@wildh0rse LOL which is pointed out in the first segment. If he hadn't previously skippered the Discovery expedition, he'd been behind a desk, leading a one man expedition to the men's room when he had to pee. :)
JohnnyDarkoKelly & neil73, I wasn't aware that Huntford had been "proved wrong". The race to the South Pole was about as close as history comes to a controlled laboratory experiment, and the results were unambiguous. Borrowing from legal jargon, "res ipsa loquitur", the thing speaks for itself.
Daragh O'Malley (P.O. Crean) plays Harper in the Sharpe's series (Sharpe's Rifles, Sharpe's Eagle, etc.) another must watch series for the kind of people who like this kind of stuff, like me.
@crasmane1 Just one a few MAJOR screw ups. Another was placing the One Ton Depot 31 miles north of where it should have been. Captian Oates says something in an earlier episode about "blind loyalty to the leader" superceding common sense, a very appropriate thing for an officer to say. Evans should have protested the 5-man decision not for himself, but for the sake of the survival of both parties. He was naturally angry and frustrated at being 'told off' at the last minute. Three cheers is it?
Obviously, Hunterford and his (this) account are very biased. Regardless, chalking Scott's failure up to 'bad luck' is ridiculous. The fact is he didn't bring enough food, and the food he did bring consisted of nothing more than hard biscuits, pemmican, butter, sugar, and cocoa. Of these nutrient-poor foods, the men were fed (at the start) only about 4500 cal per day, probably less than half what they were burning.
@salohcinsemaj It is quite obvious that this series IS very critical of Scott. He thought himself to be the victim of bad luck, but Hunterford and this series clearly show how ill-prepared the expedition was.
@cvb777: Well before we go assassinating Scott's reputation we need to be mindful that Hunterford wrote this account as part of his thesis. The success of a thesis as a saleable commodity is in it's ability to create controversy, which indeed he succeeded in doing. I think the reputation of Scott lies somewhere in the middle. Yes he had his failings but he was no devil either. Scott was simply a product of his time.
I would love to know whether Scott's sending back the second party's skis was pure vindictiveness against Teddy Evans (as suggested here) or just another example of his not thinking things through.
Based on what? Like JohnnyDarkoKelly said, in the comment below, Huntford was proved wrong.
Scott was beset by bad luck. Im not saying no mistakes were made, but Scott was certainly no fool. Take a look at his achievements in his naval career and you'll find a man with drive and ambition.
thats a joke of an opinion. this is an extremely biased source and huntford has been proved wrong on many of his interpretations of events anyway. he's the real idiot.
One of Scott's "naval merits" was, as an example, crashing his battleship "Albemarle" against another vessel during RN maneouvres. Glorious.
AleisterSir 4 months ago
@AleisterSir He was lucky not to lose his commision for that.
wildh0rse 3 months ago
@wildh0rse LOL which is pointed out in the first segment. If he hadn't previously skippered the Discovery expedition, he'd been behind a desk, leading a one man expedition to the men's room when he had to pee. :)
wildh0rse 3 months ago
JohnnyDarkoKelly & neil73, I wasn't aware that Huntford had been "proved wrong". The race to the South Pole was about as close as history comes to a controlled laboratory experiment, and the results were unambiguous. Borrowing from legal jargon, "res ipsa loquitur", the thing speaks for itself.
Hunpecked 7 months ago
The essential difference between Amundsen's party and Scott's party is the
level of experience of the leader. If Scott had spent three years, as Amundsen
did, out on the Arctic ice doing the Northwest passage I think he would have
equipped, provisioned and trained his people to the same standards.
rangerbobcat 9 months ago
Daragh O'Malley (P.O. Crean) plays Harper in the Sharpe's series (Sharpe's Rifles, Sharpe's Eagle, etc.) another must watch series for the kind of people who like this kind of stuff, like me.
monkeyboy4746 10 months ago
Terrible decision-making here.
Dividing rations for five . . . when the team should have been only three.
And so late.
crasmane1 1 year ago
@crasmane1 Just one a few MAJOR screw ups. Another was placing the One Ton Depot 31 miles north of where it should have been. Captian Oates says something in an earlier episode about "blind loyalty to the leader" superceding common sense, a very appropriate thing for an officer to say. Evans should have protested the 5-man decision not for himself, but for the sake of the survival of both parties. He was naturally angry and frustrated at being 'told off' at the last minute. Three cheers is it?
wildh0rse 3 months ago
On snow like that, everyone needs skis.
crasmane1 1 year ago
Obviously, Hunterford and his (this) account are very biased. Regardless, chalking Scott's failure up to 'bad luck' is ridiculous. The fact is he didn't bring enough food, and the food he did bring consisted of nothing more than hard biscuits, pemmican, butter, sugar, and cocoa. Of these nutrient-poor foods, the men were fed (at the start) only about 4500 cal per day, probably less than half what they were burning.
They were doomed from the beginning.
salohcinsemaj 1 year ago
@salohcinsemaj It is quite obvious that this series IS very critical of Scott. He thought himself to be the victim of bad luck, but Hunterford and this series clearly show how ill-prepared the expedition was.
cvb777 1 year ago
@cvb777: Well before we go assassinating Scott's reputation we need to be mindful that Hunterford wrote this account as part of his thesis. The success of a thesis as a saleable commodity is in it's ability to create controversy, which indeed he succeeded in doing. I think the reputation of Scott lies somewhere in the middle. Yes he had his failings but he was no devil either. Scott was simply a product of his time.
celticlofts 1 month ago
I would love to know whether Scott's sending back the second party's skis was pure vindictiveness against Teddy Evans (as suggested here) or just another example of his not thinking things through.
Probably the latter.
VanDee2008 2 years ago
Amundsen's party came through in good heath, and found they gained weight on the trip.
Scott killed his party by mis-management.
Which party would you choose?
rattyrattyrat 2 years ago
Scott was an idiot. An officer, not an explorer.
5000433 2 years ago
This is a biased screenplay. Scott definatelt made mistakes, but he was beset with bad luck regarding the weather
neil73 2 years ago
@neil73
Scott was a fool.
Amundsen was and always will be the true master of antarctica
rattyrattyrat 2 years ago
Based on what? Like JohnnyDarkoKelly said, in the comment below, Huntford was proved wrong.
Scott was beset by bad luck. Im not saying no mistakes were made, but Scott was certainly no fool. Take a look at his achievements in his naval career and you'll find a man with drive and ambition.
neil73 2 years ago
thats a joke of an opinion. this is an extremely biased source and huntford has been proved wrong on many of his interpretations of events anyway. he's the real idiot.
JohnnyDarkoKelly 2 years ago
@JohnnyDarkoKelly
No, just an opion. Would you let Scott drive your battleship?
5000433 2 years ago
The actual Scott, yes. He was a naval officer which credentials in addition to being an explorer.
JohnnyDarkoKelly 2 years ago
yeah its a complex life story
5000433 2 years ago