29:07 I'm getting really tired of everyone in this vid making excuses for Scott's mistakes. It makes no sense that dumping *30 lbs.* of rocks wouldn't have made the sledges easier to move regardless of the condition of the snow! Backpackers cut off half the handle of a toothbrush & hollow out the rest to shave off fractions of an ounce. They use every conceivable means to lighten their load. When Amundsen's men were camped for the winter they had a series of passages carved under the snow to work rooms in which they made modifications to clothing & equipment. They shaved down the sledges w/ planes, reducing the weight by more than half, which made them much easier for the dogs to pull. Scott seems to have just kept doing the same thing day after day, instead of assessing the situation & making decisions and adjustments that may have increased their chances of survival. You can't just depend on the weather getting better! You have to recognize problems & then do something about them.
It was early 20th century. Nobody knew much of anything about Antarctica, let alone how to adapt there. Perhaps you think it's easy to adapt in cold environments, but it is not. Pretty much both explorers knew the risks of storms, biting cold and crevasses. There is a bit of luck in making it and surviving in any extreme environment. The only difference is that Scott was probably more scientifically oriented and modern, whereas Amundsen was more traditional oriented, and it's basically a matter of easier beating heavier on the planning scale.
@@dingdong7610 Amundsen paid attention to what actually worked, no matter where it originated. Scott just believed what his experts told him. If it didn’t come from the ‘right’ people Scott had no real interest in it.
@@greauxpete This is an oversimplification. Amundsen was a great explorer with a lot of experience in polar climates. He was also a very intelligent man. But aside from experience serving as the first mate on the Belgian Antarctic Expedition (which was not ideal) he knew very little about the climate and geography of the regions he would need to cross to reach the South Pole. Sure, the north and the south pole appear alike superficially. But nothing he had ever experienced could prepare him for what he'd meet on the Barrier and the polar plateau. Amundsen's tactics are said to be perfect because he succeeded. However, he took ENORMOUS risks - first choosing his base of operations in a region which was not stable and quite possibly could have broken away from the pack killing them all. Secondly, he took an even bigger risk assuming there was an alternative route up onto the plateau when he had no reconnaissance of the region to work with. Even if he found an alternative glacier which didn't take him miles out of his way there were no guarantees he could get his dog teams up. He certainly could never have taken them up the Beardmore. The first dog which falls takes the second, the third and all the rest and if you weren't quick you and the sled were gone too. Yes, Amundsen deserves a lot of praise for his approach to tackling this expedition. But iet's not lose sight of the fact that he had his fair share of extraordinary luck.
The British looked at the inuits as a bunch of salvages with nothing to learn from. Amundsen looked at the Inuits as the solution. All had a terrible time to survive in the icy wilderness while the Inuits prosper there forever. They made love in -60 degree weather. Amundsen in his most humble way learned how to live like the Inuits. During the Northwest crossing, the Franklin team all died. The Inuits did not understand why the British team never learn how to make igloo and hunt seals with all the equipments and guns they had. Scott team carry a lot of goods while Amundsen even shaved off seventy percent of the sled's weight. He moved like the Inuits in the snow. The longer you hang in the deadly cold, the higher the risk. It was no rocket science. Previous British expeditions had experienced that.
@E mills Yeah, I thought he was being sarcastic. Guess not. Glad Scott didn't encounter any polar bears. That would have really compounded his problems, or maybe they could have eaten them and worn their fur.
54:22 Amundsen had “foregone planning...made a mad dash...took a gamble and won”? Didn’t the Amundsen team spend years learning to ski, use dog teams and live in the cold, consulting the native peoples, plus stored more food per person at shorter intervals than Scoot’s team?
Exactly!!!!Amundsen actually lived with the Netsilik Natives. The Netsiliks taught Amundsen how to properly handle and care for the dogs. They taught him arctic survival skills . They taught him how to keep warm by wearing animal skins instead of wool. The Englishman Scott scoffed at the idea that the uneducated Natives could teach him valuable skills. That was a deadly mistake for the Englishmen.
