if the Zulus had expert longbowmen, there would have been a lot more interesting battles than this one. They were well-trained in the superior-numbers method of beating guns with spears, but if they'd had some longbowmen helping out, it would have worked more often. Longbows have twice the rate of fire of muzzle-loading firearms.
@kozmon0t A zulu warrior was taught to use his weapons since the very childhood, that those skills were put to use i improvement in endless local tribe conflicts, so they were no less experienced than the medieval bowmen. However, bolt action riffle, unlike smooth bore musket, outperformed the bow in all aspects, including even rate of fire.
@ORKSIZDABEST but were they longbows... longbows get extreme range. The zulus had plenty of decades to whup the British with longbows before the Brits had repeating rifles.
Those first rifles were inferior in one way, they overheated and jammed, which longbows don't
Interesting fact for you: The zulu were instructed to 'kill the red soldiers only', to avoid killing civilians with the British column. Thus some officers wearing their dark blue or black uniforms were spared.
Another thing. The Zulus didn't come on in a mad rush. They used cover and advanced in rushes between British volleys. Also, i in 3 Zulus had guns... The Brits were outgunned quantitavely, if not qualitatively.
@bertraand More like British command humiliated ... given proper placement and leadership and it's likely that British casualties would be in the single digits ... just take a look at some of the Sudan battles a decade later ... the troops were not the problem.
I first saw this movie when I was in the 10th grade in 1980 in the theatre. It was a bit frightening to watch a well-disciplined and well-equipped army defeated at the hands of the Zulus. But I guess that's what happens when you underestimate your enemy. But the British would break the back of the Zulu army in their next big encounter. I just can't remember the name of the battlefield that one took place at.
2000 British against 20,000 Zulus. Numbers were on their side. Chelmsford was charged to win the war - which he did in the end, but he was never given another command again - ever.
@TheViper23232323 The only reason the Zulu won this battle was because they out numbered their opponents 14:1 and performed a very successful Zerg Rush...I mean Zulu Rush!
@supersmash43 that is actually a false statement. The zulus acheived tactical suprise over the british and since they were unprepared were able to over take them in what was more like an open field battle rather than storming a well or decently prepared position.
@supersmash43 They outnumbered the British badly in at least one other battle too, Kambula, and got their asses handed to them. The British lost this one because Chelmsford was a buffoon who underestimated the Zulus, allowing them to catch the British troops off guard and take advantage of their half-assed defences and overstretched firing line. If they'd had their shit together, Isandlwana would have been a curbstomp against the Zulus just like every other major battle in the war.
@supersmash43 and because they possessed some fire weaponry, mostly scavenged from english trade caravans and reinforcements, and even if the guns the zulu's had were few of course they gave them a massive help. if the zulus had fight just with spears and knives they' d have been totally obliterated, just as it happened for the aztecs and the incas. shit anyway this REALLY looks like a freakin zerg rush xDxDxD
@supersmash43 Zulus at Isandlwana numbered around 24,000. Regular British army: 800. Colonials and native contingents: 1200. The Zulus won because their camp was set out for defence by 12 companies (a frontage of 2200 yards). Lord Chelmsford took 6 companies upcountry on a wild goose chase...leaving too few companies to defend the camp. An open left flank didn't help.
@supersmash43 14 to one odds is how russia held back germany in WW2. its not about firepower when you have overwhelming odds. but it does make a great last stand if your the guy that leads those into massive odds. give him one 50 cal and they would have won.
@0Zolrender0 It is often said the Red Army defeated Germany becuase of an overwhelming advantage in numbers. Yet, for most of the war on the Eastern Front, the Red Army had little better than a 2:1 advantage. At Stalingrad, the Germans were defeated by superior strategy and tactics, not by numbers. And at Kursk, the Soviet and German forces were about even. Only at the very end, the Spring of 1945, the Red Army had a 5 and 6:1 advantage.
@supersmash43 14 to one odds is how russia held back germany in WW2. its not about firepower when you have overwhelming odds. but it does make a great last stand if your the guy that leads those into massive odds. give him one 50 cal and they would have won.
@supersmash43 14 to one odds is how russia held back germany in WW2. its not about firepower when you have overwhelming odds. but it does make a great last stand if your the guy that leads those into massive odds. give him one 50 cal and they would have won.
@supersmash43 got to respect the British disipline but,, what about the British attitude ,,they are just blackies,,,,, not soldiers,,,,,no respect,, their undoing,, as other European armies found out,,,,,
The Zulus had one " horns of the buffalo" attack; one front with a left and right flank. The British caught on to it they made quick order of them. At Isandlwana they got caught with their pants down
@helcio1960 I suppose you never learned about zulu culture? those guys killed thousands of eachother. other "innocent" zulu's. So who are the "innocent" these British Soldiers are "Murdering"
@DrinkToIreland Zulus are innocent because British murderers came to THEIR country to occupy and exploit. If Zulus came to England to occupy Longon, then arogant British would be inocent. Zulus killing other Zulus is not mine, neither your concern, or anybody elses, it's their internal affair.
@sloba111 Nice spelling on "arrogant" and "innocent" mate. And they were violent people. The only reason the British fought them was because they would attack British Settelments in South Africa
@DrinkToIreland English is not my native language. And why were settlers there? Because of colonization, and Zulu knew very well what will happen when they overwhelm their country. Not being technologicly advanced does not equal being stupid. Shaka Zulu is ackowledged as genious military leader.
