A rope breaks and heaven falls. How? Why? With what fallout? And is the history that’s been written a history that is true?

These questions haunt Reinhold Messner’s Fall of Heaven: Whymper’s Tragic Matterhorn Climb. Messner’s achievements and fame are such that one might say he has been to mountaineering what Michael Jordan was to basketball if MJ also had authored dozens of books. Who better to re-examine Edward Whymper’s historic first ascent of 1865 and the events that immediately followed? Well, maybe someone else. I’m surprised how dissatisfied I am with this account.

Fall of Heaven proves to be less about a climb than about a legacy. Its underlying spirit is revisionist and prosecutorial with Reinhold as D.A. but with no spokesman for the defense. He skews the discussion to achieve his ends, which are to skewer Whymper, defend guide Peter Taugwalder, and celebrate (almost canonize) Jean-Antoine Carrel, also a guide. The impetus is the deaths of four men and the varied fortunes of those who survived.

A peculiarity of the narrative is that for a long stretch it is told in a novelistic way. This allows Messner to inject his interpretations and judgments as if they are known truths without citing anything in support. There are no footnotes. Unless one reads the many, often book-length, sources from the bibliography (in English, French, German, or Italian) there too often is no way to tell how he has come by his statements. Given his accusations, this couldn’t be more annoying.

Some of Messner’s criticisms are just. For example, after Peter Taugwalder’s alertness had saved himself, his son, and Whymper from death, Whymper repaid the deed by writing, “No matter how good a guide he is, I would no longer entrust him with my life or recommend him to other people…I’m told…his intellect is gone and he is almost gone crazy.” I’m told? That’s it? It is dishonorable to defame Taugwalder in this way. I share Messner’s indignation here.

Guide Jean-Antoine Carrel is Messner’s Matterhorn hero, and Carrel is indeed heroic. Messner claims “Carrel never will forgive” Whymper for the insinuations regarding Peter Taugwalder’s reliability and for downplaying the responsibility that he, Whymper, bears for the tragedy. Okay . . . but with that claim Messner undermines our trust in him because Jean-Antoine’s “never” forgiving wasn’t nearly so “never” as Messner implies. Carrel and Whymper would later climb the Matterhorn together in 1874 and join yet again in 1880 to make notable ascents in the Andes.

The crux of my dissatisfaction is doubt Whymper is as responsible for what happened on the Matterhorn as Messner says. The key issues:
1) Climber competence
2) Leadership of the group
3) Equipment, i.e. the rope
NOTE: The men who died were a guide, Michel Croz, Mr. Hudson (said by Taugwalder to be as good as a guide), Lord Douglas, and Mr. Hadow.

Climber Competence
One of the climbers, Mr. Hadow, lacked the experience and skills possessed by the others. Except for his slip and fall, all likely would have returned safely. If we are to blame Whymper it must be he who judged Hadow’s abilities adequate to join the climb. He wasn’t. Mr. Hudson, who knew Hadow best, vouched for him. The two professional guides, Michel Croz of Chamonix and Peter Taugwalder of Zermatt, evidently accepted this state of affairs.

Leadership
Whymper, Messner asserts, assumed leadership of the party without accepting all the responsibilities that go with that role. He tries to convince us that Whymper failed as a leader, with terrible consequences.
Two points stand out.
First, is it clear Whymper was leader of the climb?
No, it is not.
Fall of Heaven records only that Whymper wanted a say when the group was on the mountain. Nowhere do the guides cede all responsibility. Croz already had climbed many peaks with Whymper; nothing we’re told indicates he would accept being relieved of his customary duties. Whymper did choose the ridge for their assault (an inspired choice). In Scrambles Amongst the Alps, he described his relationship with Croz as having to do with route selection, not with execution of the guide’s work. That could be a self-serving, after-the-fact statement. It also could be true. Messner’s assertion isn't convincing.
Second, the order in which the men were roped together for the descent.
Messner says Croz shouldn’t have been leading the descent and that Whymper chose to be tied into the rope at a safer position above most of his companions. Whymper, along with Mr. Hudson, did set the order. I guess it’s possible another order could have made a difference although I can’t see how it could guarantee Hadow mightn’t have slipped anyway with potentially catastrophic effect.
There is, however, an obvious problem here that even Messner can’t ignore, so he withdraws his own criticism and admits (without admitting he’s admitting), “Surely, Croz should not have gone in front of the descending party, but had he done otherwise, how would he have been able to get his clients down the mountain—particularly…Hadow?”
Yes, Reinhold. How?
For Hadow’s sake, one of the two professional guides had to lead him, step by step, at the most dangerous section. It’s immaterial who made the decision.

The Rope
Three points stand out.
First, Whymper supplied the ropes.
During the inquest after the climb, Taugwalder testified that he would not have used the rope that broke if he had doubted its safety. Messner argues that Whymper should have ensured that this rope (a thin one) not be used. I agree.
However, ropes are critical and the two professional guides should have interrogated Whymper about them beforehand (you can bet Carrel would have). Otherwise, Messner is implying that the guides were willing to concede their own safety to the judgment of someone less competent and experienced. Who does that at such risk? Would Reinhold?
Second, availability of rope other than the thin one.
Whymper states in Scrambles Amongst the Alps that “there were more than two hundred and fifty feet of the better qualities [of rope] still remaining out of use.” While I wouldn’t bet on that figure as exact, even before reading Scrambles it had seemed to me, in accounting for the rope available, that using the one that broke wasn’t necessary. It is dismaying, then, that Taugwalder used the thin rope.
Third, why no fixed line?
Messner writes, “The most important question is why none of the three ropes was fixed. Without such a fixed line, it is probable that even the best rope would have broken after Hadow’s fall [my emphasis].”
Peter Taugwalder testified that he had suggested a fixed rope to Croz but that Croz didn’t think it necessary, a misjudgment he’d never have an opportunity to correct or repeat. That cannot be blamed on Whymper.

At bottom, Messner’s protest is that Whymper gained (stole?) fame and reputation more deservedly due Jean-Antoine Carrel. I, too, would like for Carrel to be the man identified with the Matterhorn’s conquest. Instead, that became Whymper’s fate but not his fault. He possessed the nerve to venture onto a route others didn’t have the vision to try. Messner isn’t persuasive that responsibility should be apportioned as he has decided. And that is Fall of Heaven’s failure. ( )