So the point is to prove that Scott was the ''scientist'' and Amundsen was just a skier ? What about Amundsen spending 2 years in the North West passage making historically important measurements on the Magnetic North Pole ? He could actually have just ''raced'' through the NW passage ?
Indeed. The route through was open on first summer, and Amundsen could had sailed through NW passage in first year. Instead he looked for place to winter, because he had his scientific work to measure where magnetic pole was. They ended up spending 2 years what is now known as Gjoa Haven. Inuit village grew there as Norwegians and Inuits had co-operation which benefitted both.
I've read Scott's diaries on several occasions. And from the first I've believed it's little more than PR meant to show the party in its best light since Scott had every reason to think it would form the basis of lucrative revenue options once they returned. There are hints in the diary that several situations were bubbling beneath the surface - primarily in relation to Oates but more importantly Evans. I don't blame Scott and I certainly don't believe he was a "bungler". But I do question his judgment in the days leading up to the pole and immediately after. From the text the evidence is overwhelming that his party were pretty much shot once they finished ascending the Beardmore. And what reserves of energy and physical fitness they had left were rapidly diminished pulling a fairly light sled in terrible conditions at 10,000 feet. I don't believe Scott gave adequate consideration to the consequences of discovering Amundsen had already beaten them and I believe the psychological shock sealed their doom. Not long after you begin to hear about Oates' "cold feet" and frostbitten fingers. If cold is setting into you at 10,000 feet with many miles of hard pulling before you reach the top of the Beardmore you are done. Mystery surrounds Evans' rapid deterioration and expiry and it is when discussing this situation that I felt Scott was being extremely economical with the truth. There are brief insights into what I believe was an increasingly fractious atmosphere with the implicit declaration that someone had been dipping into their rapidly diminishing food reserves. Scott doesn't point the finger at Evans - but that's the easiest assumption to arrive at. Of course, if it wasn't Evans then you are left with some alarming questions. The entire tone of the diary changes on the return journey. I felt there was an awful lot which was either left out or possibly excised. Credit to Scott, Wilson and Bowers for making it as far as they did. Perhaps it was possible for Bowers to have made it back on his own. But even if he had I don't think there was any chance of a rescue party returning to pick Scott up. I assume Evans, Bowers, Wilson and Oates kept their own diaries? Have these ever seen the light of day??
I agree with yr analysis, although you are more diplomatic than I. At one point does a series of mistakes- which when combined- not become bungling? Scott tolerated numerous small errors that when combined imho meant a serious injury was likely. Consider: clothing, seals on fuel, weight and packing of sledge, extra man in tent (sleeping comfort/ cooking time), depot markings/ bearings, medical fitness of Oates/ Evans etc etc. Had anyone man-hauled those distances before? What experience had they in it, compared to Amundsen's dog handling and cross-country ski-ing? Solomon herself says he 'cut corners.' Add in Scott's relative inexperience with snow/ ice compared to Amundsen, and some form of disaster was likely. They were already struggling before the cold weather hit...
i would like to discuss this.. what were lucrative deals.. what mention was made of food stealing i admit it would be tempting, one wrote letters and its a good point on diaries from the last party.. I read lashly and gerrard returning party books /logs.. I can see tone of diaries changing as situation was bleak near end as i guess scott figured they were dead men after cold set in 6 days after getting back to ross ice shelf on return.. I wonder if scott would have turned b ack early and tried in the next 3rd year if amundsen was not present.
@@bradleysmall2230 I can't remember all of the companies who had some kind of stake in Scott's expedition. You can find them online. IIRC the most lucrative relationships were the customary deals for the rights and/or serialized rites to Scott's journal. This was very common back then. If memory serves Scott mentions the loss of an entire day's rations on the polar summit. I think it was as they were on the plateau - but it could possibly have been on the return journey before the Beardmore descent. Scott mentions that Bowers was extremely upset as it was his responsibility to manage the rations. Who stole those rations? I'm not sure. From what I could deduce about Bowers' character and nature my guess is he wasn't responsible. For me the likeliest person was Evans (or possibly Oates). But in such horrific circumstances it could have been any of them. The Antarctic has broken the will of many an adventurer. Had Scott turned back I don't think they had enough resources to mount a successful journey in year three. But I might be wrong here. From the historical record he would likely have had better conditions (that cold snap during Scott's return journey was unusual even by Antarctic standards). Irrespective it would still have been an incredibly difficult challenge.
