Thanks for the nice compliment! It's just that I love working on(as well as reading about) the history of mountaineering. And as a historian it's just superb to combine my interest in history with the love for the mountains :)
Cheers!
Thanks a lot! So you're a historian too? And in what period, or bit of history are you specialized? Maybe the history of mountaineering, but probably not I guess? I had the luck last year to be able to work on mountaineering history, for my master dissertation. But it's a pitty they don't give any lessons about it at university :)
Cheers,
Koen.
As a historian, you might also be interested in this (read the summary, then the bottom of pp 176). There's more information about early Tatra-trips, but what I know of, is only in Hungarian.
A very interesting document! Thanks! this document makes clear that mountaineering, in a way, did already exist before the British came to the Alps around the 1850's. But it was extremely rare. Frölich must be one of very few (like Konrad Gessner, Da Vinci or Petrarca and some others) who actually did climb (or better hike) mountains. But it's very interesting to read about why they did it and what their motivations were.
Cheers!
Most people live far away from the mountains, and to sustain large-scale mountaineering clubs, it must have been necessary to invent one more novel component. It is to organize mountain-travel training for the flatlanders (like teaching rock climbing in nearby quarries or ruins, or self-arrest on sledding hills). Did the British invent and organize this? Or they would come to the Alps with just general fitness / calisthenics but without any alpinist skills?
Another question, how large a role did the military have in British and Continental Alpinism? Did the Army sponsor or subsidize mountaineering training, be it to prepare for actual mountain warfare or just to raise valiant and intelligent officer corps? Did the clubs use quasy-military ranking for its members?
Lastly, in Russia, organized Alpinism enjoyed a near-monopoly on mountain climbing; non-members were pretty much banned from climbing summits. Did the British or Continental clubs pioneer any such system of "minimal formal qualifications" to prevent outsiders from climbing?
1. These first British mountaineers came to the Alps with, as you say, just general fitness. They trained their climbing skills while climbing in the Alps, but not in Britain. Certainly the Alpine Club (in its first decades) didn't organize such trainings. Its purpose was rather to share information with fellow members and to make -occassionaly- arrangements to travel and climb together (as the Alpine Club was a very small group this was possible). The Apline Club didn't organize any trainings (later, they would start to do so, just as all other alpine associations. But for the period discussed in this article, this was surely not the case).
During the second half of the nineteenth century many other climbing associations would appear in Britain, like for example the Scottish mountaineering club (founded in 1889), and they would climb as well (with many clubs even most) in Britain (mainly rock climbing). But the same can be said as for the Apline Club, in its beginning, they didn't offered any trainings. This would only come later. This was just the same for the other great alpine associations in Switzerland, France, Germany,... Only later (around the end of the 19th century) they would start offering mountaineering courses.
During the first decades of mountaineering it were the mountaineers, together with their guides, that taught themselves to climb. As a little remark, for future mountain guides there where already special courses from the late 1860’s and 1870’s onwards.
2. During the Alpine Golden Age and the first decades thereafter, this was surely not the case. For the twentieth century I can’t really speak as I’m not very familiar with it. But during most of the nineteenth century this wasn’t the case. In Britain the military did play a role, but rather an indirect one. There weren’t any mountain units, but the British middle class was very proud of British military/imperialistic achievements throughout the world, and they took this imperialistic attitude with them to the Alps. As I say in the article, imperialism was one of the main reasons for mountaineering.
On the continent this was a bit different, as countries like France, Switzerland, Austria,… did have mountains to -occasionally- defend. But during the nineteenth century (and earlier) this was rarely seen. The first real mountain battles were fought during World War I, where these countries did have some special trained mountain army units (for example the Gebirgsjäger in Germany). But this was only in the 20th century. During most of the 19th century it’s not possible to say that the military played an important role within the world of mountaineering. Only later on, they would start training some special mountain army units, but even then, the influence of the military on mountaineering developments was very small (specially as these units weren’t trained for real mountain climbing, but for fighting in the mountains). During the 19th century the influence of the military is rather negligible.
3. None of the European alpine associations ever had such a policy. The Alpine Club was a small and elitist club, where members had to meet certain qualifications. As a consequence some climbers were excluded from the Alpine Club. But if they wanted, they could still go to the Alps to climb mountains, just not as a member of the Alpine Club (when reading through some old Führerbücher of mountain guides, many British mountaineers signed with A.C. (alpine Club), but a lot didn’t. Which means they weren’t member of the Alpine Club, but they still climbed). The same can be said for the other alpine associations in Europe. These associations didn’t even have any qualifications future members had to attain. Everybody could join and go on climbing.
