Because they lived to be able to offer to others the wisdom of their experiences. Do you deny that Nansen advised Scott to rely on dogs (even as such a sentimental man as he was) because only dogs could do the job required of them? And if you do, I will call you a liar. Regardless that they had to be used and then discarded, the poles at that time in history required such measures to succeed. Scott laid One Ton Deport short of its intended latitude to alleviate the suffering of his party's ponies only to have it out of reach when his own survival was in the balance.
In the Romantic Period of Antarctic Exploration, a polar explorer had to be almost brutal to survive let alone succeed. It wasn't personal...it was business and Scott as a businessman was run over and flattened by his competition . Although often quite an arrogant asshole, Amundsen was the consummate professional polar explorer and traveller. Scott in comparison was little more than a wannabe boy scout at the game where is wasn't just win or lose but simply to live or to die. We all know how that story ended. One trip to the pole and back done almost surgically in its precision the other done as what can only be described as a circus of the clowns.
And enough with the endless reminder about the Convoy and Coral Reef...you've brought it up over and over but nobody cares especially myself. You must enjoy being so pedantic?
You missed the points completely.
1- I have never said that Nansen didn't advise Scott to rely on dogs alone. The point you repeatedly ignore is that was perfectly reasonable in the circumstances for Scott to ALSO take lessons from people like Shackleton, who got closer to a pole than Nansen ever did, and did it down south where the conditions are very different and where Nansen did not go.
It is utterly illogical to claim that Scott should have thrown away the example of Shackleton merely because of the example of Nansen, who did not get as close to a pole and was not going for the same pole.
It is also utterly illogical to imply that a polar explorer should always follow the example of those who were successful in earlier expeditions, because Nansen himself did not follow the example of those who were successful in earlier expeditions.
2- If Amundsen was so much better, why did he amass a record of two successful expeditions and two utter failures, ie about 50% success?
- If Scott was so bad why did he lead one successful expedition and one that succeeded admirably in some respects and partly succeeded in another, ie about 50% success?
- If Nansen was so perfect then why did he lead one successful expedition and one that succeeded admirably in some respects and completely failed in another? Nansen's Fram expedition FAILED in its main aim. It did not reach the pole. It succeeded in other aims. but Nansen did not have a perfect record and was not perfect himself - he made mistakes he was lucky to survive.
3- The point about the coral reef is twofold - one, that you don't follow the course you abuse Scott for not following. Your point (apart from simply throwing insults) is mainly that Scott should have followed the expertise of a proven expert - but you don't do that yourself. You advocated an invasion convoy of Buna and Goa, which ignored the expertise of the experts who were there. You ignore the argument of Fiennes, an expert polar explorer. You ignore the facts put forward by Susan Solomon, an expert on Antarctic weather and a proven polar expert. You ignore the articles by Alt, an Antarctic expert. on why it was reasonable for Scott to drop the plan to take the dogs to the pole
It is illogical for you to criticise Scott for not following the advice of an expert when you do not follow the advice of experts yourself. Surely that is such a simple breach of logic that you can understand it? Why do you criticise Scott for not doing something that you don't do? Why the double standard?
Secondly, the example of the coral reef shows that your arguments repeatedly ignore simple geographical facts. It is a geographical fact that the invasion route you claim the Allies should have taken for north New Guinea was impassable because of coral reefs. It is also a geographical fact that the Arctic (where Nansen had his experience) is very different to the Antarctic, where Scott had led a successful expedition and Nansen had never been.
It is illogical to ignore relevant geographical facts. It was reasonable for Scott to take a different approach to a very different geographical area.
4- It is simply a lie to state that Scott's expedition "can only be described as a circus of the clowns". Many people who vastly more about the subject than you do have described it as a considerable success in one of its main goals, that of scientific study of the Antarctic. They did so in places like American scientific journals (which have no reason to be biased) and before Scott's fate was known so it is illogical to claim that they did so for biased reasons.
Scott's second expedition lead to a 550 page scientific report. It's stated by people like museum curators to be
"an important scientific expedition that carried out work across many fields.” The Antarctic Heritage Trust says
"extensive geological field work had been achieved by the northern and western parties, an impressive scientific and surveying programme was concluded and the second ascent was made of Mount Erebus. Very thorough meteorological records were kept, and these still provide useful base data today"
Are you really going to claim that you know more about the scientific value of the expedition than such sources do?
You insulted Scott for carrying rocks - but Wilson asked him to, and everyone on the expedition knew that science was a major aim and that it would conflict with both their own safety and the polar trip. If you take on a trip like that then you know that the science may imperil your life, and you accept that.
Scott's expedition was NOT a circus - it did well at one of its primary goals, it achieved another primary goal (to make the pole) and it failed in two. It was neither a great success or a great failure.
Please don't make untrue claims in the future and if you do make stuff up (as with the ridiculous claim that Nansen had more polar experience than everyone else combined) it would be nice if you could actually be honest and admit that your statements were completely incorrect.
5- The point about Nansen's feelings about the dogs was that it shows Huntford's bias. He criticised Scott for being sentimental when Nansen and his companion were also sentimental. Becoming sentimental about animal suffering in arctic exploration doesn't show any character flaw like Huntford claims - it's perfectly normal.
Huntford's book repeatedly shows similar anti-Scott bias, so much that there have even been articles about why Huntford became so biased. Huntford is not a reliable source.
