Commentary on Could Captain Scott have been saved? Cecil Meares and the ‘second journey’ that failed

Abstract

The article Could Captain Scott have been saved? Cecil Meares and the second journey that failed, by Karen May and Sarah Airriess, first published in Polar Record in 2014 (May & Airriess, 2015), builds a case against Cecil Meares for a failure to restock One Ton Depot in accordance with Scott's instructions. The authors claim that Meares was guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty and ‘obfuscation’. However, their case is diminished – in my view – by three significant mistakes that undermine their charges against Meares. In the three sections below, I identify those mistakes and consider whether the strong claims May and Airriess make about Meares are justified.

Could Captain Scott have been saved? Cecil Meares and the ‘second journey’ that failed: a response to Bill Alp

“…In conclusion, Alp has subjected the May–Airriess article to a fact-check, and corrected peripheral factual errors. However, Alp's erroneous claim that ‘the themes of Meares’ disobedience and neglect of duty are artificial constructs’ (Alp, 2018) is refuted by points 1–8 above. Alp's attempt to declare Meares innocent of all charges is fundamentally unsatisfactory, as it omits consideration of two previously identified and significant problems with Meares’ conduct: Meares’ responsibility for purchasing poor-quality ponies for the expedition transport in 1910 (May & Lewis, 2015), and Meares’ anomalous ‘stock of luxuries’ claim to Simpson in 1912 (May & Airriess, 2015).…”

“…Alp makes an unwarranted claim in stating that there is supposedly no ‘verifiable’ evidence indicating Meares’ disobedience. His exact words are, ‘Not one of the assertions is evidence-based or verifiable’ (Alp, 2018). However, Alp is mistaken.…”

“…Rather than tackle this anomaly directly, Alp has instead quoted a very small part of George C. Simpson's journal, the sentence ‘Naturally when the ship was seen Meares delayed his departure in the hope of being able to take home news with him’. Alp then accuses May & Airriess of ‘portraying Simpson's single sentence as being a complete and reliable account of Meares’ alleged misconduct’ (Alp, 2018, bold emphasis mine). This has the effect of misrepresenting the May–Airriess article.…”

“…Alp argues that Simpson in January 1912 was fully cognisant of Scott's requirements: ‘If there had indeed been a breach by Meares of his duty or of his orders, as is claimed, then Simpson's silence is inexplicable’ (Alp, 2018). However, this misrepresents the 2014 May–Airriess article, which hypothesised that Simpson misunderstood Scott's requirements.…”

Knowledge, innovation and the race to the South Pole

“…What did they learn, and how did they apply what they learned? (Alp, 2018;May, 2013May, , 2018May & Airless, 2015;May & Lewis, 2015;Schultz et al, 2015;Tahan, 2019;Turney, 2018). Although previous research has examined elements of expedition management, the present analysis extends that to innovation in sledging (Karpoff, 2001;Stuster, 1996Stuster, , 2000Savitt, 2004Savitt, , 2008Savitt & Lüdecke, 2007).…”