@@deaddropholiday THANKS- i vagely remember some missing thing i want to re read.. i was nieve and not thinkin o of food theft.. expeditions have a time limit and probably hard to extend trip.. if amundsen was not there and supplies left at beardmore top or bottom would be nice.. I understand the plan at start was to move one ton supplies to land at beardmore glacier as there was some concern by scott leaving depots for a year on ice shelf.. thanks solomon is very convincing in her research w simpson and all..
She said that Amundsen would’ve had no problem with the lower temperatures it would not have stopped him. He double sealed his fuel cans and Scott’s didn’t. Both fuel cans would’ve been jostled being sledge across the ice. Just excuse after excuse for Scott. He was not thePrecise planner that Amundsen was and I think that was the differenc .
Norwegian expedition wasnt just better planned, but the 8 men plus 1 very good cook, which Fram dropped to Ross ice shelf had about 10 manyears and THOUSANDS miles experience in dog sledging and surviving in minus 30-50 centigrade weather. There was so many navigators (4) in final pole team that no one except idiot Markham has ever given 1 word of doubt about their position, Scott atleast didnt. They could all ski very well, but in addition there was goddammit Holmenkollen combined winner as front skier. Amundsen with just 8 men planted 3 depots, at 80, 81 and 82 degrees with 3 and half tons of supplies on first summer. Scott could not even push his famous 1 ton depot to 80 degrees... Professionals vs fumbling amateurs.
Amundsen seeked to plant 4th depot at 83 degrees, but winter was coming and continuous minus 40 centigrade weather slowed them. It wasnt needed in next summer during push to pole. They had so much food and fuel that half was left behind.
In hindsight of course, I believe that taking the 5th guy was the kiss of death. Took 30 minutes longer to cook for the 5th guy. In the end they ran out of food and fuel just 11 miles short of 1 Ton of supplies.
see 1:12:30 S says no lack of food diet to 5th man .....vs same amount of food but divided into smaller portion. so I thought they were food and fuel limited ....S disagrees
Also Amundsens initial september team (which retreated after dropping their supplies to reinforce 80 degrees depot when faced minus 40-50 celsius temps) was 8 men, with 4 per tent. He also took 5 man to pole, starting again in october. But they had vastly greater resources of strenght. Their front skier was world class athlete (Holmenkollen combined winner), and for significant part of journey other 4 men just grabbed tight on sledges on their skis while dogs pulled like crazy trying to catch front skier. No idiotic "heroic" manhauling. Front skier, Bjaaland, was hired was this job. Compare such perfection of planning to what Scott managed....
Great lecture. My discovery of Robert Falcon Scott and his story came through the music of Ralph Vaughan Williams. The score he wrote for the movie “Scott of the Antarctic” and the “Sinfonia Antarctica” that he made out of it. A tragic yet enlightening tale about the human struggle that will stay with me forever.
Scott had amazing courage. It's truly amazing to think of what it took to march off into a frozen, unknown nightmare. Plus the fact he and his group may have survived had he listened to the advise to push the depot farther south. Just 11 miles short of salvation. Horrible way to go.
I really don't find her presentation all that compelling, in terms of letting Scott "off the hook", so to speak. Read Huntford's book. It is a deep and comprehensive examination of the leadership styles, cultures, technology, weather conditions, and approach to risk between the British and Norwegian expeditions. She is mistaken about the scurvy matter: Oates' war wound opened up again, which happens to scar tissue when starved of vitamin C. Solomon is straining to make her case using temperatures while ignoring a mountain of information on poor planning.
Solomon has mended her opinions a bit. In these later years she admits that Amundsen had dog sledged in MUCH colder conditions what Scott faced in March, and the weather would not had stopped Amundsen. It was bad year overall, but you dont go there without reserves of strenght and supplies.
38:39 What difficulties? Amundsen and Hanssen had spent 2 winters with inuit in Gjoa NW passage and travelled long distances with inuit friends and dog sleds. Hassel had spent years with Sverdrup expedition, cartographing even further north in Canada, with dog sleds. Scotts "problems" with dogs was that he and his team hadnt clue how to handle them.