@sloba111 well i can let you go on the grammar then. But south Africa was colonisied by the Dutch too. The Area was predominatly dutch when Britain came in to take it from the Dutch. And the Zulu's attacked their encampents
@tsayad1986 .577/450 Martini-Henry short lever. While filming this movie, a lot of Martini-Henry carbines were used, as the rifles were already becoming harder to find.
Totally out numbered, they stand a better chance by forming one solid defense formation with better concentrateion of fire power rather than having separate defenses allowing the Zulus to pick off one defense line after the other.
@thebigJM92 I didn't say that they introduced apartheid [ although i have to admit i thought it was by them or the first Europeans to colonize south Africa. Which i think is the dutch] I was just saying i saw a comment way back saying did they lose the war and i'm saying that yes the Zulu were eventually conquered by the invaders
@TrueTacticia And I didn't say you did. I just said that the Boers introduced apartheid and the British actually provided some protection whilst they were in charge. But yes you are right. Interestingly the British government did not sanction this war and would later punish those who had gone on their own initiative to start it. Disraeli's government was badly shaken by the defeat. The Zulu chief Cetshwayo came to Britain after the Zulu's lost and the Zulu empire was slowly splintered.
@thebigJM92 Why would Cetshwayo go to Britain? Was it for diplomatic reasons? Also why was the zulu nation splintered? I would figure that after this they would try and arm themselves with their advanced weaponry and try to make better strategies then all out rushes
@TrueTacticia The reason for the invasion of zululand (which was actually a recently created empire, the zulus were a warrior nation who had conquered their neighbours) was to help create a South African federation like the successful Canadian one. Sir Bartle Frere was appointed High Commissioner and he took it upon himself to work with Lord Chelmsford (local commander of British forces) to create an excuse to invade Zululand, despite the British government explicitly stating it didn't want war
@TrueTacticia After the Zulu victory at Isandlwana the British government had to get involved (disasters don''t go down well with voters) and they sent reinforcements to ensure the war would be won. As it turned out Lord Chelmsford managed to win the war with the troops he had already, at a number of pitched battles such as Ulundi. The tactics he used in the battles he directly commanded were sound and so those battles were crushing victories. After the war the British set about ensuring....
@TrueTacticia .. that they could never be a threat again. The carnage of the war was enough to fracture the Zulu nation. Tens of thousands of young, unmarried Zulu's had died and could not be replaced for generations. The Capital had been destroyed and Cetshwayo went on the run. His empire was split between eleven Zulu chiefs. Cetshwayo was captured and exiled to London for two years. In 1883 he was allowed to become chief again, but things had moved too far for him to unite Zululand again
@TrueTacticia Cetshweyo was sent to prison on Robben Island in the Cape. He managed to win over just about anyone who spent any time with him, including his jailers. He went to England to try to get his kingdom back.
Chelmsford had been recalled and replaced with Gen Wolseley. London did NOT want to annex Zululand at this time, so Wolseley split the kingdom into 13 chunks and gave them to chiefs he trusted. Civil war broke out almost at once as each made war with the others.
@DukoOsshiiKhan If by "stalking" you mean "I'm sitting at my desk doing the world's most BORING job" then I plead guilty.
The Martini-Henry rifles you see here were the first breach-loading rifles to be used by the British. It was a real game-changer. The Zulu massed charge would have worked (with heavy losses) against muskets with their limited range. When the Zulu king saw haw many men had been lost in the first battle, he forbade any more headlong rushes. His orders weren't obeyed.
@ImperialistRunningDo Ha ha oh dear! Well i'll be a character witness and say that as far as I'm aware you are not one for stalking people, whatever that means on youtube! Ironically the only muskets likely to have been at this battle would have been used by the Zulu's, and they certainly aren't in the film. I'm afraid DukoOsshiiKhan is 30 or 40 years too late
@TomeOfBattle Indeed. Martini-Henry was single shot though still alas. The breech-loading however was a major advantage over muzzle-loading muskets. I believe the first general/standard issue rifle to the British army was the minie.
@thebigJM92 The Minié ball (not really a ball at all) was a rifled-musket. Cone-shaped, you dropped powder, wadding and the bullet down the muzzle of the gun. When the powder ignites, the cone would spread out and spin down the rifling.
@thebigJM92 You lot used it in Crimea. We used it happily to slaughter fellow Americans during the Civil War. The thing LOOKS like a musket, slow to load, and you can't do it prone but I'll be danged if that rifling didn't work and give extra range and accuracy. Soon came bullets inside brass cartridges. Tactics changed as the ACW went on and people slowly realized that these weren't Napoleonic times any more.
The British did the sensible thing and sent observers to watch.
@ImperialistRunningDo Yes there was a lot of carnage before people realised that tactics had to evolve from the Napoleonic wars. Britain, France AND Russia made that mistake in the Crimea. The Union troops also suffered a lot from Napoleonic era tactics against Confederate troops
@DukoOsshiiKhan The Zulus did evolve in their tactics. A small band would lure the enemy into fields of tall grass and the main body would pop up, surrounding the riflemen at close range. It did take a while to change tactics, but this is true the world over. Military men aren't happy to experiment on new tactics with the lives of their men.
@DukoOsshiiKhan Musket -- An infantryman's light gun with a long barrel, typically smooth-bored, muzzleloading, and fired from the shoulder
Rifle -- A gun, esp. one fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make a bullet spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance.
