Thursday March 29, 1912
"Since the 21st we have had a continuous gale from W.S.W. and S.W. We had fuel to make two cups of tea apiece and bare food for two days on the 20th. Every day we have been ready to start for our depot 11 miles away, but outside the door of the tent it remains a scene of whirling drift. I do not think we can hope for any better things now. We shall stick it out to the end, but we are getting weaker, of course, and the end cannot be far.
It seems a pity, but I do not think I can write more. - R Scott
Last Entry.
For God's sake look after our people."
Scott's party at the South Pole, 18 January 1912. L to R: (standing) Wilson, Scott, Oates; (seated) Bowers, Edgar Evans
When I was growing up I didn't have much in the way of "traditional" role models that children in the last few decades of the 20th century seem to have had. Characters portrayed by actors on television and movies always seemed rather hollow and one dimensional to me as did their comic book counterparts. My heroes were generally historical figures or contemporary scientists: James Cook, Horatio Nelson, Winston Churchill, and Carl Sagan but to name just a few. Naturally I got lot of strange looks.
Today is the 100th anniversary of the death of one such hero: Robert Falcon Scott, or Scott of the Antarctic as some call him.
For those that are not familiar with him, Scott led the British Antarctic Expedition of 1910-1913. It's directive was a continuation of the exploration and scientific study of the Antarctic continent and climate that had begun with Scott in 1901. Getting to the South Pole itself was a secondary objective, not primary goal (history has often focused on this "race to the pole" between Scott and the Norwegian explorer Amundsen). Scott and five of his companions perished on their trek back from the South Pole (the last entry of his journal is at the beginning of this blog). Edgar Evan had died earlier in February likely due to a concussion made worse by his gradually deteriorating health, while Oates sacrificed himself on the 16th of March when it became clear his own poor health and frostbitten feet were delaying the teams return (his final words to his friends as recorded in Scott's journal: "I am just going outside and may be some time." have become synonymous with self-sacrificing gentlemanly conduct).
During the 1970's and until more recently Scott's mission to the Antarctic has been badly criticized. It had been dismissed by many as a colossal disaster... a giant folly of poor management, bad logistics and planning and an incredibly poor understanding of how to properly undertake an expedition into the frigid and frozen climate of the Antarctic continent. Opponents of Scott have also been keen to point out the contrasting success of Amundsen's 1912 expedition to the South Pole.
Personally I've always seen this as an extension of the general bashing of British successes and defeats during the period of Pax Britannica that seem to have become fashionable in the latter part of the 20th century. Things could always have been done differently or better or from a higher moral standard when one looks at them in retrospect.
Simply put, any critisim without consideration all of the facts is considerably unfair to the years of work and effort Scott and his team put into planning and mounting a scientific expedition of that magnitude (I might add the overall expedition itself completed it's stated objectives and from the scientific perspective, was a complete success). I won't get into all of the details, but briefly there were a number of contributing factors that led to the death of Scott and his pole team (many of these factors were beyond Scott's control). The main factors that in my opinion led directly to their deaths were as follows:
One, no one could have predicted that years Antarctic winter was going to be significantly harsher than in previous years; weather data that Scott's team had been gathering since 1901 did not indicate that the 1912-1913 season was going to be wildly different.
Two, there was still a poor understanding of health and diet during the early 20th centruy. Scott's rations were deficient in the calories (the rations caloric content had been greatly overestimated) and the vitamins required to keep them healthy on their long strenuous trek. His last minute decision to take a fifth member on the pole team certainly didn't help and would reduce their available rations when they were caught for days in a blizzard.
Three: Generally a number of smaller factors such as: Scott's decision to spend half a day on the return trip collecting 30 lbs of geological and fossil samples, leaking fuel canisters for their primus stoves, ill considered Antarctic clothing (wearing fur animal skins like the native inuit was damned un-English), and the poor performance of the ponies and tractor vehicles (which while revolutionary for the time, were woefully unready for Antarctic exploration).
Any one of these factors alone would not have interfered with Scott's team returning... not necessarily in the best condition, but nonetheless alive. The combination however proved fatal.
Scott and his compatriots have left enduring legacies in the history of exploration and in the human quest for knowledge: one of science which has led to a larger understanding of our planet's geological, paleontological and climate history (those 30 lbs of fossils helped lead to the confirmation of plate tectonics and the weather data is still used in climate studies today) and one of personal fortitude in the face of adversity which has has always inspired me to carry on in difficult situations.
