Otherwise known as world war one

From perhaps half a hundred or so slaughtered on a bad day (not including natives of course) to 60,000 or so on the first day of the Somme......

This was a bad day, and i feel like there were a lot more than 50 casualties ;-)

@@thevenator3955 1,300 British troops died and between 1,000 and 2,500 Zulus, a bad day indeed.

@@Dibleydog and to think that number pales in comparison to the battles that would take place just 35 years later...

See the Russian version of "War and Peace" done in the 1960's especially the Battle of Borodino. All done with the Russian Red Army. It's a 4 part movie and total of 7 hours long. Lots of detail. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace_(film_series)

Waterloo's even funnier because it's the Red Army Also just saw the comment above

@@btd6enthusiast106 🤔

Fighting in that hot sun Zulu in there bikinis British wrap up in heavy uniform it’s a learning thing not a actual battle .

@@stevemurray4122 What are you on about?

I've read in Col. Snook's book on Rorke's Drift that Color Sgt. Bourne was offered a commission after the battles, but was unable to accept because he couldn't afford it. If commissions were no longer being purchased after 1871, could that have referred to outfitting himself befitting an officer?

@@retriever19golden55 I know that all the way till ww1 (and perhaps beyond that) British officers privately purchased almost every element of their kit from boots, uniform, and leather equipment to their service revolver and sword.

You'd think that people that spent money to gain the position would spend time to become proficient in it lest it simply become a waste of money

1879 to 1871?

Time travel

What did the British fight in Africa for? For the motherland?.

@@blackkite65 Imperialism. England during this period wanted to keep hold of all she owned.

@@blackkite65 It was the Rothschild's desire that the hegemony of strong Africans, Asians, Eurasians, and the Russ be made weak to be made more pliable and amiable towards being dispersed in later generations. It has always been their desire to send forth these races into white societies thus weakening the West. The Rothschilds are Zionists, their intentions have never been for the good of Western nations but all for their so called greater purpose of bringing forth prophecy towards end times. They have worked as leaders in a coalition of Zionist Christians and Zionist Jews alike towards the goal of the Jews seeing their Messiah (who the Christians think is the eventual Anti-Christ) and the Christians seeing that as a final sign of the eventual coming of Jesus Christ's return. They're fooled by the Devil though. As it was written and as it has been said, that neither the hour may be chosen nor the hand of God may be moved save but for only him. It is a great trick of the Devil that makes mere mortals think they can have any effect on such things in or with God's favor. Zionist Christians are not real Christians and Zionist Jews are not real Jews. Woe to them both, for they have forsaken all of humanity and the true God. True history when sifted through finely enough can back this easily.

And to make one permanently drunk for ever after. I should imagine.

damn

Jkjkniinonjiyhnkjthytonojhtjnpghotnjopggjnopnjopggbpnjojkpngtgpktggnjbbgggngbgtbgnokgggbknpopkgbngotjonbpgjnopgtgpjongtgbjonpggboknpgtgbnjotbggnojogbtogbgtnojjoobggjjoobjghtjnoobghtojjgohbtjjobjjoohybojojhybô jkjkniinonjiyhnkjthytonojhtjnpghotnjopggjnopnjopggbpnjojkpngtgpktggnjbbgggngbgtbgnokgggbknpopkgbngotjonbpgjnopgtgpjongtgbjonpggboknpgtgbnjotbggnojogbtogbgtnojjoobggjjoobjghtjnoobghtojjgohbtjjobjjoohybojojhybô

@@nooneasked.9451 bro wtf!?

@@kelvinhow1965 it's nothing¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@magic8 thanks

I have been there and Blood River, also S African and agree. Spion Kop and Isandlwana are the most haunting battle grounds I have been to. Blood River not so much to me.

I'd love to visit it someday to pay my respects to the dead of both sides. Soldiers and warriors like them should always be revered.

@@johnedington6083 It was indeed.

I'd like to see that place if I ever travel. I would also like to see the Little Bighorn battlefield in Montana. These events were the among the last tribal battles which one over modern armies of the time.

Fr

What do you mean?

@@josecarranza7555uh, the white soldier was allowed to take bullets.. but the black soldier was not allowed to take ammunition

@@safiahukamdad2022 Elaborate please

​@josecarranza7555 You're supposed to give bullets to all soldiers when you're losing this bad, regardless of regiment

LOL the British were not victorious at Rourke's Drift. They were all slaughtered. The British public were impressed at their valor in the face of certain death, and a number of Victoria Crosses were awarded after the battle - every single one posthumously, since everyone was dead.