@Jake53220 I have no idea. But the Zulu extras in the earlier film "Zulu" had a GREAT time. It was filmed in apartheid South Africa, so most had never seen a movie. The film company would show old westerns at night to the delight of the extras. The South African government demanded that the extras get paid no more than farm labor, so the film company just "left behind" a herd of cattle used in the film.
@YoungBlackAndStubby.......the problem is, Stubby, you'd soil your panties if you were told you had to "pick up a spear and fight like a man". Off with you now.
@YoungBlackStud95 When they ran out of ammunition, Captain Younghusband rallied his men to form a square. The Zulus found that the bayonet was very much the equal of the spear. In fact, they stood at a safe distance and shot them with their old muskets.
@Guppify Yes, only the cavalry or maybe artillery would have used carbines. Normal soldiers would have used regular Martinis. Additionally, Webley revolvers were not Britain's service pistol at that time, I think it was the Eley. They do look similar though.
The real problem was the Martini Henry rifle.When the order was given to give every man a Martini, the order was misunderstood, and everyone was too drunk to fight!
@aewd1980 What makes you say that? Chelmsford was 15 miles away on the 22nd January 1879 and played no part in the battle. In fact, his orders to the camp and for the campaign instructed commanders to bring in their camp, keep a firing line with concentrated troops. It was Pulleine and particularly Durnford who failed to implement a defensive strategy at Isandlwana - Durnford was worried about Chelmsford's rear and rode out of camp to attack the Zulus!
@aewd1980 Don't necessarily accept what you read it all books - there are good and bad books - and also over time more evidence is established. Chelmsford's mistake was not about how the camp organised its defence - he couldn't control that as I say, because he wasn't there and the orders he left in any case were disobeyed - but he can be criticised for taking time to go back once there were suggestions of the camp having been attacked. He couldn't believe it.
@THthefirst - o.k, i know that there were other people involved in the defeat at isandhlwana. the book i read, dealt with this battle only. it said that about 25,000 zuuls slaughtered about 1,400 british but that about 80 of our lot managed to escape to rorke's drift, is any of that correct?
@aewd1980 Well, there were 1400 at the camp, of whom 800 were british (mainly from the 24th regiment), the other 600 were african levies and local white volunteer troops. The Zulu figure is probably too high - more like 18-20,000, of which not all were engaged. There were about 400 black survivors from the camp and about 60 white europeans, but most didn't go to Rorke's Drift but rather fled into Natal. The Zulu reserve of about 4,000 attacked Rorke's Drift later that day.
@THthefirst - i see. even so, i bet it's a pretty scary sight to see all of those zulus charging towards you,lol, even though you state that there weren't as many zulus as people think. do you consider the zulu dawn film to be accurate in its portrayal of the battle?
Zulu Dawn is reasonably accurate, though it makes some simple errors (eg. the british are shown with carbines - shorter barrells - than the martini-henri rifles they had. Vereker's role is totally overstated. The utter horror of the carnage of the fighting - hand to hand, brains smashed, bayonets, stabbing - and the disembowelling by the Zulus afterwards was cut out as the film was a PG.
Also, Chelmsford returned in the dark so his men didn't see the horror
@THthefirst - yes, i noticed that even for a film with a P.G rating, some of the violence that is featured, is quite graphically displayed. were the cuts made at the end of the film?
@JarnsidaViking Hi. No you got me wrong! From your comment you obviously like colonial history and that's great. As for the people who rule Sweden of course they're not you. From the sound of it if you ruled Sweden there'd be no immigration problem. They're genocidests who hate Sweden. Your comment was good, it was good to see it coming from a Swede knowing what the people who rule you are like. That's why I was saying I bet they'd hate you.
Zulu War of 1879 started by Britain who invaded independent Zululand on several pretenses. Zulu Chief Cetswaya wanted to avoid war but Britain forced it on him. However first battle was a big defeat for British who had split their forces & failed to locate Zulu army of over 20,000 bearing down on them. Zulus lost the war though. Ironically Cetswaya became a celebrity in England after the war.
@mosquito103 The rockets didn't have as far of a range as the cannon, so they had to move closer to the enemy. And I guess, as you have seen it failed horribly. But in reality I believe they were able to get more than just to shots, but they were eventually over-run. The rocket troop did not have that many men.
I hate this movie. Zulu with Michael Caine is so much better!
RochecousteML 20 hours ago
are the guys in black niform germans ?
scepticpatriot 1 day ago
omg what a rush
shadowfury01 2 days ago
5 Zulus don't like
kleuter15 1 week ago
lol the british were grossly outnumbered and poorly led but still inflicted identical casualties on the zulus
killzone2000 1 week ago
if the Zulus had expert longbowmen, there would have been a lot more interesting battles than this one. They were well-trained in the superior-numbers method of beating guns with spears, but if they'd had some longbowmen helping out, it would have worked more often. Longbows have twice the rate of fire of muzzle-loading firearms.
kozmon0t 2 weeks ago
@kozmon0t They used bows in this battle, just it's omited in the movie.
ORKSIZDABEST 1 week ago
@ORKSIZDABEST yeah, but were they longbows, wielded by real longbowmen
kozmon0t 1 week ago
@kozmon0t A zulu warrior was taught to use his weapons since the very childhood, that those skills were put to use i improvement in endless local tribe conflicts, so they were no less experienced than the medieval bowmen. However, bolt action riffle, unlike smooth bore musket, outperformed the bow in all aspects, including even rate of fire.
