arrived at the pole. The injury to his hand was a worrying sign. Then just a few days into the return journey he is so physically and mentally exhausted he fails to realise he has suffered severe frostbite to his face. Claiming he died as a direct result of a fall is far easier to admit than failing to recognise Evans was cooked and should never have been included in the final party. Why did Evans fall apart quicker than the others? Possibly because he was a bigger build and big guys burn out quicker. Contrast with the diminutive Bowers who had the slight frame of a special forces soldier built for endurance. Indeed, Scott refers to Evans losing weight at a much faster rate than all of his colleagues. For me Wilson also bears a lot of responsibility. He was the team physician. He also had experience not just on the Terra Nova expedition but also the nightmarish trek to the penguin rookery where he was tasked specifically with monitoring the condition of the party all of whom were given different sled rations. And let's not forget that Shackleton made the very same journey and hit the ejector seat with only a hundred miles to go because he realised they had enough left in the tank to make it to the pole - or make it back alive. But not both. The fact that Bowers, Scott and Wilson somehow got back to the barrier is deceptive because even if they had made it to One Ton Depot - Scott's feet were gone and Wilson's weren't far behind. Even in optimal conditions and with no shortage of fuel they were never going to make it back to the hut unless they'd been met by Cherry-Garrard. And even then he would have had a devil of a task to bring them home. No - Scott's party ran out of gas long before they got to the pole. They were doomed thereafter.
I agree on all points but perhaps if Cecil Meares and later Atkinson had actually carried out the (admittedly confusing) orders to bring the dogs south at the beginning of March then the Polar Party could have been saved. There were so many errors that snowballed (if you'll forgive the choice of words!) into catastrophe but the fact they came so close considering all the hardships and limiting factors is nothing short of incredible.
@@jacktorrance3522 It's a fascinating conundrum to ponder. I think a lot of people fall into the trap of thinking that once they'd reached the pole half of their journey was complete. That's true in the obvious miles and distance sense. But it's a lot more complicated than that. The return journey was always going to be arduous. However, two things were in their favour on the way back - greatly reduced sled weights and not having to ascend the Beardmore. In theory they should have been able to move at a healthy clip. But the men were in such bad condition upon arriving at the pole they might as well have only completed 25% of the journey. Their final camp was 900 miles short of home. 900 miles to men who could no longer walk, were severely malnourished and frostbitten and with very little supplies remaining might as well have been 9,000. I've always found it odd why Cherry was so critical of himself because even if he'd somehow pushed onward and discovered their camp the chances of them getting back were practically nil. Garrard still hadn't gotten over the physical beating he'd taken to the penguin rookery and the notion that he could have took them all with him - let alone given them enough supplies to survive, travelled the 900 miles to base camp, picked up a rescue team, travelled 900 miles back and then a further 900 to safety is utterly ridiculous. So why was he so self-critical? My suspicion is a hell of a lot more took place on the polar journey than we've been told, Cherry knew it but couldn't say and that knowledge ate away at his mind for the rest of his life.
@@deaddropholidaywhere did you get the "900 miles" from? the distance between Cherry Garrard and the returning team was less than 70 miles (still quite a distance, but not as long😅). and One ton depot was 150 miles from the Hut.
@@urskaferletic445 Sorry, I was thinking of the total distance. Yes, Scott was somewhere around 170 miles from home. Cherry was a non-factor and gone by the 10th whilst Scott was crawling along with Oates and his bad feet somewhere near Mount Hooper. But they were finished. Scott's feet were gone. Wilson was in a similarly bad condition. The only chance they had was for Bowers to make a run for it like Crean did when he left Evans and Lashly to get help from Hut Point. But Crean was only 35 miles from home which meant he could make the journey in a single march without having to make camp (which was an astonishing feat with a very low probability of success).
Bowers would have needed to make several camps initially with no tent (I'm not sure if they cached a spare at One Ton Depot). So, 170 miles to go. Let's posit that he had optimum weather conditions, clear skies for navigation, located all of the markers and found a spare tent. Say, 20-25 miles per day. Best case scenario - he makes it back in a week, give or take a day. The alarm is raised and the Hut Point team put together a rescue party. Say a day to organize all of the provisions and make a start. They then need to get to Scott. That's another 5-7 days in perfect conditions. Scott's last camp was struck - 19th March. Even if Bowers made that run on the 19th they're all dead days before the rescue party can get to them. And this is with everything going their way.
