Was it a good decision for Stanley to explore with men who had no experience as travelers? Why or why not?

     Stanley's decision to take with him inexperienced explorers was both beneficial and hindering.   Due to the group's lack of experience, two things happened: at times the group was very slow and a large part of the group died along the journey.  During the exploration, "it took thirty-seven days to go one stretch of thirty-four miles" (56).   The group did not have the experience needed to know how to manure difficult terrain.  Also, this inexperience made it so the group could easily succumb to "festering wounds, dysentery, smallpox, or typhus" because they did not know how to take care of themselves, which in turn caused the death toll to be "overwhelming" (56).  However, there were also benefits to choosing an inexperienced group.  First, by choosing inexperienced explorers, Stanley was able to easily shine through as the best- this was very good for his reputation and allowed him to take the credit for any discovery*.  Also, due to the large death toll, there were not many survivors to discredit any claims that Stanley made upon arrivals in his writing.  In describing Stanley's descriptions, Hoschschild uses words like "condemnations," "proclaimed," and "fulminated" (57)- because he could, Stanley became a regular user of hyperbolic statements.  Though there were cons to choosing an inexperienced group, the good that came from this was ultimately what caught the eye of King Leopold and lead to Stanley's accomplished future.

*Hence landmarks such as "Stanley Falls".