We’re coming on a hundred years since the race to the South Pole between Roald Amundsen and Robert Falcon Scott. Caroline Alexander, writing for the National Geographic, has a worthwhile article on Amundsen. (h/t Barry).
I’m sure it’s overblown because it makes such a compelling narrative, but I like reading about the distinctions between Amundsen and Scott’s approach which many have ascribed to their respective national characters. The English value the heroic struggle of the amateur. The Norwegians the pragmatic success of the professional. For Amundsen, the goal is getting to the pole in the most efficient manner possible. For Scott, honorable failure is preferable to succeeding in the wrong way.
I tend to be a little skeptical of this because I don’t know that Scott was necessarily aware of a more efficient manner of reaching his goal. But, a lot has been made of Scott’s trudging through the ice and snow with ponies as opposed to Amundsen’s skiing across the terrain with dogs pulling sleds. Amundsen is particularly maligned for coldly calculating the dogs necessary to pull the weight of supplies and then killing the dogs and using them for food as the other supplies were consumed.
Amundsen’s approach was clearly more successful. He got to the pole first and without major incident. Scott slogged his way through his “first rate tragedy” only to find that Amundsen had beat him. Then, he slogged most of the way back only to run out of supplies and get pinned down by a blizzard, just 11 miles from a supply depot, and die.
Afterward, Scott’s reputation was posthumously elevated to that of a national hero. Amundsen lived on, financially strapped and increasingly embittered.
A side-note about Amundsen that I found interesting in Ms. Alexander’s article:
[I]n May 1928, when Nobile’s airship went missing over the Arctic, Amundsen hastened to join the multinational rescue effort, pushing friends to finance a rescue plane. He was poised to get married, and his determination to be involved suggests that, as an essentially solitary man, he was running from this commitment.
The reason I took particular note of this was because I am currently reading King Leopold’s Ghost by Adam Hochschild which describes Henry Morgan Stanley’s Congo expeditions. Hochschild suggests that Stanley’s engagement to Alice Pike took place immediately before his departure on a multi-year expedition because of his essential fear of women. (She got married to someone else while he was away.)
Amundsen used in Antarctica tactics he developed in the Arctic by living among the Inuit during his successful voyage through the Northwest Passage, another first. For decades the British had tried to get through the arctic ice by using the technological advancements of their civilization — large ships, weapons, lots of men, canned food and wool clothing. Many brave and honorable Brits died trying in several expeditions and rescues. Instead of bringing civilization to the polar wilderness, Amundsen joined the natives who had survived for thousands of years up there and developed superior clothing and equipment. Add some skis from Norway, dogs and a smaller group of men, it all worked in the South Pole.
Your description of the British approach makes me think of other British expeditions which I’ve seen referred to as “Exploration by Assault.” That’s the way Stanley went at the Congo and that’s the way Mallory went at Everest. (Technically, I guess Stanley was calling himself American at that point, so I don’t know if it’s fair to throw him in with the British, necessarily.) Seems like there were a few ill-fated expeditions into the Australian outback that meat this description as well.
But the ponies were from Siberia. Good thought– but wrong.
Ponies were a reasonably good option, given the knowledge at the time. I would like to see more on the plan, briefly mentioned in the N.Geo piece, of using polar bears. Domesticating polar bears would be a greater achievement than reaching the South Pole. Maybe Disney/Pixar will bring that to life.