When you think that the two British 'Teams"using poneys with soft thin hives(Their sweat freezing-standing)... twice...!!!?????...Thinking,they will feed on the Horses,way too heavy in the snow,to haul their sledges..??..Dying of starvation,they just had"skin and bones"to feed on......Bad move..TWICE....!!!!!?????When others had Polar-dogs,and wolf-fur coats and they were"all" Pro-skiers....With buried food supplies for their trip back at key-points,and 24 extra dogs,to feed on,and feed the remaining dogs.Always learn and listen from the Natives.
he absolutely did and he worked with the natives and natural environment and respected their lifestyle etc - Scott was an arrogant Victorian who couldn't see the obvious
I’m mid 60’s these men were of a different era. I have more respect for the men who wanted to go and be part of the team. Just to be part of the journey to the unknown.that must have been so exciting to be the first to be someplace.
Okay granted I'm no arctic explorer and don't know a damned thing about what trekking Antarctica is like. But that aside, if Scott was the meticulous planner this video claims, the he would have made it back, wouldn't he? But he didn't, instead Amundsen made it who this video claims was simply lucky "He took a gamble and won" which is nonsense. In fact Amundsen planned every single detail of his trip. Who to take along, how many dogs, how much in supplies, taking trips over the course of months erecting food depots along their route, even picked a different starting point which made the trip shorter and easier that the spot Scott had chosen. He used his knowledge he gained from spending winters with native Inuits in the arctic. So saying that Amundsen was lucky and won a gamble he took is BS. Now on the other hand let's look at Scott: I don't doubt that Scott had planned as well as "he" could from his point of view but at the same time ignored known facts such as the use of ponies which were useless in Antarctica and only good for use as food and all they did was take up valuable space on sleds for their food and blankets. Or those ridiculous two stroke tractors he brought along which not only were never fully tested but simply weren't up to the task and couldn't cope with the temperatures and in the end caused more problems than they solved. Ignoring the valuable use of skies and in fact ordering his men not to use skies and just walk, dragging those hundreds of pounds heavy sleds on foot played a huge part in his mission failure. He completely underestimated the human body's calorie needs in that environment when doing this kind of physical hard work. Instead of using dried foods that Amundsen used, Scott insisted on tin cans which in those days were a new invention and cause all manners of food poisoning, a fact which was already known to him at that time. So when considering all this, my conclusion is that Amundsen was simply better qualified for a polar mission and that's why he made it and Scott didn't. But the English always had this tremendous talent of turning failure into a heroic act and make it look like victory. When Amundsen came back home he was branded a cheat and nearly kicked out of the scientific community and not many people cared about the results of his expedition and instead Scott was the hero that everybody wanted to hear about
By Scoot's own admission... they should have had better markings on their depots. The Norwegians had their supplies clearly marked and extended flags two miles further on both sides. Why did Scott send the dogs back to the base? Why did he lay One Ton 15 miles shy of where it was originally intended to save the lives of 2 ponies? Had One Ton been laid where they planned, they would have reached it before running out of food. Garrard & Dimitri made a trip to One Ton. Atkinson & Keohan also went out of the shelf. They would have been saved had they stuck with the original plan. Scott also went against the advice of Atkinson (the expedition surgeon) and Wilson's advice on both Oates and P.O. Evans--the two that slowed them down and died first.
Exactly and concisely stated. I agree 100%. While Amundson might not have been the most pleasant human on Earth I don't think it was a popularity contest. He was practical smart or humble enough to learn from his extensive experiences with the Inuit People. Scott's expidition would have benefited from high quality Carraboo parkas and pants. Or learned how to treat the sled runners in the Inuit way.
Also, Admundson literally brought with him/stashed 10x the caloric amount of food that Scott had allotted for his team. Some members of Admundson's team had even gained weight by the end of their journey.