Notice how some islands of farthest north of Canada have Norse names. Because they were discovered by Norwegians (Sverdrups expedition), and not sailing, but dog sledging.
Amundsen, Hanssen and Hassel were fully capable of teaching Wisting, which was fast learner on dogs. Bjaaland job was more on trying to escape on skis (exciting dogs to catch him). He was also best man to handle possible breakages on their equipment.
Norway even claimed several islands they had discovered in northern Canadian archipelago to themselves. Somewhere around 1930 they relinquished their claims. Sverre Hassel was there all the time on those Sverdrup expeditions which discovered those islands, becoming propably most skilled European ever on dog sledging. Amundsens pole team was 5 professionals who had total 10 years of living and travelling with inuits, born in country which is bitterly cold, full of merchant mariners/sealers/whalers who can ski. Amundsen had 4 navigators out of 5 men pole team. There was many jobs to do, so 3 out of 5 signed all location logs and did the several days of exact pole chasing.
Sott recorded a continuous blizzard lasting 10 days (March 20 - March 29, 1921). Solomon's statement that no blizzard in Antarctica could have lasted longer than 4 days seems in accordance to theoretical models, but disregards actual factual contemporary evidence to the contrary. This evidence is the diary of Ernest Joyce, member of Shackleton's Ross Sea Party. During February 1916, Joyce recorded a continuous blizzard of 11 days in the vicinity of Scott's old One Ton Depot: archive.org/details/juh_juhleidl_7309/page/n401
That's a great spot. Congratulations. Was Scott aware of this evidence? I'd have to say yes. After all, he seemed well appraised of most of the printed material from that time. I think the truth of the matter is Scott was playing the percentages and praying the dice didn't come up snake-eyes. Like a lot of the great adventurers.
Hmm yes she has done her homework but the theory that the others chose to stay and die with scott out of respect for him is purely speculation. We will never know the truth.
30:24 "...and I think it's really quite amazing how good Simpson's estimate was." Hmm. That's just another way of saying that Scott had no reason to trust Simpson's work at the time, since it was only "verified" by data gathered decades later. Money quote at 53:06. Regarding Amundsen: "He had sledged in temperatures this cold and colder..." Ouch. Scott's folly in a nutshell.
Even with decades - centuries in some cases - of historical data, advances in science, modern computing and AI we have no reason to place absolute trust in long range climate predictions and short range weather forecasts beyond 10-14 days. There's simply too much chaos and complexity in our environment. Still, we attach significance to them because it's the best information we have available to us. At the time Scott was working with the best information that was available. Tough to blame the guy for not knowing what he didn't know. As for Amundsen - whilst it's true to say he'd survived extremely cold temperatures it would be a grave error to equate them with the extreme conditions which were commonplace on the barrier and the polar plateau. So yes - Amundsen could operate effectively in temperatures as low as -30C. But he'd *never* encountered the kind of hurricane force winds roaring down from the plateau whose wind chill could drop the temperature way beyond the lowest limits of mercury thermometers. Fortunately Amundsen had gotten off the barrier in the nick of time. But make no mistake - had he been caught in the same temperatures Scott ran into (so low they couldn't even record them) Amundsen would most likely have become just another statistic.
Amundsens team was fully capable of making themselves warm and take care of their dogs any summer/autumn weather possible, and handle weeks long storms. They had more food and fuel men and dogs could consume. Amundsen did not had only (fell short) 80 degrees 1 ton depot like Scott. He had depots at 80, 81 and 82 degrees with total of 3.5 tons of supplies. They were left half full, even when men and dogs tried to eat as much as possible. If weather gets really dangerous (MUCH colder what Scott faced), they knew how to build igloos to protect dogs from wind, or themselves if their tent suffer accident (they left spare tent at pole, they HAD spare tent, ask Scott did he had one). You dont know what you are talking about. Amundsens pole team had 7 to 8 manyears of total experience living with inuit people. They knew their business.
When chasing magnetic pole during Gjoa expedition, first ever NW passage, Amundsen and propably Hanssen too sledged with their inuit friends at minus 48 celsius when their hosts said "its becoming bit chilly". They built igloos, and slept cozily.
