Revised and Updated (Modern Library Exploration) - Scott and Amundsen's Race to the South Pole

Roland Huntford's The Last Place on Earth (Scott and Amundsen's Race to the South Pole), re-published as part of the Modern Library Exploration Series after its original publication in the 1970s, is the precursor to the whole spate of recent books on Arctic explorations, both North and South, to the delight of many readers, myself hungrily among them. The author tells an exciting story and was able to effectively destroy the grand heroic myth of Scott and his run for the South Pole while resurrecting Amundsen as the genius of exploration that he was. Huntford's influence is easily shown in the various volumes since then specifically trying to re-establish Scott among the pantheon of Arctic heroes instead of the its crown fool.
The narrative is handled well and told in an appropriately breathless, gripping manner. The author beats down Scott and builds up Amundsen a little too strongly and frequently instead of letting the story itself make his point a little more quietly but this is a minor quibble for those who love a cold tale of exploring told with such heat. A fine job that has spawned an industry of writing.

Someone who is not British, when encountering this book or the magnificent television series which was based on it, may not understand the "historical baggage" that weighed on Huntford's attitude towards the two protagonists of the story, Scott and Amundsen. Britain has a long history of having an intelligentsia that is either jingoistic/chauvinistic on the one hand, or self-hating on the other. With the break-up of the British Empire in the post-Second World War period, the self-hating sector grew in size, and Huntford seems to be part of it. The tragic failure of Scott's expedition to the South Pole in 1911/1912 has been viewed through the prisms of this historical baggage to this day.
Huntford points out that Britain started going into relative economicand political decline, as compared particularly to the young upstart Germans and Americans as early as 1870, the time when Scott was born. The incompetence of the British Army in the Boer War made it popular already by the beginning of the 20th century to say that the "British race was decadent" and Scott himself referred to this when canvassing support for his British Antarctic Expedition by saying the effort to explore the Antarctic would prove that this accusation was not true.
The failure of Scott's expedition was then held up by official state organs as a "glorious failure" which would serve as an example of suffering and sacrifice in which to inspire the British people, particularly the young. The start of the First World War just 2 1/2 years later with millions of young men "going over the top" into the face of slaughter by gas, machine guns and artillery made Scott's story even more relevant and potentially inspiring.
Decades later, Scott was still viewed as a great man and explorer who was the victim of "bad luck", as compared to his competitor Amundsen and it was considered vaguely "unfair" for Amundsen to have even have attempted to go for the South Pole at the same time as Scott. I myself recall seeing Scott's diary in the British Museum where it was treated something like a holy relic.
It was this distorted view of Scott that Huntford attempted to correct in writing this book and to give Amundsen the credit he was due and which he was not allowed to enjoy in his lifetime due to Scott getting most of the publicity as a result of his "glorious failure" which attracted more attention due to its dramatic nature.
The problem is that Huntford seems to have a lot of anger in him, directed not only at Scott, but at those forces in Britain who, in his view, cynically promoted the idea that Scott should be viewed as a great man and hero who was "unlucky" and "treated unfairly" and viewed Amundsen as something of a pirate. In my opinion, he goes too far and resorts to petty attacks on Scott and his wife.
Having said this, I still think the book is outstanding and his comparison of Scott's and Amundsen's methods and leadership ability are essentially correct, and that Scott really was not fit to lead such an expedition. The fact that some of those critical of Huntford point out that some of Scott's men, such as Edgar Evans and others who came to the Terra Nova expedition after having been with him on the earlier Discovery mission seem to have been very loyal to him does not prove that he was a good leader. The British who served under him simply might not have known anything about how polar exploration was really supposed to be conducted.
I really appreciated Huntford's description of the technical matters that Amundsen excelled in such as his choice of skis, food, fuel containers, packing boxes, sledges, clothing and the such point the way to the different outcomes for the two expeditions. Scott simply did not invest the effort in really trying to understand life in such a harsh environment, and could not cope with things like scurvey, the leakage of fuel from their containers, designing packing boxes that could be opened without untying them from their sledges as did Amundsen, even simplifying methods for doing the complicated calculations for determining latitude so close to the pole, again, as Amundsen did. Amundsen even thought of putting marker flags not just on the supply depots he made, but he also put marker flags several miles on each side of them in case visibility was poor and they were off course. Scott didn't do this and there were numerous panicked rushes wasting much time energy just to find them. These "little things" when added to the big policy issues such as whether to use motor sledges, dogs, ponies or simple, brutal man hauling determined what would be the outcomes of the two groups. Finally, there was the leadership qualities of the men. Scott came out of the Royal Navy which had a harsh system of imposing discipline and he used it on the people on his team, thinking of them as being "officers" or "lower deck"-types. Amundsen, although demanding loyalty from his men, did not lord his position over them and was willing to consider their views, particuarly in difficult situations.
Of course, Amundsen made mistakes, and I believe Huntford tends to downplay the panicked return from the too-early start for the pole in early spring. Had men died there, Amundsen would have been considered a goat, but he narrowly got away with it, in spite of Hjalmar Johansen (whom he never wanted to bring along in the first place) exploding and questioning Amundsen's leadership abilities in front of the other men. However, Amundsen was able to neutralize Johansen's threat and he escaped any negative fallout from this potentially fatal mistake.
In the end, Amundsen was a victim of making his immense achievement look too easy, just like NASA did with the Moon landings some 60 years ago. Technical brilliance leading to safe journeys in dangerous environments apparently don't capture the imagination of the public and interest evaporates quickly. Many people prefer drama and close-calls or outright disaster instead. Huntford's book, in spite of its flaws, draws our attention to the real qualities of these men instead of the propaganda.

