Thanks Raymond - that is lovely to hear. Just out of interest what is it do you think I'm doing right/wrong?

@@redcoathistory Just like any expression which might garner interest, one has to find an audience which is drawn to the subject matter in the first place, then the one offering that expression has to satisfy certain expectations: 1) You better have a passion for the subject matter because if you do not the audience senses that and hence that's your first objective which you either have or not 2) You better know what you are talking about, meaning you better have researched it the best you could 3) You do not get authoritative because especially when covering history you will never have all the answers unless you where there and everywhere during that era, meaning when you offer an opinion you let them know it's your opinion 4) You better have some of your own opinions, not as much to establish what happen but to offer a starting point for everyone to then contemplate as a catalyst for the various 'what ifs' and elements lost in the fog of battle so to speak 5) It helps if you have some experience in the related field, hence the professions of the subject matter you are covering and walked the proverbial lay of the land. I think you check all those boxes and the last aspect is that when you talk your personal discussion relays the information as a good storyteller to peak interest and you often put the viewer on that historical stage. I would not change anything and if anything I would keep your guard up so you do not succumb to all the bells and whistles of technology which so many people which do podcast tend to start doing to dress up telling which takes out what one finds inviting in the first place. Your podcasts are insightful and entertaining, like listening to one of those old vets in a pub over a pint in a comfortable environment of information which I think bodes well for military history when often one has to confront horror and politics... you have a table of your own where the viewer feels like a friend of the families which partook

Thanks Raymond - you are right there are some fascinating similarities tho I'll be honest I don;t know much about the Native American wars - I'll have to learn more.

@@redcoathistory I have read a few of the books by Ian Knight on the Zulu campaigns but I especially like the warrior ethos of the Zulus which you touch on. The Native Americans in contrast had various warrior ethos which though similar where quite different from say a Comanche to a Lakota Sioux, but it's the inner workings which define the warrior, a macrocosm so to speak of a fighting force. I do have a question regarding the name Zulu, does it really mean a set people or is it more of the name of the ruling fraction much like the Incas since the 'Inca' was really the emperor and not the nation per say. The Native Americans had names but hardly ever called my their real names as the word Sioux is a french abstraction of a condescending name given to them by their enemies the Ojibwe when they still lived in the Great Lakes area and Comanche was a Spanish abstraction of 'enemy' given to them by their enemies the Utes. Comanche where actually 'Numunuu' meaning 'the people' and the Sioux where part of the Lakota bands meaning 'a friend of'. They were warrior societies and of course the Europeans would ask their enemies in proximity before they got to them, "who lives over that horizon'?"and would then get an enemy name, as the Apache where actually the N'de ('the people' again) and not Apache which means enemy by their Zuni foes. I would imagine the Zulu really identified themselves by the name of their individual bands in the nation and not just Zulu... curious

Well put, Raymond! However, the big difference in these battles and the Little Big Horn battle were the commanders. Rorke's Drift was commanded by a great military commander (turned out to be) in a military defense situation - Lt. Chard (Engineering background). And his men all respected him. Our guy Lt. Col. Custer was an egomaniac and cared only for glory (his). He also believed the Indians were inferior. His main seconds in command (Maj. Reno and Cpt. Benteen) hated Custer. He refused intelligence when his scouts told him there were as many Indians in the village as grains of sand. He drove his men unmerciful. They were worn out. Later Indian interviewees said the soldiers' knees were shaking when they dismounted. All these things accumulated to his disaster for the 230 men with him on the small rise of ground they died on. that is bad enough but he carried with him in this debacle two brothers, a brother-in-law, and a nephew. As to the weapons used (rifles/carbines), my studies tells me the Martini-Henry rifle in .454 caliber was superior to the Springfield carbine in .45 caliber. In the Springfield, the copper casings you described caused real problems when the breech got hot. You had to dig the casing out of the breech with a knife when it over expanded. As to sidearms, the Brits only had them for the officers where each cavalry trooper carried a Colt Single Action Army (Peacemaker) in .45 caliber with a 7 1/2 barrel. A superb revolver.

