Everytime my mother-in-law shows up at my door, my mind instinctively screams "form square...form square !!! "

As a historian of British imperial history allow me to make a few comments; both are meant to show episodes in the 1898 Soudan Re-conquest but the uniforms of the 2nd clip are all wrong since the British Army used khaki (and not scarlet) from after 1882. The 2nd clip however bears some resemblance to the battles of Abu Kru and Abu Klea in the 1884-85 Sudan War. I always love the earlier version because it was actually shot in the Sudan and certainly the military advisors on the picture had served in the 1898 war. The big error in both scenes is to show the enemy charging on mounted animals; the dervishes had a "cavalry" but largely fought en masse and on foot. The "fuzzy-wuzzies" shown in the first clip are genuine Hadendowa tribesmen of the Sudan.

The first one (original) is far more accurate than the second, though, the second was really intense and entertaining to watch.

"Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim gun, and they have not."- William Blood

British infantry discipline was amazing!

I bet Cpl Jones is in there somewhere amongst those British troops. "They don't like the cold steel .They don't like it up 'em "

The troops looked a lot sharper and better trained in the first film.

Can't beat Zulu or Lawrence of Arabia for gravitas, cinematography and realism.

Hands down the 1939 version, although the modern remake does show some excellent field maneuvers, mainly courtesy of the 'Die Hards' reenactment group.

We British didn't fanny about in those days. Now, that's all we do thanks to weak politicians.

Personally I prefer the original “The Four Feathers” 1939 and “Young Winston” 1972

No British force of any size lost a battle to Mahdists, no massacres, etc. An Egyptian army under General Hicks, with British officers, was massacred in the 1880's,but no British army lost a battle.... As you would expect, given their advantages in weaponry.

1939 will always be the best version

I like both but the original I love it growing up

Late in the war, the British Army was using magazine fed rifles, as in the first clip. That made a huge difference.

Thats when the uk had balls

Must have been awesome to see your calvary riding to your aid..like your big brother walks up while your fighting a bigger boy on the playground.

I choose the first one rather than the second.

They don't like it up em sir, no nothing like a bit of cold steel.

Both are good, but I prefer the first. ;-)

A movie, that's no longer possible today!

The horse holders have more modern rifles than the troops.

Not one dead camel. Obviously the mutant Medina strain of bulletproof fur camel ,lent to the Sudanese in exchange for some African hashish in 1871.

The problem with the second one is depicting the British British loosing which in reality the British never lost a single battle and wasnt 1 single square but had several different squares and biggest mistake didn't wear red jackets .

Wrong uniforms for the recent version. The British were in khaki in 1885.

Nice video 👍💯

Both have their charm. The original was fine for its time; orderly, biased and rather fun in an odd way. The New take is more real, gritty and lets you appreciate brave men who don't run away from a fight.

Cavalry against formed infantry, never ends well for the cavalry. Except for the one time the Fuzzy Wuzzie broke a British Square, but that was mostly an infantry attack.

I liked the first one

Well, I don't like the magic shells and bullets that kill Mahdists but not horses or camels.

8:01 that camel though

The 2nd one was thrilling

Khartoum 1966 battle of abu klea clip wasn’t included ?

To me, both are accurate in their own ways. The first probably captures whatever Aristocrat was in charge of the British Unit's feeling on the matter, while the second captures more what it must have been like for the actual soldiers on the ground. I don't know anything about this battle in particular, but I would also guess the Tactical, Strategic, and Operational details are more accurate in the second.

Original is better its also more historicly accurate.

Fuzzy Wuzzies to the front and rear.

That was a rectangle...

Personally, I prefer the 1978 made for tv version with Beau Bridges and Jane Seymour

Video interesante. Saludos.

The difference between a defending a fixed position and being hung out on a limb as ‘bait’!

Problems with how the artillery worked in both movies. In the first movie for some reason guns didn't fire prior to the rifle fire...they could've weakened the attackers from afar. In the second movie, guns didn't fire with shrapnel at the close distance - that would've devastated the attackers. Very odd...

They knew how to deal with Jihadis in those days!!

1939 - - -Hands Down!

What movie is the second clip from?

Fire at will would have ended a while ago

Amazing that the animals weren't terrified by all the noise and cannon explosions

two different Battles the first was the original and the last battle in the old movie the battle of Omdurman,and more accurate in the uniform's style being Khaki and the second was the first battle of the new movie in which Holywood licence has taken over again and given them red coats and white Pith helmets so yes they are both different,both good,but the first has it for the uniforms and the sheer volume of fire from modern weapons over older and more dated weapons and cavalry and it is a British army in the first movie not one Battalion as the second one has in front of thousands

Too bad, I didn't see Jonesy!

Which movie showed the battle of Abu Klea, with the Camel Corps in grey? Let's not forget the scene on Young Winston as well

i Like The Form Square Fromation Cuz The British Are More powerful to Those Horses

Thats the way to do it.

🙌

Did anyone else notice that the Union Flag in the second clip is incorrect ? Just me then !

"for all the odds agin' you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square".

And now they live among us !