@@SuperMariusMaximus i don't know where you learned about Rorke's Drift? I must inform you that you are quite wrong. The battle of Rorke's Drift January 22-23 1879. Saw the British with a garrison of approx 150 officers and men. Fight a Zulu force of upwards of 4,000 warriors. The British losses were 17 killed and 10 wounded. The Zulu losses were approx 500 killed. After two days of fierce battle. The Zulu's withdrew from Rorke's Drift Due to the Great victory by the British garrison at Rorke's Drift. The Victoria Cross was awarded to 11 of the British Defenders of Rorke"s Drift. That is an overwelming victory by the British Soldiers. That is the true history of the Battle of Rorke's Drift. 💪🏻🙏🏻✨

@@SuperMariusMaximus Dude wtf are you talking about. Rorke drift was a brit victory, Isandlwana was a brit defeat, they are different battles

@@SuperMariusMaximus youve been hammerin the steroid injections again marius havent you?

The lasted rorkes drift veteran died in the 1950s

And 64 years after the end of the Napoleonic wars

Was actually a battle connected to it's continuance in WW1. Germany vs Britain.

@@aebemacgill The people fighting the british here were the Zulus, not the Germans

@@barfazoid5773 yeah think he got confused with the Germans arming the boars a few years later

@@hod2116 yeah

@RollandB It's not a meme. It's a fun fact...

@RollandB Fun fact: It's not a meme.

@RollandB Fun fact: A fun fact is just a fact, either that or just sarcasm

@RollandB Fun fact: Hi is the most used word.

@@2_572 "the" and "a" are the most common in English...

This is the real invasion of my country

“As good as it gets” smh why is the infantry carrying the cavalry carbine version of the Martini Henry and why are the cavalry carrying the full length infantry version?

​@@JohnWintergreen-vu5ws And you're from where exactly?

I thought this was highlight film from the last Viking football loss.

This is a movie…

@@Astrogamezz r/whooooosh

Real question is how did he charge his batteries? How did they do it in the bush?

He had a steady hand in combat and never got a bad angle respect 🫡

That ammo should have been distribute asap.

I think that an immediate retreat would have been wiser.

3k Actually

Mickey Drago excellent essay, I rarely see well sourced material here

@Kelp Farming shut up pussy

Hehe

Nah bro they be stepping on thorns and shit imagine how strong they feet are

They're called caltrops and they hurt more than Lego! I would imagine lol

@@terrasolaris5104 😂😂😂.

Yeah they sure would ._.

I think the book zulu by Saul David is a more accurate and more enjoyable read personally.

Morris' Washing of the Spears was considered definitive at the time, but Col. Mike Snook, a serving officer of The Royal Regiment of Wales (formerly the 24th, the regiment depicted in the films), stationed in South Africa who calls a number of Zulu his friends, wrote a pair of books: How Can Man Die Better (Isandlwana), and Like Wolves on the Fold (Rorke's Drift). He has the military experience to decode the clues about the action, and the friendships with Zulu people to interpret the primary sources. I believe he is much more accurate than Morris. Morris has Pulleine writing a letter in his tent when he's killed, which is unbelievable for a field commander, while Snook has found evidence that Pulleine's body was found on the left front of the camp where the 1st Battalion was attempting to rally, and right where Maori Browne later identified his body. He died a soldier, not hiding in a tent while all around him his troops were fighting and dying...I find this much more credible, personally.

I have that book. A bit of light reading, eh? The battles anniversary is on my birthday, 22nd January.

Washing of the spears is outdated massively

@@retriever19golden55Ian Knight is the leading historian.

If they did make a movie about Ulundi, I want it to be made in the same spirit as this movie and Zulu. It would be the perfect trilogy. First movie is about the British defeat. The second movie (Zulu) would be about the “turning point” at Rorke's Drift. The third movie would be about the British triumph. Of course paying respect to the Zulus and their bravery. And for the love of God, don’t make the movie woke, both sides were imperialist powers you don’t need to sympathize with any of them.

​@@Kaiserboo1871Right. In the case of the Zulu they were trying to resist being put into a confederation that had been planned by the colonial secretary

@@everettduncan7543 The Zulu Empire was just as imperialistic as the British. Both wanted to conquer lands and expand their empires.

The old movies are the best..

@@frannydarko2698 they are!! and This is a underrated classic

The battle scenes in LOTR were so absurd that way. And where did Arrow Boy refill his quiver?

I feel like the old sound just makes a difference as well

Actually no. There was some "practical effects" trickery, where they used dummies and cardboard cutouts for some of the long shots to bulk out the numbers. But you're right, no CGI (it hadn't been invented yet)...

