How did Robert Falcon Scott bundle up?

Factual Questions
1

Looking at this photo, it appears like a knit wool balaclava, perhaps a wool sweater or two underneath, and a sailcloth pullover on top. Nothing special about the boots: instead of bulky mucklucks, they look like tanned leather (that would freeze solid as glass).

The gloves, however, look like fur-lined animal skin (like the entire body-protection of those guys who didn’t get killed.

Was there much thought put into what they’d wear, beyond what would do on a brisk day on the Orkneys? Was the different choice of clothing a significant factor in their demise, or was it all the pony vs dog choice that doomed them?

Side question: since Scott discovered Admunson’s tent already at the pole, then both teams used them. Could they both have benefited by just making igloos as they went?

2

Not too well. The wool clothing he chose for his men was a bad choice. Had he dressed his men like the Inuit, he would have been better off. The Inuit learned that wearing furs (hair side out) was the best way to stay warm-your sweat evaporated when you were working hard. In contrast, wool clothing retained your sweat-which froze when you stopped exerting yourself.
Scott basically ignored all sound advice-Nansen told him to use sled dogs (Amundsen did)-Scott chose man hauling (which made his men consume calories like crazy). Second, Scott chose to use the wrong kind of food (mostly dehydrated rations), which caused his men to suffer from scurvy (Amundsen’s men didn’t).
Finally, Scott’s biggest failing was his refusal to face facts-he should have never continued to the pole, once he knew he was short of food.
Basically, his expedition was a complete disaster, yet he was turned into a hero (because of his death-which was caused by his own stupidity).

3

You say he should never have continued to the pole knowing he was short of food. But his decision to do so wasn’t even close to indefensible: failing to turn back was not a known death sentence, it was a calculated risk. He and his men quite likely made an entirely rational and far from stupid decision they were prepared to risk their lives for a shot at the glory of being the first people in history to get to the pole. That may have been risky, but it wasn’t stupid.

Further, bear in mind that Scott had left written orders for another part of the expedition to head south with food and dogs etc to meet Scott as he headed back from the pole, which orders were disobeyed. He also wasn’t to know that the weather would be particularly bad (as it was). Even with these major setbacks, Scott came tantalisingly close to getting to the next supply depot which would likely have resulted in his survival and the completion of the expedition.

At the time Scott and his men made the decision to continue to the pole despite being short of food they would have had every reason to think they had a real shot at pulling off the journey alive.

It’s easy to be an after the fact wise-ass, when (as it turns out) something has ended in disaster. While Scott may not have made all the correct decisions, there’s no honour in jeering at his decisions with a hundred years of hindsight.

As to the OP, note that the photo was taken well before the expedition to the pole. And I would think that putting up an igloo every day would substantially eat into the time available for travel, and have a high energy cost.

4

It’s been a couple of years since I last read South or Worst Journey in the World so I am going from memory here. Forgive inaccuracy in some of the details.

Scott’s major mistake was having divided objectives – in every aspect of the expedition. He was attempting to undertake a scientific expedition as well as an exploration expedition. He was trialing and testing many different kinds of equipment as well as attempting to push the limits. Some of his polar team were weakened by a winter trip to Cape Crozier and were probably insufficiently recovered for the Pole trip. He was invested in man-hauling sledges, pony driven sledges, dog sledges and motorised sledges. He encouraged his men to experiment with whatever clothing they found was best rather than going with the tried and true. He hadn’t even fully decided on team composition and logistics: he ended up taking a fifth person to the pole which stretched the food budget. It is hard to knoow what the rationale behind this was, but probably boils down to trying to be nice. Ultimately what killed the team was insufficient calorific intake (approximately 50% of what was really needed and an imbalanced diet) combined with scurvy and a bad run on the weather. But realistically, if it hadn’t been that, it could have easily been something else. Every time I read it I just want him to make it – the goal is tantalisingly close. But he always perishes 11 nautical miles from One Ton Depot. A real shame.

Amundsen, by contrast had a single objective. He used equipment that he had seen in use by the Inuit and had tested himself over a few seasons. He rode on a sled most of the way using dog power and the dogs also became dog tucker. The trip was light and fast. The only thing was to calculate how many dogs would be needed once they started feeding them to one another. (There’s a fun bit of maths.) If there was a race, then Amundsen had won before they even started. Only Scott didn’t realise it.

