Talk:Comparison of the Amundsen and Scott expeditions

Recently the sections regarding the comparison between the two expeditions on Scott's and Amundsen's articles have been removed or reduced in order to produce a more concise article. The removed materials, however, were informative in their expositions on the background of both Scott's and Amundsen's trips. Those pieces of information gave an uninitiated reader a good perspective as to what might have contributed to Scott's tragic failure, and I think they deserve to be included on a platform like Wikipedia. However, I also agree with the editors of those two articles that the removed materials were a bit too long and not directly relevant to Scott and Amundsen in a biographic sense. I have therefore created this article using materials from earlier versions of Scott's and Amundsen's articles.Ken l lee (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott's depots too small?

I just read Scott's diary and was surprised to find that each of the depots he had laid contained just the minimum required provisions to arrive at the next depot, not much more. So, every time they stayed behind their mileages due to weather or weakness, they would run into straits. Should this find mention in the article? (I think Amundsens depots followed a more generous supply strategy.) -- Syzygy (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical Tables

I vaguely remember reading that Amundsen, whilst a good planner, forgot to take the relevant astronomical tables for 1912 and thus had to get to the Pole by the end of 1911. This is why he left earlier than he would have preferred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.135.164 (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several Errors

This article, as written, has a few errors and questionable statements

"because ponies could not ascend the glacier midway to the Pole" - Reference? Who Knew this in 1911? Shackleton's failure to accomplish this would not have counted as proof, certainly to Scott.

"Scott's group experienced a prolonged period of low temperatures from 27 February until 10 March which have only been matched once in 15 years of modern records" -- Which 15 years? Solomon makes this statement, but ignores 1995 data in the vicinity of One Ton in both her book and in the Solomon and Stearns paper. This statement is irrelevant to the discussion, regardless of its veracity (which is applicable at only a point in time). However, it aries from Solomon's claims and is in fact false since she excluded the 1995 near One Ton data for reasons unknown.

"The exceptional severity of the weather meant they failed. . ." -- what evidence exists that the weather was severe? Cherry-Garrard's temperature measurements, as well as his statements about the weather at One Ton in "The Worst Journey in the World" show beyond doubt that the weather was not severe.

"On the other hand, Cherry-Garrard had traveled nearly three hundred miles in the same area, at the same time period and same temperatures, using a dog team. . ." -- Cherry-Garrard was not measuring the same temperatures as the Polar Party. Cherry-Garrard was recording temperatures 10-20 degrees higher than the Polar Party while he was at One-Ton Depot. This is absolutely clear from Simpson's book, Meteorology, Volume 3. The -40º mid day temperatures claimed by Scott simply did not happen and based on Cherry-Garrard's temperature data, Scott's recorded temperature data are utter fabrications. 96.251.184.190 (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Evans also reveals that the year before, Scott was aware of the risk of severely low temperatures and frostbite after March 16th. In his instructions he projected his return to Cape Evans would be around March 18th (The day after Oates died and the day he himself suffered a frostbitten foot). On March 18th 1911 Evans noted in his Diary that the temperature was 32.5 below zero and that the sledge dragged heavily as a consequnce of the bad surface. Scott was aware of this but took the risk as the alternative was to start earier and risk the ponies over the ice shelf prematurely. The "unexpected, unseasonal temperatures" could only have been between March 2nd - March 15th for which there is no 1st hand account from the year previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.186.197 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the general climate in the early 20th century was colder than it's been over the last fifty years or so. The time of Scott's expedition was towards the end of the Little Ice Age (but still within it), and it is well attested globally that winters were chillier back then than they are now. Regular, continuous thermometer readings (as distinct from ice cores) for the interior of Antarctica really only begin in the 1980s, when the climate had already mellowed a bit from the cold early 20th century, so it's misleading to compare the temperature records of Scott and Amundsen with "normal" values for the same months from let's say 1990-2010. 188.150.64.57 (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More errors

1. "Yet Amundsen never complained about the clothing being too hot."
This is false. In "Sydpolen", Amundsen mentions multiple times that the heavy fur clothes were too hot and had to be taken off. He also states that (on the return trip, if I remember correctly) the team had undressed to almost nothing and jokes about there being no women on the continent to be offended by the team's looks.

2. "...there was no recorded case <of snow blindness> during the whole of Amundsen's expedition."
Again, this is false. In "Sydpolen", Amundsen states that Olav Bjaaland was affected by snow blindness despite his almost completely opaque goggles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.195.223 (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concealed Facts

I don't know about the exact concealment-per-line ratio, but one of the more blatant ones is stating "Skiing at the pace of a dog team is a strenuous activity", while it is entirely kept quiet about the hardships for Scott and his mean with the man-hauling - No mention of the fact that man-hauling is the far more energy-consuming and exhaustive means of transportation... Yet anouther sweep under the carpet.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mention suicide amongst Amundsen's team?