Now let's factor in reality. Bowers was in the best shape of all of them - but 20-25 miles per day ... for a week ... in his condition? Bowers was way further gone than Crean and facing far bigger challenges. With winter drawing in rapidly and temperatures plummeting to hitherto unknown levels the chances of him getting a week of clear skies for navigation are slim to non-existent. I seriously doubt he could have made it to Minna Bluff or Corner Camp without freezing to death or falling down a crevasse. But let's say he somehow drags himself back home - the rescue party is still facing the same problems. You can't march if you can't navigate and it's so cold you can't stave off frostbite while moving. It was hopeless. Moreover, the men at Hut Point knew it was hopeless. After all, they could have sent out another party after Cherry returned. The fact that they didn't tells you they had written Scott off.
I've read Captain Scott by Ranulph Fiennes. I thought it very fair in its critique. Certainly no fanboy worship. But it did remove the myth that Scott was a know- nothing polar blunderer. He was physically fitter than his men and he did listen to advice as Fiennes pointed out. The sail-sled technique to be used on the polar plateau return legwas very successful regards mileage and had that freak Antarctic weather not intervened, they would've made it home. Did Scott lose the race to the Pole? - yes. Did he cause his own death? - no.
It should be time to bring Scott, Wilson and Bowers home. Lets fund an expedition to find their graves, dig them out and bring them back to England!
Rimmer : History, Lister, is written by the winners. How do we know that Oates went out for this legendary walk? From the only surviving document: Scott's diary. And he's hardly likely to have written down, "February the First, bludgeoned Oates to death while he slept, then scoffed him along with the last packet of instant mash." How's that going to look when he gets rescued, eh? No, much better to say, "Oates made the supreme sacrifice," while you're dabbing up his gravy with the last piece of crusty bread.
Oates left the tent at around the exact spot that one Ton depot was supposed to have been placed 30 miles further south and Oates had urged Scott to push further south the previous season by killing some of the ponies to get the depot further south. But Scott refused saying he wouldn't kill any ponies just to save on a couple of marches. Oates said that you would regret it. After Oates committed suicide they struggled on another 20 miles finishing 11 miles short of where Scott had positioned One Ton Depot. Perhaps that was just a coincidence.
This is just one in a catalogue of errors, and mistakes made by Scott. Making mistakes is forgivable. What is not acceptable is making the same mistakes over and over again. Forcing Evan's team to depot their skis and reducing them to exhaustion on foot. And then selecting Bowers from Evan's team who had no skis and had to trudge on foot in a team of 5.
You could go on and on. The Man was an arrogant and bungling oaf who repeatedly risked the lives of his Men multiple times in multiple locations and situations in positions he was wholly unsuited. The idea you have to be a polar explorer to understand the particular and unique problems faced by Scott is risible in the face of quite overwhelming evidence. Scott failed in practically every area of what a leader is supposed to do, and either Fiennes is wilfully overlooking that, which I suspect, or he himself knows little about what constitutes good leadership.
Captain Scott is a hero. That Sirs, who selected not the right person to organize the expedition are responsible for lost human lives. Captain Scott was just a soldier. A soldier must not judge his "rightness". Fiennes gets it somehow deep in his mind. Sad to see a gentleman acting like a piece of ****.
You seem very bitter about the way Scott has been represented in Rolands book, i thoroughly enjoyed it.
Scott was never the greatest explorer and you are a very biased old man.
I too enjoyed his book, found it 2nd hand in Calcutta in 94😅.
This is because Huntford effectively pulled his biography out of his hole. Trggyve Gran, the last surviving Terra Nova crew member, was still alive when Huntford published his nonsense and had to contradict accounts Huntford had included that were total fiction. Fiennes is probably upset that he had to write an impartial and informed account of Scott because Huntford had done such a crappy job.
17:20 Difference between Oates and Fiennes is that latter is liar.
Explain....
He is apart of my family tree
Fiennes is a great guy. But look, man hauling (Scott) means terrific wear and tear on bodies and high caloric requirements. Modern study suggests that on a day to day basis., Scott and Co. had inadequate food EVERY day, given man hauling, often as Fiennnes notes, under adverse conditions. Amundsen gets it-- let the dogs do the work--and then eat the dogs,
Its because Scott used fossil fuel vehicles. Mother Nature didnt like that, so she killed him. Amundsen used only men and dogs, so he got to live.
