Customer Reviews

Scott and Amundsen

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Roland Huntford has written perhaps the best study of polar exploration. The contrast between the two , Amundsen and Scott, is so striking, it is a wonder that Scott is generally remembered at all.His methods were so slack, his personality so ill-suited to the task at hand, his leadership bordered on being criminally negligent. Scott became that strange type of British hero, one whose incompetence is romanticized into fame( i.e. The Titanic or the Charge of the Light Brigade). Amundsen however, dispays all the qualities necessary for a polar explorer (or any leader). He was smart, adaptable, inventive, and organized. He did have some faults(somewhat unforgiving, vanity), but his results made him the greatest polar explorer of all time.His deeds included the Northwest Passage, 1st to winter in the Antarctic, Of course the South Pole, first to complete the Northeast and Northwest Passage, first to fly across the Arctic Ocean.He was a modern Viking, always seeking the unknown. It is somewhat baffling that he is not more recognized for his accomplishments.

Scott and Amundsen is a study of two very different styles of leadership; that of Captain Robert F. Scott, RN of Great Britain and that of Roald Amundsen of Norway. It is a book well worth reading and is better than many contemporary leadership books. It is a study of men as well as countries. The Norwegians were able to maintain an oceanographic research vessel. The British had to make do with a converted sealing ship.

Scotts style was that of a traditional Naval officer in a service that had great traditions but had become stagnant as it entered the 20th Century. Scott gave an order and expected a cherry aye, aye sir, regardless of the difficulty in it's execution. He was also a man who was looking over his shoulder at the runners behind him. In his first expedition to Antarctica, he had managed to alienate one of his co-members and turned him into a fierce rival, Ernest Shackelton. It was this rivalry that drove Scott. Scott is also a perfect example of the concept of responding to new developements with "not invented here". Scott had several years between his two expeditions to plan, acquire proper material and train his expedition. The only original thinking was in the use of motor transport but then he fatally damaged this component when he jetisoned the principal technical officer that had worked on the motor sledges from the outset. Everything else was a rehash of his first expedition or that of Shackelton's. The use of horses in a desert environment, as the Antarctic is, was a tremendous failure that ultimately lead to the death of Scott and his party.

Amundsen on the other hand was a keen student of the exploration craft. He was constantly working to refine his equipment. He was not afraid to adapt the ways of the natives he met on his expeditions, as well as take suggestions and examples from other explorers, such as Frederick Cook. Amundsen never asked his men to do something he would not do himself. He set the example. Of course he made errors along the way but he recognized them, and even if he didn't admit to them directly, he learned from them. He was single minded and remained faithful to his mission. He did not allow himself to be distracted by sentiment and worry. He flet that the prize of being first at the South Pole was the only thing that mattered. He was a trail blazer. The scientists could come after him.

The two expeditions have been contrasted as a ful-blown assault and a raid. Amundsen's daring raid was a success and mounted as it was in the face of the challenge from Scott.

This book by Huntford is not to be missed. It is a first class effort by an author who understands both the British and Norwegian mindsets. I would urge that this book be required reading for all future military officers.

Scott and Amundsen is a study of the contrasting styles of management of two of the great polar explorers. Scott was driven by an ambitious wife to be great. In the process of achieving immortal fame, he captained one ship into a collision, after which he recouped his fall from grace by embarking on a quest with the full backing of the Royal Navy. He chose a smorgasboard of options for getting to the South Pole: tractors, Siberian ponies, and dogs. He chose a like-minded crew of enthusiasts who were for the most part amateurs. Enthusiasm untempered with wisdom had a price. One tractor sank through the ice upon debarking, the other broke down with mechanical problems. The Siberian ponies ended up as dog meat, and the sled team saved a large portion of those who turned back from the Pole. Scott reached the Pole but died on the return trip with four companions. His diaries (edited by his wife) established his undying fame. Amundsen borrowed his ship from the other great polar explorer, Nansen. He handpicked the crew, each of whom were specialists. They trained extensively, adapted the garb and transportation of the Inuit, i.e. anoraks and dogs, used skis to break the trail in front of the dogs and reached the Pole nearly a month before Scott. The trip was carefully planned with the primary source of energy being meat. Initially it was seal meat, shot near the Antarctic shelf, and frozen. In the final leg, the trek became a literal "dog-eat-dog" experience, as planned. No man died, and the apparent ease with which Amundsen reached the Pole led some to believe that Amundsen's path was the easier. It was not. I was so impressed with this book that I wrote to the author and received an autographed copy of a British paperback recently issued by Grove and Weidenfeld.