@@SimplyZero it was about the right time for many older men to have served in the second war Sir Michael Caine served in Korea as part of his national service I believe

Which actors please

They seem a little too young to be a ww2 general in my opinion

@@ghop3878 Lol this movie was made in the early 1960’s and all the generals look like in their 50’s and 60’s! Wdym “tOo YoUnG”!?!?

@@ghop3878 the op meant the officers they are playing most likely fought in ww2

Lol

With enough ancient warrior units it is possible to take a city, you would need hundreds and thousands of warriors (I call it the Soviet Strategy, Strength in numbers)

Their technology was bad and not a lot of knowledge they would win with tactics

@eyup can what r u on about

ŞAİRİ AZAM you make no sense

Dick Chappy Where is your 6k figure from for the Zulus? All sources I've ever seen quote a figure of around 1000-3000 Zulu casualties, in other words, roughly comparable to what the British suffered. Also, their losses were fairly high because despite outmaneuvering the British force, they were still going up against trained troops with repeating rifles and artillery. Obviously they were going to lose a lot of men whether they won or not. Note that the ~1500 British dead represented almost their entire force. So it's not just a case of one army losing 1500 and another losing maybe 3000. It case of one army suffering almost 90% casualties vs the other taking about 15%. It means the British lost hard . . .

ancalites Actually, this is a fairly accurate representation of the battle, much more so than in "Zulu" where the mass attacks were inaccurate. As shown the Zulus cleverly used folds in the ground to approach the British camp in large numbers. The British also fought as companies grouped together so that's right as well. Also the numbers used in the film seem to be much smaller than the actual numbers in the battle with about 200-300 British, there were 1,500, and about 2,000-3,000 Zulu extras when there was 25,000.

ancalites british lost in most parts and the Zulus live there they know the land and british just wanna conquer Zulus r smart fighters by the way

But that isn't as cool to watch, is it?

Dick Chappy The Brits only won because they used missionaries to infiltrate and decimate the Zulu's from within - divide and control, then eventually win. The Brits could never have beaten the Zulu's otherwise.

Yes but obviously this film is a complete work of fiction - there’s no way you ever lose a battle when your army has Bob Hoskins in its ranks just as Zulu was so obviously a complete work of fact because you’d never see an army with Michael Caine in its ranks lose either.

Ikr, I always ask that question

One part good extras. Five parts terrifying second assistant director.

And yet, they managed to accomplish it with impressive results.

oh its never crazy for me, if the old romans could muster a Legion fifteen to twenty thousand strong and co ordinate them on march and in battle then a film with a few thousand extras with modern radios and film cameras and phones to ring up the ones who are late aint surprising. It would surprise me more if they were incapable of doing that.

Because back then it was about making films for people who love films. Today its corporations churning out garbage for $$$.

As a platoon sgt. Would always piss me off in the field when one of my soldiers was draging ass to the chow line cause I couldn't eat till they did!

Quite!

@@honestabe1940 Are you always so obnoxious? You must be really bad for morale.

@@jessefisher1809 said the delicate little snowflake!

@@honestabe1940 What is your basis for that statement?

they played their ancestors

another fun fact: Everybody already knows your not so fun fact 😂 😂

@@edcurant you seem salty... over nothing?

ed curant Oh really, I mean it is not like the British had superior technology and better weaponry while the Zulus were stuck with wooden stakes and cow hide shields.

@@elongatedmuskrat7675 they are not wooden they are iron

Colonials got slaughtered. It was wonderful.

@@Evan8787 yes it is

Another fun fact: The actors in this movie can act!

@@hyacinthlynch843 Yup! The film also does not condone racism, even though at the time of this film being made that was absolutely fine. I'm pretty sure some people even got angry that the in the film the zulus won at islandawanda and not the british

@@MrBigBoy1245 Yes.The fact that an advanced British fighting force was defeated by Zulu warriors, with primitive weapons, probably irked some Brits when this movie was released.

@@MrBigBoy1245 if it's so racist why did all those black guys act in it? Also it's not racist it's historically accurate.

@@jakeweberzwier8655 I never did say it was racist, quite alot of the warriors were actually from the zulu tribe.

Basotho gun war against British

Yeah, how many colonies did said tribes form worldwide ?? 🤔🤐

Except Ethiopia was never colonized. Just occupied by the Italians. Especially by Mussolini and his goons.

Yorke's Ridge ?

Add some more 6)1st and 2nd Anglo Mysore war 7)1st Anglo Maratha war 8)Maratha Portuguese war 9)First Anglo Afghan war

It happens in boxing as well.