Reading this book and watching the accompanying docudrama on PBS is the reason why I am going next year on a cruise to Antarctica. I won't come near the South Pole, but seeing and photographing the White Continent and its animals, ice, and nature at its most primal will be good enough.

"The Last Place on Earth" is a wonderfully told story of the competition between Scott and Amundsen to get to the South Pole. The author tells his tale in a way that is captivating and loaded with fascinating history as well.

I was less pleased with Huntford's following book about Shackleton because it seemed under-documented (albeit very readable. But "The Last Place on Earth" does not have those faults. Is it perfect and perfectly fair? No, but I think Huntford does history a service by spending as much time on Amundsen as the better known Scott.

Reading some of the reviews of this book on the store.co.uk is almost comical. A number of reviewers talk about the book being a hysterical character assassination. I saw no evidence of that. People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts as the late Senator Patrick Moynihan once observed and the fact about the race to the South Pole are pretty stark:

1. Amundsen got his polar party to the South Pole well ahead of Scott and he brought all of his men back alive and possibly in better health than they were when they started out.

2. Scott got himself and his polar party all killed and arrived at the pole a very distant second.

Yet Scott gets all the glory and gets apologia written about him while Amundsen remains obscure. That is not right and Huntford has done a lot to set the record straight.

Mr. Huntford really makes the grade.
It is hard to find any literature by the English on Amundsen's feats if not only to be used as a dark background to those of their fellowcitizen, Scott. It is very disappointing indeed and were it not for Mr. Huntford's excellent book, one would think anglosaxons simply cannot discuss their own failures.
Is the book biassed? Of course, wherever there is a human being as an author there is subjectivity. Don't make me laugh. The whole thing is to try to stick to healthy criterion and sound information when discussing your subject matter. This Mr. Huntford does extremely well.
And yes, the man has a certain dislike for Scott. Easy to understand: there are lots of anglosaxon books praising Scott's ultimate failure (unless your goal is martyrdom, euthanasia or the like, if you don't finish your journey alive you HAVE failed)
So what? aren't all those other books about Scott often simply sentimental elegies to Scott? and they lack the profoundness of research and open discussion of the facts we can enjoy in this one.
Read "A first rate tragedy" on Scott, by D. Prescott, and you'll see what I mean (on the bad side). On the other hand, read "The noose of laurels" by H. Wally, and you'll have another fine example of thourough presentation of facts and their interpretation.
Amundsen was a real explorer, he succeeded through all of his undertakings, simply because he had a modern approach (professional) to things. All the flaws in Scott's plans would not occur to the most idiotic explorer of our days: i.e. go to the Pole without being able to ski? bring no spare parts for your engine-tractors? Come on, if you heard that on the news tonight you'd think of it as a very bad joke! Scott was a dilettante, and he paid the bitter price.
Scott not even learned form previous experience. At least Shackleton did. The Endurance expedition was a case of bad luck despite good preparation. Terra Nova was a chapuza. Bad luck? Give me a break!
Scott deserves respect, he sure does, but Amundsen deserves not only that, much more than that, he accomplished what many others (not only Scott) were unable to achieve, and not only in the Antartic, also in the Artic. Face reality.
The book is excellent from ALL points of view (good reading too). Only I wish it included more photos and more detailed maps (although it does include enough of both).
Don't be silly, don't waste your time on other books if you want to know about Amundsen and/or Scott.