ORKSIZDABEST 1 week ago
@ORKSIZDABEST but were they longbows... longbows get extreme range. The zulus had plenty of decades to whup the British with longbows before the Brits had repeating rifles.
Those first rifles were inferior in one way, they overheated and jammed, which longbows don't
kozmon0t 1 week ago
@kozmon0t As always, zulus were to busy fighting each other.
ORKSIZDABEST 1 week ago
Interesting fact for you: The zulu were instructed to 'kill the red soldiers only', to avoid killing civilians with the British column. Thus some officers wearing their dark blue or black uniforms were spared.
Y2KillerSPOOBLY 2 weeks ago
did any muslims came to help fight the brits in africa during the zulu wars?
kishothefox237 2 weeks ago
If I had a dollar for every pixel in this video I'd have one dollar
ModellMeister 3 weeks ago
Another thing. The Zulus didn't come on in a mad rush. They used cover and advanced in rushes between British volleys. Also, i in 3 Zulus had guns... The Brits were outgunned quantitavely, if not qualitatively.
Baskerville22 3 weeks ago
I didn't sign up for this!
Thebestever441 3 weeks ago
It's nice to see British Imperialism take a nose dive. Someday all of it will go up in flames.
IExposeMormonism 4 weeks ago
the scenes from 3:28 through 3:37 tell it all. The young guy, the veteran, and the commander...they all knew they were ****ed
darth254 1 month ago
British troops humiliated
bertraand 2 months ago
@bertraand More like British command humiliated ... given proper placement and leadership and it's likely that British casualties would be in the single digits ... just take a look at some of the Sudan battles a decade later ... the troops were not the problem.
lonewulf44 1 month ago 3
Comment removed
bertraand 2 months ago
I first saw this movie when I was in the 10th grade in 1980 in the theatre. It was a bit frightening to watch a well-disciplined and well-equipped army defeated at the hands of the Zulus. But I guess that's what happens when you underestimate your enemy. But the British would break the back of the Zulu army in their next big encounter. I just can't remember the name of the battlefield that one took place at.
kenpalmer1965 2 months ago
@kenpalmer1965
Rourkes Drift ...
lonewulf44 1 month ago
@lonewulf44 Thank you for the information.
kenpalmer1965 1 month ago
@kenpalmer1965 Gingilodvu and then Ulundi finished them off.
BlackCountryPuddler 1 month ago
Eh, what time period is this? I thought it's be like 1600s but guns weren't nearly that accurate then
whatdouthink96 3 months ago
@whatdouthink96 I believe this took place around 1870 or so. It was definitely after the 1600's for sure!
kenpalmer1965 2 months ago
@kenpalmer1965 1879
lonewulf44 1 month ago
@lonewulf44 Thank you again!
kenpalmer1965 1 month ago
2:45 Wow. It looks just like the Obama victory rally on election night 08...
HalfBornUnicornFetus 3 months ago
2000 British against 20,000 Zulus. Numbers were on their side. Chelmsford was charged to win the war - which he did in the end, but he was never given another command again - ever.
CanadianKeiffer 3 months ago
we would have owned them if it wasent for the split up of troops THEY SHOULD OF INVOLVED NEW ZEALAND WE WOULD OF HELPED!
mistergutsy19 3 months ago
The british never stood a chance, they were disorganized and handing out the ammo was should've happened well before they even went to bed.
falcon3268 3 months ago
@TheViper23232323 The only reason the Zulu won this battle was because they out numbered their opponents 14:1 and performed a very successful Zerg Rush...I mean Zulu Rush!
supersmash43 3 months ago 21
@supersmash43 that is actually a false statement. The zulus acheived tactical suprise over the british and since they were unprepared were able to over take them in what was more like an open field battle rather than storming a well or decently prepared position.
matrin2 3 months ago
@matrin2 well technically successful Zulu Rush would imply a tactical advantage.
supersmash43 3 months ago
@supersmash43 actually Lord Chelmsford made some stupid errors in the actually battle such as splitting up his force and not digging in.
tachikoma747 3 months ago
@tachikoma747 yeah I realized that too.
supersmash43 3 months ago
@supersmash43 They outnumbered the British badly in at least one other battle too, Kambula, and got their asses handed to them. The British lost this one because Chelmsford was a buffoon who underestimated the Zulus, allowing them to catch the British troops off guard and take advantage of their half-assed defences and overstretched firing line. If they'd had their shit together, Isandlwana would have been a curbstomp against the Zulus just like every other major battle in the war.
ancalites 2 months ago
@supersmash43 and because they possessed some fire weaponry, mostly scavenged from english trade caravans and reinforcements, and even if the guns the zulu's had were few of course they gave them a massive help. if the zulus had fight just with spears and knives they' d have been totally obliterated, just as it happened for the aztecs and the incas. shit anyway this REALLY looks like a freakin zerg rush xDxDxD
fullmetaljaco 1 month ago
@fullmetaljaco Zergs Vs Protoss = Quality Vs Numbers
BiohazardCrow 1 month ago
@supersmash43 the only reason the british won the war was because of superior technology. whats your point?
umidontno040394 1 month ago
@supersmash43 Extended line did them in. In a square they would have been fine. Just as they were later at Gingilodvu and Ulundi.