Also the Zulus had the overwhelming numbers of thousands, whereas the British were limited to about 200 to 300. The battle was also out in the open with no convenient cover, except for trenches and that wasn't enough.

At Isandlwana the british force were stronger than it was at Rorkes drift. But true, the Zulu force was still massively outnumbering the british. The british force at Isandlwana was around 1000 - 1500 At Rorkes drift it was about as low as 300 (maybe even as low as 150) Zulu forces was at 15.000 - 20.000 strong. At Rorkes drift it was a force of 4000 Zulus. Also, at Rorkes drift, the Zulus prefered tactic the horns of the buffalo was rendered ineffective, which also contributed highly to the Zulus loss at Rorkes drift. Unlike here, where it was highly useful.

There British are good at setting records for military defeat The fall of Singapore was a doozy.

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 It's bound to happen when you've fought everyone, everywhere at least twice. Some of those fights are going to be losses. What's remarkable is how many of them were wins.

Its almost similar like germany vs soviet union meme

@@Bikavin germans smashed superior numbers of soviets in summer 41 no problem.

@@Nikola95inYT but in later years like 1943-1945 the soviet union is outnumbered germany and manage to win because germany is weaken by the allied

@@Bikavin Soviet Union after battle of Kursk had the T34-85 which could kill the tigers and panzers easily.

@@FH-tg4yh its not easily but more easier

Every army has suffered a major defeat. It happens.

Yes they were defeated many times but they didn't stay defeated and came back again and again till they won navies don't build empires boots on the ground do.

​@@andrewaustin6369like marines?

@@airvicemarshalsirgeorgemas2083 Craphats included in the boots on the ground.

I liked how the zulus were all in the end given British passports since diversity is a strength.

Miles Bennet Dyson 😭😭😭 no get them out!

I liked it too.

They were just saying “Zulu” so rapidly it sounds like WOHWOHWOHWOWHWOHWOHWOHW

@@wesdavies9500 yeah and they liked it a few months later at Ulundi....

Did you feel the presence of the fallen. It must have been an extremely spiritual experience. I believe those who died in extremely violent circumstances never left that place.

@@chrisholland7367 it was indeed, conical hill was the strangest thing on the battlefield… seemed totally out of place (look it up)

Fugitive's Drift?

Yo@peterware6115 there's a difference between rocks and bags mealie meal aka corn for one rocks r harder than bags bruh# bags of grain isn't going too protect you from Rifle bullets/Spears

thank you for that explanation

Superados en número.rifles contra flechas

Well that depends. At isandlwana there were supposedly 2500 brits vs 80000 Zulo with little to no defensive fortifications. At rorkes drift there were around 400 brits(with around 40 wounded and 40 non-combatant) vs 4000 zulu. Rorkes had some defensive fortifications and a smaller front allowing greater concentration of fire.

@@ernieellan5694 that's incorrect. At Isandwhahla, there were 20,000 Zulus and 2500 brits.... but the brits also had artillery. At Rorkes drift, according to wikipedia, there were only 152 British soldiers against 4000 zulus..there was cavalry at the beginning, but they left. So the odds were a lot worse for Rorke's drift, though I agree, having defenses helps!

I did read, that the Zulu's at Rorkes drift were led by a cousin of the Zulu king, who had ambitions, so needed a victory to continue with his kingly ambitions, he was, and the Zulus were specifically ordered not to attack the British in defensive positions, as, well you know the end result.

All their guns jamming often was the biggest blow by far… no point having a gun if it doesn’t work 💀

Dead on. Everyone wants the one thing that makes the difference, but its generally a combination of failures that causes a cascade...

If you had been there as a tactical genius it would have been different 🤣

It was the ingenuity of the Zulus fighting for their homeland that proved British cowardice. Nothing more.

Plus the fact Chelmsford rode off with the ammunition keys

Of course we drink tea first.we ain't stupid it might be the last time we get one for a while.

@@nathangarland9453 That's the best and truest answer I have heard 👍

@@nathangarland9453 that reminds me of a line from Waterloo, "Gin up boys, get it while you can, the french will have it out of you any minute anyway", but gin instead of tead because y'know, soldiers instead of officers haha

@@howardthealien2606 in the battle of waterloo, the soldiers are having gin in the middle of the battle, and the offices make toast with brandy right before. It just reminded me of it, sorry if it doesn't make sense to you

Coffinsmoke there welsh..

it their shields they are banging that making drum like sound. their shields are like thick leather that can be bang to frighten their enemies

@@armann04the shields were made from cow pelts

​@@JustaKidwithADHD Yeah which is a type of leather. It doesn't matter which animal it came from in the end of the day it's still leather.