In this riveting account of polar exploration, Roland Huntford retraces the steps of two explorers as they race for the ultimate conquest: The South Pole. On one hand you have the British, inexperienced, under-prepared, yet full of pride. Led by Robert Scott, their jouney might have been more appropriately titled, "101 things NOT to do on a polar expedition." On the other hand you have Norway's Roald Amundsen, exacting, tactful, and full of ambition. What follows is a gripping, compelling, often humorous, yet tragic story of two men's intertwining destinies. Huntford goes to great lengths to capture the personalities and thoughts behind the men, in what might be one of the great de-bunking biographies of all time. This is an adventure story of the highest caliber and should not be missed! If you have already read and enjoyed this highly readable book, I would also recommend "Endurance" by Alfred Lansing, "Into Thin Air" by Jon Krakauer, and "Voyage of the Narwhale" by Andrea Barrett.

This book, while full of interesting comparisons between Scott and Amundsen, is written from such a one-sided perspective that anyone unwilling wholly to accept Huntford's basic thesis--that Scott (and, by extension, Britain) had no redeeming graces, whereas Amundsen (and, by extension, all of Scandinavia) had no flaws worth noting--will find it maddening to read. There are plenty of legitimate grounds on which to criticize Scott and praise Amundsen; however, Huntford inexplicably is constrained to rip into Scott every time he mentions the man. (He even strongly implies that Scott couldn't have been much of a man, alleging both that Scott's benefactor Clements Markham was homosexual and that Scott's wife had an extramarital affair with Amundsen's mentor Nansen.)
All of this smells of some agenda besides merely correcting common wisdom about Scott's purported heroism. In short, Huntford is like a literary Oliver Stone, inasmuch as he interprets the historical record entirely in light of his predetermined conclusions.
One thing is highly instructive with regard to Huntford's intentions: his treatment of Frederick Cook, Amundsen's good friend. Huntford implies that Cook, a noted charlatan and abject liar, actually did reach the North Pole in 1908 ahead of Peary. In doing so, he not only ignores Cook's demonstrably false claim of a 1906 first ascent of Denali--which, any thinking person would conclude, makes his north-pole claims that much more implausible--he also violates his own "principle" of not accepting romantic notions as fact.
Finally, Huntford fails to note that time has vindicated at least some of Scott's methods (e.g., man-hauling). Amundsen may have taken the most prudent path in capturing the prize at that time, but there's a lot to be said for the fact that Scott did it the hard way--and came very close to succeeding.

Obviously, those who can't find fault with Robert Falcon Scott won't like the book. If you are one of those, read "The Coldest March" by Susan Solomon. You'll find it to your taste.

However, if you are ready for a solid analysis about how Roal Amundsen and Scott each organized and faced their heroic voyage to the South Pole, THIS is the book to read. The book covers Amundsen's and Scott's origins and background in Polar travel (Scott badly overmatched there).

When Amundsen learned from previous voyages, namely his NorthWest Passage succes and the Belgica's wintering inside the Antarctic's circle, Scott still hung to man-hauling, having learned absolutly NOTHING from his Discovery days. The paradox with Scott lies in the fact that so-called "impartial" historians who praised him has a "scientific-minded" explorer cannot explain why this "scientific-minded" navy officer still had his crew travel like cavemen in horrific conditions.

Amundsen isn't without faults either. His treatment of Haljmar Johansen for instance wasn't very gracious to say the least.

I'll let you draw you own conclusion, but,for my taste, Roland Huntford analysis is the definite work on the South Polar Race of 1911-1912.

This book is a fascinating combination of detailed analysis of the two men, Scott and Amundsen and the wildly different tactics used to reach the Southernmost point on Earth. Although certain sections of the book drag with perhaps too much in-depth analysis (such as a detailed discussion of Amundsen's housekeeper's influence on his life) it moves along well overall.
The final days of Scott's party are laid out in a plain and factual way, but the terror that must have crept over them when they finally realized that there was no way they could reach their main base alive comes through remarkably well. You begin to feel the deep chill of the Antarctic wind and the crushing disappointment when a food depot is missed.
In contrast, the absolute ease of Amundsen's journey is shocking. His men used dogs to pull their sledges to the pole and then killed the weaker dogs on the return trip to feed the remaining team. Detailed planning for the journey, including learning to live in high latitudes from the experts, the Inuit, led to his success. Their skis carried them upwards of 20 miles per day with ease, despite the harsh environment. The team literally had a holiday while "boxing" the pole with flags during the several days used to confirm their position and ensure their place in history.
The pictures reproduced in the book do a good job of filling in the stark images the text roughs out for the reader. The amount of research required to produce this book is simply overwhelming and it should be considered the definitive text on this last great geographic race.