BlackCountryPuddler 1 month ago in playlist Zulu Wars
@supersmash43 lol they got anice surround on those rines
3dwardcullen69 1 month ago
@supersmash43 Zulus at Isandlwana numbered around 24,000. Regular British army: 800. Colonials and native contingents: 1200. The Zulus won because their camp was set out for defence by 12 companies (a frontage of 2200 yards). Lord Chelmsford took 6 companies upcountry on a wild goose chase...leaving too few companies to defend the camp. An open left flank didn't help.
Baskerville22 3 weeks ago
@supersmash43 14 to one odds is how russia held back germany in WW2. its not about firepower when you have overwhelming odds. but it does make a great last stand if your the guy that leads those into massive odds. give him one 50 cal and they would have won.
0Zolrender0 3 weeks ago
@0Zolrender0 It is often said the Red Army defeated Germany becuase of an overwhelming advantage in numbers. Yet, for most of the war on the Eastern Front, the Red Army had little better than a 2:1 advantage. At Stalingrad, the Germans were defeated by superior strategy and tactics, not by numbers. And at Kursk, the Soviet and German forces were about even. Only at the very end, the Spring of 1945, the Red Army had a 5 and 6:1 advantage.
dangerfan2005 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supersmash43 14 to one odds is how russia held back germany in WW2. its not about firepower when you have overwhelming odds. but it does make a great last stand if your the guy that leads those into massive odds. give him one 50 cal and they would have won.
0Zolrender0 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supersmash43 14 to one odds is how russia held back germany in WW2. its not about firepower when you have overwhelming odds. but it does make a great last stand if your the guy that leads those into massive odds. give him one 50 cal and they would have won.
0Zolrender0 3 weeks ago
@supersmash43 It also doesn't help when your supply distributors don't give out ammunition for the rifles.
lastswordfighter 2 weeks ago
@supersmash43 Can't that be said about most battles though? The only reason an opponent wins is because of sheer weight of numbers?
edavismookie25 2 weeks ago
@supersmash43 And wouldn't the defenders stand to outnumber an invader anyway?
edavismookie25 2 weeks ago
@supersmash43 got to respect the British disipline but,, what about the British attitude ,,they are just blackies,,,,, not soldiers,,,,,no respect,, their undoing,, as other European armies found out,,,,,
paulinus43ad 2 weeks ago
@supersmash43 Stell, you dont beat rifflemen with spears bows and arrows very often.
ORKSIZDABEST 1 week ago
They should concentare theit fire - and British will win!
Sorry theire fire.
Korrected 3 months ago
They should concentare theit fire - and British will win!
Korrected 3 months ago
The Zulus had one " horns of the buffalo" attack; one front with a left and right flank. The British caught on to it they made quick order of them. At Isandlwana they got caught with their pants down
Methrt3 3 months ago
If they had machine guns those Africans would be dead meat
CODking3636 3 months ago
Comment removed
AberlourRocker 3 months ago
@CODking3636 or even the gatling gun- the machine gun of the time
DrinkToIreland 3 months ago
the commands of the officers sound sort of German
1999200020012011 3 months ago
these are NOT the ZULU their spears are much to long
cuz we all know Shaka invented the shank ^_^
s2w2a2t 3 months ago
They heard a new KFC opened up
TheNorthernSoulKing 3 months ago
@TheNorthernSoulKing No, it is Black Friday sale.
Dantinus 3 months ago
@Dantinus lol each one would be caring away a flat screen TV
TheNorthernSoulKing 3 months ago
bringing a spear and shield to a gunfight.
watertakken 4 months ago
wheres a maxin gun when you need it
mastersanchez99 4 months ago
Poor Zulus!
There is no place on earth where a shot was fired by British forces.
Most of these shots killed innocent people.
The British colonial empire was based on a pure and blatant piracy.
Worse, a school!
Today, Americans replace the British in the murder of innocents.
helcio1960 4 months ago
@helcio1960 How so? Who are the innocent we murder?
JohnOfPinebrook 3 months ago
@helcio1960 I suppose you never learned about zulu culture? those guys killed thousands of eachother. other "innocent" zulu's. So who are the "innocent" these British Soldiers are "Murdering"
DrinkToIreland 3 months ago
@DrinkToIreland Zulus are innocent because British murderers came to THEIR country to occupy and exploit. If Zulus came to England to occupy Longon, then arogant British would be inocent. Zulus killing other Zulus is not mine, neither your concern, or anybody elses, it's their internal affair.
sloba111 3 months ago
@sloba111 Nice spelling on "arrogant" and "innocent" mate. And they were violent people. The only reason the British fought them was because they would attack British Settelments in South Africa
DrinkToIreland 3 months ago
@DrinkToIreland English is not my native language. And why were settlers there? Because of colonization, and Zulu knew very well what will happen when they overwhelm their country. Not being technologicly advanced does not equal being stupid. Shaka Zulu is ackowledged as genious military leader.
sloba111 3 months ago
@sloba111 well i can let you go on the grammar then. But south Africa was colonisied by the Dutch too. The Area was predominatly dutch when Britain came in to take it from the Dutch. And the Zulu's attacked their encampents
DrinkToIreland 3 months ago
@DrinkToIreland *settlements
DrinkToIreland 3 months ago
@DrinkToIreland *settlements
DrinkToIreland 3 months ago
@DrinkToIreland It's not grammar, it's spelling.
sloba111 3 months ago
@sloba111 good point
DrinkToIreland 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why is it all out of focus?
cbohar84 4 months ago
19th century technology vs essentially prehistoric. Madness on display.
yohannbiimu 4 months ago
Respond to this video... ee sahn dul whana heavy on the h in the whana.