Artillery was poorly used.

The first one

1939 was the date the movie was made for the confused out there. Love both films though. Young Winston has good action as well for that Sudan campaign

what is the name of the movie?

Engländ

Horse vs camel

If im correct the British didnt loose any battles in the sudan wars and no records of any british prisoners being taken and the 2002 version as the British loose the battle of abu klea which they actually won

Which battle is it?

Which movies r these clips from?

Esta es una escena de la pelicula Kartum mucho antes de 1939

First one is the 1898 War and the second is the 1884-85 Uprising. The first one is definitely more authentic (the dervish were probably the sons of veterans of Omderuman) and filmed in the Sudan. The second one has the British lose the battle of Abu Klea, which they didn't and also, where's the fecking Nile?

Unless they're firing grapeshot, it beats me why the canon wouldn't be firing non-stop once they get in range, rather than waiting till rifle range.

In the 2002 version, not only are the uniforms and rifles incorrect; the union flag is upside down.

I don't think I saw a single Mahdist shoot back in the 1st clip, very few casualties (for the weaponry being used), and everything looks very neat, tidy, and orderly (how stereo-typically British). The second looks more like how a crisis moment goes from "Oh...it's ok. We've trained for this" to "oh sh*t!" followed by "wtf is going on!" as things often go in reality. I'll take the 2nd version all day.

Fortunately they never heard of BLM.

🇬🇧

In any case about which movie is better the battle with Islam is far from over and I whole heartedly believe open war like this with Muslims who have immigrated into Europe and the USA as well in Muslim countries are just over the horizon. Some people would say sooner than later and get it over with and done once and forever. 🇮🇹

No denying those people knew how to maintain an efficient border patrol force.

1939😂😂😂😂😂😂🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤣🤣😭😭😭😭😭😭

What is the second movie

where is gatling machine gun?

this is just slaughter

6:40 The British seem to have misheard the order to form square and instead formed an awkward oblong shape, a formation better suited to the wide-angle camera shot rather than repulsing the enemy.

What were they thinking, charging well-positioned riflemen and guns and machineguns like that, in the open??

I loved the 1939 version, found that the 2002 version didn't have the same vibe to it. Question though, when firing, wouldn't the British have fired by ranks. I understand that with the advent of the breech loading cartridge and the box magazine, this might have changed, but it still should have been in use in 1898.

OOOOPS! Being a legend in my own mind is a heavy thing to carry! Need to oil or find a better sense of humor! Thank you for showing me a mirror! Enjoy your day!

Some, indeed many, of the Hadendowah acting in the first clip would have been the grandsons of the Mahdist warriors that they were representing.

the sudanese had no idea they were crappy soldiers

If Zulu was a 10/10 (which I feel it was) then this would get a 7/10 ...just not in the same class of movie.

15,000 rounds fired 12 dead?

🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟

A clip from the 1939 version of "The Four Feathers" would have been nice to add (author of Renee: St. Mary's Virus).

The British Army of course!

History is written down by the victors and the victor here, the British Empire that does not set the sun, Winston Churchill said, "We killed them and did not defeat them." Also English writers wrote epic poems celebrating the courage of the Sudanese, and we are also proud to stand in favor of Great Britain and rebel for our dignity and supply from the rest of our soil, in the battle of Reprisal that followed the killing General Gordon lost every Sudanese house a martyr in an unequal battle in which the British army practiced the most severe and cruel kinds of revenge from defenseless dervishes who had nothing but a heart who believed in the message of Imam al-Mahdi and the courage of being able to die in order to defend the soil of his homeland, despite the relatively calm relations between our two countries after his departure The last British soldier from Sudan was in 1956, but these battles remain confined to memory. I have lived in Britain since 2012 and I do not feel that I am a stranger to this great country with its people, civilization and leadership, as for its colonial past remains part of its great history as every nation has a past and history until it does not come Generations are ashamed of this date. Parliament must push the government to apologize to the Sudanese people for the victims of the Karary battle (massacre) and its policies in southern Sudan, which or We inherited a sick nation burdened with civil wars and tribal conflicts, --I do apologize for my trouble writing 😬 but am trying to deliver what we as Sudan think about our common history, I think you need to visit Sudan and learn more about those people .

I don’t get to choose accident of birth 🇬🇧🦖🇬🇧✊

The "Tactics" in in movie 1 were a suck fest. In #2 at least the formed a square but the English waited to long to repel the attack. BUT....The first volley would have happened when the attackers were farther off.

love our empire, it did a lot of things that are good and yes things that was not so good, No different to the ottoman empire, the Roman Empire the German empire, French empire,

Today they would order these soldiers arrested for harassing the Muslims.

How were the infantry able to reload so quickly?

1939. Shows the " Fuzzie Wuzzies " in a more realistic light.

What is the name of the first movie

How could you aim properly and fire a rifle while riding at a full gallop? Doesn't seem possible.

Why did all the camels suddenly become horses ?

The 1st one easy

Sadly, modern movie makers no longer have what it takes to produce GOOD war movies. Way too much PC content and back stories. Give me the old ones every time!!