The author is miffed that Norwegian Roald Amundson, leader of the first expedition to reach the South Pole, has been overshadowed by Robert Falcon Scott, British leader of the second expedition to the Pole. Scott became virtually a cult figure in England as an exemplar of glorious failure and enlightened amateurism. By contrast, Amundson was considered an opportunist and (gasp!) a professional who stole England's divine right to be first to the Pole.

The author doesn't waste sentiments on Scott who was "weak, incompetent, and stupid" -- nor on England: "an empire in decline." He makes his case well. Amundson was clearly the superior polar explorer of the two. In alternating chapters "Last Place on Earth" tells the life stories of Amundson and Scott. The highlights of the book are the tales of Amundson's organized and competent race to the South Pole contrasted with Scott's tragic end while making his way back to his base camp after reaching the Pole one month after Amundson.

The most damning of the author's allegations is that Scott discounted any lessons from the experts of polar living: the Innuit (Eskimos). Amundson learned the use of sled dogs from the Innuit and he and his team wore Innuit clothing and snow goggles. Scott also resisted the use of skis and only one of the members of his large team was an expert skier. Dogs, skis, and good leadership made the difference. Amundson's journey to the South Pole was relatively easy; Scott's a man-killing misery. In his diaries Scott blamed bad weather for his troubles; the author demonstrates that the weather Scott experienced was no worse than that faced by other explorers.

This is truly a fine and exciting book that will make you hunger to read more about Polar exploration.

Smallchief

This book works at several levels. First, it is a thrilling adventure story. Second, it is a wonderful management study in planning, goal setting and organization. Third, it is a classic debunker, undermining the aura (at least in the English speaking world) surrounding Robert Scott and his tragic assault on the South Pole.

Scott and Roald Amundsen engaged in a great struggle to reach "The last place on earth," the South Pole. Each had been to polar regions before, each had become national and even international celebrities due to their trekking. Each was aware of the other party's presence on the Antarctic Continent during the same months of 1911-1912 as they raced to be the first men to stand at the bottom of the world.

Scott and Amundsen were two different breeds. Scott was a helpless romantic. Even after bitter experience and near tragedy in previous expeditions, he refused to learn from Eskimos, Norwegians or others who were battling around the turn of the century to achieve various cold weather firsts (first to the north pole, first to traverse the Northwest Passage -- which went to Amundsen -- first to cross Greenland, etc.) Thus, Scott relied on British pluck and manliness instead of skis, dogs, deer and seal suits and a properly suited diet.

Amundsen was a consummate student on the other hand. He possessed not only the gift of great vision and the ego necessary to pursue it, but also the humility to know that his trip did not have to feature every facet made anew, but should be the culmination of what others had learned when surviving and moving over the planet's most forbidding environment. Thus, Amundsen took dogs to Antarctica, wore clothing he observed the Eskimos using during his journey through the Northwest Passage, relied on skis for human transportation and dieted in a way observed to prevent scurvy.

Amundsen also worked at his project. Starting years before his trek, he organized the people, finances, equipment (much specialty made and field tested in Norway's northern regions) and talked, talked, talked to those whose experiences had something to teach them. Contrast this disciplined approach to organization and logistics with Scott's haphazard throwing together of men, equipment and élan and the outcome of the race is preordained to the reader before it has begun.

(the contrast between the two approaches is such a stark lesson on planning and organization that I suspect this book will show up in business school reading lists if it has not already).

Amundsen's journey to the South Pole was uneventful compared to Scott. Conditions were harsh, temperatures low, blizzards raged, but the Norwegian's party averaged a workman like 15 or so miles a day with dogs, skis and proper provisions. Scott, on the other hand, was not sure of his starting date, did not map out nor account for food consumed during the trip and relied on man-hauling his sleds the 1400 miles round trip to the Poles and his main camp. With the same weather and conditions, Scott and his polar attack team wound up dead after what their diaries reveal was a miserable existence on the Polar Ice Cap (they did reach the Pole, expiring on the way home).