@The Richest Man In Babylon Impi just translates to “war” which the English chose to call amaZulu regiments that. The actual Zulu word for Regiments is “amabutho” and just “ibutho” for just 1 regiment.

There was around 4,000 extras there.

The film does its best to throw you in there but in reality, it would certainly test your spirit... and those men knew exactly what the Zulu were, unlike many on here. Yes, the Zulu were formidable warriors, a warrior nation - ravaging Southern Africa and enslaving - would have likely taken over if it were not stopped.

This isn't Zulu it's a totally different film!

This is Zulu Dawn

He would never remember doing it. He was pisssed up, violent thug every 2nd of his life. Amazing actor, though

They were outnumbered

@@Dawsonguidroz8538 and they were fighting zulus

@@markm2092 also they did not have enough Ammunition

@@bob9396 They had plenty of ammo. They just could not distribute it fast enough.

@@interestedbystander196 they did but just not enough to kill 25000 zulu i think

so did i

After an Earthquake in Mexico tons of food & supplies were delivered in cans but no can openers. The moon astronauts were unable to take off because they needed a long thin screw driver to reset a circuit breaker.

Yes the defensive line was too far forward diluting the firepower advantage add to that the fact that after prolonged firing the martini cartridges would expand and have to be manually removed and the disaster is guaranteed.

@@andrewaustin6369 the cartridges did expand but the expansion of the metal in the actions on the rifles was the problem. Cartridges naturally expand when they are fired and this is allowed for in the extraction process. Competition shooters who reload their own ammo call them"fire formed brass"and after trimming to case length prefer them to new cases. Metal expands when heated and I imagine by the time "fire at will" was given those actions were quite hot but if they were having extraction problems it is more likely it was from fouling from the black powder used at the time and the heated actions combined. I'm a reloader and a metalworker and I'm just trying to pass along a little knowledge I have on the subject.

Andrew Austin That was Durnford deciding to make a last stand some one mile out. Pulleine was obliged to support him and had to keep his infantry companies out there. If Durnford didn't decide to make his stand so far out, Pulleine would have undoubtedly pulled his infantry companies in closer. He wouldn't have had a choice. The Zulu left horn would have threatened the rear of the firing line. However, Durnford halting the Zulu left horn for a while actually ultimately lead to the battle being lost. That is the irony.

The ammunition boxes and bent screws are a red herring. A screwdriver was not needed to open ammunition boxes at all. YT channel Britishmuzzleloaders South Africa series demonstrates with an example of such an ammunition box from this period which was easily opened with a strike by rifle butt to the top of these boxes and this was very well known to the infantry who used them. Ammunition only became an issue when the firing line was cut off from camp supplies by the enveloping right and left horns of the Zulu battlefield manoeuvres.

That's pretty cool that you're Zulu. I hope your culture will be preserved

Okay but you got yours arses kicked at Rorksdrift by a small British army but 🇬🇧😂

@@Meadows-tg3tv come on guys you were using advanced weapons what were you expecting.

@@jan-lucam5977 yes our culture will never die in South Africa Zulus are the strongest when it comes to cultural practice,the music,language and traditional attire

@@bhekaninhleko9237 hello , My name is Michael Caine , not many people know that .

That's a rewriting of actual events. Chelmsford split his force because the recon patrol encountered a couple thousand Zulu and requested assistance. This was assumed to be the lead elements of the Zulu impi. No other large formations of Zulus were seen anywhere else before. Chelmsford ordered those at the camp to keep their forces drawn in and act only on the defensive. No laager was needed at Isandlwana. There were 1,000 riflemen, after Durnford was sent for to reinforce. Had they defended right at the camp in a tighter defensive perimeter they likely would have held out. Durnford, however, started dispersing forces out far and wide away from the camp and he pressured Pulleine into supporting him. If Durnford had followed his orders, and those given to Pulleine, there probably wouldn't have been a disaster. It was actually Durnford who split his forces. Durnford split his 2nd Column and sent both halves out on the attack. Chelmsford actually didn't do that.

There's a lot of ifs in your analysis and apology for a serious blunder of intelligence and defensive competence. You seem to be rewriting as well. @@lyndoncmp5751

Lord Chelmsford was hated in Horse Guards, but he had friends in Buckingham Palace. When he returned after the Zulu War, he was promoted to Lt. General in 1882, and full general in 1888.