This is of course all off topic.
The kit he was wearing included finneskoe boots of a Finnish design with sedgegrass for insulation. A couple of layers of wool. Some fur garments were worn but I don’t recall which were used for the polar trip. I am fairly certain that at least some was worn with the fur in rather than fur out. Oilskin was used as a waterproof and windproof layer. You can see from the photo that there were air gaps in the design of the clothing. Nothing was a snug fit. It seems that the crew regarded the summer trip to the pole as a warmer weather expedition and they did not rug up as well as they did in the winter months. Tents were canvas with wooden poles and ties for closure. (No zips.) Sleeping bags were reindeer hide and probably increased in weight considerably over the expedition as they became soaked in frozen sweat. (I have know idea why down wasn’t used.) Skis were used intermittently but were left in a cache for the final 100 miles. I am not sure whether they sped things up or were a weight burden in the balance of things.

5

FWIW, finnesko means Sami shoe in Norwegian. Filling them with hay, straw or whatever is a traditional way of insulation in Scandinavia, used not just by the Sami and from what I’ve heard it is very efficient.

6

Nitpick-
Those are mittens, not gloves.

7

The Straight Dope

Go Back Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions
Reload this Page How did Robert Falcon Scott bundle up?
Welcome, ralph124c.
You last visited: Today at 07:58 AM
Private Messages: Unread 21, Total 25.

User CP FAQ Calendar Search New Posts Mark Forums Read Open Contacts Popup Log Out
Reply
View First Unread View First Unread Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

#1 Report Post Old Today, 12:05 AM
Slithy Tove Slithy Tove is offline
Guest Join Date: Jan 2000

How did Robert Falcon Scott bundle up?

Looking at this photo, it appears like a knit wool balaclava, perhaps a wool sweater or two underneath, and a sailcloth pullover on top. Nothing special about the boots: instead of bulky mucklucks, they look like tanned leather (that would freeze solid as glass).

The gloves, however, look like fur-lined animal skin (like the entire body-protection of those guys who didn’t get killed.

Was there much thought put into what they’d wear, beyond what would do on a brisk day on the Orkneys? Was the different choice of clothing a significant factor in their demise, or was it all the pony vs dog choice that doomed them?

Side question: since Scott discovered Admunson’s tent already at the pole, then both teams used them. Could they both have benefited by just making igloos as they went?

Last edited by Slithy Tove; Today at 12:06 AM.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message

Slithy Tove
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Slithy Tove
Send email to Slithy Tove
Find all posts by Slithy Tove
Add Slithy Tove to Your Contacts

Advertisements

#2 Report Post Old Today, 07:49 AM
ralph124c ralph124c is online now
Guest Join Date: Mar 2002

Not too well. The wool clothing he chose for his men was a bad choice. Had he dressed his men like the Inuit, he would have been better off. The Inuit learned that wearing furs (hair side out) was the best way to stay warm-your sweat evaporated when you were working hard. In contrast, wool clothing retained your sweat-which froze when you stopped exerting yourself.
Scott basically ignored all sound advice-Nansen told him to use sled dogs (Amundsen did)-Scott chose man hauling (which made his men consume calories like crazy). Second, Scott chose to use the wrong kind of food (mostly dehydrated rations), which caused his men to suffer from scurvy (Amundsen’s men didn’t).
Finally, Scott’s biggest failing was his refusal to face facts-he should have never continued to the pole, once he knew he was short of food.
Basically, his expedition was a complete disaster, yet he was turned into a hero (because of his death-which was caused by his own stupidity).
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message

ralph124c
View Public Profile
Send a private message to ralph124c
Send email to ralph124c
Find all posts by ralph124c
Add ralph124c to Your Contacts

#3 Report Post Unread Today, 11:43 AM
Princhester Princhester is offline
Charter Member Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 10,880

Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph124c View Post
Finally, Scott’s biggest failing was his refusal to face facts-he should have never continued to the pole, once he knew he was short of food.
Basically, his expedition was a complete disaster, yet he was turned into a hero (because of his death-which was caused by his own stupidity).

You say he should never have continued to the pole knowing he was short of food. But his decision to do so wasn’t even close to indefensible: failing to turn back was not a known death sentence, it was a calculated risk. He and his men quite likely made an entirely rational and far from stupid decision they were prepared to risk their lives for a shot at the glory of being the first people in history to get to the pole. That may have been risky, but it wasn’t stupid.