The only area in which Scott excelled over Amundsen was in romantic writing. Scott's published works on his earlier journey to Antarctica are apparently a moving and heroic read. Amundsen was about as workmanlike a writer as he was a captain. For this and other reasons lain out by the author (in his mind much having to do with a decaying empire's need for heroes performing heroic deeds -- even heroic dying) Scott is remembered much the way Pickett's Charge is -- a glorious and manly statement of such heroics that it has made the underlying (and preventable) disaster a footnote to the story.

This is a riveting book that I found hard to put down. Although the author probably takes a few too many turns at whacking Scott when his shortcomings are evident (we get the point), he has succeeded in writing a first rate thrilling adventure, historic debunking and interesting management study.

The beauty of this brilliant book is that it fills you with a sense of wonder, thinking of the dramas life can sometimes compose. As if it wants to show fiction writers how it is done ! Amundsen and Scott's race to the South Pole is one of those cases, in fact one of the greatest dramas of the 20th century. Fortunately, in Roland Huntford it finds the chronicler it deserves. Huntford is not only evidently interested in the story and the characters, but also approaches the facts with Thoukididean objectivity asking all those "Whys" and "Why nots" that had been pending for decades. His research is clearly painstaikingly exhaustive and thorough and deserves praise. But more so does his courage to shed light on all those annoying details pertaining to Scott's fatal shortcomings, in what is without doubt one of the most painful debunkings ever. In Huntford's words Scott is the "necessary hero" and absolute personification of an Empire in decline.
But in its core this book is not about Polar exploration. It is a relentless study on leadership and human nature. It this sense it makes no effort to disguise what was the primary reason for reaching the Poles: ...they were there and nobody else had gone there before ! Managers or aspiring managers will do themselves and their subordinates a great favour by reading this classic account of Dos and Donts of leadership.
But even if you are simply an exploration buff you will not regret reading this book. Around the two main characters all the household names of Polar travelling, Nansen, Ross, Shackleton, Peary, etc., contribute to the twists of the tale. The author does a great job in presenting events vividly and in their historical context and not just as dry logbook accounts. It should be noted that the book includes fairly detailed accounts of all the Polar expeditions before the Race, such as Nansen's Greenland crossing and Arctic expedition, Amundsen's Belgica and Gjoa expeditions and Scott's Discovery Antarctic expedition. This means that if you really want one book covering the whole period, this is the book you need to read !
Nevertheless, I would also suggest Amundsen's "South Pole" and Cherry Garrard's "The worst Journey in the World". However, I would strongly recommend that you read "The Last Place" only after you have read the other two. This way you will better appreciate how all the details come together in the broader context that Huntford offers in his enthralling work.
In short, this is a highly enjoyable and informative book and I certainly recommend it. Money and time well spent ! Full marks to the author !

The Last Place on Earth is a fantastic double biography on Amundsen and Scott and their journeys to the South Pole. This book is well written, while providing a compelling, well paced journey through the two protagonists lives. Though it is clear the author favors Amundsen, the book does delve into the qualities and faults of both men.

For an introduction into the history of polar exploration, I cannot imagine a better book. From The Last Place on Earth, readers are offered a number of references books for further discovery.

For those still caught up in the romantic aspects of Scott's seemingly heroic death, this book paints an almost painful picture of the contrasts between the amateur blunderings of Scott and the taut professionalism of Amundsen. Author Huntford is relentlessly critical of Scott and praising of Amundsen however he backs up his view with exhaustive (though entertaining) research into all available sources especially the personal diaries and correspondence of the two rivals.

Eye-opening and a great tale of adventure in vastly different circumstances to what any explorer faces today.

The 2000 PBS series that featured Scott, "Beyond the Grave", pointed out that Scott was hampered by unusually cold weather, and the plodding nature of his team (which did not use dogs). The unusually cold weather created an anomaly where the ice would not melt under the sled runners, which created friction that slowed down the men fatally. But for this, Scott might have survived. Also interesting in the PBS series is speculation that the last two members of Scott's team, including his physician, stayed with Scott out of loyalty or Hippocratic Oath rather than necessity (there was no blizzard that lasted 10 days). Thus they died heroically but unnecessarily. Finally Scotts' weatherman was within 5% accurate for the average steady-state temperature conditions--and was a pioneer for Antartic weather prediction. He could not of course predict that a fatal temperature inversion would result in abnormally cold weather for a spell. I'm afraid that the book, since it was published before these facts came out, may be a bit too biased against Scott, who, nevertheless was obviously not as good as his Norwegian counterpart, since Scott apparently did not include a large enough factor of safety. Then again, that's what exploration is all about--getting close to the envelope of danger. Nothing succeeds like success.