I have to agree with most of what your saying. i saw another video about Scott and shakelton (which im sure im spelling his name wrong for which I apologize) from what I learned from Scott and the English teams that attempted going to the south pole was they did ignore the knowledge from the native artic tribes from the use of dogs all the way to the clothing they used. im in no way disrespecting the English or these men they were truly brave and fearless. cant deny they had a little to much English Pride and was unable to accept the knowledge from the native peoples from the artic the spend hundreds of years knowing how to survive in such environments. I know that there is a huge differences between surviving going to the north pole and surviving the south pole. what the Norwegians proved that using the know how from those native tribes from the north made it possible to survive going to the south pole. I feel there was no luck in either of these teams just one was better with technique, and better practices. Not taking any credit from either of these teams these men did an incredible accomplishment.
This is the most biased documentary I have seen. Amundson had done considerable research, even studying celestial navigation in Germany plus spending months with the Inuits of North America. Scott seemed to have the attitude that they were Englishmen and could work their way out of any adverse situation. Amundsen is the greatest cold weather explorer of all time, in my opinion.
Amundsen fooled the world and to this day the lie still goes on! Amundsen worked for the government he was the first one to Antartica to show everyone else where it was at! Amundsen knew how celstial navigation worked and by no means does celestial navigation at the so called south pole show 90 degrees! From what I hear from others who have done celestial navigation the south pole is at 77 degrees south latitude! And to this day people still deceived..
The worst thing is that after England found out Scott was dead, they blamed Roald Amundsen for getting to Antarctica before him. Crying about -30 degrees is rather stupid when Roald Amundsen recorded temperatures down to -63 C° or -81.4 F° at their base camp. Do not try to set up a science station in Antarctica, when you haven't even been there once... You either try to get to Antarctica or you try to set up a science station there. Wilson and the other guy should've left Scott for their basecamp so that Scott could've got the help he needed, instead of staying with Scott to die with him. But what do I know, I'm just a Norwegian...
@@eddie197200 I know what you mean, hence why I think Norway sucks now. Why work when you're paid not to. 1.5 million people out of 5.2 million are on some sort of government help program. Look, I'm not trying to say Norway is a great country, I'm just saying it used to be. You know, back when men were men and wimps remained wimps :)
Scot was such a snob he would not even eat a dog amundsen worked his dogs to the last and then ate them thats why he won and another thing he would not even dine with his men in the small hut i Mea n scot
At first I thought this was a biased documentary, since it downplays Amundsen's success. However, this documentary actually focuses on the reasons why the British expedition failed. It was a good watch.
Very good video. I wonder if Scott thought to himself, “Where is Sir Ernest Shackleton when I need him.”. Shackleton would have somehow found a way to survive.
Shackelton was often plain lucky, but the reason Shackelton would have survived is the same reason he survived his own try. He turned back BEFORE it was to late
Scott repeatedly ignored Amundsen's techniques for travelling across ice using manpower (man-hauling) and ponies instead of dogs and skis whereas this documentary tries to make the case for Scotts failures as being down to ill-fortune and, worse still, puts Amundsen's success down to sheer luck and a 'mad dash'.
Totally incorrect-Amundsen planned far better. Scott's arrogance made him ignore sound advice from Nansen 9who advised him to use dog sleds). Sorry, this documentary is totally wrong.