There is a minor edit war going on whether or not the suicide amongst Amundsen's team should be mentioned:

"Scott lost five men including himself out of a team of 65 (7.7% fatality rate). Amundsen's entire team returned to base safely, but lost one man indirectly (Hjalmar Johansen was humiliated by Amundsen and committed suicide upon returning to Norway) out of his team of 19 (5.3% fatality rate)."

The suicide is mentioned both by Huntford and by Fiennes, so is not controversial. It resulted from Amundsen's failed early start for the pole, where Amundsen "lost his head" (Huntford), abandoned his team, rushed back to his home base, and then criticised Hjalmar Johansen (who had rescued an abandoned team member) for insubordination and struck him off the Pole team. Johansen turned to alcohol and then committed suicide back in Oslo. Seems to me this collateral damage should be of interest to Wikipedia users. Opinions? Especially from Edward321? None of these ambitious explorers were angels... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.113 (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one is trying to portray Amundsen as an angel, but this is a comparison of the Expeditions and the suicide did not happen during the expedition. The content belongs in other articles, not this one. Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edward321. I agree with you that the suicide happened immediately after the expedition rather than during it. But the article stipulates: "The contrasting fates of the two teams seeking the same prize at the same time invites comparison. This article focuses on some common points that have been raised in the literature." A suicide caused by the expedition is a fate, and Fiennes/Huntford have both raised this point in the literature as a fatality of Amundsen's expedition. Your argument that the suicide happened immediately after the expedition is not a restriction mentioned in the article, and it is not a restriction that the Huntford/Fiennes literature observes either.

Therefore you have two options: either change the title and definition of the article and for example delete Amundsen from the article and title entirely (new title e.g. "Cited Causes of Deaths during Scott's Expedition"). Or stick with the current remit, and retain the Fiennes/Huntford claim that Amundsen's expedition partly caused the suicide of Johansen. And then find and cite suitable literature which claims the suicide is irrelevant/not caused by the expedition etc.

In any case the article is muddled: it is in my view not sufficiently clear whether the article is about reaching the pole first (because for example Amundsen took a racing champion, as Huntford explains), or about casualties suffered in the two expeditions (because for example Scott's dogs left him in the lurch, as May claims, and because Amundsen lost his head during the initial cold snap, as Huntford claims). So the aim should be clarified in the Introduction. Over to you. To animate you, I am resurrecting the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.213 (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic seems clear to me, it is a Comparison of the Amundsen and Scott_Expeditions. One side suffered casualties during the expedition, while the other did not. One side reached the Pole first. The expeditions used different methods in their attempts. Another clear point of comparison largely missing from the article is the scientific emphasis of Scott's expedition. The suicide happened roughly a year after the end of the expedition, not immediately afterwards. If the article is to discuss the fate of the expedition members after the expedition, then it should discus the fate of all expedition members after the expedition. Likewise, if the article discusses favoritism by Amundsen, it should also discuss favoritism by Scott. The listed author's opinions on the suicide have a place on Wikipedia - Johansen's article, Amundsen's article, probably the article about Amundsen's expedition, but it's off topic for this article. Edward321 (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I have now specified that deaths outside the Antarctic Circle (Robert Brissenden and Hjalmar Johansen) are not in your/the article's interest, and linked the two deaths to relevant wiki articles. Hope we can lay this matter to rest now.

Johansen's suicide happened roughly a year after the end of the expedition, not immediately afterwards. It is still off-topic for this article. If the article is to discuss the fate of the expedition members after the expedition, then it should discus the fate of all expedition members after the expedition. Likewise, if the article discusses favoritism by Amundsen, it should also discuss favoritism by Scott. The listed author's opinions on the suicide have a place on Wikipedia - Johansen's article, Amundsen's article, probably the article about Amundsen's expedition, but it's off topic for this article.Edward321 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muddled Article Aims: Causes of Deaths versus Causes of Pole Priority

However, Edward321, the muddle-headedness of the article aim(s) remains. Look for example at the first point "In 1922, Cherry-Garrard surmised that the rations of Scott's team were inadequate and did not provide enough energy." Did inadequate rations mean that Scott and companions died on the way back? Quite possibly, according to Cherry Garrard. Did inadequate rations mean that Scott lost the race to the Pole? Certainly not - they had enough to eat until the Pole and even with tenfold rations and "all the King's horses and all the King's men" (Cherry Garrard), Scott could not have got to the Pole much earlier, as both he and Amundsen were well aware that dogs could start a month earlier in the season than ponies. The same muddle-headedness applies to most of the other listed "factors". So the article aims need to be clarified (causes for Pole priority versus causes for deaths)- do you see the problem now? Hoping for your co-operation. It will take some reorganisation of text, but not require any deletions, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.68.12 (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking it into causes for deaths versus causes for priority to the Pole, is not always clearcut. Scott's failure to use the dogs contributed to him getting to the Pole after Amundsen and his failure to return. Edward321 (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Scott's failure to use dogs" - I am sure you do not mean that. As you well know, Scott used 32 dogs all the way to the Beardmore Glacier, plus another 14 delivered by Terra Nova in Feb 1912, and intended the dogs to pick him up on the return journey. But back to the main point: it may not be clear-cut to you or indeed to me, but the various authors have certainly published their very clear opinions regarding fatalities and their opinions regarding pole priority. I will make a start. Take a look in a moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.68.12 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator for Edward321