Huntford provides the reader with an engrossing dual biography and a riveting adventure story of two men from competing cultures and with very different methdologies as they race for one of the last great geographical prizes. No previous book had portrayed SCott as the inept bungler that he was as both an expedtion organizer and leader, and the book caused quite a stir in England. SCott had long been eulogized as an adventurer and a gentleman in the British sense: he could suffer with stoicism and looked upon suffering and dying as an accomplishment in itself. He also did things in the classic British style, no dogs,skis and with the British disdain for all things non-British. His death and diaries with that message gave him a moral victory over Amundsen, despite the fact that Amundsen won the race and did so in a fashion that became a model for later adventurers. Both men were flawed, but the book is clearly biased toward Amundsen and rightly so. If the authors pervceptions are even half right, then SCott could be considered a murderer of his own men for his incompetence. Truly fascianting book and highly recommended for anyone interested in adventure travel or exploration or Antarctica.

After reading books on Shackleton and the Endurance expedition, I read this book as it was supposed to be the definitive work on the race to the South Pole. I was not disappointed. It is an impressively researched book that educates and entertains simultaneously; a truly fascinating story. Huntford's treatment of Scott is, however, overtly biased. Chapter after chapter, the author juxtaposes the methods, preparation, and planning of the two explorers; Amundsen and Scott. This alone is enough to compel the conclusion that Amundsen deserved his victory, and that Scott was a bumbling leader, not suited for such a monumental undertaking. As such, Huntford need not constantly remind the reader that Scott was incompetent. It was evident enough.
Even though Scott's ignorance caused the death of his entire polar party, it is difficult not to be moved by the effort they made, and the manner by which they faced death. Yet Huntford, attempting to remove Scott from the realm of martyrdom, remains entirely unsympathetic. It is but one criticism in what is otherwise a fantastic book.

This book is, by far, one of the most interesting reads ever. Huntford is unsparing in his demystification of Scott, and his narrative is thoroughly compelling. Scott comes across as an arrogant tyrant who swept into the Antarctic with the wrong men, the wrong equipment, the wrong food, and the wrong animals. His fate was preordained and one is left with little sympathy for his plight. Amundsen gained the Pole because he was better prepared, and a far more excellent judge of men.

Although Huntford may create the impression of having an anti-Scott, pro-Amundsen bias, he is nevertheless justified in his harsh treatment of Scott due to the extensive primary source documentation he relies upon. He quotes extensively from the diaries of just about everybody from both expeditions, for example. He's doing nothing more than revealing the facts which, in light of Scott's subsequent martyrdom, are a bit unsettling. We learn for the first time that a great national hero (to the English) was nothing more than a bumbling incompetent, although mightily determined. Anyway, the book is a real page turner. Next on my reading list are "Nansen" and "Shackleton", both by Huntford. I also have the "Last Place on Earth" videos which track the book very closely. Some of the tapes are slow at times, but overall a lot of fun to watch--especially the middle tapes where the parties are in the Antarctic. My wife really thinks the Norwegian actors are cute, too. ;)

I've finished reading both this and Fiennes "Race to the Pole". Huntford clearly spent an enormous amount of time digging through many expedition diaries and personal letter archives. He simply doesn't just quote them, but knits them together in a fine tapestry of interrelated decisions and events. This provides keen insights into the importance of planning, preparation, and attention to detail during operations.

Huntford carefully walks the reader through how Amundsen clearly understood the difficulties ahead of him, while Scott was content to draw hasty conclusions based on faulty testing, prejudice, and unwarranted opinions of the uninformed. Huntford also details the subtle and not-so-subtle difference in the leadership styles of both men, one who built a consensus, and the other who promulgated orders without allowing discussion or feedback.

My only complaints are 1) Huntford descended into the use of terms such as "weak, incompetent, and stupid" for Scott, which was unnecessary and detracted slightly from the rest of his scholarship, and 2) he avoided the use of much of the material that would have reflected positively on Scott, as found in Fiennes book, which is why I only gave this 4 stars.