I hope these answers are sufficiant? If not, just lett me know and I'll try to give a more satisfactory answer.
Cheers,
Koen.
The Britts climbed great many summits in Caucasus in the XIX century, including obscure minor summits of the Southern approaches. In the minds of the locals, it was often explained by the British penchant for eccentricity, for being weirdly different. A very British trait indeed, and the one you don't really mention!
We were also told that we owe to the British a tradition of "simmit notes" (as opposed to summit registers). In the "summit note" system, the 1st ascending group leaves a brief note in a cairn on the summit, essentially the same info as would go into a summit register entry, but scribbled on a separate piece of paper. The next ascending group would take the previous group's note "as a proof of ascent" and then leave their own note with the usual info, but also adding that "we took a note of such-and-such group from such-and-such date". In the end there is always one note in the cairn, and it tells you something about the previous two ascents, but not deeper into the past. The note is constantly replaced by successive climbers. Do you know if it is really a British tradition?
Two more questions. How important was the poetry of Romanticism for the birth of Alpinism? It also had its brightest period early in the XIX century, and poeticized wilderness and high mountains, and the humans proudly facing the Wild? Goethe made even Dr. Faust take an apline stick and climb the mountains "to listen attentively to the roar of rockfalls and avalanches". Wouldn't it motivate readers to go into the Alps to experience the mountains for themselves? Were the British first climbers into the poetry (not just into sports and sciences)?
Secondly, geodesists and topographers - did they contribute much to the birth of Continental Alpinism? Certainly in the US as well as in Russia, a lot of XIX century climbs were done for the purpose of long-range triangulation for mapping.
This 'summit note' system is something I have never heard of to be honest. It's something I haven't encountered yet in any source. But it's very well possible such a system is a typical British tradition.
Romanticism wasn't really that important for the emergence of mountaineering. Romanticism was more important for mountain travelling in general. This romanticism of the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century mean a boost for many British to start travelling to the Alps, but not for climbing them. The Romanticism glorified nature, and more specific the mountains, but people needed to stay on a fair distance of them, as mountains looked far more better from the valleys, as from the top of one or another mountain. So romantiscism didn't contribute to the birth of mountaineering, although it meant a motivation for some to start travelling to the mountains, in a search for the 'sublime'.
The second question is answered partially in the Article. During the first half of the 19th century science, but also topography etc. played an important role for mountaineering. People didn't just climbed mountains for their own pleasure, but always for science. But when the British 'invented' modern mountaineering around the 1850's science didn't played an important role. In a way it did play an important role, as most British mountaineers did do some scientific research in the mountains. But for the most of them this was more a sophism as a real reason for climbing. They did so because the public opinion stood hostile against mountaineering, only when mountains were climbed to do scientific research, mountaineering could count on some approval. Therefore many of them did do something scientific when they climbed, but mostly they didn't discovered real new things. On the continent science didn't even playd such a role. When mountaineering really took of (from the 1860's-1870's onwards) in for example France, Austria or Switzerland science didn't played a role at all. Mountaineering was a sport and science didn't had much to do with that (although there were off course exeptions). Certainly not because mountaineering started to attract more and more people from all classes of society, specially the lower ones, and they hadn't much to do with science. For them mountaineering was about sport and adventure in the first place.
As I've said science, certainly on the continent did play a very important role before the 1850's but for some reasons given in the article, it's not really possible to speak of mountaineering as we know it today. Therefore it's possible to say that science didn't really contributed to the birth of alpinism around the middle of the nineteenth century.
If you have some more questions, don't hesitate to ask, I will try to answer them as good as possible!
Cheers!
Thanks Koen, I really enjoyed your artical.
However, I find it difficult to agree with 'masculinity and imperialsm- stood once again at the centre of British mountaineering'& the emphasis you place on 'class' as a motivating factor for the interest in mountaineering. You seem to equate 'class' with wealth.
Of course they had money - otherwise they couldn't afford to travel so far. But why did they choose to spend it on climbing mountains? In Ron Clark's 'The Victorian Mountaineers' (in your bibliog.) He claims it was to do with 'the circumstances of the age' because 'all thought of the age arose out of the circumstances of the age'. This idea needs to be examined further, which would require a long article.
