Linschoten

From the same source, a discussion of Scoot's attitude to the use of dogs:

"From the beginning, Amundsen was praised for his use of dogs and Scott, in hindsight, blamed for not depending on them entirely. I would now like to consider this question from the point of view of the dogs. In doing so, I will draw on the evidence of Amundsen himself, as given in The South Pole. First, however, it is necessary to quote from Scott’s Voyage of Discovery to confute three old chestnuts of the anti-Scott canon (see, for example, Huntford; Katz and Kirby; Rosove): that Scott did not appreciate what dogs could do; that, as an Englishman, he was prejudiced against using them for transport; and that he chose manhauling instead because it was nobler and more virile. The following quotation from Scott’s book is regularly given to justify these views:164

In my mind no journey ever made with dogs can approach the height of that fine conception which is realised when a party of men go forth to face hardships, dangers, and difficulties with their own unaided efforts, and by days and weeks of hard physical labour succeed in solving some problem of the great unknown. Surely in this case the conquest is more nobly and splendidly won. (1: 343)

Certainly, these lines appear to offer good evidence for the last of the three claims. They are not, however, from his Antarctic journal: Scott wrote them back in England, and while preparing his book he was lunching daily at the house of his patron, Markham, who was known to advocate this view.165 In part, it became Scott’s own attitude too, in reaction to his experience during Discovery’s southern journey, when the men had to thrash sick or exhausted dogs to get them to move, something Wilson had described as "soul sickening" (Diary of the Discovery 220). But, as is often the case, Scott’s perspective was far more complex than a single quotation suggests—especially one which excludes essential context.

The excerpt is from a disquisition on dogs as a means of polar transport that runs for more than seven pages (all written after Discovery’s return), and it provides a good example of how misleading quotation can be (1: 340-47). I will give a precis of what preceded the fragment usually cited in order to show that Scott very clearly understood the advantages of dog travel, and that it was not ‘prejudice’ that later prevented him from relying on them to the degree that Amundsen did. All of this was written long before the Terra Nova expedition and at a time when there was no other Antarctic explorer Scott needed to compare himself with in this regard:

Broadly speaking, there are two ways in which dogs may be used—they may be taken with the idea of bringing them all back safe and sound, or they may be treated as pawns in the game, from which the best value is to be got regardless of their lives. (1: 340)

If the first method is chosen, Scott calculates, a dog can pull a heavy load about twenty-five percent further than a man consuming an equivalent amount of food, and a light load fifty percent further:

To this may be added that the dog requires no sleeping-bag, tent or cooking-apparatus, nor, indeed, any of those articles which figured so largely as the permanent weights of a sledge party ... So far, then, it would appear that a dog is a more efficient machine than a man; but, on the other hand ... dogs cannot travel without man, and they have therefore, in addition to their own food, to carry the food and impedimenta of their drivers. (1: 341)

Scott notes that the best performances of dogs have been "little short of marvellous," but that these were "on short journeys, over beaten tracks, and with a light load" and that for some reason (he admits "the subject is complicated") no dogs have ever returned alive from a long and completely isolated Arctic journey. He states that if, and only if, the comparison is made with a dog-sledge journey which aims to preserve the dogs’ lives, "I am inclined to state my belief that in the polar regions properly organized parties of men will perform as extended journeys as teams of dogs." If the lives of the dogs are to be sacrificed, on the other hand, then "the dog-team is invested with a capacity for work which is beyond the emulation of men. To appreciate this is matter of simple arithmetic" (1: 341)—and Scott then performs the arithmetic. Efficiency notwithstanding, he expresses "reluctance" to use dogs in this way:

One cannot calmly contemplate the murder of animals which possess such intelligence and individuality, which have frequently such endearing qualities, and which very possibly one has learnt to regard as friends and companions. On the other hand, it may be pointed out with good reason that to forego the great objects which may be achieved by the sacrifice of dog-life is carrying sentiment to undue length. It is a case, if ever there was one, where the end justifies the means. There is no reason why the life of a dog should be considered more than that of a sheep, and no one would pause to consider the cruelty of driving a diminishing flock of sheep to supply the wants and aid of the movements of travellers in more temperate climates. (1: 342; emphasis added)

Far from being the victim of ‘English’ dog-doting sentimentality that his debunkers portray, Scott shows that he has thoughtfully considered both sides of this question. He argues for a compromise: "the avoidance of unnecessary pain" (1: 342). At the same time he is forthright in acknowledging that their own experience on the southern journey was probably ... an exceptionally sad one in this respect, but it left in each one of our small party an unconquerable aversion to the employment of dogs in this ruthless fashion. We knew well that they had served their end, that they had carried us much farther than we could have got by our own exertions.... Scott explains that he has tried to give a "just view" of the use of dogs, and summarizes:

To say that they do not greatly increase the radius of action is absurd; to pretend that they can be worked to this end without pain, suffering, and death is equally futile. The question is whether the latter can be justified by the gain, and I think that logically it may be; but the introduction of such sordid necessity must and does rob sledge-travelling of much of its glory. (1: 343)

The passage usually quoted, with which I began, follows immediately. After such a balanced argument with its emphasis on pragmatism and logic, Scott’s use of terms like "glory," "nobly" and "splendidly" for his peroration is probably unfortunate. But this does not excuse their quotation in isolation and the false impression thereby created. "

laurentius_m

But on the Terra Nova expedition, it wasn't man vs dog, it was mechanical sledges and ponies vs dogs.

laurentius_m

But in general I agree, one shouldn't judge Scott's character on the Terra Nova expedition alone. But apparently Scott was well aware of all options of transport available to him, considered them and made his choices. And that adds to the big question the thread title implies.