@@johnjohnson8812 The books I have read paint a very different picture of what Custer thought of the Native Americans, actually he respected them more than most frontier commanders in the field. One can read "Son of the Morning Star" by Connell, the recent Pulitzer Prize winner by Stiles "Custer's Trials" . Let's be frank, the man captured 11 Confederate battle flags during the Civil War which is not luck. As far as pushing his command, so did Crook (even more so Mackenzie in the Red River wars since he too knew the mobility of Native Americans) in the force sent from the South and was there defeated by Sioux/Cheyenne days prior to the Little Big Horn. At the Big Horn Major Reno did not charge the village as directed when only initially meeting minimal resistance, and then led a panic retreat to actually less defensive ground when his initial position in the cottonwoods had the river to protect his rear and still provided a distraction to the native forces for Custer supporting then a pincer movement to be successful (there is no record of Amerindians over running a defensive position in mass numbers because unlike the Zulu, they for the most part partook in a battle from a individual mode of operation where the sacrifice for self for a military objective made no sense, which there is proof at the Battle of Beecher Island, and both battles at Adobe Walls where the white forces where severely outnumbered). Captain Benteen then was sent to scour down stream to make sure there where no additional villages (Custer learning from his battle at the Washita) and was expected to return and when he did return with a direct order from Custer in a note to join him (and it was clear enough to them where Custer was), he did not out of spite sitting on the hill for over an hour while his men heard volley fire down in the valley. Custer then staling his time on a less than ideal hill waiting for his other forces in a visible position which never procured. Not saying he would have won but probably would have ended as with Crook. Custer was a good commander as was Lord Chelmsford, which means history needs to acknowledge the Native contingents as earning their credit where credit is due and not just being recipients. I agree that the Martini-Henry is a superior rifle to the Springfield, but I think it also comes down to another factor, that being the British soldiers were far more trained marksmen than your common frontier cavalryman in America. Most Americans serving after the Civil War were immigrants who could not get any opportunity in the Eastern cities and fell back on military enlistment as a means to support themselves, much like the poor classes in the British forces of the common soldier, except for one huge difference, most American frontier enlistments lacked the training of a British soldier while maybe receiving about three shots of ammo (it was considered too expensive to waste) a month if that to work on marksmanship and some could barely ride a horse, and surely not in battle conditions sufficiently, the Boer or native contingent forces in the Anglo/Zulu wars could ride circles around them while the US cavalry where facing one of the best light horse cavalries in the world as the Lakota and especially the Comanche

@@raymondpilarczyk2773 Indeed, Raymond! The book 'Son of the Morning Star' is a good read and highly accurate by all accounts. Not taking anything from Custer's bravo in the Civil War. He was a 'hard charger' but at the expense of his men. Some of our notable war military commanders were like that. But as to Benteen, the accounts I read said that had he led his troopers a few hundred yards farther, he would have been completely surrounded and wiped out. He saved all of his and Reno's troops as Reno fell apart and joined Benteen on the hill that they had set up a good defensive position on. It was three miles from Custer. But bear in mind when these two groups got set up, Major Reno was then in command. And Custer's stand was over in less than three hours, so he was doomed once he made all those dreadful decisions that day. Most definitely the British troops were well trained and an experienced regiment (the 24th of Foot). But to think of 150 British soldiers holding off 4,000 Zulus is just remarkable [Rorke's Drift]. My thoughts are that was was due to two main factors: 1. The well-trained British soldier; and 2. The commanding officer (Chard) with his engineering background in military fortifications and steady hand throughout. Eleven Victoria Crosses (Equivalent to our Medal of Honor) were won in that engagement. And in contrast you are correct in the cavalry troopers not being well trained. What is interesting is that Custer was trying to get to the Indian's women and children and hold them ransom for positioning with the Indian Chiefs. Like he did at the Washita battle. But he couldn't find a river crossing and that changed everything. And when you talk of the Comanche Indian and his horse, that is indeed a separate tale for us. The Comanches were the best horsemen ever. Period. They were at one with their horse. And fierce warriors to boot.

No denying that - tough guys.

Thanks Bill - that makes it all worthwile to know I was able to draw attention to the battle.

Wow that book must be a collectors item! I'm a little jealous...

Sorry forgot to mention is titled Running the gauntlet. The ponys name was Warrior. I have followed the route down the mountain how they didn't break their legs is amazing. Andy

Yes there were only app made

Hi Andy, thanks for that. Always nice to hear from a fellow AZW buff. I've been to Fort Pearson but not to Fort Tenedos - one day! I still hope to visit Hlobane one - it's one of the few remaining larger sites that I haven't visited

Im a vetran of the 1879 zulu war's! If you want to know about any of my exploit's ,let me know?

Cheers Hugh. I'm currently working on a long series about the Napoleonic wars but I will return to South African history soon to cover a few more of these fascinating conflicts.

Thanks Wilko!

Nice one mate. There can't have been many mixed marriages in those days so hats off to him and her for making it work. Very impressive.

@redcoathistory it took him 20 years to get her to Britain and he gave up his rank in the British military so he could marry her and then they moved to Canada after ww1

John cheers John! I’m glad you enjoying the videos

That’s great to hear thanks Justin.

Thanks mate it does some coverage in the podcast (I think episode 6) though I will also do a video on it also at a later date as I have cool drone footage of the site

@@redcoathistory Cheers mate

I've heard that from many ww1 veteran interviews, didnknow it was still standard practice.

Thanks Peter - that's very good of you and I wish I was worthy of the comparison. I haven't looked at the two Boer War yet (currently working on the Peninsular war) - but I will get to them eventually. If you visit my website www.redcoathistory.com you'll be able to sign up for my mailing list where I send details of new episodes. Thanks again.

My understanding is that a number of tribes such as the pedi empathised with the Zulus but weren’t really in a position to directly help them. Also, the Zulus had plenty of enemies, both black and white, due to the growth of their own empire since Shaka’s time. Some Swazis such as Mbilini also fought alongside the Zulu.

Cost