BlackCountryPuddler 4 months ago
Comment removed
BlackCountryPuddler 4 months ago
zulus are fucking scary
BombBakers 4 months ago
@BombBakers so are martini henry's .....lol
timebandit71 4 months ago
This is more proof Gun>>>Spears.
supersmash43 4 months ago
Are these martini henry rifles?
tsayad1986 5 months ago
@tsayad1986 .577/450 Martini-Henry short lever. While filming this movie, a lot of Martini-Henry carbines were used, as the rifles were already becoming harder to find.
ImperialistRunningDo 4 months ago
i honestly think i could outrun those zulus if i had a spear near my ass.
MrFattyfatfatboy 5 months ago 28
@MrFattyfatfatboy This is why you do not wear a t shirt as pants.
If you got the joke then I congratulate you.
CamelBallZee 4 months ago
Comment removed
MrHongKongBuffet 4 months ago
Good luck. Zulu warriors outran goddamn HORSES at Isandlwana.
MrHongKongBuffet 4 months ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy Are you Black?
360Nomad 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
no way you can, you are too fat boy
tinmaptd 3 months ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy the british soldiers said the zulus were as fast as cavalry sooooo....
umidontno040394 1 month ago
Keen not to be a range marker boy.
Ironwulf2000 5 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 lol
Zephyesa 5 months ago 2
i would like to see a battle between zulus and the samurais.... nvr gonna happen
CNX625 5 months ago
lol, its like the only word in their vocab is, Zulu. Reminds me of the Marklars from Marklar in south Park
lolackay 5 months ago
@lolackay They are saying Usuthu! Its a zulu war chant. Much like the ancient greeks yelled alala during battle.
lexevo 5 months ago
@lexevo sorry. But still it reminds me of the Marklars
lolackay 5 months ago
@lexevo Or Allahu Akbar
thebigJM92 5 months ago
"Zulu Dawn" is a politically correct but totally inacurrate title given that the zulus lost all later battles and were destroyed as a nation.
EddieExile 6 months ago
Totally out numbered, they stand a better chance by forming one solid defense formation with better concentrateion of fire power rather than having separate defenses allowing the Zulus to pick off one defense line after the other.
banlin1958 6 months ago
To future people watching this who may have this question No the zulu didn't win the war. Hints apartheid in south africa until the 80's
TrueTacticia 6 months ago
@TrueTacticia Apartheid was introduced by the Boers, the British protected (to a certain extent) the black population against indiscriminate violence
thebigJM92 6 months ago
@thebigJM92 I didn't say that they introduced apartheid [ although i have to admit i thought it was by them or the first Europeans to colonize south Africa. Which i think is the dutch] I was just saying i saw a comment way back saying did they lose the war and i'm saying that yes the Zulu were eventually conquered by the invaders
TrueTacticia 6 months ago
@TrueTacticia And I didn't say you did. I just said that the Boers introduced apartheid and the British actually provided some protection whilst they were in charge. But yes you are right. Interestingly the British government did not sanction this war and would later punish those who had gone on their own initiative to start it. Disraeli's government was badly shaken by the defeat. The Zulu chief Cetshwayo came to Britain after the Zulu's lost and the Zulu empire was slowly splintered.
thebigJM92 6 months ago
@thebigJM92 Why would Cetshwayo go to Britain? Was it for diplomatic reasons? Also why was the zulu nation splintered? I would figure that after this they would try and arm themselves with their advanced weaponry and try to make better strategies then all out rushes
TrueTacticia 6 months ago
@TrueTacticia The reason for the invasion of zululand (which was actually a recently created empire, the zulus were a warrior nation who had conquered their neighbours) was to help create a South African federation like the successful Canadian one. Sir Bartle Frere was appointed High Commissioner and he took it upon himself to work with Lord Chelmsford (local commander of British forces) to create an excuse to invade Zululand, despite the British government explicitly stating it didn't want war
thebigJM92 6 months ago
@TrueTacticia After the Zulu victory at Isandlwana the British government had to get involved (disasters don''t go down well with voters) and they sent reinforcements to ensure the war would be won. As it turned out Lord Chelmsford managed to win the war with the troops he had already, at a number of pitched battles such as Ulundi. The tactics he used in the battles he directly commanded were sound and so those battles were crushing victories. After the war the British set about ensuring....
thebigJM92 6 months ago
@TrueTacticia .. that they could never be a threat again. The carnage of the war was enough to fracture the Zulu nation. Tens of thousands of young, unmarried Zulu's had died and could not be replaced for generations. The Capital had been destroyed and Cetshwayo went on the run. His empire was split between eleven Zulu chiefs. Cetshwayo was captured and exiled to London for two years. In 1883 he was allowed to become chief again, but things had moved too far for him to unite Zululand again
thebigJM92 6 months ago
@thebigJM92 oh, well ty for the information
TrueTacticia 6 months ago
@TrueTacticia Cetshweyo was sent to prison on Robben Island in the Cape. He managed to win over just about anyone who spent any time with him, including his jailers. He went to England to try to get his kingdom back.
Chelmsford had been recalled and replaced with Gen Wolseley. London did NOT want to annex Zululand at this time, so Wolseley split the kingdom into 13 chunks and gave them to chiefs he trusted. Civil war broke out almost at once as each made war with the others.
ImperialistRunningDo 5 months ago
By the time the king returned, it was too late and few respected his authority. He died trying to restore his kingdom.