Huntsford in this book begins to demythologize the chararcter of Robert Falcon Scott and in turn the entire Bristish polar exploration attempts of the early 20th century. He points outs the inherent flaws in Scott's expeditions. In turn, he gives Amundsen the credit to which he is due. Amundsen was one of the greatest Arctic explorers ever. This book is highly readable and at times hard to put down. It follows the dual expeditions closely showing that the conditions which each faced were not that different but the approaches the expedions took were opposite each other. In the end one proved to be superior to the other. If you are interested in the history of polar exploration this is a must read.

My comments refer to the original publication and I have not read this current edition.
The story of the race to the pole is not just about grit and determination it is about management. This book has to be one of the best management manuals available and I wish every upper manager would read it and take in the principles of planning and how to deal with people. Amundsen knew how to manage and Scott didn't!
As with "Shackleton" Roland Huntford has put together a detailed insight into the two explorers. Don't read this book if you just want a quick summary.

If I were still a military commander, I would require every one of my subordinate officers to read this book. The story is so compelling and fascinating that it reads better than the best mystery novel. By the time you are done reading it, you will "know" these historical figures like old friends. But, aside from that, this book is a powerful study of leaderhip, character, relationships, and even culture. The book evoked in me a strong period of self-examination...in whose footsteps was I treading?
Certainly, there are controversies surrounding Huntley's conclusions, and his treatment of Scott. I suspect these issues will be debated and disagreed over for years to come. Huntley's attacks on Scott may be, at times, overly biased. I won't pass judgment here, but rather I would encourage the reader to judge on his or her own. I suspect anyone who reads this book will want to read more about the men of antarctic exploration.

Huntsford's book may be impressive in terms of the amount of material he has assembled, but, as other reviewers have pointed out, there is such an obvious anti-Scott bias that it is sometimes hard to take his analysis at face value. It left me wondering what the motives for his conclusions were: surely the object of historical biography is (as far as possible) a dispassionate presentation of the facts. Huntsford certainly cannot be accused of that. Huntford seems to start from the position that Scott was an incomptent fool, and assembles the evidence to support that view. There can be no doubt that Scott was a flawed leader, but the aims of his expedition were very different from those of Amundsen and so direct comparison of the two expeditions will always be problematic. Scott's expedition was ostensibly scientific; Amundsen wanted purely to reach the south Pole first (after initially claiming to be heading for the Arctic - he waited until Scott was far South before announcing his real intention). Further, the claims of some of your reviewers that Scott refused to use dogs and skis is plain wrong.
Ultimately Huntsford's account is a valuable contribution to the literature surrounding these two contrasting voyages to the Antarctic, but is too single-minded in its pursuit of Scott's reputation. If readers want to know why Scott's men would largely follow him unquestioningly to the ends of the Earth, read Apsley Cherry-Garrard's wonderfully written and moving account of his own travails on Scott's expedition, The Worst Journey In The World. If I had to choose whose opinion to take most seriously regarding Scott - that of Huntsford, or that of a man who spent two years in the Antarctic with Scott, through thick and mostly thin, I have to take Cherry-Garrard's. Read both and make up your own mind.

Having read both Scott's and Amundson's diaries and then Roland Huntfords book, I would suggest to anybody that they should be read in that order. Scott's legend was carried through the darkest years of the First World War as an example of selfless (and perhaps futile) heroism and for this reason the trip has become legend, at least in the United Kingdom.
Amundson's diaries are almost boring by comparison. Only when one has read Huntford's excellent and (almost) impartial analysis does one realise the truth. He may have got a hammering from Scott supporters on writing the story, but it is better to bring the truth to light and, as the book demonstrates, learn from experience.

Huntford provides the reader with an engrossing dual biography and a riveting adventure story of two men from competing cultures and with very different methdologies as they race for one of the last great geographical prizes. No previous book had portrayed SCott as the inept bungler that he was as both an expedtion organizer and leader, and the book caused quite a stir in England. SCott had long been eulogized as an adventurer and a gentleman in the British sense: he could suffer with stoicism and looked upon suffering and dying as an accomplishment in itself. He also did things in the classic British style, no dogs,skis and with the British disdain for all things non-British. His death and diaries with that message gave him a moral victory over Amundsen, despite the fact that Amundsen won the race and did so in a fashion that became a model for later adventurers. Both men were flawed, but the book is clearly biased toward Amundsen and rightly so. If the authors pervceptions are even half right, then SCott could be considered a murderer of his own men for his incompetence. Truly fascianting book and highly recommended for anyone interested in adventure travel or exploration or Antarctica.