Reasons for Scott’s failure that were ignored: Ponies need outside food (no grass or hay in Antarctica) Ponies delayed the start (too cold) Dogs don’t sweat ponies do - not good in very cold weather Man hauling not efficient Not enough dogs and dog trainers Taking 5 lead to shortage of food Amundson’s route was shorter Poor choice for clothing
Dogs couldn't go up the Beardmore glacier. They'd lose the lot in crevasses. Sure, Amundsen's choice now seems sound. But don't forget - Amundsen was GUESSING there's be a) an alternative way up which was not miles out of his way and b) it was possible to cross with dogs. If he couldn't find such a route (which he had no reason to know existed) his journey was over. Scott took ponies because Shackleton took them and made it all the way to 100 miles distant from the pole before he gave up. So choosing ponies wasn't a bad idea. The mistake was selecting poor ones. Man hauling is not as efficient? Sure. But if you can't get your dogs up to the plateau how are you going to make it - magic carpet? Was Scott short of food? Well, yes. But the problem was less to do with Scott not taking enough than not knowing enough about metabolic science to know they'd be burning twice as many calories at 10,000ft. In short - he didn't know what he didn't know. Taking a fifth man was not as big a problem as Evans rapid breakdown on the way back. Which forced them to walk at the speed of the slowest man. Clothing? Furs are ideal for sledging. Utterly useless for man hauling. Amundsen's route WAS shorter - but primarily because Amundsen gambled his home base would not break away from the pack (and kill them all) and he'd lucked out finding a second route which didn't take him out of his way.
@@alwilson3204 Different men. Different personalities. Different objectives. Shackleton was a risk-taker. A gambler. But also an outstanding leader of men. Extremely well suited to running a compact operation with a single objective. Scott was a cautious, methodical and analytical man who you would pick to run a highly complex and structured expedition involving myriad objectives and men. But at that time of year - in those conditions - neither of them are returning. Don't forget - Shackleton owed Scott his life after he'd dragged his scurvy-riddled body back over the barrier on the first expedition.
Scott underestimated Amundson but he was more than well equipped in every way. Navigation, education, geology, geometry, atronomy , and most of all, the understanding of how to calculate and counteract the weather. Amundson even calculated the death and consumption of some of his dogs half way through the exposition. Amundson must have cut through the hearts of the English, a man alien to them who speaks with an unknown tongue. It's like he flew on the wings of an eagle made his claim then flew straight home.
I disagree w ppl blaming Scott for the failure. I think they did their best. The entire team knew. Nobody was arguing or blaming anything on anyone, if anything, it was the opposite. However, I understand how easy it is to put blame in hindsight, and in the comfort of warm bed w a full belly.
Amundsen is the greatest arctic explorer. Planning is fine, but being flexible is more important. You were counting on a tailwind? What if its not there? You provisioned for 4 people? What happens if a fifth one decides to join? And perhaps Scoot never made one single large fatal mistake, he did make lots of smaller minor mistakes which can easily add up to a large issue. Remember Franklin's quest for the NorthWest Passage? Individually TB, Scurvy, or lead poisoning wouldn't kill you, but together would be pretty devastating.
I am sure your 'electric bill' is devastating as you dribble on and on and pontificate from the larger issue and that is, from the comfort of your basement.
@@1SALADLOVER What a throwback! I remember this video, and I stand by what I said then. You are needlessly cruel, though I am unimpressed with your insult I appreciate the time you took out of your day to write your comment.
Agree with Vidalion, Amundsen spend the winter taking his kit apart, redesigned clothing footwear, ski bindings, lightened his sled etc etc the very best planning and execution. Half a century earlier dog sleds were used by HBC across Canada and North America, all a known quantity yet Scott held his dogs back because they went too fast! Sorry had to turn this off half way through, it’s just poorly researched.
What Scott should have realized but obviously did not is that for the Terra Nova Expedition to be successful he would 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 period of unusually 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 experience with 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 because Scott's team started out on November 1, two weeks later than did Amundsen, they did not arrive at the pole until January 17, a full five weeks after Amundsen. With good mid-summer weather and having marked their trail to retrace, 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.
Your second paragraph particularly stood out and I couldn't agree more. Meticulous planning, yes but, what type of planning was most necessary with the least errors? Amundsen was superior over all in his strategic effort with the proper experience backing up his team.
