These rough notes and our dead bodies must tell the tale

[Clinton Huxley]

I like this idea. Captain Scott's journal from his final and indeed terminal last expedition are being published as a blog by the Scott Polar Research Institute. Daily updates here:-

http://www.spri.cam.ac.uk/museum/diarie ... xpedition/

The last entries in Scott's journal are one of the few things that make my upper lip wobble.

[devogue]

He wasthe ultimate loser.

I have never understood why the British hold him in such esteem.

[klr]

He wasthe ultimate loser.

I have never understood why the British hold him in such esteem.

Have you ever read Roland Huntford's book on the race to the South Pole?

[Clinton Huxley]

He wasthe ultimate loser.

I have never understood why the British hold him in such esteem.

Wrong. He had bad luck but the idea that his expedition was ill-planned is incorrect. Amundsen was a cheat and attempted nothing of scientific value, Scott's was a full on scientific expedition.

[Clinton Huxley]

He wasthe ultimate loser.

I have never understood why the British hold him in such esteem.

Have you ever read Roland Huntford's book on the race to the South Pole?

Huntford no Scott fan. Ranulph Ffiennes blasts Huntford as a total ignoramus in his book about Scott.

[klr]

He wasthe ultimate loser.

I have never understood why the British hold him in such esteem.

Wrong. He had bad luck but the idea that his expedition was ill-planned is incorrect. Amundsen was a cheat and attempted nothing of scientific value, Scott's was a full on scientific expedition.

How did Amundsen actually cheat?

He wasthe ultimate loser.

I have never understood why the British hold him in such esteem.

Have you ever read Roland Huntford's book on the race to the South Pole?

Huntford no Scott fan. Ranulph Ffiennes blasts Huntford as a total ignoramus in his book about Scott.

I'm not sure Sir Ranulph is qualified to make impartial commentary on the matter.

All things considered, I would certainly be much more in Huntford's camp, but I also take the higher level view that the way in which opinion about Scott, Amundsen and Shackleton has changed over the years is more a reflection of changing social attitudes (particularly in Britain) than anything else.

[devogue]

Amudsen got to the South Pole first and he came home alive.

Scott didn't and he died - loser.

It was a race - science could wait.

[Clinton Huxley]

He wasthe ultimate loser.

I have never understood why the British hold him in such esteem.

Wrong. He had bad luck but the idea that his expedition was ill-planned is incorrect. Amundsen was a cheat and attempted nothing of scientific value, Scott's was a full on scientific expedition.

How did Amundsen actually cheat?

A) By being foreign
B) Misled people about where he was going - pretended he was heading for Arctic then changed direction once at sea. No gentleman.

I'm not sure Sir Ranulph is qualified to make impartial commentary on the matter.

All things considered, I would certainly be much more in Huntford's camp, but I also take the higher level view that the way in which opinion about Scott, Amundsen and Shackleton has changed over the years is more a reflection of changing social attitudes (particularly in Britain) than anything else.

I'd see Huntford as totally partisan and Ranulph certainly knows more about polar conditions than Huntford did. Agree about the changing perceptions of the three men over time, though.

[klr]

Amudsen got to the South Pole first and he came home alive.

Scott didn't and he died - loser.

It was a race - science could wait.

To me, it's less that Scott lost, than why. Anyone can be unlucky, and there is very little margin in that environment. But having read a whole slew of books on the "Heroic Age", I have the definite impression that Scott left far too much to chance. Also, while he inspired fierce loyalty amongst some of his men, he does not appear to have been the sort of inspirational (if also wayward) leader that Shackleton was, and was not remotely as good a "man-manager".

He also made too many bad decisions, including taking one man too many in the final trek to the pole - and the wrong personnel as well.

[Clinton Huxley]

Amudsen got to the South Pole first and he came home alive.

Scott didn't and he died - loser.

It was a race - science could wait.

To me, it's less that Scott lost, than why. Anyone can be unlucky, and there is very little margin in that environment. But having read a whole slew of books on the "Heroic Age", I have the definite impression that Scott left far too much to chance. Also, while he inspired fierce loyalty amongst some of his men, he does not appear to have been the sort of inspirational (if also wayward) leader that Shackleton was, and was not remotely as good a "man-manager".

He also made too many bad decisions, including taking one man too many in the final trek to the pole - and the wrong personnel as well.

Ah, you need to read a bit more revisionist history. Ffiennes book is a good one. Scott is often portrayed as a bit of a chump but a lot of the criticism is ill-informed bollocks.

[klr]

He wasthe ultimate loser.

I have never understood why the British hold him in such esteem.

Wrong. He had bad luck but the idea that his expedition was ill-planned is incorrect. Amundsen was a cheat and attempted nothing of scientific value, Scott's was a full on scientific expedition.

How did Amundsen actually cheat?

A) By being foreign

... although that angle was certainly there at the time.

B) Misled people about where he was going - pretended he was heading for Arctic then changed direction once at sea. No gentleman.

Oh yes, that. C'est la guerre and all that. There were no saints in the Heroic Age, only very determined men. The spat a few years earlier between Shackleton and Scott over Shackleton's use of Scott's Discovery bases also comes to mind. Was Shackleton dishonest, or was Scott unreasonable? Or is the truth more complex than that?

I can see this thread is going to run and run ...

[Clinton Huxley]

I think Amundsen's deception was a particular low point. Of course there was all kinds of gamesmanship between these very ambitious men but Amundsen took it too far.

Just realised my Huntford and my Cherry-Gerrard have been packed away in storage at the Mother-in Laws, must root them out.

[devogue]

I think Amundsen's deception was a particular low point. Of course there was all kinds of gamesmanship between these very ambitious men but Amundsen took it too far.

Serves you right for the Famine.

[Clinton Huxley]

I think Amundsen's deception was a particular low point. Of course there was all kinds of gamesmanship between these very ambitious men but Amundsen took it too far.

Serves you right for the Famine.

Will get back to you on this one, just tucking into an enormous early lunch...

[Elessarina]

The final thoughts of Antarctic explorer Capt Robert Scott are being published on a daily internet blog.

People can follow entries originally made from 26 November 1910 until the final entry, probably written on 29 March 1912 before Scott's death.

Scott and his team died as they returned from the South Pole.

Cambridge University's Scott Polar Research Institute is publishing the diary to help people understand the challenges the team faced.

The staff of the institute's museum, library and archive want to see if modern communication methods can provide a better understanding of the past.

Self sacrifice

They hope following the daily events of the expedition as they happened on Twitter will be a very different experience from reading everything over a few days.

The journal covers the expedition leaving New Zealand, scientific missions of 1911 and the journey to the South Pole, and ends with the death of the polar party in 1912, just 11 miles from the next depot of food and fuel.

Christopher Hughes, who has worked with the institute to develop the blog, said: "Technological change means that we are all reading in new ways, and the content is reaching us in many new forms.

"Presenting this great work in a format that people use in their everyday lives should mean that the text comes alive to new readers, and in a short format that blog readers already understand and enjoy.

"Matching the dates of the text with the historical events also means that those familiar with the story will get a new sense and appreciation of the endurance of the explorers, their true goals, and a deeper understanding of their self-sacrifice."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/camb ... 382168.stm