"Since the 21st we have had a continuous gale from W.S.W. and S.W. We had fuel to make two cups of tea apiece and bare food for two days on the 20th. Every day we have been ready to start for our depot 11 miles away, but outside the door of the tent it remains a scene of whirling drift. I do not think we can hope for any better things now. We shall stick it out to the end, but we are getting weaker, of course, and the end cannot be far.
It seems a pity, but I do not think I can write more. - R Scott
Last Entry.
For God's sake look after our people."
When I was growing up I didn't have much in the way of "traditional" role models that children in the last few decades of the 20th century seem to have had. Characters portrayed by actors on television and movies always seemed rather hollow and one dimensional to me as did their comic book counterparts. My heroes were generally historical figures or contemporary scientists: James Cook, Horatio Nelson, Winston Churchill, and Carl Sagan but to name just a few. Naturally I got lot of strange looks.
Today is the 100th anniversary of the death of one such hero: Robert Falcon Scott, or Scott of the Antarctic as some call him.
For those that are not familiar with him, Scott led the British Antarctic Expedition of 1910-1913. It's directive was a continuation of the exploration and scientific study of the Antarctic continent and climate that had begun with Scott in 1901. Getting to the South Pole itself was a secondary objective, not primary goal (history has often focused on this "race to the pole" between Scott and the Norwegian explorer Amundsen). Scott and five of his companions perished on their trek back from the South Pole (the last entry of his journal is at the beginning of this blog). Edgar Evan had died earlier in February likely due to a concussion made worse by his gradually deteriorating health, while Oates sacrificed himself on the 16th of March when it became clear his own poor health and frostbitten feet were delaying the teams return (his final words to his friends as recorded in Scott's journal: "I am just going outside and may be some time." have become synonymous with self-sacrificing gentlemanly conduct).
During the 1970's and until more recently Scott's mission to the Antarctic has been badly criticized. It had been dismissed by many as a colossal disaster... a giant folly of poor management, bad logistics and planning and an incredibly poor understanding of how to properly undertake an expedition into the frigid and frozen climate of the Antarctic continent. Opponents of Scott have also been keen to point out the contrasting success of Amundsen's 1912 expedition to the South Pole.
Personally I've always seen this as an extension of the general bashing of British successes and defeats during the period of Pax Britannica that seem to have become fashionable in the latter part of the 20th century. Things could always have been done differently or better or from a higher moral standard when one looks at them in retrospect.
Simply put, any critisim without consideration all of the facts is considerably unfair to the years of work and effort Scott and his team put into planning and mounting a scientific expedition of that magnitude (I might add the overall expedition itself completed it's stated objectives and from the scientific perspective, was a complete success). I won't get into all of the details, but briefly there were a number of contributing factors that led to the death of Scott and his pole team (many of these factors were beyond Scott's control). The main factors that in my opinion led directly to their deaths were as follows:
One, no one could have predicted that years Antarctic winter was going to be significantly harsher than in previous years; weather data that Scott's team had been gathering since 1901 did not indicate that the 1912-1913 season was going to be wildly different.
Two, there was still a poor understanding of health and diet during the early 20th centruy. Scott's rations were deficient in the calories (the rations caloric content had been greatly overestimated) and the vitamins required to keep them healthy on their long strenuous trek. His last minute decision to take a fifth member on the pole team certainly didn't help and would reduce their available rations when they were caught for days in a blizzard.
Three: Generally a number of smaller factors such as: Scott's decision to spend half a day on the return trip collecting 30 lbs of geological and fossil samples, leaking fuel canisters for their primus stoves, ill considered Antarctic clothing (wearing fur animal skins like the native inuit was damned un-English), and the poor performance of the ponies and tractor vehicles (which while revolutionary for the time, were woefully unready for Antarctic exploration).
Any one of these factors alone would not have interfered with Scott's team returning... not necessarily in the best condition, but nonetheless alive. The combination however proved fatal.
Scott and his compatriots have left enduring legacies in the history of exploration and in the human quest for knowledge: one of science which has led to a larger understanding of our planet's geological, paleontological and climate history (those 30 lbs of fossils helped lead to the confirmation of plate tectonics and the weather data is still used in climate studies today) and one of personal fortitude in the face of adversity which has has always inspired me to carry on in difficult situations.
Comments
Post a Comment