Who wrote this propaganda? Rehabilitating Scott's reputation is commendable; his achievement stands for all to see, but to fall yet again into the dichotomy that Amundsen was a lucky chancer and Scott the unlucky scientific hero is patent nonsense. Amundsen was effectively the first professional explorer, that is he was not a seconded naval officer but someone whose living depended upon his success.
Can't believe she with a straight face says the meteorologist was learning on the fly, five men instead of four meant one of them would be pushed outside the tent but no big deal,scott choosed the men based on branch of military not on how well they handled the conditions how are those not blunders
Amundsen worked out exactly when he would slaughter his dogs. He set up food depots every 60 miles as opposed to Scott's every 100 miles, and also brought 10x the amount of food. That doesn't someone that had "forgone careful planning", that is ridiculous. Scott made many errors, but the worst was adding a fifth man, Bowers, to the polar party when they only had enough to s calories to sustain four men. They were starving from the start..
If amundsen had provisions set up every 60 miles, scott and his crew would be able to see it and eat off it! Especially if amundsen and scott were traveling in straight route in opposite directions which is what they would have done.. So either the provision camps amundsen had were buried in snow or that the entire story is made up!!
0+ 0.23232333332 well u have to admit that temperature inversion was a big problem,,luck?? not sure but bad stuff for Scott..and the morons who try to place blame do they realize this ki8nd of expedition etc aint no joke so they should have a lil respect.. like cbad weather ,,its always around like assholes
Scott was a complete moron, he laid out supply depots for 4 men, and laid them out in such a way that there was no margin for error. Then he decided to bring 5 men, which meant his men were slowly starving during their march. Amundsen on the other hand laid out more supply depots than his men actually needed, which ultimately resulted in his men gaining weight by the end of the expedition
Scott was so dumb it's not funny! Because Amundsen was the first one to plot his flag that showed others where the south pole was at. There is no evidence that the south pole is 90 degrees south latitude none zip zero! There is proof from celestial navigation that the south pole is at 77 degrees south latitude... amundsen was a shill for the government to mis lead people in wrong direction to where the north pole and antartica is at..
Why is the guy who led his team to their demise only to come second given far more attention than the guy who actually got there first then led his team back safely? 🤦🏼♂️
Amundsens team would have had the same weather, that's why they started earlier and moved faster. Blaming this on a wrong weather forecast that was academically correct only shows the problem. Scott made optimistic a priori assumptions and irrational decisons. It all does not add up. Heavy sleds, too many men, wrong equipment and animals, unclear orders (Cherry-Garrard could have still rescued them at the last moment) somewhere the myth of Scott's careful planning must fall down. He certainly made plans but they were bad and undermined by himself. Of course we must feel great sympathy because they did not do these many mistakes on purpose and almost got back by pure strength of will. That is was that close is especially tragic.
They went to the south pole! What did they expect, warm weather. Amundsen faced the same elements and pulled it through without incidents. Typically English to find something/someone to blame! Although I feel pity for the men who followed this arrogant, presumptuous AMATEUR assole!
Pretty sure I finally found my perfect documentary to combat my insomnia. Found this video last night. Doubt I made it to the 15 minute mark before I was out. Woke up 3 times after it ended. Out in less than 5 all 3. This video will probably get at least another 100 views from me alone. (Prefer this be the last time but...... I'd also prefer to not have this problem) That's my review for the curious that read comments first. Some documentaries actually make it worse because I actually want to listen and watch. Learn...... That's a different story. Most have an agenda I don't agree with.
Factually Incorrect Video. Scott was an arrogant Royal navy Officer, with no Polar experience, no idea of Inuit experience. Man Hauling Sledges. !!??!! Schackelton had no time for Him, but agreed with Amundsen's approach.
