Funny enough, Amundsen who prepared much better and actually succeeded doesn't get nearly the same amount of press that the Scott does. It seems true heroes fail.
> Amundsen [...] doesn't get nearly the same amount of press that the Scott does
... in the English-speaking world, maybe. My father knows all about Amundsen and very little about Scott, because in (fascist) Italy, English activities were played down.
Anyway, it's hardly surprising that the English-speaking world would elevate their own failed champions above other countries' more successful ones, at a time when extreme nationalism was widespread.
I think it's because he was hated at the time for taking his investors' money and going to the South Pole rather than the North (basically Kickstarter rage), especially when he knew about the British expedition, then announcing it by sending the British expedition a sniggering telegram. Another reason, is that Scott and his four died carrying his joke letter back (the both one rubbing in and proving that Amundsen arrived first.) Lastly, I'd say that it's influenced by Amundsen taking almost the exact same route as Scott had previously announced.
At the time, I think he was seen as a heel that pretty effortlessly ended up as champion. The British with their bizarre obsession with manhauling definitely saw the usage of dogs as less manly. Also: Amundsen was not photogenic. More evidence that he was a cartoon villain.
Part of this is just because people prefer a dramatic story, and "we prepared ourselves to overcome X, and then we found X and overcame it" is less dramatic than "we encountered all sorts of unexpected difficulties! and had to struggle to overcome them!"
The other part is a peculiarly English cultural tendency, particularly pronounced during the Victorian and Edwardian eras, to raise up for veneration losers who went down with style -- not just Scott, but figures like Gordon of Khartoum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_George_Gordon) as well. There was a strong strain in the culture boys were raised in during that era that stressed chivalry and a particular sense of good sportsmanship as being much more important than whether one actually wins or loses.
There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night --
Ten to make and the match to win --
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote --
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'
The sand of the desert is sodden red, --
Red with the wreck of a square that broke; --
The Gatling's jammed and the Colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed his banks,
And England's far, and Honour a name,
But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks:
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'
This is the word that year by year,
While in her place the School is set,
Every one of her sons must hear,
And none that hears it dare forget.
This they all with a joyful mind
Bear through life like a torch in flame,
And falling fling to the host behind --
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'
There is a line of historical thought that argues that this philosophy had a profoundly negative impact on British military thinking during the first half of the 20th century, with boys who grew up soaking in an emphasis on "playing the game" over winning becoming generals who presided over disasters like the horrific charnel-house offensive at the Somme in 1916 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme). There's a very good book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Rules-Game-Jutland-British/dp/0719...) that examines this exact question through the lens of how the Royal Navy fought the Battle of Jutland, if you're into this sort of thing.
Thanks, I will check it out. I am currently reading a book called and about Britain's War Machine, that argues that Britain had much more material (especially tanks) and advanced technology than Germany in WWII. That the Germans got so far was mostly because of superior soldiering and that the new British gadgets did not actually work all that well at the beginning of the war.