Further, bear in mind that Scott had left written orders for another part of the expedition to head south with food and dogs etc to meet Scott as he headed back from the pole, which orders were disobeyed. He also wasn’t to know that the weather would be particularly bad (as it was). Even with these major setbacks, Scott came tantalisingly close to getting to the next supply depot which would likely have resulted in his survival and the completion of the expedition.

At the time Scott and his men made the decision to continue to the pole despite being short of food they would have had every reason to think they had a real shot at pulling off the journey alive.

Scott’s major mistake was having divided objectives – in every aspect of the expedition. He was attempting to undertake a scientific expedition as well as an exploration expedition. He was trialing and testing many different kinds of equipment as well as attempting to push the limits. Some of his polar team were weakened by a winter trip to Cape Crozier and were probably insufficiently recovered for the Pole trip. He was invested in man-hauling sledges, pony driven sledges, dog sledges and motorised sledges. He encouraged his men to experiment with whatever clothing they found was best rather than going with the tried and true. He hadn’t even fully decided on team composition and logistics: he ended up taking a fifth person to the pole which stretched the food budget. It is hard to knoow what the rationale behind this was, but probably boils down to trying to be nice. Ultimately what killed the team was insufficient calorific intake (approximately 50% of what was really needed and an imbalanced diet) combined with scurvy and a bad run on the weather. But realistically, if it hadn’t been that, it could have easily been something else. Every time I read it I just want him to make it – the goal is tantalisingly close. But he always perishes 11 nautical miles from One Ton Depot. A real shame.

Amundsen, by contrast had a single objective. He used equipment that he had seen in use by the Inuit and had tested himself over a few seasons. He rode on a sled most of the way using dog power and the dogs also became dog tucker. The trip was light and fast. The only thing was to calculate how many dogs would be needed once they started feeding them to one another. (There’s a fun bit of maths.) If there was a race, then Amundsen had won before they even started. Only Scott didn’t realise it.

Very well put-Scott was having his starving, half-dead men hauling rock samples back-when they should have jettisoned everything and made a dash for the food depot.
This what gets me-because Scott died a “hero”, Amundsen was actually reviled.
Amundsen planned his trip perfectly-they even had leftover food when they finished the return trip.
Amundsen was also a regular guy-unlike Scott (who separated his team into officers and enlisted men), Amundsen gave everybody on the team equal status. When they reached the pole, he had everybody pose together.
In summary, Amundsen was a much better leader, a far better planner, and a man who was willing to learn from the Inuit.
Scott represented everything wrong-bad planning, bad leadership, ignorance and contempt for the Inuit “savages”, and a total unwillingness to learn from his mistakes.
After the news came out, it became fashionable in England to contrast the “noble” Scott with the plotting Norwegian-as if getting yourself killed (and dooming others) was noble.

8

[/spoiler]

Plus he had a cute wife.

9

The party did use the skis they had all the way. Check some photos of Scott at the Pole and you see skis on the ice.

Some of what people have said about clothing certainly rings true to me, an OAE* myself. Windproof outer shells such as Scott used (Burberry fabric) are great for keeping those keen -40 breezes from sucking all your heat away, as long as you are moving and making heat. They do get icy on the inside though, as your sweat freezes. When you stop you probably should remove the shell and put on an insulating layer. Scott couldn’t do that as the weight they had on their sledges was dedicated to food, fuel, tent and geological samples! No room for extra clothing.

Sleeping bags made from reindeer hides were notorious for icing up. A lot of the time they could air them as they travelled but they still ended up collecting pounds of ice from their body respiration. Did you know that they only had one bag for the 5 of them? They all climbed in together. I suspect they didn’t use down filled bags because they are even better at icing up and much harder to de-ice in the field.

The depot laying parties did all they were required to do, even going short themselves on their return to Cape Evans so they could make sure the depots were properly stocked. The main problem Scott’s party had was the atrocious weather they experienced returning across the Barrier (now called the Ross Ice Shelf). That forced them to stay in their camp 11 miles short of One Ton Depot, where they perished.

There were some issues with fuel being short in the depots. It’s thought that the drying affect of the polar air allowed the cork or leather washers to shrink and the fuel to leak out of the cans.