Rorke's Drift was a minor skirmish. This was the big enchilada.

kparc Parc They were surrounded entirely and surrender was impossible unless they wanted to he tortured. Animals always fight incredibly hard when defending themselves and backed into a corner into a life or death situation. Had the British not been surrounded entirely and attacked by people that were ferocious in battle then they might have loss. You should never blatantly surround an enemy that most likely will not surrender due to you treating prisoners like shit or not taking prisoners. That's a tactic that's pretty well known but usually never realized. Boxing your enemy in makes them much more dangerous. Still impressive that they managed to survive for so long against seemingly impossible odds and is inspiring but the zulus could have wiped them out still but were ordered to retreat since they weren't supposed to attack to begin with and used poor tactics.

That's an interesting theory: the Zulus might have won at Rorke's Drift if they had given the British an escape route

Especially when 33 of them were hospitalized leaving approx just 77 to defend.

That’s cool to know. Is there any good literature on this that you would recommend?

@@parktol02 Nothing that comes to mind right away, but there is an excellent documentary with a demonstration of what happened when they used this particular black powder formula in live action. It showed that the rifles internals were caked with the powder residue with the consistency of cement. They averaged 20-24v shots before their weapons jammed and were unusable.

@@patsmith8523 Nonsense, don't believe TV. Also there were no issues with the rounds getting water ingress. Only a year later at Maiwand, with the same ammunition, rifles, ammo boxes but with far hotted climatic and dusty conditions the 66th fought out a three hour engagement, firing as many (if not more) rounds than the 24th, one company alone under Lt Beresford Pierse fired in excess of 5000 rounds. Lt Bray mentions hot rifles and the men were using the ammunition wrappers as temporary heat shields, but it did not slow the rate of fire. over 97,000 roounds were officially recorded. There are books on it. Quote: "what I found in the Enfield archives at Kew..sums it up in a nutshell. an unfired Martini Henry cartridge, collected from the battlefield debris at Isandlwana, was sent by Major General Evelyn Wood back to the Royal Small Arms Factory. Lt Colonel Brackenbury had the cartridge tested in the proof Martini Henry of the Royal Gunpowder factory at Waltham Abbey on 5th October 1880. After over 17 months lying in the Veldt, under the burning South African sun, the torrential rains of summer and the freezing winter, the cartridge went of first time and achieved a velocity of 1313 feet per second."

I think too spread out is the major issue. Less British soldiers fought off the Zulu in a small post after this.

@@idodo9597 That too was mentioned in the documentary I mentioned earlier. There was also other factors involved. Some believe the attack took place during an eclipse (I don't if this was true) and another (possible factor) was that the Zulus were loaded on some sort of drug. The documentary mentions both of these events. The idea of drugs being used is not uncommon among tribes around the world.

Ikr

It's on Amazon prime in hd,

It's on Netflix now lol

@@markscouler2534 lies

*Chants in Zulu*

Cringe

So they set up a camp, shoot at the locals and then they all die

Be careful for those natives. They are fearless

Peruvian Potato yes

That's why they dropped like flies.

😂😂

And no masks!

Bro the british should like use the lancers And yes Lancers charge is good

Interupting British tea time .

But that's not how it happened

@@tjgumede Where you there

Arrogance

@@ronaldburns7877 did you study history?

There were two different camps. The movie switched from one to the other.

To heroes like him we salute

Who careS?. They were in a land that did not belong to them ..... and killing African people.

Fuck your great Grandfather

Good riddance, racist shithead.

On a larger scale

@@siralonnevincenthan841 Right 😂

Your right.

So right

ZULU 👏👣👏👏

The 24th stood their ground and fought bravely to their end. The Zulus own accounts of this Battle says the British firing line was professional to the last man and they all died as warriors. The firing line was made up of veterans of the 24th and they showed no fear in the thick of Battle according to the victorious Zulu, many of 24th made brave but futile bayonet charges into the Zulu regiments.

@@jamesmills4850 Even battle hardened veterans might look a bit worried seeing thousands of enemy soldiers barrelling towards them.

@Oscar Hampson I've no doubt that some veterans may look 'a bit worried' when faced with a determined enemy, and some may desert...Being only human. Yet, Looking a bit worried and looking like you are about to piss yourself are very different. The 24th were perhaps a bit worried but fought through any apprehensions they might have had to perform with professionalism. This is a good definition of bravery. Men described as looking like they were about to piss themselves would likely be no use under pressure and would likey become a cowardly rabble very quickly. We have reliable accounts of the battle from the British camp survivors who observed the British firing lines defeat and the accounts from the victorious Zulu's and which matched in detail and do not contradict the other. Both accounts reveals the British firing line fought a well ordered retirement trying to get back to their camp supplies. That could only be done by men who did not panic or outwardly show fear. After the Zulu's cut off the ammunition supplies the British formed squares and fought bravely to their ends, many of whom shook hands with their compatriots and bayonet charged the Zulu's in a glorious last stand. Not something you could do if 'pissing' yourself with fear. They were warriors whom the Zulu 's respected. To portray soldiers, for dramatic effect, as looking likey to piss themselves in battle is fine. But to portray specific soldiers like this when it is known to be historically inaccurate is no less than a slur on these brave mens characters.