Sad to see so many glowing reviews of this book. Depressing to realize how readily misinformation is accepted as fact with the reviewers thoughtlessly indulging in the spread of misinformation themselves. If you must read this book make sure you also read Ranulph Fiennes' "Captain Scott".

This is an amazing book about an amazing thing. In 1911, the South Pole was the last undiscovered place on Earth. I was quite impressed by the authors knowledge in all respects, one feels almost like one is there with Scott or Amundsen. Good Read!

You wouldn't think that a bunch of guys running around in the ice and snow would be such a compelling read, but this is the book that started my fascination with the Polar Explorers of the 18th and 19th centuries, and made me want to learn more about my Nordic heritage. Whether you agree with Huntford's conclusions or not, his study of Nansen, Amundsen and other Norwegian figures and their country and culture is one that we seldom get from the general US education accounts of these explorations.

I recommend this book (or the abridged version that came out as "The Last Place on Earth") as a good starting place for people who think they might be interested in the "Great Polar Explorations," because, even if you disagree with his assessment of the leading characters, Huntford does a very good job of laying out the essential problems and dynamics of Polar travel (without becoming completely bogged down in minutiae).

It has been over 80 years and only now the truth about 2 different Antartic expeditions have come to light.We can finally see Capt. Robert Falcon Scott as the bumbling, incompetent that he was. For his lack of planning, his weakness towards animals, and his general lack of coming to terms with the enviromental conditions he would be experiencing caused the deaths of 4 of his team mates, and his own as well.But we also see Capt. Roald Amundsen as a hard, cold man. He wouldn't accept criticism of his ideas and concepts. He could never forget an insult, or deny a friendship.This book details the ups and downs in both expeditions. Giving the reader of being along side each of the groups, and trying to cope with the hardships that each group endured.

A good read but.....was it. Factual? Accurate? Balanced?

Wouldn't you expect those basic three elements in a story told? I know I do but maybe I'm too fussy or just naïve.

Otherwise what is the point? Was it purely to destroy a mans reputation sensationally in order to sell the book! - the cynic in me thinks probably yes, for whatever reason only Roland Hunford knows.

I've no doubt a lot of research went into Hunterfords book but what a waste, after having read all the available books on this particular subject matter including Ranulph Fiennnes book, the options expressed by Huntford and the presentation of so called `facts' seem at times downright fictional.

If you want the sensational Tabloid version of the Scott story get this book, if you want the three elements mentioned above at least read Ranulph Fiennes book.

By far the best book I've read in the last thirty years. The comparison between Scott and Amundson's efforts will be of great interest to psychologists and anyone interested in a vivid comparison of sane and neurotic behavior. Better than any case study. Fully detailed, wonderfully accurate, a brilliantly told story.

"Captain Scott" by Sir Ranulph Fiennes, the man described by the Guiness Book of Records as "the world's greatest living explorer". I've just finished this book, which is described as "a valuable corrective to the trend of Scott debunking". Before giving five stars to the Huntford book, you should *really* read this book. For some reason it's not available on Amazon. I bought my copy here in Hong Kong -- its' by Hodder & Staughton and was published in paperback in 2004.
A review says: "... a fascinating read and a powerful argument against the conventional view of Scott as second best." Another: "Stirring... now one is better placed than Fiennes to understand what Scott may have experienced or to appreciate the enormity of his achievement."
Remember -- Huntford *never* went to the Antarctic. Fiennes, on the other hand "...visits the poles as casually as most of us visit the pub."
This is a debunking of the debunker. It should be read as corrective to Huntford's tendentious put-down.
PF
Hong Kong
June 04