Norwegians were capable of developing friendships with inuit people. Inuits guided and teached them how to survive and travel in even colder climate than their homeland, and Norwegians smithed steel tools for inuits, and used their rifles to hunt caribou to supply their friends with extra food. Would anyone on British Terra Nova expedition being capable to forge such mutual co-operation and friendships? Scott?
Shackleton was much better than Scott. Amundsen was the real hero. Brilliant man!. Scott, Well. Not much to be said there except quite inadequate in the food and fuel area. Adequate food and they would have made it. So a medically qualified friend told me.
Quite. Soloman (not an expert in the dietary field) says Scott's team was eating its ration. BUT was that adequate? To what extent had it calculated in the needs of man-hauling those distances etc? What margin of error? Also, even if they'd made to One Ton, not at all clear they would have gone further. Not a lot of stuff there to sustain a weakened team
@@nickcrosby9875 From what I've read Scott was burning twice the number of calories a full daily ration was providing him. I don't see this as being the kind of catastrophic blunder many accuse him of. The truth is we just didn't know what we didn't know about human metabolism a hundred years ago. What killed them was the hard outbound sledging on the polar plateau. They were burning up calories so fast dragging what was several hundred pounds of dead weight in hellish conditions that by the time they reached the pole they were already finished as a viable sledging team. Quite frankly I'm amazed they made it as far back as they did. They must have been skin-and-bone once they made it down the Beardmore. And that made them easy victims of frostbite. Even if somehow Bowers (who had the greatest reserves of energy among them) took off and somehow made contact with a team from the base they would never have made it back.
By the time they hit the «cold march» Evans was already dead and Oats was spent. So already the expedition is a disaster. And based on the discovery and nimrod expeditions near disasters. isnt march a bit late anyways? More of the same, but stay out longer this time?
Bowers and Wilson had a chance to get trough, it was only 12.4 statute miles to One Ton depot ( 11 miles according to Scott calculations), but they couldn't dump Scott and continue themselves, so they used opium tablets ( on March 11 Scott ordered to Wilson to give everybody 30 tablets) to kill themselves. They didn't have fuel, but had some food and spirit to make water to make last dash to depot.
You're looking at this all wrong. 12.4 miles in deteriorating conditions would certainly be possible for them on the outbound journey. But it might as well have been 120 miles for guys in their banged up condition. Wilson was shot. And he would never leave Scott and his skills would be needed to manage their frostbite (he'd almost certainly need to amputate Scott's feet and deal with the aftermath). Bowers? He was in the best shape. But only in relative terms. Had his health been independently assessed he would be considered a man close to death. Let's say he makes it to One Ton depot? Then what? You know how many miles it is back to base? And winter is fast approaching. And if by some miracle Bowers gets back you then have the problem of conducting a complicated rescue mission finding a needle in a haystack in the onset of winter. No - if Bowers got back there would have been no rescue mission. It would have been suicide and only added to the list of fatalities. You think Scott hadn't already worked the numbers in his head? The truth of the matter is they were dead men before they reached the pole unless somehow they were met by a team from the base coming in.
Amazing adventure........somewhat foolhardy now & then though..Not to forget as if this expedition wasn't already hazardous enough, it was a steep uphill climb of about 10.000 ft above sea level.......Although done with scientific intent......Those who bankrolled these expeditions did it for "King & Country".... hoping to claim a whole continent for the royals....with all the possible riches that might be found there ....As the British had done so successfully through the ages.....
Well sorry to disagree - Amundsen was the better man and the better planner. Scott was one of the last of the old time imperialists. A stuffed shirt and a narcissist through and through.
So the point is to prove that Scott was the ''scientist'' and Amundsen was just a skier ? What about Amundsen spending 2 years in the North West passage making historically important measurements on the Magnetic North Pole ? He could actually have just ''raced'' through the NW passage ?
Indeed. The route through was open on first summer, and Amundsen could had sailed through NW passage in first year. Instead he looked for place to winter, because he had his scientific work to measure where magnetic pole was. They ended up spending 2 years what is now known as Gjoa Haven. Inuit village grew there as Norwegians and Inuits had co-operation which benefitted both.