@The Richest Man In Babylon You mean that in the comment where I used the word movie, in the first sentence no less, I wasn't actually aware that I was talking about movies?

@The Richest Man In Babylon no you don't say.

Im not british so correct me if im wrong But all the scenes in historical movies are true they just add it so maybe the boy being shot is just an extra Again, correct me if im wrong

@@dingus6506 it's good you ask this, but it is fact that Children even as young as 12 years old were sent into battle. They were mostly Drummer Boy's, (banging on the drum) as the soldiers fought, unarmed they were often a target, to lower the morale of the fighting men. Even as recent as World War One, some young men were only 14 years of age, and they were "fighting men". The youngest fighting soldier in modern history was just 8yrs old, he was Russian, this was during WW2, again, not that long ago.

@@paulcrombie9623 ok

@@paulcrombie9623 No he was Serbian, in WW1 Momcilo Gavric.

@@The_OneManCrowd Thanks for that info mate.

@@kamieaston3016 Heh, no

@@PotatoGrenadier heh, yes daddy

The british were either I phone Xs or employees

BLACK SUNDY & SUTURDAY , NOT A FRIDAY ,OK ,

Thats about right!

Oof

Probably rather die by that than a bunch of spears

He was a boy bugler possibly early teens. Even though he was shot by a British bullet the Zulus would have in ecordence with post battle traditions disembowled him .Anyone else think this is funny.

@@chrisholland7367 well they deserve it

@@addictedtofamilyguy7627 did they ?

Um well listen up, I stay in South Africa and im Zulu Well check this out the bayonet charges were futile against the Zulu due to the Zulus being superior on 1on1 hand combat and SHEER NUMBERS now the men who charged knowing they would die show that they kept their orders and are better than those who ran away. But still I dont respect wat they did(colonising South Africa) but I do think with out them we wouldnt have been the richest country in Africa, I love em black and white ppl and I got no prob with them I just have a problem when ppl are racist both black and white ppl

@@kennedy072 and yet zulus survivors of the battle,interview by henty and Melton prior all state The dread in which the zulu feared the bayonet.... Their are eyewitness testimony to lone redcoats at the battles peak being surrounded by zulu of the mbonambi and ngobamakhosi regiments ,being unable to be bought down by the zulu because everytime a warrior tried they were fixed through the beck with the bayonet..... One zulu recounts how they could only be killed by throwing spears at them instead of standing toe to toe.... These men...the zulu said......fought like lions. One redcoat charged alone down the hill.....his long knife whirling above his head......it is fire the zulu said to each other. ..he alone attacked the zulu massed ranks until he was killed. Know your subject before spouting off and confirming your a twat.

@@odinmasel3494 ridiculous statement. The zulu testimony of survivors Says otherwise. The martini Henry with a 2 foot lunge was around seven feet long a zulu assegai around 3 foot. The 24th were seasoned veterans of the wars along the frontiers in Africa for many years. The mbonambi and ngobamakhosi witness statements taken by henty and prior state how the zulu dreaded the bayonet.... Your making it up as you go along Thinking everyone is just going to swallow your crap because you claim to be zulu and that entitles you to a superior and more correct opinion......it does not Your statements at best are fantasy at worst deliberate lies Which is it?

Odin masel what’s it like talking that none sense and then getting called out on it?