There are two important facts to remember about The Last Place on Earth. The first is that its author, Roland Huntford, comes to it with the clear agenda of debunking Scott and lionizing Amundsen. The second is that he has the benefit of more than fifty years of historical hindsight, which makes it easy for him to criticize Scott for apparent incompetence. He's also not above fabricating so-called "facts" if doing so helps him further his cause of tearing down the Scott legend (I'm thinking of his more or less unfounded allegations that Kathleen Scott had an affair with Nansen). The truth regarding Scott and Amundsen and their respective expeditions is naturally somewhat more complicated. The Last Place on Earth is not a bad book. It's not necessarily even bad history. But it is revisionist, and heavily skewed, written by a man with a clear agenda. If you want a more fair, balanced, and compassionate view, read Diana Preston's A First Rate Tragedy. Read the Scott chapters of Francis Spofford's I May Be Some Time. And read Scott's and Amundsen's own published records of the events. Because let's face it: nobody knows what really happened better than the men to whom it actually happened. And they left their own perfectly adequate accounts.

Stellar story that was painstakenly researched. This is the kind of book that inspires one to take a trip to Antarctica - or read everything available about polar exploration. Nansen, Shakleton, Scott and the mighty Amundsen are not just interesting characters - they are Goliaths of exploration who braved the elements with panache and bravery second to none. Excellent read, try to stay warm while doing it.

The author said Amundsen switched to night travel (when returning from south pole) so the sun can be "behind" them...but the earth rotates west-east, how can the sun be "behind" someone walking south-north?

This book shows what ideas mean when applied to living. Most people today can muddle along with contradictions in their thinking, surviving on the brains of their betters. However, when living on the edge of survival, true ideas are life-giving- Irrational ideas mean death. My copy of this book is literally falling apart from re-reading.

This fascinating, compelling and very convincing book is unfortunately a completely inaccurate picture of Scott. By reading the diaries of the original expedition members and 'Captain Scott' by R.Fiennes you will recieve a much more balanced account of what really happened on Scott's last expedition. Fiennes rips to shreds all of the spurious claims in this book with hard, concrete facts supported by written evidence from all concerned. The myth of Scott ignoring dogs as a mode of transport, endangering his men, being an incompetent naval officer, foolishly choosing five not four team members for the pole push etc. etc. are all shown to be figments of Huntford's imagination. This book is a great read but also a great wrong. Indeed, Peter Scott took Huntford to court for misuse and misrepresentation of original material. Scott won the case.

The central theme of this book, (i.e that Captain Scott was a blundering idiot) has been exposed as nonsense by a series of recent and well balanced books written by expolorers such as Ranulph Fiennes and Antarctic researchers such as Susan Solomon, rather than amateur critics. Read "The Worst journey in the World" if you want a proper account of the Terra Nova expedition. But if you really must buy "The Last Place on Earth" then also read Antarctic explorer Ranulph Fiennes "Captain Scott" which exposes it as a lie.

The central theme of this book, (i.e that Captain Scott was a blundering idiot) has been exposed as nonsense by a series of recent and well balanced books written by expolorers such as Ranulph Fiennes and Antarctic researchers such as Susan Solomon, rather than amateur critics. Read "The Worst journey in the World" if you want a proper account of the Terra Nova expedition. But if you really must buy "The Last Place on Earth" then also read Antarctic explorer Ranulph Fiennes "Captain Scott" which exposes it as a lie.

Although this book was well-written and exhaustively researched, I am wondering why Roland Huntford wrote it with such hatred. He tears Scott apart, sometimes jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Even if he does think that Scott sat in his tent, staring at a companion and willing him to die, he should not put such an idea into a book as a fact. Huntford paid little or no attention to the fact that Scott did have supporters and friends such as Edward Wilson and Apsley Cherry-Garrard. He was *not* unswervingly pigheaded, panicky and stupid as the book makes him out to be. Although this book was informative and made a much-needed point, I think that Huntford would have been better off presenting facts, and turning his point away from Scott's throat.

This book is highly biased against Scott. Though many people took it seriously I think it only exposes the tabloid appetite of our epoch for slander. To be blunt I think the author has no idea about heroism. It's s*** being delivered to the public under the appearance of historical fact.