Also, when you use the term 'British' you roll together four countries. Many of the early alpinists were not English (as many people assume under the term British). My main interest is in the Irish men and women among them, some of which you mentioned:
John Ball (because of his religion wasn't allowed to take his degree) a politician; John Tyndall - son of a policeman/shoemaker, railway surveyor, teacher, scientist; for him the early motivation was purely scientific and he made numerous discoveries through mountaineering - on the movement of glaciers, sound, light - as he indicates in his scientific writings.
Dmitry - look up Anthony Adams Reilly climbing partner of Whymper in 1864.
Thanks! Glad you like it, and thanks for the interesting comments!
I'll start with your second comment. Most of the early mountaineers were in fact Englishmen. The likes of John Ball and John Tyndall are rather exceptions. So it might be better to use the term Englishmen, rather than British.
About John Tyndall. For him, as you rightly say, science was the main raeson to start climbing in the Alps. However, his scientific motivation diminished year after year. For example, after his ascent (the first) of the Weisshorn in 1861, he admits that this hasn't really got much to do with science, and that there were many other reasons that drove him towards the high mountains. (Although science remained important to him.)
But he was rather an exception. When reading through many sources of early mountaineers it becomes clear that science wasn't the driving power behind mountaineering.
About the first comment: masculinity and imperialism were very important for the creation of modern mountaineering. When reading diaries, travel books, etc. of these early alpinists, it's full of references to imperialism (and militarism) as well as masculinty. Off course the main reason for them to start climbing where personal reasons, but this middle class identity based on masculinity and, specially, imperialism was very important as well. The middle class was, more than any other class, very much into imperialism. And the mountains (the Alps) offered the ideal place to bring their identity into practice. (the lower classes weren't much bothered with imperialism, they were more occupied with surviving, while the upper classes were interested in imperialism, but they didn't go on conquering themselves. They let others do that for them.)
As most upper middle class members weren't explorers, or soldiers (mostly officers), mountaineering was their way to conquer a bit of the world (the high mountains in the Alps) and to become explorers.
As the Alps became better known, thanks to scientists and cartographers etc., and more accessible, it was very well possible for them to start travelling to the Alps and start climbing.
But as I say in the article, many reasons all came together when modern mountaineering was created, and imperialism and masculinty were two very important reasons, but these were certainly not the only reasons.
Finaly, class was very important in British society, specially in the 19th century. However, 'class' wasn't really a motivation to start climbing. It was rather a consequence of mountaineering that social differences between the different classes were strenghtened (the beginning of part 3 of the article).
These are just short answers, but I hope they are sufficiant. If not, let me know, and I'll try to answer a bit more in depth.
Cheers,
Koen.
@ khkk - Adams-Reilly cartography fame is of a bit different type, if I understand it right. He was creating maps and route drawings specifically for mountaineers (not for any general mapping purposes). Interesting maps, not as detailed as some tops, but more detailed that most "orographic schemas" which the climbers of my day and age were drawing, and mimeographing, for fellow mountaineers. (In the "orographic schemas", the convention dictate that ridgelines should be represented by segments of straight lines; Adams-Reilly's ridges are wonderfully curved!)
Redwic - May 6, 2011 2:30 pm - Voted 10/10
Excellent ArticleI really enjoyed reading this article. A lot of history, and references properly provided. Thank you for sharing this information.
KoenVl - May 6, 2011 3:38 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Excellent ArticleThanks! It's nice to hear you enjoyed it! And a bit of history can never do bad :)
Cheers,
Koen.
mvs - May 6, 2011 3:24 pm - Voted 10/10
why summitpost is greatArticles like this, thank you!
KoenVl - May 6, 2011 3:39 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: why summitpost is greatThanks a lot for the compliment! Glad you like it!
Cheers!
Tomek Lodowy - May 6, 2011 4:42 pm - Voted 10/10
amazing jobgreat amount of marvellous work done here ! Congrats !
Tomek Lodowy
KoenVl - May 6, 2011 5:11 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: amazing jobThanks for the nice compliment! It's just that I love working on(as well as reading about) the history of mountaineering. And as a historian it's just superb to combine my interest in history with the love for the mountains :)
Cheers!
PAROFES - May 8, 2011 10:49 am - Voted 10/10
From one HistorianTo a soon to be one: Great research Koen!
