chieftiff said:Uh! Amundson, he won by a month and got his men out! "whole and hearty!" Just to show I won't always agree with you Maxi :lol:
clanky said:chieftiff said:Uh! Amundson, he won by a month and got his men out! "whole and hearty!" Just to show I won't always agree with you Maxi :lol:
The Amundson expedition was a cynical PR stunt, without any of the scientific rigour of the British expeditions. Its a well known fact that Amundson only did it in order to clinch a sponsorship deal with Helly-Hansen.
I think as we only got the two options we are stuck with it, but between ourselves we know, and that should be good enough.chieftiff said:There you go again Maxi, now my votes back with the Noggi Alive, sponsored, first, famous with a great career ahead of him......even if he did blow his fortune on that new fangled aviation thing. And I don't care if it's not an option I want to vote for Amundson.
How do I take my vote back??
Nutty said:Dr. David Livingstone (1813-1873), Scottish doctor and missionary
Cos he came back, went to warm places, and could be wound up as he was a God Bother-er.
Nutty
Dangermouse said:Have a read of Ranulph Fiennes biography 'Scott'. Only one choice for me. Scott was a true hero and an inspired leader. Fiennes book explains a great deal and goes a long way to putting the record straight.
Chunky_Monkey said:Shackleton would be my choice, although they obviously both have their own merits. I am no expert on either of them but from the little I know I pick Shackleton because when it came to choosing who went with him to reach South Georgia he picked the weakest of the men and left the strong ones behind to await rescue. It would have been an easy choice for him to take the strong men with him and leave the rest to their fate, but he took the hardest route and by doing so saved all his men. I admire that because being a good officer is sometimes about taking the difficult path.
Shackleton was RNR, which in those days was MN officers who could be called up in wartime (As opposed to RNVR who where civilians). I read recently that he joined the RNR in order to gain support for his expeditions as the RN held sway over most polar exploration.Chunky_Monkey said:Cheers Fido. I knew Shackleton was MN and not RN -
GCYZ said:Shackleton was RNR, which in those days was MN officers who could be called up in wartime (As opposed to RNVR who where civilians). I read recently that he joined the RNR in order to gain support for his expeditions as the RN held sway over most polar exploration.Chunky_Monkey said:Cheers Fido. I knew Shackleton was MN and not RN -
Dangermouse said:Think I'll give that one a miss and look for a more reliable source.
Huntford's The Last Place on Earth gives a very unflattering treatment of Scott, and made adverse comparison of the planning and execution of the large and well-funded British expedition against Amundsen's one.
Fiennes' book rebutts Huntford's attacks upon Scott. He points out that as he lacked experience of Polar travel and man-hauling, Huntford was not qualified to comment on Scott's technical deficiencies. Fiennes also accuses Huntford of selective quotation editing, and of even inventing stories for his version of events. He makes a very sound case for casting significant doubt on the accuracy of Huntford's account.