Captain Scott

[rik_uk3]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufijjhdR03E

Not the best programme but does re-enforce a lot of what Sir Ranulph Fiennes said in his book on Scott, i.e. the man was not the idiot some authors would have you believe.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Captain-Scott-Ranulph-Fiennes/dp/0340826991/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1386619273&sr=8-6&keywords=Ranulph+Fiennes Well worth reading and it puts a lot of things about Scott's expedition into a more clear and accurate perspective.

[saxonaxe]

Good find Rik, glad I watched that. Brave men, all of them. No doubt the armchair warriors who criticise Capt: Scott will now be finding ways to disprove the evidence that the American lady meteorologist has found.. :)

[rik_uk3]

Saxon, read the Fiennes book, it shreds a couple of other 'major' books on Scott which not only incorrectly reported some aspects of the trip but lied about some things.

[ammo]

This was good. They were cursed with bad luck, which wasn't foreseen. Oates was a brave man (all of them there ) but he walked off to die alone, for the greater good. 5 very brave men.
Rich. Your like a wizard, pulling bits of magic from up your sleeves. What else you got?.
I can't even upload photos, so thankyou for posting this.

[saxonaxe]

" Rich. Your like a wizard, pulling bits of magic from up your sleeves."....Agreed. The Ran Fiennes book suggestion has also stopped my Daughter wittering on about " Dad what do want for Christmas?".. T^ ;)

[luresalive]

Let's face it Scott died Shackleton ( and all his men ) survived I know who I would rather be out with, Fiennes has always had a slanted opinion of the explorers of that era.

[rik_uk3]

You've read the book then luresalive ? Not as simplistic as you suggest.

South is a good account of Shackleton
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5199 if you've not already read it.

[luresalive]

I love the whole era of the arctic explorers. I read Scott and Amundsen by Roland Huntford plus a few of his other books, and quite a few on Shackleton as he's a personal hero of mine and I agree it's certainly not as simple as it's made out to be, especially the rivalry between Shackleton and Scott, still I think Scott was given to much credit for a failed expedition that cost the lives of himself and his men when with the right leadership skills ( like Shackleton) all could have survived. I've read a few of Fiennes books and seen enough of his interviews to see he is very very pro-Scott .

[rik_uk3]

It failed primarily due to a very very unexpected change in weather patterns. I'd argue his expedition was pretty successful in terms of the scientific research carried out, much of which was still being studied fifty of more years after their deaths. Huntford is not the best author to base opinions on, his writings are not without his own personal views many of which are not true and is anti Scott. Have a look at the video link I posted, its not bad. I fell into the trap of the anti Scott camp for some years, mainly due to Huntford's work but after reading further came to realise that Scott was by no means the 'bad leader' he had been painted. He demonstrated wonderful organisational and planning skills. If the weather had not killed them he'd have been second to the Pole but seen as the leader of one of the greatest scientific expeditions of the 20th century (thankfully that recognition is now becoming more apparent).

I did a Royal College of Nursing leadership course a few years ago and Shackleton was seen as the perfect manager according to the criteria of the course but remember he ignored local knowledge and advice and his own expedition failed completely. His men were very lucky to survive but that does not take away for me the motivational skills and personal courage he showed getting his men on dry land and ultimate rescue...how would he be seen if half his men had died.

For absolute hardiness Nansen is my top polar hero.

[ammo]

They both had lots of luck, unfortunately for Scott, his was all bad. I definitely think history would remember them differently if they had each other's luck. You can't ask a man to do more than his best, so I don't put one over the other.
Nansen! Never even heard of him. Any recommendations on what to read or watch.

[luresalive]

I will agree with you about Nansen too, a superb explorer and adventurer, still got to say Shackleton was the man. You only have to remember how Scott sent him home on their early expedition saying he was ill when it turned out Shackleton had more of a rapport with the men than Scott did, and how Scott considered him a threat even then and worst of all made Shackleton promise he wouldnt land at McMurdo sound to try and make his expedition as difficult as possible. If we're talking weather conditions just look at Shackletons boat journeys, especially in the James Caird.. Bad weather should have been expected and prepared for, it's not a reason for failure and death it's an excuse for bad planning and preparation.

[ammo]

I thought the whole point of this, new information. Was to show, no amount of planning could of forsaw, such bad weather.

I will agree with you about Nansen too, a superb explorer and adventurer, still got to say Shackleton was the man. You only have to remember how Scott sent him home on their early expedition saying he was ill when it turned out Shackleton had more of a rapport with the men than Scott did, and how Scott considered him a threat even then and worst of all made Shackleton promise he wouldnt land at McMurdo sound to try and make his expedition as difficult as possible. If we're talking weather conditions just look at Shackletons boat journeys, especially in the James Caird.. Bad weather should have been expected and prepared for, it's not a reason for failure and death it's an excuse for bad planning and preparation.