Great job, a text well prepared.
History of mountaineering is always something good to read!
Cheers
Paulo
KoenVl - May 8, 2011 12:03 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: From one HistorianThanks a lot! So you're a historian too? And in what period, or bit of history are you specialized? Maybe the history of mountaineering, but probably not I guess? I had the luck last year to be able to work on mountaineering history, for my master dissertation. But it's a pitty they don't give any lessons about it at university :)
Cheers,
Koen.
PAROFES - May 9, 2011 2:18 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: From one HistorianYes i am! Specialized in 2nd WW.
Brazil sent 25.000 men to fight the nazis in Italy and that was my point of view.
Cheers!
Paulo
peterbud - May 8, 2011 12:50 pm - Voted 10/10
Great workAs a historian, you might also be interested in this (read the summary, then the bottom of pp 176). There's more information about early Tatra-trips, but what I know of, is only in Hungarian.
KoenVl - May 8, 2011 3:28 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Great workA very interesting document! Thanks! this document makes clear that mountaineering, in a way, did already exist before the British came to the Alps around the 1850's. But it was extremely rare. Frölich must be one of very few (like Konrad Gessner, Da Vinci or Petrarca and some others) who actually did climb (or better hike) mountains. But it's very interesting to read about why they did it and what their motivations were.
Cheers!
Dmitry Pruss - May 8, 2011 4:47 pm - Voted 10/10
British innovationsMost people live far away from the mountains, and to sustain large-scale mountaineering clubs, it must have been necessary to invent one more novel component. It is to organize mountain-travel training for the flatlanders (like teaching rock climbing in nearby quarries or ruins, or self-arrest on sledding hills). Did the British invent and organize this? Or they would come to the Alps with just general fitness / calisthenics but without any alpinist skills?
Another question, how large a role did the military have in British and Continental Alpinism? Did the Army sponsor or subsidize mountaineering training, be it to prepare for actual mountain warfare or just to raise valiant and intelligent officer corps? Did the clubs use quasy-military ranking for its members?
Lastly, in Russia, organized Alpinism enjoyed a near-monopoly on mountain climbing; non-members were pretty much banned from climbing summits. Did the British or Continental clubs pioneer any such system of "minimal formal qualifications" to prevent outsiders from climbing?
KoenVl - May 8, 2011 5:36 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: British innovations1. These first British mountaineers came to the Alps with, as you say, just general fitness. They trained their climbing skills while climbing in the Alps, but not in Britain. Certainly the Alpine Club (in its first decades) didn't organize such trainings. Its purpose was rather to share information with fellow members and to make -occassionaly- arrangements to travel and climb together (as the Alpine Club was a very small group this was possible). The Apline Club didn't organize any trainings (later, they would start to do so, just as all other alpine associations. But for the period discussed in this article, this was surely not the case).
During the second half of the nineteenth century many other climbing associations would appear in Britain, like for example the Scottish mountaineering club (founded in 1889), and they would climb as well (with many clubs even most) in Britain (mainly rock climbing). But the same can be said as for the Apline Club, in its beginning, they didn't offered any trainings. This would only come later. This was just the same for the other great alpine associations in Switzerland, France, Germany,... Only later (around the end of the 19th century) they would start offering mountaineering courses.
During the first decades of mountaineering it were the mountaineers, together with their guides, that taught themselves to climb. As a little remark, for future mountain guides there where already special courses from the late 1860’s and 1870’s onwards.
2. During the Alpine Golden Age and the first decades thereafter, this was surely not the case. For the twentieth century I can’t really speak as I’m not very familiar with it. But during most of the nineteenth century this wasn’t the case. In Britain the military did play a role, but rather an indirect one. There weren’t any mountain units, but the British middle class was very proud of British military/imperialistic achievements throughout the world, and they took this imperialistic attitude with them to the Alps. As I say in the article, imperialism was one of the main reasons for mountaineering.
On the continent this was a bit different, as countries like France, Switzerland, Austria,… did have mountains to -occasionally- defend. But during the nineteenth century (and earlier) this was rarely seen. The first real mountain battles were fought during World War I, where these countries did have some special trained mountain army units (for example the Gebirgsjäger in Germany). But this was only in the 20th century. During most of the 19th century it’s not possible to say that the military played an important role within the world of mountaineering. Only later on, they would start training some special mountain army units, but even then, the influence of the military on mountaineering developments was very small (specially as these units weren’t trained for real mountain climbing, but for fighting in the mountains). During the 19th century the influence of the military is rather negligible.