The Zulus rose up again 30 years later during the Bambatha Rebellion. By then they changed to guerrilla hit-and-run tactics.
ImperialistRunningDo 5 months ago
Courageous defense...but hopelessly out numbered.
TheWhitehall 6 months ago
3:57 ZERG RUSH KEKEKEKE!!!11
TomeOfBattle 6 months ago
this is one of the uncommon videos with no dislikes and over 70,000 veiws i liked it
HowToFilmz 6 months ago
i fell bad for the young boy whos gets shot, does any one know his real name has he been in any other movies?
adambelfast1 6 months ago
@adambelfast1 who cares, the film went on without him.
leicsnamhagaelinn 6 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan If by "stalking" you mean "I'm sitting at my desk doing the world's most BORING job" then I plead guilty.
The Martini-Henry rifles you see here were the first breach-loading rifles to be used by the British. It was a real game-changer. The Zulu massed charge would have worked (with heavy losses) against muskets with their limited range. When the Zulu king saw haw many men had been lost in the first battle, he forbade any more headlong rushes. His orders weren't obeyed.
ImperialistRunningDo 6 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo Ha ha oh dear! Well i'll be a character witness and say that as far as I'm aware you are not one for stalking people, whatever that means on youtube! Ironically the only muskets likely to have been at this battle would have been used by the Zulu's, and they certainly aren't in the film. I'm afraid DukoOsshiiKhan is 30 or 40 years too late
thebigJM92 6 months ago
@thebigJM92 Quite. Henry Martini's by this time period boyo. A British Henry Martini ACTUALLY USED in the Anglo-Zulu War would be an awesome present.
TomeOfBattle 6 months ago
@TomeOfBattle Indeed. Martini-Henry was single shot though still alas. The breech-loading however was a major advantage over muzzle-loading muskets. I believe the first general/standard issue rifle to the British army was the minie.
thebigJM92 6 months ago
@thebigJM92 The Minié ball (not really a ball at all) was a rifled-musket. Cone-shaped, you dropped powder, wadding and the bullet down the muzzle of the gun. When the powder ignites, the cone would spread out and spin down the rifling.
ImperialistRunningDo 5 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo Ah i see! It was still a musket! I do believe it was used in the Crimean war?
thebigJM92 5 months ago
@thebigJM92 You lot used it in Crimea. We used it happily to slaughter fellow Americans during the Civil War. The thing LOOKS like a musket, slow to load, and you can't do it prone but I'll be danged if that rifling didn't work and give extra range and accuracy. Soon came bullets inside brass cartridges. Tactics changed as the ACW went on and people slowly realized that these weren't Napoleonic times any more.
The British did the sensible thing and sent observers to watch.
ImperialistRunningDo 5 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo Yes there was a lot of carnage before people realised that tactics had to evolve from the Napoleonic wars. Britain, France AND Russia made that mistake in the Crimea. The Union troops also suffered a lot from Napoleonic era tactics against Confederate troops
thebigJM92 5 months ago
@thebigJM92 and tbf confederate troops suffered the same from the union.
Tiwaz81 5 months ago
@Tiwaz81 Yes that is true. Although they adapted faster, out of necessity more than anything else
thebigJM92 5 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan The Zulus did evolve in their tactics. A small band would lure the enemy into fields of tall grass and the main body would pop up, surrounding the riflemen at close range. It did take a while to change tactics, but this is true the world over. Military men aren't happy to experiment on new tactics with the lives of their men.
Read up on the Bambatha Rebellion.
ImperialistRunningDo 6 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan Musket -- An infantryman's light gun with a long barrel, typically smooth-bored, muzzleloading, and fired from the shoulder
Rifle -- A gun, esp. one fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make a bullet spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance.
The guns you see here are all rifles.
ImperialistRunningDo 6 months ago
russel got killed early i think but i read somewhere he was shot
TheSteffen1223 6 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan Muskets? Where? I see no muskets. Tell me where you see a musket.
ImperialistRunningDo 6 months ago
i bet the african ppl playing the zulus enjoyed filming this
Jake53220 6 months ago
@Jake53220 I have no idea. But the Zulu extras in the earlier film "Zulu" had a GREAT time. It was filmed in apartheid South Africa, so most had never seen a movie. The film company would show old westerns at night to the delight of the extras. The South African government demanded that the extras get paid no more than farm labor, so the film company just "left behind" a herd of cattle used in the film.
ImperialistRunningDo 6 months ago
Any body can push a fucking button down to kill someone. Pick up a spear and fight like a man.
YoungBlackStud95 7 months ago
@YoungBlackAndStubby.......the problem is, Stubby, you'd soil your panties if you were told you had to "pick up a spear and fight like a man". Off with you now.
slideharp1 7 months ago
@slideharp1 Hmm I see you have yet to adress the actual situation of the story.
YoungBlackStud95 7 months ago
@YoungBlackStub Hmm I see that you haven't. That makes only One of you.
slideharp1 7 months ago
@YoungBlackStud95 When they ran out of ammunition, Captain Younghusband rallied his men to form a square. The Zulus found that the bayonet was very much the equal of the spear. In fact, they stood at a safe distance and shot them with their old muskets.
You can look it up for yourself.
ImperialistRunningDo 7 months ago
Fuck Ingland
rankion79 7 months ago
All that fire power and still couldn't stop the brothas!!!
garychldress74 7 months ago
@garychldress74
What they do not tell you is that behind all those redcoats was a newly opened KFC, when you take this into account nobody could of stopped them
VigisKane 7 months ago
@VigisKane Well they should've had more KFCs we would still have our land.
garychldress74 7 months ago
@VigisKane
Lame......