As to whether Scott was a hero or idiot, I think we certainly can rule out that he was a hero. Dying under tragic circumstances doesn't make you a hero. Of course, none of us have walked a mile in Scott's shoes and what decisions would we have made under the same circumstances? But that is beside the point. It is what choices Scott made (under very difficult circumstances) that is important. And the choices he made don’t make him a hero. Period. To me, Bowers actions is more heroic, selflessly sacrificing himself, and with epic style.

And I agree to some extent with Scott that conquer without hardship and danger isn't as "noble and heroic" as if with. That's why I don't consider Amundsen's little Sunday trip heroic. It was a walk in the park. A professional and impressive feat by all means, but not heroic.

But not to forget, Amundsen died a hero, as opposed to Scott. He hastily went to the Arctic searching for a missing Italian party that was on top of everything, his adversaries. A completely selfless act that would cost him his life. Why? Because, as Fiennes also hints about, the brotherhood between men who as actually been to, and experienced the extreme Arctic. I am 100% sure that if Amundsen knew anything about Scott's problems he would have rushed to his aid. And I am sure Scott would have done the same for Amundsen.

Wikipedia has a well balanced article on the expedition, also clearly stating that Scott's main goal and ambition was the conquest of the South Pole. The scientific aspect was secondary, as opposed to later British claims.


And related to this thread:
Wikipedia: "For many years after his death, Scott's status as tragic hero was unchallenged, and few questions were asked about the causes of the disaster which overcame his polar party. In the final quarter of the 20th century the expedition came under closer scrutiny, and more critical views were expressed about its organisation and management. The degree of Scott's personal culpability remains a matter of controversy among commentators."

Bismarck

It was more like sledges, ponies or dogs - and it wasn't like Scott, not withstanding his personal preference, simply chose man-hauling; he was forced into it by the failure of the other three options. He may not have been unhappy that man-hauling became the prime mode of transport but he wasn't averse to using any of the other three modes if they could be shown to be superior to man-hauling.

Bismarck

Dont you mean Oates - Bowers died in the tent with Scott?

So what you are saying if Scott had died outside the tent then we could call him 'hero'???

Bismarck

True enough, but it is the manner of the death that really determines how 'heroic' it is, and anyone who reads Scott's account cannot fail to notice his courage and insight in the face of practically insurmountable odds. I dont know how you can dismiss it so easily. It seems to me Scott's experience is the quintessential heroic episode.

Linschoten

I find this a bit glib. Scott's journal is one of the most moving documents from the literature of exploration, and I would say that he died with style, and expressed himself nobly. That is why the Scott expedition will continue to fascinate people long after the present dispute about him has died down (hopefully with a reasonable consensus being reached). It is a tragic tale wonderfully described.

That is why I find some of your previous posts wildly overstated: specifically the notion that the Scott legend was something worked up by the papers to cast Amundsen into the shade. This fails to take acoount of the gripping appeal of Scott's journal and the tragic nature of the story. One might draw a parallel: the story of Barents' overwintering in Novaya Zemlya, and his men's escape during the trip in which he lost his life, as narrated by Gerrit de Veer, makes for far more moving and exciting reading than Nordenskiold's account of his success in achieving the North-East passage. One story has passed into legend in a way that the other hasn't. Similarly, there Scott's story has passed into legend in a way that Amundsen's hasn't. This is not something that has been artificially brought about for nationalistic reasons. And it does not - should not - mean that Amundsen's achievement is not sufficiently respected. But his story does not touch one's heart in the same way, though I wouldn't go sar as to suggest, even allowing for a touch of irony, that his professionalism turned this into a 'Sunday trip'. Whether or not one cares to classify Scott as a 'hero', or one cares to regard his mistakes as 'idiotic', is really beside the point. (It is not fair to Scott, though, to view him with excessive disdain just he has been over-praised in some respects in the past. The black legend that has been developed about him I find profoundly unappealing. It is complacent, nasty and mean-minded, leading people to look out for things to attack him for.)

As Bismarck has already remarked, I think you must mean Oates. His self-sacrifice makes a moving story, but the fact is that he made it too late, as is noted in the passage I posted above. And one finds Scott being criticized from the other side for endangering his party by not leaving Oates behind when he suggested it!

Linschoten

I've already discussed this issue at great length above. This was planned as a dual-purpose expedition, partly scientific, partly to 'conquer' the pole. Emotionally, and from the point of view of the general public, the latter was far more important than the scientific aspect, but that doesn't mean that the scientific side of the expedition was not taken very seriously. Over thirty volumes of scientific reports were published, and these have been of fundamental importance for the development of Antarctic science. The Wikipedia article thus oversimplifies the issue, and the suggestion that Scott had no interest in the scientific side of the expedition is just another aspect of the black legend. In a word, it was not a case of 'either-or' but of 'both-and'. Furthemore, the scientific aspect was not deliberately played afterwards because Scott failed in the race for the pole, the Scott legend developed from the story of the polar journey, and most people, in Britain and elsewhere, are wholly ignorant of the extraordinary scientific achievements of the expedition. It is quite common to hear people casually drawing unfavourable comparison in that regard between Scott and Mawson or Muir.

viking

I apologise for being absent from my own thread and hope to return soon. In the main, the standard of discussion is high and demands good concentration and comprehension and owing to a temporarily reduced blood flow to the brain I am having a little trouble with both.

Linschoten

I hope the trouble clears up soon, we will look forward to seeing you back again.