Among the most biased documentaries I have seen, transparently so. By taking the fifth man instead of four. 30 extra minutes of cooking time was indisputably required to cook for this fifth man. The extra fuel required would have been an ugly extra burden. Evans expired first. He was the strong man of the team, and the heaviest. He received the same rations as the smaller guys, so he got weak first, dying in a process lasting weeks. Ridiculous is this analysis. They came within 11 miles of "one ton depot," albeit without Evans and poor Oats. The fuel and time make this an easy commentary to stiff.
And if Solomon's surmise is true that, in reality, there really was no blizzard for 11 days, this seriously questions their will power and determination as well.
I'm an admirer of Amundsen as well as a big fan of Scott. His tragic fate always seems to tip the balance for me in his favor, certainly in terms of sympathy. I think in retrospect, perhaps Scott's expedition should've concentrated on either scientific research or reaching the pole but not both. Amundsen took this approach--he wanted to be first to the pole, period, and succeeded. I learned earlier today, in another YT video, that Scott, though he was informed of Amundsen's attempt to reach the pole first, didn't see himself in a race for this purpose. Scientific research was his primary charge, one with which he totally was in sync and preferred. He was to make an attempt at reaching the pole if circumstances permitted but this goal didn't consume him. Yes, he and his party were crushed after discovering the Norwegians had beaten them to the storied spot--who wouldn't be?--but they didn't see themselves as competing in a race. Later films and other sources seem to have overemphasized or mischaracterized this aspect of Scott's expedition, as its more satisfactory in a dramatic sense. Amundsen, though moved by the Britishers' fates, seems to have treated his own expedition as a walk in the park with few serious difficulties, though he was acclaimed for his achievement. Scott and his men, however, instantly were seen as having been involved in a nobler undertaking, giving their lives in the process. And let's not forget--they did, in fact, REACH, the pole--not the first humans to do so but the first ENGLISHMEN--and subsequently hailed for such by their fellow-countrymen. The fact that Scott wasn't the first, tended to fade into the background--he'd made it--giving his life for the honor of Britain. Then, too, it should quietly be realized that whoever reached the pole first was of relatively little significance. By this I mean, simply standing at the south pole didn't really mean much in a tangible sense, aside from the magnificent effort, national pride, and proof of physical endurance--no small things when it comes to stirring the human heart. Amundsen was a brilliant explorer, though a rather humdrum, indifferent writer. By contrast, Scott's journals are lyrical and spellbinding, reflecting the thrill of adventure, as well as, ultimately, the heartrending failure to survive.
It should be remembered that Amundsen's primary objective of being the first to reach the South Pole was his desire to eventually obtain funding for future scientific expeditions at or in the region of the North Pole. He did in fact undertake two subsequent expeditions in the North, in 1918 and 1926. The 1918 expedition failed in it's attempt to traverse the pole by sailing through the Northeast Passage. But on May 12, 1926 Amundsen finally achieved his long desired objective when by airship he and 15 other men became the first explorers verified to have reached the North Pole. Because of Robert Peary's lack of any evidence submitted for review to neutral national or international parties or to other explorers, his claim of having reached the North Pole on April 6, 1909 remains controversial to this day. Thus it can be claimed that Roald Amundsen was the first man to reach both of the Earth's poles.
Scott wasn't willing to be humble or smart enough to learn from these Inuit Savages who could have taught him how to survive. Amundson however based most of his highly successful strategies from his extensive experiences with the Inuit people. Ok Scott had no Arctic experience or contact with the Inuit People's but do you actually think he would have been willing to take advantage of their tutelage?
He was a "bungler". He took ponies and motorized tractors when he should have taken sled dogs as modes of transport. I have done cold weather training in the military and pulled a sled and it sucked. This was a basic mistake not based in forethought or science. This is one persons opinion and one documentary. You should watch other documentaries before forming your opinions. See how he choose his team and you will have your answer.
Scott died and so did his men. Failure. He planned poorly and led poorly. His Diet and clothing sucked. No excuses for bad weather or bad luck good planning makes for good results.