[rik_uk3]

The split with Scott and Shackleton was not due to popularity and the weather conditions on Scott's trip were in fact far colder than the boat trip. The weather Scott encountered was so severe it stopped all travel. Watch that video and read up and you'll see what I'm getting at.


I will agree with you about Nansen too, a superb explorer and adventurer, still got to say Shackleton was the man. You only have to remember how Scott sent him home on their early expedition saying he was ill when it turned out Shackleton had more of a rapport with the men than Scott did, and how Scott considered him a threat even then and worst of all made Shackleton promise he wouldnt land at McMurdo sound to try and make his expedition as difficult as possible. If we're talking weather conditions just look at Shackletons boat journeys, especially in the James Caird.. Bad weather should have been expected and prepared for, it's not a reason for failure and death it's an excuse for bad planning and preparation.

[luresalive]

First of all let me just say this is a brilliant thread and exactly the sort of thing we should be debating on a bushcraft/survival forum.

The weather played important factors in all Antarctic trips including Shackletons - when he left the ice cap, the problems getting to Elephant island, the problems getting off it, getting to south Georgia which is still classed as one of the greatest feats of navigation ever accomplished and the final gruelling walk to the whaling station, there was always bad weather!
Scott had been to the Antarctic before, he knew of the potential conditions yet he did not prepare for them, there is no excuse for that!
Also lets remember he never got to the pole until the 18th January, Amundsen never left the bay of Whales until the 30th, so Amundsen was still in the Antarctic at the same time as Scott when the weather struck yet he had no fatalities at that time, again the weather cannot be used as an excuse!
Scott was a very brave but very foolish individual who risked and lost his own life and those of his men, That should never have happened, no other polar expedition met with such chronic failure, his stubbornness cost him his life.

There was due to be a revival of the Scott legacy very soon, even Fiennes himself has said that in interviews, the British love an antihero always have, so it was only a matter of time before this came around.. the next generation will review and exhalt Shackleton all over again, that's the way history works, it's cyclical.
We as outdoor men should take something from this, bushcraft/survival is all about knowledge and being prepared so we of all people should be able to relate in a very small way to what these men faced..
Lets face it, if you were to choose whom you'd rather have went to the Antarctic with, Scott would be bottom of the list, way behind Shackleton and Amundsen, for obvious reasons.

[FishyFolk]

First of all let me just say this is a brilliant thread and exactly the sort of thing we should be debating on a bushcraft/survival forum.

The weather played important factors in all Antarctic trips including Shackletons - when he left the ice cap, the problems getting to Elephant island, the problems getting off it, getting to south Georgia which is still classed as one of the greatest feats of navigation ever accomplished and the final gruelling walk to the whaling station, there was always bad weather!
Scott had been to the Antarctic before, he knew of the potential conditions yet he did not prepare for them, there is no excuse for that!
Also lets remember he never got to the pole until the 18th January, Amundsen never left the bay of Whales until the 30th, so Amundsen was still in the Antarctic at the same time as Scott when the weather struck yet he had no fatalities at that time, again the weather cannot be used as an excuse!
Scott was a very brave but very foolish individual who risked and lost his own life and those of his men, That should never have happened, no other polar expedition met with such chronic failure, his stubbornness cost him his life.

There was due to be a revival of the Scott legacy very soon, even Fiennes himself has said that in interviews, the British love an antihero always have, so it was only a matter of time before this came around.. the next generation will review and exhalt Shackleton all over again, that's the way history works, it's cyclical.
We as outdoor men should take something from this, bushcraft/survival is all about knowledge and being prepared so we of all people should be able to relate in a very small way to what these men faced..
Lets face it, if you were to choose whom you'd rather have went to the Antarctic with, Scott would be bottom of the list, way behind Shackleton and Amundsen, for obvious reasons.

"I may say that this is the greatest factor—the way in which the expedition is equipped—the way in which every difficulty is foreseen, and precautions taken for meeting or avoiding it. Victory awaits him who has everything in order — luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck."
— from The South Pole, by Roald Amundsen

[luresalive]

"I may say that this is the greatest factor—the way in which the expedition is equipped—the way in which every difficulty is foreseen, and precautions taken for meeting or avoiding it. Victory awaits him who has everything in order — luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck."
— from The South Pole, by Roald Amundsen

That is a Perfect quote !!!

[rik_uk3]

Well worth watching


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1OnW1hJovs