3. None of the European alpine associations ever had such a policy. The Alpine Club was a small and elitist club, where members had to meet certain qualifications. As a consequence some climbers were excluded from the Alpine Club. But if they wanted, they could still go to the Alps to climb mountains, just not as a member of the Alpine Club (when reading through some old Führerbücher of mountain guides, many British mountaineers signed with A.C. (alpine Club), but a lot didn’t. Which means they weren’t member of the Alpine Club, but they still climbed). The same can be said for the other alpine associations in Europe. These associations didn’t even have any qualifications future members had to attain. Everybody could join and go on climbing.
I hope these answers are sufficiant? If not, just lett me know and I'll try to give a more satisfactory answer.
Cheers,
Koen.
Dmitry Pruss - May 9, 2011 1:27 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: British innovationsVery interesting, Koen!
The Britts climbed great many summits in Caucasus in the XIX century, including obscure minor summits of the Southern approaches. In the minds of the locals, it was often explained by the British penchant for eccentricity, for being weirdly different. A very British trait indeed, and the one you don't really mention!
We were also told that we owe to the British a tradition of "simmit notes" (as opposed to summit registers). In the "summit note" system, the 1st ascending group leaves a brief note in a cairn on the summit, essentially the same info as would go into a summit register entry, but scribbled on a separate piece of paper. The next ascending group would take the previous group's note "as a proof of ascent" and then leave their own note with the usual info, but also adding that "we took a note of such-and-such group from such-and-such date". In the end there is always one note in the cairn, and it tells you something about the previous two ascents, but not deeper into the past. The note is constantly replaced by successive climbers. Do you know if it is really a British tradition?
Two more questions. How important was the poetry of Romanticism for the birth of Alpinism? It also had its brightest period early in the XIX century, and poeticized wilderness and high mountains, and the humans proudly facing the Wild? Goethe made even Dr. Faust take an apline stick and climb the mountains "to listen attentively to the roar of rockfalls and avalanches". Wouldn't it motivate readers to go into the Alps to experience the mountains for themselves? Were the British first climbers into the poetry (not just into sports and sciences)?
Secondly, geodesists and topographers - did they contribute much to the birth of Continental Alpinism? Certainly in the US as well as in Russia, a lot of XIX century climbs were done for the purpose of long-range triangulation for mapping.
KoenVl - May 9, 2011 3:44 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: British innovationsThis 'summit note' system is something I have never heard of to be honest. It's something I haven't encountered yet in any source. But it's very well possible such a system is a typical British tradition.
Romanticism wasn't really that important for the emergence of mountaineering. Romanticism was more important for mountain travelling in general. This romanticism of the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century mean a boost for many British to start travelling to the Alps, but not for climbing them. The Romanticism glorified nature, and more specific the mountains, but people needed to stay on a fair distance of them, as mountains looked far more better from the valleys, as from the top of one or another mountain. So romantiscism didn't contribute to the birth of mountaineering, although it meant a motivation for some to start travelling to the mountains, in a search for the 'sublime'.
The second question is answered partially in the Article. During the first half of the 19th century science, but also topography etc. played an important role for mountaineering. People didn't just climbed mountains for their own pleasure, but always for science. But when the British 'invented' modern mountaineering around the 1850's science didn't played an important role. In a way it did play an important role, as most British mountaineers did do some scientific research in the mountains. But for the most of them this was more a sophism as a real reason for climbing. They did so because the public opinion stood hostile against mountaineering, only when mountains were climbed to do scientific research, mountaineering could count on some approval. Therefore many of them did do something scientific when they climbed, but mostly they didn't discovered real new things. On the continent science didn't even playd such a role. When mountaineering really took of (from the 1860's-1870's onwards) in for example France, Austria or Switzerland science didn't played a role at all. Mountaineering was a sport and science didn't had much to do with that (although there were off course exeptions). Certainly not because mountaineering started to attract more and more people from all classes of society, specially the lower ones, and they hadn't much to do with science. For them mountaineering was about sport and adventure in the first place.
As I've said science, certainly on the continent did play a very important role before the 1850's but for some reasons given in the article, it's not really possible to speak of mountaineering as we know it today. Therefore it's possible to say that science didn't really contributed to the birth of alpinism around the middle of the nineteenth century.