Because feminist
I've read Scott's diaries on several occasions. And from the first I've believed it's little more than PR meant to show the party in its best light since Scott had every reason to think it would form the basis of lucrative revenue options once they returned. There are hints in the diary that several situations were bubbling beneath the surface - primarily in relation to Oates but more importantly Evans. I don't blame Scott and I certainly don't believe he was a "bungler". But I do question his judgment in the days leading up to the pole and immediately after. From the text the evidence is overwhelming that his party were pretty much shot once they finished ascending the Beardmore. And what reserves of energy and physical fitness they had left were rapidly diminished pulling a fairly light sled in terrible conditions at 10,000 feet.
I don't believe Scott gave adequate consideration to the consequences of discovering Amundsen had already beaten them and I believe the psychological shock sealed their doom. Not long after you begin to hear about Oates' "cold feet" and frostbitten fingers. If cold is setting into you at 10,000 feet with many miles of hard pulling before you reach the top of the Beardmore you are done. Mystery surrounds Evans' rapid deterioration and expiry and it is when discussing this situation that I felt Scott was being extremely economical with the truth.
There are brief insights into what I believe was an increasingly fractious atmosphere with the implicit declaration that someone had been dipping into their rapidly diminishing food reserves. Scott doesn't point the finger at Evans - but that's the easiest assumption to arrive at. Of course, if it wasn't Evans then you are left with some alarming questions. The entire tone of the diary changes on the return journey. I felt there was an awful lot which was either left out or possibly excised. Credit to Scott, Wilson and Bowers for making it as far as they did. Perhaps it was possible for Bowers to have made it back on his own. But even if he had I don't think there was any chance of a rescue party returning to pick Scott up. I assume Evans, Bowers, Wilson and Oates kept their own diaries? Have these ever seen the light of day??
I agree with yr analysis, although you are more diplomatic than I. At one point does a series of mistakes- which when combined- not become bungling? Scott tolerated numerous small errors that when combined imho meant a serious injury was likely. Consider: clothing, seals on fuel, weight and packing of sledge, extra man in tent (sleeping comfort/ cooking time), depot markings/ bearings, medical fitness of Oates/ Evans etc etc. Had anyone man-hauled those distances before? What experience had they in it, compared to Amundsen's dog handling and cross-country ski-ing? Solomon herself says he 'cut corners.' Add in Scott's relative inexperience with snow/ ice compared to Amundsen, and some form of disaster was likely. They were already struggling before the cold weather hit...
i would like to discuss this.. what were lucrative deals.. what mention was made of food stealing i admit it would be tempting, one wrote letters and its a good point on diaries from the last party.. I read lashly and gerrard returning party books /logs.. I can see tone of diaries changing as situation was bleak near end as i guess scott figured they were dead men after cold set in 6 days after getting back to ross ice shelf on return.. I wonder if scott would have turned b ack early and tried in the next 3rd year if amundsen was not present.
i would like to know of food stealing for sure........
@@bradleysmall2230 I can't remember all of the companies who had some kind of stake in Scott's expedition. You can find them online. IIRC the most lucrative relationships were the customary deals for the rights and/or serialized rites to Scott's journal. This was very common back then. If memory serves Scott mentions the loss of an entire day's rations on the polar summit. I think it was as they were on the plateau - but it could possibly have been on the return journey before the Beardmore descent. Scott mentions that Bowers was extremely upset as it was his responsibility to manage the rations. Who stole those rations? I'm not sure. From what I could deduce about Bowers' character and nature my guess is he wasn't responsible. For me the likeliest person was Evans (or possibly Oates). But in such horrific circumstances it could have been any of them. The Antarctic has broken the will of many an adventurer.
Had Scott turned back I don't think they had enough resources to mount a successful journey in year three. But I might be wrong here. From the historical record he would likely have had better conditions (that cold snap during Scott's return journey was unusual even by Antarctic standards). Irrespective it would still have been an incredibly difficult challenge.
@@deaddropholiday THANKS- i vagely remember some missing thing i want to re read.. i was nieve and not thinkin o of food theft.. expeditions have a time limit and probably hard to extend trip.. if amundsen was not there and supplies left at beardmore top or bottom would be nice..