Hi Edward321. I have just noticed you were trying to sneak in my additional Scott casualty (Robert Brissenden) while suppressing Amundsen's suicide Hjalmar Johansen. Can you dispel my alarm that you might be just a little biased perhaps? Please suggest a neutral mediator for this article, to watch us both. Hoping that "fair play" is part of your character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.68.12 (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time

I have a question about time values, especially in this table. Is it in UTC, in Amundsen´s and Scot´s local times or in some other? As Scott went between 160th and 170th East meridian, his local time preceded Amundsen´s (who was at 160°-170° W) by 22 hours. --Pavel Q (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

A third opinion was requested concerning a statement that was added by User:Eivindgh and then reverted. Any statement in Wikipedia's voice that it was "sheer luck" that the British expedition was able to arrive at the Pole is original research and should be removed. Even if a source makes that statement, the source should be quoted rather than merely referenced. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Without a quotable source, I've removed that paragraph. I also added the italicized text to the lead: "But while Scott and his four companions died on the return journey, Amundsen's party managed to reach the pole and subsequently return to their base camp at Framheim without loss of lives, suggesting that they were better prepared for the expedition." If this is still OR/SYNTH, I can remove that as well, . NekoKatsun (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under misuse of the dogs.

Scott did not take the dogs further for no apparent reason. On the face of it, it may seem illogical for the dogs to be carrying pony food forward, only to kill the ponies to feed the dogs. The logic behind this was that the ponies were unable to carry enough weight themselves and Scott was not expecting some of the ponies to survive the entire journey to the Beardmore Glacier. Therefore he intended to bring forward as much pony food as he could by using the dogs as a more efficient working unit and then feed the exhausted ponies to the dogs one by one. The ponies survived longer than expected so starting with the weakest, Scott killed them as the pony feed began to run low. Without the dogs Scott would have had to kill the ponies earlier resulting in even less pony food being able to be carried further, resulting in more ponies being killed sooner.

It is staed that the rations at One Ton Depot had not been replenished until Cherry-Garrard arrived there on March 4th.

This is incorrect. A man hauling Party had already restocked the depot as the other supporting parties would have also needed supplies. Scott instructed that by 19th January a minimum 3 units of X.S ration be deposited at One Ton Depot. His original request was for 5 units 3 cases of biscuit 5 Gallons of oil and as much dog food as you can conveniently carry ^[1] The extra rations and dog food were to carry the dog teams forward to meet Scott at 82 south on March 1st. Given that Meares only returned on January 6th it was impossible for him to take the vital rations to One Ton Depot by January 12th. If he was to replenish the dog food and rations to make the further journey to 82s, he would have barely a week to rest the dogs after his 18 week journey towards the pole, before setting out to One Ton and barely a week more to rest before making the 600 mile round trip to 82s.

Teddy Evans notes in his book

"So it was decided that Cherry-Garrard should take out the teams, which he did, with 24 days' food for his own unit and 2 weeks surplus stores with all kinds of special delicasies. The real object of this trip was to hasten the Southern party's return, rather than to succour them." ^[2] The extra food Cherry-Garrard carried were additional treats to supplement the mundane rations that were already waiting at One Ton Depot.

This throws further light on the journey to meet Scott being more of a welcome home than a rescue mission. The greatest importance being to get the news back to Cape Evans before the ship sailed, therefore back to England 12 months earlier.81.154.77.13 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ E.R.G.R. Evans South with Scott 1953 London Collins p=170- 171
^ E.R.G.R. Evans South with Scott 1953 London Collins p=245

Sullivan, Amundsen and the moon

Sullivan is frequently used as a source. In one instance he is cited "In a similar fashion to the way the moon was reached by expending a succession of rocket stages and then casting each aside; the Norwegians used the same strategy, sacrificing the weaker animals along the journey to feed the other animals and the men themselves." Sullivan's book is, according to this article, from 1962, while man reached the moon in 1969. How was it possible to write already in 1962 that "the moon was reached"? Was he talking about unmanned moon missions? Fomalhaut76 (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. I read the source material, and that line is "The moon will be reached by burning up a succession of rocket stages and casting them off. This, in effect, is what the Norwegians did with their dogs, the weaker animals being sacrificed to feed the other animals and the men themselves." Sullivan was correct in his prediction, but it definitely was just that. I've corrected the quote in the article to match the text in the source. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] E.R.G.R. Evans South with Scott 1953 London Collins p=170- 171

[2] E.R.G.R. Evans South with Scott 1953 London Collins p=245

[1]

[2]