December 14, 2011: Centenary of Amundsen's great triumph

Scott has always been much better known, the bigger hero as you say, simply because he and his party died on their expedition and, given the moral judgments of the time (principally in England), were thereby labeled "heroes", men who embodied "the spirit of self-sacrifice", which the British in particular thought the noblest trait one could exhibit. The consequences of such a mind-set became horrifyingly clear in the carnage of the Great War that descended upon Europe just two years later.

The fact that Britain was the world's greatest power, and so dominated both current news and subsequent historical accounts, while Norway was (and is) largely off the world's media radar, is the major reason why Scott's failure, and his manufactured reputation, eclipsed Amundsen's success.

It also explains why several Scott apologists have been leading a "counter-attack" of sorts in trying to revive the false image of Scott as an intrepid explorer, a great leader who thought of everything and only perished because of bad luck. They claim things like abnormally low temperatures, or too little fuel or food in his depots, came as a surprise to Scott, ignoring the fact that he laid the depots (badly), and, because of his insistence on man-hauling, planned to be out on the Ice Barrier very late in the season, when temperatures could be expected to drop. They also ignore or lamely excuse Scott's complete failure to learn from his and others' past polar experience, in contrast to Amundsen's relentless pursuit of perfection in polar travel.

As a last resort, most Scott defenders attack the character of the author Roland Huntford, whose 1979 book "Scott and Amundsen" is largely responsible for the critical reevaluation of Scott's theretofore pristine reputation. Huntford may not have been a perfect or unbiased biographer, but aside from desperate and meaningless personal attacks, no Scott defender has come forth with actual evidence to refute Huntford's basic proofs and his demonstration of Scott's ineptitude, at least when it came to polar knowledge and preparation.

Incidentally, apart from Amundsen's unsuccessful effort to locate the Italian explorer Nobile in 1928, it's also quite possible -- even probable -- that Amundsen was the first man at both poles. As you know his great goal was always to be first to the North Pole, but the Cook-Peary conflict made achieving clear title to that honor impossible. But both men's claims have always been suspect, and while Cook was quickly discredited Peary's claim was never substantiated, and there is overwhelming evidence that he falsified his records. Today it's generally accepted that neither Peary nor Cook reached the Pole. So in 1925, when Amundsen joined Nobile and others on a dirigible flight across the North Pole, he was in all likelihood in the party that first reached the site. He wasn't in sole command, it wasn't "his" expedition, and the journey was made by air, not land (or rather, ice), but still, they were apparently the first to the North -- certainly the first to unquestionably reach it. Amundsen's accomplishments may have been even more noteworthy than he realized.

Well, my wife is English, and she recalls quite vividly being taught in primary school that Scott "discovered" the South Pole, with no mention of Amundsen at all -- and this was in the late 1960s. She never learned about Amundsen until years later, in secondary school in the mid-70s...and even then she says the information was only imparted grudgingly, with Scott still held up as an untarnished hero. Her parents, schooled between the late 1930s and late 1950s, never heard of Amundsen at least until the late 40s (post-film) and were taught that Scott was first. Perhaps you were educated at a better school.

There is much evidence that for several decades after 1912 had faded a bit from immediate memory, Scott was indeed held to be the so-called "discoverer" of the Pole, with Amundsen either not mentioned or downplayed. The 1948 film couldn't have gotten away with denying the basic truth, so it resorted to slyly disparaging Amundsen, by such things as having his decision to try for the South Pole depicted as unsporting and nakedly ambitious.

I substantially agree with what you wrote in your second paragraph, with one major exception. It's true that Britons disparaged Amundsen's "ungentlemanly professionalism" and his reliance on dogs -- while being hypocritically unconcerned that Scott used dogs, ponies, and tractors as well as good old man-hauling. It's an idiotic attitude, but then every nation has its idiotic attitudes; and nations do often deny undeniable facts, as the history just of the twentieth century should make plain.

But in the wake of Amundsen's victory, and for some time after, many Scott partisans, in the RGS, the Navy and others connected with exploration, put it around that Amundsen had indeed had luck -- not in his means of preparing for or executing the journey but because he supposedly had better weather (true, but only because he made certain to move quickly and get back before bad weather set in), an "easier" climb to the plateau (not true), and because by using dogs he didn't suffer the physical strain Scott endured (somewhat true, but no one forced Scott to use the slowest, most exhausting and least efficient means of travel by man-hauling). And, truth be told, of course Amundsen had some luck: he might not have found a way to climb to the plateau (his route, unlike Scott's, had never been explored, so he couldn't be sure what he'd find), the weather was generally good even for the Antarctic's most benevolent meteorological season, and there can always be accidents or other hazards.

Scott had some good luck as well. Thanks to Shackleton, Scott had a known, mapped route almost to the Pole, and he also had reasonably good weather during the trip out -- better than Shackleton had had in 1909.

Planning, knowledge and the ability to learn from experience -- all of which Amudnsen possessed and Scott did not -- always play a critical role in allowing someone to "make his own luck", good or bad. Certainly, in Antarctica in 1912 things just didn't turn out the way they did by happenstance. Still, no one can control the weather, only plan as best they can to cope with it; and there are other aspects about which planning can only help so far. But clearly the most prepared and learned person will almost surely fare far better than the gentlemanly but inept one.