Akhibrass 6 months ago
@Akhibrass
The truth hurts, even more so when its kentucky fried
VigisKane 6 months ago
@gtk4158a Yeah please keep your racist views to yourself! Nobody wants to hear 'em. Cheers.
Arrested101 7 months ago 6
Comment removed
KevUrbie 7 months ago
@gtk4158a Your disgusting comments have no place here, kindly keep them to yourself in future.
PaulthaPict 8 months ago
The infantry are firing Martini Henry carbines; should be rifles. See how short the barrels are?
Guppify 8 months ago
@Guppify Yes, only the cavalry or maybe artillery would have used carbines. Normal soldiers would have used regular Martinis. Additionally, Webley revolvers were not Britain's service pistol at that time, I think it was the Eley. They do look similar though.
Bigsquid91 8 months ago
The real problem was the Martini Henry rifle.When the order was given to give every man a Martini, the order was misunderstood, and everyone was too drunk to fight!
alneal100 8 months ago
'Come all this bloody way to be shot by a bullet from birmingham' haha what a line!
dunkelheit616 8 months ago
this was down to that fool lord chelmsford for allowing the british to be spread so thinly over isandlwana. he was such a silver spoon
aewd1980 8 months ago
@aewd1980 What makes you say that? Chelmsford was 15 miles away on the 22nd January 1879 and played no part in the battle. In fact, his orders to the camp and for the campaign instructed commanders to bring in their camp, keep a firing line with concentrated troops. It was Pulleine and particularly Durnford who failed to implement a defensive strategy at Isandlwana - Durnford was worried about Chelmsford's rear and rode out of camp to attack the Zulus!
THthefirst 8 months ago
@THthefirst - i say that as lord chelmsford was behind it all the same, according to this history book i read.
aewd1980 8 months ago
@aewd1980 Don't necessarily accept what you read it all books - there are good and bad books - and also over time more evidence is established. Chelmsford's mistake was not about how the camp organised its defence - he couldn't control that as I say, because he wasn't there and the orders he left in any case were disobeyed - but he can be criticised for taking time to go back once there were suggestions of the camp having been attacked. He couldn't believe it.
THthefirst 8 months ago
@THthefirst - o.k, i know that there were other people involved in the defeat at isandhlwana. the book i read, dealt with this battle only. it said that about 25,000 zuuls slaughtered about 1,400 british but that about 80 of our lot managed to escape to rorke's drift, is any of that correct?
aewd1980 8 months ago
@aewd1980 Well, there were 1400 at the camp, of whom 800 were british (mainly from the 24th regiment), the other 600 were african levies and local white volunteer troops. The Zulu figure is probably too high - more like 18-20,000, of which not all were engaged. There were about 400 black survivors from the camp and about 60 white europeans, but most didn't go to Rorke's Drift but rather fled into Natal. The Zulu reserve of about 4,000 attacked Rorke's Drift later that day.
THthefirst 8 months ago
@THthefirst - i see. even so, i bet it's a pretty scary sight to see all of those zulus charging towards you,lol, even though you state that there weren't as many zulus as people think. do you consider the zulu dawn film to be accurate in its portrayal of the battle?
aewd1980 8 months ago
@aewd1980 Terrifying!
Zulu Dawn is reasonably accurate, though it makes some simple errors (eg. the british are shown with carbines - shorter barrells - than the martini-henri rifles they had. Vereker's role is totally overstated. The utter horror of the carnage of the fighting - hand to hand, brains smashed, bayonets, stabbing - and the disembowelling by the Zulus afterwards was cut out as the film was a PG.
Also, Chelmsford returned in the dark so his men didn't see the horror
THthefirst 8 months ago
@THthefirst - yes, i noticed that even for a film with a P.G rating, some of the violence that is featured, is quite graphically displayed. were the cuts made at the end of the film?
aewd1980 8 months ago
The general in charge was to blame since it should have been obvious that defensive lines needed shortening.
Radrook 8 months ago
@JarnsidaViking Hi. No you got me wrong! From your comment you obviously like colonial history and that's great. As for the people who rule Sweden of course they're not you. From the sound of it if you ruled Sweden there'd be no immigration problem. They're genocidests who hate Sweden. Your comment was good, it was good to see it coming from a Swede knowing what the people who rule you are like. That's why I was saying I bet they'd hate you.
summerlight67 8 months ago
@JarnsidaViking I bet the cultural marxists genociding Sweden don't approve of you very much.
summerlight67 8 months ago
Comment removed
summerlight67 8 months ago
Zulu War of 1879 started by Britain who invaded independent Zululand on several pretenses. Zulu Chief Cetswaya wanted to avoid war but Britain forced it on him. However first battle was a big defeat for British who had split their forces & failed to locate Zulu army of over 20,000 bearing down on them. Zulus lost the war though. Ironically Cetswaya became a celebrity in England after the war.
AlternityGM 9 months ago
whatz with the rockets? fire one, fire two, are they serious run for your life man.
mosquito103 9 months ago
@mosquito103 The rockets didn't have as far of a range as the cannon, so they had to move closer to the enemy. And I guess, as you have seen it failed horribly. But in reality I believe they were able to get more than just to shots, but they were eventually over-run. The rocket troop did not have that many men.
LordWellington15 9 months ago