Scott lost. Due to faulty preparation. Amundsen was the winner. Fullstop. That's a fact you can't deny. Even the English can't do so in orden to glorify Scott. After he had recognized to be only second at the pole it would have been his duty to bring his men back alive into his base camp but to resign.
Scott was so incredibly successful he got his whole team killed and made it second. His team got scurvy....something the British figured how to avoid nearly a century earlier.
There's no evidence scurvy impacted his crew, save for one individual who didn't go on the polar trek. Scott supplied Vitamin C with the medical case of each sled.
There is no such thing as "incredibly bad luck" when embarking on such an expedition. One must plan for any, and all, possibilities when embarking on such a potentially deadly adventure.
All possibilities..??
@@pauljohnson2982 Yes, Paul... all possibilities. The most blatantly obvious possibilities are the possibilities of freezing or starving to death. Scott was, evidently, ill-prepared for both.
@@justinthyme5730 With respect, I have to repeat the question- ALL possibilties !! (This did take place over 100 years ago...😉!)
Scott made horribel misstakes! With The expedition! End of story!
That's rich, coming from someone one can't even spell horribel (sic)
You can't fix stupid. Scott took five men when had planned on 4. He had an inadequate ration. His clothing was inadequate. English Woolens and sealskin. Despite these things he could have made it home if he had dogs doing the large part of the hauling. His depot was 50 miles short of where he initially planned it. He would have still lost some of his crew and struggled brutally frostbit to One Ton Depot had he positioned it where planned. Blaming the weather when you are in Antarctica is absurd also. Fiennes next show on the Titanic or Dunkirk?
The successful guys know to keep it simple. Lindbergh, who was only 15 years after this, saw the others trying to cross the ocean with larger planes, extra crew, multi-engine crafts and saw that as the wrong way. The more you have, the more that can go wrong. Lindbergh had one man, one engine, didn't even take a radio and his plane was basically a large fuel tank with wings, a seat and an engine. Keep everything to a minimum, just go with the most basic needs, and it all becomes much more manageable.
13:29 How an earth these lies of Fiennes ended up someone filming them? Several minutes of utter crap.
No, Scott did not had food available, not for even 4 men. They died to combination of things, large part was starvation.
Amundsen had planned killing 2/3 of his dogs and abandon 3rd sledge on return voyage before he started from base.
Oates did not buy the scrawny ponies they had. He just correctly reported to Scott that their ponies were crap when he first saw them. Oates demanded that the ponies they had on depot laying should be ran to exhaustion, and made extra food depot from them, around 80 degrees or even beyond. Scott would gladly eaten that food 1 year later (assuming they would had left also some kerosene there). Oates said to Scott he will regret not heeding his advice. Oates was 100% correct.
Oates quite correctly regarded their ponies only as 4 legged meat delivery vehicles, after seeing how ill-suited horses were in Antarctic. This in 1st summer. 1 year before summit attack. Oates loved horses, but could see realities.
About daily travel. Fiennes "forgets" to mention that Amundsen stopped his men and dogs and ordered going to lager after 15nm every day, just when they were properly warmed up. Reason? = Amundsen needed to have RESERVES of strenght in his team. At any moment there could had been accident like dropping to crevasse, and/or long period of bad weather. Amundsen was going to bring his team back.
What an unbelievable mass of rubbish. Scott as a scientific explorer was ok, but as an ice traveler he was a disaster.
He is talking nonsene and making excuses for Scott the amateur. As usual for the british.
Maybe Scott could have planned for the race if he'd known he was in one. Amundsen knew and lied about his travel plans, so maybe he felt threatened by the British, those amateurs.
Either way, there's a saltiness to Norweigans when it comes to Scott's legacy of bravery. Comparatively, Amundsen's home received a phonecall from Scott a year before either team departed as Scott wanted to avail of Amundsen's polar knowledge. Amundsen told his housekeeper to tell Scott he was away, out of town, can't answer or meet. Amundsen seemed to be intimidated about sitting down with the Scott. Perhaps he didn't want meet the man with such as respect for his knowledge, his unassuming rival. Perhaps he was worried he'd be compelled to tell the truth.
As elite as Amundsen was at polar travel, there's a reason people remember Scott's humanity instead.
Not many black explorers is there.