I understand the plan at start was to move one ton supplies to land at beardmore glacier as there was some concern by scott leaving depots for a year on ice shelf.. thanks solomon is very convincing in her research w simpson and all..
She said that Amundsen would’ve had no problem with the lower temperatures it would not have stopped him. He double sealed his fuel cans and Scott’s didn’t. Both fuel cans would’ve been jostled being sledge across the ice. Just excuse after excuse for Scott. He was not thePrecise planner that Amundsen was and I think that was the differenc .
Norwegian expedition wasnt just better planned, but the 8 men plus 1 very good cook, which Fram dropped to Ross ice shelf had about 10 manyears and THOUSANDS miles experience in dog sledging and surviving in minus 30-50 centigrade weather. There was so many navigators (4) in final pole team that no one except idiot Markham has ever given 1 word of doubt about their position, Scott atleast didnt. They could all ski very well, but in addition there was goddammit Holmenkollen combined winner as front skier. Amundsen with just 8 men planted 3 depots, at 80, 81 and 82 degrees with 3 and half tons of supplies on first summer. Scott could not even push his famous 1 ton depot to 80 degrees... Professionals vs fumbling amateurs.
Amundsen seeked to plant 4th depot at 83 degrees, but winter was coming and continuous minus 40 centigrade weather slowed them. It wasnt needed in next summer during push to pole. They had so much food and fuel that half was left behind.
@@kimmoj2570 totally! RA was awesome!
In hindsight of course, I believe that taking the 5th guy was the kiss of death. Took 30 minutes longer to cook for the 5th guy. In the end they ran out of food and fuel just 11 miles short of 1 Ton of supplies.
see 1:12:30 S says no lack of food diet to 5th man .....vs same amount of food but divided into smaller portion. so I thought they were food and fuel limited ....S disagrees
Also Amundsens initial september team (which retreated after dropping their supplies to reinforce 80 degrees depot when faced minus 40-50 celsius temps) was 8 men, with 4 per tent. He also took 5 man to pole, starting again in october. But they had vastly greater resources of strenght. Their front skier was world class athlete (Holmenkollen combined winner), and for significant part of journey other 4 men just grabbed tight on sledges on their skis while dogs pulled like crazy trying to catch front skier. No idiotic "heroic" manhauling. Front skier, Bjaaland, was hired was this job. Compare such perfection of planning to what Scott managed....
Great lecture. My discovery of Robert Falcon Scott and his story came through the music of Ralph Vaughan Williams. The score he wrote for the movie “Scott of the Antarctic” and the “Sinfonia Antarctica” that he made out of it. A tragic yet enlightening tale about the human struggle that will stay with me forever.
Scott had amazing courage. It's truly amazing to think of what it took to march off into a frozen, unknown nightmare. Plus the fact he and his group may have survived had he listened to the advise to push the depot farther south. Just 11 miles short of salvation. Horrible way to go.
I really don't find her presentation all that compelling, in terms of letting Scott "off the hook", so to speak. Read Huntford's book. It is a deep and comprehensive examination of the leadership styles, cultures, technology, weather conditions, and approach to risk between the British and Norwegian expeditions. She is mistaken about the scurvy matter: Oates' war wound opened up again, which happens to scar tissue when starved of vitamin C. Solomon is straining to make her case using temperatures while ignoring a mountain of information on poor planning.
Crazy how Scott didn't send Oates back to the ship. When he decided to include Bowers in the polar party....
If the return temperatures remained above 20 below on their return trip, would Scott and the other 2 men have made it back alive?
Solomon has mended her opinions a bit. In these later years she admits that Amundsen had dog sledged in MUCH colder conditions what Scott faced in March, and the weather would not had stopped Amundsen. It was bad year overall, but you dont go there without reserves of strenght and supplies.
38:39 What difficulties? Amundsen and Hanssen had spent 2 winters with inuit in Gjoa NW passage and travelled long distances with inuit friends and dog sleds. Hassel had spent years with Sverdrup expedition, cartographing even further north in Canada, with dog sleds. Scotts "problems" with dogs was that he and his team hadnt clue how to handle them.