So, improvising a fifth man for the last leg results in longer cooking time, less room in the tent but not to 25% increase in provisions needed? And I guess it takes a meteorologist to consider whetherforecasting to be an exact science.
I saw in another doc. that the natives would actually warm up some water just enough by holding it in their mouths and then coating the runners of the sledge, mixing it lightly with snow, creating a slick surface that holds up for 50-60+ miles.
You either go for science, or you go to be first at the polar Antarctic. You don't do both at once. That sad picture of Scott's expedition at the pole tells what they really wanted. It's heartbreaking, how they screwed themselves.
Dogs require lots of training both of the dogs and of the people working with said sled team. This was unimaginable to the arrogant British Imperial mind. Yet not so much for Amundson. Huskies are very resistant to cold and are beyond tireless.
Great Documentary, which unfortunatly undermines Amundsen's superior part. He was much better prepared und therefore successful, while Scott became a victim of his foolish actions. On the other hand Amundsen likely was very shady by leaving a letter for Scott's Team to deliver - I don't like him by any means for this - while Scott's style of writing in his journal made him much more popular.
When Amundsen and his team reached the pole he found a bunch of Canadians complaining about the heat that were having beers and a BBQ wearing only shorts and thin tee shirts. This part never made it into his diary.
@@ZackWolfMusic " @Del Idiot u are" For making a joke that was *obviously* a joke? I would think that a person that didn't get that it was a joke would be the idiot not the one making the joke. I think you might be wound up a bit too tightly. Therapy might address that. Take care.
Slightly Loose fitting high quality Carraboo parkas and pants are unparralled for warmth Amundson and his small team of polar experts were much more comfy. Pluse they had left food and provisions before hand. They didn't go hungry. Scott was just unprepared and unrealistic. Sorry Arrogant.
Scott - wastes money on motor sledges. His second in command Evans (not the one who died on the polar journey) did not want the mechanic of the sledges to come along because he was of higher rank than Evans. Scott agreed. The only guy to fix the motor sledges, wasn't even with them! Scott - Hired Oates as a pony handler. Did not let Oates buy the horses himself. Scott had Mears, the dog guy buy them. 19 ponies and they were all terrible. Windsuckers and riddled became frequently riddled with parasites. Scott spend $100,000 on the motor sledges and only $5 on the ponies. Scott - Hired Gran, a Norwegian ski instructor to teach everyone skiing. The crew, being majority from the UK, out right refused. The crew was deeply xenophobe of any cultures way of doing things. Oates was actually one of the worst offenders of this. That's just three instances of Scott and his crew being blunders, mostly Scott because they obeyed everything he said. Amundsen was more than just lucky, he was smart and focused. Gran, the Norwegian had said he had a feeling Amundsen had a good shot of getting to the pole first. He still praised Scott in the end because Scott and the others, though intolerant never held it against him that a fellow Norwegian was also 'racing' to the Pole. He only praises Scott because he feels it was Scott who avoided him being outcaste by the crew. Others only praised Scott like Cherry because Wilson was deathly loyal to Scott and Cherry was very close with Wilson. Dude seems to be liked only be circumstance.
In all fairness, this 'documentary' should be retitled, 'Scott's Race To Antarctica', as his expedition is all that concerns this woman, while giving a short shrift, cursory and a disdainful lack of attention and research to the uniquely qualified Amundsen expedition's side and to the preparations and extensive artic experience and abilities he and his team possessed. Shame on you for the sheer one sidedness and lack of professionalism involved.
He also brought two men (P.O. Evans & Oates) that his medical experts told him were not fit to go. Those were the two men that slowed them down and died first.
that female arguing that Scott's decision to take 5 men instead of 4 has no idea of endurance sports as it is imperative you have decent sleep and ample food and losing any calories will jeopardise performance in normal climates, let alone the Antartic. She also doesn't look as if she's done any physically demanding work in her life. Scott made critical errors fullstop.
