Slashdot Mirror
Was Scott Of The Antarctic So Wrong?
rm-r writes: "The commonly held view, amongst scientists and the public, is that British explorer Scott of the Antarctic was hideously under-prepared for the expedition which claimed his and most of his crew's life. However, new evidence presented here suggests that he wasn't all that bad. Suggests that he was perfectly prepared for *normal* conditions but was caught out by an extreme cold spell, a lesson here for all of us whatever our technical/scientific pursuits -- Be prepared ..." That is, "an extreme cold spell" for the Antarctic, not for, say, Brisbane.
It's good that we now have a more balanced, more complete picture of what happened to Scott and his men. It's overly simplistic to say that he was unprepared and didn't belong there. He ran against conditions he didn't expect (granted, he should have been better prepared for the worst case scenario).
The man (and the rest of the team) made mistakes, and got caught in a bad situation. But to either to deride him or glorify him makes it to simple. He was a man, trying to do something that had never been done before. In the end he failed: He was beaten to the South Pole and never made it out of Antartica. But he TRIED. And that's more than a lot of other people did (including those who derided him).
Not all heroes are successes; not every mission that falls short is a failure.
Wondering how (or if) I'll be remembered in a hundred years,
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
My greatest hero is Shackleton. Now there is a story to inspire! He failed, but he got every last man home under the worst conditions imaginable.
Bravery, skill and leadership of the highest order. And then, he came home to the first world war where the leaders threw away lives by the tens of thousand.Bah!
What a stark comparison between one who wouldn't sacrifice a single man and the Generals.