Expeditions to the South Pole of Robert Scott and Roald Amundsen - Research Paper Example

Antarctica: Compare and contrast the different approaches adopted by Scott and Amundsen in their attempts to reach the South Pole. The expeditions to the South Pole of Captain Robert Scott and Roald Amundsen are now part of historic legend. But during 1911 when they both set out to conquer the South Pole, very few expected them to achieve their mission. Amundsen will be remembered as the first man to conquer the frigid vastness of Antarctica as he erected the Norwegian flag at the South Pole on December the 11th 1911, thirty five days earlier to the arrival of his competitor Robert Scott. Despite this fact, it is the legend and aura of Robert Scott that continues to thrive even today. That he would eventually succumb to the brutal natural forces of Antarctica and would never return home to Britain had made him a martyr hero of sorts – an image that continues to this day. But beyond the personal rivalries and statures of both men, they both shared the same zeal and spirit of adventure and exploration. And it is through their explorations that the repository of knowledge that we had about the South Pole expanded significantly. This essay will look at primary and secondary sources of information pertaining to these two great men and try to find out how they differed in their approaches to fulfill their missions. As Michael Barrett observes in the journal History Today, when the preparations and arrangements for the voyage are compared, it is clear that the British team headed by Robert Scott was far less prepared for travelling in polar regions. The Norwegian team headed by Amundsen was decidedly ahead in aspects such as “nutrition, skiing ability and dog-handling skills. They also had the natural advantages of being raised in a polar country. The fact that Scott trekked for about 1,000 miles while Amundsen was using dogs and skis is difficult to avoid.” (Barrett, 2000, p.3) Further, by studying the objects within their back-packs and also the amenities available in their base camps, we can get an idea of their respective approaches. For example, in the National Museum in Oslo, objects such as parts of a primus stove, leather washers in a tin, etc are displayed. While they look mundane at first glance, they played a key role in the expeditions. Take say an object as simple as a leather washer. They became crucial for the party’s survival as the following passage explains: “On his way to the Pole, Scott laid depots containing fuel for the team to pick up on its way back. This fuel was incredibly important as, even though the explorers were surrounded by water, it was locked up in ice which they needed to melt in order to be able to drink. The British used leather washers in the fuel cans, but the leather deteriorated in the cold and the fuel evaporated. This had happened previously on the Discovery expedition of 1901, but Scott did not act on his experience. So when he stopped to collect the fuel on his return from the Pole, the cans were half empty”. (Barrett, 2000, p3) In the case of Amundsen, having realized the inefficiency of leather washers, he took watertight bungs that minimized evaporation of fuel. The other difference in the approaches of the two men lay in the way they prepared for the expedition. Roald Amundsen, having dreamt of an adventurous life from early childhood is known to condition his body to tolerate extreme cold. Even during the fiercest of Norwegian winters, Amundsen would throw open the windows of his bedroom and still manage to sleep. Robert Scott though, having been born and lived most of his formative years in Britain, was never exposed to the cruel weather conditions of Norway. As a result his body was less adapted to the polar temperatures when compared to Amundsen. (Booth, 2007, p.136) It would also be fair to say that Scott resorted to religious guidance during his expedition to Antarctica. Born in a poor family and initiated into the Christian faith by the deeply devout mother Hannah, Robert Scott read the Bible each day of his voyage. As he notes in his letter to his mother, “I read the church service every Sunday on our voyage to Melbourne, and I propose to do the same with equal regularity throughout the voyage." (Booth, 2007, p.137) Added to this, Scott's own unstable personality might have had a say on outcome of the expedition. According to his wife Kathleen, “he was given to periods of euphoria, interspersed with feelings of anxiety and depression” (Walters, 2002, p.6). A similar observation was also made by Huntford, who accompanied Scott in the expedition: “By temperament and character, Scott was unsuited to emergencies: they exacerbated his fluctuating moods and heightened his already taut nerves." (Walters, 2002, p.6) Amundsen's approach was more focused on scientific understanding and rationality, which had helped him master his mind as well as the hostile environmental conditions. When it comes to charting the different stages in their voyage, the two men had adopted similar approaches. It would have been imprudent to cover the entire distance from England or Norway to the South Pole in one stretch. Hence they first voyaged several thousand miles to station themselves in New Zealand and from there made the final push to the pole. In the case of Robert Scott and his team, it was November of 1910 when they started out from the shores of New Zealand. Roald Amundsen was first planning to go to the arctic pole and changed his mind in the last minute to head south to the Antarctic. This might be a rare instance of Amundsen's indecisiveness, but it did not hurt his expedition in any significant way. It appears that Amundsen's superior experience of navigating the seas and ice worlds had kept him in good stead throughout the voyage. (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 2009) Robert Scott's planning seems more meticulous, as seen from his carefully thought out choice of his accompanying staff for different legs of the journey. For example, his team included such experienced seafarers and adventurers as “Captain Lawrence Oates (known as Titus), Dr Edward Wilson, Lieutenant Henry 'Birdie' Bowers and the bibulous Petty Officer Edgar 'Taff' Evans, who had been on Scott's earlier expedition” (Geographical, 2000, p.91). But despite careful planning by Scott, natural elements had been unkind to him and his party in the early weeks of January 1912. As meteorologists have noted, the year 1912 was unusual in the Antarctic, with the cold being twice as severe, which exposed the party to “frostbite, sandpapery snow which slowed down skis, and a lack of wind to fill the sails they were counting on to help with the sledges”. (The Mail on Sunday, 2005, p.54) The Scott expedition met with several setbacks due to ignorance of local conditions and the failure to master navigation problems in the Antarctic. Firstly, the mechanical sledges they acquired for inland travel proved to be useless. Similarly, the horses they brought with them to drag the sleds could not navigate in the thick layer of snow and had to be shot. Further, “while Amundsen relied on dogs to haul his men and supplies over the frozen wastes, Scott considered this to be somehow un-British. His team never understood how to handle sledge dogs, nor did they wish to learn, especially after their experience on Scott's previous expedition. The truth was that the British were amateurs when it came to dog-driving; the Norwegians were the professionals. So when the horses died, the sledges had to be manned by the expedition members themselves”. (Geographical, 2000, p.91) Finally, Robert Scott’s decision to take five men for the final leg of the travel, when his supplies could cover the needs of only four members was a crucial mistake. The unexpected hostility of the weather, the tough terrain and the shortage of food and fuel had combined to cut short the lives of Robert Scott and his team as they set about returning home. References Anthony, J. (2009). The Heartless Immensity. The Virginia Quarterly Review, 85(2), 66+. Barrett, M. (2000, October). South: The Race to the Pole. History Today, 50, 3. Booth, A. (2007). Mr. Ramsay, Robert Falcon Scott and Heroic Death. Mosaic (Winnipeg), 40(4), 135+. Amundsen, Roald. (2009). In The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Ill-Fated Expedition Made Scott a Hero. (2004). 16. Late, Great Geographers. (2000, April). Geographical, 72, 91. Ryan, S. (2001). Douglas R G Sellick, Antarctica: First Impressions 1773-1930. Journal of Australian Studies, (71), 126+. 'To My Widow, We Are in a Very Tight Corner.'; Revealed in Full the Moving and Truly Humbling Letters Captain Scott Wrote to His Beloved Wife and Son from His Doomed Antarctic Expedition. (2007, January 11). The Daily Mail (London, England), p. 15. Walters, C. (2002, December 20). Eerie Beauty, Fatal Lure of Antarctica. The Washington Times, p. 6. Why Self-Pity Cut No Ice with Scott. (2005, December 18). The Mail on Sunday (London, England), p. 54. Read More