She is a big Scott fangirl. Iirc she has done other documentaries and articles praises the dude. I chock it down to a crush and blinding British pride.
Just how difficult is it to recognize the importance of dry feet and take along a couple pair of socks as opposed trying to dry your socks in the tent in sub-freezing temps?
Agree. Very biased. Amundson was 5 weeks ahead, had fewer men, had lots of dogs while Scott didn't.... sounds like better PLANNING! But gotta sell a documentary
Perhaps he had a time delay on a shutter, or a long remote release cable? These are not 21st century inventions. Anyway - good question - worth googling!
Amundsen had NOT forgone planning!!! He planned meticulously over a ten-year period. He live among the Eskimos and learned about huskies and how to handle a sleigh.
Yes Susan Solomon! Scott FKd up period. He got himself as well as his team killed.. There are many, many things that should have been done differently. I recommend The worst journey in the world by Apsley Cherry Garrard. Very good book.
It’s a decent documentary for most of it, and for once someone has dispelled the belief that Scott was an just an ambitious incompetent fool. Unfortunately then it completely downplays the Norwegians accomplishments and claims that they didn’t plan, they just raced for the pole and got lucky? That’s an incredible misrepresentation unfortunately, and far far from the truth.
Despite meticulous planning and preparation Scott made three fatal mistakes: 1) He chose to rely on man-hauling rather than dog sleds to transport their equipment and supplies on their trek to the pole. Dog sleds had been proven on previous polar expeditions North and South, not to mention the evidence of countless generations of Inuit/Aleut peoples, to be by far the fastest and most reliable means of traversing frozen terrain. Scott would have needed only two men skilled with dog sleds on his polar team. 2) He chose to add a fifth man to the polar team when the food rations in the supply depots had been measured out and stocked for four men. As a result the polar team was under-nourished almost from the beginning with disastrous results. 3) Not all the men Scott chose for the polar team were in the utmost physical condition or had sufficient training for such an extreme challenge in antarctic conditions. Captain Lawrence "Titus" Oates was chosen in order to have the British army represented even though muscle damage and scar tissue in his left thigh from a gunshot wound 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. 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.
Britain is just showing some serious sour grapes for not getting their first, the Brits were brave to a fault, they always are. Scott planned it well, but taking the fifth man on the final push was a serious mistake, the weather was the real determining factor. Scott counted to much on a weather forecast that turned out to be wrong, that faith in the weather was their doom. Norwegians are just about born on skis, and they knew about dogs and dogsled travel. Amundsen spent two years in the arctic learning from the Inuit how to live and survive in the cold, and it paid of in his dash for the pole......Scott was also hampered by his need to take scientific readings and gather geological samples, Amundsen came to get to the pole, period. Scott and his men were brave, but they was also just plain unlucky.......keep on.......justasinger54
First…I very much respect these men and what did. I’m not sure if the world has any such men left. But theirs was an age of noble death and dying for god, country and comrades a bit to quick. To lay with a comrade who can go no further for 10 days instead of leavening him to go the last 11 miles for help…could it be that they gave into a noble death instead of a last throw of the dice? It would seem that the possible of one living would be a shame to carry when others didn’t
Why in the world didn’t they have at least one primer stove??! They could have dried their socks, cook, melt snow, ect.!! How can you go into that frigid ness without any??!
@@missionron Bligh was in the Pacific. That ocean is a paddling pool compared to the Roaring 40's of the Southern Ocean. Some of the worst weather you will encounter at sea.
The scientific aspect of the expedition is being used as an excuse for his amateurish expedition. It's a cliche of the empire of those days. They regarded themselves as the most advanced and sent those poor misguided men to a trek of suffering, agony and finally death. Scientific mission my ass, they LOST the race and paid for it.
Did anybody notice that it was leiv narrating this? ☺️ I think he may have started out narrating. I'm not knowledgeable enough to critique the potential bias of the doc., but it was interesting for me anyways.