If you have some more questions, don't hesitate to ask, I will try to answer them as good as possible!
Cheers!
khkk - May 12, 2011 5:00 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: British innovationsThanks Koen, I really enjoyed your artical.
However, I find it difficult to agree with 'masculinity and imperialsm- stood once again at the centre of British mountaineering'& the emphasis you place on 'class' as a motivating factor for the interest in mountaineering. You seem to equate 'class' with wealth.
Of course they had money - otherwise they couldn't afford to travel so far. But why did they choose to spend it on climbing mountains? In Ron Clark's 'The Victorian Mountaineers' (in your bibliog.) He claims it was to do with 'the circumstances of the age' because 'all thought of the age arose out of the circumstances of the age'. This idea needs to be examined further, which would require a long article.
Also, when you use the term 'British' you roll together four countries. Many of the early alpinists were not English (as many people assume under the term British). My main interest is in the Irish men and women among them, some of which you mentioned:
John Ball (because of his religion wasn't allowed to take his degree) a politician; John Tyndall - son of a policeman/shoemaker, railway surveyor, teacher, scientist; for him the early motivation was purely scientific and he made numerous discoveries through mountaineering - on the movement of glaciers, sound, light - as he indicates in his scientific writings.
Dmitry - look up Anthony Adams Reilly climbing partner of Whymper in 1864.
Thanks again.
KoenVl - May 13, 2011 3:54 am - Hasn't voted
Re: British innovationsThanks! Glad you like it, and thanks for the interesting comments!
I'll start with your second comment. Most of the early mountaineers were in fact Englishmen. The likes of John Ball and John Tyndall are rather exceptions. So it might be better to use the term Englishmen, rather than British.
About John Tyndall. For him, as you rightly say, science was the main raeson to start climbing in the Alps. However, his scientific motivation diminished year after year. For example, after his ascent (the first) of the Weisshorn in 1861, he admits that this hasn't really got much to do with science, and that there were many other reasons that drove him towards the high mountains. (Although science remained important to him.)
But he was rather an exception. When reading through many sources of early mountaineers it becomes clear that science wasn't the driving power behind mountaineering.
About the first comment: masculinity and imperialism were very important for the creation of modern mountaineering. When reading diaries, travel books, etc. of these early alpinists, it's full of references to imperialism (and militarism) as well as masculinty. Off course the main reason for them to start climbing where personal reasons, but this middle class identity based on masculinity and, specially, imperialism was very important as well. The middle class was, more than any other class, very much into imperialism. And the mountains (the Alps) offered the ideal place to bring their identity into practice. (the lower classes weren't much bothered with imperialism, they were more occupied with surviving, while the upper classes were interested in imperialism, but they didn't go on conquering themselves. They let others do that for them.)
As most upper middle class members weren't explorers, or soldiers (mostly officers), mountaineering was their way to conquer a bit of the world (the high mountains in the Alps) and to become explorers.
As the Alps became better known, thanks to scientists and cartographers etc., and more accessible, it was very well possible for them to start travelling to the Alps and start climbing.
But as I say in the article, many reasons all came together when modern mountaineering was created, and imperialism and masculinty were two very important reasons, but these were certainly not the only reasons.
Finaly, class was very important in British society, specially in the 19th century. However, 'class' wasn't really a motivation to start climbing. It was rather a consequence of mountaineering that social differences between the different classes were strenghtened (the beginning of part 3 of the article).
These are just short answers, but I hope they are sufficiant. If not, let me know, and I'll try to answer a bit more in depth.
Cheers,
Koen.
Dmitry Pruss - May 13, 2011 11:23 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: British innovations@ khkk - Adams-Reilly cartography fame is of a bit different type, if I understand it right. He was creating maps and route drawings specifically for mountaineers (not for any general mapping purposes). Interesting maps, not as detailed as some tops, but more detailed that most "orographic schemas" which the climbers of my day and age were drawing, and mimeographing, for fellow mountaineers. (In the "orographic schemas", the convention dictate that ridgelines should be represented by segments of straight lines; Adams-Reilly's ridges are wonderfully curved!)
Still no answer about "summit notes"...
visentin - May 17, 2011 7:10 am - Voted 10/10
Re: Behead the QueenWell, teach all of your football lads to play real rugby and please come back :D
KoenVl - May 17, 2011 3:59 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Behead the QueenHaha, well said :D