@@kennedy072 Who said anything about "defeating" them? A bayonet charge can be made without ever coming into hand-to-hand combat range. It means the men fixed bayonets and advance on the enemy, rather than staying stationary and firing. They could have advanced with bayonets on the Zulus and forced them to withdraw a little one or two times without changing the outcome of the battle. If you think this is impossible, it's because of YOUR bullshit Zulu Warrior Fantasy that makes them all peerless warriors and above everyday things like fear, panic and shock. You'd probably also tell me that it is impossible for less than a company of men to make a bayonet charge of several regiments, and make them break and flee, while taking numerous prisoners...yet that happened on Little Round Top at Gettysburg. Here again, note that Joshua Chamberlain's men made a bayonet CHARGE. It never says that they got anywhere near enough to actually fight with the enemy, The idea is mostly to make them break or fall back, and it's especially successful when the enemy is first intimidated, or _when it's unexpected_ . A group of men, especially under loose discipline, advancing on a smaller group, flush with excitement, sensing imminent victory, suddenly sees the defeated foe instead fixing bayonets and advancing like they are eager to come to combat. It makes men stop, makes them panic and think they must have been mistaken, or they missed something. Panic is contagious. This has happened numerous times in history, I see no reason it couldn't have happened in isolated moments at Isandlwana. At the very least, the British advancing with bayonets would likely have checked the advance of the Zulu for a time, until the British fell back again. Like they don't show in this film, the cannons and the rifles held the Zulu center back for more than 2 HOURS until ammo ran low, and elements began to be flanked and destroyed. The British were trained soldiers, as much or more than the Zulu were trained warriors (or "soldiers" is probably more accurate in both cases), and bodies of men behave in certain ways. The bravery of every single individual doesn't always add up to the same as the sum of the bravery of a unit. A unit full of individually brave men can still be shocked and halted, or even suddenly broken, by the right impact. That's how war worked, especially back then.

Rather !

Quite

Indubitably

375GTB wasn’t even that can’t shoot if you have no ammo

@ALBassMaster: the main problem at Isandlwana wasn't actually the supply of ammunition although that surely played a part, it was the TYPE of ammunition. In the film they are loading drawn brass cartridges like a modern firearm would take, the original Martini Henry round however, as used in the battle, was formed of a brass shim about as thick as baking foil. It was coiled around a former and attached to an iron base with the primer attached. With the rapid firing the guns soon over-heated and the foil cartridges would stick in the breech, the extractor simply pulling the iron base off which meant the soldier had to use the cleaning rod to force the brass part out of the breech before he could load again. It was the inquiry into this battle that resulted in the adoption of the 'modern' drawn brass cartridge - after those were introduced stoppages due to cartridge failure became very rare. The last thing you need with 20,000 Zulus charging at you is your rifle suddenly converting itself into a short pike!

That's like saying had Hitler waited a year or 2 he would of had a enough jet air craft to fight the battle of Britain with.

Would they have upgraded the weapons if this battle had not occurred? You can say the same thing today, would the Army have the V shaped hull armoured vehicle’s if it were not for the Snatch Land Rovers failing in Afgan?

@wavygr Gatling guns are clumsy to move, they are not all that portable to begin with. Besides what good are Gatling guns when they run out of ammunition? I would have kept the Gatling guns at the rear and the flanks. More effective strategy that way to give covering fire for the soldiers using rifles and pistols.

The overheating resulted in the crude brass cartridges jamming in the breeches. Adding to that was the type of black powder propellant used, which produced a lot of obscuring smoke and heavy soot buildup in the barrels.

Yh and besides they have night camouflage

@@wt380 that comment was corny

they did, and it's just as terrifying as you can imagine.

They had a vary Modern way of fighting they used encirclement tactic and such

@@jamie8032 but! They didn't like it up them lol

Andrew Graves nothing courageous about a guns vs spear fight

@@Thewoodyrg Spears vs Guns its a non contest, not even close.....Fair fight could have been 1000 British soldiers vs 1000 Zulus no weapons involved......I mean you tough guys right?

@@humpparri2053 if the war was hand to hand, none of Zulu's would have dead and all British people would.

Jeb Bush Nothing pathetic about the men who stood and fought to the last man ,they stood no chance against over twenty thousand brave Zulu warriors.The word should be tragic like so many wars ,but I think that would pass you bye !

@@balyeetbhagaloe6416-- War is not about a ''fair fight'' you dickhead.

He also had to run far distances to get from one end of the battle to the other!

The cameraman is actually a skilled fighter who is helping the brits disguised as a cameraman

@@berzec no freakin way!

Plot twist: the cameraman was zulus

nOOo! tHiS waSn’t fILmeD at 1879 tHiS iS a MoViE yOu IdIOttt!!!1!1!!1!11!

I think you are lying.

***** It's an old joke you dimwit.

tragar6 More like, "Quiet down you....arghh".

tragar6

Sometimes it's better for an outsider to mind his or her own business when two parties are fighting to their deaths....

but machine guns mortars land mines etc

Unfortunately yeah. The Zulu army attacked a British army besieging the capital Ulundi(Ondini). Many warriors attacked but the British army there had machine guns in addition to the infantry's breech loaded rifles.

@@daves6394 uh what-

Modern Zulu have modern arms, at least as much as the hostile ANC government will let them. These days they're more likely to side with the Boers in civil conflict than with the Communist government.

Most of the extras on the British side were South African Army national servicemen. Hence they would be fit and coordinated.