I know Roland Huntford’s book, “Scott and Amundsen” paints Scott as a incompetent martinet. I believe that many Polar scholars take a more nuanced view and realise that he wasn’t that man, and that the weather conditions the competing parties faced differed markedly. If Scott had had the weather Amundsen had, they would have been home free and conversely it would have been much harder for Amundsen, although he still would have been able to return to his base at the Bay of Whales.

  • Old Antarctic Explorer
10

Beta testing on your first big trip? :smack:

As for the question asked in the thread title, “poorly” is the answer proven by events.

11

Well, it wasn’t his first big trip and the team had been on the ice for IIRC 18 months before embarking on the polar expedition itself. So using that time to test gear and explore some science wasn’t by itself stupid. But they really didn’t have the best gear to begin with. And with a divided focus it was inevitable that they were going to be inadequately prepared. In any case, It wasn’t the clothing that killed them. It was the food (or lack thereof). It was also the late start necessitated by sea ice conditions at their start point which led to their travelling late in the season when they encountered atypically tough weather. Of course they couldn’t have started from the same point as Amundsen because they needed land-based huts for the science and for the logistics of dropping caches.

12

Bowers was the only one who was a trained Navigator, so he was taken from the support team and added to the main team. If Bowers and Evans had traded places, they would have had a fighting chance. Keeping Evans was fatal. The man was big (needed a lot of calories to keep going) plus he was injured. He really should have been sent back when he hurt his hand, or better yet left behind in Australia after he had gotten drunk and into a brawl.

13

Wool is perfectly suited for use in the Antarctic. You can find several websites with Q&As and etc from people living/who have lived in Antarctica and most of them mention wearing wool as one possible suitable material. The concerns about wool soaking up sweat show ignorance, you do not wear wool as the base layer but something that wicks sweat away, you wear wool as an insulating layer and usually have some synthetic material as the most external layer that is wind proof. Now, wool is not used as frequently as other materials these days (probably because wool garments are expensive compared to fleece and other materials that work as good or better), but the idea that the decision to wear wool was stupidity is simply not true. You can definitely survive a trip to the South Pole with wool as part of your clothing.

14

If that is the case, then why did the team have to move slowly (in the mornings), because their clothes had frozen stiff? Their clothing was definitely substandard and a major factor in their demise.

15

With the benefit of hindsight, most of Scott’s decisions were a major factor in their demise. As one person put it, paraphrasing, “90% of Amundsens’ decisions turned out to be the right ones, and 90% of Scott’s turned out to be the wrong ones.” Yeah, that’s oversimplifying it, but I think the point remains. Add to that their later start, colder than expected temperatures–which made sledding more like dragging the sleds thru sand–and the absence of tail winds on the “run home.” A ton of stuff just didn’t work out right.

16

:confused: a “dog tucker”?

17

Must be an Aussie. Dog chow.

18

Not aussie although I live in oz. I hail from Middle Earth.

19

Despite the disaster, Scott’s expedition was lavishly funded-he even took all of his ideas to Norway to test them out. He tried:
-Siberian ponies to pull the sleds (they died from the cold)
-tracked motor sledges (they broke down)
-dogs (the correct choice) -Scott noted "“Ï fear they will never stay the course’”
-and man hauling (which guaranteed failure)
The failure to bring correct rations was also key-Scott refused Nansen’s advice that they bring high fat/high protein rations (like pemmican); instead they brought carb-based dry food (which took precious fuel to heat up). The food was also deficient in Vitamin C-which caused many of his men to develop scurvy (which should never have happened-the cause of scurvy was well known by 1900). The fact is, in the Antarctic cold, active men need at least 6000 calories a day-and half of that is just to keep warm. Scott’s men suffered frozen feet because their bodies shut down circulation to the extremities in an effort to stay warm.
So I guess you have a name for an expedition leader who is arrogant, will not learn from others, and will not take sound advice…the name is Scott.

20

I’ve heard of “tuck shop”–they have one or two in NY which I’ve been told have crazy small pies for crazy high prices, stores which survive on novelty if they last more than a year.

Is tuck a word for a quick bite, like, “I don’t feel like dinner, but maybe a quick tuck?”

A quick bite. In Yiddish-English fairly well known at least here, a quick nosh.