Notice how some islands of farthest north of Canada have Norse names. Because they were discovered by Norwegians (Sverdrups expedition), and not sailing, but dog sledging.
Amundsen, Hanssen and Hassel were fully capable of teaching Wisting, which was fast learner on dogs. Bjaaland job was more on trying to escape on skis (exciting dogs to catch him). He was also best man to handle possible breakages on their equipment.
Norway even claimed several islands they had discovered in northern Canadian archipelago to themselves. Somewhere around 1930 they relinquished their claims. Sverre Hassel was there all the time on those Sverdrup expeditions which discovered those islands, becoming propably most skilled European ever on dog sledging. Amundsens pole team was 5 professionals who had total 10 years of living and travelling with inuits, born in country which is bitterly cold, full of merchant mariners/sealers/whalers who can ski. Amundsen had 4 navigators out of 5 men pole team. There was many jobs to do, so 3 out of 5 signed all location logs and did the several days of exact pole chasing.
@@kimmoj2570discovered lol
You mean … met the people who lived there for 10,000s of years 😂
Thanks for posting this
Sott recorded a continuous blizzard lasting 10 days (March 20 - March 29, 1921). Solomon's statement that no blizzard in Antarctica could have lasted longer than 4 days seems in accordance to theoretical models, but disregards actual factual contemporary evidence to the contrary. This evidence is the diary of Ernest Joyce, member of Shackleton's Ross Sea Party. During February 1916, Joyce recorded a continuous blizzard of 11 days in the vicinity of Scott's old One Ton Depot:
archive.org/details/juh_juhleidl_7309/page/n401
That's a great spot. Congratulations. Was Scott aware of this evidence? I'd have to say yes. After all, he seemed well appraised of most of the printed material from that time. I think the truth of the matter is Scott was playing the percentages and praying the dice didn't come up snake-eyes. Like a lot of the great adventurers.
Nobody says there can’t be blizzards back to back 😂
Hmm yes she has done her homework but the theory that the others chose to stay and die with scott out of respect for him is purely speculation. We will never know the truth.
It's not unthinkable. People do value friendship and honour and they were all decent men with a bond.
30:24 "...and I think it's really quite amazing how good Simpson's estimate was."
Hmm. That's just another way of saying that Scott had no reason to trust Simpson's work at the time, since it was only "verified" by data gathered decades later.
Money quote at 53:06. Regarding Amundsen: "He had sledged in temperatures this cold and colder..." Ouch. Scott's folly in a nutshell.
And 1'16: Dug up Amundsen' s fuel tins years' later, 'Still in perfect shape.'
Even with decades - centuries in some cases - of historical data, advances in science, modern computing and AI we have no reason to place absolute trust in long range climate predictions and short range weather forecasts beyond 10-14 days. There's simply too much chaos and complexity in our environment. Still, we attach significance to them because it's the best information we have available to us. At the time Scott was working with the best information that was available. Tough to blame the guy for not knowing what he didn't know.
As for Amundsen - whilst it's true to say he'd survived extremely cold temperatures it would be a grave error to equate them with the extreme conditions which were commonplace on the barrier and the polar plateau. So yes - Amundsen could operate effectively in temperatures as low as -30C. But he'd *never* encountered the kind of hurricane force winds roaring down from the plateau whose wind chill could drop the temperature way beyond the lowest limits of mercury thermometers. Fortunately Amundsen had gotten off the barrier in the nick of time. But make no mistake - had he been caught in the same temperatures Scott ran into (so low they couldn't even record them) Amundsen would most likely have become just another statistic.
Amundsens team was fully capable of making themselves warm and take care of their dogs any summer/autumn weather possible, and handle weeks long storms. They had more food and fuel men and dogs could consume. Amundsen did not had only (fell short) 80 degrees 1 ton depot like Scott. He had depots at 80, 81 and 82 degrees with total of 3.5 tons of supplies. They were left half full, even when men and dogs tried to eat as much as possible. If weather gets really dangerous (MUCH colder what Scott faced), they knew how to build igloos to protect dogs from wind, or themselves if their tent suffer accident (they left spare tent at pole, they HAD spare tent, ask Scott did he had one). You dont know what you are talking about. Amundsens pole team had 7 to 8 manyears of total experience living with inuit people. They knew their business.
When chasing magnetic pole during Gjoa expedition, first ever NW passage, Amundsen and propably Hanssen too sledged with their inuit friends at minus 48 celsius when their hosts said "its becoming bit chilly". They built igloos, and slept cozily.
Norwegians were capable of developing friendships with inuit people. Inuits guided and teached them how to survive and travel in even colder climate than their homeland, and Norwegians smithed steel tools for inuits, and used their rifles to hunt caribou to supply their friends with extra food. Would anyone on British Terra Nova expedition being capable to forge such mutual co-operation and friendships? Scott?
Shackleton was much better than Scott. Amundsen was the real hero. Brilliant man!. Scott, Well. Not much to be said there except quite inadequate in the food and fuel area. Adequate food and they would have made it. So a medically qualified friend told me.
Quite. Soloman (not an expert in the dietary field) says Scott's team was eating its ration. BUT was that adequate? To what extent had it calculated in the needs of man-hauling those distances etc? What margin of error? Also, even if they'd made to One Ton, not at all clear they would have gone further. Not a lot of stuff there to sustain a weakened team
@@nickcrosby9875 From what I've read Scott was burning twice the number of calories a full daily ration was providing him. I don't see this as being the kind of catastrophic blunder many accuse him of. The truth is we just didn't know what we didn't know about human metabolism a hundred years ago. What killed them was the hard outbound sledging on the polar plateau. They were burning up calories so fast dragging what was several hundred pounds of dead weight in hellish conditions that by the time they reached the pole they were already finished as a viable sledging team. Quite frankly I'm amazed they made it as far back as they did. They must have been skin-and-bone once they made it down the Beardmore. And that made them easy victims of frostbite. Even if somehow Bowers (who had the greatest reserves of energy among them) took off and somehow made contact with a team from the base they would never have made it back.
By the time they hit the «cold march» Evans was already dead and Oats was spent. So already the expedition is a disaster.
And based on the discovery and nimrod expeditions near disasters. isnt march a bit late anyways? More of the same, but stay out longer this time?
excellant account of the polar journey by this American scientist
She is very famous .. In few words, Amundsen was lucky !!
Bowers and Wilson had a chance to get trough, it was only 12.4 statute miles to One Ton depot ( 11 miles according to Scott calculations), but they couldn't dump Scott and continue themselves, so they used opium tablets ( on March 11 Scott ordered to Wilson to give everybody 30 tablets) to kill themselves. They didn't have fuel, but had some food and spirit to make water to make last dash to depot.
no they didn´t, they did not take the opium tablets, this has been proven
You're looking at this all wrong. 12.4 miles in deteriorating conditions would certainly be possible for them on the outbound journey. But it might as well have been 120 miles for guys in their banged up condition. Wilson was shot. And he would never leave Scott and his skills would be needed to manage their frostbite (he'd almost certainly need to amputate Scott's feet and deal with the aftermath). Bowers? He was in the best shape. But only in relative terms. Had his health been independently assessed he would be considered a man close to death. Let's say he makes it to One Ton depot? Then what? You know how many miles it is back to base? And winter is fast approaching. And if by some miracle Bowers gets back you then have the problem of conducting a complicated rescue mission finding a needle in a haystack in the onset of winter. No - if Bowers got back there would have been no rescue mission. It would have been suicide and only added to the list of fatalities.
You think Scott hadn't already worked the numbers in his head? The truth of the matter is they were dead men before they reached the pole unless somehow they were met by a team from the base coming in.
1:15:02 oil can leaking evaporation 1:16:17 one will die if you eat snow
I want tea and cakes!
Amazing adventure........somewhat foolhardy now & then though..Not to forget as if this expedition wasn't already hazardous enough, it was a steep uphill climb of about 10.000 ft above sea level.......Although done with scientific intent......Those who bankrolled these expeditions did it for "King & Country".... hoping to claim a whole continent for the royals....with all the possible riches that might be found there ....As the British had done so successfully through the ages.....
She sounded quite different in that other documentary - all "Scott was a scientific genius".
what other documentary?
Well sorry to disagree - Amundsen was the better man and the better planner. Scott was one of the last of the old time imperialists. A stuffed shirt and a narcissist through and through.